tihtaxy of ^he t:heolo0ical ^eminarjp 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Herbert Beecher Hudnut 
 
-#^^^ OF ?mcEfo^^ 
 
 OCT ,S 1981 
 
 THE 
 
 A 
 
 aA 
 
 ^fOLOGiCALSt^: 
 
 EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 WITH NO TBS AND INTRODUCTION, 
 
 By E. H. GIFFORD, D.D., 
 
 ARCHDEACON OF LONDON AND CANON OF ST. PAUL'S, EXAMINING 
 CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF LONDON, 
 
 REPRINTED FROM THE ''SPEAKER'S COMMENTARY:^ 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1886. 
 
UNIFORM WITH THE PRESENT VOLUME. 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. With Notes and Introduction. 
 By Canon Westcott, D,D. Medium 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 THE BOOK OF PSALMS. With Notes and Introduction. By 
 Dean Johnson, and Canons C. J. Elliott and F. C. Cook. Medium 
 8vo. lo;-. 6d. 
 
 LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, 
 STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY, AND CRITICAL NOTES. BY THE REV. 
 E. H. GIFFORD, D.D., ARCHDEACON OF LONDON AND CANON OF 
 
 ST. Paul's, examining chaplain to the bishop of london. 
 
 pp. 1-238. 
 
 § I. Authorship 
 
 § 2. Time and Place of Writing 
 I. Notes of Time and Place in 
 
 x-v., x-vt. 
 
 
 2 
 
 II. Indications of Time ir 
 
 Rom. 
 
 
 i. 10-13 
 
 
 2 
 
 § 3. Language . 
 
 
 3 
 
 § 4. Jews in Rome . 
 
 
 3 
 
 § 5. Christians in Rome 
 
 
 4 
 
 § 6. Occasion of Writing 
 
 
 8 
 
 § 7. The Purpose of the Epistle 
 
 9 
 
 Additional Notes : 
 
 
 
 On chap. i. i, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 
 
 17,20, 
 
 
 23, 24, 32 
 
 
 68 
 
 On chap. ii. 8, 16 . 
 
 
 81 
 
 On chap. iii. 9, 25 
 
 
 96 
 
 On chap. iv. i, 2, 25 
 
 
 108 
 
 On chap. v. 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 
 
 
 122 
 
 On chap. vi. 5, 6, 13, 17, 21 
 
 
 133 
 
 On chap. vii. i, 5, 6, 21, 25 
 
 
 144 
 
 § 8. Integrity of the Epistle . 
 I. Testimonyof the early Fathers 
 
 II. Testimony of existing Manu- 
 scripts .... 
 
 III. Internal Evidence , . 
 
 {a) The Doxology . . 
 
 (h) Chapters xv., xvi. 
 
 § 9. Authorities for the Text 
 
 § 10. Contents of the Epistle. 
 
 Appendix. — " The Law," " The 
 Flesh " . 
 
 Additional Notes : 
 
 On chap. viii. 2, 3, 9, 11, 28, 29, 
 
 35 • 
 On chap. ix. 5, 6, 8, 15, 17, 19 
 On chap. x. 4, 15, 17 
 On chap. xi. 7, 9, 12, 13, 32 
 On chap. xiii. i 
 On chap. xiv. 11 . ^ 
 On chap. xvi. 7, 25 • 
 
 PAGB 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 26 
 
 30 
 33 
 
 41 
 
 
 164 
 
 ?, 31 . 
 
 178 
 
 . 
 
 190 
 
 . 
 
 203 
 
 . 
 
 215 
 
 • . 
 
 221 
 
 • • 
 
 238 
 
 a z 
 
ROMANS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 §1. 
 
 §2. 
 
 §3. 
 
 Authorship 
 
 Time and Place of Writing 
 I. Notes of Time and Place in 
 
 xv., xvi. 
 II. Indications of Time in Rom. 
 
 i. 10-13 
 Language . 
 § 4. Jews in Rome 
 § 5. Christians in Rome . 
 § 6. Occasion of Writing 
 § 7. The Purpose of the Epistle 
 
 PAGE 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 § 8. Integrity of the Epistle . 20 
 I. Testimony of tAe ear/y Fathers 20 
 II. Testimony of existing Manu- 
 scripts . . . .22 
 III. Internal Evidence . * 25 
 (a) The Doxology . .25 
 (i^) Chapters xv., x-vi. . 26 
 
 § 9. Authorities for the Text 30 
 § 10. Contents of the Epistle. 32 
 Appendix.—" The Law," " The 
 
 Flesh" . . .41 
 
 § I. Authorship. 
 
 THE title of the Epistle in the 
 oldest manuscripts is simply Trpos 
 'F(iifxaiov<;, " To the Romans :" but the 
 first word of the Epistle itself names St. 
 Paul as its author, and it has been uni- 
 versally accepted in all ages as his 
 genuine work. 
 
 It is quoted very early, though not, as 
 some have supposed, in the New Testa- 
 ment itself. 
 
 Thus in 2 Pet. iii. 15 there is an 
 allusion to St. Paul's teaching, which in 
 consequence of a slight resemblance in 
 the language has been thought to refer 
 especially to Rom. ii. 4; but St. Peter, 
 as the context clearly shows, is referring 
 to the moral exhortation found in all 
 St. Paul's Epistles, based as it commonly 
 is on the expectation of Christ's second 
 coming. 
 
 The supposed allusion in St. James 
 (ii. 14) to St. Paul's teaching in the Epistle 
 to the Romans is inconsistent with the 
 friendly and confidential intercourse of 
 these two Apostles (Acts xv. 4, 25 ; Gal. 
 ii. 9), and with the earlier date at which 
 St. James most probably wrote. On 
 this point, however, the reader must 
 refer to the full discussion in the Com- 
 mentary on St. James. 
 
 But the Epistle is certainly quoted 
 
 before the end of the ist century by 
 Clement of Rome in a passage which 
 will be found in the Additional Note on 
 i. 32 : in the 2nd century it is quoted 
 by Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, 
 and Irenccus : the last-named Father 
 repeatedly and expressly refers to it as 
 the work of St. Paul (III. xvi. 3, 9). 
 The internal evidence of its genuineness 
 has carried conviction to the minds of 
 the most cautious and the most sceptical 
 of critics. Every chapter, in fact, bears 
 the impress of the same mind from 
 which the Epistles to the Churches of 
 Corinth and Galatia undoubtedly pro- 
 ceeded; and even Baur and the critics 
 of his school, who make every effort to 
 prove the two last chapters spurious, are 
 obliged to admit that the rest of the 
 Epistle is the genuine work of SU Paul. 
 
 § 2. Time and Place of Writing. 
 
 The passages which contain definite 
 historical statements indicating the time 
 and place at which the Epistle was 
 written are all contained in the last two 
 chapters, xv. 25-31 ; xvi. i, 2, 21, 23. 
 
 But the time and place of writing can 
 also be inferred with great probability 
 from indirect evidence contained in i. 
 10, II, 13. 
 
 This latter proof is quite independent 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of the former, and when combined with 
 it forms an undesigned coincidence be- 
 tween the first and last chapters of the 
 Kpistle, and a vakiable confirmation of 
 the genuineness of chapters xv. and 
 xvi., which of late years has been much 
 disputed. 
 
 I. Notes of Time and Place in xv., xvi. 
 
 At the time of writing this Epistle 
 St. Paul was going to carry to the poor 
 saints at Jerusalem a contribution made 
 for them in Macedonia and Achaia (xv. 
 25, 26), and he hoped afterwards to 
 visit Rome on his way to Spain (xv. 28). 
 If we compare these passages with Acts 
 xix. 21 and xx. 3, it is clear that the 
 Epistle must have been written after the 
 Apostle's arrival in Greece on his third 
 missionary journey, when he spent three 
 months in Corinth. 
 
 The same conclusion follows from 
 comparing Romans xv. 25-28 with i 
 Cor. xvi. 1-5, and 2 Cor. viii. 1-4, ix. 
 I, 2. In presence of the hostile criti- 
 cism which is directed against the his- 
 torical value of the Acts, it is worth 
 notice that this second proof is inde- 
 pendent of St. Luke's narrative. 
 
 Assuming, however, as we justly may, 
 the authenticity and accuracy of St. 
 Luke's history, we can fix almost within 
 a week the date at which our Epistle 
 was despatched. 
 
 For we learn from Acts xx. 3 that, 
 as St. Paul was about to sail from 
 Corinth into Syria, the Jews laid wait 
 for him, and on this account he changed 
 his route at the last moment and deter- 
 mined to return through Macedonia. 
 
 The Epistle, if written after these 
 incidents, would almost certainly have 
 contained some reference to them, and 
 especially to the plot of the Jews, which 
 the Apostle could not have failed to 
 notice in alluding to the enmity of his 
 countrymen in ch. xv. 31. We may, 
 therefore, confidently infer that the letter 
 was despatched before St. Paul actually 
 left Achaia, and yet not long before 
 (xv. 25). 
 
 The winter was at an end and navi- 
 gation had recommenced, for " /le was 
 about to sail i)ito Sytia" (Acts xx. 3). 
 
 Yet the spring was not far advanced, 
 for after travelling through Macedonia 
 to Miletus (Acts xx. 16) he still hoped 
 to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost. 
 
 We can fix the season even more 
 exactly : for St. Paul and his company 
 spent "///^ days of unleavened bread" at 
 Philippi (Acts xx. 6), and must therefore 
 have left Corinth some time before the 
 Passover. 
 
 The proof that the Epistle was written 
 from Corinth is well stated by Theo- 
 doret : " First, he commends to them 
 Phoebe, calling her a deaconess of the 
 Church at Cenchrese (xvi. i) ; and 
 Cenchrese is a port of the Corinthians. 
 And then he also speaks thus : ' Gaius 
 mine host saluteth yoti' (xvi. 23). Now 
 that Gaius was of Corinth is easy to 
 learn from the First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, for he writes to them tlius : 
 ' / thatik my God that I baptized none 
 of you, save Crispus and Gaiiis^ (i Cor. 
 i. 14). 
 
 To these arguments of Theodoret we 
 may add that four of the seven persons 
 named in Rom. xvi. 21-23 — Timo- 
 theus, Sosipater, Jason, and Gaius — can 
 be shown with great probability to have 
 been with St. Paul during his second 
 abode at Corinth. The conclusion from 
 these various proofs is that the Epistle 
 to the Romans was written from Corinth 
 shortly before Easter a.d. 58. 
 
 II. Indications of Time in i. 10-13. 
 
 We read in this passage that the 
 writer has not yet been at Rome, but is 
 longing to visit the believers there, and 
 has '■'• oftentimes purposed" \.o come unto 
 them, but has been " hindered hitherto!* 
 This purpose of visiting Rome St. Paul 
 publicly declared during the latter part of 
 his abode at Ephesus : ^'- After these things 
 were ended Paul purposed in the spirit, 
 wheji he had passed through Macedoma 
 and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying. 
 After I have bee?i there, I must also see 
 Rome" (Acts xix. 21). 
 
 We do not know how long the Apostle 
 had entertained the purpose here for the 
 first time recorded : there is no indica- 
 tion nor probability that it entered into 
 the plan of his first journey 10 Europe 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (Acts xvL 9 — xviii. i8). But we may 
 conjecture with some probability that 
 the desire to visit Rome had been first 
 kindled by St. Paul's intercourse with 
 Aquila and Priscilla when they had 
 lately come from Italy to Corinth (Acts 
 xviii. i), and fostered by constant asso- 
 ciation with them during the journey 
 from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 26 ; 
 xix. I, 10; I Cor. xvi. 19). The dis- 
 tinct purpose therefore of visiting Rome 
 could hardly have been formed before 
 St. Paul's abode at Ephesus, nor could 
 the statement in Rom. i. 10-13 have 
 been made before the latter part of that 
 period, a considerable lapse of time 
 being implied in the words '■'■oftentimes 
 
 1 purposed to come unto you, but was let 
 hitherto." 
 
 Again, by comparison with the con- 
 tents of the Corinthian Epistles it may 
 be clearly proved that the Epistle to the 
 Romans must have been written after 
 
 2 Corinthians (see Bp. Lightfoot, ' Gala- 
 tians,' p. 48) : that is to say, after the 
 latter part of the year 57. Thus we are 
 brought very close to the time indicated 
 in Rom. xv., xvi., and have found an 
 independent proof of the correctness of 
 the dates given in those chapters. 
 
 § 3. Language. 
 
 Salmeron (Proleg. I. 35) supposed the 
 Epistle to have been originally com- 
 posed in Latin, because it was addressed 
 to Latins, written by an amanuensis who 
 bore a Latin name, Tertius, and die-, 
 tated by an Apostle who must have 
 known Latin, as having the gift of 
 tongues. Cornelius k Lapide discusses 
 this fanciful notion, and modifies it by 
 suggesting that St. Paul's Greek auto- 
 graph was translated into Latin by 
 Tertius and the translation sent to Rome. 
 The error arose from ignorance of the 
 fact, now well established, that for a 
 considerable part of the first three cen- 
 turies '* the Church of Rome, and most 
 if not all the Churches of the West, 
 were, if we may so speak, Greek re- 
 ligious colonies. Their language was 
 Greek, their organisation Greek, their 
 writers Greek, their Scriptures Greek" 
 (Milman, ' Latin Christianity,' L i.). 
 
 Accordingly, in the Epistle itself we 
 find St. Paul classifying mankind as 
 "Greeks and Barbarians" (i. 14) or 
 "Jews and Greeks " (i. 16; ii. 9, 10; 
 iii. 9 ; X. 12) ; and in the salutations in 
 ch. xvi. the names both of Jewish and 
 Gentile converts are nearly all Greek. 
 
 § 4. Jews in Rome. 
 
 When we pass from the author to his 
 readers, our thoughts turn first to the 
 origin of the Jewish colony in Rome. 
 The first embassy sent from Jerusalem 
 to Rome by Judas Maccabc'eus, b.c. i6r, 
 obtained from the Senate a treaty of 
 mutual defence and friendship, which 
 was renewed successively by Jonathan, 
 B.C. 144, by Simon, B.C. 141, and by 
 John Hyrcanus, B.C. 129 : see i Mace. 
 viii. 17, xii. i, xiv. 24 j and Josephus, 
 * Antiq.' xiii. i. 
 
 Of the Jews who came to Rome in 
 the train of these frequent embassies 
 some would certainly settle there, for 
 the commercial advantages of residence 
 in the great capital would not be neg- 
 lected by the enterprising race which 
 was rapidly spreading over all the civi- 
 lised world. 
 
 The first notice in Latin literature of 
 the Jews in Rome seems to be the well- 
 known passage in Cicero's defence of 
 L. Valerius Flaccus (c. 28), where we 
 learn that the Jews were accustomed 
 to send gold every year from Italy to 
 Jerusalem, and formed in Rome itself a 
 faction so numerous and formidable that 
 the great orator points to them as 
 thronging at that moment the steps of 
 the Aurelian tribunal, and lowers his 
 voice in pretended terror lest they should 
 overhear his words. These wealthy and 
 influential Jews must have been settled 
 in Rome long before the captives whom 
 Pompey brought from Jerusalem to 
 adorn his triumph only two years before 
 the date of Cicero's oration, b.c. 59. 
 
 But Pompey's captives were in course 
 of time set free by those who had bought 
 them for slaves (Philo, Jud. ' de Legat' 
 c, 23), and the Jewish community in 
 Rome was thus greatly increased. Julius 
 Ciesar treated them with singular favour, 
 and expressly sanctioned their worship 
 
 A 2 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in their synagogues (Jos. 'Antiq.' xiv. 
 c. lo, 8), and the same privileges were 
 continued by Augustus and Tiberius 
 (Philo, ib.). " The great division of 
 Rome which is on the other side of the 
 Tiber was occupied by the Jews " (Philo), 
 and so numerous were they, that when 
 Archelaus came to Rome (a.d. 2) to 
 secure the succession on the death of 
 Herod, 8000 of the Jews dwelling in 
 Rome took part against him (Jos. 
 ' B. J.' ii. 6; 'Antiq.' xvii. c. 11, i). 
 
 The favour of the Caesars was in 
 marked contrast to the contempt and 
 hatred with which the Romans in general 
 looked upon the Jews. Cicero calls 
 them a nation "born for slavery" (' De 
 Prov.' c. 10), and their religion a bar- 
 barous superstition, abhorrent to the 
 ancestral institutions of Rome and to 
 the glory of its empire (' Pro Flacco,' c. 
 28). Horace refers to their prosely- 
 tising zeal (i ' Sat.' iv. 143), their seeming 
 credulity (v. 100), and the mingled con- 
 tempt and fear with which their religious 
 rites were regarded (x. 69-72). Josephus 
 {'Antiq.' xviii. 3, 5) tells how the fraud 
 which four Jewish impostors practised 
 on one of their female converts moved 
 Tiberius to expel all Jews from Rome 
 and send 4000 of them to serve as 
 soldiers in Sardinia. But neither exile 
 nor persecution, though repeated under 
 successive Emperors, could drive the 
 Jews permanently from Rome. They 
 soon returned, and their power so in- 
 creased that, in Seneca's words (August. 
 * de Civ. D.' vL 11), " the conquered race 
 gave laws to its conquerors." 
 
 § 5. Christians in Rome. 
 
 If we ask at what time and by whom 
 the Gospel was first preached at Rome, 
 we have to consider sundry answers pre- 
 sented by ecclesiastical tradition. 
 
 First we are told in the Clementine 
 Homilies that in the reign of Tiberius 
 tidings came to Rome " that a certain 
 one in Judaea, beginning in the spring 
 season, was preaching to the Jews the 
 kingdom of the invisible God," and 
 working many wonderlul miracles and 
 signs (Hom. i. c. 6). 
 
 " in the same year in the autumn sea- 
 
 son a certain one standing in a public 
 place cried and said, " Men of Rome, 
 hearken. The Son of God is come in 
 Judaea, proclaiming eternal life to all 
 who will, if they shall live according to 
 the counsel of the Father, who hath 
 sent Him " (c. 7). 
 
 These statements of the Pseudo- 
 Clement are of course purely fictitious. 
 
 Another marvellous story is recorded 
 by Tertullian ('Apologeticus,' c. 5) : " Ti- 
 berius, accordingly, in whose days the; 
 Christian name made its entry into the 
 world, having himself received intelli- 
 gence from Palestine of events which 
 had clearly shown the truth of Christ's 
 divinity, brought the matter before the 
 Senate, with his own decision in favour 
 of Christ. The Senate, because it had 
 not given the approval itself, rejected 
 his proposal." 
 
 The tale bears on its face all the 
 marks of untruth (Neander, 'Church His- 
 tory,' i. 128), and Tertullian, who was no 
 critic, had probably been deceived by 
 some of the many spurious "Acts of 
 Pilate." 
 
 We come next to two traditions, per- 
 fectly distinct in their origin, which 
 ascribe the foundation of the church at 
 Rome to St. Peter. 
 
 A. The former of these traditions, 
 which represents St. Peter as preaching 
 at Rome in the reign of Claudius, arose 
 as follows : — 
 
 (i) Justin Martyr in his first Apology, 
 addressed to Antoninus Pius, writes 
 thus (c. 26) : "There was one Simon, a 
 Samaritan, of the village called Gitton, 
 who in the reign of Claudius Cssar, and 
 in your royal city of Rome, did mighty 
 feats of magic by the art of daemons 
 working in him. He was considered a 
 god, and as a god was honoured among 
 you with a statue, which statue was set 
 up in the river Tiber between the two 
 bridges, and bears this inscription in 
 Latin : 
 
 '* ' Simoni Deo Sancto ;' 
 
 which is, 
 
 ' To Simon the holy God.' " 
 
 The substance of this story is repeated 
 by Irenaeus ('adv. Haer.' I. xxiii. i), and 
 by Tertullian ('Apol.' c. 13), who re- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 preaches the Romans for installing 
 Simon Magus in their Pantheon, and 
 giving him a statue and the title " Holy 
 God." 
 
 In A.D, 1574 a stone, which had 
 formed the base of a statue, was dug up 
 on the site described by Justin, the 
 island in the Tiber, bearing an inscrip- 
 tion : " Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sa- 
 crum," &c. Hence it has been supposed 
 that Justin mistook a statue of the Sabine 
 God, " Semo Sancus," for one of Simon 
 Magus. See the notes in Otto's Justin 
 Martyr and Stieren's Irenseus. 
 
 On the other hand Tillemont (' Me- 
 moires,' t. ii. p. 482) maintains that 
 Justin in an Apology addressed to the 
 emperor and written in Rome itself 
 cannot reasonably be supposed to have 
 fallen into so manifest an error. 
 
 Whichever view we take of Justin's 
 accuracy concerning the inscription and 
 the statue, there is nothing improbable 
 in his statement that Simon Magus was 
 at Rome in the reign of Claudius. Only 
 we must observe that Justin says not 
 one word about Sf. Peter's alleged visit 
 to Rome and his encounter with Simon 
 Magus. 
 
 (2.) Papias, " a man of very small 
 mind" (Euseb, ' Eccl. Hist.' iii. 39) says 
 that the Presbyter John used to say 
 that Mark, " the interpreter of Peter," 
 recorded his teaching accurately. 
 
 Here there is no mention of Shnon 
 Magus, nor of the time dsiA place of St. 
 Peter's preaching. 
 
 (3.) Clement of Alexandria (c. a.d. 
 200), quoted by Eusebius (' E. H.' vi. 14), 
 repeats "a tradition from the elders of 
 former times," that " after Peter had 
 publicly preached the word in Rome," 
 Mark at the request of the hearers wrote 
 what he had said, and so composed his 
 gospel. 
 
 Here again the time of Peter's preach- 
 ing at Rome is not mentioned. 
 
 Before we pass on it is most import- 
 ant to observe that these traditions pre- 
 served by Papias and Clement have not 
 the sliglitest connexion oi persons, time, 
 or place, with Justin Martyr's story of 
 Simon Magus. 
 
 (4.) Eusebius in his ' Ecclesiastical 
 History' (c. a.d. 325), quotes Justin 
 
 Martyr's story about Simon Magus 
 ('E. H.' ii. c. 13), and then, without re- 
 ferring to any authority, goes on to assert 
 (c. 14) that "immediately in the same 
 reign of Claudius divine Providence led 
 Peter the Great Apostle to Rome to 
 encounter this great destroyer of life," 
 and that he thus brought the light of 
 the Gospel from the East to those in 
 the West. 
 
 As the date of this visit to Rome 
 Eusebius in the' Chronicon ' gives a.d. 42, 
 and says that Peter remained at Rome 
 twenty years (see Canon Cook's article 
 "Peter" in the ' Dictionary of the Bible'). 
 
 This arbitrary and erroneous combi- 
 nation of traditions, which had no original 
 connexion, may possibly have been sug- 
 gested to Eusebius by the historical con- 
 nexion between Simon Magus and St. 
 Peter in Acts viii., or more probably he 
 may have borrowed it from the strange 
 fictions of the 'Clementine Recognitions* 
 and 'Homilies,' and ' Apostolic Constitu- 
 tions.' (See ' Recognitions,' iii. 63-65; 
 ' Homilies,' I. xv. Iviii. ; ' Epistle of 
 Clement to James,' c. i.; 'Apost. Constit.' 
 vi., viii., ix.) 
 
 That St. Peter was not at Rome, and 
 had not previously been there, when St. 
 Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, 
 may be safely inferred from its silence 
 concerning him, and from the fact that 
 there is not a particle of trustworthy 
 evidence in favour of any earlier visit. 
 
 B. The other tradition, which repre- 
 sents the Roman Church to have been 
 founded by St. Peter and St. Paul jointly, 
 rests on the following authorities. 
 
 (i.) Irenffius III. c. i : " Matthew 
 published a written Gospel among the 
 Hebrews in their own language, at the 
 time when Peter and Paul were preach- 
 ing the Gospel at Rome and founding 
 the Church. But after their depar-ture 
 (or according to a various reading, after 
 Matthew's publication) Mark also the 
 disciple and interpreter of Peter handed 
 down to us in writing what was preached 
 by Peter." Eusebhis (' Eccles. Hist' v. 
 8) cites this passage without noticing 
 that it is inconsistent with his own state- 
 ments in ii. 15 concerning the earlier 
 foundation of the Roman Church by St. 
 Peter, inasmuch as it expressly ascribes 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the foundation (^c/xcXiowrwv) of that 
 church to the simultaneous preaching of 
 the two Apostles, which cannot possibly 
 be assigned to that earlier date in the 
 reign of Claudius. 
 
 (2.) Irenseus III. c. iii. 2 : " The 
 greatest and most ancient and univers- 
 ally known Church, founded and esta- 
 blished in Rome by the two most glorious 
 Apostles Peter and Paul." 
 
 Id. III. c. iii. 3. " Having therefore 
 founded and built up the Church the 
 blessed Apostles entrusted its episcopal 
 ministration to the hands of Linus." 
 
 (3.) Euseb. ' Eccl. Hist.' ii. 25 : "Paul 
 is related to have been beheaded in 
 Rome itself, and Peter hkewise to have 
 been crucified in his (Nero's) time. 
 And the story is accredited by the appel- 
 lation of Peter and Paul having pre- 
 vailed up to the present time on the 
 tombs there (koi/ajjtt^pi'wv)." 
 
 (4.) Ibid. Dionysius of Corinth wri- 
 ting to the Romans calls both their 
 Church and that of Corinth a joint 
 plantation of Peter and Paul, and adds 
 that " having gone to Italy and taught 
 together there they died as martyrs at 
 the same time." 
 
 The tradition embodied in these pas- 
 sages clearly refers to the time of Nero's 
 persecution, six or seven years later than 
 the Epistle to the Romans, and throws 
 no light upon the origin and earliest or- 
 ganisation of the Roman Church. 
 
 The Epistle itself, compared with the 
 narrative in Acts, is the only trustworthy 
 source of information on these points. 
 
 From i. 8-13 and xv. 23 it is certain 
 that there had been for " many years " in 
 Rome a considerable body of Christians 
 whom St. Paul had a great desire to 
 visit in person, but had hitherto been 
 hindered. 
 
 This desire to visit them, and to have 
 some fruit among them (i. 13), combined 
 with his declared unwillingness to build 
 on another man's foundation (xv. 18-24), 
 and with his boldness in admonishing 
 them (xv. 15) by virtue of his Apostolic 
 authority, forbids us to suppose that the 
 Roman Church had been founded by 
 any other Apostle. 
 
 We may however assume, almost with 
 certainty, that the rise of the new faith 
 
 in Jerusalem, and the great events by 
 which it had been ushered in, must have 
 been quickly known in Rome. Tacitus 
 in fact expressly asserts this in his 
 account of Nero's persecutions of the 
 Christians, 'Annals ' xv. 44 : " The name 
 was derived from Christ, who in the 
 reign of Tiberius suffered under Pontius 
 Pilate, the procurator of Judaea. By 
 that event the sect of which he was the 
 founder received a blow which for a 
 time checked the growth of a dangerous 
 superstition ; but it revived soon after, 
 and spread with recruited vigour not 
 only in Judeea the soil which gave it 
 birth, but even in the city of Rome, the 
 common sink into which everything 
 infamous and abominable flows like a 
 torrent from all quarters of the world." 
 
 There was constant intercourse be- 
 tween the two great cities, and " some 
 who had gone forth from Rome as Jews 
 may well have returned thither as 
 Christians" (Fritzsche). It' is not im- 
 probable that some of the " strangers of 
 Jiome" i. e. Romans resident in Jeru- 
 salem, who witnessed the wonders of 
 the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10) may 
 have been among the first to bring back 
 the good tidings to the capital. 
 
 M. Godet (' Introduction,' p. 6;^) is 
 unwilling to admit this explanation of 
 the origin of the Church of Rome, as 
 seeming to prove that the Gospel was 
 spread in the city by means of the 
 Synagogue. But the clear and positive 
 statement of Tacitus, that Christianity 
 soon after t\\Q death of its Founder spread 
 even to the city of Rome, cannot be set 
 aside for fear of any inferences that may 
 be drawn from it. 
 
 Nor does it by any means follow that 
 the Synagogue must have been the sole 
 or chief channel through which a know- 
 ledge of the Gospel was diffused in 
 Rome. If the first believers were Jews 
 and Proselytes, to these there would 
 soon be added Gentile Christians, who 
 being either provincials had brought their 
 new faith to Rome, or being Romans 
 had learned it in the provinces ; here a 
 faithful centurion, and there a devout 
 soldier of the Italian cohort, would bear 
 witness at Rome of the things which he 
 had seen and heard in Jerusalem 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The number of believers would rapidly 
 increase : as the first teachers of the 
 Gospel were driven forth by persecution, 
 or by their own missionary zeal, beyond 
 the bounds of Palestine (Acts viii. i, 4 ; 
 xi. 19; xii. 17; xiii. 3), every province 
 that was traversed by an Apostle, every 
 city in which a Christian church was 
 founded, would help to swell the number 
 of Christians drawn together in Rome 
 from all parts of the empire. 
 
 But believers, few or many, scattered 
 over a great city do not constitute a 
 Church such as those which the Apostles 
 founded. Did such a Church, duly or- 
 ganised, exist in Rome when St. Paul 
 wrote this Epistle ? No trace of such 
 organisation is found either in the 
 Epistle itself, or in the narrative of St. 
 Paul's subsequent residence at Rome 
 (Acts xxviii.). 
 
 If we put aside the circular letters, 
 " Ephesians " and " Colossians," we find 
 that in all St. Paul's Epistles addressed 
 to Churches which are known to have 
 been fully organised there is some men- 
 tion of "the Church" (i. ii. Thess., 
 i. ii. Cor., Gal.), or of " the Bishops and 
 Deacons " (Phil. i. i). But in " Romans " 
 there is nothing of the kind, either in 
 the address, or in the body of the letter, 
 or in the final salutations. 
 
 The only " Church" mentioned is the 
 little assembly in the house of Aquila 
 and Priscilla (xvi. 5) : the only reference 
 to ecclesiastical ministers, teachers, or 
 rulers is in xii., 4-8, a statement of the 
 general principles of Church order, which 
 proves the need rather than the existence 
 of such an organisation in the Christian 
 community at Rome as would secure 
 the well-regulated exercise of individual 
 gifts. 
 
 The whole tone of the exhortations in 
 chapters xii., xiv., and especially in xii. 
 10, seems to imply a community of 
 Christian brethren, in which none had 
 yet been invested with superior au- 
 thority. 
 
 The evidence thus furnished by the 
 Epistle itself is too strong to be set aside 
 by mere conjecture. We cannot agree 
 with Meyer's opinion (p. 20, E. Tr.) that 
 the existence of " a Church formally 
 constituted may be gathered from the 
 
 general analogy of other Churches that 
 had already been long in existence :" 
 much less with his further assumption, 
 — " Especially may the existence of a 
 body of Presbyters, which was essential 
 to Church organisation (Acts xiv. 23), be 
 regarded as a matter of course." 
 
 The formal organisation of a Church, 
 and the existence of a body of Pres- 
 byters, can be inferred from the analogy 
 of other Churches, only in a case where 
 it is known that Apostolic authority has 
 been exercised. Meyer himself thus 
 writes (p. 22) concerning the Roman 
 community at an earlier period : " Indi- 
 vidual Christians were there, and cer- 
 tainly also Christian fellowship, but still 
 no organised Church. To plant such a 
 Church there was needed, as is plain 
 from the analogy of all other cases of 
 the founding of Churches with which 
 we are acquainted, official action on the 
 part of teachers endowed directly or in- 
 directly with Apostolic authority." 
 
 Meyer evidently argues in a circle : 
 
 ' Other Churches, namely those which 
 had been founded by Apostles, were 
 formally organised : 
 
 Therefore we infer, by analogy, that 
 Rome was formally organised : 
 
 Therefore Rome must have been Apos- 
 tolically founded.' 
 
 Setting aside such precarious infer- 
 ences from an unproved analogy, we 
 gather from the Epistle itself that the 
 Christians at Rome were not as yet a 
 Church fully and formally organised. 
 Rather they were a large and " mixed 
 community of Jew and Gentile converts," 
 well described by Bishop Lightfoot ('Phil.' 
 p. 13) as "a heterogeneous mass, with 
 diverse feelings and sympathies, wiih no 
 well-defined organisation, with no other 
 bond of union than the belief in a com- 
 mon Messiah; gathering, we may sup- 
 pose, for purposes of worship in small 
 knots here and there, as close neigh- 
 bourhood or common nationality or 
 sympathy or accident drew them together; 
 but, as a body, lost in the vast masses of 
 the heathen population, and only faintly 
 discerned or contemptuously ignored 
 even by the large community of J ewish 
 residents." 
 
 We may gather from the Epistle that • 
 
8 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 St. Paul had before hi? mind all the 
 chief elements of this mixed community 
 of Christians, as well as the unconverted 
 Jews and heathens among whom they 
 lived. 
 
 There were Jews of the Synagogue 
 to whom the Gospel had not yet been 
 preached, or by whom it had been 
 long since rejected, and who appear 
 three years later to have been still 
 wrapped up in contemptuous ignorance 
 of " this sect," which " is everywhere 
 spoken against" (Acts xxviii. 22). As 
 in St. Luke's narrative the Apostle's 
 first care within three days after his 
 arrival in Rome is to call " the chief of 
 the Jews together," and to expound unto 
 them " the kingdom of God, persuading 
 them concerning Jesus :" so in the 
 Epistle he writes (i. 16), " I am not 
 ashamed of the Gospel of Christ : for it 
 is the power of God unto salvation tv. 
 every one that believeth; to the Jew 
 Jirst, and also to the Greek." 
 
 Again when he writes, *' Oftentimes 
 I purposed to come unto you, that I 
 might have some fruit among you also, 
 even as among other Gentiles : I am 
 debtor both to the Greeks and to the 
 Barbarians" (i. 13, 14), it is clear that he 
 hopes to preach the Gospel to Gentiles 
 at Rome who had not yet heard it. 
 
 Within the Christian community itself 
 there were many various sections : Jews 
 of Palestine, some of whom, like Andro- 
 nif us and Junias, Paul's kinsmen and 
 fellow-prisoners, were of note among the 
 Apostles in Jerusalem, and were also in 
 Christ before Paul himself (xvi. 7) : Jews 
 of the Dispersion, like Aquila of Pontus 
 and his wife Priscilla, Paul's chosen dis- 
 ciples and devoted friends : proselytes of 
 Rome, now turned to Christ: Gentile 
 Christians, of whom some, like the well- 
 beloved Epsenetus the first-fruits of Asia 
 unto Christ (xvi. 5) had been St. Paul's 
 own converts ; others, like Amplias, 
 Urban, Stachys, his helpers in Christ or 
 friends beloved in the Lord ; others again 
 unknown by face, whom yet he salutes 
 by name as " chosen in the Lord," or 
 •' approved in Christ," while of the great 
 majority he only knew that their faith 
 was spoken of throughout the whole 
 world. 
 
 § 6. Occasion of Writing. 
 
 Dean Alford has justly observed that 
 in answering the question, with what 
 object was -the Epistle written? critics 
 have not sufficiently borne in mind that 
 ''^ the occasiofi of writmg 2X\. Epistle is one 
 thing, — the great object of the Epistle 
 itself, another." 
 
 The distinction is in the present case 
 most appropriate, for while the deter- 
 mination of the main object of the Epistle 
 is one of the most disputed problems of 
 modern criticism, the immediate occasion 
 of writing is clearly stated by the Apostle 
 himself He had heard the faith of the 
 Roman Christians everywhere spoken of 
 (i. 8), and for many years had felt a 
 longing desire to visit them (L 11; xv. 
 23) : he had often definitely purposed 
 to do so (i. 13), and had been as often 
 (tol TToAAa, XV. 22) hindered. 
 
 A year before, when at Ephesus, he 
 had purposed in the Spirit to go through 
 Macedonia and Achaia, and thence to 
 Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21), ^^ saying, After 
 I have been there, I jnust also see Jiovie." 
 He had completed that portion of his 
 journey which brought him nearest to 
 Rome, and was now turning back from 
 Corinth to the far East, going bound in 
 the Spirit to Jerusalem, and already fore- 
 seeing that danger awaited him there 
 from the unbeUeving Jews (xv. 31). 
 
 He still longs and hopes to see Rome 
 (i. 10), but already he is looking beyond 
 it to the distant West : Rome is to be, 
 as he hopes, a resting-place for brief 
 sojourn on his way to Spain (xv. 24, 28). 
 
 The cause of this change or extension 
 of his plan is not stated, but it probably 
 sprang from the great conflict of the 
 past year against Jews and Judaizing 
 Christians, the records of which are his 
 Epistles to the Corinthians and Gala- 
 tians. Hitherto he had preached the 
 Gospel everywhere to the Jews first, but 
 their general rejection of it was now an 
 established fact (ix. i ; x. 3), over which 
 he mourned, but in which he saw an 
 intimation of God's will that he should 
 now devote himself more exclusively to 
 his own sphere of Apostolic labour, and 
 go far off unto the Gentiles. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 His visit to Jerusalem with the alms 
 of the Gentiles might be perhaps in- 
 tended as a farewell token of his love 
 (Gal. ii. lo). A considerable time must 
 elapse before he could reach Rome, and 
 then his stay must be short : an Epistle 
 would be useful for the present needs of 
 the brethren there, and by preparing the 
 way for his personal ministration would 
 render his short sojourn more profitable. 
 
 Phcebe, a servant or deaconess of the 
 Church in Cenchrece, had business to 
 transact in Rome (xvi. i), and to her 
 charge the Epistle would naturally be 
 entrusted. 
 
 § 7. The Purpose of the Epistle. 
 
 In comparing the Epistle to the 
 Romans with the Epistles addressed by 
 St. Paul to other Churches, we perceive 
 at once that it is distinguished from 
 them all as containing a more general 
 and system.atic statement of Christian 
 doctrine. It is quite natural that this 
 most striking peculiarity should have 
 been the first object of attention to any 
 who were seeking to discover the chief 
 aim and purpose of the writing. 
 
 In the Muratorian Fragment, which 
 contains the earliest extant catalogue of 
 the books of the New Testament, 
 written about 170 a.d., the author thus 
 describes the four greater Epistles of 
 St. Paul : " First of all he wrote to the 
 Corinthians forbidding party schism, next 
 to the Galatians forbidding circumcision; 
 but to the Romans he wrote at greater 
 length concerning the plan of the 
 Scriptures, showing at the same time 
 that their foundation is Christ." (See 
 Hilgenfeld, ' Einleitung in d. N. T.,' 
 pp. 88-107; Routh, ' Rell. Sacr.'i. 394 
 sqq. ; and Westcott on the Canon of 
 the Nev/ Testament, p. 241.) 
 
 We observe that this earliest of 
 Critics, while assigning to the Corin- 
 thian and Galatian letters special motives 
 arising out of the particular circum- 
 stances of those Churches, attributes 
 none but a perfectly general didactic 
 purpose to the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 Origcn, in the preface to his Com- 
 mentary, notices the difficulty of the 
 Epistle, its indications of St. Paul's 
 
 progress tov/ards Christian perfection, 
 and the time and place of writing ; but 
 not the purpose. 
 
 Chrysostom observes that St. Paul 
 wrote to difi'erent Churches from dif- 
 ferent motives and on different subjects, 
 and finds the motive of this Epistle in 
 his desire' to embrace the whole world in 
 his ministry and to instruct the Romans, 
 " because saith he, of the grace that is 
 given to me of God, that I should be the 
 minister of Jesus Christ" (xv. 15). 
 
 Theodoret says that " the inspired 
 Apostle offers in this letter varied doc- 
 trine of all kinds." 
 
 CEcumenius, after noticing the personal 
 introduction (i. 1-15), says "for the 
 rest he makes his Epistle didactic." 
 
 Luther says in his Preface to the 
 Epistle, that it " contains in itself the 
 plan of the whole Scripture, and is a 
 most complete epitome of the New 
 Testament or Gospel^ which Gospel it 
 exhibits in the briefest and clearest 
 manner." 
 
 Calvin writes : " The whole Epistle 
 is so systematic, that even the exordium 
 itself is composed according to the rules 
 of art." He then gives an outline of the 
 contents, in which he regards "justifi- 
 cation by faith as the principal question 
 of the whole Epistle," and the destiny 
 of Israel (ix. — xi.) as a subordinate 
 subject. 
 
 The Epistle is described in like 
 manner by Melanchthon as a " compen- 
 dium of Christian doctrine," and by 
 Grotius as "addressed specially to the 
 Romans, but containing all the defences 
 (munimenta) of the Christian religion, in 
 such wise that it well deserved that 
 copies should be sent to other Churches." 
 
 Reiche in his Commentary on the 
 Epistle, p. 84, abides " by the view that 
 the Epistle to the Romans is to be 
 regarded according to its material aim 
 as a universal, popular representation, 
 adapted to the time, of the necessity, 
 glory, and divine excellence of the 
 Christian method of salvation, with 
 reference to manifold objections espe- 
 cially of the old Theocracy, combined 
 with a brief exhibition of genuine 
 Christian feeling and conduct ; but that 
 its formal aim must be held to be 
 
lO 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 establisJiment in Christian faith and 
 Christian virtue." 
 
 Tholuck also, in his earlier editions, 
 regards the design of the Epistle as 
 " universal and not founded on the peculiar 
 circumstances of the Roman Church." 
 
 St. Paul, he thinks, undertakes an 
 exposition of the entire scheme pro- 
 jected by the Divine Being for the 
 salvation of mankind according as it is 
 revealed to us in the Gospel ; and after- 
 wards, as an appendage to this, which is 
 the larger portion of the letter, proceeds 
 to the peculiar circumstances of the 
 Church, so far as they were known to 
 him. 
 
 Some of these statements are evi- 
 dently exaggerated ; but we must not 
 on that account reject the truth which 
 they contain. The Epistle does not 
 " contain in itself a plan of the whole 
 Scripture," nor is it " a complete epitome 
 of the Gospel " ; for there are whole 
 provinces of revealed truth on which 
 it scarcely touches. The range of its 
 dogmatic teaching is rightly indicated in 
 Melanchthon's question : " Is it not in 
 reality on the Law, on Sin, and on 
 Grace, that the knowledge of Christ 
 depends ? " And when Tholuck writes 
 that St. Paul " wished to show how the 
 Gospel, and the Gospel alone, fully 
 answers to the soul's need of Salvation, 
 a need which neither Paganism nor 
 Judaism could satisfy," we can accept 
 this representation as true in itself, but 
 not as a complete or sufficient account 
 of the whole purpose of the Epistle. It 
 is, as all must admit, more didactic, 
 methodical, and universal in its teaching 
 than most of St. Paul's Epistles ; and no 
 statement of its purpose can be satis- 
 factory which does not give full import- 
 ance to this characteristic feature. 
 Baur himself regards the Epistle "as 
 a systematic work, dealing with a massive 
 body of thought," and contrasts it with 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, " the one 
 being the first sketch of a bold and 
 profound system as conceived in its 
 characteristic and essential features, the 
 other the completed system, developed 
 on all sides, and provided with all 
 necessary arguments and illustrations." 
 CPaul/i. 309). 
 
 But this dogmatic system is not the 
 only element that must be taken into 
 consideration. What lies before us is 
 not a manual of Christian doctrine nor 
 a theological treatise, but a letter ; and 
 it is of the very essence of a letter that 
 it arises out of special relations between 
 the writer and his readers, by which its 
 purpose is in great measure determined. 
 In regard to this Epistle it has been too 
 lightly assumed that a special motive is 
 inconsistent with a general didactic 
 purpose. 
 
 "The question," writes M. Godet, 
 " stands thus : If we assign a special 
 practical aim to the Epistle, we put 
 ourselves, as it seems, in contradiction 
 to the very general and quasi-systematic 
 character of its contents. If on the 
 contrary we ascribe to it a didactic and 
 wholly general aim, it differs thereby 
 from the other letters of St. Paul, all 
 of which spring from some particular 
 occasion, and have a definite aim." 
 (i. p. 80). 
 
 We cannot regard this as a correct 
 statement of the case : the supposed 
 dilemma is purely fictitious. There is 
 no necessary or natural opposition 
 between a more general and a more 
 special purpose : the two become op- 
 posed only when it is arbitrarily assumed 
 that either of them is the complete and 
 exclusive purpose ; and to suggest an 
 opposition which has no real existence 
 is only to create an imaginary difficulty 
 for the sake of refuting it. 
 
 The real difficulty lies not in the 
 co-existence of a general and a special 
 purpose, but in determining the exact 
 nature of each, their respective limits 
 and mutual relations. 
 
 We pass on then to consider the views 
 of other interpreters who have en- 
 deavoured to discover the special cir- 
 cumstances which influenced the Apostle 
 in writing this Epistle, in other words to 
 determine its historical origin and 
 purpose. We have seen already in 
 § 5 that the Christians at Rome must 
 have formed a community of diverse 
 elements drawn from various nations and 
 creeds, in w-hich we may well believe 
 that every variety of Christian thought 
 and feeUng found a place. We have 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 II 
 
 also seen that in comparison with St. 
 Paul's other letters " the great character 
 of the Epistle is its universality" 
 (Bishop Wor-dsworth). 
 
 But this very character of universality, 
 both in the letter and in the Community 
 to which it is addressed, makes it more 
 than usually difficult to determine the 
 mutual relations of the different classes 
 of Christians at Rome, and the special 
 motive and purpose of the letter. 
 
 Another circumstance which adds to 
 this difficulty is that St. Paul had not 
 yet been at Rome, and consequently we 
 have none of those life-like pictures and 
 graphic strokes which set so vividly 
 before our eyes the inner life of those 
 Churches to which his earlier Epistles 
 were addressed, Thessalonica, Corinth, 
 and Galatia. 
 
 In such circumstances speculation 
 has free scope, and theories are more 
 easily formed than refuted. By exag- 
 gerating some features and disregard- 
 ing others, it is easy to give an air of 
 plausibility to very different views of the 
 prevailing tendencies of thought and 
 practice in the Christian Community 
 at Rome, and of the corresponding 
 purpose of the Epistle. 
 
 There is however one historical cir- 
 cumstance to which a primary importance 
 is almost universally conceded. The 
 great religious difficulty of the time was 
 unquestionably " the relation of Judaism 
 and Heathenism to each other, and of 
 both to Christianity " (Baur, ' Paulus ' i. 
 316), and more especially the fact that 
 contrary, as it seemed, to God's promises, 
 His chosen people were superseded by 
 Gentiles (p. 317). No one can read the 
 sections i. 18 — iv. and ix. — xi., without 
 perceiving that they have this as their 
 common subject, treated in different ways. 
 
 Olshausen, of whom Baur speaks 
 as exhibiting " the extreme point of 
 the purely dogmatic view" (p. 312) 
 finds in the Epistle to the Romans a 
 purely objective statement of the nature 
 of the Gospel, '"'' grounded otily on the 
 general opposition between Jews and 
 Gentiles, and not on a more special 
 opposition in the Church itself between 
 Judaizing and non-Judaizing Christians " 
 (' Commentary,' p. 47). 
 
 This view, which is very similar to 
 De Weite's, seems to err in insisting 
 that the general question of the opposite 
 relations of Jew and Gentile to the 
 Gospel is the only historical ground 
 of the Epistle, and in allowing even to 
 this too little influence upon its main 
 purpose. 
 
 Baur, by whom their views are keenly 
 criticised, puts forward an entirely dif- 
 ferent theory, in support of which he is 
 obliged " to advance a view of the 
 occasion and purpose of v/riting the 
 Epistle, which is radically different from 
 the common one" ('Paul,' i. 310). 
 
 Although Baur's theory has not been 
 accepted even by his own followers 
 without great and essential modifica- 
 tions, it has formed the starting point of 
 nearly all subsequent treatment of the 
 subject, and must therefore be at least 
 briefly examined. 
 
 (i) The three chapters ix. — xi. are " the 
 germ and centre of the whole, from 
 which the other parts sprang; and we 
 should take our stand on these three 
 chapters in order to enter into the 
 Apostle's original conception, from which 
 the whole organism of the Epistle was 
 developed, as we have it especially 
 in the first eight chapters. For this 
 purpose we have first to examine the 
 contents of chapters ix. — xi." 
 
 This assumption is by no means self- 
 evident. At first sight it would appear 
 at least more probable that to trace out 
 the Apostle's line of thought correctly 
 we should follow the order in which he 
 has himself presented it : and if, in order 
 to understand his discussion in i. 17 — viii. 
 39, any indication of the occasion and 
 purpose of his writing is necessary, it 
 must certainly be right to seek that 
 preliminary indication in i. 8-16, rather 
 than in ix. — xi. 
 
 It is obvious also that by this mode of 
 interpretation Baur, the professed cham- 
 pion of historical criticism, has justly 
 incurred the charge brought against 
 him by Schott (p. 4), that he has entirely 
 ignored the historical method, and con- 
 structed the history out of his own dog- 
 matic interpretation. 
 
 (2) The contents of ix. — xi. having been 
 briefly and fairly stated, Baur rightly 
 
12 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 concludes that the subject treated by 
 the Apostle " is both the relation of 
 Judaism and heathenism to each 
 other, and the relation of both to 
 Christianity" (p. 316). He adds, 
 " It certainly appears that he cannot 
 have devoted so large a part of his 
 Epistle to answering this question with- 
 out some special outward reason prompt- 
 ing him to do so, such as may have 
 arisen out of the circumstances of the 
 Church at Romer 
 
 The words which we have emphasized 
 mark, as we believe, the prime fallacy of 
 Baur's theory. He confuses the occasion 
 of the letter with its main object: he 
 seeks a special and local cause, when a 
 general one is needed : he fails to dis- 
 tinguish a reason for addressing the letter 
 to Rofjie, from the reason for writing a 
 full and systematic discussion of a great 
 question by which the whole Christian 
 Church was at that time agitated, and 
 which was and ever must be of the 
 deepest interest to all Christians alike. 
 
 (3) The error in principle, which we 
 have just noticed, leads to an ill-founded 
 and, as we believe, mistaken viev/ of the 
 actual condition and circumstances of 
 the Christian Community at Rome. 
 
 " I think," he writes (i. 331), "we are 
 entitled to take it for granted that the 
 section of the Roman Church to which 
 the Epistle is addressed must have been 
 the preponderating element i-n the 
 Church ; and if this be so, then the 
 Church consisted mainly of Jewish 
 Christians." 
 
 This being a point of chief importance 
 not only in estimating Baur's theory, but 
 in forming any correct view of the 
 purpose of the Epistle, we must briefly 
 examine the evidence which bears 
 Upon it. 
 
 In i. 2,3 Baur thinks that " Old Tes- 
 tament ideas are studiously introduced, 
 which show that the Apostle had Jewish- 
 Christian readers in his eye when he 
 addressed himself to the composition of 
 the Epistle." 
 
 That a portion of St. Paul's readers 
 were Jewish Christians is admitted by 
 all on much surer evidence than is 
 contained in these verses : but if the 
 introduction of Old Testament ideas is 
 
 supposed to prove that the Jewish 
 Christians were the preponderating 
 element, it might as well be argued, on 
 the same ground, that the Churches of 
 Corinth and Galatia must have consisted 
 mainly of Jewish Christians. 
 
 The meaning of the passage i. 5, 6 
 (eV TTacriv rots edveaLV, iv ots ecrre kol 
 vfj-€i<; kXtjtol 'Irjcrov XpicrTov) is keenly 
 discussed. 
 
 It is claimed on the one side as 
 proving decisively that the majority of 
 the readers addressed were Jewish 
 Christians. 
 
 " In respect of the Jewish Christians, he 
 speaks of the universaUty of his calUng ; 
 it extended to all nations alike, and the 
 Jewish Christians of Rome were not 
 beyond its scope. In order to meet 
 the objection that he was an Apostle of 
 the Gentiles and had nothing to do with 
 Jewish Christians, he speaks of the Jews 
 as one people under the general term of 
 the eOvr} (the nations). He shows his 
 credentials with regard to the Jewish 
 Christians, to justify the Epistle which 
 he is going to write " (Baur, ' Paul,' 
 
 i. P- 333)- 
 
 Volkmar (' Paulus Romerbrief,' p. 
 141) supports the same view : 
 
 " 1-14. I seem indeed to be merely 
 a Gentile-Apostle, but through the 
 Christ have I been called to bring non- 
 Gentile Christians (Messianer) also to 
 the religious obedience which consists 
 in faith in Christ, and thereby to help 
 towards the establishment of peace even 
 in a Church which is a stranger to 
 peace." 
 
 This view, untenable as it really is, has 
 unfortunately been attacked on the 
 wrong points. 
 
 The rendering "among all nations" 
 which is that of our A.V., is not only 
 admissible, but in this context even 
 preferable to that which is proposed 
 instead of it, — "among all the Gentiles." 
 See the note on the passage. Those 
 who, like M. Godet, would affix to the 
 words " a definite, restricted, and quasi- 
 technical sense, the nations in opposition 
 to the chosen people," seem to forget that 
 they themselves acknowledge that there 
 were some Jewish Christians among the 
 readers addressed. Which meaning then 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 13 
 
 of the word " iiations " is most suitable 
 to the opening address, the natural 
 meaning which includes all the readers 
 without distinction, or the technical 
 meaning which pointedly excludes a 
 portion of them ? 
 
 An impartial student, who has no 
 d priori theory to support, will be 
 disposed to admit that, in a letter ad- 
 dressed to a mixed community of Jewish 
 and Gentile Christians, St. Paul could 
 not possibly mean to exclude any by 
 words which might be so understood as 
 to mclude them all. 
 
 This comprehensive sense of the 
 words ^^ afnofig al/ nations" is confirmed 
 by the true meaning of v. 6, " Amo/jg 
 who?n are ye also [the'] called of Jesus 
 Christ." Neither Baur nor his critics 
 have seen the true connexion between 
 this and the preceding verse. For while 
 it would be superfluous to inform 
 Gentiles as such that they were included 
 "among all the Gentiles" (Godet), and 
 equally superfluous to inform Jewish 
 Christians that they as Jews were in- 
 cluded " among all the nations " (Baur), 
 it is neither superfluous nor irrelevant 
 to remind both Jewish and Gentile 
 Christians that their being already '■'■called 
 of Jesus Christ " is an actual proof that 
 they are included in the commission of 
 one who had received through Jesus 
 Christ Himself '''■grace and apostleship for 
 obedience to the faith among all nations." 
 
 The great mass of the Gentile world 
 was not as yet so called : the great mass 
 of the Jews had rejected the calling. 
 Thus the Apostle gracefully acknow- 
 ledges the position of privilege which 
 his readers had already attained, and 
 turns it into a proof of his right to 
 address them. 
 
 This meaning of v. 6 is well expressed 
 by M. Reuss : "et vous aussi, vous 
 vous trouvez dans ce nombre comma 
 appeles de Jesus-Christ." 
 
 Another much disputed passage is 
 i. 13, 14, '• that I might have some fruit 
 among you also, even as among other 
 Gentiles" where the last words are better 
 rendered " df j among the rest of the 
 Gentiles." 
 
 Here also Baur and Volkmar (p. 73) 
 assume that tOveo-iv means simply 
 
 " nations," and draw the conclusion that 
 St. Paul " speaks of the Jews as one 
 people under the general term Wvrj." 
 But we have not here the same emphatic 
 universality which in v, 5 demands the 
 comprehensive sense " all nations." 
 
 Even if we admit that here also 
 Wvr] may mean simply " nations " with- 
 out reference to the distinction between 
 Jew and Gentile, we are still far from 
 the conclusion that the Apostle has 
 any thought in his mind of the Jews as 
 a nation, or of Christians at Rome as 
 Jewish Christians. For the antithesis 
 must then have been " among you 
 (Jews), as among the rest of the nations" : 
 whereas now it is clearly this — " among 
 you (Romans), as among the rest of the 
 nations." Even with this sense of Wvt] 
 therefore, the readers are regarded not 
 as Jewish Christians, but simply as 
 Romans. 
 
 However, we cannot but agree with 
 the great majority of both ancient and 
 modem interpreters (including among 
 the latter Meyer, Reuss, Weizsiicker, 
 Godet, Davidson) that this passage, v. 
 13, distinctly proves the Christian Com- 
 munity at Rome to have consisted mainly 
 of Gentiles. See note on the verse. 
 
 In connexion with these two passages 
 and the introduction of which they form 
 part (i. 1-15), we must notice another 
 mistake into which many writers have 
 fallen in the eagerness of their opposi- 
 tion to Baur and his school. According 
 to these latter, St. Paul wishes " to meet 
 the objection that he was an Apostle of 
 the Gentiles and had nothing to do 
 with Jewish Christians" (Baur, 'Paul,' 
 
 P- 333}- 
 
 " Paul the Apostle of the Messiah 
 Jesus wishes grace and peace to the 
 Church of God in the capital of the 
 World ! I seem indeed to you to be 
 merely an Apostle of the Greeks, but I 
 am called by God Himself through 
 Jesus Christ, to preach the Gospel of 
 God's Son in the Spirit to all nations, 
 even Non-Hellenes, as ye Mosaic fol- 
 lowers of Messiah for the most part are " 
 (Volkmar, p. i ; compare p. 141). 
 
 " Moreover he brings forward in new 
 forms of speech the universality of his 
 office as an Apostle for the obedience of 
 
14 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 faith among all nations. For he, who at 
 first had grounded his Apostolic claim 
 upon the fact that he was called by God 
 to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, as 
 Peter to be the Apostle of the Jews 
 (Gal. ii. 7), could now win the right to 
 send a letter of Apostolic preaching to 
 the Jewish Christians at Rome only in 
 such a form by bringing prominently 
 forward the universality of his com- 
 mission " (Holsten, " Der Gedankengang 
 des Romerbriefs," in the ' Jahrbiicher fur 
 protestantische Theologie,' 1879, No. i, 
 
 p. lOl). 
 
 This representation of St. Paul as 
 having been hitherto exclusively an 
 Apostle of the Gentiles has been too 
 lightly accepted by those who seek to 
 draw from it an exactly opposite con- 
 clusion. It will be sufficient to quote as 
 an example of this view the words of 
 Weizsacker in his excellent article 
 " Upon the earliest Christian Church at 
 Rome " in the ' Jahrbiicher fur deutsche 
 Theologie,' 1876, Partii. p. 250: ''Here 
 it is not a question of the interpretation of 
 the word (Wvt]) in itself merely. He 
 appeals to his own proper Apostolic 
 mission, consequently to his Gentile 
 Apostleship. By that alone the meaning 
 is 'at once decided beyond question. St. 
 Paul could not possibly express himself 
 as he does in this introduction to the 
 Epistle, if the Christians at Rome were 
 even but for the more part a Jewish 
 Christian Church. They belong to him 
 because he is a Genfi/e Apostle. As such 
 he- has ?iof to do with the clrcu7ncised, as is 
 shown by his conversation with Peter, 
 Gal. ii. 7, 8." 
 
 We may confidently say that St. Paul 
 never took so limited and narrow a 
 view of his Apostleship as is implied in 
 the words which we have printed in 
 italics. When he says that through 
 Jesus Christ he "received grace and 
 apostleship for obedience to the faith 
 among all nations " {v. 5), he is certainly 
 not thinking of the arrangement made 
 with St Peter (Gal. ii. 7-9), but of that 
 Apostleship which was " not of men, 
 neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and 
 God the Father, who raised him from the 
 dead" (Gal. i. i), of that voice which 
 had said to Ananias, " Go thy way : for 
 
 he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my 
 name before the Gentiles, and kings, and 
 the children of Israel" (Acts ix. 15), and 
 of the words of Ananias himself " Thou 
 shall he his witness unto all men of what 
 thou hast seen a?id heard " (Acts xxii. 15). 
 
 It is true that each Apostle chose for 
 his missionary labours a special field, one 
 going unto the heatheri, another unto the 
 circiimcision (Gal. ii. 9); but as Apostles 
 they all dealt with all members of the 
 Churches, irrespective of their race, 
 knowing that " in Christ Jesus there is 
 neither Jew nor Ge?itile" (Gal. iii. 28). 
 
 To imagine St. Paul implying that 
 because he was an Apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles he had as such nothing to do with 
 the Jews, is to impute to him a thought 
 of which he was incapable, and one 
 which is directly opposed to his own state- 
 ments in various passages of this Epistle, 
 such as i. 16, ii. 9, iii. 19. The error 
 has in fact arisen from the very general 
 misinterpretation of his words in xi. 13, 
 which distinctly imply that he was not 
 an Apostle of the Gentiles only, but that 
 this was one part (/xeV), though doubtless 
 the chief part, of his office .: see our note 
 on the passage, and Introduction to 
 I Peter, § 3, note 3. 
 
 This same passage xi. 13 is misin- 
 terpreted in another respect by Baur, 
 P-332. 
 
 " The very fact that when the Apostle 
 turns to the Gentile Christians, he 
 makes it appear that he does so, and 
 addresses them specially (xi. 13-24) 
 shows that in the rest of the Epistle 
 he had Jewish much more than Gentile 
 Christians before his mind. The main 
 argument being concluded, they are 
 singled out as a part of the community, 
 they are addressed specially ({i/xiv yap 
 Aeyo) Tots iBv(.a-iv, xi. 13), and thus appear 
 as subordinate to the general body, in 
 addressing which no special designation 
 is required." 
 
 This bold stroke of interpretation 
 will not bear examination. 
 
 In the first place there is no turning 
 from a general body of readers to a 
 portion specially singled out. The 
 words v[txv Tois Wvemv do not mean, 
 as Baur supposes, " you the Gentile part 
 of my readers," but "you my readers 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 15 
 
 who are Gentiles " : see our note on 
 the passage, and compare Green, ' Gram- 
 mar of the N. T. Dialect,' p. 199. 
 
 Throughout the whole section, ix. — xi., 
 though so deeply interesting to every 
 Jew, there is not the slightest indication 
 that St. Paul " had Jewish more than 
 Gentile Christians before his mind," as 
 Baur asserts. Only once before in this 
 section are the readers described, and 
 then simply, as " brethren " (x. i.) : they 
 are distinguished throughout from the 
 Jews, of whom he speaks " as third 
 persons " (Meyer). He calls them " my 
 brethren, my kinsmen according to the 
 flesh," not " our brethren, our kinsmen," 
 as would be natural if his readers were 
 for the most part Jews. 
 
 Baur himself writes : " The whole 
 section which concludes this part of the 
 Epistle, xi. 13-36, is certainly devoted 
 to the Gentile Christians : this is shewn 
 by the repeated u/acis in vv. 28, 30, 
 31, and by the drift of the passage 
 vv. 15-29, when correctly understood. 
 But this section is of the nature of a 
 digression, and the argument then 
 returns to its proper object" (p. 333). 
 This concession is fatal : for no one who 
 has impartially studied the train of 
 thought in ix. — xi, and the close con- 
 nexion between ch. xi. and xii. i, will be 
 easily persuaded that xi. 13-36 is a mere 
 digression or anything less than the 
 grand conclusion of the whole argument 
 upon the destiny of Israel, nor will 
 believe that the readers addressed in the 
 repeated v/xets in vv. 28, 30, 31 are 
 only a small Gentile fraction of the whole 
 body to whom the Apostle says in xii. i, 
 "/ beeseech you therefore, breihroi, by the 
 mercies of God " : see the notes there. 
 
 Having now examined all the passages 
 specially alleged by Baur as proving 
 that the readers were for the most part 
 Jewish Christians, we must notice more 
 briefly a few other passages which may 
 be supposed to support the same view. 
 
 In ii, 17-39 it is too obvious to need 
 more than a passing remark that the 
 Jew so sternly and sarcastically addressed 
 cannot possibly be thought of as one of 
 the readers ; nor is there any need to 
 dwell on Volkmar's strange notion that 
 the passage iii, 1-8 "is a dialogue 
 
 between the Jew in the Jewish Christian 
 and the man who is slandered as wish- 
 ing to overthrow the Law that through 
 this evil good may come," 
 
 In iv. I, Abraham is called " our 
 father," or " our f r e f ath e r," Does the 
 pronoun " our " imply, as is alleged, the 
 Jewish origin of the Christians of Rome ? 
 " Yes," replies M, Godet, " if the trans- 
 lation were : our father according to the 
 flesh." 
 
 M, Godet accordingly has recourse to 
 the forced and unsuitable connexion, 
 " What shall we say that Abraham hath 
 found according to the flesh?" — and 
 gives to TrpoiruLTopa the sense of "spiri- 
 tual forefather." There is however 
 nothing in the immediate context to 
 justify such an anticipation of the 
 spiritiml fatherhood of Abraham, which 
 first comes into notice in v. 11 ; and 
 without such anticipation the supposed 
 difficulty is not removed by the change 
 of construction. 
 
 The very simple explanation is that 
 the question is naturally put from the 
 standing-point of a Jew, whether St. 
 Paul himself or an imaginary objector 
 is of no consequence. What else then 
 could he say than ^^ our" forefather? 
 Speaking to Gentiles concerning the 
 Jews in general, a Jew would say, as St. 
 Paul says in ix, 3, " w^y brethren, my 
 kinsmen according to the flesh"; but in 
 speaking of Abraham, or of Isaac, as in 
 ix, 16, no one Jew could separate 
 himself from his nation and say " my 
 forefather Abraham," or " my father 
 Isaac," 
 
 Weizsacker {ib. p, 259) puts the 
 question rightly : " In i Cor. x. i Paul 
 speaks of the Israelites in the wilderness, 
 and there calls them quite in the same 
 way ' all our fathers.' But who would 
 thence wish to conclude, in spite of all 
 evidence to the contrary, that the Cor- 
 inthian Church was an especially Jewish 
 Christian one ? " See our foot-note and 
 additional note on iv, i. 
 
 In vii. I the Apostle writes " Know 
 ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that 
 know the law) (^c." and the parenthesis 
 is supposed to point to Jewish readers. 
 But Meyer's answer is complete : " Look- 
 ing to the close connexion subsisting 
 
i6 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 between the Jewish and Gentile-Christian 
 portions of the Church, to the cus- 
 tom borrowed from the Synagogue of 
 reading from the Old Testament in 
 public, and to the necessary and essential 
 relations which Evangelical instruction 
 and preaching sustained to the O. T., 
 so that the latter was the basis from 
 which they started, the Apostle might 
 designate his readers generally as ytvw- 
 o-KovTes \tov\ vo/jlov, and predicate of them 
 an acquaintance with the Law." This 
 strong argument becomes even stronger, 
 when for the A. V. we substitute the 
 more correct rendering required by the 
 absence of the Article before ytvw- 
 iTKovcrtv and vojxou : see foot-note on the 
 verse. 
 
 We may add that in the case of born 
 Jews a knowledge of the Law would 
 have been too much a matter of course 
 to require this special mention, which is 
 on the other hand perfectly natural in 
 the case of Gentile converts who had 
 not always known the law. Thus in 
 Galatians iv. 21, St. Paulasks, " Tell me, 
 ye that desire to be under the law, do ye 
 not hear the law ? " Yet who would infer 
 from this that the Galatian Churches 
 were of Jewish origin ? 
 
 Volkmai indeed ventures to say 
 (p. xi.)that in Rom. vii. i " born Hebrews 
 are directly addressed, as the root-stem 
 of the Church" : but we may confidently 
 reply, with Weizsacker (p. 259) that 
 "If anyone will lay stress upon this 
 expression, it speaks much more in 
 favour of Gentile than of Jewish readers." 
 
 The passage xv. 14-16 is usually and 
 justly regarded as a clear proof that the 
 readers addressed were for the most part 
 Gentiles. Dr. Davidson does not admit 
 this ('Introduction to N. T.' i. 125): 
 " Here Paul announces himself the 
 minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, 
 that the oft'ering of the Gentiles might 
 be acceptable to God. But the context 
 does not necessarily limit the offering 
 of the Gentiles to that of the Roman 
 Christiafis, as is assumed." This ob- 
 jection is quite beside the mark : it is 
 not assumed at all that the offering is 
 limited to Roman Christians : but it is 
 manifest that St. Paul justifies himself 
 for writing boldly to the Romans on 
 
 the ground that he is a minister of Christ 
 to the Gentiles. The conclusion is 
 inevitable, that the readers thus addressed 
 were Gentiles. 
 
 This passage is treated in a different 
 way by the Tiibingen critics, who re- 
 present it as an addition made by one 
 of the Pauline party at a later period to 
 remove or soften " the bad impression " 
 made by the genuine Epistle upon a 
 Jewish Christian Church which was 
 already gaining pre-eminence over other 
 Churches,'and claiming another Apostle, 
 St. Peter, as its founder. See Baur, 
 'Paulus,' pp. 355> 365- Apart, how- 
 ever, from this passage we have found 
 abundant evidence in that portion of the 
 Epistle of which the genuineness has 
 not been questioned, to prove that the 
 majority of the Christians at Rome, when 
 St. Paul wrote to them, were not of Jewish 
 but of Gentile origin : and herewith we 
 have removed the corner-stone of Baur's 
 own theory and many subsequent modi- 
 fications of it. 
 
 Without dwelling on these various 
 theories, we proceed to consider the 
 several historical circumstances, which 
 tend to throw light on the purpose of the 
 Epistle. 
 
 In doing this we cannot limit our 
 view, as Baur has done (p. 310), to the 
 special circumstances and doctrinal 
 tendencies of the readers addressed. 
 We must look also to the position of St. 
 Paul himself at this time in relation to 
 Rome, to Jerusalem, to the Gentile 
 Churches, to the whole course of his 
 Apostolic work, and to the great 
 questions which were at that time most 
 intimately connected with the truth of 
 the Gospel which he preached. 
 
 {a). It is universally admitted that 
 there were both Jewish and Gentile 
 Christians in the Roman Community. 
 From evidence furnished by the Epistle 
 we have concluded that the Jewish 
 element was not predominant. Bp. 
 Lightfoot, who at one time admitted 
 " the existence of a large, perhaps pre- 
 ponderant, Jewish element in the Church 
 of the Metropolis before St. Paul's 
 arrival "(' PhiUppians ' p. 17), seems to 
 withdraw this opinion in a subsequent 
 essay in the 'Journal of Philology,' 1869, 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 V 
 
 No. 4, p. 228: "St. Paul, if I mistake 
 not, starts from the fact that the Roman 
 Church stood on Gentile ground, and 
 that very large and perhaps prepondera- 
 ting numbers of its members were 
 Gentiles. This is his justification for 
 writing to them, as the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles. It never once occurs to him 
 that he is intruding on the province of 
 others." 
 
 If the majority of the Roman Christ- 
 ians were, as we believe, of Gentile 
 origin, it may still be thought that they 
 had been subject for the most part to 
 Judaizing influences, and were strongly 
 prejudiced against St. Paul. " M. 
 Renan insists that the Roman brother- 
 hood must have been founded and built 
 up by emissaries from Palestine. But 
 why should the Christianity of Rome 
 be due to Jerusalem solely, and not also 
 to Antioch and Corinth and Ephesus, 
 with which cities communication must 
 have been even more frequent ? Why at 
 Rome alone should the Judaic element 
 be all-powerful and the Pauline insig- 
 nificant?" (Bp. Lightfoot, 'Journal of 
 Philology,' p. 289.) 
 
 There is in the whole Epistle only one 
 short reference to false teachers (xvi. 
 17-20), and in this, if the persons meant 
 were, as is assumed and that with great 
 probability, Judaizing adversaries of 
 St. Paul, we have a distinct proof, that 
 the teaching hitherto prevalent in the 
 community was not Judaistic but the 
 contrary, in the words " mark tJwn which 
 cause divisions and offences contrary to 
 the do(tri7te which ye have learned." In 
 our notes on the passage we follow the 
 usual supposition that it was written, like 
 the rest of the Epistle, before St. Pauls 
 imprisonment at Jiojne : but see the con- 
 cluding paragraphs of § 8. 
 
 Bleek has treated this point with great 
 clearness and moderation in his 'Intro- 
 duction to the N. T.,' i. 442 : " The 
 probability is that it (Christianity) was 
 not conveyed thither by any special or 
 prominent teachers or missionaries sent 
 for the purpose, but that residents in 
 the city, Jews and Gentiles, became 
 acquainted with it and were converted 
 elsewhere, and upon their return made 
 converts among their friends. This may 
 
 have been the case especially with 
 many Jews who either were driven from 
 Rome by the edict of Claudius, and 
 when this edict was forgotten or revoked, 
 returned again, or went to reside there 
 for the first time. They may have been 
 converted to Christianity partly by St. 
 Paul's preaching, or by that of his com- 
 panions or in some of the Churches 
 planted by him, and partly in other 
 places, e. g. in Jerusalem itself." 
 
 We know beyond doubt that differences 
 of belief and practice existed in Rome as 
 in other Churches. One class would not 
 eat flesh nor drink wine (xiv. 2, 21) lest 
 they should be defiled {v. 14), and also 
 observed certain days as more holy than 
 others {v. 5 ) ; while another class re- 
 garded all kinds of food, and all days, 
 alike. These were inclined to despise 
 the former as superstitious, the former to 
 condemn them as profane {vv. 3, 10), 
 Bp. Lightfoot thinks that the asceticism 
 here described may possibly be due to 
 Essene influences (' Colossians,' p. 169), 
 while Baur asserts that the characteristics 
 " are such as are found nowhere else but 
 with the Ebionites." The rigid obser- 
 vance of the Sabbath and other holy 
 days, and extreme simplicity in eating 
 and drinkmg, were common to both 
 Essenes and Ebionites. Baur confesses 
 that there is no express statement that 
 the Ebionites abstained from wine. 
 
 Of the Essenes Josephus (' Bell. Jud.' 
 ii. 8, 5) thus writes : " When they have 
 taken their seats quietly, the baker sets 
 loaves before them in order, and the 
 cook sets one dish of one kind of food 
 before each." The word " food " (eSecr/^a, 
 ' pulmentum ') does not exclude flesh 
 (Plato, 'Timaeus,' 73, a), and there is 
 no mention of abstinence from wine 
 either here, or as we believe in any 
 of the other notices of the Essenes by 
 Josephus (' Vita,' 2 ; ' Ant' xiii. 5, 9, 
 xviii. I, 5), or by Philo Judaeus (' Quod 
 omnis probus liber,' xii., xhi. ; Fragm. 
 apud Euseb. ' Praepar. Evang.' viii. 8). 
 
 There is however a description of the 
 Therapeutae, a Jewish sect whom Philo 
 distinguishes from the Essenes (' Vita 
 Contempl.' iv.), which combines all the 
 characteristic scruples mentioned by St. 
 Paul : " They cat nothing of a costly 
 
i8 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 character, but plain bread and a season- 
 ing of salt, which the more luxurious 
 of them do further season with hyssop : 
 and their drink is water from the 
 spring." 
 
 In another passage (ib. ix.) he says, 
 in describing their feasts, " wine is not 
 introduced, but only the clearest water ; 
 cold water for the generality, and hot 
 water for those old men who are accus- 
 tomed to a luxurious life. And the 
 table too bears nothing which has blood, 
 but there is placed upon it bread for 
 food and salt for seasoning, to which 
 also hyssop is sometimes added as an 
 extra sauce for the sake of those who are 
 delicate in their eating." 
 
 These Therapeutae were numerous in 
 Egypt, but were also met with in various 
 places, in Greece and in the country of 
 the Barbarians (ib. 'in.). 
 
 It is thus quite clear from contem- 
 porary evidence that ascetic practices, 
 such as St. Paul describes, were in his 
 time common among the religious Jews, 
 and not unlikely to be adopted by Jewish 
 Christians : while from the tone in which 
 St. Paul speaks of these brethren weak 
 in faith, we may safely infer that they, 
 /. e. the Jewish Christians, were a min- 
 ority both in numbers and influence, 
 whose conscientious scruples should be 
 treated with kindness and forbearance. 
 They did not put themselves forward 
 " in an aggressive anti-Pauline attitude : 
 they were men not of hostile, but only 
 of prejudiced minds, whose moral con- 
 sciousness lacked the vigour to regard 
 a peculiar asceticism as unessential" 
 (Meyer). 
 
 In the desire to abate the dissension be- 
 tween these two classes, we see a sufficient 
 motive for one portion of the Epistle 
 (xiv. — XV. 13), but no sufficient ground 
 for the great doctrinal argument which 
 precedes (i. 18 — xi.). In other words the 
 mai?! purpose oi \ht Epistle is neither a 
 polemic against Jewish Christians nor 
 an attempt to reconcile Jewish and 
 Gentile behevers, occasioned by the local 
 circumstances and special tendencies of 
 the Christian Community at Rome. 
 
 (b.) Another important point in re- 
 ference to the motive of the Epistle is 
 St. Paul's own position at this time with 
 
 regard to Rome and other Gentile 
 Churches. 
 
 His earnest desire to visit Rome 
 (i. 10-15, x^- 22-24) formed part of a 
 great plan of carrying the Ciospel into 
 the distant regions of the West. It is 
 acknowledged even by those who doubt 
 the authenticity of Rom. xv. that the 
 design here mentioned may well have 
 been entertained by the Apostle, and 
 that the mention of it is in fact an 
 argument for the genuineness of the 
 passage. There is no historical evidence 
 (unless it be the much disputed and 
 doubtful phrase, eVl to rep/xa Trj? Svaews 
 iX6u)v in the Epistle of Clement of 
 Rome, ' Cor.' v.) that St. Paul ever 
 visited Spain : and though it is not 
 at all improbable that he may have 
 entertained a purpose which he was 
 never able to accomplish, it is in the 
 highest degree incredible that a forger 
 should think of invenfing for him a 
 design which did not correspond with 
 any known event in his life. Compare 
 Baur (' Paulus,' p. 180), Lucht (p. 192) 
 Hilgenfeld ^p. 486). 
 
 In this design then we find one chief 
 cause of the Apostle's earnest desire 
 to visit Rome. His work in the East, 
 so far as it required his personal presence, 
 was accomplished : he had preached the 
 Gospel " from Jerusalem and round 
 about unto Illyricum." Jerusalem itself, 
 Damascus, Caesarea, Tarsus, " the regions 
 of Syria and Cilicia" (Acts ix. 19-30; 
 Gal. i. 21 ; ii. i, 2) are all naturally 
 included in the general phrase which 
 describes the extent of his early labours 
 in the East, '■'■ Jerusalem and roimd ahoutP 
 Quite recently he had paid a second 
 visit to Macedonia and " had gotie over 
 those parts " (Acts xx. 2), passing so far 
 to the West as to reach Illyricum, which 
 borders upon Macedonia (Paley's ' Horae 
 Paulinae,' Ch. ii. No. 4). 
 
 Never before had he been so near to 
 Rome, and now that his mind was full 
 of the great design of carrying the 
 Gospel beyond Rome itself into those 
 far regions of Western Europe, where 
 Christ was not yet named (xv. 20 ; 2 
 Cor. X. 15, 16), he had the strongest 
 motives for forming more intimate re- 
 lations with the Christians at Rome, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 19 
 
 motives quite independent of the internal 
 condition of their Community. His 
 keen eye could not but discern the vast 
 importance of securing a base of opera- 
 tions in the Capital of the Western 
 World. Hence in part his fervent desire 
 to visit Rome, hence also a motive for 
 writing this Epistle in order to secure at 
 once the sympathy and help of his 
 brethren there. We may admit with 
 Bleek (p. 445) that St. Paul " discerned 
 the great importance of the Church in 
 .such a centre, and of the tendencies 
 which it adopted, as influencing the 
 Church of Christ at large, and how 
 desirable it was that the Christians there 
 should not be disturbed and rent asunder 
 by internal disputes and party strifes." 
 It was natural that the Apostle, being 
 unable at once to visit Rome, should 
 gladly take an opportunity of sending by 
 Phoebe " a letter containing his Apostolic 
 instructions and exhortations' (Bleek). 
 The reality of this motive cannot be 
 doubted, though its importance may 
 be exaggerated : it accounts for St. Paul's 
 writing to Rome, though not for his 
 writing so remarkable an Epistle : we 
 cannot, with Schott, find here the key 
 to unlock the whole meaning and purpose 
 of the Epistle. 
 
 (c.) Another historical circumstance 
 mentioned in the Epistle is St. Paul's 
 intended journey to Jerusalem : when 
 this intention is first announced at 
 Ephesus (Acts xix. 21) it is connected 
 with the desire to visit Rome. What 
 then was the motive which urged the 
 Apostle, in spite of warnings and 
 prophecies and his own forebodings of 
 danger (Acts xx. 22, 23, 28; xxi. 4, 
 11-14), to persist in his resolution to go 
 up to Jerusalem? It was evidently the 
 desire to vindicate himself against the 
 calumnies of the Judaizing adversaries 
 who had so maliciously assailed his 
 character, denied his Apostolic authority, 
 and hindered his work in the Churches 
 of Corinth and Galatia. These adver- 
 saries were not Jewish Christians of the 
 ordinary type, much less were they the 
 authorised agents of the original Apostles : 
 they were the same bigoted and uncom- 
 promising partisans of the circumcision, 
 of whom we read at an earlier period 
 
 (Acts xi. 2, 3) that they contended with 
 Peter, " saying, T/iou wentest in to men 
 uncircumciscd, and didst eat with them" 
 And was there not cause for St. Paul to 
 fear that these bitter enemies would stir 
 up strife in Rome and try to frustrate 
 his labour in the West, as they had 
 already in the East ? This fear would be 
 most naturally suggested by the Apostle's 
 very recent experience at Corinth. 
 There he had won a hard victory over 
 those " overgreat Apostles " (2 Cor. xi. 
 5 ; xii. 11) who were nothing else than 
 '■^ false Apostles, deceitful workers, trans- 
 forming themselves into {the) Apostles of 
 Christ" (2 Cor. xi. 13) : their slanders 
 had reached the ears of the many 
 thousands of Jewish believers in Jeru- 
 salem : they might even raise a prejudice 
 against him in the minds of the true 
 Apostles, and of James and the elders of 
 the Church. His personal presence and 
 report of what " God had wrought 
 among the Gentiles by his ministry" 
 supported by the testimony of the 
 faithful brethren who accompanied him, 
 and by the substantial proof which they 
 carried with them of the goodwill of 
 the Gentile Churches towards the poor 
 Saints at Jerusalem, would remove the 
 unjust suspicions of Jewish converts 
 assembled from all parts for the feast at 
 Jerusalem, and win fresh confidence and 
 sympathy for the Apostle himself in 
 entering upon his new sphere of mis- 
 sionary work in Western Europe. If 
 such were the Apostle's motives for 
 undertaking the perilous journey to 
 Jerusalem, it can hardly be doubted that 
 this Epistle, written at the same time, 
 was due, in part at least, to the same 
 desire to repel the false accusations of 
 Judaizing opponents, to conciliate the 
 goodwill of Jewish Christians in general, 
 and to promote in Ronie and else- 
 where a closer union between Jewish 
 and Gentile believers. 
 
 {d.) But when we examine the record 
 of St. Paul's life at this period, we find 
 that his most dangerous and deadly 
 enemies were not Jewish Christians, nor 
 even Judaizing teachers, but unbelieving 
 feuis. 
 
 In the terrible catalogue of sufferings 
 written a few months before his Epistle 
 
 B 2 
 
20 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 to the Romans, he tells of perils by his 
 own coiintrytncn, as well as by Heathen 
 and false brethren ; he tells also how of 
 the Jews five times he had received 
 forty stripes save one (2 Cor. xi.). 
 If we turn to St. Luke's narrative we 
 find the Apostle in Ephesus sparing no 
 effort, shrinking from no danger, in 
 preaching to his brethrefi according to 
 the flesh and " persuading the things 
 concerning the kingdom of God." 
 Driven after three months from the 
 Synagogue in which, as Dr, Farrar in- 
 geniously conjectures, some of those five 
 scourgings had been patiently endured, 
 he still continued by the space of two 
 years preaching both to Jews and Greeks 
 the word of the Lord Jesus (Acts xix, 
 8-10). 
 
 Again, within a few weeks after 
 writing to the Romans, he reminds the 
 Ephesian elders at Miletus of tempta- 
 tions which, as they knew, had befallen 
 him " by the lying in wait of the Jews." 
 In Jerusalem itself the '^ bonds and 
 aWictions" which awaited him (xx. 23) 
 came, as had been foreseen, not from 
 Judaizing Christians but from fanatic 
 '■'' Jews which tuere of Asia''' (xxi. 11, 27). 
 
 It is evident that dissensions within 
 the Churches between Jewish and 
 Gentile Christians were but a faint re- 
 flection of the bitter and unceasing 
 enmity with which St. Paul was pursued 
 by the unbelieving Jews : and thus it is 
 in the great conflict between " the Jews' 
 religion " and the Gospel of Christ, that 
 we find the true cause and purpose of 
 that great doctrinal treatise (i. 18^ — ^xi.), 
 which forms the main subject of the 
 Epistle, well described by Baur as " the 
 relation of Judaism and Heathenism 
 to each other, and of both to Christ- 
 ianity." 
 
 If then we remember the distinction 
 formerly noticed between the occasion 
 of writing, and the main purpose of the 
 Epistle, the former may be referred 
 to the personal circumstances of the 
 Apostle, and his relation to the Christ- 
 ian Community at Rome ; while in 
 the local circumstances and special 
 tendencies of that community we may 
 discover both the occasion and purpose of 
 certain subordinate portions of the letter 
 
 (i. 1-16, xii. — XV -^ but as the main pur- 
 pose of the whole Epistle we can acknow- 
 ledge nothing less comprehensive than 
 the desire of the Apostle, at a momentous 
 crisis in his own life's work and in the 
 history of the whole Church of Christ, 
 to set forth a full and systematic state- 
 ment of those fundamental principles of 
 the Gospel, which render it the one true 
 religion for all the nations of the earth, 
 and meet especially those deepest wants 
 of human nature, which Judaism cauld 
 not satisfy, righteousness in the sight of 
 God, and deliverance from the power 
 of sin and death. 
 
 In chapters ix. — xi. we have no mere 
 historical appendix or corollary, but an 
 intensely earnest and practical applica- 
 tion of the principles previously dis- 
 cussed to the great religious difficulty of 
 the time, the rejection of the Gospel by 
 the mass of the Jewish nation, and the 
 acceptance of the Gentiles in their place 
 as the chosen people of God. 
 
 § 8. Integrity of the Epistle. 
 
 Under this head we have to con- 
 sider two questions which depend in 
 part on the same evidence : Is the 
 doxology (xvi. 25-27) genuine? Do 
 chapters xv. and xvi. belong wholly, 
 or in part, or not at all to this Epistle ? 
 
 The origin and nature of these 
 questions will be best explained, if we 
 begin with the testimony of the early 
 fathers. 
 
 I. Tertullian, writing A.D. 207-210 
 against Marcion's '■'•Antitheses" or Con- 
 tradictions between the Old and New 
 Testaments, says {adv. Marc. v. 13) : 
 " What great gaps Marcion made especi- 
 ally in this Epistle (to the Romans) by 
 expunging whatever he would, will be 
 clear from the unmutilated text of our 
 own copy. Some passages however, 
 which ought according to his plan to 
 have been expunged, he overlooked : 
 and it is enough for my purpose to 
 accept these as instances of his negli- 
 gence and blindness." 
 
 In his subsequent argument Ter- 
 tullian quotes no passage from chapters 
 XV. — xvi., and refers to xiv. 10-13 as 
 being at the close of the Epistle ("in 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 21 
 
 clausula ") : but as he uses only such 
 passages as Marcion had retained, this 
 only tends to prove that the last chapters 
 were wanting, not in his own copy, but 
 in Marcion's. 
 
 In the treatise on Baptism, ch. xvii., 
 Tertullian refers to the 'Acts of Paul 
 and Thecla ' : now in that fiction there 
 is frequent mention of a certain Try- 
 phaena, who though living at Antioch in 
 Syria is evidently connected with Rome, 
 being called the kinswoman of Cassar. 
 There can be little doubt that this name 
 Tryphaena has been taken, like other 
 names in the same work, Onesiphorus, 
 Demas, and Hermogenes, from St. Paul's 
 Epistles. Hence it follows that Rom. 
 xvi. was known, if not to Tertullian 
 himself, at least to an earlier writer 
 whom he quotes. 
 
 It must however be admitted that in 
 Tertullian's other works no clear re- 
 ference to these chapters has been 
 found, though all the other chapters are 
 frequently quoted. 
 
 The case is the same with Iren^us 
 and Cyprian, except that Cyprian fails 
 also to quote from Rom. iv. 
 
 But this argument from silence is 
 worthless, as may be easily shown from 
 the parallel case of i Cor. xvi. 
 
 Cyprian quotes from every other 
 chapter, about lor times in all; Irenaeus 
 quotes every other chapter except 
 xiv., about seventy-seven times in 
 all : yet neither Irenaeus nor Cyprian 
 appears to have ever quoted i Cor. xvi. 
 Tertullian, in his work against Marcion, 
 quotes every other chapter of i Cor., 
 129 times in all, yet never refers to ch. 
 xvi. : in his other works there are more 
 than 300 quotations from the Epistle, 
 including every chapter except xvi., from 
 which there is possibly one quotation, 
 though we have failed to verify Tischen- 
 dorfs reference 'Pudicitia/ 14. 
 
 When therefore Lucht concludes from 
 this silence that it is possible that 
 Tertullian, Cyprian, and Irenaeus had no 
 knowledge of Rom. xv., xvi., we may 
 reply, It is ^o^-s^j possible and neither 
 more nor less probable, as far as this 
 silence is concerned, that the same 
 fathers had no knowledge of i Cor. xvi. 
 
 A more i>robable explanation is that 
 
 Irenaeus and Cyprian, using only such 
 passages as suited their own immediate 
 purpose, like Tertullian in his treatise 
 against Marcion, found no occasion to 
 refer to Rom. xv., xvi. In fact these 
 chapters, like i Cor. xvi., are in great 
 measure made up of personal matters 
 interesting chiefly to the Apostle and 
 his immediate correspondents at Rome. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria quotes 
 passages from both chapters frequently, 
 and describes them as belonging to the 
 Epistle to the Romans, without the least 
 apparent consciousness that this could 
 possibly be doubted. 
 
 Origen. a most important though 
 much disputed testimony to the genuine- 
 ness of these chapters is found in 
 Origen's Commentary upon the Epistle 
 (' Opera,' tom. vii. p. 453, Lommatzsch; 
 tom. iv. p. 687, ed, Ben.). After quoting 
 the Doxology (xvi. 25-27) in its usual 
 place at the end of the Epistle, Origen 
 proceeds : 
 
 " Marcion, who tampered with the 
 writings of the Evangelists and 
 Apostles, entirely took away this para- 
 graph ; and not this only, but also from 
 that place where it is written. Whatso- 
 ever is not of faith is siji (xiv. 23), right 
 on to the end, he cut all away (cuncta 
 dissecuit). But in othei copies, that is, 
 in those which have not been corrupted 
 by Marcion, we find this very paragraph 
 differently placed. For in some manu- 
 scripts after the passage above mentioned. 
 Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, there 
 follows in immediate connexion (statim 
 cohaerens), Notv imto hint that is of 
 potuer to stablish you: but other manu- 
 scripts have it at the end, as it is now 
 placed." 
 
 This passage from Origen does not 
 prove, as some have inferred, that 
 Marcion regarded the Doxology in 
 particular as spurious, nor that he ap- 
 pealed to earlier MSS. as omitting it, 
 nor that Origen found it omitted in any 
 other MSS. besides those which had 
 been mutilated by Marcion. 
 
 It does prove that Origen knew of 
 copies corrupted by Marcion, which 
 omitted all after the last verse of ch. xiv. 
 
 It implies that, as far as Origen knew, 
 (Lucht, p. 39) no other WiiSi. omitted the 
 
22 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Doxology, but some placed it between 
 xiv. and xv. 
 
 Thus we have evidence of a diversity 
 of position before Origen's time, and 
 regarded by him as independent of 
 Marcion's mutilated copies. But we 
 have no evidence of oviission before 
 Marcion, who was at Rome propagating 
 his views about a.d. 138-140. He 
 probably disliked St. Paul's statements 
 concerning the use of the Old Testament 
 in XV. 4, 8, and possibly may have found 
 an existing diversity of position to aftbrd 
 a pretext for his omission of xv., xvi. 
 
 We may further observe that when 
 Marcion is said to have expunged and 
 cut away (' abstulit,' ' dissecuit ') the 
 two chapters and the Doxology, it is 
 clearly implied that these were genuine 
 portions of St. Paul's Epistle omitted first 
 by Marcion. 
 
 That this was the opinion of Origen 
 himself, not merely of his translator 
 Rufinus, is admitted and proved by 
 Lucht himself (p. 36) : and Origen's 
 judgment may well be preferred to 
 Lucht's baseless conjecture (adopted 
 from Baur, ' Paulus,' p. 350) that 
 Marcion may have omitted the two 
 chapters because they were not written 
 by St. Paul, but added by a forger 
 (Lucht, p. 41). 
 
 II. From the testimony of the early 
 fathers we pass to that of the existing 
 MSS. 
 
 {a) Chapters xv., xvi. are not omitted 
 in any known MS. 
 
 {b) The Doxology (xvi. 25-27) is 
 variously placed, repeated, or omitted. 
 
 (i) It is placed at the end of xvi., and 
 only there, in N, B, C, D, E, f, Vulg., 
 Syriac (Schaaf), Memph., Aeth., and the 
 Latin fathers. The cursive MS. 66 after 
 the d/x^v oi V. 24 puts TiXos, to mark 
 the end of the Epistle, but then adds 
 the Doxology, and has in the margin 
 this note : " In the ancient copies the 
 end of the Epistle is here (/. e. after 
 the Apostolic benediction, v. 24), but the 
 rest (z. e. the Doxology) is found at the 
 end of the 14th chapter." 
 
 (2) It is found at the end of xiv., and 
 there only, in L, most cursives, the 
 Greek lectionaries, Syr. (Harclean), and 
 Greek Commentators, except Oi igen. 
 
 (3) It is found in both places in A, P, 
 17, Arm. 
 
 (4) It is omitted in both places in 
 F, G ; but in F a blank space is left in the 
 Greek after xvi. 24, and the correspond- 
 ing space in the Latin (f) is occupied by 
 the Doxology ; while in G a blank 
 space is left in the Greek, and conse- 
 quently in the interlinear Latin, between 
 xiv. and xv. 
 
 (e) In many manuscripts of the Latin 
 Bible, especially codex Amiatinus, and 
 Fuldensis, both of the 6th century, there 
 is a division into sections (capitulatio) 
 marked by numbers in the text, and a 
 prefixed table of contents with corre- 
 sponding numbers, in which the subject 
 of each section is briefly described. 
 
 The 50th section in the Codex Amia- 
 tinus " On the peril of one who grieves 
 his brother by his meat," corresponds 
 with xiv. 15-23 : But the next and last 
 section, *' On the mystery of the Lord 
 kept secret before His passion, but after 
 His passion revealed," answers to 
 nothing else in the remainder of the 
 Epistle except the Doxology. It is 
 therefore a natural conclusion that this 
 capitulation was first adapted to a Latin 
 MS. in which the Doxology was placed 
 immediately after xiv. 23 and xv., xvi. 
 omitted. On these capitulations see Bp. 
 Lightfoot, 'Journal of Philology,' 187 1, 
 No. 6, pp. 196-203. 
 
 (d) In one MS. (G) all mention of 
 Rome in the Epistle is wanting. 
 
 In i. 7 for Tois ovatv iv 'Pw/^jy dyaTTT^- 
 Tots ®eov, we find in G, rots ovcnv iv dyaTrrf 
 ®eov, the Latin (g) corresponding. 
 
 In i. 15 the words tois iv 'Pco/xj; are 
 omitted in G and g. 
 
 One cursive manuscript (47) has a 
 marginal note that some one, apparently 
 an ancient commentator, " makes no 
 mention of the words iv 'FwfJirj either in 
 the interpretation or in the text." 
 
 In this evidence " the statement of 
 Origen respecting Marcion (confirmed 
 by the incidental expression of Ter- 
 tuUian), the absence of quotations in 
 several early fathers, and the capitula- 
 tion (or capitulations) of the Latin 
 Bibles," Bp. Lightfoot writes, "we have 
 testimony various, cumulative, and (as it 
 seems to me) irresistible, to the existence 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 23 
 
 of shorter copies of the Epistle, contain- 
 ing only fourteen chapters with or without 
 the doxology, in early times." 
 
 " The theory, by which I sought to 
 combine and explain these facts, was 
 this ; that St. Paul at a later period of 
 his life re-issued the Epistle in a shorter 
 form with a view to general circulation, 
 omitting the last two chapters, oblitera- 
 ting the mention of Rome in the first 
 chapter, and adding the Doxology, which 
 was no part of the original Epistle " 
 ('Journal of Ph.' 1871, No. 6, p. 203). 
 
 The theory was subjected to a friendly 
 but keen and searching criticism by Pro- 
 fessor Hort ('Journal of Ph.' 1870, No. 5), 
 and defended in the following number 
 by Bp. Lightfoot. 
 
 It is almost needless to say that the 
 views of both writers are set forth with 
 consummate skill, and the three papers 
 are of great and permanent value to every 
 student of the Epistle. 
 
 Professor Hort tries to prove, but as 
 we venture to think unsuccessfully, that 
 Marcion (as represented by Origen in 
 the original reading of his comment) 
 omitted only the Doxology, and not the 
 two whole chapters : he attaches no 
 great importance to the absence of quo- 
 tations in TertuUian, Irenasus, and 
 Cyprian : and thinks that the Doxology 
 may have been transferred from the end 
 of the Epistle to the position which it 
 now holds in some Greek MSS., after 
 xiv. 23, because chapters xv., xvi. were 
 not much used in the Church lessons, 
 " and yet some Church, for instance that 
 of Alexandria, may have been glad to 
 rescue the striking Doxology at the end 
 for congregational use by adding it to 
 some neighbouring lesson . . . Scribes ac- 
 customed to hear it in that connexion 
 in the public lessons would half mechani- 
 cally introduce it into the text of St, 
 Paul (/. e. after xiv. 23) . . . Then in the 
 course of time it would be seen that St. 
 Paul was not likely to have written the 
 Doxology twice over in the same epistle, 
 and it would be struck out in one place 
 or the other" (p. 72). 
 
 This alternative hypothesis is rejected 
 by Bp. Lightfoot as " devoid alike of 
 evidence and probability." He main- 
 tains that the capitulation of the codex 
 
 Amiatinus has no trace of being intended 
 for lectionary use (p. 202), that it was 
 framed originally for a short copy of the 
 Old Latin, yet maintained its ground as 
 a common mode of dividing the Epistle, 
 until it was at length superseded by the 
 present division into sixteen chapters in 
 the latter half of the 13th century." 
 
 Bp. Lightfoot upholds his theory 
 simply as " the most probable explana- 
 tion of the facts, until a better is sug- 
 gested " (p. 194): and it is certainly 
 less difficult to suppose that St. Paul 
 himself at a later period of his life 
 adapted the letter in a shortened form 
 to general circulation (p. 214), than to 
 accept M. Renan's complicated theory 
 of four or five original editions addressed 
 to different Churches, all at last brought 
 together and compounded into our 
 present Epistle. 
 
 But even this hypothesis of a shorter 
 recension issued by the Apostle himself, 
 put forth at first by Riickert and since 
 so ably advocated by Bp. Lightfoot, seems 
 to involve some serious difficulties. 
 
 (i) The capitulations are supposed to 
 have been formed originally from a Latin 
 copy of the Epistle ending with ch. xiv. : 
 yet no other trace whatever of such an 
 abbreviated Latin codex now exists. 
 
 (2) If the abbreviated recension were 
 made by St. Paul himself, and the 
 Doxology added to it, and this at Rome, 
 as Bp. Lightfoot suggests (p. 214), it is 
 strange and almost unaccountable that 
 no copy of this genuine abbreviated re- 
 cension has been preserved, and that no 
 known Latin codex contains the slightest 
 trace of the position of the Doxology 
 after xiv. 23. The blank space in the 
 Latin, corresponding to that in the 
 Greek of G proves nothing, as the Latin 
 is interlinear. 
 
 (3) The assumption that the Doxology 
 was originally placed after ch. xiv., and 
 thence transferred to the end of the 
 Epistle, is opposed to the evidence of 
 the primary Uncials, x, B, C, of 
 Origen's express statement concerning 
 Marcion, of all Latin MSS., and of the 
 Latin fathers ; these all agree in placing 
 the Doxology at the end of the Epistle, 
 and there only. 
 
 (4) When St. Paul is represented as 
 
24 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 converting his original Epistle to a 
 new purpose by "omitting rhe last two 
 chapters, obliterating the mention of 
 Rome in the first chapter, and adding 
 the Doxology," the process seems hardly 
 in keeping with the truthful simplicity 
 of the Apostle's character. There is 
 truth in what Meyer says on this point : 
 " Riickert's conjecture, that Paul himself 
 may have caused copies without the local 
 address to be sent to other Churches, 
 assumes a mechanical arrangement in 
 Apostolic authorship, of which there is 
 elsewhere no trace, and which seems 
 even opposed by Col. iv. i6." 
 
 (5) Bp. Lightfoot suggests (p. 213) 
 that Marcion, who is known to have 
 resided for many years in Rome, may 
 have fallen in with a copy of the short 
 Recension, and welcomed it gladly. 
 
 When we take into consideration 
 Origen's express statement that Marcion 
 himself expunged and cut away the last 
 tivo chapters, it seems much more 
 probable that the incomplete documents, 
 from which the Capitulations were 
 framed, were nothing else than copies 
 of Marcion's own mutilated text, with 
 the Doxology added. A mutilated 
 Recension, known to be the work of an 
 arch-heretic, was much more likely to 
 have disappeared altogether, than an 
 abbreviated Recension known as the 
 genuine work of St. Paul himself. 
 
 (6) If, as Origen states, Marcion 
 mutilated the Epistle by cutting off 
 chapters xv., xvi. entirely, he would have 
 a motive for removing Iv 'Pi^/jLy also in 
 i. 7, 15 : for a letter addressed by St. 
 Paul to the Christians at Rome, in 
 whom he was so deeply interested, could 
 not possibly end so abruptly as at 
 xiv. 23, without a single allusion to his 
 own personal state or theirs, without a 
 single greeting, without even his usual 
 Apostohc Benediction. Marcion there- 
 fore is much more likely than St. Paul 
 to have obliterated the mention of Rome 
 in the ist chapter. 
 
 Another possible explanation is sug- 
 gested by Meyer, that " perhaps some 
 Church, which received a copy of the 
 Epistle from the Romans for public 
 reading, may for their own particular 
 Church-use have deleted the extraneous 
 
 designation of place, and thus individual 
 codices may have passed into circulation 
 without it." Volkmar adopts a similar 
 explanation (p. 74). 
 
 But on this supposition we should 
 expect to find some of the Lectionaries 
 omitting the words, whereas they all, 
 apparently, contain them. 
 
 On the whole we cannot but admit 
 the force of Lucht's conclusion (pp. 
 65, fi) that if the Doxology was written 
 by St. Paul himself, its original place 
 must have been at the end of the 
 Epistle, and not after xiv. 23. 
 
 (e) The Benedictions. According to 
 the received Text there are three con- 
 cluding formulae, the Apostolic Benedic- 
 tion at xvi. 20 (17 xa.pi<i k.'t. a.), the same 
 Benediction repeated at xvi. 24, and the 
 Doxology. 
 
 The Benediction at xvi. 20 is un- 
 doubtedly genuine, being omitted only 
 in those MSS. (D F G) which also omit 
 the Doxology at the end, and leave the 
 Benediction at xvi. 24 as the conclusion 
 of the Epistle, the motive of these 
 changes evidently being to reduce the 
 Epistle to the accustomed form. 
 
 The Benediction at xvi. 24 is omitted 
 in the chief uncials (n A B C), in Amiat. 
 Fuld. and other MSS. of the Vulgate, in 
 the Coptic and Aethiopic Versions, and 
 in Origen. 
 
 It is found in this place in D, F, G, L, 
 37, 47, the Vulgate (Demid. Tol. and 
 other codices), the Syriac (Harclean), 
 and the Gothic, and in most of the 
 Greek Commentators. It is put after the 
 Doxology in P, 17, Syriac (Schaai), Arm. 
 Aeth. 
 
 Upon this evidence the Benediction 
 at xvi. 24 is rejected by Lachmann, 
 Tregelles, and in his last edition (8) by 
 Tischendorf. Bp. Lightfoot, and Pro- 
 fessor Hort reject it, but it is retained 
 by Meyer, Fritzsche, Lange, Hofmann, 
 Lucht (p. 82), Hilgenfeld (' Einleit.' p. 
 326), Reuss, Volkmar, as well as by 
 older interpreters generally. The ques- 
 tion therefore of its genuineness must be 
 regarded as still under discussion. 
 
 Our own belief is that the Benediction 
 is genuine in both places, and that in 
 V, 20 it forms the conclusion of a later 
 letter to the Church at Rome, of which 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 25 
 
 the fragment vv. 3-20 became incorpo- 
 rated with Romans. We thus account 
 at once for the seeming repetition of the 
 Benediction at v. 24, and also see a 
 motive for its omission there in so many- 
 good MSS, there being no otlier example 
 of such repetition. 
 
 III. Internal Evidence. 
 
 (a.) The Doxology. Objections to 
 the genuineness of the Doxology drawn 
 from its special character are directed 
 either against its form, its phraseology, 
 or its ideas. 
 
 (i) The Form. It is alleged that the be- 
 ginning and the end (t(S 8e Swafjievw v/aSs 
 
 tTTrjpt^ai .... fjiovd) crocfiiu ®€<2 8ta 'Irjcrov 
 XptcTToC, w y] Sofa k. t. A.) show that 
 there is a mixture of two different forms 
 of Doxology. The whole difficulty lies 
 in the superfluous Relative (w), and its 
 position. This relative is omitted in 
 the Vatican Codex and two cursives 
 (33, 72), in f, the Latin of F, in Schaafs 
 Syriac, and by Origen (or Rufinus) in 
 his commentary on the passage. Dr. 
 Hort ('Journal of Philol.' No. 5, p. 57) 
 thinks that " w is probably an intrusion, 
 notwithstanding the presumption in 
 favour of an irregular construction." 
 Godet thinks that when St. Paul began 
 the sentence, he did not mean it to end 
 thus — "to him be glory " — but with 
 some such thought as — " to him I com- 
 mend you " (cTvvLcrTrjfjiL vfjuas, Glocklcr). 
 
 He adds " We give glory to him who 
 Aas done the work ; but in regard to him 
 who is able to do it, we look to him to do 
 it, we claim his help, we express our 
 confidence in him and in his power." 
 But this reasoning is at once refuted by 
 a glance at Eph. iii. 20, tw Se Swajxevta 
 
 .... avTw Tj Sofa K. T. X. 
 
 Meyer joins 8ta 'Irjo-oC Xpta-Tov with 
 o-o</)(3, •' God who through Jesus Christ 
 has shown himself the only wise," the 
 object of this harsh connexion being to 
 avoid the supposed necessity of referring 
 & to the person last named, Jesus 
 Christ, and so ascribing the glory to 
 Him. This necessity is neither more 
 nor less than in Heb. xiii. 21; i Pet. iv. 
 II, where see the notes. 
 
 Ewald translates as if the order were 
 
 w ha. 'I. X. Tj Zo^a, and supposes this 
 natural order to have been changed for 
 the sake of throwing an emphasis on 
 " through Jesus Christ." 
 
 We can accept his translation as 
 rightly expressing what St. Paul meant, 
 but not his explanation of the unusual 
 order, which is the main difficulty. 
 
 Upon the whole we are disposed to 
 agree with Dr. Hort that " <S is probably 
 an intrusion," though of a very early 
 date. We must admit that with so great 
 a preponderance of external authority <5 
 ought to be retained in the text now, 
 whatever may have been its origin. 
 But on the other hand the authorities 
 for the omission are varied and of 
 considerable value : while the intrusion 
 might very easily have been caused by 
 the presence of <3 in the parallel passages 
 Gal. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. iv. 18 ; Heb. xiii. 21 ; 
 I Pet. iv. II. Riickert rejects w, and 
 Reiche, in his Critical Commentary, con- 
 cludes that the writer of the Doxology 
 borrowed it from Heb. xiii. 21 or Jude 25. 
 
 The objection that St. Paul does not 
 e?td\{is, Epistles with a Doxology comes 
 with little force from those who, like 
 Baur and Lucht, count only three 
 Epistles, besides Romans, to be genuine. 
 
 That the last clause of the Doxology 
 is characteristic of St. Paul is seen in its 
 close resemblance to xi. 36 ; Gal. i. 5 ; 
 and its difference from i Pet. iv. 11; 
 
 v. II. 
 
 When Lucht urges that Doxologies 
 forming long and complete sentences 
 are not found in St. Paul's Epistles, but 
 only in Eph. iii. 20, 21; Phil. iv. 20; 
 I Tim. i. 17 ; 2 Pet. iii. 18 ; Jude 24, 
 25 ; we can only reply that the three 
 Epistles first named are to us St. Paul's, 
 and as such they help by their many 
 points of resemblance to the Doxology 
 in Romans to confirm its genuineness. 
 
 Other objections to the length of the 
 Doxology, to its numerous intermediate 
 clauses, and to the mixture of strong emo- 
 tion with profound doctrinal statements, 
 are refuted by a due appreciation of the 
 peculiar character of the Epistle. " The 
 whole Epistle could hardly have a fitter 
 close than a Doxology embodying the 
 faith from which its central chapters 
 proceed " (Hort, p. 56). 
 
26 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 " The leading ideas contained in the 
 whole Epistle, as they had already 
 found in the introduction (i, 1-7) their 
 preluding key-note, and again in xi. ^^ 
 ff., their preliminary doxological expres- 
 sion, now further receive, in the fullest 
 unison of inspired piety, their concen- 
 trated outburst for the true final conse- 
 cration of the whole " (Meyer), 
 
 (2) Diction. Lucht acknowledges that 
 every single expression in the Doxology 
 (except aecnyrjfjiei'ov) may be found in 
 St, Paul's genuine Epistles, by which he 
 means Romans, Corinthians, and Gala- 
 tians. 
 
 The Passive a-iyaa-Bai is found no- 
 where else in the N. T, or LXX : but 
 St. Paul's use of a-ea-tyrjixivov is fully 
 justified by such passages as Eurip. 
 ' Iphigenia in Tauris,' 1076, -n-avra o-Lyrj- 
 6i](TeTaL, Pindar, 01. ix, 156, o-eo-iya/AcVov 
 ov (TKaiorepov XPVy-' eKacrrov, and many 
 others. 
 
 The objection that the several words 
 and phrases of the Doxology, though 
 found in the four great Epistles, are there 
 used only in other meanings or con- 
 nexions, will for most readers be suffi- 
 ciently answered by Lucht's further 
 objection, that the Doxology in all these 
 points agrees with what he calls non- 
 Pauline writings, the Epistles to the 
 Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy, and 
 Titus, 
 
 These points of agreement are indi- 
 cated in our foot-notes : and it is only 
 necessary to add that the expression 
 "everlasting God" (atwi/ios ©eos), to 
 which Lucht objects, is fully justified 
 by the usage of the LXX not only in 
 Job xxxiii, 12, aiwvtos yap ianv 6 iTrdvio 
 /SpoTwi/, but also in the very striking 
 passage Gen. xxi. 33, iinKaXea-aTO eTrl 
 TO ovofia Kiiptov, ©COS atojvios. Here 
 " Jehovah is called the everlasting God 
 as the eternally true, with respect to the 
 eternal covenant which He established 
 with Abraham xvii. 7 " (Keil & De- 
 litzsch). So remarkable a title must have 
 been familiar to St. Paul, and its use here 
 in reference to the same eternal covenant 
 is so appropriate that the supposed 
 objection is really a strong argument 
 for St. Paul's authorship, 
 
 (3) Ideas. — Lucht's attempt to prove 
 
 that the Doxology has a Gnostic ten- 
 dency, and must therefore be of a post- 
 Apostolic date, is rightly dismissed by 
 Meyer as based only upon misinterpreta- 
 tion and a pre-supposition that all except 
 the four greater Epistles of St. Paul are 
 spurious. 
 
 (b.) Chapters XV. ,xvi. The objections 
 brought by Baur, and the extrem.e par- 
 tisans of his School, against the genuine- 
 ness of these two whole chapters can 
 have little weight except for those who 
 accept his general theory of the purpose 
 of the Epistle, which we have already 
 examined in § 7 and found untenable. 
 Assuming the preponderance at Rome 
 of a Judaizing party to whom the earlier 
 portion of the Epistle would have been 
 distasteful, Baur sees in the last two 
 chapters the work of a later " Paulinist 
 writing in the spirit of the Acts of- the 
 Apostles, seeking to soothe the Judaists, 
 and to promote the cause of unity, and 
 therefore tempering the keen anti-Judaism 
 of Paul with a milder and more concili- 
 atory conclusion to his Epistle" (' Paulus,' 
 i, p, 365, 
 
 Lucht, less bold than Baur, does not 
 venture to treat the two chapters as 
 wholly spurious : admitting that the 
 original Epistle could not have ended at 
 xiv, 23, he thinks that portions of the 
 genuine conclusion are still to be found 
 in chapters xv, and xvi. His theory 
 is that the Roman clergy, fearing lest 
 offence might be given by the Apostle's 
 treatment of ascetic scruples as " the 
 infirmities of the weak'''' (xv, i.), withheld 
 the conclusion of the letter from public 
 use, and laid it up in their archives to- 
 gether with a letter to the Ephesians 
 which by mistake had been brought to 
 Rome ; and that these genuine Pauline 
 materials were worked up by a later 
 writer into the present form of the last 
 two chapters. 
 
 According to Volkmar (pp, 129-132) 
 the latter part of the genuine letter was 
 either lost or purposely suppressed, and 
 in the 2nd Century two attempts were 
 made to supply a fitting conclusion to 
 xiv. 23 : in the Eastern Church the 
 Doxology was added (xvi, 25-27), in the 
 Western Church the greater part of the 
 last two chapters, namely xv. 1-32, xvi. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 27 
 
 3-16, and 17-20. Afterwards both ad- 
 ditions were combined in various ways, 
 and under this " Cathohc conglomerate" 
 of concihatory matter lay the genuine 
 conclusion long hidden, yet accurately 
 preserved in two passages xv. 33 — xvi. 2, 
 and xvi. 21-24. 
 
 To all these arbitrary hypotheses we 
 may apply the remark of Hilgenfeld 
 (' Einleitung,' p. 323): "What is here 
 regarded as un-Pauline only shews, ac- 
 cording to my conviction, that since 
 Marcion's time there has been a one- 
 sided picture of St. Paul, to which some 
 still desire to make the true Paul cor- 
 respond." Compare in this Commentary 
 the Introduction to i Peter, § 3. 
 
 As regards the xvth Chapter we may 
 confidently say that the result of modern 
 criticism has been to prove beyond 
 reasonable doubt that it is both the 
 genuine work of St. Paul and an original 
 portion of the Roman Epistle. " It is 
 undeniable that xv. 1-13 belongs to xiv. 
 and that xv. 14-33 forms the conclusion 
 of the Epistle " (De Wette, ' Kurze Er- 
 klarung,'p. 204). Pfleiderer (' Paulinism,' 
 ii. 41, note) expressly maintains with 
 Hilgenfeld, "in spite of Baur, Lucht, and 
 Lipsius," that the chapter is genuine. 
 The opposite opinion has now few ad- 
 vocates even in Germany. 
 
 In regard to Chapter xvi. the case is 
 rather different. According to the con- 
 jecture of Schulz, adopted by Ewald, 
 Renan, Reuss, Farrar and others, the 
 greater part of the chapter belonged to 
 a genuine letter of St. Paul addressed, 
 not to Rome, but to Ephesus. 
 
 In considering this theory it will be 
 convenient to examine each portion of 
 the chapter separately. 
 
 vv. I, 2. The Commendatioti of Fhosbe. 
 
 It is objected that St. Paul could not 
 have written this commendation of Phoebe 
 to a distant Church, because he had 
 shortly before expressed a disparaging 
 opinion of commendatory letters (2 Cor. 
 iii. i). But if the Apostle in vindicating 
 his authority asserts that he has no need 
 of " epistles of cotJimendation" it by no 
 means follows that he thought them un- 
 necessary for all persons. A woman 
 
 undertaking a journey to a distant city 
 might well need to be commended to 
 the care of the Christian community, 
 especially if she was (as is generally 
 supposed) the bearer of the Apostle's 
 own Epistle: compare the commendation 
 of Timothy in i Cor. xvi. 10, 11. 
 
 Another objection is brought against 
 the description of Phoebe as being "<3! 
 servant {^L6.Kovo<i) of the church which is 
 at Cenchreae," on the ground that the 
 office of "deaconess" was of later origin. 
 The objection would have had some 
 force if the title (8taKdi/tcra-tt), which was 
 of later origin, had been used. We read 
 in I Cor. xvi. 15 that the household of 
 Stephanas had devoted themselves to the 
 ministry of the saints (eVa^av eavroi^s cts 
 StttKovtav Tols dytirns) : and such self-dedi- 
 cation to a special work, though quite 
 consistent with a formal d.esignation to 
 the office, would even without it have 
 been sufficient to justify the application 
 of the general term 8ta/<ovos as descriptive 
 of Phoebe in her work at Cenchreae. 
 See our note on the passage. 
 
 In whatever way Phcebe had been " a 
 succourer (Trpoo-Tarts) of many," and of 
 St. Paul himself also, there is nothing in 
 such service inconsistent with his fre- 
 quent assertions that he had not accepted 
 any maintenance from the Churches of 
 Achaia, for these assertions are all of 
 an earlier date (i Cor. ix. 15-18; 2 Cor. 
 xi. 7-12 ; xii. 13-18). 
 
 For the opinion that this commendation 
 was addressed to the Church of Ephesus, 
 not to Rome, we can discover no reason 
 at all : the suggestion that from Cen- 
 chreae she would be sailing towards 
 Ephesus and away from Rome is suf- 
 ficiently answered by saying that she may 
 have been sailing not from Cenchreae, 
 but from Lechaeum, the port on the 
 Corinthian Gulf, and in that case would 
 pass through Corinth on her way. Legal 
 business would be more likely to take 
 her to Rome than to any other city. 
 
 vv. 3—5 . Salutation sent to Aqidla and 
 Priscilla. 
 
 We learn from Acts xviii. i, 2 that 
 these- persons being Jews of Pontus 
 were driven from Rome by the edict of 
 
28 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Claudius (a.d. 52) ; they were joined by 
 St. Paul at Corinth, and thence sailed 
 with him to Ephesus in the spring of the 
 year 54, where they remained (Acts xviii. 
 19), and established "a; church in their 
 house'''' (i Cor. xvi. 19). From Ephesus 
 they sent a salutation to Corinth in St. 
 Paul's I St Epistle about April a.d. 57. 
 Ten or twelve months later St. Paul, ac- 
 cording to Rom. xvi. 3, sends a saluta- 
 tion to them " and to the church that is 
 in their house" at Rome. In answer to 
 M. Renan's objection that this would 
 assign to them " too nomadic a life," 
 Bp. Lightfoot asks with good reason, 
 *' Is there any real difficulty in supposing 
 that they returned to Rome in this in- 
 terval of a year more or less, and that 
 St. Paul should have been made ac- 
 quainted with their return, seeing that 
 his own travels meanwhile had lain 
 mainly on the route between Ephesus 
 and Rome" ('Journal of Philology,' 1869, 
 p. 276). In answer to the further ob- 
 jection that Aquila and Priscilla appear 
 again at Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 19) the 
 Bishop asks with equally good reason, 
 *' Is it at all improbable that after an 
 interval of nearly ten (eight ?) years they 
 should again revisit this important city ? 
 They were wanderers not only by the 
 exigencies of their trade, but also by the 
 obligations of their missionary work " 
 CJ. of Phil.' p. 277). 
 
 So far as the internal character of the 
 passage is concerned it might have been 
 addressed either to the Church of Ephesus 
 or to Rome : in favour of the latter 
 destination a prima facie presumption 
 is raised by its appearance in the Epistle 
 to the Romans. It contains no indica- 
 tion of the time at which it was written. 
 
 V. 5 b. It does not follow from the 
 description of Epaenetus as ^'' the first- 
 fruits of Asia unto Christ'''' that this 
 greeting was sent to him in Asia, i.e. in 
 Ephesus. Being named in immediate 
 connexion with Aquila and Priscilla it is 
 very probable that he, like Apollos, had 
 been instructed by them and had at- 
 tached himself to their company, whether 
 at Ephesus or at Rome. 
 
 Of the 22 other persons named in vv. 
 6-15 not one can be shewn to have been 
 at Ephesus, but it is assumed that only 
 
 at Ephesus could St. Paul have had so 
 many friends as are here saluted. Against 
 this assumption we have to set several 
 unquestionable facts. 
 
 (i) " Urbanus, Rufus, AmpHatus, 
 Julia and Junia are specifically Roman 
 names" (Lucht, p. 137). 
 
 (2) Besides the first four of these names 
 ten others, Stachys, Apelles, Tryphaena, 
 Tryphosa, Hermes, Hermas, Patrobas (or 
 Patrobius), Philologus, Julia, Nereus, are 
 found in the sepulchral inscriptions on 
 the Appian way as the names of persons 
 connected with " Caesar's household " 
 (Phil. iv. 22) and contemporary with St 
 Paul. Bp. Lightfoot in his most inter- 
 esting essay on the passage has pointed 
 out that while some of these names are 
 too common to afford any safe ground for 
 identifying the persons, others (Stachys, 
 Tryphaena, Patrobas, Philologus, Nereus) 
 are comparatively rare, and yet are found 
 on the monuments of the imperial house- 
 hold at this period. The household of 
 Aristobulus and the household of Nar- 
 cissus could be only at Rome. "A com- 
 bination such as Philologus and Julia," 
 writes Bp. Lightfoot, "ailords [more] 
 solid ground for inference : and in other 
 cases, as in the household of Narcissus, 
 the probable circumstances suggest a 
 connexion with the palace. If so, an 
 explanation has been found of the refer- 
 ence to members of Caesar's household in 
 the Philippian letter. At all events this 
 investigation will not have been useless, 
 if it has shewn that the names and 
 allusions at the close of the Roman 
 Epistle are in keeping with the circum- 
 stances of the Metropolis in St. Paul's 
 day : for thus it will have supplied an 
 answer to two forms of objection ; the 
 one denying the genuineness of the last 
 two chapters of this letter, and the other 
 allowing their genuineness, but detaching 
 the salutations from the rest and assign- 
 ing them to another epistle." 
 
 The answer seems to be conclusive 
 both as to the genuineness of the salu- 
 tations, and as to the place to which 
 they were addressed, namely, Rome and 
 not Ephesus. 
 
 But it does not remove what is after 
 all the chief difficulty of the chapter, 
 that at the time of writing his Epistle to 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 29 
 
 the Romatis, St. Paul cannot easily be 
 supposed to have had such an intimate 
 knowledge of so many of the Christians 
 at Rome. In the 'Journal of Philo- 
 logy/ 1869, No. 4, p. 274, Bishop Light- 
 foot, in reply to M. Renan, has sug- 
 gested another explanation : " Will not 
 a man studiously refrain from mention- 
 ing individual names where he is ad- 
 dressing a large circle of friends, feeling 
 that it is invidious to single out some 
 for special mention, where an exhaus- 
 tive list is impossible? On the other 
 hand, where only a limited number are 
 known to him, he can name all, and no 
 offence is given." In support of this 
 explanation, it is urged that in other 
 Epistles of St. Paul the number of 
 names mentioned is in inverse propor- 
 tion to his familiarity with the church to 
 which he is writing : to Corinth, Thessa- 
 lonica, and Philippi no salutations 
 properly so called are addressed. " On 
 the other hand, in the Epistle to the 
 Colossians, whom the Apostle had never 
 visited, certain persons are saluted by 
 name." When we turn, however, to 
 Colossians, we find only one salutation 
 properly so called, i.e. addressed to a 
 particular person by name : " Nyinphas 
 a?id the church which is in his housed 
 The example is therefore no parallel 
 to the Roman salutations in which, in- 
 cluding Aquila and Priscilla, twenty- four 
 persons are saluted by name, besides 
 several households. 
 
 This serious difficulty, and some others, 
 are wholly removed, if, as we believe, the 
 whole passage xvi. 3 - 20, belonged 
 originally to a second letter addressed 
 by St. Paul to the Roman Church after 
 his release frojn his first imprisonment at 
 Rome. On that supposition, the unusual 
 number of salutations is at once ex- 
 plained, and the indications of intimate 
 persons.1 knowledge of so many members 
 of the Church, some of whom seem to 
 have belonged to " Caesar's household," 
 not only raise no difficulty, but be- 
 come the strongest proofs of a genuine 
 letter. 
 
 In that case, Aquila and Priscilla may 
 well be thought to have either preceded 
 or followed St. Paul to Rome, and there 
 to have alleviated his wearisome im- 
 
 prisonment, and even risked their lives 
 for his sake 
 
 Andronicus and Junia {7). 7), being as 
 kinsmen of St. Paul, Jews by birth, well 
 known to the other Apostles, and "in 
 Christ" before St. Paul himself, must have 
 been converted elsewhere than in Rome, 
 most probably in Jerusalem. • But when 
 were they fellow-prisoners of St. Paul ? 
 If this description was written before his 
 first imprisonment at Rome, we are left 
 to conjecture that they may have shared 
 some one of his many imprisonments, of 
 which nothing more is known. But how 
 much more forcible and appropriate is 
 the description, if after his release and 
 departure from Rome, he sent this 
 salutation to two of those who had been 
 his fellow-captives there. The word 
 itself (crwaix/<.aA.a)Tovs) confirms the con- 
 jecture, for it is used nowhere else in 
 the N.T., except concerning Aristarchus 
 (Col. iv. 10), and Epaphras (Philem. 23), 
 both of whom were VvcmYs fellow-captives 
 ill Rome. 
 
 It has been thought a difficulty that 
 none of the per'-ons named in vv. 3-16, 
 are mentioned in the Epistles written 
 from Rome during the first imprison- 
 ment. " How is it" (asks Dr. Farrar), 
 "that not one of these exemplary twenty- 
 six are among the three Jewish friends 
 who are alone faithful to him, even be- 
 fore the Neronian persecutions began, 
 and only a few years after this letter was 
 despatched (Col. iv. 10, 11)?" 
 
 The answer is easy, if the passage 
 {vv. 3-16), was addressed to Rome after 
 the first imprisonment. For in Philip- 
 pians, the salutations are only general : 
 " The brethren which are with me greet 
 you. All the saints salute you, chiefly 
 they that are of Caesar's household" (iv. 
 21, 22) ; in Colossians and Philemon, 
 the persons named as sending saluta- 
 tions are St. Paul's companions and 
 fellow-labourers, and there is not the 
 slightest reason to believe that any one 
 of them was a permanent inhabitant of 
 Rome. It was not likely, therefore, 
 that St. Paul, writing from a distance to 
 Rome, should send them greeting : 
 they probably left Rome when he did, 
 if not before. 
 
 In like manner, it will be found, that 
 
30 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 most of the difficulties felt in regarding 
 vv. 3-16 as written at Rome in a.d, 58, 
 are easily removed, if we suppose it to 
 have been written after his first im- 
 prisonmeut. The accumulation of names, 
 the endearing epithets, the character- 
 istic descriptions of so many of the 
 Roman Christians, no longer present 
 any difficulties, but are, on the contrary, 
 most natural after the Apostle's long 
 imprisonment, with its many opportu- 
 nities of gaining converts to the faith, of 
 forming intimate friendships, and of re- 
 ceiving much necessary help and kindness. 
 
 The warning against false teachers 
 {vv. 17-20) is not merely consistent 
 with this supposition of a later date, 
 but adds much to its probability. For 
 during his imprisonment at Rome St. 
 Paul writes to the Philippians (i. 15- 
 17), '■'■ Some mdeed p?'each Christ even 
 of envy and strife ; and some also of good 
 will: the one preach Christ of cofiten- 
 tion, not si?icerely, supposing to add 
 affliction to my bonds: but the other of 
 lover It is evident that the warning 
 (Rom. xvi. 17-20) is much more natural 
 and forcible, if written after St. Paul 
 had quitted Rome, leaving these false 
 Teachers behind him. 
 
 If this theory, that Rom. xvi. 3-20 is 
 part of a letter written to Rome after 
 St. PauVs imprisonment there, be ac- 
 cepted as in itself probable, it will help 
 to confirm the tradition of a second im- 
 prisonment, and the authenticity of the 
 Pastoral Epistles. 
 
 § 9.^ Authorities for the Text. 
 
 (i) Uncial Greek Manuscripts. 
 
 (a) The same as for the Gospels and 
 Acts. 
 
 K Codex Sinaiticus contains the Pauline 
 Epistles entire. 
 
 A. Codex Alexandrinus : wants 2 Cor. iv. 13 — 
 
 xii. 6. 
 
 B. Codex Vaticanus : Heb. ix. 14— xiii. 25 by 
 
 a later hand. 
 
 C. Codex Ephraem Syri : wants the following 
 
 passages, — 
 Rom. ii. 5 — iii. 21 ; ix. 6 — x. 15 ; xL 31 — 
 xiii. 10. 
 
 * For references in the notes to § 9 for discus- 
 sions on "The Law," and "The Flesh," see 
 Appendix to this Introduction. 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 18 — ix. 6 ; xiii. 8 — xv. 40. 
 
 2 Cor. X. 8 — Gal. i. 20. 
 
 Eph. i. I — ii. 18 ; iv. 17 — Phil. i. 22, 
 
 Phil. iii. 5 — iv. 23. 
 
 I Thess. ii, 9 — 2 Thess. iii. 18. 
 
 Heb. i. I — ii. 4 j vii. 26 — ix. 15 ; x. 24— 
 
 xii. 15. 
 I Tim. i. I — iii. 9 ; v. 20 — vi. 21. 
 
 For notices of these fiimous Uncial 
 MSS. see Scrivener, ' Introduction to 
 the Criticism of the N. T.' 2nd ed., 
 pp. 83-109, Tischendorf, 7th ed., Prole- 
 gomena cxxxv. — cli., and ' N. T. Graece, 
 ex Sin. Cod.,' 1865. Compare also the 
 Introduction to St. John's Gospel, 
 pp. Ixxxix. — xciv., and the Introduc- 
 tion to Acts, pp. 345, 346. 
 
 (b) The following MSS. are not the 
 same as those which are known by the 
 same letters in the Gospels. 
 
 D. Codex Claromontanus, a very important 
 
 MS. of the 6th century, Greek and 
 Latin. It contains St. Paul's Epistles 
 entire, except Rom. i. 1-7 ; also in Rom. 
 i. 24-27 the Latin only, in Rom. i. 
 27-30 both Greek and Latin, and in 
 I Cor. xiv. 13-22 the Greek only are 
 supplied by later hands. See Scrivener, 
 p. 151, Tischendorf (7th ed.), p. clxxxi. 
 
 E. Codex Sangermanensis, a mere transcript 
 
 of D, made by some ignorant scribe : 
 ' ' the Greek is manifestly worthless, and 
 should long since have been removed 
 from the list of authorities" (Scrivener, 
 p. 153). The Latin (e) is thought to be 
 a little better. 
 
 F. Codex Augiensis, Greek and Latin, of the 
 
 9th century, at Trinity College, Cam- 
 bridge, edited by Scrivener, 1859. "The 
 Epistles of St. Paul are defective in 
 Rom. i. I — iii. 19 ; and the Greek. alone 
 in I Cor. iii. 8 — 16 ; vi. 7-14 ; Col. ii. 
 1-8; Philem. 21-25." I^i ^^^ Epistle 
 to the Hebrews the Greek is wholly 
 lost. See Scrivener, p. 154; Tisch. (7), 
 p. clxxxv. 
 
 G. Boernerianus, at Dresden, part of the same 
 
 volume as A of the Gospels, Codex 
 Sangallensis, of the 9th century. The 
 Greek text of 13 Epistles of St. Paul is 
 from the same source as F, both being 
 probably derived from a stichometrical 
 MS. much older than themselves. The 
 interlinear Latin is the Itala much 
 altered. See Scrivener, p. 157 ; Tisch. 
 (7), p. clxxxviii. It wants Rom. i. 1-5 ; 
 ii. 16-26 ; and in the other Pauline 
 Epistles the same passages which are 
 wanting in F. 
 K. Mosquensis, a MS. of the 9th century, at 
 Moscow, containing the Catholic Epistles 
 entire, and St. Paul's Epistles, except 
 Rom. X. 18, I Cor. vi. 13, and i Cor. 
 viii. 7~ll' Scrivener, p. I49. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 31 
 
 L, Codex Angelicus, formerly Passionei, of 
 the 9th century, contains Acts (begin- 
 ning at viii. 10), the Catholic Epistles, 
 St. Paul's, and Hebrews as far as xiii, 
 10. 
 
 P. Codex Porfirianus, a palimpsest of the 9th 
 century, edited by Tischendorf in the 
 5th and 6th volumes of his ' Monumenta 
 Sacra Inedita." It contains Acts, all the 
 Epistles, and the Apocalypse, but is 
 defective in the following among other 
 passages : Rom. ii. 15 — iii. 5 ; viii. 33 — 
 ix. II; xi. 22 — xii. I. See Scrivener, 
 p. 150. 
 
 The readings of all the MSS. hitherto 
 mentioned, are quoted by Tischendorf 
 (8), and of all except E, by Tregelles. 
 
 The letters F% H, I, M, indicate cer- 
 tain ancient and valuable fragments of 
 uncial MSS., of which notices will be 
 found in Scrivener, pp. 154-160. 
 
 (2) Of Cursive Greek MSS. there are 
 for St. Paul's Epistles, nearly 300 : the 
 following are cited by Tregelles through- 
 out his text, and frequently by Tischen- 
 dorf. 
 
 17 ( = Evang. 33), on parchment, of the II th 
 
 century, at Paris. 
 37 (Ev. 69), of the 14th century, at Leicester. 
 47, in the Bodleian, of the 1 1 th century. 
 
 Tischendorf also names 67** as con- 
 taining remarkable readings, very similar 
 toB. 
 
 (3) Versions. 
 
 The most ancient versions, especially 
 the Latin, are of great importance for 
 the criticism of the Greek text, being 
 credible witnesses of its form at a time 
 one or two centuries earlier than the 
 oldest extant MSS. 
 
 The Old Lati?i, or Itala (it), dating 
 from the 2nd century, is represented in 
 St. Paul's Epistles chiefly by the Latin 
 versions (d, e, f, g), attached to the 
 Greek Uncials D, E, F, G. Tischen- 
 dorf also quotes (gue) certain fragments 
 of the 6th century, attached to the 
 Gothic version of the Wolfenbiittel 
 palimpsests (Codex Guelferbytianus), 
 which contain Rom. xi. 33 — xii. 5 ; xii, 
 17 — xiii. I ; xiv. 9-20; xv. 3-13. 
 
 A few fragments (r), have also been 
 found on the covers of the Frisingen 
 MS. at Munich, containing parts of 
 Rom. xiv., XV., and other passages of 
 
 St. Paul's Epistles enumerated by Tis- 
 chendorf (7), Proleg. p. ccxlvi. 
 
 The Vulgate, or Latin version cor- 
 rected by Jerome, is best represented by 
 the two following MSS. of the 6th century. 
 
 Codex Amiatinus (am), edited by 
 Tischendorf, and adopted by Tregelles 
 as the basis of his Latin text, was for- 
 merly in the Monastery of Monte Amia- 
 tino, but is now at Florence. " It was 
 written about the year 541, by the 
 Abbot Servandus " (Tisch. 8, p. ccxh ii.). 
 
 Codex Fuldensis (fu), in the Abbey 
 of Fulda, in Hesse Cassel, was written 
 in 546, by order of Victor, Bishop of 
 Capua, and corrected and dated with 
 his own hand. It is remarkable for the 
 peculiar system of capitulation prefixed 
 to the Epistle to the Romans, on which 
 see above, § 8, p. 22. 
 
 On the Syriac, and other ancient ver- 
 sions used for criticism of the Text, the 
 reader is referred to Tischendorf, Scri- 
 vener, or the Introductions to the N, T. 
 by Tregelles, Bleek, and Hilgenfeld. 
 
 (4) Fathers. 
 
 Among the Greek Fathers, Origen 
 stands pre-eminent as " the prince of 
 ancient Critics " (Tischendorf). In his 
 Commentary on the Romans, various 
 readings are often expressly discussed, 
 and in such cases his testimony is indis- 
 putable. Next to him Tischendorf 
 ranks Clement of Alexandria, and 
 Irenaeus: the work of the latter 'Against 
 all Heretics,' is extant for the most part 
 only in a very ancient Latin translation ; 
 but an illustration of its great value will 
 be found in our Additional Note on 
 Rom. v. 6. 
 
 Chrysostom's Homilies on all the 
 Pauline Epistles are often useful to the 
 critic of the text, as well as invaluable 
 to the interpreter. 
 
 The earliest Latin Commentary on 
 St. Paul's Epistles is that which is 
 found in the works of St. Ambrose, and 
 usually ascribed to Hilary the Deacon 
 (Ambrosiaster), who is supposed to have 
 lived at the close of the 3rd century. 
 
 On the value of the Fathers as wit- 
 nesses to the Text, see Tischendorf (7) 
 pp. cclv.-cclxix. 
 
32 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lo. Contents and Argument. 
 
 The main Divisions of the Epistle are 
 clearly marked : 
 
 I. The Introduction, i. 1-15 ; 
 XL The Doctrine, "The Righteous- 
 ness of God by Faith," i. 16 — viii. ; 
 
 III. The Doctrine reconciled with 
 Israel's unbelief, ix. — xi. ; 
 
 IV. Exhortation to Christian Duties, 
 general and special, xii. i — xv. 13; 
 
 V. Conclusion, xv. 14 — xvi. 27. 
 
 I. The Introduction : 
 
 (a) Address of the Epistle (i. 1-7) ; 
 
 (b) The Writer's Motives (8-15). 
 
 (a) The Introduction is marked 
 throughout by an earnest desire to win 
 for himself and for his Gospel the con- 
 fidence and goodwill of an important 
 Christian community to which as yet he 
 was personally unknown. This motive 
 is seen in the threefold description of 
 the official character which gives him the 
 right to address them, as being Christ's 
 servant, duly called to the Apostleship, 
 and set apart as a chosen vessel to carry 
 a message of glad tidings from God 
 
 (2/. l). 
 
 In that message God's promises to 
 His ancient people are fulfilled m Him 
 who was both born of the seed of David 
 to be Israel's Messiah, and proved by 
 the Resurrection to be that Son of God 
 who giveth life unto the world and hath 
 all the Heathen for His inheritance. The 
 Apostle of One who is thus manifested 
 as the Saviour of the world must speak 
 in His name to "• all nations" and there- 
 fore to those at Rome also who by a 
 Divine calling are already His {vv. 2-6 : 
 see above, pp. 12, 13). To all such who 
 are in Rome, whether Jew or Gentile, 
 beloved of God as partakers of His holy 
 calling, Paul the Apostle sends this 
 greeting : " Grace to you and peace from 
 God our Father, and the Lord Jesus 
 Christ" (v. 7). 
 
 (b) To make his Apostolic claims the 
 more acceptable St. Paul expresses his 
 personal interest in the welfare of his 
 readers, in thanksgiving for their faith 
 {v. 8), in prayer that he may be per- 
 mitted to see them {vv. 9-12), and in an 
 
 assurance that he has long desired and 
 still is eager to fulfil the duty of preach- 
 ing the Gospel at Rome {vv. 13-15). 
 
 II. The Doctrine : "The Righteous- 
 ness OF God by Faith :'' 
 
 (a) The Theme (i. 16, 17); 
 
 (b) The universal need of Righteous- 
 ness (i. 18 — iii. 20) ; 
 
 (c) The Universality of Righteousness 
 by Faith (iii. 21 — v.) ; 
 
 (d) The Sanctification of the Believer 
 (vi. — viii.). 
 
 (a) Theme of the Epistle. 
 
 The mention of the Gospel, which 
 St. Paul would fain have preached at 
 Rome in person, leads naturally to a 
 description of it as the great Theme of 
 his Epistle {vv. 16, 17). In this brief 
 statement of the subject we discern 
 already the leading thoughts and main 
 scope of the treatise which follows. The 
 Gospel is no mere word of man, but 
 (i) a '•'■ potver of God" directed to man's 
 salvation ; a power which can not only 
 do " what theLaiv could not do " (viii. 3), 
 save from sin, but also create and im- 
 part a new life of righteousness. 
 
 (2) This '■'power of God unto salva- 
 tion " is universal in its purpose, being 
 needed and intended for " every one; " 
 and in this universality " the Jeiv " is 
 expressly included by name with '•'•the 
 Greek " or Gentile world. The priority 
 assigned to the Jew in the received 
 reading (Trpwrov) does not mean that he 
 is to have a preference and advantage, 
 but only that the salvation long promised 
 to the Fathers is to be offered to him 
 first : its condition is the same for him 
 and for the Gentile : God's salvation is 
 (3) for " every one that believeth." This 
 definition of the Gospel as bringing sal- 
 vation to every believer is confirmed in 
 v. 17, on which see the notes. 
 
 (b) The Universal need of Right- 
 eousness is seen in the unrighteousness 
 of all, first of the Gentile (i. 18-32), and 
 then of the Jew (ii. i — iii. 20). 
 
 The foundation which St. Paul lays in 
 this section (i. 18-32) is too broad and 
 deep for an argument intended only to 
 serve some occasional purpose arising 
 out of tlie peculiar circumstances of the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 33 
 
 Christians at Rome. Had it been his 
 sole or chief purpose to remove the pre- 
 judices and abate the claims of Jewish 
 Christians, there would have been no 
 adequate motive for his elaborate de- 
 scription of the depravity of the Heathen 
 world. So terrible a picture of sins 
 against God and against nature, from 
 some of the worst of which the Jews 
 were comparatively free, must have been 
 intended primarily to arouse the con- 
 science of the Heathens themselves, and 
 to prove their need of righteousness. 
 Subordinate to this main purpose is the 
 rhetorical use which the Apostle makes 
 of the moral indignation which such 
 a description could not fail to rouse in 
 the Jew against the " sinners of the 
 Gentiles." 
 
 Looking back from this point at the 
 Introduction i^v. 1-15) we can under- 
 stand St. Paul's anxiety to commend 
 himself and his Gospel to the Romans, 
 without assuming any intention either to 
 attack or to concihate an adverse Juda- 
 izing majority. His motive, which we 
 can now clearly discern, was simply an 
 earnest desire to win from all a favour- 
 able hearing for a Gospel which must at 
 the outset be unwelcome both to Jew 
 and Gentile, and more especially to the 
 Jew, because it is founded on the fact 
 that all alike are under sin, and exposed 
 to God's wrath. The same motive ex- 
 plains why the order of z^. 17 is reversed, 
 and the Gentile first brought in guilty 
 with the full assent of the Jew, who 
 suddenly finds himself involved in the 
 same condemnation : compare the note 
 on ii. I. 
 
 Knowing even more clearly than the 
 Heathen " the judgmetit of God, that they 
 who do such things are worthy of death" 
 the man who judges them, and does the 
 same, is without excuse (ii. i, 2). No 
 personal privilege can exempt him from 
 judgment, for God is no respecter of 
 persons, but will render to every man 
 according to his deeds, to the Jew first 
 and also to the Gentile {vv. 3-1 1). The 
 law will not benefit the Jew unless he 
 be a doer of the law : even the Gentile 
 will be judged by the law written on his 
 heart {vv. 12-16). In vain therefore 
 the Jew glories in a law which he does 
 
 not keep, and in a circumcision which is 
 only that of the flesh, not of the heart 
 {vv. 17-29). 
 
 iii. 1-8. The Jew's Objections 
 
 ANSWERED. 
 
 Has then the Jew no real advantage ? 
 Yes, the oracles containing God's pro- 
 mises. Though disbelieved by some, 
 their truth is unimpaired : they shall yet 
 be fulfilled {vv. 1-4 : compare ix. 6 ; 
 xi. 25-32). 
 
 Man's unbelief exalts God's faithful- 
 ness. Is God unrip,hteous then in 
 punishing this unbelief? Nay, for then 
 it would be unrighteous to judge any 
 sin. Yet if sin is overruled unto His 
 glory, why judge the sinner? Why 
 should we not rather go on sinning to 
 His greater glory? The very thought 
 deserves God's righteous condemnation. 
 
 iii. 9-20. The Scriptures confirm 
 THE Charge of Universal Sinful- 
 ness. 
 
 If the Jew is exempted from Judgment 
 neither by the Law, nor by circumcision, 
 nor by the promises which remain true 
 in spite of his unbelief — What then re- 
 mains ? Can we claim to be better in 
 fact than the Heathen? Can we say 
 that we Jews are " doers of the latv ? " 
 Nay, in no wise : for the charge before 
 made, that all are under sin, is con- 
 firmed by our own Scriptures. They 
 testify that all, Jews as well as Heathens, 
 are transgressors of God's law : and that 
 law is binding on the Jew to whom it 
 directly speaks God's commandments, 
 that his mouth as well as every other 
 may be stopped, and all brought into 
 judgment before God, because by law 
 man cannot attain to righteousness, but 
 only to knowledge of sin. 
 
 Even apart from the repeated mention 
 of the name '•'' Jeiv " in this and the pre- 
 ceding chapter, it is evident that the 
 errors which St. Paul uproots, and the 
 sins which he condemns, are not those of 
 the Jewish Christian, but of the unbeliev- 
 ing Jew. In the readiness to judge others, 
 and the presumptuous hope of personal 
 exemption from God's judgment (ii. i- 
 1 6), in the arrogance, hypocrisy, and self- 
 
34 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 complacency of the sinner who in the 
 midst of his sins makes his boast of 
 God and the Law, and is confident that 
 he is " a guide of the blind, a light of them 
 which are in darkness' (17-24), in the 
 absolute rehance on circumcision (25- 
 29), in the daring protest, " Why yet 
 am I also judged as a sinner 1 " (iii, 7 ), 
 repeated in ix. 19, " IVhy doth he yet 
 ■find fault V — in all this we see some- 
 thing very different from the legal and 
 ceremonial tendencies of Jewish Christi- 
 anity, we see the glaring sins and errors of 
 Judaism itself in its worst state of cor- 
 ruption. 
 
 (c) The Universality of the Right- 
 eousness OF Faith. 
 
 From the universal need of the sal- 
 vation described in i. 16, 17 St. Paul 
 now passes on to its actual manifesta- 
 tion. He has shown that all alike are 
 under sin, all exposed to God's wrath : 
 the privileges of the Jew, though real and 
 great, do not exempt him from judgment, 
 nor does the law enable him to attain by 
 his own works to righteousness. " But 
 now" in the new dispensation of the 
 Gospel, in contrast to wrath revealed 
 from heaven against the unrighteousness 
 of man, we see the " righteousness of 
 God revealed from faith to faith." This 
 is the second point in the proof of the 
 Thesis laid down in i. 16, 17. 
 
 iii. 21-26. The Righteousness of God 
 
 MADE manifest. 
 
 The essential characteristics of the 
 righteousness of God are here com- 
 bined. 
 
 (i) Independent of " law " as a con- 
 dition of earning righteousness, it is wit- 
 nessed by " the law " as a Divine revela- 
 tion (v. 21). 
 
 (2) The mode in which man receives 
 it is "through faith in /estis Christ;" 
 in which definition faith is seen to be the 
 principle of that personal living union 
 between Christ and the believer (v. 22) 
 which is the root in man of all justifying 
 and all sanctifying righteousness. 
 
 (3) Its universal destination " unto 
 all and upon all them that believe" results 
 
 from the nature of faith, as a condition 
 corresponding to the true relation of all 
 mankind to God, and therefore fitted to 
 supply the universal want of " the glory 
 of God" {vv. 22, 23 ; compare the notes 
 on i. 16, 17 as to the nature of faith). 
 
 (4) The free and gratuitous character 
 of God's salvation is seen, in that all who 
 partake of it are justified not by merit 
 but '■'■freely by His grace" (v. 24). 
 
 (5) The substance of salvation, the 
 gift which God's grace bestows and 
 man's faith accepts, is " the redemption 
 that is in Christ Jesus" (v. 24). 
 
 (6) The first cause of this redemp- 
 tion is God the Father's love : its 
 method, '■'■propitiation" i.e. an expiation 
 for sin by which man is restored to 
 God's favour : the efficient cause of pro- 
 pitiation, the one true sacrifice, Christ 
 '•'■ i7i His 0W71 blood:" the appropriation 
 by man of this redemption, " throicgh 
 faith : " the purpose of God in thus 
 
 setting forth Christ, — "for an ex- 
 hibition of his righteousness," 
 because He had suffered the sins of 
 former generations to pass unpunished 
 in the forbearance which He exercised 
 "in view of the exhibition of 
 his righteousness'' in this present 
 time," that now He might be both 
 righteous Himself as condemning sin 
 and the author of righteousness to him, 
 "that is of faith in Jesus," i.e. 
 who sees in the death of Christ the 
 death for sin which he has himself 
 deserved, and the death unto sin of 
 which he is henceforth to partake. 
 
 iii. 27-31. Justification by Faith 
 
 INDEPENDENT OF LaW. 
 
 The righteousness of God, not being 
 earned by works of law, excludes man's 
 boasting (vv. 27, 28), recognises one 
 God as the author of salvation for Jew 
 and Gentile {vv. 29, 30), and far from 
 abolishing "law," establishes it in its 
 true character as a law of faith : compare 
 viii. 4. 
 
 iv. 1-25. The Righteousness of God 
 IS witnessed by the Law and 
 the Prophets. 
 
 Even Abraham, the great pattern of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 35 
 
 righteousness, was justified by faith and 
 not by merit of works (vv. 1-5), in 
 accordance with David's description of 
 the blessedness of free and undeserved 
 foBgiveness {vv. 6-8). 
 
 The righteousness of God is for all, 
 not for the circumcised only : for cir- 
 cumcision was not the cause but the 
 sign and seal of Abraham's justification 
 by faith, marking him out as the father 
 of all them that believe (vv. 9-1 2). 
 
 The inheritance of the Promise, de- 
 pending not on law but on faith, is made 
 sure to a/Zthe seed (vv. 13-17). 
 
 Abraham's faith, both in its strength, 
 and in its object — " God who quickeneth 
 the dead" is recorded for our example 
 {vv. 17-25). 
 
 V. i-ii. Redemption by the Death 
 OF Christ. 
 
 The blessings received by those who 
 are '■'■justified freely by Gods grace 
 through the redemption that is in Christ 
 Jesus'' (iii. 24, 25) are Peace, Joy, and 
 Hope of glory, all founded on God's 
 love, which having reconciled enemies 
 by Christ's death will much more surely 
 save the reconciled by His life. 
 
 V. 12-21. The Universality of Sal- 
 vation BY Faith, like the Univer- 
 sality OF Sin, is based on the 
 Unity of Mankind in Adam and 
 IN Christ. 
 
 In the preceding argument the uni- 
 versal sinfulness of man has been 
 established as a fact to which experience 
 and Scripture both bear witness, but 
 simply as a fact without any declaration 
 of the cause of its universality. 
 
 On the other hand the universal salva- 
 tion which God has prepared depends 
 on Christ alone : instead of each man 
 earning the pardon of his sins by 
 virtue of his own repentance and subse- 
 quent obedience to the law. One dies for 
 all, and for His sake not only forgive- 
 ness but righteousness and life are 
 bestowed on all that believe in Him 
 (v. 6-1 1). The universality of salva- 
 tion is thus traced to its cause in the 
 principle that "the many," "the 
 all," are included in " the One." 
 
 The Apostle now extends and com- 
 pletes his argument by showing that the 
 Old Testament traces the universality 
 of sin and death to the same principle : 
 the one man through whom sin and 
 death came into the world, and passed 
 upon all men, is a type of the One 
 through Whom come righteousness and 
 life to all (yv. 12-14). 
 
 But this comparison involves also a 
 contrast : God's grace is greater and 
 more abundant than man's transgression : 
 righteousness and life are in their nature 
 mightier powers than sin and death. 
 If sin and death could pass from one to 
 all, 77iuch more shall righteousness and 
 life (vv. 15-19). 
 
 We notice in z'. 18 a pregnant phrase 
 ^^Justification of life" which combines 
 and reconciles two leading elements of 
 St. Paul's doctrine of salvation. On 
 these two elements taken separately two 
 opposite systems of doctrine have been 
 raised, namely justification by imputa- 
 tion only, and justification by or on 
 account of actual righteousness wrought 
 in man hj faith workifig through love. 
 
 The phrase '■'■ justification of life'' occurs 
 at a point of St. Paul's argument where 
 these two elements of his teaching meet : 
 for the doctrine of justification by faith 
 without works of law ending with c. iv., 
 and the doctrine of life in Christ, as the 
 remedy for inherent sin and source of 
 inherent righteousness, beginning at 
 c. v., are both included in '■'■justification 
 of life." Faith, whereby we receive 
 God's justifying sentence, is also the 
 means by which we receive the new 
 " life" that brings forth righteousness or 
 holiness of living. 
 
 " If there had been a law given which 
 could have given life, verily righteousness 
 should have been by law" (Gal. iii. 21). 
 But no place has yet been found for 
 law in this '•'■justification of life." St. 
 Paul, however, now proceeds to show 
 that " law " itself was in one way sub- 
 servient to grace, even by multiplying 
 transgression (vv. 20, 21). 
 
 Reserving his explanation of this 
 purpose of the law to Ch. vii., the 
 Apostle hastens at once to meet the 
 formidable difficulty which so strange a 
 statement could not fail to raise in the 
 
 c 2 
 
36 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 mind not only of a conscientious Jew 
 but of every thoughtful reader. 
 
 (d) The Sanctification of the Be- 
 liever. 
 
 In iii. 8, St. Paul has alluded very 
 briefly to a false charge that by his 
 teacliing he encouraged the wicked 
 thought, " Let us do roil that good may 
 come" His doctrine of grace has in 
 fact in all ages been misrepresented by 
 unscrupulous opponents and perverted 
 by hypocritical supporters. His own 
 answer to the question, " Shall vje 
 C07iti?me in sin, that grace may abound ? " 
 should have made such perversion of 
 his teaching impossible. That answer 
 is founded on the same mystical union 
 between Christ and the believer which is 
 also the ground of his justification : and 
 the doctrine of God's free grace through 
 faith in Christ is thus found to be the 
 only sure foundation for holiness of life. 
 
 vi. The Moral Effects of Justifi- 
 cation BY Faith. 
 
 The believer baptized into the death 
 of Christ both dies with Him to sin, and 
 rises in Him to newness of life {vv. i-i i). 
 Let this truth be realised henceforth in 
 your lives {vv. 12, 13), for this is the 
 right effect of being no longer " under 
 law but under grace" {v. 14), that you 
 are released from the bondage of sin, 
 and set free for the service of God {vv. 
 15-23), free, and yet " servants to right- 
 eousness unto sanctification." 
 
 vii. Deliverance from the Bondage 
 OF Law and of Sin. 
 
 Hitherto St. Paul has spoken of the 
 law in a negative sense : he has shown 
 that it had not in fact enabled the Jew 
 (Ch. ii.), and according to the Scripture 
 could not enable any man, to attain to 
 righteousness by works, but only to a 
 knowledge of sin (iii. 20) ; that it has no 
 part in the manifestation of the right- 
 eousness of God, except as a witness 
 (iii. 21) ; that as a law of works it could 
 not exclude man's boasting (iii. 27) ; 
 that it was not attached as a condition 
 to the inheritance of Abraham's blessinaf 
 
 (iv. 13) ; that it worketh wrath (iv. 15) ; 
 that its effect was the imputation of sin, 
 and the multiplication of transgression 
 (v. 13, 20); and thus under law men 
 were brought into bondage to sin (vi. 14). 
 
 Such a disparaging view of the law 
 must have been a grievous obstacle to a 
 conscientious but unenlightened Jew : it 
 needed both to be explained and sup- 
 plemented. 
 
 It is explained by the principle that 
 the power of law is terminated by death : 
 for example, as a wife is released from 
 the law that binds her to her husband by 
 his death, and is free to marry another, 
 so the believer by the death of " the old 
 man" with Christ (vi. 6) is released from 
 the law, and free to be united to another, 
 even Christ, who is raised from the dead 
 (vii. 1-6). 
 
 vv. 7-13. Relation of the Law to 
 Sin. 
 If that former union was a bondage 
 to sin, and if to be free from sin we must 
 be free from the law, the question arises, 
 " /$• the laiu sin?" In answer to this 
 question St. Paul proceeds to supplement 
 his account of the law by showing its 
 true nature, and its actual relation to 
 sin (vv. 7-13). Sin, or in other words 
 the perverse opposition of man's will, is 
 roused into activity by the law, and ex- 
 liibits its exceeding sinfulness as a power 
 working death by means of the law 
 which was ordained to life. For the 
 law in itself is holy, just, and good : it 
 is " spiritual" as being a Divine revela- 
 tion, but it is not a life-giving spirit, and 
 therefore cannot enable man to overcome 
 the power of sin. 
 
 vv. 14-25. The Conflict of Flesh 
 AND Spirit. 
 
 The Apostle confirms his vindication 
 of the Divine Law by an analysis of the 
 working of sin, as he had observed it in 
 his own inner experience. At first he 
 speaks of himself as if that part of his 
 nature which in action predominates 
 were the whole man ; " The law is 
 spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold 
 under sin." But closer observation 
 reveals an inner conflict : the flesh, in 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 37 
 
 which dwelleth no good thing is not the 
 whole man {v. i8), there is another " I," 
 consenting unto the law that it is good : " 
 this better self, "t/ie inward man" 
 {iK 22), '■'■ the mind" {v. 23), or what 
 St. Paul calls in i Cor. ii. 11, " the spirit 
 of man that is in him" delights in the 
 law of God, but is overpowered by the 
 sin which rules as a law in the members 
 of the outward man. This true self 
 cries in anguish, " Who shall deliver 
 me ? " and the cry is at once turned into 
 thanksgiving by remembrance of the 
 deliverance already wrought by God 
 through Jesus Christ {vv. 24, 25). 
 
 viii. The Spirit of Life in Christ 
 Jesus brings Liberty to the Chil- 
 dren OF God, and comforts them 
 with the Hope of Glory. 
 
 The doctrine that man is justified 
 freely by God's grace through union 
 with Christ (v. 12 — 21) has been de- 
 fended against two chief objections of 
 the Jew. It has been shown (i) in Ch. 
 vi. that far from encouraging continuance 
 in sin, the union with Christ implies in 
 prificiple a death unto sin, and an entire 
 release from its dominion ; and (2) in 
 Ch. vii. that the Law, though holy and 
 spiritual in itself and recognised as such 
 by man's mind or spirit, cannot over- 
 come the power of sin in the flesh, but 
 rather becomes an occasion of strength- 
 ening its dominion. 
 
 The question, "Who shall deliver 
 me?" is now to be answered: '^ The 
 law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." 
 Sin already condemned in the flesh by 
 Christ's death is to be destroyed by " the 
 Spirit of life" which. Yit imparts for the 
 fulfilment of the righteousness of the 
 law {vv. 1-4). This Divine Spirit not 
 only subdues " the mind of the flesh" 
 which " is enmity against God" and there- 
 fore " death" but will at last give life 
 even to the body now dead because of 
 sin {vv. 5-13). 
 
 The same Spirit of Christ testifies 
 that we are sons of God, and partakers 
 of His inheritance of glory if we partake 
 of His sufferings now {I'v. 14-17). No 
 present suffering is to be compared with 
 that glory, for which the whole creation 
 
 is groaning and sighing, and we our- 
 selves are waiting in hop^ of its comple- 
 tion by the redemption of our body 
 {z'v. 18-25). Already we have helj) for 
 our infirmity in the Spirit's intercession 
 {vv. 25-27), and the knowledge ^^ that 
 all things (even sufferings) a ork together 
 for good to them that love God" because 
 they " are called according to His purpose." 
 
 For who7n He foreknew as loving 
 Him, He predestined to be conformed 
 to the image of His Son; and that pre- 
 destination cannot fail to be accomplished 
 in their calling and justification, and 
 glorification, because nothing can sepa- 
 rate them from God's love {vv. 28-39). 
 
 We pause for a moment to establish 
 our interpretation of this most difticult 
 and importa-nt passage by the authority 
 of the first Christian Father, ClemenI 
 of Rome, " who had seen the blessed 
 Apostles and conversed with them, and 
 still had the preaching of the Apostles 
 ringing in his ears and their tradition 
 before his eyes" (Iren. iii. 3, § 3). In 
 the newly recovered portion of St. 
 Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians 
 (lix. 9) we find a clear reference to 
 Rom. viii. 28 in the words : " Who dost 
 make many nations upon earth, and out 
 of all didst choose them that love thct 
 through Jesus Christ thy beloved Son, 
 through Whom Thou didst chasten 
 sanctify, and honour us." 
 
 III. The Doctrine reconciled with 
 Israel's Unbelief. 
 
 The purely doctrinal portion of the 
 Epistle is concluded. Each part of the 
 Theme proposed in i. 16, 17 has now 
 been developed in a clear and closely 
 connected argument. Without Christ 
 all nations alike are lying under the 
 wrath of God, all without excuse, the 
 Heathen condemned by his own con- 
 science (i. 32}, the Jew by the law to 
 which he trusts in vain to justify him by 
 his own works (iii. 20). But now in 
 Christ the righteousness of God is 
 revealed from faith to faith, independent 
 of law yet witnessed by the law and the 
 Prophets, extending unto all them that 
 believe God's gifts of peace and hope and 
 everlasting life. 
 
38 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 That St. Paul has treated the doctrine 
 of justification by faith with especial re- 
 ference to the prejudices of the Jews is 
 obvious. But it is not a necessary in- 
 ference from this mode of treatment, 
 that a Judaizing tendency prevailed 
 among his readers. 
 
 The objections brought forward on 
 the part of the Jew are inherent in the 
 subject itself, and must have entered into 
 a discussion of the doctrine to whom- 
 soever addressed. 
 
 Moreover St. Paul's own mind was 
 full of the questions concerning Judaism, 
 and the mode of treating it. The Epistle 
 to the Churches of Galatia had been 
 written but a short time before : there 
 the Judaizing party had striven to the 
 utmost to accommodate Christianity itself 
 to Jewish prejudices. St. Paul had 
 vehemently opposed this retrograde 
 movement both in person and in his 
 Epistle. Now he could regard the whole 
 question of the relation of Judaism to the 
 Gospel more calmly, deliberately, and 
 comprehensively. For he was writing 
 to a Church in which he had no personal 
 antagonists, and where party-spirit had 
 not yet embittered the great controversy : 
 a Church moreover set in the midst of 
 so numerous a colony of unbelieving 
 Jews, that the question of their rejection 
 was seen in all the greatness of its pro- 
 portions. 
 
 Hence we see that the subject dis- 
 cussed in Chapters ix — xi. cannot pos- 
 sibly be regarded as a mere historical 
 appendix, nor as a corollary to the pre- 
 vious doctrine : it is in fact the recon- 
 ciliation of that doctrine to the great 
 and pressing difficulty which had arisen 
 from the rejection of the Gospel by the 
 great mass of the Jewish people. 
 
 vv. 6-13. God's Promise has not 
 
 FAILED. 
 
 The present rejection of Israel is not 
 to be regarded as a failure of God's 
 promise ; the unbelief of some does not 
 make the faithfulness of God of none 
 effect, iii. 3 ; for the promise was not to 
 all the seed of Abraham after the flesh, 
 but to the chosen seed, not to Ishmael 
 but to Isaac, not to Esau but to Jacob. 
 
 vv. 14-18. Nor is there any Injustice 
 IN God. 
 
 Far be it from us to say that God is 
 unjust in thus choosing one and rejecting 
 another, before they have done good or 
 evil. His choice is not determined by 
 the merit of man's works, but by His 
 own free and undeserved mercy, for it 
 is proved by His words to Moses and to 
 Pharaoh that " on whom he will, he hath 
 mercy ^ and whom he will he hardeneth." 
 On the reference to Pharaoh in z^. 17 
 see the foot-note and the Additional 
 note at the end of the chapter. 
 
 vv. 19-21. God's Almighty Will may 
 
 NOT be questioned. 
 
 If God's will is absolutely free and 
 irresistible, ^^why doth He yet find fault V* 
 Why hold man responsible? 
 
 The Apostle first rebukes the arrogance 
 of thus contending with God, and asserts 
 that His rightful power (e^'ovo-ia) over 
 man is as absolute and unquestionable 
 as that of the potter over the clay that he 
 fashions. 
 
 Had this been the only answer, the 
 Jew could not have found fault with 
 it, for it is drawn from his Scriptures; 
 but St. Paul has another answer. 
 
 ix. 1-5. Mourning over Israel. 
 
 With seeming abruptness, yet in 
 close connexion of thought, St. Paul 
 passes from the joyful assurance of 
 salvation for all the elect of God 
 (viii. 28-39) to the mourriful and 
 mysterious contrast presented by the 
 exclusion of the chosen people on 
 whom so many and great privileges 
 had been bestowed. 
 
 vv. 22-29. God's Justice and Mercy 
 
 VINDICATED. 
 
 After asserting God's unquestionable 
 right to deal with the creatures of His 
 hand according to His Will, the Apostle 
 proceeds to justify God's actual dealing 
 with Israel, as characterised by long- 
 suffering towards those who were de- 
 serving only of wrath, and by mercy 
 towards those whom He called both from 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 39 
 
 among Jews and also from among 
 Gentiles to be His people. 
 
 Moreover both the calling of the 
 Gentiles, and the rejection of all except 
 a small remnant of Israel, had been 
 foretold by the Prophets, — a proof that 
 there had been no failure of His promise 
 in its true meaning. 
 
 vv. 30-33. The Paradox explained. 
 
 It is a strange result that Gentiles who 
 were not consciously seeking righteous- 
 ness attained to righteousness, while 
 Israel, who sought, did not attain unto 
 a law of righteousness. And where- 
 fore ? Because the Jews did not seek 
 what the Gentiles attained, a righteous 
 ness oi faith, but sought righteousness 
 by works of law, and so stumbled 
 against the Rock which was laid in 
 Zion for a sure foundation to every 
 one that believeth. 
 
 We must not leave this Chapter with- 
 out drawing attention to the great im- 
 portance of the statement of Christ's 
 Deity 'm.v. 5, and to the general mis- 
 understanding of the passage concerning 
 Pharaoh {v. 17) consequent on the 
 defective translation of the original 
 passage in the A. V. Both points are 
 fully discussed in the Additional Notes 
 to the Chapter. 
 
 X. 1-4. — The Cause of Israel's 
 Stumbling. 
 
 They sought to establish their own 
 righteousness by works of law, and 
 refused to submit to God's righteousness 
 which is attained by faith, because they 
 were ignorant that " law" regarded as a 
 way of attaining to righteousness before 
 God, is at an end in Christ, in order 
 that righteousness may be extended to 
 every one that believeth. 
 
 vv. 5-10. The Testimony of Moses. 
 
 Israel ought not to have been igno- 
 rant of " the righteousness which is of 
 faith" for Moses himself not only ^^de- 
 scribeth the righteousness which is of 
 law," but also speaks of another kind 
 of righteousness, a religion of the heart, 
 which is the righteousness of faith in 
 Christ. 
 
 vv. 1 1-2 1. The Righteousness of 
 Faith is offered to all, but re- 
 jected BY Israel. 
 
 St. Paul emphatically asserts the uni- 
 versality of the statement already quoted 
 in ix. 33, "Whosoever believeth on Him 
 shall not be ashamed " (Isai. xviii. 16) as 
 proving that in the righteousness of faith 
 there is no difference between Jew and 
 Greek ; and then from two other 
 passages (Joel ii. 30 ; Isai. lii. 7) proves 
 that the Gospel must be preached to all. 
 
 " But they did not all obey the glad 
 tidings :" yet it was not from want of 
 hearing, nor of warning, for Moses and 
 Isaiah foretold both the reception of the 
 Gentiles, and the disobedience of Israel. 
 
 xi. The Restoration of Israel. 
 
 Twice already the Apostle has inti- 
 mated that the unbelief of the great mass 
 of the Jews has not annulled the faithful- 
 ness of God's promises (iii. 3 ; ix. 6). 
 The same thought is here brought into 
 close connexion with the certainty of 
 salvation for God's elect (viii. 28-39), 
 " God hath not cast away His people, 
 which He foreknew" the true Israel. But 
 who are the true Israel ? Not the un- 
 believing mass (compare ix. 6), but the 
 " remnant according to election of grace" 
 The existence of such a remnant of 
 believing Israelites amid a general 
 apostasy proves now, as in Elijah's days, 
 that God had not rejected Israel as a 
 people. 
 
 And as He has not rejected the people 
 on account of the unbelief of the majority, 
 so neither has He preserved the remnant 
 on account of their own merit, but only 
 of grace (^v. 1-6). 
 
 What then is the result? The mass 
 of Israel seeking righteousness of works 
 obtained it not ; the elect, foreknown of 
 God, and chosen to be His people, 
 obtained righteousness of grace through 
 faith : and this hardening of the mass is 
 what the Prophets have foretold as a 
 just judgment from God (vv. 7-10). 
 
 But what is God's purpose herein? 
 Is it that they should fall finally ? Far 
 from it: already their stumbling has 
 brought salvation to the Gentiles, and 
 this transfer of God's favour shall provoke 
 the Jews to jealousy, and so end in the 
 
40 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 restoration of God's ancient people, and 
 a new life of the world (vv. 11-15). 
 Such a restoration is natural, for the 
 holy root of the chosen race makes its 
 branches holy : ye Gentiles are but 
 grafts of wild ohvc enriched by that holy 
 root. Boast not that natural branches 
 were broken oft" to make room for you ; 
 for if God spared not them neither will 
 He spare thee, and if they turn from 
 their unbelief, the goodness and power 
 of God which grafted thee contrary to 
 nature into the good olive, shall much 
 more surely graft in again the natural 
 branches (16-24). 
 
 This Divine purpose, that the harden- 
 ing of Israel should bring salvation to 
 the Gentiles, and so lead at last to the 
 restoration of all Israel, is a mystery re- 
 vealed now, and long since indicated in 
 Isaiah : and God's gracious purposes 
 can never fail, but even disobedience is 
 so overruled that He may have mercy 
 upon all (25-32). 
 
 O depth of God's wisdom surpassing 
 all that man's heart could conceive 1 O 
 depth of inexhaustible riches, receiving 
 from none but giving freely to all ! For 
 from Him as their first cause all things 
 begin, through Him still working in them 
 they work together, and unto Him they 
 tend as the final cause of all : " To Whom 
 be the glory for ever, Ajnen " (vv. 33-56). 
 
 It is impossible to look back on the 
 whole course of the Apostle's argument, 
 from the revelation of God's wrath 
 against an ungodly world (i. 18) to this 
 mystery of God's all-embracing mercy, 
 without feeling that, whatever local, 
 temporary, or personal circumstances 
 may have induced St, Paul to address 
 this letter to Rome, such an exposition 
 of the Gospel could only have proceeded 
 from the mind of one who was moved 
 by the Holy Ghost to write for all 
 ages and for all mankind. " A more 
 far-reaching glance was never cast over 
 the Divine plan of the history of the 
 world " (Godet). 
 
 IV. Exhortation to Christian 
 Duties. 
 
 The doctrinal part of the Epistle now 
 concluded is followed by an exposition 
 
 of Christian duty closely connected with 
 it, and hardly less systematic and com- 
 prehensive. It consists of two main 
 portions : 
 
 (a) The general duties of the Christian 
 life (xii., xiii.); 
 
 (b) The special duty of mutual for- 
 bearance and charity in regard to things 
 non-essential (xiv. i-xv. 13). 
 
 (a) xii., xiii. The Christian's Duties 
 TOWARDS God, and towards Man. 
 
 The Apostle has set forth " the mercies 
 of God" in his survey of the Divine 
 purpose and method of salvation. These 
 mercies he now applies as motives to 
 holiness, beginning with the central 
 thought of self-consecration. Conform 
 not even outwardly to the fashion of this 
 world, but be inwardly transformed, your 
 bodies being devoted to God's service, 
 your minds renewed to know His perfect 
 will (i, 2). 
 
 Presume not on special gifts, but as 
 members of one body in Christ employ 
 them for the good of all (3-8). Let 
 love, the soul of all Christian virtues, 
 animate your conduct towards your 
 brethren in Christ, and towards all men, 
 even your enemies (9-21). 
 
 Obey the rulers of the State, as powers 
 ordained of God (xiii. 1-7). Fulfil the 
 royal law of mutual love (8-10), and 
 remembering that the day of Christ is 
 at hand, put on the armour of light, put 
 on the new man (11-14). 
 
 (b) xiv. I — XV. 13. Special Exhor- 
 tation TO Mutual Forbearance 
 between Christians. 
 
 Despise not the scruples of the weak 
 conscience, neither condemn the freedom 
 of the strong. We are all God's servants : 
 do all things as unto the Lord : and 
 prepare for His judgment, instead of 
 judging one another (1-13). In things 
 indifferent give no offence ; for meat or 
 drink lead not thy brother into sin 
 (24-23). 
 
 Let the strong bear with the weak, 
 as Christ has borne with us : receive 
 one another, as Christ has received 
 us (xv. 1-7J. He came to fulfil God's 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 41 
 
 promises to Israel, and to extend God's 
 mercy to the Gentiles : rejoice in Him, 
 for ye are all His people (8-13). 
 
 The Apostle's reason for addressing 
 to the Christians at Rome this special 
 exhortation to mutual forbearance is to 
 be sought in the divergence of views 
 between the Jewish and Gentile be- 
 lievers : see above, pp. 17, 18. 
 
 V. Conclusion : 
 
 (a) The writer's motives and prospects 
 (xv. 14-33); 
 
 (b) Concluding salutations (xvi.). 
 
 (a) Bear with my boldness in admonish- 
 ing you, for I am a minister of Christ, 
 to present the Gentiles as an acceptable 
 ofifering (14-16). I glory therefore, yet 
 only in what Christ has wrought through 
 my preaching His Gospel to them who 
 had not heard His name (17-21), Often 
 hindered by this duty, I now am free to 
 come to you on my journey into Spain, 
 as soon as I have carried to Jerusalem 
 the alms of the Gentile Churches here 
 (22-29). P^3.y for my deliverance from 
 the unbelieving Jews, for the acceptance 
 of my service by the saints, and for my 
 coming to you in joy. " And the God 
 of peace he with yon all" (30-33). 
 
 (b) Commendation of Phoebe (i, 2) ; 
 Apostolic greetings (3-16); Warning 
 against false teachers (17-20); Saluta- 
 tions from St. Paul's companions (21- 
 23) ; Benediction (24) ; Doxology (25- 
 27). 
 
 On the contents of this Chapter com- 
 pare § 8, pp. 24-29. 
 
 There is a close correspondence be- 
 tween the Introduction and the Conclu- 
 sion of the Epistle, both in form and 
 thought. The section (a) answers to 
 i. 8-15, while in (b) we find in the 
 Doxology a fulness of thought and 
 majesty of expression which harmonize 
 well with the character of the opening 
 address (i. 1-7). 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 "The Law," The Flesh." 
 
 In several important passages of this 
 Epistle it is essential to a right under- 
 Standing of St. Paul's argument that we 
 
 should be able to determine the exact 
 meaning of the word '■^ law" {i/d/x-os) 
 with and without the Definite Article. 
 
 " It must be admitted," says Bp. 
 Middleton, 'On the Greek Article.' p. 303, 
 " that there is scarcely in the whole N. T. 
 any greater difficulty than the ascer- 
 taining of the various meanings of 
 j/d/Aos in the Epistles of St. Paul." 
 
 One of the earliest remarks on the 
 subject is that of Origen on Rom. iii. 21 : 
 " Moris est apud Grascos nominibus 
 apOpa pr£ei'Oni, quae apud nos possunt 
 Articuli nominari. Si quando igitur 
 Mosis legem notninat, solitum nomitii 
 prccmittit Artieidimi: si quando vero 
 naturalem vult intelligi, sine Articulo 
 nominat legem." Though the form of 
 the first sentence ( * apud Greecos," 
 " apud nos ") shews that it is due to 
 the Latin translator Rufinus, the rule 
 about the use of the article seems 
 to have proceeded from Origen him- 
 self: for it is the basis of his whole 
 interpretation of Rom. iii. 21, both in 
 the Commentary and in the Philocalia, 
 cap. ix. 
 
 It is admitted on all hands that this 
 rule, so far as it refers to the Law of 
 Moses is generally true, i.e. that where 
 the law of Moses is meant vd/^os usually 
 has the Article prefixed. 
 
 Is the rule true without exceptions? 
 
 If there are any exceptions, are they 
 merely arbitrary, or can they be explained 
 on any known principle, so as not to de- 
 stroy the general rule ? 
 
 In other words does St. Paul use 
 vd/Aos and 6 vd/x,os indifferently to signify 
 the particular law of Moses ? 
 
 Bp. Middleton maintains the general 
 truth of the rule, admitting " no other 
 exceptions than those by which words 
 the most definite are frequently affected." 
 We must first inquire on what prin- 
 ciple the general rule is founded, and 
 then consider the alleged exceptions. 
 
 A clear view of the nature of the 
 Article, and of the effect of its insertion 
 or omission, was long since given by Mr. 
 T. S. Green, " Grammar of the N. T. 
 Dialect," 1842, p. 132. "The Article 
 is prefixed to a word, when it conveys 
 an idea already in some degree fami- 
 liarized to the mind, and in so domg 
 
42 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 expresses something definite. Definite- 
 ness attaches to the geiieral idea, when 
 this idea is identified with o?ie which has 
 been already ijiipressed upon the mind. 
 The Article is a sign of this identifica- 
 tion, and thus is closely but not primarily- 
 connected with definiteness." (Slightly 
 abridged.) 
 
 Again, p. 165 : "Since the Article is 
 prefixed to a word when its idea is 
 already familiarized, and is a mark or 
 intimation of that circumstance, the 
 natural effect of its presence is to divert 
 the thoughts from dweUing upon the 
 peculiar import of the word, and is adverse 
 to its inherent notio7i standing out as apro- 
 minent point in the sense of the passage, 
 it being an unquestionable law that, 
 while novelty excites attention and scru- 
 tiny, familiarity is commonly associated 
 with a passing glance." 
 
 The first passage to which Mr. Green 
 refers (p. 171) as illustrating "the ten- 
 dency of the presence of the Article to 
 divert the attention from the peculiar 
 inherent meaning of a word to which it 
 is prefixed, and of its removal to recall it " 
 is Joh. i. I, ®€os y]v 6 Aoyos : " Had the 
 Article been prefixed, the sense would 
 have been, that the Word was identical 
 with the entire essence of the sole Deity. 
 In the actual words ®e6<s is the predicate ; 
 that is, all that is involved in the notion of 
 ©eds is predicated of the Word, namely 
 the proper nature and attributes of 
 Deity. The absence of the Article, 
 further, admits of the Divine Word 
 being possessed of this nature in 
 common with other beings or Persons." 
 
 The importance and correctness of 
 this statement will be at once seen by 
 referring to Professor Westcott's note on 
 the same passage in this Commentary : 
 "Tt is necessarily without the Article 
 (®eds not 6 ©eds) inasmuch as it de- 
 scribes the nature of the Word, and does 
 not identify His Person. It would be 
 pure Sabellianism to say the Word was 
 6 ©eds." 
 
 Again on Joh. v. 27, Dr. Westcott 
 writes : " The omission of the Article 
 concentrates attention upon the nature, 
 and not upon the personality of Christ." 
 
 Again on xix. 7 : " The omission of 
 tlie Article (vl6s ©eoD) concentrates 
 
 attention upon the nature and not upon 
 the personality of Christ." 
 
 We thus see that the principle on 
 which Mr. Green founded the general 
 rule for the insertion or omission of 
 the Article is accepted by Professor 
 Westcott : we shall find presently that it 
 is no less clearly recognised by Bp. 
 Lightfoot. 
 
 Unfortunately Mr. Green was not 
 consistent in applying his own principle 
 to St. Paul's use of the word vd/xos : this, 
 he writes, " is precisely a case in 
 which it might be expected that the 
 constant and familiar use of the word 
 would lead to the dropping of the 
 Article; and that such was the actual 
 effect, may be concluded from such 
 passages as the following : Rom. x. 4, 
 Te'Aos yap vofiov Xptcrrds, I Macc. ii. 21, 
 KaTaXfTTeiv vofJiOV kol SLKaiwfiara" (p. 228). 
 
 Mr. Green infers that we cannot 
 safely conclude " that the Apostle never 
 uses the anarthrous word to signify the 
 Jewish Law." "But," he adds, "it 
 would scarcely be too hardy an assump- 
 tion, that the Apostle has been precise with 
 respect to the Article in those passages of 
 his writings where any ambiguity was 
 ufidesirable.^' 
 
 This uncertain mode of speaking 
 virtually abandons many passages to 
 the caprice, or preconceived opinions 
 of individual Commentators. It will 
 be made clear by a few examples that 
 the question can hardly be said to have 
 been as yet expressly and finally settled. 
 
 Dean Alford writes on Rom. ii. 1 2 ff. 
 " Nd/Aos throughout signifies the law of 
 Moses, even though anarthrous, in every 
 place except where the absence of the 
 Article corresponds to a logical inde- 
 finiteness, as e. g. eaiiTois cto-iv v6fjio<i, v. 
 14: and even there not "a law": see 
 note." The note on z'. 14 is, ' are to 
 themselves (so far) the law, not ' a law, 
 &c.' 
 
 Again, on ii. 13 (ot aKpoarat vofxov), 
 " vd/xos was indisputably the law of 
 Moses." 
 
 These statements seem directly op- 
 posed to Mr. Green's view of the effect 
 produced by omission of the Article 
 They are equally opposed to Dr. 
 Vaughan's careful distinction of v6fxo<; 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 43 
 
 and o VO/X.OS in his notes on Rom. ii. 
 12-15. 
 
 Bp. Ellicott in his Commentary on 
 Galatians adopted Dean Alford's view, 
 while Bp. Lightfoot agrees with Mr. 
 Green, Dr. Westcott, and Dr. Vaughan. 
 
 Thus on ii. 19, Sia vofxov vo'/xw airidavov, 
 
 Bp. ElHcott writes (in 1854) '" The real 
 difficulty in these words rests on the 
 meaning of vo/aos : this must be decided 
 on exegetical grounds, for it appears 
 most certain that vo/aos may be an- 
 arthrous, and still clearly mean the law 
 of Moses : see Winer, ' Gr.' § 8." Ac- 
 cordingly the Bishop adds that " No/^os 
 in each case has the same meaning ; 
 that meaning is the Mosaic law." 
 
 Bishop Lightfoot, on the contrary, 
 writes on the same passage : " The 
 written law — the Old Testament — is 
 always o voyxos. At least it seems never 
 to be quoted otherwise. No/xos without 
 the Article is ' law ' considered as a 
 principle, exemplified no doubt chiefly 
 and signally in the Mosaic law, but 
 very much wider than this in its appli- 
 cation." 
 
 The same difference runs throughout 
 the two Commentaries on Galatians, as 
 may be seen by referring to the notes on 
 iii. 18; iv. 4, 5 ; V. 18; vi. 13. Also 
 on Philipp. iii. 5, Kara voixov ^apuraLO';, 
 Bp. EUicott's note is, 'in respect 
 of the law (of Moses) a pharisee. 
 " Nd/Ao? is here the ' Mosaic law,' &c." : 
 while Bp. Lightfoot writes : " v6[x.ov\ 
 law ' not ' //?<? /aw '; for though the 
 Mosaic law is meant, it is here re- 
 garded in the abstract as a principle 
 of action, being co-ordinated with ^rjXos 
 and 8LKaL0(Tvvr]v." See below, p. 47. 
 
 When opinions so distinctly opposite 
 are so strongly maintained on either side, 
 it is reasonable to suppose that some 
 further investigation of the facts of the 
 case is necessary. We propose there- 
 fore to examine the usage of the word 
 vd/Aos, with and without the Article (i.) in 
 the Septuagint, (ii.) in the New Testament 
 generally, and (iii.) in St. Paul's Epistles. 
 
 i. Usage in the Septuagint. As 
 Tromm's Concordance to the LXX is 
 notoriously imperfect, we shall endeavour 
 to supplement its deficiencies from the 
 excellent Hebrew Concordance of Furst. 
 
 We may first observe that the word 
 (n^iri), of which vd/xos is the usual 
 rendering, has a very wide range of 
 meaning. According to Furst it means 
 " doctrine, instruction, teaching paternal 
 and Divine ; hence the whole Mosaic 
 law, and also the whole word of God, 
 both law and ordinances, then the law 
 specially, and particular laws and pre- 
 cepts, then metaphorically system and 
 method (2 Sam. vii. 19)." 
 
 For an instance of the more general 
 sense of the word we may refer to the 
 note in this Commentary on Mic. iv, 2, 
 "/(?r ^/le law shall go forth of Zion." 
 " Rather, /^r out ofZion shall go forth 
 a law. The Hebrew word for law 
 literally signifies instruction. The old 
 law is not what is here meant, but the 
 fulfilment of it (Matt. v. 17, 18), the 
 teaching of Christ." 
 
 Another point to be noticed is that 
 in regard to the use of the Article the 
 Septuagint follows the Hebrew very 
 closely. 
 
 Thus the word vo'/aos is used to translate 
 Tr\\T\ about 187 times, and only in about 
 six passages do the Hebrew and the 
 Greek differ as to the insertion or 
 omission of the Article. In four of 
 these places (Prov. xxviii. 4 (twice), xxi. 
 18, Isai. xxiv. 5) the LXX have im- 
 properly inserted it, as is well explained 
 by Delitzsch in his note on Isai. xxiv. 5 : 
 " Understanding the earth as we do in 
 a general sense, ' the law ' cannot sig- 
 nify merely the positive law of Israel. 
 The Gentile world had also a Torah or 
 divine teaching within, which contained 
 an abundance of divine directions 
 (toroth)." With this view agree Jerome, 
 Aben-Esra, Vitringa, Rosenmiiller. 
 
 In Mai. ii. 8, 9 (cV vd/xw) the LXX have 
 not heard the Article in mW3. 
 
 Nor does this close agreement imply a 
 departure from the general use of the 
 Article in Greek : for " in Hebrew the 
 Article is employed with a Noun to limit 
 its application in nearly the same cases 
 as in Greek or German {or Efiglish), 
 namely, only when a definite object, one 
 previously 7nentio?ied, or already known, 
 or the ofily one of its kind, is the subject 
 of discourse" (Gesenius, ' Hebrew Gram- 
 mar,' § 109). 
 
44 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Of the 1S7 passages above mentioned 
 o V0//0S is used in 120 with other de- 
 fining words wliich render the Article 
 necessary . these examples need no 
 discussion. 
 
 The same may be said of five other 
 passages, in which tov vo/xov is dependent 
 on a Noun which has the Article, 
 either to fSiPXiov or tov% Xoyors (2 Ki. 
 xxii. II, xxiii. 24, 2 Chr. xxxiv. 19; 
 Neh. viii. 3,9); and in one passage 2 Ki. 
 xxii. 8, JSl/SXlov tov vo/jlov evpov, where 
 TOV vofjiov seems to be dependent on an 
 anarthrous Noun, the Article before 
 PijiXlov has been improperly omitted by 
 the LXX froi.i a literal adherence to the 
 Hebrew, in which the antecedent Noun 
 is in the construct state and therefore 
 without the Article. 
 
 In eight passages (2 Chr. xxxi. 21 ; 
 Ezra vii. 10; x. 3 ; Neh. viii. 2, 7 ; x. 
 34, 36 ; xiii. 3) 6 voyxos has the Article 
 because " the Law of Moses " is meant, 
 i. e. the Pentateuch as a whole, or pos- 
 sibly in Ezra x. 3 the particular law 
 about the marriage of Priests. In Jer. 
 ii. 8 (nninn ^b-shl) the LXX have added 
 ju,ou unnecessarily. In Zeph. iii. 4 Tromm 
 reads daefiovcrLv eh tov vo/xov, but Field 
 has aaef^ovaLv vo/xov, which agrees with 
 thie Hebrew. 
 
 Adding the four passages above men- 
 tioned in which the LXX have impro- 
 perly inserted the Article, we have 140 
 passages in which 6 vo'/xos occurs, and out 
 of these there are only eight, in which, 
 without some further definition, it stands 
 for "the Law" of Moses. In fact it 
 is only in the later books 2 Kings, 
 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, that 
 this limited sense of " the Law " is 
 found. 
 
 It remains for us now to examine the 
 forty-seven passages in which vomo<s is 
 used without the Article. 
 
 In twenty of these passages vo/aos is fol- 
 lowed by a Genitive defining the giver 
 of the law Kvpcov, ©eoC, tov Qeov, 
 Mwvcrecos, fjiov. 
 
 In three other passages (Neh. ix. 13 ; 
 Mai. ii. 6 ; Prov. xiii. 15) vo/aos, followed 
 by a Genitive, has a perfectly general 
 sense "a law of truth," "a wise man's 
 instruction." 
 
 In three passages rofxia is found with 
 
 the Preposition iv, 2 Chr. xv. 3, eVou to/xw, 
 where it is perfectly indefinite, and MaL 
 ii. 8, 9 iv v6/x(o, on which see above, p. 43. 
 
 In two passages the genitive vo/xov de- 
 pending on an anarthrous Noun seems 
 at first sight to mean definitely " the 
 law." 
 
 But in the first of these passages 
 2 Chr. xxxiv. 15, /StftXiov vofjLov, the 
 LXX have been again misled, as in 2 Ki. 
 xxii. 8, by the omission in Hebrew of 
 the Article before the Noun in the 
 construct state : there they wrote /St/SXtov 
 TOV vofjiov, here more consistently (3t/3Xiov 
 vofxov, while in both passages to (Si(3Xlov 
 TOV vofjiov would have been the right 
 rendering. 
 
 In the other passage, Prov. vi. 23, 
 Xv)(yo<s ivToXy] vo/xov Koi <^uJs is a mis- 
 translation of the Hebrew, which 
 means a " commandment is a lamp, 
 and instruction (Torah) is light," 
 the Articles being wrongly inserted in the 
 A. V. See Delitzsch on the passage, 
 and at p. 42 of his Commentary on 
 Proverbs : " In vain do we look for the 
 name Israel in the Proverbs, even the 
 name Torah has a much more flexible 
 idea attached to it than that of the law 
 written at Sinai : compare xxviii. 4 ; 
 xxix. 18, with xxviii. 7 ; xiii. 14, &c." 
 
 In four of the remaining nineteen 
 passages we find vopio^ els, which needs 
 no remark. In three more (Deut. 
 xxxiii. 3 ; Neh. ix. 14 ; Isai. Ii. 4) the 
 A. V. renders j/o/aos rightly without the 
 Definite Article. In twelve passages 
 (Prov. xxviii. 7, 9; Isai. ii. 3; viii. 16, 
 20; Jer. xviii, 18; Lam. ii. 9; Ezek. 
 vii. 26; Mic. iv, 2; Hab. i. 4; Hagg. 
 ii. II ; Mai. ii. 7) the meaning is in- 
 definite, " instruction " or " law," and 
 the Article is wrongly inserted in the 
 A. v., not being found in the Hebrew. 
 
 We thus arrive at the general result 
 that vd/Aos, without the Article^ and 7C'ith- 
 out some defitiing Genitive, nei'er means 
 " the law " of Moses as a definite whole. 
 
 This result is confirmed by the twenty- 
 two passages in which vd/xos, with or with- 
 out the Article, is found in the Apocrypha. 
 
 When it means definitely " the law," 
 it either takes the Article (Ecclesiasticus 
 xlix. 4 ; 2 Mace. iv. 17 ; vii. 9 ; Sus. :-. 62) 
 or is followed by a defining Gcniiive or 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 45 
 
 Relative (Ecclesiasticus xxlv. 23 ; xxxix. 
 I, 8 ; xli. 8 ; xlii. 2 ; xliv. 20 ; xlv. 17 ; 
 xlsd. 14). 
 
 In seven passages (Ecclesiasticus 
 xxxii. 15, 24; xxxiii. 2, 3; xxxiv. 8; 
 XXXV. I ; xlv. 5) the general meaning 
 (Divine instruction, a precept, a law) is 
 evident. 
 
 In I Mace. ii. 21 (KaTaXcTretv vofiov 
 Kol Sixatw/xttra), the passage quoted by 
 Mr. Green, the omission of the Articles 
 may be explained by the principle of 
 *' enumeration " (Winer, p. 149, note 2 ; 
 Middleton p. 99), or we may very 
 properly retain the literal rendering 
 (" to forsake law and ordinances"), thus 
 bringing out into prominence the in- 
 herent force of the ideas. The three 
 remaining passages (i Mace. x. 37; xi. 
 34, 57) have no bearing on the question 
 before us. 
 
 ii. Usage in the New Testament 
 
 GENERALLY. 
 
 When we turn to the New Testa- 
 ment, we find that in the Gospels vo/x,os 
 occurs thirty-two times, and has the 
 Article in all except three passages. 
 In Luke ii. 23, 24 iv vo/xw Kvpiov, the 
 Article is omitted either because a 
 particular law is meant (Ex. xiii. 1 2 ; 
 Lev. xii. 6), or more probably on 
 account of the anarthrous Ki;/3tou, as fre- 
 quently in the LXX. 
 
 In Joh. xix. 7 (" IVe have a law") 
 vojxov refers indefinitely either to the 
 whole law, or to the particular law 
 Lev. xxiv. 16, — indefinitely because the 
 speakers do not assume that it was pre- 
 viously known to Pilate, or else to draw 
 attention to the authoritative character 
 of the code, as law which ought to be 
 carried out. 
 
 These three exceptions in no way 
 affect the truth of Origen's rule when 
 applied to the Gospels, that when the 
 law of Moses is meant the Article is 
 always used (o v6ilo%). We also observe 
 in the Gospels that 6 vo/;ios, without 
 further definition, has become the re- 
 cognised title of the Mosaic Law, or 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 In Acts 6 vo/xos occurs nineteen times, 
 vo/xos only once xiii. 39 {Iv vo/xw Mwijo-ews-), 
 where the defining Genitive renders the 
 Article unnecessary. 
 
 In the Epistle of St. James the word 
 is found ten times. Twice only (ii. 9, 
 10) it means "the law" of Moses as a 
 whole, and has the Article. 
 
 In three passages the omission of the 
 Article brings out emphatically the 
 character of the particular law meant as 
 '■'■Z. perfect law" (i. 25), a "■royal law" 
 (ii. 8), "a law of liberty" (ii. 12). 
 
 In the five remaining instances, ii. 11, 
 and iv. 11, where vo/^os recurs four times, 
 it is to be rendered simply " law" as in 
 the perfectly similar passage Rom. ii. 
 25, where see note. 
 
 iii. Usage in St. Paul's Epistles. 
 
 Before proceeding to examine St. 
 Paul's usage of the word, let us remind 
 ourselves that the question is whether 
 V0/.10S witliotii the Article is ever used, 
 like o vo/ios, simply as a Proper Name of 
 " the law " of Moses. We have found 
 no such use in the LXX, Apocrypha, 
 Gospels, Acts, or Catholic Epistles. Is 
 it to be found in St. Paul ? 
 
 The best mode of answering the 
 question will be to classify the uses of 
 the word first in other Epistles, and 
 then separately in Romans. 
 
 In St. Paul's Epistles, other than 
 Romans, the word occurs forty-seven 
 thnes, liot including i Cor. vii. 39, 
 where vdynw is interpolated. 
 
 (i) 6 vd/xos. In eighteen passages it has 
 the Article i Cor. ix. 8, 9 ; xiv. 21, 34; 
 XV. 56; Gal. iii. 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 21, 
 24; iv. 21 ; V. 3, 14; vi. 2 (t. v. tou 
 XpicTTov) ; Eph. ii. 15 ; i Tim. i. 8. 
 
 In all these passages it means the law 
 of Moses, except in Gal. vi. 2, and pro- ' 
 bably i Cor. xiv. 21. 
 
 (2) vdyao?. (a) In three passages it is 
 evidently, from the form of the sentence, 
 indefinite: Gal. iii. 21, d yap i866rj 
 vd/xos 6 8vvdfx€vo<; k. t. A. v. 23, Kara tcui' 
 TotoDTwv oi'K cCTTt v6[jio<; (a quotation from 
 Aristotle : see note on Rom. ii. 14;, 
 
 I Tim. i. 9, StKat'u) vd/xos oi Kelrat. 
 
 {b) In six passages we have the phrase 
 l^ tpywv vofjiov (Gal. ii. 16, thrice; iii. 2, 
 5, 10), on the meaning of which see our 
 note on Rom. iii. 20, and Bp. Lightfoot 
 on Gal. iii. 10. 
 
 On this point we refer Avith pleasure to 
 Mr. S. C. Green's excellent ' Handbook 
 to the Grammar of the Greek Testament,' 
 
46 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 p. 218; "Rom. Hi. 20: k$ epyoiv vo/xou 
 
 /c. T. X., by deeds of law shall no flesh 
 be justified^ for by \z.^ is the knowledge 
 of sift. 
 
 The omission of the Article shows the 
 truth to be universal, applicable to all 
 men, and to every form of law. Compare 
 V. 28 ; Gal. ii. 16 ; iii. 2, 5, 10, in all 
 which passages the Article is consis- 
 tently omitted." 
 
 St. Paul's work would liave been but 
 half done, if he had only proved that man 
 could not be justified by the works of the 
 Law of Moses. What he has proved, 
 and what gives to his Epistle its eternal 
 significance is that by no works of law, 
 by no legal obedience, can man in any 
 age or nation earn for himself righteous- 
 ness before God : if he could, Christ's 
 death was needless (Gal. ii. 21). 
 
 {c) In Gal. ii. 19, vofjiw a-n-edavov, the 
 law of Moses is regarded in its nature 
 as "law" : non quia Mosis, sed quia lex. 
 " I died to law," as a principle of justifi- 
 cation. 
 
 In Gal. vi. 13, ovBe. yap ol TrepiTe/ji- 
 v6jX€V0i avTol vofjiov (j)vXo.(r(rov(rLV, the mean- 
 ing is that the circumcisionists, who 
 enforce the particular ordinance, are 
 not themselves in the full and true sense 
 " doers of law," because they omit ^' the 
 weightier matters of the law — -judgjfient, 
 mercy, and faiths In both passages 
 the absence of the Article gives pro- 
 minence /"^ the general idea "law," and 
 the Apostle's thought gains breadth and 
 force by the more exact rendering. 
 
 In the remaining eighteen passages 
 vo/Aos without the Article is governed by 
 a Preposition 8ia, e'^, ei', Kara, vTTo : I Cor. 
 ix. 20 (four times); Gal. ii. 19, 21; iii. 
 II, 18, 21, 23; iv. 4, 5, 21; V. 4, 
 18 ; Philipp. iii. 5, 6, 9. 
 
 The notion that in these passages 
 vo/Aos is anarthrous simply because 
 it is governed by a Preposition has 
 nothing in its favour : it is opposed 
 to the constant usage of the LXX, 
 Apocrypha, and Gospels, in none of 
 which (as we have seen above) is there 
 a single passage where vo'/xos meaning 
 " the law " of Moses loses its Article on 
 account of being governed by a Preposi- 
 tion, except where the LXX overlooked 
 the presence of the Article in the 
 
 Hebrew. On the other hand in every 
 passage where the Article is omitted, the 
 context not only admits the exact render- 
 ing " law " but gains by it a more forcible 
 and comprehensive meaning. 
 
 As a crucial test we may take the 
 passage Rom. iii. 31, vo^iov ovv Karap- 
 yovfiev Sta r^s wtorews ; fJi-r] yevoiro, dXAa 
 vojxov la-Tavofxiv. Dean Alford's note 
 is as follows : " vo/aos not ' law ' but 
 'the law,' as everywhere in the Epistle. 
 We may safely say that the Apostle never 
 argues of law, abstract, in the sense of 
 a system of precepts — its attributes or its 
 effects — but always of The Law, con- 
 crete, — the law of God given by Moses, 
 when speaking of the Jews, as here : 
 the law of God, in as far as written on 
 their consciences, when speaking of the 
 Gentiles." 
 
 Can we really believe that St. Paul 
 meant, what is thus attributed to him, 
 " we establish The Law," concrete, the 
 law of God given by Moses to the Jews ? 
 Before answering, let the reader study 
 what St. Paul had written a few months 
 before to the Galatians (ii. 18) with 
 Dean Alford's own commentary upon it : 
 
 " 7/" / build again the things which I 
 destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." 
 The force of the verse is — You, by now 
 re-asserting the obligation of the law, are 
 proving {quoad te) that your former step 
 of setting aside the law was in fact a 
 transgression of it." 
 
 It appears inconceivable that St. 
 Paul, after this, should say " we establish 
 the law," but it is perfectly natural that 
 he should say, " we do not annul, nay 
 we establish, law in its true character 
 and essential nature as a revelation of 
 the holy will of God," which can be 
 fulfilled only through faith in Christ 
 (viii. 4). See our notes on the passage. 
 
 We proceed to classify the various 
 uses of vo/x,os in the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 I. We find 6 vo/aos about thirty-five 
 times, sometimes in a tropical sense 
 (as in vii. 21, 23; viii. 2), but usually 
 meaning the law of Moses. 
 
 II. In about forty passages vo^os is 
 without the Article, and its meanings 
 may be classified as follows : — 
 
 (a) vo'/xos '■'law" in a tropical sense, 
 " a ruling principle." 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 47 
 
 Rom. 11. 14, cavToTs €tcrtv vofxos. 
 
 „ iii. 27, 8ta VOjJiOV TTtCTTCWS. 
 
 „ vii. 23, eVepov vojxov iv rots /a€- 
 
 Accrt /xov. 
 ,, 25, I'O/U.o) a/i.apTtas. 
 
 ix. 31, vd/xov SiKatocrvi/?;?. 
 „ „ eis vd/x.o*' [StKatocn^s]. 
 
 No one could think of applying these 
 passages to the Law of Moses. 
 
 {b) vojxos ^'■law " in an unlimited sense, 
 in negative or interrogative sentences. 
 
 iii. 27, Sta TTOLov vo/xov; 
 iv. 15, ov yap ovK ecmv voyiO^, 
 V. 13, ^r] ovTO'i vojxov. 
 
 To these passages we cannot hesitate 
 to add 
 
 ii. 14, TO. fxr] v6[ji,ov ej^ovra, 
 
 „ ,, OVTOL VOfJLOV fJLTj e)(OVTe'^. 
 
 See the notes on this verse. 
 {c) In another class of passages the 
 omission of the Article brings into pro- 
 minence the nature of 'Waw" as a 
 general principle : 
 
 11, 17^ liravaTravri vofuo. 
 
 f, 25^ eav vojxov Trpdcrcrrjs. 
 
 „ „ iav 8e ■7rapaj3dTr]<; vofiav -"s. 
 
 „ 27, TrapaySaTTjv v6p.ov. 
 
 iii. 31, vofxov ovv Karapyovfx^Vf 
 
 ,, „ aWa VOJXOV icTTaro/xev. 
 
 V. 20, vd/AOS Se z-apeLarjXOev. 
 
 vii. I, jLyvwaKovaL yap v6fX.ov XaXco. 
 
 vii. 2, dvSpl Se'Serat vo/aw. 
 X. 4, TcAos yap VOJJ.OV XptcTTOSi 
 
 xiii. 8, vofiov TreirXi^pWKev. 
 
 y, 10, TrXyjpaifia ovv vofjLOv rj ayixTrq. 
 
 After carefully studying these pas- 
 sages we shall feel no doubt that the 
 same general idea of '' law " is to be 
 found in tiie following passages : 
 
 ii. 12, ocrot CI/ vop.ia rjpapTov. 
 8ta vd/Aoti KptdrjaovTai. 
 ii. 23, OS iv vojjuo Kav^aaai. 
 iii. 20, Sia yap v6p.ov tTrtyvwo'is ajxap- 
 
 Ttas. 
 iii. 21 J X'^P'-^ vofiov SiKaiO(Tvvr] necfia- 
 
 vcpwrat. 
 IV. 13, ov yap Sia vofxov rj lirayyiKia. 
 iv. 14, ol Ik vofiov. 
 V. 13, axp>- yap vofiov ap,apTta rjv. 
 vi. 14, ou yap icrre vtto vo/xov. 
 „ 15, OVK IfypXv viro vo/xov. 
 
 vii. 7, ajxapTiav ovK tyvoiv ei p,^ 6ta 
 
 vdp,ou. 
 „ 8, ;>(copts yap vd/AOV d/xaprta ve/cpa. 
 „ 9, e^wv X'^P'-'' ^ojxov TTore. 
 
 iii. 20, e^ epywv vofJLOv ov St/catco^r^aeTat. 
 „ 28^ x'^pts epywv vojxov. 
 ix. 32, 0)9 e^ epywv [vdp,ov]. 
 
 In the only remaining passage vii. 25, 
 voi SoiiXcT^o) vdp,a) ©eo9, we might ex- 
 plain the omission of the Article as in 
 Luke ii. 23, but the antithesis vd/Aw 
 d//,aprtas shows that the proper render- 
 ing is " a law of God " " a divine law." 
 See note. 
 
 In this last class (c) are found the 
 passages, which have been thought to 
 prove most certainly that vdp,os is used 
 indifferently with 6 vdp.os as a Proper 
 Name for " the Law " of Moses. 
 
 For a more correct interpretation we 
 must refer to the foot-notes on each 
 passage. 
 
 We may however refer here to one 
 or two passages in which, at first sight, 
 it may seem difficult to maintain the 
 correct translation of the indefinite vdp.os. 
 
 In Phil. iii. 5, Kara VOJXOV ^aptcratos 
 
 (cited above, p. 43), if we introduce the 
 definite sense " the Law,'' we should be 
 obliged to include the Oral Law, for it 
 was the fundamental principle of the 
 Pharisees to make the Oral Law as 
 binding as the written Law of Moses. 
 The real meaning however is that St. 
 Paul had been as strict as any Pharisee 
 "in regard to law," because he had 
 looked upon law as the principle of 
 justification before God. 
 
 In I Cor. ix. 20, rots vtto vojxov (js 
 viro VOJXOV, jXTj tiv avros vtto vojxov, St. 
 Paul's meaning is that he was not, like 
 the unconverted Jews, "under law" 
 as a condition of righteousness. In no 
 other sense could he say that he was not 
 himself under the law, unless the law 
 were limited to the Ceremonial as dis- 
 tinct from the Moral Law. 
 
 But can we adopt this distinction ? 
 Can we say that St. Paul's expression, 
 " Ye are not wider the latv, but wider 
 grace," applies only to the Ceremonial 
 and not to the Moral Law ? It is clearly 
 impossible. For what is the example 
 
48 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 chosen by the Apostle to prove that we 
 are dehvered from the Law ? It is no 
 outward ordinance, no ceremonial ob- 
 servance, but a moral precept, the deep 
 heart-searching principle of moral obedi- 
 ence. " I'hou shalt not covet" (Rom. vii. 
 7, [i-y] iTnOvjjD'ia-eL^). This is the law of 
 which St. Paul says that it wrought in 
 him all manner of concupiscence, and 
 that sin took occasion by it, and slew 
 him. How could these deadly effects 
 result from the moral law which is holy 
 just and good, ordained to life, except 
 from its being perversely regarded as 
 a means of earning justification, which 
 its nature as law forbids? 
 
 Lastly, as the best apology for a long 
 discussion, we will quote the weighty 
 words of Bp. Lightfoot, "on a fresh 
 Revision of the New Testament/' p. 99. 
 " The distinction between vo/xos and 
 6 vo'/tos is very commonly disregarded, 
 and yet it is full of significance. Behind 
 the concrete representation — the Mosaic 
 law itself — St. Paul sees an imperious 
 principle, an overwhelming presence, 
 antagonistic to grace, to liberty, to spirit, 
 and (in some aspects) even to life — 
 abstract law, which, though the Mosaic 
 ordinances are its most signal and 
 complete embodiment, nevertheless is 
 not exhausted therein, but exerts its 
 crushing power over the conscience in 
 diverse manifestations. The one — the 
 concrete and special — is 6 vo/xos ; the 
 other — the abstract and universal — is 
 vo/Aos. To the full understanding of 
 such passages as Rom. ii. 12 j-^., iii. 
 19 sf., iv. 13 j'^., vii. I s^., Gal. iii. 10 j-^., 
 and indeed to an adequate conception 
 of the leading idea of St. Paul's doctrine 
 of law and grace, this distinction is 
 indispensable." 
 
 We will only add that " law '' assumes 
 this form of an imperious principle 
 opposed to grace and liberty only when 
 it is viewed as the condition of justifica- 
 tion, the means of attaining to right- 
 eousness before God through the merit 
 of good works. Viewed according to 
 its true idea as the expression of God's 
 will, and the guide of man's obedience, 
 it " is holy, just, and good," " spiri- 
 tual," and "ordained to life" (vii. 10, 
 12, 14). 
 
 The Flesh. 
 
 The word " flesh " (crap^) occurs 
 
 twenty-eight times in Romans, and fre- 
 quently in St. Paul's other Epistles, 
 especially Galatians : it has various 
 meanings which must be carefully dis- 
 tinguished, if we wish to have a clear 
 understanding of the Apostle's teaching 
 in many important passages. The in- 
 quiry has been made more necessary 
 by the eftorts of recent writers to show 
 that St. Paul's use of the words " flesh " 
 and " spirit " agrees not so much with 
 the Old Testament as with the dualism 
 of the Greek philosophy of his age. 
 
 Tliis view of St. Paul's doctrine of 
 "///.? Flesh" is adopted with various 
 modifications by Holsten, R. Schmidt, 
 Liidemann, and Pfleiderer. Their several 
 views are briefly stated and compared 
 by Wendt in a good monograph " Die 
 Begriffe: FleischundGeist;" Pfleiderer's 
 views are contained in his ' Paulinism,' 
 pp. 35-67. We can only notice the 
 chief points of the theory. 
 
 The Finite and the Infinite, Man and 
 God, are said to be conceived by St. Paul 
 as " Flesh " and " Spirit." These are 
 contrasted first in a physical sense. 
 
 " Flesh " is the earthly, material, 
 living substance of man's body; even 
 the '■^ soul" (j^vxy]) is included in the 
 '■'•flesh" being the vitality or animating 
 force of its earthly matter. The antithesis 
 to '■'■flesh " is " spirit" a higher material 
 but not earthly substance, belonging ex- 
 clusively to the Divine nature, and having 
 as its essential characteristic a life-giving 
 force. According to one view (Holsten's) 
 the whole man is made up of " flesh " ; 
 '■'■spirit" forms no part of his nature, but 
 is simply transcendental and Divine 
 (Wendt, pp. 80, 86). 
 
 " Flesh" in its physical aspect, is weak, 
 transient and /(?m//!(;z/5'Z?.- in the intellec- 
 tual world it is the principle of error: 
 in the sphere of morals, it is the principle 
 of evil^ and here it comes into direct 
 conflict with " spirit" as an opposing 
 force {ib. p. 81). 
 
 " Thus from the opposition of physically 
 different substances, as set forth in i Cor. 
 XV. results the dualism of antagonistic 
 moral principles" (Pfleiderer, i. p. 54), 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 49 
 
 " Flesh and Spirit both are to Paul not 
 inert but active substances (Rom. viii. 
 5 ff.). The flesh works as sensual desire, 
 the spirit as non-sensual will " (Holsten, 
 ' Das Evangelium d. Paulus,' p. 127). 
 
 This idea of the '■'■ flesh " is supposed 
 to pervade St. Paul's system of doctrine : 
 it explains his view of the Law, of Sin, 
 of Christ's Person and work. 
 
 (i) Disregarding the ceremonial or- 
 dinances as having reference only to the 
 " flesh," he recognises the Moral Law as 
 spiritual and divine. 
 
 (2) Sin has its natural source in the 
 ''''flesh','' which is in itself unholy, in 
 opposition to '■'•spirit'''' which is holy. 
 But the sin thus actually grounded in 
 man's nature (a/xapria) is at first un- 
 conscious and guiltless, and is thus dis- 
 tinguished from conscious transgression 
 (irapafSacTLs). Indwelling sin is thus a 
 real though unconscious tendency of 
 the "flesh " to strive against the " spirit" 
 and the spiritual law, and thus it in- 
 evitably and of necessity produces con- 
 scious transgression and the sense of 
 guilt {ib. p. 82). 
 
 (3) Christ even in His pre-existent 
 state is regarded as man, the heavenly 
 spiritual man : His " flesh " belongs not 
 to His permanent Being, but only to 
 His earthly life. 
 
 Sin (afxapTM, not 7rapa/5acrts) dwelt in 
 
 His flesh as in that of other men : and 
 hence the indwelling power of sin 
 was destroyed in the destruction of the 
 earthly substance of His flesh. 
 
 The " new life " of believers consists 
 in the gift of the Divine spirit whereby 
 they appropriate and realise in their own 
 persons this effect of Christ's death, by 
 continually subduing the flesh to the 
 spirit, a process which will be perfected 
 only in the end of the world, when 
 matter, in its grosser form, will be wholly 
 overpowered by spirit (id. p. 83). 
 
 It is evident even from this brief and 
 imperfect sketch that in this so-called 
 Pauline doctrine we have quite " another 
 gospel," and not that which St. Paul has 
 been usually supposed to preach. The 
 theory, in all the various forms under 
 which it is presented, is mainly founded 
 upon the assumption that St. Paul 
 regards the ''flesh " as essentially sinful. 
 
 It thus involves the necessary conse- 
 quence that our Blessed Lord not only 
 bare "the likeiiess of si?iful flesh," but 
 that His flesh itself was sinful ; see note 
 on viii. 3. 
 
 It will not then be thought a needless 
 labour if we try to ascertain what mean- 
 ing the Apostle really attached to a 
 word so important in his teaching as 
 " the flesh." 
 
 1. In its original and proper meaning 
 o-ap^ denotes the material of the living 
 body, whether of man or of other 
 animals, as in Lev. xvii. 11. 
 
 In this sense it occurs in ii, 28, 
 " circumcision, which is outtvard in the 
 flesh " .• compare Bp. Lightfoot's note on 
 Col. i. 22, " /« the body of his flesh." 
 It must be observed that in xiv. 21, "to 
 eat flesh," the Greek word is not o-dp^ 
 but Kpea?, which means dead flesh, a dis- 
 tinction rightly observed by the LXX 
 in translating the Hebrew word (ic^n) 
 which means flesh either dead or living. 
 
 2. In the common Hebrew phrase 
 "all flesh" (Gen. vi. 12, 13, 19; vii. 21) 
 all earthly living things are included with 
 man, except where the context limits 
 the meaning to mankind (Job xii, 10; 
 Ps. Ixv. 2 ; Joel. ii. 28). In Rom. iii. 
 20, oil StKaiw^T^crerat Tracra crapf cmTrtov 
 
 avTov, a quotation from Ps. cxliii. 2, 
 St. Paul has substituted " no flesh " for 
 " no man living" and the change 
 may have been made on purpose to 
 strengthen the contrast between man, in 
 his imperfect nature, and the God before 
 whom he stands. 
 
 3. " Flesh " is applied by St. Paul to 
 human kindred, as in ix. 3, " my brethren, 
 my kins?nen according to the flesh ;" xi. 14, 
 " 7ny flesh." This usage, like the pre- 
 ceding, is derived from the Old Testa- 
 ment : see Gen. xxxvii, 27, "he is our 
 brother, and our flesh." We cannot see 
 that it necessarily implies, as Wendt 
 supposes, p. 159, a contrast between the 
 merely human relation, and the relation 
 of man to God, or between "flesh " and 
 " spirit." The nature derived by kins- 
 men from a common ancestor is simply 
 described by that part of it which is 
 visible and palpable. 
 
 In ix. 8, on the other hand, there is 
 an express contrast made between " the 
 
50 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 children of the flesh" and " the children 
 of the promise" equivalent to the contrast 
 in Gal. iv. 29 between him " that was 
 born after the flesh " and " him that was 
 born after the Spirit." 
 
 In iv. I, where Abraham is called 
 "our forefather according to the 
 flesh" a similar contrast seems to be 
 implied between a merely natural and 
 a spiritual relation. 
 
 In neither passage however does the 
 contrast, expressed or implied, involve a 
 judgment upon the moral quality of 
 " the flesh" but it is distinguished from 
 " the Spirit," as that which is merely 
 natural from that which is above nature. 
 
 In this usage o-ap^ represents man's 
 purely natural, earthly condition, a 
 condition in which he is subject to 
 infirmity, suffering, and death, subject 
 also to the temptations which work 
 through the senses and their appetites, 
 but not originally and essentially sinful. 
 
 It is in this sense that Christ is said in 
 i. 3 to have been " made of the seed of 
 David a,s to the flesh," and in ix. 5 to 
 have sprung " as coneerning the flesh" 
 from Israel. In both passages o-apl 
 denotes wliat was simply and solely 
 natural in his earthly life. 
 
 4. Though " the flesh " is not essentially 
 sinful, it is essentially weak, and hence 
 the word is used to describe man in his 
 weakness, physical, intellectual, or moral. 
 
 As connoting mere physical weakness 
 o-ap^ is found in several passages of St. 
 Paul's Epistles (2 Cor. iv. 11- vii. 5 ; 
 xii, 7; Gal. ii. 20; iv. 13) but not in 
 Romans. We may remark that such a 
 passage as Gal. ii. 20, " the life that I 
 now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of 
 the Son of God" is decisive against the 
 notion that " flesh " is something essen- 
 tially sinful. 
 
 Yet mere physical weakness of the 
 flesh may be a hindrance to man's 
 spirit, as in Matt, xxvii. 41, ^'' the spirit 
 indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak ; " 
 and the human spirit thus hampered by 
 the weakness of the flesh is so far 
 unfitted to be the organ of the Spirit of 
 God. 
 
 This opposition of " the flesh " to all 
 that is spiritual is more clearly marked, 
 when " the flesh " is regarded as the 
 
 cause of intellectual weakness : this is 
 the case in Rom. vi. 19, ^^ I speak after 
 the 7nanner of 7nen because of the inflrmity 
 of your flesh" a passage which should be 
 compared with i Cor. ii. 14, iii. i. 
 
 5. Before we proceed to examine the 
 passages in which St. Paul speaks of 
 " the flesh " in its ethical quality as 
 affected by sin (o-ap^ d/xaprias), it will 
 be desirable to notice how those who 
 would prove that the Apostle regards 
 " the flesh " as essentially sinful en- 
 deavour to remove the obstacle pre- 
 sented by Rom. v. 12 to the acceptance 
 of their theory. 
 
 It is admitted by Pfleiderer (' Paul- 
 inism,' p. 45) that the words sin entered 
 into the world " undoubtedly imply the 
 entrance of something new, which 
 consequently did not previously exist at 
 all," and therefore " it is quite out of 
 place to introduce here the doctrine of 
 the crapf as the natural principle of sin, 
 for this passage expressly exhibits the 
 principle of sin not as natural, but as 
 of historical origiti." 
 
 This evident meaning of Rom. v. 1 2 
 is admitted to be inconsistent with the 
 doctrine attributed to St. Paul in Rom. 
 vii., that ^^ the flesh" is originally and by 
 its own nature, prior to the first man's 
 transgression, the principle of sin. But 
 instead of regarding thi?, formal cotitra- 
 dictioJi as a reason for doubting his own 
 view of the doctrine in Rom. vii., 
 Pfleiderer finds in it a reason for setting 
 aside what he has already admitted to 
 be the unquestionable meaning of v. 12: 
 " If we are compelled to confess that 
 there is a formal contradiction between 
 Rom. v. 1 2 f. and Paul's doctrine of the 
 sinful a-dp^, we are all the more justified 
 in penetrating through the obvious form 
 of the doctrine in Rom. v. 12 f. to the 
 speculative idea embodied in it, which is 
 so plainly suggested by the actual words 
 of Paul, where he identifies the act of 
 Adam with the common act of all. So 
 soon as we grasp the thought that it was 
 not in truth the first man as an individual 
 who was the subject of the fall, but man 
 as man, we see the historical beginning 
 to be merely the form which expresses 
 the universality of the principle which 
 has no beginning; and thus the sub- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 51 
 
 stantlal agreement of the passage with 
 the Une of thought in Rom. vii. is placed 
 beyond doubt." 
 
 Before we can consent thus to set 
 aside the obvious and acknowledged 
 sense of Rom. v. 1 2 in favour of a 
 " speculative idea " altogether contra- 
 dictory to " the Jewish theological 
 doctrine " (Pfleiderer, p. 46), we ought 
 to be fully convinced that the pro- 
 posed interpretation of the Apostle's 
 line of thought in Rom. vii. is at least 
 as obvious and as certain, as his meaning 
 in Rom. v. 12 is acknowledged to be. 
 In other words, it ought to be shown 
 that in Rom. vii. " the flesh " is distinctly 
 declared to be originally and in its own 
 nature sinful, and that no other inter- 
 pretation is admissible. 
 
 We proceed to examine this point. 
 
 In vii. 5, " when we were i?i the flesh " 
 St. Paul speaks as one who is " in the 
 flesh" no longer: ^^ the flesh" therefore 
 cannot here mean the material substance 
 of the body per se, nor this earthly 
 bodily state per se, but only as subject 
 to some quality formerly attached to it, 
 namely, as the context shows, a pre- 
 dominant sinful propensity. This quality 
 is therefore accidental and separable, and 
 not of the essence of " the flesh " con- 
 sidered as the material substance of the 
 body : and so St. Paul can write " the life 
 that I flow live in the flesh, I live by the 
 faith of the Son of God'' (Gal, ii. 20), a 
 passage which, as clearly as Rom. vii. 5, 
 refutes the notion that " the flesh" i.e. the 
 material living substance of the body, is 
 essentially sinful. 
 
 The next passage in which the word 
 occurs is vii. 18, " For I know that in 
 me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good 
 things Here not only is the moral weak- 
 ness and worthlessness of " the flesh " 
 asserted in the strongest possible terms, 
 but the utter absence of good is alleged 
 as evidence of something worse than 
 weakness, of positive indwelling sin 
 (z/. 17). 
 
 " 2 he flesh " then is regarded by St. 
 Paul as a dwelling-place, and seat, not 
 necessarily the only seat, of sin : but it 
 is important to observe that his judg- 
 ment is the result of practical experience 
 (oTSa), not of any speculative analysis 
 
 of the ideas of ''flesh " and " sinr He 
 found as a fact sin dwelling in his flesh : 
 we may add that he regarded this as a 
 fact of universal experience (iii. 9 — 20) : 
 but we have no reason to suppose that 
 he regarded sin as inseparable from the 
 very essence oi '^ the flesh" ; we are still 
 far from the conclusion that in the 
 Apostle's mind " the flesh is by its 
 nature and from the beginning the 
 principle of sin " (Pfleiderer, p. 62). 
 
 We pass on to vii. 25 : '■'■So then with 
 the mind I myself serve the law of God ; 
 but with the flesh the law of sin." 
 
 Here the form of the sentence dis- 
 tinguishes " the flesh " from " the sin " 
 which gives law to it, as clearly as it 
 distinguishes " the mind " from God 
 whose law it serves. Sin in fact appears 
 not as an essential property of the flesh, 
 but as a power which has brought it into 
 bondage. 
 
 The flesh thus ruled by sin becomes 
 a chief source of opposition, not only to 
 the better impulses of " the mind," but 
 also to the law of God and to the 
 influence of His Spirit. Hence it 
 naturally becomes personified ; and that 
 which was a mere material substance, 
 morally inert, is invested in the Apostle's 
 thought with a spontaneous energy and 
 a living will, with affections and lusts, 
 that war not only against the soul, but 
 against God, so that " the flesh lusteth 
 against the Spirit, atid the Spirit against 
 the flesh ; and these are contrary the one to 
 the other" (Gal. v. 17), 
 
 It is in this sense that " the flesh " 
 is so often mentioned in Rom. viii, as a 
 principle pervading all man's earthly 
 life, and ruling it in opposition to all 
 that is spiritual and Divine : compare 
 the notes on viii. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 
 
 13 ; xii. 14 : also see the notes on vii. 
 
 14 (aapKLVO?) and XV. 27 (a-apKtK6<;). 
 
 The preceding references include 
 every passage in the Epistle in which 
 ardp$ and its derivatives occur. But one 
 of these passages (viii. 3) requires to be 
 further noticed. 
 
 Its true interpretation depends on 
 our holding fast the original meaning of 
 " the flesh " under every modification to 
 which it is subjected in the Apostle's 
 use. When it is said that the law 
 
 D 2 
 
52 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 " 7vas weak through the flesh" we see 
 that St. Paul is regarding " the flesh " in 
 that point of view which he has fully 
 explained in vii. 14-25, that is to say, he 
 regards " the flesh " not only as morally 
 worthless, devoid of all good (vii. 18), 
 but as positively opposed to the law 
 which is spiritual (v. 14), and as exer- 
 cising such dominion over man's whole 
 life that while the mind consents unto 
 the law that it is good (i: 16), the will is 
 not able to give effect to its better 
 impulses, but is forced, as it were, 
 unwillingly to do that which the con- 
 science hates (v. 15). Against this 
 controlling power of " the flesh " the law 
 was weak. 
 
 But God sent his own Son in the 
 likeness of this same flesh, which had in 
 all men become "flesh of sin." In our 
 notes on this passage we have fully 
 discussed the meaning of the expression 
 '■'■likeness ^ flesh of sin," and have, 
 as we believe, proved that it does not by 
 any means imply that Christ's own flesh 
 was sinful. It may be well to state the 
 opposite view in the words of one of its 
 most able and moderate advocates : 
 " By means of the -n-vevfj-a dy(,wcnjVijs, 
 which constituted His personality (Rom. 
 i. 4), Christ was free from personal sin ; 
 not merely from sinful actions, but from 
 any personal inward experience whatso- 
 ever of sin as His own : He was one 
 '■'■who knew no sin" 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 Notwithstanding this, He partook ac- 
 cording to the flesh, or according to 
 His outward man, of the universal 
 human principle of sin, for He had as 
 the material of His body the same flesh of 
 sin as all other vien " (Pfleiderer, ' Paul- 
 inism,' i. 152). This view is further 
 connected, as we might expect, with a 
 theory of Christ's pre-existent nature very 
 different from that which St. Paul is 
 usually supposed to teach. According 
 to Pfleiderer Christ " was essentially 
 and originally a heavenly man " (p. 132). 
 He is the perfect image of God only so 
 far as the Divine essence is " capable of 
 manifestation." " But this being the 
 very image of God is so far from being 
 equal to Him, that on the contrary 
 Christ's Lordship over the community 
 
 and the world implies his unconditiona 
 subordination to God" (p. 135). 
 
 His being "m the form of God" 
 (Phil. ii. 6) "by no means implies that 
 He Himself was also God (©eos 6 Aoyos) ; 
 on the contrary, the Pauline notion of 
 being in the image of God distinctly 
 includes within itself that of being the 
 pattern of humanity " (p. 138). 
 
 In this theory we see one of the 
 necessary results of the writer's misin- 
 terpretation of the " likeness of sinful 
 flesh : " if Christ's own flesh is assumed 
 to be sinful, we can escape from the 
 intolerable thought that sin was in the 
 Manhood taken into God, only by 
 denying the Godhead of the Son. 
 
 On the contrary hold fast throughout, 
 as the same writer frequently insists, that 
 " the flesh " is everywhere " the material 
 substance of the body " (pp. 48, 49, 57), 
 and be content to combine with this 
 what the same author (p. 52) calls " the 
 common Hebraic notion of o-apf, accord- 
 ing to which it signifies material sub- 
 stance which i? void indeed of the spirit 
 but not contrary to it, which is certainly 
 weak and perishable, and so far unclean, 
 but not positively evil," — which in all 
 men except Christ is corrupted and 
 defiled by sin, but is neither sin itself, nor 
 the original source of sin, nor in its essence 
 sinful, — and so we can understand how 
 Christ by taking our flesh in its pure 
 essence without sin, and preserving its 
 sinlessness in every stage of our earthly 
 existence through life and unto death, 
 " condemned sjn in the flesh" condemned 
 It as iiaving no rightful place or power 
 there, condemned it as an enemy to be 
 by His help conquered and cast out. 
 
 The method of interpretation which 
 we have now applied to every passage 
 in which the word a-ap^ occurs in the 
 Epistle to the Romans is equally appli- 
 cable to its use in other Epistles, and in 
 the Bible generally. There is not, as 
 we believe, a single passage which 
 contains the doctrine that the flesh is the 
 source of sin and essentially sinful, — a 
 doctrine which dishonours not only 
 man's nature, but the Father who created 
 us, and the Son who for our redemption 
 was made flesh, and dwelt among us. 
 
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Paul commendeth his calling to the Romans, 
 9 and his desire to come to them. 1 6 What 
 his gospel is, and the righteousness which it 
 sheiveth. i8 God is angry with all ??ianner 
 of sin. 21 What were the sins of the Gen- 
 tiles. 
 
 PAUL, a servant of Jesus Christ, 
 called ^ be an apostle, «sepa- "Acte 13. 
 rated unto the gospel of God, ^" 
 
 2 (Which he had promised afore 
 by his prophets in the holy scrip- 
 tures,) 
 
 Chap. I. 1-7. Address of the Epistle. 
 
 The form of salutation with which St. 
 Paul begins his Epistles, is here enlarged by- 
 important statements concerning his Apo- 
 stolic office, the nature of the Gospel, and the 
 Person of Christ. This stately fulness in the 
 opening address of the Epistle well befits the 
 grandeur of its subject, and the dignity of a 
 Church seated in the Imperial City, to which 
 the writer was as yet unknown. 
 
 1. Official designation of the writer. St. 
 Paul's first care, in addressing a church to 
 which he is not personally known, is to 
 shew by what authority he writes. 
 
 servant of Jesus Christ.'] Servant 0/ Christ 
 Jesus: see note at the end of the chapter. 
 The meaning of the title is not to be derived 
 fi-om the condition of the Greek slave : its 
 Hebrew origin is clearly seen when St. James 
 (1. i) calls himself "^ Servant of God and of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ." In the Old Testament 
 " servant of God" or " servant of Jehovah " is 
 applied to all worshippers of the true God 
 (Deut. xxxii. 36 ; 2 Kings x. 23 ; Dan. iii. 26), 
 but more emphatically to those who are spe- 
 cially called to Gods service, as Abraham, 
 Moses, David, and the Prophets, and pre-emi- 
 nently to the Messiah (Ps. cv. 42 ; Ex. xiv. 
 31 ; Ps. xviii. title; Isai. xlii. i ; Jer. vii. 25 ; 
 Zech. iii. 8). See Ewald, ' History of Israel,' 
 iii. p. 200, note. In the New Testament the 
 corresponding title, "servant of Christ," is 
 occasionally used of believers in general 
 (i Cor. vii. 22; Eph. vi. 6); but more fre- 
 quently apostles love to appropriate to them- 
 selves a title so significant of entire devotion 
 to a master who is also their Lord and God 
 (Gal. i. 10 ; Phil, i. i ; James i. i : 2 Pet. i, i : 
 Jude 1). 
 
 called to be an apostle?^ A called apostle. 
 In proof of his authority St. Paul now adds 
 the more special designation of his office : he 
 is an " apostle " in the full and proper sense, 
 like the twelve whom Christ so named (Luke 
 vi. 13), and, like them, not self-appointed, 
 nor of man's choosing, but ''called;' and sent 
 by^ Christ himself (Gal. i, i ; Acts xxvi. 17, 
 e-yw dTTOareXXa) ere). 
 
 separated.] Set apart The Divine call at 
 Damascus, in which God's electing purpose 
 was accomplished (Gal. i. 15), was the crisis 
 in St. Paul's life which determined his future 
 course : henceforward he was " a chosen vessel 
 to bear Christ's name before Gentiles, and 
 kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts ix. 15 ; 
 xxii. 14, 15.) Thus he had been for ever 
 "set apart" from other men not called to 
 the same office, and from other pursuits, "-unto 
 the gospel of God." " Gospel" means here the 
 actual announcement, the living utterance of 
 " glad tidings," not only the facts and doctrines 
 contained in the gospel (see note on Mark 
 i. I, and i Cor. i. 17 ; Gal. ii. 7 ; i Thess. iii. 2). 
 Here, as in Gal. i. 6, 2 Cor. xi. 4, (iayyeXiov 
 is used without the article, because St. Paul 
 would indicate the nature and quality of the 
 Gospel as a Divine message — " good' tidings 
 from God." 
 
 2-5. From himself and his office St. Paul 
 passes on, with thoughts kindling and ex- 
 panding at the mention of the Gospel, to 
 declare its relation to ancient prophecy (v. 2), 
 and its great subject, the Son of God, m 
 His Incarnation (v. 3), 
 
 His Resurrection and Lordship (v. 4), and 
 His manifestation to the world thrcxugh 
 His Apostles {v. 5). 
 
 2, 3. The connection with the previoia 
 
54 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 [v. 3. 
 
 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ seed of David 
 our Lord, which was made of the flesh ; 
 
 according to the 
 
 verse must not be interrupted by brackets, as 
 in the Authorised Version : both sense and 
 construction flow on — "the glad tidings of 
 God which he promised concerning His Son." 
 
 The prophets foretell both the publication 
 of the Gospel and its contents : " the lanv 
 shall go forth of Zion, and the ivord of 
 the Lord from Jerusalem " (Mic. iv. 2), 
 "O Jerusalem, that br'uigcst good tidings, 
 lift up thy 'voice luith strength'" (Isai. xl. 
 9), ^^Hoiv beautiful upon the mountains are 
 the feet of him that hringeth good tidings, 
 that publisheth peace" (Isai. lii. 7; Nah. i. 15). 
 These are but a few out of many passages 
 which foretell the future proclamation of 
 a message from God, apart from any de- 
 scription of its contents. But St. Paul not 
 only seeks to enhance the majesty of the 
 Gospel as thus heralded by prophecy; he 
 also calls God's chief ambassadors " his pro- 
 phets" as witnesses to the truth of its contents. 
 
 For in w. 3, 4 he brings forward two his- 
 toric facts of paramount importance, which 
 identify the Son concerning whom glad tidings 
 were promised with Jesus whom Paul 
 preaches. The prophets speak of One who is to 
 be born of the seed of David (Ps. Ixxxix. 36 ; 
 Jer. xxiii. 5), and is to be raised from the dead 
 (Ps. ii. 7 ; xvi. 10; Actsii. 25-32 ; xiii. 32-37) ; 
 the Gospel tells of Him who ^was born and 
 •was raised. That these two facts form the 
 very foundation of St. Paul's teaching is clear 
 from this passage and 2 Tim. ii. 8 : " Remem- 
 ber Jesu3 Christ raised from the dead, 
 of the seed of David, according to my 
 gospe4.'^ Compare Acts xiii. 23, 30. 
 
 in the holy Scriptures^ In holy scriptures 
 (Wiclif). The books of the Prophets arc 
 "holy writings," being the records of Divine 
 revelation. Compare xvi. 26. 
 
 Concerning his Soni] The essence of the 
 Gospel, as divinely imparted to St. Paul (Gal. 
 i. 16) and preached by him (2 Cor. i. 19), 
 was the revelation of " the Son of God," " his 
 own Son" (viii. 3, compare viii. 32, iSt'ou, and 
 Col. i. 13-17; Phil. ii. 6). St. Paul seems 
 never to have applied the title " Son of God " 
 to Christ in any other than the highest sense, 
 certainly not here, where the Son of God is 
 declared to be the one great subject of the 
 Gospel and of Piophecy. See on v. 4. 
 
 ivhich ivas made, ^c^ In order to fiilfil 
 that which had been promised concerning 
 Him, the Eternal Son must both become the 
 Son of Man and be manifested as the Son of 
 God. For this cause He " ivas made, or bo rn, 
 of the seed of David ;" an expression which 
 points to Christ's human birth " as derived 
 
 from the greatest of Israel's kings, and io 
 fulfilment of the sure word of prophecy" 
 (EUicott, 2 Tim. ii. 8). Compare John vii. 
 42, " Hath not the Scripture said, that Christ 
 Cometh of the seed of Da-vid?" Meyer, Reuss, 
 and others try to represent St. Paul's words 
 as inconsistent with the supernatural genera- 
 tion of Jesus. But that Mary, as well as 
 Joseph, was of the lineage of David is clearly 
 implied in the history of the Annunciation, re- 
 corded by St. Paul's constant companion, St. 
 Luke, ch. i. 31-35: see note there. Thus, 
 while Jesus was the Son of David according 
 to the customary and legal view, " being as 
 <iuas supposed the son of Joseph," He was at 
 the same time, by actual descent, " of the 
 fruit of David's body" (Ps. cxxxii. 11, 12). 
 
 Into these distinctions, however, St. Paul 
 does not here enter: he states that which 
 according to either view is true, and which is 
 everywhere regarded as a notorious fact in 
 the Gospel history, that Jesus "was descended 
 from David" (Matt. ix. 27 ; xv. 22 ; xx. 30, 31 ; 
 xxi. 9). See notes on Matt. i. 16, 18. 
 
 The importance of St. Paul's testimony to 
 the Davidic descent of Jesus is greatly en- 
 hanced by the fact that Gamaliel, at whose 
 feet he was brought up, being grandson of the 
 great Hillel, was himself of the house and 
 lineage of David. 
 
 For as Christ must be the Son of David, the 
 first and simplest test of the claims of Jesus 
 was his descent ; and this was a matter most 
 easily and surely ascertained by a reference 
 to genealogies so carefully kept as those of 
 the royal family of Judah. Had the slightest 
 shadow of doubt ever been cast upon the de- 
 scent of Jesus from David, it must have been 
 known to Gamaliel : and his disciple Saul 
 could never have accepted as the Messiah one 
 whose claim to a place in the royal lineage, 
 which Gamaliel shared, was false or doubtful. 
 See Taanith, cap. iv. § 2 : " Rabbi Levi saith : 
 They found a roll of genealogies at Jeru- 
 salem, in which was written, Hillel from 
 David." 
 
 according to the flesh.'] As to the flesh. 
 The sense is the same as in ch. ix. 5, "o/" 
 (whom as concerning the flesh Christ came" 
 In Gal. iv. 23, 29, the words Kara <rapKa, 
 Kara irvev^a, after the flesh, and after the 
 Spirit, are used in a sense quite different from 
 that in which they are here applied to Christ's 
 flesh and Spirit. 
 
 " Flesh " in its limited and proper sense 
 denotes the material substance of the living 
 body, but its signification in Scripture is much 
 more extensive and varied : see note on vii. 5. 
 As denoting human nature on that side of 
 
V. 4-] 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 55 
 
 \^mf>ud 4 ^^^ 'declared to be the Son of spirit of holiness, by the resurrection 
 God with power, according to the from the dead : 
 
 which our senses take direct cognizance, it is 
 most appropriate here, where the purpose is 
 to declare that Christ was truly man. 
 
 4. And declared, h-'c!] A higher aspect of 
 Christ's nature is now presented in a second 
 clause set side by side with the former, and 
 rendered emphatic by the absence of any con- 
 junction, and by an exact repetition of the 
 same form : 
 
 " Which IV as born of the seed of David — 
 Which was designated the Son of God." 
 
 declared.] The Greek word (opiaBivros) 
 means either " defined " mentally, as in logic, 
 (Xen. Mem. IV, y'l. 4, 6) or "designated" 
 actually : the latter sense, which is closely 
 connected with that of "instituting," " appoint- 
 ing," or " ordaining," is the only sense which 
 the word has in the New Test, (see Acts x. 42 ; 
 xvii. 31). 
 
 the Son of God.] Bishop Pearson, ' Creed,' 
 Art. ii., shews that Christ is so called (be- 
 sides other reasons) because He is raised by 
 God immediately out of the earth unto im- 
 mortal life, because after His Resurrection 
 He is made actually Heir of all things, but 
 above all because He was begotten of the 
 Father before all worlds. 
 
 The direct and proper proof of this last 
 meaning of the title is the express teaching of 
 Christ and His Apostles : yet even in this 
 sense He was indirectly proved by the Resur- 
 rection to be the Son of God. 
 
 For the resurrection was (ist) a signal mani- 
 festation of Divine power (whether exercised 
 by Christ Himself, or by the Father in his 
 behalf) ; and therefore (andly) a testimony to 
 the truth of Him Who claimed to be " the 
 Son of God ;" and also (srdly) according to 
 St. Paul's preaching, in Acts xiii. 33, it was 
 the prophetic sign which God had set upon 
 His Son in the second Psalm. By it, there- 
 fore. He was marked out, or designated, as 
 the Son of God. "Although His precepts, 
 His miracles, His character. His express 
 language, all pointed to the truth of His God- 
 head, the conscience of mankind was not laid 
 under a formal obligation to acknowledge It, 
 until at length He had been defined to be 
 the Son of God ivith foiver, according to the 
 spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the 
 dead" (Liddon, ' Bampton Lect.' p. 60). 
 
 We must add that the resurrection of 
 Jesus not only proved and shewed what He 
 was, but also wrought an actual change in 
 the mode of His existence (Godet). For He 
 who in the Incarnation became One Christ, 
 by taking of the Manhood into God, by His 
 resurrection entered /or the first time as the 
 
 One Christ both God and Man into the glory 
 of the Son of God. Thus was He (in Pear- 
 son's words) "defined or constituted and 
 appointed the Son of God" ('Creed,' Art. ii.). 
 
 lijith power.'] By the resurrection Christ 
 was designated ' ivith poiver ' as Son of God, 
 because power was the Divine attribute pre- 
 eminently displayed therein. So St. Paul 
 speaks, in Eph. i. 19, of " the exceeding great- 
 ?iess of his poiver to us-ivard ivho believe^ 
 according to the nvorking of his mighty po<wer 
 (lit. of the might of his strength), ivhich 
 he (wrought in Christ, ^ivhen he raised him from 
 the dead.'' 
 
 according to the spirit of holiness.] The 
 phrases as to the flesh— z.^ to the Spirit 
 are so strictly parallel, that the second 
 must necessarily represent, as the first does, 
 a constituent part of Christ's own being. 
 
 Moreover, the peculiar phrase " Spirit of 
 holiness^' found only in this passage, is evi- 
 dently chosen to distinguish the holy spiritual 
 nature of Christ from " the Holy Spirit," who 
 is the Third Person of the Trinity. See Note 
 at the end of the Chapter. 
 
 The two clauses thus present two sides or 
 aspects of the One Incarnate Son of God ; 
 the '•'■flesh" that side on which He is visibly 
 one with us, "very man," "born of a woman:" 
 " the Spirit of holiness,'' that side on which He 
 — the same Son of Man — is proved by the 
 resurrection to be the Son of God. 
 
 This ^'■Spirit of holiness" (whether with 
 older interpreters we take it to mean the 
 essential Deity of Christ, or, as seems to be 
 more exact, the Spirit at once Divine and 
 human of the Incarnate Son) was in either 
 case the sphere and organ of His Divine 
 power. In it He triumphed over death : see 
 I Pet. iii. 18," being put to death in (the) flesh, 
 but quickened in (the) Spirit,'' — a passage which 
 confirms the meaning we have given to 
 " flesh " and " Spirit." 
 
 by the resurrection from the dead.] Read, 
 of the dead. St. Paul never uses the ex- 
 pression " resurrection from the dead," but 
 "of the dead" (plural). See Acts xvii. 32; 
 xxiv. 15, 21. 
 
 So in Acts xxvL 23. St. Paul speaks of 
 Christ as the "first from the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead" (plural). 
 
 Christ's rising was a "resurrection of 
 the dead" (plural), because in Him the 
 general hope of mankind received a first ful- 
 filment. Others had been raised by Prophets 
 of old, and by Christ Himself, but only to 
 die again : " Christ being raised from the 
 dead dieth no more." 
 
56 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 [v. 5—7. 
 
 ^(^x in flu 5 ^y whom we have received 6 Among whom are ye also the 
 
 ohcUcnce grace and apostleship, "for obedience called of Jesus Christ : 
 
 ■ to the faith among all nations, for his 7 To all that be in Rome, be- 
 
 name : loved of God, called to be saints : 
 
 Jesu: Christ our Lord.'] In the authorized 
 version these words are wrongly placed in 'v. 
 3, after " his Son." Their right position is at 
 the end of 'v. 4. The Son of David and Son 
 of God is thus finally described by three 
 well-known titles ; " Jesus " which identifies 
 Him as the crucifi-ed Saviour, "Christ" the 
 promised Messiah, "our Lord" the exalted 
 King, to whom all power is given in heaven 
 and in earth. 
 
 5. By <uihom ive hanje recei-vedl] Rather, 
 "Through whom we received grace and 
 Apostleship^ From the mention of Christ 
 as " Our Lord" St. Paul takes opportunity to 
 describe more fully than in 'v. i the authority 
 which he had received from Him as " head over 
 all things to the Church" (Eph. i. 22). Thus 
 from the majesty of Christ's Person he tacitly 
 implies the dignity of the Apostolic office. 
 
 The plural here is most appropriate, for 
 by it St. Paul asserts his own authority in 
 a form which does not exclude, though it 
 does not expressly include, the other Apostles. 
 Thus, in addressing a Church which no 
 Apostle had yet visited, he happily ignores 
 any distinction of authority by using the in- 
 definite plural : on the other hand in Gal. ii. 
 8, 9 observe how carefully he asserts his own 
 individual claim, even to the exclusion of 
 Barnabas. 
 
 St. Paul often speaks of his call to apostle- 
 ship as " the grace that luas given " to him 
 by God (Rom. xv. 15, 16 ; Gal. ii. 9; Eph. 
 iii. 7-9). But we must not on that account 
 take the two terms together as equivalent to 
 the " grace of apostleship," nor yet entirely 
 separate them as if St. Paul had first received 
 the personal grace of salvation, which is com- 
 mon to all believers, and then afterwards 
 been called to the Apostolic office : the two 
 moments were in him united, and the "grace " 
 of which all partake was enhanced in his case 
 by the special gift of "apostleship." From 
 being " a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and 
 injurious" (i Tim. i. 13"), he was called at 
 once to ^^ preach the faith ivhich once he 
 destroyed" (Gal. i. 23). Thus the sense of 
 his unworthiness mingling with every thought 
 of his Apostolic office makes it to himself the 
 great memorial of God's exceeding mercy: 
 " Unto me, 'who am less than the least of all 
 saints is this grace given, that I should preach 
 among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of 
 Christ" (Eph. iii. 8). 
 
 for obedience to the faith.'] Render, for 
 obedience to faith: not, as in Acts vi. 7, "to 
 
 the faith," i.e. to the gospel or doctrine of the 
 faith, for the Greek Article is here omitted. 
 
 *^ obedience to faith" is man's surrender 
 of himself in mind and heart to faith as the 
 principle and power, "the organic law," of 
 the new life in Christ. 
 
 Margin, "/o the obedience of faith." But 
 the meaning '■^obedience to faith" is confirmed 
 by the similar phrases obedient to the faith (v^cts 
 vi. 7), "obey the Gospel" (Rom. x. 16; 2 Thess. 
 i. 8), and the construction of the genitive is not 
 unusual : compare " in obeying the truth," lit. 
 "in the obedience of the truth" (i Pet. 
 i. 22), and "the obedience of {i.e. to) Christ** 
 (2 Cor. X. 5). 
 
 among all nations.] St. Paul's original com- 
 mission, of which he is here speaking, em- 
 braced both Jews and Gentiles (Acts ix. 15 ; 
 xxvi. 17, 20): and though special prominence 
 is given both in this Epistle (i. 1 3 ; xi. 1 3 ; xv. 
 16) and elsewhere (Acts xxii. 15 and 21 ; 
 Gal. i. 16) to his mission to the Gentiles, yet 
 here in the salutation it is more natural that 
 his Apostolic office should be set forth in its 
 fullest extent, and its dignity enhanced by the 
 world-wide purpose for which it was be- 
 stowed. The actual association of Jews and 
 Gentiles in the Church of Rome, and the 
 desire to unite them in closer bonds of 
 Christian fellowship, required that both should 
 be included in the address. These considera- 
 tions are confirmed by the usage of the words 
 in the N. T. For though eQvr] and ra eOvrj com- 
 monly mean Gentiles as distinguished from 
 Jews, the expression ndvra to. €0vt] retains the 
 fuller sense in which it is first employed, in the 
 blessing of Abraham, Gen. xviii. 18, xxii. 18. 
 
 for his name.] Or, "for his name's 
 sake." The end and purpose oi " obedience 
 to faith among all nations " is to promote the 
 glory of Christ, that "in his name every knee 
 should bomj" and " every tongue confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 
 Father" (Pliil. ii. 10: compare Acts v. 41; 
 ix. 15, 16; xxi. 13). 
 
 6. Among nvhom are ye also,] Having de- 
 scribed his commission in v. 5 as embracing 
 all nations, the Apostle now expressly tells his 
 readers at Rome that they arc included in it, 
 implying thereby that he has authority to 
 address them. 
 
 the called of Jesus Christ.] More literally 
 "Jesus Christ's called ones:" compare the 
 expression " God's elect" (viii. 3 3"), and " Israel, 
 my calhd " (Isai. xlviii. 1 2). Christ's " called " 
 
V. 8.] 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 57 
 
 Grace to you and peace from God our 
 Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 8 First, I thank my God through 
 
 Jesus Christ for you all, that your 
 faith is spoken of throughout the 
 whole world. 
 
 are those who belong to Him as having been 
 called by God the Father, to whom the act of 
 caUing is always ascribed. 
 
 By adding this description of those whom 
 he addresses, St. Paul, while asserting his own 
 authority, at the same time recognizes their 
 position as being already members of Christ's 
 Church. See Introduction, § 7, pp. 12, 13. 
 
 7. Through the crowd of thoughts which 
 had pressed in upon his mind with the first 
 mention of the Gospel, f. i, St. Paul has now 
 come back to the direct relation between 
 himself and his readers, and so proceeds to 
 address his letter to them, and concludes the 
 address with his usual salutation. 
 
 Toall that bein Rome,belo'vedofGod.~\ Rather, 
 "To allGod's beloved that are in Kome." 
 The direct connection is with v. i : " Paul . . . 
 to all God's beloved." God's people are called 
 in the O. T. " his beloved " (Ps. Ix. 5 ; cviii. 6 ; 
 cxxvii. 2) : St. Paul applies the term to Israel 
 in ch. xi. 28, and to Christians in general, 
 I Tim. vi. 2. One bond between the Apostle 
 and his readers is that they are in common 
 the objects of God's love, a second their 
 common consecration to His service as 
 called saints (Godet). 
 
 On the omission of the words " in Rome" 
 in G. g, see Introductic-n, § 8. 
 
 called to be saints.'] Lit. "called saints." 
 Compare %'. i : " a called Apostle." " God's 
 beloved"are also His " r«//cj j«i«^j," separated 
 by the Divine call from the world, and made a 
 holy or consecrated people ; like Israel of old 
 (Ex. xix. 5, 6), they are not simply " called to 
 be holy ^ (A. V.), nor " called be.cause holy," 
 but " holy because called " (Augustine). The 
 holiness is not primarily that of individual 
 moral character, but that of consecration to 
 God's service, and is therefore ascribed to all 
 Christians, who are, however, bound by this 
 very consecration to personal holiness of life. 
 See note on viii. 30. 
 
 Grace to jou and peace.] The form of ad- 
 dress most usual in a Greek letter is seen in 
 Acts XV, 23; xxiii. 26; James i. i. But the 
 "joy," or "health," or "prosperity" was 
 sometimes omitted, and nothing written but 
 the names and descriptior>s of the writer and 
 reader. St. Paul having adopted this short- 
 ened form of address, now adds to it an 
 independent sentence containing an essen- 
 tially Christian salutation, in which ^^ grace" 
 is the Divine love manifesting itself towards 
 sinful man in free forgiveness and unmerited 
 blessing, and '■'peace" the gift of God's 
 grace, is the actual state of reconciliation: 
 
 see note on v. i. " For when through 
 grace sins have been forgiven and enmity 
 done away, it remains for us to be joined in 
 peace to Him from whom our sins alone did 
 separate us" (Augustine). The fuller form 
 found in the Pastoral Epistles, " Grace, mercy, 
 and peace" confirms the interpretation which 
 thus gives to '■^ grace" (;(apts') and ^'' peace" 
 a fulness of meaning not found in the Greek 
 Xaipeiv or the Hebrew Ciw\^. 
 
 from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus 
 Christ.] The original source of '^ grace and 
 peace " is " God our Father'' who has made us 
 His children by adoption (viii. 15) ; the nearer 
 source from which they flow to us is " the 
 Lord Jesus Christ" as Head of tlie Church. 
 It is clear from the salutations in the Epistles 
 of St. Peter and St. Jude, where the sentence 
 is completed, " grace .... be multiplied," 
 that St. Paul's salutation also must be under- 
 stood as a benediction or prayer. Thus in 
 the apostolic letters the forms of common 
 life are hallowed by Christian love, and a 
 passing courtesy is transformed into a prayer 
 for heavenly blessings. 
 
 8-15. Introduction. 
 
 The salutation (1-7), which declares St. 
 Paul's ofticial relation to the Christians at 
 Rome, is followed by a brief introductory 
 statement of his personal feelings towards 
 them, in which he declares his thankfulness 
 for their faith (1;. 8), his remembrance of them 
 in prayer (y. 9), and his desire to visit them 
 and to labour among them in preaching the 
 Gospel (10-15). 
 
 8. First I thank my God through Jesus 
 Christ for you ail.] The thanksgiving, with 
 which the Apostle begins this and most of his 
 epistles, is not to be ascribed to mere rhetorical 
 art or courteous tact in winning the good will 
 of his readers, nor to any fond lingering over 
 an ideal picture of a perfect Church. That 
 for which St. Paul gives thanks to God is no 
 imaginary excellence, but the fact that every- 
 where, in the Churches which he visits, he 
 hears tidings of the faith of those who have 
 embraced the Gospel in Rome. The instinct 
 of love leads him to touch first on that which 
 is thankworthy in his brethren : " It was 
 meet to make a prelude with thanksgiving " 
 (Oilcumenius), because they not only believed, 
 but so openly declared their belief, that it 
 was published throughout the whole world. 
 Observe that the Apostle does not praise 
 them for their faith; it is too divine and 
 excellent a gift for praise. "The greatest 
 
58 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 [v. 9 -I I. 
 
 9 For God is my witness, whom lo Making request, if by any 
 
 tor.tn I serve "with my spirit in the gospel means now at length I might have 
 
 my spirit. ^^ j^jg g^^^ ^1^^^ without ceasing I a prosperous journey by the will of 
 
 make mention of you always in my God to come unto you. 
 
 prayers ; 1 1 For I long to see you, that I 
 
 blessings call notfor praise, but for something 
 greater and better" (Aristot, ' Nic. Eth.,' I. 
 xii. 4) ; and St. Paul gives solemn thanks to 
 God for his brethren's faith. 
 
 for you alLI See note on the reading at end 
 of chapter. He regards their faith as a gift to 
 himself, for which he is bound to give thanks 
 to God: see 2 Thess. i. 3 ; ii. 13. 
 
 It is this feeling of personal interest in their 
 welfare that prompts ihe loving, trustful word, 
 "wj God," that is, "the God who has given 
 me a fresh proof of His love in your faith." 
 Compare Phil. iv. 19. 
 
 through Jesus Christ.'] " To render thanks 
 to God is to offer a sacrifice of praise : and 
 therefore he adds ' through Jesus Christ,' as 
 through the great High Priest." (Origen.) 
 
 Meyer argues that Christ is the Mediator 
 of thanksgiving only as the causal agent of 
 the blessings for which thanks are given, and 
 not as the Mediating Offerer. But that the 
 thanksgiving itself is offered through Christ is 
 certainly the view presented in i Pet. ii. 5 : 
 " to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to 
 God by Jesus Christ." Equally clear is the 
 meaning of Heb. xiii. 15, Col. iii. 17, and 
 Ephes. v. 20. We must therefore retain the 
 earlier and more usual interpretation that St. 
 Paul gives thanks through Jesus Christ, not 
 only because the particular blessing flows from 
 Him, and not only because by Him alone we 
 are brought into such a relation to God that 
 we can offer Him thanksgiving, but because our 
 thanksgiving itself and '' All our services need 
 to be cleansed and hallowed by passing through 
 the hands of our most holy and undefiled High 
 Priest, to become sweet and savoury (or to 
 receive that 00-/^.171' evcaSia? which St. Paul 
 speaks of), from being offered up in His 
 Censer." (Barrow, 'Sermon on Col.' iii. 17). 
 
 9. For God is my (witness^ St. Paul con- 
 firms the sincerity of his thanksgiving for the 
 Christians at Rome by declaring his constant 
 remembrance of them in prayer (y. 9), and 
 his longing desire to see them {y. 10). This 
 declaration he introduces by a very solemn 
 appeal to God as witness of its truth (2 Cor. 
 xi. 31; Phil. i. 8). Is such language too 
 strong for the occasion ? Is St. Paul, as 
 some have thought, so carried away by the 
 intensity of his feelings, or the fervid style of 
 his age and country, or any other cause, as to 
 invoke the name of God thus solemnly with- 
 out an urgent reason ? Or does he speak the 
 
 words of truth and soberness ? We must 
 remember that the Apostle is writing from 
 Corinth, where his sincerity was recently 
 called in question, because his visit to that 
 church had been postponed : to that charge 
 he gave a full and deliberate refutation (2 Cor. 
 i. 15-24), in the course of which (f. 23) he 
 used even a stronger protestation than in the 
 passage before us. Moreover, he is writing 
 on the eve of undertaking a journey from 
 Corinth — a city comparatively near Rome — 
 to Jerusalem, which was far distant. He 
 thus appears to be turning his back upon the 
 Romans, just when it seems most natural to 
 pay his long intended visit ; and he has there- 
 fore reason to fear lest he should be suspected 
 of fickleness or insincerity, or even of being 
 ashamed to preach the Gospel in the great 
 centre of learning and civilization. 
 
 At present he cannot prove his sincerity, 
 he can only assert it ; he cannot show what 
 is in his heart, he can only call the heart- 
 searching God to witness. 
 
 'whom I serve nvith my spirit^ He whose 
 servant and minister I am, to whom I offer 
 no mere outward service in preaching the 
 Gospel of His Son, but therein serve and 
 worship Him in my spirit (xv. 16), — He is 
 my witness that I long and pray to do His 
 work among you (2 Tim. i. 3). He knoweth 
 " that or (rather how) without ceasing I make 
 mention of you always in my prayers^' (Eph. i. 
 16; Phil. i. 3,4)- 
 
 10. Making request, (Isfc^ Making request if 
 by any means I shall ever at length be 
 prospered in the nvill of God to come unto 
 you. How beautifully the Apostle's language 
 reflects the inward conflict of his feelings ! 
 The remembrance of past hindrances is com- 
 bined with the foresight of future difficulties, 
 and the eagerness of desire is tempered by 
 resignation to the will of God, who will bring 
 all to a prosperous issue in His own way, 
 and at His own time. 
 
 The combination ^'Sr/ Trore with a Future 
 assigns to a long-expected event an early 
 ifihr]) but uncertain date (jTOTi). Compare 
 Viger 'de Idiotismis Gr.' p. 413; Phil. iv. 10; 
 Aristoph. 'Ranae' 931. 
 
 be prospered.] See i Cor. xvi. 2; 3 John 
 2 ; and compare the use of the same word in 
 LXX 2 Chron. xiii. 12; Ps. i. 3; Prov. 
 xvii. 8 (Meyer). 
 
 11. For 1 long to see you.] Tlie reason of 
 
V. 12—13.] 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 59 
 
 may impart unto you some spiritual 
 gift, to the end ye may be estab- 
 lished ; 
 
 12 That is, that I may be com- 
 forted together "with you by the 
 mutual faith both of you and me. 
 
 13 Now I would not 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 n Or, «« 
 other Gentiles. ^'"'- 
 
 his earnest prayer is the desire to see, face to 
 face, his brethren at Rome, in whose welfare 
 he is already deeply interested. Compare 
 XV. 23, and notes there. 
 
 The word " I long " (eniiToQai) expresses 
 both the desire that draws him to them, and 
 his regret that he has not been able to come 
 sooner (Godet). 
 
 some spiritual gift^ The word " charisma " 
 is never used in the N.T. of a gift from man, but 
 may be appHed to anything which comes from 
 God's free grace, whether it be a providential 
 deliverance from death (2 Cor. i. 11), a moral 
 virtue, as continence (i Cor. vii. 7), God's 
 favour to Israel (Rom. xi. 29), the gift of eter- 
 nal life in Christ Jesus (v. 15, 16; vi. 23), or 
 any of the manifold gifts of the Spirit (xii. 
 6 ; I Cor. xii. 4), whether miraculous (i Cor. 
 xii. 9, 10), ministerial (i Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. 
 i. 6), or simply personal, as faith (i Cor. xii. 
 9). A gift of this last kind is here meant. 
 St. Paul hopes that in Rome, as elsewhere, 
 his personal ministry may be attended with 
 some gift of God's Holy Spirit, that may 
 confirm and strengthen his brethren in 
 the principles and practice of the Christian 
 life. Increase of knowledge, love, or hope, 
 or of all these combined, would be such a 
 Spiritual gift; but the next verse shews 
 that the strengthening of faith is fore- 
 most in the Apostle's thoughts. Such a 
 gift is called spiritual, not as pertaining 
 to man's spirit, but as proceeding from the 
 Spirit of God. St. Paul can impart it only 
 because he has received " grace and apostle- 
 ship," for this very purpose. Ccrmpare 
 XV. 29. 
 
 12. That is, that I may be comforted together 
 twith you.'] A beautiful example of St. Paul's 
 humility ! He never forgets that those whom 
 he addresses are Christians as well as himself. 
 At the very outset he gives thanks to God for 
 their well-known faith ; and here he does not 
 say " that I may establish you," but " that ye 
 may be established" namely by God. But, 
 lest even thus he should seem to represent 
 the benefit of his visit as all on their side, he 
 hastens to correct his expression, and to place 
 himself beside them, as sharing in the benefit 
 of mutual comfort. He drops the idea of 
 their needing to be established as persons 
 weak in faith, and joins himself with them as 
 needing to be encouraged by their faith, no 
 
 less than they by his ; for by " mutual faith," 
 is here meant " the faith which each sees in 
 the other.'' The whole verse may be thus 
 rendered: — That is, that we may be to- 
 gether comforted among you each by 
 the other's faith, yours as well as 
 mine. For the construction, see note at 
 end of chapter. 
 
 13. No'w I <would not have you ignorant, 
 brethren.] St. Paul's usual mode of an- 
 nouncing some new and important point 
 (see note on xi. 25). His first thought has 
 been of the present and future welfare 
 of his readers (f-y. 8-12): he is thankful 
 for their faith, and longs to help in estab- 
 lishing it. But then comes the question. 
 Why has he never yet visited them ? and 
 if this be not answered, it may throw 
 doubt upon the sincerity of his present pro- 
 fession. He therefore assures them that he 
 not only now longs to see them, but has 
 often actually formed the purpose of coming 
 to them. 
 
 {but 'was let hitherto)^ "And I was hin- 
 dered until now." "Again he shows his 
 love in another way. For neither when I 
 was hindered, says he, did I cease from the 
 attempt, but was always attempting and 
 always hindered and never desisting" (Chry- 
 sostom). 
 
 The nature of the hindrances is explained 
 afterwards, xv. 22 : here the Apostle only 
 alludes to them in a brief parenthesis, lest he 
 should seem to have changed his purpose 
 lightly, and so hastens on to the motive of 
 his oft-intended visit. 
 
 that I might have some fruitT] The same 
 modesty, which is so conspicuous in w. 1 1 
 12, may be traced again in the words ^^ some " 
 and '■^ fruit." The emphasis is on " some " 
 (riva) which here, though not usually, stands 
 first. The good which St. Paul hoped to do 
 among them, whether much or little, he re- 
 presents as a benefit to himself. In any in- 
 crease of their faith and holiness and good 
 works, he would reap a harvest to reward 
 his labour (compare vi. 22; Phil. iv. 17, 
 and Joh. iv. 35-38). See note at end of 
 chapter. 
 
 among you also, even as among other Gen- 
 tiles.] Read, the rest of the Gentiles. 
 The ^^you " can only mean here, as through- 
 out the context, the Christians at Rome; 
 
6o 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 [v. 14—17- 
 
 14 I am debtor both to the 
 Greeks, and to the Barbarians ; both 
 to the wise, and to the unwise. 
 
 15 So, as much as in me is, I am 
 ready to preach the gospel to you that 
 are at Rome also. 
 
 16 For I am not ashamed of the 
 gospel of Christ : for it is the power 
 of God unto salvation to every one 
 that believeth ; to the Jew first, and 
 also to the Greek. 
 
 17 For therein is the righteous- 
 
 for the letter is addressed to them, and 
 not to all the people of Rome. It is 
 thus clear from the expression '■'■you also" 
 — "the rest of the Gentiles" that the Chris- 
 tians at Rome were, in the mass, Gentiles. 
 They thus belonged to " the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles," though as yet unvisited by him, 
 Col. ii. I. 
 
 14. lam Mtor both to the Greeks, and to the 
 Barbarians ; both to the luise, and to the iin- 
 nvise.'] Both to Greeks and Barbarians, 
 both to wise and unwise I am debtor. 
 
 Nations may differ in language and civiliza- 
 tion as " Greeks and Barbarians" and men 
 may differ in intelligence as " 'wise and un- 
 tuise :" but all alike are included in the sphere 
 of Apostolic duty, because the relation in 
 which men stand to Christ and His Gospel 
 is deeper and more essential than all national 
 and personal distinctions. The Son of Man 
 " rises above the parentage, the blood, the 
 narrow horizon which bounded as it seemed 
 His Human Life; He is the Archetypal 
 Man in Whose presence distinctions of race, 
 inte'-vals of ages, types of civilization, degrees 
 of mental culture, are as nothing " (Liddon, 
 * Bampton Lectures,' p. 12). 
 
 It is asked, in which class does St. Paul 
 mean to place the Romans. And Lange an- 
 swers that the Romans are included with the 
 Greeks as having the same culture, and that 
 Jews and Greeks are comprehended in the 
 term "luij^." Such questions should neither 
 be asked nor answered : they show a complete 
 misconception of the Apostle's meaning, by 
 trying to establish the very distinctions which 
 he seeks to exclude. On the nationality of 
 the Christians at Rome, see Introduction, 
 §3. 
 
 I am debtor^ St. Paul sees in his com- 
 mission to preach the Gospel to all nations 
 a debt that must be paid, or as he calls it in 
 1 Cor. ix. 16-19, a necessity laid on him, and 
 a stewardship entrusted to him. 
 
 15. So, as much as in me is, I am readyj] 
 Thus I for my part a?n ready. In accord- 
 ance with this duty, which I owe to all 
 nations, I am ready so far as it depends on 
 me to preach the Gospel to you also that 
 are in Rome. I have been hindered, and, if 
 such is God's will, may be hindered again ; 
 but there is no lack of willingness or zeal 
 on m> part. The grammatical construction 
 
 and exact rendering of the verse are discussed 
 in the note at end of chapter. 
 
 you . . . a/so.'] See on v. 13. Here the de- 
 scription ^^you that are in Rome," shows that 
 St. Paul is thinking of the Christian Church as 
 set in the midst of that great city in which 
 " the kingdoms of the world and the glory of 
 them " were now concentrated, and which was 
 also " The common sink of all the worst vices 
 of humanity, and therefore the noblest sphere 
 for Evangelic zeal" (Lightfoot, Phil. p. 13). 
 
 On the omission of ev 'Pw/j?; in G. g, here 
 and in -y. 7, see Introduction § 8. 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. Theme of the Epistle. 
 
 16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel 
 of Christ.] " Of Christ " must be omitted, 
 with the best MSS. Though St. Paul is 
 directly addressing the Christians at Rome, 
 it is not possible that he, the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles, could think of preaching the 
 Gospel there to that little band of believers 
 only. The mention of Rome suggests the 
 thought of coming face to face with the 
 mighty power concentrated in that strong- 
 hold of Heathendom, and with the vast 
 multitudes there gathered together out of 
 every nation under heaven. It is this thought 
 that speaks in the words, " / am not ashamed 
 of the Gospel," which form the transition from 
 the introduction to the theme of the Epistle. 
 The treatment which St. Paul had ex- 
 perienced in other great cities, such as Athens, 
 Ephesus and Corinth (whence he was now 
 writing), might well have daunted any less 
 steadfast soul ; even he feels the full contrast 
 between the power and pomp and splendour 
 of " the capital and theatre of the world " and 
 the seeming weakness and folly of the Cross: 
 and yet he is not ashamed to preach even in 
 Rome the doctrine of a crucified Saviour. 
 
 for it is the ponver of God unto salvation^ 
 Compare i Cor. i. 24. The Gospel, in all its 
 seeming weakness, is in fact " the po^ver of 
 God;" not simply a statement of God's 
 power, nor a mere instrument which God's 
 power uses, but God's living revelation of 
 Himself a Divine power flowing forth from 
 Him to save men's souls (James i. 21). 
 
 Some have seen in this sentence a theoreti- 
 cal definition of the Gospel : but St. Paul is 
 stating a fact of his own experience. He has 
 felt this '■'■power of God" in himself, he has 
 
V. i8.] 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 6i 
 
 ness of God revealed from faith to 
 "Hab.a. faith: as it is written, "The just 
 *■ shall live by faith. 
 
 1 8 For the wrath of God is re- 
 vealed from heaven against all un- 
 godliness and unrighteousness of men, 
 
 witnessed its effect on others, and has seen 
 it shed life and joy around him, as often as it 
 touched believing hearts. 
 
 to every one that belie'veth.'] The saving 
 efficacy of God's powder is limited by faith as 
 a condition which God himself imposes, not 
 arbitrarily, but in accordance with the essential 
 dignity of man's moral nature. Physical 
 force acting upon matter has an invariable 
 and necessary effect : moral or spiritual power 
 varies in its effect with the free response of 
 the spirit on which it acts. Thus the offer of 
 salvation is the same to ail : it is effectual in 
 those who willingly accept it, and that willing 
 acceptance is faith. 
 
 to the Jeivfrst.'] The Gospel as the power 
 of God unto salvation is needful to Jew as 
 well as Gentile : this is the point proved in 
 ii, I — iii. 2 0. Nor is there any distinction 
 between them as to the one condition, faith, 
 (X. II, 12). But the word of God must be 
 spoken " to the Jew first " (Acts xiii. 46), 
 as having priority in " the covenants of pro- 
 mise ;" "and also to the Greek," i.^. to any one 
 who is not a Jew. St. Paul always puts the 
 Jew first in privilege, and first in responsi- 
 bility (ii. 9, 10); so St. Peter on the day of 
 Pentecost, — ^" the promise is unto you and to 
 your children, and to all that are afar off" 
 (Acts ii. 39). 
 
 17. The description of the Gospel given 
 in f. 16 is further explained and confirmed 
 in each of its essential parts. The Gospel is 
 a "' p Oliver nnto salvation^'' for a " righteous- 
 ness" which is in effect life and salvation is 
 revealed in it. 
 
 It is " God's power " for the righteousness 
 revealed in it is " of God." 
 
 It is for " every one that belie'veth,'' for right- 
 eousness is revealed " iroiw faith to faith." 
 
 All this is confirmed as being in accordance 
 with the declaration of God's counsel in 
 Habakkuk ii. 4, which promises life, i.e. sal- 
 ivation, to the righteous hj faith. 
 
 St. Paul has thus passed by an easy and 
 natural transition from the personal matters 
 v/hich form his introduction to a statement 
 of the great doctrine which is the theme of 
 the first eight chapters of the Epistle. 
 
 therein is the righteousness of God re- 
 'vealed.'] Compare Ps. xcviii. 2, "The Lord 
 hath made kno^ujn his salvation : his righteous- 
 ness hath he openly shewed (Marg. 'revealed,' 
 Sept. aTreKaXvylrev ttjv diKaiocrvvrjv avTov, Vulg. 
 ' revelavit ') in the sight of the heathen." St. 
 Paul's reference to this passage is made 
 evident by his adoption in w, 16, 17 of the 
 
 Psalmist's three chief words, "salvation," 
 " righteousness," " revealed," and of the 
 parallelism between " salvation " {v. 1 6) and 
 " righteousness " {y. 1 7). 
 
 the righteousness of God.] Rather "a 
 righteousness of God." This term oc- 
 curring in a summary statement of the great 
 theme of the Epistle is more likely to be 
 used in a comprehensive than in a restricted 
 sense. We must therefore be content, at 
 present, to define its meaning only so far as 
 it is determined by the form of the expres- 
 sion, by the immediate context, and by St. 
 Paul's previous usage. We thus find that it 
 is a righteousness having God as its author, 
 and man as its recipient, who by it becomes 
 righteous : its effect is salvation, and its con- 
 dition faith : it is embodied first in the person 
 of Christ "who is made unto us wisdom 
 from God, and righteousness" (i Cor. i. 30), 
 and it is bestowed on us because of Christ's 
 redeeming work, wherein He " was made sin 
 for us, that wie might be made the righteous- 
 ness of God in him" (2 Cor. v. 21). See 
 more in notes on iii. 21-25. 
 
 revealed from faith to faith.'] This is 
 the only connection permitted by the order 
 of the words, and it teaches us that, so far as 
 man is concerned, the revelation of the right- 
 eousness of God begins from and leads on to 
 faith. Compare 2 Cor. iii. 1%, from glory to 
 glory. To the man who listens to the Gospel 
 without faith, the righteousness of God is not 
 therein revealed, but remains hidden : to him 
 who listens with faith, the righteousness of 
 God begins to be therein revealed, and its 
 progressive revelation tends to produce a 
 higher degree of faith as its result. Thus 
 " to every one that believeth " the Gospel be- 
 comes by this revelation of the righteousness 
 of God a "power of God unto salvation," be- 
 cause by faith man embraces as his own the 
 righteousness revealed to him. 
 
 The Just shall live by faith.] This con- 
 nection " shall live by faith " is required in 
 the Hebrew of Hab. ii. 4, and corresponds 
 best with St. Paul's application of the pas- 
 sage : for he does not say that " righteousness 
 by faith is revealed,'' but that " righteousness 
 is revealed from faith to faith," and as the 
 righteousness revealed and appropriated by 
 faith is the power of God unto salvation, 
 " the righteous shall live — i.e., shall find Hfe — 
 by faith." Compare Gal. ii. 20, " the life which 
 I no-w live in the flesh I live by (rather in) 
 the faith of the Son of God," &c. See notes 
 on Hab. ii. 4, and note at end of chapter. 
 
62 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 fv. 19- 
 
 -20. 
 
 who hold the truth in unrighteous- known of God is manifest "in them ; " <^^ '<" 
 ness ; for God hath shewed it unto them. 
 
 Because that which may be 20 For the invisible things of him 
 
 19 
 
 may 
 
 /aitb.'] The Hebrew word so rendered 
 means properly " steadfastness," " faithful- 
 ness," " fidelity," "trustiness," rather than the 
 active "trustfulness "; i.e., it means the faith 
 which may be relied on, rather than the faith 
 which relies. " But it will at times approach 
 near to the active sense : for constancy under 
 temptation or danger with an Israelite could 
 only spring from reliance on Jehovah. And 
 something of this transitional or double sense 
 it has in Hab. ii. 4." (Lightfoot, Gal. iii. 11.) 
 
 Chap. I. 18— III. 20. The Unrighteous- 
 ness OF Man. 
 
 St. Paul here enters upon the proof of 
 his great theme, that both for Jew and 
 Gentile salvation is only to be found in the 
 revelation of the righteousness of God by 
 faith. 
 
 First he shows, as a matter of fact and ex- 
 perience, that neither Gentile (i. 18-32) nor 
 Jew (ch. ii.) has any righteousness of his own 
 by which he can be justified before God ; then, 
 after answering objections relating to the case 
 of the Jew (iii. 1-8), he confirms the testimony 
 of experience by the declarations of Gods 
 word (iii. 9-20). 
 
 18-32. St. Paul here gives us, not a history, 
 but a Christian philosophy of history: he is 
 not narrating the growth of idolatry and vice 
 in this or that nation, but showing in a broad 
 generalized view the condition of the heathen 
 world and the causes of its corruption. 
 
 The allusions to specific forms of vice and 
 idolatry show plainly that he is describing the 
 heathen ; but the principles which he lays 
 down, being of universal application, involve 
 the Jew also in like condemnation, as is seen 
 in ch. ii. 
 
 tbe ^vrath of God is revealed from heaven.'] 
 "An exordium terrible as lightning" (Me- 
 lanchthon) is formed by the sudden and strik- 
 ing contrast to the preceding verses. There 
 is a twofold revelation : in the one is seen 
 a "power of God unto salvation," in the 
 other, the destroying power of God's wrath : 
 there the righteousness of God, here the un- 
 righteousness of man. 
 
 Righteousness is revealed in the Gospel; 
 wrath is revealed '■'■from heaven" because 
 there " the Lord hath prepared his throne " 
 (Ps. ix. 7 ; xi. 4), and thence "iiV judgments 
 go forth as the lightning" (Hosea vi. 5, 
 and note there). The power unto salvation 
 is for " every one that believeth " ; the wrath is 
 against them '■'that hold down the truth in 
 
 unrighteousness " (ch. vii. 6 ; 2 Thess. ii. 6). 
 The meaning of this verse is more fully ex- 
 plained in the passage which follows. We 
 there see that " the truth " means the know- 
 ledge of God (vv. 19 and 25), and that the 
 wilful suppression of this truth struggling in 
 the heart is what aggravates the ungodliness 
 and unrighteousness of men, teaving them 
 without excuse. We see also hoiu the wrath 
 of God is revealed, namely, in the debasing 
 vices and conscious misery to which the 
 sinner is given over (24-32). 
 
 ungodliness and unrighteousness.'] I.e. impiety 
 and immorality, are both regarded as sins 
 against God. " Ungodliness " is the stronger 
 expression, but " unrighteousness " the more 
 comprehensive and general (Aristotle, nepl 
 dperav, vii. i ; Polit. in. C. 13, 3): this latter 
 alone is repeated in the following clause, 
 whence the ideal order of development is seen 
 to be (i) unrighteousness, (2) suppression of 
 the truth concerning God, (3) ungodliness 
 and increased unrighteousness. 
 
 19. Because, (is'c.] The cause of God's 
 wrath implied in the close of -v. 18 is here 
 distinctly stated, that men have a knowledge 
 of God which they wilfully suppress, and so 
 leave themselves without excuse. 
 
 that ivhich may be knoiun of God.] The 
 word TO yvcoarov occurs nowhere else in 
 St. Paul'n epistles; but in Acts xiii. 38 and 
 xsTiii. »8, where St. Paul is the speaker, it is 
 used, as in the N. T. generally, in a less pre- 
 cise sense — " known," " notable," or " noto- 
 rious." Here, however, the whole context 
 rises into the region of Christian philosophy, 
 and our translators have done well in render- 
 ing the word more strictly. See Fritzsche, 
 and Grimm, ' Clavis N. T. Philolog.' 
 
 That ivhich may be knoiun must not, how- 
 ever, be pressed to mean all that can possibly 
 be known ; but, as the next verse plainly shews, 
 it means that knowledge of God which is or 
 which may be gained by man's natural facul- 
 ties exercised upon God's manifestation of 
 Himself in creation. 
 
 is manifest in them ; for God hath shelved it 
 unto them^ Rather, '''for God manifested 
 it to them." 
 
 " In them " does not mean " among them,* 
 as though this knowledge were limited to a 
 few of the wise and learned, nor " in their 
 consciousness" (Meyer), but "w thetn" as 
 being what they are, in their very nature and 
 constitution as men. If men had not a faculty 
 to receive " that ivhich may be known of God," 
 
V. 21.] 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 63 
 
 from the creation of the world are power and Godh-ead ; 'so that they J^^j;-;^^' 
 clearly seen, being understood by the are without excuse : he. 
 
 thing-s that are made, even his eternal 21 Because that, when they knew 
 
 He could not be said to have manifested it 
 "to them." The verse, therefore, teaches 
 that there is both an external manifestation of 
 God to men, and a faculty in them to receive 
 it ; and these are the two ideas that are deve- 
 loped in the next verse. 
 
 Calvin's note is striking: "In saying that 
 God manifested it, he means that the purpose 
 for which man is created is to be the specta- 
 tor of the fabric of the world ; the purpose 
 for which eyes have been given him is that by 
 gazing on so fair an image he may be led on 
 to its Author." 
 
 20. Explanation of the statement, "Go^ 
 manifested it to them." 
 
 the invisible things of him.'] St. Paul puts 
 in the foremost place the invisible nature of 
 God's attributes, just because men sinned by 
 substituting visible images for His invisible 
 perfections. The plural represents the invi- 
 sible nature of God in its manifold properties, 
 as explained by what follows. 
 
 from the creation of the ivorld.'] Most 
 modern interpreters understand this merely 
 as a mark of time, " since the creation." 
 See note at end of chapter. But the older 
 interpretation has more force, and is not 
 really liable to the charge of tautology. " The 
 creation of the world," viewed as a whole, is 
 first presented as the source from which man 
 derives a knowledge of the unseen God ; and 
 then the method is further described; the 
 manifold invisible attributes become clearly 
 seen, being conceived in the mind by means 
 of the various works. 
 
 The invisible lying behind the visible as its 
 cause, the unchangeable upholding all the 
 changes of the world, the wisdom whose 
 thoughts are written in heaven, and earth, and 
 sea, the power which makes those thoughts 
 realities, — these and the other Divine attri- 
 butes are conceived in the mind (i/oovjuei/a), 
 and so discerned by means of the things that 
 are made. The spontaneous act of reason by 
 which the mind grasps in creation the idea of 
 a Divine Author, St. Paul assumes and asserts 
 as an admitted and unquestionable fact ; this 
 fact is indeed the true intellectual basis, as 
 conscience is the moral basis, of all natural 
 religion. On the process by which the mind 
 ascends from the sensible impressions of 
 things that are seen to the idea of the invisible 
 God, " and so as it were resounds and re- 
 echoes back the Great Creator's name," see 
 Gudworth, 'Immutable Morality,' p. 177; 
 and a fine passage quoted from Leibnitz, 
 *Essais de Thcodicee/ Part I., by Saisset, 
 
 ' Essai de Philosophie religieuse,' Part I. 
 §5. 
 
 his eternal fonuer.] Among " the ininsible 
 things" of God '■'■ponjoer" alone is specified, 
 because it is the attribute first and most pro- 
 minently displayed in Creation. It is clearly 
 seen to be eternal, because by it all things 
 temporal were created. The other attributes 
 of God which are clearly seen in H is works, 
 such as wisdom and goodness, St. Paul sums 
 up in one word, not Godhead, but Divinity: 
 the word is not that which expresses the being 
 or essence of God, i.e. Deity (Col. ii. 9), but 
 a kindred and derived word, signifymg the 
 Divine quality or perfection of God as seen 
 in His attributes. 
 
 so that they are ivithout excuse^ That 
 they might he without excuse. The 
 words («if TO fivai) express not a mere 
 result, but a purpose. See i. 11; iv. 11, 16, 
 18; vi. 12; vii. 4, 5; viii. 29; xi. 11, &c. 
 On 2 Cor. viii. 6 see note there. 
 
 Most modern Commentators have missed 
 the true connection of this clause, and of the 
 whole passage {w. 19-21). 
 
 The sentence, " For the invisible things of 
 him .... are clearly seen ....," is an 
 explanation of the statement God mani- 
 fested it unto them; and as the mode 
 in which this manifestation <was made to them 
 is the mode in which it is made t^o all men, at 
 all times, the explanation is put in the most 
 general and abstract form (Present Tense and 
 Passive Voice), without any limitation of 
 times or persons ; while the preceding and 
 following statements (marked by the historic 
 Aorists) refer definitely to those whom St. 
 Paul is describing {avroh, v. 19, avrovs, 
 v. 20, avTuiv, -v. 21), the men that hold 
 down the truth in unrighteousness. 
 
 Thus the sense flows on without inter- 
 ruption, and the whole passage may be 
 rendered as follows : — For God manifested 
 it unto them; for the invisible things 
 of him, his eternal power and di- 
 vinity, from the creation of the world 
 are clearly seen, being understood by 
 the things that are made: That they 
 might be without excuse, because that 
 ivhen they kne^iu God they glorified him not as 
 God. 
 
 Chrysostom's objection, often repeated by 
 others, that it could not be God's purpose in 
 manifesting Himself to deprive men of ex- 
 cuse, although this was the result, is discussed 
 in the note at the end of the chapter. Here 
 it may be enough to say, God's purpose was 
 
64 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 [v. 22 — 23. 
 
 God, they glorified him not as God, 
 neither were thankful ; but became 
 vain in their imaginations, and their 
 foolish heart was darkened. 
 
 22 Professing themselves to be 
 wise, they became fools, 
 
 23 And changed the glory of the 
 uncorruptible *God into an image 
 
 *?■; 106. 
 
 to leave nothing undone on His part, the 
 omission of which might give men an excuse 
 for sin. 
 
 21. " That knowledge, or rudiment (scin- 
 tilla) of knowledge, concerning God which 
 may be obtained by contemplation of His 
 creatures .... sufficeth to convince atheism, 
 but not to inform religion. . . . No light of 
 nature exte.ndeth to declare the will and true 
 worship of God." (Bacon, ' Ad\l. of Learn- 
 ing,' B. II.) This is true of God's particular 
 will, and of special modes of worship desired 
 by Hira; but St. Paul here clearly teaches 
 that men knew enough of God from His 
 works to glorify Him in a way befitting His 
 Divine Nature; but their fault lay in not 
 loving what they knew : — " Minus amant quod 
 summe est." " They love not perfectly the 
 perfect Being." (Aug.) " The glory of God 
 is the admirable excellency of that virtue 
 divine which being made manifest causeth 
 men and angels to extol His greatness, and 
 in regard thereof to fear Him. By being 
 glorified, it is not meant that He doth receive 
 any augmentation of glory at our hands, but 
 His name we glorify, when we testify our 
 acknowledc:ment of His glory." (Hooker, 
 ' E. P.,' Bk. II. ii. I.) 
 
 St. Paul touches the root of sin in the 
 words " 'when they kyienv God, they did not 
 glorify him as God, or give thanks." 
 This passage seems to have inspired that 
 loftiest strain of Christian adoration: " M^e 
 glorify Thee, we give thanks to Thee for Thy 
 great glory." The context however leads us 
 to think of God not only in His nature, but 
 in His works, as Creator and Ruler of the 
 world and the source of all natural blessings 
 to mankind. The passage will thus mean : 
 " They did not glorify him as God (in his 
 Divine perfections) or give thanks (to him 
 as God the author and giver of all good." 
 Compare St. Paul's discourses to heathen 
 audiences in Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 24-29. 
 
 but became 'vnin.'] The direct opposi- 
 tion in act to glorifying God as God, is 
 to exchange His glory for an image, v. 23: 
 but St. Paul first shows the inner root of 
 this opposition. The Hebrew word 72^ 
 "breath," "vapour," "vanity,'' is specially 
 applied to an idol, as in Jer. ii. 5 : " they are 
 gone far from me, and have <ujalked after 
 'vanity (LXX rOiv iiaraiav, vain things, i.e. 
 idols) and are become vain " (JfiaTf.i.u>6-q(Tav). 
 See notes on 2 Kings xvii. 15, and compare 
 
 I Sam. xxvi. 21: " / have played the fool 
 (/if/Liarai'co/iat) and have erred exceedingly." 
 
 in their imaginations.'] The word bioKo- 
 yi(Tfj.6s is commonly used of evil thoughts both 
 in the LXX and New Test It is variously 
 rendered : " imagination " (Lam. iii. 60) ; 
 " reasoning " (Luke ix. 46) ; and most fre- 
 quently "thoughts" (Matt. xv. 19; i Cor. 
 iii. 20). Here it means the false notions 
 which men formed for themselves of God in 
 opposition to the truth set before them in 
 His works. " Wherein exactly did this vanity 
 (of their thoughts) consist ? In two things: 
 (i) in the absence of a foundation in truth; 
 and (2) in the positive absurdity of the idle 
 fancies embodied in the Heathen Mythology 
 and worship." (Bishop Thirlwall.) 
 
 and their foolish heart nuas darkened?] The 
 heart is in Scriptural language the seat of 
 intellectual and moral as well as of animal 
 life, and out oi it proceed evil thoughts (Matt. 
 XV. 19, &c.). Thus their heart was already 
 proved to be "foolish" or " void of under- 
 standing " when they failed to discern, or 
 discerning did not love, the truth which God 
 had set before them. They turned from the 
 light and their foolish heart ivas darkened : 
 this was a worse state than the former 
 (Ephes. iv. 18). The abuse of reason im- 
 paired the faculty itself, and by following 
 their vain thoughts they were led into a 
 lower depth of spiritual darkness. 
 
 22. Self-conceit and folly go hand in hand: 
 "■^hile professing themselves to be ivise, they 
 became fools" (i Cor. i. 19-24). Most modern 
 interpreters agree with Calvin that the Apos- 
 tle does not refer to the special profession of 
 wisdom among Greek philosophers ; for they 
 were not the authors of idolatry, nor was it 
 peculiar to them to think themselves wise in 
 the knowledge of God. He is describing the 
 conceit of wisdom which is necessarily con- 
 nected with a departure from Divine truth, 
 and out of which therefore idolatry in its 
 manifold and fantastic forms must have 
 sprung. " For heathenism,'' adds Meyer, 
 " is not the primeval religion out of which 
 men gradually advanced to the knowledge of 
 the true God ; but it is the consequence of 
 falling away from the primitive revelation of 
 God in His works." 
 
 The same original belief in one God may 
 be traced in Egyptian, Indian, and Greek 
 mythology, and this accordance ox early tra- 
 ditions agrees with the Indian notion that 
 
V. 24.] 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 65 
 
 made like to corruptible man, and to 
 birds, and fourfooted 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 them- 
 selves : 
 
 "truth was originally deposited with men, 
 but gradually slumbered and was forgotten '' 
 (Rawlinson, 'Herodotus ' Book II., Appendix, 
 eh. iii. p. 297). On the primitive records of 
 a pure Monotheism in Egypt, see note 36 on 
 p. 450 of Vol. I. of this Commentary. 
 
 23. And changed the glory of the uncor- 
 ruptible God into an image made like to cor- 
 ruptible man?\ In their folly and as the out- 
 ward expression of it men exchanged the 
 worship of God for that of idols. The con- 
 trast between the incorruptible and the cor- 
 ruptible serves to aggravate the folly. 
 
 into an image made like to corruptible 
 man.'] Read, for an image of the form of 
 corruptible man. The language, partly bor- 
 rowed from Ps. cvi. 20, means not that they 
 changed God's glory into an image, for this is 
 not possible either in thought or act ; but 
 that they exchanged one object of worship 
 for another. On the grammatical construc- 
 tion see note at end of chapter. 
 
 That St. Paul is here describing the origin 
 of actual outward idolatry is clear from the 
 whole context, and especially from the allu- 
 sions to Ps. cvi. 20 (^which describes the 
 worship of the golden calf), and to the 
 Egyptian worship of " birds and four-footed 
 beasts, and creeping things," the ibis, the bull, 
 the serpent and the crocodile. The statues 
 of the gods of Greece by which St. Paul was 
 surrounded at Corinth may have been in his 
 mind as he wrote, but idols in human form 
 were common in all heathen countries, and 
 the Apostle is here giving a view of the origin 
 and growth of idolatry in general, not a de- 
 scription of any particular form of it existing 
 in his time. His language is partly taken 
 from the Book of Wisdom (see xi.-xiii. and 
 particularly xi. 15, xiii. 13) which itself echoes 
 the thoughts of Isaiah (xliv. 13). Compare 
 Deut. iv. 15-18 and Ps. cxv. 4-7. 
 
 24-32. The Divine Retribution. 
 
 This is shown first in the abandonment of the 
 Heathen to unnatural vices (24-27), and then 
 in their complete and utter depravity (28-32). 
 
 24. Wherefore God also gave them up to 
 uncleanness through the lusts of their oiun 
 hearts.'] Read, Wherefore God gave them 
 up in the lusts of their hearts to un- 
 cleanness. What is the nature of this 
 Divine agency ? 
 
 I. Permissive. Chrysostom (ftao-fv), Theo- 
 doret {a-vvexoipTjcTfv), and otiiers reduce St. 
 
 Paul's statement to this, that God simply 
 permitted the heathen to fall into unclean- 
 ness. But the force of the Greek words 
 cannot be thus softened down : see 2 Chron. 
 xxxii. II ; Matt. x. 21, xxiv. 9 ; i Cor. v. 5. 
 
 2. Privative. "How did God give them 
 over? Not by compelling, but by forsaking 
 them" (Aug., Serm. 59). All history shows 
 that God did not deal with other nations as He 
 did with His chosen people, raising up pro- 
 phets and sending warnings and chastisements 
 directly and visibly from Himself to restrain 
 or recall them from idolatry and impurity. 
 
 When the heathen turned away from Him, 
 shutting Him out from their thoughts and 
 hearts, and giving His honour to senseless 
 idols, He "gave them over in (not through 
 as A.V.) the lusts of their hearts to 
 uncleanness." God did not cause their 
 impurity, but He abandoned them to the 
 natural consequences of the lusts already 
 working in them. (Aug. on Ps. 35.) 
 
 3. Judicial. The preceding interpretation 
 is right as far as it goes, but inadequate 
 unless accompanied by a right view of what 
 are called " natural consequences." We 
 learn from experience that one sin leads to 
 another, and that lust indulged gains greater 
 mastery. 
 
 " This is the very curse of evil deed, 
 That of new evil it becomes the seed." 
 
 Schiller [quoted by Schaff), 
 
 What the Apostle further teaches us is that 
 this law of our moral nature is a law of the 
 living God, who Himself works in and by it : 
 and this is not a thought peculiar to St. Paul 
 or his age, but a truth frequently taught in 
 Scripture and acknowledged by every reli- 
 gious mind (Ps. Ixxxi. 12 ; Acts vii. 42). 
 
 It is none the less true that every down- 
 ward step is the sinner's own wilful act, for 
 which he knows himself to be responsible. 
 These two truths are recognized by the mind 
 as irreconcilable in theory, but co-existent in 
 fact ; and the true interpretation of St. Paul's 
 doctrines must be sought, not by paring down 
 any, but by omitting none. 
 
 to dishonour their oiun bodies betiveen them- 
 selves.] Or, that their bodies should 
 be dishonoured among them. See note 
 at end. Compare i Cor. vi. 15-18. It is 
 not necessary to go beyond the Bible for 
 instances of the close connexion between 
 idolatry and impurity (see Num. xxv. 2; 
 Wisd. jdv. 12, 23-27). As the heathen dis- 
 
 £ 
 
66 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 [v. 25—29. 
 
 25 Who changed the truth of God 
 into a 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 the natural 
 use into that which is against nature : 
 
 27 And likewise also the men, 
 leaving the natural use of the woman, 
 burned in their lust one tov/ard ano- 
 
 ther ; mren with men working that 
 which is unseemly, and receiving in 
 themselves that recompence of their 
 error which was meet. 
 
 28 And even as they did not like 
 
 "to retain God in their knowledge, ^^^^'^ 
 God gave them over to "a reprobate ^^^r^- 
 mind, to do those things which are mind void 
 not convenient ; mi'iuf 
 
 29 Being filled with all unright- 
 eousness, fornication, wickedness, co- 
 
 honoured God by their idols, so He gave 
 them up to dishonour their bodies by im- 
 purity. 
 
 25. To make more distinct this corre- 
 spondence between the sin that was punished 
 and the sin that was its penalty, St. Paul 
 again points to the cause for which God 
 gave them up, — a cause lying in their own 
 character as "men who exchanged the 
 truth of God for the lie." (See note on 
 •v. 23.) '■'■The truth of God" is His true 
 nature as manifested in His works, the glory 
 of the Creator (-y. 23). "The lie" is the 
 false substitute to which the idolater gives 
 the honour that is due to God only (Is. xliv. 
 20; Jer. xiii. 25, xvi. 19). 
 
 more than the Creator^ Marg. "rather 
 than the Creator.^' The context shows that 
 they did not worship the Creator at all, but 
 passing by Him worshipped the creature in 
 preference to Him. 
 
 who ts blessed for ever. Amen^ A natural 
 outburst of piety in the familiar language of 
 the Old Testament (Ps. Ixxxix. 52). However 
 the Heathen may dishonour God, His glory 
 is not thereby really impaired : He still " in- 
 habits the praises of his people " (Ps. xxii. 3), 
 He is still " blessed forever" (2 Cor. xi. 31). 
 
 26, 27. For this cause."] A second time 
 the Apostle points to the apostasy of the 
 Heathen {v. 25) as the cause why ^^ God gave 
 them up unto vile affections," or " shameful 
 passions." The sin against God's nature 
 entails, as its penalty, sin against man's own 
 nature. " Their error " was that of apostasy in 
 exchanging the truth of God for the lie (-u. 
 25): ^^ the recompense auhich ivas meet," i.e., 
 which according to God's appointment they 
 must receive, was their abandonment to these 
 unnatural lusts. Those who know what 
 Greek and Roman poets have written on the 
 vices of their countrymen can best appre- 
 ciate the grave and modest simplicity of the 
 Apostle's language. 
 
 28-31. The unnatur?! lusts already de- 
 scribed were the most striking proof that the 
 Heathen world was lying under the wrath of 
 
 God. But such shameful sins, however com- 
 mon, were by no means universal, nor were 
 they the only sins in which a Divine 
 retribution was to be traced. St. Paul 
 therefore adds a comprehensive summary of 
 other sins to which the Heathen were given 
 over. 
 
 2i3. And even as they did not like.] For the 
 third time the Apostle insists on the corre- 
 spondence between the impiety which re- 
 jected God, and the penal consequences of 
 that rejection. This correspondence is 
 heightened in the original by a play on 
 words which can hardly be reproduced in 
 Enghsh : " Even as they reprobated (lit. did 
 not approve) keeping God in knowledge, 
 God gave them up to a reprobate mind." By 
 "a reprobate mind" is meant a mind that is 
 condemned and rejected as worthless (i Cor. 
 ix. 27 ; Tit. i. 16), The words " they did not 
 approve " imply that their rejection of God 
 was not unconscious, but deliberate and dis- 
 dainful. Instead of improving their first 
 knov/ledge of God (^yvovTn, v. 21) into fuller 
 knowledge {eTriyvua-is) by attention and re- 
 flection, they put it from them, and so became 
 ^^ the Heathen that knewj not God" (i Thess. 
 iv. 5). 
 
 ^'■Mind" here means the whole reasoning 
 faculty, intellectual and moral, all that con- 
 spires in doing a good action, or, as here, in 
 doing "the things which are not be- 
 fitting" (xii. 2; Eph. iv. 17). 
 
 29-31. The moral condition of the Hea- 
 then whom God has given over to a reprobate 
 mind. In this catalogue of sins there is no 
 strict system of arrangement, but traces of a 
 sort of natural order may be seen in the 
 grouping of kindred ideas, and even of words 
 which sound somewhat alike in Greek. The 
 force of the passage is much increased by the 
 absence of all connecting particles. 
 
 29. In the first group we must omit the 
 word '■'■fornication " with the best MSS. (K 
 ABCK, &c.), and read ''Filled ivith all un- 
 righteousness, ^wickedness, covetousness, mali- 
 ciousness'' " Ufirighteousness " comes first as the 
 
3<^—3^-] 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 67 
 
 vetousness, maliciousness ; full of 
 envy, murder, debate, deceit, ma- 
 lignity ; whisperers, 
 
 30 Backbiters, haters of God, de- 
 spiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of 
 evil things, disobedient to parents, 
 
 31 Without understanding, cove- 
 
 nant-breakers, 'without natural ^^^c-]^-^^ 
 tion, impJacable, unmerciful : 
 
 32 Who know^ing the judgment 
 of God, that they which commit such 
 things are worthy of death, not only 
 do the same, but 'have pleasure inj^^*"^^^^ 
 them that do them. ^^f"- 
 
 most general term, and one already used to 
 describe the state against which God's wrath 
 is revealed (t-. 18). 
 
 By " ^wickedness " (novrjpia) is meant the 
 active mischievousness which is connected 
 with the inward disposition expressed by 
 " maliciousness " ((ca/cm) (Trench, Syn. of N.T. 
 2nd Ser.). The two words are connected in 
 I Cor. V. 8, the old leaven of malice and -jjickcd- 
 ness. 
 
 en-vy, murder 7^ The natural sequence of 
 these ideas is made more emphatic in Greek 
 by the alliteration cf)66vov, (povov. Compare 
 Eurip. 'Troades,' 763, and Lightfoot, Gal. v. 
 21. For 'Vf^^/^"," read "strife." ^'Malignity'" 
 (^KaKOTjSeia) is a disposition to take all things 
 in the worst sense, a characteristic of the 
 aged and the calumnious (Arist. Rhet. II. 
 xiii. 3 ; III. XV. 10). 
 
 30. '■^Backbiters" or "slanderers" is 
 a more general term than " ivhisperers" inclu- 
 ding all who talk against their neighboiu^ 
 whether openly or secretly. 
 
 haters of God.'] The word elsewhere has 
 always a passive sense, " hated of God " 
 (Vulg. Syr.), and is explained by Meyer in 
 that sense as being " a summary judgment of 
 moral indignation respecting all the preceding 
 particulars, so that looking back on these it 
 forms a resting-point in the disgraceful cata- 
 logue." But in the earliest notice of this 
 passage (Clement. 'Ep. ad Cor.' c. 35), an 
 active sense is ascribed to the word (Qtocrrv- 
 yla, " hatred of God '') ; it has the same 
 sjnse '^haters of God" in the Pseudo-Cle- 
 ment. Horn. I. c. 12, and is so understood here 
 by Theodoret, Gicumenius, and Suidas. This 
 active sense is undoubtedly better suited to a 
 catalogue of sins, and the position of the word 
 is most striking at the head of a descending 
 scries of the forms of arrogance, first towards 
 God and then towards men. The ascending 
 order is found in 2 Tim. iii. 2 " boasters, 
 proud, blasjfhemers." 
 
 despiteful, proud, boasters.'] The worse 
 forms of the sin come first. 
 
 The " despiteful," or "insolent" are inju- 
 rious in act (i Tim. i. 13): the "proud" 
 overweening in their thoughts towards others ; 
 ** boasters " vain-glorious about themselves 
 (see Trench). " Im-entors of emil thvigs " are 
 
 strikingly described in Ps. xxxvi. 4, and Prov. 
 vi. 12-15. 
 
 In 2 Mace. xii. 31, Antiochus is called ^'^ the 
 author of all mischief" (Trdcrr^s- KUKLui fip(TT)s\ 
 and Philo describes the advisers of Haccus 
 (c. iv.) as " sowers of sedition, busybodies, 
 devisers of evil" {evperal kukcov). 
 
 disobedient to parents^ The want of duti- 
 ful affection in the family stands first among 
 a series of sins indicating (by the ver\' form 
 of the Greek words) the want of every 
 principle on which social morality is based 
 (Meyer). The same sin has the same bad 
 pre-eminence in a similar series in 2 Tim. 
 iii. 2. " Disobedient to parents, unthankful, un- 
 holy, <ivithout natural affection, truce-breakers" 
 
 31. The word here rendered " implacable," 
 and in 2 Tim. iii. 3 " truce-breakers " has 
 probably been brought in from that passage. 
 Omitting it we may translate the verse thus: 
 Without understanding, covenant breaker's^ 
 ivithout natural affection, without mercy ; 
 " Covenant breakers " (dcrir^eVovj) is the 
 same word which is thrice applied to " trea- 
 cherous Judah " in Jer. iii. 7, 8, 10. 
 
 32. The " reprobate mind " reaches the 
 last stage of wickedness in men that are con- 
 scious of the deadly guilt of such sins as 
 have been described, and yet not only do 
 them, but also take pleasure in their being 
 done by others. 
 
 On the various readings in this verse see 
 Note at end. 
 
 Who knowing^ Men that well knowing, 
 i.e. men of such a character that though they 
 well know, (ic. 
 
 " the judgment of God " (StAcat'co/ia) is that 
 just sentence which He ordains as the Law- 
 giver and enforces as the Judge cf all man- 
 kind : see ii. 1 6. St. Paul here speaks of it 
 as a judgment fully known even to the re- 
 probate, and therefore as one that has been 
 stamped indelibly upon man's conscience. 
 
 commit.] Read practise: see on ii. 2, 3. 
 
 worthy of death.] See Luke xxiii. 15 ; Acts 
 xxiii. 29; XXV. II, 25 ; xx%i. 31, in all which 
 passages " death " means simply capital pun- 
 ishment. But it is evident that the Apostle 
 here speaks of death (i) as a punishment of 
 sin and therefore not merely as the natural 
 end of tJiis life ; (2) as a punishment ordained 
 
 E 2 
 
68 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 by God, and therefore not simply the last 
 penalty of human law ; (3) as a Divine 
 punishment recognized by the Heathen, there- 
 fore not only as revealed in the Mosaic Law 
 or the Scriptural account of the first entrance 
 of death. 
 
 not only do the same, but have pleasure in 
 them that do them'\ not only do them, but 
 also have pleasure in them that prac- 
 tise them. '■^ Not only . . . but also:" the 
 climax thus expressly indicated is in fact 
 double: (i) To "practise" is more than to 
 " do" implying more of deliberation and habit ; 
 (2") A man may "^0 " evil under the incentive 
 of passion, for the sake of the attendant grati- 
 fication or gain : he can approve evil in others 
 only as evil, for its own sake. 
 
 The word rendered " have pleasure tn " 
 
 (o-ui/fvSoKfiK) does not describe a passive 
 assent or acquiescence in evil, but active 
 consent and approval : see Luke xi. 48 ; Acts 
 viii. I ; xxii. 20; i Cor. vii. 12, 13. 
 
 The force of St. Paul's language is impaired 
 in the Authorized Version bv its different 
 and faulty renderings of the word Trpdcra-eiUf 
 " commit " and " do." See note on vii. 15. 
 
 It is an aggravation of guilt to " inoiv the 
 judgment of God that they ^which practise 
 such things are ivorthy of death," and yet to 
 " have pleasure in them that practise them.'* 
 It is thus evident that St. Paul's climax, far 
 from being artificial, feeble, or inappropriate 
 (as some consider it) is clear and forcible 
 in expression, just in thought, and most 
 appropriate in its place at the close of the 
 dark catalogue of sins. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on Chap. I., vv. i, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, 23, 24, 32. 
 
 1. Christ Jesus. This order, found in 
 B. am, fuld. Arm. and a few Fathers, is pre- 
 ferred by modern critics as less usual, and 
 therefore more likely to have been altered. 
 It is also characteristic of St. Paul, to whom 
 the Lord was first made known, not as the 
 man Jesus, but as the risen and glorified 
 Christ. The same order is found in the 
 salutation in i Cor., 2 Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., 
 I Tim., 2 Tim, (Tisch. 8). 
 
 4. " The Spirit of holiness."'] Ihis title has 
 been interpreted as meaning (i) The Holy 
 Ghost, the 3rd Person of the Trinity ; (2) 
 The essential Deity of the Son ; (3) the Spirit 
 of the Incarnate Son. 
 
 (i) Chrysostom and Theodoret explain 
 that Jesus was proved to be the Son of God 
 in accordance with tke pouring out of the 
 Holy Ghost upon the Apostles after His 
 resurrection. 
 
 Others find the proof of His Divine Son- 
 ship in the miracles which He wrought 
 according to the power of the Holy Ghost 
 dwelling in Him, or in the predictions of the 
 Prophets who spake of Him as they were 
 moved by the Holy Ghost, or in the Resur- 
 rection itself supposed to be effected by the 
 special operation of the Holy Ghost (see note 
 on viii. 11). 
 
 Against all these interpretations there are 
 two decisive objections, that they disregard 
 the pecuHar title Trvf O^n ayiwavvq^, and that 
 by giving a different sense to the Preposition 
 (/card) they destroy the parallelism of the 
 two phrases — " according to the flesh" " ac- 
 cording to the Spirit." 
 
 (2) The "Spirit of holiness" is supposed 
 to mean the essential Deity of the Son, that 
 pre-existent Divine Nature to which the 
 
 Human Nature was added m the Incar- 
 nation. 
 
 (3) The " Spirit of holiness " is the Spirit 
 of the Incarnate Son, the God Man, and 
 therefore at once human and Divine. 
 
 Either of these two latter interpretations 
 is consistent with the language of St. Paul, 
 and in choosing between them, it is well to 
 recall the wise caution of Dean Jackson, 
 'Creed,' Bk. vii. Chap. 30. "The manner of 
 the union between the Son of God and the 
 seed of Abraliam is a mystery (that one of the 
 blessed Trinity alone excepted) most to be 
 admired by all, and least possible to be 
 exactly expressed by any living man of all the 
 mysteries whose belief we profess in this 
 Apostles' Creed." 
 
 If we adopt the former of these two inter- 
 pretations, we must admit that St. Paul does 
 not here give a complete account of Christ's 
 twofold nature. For otherwise we must 
 either deny that Christ had any human spirit, 
 which is the ApoHinarian heresy, or say that 
 His spirit was included in the '^ flesh" derived 
 from the seed of David. 
 
 The difficulty is discussed by Origen in 
 his comment on the passage, by Augustine, 
 ' Enchiridion,' c. 38, and very fully by Aquinas, 
 ' Summa Theologica,' Pars III. Qii. 32, where 
 the statements of Ambrose and Jerome are 
 quoted. 
 
 The Catholic doctrine can hardly be more 
 exactly stated than by Jackson, 'Creed,' Bk. vii. 
 ch. 30 : " Neither the substance which the 
 Son of God took from the blessed Virgin, nor 
 the reasonable soul which was united unto it, 
 nad any proper existence before their union 
 with the Divine nature," "Christ's reason- 
 able soul was not in order either of time or 
 
ROMANS. I. 
 
 69 
 
 nature first created, then assumed, but it was 
 created while it was assumed, and assumed 
 while it was created." 
 
 This statement of Dean Jackson's seems 
 fully to justify the third interpretation, 
 namely that Christ's human spirit is included, 
 not in the '■'■Jlesh" but in the " Spirit of holi- 
 ness" as being the Spirit of Christ. 
 
 The same distinction of "flesh" and 
 " Spirit " in the Incarnate Son is found in 
 I Tim. iii. 16, " Who waas manifested in the 
 Jlesh, justified in the Spirit," where Bp. Elli- 
 cott rightly maintains that " the Spirit " is 
 not itself the Deity, but the " higher principle 
 of spiritual life," in which Christ "was shewn 
 to be the All-holy and the All-righteous, yea, 
 manifested with power to be the Son of God." 
 
 The student who may wish to pursue the 
 subject should observe that in the passages 
 which describe the Incarnation (Matt. i. 18, 
 20; Luke i. 35), and also in the early Greek 
 Fathers and Creeds, -nvevna ayiov stands 
 without the Article. This distinction was of 
 course lost in Latin, and this makes it the 
 more remarkable that the Latin Fathers so 
 generally interpret "Holy Spirit" in those 
 passages of the Son ; see Tertullian, ' c. 
 Praxeam,' § 26, 'de Carne Chrisii,' § 18, ' c. 
 Marcionem' iv. §, 18, Hilary, ' de Trinitate,' 
 X. " Assumpta Sibi per Se ex Virgine carne. 
 Ipse Sibi et ex Se animam Concepti per Se 
 corporis co-aptavit." Compare the Preface to 
 the works of S. Hilary, § 57; Bishop Bull, 
 *Defensio Fidei Nicaenae,' pp. 52, 53, 139, 203 
 (Oxon. 1846); Dorner, 'Person of Christ,' 
 I. ii. pp. 367 ft", 'Protestant Theology,' II. 457; 
 Pfleiderer, 'Paulinism,' I. 125. 
 
 8. For vnep iravrcov vfjL. Lachm. Tisch. 
 Treg. read Trepi with preponderance of au- 
 thority. A comparison of Ephes. i, 16 
 (vwe'p) with I Cor. i. 4 ; i Thess. i. 2 ; 2 
 Thess. i. 3 ; ii. 1 3 shows that vnep might have 
 been used in the same sense as nepl. 
 
 12. There is a little irregularity in the 
 grammatical construction. 
 
 Meyer, in order to find a subject for 
 (TvpTrapaKXrjdfjvai makes it parallel to Idelv : 
 " For I long to see you, &c.; that is, to be 
 comforted among you." 
 
 The objections to this construction are : 
 
 1. It passes over the nearer connection 
 with eif TO <TTT]pix^df}i>ai l/xas to the more 
 distant iSelc. 
 
 2. It makes St. Paul's con-ection of his ex- 
 pression apply to iSetf K.T.X., which does 
 not as a whole need correction, instead of the 
 part els TO crTrjpi^dfji'ai vfjids which is the 
 direct cause of the correction. 
 
 3. It supplies as a subject for a-vpnapa- 
 KXrjdriixu only ifxe, which does not agree with 
 the following phrase rrjs iv aXXr}Xoij Triareas 
 vfiMv re Koi ipoii. 
 
 For these reasons it is much simpler, and 
 in fact necessary, to understand rjpas = vpas 
 Kai epe as the subject. 
 
 If it be objected that where a new subject 
 is introduced it ought to be distinctly ex- 
 pressed, it is sufficient to answer: ist, that 
 f]pas could not be here expressed in the sense 
 required (ypas Kat ipf), because the formal 
 antithesis els to arTTjpLxdrjvm vpas, tovto 8e 
 ecTTiv rjpas (TvpnapaK\r)6r]vai would have 
 limited r)pas to a sense excluding instead of 
 including vpas\ and secondly, that St. Paul 
 indicates the subject, which he could not ex- 
 press, by the avv in avpTapaKkrjBrjvut. — a com- 
 pound found nowhere else in the New Test, 
 or LXX. 
 
 13. KapTTov (Tx^-I ""'Ex^iv in its manifold 
 collocations with Tiprjv, 86^av, 8cc., signifies 
 ' assequi,' and so here " (Tholuck). 
 
 This is a wrong explanation of the right 
 meaning of a-xfo, " that I might get." The 
 verb exco means to have, hold, or possess : but 
 the aorist has a momentary and, as it were, 
 initiative force, which may often be expressed 
 by "get": see John iv. 52; Matt. xxi. 38; 
 Mark ii. 25; Acts xxv. 26; Phil. ii. 27; i 
 Thess. i. 9. 
 
 15. ovT(i)s TO (car' epe npodvpou. Various 
 constructions have been proposed. 
 
 A. TO K. e. Trp. taken together as subject 
 (i) to a sentence ovtos ea-Tiv = '^ in accord- 
 ance with this duty is the readiness on my 
 part to preach." 
 
 (2) to a sentence fcrnv evayyeXia-aa-dai. 
 "Accordingly the desire on my part is to 
 preach." 
 
 B. TO KQT kpe taken apart from -rrpoBvpov. 
 (i) as an adverbial phrase : " thus there is 
 
 — so far as in me lies — a readiness," &c. 
 
 (2) as subject to npodvpov enTiv. " So my 
 part is ready; so I for my part am ready." 
 
 The choice lies between A (2), which is 
 harsh, and B (2), which is supported (though 
 not fully) by Phil. i. 12, and is decidedly to 
 be preferred as giving a proper grammatical 
 construction. 
 
 17. The just shall live by faith'] The accents 
 in the Hebrew do not indicate the connection, 
 " the just by his faith," but show that the 
 stress of the sentence is on " faith," which is 
 placed emphatically before the verb : "The 
 just ... by his faith shall he live." See 
 Delitzsch on Hab. ii. 4 quoted by Pusey, 
 who adds, " the expression just by his faith 
 does not occur either in the Old or New 
 Test. In fact, to speak of one really right- 
 eous (as p"'lV always is) as being " righteous 
 by his faith " would imply that men could be 
 righteous in some other way." (' Commentary 
 on the Minor Prophets.') 
 
 The be in 6 Se ciiKdiof, retained by St. Paul, 
 shows that the antithesis is between "the 
 
70 
 
 ROMANS. I. 
 
 proud " and " tlie just," not between " the 
 just by faith" and ''the just" in any other 
 way. 
 
 The LXX fK nia-Tfai fiov (or as in some 
 MSS o de SiKcuos [xov i< niaTfcoi) ^rjafTai 
 seems to have arisen from mistaking 1 for i. 
 St. Paul omits the erroneous fxov without 
 inserting aiiTov, as unnecessary for his pur- 
 pose. See on Gal. iii. ii, and on Heb. 
 ii. 4. 
 
 20. dno KTi(T€cos Koafiov.'] The phrase 
 seems to occur nowhere else in LXX. or 
 N. T. 
 
 When the Creation is employed as a mark 
 of time, the phrases are : 
 
 (i) OTTO KaTa^oXfjs Koafiov (Matt., Luke, 
 Hebr., Apocal. Gf. npo KaTci^oXrjs koo-/:iov, 
 Eph. i. 4). 
 
 (2) citt' apxrjS Koa-jJiov, Matt. Xxiv. 21. 
 
 (3) nn apxvs KTlaeays, Mar. X. 6; xiii. 19; 
 2 Pet. iii. 4 ; Apoc. iii. 14. 
 
 The Peshito Syriac gives the same render- 
 ing here as in Matt. xxv. 34, John xvii. 24, 
 " from the foundation of the world." And in 
 Ps. Salom. viii. 7, dno /cn'o-ews ovpavov 
 Kui yfjs, is certainly a mark of time. 
 
 The Vulgate, on the other hand, for its 
 usual renderings " a constitutione mundi," or 
 " ab initio mundi," here gives " a creatura 
 mundi," meaning " the created universe.' 
 
 Theodoret, CEcumenius, Cyril, Photius, 
 Luther, Calvin, &c., regard creation as the 
 source of the knowledge. 
 
 That they might be without excuse.] 
 The difficulty found in this hard saying since 
 the days of Chrysostom, being due not to 
 St. Paul but to his interpreters, must not 
 induce us to deny the plain grammatical 
 sense of the Apostle's words. 
 
 1. The rule that eh ro with an Infinitive 
 expresses an end or purpose, not a mere coa- 
 sequi'fice, seems to have no exception in the 
 N. T. 
 
 The strongest apparent exception (2 Cor. 
 viii. 6), has received its true interpretation 
 from the fine insight of Meyer, following 
 the clue given in the words bia 6e\t]p.aTos 
 Qeov : "In the fact that the increase of 
 charity wrought by God's <wtn in the Mace- 
 donians, had encouraged him to bid Titus 
 extend the collection to Corinth, St. Paul 
 sees the fulfilment of the Divine purpose 
 which he therein serves." 
 
 2. The speculative objection that "it can 
 hardly be thought that " the conviction, con- 
 fusion, and condemnation of men was any 
 part of the Divine //i3« in Creation, although 
 it follows as a consequence from it" (Bp. 
 Wordsworth) is set aside by the distinc- 
 tion which Hooker has so clearly estab- 
 lished between the " principal " will of God, 
 and His " occasional " will. (See Appen- 
 
 dix I. to ' Eccles. Polity ' Bk. V. '" But 
 
 above all things we are to note what God 
 willeth simply of his own voluntary inclina- 
 tion, and what by occasion of something 
 precedent, without which there would be in 
 God no such will." 
 
 The simple or " principal " will of God in 
 giving a knowledge of Himself to His reason- 
 able creatures is, that they may find their 
 happiness in Him ; it is only " by occasion " 
 of their sinful neglect or abuse of this know- 
 ledge that God willeth " as it were with a 
 kind of unwillingness," that they should be 
 without excuse. In like manner Leibnitz, 
 following the Schoolmen, distinguishes in 
 God " two aspects of the will : one an 
 antecedent will, which has for its object all 
 that is good : and the other a consequent and 
 decretory will, which acts for the best, and 
 includes evil as a condition of good." 
 (Saisset, ' Essai de Philos. relig.' p. 231.) 
 
 3. It is to be carefully observed that the 
 purpose ascribed to God in making Himself 
 known is not " the conviction, confusion, and 
 condemnation of men " ; it is not that they 
 might be punished for sinning against know- 
 ledge, but that they might have no excuse for 
 not knowmg. 
 
 23. The construction aWaTTfiv n tv nvi 
 is not found in classical Greek, but was 
 adopted by the LXX in imitation of the 
 Hebrew "l'''?n " to exchange " followed by 3 
 of the thing with which anything is ex- 
 changed: see Lev. xxvii. 10; Ps. cvi. 20; 
 Sirac. vii. 18, M17 aXKd^rjs (j)!.Xov d8La(j)6pov 
 firjbe d8eX(p6v yvrjinov iv ;(pucria) '2ov<pfip. 
 
 24. rov dripa^eaSai to. (Tutp-ara avTcov iv 
 avroij.] This is the reading of modern criti- 
 cal editors (Tisch. 8), and is to be rendered 
 that their bodies should be dishonoured 
 among them. The rendering " so that," &c. 
 (Alford) is scarcely admissible. 
 
 The use of rov with Inf to express merely 
 tlie event unmixed with the design, is very 
 questionable. St. Paul commonly uses it to 
 express the purpose, or at least the tendency of 
 an act : Rom. vi. 6, vii. 3, xi. 8, 10; i Cor. x. 
 1 3 ; Gal. iii. i o. The reading iv iavrois is 
 found in the majority of later uncials, in good 
 cursives 17, 37, 47, in the Vulgate, Origen, 
 Chrysostom, and Theodoret. It requires 
 the Middle sense of aTipd^ta-Oai, against which 
 the absence of other instances is not decisive. 
 
 fV iavTois, retained by Meyer, expresses 
 more clearly than would iv dXXi]\nis the sin 
 against their own, as well as against each 
 other's body. 
 
 32. The Vatican MS. (Tischendorf, 1867) 
 for iniyvovres, reads iTriyivwiTKO"T(s, and for 
 noiovcriv, (rvvevdoKovaLV, the participles ttoi- 
 
 OVVTfS, CrVVfvtnKOVVTfS. 
 
 Clement of Rome (Cor. c. 35) after de- 
 
V. I — 2.] 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 71 
 
 nouncing some of the sins mentioned by St. 
 Paul in "W. 29, 30, adds: ravra yap ot npaa- 
 (Tovres (TTvyriroi ra Qem VTrdp)(ovai.p, ov fxovov 
 Se ot TTpacraovTes avra, dWa Koi oi (ruvfv8o- 
 Kovvres avTols. 
 
 Hence it has been supposed that Clement 
 found in Romans the reading, — ov fiopov de ol 
 Tfoiovvres dWa Koi oi avvevdoKOvvTfS to2s 
 irpdcrcrovcriv. 
 
 But it is far more probable that the tran- 
 
 scriber of B, or some earlier IMS., having the 
 passage of Clement by his side, substituted 
 the Participles in the text of Romans by 
 mistake. 
 
 The sentence being thus incomplete, as in 
 B., later Copyists tried to complete it by 
 various additions: ovk evorja-av D E, ovic 
 eyvaxrav G. 
 
 For a full discussion see Reiche, * Comment. 
 Critic' 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 I They that sin, though they condemn it in 
 others, cannot excuse themselves, 6 and much 
 less escape the judgment of God, 9 whether 
 they be Jews or Gentiles. 14 The Gentiles 
 cannot escape, 17 nor yet the jews, 2$ whom 
 their circumcision shall not profit, if they 
 keep not the law. 
 
 THEREFORE thou art inexcu- 
 sable, O man, whosoever thou 
 art that judgest : for wherein thou 
 judgest another, thou condemnest thy- 
 self; for thou that judgest doest the 
 same things. 
 
 2 But we are sure that the judg- 
 
 Chap. II.— The Jew brought into 
 Judgment. 
 
 1-29. St. Paul pursues his proof of the 
 universal need of such a saving power as is 
 contained in the revelation of the righteous- 
 ness of God by faith. 
 
 He has traced the downward course of 
 mankind from the first wilful rejection of the 
 knowledge of God through all the stages of 
 idolatry and vice, showing the mutual re- 
 actions of moral depravity and mental dark- 
 ness. Under general terms, and without once 
 naming the Gentiles, he has painted the pro- 
 minent features of the heathen world in bold 
 and vigorous strokes. As the picture draws 
 towards an end the shadows deepen, until at 
 last in -u. 32 we see that final stage of cor- 
 ruption in which men, having lost all natural 
 virtue themselves and even the hatred of vice 
 in others, retain only the consciousness of 
 their misery and guilt, knowing the just 
 sentence of God on them which do such 
 things. 
 
 But there were some among the heathen 
 and many among the Jews to whom this 
 description could not be applied in its 
 strongest external features of blind idolatry 
 and hideous vice. They had not lost all 
 knowledge of the true nature of God ; they 
 did not practise, still less applaud, the grosser 
 forms of vice; their moral sense was keen 
 enough to condemn the sins of others : yet 
 they too must be brought to feel themselves 
 guilty before God. How does St. Paul effect 
 this ? He strikes at the conscience, and 
 strikes suddenly and sharply : " thou that 
 judgest doest the same things : therefore the 
 moral sense which judges others, but does 
 not restrain thyself from evil, increases thy 
 
 condemnation : for God will judge thee ac- 
 cording to thy deeds" (-y-u. i, 2). 
 
 1. Therefore thou art inexcusable^ Where- 
 fore thou art without excuse (see i. 20). 
 With startling suddenness the Apostle states 
 his conclusion first, merely hinting by the 
 one word "wherefore" its dependence on 
 the principle stated in i. 32, '■'■that they luhich 
 commit such things are ^worthy of death : " and 
 then in the words " Oman, ^whosoever thou art 
 that judgest," he singles out each reader as the 
 very man addressed, and at the same time 
 extends his argument to all, in order that he 
 may eventually apply it to the Jew. 
 
 The success of such an appeal to con- 
 science rests on the fact that every man 
 recognizes in himself at least the germs of 
 those sins which he condemns in others. St. 
 Paul uses the argument with admirable skill 
 and power: he has roused a just indignation 
 by his description of flagrant sinners, and as 
 the stern sentence of condemnation is burst- 
 ing forth, he seizes and turns it back upon 
 the judge himself " The man that hath done 
 this thing shall surely die." " Thou art the 
 man." 
 
 The argument, set in its logical order, 
 would stand thus : Thou judgest that they 
 which do such things are worthy of death: 
 Thou that judgest doest the same things: 
 Therefore in judging thy neighbour thou 
 condemnest thyself, and art without excuse. 
 St. Paul inverts this order by using his con- 
 clusion first and proving it afterwards. The 
 repeated description " thou that judgest'* 
 though applicable to all men, is especially 
 characteristic of the Jews, whose condemna- 
 tion of " sinners of the Gentiles " (Gal. ii. 15) 
 was unsparing. 
 
7* 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 [v. 3—5. 
 
 ment of God is according to truth 4 Or despisest thou the riches of 
 
 against them which commit such his goodness and forbearance and 
 
 things. longsuffering ; not knowing that the 
 
 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, goodness of God leadeth thee to re- 
 
 that judgest them which do such pentance ? 
 
 things, and doest the same, that thou 5 But after thy hardness and im- 
 
 shalt escape the judgment of God ? penitent heart "^treasurest up unto "Jam- s-a- 
 
 The words " O man'' as in ix. 20, indi- 
 rectly rebuke the presumption of a weak 
 mortal in assuming the Divine prerogative of 
 judgment. Compare Luke xii. 14. 
 
 The accusation brought in the words 
 " thou doest the same things " is renewed 
 against the Jew by name in w. 17-27. 
 
 2. St. Paul now completes and confirms 
 his argument by an express assertion of the 
 principle, already assumed in it, that God's 
 judgment against the doers of evil applies 
 equally to all, — to those who judge even as 
 to those who take pleasure in them that 
 practise such things. 
 
 For the truth of this principle he appeals 
 to the conscience of his readers (as in iii. 19) : 
 " M^e know" it is a certain and well-known 
 truth " that the judgment of God " (unlike 
 that inconsistent judgment of man, ik i) is 
 directed " according to truth," i.e., without 
 error and without partiality (see v. 11) 
 against the doers of evil. 
 
 3, And thinkest thou this, man, that judgest 
 them luhich do such things, and doest the same, 
 that thou shah escape the judgment of God "^^ 
 But thinkest thou this, man, that judgest them 
 ivhich practise such things, and doest them, 
 (h-'c. In contrast to the sure truth of God's 
 impartial judgment of evildoers, stand the 
 errors by which men evade its application to 
 themselves : and first, the delusive hope of 
 personal exemption. " But thinkest thou 
 this — that thou shalt escape being judged at 
 all ? " The folly of such a thought is made 
 more prominent by the description of the 
 person supposed to entertain it : " O man, 
 that judgest them which practise such things, 
 and doest them." Dost thou, who art 
 thus inexcusable and self-condemned (1;. i), 
 think that thou of all men shalt be exempt 
 from judgment ? 
 
 No answer is needed : as soon as the 
 thought is clearly stated, its folly is trans- 
 parent. Yet it is a common form of self- 
 deception : men are almost unconsciously 
 influenced by a vague and undefined hope of 
 impunity which they do not acknowledge 
 even to themselves. The Jews, however, 
 openly claimed exemption from God's judg- 
 ment as the common privilege of the children 
 of Abraham. "All Israelites will have part 
 in the world to come ;" " Abraham sits be- 
 
 side the gates of hell, and does not permit 
 any wicked Israelite to go down to hell." 
 (See the citations in Bull's 'Harm. Apost.,' 
 cxvii. § 6, and in McCaul, ' Old Paths,' p. 
 450.) " They who are the seed of Abraham 
 according to the flesh shall in any case, even 
 if they be sinners and unbelieving and dis- 
 obedient towards God, share in the eternal 
 kingdom." (Just. Mart. ' Dial. c. Tryph.,' c. 
 140.) It is the same notion that is rebuked 
 by John the Baptist, " Bring forth therefore 
 fruits meet for repentance : and think not to say 
 within yourseli'es, We have Abraham to our 
 father" (Matt. iii. 8, 9.) Thus without nam- 
 ing the Jew St. Paul already indicates him by 
 one of his most characteristic errors. 
 
 4. Or despisest thou, •ij'f.] The Apostle 
 now puts an alternative question, suggesting 
 another explanation of the disregard which 
 men show in practice to the acknowledged 
 truth of a future judgment. The effect of 
 God's patience upon a heart hardened in sin 
 is only to produce a contemptuous teeling of 
 security : " Because sentence against an evil 
 work is not executed speedily, therefore the 
 heart of the sons of m-en is fully set in them 
 to do evil." (Eccles. viii. 11 ; Ps. x. 11, 13 ; 
 Sirach v. 5, 6.) God's ^^ goodness " is a gra- 
 cious benignity that would gladly bless and 
 not punish : Yi'is '■'' forbearance " s.us'^Qnds the 
 stroke, when sin cries for vengeance: His 
 " long-suffering " endures repeated provoca- 
 tions and is still slow to anger. " The riches 
 of God's goodness " he only can despise, who 
 is ignorant of the purpose for which it is 
 manifested : it is a moral blindness only that 
 can mistake God's patience for a weakness 
 or indifference fiom which final impunity may 
 be expected (c. ix. 22). The Divine '^good- 
 ness " is here presented in a twofold manner : 
 There is not only a gracious disposition 
 (xpj^orroTTjj) in God, that makes Him willing 
 to lead sinners to repentance : the same gra- 
 cious quality embodied in God's dealings (jo 
 XprjTTov) has a real action in leading to repen- 
 tance even those who nevertheless do not 
 repent : God's leading is as real as man's re- 
 sistance to being led. 
 
 5. The false views implied in the two pre- 
 ceding questions are now refuted by a direct 
 assertion of the true nature and consequences 
 of the impenitent sinner's conduct : the delu- 
 
V. 6-7-] 
 
 ROMANS. 11. 
 
 73 
 
 thyself wrath against the day of 
 wrath and revelation of the righteous 
 judgment of God ; 
 
 6 '^ Who will render to every man "' ^'^- ^'■ 
 according to his deeds : Matt. i6. 
 
 7 To them who by patient con- H] ^l^*^ 
 
 sive hope of personal exemption (v. 3) is 
 especially dealt with in -w. 9 f. ; and the 
 second error of despising God's goodness is 
 thus at once exposed in a direct and vivid 
 contrast. God's goodness leads to repent- 
 ance; but an impenitent heart will not be 
 led, and as an effect of this obduracy the 
 store of wrath is increased by the richej of 
 goodness rejected. The Apostle says not 
 "God treasureth up wrath," but "thou 
 treasurest up •wrath unto thy self ^ "He adds 
 to His long-suffering, thou to thine ini- 
 quity. . . . And what thou layest up a little 
 every day, thou wilt find a mass hereafter." 
 (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 93.) 
 
 ivratb against the day of <wrath7\ Read 
 ^^^wrath in the day of<wrath." The expression 
 sets forth with terrible emphasis the hardened 
 sinner's doom. But while to him the Judg- 
 ment Day is above all a day of wrath, it has 
 also a more general character as a day which 
 reveals to all, both good and evil, men and 
 angels, that God is a righteous Judge (Sikqio- 
 KpiTT]!, 2 Mace. xii. 41) ; that not only in that 
 last great act of judgment, but in all His 
 dealings and dispensations, He judgeth right- 
 eously. This revelation of God's character 
 as a righteous Judge {8iKaioKpt.(Tu'., v. Pseudo- 
 Just. Mart. Quaestt. Gent. 28), will consist in 
 His rendering to every man according to his 
 deeds. 
 
 6. This verse is an exact quotation from the 
 Septuagint (Prov. xxiv. 12), and the same fun- 
 damental truth of a future universal judgment 
 according to men's works, is constantly taught 
 in the New Testament no less than in the 
 Old (Matt. xvi. 27 ; xxv. 31-46 ; 2 Cor. v. 10). 
 Against vain pretensions and imaginary privi- 
 leges, St. Paul sets the acknowledged truth 
 that God will judge and reward every man 
 according to his actual life and true cha- 
 racter. 
 
 The contrast here is not between works 
 and faith, but between a man's deeds as 
 realities and all that is unreal, between doing 
 and knowing, between being and seeming, 
 practising and professing. Thus we need not 
 discuss modes of reconciling this passage with 
 the doctrine that " man is justified by faith <ivith- 
 out the deeds of the la-w" (hi. 28). There can 
 be no discrepancy, as the contrast between 
 " faith " and " works of the law " has no place 
 at this stage of the Apostle's argument. He 
 is maintaining here that the rule of God's 
 judgmen-t will be real deed's of righteousness 
 or unrighteousness. He will afterwards show 
 that those "works of the law," which he 
 
 contrasts with faith, are not real works of 
 righteousness. 
 
 Again, we must not on the one hand so 
 strain the sense of the passage, as to infer 
 that each man's deeds earn by their own 
 intrinsic merit that reward which God will 
 render ; nor on the other hand limit the sense, 
 as if the Apostle had written " Who will 
 render to every man according to the evidence of 
 his deeds " (Calovius, Meyer). What St. Paul 
 means by the accordance between each man's 
 deeds and his reward, he himself explains in 
 the following verses, and no narrower limita- 
 tion of his meaning is admissible. The closer 
 definitions attempted in the interests of con- 
 troversy rest on distinctions which are not 
 contained in the Apostle's words, and are 
 quite out of place in this stage of his argu- 
 ment. See notes on iv. 4, and Augustine, as 
 there cited, and compare Acts x. 34, 35 : " Q/* 
 a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of 
 persons : but in e-very nation he that feareth 
 him, and ivorketh righteousness^ is accepted 
 nvith him." 
 
 7-10. The accordance between " the deeds 
 done in the body " and the future reward is 
 now shewn in two great classes into which 
 all mankind are divided, according to the 
 moral aim of their lives. 
 
 7. Some interpreters (as Reiche, Ewald, 
 and Hofmann) would arrange the verse thus : 
 — " To the one, seeking eternal life, he will 
 render according to their patience in well- 
 doing, glory and honour and immortality." 
 They argue that the words " according to 
 patience in well-doing," must answer to the 
 clause " according to his works " (jv. 6), and 
 so must express '■^ the rule by qvhich God will 
 Judge." 
 
 But the older interpretation followed by 
 our translators is to be preferred, because 
 it both preserves the natural order of the 
 original words, and gives at least as good, 
 perhaps a better, sense ; for St. Paul, instead 
 of merely repeating the statement that judg- 
 ment shall be according to works, brings out 
 a new thought, that the rule of God's future 
 judgment must also be the rule of man's 
 present life, and so the reward must be sought 
 "in the way of (^KaTo) patience in ^ivell- 
 doing." 
 
 The last words might be rendered more 
 exactly "perseverance in good work:" 
 not this or that good work is meant, but the 
 life of the righteous is viewed as a whole in its 
 unity of purpose, as one good work patiently 
 pursued (c. xiii. 3 ; Gal. vi. 4 ; i Pet. i. 1 7 ; Rev. 
 
74 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 [v. 8—12. 
 
 tinuance in well doing seek for glory 
 and honour and immortality, eternal 
 life: 
 
 8 But unto them that are con- 
 tentious, and do not obey the truth, 
 but obey unrighteousness, indignation 
 and wrath, 
 
 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon 
 every soul of man that doeth evil, of 
 
 the Jew first, and also of the "Gen- ]l^^^ 
 tile ; 
 
 10 But glory, honour, and peace, 
 to every man that worketh good, 
 to the Jew first, and also to the 
 "Gentile; 
 
 1 1 For there is no respect of per- 
 sons with God. 
 
 12 For as many as have sinned 
 
 II Gr. 
 Creek. 
 
 xxii. 12). That this life of righteousness can 
 be fully realized only in the Christian believer 
 will be shewn at a later stage of the Apostle's 
 argument (vi. 11-23). What he here sets 
 forth is not the specific realization, but the 
 general idea of the life which God will 
 reward. Its form of outward manifestation 
 will be "perseverance in good work;" 
 its inner motive the longing after a higher 
 state, in which man's perfected nature will 
 shine forth in ^^ glory," his faithfulness will be 
 crowned with " honour" by God's approval, 
 and his happiness secured for ever by the new 
 gift of " immortality." 
 
 These three elements, ^^ glory and honour 
 and immortality" are combined in ^^ eternal 
 life,'' and our Authorized Version has the 
 advantage of representing the various ele- 
 ments of happiness which man has longed for, 
 as being all united in the reward which God 
 will bestow. 
 
 8. But unto them that are contentious, and 
 do not obey the truth.] "But unto them that 
 are factious and disobey the truth." 
 The unrighteous are described as " the men 
 of factiousness," an idiom which represents 
 " factiousness " as the root of their moral 
 character. (See notes on iii. 26'; iv. 12, 14; 
 Gal. iii. 10.) 
 
 On the word epiQela see Note at end of 
 chapter. The context helps to define its 
 meaning here: it is a " factiousness " which 
 consists in " disobeying the truth, but obey- 
 ing unrighteousness." Allegiance is due to 
 "the truth" (which answers to righteousness, 
 I Cor. xiii. 6: Eph. iv, 24; 2 Thess. ii. 10- 
 12) : to transfer this allegiance to the oppo- 
 site power " unrighteousness " is factious. 
 
 indignation and <wrath.'] "There shall 
 be wrath. and indignation." To com- 
 plete the sentence we must not supply as in v. 
 7, " God shall render," but both here and in 
 'vv. 9, 10, "there shall be." The sudden 
 change is significant : " Salvation is God's 
 own work, punishment will be the effect of 
 the sinner's obduracy " (OEcumenius). 
 
 In the right order "wrath and indigna- 
 tion," the stronger word comes last, adding 
 the idea of hot burning anger. St. Paul 
 teaches us that the sense of God's wrath will 
 
 be a chief element in that " eternal destruction " 
 (2 Thess. i. 9), which we might have ex- 
 pected him to name here as the opposite to 
 " eternal life." 
 
 9, 10. St. Paul now repeats the thoughts of 
 •w. 7, 8, with special emphasis upon the uni- 
 versality of the judgment as including Jews 
 as well as Gentiles, and so refutes the Jewish 
 error indicated in v. 3. The previous order 
 of ideas is inverted, the thought of God's 
 wrath against Sin being continued from v. 
 8 ; so that the words which describe the 
 sinner's doom are heaped together with 
 terrible effect. 
 
 That which coming from God appears 
 under the form of " v^Tath and indignation," 
 becomes when endured by the sinner, " tribu- 
 lation and anguish." 
 
 The former word denotes the pressure of 
 a crushing burden, the latter the " straitness" 
 of confinement, and the consequent helpless- 
 ness, which forbid all hope of escape. 
 
 " Every soul of man " is not a mere cir- 
 cumlocution for " every man :" such explana- 
 tions rob language of half its life and power. 
 It is the soul that suffers (Matt. xxvi. 38, Acts 
 ii. 43), under the wrath of God, even when the 
 pain reaches it through the body. See xiii. i. 
 
 The two words " nvorketh" v. i o, and 
 "doeth," "v. 9, fail to represent the distinction 
 between the simple verb in the Greek, and its 
 compound {KnTepyd^ofxai) : punishment is 
 inflicted on him who " worketh out e vil " 
 to its full end (v. 9) : while he " that <worketh 
 good " is rewarded for the effort itself without 
 reference to the successful accomplishment 
 of the work. See vii. 15. 
 
 the Jemfrst.'] The Jew, who is here first 
 expressly included in the judgment, has a 
 priority in responsibility and punishment, as 
 well as in privilege and reward : see on i. 16. 
 But this priority will not interfere with the 
 application of the same rule of judgment 
 according to every man's works. 
 
 Gentile.'] "Greek:" See on i. 16. 
 
 11. The reason why Jew and Gentile will 
 be judged by the same rule lies in that free- 
 dom from partiality, which is part of God's 
 character as the Righteous Judge (Deutx. 
 
V. 13— 1 4-] 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 75 
 
 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 just before God, but the doers of 
 the law shall be justified. 
 
 14 For when the Gentiles, which 
 have not the law, do by nature the 
 
 17; 2 Chron. xix. 7; Job xxxiv. 19). "To 
 accept the face " was to give a gracious re- 
 ception to a suppliant or suitor (Gen. xix. 21 ; 
 Job xiii. 10, xlii. 8), and the phrase being 
 often applied to a corrupt and partial judge 
 (Lev. xix. 15, &c.) has always in the N. T. 
 the bad sense of partiality (Matt. xxii. 16). 
 
 12. The Jew might be led by his actual 
 privileges to doubt whether the principle that 
 *' there is no respect of persons luith God" 
 could be applied to him. The Apostle there- 
 fore proceeds to show how a strict im- 
 partiality will be maintained in God's future 
 judgment of all men, whether Gentiles or 
 Jews. A chief distinction between them was 
 that the Jews had, and the Gentiles had not 
 a revealed and written law of God ; to such 
 a law, therefore, St. Paul now applies the 
 same argument from God's judgment by 
 works, which he has already used in -w. i, 2, 
 concerning a moral sense which enables a 
 man to condemn sin in others, but does not 
 restrain him from doing the same himself. 
 
 For as many as have sinned ivithout laiuJ] 
 The Apostle deals with the Gentiles first. 
 As their sin, so shall their punishment be : to 
 neither of these will the standard of a written 
 law be applied, and yet apart from all con- 
 sideration of such law, as surely as a man sins, 
 so surely shall he perish under the judgment 
 of God. The want of the greater light gives 
 no impunity to abuse of the less : but punish- 
 ment follows as a natural consequence of sin 
 under God's general moral government. To 
 ^''perish " in the future judgment is to lose 
 what has been already described as " salva- 
 tion," ^^ glory and honour and immortality" 
 *' eternal life." 
 
 and as many as have sinned in the laiu shall 
 be judged by the la^iv7\ " And as many as 
 have sinned with law shall be judged by 
 law." In slating the general principle of 
 God's judgment, St. Paul uses the term 
 "law" without the article for any written 
 revelation of God's will ; but, as in fact, there 
 was no other such law given, but that of 
 Moses, the sense is not materially affected by 
 limiting the word "law" to '■'•the law" of 
 Moses, as in A.V. See Introduction, § 9. 
 
 The Jew, who could not dissent from the 
 Apostle's statement of the condition of the 
 Gentile, is equally involved in condemnation 
 under a judgment, which is impartial and 
 according to works. For he possesses a law, 
 and hears it read in the Synagogue on the 
 
 Sabbath day, and lives in professed obedience 
 to it. Thus " law " constitutes the moral 
 state in which he lives : if he sins, he sins 
 " in " or under, or " with law," and therefore 
 "by law " he shall be judged. 
 
 13. The application of law as the rule of 
 judgment, is an idea quite opposed to the 
 fancied privilege and exemption of the Jews ; 
 St. Paul therefore confirms it by referring to 
 the known principle of all law: "for not 
 they who are hearers of law" (and no- 
 thing more than hearers) shall be just be- 
 fore God, but the doers of law shall be 
 justified. This general principle is asserted 
 by the Jev^nsh law itself (Deut. xxvii. 26), and 
 St. Paul here evidently assumes, as known to 
 his readers, what he expresses elsewhere: 
 " For Moses describeth the righteousness ivhich 
 is of the laiv, That the man ivhich doeth those 
 things shall live by them " (x. 5). 
 
 The word '■'■justified " is used here for the 
 first time in the Epistle, and we cannot have 
 a better opportunity of considering its mean- 
 ing, which is clearly defined by the context. 
 
 {a) It cannot mean '■'■pardoned:" for he 
 that is justified as a doer of law, has nothing 
 to be pardoned for; nor (b) can it mean 
 " made just " for he is just already by the 
 supposition. It means to be " acknowledged 
 and declared just :" it is the exact contrary 
 to being " condemned." There is no ground 
 on which to condemn one who fulfils the law, 
 he must therefore be justified. The word 
 has evidently the same meaning in iii. 4, 20. 
 In the present passage the meaning is con- 
 firmed by the parallel clause : " to be justi- 
 fied " is the same thing as " to be just before 
 God," i.e., according to his judgment (i Cor. 
 iii. 1 9 ; 2 Thess. i. 6). 
 
 14-16. St. Paul has shown how the general 
 principle that God " luill render to every man 
 according to his 'works" applies to the Jews : 
 they will be judged by law, and only law- 
 doers be justified. He now shows that the 
 same principle is applicable to the Gentiles 
 also, though under another form. For al- 
 though they have no " law," in the stricter 
 sense of the word, that is to say, no revealed 
 and written law like " the law " of Moses, 
 yet substantially they have a law, or rather 
 they " are a lanv unto themselves." 
 
 Thus in w. 14-16, St. Paul shows that the 
 principle stated m f. 13 is in fact universal, 
 and that the formal distinction between 
 Gentile and Jew, v. 12, does not involve any 
 
76 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 [v. 15—16. 
 
 things contained in the law, these, their thoughts "the mean while ac- '"''r, *«• 
 
 having not the law, are a law unto cusing or else excusing one an- them- 
 
 themselves : other ;) *''^'"*' 
 
 nr^ .^ ^5 Which shcw the work of the i6 In the day when God shall 
 
 I Or, the . -^ . . 1 • 1 II 1 • • 1 1 ^ r 1 T 
 
 consciettce law WHttcn m their hearts, " their judge the secrets or men by Jesus 
 
 vtithi'kem. conscieiicc also bearing witness, and Christ according to my gospel. 
 
 essential difference between them in reference 
 to the Divine Judgment. The real existence 
 of the inward law in the Gentiles admits a 
 double proof, the one derived from outward 
 acts {y. 14), the other from the working of 
 conscience (jv. 15). 
 
 14. For tuhen the Gentiles.'] The sense 
 of the verse is made clear by translating it 
 with due attention to the use of the Greek 
 Article: "For whenever Gentiles which 
 have not a law, do by nature the things 
 of the law, these not having a law are 
 a law unto themselves." It is clear that 
 here, as throughout the chapter, the Gentiles 
 of whom St. Paul speaks are heathen ; and 
 by " nature" as contrasted with the teacli- 
 ing of an outward law, he means the moral 
 faculty, which is born with every man, how- 
 ever much or little it may be afterwards 
 developed. But the Apostle does not speak 
 of " the Gentiles " as a whole, nor of their 
 rendering a complete obedience; occasional 
 good deeds, such as '■'■the laiv" approves, 
 done by persons who have neither that nor 
 any other outward law, are sufficient proof of 
 an inward principle, by virtue of which such 
 persons are " a lanu unto themselves." It is 
 remarkable that St. Paul here uses the exact 
 words of Aristotle, who says concerning men 
 of eminent virtue and wisdom : Kara be rribv 
 T010VT03V ov< ((TTi vofjios' avTOL yap fieri VOfXOS 
 ('Polit.' III. xiii. 14). The first clause is 
 quoted in Gal. v. 23 and the second here. 
 Compare also Arist. * Eth. Nicom.' iv. 8 (14) 
 o 617 xapieis Koi e\ev6epios ovtchs e^et, o'lov 
 v6p.os o)!/ iuvra, in reference to jesting. 
 
 15. Which sheiu.'] "Inasmuch as they 
 show." Gentiles, such as have been described 
 in V. 14, are proved to be a law unto them- 
 selves, because in their good deeds they shevr 
 that " the ivork of the iatu,'" though not its 
 word, the substance though not the form, is 
 " ^written in their hearts " by the finger of 
 Him who nude them. Compare Sanderson, 
 ' De Obligatione Conscientiae,' iv. 25, and Cic. 
 'de Rep.' iii. 22 : " Est quidem vera lex recta 
 ratio naturse concruens, diffusa in omnes, 
 constans, sempiternal, quas vocet ad ofhcium 
 jubendo, vetando a fraude deterreat." 
 
 their conscience a/so.'] With the outward 
 evidence of acts done in accordance with the 
 law there agrees also {^vpp.aprvpova-Tjs') an 
 inner witness, the moral sense, exercising itself 
 
 upon men's own acts and upon those of their 
 fellows. The Authorized Version is inaccurate 
 in rendering pera^v here "the meamvhile ;" 
 translate thus: — "their own conscienco 
 joining witness, and between one an- 
 other their thoughts accusing or else 
 excusing (them")." 
 
 How does St. Paul's use of the word con- 
 science correspond to the modern use ? and 
 what difference, it may be asked, is there 
 between ^'the ■work of the laiu ^written on the 
 heart" and ^^ the conscience bearing ivitnessf" 
 The former is the suggestive or prospective 
 conscience that spontaneously forbids or com- 
 mands prior to action ; the latter is the sub- 
 sequent or reflective conscience that passes 
 judgment on deeds done, either by ourselves or 
 others. Compare Fleming, ' Vocab. of P'nilo- 
 sophy,' Art. ' Conscience.' " This faculty is 
 called into exercise not merely in reference to 
 our own conduct, but also in reference to the 
 conduct of others. It is not only reflective 
 but prospective, in its operations. It is ante- 
 cedent as well as subsequent to action, in its 
 exercise ; and it is occupied de faciendo, as 
 well as de facto'' See also Mansel, ' Pro- 
 legomena Logica,' Appendix, note F. San- 
 derson, 'De Conscientia,' I. § 27. 
 
 16. There is no need to put w. 13-15 in a 
 parenthesis, so as to connect -y. 16 directly 
 with v. 12. The words "in the day," Sec, 
 refer to the whole subject discussed, from 
 v. 12, or even from v. 6, to -y. 15. The same 
 words are appended in the same informal, 
 but impressive, manner in 2 Thess. i. 10. 
 
 That w. 14, 15, are not unconnected with 
 v. 16, is seen in the thought that " the secrets 
 of men" shall be judged; the Divine judg- 
 ment shall penetrate to the inner sphere of 
 conscience, and correspond to " the <work of 
 the lanv <written on the heart." 
 
 Why does St. Paul say, "according to my 
 Gospel V His arguments hitherto have been 
 drawn from principles universally admitted ; 
 a judgment too of some kind was acknow- 
 ledged both by Jews and Greeks ; but that 
 Jesus Christ would be the Judge, by neither. 
 This is a distinctive doctrine of the Gospel 
 (John v. 22 ; Acts x. 42 ; xvii. 31 ; i Cor. iv. 
 5) ; and as St. Paul has already, in his intro- 
 duction (i. 1-5, 9, 15, 16), spoken of the 
 preaching of that Gospel as the work to which 
 he was set apart, he here very naturally calls 
 it " my Gospel," on the first occasion of bringing 
 
V. 17— 1 9-] 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 77 
 
 17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, 
 and restest in the law, and makest 
 fiOr.Mesi thy boast of God, 
 //w^/iCr. 18 And knowest his will, and "ap- 
 
 provest the things that are more ex- 
 cellent, being instructed out of the 
 law ; 
 
 19 And art confident that thou 
 
 forward in his argument one of its peculiar 
 doctrines. For other interpretations see Note 
 at the end of the chapter. 
 
 11-11. The minor premiss of the syllogism 
 in verse i, '•'■Thou that jiidgest doest the 
 same things" is here proved against the Jew 
 by name. 
 
 17-24. 5f/jo/^.], -^Read "But if." The 
 dramatic " Behold !" is not unsuited to the 
 " splendid and vehement eloquence " of this 
 apostrophe; but the connection is made 
 clearer by the right reading. 
 
 "But" implies that the conduct to be 
 described is opposed to the principle just 
 established, that not the hearers, but the 
 doers of the law shall be justified. In w. 
 17-20 a supposition is made ("if,") in which 
 the boasted privileges of the Jew (17, 18), 
 and his assumed superiority over others (19, 
 20), are for the moment admitted: and then 
 a series of pungent questions, founded on 
 these admissions ("Thou then," v. 21), and 
 put in startling contrast with them, brings 
 out the flagrant inconsistency between pro- 
 fession and practice (21, 22). 
 
 If with the Authorized Version, and most 
 editors, we make -u. 23 also a question, we 
 must suppose that this and the preceding 
 questions are regarded as admitting no pos- 
 sible denial. But in the Greek a slight change 
 of construction from the Participle to the 
 Relative (•:;. 23), probably indicates the tran- 
 sition from the series of questions to the 
 assertion which gives a comprehensive answer 
 to them all, and closes the searching inquiry 
 with a decisive condemnation (Meyer, Lange). 
 The verdict, whether thus declared in -u. 23 
 or assumed after it, is confirmed in v. 24, by 
 its accordance with the language of the Old 
 Testament, in such passages as Isaiah lii. 5, 
 Ezekiel xxxvi. 20-2 3. 
 
 17. art called a Je<w.'] The name Jew, 
 which first occurs in 2 Kings xvi. 6, was 
 extended after the captivity to the whole 
 people, and as distinguishing them from the 
 heathen, was associated with national preroga- 
 tive and Messianic hopes. The Jew, there- 
 fore, is represented as priding himself upon 
 his national name {yv. 28, 29 ; ix. 4; Gal. ii. 
 15 ; PvCv. ii. 9; iii. 9). 
 
 restest in the lanv.'] "Restest upon law." 
 As the confidence of the Jew reposed on 
 the mere fact of God's having given him a 
 law, not on the particular character of the 
 law so given, the mere exact translation is 
 
 "restest upon law:" the Greek article is 
 omitted by the critical editors. Compare 
 -v. 25, and Introduction, § 9. 
 
 The real foundation of the prerogative 
 of the Jews was the promise given to 
 Abraham, the covenant of the law being 
 subordinate and temporary. But the Jew 
 had lost sight of this truth, and because God 
 " shewed his word v-nto Jacob, his statutes 
 and judgments unto Israel, and had not dealt 
 so with any nation" (Ps. cxlvii. 19) the 
 Jew rested supinely upon the possession of a 
 law as an assurance of God's favour, instead 
 of using it as a rule of life, and a light to the 
 conscience. The same Greek word is used 
 in the Septuagint (Mic. iii. 11), "Yet will 
 they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not 
 the Lord among us ? none evil can come 
 upon us." 
 
 The same spirit is indicated in the next 
 clause. 
 
 and makest thy boast of God."] "and 
 boastest in God." An arrogant perversion 
 of the glorying which God commends, " Let 
 him that glorieth glory in this, that he under- 
 standeth and knoweth Me, that I am the 
 Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judg- 
 ment, and righteousness in the earth : for in 
 these things I delight, saith the Lord." This 
 passage of Jeremiah (ix. 24) may have been 
 in St. Paul's mind ; for the last clause ren- 
 dered in the LXX., "in these is my will," to 
 BeX-rjixd fxov, seems to be echoed in his next 
 words. 
 
 18. ^nd knowest bis will.'] Literally, " the 
 will," which may mean either simply "/j/j 
 ivill" as in A. V., or perhaps by way of 
 excellence, " the one perfect will." See Bar- 
 row, Serm. iv. p. 34, and note on Acts v. 41. 
 Dr. Lightfoot (' Revision of New Testament,' 
 p. 106) shews that Be'Kruj.a, even without the 
 Article, means the Divine Will in i Cor. 
 xvi. 12, and in several Epistles of St. Ignatius. 
 
 and approvest the things that are more ex- 
 cellent.] AoKLijia^ci) means (i) to " test," 
 " prove," "discern" (c. xii. 2 ; i Cor. iii. 13 ; 
 xi. 28; 2 Cor. viii. 8, &c.) ; and (2) to 
 " approve" as the result of testing (c. i. 28 ; 
 xiv. 22; I Cor. xvi. 3; i Thess. ii. 4; and 
 especially Phil. i. 10, els ro doKi/xd^eiv vfius 
 TO. 8ia(p€povTa). 
 
 Many interpreters prefer the former mean- 
 ing hce, and understand by dia(f)ipopra " the 
 things that differ," either morally, as good 
 and evil, or that differ from " the will " of 
 God. But these interpretations are very 
 
78 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 [v. 20 22. 
 
 thyself art a guide of the blind, a 
 light of them which are in darkness, 
 
 20 An instructor of the foolish, a 
 teacher of babes, which hast the form 
 of knowledge and of the truth in the 
 law. 
 
 21 Thou therefore which teachest 
 
 another, teachest thou not thyself? 
 thou that preachest a man should not 
 steal, dost thou steal ? 
 
 22 Thou that sayest a man should 
 not commit adultery, dost thou com- 
 mit adultery ? thou that abhorrest 
 idols, dost thou commit sacrilege ? 
 
 feeble when compared with that of the Vul- 
 gate and A. V. It would be a small thing to 
 say of the Jew who prides himself on possess- 
 ing the law and knowing the will of God, 
 that he discerns the difference between good 
 and evil. What St. Paul says is much more : 
 " thou approvest (in theory) the more excel- 
 lent things." The Jew thus says, as it were, 
 of himself, " Video meliora—proboque," and 
 feels that this refinement of his moral senti- 
 ment is an advantage which he derives from 
 " being instructed out of the law," which was 
 publicly read and explained to him on the 
 Sabbath. See below on v. 20. 
 
 Though the language is just what the Jew 
 would have used to describe himself, there 
 is in the Apostle's use of it a latent irony 
 which becomes more strongly marked in the 
 following verses. Here the Jew's own privi- 
 leges are enumerated; there the claims of 
 superiority over others which he founded 
 upon those privileges. 
 
 19. And art confident that thou thyself art a 
 guide of the blind.'] It was part of God's 
 purpose in choosing Israel that they should 
 become the witnesses and teachers of His 
 truth : their sin lay in making a vain boast of 
 the privilege, instead of fulfilling the duty 
 The language is such as was current among 
 the Jews in regard to proselytes, and to the 
 heathen generally ; but St. Paul heaps phrase 
 upon phrase, and " is lavish in what seem to 
 be their praises," to strengthen the contrast, 
 *' exalting the one and abasing the other, that 
 he may smite the more sharply, and make his 
 accusation heavier." (Ghrysostom.) 
 
 20. <which hast."] Rather, as having. 
 As in f. 18, so here again more emphati- 
 cally, the law is brought forward as the 
 ground of this presumptuous confidence : 
 " Thou art confident that thou thyself art a 
 guide of the blind . . . . as having the form 
 of knowledge and of the truth in the law." 
 
 " The form " {nopcj^axris, " formation ") here 
 means the ideally perfect presentation of know- 
 ledge and truth, the outward conformation 
 answering to their inner nature (Ghryso- 
 stom, Grotius, Meyer, Ewald, Fritzsche, 
 Philippi). It is not opposed to the substance 
 as the unreal to the real, or the outward to 
 the inward ; for not even St. Paul himself, 
 much less the Jew, whose thoughts he is here 
 
 expressing, believed that in the law there was 
 a mere empty form of knowledge. The Jew 
 believed that he had in the law the sole em- 
 bodiment of all knowledge and truth in their 
 most perfect "/orw ;" or (if we must express 
 the Active sense of the original word), that 
 he possessed in the law "the forming of 
 knowledge and truth," that he could give to 
 knowledge and truth their right form, and so 
 was the proper teacher of the world. (Sirach 
 xxiv. 8-12.) Compare Rabbi Artom, Sermons 
 (1873) p. no : " If the earth is to be full of 
 the knowledge of the Lord as the ^waters cover 
 the sea, it must be through our agency. We 
 must infuse that knowledge : we possess the 
 best materials for that instruction, and we 
 must make it a duty and a glory to enlighten 
 the world." 
 
 21. " At length the Apostle turns to strike." 
 (Jowett.) 
 
 The arrogant claims and professions of the 
 Jew, as just described, are strangely inconsis- 
 tent with his actual conduct; and it is this 
 inconsistency that forms the ground of the 
 Apostle's questions. 
 
 The whole course of thought, and the two 
 sins first specified — theft and adultery — seem 
 to be suggested by Psalm 1. 16 : " M^hat hast 
 thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou 
 shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth f 
 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my 
 <words behind thee. When thou sa-west a thief 
 then thou consentedst q.vith him, and hast been 
 partaker ivith adulterers." 
 
 We need not suppose, therefore, that these 
 sins were more flagrant at this time among the 
 Jews than at other times, or among other 
 nations ; but that they luere flagrant is both 
 historically certain, and implied in St. Paul's 
 argument. 
 
 The teaching and preaching is not that 
 of official persons only, but all the Jews are 
 addressed as one person ; a loud and osten- 
 tatious denouncement of sin was part of the 
 national character. 
 
 Thou therefore.] "Thou then." See on 
 w. 17-24. 
 
 dost thou commit sacrilege f] "dost thou 
 rob temples?" The third offence charged 
 is sacrilege, or temple-robbing. But does 
 St. Paul mean to charge the Jews with rob- 
 bing heathen temples, or their own temple ? 
 
25] 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 79 
 
 23 Thou that makest thy boast of phemed among the Gentiles through 
 
 the law, through breaking the law you, as it is "written. Eleic^'e' 
 
 dishonourest thou God ? 25 For circumcision verily pro- 20, 23.^ * 
 
 24 For the name of God is bias- fiteth, if thou keep the law : but if 
 
 Does he refer to breaches of the law laid 
 down in Deut. vii. 25, 26, and repeated by 
 Josephus (' Ant.' iv. c. 8, § 10), " Rob not 
 foreign temples, nor take an offering inscribed 
 with the name of any god ?" Or, does he 
 mean that the Jews robbed God of His 
 ofierings (Mai. i. 8, 12, 13, and iii. 8-10) and 
 by their extortion and fraud made His temple 
 " a den of thieves " ? To these latter practices 
 the original word is not elsewhere applied, 
 perhaps is hardly applicable ; and the mention 
 of " the idols " in the opening clause, points 
 decisively to the robbing of idol temples. 
 Compare Acts xix. 57. 
 
 Sharp as the contrast is between theory and 
 practice in the former questions, the sarcasm 
 here reaches a climax of severity. Idols and 
 all things belonging to them were by the law 
 utterly accursed and abominable ; yet covet- 
 ousness could prevail even over the abhor- 
 rence of idols. 
 
 This interpretation is confirmed by -v. 24, 
 which shews that the sins specified are such 
 as would fall under the notice of the heathen ; 
 and nothing would more surely make them 
 blaspheme God's name than the robbery of 
 their temples by those who made their boast 
 of God. 
 
 23. Thou that makest thy boast of the lawj, 
 through breaking the la^u dishonourest thou 
 Godf] Thou that gloriest in law, by 
 thy transgression of the law dis- 
 honourest God. 
 
 The first clause is a summary of w. 1 7-20, 
 the last a decisive answer to " the four ques- 
 tions of reproachful astonishment" (Meyer), 
 in -y-y. 21, 22. The contrast between privi- 
 lege and practice that runs through the 
 whole passage is thus used again, to increase 
 the force of the final condemnation. 
 
 24. The statement that the Jew by his 
 transgression of ^^ the /a^u," dishonours "the 
 God" who gave it, is now confirmed and 
 explained in language borrowed from Isaiah 
 Iii. 5, but applied in a new sense. The Pro- 
 phet means that because God's people are 
 suffered to fall under the oppression of their 
 enemies, these last hold His name in con- 
 tempt. St. Paul's meaning is that the vices 
 and sins of the Jew make his religion and 
 his God contemptible in the sight of the 
 heathen. There is nothihg in the Hebrew 
 of Isaiah corresponding to the words " among 
 the Gentiles:" but they occur repeatedly in 
 a passage of Ezekiel (xxxvi. 21-23), which 
 
 seems also to have been in the Apostle's 
 mind, and they are naturally suggested by 
 the last clause of v. 22. The addition thus 
 made by St. Paul to the words of Isaiah, 
 seems to have crept into the Septuagint 
 Version of the original passage ; a more re- 
 markable instance of interpolation, due to the 
 same cause, will be observed in the next 
 chapter. See note on iii. 1 3 ff. 
 
 through youI\ Because of you, 
 
 25-29. It has been shown that none but 
 doers of the law shall be justified, and that the 
 Jew, though making his boast in the law, is 
 not a doer of it (12-24). But no mention has 
 yet been made of his other great privilege, 
 circumcision ; if this is the seal of an uncon- 
 ditional blessing, he may yet escape. St. Paul, 
 therefore, goes on to confirm and complete 
 his preceding argument, by showing that the 
 benefit of circumcision depends on the same 
 condition as that of the law. 
 
 25. "For circumcision, I admit, is of use 
 if thou practise law; but if thou be a 
 transgressor of law, thy circumcision has 
 become uncircmncision.'' The Article is 
 wanting, because " the stress is laid, not upon 
 the law which God gave, but upon laiv as 
 given by God" (Gremer). What St. Paul 
 requires is the practice of moral obedience, 
 " if thou be a law-doer." Compare note on 
 •y. 13 ; Lightfoot, ' Gal.' ii. 19, iv. 5, and Dr. 
 Vaughan's good note on this passage. 
 
 St. Paul is not here stating the necessity for 
 an exact fulfilment of the whole law, and the 
 effect of an individual act of transgression ; he 
 supposes in the one case an habitual practical 
 regard to law (Trpao-a-f ti/ vofxov), and in the other 
 an habitual transgression of it. He is de- 
 scribing, not the condition on which a Jew 
 could earn righteousness, but that on which 
 he might hope for a promised blessing. The 
 nature of this blessing is explained afterwards 
 (iv. 11; ix. 4). The effect of habitual trans- 
 gression is that the covenant is annulled ; 
 circumcision has thereby become uncircum- 
 cision, so far as any benefit from it is con- 
 cerned. St. Paul's words of course bear this 
 figurative meaning, but similar language is 
 used in a literal sense by the Rabbis : " Let 
 not heretics, apostates, and impious men, who 
 are Israelites, say, ' Since we are circumcised, 
 we go not down to hell.' What then does 
 the Holy and Blessed God ? He sends an 
 angel, and turns their circumcision into un- 
 circumcision, so that even they go down to 
 
8o 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 [v. 26 — 29. 
 
 rhou be a breaker of the law, thy 
 circumcision is made uncircumcision. 
 
 26 Therefore if the uncircumci- 
 sion keep the righteousness of the 
 law, shall not his uncircumcision be 
 counted for circumcision ? 
 
 27 And shall not uncircumcision 
 which is by nature, if it fulfil the 
 
 law, judge thee, who by the letter 
 and circumcision dost transgress the 
 law ? 
 
 28 For he is not a Jew, which is 
 one outwardly ; neither is that cir- 
 cumcision, which is outward in the 
 flesh: 
 
 29 But he is a Jew, which is one 
 
 hell." (Schemoth Rabb. ap. Schottgen.) 
 Compare Lightfoot, ' Horae Hebr.,' on i Cor, 
 vii. 18. 
 
 26. The same principle rules the converse 
 case of the Gentile : if obedience is so much 
 more important than circumcision that the 
 latter is useless without the former, may we 
 not infer that the want of circumcision may 
 be supplied by obedience ? 
 
 The inference is expressed as a question to 
 which no denial can be given. 
 
 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the 
 righteousness of the la^w^ "If then the uncir- 
 cumcision keep the ordinances of the law." 
 
 Ordinances (6i<catco/xara) mean here moral 
 requirements. See note on i. 32. 
 
 The expression " his uncircumcision" clearly 
 proves that St. Paul is not thinking of the 
 " uncircumcision " as a whole, but only of 
 this or that uncircumcised person. Nor is he 
 speaking of " an impossible case " (Alford), /. e. 
 of such an entire fulfilment of all " the righteous 
 demands " of the law as no man can render ; 
 he is supposing, as in v. 14, the possible case 
 that a heathen might render just sivch an 
 obedience to the moral law as a pious Jew 
 might and ought to render ; and argues that 
 the Gentile's uncircumcision would not make 
 his obedience the less acceptable. If he do 
 right, and so far as he does right, he shall 
 share in the mercy covenanted to the pious 
 Jew (Matt. viii. n; i Cor. vii. 19; Gal. v. 
 6). It is not circumcision, therefore, that the 
 Gentile wants. 
 
 27. yind shall not uncircumcision which is 
 by nature^ if it fulfil the la^v, judge thee, 'who 
 by the letter and circumcision dost transgress 
 the lanv .?] 
 
 Render: And the natural unoircum- 
 cision fulfilling the law shall judge 
 thee, that with Scripture and circum- 
 cision art a transgressor of law. 
 
 In the A. V. this verse, as well as -y. 26, 
 is treated as a question ; it has greater force 
 as an answer, taking up and enlarging the 
 subject-matter of the question. On this 
 form of answer, see Jelf s ' Greek Grammar,' 
 880, i. 
 
 In the A. V., " i/" it fulfil the law" is a 
 needless repetition of the hypothesis made in 
 
 V. 26. The disobedience of the Jew and the 
 obedience of the Gentile supposed in 'w. 25, 
 26, are here both assumed. 
 
 "The natural uncircumcision " means 
 the Gentile, this or that individual, who re- 
 mains as he was by nature, uncircumcised. 
 Such an one, fulfiUing the law, shall by con- 
 trast judge the Jew that transgresses it. 
 
 The Jew, that was so ready to judge others 
 (6 Kpivmv, -v. i), is thus himself brought to 
 judgment. 
 
 "Scripture" seems more suitable than 
 "letter," which is too narrow. The contrast is 
 not between " letter " and " spirit," as in v. 
 29, but between "a written law," and the 
 unwritten law of nature {-v. 1 4). 
 
 Accordingly, there is no disparagement of 
 the written law ; rather it is regarded, like 
 circumcision {-v. 28), as an advantageous cir- 
 cumstance to the Jew, but one under which, 
 through his own fault, he comes to no better 
 result than being a transgressor. 
 
 For a similar use of the Greek preposition 
 Sid to denote the attendant circumstances, 
 see iv. 11 ; xiv. 20. 
 
 28, 29. The reason why circumcision avails 
 so little in the case just discussed (25-27) is, 
 that it is not the true circumcision of the 
 heart, but only the sign, without the grace. 
 
 28. This verse is well rendered in A. V. In 
 ■V. 29, the Subjects only are expressed in the 
 Greek, and the Predicates must be mentally 
 repeated from -v. 28, thus: "But he which 
 is inwardly a Jew (is truly a Jew), and 
 circumcision of heart in spirit not in 
 letter (is true circumcision)." 
 
 "Circumcision of heart," as a figura- 
 tive expression for inward purity, is as old 
 as the Book of Deuteronomy. See x. 16; 
 xxx. 6 ; and Jerem. ix. 26. In the N. T. the 
 idea is found only in St. Stephen's memorable 
 speech, and in St. Paul's Epistles. 
 
 The element in which this true circum- 
 cision takes place is " spirit ;" that is, the 
 inner life which man lives under the influence 
 of the Divine Spirit. 
 
 In contrast to this, "letter" is the mere 
 outward element of written law; and cir- 
 cumcision "in spirit not in letter," is a 
 circ imcision which docs not stop short at 
 
V. 29.] 
 
 ROMANS. II. 
 
 8r 
 
 inwardly j and circumcision is that the letter j whose praise is not of 
 of the heart, in the spirit, and not in men, but of God. 
 
 outward conformity to the law, but extends 
 to the sphere of the inner hfe. Compare vii. 
 6, 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
 
 ivhose praise is not of men, but of God.^ It 
 is not at first sight apparent why St. Paul 
 has added the clause, " Whose praise is not 
 from men, hut from God." But we must 
 remember that he began his address to the 
 Jew in v. 1 7, by an allusion to the name on 
 which he prided himself, " thou art called a 
 Jew," and that he has just described in this 
 verse the Jew that is worthy to be so-called. 
 What, then, can be more natural, or more 
 
 like St. Paul's style, than a renewed reference 
 to the meaning of the name Jew? When 
 Leah bare her fourth son she said, " Now 
 (will I praise the Lord: therefore she called his 
 name Judah" (Gen. xxix. 35). 
 
 When Jacob lay a-dying, this was the 
 beginning of his blessing upon Judah : ^^ Judah, 
 thou art he <ivhom thy brethren shall praise " 
 (Gen. xlix. 8). 
 
 St. Paul, in like manner alluding to the 
 meaning of the name, says of the true Jew 
 that his praise is not from men, but from 
 God. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on verses 8 and 16, 
 
 8. toTj i^ ipiGeias.'] See Fritzsche's elabo- 
 rate excursus on this passage. 
 
 epi6os, a labourer, a hireling. 
 
 epidfvo), to act as a hireling, i.e. in a mer- 
 cenary self-seeking spirit (JpiOeva-ai pev tl rw 
 TTpecrfivTepco p.rj ^ovXrjdeis, Schol. ad Soph. 
 Aj. 833). 
 
 Hence eptSevopai (Arist. Polit. v. 3) and 
 e^epidevopai (Polyb. x. 22, 9) have the sense 
 of canvassing or hiring partisans and forming 
 factions in the State; and epidela (Arist. 
 Polit. V. 2 and 3 p. 1302, and p. 1303) means 
 a .self-seeking ambitious rivalry, party spirit, 
 or factiousness. 
 
 It is so explained by Suidas ; and Chryso- 
 stom, Theodoret, and Theophylact interpret 
 it as " contentiousness " or " factiousness," a 
 meaning which is easily adapted to the context 
 in the N. T. passages (Rom. ii. 8 ; 2 Cor. xii. 
 20 ; Gal. V. 20 ; Phil. i. 17, ii. 3 ; Ja. iii. 14, 16). 
 
 16. according to my gospel7\ The right 
 interpretation is given by Origen, who, after 
 remarking that tlie secrets of men can be 
 judged only by God who searcheth the 
 heart, proceeds thus : " Which judgment 
 nevertheless according to the gospel of Paul, 
 that is, the gospel which Paul preaches, will 
 take place through Jesus Christ : '■for the 
 Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all 
 judgment unto the Son.' " 
 
 This interpretation is confirmed by the 
 other two passages in which St. Paul uses 
 the expression " my gospel," in both of which 
 he refers to distinctive and fundamental doc- 
 trines of the Gospel which he preached, 
 namely in xvi. 25 to the extension of Christ's 
 kingdom to the Gentiles, and in 2 Tim. ii. 8 to 
 the resurrection and Davidic descent of Christ. 
 
 Calvin's comment, " He calls it his gospel 
 m reference to his ministry," though not 
 
 sufficient here, is quite applicable to 2 Thess. 
 ii. 14, and 2 Cor. iv. 3. 
 
 Others less correctly regard Kara to evay- 
 yCkiov pov as expressing the rule by which 
 God will judge. 
 
 Thus Meyer : " Paul was so certain of 
 the sole truth of the Gospel committed to 
 him (xvi. 25 ; Eph. iv. 20 f.) which he had 
 by revelation of God (Gal. i. 1 1 f.) that he 
 could not but be equally certain that the 
 future judgment would not be held otherwise 
 than according to his Gospel, whose contents 
 are conceived as the standard of the sentence.' 
 But the standard has been already stated in 
 •v. IT,; God will judge every man " according 
 to his nuorks " : and the thought that the 
 Gospel preached by St. Paul will be the 
 standard by which God will judge Jews and 
 Gentiles is very inappropriate at this stage of 
 the argument. 
 
 Lange : " The day on which God judges 
 the secrets of men according to the Gospel 
 of Paul, is the day when the Apostle preaches 
 the gospel to them." This explanation is 
 excluded by the evident fact that the whole 
 context points to the day of final judg- 
 ment. 
 
 The notion that by "my gospel" St. Paul 
 means the Gospel according to St. Luke is 
 mentioned by Eusebius, ' H. E.' III. iv., in a 
 way whicn implies that he gave no credit to 
 it {(pacrlv 8e as tipa k. t. X.). 
 
 That he cannot mean to characterize his 
 Gospel as ditferent from that preached by 
 the other Apostles, is evident from the fact 
 that they also from the first had announcea 
 as a distinctive doctrine of the Gospel that 
 Christ would come again to judge the workl. 
 (Acts iii. 19-21 ; x. 42 : compare Matt. xxv. 
 31 ; John v. 22.) 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 [v. 1—3. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Jr.Ds' prerogative: 3 luhich they have 
 not lost : 9 howbeit the law convinceth them 
 also of sin : 20 therefore no fe.sh is justified 
 by the law, 28 but all, 'without difference, 
 by faith only : 31 and yet the law is not 
 abolished. 
 
 WHAT advantage then hath 
 the ]Q.yff\ or what profit is 
 there of circumcision ? 
 
 2 Much every way : chiefly, be- 
 cause that unto them were com- 
 mitted the oracles of God. 
 
 3 For what if some did not be- 
 
 Chap. IIL— 1-8. The Jew's Objections 
 
 answeked. 
 
 St. Paul has shown that the Jew's superior 
 knowledge of God was useless, without prac- 
 tical obedience (ii. 17-24), and that circum- 
 cision without inward purity was no better 
 than uncircumcision (ii. 25-29). 
 
 Yet the people whom God had chosen for 
 Himself out of all nations, must have some 
 real advantage over the heathen ; and the 
 covenant, of which circumcision was the sign, 
 must confer some benefit, for God Himself 
 was the author of it. 
 
 St. Paul expresses these thoughts in the 
 opening questions of ch. iii., in a form which 
 assumes the reality of Jewish privilege. 
 
 1. What advantage then hath the Jenv ? or 
 tw hat profit is there of circumcision ?'\ "What 
 then is the advantage of the Jeiv? 
 Or IV hat the benefit of circiancisionV 
 
 The summary answer, " Much every way" 
 is not the boast of an imaginary Jewish op- 
 ponent, whose argument (1-3) is cut short 
 by St. Paul in v. \\ but it is the Apostle's 
 own conviction, as is clear from the parallel 
 passage, ix. 4, 5. While exposing with just 
 severity the Jew's hollow pretences to personal 
 merit or impunity, he yet recognizes with 
 the spirit of a true Israelite the good gifts 
 which God had bestowed upon His people. 
 Compare Deut. xxxiii. 29. 
 
 2. chiefly, because that unto them <were com- 
 mitted, (b'c!] "For first [it is much] that 
 they were entrusted with the oracles of 
 God." St. Paul does not expressly say, as in 
 A.V., that the possession of the oracles of God 
 was the Jew's f/.7i(°/' advantage, but implies as 
 much by giving it the first place in his in- 
 tended enumeration of the blessings of the 
 covenant. Compare Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20: ^" He 
 shenveth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and 
 his judgme7tts luito Israel. He hath not dealt 
 so ivith any nation." 
 
 The name " oracles," is applied in the New 
 Testament only to the revelations made to 
 Moses (Acts vii. 38), and to the Divine 
 utterances generally (Heb. v. 12; i Pet. 
 iv. 11). 
 
 " I am not unaware," writes Philo, " that 
 all the things which are written in the sacred 
 books are oracles delivered by him (Moses) : 
 and I will set forth what more peculiarly 
 
 concerns him., when I have mentioned this 
 one point, namely, that of the sacred oracles 
 some arc represented as delivered in the 
 person of God by His interpreter, the divine 
 prophet, while others are put in the form of 
 (juestion and answer, and others are delivered 
 by Moses in his own character as a divinely 
 prompted lawgiver, possessed by divine inspi- 
 ration." (Life of Moses, c. xxiii. Compare 
 " On the Virtues and Office of Ambassadors," 
 c. xxxi.) The corresponding term in the 
 Old Testament (?i< ^■?P^?, ra Xo'ytu tov Qeov) 
 is used of any Divine revelations (Num. xxiv, 
 4, 1 6), of the precepts of God's Law (Ps. cvii. 
 II ; cxix. 148, 158), and especially of God's 
 promises (Ps. cxix. 38, 49, where see notes). 
 
 That which gave to " the oracles of God " 
 in the Old Testament their highest value 
 was the promise of salvation in Christ, which 
 ran through the Law and the Prophets : and 
 that promise being made, not to one genera- 
 tion, but to " Abraham and his seed for ever," 
 not to one nation, but to " all the nations of 
 the earth," the oracles which contained it 
 were a trust committed to the Jews for the 
 common benefit of mankind. 
 
 And over and above their share in the 
 general promise, the Jews had a great and 
 special advantage in having this trust com- 
 mitted to them. 
 
 For the trust not only brought with it 
 the various blessings which distinguished the 
 Jews under the old covenant above all the 
 nations of the earth, but was further accom- 
 panied by special and peculiar promises given 
 to the Jews as a nation, that they should 
 themselves be heirs of the promised salvation. 
 And this natural prerogative has not been, 
 and cannot be, lost, as St. Paul proceeds to 
 show, — thus dropping the enumeration of 
 other privileges. 
 
 3. For ivhat if some did not believe f shall 
 their unbelief make the faith of God 'without 
 effect f\ For what if some disbelieved? 
 shall their want of faith make the 
 faithfulness of God of none effect? St. 
 Paul is not speaking, as some have supposed, 
 of disobedience to the Law, or unfaithfulness 
 to the covenant, but of disbelief of the oracles 
 and their fulfilment in Christ. The Greek 
 word does not mean " disobedience," but " un- 
 belief." Nor could it be supposed that the 
 
V. 4—5-] 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 83 
 
 lieve ? shall their unbelief make the 
 faith of God without effect ? 
 
 4 God forbid : yea, let God be 
 
 true, but every man a liar ; as 
 
 »Ps. si.4it is written, ^That thou mio-ht- 
 
 est be justified In thy sayings, and 
 mightest overcome when thou art 
 judged. 
 
 5 But if our unrighteousness com- 
 mend the righteousness of God, what 
 
 disobedience of former generations had for- 
 feited the national privilege : for the promise 
 had been renewed from age to age as long 
 as prophecy continued. All former unbelief 
 did but foreshadow and prepare the great 
 national apostasy now well-nigh accomplished 
 in the rejection of Christ by the Jews. This 
 subject, here briefly touched to meet a pos- 
 sible objection, is the main theme of ch. ix. — 
 xi. And we there see how anxious St. Paul 
 was to assure himself and others that " the 
 gifts and calling of God are <without repent- 
 ance," and that His faithfulness would surely 
 accomplish His promises to Israel in the ages 
 to come. Thus in the question, "Shall their 
 want of faith make the faithfulness of 
 God of none eifeoti" the future tense has 
 its simple and proper meaning. 
 
 Even the present unbelief of the Jews was 
 not universal : " Some did not believe ;" " some 
 of the branches were broken off" (xi. 17):" blind- 
 ness in part is happened to Israel'^ (xi. 25). 
 
 This is not an inpccurate mode of speaking, 
 nor an attempt to soften down an unwelcome 
 truth ; still less is it an expression of irony or 
 contempt, as though unbelievers, however 
 many, were of little account. For St. Paul 
 is not distinguishing between " some " and 
 "many," but between "some" and "all;" not 
 thinking of the comparative number of Jewish 
 believers and unbelievers in his own genera- 
 tion, but looking forward to the time when 
 " all Israel shall be saved" (xi. 26). 
 
 It is to be remarked that " some " in the 
 original signifies a part of the whole, but not 
 necessarily a small part of it. It may be a 
 very great part and majority of the whole, — 
 as in Hebrews iii. 16, where it is said, " Some 
 when they heard provoked, howbeit not all that 
 came out of Egypt with Moses." All did 
 provoke God on that occasion except Joshua 
 and Caleb, and those who were still too 
 young to bear arms . . (Chalmers.) The 
 question being, What is the advantage of the 
 Jew ? the some must be some of the Jeijjs. 
 In every generation there were a few found 
 faithful, and so in the generation to which the 
 Gospel was preached. And though the great 
 majority of that generation, and of all that 
 have succeeded it, did not believe, still the 
 nation is not finally rejected (xi. i, 25, 26). 
 Moreover, even in the case of those who did 
 not believe, God's promise was proved faithful : 
 they had the advantage, though they would 
 not use it 
 
 4. God forbid : yea, let God be true."] Not 
 so be it: but let God be true. It is not 
 enough to reject with righteous abhorrence 
 {fXT] ytvoiTo) the thought that the unbelief 
 of some could make void God's faithfulness 
 to others. God's truth is absolute and inde- 
 pendent ; it cannot be impaired, even if man's 
 falsehood be universal. 
 
 Nay more, God's truth is the only truth : 
 it will be found in the end that He alone is 
 holy and righteous, and every man, in himself, 
 unholy and unrighteous. So let it be : " Jet 
 God be true, but every man a liar" 
 
 The last clause, expressed in the exact 
 words of Ps. cxvi. 1 1 (Septuagint), is an essen- 
 tial part of the argument, that truth must be 
 ascribed to God, and none but God. 
 
 St. Paul adopts the apt words of the 
 Psalmist to express his own thought, and this 
 is why for " unbelief i^'' and '■'■ faithfulness " (f . 3) 
 he now substitutes the correlative ideas " truth " 
 and " falsehood :" these again give place to 
 " righteousness " and " sin " in the quotation 
 which follows from the 51st Psalm. 
 
 It is clear, from the objection introduced 
 in v. 5, that St. Paul quotes the words of 
 David as a declaration that man's sin serves 
 to establish God's righteousness. 
 
 And this is David's own meaning, when 
 he says, " Against Thee, Thee only, have 1 
 sinned . . . that thou tJiightest be justified." (See 
 note ix. 17, Hupfeld and Perowne on Ps. 
 li. 4, and Winer ' Gk. Gr.' liii.) When David's 
 conscience is awakened, he beholds his sin in 
 its most heinous aspect as essentially opposed 
 to the holiness of God : and in that opposition 
 he sees that his own sin serves to establish the 
 truth that God alone is righteous. 
 
 We have thus a fine climax in the Apostle's 
 thoughts : " Shall the unbelief of some make 
 void the faithfulness of God ? Nay, let God 
 alone be found true, and all men false : for 
 the sin of man serves to show that '^holi- 
 ness belcngeth unto God." This is no digres- 
 sion : for it is over the self-righteousness of 
 the Jew that St. Paul must win his way 
 to the great truth that " all have sinned" 
 (9,19)- 
 
 5. The truth stated in w. 3, 4, might 
 easily be perverted into a false claim of im- 
 punity. If the unrighteousness of us men 
 establishes and comm.ends God's righteous- 
 ness, what conclusion shall be drawn ? 
 
 The term " righteousness of God " here 
 
 F 2 
 
84 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 [v. 6-S. 
 
 shall we say ? Is God unrighteous 
 who taketh vengeance ? (I speak as 
 a man) 
 
 6 God forbid : for then how shall 
 God judge the world ? 
 
 7 For if the truth of God hath 
 
 more abounded through my lie unto 
 his glory ; why yet am I also judged 
 as a sinner ? 
 
 8 And not rather^ (as we be slan- 
 derously reported, and as some affirm 
 that we say,) Let us do evil, that 
 
 denotes the Divine attribute in its compreiien- 
 sive sense, as including God's faithfulness {v. 
 3) and truth (i>. 4). The argument is capable 
 of universal application, but is here aimed at 
 the conscience of the Jew, from w^hom the 
 Apostle would cut off all false pretexts of 
 impunity. 
 
 Is God unrighteous ^ivho taketh vengeance ?] 
 Is God that inflicteth his wrath un- 
 righteous? We know that God's wrath 
 is revealed against unrighteousness (i. 18, 
 ii. 8) : " Is He as the inflicter of that wrath 
 unrighteous ? Is it uiijust in Him to punish 
 the sin that confirms the sole glory of His 
 righteousness ?" 
 
 Is God unrighteous ?] The very form of the 
 question, in the Greek, implies that the an- 
 swer must be negative. And yet even in this 
 form St. Paul cannot state such a thought as 
 coming from his own mind : " / speak" he 
 says, " as a man," i.e. " according to the foolish 
 and unworthy thoughts of God, entertained 
 by man." 
 
 6. When he begins to speak as a Christian 
 teacher, according to his own higher stan- 
 dard, he can only reject such a thought as 
 impious : " God forbid ! For, (if God that 
 inflicteth his wrath is therein unjust,) hoiu 
 shall God judge the <world?'' 
 
 The argument is very simple ; it does not 
 go beyond the limits of the thought in Gen. 
 xviii. 25, " Shall not the judge of all the earth 
 do right?" 
 
 The supposition of injustice in God's inflic- 
 tion of his wrath is directly contrary to the 
 fundamental truth that God shall "judge the 
 world in righteousness " (Heb. vi. 2 ; Acts 
 xvii. 31). 
 
 That truth as one of the first elements of 
 religion is so certain, that whatever contra- 
 dicts it must of necessity be false. Thus by 
 a rapid appeal to the first elements of religion, 
 St. Paul is content to show that the supposi- 
 tion of injustice in the punishment of sin, 
 because it establishes God's righteousness, 
 must be false. Where the fallacy lay in the 
 process of reasoning that could lead to such 
 a false influence, he does not stop to show. 
 The explanation commonly given is that 
 God's righteousness is established not by sin 
 in itself but by sin as dealt with by God, 
 punished by His holy vengeance, pardoned by 
 His grace, or overruled to good effect by 
 His wisdom. 
 
 A simpler view and more suited to the 
 context is, that as the sinner does not wish or 
 intend to establish God's righteousness, no 
 merit for this result is due to his sin, which 
 remains under an undiminished curse. 
 
 " We cannot say truly that as God to his 
 own glory did ordain our happiness, and to 
 accomplish our happiness appoint the gifts of 
 His grace, so He did ordain to His glory oui 
 punishment, and for matter of punishment 
 our sin. For punishment is to His will no 
 desired end, but a consequent ensuing sin; 
 and in regard of sin. His glory an event 
 thereof, but no proper effect, which an- 
 swereth fully that repining proposition, — ' If 
 man's sin be God's glory, why is God angry ?"* 
 (Hooker, ' E. P.,' Bk. V., App. No. I. ; 2nd ed. 
 Keble, vol. ii. p. 572) Compare also Arch- 
 bishop King, ' Origin of Evil,' vol. ii. p. 440. 
 
 7. The argument of -v. 6 is continued. I£^ 
 because sin commends the righteousness of 
 God, it is unjust for Him to punish the 
 sinner, all judgment becomes impossible. For 
 I, or any man, may on this ground protest 
 against being judged, and plead thus at the 
 last day : — If God's truth was more abun- 
 dantly manifested by my lie, and His glory 
 thereby increased, is not that enough ? Why 
 farther am I also, on my side, brought to 
 judgment as a sinner ? 
 
 The tenses shew that the scene is laid at 
 the last Judgment; and the emphatic pro- 
 nouns in " my lie," and " / also," set clearly 
 before us the individual sinner on one side, 
 and God on the other. 
 
 For the general term " sin," or " unright- 
 eousness" {-v. 5), "//>" is used in reference 
 to the words " every man a liar," in -u. 4. 
 " The truth of God'' as His attribute, is not 
 capable of increase, but it may abound more 
 unto His glory by being more fully mani- 
 fested in the contrast with man's sin. 
 
 8. The false plea, just proved to be incon- 
 sistent with the certain truth of a future 
 Judgment, is now shown to be destructive 
 of all morality. The sinner, who speaks in 
 n). 7, is about to continue his daring protest, 
 Why am I judged ? and why may I not do 
 evil that good may come ? 
 
 But the thought occurs to St. Paul, that 
 the very charge slanderously brought against 
 himself and those who followed his doctrine 
 was, that they practised and taught this 
 impious maxim. 
 
9—12.1 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 85 
 
 good may come ? whose damnation 
 is just. 
 
 9 What then ? are we better than 
 they ? No, in no wise : for we have 
 I Gr. before "proved both Jews and Gen- 
 charged. ^^^^^ ^^^ ^.j^^^ ^^^ ^ Under sin ; 
 
 10 As it is written, There is none 
 righteous, no, not one : 
 
 11 There is none that under- 
 standeth, there is none that seeketh 
 after God. 
 
 12 They are all gone out of the 
 
 And not rather, as lue be slanderously re- 
 ported^ And why not, as is slanderously 
 reported of us. The sentence beginning, 
 "And why not," is interrupted by the sud- 
 den thought, " as is slanderously reported 
 of us, and as some affirm that nve say;" 
 and the interrupted conclusion is then at- 
 tached to this intervening sentence, and neces- 
 sarily expressed in the Plural, " Let us do e-vil 
 that good may come!' The slander to which 
 St. Paul thus alludes, was evidently directed 
 against his doctrine that man is justified by 
 faith, not by the works of the law (see vi. i, 
 and 15 ff.). But the refutation of the slander 
 here is only incidental ; the main purpose 
 of the passage {yv. 5-8) is to cut off from the 
 Jew all claim of exemption from God's judg- 
 ment. 
 
 Accordingly the concluding sentence is 
 directed, not against the slanderers just men- 
 tioned, but against those who object to being 
 judged as sinners: "whose judgment is 
 just." The fine irony of this summary deci- 
 sion, and the connexion of the passage, are 
 rather obscured by substituting, as in A. V., 
 ^'■damnation'' for "judgment." 
 
 9-20. Confirmation from the Jewish 
 Scriptures of the Charge that all 
 
 ARE UNDER SiN. 
 
 9. What then ? are ive better than 
 they?'] The privileges of the Jews {yv. 1-4) 
 might lead them to infer, as we know they 
 did infer (see on ii. 3), that they were better 
 than others in God's sight, and in view of 
 His judgment. This false presumption is 
 now brought prominently forward in order 
 to be completely refuted. See note at end. 
 
 No, in no wise.] Ov Travrcos has two 
 meanings, (i) "Not altogether" (i Cor. v. 
 10). 
 
 (2) " Not at all." A clear example of this 
 latter meaning is found in the Epistle to 
 Diognetus, c. ix. : — ov Tidurcos €(f)T}d6ixfvos rois 
 afxapTij^aaiv r)ixu)v (o Geoj). 
 
 This sense, required by the context, is 
 forcibly expressed in the A. V. 
 
 for rjje haue before proved both Jews and 
 Gentiles.] "For we before charged both 
 Jews and Greeks." The charge against 
 the Gentiles is made in c. i., and that against 
 the Jews in c. ii. 17-24; but the latter are 
 here p.ut first in accordance with the Apostle's 
 purpose, which is to show that Jews as ivell 
 
 as Gentiles are all sinners before God (v. 1 9). 
 Compare i. 16 and ii. 9, 10, for a like priority 
 assigned to the Jews, and for the use of 
 "Greeks," as equivalent to '■^Gentiles" in 
 general. 
 
 that they are all under sin.] The expression 
 denotes subjection to sin as a power that 
 practically rules the life of all men, in their 
 natural state, unrenewed by God's grace. 
 Compare vii. 14; Gal. iii. 22. 
 
 10-20. As it is ivritten.] At this point, 
 St. Paul turns to the testimony of Scripture, 
 as being in accordance with the charge of 
 universal sinfulness which he has already 
 made on other grounds. 
 
 10-12. This first quotation is from Ps. xiv. 
 1-3, which is almost identical with Ps. liii. 
 1-3. St. Paul seems to quote from the LXX, 
 with noteworthy variations. 
 
 There is none righteous.] Hebr. and LXX, 
 "There is none that doeth good," as in -y. 12 
 (Ps. xiv. 3). The word '■''righteous" gives 
 the same sense in a form more exactly agree- 
 ing with the Apostle's general argument : 
 " AiVaioy aptum verbum in sermone de jus- 
 titia." (Bengel.) 
 
 no, not one.] LXX, ova iariv eats tvoSf 
 which same words occur below in <«. 1 2 ( = 
 Ps. xiv. 3). The Hebrew has corresponding 
 words there, but none here ; the addition 
 was apparently made by St. Paul, and carried 
 back at an early period into the LXX. See 
 note on -y. 12. The words thus added to the 
 first sentence cited by the Apostle, serve to 
 bring out in substantial agreement with the 
 Psalmist, only more emphatically, the uni- 
 versal prevalence of sin, which admits no 
 exception. This is more in accordance with 
 St. Paul's manner of quotation, than to sup- 
 pose that after the formula " as it is ^written," 
 and before the words of Scripture, he has 
 interposed his own sunmiary of all that 
 follows. 
 
 11. There is none that under standeth, there is 
 none that seeketh after God.] Hebr. and 
 LXX, Ps. xiv. 2 : " The Lord looked doavn 
 from heaven upon the children of men, to see if 
 there ivere any that did understand, and seek 
 God." In abridging the passage, St. Paul 
 rightly expresses the negative sense which is 
 implied in the original. 
 
 In the right reading (6 ^vvia,v), observe 
 (1) the form |wwajj', usual in the LXX, in 
 
86 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 |_v. 13—19. 
 
 way, they are together become un- 
 profitable ; there is none that doeth 
 good, no, not one. 
 
 1 3 Their throat is an open sepul- 
 chre ; with their tongues they have 
 used deceit ; the poison of asps is 
 under their lips : 
 
 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing 
 and bitterness : 
 
 15 Their feet are swift to shed 
 blood : 
 
 16 Destruction and misery are in 
 their ways : 
 
 17 And the way of peace have 
 they not known : 
 
 18 There is no fear of God before 
 their eyes. 
 
 19 Now we know that what 
 
 the nominative singular only, for ^vvitis, 
 which occurs in Ps. xxxiii. 15; (2) the Article, 
 " non est qui intelligat;" (3) the idea of sin 
 as folly, in accordance with the opening 
 thought of the Psalm, " The fool hath said 
 in his heart. There is no God." 
 
 12. They are all gone out of the ivay, they 
 are together become unprofitable^ This agrees 
 exactly with the LXX. The Hebrew word 
 rendered " unprofitable^' means literally " cor- 
 rupt," as sour milk. See note on Ps. xiv. 3. 
 
 there is none that doeth good, no, not oneJ] 
 Heb. " not even one ; " LXX, "there is not 
 even to one." 
 
 Here the quotation from Ps. xiv. ends; 
 but the other passages quoted in w. 13-18, 
 fi-om various Psalms and from Isaiah, are 
 interpolated in Ps. xiv., in some MSS. of the 
 LXX, in the Vulgate, and thence in our 
 Prayer Book Version. Probably the whole 
 passage from Romans was written at first in the 
 margin, and thence crept into the text of the 
 Psalm. Other examples of this reflex action 
 of quotation upon the text of the LXX. are 
 found in Ps. xiv. i ; Isai. Hi. 5, &c. See 
 note on ii. 24. 
 
 13. Their throat is an open sepulchre ; luith 
 their tongues they have used deceit.^ Taken 
 exactly from the LXX of Ps. v. 9. As the 
 grave that stands ready opened will presently 
 be filled with death and corruption, so the 
 throat (larynx) of the wicked opened for 
 speech will be full of corrupt and deadly 
 falsehood. Compare Jerem. v. 16: ^^ Their 
 quiver is an open sepulchre" 
 
 have used deceit.^ Literally, " were deceiv- 
 ing:" for the form eSo^iovaav see Winer, 
 P. II. § xiii. 2 f. The Hebrew of Ps. v. 9, 
 means literally " make smooth their tongue :" 
 A.V. ^'■flatter nvith their tongue" cf Prov. ii. 
 16. 
 
 the poison of asps is under their lips.^ Ps. cxl. 
 3. The venom of falsehood is as deadly as 
 adder's poison. 
 
 14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and 
 bitterness.^ Ps. x. 7; compare Job xx. 14, 16. 
 The poison of asps was supposed to lie in the 
 bitter gall, and hence " bitterness " is a figure 
 for venomous malice. "Throat" '^tongue" 
 
 " lips " mark the successive stages by which 
 speech comes forth : the " mouth " sums up 
 all in one (Bengel). 
 
 15-17. Abridged from the LXX of Isai. 
 lix. 7, 8, where see Notes. 
 
 18. From Ps. xxxvi. i (LXX.) 
 
 We must now ask how far these passages 
 confirm the charge of universal sinfulness, in 
 support of which they are alleged. 
 
 In Ps. xiv. 1-3, David declares that the 
 Lord looking down from heaven upon " the 
 children of men " could find none righteous ; 
 no, not one. It seems impossible to frame a 
 more positive assertion of universal sinful- 
 ness : and if in w. 4, 5, we find a people of 
 God, and a " generation of the righteous," 
 the inconsistency between this and the former 
 statement of the Psalmist is only apparent 
 and external. In the deep inner sense which 
 St. Paul gives to the passage, "the generation 
 of the righteous" would be the first to ac- 
 knowledge that they form no exception to 
 the universal sinfulness asserted in the open- 
 ing verses of the Psalm. 
 
 The quotations in w. 13, 14, from Pss. v. 
 9, cxl. 3, and x. 7 refer to the Psalmist's 
 enemies, or to the wicked as a class, and con- 
 tain no assertion of universal sinfulness. 
 
 The passage quoted in w. 15-17, from 
 Isaiah lix. 7, 8, is distinctly directed against 
 the unrighteousness of Israel. The last 
 quotation Qv. 18) from Ps. xxxvi. i, describes 
 the state of a wicked man, without any refer- 
 ence to the universality of sin. 
 
 Thus the first quotation confirms in its 
 whole extent the Apostle's statement that 
 Jews as well as Gentiles are all under sin, 
 while the other passages supply particular 
 illustrations of the general truth, and some of 
 them are directed to the very point of the 
 Apostle's argument, that the Jews are not 
 exempt from the general sinfulness. 
 
 It may possibly be objected that the charge 
 of universal apostasy in Ps. xiv. applies only 
 to some particular generation, and not to all 
 time. 
 
 If the objection were valid, it would not 
 affect St. Paul's argument : the quotation 
 would still prove as much as he uses it to 
 prove, and mori.,- For the nature of the 
 
V. 20.] 
 
 ROMANS. Ill 
 
 87 
 
 things soever the law saith, it saith 
 to them who are under the law : 
 that every mouth may be stopped, 
 
 and all the world 
 "guilty before God. 
 
 may 
 
 become 
 
 ll_ Or, sub- 
 ject to iht 
 
 20 Therefore by the deeds of thei/ow! 
 
 proof employed by the Apostle is very often 
 misunderstood. 
 
 A demonstrative proof that every man is 
 a sinner, is from the nature of the case im- 
 possible. St Paul's method is this : he first 
 brings the charge of actual sin agamst all, 
 Gentiles and Jews, and appeals to notorious 
 facts for proof of the general truth of the 
 charge, leaving its individual application to 
 every man's conscience (i. i8-iii. 9). 
 
 He then shows that this charge of universal 
 sinfulness is illustrated and confirmed by 
 various statements of the Old Testament 
 concerning the Jews and men in general : 
 and the passages cited would bear all that is 
 thus laid upon them, even if they were less 
 explicit as to universality of sin than some of 
 them are. 
 
 One caution, though very obvious, is not 
 unnecessary: the doctrines of universal sin- 
 fulness and of justification by faith are per- 
 fectly consistent with the existence of a true 
 righteousness both under the Law and before 
 the Law. We have seen above that the one 
 strongest and most absolute assertion of uni- 
 versal sinfulness in Ps. xiv. 1-3 is immedi- 
 ately followed by the mention of a people of 
 God (v. 4), and a generation of the righteous 
 {y. 5). St. Paul's own disciple does not 
 hesitate to say that Zacharias and Elizabeth 
 were " both righteous before God, walking 
 in all the commandments and ordinances of 
 the Lord blameless " (Luke i. 6). 
 
 Such a righteousness of " holy and humble 
 men of heart " was the very opposite of the 
 self-righteousness condemned by St. Paul, 
 which relied, not on God's mercy, but on 
 man's own works, and used the ordinances 
 of the Law as means of merit, not of grace. 
 
 The Gospel more clearly revealed, but did 
 not alter, the nature of faith and righteous- 
 ness : it enlarged the object of faith, added 
 new motives to obedience, and ministered in 
 richer abundance the sanctifying graces of 
 God's Spirit. 
 
 We should observe also that the point 
 which the Apostle is here establishing is not 
 the doctrine of original or birth-sin (as in v. 
 12), but t\\efact of universal sinfulness: and 
 even those who reject the doctnne do not 
 deny the fact. 
 
 19, 20. An explanation of the connexion 
 and meaning of these verses will be best intro- 
 duced by a revised translation : But ^e kno^iv 
 that 'what things soever the la%u saith, it 
 speaketh to them <ivho are under the la^w, 
 that every mouth ynay be stopped, and all the 
 (world may come under God's judgment: 
 
 because by works of law shall no fl.'sh 
 be justified in his sight: for through law 
 oometh knowledge of sin. 
 
 19. This verse is generally understood as 
 an assertion that all the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures, and therefore the passages just quoted 
 from the Psalms and Isaiah, speak to the Jew 
 in order that his mouth, as well as every other, 
 may be stopped by the denunciation of his sin. 
 
 But this interpretation is open to serious 
 objections. 
 
 (i) It rests on the very doubtful assump- 
 tion that St. Paul may have included the 
 Prophets and Psalms under the name of " the 
 Law :" whereas this extension of the name is 
 found only in two or three passages of St. 
 John's Gospel, and is contrary to St. Paul's 
 usage, I Cor. xiv. 21 being the one doubtful 
 exception. 
 
 (2) This extended meaning of " ^Zia- iaw," 
 even if it were not unusual in St. Paul's 
 writings, would be inadmissible here, being 
 opposed in two respects to the immediate 
 context. («) In -y. 21 " the Law " is expressly 
 distinguished from "the Prophets." (b) In 
 the sentence " the Law speaks to them that 
 are under the Law," the term must evidently 
 have the same meaning in both places, and in 
 the latter it clearly means the Mosaic code. 
 
 (3) The usual interpretation does not agree 
 with the course of the argument at this point. 
 
 The passages from the Psalms and Isaiah 
 have been brought to confirm the charge 
 already made against Jew and Gentile, " that 
 they are all under sin." But it was necessary 
 to prove more than this in the case of the 
 Jew, in order that his " mouth might be 
 stopped" and that he might "be brought 
 under the judgment of God;" for we 
 have seen already that the Jews openly 
 claimed exemption from final condemnation, 
 even for wicked Israelites: See note on ii. 3. 
 
 The purpose therefore of -y. 19 is not to 
 show that the Scripture describes the Jew as 
 a sinner, but that, being a sinner, he is in 
 danger of the judgment. These three reasons, 
 and especially the last, compel us to reject the 
 common interpretation of this verse, and to 
 take a different view of the connexion of the 
 whole passage, w. 9-20, which is as follows: 
 
 "We are not in any way claiming a supe- 
 riority (or, putting forward an excuse) which 
 may exempt the Jew from condemnation. 
 For the charge which we before brought 
 (cc. i. ii.), and which Scripture confirms 
 (iii. 10-18), is that all, Jew as well as Gentile, 
 are under sin. 
 
 " But the law, far from giving to the Jew 
 
88 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 [v. 21- 
 
 -22. 
 
 law there shall no flesh be justified God without the law is manifested, 
 in his sight : for by the law is the being witnessed by the law and the 
 knowledge of sin. prophets ; 
 
 21 But now the righteousness of 
 
 22 Even the righteousness of God 
 
 impunity for his sin, speaks in all that it says, 
 especially to him as its subject, in order that 
 he first (and so all the world), may be put to 
 silence, and brought under God's judgment." 
 
 it saithl it speaketh. In all that the 
 Law " saitb " (kejit), i. e. in all the com- 
 mandments which it contains, it speaketh 
 (XaXet) to those who are " under the Law" 
 as the Dispensation in which they live. 
 
 that every mouth may be stopped] Compare 
 Job V. i6 ; Ps. Ixiii. lo ; cvii. 42. The mouth 
 is stopped, when every excuse is taken away. 
 
 become guilty before God] Come under 
 God's judgment, or more exactly, "become 
 accountable to God " {yrcobiKos tw Sew). 
 The word is not used elsewhere in the N. T. 
 or LXX, but is common in Plato and the 
 Attic Orators : it means " liable to prosecu- 
 tion," and a Dative following it refers either 
 to the violated law, or to the rightful prose- 
 cutor. God is thus represented as having a 
 controversy against sinners (Job ix. 3 ; Jer. 
 XXV. 31 ; Mic. vi. i) ; but since He is also 
 their Judge (y. 20), we may fairly translate 
 the words as above, "come under God's 
 judgment." 
 
 20. therefore] Because (Stori): this word 
 introducers the reason why every mouth 
 shall be stopped and all brought under judg- 
 ment. The sense of the whole passage (9- 
 20) is perverted by the erroneous rendering 
 '■'■therefore^' which the A.V. first brought 
 into the English Bible. The failure of the 
 Jew to justify himself before God is here 
 traced to a cause which is common to all, 
 namely, the weakness of sinful man indi- 
 cated in the term " flesh." This term (naa-a 
 adp^) St. Paul substitutes for nas ^av, " every 
 man living," by which the LXX more exactly 
 renders the Hebrew : " all flesh " conveys the 
 idea of universal frailty and sinfulness ; see 
 Gen. vi. 12). The same passage (Ps. cxhii. 
 2) is quoted in the same form in Gal. ii. 16. 
 In botli instances St. Paul prefaces the quota- 
 tion by the words e'l epycov vopov, by works of 
 law, a definition of the Psalmist's meaning both 
 correct in itself and necessary in the applica- 
 tion to the Apostle's argument. Observe, how- 
 ever, that the statement being universal and not 
 limited to the Jews, the Apostle does not write 
 ^'the luorks of the law" but "works of law," 
 because he is stating a general truth which 
 results from the nature of law, as being a 
 thing which cannot give life and righteous- 
 ness (Gal. iii. 21). See Introduction § 9. 
 His meaning is, that no man shall obtain 
 
 justification from the source whence the Jew 
 seeks it, namely, from the merit of works 
 done in obedience to a law. 
 
 Thus, when the Jew is put to silence, every 
 mouth is stopped: none can say after his 
 condemnation, that they could attain to right- 
 eousness by their own obedience, if only they 
 had a law to teach them what God requires. 
 There is no contradiction between the state- 
 ment in ii. 13, " the doers qf\&vi shall be justi- 
 fied:" and this passage, "by works of law 
 shall no flesh be justified-" the former states 
 the abstract principle or condition of legal 
 justification : the latter declares that no man 
 can fulfil that condition. 
 
 for by the laiv is the kno<wledge of j/«.] 
 For through law cometh knowledge of 
 sin. A reason why none can be justified 
 through law : for law has the very opposite 
 effect ; through it first comes a clear know- 
 ledge (JiTiyvuxTis., as in i. 28) of sin. This 
 weighty thought is taken up again and de- 
 veloped in vii. 7 ff. We are there taught 
 how the commandment draws out the sinful 
 lust which it condemns, but cannot subdue ; 
 and how the law has done all that it can 
 do, when the sinner is forced to exclaim, " O 
 ^wretched man that I am, nuho shall deliver 
 me from, the body of this deaths" 
 
 21-26. The Righteousness of God 
 Revealed. 
 
 " The opening of a brighter scene. " (Ben- 
 gel.) St. Paul has shown the universal need 
 of righteousness (i. 18 — iii. 20), and now turns 
 from the negative to the positive side of the 
 theme proposed in i. 17. 
 
 21. " But now" marks the contrast between 
 the times of the old and new dispensations, 
 as in -y. 26, and xvi. 26. 
 
 "Magnus ab integro sseclcrum nascitur ordo." 
 
 the righteousness of God without the law) is 
 manifested.'] "Apart from law a right- 
 eousness of God has been manifested." 
 
 The words "apart from law," put in close 
 and emphatic contrast to "through law" 
 (1;. 20), shew that the actual manifestation ot 
 " God's righteousness" has been quite inde- 
 pendent of "law," i.e. not only the law of 
 Moses, but the whole principle of law and 
 legal obedience. 
 
 "a righteousness of God." See note on 
 i. 17. A more complete definition of this 
 righteousness follows in "w. 22-26. 
 
 "has been manifested." Having pre- 
 
V. 23—24.] 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto 
 all and upon all them that believe : 
 for there is no difference : 
 
 89 
 
 23 For all have sinned, and come 
 short of the glory of God ; 
 
 24 Being justified freely by his 
 
 viously been hidden in God's counsels it has 
 now been made manifest in historical reality 
 in the person of Jesus Christ (i Cor. i. 30), 
 "Who was manifested in flesh, justi- 
 fied in Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto 
 the Gentiles, believed on in the ivorld, received 
 up into glory" (i Tim. iii. 16). The mani- 
 festation in fact is complete (wecpavepaTai); 
 the revelation in the Gospel still goes on 
 (aTroKakvTTTeTai, i. 17). 
 
 being witnessed by the laiv and the prophets^ 
 It was necessary that the manifestation of the 
 righteousness of God should be absolutely in- 
 dependent of law ; that the true mode of ob- 
 taining it, viz. by faith in Christ Jesus, might 
 be set beyond reach of doubt. Nevertheless, 
 *'■ the la-w" of Moses has not been without 
 Its use negatively, in producing a knowledge 
 of sin (-y. 20), and positively, in bearing wit- 
 ness in common with the Prophets to the 
 coming dispensation of righteousness. This 
 testimony of Scripture includes all types, 
 promises, and prophecies of Christ: for "to 
 him bear all the prophets witness, that 
 through his name whosoever believeth in him 
 shall receive remission of sins " (Acts x. 43 ; 
 xxviii. 23). We have an example of the way 
 in which St. Paul uses this testimony in c. iv. 
 
 22. Even the righteousness of God 'which is 
 by faith of Jesus Christ.'] Read, "Even a 
 righteousness of God through faith in 
 Jesus Christ." The subject of -y. 21 is re- 
 peated with a more precise definition distinct 
 from (fie) though not opposed to the preced- 
 ing. Compare ix. 30 : Phil. ii. 8 ; i Cor. ii. 6. 
 The points more precisely defined are the 
 means by which righteousness is attained, 
 and its destined extent. 
 
 "through faith in Jesus Christ." Jus- 
 tifying faith is here presented, not as a faith 
 in God of which Christ is the author (Van 
 Hengel, &c.), but as faith in Christ Himself: 
 compare Mark xi. 22 ; Gal. ii. 16, 20; iii. 22 ; 
 Eph. iii. 12 ; iv. 13 ; Phil. iii. 9. " The Person 
 of Christ in its unity and totality {^ Jesus 
 Christ') is the proper redemptive object of 
 faith" (Dorner, 'Person of Christ,' P. n ii. 
 p. 113). 
 
 unto all and upon all them that believe^ 
 Tischendorf and most modern editors read 
 with the more ancient MSS. " unto all them 
 that believe :" the variation does not materially 
 affect the sense, but the emphatic repetition 
 of " all " with different prepositions, is very 
 characteristic of St. Paul (xi. 36; Gal. i. 1; 
 Eph. iv. 6 (Col. i. 16). If both are retained, 
 " unto all " marks the destination and " upon 
 
 all," or " over all," the extension which the 
 " righteousness of God " is to have, both being 
 limited to " them that believe." 
 
 Faith in Christ thus presented as the sole 
 condition of righteousness is not regarded by 
 St. Paul as a restriction of God's grace, but 
 as the means of participation by which alone 
 it can be thrown open to all mankind, faith 
 has itself a universal fitness for man : it grows 
 out of his original relation to God, and is, 
 under all circumstances, the rightful disposi- 
 tion of the creature towards his Creator. In 
 man unfallen it was the trustful loving sense 
 of dependence upon God's goodness : in fallen 
 man it unites the deep feeling of unworthi- 
 ness with the conviction that mercy rejoices 
 against judgment; and thus in both states 
 gives God the glory. 
 
 Faith therefore is not an arbitrary con- 
 dition imposed upon us from without, but a 
 law of our true nature : it exalts man to his 
 rightful dignity by allowing the free consent 
 of his will, and the active exercise of his 
 faculties, and yet humbles him before God in 
 acknowledgment of mercy undeserved. Thus 
 faith is at once the soul's highest exercise of 
 freedom, its lowliest " confession of sin," and 
 the only homage it can render to God. 
 
 for there is no difference.] The righteous- 
 ness of God by faith is for all, "for thereis 
 no distinction" made therein, but Gentile 
 and Jew are all included in the same method 
 of salvation : and the reason wliy no distinc- 
 tion is made is that there is no difference in 
 their need (y. 23). 
 
 23. For all have sinned, and come short of 
 the glory of God.] The older English versions 
 mark more correctly the difference of the 
 tenses, and the meaning of v<TTef>el.aBai : 
 " For all have sinned, and are destitute of the 
 glory of God " (Cranmer, Geneva): "For 
 all men sinned, and have need of the glory 
 of God" (Wyclif). The subjective force of 
 the Middle Voice (" to feel want ") will be 
 clearly perceived by contrasting the self-com- 
 placent question of the rich young Ruler, 
 " IVhat lack I yet?" (Matt. xix. 20, iiarfpSi) 
 with the description of the Prodigal, when "he 
 began to be in <want" and to feel it (Luke xv. 
 14, voTfpe'iadai,). The sinning is represented 
 by the aorist as an historic fact, already proved: 
 its present and continued effect is that men 
 not only come short of {ya-Tepilv) but suffer 
 want {ya-Tfpela-dai) and feel themselves desti- 
 tute of " the glory of God." 
 
 The meaning of this last expression is much 
 disputed, but iuitcad of discussing the various 
 
90 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 [v. 25. 
 
 grace through the redemption that is 2'; Whom God hath "set forth to " ^r,/'^ 
 
 • rM • r I ... , 1/-.1.1. ordained. 
 
 m L/hrist Jesus : be a propitiation through faith m his 
 
 meanings which have been invented for it, we 
 shall better enter into St. Paul's conception 
 oi '■^ the glory of God," by combining the chief 
 aspects in which he regards it. 
 
 In i. 23 "the glory of the incorruptible 
 God " is (in the words of Hooker, ' E. P.' ii. 2, 
 § i) "the admirable excellence of that virtue 
 Divine, which being made manifest causeth 
 men and angels to extol his greatness." 
 
 This " glory of God " not only manifests, 
 but communicates itself, being reflected in 
 such of His creatures as are capable of know- 
 ing and loving and growing like Him. St. 
 Paul therefore, in i Cor. xi. 7, calls the man 
 " the image and glory of God," because he is 
 capable of receiving and reflecting God's 
 glory. Compare Irenasus iii. 20, § 2 : "The 
 glory of man is God, and of the operation of 
 God, and of all His wisdom and power, man 
 is the receptacle:" and iv. 16, § 4: "man was 
 in want of the glory of God." 
 
 See also Hooker ' E. P.' I. xi. § 2, " then are 
 we happy, therefore, when fully we enjoy 
 God as an object wherein the powers of our 
 soul are satisfied even with everlasting delight : 
 so that although we be men, yet by being unto 
 God united, we live as it were, the life of God." 
 
 The complete manifestation of Divine per- 
 fection is " the glory of God in the face of 
 Jesus Christ,'^ or in other words, "the glory 
 of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 
 iv. 4, 6). 
 
 This glory of God in Christ shining forth 
 in the Gospel upon the believer's heart trans- 
 forms him into " light in the Lord " (Eph. v. 
 8) : and so " lue all ivith open face beholding 
 as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed 
 into the same image from glory to glory " (2 Cor. 
 iii. 18). 
 
 The transformation begins here, but man's 
 full participation in " the glory of God " is 
 the hope of our high calling reserved for us in 
 heaven (c. v. a ; i Thess. ii. 12; 2 Thess. ii, 
 14). 
 
 24. Being justified freely by his grace."] The 
 Present Participle " being justified " is closely 
 connected with the preceding clause, as its 
 necessary accompaniment {va-repovvrai — 81- 
 Kamvfievoi) : they who through sin suffer loss 
 of the glory of God can receive justification 
 only as a free gift by his grace. 
 
 " The glory of God " thus restored in Man 
 as His image, is rightly called " the perfection 
 of his grace." Severianus, Cram. Cat. in loc. ; 
 vcTTfpel avTols 17 rrji ^dpiros reAf I'wcrtr. Thus 
 instead of making -v. 23a formal parenthesis, 
 and then resuming his subject in a new sen- 
 tence, St. Paul, as his manner is (see on 
 V. 26), glides back without any formal break ' 
 
 into the main course of his argument. For 
 the meaning of "justified," see note on ii. 13 : 
 it is there used of one supposed to be actually 
 "just" before being declared so by God, 
 here of those who before were sinners, but 
 now are both declared and made righteous. 
 See note on ch. v. 19, and the passage quoted 
 from Bp. Bull, ' Examen Censurae,' § 17, in 
 our Introduction § 9. 
 
 We learn from this verse that the justifica- 
 tion of the believer takes place — (i) as a free 
 gift, not as a reward or acknowledgment of 
 a righteousness already existing in him ; (2) 
 " by his grace" there being a slight emphasis 
 on the Pronoun, which contrasts God's 
 grace, i.e. free unbought love, with man's 
 merits or works (Eph. ii. 8) ; (3) " through 
 the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" this 
 being the instrument or means on God's 
 part, as '•'•faith in Jesus Christ" v, 22, is on 
 man's part. 
 
 the redemption that is in Christ Jesus^ 
 " Redemption " is here explained by Origen as 
 a " ransom " paid in Christ's blood to Satan 
 for the release of his captives. This notion, 
 so common until the time of Anselm, is 
 derived from the Greek and Latin words 
 (cLTvoKvTpoxni, redemptio), not from the He- 
 brew. In the O. T. the great typical act, 
 which fixes the idea of redemption, is the 
 deliverance from Egypt. Jehovah is the 
 Redeemer or Deliverer (7X)l), who demands 
 the release of His people: ''''Israelis my son, 
 even my first-born : and I say unto thee, Let my 
 son go, that he may serve me : and if thou refuse 
 to let him go, behold, I ivili slay thy son, even 
 thy first-born" (Ex. iv. 22, 23): "/ will re- 
 deem you (TI'PNJ) ivith a stretched out arm, 
 and ivith great judgments " (Ex. vi. 6 ; xv. 13). 
 The purpose of the redemption is the conse- 
 cration of Israel to God's service : " I ivill 
 take you to me for a people, and I ivill be to you 
 a God" (Ex. vi. 7). Jehovah pays no ransom 
 to the oppressor, but from His people He 
 requires an act of faith, in the sacrince of the 
 Passover, and an act of holy obedience in the 
 consecration of the first-born (Ex. xiii. i ; 
 xix. 4-6). These types are united and 
 fulfilled in "■Christ our Passover:" He is 
 both " the Lamb that ivas slain '' (Rev. v. 12 ; 
 John i. 29; I Cor. v. 7), and "the first-born 
 from the dead" (Cor. i. 18). Thus "The 
 redemption" is "in Christ Jesus," not in any 
 act or work, the effect of which might be se- 
 parated from the agent, but in Himself (Eph. 
 i. 7; Col. i. i^), "in His person with which 
 His work forms a living unity" (Olshausen, 
 Eph. i. 7): Having lived and died and lived 
 again for us, He is " of God made unto ut 
 
V. 25-] 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 91 
 
 blood, to declare his righteousness 
 jV/jwfr^'for the ''remission of sins that are 
 
 past, through 
 God ; 
 
 the forbearance of 
 
 . . . redemption'" (i Gor. i. 30), being in 
 Himself the redeemer (Tit. ii. 14), the 
 ransom (i Tim. ii. 6), and the redeemed as 
 " the first-born among many brethren " (viii. 
 29 ; I Cor. XV. 23 ; Rev. i. 5). 
 
 The ransom is more closely defined as " his 
 life " or '■'■soul" (Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45), 
 and " his blood" (i Pet. i. 19). 
 
 As to the extent of the redemption, it is 
 for Israel (Luke i. 68; ii. 32; xxiv. 21), for 
 ^'■many" (Matt. xx. 28 ; Manx. 45), for "«//" 
 (i Tim. ii. 6), for ^'' the purchased possession" 
 (Eph. i. 14). 
 
 It redeems from sin and its penalties (Tit. 
 ii. 14; Heb. ix. 15; i Pet. i. 18; Eph. i. 7; Col. 
 i. 14), particularly from death (Rom. viii. 23 ; 
 compare Heb. xi. 35), and generally from the 
 present evil state into a state of glory and 
 blessing (Luke xxi. 28 ; Eph. iv. 30). 
 
 25, 26. A further explanation of God's 
 method of justification " through the redemp- 
 tion that is in Christ Jesus!' 
 
 Whom God hath set forth.'] Two interpreta- 
 tions of the verb are admissible, (i) " Whom 
 God set before His own mind," proposed to 
 himself, and so " designed," " proposed," 
 "ordained" (Wiclif). The Margin "fore- 
 ordained " is less correct, precedence in time 
 not being expressed by the irpo, but only 
 implied in the idea of design or purpose ; 
 " quod nondum est, proponitur" (Origen). 
 
 This is the more ancient interpretation, 
 being found in the Syriac (" praedestinavit," 
 Schaaf), Origen, Chrysostom, Gennadius in 
 Qtcumenius, and others. 
 
 It also agrees with the meaning of the 
 Verb in the N. T. (Rom. i. 1 3 ; Eph. i. 9), 
 though not with its construction, as an Infini- 
 tive usually follows. 
 
 (2) '^ Whom God set forth" i.e. "publicly 
 before the eyes of all, that he who will 
 be redeemed may draw nigh " (Pelagius). 
 This sense is supported by classical usage 
 (Herod, iii. 148; Eurip. ' Phosn.' 1330, /iff. 
 613), by the Vulgate, Cranmer, Geneva, A.V., 
 and the majority of modern interpreters. 
 
 In the LXX the Verb occurs thrice in the 
 Middle Voice, but in a sense slightly differing 
 from either of the above : Ps. liv. 3 ; (" they 
 have not set God before them,") Pss. Ixxxvi. 
 14, and ci. 3. 
 
 The meaning " Whom God set forth" is best 
 suited to the idea, made so prominent in this 
 passage, of a public exhibition : and the 
 Middle Voice indicates that God himself 
 was interested in thus setting forth His own 
 Son as a propitiation to show forth His 
 righteousness. With either meaning, the 
 Father is the author of our redemption. 
 
 to be a propitiation!] as a Propitiatory, 
 i.e. a mercy seat. J'or a full discussion of 
 the Greek word ikaarrjpiop, see Note at end 
 of chapter. 
 
 Amid all the variety of rendering the es- 
 sential meaning of the word remains sure; it re- 
 presents Christ as making propitiation for 
 sinners, and so obtaining mercy and forgive- 
 ness for them. 
 
 Moreover, the all-important truth that the 
 efficacy of Christ's propitiation lies "in his 
 blood," i. e. in His dying as a sacrifice for sin, 
 shines out too clear in the context to be 
 obscured by any possible rendering of the 
 word IXacrTrjoiov. 
 
 through faith in his blood.] The clause 
 " through faith" omitted in A, and not inter- 
 preted by Chrysostom, is authenticated by 
 the consent of all other MSS., Fathers, and 
 Versions, and confirmed by the recurrence of 
 €K Trtarecor at the close of v. 26. The ab- 
 sence of the Greek Article does not affect 
 the English translation, nor the connexion of 
 the clause with the context. 
 
 The following considerations might be 
 thought to favour the connexion given ia 
 the A. V. 
 
 («) That the construction '■'■faith in His 
 blood" is grammatically correct, is clear from 
 Eph. 1. 15, rfiv Ka6' Vju-as tticttiv iv rw Kupi'co 
 'Itjo-ou : where the absence of a second article 
 after nia-Tiv shows that it is structurally con- 
 nected and fused into one idea with ev ra 
 K. 'I., the substantive Triaris taking the same 
 construction as the Verb, iria-rfveLv eV 
 (Meyer, Fritzsche). Compare LXX Ps. 
 Ixxviiii. 22, ouK eni<JTevcrav «V roi Geca ; Jer, 
 xn. 6, fjLTj TTKJTivcrji^ iv avTois'. Mark i. 15. 
 
 ib') The objection that no other example is 
 found in Scripture of such an expression as 
 "belief in the blood of Christ," is set aside 
 by the equally unexampled expressions "jus- 
 tified in his blood " (v. 9), and " made nigh in 
 the blood of Christ" (Eph. ii. 13). 
 
 (c) That the expression is not inappro- 
 priate is thus proved by Bp. O'Brien, 'Nature 
 uf Faith,' Note P. p. 383. 
 
 " If we are told that the Blood of Christ 
 was shed for the remission of our sins (Mark 
 xiv. 24) ; that we are justified by (in) His 
 Blood (Rom. v. 9) ; that we have redemption 
 through His Blood (Eph. i. 7) ; that He made 
 peace through the ^/oo^ of His Cross (Col. i. 
 20) ; that those who were afar oft were 
 made nigh by (in) " His Blood " (Eph. ii. 1 3) ; 
 that He purchased the Church of God with 
 His own Blood (Acts xx. 28) ; that He has 
 washed us from our sins in His own Blood 
 (Rev. i. 5), that through His Blood we have 
 
92 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 [v. 26. 
 
 26 To declare, / say^ at this time just, and the justifier of him which 
 his righteousness : that he might be believeth in Jesus. 
 
 boldness to enter into the Holiest (Heb. x. 
 19); if all this .... is declared concerning 
 the efficacy of His Blood, it can hardly be 
 thought strange that it should be anywhere 
 stated that His Blood is the object of theyizi/A 
 of His people." 
 
 But still, though the expression ^^ faith in 
 his blood" (Post-Communion Prayer) is in 
 itself unobjectionable, the context of the 
 present passage requires that the element in 
 which lies the inherent power of Christ's 
 Atonement, viz., His blood, should not be 
 introduced as a subordinate point, merely 
 to define more closely the subjective con- 
 dition, man's faith, but should hold a more 
 prominent and independent position in the 
 sentence (Meyer, Philippi, &c.). 
 
 This argument is much strengthened by 
 the emphatic position of avrov, rightly ex- 
 plained by the Greek Fathers. " The Pro- 
 pitiatory of old was itself bloodless, since 
 it was also without life, but it received 
 the sprinkling of the blood of the sacri- 
 fices : but the Lord Christ and God is at 
 once Propitiatory, High Priest, and Lamb, and 
 in His own blood {olKeico aluaTi) nego- 
 tiated our salvation, requiring only faith from 
 us " (Theodoret). The two clauses " through 
 faith," and " in His own blood,'' are therefore 
 parallel, and both depend on l\a(TTr]piov: 
 render, therefore, "Wliom God set forth as 
 a Propitiatory through faith in His 
 own blood." Compare Heb. ix. 12, 25. 
 
 to declare his righteousnessJ] "for an ex- 
 hibition of his righteousness." This direct 
 purpose (els), and chief final cause for which 
 God set forth Christ, is afterwards more fully 
 explained in the words els to dvai avrop dUaiov, 
 
 tCT.X. 
 
 The connexion of the whole passage (w. 
 21-26) makes it clear that His righteousness 
 here is the same " righteousness of God " which 
 is spoken of in -w. 21, 22. There the Apostle 
 defines its relation to the Law, and the means 
 and extent of its appropriation by man ; here 
 he points to an exhibition of the same right- 
 eousness as it exists under a twofold aspect 
 in God its author and source : He is Him- 
 self just, and justifies the believer in Jesus. 
 His is at once a sin-condemning and sin- 
 forgiving righteousness. 
 
 The various interpretations "truthfulness," 
 "goodness," "holiness," "judicial righteous- 
 ness," " punitive righteousness," &c., all fail 
 to satisfy the context, because they substitute 
 an arbitrary and limited idea of righteousness 
 for that " righteousness of God," which it is 
 tile very purpose of the passage to exhibit in 
 ail the fulness of its manifestation. 
 
 for the re?nission of sins that are past.'\ 
 "because of the passing over of the 
 sins that had gone before." See De- 
 litzsch, Heb. ix. 15. 
 
 In thus distinguishing, with the Margin, 
 between -rvapean " praetermission," " passing 
 by," and a(})€a-is " remission," i.e., full release 
 and dismissal of sins, we are treading on the 
 ashes of a fierce but extinct controversy 
 concerning the remission of sins under the 
 Mosaic dispensation, of which a brief notice 
 may be found in Trench, ' Synonyms of 
 N.T.,' ist series, p. 133. 
 
 We must also observe that the word here 
 used for sins, d/ixo/jrij/xara, is comparatively 
 rare (Mark iii. 28 ; iv. 12 ; i Cor. vi. 18) and 
 denotes the sinful deeds done, not the essen- 
 tial sin ajxapria, of which they are the out- 
 comings. It is joined with Tvapuvai in 
 Josephus, ' Antt.' xv. 3, 2, and in Xenophon, 
 'Hipparch.' vii. 10, "It is not right to let 
 offences pass by unpunished." 
 
 " When the son of Sirach (Ecclus. xxiii. 2) 
 prays to God that He ivould not ^ pass by' his 
 sins, — he assuredly does not use ou fir/ napjj 
 as = ov fxfj d(pfi, but only asks that he may 
 not be left without a wholesome chastise- 
 ment following close on his transgressions." 
 (Trench, /. c.) 
 
 The contrast between " this present time " 
 and the "sins that had gone before" 
 shows that the foregone sins of which St. 
 Paul here speaks are not those of indivi- 
 duals before conversion, but " the sins of the 
 ivorld before Christ " (Meyer), including " the 
 transgressions that were imder the first testa- 
 ment," i. e. the sins of the Jews (Heb. ix, 
 
 15). 
 
 Those foregone sins God had let pass for the 
 time without adequate expiation or punish- 
 ment. His wrath which had been revealed from 
 heaven against all ungodliness (i. 1 8) was not 
 a complete vindication of His holiness, for 
 though the sins against which it was de- 
 nounced were increased and aggravated (i. 
 24-32), yet He did not suffer His whole dis- 
 pleasure to arise, but, with rare exceptions, 
 His justice seemed to slumber. 
 
 through the forbearance\ in the forbear- 
 ance. This overlooking of sins has its cause 
 "in the forbearance of God" an expression 
 which clearly distinguishes it from the remis- 
 sion of sins, which is the effect of His grace 
 and favour. 
 
 " Forbearance " (ii. 4) is a temporary sus- 
 pension of anger, " a truce with the sinner, 
 which by no means im.plies that the wrath 
 will not be executed at the last ; nay, in- 
 volves that it certainly will, unless he be 
 
V. 27.] 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 93 
 
 27 Where is boasting then ? It works ? 
 is excluded. By what law ? of faith. 
 
 Nay : but by the law of 
 
 found under new conditions " (Trench, 2nd 
 Series, p. 15). 
 
 One effect of God's forbearance is to ob- 
 scure for the time His righteousness: " T^ese 
 things hast thou done, and I kept silence ; thou 
 thought est that liuas altogether such an one as 
 thyself " (Vs. 1. 21 ; compare Eccl. viii. 11-13). 
 Thus in the impunity of sin during the times 
 of ignorance that God winked at (Acts xvii. 
 30), there arose a secondary cause, for an 
 exhibition of His righteousness, (Sta Tr]v 
 ndpfa-iu, K.r.X.) a cause having reference only 
 to His mode of dealing with the sins of the 
 generations which lived before Christ. But 
 the primary cause of that exhibition of His 
 righteousness was not the need of a " Divine 
 Theodicee of the past history of mankind " 
 (Tholuck), but the forgiveness of the sins of 
 all ages, even unto the end of the world, 
 
 26. To declare, I say, his righteousness.'] 
 "in viewof the exhibition of his right- 
 eousness." The A. V. treats this as a mere 
 resumption of tls evdei^iv k. r. X. in v. 25, 
 in which case the change of expression (npos 
 TTjv fvBei^iv) becomes, as Meyer confesses, 
 unmeaning. 
 
 But connect the clause with that which 
 immediately precedes, and all is clear : God 
 set forth Christ for an exhibition of 
 His righteousness — because He had let the 
 sins of former generations pass for the 
 time unpunished in view of the exhibition 
 of his righteousness at this present time — 
 that he might be just, 8cc. The passage thus 
 construed, is a striking example of a well- 
 known peculiarity in St. Paul's style, of which 
 an exactly parallel case is found in Eph. iii. 3, 
 4, 5 : he " goes off at a word " (fiv(TTr]piov), 
 in order to connect with it some accessory 
 thought, which he follows out until it brings 
 him back to the same word again {du tw 
 fjLvcTTrjplco Tov )(piaTov), znd thcu glides 
 back into the main line of the sentence with- 
 out any parenthesis or other formal interrup- 
 tion of the grammatical construction (See 
 above on -y. 24.) 
 
 Here he goes off at the word evbei^iv in 
 order to bring in a subordinate reason for 
 such an "exhibition" which might other- 
 wise have been overlooked (5ta rt)u irapea-iv 
 K. r. X.), and with this thought, and by 
 means of it, works round to the same word 
 again {npo<: ttjv evdei^iv). The Article 
 is required by the renewed mention of eV- 
 8fi$Li, which is the same exhibition as before, 
 but in accordance with the mention of the sins 
 of former times is now more nearly defined as 
 "the exhibition in this present time," 
 even this addition of f'v r^ viiv Kaipa being 
 
 an exact parallel to the addition tov Xpiarov 
 in Eph. iii. 4. 
 
 " The time of Christ is a time of critical 
 decision, when the ndpeais is at an end, and 
 man must either accept the full remission 
 ia4>e(ns) of sin, or expose himself to the 
 judgment of a righteous God " (Schaff). ' 
 
 The clause " in this present time " points 
 to the contrast of former ages. " The right- 
 eousness of God" then partially obscured, has 
 been clearly manifested and exhibited "/'« 
 this present ti}7je," i. e. the time subsequent 
 to Christ's death. 
 
 that he might be just, and the justifter of him 
 that believeth in Jesus. ~\ That he might him- 
 self be just, is'c. There are some remarkable 
 illustrations of this antithetical expression in 
 some of the Rabbinical comments on Isai. 
 liii. 1 1 : 
 
 " His (Messiah's) true perfection will con- 
 sist, first of all, in his perfecting himself as far 
 as possible in the service, the fear, and the 
 love of God, and afterwards in conferring the 
 same perfection upon others, as is done by 
 the Almighty himself" 
 
 " Moses, more than any one else, helped 
 to make others perfect, according to the 
 saying, Moses ivas just and justified many." 
 
 " M OSes was worthy himself, and made 
 many others worthy as well" (Neubauer, 
 'The Jewish Interpreters of Isai.' liii. pp. 325, 
 339, 287). 
 
 The exhibition of the righteousness of 
 God had a double purpose : Christ was 
 therein set forth (i) as "propitiatory in his 
 blood" to show that God is Himself "just," 
 i.e., to vindicate His righteousness against the 
 seeming impunity of sins in former ages, and 
 (2) as "propitiatory through faith," to show 
 that God is the author of righteousness to 
 them that believe. "The righteousness of 
 God is shown especially in this, that He so 
 utterly hates sin, that in order to destroy it, 
 and make man righteous, He sent His own 
 Son into the world, and gave Him up to 
 death " (Estius). 
 
 Calvin's interpretation, though not strictly 
 derived fi-om the context, like that which has 
 been given above, is not inconsistent with it, 
 and is worth quoting briefly : " This is a 
 definition of that righteousness which was 
 exhibited in the gift of Christ, and revealed 
 in the Gospel (i. 17). It consists of two 
 parts: (i) God is righteous, not as one 
 among many, but as containing in Himself 
 alone all fulness of righteousness : God alone 
 is righteous, and all mankind unrighteous. 
 But (2) God's righteousness is communica- 
 tive : He pours it forth on man. In us, 
 
94 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 [v. 28—29. 
 
 28 Therefore we conclude that a 
 man is justified by faith without the 
 deeds of the law. 
 
 29 Is he the God of the Jews 
 only ? is he not also of the Gentiles ? 
 Yes, of the Gentiles also : 
 
 therefore, the righteousness of God is re- 
 flected, inasmuch as He justifies us by faith in 
 Christ." 
 
 him ivhich belicveth in Jesus^ Literally — 
 "him that is of faith in Jesus," i.^., him 
 that has faith in Jesus as the root of his 
 relation to God, in opposition to them that 
 are of the law or of works : see note on ii. 7. 
 
 27-31. Results of God's Method of 
 Justification. 
 
 Looking back on his whole previous argu- 
 ment from i. 18, and more especially on the 
 representation in iii. 2 1-26, of " the righteous- 
 ness of God by faith," St. Paul now proceeds 
 to draw out some of its grand results: (i) 
 that it gives glory, not to man, but to God 
 only {yv. 27, 28); (2) that it includes Jew 
 and Gentile in one universal method of Sal- 
 vation (29, 30) ; (3) that it establishes Divine 
 law on its true basis (31). 
 
 Where is boasting thenf "Where then 
 is the boasting?" It is true that all human 
 glorying is equally excluded, but the question 
 has special reference (as the Article shows) to 
 the boasting before mentioned (ii. 17, 23), 
 namely that of the Jew, which he has been 
 combating throughout the whole section (ii. 
 17 — iii. 20). It is this sense of conflict 
 brought to a victorious end, that gives so 
 triumphant a tone to the Apostle's question, 
 the tone of a conqueror looking round for an 
 adversary who has already disappeared (i 
 Cor. i. 20; XV. 55). 
 
 It is excluded.'] Though there can never 
 really be room for any boasting on man's part 
 before God, yet boasting will intrude; nor 
 can it be shut out "by the law of works," 
 which rather tends to foster self-righteous- 
 ness. But "a law of faith," a dispensation 
 which says, not "This do, and thou shalt 
 live," but " Believe, and thou shalt be saved," 
 at once shuts out all boasting : for to believe 
 is to trust not in ourselves, but in God, to 
 feel ourselves helpless, to confess ourselves 
 unworthy, and to cast ourselves with full 
 confidence upon God's mercy in Christ. 
 
 By ivhat la<w ? of nvorks ? Nay : but by the 
 la-iu of faith.'} Read — " Bywhatmannerof 
 law? (By the law) of works'! Nay; but 
 by a law of faith." 
 
 St. Paul's exact and significant use of the 
 Article is disregarded in the A. V., and mis- 
 interpreted by Lange: "Since the Mosaic 
 law was a law of works in form only, and not 
 in spirit (see vii. 7), the question presup- 
 poses that there is no such law of works: 
 
 the spirit of the law is the law of faith." 
 This refined distinction between the form and 
 spirit of the law of Moses is out of place. 
 The article before epymv shows that the 
 clause must be completed thus — om tov 
 vofinv tS>v fpymv; Instead of presupposing 
 that there is no such law of works, the ques- 
 tion in fact presupposes that " the (definite) 
 law of works " is well-known. Accordingly 
 "a law of faith" does not mean the law of 
 Moses recognised in its spirit as being a law 
 of faith (Lange) : but the Gospel is called " a 
 law of faith," because, like the Mosaic law, it 
 declares the ivil/ of God, only whut it demands 
 is faith, for " this is the work of God, that ye 
 believe on Him 'whom he hath sent " (Joh. vi. 
 29; compare i Joh. iii. 23). 
 
 28. Therefore ive conclude.'] Forwedeem 
 (Wiclif). The reading yap, now confirmed 
 by the Sinaitic Codex, is necessary to the 
 sense. What the context requires is a confir- 
 mation of the statement in •u. 27, that boasting 
 IS excluded by a law of faith. That con- 
 firmation St. Paul brings from the general 
 principle already established by the whole 
 previous discussion that "man is justifed by 
 
 faith apart from works of law:" com- 
 pare the words "apart from law," in v. 
 21. That ^^ man is justifed by faith," proves 
 that faith is necessary to the Jew : that man 
 is justified without or apart from "works of 
 law," proves that "the 'works of the law" 
 are not required of the Gentile. Thus the 
 boasting of the Jew is wholly excluded : for 
 not only is the law (in which he had made 
 his boast) insufficient without faith, but faith 
 is sufficient without the law : compare note 
 on "v. 30, and Gal. ii. 14-16. 
 
 On the word "-man," Chrysostom's com- 
 ment is excellent. " He says not ' Jew,' nor 
 ' he that is under the law ;' but having en- 
 larged the area of his argument, and opened 
 the doors of salvation to the world, he says 
 ' man,' using the name common to the 
 nature.'' 
 
 29. Is he the God of the Jews only ?] 
 The exa£t rendering would be " Or is God 
 of Jews only ?" but in an English Version it 
 is better to repeat the word " God :" "Or is 
 God (a God) of Jews only? Not of 
 Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also." 
 A question which confirms the statement of 
 V. 28, by alleging as the necessary alternative 
 what is manifestly impossible. Compare on 
 this use of 7, notes on vi. 3 ; vii. i ; ix. 21 ; 
 xi. 2. 
 
 Man must be justified by faith without 
 
V. 3°— 3I-] 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 95 
 
 30 Seeing it Is one God, which 
 shall justify the circumcision by faith, 
 and uncircumcision through faith. 
 
 31 Do we then make void the 
 law through faith ? God forbid : 
 yea, we establish the law. 
 
 works of law, or else the justification which 
 God has provided depends on a condition, 
 which none can fulfil but they which are 
 under the law. God would thus shew that 
 He cared for none but Jews, and belonged 
 to them only. 
 
 30. Seeing it is one God.'] "If so be that 
 God is one." The proof that God is God 
 of Gentiles as well as of Jews, lies in the first 
 fundamental article of the Jews' religion, that 
 Jehovah is God alone, even the God of all 
 the kingdoms of the earth. See 2 Ki. xix. 
 15 ; Isaiah xliv. 6; Deut. vi. 4; i Cor. viii. 
 4-6 ; I Tim. ii. 4-6. The difference between 
 fTveinep {^''seeing that"^ and etTrep ("if so be 
 that") affects the rhetorical form only, and 
 not the logical cogency of the argument. 
 
 With eiTTfp St. Paul does not himself 
 assert the absolute certainty of the statement 
 "God is one," but knowing it to be in fact 
 as absolutely certain for his readers as for 
 himself, puts it before them to decide. Com- 
 pare 2 Thess. i. 6. 
 
 luhich shall justify the circumcision by faith, 
 and uncircumcision through faith.] "Who 
 will justify circumcision," &c. The 
 truth that "God is one," having been al- 
 leged to prove that He is God of Gentiles 
 as well as of Jews, St. Paul now appends to 
 it, as a corollary, the unity of His plan of 
 justification for all. This is the connexion : 
 *' Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one ; 
 and so His plan of justification by faith will 
 include both Jew and Gentile." 
 
 " It is not to be supposed," says Origen, 
 "that St. Paul has varied his use of pre- 
 positions at random." His use of the article 
 is equally free from caprice, and when we 
 fail to discern the meaning of some nice dis- 
 tinction in the Apostle's choice of words, it 
 is more reasonable to impute the want of 
 discrimination to ourselves than to him. 
 
 The usual distinction between e^ and Sm 
 is, that e^ indicates the origin, source, or 
 root, i. e. the primary cause : bia, the inter- 
 vening, instrumental, and so the subsidiary 
 cause, means, or condition. 
 
 Here, accordingly, Ik irla-Tfas is used of 
 the Jew, to indicate that whatever may be 
 his present condition and privilege, the real 
 source and root of justification (so far as 
 it depends on himself) must be faith. And 
 faith being something new which the Jew 
 has not yet got, nicms is used without the 
 article. 
 
 In regard to the Gentile, the point in dis- 
 pute was not whether his justification had 
 its origin in faith, but whether his faith in 
 
 Christ was sufficient to justifj^ him without 
 circumcision and the law. The two opposite 
 views of this question might be thus ex- 
 pressed : 
 
 (i) StKaiovrat eK TrioTews Sta vofiov Koi 
 Treptro/Li?]?. 
 
 (2) diKaiovrai (k TriWea)? kol 8ia Trjs 
 Tf iare cos X^P' ^ ^ofiov. 
 
 The second view, which is St. Paul's, means 
 that in the justification of the Gentile, the 
 faith which he already has, supplies the place 
 of all subsidiary means, such as circumcision 
 and the law. Compare note on v. 28. 
 
 31. Do ive then make void the la^w through 
 faith ?] " Law" (without the article), means 
 neither the O. T. Scriptures (see on v. 19), 
 which St. Paul does not assume to establish 
 by his doctrine, but conversely, his doctrine 
 by the Scriptures ; nor " the law of Moses," 
 as the basis of the Jewish Dispensation, nor 
 any particular law, but that which is common 
 to all law, its essential character and principle. 
 Compare Delitzsch on Hebr. viii. 6 and 
 note N. 
 
 In this sense St. Paul has said that "the 
 righteousness of God has been mani- 
 fested apart from law" {y. 21), and that 
 "man is justified by faith apart from 
 works of law" {y. 28). To the Jew who 
 knew no " law " but " the law " of Moses, and 
 valued that as the method of attaining to 
 righteousness, such statements must seem to 
 abolish the whole principle of law, and make 
 it void. 
 
 St. Paul in his usual manner anticipates 
 the objection, by putting to himself the ques- 
 tion which might be urged against him : 
 "Do we then make law of none effect 
 through faith?" i.e. through "the/fl/VA" 
 which we have mentioned above as the sole 
 condition of justification. 
 
 For the sense of Karapyovfxfv, see iii. 3 ; iv. 
 14. St. Paul did undoubtedly make of none 
 effect the Jewish idea of " tlis law" as the 
 means of attaining to righteousness, and as 
 necessary for the Gentile (compare Gal. ii. 
 16-19); but he shrinks from the thought 
 (|i)7 yevoiTo, see iii. 4, 6) of making "law" in 
 its true character of none effect. 
 
 Tea, lue establish the law] "Nay, ive esta- 
 blish law ;" we set it up, and make it stand 
 firm by putting it upon its proper base. Viewed 
 as a revelation of the eternal principles of 
 morality, or in other words, of the holy will 
 of God, " law," so far from being made void, 
 is for the first time fully vindicated, and 
 established by the Gospel of " righteousness 
 by faith." 
 
96 
 
 ROMANS. III. 
 
 The two sides, negative and positive, of fication, for this had always been so ; it had 
 
 the Apostle's answer are developed in his no place in Abraham's justification by faith, 
 
 subsequent argument. As to the former, he The positive side, the establishment and 
 
 proceeds at once to show in c. iv., that law vindication of law in its true character, is 
 
 is not made void by its exclusion from justi- discussed at large in c. vil. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on vv. g, 25. 
 
 9. I. Tlovv; Trpoexofj.(fla; ov TrdiTois' irpori- 
 Tiam'ifieda yap. This is the received text, 
 supported by a great preponderance of the 
 best authorities, and accepted by all modern 
 critics. Its interpretation depends upon the 
 meaning of irpoexop-eda. 
 
 (a) npoexopfSa, Passive. 
 
 This explanation is given by a Scholiast 
 (possibly Photius) in QEcumenius. The as- 
 sertion of the great advantage of the Jew, 
 leads the Gentile to exclaim, " What then ? 
 Are we forestalled, and surpassed ? T]p,f'is 
 7rpoe\rj(f)6r]fj.ei', TTpoe)(6p,(da ; To which St. 
 Paul replies, " No, in no wise. If they have not 
 done right, they are responsible just as you 
 are, if you have not done right. But if both 
 do right, the salvation is equal, so that you are 
 not surpassed (jTpoexfa-de). 
 
 This sense of Trpoe'xeo-^at is found in Plu- 
 tarch. But the decisive objection to this, 
 and all other explanations which ascribe the 
 question to a Gentile, is that there is nothing 
 in the context to justify the transition to a 
 Gentile speaker. (Fritzsche, Meyer.) 
 
 (b) irpoexop^eda, Middle. 
 
 (i) " Do we (I, Paul, and other Jews) 
 put forward anything as a defence or ex- 
 cuse ?" 
 
 There is force in Philippi's objection that 
 the Verb in this sense must have its object 
 expressed — Trpoexop-fSd n; Herodot. II. 42, 
 7rpoe';^e(r^ai' re rfjv Ke(paXr]v dnoTapovra tov 
 KpLov, is no exception: but Meyer disre- 
 gards this objection, and with Fritzsche, 
 Ewald, Th. Schott, Morison, adopts the ex- 
 planation, which agrees well with the context, 
 and preserves the usual meaning oiTrpoexea-Oai. 
 
 (2) " Do we put ourselves forward ?" i.e., 
 as better than those over whom God's judg- 
 ment impends (Hofrnann), or, as better than 
 the Gentiles. 
 
 Objection. No example has been found of 
 npoex^rdai in this sense. 
 
 (3) " Are we better than they ?" 
 
 This is the interpretation adopted in the 
 English Versions from Wiclif to A. V., and 
 is the simplest and best. It is supported by 
 the Vulgate : " Quid ergo ? Praecellimus eos ? 
 and by Euthymius (about A.D. 1100), quoted 
 by Reiche in his ' Critical Comment. :' — 
 *Ap« ntp ucrov fx^P'fv napa rovs "'EWrivas ; 
 
 In this case the Middle Voice has its sub- 
 jective force : " Are we in our own opinion 
 better ? Do we think ourselves better ?" 
 
 II. Tl uiv npoexopeda; ov TTcivras. 
 
 The received text, with this punctuation 
 throwing the two questions into one, is thus 
 explained in OEcumenius : " What advantage, 
 then, have we (Jews), and what did we gain by 
 being preferred before the uncircumcised ? " 
 But in this case the answer must have been 
 in a different form, answering to ri ; e. g. 
 ovbev not ov TrdvTas. 
 
 III. Ti ovv irpoKUTexofiev n€pi(T(r6v ; irporjria- 
 adp-fda, K.T.X. 
 
 This reading, in which ov iravrats is wholly 
 omitted, is capable of two interpretations : 
 
 (i.) " What advantage, then, do we (Jews) 
 retain ? " 
 
 So the Syriac (Schaaf), "Quid ergo ob- 
 tinemus excellentiae ?" evidently referring to 
 1;. I : " What advantage, then, hath the Jew ?" 
 and agreeing in the general sense with I. b. 3. 
 
 (ii.) " What advantage do we (Christians) 
 hold ? " 
 
 This explanation is adopted apparently by 
 Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret : by 
 Theodorus in Cramer's Catena (" After the 
 reproof of our kinsmen, i.e. the Jews, we 
 will speak of the greatness of our advan- 
 tages,") and still more explicitly by Seve- 
 rianus [or Severus of Antioch {^Reichey], in 
 CEcumenius and in Cramer's Cat. ti exop.ev 
 fjpels eic TTJs X'^P'^^o^ Trepiacrov icai e'^atperdi/; 
 rfjv TvioTiv Trjy 8id 'irjcrou Xpiarov dtKaiocrvvrjs 
 ovaav aTrepya(TTCKT]v. 
 
 But the reading, though found in D G can 
 only be regarded as an ancient gloss, adopted 
 into the text on account of the ambiguity and 
 difficulty of the received reading. 
 
 25. "J propitiation:" not the Abstract Noun 
 lXaap.6s (i John ii. 2 ; iv. 10), but ikacrrripiov, 
 " propitiatory," originally a neuter adjective, 
 but constantly used in Biblical Greek as a 
 substantive in the definite concrete sense 
 " place or instrument of propitiation ;" com- 
 pare aKpoaTTjpLov, diKacTTTjpiov, dvfXiaTT^pLOV, 
 
 Ova-iaa-TTjpiov. Once in N. T. (Heb. ix. 5), 
 and about twenty-five times in LXX,it means 
 the lid of gold above the Ark, called n^S3 
 " mercy-seat," or '' propitiatory." It first 
 occurs in Ex. XXV. 17, /cat noLrjcrei-s iXaa-TTjpiou 
 in'idfp.a ;^piio-tow KaOapov, " and thou shall 
 make a propitiatory, a lid of pure gold," the 
 
ROMANS. III. 
 
 97 
 
 construction being the same as in Ex. xxvi. 
 I, 7. This apposition of Ikaa-Triptov and 
 iniOefia is the more natural, because on this 
 first occurrence of ri"lS3 the translators might 
 wish to show that they had both meanings 
 under their consideration. 
 
 In Ezek. xliii. 14, 17, 20, ro iXao-rjjptoi/ is 
 used by the LXX for the ledge or raised base 
 of the altar, ''the settle" (A. V.), which like 
 the capporeth was to be sprinkled with the 
 blood ; and in Amos ix. i, for "ihsS, " the 
 lintel," mistaken apparently for ri^S3. Philo 
 ('Vita Mos.,' Lib. III. c. viii., eTr/^e/xa to 
 Trpocayopevofievov IXacrrr^ptof) recognises iXa- 
 (TTTjpiov as the technical and constant name of 
 the lid of the Ark. 
 
 Upon this Biblical usage is founded the 
 ancient interpretation. 
 
 Origen says that the Apostle here " refers 
 the propitiatory described in Exodus to none 
 but the Lord our Saviour." So on the 
 Gospel of St. John, torn, i, c. 38, he says 
 that " the golden propitiatory resting on the 
 two Cherubim in the Holy of Holies was a 
 sort of shadow of this propitiatory." He also 
 quotes Lev. iv. 16, koI daolcrei 6 lepevs 6 
 Xpiaros dno tov aifiaros rov fiocrxov k.t.X. 
 
 Chrysostom (who is misunderstood by 
 Meyer) gives the same interpretation. After 
 showing that " his o^vn blood " stands in con- 
 trast to the legal sacrifices, he explains dnoXi- 
 Tp<oaLs, and then goes on : " And for this 
 very reason he calls Him IXaaTrjpiov, showing 
 that if the type had so much power, much 
 more will the reality exhibit the same." 
 
 Theodoret. See the striking passage quoted 
 in the footnote on the words " through faith 
 in his blood" 
 
 Cyril, in Cramer's Catena : " For He has 
 been set as a propitiatory through faith in 
 His blood; for since He has made His own 
 blood an exchange for the life of all, He has 
 saved the world, and made the God and 
 Father in heaven propitious and favourable 
 to us." 
 
 Theofihjilact, and Gennadius in CEcumenius, 
 give the same interpretation. 
 
 The Syriac has the same word here, and 
 in Ex. XXV. 17, a word, however, which it 
 uses also in the sense of " atonement." 
 
 The Latin varies between " propitiatorium," 
 *' propitiatorem," and " propitiationem." 
 
 Luther gives " Gnaden-Stuhl," and Tyndak, 
 " a seate of mercy." 
 
 This interpretation has been supported 
 with abundant learning, by a host of com- 
 mentators. 
 
 The following objections are urged against 
 it by Meyer and others. 
 
 (i) The Article would be required. 
 
 This is a mistake , to IXaaTTjpiov would de- 
 signate (as in Heb. ix. 5) the luell-knoivn 
 propitiatory itself, rather than an antitype or 
 realized idea of it, now mentioned for the 
 first time. 
 
 (2) This name in its application to Christ 
 would come in here quite abruptly, without 
 anything in the context to prepare for it. 
 
 If this objection were valid against the 
 most familiar sense of iXaorjjpioi', it would 
 apply with still greater force to all the other 
 less usual meanings which have been ascribed 
 to the word. 
 
 But in fact the mention of " redemption," 
 in -v. 24, has introduced the general idea of 
 atonement, and the reference in -y. 21 to the 
 testimony of the law, prepares the way for an 
 allusion to its typical atonements, of which 
 the very centre and core was " the mercy 
 seat ;" by it the law gave its most solemn and 
 significant testimony to that righteousness of 
 God which was not yet made manifest. See 
 Hebr. ix. i-io. 
 
 (3) The objection that irpoiBeTo, "set 
 forth," would be inappropriate because the 
 
 Ark of the Covenant, in the Holy of Holies, 
 was hidden from the people, is not merely 
 refuted by Heb. ix. 8-10, but the public 
 setting forth of the Antitype becomes, in the 
 light of that passage, an argument in favour 
 of an allusion to the hidden Type. 
 
 (4) " If Christ were really thought of as 
 Capporeth, the following ets evbu^iv Trjs 
 BiKMoarvvrji avTov would be inappropriate, 
 since the capporeth must have appeared 
 rather as the evdfi^is of the Divine grace. 
 Compare Heb. iv. i6." 
 
 This objection has no other foundation 
 than the narrow and erroneous interpretation 
 of "the righteousness of God," as if it were 
 limited in this passage to " the judicial, more 
 precisely the punitive justice, which must 
 find its holy satisfaction, and received that 
 satisfaction in the propitiatory oiTering of 
 Christ." (Meyer.) But " the righteousness 
 of God,'' rightly understood, is in fact one 
 with His mercy. 
 
 (5) The conception of Christ as the anti- 
 type of the mercy seat, is found nowhere else 
 in the whole N. T. 
 
 This is true ; but it does not therefore 
 follow that this conception is foreign to the 
 Apostle's mode of viewing the atoning work 
 of Christ. There are other examples of 
 O. T. ideas and figures, applied once and once 
 only to Christ, as " the Rock " (1 Cor. x. 4), 
 ''the Serpent" (John iii. 14); and conversely 
 we find a N. T. idea applied once only to 
 O. T. history in i Cor. x. 2, " baptized unto 
 Moses." (Compare the Additional Note on 
 ix. 5, Obj". (i). 
 
 II. There is no proof that the word was 
 
98 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 [V. I. 
 
 ever used by any writer as a Substanti've, for 
 " a propitiatory ofi'ering," or " a propitiation," 
 or in any other than the well-established 
 Biblical sense. The passages alleged in favour 
 of " a propitiatory sacritice," prove only that 
 the Adjective was joined with such Substan- 
 tives as BilvaTos, fiuri^a, dmdqfia : see 4 Macc. 
 xvii. 22 ; Joseph. Antiq. xvi, c. 7 ; Dio ChrySk 
 Orat. xi. i. 
 
 The analogy of to a-corripiov (more fre- 
 quently, 17 dvaUi Tov <T03Tr]piov), " the peace- 
 ojfering" is in favour of the sense supported by 
 Biblical usage, not of that for which no usage 
 can be found. 
 
 Moreover, if iXaa-rrjpiov meant a sacrifice, 
 the emphatic aurov ("in his own blood") 
 would be unmeaning ; it is needless to say 
 that a sacrifice is propitiatory in its own 
 blood. See footnote on the words " through 
 faith in his blood." 
 
 III. The abstract idea of " propitiation " is 
 inappropriate after Trpoidero, which points to a 
 delinite public appearance. (Meyer.) 
 
 IV. "Propitiator," found in some Latin 
 Codd. (Origen), is adopted by Aquinas, 
 Melanchthon, Estius, Van Hengel, and ren- 
 dered by Wiclif "forgiver," by Cranmer, 
 " obtainer of mercy." 
 
 V. Morison takes the word as simply an 
 Adjective, " propitiatory," in which case also 
 it must be masculine. 
 
 This view, therefore, as well as IV., is open 
 to Meyer's objection, that there is no example 
 of IXaoTTipios used with reference to persons. 
 
 If it be urged that the simple adjective 
 is the more comprehensive rendering, em- 
 bracing all that is essential in the rest, and 
 designating Christ as the antitype of all 
 symbols of propitiation (Schaaf on Morison), 
 we must still maintain that there is a special 
 
 and predominant allusion to the mercy seat, 
 not to the sacrifice. 
 
 On the whole we conclude that the render- 
 ing "a propitiatory," meaning "a mercy 
 seat," is required by the following considera- 
 tions: (i) the absence of any other adequate 
 explanation of the emphatic position of cwtdv 
 in eV r<5 avrov aljxaTt : see note on those 
 words : (2) the well-known Biblical sense 
 of iXaaTrjpiov : (3) the consent of the Greek 
 Fathers, including Chrysostom; (4) the pro- 
 priety of the idea " in accordance with which 
 Christ the bearer of the Divine glory and 
 grace, sprinkled with His own sacrificial 
 blood, would be regarded as the antitype of 
 the Kapporeth." (Meyer.) 
 
 The force of this last argument is much 
 enhanced when we remember the twofold 
 significance of " the propitiatory." 
 
 (i) It was the central point of the Divine 
 Presence and Manifestation, the place of 
 meeting and communion, between God and 
 the representative of His people ; Ex. xxv. 
 22 ; Lev. xvi. 2. So in Christ the full mani- 
 festation of God to man is made, and on 
 Him rests " the glory of the Lord," the true 
 Shekinah, now revealed by the rending of the 
 vail. 
 
 (2) Among all instruments and symbols 
 of atonement, this alone was called " the 
 propitiatory" as being the most eminent. As 
 on it was made a general atonement for 
 the children of Israel for all their sins 
 once a year (Lev. xvi. 11-14, 15, 30); so 
 in Christ Jehovah expiates and takes away 
 the sins of the world, thereby declaring 
 Himself the Holy One, who will have 
 His people also to be holy (compare Bahr, 
 'Symbolik des Mos. Cultus,' I. 387 ff. and 
 Kurtz, 'Sacrificial Worship of the O. T.' 
 p. 42). 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 I AlrahatrCs faith was imputed to him for 
 righteousness, 10 before he was circumcised. 
 13 By faith only he and his seed received the 
 promise, 16 Abraham is the father of all 
 
 that believe. 24 Our faith also shall be im- 
 puted to us for righteousness. 
 
 WHAT shall we say then that 
 Abraham our father, as per- 
 taining to the flesh, hath found ? 
 
 Justification by Faith independent 
 OF Works, of Circumcision, and of 
 THE Law. 
 
 In iii. 27-31, St. Paul has rapidly strung 
 together some of the consequences that 
 follow from the great doctrine set forth 
 in "vv. 21-26, especially those consequences 
 which directly affect the position of Jew and 
 Gentile under the new law of faith. These 
 
 summary statements of the closing verses of 
 c. iii., are taken up again and fully discussed 
 in subsequent parts of the Epistle. 
 
 The first point is the exclusion of the 
 glorying of the Jew (iii. 27, 28), and the 
 second, closely connected with it,is the equality 
 in God's sight of Jew and Gentile, circum- 
 cision and uncircumcision {w. 29, 30). 
 These two points in like order and connexion 
 form the subject of c. iv. 
 
V. 
 
 -31 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 99 
 
 2 For if Abraham were justified 3 For what saith the scripture ? 
 by works, he hath whereof to glory j Abraham believed God, and it was 
 but not before God. counted unto him for righteousness. 
 
 1-8. Justification by Faith wjthout 
 Works foreshown in the Example 
 OF Abraham, and in the Words of 
 David. 
 
 1. What shall <iue say then that Abraham our 
 father^ as pertaining to the fleshy hath found ?'\ 
 The phrase "What then shall we say," &c. 
 introduces an inference from the preceding 
 passage (iii. 27-31), not from its last words 
 especially : compare vi. i ; vii. 7 ; viii. 3 1 ; 
 ix. 14, 30 (Van Hengel). If glorying is ex- 
 cluded, and there is no distinction between 
 Jew and Gentile, what then shall we say of 
 the case of Abraham ? 
 
 The record of Abraham's faith in Gen. 
 XV. 6, supplies an instance of righteousness 
 "apart from law" and yet '■'' ^witnessed by the 
 Law" (iii. 21). In reasoning with Jews con- 
 cerning the " righteousness of faith," St. Paul 
 could not possibly pass over the example of 
 Abraham's justification (Gen. xv. 6), which was 
 a standard theme of discussion in the Jewish 
 schools. Bp. Lightfoot (' Galatians,' p. 154), 
 in an interesting Essay on " The faith of Abra- 
 ham," quotes, among other striking passages 
 collected by Gfrorer, one from the Mechilta on 
 Ex. xiv. 3 1 : — " Abraham our father inherited 
 this world and the world to come solely by 
 the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the 
 Lord; for it is said. And he belie'ved in the 
 Lord, and he counted it to him for righteous- 
 ness.'^ 
 
 On the opinion that St. James (ii. 14-26), 
 refers to St. Paul's doctrine, or to some 
 prevalent perversion of it, see the Introduc- 
 tion to St. James in this Commentary, and 
 Theile,' Comment, in Ep. Jacobi,'pp. 145-166. 
 
 as pertaining to the flesh^ According to 
 the flesh. St. Paul puts the question as pro- 
 ceeding from a Jew, and Abraham is there- 
 fore called " our father,'^ or, as in many 
 authorities, "our forefather." "He calls 
 him a father according to the flesh, eject- 
 ing them (the Jews) from true kinship with 
 him, and preparing the way for the kinship 
 of the Gentiles" (Chrysostom) : "For by 
 faith and by promise we that believe are 
 Abraham's children " (Photius). 
 
 Theodoret adopts the other reading — 
 "What shall we say that Abraham our 
 father hath found according to the flesh ?" 
 and thus interprets it: " What righteousness 
 of Abraham's, wrought by works before he 
 believed God, did we ever hear of?" For 
 the righteousness that is in works, lie calls 
 *' according to the flesh-" 
 
 Bp. Bull, adopting this connexion, explains 
 Kara crdpKa as meaning " by his natural 
 powers without the grace of God :" so 
 Grotius and Hammond. Pelagius, Estius, 
 and others have referred it to circum- 
 cision, as received by Abraham first : but 
 circumcision is not treated of until -y. 9. 
 
 The preponderance of authority is in favour 
 of that order of the Greek words which 
 compels us to adopt the connexion: "What 
 then shall we say that Abraham our 
 forefather according to the flesh hath 
 found?" 
 
 The general question "What then is the 
 advantage of the Jew?" (iii. i) is thus 
 made to depend for decision on the case of 
 the great Patriarch, from whom all blessing 
 and privilege was derived : " W hat advantage 
 has he gained for himself and for us his 
 descendants ?" 
 
 On the reading see note at end of chapter. 
 
 2. This argument (as well as the question 
 in "z;. I, which it is meant to support,) is put 
 from the Jewish point of view, as an objec- 
 tion to the statements in iii. 27-30, which 
 seem to deny all advantage to the Jew, and 
 to be inconsistent with the received tenet 
 that Abraham was justified by works (i Mace. 
 ii. 51, 52 ; Sirach xliv. 20; Ja. ii. 20). 
 
 " Glorying, you say, is excluded. What 
 then shall we say of Abraham ? For if, as 
 we Jews hold, Abraham was justified by 
 works, he hath whereof to glory." 
 
 In the latter part of the verse — 'AXX' ov 
 TTpos TOP Qeov — St. Paul from his own point 
 of view more closely defines the ambiguous 
 term " glorying," and at the same time 
 directly denies the conclusion : " But Abra- 
 ham has not whereof to glory before God." 
 This denial of the conclusion, being proved 
 from Scripture, in -w. 3-5, shows that the 
 antecedent supposition also is false, and that 
 Abraham was not justified before God by 
 works : a result which is further confirmed 
 in 'w. 6-8, by its accordance with the testi- 
 mony of David. 
 
 The question of 1;. i, "What then shall 
 we say that Abraham our forefather 
 according to the flesh hath found?" is 
 thus in part answered : he has found, not any 
 cause of glorying in his own merits, but " the 
 blessedness of the man unto luhom God im- 
 puteth righteousness 'without ivorks." 
 
 The question, what has Abraham found, 
 receives a further answer in the discussion 
 concerning circumcision, which follo^vs in 
 'w. 9-12. 
 
 G 2 
 
TOO 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 [v. 4—6. 
 
 4 Now to him that worketh is but believeth on him that justiheth 
 the reward not reckoned of grace, the ungodly, his faith is counted for 
 but of debt. righteousness. 
 
 5 But to him that worketh not, 6 Even as David also describeth 
 
 Among the advantages of this interpreta- 
 tion, are the following : 
 
 (i) It makes the Apostle's argument per- 
 fectly clear and simple. 
 
 (2) It does not depend on the particular 
 sense assigned to Kara a-dpKa, a phrase on 
 which other interpretations put a strained 
 dogmatic import, which finds no support in 
 the context. 
 
 (3) It avoids the great faults of the 
 Patristic interpretation, which assigns to 
 "justified" and "glorying" meanings quite 
 inconsistent with St. Paul's usage; see Bp. 
 Bull, in Note at end of chapter. 
 
 3. Proof from Scripture that Abraham has 
 not anything whereof to boast before God. 
 The emphasis of the quotation lies on the 
 word " believed" which is brought into the 
 first place in the sentence, and " rendered 
 almost antithetical by a trifling change of 8e 
 for Kai" (Winer): faith, not works, was 
 counted unto Abraham for righteousness, be- 
 cause when old and childless he believed 
 God's promise that his seed should be as the 
 stars in multitude : see note on Gen. xv. 6. 
 The import of the promf-e, and the nature of 
 Abraham's faith are explained by St. Paul, 
 in w. 17-22. 
 
 it <ivas counted unto bim.'] In w. 3-1 1, the 
 A.V. employs three different words " count" 
 " reckon," ^^ impute," to render the same Greek 
 word Xoyl^ofxai, and thus obscures the clear- 
 ness and force of the argument. 
 
 ^[Impute" agrees closely with the Hebrew 
 n^n, which in Kal means not "to number," 
 but^"to think, regard, or consider." Com- 
 pare Gen. xxxviii. 15;! Sam. i. 1 3 (" and Eli 
 took her for a drunken ivoman ") ; 2 Sam. xix. 
 19; Ps. xxxii. 2. But as '■'■impute" has be- 
 come a technical term in Theology, associated 
 with a particular theory of Justification, it is 
 better to use the word "■ cowit" throughout 
 the passage. 
 
 for righteousness. 1 Abraham's faith was 
 counted to him as righteousness, not merely 
 as leading to righteousness ; he was both re- 
 garded and treated as being righteous, and 
 that because faith in God is in reality man's 
 only true righteousness. See note on iii. 22. 
 
 4, 5. Explanation of the language used 
 concerning Abraham in Gen. xv. 6, showing 
 that it involves the principle of justification 
 by faith without works. 
 
 N01V to him that ivorketh.'] In this 
 illustration, taken from common life, the 
 
 words have their ordinary meaning. Such 
 interpretations as, "worketh righteousness" 
 (Theodoret) "worketh that which is good" 
 (Fritzsche), are out of place; and even Luther's 
 " dealeth in works," belongs to the application 
 rather than to the illustration itself There 
 is nothing to be supplied, but the Verb ipya- 
 (eadai is used absolutely of " working for 
 hire," as in Acts xviii. 3 ; i Cor. ix. 6 ; 
 2 Thess. iii. 12. This meaning, adopted by 
 Origen, is put beyond doubt by the following 
 words, '■'■his reward" (6 fiiaOus), i.e. "the 
 hire" corresponding to his work. 
 
 is the reavard not reckoned of grace, but of 
 debt.'] St. Paul assumes that the language of 
 Gen. XV. 6 implies a gratuitous imputation, 
 and on that assumption argues that Abra- 
 ham's justification was not like the case of 
 one who works for his reward, and has it 
 counted to him as strictly due. 
 
 But where is this idea of gratuitous impu- 
 tation to be found (i) in the word (Xoyladr) 
 itself; (2) in els diKaioavvrjv : (3) or in 
 iTTiCTTCvcrev ? 
 
 Against (i) it is enough to observe that 
 Xoyi^oji-ai is used indifferently of " setting to a 
 man's account " what is or is not his due ; 
 e.g. the imputation of sin {jv. 8) as well as 
 of righteousness. 
 
 The true explanation lies in (2) and (3) 
 combined, i. e. in the fact that faith, which 
 was counted for righteousyiess, involves in its 
 very essence the renunciation of all merit. 
 It could therefore be counted for righteous- 
 ness only by an act of God's free grace. 
 
 5. But to him that ^vorketh not.] St. Paul 
 here begins as if he meant to give an illustra- 
 tion parallel and opposite to that contained 
 in 1;. 4 : " to him that worketh not whatever 
 is reckoned, must be reckoned not of debt 
 but of grace." But in the clause " hut 
 believeth," 8cc., the general principle runs into 
 the application, and is expressed in terms 
 appropriate to the case of justification. 
 
 but believeth on him that justifieth the un- 
 godly^ The strong term t6v dae^rj " the 
 ungodly man," has been thought to refer to 
 Abraham as having been formerly an idolater. 
 (Dollinger, ' First Age of The Church,' i. 
 273, note.) 
 
 But the Singular, tov da-f^rj, has the ordi- 
 nary generic sense, describing not the indi- 
 vidual Abraham, but the class to which 
 Abraham and all who are justified by faith 
 belong. 
 
V. 7-8.] 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 lOI 
 
 the blessedness of the man, unto 
 whom God imputeth righteousness 
 without works, 
 
 7 Sayings Blessed are they whose 
 
 iniquities are forgiven, and whose 
 sins are covered. 
 
 8 Blessed is the man to whom 
 the Lord will not impute sin. 
 
 The word dcre^rjs, which does not occur in 
 tlie Gospels or the Acts, is frequent in the 
 LXX, and is not limited to its strict etymo- 
 logical sense, " one ivho does tiot ivorship the 
 true God" but is also used in the general sense, 
 " irreligious, ungodly, wicked," being quite as 
 common as aSiicos or avoyios, and far more 
 common than cijuaprcoXoy. 
 
 The force of the word is admirably ex- 
 plained by Beveridge, Sermon xc, as describ- 
 ing " whatever is offensive to God's person, 
 contrary to His nature, injurious to His 
 name, or unbecoming His honour and majesty 
 in the world." 
 
 See Suicer's Thesaurus, and Origen on 
 •u. 6 in Cramer. 
 
 The strong word is chosen, as in v. 6, 
 to heighten the contrast between the un- 
 worthiness of man, and the mercy of God in 
 justifying him. Compare the Epistle to 
 Diognetus, c. ix. " For what else could cover 
 our sins but His righteousness? In whom 
 was it possible for us, the wicked and un- 
 godly (roi/j avoixovi Kai aaelif'ts), to be justified, 
 except only in the Son of God ?" 
 
 " With the growth in goodness grows 
 the sense of sin. One law fulfilled shows a 
 thousand neglected. Moral advancement, as 
 a natural consequence, destroys the sense of 
 merit, and produces that of sin." (Moztley, 
 'Essays,' i. 326). 
 
 his faith is counted for righteousness^ We 
 see here the nature of the faith that is counted 
 for righteousness ; it is the faith of one who 
 regards himself as " ungodly^" and unable to 
 justify himself by his own works, but on the 
 other hand has full trust in Gods mercy to 
 justify him, unworthy as he is. 
 
 This is the quality of true faith on its 
 human or subjective side. " The believer 
 has nothing more to expect than what God 
 bestows on the ungodly whom He justifies; 
 and nothing more to offer to God than what 
 the ungodly who longs to be justified has to 
 bring with him, namely, faith." (Hofrnann.) 
 
 6-8. The language of Scripture concerning 
 Abraham's justification as above interpreted 
 {yv. 3-5), corresponds with that of the 32nd 
 Psalm, in which David also pronounces the 
 blessing of the man to whom God imputeth 
 righteousness without works. This then is 
 not a second example from the O. T. of God's 
 method of justification, but a statement con- 
 firming the Apostle's interpretation of the 
 case of Abraham, which he resumes in v. 9. 
 
 describeth the blessedness^ "telleth the 
 .blessing." The jxaKapia-^us (y. 9 and Gal. iv. 
 15) means not " blessedness" but "a declaring 
 blessed," " a felicitation ;" it is the proper 
 word to apply to God, and to the most God- 
 like among men, and to all that is highest, 
 happiest, and best (see Aristotle, ' Nic Eth.,' 
 I., xii. 4; 'Rhet' I., ix. 34). 
 
 imputeth righteousness. "] When God counts 
 a man's faith to him for righteousness, this is 
 more briefly expressed by saying that God 
 counts righteousness to him, that He counts 
 him righteous, or, in one word, justifies him. 
 The doctrine of " imputed righteousness," 
 founded partly upon this passage, assumes 
 sometimes such strange forms that it will 
 be useful to quote here the words of one 
 of its most learned and moderate advocates. 
 " Finding it distinctly stated not only that 
 sinners are justified hy faith, but that right- 
 eousness 'without 'works is imputed to them, 
 their faith being counted for righteousness, I 
 have not hesitated to state that believers are 
 justified hy imputed, not by iw^^r^w?, righteous- 
 ness. That this is Christ's righteousness in 
 the sense that it is the fruit and purchase of 
 His work in the flesh, cannot be doubted ; but 
 that it is His in the more strict and exact 
 sense, in which, as the Archbishop (Tillotson) 
 truly says, it appears in the statements of 
 some supporters of the doctrine, I have 
 nowhere asserted, but have been and am 
 still content with the sober statement of 
 Hooker, (' Discourse of Justification,' § 6.) 
 " Christ hath merited righteousness for as 
 many as are found in Him " (Bp. O'Brien, 
 ' Nature of Faith,' p. 352, note N). 
 
 without tvorks.'] As the blessedness of 
 which David speaks rests solely on the fact 
 that sin is forgiven, covered, not imputed, 
 there is no room to think of works in such a 
 case. This non-imputation of sin, St. Paul 
 calls an imputation of righteousness (y. 6), 
 and uses this negative aspect of justification 
 as showing most clearly that it is altogether 
 independent of works, and so confirming his 
 argument concerning the justification of 
 Abraham. 
 
 7, 8. Saying, Blessed are they.'] The Greek, 
 as well as the Hebrew, may be better ren- 
 dered here, and in 1;. 8, as an exclamation : 
 "Happy they," &c., "Happy the man," 
 &c. For the general meaning of these verses, 
 see notes on Ps. xxxii. i, 2. 
 
102 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 [v. 9— ir. 
 
 9 Cometh this blessedness then 
 upon the circumcision only^ or upon 
 the uncircumcision also ? for we say 
 that faith was reckoned to Abraham 
 for righteousness. 
 
 10 How was it then reckoned ? 
 when he was in circumcision, or in 
 
 uncircumcision } Not in circumci- 
 sion, but in uncircumcision. 
 
 II And he received the sign of 
 circumcision, a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of the faith which he had yet 
 being uncircumcised : that he might 
 be the father of all them that believe, 
 
 9-12. 
 
 The Meaning and Use of Cir- 
 cumcision. 
 
 9, 10. The question " What has Abraham, 
 our forefather, found?" {v. i), concerns 
 Abraham's children as well as himself; and 
 the partial answer, that he has found a 
 blessing such as David his descendant de- 
 scribes, gives occasion for the further question 
 whether this blessing is limited to those who 
 are of the circumcision, as Abraham and 
 David both were. Thus after having shown 
 that Abraham's justification was by faith and 
 not by works, St. Paul proceeds further to 
 prove that it was not dependent on circum- 
 cision. 
 
 Cometh this blessedness then upon the cir- 
 cumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also f\ 
 Is then this blessing upon the cir- 
 cumcision, or, &c. 
 
 The word " only " is not in the Greek, and 
 the sense is sufficiently clear without it. 
 
 The word " then " shows that the question 
 arises out of the preceding argument, and is 
 to be answered in accordance with it : this is 
 further shown in the words that follow, "/or 
 ive say." 
 
 The reasoning will be made clearer by 
 dropping the interrogative form. Abraham, 
 we say, became partaker of the blessing when 
 he was justified by faith : he was so justified 
 while yet in uncircumcision : therefore we con- 
 clude that the blessing is not upon the circum- 
 cision only, but upon the uncircumcision also. 
 The conclusion, though drawn from the one 
 case of Abraham, is assumed to be general, and 
 rightly so, because that case is not merely an 
 example or " fair specimen " of the rest, but 
 the origin and cause of all, as is more fully 
 shown in -v. 11. Thus the nature and con- 
 ditions of circumcision in all cases depend 
 upon its nature and condition in the case of 
 Abr^am, and the argument is one from cause 
 to effect. The repeated interrogations and 
 dilemmas of w. 9, 10, add much to the rhe- 
 torical force and grace of the passage, but the 
 cogency of the reasoning is not dependent 
 on them. 
 
 11. This verse Is closely connected w^ith 
 the preceding, and completes the description 
 of the relation between Abraham's justifica- 
 
 tion and his circumcision, which took place 
 about fourteen years afterwards. 
 
 the sign of circumcision^ In instituting 
 circumcision (Gen. xvii. 11), God says "// 
 shall be for a token (LXX, arifxeiov) of the 
 covenant betwixt Me and you." Former 
 covenants had in like manner been confirmed 
 by visible signs, the rainbow (Gen. ix. 12, 13, 
 17) and the burning lamp (Gen. xv. 17, 18). 
 
 a seal of the righteousness of the faith, lirv.] 
 In n). 17, St. Paul expressly quotes the chief 
 promise of the covenant of circumcision, " / 
 have made thee a father of many nations" and 
 in 1;. 18 declares it to be " according to that 
 <which ivas spoken, So shall thy seed be," /'.<■., 
 according to the very promise concerning 
 which it had been said, " Abraham belie-ved in 
 the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteous- 
 ness" (Gen. XV. 5, 6). In other words, the 
 new covenant, repeating and enlarging the 
 promise which Abraham had believed, was an 
 assurance to him that his faith had been ap- 
 proved; ax\d '''' the sign of circumcision^' which 
 " he received " with it, and which the Rabbis 
 called " the Seal of Abraham," was " a seal of 
 the righteousness " imputed to him because " of 
 the faith nuhich he had being yet uncircum- 
 cised-" compare v. 12. This metaphorical 
 sense of the word " Seal," meaning any strong 
 external confirmation (i Cor. ix. 2), arises out 
 of the use of a seal to authenticate and con- 
 firm a written covenant. 
 
 yet being uncircumcised^ Literally in his 
 uncircumcision. 
 
 that he might be the father of all them that 
 believe, though they be not circumcised.] Literally 
 "while in uncircumcision." Both the 
 construction and the sense of the passage 
 are illustrated by an early quotation of it in 
 the Epistle of Barnabas, c. xiii. : " Behold, I 
 have made thee father of the nations who 
 believe in the Lord without having been cir- 
 cumcised (6t' ciKpolBua-Tias)." For this use 
 of did compare ii. 27 ; xiv. 20 ; 2 Cor. ii. 4. 
 
 The blessing promised to Abraham in- 
 cluded from the first "all families of the 
 earth" (Gen. xii. 2, 3), and the same univer- 
 sality is seen in each renewed promise, that 
 his seed shall be as the dust of the earth 
 (Gen. xiii. 16), and as the stars of heaven (xv. 
 
12.] 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 103 
 
 though they be not circumcised ; that 
 righteousness might be imputed unto 
 them also : 
 
 12 And the father of circumcision 
 to them who are not of the circum- 
 cision only, but who also walk in the 
 
 5"). Abraham's faitli in the promise was seen 
 in his conduct on each occasion, and on the last 
 It was expressly recorded and " counted to him 
 for righteousness." He was thus accepted as 
 righteous through faith, not only for himself, 
 but as the father of the promised seed, that 
 they also might be justified through faith: 
 and so far as his fatherhood conveys the 
 Divine blessing, it is a fatherhood according 
 to promise, and according to faith, not accord- 
 ing to the flesh : compare Gal. iii. 7. 
 
 This is made yet clearer by what follows 
 in Gen. xvi. : Abraham, already pronounced 
 righteous, and selected to be the father of the 
 promised seed, seeks to obtain it " according 
 to the flesh ;" but Ishmael, so begotten, is not 
 the heir of the blessing, not being the child of 
 faith, nor of promise. 
 
 Then in Gen. xvii., thirteen years after- 
 wards comes the solemn renewal of the 
 covenant, prefaced by the condition " H'alk 
 before me., and be thou perfect^' inaugurated 
 by the new names El-shaddai, Abraham, 
 Sarah (see notes on Gen. xvii.), and finally 
 sealed by the sign of circumcision. 
 
 In the renewed promises the universality 
 of the blessing, and its religious or spiritual 
 character are strongly marked : -w. 4, 5, 
 " thou shah be a father of many nations., lit. 
 "of a multitude of Goyim:" nj. 6, '■'■ I ivill 
 make nations of thee, and kings shall come out 
 of thee ;" v. 7, " I ivill establish my covenant . . 
 . . for an everlasting covenant to be a God 
 unto thee^ and to thy seed after thee." 
 
 In striking contrast to this universal parti- 
 cipation in the blessing .is the limitation of 
 the ordinance of circumcision, which is not 
 extended beyond the family of Abraham (see 
 Michaelis in note on Gen. xvii. 13). It thus 
 marked and sealed the human source of the 
 promised blessing, namely Abraham's " body 
 now dead" and the human channel, namely 
 Abraham's bodily descendants. 
 
 The Jews overlooked the all-important 
 distinction between the universal inheritance 
 of the blessing, and the particular instrument 
 chosen for its actual realisation : they did not 
 iniderstand that it was to be realised through 
 them but for all, — through one channel 
 chosen, set apart, and sealed by circumcision, 
 but for all who should be fitted in the same 
 way as Abraham was to receive the blessing, 
 i.e., for all who like him should believe God's 
 promise of salvation, and walk before Him in 
 uprightness. 
 
 Thus by circumcision Abraham was marked 
 out as the divinely appointed father of the 
 promised seed in every sense; (i) of the seed 
 
 in whom all nations should be blessed, i.e. 
 Christ; (2) of the seed that should be the 
 human channel of the blessing, i.e., the Jews, 
 and; (3) of the seed that should be as the 
 stars of heaven, the multitude of nations that 
 should be counted as Abraham's children, 
 being heirs of the same blessing through the 
 like faith, i.e. " of all them that believe." 
 
 St. Paul here treats of the fatherhood of 
 Abraham in the two latter senses, i.e., in 
 reference to Gentiles and Jews. Circum- 
 cision, as a seal of the righteousness of faith 
 in the uncircumcised, was not given for his 
 sake alone, but that by transmitting the assur- 
 ance of the like blessing to others "he might 
 be father of all them that believe, while 
 in uncircumcision, in order that right- 
 eousness may be imputed to them." 
 
 With this connexion the parallel clauses, 
 ^^ father of all them that believe," and '■'■father 
 of circumcision," have their due prominence, 
 which is rather obscured, if the clause "in 
 order that righteousness," &c., is made 
 parallel instead of subordinate to "that he 
 might be father," &e. 
 
 12. And the father of circumcision!] The 
 second purpose for which Abraham had " re- 
 ceived the sign of circumcision" was, that he 
 might transmit it, with its assurance of bless- 
 ing, to his seed after him; in other words, 
 "that he might be father of circum- 
 cision." But to whom? To those who 
 received it as he received it, namely, " as a 
 seal of the righteousness of faith ;' to those, 
 therefore, who have not only the outward 
 sign in the flesh, but also the inward quality 
 of which it is the seal, /. e. in St. Paul's 
 own words, " to thetn luho are not of cir- 
 cumcision 07ily, hut <who also ivalk in the 
 steps of that faith of our father Abraham which 
 he had, while in uncircumcision." This 
 verse evidently refers to Jews only, but St. 
 Paul, or rather his amanuensis Tertius, who 
 wrote this epistle, or one of its earliest tran- 
 scribers, has inserted a superfluous Article 
 — dXAa Ku\ Toi<: a-TOLxovcnv, the effect of 
 which would be to extend to all that walk 
 in the steps of Abraham's faith, a statement 
 which applies only to those who inlierit from 
 him the rite of circumcision. There is no 
 trace of a various reading, and no ingenuity 
 can explain the Article, without introducing 
 a confusion of thought wholly foreign to St. 
 Paul. It is in fact a strong testimony to the 
 usual precision of his reasoning and language, 
 that so many elaborate discussions have been 
 raised over a mere slip of the pen, or clerical 
 error. 
 
104 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 [v. 13—14. 
 
 steps of that faith of our father Abra- 
 ham, which he had being yet uncir- 
 cumcised. 
 
 13 For the promise, that he should 
 be the heir of the world, was not to 
 Abraham, or to his seed, through the 
 
 law, but through the righteousness of 
 faith. 
 
 14 For if they which are of the 
 law be heirs, faith is made void, 
 and the promise made of none 
 effect : 
 
 being yet uncircumcised^ Literally, while 
 in un circumcision. Why does St. Paul 
 so emphatically repeat, what might here seem 
 unnecessary, that Abraham's faith was a faith 
 which he had while yet in uncircumcision ? 
 Because the very point of his argument is 
 this, that in the example of Abraham we see 
 the justification, not of a circumcised, but of an 
 uncircumcised believer. " It is not for be- 
 lieving Gentiles to enter by the gate of the 
 Jews, but for the Jews to enter by the gate 
 of the Gentiles" (Godet). Compare note on 
 V. 16 
 
 13-17. The Promise independent of 
 Law. 
 
 13. It has been shewn that Abraham's 
 justification, and that of his children, with 
 the blessings resulting from it, were depen- 
 dent, not on circumcision, but only on faith 
 {yv. II, 12). This is now confirmed, and 
 extended by shewing that the promise was 
 equally independent of the law. 
 
 13. For the promise^ that he should be the 
 heir of the ivorld, ivas not to Abraham, or to 
 his seed, through the la-zu.^ For not thraugh 
 law is the promise to Abraham or to 
 his seed. The argument closely resembles, 
 but is not identical with, that in Gal. iii. 18. 
 There "law" (without the Article) is repre- 
 sented as a principle directly opposed to 
 ^^ promise," so that "the inheritance" cannot 
 be dependent on law, because God has 
 granted it to Abraham by promise. 
 
 Here "law" and "righteousness of 
 faith" (both without the article) are the 
 principles opposed to and excluding each 
 other; and what St. Paul asserts in v. 13, 
 and proves in the following verses, is that 
 " the promise " of the inheritance was to be 
 realised and appropriated '■^ not through law 
 (14, 15) but through righteousness 0/ 
 faith" {16, 17). 
 
 that he should be the heir of the ivorldJ] 
 What is ^'' the promise" meant? For there 
 is none in Genesis expressed in these words. 
 Many commentators, with Meyer, refer it to 
 the promise of the land of Canaan, interpreted 
 as a type of the universal dominion of the 
 Messianic theocracy, invested by the Pro- 
 phets with a halo of glory, adopted in alle- 
 goric form by Christ Himself (Matt. v. 5 ; 
 xix. 28), and shared by St. Paul (viii. 17; 
 
 I Cor. vi. 2). The context forbids this inter- 
 pretation, having no reference to the promise 
 of the land of Canaan, but to " the seed " in 
 whom all nations of the earth were to be 
 blessed. The subject of the whole chapter 
 is Abraham's justification by faith in the pro- 
 mise (Gen. XV. 5, 6) : " so shall thy seed be." 
 To that passage St. Paul recurs^ again and 
 again (see "w. 3-5, 9-12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20- 
 22). It is inconceivable that in this -v. 13, 
 " the promise .... through the righteousness 
 of faith" should mean not the promise which 
 Abraham believed, and for believing was ac- 
 counted righteous, but another subordinate 
 promise, to which the context makes no 
 allusion. St. Paul does allude several times 
 in this chapter {-vv. 17, 18) to another passage 
 of Genesis (xvii. 5), in order to show the 
 relation of faith to circumcision ; and he re- 
 gards that passage, not as containing a dif- 
 ferent promise, but as ratifying and defining 
 the same promise of the seed (see especially 
 "v. 18). That one promise, rightly understood, 
 included all the rest ; for, " in thy seed shall 
 all the nations of the earth be blessed:" this 
 was " the blessing of Abraham " (Gal. iii. 14), 
 which was to come upon the Gentiles in 
 Christ Jesus, and this, because it included all 
 other blessings, was the inheritance of the 
 world, the same inheritance of which St. 
 Paul has spoken in Gal. iii. 18, 29 : compare 
 I Cor. iii. 22, 23; Heb. i. 2. "The promise 
 will be literally fulfilled when the kingdoms of 
 the world are given to the people of the Most 
 High, and Christ will rule with His saints 
 for ever and ever (Dan. vii. 27, &c.)." 
 (Schaff.) 
 
 but through the righteousness offaith^ The 
 righteousness of faith is not the procuring 
 cause which moved God to grant the promise 
 (as Meyer strangely asserts), but the con- 
 ditional cause by which the promise was to 
 be appropriated, and its fulfilment secured. 
 " Faith " had been called forth from the first 
 announcement of the promise (Gen. xii. 1-3), 
 but the expression '■'■righteousness of faith" 
 points to the renewal of the promise in 
 Gen. XV. 5, 6. 
 
 14, 15. Proof that the promise is not to 
 be realised through law. 
 
 14. For if they "which are of the lamj he 
 heirs, faith is made 'void.] For the phrase 
 
V. 15— 1 6.] 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 loii 
 
 15 Because the law worketh promise might be sure to all the 
 wrath : for where no law is, there seed j not to that only which is of 
 is no transgression. the law, but to that also which is ot 
 
 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it the faith of Abraham j who is the 
 might be by grace ; to the end the father of us all, 
 
 01 cK vofiov, "they which are of law," 
 see notes on ii. 8, and iii. 26. The argument 
 rests on the assumption that " /«w " and 
 ^^ faith " are opposite principles which exclude 
 each other; for, as Chrysostom says, "he 
 that clings to the law as saving him, dis- 
 honours the power of faith." If, then, they 
 which depend on law, and not on faith, are 
 heirs of the promised blessing, then faith — 
 7; TTLCTTis, the faith of which we have been 
 talking — -"/j (hath been) made 'void" it 
 has had no room to operate, and no in- 
 fluence on the result, but has been emptied 
 of its supposed power. 
 
 and the promise made of none effect^ Com- 
 pare Gal. iii. 17, els to KaTapyrjorat ttjv irrayye- 
 
 15. Because the lanxi ivorketh nvrath : for 
 nvhere no laiu is, there is no transgression.^ 
 Read, For the laiu ixjorketh ^wrath, but 
 nvhere no la^iv is, there is no transgression. 
 The assertion made in Gal. iii. 18, that 
 " If the inheritance be of (the) lanu, it is 
 no more of promise^' is here more fully ex- 
 plained from the nature and eflect of law. 
 By making known the existence of sin, and 
 exhibiting it in the form of actual trans- 
 gression, the law brings man under God's 
 wrath and condemnation, so producing an 
 effect the very opposite of that which is 
 intended by the promise (see iii. 20, and Gal. 
 iii. 10, 11). 
 
 With the second yap retained, as in the A.V. 
 the proof that " the lanxi <worketh ^ivrath " 
 is compressed into one brief but striking 
 sentence : " For ivhere no la<w is, there is no 
 transgression." To complete the proof, we 
 must add, " and where there is no trans- 
 gression, there is no wrath ;" and then, 
 farther, assume that the negative propositions 
 involve the truth of their positive counter- 
 parts : " Where law is, there is transgression ; 
 and where transgression is, there is wrath." 
 For a full exposition of the relation be- 
 tween law and sin, see vii. 7 ff. ; and for the 
 distinction between sin and transgression, 
 which is sin against a known law, see v. 13, 
 14. 
 
 But with the various reading 8e (x, A, B, C, 
 &c.), now generally received instead of yap, 
 the construction is much simpler. Instead 
 of an incomplete proof that "the la^w ^worketh 
 ivrath," we have the truth that " the promise 
 is not of la^jj" proved, both positively and 
 
 negatively, from the effects produced where 
 there is, and where there is not, law ; the 
 negative statement serves at the same time 
 to explain and confirm the positive, by show- 
 ing how law worketh wrath, i, e. through 
 transgression. 
 
 The article is prefixed to vopo^ in the be- 
 ginning of the verse, because it has been 
 mentioned just before in -v. 14. It is dropped 
 again in the clause " <ivhere no la^u is," 
 which is perfectly general, referring to all 
 law, and not only to "the law.'' 
 
 16, 17. Therefore it is of faith.'] The question 
 discussed by St. Paul is the simple alterna- 
 tive whether the promise is of law or of faith 
 (•y. 13): having proved in w. 14, 15 that it 
 cannot be of law, he at once concludes, "For 
 this cause it is of faith" : compare Gal. 
 iii. 12. 
 
 that it might he by grace.'] This is the 
 Divine purpose underlying the fact that " // 
 is of faith." Promise, faith, and grace stand 
 together on one side : law, works, and merit 
 on the other. Compare w. 4, 5 and Gal. 
 iii. 18, " For if the inheritance be of (the) laiu, 
 it is no more of promise : but God gave it 
 (^Kex'^P'-o'Tat, " hath granted it of grace") to 
 Abraham by promise!' 
 
 St. Paul's rapid sentences — " For this cause 
 of faith, that by way of grace " — may be com- 
 pleted either by supplying from -l*. 1 3 " the 
 promise is," or from 1;. 14, "the inheritance 
 is" (Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva). This re- 
 ference to 1;. 14 is more probable because of 
 the significant contrast Ik v6p.ov, ex ■nicreois 
 (yv. 14, 16). 
 
 to the end the promise might be sure to all 
 the seed!] Here, as in -y. 1 1, St. Paul sees one 
 purpose underlying another in the deep coun- 
 sels of God : the inheritance is " of faith " in 
 order that it may be given by way of grace, 
 and of grace that it may be secured to all. 
 " He here states a double boon, that the gifts 
 are ' sure,' and that they are sure ' to all the 
 seed ' " (Chrysostom). 
 
 not to that only <which is of the la^w.] If the 
 promise could have been secured by the law 
 to any seed, it must have been " to that only 
 ivhich is of the lanv," i. e., to Jews who live 
 under the law of Moses. But in fact the 
 promise if dependent on law could not be 
 sure to any, since none could earn it by keep- 
 ing the law : thus even to Jews it can be sure 
 only as of grace and therefore of faith ; and 
 
io6 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 [v. 17—19- 
 
 * Gen. 17. 
 
 5- 
 
 !1 Or, like 
 
 vu.o Aim. 
 
 17 (As It is written, "I have made 
 thee a father of many nations,)" be- 
 fore him whom he believed, even 
 God, who quickeneth the dead, and 
 calleth those things which be not as 
 though they were. 
 
 18 Who against hope believed in 
 hope, that he might become the 
 
 father of many nations, according to 
 
 that which was spoken, ^So shall thy * Gen. 15 
 
 seed be. ^' 
 
 19 And being not weak in faith, 
 he considered not his own body now 
 dead, when he was about an hun- 
 dred years old, neither yet the dead- 
 ness of Sarah's womb : 
 
 again we may say : The Jew must enter by 
 the same gate as the Gentile. See note on 
 last clause of v. 12. The same condition, 
 then, which alone makes the promise sure 
 even to those children of Abraham who are 
 of the law, namely the condition of faith, 
 makes it " sure to all the seed, not to that 
 only •which is of the law, but to that also 
 <which is of the faith of Abraham." 
 
 It is self-evident that in this connexion " all 
 the seed " means " all the believing seed," and 
 " that which is of the law " means only the 
 believing Jews: compare v. 12, and Gal. iii. 
 7-9. 
 
 who is the father of us all.'] The spiritual 
 fatherhood of Abraham already asserted in 
 •vv. 1 1, 12 is now proved by the solemn sanc- 
 tion of a Divine utterance: "ybr a father of 
 many nations have I made thee" (Gen. xvii. 
 5, taken exactly from the LXX). The 
 parenthesis only repeats the previous state- 
 ment in the words of Scripture, and so does 
 not obscure the connexion : " Who is the 
 father of us all ... . before him <whom he 
 believed, even God." 
 
 The Present Tense carries us back to the 
 scene of Gen. xv. where Abraham, standing 
 before God (Kar^vavn, compare Ex. xxxii. 11) 
 whose promise he has believed, is already in 
 His sight the father of a seed countless as 
 the stars : for God's purpose knows no hin- 
 drance ; though Abraham is as one dead in 
 regard to the natural power of begetting 
 children, God is he "that giveth life to 
 the dead" (compare Deut. xxxii. 39; i Sam. 
 ii. 6) : and though Abraham has as yet no 
 seed, God is he that "calleth the things 
 that be not as things that be." This 
 phrase does not exactly mean " calls into 
 being," nor " names as being," but " calls to, 
 summons, commands the things that be not 
 as being," /. e., as if they were as much pre- 
 sent and obedient to His word as things that 
 be : a conception of almighty power more 
 sublime, if possible, than the creative tiat, 
 " Let there be light," or the Psalmist's 
 thought " He telleth the number of the 
 stars : he calleth them all by their names." 
 
 The glorious attributes thus implied in 
 God's promise, were realised in Abraham's 
 faith, and formed its strong foundation. 
 
 18-22. The Strength of Abraham's 
 Faith. 
 
 18. Who against hope believed in hope."] " IVfjo 
 against hope in hope believed," This strik- 
 ing oxymoron, or combination of opposite 
 qualities, is well explained by the older com- 
 mentators : " past hope of man, in hope of 
 God " (Chrysostom) : " past hope according 
 to nature, but in hope of the promise of 
 God " (Theodoret) : " past hope of his own 
 nature, in hope of the power of Him that 
 promised " (Severianus). Meyer's analysis 
 of Abraham's faith as " opposed to hope in its 
 objective reference, and yet b.ased on hope in 
 its subjective reference," shuts out the actual 
 objective reference to God's power. 
 
 that he might become the father of many 
 nations.] "To the end that," 6cc., as in v. 
 16. This was not only the divinely appointed 
 end of Abraham's faith, but also what Abra- 
 ham himself looked to as the end of his 
 faith. He believed with the full intention of 
 becoming, what God prornised, '■'■ the father 
 of many nations." 
 
 19-21. And being not iveak in faith, he 
 considered not his o^jon body now dead.] This 
 passage, according to the Received Text, 
 refers to the narrative in Gen. xv. 1-6. On 
 that occasion Abram took no heed at all to 
 the difficulties attending the promise ; he did 
 not fix his mind upon the fact that his own 
 body was already deadened, he being about a 
 hundred years old, and upon the deadnesu of 
 Sarah's womb : but at once, as the immediate 
 sequence in the narrative implies, he embraced 
 and believed the promise. This view of the 
 passage as referring to Gen. xv. 1-6 seems at 
 first sight to be confirmed by -y. 22 : but see 
 note there. 
 
 Modern critics, supported by strong evi- 
 dence of MSS, Versions, and Fathers, omit 
 the negative in ov KaTevorjuev, and refer the 
 passage to Gen. xvii. 17 ff., from which some 
 of its language is plainly borrowed. With 
 this reading t. 19 must be closely connected 
 with V. 20, the sense being that Abraham did 
 notice the difficulties, but yet doubted not 
 God's promise, /. e., the new promise con- 
 cerning Sarah in Gen. xvii. 16, 21. Translate : 
 
V. 20 — 25.] 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 107 
 
 20 He staggered not at the pro- 
 mise 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 able 
 also to perform. 
 
 22 And therefore it was imputed 
 to him for righteousness. 
 
 23 Now it was not written for his 
 sake alone, that it was imputed to him ; 
 
 24 But for us also, to whom it 
 shall be imputed, if we believe on 
 him that raised up Jesus our Lord 
 from the dead ; 
 
 25 Who was delivered for our 
 offences, and was raised again for our 
 justification. 
 
 "And without growing weak in 
 faith, he observed his own body dead- 
 ened, "being about a hundred years old,&n.A. 
 the deadness of Sarah's nvomb ; but at 
 the promise of God he staggered not 
 through unbelief, but waxed strong in 
 faith, giving glory to God, and being fully 
 persuaded that what he hath (A.V. had^ pro- 
 niised, he is (A.V. ^luas^ able also to perform." 
 " Staggered," a strong and picturesque word 
 substituted by Tyndale for Wiclif's more 
 exact and simple " doubted " (xiv. 2 3 ; Matt. 
 xxi. 21, &c.). The Geneva Version reads 
 " disputed," an admissible sense (Acts xi. 2 ; 
 Jude 9), but less suitable. 
 
 20. giving glory to God.'] I.e., by acknow- 
 led,i:ing His almighty power; this meaning is 
 made clear by the explanation added in the 
 following clause, " and being fully persuaded," 
 &c. These two participial clauses de- 
 scribe the mental effects which attended 
 the strengthening of Abraham's faith. But 
 we may add that Abraham gave glory to 
 God in act as well as in thought, by his 
 prompt obedience (Gen. xvii. 22, 23). 
 
 22. Jlnd therefore it ivas imputed to him 
 for righteousness.] "Wherefore also it was 
 imputed," iyc. 
 
 " Wherefore " refers to the preceding 
 context, "w. 18-21, and means "because he 
 thus held fast his faith and gave glory to 
 God." St. Paul extends the declaration of 
 Gen. XV. 6 to the later occasion (Gen. xvii.), 
 when the triumph of Abraham's faith was 
 even more conspicuous. In like manner the 
 same passage is applied in i Mace. ii. 5 2 to 
 the offering of Isaac : " IVas not Abraham 
 found faithful in temptation, and it <was im- 
 puted unto him for righteousness ? " Compare 
 J a. ii. 23. 
 
 23-25. Abraham our Pattern.^ 
 
 The leading example of justification by 
 faith having been fully discussed in regard to 
 Abraham himself {yv. 3-22), St. Paul pro- 
 ceeds to apply its teaching to his readers. 
 
 23. Now it wias not written for his sake 
 alone.] Compare Philo ' On Abraham,' c. i. ; 
 
 " Men whose virtues are recorded, as on pillars, 
 in the sacred scriptures, not (^nly to the praise 
 of the men themselves, but also for the sake 
 of encouraging those who read their history 
 and leading them on to emulate their con- 
 duct." 
 
 24. But for us also.] " But for our sake 
 also," i.e., not only for our instruction and 
 exhortation, xv. 4 and i Cor. ix. 10, but to 
 assure us that righteousness shall be imputed 
 to us in like manner : for " What is written 
 of Abraham is written of his children " : 
 Beresch. R. (Tholuck), 
 
 to ivhom it shall he imputed, if ave believe.] 
 Read "to ivhom it shall be iynputed, namely 
 to us who believe." The last words define 
 the class to which we must belong, if that 
 which is recorded of Abraham is to be ful- 
 filled also in us. The word ixeWei is not 
 a mere equivalent for the future "it will be 
 imputed," but (as in viii. 13) implies the 
 certainty of a Divine appointment, " it is to 
 be imputed," and that not in the future judg- 
 ment, but as soon as we believe. 
 
 that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.] 
 '■'■that raised Jesus" isr'c. The faith which 
 is to be imputed to us for righteoubness is 
 thus defined by the specific character of God, 
 in whom we trust: as Abraham believed a 
 Divine promise, which only the life-giving 
 and creative power of God could perform 
 (t. 17), so Christians trust for redemption 
 and justification to Him who has already 
 raised Jesus from the dead for this very pur- 
 pose. 
 
 25. The reason why faith in Him who 
 raised up Jesus from the dead, is to be im- 
 puted to us for righteousness lies in the 
 purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. 
 The Apostle thus returns to the main point 
 of his subject (iii. 24) "bringing in the Gross 
 into the midst " (Chrys.). 
 
 Who was delivered for our offences?^ I.e. 
 "delivered up," to death, as in the leading 
 passage. Is. liii. 1 2 : av& hv napedodrj els 
 dauarnv 17 '^vx') avrov, .... Kol 81a. ras 
 dfofxias avToiv napebudrj. 
 
io8 
 
 ROMANS. IV. 
 
 The Passive Verbs indicate that Christ 
 was given up to death, and raised again by the 
 Father: compare viii. 32. 
 
 " For our off'ences" i.e., to atone for them : 
 ^^for our justification," to accompHsh it, 
 /. e. in order that we, like Abraham, might 
 be justified through faith in God that quiclv- 
 eneth the dead; compare -d. 17 with v. 24. 
 The former clause, if it stood alone, might 
 fairly be interpreted, " because of the ofiences 
 which we have committed." But the more 
 comprehensive sense, including the fact of 
 offences committed, is that given by Theo- 
 doret: " On account of our off'ences He en- 
 dured the Passion, in order that He might pay 
 our debt." This also agrees better with the 
 parallel clause, " rose again for our justifica- 
 tion," in which the same Preposition (Sm) is 
 used. 
 
 Though the Atonement for sins was made 
 
 by Christ's death, it was proved and mani- 
 fested by His resurrection, and so presented 
 as an object of faith. The resurrection, 
 therefore, serves this purpose, that we may 
 thereby be led to believe that Christ died for 
 our sins, and by so believing may realise 
 and appropriate the benefits of His death; in 
 other words, that v^re may be justified. 
 
 More than this, the Resurrection is itself 
 the soune of Justification and life (v. 18; 
 vi. 5, 6; Eph. ii. 5; Col. ii. 13). "On the 
 Cross, our Lord gave Himself for us ; through 
 the Resurrection, He giveth Himself to us. 
 On the Cross, He was the Lamb which was 
 slain for the sins of the world ; in the 
 Resurrection, that Body which was slain 
 became Life-giving." (Pusey, 'Christ Risen 
 our Justification,' a noble Sermon on this 
 text.) 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on Chap. IV., vv. i, 2, 25. 
 
 1. (i') Modern Editors read with a great 
 preponderance and variety of authority, 
 
 fvpr]K.€vai 'Ajd. rbv TrpoTrdropa r]fiu>v Kara 
 aapKa. 
 
 (2) Omit evpr]Kevni B, 47* : Chrysostom 
 does not comment on it. 
 
 (3) Place evpr]KevaL immediately before kuto. 
 adpKa : K L P, 47 mg. Syr., many Fathers. 
 
 (4) For the unusual word TrpoTrdropa many 
 MSS and Fathers read wnTepa. 
 
 Dr. Westcott {Diet, of Bible, ii. p. 530) re- 
 gards evprjKivM as possibly an interpolation : 
 but it is supported by overwhelming autho- 
 rity, and tlie sense is so clear without it, 
 that a copyist would be more likely to omit 
 than to insert it. The wish to secure its 
 connexion with Kara a-upua accounts for the 
 change of place. 
 
 2. The argument of this passage is fully dis- 
 cussed by Bishop Bull, ' Harmonia Apostolica, 
 Dissertatio Posterior,' c. xii. 14-27, whose 
 criticism may be abridged as follows. 
 
 A. Interpretation of the Greek Fathers — 
 Major : If Abraham <was justified by works, 
 he has not anything to glory of before God (since 
 this sort of external righteousness, however 
 glorious in the eyes of men, is of no value 
 in the sight of God). 
 
 Minor: But Abraham had ivhereof to glory 
 before God {i.e. he was approved by God Him- 
 self). 
 
 Conclusion: Therefore Abraham ivas not 
 justified by luorks. 
 
 " The conclusion is in accordance with St. 
 Paul's meaning, but the premisses do not 
 agree with the text. 
 
 {a) If any one should say that v. 2 belongs 
 wholly to the major premiss (/./., as the 
 
 Greek Fathers above"), he would verily make 
 the Apostle's argument marvellously ell: ptical, 
 as consisting of one proposition only, with- 
 out either minor premiss or conclusion ex- 
 pressed. 
 
 {h) Moreover, St. Paul m.anifestly speaks of 
 the same glorying which in iii. 27, he had de- 
 clared to be excluded by the law of faith ; 
 and which, therefore, he could not attribute to 
 Abraham, whom he everywhere maintains to 
 be justified by that law of faith. 
 
 It is true that there is, as Grotius says, 
 a just and proper sort of glorying, even before 
 God (v. 2, 3, II ; I Cor. i. 31 ; 2 Cor. x. 17), 
 but it is equally certain that in treating, as here, 
 of the matter of justification, it is the Apos- 
 tle's habit to exclude all glorying entirely. 
 
 (c) Further, according to this interpreta- 
 tion, the Apostle would contradict himself in 
 terms: for he would be supposed to argue 
 thus: 
 
 If Abraham was justified by works before 
 God, then he deserved praise only of men, 
 and received no praise nor reward from God. 
 Is not this the same as if the Apostle had 
 said, if Abraham was justified by works, he 
 was not justified? 
 
 {d) If it be said, that "justified" here 
 means " regarded as righteous by men," this 
 is opposed to the whole context, in which it 
 is too clear to need proof that the question 
 discussed is concerning man's justification in 
 the Sight of God Himself. 
 
 Moreover in this way also, there will be a 
 senseless tautology in the Apostle's words. 
 
 If by works Abraham was justified before 
 men, then he was justified before men, not 
 before God. 
 
1.1 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 109 
 
 What can be more absurd than such 
 
 reasoning ?" 
 
 B. The interpretation of Bishop Bull him- 
 self, Fritzsche, and others is as follows : 
 
 What then shall we say that our fore- 
 father Abraham has gained according to the 
 flesh, i.e., by his own natural powers without 
 the grace of God ? 
 
 He has gained nothing in this way. For 
 let us suppose the contrary, that he obtained 
 justification according to the flesh, that is, by 
 works done in his own strength. 
 
 If Abraham nvas justified by nvorks^ he has 
 something to boast of before God, namely the 
 works by which he was justified. But the 
 consequent is proved false by Holy Scripture 
 {yv. 3-5), and he has not anything to boast of 
 before God. 
 
 Therefore the antecedent must be false, and 
 Abraham was not justified by works, and has 
 gained nothing according to the flesh. 
 
 25. Dean Alford here attributes to St. 
 Paul an " alliterative use of the same Pre- 
 position, where the meanings are clearly 
 different," and remarks on v. 24, " Observe 
 that Sta in the two clauses has not exactly 
 the same sense, — 'on his account' being=(i) 
 to celebrate his faith ; and (2) on our account 
 =for our profit : see on v. 25." 
 
 Godet also insists that Stci has its only 
 proper and natural sense in the first clause, 
 " because of the offences which we have 
 committed," and that the second clause must 
 therefore be rendered, " because of our 
 justification which was accomplished by his 
 death." The same view of the passage was 
 taken by Grotius, Bp. Horsley, and Dr. 
 Burton in his note on Bp. Bull, ' Harmonia 
 Apost.,' p. 12. 
 
 The M hole difficulty arises from attribut- 
 ing different senses to bid. This radical 
 error is carried to an extreme by Cornelius 
 a Lapide, who gives no less thaii five senses 
 to the Preposition in the last clause, saying 
 that it signifies the material cause, the exemp- 
 lary, the efficient, the meritorious, and the 
 final cause. 
 
 The fact is, that Sta with the Accusative 
 (" through to ") simply traces an effect to a 
 cause, it marks the existence of a causal rela- 
 tion between them, without defining its par- 
 ticular character. Thus, in the common 
 phrase Sta roGro, " for this cause," it is im- 
 possible, without referring to the context, to 
 say whether the cause is antecedent (as in 
 i. 26, v. 12, xiii. 6), or final (as in Philemon 
 15, Tcixa yap Sia tovto exutpi-crdr] Trpos u>pav 
 iva alcoviov avrov aTre^jji. Compare I Tim. 
 i. 13). If in the former case we choose 
 to render 81a. tovto " because of this," and 
 in the latter case " for this purpose," we 
 must not imagine that 8id itself has these 
 different meanings : we are simply transferring 
 to the Preposition a distinction which belongs 
 to the context. Thus, in v. 25, the use of ^id 
 in both clauses does not determine whether 
 the causal relation is or is not of the same kind 
 in both cases—" Christ died for our offences" 
 may mean either " because we had offended," 
 or " to atone for our offences." " Christ 
 was raised for our justification," might mean, 
 so far as Grammar is concerned, "because 
 our justification was already accomplished," 
 but in accordance with the immediate context 
 (■u. 24), and with the usual dogmatic repre- 
 sentation, it much more probably, we may 
 almost say certainly, means that He was raised 
 in order that we might be justified. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Being justified by faith, -we have peace 7vith 
 God, 2 and joy in our hope, 8 that sith we 
 were reconciled by his blood, zvheu we were 
 enemies, 10 we shall much tnore be saved 
 being reconciled. 12 As sin and death came 
 
 by Adam, if so much more righteousnesM 
 and life by fesus Christ. 20 Where sin 
 abounded, grace did superabound. 
 
 THEREFORE being justified 
 by faith, we have peace with 
 God through our Lord Jesus Christ : 
 
 Chap. V. — i-ii. Blessedness of the 
 Justified. 
 
 St. Paul has shown that neither Gentile nor 
 Jew had attained to righteousness by works 
 (i. i8-iii. 20); he has described "the right- 
 eousness of God," which is exhibited in 
 Christ's atoning death, and bestowed by 
 God's grace as a free gift without works, and 
 therefore without distinction of persons, upon 
 all who by faith accept it (iii. 21-30); and he 
 has proved by the example of Abraham, and 
 
 the testimony of David, that his doctrine of 
 " righteousness by faith without works " is in 
 harmony with Scripture (iii. 31-iv. 25). He 
 now sets forth the blessedness of the justified, 
 as consisting in present '■'^ peace 'with God," 
 and joyful ^^hope of the glory of God," both 
 resting on the death and life of Him, "by 
 <whom ive have noiu received the atonement " 
 {w. i-ii). 
 
 1. Therefore being justified by faith, ive have 
 peace 'with God.~] St. Paul speaks as one of 
 
no 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 [v. 2. 
 
 2 By whom also we have access stand, and rejoice in hope of the 
 by faith into this grace wherein we glory of God. 
 
 those " -xt'^o believe on Him that raised up 
 Jesus our Lord from the dead" (i\. 24) : thus 
 there is a sound of confidence and triumph in 
 his words, "justified therefore by faith 
 ave have peace ivith God." He speaks of 
 justification as a thing already received ; for 
 he has respect only or chiefly to that act of 
 grace, whereby God at first absohes the be- 
 liever from all guilt, and receives him into a 
 state of favour. That state of favour is here 
 called "peace with God." On the distinction 
 between present and final justification see 
 Waterland, ' On the Eucharist,' ix. 2, and 
 Barrow, vol. ii.. Sermon v., p. 64. 
 
 On the marginal rendering, "let us have 
 peace with God," see Note at end of chapter. 
 
 " Peace <ivith God " (npos tov Qeov) is not 
 quite identical with ^^ the peace of God" The 
 former is the peace that puts an end to war 
 and enmity, the new relation nvith God., into 
 which the justified believer is admitted: he 
 is no longer an enemy lying under wrath, 
 but a son reconciled, restored and beloved. 
 Upon this new relation bet^Meen God and 
 man is founded the work of the Holy Spirit 
 in man, which results finally in the perfect 
 harmony of the inner life, the deep tran- 
 quillity of a soul that has found its true 
 happiness and rest, in a word, " the peace of 
 God." 
 
 2. By ivhom also nve have access by faith 
 into this grace <w herein <we stand.] Through 
 whom also we have had our introduction 
 by faith into this grace iv herein lue stand. 
 
 Though St. Paul has just before spoken of 
 " Jesus our Lord, 'njoho 'voas delivered for our 
 offences.^ and raised again for our justification" 
 lie cannot describe the happy state into 
 which we are thus brought, without again re- 
 ininding us to whom our thanksgiving is due : 
 " nve have peace luith God through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ." 
 
 The diflerence of tense in the two verses, 
 unnoticed in the Authorised Version, is im- 
 portant: it shows that "the introduction 
 into this grace" is prior to '■'■peace with 
 God," that it is not a second and further effect 
 of justification, but justification itself. Thus 
 the word ''also" points to the identity of 
 the giver: He through whom we have 
 peace, is the same through whom we 
 have had the introduction into this 
 grace; "who brought us near when we 
 were far off" (Chrysostom). The reference 
 of all to Christ is further seen in the word in- 
 adequately rendered " access:" it describes not 
 our act, but Christ's, not our coming, but 
 His bringing us. The distinction is observed 
 by Chrysostom in the parallel passage, Ephe- 
 
 sians ii. 18, " For through Him ive both have 
 our introduction (A. V. access) by one 
 Spirit unto the Father." He said not " ac- 
 cess" but "introduction," for not of our- 
 selves did we come near, but by Him wuere 
 brought near. There is the same thought 
 similarly expressed in i Pet. iii. i^,'' Christ 
 also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the 
 unjust, that He might bring us to God." 
 
 The words " by faith " (attested by a pre- 
 ponderance of authorities) indicate the act on 
 man's part, in which he lays hold of Christ's 
 arm outstretched to bring him near to God. 
 
 " This grace ^wherein <we stand," is a descrip- 
 tion of the state of the justified implying pre- 
 sent favour and acceptance with God, and 
 His help to keep us therein. Compare i Cor. 
 XV. I ; I Pet. V. 12. 
 
 and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.] The 
 word rendered " rejoice " is the same which 
 has been already translated "boast" (ii. 17; 
 iii. 27; iv. 2); it indicates not merely the 
 inward joy of the heart, but the grateful and 
 confident utterance of the lips. In contrast 
 with all false boasting, the believer boasts in 
 hope of the glory of God. 
 
 The clause itself is not dependent on either 
 of those which precede it, but introduces a 
 new and important element into the Apostle's 
 description of the state of the justified : " we 
 have peace ivith God," " and we rejoice in 
 hope of the glory of God." 
 
 And what is " the glory of God ? " It is an 
 eternal mystery which the heart of man can- 
 not yet conceive, but of which Holy Scripture 
 gives us here and there short glimpses. Like 
 the righteousness of God, the truth of God, 
 and the life of God (Eph. iv. 18), it has its 
 hidden source in the Father, it is manifested 
 in the Son, it is reflected in man : " The glory 
 •which thou gavest me, I have given them " 
 (John xvii. 22). 
 
 Of this "■glory of God" man was, from the 
 first, designed to partake (i Cor. xi. 7), but 
 by sin all men " come short" or suffer loss of 
 it (iii. 23) ; its restoration is wrought by the 
 Spirit revealing and imparting the glory of 
 Christ: " IVe all -ivith open face beholding as in 
 a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into 
 the same image from glory to glory, even as by 
 the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. iii. t8). In 
 presenting this " glory of God," as an object of 
 the believer's hope, the Apostle points to its 
 future perfection in the glorification of our 
 whole nature, body, soul, and spirit. 
 
 The glory in wliich nian will thus be trans- 
 figured will still be ''the glory of God," even 
 as the sunshine resting upon earth is still the 
 light of heaven ; it will be an everlasting 
 
V. 3— 5-1 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 in 
 
 3 And not only so^ but we glory 
 in tribulations also : knowing that 
 tribulation worketh patience ; 
 
 4 And patience, experience ; and 
 experience, hope : 
 
 5 And hope maketh not ashamed j 
 
 glory, just because man will dwell for ever 
 in the light of God's countenance. 
 
 3. And not only so, hut tve glcry in tribu- 
 lations also.'] No sooner has the Apostle 
 pointed to " the glory of God" as a light 
 shining afar to cheer the believer on his 
 course, than he thinks of the contrast be- 
 tween that bright distance and the darkness 
 that lies around him here. 
 
 To weaker faith earthly sorrows might 
 seem to dim the heavenly light : but to him 
 hope shines out brighter through the gloom. 
 The sudden transition from ''^ glory " to 
 " tribulations" brings out the fulness of the 
 believer's triumph. St. Paul can promise no 
 exemption from sorrow, for he knows " that 
 <we must through much tribulation enter into 
 the kingdom of God" (Acts xiv. 22). There- 
 fore he speaks hereof "the tribulations," 
 or "our tribulations," as the appointed 
 portion of the faithful, just as our Lord told 
 His disciples, " in the -world ye shall have 
 tribidationsP 
 
 But the Apostle knew the sweet uses 
 of adversity: he knew that "Christ nou- 
 risheth His Church by suflerings" (Jer. Tay- 
 lor, " Faith and Patience of the Saints," 
 part ii. 18), and that '■'■ the chastening of the 
 Lord" is a discipline by which His children 
 are prepared for glory. Therefore, looking 
 through the clouds to the brightness beyond, 
 he says, "We rejoice also in our tribu- 
 lations." 
 
 At once he justifies this boast by an 
 appeal to the certain knowledge of Christian 
 experience ; " knowing (as we do) that tribu- 
 lation 'worketh patience." He thus comforts 
 the weak-hearted, by showing how tribu- 
 lation works its own cure ; for its first fruit 
 is '"'■patience." Our own word "patience " 
 expresses little more than passive resistance 
 to evil, the calm endurance of a soul that 
 resigns itself to suffering. In this sense 
 Julian used the Greek word in his scornful 
 answer to the Christians who came before 
 him to complain of persecution : " It is your 
 part, when evil entreated, to be patient: for 
 this is the commandment of your God." 
 
 But besides this passive element, the ori- 
 ginal word implies an active perseverance, a 
 brave persistence in good works, that will not 
 be shaken by fear of evil, and an abiding hope 
 of final victory which no present dangers may 
 disturb. 
 
 The word " avorketh " (^KaTepyd^erai), de- 
 scribes, not a transient operation, but a com- 
 plete and permanent result ; patience does not 
 
 pass away with the affliction that calls it into 
 exercise, but remains as an effect ^wrought out 
 upon the soul ; an efiect productive in its turn 
 of a new fruit — " e.xperience." 
 
 4. And patience, experience.'] And patience 
 approval. '■'■Experience" does not exactly 
 represent the Greek word boKLfxTj. Metal 
 that is purified in fire gains thereby an approved 
 character ; the fire in which man is purified is 
 " affliction," the right endurance of which is 
 " patience," and its result a certain quality or 
 character marking the man of" proof." AoKijir) 
 sometimes means the process of this moral 
 " assaying " (2 Cor. viii. 2 Wiclif), or " pro- 
 bation ;" but here, as an effect wrought by 
 "patience," it must rather be the result of the 
 process "proof," or "approval." (Five 
 Clergymen.) 
 
 and experience, hope.] "Approval" in its 
 turn worketh hope, being in its very nature 
 a pledge of perseverance unto the end. 
 
 Thus through a series of virtues each in its 
 turn effect and cause, tribulation is " the 
 nurse of our hope in the world to come." 
 (Cyril Alex.) 
 
 5. And hope maketh not ashamed?] The hope 
 fostered by this stern nurture is, as before, 
 " the hope of the glory of God." The dis- 
 tinction so finely drawn out by Dr. Chalmerg 
 (' Lectures on Romans,' I. p. 284) between "the 
 hope of faith" {y. 2) and "the hope of ex- 
 perience " (<!>. 4) must not be pressed too far. 
 The same hope, which springs at first simply 
 from faith in God, is strengthened by the 
 victorious issue of the trials to which it is 
 subjected through tribulation. 
 
 This hope, unlike that which rests on man, 
 can never by its failure put us to shame, 
 because it is founded upon God's unchanging 
 love. 
 
 because the love of God is shed abroad in our 
 hearts.] Read, ^ff««jf God's love has been 
 poured out in our hearts. Augustine under- 
 stands by " the love of God" not that where- 
 with He loves us, but that wherewith He makes 
 us to love Him." (' De Spin et Lit.' c. 32.) 
 
 This interpretation had been previously 
 rejected by Origen as unsuited to the con- 
 nexion of thought. The whole context 
 shows that the Apostle means God's love 
 towards us ; the believer's hope rests not on 
 anything in himself — not even on the happy 
 consciousness of loving God — but on God's 
 love to him in Christ, that love which is set 
 forth in the following verses. 
 
 It is no valid objection to say that only the 
 
112 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 [v. 6. 
 
 because the love of God is shed 
 abroad in our hearts by the Holy 
 Ghost which is given unto us. 
 
 6 For when we were yet without 
 
 strength, "in due time Christ died " Or, »f- 
 
 - 1 11 cording Ic 
 
 ror the ungodly. tiuUme. 
 
 sense of God's love, not that love itself, can 
 be poured out in the heart. 
 
 Like an overflowing stream in a thirsty 
 land, so is the rich flood of Divine love 
 poured out and shed abroad in the heart. 
 
 The sense of God's love is at once 
 awakened, even as the eye has a sense of 
 the light that fills it ; nevertheless that which 
 has been poured out in the heart is not our 
 sense of God's love, but the love itself em- 
 bodied in the word to which the Holy Ghost 
 gives life and power. Thus the true se- 
 quence of thought is maintained; our hope 
 cannot disappoint us, because God's love — 
 which is its own witness in our heart — is a 
 pledge for its fulfilment. 
 
 by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us."] 
 Read "that was given:" and see Note on 
 Acts xix. 2, Did ye receive the Holy Ghost 
 when ye became believers'? Here, how- 
 ever, St. Paul means, not an extraordinary 
 gift, but one common to all believers, as is 
 seen from the efiect ascribed to it — the pour- 
 ing out of God's love in the heart. 
 
 If we ask how the Holy Spirit pours out 
 the love of God in the heart, we may find the 
 answer in our Lord's words : " He shall 
 testify of Me:" "He shall glorify Me: for 
 He shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto 
 you." Christ is the fountain from which 
 God's love is poured forth in the heart. 
 
 6-8. That the hope founded on God's 
 love cannot fail, is further proved in w. 6-8, 
 by a description of the surpassing greatness 
 of that love, as shown in the fact that Christ 
 died for us while we were still in our helpless 
 and ungodly state. 
 
 6. For ixihen nve 'were yet without strength, 
 in due time Christ died for the ungodly?^ Rather, 
 Christ died in due time for tbe ungodly. 
 On the various readings see Note at the end 
 of the chapter. 
 
 The words, " ivhen <iue ivere yet without 
 strength" do not present man's helpless- 
 ness as a motive of God's love (Meyer) : the 
 suggestion of a motive would only weaken the 
 thought of the passage, that God's love was 
 shown when there was nothing in man to 
 invite, but everything to repel it. The clause 
 forms part of the contrast between the be- 
 liever's present state, strong in hope, in pa- 
 tience, in experience, and in the assurance of 
 God's love, and the former state in which 
 men weakened by sin and not yet having the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost had neither the will 
 nor the power to please God. 
 
 The phrase, " in due time" or " in season " 
 
 {Kara Kaipov) has been variously explained as 
 (i) a time appointed by the Father, or (2) 
 foretold by the prophets, or (3) opportune for 
 St. Paul and his first readers ; as if, in order 
 to bring home more directly to that genera- 
 tion the sense of God's love, the Apostle had 
 said, "Christ died opportunely for us: had 
 He come later, we should have passed away 
 unredeemed." 
 
 Such a thought is far too narrow and too 
 selfish for St. Paul. 
 
 (4) The general state of the world was 
 opportune for God's purpose. 
 
 By the contact of the Jews with the empire 
 of Rome and the literature of Greece, the one 
 true God must now become known to all, and 
 therefore the partial and temporary dispen- 
 sation must give place to the universal and 
 final. " We believe that the wide empire of 
 Rome was prepared by God's providence, in 
 order that the nations which were to be called 
 into the one body of Christ might be pre- 
 viously associated under the law of one em- 
 pire.'' (' De Vocatione Gentium,' ii. 16.) 
 
 Man, the heir of the promise, was no longer 
 a child to be kept under tutors and governors 
 (Gal. iv. 2): with the growth of moral con- 
 sciousness sin had reached its full development 
 as positive transgression, and so the time for 
 working a radical cure had arrived. 
 
 The common fault of such explanations is 
 that they are arbitrary and have no support in 
 the context : the one point there presented is 
 that the time was opportune for showing the 
 greatness of God's love. Whatever prepara- 
 tion the world had undergone, it was still 
 lying visibly in ungodliness; and whatever 
 other effects had been wrought by previous 
 dispensations, they had helped to make man's 
 weakness and unworthiness more manifest. 
 Redemption effected under such conditions 
 was seen to be the gift of God's free grace, 
 not purchased or prepared by any partial im- 
 provement on man's part. Thus in accordance 
 with the purpose of Him who justifieth the 
 ungodly, Christ "died in due time for 
 the ungodly": not for ^^ the ungodly" as a 
 class distinct from the godly, but for all as 
 being ungodly. This is shown by the absence 
 of the article in the Greek, as in the passage, 
 " / came not to call (the) righteous." God's 
 love is magnified by the strong description of 
 our unworthiness, as in iv. 5, where see Note 
 on acre^Sij?. 
 
 7, 8. Christ's dying for the ungodly is now 
 shown to be a thing altogether surpassing all 
 experience of human love • for among men 
 
-9.J 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 1^3 
 
 7 For scarcely for a righteous man 8 But God commendeth his love 
 
 will one die : yet peradventure for a toward us, in that, while we were 
 
 good man some would even dare to yet sinners, Christ died for us. 
 
 die. 9 Much more then, being now 
 
 scarcely can any be found who will die for a 
 righteous man, much less, as Christ did, for 
 sinners and ungodly. 
 
 7. For scarcely for a righteous man iviU one 
 die?^ There is a distinction between the 
 " righteous" or "just " man, who does simply 
 what duty requires of him, and the '■'■good 
 man," whose benevolence, not being limited to 
 the requirements of strict duty, may call forth 
 such gratitude and love, that for him " per- 
 adventure some one even has the heart to 
 die." 
 
 Thus, while the possibility implied in the 
 former clause is more distinctly conceded, it 
 is at the same time limited to rare examples 
 of love inspired by the most attractive form 
 of virtue. The more exalted the virtut which 
 alone calls forth such love, the stronger is 
 the contrast to the ungodliness and enmity 
 of those for whom Christ died ; and it is 
 precisely this contrast which sets God's love 
 above all human love. See note at end. 
 
 8. But God commendeth his love tonvard us, 
 in that, ivhile <we nvere yet sinners, Christ died 
 for wj.] " Commendeth" an excellent render- 
 ing, fully justified by St. Paul's usage (2 Cor. 
 iii. I ; iv. 2 ; V. 12, &c.), and by the context. 
 Christ's death for sinners not merely proves 
 God's love to be a fact, but sets it before us 
 in all its greatness and excellence, and so 
 " commends " it to us. 
 
 The use of the present tense, and the fre- 
 quent repetition in this verse of the first 
 person, show how vividly St. Paul realised 
 and appropriated the proof of God's love. 
 Christ died once for all, yet in the enduring 
 benefits of His death we have an ever-present 
 proof of the Divine love to each of us. 
 
 The expression '■'■yet sinners " conveys the 
 idea that there was nothing in man to 
 deserve God's love : compare v. 6. 
 
 Observe also, it is " his own love towards 
 us" that God thus commends: "his own" 
 (jfiv iavroii') in its origin, springing from the 
 depths of the Divine nature ; not called into 
 existence by any goodness in its object (as in 
 the supposed case of -v. 7), for " ^we nuere yet 
 sinners ;" not a response to any love of ours, 
 for we were His enemies. " Herein is love, 
 not that <ive loved God, but that he loved us, 
 and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our 
 sins " (i Joh. iv. 10). 
 
 Thus the chief thought of our passage is 
 seen to be the contrast between God's love and 
 man's love, not the distinction between the 
 Father's love and Christ's love. Nevertheless, 
 
 it is the Father's love that thus surpasses all 
 human love, and is proved by His giving His 
 Son to die for His enemies. Two thoughts 
 are thus suggested : 
 
 First, God's wrath against sin, is not in- 
 consistent with the tenderest love towai-ds 
 sinners. 
 
 Secondly, the proof of God's love towards 
 us, drawn from Christ's death, is strong in 
 proportion to the closeness of the union 
 between God and Christ. 
 
 Where would be the greatness of God's 
 love, or how could it be compared to an act 
 of self-sacrifice, if He, whom God gave to 
 be a sacrifice for us, were not His own 
 Son — His only begotten, His beloved ? 
 
 Christ died for us!] Not " in our stead " 
 (avTi), but " in our behalf" (ynip). See Note 
 at end of chapter. 
 
 The ideas which vnep expresses, and avri 
 does not, are precisely those which make the 
 death of Christ most precious. It would be 
 enough to say that Christ died " in our stead " 
 (di/rO, if His death had been unconscious, 
 unwilling, or accidental. But if as our cham- 
 pion, friend, and brother, He laid down His 
 own life willingly for our sake, and if He was 
 approved by God as our representative, so 
 that when "one died for all, then all died," 
 in and with Him (2 Cor. v. 15), then these 
 thoughts must be expressed by saying, as St. 
 Paul does, that He died vnep jj/xo)!/, in our 
 behalf, and for our sake. 
 
 9. St. Paul has been showing that the hope 
 of glory cannot fail, because it is founded on 
 God's love, as manifested in the death of 
 Christ (vv. 5-8). He now draws out more 
 fully the force of this argument, by contrast- 
 ing past circumstances with present. 
 
 Then we were sinners, noiv we have been 
 justified by Christ's blood ; if He died for 
 sinners, much more certain is it that He will 
 save the justified. 
 
 The expression, ^^ justified by his blood," is 
 worthy of note. 
 
 (i) Why is no mention made of faith ? 
 
 Because St. Paul is here viewing justifica- 
 tion simply as a proof of God's love ; and 
 faith adds nothing to the gift of God, but 
 only accepts it. 
 
 (2) It might be inferred from iv. 25 that 
 our justification is less closely connected with 
 our Lord's death than with His resurrection ; 
 that such an inference would be erroneous, 
 is at once shown by the words, '■'■ justljled bj 
 his blood" 
 
 H 
 
114 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 [v. lO. 
 
 justified by his blood, we shall be 
 saved from wrath through him. 
 
 10 For if, when we were enemies, 
 we were reconciled to God by the 
 
 In fact, in one of its aspects, "justification 
 of sinners comes to the same with remission " 
 of sins. (Waterland, ' Euch.' c. ix. ; Bull, 
 ^ Harm. Apost.' c. i. § 4.) 
 
 "The wrath" from which we shall be 
 saved, cannot but be " the ivrath to come " 
 (ii. 5,8; iii. 5 ; i Thess. i. 10). The believer 
 hopes for greater things than merely to be 
 saved from the wrath of God. But the 
 apostle, by presenting salvation under this 
 limited aspect, strengthens his argument for 
 its certainty. If we have already received 
 from God so great favour as to be reconciled 
 and justified, much more shall we be saved 
 from His wrath. 
 
 10. For if, ivhen 'we <were enemies, dss'c.'] 
 For if, being enemies, <ix)e avere reconciled to 
 God through the death of his son, much more 
 having been reconciled, ave shall be saved 
 in his life. The preceding argument is both 
 repeated in a more precise statement, and 
 strengthened by another element of contrast 
 between the past and the present ; ( i ) if, 
 being enemies, we were reconciled, much 
 more, having been reconciled, we shall be 
 saved; (2) if we were reconciled by the 
 death of His Son, much more shall we be 
 saved by His life. 
 
 (i) In what sense it is here said that we 
 were " enemies " to God, and were " recon- 
 ciled" to Him, cannot be decided by the 
 mere words, for these are used to express 
 relations existing on either side, or on both. 
 We must look to the context, and to the 
 scope of the argument. 
 
 " Reconciled," in v. 10, corresponds to 
 ^'■justified" in -y. 9 ; and again, in -y. 11, it is 
 said, '■'• <we have RECEIVED the reconcilia- 
 tion." It is thus clear that " reconciliation " 
 is a boon which God bestows ; we are re- 
 conciled to Him, when we are restored to 
 His favour: '■'■God nuas in Christ, reconciling 
 the tvorld unto himself, not imputing their tres- 
 passes unto them." (2 Cor. v. 19.) 
 
 From this meaning of " reconciliation," that 
 of '■^ enemies" is at once deduced. By God's 
 enemies are here meant those who lie under 
 His wrath, and they are reconciled to Him, 
 when that wrath is removed in the remission 
 of sins. 
 
 The same conclusion follows from the 
 general scope of the argument. Throughout 
 the passage {w. i-ii) our hope is shown to 
 rest, not on anything in man, but solely on 
 God's love. How is it consistent with this, 
 to ground the greater certainty of salvation 
 upon any change in our feeling towards 
 God? 
 
 (i) The first change wrought through 
 
 Christ's death, is not in man's feeling, but in 
 his state, and consequently in his relation to 
 an unchanging God. 
 
 This interpretation of the passage may be 
 confirmed by considering some of the diffi- 
 culties which have been felt concerning it. 
 
 If God loved us when we were yet sinners 
 {•v. 8), how could we be at the same time 
 regarded by Him as enemies ? 
 
 Does St. Paul speak only in a figure of 
 God being angry ? Or, is God's anger 
 nothing else than the misery which, by His 
 appointment, waits on sin ? 
 
 We must remember that to describe God's 
 moral attributes, man has no other words 
 than those which are borrowed from his own 
 nature. 
 
 It may not be possible to divest such 
 words as " anger," " hatred," and " love," of 
 some associations which, being merely human, 
 are inappropriate to God. 
 
 But man's moral nature (we speak not 
 now of its corruption, but of its essence) is 
 the image of God. And when we say that 
 God loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity, 
 we mean a love and a hate which are real, 
 personal, and conscious. Compare Hooker, 
 ' E. P.,' Bk. v.. Appendix i. vol. ii. p. 570 
 (Keble's edition). 
 
 Thus it is no figure, but a deep and essen- 
 tial truth, that God hates sin ; and since sin 
 is necessarily personal, the sinner as such, 
 i.e. "so far as he wilfully identifies himself 
 with his sin" (Godet), is hated of God, His 
 enemy (c. xi. 28). 
 
 But God loves everything that He has 
 made. He cannot love man as a sinner, but 
 He loves him as man, even ivhen he is a 
 sinner. In like manner the Jews are des- 
 cribed as being at the same time enemies in 
 one relation and beloved in another (xi. 28). 
 
 Human love here offers a true analogy: 
 the more a father loves his son, the more he 
 hates in him the drunkard, the liar, or the 
 traitor. 
 
 Thus God, loving as His creatures those 
 whom He hates as self-made sinners, devises 
 means whereby they may be brought back 
 unto Him. 
 
 By the death of His Son, sins are put away ; 
 man, being represented by Christ, is no longer 
 a sinner in God's sight, but righteous, and as 
 such reconciled or restored to His favour. 
 
 Hence the force of the Apostle's argu- 
 ment : if God's love reconciled us when we 
 were His enemies, much more will it save us, 
 after we have been reconciled. 
 
 (2) The verse contains a second contrast 
 between the means of our reconciliation, and 
 
V. II — 12,] 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 115 
 
 death of his Son, much more, being joy in God through our Lord Jesus 
 reconciled, we shall be saved by his Christ, by whom we have now re- 
 life, ceived the atonement. 
 II And not only so^ but we also 12 Wherefore, as by 
 
 one man 
 
 of our continued salvation : if reconciled 
 through the death of His Son, much more 
 shall we be saved in His life, not merely "^y" 
 but "in his life," as partakers thereof. (Com- 
 pare John V. 26 ; xiv. 19.) 
 
 Some have thought that the point of com- 
 parison here is povi^er. 
 
 Christ in His death sank in humiliation 
 and weakness under the wrath of God. 
 Christ now liveth as our eternal Mediator, 
 Intercessor, and King, unto whom all power 
 is given in heaven and in earth. If His death 
 had power to restore us to God's favour, 
 how much more shall His life have power to 
 save us from wrath ? 
 
 Bat throughout the passage from v. 5, 
 St. Paul speaks, not of God's power, but of 
 His love, as the foundation of our hope. It 
 was a greater trial of love to reconcile us by 
 Christ's death, than to save us in His life; it 
 cost more to redeem us at first, than it will 
 now cost to save us unto the end. The 
 argument is a fortiori, from the greater to the 
 less. 
 
 11. jind not only so, but ive also joy in God.'\ 
 On the reading and construction, see the 
 note at the end of the chapter. 
 
 From the fact of our having been recon- 
 ciled to God (f. 10), two results follow, not 
 only a future salvation, but also a present 
 rejoicing in God. 
 
 The train of thought, and the word ren- 
 dered '^joy" or "rejoice," are the same as 
 in tit;, i, 2 ; and here, as there, St. Paul 
 reminds us that our glorying in God is 
 maintained through the same Lord Jesus 
 Christ, through whom we, who were for- 
 meh; enemies, have now been reconciled to 
 God. 
 
 tie atonement.^ Read, ^^d- reconciliation, 
 as in xi. 15, and 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. The word 
 ^^ atonement," which in the O. T. constantly 
 means "expiation," occurs in the N.T. only 
 here, being substituted for the proper word 
 "reconciliation." 
 
 12-21. As IN Adam all die, even so in 
 Christ shall all be made alive. 
 
 So far, St. Paul has shown that sin is in 
 fact universal in mankind, and that through 
 Christ alone God has provided for all 
 righteousness and life. He now deepens and 
 Mrengihens his argument by showing that 
 */..*• cause of this universality of sin, and of its 
 umsequence, death, is the unity of mankind 
 
 in Adam ; and that, corresponding to this, 
 there is a higher unity in (Christ, who thus, 
 as the true head and representative of the 
 human race, becomes by His obedience unto 
 death, a source of life and righteousness for 
 all. 
 
 It is thus evident that the comparison 
 between Adam and Christ is no rhetorical 
 illustration, but an earnest, argumentative 
 statement of two great truths in their essen- 
 tial connexion, universal sinfulness and uni- 
 versal redemption. 
 
 The comparison is based upon the deri- 
 vation of sin and death from Adam, which is 
 thus treated as a known and admitted fact. 
 St. Paul's representation of it is wholly de- 
 rived from the original narrative in Genesis ; 
 he introduces no new teature, and it is there- 
 fore gratuitous to assume that he drew from 
 any other source. Traces of the same doc- 
 trine in the Apocryphal books (Wisdom, ii. 
 24; Ecclesiasticus XXV. 24), and in Rabbinical 
 writings, so far as they show the opinion pre- 
 valent among the Jews, may tend m.ore or 
 less to confirm, but cannot possibly weaken, 
 the Apostle's testimony to the historical truth 
 of the Fall, as the source of sin and death. 
 (John viii. 44.) 
 
 The master-thought of the whole passage 
 is that unity of the many in the one, which 
 forms the point of comparison between Adam 
 and Christ. 
 
 " Throughout he clings to " the one," and 
 continually brings this forward, saying, " As 
 by one man sin entered into the world," and 
 " in the trespass of the one the many died," 
 and " Not as through one having sinned is the 
 gift," and " The judgment was from one unto 
 condemnation," and again, " For if by the 
 trespass of the one death reigned through the 
 one" and " Therefore as through one tres- 
 pass," and again, " As through the disobe- 
 dience of the one man the many were made 
 sinners," and he constantly repeats " the 
 one," in order that when the Jew says to 
 you, " How by the well-doing of one, Christ, 
 was the world saved ?" you may be able to 
 say to him, " How by the disobedience of 
 one, Adam, was the world condemned ?" 
 (Chrysostom.) 
 
 The same recapitulation of the human race 
 in Adam and in Christ is taught in i Cor. xv. 
 22. " For as in AdcDn all die, even so in 
 Christ shall all he made alinjey 
 
 12. Wherefore^ " For this cause," — 
 namely, that Christ died and rose again foi" 
 
 H 2 
 
liO 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 [v. 12. 
 
 sin entered into the world, and upon all men, 'for that all 
 death by sin ; and so death passed sinned : 
 
 have " ^' *• 
 
 vj/wtn. 
 
 US, that we might be justified and saved 
 through Him (8-11). 
 
 as by one man sin entered into the world, 
 and death by sinJ] yls through one man sin 
 entered into the ivorld, and through sin 
 death. The comparison here begun would be 
 formally completed thus: "so by one man 
 righteousness entered into the world, and 
 life through righteousness." But after the 
 digression in -vv. 13, 14, St. Paul, instead 
 of resuming his unfinished sentence, glides 
 back, as his manner is (c. iii. 25, 26 ; Eph. 
 iii. 3, 4), into his former course of thought 
 in the words, " Adam, ivho is a figure of 
 him that was to come." The parenthesis as- 
 sumed in the Authorised Version is thus seen 
 to be inadmissible. The words, " through 
 one man," are placed first for the sake of 
 emphasis, because they contain the point of 
 comparison, and so afiect the whole verse. 
 
 " Sin " is here viewed as a whole, and St. 
 Paul points to the source from which all 
 human sin has flowed ; any distinction there- 
 fore between the propensity, the act, or the 
 habit, would here be out of place. 
 
 " The ivorld" into which " sin entered 
 through one man" is the human race (c. iii. 
 19; xi. 15). The previous existence of sin 
 and death outside the world of man, is a 
 matter untouched by the Apostle's state- 
 ment. 
 
 Why is not Eve mentioned, who sinned 
 before Adam (2 Cor. xi. 3 ; i Tim. ii. 14; 
 Sirach xxv. 24) ? 
 
 Because the exact point touched by St. 
 Paul is not who first sinned, nor how sin 
 arose in Adam, but how it became universal 
 in mankind. 
 
 " Adam ivas first formed, then Eve " 
 (i Tim. ii, 13). '■'■The man is not of the 
 ivoman, hut the ivoman of the man" (i Cor. 
 xi. 8). Thus does St. Paul define the posi- 
 tion of Adam as the founder and represen- 
 tative of the race, through whom life was 
 transmitted to all, and with life also sin and 
 death (Gen. v. 3). 
 
 and death by sin.'] and through sin 
 death. That death must here be under- 
 stood in its primary sense as the death of 
 the body, is clear from the connexion with 
 V. 14, where no other meaning is admis- 
 sible, and from the unmistakable reference to 
 the narrative in Genesis (Gen. ii. 17), and 
 the sentence there pronounced, " Dust thou 
 art, and unto dust shalt thou return " (Gen. 
 iii. 19). See Wisdom ii. 24; i Cor. xv. 21. 
 
 Though bodily death is regarded in Genesis 
 and by St. Paul as the divinely appointed 
 
 punishment of sin, it may be none the less its 
 natural consequence. When the immortality, 
 which would have been the reward of Adam's 
 obedience, was forfeited by his sin, the 
 earthly frame would naturally return to its 
 dust. Here, however, the great truth as- 
 serted by St. Paul is, that bodily death 
 is in man the result of sin ; a view familiar 
 to us as Christians, but not to the heathen, 
 who regarded death, " not as a punish- 
 ment, but as either a necessity of nature, 
 or a rest from toils and troubles" (Cic. in 
 Cat. iv. 7), 
 
 If we try to grasp more than is contained 
 in the passage, by introducing the ideas of 
 " moral death," and " the second death," we 
 relax our hold on the fundamental truth that 
 bodily death is the penalty of Adam's sin. 
 
 Nor is this an imaginary danger, for some 
 have been led on so far as to deny that the 
 death of the body was at all included in the 
 death threatened to Adam as the penalty of 
 his sin (August. Serm. ccxcix. 10, 11 — against 
 the Pelagians). 
 
 " Moral " cu" " spiritual death" is a figura- 
 tive expression for sin itself, and therefore 
 cannot be included in death, when death is 
 distinguished — as here — from sin. 
 
 " The second death," as is shown by the 
 very phrase, and by the context in which it 
 occurs (Rev. xx. 13, 14; xxi. 8), does not 
 begin till after the general resurrection and 
 the final judgment. To introduce such an 
 idea into the present passage is to confound 
 the last judgment, of which it is said, " they 
 ivere judged every man according to their 
 <works," with the judgment pronounced upon 
 Adam in Gen. iii. 19, which extended in its 
 effects equally to all his descendants, prior to 
 any consideration of each man's works, and 
 without any distinction between the evil and 
 the good. 
 
 Erroneous views of the passage have arisen 
 from overlooking several important considera- 
 tions. 
 
 1. St. Paul brings into the comparison only 
 those effects of Adam's transgression which 
 are tratismitted to all his posterity, namely the 
 inheritance of death and of a sinful nature ; 
 while God's final judgment is based solely on 
 personal and individual responsibility. 
 
 2. The death of Christ does not precisely 
 reverse the effects of Adam's sin, it over- 
 powers them by greater gifts. 
 
 3. The death of the body as denounced 
 upon Adam could not be regarded as a merely 
 temporary separation of body and soul, but 
 only as the beginning of a permanent state. 
 Hence the gloomy view of death which 
 
V. I3--I4J 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 117 
 
 13 (For until the law sin was in 14 Nevertheless death reigned 
 the world : but sin is not imputed from Adam to Moses, even over 
 when there is no law. them that had not sinned after the 
 
 pervades the Old Testament, except in a few 
 remarkable prophecies. It was only when 
 Christ " brought life and immortality to light" 
 by His own resurrection, that the Christian 
 view of death as a temporary separation of 
 body and soul, a transition to a higher life, 
 could be realised. 
 
 and so] I.e. through sin which had itself 
 come in through one man. 
 
 death passed upon all men^ "Passed 
 through unto all men." 
 
 for that all have sinned?^ Read ^^for that 
 all sinned." 
 
 On e0' w see Note at end. 
 
 That dependence of the death of all upon 
 the sin of one, which is already implied in the 
 word " JO," is more fully and precisely stated 
 in the clause, ''''for that all sinned." We 
 have already remarked that the words 
 "through one man" affect the whole verse : 
 their influence on this last clause is most 
 important, determining its meaning to be 
 " for that all sinned through one man " .• com- 
 pare 2 Cor. V. 14, " If one died for all, then 
 they all died," i.e. in the one. In both 
 passajres the Authorised Version (" ha've 
 sinned," '■'■ ivere all dead"^ is inaccurate. 
 
 Sin and death not only " entered into " the 
 human race, but also '■''passed through" to 
 every member of it " through one man." 
 
 That death extended to all is a patent fact : 
 and since death entered " through sin " and 
 " so " passed on, it is presupposed that " alt 
 Binned." Only thus is the cause '''■sin" co- 
 extensive with the effect " death " : at the 
 same time, since " «// sinned" through one, 
 it is equally true that " by the offence 0/ the 
 one the ma,nj died" {v. 15). 
 
 The Apostle's whole reasoning rests on 
 these two principles: (i) Sin is the cause of 
 death; (2) By virtue of the unity of mankind 
 sin and death are both transmitted from one 
 to all. Thus the sin of the many and the 
 death of the many are included in the sin of 
 the one and the death of the one, and there 
 at their common source the connexion be- 
 tween sin and death is fixed once for all. 
 " The covenant of life, entered into with 
 Adam in his state of innocence, was by his 
 sin made void, not only for himself, but also 
 for his posterity; so that now all sons of 
 Adam, as such" [i.e. apart from Christ], 
 " are quite shut out from any promise of 
 immortality, and subjected to a necessity of 
 dying, without hope of resurrection. No 
 proposition in all theology is more certain 
 than this: for it is everywhere stated most 
 
 plainly and expressly in the N. T. scriptures, 
 especially in the Epistle to the Romans 
 throughout almost the whole 5th chapter" 
 (Bp. Bull, ' Examen Censure, Anim.' xvii. 
 p. 208). Theodoret's comment, " For not 
 on account of his forefather's sin, but on 
 account of his own, each man receives the 
 doom of death," is as directly opposed to St. 
 Paul's argument as it is to experience and 
 theology : the error arises from confounding 
 the sentence of bodily death, which through 
 one man's sin extended to all, with the sinner's 
 final doom. 
 
 13, 14. St. Paul pursues the thought that 
 " all sinned through one," and that on this 
 account death passed upon all. His proof is 
 drawn from the case of those who died before 
 a law was given, and rests on the principle 
 already stated in iv. 15, that "where no law 
 is, there is no transgression." 
 
 First he states as a known fact that during 
 the period from Adam to Moses, that is, 
 " until the la=w, there ivas sin in the avorld." 
 
 But as '''sin is not imputed" not brought 
 into account against the sinner (see Phile- 
 mon V. 18), ''''nvhen there is no la<w" men could 
 not then bring upon themselves the penalty of 
 death, as Adam did, because they could not 
 sin, as Adam, against a known law. There 
 was sin, but not in the form of transgres- 
 sion, and therefore not taken into account. 
 
 Their own sin then was not the cause that 
 men died. But they did die : " death reigned 
 from Adam to Moses enjen over those who 
 sinned not after the similitude qf the 
 transgression of Adam." 
 
 And as sin is the cause of death {y. 12), 
 and Adam's sin alone could be taken into 
 account, they died through Adam's sin. 
 This is substantially Chrysostom's interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 The unavoidable inference that through 
 one maris sin all died is only for a moment 
 deferred; in w. 15, 17, and 19 it is affirmed 
 in express terms. 
 
 Meanwhile through the introduction of 
 Adam's name the Apostle is able to return 
 to the comparison begun in v. 12. Thus 
 the relative clause '•'■ nuho 's the figure of him 
 that ivas to come " serves a double purpose : 
 it implies indirectly the conclusion to be 
 drawn from w. 13, 14, that all sinned and 
 died in Adam, who is thus a " figure " or a 
 "type" of Him in whom all are justified 
 and made alive ; and it enables St. Paul to 
 resume and complete his unfinished compari- 
 son. 
 
ii8 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 [v. 15- 
 
 similitude of Adam's transgression, 
 who is the figure of him that was to 
 come. 
 
 15 But not as the offence, so also 
 is the free gift. For if through the 
 offence of one many be dead, much 
 
 This comparison is here confined to the 
 effects in man of Adam's sin and of Christ's 
 obedience : it does not embrace (as in i Cor. 
 XV. 24-28) man's lordship over the creatures 
 as typical of Christ's universal dominion in 
 the " times of the restitution of all things." 
 Our Authorised Version therefore rightly ren- 
 ders, " him which ivas to come," not " which 
 is to come." 
 
 15. But not as the offence, so also is the free 
 gift.^ But not as the trespass, so also is the 
 actofgraoe. The comparison between Adam 
 and Christ is at the same time a contrast : they 
 are alike in that they both stand at the head 
 of the human race, and so extend the influence 
 of their acts to all ; unlike in the nature of 
 those acts, and the consequences that flow 
 from them. " Rabbi Yosc, the Galilaean 
 said, ' Come forth and learn the righteousness 
 of the King Messiah, and the reward of the 
 just from the first man, who received but 
 one commandment, a prohibition, and trans- 
 gressed it : consider how many deaths were 
 inflicted upon himself, upon his own genera- 
 tions, and upon those that followed them, 
 till the end of all generations. Which attri- 
 bute is the greater, the attribute of goodness, 
 or the attribute of vengeance ?' He answered, 
 'The attribute of goodness is the greater; 
 and the attribute of vengeance is the less; 
 how much more, then, will the King Messiah, 
 who endures affliction and pains for the 
 transgressors (as it is written, ' He nvas 
 ivounded' <b'c.'), justify all generations ! and 
 this is what is meant, when it is said, ' ^nd 
 the Lord rnade the iniquity of us all meet upon 
 hitn.'" (Neubauer, 'Jewish Interpreters of 
 Isai.,' hii. p. 11.) 
 
 The word rendered ^^the offence" is the 
 same which is applied to Adam's sin in 
 Wisdom X. i, and there rendered '•'■ his fall " : 
 in the Gospels it is translated ^'•trespass" 
 (Mat. vi. 14; Mar. xi. 25). The strict con- 
 trast to Adam's trespass is Christ's obedience, 
 but St. Paul, regarding them both chiefly in 
 their influence on mankind, passes on at once 
 to the effect of that obedience, namely the 
 act of grace by which the effect of the tres- 
 pass is annulled. On the various applica- 
 tions of xcpi^o-na see note on i. 1 1 : here it 
 indicates the act of God's free grace in 
 pardoning and justifying. 
 
 For if through the offence of one many be 
 dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift 
 by grace, nvhich is by one man, Jesus Christ, 
 bath abounded unto many. 2 Read : " For if 
 
 hy the trespass of the one the many 
 died, much more did the grace of God 
 and his gift abound unto tho many is 
 the grace of the one man Jesus Christ ^ 
 " If" does not here imply uncertainty, but 
 lays a basis for argument : that " by the 
 trespass of the one the many died," has 
 been already proved : much more certain is 
 it that the grace abounded unto the many, 
 for God's grace flows more freely than His 
 wrath. The word rendered '''' gift" iPap(a) 
 is used in the New Testament only of God's 
 greatest and best gifts, as Christ himself, the 
 Holy Ghost, and his gifts (John iv. 10; Acts 
 ii. 38 ; viii. 20; x. 45 ; 2 Cor. ix. 15 ; Eph. 
 ii. 8 ; iv. 7) : here it means " the gift of 
 righteousness " (f. 1 7). " The grace of God '' 
 and " his gift " differ only as cause and 
 effect; their essential unity is perhaps indi- 
 cated in the Greek by the singular number of 
 the verb which follows. 
 
 " TAe grace of God" abounded "in the 
 grace of the one man Christ Jesus," even 
 as the water of the fountain abounds in the 
 river. 
 
 " The grace abounded " in the sense that it 
 was not limited to a reversal of the effects of 
 Adam's sin : it did not restore in the same 
 form that which had been lost in Adam, but 
 bestowed far more in new and better gifts. 
 The penalty of death is not abolished : but 
 a new life is imparted, in which death 
 itself is to be swallowed up at the resurrec- 
 tion : man is not put back into that unstable 
 innocence from which Adam fell, but his 
 sins are forgiven : the corruption of nature, 
 which we inherit prior to any exercise of our 
 own will, is compensated by those secret 
 influences of the Spirit wherein He strives 
 with us even against our will. And to 
 those who will accept the grace, it brings 
 both greater abundance of grace here, and 
 the sure hope of glory hereafter. 
 
 " The many " unto whom the gift abounded 
 "by the grace of the one man Christ 
 Jesus" must include "the many" who 
 died "by the trespass of the one." 
 
 The gift " abounded unto the many," inas- 
 much as Christ's redeeming work has won 
 grace for all men : there is no limit in the 
 gift itself, but only in man's willingness to 
 accept it. 
 
 The Authorised Version loses the full 
 meaning of the expression "the one man," 
 that is the head and representative of 
 mankind, " the last Adam," the beginning of 
 the new creation, " the firstborn among many 
 brethren " (Rom. viii. 29). 
 
V. i6— 18.] 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 119 
 
 more the grace of God, and the gift 
 by grace, which is by one man, Jesus 
 Christ, hath abounded unto many. 
 
 16 And not as it was by one that 
 sinned, so is the gift : for the judg- 
 ment was by one to condemnation, 
 but the free gift is of many offences 
 unto justification. 
 
 17 For if "by one man's offence " ^'■•*^ 
 
 / } one offence. 
 
 death reigned by one ; much more 
 they which receive abundance of 
 grace and of the gift of righteousness 
 shall reign in life by one, Jesus 
 Christ.) 
 
 18 Therefore as "by the offence " O""./^ 
 
 . . , ' ,, oneoffaice. 
 
 or one judgment came upon all men 
 
 16. And not as it ivas by one that sinned, so 
 is the gift-] This should be rendered as one 
 clause: "and the gift is not as through 
 one having sinned." 
 
 In "u. 15 the argument depends on the 
 contrast in the nature of the trespass and the 
 gift, that is of sin and grace: in -v. 16 the 
 contrast refers, not to quality, but to quantity ; 
 the gift of justification is greater than the 
 ■ condemnation, because it is occasioned, not 
 by one offence, but by many. Adam received 
 a law with a definite penalty attached to it ; 
 his sin was therefore a distinct and formal 
 " trespass," which was at once " imputed " or 
 taken into account. The command had been 
 given to Adam while he was yet alone, 
 " Thou shalt not eat," " in the day that thou 
 eatest, thou shalt surely die : " so to Adam 
 alone is the condemnation addressed, " Dust 
 thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." 
 But the sentence thus pronounced upon our 
 first father alone extended in its effects to all 
 his children: '■'■ the judgment <ivas from one 
 unto condemnation." It was otherwise with 
 the gift: "the gift was not as through 
 one having sinned." The one trespass 
 from which judgment proceeded was fol- 
 lowed {when and hoiv we shall be told after- 
 wards), by many trespasses, every one of 
 which deserving condemnation became a 
 fresh occasion for unmerited forgiveness : 
 thus ''''the free gift ivas from many tres- 
 passes unto justification. " Condemnation " 
 (KUTuicpLfia) and justification (Sucaiw/xa) here 
 correspond to each other : each describes not 
 an act in process, but an act done, a sentence 
 passed. As one judgment unto condemna- 
 tion extended to all, so for all there is but 
 one free gift unto justification, the applica- 
 tion of which to each believer is expressed by 
 a different form of the word as a "justifying" 
 (•y. 18). 
 
 17. The statement that "the free gift 
 is unto justification," {v. 16), is now con- 
 firmed from the certainty that a still greater 
 blessmg will follow. The argument is no 
 mere repetition of ii. 15: it gathers up and 
 carries onward the results already attained in 
 "vv. 15, 16 ; but it also adds a new contrast 
 between the reign of death and the reign of 
 the justified in life 
 
 The conclusion of v. 15, that "the grace 
 of God and his gift abounded unto the 
 many," is here assumed in the words '''they 
 which recei-ve the abundance of the graoe 
 and of the gift of righteousness." 
 
 The conclusion of -y. 16 is also assumed 
 in the same clause : for as " the free gift is 
 unto justification," it is now more closely de- 
 fined as "the gift of righteousness" and as 
 received now. 
 
 They then who receive this gift of right- 
 eousness now will surely receive also the gift 
 of life hereafter. 
 
 This assurance is not made to depend solely 
 on the intrinsic connection between righteous- 
 ness and life : it is made doubly sure by the 
 contrast with the gloomy reign of sin and 
 death. 
 
 For if by one man's offence.'] The reading 
 represented in the margin (" by one offence ") 
 has been adopted by some critics; but it 
 has less authority, and does not agree so 
 well with the corresponding clause at the 
 end of the verse. Translate: "For if by 
 the trespass of the one death reigned 
 through the one, much more they 'which 
 receive the abundance of the grace and of 
 the gift of righteousness shall reign in life 
 through the one, Jesus Christ." 
 
 We may notice a difference of expression 
 in the two clauses. " Death reigned " ; under 
 his tyranny man's free agency is destroyed : 
 the justified shall themselves " reign in life " ; 
 for fife eternal is the element in which man's 
 personal and conscious activity shall find its 
 glorious development. The blessing here 
 promised is far more than the restoration ot 
 what was lost through Adam : it is promised 
 therefore not to all unconditionally, but to 
 those who accept that gift of righteousness 
 which is offered to all. 
 
 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judg- 
 ment came upon all men to condetnnation ; 
 even so by the righteousness of one the free 
 gift came upon all men unto justification of lije.] 
 This verse gathers up the various contrasts 
 of the whole passage {vv. 13-17) in a sum- 
 mary conclusion. 
 
 That the marginal renderings are the more 
 correct, will be seen by comparing in the 
 Greek v. 18 with v. 19. The Authorised 
 
I20 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 [v. 19. 
 
 I Or,6y 
 one right- 
 tousness. 
 
 to condemnation; even so "by the 19 For as by one man's disobe- 
 
 righteousness of one the free gift dience many were made sinners, so 
 
 came upon all men unto justification by the obedience of one shall many 
 
 of life. be made righteous. 
 
 Version supplies in the first clause "judg- 
 ment came," and in the second " the free 
 gift came " : on grammatical and rhetorical 
 grounds it is inconceivable that two subjects 
 standing in contrast could both be thus 
 omitted. 
 
 There is no complete proposition, but a 
 kind of exclamation, which is perfectly intel- 
 ligible without any addition. 
 
 "So then as through one trespass, unto 
 all men, to condemnation; so also 
 through one justificatory sentence, 
 unto all men, to justification of life." 
 
 St. Paul does not repeat the strictly logical 
 C'->ntrast of -v. 16, between "trespass" and 
 "gift of grace," '■''condemnation" and "jus- 
 tificatory sentence;" but advancing upon 
 that conclusion, he now sets against the " one 
 trespass" the "one justificatory sen- 
 tence," and against the "■ cotidemnation" as 
 reaching to all, the justifying process, or 
 ^^Justification of life " unto all. 
 
 The words " all men " must have the same 
 extent in both clauses: and as the condemna- 
 tion passed upon " all men " in the proper 
 sense of the word " all," so the " one justifi- 
 catory sentence" leads in God's purpose 
 unto justification of life for all. The realisa- 
 tion of this purpose in individual men de- 
 pends upon their accepting by faith the 
 justilication designed for them. But it is not 
 St. Paul's purpose to bring out here, more 
 fally than he has already done in v. 17, this 
 subjective condition of justification; he is 
 speaking of the one justification through 
 Christ as equally comprehensive with the one 
 condemnation through Adam. 
 
 Justification of life] " A justification by 
 which we are recalled from the death of sin 
 unto the life of grace and glory" (Corn, a 
 Lapide). This interpretation is confirmed 
 by 'V. 21, "that grace might reign through 
 righteousness unto eternal life." Compare 
 Bull, ' Exam. Censuras,' Anim. iii. 
 
 The genitive expresses the effect or pur- 
 pose : "Justification " is unto, or in order to, 
 " life" (Winer, § 30 ; Green, § 270). 
 
 19. One point in the comparison is still in- 
 complete. Adam's '■'trespass" has been con- 
 trasted, not, as we m.ight have expected, with 
 Christ's obedience, but with the moving 
 cause of that obedience, His grace {y. 15), 
 and with the result purchased by His obedi- 
 ence, and bestowed by His grace, '■'the gift 
 of righteousness" (y. 17), and the "justifi- 
 catory sentence" (-z;. 18). 
 
 It remains to show the means by which 
 Christ's grace wrought these effects, viz., His 
 obedience itself, and so to present the exact 
 contrast to that one transgression, by which 
 all were made sinners. This is now done, 
 and the summary given in 1^. 18 is thereby 
 explained and confirmed. 
 
 " For as by the disobedience of the one man 
 the many ivere made sinners, so also by the 
 obedience 0/ the one shall the many be made 
 righteous." 
 
 The words " nvere made sinners " have been 
 very variously interpreted : " became sinners," 
 — " were proved to be," — " were regarded and 
 treated as being sinners," — these all miss the 
 exact force of the word {KaQiuTan-QaC), which 
 points to the formal essence, to that which 
 constitutes men sinners. St. Paul has shown 
 in -y. 13 that sin may exist without being 
 taken into account, i. e., without formally 
 constituting the man a sinner. But Adam's 
 disobedience, being a formal transgression, 
 caused an essential and formal change in his 
 moral state : he and all his descendants 
 were at once formally constituted sinners 
 (" peccatores constituti sunt," Fulgate), and 
 as such were subjected to death. The clause 
 states explicitly, what is already contained in 
 11. 12, that "through one man .... all sinned^' 
 
 As Adam's disobedience consisted in one 
 single act, so by the obedience contrasted 
 with it, we must understand the one crown- 
 ing act of Christ's obedience (Phil. ii. 8), His 
 submission to death. Yet this death in its 
 atoning power presupposes a sinless life : one 
 act constitutes disobedience, but a perfect life 
 is needful to a complete obedience. 
 
 The effect of Christ's obedience, like that 
 of Adam's disobedience, is in its objective 
 aspect universal and immediate. If we look 
 only to Christ's work, and God's gift, all is at 
 once completed. As in Adam the many 
 were made sinners prior to any consideration 
 of their own sins ; so in Christ, solely on 
 account of the merits of His obedience, apart 
 from, and prior to any righteous deeds or 
 dispositions of their own, the many shall " be 
 made righteous " {Karn(nadi](TovTaC) i. e. not 
 merely declared righteous, or put into the 
 position of righteous men, and treated as 
 such, but constituted righteous. 
 
 For as our union with Adam made us all 
 participators in the effects of his transgres- 
 sion, and thereby constituted us sinners ; so 
 union with Christ, who is our righteousness, 
 is that which constitutes us essentially and 
 formally righteous. 
 
V. 20 — 21 
 
 ■] 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 121 
 
 20 Moreover the law entered, 
 that the offence might abound. But 
 where sin abounded, grace did much 
 more abound : 
 
 21 That as sin hath reigned unto 
 death, even so might grace reign 
 through righteousness unto eternal 
 life by Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 The ideas of inherent sin and inherent 
 righteousness belong to the following chap- 
 ters : to introduce them by anticipation here 
 is to confuse the Apostle's argument, which 
 here regards justification in its objective as- 
 pect, as wrought by God through Christ. 
 
 The future " shall be made righteous,'' does 
 not refer to the future judgment, for it is not 
 St. Paul's habit to view justification as some- 
 thing future, but as present, and already at- 
 tained. It is because justification, though 
 perfected on Christ's part in one act, extends 
 onwards in its effect to generations yet un- 
 born, that it is described as future. 
 
 20. Moreover the la<vj entered, that the 
 offence might abound?^ "But law came 
 in beside, that the trespass might be 
 multiplied." 
 
 As the sin of Adam and the grace of Christ 
 have been presented as the main elements 
 and moving powers in man's history, the 
 question naturally occurs — what was the 
 purpose of the law ? What was its relation 
 to sin and to righteousness ? 
 
 Besides this general association with the 
 preceding passage, the law has been ex- 
 pressly mentioned in it : " Until the la<iv sin 
 luas in the <world ; but sin is not imputed nuhere 
 there is no la^w,"' v. 1 3. Why then, it may be 
 asked, was the law given ? What purpose did 
 it serve ? 
 
 Again, in v. 16, the one offence of Adam is 
 contrasted with " many trespasses." Whence 
 came these many trespasses ? That question 
 is now answered. 
 
 Sin had come into the world before (y. i ?), 
 and remained in the world (y. 13): but sin 
 without law is not taken into account (1;. 13), 
 and does not constitute trespass or trans- 
 gression (iv. 15): therefore law came in 
 beside (sin), in order that the trespass might 
 be multiplied. Compare Gal. iii. 19, " The 
 lanv ivas added because of {iox the sake of) 
 transgressions." 
 
 Do these words attribute to God, as the 
 author of the law, the purpose of increasing 
 sin ? 
 
 To answer this question fully here, would 
 be to anticipate the course of St. Paul's own 
 argument ; for in c. vii. he enters into a full 
 discussion of the nature and effect of the 
 law. At present we must notice only such 
 points as arise directly out of this passage. 
 
 I. According to Chrysostom and other 
 Greek commentators, it is only an eff'ect of 
 the law, not a purpose, that is stated. But 
 
 this interpretation weakens the natural force 
 of the Apostle's words, and only partially 
 solves the difficulty : for an effect of the law 
 must have been foreseen, and therefore in 
 some sense included in its purpose. 
 
 2. The words mean, not " that the trespass 
 might increase " merely in man's conscious- 
 ness and knowledge of it, but "might be 
 multiplied actually '' : this sense is also re- 
 quired by the connexion with the "many 
 offences" in 1;. 16 which cannot but be 
 actual. 
 
 But on the other hand we must observe 
 that— 
 
 3. The purpose stated is not that sin, but 
 that " ^/^f' trespass" might increase; that sin 
 which already existed, however dormant or 
 unrecognised (vii. 7, 8, 13), might take the 
 definite form of active " trespass," or transgres- 
 sion of a known law. That sin itself increased 
 is stated in the next clause, not as a purpose, 
 but as an effect, and that an effect overruled 
 for good by the superabundance of grace. 
 
 4. The increase of the trespass is not the 
 primary purpose of the law, corresponding to 
 God's principal or signified will, which is that 
 men should observe the law to do it. Com- 
 pare Hooker, ' Eccl. Pol.' B. v. Appendix I., 
 p. 573, in Keble's edition. 
 
 5. It is not the ultimate purpose of the law, 
 but only an intermediate purpose, a mean to 
 an end : the ultimate purpose is " that grace 
 might reign through righteousness." {p. 21.) 
 
 But ivhere sin abounded, grace did much 7nore 
 abound?^ The Authorised Version uses the 
 same word " abound" for two different Greek 
 words: render, "to? where sin multiplied, 
 grace superabounded," so as to surpass the 
 increase of sin. 
 
 21. " In this, God acted, not with cruelty 
 but for the purpose of healing. For some- 
 times a man thinks himself whole, and is sick; 
 and inasmuch as he is sick, and perceives it 
 not, he seeks not a physician : the disease is 
 increased, the inconvenience grows, the phy- 
 sician is sought, and all is healed " (Augustine, 
 Ps. cii. 15). 
 
 Here St. Paul speaks more strongly of the 
 increased power of sin, when the remeiiy ap- 
 pears, and God's full purpose is declared. 
 Yet he does not say, as in the Authorised 
 Version, " Sin hath reigned ww/o death," but 
 '■'■ixi death" 2S, a province which it had won, 
 and wherein it exercised its dominion. Death 
 therefore, must be understood in the same 
 sense, as in 'w. 12, 14. 
 
122 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 But the reign of sin and death has been 
 overpowered by the superabundance of grace, 
 " that grace might reign UNTO eternal life^ 
 Grace is conquering, and has yet to conquer, 
 the kingdom of sin and death, before it can 
 enter into the full possession of its own king- 
 dom. This conquest it carries on throug'h 
 its own royal gift of " righteousness :" the 
 boundless realm unto which it shall attain, but 
 
 which will still stretch out for ever and ever 
 before it, is " eternal life." 
 
 Once again in sight of that kingdom our 
 thoughts are turned to the King Himself. 
 " Of Adam we hear no more : Christ alone is 
 remembered " (Bengel). Grace shall " reign 
 through righteousness unto eternal life through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on vv. i, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12. 
 
 The Margin, "let us have peace with God," 
 represents a reading i^a^ev attested by a 
 great majority of uncial MSS., Versions, and 
 Fathers, and adopted by Tischendorf (8), 
 Tregelles, Westcott, Fritzsche, Hofrnann, 
 8cc. On the other hand, ('xoixtv is found in 
 B'' N'' F G (not in f g) P, most cursives, the 
 later Syriac, and a few Fathers, including 
 probably Tertullian, who seems to be wrongly 
 claimed for the other reading : exofifv is pre- 
 ferred on internal grounds by Meyer, De 
 Wette, Lange, Philippi, Reiche, Cremer, 
 Scrivener, McClellan, Alford, Wordsworth. 
 
 There is a similar variation between exot^eu 
 and exco^iv in Hebrews xii. 28. Here the 
 reading 6x<»;xei/, having so great a preponder- 
 ance of external testimony, the first duty of 
 candid criticism is to consider whether it 
 offers any meaning in harmony with the 
 context. 
 
 1. Fritzsche, who prefers e'xa^ev, writes 
 thus : " It is evident that, if you replace 
 fXcififv in 1;. 1, Kavx<^iJ^e6a m'w. 2, 3 is Con- 
 junctive, not Indicative." But Fritzsche has 
 overlooked the fact that the Conjunctive 
 Mood is absolutely excluded by the cate- 
 gorical negative {ov) which follows : the 
 force of this argument is not affected by the 
 various reading /cai^xw^ft'ot, "v. 3. 
 
 2. Hoftnann, avoiding Fritzsche's error, 
 throws the emphasis on the words " through 
 Jesus Christ," and makes the two clauses 
 Koi eaxijKafJ'ev and /cat Kavxaifieda parallel to 
 each other. " Because it is Jesus Christ 
 through whom we not only have had our 
 access to this grace wherein we stand, but 
 also rejoice in hope of the glory of God; 
 therefore we may be exhorted that through 
 Him we should let our relation to God be a 
 relation of peace." 
 
 To this interpretation, which is substan- 
 tially that of Origen and Chrysostom, several 
 objections are made. 
 
 (i) " The emphasis, which obviously rests 
 in the first instance on BiKUKodevrfs and then 
 on (lprjvT)v, is taken to lie on Sta tov Kvpiov 
 j}p. 'I. X." (Meyer). 
 
 We may answer that these important 
 words are naturally brought as close as pos- 
 
 sible to the relative clause dependent on 
 them, and at the same time receive the em- 
 phasis which belongs to the close of the 
 sentence. 
 
 (2) The exhortation, " let us have peace 
 with God, and not become His enemies 
 again through fresh sins," is said to be out of 
 place in this 5th chapter, throughout which 
 St. Paul is stating the actual effects of justi- 
 fication, " ive have peace ivith God," and " ive 
 rejoice in hope of the glory of God." 
 
 To this we may reply, that the Apostle, 
 beginning his exhortation in v. i, and 
 grounding it upon the benefits already re- 
 ceived through Christ, is led on into a fuller 
 statement of the nature, cause, and extent of 
 those benefits {yv. 3-21), and only resumes 
 his practical exhortation in vi. i. 
 
 (3) Mr. Scrivener concludes, " that the 
 itacism ca for o, so familiar to all collators of 
 Greek manuscripts, crept into some very 
 early copy, from which it was propagated 
 among our most venerable codices, even 
 those fi"om which the earliest versions were 
 made : — that this is one out of a small 
 number of well-ascertained cases in which 
 the united testimonies of the best authorities 
 conspire in giving a worse reading than that 
 preserved by later and (for the most part) 
 quite inferior copies." 
 
 Against this we may fairly set the opposite 
 conclusion of Tischendorf that the testi- 
 mony for e'xofjLev is obviously overpowered 
 by that in favour of ej^w/xei', and therefore 
 " ex^y-^^ cannot be rejected unless it be alto- 
 gether inappropriate, and inappropriate it 
 seemingly is not." 
 
 Without presuming to decide between 
 such accomplished critics, we are bound to 
 express our own opinion that the internal 
 grounds of objection to '4x^p-^v are not suffi- 
 cient to outweigh the great preponderance 
 of external testimony in its favour : but in a 
 case where scholars of the greatest authority 
 differ so widely, we think it better to retain 
 in our footnotes and revised Version the 
 reading of the received Text. 
 
 6. I. "Ert yap Xpiaros ovtohv fjp,ui/ atrdivSiV 
 
ROMANS. V. 
 
 123 
 
 Kara Kaipbv vnep dcrelSav airtdavev. This is 
 the reading of the Textus Receptus, and is 
 found in D° K P 17 37 47 Arm. 
 
 II. The same reading with the addition 
 of a second i'n after curOevwv is found in 
 NAG D* 31 (istud omnium corruptionum 
 receptaculum, Rekhe) 137 Syr". 
 
 III. Instead of en yap the following varia- 
 tions are found : 
 
 (i) dye 
 ^2) el yap 
 
 B fuld. Aeth. 
 
 Cop. Isid. Pelus. August. 
 (" si tnim" Epist. 149, De 
 Pecc. Merit, i. 43) 
 
 (3) el U Syr. (Schaaf) 
 
 (4) en 8e L 
 
 (5) els Ti yap D" F G 
 
 ut quid enim d e f g Vulg. Iren. 
 Faustin. 
 
 Of these authorities B D^ F G August. 
 add the second en after uadefav. 
 
 On this evidence we have to make the 
 following remarks. 
 
 (a) The position of the first en, separated 
 by Xpta-Tos from the words to which it be- 
 longs {pvT(i>v rjp,ciiv dadevmi') is very unusual. 
 Reiche in his Critical Commentary excuses 
 it on the ground that St. Paul wished to give 
 emphasis to both thoughts, (i) that it was 
 Christ the Son of God who died ; (2) that He 
 died while we were yet sinners. But this 
 explanation is far from satisfactory. 
 
 (b) The double en has never been satis- 
 factorily explained, and the connexion which 
 Tischendorf indicates by his punctuation, 
 ovtcjov rijj.oiv aadevmv en, is opposed tO the 
 rule, universally observed in the N. T., 
 that en in a Participial clause precedes the 
 Participle. 
 
 On the other hand, the repetition of en 
 is very easily explained by the confusion of 
 the various readings. 
 
 (c) Of the variations for en yap the most 
 noticeable is III. (5) els ri yap. It is thought 
 by Reiche to have been formed from the 
 Latin " ut quid enim," and " ut quid " is used 
 in the Vulgate for els ri, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 8, 
 Mar. xiv. 4, as well as for Iva rl, Matt. ix. 4, 
 xxvii. 46, Lu. xiii. 7, Acts vii. 26, i Cor. 
 X. 29. 
 
 Stieren (Irensus, 1. III.c. xvi. § 9) acutely 
 remarks that Irenseus seems to have read iva 
 rl yap. We may add, that owing to the 
 preceding r]p.Lv, iva n would easily lose its 
 first syllable, and the remaining letters an be 
 changed into en. "iva ti yap, or els n' yap, 
 with the same general sense as the received 
 reading, would give a livelier turn to the ex- 
 pression : " For to what purpose (if our hope 
 is after all to disappoint us) did Christ die, 
 &c.?" 
 
 Dr. Westcott ('Diet, Bib.' ii. 530a) sug- 
 
 gests that there is a corruption earlier than 
 any remaining document. We believe that 
 the original reading is represented in the 
 Latin " ut quid enim Christus, quum adhuc 
 infirmi essemus, secundum tempus pro 
 impiis mortuus est? " (Vulg. Iren. &c.), and 
 that it ran thus : ha ri yap Xpiaros en avde- 
 vaiv rjixCov ovtwv Kara Kaipbv vrrep daefioav 
 aivedavev ; The position of en indicated by the 
 Latin is confirmed by Epiphanius (Marcion, 
 369), who quotes the words en ovt<ji>v fjfjiav 
 curdevuiv, in this order. 
 
 7. Is there any distinction between imp 
 diKaiov and inrep rod dyadov ? 
 
 (i.) The whole context, before and after, 
 has reference to dying for men ; and the anti- 
 thesis both to dae(:iS>v (-y. 6) and ap.apTmkwv 
 {y. 8), demands the masculine sense here in 
 both adjectives. 
 
 (ii.) The first sentence is virtually negative 
 (^oXif), and 8iKaiov therefore indefinite, and 
 without the article ; the affirmative sentence 
 assumes a definite instance marked by the 
 article {tov dyadov). 
 
 (iii.) Is there any distinction or gradation 
 of sense between dUaios and dyaSos ? 
 
 Iren. I. xxvii. i. tov p.ev hiKai.ov,Tov Sc 
 ay a6 6v vndp-^eiv. 
 
 Clement. ' Hom.' iv. c. 13. dyadov p.ev las 
 fieTaaeXofxevois xapi^6p,evov to. dpapTTjpaTa, 
 d i K a 10 V 8e i>s eKcicTTCp perd ttjv fxeTavoiav 
 KaT a^'iav tHiv Trenpaypevcov eive^iovTa. 
 
 Ammonius, naKOs ttovtjpov dia(pepei axnrep 
 6 (iKaKos TOV dyadov. 
 
 Phavorinus, dya66s 6 to. Koka p^apifo/xei/os 
 atpdovais. 
 
 Xenoph. ' Agesil.' xi. § 8, xPW"-<J'i- y^ M" o" 
 p.6vov 8 I Kaico s dXXd Kal eXevBepiats i'xpi]TO, 
 TW fiev 8 1 K a i M dpKelv rjyovpevos eav ra 
 aXKoTpia, rw 8e eXevOepico Kal todv eavTov 
 TrpocrcoCpeXrjTeov eivai. 
 
 From these and other passages, adduced 
 by various Commentators, the distinction is 
 clear. 
 
 That it is retained in the N. T. see Matt. 
 XX. 15 ; Lu. xxiii. 50 ; Rom. vii. 12 ; Trench, . 
 ' N. T. Synonymes,' 2nd Series, dyadcca-vvrj ; 
 Cremer's * Lexicon ' (^dyados) and Grimm, 
 ♦ Clavis N. T. Philol.' 
 
 If, as many think, there is no diffeience or 
 gradation between hiKaios and dya$6s in the 
 present passage, its meaning is : " For scarcely 
 for a righteous man will any die : scarcely I 
 say, for perhaps for such a man some one may 
 even dare to die." 
 
 (a) The second sentence is in this case 
 certainly superfluous ; for in fxaXis " scarcely " 
 with the improbability, the possibility also is 
 implied. 
 
 The needless modification only weakens 
 the previous statement ; and Jerome's admis- 
 sion "pendulo gradu sentcntiam temperat," 
 
124 
 
 ROMANS. V. 
 
 describes a mode of reasoning very unlike St. 
 Paul's. But if dyaOos describes a more gene- 
 rous and attractive quality than SUaios, then 
 there is reason for noticing the possible ex- 
 ception : what will hardly be done for the 
 man who is merely just, may perhaps be 
 done for the good and generous man. 
 
 (Jj) Meyer argues that the Apostle's object 
 is "to make the character of the man for 
 whom some one might perhaps make this 
 self-sacrifice, more distinctly felt, for the sake 
 of the contrast :" an argument which tends 
 to prove, not that uya^oj is a simple equivalent 
 to ?)LKui.os, but that it is more forcible and 
 emphatic. Its prominent position at the be- 
 ginning of the sentence points the same way. 
 
 (c) Again, it is urged that SUmos cannot 
 mean simply a just, honest, upright man, but 
 must have the wider sense " righteous," i. e. 
 righteous before God, as well as before man, 
 because of the contrast with ap.apTa>\m>, v. 8. 
 
 Meyer here falls into confusion, from not 
 observing that in the actual case of Christ's 
 dying for man, d/iaprcoXo's', ex^P"^^ ^"^ ao-e/:;//? 
 describe man's character ^^ coram Deo:" 
 while in the illustration, where man dies for 
 his fellow man, bUaws and dya66i are 
 both limited to human relations, and have 
 their distinct and proper meaning. 
 
 8. died for ^ I.e. "in behalf of" vnep ; not 
 "instead of" avri When David cries, 
 " Would God I had died for thee, O Ab- 
 salom my son, my son!" (2 Sam. xviii. 33), 
 we find in the LXX avrl aov. But in fact 
 dvTi is never used of Christ's dying for us, 
 and " in doctrinal passages relating to Christ's 
 death (Gal. iii. 13 ; Rom. v. 6, 8; xiv. 15 ; 
 I Pet. iii. 18, &c.), it is not justifiable to 
 render vrrep Tjfiav, and the like, rigorously 
 by ' instead of merely on account of such 
 parallel passages as Matt. xx. 28, Xvrpov dvrl 
 iro\Xa>v." (Winer, ' Gr. N. T.', part iii., sect. 
 47, E. T.) 
 
 When Pylades would die for Orestes, or 
 Alcestis for her husband, various prepositions 
 may be used, duri, vwep, nepl, npo : but 
 each has its own proper meaning. For 
 6vi]<TK(iv with vnip, see Eur. 'Alcestis,' 155, 
 284, 682, 690, 701; with dvTi, 434, 524, 
 7t6. That dvrl expresses the bare external 
 substitution of one for another, is evident 
 from such passages as the following : — 
 
 fyo) ere npea^fvovcTa Kavri rrjs (firjs 
 ^v^ris KaracTTijcracra (pcos rob' ucropdp. 
 
 ('Ale' 283.) 
 CV vvv ytvov rotcrS' dvr ifiov fJ^T]Tr]p reKvois. 
 
 (ib. 377.) 
 (TV Tov avrdi erXas Troariv dvri trds 
 dpd'^ai ■^vxds e^ "AtSa. (ib. 461.) 
 
 ^ This proper sense of dvrl could not pos- 
 sibly be expressed by vTrep-, nor can am 
 
 express the sense of vnep, "on behalf of,* 
 '' for the good of," derived from its use in the 
 local sense of bcMiding " over " one to protect 
 and defend him. Compare 2 Mace. viii. 21, 
 
 fTOtpCWS VTTfp TUIV VVflCOV Koi TrjS TTaTpldoS 
 
 dnodvi^tTKfiv, also vi. 28; vii. 9; and Ignat. 
 ad Rom. 4, vnep GeoC dTrc^r/ycrfco). 
 
 In the passages cited by Raphel on Rom. 
 V. 8, and accepted by Magee as " indis- 
 putable" ('Atonement,' i. 245), the idea of 
 substitution is not conveyed by ii-n-ep, but 
 by the context. See especially Xen. 'Anab.' 
 VII. iv. 9. 
 
 11. oil fiovov 8e, dWa Koi Kavx<^p-f6a. All 
 modern Editors read Kavxa>pfvoi with NBC 
 D, 8cc. The reading Kavx^p-fBa may be due 
 to V. 3, and to the difficulty of finding any 
 regular construction for the Participle, which 
 is still variously explained. 
 
 (i) "And not only [as reconciled], but 
 also as those who rejoice in God " (Meyer). 
 
 For this view it may be said that the greater 
 the present blessing, the more certain is the 
 future salvation. Now the reconciliation 
 mentioned in verse 10, does not fully express 
 the blessing upon which the believer has 
 already entered, for this includes also a joy- 
 ful confidence in God. 
 
 It is, however, much more simple to refer 
 oil yiovov 8e to the principal thought a-udqa-o- 
 fjLfda. 
 
 (2) " And not only [shall be saved], but 
 also saved in such a manner that we shall 
 rejoice in our salvation" (Fritzsche, Godet, 
 Winer, § 45). 
 
 In this, as in the former explanation, the 
 sense appears to be sacrificed to the gram- 
 mar, for it is more natural that Kavx<^p-fvoL, 
 like Kavx'^ptda in -w. 2, 3, should refer to a 
 present rejoicing. 
 
 (3) And not only [shall be saved], but ive 
 also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, through, luhom <we have noiv recei-ved 
 the reconciliation." 
 
 This is the interpretation of Origen, in 
 Cramer's ' Catena,' and of Theodoret : it ad- 
 mits a slight irregularity of construction, but 
 tains the natural meaning of the passage. 
 
 12. For the use of f(^' & in classical authors, 
 see Thuc. i. 113, Folyb. ' Hist.' i. 59, where 
 the future indicative follows; and Xenoph. 
 ' Agesilaus ' iv. i, ' Hellen.' ii. c. 2, § 20, where 
 the infinitive follows. 
 
 The present or past indicative seems to be 
 rare ; but an example is given by Phavorinus : 
 f(f)' u> avrl TOV Si on Xeyovaiv 'AttikoI fxera 
 TTvevparav biaiXToKris' oiop, e<p' w Trjv ickonqv 
 f ipydao). 
 
 In 2 Cor. V. 4, and in Rom. v. 12, it is well 
 rendered in the Authorised Version "for 
 that:' 
 
V. I — 2.] 
 
 ROMANS. VI. 
 
 1^5 
 
 These two passages are discussed by Pho- 
 tiiis, Epist. 14 (ed. J. N. Baletta, iS6^) to-Ctov 
 tfj TTjv didvoiav ol /xev " ((f)' (u— ^w 'ASa/x, 
 0£ 8e " e<^' CO — rw davdra " crvvvTraKnvovTfS 
 diro8i86aaiv. efioi de ovSfTepov BoKeV ovde yap 
 Tt (TwaTraKoveiv Set, avTodev e'x^ovTos tov prjrov 
 Tr)v evTeXeiav' to yap " e(p' a navrfs rjpaprov ' 
 Vhv ov npoaamov rivoi, ovS oiov npocroiTrov 
 teiKTiKov €(TTiv, oXX alvias poiXicTTa Trapaara- 
 TiKov' oiov, " ecp' w navres i]p,aprov = 8i6ti 
 jrdvTes fjpapTov." k.t.\. 
 
 In Phil. iii. 12, the only other passage of the 
 
 New Testament in which e'f/)' ^ is used, the 
 same sense is very suitable. CEcum. ^ ro 
 " f(p' <S " " irreiSr] " i/ciet, Hva ovras j/' dicoKO) 8e 
 fl KaToknfio), eVei'Si) Kayo) KaTe\7]pcfi6r]v. 
 
 In all three passages e'^' w seems to be 
 equivalent to eni rovra rw Xoyw on. 
 
 That Origen so understood the passage 
 seems probable from his paraphrase of it, 
 ' Comm. in Evang. Joh.' tom. xx. § 33 : 6avd- 
 Tov els Trdvras dv6pu>novs SteX jjXv^otos «Jri t^ 
 Trdvras Tjp,apTT]Kevai 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 We may not live in sift, 2 for we are dead 
 unto it, 3 as appear eth by our baptism. 12 
 Let twt sin reign ajiy more, 18 because we 
 have yielded ourselves to the service of right- 
 eousness, 23 and for that death is the wages 
 of sin,: 
 
 w- 
 
 HAT shall we say then ? 
 Shall we continue in sin, 
 that grace may abound .? 
 
 2 God forbid. How shall we, 
 that are dead to sin, live any longer 
 therein ? 
 
 Chap. VI. — The Moral Effects of 
 Justification. 
 
 , The purpose of the chapter is to show that 
 *' the righteousness of God " revealed in the 
 Gospel, and described in the preceding 
 chapters, so far from affording any pretext 
 for immorality, is the only sure foundation of 
 practical holiness. 
 
 1. fV^hat shall nve say then f Shall Que con- 
 tinue in sin, that grace may abound f\ We 
 have already seen (iii. 8) that the doctrine of 
 justification by faith without works of law 
 was commonly misrepresented by enemies as 
 an encouragement to do evil that good might 
 come; and apart from any such calumny 
 there was some real danger that the doctrine 
 might be abused (Gal. v. 1 3). 
 
 In passing on, therefore, to consider its 
 moral consequences, St. Paul first brings for- 
 ward, in the form of a question for delibera- 
 tion, the objection which might be made to 
 his statement in ch. v. 20, 21, concerning the 
 purpose of the law, and its relation to sin and 
 grace. 
 
 " What shall we say then ? " What infer- 
 ence shall we draw for our moral guidance 
 from the fact that, '•'• n.vhere sin multiplied, 
 grace did superabound?" Are we to 
 continue in sin, in order that God's '■'■grace 
 may be multiplied," and be more abun- 
 dantly displayed ? 
 
 'Enip€v<opfv, the genuine reading, is the 
 subjunctive of deliberation. 
 
 2. God forbid.'] See ch. iii. 4. The thought 
 is first deprecated as impious, and then refuted 
 as absurd. 
 
 H01V shall <we, that are dead to sin, live any 
 longer therein^] Read, "We that died to 
 sin, how shall we live any longer therein?" 
 The relative clause, placed first for the sake 
 of emphasis, gives a characteristic defini- 
 tion of believers, which shows the absurdity 
 of supposing that they are to '■''continue in 
 sin." 
 
 The aorist, too, must be properly rendered : 
 "we that died to sin," not " <we that are 
 dead;" for it is a mere truism to say that to 
 live in sin is inconsistent with a continued and 
 present deadnessto its influence, and what the 
 Apostle means is that to li-ve in sin is incon- 
 sistent with having once died to it. To have 
 shared Christ's death, in the moral sense, is 
 the sure prelude to sharing His new life. 
 The question '^Hoivf" implies here not a 
 physical impossibility, but a moral contradic- 
 tion. 
 
 To live in sin means more than to " continue 
 in sin : " it is to have sin for the element in 
 which we live, the moral atmosphere which 
 our souls breathe. 
 
 The expression " dying unto sin " is first 
 found in this passage, though St. Paul in an 
 earlier epistle speaks of " dying to the law " 
 (Gal. ii. 19; vi. 14; Rom. vii. 4; i Pet. ii. 
 24.) It means to be released from all power 
 and influence of sin, as a slave is by death 
 released from the power of his master: see 
 note on v. 7. 
 
 Lest the phrase " died to sin " should 
 seem strange and unintelligible, the Apostle 
 checks himself and explains it ; yet even in 
 his mode of doing this he implies that 
 his readers ought not to need an explana- 
 tion. 
 
126 
 
 ROMANS. VI. 
 
 [v. 3—4. 
 
 3 Know ye not, that so many 
 lOr, ar*. of US as "wcrc baptized into Jesus 
 
 Christ were baptized into his death ? 
 
 4 Therefore we are buried with 
 
 him by baptism into death : that h'ke 
 as Christ was raised up from the dead 
 by the glory of the Father, even so we 
 also should walk in newness of life. 
 
 3. Knonv ye not] ^^ Or know j/e not." The 
 word "or" points to the only alternative: if 
 they do not understand what it is to " have 
 died to sin,'' they must be ignorant of the 
 meaning and efFect of their baptism ; and the 
 very thought of such ignorance gives atone of 
 reproof to the question. 
 
 Here (as in "z^. 1 1), instead of ^^ Jesus Christ," 
 the right order is "Christ Jesus;" the Me- 
 diatorial name holds the emphatic position 
 here, and is used alone in the following con- 
 text (-z'-u. 4, 8, 9), because He into whom we 
 are baptized is the head, with whom all the 
 members are united in one body. 
 
 To be '•'■baptized into Christ" is to be 
 brought by baptism into union with Him: 
 but the original word represents this union 
 in a vivid picture, which we can only repro- 
 duce by using some less familiar word, — " im- 
 mersed into Christ," " immersed into his death." 
 So the Israelites are said figuratively to have 
 been " all baptized unto (into) Moses in the cloud 
 and in the sea " (i Cor. x. 2), because the result 
 of their passing under the cloud and through 
 the waters was that "they believed the 
 Lord and his servant Moses " (Ex. xiv. 31), 
 and were thus united with Moses as their 
 deliverer whom they trusted, their leader 
 whom they followed, and their mediator in 
 whose covenant they shared. Compare also 
 I Cor. xii. 13, and Gal. iii. 27, in which 
 passages, as here, the union with Christ 
 in baptism is expressly ascribed to all who 
 are baptized, because it is a gift of God 
 bestowed freely on all, though from its very 
 nature dependent on a right use for its con- 
 tinued efficacy. 
 
 Christ's death, burial, and resurrection 
 being necessary steps in the process by which 
 He unites us to Himself in a new life, to 
 be " baptized into Christ " is to be brought 
 into union with His death (y. 3), His burial 
 (•y. 4), His resurrection {v. 5). 
 
 baptized into his death.] The union with 
 Christ into which we enter by baptism is thus 
 more closely defined first as union with His 
 death ; but the death of C hrist has various 
 aspects, and the context must determine in 
 which of these it is presented. This is clearly 
 stated in T. 10 : " in that he died, he died unto 
 sin once." His death is here viewed as the final 
 and complete deliverance from a life in which 
 for our sakes He had been subject to condi- 
 tions imposed by our sins; and this sense 
 exactly corresponds with the thought which 
 led to the mention of Christ's death, " How 
 
 shall <we that died to sin, live any longer 
 therein?" 
 
 Thus the moral character of the whole life 
 of faith is determined in the very act by which 
 man enters into that life. 
 
 4. Therefore ive are buried ivith him by bap- 
 tism into death.] "We were buried there- 
 fore with him by our baptism into his 
 death." Assuming his readers' assent to the 
 fact that " we were baptized into Christ's 
 death," St. Paul proceeds to state (i) its im- 
 mediate consequence, lue were buried ivith 
 him," and (2) its final purpose, that we might 
 be, like Him, raised up to a new life. 
 
 The expression, "we were buried," may 
 have been suggested by the momentary burial 
 beneath the baptismal water (see Bingham, 
 ' Antiq.' XI. xi. § 4) : it declares in the 
 strongest manner our union with Christ in 
 death, and our entire separation from the for- 
 mer life in which sin reigned. But burial, 
 being a sign and seal which attests the reality 
 of death, serves also to attest the reality of 
 the resurrection : hence the significance which 
 St. Paul attaches to Christ's burial, and to 
 our baptismal burial with Him; compare 
 Col. ii. 12: ^^ buried <with him in baptism, 
 ivherein also ye are risen ivith him, through 
 the faith of the operation of God, ivho hath 
 raised him from the dead." 
 
 Christ ivas raised up from the dead by the 
 glory of the Father.] " Glory " is the manifes- 
 tation of excellence, and " the glory of the 
 ivz/^^r" includes all the excellence of Deity 
 that can be manifested : it is a more compre- 
 hensive attribute than " power," which is the 
 kind of excellence especially manifested in the 
 resurrection (ch. i. 4; i Cor. vi. 14; 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 4; Eph. i. 19). 
 
 Compare our Lord's words concerning the 
 resurrection of Lazarus : " Said I not unto thee, 
 that, if thou luouldest believe, thou shouldest see 
 the glory of God?" (John xi. 40). 
 
 " Christ luas raised by the glory of the Father, 
 not as lacking strength Himself, for He is the 
 Lord of all powers, but because both Christ 
 and His Apostles ascribe what is above man's 
 nature to the glory of the supreme nature " 
 (Cyril in Cramer's 'Catena'). So Pearson 
 shows with admirable force that " the raising 
 of Christ is attributed to God the Father, but 
 is not attributed to the Father alone." See 
 ' Exposition of the Creed,' i. 301-304, and 
 note on viii. 11. 
 
 By " neivness of life " is meant " newness " of 
 
/.5] 
 
 ROMANS. VI. 
 
 127 
 
 5 For if we nave been planted we shall be also in the likeness of his 
 together in the likeness of his death, resurrection : 
 
 the element of life, of the living animating 
 principle, not the Hfe that is lived day by day 
 (^I'os), but the life which liveth in us (fo))]). 
 
 On this most important distinction, see 
 Trench, ' N. T. Syn.,' 2nd series, and the 
 comment of Theodorus in Cramer's ' Catena' 
 on this passage, that " we ought to exhibit the 
 conduct proper to that life (fvbeiKvvcrdai tov 
 (iiov TTJs C^fjs eKeivrji) into which we believe 
 that we have been bom through our baptism." 
 The conduct of life (/3i'os) is here expressed 
 by the figure of " lya/z^iw^," as in the similai 
 passage Gal. v. 25. Compare also Eph. v. 2, 
 " ivalk in love," and Col. iv. 5, " ivali in ivis- 
 dom." The life in Christ is a new life, and 
 this quality is made prominent by the substan- 
 tival form, " newness of life " : compare ch. 
 vii. 6; and i Tim. vi. 17: Winer, ' Gr.,' 
 § xxxiv. 2. 
 
 The ^^ life" imparted, as is shown in -z;. 5, 
 is that of the risen Christ in His glorified 
 humanity, of which the Apostle writes to the 
 Colossians (ch. iii. 3, 4), " Te are dead (Ye 
 died), and your life is (has heen) hidden ^ith 
 Christ in God. When Christ, who is our 
 life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear <ivith 
 him in glory." 
 
 For an admirable comment on the doctrine 
 of the passage, see Hooker, ' E. P.' B''.V. ch. Ivi. 
 § 6. " The sons of God have God's own na- 
 tural Son as a second Adam from heaven, 
 whose race and progeny they are by spiritual 
 and heavenly birth." § 7. " God made Eve of 
 the rib of Adam. And his Church he frameth 
 out of the very flesh, the very wounded and 
 bleeding side of the Son of Man. His body 
 crucified and His blood shed for the life of the 
 world, are the true elements of that heavenly 
 being which maketh us such as Himself is of 
 whom we come." — lb. " Adam is in us as an 
 original cause of our nature, and of that cor- 
 ruption of nature which causes death ; Christ 
 as the cause original of restoration to life. . . . 
 Christ having Adam's nature, as we have, but 
 incoiTupt, deriveth not nature but incorrup- 
 tion, and that immediately from His own 
 person unto all that belong unto Him." 
 
 It will be seen in c. viii. 2, 9-1 1, that this 
 new vital element is " the Spirit of life." In 
 this world the " life " itself is hidden, but its 
 effects are to be seen in our " walking after 
 the Spirit " (viii. 4). 
 
 5. For if <we have been planted together in 
 the likeness of his death.~\ " For if ^lue have 
 become united to the likeness of his death." 
 
 The death and resurrection of Christ's 
 natural body have their corresponding effects 
 in His mystical body " the blessed company of 
 
 all faithful people." Toe likeness of his death'* 
 is their "death unto sin," and '■'■the likeness of 
 his resurrection " is their " new birth unto 
 righteousness." These are both included in 
 Baptism, by which the believer has been 
 brought into Hving union with Christ's mys- 
 tical body, has become one by birth and 
 growth {(TVfKpvTos) with it and with its 
 essential properties, ''the likeness of his death" 
 and '^ the likeness of his resurrection." 
 
 Some interpreters give a different turn to 
 the passages " if we have been united <with him 
 by the Ukeness of his death." But this con- 
 .=truction requires an arbitrary addition to St. 
 I'aul's words, which do not express, though 
 they of course imply, a direct union of the 
 believer with Christ Himself. 
 
 ive shall be also in the likeness of his resur- 
 rection^ The A. V. gives the sense correctly, 
 and it is hardly possible to express in English 
 the lively turn of the Greek {JiK\a Ka'i) : 
 " Why then also of his resurrection we shall 
 be." 
 
 " The likeness of his resurrection " is the 
 " newness of life " imparted to us, as the gift 
 of God, wrought by the same divine power 
 which raised Christ from the dead. "Because 
 the work of his Spirit to those effects" (s.incti- 
 fication and life) " is in us prevented by sin 
 and death possessing us before, it is of neces- 
 sity that as well our present sanctification unto 
 newness of life, as the future restoration of 
 our bodies should presuppose a participation 
 of the grace, efficacy, merit, or virtue of his 
 body and blood " (Hooker, ' E. P.' lib. v. c. Ivi. 
 § 10. " It is not required that we should die 
 the death of the body as Christ did, but to 
 die as Isaac did in the similitude and figure 
 of his death ; that is, we should die to sin ... . 
 And as it is not required that we should die 
 the death of the body in Baptism ; so it is not 
 to be expected that we should be forthwith 
 raised unto that glory, whereunto He rose, but 
 to {sic} be raised unto a similitude or likeness 
 of it, that is, unto newness of life, which is 
 the first resurrection. And of this resur- 
 rection we shall not fail to be actual par- 
 takers by Baptism, if we be rightly implanted 
 into the similitude of His death ; for so 
 the Apostle's words are" (Jackson, 'Creed,* 
 xi. 17). 
 
 Thus the future (" we shall be ") as in v. 2, 
 is not to be understood of the future resur- 
 rection, but expresses that which is morally 
 certain to take place as a consequence of 
 having been united to Christ in his death (see 
 also Alford). 
 
128 
 
 ROMANS. VI. 
 
 [v. 6—8. 
 
 6 Knowing this, that our old man 
 is crucified with hi?n^ that the body 
 of sin might be destroyed, that 
 henceforth we should not serve 
 
 7 For he that is dead 
 from sin. 
 
 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, 
 we believe that we shall also live 
 with him : 
 
 'freed '' ^J ■'**'«■ 
 
 fied. 
 
 6. Knowhig this^ Noting this. The 
 knowledge here meant (ytviocTKovrfs) is not 
 knowledge of a fact, simply as a fact (eiSores 
 •V. 9), but of the idea involved in it, a know- 
 ledge which results from the exercise of the 
 understanding {yovs). 
 
 The participle is closely connected with 
 the preceding clause: our conformity to 
 Christ's resurrection must spring from, or 
 at least be attended by, a right perception of 
 the idea and purpose of our union with His 
 death, as stated in what follows. 
 
 our old man is crucified nvitb him^ This 
 is frequently interpreted as if the whole sin- 
 fulness of the unregenerate man, or the whole 
 sinfulness of our common nature derived 
 from Adam, were personified imder the name 
 of *' our old man."" But such a figure of 
 speech falls far short of the vivid and intense 
 reality of St. Paul's thought. In Gal. ii. 20, 
 a passage written only a few months before 
 this, he says: "I have been crucified nvith 
 Christ: and it is no longer I that live, 
 but Christ Uveth in me." Contrasting his 
 former with his present state, the Apostle 
 feels that he is like another being, and has 
 undergone a change as complete as that of 
 death ; his former self has passed way, he 
 lives as a new man in Christ, and Christ in 
 him. The " old man " is thus seen to be no 
 abstraction or personification, it is our former 
 self in the old corrupt and sinful condition : 
 the figure lies in what follows. 
 
 is crucified nvith him^ "Was crucified nvith 
 him" namely in Baptism, as the whole context 
 requires. If St. Paul's language seems ex- 
 aggerated, it is because we who were bap- 
 tized as unconscious infants can hardly 
 realise what Baptism was to the adult believer 
 in the Apostolic age. 
 
 " The recipient — thus has St. Paul figura- 
 tively represented the process — is conscious 
 id) in the baptism generally : " Now am I 
 entering into fellowship with the death of 
 Christ :" {U) in the immersion : " Now am I 
 being buried with Christ :" (c) and then in the 
 emergence : " Now I rise to the new life 
 with Christ" (Meyer). 
 
 that the body of sin might be destroyed.'] As 
 it is not " the man " simply, but the " old 
 man" that was crucified, so the purpose of 
 that crucifixion was not that "the body" 
 simply, but " the body of sin " might be de- 
 stroyed. 
 
 This is the body of the old man that was 
 crucified, that is to say, it is the natural body 
 in its old condition, as the servant of sin. 
 
 This relation of servitude is distinctly ex- 
 pressed in the following words, "that we 
 should no longer serve sin," and is 
 fully developed in w. 12-14, where nothing 
 else than the natural body, and its members 
 can possibly be meant. That which in Col. 
 ii. II is called ^'' the body of the flesh" because 
 of the allusion to circumcision, is here called 
 " the body of sin" because of the reference in 
 this context to sin as a power reigning in the 
 body (v, 21 ; vi. I, 2, 12 fF.). 
 
 might be destroyed.] The body is to be 
 destroyed, not in its material substance, but 
 in its relation to sin : it is to be rendered as 
 thoroughly inert, motionless, and dead, in re- 
 lation to sin, as it is, by actual crucifixion, in 
 relation to an earthly master. According to 
 our Saviour's emphatic language, the right 
 eye is to be plucked out, and the right hand 
 cut off from the service of sin. 
 
 7. For he that is dead is freed from sin.'\ 
 In ver. 6, as in John viii. 34, the sinner is re- 
 garded as a servant or slave, who is crucified 
 and dies with Christ, in order that he may 
 no longer be enslaved to sin. This view of 
 the believer's relation to sin is now confirmed 
 by the general maxim that death puts an end 
 to all bondage, and slaves 
 
 "once ferried o'er the vi^ave 
 That parts us, are emancipate and loos'd." 
 
 (Cowper, ' The Task.') 
 
 The only diflSculty of the verse is due to 
 the brevity with which St. Paul compresses 
 into one sentence the illustration taken from 
 common life, and its application to our 
 spiritual state. " As the slave when dead is 
 set free from his master, so he that has died 
 with Christ is freed from sin." 
 
 The word dediKnloyrai does not here mean 
 "justified " in the dogmatic sense, but (as in 
 Sirac. XXvi. 29 : ov diKaicodrjcreTai KtinriXos 
 ano anaprias), " released and emancipated 
 from sin " (Cyril in Oilcumenius) ; in Latin, 
 " vindicatus in libertatem." 
 
 The context is full of this idea of emanci- 
 pation from the slavery of sin (yv. 14, 17, 18, 
 22), and from the power of law (vii. 1-6): 
 and both these ideas are found in like se- 
 quence in I Cor. vii. 21 and 29. 
 
 8-14. The Apostle now turns to a new 
 
V. 9— II.] 
 
 ROMANS. VI. 
 
 129 
 
 9 Knowing that Christ being raised 
 from the dead dieth no more ; death 
 hath no more dominion over him. 
 
 10 For in that he died, he died 
 
 unto sin once : but in that he liveth, 
 he liveth unto God. 
 
 1 1 Likev/ise reckon ye also your- 
 selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but 
 
 and peculiar feature of the case : the death, 
 which delivers from the bondage of sin, is 
 followed by a new life of liberty {yv. 8-1 1), 
 which is not under sin's dominion, but is to 
 be devoted to the service of a new master 
 (■yf. 12-14). 
 
 8. Now if 'ive be dead ivith Christ, iss'c'] 
 Read, "But if we died with Christ," &c. 
 Since Christ's death has been to Him the 
 prelude to a new Hfe, we who have shared 
 H is death believe rightly that we are to share 
 His life also. 
 
 That the life here spoken of is a gift be- 
 stowed by Christ's grace, is well shown by 
 Calvin on v. 10, " If he were only reminding 
 us of a duty, his mode of speaking would 
 have been this • ' Since we have died with 
 Christ, we ought in like manner to live with 
 Him.' But the word • helieve ' shows that 
 he is discussing a doctrine of faith, founded 
 upon promises, as if he had said, " Believers 
 ought to hold it certain that by Christ's gift 
 of grace (beneficio), they have so died accord- 
 ing to the flesh, that the same Christ main- 
 tains the ' newness of life ' even unto the 
 end.' " 
 
 The future, " ive shall live" is not to be 
 limited to the final resurrection, but shows 
 what will necessarily follow, after our parti- 
 cipation in Christ's death. 
 
 9. Knowing, (jyc.'] Our belief that we shall 
 live with Christ rests on our knowledge of 
 the fact (eifidref), that He is alive for ever- 
 more ; we could have no assurance that we 
 shall live with Him, unless we knew that He 
 can never cease to live. Therefore St. Paul 
 repeats the same important truth still more 
 emphatically : " death hath no more dominion " 
 (literally, *' is no longer master ") " o'ver him" 
 Others who had been raised from the dead 
 returned to that common life of men, in 
 which death still had dominion over them; 
 but with Christ it was not so ; " Do not 
 think, because He died once, that He is 
 mortal ; for this very reason He abideth 
 immortal. For His death has become the 
 death of Death ; and because He died, there- 
 fore He dieth no more ; for even that death 
 He died unto sin." (Chrysost.) 
 
 10. he died unto sin once\ Christ was sub- 
 jected for our sake to the power of sin, in 
 so far that He endured all the evils that sin 
 could inflict on one " luho did no sin." This 
 tyranny of sin (not His own, but ours) was 
 permitted, through the counsel of God and 
 Christ's willing obedience, to compass His 
 
 death : " He humbled himself and became obedi- 
 ent unto death" (Phil. ii. 8). 
 
 But there sin's power over Him ceased, 
 because the purpose, for which it was per- 
 mitted, was accomplished. The sin of man, 
 now that it has cost Him His life, can have 
 no more power over Him: He died once for 
 all " unto sin" i.e. His previous relation to sin 
 came utterly to an end. He was withdrawn 
 for ever from the power of sin, and therefore 
 from the power of death. There are thus 
 three points to be observed in Christ's relation 
 to sin : 
 
 (i) His Hfe, as a conflict with, and a 
 triumph over, sin, making Him as man per- 
 sonally exempt from death. 
 
 (2) His voluntary surrender, for the sins 
 of the world, of a life not forfeited by sin of 
 His own. 
 
 (3) The effect of this voluntary submission 
 to the chastisement of our sins, viz. His final 
 separation from sin and death. Compare 
 Hebrews vii. 27 ; ix. 25-28. 
 
 but in that he H-veth, he liveth unto God.l 
 Christ's earthly life was not exclusively a life 
 unto God, but had also a certain relation of 
 subjection to sin ; but now the heavenly life 
 " he liveth unto God," wholly and exclusively. 
 In Him the manhood taken into God, and 
 perfected by suffering, lives only for its true 
 end, " the glory of God." It can, therefore, 
 be no more subject to the usurped tyranny of 
 sin and death : He " dieth no more " {y. 9). 
 
 We should remember that in the words, 
 " he liveth" we have the testimony of one 
 who had seen the Lord. In the light that 
 shone round Him by Damascus, he had re- 
 cognised first a Divine presence, " Who art 
 thou, Lord?" and then came the astounding 
 discovery that this living Lord was the per- 
 secuted Jesus, which liveth, and was dead, 
 and is aUve for evermore. 
 
 11. deadindeed unto sin.'] The word " ^C(7 J " 
 (veKpovs) here describes a continued state of 
 death : as Christ died once for all unto sin, 
 so the believer, once united to Christ, must 
 regard himself as dead to the dominion of sin 
 for ever. 
 
 but alive unto God.] The believer's new 
 life belongs wholly to God, and must be 
 devoted entirely to His service: like Christ, 
 whose life he shares, " he liveth unto God" {y. 
 10) a life, which beginning on earth in holiness, 
 shall continue in heaven in glory and honour 
 and immortality. 
 
 I 
 
J30 
 
 ROMANS. VI. 
 
 [v, 12 14, 
 
 II Gr. 
 
 arms, or, 
 •weapons. 
 
 alive unto God through Jesus Christ ness unto sin : but yield yourselves 
 
 our Lord. 
 
 12 Let not sin therefore reign in 
 your mortal body, that ye should 
 obey it in the lusts thereof. 
 
 13 Neither yield ye your mem- 
 bers as "instruments of unrighteous- 
 
 unto God, as those that are alive from 
 the dead, and your members as instru- 
 ments of righteousness unto God. 
 
 14 For sin shall not have do- 
 minion over you : for ye are not 
 under the law, but under grace. 
 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord.'} Read, 
 "in Christ Jesus." Conformity to the 
 likeness both of Christ's death unto sin, and 
 of His Ufe unto God, is to be attained not 
 merely '^through," but "in," Christ Jesus. 
 It is the proper effect of " baptism into his 
 death" {y. 4), but an eflect which can only 
 be accomplished in those who realise and 
 appropriate the grace bestowed on them ; i. e. 
 who believe and account themselves to be 
 dead unto sin, and alive unto God in Christ 
 Jesus. 
 
 12, 13. The exhortation now advances 
 from faith to practice: let your conduct 
 prove that you really are such as you reckon 
 yourselves to be, and that both negatively 
 and positively. 
 
 Let not sin therefore reignJ] Let it no more 
 have dominion : for we died with Christ that 
 we should no longer be sin's slaves. " Being 
 called to reign with Christ, it is absurd to 
 choose to become the captives of sin ; as if 
 one should cast off the crown from his head, 
 and w'sh to be a slave to some demoniac 
 beggar-woman clothed in rags." (Chry- 
 sostom.) 
 
 in jour mortal body.'] The Spirit of Him 
 that raised up Jesus from the dead, shall 
 hereafter quicken also your mortal body ; but 
 as yet there is in its mortality a remnant or 
 token of past bondage, and you are waiting 
 for its redemption. Compare viii. 11, 23. 
 
 mortal body.] The only death from which 
 Christ has not redeemed us, is the death — 
 for a time — of the body; and the fact that 
 the death of the body is still endured by man 
 himself, gives more certainty and prominence 
 to the truth that the death which we have 
 already died in Christ is a death to the power 
 of sin — a moral and sacramental death, which 
 enfi-anchises our whole nature, body and 
 soul, from sin's dominion. For though death 
 still reigns over the mortal body, the sting 
 of death — which is sin — has ceased to reign, 
 except through our own fault. 
 
 that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof^ 
 Read, with the oldest MSS., " that ye should 
 obey the lusts thereof," i.e. of the body. 
 Lusts of the body there will be : for though 
 the higher part of man — his spirit — is in 
 Christ's members already alive unto God 
 (viii. 10), the body is still subject to death, 
 
 and still exposed to the attacks of sin. See 
 then that sin reign not in this mortal part, 
 lest it should extend its usurpation thence to 
 the immortal. 
 
 13. Neither yield ye your members as in- 
 struments of unrighteousness unto sin.] Sin 
 fights for the mastery ; it calls out an army 
 of the lusts of the body, and seeks to use the 
 members, hand, eye, or tongue, as weapons 
 wherewith the lusts may re-estabhsh the rule 
 of unrighteousness. " Instruments " (^oirXa) 
 mean weapons of war (John xviii. 3 ; 2 Cor. 
 X. 4, &c.). 
 
 but yield yourselves unto God.] The Greek 
 tense is changed : " Do not go on putting 
 your members at sin's disposal, but once for 
 all present (xii. i) yourselves, both body and 
 soul, unto God." 
 
 as those that are alive from the dead.] A 
 slight omission of superfluous words shows 
 the connexion more clearly : '■'■yield yourselves 
 unto God as alive from the dead," /'. e. 
 as men raised to new life in Christ. See 
 Note at end. 
 
 and your members, iss'c.] As in the pro- 
 hibition, so here again in the positive exhorta- 
 tion, the more general thought is followed by 
 the more special : yield yourselves to God, 
 and yield your members as weapons of 
 righteousness unto God. 
 
 14. For sin shall not have dominion over 
 you.] The exhortation is confirmed by a 
 promise : " Be not discouraged by your own 
 weakness from giving yourselves up to God's 
 service: your effort shall not fail, 'for sin 
 shall not be master over you.' Sin will 
 tempt and harass and ensnare, it will still be 
 a powerful, dangerous, and too often vic- 
 torious, enemy : but it shall have no authority 
 over you ; it shall not be your lord and 
 master, disposing of you at will, and, as it 
 were, of right " (vi. 9 ; vii. i ; xiv. 9 ; 2 Cor. 
 i. 24; 1 Tim. vi. 15). 
 
 for ye are not under the la^cv.] "under 
 law." As the principle of a covenant of 
 works, law is the strength of sin (i Cor. xv. 
 56), and the occasion of its getting the 
 mastery. But you have another Master, who 
 rules not by law, but by grace. Christ H im- 
 self was " made under law," in order that by 
 His perfect obedience and atoning death, " be 
 
V. 15 — 18.] 
 
 ROMANS. VI. 
 
 131 
 
 15 What then ? shaH we sin, be- 
 cause we are not under the law, 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 obe- 
 dience unto righteousness ' 
 
 17 But God be thanked, that ye 
 were the servants of sin, but ye have 
 obeyed from the heart that form 
 of doctrine "which was 
 you. 
 
 18 Being then made free from sin, 
 ye became the servants of righteous- 
 
 delivered " 9''' 
 
 lulieri-to 
 
 might redeem them that "were under law, 
 that <we might receive the adoption of sons '' 
 (Gal. iv. 5). In other words, " that we 
 might be brought ' under grace,' and so being 
 freely pardoned, justified, quickened in Christ, 
 and made one with Him, might be no longer 
 servants of sin, but sons of God." 
 
 15. What thenf] Are we to turn the 
 grace of our God into lasciviousness (Jude 
 4) ? Are we to sin in hope of impunity, 
 " because tue are not under law, but under 
 grace ?" " God forbid." 
 
 16. The suggestion indignantly rejected in 
 V. 15, is now refuted by an appeal to truths 
 which cannot be unknown to the reader; 
 first, that he who habitually yields himself up 
 to a slavish obedience, is in fact the slave of 
 him whom he obeys (John viii. 34); and, 
 further, that " no man can serve t-ivo masters," 
 but must be the servant "either of sin unto 
 death, or of obedience unto righteousness." 
 Observe that St. Paul puts the only two 
 alternatives into the sharpest opposition by 
 the aid of particles (Jjtol, rj), which are found 
 nowhere else in the New Testament (see 
 Donaldson's ' Gr. Gr.' § 552). 
 
 The end, unto which the servant of sin is 
 brought, is " death ;" not here bodily death, 
 for that is a result of Adam's sin, from which 
 not even the servants of God are exempt, nor 
 merely moral death, which is sin itself, but 
 eternal death. Compare w. 21-23. 
 
 " Obedience " is used first in a general sense, 
 but is limited the second time to the special 
 sense of " obedience to God," and the end 
 of such obedience is that "righteousness," 
 which is equivalent to life eternal (i. 17) and 
 so stands opposed to " death." 
 
 17. The general truth stated in 1;. 16, is 
 now applied to the Christians at Rome in 
 their past and present state, the happy con- 
 trast being vividly expressed in a burst of 
 thanksgiving to God : " ardor pectoris apo- 
 stolici " (Bengel.) 
 
 Both the thought and form of expression 
 are similar to Luke xv. 23, " let us eat and be 
 merry, for this my son was dead, and is alive 
 again." Compare Matt. xi. 25, and see Note 
 at end of chapter. 
 
 but j/e have obeyed."] "but obeyed." This 
 
 simpler and more exact rendering brings the 
 latter clause into closer connexion with the 
 former, to which it allows its due emphasis. 
 " Thanks be to God for your happy change 
 of service : ye were servants of sin, but 
 became obedient to the Gospel." 
 
 St. Paul's thankfulness that they became 
 God's servants, is heightened by the remem- 
 brance that they ivere servants of sin. 
 
 from the heart."] " For ye were not com- 
 pelled nor forced, but willingly, and with 
 eagerness turned away from sin." This serves 
 at once for praise and for reproof; for, after 
 coming of your own accord, without any 
 compulsion, what forgiveness, what excuse, 
 could you get, for returning to your former 
 state ?" (Chrysostom.) 
 
 that form of doctrine luhich ivas delivered 
 you.] "that form of doctrine unto whiob ye 
 were delivered," i.e. by God. 
 
 The word Trapa8ii^o)fiL is not uncommonly 
 used of giving a child over to instruction. 
 (Herodot. i. 73 ; Plat. ' Legg.' 811 E.) 
 
 " the form of doctrine " means, in general, 
 the teaching to which the Romans had been 
 given over by Divine Providence on becoming 
 Christians. But the word "form " (tvttos) 
 has been variously interpreted : 
 
 (i) Christian teaching as "a mould into 
 which we are put to be fashioned to its 
 shape." (Beza.) 
 
 (2) The Pauline " type of doctrine " (ii. 
 16; xvi. 25; Gal. ii. 2), which had been 
 prevalent from the first at Rome. (Meyer.) 
 
 (3) The Gospel as a definite form of 
 teaching distinct from others, Jewish, heathen, 
 &c. 
 
 (4) " The form of sound ivords" (2 Tim. 
 i. 13), or fixed and formal summary of 
 Christian truth in which converts were in- 
 structed. 
 
 (5) Christian teaching as a rule or pattern 
 of holy living. (Chrysostom, Gennadius, 
 (Ecumenius.) 
 
 The last sense is the simplest, and agrees 
 best with St. Paul's use of tuttos (i Thess. i. 
 7; 2 Thess. iii. 9; Phil. iii. 17 ; i Tim. iv. 
 12; Tit. ii. 7), and with the context, which 
 indicates obedience to moral and practical 
 rules. 
 
 18. Being then made free from sin?^ "And 
 
 I 2 
 
13' 
 
 ROMANS. VI. 
 
 [v. 19 — 21. 
 
 19 I speak after the manner of 
 men because of the infirmity of your 
 flesh : for as ye have yielded your 
 members servants to uncleanness and 
 to iniquity unto iniquity ; even so 
 now yield your members servants to 
 righteousness unto holiness. 
 
 20 For when ye were the servant!? 
 
 of sin, ye were free " from righteous- " Gr. /o 
 
 ' ^ '-' righteoiw 
 
 neSS. nesi. 
 
 21 What fruit had ye then in 
 those things whereof ye are now 
 ashamed ? for the end of those things 
 is death. 
 
 being made free, &c." This is not a conclu- 
 sion drawn from w. 16, 17, but a more pre- 
 cise and pointed statement of the happy 
 change already asserted in v. 1 7. 
 
 19. I speak after the manner of men because 
 of the infirmity of your flesh.'] The weakness of 
 the flesh is not identical with its sinfulness, 
 for even Christ shared all its weakness. But 
 that which in Him was subject to His Spirit, 
 and free from all sin, in us sinful men not 
 only resists our spirit, but too often prevails 
 over it, and that in two ways, both darkening 
 the understanding and perverting the will. 
 The meaning of the present passage depends 
 on the question, which of these two effects, 
 the moral or the intellectual, is here ascribed 
 to " the infirmity of the flesh." 
 
 (i) The ancient interpreters, Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, and others, connect this clause 
 with what follows, and understand " the in- 
 firmity of the flesh" as a moral weakness 
 which makes it hard at first to live the life 
 of Christian holiness : " I say what is mode- 
 rate and within the power of men in general 
 ia.v6pa>Tnvov, I Cor. x. 13): for I only bid 
 you render such an obedience to righteous- 
 ness as you formerly gave to sin." 
 
 (2) Photius, who is followed by most 
 modern commentators, connects the clause 
 with V. 18, as explaining the strong expres- 
 sion, " ye were made slaves " {edovXadrjrf) : 
 " this is plain language taken from the 
 common life of men, and not altogether an 
 adequate description of your allegiance to 
 Him ' Whose service is perfect freedom :' 
 but I use it ' because of the infirmity of your 
 flesh'' («), which makes the hfe of righteous- 
 ness seem to you at first painful and irksome, 
 as a kind of bondage (Photius), or ((^), which 
 is a hindrance to your spiritual discernment. 
 I therefore speak of 'servitude ' (f-y. 16-18), 
 a thing belonging to the common life of men, 
 to help you to understand that you are bound 
 to devote yourselves entirely to God's ser- 
 vice." In this last interpretation, (which is 
 rightly adopted by Bengel, Meyer, &c.) " the 
 flesh" i.e. the condition of the natural man 
 (i Cor. ii. 14; iii. i) is the source of a weak- 
 ness of understanding in things spiritual. 
 On '■'■ the flesh" see note on vii. 5. 
 
 for as ye have yielded (ye yielded) your 
 members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity 
 
 unto iniquity.'] The practical reason of my 
 speaking about servitude is this, to exhort 
 you to devote yourselves as fully to the life of 
 righteousness as you did to the life of sin. 
 
 your members.] Compare v. 13. Sin is here 
 presented under a double aspect, as " unclean- 
 ness" defiling the man, and "iniquity" 
 (dfo/Liia) violating God's law : the subjection 
 of the members to these ruling forces leads 
 " unto iniquity " as the practical result. 
 
 unto holiness.] " unto sanctification." 
 " Holiness " is the moral quality to be ac- 
 quired: but "sanctification" (d-ytacr/idr) 
 includes the sanctifying act or process, as 
 well as its result; see v. 22; i Cor. i. 30; 
 I Thess. iv. 3, 4, 7; 2 Thess. ii. 13 : i Tim. 
 ii. 15; Heb. xii. 14; i Pet. i. 2. 
 
 20-22. Reason (yap) for the exhortation 
 of -y. 19, drawn from the results of either 
 service. 
 
 20. For ivhen ye ivere the servants of sin, 
 ye <were free from righteousness?] "For ivhen 
 ye ivere servants of sin, ye avere free 
 of righteousness;" i.e. free in relation to, 
 free from the service of ri^^hteousness. No 
 irony, but a statement of fact, full of deep 
 moral pain (Meyer). You did not then 
 attempt to serve two masters (comp. v. 16), 
 but gave yourselves wholly to the service of 
 sin. What then was the result {y. 21) ? We 
 thus see that v. 20 prepares the way for what 
 follows (Meyer). 
 
 21. What fruit had ye then . . . . ] "What 
 fruit therefove hadye then" . . . . "There- 
 fore," i.e. in consequence of this undivided 
 service of sin (v. 20). 
 
 in those things ivhereof ye are now ashamed.] 
 We find even in the earliest versions and 
 commentators different ways of connecting 
 this clause with the context. 
 
 1. According to A. V,, St. Paul asks "what 
 fruit," i.e. what profit or reward had you at 
 that time, from things done in the service of 
 sin, at the very thought of which you are 
 now ashamed ? You had none : for the end 
 of those things is death. Sin pays no other 
 wages (v. 23), and sin's service has no other 
 fruit. 
 
 2. The question is simply, "what fruit had 
 ye at that time ?" and the answer, " Things 
 whereof ye are now ashamed, for the end of 
 
V. 22—23.] 
 
 ROMANS. VI. 
 
 ^33 
 
 22 But now being made free from 
 sin, and become servants to God, ye 
 have your fruit unto holiness, and 
 the end everlasting; life. 
 
 23 For the wages of sin is 
 death ; but the gift of God is 
 eternal life through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord. 
 
 them is death." Your only fruit consisted in 
 the sinful gains or pleasures, of which you 
 are now ashamed, because you have become 
 aware of their real nature, that they lead to 
 that death which is the opposite of " everlast- 
 ing life" {v. 22). 
 
 Either interpretation yields a good sense, 
 but the former construction is the more 
 natural and simple. 
 
 22. But no<w being made free from s'tn, and 
 become servants to God.'] A double contrast 
 to their former state described in v. 20: 
 emancipated from sin's service, they have been 
 made servants to God. The same strong 
 word as in f. 18 {^ovkoiQrivai) is used again : 
 but instead of servants " to righteousness" he 
 now says '■'■servants to God" thinking already 
 of Him as the Giver of everlasting life. 
 
 ye have your fruit unto holiness^ " Unto 
 sanctification:" see note on dytatr/xoy, -y. 19. 
 The first fruit of dedication to God's service 
 is not here described as " sanctification," but 
 as something that tends " unto sanctifica- 
 tion." This is either the baptismal grace of 
 " newness of life" {v. 4), or its product, that 
 practice of good works which promotes and 
 establishes "sanctification." Compare '■''the 
 fruit of the Spirit" Gal. v. 22. 
 
 and the end everlasting life.] You have 
 your present fruit unto sanctification, and 
 
 you have also as the end of your service 
 "everlasting life:" see on ii. 7, v. 21. It is 
 clear that " everlasting life " being here called 
 " the end " is regarded in its future aspect : 
 and yet St. Paul says, " ye have it " now, i.e. 
 ye have it as a future, but assured result, 
 the consummation of your present life in 
 Christ. 
 
 23. For the swages of sin is death."] "Wages" 
 (^6\l^avia) properly, as in Luke iii. 14 ; i Cor. 
 ix. 7 ; 2 Cor. xi. 8, a soldier's rations or pay. 
 Having spoken in vv. 12, 13, of sin reigning, 
 and of weapons, he continues the figure of 
 military service. But ;^dpto-/ia means simply 
 "a gift of grace," not a military donative 
 (Tert. ' de Resurrectione Carnis,' 47 ; Chrys.). 
 
 but the gift of God.] Sin only pays hard 
 wages, but God gives of His free grace what 
 no service could earn. 
 
 eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.] 
 "eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." 
 God's gift of eternal life is not only bestowed 
 through Christ, but is in Christ as its abiding 
 source, and can only be enjoyed in union 
 with Him (see 2 Tim. i. i, 9, and Note on 
 viii. i). 
 
 The doctrine of sanctification in this chap- 
 ter, and that of justification in ch. v., both end 
 in the same triumphant conclusion. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on vv. 5, 6, 13, 17, 21. 
 
 5. IvfKpvTos — born together, Plato, ' Theaet.' 
 p. 157; 'Republ.' X.p. 609, A; 3 Mace. iii. 22; 
 •^cognate, kindred, Plato, ' Leges,' x. p. 207. 
 
 6. the body of sin.] The interpretations are 
 manifold. 
 
 1. " The whole mass of sin." But (xafia 
 in the sense of " mass " is applied only to 
 material things, as water or metal (Aristot. 
 Probl. xxiii. 7, § i, xxiv. 9, § 3), not to things 
 immaterial, as virtue or vice. 
 
 2. "The essence, or substance, of sin" 
 (Baur), as Aristotle calls the Enthymeme the 
 o-ajxa, or substance of rhetorical proof (' Rhet.' 
 
 I- ^- § 3). 
 
 3. A mere periphrasis for " sin " (Photius, 
 Schottgen, &c). But in this usage acofia is 
 applied only to persons and only in poetry. 
 None of these three senses suit the context 
 or St. Paul's usage. 
 
 4. " Sin represented as having a body," in 
 
 order to carry out the metaphor of the cruci- 
 fixion of the old man (Olshausen). 
 
 5. " Sin represented as a body made up of 
 many members," in accordance with the 
 figurative interpretation of " the old man " (v. 
 6), and with Col. iii. 5 (but see note there). 
 In this interpretation, "the body of sin" is 
 only another name for " the old man," or 
 rather for its concrete form" (Hodge: so 
 Chrysostom, Philippi, &c.). 
 
 6. In opposition to all these figurative in- 
 terpretations we take " the body of sin " to 
 mean the natural body so far as it is the 
 servant of sin (Meyer, De Wette, Alford). 
 
 Objection (a) ; The body as the seat of sin 
 cannot be meant, because this can only be 
 annihilated (KarapyriBfi) by natural death. 
 
 Ansiuer {1'). This objection does not apply 
 to " the body as servant of sin," which is here 
 St. Paul's view as shown by fir^Ken bovKfveiv. 
 
 Answer (2). The sense assigned to ko.- 
 
^34 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 [v. 
 
 I 2. 
 
 rnpyrj(^ri " annihilated " is forced, its true 
 meaning being explained by roO firjKiTi 
 bovXevfiv, 
 
 Objection {b). The following a-afia Ovtjtov 
 in V. 12, cannot determine the meaning of 
 aafxa rrjs afxapTias, being found in a different 
 connection. 
 
 Answer. It is found in precisely the same 
 connection, the service of sin. 
 
 13. The various reading — cbo-ei for coy — 
 adopted by Tisch. (8), Tregelles, Lachmann, 
 &c., with N A B C, is thus explained by 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia (Cramer's Cat.) : 
 " The most marvellous thing is that he says, 
 ' as if alive from the dead,' shewing that he 
 does not demand from them the reality, but 
 the imitation, according to their power. For 
 hereafter they will be " alive from the dead ;" 
 but now he says, "as (ws) alive from the 
 dead," instead of " imitating that as much as 
 possible." 
 
 The variation might easily arise from the 
 scribe repeating part of the following ex. 
 
 17. Reiche, Fritzsche, Meyer, and others 
 limit the cause of thanksgiving to the words 
 ^T6 boiiXoi Trjs d^aprias, to which they ascribe 
 the pregnant sense, "ye were, but are no 
 longer, the slaves of sin." 
 
 This use of the Substantive Verb is well- 
 known in Latin : 
 
 ' Fuimus Troes, full Ilium at ingens 
 Gloria.' (Verg. ^En. ii. 325.) 
 
 ' Magnum manet Ardea nomen, 
 Sad fortuna fuit.' (vii. 413.) 
 
 In Eurip. Troad. 582, npiv wot rjjxfv and 
 Hec. 284, Kayu) yap fjv ttot dWa mv ovk e'lp, 
 €Ti, the cessation of a former state is expressed 
 not by ^v, but by the words which accom- 
 pany it : and the same is true of this passage, 
 and Eph. v. 8, ^n ydp nore aKoros, uvv 8e (f)us 
 ev Kvpia, where the antithetical connection of 
 the clauses is perfectly clear, and the insertion 
 of /xeV is quite unnecessary, the more so on 
 account of the emphatic position of ifre. See 
 Jelf, 'Gr. Gr.'§767, 3,and Winer, ii. 652, E.T. 
 
 21. Kapnov ex^i-v may mean to bear fruit, 
 as in v. I., Nah. iii. 12, avKol Kaprrovs exovcraij 
 Gen. i. 29, ^vXov 6 exa- ev eavra Kapnov, and 
 perhaps Sap. iii. i, e^ei Kapnov iv enicTKOTr^ 
 
 But this meaning cannot be forced (as by 
 Alford) on St. Paul's use of the expression in 
 i. 13, vi. 21, 22. That Kapiros does not al- 
 ways mean in N. T. " actions, the fruit of the 
 man considered as the tree," but the fruit of 
 his actions, is clear from Phil. i. 22, tovto 
 fioi Kapnos epyov. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 I JVb law hath power over a man longer tiian 
 he liveth. 4 But we are dead to the law. 
 7 Yet is not the laiv sin, 12 but holy, just, 
 good, 16 as I acknowledge, who ant grieved 
 because I cannot keep it. 
 
 NOW ye not, brethren, (for I 
 speak to them that know the 
 
 K 
 
 law,) how that the law hath do- 
 minion over a man as long as he 
 liveth ? 
 
 2 For the woman which hath an 
 husband is bound by the law to her 
 husband so long as he liveth ; but if 
 the husband be dead, she is loosed 
 from the law of her husband. 
 
 Chap. VII.— Deliverance from the 
 Bondage of Law and of Sin. 
 
 1-6. The union of the believer with Christ 
 is compared to a second marriage. This 
 general idea naturally divides itself into three 
 parts: (i) the dissolution of the former 
 marriage; (2) the new marriage; (3) its 
 fruits. 
 
 The believer, released from the law by 
 dying in fellowship with the death of Christ, 
 is free to enter into a new union with the 
 risen Christ, in order to bring forth the iruits 
 of holiness to God's honour. 
 
 1. Kno'w ye not.~\ Rather, Or are ye 
 ignorant, brethren, for I am speaking 
 to men that know law. On the meaning 
 of " kno-iv" i. e. understand (yti/wcrKoiVii'), 
 see note on vi. 6. "Or," omitted in A. V. 
 here, as in vi. 3, introduces a necessary 
 
 alternative : either you admit the truth of 
 my assertion, that you are no longer under 
 the law (vi. 14 ff.), but have been set free 
 from sin and become servants to God having 
 your fruit unto holiness (vi. 22), or else 
 you must be ignorant of what I suppose you 
 to know, the nature of law, namely, that 
 the law has power over the person subject to 
 it for his lifetime, and no longer. This prin- 
 ciple is not confined to the Mosaic law, either 
 in fact or by the terms here used ; yet it is 
 clear, from the whole tenor of the argument, 
 that St. Paul is thinking of the Mosaic law, 
 and assumes that it is known to his readers. 
 Compare Gal. iv. 21. 
 
 2. The law of marriage affords the most 
 complete and striking illustration of the 
 general principle that the power of law lasts 
 as long as life lasts, and no longer ; it 
 
V. 3—4] 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 ns 
 
 3 So then if, while her husband 
 liveth, she be married to another 
 man, she shall be called an adul- 
 teress : but if her husband be dead, 
 she is free from that law ; so that she 
 
 is no adulteress, though she be mar- 
 ried to another man. 
 
 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also 
 are become dead to the law by the 
 body of Christ ; that ye should be 
 
 also serves to introduce the comparison, in 
 V. 4, of the union between Christ and the 
 believer to a new marriage. 
 
 is bound by the laiu to her husband so long 
 as he li'veth.'] Rather, Is bound to the 
 living husbaiid by law (see i Cor. 
 vii. 39). 
 
 loosed^ "Discharged:" it is most im- 
 portant to mark the identity of the word 
 (/carT;pyr;rai) here rendered " loosed" and in 
 "v. 6 '■^ delivered •" it is found also in Gal. 
 V. 4, where it is vigorously rendered by 
 Wyclif: "ye are voided away from Christ.'' 
 On the death of her husband the wife 
 ceases to be a wife; her status as such is 
 abolished and annulled, in the eye of the 
 law ; she dies to the law, and is thus dis- 
 charged fi-om its prohibition of another 
 marriage. 
 
 '■'■The law of the husband" means the 
 law concerning the husband. Particular 
 laws are constantly thus defined by the 
 genitive of the person or thing to which 
 they refer, as " the law of the leper " (Lev. 
 xiv. 2), ^^ the law of the Nazarite" (Num. 
 vi. 13). See also Num. v. 29, where the 
 LXX have the same Greek words which 
 St. Paul uses here to describe the wife 
 
 Thus "the law of the husband," includes 
 all that the law of God, as revealed in the 
 O. T., sanctions or forbids concerning mar- 
 riage ; its natural basis is the original Divine 
 institution (Gen. i. 27 ; ii. 21-24) ; its formal 
 enactment is the Seventh Commandment ; 
 its interpretation the written, or unwritten, 
 regulations concerning adultery (Lev. x. 10), 
 divorce (Deut. xxiv. i ; Matt. v. 27-32 ; xix. 
 3-9), and remarriage (Deut. xxiv. 4; Gen. 
 XXV. I ; Ruth i. 9). 
 
 3. So then if (i^v.] Rather, So then 
 while her husband liveth she shall be 
 called an adulteress if she be married 
 to another man ; but if her husband die, 
 she is free from the law, that she be no 
 adulteress^ though she be married to another 
 man. In this order, the parallelism of the 
 original is clearly seen, and each clause has 
 its due emphasis. The words "that she be 
 no adulteress " express not merely the result, 
 but the purpose, of the freedom conse- 
 quent upon the husband's death ; and this 
 purpose is the most essential and significant 
 part of the analogy, as we see in the 
 
 application (i». 4), " that ye should be married 
 to another." 
 
 4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are be- 
 come dead.\ Rather, So that, my brethren, 
 ye also were put to death to the law 
 through the body of Christ, in order that 
 70 might be married to another. 
 
 "So that" (wore) introduces a conse- 
 quence of that general principle of law, 
 which has just been exemplified in -w. 1-3. 
 
 The address " my brethren,'^ repeated so 
 soon after ■v. i, is suited to an argument 
 which primarily concerns the Jewish Chris- 
 tians, St. Paul's brethren according to the 
 flesh. 
 
 " Te also " means " ye as well as the wife 
 in the illustration." 
 
 The phrase "were put to death" (J6ava- 
 Ta)dr]Te) indicates a violent death, namely the 
 crucifixion of the old man with Christ (vi. 6) 
 for thereby the believer himself died to the 
 law, by which he was previously bound. 
 Compare Gal. ii. 19, " I through law died to 
 law, that I might live unto God. I am cruci- 
 fied 'with Christ : ne-vertheless I live ; yet not /, 
 but Christ liveth in me." 
 
 St. Paul's application of the figure is quite 
 clear, if we follow his own guidance. 
 
 The wife represents that inmost self, or 
 personality, which survives all changes, moral 
 or physical, and retains its identity under all 
 conditions of existence. 
 
 The first husband is " our old man " (vi. 
 6), and as long as " the old man " was alive, 
 w^e were under the law. 
 
 The death of the first husband is the 
 crucifixion of " our old man " with Christ. 
 The wife set free by her husband's death, 
 and herself made dead to the law of the 
 husband (Karjjpyrjrat otto tov voixov tov iiv8poi, 
 •V. 2), answers to the soul set free by the 
 crucifixion of " the old man," and itself there- 
 by made dead to the law {edavaraidrjTe tw 
 vofxto, V. 4 ; and KaTrjpyrjdrjiJLev dno tov vanov, 
 •V. 6). 
 
 The purpose of the freedom thus acquired 
 is the same in your case, as in hers, "that 
 ye might be married to another, to him 
 who was x&iseA. from the dead." 
 
 The interpretation of the passage thus 
 turns upon the recognition of the fact, that 
 St. Paul here already introduces a distinction 
 (which we shall find running through the 
 whole chapter), between the very self, the 
 avTos eycb, and its successive moral states, 
 
ROMANS. VII. 
 
 [v. s-6. 
 
 B Gt. pas- 
 sions. 
 
 married to another, even to him who 
 is raised from the dead, that we 
 should bring forth fruit unto God. 
 
 5 For when we were in the flesh, 
 the "motions of sins, which were by 
 
 the law, did work in our members to 
 bring forth fruit unto death. 
 
 6 But now we are delivered from 
 the law, "that being dead wherein iiO'',*"»* 
 we were held ; that we should serve that. 
 
 personified as " the ofd man,^' and " the new 
 man." 
 
 The words, "through the body of 
 Christ," do not refer to His mystical body, 
 with which we are incorporated, but to the 
 natural body, which was put to death upon 
 the Cross; into that death of Christ we are 
 baptized, and thereby it becomes the means 
 of our death " to the law." Compare note 
 on "v. 5, and Col. ii. 14, 20. 
 
 This participation in Christ's death has 
 been fully established, and its significance 
 explained, in c. vi. Here, as there, the 
 union in death becomes the source of union 
 in the new life of the risen Christ. The best 
 comment is 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 : "7/" one died 
 for all, then all died: and he died for all, 
 that they (which live should not henceforth 
 live unto themselves, but unto him luhich died 
 for them, and rose again.'^ 
 
 that ye should he married to another."] The 
 A.V. '■'■be married''' is quite correct: for in 
 the passages usually cited from the LXX 
 (Lev. xxii. 12, 13; Ruth i. 12 ; Ezek. xxiii. 4) 
 the phrase yiyveaBai avdpl) is applied to mar- 
 riage, not to promiscuous intercourse. Here 
 also the context limits the meaning to mar- 
 riage ; and the comparison of the union be- 
 tween Christ and the believer to a marriage 
 is familiar to St. Paul (2 Cor. xi. 2 ; Eph. 
 V. 25, 29). 
 
 The purpose of this "spiritual marriage, 
 and unity betwixt Christ and His Church," 
 (and consequently the final purpose of our 
 release from the law), is "that ive should 
 bring forth fruit unto God." It is to God's 
 honour, as our Creator, Redeemer, and 
 Lord, that souls wedded to Christ should 
 not remain barren, but be fruitful in good 
 works, in holiness and love. 
 
 5. The necessity for the new marriage 
 confirmed by contrasting its fruits with those 
 of the former union. 
 
 When we <were in the flesh] The word 
 ^^fesh'" is used by St. Paul with many dif- 
 ferent shades of meaning, which are classified 
 in the note on the word adp^ in the Intro- 
 duction, § 9. Here as a state in which be- 
 lievers once lived, but live no longer, " the 
 fesh" is regarded, not in its physical but in 
 its ethical quality as opposed to " the spirit," 
 and that, not only as the seat of moral weak- 
 ness and temptation, to which believers are 
 Still subject, but as the sphere of dominant 
 
 sinful affections to which believers have died 
 in Christ. "When <we qjjere in the fesh'^ is 
 thus equivalent to, " when we were united 
 to our old man," or, " when we were in the 
 body of sin : " compare vi. 6. 
 
 the motions of sins.] Margin, " the passions 
 of sins" i.e. the passive impressions or "affec- 
 tions " (Gal. V. 24), which are naturally excited 
 by their proper objects, and if unrestrained 
 move us to sinful actions : see Butler's ' Ana- 
 logy,' P. I. c. 5, p. 122. 
 
 (which --were by the la^w.] So long as " nve 
 <were in the flesh," united to " our old man,** 
 the law had dominion over us {y. i). How 
 the sinful passions are occasioned by the law, 
 St. Paul explains in w. 7, 8. 
 
 did nvork in our members] The passive 
 affections of the soul become in their turn 
 motives working on the will, and through it 
 in the members (eye, hand, tongue, &c.), " to 
 bring forth fruit unto death" i.e. to cause us 
 so to act as to subject ourselves to the power 
 of death, death being understood as in vi. 21. 
 Others compare Jas. i. 15, and make the sin- 
 ful affections themselves bear fruit. See the 
 Additional Note on the word ivqp'ye'iro at the 
 end of the chapter. 
 
 6. But notw (we are delivered from the law."] 
 Rather: But now we have been dis- 
 charged from the la^w : the Greek word 
 being the same as in v. 2, " She is loosed {Hb- 
 eh urged) from the laav of her husband." 
 
 that being dead, ^wherein nve ^were held^ 
 Rather: by dying to that nvherein <we 
 (Were held: see note at the end. 
 
 When "our old man was crucified with 
 Christ," we ourselves, like the wife in the 
 figure, died to the law (v. 4), which had 
 hitherto had dominion over us by virtue of 
 the unhappy union between ourselves and our 
 old sinful nature. 
 
 As the Apostle, in girding himself up to the 
 great argument which is to follow {vv. 7-25), 
 has shown in a remarkable allegory by what 
 right and in what manner we are delivered 
 from the dominion of the law, it was natural 
 for him, when indicating here in v. 6 the exact 
 thesis of this most important discussion, to 
 declare, in language derived from the preced- 
 ing allegory, not only the fact of our liberation 
 from the bondage of the law, but also by what 
 right and reason we are liberated, namely, 
 " by having died to the law in which we were 
 held " (Reicbe, ' Gomm. Crit.') 
 
V. 7-8.] 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 ^31 
 
 in newness of spirit, and not in the for I had not known "lust, except ".^^^j^ 
 
 oldness of the letter. the law had said. Thou shalt not 
 
 7 What shall we say then ? Is covet, 
 the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I 8 But sin, taking occasion by the 
 
 had not known sin, but by the law : commandment, wrought in me all 
 
 co?t- 
 ipiscence 
 
 that 'we should serve^ So that we serve: 
 a statement of the actual result, as in vi. 22. 
 
 Believers serve God in a new state, the ele- 
 ment of which is "spirit," i.e. the life and 
 power imparted to them by the Holy Spirit: 
 this " ne^ivness of spirit " is the direct and em- 
 phatic contrast (Obs. ov, not /x?;) to " oldness 
 of letter," i.e. the old and obsolete state of 
 bondage to the law regarded in its letter 
 as demanding an obedience which it does 
 not enable us to render. Compare 2 Cor. 
 iii. 6. 
 
 This "oldness of letter" was necessa- 
 rily a state productive of sin (1'. 5) ; and this 
 thought forms the point of connection for 
 what follows in 1;. 7. 
 
 7-25. Influence of Law on the Con- 
 flict OF Flesh and Spirit. 
 
 Laying aside allegory, St. Paul now en- 
 ters upon a profound psychological analysis 
 of the work of the law in the heart. This 
 analysis is based upon his own experience, as 
 indeed it must be in order to have any truth 
 or value. The use of the first person singular 
 is therefore no rhetorical form, no personifi- 
 cation of the human race or of the Jewish 
 people. It is Paul himself speaking of him- 
 self throughout : but of himself not as differ- 
 ing from other believers, but as an exemplar 
 and type of what is common to all. He 
 deals, not with what is accidental and pecu- 
 liar, but with what is essential, so that his 
 experience is recognised by every beUever as 
 his own. 
 
 The extreme views thus set aside are that 
 (i) only St. Paul's individual experience, (2) 
 only an ideal struggle, is here described. We 
 retain all that is true in these opposite views, 
 in saying either that St. Paul describes his 
 own experience so far as it was essential and 
 common to all, or that he describes the 
 general experience so far as it had been 
 realised in his own case. 
 
 7. Is the law sin f] Having implied in 
 V. 5 that the law is an occasion of sin, St. Paul 
 anticipates a thought that might naturally 
 occur to the mind of a Jewish Christian : Is 
 the law itself sinful ? Is the sin, of which it 
 is the occasion, inherent in its own nature? 
 He makes the question more emphatic by 
 using " sin " instead of " sinful :" see viii. 10, 
 2 Cor. V. 21. 
 
 J^aj, I had not known sin, but by the /aw.] 
 
 Rather, Nay, sin I knew not, save 
 through law: for of lust also I had no 
 knowledge, if the law had not said, Thou 
 shalt not lust. 
 
 To the false notion just rejected, St. Paul 
 now opposes his own experience of the real 
 effect of the law, which is to expose sin in 
 its true nature. The direct opposition is 
 well expressed in A. V. by the emphatic 
 ^^Nay." Compare iii. 31, vii. 13, xi. 11, in 
 all which passages, as here, aWa introduces 
 the contrary notion to that which is rejected 
 
 in HTj yivoiTO. 
 
 "through law." Throughout this pas- 
 sage St. Paul's purpose is to vindicate the Law 
 of Moses (6 vo^oi) : yet when he is stating a 
 principle common to la^w as la^iv, he omits 
 the article, as in this clause ; compare w. 8, 
 9, and iii. 20. 
 
 The conditional rendering, " I had not 
 known" is unnecessary : St. Paul states the 
 fact that he came to know sin as sin, only 
 through the law. 
 
 This he confirms (yap) by further (re) ex- 
 plaining that he had no practical knowledge 
 of lust until the law forbade it, but sin took 
 occasion thereby, and brought about lust. 
 " Even without the law there is desire in man, 
 but not yet in the ethical definite character 
 of desire after the forbidden " (Meyer). 
 
 The commandment selected is not merely 
 a sample of the rest, but contains a principle 
 that underlies and embraces them all, a prin- 
 ciple which, by forbidding the indulgence of 
 desire, provokes a sinful opposition of the 
 will. 
 
 Two kinds of knowledge are here ex- 
 pressed by two different Greek Verbs : the 
 former (eyvu>v) is applied to the abstract 
 metaphysical notion of sin, the latter (^'Setf) 
 to the sensible experience of strong and per- 
 verse desire as a fact first brought under 
 observation, when the dormant propensity 
 was roused by the prohibition of the law. 
 The latter verb is often best rendered by 
 "wist," as in Luke ii. 49 ; Joh. v. 13. 
 
 8. The mysterious perversity of man's will 
 (" Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimiisque 
 negata,"^ is provoked to opposition by the 
 commandment : an occasion, or rather a 
 start, and impulse (ac^opjajj) is thus given, of 
 which sin, the power lurking unknown in the 
 heart, takes advantage, and works through 
 the commandment to produce every lust 
 which that forbids. See Prov. ix. 1 7, and note. 
 
138 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 [v. 9 — lo. 
 
 manner of concupiscence. For with- 
 out the law sin was dead. 
 
 9 For I was alive without the law 
 
 once : but when the commandment 
 came, sin revived, and I died, 
 
 10 And the commandment, which 
 
 concupiscence^ Rather "lust" as in i>. 7. 
 The introduction in A. V. of different words 
 ** lust" '■^covet" " concupiscence" obscures the 
 clear sense of the original. By "lust" (eVt- 
 Bv^i'ia) is meant, not the natural desire in 
 itself, but the perversion of this desire into a 
 conscious opposition to a righteous law. 
 
 For nvitbout the faiv sin ivas dead.^ Rather, 
 "For without law sin is dead." The state- 
 ment is expressed in the most general terms 
 as an universal truth, though St. Paul has in 
 view no other application of it, except to the 
 law of Moses. Compare iii. 20, iv. 15, v. 13. 
 
 Sin is called "■dead" not as being simply 
 unknown (Aug.), but because, though born 
 with us, it is seemingly still-born, till roused 
 and stimulated into activity. So in Jas. ii. 26, 
 ^^ faith ivithout ivorks is dead also." 
 
 9. For I <ivas alive ^without the lanv once.'] 
 Rather, " But / ivas alive without law 
 once." The emphatic " /" stands out already 
 in contrast to the " sin that diuelleth in me" 
 i>. 20. I was alive, St. Paul means, not only 
 in the full enjopnent of natural life, but in 
 all the freedom of an untroubled conscience. 
 
 But when ? Not in paradise (Theodoret), 
 nor in the time before Moses (Chrysostom), 
 for St. Paul is not speaking of the human race 
 personified, and therefore not of Adam or the 
 Patriarchs, but of his own experience : nor yet 
 in a pre-existent state (Celsus and Hilgen- 
 feld), of which the Scripture knows nothing. 
 If any definite time is indicated, the Apostle's 
 thoughts seem to turn back to his early 
 years, with their short dream of 
 
 " Delight and liberty, the simple creed 
 Of childhood," " (Wordsv^forth.) 
 
 This moral unconsciousness is not limited 
 to childhood : it may pass undisturbed into 
 the form of legal righteousness, as in the rich 
 young ruler, who, when brought face to face 
 with the Commandments, could say, " y^// 
 these have I kept from my youth up : ivhat 
 lack I yet f " This seems to have been for a 
 time the case with St. Paul, who tells us that 
 he was " as touching the righteousness that is 
 in the law blameless " (Phil. iii. 6). 
 
 but ivhen the commandment cameT] In this 
 state " nvithout laiv" the specific command- 
 ment already mentioned in v. 7, " Thou shalt 
 not lust,'' had not yet presented itself to the 
 individual conscience as a restriction of 
 natural propensity : but when it came as the 
 ivord of God quick and poiuerful, and sharper 
 than any tivo-edged sword, suddenly all was 
 changed. 
 
 sin revived] Sin came to life again, 
 resuming the active power which properly 
 belongs to it, but had been lying dormant. 
 " And I died." There is a deep tragic pathos 
 in the brief and simple statement : it seems 
 to point to some definite period full of pain- 
 ful recollections. When or how Saul first 
 began to feel the condemning power of the 
 Law, we know not : but in a nature so strong 
 and earnest as his, neither childlike uncon- 
 sciousness nor untroubled complacency can 
 have been of long continuance. Already 
 in the Pharisee, living according to the 
 straitest sect of his religion, we may discern 
 the intense but unavailing effort to satisfy by 
 outward observance the demands of a holy 
 and heart-searching law. When he became 
 " a blasphemer, and persecutor, and injurious " 
 (i Tim. i. 13), a misguided zeal for God 
 must have been goaded into fury by the 
 sting of an uneasy conscience and the terrors 
 of the Law. Some such desperate moral 
 struggle seems to be intimated, as Philippi 
 suggests, in our Lord's words, " It is hard 
 for thee to kick against the pricks " (Acts 
 xxvi. 14). While the outward fury, and the 
 inward strife were both raging with unabated 
 fierceness, the sudden great light, and the 
 accusing voice, flashed conviction upon the 
 soul and subdued the strong proud will. 
 That was the decisive moment of the struggle 
 upon which the Apostle looks back when he 
 says, ^^ the commandment came, sin came to 
 life again, and I died." 
 
 " Sin's death," writes Calvin, " is man's 
 life : conversely sin's life is man's death." 
 
 The death which St. Paul here says he had 
 died is to be understood in accordance with 
 ver. 8, " Sin, taking occasion by the command- 
 ment, nvrought in me all manner of lust." 
 I thus became consciously and in the fullest 
 sense a sinner, and knew that I had no true 
 life in me (cf. vi. 21, 23) : that I was dead in 
 God's sight, dead in the absence of all power 
 to work righteousness, dead in the conscious- 
 ness of deserving God's wrath and condem- 
 nation : I knew that there was begun in me 
 a moral and spiritual death, which was a fore- 
 taste of eternal death. " With the sense of 
 guilt, the sense of the penalty of death made 
 its appearance : . . . this sense does not 
 distinguish between physical, spiritual, and 
 eternal death." (Lange.) 
 
 10. And the commandment, ivhkh nvas 
 ordained to life, I found to be unto death.] 
 " And the commandment ivhich ivas unto 
 life, this was found for me to be unto 
 
V. II— 13- J 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 139 
 
 was ordained to life, I found to be and the commandment holy, and 
 
 unto death. just, and good. 
 
 11 For sin, taking occasion by the 13 Was then that which is good 
 commandment, deceived me, and by made death unto me ? God forbid. 
 it slew me. But sin, that it might appear sin, 
 
 12 Wherefore the law is holy, working death in me by that which 
 
 death." The commandment was "unto 
 life," because it had the promise attached 
 to it, " that the man luhich doeth those things 
 shall live by them " (x. 5). For though ex- 
 ternal obedience had only a promise of 
 temporal reward (" days long in the land," 
 Ex. XX. 12), yet such passages as Lev. 
 xviii. 5, Deut. v. 29, 33, Ez. xx. 11, contain 
 promises which an Israelite of spiritual 
 mind would naturally and rightly expand 
 to meet all the fulness of his desires. In 
 the words, "The commandment — this 
 was found," the repetition of the subject 
 increases that tragic emphasis of the sentence 
 on which Chrysostom comments : " He did 
 not say, It has become death, or, It brought 
 forth death, but. It was found ; expressing 
 thus the strange and surprising incon- 
 sistency." 
 
 11. The first words are the same as in 
 V, 8, except that their order is changed: sin 
 as the guilty element is placed foremost, 
 giving emphasis to the thought, " It was sin, 
 not the commandment, but sin, that by the 
 commandment deceived and slew me." The 
 emphasis is increased by the repetition " by the 
 commandment deceived and by it sle'W me." 
 
 There is an evident allusion to Gen. iii. 1 3 : 
 " The serpent beguiled me."' Compare 2 Cor. 
 xi. 3 ; I Tim. ii. 14. 
 
 Sin's deceit consists in presenting the object 
 of desire as a good, though when obtained it 
 at once proves to be an evil. Compare James 
 i. 14 ; Eph. iv. 22 ; Heb. iii. 13. 
 
 slevj me.] Not merely showed me that I 
 was in the way to death, but wrought death 
 in me. Compare note on v. 9. 
 
 12. Wherefore'^ "So that." The logical 
 inference from vv. 7-1 1, is expressed as an 
 actual consequence. 
 
 Holiness is first asserted as a characteristic 
 of the whole law, and then more fully and 
 specifically of the comm.andment, " Thou shalt 
 not covet:'' because this has been described 
 above as offering an occasion for the increased 
 activity of sin. 
 
 The epithets, " holy, and just, and good," 
 are not merely a rhetorical accumulation, 
 meaning that the commandment is altogether 
 good ; each word has its appropriate sense in 
 relation to the context. 
 
 The commandment is holy as an utterance 
 
 of God's holy will, forbidding all impure and 
 unholy lusts. It is ^''just," or righteous, as 
 demanding only an obedience which, if per- 
 fectly rendered, would constitute man's right- 
 eousness. It is " good " in its aim, as tending 
 to man's temporal and eternal good, being 
 ordained " unto life " for them that obey it. 
 This interpretation of ^'■good," is made certain 
 by the way in which St. Paul explains and 
 vindicates, in v. 13, his assertion that the 
 commandment is '■'■good." 
 
 13. The Apostle has given, in v. 12, the 
 first side (jt^eV) of an intended contrast be- 
 tween the law and sin ; but, instead of com- 
 pleting the antithesis at once (" but sin . . . "), 
 he " goes off" at the word "■good," to meet 
 an objection which might be urged against 
 the goodness of the commandment, as an 
 inference from his statement in v. 10, "■the 
 co>nmandment q.uhich nvas ordained to life, I 
 found to be unto death." 
 
 Was then that 'which is good made death 
 unto me .?J The answer to this question sup- 
 plies what was at first intended to form the 
 second part of the contrast between the law 
 (•y. 12) and sin: God forbid I But sin (became 
 death unto me) in order that it might be 
 shown to be sin (cf. v. 7), by working 
 death to me through that luhich is good." 
 The Divine purpose in allowing sin to work 
 death through the law is, that sin may exhibit 
 itself in all its hatefulness, in perverting what 
 is good to evil. This purpose is repeated 
 with great force in a parallel clause, which 
 forms an emphatic and solemn close : " that 
 sin might become exceeding sinful 
 through the commandment." 
 
 '■^Become" is stronger than "appear;" in 
 working death sin becomes in act, and in 
 objective reality, what it has always been 
 according to its nature (see iii. 4, and Meyel* 
 thereon). 
 
 " Observe the bitter, climactic, sharply and 
 vividly compressed delineation of the gloomy 
 picture" (Meyer). But observe also that 
 God's law is vindicated, and the guilt of 
 man's death rightly fixed on sin ; this is the 
 only ray that as yet shines through the dark- 
 ness. But the light grows stronger in the 
 distinction between " my true self and the 
 " sin that dwelleth in me," which forms the 
 subject of the next paragraph. 
 
140 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 [v. 14—15- 
 
 is good ; that sin by the command- spiritual 
 ment might become exceeding sinful, sin. 
 
 14 For we know that the law is 15 For that which I do I 
 
 but I am carnal, sold under 
 
 allow iGT.Unow. 
 
 14-25. St. Paul now confirms (yap) his 
 vindication of the law and exposure of sin by 
 a profound analysis of the operation of sin in 
 man ; as his argument in 'w. 7-13 was based 
 on the distinction, " not the commandment, 
 but sin taking occasion by the command- 
 ment;" so here it is based on the deeper 
 distinction, " Not I, but sin that dwelleth in 
 me." 
 
 " Hitherto he had contrasted himself, in 
 respect of his whole being, with the divine 
 law ; now, however, he begins to describe a 
 discord which exists within himself " (Tho- 
 luck). 
 
 The true self vindicates the law, even while 
 indwelling sin resists it. 
 
 14. For ive knoiv that the Iwiv is spiritual.^ 
 " Lest any one should suppose that the law 
 was the cause of these evils, he first puts 
 forward his vindication of it with full force, 
 not only acquitting it of blame, but weavmg 
 for it a rich crown of praise. And this he 
 presents not as a favour from himself, but as 
 an expression of general consent ; as though 
 he had said, This is an acknowledged and 
 manifest truth, that the law is spiritual, so far 
 from its being the cause of sin." (Chry- 
 sostom.) 
 
 . Compare ii. 2, iii. 19, for similar appeals 
 to the general religious consciousness of his 
 readers. 
 
 St. Paul does not call the law " spiritual " 
 simply as being akin to the higher spiritual 
 part of man's nature — an interpretation wholly 
 forbidden by the direct contrast and opposi- 
 tion in which he presents the law as spiritual, 
 and himself as carnal. 
 
 The law is regarded throughout as God's 
 law — compare w. 22, 25 — and is ^^ spiritual" 
 as being in its essential moral nature, Uke 
 the spiritual part of man, akin to the Divine 
 Spirit. This is the only meaning that satis- 
 fies the context ; for it is precisely this 
 Divine spirituality that rouses the opposi- 
 tion of the carnal tendency of man's nature, 
 though it is approved by the law of the mind 
 {•V. 23). 
 
 Other interpretations express for the most 
 part, not the exact truth stated by St. Paul, 
 but other truths connected with it as con- 
 ditions or consequences ; e. g. " the law was 
 written by Divine inspiration " (Theodoret). 
 It is "a teacher of virtue, and enemy of 
 vice" (Chrysostom). " It requires a sort of 
 heavenly and angelic righteousness, pure and 
 unblemished " (Calvin). " It requires that 
 every thought of man should answer to God's 
 thought: and God is a Spirit" (Bengel). 
 
 but I am carnal.'] See Additional Note on 
 ardp^, Introduction, § 9. 
 
 According to the reading now generally 
 accepted, the word here rendered " carnal " 
 {(TcipKivoi) does not mean " fleshly " in ten- 
 dency, but " made of flesh." The " flesh," i.e. 
 the unspiritual portion of man, has become 
 so predominant over the rest, that it virtually 
 forms the substance of his whole nature, moral 
 as well as physical : " I am of flesh." 
 
 This is the Pauline mode of expressing, 
 That <which is born of the flesh, is flesh (John 
 iii. 6). The Pauline expression of " That 
 ixjhich is born of the Spirit is spirit" follows 
 in c. viii. (Meyer). 
 
 sold under sin.] Compare i Kings xxi. 25. 
 " Ahab, IV hie h did sell himself (LXX was 
 sold) to ivork wickedness ;'" and Isaiah 1. i, 
 " Behold for your iniquities have ye sold your- 
 selves (LXX to your iniquities were ye 
 sold)." 
 
 The man is thus described as having been 
 brought under the dominion of sin as com- 
 pletely as a slave under the power of the 
 master to whom he has been sold. 
 
 A slave that has been sold is more v^rretched 
 than a home-born slave ; and man is said to 
 have been sold, because he had not been a 
 slave from the beginning (Bengel). Slavery 
 to sin is not the rightful condition of our 
 nature. The reason for using the passive 
 form rather than the active " I have sold 
 myself," is seen in i>. 23. 
 
 15-17. The statement, " I am sold under 
 sin," is now confirmed i^yap) by an explana- 
 tion of the nature and cause of this moral 
 bondage. The consequent relation of the 
 true self (eyco) to the law is seen in v. 16, 
 and its relation to sin in -y. 17. 
 
 15. For that (which I do I alloiv not.] 
 Rather, For that which I perform, I know 
 not. The slave obeys his master without 
 heeding the result of the act which he per- 
 forms ; so " I," says the Apostle, do not 
 discern the true nature and moral bearing of 
 that which I perform at sin's bidding. The 
 moral sense is not wholly lost nor inactive, 
 but it is confused and overpowered, and so 
 rendered ineffective. " I am in darkness, I 
 am dragged along, I am abused, I am tripped 
 up, I know not how." (Chrysostom.) 
 
 Calvin rightly prefers the meaning, "I 
 know, I understand, I recognise," to that 
 which is expressed in A. V,, " I allow." The 
 margin has "I know." Approval w^y arrow- 
 pany recognition, but it is never directly 
 expressed by the word here used. 
 
V. i6— 18.] 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 141 
 
 not : for what I would, that do I 
 not ; but what I hate, that do I. 
 
 1 6 If then I do that which I 
 would not, I consent unto the law 
 that it is good. 
 
 17 Now then it is no more I that 
 do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 
 
 18 P'or I know that in me (that 
 is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good 
 thing : for to will is present with 
 
 " For he that is mastered by pleasure, or 
 intoxicated with the passion of anger, has not 
 a clear discernment of the sin. But, after the 
 subsidence of the passion, he receives the per- 
 ception (ato-^Tjo-tv) of the evil." (Theodoret.) 
 
 The total suppression of a slave's conscience 
 is well illustrated by such passages as Plautus, 
 *Capt.' II. i. 6, " Indigna digna habenda sunt, 
 herusquaefacit;" Petronius, 'Satyr.' 75, "Non 
 turpe, quod dominus jubet ; " Seneca, ' Con- 
 trov.' iv., " Impudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, 
 in servo necessitas, in hberto officium ; " and 
 Pindar, ' Fragm.' 87, crvv 8 avtiyKO. ivav koKov, 
 his excuse for the female slaves dedicated to 
 the service of Venus Urania at Corinth. See 
 Boissier, 'La Religion romaine,' II. 346, and 
 AUard, ' Les Esclaves Chretiens,' p. 136. 
 
 for wjhat I ivould, that do I not ; but nvhat 
 I hate, that do IJ] For I practise not 
 that which I wish; but what I hate, 
 that I do. The A. V. obscures the mean- 
 ing in two ways : 
 
 1. By throwing the negative of the former 
 sentence from the first place to the last, and 
 thereby excluding the relative clause from its 
 influence. Fv. 15-17 describe the course of 
 evil action to which the will does not consent : 
 in ver. 18 we come to the ivill to do good 
 which cannot fulfil itself in act. 
 
 2. By using the same word "^0" to 
 translate two diflTerent Greek verbs, of which 
 the former (Trpacrcrco, "ago," Vulg.) implies 
 a conscious pursuit and aim in the person 
 acting, while the latter (ttolu), "facio, " Vulg.) 
 describes merely the outward or objective 
 act, which may be mechanical and uncon- 
 scious: see i. 32. 
 
 Both these verbs refer to the action in its 
 process, while that which is used in the first 
 clause of the verse (KarepydCofiai, " operor," 
 "perficio" -v. 18, Vulg.) refers to the comple- 
 tion or result. 
 
 A paraphrase may now help to make the 
 Apostle's meaning clearer to the English 
 reader. " I am in bondage under sin ; for hke 
 a blave I perform what sin enforces, without 
 recognising the true nature of the act : for I 
 follow not out in practice any good impulse 
 of my will, but in a blind unreasoning way I 
 do that which in my conscience I hate." 
 
 The natural conscience even in heathens 
 Uttered similar declarations : 
 
 Kal f/.avdai/w /xiv ota Spav fieWu Kand' 
 Svfibs 5e Kpeiffffuv rSiv ifj.S>f ^ovAsv/xdraiv, 
 
 (Euripides, ' Medea,' 1074.) 
 
 and — 
 
 "Video meliora proboque, 
 Deteriora sequor." — Ov. ' Met.' vii. 
 
 { IVordsivorth.) 
 
 16. If then I do.'] Rather, "Butifldo:" 
 a further step in the argument. The emphasis 
 is on " / <would not," which expresses a posi- 
 tive unwillingness or dislike, corresponding 
 to ^^ I hate'' in -v. 15. But why does St. 
 Paul not retain the same phrase, " I hate " ? 
 Because the strong utterance of his own 
 vivid experience might not be fully appro- 
 priated by all ; and the more measured phrase 
 thus forms a surer, and yet sufficient basis for 
 his inference: if I do evil unwillingly and 
 with dislike, I in my moral will or conscience 
 consent to the law that forbids the evil, and 
 affirm " that it is good." The word rendered 
 ''''good" ((caXw) is not the same as in -y. 12 : 
 here it is not the beneficent aim of the law 
 which was ordained unto life, but its moral 
 beauty and excellence that is asserted. Com- 
 pare note on 1 Pet. ii. 12. 
 
 17. No<w then it is no more I that do it.] 
 "But now it is no more I that per- 
 form it." As v. 16 determines the relation 
 in which I as a whole stand to the law, so 
 this verse concludes that the real agent in 
 bringing the evil to completion is not the 
 true " I " (eyco expressed) " but the sin that 
 dwelleth in me." Thus the emphatic "I," 
 the true self, the innermost conscience, is 
 distinguished from another " me " in which 
 sin dwells, and which is more closely defined 
 in the next verse as "'my flesh." 
 
 Augustine's words in reference to the 
 struggle between flesh and spirit in the pro- 
 cess of his conversion are equally applicable 
 here : " I was myself in both ; but more 
 myself in what I approved, than in what I 
 disapproved," Confess, viii. 5 (Tholuck). 
 
 It is now almost universally admitted that 
 the expressions " no-w," and " no more," are 
 not temporal, distinguishing the speaker's 
 present condition from his former state before 
 grace, but logical: " this being the case 
 (" now "), there is no room left to say it is I." 
 Compare i Cor. xiv. 6; xv. 20 ; and Rom. 
 vii. 20; xi. 6 ; Gal. iii. 18 (Lightfoot). 
 
 18-20. The power of sm has been showTi 
 in -vv. 15-17 from the inability of the true self 
 to hinder what it disapproves; the same is 
 shown now from the inability of the true self 
 to carry out into action what it desires. 
 
142 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 [v. 19 — 22, 
 
 me ; but how to perform that which 
 is good I find not. 
 
 19 For the good that I would I 
 do not : but the evil which I would 
 not, that I do. 
 
 20 Now if I do that I would not, 
 
 it is no more I that do it, but sin 
 that dwelleth in me. 
 
 21 I find then a law, that, when I 
 would do good, evil is present with me. 
 
 22 For I delight in the law of 
 God after the inward man : 
 
 The parallelism of the two arguments is 
 marked by the repetition of the same con- 
 clusion in the same words in 7;. 17 and v. 20. 
 
 18. Fur I knonxj that in me, (that is, in my 
 flesh,) d-welleth no good thing.'] Forlknow 
 that there dwelleth not in me, that is 
 in my flesh, any goad. A proof of the 
 reality of indwelling sin {y. 17) is furnished 
 by experience of the absence of good : in a 
 moral being, if good dwells not, sin must 
 dwell (Lange). 
 
 for to ivill is present luith me.^ It is 
 essential to a just interpretation of the 
 passage that the Apostle's language con- 
 cerning the will towards good should be 
 weighed with moderation and candour. He 
 does not use a word expressing the deliberate 
 and final choice which is immediately fol- 
 lowed by action (npoaipe'iadai, 2 Cor. ix. 7) ; 
 nor a word expressing a conscious preference 
 and purpose ((dovT^onai) : but dekco, which 
 simply means " I am willing." 
 
 The conciection, however (especially such a 
 word as ^wrjSonai), implies something more 
 than a cold assent of the understanding. The 
 sense of moral discord has been roused : the 
 inward anguish, so vividly painted in v. 24, 
 could not arise without some emotion of the 
 will, some kind of feeble longing and wishing 
 for good, which yet is very different from the 
 earnest decisive willing which passes at once 
 into action. 
 
 is present luith me.] Lit. " Lies before 
 me," ready at hand. St. Paul takes a survey, 
 as it were, of his equipment for the moral 
 warfare: the will (such as already described) 
 is there present and ready, but the perform- 
 ance not. 
 
 but ho<iv to perform that ivhich is good I find 
 K0^] If we omit '■'■ I find" (evpiaKco) with 
 modern critics, we must render thus: but 
 not to perform that 'which is good. 
 
 19. Proof that the will is not accompanied 
 by the power of performance (to Se Kanpya- 
 (ecrdai to koXov ov, "w. 18). This verse, 
 however, is not a mere repetition of -y. 15, 
 as the description of the inefficiency of the 
 will is here intensified by a distinct conscious- 
 ness of the moral nature of the objects pre- 
 sented to it, both of the good that is left un- 
 done and of the evil that is done. 
 
 20. See notes on v. 17.. If the emphatic 
 
 eyw in the first clause is retained, with Tis- 
 chendorf but not Tregelles, it must be taken 
 with ov deXio. Now if I do that which " I " 
 would not, it is no more " I " that perform it. 
 
 21-23. The results of 'w. 14-20 are now 
 summed up. 
 
 21. I find then a laiv, that, ivhen I ivould do 
 good, evil is present with me.] Rather: "I 
 find therefore this law for me who wish 
 to do the good, that to me the evil lies 
 close at hand." 'This law,' literally 'the 
 law,' i. e. the constant rule of experience, 
 that the evil is at hand. 
 
 " This experience is very significantly called 
 a " law" because it expresses not an acci- 
 dental and transient phenomenon, but a neces- 
 sary and constant one." (Philippi.) 
 
 "The law" here meant is substantially 
 the " /<2au in the members" {y. 23), being 
 defined as "the law — that to me the evil 
 lies close at hand." This definition 
 accounts for the use of the Article, and the 
 rule that 6 v6\ioi means the Mosaic Law, 
 except 'where its meatiing is othernvise defined 
 by accompanying ivords, is fully satisfied. 
 
 This interpretation is strongly confirmed 
 by v. 22, where '■'■the law,'^ in the usual 
 sense, is called " the laiu of God," to distin- 
 guish it from this other law in man. 
 
 The repetition of the emphatic Pronoun, and 
 its unusual position in the first clause (r<a 
 diXovTL e'/iot), give great prominence to the 
 thought that the self-same " I " is the subject 
 of these opposite experiences, the wish to do 
 good and the intrusion of evil. Compare the 
 words of St. Augustine quoted above on v. 1 7. 
 
 The explanation of t6v vo^ov as defined by 
 6ti k. t. X. is maintained by Cornelius a 
 Lapide, Estius, Calvin, Alford, "Weiss in his 
 revised edition of Meyer's Commentary 
 (1881), Godet, and Oltramare. 
 
 The A. V. expresses the same general sense, 
 but without due regard to the exact order 
 and construction of the original. See other 
 interpretations of this obscure and much dis- 
 puted passage in the note at end of chapter. 
 
 22, 23. The moral discord just described is 
 now more fully illustrated by a vivid picture 
 of both its opposite elements. 
 
 22. For I delight in the law of God after 
 the inward man.] The rendering needs no 
 improvement : attempts have been made to 
 
V. 23—24.] 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 143 
 
 23 But I see another law in my tivity to the law of sin which is in 
 members, warring against the law of my members. 
 my mind, and bringing me into cap- 24 O wretched man that I am ! 
 
 express the meaning of the compound verb 
 more closely : " I rejoice with the law of 
 God " (Meyer) ; " I rejoice with others in the 
 law" (Van Hengel): "I rejoice with myself 
 m the law: " (Philippi). But these are doubt- 
 ful and unnecessary refinements, not de- 
 manded by the usage of the word: see 
 Eurip. ' Rhesus,' 958, ' Hippolytus,' 1286. 
 
 This " delight in the la^w " differs from 
 "consent" v. 16, as belonging to the sphere 
 of feeling rather than of intellect : it thus 
 expresses a stronger moral sympathy with 
 what is good. 
 
 the innvard man^ It is now admitted b% 
 all candid and competent interpreters that 
 this expression is not in itself equivalent to 
 '•'•the new man " (Eph. iv. 24, Col. iii. 10), or 
 ^^ new creature" (2 Cor. v. 17, Gal. vi. 15): 
 it indicates the " mind" (vovs, "v. 2^ and f. 
 25), ^' the spirit of man" (i Cor. ii. 11) as 
 contrasted with " the outivard man" the body 
 or flesh (2 Cor. iv. 16). This ^''hidden man 
 of the heart" (i Pet. iii. 4), without which 
 man would not be man, is the spiritual, will- 
 ing, reasoning being, in which the regene- 
 rating power of the Holy Ghost begins to 
 form " the new man" Eph. iii. 16. The con- 
 text only can decide whether " the inward 
 man " is regarded in his natural or in his re- 
 generate state. 
 
 23. another law P\ Rather, "a different 
 law : " the word (erepo?) not only distin- 
 guishes but often contrasts, as in Gal. i. 6. 
 This other law stands opposed to " the law 
 of God" and " the members " in which it has 
 its seat to " the inivard man" 
 
 the law) of my mind.l What he had be- 
 fore called the will to do good, he has here 
 named " the law of the mind: " which law of 
 the mind in its own proper action agrees 
 with and consents unto ^' the law of God." 
 On the other hand, the impulses (appetites) 
 of the body and the desires of the flesh he 
 calls the " laiv in the members" (Origen). 
 
 The " mind " (z/oOs) is here as usually in 
 the N. T. the moral reason, the faculty by 
 which good and evil are discerned, the will- 
 ing as well as the thinking faculty : " when 
 by the divine law man has attained to a con- 
 sciousness of good and evil, there arises in 
 him a conscious will for the good : . . . . the 
 subject of this will is his i/oO?." (Delitzsch, 
 'Biblical Psychology,' p. 212.) 
 
 The vovi is properly an organ of the 
 nvevfxa, a part of man's spiritual nature ; but 
 in that warfare of which the Apostle speaks 
 it is conquered and taken captive to " the law 
 
 of sin that is in the members" and so is 
 termed '■'■the mind of the flesh" (Col. ii. 18). 
 
 Some commentators distinguish here four 
 laws. So Origen, Methodius, Ewald, De- 
 litzsch (' Bibl. Psych.,' p. 445). 
 
 " See," says Photius, in CEcumenius, " how 
 we are set round with laws diametrically 
 opposite. For the first pair flow in upon us 
 from without, the one inviting to do good, 
 z. ^., the evangelical law (the law of God), 
 the other calling us aside to evil, that is the 
 conflicting law of the wicked one. But the 
 other pair are within and occupy (o-ui/e^w) 
 the soul ; one the law of the mind implanted 
 m us by the Creator and leading towards 
 the better course, but the fourth, which is 
 also ' the law of sin,' is hardened in us be- 
 cause of the habituation to sin." 
 
 This interpretation, and the more recent 
 modifications of it, are inconsistent with St. 
 Paul's expression, " the law of sin which is in 
 my members" the last words of which show 
 beyond all question that " the law of sin " is 
 no other than " the la^iu in the members " above 
 mentioned. 
 
 It was necessary to characterise this law 
 according to its true nature, and therefore 
 instead of " bringing me into captivity to itself," 
 he has written " to the law of sin which is in 
 my members" (August. ' de Nupt.' i. 30: so 
 Meyer, Philippi, Thohick, Photius). 
 
 The objection of Van Hengel, that the law 
 which leads man captive cannot be the same 
 to which he is made captive, is answered by 
 the very figure employed, a warrior making 
 his enemy a captive to himself. 
 
 The variation iv rw vofxa) rijs a^aprias, 
 accepted by Tischendorf and Tregelles on 
 indecisive testimony, makes no greater dif- 
 ference in the sense than "captive in the 
 law " instead of " captive to the law." 
 
 24. The misery caused by this inward con- 
 flict and captivity wrings from the heart a wail 
 of anguish and a cry for help. The question, 
 " Who shall deliver me .^ " expresses not only 
 eager longing, but also an almost hopeless 
 feeling of the difficulty of finding a de- 
 liverer. 
 
 the body of this death.'] The other ren- 
 dering, " this body of death," destroys the 
 emphasis laid upon the nature of " this death," 
 i. e., of the death which I feel within me, and 
 which I have just described : the desire is 
 not to be released from the body simply as 
 being mortal, but from the body as the seat 
 of this shameful and miserable death of sin 
 (^w. 9-1 1, 13, 27,). See note at end. 
 
144 
 
 ROMANS. VII. 
 
 [v. 25. 
 
 w Or. tkis ^iio shall deliver me from "the body 
 
 body 0/ r 1 • 1 1 3 
 
 death or this death r 
 
 25 I thank God through Jesus 
 
 Christ our Lord. So then with the 
 mind I myself serve the law of God ; 
 but with the flesh the law of sin. 
 
 The parts of this verse answer closely to 
 the preceding : 
 
 " I am a captive. Who shall rescue me ? " 
 " Captive to the law of sin in my members. 
 Who shall deliver me from the body by which 
 I am enslaved to this deadly power of sin ? " 
 
 25. / thank God through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord.'] "Thanks be to God through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord." This is to be preferred as 
 both the shortest reading (^apiy instead of 
 eixuptcTTco, or Tj x^'P'S' '"'oi' Qeov), and the one 
 which best explains the origin of the others : 
 see note at end. 
 
 The language is abrupt, and the sense in- 
 completely expressed, no direct answer being 
 given to the question, " fFho shall deliver 
 me ? " This abruptness is, however, in itself 
 a proof of genuineness, answering as it does 
 most naturally to the outburst of anguish in 
 1;. 24, and to the sudden revulsion of feeling 
 with which the Apostle turns to view his 
 actual present state in contrast to his former 
 misery. 
 
 The cause of thankfulness is not expressed, 
 which is " quite after the manner of lively 
 emotion " (Meyer) ; but a thanksgiving offered 
 to God " through Jesus Christ " implies that 
 He is the author of the redemption so vehe- 
 mently desired. 
 
 So then luith the mind I myself., isy'c.'] It is 
 better to keep the order of the original, 
 which puts an emphasis on avros e-yw, "So 
 then I myself with the mind," &o. If 
 Christ is my deliverer, it is implied that " 1 
 myself" without Christ cannot get beyond 
 
 the state of distraction and self-contradiction 
 already described in w. 14-23. This in- 
 ference from the immediate context (apa ovv) 
 is thus at the same time a summary recapitu- 
 lation of the whole passage. " The la<w of God " 
 and " the law of sin " have both been men- 
 tioned above in "w. 22, 23, each with its 
 article : here the articles are omitted in order 
 to bring out more clearly <what each la^w is 
 in its nature and quality, the one "a law of 
 God," the other "a law of sin." 
 
 The proposal of Lachmann, Van Hengel, 
 and others to transfer this latter part of 
 •v. 25, and put it immediately after -y. 23 is 
 against all authority, and would destroy the 
 proper sense of avros iyto, which is only 
 brought out by contrast with 8ta 'Itjo-ov 
 Xpicrrou. 
 
 With the proposed transfer, the process of 
 the Apostle's thoughts would be strictly 
 correct and logical, but how tame in com- 
 parison with the sudden outburst of emotion 
 expressed in the actual text! At the crisis 
 reached in 'u. 2 3 there is first an irrepressible 
 burst of anguish, and then a sudden revulsion 
 of thanksgiving as the Apostle for a moment 
 breaks away from the miserable past to the 
 happy present, and then in the close of the 
 verse returns more calmly to the general con- 
 clusion of his long description. 
 
 It is a much disputed question whether St. 
 Paul in this chapter describes the conflicts of 
 an unregenerate or of a regenerate man. The 
 true answer is given by Dean Jackson (ix. 52) 
 in two words, " inter regenerandum," " in the 
 process of regeneration." 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on vv. i, 5, 6, 21, 25. 
 
 1. 6(/)' o(Tov xpovov (fj. Hofmann is right 
 in maintaining against Meyer that the em- 
 phasis of thought (as of position) is on ^,7, and 
 appealing in proof to -y. 2, tm ^wirt dvdpL See 
 also v. 3, (avros. 
 
 Meyer tries to defend his view by urging 
 that " the very expression oaov shows that the 
 emphasis is on e^' 6aov xpovov, meaning ' all 
 the time that,' " but this is hypercritical and 
 erroneous. 
 
 The fuller thought, " so long as he liveth 
 and no longer," far from being utterly irrele- 
 vant, is absolutely required. St. Paul's con- 
 tention is not merely that the Jew, as such, 
 was bound by the law all his life, but more 
 particularly that by death he was set free 
 from it. 
 
 This is clear also from vi. 7, " For he that 
 is dead is freed from sinP 
 
 5. Ila^^jpara in this ethical sense occurs in 
 the N. T. only here and in Gal. v. 24. 
 
 It is used by Plato {e.g. ' Phasdo,' 79 D: 
 Kai TovTO TO 7rddr]iJ.a (ppovrjcns (caXetrat) and 
 Aristotle (' Eth. Eudem.' II. ii. 2, 3 : Kara re 
 Tcis dvi/dfifis rSav nadr] ixdrmv Ka6' as (os 
 TradrjTLKol Xeyovrai, Koi Kara rds e^fis, Kad as 
 Trpos ret nddi] ravra Xiyovrai rw [ijVoi ?] Trdaxf^v 
 TTcoj T] dnadfls elvai), indifferently of all emo- 
 tions, and as equivalent to nddos, though 
 this latter word is more commonly applied to 
 evil affections: compare Rom. i. 26; Col. 
 iii. 5 ; I Thess. iv. 5. 
 
 ivnpyeiTo. See Aristot. ' Eth. Eud,' II. iL i, 
 
ROMANS. VII. 
 
 145 
 
 where he shows that ^0os, which grows out of 
 edns, is acquired by being often moved in a 
 certain way, and so at length the energy or 
 active ^dos, t6 fvfpyrjTiKov^ is formed. 
 
 Chrysostom takes evrjpyeiTo in a Passive 
 sense, " were wrought in our members," as 
 showing that " the evil is derived from another 
 source, from the thoughts that work, not from 
 the members that are vsTought upon." 
 
 The Passive occurs in Polybius, I. xiii. 5 ; 
 IX. xii. 3, 7 : xiii. 9 ; Jos. Ant. Jud. lib. XV. 
 c. V. § 3, 1. 40, Dindorf : in all which passages 
 it is used of the operations carried on in war. 
 
 A careful consideration of all the examples 
 in the N. T, (i Thess. ii. 13 ; 2 Thess. ii. 7 ; 
 2 Cor. i. 6 ; iv. 1 2 ; Gal. v. 6 ; Eph. iii. 20 ; 
 Col. i. 29 ; Jas. v. 16) seems to show that the 
 Middle sense is everywhere preferable to the 
 Passive. 
 
 The Active voice is used of an external or 
 independent agent ; the Middle, of a power 
 already belonging to the Subject in whom it 
 works. 
 
 6. The A. V. is formed on the reading 
 dnodavovTos, which has no MS. authority, but 
 was introduced into the printed text by Beza, 
 who erroneously inferred from the comment 
 of Chrysostom that he had that reading before 
 him. 
 
 Tov BavoTov is the reading found in the 
 Greek- Latin uncials D E F G, in the Latin 
 Versions It. and Vulg. (exc. Codex Amiatinus 
 " morientes "), in the Latin Fathers, and in 
 copies mentioned by Origen (or Rufinus), 
 who, however preferred airoBavovTes, "sed 
 hoc, id est, mortu'i est verius et rectius." Meyer 
 rightly regards it as " a gloss, having a practi- 
 cal bearing on rov v6fj.ov, which has dispos- 
 sessed the participle regarded as disturbing the 
 construction." Reiche thinks tov davdrov was 
 substituted for aTro6av6vT€£, as supplying an 
 easy reference for ev w. 
 
 dnodavovTis has a superabundant weight of 
 authority (Reiche), and is confirmed by the 
 peculiarity of the construction, anndavoures 
 iv w KaTfixofifda, which is difficult, but by no 
 means to be rejected as either contrary to 
 Greek usage or void of a suitable sense. It 
 has been variously rendered. 
 
 (a) fVe have been discharged by death from 
 the la<w ivherein <we ^were held: Riickert, De 
 Wette, &c. This rendering gives excellent 
 sense, but is forbidden by the position of 
 aTro6av6vT(s. 
 
 (b) fVe have been discharged from the laiv 
 by dying in that vj herein ive ivere held, i.e. in 
 our old man (Forbes). This, too, gives a good 
 sense, but there is nothing in the immediate 
 context to suggest that the antecedent to be 
 supplied is " our old man.'' 
 
 (c) We have been discharged from the latv 
 by dying in him in wjhom ive ivere held, i. e. in 
 Christ. 
 
 This construction has no support in the 
 immediate context, and the meaning attributed 
 to Karfi^o/xe^a is unusual and inadmissible. 
 
 (d) We have been discharged from 
 the law by dying unto that wherein we 
 were held, i.e. to the law, in whose grasp we 
 were. 
 
 This last construction, which gives the 
 same sense as (a), is adopted by Meyer, 
 Reiche, &c., and is much to be preferred. It 
 states in accordance with the preceding alle- 
 gory the mode in which we were released 
 from the law, namely by dying to it. 
 
 21. This passage is regarded by Chrysos- 
 tom and other Greek Fathers as "a dark 
 saying," and is given up by some modern 
 commentators as hopelessly unintelligible. 
 These interpreters, both ancient and modern, 
 have in fact made for themselves an insuper- 
 able stumbling-block, by insisting that tou 
 vofiov must mean the Mosaic Law. It will 
 be sufficient to give a few specimens of the 
 explanations thus attempted, which for the 
 most part refute themselves. 
 
 (a) Chrysostom and the Greek commenta- 
 tors generally, instead of interpreting the pas- 
 sage, almost rewrite it with unwarrantable 
 additions : " I find the law helping and en- 
 couraging me, who wish to do good, but am 
 in ivant of help, because evil is present with 
 me." 
 
 (b) Fritzsche and others govern tov vofj-ov, 
 not by evpiaKoi but by Troieiv, and make " the 
 law " identical with " the good " : "I find 
 that to me ivho m;ish to do the haiv, that is the 
 good, evil is present." 
 
 (c) Ewald, on the contrary, identifies " the 
 law " with " the evil " ; "I find therefore that 
 the lanv, when I desire to do the good, lies at 
 hand to me as the evil." 
 
 (d) New complications are introduced by 
 Meyer : 
 
 " Tov vofiov is to be understood of the 
 Mosaic Law, and joined with roi deXovn, 
 TTOLflv is to be taken as Infinitive of the pur- 
 pose (Buttmann, neut. Gr., p. 224), and 6rt 
 K. T. X. as object of evpia-KO) (comp. Esr. ii. 26): 
 it results to me, therefore, that, nvhile my ivill 
 is directed to the law, in order to do the goody 
 the evil lies before me." 
 
 While Meyer justly terms other views, 
 which he rejects, "forced expedients," and 
 " tortuous explanations," he is surprised that 
 his own interpretation should be regarded 
 as " harsh " (Delitzsch), ^'■forced" (Philippi), 
 " strange and meaningless " (Hofmann). 
 
 25. The variation in the readings is in- 
 structive : 
 
 (i) x"P'^ ''■^ ^^V B Tliebaic. 
 
 (2) X- ^« 'T'? ^f<? '^^ ^^ some cursives, 
 Memphitic. 
 
 (3 J r; x"P'-^ ■''°*^ ^^"^ D E, d e, v g. 
 
146 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 [v. I — 2. 
 
 C4) f] X- TOV Kvp'lOV F G, f g. 
 
 (5) evxapia-TO) tw 6ea N*AKLP, cursives, 
 Syriac. 
 
 The excellence of the Vatican Codex (B) 
 is here conspicuous. Its reading, though 
 apparently found in no other known manu- 
 script, and supported only by one version. 
 
 and a few citations in the Fathers, is unques- 
 tionably genuine : it alone explains all the 
 others. For example, the reading of the 
 Textus Receptus {fvxapioToo) may be readily 
 traced to a combination of x«P'f with the 
 syllables which precede and follow it in the 
 original reading {ovxapt(rra). 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 I T/iey that are in Christ, and live according 
 to the Spirit, are free from condemnation. 
 5, 13 What harm cometh of the flesh, 6, 14 
 and what good of the Spirit : ij and what of 
 being God's child, 19 whose glorious deliver- 
 ance all things long for, 29 was beforehand 
 decreed from God. 38 What can sever us 
 from his love ? 
 
 'T^HERE is therefore now no 
 -* condemnation to them which 
 are in Christ Jesus, who walk 
 not after the flesh, but after the 
 Spirit. 
 
 2 For the law of the Spirit of life 
 in Christ Jesus hath made me free 
 from the law of sin and death. 
 
 Chap. VIII. Nature of the Deli- 
 verance ANTICIPATED IN ST. PaUL'S 
 TRIUMPHANT THANKSGIVING IN VII. 25. 
 
 1-11, Condemnation under '•'■the laiv of sin 
 and death" is abolished by '■'■the laiu of the 
 Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." 
 
 1. therefore'] An inference from the thanks- 
 giving in vii. 25, as is shown by the word 
 " noiv," meaning " now that a deliverer has 
 been found in Christ Jesus, like the " now " 
 in vii. 6. 
 
 This connection is made certain by v. 2, 
 which expressly asserts the deliverance as the 
 cause why " there is now no condemnation," 
 
 to them which are in Christ Jesus^ " To 
 be in Christ" does not mean in St. Paul's 
 writings " to be dependent on Christ " Ca 
 common classical usage), nor merely (as 
 Fritzsche tries to prove) to be His follower or 
 disciple, as Pythagoreans or Platonists were 
 followers of their several masters. It implies 
 that living union which Christ Himself first 
 made known : " Because I live, ye shall live 
 also. At that day ye shall knonv that lam in 
 my Father, and ye in Me, and I in you" (John 
 xiv. 19, 20 : compare John xv. 4-7). 
 
 This union with Christ is frequently de- 
 scribed by St. John as " being in Him": i John 
 ii. 5, 6, 24, 28; iii. 24; v. 20. 
 
 The same expression is found in i Pet. 
 iii. 16; v. 10, 14; but is especially character- 
 istic of St. Paul's writings, being applied by 
 him both to churches (Gal. i. 22 ; i Thess. i. 
 I ; ii. 14; iv. 16; 2 Thess. i. i) and to indi- 
 viduals (i Cor. i. 30 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 7 ; Eph. i. i ; 
 ii. 10, &c.). What St. Paul affirmed at Athens 
 of all mankind in their natural relation to God, 
 that " in Him ive live and move and have our 
 being" (Acts xvii. 28), he applies in a higher 
 sense to the spiritual union of believers with 
 
 Christ. In Gal. iii. 26-28, we see both the 
 inward and outward means of this union, 
 namely, faith and baptism. 
 
 In speaking of this union, St. Paul never 
 uses the name " Jesus " alone nor first, but 
 gives prominence to the Divine dignity and 
 saving power of " Christ" (Van Hengel). 
 
 " It is a point not of opinion, but of belief, 
 that the Son of God did take our nature upon 
 Him, not only to the end that He might lay it 
 down for our ransom, or suffer for us in the 
 flesh, but to the end withal that, having suf- 
 fered for us according to His humanity. He 
 might by it unite us unto Himself as He is God 
 in a more peculiar manner than our human 
 nature without such union to His human 
 nature was capable of" (Jackson, ' On the 
 Creed,* b. xii.). 
 
 This union is represented under various 
 figiu-es as that of the vine and its branches, 
 the foundation and the building, the head 
 and the members : in this passage the context 
 {y. 2 compared with vii. 4, 6, 25) suggests 
 "the spiritual marriage and unity betwixt 
 Christ and His Church." 
 
 The words, '■'■ ivho nxjalk not after the fleshy 
 hut after the Spirit," are rejected by all critics 
 as a gloss brought from v. 4. The inter- 
 polation is of very early date. 
 
 2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ 
 Jesus hath made me free from the laiv of sin 
 and (0 f ) death. ] " The laiv of sin and f death " 
 from which man is set free must clearly be 
 that to which he has been previously in capti- 
 vity, namely, " the laiv of sin in the members " 
 (vii. 23), which is also a law of death, as 
 already implied in vii. 1 1. 
 
 This being a power within the man, the 
 law which is opposed to it, and overpowers it, 
 must also be an inward power. Thus " the 
 law of the Spirit of life " is not the Gospel, 
 nor its plan of salvation, neither is it '■'■the 
 
V. 3.] 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 147 
 
 3 For what the law could not Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, 
 do, in that it was weak through and "for sin, condemned sin in t\\&\,^r}Jice'* 
 the flesh, God sending his own flesh : >'' "»• 
 
 law of the mind" (vii. 23), which has been 
 already proved powerless against the flesh ; 
 but it is the life-giving power of the Holy 
 Ghost, ruling as a law in the heart. 
 
 '■'■The Spirit of life" is so called, because He 
 is the Author and Giver of life : compare 1;. 
 II ; John vi. 63 ; i Cor. xv. 45 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
 The genitive expresses the effect wrought, 
 as in John vi. 35, " the bread of life" and Rom. 
 V. 18, ^'^ justification of life" 
 
 From " the Spirit of life " dwelling in the 
 inner man goes tbrth a power which not only 
 commands as a law, but also quickens and 
 inspires obedience as a living and life-giving 
 law, and thus sets the man free from the con- 
 trary " la^w of sin and of death." 
 
 This deliverance was first effected in the 
 Person of Christ, as is shown in 1;. 3, and 
 can be continued only " in Christ Jesus," i.e. 
 " in fellowship of lite with H im, in being and 
 living in Him, v. i " (Meyer). 
 
 The verb stands between two prepositional 
 clauses, both dependent on it : " in Christ 
 Jesus made me free from the lanjj of sin and 
 of death." The same arrangement is found 
 also in i. 17, iii. 7, v. 17, the clause with 
 iv being placed, as here, before the verb : an 
 emphasis is thus thrown on the words " in 
 Christ Jesus" as in i Cor. iv. 15 ; Gal. v. 6. 
 
 3. To confirm the truth stated in v. 2, 
 St. Paul now declares the actual method by 
 which the liberation from the law of sin and 
 of death is effected ; and first he enhances the 
 greatness of the task, as being that which the 
 law of Moses had not power to accomplish. 
 
 For ivhat the la<w could not do.] On the 
 construction, see Note at end: the sense is 
 clearly given in the A. V. : " what the lanv 
 could not do,^' is what God did by other means, 
 i.e. " condem.ned sin in the flesh." 
 
 The law could not do this, " in that it was 
 iveak through the flesh" — a cause of failure 
 already explained in vii. 14-25. 
 
 God sending his oivn 5o«.] After showing 
 exactly wherein the difficulty lay which the 
 law had not power to overcome, the Apostle 
 proceeds to declare how God overcame it. 
 
 The language is remarkable : the emphatic 
 words, '■'■His own Son," implying the fulness 
 of Divine power in the Son of God, stand in 
 striking contrast between the impotence of 
 the Law and the weakness of Christ's human 
 nature. 
 
 in the likeness of sinful fesh,"] In likeness 
 of the flesh of sin. 
 
 The flesh of sin describes man's animal 
 nature as having become the seat of indwelling 
 sin. But of that nature itself sin is no part nor 
 
 property, only its fault and corruption. Hence 
 Christ could take true human flesh, "of the 
 substance of the Virgin Mary His Mother," 
 without that quality of sinfulness which it has 
 acquired in us, who are "naturally engendered 
 of the offspring of Adam." "In putting on 
 our flesh He made it His own : in making 
 it His own, He made it sinless " (TertuUian, 
 'De Carne Christi,' c. 16). Christ thus was 
 sent "in likeness of sinful fesh," not as if 
 He had taken on tlim the " likeness of flesh " 
 in the sense of a semblance of body instead of 
 its reality: but St. Paul means us to under- 
 stand likeness to the flesh which sinned, be- 
 cause the flesh of Christ, which committed no 
 sin itself, was like that which had sinned, — 
 like it in its nature, but not in the corruption 
 it received irom Adam : whence we also 
 affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh 
 as that whose nature in man is sinful (Ter- 
 tuU. ib.). (See Additional Note.) 
 
 and for sin.] The words might also be 
 rendered : " and as a sin-offering," being so 
 used in the Septuagint, Lev. iv. 33; v. 6, 7, 
 8, 9; vii. 37; and Ps. xl. 6, and in Heb. x. 
 6, 8. Here, however, an exclusive reference 
 to sacrifice is not permitted by the context, 
 which refers, not only to the expiation, but 
 also to the practical condemnation and de- 
 struction of sin (y. 4). The more compre- 
 hensive meaning ^^for sin " (i.e. " on account 
 of" or "concerning sin ") is therefore to be 
 preferred here, and is found in A. V. even in 
 Heb. xiii. 11, where the context expressly 
 limits the meaning to " sacrifice for sin." 
 
 condemned sin in the flesh.] The rendering 
 " in his flesh," i.e. Christ's, is not admissible; 
 for the flesh has already been twice identified 
 in this verse with the " flesh of sin," i.e. the 
 flesh in which sin exercises its usurped do- 
 minion. How then did God condemn sin in 
 the flesh, i.e., in human nature generally ? (i) 
 By exhibiting in the person of His Incar- 
 nate Son the same flesh in substance but 
 free from sin. He proved that sin was in the 
 flesh only as an unnatural and usurping 
 tyrant. Thus the manifestation of Christ in 
 sinless humanity at once condemned sin in 
 principle, i'or this sense of KaraKpivo), to 
 condemn by contrast, see Matt. xii. 41, 42, 
 and Heb. xi. 7. 
 
 But (2) God condemned sin practically and 
 effectually by destroying its power and casting 
 it out : and this is the sense especially re- 
 quired by the context. The law could 
 condemn sin only in word, and could not 
 make its condemnation effectual. Christ 
 coming "/or sin " not only made atonement 
 
 K 2 
 
148 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 [v. 4—5' 
 
 4 That the righteousness of the 
 law might be fulfilled in us, who 
 walk not after the flesh, but after the 
 Spirit. 
 
 5 For they that are after the flesh 
 do mind the things of the flesh ; but 
 they that are after the Spirit the 
 things of the Spirit. 
 
 for it by His Death, but uniting man to 
 Himself " in newness of life " (vi. 4), gave 
 actual effect to the condemnation of sin 
 by destroying its dominion "/« the flesh" 
 through the life-giving sanctifying power of 
 His Spirit. 
 
 4. The purpose for which God condemned 
 sin in the flesh. 
 
 That the righteousness of the laiv might be ful- 
 filled in us.~\ " That the rig\i.X,eovis demand q/" 
 the law" &c. — i.e. what it demands as right. 
 
 The one righteous demand of the law which 
 includes all its other demands {ra 8tKaLa>fj,aTa 
 Toil vofiov, ii. 26 ; Luke i. 6 ; Numbers xxxi. 21, 
 is holy obedience inspired by the love of 
 God (Luke X. 27). That this "righteous 
 demand of the laiv might be fulfilled in us)" 
 was the great final cause of God's sending 
 His Son into the world. 
 
 Other interpretations of the passage may be 
 classified according to the meanings assigned 
 to Stfca/w/xa. 
 
 (i) "The righteous sentence of the law" 
 in condemnation of sin (i. 32). 
 
 This is contrary to the tenor of the passage, 
 and to the plain meaning of the words '■^ful- 
 filled in us" : for as to the condemnatory 
 sentence of the law, God's purpose in sending 
 His Son was that it might not be fulfilled in us. 
 
 (2) The justification, or justifying sentence 
 of the law (v. 16). Fritzsche refers this to 
 the promise (Lev. xviii. 5, Deut. v. 33) that 
 the man who keeps the commandments of 
 God shall find life therein. 
 
 But "justification" is not and cannot be 
 ascribed to the law (iii. 20; Gal. iii. 11, 21 ; 
 Acts xiii. 39) : " it is God that justifieth." 
 Accordingly Si»ca/co/ia in this sense is not 
 found with vofiov. 
 
 (3) The righteousness or right conduct 
 corresponding to the law's demand (v. 18 ; 
 Apoc. xix. 8). 
 
 In this sense also Si/caiw/Lia is not found in 
 combination with v6ix.ov : and if such usage 
 were established, the general meaning of the 
 passage would be the same as that which we 
 have given above ; for the righteousness 
 which satisfies the law is the counterpart of 
 the law's righteous demand. 
 
 It may be well to gather up the fragments 
 of truth which underlie these various inter- 
 pretations. 
 
 Christ came indeed that the law's " right- 
 eous sentence" of condemnation against sin 
 might be fulfilled, not in us, but in His 
 atoning death. He came, that " the justi- 
 fying sentence," not of the laiv, but of God, 
 
 might be ratified and accomplished upon all 
 who believe in Him. He came also " to 
 fulfil all righteousness" in His own Person: 
 not only to give us an example of perfect 
 obedience to the law, but also to redeem us 
 from the curse of the law, and further to 
 " condemn sin in the flesh " by showing that 
 it has not a rightful but only an usurped 
 dominion there, and so to deliver our whole 
 nature, body, soul, and spirit from sin's 
 bondage, and then lastly so to make us one 
 with Himself in this renewed nature, that 
 through the quickening and sanctifying 
 power of His Spirit we also may " <iualk in 
 newness of life (vi. 4), in other words " that 
 the righteousness of the law (its demand of 
 holiness) may be fulfilled in us." 
 
 There is no force in Calvin's objection, 
 that believers renewed by the Spirit do not 
 in fact attain in this life to such proficiency 
 in holiness, that the righteousness of the Law 
 is fulfilled in them: for God's purpose, of 
 which St. Paul is here speaking, is clearly 
 affirmed in such passages as Eph. ii. 10, 
 Col. ii. 10. Compare xiii. 8 ; Gal. v. 14. 
 
 This interpretation is placed beyond doubt 
 by the additional clause which defines the 
 character of those in whom the righteous 
 requirement of the law is to be fulfilled; 
 namely such as '■'■lualk not after the flesh, but 
 after the Spirit;" this character is deter- 
 mined by the ruling principle according to 
 which their actual life is regulated. They 
 " walk not after the flesh.'' for the flesh 
 with its affections and lusts rebels against 
 the law, " but after the Spirit. " The Spirit," 
 being here regarded as the regulating principle 
 (^Karii), cannot be man's own spirit however 
 renewed and sanctified, but the Divine power 
 itself which renews and sanctifies, i.e. the in- 
 dwelling Spirit of God, as in -u. 9. 
 
 5. For they that are after the flesh do mind 
 the things of the flesh.'] " To be after the flesh " 
 is to have the flesh for the ruling principle of 
 our being : " to walk after the flesh " {v. 4) 
 is to follow this principle in the actual life. 
 The distinction is not meant to be made 
 prominent ; but it is necessary to go back 
 from the outward symptom to the cause, in 
 order to derive from that the intermediate 
 process : " they that are after the flesh do mind 
 the thi72gs of the flesh" and so " walk after 
 the flesh." 
 
 " The things of the flesh " are opposed to 
 " the things of the Spirit" — 
 
 (i) as human to divine, — '■'■Thou savourest 
 (literally mindest) not the things that be of 
 
V. 6 — 9-] 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 149 
 
 6 For "to be carnally minded is 
 death; but "to be spiritually minded 
 is life and peace. 
 
 7 Because "the carnal mind is en- 
 mity against God : for it is not sub- 
 
 I Gr. tk^ 
 
 tn ill ding 
 of tlie 
 jiesk. 
 
 II Gr. the 
 minding 
 cf the 
 S/>i>-ii. 
 
 minding ject to the law of God, neither indeed man have not the Spirit of Christ, he 
 "£1'^, can be. is none of his. 
 
 8 So then they that are in the 
 flesh cannot please God. 
 
 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but 
 in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit 
 of God dwell in you. Now if any 
 
 God, but those that be of men " (Matt. xvi. 23) ; 
 (2) as earthly things to heavenly (Phil. iii. 19, 
 Col. iii. 2), and (3) in utter moral contradic- 
 tion, as sin to holiness (Gal. v. 19-21; 22, 
 33). 
 
 6. The definition of those in whom the 
 righteousness of the law is to be fulfilled 
 (y. 4) is justified and confirmed both on its 
 negative and positive sides by the reason 
 stated in v. 3, which reason is itself con- 
 firmed by a further development in 'v. 6, 
 and that again is explained on the negative 
 side in v. 7. 
 
 to be carnally minded.'] "The lust of the 
 flesh, called in the Greek (ppovrjfia aapKos, 
 which some do expound the wisdom, some 
 sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, 
 of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God " 
 (Art. ix.). The A. V. is a fair paraphrase of 
 the literal meaning "mind of the flesh," 
 in which "mind" (or ^^ minding" Marg.) 
 means "thought," "purpose," "sentiment," 
 or "study," as in viii. 27, "God knoiueth 
 luhat is the mind of the Spirit" 
 
 "The flesh" is not the mere material of 
 the body, but " the infection of nature " 
 (Art. ix.). Compare Delitzsch, ' Biblical Psy- 
 chology,' pp. 439, 442, and Additional Note on 
 a-ap^, Introduction, § 9. The statement that 
 "the mind of the flesh is death" is ex- 
 plained by St. Paul himself in ^). 7 : for 
 " enmity against God" separating man from the 
 only source of life, not only leads to death, 
 but is itself the very essence of death, so that 
 the sinner is dead while he liveth (i Tim. 
 V. 6). 
 
 but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.] 
 *'■ but the mind of the Spirit is life and 
 peace." Meyer's explanation that " the striving 
 of the Holy Spirit tends to lead man to 
 eternal life and blessedness" is inadequate. 
 "The mind of the Spirit," the whole 
 state of thought and feeling which proceeds 
 from the Spirit, dwelling in man's heart 
 ("u. 9), " is life" the true life of the soul, 
 the first-fruit of that gift of Gotl wliich is 
 eternal life (vi. 23). 
 
 " Peace " is not here the act of reconciliation 
 v/rought by Christ's death (-v. i), but the 
 conscious enjoyment of that reconciliation, 
 the holy calm breathed over the soul by the 
 
 Holy Ghost pouring forth God's love upon 
 the heart. See note on v. 5. 
 
 7. 8. St. Paul now follows out separately 
 the proof of the former part of v. 6, "the 
 mind of the flesh is death:" his argument 
 is explained in the note on that clause. By 
 adding the word ^^ peace " to " life " in v. 6, 
 he has already prepared the way for passing 
 over to the mention of that " enmity " which 
 is ^^ death" (Bengel), The proof that "the 
 mind of the flesh is enmity against God" is 
 seen in the fact that " it is not subject to the 
 la^iu of God:" and this fact of experience, 
 (fully established in c. vii.) is further traced 
 to its inmost cause in the depraved tendency 
 of "the mind of the flesh;" "for it doth 
 not submit itself to the law of God, for 
 indeed it cannot." "He does not say that 
 it is impossible for the wicked man to become 
 good, but that it is impossible for him remain- 
 ing wicked to submit to God : by conversion, 
 however, it is easy to become good and 
 submit." (Chrysostom.) 
 
 8. So then.] "And" (Se): the particle 
 marks "the continuation under a slightly 
 changed form " (Bp. Ellicott) of the opening 
 statement of i). 7: "Because the mind of 
 the flesh ij enmity against God .... and they 
 that are in the flesh cannot please God." From 
 the abstract principle he passes to its practical 
 result. 
 
 9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the 
 Spirit.] Personal aprplication to the readers 
 of the general statements of w. 5-8, " Ye " 
 is emphatic. 
 
 " The flesh " and " the Spirit," represented 
 in V. 5 as ruling principles, according to 
 which men's moral life is regulated, here 
 appear as opposite elements, in one or other 
 of which that life subsists. 
 
 if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.] 
 It is characteristic of St. Paul that he first 
 expresses his strong and loving confidence in 
 his readers in the absolute assertion, " 2^1? are 
 not in the flesh, but in the Spirit:" and then, 
 remembering that so unqualified a statement 
 could not safely be applied to all, he adds, by 
 way of caution, and stimulus to self-exami- 
 nation, the condition upon which his state- 
 ment concerning them necessarily depends, 
 a " conditio sine qua non." 
 
15° 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 [v. lO. 
 
 10 And if Christ be in you, the 
 body is dead because of sin ; but the 
 
 Spirit 
 ness. 
 
 is life because of righteous- 
 
 " For the Spirit of God must dwell in the 
 man in order that He may be the determining 
 element in which the man lives:" compare 
 St. John's expression " Te in me, and I in 
 you" (Meyer). For the conditional '■'■ d<well" 
 read "dwelleth:" see note at end. 
 
 Noiv if any man ha-ve not the Spirit of 
 Ci/rist.'] "But if any man hath not," &c. 
 
 The favourable supposition, " if the Spirit 
 ©/"GoJ dwelleth in you," was applied to the 
 readers generally : but on the unfavourable 
 side St. Paul puts only the supposition that 
 this or that man among them "hath not the 
 Spirit of Christ." It is clear from the con- 
 nection that '■'■the Spirit of Christ" is the 
 same as " the Spirit of God," i.e., the Holy 
 Ghost, who is not only sent by Christ, but is 
 so essentially one with Christ, that His 
 indwelling is in the next clause described as 
 *' Christ in you:" see Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19. 
 The theological import of the passage is well 
 explained by Philippi, who shows that, when 
 compared with Gal. iv. 6, it is a clear proof 
 of the procession of the Holy Ghost "from 
 the Father and the Son," as well as "an 
 illustrious testimony concerning the Holy 
 Trinity" (Bengel). 
 
 he is none ofhis.'] The reason for changing 
 the title ''Spirit of God" into "Spirit of 
 Christ " was to bring out clearly and emphati- 
 cally this truth that "he that hath not 
 Christ's Spirit, is not Christ's: because Christ 
 gives His Spirit to all that are His" (i John 
 iv. 1 3). " To be Christ's " is the same as " to 
 be in Christ" (Gal. iii. 28, 29). 
 
 10. Jnd if Christ be in you.l "But if 
 Christ is in you :" this is a direct contrast to 
 the latter part of v. 9, and a renewal of the 
 favourable supposition in the former part, " if 
 the Spirit of God dwelleth in you." It now 
 further appears that "to have the Spirit of 
 Christ" (-y. 9) is to have Christ Himself 
 dwelling within the heart : compare Eph. iii. 
 16, 17: '' to be strengthened nvith might by his 
 Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may d^vell 
 in your hearts by faith." 
 
 the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit 
 is life.] Rather, "though the body is dead 
 because of sin, yet the Spirit is lifer 
 
 " If Christ is in you," it follows that "the 
 Spirit is life;" yet in contrast to that effect it 
 is admitted (/xeV) that for the present " the 
 body is dead:" but even this contrast and 
 limitation to the Spirit's operation shall be 
 done away hereafter (-y. 11). 
 
 The reference in v. 11 to the resurrec- 
 tion of the mortal body makes it certain that 
 iii saying " the body is dead '' St. Paul is think- 
 
 ing of physical death on account of sin : com- 
 pare V. 12. 
 
 " Methinks" (says Augustine, who dwells 
 much upon this passage), "that thought so 
 clear and plain needs not to be expounded, 
 but only to be read." (' De Peccatorum 
 Meritis,' i. 7). 
 
 " The Apostle does not say, " The body is 
 mortal because of sin," but " the body is dead 
 because of sin." For prior to Adam's sin it 
 might be called both mortal for one reason 
 and immortal for another reason : that is, 
 mortal, because it was capable of dying: im- 
 mortal, because it was capable of not dying. 
 . . . And so that animal and therefore mortal 
 body, which on account of righteousness 
 should have become spiritual and therefore 
 altogether immortal, was made on account of 
 sin not " mortal," which it was before, but 
 " dead," which it might never have become if 
 man had not sinned." 
 
 " How therefore does the Apostle, when 
 speaking about persons still living, call our 
 body ' dead,^ except because the necessity of 
 dying clung to the children from the sin of 
 their parents?" ('De Genesi ad litteram,' 
 vi. 36). 
 
 The body thus doomed to certain death, 
 and bearing in itself the germs of corruption, 
 is in St. Paul's vivid conception already 
 " dead," " a living corpse " (Soph. ' Antigone,' 
 1167). 
 
 but the Spirit is life!] " the spirit," i.e. the 
 human spirit ; it is implied not in the word 
 itself, but in the condition '■'■if Christ is in 
 you" that the human spirit is quickened by 
 the indwelling Spirit of God. This reference 
 to the human spirit is proved by the direct 
 contrast of " the body " and " the spirit " (i Cor. 
 vii. 34; 2 Cor. vii. i \ Ja. ii. 26), and by the 
 careful distinction of the Divine Spirit in 
 •y. II, as '■'■the Spirit of him that raised up 
 Jesus from the dead." 
 
 The spirit of man, when renewed and per- 
 vaded by the Spirit of Christ, not only lives, 
 but is all " life," essentially and eternally. 
 The inferior reading {(fj, " liveth ") falls far 
 short of St. Paul's thought: "the Divine 
 life becomes through the Holy Spirit not 
 only a quality of the human spirit, it becomes 
 its nature, in such wise, that it can diffuse 
 itself through the whole person from the 
 spirit to the soul and body" (Godet). 
 
 because of righteousness^ Since cause goes 
 before effect, the righteousness which is the 
 conditional cause of life in the believer (as sin 
 is the cause of death), is that " righteousness 
 of God" which is freely given for Christ's 
 
V. II— 1 3-] 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 151 
 
 II But if the Spirit of 
 that raised up Jesus from 
 dead dwell in you 
 up Christ from 
 
 him 
 
 the 
 
 he that raised 
 
 the dead shall 
 
 12 Therefore, brethren, we are 
 debtors, not to the flesh, to live aftei 
 the flesh. 
 
 13 For if ye live after the flesh, 
 
 11 Or, he- 
 
 (.iHse of ,,_,, 
 
 hh Spirit. yOll 
 
 also quicken your mortal bodies ye shall die : but if ye through the 
 "by his Spirit that dwelleth in Spirit do mortify the deeds of the 
 
 body, ye shall live. 
 
 sake, which is accompanied by the gift of 
 eternal life (v. 17, 18, 21), and which brings 
 forth as its fruit the works of righteousness. 
 
 The same conclusion follows from the 
 antithesis of the two clauses ; " the body is 
 dead because of (Adam's) si7i, but the spirit 
 is life because of (Christ's) righteousness :" 
 compare, ch. v. 12, 15, 17. 
 
 " Propter justificationem " (Vulg.) is there- 
 fore right as a paraphrase, though not as a 
 translation of Sta biKaLocrvvrjv. On the other 
 hand Cyril's interpretation is wholly inadmis- 
 sible : " Being quickened by the grace of the 
 Holy Spirit and rich in righteousness through 
 communion with Him: for thus are we 
 partakers of the divine nature." 
 
 11. The present possession of the Spirit of 
 God is an assurance that even in the body 
 life shall at last triumph over death. The 
 condition, " if Christ is in you" is now re- 
 peated in substance, but changed in form to 
 suit the new statement concerning God's 
 raising up Jesus from the dead. 
 
 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus 
 from the dead dwell inyou.^ Rather "dwell- 
 eth in you:" see on v. 9. 
 
 " The Spirit of God," called also " the Spirit 
 of Christ " in i>. 9, is now introduced under 
 a new title, which in fact forms part of the 
 argument; because it is assumed that He 
 who raised Jesus from the dead can also 
 raise us. Though the Son as God had 
 power to lay down His life and to take it 
 again (John ii. 19, x. 18), yet Jesus as Man 
 is raised by the power of God the Father 
 (Acts ii. 32 ; Gal. i. i; Eph. i. 20: com- 
 pare Pearson, 'Creed,' Art. v. p. 301). 
 
 he that raised up Christ from the dead.l 
 The mediatorial title "Christ" ("Christ 
 Jesus," Tisch. 8) corresponds to the as- 
 sumed connection between His resurrection 
 and ours. Compare i Cor, vi. 14 ; 2 Cor. 
 iv. 14. 
 
 shall also quicken your mortal bodies.^ In- 
 stead of " raise," St. Paul now says " quicken," 
 or " make alive " (^cooTroieti^), in correspond- 
 ence with -u. 10: "the spirit is life" already, 
 the body also shall be made alive hereafter. 
 In v. 10 the body is called ^^ dead," a hyper- 
 bolic expression, which would be weakened 
 by repeating the same word in the same 
 
 sense, and obscured by applying it in a dif- 
 ferent sense to bodies actually dead. St. 
 Paul therefore now applies the proper word 
 "mortal" to the present state of the body, 
 which shall hereafter be quickened into im- 
 mortality. 
 
 "He does not say 'dead bodies,' but 
 * mortal bodies ; ' because in the resurrec- 
 tion our bodies shall not only cease to be 
 ^dead' {■v. 10), i.e. subject to a necessity of 
 death, but also shall cease to be ' mortal,' 
 i.e. capable of dying, such as was Adam's 
 body before his sin. For after the resurrec- 
 tion our bodies shall be altogether immortal." 
 (Aquinas.) 
 
 by his Spirit that diuelleth in you.'] See 
 note at end of chapter. 
 
 The marginal reading "because of his 
 Spirit that dwelleth inyou " is most in accord- 
 ance with the language of the N. T., which 
 nowhere represents the Holy Ghost as the 
 special agent or instrument by whom the 
 dead are raised. " The bodies of the saints 
 are the members of Christ, and no members 
 of His shall remain in death : they are the 
 temples of the Holy Ghost, and therefore if 
 they be destroyed, they shall be raised again." 
 For " if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus 
 from the dead dwell in us," as He doth, and 
 by so dwelling maketh our bodies temples, 
 " he IV hie h raised up Christ from the dead shall 
 also quicken our mortal bodies ^y (because of) 
 His Spirit that dwelleth in us" (Pearson, 
 ' Creed,' Art. v.). Compare 2 Cor. v. 5, where 
 St. Paul speaks of the gift of the Spirit as an 
 earnest of the resurrection. 
 
 12, 13. Practical exhortation founded upon 
 the consequences which have been shown 
 {yv. i-ii) to follow from living after the 
 flesh or after the Spirit. 
 
 Therefore.'] " So then : " as in vii. 3. You 
 have seen (yv. 6-8) that if " flesh " be the 
 ruHng principle of your life "ye must die" 
 (Tyndale : /xeXXere anodvrja-Kfiv), and this 
 sure and known result is not such as to lay 
 you under any obligation to the flesh : you 
 owe it nothing by anticipation, that you 
 should live according to its rule. 
 
 but if ye through the Spirit do mortify^ 
 "but if by the Spirit ye mortify." 
 In T. 12 the order of the words " nue are 
 
152 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 [v. 14—15. 
 
 14 For as many as are led by the 15 For ye have not received 
 Spirit of God, they are the sons of the spirit of bondage again to fear ; 
 God. but ye have received the Spirit of 
 
 debtors — not to the Jlesh," leads our thoughts 
 on at once to the well-known and necessary 
 alternative {-v. 4), " but to the Spirit that we 
 should live after the Spirit : " the reason 
 therefore of that suppressed alternative is 
 now added. 
 
 " The deeds of the body " are not bodily acts 
 as such, but its actions or practices {irpa^ns) 
 considered in their moral tendency, which in 
 this case is towards evil : compare Col. iii. 9. 
 
 For " the body " is here regarded as " the 
 body of sin " (vi. 6), i.e. as ruled by sin dwell- 
 ing in its flesh. The various reading " the 
 flesh " is of less authority. 
 
 The way to " mortify," or " put to death " 
 (^davarovre) these " deeds of the body," is to 
 subdue by help of God's Spirit the sinful 
 desires which are their motive power. In 
 the clauses "j<? shall die," '■'■ye shall live" the 
 <ieath and life are both eternal. 
 
 14-17. Proof of the promise '■'■ye shall 
 live," from the nature of the indwelling Spirit 
 as a Spirit of adoption. 
 
 14. All who are moved and guided by the 
 Spirit and follow His guidance, these, em- 
 phatically {ovToi, vii. 10; Gal. iii. 7) and 
 none but these, are the sons of God, and as 
 sons derive life from the Father, Who is the 
 fount of life. On the difference between 
 receiving the Spirit and being " led by the 
 Spirit," Chrysostom remarks : " Lest in re- 
 liance upon the baptismal gift they should be 
 careless of their after life, he says that even 
 if you receive Baptism but intend not to be 
 led by the Spirit afterwards, you have lost 
 the dignity conferred and the pre-eminence 
 of sonship." 
 
 15. In proof of the assertion that "they 
 who are led by the Spirit of God, are the 
 sons of God," St. Paul appeals to his readers' 
 experience of the character and effect of the 
 Spirit which they had received. 
 
 For ye have not received the spirit of bond- 
 age again to fear."] " For ye received not a 
 spirit of bondage again unto fear." 
 
 The aorist points to the time when be- 
 lieving and being baptized they received the 
 Holy Ghost : that what they then received 
 was " the Spirit of God," by Whom they are 
 still led (y. 14), is clearly stated in Gal. iv. 5, 
 6, and is here assumed in the appeal to 
 their experience. The question to be de- 
 cided by that experience is, What kind of 
 spirit that was ; and the answer is twofold, 
 the verb being emphatically repeated, "Ye 
 received not a spirit of bondage, but 
 
 ye received a spirit of adoption." The 
 word "spirit" is in both clauses a Common 
 Noun, not a Proper Name, and therefore 
 should not be written with a capital letter. 
 Compare 2 Tim. i. 7. 
 
 The " bondage " or " slavery," which 
 throughout this Epistle is contrasted with the 
 liberty of the sons of God, is the bondage of 
 sin (vi. 6, 16, 17, 20; vii. 25), and of cor- 
 ruption or death as the consequence of sin 
 (y. 21). The Apostle's readers, both Jews 
 and Gentiles, had all been once under this 
 bondage (vi. 17) which tends "nnto ye'ar," 
 even the fear of death (Heb. ii. 14, 15). But 
 the Spirit which they received on becoming 
 Christians was not found to be " a spirit of 
 bondage tending again unto fear," but "a 
 spirit q/" adoption" or " affiliation " — a spirit 
 which properly belongs to and is character- 
 istic of adopted children. 
 
 Adoption was a process unknown to the 
 Jewish law, and the word vlodea-ia, first found 
 in Gal. iv. 5, was probably formed by St. 
 Paul himself From this circumstance and 
 from the fact that St. Paul, a Roman citizen, 
 is here writing to Romans, it is almost cer- 
 tain that the allusion is to the Roman law. 
 St. Paul's word was in later times applied to 
 Baptism (Suicer) : he applies it himself to 
 God's typical adoption of the Jewish nation 
 (ix. 4), to the actual adoption of believers 
 both Jews and Gentiles to be the children of 
 God (Gal. iv. 5 ; Eph. i. 5), and to their 
 perfected adoption in the future state of 
 glory (viii. 23). Comp. Neander, 'Planting 
 of Christianity,' i. 477, and ElUcott, 'Gal.' 
 iv. 5. 
 
 In the phrase " spirit of adoption " the geni- 
 tive does not mean that adoption is the effect 
 of having received the Spirit (Athanasius ad 
 Serap. Ep. i. C. 19 vlmroiovfjievoi rai Trve-vfxaTi) : 
 for in the parallel passage Gal. iv. 6, we see 
 that the adoption goes before the testimony 
 of the Spirit, "having taken place through 
 faith and justification " (Meyer). Yet this 
 PauHne doctrine is perfectly consistent with 
 the Spirit's previous work of regeneration 
 (John iii. 5), for " Whosoever believeth that 
 Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (i John 
 v. i). St. Paul, in fact, is here speaking not 
 of the first secret work of the Spirit in re- 
 generating the soul by faith, but of the subse- 
 quent testimony of the Spirit, which, whether 
 accompanied or not by outward signs, bore 
 witness in the hearts of believers that they 
 had become sons of God. 
 
 A " spirit of adoption " is thus a spirit be- 
 longing to adoption as its proper character, 
 
V. 1 6 — 17.] 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 153 
 
 adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, ness with our spirit, that we are the 
 Father. children of God : 
 
 16 The Spirit itself beareth wit- 17 And if children, then heirs; 
 
 and "a spirit of bondage" would in like 
 manner be '■' a spirit cliaracteristic of bond- 
 age" and so tending " VintQ fear." 
 
 Commentators ancient and modern have 
 here run wild in their attempts to give a posi- 
 tive and personal existence to that of which 
 St. Paul speaks only negatively. " Some say 
 it is the spirit of the Evil One, but it is not so; 
 for it is the Law that he here calls a spirit of 
 bondage" (Severianus in Cramer: so Dio- 
 dorus, Theodorus). " The law as given by 
 the Holy Spirit " (Theodoret). " The Scrip- 
 tures, as being spiritual and supernatural, but 
 establishing a dispensation in which punish- 
 ments and rewards were meted out like the 
 daily portion of a slave" (Chrysostom ; Theo- 
 phyl. CEcumen.) Augustine applies it to the 
 Holy Ghost, "because the same Spirit of 
 God, that is, finger of God, whereby the 
 Law was written on tables of stone, struck 
 terror into those who knew not yet God's 
 grace, that by the Law they might be con- 
 vinced of their infirmity and sin " (' Quaest. 
 in Exod.' Iv. ; comp. Serm. 156). But in 
 another passage (' Propositiones ex Ep. ad 
 Rom. expos.') he explains it as " the spirit of 
 him to whom sinners are in bondage : so 
 that, as the Holy Spirit delivers from the fear 
 of death, the spirit of bondage who hath the 
 power of death holds the guilty in fear of that 
 same death ; in order that each may turn 
 to the Deliverer's help, even in spite of the 
 Devil, who desires to have him in his power 
 always." 
 
 Philippi and others understand the ex- 
 pressions subjectively of the servile and filial 
 spirit or disposition engendered by the Law 
 and the Gospel respectively ; but this is 
 opposed to the meaning of ivvev^a required 
 by the context in w. 14, 16. These diffi- 
 culties all arise from neglecting the order of 
 the words : St. Paul did not write " Ye have 
 not received again a spirit of bondage," but 
 " a spirit of bondage bringing you again into 
 a state of fear." Compare 2 Tim. i. 7. 
 
 ivhereby nve cry.'] Literally " in which 
 (spirit) <iue cry" : compare i Cor. xii. 3. In 
 the sudden change from the 2nd to the ist 
 person we see St. Paul himself in the same 
 filial spirit joining in his brethren's cry. 
 
 Abba, Father.] See note on Mark xiv. 36. 
 
 16. Analysis of what takes place when we 
 in the Spirit cry " Abba, Father :" there is then 
 a twofold but united testimony, we cry and 
 tlie Spirit cries in us (Gal. iv. 6). " The Spirit 
 itself" i'.e. the Spirit of God, which has just 
 been described as a spirit of adoption, " beareth 
 
 ivitness with our spirit." This rendering is 
 more correct than that of the Vulgate " to our 
 spirit " : it implies that our spirit also bears 
 witness to us, an idea to which Lange strangely 
 objects, forgetting that it is what occurs in 
 every act of consciousness. 
 
 St. Paul is conscious that the impulse 
 to cry " Abba, Father " proceeds from his 
 own spirit acting under the influence of 
 the Holy Spirit and in concert with Him: 
 compare ii. 15, and ix. 1 : " wy con- 
 science also bearing me •witness in the Holy 
 Ghost" " This witness of the Spirit is not to 
 be placed merely in the feeling (i John iii. 
 19), but His whole inward and outward 
 efficacy must be taken together ; for instance, 
 His comfort, His incitement to prayer. His 
 censure of sin, His impulse to works of love, 
 to witness before the world, and so forth. 
 Upon the foundation of this immediate testi- 
 mony of the Holy Spirit, all the regenerate 
 man^s conviction of Christ and His ivork finally 
 rests. For faith in the Scripture itself has 
 its basis upon this experience of the divinity 
 of the principle which it promises, and which 
 flows into the believer while he is occupied 
 with it." (Olshausen.) 
 
 The passage testifies strongly against the 
 Pantheistic confusion of the human spirit 
 and the Divine. 
 
 " The witness of the Spirit is a conscious- 
 ness of our having received in and by the 
 Spirit of adoption the tempers mentioned in 
 the word of God as belonging to his adopted 
 children, — a loving heart towards God and 
 toward all mankind ; hanging with childlike 
 confidence on God our Father ; desiring no- 
 thing but Him, casting all our care on Him. 
 ... It is a consciousness that we are in- 
 wardly conformed by the Spirit of God to the 
 image of His Son, and that we walk before 
 Him in justice, mercy, and truth, doing the 
 things which are pleasing in His sight." 
 (Wesley, in Lange's ' Commentary.') 
 
 17. And if children, then heirs.] The 
 Apostle follows out his proof of the promise 
 in f. 13 : '■''ye shall live," for ye are God's 
 children {yv. 14-16), and therefore heirs of 
 His inheritance, " the glory which shall be 
 revealed in us" (f. 18), which is, in other 
 words, eternal life : compare ii. 7. 
 
 For '■'■sons" St. Paul now says '■^children," 
 which is both more tender (Meyer), and 
 more comprehensive. (Gal. iii. 26-28.) 
 
 heirs of God.] Two thoughts enhance the 
 greatness of the inheritance, that it comes 
 from God, and is shared with Christ. The 
 
154 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 [v. 1 8 — 19. 
 
 heirs of God, and joint-heirs with 
 Christ ; if so be that we suffer with 
 him^ that we may be also glorified 
 together. 
 
 18 For I reckon that the suffer- 
 
 ings of this present time are not 
 worthy to be compared with the 
 glory which shall be revealed in 
 us. 
 
 19 For the earnest expectation of 
 
 Divine inheritance, unlike the human, is be- 
 stowed by the living Father upon His children. 
 (Luke XV. 12.) 
 
 and joint-heirs nvith Christ^ By Jewish 
 law the eldest son had the largest share, and 
 daughters were excluded, unless there were no 
 sons. ('Diet, of the Bible,' p. 779, b,' Heir.') 
 By the Roman law sons and daughters shared 
 equally in the inheritance, and adopted 
 children were treated like others. (Smith's 
 ' Diet, of Gk. and Rom. Antt.,' p. 600, a.) 
 Christ admits all His brethren to share alike 
 in that inheritance which He has won, not 
 for Himself but for them. 
 
 if so be that ive suffer nvith himJ] It was 
 part of the Divine order of salvation '^ that 
 Christ must suffer," and through suffering pass 
 to glory (Luke xxiv. 26, 46; Acts xvii. 3 ; 
 xxvi. 23; Hebrews ii. 9, 10), and also that 
 His followers must suffer with Him, in order 
 to be glorified together. (Matt. x. 38 ; xvi, 
 24; XX. 22 ; I Thess. iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 5 ; Col. 
 i. 24; 2 Tim. ii. 12 ; &c.). To '■'■ suffer ^ith 
 him" is to suffer "for His sake, and the Gos- 
 pel's" (Markviii. 35): compare i Peter iv. 13, 
 " Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of 
 Christ's sufferings ; that <ivhen his glory shall 
 he revealed, ye may be glad also woith exceeding 
 
 On emep see note on -u. 9 : it represents 
 " the felloivship of his sufferings " (Phil. iii. 10) 
 as an indispensable condition of sharing His 
 glory, a necessary discipline to fit us for that 
 blissful reward which is purchased for us by 
 the sole merit of our Saviour's own suffer- 
 ings. " In all nations, indeed, and at all 
 times, the way in which men have met death, 
 and women have met suffering, has been a 
 testimony to the conviction that pain, when 
 endured for a moral purpose, may be trans- 
 formed from a curse into a blessing, and may 
 elevate the nature on which it seems to in- 
 flict a wound. But this conviction has been 
 established as one of the supreme laws of 
 human nature by the cross of Christ" (Wace, 
 * Christianity and Morality,' p. 316). 
 
 18-30. The Sources of Comfort under 
 the necessity of suffering. 
 
 These are threefold : 
 
 (i.) The hope of glory to which all crea- 
 tion looks forward (18-25): 
 
 (2.) The present help of the Spirit (26, 27) : 
 
 (3.) The all-embracing purpose of God's 
 6ure love (28-30). 
 
 18. For I reckon-l A reason for suffering with 
 Christ in order to be glorified withHim. The 
 connexion with the last words of -u. 1 7 is direct 
 and obvious. The same word (Xo-yifo|iai) is 
 rendered in A. V,, " think'''' (ii. 3), " conclude" 
 (iii. 28), ^^ suppose" (2 Cor. xi. 5), ^^ count" 
 (Phil. iii. 1 3). It does not imply mere suppo- 
 sition or opinion, but the judgment or infer- 
 ence which the Apostle draws from com- 
 paring things present and things to come, 
 that the former are of no weight or worth 
 in the comparison. " This present time" 
 (^Kaipos) indicates the critical and final season 
 of the dispensation of "this world" (awv), a 
 season of distress which is to end at Christ's 
 coming: compare iii. 26 and xi. 5 with xiii. 
 II and I Cor. vii. 29. 
 
 shall be revealed.'] The glory already 
 exists in Christ, it only remains to be re- 
 vealed in us. St. Paul does not use the simple 
 Future Tense, but (as in -u. 13 and iv. 24) 
 an expression {txiWova-av) which represents 
 the future revelation of glory as something 
 that is destined to be and will be. Compare 
 Gal. iii. 23, where the same words are used 
 in the same emphatic order. See also Col. 
 iii. 4 ; Tit. ii. 13 ; i Pet. i. 4. 
 
 in us.'] The Greek preposition (et?) ex- 
 presses the thought that the revelation of 
 glory will reach to and take place in us. 
 
 19. The certainty of the future revelation 
 of glory in us is confirmed by the sympathetic 
 longings of all around us. Keble, in the 
 'Christian Year' (4th S. after Trin.), has 
 found a theme for one of his finest poems in 
 these ' Groans of Nature,' — 
 
 " Strong yearnings for a blest new birth, 
 With sinless glories crown'd." 
 
 the earnest expectation (compare Phil. i. 20") 
 is described by expressive compounds, such 
 as St. Paul loves, in which hope is depicted 
 both in its eagerness " with head uplift," 
 {airoKapaboKia) and in its perseverance wait- 
 ing out the end (dTreKSe'xfrai : compare i Pet. 
 iii. 20). 
 
 the creature.] Rather " the creation," 
 i.e. the things created (Vulg. " creatura"). 
 The word itself is of unlimited application 
 (Mark xiii. 19), and the context only can 
 determine the extent of its meaning. 
 
 Of things created, to begin with the highest, 
 good Angels are excluded, for they were not 
 ^^ made subject to vanity" {y, 20); and evil 
 
y. 20.] 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 ^5S 
 
 the creature waiteth for the mani- subject to vanity, not willingly, but 
 festation of the sons of God. by reason of him who hath subjected 
 
 20 For the creature was made the same in hope, 
 
 Angels, for they have no share in the hope of 
 glory : of Mankind it is clear that believers 
 are not here included under "the creation," 
 but mentioned separately and distinctly as 
 sharing the same longing, for " not only they 
 (the creation) but ourselves also, <which have 
 the first-fruits of the Spirit, even ive {y. 23) 
 ourselves groan ivithin ourselves, ^waiting for 
 the adoption." So far there is a very general 
 consent among interpreters, though some (in 
 defiance of the clear distinction made in w. 
 19, 21, 23) maintain that even believers are 
 included under "the creation" as a part 
 under the whole. 
 
 The chief point, however, in dispute is the 
 inclusion of the non-Christian portion of man- 
 kind. 
 
 Now, first the term " creation " (^ktIo-i^') 
 when applied to mankind always denotes 
 mankind as a ivhole, the human creation. 
 But in -y. 21 a portion of mankind, ^^ the 
 children of God," are contrasted with, and 
 so excluded from "the creation itself," 
 which term therefore can only mean, " the 
 creation as distinct from mankind," the 
 irrational creation, animate and inanimate. 
 The Apostle " personifies the world, just as 
 the Prophets do when they make the floods 
 clap their hands." (Chrysost.) 
 
 It is one of the finest and most frequent 
 figures of speech thus to make Nature sym- 
 pathise with man : when the Assyrian is 
 overthrown, God says, " / caused Lebanon to 
 mourn for him, and all the trees of the field 
 fainted for him." (Ezek. xxxi. 15.) Here in 
 like manner St. Paul undoubtedly ascribes 
 human feelings to things without reason and 
 without life : but he does much more. Under 
 this beautiful figure, as its most appropriate 
 dress, he presents the grand truth revealed in 
 the Old Testament that the whole world of 
 nature, so much of it at least as was placed 
 under man's dominion, has a real concern in 
 the past history and future destiny of Man. 
 When God says to Adam, " cursed is the 
 ground for thy sake" (Gen. iii. 17); when the 
 Flood, by which Man's wickedness is punished 
 destroys " every living substance 'which 'was 
 upon the face of the ground" (Gen. vii. 23): 
 when " the earth also is defiled under the inha- 
 bitants thereof; because they have transgressed 
 the la<ws, changed the ordinance, broken the ever- 
 lasting covenant," and " therefore hath the curse 
 devoured the earth," and when not only '■'■they 
 that dwell therein are desolate," but also " the 
 nen.u ivine mourneth, the vine languisheth" " the 
 iuindo<ws from on high are open, and the founda- 
 tions of the earth do shake " (Is. xxiv. 5 fi".) ; 
 
 in all such passages, whether historical, poeti- 
 cal, or prophetic, the same truth, or at all 
 events the same doctrine, is expressed which 
 St. Paul states in v. 20, that ^^ the creation 
 avas subjected to vanity." 
 
 When once this is admitted, there is no 
 room left for the argument that Man must 
 be included by St. Paul in "the creation" 
 as " that which gives propriety, consistency, 
 and beauty to the whole representation." 
 (Forbes.) 
 
 If " in speaking of that glorious restitution 
 of all things, which has been the theme of all 
 the Prophets, and the great hope of the 
 Church since the world began, St. Paul men- 
 tions on the one hand the little flock that had 
 then received the first-fruits of the Spirit, and 
 on the other hand, the material and irrational 
 creation :" it does not follow that " the in- 
 numerable multitudes of ^ all the families of 
 the earth,' not yet converted to Christ, are 
 by him who was specially called to be the 
 Apostle of the Gentiles passed by, without a 
 thought on their condition or destiny ! " 
 
 The truth is that hke Isaiah (Ixv. 17), like 
 St. Peter (2nd Ep. iii. 13), and like St. John 
 (Rev. xxi. i), St. Paul looked for "a neqv 
 heaven and a new earth:" but before that 
 " restitution of all things" he expected that 
 " the fulness of the Gentiles" should come in, 
 and " all Israel be saved" Mankind there- 
 fore, so far as they fulfil their proper destiny, 
 in accordance with the great promise, "z« 
 thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
 blessed" are all included among " the sons 
 of God," while '■'■the whole creation" includes 
 all the irrational creatures, animate or inani- 
 mate, as in Wisdom xvi. 24 ; xix. 6. 
 
 the manifestation of the sons of God.^ That 
 is "the revelation of the sons of God" them- 
 selves, not merely of their glory : they will 
 become known as " the sons of God" through 
 the glory which shall then be imparted to 
 them. At present, though known of God 
 and knowing Him as their Father {vv. 14-17), 
 " the ixjorld knoaveth them not, because it kneiv 
 him not." (i John iii. i.) 
 
 20, 21. The Cause of the Longing and 
 THE Ground of the Expectation. 
 
 20. the creature <was made subject to vanity."] 
 The creation was subjected to vanity. 
 The emphasis is on the " vanity," that well- 
 known vanity of things created (r^ nuTaiorqTi). 
 " Though all things were made very good, 
 yet when the first man sinned they were cor- 
 rupted, and shall return no more to their 
 
156 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 [v. 21—23. 
 
 21 Because the creature itself also 
 
 shall be delivered from the bondage 
 
 of corruption into the glorious liberty 
 
 of the children of God. 
 
 creae"'^ 22 For wc loiow that "the whole 
 
 creation groaneth and travaileth in 
 pain together until now. 
 
 23 And not only they^ but our- 
 selves also, which have the firstfruits 
 of the Spirit, even we ourselves groaii 
 
 proper state, until Pherez, i. e. Messias, shall 
 come." (Beresh. Rabb. f. 2, 3. Reiclie.) 
 
 The Greek word rendered " "vanity" is from 
 a root which means " to seek without finding," 
 and so implies " frustration" : but this etymo- 
 logical sense must not be pressed, it is the 
 word commonly used in the Septuagint, e. g. 
 
 in Ecclesiastes i. 2, ii. i, for the Hebrew 72.1) 
 (Hebel, Abel), " breath," " vapour," applied to 
 all that is frail and fleeting. Compare note on 
 i. 21. 
 
 not ivilltngly.'] Subjection to vanity is con- 
 trary to that tendency of nature, which leads 
 each creature to seek its own preservation 
 and perfection. This tendency is compared 
 to the human Will, because creation is per- 
 sonified. 
 
 iut by reason of him nvho hath subjected the 
 same.~\ Rather, "but on account of him 
 who subjected it." (See note on John vi. 
 57.) The Apostle mentions no other cause 
 of the subjection of the creation to vanity 
 than the agency and will of '■^ him 'who sub- 
 jected it." This, in accordance with the 
 history, can be no other than God. He who 
 first placed the creature under man's dominion 
 also "subjected it" to the effects of man's 
 sin (Gen. iii. 17, v. 29), and will make it par- 
 taker of the blessing of his restoration. Com- 
 pare Is. Ixv. 17 fE; Ixvi. 22; Ps. cii. 26, 27; 
 2 Pet. iii. 1 3 ; Rev. xxi. i ; and see note on 
 Is. xi. 6 as to the reasonableness of this Scrip- 
 tural doctrine of the new creation. 
 
 in hope, because the creature itself a/so.'] 
 Rather, "in hope that the creation itself 
 also." These words are best connected with 
 the former part of i>. 20 : the subjection was 
 not absolute and unconditional, but the con- 
 dition upon which "the creation was sub- 
 jected to vanity" was a hope granted to it, 
 that it also shall share in man's deliverance. 
 This purport of the hope must be expressly 
 stated, in order to show the ground of the 
 expectation in v. 19, as directed precisely 
 to the manifestation of the sons of God. An 
 undefined hope might supply 1 motive for 
 expectation of deliverance in general, but not 
 for expectation of sharing in the glory of the 
 children of God. (Meyer.) 
 
 the bondage of corruption.] " Corruption " 
 includes the daily perishing as well as the 
 final dissolution of thin^rs created. This sub- 
 jecticn to decay and death is what St. Paul 
 
 calls " the bondage of corruption." Compare 
 Heb. ii. 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 16. 
 
 the glorious liberty, (lye] Rather, "the 
 liberty of the glory of the children of God." 
 This glory, being a full and perfect develop- 
 ment of all the faculties and powers of our 
 nature, is rightly called " liberty" in opposition 
 to " the bondage of corruption." The whole 
 creation is to undergo a corresponding change, 
 and become the fit scene of the glory of God's 
 children. " In those days shall the whole 
 creation be changed for the better, and re- 
 turn to its pristine perfection and purity, 
 such as it was in the time of the first man 
 before his sin " (R. Bechai Schulchan Orba, 
 f. 9, col. 4, quoted by Reiche). 
 
 22. Proof of the reality of this hope of 
 deliverance (-u. 21), from the present signs 
 of pain and travail. 
 
 For ive Anoau.] St. Paul appeals to his own 
 and his readers' knowledge of a condition of 
 all nature, analogous to that of a woman in 
 travail. The knowledge of the fact, which 
 alone is meant here, is derived from observa- 
 tion and experience : the knowledge of its 
 dependence on man's Fall (-y. 20) is derived 
 from revelation. This groaning of creation 
 is universal, consistent (crv^f/jwi/coy, Theo- 
 phyl.), and unceasing. The whole creation 
 groaneth together from the day of its sub- 
 jection until no'iV. These pangs of a world 
 in travail cannot be unmeaning : they point 
 to a coming time of delivery, when "there 
 shall be new heavens and a new earth wherein 
 dwelleth righteousness." 
 
 23. Beyond this fact of common experience 
 lies another, peculiar to the Christian con- 
 sciousness, and of yet deeper significance 
 for the reality of the hope of deliverance 
 described in -y. 21. 
 
 And not only they.] Rather, jind not 
 only the creation." The word to be 
 supplied, for there is none in the Greek, is 
 clearly indicated by the antithesis which 
 follows — " but ive ourselves also." 
 
 ivhich have the firstfruits of the Spirit.] 
 Rather, "though we have," 6cc. This 
 clause completes the climax of proof by the 
 thought that even Christians, though so highly 
 favoured as recipients of the first outpouring 
 of the Spirit, were not exempt from an eager 
 and painful longing for the full liberty and 
 glory which were yet to be bestowed on 
 tlicm. Not only the Apostles on the day of 
 
V. 24 — 26.] 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 ^hi 
 
 within ourselves, waiting for the 25 But if we hope for that we see 
 •Luke 21. adoption, to w'lt^ the '^redemption of not, then do we with patience wait 
 
 our body. 
 
 24 For we are saved by hope : 
 but hope that is seen is not hope : 
 for what a man seeth, why doth he 
 yet hope for ? 
 
 for it. 
 
 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth 
 our infirmities : for we know not 
 what we should pray for as we 
 ought : but the Spirit itself maketh 
 
 Pentecost, but all who in that first age had 
 been added to the Church through their 
 teaching, are regarded by St. Paul as sharing 
 in the first gift of that Spirit, which is in due 
 time to be poured out on all flesh : they 
 have the first-fruits which are to be followed 
 by the great harvest. That harvest must be 
 fully gathered, before the final revelation of 
 glory can take place, or the longing and sigh- 
 ing cease. 
 
 even <uie ours elves\ We ourselves also: 
 this rendering preserves the emphatic repe- 
 tition of the original, according to the read- 
 ing preferred by recent critics. The various 
 readings do not materially afiect the general 
 sense. 
 
 groan <u)ith'in ourselves^ The longing of 
 creation is expressed in outward signs and in 
 a sort of universal sympathy {(Tva-Tevd(fL) : 
 the longing of the believer is inward, known 
 only to his own heart. 
 
 ^waiting for the adoption.'] Rather, wait- 
 ing for adoption. Believers have already 
 received adoption in part, namely in God's 
 purpose and in the gift of a Spirit which 
 belongs only to God's children {y-v. 14-16); 
 but are still waiting for that final, com- 
 plete, and public adoption which will take 
 place in "the revelation of the sons of God" 
 {v. 19). 
 
 to mj'tt, the redemption of our body] By this 
 apposition the Apostle explains how those 
 who are already the sons of God can still be 
 waiting for adoption. The adoption, " viewed 
 specifically as complete" (Lange),is identified 
 with that part which completes it, namely 
 ^''the redemption of our body " from its present 
 condition of weakness, sinfulness, decay, and 
 death : " For in this <iue groan, earnestly de- 
 siring to be clothed upon ivith our house nuhich 
 is from heaven" (2 Cor. v. 2). 
 
 24. For ive are saved by hope.] "For in 
 hope we were saved. St. Paul says 
 sometimes " ye " (or we) were saved (Rom. 
 vni. 24), or " Ye have been saved" (Ephes. ii. 
 5, 8), sometimes " Ye are being saved " (i Cor. 
 XV. 2), and sometimes " Ye shall be saved" 
 (Rom. X. 9, 13). It is important to observe 
 this, because we are thus tau'::ht that " 'salva- 
 tion ' involves a moral condition which must 
 have begun already, though it will receive its 
 final accomplishment hereafter" (Bp. Light- 
 
 foot, ' Revision,' p. 94). The reason why we 
 are still waiting for the redemption of our 
 body is that the salvation of which we were 
 made partakers (by faith not " by hope ") is still 
 an object of hope, not of complete realisation 
 and present possession. The A. V. " by hope ' 
 disregards St. Paul's distinction between faith 
 and hope : " faith accepts the present remis- 
 sion of sins ; hope is the expectation of future 
 deHverance" (Melanchthon). On the "mo- 
 dal " dative see Winer, § xxxi. 7, d. 
 
 but hope that is seen.] " A hop e " means in 
 this clause a thing hoped for (Col. i. 5 ; i Tim. 
 i. I ; Acts xxviii. 20). When already present 
 before the eyes it ceases to be an object of 
 hope : for it is of the essence of hope that it 
 looks not at the things that are seen, but at 
 the things that are not seen (Heb. xi. i). 
 
 for <vjhat a man seeth, ivhy doth he also 
 hope for 'f] The actual sight and possession of 
 the object leaves no room for hope properly 
 so called. But if the object of our hope is 
 unseen, then we naturally fall into the proper 
 attitude of hope, and wait "in patience." 
 On this sense of fiia with the genitive, see 
 notes on ii. 27, iv. 11, xiv. 20, and "Winer, 
 p. iii. § 47. 
 
 26, 27. The present Help of the Spirit. 
 
 This is the second ground of encourage- 
 ment to wait patiently amid present suffering 
 for the glory which shall be revealed : see on 
 -y. 18. 
 
 26. Like<wise the Spirit also helpeth our in^ 
 firmities.] "And in like manner the 
 Spirit also helpeth our infirmity." The 
 passage refers not to " infirmities " in general, 
 but particularly to "infirmity" under pre- 
 sent suffering and waiting: this connexion 
 with the preceding context is clearly shown 
 by the word " likeivise (wcraurcos)." As we 
 on our part wait in patience, so on God's 
 part there is the Holy Spirit joining His 
 help with our weakness. The patient ex- 
 pectation, which tbllows from the nature of 
 hope, would fail through our infirmity, if 
 the latter were not sustained by the help of 
 God's Spirit. 
 
 Van Hengel's interpretation of " the Spirit" 
 as meaning the spirit of God's children, the 
 trust and confidence with which the Holy 
 Spirit inspires them, is excluded by such ex.- 
 
158 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 [v. 27 — 28 
 
 intercession for us with groanings the Spirit, "because he maketh in- ' Or. ''>^'. 
 
 which cannot be uttered. tercession for the saints according to 
 
 27 And he that searcheth the the will of God. 
 hearts knoweth what is the mind of 28 And we know that all 
 
 pressions as " the mind of the Spirit" " the 
 Spirit maketh intercession for us" which imply 
 a person, and a person distinct from the be- 
 liever himself. 
 
 Before proceeding to describe how the 
 Spirit helpeth our infirmity the Apostle 
 shows more fully the nature of that infirmity 
 in reference to prayer. We know not what 
 our prayer should be, for two reasons, be- 
 cause the future is still hidden, and even in 
 the present life we know not what is best for 
 us (Augustine). 
 
 for lue know not <vjhat tve should pray for as 
 ive ought.'] "for what to pray accord- 
 ing to our need, we know not." 
 The use of the Greek Article is noticeable : 
 it turns the question " What should we 
 pray ?" into an Objective Sentence dependent 
 on ovK oi'Sa/i€i/. We know not the — what to 
 pray, &c. The construction is characteristic 
 of St. Paul and St. Luke: see Luke i. 62 ; 
 ix. 46 ; xix. 48; xxii. 2,4, 23, 24, 37; Acts 
 iv. 24; xxii. 30; Rom. xiii. 9; Gal. v. 14; 
 Eph. iv. 9 ; I Thess. iv. i. ^^IVhat ive should 
 pray for" is less correct than "What we 
 should pray," /'.e. what our prayer should 
 be : compare Luke xviii. 1 1 ; Phil. i. 9 ; i Kings 
 viii. 30, 48 ; 2 Kings xix. 20. "According 
 to our need": the Greek adverb does 
 not refer to the manner of praying, but to the 
 correspondence between the prayer and that 
 which is really needed. 
 
 Pythagoras forbade his disciples to pray for 
 themselves, because they knew not what was 
 expedient. Socrates more wisely taught his 
 disciples to pray simply for good things, the 
 Gods knowing best what sort of things are 
 good (Xen. ' Mem. Socratis,' I. ii. 20). But 
 better illustrations of St. Paul's meaning are 
 found in his own experience, recorded in 
 Philipp. i. 22, 23. '■'•What I shall choose I 
 ivot not. For I am in a strait betivixt t-zuo, 
 Laving a desire to depart, and to be avith 
 Christ i" and in the experience of Our Lord 
 Himself, '■'■Now is my soul troubled: and 
 ivhat shall I say ? Father, save me from 
 this hour: but for this cause came I unto this 
 hour. Father, glorify thy name" (John 
 xii. 27, 28). 
 
 but the Spirit itself] Observe the climax : 
 the whole creation groans together : we our- 
 selves, though we have the first-fruits of the 
 Spirit, groan within ourselves : nay more, the 
 Holy Spirit Himself intercedes for us with 
 groanings. 
 
 Thus the ascending order of thought, the 
 
 emphatic form "the Spirit himself," 
 and the phrase " maketh intercession for us" 
 show that neither the sanctified human spirit, 
 nor any spiritual gift, such as the gift of prayer 
 and intercession, can satisfy the Apostle's 
 meaning. It is the Holy Ghost himself that 
 intercedes, and that with groanings which 
 are His, inasmuch as they are prompted by 
 Him and express '■'■the mind of the Spirit." 
 Yet St. Paul does not represent the Holy 
 Spirit, as Jesus is represented by St. John, 
 ''^groaning ivithin himself." "It is not in 
 Himself, not in the substance of the Eternal 
 and Blessed Trinity, but it is in us that He 
 groans, because He makes us groan " (August. 
 Tract, in Joh. vi. 2). 
 
 ivith groanings ivhich cannot be uttered^ 
 Or — " with speechless groanings." " Not 
 in words but in groans doth the Spirit 
 make intercession for the Saints, and in such 
 groans as cannot be uttered in words. For 
 how can language express what God's Spirit 
 speaks to God, when sometimes even our own 
 spirit cannot explain in words what it feels 
 and thinks ? " (Origen). 
 
 St. Paul means certainly more than any 
 merely human emotion, however deep and 
 holy; the groanings of the Holy Spirit cannot 
 be uttered in the language of earth, nor His 
 meaning fully known to man. The believer 
 himself is conscious that he cannot express 
 in words the infinite hopes and longings that 
 he feels. But God is "He that searcheth 
 the hearts " of men and knows all that is 
 done there : and the heart, regarded as the 
 seat of spiritual as well as natural life is the 
 sphere of the Spirit's working : there He 
 intercedes for us, using the heart as the 
 instrument of His appeal to God; and so 
 God " knoweth •what is the mind (or " mean- 
 ing, (ppovrjixa) of the Spirit " : compare v. 6. 
 
 27. because he maketh intercession for the saints 
 according to the <ivill of God.~\ " because accord- 
 ing to God's will he maketh interces- 
 sion for saints." Literally, " according to 
 God," as in 2 Cor. viii. 9, 10, "sorrow ac- 
 cording to God," These words (koto Qeov) 
 are placed first because they are emphatic. 
 
 "for saints:" the absence of the Article 
 brings out the essential quality. 
 
 Thus the clause combines two reasons in 
 one, why God must know what the meaning 
 of the Spirit is: for (i) His intercession is 
 in accordance with God's own will and purpose, 
 '^^ for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, 
 even the deep things of God" (i Cor. ii. 10), 
 
V. 28.] 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 159 
 
 things work together for good to are the called according to his pur- 
 them that love God, to them who pose. 
 
 and (2) His intercession is "for saints," and 
 saints, as such, are the special objects of the 
 Divine purpose, in accordance with which 
 the Spirit intercedes. The two thoughts 
 thus combined, God's purpose on behalf of 
 saints, form the theme of the next paragraph. 
 
 28-30. The all-embracing Purpose of 
 God's Love. 
 
 To the inward comfort which the Holy 
 Spirit imparts to God's children, St. Paul 
 now adds a third and last ground of en- 
 couragement, our knowledge that in the 
 Divine government of the world all things 
 contribute to the welfare of those who love 
 God : even the troubles therefore of this life, 
 so far from hindering our salvation, help it 
 forward. 
 
 28. all things.'] I.e. all, whether prosperous 
 or adverse, all including " the sufferings of 
 this present time." The context requires this 
 especial reference to sufferings. 
 
 The reading " God worketh all things," 
 has less authority, and is not so well suited to 
 the context. 
 
 ivork together!] Not merely does the 
 joint and combined working of the whole 
 result in a preponderance of good, but ad- 
 verse circumstances as well as prosperous, 
 each and all, conduce to good. See the 
 Additional Note. 
 
 " When he says * all things,' he means 
 even things that seem to be painful. For 
 even if affliction, poverty, imprisonment, 
 hunger, death, or any other thing should 
 come upon thee, God is able to turn all these 
 the contrary way. Since this also is part of 
 His ineffable power, to make what things 
 seem troublesome light to us, and turn them 
 to our help " (Chrysostom). 
 
 for good!] Not only their future and 
 eternal happiness, but all that now supports 
 and helps them on the way to attain it is 
 included in the term "good." 
 
 to them that love God!] The importance 
 of this condition is marked in the Greek by 
 its emphatic position at the beginning of the 
 clause. " Love causes believers to take all 
 things that God sends them favourably and 
 in good part" (Bengel). See Ecclesiasticus 
 xxxix. 27, " All these things are for good to 
 the godly ; so to the sinners they are turned into 
 et'il." God Himself is man's chief good, and 
 the love of God is thus a necessary condition 
 for the full enjoyment of His gifts, whether 
 temporal or eternal; in other words, they 
 are prepared for those who love Him {ste 
 
 I Cor. ii. 9 ; Eph. vi. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; 
 Ja. i. 12, ii. 5 ; and Hooker, ' E. P.' L xi. 2). 
 
 to them ivho are the called according tc 
 his purpose.] This second description of the 
 same class of persons is not a correction or 
 limitation of the previous definition " them 
 that love God," but a statement of the cause 
 why all things work together for their good, 
 namely, that they "who love God" are the 
 very class of persons who are " called accord- 
 ing to his purpose." Their love of God is a 
 necessary condition, but God's own purpose, 
 working efficaciously in and for those who 
 are called in accordance with it, is the cause 
 that makes all things work together for 
 their good. The purpose being that of Him 
 " luho <worketh all things after the counsel of 
 his oivn will" (Eph. i. 11), it follows that all 
 must work for good to them who are called 
 according to that purpose. It is strange that 
 so enlightened an interpreter as Chrysostom 
 should understand by "purpose" nothing more 
 than the will or purpose of man assenting to 
 the outward call. For the true meaning 
 compare ix. 11; Eph. i. 11, iii. 11; 2 Tim. 
 i. 9. 
 
 The contrast between the " many called " 
 and "few chosen" (Matt. xx. 16; xxii. 14), 
 is found only in our Lord's own teaching. 
 The word " called" (k\t]t6s) is applied by 
 St. Paul only to those who have, as far as 
 man can judge, obeyed the call : its use thus 
 corresponds to that of " elect," " saints," with 
 which it is sometimes combined. See i. 6, 
 7 ; I Cor. i. 2, 24; Jude i. ; Apoc. xvii. 14. 
 Moreover, those "nvho love God" have in 
 themselves the witness that they are " called 
 according to His purpose," the call has pro- 
 duced its right effect, and the moral condi- 
 tion for further progress is satisfied. The 
 Apostle thus begins with what is known and 
 practical, and his subsequent statements in 
 w. 29, 30, are distinctly limited to those indi- 
 viduals in whom these practical results are 
 found. These positive results already realised 
 he traces back to their eternal cause, in order 
 to show that the steps still to be accomplished 
 (glorification, &c.) are guaranteed by those 
 already made, all being links in the sure chain 
 of an unfailing and eternal purpose. That 
 purpose, as traced out in the following verses, 
 has its eternal foundation in foreknowledge 
 and predestination, its temporal realisation in 
 the Divine acts of calling and justifying, and 
 its eternal fulfilment in glory. Compare 
 Leighton on i Pet. i. 2 : " The connexion of 
 these we are now for our profit to take notice 
 of: that effectual calling is inseparably tied 
 to this eternal foreknowledge or election on 
 
i6o 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 [v. 29. 
 
 29 For whom he did foreknow, he the image of his Son, that he might be 
 also did predestinate to he conformed to the firstborn among many brethren. 
 
 the one side, and to salvation on the other. 
 These two links of the chain are up in heaven 
 in God's own hand ; but this middle one is 
 let down to earth into the hearts of His 
 children, and they laying hold on it, have sure 
 hold on the other two, for no power can 
 sever them." 
 
 29-30. At this point St. Paul passes from 
 the province of Christian experience to that 
 of Divine Philosophy. As we follow him, let 
 us bear in mind the wise caution of Hooker 
 (I. ii. 2) : " Dangerous it were for the feeble 
 brain of man to wade far into the doings of the 
 Most High : whom although to know be life, 
 and joy to make mention of His name ; yet our 
 soimdest knowledge is to know that we know 
 Him not as indeed He is, neither can know 
 Him; and our safest eloquence concerning 
 Him is our silence, when we confess without 
 confession that His glory is inexplicable. His 
 greatness above our capacity and reach." 
 
 On a path so high and slippery for human 
 reason our safety lies in planting our steps 
 only where the inspired Apostle has already 
 planted his : if we venture, as too n.any have 
 ventured, beyond the limits of his track, there 
 are precipices and chasms on every side, 
 which the most wary can hardly escape. 
 
 It is well therefore to notice in the outset 
 that the Apostle's statements in this passage 
 are limited to the class of persons already 
 doubly defined (i) as those who love God, 
 and (2) as those who are called according to 
 His purpose. His whole subject is their 
 predestination to glory: no opposite view 
 concerning tlie ungodly, no doctrine of an 
 eternal reprobation, is even suggested. 
 
 29. The confidence expressed in -u. 28 
 " that all things work together for good to 
 them that love God" is now justified and 
 confirmed [yap) by an explanation of the 
 mode in which God's purpose concerning 
 them is developed. For that purpose in- 
 cludes all the stages in the process of salva- 
 tion, and these are so linked together that 
 where one has taken place the rest must 
 follow, from the unity of the Divine purpose 
 and the continuity of its working. 
 
 And since God's love has thus secured 
 the final happiness of " those ivho are called 
 uccording to His purpose" nothing really hurt- 
 ful can happen to them even in this life: 
 afflictions are nothing else but the means by 
 which they are " to be conformed to the iniage 
 of his Son" in sufferings as in glory {y. 17). 
 
 For avhom he did foreknoqv.'] The many 
 various senses here attributed to the Divine 
 
 foreknowledge may be classed somewhat as 
 follows : — 
 
 (i) "Foreknew" — simply as persons to 
 come into existence hereafter. 
 
 This is too general and vague, because all 
 are thus foreknown, while the foreknowledge 
 here meant is limited to the particular persons 
 who become predestinated, called, &c. 
 
 (2) " Foreknew " — as good and worthy to 
 be known, i. e. approved : so Origen. 
 
 Or, " foreknew " as those who would be- 
 lieve and obey the call (Augustine's earlier 
 view : ' Propos. ex Ep. ad. Rom. Iv.' : " nee 
 praedestinavit aliquem nisi quern praescivit 
 crediturum et secuturum vocationem suam, 
 quos et electos dicit "). 
 
 These and other Uke interpretations, which 
 make faith, obedience, or moral worth the 
 object of the Divine foreknowledge here meant, 
 are rightly rejected as adding an idea which 
 is contained neither in the word irpotyvca nor 
 in the context. 
 
 Meyer's interpretation — "foreknew as those 
 who should one day become conformed to 
 the image of his Son " — is in like manner to 
 be rejected as adding an idea which has not 
 yet been presented in the preceding context, 
 and which cannot be ascribed to npotyvoi 
 without destroying the distinction between it 
 and irpocdptcrev. 
 
 (3) "Foreknew "is taken as equivalent to 
 " fore-ordained," knew and adopted them as 
 His own, of His own free love and absolute 
 decree (Calvin, Leighton, Haldane). 
 
 The objections to this third interpretation 
 are: — 
 
 (a) That it is not supported by the usage 
 of the word. 
 
 (b) That it identifies and confounds two 
 ideas which Scripture keeps distinct, fore- 
 knowledge and election, e.g. i Pet. i. 2, 
 ^^ elect according to the foreknozv ledge of God." 
 
 (4) "Foreknew "as the individual objects 
 of His purpose {Trpodfcns), and therefore fore- 
 knew as " them that love God: " see notes on 
 V. 28. 
 
 This interpretation introduces nothing 
 that is not already found in the preceding 
 context, and retains the simple and proper 
 meaning of Trpoeyva. Nor is it open to any 
 charge of making human merit the ground of 
 God's election ; for the love which He fore- 
 knew is but the answer to His love poured 
 out in the heart by His Spirit (v. 5). 
 
 " Foreknowledge " is the act of conscious 
 perception, without which there can be no 
 volition. Augustine makes a clear distinc- 
 tion : " there can be no predestination with- 
 out foreknowledge: but there may be fore- 
 
V. 30 -32.] 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 i6i 
 
 30 Moreover whom he did pre- 
 destinate, them he also called : and 
 whom he called, them he also jus- 
 tified : and whom he justified, them 
 he also glorified. 
 
 31 What shall we then say to 
 
 these things ? If God be for us, 
 who can be against us ? 
 
 32 He that spared not his own 
 Son, but delivered him up for us all, 
 how shall he not with him also freely 
 give us all things ? 
 
 knowledge without predestination : God may 
 foreknow also things which He does not 
 Himself do" (' De Prsdest. Sanctorum,' x.) 
 
 God's eternal purpose embraces all stages 
 in salvation from first to last. Wis forekno^v- 
 led^e defines persons as the objects of that 
 purpose not arbitrarily, but as included in the 
 class of " them that love God" \ His election, 
 actuated by love, chooses those persons [not 
 expressed in this passage]; Wis predestination 
 determines what He will do for them. 
 
 he also did predestinate to be conformed to the 
 image of his SonJ] The Divine predestina- 
 tion is in the New Test, always qualified, as 
 here, by a statement of its end and aim : 
 compare Acts iv. 28; i Cor. ii. 7; Eph. i. 
 5, II. See the Additional Note. 
 
 By " the image of his Son " is not meant the 
 example or pattern of Christ's sufferings 
 (Calvin), or of His holy obedience, but the 
 embodiment of the Divine and human natures 
 in the Incarnate Word. Compare i Cor. xv. 
 49; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Col. i. 15, iii. 10. 
 
 Of that Divine Image each glorified saint 
 will be a particular form : and conformity to 
 that Image in body, soul, and spirit is " the 
 glory 'which shall be revealed in us" (•u. 18), 
 as the result of God's predestination. 
 
 But the full and final aim of that predestina- 
 tion, reaching beyond us to Christ, is " that 
 He might he the firstborn among many 
 brethren" not standing in His " sole glory " 
 as the only begotten Son of God, but making 
 us His brethren by a new creation, and so 
 " bringing many sons unto glory." (Compare 
 Col. i. 15, 18 ; Heb. i. 6, ii. 10, 11.) 
 
 30. Moreover ivhom he did predestinate, 
 them he also called.'] We here pass from the 
 eternal counsel in its ideal process to its 
 realisation in time. Here also three Divine 
 acts are specified, — he "called," "justified," 
 <' glorified." 
 
 " Called" i. e. by the preaching of the 
 Gospel, as in 2 Thess. ii. 14, '■'■ Whereunto he 
 called you by our gospel." But the usage 
 of the verb in this sense, like that of kXtjtos, 
 seems to be limited by the context to the 
 cases of effectual calling : here certainly it is 
 so. Compare Reuss, ' Thtologie chretienne,' 
 ii. 120. 
 
 Such a calling is of necessity followed by 
 justification, even as justification by glorification. 
 Otherwise God's foreknowledge and predes- 
 
 tination would be falsified. The Aorist " re- 
 presents the future glorification as so necessary 
 and certain that it appears as if already given 
 and completed with the fdiKaicoa-fv." (Meyer, 
 who refers to Herm. Vig. p. 747.) Rather, 
 the Aorist has the same sense in all the 
 clauses : it represents each act as complete 
 (and therefore certain) without determining 
 (ao/jtoTos) its relative time whether Past, 
 Present, or Future. This admirably serves 
 " the triumphant flow of the great chain of 
 thought, and the thoroughly PauHne boldness 
 of expression." (Meyer.) 
 
 31-39. The Blessedness of the Elect. 
 
 The doctrine implied in v. 28, and deve- 
 loped in w. 29, 30, is now applied to the 
 encouragement of the believer. 
 
 " The inspired faith of the Apostle, leaving 
 all earthly things far down below his feet, 
 refiects itself in the sublimity of the language." 
 (Phihppi.) 
 
 31. What shall <vje then say to these things f\ 
 Rather, as in vi. i, vii. i. " What shall ^ue 
 say then," &o. Looking at these things, the 
 revealed purpose of God and all the sure 
 steps of its fulfilment, what inference shall we 
 draw ? 
 
 " If God be (rather, 'is') /or kj," (as these 
 things plainly show) <who can be against us f 
 This is the first of a stream of rapid and ex- 
 ulting questions, in which the Apostle cannot 
 wait for any formal answer. 
 
 32. He that spared not his oivn Son^ This 
 " climax of God's mercies " (Theodoret), 
 the strongest of all proofs that " God is for 
 us" is brought forward with an emphasis 
 (o? yi) that we cannot imitate, as the sure 
 ground of the question that follows. The 
 allusion to Gen. xxii. 12, 16, is too close to 
 be accidental : St. Paul uses the very word 
 (e(f)e[(raTo, " spared") which the LXX. use 
 concerning Abraham. This expression proves 
 incidentally, but most clearly, that St. Paul 
 regarded the Son of God as being of one 
 nature with the Father: otherwise where 
 would be the force of the comparison with 
 the human father who withheld not his only 
 son. 
 
 " Thus has God Himself fulfilled that which 
 in Abraham's symbolic offering He acknow- 
 ledged as the highest possible proof of love." 
 (Philippi.) 
 
 L 
 
l62 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 33—37. 
 
 33 Who shall lay any thing to the 
 charge of God's elect ? // is God 
 that justifieth. 
 
 34 Who is he that condemneth ? 
 It is Christ that died, yea rather, that 
 is risen again, who is even at the 
 right hand of God, who also malceth 
 intercession for us. 
 
 35 Who shall separate us from 
 the love of Christ ? shall tribulation. 
 
 or distress, or persecution, or fa- 
 mine, or nakedness, or peril, or 
 sword ? 
 
 36 As it is written, *For thy sake*Ps. 
 we are killed all the day long ; we 
 are accounted as sheep for the 
 slaughter. 
 
 37 Nay, in all these things we are 
 more than conquerors through him 
 that loved us. 
 
 delivered him up."] I.e. to death : see iv. 25. 
 
 boiv shall he not ivith him also freely give 
 us all things ?] The greatest and most costly 
 gift ensures all the rest that depend on it, 
 all the things (ra iravra) that God has pro- 
 mised to us in Christ. To give freely 
 (j(^aplC^(TBaC) is agreeable to God's nature: 
 to deliver up his Son to death, and not to 
 spare Him, was the greatest sacrifice God 
 could make for man. Thus the argument is 
 like that in ch. v. 9, 10, where see notes. 
 
 33-35. The punctuation and division of 
 verses in the A. V. must be slightly corrected, 
 to bring out the rhythmic flow of thought 
 and language in this noble passage. Still full 
 of the thought of God's sure love, the Apostle 
 asks triumphantly, " M%o shall lay any 
 charge against God's elect?" He makes 
 answer to himself in another question : " It 
 is God that justifieth: Who is he that con- 
 demneth?" And then, as if bounding on 
 from one rock to another, he passes from the 
 Father's love to that of the Son : 
 
 " It is Christ that died, yea rather that is 
 risen, who is also at the right hand 0/ God, 
 Who also 7naketh intercession for us : Who shall 
 separate us from the love of Christ?" 
 
 This order is adopted by the early Greek 
 commentators : and is confirmed by reference 
 to the source of the Apostle's thoughts in 
 Isaiah 1. 8, 9, where we have the same 
 parallelism : " He is near that justifieth me ; 
 <who luill contend nvith me?" . . . '■''Behold, 
 the Lord God •■will help me; ivho is he that 
 shall condemn me?" It is the only order that 
 fully preserves the simplicity, freedom, and 
 vigour of this loftiest flight of Christian 
 eloquence. 
 
 " God's elect," as such (observe the absence 
 of the article), need fear no accuser : it is 
 God Himself, the Judge of all, that justifies 
 them {v. 30) ; who then is there to con- 
 demn them ? 
 
 In Isaiah it is Messiah Himself that thus 
 speaks ; a fact which makes St. Paul's rapid 
 transition to the mention of Christ's love 
 more easy and natural. 
 
 It is Christ that died.'] St. Paul accumulates 
 
 the proofs of love and power : of love, for " // 
 is Christ that died" for our sins; of power, 
 for He not only died, but also is risen for our 
 justification ; of power again, for it is the same 
 Christ ''' avho is also at the right hand of 
 God;" and then, finally, of love still abiding, for 
 it is He '''vjho also maketh intercession for us." 
 
 35. The sure inference from such proofs 
 of both the will and power to save, is ex- 
 pressed in the triumphant question : " Who 
 shall separate us from the love of Christ?" 
 
 By " the love of Christ" is meant, not our 
 love to Him, but His love to us, of which the 
 proofs have been given in v. 34. This sense 
 is confirmed by v. 37, ''through him that 
 loved us." 
 
 shall tribulation, or distress^ See on ii. 9. 
 These things might cut off man's love from 
 us, but cannot hinder Christ's love from reach- 
 ing and saving us. 
 
 On the various reading see Additional Note. 
 
 36. as it is written.'] Closely connected 
 with the last word " swjordr 
 
 In the midst of his enumeration of suf- 
 ferings and perils, suggested, doubtless by 
 his own experience (2 Cor. vi. 4), St. Paul is 
 reminded by the word " svjord" of a passage 
 in Ps. xliv. 22, which describes the like suffer- 
 ings of God's faithful people in an earlier age, 
 and which the Apostle regards as typical of 
 the persecutions to which the faithful are 
 exposed in his own age. " But there is this 
 remarkable difference between the tone of 
 the Psalmist and the tone of the Apostle. 
 The former cannot understand the chasten- 
 ing, and complains that God's heavy hand 
 has been laid without cause upon His people : 
 the latter can rejoice, in persecution also, and 
 exclaim, ' Nay, in all these things ive are more 
 than conquerors' " (Perovvne). See notes on 
 the 44th Psalm. 
 
 37. iV^)-.] Literally, "But." The nega 
 tive answer is omitted as self-evident, and the 
 question met at once by a directly contrary 
 affirmation. 
 
 nve are more than conquerors.] An excel- 
 lent rendering, first introduced in the Geneva 
 Bible, 1557. Compare 2 Cor. iv. 8-1 1, 17. 
 
V. 3^—39-] 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 163 
 
 38 For I am persuaded, that nor things present, nor things to 
 neither death, nor Hfe, nor an- come, 
 gels, nor principalities, nor powers, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor 
 
 " A holy arrogance of victory, not selfish, 
 but in the consciousness of the might of 
 Christ " (Meyer). " More than conquerors ? 
 What is that ? Why they (i. e. the adver- 
 saries are not only overcome and disarmed, 
 but they are brought over to our faction ; 
 they war on our side." (ChiUingworth, 
 Serm. V. § 61.) " This is a new order o^ 
 victory, to conquer by means of our adver- 
 saries " (Chrysostom). 
 
 through him that lo-ved us.'] This must 
 refer to Christ, through whose inseparable 
 love (v. 35) we are made conquerors. 
 
 The aorist points to His one greatest act 
 of love, already mentioned in v. 34. Com- 
 pare v. 6. 
 
 38. The answer given in ni. 37 is now 
 confirmed by a declaration of the Apostle's 
 own personal conviction, that no power in 
 heaven or earth, in time or in eternity, can 
 separate us from the Divine love. 
 
 What St. Paul thus expresses is a moral 
 conviction rather than a logical certainty. It 
 may be asked, Cannot the believer fall away? 
 Is not this implied in such cases as that of 
 Demas, 2 Tim. iv. 10, and in St. Paul's own 
 words, " If ye continue in the faith grounded 
 and settled, and be not moved anvay from the 
 hope of the Gospel, 'which ye have heard" (Col. 
 i. 23) ? The answer is well given by Godet: 
 "In the moral life freedom has always its 
 part, as it had from the first moment of be- 
 lieving. What St. Paul means is that no- 
 thing shall pluck us out of Christ's arms 
 against our will, and as long as we refuse 
 not ourselves to abide there: compare Joh. 
 X. 28-30." 
 
 neither death, nor life.] The last point 
 mentioned in the question {w. 35, 36) is 
 taken up first, " death," with its opposite, 
 '■'■life:' compare xiv. 8. The argument re- 
 quires that the words should have their widest 
 sense, as general states in one or other of 
 which we must be found. Explanations such 
 as "the fear of death, the love of life" 
 (Grotius), or " death with its agonies, life 
 with its distractions and temptations " 
 (Godet), only limit the flight of the Apostle's 
 thoughts just when they would soar above 
 all limitations. 
 
 nor angels, nor principalities^ The angels 
 mentioned in the N. T. are much more fre- 
 quently the good than the evil ; but the word 
 itself never indicates th« specific quality, either 
 good or evil, this being either expressed, or at 
 least implied, in the context. Meyer's asser- 
 tion that " angels " used absolutely signifies 
 
 nothing else than simply good angels, is arbi- 
 trary in such passages as Acts xxiii. 8, i Cor, 
 iv. 9, and quite inadmissible in i Cor. vi. 3 ; 
 Heb. ii. 16. 
 
 In our present passage '■'■angels " and '■'■prin- 
 cipalities " must both have the widest possible 
 appHcation: the point in question is not 
 the moral disposition, whether good or evil, 
 but the power of the angelic order of created 
 things. 
 
 " Principalities " are angels of greater power 
 and might (Eph. vi. 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 11). 
 
 nor angels, nor principalities, nor pozuers.] 
 This seems the more natural order, ^^ powers" 
 being akin to "principalities" (i Cor. xv. 24 ; 
 Eph. i. 21) : but the weight of ancient autho- 
 rity is in favour of a different arrangement : 
 1 2 
 
 " Neither death, nor life, 
 
 3 4 
 
 Nor angels, nor principalities, 
 
 5 6 
 
 Nor things present, nor things to come, 
 
 7 
 Nor powers, 
 8 9 
 
 Nor height, nor depth, 
 
 10 
 Nor any other creature." 
 
 " The principle of arrangement would seem 
 to be, to place alternately inanimate and ani- 
 mate objects, reserving ' creature,' which sums 
 up the whole to the last line, in order to de- 
 note that ' the dominion over all the works of 
 God's hands,' originally designed for man 
 (Gen. i. 26 ; Ps. viii. 6), which he had lost by 
 having bowed down to and ' served the creature ' 
 (Rom. i. 25), should now, through his union 
 with Christ Jesus, be restored to him, 'all 
 things being put in subjection under his feet,' 
 Heb. ii. 8" (Forbes). If the order has this 
 significance, it may be attributed to St. Paul's 
 familiarity with Hebrew poetry, in which the 
 most perfect parallelism is often found in pas- 
 sages of the most fervid eloquence. 
 
 Meyer arranges the ten in two pairs, fol- 
 lowed by two threes. 
 
 nor things present, nor things to come.] No 
 dimensions of time : "nor height, nor depth;" 
 no dimensions of space. 
 
 These abstractions bring out the idea of 
 universality more emphatically, and suit the 
 rhetorical character of the passage better than 
 any more limited expressions, such as " heaven 
 or earth," " heaven or hell," by which some 
 would interpret them. 
 
 L 2 
 
164 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 [v. 39. 
 
 any other creature, shall be able 
 to separate us from the love of 
 
 God, which is in Christ Jesus our 
 Lord. 
 
 nor any other creature.'] No state, no being, 
 no power, nor property, such as those already 
 mentioned, " nor any other created thing," in 
 short, nothing in the created universe, " shall 
 be able to separate us from the love of God, 
 ivhich is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Origen, 
 in Cramer's 'Catena,' p. 156, suggests another 
 interpretation of the words {KTiais erepa) : 
 " But if besides this whole visible creation 
 there is another creation, which though in 
 nature visible is as yet unseen, you will ask 
 whether to that may be referred the saying 
 ' nor any other creation shall be able to separate 
 us from the love of God.' " In support of this 
 view Origen refers to Ephes. i. 2 1 , where Christ 
 is seated ''''far above all principality, and power, 
 and might, and dominion, and every name that 
 is named, not only in this nvorld, hut also in that 
 ivhich is to come." A very similar interpreta- 
 tion is approved by Chrysostom, as well 
 suited to the sublimity of the passage. 
 
 the love of God ^vhich is in Christ Jesus our 
 Lord,] These last words teach us that 
 "Christ's love" {v. 35) is no other than 
 " God's love " manifested to us, and operat- 
 ing on our behalf in the Person of Christ: 
 see Note on v. 8. 
 
 This noble hymn of victory {vv. 31-39), 
 while growing naturally out of its immediate 
 context (w. 28-30), and having a primary 
 reference to the sure triumph of them that 
 love God, forms at the same time a grand 
 conclusion to the whole doctrinal portion of 
 the Epistle. " It is the crown of that edifice 
 of salvation in Christ, of whicV St. Paul had 
 laid the foundation in his demonstration of 
 the righteousness of faith (i.-v.) and raised 
 the superstructure in his exposition of sancti- 
 fication (vi.-viii.). After this it will only 
 remain for us to see the salvation, thus 
 studied in its essence, unfold itself upon the 
 stage of history " (Godet). 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on vv. 2, 3, 9, 11, 28, 29, 35. 
 
 2. For rjXevdepaxre fxe Tischendorf (8) 
 reads r]\ev6epcoafv (re, with B N F G. Ter- 
 tullian's reading varies : he has " te " in ' De 
 Pudicitia,' c. 17, but " me " in ' De Resurrec- 
 tione Carnis,' c. 46. The First Person is much 
 more natural in the connexion with c. VII., 
 and o-e may have come from the last syllable 
 
 of rjXevdfpaxTfv. 
 
 Here then, as below in -y. 35, it must be 
 admitted that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS., 
 notwithstanding their general excellence, give 
 an inferior reading. 
 
 3. a. It is generally agreed that to advvarov 
 Tov v6p.ov is a nominative absolute (cf Eur. 
 *Troad.' 489) in apposition to the sentence, 
 6 Oeos KareKpiPfv, k.t.X. 
 
 But aSvvaros is sometimes active, "unable" 
 (Acts xiv. 8 ; Rem. xv. i), and sometimes 
 passive, " impossible " (Matt. xix. 26 ; Heb. vi. 
 4, 18; X. 4). 
 
 The passive sense, " that which was impos- 
 sible to the law," is well paraphrased in the 
 A. v., " that nvhich the lanv could not do,^' and 
 is preferred by Meyer and Alford. 
 
 The objection to it is that St. Paul would 
 have written ro a^vvarov tw v6p.w, instead of 
 TO aS. TOV vofiov. Of this latter combination, 
 the passive dbvvaTov and the genitive, no ex- 
 amples have been brought forward ; for in all 
 the passages quoted by Meyer in support of 
 the passive sense, the active is evidently re- 
 quired. 
 
 Plato, ' Hipp. Maj.' p. 295, E: ovkovv to 
 bwarbv ("that which is able") tKaaTov 
 a.Trepyd^€a6ai, fts onep hvvaTov, els Tovro Koi 
 XPW'-l^o^i ■'■^ ^^ ahvvarov (" but that which is 
 unable") axprjo-Tov. 
 
 Xen. 'Hell.' I. iv. 13 : dno rav avrov Koi diro 
 rov Trjs TToXetus dvvarov (" from his Own re- 
 sources and from the ability of the city"): 
 see Breitenbach's note. 
 
 Epistle to Diognetus, c. ix. C.'EXey^as . . . 
 TO advvaTov t^? rjp,eTfpas (pvcrfcos eis to TV)(f^v 
 Coi^s. The active sense is strongly confirmed 
 by the similar phrase to ^Ivvutov avTov in 
 ix. 22. 
 
 With the active sense the construction may 
 be thus explained : " For the impotence of the 
 law being this, that it could not condemn sin 
 in the flesh, God did condemn sin in the 
 flesh," &c. 
 
 b. fv w, "i« that," A. V. a much better 
 rendering than " because " (Alford). It 
 points to that in luhich the inability of the 
 law consists, namely in its being overpowered 
 by the opposition of " the flesh'' (vii. 14-18). 
 Compare Plato, 'Rep.' V. p. 455: tov p.lv 
 fv<\>vi] "TTpos Ti fivat, TOP 8i dcpvrf f'v co 6 /xev 
 paSt'tos ri fiavdd.vei, 6 de \ciXe7rc0s. 
 
 c. ev o/xotcoji/,ari aapKos ajiapTias. The 
 consistency of this expression with the reality 
 and the sinlessness of Christ's Flesh is ably 
 defended by Tertullian ('Contra Marcionem,' 
 V. 14 J 'De Carne Christi,' xvi., xvii.), and 
 
ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 165 
 
 by Augustine, who shews how Christ's flesh 
 was sinless on either hypothesis of Tradu- 
 cianism or Greatianism (Epist. 164). 
 
 This ancient interpretation, accepted even 
 by Baur ('Paulas,' III. c. viii.), has been ela- 
 borately attacked by Pfleiderer as involving 
 " two errors : a mistranslation of the word 
 6/iot'co/xa, and an inadmissible separation of 
 the two ideas a-dp^ and afxapTias. As regards 
 the first, it is beyond question, that if the 
 words had merely been ev ofMoicofiari, aapKos, 
 no one would have hesitated to translate 
 them simply ' in fleshly shape,' that is to say, 
 in a shape or form of appearance which was 
 the same as that of all human flesh, and in 
 fact consisted of flesh" ('Paulinism,' I. p. 52). 
 
 In this bold assertion grammar and sense 
 are alike put to confusion. The Objective 
 Genitive is turned into a Genitive of the 
 Material : a-apKos dfiaprias " denotes " (we 
 are told) " the material of which the human 
 form of Christ, like that of other men, con- 
 sists " {ik). 
 
 If we apply this method to Deut. iv. 18, 
 ofioidiyia navTOS epTrerov, it will turn " the 
 graven image " itself into " a creeping like- 
 ness;" and in Ps. cvi. 20 ev o/xoiw/xaTt p-ocrxov 
 eadiovTos x^P'''°^^ ^he calf that Aaron made 
 of gold becomes an actual living " calf that 
 eateth hay." 
 
 We prefer the opinion of " most of the 
 commentators, who explain the decisive 
 passage in Rom. viii. 3 as if it meant that 
 Christ appeared only in a ' likeness of sinful 
 Jlesh,' that is to say, in a body which re- 
 sembled indeed the body of other men so far 
 as it consisted of flesh, but was unlike them 
 in this respect that His flesh was not like 
 that of all others, ' sinful flesh ' " (ib.). 
 
 Other objections are urged both by 
 Pfleiderer and Holsten : 
 
 (i.) The sinlessness of Christ's flesh directly 
 contradicts this passage : for how could God 
 have condemned " sin in the flesh " on the 
 Cross of Christ, if Christ's flesh was not 
 *' flesh of sin " ? 
 
 This objection restswhollyon the erroneous 
 connexion of iv rfi a-apKi noticed below in 
 note e. 
 
 (2). It is opposed to the whole develop- 
 ment of thought from vi. i to viii. 3, which 
 labours to prove that because man is in bond- 
 age to sin only through his flesh, he is de- 
 livered by the Cross of Christ just because 
 it is the death of this 'very flesh of sin. 
 
 It is enough to answer that St. Paul no- 
 where attempts to prove that man is in 
 bondage to sin only through his flesh. 
 
 (3). St. Paul's whole anthropology recog- 
 nises no flesh that is not flesh of sin. 
 
 This objection rests on the same ground- 
 less assumption as the preceding (2) : see 
 note on adp^, Introduction, § 9. 
 
 For a full discussion of Holsten's objec- 
 tions and of the whole subject, see Wendt, 
 ' Fleisch und Geist.' 
 
 d. Kai nepl ap.apr'ia9. Chrysostom and 
 others, disregarding Kal, connect these words 
 with KureKpLvev, in the sense "condemned 
 sin for sin," i. e. as being exceeding sinful. 
 
 All the English Versions in Bagster's 
 Hexapla (except Geneva) give the same con- 
 nexion, the A. V. 161 1 being punctuated (as 
 it is in a chained copy at Walgrave) thus ; 
 ", and for sinne condemned sin in the flesh" 
 with the marginal rendering, " and f jy a sacri- 
 fice for sin," which corresponds with Origen's 
 interpretation. 
 
 The proper connexion with Trtp.'^as is 
 given by Theophylact, Gennadius, Photius, 
 and others in Cramer's ' Catena,' with the 
 interpretations " because of sin's mastery 
 over mankind," or "in order to conquer sin." 
 The more comprehensive rendering " on 
 account of sin " (propter peccatum) is pre- 
 ferable. 
 
 e. The words t^v duapriav iv r^ crapKi 
 might possibly be taken as forming one idea, 
 " the sin that was in the flesh," as tov /3a7r- 
 TLcrp-aTos eis tov Qdvarov (vi. 4) : see Winer, 
 p. 169. 
 
 But the words iv rrj aapKi in this con- 
 struction only give a definition of sin which 
 is not needed in this context after aapKos 
 duapTias, whereas if joined with KareKpive 
 they are full of significance. 
 
 It remains to be determined in qjohat flesh 
 sin was condemned, and ho'w ? The an- 
 swers are various. 
 
 i. Origen. In Christ's flesh, considered as a 
 sin-offering which put away sin (Heb. ix. 26). 
 
 ii. Gennadius, in Cramer's ' Catena,' p. 123. 
 
 (a) In Christ's flesh, as having been kept 
 free from sin, and unconquered by it. 
 
 (b) In Christ's flesh God condemned sin 
 of sin (jvepl dfxaprias, de peccato), because 
 it unjustly involved Christ's sinless flesh in 
 death. 
 
 All these interpretations would require 
 iv Tjj crapK\ avTov to distinguish Christ's 
 flesh from that which has been twice before 
 mentioned, hid t?js aapicos, and aapKos d/xap- 
 Tias. They err, however, only in substi- 
 tuting the more limited sense " his flesh " for 
 the more general " the flesh." Christ's holy 
 life " condemned sin " as unworthy to exist 
 " in the flesh'' which He and all men had in 
 common: compare Irenxus, III. xx. 2. 
 
 9. Though eiTrep implies a more confident 
 assumption than el'ye, it cannot possibly mean 
 "since" (inelnep, Chrysostom), for that 
 would exclude the opposite supposition 
 which is expressly brought forward in the 
 following clause, el 8c tis TrceC/xa XpiaTov ovk 
 e'xet. The assumption made in either case 
 
i66 
 
 ROMANS. VIII. 
 
 may or may not correspond to the existing 
 fact, not because the fact is itself contingent, 
 but because it is unkntivn to the speaker. 
 
 This uncertainty of the assumption is fully 
 expressed in " if so be," and the Subjunctive 
 ought not to be repeated in the Verb " dwell," 
 for in the original the Indicative Present 
 (otKfl, ovK e'xfL) represents not an uncertain 
 contingency, but that which, according to 
 the assumption, is already an existing fact. 
 Wiclif's rendering "dwelleth," "hath," is 
 therefore more correct than the A. V. 
 " dwell," " have," derived from Tyndale. In 
 defending the Subjunctive, Bp. Ellicott ('On 
 the Revision,' p. 175) fails to distinguish be- 
 tween uncertainty in the assumption, and con- 
 tingeyicy in the fact assumed : the case is 
 contemplated, according to the hypothesis, 
 as actually in existence. 
 
 11. In the Dialogues on the Holy Trinity, 
 ascribed to Maximus, the Greek monk and 
 confessor (a. D. 580-662), Orthodoxus, being 
 challenged to prove that as the Father raises 
 the dead and quickens them (fcooTrotfl), so 
 also do the Son and Holy Ghost, quotes 
 this passage with the reading hia rov evoiKovv- 
 Tos avTov TTVfvfiaTos. Macedonius replies 
 that the reading is 8ia to enoiKovv, except 
 perhaps in one or two falsified copies. Or- 
 thodoxus asserts that the genitive is found in 
 all the ancient copies, but, as this is considered 
 by Macedonius to be a disputed point, passes 
 on to a different argument. 
 
 This imaginary conversation only proves 
 that in the 7th century the reading of the 
 passage had long been in dispute, a fact of 
 which we have abundant evidence of much 
 earlier date. The genitive is found in N A 
 C, in many cursives, and some early ver- 
 sions, and Fathers. But this testimony is 
 outweighed by that of other uncials and 
 cursives, of the Italic and Syriac versions, and 
 of the earlier Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, 
 Origen, Methodius. 
 
 This preponderance of external testimony 
 is supported by the internal evidence : 
 
 (1) The argument of the passage, as stated 
 by Bp. Pearson himself (see foot-note), is in- 
 conclusive, unless we substitute the reading 
 "because of his Spirit that divelleth in you" : 
 for it is nowhere implied in the premisses that 
 Christ was raised up " by the Spirit" 
 
 (2) The resurrection is ascribed in the 
 N. T. to God in general, or to the Father, 
 or to the Son (John v. 21 ; vi. 39; xi. 25), 
 but not to the Floly Ghost in particular. 
 
 (3) The genitive is more likely than the 
 accusative to have been introduced for its 
 dogmatic import, as proving the personality 
 of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 It should, however, be observed that the 
 accusative represents the indwelling Spirit 
 not only as the condition, but as the cause of 
 true vitality. 
 
 28. TTavTa crvvepyel els ayaBov [6 Geo?]. 
 Though supported by good authority (A. B. 
 itlthiopic) 6 Qeos is probably a gloss : both 
 the form of the sentence and the sense are 
 better without it. 
 
 The meaning of crvvepye'i, " work together, 
 one with another," preferred by Estius, 
 Bengel, Reiche, and Alford, seems to have 
 been rejected by other interpreters without 
 sufficient reason. The Verb has this sense 
 not only in the phrases (rvvepyelv aWi'jXoiv 
 (Xenoph. 'Memor. Socr.' II. iii. 88) awepyflv 
 iavTols {ib. III. v. 16), but also when there 
 is no Dative expressed as in the passage 
 of Diogenes Laertius (vii. 104) quoted by 
 Fritzsche, Bi^^obs Xeyeadai ra d8id<popa • 
 ana^ fiev rd fiTjre rrpos evdainovlav p.i]Te 
 irpos KaKohai^ovlav crvvepyovvra. Compare 
 Polybius, XI. ix. i, where crvvepyelv is quite 
 synonymous with orvfijidWea-dai.. 
 
 29. The word irpoop[((o, not found in 
 classical writers nor in the LXX, is always 
 in the N. T. accompanied by words which 
 indicate the end and aim of the predestina- 
 tion. 
 
 This aim is here expressed in the adjective 
 (TvniM6p(f)ovs, a secondary predicate used pro- 
 leptically as in Phil. iii. 21, where the words 
 els TO yevdadai avTo are a gloss added to 
 explain the construction. For the use of 
 crvp.fji6p(f}ovs with the genitive, see Bern- 
 hardy, ' Syntax,' p. 163 ; Matt. ' G. Gr.' § 379, 
 obs. 2. 
 
 35. For Tov Xpia-Tov B N and some cur- 
 sives read roi Qeov tjjs iv XpitrTco 'irjaoii, a 
 manifest interpolation from v. 39, and an un- 
 deniable instance in which the Vatican and 
 Sinaitic MSS. combine in giving a wrong 
 reading. Compare Additional Note on -v. 2. 
 
V. 1—4-1 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 167 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 X Paul is sorry for the yews. 7 All the seed 
 of Abraham -mere not the children of the pro- 
 mise. 18 God hath mercy upon whom he 
 will. 21 The potter 7nay do with his clay 
 what he list. 25 The calling of the Gentiles 
 and rejecting of the yews were foretold. 32 
 The cause why so few yews embraced the 
 righteousness of faith, 
 
 I SAY the truth in Christ, I lie 
 not, my conscience also bearing 
 me witness in the Holy Ghost, 
 
 2 That I have great heaviness and 
 continual sorrow in my heart. 
 
 3 For I could wish that myself 
 
 were "accurse-d from Christ for my " 25' ^j 
 
 J separated. 
 
 brethren, my kinsmen according to 
 the flesh : 
 
 4 Who are Israelites ; to whom 
 pertaineth the adoption, and the 
 glory, and the "covenants, and the laments'. 
 giving of the law, and the service 
 
 of God., and the promises ; 
 
 Chapters IX.-XI. Israel's Unbelief, 
 Rejection, and future Restoration. 
 
 The argument that the Gospel "is the 
 power of God unto salvation to every one 
 that believeth " (i. 16 — viii. 39) closes in a 
 strain of triumphant thanksgiving. 
 
 But with all the Apostle's joy in Christ's 
 salvation there is mingled a great and un- 
 ceasing sorrow. For in stating the theme 
 of his great argument (i. 16) St. Paul had 
 spoken of a " salvation to every one that 
 believeth, to the Je^iu first, and also to the 
 Greek." Why then have his brethren and 
 kinsmen according to the flesh so little share 
 in this salvation ? Where is the promise 
 that was made to the Jew first ? In treating 
 this subject St. Paul, after a fervent protesta- 
 tion of love and sorrow for his own people, 
 (ix. 1-5) declares that the cause of their re- 
 jection is not a failure of God's promise to 
 the chosen people Israel (6-13), nor any in- 
 justice in God (14-29), but their ovni rejec- 
 tion of ''''the righteousness of God by faith" 
 (ix. 30 — X. 2i). Consolation is found in the 
 salvation of a " remnant according to election 
 of grace" (xi. i-io), in the present accept- 
 ance of the Gentiles (11-22), and the future 
 restoration of Israel (23-32), all which are 
 proofs of the wisdom and glory of God 
 (33-36). 
 
 Chap. IX. 1-5. Mourning over Israel. 
 
 The sudden transition from triumphant 
 joy to the keenest sorrow is made more 
 striking by the absence of any connecting 
 particle. But the direct connexion of thought 
 with viii. 28-32 is evident. If the Gospel 
 brings sure salvation to God's elect, why is 
 His chosen people Israel not found among 
 the heirs of this salvation ? 
 
 1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not.~\ I 
 speak truth, &c. Compare i Tim. ii. 7. 
 St. Paul's conflicts with Jews and Judaizers 
 might cast doubt upon his love to his own 
 nation. Hence he affirms the sincerity of his 
 sorrow for them with the assurance that he 
 speaks with all the truthfulncsss of one who 
 
 feels that he is living and acting " in Christ " 
 (Eph. iv. 17; I Thess. iv. i), and for whom 
 it is therefore impossible to lie (Col. iii. 9 ; 
 Eph. iv. 15), 
 
 my conscience also bearing me nvitness in the 
 Holy Ghost.'] Rather, my conscience bearing 
 witness with me. The Holy Ghost is 
 ^' the Spirit of truth," and the witness of a con- 
 science enlightened by Him and acting under 
 His influence must be true. St. Paul's con- 
 science bears witness with him, i.e. in accord- 
 ance with his words, " in the Holy Ghost," and 
 therefore in all the clearness of divine truth. 
 See note on ^vixfiaprvpelv, ii. 15 ; viii. 16. 
 
 2. The truth so solemnly attested in v. i 
 is now expressed twice, and with growing 
 intensity, — " great grief to me," " unceasing 
 sorrow to my heart." 
 
 3. For I could ivish.] The form of expres- 
 sion (r}-vxop.r]v, literally "I was wishing" or 
 " praying") implies a real but passing wish, not 
 calmly weighed and deliberately retained, but 
 already resigned as impracticable (Acts xxv. 
 22 ; Gal. iv. 20; see Winer, III. § xli. 2). 
 
 that myself ivere accursed from Christ.^ 
 When the Apostle brings himself to utter the 
 cause of his grief, his intense love and sorrow 
 for Israel burst forth in words which might 
 well seem incredible. His solemn protesta- 
 tion (v. i) was not unnecessary, even if 
 his affection for his countrymen had never 
 been doubted. 
 
 accursed.] The meaning of the word 
 "anathema" (i Cor. xii. 3, xvi. 22; Gal. i. 
 8, 9) is to be derived from its use by the 
 LXX in Lev. xxvii. 28, 29: " JEvery devoted 
 thing {avaQi\ui) is most holy unto the Lord. 
 None devoted {avd6efj.a), ivhich shall be devoted 
 of men, shall be redeemed ; but shall surely be 
 put to death." 
 
 Here the doom of the devoted one, instead 
 of the death of the body, is separation from 
 Christ and from the salvation that is in Him. 
 
 Like Moses St. Paul, if it depended only 
 on his love, would have given his own soul 
 for his brctliren's sake, " if so he might bring 
 
i68 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 [■V. 5. 
 
 5 Whose are the fathers, and of came^ who is over all, God blessed for 
 whom as concerning the flesh Christ ever. Amen. 
 
 them to true righteousness and eternal life " 
 (Grotius). 
 
 But is not such a wish unreasonable and 
 even irreverent ? It must seem so to those 
 whose hearts beat with no stronger pulse 
 than that of a prudent self-interest. It is 
 a fervent outburst of unselfish love, that 
 may not be coldly criticised and weighed and 
 measured: it is close akin to the spirit of 
 Christ's self-sacrifice, and to that ^'•foolish- 
 ness of God " which " is wj'iser than men." 
 
 " O mighty love, O unsurpassable perfec- 
 tion, the servant speaks boldly to his Lord, 
 and begs remission for the people, or claims 
 to be himself also blotted out with them '' 
 (Clemens Rom. i. 53). 
 
 4. Who are Israelites ; to avhom pertaineth 
 the adoption^ St. Paul's sorrow, springing 
 from natural affection for his Idnsmen accord- 
 ing to the flesh, is deepened by another feeling, 
 " inasmuch as they (oiVii/es) are Israelites " to 
 whom belong all the privileges of the ancient 
 covenant, which are now perfected " in the 
 fulness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ." 
 How mournful then to see the heirs of the 
 promise shut out from their inheritance ! 
 
 First in the emphatic enumeration of the 
 privileges of Israel is " the adoption" which 
 was first announced in Egypt: — Israel is my 
 son, e-ven my firstborn " (Ex. iv. 22 ; Jer. xxxi. 
 9). To Israel only had God thus revealed 
 Himself as a Father, until '■'•the adoption" 
 was perfected in Christ (viii. 14-17). 
 
 the glory.'] ^'' The glory of- the Lord" -which. 
 was seen on Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 16, 17), and filled 
 the tabernacle, had the form of light or fire, 
 covered at times by a cloud : see note on 
 Ex. xl. 34. Israel alone had such a visible 
 token of God's presence. 
 
 Such interpretations as " the national glory 
 of Israel " (Fritzsche), or " the glory that will 
 be theirs in the end of the world " (Reuss), are 
 too vague to have place in an enumeration of 
 the several distinguishing privileges of the 
 Jews. 
 
 and the covenants, and the giving of the 
 /aw.] In Gal. iv. 24 St. Paul speaks of " t^vo 
 covenants, one from Mount Sinai:" but here 
 " the giving of the law," the one grand revela- 
 tion of the will of Jehovah for the regulation 
 of the national and personal life of His people, 
 is distinguished from '''■the covenants'^ made 
 at several times with the fathers from Abraham 
 downwards. (2 Mace. viii. 15 ; Sap. xviii. 22 ; 
 Sirach xliv. 11; Heb. xi. 13.) So St. Paul 
 speaks in Eph. ii. 12 of " the common^wealth of 
 Israel," a result of the giving of the law, and 
 *'/^i? covenants of the promise" as distinct pri- 
 
 vileges of Israel from which other nations had 
 been excluded. The singular, found in many 
 MSS, may have arisen from a wish to obviate 
 the mistake of referring the plural to the old 
 and new covenants mentioned in Gal. iv. 24. 
 
 the service of God.] "The service" of 
 the Tabernacle (compare Heb. ix. i) was the 
 only worship which God had appointed. 
 
 the promises.] These, as distinguished 
 from " the covenants " upon which they are 
 grounded, include the whole body of pro- 
 phecies concerning Christ and His Idngdom. 
 
 5. the fathers.] Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob (Acts iii. 13, vii. 32): to have sprung 
 from such forefathers, was one of the most 
 cherished privileges of Israel (2 Cor. xi. 22). 
 
 and of <whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ 
 came.] The last and greatest privilege of 
 the Israelites is that the Messiah, so far as 
 His human nature is concerned, springs from 
 their race. We must notice here the im- 
 portant distinctions so carefully expressed 
 by St. Paul's words and even by their exact 
 order : " and from whom came the Christ as 
 concerning the flesh." Christ is not in the 
 same sense as the Patriarchs the peculiar 
 property of the Israelites, " whose (oiy) are 
 the fathers." He springs indeed from their 
 race (e^ oiv 6 Xpicrros), but He " is over all:" 
 and not only is His Jewish origin thus con- 
 trasted with His universal supremacy, but it 
 is also expressly limited to His human na- 
 ture. The closing emphasis of the clause 
 falls upon the words " as concerning the flesh" 
 which point onward to their natural contrast 
 in the other aspect of His Person, Who is 
 " God blessed for ever." 
 
 nvho is over all, God blessed for ever.] 
 There is happily no variation in the MSS 
 to cast any doubt upon the wording of 
 this great passage. But its meaning de- 
 pends on punctuation, and some modern 
 critics adopt a different connexion. They 
 assume that the words " God over all " are 
 to be combined in this order as a title equi- 
 valent to "most High God," and asserting 
 that St. Paul could not have applied this 
 title to Christ, they deny that the clause 
 refers to Him, and render it as a doxo- 
 logy : " May the God who is over all be 
 blessed for ever." To this interpretation 
 there are strong objections on grounds which 
 are stated in the note at the end of the chapter. 
 Here it may be enough to say that it gives a 
 most inappropriate sense. St. Paul is express- 
 ing the anguish of his heart at the fall of iiis 
 brethren : that anguish is deepened by the 
 memory of their privileges, most of all by 
 
V. 
 
 6-9.] 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 169 
 
 ' Gen. 21. 
 
 6 Not as though the word of God 
 hath taken none effect. For they 
 are not all Israel, which are of Israel : 
 
 7 Neither, because they are the seed 
 of Abraham, are they all children : 
 but, '^In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 
 
 8 That is, They which are the 
 
 children of the flesh, these are not 
 the children of God : but the chil- 
 dren of the promise are counted for 
 the seed. 
 
 9 For this is the word of promise, ^ 
 '^At this time will I come, and Sarah 10. 
 shall have a son. 
 
 the thought that their race gave birth to the 
 Divine Saviour, whom they have rejected. 
 In this, the usual interpretation, all is most 
 natural : the last and greatest cause of sorrow 
 is the chmax of glory from which the chosen 
 race has fallen. 
 
 But how could such a lamentation close in 
 a doxology ? How could the Apostle bless 
 God that Christ was born a Jew, in his an- 
 guish that the Jews had rejected Him ? 
 
 On the other hand the declaration that 
 Christ " is over all, God blessed for ever" is 
 an opportune and noble protest against the 
 indignity cast upon Him by the unbelief of 
 the Jews. " For what, saith he, if others 
 blaspheme ? Yet we who know His unspeak- 
 able mysteries, and His ineffable wisdom, and 
 His great providence, know that He is worthy 
 not to be blasphemed but to be glorified" 
 (Chrysostom). 
 
 6-13. No Failure of God's Promise. 
 
 St. Paul's lamentation over his brethren 
 and kinsmen according to the flesh has no 
 such meaning as that God's promise has 
 failed, for that belonged not to all natural 
 descendants of Abraham, but only to the 
 chosen seed, the true Israel. 
 
 6. I^ot as though the <ujord of God hath 
 taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, 
 cwhich are of Israel^ "But not as though 
 the 'word of God hath fallen to the 
 ground; for not all they which are of 
 Israel are Israel." " T/6e luord of God" 
 is the promise given to Abraham and to his 
 seed. This has not failed, for its principle 
 from the first was not mere natural succes- 
 sion, but Divine election : not all who were 
 sprung from the chosen people were there- 
 fore themselves the chosen people, true 
 Israelites, heirs of the promise. 
 
 On this use of ovros see the note at the end. 
 
 7. Neither because they are the seed of 
 Abraham?^ "Nor ot cause they are Abra- 
 ham's seed are they all children •" i.e. children 
 of Abraham in the fullest sense, as in viii. 17, 
 " if children, then heirs." St. Paul goes back 
 to Abraham in order to discuss the case 
 of his two sons, and to show that in the 
 very first generation, the title of natural 
 descent was limited and restricted by Divine 
 election. In ratifying Sarah's claim that the 
 
 son of the bondwoman shall not be heir 
 with her son, God says to Abraham (Gen. 
 xxi. 12), " /« Isaac shall thy seed be called," 
 i. e. the promised seed (Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 5, 
 xvii. 7, 19); and then adds, '■'■and also of 
 the son of the bond<woman ivill I make a 
 nation, because he is thy seed." Thus in using 
 the term '■'■seed of Abraham" in a twofold 
 sense, here and in other passages, St. Paul 
 only adopts a distinction which belonged to 
 the promise from the first. 
 
 8. That is, They which are the children of the 
 flesh, these are not the children of God.^ " That 
 is. Not the children of the flesh are 
 thereby children of God." St. Paul inter- 
 prets the text just quoted, by drawing out 
 the general principle involved in the particular 
 case of Ishmael the child of the flesh, and 
 Isaac the child of promise. According to 
 the A. V. none of " the children of the flesh " 
 are '■'■children of God-" in other words '■'■■the 
 children of the flesh " do not include all the 
 descendants of Abraham, but only those who 
 are ^^ children of , the flesh" and nothing more. 
 But the Greek idiom absolutely requires a 
 different meaning, which we have tried to 
 express above. The true " children " of Abra- 
 ham s.vq'^'^ children of God" by virtue of the 
 adoption, 1;. 4. But wAo are these ? Not"/^^ 
 children of the flesh" zs such. See Note at end. 
 
 hut the children of the promise^ This does 
 not mean simply the promised children, but 
 as Chrysostom says of Isaac, " It was not the 
 power of the flesh, but the strength of the 
 promise that gave birth to the child." It 
 would be equally true to say that the child 
 was begotten in the strength of faith, but the 
 argument requires the Divine, noL the human, 
 side to be made prominent. It is not Abra- 
 ham's fatherhood that determines the true 
 seed, but that promise which was the expres- 
 sion of God's free electing grace. It is clear 
 from Gal. iv. 28 that '■'■the children of the pro- 
 mise" correspond, in the Apostle's mind, to 
 believers, whether Jew or Gentile, and " the 
 children of the flesh" to the unbelieving Jews. 
 
 are counted for the seed.'] And therefore 
 really are what they are by God accounted : 
 compare iv. 5, and note there. 
 
 9. For this is the <word of promise^ St. 
 Paul confirms his statement by God's words 
 to Abraham in Gen. xviii. 1 4. " The childj-en^' 
 
170 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 Fv. 10 — 14. 
 
 10 And not only this; but when 
 Rebecca also had conceived by one, 
 even by our father Isaac ; 
 
 11 (For the children being not 
 yet born, neither having done any 
 good or evil, that the purpose of 
 God according to election might 
 
 stand, not of works, but of him that 
 calleth ;) 
 
 12 It was said unto her, The 
 *"elder shall serve the "younger. l^^"' '* 
 
 i^ As it is written, ^ Jacob have I "*^''- 
 loved, but Esau have I hated. « or, 
 
 14 What shall we say then? h "{([ii.i. 
 
 I say, ^^ of the promise" "for this word is 
 (a word) of promise." 
 
 At this time.} "According to this 
 season:" see note on Gen. xviii. 10. 
 
 10. And not only this?\ Translate: "And 
 not only she, but Rebecca also, when 
 she had conceived by one, even by our 
 father Isaac." The construction is incom- 
 plete, but the sense is clear. Not only Sarah 
 received a promise from God, which limited 
 the true seed of Abraham to her son : but in 
 the next generation Rebecca also received a 
 promise, in which the same principle of 
 Divine election is still more strikingly proved. 
 
 Isaac, it might be said, was the only child 
 of Abraham by his wife, " the free q.voman " 
 (Gal. iv. 22), and so the only proper heir: 
 but Esau and Jacob were twin children of 
 one father^ which is expressly mentioned in 
 order to exclude all possibility of difference 
 in parentage. Abraham's sons had only one 
 common parent, Rebecca's have both. 
 
 even by our father Isaac.'] The twins had 
 for their common father the patriarch of the 
 chosen race : and yet even in this case one of 
 them, and he the first-born, was excluded. 
 This case comes home more fully to the Jews 
 than the rejection of the slave-born Ishmael. 
 
 11. (For the children being not yet born, 
 neither having done any good or evil., that the 
 purpose of God according to election might 
 stand, not of nvorks, but of him that calleth ;)] 
 The parenthesis is not only useless, but 
 destroys the connection with the following 
 verse. The conditional negatives ( /x^/Vw, 
 juT/fie) represent the circumstances not as 
 mere facts of history, but as conditions en- 
 tering into God's counsel and plan. The 
 time of the prediction was thus chosen, in 
 order to make it clear that He who calls 
 men to be heirs of His salvation makes free 
 choice of whom He will, unfettered by any 
 claims of birth or merit. Such absolute 
 freedom is the rightful prerogative of Him, 
 who is alone All-wise and All-good. The 
 order of the clauses is very significant: the 
 time chosen for the prediction to Rebecca 
 is mentioned first — "while the children 
 were not yet born, nor had done aught 
 good or ei'il;" then the Divine counsel in 
 choosing this time, " that the purpose of God 
 according to election might stand not depen- 
 
 dent on auorks but on him that calleth ;" and 
 last the principal sentence, " it avas said u?ito 
 her, The elder shall serve the younger." 
 
 might stand] Literally, " might remain." 
 The Present Tense extends this continuance 
 even to the Apostle's own generation, in 
 which the principle was again so signally and 
 so sadly exemplified. 
 
 12, 13. The elder shall serve the younger.] 
 The whole passage in Gen. xxv. 23 is as 
 follows : " Two nations are in thy <womb, and 
 two manner of people shall be separated from 
 thy bo'ivels : and the one people shall be stronger 
 than the other people; and the elder shall serve 
 theyounger.'' 
 
 This prediction, St. Paul says, agrees with 
 what is written in Malachi i. 2 : "7 have loved 
 you, saith the Lord. Tet ye say, Wherein hast 
 thou loved us ? M'^as not Esau Jacob's brother ? 
 saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated 
 Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage 
 ivaste." 
 
 (i.) From the context of both passages it is 
 clear that Esau and Jacob are regarded as 
 two nations, and it is an arbitrary assumption 
 to say that Malachi intends not the two 
 nations, Edom and Israel, but the persons of 
 the two brothers. 
 
 (2.) But it is also clear from the words 
 " ivhile they 'were not yet born," v. 11, that 
 St. Paul regards them as individual persons. 
 
 (3.) The explanation, which combines both 
 views, is that the choice of the nation is in- 
 cluded in the choice of its founder, and the 
 original passages refer to Gods election of 
 Jacob and his descendants to be the deposi- 
 taries of His truth and the channels of His 
 grace. What St. Paul shows is, that the 
 election to these privileges was not dependent 
 on any personal merit of the founder. 
 
 Esau have I hated.] See the notes on 
 Malachi i. 3. The love and the hate, as con- 
 templated by St. Paul, are shown in God's 
 choosing the younger to inherit the Messianic 
 promise, and excluding the elder. 
 
 The exaggerated sense of " positive hate " 
 which Meyer assigns to ffiia-rja-a is quite for- 
 bidden by the record of the ample blessing 
 bestowed on Esau. 
 
 14-iS. No Injustice in God. 
 Having shown from the history of the 
 
V. 15—17-] 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 171 
 
 *■ Ex. 33. 
 >9. 
 
 there unrighteousness with God ? 16 So then it is not of him that 
 
 God forbid. willeth, nor of him that runneth, but 
 
 15 For he saith to Moses, "^I will of God that sheweth mercy, 
 have mercy on whom I will have 17 For the scripture saith unto 
 
 mercy, and I will have compassion Pharaoh, '^ Even for this same pur- a Ex. 9^ 
 
 on whom I will have compassion. pose have I raised thee up, that I ' ' 
 
 Patriarchs that the present exclusion of the 
 Jews from Christ's kingdom does not im- 
 ply a failure of God's promise, St. Paul now 
 proceeds to prove that it cannot be ascribed 
 to injustice in God. 
 
 The rejection of Ishmael and Esau with 
 their descendants, and the choice of Israel to 
 inherit the promised blessing, were examples 
 of God's electing grace, which a Jew would 
 heartily approve. But what if these examples 
 involved a principle that would justify the 
 exclusion of the unbelieving Jew himself? 
 To such a conclusion, clearly implied in 
 V. II, objection would at once be made. 
 
 14. What shall 'we say then T\ From the 
 account given in w. 11-13 of the choice 
 of Jacob and rejection of Esau before they 
 had done either good or evil, the question 
 naturally arises " Is there injustice in God," 
 that He thus chooses one and rejects another 
 without regard to their works ? " The Jewish 
 conscience, developed under the Law, was 
 accustomed to consider the conduct of God 
 towards man as depending entirely on the 
 merit or demerit of his works " (Godet). 
 The ground on which St. Paul rejects the 
 thought of injustice is remarkable. His an- 
 swer is simply an appeal to the testimony of 
 Holy Scripture that God does exercise His 
 mercy with absolute freedom of choice : the 
 force therefore of his argument rests wholly 
 on the very principle presupposed in the ob- 
 jection, " God cannot be unjust." Neither 
 the truth of this axiom nor the authority of 
 Scripture could be questioned by a Jew. 
 For a similar argument, and for the form of 
 the question, in which the negative answer 
 is already implied, see iii. 5 and note. 
 
 15. For he saith to Moses.} "For to 
 Moses lie saith." The order of the words 
 is emphatic. " It was necessary to mention 
 Moses, in order to show the certainty of the 
 statement by the persons both of Him who 
 spake and of him who heard" (Theodoret). 
 But more than this is implied: if to Moses 
 God's favour was absolutely free and un- 
 merited, how much more to others ! 
 
 / nvill have mercy on 'whom I ivill have 
 mercy.'] Ex. xxxiii. 1 9 : where " these words, 
 though only connected with the previous 
 clause by the copulative Vau, are to be un- 
 derstood in a causal sense as expressing the 
 reason why Moses' request was granted, 
 
 namely, that it was an act of unconditional 
 grace and compassion on the part of God, to 
 which no man, not even Moses, could lay 
 any just claim" (Keil and Delitzsch). 
 
 See the note at the end of the chapter on 
 other interpretations. 
 
 16. So then it is not of him that avilleth.] 
 The inference from God's words to Moses is, 
 that the bestowal of the Divine mercy depends 
 not on man's will or man's effort, but simply 
 on " God that sheweth mercy." He chooses 
 whom He will, and on what conditions He 
 will. His grace is a free gift, not a debt : it 
 calls out man's will and effort, but is not pre- 
 determined by them (Phil. ii. 1 3). For the 
 expression " him that runneth " compare i Cor. 
 ix. 24-26. 
 
 17. St. Paul appeals again to Scripture to 
 prove as a fact that God does reject, as well 
 as choose, whomsoever He will. It is still 
 presupposed, as in v. 14, that " God cannot 
 be unjust :" if Holy Scripture testifies that 
 " he hath mercy on njuhom he luill have mercy, 
 and nvhom he ivill he- hardeneth," then this 
 must be true, and it must also be consistent 
 with God's justice. The fact is first shown 
 from Scripture (vv. 17-18), and then its 
 justice is discussed (w. 19-24). 
 
 Even for this same purpose have I raised thee 
 up.] Rather ^''for this very purpose" Sec. 
 
 The sense of the passage as understood by 
 the LXX is as follows : " For this purpose I 
 have upheld thee, and preserved thy life, that 
 I might show my power in thee by a long 
 series of warnings and chastisements, followed 
 by a final great overthrow, more strikingly 
 than it could have been shown by thy im- 
 mediate destruction." This interpretation 
 represents fairly, though not precisely, the 
 general meaning of the Hebrew, and being 
 not unsuited to the present stage of St. 
 Paul's argument, is adopted by him, with 
 the following slight but very important 
 variation. 
 
 For Iva, which expresses the direct and 
 primary purpose, "in order that," St. Paul 
 substitutes Sttcos denoting the more remote 
 and secondary purpose, " that so." 
 
 Thus the exhibition of God's power upon 
 Pharaoh appears only as the secondary pur- 
 pose, consequent on his refusal to yield to 
 God's direct will, " Let my people go." 
 
 The more exact meaning of the passage 
 
172 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 [v, 18 21. 
 
 might shew my power in thee, and 
 that my name might be declared 
 throughout all the earth. 
 
 18 Therefore hath he mercy on 
 whom he will have mercy^ and whom 
 he will he hardeneth. 
 
 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, 
 
 Why doth he yet find fault? For 
 who hath resisted his will ? 
 
 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou s-^lrflt' 
 that "repliest against God? ^ Shall the ^^^twT 
 thing formed say to him that formed fithcodi 
 it. Why hast thou made me thus ? ^jer! 18?' 
 
 21 Hath not the /potter power ij. y.^'^' 
 
 (Ex. ix. 16) is recognised by St. Paul at a 
 later stage of his argument {■v. 22). 
 
 Compare notes on Ex. ix. 16, and for a full 
 discussion of this most important and much 
 misunderstood passage, see note at the end 
 of this chapter. 
 
 18. A double inference from the two pass- 
 ages cited in w. 15-17. 
 
 Therefore hath he mercy on lOhom he nvill 
 have mercy. '\ "So then on wlioni he will 
 hath he mercy." The freedom of the Divine 
 choice is strongly marked by the emphatic 
 position of the relative clause : compare -y. 15. 
 
 and luhoTn he nvi/l he hardeneth.~\ In Ex- 
 odus the hardening is ascribed to God in the 
 prediction, iv. 21 and vii. 3 : in the first seven 
 plagues it is regarded as Pharaoh's own doing, 
 and in the last three, as God's judicial hard- 
 ening : see Dean Jackson, ix. 394, 399, 400, 
 407, 408, 458. St. Paul here has to do with 
 the event only, and not with the process, as 
 his purpose is to bring forward other events, 
 parallel to the rejection of the Jews. On the 
 hardening of Pharaoh's heart, see Origen, 
 * De Principiis,' III. i. 10, where he shows 
 that by one and the same operation God has 
 mercy upon one man, and hardens another, 
 because the heart of those who treat his 
 kindness and forbearance with contempt is 
 hardened by the delay of their punishment, 
 while those who make his goodness and pa- 
 tience an occasion of repentance, find mercy. 
 
 The argument of the whole passage (14-18) 
 may be summed up briefly thus : 
 
 The case of Esau and Jacob shows tbat 
 man can discern no reason why God chooses 
 one and rejects another. But it does not 
 follow that God is unjust. Hear what He 
 said to Moses : " / ivill have mercy on ^ivhom 
 I ^11 have mercy y Is it unjust that mercy 
 should do good where it will ? Look at 
 Pharaoh : if we could see no reason why God 
 hardened his heart, and made him a tragical 
 exam.ple of His severity, should we call that 
 severity unjust ? God forbid. 
 
 19-21. God's ABSOLUTE Power asserted. 
 
 So far St. Paul has repelled the objection 
 to God's justice, without attempting to ex- 
 plain the difficulty involved in it : and he 
 knows that the same difficulty will rise up 
 again in a different form. 
 
 19. Thou <wilt say then unto me."] " Thou 
 ivi/t say to me then." Against the state- 
 ment, " avhom he 'will he hardeneth" this ob- 
 jection may be raised : " If God Himself 
 hardens the heart, why does He yet find 
 fault with man ? What justice is there in 
 continuing to lay the blame on a creature who 
 goes on sinning because God so wills and he 
 cannot resist?" The objection, though ex- 
 pressed in general terms, has its historical 
 ground in the reproaches and expostulations 
 which God continues to address to Pharaoh 
 in Ex. ix. 17, "-As yet exaltest thou thyself 
 against my people, that thou nvilt not let them 
 go V and in x. 3, 4, " Ho^jj long ivilt thou refuse 
 to humble thyself before Me?" (Jackson, 
 
 ' On the Creed,' ix. 458.) 
 
 St. Paul assumes that the same objection 
 will be made as an excuse for the unbelief of 
 Israel. If God has chosen to harden their 
 hearts, how can He justly lay the blame on 
 them .' 
 
 For ^vho hath resisted his willV^ The 
 question expresses in a livelier form, the 
 general truth that God's will is irresistible. 
 
 It is important to notice the word here 
 used for " ivill" (jSov\7]fxa) : but this and 
 other cautions needed in interpreting the 
 clause are thrown into the note at the end 
 of the chapter, in order to leave the Apostle's 
 argument free from interruption. 
 
 The brief and peremptory questions have 
 a tone of discontent and presumption, which 
 is met in -z;. 20 by a stern rebuke: explana- 
 tion follows later in v. 22. 
 
 20. N'ay but, man, ivho art thou . . .f] 
 St. Paul repels the objection, " Why doth he 
 yet find fauhV by rebuking the presumption 
 
 of feeble man in thus " replying against God." 
 The marginal renderings, " answerest again," 
 or " disputest with God " are not so good as 
 the A. V. '■^repliest (or makest ans^iver') against 
 God:" compare Job xxxii. 12 ; Luke xiv, 6; 
 and for the like disparaging question, see 
 xiv. 4, and Plato, ' Gorgias,' p. 452, b. " Alag- 
 nifici doctoris severitate deterret, cum dicit, 
 O homo, tu quis es ?" Origen, ' In Exodum 
 Hom.' iv. 2. 
 
 Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 
 it. Why hast thou made me thus .?j This figure 
 of the potter and his vessel is derived origin- 
 ally from the account of the creation of man 
 
V. 22.] 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 ^n 
 
 ovex the clay, of the same lump to 
 make one vessel unto honour, and 
 another unto dishonour ? 
 
 22 IVhut if God, willing to shew 
 
 hh wrath, and to make his power 
 known, endured with much long- 
 suffering the vessels of wrath "fitted ,;..a5'^«^ 
 to destruction : 
 
 in Gen. ii. 7, whence were derived the term 
 "protoplast" applied to Adam by the LXX 
 Wisdom vii. i ), and " plasma " as a de- 
 scription of man compare Ps. ciii. 14, and 
 I Tim. ii. 13. 
 
 Here St. Paul, quoting from Isaiah and 
 Jeremiah, justifies God's rejection of the Jews 
 in the very words of the Prophets who pre- 
 dicted it. See Is. xxix. 16, which is rendered 
 by the LXX thus : " Shall ye not be counted 
 as the potter's clay ? Shall the thing formed 
 {to n\d(Tfj,a) say to him that formed it, Thou 
 formedst me not ? Or the thing made to 
 him that made it, Thou madest me not 
 wisely ? Compare Is. xlv. 9 : " S/jaU the clay 
 say to him that fashioneth it, What makest 
 thouV See also Is. Ixiv. 8. 
 
 What makes the Prophet's language so 
 exactly appropriate to the Apostle's argument 
 is, that they are both dealing with the same 
 subject, namely, God's formation of Israel as 
 a nation, and His consequent unquestion- 
 able right to deal with it as seems good to 
 Him. 
 
 21. Hath not the potter poiver over the 
 c/ay,(b'e.'] "Or hath not" iyc. This is the 
 alternative to the argument of v. 20: either 
 you must admit that Israel is incompetent to 
 question God's dealings, or you must say that 
 the potter hath not power over the clay. St. 
 Paul refers to Jer. xviii. 4-6, where see notes, 
 and observe the heading of the /chapter : 
 " Under the type of a potter is shelved God's 
 absolute po'uier in disposing of nationsT In 
 •u. 6 we read : " house of Israel^ cannot I 
 do nxiith you as this potter f saith the Lord. 
 Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so 
 are ye in mine hajid, O house of Israel." The 
 passage is the more remarkable because the 
 declaration that God is as free to do what 
 He will with Israel as the potter with the 
 clay, is followed immediately {w. 7-10) by 
 the promise that the exercise of this absolute 
 power shall be allowed to depend on the 
 penitence or impenitence of the nation. St. 
 Paul, in w. 22, 23, shows how this promise 
 had been fulfilled in God's long-suffering to- 
 wards Israel. 
 
 of the same lump to make one 'vessel unto 
 honour and another unto dis honour f^^ Here 
 we have a distinct allusion to the language of 
 "W^isdom XV. 7, 8, but the application is totally 
 different. The subject there is the folly of 
 idol worship, as shown by the power of the 
 potter to make a vain god out of the same 
 clay, of which '■^ he 77iaketh both the vessels that 
 
 serve for clean uses, and likewise also such as 
 serve to the contrary." 
 
 By St. Paul this distinction between " one 
 vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour " 
 is applied, like the rest of the figure of which 
 it forms part, to God's absolute freedom in 
 dealing with one nation and another. " The 
 same lump of clay " represents mankind as a 
 whole. Shall Israel say to his Maker, Thou 
 hast no right to make of me anything else 
 than a vessel unto honour, and Thou hast no 
 right to make of the Gentiles anything but a 
 vessel unto dishonour ? (Godet). This re- 
 ference of the passage to national, not indi- 
 vidual, election is required by the whole 
 purpose of St. Paul's argument, and placed 
 beyond doubt by vv. 24-26. Compare Eccle- 
 siasticus xxxiii. 10-12: "All men are from 
 the ground, and Adam was created of earth. 
 In much knowledge the Lord hath divided 
 them, and made their ways diverse. Some ot 
 them hath he blessed and exalted, and some 
 of them hath he sanctified and set near him- 
 self: but some of them hath he cursed and 
 brought low, and turned out of their places. 
 As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it 
 at his pleasure : so man is in the hand of him 
 that made him, to render to them as liketh him 
 best." 
 
 22-24. God's Justice and Mercy vindi- 
 cated. 
 
 22. After having asserted God's unques- 
 tionable right to do with His creatures what- 
 ever seems best to His Godly wisdom, St. Paul 
 now passes on to justify the actual course of 
 His dealing. This justification consists in 
 the fact of God's long-suffering, with its two- 
 fold motive of judgment and mercy. 
 
 What if God:\ Literally, " But if God." 
 The sentence is unfinished, but its meaning 
 is easily completed : " But if God in fact 
 showed much long-suffering, what furth'jr 
 objection can you make against His justice ?" 
 We may express it more briefly, thus : "But 
 what if God" &c. 
 
 For similar examples of senten-ces begin- 
 ning with 61 Se, and left incomplete, see Acts 
 xxiii. 9, and Winer, ' Grammar,' § 64. But 
 (fie) marks the contrast between God's abso- 
 lute right and His actual long-suffering ; see 
 note on ii. 17-24. 
 
 The whole argument is very like that of 
 W isdom xi., xii. : see especially xii. 2. " There- 
 fore chastenest thou them by little and little 
 that offend, and •warnest them by putting them 
 in remembrance ^wherein they have offended^ 
 
174 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 [v. 23. 
 
 23 And that he might make vessels of mercy, which he had afore 
 known the riches of his glory on the prepared unto glory, 
 
 that lewving their ^wickedness, they may belie-ve 
 on Thee, Lord:" and v. 26, ''But they that 
 •would tint be reformed by that correction, nvhere- 
 in he dallied luith them {jraLyviois eTTLTifirjaecos) 
 shall feel a Judgment ^worthy of God." The 
 position is no longer that of God's absolute 
 right, but of His actual dealing. 
 
 r-v. 22, 23 are St. Paul's interpretation 
 and generalised application of the passage 
 concerning Pharaoh quoted in -y. 17, and the 
 quotation and the comment help to explain 
 each other. 
 
 (i.) The comment, "endured 'with much 
 long-suffering," shows that St. Paul's version, 
 " / have raised thee up " has the same sense 
 as the Hebrew and LXX, namely, "I have 
 sustained and upheld thee," correcting only 
 the grammatical form of dierqprjdrjs, " thou 
 wast preserved." 
 
 (2.) Again the words "for this very purpose 
 have I raised thee up, that I might show my 
 power," make it certain, that when St. Paul 
 writes " God willing to show," he means "be- 
 cause He willed" and not "although He 
 willed." 
 
 The desire " to show his nvrath and to make 
 his power known" was not a hindrance to 
 His forbearance (as Meyer regards it), but a 
 motive to it ; a motive too acting throughout 
 the long series of warnings and judgments, 
 and not limited to the final catastrophe. See 
 Ex. vii. 5, 17; viii. 10, 22; ix. 14, 29. St. 
 Paul's interpretation thus agrees exactly with 
 the true and full sense of the original "for 
 to show thee my power ; " and it is equally 
 applicable to either case, the destruction of 
 Pharaoh, or the rejection of Israel, in both of 
 which God's " much long-suffering " resulted, 
 through their own obstinacy, in making the 
 "vessels of wrath" more conspicuous objects 
 of His avenging power. 
 
 See the note at the end of the chapter on 
 v. 17. 
 
 his power. ^ to tvvarov avrov, correspond- 
 ing to "my power" (rfjv Bwaniv jiov) v. 17 : 
 compare note on viii. 3, " Pf'hat the ia^iv could 
 not do." 
 
 the vessels of nurath7\ " vessels of wrath," 
 without the Definite Article. Though his 
 language is still full of allusions to the pre- 
 vious passage {yv. 17-21), St. Paul has now 
 passed from the particular example of the 
 hardening of Pharaoh to the general principle 
 which connects it with his immediate subject, 
 the rejection of Israel. 
 
 The word " vessel" taken from the figure 
 of the potter {y. 21), implies some kind of 
 use which the vessel is to serve : thus " vessels 
 of wrath" and " vessels of mercy " are such 
 
 as fitly serve God's purpose of showing His 
 wrath and His mercy. Compare Jer. 1. 25 ; 
 Ps. ii. 9. 
 
 "fitted for destruction" i. e. fully prepared 
 and worthy : compare Wisdom xii. 20, 
 otpeiXonevovs davdro}, " condemned to death." 
 The Passive Participle does not define how, 
 or by whom, the vessels of wrath have been 
 thus prepared. " Pharaoh was fitted by him- 
 self and his own doing " (Chrysostom) : 
 "fitted by the potter " (Van Hengel) : "He 
 who has fitted them for destruction is God " 
 (Meyer) : all these views are too narrow and 
 exclusive. We have passed from the view of 
 God's absolute power (19-21) to that of His 
 actual deaUng with His creatures, and God 
 does not in fact fit man, nor the potter his 
 vessel, for destruction. Both factors, God's 
 probationary judgments, and man's perverse 
 will, conduce to the result, and it is the result 
 only that is here expressed by the Participle. 
 
 The description '' vessels of wrath fitted for 
 destruction " was eminently applicable to the 
 mass of the Jewish nation in St. Paul's day : 
 " they please not God, and are contrary to all 
 men ; forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that 
 they might be saved, to fill up their sins 
 al-way ; for the lurath is come upon them to 
 the uttermost" (i Thess. ii. 15, 16). 
 
 23. And that he might make knonvn the 
 riches of his glory.'] This is a direct and 
 primary purpose (Iva) of God's long-suffering 
 towards " vessels ofivrath." 
 
 " The glory" of God is, in general, the ma- 
 nifestation of the Divine perfections (see on 
 V. 2), and, in this context, more especially the 
 manifestation of His goodness and mercy 
 (Ex. xxxiii. 18, 19): and "the riches of his 
 glory" (Eph. i. 18 ; iii. 16; Col. i. 27) is that 
 inexhaustible wealth of goodness which em- 
 braces all " vessels of mercy " in the fulness of 
 blessing. 
 
 "Salvation is of the Jews" (John iv. 22), 
 and therefore the chosen race, notwithstand- 
 ing all its transgressions, is preserved, in order 
 that the promised salvation may embrace in 
 its accomphshment both the remnant of Israel 
 and the fulness of the Gentiles. 
 
 Compare Wisdom xii. 19-22: "Thou 
 mayest use power when thou wilt. But by 
 such works hast thou taught thy people that 
 the just man should be merciful, and hast 
 made thy children to be of a good hope that 
 thou givest repentance for sins. For if thou 
 didst punish the enemies of thy children, and 
 the condemned to death, with such delibera- 
 tion, giving them time and place, whereby they 
 might be delivered from their malice ; with 
 how great circumspection didst thou judge 
 
V. 2 
 
 4—26.] 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 ^1S 
 
 r Hos. 2. 
 
 23. 1 Pet. 
 
 24 Even us, whom he hath called, 
 not of the Jews only, but also of the 
 Gentiles } 
 
 25 As he saith also in Osee, I ^ will 
 call them my people, which were 
 
 not my people ; and her beloved, 
 which was not beloved, 
 
 26 ''^And it shall come to pass, * Hos. i. 
 that in the place where it was said '"" 
 unto them, Ye are not my people j 
 
 thine own sons, unto whose fathers thou 
 hast sworn and made covenants of good 
 promises ?" 
 
 ivbich he had afore prepared unto glory^ 
 Comparing this with the parallel clause, we 
 see — 
 
 (i.) That St. Paul is here speaking not of 
 election or predestination, but of an actual 
 preparation and purgation undergone by ves- 
 sels of mercy to fit them for glory, before God 
 " makes knouin the riches of his glory upon 
 them." Compare 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21, a passage 
 which evidently looks back on this. 
 
 (2.) We observe that this preparation, un- 
 like that by which " -vessels of ivratb " are 
 ^'■fitted for destruction^' is ascribed directly and 
 exclusively to God as its author, being wholly 
 brought about by His Providence and pre- 
 venient grace. The idea oi fanes s, akin to 
 that of desert, is ascribed only to the vessels 
 of wrath: see note on -y. 22. 
 
 The vessels of mercy God has made ready 
 for glory, but there is no idea of merit 
 involved. 
 
 24. E-ven us, ivhom he hath called, '^c!\ Read 
 "whom he did also call in us, not only 
 from among Jews, but also from among 
 Gentiles." For the apposition ov? — r\\xas 
 compare Eur. 'Iph. Taur.' 63; Bernhardy, 
 Synt. p. 302. 
 
 We here see that the preparation mentioned 
 in -u. 23 preceded the actual call. 
 
 It is thus identified with the whole course 
 of discipline and grace by which God pre- 
 pared among both Jews and Gentiles a people 
 to be called into His kingdom. Compare 
 Luke i. 17 ; and Rom. ii. 14, 15. 
 
 Thus in the actual call God began to fulfil 
 His purpose of " making known the riches of 
 his glory on -vessels of mercy ■" and this He did 
 the more conspicuously by calling Heathen as 
 well as Jews. 
 
 25-29. The Calling of the Gentiles 
 AND THE Rejection of the Jews 
 foretold in Prophecy. 
 
 25. / nuill call them my people, ivhich ^were 
 not my people, and her bSloved luhich 'was not 
 beloved. ] " / luill call that my people <ivhich 
 was not my people," is'c. Hos. ii. 23, quoted 
 freely from the LXX, the order of the two 
 sentences being inverted. 
 
 The inference which St. Paul means to 
 draw from, the quotation is variously under- 
 stood. 
 
 (i.) The promised restoration of apostate 
 Israel may be regarded as a proof that the 
 calling both of Jews and Gentiles (v. 24) is 
 a free gift of God's grace to those who had no 
 title to it in their previous condition (Hof- 
 mann : see note on Hos. i. 10). 
 
 (2) Chrysostom constructs an argument a 
 fortiori. If Israel, after all its ingratitude, 
 abuse of privileges, and apostasy, was yet to 
 be restored, much more the Heathen, who 
 never had such privileges to abuse. 
 
 But (3) the Hebrew means literally: "I 
 will have mercy on Lo-ruhamah, and to Lo- 
 ammi I will say, Ammi art thou." 
 
 Now these names both designate the Ten 
 Tribes only, exclusive of Judah (Hos. i. 7), 
 and mean that Israel has become like the 
 Heathen, who are not God's people. 
 
 The promise of Israel's restoration there- 
 fore includes, either by parity of reason or as 
 a typical prophecy, the calling of the Gentiles, 
 to which St. Paul here applies it. See the 
 treatise among Leo's works, " On the calling 
 of all nations," Lib. II. c. xviii. 
 
 This interpretation is confirmed by the in- 
 version of the two parallel clauses, by which St. 
 Paul brings " Lo-ammi " into immediate con- 
 nection with " the Gentiles.^' "So God's mercies 
 again overflow His threatenings In re- 
 versing His sentence [on Israel] He embraces 
 in the arms of His mercy all who were not 
 His people" (Pusey on Hos. ii. 23). 
 
 26. The whole verse is quoted exactly 
 from the LXX of Hos. i. 10, and is joined by 
 St. Paul to the former passage " as forming 
 one connected declaration " (Meyer). 
 
 " The place 'where it nvas said to them, Te are 
 not my people" is not Palestine, where the pre- 
 diction was first uttered, but " the land of 
 exile, where the name became an actual truth " 
 (Keil and Hengstenb.). 
 
 "The place of their rejection, the Disper- 
 sion, was to be the place of their restoration " 
 (Pusey). 
 
 This is certain from Hos. i. 11, where the 
 restoration to God's favour precedes the 
 return from the land of exile. St. Paul, 
 therefore, is in full agreement with the Pro- 
 phet as to the place intended. It is true for 
 the Dispersion of Israel (i Pet. i. i, ii. 10), 
 the typical Lo-ammi, and for all who in times 
 past were not the people of God, that wher- 
 ever they are brought to faith in Christ, 
 " there shall they be called SO 0.8 of the living 
 God" See on Hos. i. lo. 
 
176 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 [v. 27 — 29. 
 
 «■ Is. 10. 
 
 22, 33. 
 
 II Or, the 
 aecouni. 
 
 there shall they be called the chil- 
 dren of the hving God. 
 
 27 Esaias also crieth concerning 
 Israel, 'Though the number of the 
 children of Israel be as the sand of 
 the sea, a remnant shall be saved : 
 
 28 For he will finish "the work. 
 
 and cut it short in righteousness : 
 because a short work will the Lord 
 make upon the earth. 
 
 29 And as Esaias said before, '^Ex- * !»• *'9> 
 cept the Lord of Sabaoth had left us 
 a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and 
 been made like unto Gomorrha. 
 
 27. St. Paul now passes over (8e') from 
 prophecies applicable to the calling of the 
 Gentiles to others concerning the exclusion of 
 all but a remnant of the Jews : the context of 
 Hos. i. 10 naturally suggesting the repetition 
 of the same prediction by Isaiah. 
 
 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel~\ "But 
 Esaias crieth for Israel" (Wiclif). The 
 prophets cry is addressed to God (Is. x. 22) 
 as an earnest pleading of His promise : it is 
 therefore a cry of intercession, " as if it were 
 the Spirit of adoption ' crying out ' in him " 
 (viii. 15: see Note on Is. x. 22). Godet's 
 idea, that Isaiah's cry {Kpa^eC) is the menacing 
 tone of the herald proclaiming God's judg- 
 ment upon Israel, is entirely opposed to the 
 meaning of the words and to the tenor of the 
 context. 
 
 Though the number of the children of Israel, 
 is'c^ St. Paul here varies from the LXX of 
 Is. x. 22, and goes back to the words of Hosea 
 i. 10. The prophecy is of course founded on 
 the Promise in Gen. xxii. 17, which it defines 
 more closely. 
 
 a remnant shall be sa-ved-l Read, "The 
 •■emnant," 'b'c. This is the point of Isaiah's 
 prophecy, " Shear-jashub," and is emphatically 
 repeated in "vv. 21, 22. It means that '■'■the 
 remnant''' shall return not merely from the 
 Captivity, but " unto the mighty God^' i.e. 
 Messiah: compare Is. ix. 6 and x. 21, and 
 notes there. It is therefore a distinct predic- 
 tion that " the remnant shall be saved " in 
 Christ. 
 
 28. For he ivill fnish the nuork, and cut it 
 short in righteousness.^ "For a word he 
 finisheth, and cutteth short in right- 
 eousness." On the exact meaning of the 
 Hebrew, see Notes on Isaiah. 
 
 St. Paul retains the words of the LXX, 
 which give a meaning far from exact, yet not 
 opposed to the original, and in itself true and 
 sufficient for the present purpose. 
 
 It is a general characteristic of God, that 
 any work of His he accomplishes and cuts 
 short with summary justice. (Compare Isa. 
 xxviii. 22, and the LXX there.) 
 
 because a short luork luill the Lord make 
 upon the earth.'] "For a short-cut word 
 will," &c. 
 
 St. Paul still follows the LXX, but omits 
 the less important details: this part of the 
 
 quotation refers to God's summary sentence 
 upon Israel, in which the mass is rejected and 
 only the remnant saved. 
 
 The abbreviated reading of the earliest 
 MSS., adopted by Tischendorf (8) and Tre- 
 gelles, may be thus rendered : " For finish- 
 ing and cutting short word will the Lord 
 perform it upon earth." 
 
 29. j4nd as Esaias said before, Except, ds'c.'] 
 Read, And, as Esaias hath said before, &c. 
 The Perfect denotes, as usual, what stands 
 written in Scripture. 
 
 The Greek word (TrpoeipTjKfi/) may mean 
 either "hath foretold" (compare Acts i. 14, 
 I Thess. iii. 6), or simply " hath said before " 
 (i Thess. iv. 6; 2 Cor. vii. 3, xiii. 2; Gal. 
 
 In favour of the latter meaning it is argued 
 that Isaiah's words (i. 9) refer to the state of 
 the people in his own time, and there is 
 nothing in the context to indicate even a 
 secondary prophetic sense. 
 
 We must suppose therefore, according to 
 this view, that St. Paul simply makes Isaiah's 
 words his own, using them, not as a pre- 
 diction fulfilled, but as a description applic- 
 able to the state of Israel in his own day: 
 " And, as Isaiah hath said before, so say I 
 again in his words, except the Lord of Sabaoth 
 had left us a seed, (is'c. The word " before " 
 is also taken to mean " in an earlier passage." 
 (Aiford). 
 
 The other meaning " hath foretold " is 
 preferred by most commentators on Romans, 
 the passage of Isaiah (i. 7-9) being regarded 
 as a preface in which " the Prophet with a 
 few ground strokes gathers up the whole 
 future of the people of Israel " (Drechsler). 
 
 A decision, which must depend on the 
 exact meaning of the original passage, belongs 
 to a commentary on Isaiah, or a treatise on 
 the nature of Prophecy, rather than to this 
 note. The quotation is well suited to St. 
 Paul's argument, whether he uses it as a pro- 
 phecy fulfilled, or merely as a description 
 applicable to his own time. 
 
 a seed."] The Hebrew word rendered in 
 Is. i. 9 " remnant " is not "iSi^ as in the pro- 
 phecy of "Shear-jashub," but l^nb* as in 
 Num. xxi. 35, xxiv. 19, Job xx. 21, &c., 
 which denotes the few who escape and sur- 
 vive. This remnant the LXX regard as 
 
V. 30—33-] 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 ^77 
 
 30 What shall we say then ? 
 That the Gentiles, which followed 
 not after righteousness, have attained 
 to righteousness, even the righteous- 
 ness which is of faith. 
 
 31 But Israel, which followed after 
 the law of righteousness, hath not at- 
 tained to the law of righteousness. 
 
 32 Wherefore ? Because they 
 sought it not by faith, but as it were 
 by the works of the law. For they 
 stumbled at that stumblingstone ; 
 
 33 As it is written, ''Behold, I'is. 8. 14. 
 lay in Sion a stumblingstone and i Pet. 2.6, 
 rock of offence : and whosoever be- 
 lieveth on him shall not be "ashamed. j„2«X'r 
 
 " seed " ((TTre'pfta), from which the nation 
 shall spring up again: compare Hos. li. 23, 
 Is. vi. 13. 
 
 fwe had been as Sodoma.'] " JVe had become 
 as Sodom" where no seed was left (Bengcl). 
 "Here again he points oat another circum- 
 stance, that not even the small remnant es- 
 caped of themselves, but would all have 
 perished, had not God in great mercy saved 
 them by faith " (Chrysost.). 
 
 30. What shall ^ve say thenf'\ What con- 
 clusion shall we draw from this view of God's 
 dealings ? The answer consists of two parts : 
 (i) a statement of facts (30, 31) drawn from 
 the whole preceding discussion in w. 6-29, 
 and expressed as a striking paradox : and (2) 
 a declaration of the cause {jw. 32, 33), by 
 which the paradox in the case of the Jews is 
 explained. 
 
 That the Gentiles, 'which followed not after 
 righteousness, have attained to righteousness, 
 e-ven the righteousness <vjhich is of faith.'\ 
 Read, "That Gentiles, which were not 
 following after righteousness, attained 
 to righteousness, but the righteousness 
 that is of faith." The two strange things 
 are that "Gentiles" attained righteousness, 
 and that they attained it without seeking it 
 (Chrys.). Compare ii. 14: ^^ Gentiles, that 
 have not a law," to quicken the moral sense, 
 are not, like Jews, consciously seeking to 
 obtain righteousness : yet they " attai?ied to 
 righteousness, but the righteous7iess that is of 
 faith." The "but" (Se iii. 22) introduces a 
 special definition, an explanatory modification, 
 by which the paradox is at once solved, so far 
 as the Gentiles are concerned. See Winer, 
 111. §liii. 7, b. 
 
 If here St. Paul " with the fewest w^ords 
 touches the deepest foundation of the matter" 
 ( Kwald), it is because he has already (iii., iv.) 
 fully discussed the nature of that righteous- 
 ness of faith in which the whole solution lies. 
 Observe the thrice-repeated ^'righteousness," 
 as in -u. 3 1 the repetition of " law of right- 
 eousness." The whole passage is framed for 
 pointed efTect. "The hearer is strongly 
 affected by the repetition of the same word, 
 as if a weapon were to pierce the same part 
 of the body again and again." Auctor ad 
 Herenn. iv. 28. (Meyer.) 
 
 31. But Israel, ivhich followed after the law 
 of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of 
 righteousness.'] " But Israel, following after 
 a law of righteousness, did not attain 
 unto a law [of righteousness]." 
 
 What the Gentiles seek not, yet attain, is 
 " righteousness," but what Israel seeks and yet 
 fails to attain is not simply '•'•righteousness" 
 but "« law of righteousness" i.e., a law pro- 
 ducing righteousness, such a rule of moral 
 and relijiious life as could make them right- 
 eous before God, Such " a law of righteous- 
 ness " they strove to find, and some did find, 
 in God's law revealed by Moses (Luke i. 6) : 
 but the mass of the people "did not attain 
 unto a law \of righteousness]." On the 
 reading see the Additional Note. 
 
 32. Wherefore f] The question refers only 
 to the case of Israel (v. 31): why did they 
 not attain to a law of righteousness } With 
 the received Text a Finite Verb (edlcoiav), 
 must be supplied in the answer : " Because 
 they sought it not from faith, but as from 
 works of law. For they stumbled" (b'c. 
 The fact that they stumbled is thus regarded 
 as a proof (from effect to cause) that they 
 did not start from faith in God, but from a 
 reliance on the merit of their own works. 
 Had they started from faith, they would have 
 found a law of righteousness, as the Apostle 
 shows in the next chapter (x. 3-13). 
 
 But omitting yap (with modern editors 
 and Tisch. 8), we must supply a Participle 
 StwKoiTfy, and render thus: "Because seek- 
 ing it not from faith, but as from works, 
 they stumbled," &c. The argument is thus 
 direct and simple. 
 
 In "as of works," "as" indicates the idea 
 which characterised their pursuit of a law of 
 righteousness: they thought to attain to it 
 from works. On this use of ws see Winer, 
 III. § Ixv. 9, and compare 2 Cor. ii. 17. 
 
 they stumbled at that stumblingstone.] " They 
 stumbled against the stone of stumbling." 
 The Articles indicate the well-known " stone 
 of stumbling" of Isaiah viii. 14, where see 
 notes. 
 
 33. As it is written.] Is. xxviii. 16. This 
 is a remarkable example of the freedom with 
 which St. Paul quotes the language of the 
 O T. 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 Both passages as well as Ps. cxviii., were 
 referred by the Jews to Messiah : see refF. in 
 Rosenmiiller on Is. viii. 14, and Schoettgen, 
 ' Horae Heb.', and compare Matt. xxi. 42, 
 Luke ii. 34, i Pet. ii. 6-8. St. Paul by taking 
 the words " stone of stumbling and rock of 
 offence" (Is. viii. 14), and substituting them in 
 
 Is. xxviii. 16, instead of "for a foundation a 
 stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, 
 a sure foundation," has combined both the 
 threat and the promise in one quotation. 
 The best comment is i Pet. ii. 6-8, where the 
 different passages are all quoted separately : 
 see the notes there. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on vv. 5, 6, 8, 15, 17, 19, 31. 
 
 5. A. The reference of the words 6 tov eVt 
 iravTuiv Geo? evXoyrjTOs k. t. X. to Christ is 
 supported by the following considerations: — 
 
 (a) It is the natural and simple con- 
 struction, which every Greek scholar would 
 adopt without hesitation, if no question of 
 doctrine were involved. This cannot be said 
 for any other construction. 
 
 (b) It is suggested by the immediate con- 
 text: thus Meyer, who rejects "the ancient 
 ecclesiastical exposition," candidly confesses 
 that '' the contrast obviously imphed in to Kara 
 aapKa would permit us mentally to supply a 
 TO Kara ivveviia as suggesting itself after 6 (ov. 
 That self-evident negative antithesis — not as 
 concerning the Spirit — would thus have in 6 wv 
 fnl TTcivToiJv Of OS K. r. X. its positive elucidation. 
 Compare i. 3, and the note there on /caret 
 (TupKa, Kara iwevpa ayicjocrvvr]s. 
 
 The true inference fi-om the context is well 
 expressed by Theodoret in Cramer's Catena: 
 "And then last he puts the greatest of 
 their blessings — " and of 'whom is Christ as 
 concernirig the flesh'' And though the addi- 
 tion, " as concerning the flesh," was sufficient 
 to imply (napa8r]\cbcraL) the deity of Christ, 
 yet he adds, " luho is over all, God blessed for 
 ever. Amen" both showing the difference of 
 the natures, and explaining the reasonableness 
 of his lamentation, that though He who is 
 God over all was of them according to the 
 flesh, yet they fell away from this kinship." 
 
 The assertion of Christ's Divine Majesty is 
 thus admirably suited to the purpose of the 
 passage, which is to extol the greatness of the 
 privileges bestowed upon Israel, and so un- 
 happily forfeited. 
 
 (c) The reference to Christ is supported 
 by the unanimous consent of the Ante-Nicene 
 Fathers. See Irenaeus, L. III. c. xvi. § 3 ; Ter- 
 tulhan, 'adv. Praxean,' c. xiii. c. xv.; Hippo- 
 lytus, ' adv. Noetum,' vi. ; Origen, in h. 1. : 
 Cyprian, 'Testimon.' II. 6; Novatian, 'de 
 Trin.' c. xiii. ; Methodius, ' Symeon et Anna,' 
 § I. In the Arian controversies our passage 
 is constantly used by Athanasius: e.g. Or. I. 
 c. Arianos, c. 10, 11, 24. The same inter- 
 pretation is given by Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, 
 Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augus- 
 tine, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria (c. Julian. 
 X.), CEcumenius, Theophylact. 
 
 Against this remarkable consent of Christian 
 antiquity there is nothing to be set of any 
 weight. Cyril puts into the mouth of the 
 Emperor Julian a denial of the reference to 
 Christ, only in order to affirm the true inter- 
 pretation. Tischendorf brings forward two 
 passages of Eusebius of Czesarea, and two of 
 the Pseudo-Ignatius ; but they do not refer 
 to this passage, nor deny that Christ is " God 
 over all " (eVi Trdirci)!/ Geoy), but are directed 
 against the Sabellian heresy which made Him 
 identical with the Father, " the God over all " 
 (6 eVi ivavTu>v Geds). 
 
 Even Socinus admits that the words are 
 applied to Christ. 
 
 The chief objections urged against the an- 
 cient interpretation by modern theologians 
 (Fritzsche, Baur, Ewald, Meyer, &c.) are as 
 follows : 
 
 (i) That St. Paul never applies Geds as a 
 predicate to Christ. 
 
 (2) That to call Christ not simply Geo?, 
 but, as here, eVi -navTinv Geo'?, is absolutely 
 incompatible with the entire view of the 
 N. T. as to the dependence of the Son on the 
 Father. 
 
 (3) That in the genuine Apostolical writ- 
 ings we never meet with a doxology to Christ 
 in the form which is usual with doxologies to 
 God. 
 
 As to (i) see Notes onTit. ii. 1312 Thess. 
 i. 12; cf. 2 Pet. i. I, iii. 18; Usteri, ' Paulin. 
 Lehrbegriff.' p. 309, and Cremer, Lex. Geo?. 
 Even if the fact were as asserted, it would 
 not be conclusive against the application of 
 Geo? to Christ in this passage. For what 
 would be thought of an assertion that St. 
 John could not have applied Geo? to Christ 
 in Joh. i. I, because (as is alleged by Meyer 
 and otliers) he does not elsewhere so apply 
 it ? Compare the Additional Note on iii. 25, 
 Obj". (5), for other examples of usages 
 occurring once only in N. T. 
 
 (2) Bp. Lightfoot, in his profound discus- 
 sion of the Christology of St. Paul (' Ep. to 
 the Colossians,' p. 190), has shown that though 
 St. Paul does not use the term Ao'yo?, his 
 doctrine of the Person of Christ is in sub- 
 stance identical with that of St. John and 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, and is not ade- 
 quately represented by " any conception short 
 
ROMANS. IX. 
 
 179 
 
 of the perfect deity and perfect humanity of 
 
 Christ." 
 
 We may add that " the dependence of the 
 Son on the Father," as expressed in the N. T., 
 (i Cor. viii. 6, xv. 28) might be perfectly 
 reconciled with the statement that He is 
 " God over all," though not with the Sabellian 
 view that He is " the God over all," ue. the 
 same Person as the Father. 
 
 But in fact the title " God over all" (ear- 
 lier English versions) does not occur in this 
 passage, nor apparently anywhere in the LXX 
 or N. T. It is rightly corrected in the A.V. 
 " Who is over all, God blessed for eTer." This 
 follows the exact order of the Greek, agrees 
 with St. Paul's usage in Eph iv. 6, and is the 
 only construction which pn,'serves the two- 
 fold antithesis between Christ's Jewish origin 
 and universal supremacy, and between His 
 Human and Divine natures. 
 
 (3) In urging this third objection, Meyer 
 does not deny that the doxologies in 2 Pet. 
 iii. 18, Heb. xiii. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 18, refer to 
 Christ, but regards this reference as "just one 
 of the traces of post-apostolic composition." 
 Nevertheless his objection is wide of the mark, 
 for o cbv fVt iravTutv Qeos evkoyrjros k. t. X. 
 as applied to Christ is not a doxology at all: 
 but a solemn declaration of Deity, exactly 
 similar in form to 2 Cor. xi. 31: compare 
 Rom. i. 25 : it is remarkable that these two 
 are the only passages, besides the present, 
 in which the combination etiXo-yT^ro? elg tovs 
 alwvas is used by St. Paul, and in neither is it 
 a Doxology, but an assertion respecting the 
 subject of the sentence. (Alford.) The 
 further objection, that fvXnyrjTos is never else- 
 where applied to Christ, but only evXoyrjfxevos 
 (Mat. xxi. 9; xxiii. 39, &:c.), and that 
 evXoyriTos, is only applied to God, and ev^o- 
 yr]txfvos to man, is wholly fallacious. The 
 LXX apply evXoyr^ros to man in Deut. vii. 
 14; Ruth ii. 20; I Sam. xv. 13, and evXoyi]- 
 /Liei/o? to God in i Chr. xvi. 36 ; 2 Chr. ix. 8 ; 
 Ps. Ixxii. 20 ; Ez. iii. 12, and in all these pas- 
 sages the Hebrew word is precisely the same. 
 
 B. 
 
 Most of those who reject the ancient inter- 
 pretation put a full-stop after aapKa (with G 
 and a few other MSS.), and take the wliole 
 clause as a doxology to the Father : " The 
 God who is over all be blessed for ever." 
 
 (1) To this construction it is a fatal objec- 
 tion, that both in the LXX and in N. T., wher- 
 ever evXoyrjTos occurs in a doxology, it stands 
 first, and that necessarily, on account of the 
 emphasis: Ps. Ixviii. 19, is no exception, nor 
 are the other passages quoted by Fritzsche, 
 I Kings X. 9; 2 Chr. ix. 8; Job i. 21 ; Ps. 
 cxiii. 2, in all of which the Verb (e'lr], eVrw, 
 yeVotro) stands first in the sentence, and 
 fvXoyrjixevos, is uscd, not evXoyrjros. 
 
 (2) The participle av is in this construction 
 superfluous and awkward. Moreover 6 &v 
 must naturally be taken as an apposition to 
 the preceding subject (6 Xpio-rds), there being 
 nothing to indicate a departure from this 
 most usual construction, of which see exam- 
 ples in 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Joh. i. 18, and xii. 17. 
 
 (3) The enumeration of Israel's privileges, 
 instead of rising to a climax, would come 
 down at the close into a mere limitation and 
 restriction — "aj concer7iing the flesh!' 
 
 (4) It has been shown in the foot-note that 
 a doxology to the Father is not in harmony 
 with the context. 
 
 In fact, the clause, taken as a doxology, is 
 both in form and sense so tasteless and inap- 
 propriate, that we may confidently say, it waa 
 not so meant by St. Paul. 
 
 Erasmus, who is followed by Reuss, pro- 
 posed to place the stop (as in Cod. 71) after 
 TrdiTwi/, so that the preceding words refer to 
 Christ, and then the doxology to God follows. 
 But how intolerably abrupt is this ! (Meyer.) 
 
 D. 
 
 The conjectural transposition of hv 6 for 
 6 &v is perfectly arbitrary, and has nothing to 
 recommend it. " Was St. Paul likely to affirm 
 that the Jews had an exclusive interest in the 
 One True God, when he had already in this 
 very Epistle (iii. 29) asserted the contrary?" 
 (Middleton.) 
 
 When we review the history of the inter- 
 pretation, it cannot but be regarded as a 
 remarkable fact that every objection urged 
 against the ancient interpretation rests ulti- 
 mately on dogmatic presuppositions, and that 
 every alternative that has been proposed is 
 more or less objectionable both in the form of 
 expression and in the connection of thought 
 
 We fully accept Dean Alford's conclusion, 
 if only we may apply it to the A. V. instead 
 of his rendering " God over all :" " The ren- 
 dering given above is then not only that most 
 agreeable to the usage of the Apostle, but 
 the only one admissible by the rules of gram- 
 mar a7id arrangement. It also admirably 
 suits the context : for having enumerated 
 the historic advantages of the Jewish people, 
 he concludes by stating one which ranks fiar 
 higher than all — that from them sprung, ac- 
 cording to the flesh, He ivho is o-ver all, God 
 blessed for ever." 
 
 6. In this passage (ow yap iravres 01 i^ 
 'itTpm-jK, ovTot IcrparfX) the sense is too clear 
 to be mistaken even in the A. V. C" For they 
 are not all Israel, ivhich are of Israel"), but 
 is much better expressed by the " Five 
 Clergymen," "For not all they which are 
 of Israel, are Israel." Here the emphasis 
 
 M 2 
 
i8o 
 
 ROMANS. IX. 
 
 supplies jn a measure the force of outoi, which 
 means "these as such" (vi hujus termini): it 
 might be rendered here "are therefore Israel." 
 (Peile.) 
 
 The demonstrative pronoun thus empha- 
 tically added repeats and enforces the pre- 
 ceding Subject, limits it emphatically to its 
 previous definition, and makes it stand out in 
 this limitation distinct and separate from all 
 other notions. Compare Gal. iii. 7, 01 « 
 TTLaTecos oiiTOL eia-iv viol 'A^padfj,. The effect 
 is to affirm or deny the identity of the subject 
 aj (bus defined with the predicate : see Bern- 
 hardy, ' Gk. Syntax,' 283; Winer, Part III. 
 § 23, 24; Plato, 'Charmides,' p. 163, C. 
 
 8. In ov ra reKva rfjs aapKos, ravra reKva 
 Ofov, etc., this force of the pronoun has not 
 been rightly expressed in the A. V. : " Tbeji 
 nvhich are the children of the flesh, these are not 
 the children of GodP According to this ren- 
 dering all the children of the flesh seem to be 
 excluded, and the passage has in fact been 
 frequently thus misunderstood ; e. g. " As 
 Ishmael, who was born after the flesh (Gal. 
 iv. 23), i.e. according to the course of nature, 
 was rejected, so also are the children of the 
 flesh ■' (Hodge). To justify this interpreta- 
 tion, Til TiKva Trjs aapKos must be taken in a 
 pregnant sense, " the children of the flesh 
 who are nothing more than children of the 
 flesh." In Gal. iv. 22, 23, 29, this sense is 
 made clear by the distinction made from the 
 first between the one son " born after the 
 flesh" and the other "by promise." Here 
 the Apostle expresses the same truth in a 
 different way, by drawing a distinction be- 
 tween " all that are of Israel," and " Israel " in 
 the true sense of the name, — between the seed 
 of Abraham as a whole, and the promised 
 seed. This form of expression is best suited 
 to the Apostle's purpose of showing how God 
 maintained the principle of election in every 
 stage of the patriarchal and national history. 
 
 The right explanation is given by the Greek 
 Fathers generally, and is well expressed by 
 QCcumenius : ov yap eTj-eidr] rives rtuva (rapKiKii 
 Tov 'A^padfj,, rj8r] Kal TfKva elcn Kar inay- 
 ytXiav. 
 
 15. The A. V. by repeating the same tense, 
 " / luill have mercy" represents correctly the 
 sense both of the Hebrew and of the Greek, 
 in which the tenses, though differing in form, 
 are strictly co-ordinate in sense. Meyer's 
 remark " that the Future denotes the actual 
 compassion fulfilling itself in point of fact, 
 which God promises to show to the persons 
 concerned, towards whom He stands in the 
 mental relation (tXtco, Present) of pity," is 
 grammatically incorrect (Donaldson, ' Greek 
 Gr.' §§ 505, 514; Madvig, §§ 121, 125; Winer, 
 part iii. sect. xli. p. 306, &c. &c.). 
 
 Some think that the emphasis lies on the 
 repeated verb : " My mercy shall be (pure) 
 
 mercy " (Alford), or, " My mercy shall be 
 sure and great " (Dean Jackson, ix. 440). 
 
 But the real emphasis is on the Relative 
 ('whomsoever'), as is apparent in the Greek, 
 where the force of av is thrown on it (Jelf, 
 ' Gr. Gr.' § 428 ; Madvig, § 126). Thus the 
 sense is, "the objects of God's mercy are 
 chosen by that mercy itself, and not by any- 
 thing external to it." This sense is explained 
 in v. 16, and expressly asserted in t. 18, 
 " Therefore hath he mercy on ^vhom he 'will'' 
 
 17. It is important to compare the versions 
 of the passage quoted, Ex. ix. 16, with the 
 original. 
 
 Heb. (literally rendered). " But indeed 
 because of this I made thee stand, because of 
 making thee see my power, and to the intent 
 that my name may be declared in all the 
 earth." 
 
 LXX : Koi eveKev tovtov dierrjpTjdrjs, Iva 
 fvdfi^(t}p.at iv crot rr]v hvvap,iv p.ov, Kal ottcos 
 8iayye\j] to ovo^jlii jjiov fv Trdajj r// y^. 
 
 St. Paul : els avTo tovto e^rjyfipd (re, otto); 
 evdeL^a)p,ai fv ito\ ttjv dvvafxiv fj.ov, k.t.X. 
 
 A. V. (Rom. ix. 17) " Even for this same 
 purpose have I raised thee up, that I might 
 show my power in thee, and that my name 
 might be declared throughout all the earth." 
 
 {a.) The A. V. Ex. ix. 1 6, " Jlnd in very 
 deed for this cause," and St. Paul's els avro 
 roiiTo are more emphatic and precise, and in 
 this agree better with the Heb., than does 
 
 ei>€KeV TOVTOV (LXX). 
 
 (1^.) The margin, "7 have made thee stand" 
 correctly represents ^^J^r'P.i?';!' Hiphil of 
 *lDy, which Fiirst renders, " statuere, stabi- 
 lire; prasficere, constituere; conservare, con- 
 firmare." 
 
 Gesenius wrongly ascribes to it the mean- 
 ing "rouse, stir up," in Neh. vi. 7 (A. V. 
 '■'■appoint"^, and in Dan. xi. 11, 13, where it 
 means " set in array," " constituere aciem." 
 
 The meaning "establish, uphold, preserve" 
 is found in i Ki. xv. 4, 2 Chr. ix. S, Pro v. 
 xxix. 4, and Dan. xi. 14. 
 
 It thus appears that disTrjpr^drjs "thou wast 
 preserved" (LXX) is right in sense, but 
 wrong in substituting the Passive for the 
 Active Voice : as the Active expresses God's 
 agency more directly and emphatically, and 
 so is better suited to St. Paul's purpose of 
 declaring His absolute power, he restores it 
 in f^i]yf ipd ore, " I have raised thee up " as 
 from danger or death. The Compound Verb 
 in the only passage where it is found in the 
 N. T., 1 Cor. vi. 14, and in Job v. ii, 
 aTToAcoXoras' e^eyeipovra els atorijpiav has this 
 signification. 
 
 This sense, " I have raised up," or " pre- 
 served thee," is supported by the LXX 
 8ieTr]p7]6r^s, by a various reading in the Hexa- 
 pla dieTr]pT]<rd are, by Orig. Philocalia c. xxiii. 
 8ieTr]pt']6t] 'tapaio vnip ivhei^eias bwdy^eois ©eov 
 
ROMANS. IX. 
 
 i8i 
 
 by Chrys. in 1. els avro rovro erripelTo, by 
 Onkelos, and the Arabic in Walton's Polyglott 
 (see below), and is admitted by Meyer to be 
 the correct historical interpretation of Ex. ix. 
 1 6. Many other meanings have been in- 
 vented : 
 
 (i.) I have brought thee into existence 
 (Beza). 
 
 (2.) I have brought thee forward and laid 
 this part upon thee (Calvin). 
 
 (3.) I have raised thee to the throne 
 (Glbckler). 
 
 (4.) I have stirred thee up to resistance 
 (Augustine). 
 
 "But" (to use Meyer's words) "these 
 special definitions of the sense make the 
 Apostle say something so entirely di^erefit, 
 both from the original and from the LXX, 
 that they ought to be necessitated by the 
 context; but this is not the case." 
 
 The same criticism condemns Meyer's 
 own artificial interpretation that Paul expands 
 the special sense of the Hebrew word (/. e. 
 " preserved"), to denote the whole appearance 
 of Pharaoh : " I have caused thee to emerge," 
 thy whole historical appearance has been 
 brought about by me, in order that, &c. 
 
 (f.) Instead of " show my power in thee," 
 the Hebrew means " show to thee," lit. " make 
 thee to see my power." The A. V. recognises 
 this true rendering in Ex. ix. 16, by printing 
 " in " in Italics : so all the ancient versions, as 
 represented in Walton's Polyglott ; 
 
 Onkelos : " Sustinui te, ut ostenderem tibi" 
 &c. 
 
 Samar : " Subsistere te feci, ut ostenderem 
 tibi." 
 
 Arab. " Te reser-vavi^ ut ostenderem tibir 
 
 Syr. " Ob id te constitui, ut ostenderem tibi.'^ 
 
 From these remarks, and the notes in this 
 commentary on Ex. ix. 15 and 16, it will be 
 seen that the sense of the whole passage is as 
 follows : " I will spare thee no longer, but 
 smite thee to the heart with all my plagues, 
 that thou mayest know that there is no power 
 like mine (f. 14): for if I had not withheld 
 my hand, but had stretched it out to smite 
 thee and thy people with the pestilence, thou 
 wouldst have been cut off from the earth at 
 once. But indeed I spared and upheld thee, 
 for this very purpose (already declared in 
 v. 14) to show thee my power." 
 
 As Pharaoh is solemnly warned in v. 14 
 that he will be smitten to the heart, in being 
 taught that there is none like God, it is clear 
 that the words "show thee my power" in t-. 
 16, also include the contingency of Pharaoh's 
 continued resistance and destruction, and are 
 used in the same rhetorical sense as we find 
 in Ex. xiv. 4, 18. " And the Egyptians shall 
 know that I am the Lord." Compare Judges 
 viii. 16, I Sam. xiv. 12 : " we will show you a 
 thing," " we will make you to know." A still 
 
 more striking example of this mode of expres- 
 sion is found in Ps. lix. 13:" Consume them 
 in ivrath, consume them, that they may not be ; 
 and let them kno<w that God rideth in Jacob 
 unto the ends of the earth.'' The persons indi- 
 cated are the same throughout, and the 
 Psalmist's meaning is, Let them perish, and in 
 perishing learn God's power. See Delitzsch 
 on the Psalm. 
 
 We thus see that the rendering of the 
 LXX, though grammatically wTong, is not 
 bad in sense : for as Pharaoh did in fact 
 perish in being taught the greatness of God's 
 power, it seemed to the LXX more natural 
 to regard the lesson as taught to others in his 
 person : and this interpretation being equally 
 suitable to St. Paul's argument, is adopted 
 by him, but not without a very significant 
 change. 
 
 i^d.) For "iva fv8ei^a>fj,ai iv croi (LXX) St. 
 Paul writes ottcos ivdel^coiJiai iv aoi . . . /cat 
 OTTCds fitayyeXi; to ovoixa ^ov, k. t. X. The 
 reason is evident. According to the Hebrew- 
 God's first and direct purpose in upholding 
 Pharaoh was "to show him His power;" the 
 secondary purpose, contingent on the fulfil- 
 ment of the former, was " that God's name 
 might be declared in all the earth." The 
 LXX version, " show in thee my power," re- 
 duces the primary purpose to a mere equiva- 
 lent of the secondary, and therefore St. Paul 
 rejects iva and uses oTrcoy in both clafuses : " for 
 this very purpose I upheld thee, that so," &c. 
 This repetition of Sncos is found nowhere else 
 in N. T. 
 
 Hoftn. "St. Paul renders 1-inyn as well 
 as ]Vu7 by ottcos-, to express what God 
 wished in this qjuay to attain." 
 
 Van Hengel, admitting fully that ottcos and 
 "iva are often used indifferently, in other writers 
 as well as in the LXX and N. T., yet main- 
 tains (and proves) that in many passages both 
 of the Classical and Biblical writers there is 
 an unquestionable distinction. Besides Plat. 
 Rep. viii. 566 E, 567 A, and Xen. Mem. IV. 
 iv. 16, cited by Van H., see also Mem. II. i. 
 19, Anab. II. vi. 21, and Kuhner's note. 
 
 In St. Paul's epistles we may notice i Cor. 
 i. 27, where the design embraces two actions 
 one immediate {Iva rii ovra KaTapyrjo-rj), the 
 other contingent on it (ottcos jj-t] Kaux'/o-T/rat 
 naaa crdp^, " that SO no flesh," &c.). 
 
 2 Cor. viii. 13, 14 : tv rw vvu Kaipcoro vfiwv 
 nepiaaevp-a els to eKeivcov vaTepr]p,a iva Kai to 
 eKeivoiv nepiaaevfia els to vpaiv va-Teprjpa, ontos 
 yev-qTUL iVoTT/j. 2 Tliess. i. 12 (similar). 
 
 19. St. Paul seems to have in mind such 
 passages as Wisdom xii. 12: tls yap epel, tc 
 eirnirjcrds ; fj tis dirtcrrr^creTat tw KpLfiari crov ; 
 Job ix. 19 : TLS ovv KpipaTt dvToi) avTHTTrjcreTai ; 
 
 Two cautions are needed. 
 
 1. St. Paul speaks here, not of the primary 
 and spontaneous will of God, iiot of that 
 
l82 
 
 ROMANS. X. 
 
 [v. 1—3. 
 
 which God, of Himself alone, de&ires (6(}i rjim) ; 
 but of the counsel or decree which He so 
 forms as to include and overrule the free 
 action of man (^ov}^T]iJ.a). See Eph. i. 5, 11 : 
 Donaldson's ' New Cratylus,' § 463 ; Plato, 
 • Leges' vi. 769 d, vii. 802, c. 
 
 When €0eXa and (BovXoiJLai, are distinguished, 
 the former means the simple spontaneous will, 
 the latter the conscious and deliberate pur- 
 pose. See Ammonius, ed. Valckn. pp. 31, 70, 
 whose remark has been too hastily rejected. 
 
 2. It is again the event, and not the inter- 
 mediate process, that is in question. Man 
 does resist the will of God (deXrj^a), that 
 primary will, which leads him to repentance, 
 but the event always corresponds with the 
 Divine purpose (/3ovA>7/xa). 
 
 31. The second SLKaioa-vvrjs has considerable 
 authority, especially of Versions and Fathers, 
 but is not found in the earliest Uncials, and is 
 rejected by nearly all critical editors Many 
 good interpreters, however, still consider it in- 
 dispensable in the text; Meyer calls it "the 
 tragic point of the negative counter-state- 
 ment." 
 
 The point of the paradox certainly is that 
 the Jews failed to attain the very thing which 
 they were following after, i. e., " a law of 
 righteousness." If therefore diKaiocriivrjs be 
 not repeated, still vofiov must have the same 
 meaning as in the first clause, " a law " such 
 as they were seeking, and therefore, in fact, 
 "a law of righteousness." 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 5 Tke scriphire sheweth the difference betwixt 
 the righteousness of the lazu, and this of faith, 
 1 1 and that all, both Jew and Gentile, that 
 believe, shall not be confounded, 18 and that 
 the Gentiles shall receive the word and be- 
 lieve. 19 Israel was not ignorant of these 
 things. 
 
 BRETHREN, my heart's desire 
 and prayer to God for Israel 
 is, that they might be saved. 
 
 2 For I bear them record that 
 they have a zeal of God, but not 
 accordina; to know^ledo-e. 
 
 3 lor they being ignorant of 
 
 Chap. X. — The Cause of Israel's 
 Stumbling. 
 
 The subject of this chapter is the fact 
 asserted in ix. 31-33, that Israel failed to 
 attain a law of righteousness because they 
 sought a righteousness dependent on the 
 merit of their own works. But before 
 entering on the painful and invidious task of 
 condemning his own nation, St. Paul renews 
 the assurance of his heartfelt interest in their 
 salvation. 
 
 1. Brethren^ This expression of affection 
 towards his readers is the more appro- 
 priate here because there were many Jewish 
 Christians among them. 
 
 my heart's desire and prayer to God for 
 Israel is, that they might be saved.'] " Aly 
 heart's desire and my supplication to God 
 on their behalf is for salvation." The 
 word (eiSoKt'a) here rendered " desire," and in 
 Phil. i. 15 ^^ good ivill," ii. 13 ^^ good pleasure," 
 means not mere passive benevolence, but an 
 active delight and pleasure, which "when 
 directed to an object not actually existent, 
 but still to be realised, has of course the 
 character of a wish" (Philippi). Compare 
 2 Cor. V. 8 ; i Thess. ii. 8, and Bp. Lightfoot's 
 notes on Philippians. 
 
 For the distinction between " prayer " 
 (jrpoa-evxr]) in general, but addressed to God 
 only, and derja-Ls, a petition for some particular 
 benefit addressed to God or man, see Phil. 
 
 iv. 6, Eph. vi. 18, I Tim. ii. i, v. 5, in all 
 of which passages the A. V. has "supplica- 
 tion." 
 
 "For Israel" is a reading probably due to 
 the commencement of a new chapter in 
 Church Lectionaries: the true reading (aurwi/) 
 shows the close connection with ch. ix. 
 
 In 17 fiev fiSoKia the limiting particle shows 
 that there is already in the Apostle's mind a 
 thought opposed to that which he would 
 desire : this thought is found in -v. 3. 
 
 Van Hengel imagines a different antithesis, 
 " the goodwill of my heart on their behalf, 
 whatever their own perverse will may be." 
 But the slightly emphatic efirjs is due to the 
 distinction between the desire of St. Paul's 
 own heart and his supplication to God. 
 
 2. For I bear them record] The reason of 
 the Apostle's desire and prayer for Israel : he 
 knew their zeal and their want of knowledge, 
 for he had shared largely in both (Acts 
 xxii. 3). 
 
 " Zeal for God," being in itself good, is 
 an encouragement to prayer on their behalf. 
 St. Paul's affection is thus again seen in point- 
 ing first to that which is praiseworthy : see 
 on i. S. 
 
 but not according to kno^vledge^ 'ETrlyvcocris 
 is full and thorough knowledge, not that im- 
 perfect knowledge (yvcoais) which '■'■ puffeth 
 up" (i Cor. viii. i, xiii. 12: compare Rom. 
 i. 28 ; Eph. i. 17). That the zeal of the Jews 
 
V. 4-5-] 
 
 ROMANS. X. 
 
 183 
 
 God's righteousness, and going about 
 to establish their own righteousness, 
 have not submitted themselves unto 
 the righteousness of God. 
 
 4 For Christ is the end of the 
 law for righteousness to every one 
 that believeth. 
 
 5 For Moses describeth the right- 
 
 was without the guidance of this true know- 
 ledge, is shown in the next verse. 
 
 3. For they being ignorant of God's righteous- 
 ness^ "For being ignorant," &c.: '■'■they" 
 being wholly without emphasis, should have 
 a less prominent place in the sentence. 
 
 They were ignorant that the only source 
 of righteousness is God, " ^vho justifieth the 
 ungodly" (iii. 2 1-26 ; iv. 5) : and thus " zeal for 
 Cod" only made them seek to set up and 
 ^^ establish (iii. 31) their oivn righteousness" 
 i. e. the righteousness which they thought 
 they could make valid before God by strict 
 observance of His law (Phil. iii. 9). 
 
 have not submitted themsel'ves unto the right- 
 eousness of God^^ '■'■The righteousness of God" 
 is here presented as His divine ordinance for 
 man's salvation, and in its very essence, as 
 God's righteousness, it involves man's self- 
 renunciation and submission. 
 
 For the Middle sense of vTverayr^a-av com- 
 pare viii. 7, xiii. i ; Heb. xii. 9 ; Jam.es iv. 7 ; 
 I Pet. ii. 13. Read "for bei7ig ignorant of 
 God's righteousness, and seeking to establish 
 their o^wn righteousness, they submitted not 
 unio the righteousness of God." 
 
 4. For Christ is the end of the lawi/] Con- 
 firmation of V. 3. The Jews sought to estab- 
 lish their own righteousness by the Law ; 
 but this was a fatal error, causing them to 
 reject the righteousness of God : for the 
 Law, regarded as a way of attaining to right- 
 eousness before God, is at an end in Christ, 
 and gives place to the righteousness of faith. 
 
 Christ is the end of the Law, as " death is 
 the end of life" (jikos roii (Slov ddvaros : 
 Demosth. 1306, 25). 
 
 This most common and simple meaning of 
 Te'Xos is required by the emphatic contrast 
 between law and faith in the beginning and 
 end of the sentence, and also by the whole 
 context, which describes the righteousness of 
 faith as opposed to the righteousness that is of 
 the law, not as the completion, nor as the aim 
 of the law. 
 
 In this passage it is not grammatically <wrong 
 to render vofiov, without the article, " the 
 Law :" see Introduction, § 9. But it is better 
 to interpret it as " law" in general, the prin- 
 ciple which says " This do, and thou shalt 
 live." In this sense, "law" is abolished in 
 Christ, and the purpose of its abolition is 
 expressed in the words '^for righteousness to 
 every one that belienjeth." 
 
 For other interpretations, see Note at the 
 end of the Chapter. 
 
 for righteousness to every one that believeth^ 
 This is the purpose of the abolition of "law " 
 in Christ. If "law" remained in force as 
 the condition of righteousness, then righteous- 
 ness could not be extended " to every one that 
 believeth," but only to those who were under 
 law and only if they were " doers of law " 
 (ii. 13). 
 
 5-10. Moses bears witness to the 
 Righteousness of Faith. 
 
 5. the righteousness <ivhich is of the laiv^ 
 Read, the righteousness ivhich is of law, and 
 for the various readings of v. 5 see the note 
 at the end of the chapter. 
 
 the man ivhich doeth those things'] " The 
 man nvhich doeth them." 
 
 In Lev. xviii. 5 God says, " Te shall there- 
 fore keep my statutes, and my judgments: •which 
 if a man do, he shall live in them." 
 
 The Septuagint, from which St. Paul quotes 
 the passage exactly, reads in the former part 
 of the verse "2^^ shall therefore keep all my 
 statutes and all my judgments." Thus in the 
 keeping of all " statutes " and ^'■judgments " the 
 Apostle sees a description of " the righteous' 
 ness which is of law," and in the clause 
 " which if a man do " he hnds a condition 
 which cannot be perfectly fulfilled by fallen 
 man, and which therefore condemns one who 
 depends on his own fulfilment of the law for 
 justification before God. 
 
 That this is St. Paul's meaning is clear from 
 the context in vv. 3, 4, and from the whole 
 tenor of this Epistle (ii. 13, iii. 20, &:c.), as 
 well as from the earlier quotation of the same 
 passage in Gal. iii. 12, where the meaning is 
 put beyond doubt by another quotation, 
 " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all 
 things that are ^written in the book of the la<ixj 
 to do them " (Deut. xxvii. 26). 
 
 But in assuming that the condition, '■'■ if a 
 man do them" is impracticable, St. Paul 
 seems exactly to reverse the natural meaning 
 of the words of Moses. Either those words 
 really mean that God's law given to Israel 
 consisted of statutes and judgments which 
 might be kept and by keeping which they 
 should enter into life : or else they are nothing 
 better than an ironical promise based upon an 
 impossible condition. The latter thought 
 cannot be for a moment entertained : for it is 
 God Himself who speaks through Moses, 
 repeating the commandment and the promise 
 twice, and confirming them by the most 
 solemn formula of Di\ ine attestation, " / am 
 
1 84 
 
 ROMANS. X. 
 
 [v. 6—8. 
 
 ••Lev. iS!. eousness which is of the law, '"That 
 
 5. tZUK. 1 ■ t 1 1 • 
 
 20. II. the man which doeth those things 
 '^ ■ ^' "' shall live by them. 
 
 6 But the righteousness which is 
 "Deut. 30. of faith speaketh on this wise, "Say- 
 not in thine heart, Who shall ascend 
 
 into heaven ? (that is, to bring Christ 
 down from above : ) 
 
 7 Or, Who shall descend into the 
 deep ? (that is, to bring up Christ 
 again from the dead.) 
 
 8 But what saith it? ''The word "P™'- 3* 
 
 14. 
 
 tbe Lord." The references to the passage 
 by Ezekiel (xx. 11, 13, 21) and Neheiniah 
 (ix. 13, 29) dearly show that in their view 
 the condition was not impracticable nor the 
 promise unattainable. 
 
 Did then St. Paul misrepresent or mis- 
 understand the passage ? Not St. Paul him- 
 self, but those unbelieving Jews, whose error 
 he was exposing. 
 
 To one who sincerely desired " to do justly, 
 and to lo've w^rry, and to <walk humbly ivith 
 his God" (Mic. vi. 8), "the law," taken in its 
 fulness and in its spirit, was undoubtedly a 
 path of righteousness and life. It was a 
 revelation of God Himself and of His holy 
 will, accompanied by a dispensation full of 
 the means of grace, of pardon, and recon- 
 ciliation for every humble and contrite soul, 
 full also of types and promises leading on to 
 Christ. 
 
 But the Pharisees, and under their guidance 
 the mass of the people, did not thus regard 
 '"'■ the Law.'" to them it was "law" and 
 nothing more, a covenant of works as opposed 
 to a covenant of grace, its promise of life 
 depending on the merit of strict and scrupu- 
 lous obedience. Such a view has only to be 
 pushed to its legitimate conclusion in order 
 to confute itself: and this is what St. Paul 
 does : " If you would attain to righteousness 
 by ' the law' merely as 'law,' then it must 
 be fulfilled to the very letter. Keep all the 
 statutes, and all the judgments fully and 
 perfectly, and then you shall 'find life in 
 them.' " 
 
 St. Paul's method is in fact the same as 
 our Lord's : his answer to those who are 
 seeking " the righteousness ^vbich is cf law" is 
 " This do, and thou shalt live" (Luke x. 28). 
 He reminds them, as it were, that '■'■whosoever 
 shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one 
 point, he is guilty of all " (Ja. ii. 10) : he uses 
 the words of the Law as they were used by 
 those who rejected " the righteousness which is 
 of faith -y he means, as in Gal. iii. 21, that 
 there is no law which simply as law can give 
 life, and therefore no such thing as a " right- 
 eousness 'which is of law." 
 
 6. But the righteousness ^uhich is of faith 
 speaketh on this 'wise^ For a similar personi- 
 fication and self-description of Wisdom, see 
 Prov. i. 20, and Heb. xii. 5. Apart fi-om the 
 figure, the meaning is that Moses thus speaks 
 concerning " the righteousness qjohich is of faith." 
 
 Thus both parts of v. 4 are proved by the 
 testimony of Moses— the impossibility of being 
 justified by law in -y. 5, and the reality and 
 nearness of the righteousness of faith in -vv. 
 6-8. 
 
 But where does St. Paul find "the right- 
 eousness of faith " in the words of Moses ? 
 In Deuteronomy, " the book of Moses, which 
 has been regarded almost as an evangelization 
 of the law" (Jowett). Observe also that in 
 Deut. XXX. 11-14, Moses speaks to those to 
 whom he has previously said in v. 6, " God 
 will circumcise thine heart, . . . to love the 
 Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with 
 all thy soul, that thou may est live ;" that is to 
 say, Moses is speaking to the truly penitent 
 and faithful Israelites. And as St. Paul found 
 " tbe righteousness of faith " in Abraham, who 
 believed God, so here he finds its very essence 
 in one who loves God, and turns to Him with 
 all his heart and soul (Deut. xxx. 6-10). 
 
 Say not in thine heart.'] This is found in Deut. 
 viii. 17, and ix. 4, and is substituted by St. 
 Paul for the one word, "^0 say," in Deut. 
 xxx. 12: "■It is not in hea-ven, that thou shouhlest 
 say [lit. ' to say '], Who shall go up for us to 
 hea-ven, and bring it unto us, that ive may hear 
 it, and do it ? " 
 
 "To say in the heart " is a Hebrew idiom 
 meaning " to think," especially to think per- 
 verse unholy thoughts, which one is ashamed 
 to speak out (Philippi) : compare Deut. 
 XV. 9, xviii. 21 ; Ps. xiv. i ; Matt. xxiv. 48 ; 
 Rev. xviii. 7. 
 
 Moses thus vindicates Gods commandment 
 as not being beyond man's reach, but already 
 brought near and made plain to him: in 
 Baruch iii. 29, similar language is applied to 
 wisdom. 
 
 that is, to bring Christ down.] As Moses 
 forbids the Israelite to say, We want some 
 one to bring God's word down nearer to us, 
 so " tbe righteousness of faith " says to us, 
 "Doubt not that Christ has already come 
 down." 
 
 The words, "from above," are a needless 
 addition in the A. V. : the parenthesis, too, is 
 unnecessary, the citations and comments being 
 clearly distinguished without it. 
 
 7. Or, fVbo shall descend into the deepf\ 
 Deut. xxx. 13 : '■'Neither is it beyond the sea, 
 that thou sbouldest say, Who shall go over the 
 sea for us," (h'c. This is a second figure by 
 
V. 9 — 10-] 
 
 ROMANS. X. 
 
 185 
 
 is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and 
 in thy heart : that is, the word of 
 faith, which we preach ; 
 
 9 That if thou shalt confess with 
 thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt 
 believe in thine heart that God hath 
 
 raised him from the dead, thou shalt 
 be saved. 
 
 10 For with the heart man be- 
 lieveth unto righteousness ; and with 
 the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation. 
 
 which Moses declares that God's command- 
 ment is not inaccessible: but St. Paul, in 
 applying the passage to Christ, brought still 
 nearer to us by the resurrection, changes the 
 idea of crossing the sea into that of going down 
 into "the abyss:" and by "the abyss" he 
 means not the deep of the sea, but the abode 
 of the dead, " the depths of the earth" Ps. 
 Ixxi. 20 : eK TOiv a^vo'TUiv ttjs yrjs naXiv 
 avTjyayes ^e, a passage which seems to have 
 been in St. Pauls mind, and to have suggested 
 the words ajSvcraos and ttciXlv dvayayelv. 
 
 8. But what saith it ?] As if the negative 
 in T. 6 had been joined with Xeyet : " the 
 righteousness which is of faith saith not, Who 
 shall ascend, &c. ? But what saith it ' " 
 
 The njuord is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy 
 heart.l, " And yet what need is there either of 
 long journeys over the land, or of long voyages, 
 for the sake of investigating and seeking out 
 virtue, the roots of which the Creator has laid 
 not at any great distance, but so near, as the 
 wise Lawgiver of the Jews says, ' They are in 
 thy mouth, and in thy heart, and in thy hands,' 
 intimating by these figurative expressions the 
 words, and actions, and designs of men " 
 (Philo, ' The Virtuous is Free,' c. x.). 
 
 St. Paul omits the words " and in thy 
 hands" added to the original by the LXX, 
 and the concluding words of Deut. xxx. 14, 
 " that thou mayest do it," which are less suited 
 to his argument. " The Apostle quotes 
 without regard to verbal exactness, apparently 
 because he is dwelling rather on the truth 
 that he is expounding, than on the words in 
 which it is conveyed, not verifying references 
 by a book, but speaking from the fulness of 
 the heart " (Jowett). 
 
 That is, the ivord of faith, 'which 'vje preach7\ 
 The word that is very nigh, in the mouth and 
 in the heart, is essentially the same as " the 
 cword which speaks of faith" i.e. the gospel 
 which announces '■'■ fuith " as the principle of 
 righteousness. 
 
 " Faith " is not here used in its objective 
 sense (ttj? Tn'o-Teco?) (Gal. i. 23), "the faith," 
 i.e. the Christian faith ; but the article is re- 
 quired by the mention of "faith" in the con- 
 text, and cannot be translated. 
 
 9. That if thou shalt confess.'] The con- 
 tents of '''' the 'word of faith luhich ive preach" 
 are here shown to correspond with the teach- 
 ing of Deuteronomy. The rendering, " for if 
 
 thou shalt believe," makes this proof of cor- 
 respondence more formal, but is not necessary. 
 The correspondence itself lies in the consent 
 of heart and mouth required both by Moses 
 and by the preachers of " the ivord of faith." 
 
 the Lord Jesus.] "That Jesus is Lord": 
 the Vatican MS. gives the same sense in a 
 different form, derived probably from the 
 parallel passages, 1 Cor. xii. 3; Phil. ii. 11, 
 " In this appellation (Jesus the Lord) lies the 
 sum of faith and salvation " (Bengel). The 
 reference to v. 6, " IVbo shall ascend into 
 hea-ven ? that is, to bring Christ donxiti" shows 
 that Jesus is here called Lord, not simply 
 as the exalted Head of the Church (compare 
 Eph. iv. 9-1 1), but as the only-begotten Son 
 of God, '■'■the Lord from heaven" (i Cor. 
 XV. 47). 
 
 that God hath raised him from the dead.] 
 This answers to -v. 7. The Deity of Chri.st, 
 and His resurrection, are the chief objects of 
 justifying faith (i. 4 ; iv. 25; i Cor. xv. 17, 
 &c.). 
 
 10. The mention in Deut. of " mouth" and 
 " heart" having been interpreted by St. Paul 
 of confession and faith, he now shows that 
 this interpretation is in accordance with the 
 general principles of the Christian dispensa- 
 tion, in which belief of the heart and con- 
 fession by the mouth are both required. 
 "Heart" and "mouth," the emphatic words 
 in each sentence, are now placed in their 
 natural order. 
 
 Justification and salvation are here dis- 
 tinguished as in V. 9, where see note. Sal- 
 vation presupposes a continuance of the faith 
 which justifies, and a consequent realisation 
 of the effects of faith, of which confession is 
 one : see Barrow on the Creed, Sermon V. 
 towards the end. 
 
 Looking back upon the whole passage 
 (yv. 5-10) we may ask. Does St. Paul regard 
 the words of Moses as a prediction of the 
 nature of the righteousness of faith to be 
 subsequently revealed ? (Fritzsche, p. 389.) 
 Or does he mean that besides the plain gram- 
 matical and historical sense of the words of 
 Moses, there is also an indirect allegorical 
 and typical sense which foreshadows the 
 subsequent revelation of the righteousness 
 of faith ? (Meyer.) Or does the Apostle 
 merely make a free use of the words of 
 Moses to clothe his own thoughts ? Is there 
 
i86 
 
 ROMANS. X. 
 
 [v. 11—13. 
 
 / Is. 38. 
 16 
 
 1 1 For the scripture saith, -^'Who- 
 soever believeth on him shall not be 
 ashamed. 
 
 12 For there is no difference be- 
 tween the Jew and the Greek : for 
 
 the same Lord over all is rich unto 
 all that call upon him. 
 
 13 ^For whosoever shall call upon ^ Joel 2. 
 the name of the Lord shall be acis 2. 21. 
 
 nothing more than a graceful allusion (Bengel), 
 "a holy and beautiful play of God's Spirit 
 upon the word of the Lord ? " (Philippi, Van 
 Hengel.) 
 
 Better than any of these explanations is the 
 view held by Augustine that the vi^ords of 
 Moses, understood in their true spiritual 
 sense, describe a righteousness which is es- 
 sentially the righteousness of faith ('de Nat. 
 et Gratia,' § 83. 
 
 Moses is in fact describing a religion of the 
 heart : " The Lord thy God luill circumcise thine 
 heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord 
 thy God ivith all thine heart, and nvith all thy 
 soul, that thou mayest live " {y. 6). To one 
 who thus turns with heart and soul to the 
 Lord obedience is easy ; " the ^word is very 
 nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart" 
 This, says St. Paul, is in substance " the <iuord 
 of faith, ivhich <ive preach." 
 
 St. Paul's explanation is not allegorical but 
 spiritual : " it penetrates through the letter of 
 the O. T. to its spirit" (Olshausen), and that 
 is the spirit of the Gospel. 
 
 11-13. The Righteousness of Faith is 
 
 FOR ALL. 
 
 11. On the quotation from Isaiah xxviii. 16, 
 see above ix. 33: by repeating it here St. 
 Paul both confirms the preceding description 
 of " the righteousness ivhich is of faith," and 
 passes on to the further thought that this 
 righteousness is free for all. The statement 
 in Isaiah is unlimited, '■''he that believeth"; 
 and St. Paul by the addition of one word 
 (Trdr) makes it expressly universal, " every 
 one that believeth," and also definite 
 '■'■believeth on him,'^ i. e. on Christ. 
 
 12. The universality thus emphatically given 
 to the statement of Isaiah is now justified on 
 the ground that the condition, " he that 
 believeth," makes no distinction between Jew 
 and Greek (compare iii. 22); and the cause 
 of this unlimited bestowal of blessing is 
 traced to the bounty of its Divine Author. 
 The promise in Isaiah of the " precious corner 
 stone" is Messianic, and therefore really 
 universal, God's mercy in Christ embracing 
 all the nations of the earth. 
 
 for the same Lord over all is rich, <h'c.'\ 
 Rather, "For the same is Lord of all, 
 being rich unto all that call upon him." 
 That Christ, not God the Father, is here 
 called "Lord of all," is clear from v. 9, as 
 
 well as from such passages as ch. xiv. 9, Phil, 
 ii. II, Acts X. 36. 
 
 The universality of justification by faith, 
 which is proved in ch. iii. 30, from the truth 
 that " it is one God," the God both of Jews 
 and Gentiles, who shall justify both, is here 
 in like manner shown from the fact that there 
 is one and the same " Lord of all," who is 
 rich unto all " in grace and salvation which 
 no multitude can exhaust" (Bengel): com- 
 pare I Tim. ii. 5. 
 
 all that call upon him."] In like manner 
 St. Paul designates Christians in i Cor. i. 2 
 as " all that in every place call upon the name 
 of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs ajid ours" 
 compare 2 Tim. ii. 22. 
 
 " That calling on God, whereon salvation 
 depends, is not in words only, but in heart 
 and deed. For what the heart believeth, 
 the mouth confesseth, the hand in deed ful- 
 filleth" (Hugo de S. Vict, quoted by Pusey 
 on Joel, ii. 32). 
 
 13. To '■'■ call upon the Lord" means to 
 worship Him, and therefore, among other 
 things included in true worship, to confess 
 Him with the mouth, as in vv. 9, ig, and the 
 expression thus prepares the way for the 
 Scriptural proof of the statement that " with 
 the mouth confession is made unto salvation" 
 This proof is quoted exactly in the words of 
 the LXX from the great prophecy of the 
 outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Joel ii. 32, 
 " Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord 
 shall be delivered (saved)." The words " all 
 flesh" (Joel ii. 28) show that Gentiles are 
 included in the prophecy. See note on the 
 passage. 
 
 This is one of the strongest passages in 
 favour of addressing prayer to Christ. It is 
 admitted that to " call upon the name of the 
 Lord" means in the original passage to pray 
 to Jehovah as God. 
 
 It is also admitted that the "Lord of all" 
 in -y. 12 is Christ: and that St. Paul refers 
 the word " Lord," which in the original points 
 to God, justly to Christ, whose name is now 
 the very specific object of the Christian 
 calling on the Lord. 
 
 With these admissions there is little real 
 significance left in Meyer's fine-drawn dis- 
 tinction between " <iuorshipping absolutely, as 
 it takes place only in respect of the Father as 
 the One absolute God," and "worship accord- 
 ing to that relativity in the consciousness ot 
 the worshipper, which is conditioned by the 
 
V. 14 — 1 6.] 
 
 ROMANS. X. 
 
 187 
 
 14 How then shall they call on 
 him in whom they have not be- 
 lieved ? and how shall they believe 
 in him of whom they have not 
 heard ? and how shall they hear 
 without a preacher ? 
 
 15 And how shall they preach, 
 except they be sent ? as it is written, 
 
 '^ How beautiful are the feet of them ris- s^- ?• 
 that preach the gospel of peace, and ^ ''^^ 
 bring glad tidings of good things ! 
 
 16 But they have not all obeyed 
 
 relation of Christ to the Father^ whose Son 
 of Hke nature, whose image, partner of the 
 Throne, Mediator and Advocate on the part 
 of men, He is." 
 
 14-21. The Gospel preached to all 
 rejected by israel. 
 
 This passage brings another proof that 
 the fault of Israel's exclusion lies in them- 
 selves. From the nature of the salvation 
 lust described, it follows that the Gospel 
 must be preached to all without distinc- 
 tion. But this very freedom of the offer 
 of salvation to every believer, was a stumb- 
 ling-block to the unbelieving Jews, as the 
 Apostle's experience had often proved (Acts 
 xiii. 45-47, xviii. 6, xxviii, 28). St. Paul, 
 as usual, closely connects this new topic 
 with the preceding context : commenting, 
 as it were, upon the words of Joel, "Every 
 one ^whosoever shall call upon the name of 
 the Lord" he argues first that '■'■ the name 
 of the Lord" to be invoked must be believed, 
 and thereto must be heard, and thereto pro- 
 claimed, and thereto preachers must be sent, 
 according to Isaiah lii. 7 (vv. 14, 15). 
 
 The Gospel being thus preached, if " not 
 all" to wit, not Israel, have obeyed it (-y. 
 16), they have neither the excuse of not 
 having heard {y. 18), nor of not having 
 known that the invitation was to be preached 
 to all nations, but the fault lies in their own 
 perversity {yv. 19-21). 
 
 14. Ho^v then\ Each question in the chain 
 is an argument, the conclusion of which is 
 tacitly assumed, and forms the ground of the 
 next question, e.g. " How can they call upon 
 the Lord unless they believe on Him ? They 
 cannot : therefore they must first believe. 
 How can they believe, if they have not heard ? 
 they cannot :" and so on. 
 
 of njjhom they have not heard^ Rather, 
 "Whom they have not heard:" in Ephes. iv. 21, 
 on the contrary, we ought to read, " if ye have 
 heard of Him.'' Here, as in Eph. ii. 17, the 
 Lord is heard speaking through His messen- 
 gers, as is shown in the next question. 
 
 15. except they be sent ?] By whom ? By 
 the same Lord {y. 13) whose name they 
 proclaim. 
 
 In N. T. the Father ''sends " the Son, and the 
 Son '■'■sends" His Apostles: their mission 
 includes all ministry derived from them. 
 
 Compare Luke ix. 2, x. 1,3; John iv. 38, 
 xvii. 18 ; Acts xxvi. 17 ; i Cor. i. 17. 
 
 St. Paul argues back from effect to cause, 
 through the series of Prayer, Faith, Hearing, 
 Preaching, Sending : thus the last hnk in his 
 argument must be the first in the realisation, 
 from which the rest follow : this one, there- 
 fore, he confinns by the prophetic announce- 
 ment in Isa. lii. 7, of the going forth of 
 the Gospel messengers : " Hoiv beautiful upon 
 the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth 
 good tidings, that publisheth peace ; that bringeth 
 good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation." 
 The prophecy rings with a joy like that 
 which the Apostle himself felt in contem- 
 plating the spread of the Gospel throughout 
 the world. 
 
 St. Paul quotes the passage freely and 
 briefly, omitting what belongs simply to the 
 poetic colouring — " upon the mountains" 
 turns the collective singular, " him that 
 bringeth good tidi7igs," into the plural, and 
 omits the words " that publisheth salvation." 
 
 that preach the gospel of peace, and bring 
 glad tidings of good!'\ Rather, That bring 
 glad tidings of peace, fha-t bring glad tidings 
 of good. The repetition of the same word in 
 the Hebrew, and in the Greek, ought to be 
 preserved in the English translation. See the 
 note at the end of the chapter, and the notes 
 on Isaiah, and compare Nahum i. 15. 
 
 In the foreshortened perspective of pro- 
 phecy the return from the captivity in Baby- 
 lon, to which the passage of Isaiah primarily 
 refers, seems to be coincident with the coming 
 of Messiah, which it symbolises and prepares. 
 The progress of time had shown St. Paul the 
 distinction between the partial or typical and 
 the complete fulfilment which he here rightly 
 affirms. 
 
 " How beautiful are the feet " means simply, 
 " ho<w ^welcome is the coming" 
 
 16. But they have not all obeyed the Gos- 
 pel.'] Rather, "But they did not all 
 obey the glad tidings." 
 
 The messengers were sent, " Isaiah in spirit 
 saw their glad steps " (Bengel) ; God's part 
 was done : But, notwithstanding this, they 
 did not all hearken to and obey (2 Thess. i. 8) 
 the Gospel message. 
 
 The message was addressed to all, but the 
 Jews as a nation (for St. Paul is here speaking 
 of them nationally, not individually) did not 
 
ROMANS. X. 
 
 [v. 17—18. 
 
 ' Is. S3- I- 
 John 12.38. 
 IIGr.//:« 
 he I ring 
 of us, 
 ll'Or, 
 freaching. 
 
 the gospel. For Esaias saith, *Lord, 
 who hath believed "our "report ? 
 
 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, 
 and hearing by the word of God. 
 
 18 But I say, Have they not 
 heard? Yes verily, 'their sound ' i"*- «9 4. 
 went into all the earth, and their 
 words unto the ends of the world. 
 
 submit to the requirement of faith and calling 
 upon the Lord. Some commentators suppose 
 the statement "they did not all obey" to 
 refer to the Gentiles, but this is contrary to 
 the tenor of the whole context : St. Paul is 
 dealing in this chapter with the unbelief of 
 the Jews, not of the Gentiles, and the words 
 which he cites from Isaiah, refer in their 
 primary sense to Israel, as distinguished from 
 Gentiles, and are expressly applied to the 
 Jews by St. John, xii. 38: see the notes on 
 Isai. liii. i. 
 
 For Esaias snitb,'] The disobedience of the 
 Jews was an event foreseen in God's counsel : 
 it was so to be, for Isaiah foretells it : com- 
 pare John xii. 38, ^^Tet they belie'ved not on 
 Htm : that the saying of Esaias the prophet 
 might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, <who 
 hath belie'ved our report ? " 
 
 " Our report,'' literally, " the hearing of us " 
 (Margin), i.e. the message heard from us. The 
 Prophet is lamenting not merely the disbelief 
 of his own age, but, in close connection with 
 the passage above quoted (in which he fore- 
 sees the coming of Him " that publisheth 
 salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God 
 reigneth '') he goes on to speak in the close 
 of ch. lii. of the servant of God, who shall first 
 be abased and then exalted ; and then in ch. 
 liii. I, he sees and mourns over the disbelief of 
 his own message, and the consequent rejection 
 of Messiah. The word " Lord," added here 
 and in the Greek versions of Isai. liii. i, shows 
 the prophet turning to Jehovah, as the sender 
 of the message, to complain of the incredulity 
 with which it is received. The addition is in 
 harmony with the original meaning of the 
 passage, and with St. Paul's comment upon 
 it in v. 17. 
 
 " IVho hath believed?" Instead of saying, 
 with literal accuracy, " How few ?" the Pro- 
 phet, followed by the Apostle, overlooks the 
 few faithful ones in his passionate grief over 
 the mass of unbelievers. 
 
 17. by hearing'] Rather, "from hearing." 
 
 Again, as in v. 14, St. Paul comments on 
 the words quoted, and from the question, 
 " Who hath believed the message heard from 
 us?" draws a confirmation of his argument in 
 w. 14, 15, for the necessary dependence of 
 faith upon the hearing and preaching of the 
 Gospel. He thus brings out more clearly 
 the ground of the objection which follows in 
 V. 18. 
 
 ^'■Hearing" must mean, as m v. 16, "the 
 message heard," and this comes from the 
 
 message sent, which is "The ivord of God'' 
 {pijfia Geov). This last expression, there- 
 fore, does not mean precisely " God's bid- 
 ding," His command to the preachers to go 
 forth, a meaning for which Meyer appeals 
 to Luke iii. 2, iv. 4, v. 5 ; Heb. i. 3, xi. 3 ; 
 but the message with which they are sent 
 from God, and which of course implies the 
 sending spoken of in v. 15. Compare John 
 iii. 34; " He ivhom God hath sent speaketh the 
 words of God'' ; and John xvii. 8: "/ have 
 given unto them the words nvhich thou gavest 
 me] and they have received them, and have 
 knonvn surely that I came out from thee, and they 
 have believed that thou didst send me." " The 
 words of God" {pinxarci) prove the sending. 
 
 In the passage of Isaiah, " our report," i.e. 
 the message heard from us, includes both the 
 hearing and preaching of v. 14, and there- 
 fore preaching, though not expressly named, 
 is implied in the sequence /«;>/.>, hearing, the 
 word of God. This view is confirmed by v. 
 18, where the question, "Have they (the 
 hearers') not heard ?" is answered by " their 
 sound {the preachers') went forth." 
 
 The sending of the preachers by God is 
 derived from the quotation not as an inference 
 " from the mere address ' Lord,' which is only 
 added by LXX, but rather from the whole 
 attitude of the Prophet as the servant and 
 ambassador of God, speaking by His word or 
 command " (Meyer). On the various reading 
 " word of Christ " see note at end. ♦ 
 
 18. But I say,] After showing generally 
 what was necessary in order that man might 
 believe, the Apostle now inquires into the 
 possible excuses that might be made for the 
 unbelief of the Jews, and refutes them from 
 their own scriptures. 
 
 Have they not heard?] Better, "Is it that 
 they did not hear!" The form ot the 
 question in Greek shows at once that the 
 excuse cannot be admitted: " Surely the mes- 
 sage did not remain unheard by them ?" 
 (Meyer). 
 
 Tes verily^ Rather, "Nay verily:" see 
 ix. 20. The answer corrects the suggestion 
 " that they did fiot hear," by asserting that the 
 Gospel has been preached in all the world. 
 This asserdon the Apostle clothes in the words 
 of Ps. xix. 4. In the Psalm " their sound" is the 
 voice of nature, the silent witness with which 
 " the heavens declare the glory of God, and 
 the firmament sheweth his ha'idy^vork." Tlic 
 Psalmist compares this universal revelation of 
 
V. 19 — 2 J,] 
 
 ROMANS. X. 
 
 189 
 
 19 But I say, Did not Israel sought me not; I was made mani- 
 fDcut.si. know ? thirst Moses saith, "I will fest unto them that asked not after 
 ^'' provoke you to jealousy by them that me. 
 
 ^r^ no people, ^«^ by a foolish nation 21 But to Israel he saith, ^-AlP^^-^s-a 
 
 I will aneer you. day long I have stretched forth my 
 
 20 But Esaias is very bold, and hands unto a disobedient and gain- 
 saith, "^I was found of them that saying people. 
 
 »Is. 65. I. 
 
 God in His works {-vv. 1-6) with His spe- 
 cial revelation of Himself in His word (vv. 
 7-1 1) ; and the Apostle catches the very spirit 
 of the Psalmist when he uses his words to 
 describe how " the sound" of the preachers of 
 the Gospel " is gone out into nil the earth, and 
 their words into the ends of the world.'' The 
 poetical language thus borrowed from the 
 Psalm must"^ not, of course, be pressed with 
 literal exactness; its use was justified by the 
 great extent to which the Gospel had already 
 been diffused throughout the world, and every- 
 where addressed to the Jews first. At the 
 date of this Epistle, the Gospel had been 
 preached almost in every place where a 
 settled body of Jews were living, so that even 
 those of the Dispersion had not the excuse of 
 not having heard it. 
 
 19-21. Another possible excuse suggested, 
 and refuted by Scripture. 
 
 19. But I say,'] Observe the "emphatic 
 conformity " (Meyer) gained by repeating the 
 words, " But I say'' from -u. 18. 
 
 Observe also how in the increasing urgency 
 and closeness of the question St. Paul ex- 
 pressly nam.es " Israel," whom he had meant 
 in f . 16, " they have not all obeyed the Gospel." 
 In the right order of the Greek words (Tis- 
 cheJ^dorf 8), "Israel" is emphatic. 
 
 Did not Israel know ?] R ather, "Didlsrael 
 not knowV " VVasitthatthey heard, but did 
 not perceive the meaning of the things spoken ? " 
 (Chrysostom). Did they not understand that 
 the message of salvation was to be sent to 
 every nation, and that the Gentiles would re- 
 ceive it gladly ? They knew this from the 
 very beginning, for the first to declare it 
 (TrpwTo?) is Mcses himself. 
 
 In the song of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 21) the 
 voice of God is heard declaring that as Israel 
 had moved Him to jealousy by worshipping 
 that which is "not God,'' so He on His part 
 will make them jealous by showing favour to 
 them which are " no-people," i.e. to those who 
 were not included in the special covenant by 
 which God had made Israel His own people 
 (Ex. xix. 6 ; Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2). 
 
 Both the figure and language of Moses are 
 repeated by Hosea (i. 9, ii. 2, 23). Compare 
 c. ix. 25 ; I Pet. ii. 10. 
 
 by them that are no people^ Rather, 
 
 "against that whicli is no people." The 
 quotation is from the LXX, who have neg- 
 lected the distinction in the Hebrew between 
 '''■people " and " nation ;" this is rightly restored 
 in the A. V. 
 
 Since " the people of God" alone answers to 
 the true idea of a "people," any " nation " that 
 knows not God contradicts this idea and is a 
 " not people" (Lo-ammi). St. Paul makes the 
 application more direct and personal by chang- 
 ing " I W)ill provoke them" into "" I w>ill provoke 
 you.'" See Notes on Deut. xxxii. 21. 
 
 and by a foolish nation^ Rather, against 
 a nation void of understanding: i.e. I 
 will stir you to anger by taking into my favour 
 those who have hitherto shown their foolish- 
 ness by worshipping idols of wood and stone. 
 
 St. Paul rightly regards the Divine warning 
 uttered by Moses as intended for every age of 
 Israel's history, and therefore applies it to the 
 acceptance of the Gospel by Greeks and 
 Romans and other idolatrous Gentiles in his 
 own day: comp. i. 21. 
 
 20. But Esaias is -very bold.'] Rather, "But 
 Esaias breaks out boldly." The quota- 
 tion is from Isaiah Ixv. .1 : " i am sought of 
 them that asked not for me : I am found of them 
 that sought me not" 
 
 St. Paul retains the words of the LXX, but 
 inverts the order of the parallel clauses, thereby 
 bringing into greater prominence that one 
 which more clearly expresses the reception of 
 the Gentiles, " / was found of them that sought 
 me not.'' That the original passage in its primary 
 sense refers to the Heathen, and not (as 
 Meyer and others assert) to the Jews, 
 seems clear from comparing the words, ""a 
 nation that was not called by my name " 
 (Ixv. i) with Ixiii. 19, "We are thine: thou 
 never barest rule over them : they <ivere not called 
 by thy name'' [See this Commentary on the 
 passage.] The tenses cannot in Isaiah refer to 
 events already past, as no Heathen nation had 
 then been brought in : they aie the usual 
 tenses of prophecy, anticipating its fulfilment, 
 which in St. Paul's day was already an accom- 
 plished fact. 
 
 " Asked not after me^' i.e. who inquired not 
 of me, but of other gods. Compare Num. 
 xxvii. 21; Josh. ix. 14; Jud. i. i; xx. 18; 
 Isaiah viii. 19 ; xix. 3. 
 
 21. But to Israel,'] " But in reference to 
 
190 
 
 ROMANS. XI. 
 
 [v. X— 2. 
 
 Israel," or more briefly, " But of Israel." On 
 this use of Trpos see Luke xx. 19, '■'■against," 
 ratiier "concerning," and Heb. i. 8, "unto 
 the Son," rather, "of the Son." 
 
 The direct address to Israel does not begin 
 till Isa. Ixv. 7. 
 
 " he saith^^ namely, Isaiah speaking in God's 
 name. 
 
 " All day long I have stretched forth my 
 hands." "All the day long I have spread 
 
 out my hands." It is a picture of " the ever- 
 lasting arms " spread open in unwearied love : 
 St. Paul again changes the order, giving more 
 emphasis to the words "all the day long," 
 which express God's patience and long-sutier- 
 ing towards His own people (Xaw), though 
 they persist in disobeying and refusing His 
 invitations. 
 
 The idea of the whole chapter is briefly 
 summed up in these last words. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on vv. 4, 15, 17. 
 
 4. Besides the meaning of reXos given in 
 the foot-note, two other senses have been 
 ascribed to it; (i) completion, (2) aim. 
 
 (i) " Christ is the completion (perfectio) ot 
 the law, and Christ is righteousness: — and he 
 who receives not Christ, cannot complete 
 even that righteousness which is of the law." 
 (Origen: Cyril, T7Xi]pcofxa; Erasmus, " per- 
 fectio ;'' Calvin, " complementum ;" Calovius, 
 " Christ's fulfilment and satisfaction of the 
 law by His active and passive obedience." 
 
 But this sense of completion is wrongly 
 ascribed to reXos even in i Tim. i. 5, and Ja. 
 V. 11: as to Luke xxii. 37, compare Mark 
 iii. 26. 
 
 (2) " This then was the end of the law, and 
 to this all looked, the feasts, and the ordin- 
 ances, and the sacrifices, that man might be 
 justified. " But this end Christ accomplished 
 in a greater way through faith .... so that if 
 you beUeve H im, you have also fulfilled the law 
 even much more fully than it commanded, for 
 you have received a much greater righteous- 
 ness" (Chrysostom, Gennadius). 
 
 This sense of re'Xo? is found in i Pet. i. 9, 
 and I Tim. i. 5 ; it has also been explained in 
 another way, as follows : 
 
 "The law was given for this purpose to 
 lead us by the hand to another righteous- 
 ness : yea, in all that the law teaches, enjoins, 
 or promises, it always has Christ for its aim" 
 (Calvin, following Theodoret, Cyril, &c.). 
 
 All these interpretations are inconsistent 
 with the context, which sets " the righteousness 
 ■ivhich is of law " in direct opposition to " the 
 righteousness ^ivhich is of faith T 
 
 15. The omission of the former clause, rSi' 
 evayyeXi^ofjLei'av flprjprjv, is approved by Lach- 
 mann, Tisch. 8, and Tregelles; but Meyer 
 regards it as a copyist's error of a very usual 
 kind. An interpolator would have taken the 
 words of the LXX aKorjv elprjvrjs, not elpTjvrjv. 
 
 Moreover, the genuineness of elprjv-qv is con- 
 firmed by St. Paul's allusions to the same 
 passage in Eph. ii. 17, /cat e\6av ivrj-yyfX'nraTo 
 elpr]vr]v, and in Eph. vi. 15, ev eroiixaaia tov 
 evayyeAi'oi; rrjs eLpr]vr]s. 
 
 17. The various reading Sta pr]p.aTos Xpurrov 
 has about equal weight of authority, and is 
 preferred by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and 
 Tregelles. But Meyer, De Wette, Lange, 
 Philippi, <&c., agree in regarding it as a gloss 
 intended to define more precisely the meanaig 
 of Siu prjjiaTos Qiox). 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 1 God hath not cast off all Israel. 7 Sotne 
 were elected, though the rest were hardened. 
 16 There is hope of their conversion. 18 
 The Gentiles may not insicU upon them : 26 
 for there is a promise of their salvation. 33 
 God's judgments are itiisearchable. 
 
 I 
 
 SAY then, Hath God cast away 
 his people ? God forbid. For 
 I also am an Israelite, of the seed of 
 Abraham, ythe tribe of Benjamin. 
 
 2 God hath not cast away his 
 people which he foreknew. Wot ye 
 
 Chap. XI. — The Restoration. 
 
 1. I say then. Hath God cast ai-vay his people ?] 
 A third question, corresponding to those in 
 X. 18, 19, but expressed as an inference from 
 what has just been said of Israel's disobe- 
 dience — an inference, however, which is only 
 brought forward to be at once rejected, as tlie 
 very form of the question (/x»;) shows — "Surely 
 
 God has not cast off His people ?" Can it be 
 that the reception of the Gentiles means that 
 Israel is cast off and excluded from the pro- 
 mised salvation ? Can God have dealt thus 
 with His own people ? That very title antici- 
 pated the answer, " for the Lord will not fail 
 his people, neither will he forsake his inherit- 
 ance " (Ps. xciv. 14): compare i Sam. xii. 22. 
 On the expression, " God forbid," see iii. 4. 
 
V. 3-5] 
 
 ROMANS. XI. 
 
 191 
 
 " t Kings 
 19. 14. " 
 
 not what the scripture saith of Elias ? 
 how he maketh intercession to God 
 against Israel, saying, 
 
 3 '^Lord, they have killed thy pro- 
 phets, and digged down thine altars ; 
 and I am left alone, and they seek 
 my life. 
 
 4 But what saith the answer of God 
 
 unto him ? '^I have reserved to myself *i King- 
 seven thousand men, who have not '^' ' ' 
 bowed the knee to the image o/'Baal. 
 
 5 Even so then at this present 
 time also there is a remnant accord- 
 ino; to the election of g-race. 
 
 It is not a denial followed by its proof, but an 
 earnest deprecation explained by its moti've : 
 " For I also am an Israelite." No true Israelite 
 could bear the thought that God had cast 
 away His people: and St. Paul, in feeling as 
 in blood, was a very Hebrew of the Hebrews, 
 " of the seed of Abraham,^' and not a mere prose- 
 lyte, — " of the tribe of Benjamin^,'' which alone 
 with Judah formed the core of the Theocracy 
 at the division of the kingdom and after the 
 captivity : compare Phil. iii. 5. 
 
 2. The direct denial here follows, and is 
 strengthened by the further description of 
 Israel as Gods ^''people <which he foreknenu''' 
 
 The subject of the whole chapter from 
 •y. I is the national destiny of the Jews. This 
 forbids us to limit God's "people ^whom he 
 foreknenx}" to a spiritual Israel, foreknown 
 and predestined to be saved through their 
 reception of the Gospel. 
 
 The true meaning is that Israel the nation 
 — '■'■all IsraeV {y. 26) — is God's "people 
 <whicb he forekne^'' as his people: His people, 
 therefore, Israel still is, and must be for ever ; it 
 cannot have been cast away, "for the gifts and 
 calling of Gcd are 'without repentance '' (v. 29). 
 
 Wot ye not <what the scripture saith of Elias ?] 
 Rather, "Or know ye not what the scrip- 
 ture saith in [the history of] Elias?" 
 
 On the introductory phrase, "Or know ye 
 not," see vi. 16: it means here, You must 
 admit that " God has not cast aavay his people,^' 
 or else you must be strangely ignorant of what 
 the Scripture says in proof of this in another 
 similar case. 
 
 "In Elias." Elias is here the name of the 
 Parashah, or section of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures, concerning Elias. These sections were 
 originally denoted not by numbers, but by a 
 brief description of the contents : thus Philo 
 Jud. 'de Agricultura Noachi ' xxiv., "in the 
 curses " (Gen. iii. 1 5) ; Raschi on Ps. ii., " as is 
 said in Abner " (2 Sam. ii. 8 ff.) ; and on 
 Hos. ix. 9, "in the concubine" (Jud. xix.) ; 
 Berachoth f. 2, c. i, " in Michael" (Is. vi. 6) 
 f. 4, c. 2, "in Gabriel" (Dan. ix. 21). 
 
 maketh intercession to God against Israel, 
 saying, Lord, (^V.] Rather, pleadeth with 
 God against Israel: Lord, &c. "Interces- 
 sion " is never against, but always on behalf of 
 some one. 
 
 3. The passage is quoted freely from i Ki. 
 
 xix. 10 and 14: for the particulars see the 
 Notes there given in this Commentary. 
 
 The assumption that Elijah means, " I am 
 left alone of the prophets ," is inconsistent with 
 the context, which certainly does not speak of 
 seven thousand />ro/>/?i'^j, butof seven thousand 
 faithful worshippers of Jehovah : so Theo- 
 doret. There is thus no diversity between 
 Elijah's meaning and St. Paul's application of 
 his words. 
 
 4. the ans<wer of God] The Greek word 
 (;;^pj7/xaTtcr/xo?) thus rightly rendered means a 
 " communication," either from man (2 Mace. 
 xi. 17), or from God (2 Mace. ii. 4). Here it 
 is the answer made by the " still small voice." 
 
 I have reserved to myself] Rather, " I have 
 left for myself." I have caused a remnant 
 (v. 5) to remain. 
 
 The passage in its original context (i Kings 
 xix. 18) stands in connexion with the future 
 chastisements which Israel was to suffer by 
 the agency of Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha: but 
 amid this destruction of the disobedient, " / 
 have left," God says, or rather, as in the 
 margin, "/ <iy/7/ leave," ^^ seven thousand," i.e. 
 I have in my purpose already determined not 
 to destroy them with the disobedient. St. 
 Paul brings the passage into immediate con- 
 nexion with the Prophet's lament that he is 
 left alone : there were, unknown to him, 
 many true worshippers of Jehovah, whom 
 God would leave as a remnant, when the 
 wicked should perish. 
 
 " seven thousand " is to be regarded as a 
 round number. There is nothing in the 
 Hebrew corresponding to the words "for 
 myself {k}x.avTu>), which St. Paul adds to bring 
 out more emphatically the thought that the 
 remnant is preserved by God Himself for His 
 own gracious purpose. The way is thus 
 prepared for the mention of an " election of 
 grace " in -y. 5. 
 
 ivho have not bowed the knee to the image of 
 Baal.] Rather, which have not bowed 
 knee to Baal. The Apostle gives here a 
 free paraphrase, and brings into prominence 
 the characteristic of the remnant preserved : 
 they are men that (olrives) never bowed knee 
 to Baal. 
 
 On the feminine rfj BaaX, see notes on Jud. 
 ii. 13, X. 6; I Sam. vii. 4; Hos. ii. 8, 10, 15, 
 and Jeremiah, passim. 
 
192 
 
 ROMANS. XL 
 
 [v. 6—8. 
 
 6 And if by grace, then is it no 
 more of works : otherwise grace is 
 no more grace. But if it be of 
 works, then is it no more grace : 
 otherwise work is no more work. 
 
 7 What then ? Israel hath not 
 obtained that which he seeketh for ; 
 
 but the election hath obtained it, and 
 the rest "were blinded. 
 
 8 (According as it is written, 
 '^God hath given them the spirit of " is- 29- 10. 
 "slumber, '^eyes that they should not „tJrse^' 
 see, and ears that they should not "^ ^^" *"' ^' 
 hear;) unto this day. 
 
 II Or, /tard- 
 ened. 
 
 5. Even so then at this present time also there 
 is a remnant according to the election of grace ^ 
 The Greek word (Kaipos-) denotes the 
 character of a time, and St. Paul likens his 
 own time to Elijah's, because each was a 
 season of general but not universal apostasy 
 and unbelief in Israel. The resemblance of 
 the times shows that God is dealing with 
 Israel upon the same principles ; and so from 
 the Divine answer to Elijah the Apostle draws 
 the inference [ovv) that in his time also God 
 has left a remnant /or himself in other words, 
 '■'there has come to be {yiyovev) a remnant 
 according to a,n election" not of merit, but 
 " of graced 
 
 The existence of this " remnant " of believing 
 Jews is the proof that God has not rejected 
 His people as a people (-u. 2). 
 
 6. And if by grace, then is it no more ofzvorks: 
 other-Lvise grace is no more grace.'] Rather, 
 ^"■And if by grace, it is no more of ^uorks: 
 since otherwise the grace becomes no 
 longer grace." The negative as well as the 
 positive side of the election of grace is essen- 
 tial to the inference which St. Paul draws in 
 the next verse : for Israel seeks to obtain 
 " of 'works'" that which is not of works: com- 
 pare ix. 32. "The grace" presupposed in 
 the election of the remnant excludes all 
 dependence upon works, for otherwise it 
 ceases to be ''grace" at all, losing its proper 
 character as the opposite of merit. 
 
 The latter part of the verse, " But if it be 
 of ivorks," (b'c, is rightly omitted in most 
 critical texts. 
 
 7. ^Vhat then .?] What conclusion as to 
 the present state of Israel must be drawn from 
 the truths just stated ? 
 
 Israel hath not obtained that avhich he seek- 
 eth for.] Rather,"What Israel is seeking 
 after, that obtained lie not." Israel, the 
 mass of the people, has been and still is seeking 
 after righteousness, the very thing that he has 
 failed to obtain. St. Paul does not stay to 
 define the object which Israel seeks, nor to 
 state that he sought it not aright, because this 
 has been done before in ix. 32 and x. 3, and 
 the principles asserted in those passages have 
 just been most emphatically repeated in v. 6. 
 
 It is thus made clear that the believing 
 Jews are saved, like the Gentiles, " by grace 
 through faith " (Eph. ii. 8), and that " the rest 
 
 <ivere hardened," not because God had 
 
 " rejected his people," but because they sought 
 to establish their own righteousness by works, 
 and "submitted not unto the righteousness 
 of God" (y.. 3). 
 
 the election.] The Abstract Noun gives 
 precision of thought, as well as vivacity and 
 force of expression: "the elect as elect" 
 (Bengel). 
 
 were blinded.] Rather, "were hardened." 
 Compare 2 Gor.iii. 14, and see note on Mark iii. 
 5, and at the end of this chapter. That God is 
 here regarded as the author of the hardening, 
 is clear from the Scripture proof that follows, 
 
 8. St, Paul now shows that the hardening 
 of Israel against the Gospel is in accordance 
 with the testimony of Moses concerning 
 their hardening in his day, and with Isaiah's 
 prophecy of the continuance of this harden- 
 ing. Compare Isaiah vi. 9, 10. 
 
 Two passages are in the Apostle's mind : 
 Isaiah xxix. 9, 10 : " They are drunken, but not 
 nuith wme ; they stagger, but not with strong 
 drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you 
 the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your 
 eyes": and Deut. xxix. 4: '^ Tet the Lord 
 HATH NOT GIVEN YOU an heart to perceive, 
 ami EYES TO SEE, AND EARS TO HEAR, 
 UNTO THIS DAY." 
 
 The quotation is evidently taken from the 
 latter passage, with the expression " the spirit 
 of slumber," adopted from Isaiah, and a cor- 
 responding change in the position of the 
 negative, on which see below. 
 
 The words " imto this day" are part of the 
 quotation from Deuteronomy, and are not to 
 be directly connected with v. 7 : the brackets 
 of A. V. must therefore be omitted. 
 
 the spirit of slwnber,] Meyer understands 
 by this " a spirit which causes stupefaction, 
 which is obviously a daemonic spirit." But 
 such expressions as " the spirit of heaviness" 
 (Is. Ixi. 3), " a spirit of meekness" (i Cor. iv. 
 2i), " the spirit of bondage" (c. viii. 15) show 
 that "spirit" is used for the pervading ten- 
 dency and tone of mind, the special character 
 of which is denoted by the Genitive which 
 follows. 
 
 Though it is true that this " spirit of 
 slumber" is the result of a "reciprocal pro- 
 cess between man's unbelief and God's judg- 
 ments" (Lange), yet in this passage St. Paul 
 
V. 9— II-] 
 
 ROMANS. XL 
 
 193 
 
 Ps. 69. 
 
 / Ps. 69. 
 
 33- 
 
 9 
 
 table 
 
 And David saith, 'Let their 
 be made a snare, and a trap, 
 and a stumbling-block, and a recom- 
 pence unto them : 
 
 10 /Let their eyes be darkened. 
 
 that they may not see, and bow 
 down their back alway. 
 
 II I say then. Have they stum- 
 bled that they should fall ? God 
 forbid : but rather throug-h their fall 
 
 speaks only of the judicial hardening, and 
 ascribes this even more expressly than do the 
 original passages to God's will and purpose, 
 by turning the words " the Lord hath not 
 given you . . . eyes to see " into the stronger 
 statement, " God hath given them . . . eyes that 
 they should not see." Observe also that the 
 Apostle already had this stronger form of ex- 
 pression before his mind in the quotation 
 which follows from Ps. Ixix. 23, 24. 
 
 slumber,'} The Hebrew word in Is. xxix. 
 10, means "a deep sleep," such as fell on 
 Adam, Gen. ii. 21, on Abraham, Gen. xv. 12, 
 on Saul's attendants, i Sam. xxvi. 12 : com- 
 pare Job iv. 13, xxxiii. 15, Prov. xix. 15. 
 
 The Greek word (/carai/w^etoy) might have 
 been applied, like the verb from which it is 
 derived, to any piercing and overpowering 
 stroke, as of remorse (Acts ii. 37), grief, pain, 
 or fear ; but it is in fact used only to denote 
 stupefaction, in this passage of Isaiah and in 
 Ps. Ix. 3 " the wine of astonishment." 
 
 9, 10. And David saithJ] On the author- 
 ship of Ps. Ixix. see note in this commentary. 
 We may add that besides this Psalm (cited 
 here and in Acts i. 20), only the ii., xvi., xxxii., 
 and ex. are expressly ascribed to David in 
 N. T., and the authorship of these is hardly 
 to be questioned. Ps. xcv., quoted in Heb. 
 iv. 7, is less certain, and the form of citation 
 " saying in David," does not necessarily mean 
 more than "saying in the Book of Psalms:" 
 see introductory note on Ps. xcv. 
 
 Let their table be made a snare,} For the 
 full interpretation of the passage, see notes on 
 the Psalm, and at the end of this chapter. 
 The Psalmist, in the bitterness of a soul 
 wrought almost to madness by the cruelty of 
 his enemies, calls for just vengeance upon 
 them : let their prosperity and false peace be 
 a snare and a trap, to keep them in blindness 
 and in bondage for ever. St. Paul uses the 
 passage, not merely as an illustration, but as 
 a typical Prophecy of the retribution which 
 had fallen upon the Jews for their cruel 
 rejection of the Messiah. 
 
 The " table" spread for a feast is a natural 
 emblem of the prosperity and careless ease 
 by which the heart is ensnared " as a wild 
 beast grasps at food, and falls into a trap." 
 
 10. On the " darkening of the eyes" as a 
 figure of the spiritual blindness denounced 
 upon Israel, see Isaiah vi. 9, 10, and the 
 notes there. Fritzsche's view, followed by 
 
 Godet, that this judicial blindness was the 
 cause, not the consequence, of the rejection of 
 Christ, is inconsistent with the position of 
 the passage in the Psalm, and the order of 
 ideas there, and especially with the word 
 " recompense" or " retribution " {v. 9), which 
 St. Paul adopts from the LXX, giving it at 
 the same time a more emphatic place at the 
 end of the sentence. 
 
 And boiv do^ivn their back akvay.} St. 
 Paul throughout this verse follows the LXX 
 exactly: the ffebrew is rendered literally in 
 the A. v., " make their loins continually to 
 shake." The shaking ofthe loins is a symptom 
 of weakness and terror (Nahum ii, 10; Dan. v. 
 6), tor which the LXX substitute the corres- 
 ponding symptom, the bowing down or bend- 
 ing together of the back. 
 
 These figurative expressions, when applied 
 to the Jews, denote spiritual blindness and 
 hopeless dejection. 
 
 11-15. After alleging the fulfilment of pro- 
 phecy in the hardening of the Jews, St. Paul 
 now shows that the purpose of this Divine 
 retribution is not the final rejection of Israel, 
 but the reconciliation of the world. Their 
 rejection has been shown to he partial: it will 
 also be temporary. 
 
 11. Have they stumbled that they should 
 fall?} Better, "Did they stumble in order 
 that they might fall? 
 
 The two ideas " to stumble " and " to fall " 
 form a natural climax in which the emphasis 
 rests on the latter. 
 
 Both words are used figuratively ; the 
 former of a moral offence or stumbling, as in 
 James ii. 10, iii. 2, the particular ofience here 
 meant being disbelief of Christ, for ^'' they 
 stumbled at that stumbling stone" ix. 32 : while 
 the latter word expresses the consequent fall 
 fi-om God's favour into a state of condemna- 
 tion and ruin : compare Heb. iv. 1 1 and James 
 V. 12. The meaning then of the verse is 
 briefly this: "The Jews stumbled at Christ: 
 is that stumbling destined in the Divine pur- 
 pose to end in their fall ? " 
 
 The form of the question in the Greek {j^i]) 
 implies the negative answer which follows, 
 " Far be it," or " God forbid." 
 
 but rather through their fall salvation is 
 come unto the Gentiles.} Better, — "But by 
 their oifence the salvation is come to 
 the Gentiles." The stumbling of the Jews 
 
 N 
 
194 
 
 ROMANS. XL 
 
 [v. 12 14. 
 
 HOr, cfe- 
 eny, or, 
 loss. 
 
 salvation is come unto the Gentiles, 
 for to provoke them to jealousy. 
 
 12 Now if the fall of them be the 
 riches of the world, and the "di- 
 minishing of them the riches of the 
 Gentiles j how much more their ful- 
 
 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, 
 inasmuch as I am the apostle of the 
 Gentiles, I magnify mine office ; 
 
 14 If by any means I may pro- 
 voke to emulation them which are 
 my flesh, and might save some of 
 them. 
 
 is here called "their offence," the word 
 being the same that is used so often in ch. v. 
 15 ff. The rejection by the Jews of the 
 salvation offered to them in Christ, and the 
 increasing violence of their opposition, had in 
 fact greatly promoted the preaching of the 
 Gospel among the Gentiles (Acts viii. 4, 
 xi. 19) and its consequent acceptance by 
 them. In St. Paul's own experience this had 
 been the case at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 
 45-48), it was to be so again at Rome itself 
 (Acts xxviii. 28). In this fact he recognises 
 the fulfilment of the Divine purpose foretold in 
 the passage of Deuteronomy already called to 
 mind in x /g. The transfer of God's favour 
 to the Gentiles, thus caused by the perversity 
 of the Jews, was destined, in His gracious 
 purpose, to provoke the jealousy and so to 
 rekindle the love of His ancient people; their 
 recovery and not their fall was His aim. 
 But what a prospect is thus opened ! 
 
 12. Nonu if the fall of them be the riches of 
 the 'vjorld^ Rather, " But if their oifence 
 be the riches of the ^iuorld" If even the trans- 
 gression of the chosen people has brought 
 salvation to the Gentiles, and if their loss or 
 diminution has thus been " the riches of the 
 nvorld'' how much more shall the promise 
 of blessing to all nations be fulfilled in their 
 restoration and fulness when " all Israel shall 
 be saved" v. 26. 
 
 This hope, that the final restoration of 
 Israel shall be a source of great joy and bless- 
 ing to the world, is here inferred from the 
 nature of the case, that the better cause must 
 be followed by the happier effect : but it is 
 already contained in that prophetic song of 
 Moses, which St. Paul has quoted in x. 19, and 
 which he quotes again in xv. 10 " Rejoice, ye 
 Gentiles, ivith his peojtle." 
 
 the diminishing of them^ The contrast 
 throughout is not between the elect remnant 
 and the rest who were hardened, but between 
 Israel as a nation and the rest of the world. 
 Viewed thus, as a whole, Israel has stumbled 
 but not fallen, has been hardened but in part, 
 has suffered loss and diminution by the un- 
 belief of some, but shall be restored to its 
 full complement, when ^'' the Deliverer shall 
 come out of Zion, and shall turn away ungodli- 
 ness from Jacob," "v. 26. 
 
 their fulness?] I.e. their full complement, 
 
 as a nation no longer diminished by the loss of 
 a large portion, but forming again one entire 
 people. See note at the end on the meaning 
 of the Greek words rJTrrjfjLa and TrXiypw/xa. 
 
 13. St. Paul now turns to his readers, ad- 
 dressing them collectively as Gentiles, and 
 tries to impart to them some of his own warm 
 interest in the welfare of the Jews. 
 
 From this point to the end of v. 32 the 
 Apostle combines the hope of the restoration 
 of the Jews with warnings to the Gentiles 
 against presuming on their present advan- 
 tages. 
 
 For I speak to you Gentiles,'] But to you 
 Gentiles I am speaking. This clause 
 should be separated from the following by a 
 colon : St. Paul first draws the attention of 
 his readers to the tact that he is speaking to 
 them, as being Gentiles, of that which closely 
 concerns their welfare, namely, the future 
 restoration of Israel. 
 
 It is rightly inferred from this passage that 
 the Roman Christians were for the most 
 part Gentiles : see Introduction, § 7. 
 
 inasmuch as 1 am the apostle of the Gentiles, 
 I magnify mine office:] Rather, "In so far, 
 therefore, as I am an Apostle of the 
 Gentiles, I glorify my ministry." 
 
 On the various readings see note at the 
 end. In the words "In so far as I am an 
 Apostle of the Gentiles," St. Paul with his 
 usual delicate courtesy and perfect mastery 
 of Greek, implies that this is but one part 
 (fi.eV) of his ministry, chosen as he was to 
 bear Christ's name " before Gentiles and kings 
 and the children of Israel." But since the 
 Gentile world is so deeply interested in the 
 restoration of Israel, it follows (therefore) 
 that even in his special relation to the Gen- 
 tiles, when labouring most zealously for them 
 and claiming full liberty and authority for 
 himself as their Apostle, he still has in view the 
 salvation of Israel as inseparably connected 
 with the blessing of all the nations of the 
 world. 
 
 14. If by any means I may provoke to emula- 
 tion them <which are my fleshy Rather, '■'' If by 
 any means I may provoke to jealousy mine 
 own flesh and ra.zy save some of them." The 
 word "jealousy" should be adopted as in 
 1;. II and X. 19; St. Paul retains the same 
 word {jrapa^rjkwcrai) throughout. 
 
V. 15—^7-1 
 
 ROMANS. XI. 
 
 195 
 
 15 For if the casting away of 16 For if the firstfruit ^^ holy, the 
 
 them be the reconciling of the world, lump is also holy : and if the root be 
 
 what shall the receiving of them be^ holy, so are the branches, 
 
 but life from the dead ? 17 And if some of the branches 
 
 It maybe admitted that the introduction of 
 a different English word, " emulation" brings 
 out another shade of meaning, included in the 
 Greek, and quite appropriate here ; but this 
 advantage is very small in comparison with 
 the disadvantage of obscuring the connexion 
 with 1;. 1 1 and with the original prophecy in 
 Deut. xxxii. 16, 21. With the expression of 
 warm affection "mine own flesh," compare 
 ix. 3, where the Singular Pronoun " mine" 
 not " our," implies what is here expressly 
 stated, that the readers are Gentiles. 
 
 St. Paul's sense of the difficulty of per- 
 suading his fellow-countrymen is apparent in 
 the modest phrase " some of them ; '' com- 
 pare I Cor. ix. 22. (Meyer.) 
 
 15. The reason of the Apostle's hope that 
 he " may save some " is given in an argument 
 a fortiori (compare -v. 12) based upon the 
 contrast between the rejection of Israel and 
 their future readmission to God's favour. 
 If in casting off the greater portion of His 
 ancient people because of their unbelief 
 God found an occasion of reconciling the 
 world unto Himself, how much greater 
 blessing may be looked for when He shall 
 receive them again as His own ! What will 
 that reception be but '■'■ life from the dead?" 
 
 This expression is not to be understood 
 of a moral or spiritual resurrection, for 
 that is already included as a necessary con- 
 sequence in the reconciliation of the world 
 and the restoration of Israel. Nor is it to be 
 limited, as by Theodoret and other Greek 
 Fathers, to the resurrection of the body. 
 It is a figurative expression which may 
 denote either (i) an increase of spiritual 
 fervour and blessing in the whole Church 
 of Christ on earth, so great and wonderful 
 as to be comparable to a resurrection 
 from the dead; or (2) the new life of the 
 world to come, the final development and 
 p;lorious consummation of the kingdom of 
 Christ. That blessed state, not only in its 
 first stage, — the resurrection of the body — 
 but in its whole character, as compared with 
 the world that now is, will be a " life from 
 the dead." The " ne'w heavens and the neiv 
 earth, 'wherein dwelleth righteousness" will 
 spring as it were from the ashes of a dead 
 world into everlasting life. 
 
 The former view is the simpler and the 
 more probable, because it does not pass be- 
 yond the bounds of the present context. 
 
 16. " After the Apostle has disclosed his 
 prospect of the glorious results of Israel's 
 
 conversion, he returns to the grounds for 
 the hope of this conversion itself" (Lange). 
 Rather, St. Paul passes on (be) to a further 
 argument for the restoration of the Jews, 
 namely, that it is in accordance with the 
 original consecration of the race. 
 
 For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also 
 holy ; and if the root be holy, so are the branches. \ 
 Rather, "If, too, the first fruit be holy, so 
 also is tlie lump: and if -the root be holy, so 
 also are the branches." 
 
 The first figure is taken from Num. xv. 
 19-21, where " the first of the dough " is "the 
 first-fruit of the lump" (^(mapxh (pvfja- 
 jxaTos), a portion set aside from the kneading 
 to make a cake for a heave-offering (Neh. 
 X. 37). The first-fruit thus offered to the 
 Lord imparted its consecration to the whole 
 mass which it was taken to represent. In the 
 second figure, instead of a legal ordinance we 
 have a natural process, the branch deriving 
 its properties from the root. 
 
 In the interpretation of both figures the 
 fundamental thought is certainly the same, 
 that all Israel has been consecrated to God 
 by the consecration of its "first-Jrutt " and its 
 " root." But what are these ? 
 
 (i) Both figures represent the Patriarchs, 
 especially Abraham. (Ghrysostom, and the 
 majority of ancient and modern interpreters.) 
 
 (2) " I know no other root that is holy, no 
 holy first-fruit, but our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 (Origen.) 
 
 (3) " He calls the Lord Christ according 
 to His human nature ' the first-fi-uit,' and 
 the patriarch Abraham the root." (Theo- 
 doret and others.) 
 
 (4) The Jews who formed the Mother 
 Church are " the first-fruit," and " the root" 
 also, as some think. 
 
 It is clear that neither Christ nor the 
 Christian Church can be "the root" from 
 which " the natural branches " were broken 
 off: for these branches, the Jews who re- 
 jected Christ, never belonged to such a root. 
 The branches being tlie Jews, the root can 
 only be Abraham and the Patriarchs : com- 
 pare 1;. 28, and ix. 5. 
 
 This interpretation is further confirmed by 
 the fact that St. Paul's figure of the olive tree, 
 with its root and branches, is derived from 
 the Old Testament, where it is applied to the 
 Theocracy or Jewish Church. Of this 
 Jeremiah writes, xi. 16: ^^The Lord calL-d 
 thy name, A green orfve tree, fair, and of goodly 
 fruit ; with the noise of a great tumult {Ji,e, iX 
 
 N 2 
 
196 
 
 ROMANS. XI. 
 
 [v. 18 — 19. 
 
 II Or, for 
 them. 
 
 be broksn ofF, and thou, being a wild 
 olive tree, wert graffed in "among 
 them, and with them partakest of 
 the root and fatness of the olive tree \ 
 18 Boast not against the branches. 
 
 But if thou boast, thou bearest not 
 the root, but the root thee. 
 
 19 Thou wilt say then, The 
 branches were broken ofF, that I 
 might be grafFed in. 
 
 thunderstorm) he hath kindled fire upon it, 
 and the branches of it are broken." Of this also 
 Hosea says (xiv. 6) : " His branches shall spread., 
 and his beauty shall be as the olive tree." 
 
 The holiness derived from '' the Fathers " 
 to their children was not inward moral holi- 
 ness, but consecration to God by virtue of 
 His choice of Abraham and his seed, declared 
 by the word of promise and confirmed by 
 the covenant of circumcision: compare i 
 Cor. vii. 14. 
 
 In the first figure of the dough made holy 
 by the offering of its first-fruit, no other kind 
 of holiness can possibly be thought of but 
 this legal and relative holiness of what has 
 been consecrated to God. With so much 
 identity of thought, combined with the paral- 
 lelism of form, it is impossible to give totally 
 different applications to the two figures, as is 
 done by making the first-fruit Christ or the 
 Christian Church, and Abraham the root. 
 The usual interpretation (1) is alone ad- 
 missible. 
 
 17-24. St. Paul carries on the second 
 figure of the root and the branches, because 
 it admits of a distinction between one branch 
 and another, and so can be applied, collec- 
 tively or individually, to believers and un- 
 believers, to Jews and also to Gentiles. In his 
 application of the figure to the present posi- 
 tion both of Jews and Gentiles, the Apostle 
 finds a warning to the latter against boasting 
 and unbehef (17-22), and a fresh argument 
 for the restoration of the Jews (23, 24). 
 
 17. And if some of the branches be broken off, 
 and thou, being a ivild olive tree, ivert graffed 
 in among them, and -ivith them partakest of 
 the root and fatness of the olive tree. ^ Rather, 
 "But if some of the branches were broken off, 
 and thou, being a 'wild olive, -WASt graffed in 
 among them, and wast made partaker of 
 the root and fatness of the olive tree.'' The 
 Church of God being regarded as one and the 
 same in all ages, having Abraham for its root 
 and his children for its " natural branches^'' it 
 follows that " some of the branches ivere broken 
 off," when the unbelieving Jews by rejecting 
 Christ ceased to belong to the true people of 
 God. Extending his allegory to the Gentile 
 world, St. Paul compares it to " a ivild oltve 
 tree," unfruitful in itself, but supplying grafts 
 to be inserted into the good olive tree and en- 
 riched by its fatness : such a graft of ivild 
 olive is the individual reader. 
 
 Grafting of the wild shoot on the fruitful 
 
 stock is the reverse of the common method ; 
 and though sometimes practised, it was not 
 intended to fertilise the wild olive, but to 
 give fresh vigour to the fruitful stock, as is 
 clear from Palladius : 
 
 " Foecundat sterilis pingues oleaster olivas, 
 Et quffi non novit munera ferre, docet." 
 
 The grafting of the good olive upon the 
 wild is mentioned by Aristotle, ' de Plantis/ 
 I. vi. 4, "EfTTt Se KOL ciXXos efx(f)vWi(Tfj.6s (v 
 aXXois dLa<p6poLs yivecnv, cos KaWUXaios fis 
 dypteXniov. 
 
 St. Paul's words do not correspond exactly 
 to either practice : he seems rather to have 
 shaped his allegory to correspond to the facts 
 which he wished to represent, viz., that the 
 Gentiles had been enriched by admission to 
 the privileges which some of God's ancient 
 people had forfeited through unbelief, v. 18. 
 These facts forbid boasting, and rather sup- 
 ply a warnmg to the Gentiles : and by sin- 
 gling out, as it were, one of his readers and 
 addressing him personally, the Apostle both 
 makes the warning more emphatic, and 
 excludes all boasting against the Jews by 
 reminding the Gentiles that they are not the 
 original Church of Christ, but members 
 adopted into it one by one : " But if thou 
 dost boast, it is not thou that bearest 
 the root, but the root thee." 
 
 This passage shows that St. Paul recog- 
 nised as fully as any of the original Apostles 
 the dependence of all Gentile churches upon 
 the one Church of Christ which had grown 
 out of the root of Israel. 
 
 19. One ground of boasting having been 
 excluded in v. 18, another may be sought: 
 " Thou luilt say then. Branches were broken 
 off, in order that I might be graffed in." 
 
 St. Paul has just said that the rejection of 
 the Jews was, in fact, the enriching of the 
 Gentiles ; but it would be arrogant and selfish 
 to assr.me, as in this supposed reply, that the 
 advantage of the Gentiles was the direct and 
 sole cause of God's casting away any of His 
 people. The selfishness is indicated in the 
 emphatic " I." 
 
 The absence of the article before 
 "branches" brings out the point, that they 
 who were broken off to make room were 
 original "branches;" their essential cha- 
 racter thus indicated makes the fact that they 
 were broken off more remarkable. 
 
V. 20- 
 
 -24.J 
 
 ROMANS. Xr. 
 
 97 
 
 20 Well ; because of unbelief they 
 were broken off, and thou standest by 
 faith. Be not highminded, but fear : 
 
 21 For if God spared not the 
 natural branches, take heed lest he 
 also spare not thee. 
 
 22 Behold therefore the goodness 
 and severity of God : on them which 
 
 fell, severity; but toward thee, good- 
 ness, if thou continue in his goodness : 
 otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 
 
 23 And they also, if they abide 
 not still in unbelief, shall be grafFed 
 in : for God is able to graff them in 
 again. 
 
 24 For if thou wert cut out of the 
 
 20. Well-\ A form of partial and often 
 ironical assent : here the fact, and the pur- 
 pose which it was made to serve, being both 
 admitted, St. Paul goes on to correct a false in- 
 ference fi-om Israel's rejection by indicating its 
 principal and direct cause : " Because q/their 
 unbelief they 'were broken off, and by thy fait b 
 thou standest." Their rejection thus viewed 
 in its true cause, namely, "their unbelief" 
 gives no occasion for boasting that thou art 
 preferred to them, but is rather a solemn 
 warning to hold fast " thj faith" as the con- 
 dition on which alone " thou standest " safe in 
 thy place as a branch on the tree. Therefore 
 " be not highminded " because of thy privilege, 
 but rather be the more afraid of falling, as 
 they have fallen. 
 
 21. Enforcement of the warning : if not- 
 withstanding their greater privilege " God 
 spared not the natural branches " when they 
 sinned, much more reason hast thou to fear 
 that He will not spare thee, who art only one 
 of the adopted branches. The reader ad- 
 dressed in the Singular is throughout the 
 representative of the Gentiles. 
 
 take heed lest he also spare not thee.'] Read, 
 •'neither will he spare thee." The 
 shorter reading (omitting ixrjncos) is now ge- 
 nerally accepted. The variations may have 
 sprung from a wish to soften the stern note of 
 warning. But even in the reading followed 
 by the A. V. the future indicative points to a 
 real danger : " neither, it is to be feared, will 
 he spare thee." 
 
 22. Behold therefore the goodness, (&*<•.] 
 ^'■Behold therefore goodness and severity 
 in G-od: on them 'which fell, severity ; but on 
 thee God's goodness, if thou continue in his 
 goodness: since otherwise thou also shalt be 
 cut off." The general meaning of the verse is 
 not affected by the slight variations of the text. 
 The way to continue in God's goodness (or 
 in His '■'■ grace" Acts xiii. 43) is to " continue 
 in the fait h^'' Col. i. 23, not turning away in 
 unbelief from the mercy .bestowed. 'Fhe 
 Apostle with masterly skill sets both sides of 
 the case at once before his readers, that 
 "goodness and severity" seen side by 
 side may stir both love and fear. 
 
 23. And they also, if they abide not still in 
 
 unbelief i3'c7\ Rather, "And they more- 
 over if they continue not in their un- 
 belief," &c. A new thought is here brought 
 in to check any false presumption based upon 
 the rejection of the Jews. That rejection is 
 not absolute and tinal : if their unbelief cease, 
 as it may cease, they shall be restored to their 
 former position. Unlikely as such a con- 
 version may seem, it is not impossible : " for 
 God is able to graff them in again." Why 
 does St. Paul thus appeal to the power of 
 God ? Various answers are given. 
 
 (rt) To show that the only hindrance is 
 Israel's unbelief, there being no lack of power 
 on God's side. (Grotius.) 
 
 (b) To meet the difficulty suggested by 
 the figure : " When branches are broken 
 from a tree, they wither and cannot be re- 
 placed. Paul therefore here refers to the 
 power of God. What is not done in nature, 
 and cannot be effected by the power of man, 
 will be done by God, with whom all things 
 are possible." (Haldane.) 
 
 The former answer is inadequate : St. Paul's 
 custom is to appeal to the power of God only 
 for that which lies beyond the usual course of 
 His providence. See iv. 21, ix. 22, xiv. 4, &c. 
 
 The latter answer errs by pressing the figure 
 too far, and so bringing in a thought inconsis- 
 tent with the context ; for in the next verse 
 St. Paul argues that the branches which have 
 been broken off are more likely to be restored 
 than the strange shoot to be graffed in. 
 
 Quite apai-t from the figure of the olive tree 
 and its branches, the difficulty of Israel's 
 restoration is the thouglit that burdens the 
 Apostle's mind throughout this portion of the 
 Epistle ; so that, after affirming the possibility 
 of that restoration, it is most natural for him 
 to point to the ground of that possibility in 
 the almighty power which is able not merely 
 to restore Israel, if the hindrance of their un- 
 belief is removed, but able also to remove that 
 unbelief itself The interpretation of the 
 passage does not call for any metaphysical 
 discussion of the relation of God's power to 
 man's free will : for St. Paul passes at once to 
 a simply practical illustration of the Divine 
 power in the conversion of the Gentiles. 
 
 24. For if thou luert cut out of the olive tree 
 which is wild by nature.^ and ivcrt graffed 
 
198 
 
 ROMANS. XI. 
 
 [v. 25. 
 
 olive tree which is wild by nature, 
 and wert giaffed contrary to nature 
 into a 2;ood olive tree : how much 
 more shall these, which be the 
 natural branches^ be grafFed into their 
 own olive tree ? 
 
 25 For I would not, brethren, that 
 ye should be ignorant of this mys- 
 tery, lest ye should be wise in your 
 own conceits; that "blindness in J0^ 
 part is happened to Israel, until the 
 fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 
 
 contrary to nature into a good oli've tree f] Ra- 
 ther, "For if thou wast cut off from thy 
 native wild olive tree, and graffed con- 
 trary to nature into a good olive tree." 
 
 " The simple meaning of this verse is that 
 the future restoration of the Jews is in itself a. 
 more probable event than had been the intro- 
 duction of the Gentiles into the Church of 
 God. This of course supposes that God re- 
 garded the Jews, on account of their relation 
 to Him, with peculiar favour, and that there 
 is still something in their relation to the an- 
 cient servants of God and His covenant with 
 them, which causes them to be regarded with 
 special interest." (Hodge.) 
 
 25-27. The future conversion of Israel 
 having been proved to be both possible and 
 probable, is now shown to be the subject of 
 direct revelation. What follows is thus a 
 confirmation of the hope expressed in -y. 24: 
 — " they shall be graffed in" — -for I have some- 
 thing more to make known to you on this 
 subject. The phrase, " / would net that ye 
 should be ignorant^' addressed, as it always is, 
 by St. Paul to his " brethren^'' indicates (as in 
 1. I 3 ; I Cor. X. I, xii. i ; 2 Cor. i. 8 ; i Thess. 
 iv. 13) the Apostle's anxiety to draw special 
 attention to some important truth. 
 
 The word " mysteries " denotes in classical 
 Greek certain secret religious ceremonies to 
 which only the initiated were admitted. From 
 the ancient traditions and interpretations con- 
 nected with these ceremonies, and invested 
 with the same secrecy, the word " mystery " 
 easily acquired the sense, which it bears in the 
 Septuagint, "a secret." Thus in Dan. ii. 18, 
 19, <Scc., it is the "secret" of the king's dream, 
 which none can make known but God, 6 
 a-noKaKvTTT(£iv /xv(7rj';pta. Compare Job xi. 6 ; 
 Wisdom ii. 22, '■'•As for the mysteries of God, 
 they kneiv them not : neither hoped they for the 
 ivages of righteousness, nor discerned a rewiard 
 for blameless souls.''' In Ecclesiasticus xxii. 22, 
 xxvii. 16, &c., aTTOKoKvTTTeu' p,viJTi]pt.a is " /o 
 disclose secrets.^' Bp. Lightfoot (on Col. i. 27) 
 says that " the idea of secrecy or reserve dis- 
 appears when fjLvaTTipicv is adopted into the 
 Christian vocabulary by St. Paid, and the word 
 signifies simply a truth which was once hid- 
 den but now is revealed." But in the Gos- 
 pels the idea of secrecy or reserve is evidently 
 retained (Matt. xiii. 1 1 ; Mark iv. 1 1 ; Luke 
 viii. 10), and the word is applied only to the 
 things of the kingdom of heaven which under 
 
 the veil of parables were made known to those 
 who were ready to believe, but remained still 
 hidden from the unenlightened. 
 
 In a similar sense St. Paul applies the word 
 to " divine secrets," truths unknown till God 
 reveals them (i Cor. iv. i ; xiii. 2 ; xiv, 2 ; xv. 
 
 Thus the divine purpose of salvation 
 preached to the Gentile Church at Corinth 
 is called the " 'wisdom of God in a mystery^' 
 i.e. a divine secret, a truth which none could 
 know till God revealed it (i Cor. ii. 7, 10). 
 
 The meaning of the word in the passage 
 before us is best illustrated by its use in Eph. 
 i. 9, iii. 4, where God's purpose to redeem all 
 nations, and gather together in one all things 
 in Christ, is called '■'•the mystery of His will,'' 
 and " the mystery of Christ," because in other 
 ages it was not made known as it was revealed 
 to the Apostles. 
 
 The same purpose of redemption here 
 I'ienved in its special relation to Israel — i.e. 
 God's plan of making the obduracy of Israel 
 subservient to the salvation of the Gentiles — 
 is " this mystery " revealed to St. Paul, and by 
 him made known to his readers, lest they 
 should attribute it to their own superior wis- 
 dom that they had accepted what Israel had 
 refused, and so " be avise in their o-iun con- 
 ceits." This shows that the " brethren " ad- 
 dressed are Gentiles. 
 
 that blindness in part is happened to Israel^ 
 Rather, "That hardening has come 
 in part upon Israel." Compare above 
 v. 7 and Mark iii. 5 ; Eph. iv. 18. St. Paul 
 joins ano fxipovs usually with a verb (2 Cor. 
 i. 14, ii. 5; Rom. xv. 15, 24). 
 
 The hardening is not universal, but only 
 " in part," because the " remnant according to 
 the election of grace " is not at!"ected by it 
 {y. 7) : " some of the branches " only have 
 been broken off {y. 17). Nor is the hard- 
 ening final: it is to continue " until the 
 fulness of the Gentiles'' {i.e. their full number 
 or complement, as of the Jews in v. 12) 
 "shall have come in," into that com- 
 munity of the people of God, signified by 
 the good olive tree, into which some of them 
 have been already engrafted. On '■'■fulness " 
 (jr'Xqpoiij.a), see Note on -i;. 12 at the end of 
 the chapter. 
 
 The time thus indicated by St. Paul seems 
 to be the same to which our Lord's words 
 point : Jerusalem shall be trodden doivn of 
 
V. 26—28.] 
 
 ROMANS. XI. 
 
 99 
 
 26 And so all Israel shall be saved : 27 For this is my covenant unto 
 
 *'J'-59- as it is written, •«■ There shall come out them, when I shall take away their 
 
 of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn sins, 
 
 away ungodliness from Jacob : 28 As concerning the gospel, they 
 
 the Gentiles^ until the times of the Gentiles be 
 fulfilled (Luke xxi. 24). 
 
 26. And so all Israel shall be saved :~\ The 
 A. V. rightly makes this the beginning of a 
 new sentence, thereby giving greater promin- 
 ence to a distinct and important prophecy. 
 " And so " refers to the preceding sentence 
 marking the coming in of the Gentiles as the 
 condition upon which will follow the salvation 
 of Israel. 
 
 As the antithesis of " the Gentiles " and 
 " Israel" forbids us to interpret the latter of 
 a spiritual Israel (" the Israel of God," Gal. vi.) 
 including " the whole people oi God " (Calvin), 
 so the expression " all Israel " being quite 
 unlimited must neither be narrowed down to 
 " the remnant according to election of grace" 
 (f. 7), by which the Apostle means the 
 believing Jews of his own day, nor to " the 
 many thousands of Je^vos ivhich believe" men- 
 tioned in Acts xxi. 20, nor to the whole 
 number of those who shall individually from 
 time to time, even unto the end of the world, 
 be turned to the Lord (Melanchthon). 
 Neither on the other hand must the univer- 
 sality of the expression be exaggerated so as to 
 mean the whole nation <ivithoiit any individual 
 exception. The words must be taken in their 
 natural unexr.ggerated sense as in i Kings 
 xii. 1, 2 Ghr. xii. i ; Dan. ix. 11 ; thus fore- 
 telling a future conversion of the Jews, so 
 universal that the separation into an ^'' elect 
 remnant" and " the rest 'who 'were hardened" 
 shall disappear, and the whole nation " shall 
 he saved" i. e. be made partakers through 
 faith in Jesus Christ of the long-promised 
 salvation. 
 
 The passage in this its natural interpreta- 
 tion has no reference to the conclusions 
 which some have sought to draw from it 
 (i), that all men shall at last be saved 
 eternally, and (2) that the Jewish Theocracy 
 with its Temple, Priesthood, and earthly 
 kingdom shall be re-established in Jerusalem. 
 " Israel does not take in the Church, but the 
 Church takes in Israel " (Meyer). 
 
 as it is written,'] It is very possible that 
 study of ancient prophecies may have been 
 one mode in which St. Paul, like Daniel 
 (ix. 2, 21, 22), was prepared to receive a 
 revelation of the future destiny of Israel. 
 "We must not, however, suppose that he here 
 quotes Is. lix. 20, 21, as the source of his own 
 prediction, but only as a confirmation of the 
 latter part of it, " all Israel shall be saved." 
 The mystery which had been revealed to him 
 
 by the Spirit (i Cor. ii. 10) he perceives to 
 have been indicated long before in the words 
 of Isaiah, " There shall come a Redeoner 
 (Goel) for Zion, and for them that turn 
 from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord " 
 (Hebrew literally rendered): LXX, "There 
 shall come for Zion a Redeemer, and shall 
 turn away ungodliness from Jacob." St. 
 Paul, quoting the LXX from memory, sub- 
 stitutes '"''from Zion" led to it probably by 
 reminiscences of such passages as Pss. xiv. 
 7, 1. 2, hii. 7, ex. 2 ; Is. ii. 3, Mic. iv. 2. The 
 undesigned variation, '■'■from Zion" serves 
 to show that the Apostle is thinking not 
 of the Second Advent which must follow the 
 Conversion of Israel, but of that tirst Advent 
 in which Christ as revealed in the Gospel is 
 still going forth from Jerusalem, and shall 
 yet go forth in special power to redeem His 
 people Israel. That full restoration of Israel 
 will be for the whole world the beginning of 
 a ^'^ life from the dead" (v. 15). 
 
 and shall turn a-way ungodliness from 
 Jacob-] St. Paul follows tlie LXX, who give 
 the general sense with sufficient correctness for 
 his purpose ; the more literal rendering (see 
 note on Is. 59, 23) "and for them that 
 turn from transgression in Jacob," 
 points at least as clearly to that unbelieving 
 portion of the nation whose conversion will 
 fulfil the prophecy that " all Israel shall be 
 savad." 
 
 As this portion of the quotation describes 
 the redeeming and converting work of Christ, 
 so V. 27 shows God's forgiveness as the 
 ground of the New Covenant. 
 
 27. For this is my covenant unto them,] A 
 renewal of God's word to Abraham (Gen. 
 xvii. 4) applied by Isaiah (lix. 21) to the new 
 covenant, which he proceeds to describe : 
 " My spirit that is ipon thee, and my words 
 ivhich I have put in thy 7nouth, shall not 
 depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of 
 thy seed, 7ior out of the mouth of thy sjed's seed, 
 saith the Lord, from henceforth and for everp 
 
 The expression '■'■thy seed's seed" seems 
 to show that the promise is addressed to 
 Israel, which having been hitherto partly 
 faithful and partly imfaithful, has now re- 
 turned to its fidelity. 
 
 For this description of the covenant St. 
 Paul substitutes another taken from Is, xxvii. 
 9 (Septuag.) Kai TOVTQ i] ivkoyia aiirov, orav 
 a(f>i\ioiJ.ai rrjv ajxapruLV avrov, " And this is 
 ills blessing, when I shall have taken away 
 his sin," which is more appropriate to his 
 
aoo 
 
 ROMANS. XI. 
 
 [v. 29—31. 
 
 are enemies for your sakes : but as 30 For as ye in times past have 
 
 touching the election, they are be- not "believed God, yet have now "P''j. 
 
 loved for the fathers' sakes. obtained mercy through their un- 
 
 29 For the gifts and calling of belief: 
 God <7r^ without repentance. 31 Even so have these also now 
 
 present purpose as containing a promise that 
 the sins of Israel shall be taken away. 
 
 See notes on Is. xxvii. 9, and compare 
 Jer. xxxi. 31-34. 
 
 The fulfilment of St. Paul's prediction must 
 be regarded as still future, being the last 
 step in the universal diffusion of Christianity, 
 and the prelude to Christ's second coming 
 (Meyer). 
 
 28-32. The present alienation of Israel in 
 contrast with God's unchanging promise to 
 their fathers (2C, 29) is part of the method 
 by which He will extend His mercy to 
 all nations, and so at last include both 
 Jew and Gentile in one common salvation 
 (30-32). 
 
 28. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies^ 
 i.e. enemies of God, treated by Him as ene- 
 mies and shut out for a time from His mercy : 
 and this is ''''for your sakes," that you may 
 receive that mercy from which they for their 
 disobedience have been excluded. This pas- 
 sive sense of " enemies," i.e. hated by God, is 
 necessary as answering to '''■ belo'ved" in the 
 parallel clause. In what sense God hates the 
 sinner, see in the note on v. 10. 
 
 but as touching the election^ Meyer, follow- 
 ing Ewald, argues that " the election " having 
 been defined in w. 5-7 as " the remnant 
 according to election of grace" must retain 
 that meaning here: "but in regard to the 
 election, that chosen remnant is a living 
 witness that Israel is still beloved of God." 
 
 This concrete sense of " the election " is, how- 
 ever, found only in t;. 7, where it is explained 
 by the context : and the usual interpretation, 
 " as concerning God's choice of Israel to be 
 his people " — answers better to the previous 
 clause " as concerning the gospel." The mean- 
 ing then is, " If we look at tlie Divine election 
 of Israel, wherein God chose not a mere 
 remnant, but the people at large, they are still 
 " beloved for the fathers' sakes," because from 
 them the promised blessing was transmitted 
 to their children according to the form of the 
 covenant — " to thee and to thy seed" (Calvin) : 
 compare Luke i. 54, 55. 
 
 29. The last thought is now confirmed by 
 " an axiom truly apostolic " (Benirel) concern- 
 ins the unchangeable nature of God's purpose. 
 His acts of grace, His gifts or favours freely 
 granted (;fa/ji'(r/xara), and especially His call- 
 ing, are " ivithout repentayice." The word 
 thus happily rendered means cither '' that is 
 
 not repented of" (Plato, Legg. ix. 866, E.) 
 or, " that cannot be repented of" (Polyb. xxir. 
 12, 11): compare 2 Cor. vii. 10. 
 
 Godet interprets "the gifts of God" of 
 the moral and intellectual qualities with which 
 Israel was specially endowed for its peculiar 
 mission to the world : but his argument that 
 the word (^^^apicr/xara) " usually has this sense 
 in St. Paul's Epistles" is not well founded, and 
 his interpretation itself is fanciful: see note 
 on ■)(ap{.cr\ia, i. ID. 
 
 30-32. The general truth alleged in v. 
 29 is corroborated by an explanation of the 
 manner in which it will be realised in this 
 particular instance. 
 
 The course of God's Providence towards 
 Gentiles and Jews is summed up in a series of 
 comparisons and contrasts, which are made 
 more striking by close and continued parallel- 
 isms, the antithesis ^''disobedience — mercy" 
 being thrice repeated in the three verses 30- 
 32 (Forbes). 
 
 30. For as ye in times past ha-ve not belie'ved 
 God, is'c.'] Rather, " For as ye in times past 
 obeyed not God, yet have no^w obtained 
 mercy by their disobedience, even so 
 have these also no-w been disobedient, 
 that by the mercy bestowed on you 
 they may also themselves obtain mercy y 
 
 The former disobedience of the Gentiles 
 (i. 18 fi.) ought to repress all uncharitable 
 feelings in regard to the present disobedience 
 of the Jews, more especially as their disobedi- 
 ence has been made the occasion of God's 
 mercy to the Gentiles. 
 
 The Apostle describes \r\ v. 30 the past 
 and present relations of Gentile and Jew, and 
 compares them in v. 31 with their present 
 and future relations. 
 
 The comparison involves also a difference, 
 for while in each case " disobedience " is over- 
 come by " mercy " there is a direct contrast in 
 the means employed : " mercy " to the Gen- 
 tiles results from " disobedience " in the Jews, 
 " fnercy " to the Jews is to be the result of 
 " mercy " already bestowed upon the Gentiles : 
 compare xv. 9. T he order of the words in 
 the Greek (for which compare 2 Cor. xii. 7) 
 admits, but does not require, a different con- 
 struction of V. 31: " Even so have these 
 also now been disobedient, because of the 
 mercy bestowed on you." But the parallel 
 clauses are in this way less perfectly balanced 
 than in the order of A V. retained above. 
 
V. 
 
 ;2-34-] 
 
 ROMANS. XL 
 
 20I 
 
 I Or, shut 
 them all 
 up to- 
 gether. 
 
 not "believed, that through your 
 mercy they also may obtain mercy. 
 
 32 For God hath "concluded them 
 all in unbelief, that he might have 
 mercy upon all. 
 
 33 O the depth of the riches both 
 
 32. For God hath concluded them all in 
 unbelief:^ Rather, "For God shut them all 
 up to disobedience." The final proof that 
 God will have mercy on Israel is that this 
 is in accordance with and part of the uni- 
 versal plan of His salvation. ^^ '■'■ them alV 
 the Apostle denotes all of whom he has 
 been speaking, i.e. both Jews and Gentiles in 
 the same natural and unexaggerated sense in 
 which he spoke of '■'■all Israel" in v. 26. 
 Doctrinal motives for unduly limiting or 
 extending the application are excluded by the 
 consideration "that the universality of the 
 Tyivme purpose of redemption (comp. i Tim. 
 ii. 4), and the sufficiency of the redemption 
 actually wrought for the justification of all 
 (v. 18), do not exclude its partial non- 
 realisation at last through the fault of the 
 individuals concerned" (Meyer). 
 
 The meaning of the phrase '■'■concluded" or 
 "shut up to disobedience" is best seen in 
 the passages where the Septuagint has the same 
 Greek verb: Ps. xxxi. 8, ^' And hast not shut 
 me lip into the hand of the enemy ^^ Ps. Ixxviii. 50, 
 ^'■but gave their life (LXX, 'cattle") o-ver to 
 the pestilence^ lb. -u. 62, '■'■Re gave his 
 people over also unto the s^word." 
 
 In accordance with these passages, and 
 with St. Paul's own usage (Gal. iii. 22), 
 God is represented as giving over all men, 
 both Jews and Gentiles, to disobedience, with- 
 out power of escape: a bold and striking 
 declaration of Gods all-ruling Providence, 
 forcing even sin into the service of His mercy. 
 There are various modes of softening the 
 expression : e.g. that of Chrysostom and other 
 Greek Fathers, that God convicted them all of 
 disobedience; and that of Diodorus in the 
 Catena, that God did not cause the disobe- 
 dience, but only permitted it through the ex- 
 ercise of man's free will. But St. Paul's 
 language means more than this : God's Pro- 
 vidence places man in such circumstances that 
 the perversity of his will shows itself in actual 
 disobedience. This has been fully proved in 
 regard to the Heathen in i. 24, 26, 28, and in 
 regard to those who were under the law in 
 ch. ii. and ch. vii. " We ought to add that 
 in both cases the latent sin had manifested 
 itself freely and actively, before taking the 
 form ot a judgment from' God " (Godet). 
 
 Instead therefore of trying to weaken the 
 real force of the Apostle's language, it is far 
 better to fix our thoughts on the glorious 
 
 of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! 
 how unsearchable are his judgments, 
 and his ways past finding out ! 
 
 34 '''For who hath known the ^y^=-*°-'3. 
 mind of the Lord ? or who hath 13'° i Cor. 
 been his counsellor } *" *^' 
 
 vindication of God's severity which is shown in 
 the gracious purpose that it is intended to servo. 
 
 that he might have mercy upon all^ Rather, 
 "upon them all," meaning, as in the former 
 clause, the definite whole (joh^ Tvavras) made 
 up of " the fulness of the Gentiles " and " all 
 Israel;" see note at the end. To ''have 
 mercy" means to make them partakers of 
 that '■'■common salvation" (Jude 3), which is 
 emphatically a dispensation of mercy, as is 
 shown in w. 30, 31. 
 
 " God by His ineffable wisdom so disposes 
 and controls the affairs of men, that there is 
 no part of mankind that is not involved in 
 sin ; not that He is the cause of sin in any, but 
 that for a time He suffers men to fall by their 
 own sinfulness, in order that when they have 
 discovered their error they may feel that they 
 have been saved, not by their own merit, but 
 by the free mercy of God, that they may not 
 grow arrogant. And in the meantime, while 
 doing this, He is so far from suggesting evil 
 to any one, that by His goodness" He marvel- 
 lously turns the evils of others to our good. 
 But perhaps we are entering too deep into the 
 recesses of this mystery, for a man spealcing 
 to men. 
 
 " Amazement comes over me as I contem- 
 plate the ineffable m.ethod of God's counsel ; 
 and since I cannot explain it, I would fain 
 exclaim, O the depth of His superabounding 
 wisdom ! '' (Erasmus.) 
 
 33-36. The glorious truth declared in 
 •y. 32 forces from the Apostle's heart an ex- 
 clamation of adoring wonder, which forms a 
 noble conclusion to the great argument of the 
 Epistle. The wrath " revealed from heaven 
 against all unrighteousness^' (i. x8), has given 
 place to the mercy which embraces all the 
 nations of the earth. 
 
 33. the depth of the riches both of the -wis- 
 dom and kno-Luledge of God .'J Rather, " the 
 depth of the riches and vjisdom and knowledge 
 of God." This construction, adopted by Ori- 
 gen, Chrysostom, and other Greek Fathers, is 
 commended by its greater simplicity, and by 
 the fact that, after quoting, in -y. 34, a passage 
 from Isaiah (xl. 13) which illustrates God's 
 ivisdom and knoivledge, St. Paul adds, in v. 
 35, a passage from Job (xli. 11) which refers 
 to the riches of God. 
 
 " Depth " is frequently found in the Greek 
 classics as an attribute of "riches" (Soph. 
 
2,02 
 
 ROMANS. XI. 
 
 [v. 35—36. 
 
 .35 Or 
 
 him, and 
 
 unto him again ? 
 
 who hath first given to 
 it shall be recompensed 
 
 36 For of him, and through him, 
 and to him, are all things : to whom 
 be glory for ever. Amen. 
 
 *Ajax,' 130), and also of^^iuisdom" and ^^knoiv- 
 ledge" (^schylus, 'Sept. c. Theb.' 578; 
 Pindar, ' Nem.,' iv. 7 ; Plato, ' Theast.' p. 183, 
 E.). As applied to the latter words here, it 
 denotes not " unfathomable mystery," but only 
 " inexhaustible fulness." 
 
 The true distinction between '•'■ kno'ivkdge'''' 
 and " <vuisdom " is briefly indicated by Theo- 
 doret : " He foreknew these things from the 
 beginning, and having foreknown them, He 
 arranged {(^Kovo^Tqui) them wisely." Bp. 
 Lightfoot remarks on Col. ii. 3 : " While 
 •yi'tofTt? is simply intuiti-ve^ croc^ia is ratiocina- 
 tive also. While yvuxris applies chiefly to the 
 apprehension of truths, ao^la superadds the 
 power of reasoning about them and tracing 
 their relations." To complete the distinction, 
 we must add that while " knowledge" is 
 theoretical, " wisdom " is practical, and while 
 " knowledge " is purely intellectual, " wisdom " 
 is also moral, and for that reason is both the 
 most perfect of mental gifts (Aristotle, ' Nic. 
 Eth.' vi. 10) and the queen of all virtues 
 (Cicero, ' de Off.' i. 43). In the present con- 
 text yvaxjii seems to refer especially to God's 
 foreknowledge of the free determinations of 
 man's will, both in individuals and in nations : 
 while aocpia denotes the admirable skill with 
 which He includes man's free actions in His 
 plan, and transforms them into so many 
 means for the accomplishment of His good 
 purpose (Godet). 
 
 how unsearchable are his judgments^ 
 According to Meyer God's '■'■judgments " are 
 the determinate purposes which His " ivis- 
 dom " sets before Him, and for the attainment 
 of which His " power " is exerted. " His 
 ^vays" are the particular courses which His 
 '■^ knowledge^' discerns to be the best in 
 which His '■^ power " can work. 
 
 Tholuck reverses this view: the "judgments" 
 are the decisions of the Divine knowledge, and 
 the " luajs " are the methods which God's 
 auisdom adopts for realising those decisions. 
 
 It seems simpler and truer to say that 
 knonvledge and wisdom are combined both in 
 forming \.\iit judgments, and choosing the if «_yj 
 to accomplish them. 
 
 To man's natural reason these '■''judgments " 
 of God are unsearchable as the great deep 
 (Ps. xxxvi. 6 ; compare Job xi. 7), and " His 
 ivays past finding out " (Job ix. 10 ; compare 
 Eccles. viii. 16, 17: ^'because though a man 
 labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it ; 
 yea farther ; though a <vjise man think to kno-w 
 it, yet shall he not be able to find it.") 
 
 In the contemplation of '■'•judgments " and 
 
 " nvays," which thus pass man's understanding, 
 the Apostle is forced to exclaim, " the depth 
 of . . . the ivisdom and kno-xvledge of God I " 
 
 St. Augustine often uses this passage as if 
 it were equivalent to ix. 20, " A^ay but, Oman, 
 ^uho art thou that replies t against God." He 
 thus silences all objection to his own predes- 
 tinarian doctrines, such as that of the damna- 
 tion of infants dying unbaptized: Sermon 294, 
 § 7 : compare Serm. 15, § 3, and 27, § 7. But 
 this passage is not a denunciation of presump- 
 tuous objections against the wisdom and good- 
 ness of God's hidden ways : it is an outburst 
 of wonder and delight in contemplating a 
 glorious revelation of wisdom and goodness 
 surpassing all that the heart of man could 
 have conceived. 
 
 34, 35. St. Paul now justifies the wonder- 
 ing exclamations of 1;. 3 3 by passages of the 
 Old Testament which illustrate the knowledge 
 and wisdom and riches of God, the order of 
 the three ideas in ny. 33 being here inverted, 
 as is very usual, so as to bring the last 
 thought into immediate connexion with its 
 own illustration. 
 
 34. 'vobo hath knoivn the mind of the Lord f\ 
 The A.V.— " Who hath directed the Spirit of 
 the Lord" — is closer to the Hebrew. See 
 note on Is. xl. 13. But the Septuagint, 
 which St. Paul follows, sufficiently preserves 
 the general thought that the Divine intelli- 
 gence is incomprehensible and immeasurable 
 to man. See i Cor. ii. 16, and compare 
 Judith viii. 13, 14; Wisdom, ix. 17. 
 
 " O the depth of the knowledge of God ! " 
 For who can measure the mind {yovv) which 
 is the organ of that knowledge (yi/cocretof). 
 
 or 'vjho hath been his counsellor f\ Is not 
 His wisdom all His own, admitting no aid 
 nor counsel from beings of inferior faculties ? 
 
 35. Or avho hath first given to him, and it 
 shall be recompensed unto him again T\ See note 
 on Job xli. II. The Septuagint is here quite 
 erroneous, and St. Paul setting it aside gives 
 the sense of the Hebrew correctly but freely : 
 "Or wlio hath first given to him, and 
 shall be repaid again i " Herein is shown 
 " the depth of the riches of God," that no gift of 
 His is a requital of benefits first conferred 
 on Him, but all are of His own free grace 
 and overflowing bounty. The Apostle here 
 once more touches the root of Jewish error, 
 the self-righteous notion of earning God's 
 favour by previous merit. 
 
 36. The reason why none can make 
 God his debtor is that all things are '•'■from 
 
ROMANS. XL 
 
 203 
 
 him" as their first cause (i Cor. viii. 6) and 
 " through him " as the ever present agent 
 who still " wjorketb all in all" (1 Cor. xii. 6 ; 
 Heb. ii. 10), and "unto him" as their final 
 cause in whom all reach the end and per- 
 fection of their being. 
 
 Of these three clauses the first and second 
 might be referred to the Father and the Son 
 respectively, but the third "unto htm " cannot 
 possibly refer to the Spirit as a distinct 
 Person. We must understand all three of 
 God the Father, or rather of the whole God- 
 head, as in -y. 33. 
 
 The Doxology then follows as a noble 
 
 conclusion to St. Paul's great argument ; it 
 stands in simple grandeur, like one of the 
 Patriarch's pillars (Gen. xxviii. 18; xxxv. 11) 
 set up in remembrance of some special revela- 
 tion of the goodness and majesty of God. 
 
 to 'zuhom, !i^v.] "To him be the glory 
 for ever. Amen." 
 
 " As the rivers return again to the place 
 whence they came, they all come from the sea, 
 and they all run into the sea again ; so all our 
 store as it issued at first from the fountain of 
 His grace, so should it fall at last into the 
 ocean of His glory " (Bp. Sanderson, Serm. 
 on Rom. xv. 6). 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on vv. 7, 9, 12, 13, 32. 
 
 7. iirmpaBrja-av. The Verb is used only 
 once in the LXX, Job xvii. 7, nencopcovTai 01 
 o(j)daX[jinL fiov, where the Hebrew is riri'Z 
 " to be feeble " or " dim," as a lamp. 
 
 The real root irmpos was the name of a 
 stone used for statuary (Ammonias, Valckn. 
 Animadv. p. 169). It was also applied to 
 "callus": Aristot. Hist. Anim. HI. xix. 9, 
 'SrjTTofifvov Se yiveTai to aifia iv rw crafxaTi ttvov, 
 fK 8e roil 7VV0V ncopos- Hence napoco and 
 TToopcoais were used by medical writers, e.g. 
 Dioscorides, to describe the formation of 
 callus in the re-union of broken bones ; see 
 Liddell and Scott. The Adjective wcopos 
 appears to be an invention of the grammarians 
 (Fritzsche). 
 
 9 . The Hebrew means literally : " Be their 
 table before them for a snare, and to them at 
 ease for a trap." 
 
 The LXX render TevrjdljTco tj rpdneCa 
 aVTwv evunriov avrutv els rrayida kol els dvra- 
 nodocriv Kai els crKavdaXov. 
 
 St. Paul, quoting freely from memory, for 
 ivamiov avrav puts avrols at the end, inserts 
 KoX els Brjpav, and changes the order of the 
 two last clauses, reading kuI els aicavdakov 
 KOI els avTaTTodofMa avrols. 
 
 12. TJrrrjfjia. The word is found once in 
 the LXX, Is. XXXI. 8, 01 de veaviaKol ecrovrai 
 fls fjTTT]iJ,a, and in i Cor. vi. 7, oAcos rJTTrjpia. 
 
 In Isaiah the Heb. DD"7 is rendered by Fiirst, 
 Ewald, Delitzsch, Gesenius, &c., " for tri- 
 bute," which is its usual meaning : the LXX 
 (followed by A. V. discomfited), render it in 
 this one passage as if it were derived fi-om 
 DD?^ " to melt away : " though this interpreta- 
 tion may be incorrect, the sense in which they 
 used ^TTTjpa is obviously that of the loss and 
 diminution <U)hich an army sustains by defeat. 
 
 That St. Paul here uses the word (rJTTrjpa) 
 as meaning " diminution," is clear from the 
 antithesis to nXr^pcofia, which means the " com- 
 plement," or full number. See Bp. Li^ihtfoot, 
 
 Colossians, p. 323, who shows that in this 
 passage TrXi]poypa has its usual meaning* the 
 full number,' ' the whole body' (whether the 
 whole absolutely, or the whole relatively to 
 God's purpose), of whom only a part had 
 been hitherto gathered into the Church. 
 
 13. yap DFGL 17, 37 Vul., Goth., Pp.gr. 
 et lat. 
 
 Se A B X P 47, Cop., Syr. utr., Memph,, 
 Arm., Theodoret (some MSS), Damasc, 
 Lachm., Treg., Tisch. 8, Meyer, who remarks, 
 " With such divided testimony, 8e is the 
 best supported, and to be preferred ; it came 
 to be glossed by more definite particles." 
 
 lb. ^ej/ ovv Lachm., 1 isch. and (doubt- 
 fully) Tregelles, with preponderance of ex- 
 ternal authority. 
 
 32. Tovs TTuvras. This expression has, of 
 course, the same meaning and extent in both 
 clauses. Meyer supposes it to denote all 
 Jews and Gentiles not only " in the gross " 
 but ^'Jointly and severally," so as to include 
 " each single member of the collective whole." 
 This however is precisely what would have 
 been expressed by navTas, without the 
 Article : whereas rovs TvdvTas is used " with 
 pointed reference to the ivhole -vie^ued in the 
 mass " (Rev. T. S. Green, ' Grammar of New 
 Testament Dialect,' iv. § 4). 
 
 Some interpret the passage of the final sal- 
 vation of all men: but in accordance with the 
 meaning of " mercy " in i"v. 30, 31, to " ha-ve 
 mercy upon them all" can only mean to 
 bring them all, Jews as well as Gentiles, into 
 the Church of Christ on earth : " One thing 
 only St. Paul here teaches : it is that at the 
 close of the history of mankind upon this 
 earth there will be an economy of grace in 
 which salvation shall be extended to all the 
 nations living here below, and that this mag- 
 nificent result will be the effect of the hum- 
 bling dispensations through which the two 
 portions of humanity, Jews and Gentiles, shall 
 successively have passed " (Godct). 
 
ao4 
 
 ROMANS. XII. 
 
 [v. I. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 I God's mercies must move us to please God. 
 3 No nian must think too well of hitnself, 6 
 but attend every one on that calling; ivhirein 
 he is placed. 9 Loz'e, and many other duties. 
 
 are required of us. 19 Revenge is specially 
 forbidden. 
 
 BESEECH you therefore, breth- 
 ren, by the mercies of God, 
 that ye present your bodies a living 
 
 I 
 
 Chap. XII. — Holy Living. 
 
 St. Paul now passes from the main argu- 
 ment of the Epistle to practical exhortations 
 based upon the preceding doctrines. 
 
 Melanchthon thought that in the following 
 chapters Christian duties are classified in a 
 formal scheme, as moral (xii.), political (^xiii.), 
 and ecclesiastical (xiv.-xv. 12). 
 
 But the Apostle's thoughts seem rather to 
 flow on in a natural order, of which the 
 general course can easily be traced. He 
 begins by requiring personal consecration to 
 God's service (xii. i, 2), and from this inmost 
 centre of the spiritual life he follows out its 
 manifold development in Christian graces (xii. 
 3-21) and civil duties (xiii. i-io), enforcing 
 his exhortations by the prospect of the coming 
 day of the Lord (xiii. 11-14). 
 
 " It will be observed how comprehensively 
 be surveys the whole range of human action 
 and conduct. He starts from the considera- 
 tion of men as constituting ' many members 
 in one body,' and he proceeds to direct them 
 in their various offices. He passes in review 
 the private and public duties to which they 
 might be called — ministering, teaching, ex- 
 horting, giving, ruling and obeying; he 
 depicts the spirit of the Christian in business 
 and in rest, in joy and in sorrow, in hope and 
 in tribulation, towards friends and towards 
 enemies, in peace and in wrath : and he lays 
 down the Christian principles of civil govern- 
 ment and civil obedience. It is a picture of 
 life in its length and breadth, and even in all 
 its lights and shadows, transfigured, as the 
 landscape by the sun, under the renovating 
 influence of those spiritual rays of love which 
 illuminated and warmed the Apostle's soul" 
 (Wace, 'Christianity and Morality,' p. 147). 
 
 1, 2. The living sacrifice. The 
 Apostle begins with tender entreaty, and 
 in the fulness of divine grace just unfolded 
 finds the strongest motive by which he can 
 " beseech " his " brethren " to consecrate both 
 body (^». i) and mind (-y. 2) to a holy 
 obedience: compare 2 Cor. x. i. 
 
 The word " therefore " connects this chap- 
 ter immediately with the last, as in Eph. iv. i, 
 where the course of thought and mode of 
 transition are very similar. But it is equally 
 true that the Apostle bases his exhortation 
 to holiness upon the doctrines of grace set 
 forth at large in the whole preceding argu- 
 ment of the Epistle, which culminates in the 
 
 declaration of God's all-embracing mercy in 
 xi. 32. 
 
 by the mercies of God,'] The mercy (eXfo?) 
 so often spoken of in ch. xi., as embracing both 
 Jew and Gentile in a common salvation, is here 
 described by a stronger word in the plural 
 number, expressing the tenderest compassion 
 as shown in manifold forms {oiKTijjfXMv^, a 
 word very frequent in the LXX (2 Sam. xxiv. 
 II ; Ps. li. i: Neh. ix. 19, 27, 28, 31). 
 
 present] Trapaa-Tricrat, a proper term for 
 bringing an offering to the Lord (Lev. xvi. 7 ; 
 LulvC ii. 22 ; Col. i. 22, 28). 
 
 your bodies'] The body is claimed first for 
 God's service, because there was great need 
 to warn new converts from heathenism 
 against sins of the flesh : compare 1 Thess. 
 iv. 3. That the Roman Christians had need 
 of such exhortation, is clear from vi. 12, 13, 
 19). 
 
 a living sacrifice,!^ The sanctification of the 
 outward part of man, which is a true sacri- 
 fice, is beautifully represented under the 
 symbols of sacrificial worship. The language 
 is most appropriate ; for the sincere worship- 
 per, whether Gentile or Jew, saw in the sacri- 
 fice which he presented on the altar a symbol 
 of his own self-devotion. This symbolic 
 purpose determined the choice of the proper 
 material for an altar-sacrifice : it must repre- 
 sent the offerer's life. 
 
 For this reason, in all the chief sacrifices 
 it must be itself a living creature : and in 
 every case, witliout exception, it must be the 
 offerer's own lawful property, the fruit of his 
 life ivork, and also fit, as food, for the support 
 of his life. In presenting such a sacrifice the 
 worshipper was presenting a portion of his 
 o^vn life as a symbol of the whole. Compare 
 Kurtz, ' Sacrificial Worship of the Old 
 Testament," p. 60, &c. 
 
 This idea of the devotion of the offerer's 
 life was most strikingly embodied in the 
 continual Burnt-offering (Ex. xxix. 38-42; 
 Num. xxviii. 3), the flesh of which was 
 all given over to the sacred fire of the 
 altar, and thence ascended in its purified 
 essence as a sweet-smelling savour to Jehovah : 
 so must the Christian ofl^er his body to the 
 inward refining fire of the Holy Ghost, that 
 it may be made a sacrifice acceptable to God 
 (K.urt/., p. 162). 
 
 But how " a lilting sacrifice " ? The sancti- 
 fied body might be called " a living sacrifice" 
 
V. 2.] 
 
 ROMANS. Xir. 
 
 205 
 
 sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, the renewing of your mind, that 
 
 which is your reasonable service. ye may prove what is that good, 
 
 2 And be not conformed to this and acceptable, and perfect, will of 
 
 world : but be ye transformed by God. 
 
 because its natural life is not consumed in 
 the offering like that of an ordinary sacrifice. 
 But that St. Paul has a deeper meaning is 
 proved by the parallel passage, vi. 13, 
 "present {Trapaa-Trja-aTe, A.V. ' yieW) your- 
 selves unto God as alive from the dead." 
 There is in every sacrifice a death, and in this 
 sacrifice a death unto sin, out of which there 
 arises a new life of righteousness unto God. 
 Thus the " living; sacrifice " is that in which, 
 though the natural life is not lost, a new life 
 of holiness is gained : compare vi. 13. 
 
 The fire of this offering, as Chrysostom 
 says, " needs no wood or fuel laid beneath, 
 but lives of itself, and does not burn up the 
 sacrifice, but rather gives it life." 
 
 This consecration of the body is prepara- 
 tory to its final redemption. 
 
 acceptable unto God,] Literally, "well 
 pleasing to God": compare Wisdom iv. 10; 
 Phil. iv. 18 ; Col. iii. 20. 
 
 luhich is your reasonable service^ An appo- 
 sition to the sentence ^''present your bodies a 
 living sacrificed 
 
 The sanctification of the body, though in 
 the truest sense a sacrifice, is not, like the 
 symbolical sacrifice, an outward act of 
 religious worship (Xarpfia): the self-dedica- 
 tion is an act of the mind or reason (\6yos), 
 and in this sense " a reasonable service." 
 
 St. Paul thus teaches his readers, who 
 might miss the external pomp of Pagan or 
 Jewish sacrificial worship, that they had 
 gained something far better by becoming 
 Christians. " Tour worship," he means, " is 
 of a higher order, the worsiiip of your reason : 
 each of you for himself can now present a 
 sacrifice in the highest sense "holy, acceptable 
 to God''; each can be himself a priest serving 
 God with a spiritual worship. 
 
 In ' The Testament of the Twelve Patri- 
 archs,' p. 547, the angels are said to offer " an 
 unbloody and reasonable (XoytK/Jv) offering." 
 
 2. Sanctification must extend to man's 
 whole nature, and include both separation 
 from all that is unholy, and an inward change 
 in the man himself. 
 
 be not conformed to this luorld:'] Or, 
 • fashion not yourselves like unto this world ' 
 (Tyndale). 
 
 The Jews distinguished the times before 
 and after the expected coming of their 
 Messiah as " this world (alwv, age)," and " the 
 ivorld to come." 
 
 Our Lord Himself and His disciples 
 
 applied the same names to the times before 
 and after his Second Advent, including the 
 persons and the general state of things 
 proper to " this world " and " the world to 
 come." " The prince of this 'world " is Satan, 
 and ^'' the children of this world" are the 
 wicked : " to deliver us from this present 
 wicked world" (Gal. i. 4) was the purpose of 
 Christ's death. The Christian therefore 
 must not in his daily life (mark the Present 
 Tenses) be of the same fashion avcrxruJ^aTi- 
 Cecrde) with " this world," as he was formerly 
 when living " «/?<?r the flesh" {\\\\. 12): but 
 on the contrary he must be undergoing a 
 thorough transformation {fj.fTafxopfpova-de') by 
 the renewing of his mind, which ceases to be 
 " the mind of the flesh " (Col. ii. 18), and under 
 the influence of the Holy Ghost (Tit. iii. 5) 
 is renewed day by day (2 Cor. iv. 16) " unto 
 knowledge" (Col. in. 10). 
 
 This work of God's Spirit does not exclude 
 the co-operation of man's will, which is pre- 
 supposed in the exhortation " be ye trans- 
 formed." On the difference between axrjp-a, 
 the fleeting figure or fashion, and ixopcprj, the 
 essential organic form, see notes on ii. 20, 
 I Pet. i. 14, and i Cor. vii. 31 (^' the fashion 
 of this world passeth away"^, and Bp. Light- 
 foot's Dissertation on Phil. ii. 6, 7. 
 
 that ye may prove} The unrenewed mind 
 cannot ^^ prove what is the will of God," i.e. 
 assay {JioKi^id(fiv) or discern by practical ex- 
 perience what God wills (Eph. v. 10): to do 
 this is the end for which St. Paul would 
 have his readers transformed by the renewal 
 of the mind. 
 
 that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will 
 of God.] Read, the good, &c. It has been 
 proposed to render the passage as follows: 
 " the will of God, namely that which is good, 
 and well pleasing, and perfect." But this 
 construction is, at least, uncommon in the 
 N. T. 
 
 The objections urged against the A. V. 
 are 
 
 (i) That the expression ^^ acceptable will 
 of God" is unintelligible, (2) that it is mere 
 tautology. 
 
 (i) What, it is asked, is the meaning of 
 '■'■acceptable" as applied to " the will" ? To 
 whom is the will acceptable ? 
 
 The answer is that " the will " {to de'kTjfin) 
 means not the faculty, as the objection im- 
 plies, but its object, what God wills : and this 
 object is "acceptable" or well-pleasing 
 {evdpfo-Tov) to God who wills it. There is 
 
206 
 
 ROMANS. XII. 
 
 [v. 3-6. 
 
 II Gr. to 
 tobrUty. 
 
 3 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. 
 
 4 For as we have many members 
 
 in one body, and all members have 
 not the same office : 
 
 5 So we, being many, are one 
 body in Christ, and every one mem- 
 bers one of another. 
 
 6 Having then gifts differing ac- 
 cording to the grace that is given 
 to us, whether prophecy, let us pro- 
 
 an evident reference to the words in -v. i, 
 " a sacrifice acceptable unto God." The same 
 word {evdpecTTov) is uscd in Wisdom ix. lo 
 (" that I may knowj <what is pleasing unto 
 thee "). 
 
 (2) It would be tautology to state as a 
 general abstract proposition that what God 
 wills is acceptable or well-pleasing to Him: 
 but St. Paul is speaking of a particular 
 object of God's will, the sanctification of His 
 people (i Thess. iv. 3) ; and this the Apostle 
 describes, with an emphatic accumulation 
 and climax of epithets as " good, and accept- 
 able, and perfect." 
 
 3-21. Christian Graces. 
 
 The general idea of consecration to God's 
 service is now carried out into particular 
 duties, beginning with the right exercise of 
 special gifts in the Church {-vv. 3-8) : the first 
 place is here given to humility or sober- 
 mindedness as essential to Christian unity. 
 
 3. For I say, through the grace given unto 
 me,'\ The close connexion with w. i, 2, 
 indicated in the word '"for" lies in the 
 thought that humility is the immediate effect 
 of self-surrender to God. 
 
 St. Paul speaks with authority through the 
 grace gifen unto him, to make him the 
 Apostle of the Gentiles (i. 5). 
 
 to every man that is among you^ The sense 
 of these emphatic words must be sought in the 
 context, which shows that the Apostle's pre- 
 cept is expressly meant to include, in its uni- 
 versality, those whose special spiritual gifts 
 had gained for them influence or office in the 
 Church at Rome (compare v. 6). St. Paul, 
 it seems, either knew that there had been, or 
 feared that there might be the same spiritual 
 presumption at Rome as at Corinth, whence 
 he was writing. 
 
 not to think of himself more highly than he 
 ought to think ;J The play on words in the 
 Greek has a force which can hardly be 
 imitated: "not to be high minded above 
 a right mind, but to be of a mind to be 
 sober minded, according as God hath dealt 
 to each a measure of faith." 
 
 The last clause fixes the standard by which 
 a man who has "a mind to be sober 
 
 minded" must judge of himself We learn 
 from it that faith is a gift of God, given in 
 different measures, according to the capacity 
 of each man's nature and the work to which 
 God calls him, and that, as the receptive 
 faculty, faith regulates and measures all the 
 powers of the spiritual man. " In proportion 
 as the faith of individuals is more or less 
 living, practical, active, operative in this or 
 that direction, contemplative, or entering into 
 outward life in oratory, action, and so forth, 
 they have to measure accordingly the position 
 and task that befit them in the Church " 
 (Meyer). The emphatic position of e/cdo-rw, 
 gives prominence to the idea of diversity 
 between one man and another: i Cor. iii. 5 ; 
 vii. 17. 
 
 4, 5. For as <ive have many members in 
 one body, is'c.'] Translate: "For just as 
 in one body ave have many members, and 
 the members have not all the same office: 
 So are we the many one body in Christy 
 and severally members one of another." 
 
 The reason why each must judge of him- 
 self according to the measure of faith dealt 
 to him by God, is that the Church, like 
 our own body, consists of many members 
 having different functions to perform. 
 
 As the many members are one body in the 
 man, so the multitude of believers '^ are one 
 body in Christ." Thus Christ is here pre- 
 sented not as the head to which the other 
 members are subject (as in Eph. i. 22 ; iv. 15, 
 &c.), but as the living Person uniting and 
 animating the whole body: compare i Cor. 
 xii. 12. 
 
 From this unity of the whole follows the 
 mutual dependence of the parts: belonging 
 all to one body, they severally belong one to 
 another. This thought, not expressed in 
 V. 4, is added in the application of the 
 figure, to enforce the duty of believers to 
 work together, each in his proper sphere, for 
 the common welfare of the Church. Com- 
 pare Eph. iv. 25. 
 
 6-8. The thought that "the members 
 have not all the same office" is now 
 applied in detail to the Church. 
 
 The construction of the sentence is a little 
 obscured by extreme brevity, but the mean- 
 ing is rightly brought out in the A. V. 
 
7-8.] 
 
 ROMANS. XII. 
 
 207 
 
 phesy according to the proportion of 
 faith ; 
 
 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our 
 ministering : or he that teacheth, on 
 teaching ; 
 
 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhor- 
 tation : he that "giveth, let him do it "°';{f' 
 "with simphcity; he that ruieth, H)r, /li*. 
 with diligence ; he that sheweth ^°' ■'' 
 mercy, with cheerfulness. 
 
 The "gifts" (cf. V. 15) vary as the grace 
 of God, ot which they are effects, is manifold 
 (i Pet. iv. lo). They are special qualities 
 and powers imparted by the One Spirit, who 
 also directs the diversity of their operations 
 to one end. " Most frequently it is a natural 
 talent that the Spirit of God appropriates, 
 increasing its power and sanctifying its use " 
 (Godet). 
 
 The first four gifts here named are con- 
 nected with special offices. 
 
 Prophecy in the Christian Church was a 
 gift wliereby the mind, enlightened and ex- 
 alted by the Spirit of revelation, was able to 
 declare the purposes of God, and to foretell 
 future events (Acts xi. 28; xx. 23; xxi. 4, 
 11), as well as to unfold the deep mys- 
 teries of the Christian faith, and clothe its 
 moral precepts in words of wisdom and 
 power not of man's teaching. The prophets 
 were esteemed next in dignity to the Apostles. 
 (i Cor. xii. 28 ; Eph. iii. 5 ; iv. 11.) 
 
 St. Paul prescribes that the prophets should 
 exercise their gift " according to the proportion 
 of their faith;" these words evidently refer 
 to -z;. 3, and mean that the prophets should 
 utter neither more nor less than the re- 
 velation received by their measure of faith, 
 without exaggeration, display, or self-seeking. 
 
 " The rule of faith," " the general analogy 
 of revealed truth," and all similar renderings 
 which make '■'■faith " mean that which is to 
 be believed, are unsuited to the context and 
 otherwise untenable. 
 
 7. ministry^ The word biaKov'ia, meaning 
 " active service," has wide and varied applica- 
 tions. It often includes all ministration or 
 office in the Christian Church (Acts i. 17, 
 25; XX. 24; xxi. 19; Rom. xi. 13 ; 2 Cor. iii. 
 8, 9 ; iv. I ; v. 18 ; vi. 3 ; xi. 8 ; Eph. iv. 12 ; 
 I Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 3, 11). But as 
 " there are differences of administrations " ( i 
 Cor. xii. 5) the word is also applied in more 
 limited senses, as for example, to " the minis- 
 tration of the word " (Acts vi. 4), and very 
 frequently to the ministration of alms (Acts 
 vi. i; xi. 29; xii. 25; Rom. xv. 31; i Cor. 
 xvi. 15; 2 Cor. viii. 4; ix. i, 12, 13. 
 
 Since in this passage St. Paul is speaking 
 of various special gifts, and distinguishes 
 " ministry " from prophecy, teaching, and 
 exhortation, the word must be taken in a 
 limited sense, as service in things temporal 
 and external, such as the wants of the poor, 
 the sick, and the stranger. 
 
 As in Acts vi. men "full of the Holy Ghost 
 and 'wisdom " are to be set over " the daily 
 ministration " of alms, so here " ministry " or 
 " diaconate " is a "gift" 
 
 Compare i Tim. iii. 8, 12, and i Pet. iv. 
 II, which latter passage is very Uke this in 
 sense and construction. 
 
 let us luait on our ministering ;] This is a 
 fair paraphrase and completion of the sense ; 
 the words in the Greek are simply " in the 
 ministry," meaning ' Let us keep within our 
 proper ministry, and be wholly occupied 
 therein.' Comp. i Tim. iv. 15, "give thyself 
 nvholly to them " (Jv tovtoh 'ladi). 
 
 or he that teacheth,'] The teacher's gift lies 
 in an enlightened understanding and a faculty 
 of clear exposition : he uses " the ivord of 
 wisdom " or " the ivord of knowledge " to 
 arrange, develope, and enforce truths pre- 
 viously revealed. In i Cor. xii. 28, he is 
 ranked next after apostles and prophets. 
 
 8. or he that exhorteth^ " Teaching ad- 
 dresses itself to the understanding, exhortation 
 to the heart and will " (Philippi). '■'■Exhorta- 
 tion " was especially used in the early Church 
 as in the Synagogue (Luke iv. 20; Acts xiii. 
 15 ; Justin Martyr ' Apol.' i. c. 87) to impress 
 the lessons of Scripture upon the conscience, 
 will, and affections. 
 
 The possessor of this, or either of the pre- 
 ceding gifts, is bidden to occupy himself in 
 the province thus marked out for him, and be 
 content therewith. 
 
 he that giveth, let him do it wjith simplicity ;] 
 From gifts that qualify for special offices 
 in the Church St. Paul passes to others of a 
 more general nature. 
 
 The first, almsgiving (Eph. iv. 28 ; i Tim. 
 vi. 18), is to be practised "/« .f/w/'/Zn/y " or 
 singleness of heart, without ostentation or 
 any selfish aim (Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22). 
 
 " Liberality," though not expressed in the 
 word (JnTXoTTjTi), is essentially connected with 
 this single-mindedness. It need not seem 
 strange that a gift of the Spirit is required 
 for the right use of riches, if we remember 
 our Lord's teaching (Matt. vi. 3 ; xix. 21). 
 
 he that ruleth,] Literally, "he that pre- 
 sideth " (6 TrpoVo-rdju.ei'os'). A similar title 
 (6 Trpoeo-ro)?) is used by Justin Martyr, 
 ' Apologia' I. 65, 67, to denote the minister 
 who presided at the celebration of the Eu- 
 charist. In the N. T. this special use does 
 not occur, but the word denotes those who 
 
ao8 
 
 ROMANS. XII. 
 
 [v. 9—15- 
 
 1 Or, in 
 the love 
 of the 
 brethren. 
 
 9 Let love be without dissimulation. 
 Abhor that which is evil ; cleave to 
 that which is good. 
 
 10 Be kindly affection ed one to 
 another "with brotherly love j in 
 honour preferring one another ; 
 
 1 1 Not slothful in business ; fer- 
 vent in spirit j serving the Lord ; 
 
 12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in 
 tribulation ; continuing instant in 
 prayer ; 
 
 13 Distributing to the necessity of 
 saints ; given to hospitality. 
 
 14 Bless them which persecute 
 you : bless, and curse not. 
 
 15 Rejoice with them that do re- 
 
 were set in authority over a Church (i Thess. 
 V. 12), the presbyters (i Tim. v. 17.) Their 
 special qualification was probably the gift of 
 government {Kvj3epvr](T(is, i Cor. xii. 28), 
 their duties being such as the restraint of 
 disorder, correction of abuses, and enforce- 
 ment of discipline. In a still more general 
 sense the word is applied to ruling ones 
 own house and children (i Tim. iii. 4, 5, 
 12), and to directing the practice of good 
 works (Tit. iii. 8, 14). This last meaning 
 seems best suited to the present context, in 
 which the work described as ' ruling ' stands 
 between almsgiving and showing mercy. 
 
 '■^Diligence " or earnestness in business 
 {(TTvovhr)), would be a quality especially needed 
 in the superintendence of works of benevo- 
 lence. 
 
 he that sheweth mercy, ivith cheerfulness^ 
 Whether he is consoling the mourner, or 
 relieving the sufferer, let him feel and shew 
 that the service is willingly and gladly ren- 
 dered. 
 
 9-21. From the right use of special gifts, 
 St. Paul passes on to enjoin principles and 
 habits which are required in all members of 
 Christ's body. 
 
 '' Lo-ve " comes first, both as forming a na- 
 tural transition from the thoughts in f. 8, 
 and as the common element of the virtues 
 which follow. 
 
 9. Let love be nuithout dissimulation^ 
 Render, Let love Zid- unfeigned. Compare 2 
 Cor. vi. 6; i Pet. i. 22. '■'■Dissimulation" 
 introduced by Tyndale, is a much less happy 
 rendering than either " feigning " (Wiclif), 
 or "simulation" (Rheims). 
 
 In grammatical construction this and the 
 following clauses to -t;. 13 are elliptical and 
 unconnected ; but their hortatory sense is 
 evident, and in some cases their order suggests 
 a connexion of thought, which is correctly 
 marked by the division of verses. 
 
 Thus " love " can be genuine only in those 
 who " abhor that ivhich is evil" and ^'■cleave to 
 that nvhich is good!' 
 
 10. Again, between members of the one 
 family in Christ love takes a special form, and 
 should be marked by a tender affection like 
 that of near relatives (^tXo'o-T-o/j-yos) : 
 
 "In brotherly-love be affectionate 
 one to another." The emphatic order of the 
 Greek is lost in the A. V. 
 
 preferring one another ;] As brethren be 
 more forward to pay respect than to receive it, 
 "r« honour preventing 07ie another" (Douay 
 Version), or " leading the way one for an- 
 other, not in claiming but in showing re- 
 spect." 
 
 11. Not slothful in business •] The whole 
 passage refers to Christian duties as such, and 
 would be better rendered, "in zeal not 
 flagging, in spirit fervent (Acts xviii. 25), 
 serving the Lord." 
 
 There is a close connexion of thought in 
 the three clauses : active zeal must be sus- 
 tained by fervour of spirit, and both devoted 
 to the service of Christ: compare Col. iii. 24. 
 
 The other reading, " serving the time," has 
 very little support from the MSS, and gives a 
 less suitable sense, whether taken as equiva- 
 lent to '■'■redeeming the time" (Eph. v. 16), or 
 as a caution that zeal and fervour must be 
 moderated by opportunity. (Ambrosiaster.) 
 
 12. In this verse also the three clauses are 
 connected in thought : joy and patience both 
 grow out of perseverance in prayer. 
 
 The " hope " which St. Paul sets against 
 tribulation here, as in v. 2, 3, is the definite 
 Christian hope, " the hope of the glory of God." 
 
 13. Distributing'] "Communicating" 
 (Douay). The Greek \\ ord means, " to be, 
 or act as, a partner," either by partaking 
 (XV. 27 ; I Pet. iv. 13 ; i Tim. v. 22), or by 
 communicating, as here and in Gal. vi. 6. 
 
 The variation (fiveiais), " partaking in the 
 commemoration of the saints," is an acknow- 
 ledged corruption, derived from a custom 
 unknown to the Apostolic age. 
 
 " The saints " are simply Christians as such 
 (ch. i. 7) : if in want, let them be relieved by 
 their brethren ; if on a journey, let them be 
 received with hospitality. The two duties 
 here and elsewhere enjoined by St. Paul were 
 of special importance in the circumstances of 
 the early churches (i Tim. v. 10 ; Tit. i. 8). 
 
 given to hospitality.] Literally, pursuing 
 hospitality, i. e. not waiting for the claim to be 
 made, but eagerly seekinf opportunities (com- 
 pare ix. 30, 31 ; xiv. 19), 
 
V. 1 6 — 19.] 
 
 ROMANS. XII. 
 
 209 
 
 joice, and weep with them that evil. Provide things honest in the 
 
 weep. sight of all men. 
 
 16 Be of the same mind one 18 If it be possible, as much as 
 toward another. Mind not high lieth in you, live peaceably with all 
 
 lOr.&r things, but "condescend to men of men. 
 
 contented i -t) . . 
 
 %1'ithmean Jow cstate. isc not Wise m your 19 Dearly beloved, aveno-e not 
 
 own conceits. yourselves, but rather give place unto 
 
 17 Recompense to no man evil for wrath : for it is written, '^ Vengeance "^'="'■32. 
 
 things. 
 
 14. The expression, "pursuing y^oj/i/te///;'," 
 T. 1 3, suggests the other sense of the same word, 
 "persecute." The Apostle is thus led to anti- 
 cipate the thought which he developes fully 
 in "w. 17-21, that it is a Christian's duty to 
 love his enemies, and overcome evil with good. 
 
 This precept is certainly derived from the 
 Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 44 ; Luke 
 vi. 28), and proves that St. Paul, though he 
 had not seen our present written Gospels, 
 must have known the substance of Our 
 Lord's teaching. 
 
 15. The same sentiment is expressed in the 
 Talmud : " Let not any rejoice among them 
 that weep, nor weep among them that rejoice." 
 Compare Ecclesiasticus vii. 34. 
 
 Chrysostom finely observes that it is natural 
 to sympathise with sorrow, but that it re- 
 quires a noble soul to rejoice in others' joy. 
 
 16. The two precepts of -y. 15 are com- 
 bined in the wider principle, "i?^ of the 
 same mind one toward another :" i.e. let each 
 so enter into the feelings and desires of the 
 other as to be of one mind with him. 
 
 This loving concord cannot exist, where the 
 mind is set on " high things " such as rank, 
 wealth, honour. (Compare Phil. iii. 19 ; i Tim. 
 vi. 17.) 
 
 condescend to men of loav estate.] Literally, 
 "Let yourselves be drawn along with, i.e. 
 yield yourselves up to, the lowly." 
 
 Compare Gal. ii. 13; 2 Pet. iii. 17, where 
 the unfavourable sense belongs not to the 
 expression " draavn aivaj ^ivith," but to the 
 context. 
 
 The adjective ruTreivos is used in the N. T. 
 frequently of persons, never of things. It is 
 better therefore to follow the same usage here, 
 and understand it of lowly persons as in A. V. 
 
 A want of sympathy with the " lowly" bars 
 man from man and class from class, so that 
 they cannot " 6e of the same mind one toward 
 another.^' 
 
 Another chief hindrance to concord is 
 marked in the warning, ^'' Be not ivise in your 
 own conceits^' (Prov. iii. 7, and c. xi. 25). 
 
 17-21. From the mutual duties of biethren 
 in Christ, St. Paul passes to the wider rela- 
 tions of the Christian towards all men, and 
 especially towards his enemies. 
 
 Enmity being the w^orld's prevailing atti- 
 tude, how must the Christian meet it ? 
 
 17. The precept, '•'■reyider to no man e-vil 
 for evil^" is derived from the Sermon on the 
 Mount (Matt v. 38-48), and stands in noble 
 contrast to the " lex talionis " of Pharisaic and 
 ffeathen morality. 
 
 The warm friend and bitter foe was un- 
 doubtedly the ideal hero of ancient Heathen- 
 dom (^see Pindar, Pyth. ii. 155 ; Isthm.iii. 81): 
 yet even here a God of love left Himself not 
 v/ithout witness, and it is a part of Christian 
 piety to recognise the pure and elevated teach- 
 ing of a Socrates, and to love the example of 
 his forbearing and forgiving patience. See 
 the interesting passage in Plato's ' Republic,' 
 I- P- 335, where Socrates discusses the maxim 
 "Do good to thy friend, and harm to thine 
 enemy," and ascribes it to one of the Tyrants, 
 not the Wise Men, of Greece. 
 
 Prcvide things honest?^ Again, to disarm 
 enmity, use such forethought that your con- 
 duct may not only be blameless in the sight of 
 God, who reads the heart, but may also be 
 "honourable in the sight of all men" through. 
 its transparent goodness and justice. 
 
 Here, and in 2 Cor. viii. 21, St. Paul follows 
 the Septuagint Version of Proverbs iii. 4, 
 which differs from the Hebrew and A.V. 
 
 The meaning is not that the Christian 
 should seek the praise of men for himself but 
 that he should give no cause of suspicion or 
 offence : a precept of the truest practical 
 wisdom. 
 
 18. Peace is a mutual relation which may 
 be broken on either side : accordingly the 
 duty of living peaceably with all men is abso- 
 lute, so far as it depends on ourselves, condi- 
 tional so far as its possibility depends on 
 others. 
 
 St. Paul unites the two aspects in a single 
 sentence, which may be thus paraphrased : 
 
 "_ Live peaceably with all men, if through 
 their conduct it be possible : at all events, as 
 far as it depends on you, live peaceably with 
 all men." 
 
 19. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, 
 but rather give place unto wrath ;] " Avenge 
 not yourselves, beloved, but give place 
 to God's wrath." Literally," to the wrath:" 
 
 O 
 
2IO 
 
 ROMANS. XII. 
 
 [v. 20 2 1, 
 
 is mine j I will repay, saith the him drink : for in so doing thou 
 
 Lord. shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 
 » Prov. 25. 20 ^Therefore if thine enemy 21 Be not overcome of evil, but 
 
 hunger, feed him j if he thirst, give overcome evil w^ith good. 
 
 the reference of the Article to" God's wrath" 
 is made certain by the quotation which fol- 
 lows: compare v. 9, i Thess. ii. 16: and 
 Ecclesiastici'.s xix. 17, xxxviii. 12 ; Prov. xx. 
 22, xxiv. 29. Both the language and the 
 thought are illustrated by Eph. iv. 27, which 
 shows that by avenging ourselves we give 
 place to the devil. 
 
 Vengeance is mine ■] "To Me b e 1 n g e t h 
 vengeance," Deut. xxxii. 35. The exact 
 order and literal meaning of the Hebrew are 
 preserved in the Greek here and in Heb. x. 
 30, though both were lost in the Septuagint 
 \ ersion, ti/ rj^iija eKSLKi'iafon avraTTobaxTOi. 
 
 It is further remarkable that in the latter 
 part of the quotation St. Paul himself does 
 not adhere literally to the Heb., " and recom- 
 pence" (A. V. Deut.), but follows partly the 
 LXX and partly the paraphrase adopted in 
 the so-called Targum of Onkelos, " I will 
 repay," and himself adds the words, '■'■saith 
 the Lord." (Fritzsche.) 
 
 It is thus evident that the Apostle's pur- 
 pose throughout the verse is to put in the 
 strongest light of emphasis and contrast {"■not 
 voitr selves " — " I") the truth that vengeance 
 is not for us but for God. This meaning is 
 quite lost, when the words '■'give place to 
 qjurath " are made equivalent to " resist not 
 the wrath of your adversary," or " give your 
 own wrath time to abate." 
 
 20. Therefore'] The whole verse, except 
 the connecting Particle, is taken exactly from 
 the LXX, Prov. xxv. 21, 22. The Particle 
 ovv introduces the precept as an inference 
 from the truth that vengeance belongeth only 
 unto the Lord. A various reading (aWa) of 
 at least equal authority (Tisch. 8) gives a 
 slightly different connexion: "avenge not 
 yourselves, . . . but show kindness to your 
 enemy." 
 
 coals of fire ;] A full discussion of the 
 phrase " thou shalt heap coals of fire o« his 
 head" belongs to Prov. xxv. 21 ; but we must 
 briefly consider it in connexion with the pre- 
 sent context. 
 
 («.) According to Chrysostom, and other 
 Greek Fathers, the " coals of fire ' are God's 
 sore judgments, which will be heaped upon 
 the sinner who hardens himself against deeds 
 of love. 
 
 (i.) In favour of this interpretation are the 
 
 apparent sense of the phrase in 2 Esdras xvi. 
 53," Let not the sinner say that he hath not 
 sinned : for God shall burn coals of fire upon 
 his head, ivhich saith before the Lord God and 
 his glory, I have tiot sinned." 
 
 (2.) The reference to divine judgments in 
 the present context, '■'vengeance is Mine, I 
 luill repay.'' 
 
 The chief objection is that urged by Augus- 
 tine : " How is it consistent with love, to give 
 food and drink to an enemy in order to heap 
 coals of fire upon his head, if coals of fire here 
 signify some heavy punishment r " 
 
 The objection is commonly met by a re- 
 ference to such passages as Ps. xxxvii. 34, Iviii. 
 10 ; Prov. xxix. 16 ; Luke xviii. 7 ; 2 Tim. iv. 
 14 ; and by the explanation that the ■' coals of 
 fire" will be heaped only upon the impenitent, 
 while deeds of love are meant to lead to re- 
 pentance. 
 
 {b.) Augustine and other Latin Fathers 
 understand "coals of fire heaped on the head" 
 as an oriental figure of the burning pains of 
 shame and remorse : and in support of this 
 view we must observe that a very similar mode 
 of expression is found in Proverbs close to 
 the verses which St. Paul has quoted : " a soft 
 tongue breaketh the bone" (Prov. xxv. 15). 
 
 The passage thus means, show to thine 
 enemy such kindness as shall make him 
 ashamed of his hatred ; so wilt thou inflict 
 the sharpest and tlie most salutary pain. 
 The figure is probably that of the melting- 
 pots. As the object of heaping coals of fire on 
 a vessel is to melt down its contents, so here 
 the object is to melt a stubborn heart, a pro- 
 cess not least painful when effected by unde- 
 served kindness. This interpretation is con- 
 firmed by the closing sentence of Prov. xxv. 
 22 (not quoted by St. Paul), "and the Lord 
 shall ren.vard thee" namely, for the good deeds 
 done to thine enemy. 
 
 The sense thus confirmed by the context 
 of the original passage is required also by the 
 present context, the general thought of which 
 is summed up in the next verse, "Be not over- 
 come of evil, but overcome evil 'with good'' 
 
 The phrase " thou shalt heap coals of fire on 
 his head" would be in the first sense {a) an 
 incongruous appendix to the quotation, but 
 in the latter sense {b^ it helps powerfully to 
 enforce the duty of loving our enemies, which 
 is the main subject of the passage. 
 
V. I— 3-] 
 
 ROMANS. XIII. 
 
 211 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 I Siihjedion, and many other duties, we owe 
 to the magistrates. 8 Love is the ftdfiUing 
 of the law. 1 1 Gluttony and dj-unkenncss, 
 and the works of darkness, are out of season 
 tn the time of the gospel. 
 
 LET every soul be subject unto 
 the higher powers. For there 
 
 is no power but of God : the powers 
 
 that be are " ordained of God. " ^]' . 
 
 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth 
 the power, resisteth the ordinance of 
 God : and they that resist shall re- 
 ceive to themselves damnation. 
 
 3 For rulers are not a terror to 
 good works, but to the evil. Wilt 
 
 Chap. XIII.^Christian Duties, Poli- 
 tical AND Social. 
 
 1-7. Obedience to Rulers. — From ex- 
 hortations to live peaceably with all men, and 
 abstain from revenge, St. Paul passes natu- 
 rally, but without any express mark of con- 
 nexion, to the duty of obedience to civil 
 authorities. This is a subject rarely noticed 
 in his other epistles: see i Tim. ii. 2. "Why 
 then does he treat it so fully and em-phatically 
 in writing to the Romans ? 
 
 (i.) The Jews at Rome were notorious 
 for their turbulence ; see note on Acts xviii. 
 2 : and the Christians being regarded as a 
 Jewish sect, and being actually followers of a 
 Jewish Messiah, were likely to be suspected 
 of revolutionary tendencies. How easily sus- 
 picion could be turned against them was seen 
 a few years later in Nero's persecution. 
 
 (2.) There was a real danger that Chris- 
 tians themselves, even those of Pfeathen 
 origin, might be misled by false notions of 
 Christ's kingdom and its relation to the 
 kingdoms of this world. 
 
 (3.) This danger was greatest at Rome, 
 where Christianity was brought face to face 
 with the Imperial power : for the Roman 
 government, regarding religion as a matter 
 of state policy, sternly repressed every innova- 
 tion which threatened to disturb the public 
 peace. 
 
 But though the circumstances of the 
 Roman Christians may have furnished the 
 occasion for the admonition, and prudence 
 may have suggested the need of it, the duty 
 of obedience is enforced by other and far 
 higher motives. M. Renan's remark (' Saint 
 Paul,' p. 477) that "Paul had too much tact 
 to be an agitator," and wished the Christian 
 to be " a man of order en regie with the 
 police, of good repute in the eyes of Pagans," 
 — is an unworthy travesty of the Apostle's 
 teaching. 
 
 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher 
 po-ivers,'] " Let every soul submit to higher 
 powers." 
 
 " E'very soul," though a common expres- 
 sion for " every man," retains a certain em- 
 phasis and pathos, which appeal for hearty 
 obedience. 
 
 " Higher powers " ( Wiclif 's excellent ren- 
 
 dering) include both the person and office of 
 such as are set in authority : compare Wisd. 
 vi. 5 ; I Tim. ii. 2 ; i Pet. ii. 13. 
 
 For there is no power but of God, iyc."] 
 Read, " For there is no power except from 
 God: hut the po-tuers that be have been 
 ordained by God." In enforcing the duty 
 of submission, St. Paul clearly asserts a divine 
 right of civil government, as derived fi^om 
 God the source of all authority and power : 
 and he extends that divine right to all '' de 
 facto " rulers " as the bearers of a divinely 
 ordained office" (Meyer), but does not touch 
 any question of the Christian's duty in refer- 
 ence to conflicting claims on his allegiance. 
 
 2. Whosoe'ver therefore resisteth the po^ver^ 
 Read, "So that he which setteth himself 
 against the power." The Greek words 
 in I'v. I, 2 which we have rendered "sub- 
 mit," "ordained," "setteth himself 
 against," and "ordinance," have all the 
 same root, and give to the passage an antithe- 
 tical force which cannot be preserved in 
 English. 
 
 and they that resist shall receive to thetiz- 
 selves damnation^ Read, " Shall upon them- 
 selves bring judgment:" see note on 
 Matt, xxiii. 14. Here, though the judgment 
 comes from Him whose ordinance is resisted, 
 it is not damnation in the world to come, but 
 temporal punishment executed by rulers as 
 God's ministers in this world. 
 
 3. For rulers are not a terror to good 
 m]orks^ Read, "to the good work." The 
 " work " is mentioned ratlier than the worker, 
 because the power of rulers extends only to 
 men's actions. The verse shows <u;hy judg- 
 ment will overtake those who resist, namely, 
 because the office of the civil power is not to 
 subvert but to maintain that moral order 
 which is in its origin divine. St. Paul is 
 enforcing the duties of subjects, and therefore 
 regards rulers only as acting according to the 
 true idea of their office. He was in fact 
 writing in the earlier and better part of Nero's 
 reign, while Seneca and Burrhus were still in 
 power, before any general persecution of the 
 (Christians, but after he had himself suffered 
 grievous injustice from the civil power (Acts 
 xvi. 37; 2 Cor xi. 25, 32). His argument 
 
 O 2 
 
212 
 
 ROMANS. XIll. 
 
 [v. 4—7. 
 
 thou then not be afraid of the power ? 
 do that which is good, and thou shalt 
 have praise of the same : 
 
 4 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 revenger 
 to execute wrath upon him that doeth 
 evil. 
 
 5 Wherefore ye must needs be 
 
 subject, not only for wrath, but also 
 for conscience sake. 
 
 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute 
 also : for they are God's ministers, 
 attending continually upon this very 
 thing. 
 
 7 Render therefore to all their 
 dues : tribute to whom tribute is 
 due ; custom to whom custom ; fear 
 to whom fear ; honour to whom 
 honour. 
 
 applies to all forms of government, and to 
 Heathen as well as Christian rulers: it has 
 "a general validity based on the divinely- 
 ordained position of the magistracy, and 
 not annulled by their injustice in practice" 
 (Meyer). There is as little reason for Renan's 
 sarcastic exclamation that " Nero was pro- 
 claimed by St. Paul a minister, an officer of 
 God, a representative of Divine authority ! " 
 — as for Volkmar's wild conjecture that the 
 second beast in the Apocalypse (xiii. 12), who 
 caused " the earth and them nvhich dwell 
 therein to ^worship the first beast" represented 
 St. Paul heie recommending obedience to 
 civil government. 
 
 thoii shalt have pnaise of the samej] Read, 
 *'■ praise from it," i.e. from the power. 
 
 4. For he is the minister of God to thee for 
 good^ Confirmation of the last clause of 
 •y. 3, with which it should have been joined. 
 The civil power (e^ouo-t'o, 1;. 3) is God's 
 minister, and as such exists only for good to 
 him that doeth good : i Tim. ii. 2. 
 
 he beareth not the snvord in -vain :] The 
 sword as the emblem of the power of life and 
 death was borne habitually {(popdv) by, or 
 before, the higher magistrates, and that " not 
 in vain " but with a serious purpose, tor use 
 against evil-doers. " Qui universas provincias 
 regunt, jus gladii habeat" (Ulpian, 'Dig.' I. 
 18, 6, § 8, quoted by Tholuck). 
 
 The Apostle in this passage expressly vindi- 
 cates the right of capital punishment as divinely 
 entrusted to the magistrate, "ybr he is God's 
 minister" appointed to execute His righteous 
 vengeance. 
 
 a revenger to execute ■wrath upon him that 
 doeth evil.] Read, "an avenger for wrath 
 unto him that doeth evil." The words 
 "for wrath" (omitted in a few MSB) answer 
 to the preceding words ^^for good," and their 
 genuineness is confirmed by the renewed 
 mention of " the wrath " (tijv opyrjv) in the 
 next verse. 
 
 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not 
 only for ^jjrath but also for conscience sake.] 
 
 Read, " Wherefore ye must needs submit, not 
 only for the wrath," &c. The necessity is 
 twofold, external on account of "the wrath" 
 which the magistrate executes, and internal 
 on account of conscience towards God. We 
 thus see that " ^luherefore " refers to the whole 
 passage (yv. 1-4) as setting forth the 
 grounds of obedience. 
 
 6. For for this cause pay ye tribute also ;] 
 To avoid ambiguity, read, "ye pay tribute 
 also," Confirmation of v. 5. In tlie fact 
 of paying tribute you acknowledge that cha- 
 racter of the civil power which entitles it to 
 obedience, namely that it is an ordinance of 
 God ''''for the punishment of evil-doers , and for 
 the praise of them that do 'well" (i Pet. 
 ii. 14). 
 
 for they are God's ministers, attending con- 
 tinually upon this very thing.] Read, "for 
 they are ministers of God, labouring 
 constantly unto this very end." 
 
 " The A.V. has here ' God's ministers,^ and 
 in -y. 4 ' the ministers of God.' The expres- 
 sions are altered in both verses in the version 
 of " Five Clergymen," which I have followed 
 for this reason, that in v. 4 the idea of 
 serving on behalf of God is implied in tid- 
 Kovos ; whilst here that of serving or minister- 
 ing to God on behalf of the people seems to 
 be included also in \ei,Tovpyo\ 6eov." (Riddle 
 in Lange.) 
 
 A ministerial, not necessarily priestly, cha- 
 racter is thus ascribed to rulers (see note on 
 XV. 16): they labour "unto this very end," 
 i.e. unto that service of God which is de- 
 scribed in w. 3, 4, and referred to in the 
 words "y&r this cause." 
 
 7. Render therefore to all their dues :] Omit 
 " therefore." The verse is a summary exhor- 
 tation, based on the nature of civil govern- 
 ment as stated in vv. 5, 6, and appended 
 without any conjunction, as in xii. 21. 
 " Render to all who are in authority whatever 
 they are entitled to claim." 
 
 tribute to luhom tribute is due.] This is an 
 excellent rendering of St. Paul's brief and 
 
8— II.] 
 
 ROMANS. XIII. 
 
 213 
 
 8 Owe no man any thing, but to 
 love one another : for he that loveth 
 another hath fulfilled the law. 
 
 9 For this, Thou shalt not com- 
 mit adultery. Thou shalt not kill, 
 Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not 
 bear false witness, Thou shalt not 
 covet ; and if tkere he any other 
 commandment, it is briefly compre- 
 
 hended in this saying, namely. Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbour as thyself 
 
 10 Love worketh no ill to his 
 neighbour : therefore love is the ful- 
 filling of the law. 
 
 11 And that, knowing the time, 
 that now it is high time to awake 
 out of sleep : for now is our salva- 
 tion nearer than when we believed. 
 
 elliptical sentence. The complete expression 
 would be — " to him that claims tribute, ren- 
 der tribute :" but the shorter phrase is equally 
 clear and far more forcible. 
 
 " Tribute " ((f>6pos), any direct tax on person 
 or real property, and " custom " (jeXos), any 
 indirect tax or toll on goods (Matt. xvii. 25 ; 
 Lu. XX. 22), were both paid to the Roman 
 government, and the agents who collected 
 them were, to the Jews at least, objects of 
 popular hatred and contempt. When, there- 
 fore, St. Paul exhorts his readers at Rome not 
 only to submit to taxation, but to regard their 
 rulers with due fear and honour, his counsel 
 is in strong contrast to that of the " seducers 
 and deceivers " who at this period were ex- 
 citing the fierce fanaticism of their countrymen 
 in Judxa, and " under pretence of inspiration 
 were plotting innovations and revolutions" 
 (Joseph. 'B. J.'II. xiii. 3). "The Jews at 
 Rome shared the same turbulent spirit" (Suet. 
 * Claudius,' c. 25). 
 
 It is worthy of notice that the extortion of 
 the Publicans had become so intolerable, that 
 a few months after the date of this Epistle 
 Nero proposed to the Senate the most strin- 
 gent and sw^eeping reforms : see Tacitus, 
 ' Annals,' xiii. 50. 
 
 8-10. Exhortation to Mutual Love. 
 
 8. Onve no man any thing, but to love one 
 another-] From the duties that must be 
 paid to all in authority, St. Paul passes very 
 naturally to the wider duty of loving all men. 
 " Pay every debt, let none remain due to any 
 man, save that ' immortal debt ' (Bengel) of 
 mutual love which, however fully paid, is still 
 for ever due." 
 
 for he that loveth another] Read, '■^for he 
 that loveth his neighbour," &c. 
 
 So WicHf rightly renders tov erepov, i.e. 
 " the other " implied in the expression " to love 
 one another :" compare ii. i, 21. 
 
 hath ful/Ille/^ the law.] "In and with the 
 loving there has taken place what the Mosaic 
 law prescribes in respect of duties towards 
 one's neighbour, inasmuch as he who loves 
 does not commit adultery, docs not kill, steal, 
 covet." (Meyer.) But see more in the note 
 on -u. 10. 
 
 9. On the order of the commandments of 
 the 2nd Table, see note on Ex. xx. 
 
 Thou shalt not bear false witness,] The 
 addition of this clause to the original text, in 
 order to supply a supposed omission, is proved 
 to be needless by what follows, " and if there 
 be atiy other commandment." 
 
 it is briefly comprehended] Or, "it is 
 summed up." In Lev. xix. 18, sundry laws 
 forbidding injury to one's neighbour are 
 summed up in a saying which contains them 
 all in principle, as it also contains all the com- 
 mandments of the Decalogue, to which St. 
 Paul here applies it. The several laws which 
 flow from love are thus gathered up again in 
 love, their fountain head. 
 
 10. Love nvorketh no ill] This emphatic 
 rendering of the words ovk ep-yaferat is justi- 
 fied by their position. " Love " (personified 
 as in I Cor. xiii.) " worketh no ill to his neigh- 
 bour," neither the ills forbidden in the several 
 commandments, nor any other. 
 
 therefore love is the fulfilling of the latv.] 
 "Love therefore is the fulfilment of 
 law." Compare -y. 8. The argument of this 
 passage is satisfied, if it be limited to the law 
 of Moses, and its special prohibitions: but it 
 is probable that St. Paul, by using v6p.ov 
 without the article, pointed to a larger sense 
 in which love is the fulfilment of law. For 
 viewed in its idea and essence as a revelation 
 of God's will, " law " requires for its fulfil- 
 ment that we should not only cease to do evil, 
 but learn to do well. 
 
 11-14. After his full explanation in vv. 8-ro 
 of the exhortation, " Owe no man any thing, but 
 to love one another," St. Paul now resumes the 
 exhortation, and enforces it by a special mo- 
 tive drawn from the shortness of the time, and 
 then upon this motive founds fresh exhorta- 
 tions to vigilance and holiness. 
 
 11. jind that, knowing the time.] " ^nd 
 that, because ye know the season." On 
 Kal TovTo compare i Cor. vi. 6, 8 ; Eph. ii. 8. 
 It recalls with fresh emphasis the preceding 
 thought, " Owe nothing but love," which is 
 itself the comprehensive summary of all the 
 
214 
 
 ROMANS. XIII. 
 
 fv. 12 14. 
 
 II Or, 
 decently. 
 
 12 The night is far spent, the day ness, not in chambering and wanton- 
 is at hand : let us therefore cast off ness, not in strife and envying. 
 
 the works of darkness, and let us put 
 on the armour of light. 
 
 13 Let us walk "honestly, as in 
 the day ; not in rioting and drunken- 
 
 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and make not provision for 
 the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. 
 
 Christian duties enforced in this and the 
 preceding chapter. 
 
 On €tSdr€s, see note on vii. 7. 
 
 that nonxj it is high time to awake out of 
 sleep-] Read, "that it is time for us at 
 once to awake," <S:c. 
 
 The pronoun "us" (or " you "), omitted in 
 the A. v., is addressed to believers (fVto-reu- 
 <Ta^(v), and demands of them an earnest vigi- 
 lance, compared with which their ordinary life 
 is as a " sltep '' of the soul. So in the parable 
 of the virgins, " they all slumbered and sUpt." 
 
 for noiv is our salvation nearer] ''''for nO'W 
 is salvation nearer to us." This latter 
 rendering is favoured by the order of the 
 words. The " salvation " meant is evidently 
 the full and final salvation which shall accom- 
 pany the .second coming of the Lord. When 
 St. Paul says of this that it is " nearer than 
 ivhen ^we believed,^' it is clear that he thought 
 Christ's coming nigh at hand. The short 
 time since St. Paul and his readers first 
 " believed" would have brought the Advent 
 seemingly no nearer, had it been regarded as 
 indefinitely distant. In fact, a constant ex- 
 pectation of the day of the Lord as fast 
 approaching is the very attitude of mind 
 which Christ Himself enjoined in His re- 
 peated warnings. 
 
 That expectation had from the first been 
 modified by the caution, " Of that day and 
 hour kno'Meth no man" (Matt. xxiv. 36). In 
 St. Pauls mind the expectation was vivid 
 (1 Thess. iv. 17; i Cor. xv. 52), but the 
 caution was not forgotten (i Thess. v. i, 2; 
 2 Thess. ii. i). 
 
 The Aorist eTTioTeva-a^ev points back to 
 the first acceptance of the taith: compare 
 I Cor. iii. 5 ; xv. 2 ; Acts xix. 2. 
 
 12. The night is far spent, the day is at 
 hand^ Having compared the present moral 
 condition of his readers to "-sleep" the 
 Apostle carries on the figure, contrasting 
 the present life with that which is to come 
 as night with day : compare Heb. x. 25. 
 
 let us therefore cast off the ivorks of dark- 
 ness.^ In accordance with the figurative use 
 of " sleep " and " night," the '' darkness " also 
 is to be understood in a moral sense, and 
 " the q.vorks of darkness " are not only such 
 deeds of violence or lust as inen seek to hide 
 under cover of night (i Thess. v. 7; Ephes. 
 V. 11), but generally all sinful deeds whose 
 
 natural elem.ent is the state of spiritual dark- 
 ness. All these, says the Apostle, " let us cast 
 off" as men arising out of sleep lay aside 
 the garments worn during the night. For 
 the literal sense of oTro^w/Lte^a see Acts vii. 58, 
 and for its application to moral habits com- 
 pare Eph. iv. 22, 25 ; Col. iii. 8 ; James i. 21 ; 
 I Peter ii. i ; Heb. xii. i. 
 
 and let us put on the armour of light.] The 
 interpretation "bright shining armour," does 
 not agree with the figure employed, of nighi 
 and day. '■^The armour of the light," is 
 the armour belonging to and worn during the 
 light, that with which the Christian must be 
 found clad in the day of Christ's coming, 
 when the true heavenly light will arise and 
 shine: compare Eph. vi. 11. 
 
 13. Let us lualk honestly, as in the day.] 
 For '■^ honestly" {1 T\\itss. iv. 12), which is 
 now seldom used in its proper Latin sense, 
 read "seemly" or "becomingly." Com- 
 pare xii. 17, where '■^things honest" mean 
 "'things becoming," and i Cor. xiv. 40, 
 where for ^''decently" read "becomingly." 
 " As if the day, which is so near at hand, were 
 already present, so let us walk becomingly." 
 (Photius.) 
 
 To this passage St. Augustine (' Confes- 
 sions,' viii. 12, 23^ attributes his own re- 
 markable conversion : " I seized the book, 
 opened it, and read in silence the passage 
 on which my eyes were first cast, 'Not in 
 revellings and drunkenness, not in chamber- 
 ing and voantonness. not in strife and ^ea.lo\i.sy: 
 but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make 
 not provision for the flesh unto lusts.' I had 
 no wish, no need, to read further: for at the 
 end of this sentence immediately, as if the 
 light of full assurance had been poured into 
 my heart, the darkness of my doubts all fled 
 away." For "envying" read "jealousy." 
 Revelry is followed on the one hand by 
 lasciviousness, and on the other by strife and 
 jealous wrath (Cn^m, Acts xiii. 45). 
 
 14. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ^ 
 In Gal. iii. 27 (written only a few months 
 before this Epistle) St. Paul says that " all 
 who were baptised into Christ did put on 
 Christ," /. e. entered into fellowsliip of life 
 with Him, and became members of Him. 
 The fact of union with Christ, there as- 
 serted in the dogmatic sense, is the ground of 
 the exhortation in this passage to " put on 
 
V. 
 
 1-2.] 
 
 ROMANS. XIV. 
 
 215 
 
 Christ" in the ethical sense, /. e. to clothe the 
 soul in the moral disposition and habits of 
 Christ. The essential element of this union 
 is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit's power 
 is needed continually to maintain and develope 
 the life once bestowed. Each new step in 
 the development of this life may be regarded 
 as a new putting on of Christ, and so may 
 be the subject, as here, of special exhortation. 
 Compare Gal. iv. 19, " little children, of ^vhom 
 I tra-vall In birth again until Christ be fanned 
 inyou." 
 
 and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil 
 the lusts thereof^ Literally, unto lusts. If 
 (rap^ has here a purely physiological sense 
 (Philippi) as denoting the material of the 
 
 body, the prohibition is not absolute but 
 limited by the words unto lusts (fis eVi- 
 OvjUiias) : take not care of the body to such 
 an extent as to excite lusts (Meyer), or rather 
 " in order to gratify lusts." 
 
 But the opposition between " putting on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ " and " taking fore- 
 thought for the flesh " makes it more probable 
 that crdp^ here, as in cc. vii. and viii., denotes 
 the flesh in its sensuality and sinfulness : and 
 so the Apostle forbids altogether any fore- 
 thought for its indulgence as necessarily 
 aiming at, or at least tending to, the excite- 
 ment and gratification of sinful lusts. The 
 words unto lusts thus strengthen instead 
 of limiting the prohibition. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTE on v. i. 
 
 The reading vivo 6eov instead of drro 6eov, 
 though found in the oldest MSS. and gene- 
 rally adopted by critical Editors, is still 
 regarded by many of the best interpreters as 
 the error of a copyist misled by the vtto of 
 the following clause. 
 
 The received Text {ano deov') certainly 
 seems to give a better and more pointed sense, 
 by distinguishing the Divine origin of civil 
 government in general from the actual estab- 
 lishment by God's Providence of existing 
 governments. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 3 Men may 7tot contefnn nor condemn one the 
 other for things indifferent : 1 3 but take heed 
 that they give 710 offence in them : 1 5 for 
 that the apostle proveth unlawful by many 
 reasons . 
 
 HIM that is weak in the faith 
 receive ye, hut "not to doubt- '■.'\^' «^'''' 
 ful disputations. doubtful 
 
 2 For one believeth that he may 
 eat all things : another, who is weak, 
 eateth herbs. 
 
 thoughts. 
 
 Chap. XW. — Exhortation to Mutual 
 Forbearance among Christians. 
 
 The great principle of Christian love com- 
 mended in the preceding chapter is here 
 applied to enforce the special duty of mutual 
 forbearance in things indifferent. This 
 general connexion of thought between the 
 two chapters is clear and unquestionable : 
 the more immediate and formal connexion 
 being less obvious has been much disputed. 
 
 (i.) The expectation of the Second Advent, 
 introduced as a motive to mutual love (xiii. 
 11), is naturally accompanied by an exhoila- 
 tion to watchfulness and purity (xiii. 12-14); 
 and from this Incidental admonition St. Paul 
 now returns to his main thought (Fritzsche). 
 
 (2.) The warning against excessive in- 
 dulgence of the flesh leads by a natural 
 transition and contrast to the case of those 
 who from weakness of faith observe an over- 
 scrupulous asceticism (Meyer). 
 
 These views are both partially true, and 
 both incomplete. 
 
 The expectation of Christ's second coming 
 
 to judge the world runs through the whole 
 passage (xiii. 11, xiv. 4, 10-12), as the con- 
 straining motive to mutual charity and for- 
 bearance. 
 
 Before applying this motive in c. xiv., to 
 appease dissensions which were occasioned 
 chiefly by a superstitious observance of things 
 morally indifferent, the Apostle, with admir- 
 able wisdom, draws first from the thought of 
 coming judgment a note of warning, not un- 
 needed, especially among his Gentile readers, 
 against a licentious abuse of Christian liberty ; 
 and so passes over (fie, xiv. i) to the opposite 
 and less dangerous error or infirmity, for 
 which he claims a charitable forbearance 
 from those whose consciences were more 
 robust. 
 
 1. Him that is iveak in the faith ^ "Bat 
 him that Is iveab in faith." 'H iriaTis 
 does not here mean " the faith," i. e. the 
 doctrine believed, but the man's own Christian 
 faith in its moral and practical bearing, as a 
 conviction of right and wrong : compr.re "vu. 
 22, 23. The weakness is described by a 
 
2l6 
 
 ROMANS. XIV. 
 
 [v. 3—5- 
 
 3 Let not him that eateth despise 
 him that eateth not ; and let not him 
 which eateth not judge him that 
 eateth : for God hath received him. 
 
 4 Who art thou that judgest ano- 
 
 ther man's i/ervant ? to his own 
 master he standeth or falleth. Yea, 
 he shall be holden up : for God is 
 able to make him stand. 
 
 5 One man esteemeth one day- 
 
 Participle, not by an Adjective, and thus (as 
 Godet rightly observes) is not treated as an 
 inherent and permanent defect of character. 
 
 receive ye, but not to doubtful duputations^ 
 ^'' receive ye, not unto discussion of doubts." 
 Admit the weak brother to Christian fellow^- 
 ship, take him to yourselves, but not to discuss 
 and pass judgments upon any doubts that he 
 entertains. This plea for a kindly reception 
 of the weak brethren implies that they, i.e. 
 the Jewish Christians, were not the pre- 
 dominant part of the Christian community 
 at Rome. For ^LUKplaeis see i Cor. xii. lo; 
 Heb. V. 14: and for fitaXoyia/xoij/ see note on 
 i. 21. The meaning ^' doubts " is clear in Phil. 
 ii. 14. 
 
 2. For one belie-veth that he may eat all 
 things-] "One man hath faith to eat all 
 things." For this meaning of Trtcrrewet com- 
 pare Demosthenes, ' Against Onetor,' p. 866 
 {jrpoecrdai 8e rqv TTpoiK ovk tTTLtrrfvaev), " he 
 had not confidence, i. e. was too cautious, to 
 give up the dowry." 
 
 another, ivho is -weak, eateth herbs.] "But 
 he that is weak," &c. The scruple here 
 described refers to eating flesh at all, not only 
 flesh of unclean animals or of idol-sacrifices. 
 The weak Christian lived on vegetables. 
 
 In regard to the motive of this scrupulous 
 abstinence, see Introduction, § 7. 
 
 St. Paul, regarding the matter itself as in- 
 different, expresses no disapproval of either 
 practice, but only of the uncharitable feelings 
 with which it may be associated. The strong 
 must not despise the weak as narrow-minded 
 and superstitious, nor the weak judge and 
 condemn the strong as unscrupulous and 
 iiTeverent. Similar cautions are much needed 
 in discussions of the present day concerning 
 «' temperance." 
 
 3. for God hath received him.] Compare 
 Pss. xxvii. 10, Ixv. 4, Ixxiii. 24, where the LXX 
 use the same Greek word, also John xiv. 3 ; 
 Rom. XV. 7 ; and Clemens Rom., i Cor. 
 49 ; €v ayanrj npocreXdlSeTo rjpas 6 AeaTTOTrji. 
 St. Paul's meaning is, " Condemn not for his 
 freedom the man whom God has taken to 
 Himself and received into His Church in this 
 freedom ;" i Cor. x. 29 ; Gal. v. 13. 
 
 4. IVho art thou that judgest another man's 
 servant?] Read, "another's servant,"/.^. 
 
 » God's, or Christ's, according as Qeos or 
 Kuptos is adopted in the close of the verse. 
 The question, " Who art thou?" addressed to 
 
 " the nveak'" in faith, rebukes his presi;mption 
 in condemning the freedom which God has 
 not condemned. Compare ix. 20. 
 
 The word oi/ceVi;?, rare in N. T., denotes a 
 household servant, distinguished from ordinary 
 slaves (Plat. Legg. vi., p. 763 a) as being 
 more closely connected with the family. 
 (Meyer.) 
 
 to his oiun master he standeth or falleth.] 
 The figurative expression ^^ standeth or falleth" 
 is variously understood: 
 
 (i.) He is acquitted or condemned, not by 
 your judgment, but by that of God (Ps. i. 5 ; 
 Lu. xxi. 36 ; I Cor. iv. 4), 
 
 (2.) Whether in the use of his liberty he 
 does well or ill, stands upright or falls into 
 sin, is a matter that concerns his own Master, 
 not thee (i Cor. x. 12, xvi. 13; i Thess. iii. 
 8, Sec; c. xi. 22). This latter interpretation 
 is confirmed by what follows. "What St. Paul 
 thus forbids is not a kindly concern for a 
 fellow-servant's safety, but a censorious in- 
 terference with his freedom. For the Dative 
 see Winer, pp. 263, 265, and below, -vv. 
 6, 7, 8. 
 
 Tea, he shall be holden up:] Read, "But he 
 shall stand." Matt. xii. 26 ; Lu. xi. 18 ; 
 2 Cor. xiii. i. 
 
 for God is able to make him stand.] Read, 
 "for the Lord is mighty," &c.: Wiclifs 
 vigorous rendering, based on the reading of 
 nearly all the best MSS and oldest versions 
 {pwarel yap 6 Kvpios). St. Paul's confident 
 assurance that the man, who in the strength 
 of faith asserts his freedom in things in- 
 different, will be kept in his uprightness, rests 
 on the might of Christ "the Lord." 
 
 5. One man esteemeth one day above another?^ 
 If "for" (ya/j) be restored (Tisch. 8), it must 
 be regarded either as a repetition, or better 
 as a confirmation, of the yap \n v. 2, i, e. it 
 strengthens the argument for the precept of 
 V. I, by a second example of difference be- 
 tween the weak and the strong in faith : " one 
 ■man chooseth day before day; another 
 ohooseth every day." For the meaning of 
 Kplva see Plato, ' Republic,' iii. 399, F., and 
 /?-'schylus, 'Agamemnon,' 471; and for the 
 subject matter compare Col. ii. 16, ^^ Let 
 no man therefore judge you in meat, or in 
 drink, or in respect of an holy day (feast), or 
 of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." 
 From that passage and from Gal. iv. 10, we 
 see that Jewish Christians who were weak 
 
6-9.] 
 
 ROMANS. XIV. 
 
 217 
 
 above another : another esteemeth 
 every day alike. Let every man be 
 
 ^Ot. fully iir 11 J J • U- -J 
 
 assured. "ruUy persuaded in his ow^n mind. 
 iior, ^^- 5 fje that "reo-ardeth the day, re- 
 
 serxeth. i , • ° 1 r i '^ ? 1 
 
 gardeth it unto the Lord ; and he 
 that regardeth not 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 God thanks. 
 
 7 For none of us Hveth to himself, 
 and no man dieth to himself. 
 
 8 For w^hether we live, vi^e live 
 unto the Lord ; and whether we die, 
 we die unto the Lord : whether we 
 live therefore, or die, we are the 
 Lord's. 
 
 9 For to this end Christ both 
 died, and rose, and revived, that he 
 might be Lord both of the dead and 
 living. 
 
 in faith were still influenced by a supersti- 
 tious reverence for days and seasons which 
 had . been held sacred amon.c: the Jews. A 
 rigid observance of the Sabbath was espe- 
 cially characteristic of the Essenes. Com- 
 pare Ecclesiasticus xxxiii. 7-9 : and on the 
 Judaizing eleiT.ent in the Roman Church, see 
 Introduction, § 7. There is not the slightest 
 reason to suppose, with Ewald, that St. Paul 
 is referring to the observance of the Lord's 
 day. 
 
 Let every man be fully persuaded in his own 
 mind.~] The observance of this or that day 
 being in itself a thing indifferent, it is enough 
 that he who observes it and he who does not 
 should "each be fully assured in his own 
 mind" that he is doing right. The "-mind" 
 (i/oi?) is the scat of moral consciousness, and 
 therefore of the "y"«// assurance of faith :" cf 
 vii. 23, and iv. 21 (jrXrjpo(jiopr]6eis). 
 
 6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it 
 unto the Lord7\ "H% that mindeth the 
 day, to the Lord he mindeth it." It being 
 presupposed that each is fully assured in his 
 own mind that he is doing right, then he that 
 sets his mind upon the day in question {rr]v 
 fifiepav) and is zealous for its observance 
 {(^povelv, Matt. xvi. 23; Phil. iii. 19; Col. 
 iii. 2), does so for the Lord's sake, considering 
 that '■'■this day is holy to the Lord" (i Esdras 
 ix. 52). 
 
 The clause, " and he that regardeth not the 
 day, to the Lord he doth not regard it,^' must be 
 omitted on overwhelming evidence : it seems 
 to have been added for the sake of com- 
 pleteness, being implied in the Apostle's 
 argument. 
 
 " The setting apart of special days for the 
 service of God is a confession of our imper- 
 fect state, an avowal that we cannot or do 
 not devote our whole time to Him. Sab- 
 baths will then ultimately be superseded, 
 when our life becomes one eternal Sabbath " 
 (Bp. Lightfoot on Coloss. ii. 18). 
 
 He that eateth, (b'c.'] The man who eats 
 flesh, eats it unto the Lord, because he deems 
 it right to use what God has given him for 
 
 use ; and he shows that he is fully assured of 
 this, "ybr he giveth God thanks.'' 
 
 In like manner "/)i? that eateth wof" flesh 
 " eateth not " for the Lord's sake, and accord- 
 ingly ^^ gives thanks to God" for the simpler 
 meal that he allows himself 
 
 This passage proves the universal custom 
 of thanksgiving before a meal (Matt. xv. 36 ; 
 Acts xxvii. 35 ; i Cor. x. 30, xi. 24; i Tim. 
 iv. 4, 5). 
 
 For the Datives see note on v. 4. 
 
 7, 8. Confirmation of the particular state- 
 ments in -v. 6 by the universal principle on 
 which they rest. 
 
 In observing or not observing special days, 
 and in eating or not eating flesh, a Christian 
 (who is fully assured) does all " unto the 
 Lord" for this is the conscious aim of his 
 existence, to live " not unto himself" not for 
 his own will and pleasure, but " unto the 
 Lord," for His glory, and according to His 
 will. 
 
 Moreover he that thus lives unto the Lord, 
 also dies unto the Lord: the ruling principle 
 of the life is strong in death. " It is a great 
 art to die well, and to be learnt by men in 
 health." (Jeremy Taylor, ' Holy Dying.') 
 
 " l^''e are the Lord's," not our own, but His 
 property, devoting ourselves to His service and 
 assured of His protection. The Apostle in 
 w. 7, 8 is speaking of believers only. 
 
 9. For to this end Christ both died, and 
 rose, and revived,'] " For to this end Christ 
 died and became alive." The shorter 
 reading is best attested, and explains the 
 variations : it also corresponds best with the 
 following clause, " that he might be Lord both 
 of dead and living." 
 
 The Christian's relation to his Lord, both 
 in life and in death, is founded on the facts of 
 Christ's personal history For the life which 
 the Christian lives '■'■unto the Lord" is also a 
 new life (vi. 4) derived from the new life ot 
 Christ, which made Him Lord of dead and 
 living: compare viii. 38; Phil. i. 20. The 
 new life on which Christ entered nfter His 
 resurrection is described not by avt^rjaev, but 
 
2l8 
 
 ROMANS. XIV. 
 
 [v. lo — 14. 
 
 10 But why dost thou judge thy 
 brother ? or why dost thou set at 
 
 2Cor. s. nought thy brother? for 'we shall 
 all stand before the judgment seat of 
 Christ. 
 
 11 For it is written, '^ As I live, 
 saith the Lord, every knee shall bow 
 to me, and every tongue shall con- 
 fess to God. 
 
 a Is. 45. 
 ^3- 
 
 12 So then every one of us shall 
 give account of himself to God. 
 
 13 Let us not therefore judge one 
 another any more : but judge this 
 rather, that no man put a stumbling- 
 block or an occasion to fall in his 
 brother's way. 
 
 14 I know, and am persuaded by 
 the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing 
 
 by the simple verb e^T^a-ei' (as in Apoc. i. 18, 
 ii. 8; Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11), to 
 correspond more closely with ^covrwi'. 
 
 The emphasis is of course on the words 
 '•'■both dead and living" as is shown by the 
 (cat — /cut, and required by the connexion with 
 •w. 7, 8. 
 
 Observe in iXrjcrev the inceptive force of the 
 Aorist, "became alive," for which compare 
 the Additional Note on i. 13, and Bernhardy, 
 * Syntax,' p. 382. 
 
 10. But ivhy dost thou judge thy brother? 
 or <why dost thou set at nought thy brother ?'\ 
 Read, "But thou, why judgest thou thy 
 brother? Or thou too, <why dost thou set at 
 nought thy brother f 
 
 If Christ is the Lord of all, what right has 
 the weak to judge, or the strong to despise his 
 brother ? For, instead of judging each other, 
 all are to be judged by the Lord. " All" is 
 placed emphatically first, as the force of the 
 argument rests on the universality of the judg- 
 ment: compare ii. 6, 16, iii. 6, Sec. 
 
 the judgment seat of Christ^ Read, ^'' the 
 judgment seat of God," and compare 2 Cor. 
 "V. 10, which was probably the source of the 
 reading " Christ." 
 
 11. The certainty of the universal judgment 
 is attested by the solemn declaration of Isaiah 
 xlv. 23, where for the Hebrew phrase, '"'■ By 
 myself have I snvorn" (Gen. xxii. 16), which is 
 literally rendered in LXX, St. Paul, quoting 
 from memory, substitutes the more frequent 
 form, " I Hue" equivalent to " By my own life 
 I swear:" compare Num. xiv. 21, 22, 28: 
 Deut. xxxii. 40, where the LXX have (cb 
 iyu) on. 
 
 saith the Lord^ Added to Isaiah's words by 
 St. Paul, to show tliat it is God who speaks. 
 
 The words which follow in Isaiah, ^'' the 
 ivord is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, 
 and shall not return,^' being only a further asse- 
 veration, are omitted by St. Paul. 
 
 every knee shall botu to me, and every tongue 
 shall confess to God.} Isai. xlv. 23. The 
 Hebrew is correctly rendered in the A. V., 
 " Unto me every knee shall bo'iv, every tongue 
 shall sivear."' 
 
 Compare Jcr. xliv. 26, where for -^ s-icorn^' 
 
 there is, as here, a various reading in LXX, 
 
 " confessed." 
 
 In Isaiah the oath of homage (Isai. xix. 18 ; 
 Jos. xxiii. 7; 2 Chr. xv. 14), as well as the 
 bended knee, marks the adoring submission of 
 the whole world to Jehovah, and the solemn 
 confession of His sovereignty. 
 
 The notion of " confessing sins to the 
 Judge " (Oicumenius) is out of place in this 
 verse, though it follows in the next. 
 
 12. So then every one of us shall give account 
 of himself to God^ ^^ So then each one of us 
 for himself shall give account to God." 
 On God's supremacy rests His exclusive right 
 of judgment : so when the former is confessed 
 by " every tongue" it follows that each will 
 answer for himself to his rightful Judge. By 
 bringing together the emphatic words, "each 
 one of us for himself," Vv'e give prominence 
 to the exact point, on which the application in 
 the next verse is based. 
 
 13. Let us not therefore judge one another 
 any more:'] "No longer therefore let us 
 judge one another." The warning against 
 judging is now addressed to both parties, and 
 so St. Paul passes over to the admonition 
 addressed to the strong in faith. 
 
 but judge this rather, that no man put a 
 stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his 
 brother' sivay.'] "But judge ye this rather, 
 not to put an offence before your bro- 
 ther, or a stumbling-block." 
 
 The two words Trpoa-K.ojXjxa and a-KavhciKov 
 differ in their proper material sense as a 
 " block" against which the foot strikes, and 
 a "trap" in which it is caught; but in the 
 figurative and moral sense they are used in- 
 differently, and rendered in the A. V. either 
 " offence," or " stumbling-block." See notes 
 on ix. 33, Matt. xvi. 23. Here it is better to 
 render Trpoa-Ko^fia by the same word " offence" 
 as in V. 20. 
 
 judge this] "judge ye this." The Pro- 
 noun must be expressed in English to show 
 the change of Person: let this be your judg- 
 ment and your determination. For this sense 
 of Kpivo) see I Cor. ii. 2 ; 2 Cor. ii. i ; Tit. 
 iii. 12. 
 
 14. by the Lord Jesus,] Read " in the Lord 
 
V. I5-I8.] 
 
 ROMANS. XIV. 
 
 219 
 
 'unclean of itself: but to him that 
 
 II Gr. cotti- 
 
 '"""■• 
 
 WGv. cotn- esteemeth any thing to be "unclean, 
 tnon. J.Q }^jj^^ ^Y is unclean. 
 
 15 But if thy brother be grieved 
 \?rdh^to with thy meat, now walkest thou 
 c/uiricy. not "charitably. ^Destroy not him 
 II. °^' ' with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 
 
 16 Let not then your good be evil 
 spoken of: 
 
 17 For the kingdom of God is not 
 meat and drink ; but righteousness, 
 and peace, and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 18 For he that in these things 
 
 Jesus." The conviction is that of a mind dwell- 
 ing in communion ivith Christ, and therefore 
 enlightened by His Spirit. 
 
 " Nothing" i. e., according to the context, 
 no kind of food. 
 
 ^^ Unclean:" Marg. "common:" see notes 
 on Acts X. 14, 28 : xi. 8. 
 
 ^'■Unclean of itself :" dt' eavrov, "per se," 
 " of its own nature," apart from conscientious 
 scruples. The rendering " through him" (St' 
 avTov, referred to Christ) "that is, on account 
 of His evangelic legislation" (Theodoret) is 
 fantastic and arbitrary. The meaning is not 
 that the distinction between clean and un- 
 clean meats was abolished : for "the weak in 
 faith" objected to eating flesh at ail, and this 
 objection was not founded on the law of 
 Moses, but on ascetic notions, such as those 
 of the Essenes. 
 
 but to him, <h'c.'] Read, "except to him," 
 (b'c. It is not " unclean of itself" it is not 
 unclean " except," &c. : compare for this use 
 of et /x)7 Luke iv. 26, 27 ; Gal. i. 7, ii. 16, &c. 
 Thus in enforcing the admonition oft*. 13, 
 St. Paul first asserts fully and directly the 
 principle of freedom, and then adds the excep- 
 tion, by which its practice ought to be modi- 
 fied : for the scruple of the weak brother is 
 valid so far as his conscience is concerned. It 
 is this exception that forms the essential part 
 of the argument, for on this is founded the 
 preceding exhortation not to scandalise the 
 weak brother. 
 
 15. But if thy brother be grieved ivith thy 
 meat,'} "For if because of meat thy 
 Drother is grieved" (Rheims). "For" is 
 unquestionably the true reading, it brings in 
 a reason for the exhortation expressed in v. 13, 
 and founded on the closing words of 1;. 14. 
 
 The whole argument is perfectly clear 
 when we reduce St. Paul's rhetorical style 
 to the simpler logical order : 
 
 (i.) "to him it is unclean" (-y. 14). 
 
 (2.) "put not a stumbling-block in his way" 
 (v. 13). 
 
 (3.) "for if because of meat thy brother 
 is grieved, thou art no longer walking 
 according to charity" {v. 15). 
 
 Destroy not, (h'c.'] The weak brother is 
 ^^ grieved," i. e. vexed in conscience, morally 
 pained (Eph. iv. 30) by seeing the strong in- 
 dulge in what he deems sinful. This grief 
 
 may tend to his destruction, and that in more 
 ways than one: he may either be repelled 
 from the Christian faith, which seems to be 
 associated with sinful practice, or he may be 
 seduced by your example into a cowardly 
 acquiescence in that which to him is sinful 
 (i Cor. viii. 12). Give up thy freedom and 
 eat no flesh, rather than thus lead into perdi- 
 tion him for whom Christ gave up His life to 
 save him from perdition. " Make not thy 
 meat of more account than Christ made His 
 life" (Bengel). 
 
 " Thy ?fieat," " that meat of thine": there is 
 a touch of scorn in the pronoun ; " Non sine 
 indignatione pronomen adjectum" (Beelen). 
 
 16. Let not therefore your good be evil spoken 
 of-\ This is addressed, as the whole passage 
 {yv. 13-2 3), to those who are strong in faith : 
 the Plural is used in laying down general 
 principles {yv. i, 7-9, 13, 16, 19; xv. i), the 
 Singular in applying them to special cases 
 {yv. 2-6, 10, 15, 20-23). 
 
 " Your good" that which is emphatically 
 your special advantage, can only mean, in 
 accordance with the context, your stronger 
 faith and fuller liberty ; the reading " our 
 good" would give the same general sense, 
 referring to the " knowledge and persuasion 
 in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in 
 itself" (^'. 14). Compare i Cor. viii. 4, 7. 
 9 ; X. 29, 30. 
 
 Let no uncharitable use of your liberty give 
 occasion to the weak in faith to condemn 
 and speak evil of that which is to you a real 
 good. 
 
 17. For the kingdom of God is not 7neat and 
 drink ;] " The kingdom of God, typified by 
 the O. T. theocracy, is God's dominion 
 over the heart, instituted and administered by 
 Christ : it is the heavenly sphere of life, in 
 which God's word and Spirit govern, and 
 whose organ on earth is the Church" (Lange). 
 Here the Apostle's point of view is that of 
 our Saviour's saying (Luke xvii. 20, where, 
 however, see note), " The kingdom of God is 
 within you": its essence lies not in things 
 external, as eating and drinking, but in the 
 inward graces of the spiritual life. The fol- 
 lowing clause, "/?£■ that in these things ser-veth 
 Christ," shows that these graces are here re- 
 garded as active principles of the Christian 
 lite. 
 
220 
 
 ROMANS. XIV. 
 
 [v. 19- 
 
 'Tit. 
 IS. 
 
 serveth Christ is acceptable to God, 
 and approved of men. 
 
 19 Let us therefore follow after 
 the things which make for peace, and 
 things wherewith one may edify 
 another. 
 
 20 For meat destroy not the work 
 of God. "All things indeed are 
 
 pure ; but it is evil for that man 
 who eateth with offence. 
 
 21 It is good neither to eat *flesh, *' Cor. i 
 nor to drink wine, nor any thing ^' 
 whereby thy brother stumbleth, or 
 is offended, or is made weak. 
 
 22 Hast thou faith ? have /'/ to 
 thyself before God. Happy is he 
 
 " Righteousness " is therefore presented not 
 in its judicial aspect as the relation established 
 by God's justifying sentence, but in its moral 
 aspect as a grace to be exercised and developed, 
 as in fact " the germ, of which holiness is 
 the unfolded and perfected plant" (Forbes) : 
 compare vi. 19, Eph. iv. 24, and note on 
 i. 17. 
 
 " Peace" in like manner is not simply the 
 state of reconciliation to God (v. i), but 
 the resulting disposition, the spirit of peace 
 abiding in the heart and shedding a holy calm 
 over the life. 
 
 '■'' Joy in the Holy Ghost" is the holy gladness 
 which the Spirit of God breathes around 
 those who '■'■ li-ve in the Spirit"': Gal. v. 22, 
 25 ; Rom. XV. 13 ; i Thess. i. 6. 
 
 The strongest in faith best know that " the 
 kingdom of God'' consists in these spiritual 
 graces, not in anything external as eating or 
 drinking; they therefore ought to be most 
 ready to use their liberty in such matters 
 wisely and charitably. Thus with admirable 
 skill and force of argument, the Apostle ap- 
 peale to faith itself against any misuse of the 
 liberty which faith bestows. 
 
 18. For he that in these things serveth 
 Christ'] The variation "^^ that herein serveth 
 Christ {eu roiVw)," is most Strongly attested ; 
 it extends the thought from the three graces 
 just mentioned to the whole sphere in which 
 they are combined. He "herein serveth 
 Christ," who for the love of Christ serves his 
 brethren in the exercise of such graces as 
 righteousness, peace, and joy ; and so doing 
 he is both " well pleasing to God" who judges 
 the heart, and " approved by men," who see 
 his good deeds. Thus he wins the goodwill 
 of his brother, instead of putting a stumbling- 
 block in his way. 
 
 19. the things nvhich make for peace^ More 
 simply "the things of peace." The ex- 
 hortation, ^"^ let us follow," founded on vv. 17, 
 18, gives a much better sense than either a 
 question, " Do we then follow ? "or an asser- 
 tion of the Apostle's own practice, " We 
 therefore follow." 
 
 and things luhereivith one may edify another.] 
 Compare i Thess. v. 11. 
 
 20. For meat, destroy not.] Read destroy 
 
 thou not : the Singular marks the return to 
 the special case ; see note on v. 16. 
 
 " The work of God " must be understood in 
 accordance with the exhortation m v. 19 to 
 " edify " or build up each other. Thy brother, 
 as a Christian, is ^^ God's building" (i Cor. 
 iii. 9). Do not for the sake of mere food 
 fight against God by pulling down and de- 
 stroying what He has built up. " Destroy " 
 is here used in its proper etymological sense 
 (varaAtif, " destrue ") not, as in v. 15, in 
 the sense of eternal perdition {anok\vf). 
 
 All things ijideed are pure.] I. e. all kinds 
 of food are morally clean (y, 14). 
 
 but it is evil for that man -who eateth ivith 
 offence.] The sense is well expressed by 
 Tyndale's paraphrase " who eateth with hurt 
 of his conscience." If thou cause thy brother 
 to eat against his conscience, it is a sin to him, 
 and so thou art destroying God's work in 
 him for the sake of food. On bia Trpoa-Kofx- 
 fiaros " with offence as an attendant circum- 
 stance," see note on ii. 27. 
 
 21. It is good neither to eat flesh,] "Not 
 to eat flesh," that is to eat no flesh of any kind, 
 and to drink no wine " is good" (^koXov), is 
 worthy and noble conduct in one who denies 
 himself rather than ofTend a brother (i Cor. 
 viii. 13). 
 
 nor anything ivherehy thy brother stumbleth^ 
 Read "nor to do anything whereat 
 &c." The interpretation answering to the 
 A. v., " nor to eat or drink anything whereby 
 iss'c," is too limited. St. Paul extends the 
 maxim to all actions which are in themselves 
 morally indifferent. 
 
 or is offended, or is made lueak.] If these 
 two clauses are retained, we must render the 
 last — "or is weak:" it extends the maxim 
 beyond matters in which a brother is actually 
 led into sin to those in which his conscience 
 is weak, and may easily be grieved. But the 
 genuineness of the clauses is doubtful (they 
 are omitted in Tisch. 8), and to the evidence 
 against them must now be added (r) Freisin- 
 ger's ' Itala Fragmenta.' 
 
 22. Hast thou faith ? have it to thyself 
 before God.] "Thou hast faith" (W'iclif, 
 Geneva). " The faith which thou hast, have 
 it," Sec. (Tisch. 8, with N A B C : add r.) 
 
ROMANS. XIV. 
 
 221 
 
 that condemneth not himself in that damned if he 
 thing which he alloweth. not of faith : 
 
 23 And he that "doubteth is of faith is sin. 
 
 eat, because he eateth <tndpui- 
 tor whatsoever ts not difftn'nct 
 
 between 
 ■meats. 
 
 The sense is not materially altered by such 
 variations, the same supposition being ex- 
 pressed in different forms. The question is 
 the most lively and natural: compare xiii. 3. 
 St. Paul hears, as it were, how the strong in 
 faith opposes him saying " I have faith, and 
 am convinced that it is allowable for a 
 Christian to eat Hesh and drink wine," and 
 replies " thou hast faith ? Have it to thyself 
 before God" so that God is the witness of thy 
 faith, and parade it not before men to the 
 offence of the weak" (Meyer, after Chry- 
 sostom.) 
 
 Happy is he that condemneth not himself 
 in that thing ivhtch he allo^veth.'] Read, 
 "judgeth not himself in that which 
 lie alloweth." The happiness meant is not 
 the future " Messianic blessedness " (Meyer), 
 but the present blessedness of a clear 
 and undoubting conscience. It is a motive 
 to charitable self-restraint addressed to the 
 strong in faith : he who "judges not himself," 
 who is so fully convinced, that he entertains 
 no question or doubt about the rectitude of 
 his conduct " in that which he allows " or 
 approves in his own practice, should be con- 
 tent with this great happiness, and thankfully 
 consent to restrain his freedom for his brother's 
 sake. 
 
 23. And he that doubteth is damned if he 
 eat.^ "But he that doubteth is condemned if 
 he eat.'' The danger of the weak brother is 
 now brought into striking contrast with the 
 happy condition of him who is strong in faith, 
 and so supplies a further motive to the charit- 
 able restraint of freedom. 
 
 The use of three kindred words (Kpivav, 
 bLaKpLvofxevos, KaraKiKpiTai) gives to St. Paul's 
 language a pointed force which cannot be 
 preserved in English. For the meaning of 
 diuKpivofievos compare iv. 20 ; Matt. xxi. 21 ; 
 Mark xi. 23; James i. 6. He that thus 
 doubts, wavers, and debates with himself 
 whether it is or is not lawful to eat, is ipso 
 
 facto and at once " condemned if he eat" 
 because he eateth not of faith : compare 
 John iii. 18, " /^^ that believeth not is con- 
 demjied already.^ because be hath not believed, 
 aye." St. Paul does not say he is condemned 
 by his own conscience, or he is condemned 
 by God, but " the very act of eating con- 
 demns him, of course according to Divine 
 ordering, so that the justice of this sentence 
 is established not only before God, but also 
 before men, and before himself" (Philippi). 
 
 for nvhatsoever is not of faith is sini] " and 
 'whatsoever'' Sec. St. Paul here adds the 
 major premiss of his argument. " Everything 
 that is not of faith is sin " : " This eating is 
 not of faith : " " Therefore it is sin, and he is 
 condemned already." 
 
 The important axiom, " Whatsoever is not 
 of faith is sin," has been very commonly 
 misunderstood, and misapplied in contro- 
 versial theology, through disregard of its 
 grammar and context. 
 
 (i) St. Paul does not say irav 6 fxrj e'/c 
 niarecos " everything except that which 
 positively is of faith;" but nav b ovk (k 
 TTt'o-reco? " everything which positively is not 
 of faith." In other words the Antecedent to 
 o is definite, not indefinite, and the propo- 
 sition is limited to actions in which there is 
 not a mere absence, but an actual defect of 
 faith. 
 
 (2) This grammatical result agrees with 
 the context, which shows that St. Paul is 
 speaking only of actions done by a Christian 
 who does not believe them to be right, but is 
 at least doubtful of their propriety. Chryso- 
 stom's comment is admirable : " But all this 
 is spoken by Paul concerning the case that 
 lies before him, not concerning all cases." 
 
 On the position of the Doxology, which 
 in a few MSS is placed at the end of this 
 chapter, and on the relation of chapters 
 XV. xvi. to the other portion of the Epistle, 
 see Introduction, § 8. 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTE on v. 11. 
 
 In Isaiah xlv. 23, the Vatican MS of the 
 LXX has Koi ofxelrai Tracra yXaxrcTa rov 
 Qeov (Sinait. rov Kvqiov). But the Alex- 
 andrine Codex reads e^op-oXoyrjo-eraL ra Qeco. 
 
 The variation may possibly have been first 
 made by St. Paul in quoting the passage 
 freely here and in Phil. ii. 11, and afterwards 
 
 carried back into the text of the LXX, as in 
 the cases mentioned in the note on iii. 12. 
 But the similar variation, cop,oX6yr](Ta for 
 a>p.ocra, in Jer. xliv. 26, throws some doubt 
 upon the conjecture that the various readings 
 of the LXX in Isai. xlv. 23, have been caused 
 by the reflex action of quotation. 
 
222 
 
 ROMANS. XV. 
 
 [v. 1—5- 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 I The sttong must bear with the weak. 2 We 
 may not please ourselves, 3 for Christ did 
 not so, 7 but receive one the other, as Christ 
 did us all, 8 both Jews 9 and Gentiles. 15 
 Paul exciiseth his writing, 28 and proniiseth 
 to see them, 30 and requesteth their prayers . 
 
 WE then that are strong ought 
 to bear the infirmities of 
 the weak, and not to please our- 
 selves. 
 
 2 Let every one of us please his 
 
 neighbour for his good to edifica- 
 tion. 
 
 _ 3 For even Christ pleased not 
 himself; but, as it is written, ^The ^P3.6q.<» 
 reproaches of them that reproached 
 thee fell on me. 
 
 4 For whatsoever things were 
 written aforetime were written for 
 our learning, that we through pa- 
 tience and comfort of the scriptures 
 might have hope. 
 
 5 "^Now the God of patience and ^0!^°'''' 
 
 Chap. XV.— 1-13. Conclusion of the 
 Exhortation to Mutual Love and 
 forbeakance 
 
 1. We then that are strong] Read, "But 
 'we," 8cc. There is the closest connection 
 between this and the last verse of c. xiv • 
 from the danger of the weak St. Paul natu- 
 rally passes over (Se) to the duty of the strong 
 towards them. It is thoroughly characteristic 
 of St. Paul to associate himself with those on 
 whom he is enforcing a dutv, and also to ac- 
 knowledge fully the advantage of that freedom 
 and strength of faith which he is urging them 
 to exercise with a loving forbearance. 
 
 " The infirmities " {da-dfmjfMaTa) of the weak 
 are the acts in which their weakness of faith 
 is shown, such as needless scruples or erro- 
 neous judgments: these the strong are well 
 able, as they are in duty bound, to bear with 
 loving patience (Gal. vi. 2 ; Apoc. ii. 2, 3). 
 
 2. Let every one of its please his neighbour'] 
 The duty of bearing the infirmities of the 
 weak requires that we should not do the very 
 opposite, ''please ourselves," i.e. indul'ze our 
 own will and pleasure, in displaying our 
 superior intelligence and freedom, but rather 
 ''/(?/ each of us please his neighbour," conci- 
 liate him by forbearance and loving sympathy 
 (i Cor. X. 33; Phil. ii. 4). * / 1- / 
 
 for his good to edification.] " With a view 
 to what is good for edification." The 
 effort to please must be directed to that which 
 IS good for our neighbour, in relation to buila- 
 ing him up in faith. 
 
 EiV marks the " aim," and irpw the standard 
 of reference (iii. 25, 26). 
 
 3. For even Christ pleased not hi>7iself-] 
 " For Christ also," &c. The duty of sacri- 
 ficing our own pleasure for the good of our 
 brethren is enforced by the one great pattern 
 of self-sacrificing love (2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Phil 
 ii. 6). 
 
 but, as it is written, (&v.] Instead of com- 
 pleting his sentence in the narrative stvle, St. 
 Paul cites the exact words of Scripture, making 
 
 Christ Himself the speaker. For a similar 
 mode of quotation, see i Cor. i. 31. 
 
 The sufferer in the Psalm (Ixix. 9) ad 
 dresses God : " the reproaches of them that 
 reproached thee are fallen upon me ;" it is lor 
 God's sake and to please Him that he suffers. 
 
 So in the Messianic interpretation (which 
 St. Paul assumes to be known to his readers) 
 the words are addressed to the Father by 
 Christ, and prove that He pleased not Him- 
 self, but endured reproach for the Father's 
 sake and to do His will. 
 
 The passage thus strictly interpreted satis- 
 fies the purpose for which St. Paul quotes it, 
 even without bringing in the further conside- 
 ration that all Christ's sufferings were endured 
 for the good of His brethren." 
 
 4. The reason for bringing forward Christ's 
 example in the words of the Psalmist is that 
 all scriptures of the Old l^stament (not its 
 predictions only) were intended to be thus 
 used "/or our learning." " Learning " is here 
 used in a rare and antiquated sense for 
 "teaching" (\N ic\ii\ or '' instruction" {A. V. 
 2 Tim. iii. 16). 
 
 that ewe through patience and comfort of the 
 scriptures, (Z^r.] Read, "that through the 
 patience and through the comfort of the 
 Scriptures we," &c. "The patience," as 
 well as "the comfort," is that which the 
 Scriptures give : for the Apostle is here stating 
 the purpose for which ''the God of patience 
 and comfort" {y. 5) caused the Scriptures 
 to be written. 
 
 might have hope.] Le. "our hope" (ri^i* 
 ekiTiba), the Christian's "hope of the glory of 
 God" (v. 2). The purpose of the Scriptures 
 is to promote the present possession of this 
 blessed hope through the patience and conso- 
 lation which they impart to those who endure 
 suffering for God's sake. 
 
 Compare v. 4 for the connection between 
 "patience " and " hope." 
 
 5. how the God of patieiice and consolation] 
 " And may the God of patience and comfort." 
 
6-9-1 
 
 ROMANS. XV. 
 
 223 
 
 consolation grant you to be lilce- 
 ror, rt/j'^r j^jj^(]gj one toward another "accord- 
 
 Iheex- . /-,, • T 
 
 aiiiHeof. ing to Uhrist Jesus : 
 
 6 That ye may with one mind 
 and one mouth glorify God, even 
 the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 7 Wherefore receive ye one ano- 
 
 ther, as Christ also received us to 
 the glory of God. 
 
 8 Now I say that Jesus Christ 
 was a minister of the circumcision 
 for the truth of God, to confirm the 
 promises made unto the fathers : 
 
 9 And that the Gentiles might 
 
 Compare 2 Cor. i. 3, " God of all comfort^ 
 The Greek word (irapaKK-qaii) is the same 
 as in n). 4. 
 
 to be iikeminded one toward another^ "To 
 be of the same mind one with another:" 
 iv uWrjXoLs, not eh dXXrjXovs, as in xii. 16. 
 
 What the Apostle prays for is not identity 
 of opinion, but harmony of feeling : " idem 
 sent) re, idem velle." 
 
 according to Christ Jesus.'] Compare Phil. 
 ii. 2, in connexion with the following verses, 
 especially "y. 5, " Let the same mind be in you., 
 <vjhich <ujas also in Christ Jesus.^^ Let each 
 be so conformed to Christ, that all may be 
 of one mind among yourselves: " ut unus 
 quasi animus fiat ex pluribus." (Cic. de 
 Amic. c. 25.) 
 
 6. That ye may ivith one ynind and one 
 mouth.'] "That of one mind with one 
 mouth ye may," i.f. that being of one accord 
 (o)xndv)xab6v) you may unite in one utterance 
 of praise. 
 
 God., even the Father of our Lor d .Jesus 
 Christ.] There is no theological objection to 
 the proposed rendering, "The God and Father 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ," which is fully jus- 
 tified by Eph. i. 17, '■'■The God of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ" and by John xx. 17. "He is 
 His God, because of Him He was begotten 
 God" (Hil. de Trin. iv. 35, p. 96, Ellicott). 
 Grammatical considerations are equally inde- 
 cisive; but there is much weight in Bishop 
 Ellicotfs remark on Gal. i. 4 : " As the term 
 TcaTT]f> conveys necessarily a relative idea, 
 which in theological language admits of va- 
 rious applications (see Suicer, ' Thes.' s. v 
 Trarrjp), while Qeos conveys only one absolute 
 idea, it would not seem improbable that the 
 connexion of thought in the mind of the in- 
 spired writer might lead him in some passages 
 to add a defining genitive to irarrip, which he 
 did not intend necessarily to be referred to 
 eedy." 
 
 For this reason, and because Eph. i. 17 is 
 the only passage in which St. Paul directly 
 and unquestionably calls God " the God of our 
 Lord Jesus Cbrisi" it is better to retain the 
 rendering of the Authorised Version, with the 
 omission of " even." 
 
 7. V/herefore receive ye one another^ This 
 exhortation is an immediate iiiicrence from 
 
 the preceding prayer for concord, and also a 
 general conclusion of the whole argument 
 beginning with xiv. i. The appeal there 
 made to one party, "Him that is nveak in faith 
 receive ye" is here extended to both, '■'receive 
 ye one another" in accordance with the argu- 
 ments addressed to both parties in xiv. 3-13. 
 
 as Christ also received us] For " us " read 
 "you," which agrees better with what goes 
 before in vv. 5-7. 
 
 to the glory of God.] Not. "receive ye one 
 another .... to the glory of God " (Chrysost. 
 &c.): but, "as Christ received you to the 
 glory of God," i.e. received you both Jews 
 and Gentiles into His Church that God 
 might be thereby glorified. Compare Eph. 
 i. 12-14; Phil- ii- II- 
 
 The interpretation proposed by Grotius 
 — " received you into the glory of God," 
 /. e., into the inheritance of the future 
 glory of the children of God — is not admis- 
 sible ; it v^^ould have required the Article to 
 be expressed {eh rrjv do^av r. 0.), and it does 
 not agree with the explanation, which St. 
 Paul himself adds in w. 8, 9, of what he 
 meant by the words " Christ received you to the 
 glory of God." 
 
 8. Now 1 say] "For I say." 
 
 The reading followed in A. V. (Xeyco he) 
 would have its usual sense, " But what I 
 mean is this" (Gal. iv. i ; i Cor. i. 12). But 
 Ae'yo) yap is better attested and introduces 
 more fitly the explanatory proof of the state- 
 ment " Christ also received you to the glory of 
 God." 
 
 That this statement, and the proof of it, 
 are addressed more especially, though not 
 exclusively, to the strong in faith, is evident 
 both from the repetition of the phrase used 
 in xiv. I (Tf/joo-Aa/i/jai/eo-^e), and also from 
 the great prominence given in the following 
 context to the reception of the Gentiles, to 
 whom "the strong" for the most part be- 
 longed. 
 
 that Jesus Christ auas a minister of the cir~ 
 cumcision.] " The whole passage should be 
 thus rendered: "For I say, that Christ 
 hath been made a minister of circum- 
 cision for God's truth, in order that he 
 might confirm the promises made unto the 
 fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify 
 God for mercy." 
 
2,24 
 
 ROMANS. XV. 
 
 [v. 10—13. 
 
 'Ps, 18. 
 
 49- 
 
 /Deut. 32, 
 43- 
 
 •^Ps, 117. 
 
 glorify God for his mercy ; as it is all ye Gentiles ; and laud him, all ye 
 
 written, '^For this cause I will con- people, 
 fess to thee among the Gentiles, and 12 And again, Esaiassaith, '''There '''^s. n. i» 
 
 sing unto thy name, shall be a root of Jesse, and he that 
 
 10 And again he saith, /Rejoice, shall rise to reign over the Gentiles j 
 ye Gentiles, with his people. in him shall the Gentiles trust. 
 
 11 And again, ^Praise the Lord, 13 Now the God of hope fill you 
 
 Circumcision was the condition attached 
 to the promises. He therefore who was to 
 be the seed of Abraham and the fountain of 
 blessing to all nations, must be a "minister 
 of circumcision," He must fulfil the cove- 
 nant of circumcision both in His person and 
 in His work: He must be '■'■born under the 
 lazu, to redeetn them that ivere under the lanxi, 
 that <ive" (Gentiles as well as Jews) "might 
 receive the adoption of sons " (Gal. iv. 4, 5). 
 Compare for the construction, 2 Cor. iii. 6, 
 diaKovovs Kaivrjs SiadijKTjs, xi. 15, Gal. n. 17. 
 
 The words 8ia<ovov TrepLTonys have been 
 incorrectly interpreted in various ways : 
 
 (i.) "A minister of the true circumcision 
 of the heart: ii. 28, 29" (Origen). There 
 is nothing in the context to indicate this 
 special sense of circumcision. 
 
 (2.) "A minister of circumcised persons," 
 i. e. of the Jews, " that they might be brought 
 within the promises, that God might be 
 found true to them" (Cyril). "For to de- 
 vote His activity to the welfare of the Jewish 
 nation was, according to promise, the duty of 
 His Messianic office. Comp. Matt. xx. 28 ; 
 XV. 24" (Meyer). This interpretation is not 
 absolutely inconsistent with the absence of 
 the Article (iii. 30), which we should, how- 
 ever, have expected (Gal. ii. 8) but is clearly 
 inadequate. " The promises made unto the 
 fathers'''' were not that Christ should minister 
 exclusively to the Jews, but that in the seed 
 of Abraham all the nations of the earth 
 should be blessed. 
 
 for the truth of God,'] This is immediately 
 explained in the appended clause : " to con- 
 frm^' (rather, "in order that lie might 
 confirm") {the truth of) the promises made 
 unto the fathers" Compare 2 Cor. i. 20. 
 
 9. And that the Gentiles m'tght glorify God 
 for his mercy ;] The A. V. here follows the 
 only admissible construction : the objections 
 urged against it by Alford and others arise 
 from not observing the double antithesis, 
 between vnep aX-qdeias and imep iXeovs, and 
 between fiefialacrai ras ewayyeXias rmv Trarfpap 
 and ra 8e i'6i/r] k.t.'K. 
 
 In the latter case the antithetical sense is 
 more distinctly marked by bringing the con- 
 trasted clauses imder the same grammatical 
 construction. 
 
 Observe also that the main stress of the 
 
 passage lies on the latter half of the antithesis. 
 St. Paul is appealing more especially to " the 
 strong," i. e. to the Gentiles, and in order to 
 move them to greater forbearance and good- 
 will towards their weaker Jewish brethren, 
 he shows that Christ Himself became in all 
 things a Jew to fulfil God's promises to the 
 Jews, and thereby to extend His mercy to 
 the Gentiles. Even for Gentiles " Salvation 
 is of the Jews," not secured by covenant, but 
 granted of free mercy. 
 
 For this cause I qvill confess to thee among 
 the Gentiles,'] See note on Ps. xviii. 49. 
 David having been delivered from all his 
 enemies, and raised to dominion over the 
 neighbouring nations gives " the first utter- 
 ance of a hope, which in later times became 
 clear and distinct, that the heathen should 
 learn to fear and worship Jehovah " (Pe- 
 rowne). In St. Paul's Messianic interpreta- 
 tion, Christ the antitype of David, foretelling 
 the conquests of His kingdom, declares that 
 in the midst of the Gentiles He will give 
 thanks to God for their conversion. 
 
 'E^o/xoAoyelo-^at, has here its usual sense in 
 the LXX, that of giving thanks or praise. 
 
 10. Rejoice, ye Gent'iles, luith his people^ 
 Deut. xxxii. 43, where see note. 
 
 St. Paul follows the LXX. Either of the 
 alternative renderings would be equally suit- 
 able to his purpose : " Praise his people, ye 
 nations," or, " Rejoice, ye Gentiles, ye who 
 are His people." 
 
 11. Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles ; and 
 laud h'lm, all ye people^ Ps. cxvii. i. Both 
 clauses are addressed to Gentile nations: in 
 the latter there is a various reading, " let all 
 the nations praise him " (Tisch.). From the 
 other verse of the same short Psalm St. Paul 
 may have drawn his antithesis of " 7nercy " and 
 " truth''' in w. 8, 9. 
 
 12. There shall be a root of Jesse, and he 
 that shall rise to reign over the Gent'iles ; in 
 him shall the Gentiles trust.] Read, " There 
 shall be the root of Jesse, and he that 
 ariseth to rule over Gentiles; on him 
 shall Gentiles hope." See notes on Isa. 
 xi. 10. St. Paul follows the LXX, as his 
 argument requires nothing more than the 
 general sense that the Messiah of the Jews 
 should be the desire and hope of the Gentiles. 
 
 13. Now the God of hope fill you] "And 
 
V. 14 — 1 6.] 
 
 ROMANS. XV. 
 
 225 
 
 with all joy and peace in believing, 
 that ye may abound in hope, through 
 the power of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 14 And I myself also am per- 
 suaded of you, my brethren, that ye 
 also are full of goodness, filled with 
 all knowledge, able also to admonish 
 one another. 
 
 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have 
 written the more boldly unto you in 
 some sort, as putting you in mind, 
 because of the grace that is given to 
 me of God, 
 
 16 That I should be the minister 
 of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, minis- 
 tering the gospel of God, that the 
 
 may the God of hope" Sec. From the last 
 quoted word " hope^'' St. Paul forms a title 
 " the God of hope^'' by which he may invoke 
 (as in •t'f. 4, 5) an appropriate blessing 
 on those to whom his previous exhortation 
 has been addressed. " All joy and peace " 
 have their root in the " hope " of eternal life, 
 their element or vital atmosphere " in beUenj- 
 ing^'' their fruit in the increasing abundance 
 of their hope growing "in tlie power of the 
 Holy Ghost." 
 
 14-33. Occasion of the Epistle. 
 
 In t;. 14 the Apostle passes on (Se) from 
 exhortation to an explanation of his own 
 motives and intentions. 
 
 14. And I myself also'] This is explained 
 as meaning : " / myself also," independently of 
 the general good opinion which others have 
 of you, i. 8 " (Meyer). But there is nothing 
 in the context to suggest this meaning, and 
 the reference to so remote a passage as i. 8 
 is quite inadmissible. Chrysostom's inter- 
 pretation is far better: "Now even I my- 
 self," who so admonish and reprove you. 
 
 that ye also are full of goodness,] Read, 
 "that even of yourselves ye are full of 
 goodness," i. e. even without being exhorted. 
 ' AyaQuxTvvq, a Biblical word, does not mean 
 (as Meyer says) '■'■excellence generally {that 
 you also of yourselves are -very excellent 
 people)," but it means ^'■goodness" in the 
 more special sense as a disposition to do good. 
 (Compare Trench, N.T. Synon. 2nd Series, 
 and Ellicott and Lightfoot on Gal. v. 22.) 
 
 filed ivith all knoivledge,] From i Cor. 
 viii. I, 7, 10, Ti, we see that St. Paul refers 
 to the knowledge of spiritual truth which 
 was professed by the strong in faith. There 
 St. Paul points to a contrast, " Knoivledge 
 puffeth up, but charity edifeth": here he 
 ascribes to his readers a happy combination 
 oi goodness and knowledge. 
 
 able also to admonish one another.] " able 
 even to admonish one another," without need 
 of being admonished by me. 
 
 15. Nevertheless, brethren, I have ivritten 
 the more boldly unto you in some sort^ " But 
 I have written more boldly unto you in 
 part." Parts of the Epistle, such asvi. 12-21 
 
 XI. 17, fF., xii. 3,xiii. 3 fF., 13, 14, and especially 
 c. xiv. throughout, are written more boldly 
 than a belief in their goodness and knowledge 
 might seem to require. That the boldness 
 lay not in the fact of writing at all to a Church 
 which he had not visited, but in the mode of 
 writing, is clear from aivo fiepov?, which limits 
 the bolder writing to parts of the Epistle. 
 The order of the words forbids the connexion, 
 " in some sort more boldly." 
 
 as putting you m mmd,] "as putting you 
 in remembrance again," not as teaching 
 you things of which you might be ignorant. 
 The word fTravafiifivrja-Koa is used with a 
 delicate courtesy, as in Demosth. 74, Plat. 
 Legg. iii. p. 688 A. Compare also 2 Pet. 
 i. 12. 
 
 because of the grace that is given to me of 
 God,] Read rather "the grace given," or 
 "the grace that was given": compare i. 5, 
 xii. 3. The obligation of the Apostolic office 
 is thus alleged as a reason for his boldness in 
 putting them in remembrance of Christian 
 duties. 
 
 " He comes down from the teacher's chair 
 and converses as with brethren and friends 
 and equals, a part which best becomes the 
 teacher, to vary his discourse according to 
 the profit of his hearers. See for example, 
 how, after saying ' / wrote more boldly^ and 
 ' in part' and ' as putting you again in re- 
 membrance' he is not satisfied even with this, 
 but adds with still greater humility of speech, 
 ' because of the grace given unto me of God;' 
 as he also said in the beginning, ' / am a 
 debtor:' as if he had said, ' I did not snatch 
 the honour for myself, nor rush upon it first, 
 but God laid this upon me, and that by way 
 of grace, not as setting apart a worthy person 
 to this office. Be not therefore offended, 
 for it is not I that rise up against you, but 
 God that has laid this upon me.'" (Chry- 
 sostom.) 
 
 16. That I should be the minister of Jesus 
 Christ] "In order that I should be a 
 minister of Christ Jesus." The special 
 purpose for which the grace was given by 
 God. AeiTovpyos, " minister" and its deri- 
 vatives are used in the LXX and N. T., both 
 of ministering in general, and of ministering 
 in things sacred. For the general sense, see 
 
226 
 
 ROMANS. XV. 
 
 [v. 17—18. 
 
 fi'dn^^'^' " offering up of the Gentiles might be 
 acceptable, being sanctified by the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 17 I have therefore whereof I 
 
 may glory through Jesus Christ in 
 those things which pertain to God. 
 
 18 For I will not dare to speak of 
 any of those things which Christ 
 
 Josh. i. I, 2 Sam. xiii. 18 (Amnon's servant), 
 I Kings X. 5, 2 Chron. ix. 4 (Solomon's min- 
 isters), 2 Kings iv. 43, vi. 1 5 (Elisha's servitor), 
 Ps. ciii. 21, civ. 4, Phil. ii. 25, 30, &c., and 
 note on c. xiii. 6. The special sense is very- 
 frequent in the LXX, and applies equally to 
 the ministrations of Priests and Levites (Ex. 
 xxxviii. 21 ; Num. i. 50, iii. 6, viii. 22 ; Neh. x. 
 39, Sec). 
 
 In the N. T. besides this proper application 
 to the ministry of the Tabernacle (Luke i. 
 23 ; Heb. ix. 21, x. 11) we find also a meta- 
 phorical application to Christ (Heb. viii. 2, 6), 
 to Christian ministers (Acts xiii. 2), and to 
 all Christians (Phil. ii. 17, Lightfoot). In 
 tlie present passage it is clear from what 
 follows that St. Paul applies the term to 
 himself as a minister of the Gospel appointed 
 by Christ the Head of the Church. 
 
 to the Gentiles^ "in reference to the 
 Gentiles." The Apostle represents himself 
 as the ministering Priest, the preaching of 
 the Gospel as his priestly function, and the 
 believing Gentiles as his offering. In this 
 connexion therefore ds ra e'dvr) cannot mean 
 a " minister to the Gentiles," nor " a minister 
 sent unto the Gentiles," but "a minister in 
 reference to the Gentiles," whom he 
 offers to God. 
 
 ministering the gospel of God^] Compare 
 4 Mace. vii. 8, tovs Upovpyovvras tov v6p,ov 
 Idla aifxari. " The preaching of the Gospel 
 he calls a sacrificial work {lepovpylav), and 
 genuine faith an acceptable offering" (Theo- 
 doret). " This is my priesthood, to preach 
 and to proclaim" (Chrysostom). 
 
 that the offering up of the Gentiles might be 
 acceptable^ Read " that the offering ofthe 
 Gentiles," &c., i. e. " that the Gentiles might 
 be an acceptable offering" (Tyndale). 
 
 The Apostle's thought and expression are 
 both taken from Isai. Ixvi. 19, 20: '■'■ And they 
 shall declare my glory arnong the Gentiles. 
 And they shall brijig all your brethren for an 
 offering unto the Lord out of all nations." 
 
 " And none would blame a priest for being 
 zealous to offer his sacrifice without spot. 
 But this he said, both to wing their thoughts 
 and show them that they were a sacrifice, 
 and at the same time as an excuse for him- 
 self, that this duty had been laid upon him. 
 For my sacrificing sword, he says, is the 
 Gospel, the word preached : and the cause 
 -s not that I may be glorified, but ' that the 
 offer iwr of the Gentiles may be acceptable.'' 
 tor God has brought it to this, not so much 
 
 honouring me as caring for you. And how 
 can it be made acceptable ? " In the Holy 
 Ghost:" for not faith only is needed, but 
 also a spiritual mode of life, that we may 
 hold fast the Spirit that was once given. For 
 not wood and fire, nor altar and knife, but the 
 Spirit is everything with us " (Chrysostom). 
 
 17. / have therefore ivhereof I may glory 
 through Jesus Christ'] "I have my glory- 
 ing therefore in Christ Jesus": it follows 
 from the nature of my ministry (ver. 16) that 
 I have a right to glory ; but my glorying is 
 not in myself, but "in Christ Jesus," be- 
 cause as His minister I do all tilings in and 
 through Him (i Cor. xv. 31). 
 
 in those things nvhich pertain to God.] " in 
 things pertaining to God": see Heb. '". 
 17; v. I, where the context refers to the 
 duties of the Priest's office before God. St. 
 Paul thus limits his glorying to the ministra- 
 tions of the Gospel regarded as an offeriug 
 made before the Lord. 
 
 18. For I ivill not dare to speak of any of 
 those things ivhich Christ hath not ivrought by 
 me.] This is Tyndale's version and very ac- 
 curate, but the meaning may be made clearer 
 by a paraphrase: "For I will not dare to 
 speak of anything except what has been 
 wrought by Christ through me." The Apostle 
 thus explains and confirms the limit assigned 
 to his glorying in -y. 17 as a "glorying in 
 Christ Jesus." "I will glory," he means, only 
 of what has been accomplished not by me but 
 by Christ through me. 
 
 According to M. Godet, " the only possible 
 sense of the words / ivill not dare to speak, is 
 this : It would be a rashness on my part to 
 name a single sign of Apostleship by which 
 God has not deigned to ratify my ministry 
 among the Gentiles." That is to say, every 
 possible sign of Apostolic power has been 
 granted to my ministry. But surely the 
 words " / <ivill not dare to speak" are very ill- 
 fitted to express what M. Godet calls "the 
 paroxysm of that glorying of which he spake 
 in V. 17." 
 
 to make the Gentiles obedient^ Compart 
 i. 5. The "obedience of Gentiles" to fait' 
 in Christ is what has been described above in 
 figurative language as "the offering of the 
 Gentiles." The Apostle thus explains the 
 second limitation of his glorying to "things 
 pertaining to God" (1;. 17), i.e. to his 
 priestlike ministration of the Gospel. 
 
 by ivord and deed,] The means by which 
 
V. ig — 20.] 
 
 ROMANS. XV. 
 
 2,27 
 
 hath not wrought by me, to make the 
 Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 
 19 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 
 Christ. 
 
 20 Yea, so have I strived to 
 preach the gospel, not where Christ 
 was named, lest I should build upon 
 another man's foundation : 
 
 Christ wrought through His minister are here 
 briefly stated under the very usual antithesis 
 of " 'Word and deed." 
 
 By '■'■'word" St. Paul means the Gospel 
 which he preached, by " deed " or " work " 
 (epyw) all that he had been enabled to do and 
 to suffer in his ministry. 
 
 19. Through mighty signs and ivonders, by 
 the power of the Spirit ofGodf\ Read, "In 
 power of signs and wonders, in power 
 of the Spirit of God." 
 
 " Signs and ^wonders " were not all that 
 Christ wrought by "deed" through St. Paul, 
 and the "power of the Spirit of God'''' was ex- 
 erted through him not only " by word" but in 
 many other ways. Thus the purpose of the 
 two parallel clauses is not so much to explain 
 more fully what is meant by " word and deed" 
 as to glorify the Divine power with which 
 Christ wrought through the ministry of His 
 Apostle. 
 
 The "power of signs and ivonders " is not 
 the " power of working miracles," but the 
 power which miracles have as " signs " to 
 convince, and as " wonders " to overawe, by 
 the proof of a superhuman agency. St. Paul 
 appeals to his miracles as " signs of an Apostle " 
 in 2 Cor. xii. 12 : compare Acts xiv, 3,xv, 12, 
 and xix. 1 1. 
 
 By the "power of the Spirit of God" is 
 meant "that extraordinary influence of the 
 Spirit, which in a moment turned men from 
 darkness to light." (Jowett.) 
 
 so that from Jerusalem, and round about 
 unto Illyricum,'] Tyndale's translation is 
 more correct : so that from Jerusalem and 
 the coasts round about unto Illyricum. 
 The result of Christ's working through His 
 Apostle is here stated as if the preceding 
 sentence had been affirmative in form, as well 
 as in sense. 
 
 How does this statement, that Jerusalem 
 was the starting-point of St. Paul's ministry, 
 agree with his own representation in Gal. i. 1 7 ? 
 (Lucht, ' On the last two chapters of 
 Romans.') St. Paul is here describing not 
 the duration but the local extension of his 
 mmistry : it reached, he says, "from Jeru- 
 salem " as far as " unto Illyricum." 
 
 Damascus, the scene of his earliest preach- 
 ing (Acts ix. 20), lies between these extreme 
 limits, and so near to Jerusalem as to be fairly 
 included in the p.arts " round about" it. 
 
 The more distant Arabia was not the scene 
 
 of the Apostle's ministry, but only of his re- 
 tirement (Gal. i. 17: see Lightfoot). 
 
 It was natural, we may add, for St. Paul to 
 fix the starting-point of his ministry at the 
 Holy City, from which the Gospel first went 
 forth into the world, and where he had him- 
 self first joined the fellowship of the Apostles, 
 and in friendly intercourse with Peter and 
 James and Barnabas " spake boldly in the name 
 of the Lord" (Acts ix. 28: see also Lightf. 
 Gal. p. 88). 
 
 Chrysostom's interpretation, that St. Paul 
 had travelled from Jerusalem in a circle 
 round to Illyricum, including Persia, Ar- 
 menia, &c., has no support in this passage or 
 elsewhere. 
 
 The great road from the East to Rome, 
 passing through Macedonia into Illyricum, 
 reached the Adriatic coast at Dyrrachium. 
 This Southern or Greek Illyricum was incor- 
 porated by the Romans with Macedonia, and 
 therefore may well have been visited by St. 
 Paul during the journey mentioned in Acts 
 XX. I, 2. In Illyricum, whatever extent v/e 
 here assign to the region so named, St. Paul 
 reached the Western limit of his missionary 
 journeys, and was comparatively near to Rome. 
 (See Conyb. and Howson, ii. 126.) 
 
 / have fully preached the gospel of Christ."] 
 Compare Col. i. 25. The expression must be 
 understood, as we see from the next verse, 
 with reference to the special office of the 
 Apostle to the Gentiles and his usual practice, 
 namely, to preach the Gospel in the chief 
 cities of each country that he visited, and to 
 lay foundations on which others might build 
 (1 Cor. iii. 10). This St. Paul could truly 
 say that he had done from Jerusalem unto 
 Illyricum. 
 
 20. Tea, so have I strived to preach the 
 gospel.] "Making it however my ambi- 
 tion to preach the Gospel on this wise." 
 
 The better reading makes this a participial 
 clause, dependent on the preceding sentence, 
 and containing an important limitation of its 
 meaning. 
 
 For the meaning of 0tXort/:iercr^at see 2 Cor. 
 V. 9, and I Thess. iv. 11. 
 
 The mode of preaching (ourw? euayy.) is 
 explained negatively in this verse, and posi- 
 tively in the next. 
 
 not (ivhere Christ avas named.] I.e. not 
 where men had already been taught to believe 
 
 V 2 
 
228 
 
 ROMANS. XV. 
 
 [v. 21 26. 
 
 • Is. sa-'s- 21 But as it is written, 'To whom 
 he was not spoken of, they shall see : 
 and they that have not heard shall 
 understand. 
 
 22 For which cause also I have been 
 
 "Or, "rnuch hindered from coming to you. 
 
 ninny _, , . 1 • 
 
 7t« vj, or, 23 iiut now havnig no more place m 
 
 'iime's. these parts, and having a great desire 
 
 these many years to come unto you ; 
 
 24 Whensoever I take my journey 
 into Spain, I will come to you : for 
 I trust to see you in my journey, i 
 and to be brought on my way thither- 
 ward by you, if first I be somewhat 
 
 filled "with your company. tGr.witk 
 
 25 rsut now 1 go unto Jerusalem 32. 
 to minister unto the saints. 
 
 26 For it hath pleased them of 
 
 in Christ, and call upon His name in public 
 confession and adoration: compare Eph. i. 21, 
 2 Tim. ii. 19, Is. xxvi. 13, Amos vi. 10. 
 
 kjt I should build, is'c.'] In 2 Cor. x. 
 12-16 the same principle is asserted with the 
 strong emotion roused by the ungenerous 
 conduct of his adversaries. 
 
 Baur's objection to the genuineness of this 
 passage (' Pauhis,' i. p. 357) is based on a mis- 
 representation of its meaning. For it is evident 
 that St. Paul refers to the oral preaching of 
 the Gospel, as requiring his personal presence 
 hitherto in the East. His letters to the 
 Colossians and Laodiceans (Col. iv. 16), are 
 sufficient proof that in writing to the Church 
 at Rome, he was not transgressing his rule to 
 avoid building on another man's foundation. 
 
 21. But as it is 'written,'] Isaiah Hi. 15, 
 quoted exactly from the LXX. According 
 to the Hebrew, nations and kings shall be 
 astonished at the exaltation of the suffering 
 Servant of God, as a thing unheard and 
 imknown. In the LXX the change in the 
 form of the sentence does not materially 
 affect the sense in which St. Paul uses the 
 passage, namely to show that his practice of 
 preaching where Christ's name was unknown 
 agreed with the general character of the 
 Gospel message as foretold by Isaiah. Ac- 
 cording to Fritzsche, St. Paul believed that 
 Isaiah pointed especially to him and his 
 ministry, predicting that Paul the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles should carry the announcement 
 of the Messiah to those Gentiles who had 
 not yet heard of Him from other Apostles. 
 But this is a mere travesty of St. Paul's 
 meaning, invented by one who himself rejects 
 the iMessianic interpretation of Isaiah lii., liii. 
 altogether. See notes on Isaiah. 
 
 22. / have been much hitidered^ "I was 
 the most times hindered.". There were 
 other hindrances, but the most frequent arose 
 from the duty of preaching the Gospel in 
 places where Christ's name was not known. 
 
 23. But noiv having no more place in these 
 farts,'] "But now no longer having 
 place," i.e. 'since no longer {^pujKtn) I have 
 room.' In these regions, from Jerusalem 
 to Illyricum, the Gospel message has been 
 
 fully preached {-v. 19), and Churches have 
 been founded, so that there is no longer room 
 for doing that which is the peculiar work of 
 an Apostle, especially of the one " Apostle of 
 the Gentiles." 
 
 a great desire"] "a longing" {eirnro- 
 6'iav): compare i. 11; i Thess. iii. 6; 2 Cor, 
 vii. 7,11; Philipp. i. 8 ; with Bp. Lightfoot's 
 note. 
 
 24. Wloensoe'ver I take my journey into Spain, 
 
 1 ivill come to you : for I trust to see you in 
 my Journey,] Read, " IVhensoever I take my 
 
 journey into Spain: — for I hope to see you 
 as I pass through." The words "/ nvill 
 come to you " were added to complete the 
 broken sentence, the conclusion of which is 
 found only in an altered form in v. 28. 
 
 Meyer omits ydp also : " Whensoever I 
 take my journey mto Spain, I hope to see you 
 as I pass through." This makes all smooth 
 and regular, but is against the evidence, and 
 the broken sentence is quite in St. Paul's 
 style. 
 
 On the intended journey to Spain see In- 
 troduction, § 6. 
 
 The visit to Rome was intended to be only 
 in passing through, because the Christian 
 Faith was already established there (Bengel). 
 
 and to be brought on my <way thithernvard] 
 "and to be sent forward thither." St. 
 Paul hoped to receive from Rome the same 
 kindness and respect as from other Churches, 
 which sent companions to escort him on his 
 further journeys: Acts xv. 3 ; i Cor. xvi. 6 ; 
 
 2 Cor. i. 16. 
 
 if first I be someivhat filled ivith your com- 
 pany.] "If I may first be in part satis- 
 fied with your company," or "after that 
 I have somewhat enjoyed you " (Tyndale), 
 "enjoyed your acquaintance" (Cranmer). 
 Comprvre i. 12 for an explanation of the 
 nature of the satisfaction which St. Paul 
 hoped for. 
 
 St. Paul says courteously "in part satis- 
 fied," meaning "not as much as I might 
 wish, but as much as cu-cumstances sliall 
 permit" (Grotius). 
 
 25. But noiu I go unto Jerusalem to minis- 
 ter unto the saints.] "But now I am setting 
 
V. 27—30.] 
 
 ROMANS. XV. 
 
 229 
 
 Macedonia and Achaia to make a 
 certain contribution for the poor 
 saints which are at Jerusalem. 
 
 27 It hath pleased them verily ; 
 and their debtors they are. For if 
 the Gentiles have been made par- 
 takers of their spiritual things, their 
 duty is also to minister unto them in 
 carnal things. 
 
 28 When therefore I have per- 
 formed this, and have sealed to them 
 this fruit, I will come by you into 
 Spain. 
 
 29 And I am sure that, when I 
 come unto you, I shall come in the 
 fulness of the blessing of the gospel of 
 Christ. 
 
 30 Now I beseech you, brethren, 
 
 out unto Jerusalem, ministering to the 
 saints." In contrast to the hope of a future 
 visit to Rome the Apostle's present and im- 
 mediate duty is taking him away in the op- 
 posite direction. See Acts xx. 3, and note 
 on i. 9. 
 
 "ministering." The Present Participle 
 implies that the journey in charge of the 
 collected alms of the Churches was itself a 
 part of the ministration to the poor saints at 
 Jerusalem: see i Cor. xvi. 4, 15; 2 Cor. ix. i; 
 and Introduction, § 2. 
 
 26. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia 
 and jlchaia.~] "For Macedonia and Achaia 
 have been pleased." Cp. Luke xii. 32 ; 
 I Thess. ii. 8. The word (r]vdcKr]<Tav) ex- 
 presses the benevolent pleasure of a cheerful 
 giver. 
 
 to make a certain contribution for the poor 
 saints.^ Read, "/o make some contribution 
 for the poor among the saints." See note 
 on xii. 13. " The contributor enters into fel- 
 lowship with the person aided, inasmuch as 
 he ' shares his necessities ' : Koivavia is hence 
 the characteristic expression for almsgi'ving, 
 without however having changed its proper 
 sense commmiion into the active one of com- 
 munication " ( Meyer). 
 
 The indefinite word " some" corresponds 
 to the fact that the contribution might be 
 more or less according to the ability and good 
 will of the givers (i Cor. xvi. 2 ; 2 Cor. ix. 7). 
 
 27. It hath pleased them verily ; and their 
 debtors they are.'\ "They have been 
 pleased, I say, and are their debtors." 
 The yap not only resumes the previous 
 statement, but confirms it by a further ex- 
 planation. 
 
 For if the Gentiles have been made partakers 
 of their spiritual things."] " For if the Gentiles 
 shared in their spiritual things." The 
 Gospel, with all its spiritual blessings, which 
 are the gifts of the Holy Ghost, was at first 
 the possession of the Mother Church in 
 Jerusalem, and from thence was communi- 
 cated to the Gentiles. In return for these 
 greater gifts the Gentiles owe a debt (o0f t- 
 \ov(Tiv) to the saints at Jerusalem " to minister 
 unto them in carnal things j' i. e. in things 
 
 which belong to man's bodily life, such as 
 food and raiment. For this sense of " carnal " 
 things as contrasted with spiritual, see 
 I Cor. ix. II. Observe that St. Paul applies 
 to this "ministry of the body" the same 
 honourable title Xen-ovpyta which he has used 
 above of preaching the Gospel (-z;. 16). 
 
 Observe also in proof of the Pauline 
 authorship of this chapter (most unreasonably 
 questioned by Baur) the delicate and un- 
 obtrusive coincidence with Gal. ii. 10. 
 
 28. and have sealed to them this fruit."] 
 Compare Phil. iv. 17; the contribution 
 {Koivavia, v. 26) is as fruit brought forth 
 by the Gentile Churches. By going himself 
 with those who conveyed it, St. Paul would 
 assure and certify to the saints at Jerusalem 
 the faithful delivery of the gift by the seal, as 
 it were, of Apostolic authority, more espe- 
 cially because the pillars of the Church at 
 Jerusalem had expressly laid on him the duty 
 of remembering the poor (Gal. ii. 10). 
 
 / ivill come by you into Spain.] Read, " I 
 will come back," &;c., Plato 'Symp.' 193, c. 
 
 29. ^nd I am sure that, ivhen I come unto 
 you, 1 shall come in the fulness of the blessing, 
 
 <h'c.] ^'' And I know that in coming to 
 you, / shall come," 8cc. There is an em- 
 phasis on the pronoun. Thus the repetition 
 of the word " come " is no empty tautology : 
 the reason of the Apostles' confidence lies 
 in the character of those to whom he is 
 coming: he knows that in them there will 
 be nothing to diminish the fulness of the 
 blessing which he brings. Compare i. 8, 12. 
 So in I Cor. ii. i, ^^ And I, brethren, <when 
 I came to you, caine not <a>ith excellency of 
 speech or of <voisdom" the reason of the sim- 
 plicity of the Apostle's preaching lay in the 
 self-sufficiency of those to whom he came, 
 and in their conceit of superior wisdom. 
 
 the blessing of the gospel of Corist.] Read, 
 "the blessing of Christ." 
 
 Godet rightly asks, " Would a forger 
 writing under the name of the Apostle in the 
 2nd century, have drawn a picture of the 
 future so opposite to the way in which things 
 really came to pass ? " 
 
 30. No'TV I beseech you, brethren, for the 
 
230 
 
 ROMANS. XV. 
 
 [v. 31—33- 
 
 II Or. are 
 disobe- 
 dient. 
 
 for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and Jerusalem may be accepted of the 
 
 for the love of the Spirit, that ye saints ; 
 
 strive together with me in your 32 That I may come unto you 
 
 prayers to God for me ; with joy by the will of God, and 
 
 31 That I may be delivered from may with you be refreshed, 
 
 them that "do not believe in Judaea; 33 Now the God of peace be with 
 
 and that my service which 2 have for you all. Amen. 
 
 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.J Read, "And I 
 beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, to 
 strive together ivith me in your prayers for 
 xne to God" (Five Clergymen). This urgent 
 request for his brethren's prayers springs 
 from the same confidence in their faith, which 
 has been already shown in v. 29. Thus be 
 is simply continuative, "And," not adversative, 
 " But." 
 
 "by our Lord Jesus Christ." Compare 
 xii. I, "^y the mercies of God." Christ is the 
 motive by which the Apostle beseeches his 
 brethren, 2 Cor. x. i. 
 
 " the love of the Spirit" is the love which is 
 "the fruit of the Spirit," Gal. v. 22; as to 
 the mode in which the Spirit produces this 
 love towards God and man, see note on 
 V. 5. 
 
 to strive.] "Fervent prayer is a striving 
 of the inner man against the hostile or 
 dangerous powers which it is sought to avert 
 or overcome, and for the aims which it is 
 sought to attain " (Meyer). 
 
 31. that do not believe^ "that are dis- 
 obedient" (Margin, after Geneva). See 
 note on xi. 30. 
 
 Already on the eve of his departure from 
 Corinth St. Paul feels the same anxious fore- 
 bodings of what should befall him at Jeru- 
 salem, which he expressed so strongly during 
 his journey thither. Acts xx. 22, 23 ; xxi. 13. 
 Thus the Lor-d was fulfilling the promise 
 made through Ananias to Saul at the time of 
 his conversion, " / will sheiu him how great 
 things he must suffer for my name's sake " 
 (Acts ix. 16). 
 
 and that my service ivhich I have for Jeru- 
 sahnn maybe accepted of the saints^ "and 
 that my ministration which is for Jeru- 
 salem may prove acceptable to the 
 saints" (Five Clergymen). See 2 Cor. viii. 
 4; ix. I. In this anxiety concerning his re- 
 
 ception by the Jewish Church we see another 
 undesigned yet strong proof that the epistle 
 was written by the Apostle whose mission to 
 the Gentiles was so invidiously regarded at 
 Jerusalem. Compare Acts xxi. 21. 
 
 The various reading (8a)po0opta) "bring- 
 ing a gift" instead of "ministration" 
 (StdKoi/ia), though found in the Vatican and 
 a few other MSS, is probably an explanatory 
 gloss. 
 
 32. That I may come unto you ^ith joy by 
 the <will of God, and may ivith you be re- 
 freshed.'] Or, " That having come unto you 
 in joy by the will of God, I may with you 
 find rest." (The reading i\66iv adopted by 
 Tisch. 8 with ti * A G does not affect the 
 sense.) 
 
 "in joy." Compare i Cor, iv. 21 ; 2 Cor. 
 ii. I. 
 
 by the will of God.] The necessity of this 
 submission of the Apostle's will to the will 
 of God was shown in the result : he came 
 to Rome, but not "in joy," nor to "find 
 rest." Compare i. 10, 12. 
 
 The Vatican MS. reads "by the will of the 
 Lord Jesus," and other MSS have "Christ 
 Jesus" or "Jesus Christ" "It has been 
 observed that St. Paul's constant expression 
 is, by the ivill of God (i Cor. i. i ; 2 Cor. i. i ; 
 viii. 5 ; Eph. i. i ; Col. i. i ; 2 Tim. i. i ; 
 Rom. i. 10; Gal. i. 4). He has never written 
 " according to the will of Christ," or any 
 similar phrase (Tisch. 8). In Eph. v. 17, 
 " the will of the Lord" is Christ's moral will: 
 the will which directs the dispensations of 
 Divine Providence is called '•'■ the will of 
 God." 
 
 33. N0-1V the God of peace be with you all^ 
 " And the God of peace ^^ 8cc. This conclud- 
 ing prayer arises so naturally out of the pre- 
 ceding thoughts, that it is quite unnecessary 
 to assume that the Apostle's mind returns to 
 the dissensions among the Christians at Rome 
 (xiv.). Compare 2 Cor. xiii. ii ; Phil. iv. 9; 
 I Thess. v. 23. 
 
V. I— 4-] 
 
 ROMANS. XVI. 
 
 231 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 3 Paul willeth the brethren to greet many, 
 17 and adviseth them to take heed of those 
 which cause dissension a7td offences, 21 and 
 after sundry salutations endcth with praise 
 and thanks to God, . 
 
 I COMMEND unto you Phebe 
 our sister, which is a servant of 
 the church which is at Cenchrea : 
 
 2 That ye receive her in the 
 Lord, as becometh 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 also. 
 
 3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my 
 helpers in Christ Jesus : 
 
 4 Who have for my life laid down 
 
 Chap. XVI. — Personal Messages, Bene- 
 dictions, AND DOXOLOGY. 
 
 I, 2. Commendation of Phcebe. 
 
 1. I commend.'] "Vow I commend" : comp. 
 2 Cor. iii. i ; v. 12; &c. ; Xen. Mem. I. vi. 14 ; 
 Anab. III. i. 8. That Phcebe was the bearer 
 of the Epistle, is very probable ; it is clear 
 from V. 2, that the occasion of her journey 
 was some business in which she might re- 
 quire the help which this introduction was 
 intended to secure for her. 
 
 our sister.'] I.e. my sister in Christ and 
 yours also: compare -y. 23 ddf\(ji6s. 
 
 ivhlcb is a servant of the church 'which is 
 at Cenchrea.] Second and more special 
 ground of commendation. The Feminine 
 SiaKovos (Demosth. 762, 4) occurs only here 
 in the N.T. The proposed rendering "deacon- 
 ess" (Five Clergymen), is open to the ob- 
 jection that it introduces into the N. T. the 
 technical name {^laKovia-a-a) which is of later 
 origin. The office was, no doubt, the same, 
 namely, that of ministering to the sick, the 
 poor, and the stranger. Even after the 
 introduction of the technical name, the more 
 general form {diaKovos) remained in use, as 
 in Ignatius ' ad Antiochenos,' p. 96 ; Theo- 
 doret also, in the 5th century, calls a dea- 
 coness didnovos. See Suicer's ' Thesaurus." 
 
 Cenchrea, or more correctly "Cenchreae," 
 was the eastern part of Corinth on the 
 Saronic Gulf; distant about nine miles from 
 the city. It was important as a fortress 
 commanding one of the passes over the 
 Isthmus, and as having an excellent harbour, 
 which made it the emporium of trade with 
 the East. The Church there was probably 
 founded and organised by St. Paul himself. 
 
 2. as becometh saints.] "in a manner 
 worthy of saints," i.e. with such kind- 
 ness and hospitality as "saints," or Christian 
 believers, ought to show to a sister in the 
 Lord. 
 
 and that je assist her.] Lit. "stand by 
 her," as in 2 Tim. iv. 17. Both words 
 (napla-Taa-dat. and irpay^a) often refer to legal 
 proceedings, and occur together in this sense 
 Demosth. 1120, 26. It is probable therefore 
 
 that Phoebe was going to Rome on legal 
 " business." On the conjecture that Phoebe's 
 destination was Ephesus, not Rome, see In- 
 troduction, § 8. 
 
 for she hath been a succourer of many.] 
 "for she herself also." The legal repre- 
 sentative of a foreigner or provincial was 
 called in Latin " patronus," in Greek 
 TTpoa-TaTrjs. In allusion to the latter name and 
 to the word nnpacrTfjTe, St. Paul calls Phoebe 
 a TTpoo-rartf, /. e. a " protectress " or " helper " 
 of many and of himself among them. Wiclif 
 preserves the play on words, "and that ye 
 help her in whatever cause she shall reed of 
 you, for she helped many," 
 
 and of myself also] It is not improbable 
 that Phoebe may have rendered service to St. 
 Paul at Cenchreas on the occasion mentioned 
 in Acts xviii. 18. His vow seems to point 
 to a deliverance from danger or sickness. 
 
 3-16. Apostolic Greetings. 
 
 On this whole section in its relation to the 
 rest of the Epistle, see Introduction, § 8. 
 
 3. Greet Priscilla.] "Prisca." See note 
 on Acts xviii, 2. On the objection that 
 Aquila and Priscilla were not likely to have 
 been at Rome at the time when St. Paul wrote 
 to that Church, see Introduction, § 8. 
 
 my helpers in Christ Jesus.] " My fellow- 
 workers," &c. " Labour tor the Gospel lives 
 and moves in Christ as its very element" 
 (Meyer). For the fact see Acts xviii. 26 ; 
 I Cor. xvi. 19. They were also fellow- 
 workers in the trade of tent-making (Acts 
 xviii. 2). 
 
 4. IVho have for my life laid down their 
 oivn necks.] Omit " have." The fact thus 
 stated as a special reason for greeting them 
 (otrtvey, " quippe qui ") is otherwise un- 
 known, and the exact meaning of the state- 
 ment is therefore somewhat obscure to us, 
 though it must have been clear to the readers. 
 In the assault of the Jews at Corinth (^Acts 
 xviii. 6-18), and again in the tumult at 
 Ephesus (Acts xix.), Aquila and Priscilla 
 were with St. Paul, but are not specially 
 mentioned as incurring any danger for his 
 
232 
 
 ROMANS. XVI. 
 
 [v. 5—10. 
 
 their own necks : unto whom not 
 only I give thanks, but also all the 
 churches of the Gentiles. 
 
 5 Likewise greet the church that 
 is in their house. Salute my well- 
 beloved Epaenetus, who is the first- 
 fruits of Achaia unto Christ. 
 
 6 Greet Mary, who bestowed 
 much labour on us. 
 
 7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, 
 my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, 
 who are of note among the apostles, 
 who also were in Christ before me. 
 
 8 Greet Amplias my beloved in 
 the Lord. 
 
 9 Salute Urbane, our helper in 
 Christ, and Stachys my beloved. 
 
 10 Salute Apelles approved in 
 
 sake. Such occasions were frequent in the 
 adventurous life of the Apostle. 
 
 laid domjn their oivn necks.^ Read, "neck." 
 The Singular implies that the expression is 
 figurative, as does the converse use of the 
 Plural firjTepas in Mark x. 30, if the reading 
 be retained. The most likely meaning there- 
 fore is that Aquila and Priscilla risked their 
 lives, not that they literally put down their 
 necks under the executioner's sword, nor 
 that they pledged (vTredrjKav) their lives to the 
 magistrate for the safe custody of Paul. 
 
 unto <whom not only 1 give thanks, but also 
 all the churches of the Gentiles.'] St. Paul 
 speaks with emotion as of an event compara- 
 tively recent : yet sufficient time had elapsed 
 for the matter to have become generally 
 known among the Gentiles. These two cir- 
 cumstances correspond well with the sup- 
 position that the event had occurred at 
 Ephesus in the tumult, and that St. Paul had 
 recently heard of the arrival of his friends at 
 Rome. It would be natural that he should 
 thus commend them to his readers on the 
 first opportunity, and should mention the 
 thanksgiving of the Gentile Churches, which 
 he had since been visiting. 
 
 5. Like-wise greet the church that is in their 
 house.] See Acts xii. 12 ; i Cor. xvi. 19; 
 Col. iv. 15 ; Philem. 2. "The Church in the 
 house " was not merely the Christian house- 
 hold itself, but a body of believers meeting 
 for worship in the house of some leading 
 member of the community. 
 
 It appears from the " Martyrdom of 
 Justin," § 3, that as late at least as the 
 middle of the 2nd century there was no 
 fixed place of general assembly for the 
 whole Church at Rome, but several small 
 assemblies like this Church in the house of 
 Aquila and Priscilla. See Bp. Lightfoot, Col. 
 iv. 15 ; and Bingham, ' Antiquities,' VIII. i. 1 3. 
 
 Salute my tvell-beloved Epanetus.] The 
 word rendered ^'■salute'' or '■'■greet" is the 
 same throughout the chapter. Of "Epae- 
 netus my well-beloved," nothing is known 
 except from this passage. 
 
 <who is the first-fruits of Achaia.] For 
 *• Achaia," introduced from i Cor. xvi. 15, 
 
 read " Asia," and for its geographical mean- 
 ing see note on Acts ii. 9. Epxnetus, St. Paul 
 means, was one of the first converts in Asia, 
 ^'' the first-fruits" of the '■^offering of the 
 Gentiles " xv. r6. 
 
 In the spurious list of " the Seventy 
 Apostles" ascribed to Hippolytus, Epxnetus 
 figures as Bishop of Carthage. 
 
 6. Mary.] Variations of the text make it 
 uncertain whether Mariam or Maria was of 
 Jewish or Roman origin, and whether the 
 labours which gained her a special greeting 
 v'ere spent on the Apostle (17/xas) or on his 
 readers (v/xaj). 
 
 7. my kinsmen.] Since other Jews are 
 mentioned in the context, e.g. Aquila and 
 Priscilla (v. 3), it is thought that the persons 
 distinguished by St. Paul as his " kinsmen " 
 here, and in w. 11, 21, were members of his 
 family, not merely fellow-countrymen (as in 
 ix. 3). On the other hand it may be said 
 that in writing to a Gentile Church the 
 Apostle might naturally speak of Jewish 
 Christians as his fellow-countrymen or"^/V?i- 
 men according to the flesh" (ix. 3): and the 
 great number of persons to whom the term 
 {(Tvy-^ivr)^~) is applied in this chapter makes it 
 improbable that they were all of the Apostle's 
 family. 
 
 fellonu - prisoners 7\ "fellow-oaptive s." 
 Andronicus and Junia (or Junias, if the 
 name be a man's) are mentioned with espe- 
 cial honour ; as soldiers of Christ they had 
 shared at some time in St. Paul's captivity 
 (see 2 Cor. vi. 5 ; xi. 23 ; and Col. iv. 10) : 
 though not themselves here styled '■'■Apostles," 
 as Chrysostom and others have thought (see 
 note at end) they were well known to the 
 Apostles, and had been among the earliest 
 disciples (cf. Acts xxi. 16), having become 
 Christians before St. Paul himself 
 
 8. 9. Amplias.] A contraction of Ampli- 
 atus, which fuller form is common in tlie 
 sepulchral inscriptions of persons connected 
 with Caesar's household (see Introd. § 8). 
 
 The next name " TJrbanus," (or " Urban," 
 not " Urbajie ") is found, as here, in juxta- 
 position with Ampliatus in a list of imperial 
 freedmen, on an inscription a.d. 115. 
 
V. II — 14-] 
 
 ROMANS. XVI. 
 
 ^33 
 
 Christ. Salute them which are of 
 Aristobulus' '^household. 
 
 11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. 
 Greet them that be of the ^^household 
 of Narcissus, which are in the Lord. 
 
 12 Salute Tryphena and Try- 
 phosa, who labour in the Lord. 
 
 Salute the beloved Persis, which 
 laboured much in the Lord. 
 
 13 Salute Rufus chosen in the 
 Lord, and his mother and mine. 
 
 14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, 
 Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the 
 brethren which are with them. 
 
 our helper in Christ^ Rather, " Our fellow- 
 labourer in Christ;" not a personal com- 
 panion of St. Paul, like those whom he calls 
 ^'' my fello-iv-labourers" iyv. 3, 21), but one 
 active in the same cause of Christ, with St. 
 Paul and his readers. 
 
 " Stachys " has no distinction but that of 
 being, like Ampliatus, dear to the Apostle in 
 Christian love. 
 
 The names Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, 
 Narcissus, Tryphsena, and Tryphosa, Rufus, 
 Hermes, Hermas, Patrobus, Philologus, Julia, 
 and Nereus occur more or less frequently 
 in inscriptions of Caesar's household. (See 
 Introd. § 8, and Bp. Lightfoot's 'Philippians,' 
 p. 172.) 
 
 10. Apelles approved in Christ.'] I.e. the 
 tried Christian: as Origen suggests, Apelles 
 had probably endured much tribulation, and 
 so had been tried and approved: cf. v. 3, 4. 
 The name occurs as that of a Jew in Horace, 
 I Sat. V. 100. 
 
 Aristobulus' household.'] Literally, "those 
 of Aristobulus," more probably his servants 
 than kinsmen (i Cor. i. 11). As only cer- 
 tain of them (jovs i< tcov 'A.) are saluted, 
 namely, as in v. 11, those who were " z« the 
 Lord" it is likely that Aristobulus himself 
 was not a Christian. 
 
 It is not improbable that this Aristobulus 
 was " Aristobulus the younger " (Joseph. 
 ' Antiq.' xx. i. 2), the grandson of Herod the 
 Great, and brother of Agrippa and Herod, 
 kings of Judaea and Chalcis, who lived in 
 Rome in a private station (Bell. Jud. II. xi. 
 6), and died there 7iot before A.D. 45. 
 
 Being very friendly to the Emperor Clau- 
 dius (Jos. 'Antiq.' 1. c.) he may have be- 
 queathed his slaves to him, and they thus 
 became part of Cassar's household, though 
 still distinguished by the name of their late 
 master : as servants of Aristobulus many of 
 them would naturally be Jews, and so likely 
 to become hearers of the Gospel. See Light- 
 foot on Philippians, p. 172, and 'Dictionary 
 of Greek and Roman Biography,' "Aristo- 
 bulus," 5. 
 
 11. Herodion my kinsman^ See on v. 7. 
 Being St. Paul's kinsman Herodion was a 
 Jew, and very probably (as we may conjec- 
 ture from his name and the immediate juxta- 
 
 position) one " of the household of Aristo- 
 bulus." (Lightfoot.) 
 
 Greet them that be of the household of Nar- 
 cissus, ivhich are in the Lord.] This was pro- 
 bably the wealthy and powerful freedman of 
 Claudius, whose death in prison in the year 
 A.D. 55 is described by Tacitus, Ann. xiii. i. 
 In this case there is no real anachronism, as 
 Lucht thinks, p. 147. For either by con- 
 fiscation, which Lucht supposes, or by the 
 law of succession, the household of the 
 freedman of Claudius would pass into the 
 possession of Nero, retaining the name of 
 their deceased owner under the form Nar- 
 cissiani, ol NapKiVa-ov. See 'Dictionary of 
 Greek and Roman Antiq.' " Libertus," and 
 Lightfoot, 'Philippians,' p. 173. 
 
 12. Tryphana is made a prominent cha- 
 racter in the Apocryphal Acts of Paul and 
 Thecla. 
 
 Tryphena and Tryphosa were probably 
 sisters. Their names both meaning " dainty " 
 or " luxurious " are contrasted with their 
 " toiling " in the Lord. Both names are 
 found in connexion with the imperial house- 
 hold about this date. 
 
 Observe how St. Paul distinguishes " Per- 
 sis " as " the beloved," not " my beloved," as 
 in V. 8. Her many labours in the Lord were 
 performed on some definite occasion now 
 past ; Tryphaena and Tryphosa were labour- 
 ing still. 
 
 13. Rufus, though his name is common, is 
 supposed to be son of Simon of Cyrene 
 (Mark XV. 21), for St. Mark, who probably 
 wrote at Rome, assumes that Alexander and 
 Rufus are well known. 
 
 chosen in the Lord,] Rather, the chosen. 
 The title seems to be added as expressing 
 some special excellence, and not simply that 
 Divine election which is common to all Chris- 
 tians. Compare i Pet. ii. 4, Sap. Salom. iii. 
 14, Trjs TTiVrfcof X'^P'-^ e'/cXe/crij, and Baruch iii. 
 30, Xpvalov (kKsktov. 
 
 his mother and mine.] A graceful acknow- 
 ledgment of maternal love and care bestowed, 
 we know not when, on the Apostle. The 
 father and brother seem to be dead, if this be 
 the Rufus of St. Mark. 
 
 14. Asyncritus, Phlegon, and Hermes, are 
 wholly unknown, though catalogued by the 
 
234 
 
 ROMANS. XVI. 
 
 [v. 15-18. 
 
 15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, 
 Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, 
 and all the saints which are with 
 them. 
 
 16 Salute one another with an 
 holy kiss. The churches of Christ 
 salute you. 
 
 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, 
 mark them which cause divisions and 
 offences contrary to the doctrine 
 which ye have learned ; and avoid 
 them. 
 
 18 For they that are such serve 
 not our Lojrd Jesus Christ, but their 
 
 Pseudo-Hippolytus as Bishops of Hyrcania, 
 Marathon, and Dalmatia. 
 
 In the same list " Patrobas " (or Patrobius) 
 appears as Patrobulus, Bishop of Puteoli : 
 he may have been a dependant of Patrobius, 
 the powerful freedman of Nero, whose death 
 is recorded by Tacitus, Hist. i. 49, ii. 95. 
 (Lightfoot, ' Philippians,' p. 174.) 
 
 Hermas.'] Origen's conjecture on this pas- 
 sage that this Hermas was the author of 
 " The Shepherd " is of no weight against the 
 contemporary evidence of the Muratorian 
 Canon, A.D. 170 circ. : "Hermas composed 
 ' the Shepherd ' very lately in our times in the 
 city of Rome, while the Bishop Pius his 
 brother sat in the chair of the Roman 
 Church." Compare Westcott on the Canon, 
 pp. 217-220, and Lightfoot, ' Philipp.' p. 167. 
 
 the brethren luhich are ^tth theiri\. Origen 
 suggests on -y. 15 that these were the house- 
 hold servants of the persons above named. 
 Others, with greater probability, have imagined 
 them to be members of a separate Christian 
 congregation at Rome, similar to those men- 
 tioned in V. 5 and -u. 15. 
 
 15. Philologus and Julia were probably man 
 and wife, or possibly brother and sister: a 
 Caius Julius Philologus is mentioned in an 
 inscription (Murat. p. 1586, 3) as freedman 
 of Caius. Thus both names point to a con- 
 nection with " the household of Csesar." 
 
 On '■'•Nereus" and his legendary history 
 see " Dictionary of Bible," and Jer. Taylor, 
 " Marriage Ring," Part I. p. 209. 
 
 His sister was probably called Nereis, and 
 a Claudia Nereis is mentioned as a freed- 
 woman of Augustus (Lightfoot). 
 
 " Olympas " is mentioned in the list of the 
 Pseudo-Hippolytus. See note on -u. 5. 
 
 Salute one another ^ith an holy kiss?\ The 
 ancient custom of the East, particularly 
 among the Jews, of uniting a greeting with a 
 kiss, became among Christians a holy symbol 
 of loving fellowship in the Lord. (Compare 
 i. 7, note on ^aptf.) 
 
 In I Thess. v. 26, St. Paul requests the 
 leaders of the Church to '■'■salute all the 
 brethren wjith a holy kiss" seemingly in his 
 name and as a token of his love. 
 
 Here and in i Cor. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 
 12 "« kiss of clxirity" (i Pet. v. 14) is 
 to be given and received by each member 
 
 of the Church in token of their love to one 
 another. 
 
 This "mystic" (Clem. Al.) or symbolic 
 " kiss of peace " (Tert.), " the Lord's kiss " 
 (Ap. Const, ii. 57) was embodied in the 
 Eucharistic office as early as the time of 
 Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 65 a.d.) : it occurred 
 immediately before the oblation of the gifts, 
 and its use is thus defined in the so-called 
 'Apostolic Constitutions:' "Let the Bishop 
 salute the Church and say, The peace of 
 God be with you all. And let the people 
 answer, And with thy spirit: and let the 
 deacon say to all, Salute ye one another with 
 the holy kiss. And let the clergy salute the 
 Bishop, the men of the laity salute the men, 
 the women the women:" viii. 11. 
 
 The custom is retained in the Greek 
 Church. 
 
 The churches. 1 " AM" the churches. Com- 
 pare -V. 19, and i. 8. The expression need 
 not be limited to the churches visited by St. 
 Paul : he knew the good will of all towards 
 the Romans, and so speaks for all. 
 
 17-20. A Warning against False 
 Teachers. 
 
 17. divisions and offences^ The articles in 
 the Greek imply that "the divisions and 
 the offences," which had been caused in 
 other Churches by false teachers, were known 
 to the readers, not necessarily that the same 
 evils were already prevalent among them- 
 selves. 
 
 The contrary is rather implied by the 
 absence of any such expression as " among 
 you," and by the emphasis on the Pronoun in 
 the clause " contrary to the doctrine ivhich ye 
 have learned." 
 
 The Apostle fears lest false teachers, such 
 as those who had caused so much trouble 
 elsewhere, might appear at Rome, and so 
 exhorts his readers " to mark them" i. e. to 
 watch them carefully and keep out of their 
 way. 
 
 Bp. Lightfoot, 'Philippians,' iii. 18, thinks 
 that the warning is directed against persons 
 belonging to the same party to which the 
 passages vi. 1-23; xiv. i — xv. 6, are chiefly 
 addressed. See Introduction, § 8. 
 
 18. our Lord Jesus Christ.] "Our Lord 
 Christ." In '■'■serve not" the negative has 
 
V. 19 22.] 
 
 ROMANS. XVI. 
 
 ^35 
 
 own belly ; and by good words and 
 fair speeches deceive the hearts of the 
 simple. 
 
 19 For your obedience is come 
 
 abroad unto all men. I am glad 
 
 therefore on your behalf: but yet I 
 
 would have you wise unto that 
 
 "O'"' , which is good, and "simple concern- 
 
 harmless. . ., ° ' *• 
 
 mg evu. 
 
 20 And the God of peace shall 
 "bruise Satan under your feet shortly. "O'-. 
 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 
 be with you. Amen. 
 
 21 Timotheus my workfellow, 
 and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosi- 
 pater, my kinsmen, salute you. 
 
 22 I Tertius, who wrote this 
 epistle, salute you in the Lord. 
 
 from its position an emphatic force equivalent 
 to " refuse to serve." The further description 
 of men who serve " their own belly" i. e. who 
 give themselves up to sensual indulgence, 
 indicates a class of false teachers hke the 
 adversaries of the Apostle at Philippi, " ivhose 
 God is their belly" (Phil. iii. 19). 
 
 by good ^ivords and fair speeches^ Read, 
 "by their kind and flattering speecli," 
 or, " by their kind speech and praise." The 
 meaning of xprjaroXoyla is not disputed: 
 Fritzsche, followed by Meyer, takes evXoyia 
 in the sense of " eloquence " or " tine expres- 
 sion," as in Plato ('Rep.' iii. 400 D), and 
 Lucian (Alexiphanes i. near the beginning). 
 Fritzsche thinks that St. Paul has used 
 evXoyia in this unusual sense for the sake of 
 the pointed alliteration and antithesis between 
 XprjaroXoyia referring to the contents, and 
 fiXoyia to the form of the discourse. 
 
 But two words combined under one Article 
 ought to express cognate ideas, rather than 
 two ideas so distinct as those of " kindness " 
 and "eloquence" (Philippi). 
 
 The meaning " praise " (Plato, ' Axiochus ' 
 365, A) is much nearer to the usual Scriptural 
 sense, " blessing :" compare Rev. v. 12. That 
 the "praise" here meant is false and "flat- 
 tering" is implied not in the word, but in 
 the context. 
 
 deceive the hearts of the simple^ Rather, 
 "of the innocent" (All the English ver- 
 sions except Geneva and A.V.). See Prov. 
 xiv. 15. I'he same word (o/caKoj) is applied 
 in Heb. vii. 26 to Christ, in whom "inno- 
 cence" is combined with the fulness of wisdom 
 and knowledge : but in others it is often akin 
 to a simplicity which is easily deceived. See 
 Trench, 'N. T. Synonyms,' 2nd Series; and 
 Ruhnken, 'ad Tim.' p. 18. 
 
 19. The connexion and arguments are 
 made quite clear by the emphatic position of 
 v}xuiv. " The innocent they deceive, but they 
 ought not to deceive you, who are not mere 
 innocents, ior your obedience is come abroad 
 unto all men." Compare i. 8. 
 
 I am glad therefore on your behalf. 1 Rather, 
 "Over you therefore I rejoice." In the 
 right reading, e0' vfxiv ovv xaipa (Tisch. 8), 
 
 the position of the pronoun is again em- 
 phatic : there is " a delicate combination of 
 •warning with the expression of firm conf- 
 dence'" (Meyer). Only, the confidence is ex- 
 pressed first : this is characteristic of St. Paul. 
 
 but yet I ivoidd have you ivise unto that 
 nvhich is good, and simple concerning evil.^ 
 Rather, "Yet I wish you to be wise unto 
 that 'which is good^hxit, pure towards evil," 
 On the word ojcepaioj, "pure," unmixed, un- 
 alloyed with evil, see Trench and Ruhnken, 
 as above on 1;. 18 ; and compare Matt. x. 16 ; 
 Phil. ii. 15. By the general expression '■'■wise 
 unto that nvhich is good" St. Paul means, 
 especially, wise in discerning and adhering to 
 the truth which they had learned. 
 
 20. Warning is followed by encourage- 
 ment. They who cause dissension (v. 17) 
 are instruments of Satan : " but the God (who 
 is the author) of peace shall crush Satan under 
 your feet shortly.'' 
 
 There is an evident allusion to the promise 
 in Gen. iii. 15. 
 
 " He says not ' shall subdue,' but ' shall 
 crush,' and not them only but their leader 
 '•Satan': and not simply ' j/6«// crush,' but 
 ' under your feet,' so that they gain tlie victory 
 themselves, and are made illustrious by the 
 trophy. From the time also there is comfort 
 again, for he adds ' shortly.'" (Chrysost.) 
 
 The passage is very similar to the warning 
 in 2 Cor. xi. 1 2-1 5 against the Judaizing adver- 
 saries, who are described as ministers of Satan. 
 
 The grace.'] The Apostle's concluding 
 benediction is here given in its original form : 
 compare i Thess. v. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18. On 
 the meaning of " the grace," see i. 7. 
 
 "■ Atnen'' is not found in the best MSS. On 
 the repetition of the benediction, see Intro- 
 duction, § 8. 
 
 " And thus he brings his discourse becom- 
 ingly to an end in prayer ; ' The grace of our 
 Lord.' For this he loves ever to make a 
 foundation, this a conclusion." (Chrysost.) 
 
 21-23. Salutations from St. Paul's 
 Companions. 
 
 21. Timothy had been with St. Paul in 
 Macedonia in the latter part of A.D. 57 (2 Cor. 
 
236 
 
 ROMANS. XVI. 
 
 [v. 23—25. 
 
 23 Gaius, mine host, and of the 
 whole church, saluteth you. Erastus 
 the chamberlain of the city saluteth 
 you, and Quartus a brother. 
 
 24 The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ be with you all. Amen. 
 
 25 Now to him that is of power 
 to stablish you according to my 
 
 i. i); whether he had come on with him 
 at once to Corinth is not known. In the 
 opening ad<lress (i. 1-7) his name is not asso- 
 ciated with St. Paul's as in other Epistles 
 (i and 2 Thess., 2 Cor., Phil, Col., Phile- 
 mon). He may therefore have been absent 
 when the Epistle was begun, joining St. Paul 
 just before it was closed, on the eve of his 
 departure for Jerusalem. See Acts xx. 1-4. 
 Timothy was known to some in Rome, at 
 least to Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 1-5). 
 
 " Lucius''' is certainly not St. Luke (Lucas, 
 or Lucanus), but possibly " Lucius of Cyrene]' 
 Acts xiii. I. 
 
 " Jason " is not improbably the same who is 
 mentioned in Acts xvii. 5, as his home had 
 been at Thessalonica, though he is not one of 
 the Thessalonians mentioned in Acts xx. 4. 
 
 Sosipater may be the same as Sopater (son 
 of Pyrrhus) of Beraa (Acts xx. 4). See 
 Paley, ' Horas Paulina;.* 
 
 my kinsmen^ See "vv. 7, 11. 
 
 22. " Teriius" the amanuensis who had 
 hitherto written from St. Paul's dictation and 
 in his name, is now permitted to send a 
 greeting in his own name. To have sent his 
 greeting in the Third Person would have 
 been to treat him as a mere machine (Godet). 
 We have therefore in this little detail an in- 
 stance of St. Paul's characteristic courtesy, 
 and at the same time a strong proof of the 
 genuineness of the passage : for what forger 
 would have thought of introducing such an 
 incident? See Lucht, p. 81. 
 
 Tertius was a very common Roman name, 
 and he was probably an Italian known to 
 many of the readers. 
 
 in the Lord!] L e. as your brother in 
 Christ. See i Cor. xvi. 19. 
 
 23. Gaius!\ Le. Caius. Several persons 
 of this name are mentioned in the N. T. 
 
 (a.) (i Cor. i. 14) a member of the Corin- 
 thian Church baptized by St. Paul's own 
 nand; 
 
 {b.) A Macedonian, St. Paul's companion 
 at Ephesus, Acts xix. 29. 
 
 (f.) A native of Derbe in Lycaonia, who 
 soon after this letter was despatched travelled 
 with St. Paul from Corinth to Asia (Acts 
 XX. 4). 
 
 {d.) '■'■TlDe nuell-heloved''' brcther to whom 
 St. John wrote his 3rd Epistle ; celebrated 
 for his hospitality to the Church, and pro- 
 bably residing in some city near Ephesus. 
 
 These were probably four distinct persons, 
 
 of whom (a) is the one here mentioned : ac- 
 cording to a tradition mentioned by Origen, 
 in his note on this passage, he was Bishop of 
 Thessalonica. 
 
 mine host, and of the ivhole churchJ] St. 
 Paul lodged at this time with Caius, as on his 
 first visit to Corinth with Aquila, and after- 
 wards with Justus (Acts xviii. 1-7). Caius 
 seems either to have lent his house for the 
 meetings of the Church, or more probably to 
 have shown a ready hospitality to all who 
 came to visit the Apostle. St. Paul gratefully 
 recognises this by calling him "»y host and" 
 (in a more general sense) the host "0/ the 
 'whole church": compare -u. 13: "^ij mother, 
 and mine." 
 
 Erastus the chamberlain of the city."] Rather, 
 "the steward," or "the treasurer of the 
 city." It is hardly probable that the holder 
 of such an office is the same Erastus whom 
 St. Paul sent forward with Timothy into 
 Macedonia before he himself left Ephesus 
 (Acts xix. 22), and the same who is said 
 (2 Tim. iv. 20) to have remained at Corinth. 
 
 Quartus a brother!] "Our brother" (6 
 aSeA0dr), i.e. Quartus who is a brother in 
 the Lord : not the brother of Erastus, or 
 Tertius, as some have conjectured. 
 
 24. On tlie repetition of the benediction, 
 see Introduction, § 8. 
 
 25-27. The Doxology "rich in contents, 
 and deep in feeling" (Meyer) forms a noble 
 conclusion to this great Epistle. Comparing 
 it with the introduction in c. i. we find in both 
 the same fundamental thoughts of the Epistle: 
 "the power of God unto salvation" (i. 16), 
 the gospel entrusted to St. Paul for the 
 Gentiles (i. 5), the testimony of the Prophets 
 (i. 2), the "obedience to the faith" (i. 5), the 
 acceptance of all nations (i. 5, 14-16), all 
 these thoughts are here gathered up into one 
 harmonious burst of "wonder, love, and 
 praise." 
 
 25. No^vj to him that is ofpoi.ver to stablish 
 you.] "Now unto him that is able," &o. : 
 see Eph. iii. 20, Jude 24. 
 
 In i. II St. Paul has expressed his great 
 desire to visit them in order that they " may 
 be established." The same feeling which is 
 there implied in the use of the Passive Voice 
 (see note on i. 12) is here distinctly ex- 
 pressed : God alone "is able to stablish 
 you." 
 
 according to my gospel!] Compare ii. 16, 
 
V. 26.] 
 
 ROMANS. XVI. 
 
 m 
 
 gospel, and the preaching of Jesus 
 Christ, according to the revelation of 
 the mystery, which was kept secret 
 since the world began, 
 
 26 But now is made manifest, aiid 
 by the scriptures of the prophets, 
 according to the commandment of 
 the everlasting God, made known 
 
 and notes there; i Tim. i. 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8. 
 The usage of this characteristic phrase, as 
 well as tliat of the Verb a-TrjpiCeiv (for which 
 see the note at the end of the chapter), shows 
 that the sense is not " to cause you to remain 
 steadfastly faithful to my gospel" (Meyer), 
 but, ^^ to stablish you, in accordance with 
 my Gospel," i. e. according to the good tidings 
 which 1 , the Apostle of the Gentiles, announce 
 to you (i. II, 13). 
 
 '* By this expression he wishes to indicate 
 the type of Christian teaching which had 
 been revealed to himself personally (Gal. i. 
 U-16), and of which the two characteristic 
 features were the perfectly gratuitous, and 
 the absolutely universal character of its sal- 
 vation " (Godet). 
 
 and the preaching of Jesus Christ^ Either, 
 "what is preached concerning Jesus Christ," 
 or, " what Jesus Christ preached," i. e. through 
 me His Apostle. The latter is favoured by 
 the passages in which Kr^pvyfia is followed by 
 a Genitive (Matt. xii. 41 ; Luke xi. 32; i Cor. 
 ii. 4, XV. 14), and is explained by Meyer as 
 " a more precise definition proceeding from 
 the humble piety of the Apostle. As he 
 wrote or uttered the words ' my gospel,^ he 
 at once vividly felt that his gospel was withal 
 nothing else than the preaching ivhich Christ 
 Himself caused to gb forth {through him as His 
 organ)" ch. XV. 18; 2 Tim. iv. 17. But the 
 other meaning, " what is preached concerning 
 Jesus Christ," is simpler and better suited to 
 the context, which requires that the Gospel 
 should be characterised according to its great 
 subject Jesus Christ (i. 3, ii. 16, x. 8-12 ; 
 Gal. i. 6-8), and gives no special occasion for 
 such an expression of St. Paul's personal 
 humility as Meyer imagines. 
 
 according to the revelation of the mystery^ 
 In form and construction this clause exactly 
 corresponds to the preceding, and Kara has 
 the same sense in both : the truth that God 
 " is able to establish you" is in accordance with 
 " ^y gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ" 
 in accordance with "a revelation of a 
 mystery." For a similar construction of 
 Kara, repeated in co-ordinate clauses, see 
 Col. ii. 8. The two clauses are also most 
 closely connected in sense, as if St. Paul had 
 said, " my gospel, the gospel which I preach 
 concerning Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, is a 
 revelation of a mystery that has been long 
 hidden." 
 
 Elsewhere St. Paul tells us how he had 
 received his own knowledge of Christ, namely, 
 
 "by revelation" (Gal. i. 12 ; cp. Gal. i. 16, 
 I Cor. ii. 10), /. e. by a Divine enlightenment 
 of his soul proceeding fi-om the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But as in i. 17 he has said that in the 
 gospel is revealed the righteousness of God, 
 so here the parallel clause " according to my 
 gospel,'' and the context, especially the latter 
 part of f. 26, show that he is speaking of a 
 revelation made to all men in the Gospel. 
 
 Qn the meaning of fxv<TTr]pi.ov, see note on 
 xi. 25. Here in the Doxology, as in i Cor. 
 ii. 7, the word denotes the divine purpose of 
 salvation, as a secret long kept in silence, 
 but now made known for obedience of iaith 
 unto all the Gentiles. 
 
 This special application of fiva-TTjpiov is 
 quite in accordance with its place in this 
 Epistle, and there is no ground for Lucht's 
 objection that this use of the word is not 
 earlier than the Epistle to the Ephesians. 
 Cp. Ephes. iii. 3-5, 9 ; Col. i. 26, 27 ; ii. 2 ; 
 iv. 3 ; and the striking phrase in Luke iL 32, 
 (p6i)s els a7roKaXv\|/-ij/ eBvoov. 
 
 'which avas kept secret^ Which hath been 
 kept in silence. The Passive of orLyav is 
 not unusual in classical Greek. 
 
 since the nvorld began.] Literally, " in times 
 eternal": the Dative being used as in Acts 
 viii. 11; xiii. 20. But the A.V. rightly re- 
 tains Tyndale's excellent paraphrase, which 
 expresses more correctly the idea of times 
 reaching back to eternity : 2 Tim. i. 9 ; 
 Tit. i. 2. These " times " of silence had 
 lasted until the mystery was revealed in the 
 preaching of the Gospel. 
 
 26. But nonv is made manifest.'] "But is 
 manifested now." Cp. Col. i. 26; iv. 4. 
 " The Old Testament is as it were a clock in 
 its silent course : the N.T. is the sound and 
 stroke of the bell " (Bengel). 
 
 and by the scriptures of the prophets^ 
 "and by prophetic scriptures." I'he re 
 is undoubtedly genuine, and connects the two 
 Participles yvrnpiaOivTos and (pavepcoBdvros. 
 The mystery or secret was not only brought 
 to light and manifested (^(pavepoOevros) " by 
 the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ " 
 (2 Tim. i. 10), but it was also made generally 
 known and published abroad (-yi/cupta-^eVroy), 
 and St. Paul goes on to tell us (i) by what 
 means, (2) at whose command, (3) for what 
 purpose, and (4) to what extent this publica- 
 tion was made. 
 
 (i) On the use of "prophetic scrip- 
 
238 
 
 ROMANS. XVI. 
 
 [v. 27. 
 
 to all nations for the obedience of through Jesus Christ for ever, 
 faith : Amen. 
 
 11 To God only wise, he glory 
 
 tures" in making this mystery known see 
 Luke xxiv. 27; Acts xiii. 23-41; xvii. 2, 
 II ; xxvi. 22, 27; and cp. Rom. i. 2; iii. 21 ; 
 and the numerous prophecies quoted in the 
 Epistle, especially those which refer to the 
 Gentiles in c. xv. 
 
 (2") The clause ^^ according to the com- 
 mandment of the everlasting God " is most 
 appropriate, because none but " The Eternal " 
 could cause the " stewards of his mysteries " 
 to make known that which had been " kept 
 secret since the ivorld began." Cp. i Tim. i. I ; 
 Tit. i. 3. 
 
 (3) for the obedience of faith.'] "for 
 obedience to faith": see i. 5 and note. 
 
 (4) made knonvn to all nations.] "unto 
 all the nations is made known." The 
 
 knowledge of the mystery is extended unto 
 (et?) all the Gentile nations, because they are 
 all included in the blessing of Abraham. 
 
 27. To God only civise, ^^(the) glory through 
 Jesus Christ.] On the difficult question of 
 the right reading, construction, and interpre- 
 tation of the verse, see Introduction, § 8. 
 
 The passage as rendered in A.V. presents 
 no difficulty, and the thought that God alone 
 is wise (whatever be its origin in i Tim. i. 1 7 ; 
 Jude 25) is here naturally suggested by the 
 context, and by the whole argument of the 
 Epistle, in which the Apostle has been already 
 forced to exclaim in adoring wonder, " the 
 depth of the riches and Wisdom and knoiv- 
 ledge of God I how unsearchable are his judg- 
 ments and his ivays past finding out t " 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES on vv. 7, 25. 
 
 7. Chrysostom holding ^lovvlav to be a 
 woman's name, nevertheless thinks that she 
 with Andronicus is here described as an 
 Apostle. Origen says it is possibly meant 
 that they were of the seventy. 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot (' Galatians,' p. 93 note) 
 adopts this view as favouring his theory of the 
 extensive meaning of the term " Apostle." 
 
 But usage seems to be opposed to it. 
 Thus in Eurip. ' Hippol.' 103, it is said of 
 Aphrodite, uep-vrj ye fievroi KaTriarjfios iv 
 ^porois. Compare Hec. 379, eV^Acoi/yei/ecr^at 
 heivos xapaKT7]p Kd'rri.a-rjp.os ev ^poTols. Psalt. 
 Sal. ii. 6 (ap. Hilgenfeld, 'Messias Judac- 
 orum ') eV firi(TT]p,(o ev rois eBvecriv. 
 
 In reference to the first passage quoted 
 from Euripides, Godet asks — " But why not 
 translate quite simply, ' illustrious among 
 mortals ' ? And in the same way, and with 
 still stronger reason, here, ' illustrious among 
 those many evangelists, who by their mis- 
 sionary labours in the countries of the East, 
 have merited the name of apostles.' '* 
 
 M. Godet has missed the point of the 
 quotation : Aphrodite, " illustrious among 
 mortals," was not a mortal herself. In the 
 same way, Andronicus and Junias, " of note 
 among the Apostles" were not Apostles them- 
 selves. 
 
 25. a-TTjpi^eiv. Of the five other passages 
 in which the word occurs, only two (2 Thess. 
 ii. 17; 2 Peter i. 12) are cited by Meyer in 
 favour of his interpretation, " Cause you to 
 remain stedfastly faithful to my Gospel," 
 and in both these the Preposition connecting 
 (TTr]pi(eiv with the following words is ev, not 
 Kara. The only remaining examples (Luke 
 ix. 51; xvi. 26; I Thess. iii. 13) add no- 
 thing to the argument for the closer con- 
 nection. 
 
 The Verb usually stands by itself in the 
 sense of " confirm " or " stablish" : see i. 1 1 ; 
 I Thess. iii. 2 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; also Luke 
 xxii. 32; James v. 8 ; i Peter v. 10; Apoc 
 iii. 2. 
 
LONDON: 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AlTD SONS, Limited, 
 
 STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 mmmm 
 
 i^jy 
 
 
 — < 
 
 
 mmacnti 
 
 
 
 i: 
 
 
 
 ■ flM ■ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ArJ*fl 
 
 m^\99Qj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u_^_ 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,_ 
 
 
 
 
 OtMUU 38-297 '