BR τ ΣῊΝ cele tit ® 
 rary ΓΟ at hee 
 Pet ρον μαννα 4 
 plo ἀνυϑιδλώνη ἀνθ «6,0. Ae σφλσόνην ΔΎ AER 
 Sr eS rem alan RGA POTEET 
 a ee pe tae A igh VF Pe θεαῖς 
 
 ta aera 
 ΧΩ 
 
 rab =e LI re 
 
 ne ee ee 
 samp gti or 
 
 a hee δ ν 
 ee on“ nettast τος ας mah ¢ Phen teh 5 " “ 2 > ae vata . oe Sea pe erase 
 efit Se artes tay Ne ee aaa to aoe ose ‘ ire PosK τῶν et ee eS 
 
 ge ee 
 Re aon ae 
 Nn GyOr ete 5 
 
 Reka eee Soe 
 
OW 
 bgt 
 
 ἰλὺν 
 fh 
 
Ψ we 
 
 ph Pine, 
 
 2 
 
 j “ 
 EXPOSITION: # 2 
 < 
 
 govt 
 
 Pe PAUL'S EPISTLE 
 
 * 
 TO THE 
 
 ROMANS: 
 
 WITH 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE EXEGETICAL WORKS OF THE FATHERS 
 AND REFORMERS. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN OF 
 
 DR. FRED. AUG. GOTTTREU THOLUCK, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF HALLE, AND CORRESPONDING 
 MEMBER OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF LONDON. * ; 
 
 BY THE REV. ROBERT MENZIES. 
 
 FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE SECOND REVISED AND CORRECTED EDINBURGH EDITION. 
 
 a 
 
 ‘ PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 ΕΘΝ ΑΝ ΒΑ &. 
 1844, 
 
USER YF ᾿ 
 ἷ lk a fe. sesh 
 q ἔμ 
 
 Bhs 
 
 ΄ "| oe 
 
PREFACK. 
 
 Tue Translator is happy in being able to prefix to this volume 
 the following testimonial from Dr. Tholuck, in favour of the general 
 design of the Brstican Capiner. 
 
 ‘«‘ The attempt to transplant a portion of the theological literature 
 of Germany into the soil of England, is doubtless cheering, provided 
 that such works shall be selected for translation as are really calcu- 
 lated to promote, in the lands where the language of that country is 
 spoken, the growth of pure evangelical theology. How glorious it 
 would be, if the Protestant churches, of all nations, were thus, like 
 sisters, to join hand in hand, in order, with one accord, to advance 
 the great work of building up the kingdom of God! To Great Bri- 
 tain, in these modern days, we Germans are already under no small 
 obligations. The serious practical Christianity of your island, which 
 has manifested itself since the beginning of the present century, in 
 its numerous philanthropical and religious undertakings, has afforded 
 us a model for similar institutions; and in our country also, Bible, 
 Missionary, and Tract Societies have sprung up. In like manner, 
 the practical theology of England, more especially in the branch of 
 biographical literature, has yielded fruits which have had a blessed 
 influence among the people of Germany. 
 
 “ΤῸ hence could not be otherwise than pleasing to us, if Britain, 
 on her side, were not to despise what we have it in our power to 
 offer her in return. And, indeed, it cannot be denied, that while the 
 revival of the true faith among us has, as yet, in the domain of prac- 
 tical life, operated incomparably less beneficially than in England 
 and Scotland, the fruits which it has produced in the field of science 
 have been so much the more abundant. The day has been when 
 _ Germans were wont to look for instruction from the great men of 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 the English church, such as Pococke, Lightfoot, Usher and Selden; 
 and I know not to what cause it is to be ascribed, that, at present, 
 in the department of theological literature in England and Scotland, 
 few works appear worthy of general attention. In this respect, our 
 country may now, perhaps, lend yours a helping hand, in brotherly 
 love, according to the precept of the Apostle, Eph. iv. 16, and in 
 this manner the bond between the Christian churches of Britain and 
 Germany be more closely cemented.” 
 
 It is scarcely to be hoped, however, that these happy effects will 
 be speedily realized. ‘The undertaking has many obstacles to en- 
 
 ‘counter. One of the most formidable of these is the strong prejudice 
 
 which exists in this country against whatever bears the name of 
 German theology, and which disposes so many to view with alarm 
 and suspicion, every production that comes from the infected regions 
 of rationalism, as necessarily tainted with heresy and error. It 
 would be absurd to deny, that, to a certain extent, this feeling is 
 well founded. ‘There are numerous theological works, of high repu- 
 tion in their own country, which it would be dangerous and unjusti- 
 fiable to introduce by translation into ours, as they would certainly 
 have the effect of unsettling the faith of the weak, and would only 
 serve to engage those, upon whom their influence might be imnocu- 
 ous, in an unnecessary contest with error, which is already begin- 
 ning to perish in the land in which it grew, and never, it is to be 
 hoped, will reach us, except in the history of its refutation. 
 
 At the same time, it can as little be denied, that the danger is 
 greatly exaggerated, and the prejudice to which f allude, carried to 
 an excessive and unjust extent. ‘The offspring of ignorance, how, 
 indeed, can it be otherwise? ‘To moderate and correct it, the best 
 means probably is, to make known the real extent of the evil; and 
 for this purpose, let the reader accept of the following brief, but 
 accurate-sketch of the past and present’state of theology in Germany, 
 from the pen of one, than whom, there is certainly no higher author- 
 ity upon the subject. 
 
 “The prodigious schism which divides the theologians of our 
 German church,” says Tholuck, ‘‘ is not unknown to your country- 
 men. ‘The rationalism of Germany is the terror of the greater part , 
 of Christendom where the English tongue is spoken; although, if 
 I am accurately informed, there is in England, Scotland, and North 
 America, a number of persons who are casting longing eyes towards 
 German rationalism, as towards a forbidden tree of the knowledge 
 
PREFACE. Vil 
 
 of good and evil, desirous themselves to taste its fruits, and there- 
 with also to make their countrymen wise. Permit me, then, to pre- 
 sent you with a brief compendium of this system: The majority of 
 the books of the Old Testament do not proceed from the authors to 
 whom they are ascribed. Several, such as Daniel, have been, by a 
 pious fraud, fathered upon the prophets. Christ and the Apostles 
 were fallible men, who, though possessed of many good moral prin- 
 ciples, were swayed by gross Jewish superstition. Our accounts of 
 the history of Jesus are full of Mido, which a love of the miraculous 
 tempted the Jews of the first century to frame. Even the declara- 
 tions of Christ himself have not come down to us precisely in the 
 form in which he delivered them; his disciples put much into his 
 mouth which he never spoke. Besides, the gospels of Matthew and 
 John are probably spurious. What Jesus of Nazareth really taught, 
 can now no more be known with certainty; but it is unquestionable, 
 that his originally simple doctrine has been greatly corrupted by 
 Paul, who engrafted upon it the important articles of original sin and 
 redemption, which he had borrowed from his own Jewish theology; 
 and these came afterwards to be regarded as Christian doctrines, 
 although nothing can be more contrary to the understanding. 
 
 ‘Such is the relation in which the system stands to Christianity. 
 Neither must it be supposed, that these opinions were only in a cur- 
 sory manner enunciated or maintained. On the contrary, since the 
 year 1770, in which Semler, the true father of this system, but who 
 yet was far from going the length of the rationalists of the present 
 day, first propounded it, the strenuous industry of the greatest part 
 of the theologians, philosophers, historians, and even naturalists of 
 Germany, has been engaged in strengthening and establishing it. 
 Whoever knows what German industry can do, may form some 
 conjecture of the success which has attended his efforts, when once 
 enlisted in the cause of infidelity. 
 
 ‘*It required the ploughshare of Napoleon’s wars, to break the 
 soil, and again prepare the heart of the Germans for the seed of the 
 Word of God. At that period, there awoke among us an earnest 
 longing after the faith of our fathers, and that in ,several places has 
 been followed by a revival of the faith itself. Naturally, however, 
 this could not be the case with those who had received a liberal educa- 
 tion, without their being able to assign reasons for their belief, and 
 justify it scientifically in a conflict with the doubts which had been 
 
Viii PREFACE. 
 
 raised on every side against it. And thus, after a long period, in the 
 early part of which the Theological Faculty of Tubingen alone had 
 maintained a determined and scientific resistance against the infidelity 
 of the age, there arose, about the year 1817, a fresh endeavour, in 
 opposition to the rationalists’ objections, and with a continual refer- 
 ence to these in all the departments of the science, to lay again the 
 foundations of evangelical theology. On the domain of doctrine, this 
 was a comparatively easy task, as that has always been the weak 
 side of rationalism, from which the gift of speculation seems to have 
 utterly departed. So much the more arduous and stubborn, how- 
 ever, has been the struggle on the field of history and criticism, 
 where innumerable inquiries required to be prosecuted afresh in a 
 new spirit. In that new spirit of the German theology, much, it 
 must be confessed, has not as yet been ac¢omplished. In the seve- 
 ral branches, we can speak only of a beginning, but, with the help 
 of God, this beginning shall surely have a progress.” 
 
 From this account of Dr. Tholuck, it appears, that however gloomy 
 the retrospect of the past, a better day has begun to dawn upon the 
 church of Germany. The sun of Divine truth, which is destined to 
 chase away the midnight horror of neology, has arisen, and already 
 sheds her bright and cheering rays. The strongholds of infidelity 
 and error have been assailed by a noble band of champions for the 
 faith once delivered to the saints. In the arduous struggle in which 
 they are engaged, surely they have a claim upon the sympathies and 
 favour of all to whom the gospel is dear. With what other feelings 
 than complacency and approbation should we view and receive their 
 labours? When right in the grand essentials, is it just to treat them 
 with fastidious disdain, if on some minor points they have not been 
 able to shake off completely the influence of the school in which 
 they were nurtured, and diverge some hair’s-breadth perhaps from 
 the straight line of orthodoxy among us? | But in many instances 
 even this cannot be objected to them. And, as has often been done 
 in the former history of the church, they have exemplified how the 
 clearest statements, and most powerful defences of Truth, have issued 
 from amidst the hottest opposition. 
 
 Duris ut ilex tonsa bipennibus 
 
 Nigree feraci frondis in Algido, 
 Per damna, per czdes, ab ipso 
 Ducit opes animumque ferro. 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 Men are at the pains to sift opinions which it costs them dear to 
 maintain; they seize with so much the firmer grasp that of which they 
 see others anxious to rob them; and muster their strength, and select 
 their arms, when they have to encounter a formidable foe. 
 
 In this conflict Dr. 'Tholuck is universally allowed to stand fore- 
 most among the defenders of ancient orthodoxy; and his Commentary 
 upon the Epistle to the Romans is the most important work which 
 has as yet proceeded from his pen. ‘The universal approbation it 
 has received from the friends of evangelical truth, and the fierce hos- 
 tility with which it has been assailed by the rationalists’ party in 
 Germany, afford the most satisfactory evidence of its distinguished 
 worth. No less decisive is the fact, that three editions of it have 
 already been exhausted, and that an anxious demand is now ex- 
 pressed for a fourth. Among other testimonies that might be quoted 
 to its excellence, it were unfair to withhold the opinion of such a 
 distinguished Biblical critic as Professor Stuart of Andover, who, in 
 his work lately published on the same Epistle, has not only ex- 
 pressed, in the highest terms, his approbation of Dr. Tholuck’s pre- 
 vious labours in ihe field, but availed himself, to no small extent, of 
 that writer’s views and researches. 
 
 Nor will the effect of these testimonies surely be diminished, by 
 the modest estimate which the author himself seems to have formed 
 of his own performance, as expressed in the following paragraph, 
 which he has desired should be prefixed to the translation. 
 
 “1 wish especially to remark, that the work is to be regarded as 
 the production of an earlier period of my life, and as having been 
 intended for a particular purpose. 1 composed it in my twenty-fifth 
 year, with the special view of commending to the hearts of my coun- 
 trymen the doctrine of justification by faith, which,-at the time, I 
 perceived to be greatly misunderstood. Other points are hence la- 
 boured with less care; and at this time, I believe, that upon the 9th 
 chapter I should be able to give some more profound views. Accord- 
 ingly, it by no means presents what I now consider as the beau ideal 
 of atheological commentary. Iam occupied at present with the pub- 
 lication of an extensive commentary upon the Sermon on the Mount,* 
 and it is to this I must refer, if your countrymen should wish to read 
 
 * This work Professor Tholuck has kindly offered to transmit in sheets to 
 the Translator; and at no distant day it may be expected to forma number of 
 the Biblical Cabinet. 
 
 B 
 
bes ἢ 
 
 x PREFACE. 
 
 a more mature work from my pen. It contains many expositions of 
 the doctrines, and might serve to render the dogmatical part of our 
 theology more accessible to English divines. At the same time, I 
 am persuaded, that none of them would there meet with any thing at 
 all contrary to the pure orthodoxy of your church. Even in early 
 boyhood infidelity had forced its way into my heart, and at the age 
 of twelve I was wont to scoff at Christianity and its truths. Hard 
 has been the struggle which I have come through, before attaining 
 to assurance of that faith in which I am now blessed. I prove, how- 
 ever, in myself, and acknowledge it with praise to the Almighty, that 
 the longer I live, the more does serious study, combined with the 
 experiences of life, help me to recognize in the Christian doctrine an 
 inexhaustible fountain of true knowledge, and serve to strengthen 
 the conviction that all the wisdom of this world is but folly when 
 compared with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.” 
 
 With regard to his own labours the ‘Translator has only to say, 
 that it has been his anxious study to render the meaning of the ori- 
 ginal with the utmost possible fidelity; and that while with this view 
 he has been scrupulously conscientious, in recasting the thoughts of 
 the author, to preserve unchanged their substance, order, and con- 
 nection, he has used the common license of an interpreter, to make 
 such slight changes in their verbal form, as was necessary to adapt 
 them to the genius of our language, and secure symmetry and ca- 
 dence to the expression. Some emendations, the result of more ma- 
 tured study, he has already received from the author, and hopes that 
 he may still receive more. By far the greater part of the quotations 
 have been collated with the best editions of the originals. ‘The trans- 
 lation of the extracts from the Greek Fathers he has appended, in 
 deference more to the suggestion of others than to his own opinion, 
 deploring that this should have been deemed necessary by the preva- 
 lent neglect af a language which our ancestors were wont to regard 
 as one of the eyes of theology. Much pains have been expended, 
 both by himself and the printer, upon the accentuation of the Greek, 
 and although he dares scarcely hope that a faultless degree of accu- 
 racy has been attained, he is persuaded that the blunders are neither 
 so numerous nor so gross as greatly to offend even the most fastidious - 
 scholarship. 
 
 On his own part, let him be permitted to say, that he would deem 
 himself amply compensated for all the toil which this work has 
 
PREFACE. ΧΙ 
 
 already cost, and may still entail upon him, could he but indulge the 
 hope that, like the grapes and pomegranates of Canaan, it may serve 
 to his fellow-students as a specimen of the riches and fertility of what 
 is, alas to us, almost a ferra incognita,—the ancient literature of the 
 church,—allure the steps, though even of but a few of them, into a 
 field which the Germans have begun to cultivate afresh, with un- 
 speakable benefit to the cause of evangelical truth, and tempt them to 
 extend their inquiries beyond the commentaries of Henry and of 
 Doddridge, into the rich mines of thought which lie hidden and un- 
 explored in the works of Chrysostom, Augustine, St. Bernard, and 
 Calvin, in search of some new and quickening element to infuse into 
 their ministration of the word. 
 
 On the part of the author, he has to express the wish, in which he 
 cordially joins, that in Great Britain also this book may, by the bless- 
 ing of God, be made the means of awakening some few to the faith 
 of the gospel, and of deepening the blessed impressions of that faith 
 in those breasts where it already exists! 
 
 Epinsureu, 31st Aug. 1833. 
 
% So) ὶ Way we iss 
 apace ernie Hm iid πώμω 
 pen nm δ δημηνριο aaah) bern pres 
 Si haeiesioiendlh pie estar ge a ockonaien ls 
 
 . aoe vaso agi aath spinon ὦ ἀκορ eee 
 Syahid” apt Dyanna AAP i 
 
 rie ΠΝ i ᾿ art ’ 
 A pont Rae ἘΠ Swen wae 
 ve ia ee at way, ἀξὶ 4 4 wake ara ge 
 ay ἀπο a θινῶν που θυ tes ivi bry Paes ib 
 ‘ apsinendie nt ti Seis Midas ΔΩ͂: Τὴ nah pei FOES LARD ge: seh + 
 — Ql.enl ἀν λυ} hoa sea ie AOE 
 Bali Menotet) abet He meets : . us. 
 ἰλύος τή Hid Ke a ἜΝ 8s Ren 
 Be se αὐ δ) sii cia uh Bis, Selig ght sp, 
 shi ae Haeteitte eed fia aS see hag 
 “ ὌΝ Ge t bay 
 μα ἐδ’ dain #, hei 4 a 
 ee ahah Br Mei SAAT ORIG, Die A ΒΗΜΗΛΝ ως 
 ἄμ, petits ἀμ Βὴὴ iy me nS 
 ΜΠ Ὑ ΓΝ ν ἀυχέκ Ae SAN SIGH | deus ὑμηδ, ὁ of, ἀ 
 pia andl ἊΜ 18 ies fat a een iit Mii 
 
 ¢, ikea, Morland 
 
 ve 
 - 
 ἊΣ 
 
 πολ δυο | be 
 MM τῷ ΣΥΝ ΣΥΝ ΔΛ PAS 
 
 UES Ἰὼ att ig NE 
 
 ᾿ wg wb is af 
 
 ἐπὶ χουνε Abuce ioe Ἢ μέρ, {i 
 me ele neh AEA ἢ 
 ! ee πρὶ apron 
 wht wills πῆ ial 
 ts a Mop Wo) 
 
 au to ie eee. agyale, Age, ἍΜ 
 ul 
 
 αἱ he 
 
TRANSLATOR’?S PREFACE. 
 
 Tue Translator, with the most unfeigned regret, begs to apologize 
 for the protracted delay of this work, as well as for all the vexatious 
 consequences which it has entailed, both upon the Publisher and the 
 Public; although he scarcely expects to be excused, except by those 
 who have some experience of the cause that has occasioned it, viz. 
 the manifold and absorbing avoeations connected with entering upon 
 the pastoral charge of a parish. ‘The long interval which has 
 elapsed since the publication of the former volume, has afforded him 
 an opportunity of hearing the opinion entertained of its merits, and 
 he is gratified to find that it has been read and judged of by many, 
 with minds unbiassed by prejudice, and whose perceptions were 
 neither dimmed nor perverted by the terrors of German Neology. 
 Indeed, several of the ablest divines in our Church, so far from ap- 
 prehending any baneful consequences from its publication, have 
 expressed their conviction, that such a specimen of penetrating expo- 
 sition, enriched with the stores of a boundless and sanctified erudi- 
 tion, guided by a love of truth the most sincere, and animated by a 
 faith so strong, and a piety so ardent, could scarcely fail to exercise 
 a beneficial influence upon the theology of the land. 
 
 A different opinion has, however, been expressed. Mr. Haldane 
 lately published a work upon the same Epistle, excellent, doubtless, 
 in its way, as the gifts and graces of its author would ensure, but 
 certainly not calculated, like the present, for the scientific theologian. 
 In this work he makes a strange attempt to depreciate Dr. 'Tholuck’s 
 character as an expositor, by fastening upon him a charge of want 
 of reverence for the Holy Scriptures. The injustice of the imputa- 
 tion is only equalled by the futility of the grounds upon which it is 
 based. It is not true, that, “‘ respecting the quotation from Habak- 
 kuk, Rom. i. 17, Dr. Tholuck charges the Apostle with using vio- 
 
XiV TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 
 
 lence in adapting it to his subject.” No one can attentively read the 
 passage alluded to, (Bis. Cas. vol. v. 77,) without perceiving that 
 Mr. Haldane has egregiously mistaken and misrepresented Dr. Tho- 
 luck’s words, in a manner unworthy his usual acuteness, and not a 
 little discreditable to one who assumes the task of expositor. It is, 
 moreover, equally false, that Dr. Tholuck “ refers to Acts xxviii. 25, 
 as an example of a passage which the Apostle quotes as prediction, 
 when it is not prediction.”” An imputation so grave ought not to be 
 made except with extreme caution, and upon the surest grounds. It 
 becomes otherwise uncharitable and slanderous. In the present 
 case, no more gratuitous assertion was ever uttered. So far from 
 referring to the text as a passage which the Apostle ““ quotes as pre- 
 diction,” Dr. Tholuck, without delivering any opinion as to what 
 may be its character elsewhere, refers to it as a passage, which, on 
 the particular occasion in question, is certainly not quoted as pre- 
 diction; a fact of which a single glance will be sufficient to convince 
 the reader. 
 
 A few notes have been introduced, containing the Author’s maturer 
 views upon certain verses of the 9th chapter. ‘They appeared in 
 Nos. 56 and 57 of the Litterarischer Anzeiger, 1834, where Dr. 
 Tholuck reviews an able exposition of Rom. ix., by J. T. Beck, 
 Stuttgard, 1833, and refer to the grand mystery of predestination, on 
 which his sentiments have certainly not been learned jn the school 
 of Calvin. This is the only part of the work, with respect to which 
 the Translator feels it incumbent upon him to put the young theolo- 
 gian upon his guard. 
 
 Manse or Hoppam, 
 Sept. 1836. 
 
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 
 
 In presenting this first American edition of Tholuck on the 
 Romans to the religious public, the publishers deem it proper simply 
 to state, that they have endeavoured to furnish an accurate reprint 
 of the Edinburgh edition. It is hoped that the intrinsic merit of the 
 work will insure for it a kind reception with all Biblical students and 
 lovers of sound learning, whatever may be the distinctive peculiari- 
 ties of their theological views or ecclesiastical institutions. 
 
 Should this work be favourably received, it is the design of the 
 publishers that it shall be followed shortly by Tholuck’s celebrated 
 work on the Hebrews, and other works from the German Divines, 
 
 both English and original translations. 
 
 PUBLISHERS. 
 March 12, 1844. 
 
ἥ v7 ΤΥ as ν᾽ 79 
 Pi ' ge win A Ν ‘ εν ; i 
 i ; on ‘" ; 
 Α Τ va 
 δ a 4 τ ᾿ , f 
 Ἂ ν᾽ ΄ ay ated = bs, tee 
 Ε ἢ" i 
 i ν᾽ » ἢ , τὰς ὅν ᾽ 
 ; 1 ‘4 ah ν , 
 ° ‘ ἈΝ ὦ 
 i ; ; I 
 ἐν ΡΝ satay 
 yee τς ae re Seo 
 \ tyr 2 - ἐπ + χω τὰ ἡ ‘ 
 : ΟΝ 
 ben i oa oft 
 a" nul ‘ Ἰ Υ ἡ ᾿ a 
 : . 
 “ τ re " γι , 
 ρον and a aoe 
 X Ld Le 
 ἃ ἥν: 
 ; ὙΦ. ἡ ᾿ vi 
 ba ed 
 ἢ 
 > 
 | = 
 ὑ ὌΝ ΣΝ 
 je yt 
 A 
 i Ξ 
 i 
 
 = 
 
 ἜΜ Ranta pat 
 
 non wail 
 
 a 
 
 Shy poe Ne Ὁ 
 pn si resi dive 
 Vay ee: 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 CHAPTER IT. 
 
 OF THE CHURCH AT ROME. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 OF ITS FOUNDATION. 
 
 Accorpine to the opinion of the Roman Catholics, the first 
 Christian Church at Rome was established by St. Peter. This 
 Apostle, it is maintained, came to Rome in the second year of the 
 Emperor Claudius, (the forty-third after Christ,) where he contended 
 with Simon Magus, and after filling the office of Bishop for twenty- 
 five years, at last suffered martyrdom. ‘These assertions, however, 
 contain much that cannot be supported, as several members of the 
 Romish Church, viz. Valesius, Antonius Pagi, and Stephen Baluz 
 have themselves shown. Among Protestants their incorrectness has 
 been demonstrated, particularly by Samuel Basnage, in the Annales 
 Politico-Ecclesiastice, p. 522, sqq. Some Protestants, however, 
 have gone too far on the opposite side. Salmasius, and Spanheim, 
 (De temeré credita Petri in urbem Roman profectione, Opp. T. II. p. 
 331,) contends that Peter never was in Rome. That the Apostle, 
 however, did visit that city, and that it was even the scene of his 
 death, cannot, with due regard to historical evidence, be doubted. 
 Origen, who is distinguished for his critical judgment, and whose 
 authority has peculiar weight, bears testimony to the fact, (Euseb. 
 Hist. Eccles. 1. iii. c. 3.) It is also attested by the fragment of a 
 letter of Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, in the year P. C. 117, pre- 
 served in the same work, (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. 11. 6. 25.) Lastly, 
 it is confirmed by the presbyter Caius, who, at the commencement 
 of the third century, saw in that city the graves of Peter and Paul, 
 (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 25.) Although, however, the fact be 
 admitted, the Apostle’s presence at Rome must by no means be 
 placed anterior to the composition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 
 This is evident from the following reasons: Ist. In Acts xii. 4, we 
 read that Peter was thrown into prison by Agrippa, in the last year 
 of his reign. Now that year was the fourth of the reign of Claudius. 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It is, consequently, impossible that Peter could have visited Rome in 
 the second year of Claudius. This is admitted even by Valesius, 
 (Annot. ad Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1. ii. 6. 16, p. 30.) 2d. According 
 to-Acts xv. 7, Peter attended the Synod of the Apostles at Jerusalem 
 in the ninth year of Claudius. In the year after he travelled from 
 thence to Antioch. 3d. Paul came in the seventh year of Nero to 
 Rome, and there called together the Jews, without any notice being 
 taken of Peter. 4th. Amidst the many salutations at the end of the 
 Epistle, would Paul have forgotten Peter if he had been at Rome? 
 5th. From St. Paul’s delicacy of feeling, we may conclude with 
 certainty, that he would not have used the liberty of writing to the 
 disciples of another Apostle, in the tone of this Epistle. 6th. If 
 Peter had at so early a period quitted the East, where he behoved to 
 announce the Gospel to the Jews, he would have been unfaithful to 
 his commission. 
 
 A variety of considerations renders it much more probable, that 
 the Gospel was first established at Rome by disciples of Paul. Paul, 
 must have stood in some sort of intimate connection with the Roman 
 Church, before he would have addressed himself with such emphasis 
 and concern to them. He evinces a perfect acquaintance with their 
 condition, and the simplest manner of explaining this circumstance 
 is to suppose, that his own scholars, as overseers of the church, fur- 
 nished him with intelligence respecting it. ‘The greetings which he 
 sends, are for the most part to his fellow workers or disciples, to 
 Epenetus, c. xvi., v.5, to Aquila and Priscilla, v. 8, to Andronicus 
 and Julius, v. 7. ‘These persons, it is probable, were teachers at 
 Rome. It was in the house of Aquila and Priscilla that the Church 
 assembled. In saying this, however, we do not mean to contend, 
 that these disciples of Paul brought the first seeds of the Gospel to 
 Rome. It is more likely, that they merely contributed to a wider 
 diffusion of it, and more especially to the formation of a church. The 
 first seeds may have been brought by the Jewish residents at Rome, 
 who were present in Jerusalem at the feast of Pentecost, Acts ii. 10, 
 or by the Hebrew Christians, who, after the martyrdom of Stephen, 
 were scattered abroad, Acts viii. 1, or, perhaps, by the general con- 
 course of strangers, that was ever streaming from the provinces to 
 the capital. Bertold (Kinl. B. vi. 5. 3271) is inclined to believe, that 
 even during the lifetime of our Saviour, intelligence of his doctrine 
 had been conveyed to Rome, a supposition which is at least not in- 
 credible, 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. 
 
 Iv was composed, partly of Hebrews, partly of Heathen Chris- 
 tians, c. i, 18; xv. 15,16. ‘The former are particularly addressed 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 6. iv. 1, vii. 1, and the latter c. xi. 18. Generally, indeed, the rea- 
 soning of the Apostle applies to the mutual relations of a community 
 made up of Jews and Gentiles. ‘The Jews at Rome were very nu- 
 merous. Josephus, in his Antiq. 1. xvii. c. 11. § 1. relates, that on 
 one occasion, in the time of Augustus, 8000 Jews, resident in Rome, 
 joined themselves to anembassy. ‘The most of them were prisoners 
 of war, taken by Pompey, to whom Augustus had assigned a par- 
 ticular quarter of the city beyond the Tiber (Philo Leg. ad Caium, 
 p- 1014, ed. Frkf.) Again, that numbers of the Gentiles in the 
 capital were converted to Christianity, might be inferred, if nothing 
 else led to the conclusion, from the wide spread corruption of man- 
 ners, and the unsatisfying nature of Paganism, which was unable to 
 appease the wants of serious minds. Seneca informs us, (de Superst. 
 Fragm. in Aug. de civ. dei, 1. 7. c. 11.) that such numbers of Ro- 
 mans had embraced the Jewish (by which he also means the Chris- 
 tian) religion, ‘‘ ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit. Victi victoribus 
 leges dederunt.”” And Juvenal also bitterly scoffs at Judaising Ro- 
 mans, (Sat. 14, v. 100.) It was natural that the same desire for a 
 purer and more positive mode of divine worship, which made Gen- 
 tiles become proselytes to Judaism, should induce them also to 
 embrace Christianity; and, among the Gentile Christians at Rome, 
 there were, probably, many who had been before Proselyti porte. 
 That numerous Gentiles were, in fact, converted to Christianity, we 
 have the testimony of Tacitus, (Annal. 1. xiv. c. 45,) ‘* Repressaque 
 in presens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat, non modo per 
 Judzam, sed per urbem etiam.” 
 
 SECTION III. 
 OF THE TIME AT WHICH THE CHURCH AT ROME WAS FOUNDED. 
 
 A modern scholar, Tobler (‘Theologische Aufsitze Zurich, 1796, 
 Zweiter Aufs.) has made an attempt to prove from Acts xxviii. 17, 
 that when Paul arrived at Rome, there did not as yet exist any 
 Christian church there. According to the account given in the pas- 
 sage referred to, the Apostle, upon his arrival, calls the Jews together, 
 and discourses to them of Christianity. At the 22d verse, they re- 
 ply, that they had indeed heard of that sect, which was every where 
 spoken of, and that they wished to learn his opinion with respect to 
 it. From this the inference might be drawn, that there was then no 
 Christian church in the city, for, otherwise, these Jews could not 
 have been utterly unacquainted with the Christian doctrine. Τί, 
 however, no Christian community had existed, Paul could not pos- 
 sibly have written his Epistle to them. That it was not written till 
 after his imprisonment there, is in the highest degree improbable. 
 Besides, it is expressly said, Acts xxviii. 15, that the brethren from 
 Rome came to meet Paul, and these cannot, without violence, be sup- 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 posed to have been only stranger Christians then accidentally present 
 in the city. It would hence appear, that the Jews, in the passage 
 referred to, merely pretended that they knew nothing of the Chris- 
 tians. With respect to the date of the establishment of this church, 
 we should gain a more definite point to settle it, could it but be ascer- 
 tained whether Aquila and Priscilla were already Christians, at the 
 time they were banished from the city by the decree of the Emperor 
 Claudius, and when Paul became connected with them at Corinth, 
 Acts, 6. xviii., or whether it was he who first taught them Christianity. 
 In the former case, we should have to adopt the supposition, that not 
 only Jews, but likewise Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome; 
 and thus, that so soon as the year forty-eight, the date of the Claudian 
 edict, there were a considerable number of that nation in the city who 
 had embraced the gospel. We have already observed, (sect. 1,) how 
 probable it is that the first seeds of Christianity were sown in Rome 
 at a still earlier period. That for a considerable time prior to the 
 date of our Epistle, the church had already existed as a Christian 
 church, may be concluded from the circumstance that, as the Apostle 
 mentions, the fame of their graces had been universally spread abroad, 
 c. i. 8. xv. 23, and that he had several times formed the resolution 
 of going to see them. On this subject, see the Treatise of T. F. 
 Flatt, Nonnulla ad questionem de tempore quo Pauli ad Rom. Ep. 
 seripta sit, Tub. 1798, in Pott Sylloge Comm. T. ii. Only the au- 
 thor confines himself chiefly to the refutation of ‘Tobler. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 OF THE TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS 
 WRITTEN. 
 
 TneseE particulars may be ascertained with considerable certainty 
 from Rom. xv. 25—30, as Theodoret also notices in his Introduction. 
 The plan which the Apostle there lays down for his journey, coin- 
 cides with that given, Acts xix. 21, by St. Luke. He intimates, 
 that, after gathering the contributions in Achaia, his intention was to 
 go to Jerusalem, and from thence to proceed to Rome. Now, from 
 this it may be gathered, that the Epistle was written at the close of 
 the Apostle’s second residence at Corinth, according to Usher and 
 Eichhorn in the year sixty, according to Pearson, Dupin and Lange, 
 in the year fifty-seven; for Corinth, as the capital city of Achaia, was 
 the place where the collection was made. ‘That the Epistle was - 
 written at this place, is likewise clear from the following cireum- 
 stances. It was sent by Phebe, a deaconess of the Church of Cen- 
 chrea, a suburb of the city of Corinth, c. xvi. 1. ‘The Apostle sends 
 a greeting from Gaius, whom he designates, ‘‘ mine host, and of the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 whole Church,” xvi. 23, and Gaius was by birth a Corinthian, whom 
 he had himself baptized. He likewise sends a salutation from Eras- 
 tus and Timothy, the former of whom he entitles ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πό- 
 news, C. Vi. 21 and 23. ‘The πόλις here meant must be the city in 
 which Paul was at the time residing, and as nothing further is said 
 to characterize it, it must have been a city of some note. Moreover, 
 we find that three years afterwards, Erastus is still at Corinth, 2 
 Tim. iv. 20. In fine, Corinth is marked out as the place of compo- 
 sition, by this circumstance, that at the time the Epistle was de- 
 spatched, Aquila and Priscilla were staying at Rome. For at the 
 date of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which Paul wrote towards 
 the termination of his abode at Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla were 
 still with him. From Ephesus the Apostle journeyed to Macedonia 
 and Achaia, and in the interval, these his two fellow-workers might 
 have again returned from that city to Rome. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Some Roman Catholic interpreters of an older date, Bellarmine 
 and Salmeron, hold that the Epistle was originally written in Latin. 
 Bolton and Bertholdt maintain that the Apostle wrote all his letters, 
 and this among the rest, in Aramaic. Both assertions, however, are 
 destitute of internal, as well as external evidence. Paul, as a native 
 of ‘Tarsus, must have learned the Greek tongue, and his having used 
 that tongue in a letter to the Roman Church, which was composed 
 of heathens who spoke Latin, and countrymen of his own, ought not 
 to surprise us, when we take into consideration the well known 
 facts, that Jews resident in foreign countries universally made use of 
 Greek as the language of ordinary intercourse, and that almost all 
 Romans who had received any tincture of education, spoke it in 
 addition to their mother tongue. 
 
 The following authorities are vouchers for the latter fact: — 
 
 Tacitus de Orat. c. 29. ‘*Nune natus infans delegatur Grace 
 ancillz.”’ 
 
 Ovid De Arte Amor. 1. ii. v. 121. 
 
 Nec levis ingenuas pectus coluisse per artes 
 Cura sit, et linguas edidicisse duas. 
 
 Mart. Epig. 1. xiv. Ep. 58. 
 
 Rusticus es, nescis quid Greco nomine dicor, 
 Spuma vocor nitri, dicor et aphronitum. 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 Lastly, what Juvenal says of the Roman ladies, Sat. vi. v. 184. 
 
 Se non putat ulla 
 Formosam, ni que de Tusca Grecula facta est. 
 Hoc sermone pavent, hoc iram, gaudia, curas, 
 Hoc cuncta eflundunt animi secreta. Quid ultra? 
 
 Compare also Suet. Vita Claudii, ο. 4. 
 
 pgle, ΡΕΜΜῺΝ 0. ἘΝ Ve 
 STYLE AND DICTION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 As every man has a peculiar cast of countenance, so has he also 
 a peculiar style, and the latter, like the former, bears the impress of 
 his mind. ‘To describe the style of an author, is hence, to deseribe 
 his character, especially in those cases, Ubi oratio indicat se in pec- 
 tore, non in ore, nasci. ‘The Apostle Paul appears to us as a man 
 of a highly serious and impassioned mind, who devotes all his ener- 
 gies to the object that engages him for the time, and yet feels that 
 these are not sufficient. ‘This is plainly indicated by his style. It 
 is forcible, brief, rapid, abounding in sentences, in which he seems 
 to be always labouring for some new expression still stronger than 
 the preceding, and the words press like waves upon each other. But 
 besides the natural qualities of the man, his education must likewise 
 be taken into account. He was brought up in a Rabbinical school. 
 The method of instruction pursued in these seminaries may, even 
 yet, be learned with some certainty, from the older portions of the 
 Mischna, and the Hierosolymitan Gemara. In the style of the Tal- 
 mudists, the most striking features are,—abruptness, harsh transi- 
 tions, brief allusions, sometimes a mixture, and sometimes an un- 
 natural disruption of cognate ideas, frequently formal argumentation 
 on particulars of no importance, and abundant interweaving of Old 
 Testament quotations in the body of the discourse. Although, un- 
 doubtedly, the Christian spirit, that dwelt in the Apostle, kept him 
 from the extremes into which, by the nature of his education, he 
 might otherwise have been betrayed, still it is impossible not to per- 
 ceive certain traces of its influence. 
 
 From what has been said, it may easily be inferred, that the style 
 of the Apostle presents difficulties, of which we find that all com-: 
 mentators, from Origen to Erasmus, and from Luther to the present 
 day, have loudly complained. Sometimes a dearth of words, and 
 abruptness of expression, and sometimes the ambiguity of particular 
 terms, make it difficult to seize the meaning; while, on the other 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 hand, the same effect is likewise occasioned by a perplexed involution 
 of the periods—by numerous co-ordinate and subordinate clauses— 
 by the different predicates applied to the same thing, and the various 
 points of view from which the author contemplates his subject. Not 
 unfrequently, also, his peculiar mode of proof obscures the sense, 
 for he often lays a weight upon particular words and phrases, such 
 as the reader is not at once prepared to admit. An indispensable 
 requisite for the exposition of such a writer is, that the expositor 
 should be familiar with the state of mind and the tone of feeling from 
 which the composition emanated. It is only when possessed of this 
 qualification, that it will be possible for him to find within his own 
 mind the unity and concatenation of the Apostle’s impetuous, and, as 
 it will otherwise appear, desultory train of thought, and that he will 
 be able to explain the transitions. We shall only further quote two 
 fine passages from the ancient Fathers, on the eloquence of Paul. 
 Hieronimus (Ep. 48 ad Pammachiam, c. 13. ed. Vall) thus expresses 
 himself: ‘*Paulum proferam, quem quotiescunque lego, video mihi 
 non verba audire sed tonitrua. Videntur quidem verba simplicia, et 
 quasi innocentis hominis et rusticani, et qui nec facere nec declinare 
 noverit insidias; sed quocunque respexeris fulmina sunt. Heret in 
 causa; capit omne quod tetigerit; tergum vertit ut superet; fugam 
 simulat ut occidat.”” Chrysostom De Sacerdotio, l. iv.c.7. “ Like 
 a wall of adamant, his writings form a bulwark around all the 
 churches of the world, while himself, as some mighty champion, 
 stands even now in the midst, casting down every high thing that 
 exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into cap- 
 tivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Tuis has never been questioned, except upon certain doctrinal 
 grounds, by some heretical sects of antiquity, the Ebionites, Encrat- 
 ites and Cerinthians. (Ireneus, ad Her. ]. i. 6. 26. Epiph. Her. 
 xxx. Heron. in Matth. c. 18, v. 2.) Their doubts are, therefore, 
 wholly destitute of critical weight. Even at so early a period as that 
 of the Apostolical Fathers, repeated quotations are made from this 
 Epistle. ‘Thus Polycarp ad Philipp. c. 6, cites the 17th verse of 
 the twelfth chapter; and Clemens Romanus in his First Epist. ad 
 Corinth. c. 35, the 32d verse of the first; Comp. De Wette, Einl. 5. 
 140. ‘Testimonies for its authenticity, founded on the historical 
 allusions of the Epistle, are to be found in Paley’s Hore Pauline. 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OCCASION, DESIGN, CONTENTS, AND INTERNAL DISPOSITION 
 OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 OF THE OCCASION AND DESIGN OF IT. 
 
 Severat modern Theologians assume this Epistle to have arisen 
 out of circumstances, and to have been designed for ends connected 
 with the special relations of the Roman Church. Ejichhorn’s opinion, 
 (Einleitung in N. T. B. iii. s. 214, ff.) is as follows: ‘‘A partiality 
 for new religions, and, in general, for whatever was strange, had se- 
 duced many among the Romans to connect themselves with the 
 Jewish synagogues. When, however, the doctrine of Paul was 
 brought to Rome, and the proselytes were presented with an oppor- 
 tunity of obtaining deliverance from the burdensome ceremonial 
 service, they embraced that doctrine with double alacrity. The 
 Jews, on the other hand, indignant at losing their proselytes, con- 
 tended, in opposition, that Judaism was sufficient for salvation. Paul 
 had received intelligence that the converts were beginning to waver, 
 and accordingly he endeavoured by this Epistile to confirm them.” 
 Hug assigns to it a different purpose and occasion. (Einl. ins. N.'T. 
 B. ii. s. 361, 2te Ausgabe.) ‘* Under Claudius it was only the Jewish 
 Christians who were expelled from the city; those of Gentile origin 
 were permitted to remain. Upon the return of the former, in the 
 reign of Nero, there arose in the church many misunderstandings 
 and schisms, and to settle these is the design of the Apostle.” As 
 to the hypothesis of Eichhorn, it is founded upon a view common 
 to a great many of the commentators, viz. that Paul, in this Epistle, 
 contends solely against Judaism. ‘The view, however, is much too 
 restricted. In chapter 1st and 2d the Apostle likewise speaks with 
 great emphasis against the pretensions of the heathen. Hence Eras- 
 mus has observed with much truth, ‘* Miro consilio singularis artifex 
 sermonem temperat inter Judzos et Gentes, dum studet omnes om- 
 nibus modis ad Christum pellicere, neque vult, si fieri possit, quem- 
 quam omnino mortalium perire suo duci, cui militabat. Itaque nune 
 hos objurgat, nunc illos, nunc rursus erigit, ac sublevat. Gentium 
 supercilium deprimit, ostendens nihil illos profuisse, neque nature 
 legem, neque philosophiam, cujus professione tumebant, quominus 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 in omne scelerum dedecus prolaberentur. Rursus Judzorum arrogan- 
 tiam coercet, qui legis fiducia perdidissent id, quod erat totius legis ca- 
 put, fidem in Christum Jesum.—Et ad eum modum, detracto utrisque 
 supercilio, adempta utrisque fiducia, omnes equat in negotio fidei Evan- 
 gelice.’’ Augustine (Inchoata Expositio, § 1.) describes ina similar way 
 the procedure of Paul in this Epistle, and then concludes,—‘‘ auferens 
 utrisque omnem superbiam meritorum, et justificandos utrosque per 
 disciplinam humilitatis associans.”” ‘The whole disposition of the 
 letter shows, that the author had a much more comprehensive design 
 than merely to demonstrate, in a conflict with its teachers, the in- 
 sufficiency of Judaism. ‘There is much more likelihood in the sup- 
 position of Hug, that the Apostle seeks to reconcile the differences 
 between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and animadvert upon the 
 arrogant pretensions which they respectively made. In fact, simi- 
 lar discords between Hebrew and Heathen-converts happened in 
 most churches during the infancy of Christianity. And this view, 
 accordingly, in itself so natural, is the one which the majority both 
 of ancient and modern interpreters of the Epistle have embraced. 
 There is not the same ground, however, for acquiescing in the par- 
 ticular conjecture of Hug, that it was the return of the Jewish Chris- 
 tians to the capital in the reign of Nero, which gave rise to the dis- 
 putes in question, and hence, indirectly to the Epistle. In the first 
 place, it is by no means probable, that, at the banishment of the 
 Jews (among whom Christians seem to have been included,) the 
 Gentile converts were spared. We do not find under any of the 
 persecutions, that these experienced milder treatment than their. 
 brethren. On the contrary, they must have appeared peculiarly 
 criminal, as having renounced the religion of the state for a religio 
 illicita. The ground of persecution, in every case, was the refusal 
 to join in the worship and sacrifices of the pagan gods, and in this 
 respect, all Christians, whether of Jewish or heathen origin, were on 
 a level. Moreover, many of the former, by becoming proselytes, in 
 the first instance, to Judaism, had already exposed themselves to 
 suspicion. And even although, in the face of all this, we were to 
 admit that the Jewish Christians alone were expelled from the city, 
 and that they afterwards returned, still it would not be natural to 
 seek, in that circumstance, the occasion of the discord between them 
 and their Gentile brethren, considering that such misunderstandings 
 were wont to arise far less from the external circumstances in which 
 the parties were placed, than from the doctrinal views which they 
 respectively entertained; and hence, as we find, they universally 
 more or less occurred. ‘To which, it must be added, that the argu- 
 mentation of Paul is much less calculated to refute Jew and Gentile 
 Christians, than to display the insufficiency of Paganism and Judaism. 
 Nor is there, moreover, any competent reason for supposing that 
 Paul only endeavours in this Epistle to compose local differences. 
 What he says regarding the local relations of those to whom he 
 wrote, is limited to the admonitory part at the end. ‘The whole 
 3 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 disposition of the first doctrinal section rather announces the more 
 comprehensive design of exhibiting generally the importance of the 
 Christian doctrine, and of demonstrating that it alone can do (what 
 is beyond the power both of the Jewish and Pagan religion,) satisfy 
 the wants of human nature. As will appear from the summary of 
 the matter to be exhibited in the following Section, the Epistle is 
 written according to a grand and systematic plan, and, more than any 
 other book of Scripture, may be styled a doctrinal treatise. This 
 general view of its design, has been embraced by the reformers, Lu- 
 ther, Calvin, Melancthon, and Bucer, and is stated in the prefaces 
 which they severally wrote for it; and among the moderns, particu- 
 larly by Michaelis, in his introduction. 
 
 But if the design of the Epistle is thus universal, and not founded 
 on the peculiar circumstances of the Roman Church, the question 
 arises, what could have induced Paul to send to them such a general 
 and comprehensive discussion upon Christianity? He himself states, 
 what his motive was, Rom. xv. 15. He had been called to bea 
 minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, and wished to impart some 
 blessing to the Romans among the rest. At the commencement of 
 the letter, c. i. 15. he expresses no less strongly his desire to teach 
 Christianity at Rome by word of mouth. And, indeed, to the great 
 Apostle of the heathen, what else could it be but highly desirable to 
 make the gospel resound in the capital, above all other places in the 
 world. When we also take into consideration, that the chureh 
 there was, probably, conducted,—had even, perhaps, been originally 
 founded,—by Paul’s scholars, and that they gave him intelligence of 
 its state, it appears a very natural thing, indeed, that he should have 
 addressed to them a letter. As he had few local relations, however, 
 with which to connect his remarks, and yet felt impelled by his affec- 
 tion to write at some length, he takes up an explication of the entire 
 scheme projected by the Divine Being for the salvation of mankind, 
 according as it is revealed to us in the gospel; and afterwards, as an 
 appendage to this, which is the larger portion of the letter, proceeds 
 to the peculiar circumstances of the church, in as far as they were 
 known to him. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 CONTENTS AND INWARD DISPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 In contemplating the Epistle, the last portion of it, from chapter 
 xii. to the end, seems to stand apart from the preceding, inasmuch 
 as, without being connected by any definite bond of union, it consists 
 in a collection of multifarious admonitory lessons. In the first and 
 doctrinal part again may be distinguished two larger sections. ‘The 
 first eight chapters are purely doctrinal, to which the following three 
 form an historical and closely connected corollary. The theme of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 the doctrinal part is properly to be found in the 10th verse, which is 
 skilfully woven into the exordium, and is resumed afresh, ch. iii. 21, 
 22. The course which the Apostle takes is as follows: ‘+The gos- 
 pel is a message of salvation—of such a message of salvation all men 
 stand in need; because all are sinners. ‘The heathen are so, because 
 they have allowed the knowledge of God, which they bring into the 
 world, to be suppressed, by their criminal lusts, and, in consequence 
 thereof, have dishonoured God, and, as the reflex influence of their 
 unworthy knowledge of God, have abandoned themselves the more 
 as a prey to sin, c. i. The Jews are equally sinners, ncy, favoured 
 as they were with a clearer knowledge, and more peculiar tokens of 
 the Divine favour, they are doubly criminal, chap. ii. True it is, 
 that the Jews possess certain privileges above the heathen, in so far 
 as God has furnished them more amply with the means of salvation. 
 Contemplated, however, per se, they stand precisely on the same 
 level, and are in an equal degree, incapable of showing in their works 
 that they have satisfied and fulfilled the law. From this it is evident 
 how absolutely necessary the Gospel scheme of salvation is; inas- 
 much as it is a scheme which insures justification to man without 
 proportioning it to his own righteousness by works, chap. 111. ‘This 
 way of justification was known under the Old Testament. In the 
 case of Abraham and David we have examples of the same kind of 
 righteousness as the gospel inculcates, chap. iv. The fruits of this 
 divine scheme of justification are peace and joy, nor does the latter 
 solely spring from the hope of future felicity, but is experienced even 
 in this present life. How great and adorable appears from hence the 
 entire economy of our salvation! For as by the first man we lost all, 
 so by the second Head of our race has all been retrieved, ὁ. v. 
 Henceforth, however, it is also necessary, that with us holiness 
 should be the consequence of forgiveness—not that holiness indeed, 
 which consists in a mere servile observance of the law, but holiness 
 as a natural fruit of the sense of pardon, now become vital and 
 operative within us, chap. vi. ‘The law for us is as good as dead, 
 and we are also as good as dead with respect to the law. For the 
 course which spiritual life pursues, is as follows: At first man is 
 conscious of no law, and deems himself happy amidst his sins. He 
 then comes to the knowledge of the law, seeks to obey it, strains and 
 struggles, but still succumbs, exhausted at every fresh trial. It is 
 only through Christ that he acquires the capability of fulfilling its 
 requirements, which depends upon a new principle of life implanted 
 within him, through faith in the free grace which Christ offers for 
 our acceptance, chap. vii. Hence a regenerated man is able to 
 accomplish what exceeds the power of any other. And the final 
 issue of his life is glory. Whatever he may have to suffer here be- 
 low, an eternal unspeakable weight of glory is in store for him, and 
 of that nothing on this earth can deprive him, chap. villi. How much 
 should I rejoice to know, that my brethren, according to the flesh, 
 were brought to a participation of the blessings of the glorious Gos- 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 pel. But their stubborn refusal to believe on Christ, shuts up for 
 them the way to it; aud they imagine they may safely trust to a 
 righteousness by works. And yet it belonged to God, as absolute 
 Sovereign, to propose such ways of justification as he thinks fit, and 
 so as he now does, in the exercise of his good pleasure, to set up 
 faith in Christ as the one only condition of salvation, chap. ix. If 
 possessed of faith, therefore, Israel would be accepted, chap. x. But 
 although that be not the case for the present, this mighty nation of 
 the theocracy is not rejected forever. In the first instance, indeed, 
 the heathen shall be converted. But the day is also coming when 
 Israel shall be fully brought in; and thus it shall be manifested to the 
 glory of God, that by ways the most diverse, he knows how to guide 
 all, who were once involved in sin, to a participation in his great 
 scheme of salvation,”’ c. xi. Such is the tenor of the Epistle. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OF THE OUTWARD DISPOSITION OF THE ADMONITORY PART 
 OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 We have here to notice two hypotheses, which, though equally 
 arbitrary, must not be passed over in silence. Heumann contends, 
 that chap. xii.—xv. is a separate letter, written at a subsequent date, 
 and that chap. xvi. is a postscript to chap. xi. He supposes that 
 Paul had written chaps. i.—xi. with chap. xvi., and prepared it for 
 Phebe’s departure. But that that event being for a while retarded, he 
 received letters from Rome during the interval, which informed him 
 that a dead faith would be less burdensome than works to the Chris- 
 tians there. Hence the motive which led the Apostle to add this 
 appendage upon the duties, to the preceding part of his Epistle upon 
 the doctrines. ‘This account, however, is untenable. For although 
 it cannot be denied, that a new section begins with chap. xii. the 
 subject of which is entirely different from what goes before, it does 
 not by any means stand in real opposition to it. Our Apostle seems 
 not to have made any very broad distinction between doctrine and 
 morals. His doctrine is uniformly a vital, fervid, breathing, moral 
 discourse. Besides, the manner in which, chap. xii. 1, he connects 
 the admonitory with the previous part of the Epistle, shows that he 
 intends morality to be but the consequence and the fruit of faith. 
 Were there nothing more, even the οὖν would prove this, and, in like 
 manner, the appeal to the mercy of God, which had been the theme 
 of the entire previous section of the discourse. Comp. Comm. on 
 chap. xii. 1. 
 
 Still more groundless is the hypothesis started by Semler with 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 respect to chap. xv. and xvi. It is developed in his Diss. de duplici 
 appendice Ep. Pauli ad Rom. Hale 1767, and is as follows: On 
 evidence both external and internal, chap. xv. and xvi. are to be con- 
 sidered as a heterogeneous supplement, which did not originally be- 
 long to the Epistle. With respect to the external proofs against the 
 authenticity of these chapters, in the first place, Origen tells us that 
 Marcion did not read them, and he cannot be supposed to have 
 lopped them off, seeing that even Epiphanius, who censures his 
 other violations of the text, is silent as to this. Besides, Euthalius, 
 in his Elenchus Capitulorum, omits the xvi. chap., and lastly, Ter- 
 tullian quotes the text xiv. 10, adding the words in clausula Epis- 
 tole. With regard, again, to the proofs of an internal kind, it must 
 be admitted, that chapter xv. contains matter, which by no means 
 agrees with the preceding: the Apostle, there speaking exclusively 
 of the events of his private history. ‘The xvi. again, when regarded 
 in the common view, contains various improbabilities. Greetings are 
 sent to persons whose presence in Rome cannot be proved, and is 
 even improbable. Meetings are mentioned in the house of Aquila, 
 and also in the house of the persons named in verses 14 and 15. 
 Now it is not likely that at that time the Roman church had three 
 different places of meeting. Nor, would one be justified in expecting 
 such false teachers, as are described in verse 17. Considering all 
 this, the most probable supposition is, that Paul gave the entire letter 
 to the Christians, returning home from Corinth to Rome, but that he 
 commissioned them to visit various brethren at different stations, 
 whose names he wrote out in a catalogue, which is what we see in 
 our xvi. chapter. As they required first to pass through Cenchrea, 
 he addresses them first of all to Phebe, whom he recommended to 
 the succour of the travellers(!) After that to Priscilla and Aquila in 
 Ephesus, and so on. Chap. xv. was not written by Paul to the Ro- 
 mans, but was a sort of private missive intended to be communicated 
 by the brethren, to all whom they visited on the way. There is so 
 much in this hypothesis of Semler that is forced and unnatural, that 
 it scarcely deserves a refutation. Who that reflects upon the 15th 
 and 23d verses of chap. xv. and compares with the latter the 13th of 
 chap. i. can doubt that the xv. chap. was addressed to the same per- 
 sons as the rest of the Epistle? Who could determine in c. xvi. 1, 
 to explain iva αὐτὴν πιξοσδέξησθε. “that ye support her in her office 
 as deaconess?”’ ‘The internal proofs, as they have been called, are 
 bronght by violence to bear upon the point; the external are destitute 
 of all weight. Clausula, as used by Tertullian, proves nothing, for 
 even we, especially if quoting from memory, would call the xiv. chap. 
 the end of the Epistle. It is true that Euthalius does not state the 
 contents of chap. xvi., he omits it, however, only because it was not 
 publicly read on account of the many names. His acquaintance 
 with it is proved by the fact, that the verses of it are included in the 
 sum which he gives of those contained in the Epistle. In fine, as 
 regards Marcion, Origen does not say that he really rejected the xv. 
 
22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and xvi. chapters, but that he severed them, (ab eo ubi scriptum est, 
 quod non exfide est, peccatum est cap. xiv. 23, usque ad finem 
 cuncta dissecutt,) because in fact it contained a particular postscript. 
 
 Accordingly, when we candidly reflect upon the subject, it will 
 appear the most probable supposition, that Paul meant to close the 
 Epistle at the 23d verse of the xiv. chapter, and hence added the 
 conclusion, which we read at chap. xvi. 25; that it occurred to him, 
 however, to press still more home upon the Romans the subject he 
 had handled, and that this led him to add the xv. chapter. We have 
 an example of his resuming the subject after a similar intended con- 
 clusion in Gal. vi. 12. 
 
 CHAP LE γῸ0ὃ[:1:. 
 
 OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMENTATORS UPON THE EPISTLE TO 
 THE ROMANS. 
 
 OricEen (died 253.) Commentarius in Ep. ad Rom. ed. de la 
 Rue, T. iv. This commentary is only extant in a Latin translation 
 of Rufinus, who, although the work of Origen was no longer com- 
 plete, abridged still farther the part that remained, and in several 
 places not only extended what appeared to him too short, but adul- 
 terated it with his own. Partly for this reason, and partly because 
 of Origen’s arbitrary principles of interpretation, the commentary is 
 not of great value. Some degree of worth, however, it does possess; 
 inasmuch as that great Father of the church, whose belief was 
 shackled by no authority, is occasionally led by his very boldness to 
 seize the truth. 
 
 Chrysostom (died 407.)—Homilie xxxii. in Ep. ad Rom. in the 
 9th vol. of the Montfaucon edition of his works. In different points 
 of view, these homilies are masterly, but especially on account of the 
 admirable exegetical psychology, with which Chrysostom knows to 
 unfold the workings of the Apostle’s heart, the sound principles of 
 grammatical and historical interpretation which he observes, and the 
 lively evangelical feeling which is everywhere manifest. 
 
 _Augustine (died 430) has left a double work upon the Epistle to 
 the Romans. First, his Inchoata Expositio Epistole ad. Rom., and 
 then, his Expositio quarumdam propositionum ex. Ep. ad Rom. 
 Both are to be found in the third vol. of the Benedictine edition. 
 The former embraces no more than c. i. v. 1—7. It is composed ° 
 on far too extensive a plan, and is full of useless questions and de- 
 viations. ‘The latter work consists in illustrations of several difficult 
 passages. We find in it many a fine specimen of Augustine’s deep 
 penetration, and insight into the doctrines of Christianity. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 Pelagius (died subsequently to 417.)—From him we have a com- 
 mentary upon this Epistle, which has been generally ascribed to 
 Jerome, and hence is to be found in the works of that Father, ed. 
 Val. t. xi. ed. Mart. t.v. It belongs, however, to Pelagius, as has 
 been shown by Gerhard, Joh. Vossius. In the form in which we 
 now possess it, it has been worked up anew by Cassiodorus, who 
 sorely mutilated it, leaving out what appeared to him false, or sub- 
 stituting something else, and all with such caprice and inaccuracy, 
 that occasionally, even the most contradictory meanings appear side 
 by side. ‘The Pelagian exposition of the sense generally flattens, 
 and robs of the true meaning the expressions of Paul. ‘The com- 
 mentary, however, as sometimes giving sound and independent ex- 
 planations, may be consulted with advantage. 
 
 Hilary.— We possess, under the name of Ambrose, a Commentary 
 upon the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, which is so generally ac- 
 knowledged to be spurious, that it is wont to be quoted as the Am- 
 brosiaster. ‘To whom it is to be ascribed is uncertain. Augustine 
 (Con. duas Epp. Pelag. 1. iv. ὁ. 7) makes a quotation from it under 
 the name of “ Saint Hilary;’’ a circumstance from which we may 
 confidently infer, that the author was called Hilary, but what Hilary 
 he was, itis impossible to ascertain. ‘There is as little reason for 
 supposing him the celebrated Bishop of Pictavium, as the Luciferan 
 Deacon of Rome. The work contains many unnatural, but, at the 
 same time, many very happy explanations. In general, the expo- 
 sition has much that is peculiar. 
 
 Theodoret (died after 450.)—His Commentary upon the Romans 
 is to be found in the third volume of the Halle edition of his works. 
 He is distinguished for clear grammatical interpretation; but does not 
 penetrate into the substance of the doctrine, and is far inferior to 
 Chrysostom in depth of mind and lively Christian knowledge. 
 
 Cicumenius (in the tenth century,) Comm. in Epp. Paul. Parisiis, 
 1631. He excerpts Chrysostom, Photius, Basil, and others. ‘These 
 excerpts are highly precious, and afford admirable specimens of 
 grammatical and historical interpretation. He occasionally adds his 
 own exposition, which also manifests a sound judgment. 
 
 Theophylact (in the eleventh century,)—Comm. in Epp. Paul. 
 Londini, 1630. He does little more than make extracts from 
 Chrysostom. 
 
 Hugo a Sancto Victore (died 1141) has left us a short treatise, en- 
 titled Shedule in Ep. ad Rom., and to be found in Opp. Venetiz, 
 1588. It contains several beautiful and profound observations. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas (died 1274.) —We have from him Commentarii 
 in Epp. Pauli, Antw. 1591. In these it would be vain to seek solid 
 grammatical and historical interpretation. But they, nevertheless, 
 frequently afford a sound view and clear development of the truths 
 of Christianity, as stated by the Apostle. Erasmus in his Annot. ad 
 Rom. i. 2, delivers a flattering panegyric upon the talents of this 
 author. 
 
24 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Erasmus (died 1536.)—He wrote a paraphrase upon this Epistle, 
 last published in Erasmi, Paraph. in N. 'T. Berlin, 1777. And also 
 Annotations in the Critici Sacri, t. vii. The paraphrase is distin- 
 guished for its elegant Latin style, and often also by a clear percep- 
 tion of the connection. ‘The more peculiar Christian element, how- 
 ever, is frequently generalized; and, what is especially hurtful in the 
 Epistle to the Romans, the distinction between works and free grace 
 isnotunderstood. The annotations are generally critical, but several 
 of them furnish valuable hints for the grammatical interpretation. 
 
 Luther (died 1546) did not expound the Epistle to the Romans, 
 but composed an admirable preface for it, which breathes the very 
 spirit of St. Paul. See Walch’s Ausgabe, B. xiv. s. 109. 
 
 Calvin (died 1564.)—His Commentary on this Epistle is to be 
 found in vol. vii. of the Amsterdam edition of his works, and in the 
 separate edition of the commentary to the Epistles, Geneve, 1565. 
 Here are united a classical style, solid grammatical, and historical 
 exposition, profound thinking, and vital Christianity. 
 
 Melancthon (died 1560.)—This reformer has left us an expository 
 work upon the Epistle to the Romans, in two different shapes. ‘The 
 former appeared in 1532, under the title of Annotationes; the latter 
 in 1532, with the name Commentarii. They consisted of his lee- 
 tures, and afterwards gave rise to the Loci Communes. Melancthon 
 delivers mere scholia, and as these are generally rather doctrinal than 
 expository, they refer chiefly to the passages in which the doctrines 
 are stated. ‘Their chief excellence lies in the fine development 
 which the author gives of the importance and nature of the doctrine 
 of free grace without the merit of works. Of Melancthon’s par- 
 tiality for this Epistle, his contemporary Mylius thus speaks: Chro- 
 nol. Script. Mel. Gorlic. 1582. In theologicis observavi, plurimum 
 eum fuisse occupatum in explicanda clave et methodo universe 
 Scripture, id est Epistola scripta ad Romanos, quam solebat vocare 
 lumen propheticarum concionum. Hujus Epistole doctrinam ut 
 penitus imbiberet, et instar architecti totam edificii formam in animo 
 inclusam haberet, et certam perspicuam ac simplicem sententiam in- 
 vestigaret, Omnium eam sepissime pre ceteris Nov. Test. libris 
 publice enarravit, et commentariis illustravit; Juvenis etiam aliquoties, 
 ut Demosthenes Thucydidem, descripsisse dicitur. 
 
 Zuinglius (died 1531.)—Of him there are extant only brief scho- 
 lia, like those of Melancthon; affording specimens of just and natural 
 interpretation, but otherwise containing nothing remarkable. ‘They 
 are to be found in his Opp. Tiguri, 1581, t. iii. 
 
 Beza (died 1605.)—Novum ‘Testamentum, 1598. In a gram- 
 matical point of view, his annotations are valuable. ‘They contain 
 occasionally deep perceptions of the sense and of the connection of. 
 passages, but are not so rich in profound thought and evangelical 
 sentiment as Calvin’s. 
 
 Bugenhagen.—Joh. Pomerani in Ep. ad Rom. Haganoe, 1521. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 20 
 
 This work consists in notes of lectures, taken by Moibanus, and is 
 more of an ascetic and doctrinal than exegetical character. 
 
 Bucer (died 1551.)—Metaphrases et Ennarationes Epp. Paul. t. 
 i, Argentorati, 1536.—Shows high exegetical talents, simple uncon- 
 strained exposition, free and original, sometimes most ingenious 
 views. 
 
 Hunnius (died 1603.)—Expositio Ep. ad Rom. Marp. 1587. 
 Strictly Lutheran, and destitute of originality. 
 
 Justinian—Explanationes in omnes Epp. Pauli. Lugd. 1612. 
 Not without exegetical ability, and extensive and solid acquaintance 
 with the Fathers. 
 
 Cornelius a Lapide (died 1637.)—Comment in omnes Ep. Pauli. 
 Antw. 1614. Some of his quotations from the Fathers may be use- 
 ful. Here and there, but very rarely, he shows originality of con- 
 ception. 
 
 Balduin.—Comment. in omnes Epp. Pauli. Frankf. 1644. The 
 commentary on the Epistle to the Romans appeared first in 1611, in 
 a separate form. ‘The exposition is learned, orthodox in the Lu- 
 theran sense of the word, but not without originality. 
 
 Grotius (died 1645.)—Comm. in Nov. Test. Parisiis, 1644, 2 
 vols. ‘The commentary upon the Epistles is far inferior to that upon 
 the Gospels. ‘True, it exhibits much valuable philological, historical, 
 and antiquarian knowledge, and sometimes an acute judgment. But 
 there are also apparent a defective acquaintance with the Christian 
 doctrine of salvation, as revealed by Paul, a want of insight into the 
 distinction between the law and grace, Pelagian views of the state of 
 human nature, and, consequently, an exegesis, often languid, and 
 often totally false. 
 
 Cocceius (died 1669.)—His commentary upon this Epistle is 
 contained in the fifth volume of his works. It is too exclusively 
 doctrinal, and is but seldom available in a grammatical and historical 
 point of view. 
 
 Calov. (died 1688.)—Biblia Ilustrata, 1672, 4 vols. The 4th 
 contains Paul’s Epistles. He first gives the commentary of Grotius, 
 which he then, sentence by sentence, refutes; appending, also, his 
 own observations. Grotius is often very justly attacked, but a stiff 
 Lutheran exposition is substituted for the simple biblical one. Useful 
 notices for the history of the exegesis are given. 
 
 Critici Sacri.—A collection of various valuable and mostly gram- 
 matical and historical expositions. It embraces the whole of the Old 
 and New Testaments, and was published in 1698, at Amsterdam, in 
 9 vols. The Epistles of Paul are contained in the 8th volume. The 
 writers are 8118, Revius, Erasmus, Vatablus, Castalio, Clarius, Ze- 
 gerus, I)rusius, Casaubon, Gualtperius, Cameron, James and Lewis 
 Capellus, and Grotius. ‘The most valuable among the annotations 
 are those of Erasmus, Grotius, Clarius, Cameron, and J. Capellus. 
 
 Seb. Schmidt.—His Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. Hamb. 1644, 
 reaches only to the 6th chapter. In the manner of that age, the 
 
 4 
 
26 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 exposition is full of logical distinctions, and doctrinal and polemical 
 subtleties. ‘This method, however, helps to place many a subject in 
 a clearer light. ‘This commentary is one of the best of the sort, and 
 is likewise distinguished for learning. 
 
 Limborch (died 1712.)—Comm. in Acta Apost. et in Ep. ad Rom. 
 etad Heb. Roterd. 1711. Shows talent for exegesis, independent 
 thinking, but occasionally also that shallowness which so frequently 
 characterizes Arminians, and a deficiency of solid philology. 
 
 Alp. Turretin (died 1737.)—Prelectiones in Ep. ad Rom. Lau- 
 sanne. Exhibits artless, natural and free interpretation, but a want 
 of thorough philological grounding. 
 
 Siegm. J. Baumgarten (died 1757) wrote Auslegung des Briefes 
 an die Rémer. Halle, 1747. Its chief feature is a deficiency of 
 philological knowledge. It is valuable on no other account than that 
 the tabular method in which it is composed, with its endless divisions, 
 sometimes enables us to form more distinct ideas. 
 
 Bengel (died 1752.)—The Gnomon Novi Testamenti of this au- 
 thor, second edition, 1759, contains acute and ingenious observations, 
 mingled with many that are futile. ‘The train of thought is some- 
 times indicated with great acuteness. 
 
 Joh. Bened. Carpzov (died 1803) wrote Stricture Sacre in Ep. 
 ad Rom. second edition, 1758. Available contributions from Philo. 
 
 Wolf. (died 1739.)— Cure Philologice. Basil, 1737. The 
 Epistle to the Romans is in the third vol. Jt contains useful anti- 
 quarian and philological remarks, together with much confused stuff. 
 
 Heumann (died 1764.)—His Commentary on this Epistle is in 
 the seventh vol. of his Erkliirung des N. T. It exhibits great in- 
 dustry in the collection of materials, occasionally soundness, but 
 more frequently perversity of judgment, with considerable originality. 
 The chief deficiency is in philological knowledge. 
 
 Chr. Schmidt (died 1778.)—Adnott. in Ep.ad Rom. Lips. 1777. 
 This commentary is distinguished for sound and unprejudiced judg- 
 ment and grammatical knowledge. It is not sufficiently extensive. 
 
 Koppe (died 1791.)—His Commentar zum Brief an die Rémer, 
 which first appeared in 1783, was edited afresh by Ammon in 1806, 
 and finally in 1824. ‘The interpretation is for the most part uncon- 
 strained, but does not always rest upon solid research. He is unac- 
 quainted with the true spirit of Paul, and misapprehends the more 
 profound Christian doctrines. 
 
 Joh. Fr. Flatt published in 1825 Vorlesungen iiber den Brief an 
 die Rémer. ‘Tiibingen. He shows a good acquaintance with the 
 exegetical writers of the last decennia of the eighteenth and the first 
 of the nineteenth century, but wants accurate philological grounding, 
 and does not enter deeply enough into the doctrines. 
 
 After these proper commentaries, there exist for the use of the 
 student, multifarious Observationes and Annotationes. ‘The most 
 profitable to consult are Stephen de Brais Analysis Paraphrastica Ep. 
 ad Rom. cum ejus notis, curante Venema qui suas Observ. adjecit. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 27 
 
 Leov. 1735. Venema’s observations are, in a philological view, 
 highly precious. Schittgen, Hore 'Talmudica, t. 11. He gives nu- 
 merous instructive parallels from the Rabbins. Elsner, Observatt. 
 Sacre, Traj. ad Rhenum, 1720—28, t. 11. and Kypke, Observatt. 
 Sacre, Bresl. 1755, t. ii. offer valuable philological contributions 
 from various profane authors. Bauer, Philologia Thucydideo-Pau- 
 lina, Halle, 1773, contains some good remarks from ‘Thucydides. 
 Raphelii Annott. Philol. in N. 'T. ex Xenophonte, Polybio, Arriano, 
 Herodoto, Lugd. Bat. 1747, 2 vols. A very rich philological col- 
 lection. The following are works which will less reward consulta- 
 tion. Krebs Observatt. e Josepho; Lisner, Observatt. e Philone; 
 Palairet, Observatt. Phil. in N. T.; Miinthe, Observatt. e Diodoro 
 Siculo; Keuchen, Observatt. in N. T.; De Prado, Observatt. et 
 Annott. in N. T.; Ernesti Anmerkungen zum N. T. 
 
 As introduction to this Epistle may be used the admirable work 
 of Rambach, written with a thorough knowledge of the subject, In- 
 troductio Historico-Theologica in Ep. Pauli, ad Rom. Hale, 1730. 
 Usteri has developed the doctrinal idea of the Epistles of Paul, and 
 of this among the rest, in his Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehr- 
 begriffs, Ziirich, 1824. In the first part of this treatise there is an 
 able evolution of the idea of the νόμος and of its antithesis to πνεῦμα. 
 In general he walks in the steps of his great master Schleiermacher, 
 not only in his ingenious conception of the doctrines, but likewise in 
 the artificial exegesis with which the latter is chargeable. 
 
i ea γ “ἢ Na 
 
 ᾿γανρϑεομόσε 
 
ἘΧΡΟΝΙΤΙΟΝ 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Arrer the Salutation, the Apostle assures the Romans of his affection, and 
 tells them how he had often proposed to visit Rome, for the purpose of 
 preaching the Gospel there, seeing that all men stand in need of the Gos- 
 pel, and need it in an equal degree. In the first place, the heathen do so, 
 inasmuch as they lie under the threatenings of God’s penal justice, for 
 having, contrary to the dictates of the Divine revelation within them, de- 
 nied the true nature of God, and sunk, in consequence of their knowledge 
 of God being thus obscured, into the most abominable vices. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. The Salutation, V. 1—7. 
 
 2. Introduction, V. 8—16. 
 
 3. Thesis, V. 16, 17. 
 
 4, Exposition of the Thesis in the case of the Heathen, as respects the 
 speculative errors into which they were led by their practical de- 
 pravity. V. 18—23. 
 
 5. Exposition of the Thesis in the case of the Heathen, as respects the 
 practical depravity, into which they fell, in consequence of their specu- 
 lative errors. V. 24—382. 
 
 PART 1. 
 
 THE SALUTATION. v. 1—7. 
 
 V.1. Tue Apostle, penetrated as he so deeply was, with the 
 thought of the high honour which God had conferred upon him, by 
 calling him in an extraordinary manner, to be a preacher of the gos- 
 pel, cannot abstain from making allusion to this, at the beginning of 
 
 all his Epistles, a circumstance which, in the present case, should 
 naturally heighten the impression upon the mind of the reader. 
 
30 CHAPTER 1. v. 1. 
 
 Παῦλος. ‘The Apostle was properly called Saul. But along with 
 this Jewish name, he had another as a Roman citizen. It was thus 
 that many Jews, who lived among the Romans, besides their native 
 Hebrew appellations, assumed others of Latin origin, as Dostai, Do- 
 sitheus, 'Varphon, Trypho; while those again, residing among the 
 Greeks, took names from their language, as Jesus, Jason, Joiakim, 
 Alkimos. In such cases, the Roman and Greek had generally some 
 similarity in sound with the Jewish words; as Paul has with Saul. 
 This is the most natural way of explaining the origin of the double 
 name of the Apostle, and is given so early as by Origen, (Pref. ad 
 Comm. ad Rom.) 
 
 δοῦλος, connected with the name of God, is found in the Old and 
 New Testament, bearing a twofold signification. It designates, in 
 the former, generally all pious Israelites; in the latter, all Chris- 
 tians; e.g. Ps. exili. 1. Eph. vi. 6, inasmuch as the true worship- 
 per of God should always maintain upon his mind a sense of his 
 dependence upon the Divine Being. Suill the designation is found 
 more rarely, in this sense, in the New Testament, because, under it, 
 the feeling of love, more than the feeling of subjection, ought to 
 reign. More frequently are Christians spoken of as the children 
 of God; and Christ himself called his disciples, not servants, but 
 friends, John xv. 15. On the other hand, however, in the Old Tes- 
 tament, extraordinary messengers of God are styled servants of God, 
 mit tay, Deut. xxxiv. 5. Josh.i.1. Neh. x. 29; and in the New, 
 the superior officers of the church of Christ, Gal. i. 10. Jamesi. 1. 
 Col. iv. 12. This last is the sense in which it here stands. 
 
 xaytos. Melancthon: Necessaria causa est, cur officii mentionem 
 faciat, ut ecclesia sciat doctrine Pauli credendum esse. χαλέω, like 
 wp, 10 choose or select. The vocation of Paul is related in Acts 
 xxvi. 17. As this Apostle uses the word, χαλέω comprehends, no 
 less the outward call to belief, by the instrumentality of events and 
 circumstances, than the inward call, by the motions of the Holy 
 Spirit. Erasm. Hee vox peculiaris est Paulo, cui studium est om- 
 nibus adimere fiduciam operum humanorum, totamque gloriam trans- 
 ferre ad vocantem Deum, cui vocanti qui auscultat salvus est. Theo- 
 phylact: Tarewopeootyys τὸ ῥῆμα, δείκνυσι yae ὅτι οὐκ αὐτὸς ζητήσας 
 EDEEV, ἀλλὰ χληθεὺς παρεγένετο. ἢ 
 
 ἀφωρισμένος IS an epexegesis. Origen: Secundum id quod in eo 
 previdet aut eligit Deus, aut Apostolos quisque vocatur, aut Propheta. 
 In like manner does God speak to the prophet, Jer. 1. 5. ““ Before 
 I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth 
 out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet 
 unto the nations.”’ St. Paul uses similar language of himself, Gal. 
 1.15. Hesychius explains dégaecouévos as Synonymous with éxrcreypé- . 
 
 * An expression of humble mindedness, intimating that he had not found 
 because he had sought, but that he had come because he was called. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 2. 31 
 
 vos Staxexeruévos, in Which sense it is used, Acts, xiii. ὦ. Radically 
 it means, not to destine, but to separate. ‘ 
 
 εὐαγγέλιον employed, per metonomen, for the publication of the 
 doctrine, which the word also signifies in 1 Cor. iv. 15; ix. 14. So 
 ver. 5, there stands és ὑπακοὴν πίστεως» instead of zug τὸ ὑπαχούειν τῇ 
 πίστει πάντα τὼ ἔθνη. 
 
 Θεοῦ. Chrysostom takes this up falsely as the genitivus objecti, 
 the gospel concerning God, supposing an allusion to the heathen not 
 having acknowledged him as the one God, ‘The objectum does not 
 follow until the 3d verse. Θεοῦ is here the gen. subjecti. ‘Theophylact 
 explains it correctly ὡς Swendiv noed τοῦ Θεοῦ. It is the Son who 
 founds the entire plan of salvation upon earth. But he who sends the 
 Son is the Father, and to him accordingly the whole is referred back. 
 
 V. 2. The thought that he had been sent forth to proclaim a new 
 doctrine suggests to the Apostle the recollection that Christianity 
 could not be said to be altogether new, nor had come, at unawares, 
 into the world. ‘Theophyl. ἐπευδὴ ὡς καινὸν διέβαλον τὸ κήξυγμα» δεύ- 
 χνυσιν αὐτὸ meEcBTseov ὃν τῶν “Ἑλληνων.ἢ In like manner, when be- 
 fore Festus, Acts xxvi. 22, Paul appeals to the fact, that he was not 
 an innovator, and that the message of salvation which he brought was 
 nothing else than that which all the prophets had foretold. Emanat- 
 ing from Judea, at this time, a rumour had widely spread among the 
 Gentile nations, that the king for whom Israel had long so fondly 
 looked, was soon about to come, and would subject the whole earth 
 to his sway. ‘Tacitus, Hist. L. v. c. 13, takes notice of this rumour, 
 ‘Pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo 
 ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique Judwa rerum po- 
 tirentur.”” So also Suetonius, in Vesp. 6. 4, ““ Percrebuerat Oriente 
 toto, vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judea pro- 
 fecti rerum potirentur.”’ If, then, they did not rejoice, how deeply 
 at least must it have roused the curiosity and attention of the heathen, 
 when they were told that at this time there had arisen men in Judea 
 who proclaimed aloud the long expected Prince, and sacrificed their 
 lives for his sake! 
 
 πϑοεπηγγείλατο. Immediately upon the fall of the first man, the 
 promise of a deliverer was vouchsafed, in what has been called the 
 protevangelium, Gen. iii. 15. The holy men of the old world 
 strengthened their hearts, by looking forward to the time of restora- 
 tion, and the nearer the era appointed for the arrival of the promised 
 Saviour approached, the clearer became the intimations of the pro- 
 phets with respect to him, down to Zecharias ix. 9, xi. 18, and at 
 last Malachi, with whom the Old Testament closes. The final an- 
 nouncement of the latter, c. ili. 1, and Mark i. 3, form the connect- 
 ing links of the two economies. 
 
 ἐν yeapacs ἅγιαις. The plural, equivalent to the more ordinary ἡ 
 
 * He answers the objection that what he preached was new, by showing 
 that it was more ancient than the Greeks themselves, 
 
32 CHAPTER I. ν. 3, 4. 
 
 yeaon, and found in the Fathers, who have ai xvecaxai yeapai. Erasm, 
 Promissus fuit non a quovis, sed ab ipso Deo, nec per quosvis, sed 
 per prophetas suos ἢ. 6. veros ac divinos, nec id quibuslibet instru- 
 mentis, sed in scripturis sacris. 
 
 V. 3. Here follows the subject of the glad tidings; they treat of 
 Christ and his dignity. 
 
 meet tov ὑιοῦ. It is a question with what this περὶ is to be con- 
 strued, whether with πεοοεπηγγείλατο in the second verse, or with 
 εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ in the first. Chrysostom notices the difficulty attend- 
 ing a proper arrangement of the clauses, and says ἀσαφὲς τὸ εἰξημένον 
 ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν λήξεων τίλοκῇς yéyovs.* Modern commentators make two 
 or three parentheses. Almost all agree in enclosing verse second in 
 brackets. But besides this, several do the same with the words, 
 from τοῦ γενομένου as far as vexecv, and some also with ᾿Ιησοῦ Xevozov 
 τοῦ Kveiov ἡμῶν. ‘The two last parentheses are totally unnecessary. 
 The first might, perhaps, be admitted, inasmuch as the zee would 
 then connect itself with εὐαγγέλιον more closely than it otherwise does 
 with πεοεπηγγείλατος. But even that ought to be rejected. ‘The an- 
 cients, in general, seldom made parentheses; more rarely still the 
 Hebrews, and least of all Paul, with the glow of whose diction the 
 practice was scarcely compatible. The least credible of all, is the 
 supposition of Heumann, that the Apostle inserted these three pas- 
 sages upon a subsequent perusal of the Epistle. Accordingly we 
 connect πεφὺ with πεοεπηγγείλατο. 
 
 V. 3, 4. τοῦ γενομένου xverov ἡμῶν. We find here, what often 
 occurs in the writings of this author, a large group of co-ordinate 
 clauses. With reference to these, we remark, that Paul’s peculiar 
 mode of thinking, and, consequently, also of expression, is most 
 aptly compared to a throng of waves, where, in ever loftier swell, 
 one billow presses close upon the other. Like all men of lively 
 temperament, he ever seeks to heighten the impression of his words, 
 by appending new explanations or definitions. For a striking ex- 
 ample, see the opening of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Such is the 
 case in the present instance. Not content with having, in the first 
 verse, described the Gospel as a new and joyful message, he cannot 
 choose but describe it also, in the second, as having been the object 
 of long and ardent expectation. Here, likewise, he is not satisfied 
 with having simply named the Son of God; but figuring to himself, 
 at once, all that is implied in this appellation, he proceeds to unfold 
 it, in opposition to the Judaising teachers, who denied so lofty a title 
 to the Saviour. The following is a just observation of Wolle, 
 (Comm. de Parenthesi Sacra, p. 63:) Hie vides sanctissimum πάθος 
 Pauli, sigillatim affeectum erga Iesum Christum ardentissimum, quo 
 divinum ejus pectus ita abundavit, ut suavissimi hujus servatoris . 
 mentionem injiciens, sibi temperare non posset, quominus summam 
 ejus personam maximis in ccelum laudibus extolleret. 
 
 * The complication of the words makes what he has said obscure. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 3, 4. 33 
 
 No sooner does Paul mention the name of Christ, than the whole 
 import of the title flashes upon his mind. He describes him as the 
 royal son of David. ‘This, however, was nothing above what the 
 Judaising teachers allowed him to be. Paul knows him no more 
 κατὰ odexa, 2 Cor. v. 16. Before his eyes the Saviour is ever pre- 
 sent as a glorified being, and therefore, he immediately adds, that, 
 besides being son of David, he is of a still loftier nature, having been 
 manifested as vids θεοῦ. According to this view, we have here a cli- 
 max, such as the Apostle often uses, and which is generally expressed 
 by an οὐ μόνον δέ. Rom. v. 3. 11, viii. 23, or a μάλλον δὲν Rom. viii. 
 34. Older expositors, wishing to put into these words the doctrinal 
 view they held of the Divine and human nature of Christ, suppose 
 here not a climax, but a decided antithesis, betwixt the clauses, the one 
 beginning with γενόμενα, and the other with ὁφυσθέντος. ‘The climax 
 consists in this, that Christ who, xara σάρκα; is a scion of the royal 
 stock of David, has also been manifested as the partaker of a still 
 loftier dignity. 
 
 Saeé, as used by Paul, signifies in general the human nature 
 according to its ordinary constitution here below, and hence involves 
 the inherent idea of weakness. See this idea more fully developed, 
 ὁ. vii. 14. When applied to Christ, it denotes all that he had in 
 common with other men, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 John iv. 2, 2 John vi. 
 comp. Heb. ii. 14, and forms the contrast to the divine element in 
 his person. 
 
 Ἔχ σπέρματος Δαδίδι Even this was an honour. His royal ex- 
 tra¢tion, acknowledged as it was by the Judaising teachers them- 
 selves, elevated him high in the scale of rank. But Paul has a still 
 higher dignity to specify. Jesus Christ was also υἱὸς Θεοῦ. As used 
 in the New Testament, this expression primarily denotes one who 
 stands in a near and special relationship to God, and upon whom, 
 betokened either by the outward distinction which he enjoys, or by 
 the rich manifestation of the Spirit within, the action of a peculiar 
 divine influence is discernible. Hence, it is bestowed as an appella- 
 tion upon celestial beings, Gen. vi. 2, Job i. 6, upon rulers and kings, 
 Ps. Ixxxii. 6. Ps. ii. 6, and upon men, who live according to the 
 will of God, Deut. xiv. 1,2 Sam. vii. 14. It was even assumed by 
 Christ himself. As the general idea which the title implies, viz. 
 that of amore close relationship to God, is indefinite, the expression 
 admitted of a great variety of applications, and accordingly we find it 
 has been used by Christ and the Apostles, in manifold and various 
 senses; of which, however, the one does not usually exclude the 
 other. Sometimes the prominent conception is that of @ theocratical 
 King, or the Messiah, Matt. xxvi. 63, Luke iv. 41, John i. 49, vi. 
 69, x. 36, xi. 27, Matt. xvi. 16, comp. with Luke ix. 20, Matt. xxvii. 
 40, comp. with Luke xxiii. 35. In these passages, however, we 
 must beware of forthwith translating it the Messiah; for although 
 such be its proper import, the general signification, viz. ‘he chosen 
 
34 CHAPTER I. V. 3, 4. 
 
 of God (ὃ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, also a name of the Messiah,) or one near 
 to God, is still retained. Hence, in these instances, other references 
 of the title are not altogether excluded, and that, for the following, if for 
 no other reason, that according to many Jewish theologians, it be- 
 hoved the Messiah to be of exalted and divine nature, a fact at which 
 the Saviour himself hints, Matt. xxii. 43. Sometimes the expression 
 refers to the miraculous generation of Christ by immediate divine 
 agency, Luke i. 35, comp. with iii. 388. Occasionally Christ appears 
 to assume it, in virtue of that higher relationship in which he stood 
 towards God, and from the consciousness of a participation in the 
 illimitable divine nature, Mat. xxviii. 19, xi. 27. So frequently in 
 John. In so far as the writings of Paul are concerned, the first of 
 these special acceptations seems to predominate, in such a manner, 
 however, as that he likewise meant to express the divine nature in 
 Christ, according to those loftier views of the Messiah, entertained 
 by the Jewish theologians to which we have above adverted. 
 
 ὁρίζειν, to mark off, define, and hence, to appoint, declare. Even 
 classical authors have the phrase δείξειν cud θεόν. Hence Chrysos- 
 tom and Theodoret here rightly expound ἀποδειχθέντος. ‘* The same 
 who xara σάρκα was only known as the descendant of David, is now 
 declared to be the Son of God.” 
 
 By what means? The answer to this question, the majority of 
 commentators seek in ἐξ ἀναστάσεως vexeav, a phrase which must be 
 resolved into ἀνάστασις tx τῶν vexewv, the resurrection of Christ from 
 the dead, and his victory over death, having, as it were, demonstrated 
 his superior nature. Now, the resurrection, per se, does not suffice 
 to demonstrate this, seeing that other men, as Lazarus for example, 
 have been restored to life. Still, in the mind of the Apostle, with the 
 resurrection of the Saviour, there is always coupled the idea of do- 
 minion, with which he was then invested, over the human race. The 
 ἀνάστασις, in his view, denotes the whole period of exaltation from 
 the time when he arose from the dead, and when death ceased to 
 have any more dominion over him, see chap. vi. 10. For the same 
 reason he also represents the δικαίωσις of men as a consequence of 
 the ἀνάστασις: chap. ix. 25. Thus, he divides the life of Christ into 
 two sections, that in which the ἀσθένεια reigned, and that in which 
 the δύναμις Θεοῦ. But if the idea attached to ἀνάστασις must be thus 
 widely extended, then the import in which we are to take up ἐξ ἀνασ- 
 τάσεως resolves itself into the other, sanctioned by 'Theodoret and 
 Grotius, in which ἔξ like ἀπὸ, Luke viii. 27, Acts ix. 33, denotes 
 the point of time. In this case, the sense would be, “he has been 
 declared the Son of God since the time when, having arisen from the 
 grave, he was exalted to divine glory.”’ But how is ἐν δυνάμευ rela- 
 ted to this passage, and with what particular word is it to be con- 
 strued? It is used adverbially M7222, and signifies, according to 
 Beza, potenter. If we compare the passage already quoted, 2 Cor. 
 xii. 4, we might be inclined to join it with ixds Θεοῦ, * he has been 
 
~ 
 
 CHAPTER 1. Vv. 4, 5. 3: 
 
 declared as the mighty glorified Son of God.” At the same time, it 
 may equally well be joined with the verb éecGew, “he has in a glo- 
 rious manner been declared as the Son of God.” 
 
 There now remains only the phrase χατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. This 
 seems to answer as a contrast to χατὰ caexa, and hence denotes the 
 divine nature in Christ, whatever is not referable to the ordinary, 
 humble, and human form, in which he appeared. More frequently 
 is this same idea, with less precision, spoken of as a being full of the 
 σἰνεῦμα ἅγιον, Luke iv. 1,18. John iii. 34, Acts x. 38. Comp. 
 Heb. ix. 14, διὼ πνεύματος αἰωνίου. ‘* By virtue of his divine nature, 
 has he, after overcoming bodily death, been made manifest as the 
 Son of God.” Wetstein aptly illustrates, as regards the sense, 
 the contrast between xara σάρκα and xara πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης» by hu- 
 militas and majestas. Michaelis goes far astray, when he renders 
 the phrase, ‘‘ according to the declarations of the Holy Spirit.”” The 
 expression πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης instead of ἅγιον may appear strange. 
 Bengel tries to distinguish between ἁγιότης sanctitas, ἁγιωσύνη Sancti- 
 monia, and ἁγιασμὸς sanctificatio. But the distinction is arbitrary. 
 Even so in the Latin, there is no shade of difference between sancti- 
 monia and sanctitas, see Forcellini, 5. ἢ. v., and in the Greek ἁγιωσύνη 
 is as much like ἁγιὸτῆς» aS ἀγαθοσύνη 15 to ἀγαθότης. Here the sub- 
 stantive in the genitive case stands, as in the Hebrew, by circumlo- 
 eution for the adjective, so that πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is equivalent to πνεῦμα 
 ἅγιον. Paul may, perhaps, have chosen the less ordinary expression, 
 as πνεῦμα ἅγιον might have too easily led the reader to think of what 
 that expression generally implies, the derivative gifts of the Spirit. 
 
 We have only farther to observe, that others arrange the clauses 
 in a diflerent way. Chrysostom and Melancthon construe the three 
 phrases, κατὰ σίνεῦμο ayLaovuns,—ev Svvduets—and ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν» 
 as co-ordinate, and find in them three proofs of the divinity of Christ: 
 Ist, By power, 7. 6. by miracles; 2d, by the communication of the 
 Ποῖ Ghost; 3d, by the resurrection from the dead, was he demon- 
 strated to be the Son of God. ‘The Syrian interpreter construes 
 together only ἐν δυνάμει, and xara πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. ‘To say nothing 
 of other objections, however, the very change of the prepositions 
 makes this arrangement of the clauses improbable. 
 
 V. 5. The mention of the Saviour’s exaltation makes the Apostle 
 reflect on what he himself had obtained through this glorified Mes- 
 sias. In his conversion and illumination, he had received tokens 
 of grace, 1 Tim, 1. 13, but more especially in being called to preach 
 the word. Strictly considered, therefore, it is wrong to say, with 
 Chrysostom, Grotius, and others, that yaevs and ἀποστολὴ constitute 
 a Hendiadis, and stand for χάρις τῆς ἀποστολῆς. Augustine: Gratiam 
 cum omnibus fidelibus accepit, apostolatum non cum omnibus. 
 
 εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως. The Apostle specifies the end and aim of his 
 office. πίστις may either be considered objectively or subjectively. 
 Objectively, it means the same as εὐαγγέλιον, the doctrines of the 
 faith. In this signification, Theodoret takes it up, as also Beza, 
 
36 CHAPTER I, Vv. 5. 
 
 Bengel, Wolf, and others, and a parallel passage is found in 2 Cor. 
 ΙΧ. 13,—inorayy τῆς ὁμολογίας εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Still, it is not un- 
 likely that St. Paul here used πίστις in the subjective sense, and de- 
 signs by it the immediate conviction of the truth, laying hold upon 
 the consciousness, and subjecting the understanding of man. It may, 
 perhaps, be his object to set in a strong light, how all depends upon 
 the personal πιστεύειν compliance with the divine call, on the part 
 of the individual. In this case, the substantive πίστεως in the 
 genitive, according to the Hebrew idiom, stands in the place of the 
 adjective πιστιχὺς OY πειθημών. Such is Chrysostom’s view of the 
 passage: τῶν ἀποστόλων γὰρ ἣν τὸ πεξιέναι καὶ xNevTTEW, τὸ δὲ πείθευν» 
 τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν αὐτοῖς Θεοῦ. καθὼς xat ὃ Λουχᾶς φησιν, ὅτι διήνοιξε 
 τὴν xagdvay αὐτῶν" xa πάλιν, οἷς ἣν δεδομένον ἀκοῦσαν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ- 
 Οὐχ sinter, εἰς φήτησιν καὶ κατασκευὴν, ἀλλ᾽» εἰς ὑπακχοήν" οὐδὲ γὰξ 
 ἐπέμφθημέν, φησι, συλλογίζεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ Sree ἐνεχειξίσθημεν, ἀποδοῦναυ..ἢ 
 Such is also the view of Sebastian Schmidt, 
 
 ἐν πᾶσι τοὺς ἔθνεσιν is joined by Beza with ἐλάβομεν, in order to 
 avoid the harshness of construction which arises, when it is united 
 with the clause εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως» even then too concise. Notwith- 
 standing this harshness, however, the latter is the true manner of con- 
 struing it. ‘The Apostle was led to adopt the construction with ἐν 
 by having in his mind a lively conception of this faith, as spread like 
 seed among all nations. Hence, in place of the genitive πάντων; 
 which was to have been expected, he substitutes ἐν πᾶσυ “ in order 
 that faith in the Gospel may be produced among all nations,”’ πᾶς is 
 equivalent to the Hebrew 9, qualiscunque. The Apostles frequently 
 give animated expression to the sentiment, that by the preaching of 
 Christ, every wall of partition between nations even the most diverse, 
 is done away. 
 
 ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ. With what is this appended clause to be 
 connected?) Chrysostom joins it immediately to πίστεως, considering 
 it as specifying the object of faith, and thus gives ize the signification 
 of meei—ovy iva τὴν ὀυσίαν αὐτοῦ περιεργασώμεθα, GAN’ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ 
 πιστεύσωμεν. In like manner, Theophylact, Erasmus, and Ammon. 
 It is a still more violent procedure to connect it with yaew xoi ἀποσ- 
 zoajv, aS is done by Beza, Bengel, Limborch and others; the last 
 mentioned of whom translates the words, ut nomen ejus glorificetur, 
 The simplest, and at the same time the way most accordant with the 
 genius of the Helenistic dialect, is to refer it back generally to the 
 words εἰς ὑπαχοὴν πίστεως, according to the translation of Castalio: 
 Per quem gratiam sumus et apostolatum adepti, ut obediatur fidei ob 
 
 * The office of the Apostles was to go about and preach; to persuade was 
 the part of God working within them. As says St. Luke: He opened their 
 hearts, and, to whom it was given to hear the word of God. He does notsay, 
 for searching or demonstrating, but for obedience, meaning, we have been sent 
 not to reason, but to impart that of which we have been put in charge. 
 
 + Not that we should pry into his nature, but that we should believe on his 
 name, 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 6, 7. 37 
 
 ejus nomen apud omnes gentes. "Ovouo, OW, the contents, compen- 
 dium of the qualities, and hence an emphatical cireumlocution for 
 the person. The sense is consequently as follows, “in order that 
 by means of the propagation of the faith among all nations, Christ 
 may be glorified.”’ By thinking of all nations the Apostle’s mind is 
 next directed to those, whom he is at the time addressing. 
 
 V. 6. ἐν οἷς. Chrysostom: εἴγε τὰ μὲν παλαιὰ περὺ ἔθνος ἕν ἐγύγνετο; 
 αὕτη δὲ γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν ἐπεσπάσατο. Here the Apostle makes the 
 transition. Having been called and appointed by Christ to be a 
 preacher of salvation to all nations, in that lies my right to address 
 myself to you Romans. 
 
 χλητοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Xevorov. xanros, in the language of Paul, denotes the 
 person to whom God outwardly gives the opportunity of becoming 
 acquainted with the Gospel, and whom, at the same time, he in- 
 wardly draws by his Spirit to embrace it. As our Apostle else- 
 where uniformly traces the χαλεῖν to the agency of the Father, the 
 ultimate source of the entire economy of salvation, it is probable, that 
 here the genitive, Ἰησοῦ Χειστοῦ is equivalent to weds Xevoroy, and the 
 sense, ‘“* who have been brought to Jesus Christ.”? In another of the 
 Homilies of Chrysostom, the import of χαλεῦν is beautifully illustrated. 
 τί οὖν Huds δούλεταυ διδάξαυ (ὁ Παῦλος) dia τοῦ κλητὸν ἑαυτὸν χαλέσαυ; 
 ὅτυ οὐκ αὐτὸς τῷ δεσπότῃ πεξοσῆλθε πεῶτος; ἀλλὰ χληθὲυς ὑπήκουσεν" οὐκ 
 αὐτὶς ἐξήτησε καὶ εὔξεν ἀλλ᾽ εὐξέθη πλανώμενος" οὐκ αὐτὸς Meds τὸ φῶς ἀνέ- 
 Grebe MEWT0S, ἀλλὰ τὸ φὼς τὰς οἰκείας ἀκτίνας πρὸς τὰς ὄψευς ἀφῆκεν τὰς 
 ἐχεύνου, καὶ τούς ἔξω πηξώσας ὀφθαλμοὺς τοὺς ἔνδοθεν ἠνοιξε.ἷ 
 
 V. 7. Here follows the proper salutation. All the inward and 
 spiritual glory, which was one day to be manifested in the ghostly 
 kingdom of regenerated Christians upon the earth, was in a bodily 
 manner prefigured by the people of Israel; and hence the Jewish 
 Theocracy, in respect of its outward typical institutions, was called, 
 Ex. xix. 6, “A kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.”” Deut. xxiii. 
 1, “The congregation of the Lord.’”’ Is. xxxii. 19, “The sons 
 and daughters of the Lord.’? With still deeper meaning, were all 
 these appellations afterwards transferred to the invisible community 
 of believers. With Ex. xix. 6, compare 1 Pet. ii. 9. With Deut. 
 xxiii, 1, 1 Tim. iii. 15, and with Deut. xxxii. 19, Phil. ii. 15, 1 
 John iii. 1 and 2, v. 10. The members of this community enter it 
 indeed defiled, but not merely by name are they held bound to be 
 saints. ‘The transforming Spirit of Christ must actually renew and 
 brighten the Saviour’s image in their souls. Augustine: Non ita in- 
 
 * The former dispensation respected one people alone; this has attracted 
 both earth and sea. 
 
 + What then does Paul mean to teach us, when he says that he was called? 
 He means, that it was not he who first came to the Master, but that, having 
 been called to him, he obeyed; that he did not spontaneously seek and find, 
 but that he was found, when he was wandering; that it was not he who first 
 looked up to the light, but the light which sent its rays upon his vision, and 
 having closed his outward, opened his inward eyes. 
 
38 CHAPTER I. V. 7. 
 
 telligendum tanquam ideo vocati sint qui sancti erant, sed ideo sancti 
 effecti quia vocati sint. 
 
 ἀγαπητὸς. Subst. a favourite, darling, in the LXX. for WTVH. 
 
 πᾶσι τοῖς ovote ‘This expression is more comprehensive than if the 
 Apostle had merely said τῇ ἐκκλησίῳ τῇ ἐν Ῥώμῃ" for it evidently em- 
 braces all the Christian strangers then present in the city, and who, 
 for the period of their stay, might have joined themselves to the Ro- 
 man Church. This must have been a very numerous class, owing 
 to the extensive traffic which the inhabitants of the provinces carried 
 on with the capital. In the time of Juvenal, for example, there were 
 such a number of Greeks in Rome, that he calls it ““ Graecam urbem.”’ 
 
 χάρις καὶ εἰρήνην Supply ἔστω. Even the Christian greeting an- 
 nounces the peculiarity of the gospel, which while other systems 
 summon to the combat and point to the prize from afar, first bestows 
 the wreath of victory, and having thus animated the warrior, leads 
 him forth into the field. By the coming of the Saviour, objectively, 
 the relation of God to man is changed; subjectively, the believer is 
 made to partake of the blessings which the gospel brings. Object- 
 ively χάρις is the divine favour towards the believer; subjectively, it 
 is the manifestation of that, in the communication of the πνεῦμα τῆς 
 υἱοθεσίας, Which is also a πνεῦμα εἰφήνης. Rom. v. 1. The Saviour 
 himself employed the common Jewish form of salutation 029 21, in 
 this loftier and peculiar Christian sense. (Author’s Comm. zu Joh. 
 xx. 19.) εἰρήνην it is true, is the common Hebrew salutation pou, 
 and ought, therefore, perhaps to be translated salvation rather than 
 peace. In the New Testament, however, the Greek sense of peace 
 seems to predominate even in the form of greeting, as is shown by 
 its position beside χάρις. It appears, moreover, to involve an allusion 
 to the removal of guilt through Christ. In this import, our Saviour 
 himself uses it, John xx. 19. Chrysostom: © meoonyoeias μυρίων pe- 
 eovens ἀγαθά. Τοῦτο καὶ ὃ Xevoros τοὺς Anooronors εἰς τὰς οἰκίας εὐσιοῦσυ» 
 πίξῶτον ῥῆμα φάσχειν ἐπέταττε. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ 6 ἸΤαῦλος ἐντεῦθεν παντα- 
 χοῦ πεοοιμιάξεταν ἀπὸ τῆς χάξυιτος καὶ τῆς εἰρήνης. οὐδὲ γὰρ μυκξὸν κα’ 
 φέλυσεν ὁ Xevoros πόλεμον, ἀλλὰ πουκύλον καὶ παντοδαπὸν, καὶ χρόνιον. 
 καὶ τοῦτον οὐκ Ex τῶν ἡμετέξων πονῶν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ χάρυτος" “Exec 
 οὖν ἡ μὲν ἀγάπη τὴν χάριν; ἣ δὲ YAS τὴν εἰξήνην ἐδωφξήσατο, ὡς ἐν τάξει 
 πἰροσηγοξίας αὐτὰ θεὶς» ἐπεύχεταν μένειν διηνεκῇ καὶ ἀκίνητα.Ἔ 
 
 * O salutation fraught with innumerable blessings! This was what Christ 
 enjoined upon the Apostles to say, upon their entering into men’s houses. 
 And hence it is, that Paul prefaces all his epistles by wishing grace and 
 peace. For,truly it is no petty warfare to which Christ has put an end. It 
 is manifold, various and protracted. Neither has it been brought by toils of our 
 own toa close, butsolely by his grace. So then,as grace was the gift of love, 
 and peace of grace, he ranges them side by side in the salutation, and prays 
 that they may continue immoveable and for evermore. 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 8. 39 
 
 PART. DL. 
 INTRODUCTION, v. 8—16. 
 
 V. 8. Here commences the introduction of the Epistle, to which 
 the Apostle passes by protestations of affection. Previously he had 
 declared the authority by which he wrote to the Romans; here, as 
 Theodoret remarks, he seems almost to apologize, for not having 
 sooner taken an interest in them. 
 
 meorov is an introductory form, and requires to be translated, first 
 of all, before I proceed to other matters. ‘The expression is here 
 abbreviated, and stands for πρῶτον μὲν θέλῳ εἰδέναυ ὑμᾶς» ὅτι εὐχαξιστῶ 
 τῷ Θεῷ. 
 
 Θεός μου says the Apostle, because the man who through Christ is 
 reconciled to God, recognizes him as the affectionate Father of every 
 individual soul, and enters into a peculiar relationship of filial love to 
 him. 
 
 διὰ Ἰησοὺ Xevorov. Inasmuch as their connection with Christ in- 
 fluences the whole life of believers, and through his mediation flow 
 all the blessings of divine grace, the Apostle makes allusion to him 
 in pronouncing his thanksgiving. He expresses the same idea in 
 another way, when he says, 2 Cor. i. 3, εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴξ 
 τοῦ Κυξίον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χειστοῦ. Ep. i. 3. The sense of διὰ is given 
 by John xiv. 13, 14, it is equivalent to ἐν ὀνόματι- 
 
 inte πάντων ὑμῶν. Here the Vulgate falsely renders, pro; the 
 Syrian correctly, respectu vestrum. The gratitude felt by the Apostle, 
 on 2ccount of the faith of the Romans being celebrated universally 
 in the Christian churches, for so must the words ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ χόσμῳ be 
 understood, is to be explained, not only by the ardent love, which he 
 bore to the Saviour, and which received gratification from every new 
 accession to the number of the believers, but by the consideration, 
 that Rome being the metropolis, its example was calculated to have 
 the most salutary influence upon the whole empire, when once traces 
 of the true faith were manifest here. Grotius: Magno cum gaudio 
 provincialum Christianorum acceptus fuit ille nuntius, etiam Rome, 
 in capite imperli, esse qui eandem fidem profiterentur. Ambrosius: 
 Qui non crediderant, poterant credere horum exemplo: facile enim 
 facit inferior, quod fieri viderit a priore. ‘Theodoret observes, that 
 the fame of the faith of the Romans could be easily spread, in con- 
 sequence of the frequent visits which the inhabitants of the various 
 provinces made to the capital. 
 
 V. 9. In attestation of the sincerity of his grateful feelings, he ap- 
 peals to God’s knowledge of his heart, Admirably Chrysostom; 
 
40 CHAPTER I. V. 9. 
 
 ᾿Επειδὴ ἔλεγεν O70 ἀγαπὼ ὑμᾶς, καὶ σημεῖον ἐποιεῖτο Vo διηνεκῶς εὐχεσθαιν» 
 χαὶ τὸ δούλεσθαν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς αὐτοὺς; καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο δῆλον ἦν; ἐπὶ THY ἀξιό- 
 πιστὸν καταφεύγει μαξτυξίαν. ἄρα δυνήσεταί TUS ἡμῶν καυχήσασθαι, ὅτυ 
 μέμνηται Ent τῆς οἰκίας εὐχόμενος; τοῦ τῆς ἐκκλησίας πληξώματος; οὐκ 
 οὕμαυ. ἀλλ᾽ ὃ Παῦλος οὐκ ὑπὲρ πόλεως μιὰς» ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲξ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἅπά- 
 σης προσήει τῷ Θεῷ; καὶ τοῦτο οὐχ ἅπαξ, οὐδὲ δεύτερον, οὐδὲ τρίτον, ἀλλὰ 
 διηνεκὼς. ὡς δὲ τὸ διηνεκῶς ἐν μνήμη τινὰ περιφέξευν, οὐκ ἂν γένουτο εὖ μὴ 
 ἀπὸ ἀγάπης πολλῆς" τὸ ἐν εὐχαῖς yae ἔχειν, καὶ ἀδιαλεύπτως yew, ἐννόησον 
 πόσης εστί διαθέσεως καὶ φιλίας. Melancthon: Hee que hic dicit pro- 
 desse nobis tanquam exempla possunt, quomodo doctores debeant 
 esse soliciti pro ecclesiis. 
 
 ᾧ λατρεύω. The Apostle is proceeding to describe what a lively 
 concern he felt in his heart for the spiritual welfare of the church of 
 Rome; in order, however, to justify himself in this respect, as per- 
 haps the thought again suggested itself, that his cares might be 
 deemed unauthorized, he subjoins, that such zeal and diligence for 
 the conversion of all was no more than his duty as a servant of the 
 Gospel. λατεεύω in the Septuagint for Nw and 72y denotes every 
 performance by which a man thinks to please God, whether it be 
 an observance of religious worship, or an action of any other kind 
 done for God’s sake. Comp. John xvi.2. Theodoret: εἴδη xavecias 
 πολλά. καὶ γὰρ ὃ πξοσευχομένος Θεῷ» AUTLEVEL, καὺ ὃ νηστείῳ χρώμενος; καὶ 
 ὃ τοῖς θείοις τἱδοσέχων λογίοις, καὶ μέντου χαὺ ὃ τῆς τῶν ξένων θεραίείας 
 ἐπιμελούμενος. 
 
 With this must be joined ἐν τῷ ἐυαγγελίῳν here signifying the work 
 of preaching the Gospel. ‘The office of preaching the Apostle re- 
 gards under the New Testament, as in some sort a sacerdotal func- 
 tion of worship, see 15, 16. The supplement ἐν τῷ πνεύματι 15 
 susceptible of two applications, which may perhaps, however, be 
 combined. ‘The Apostle may mean to express the deep inward de- 
 votion with which he prosecutes the great work of preaching salva- 
 tion; from which view, there would then result, with still greater 
 force, the truth of the protestation he afterwards makes, as to the 
 serious concern he feels for the spiritual welfare of the Romans. In 
 this case, the passage would be a parallel one to 2 Tim. i. 3, where 
 he attributes to himself a λατρεύειν ἐν καθαξᾷ ovvecdyoe, and also to 
 Ep. vi. 6. Beza: Plane volens, ex animo illi addictus. Or perhaps 
 
 * After having declared his affection for them, and adduced in proof of it 
 his incessant prayers in their behalf, and desire to visit them, this not being 
 apparent, he has recourse to a credible testimony. Can any among yon 
 boast that in his private supplications he remembers the fulness of the church? 
 I trow not; and yet Paul invoked God, not for a single city, but for the whole 
 world, not once, twice, or thrice, but continually. Now as to bear one about 
 in the memory, can only proceed from strong affection, think what devotion 
 and friendship it argues, to remember one in prayer; and to do so without 
 ceasing! 
 
 + There are many kinds of worship. He worships who prays to God, and 
 he who fasts, and he who studies the sacred Scriptures, and even he who dis- 
 charges the duties of hospitality. 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 10. 41 
 
 the Apostle here adverts to the difference betwixt his former Jewish 
 piety, which consisted more in external religious rites, and his 
 present state. ‘The expression would then signify ‘in an inward 
 and spiritual manner,” and be parallel to Phil. ili. 3, Ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἢ 
 περιτομὴν οἱ πνεύματι Θεῷ λατρεύοντες. So the older commentators, 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrosius, and others. But there is nothing 
 to prevent us supposing that in the lively conception of Paul both of 
 these ideas found place. 
 
 ὡς ἀδιαλείπτως μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιοῦμαυ. Chrysostom: Καὶ doxec μὲν ἕν 
 τι λβγειν, τέσσαρα δὲ τίθησιν ἔναυθα. καὶ OTL μέμνηται; καὶ ore ἀδιαλείσιτως, 
 wae Ort ἐν εὐχαῖς» κοὶὺ OTL ὑπὲξ μεγάλων πεαγμάτων δεόμενος. ἢ ‘There are 
 numerous passages which evince the profound concern with which 
 the Apostle bore upon his heart the welfare of the churches, holding 
 out an example to Christian pastors that is too rarely imitated. 1 
 Thess. 1. 3, ii. 11, iii. 17, 2 Tim. i. 1—3. How moving is this 
 ardour of affection in one, who, assaulted by so many afllictions of 
 his own, could speak of himself as Paul does! 2 Cor. ii. 29. 
 
 V. 10. The Apostle is not satisfied with attesting that he often 
 thinks of the Romans, he desires also to see them, nor does he merely 
 desire this, but often makes it the subject of his prayers. His ardent 
 wish to visit Rome must have been kindled, partly by the animating 
 intelligence, that the Roman Christians were rejoicing so greatly in 
 the faith, partly by the consideration, how important it would be if 
 Christianity were firmly established in the metropolis. And we may 
 well believe, that, attracted on the one hand by the desire of behold- 
 ing the brethren, and on the other, by a sense of the importance of 
 Rome as a missionary station, the Apostle often supplicated that this 
 favour might be allowed him. 
 
 δεόμενος. Admirably Chrysostom: ᾿Εφύλευ piv yae αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἠπεί- 
 ETO πρὸς αὐτούς; οὐ μὴν; ἐπειδὴ ἐφίλει, maga τὸ τῷ θεὼ Soxovy ἐδούλετο 
 ἰδεῖν. ine ἢ γνησίῳ ἀγάπη, οὐχ ὡς ἡμεῖς οὗ ἀμφοτέρωθεν τῶν νόμων τῆς 
 ἀγάπης ἐχπίπιτοντες. ἣ γὰρ οὐδένω φιλοῦμεν» ἢ Emevdav φιλήσωμέν ποτ Ey παξὰ 
 τὸ τῷ Θεῷ δοχοὺν φιλοῦμεν.ἵ 
 
 εὐτίως ἤδη ποτέ. ‘The πὼς denotes the uncertainty; ἤδη the urgency 
 of the Apostle’s desire, which is enhanced by ποτέ. MKypke: Vocula 
 ἤδη ποτὲ ingens desiderium aut mali alicujus pertinacioris avertendi, 
 aut boni diu expectati obtinendi significat. 
 
 εὐδοὺν means Ist, prosperum iter habere; 2dly, prosperum esse. 
 It is found in both meanings in the LXX., and has here the sense of 
 to be prospered and favoured by God. Happily rendered by Gro- 
 
 * In seeming to say but one thing, he here says four, that he makes men- 
 tion of them, that he does so in his prayers, that he does so without ceasing, 
 and that it is for great blessings that he supplicates. 
 
 + He loved them, and was hastening to them, but notwithstanding his love, 
 if contrary to the will of God, he had no desire to see them. This is the 
 genuine kind of affection. How different from us, who transgress on both 
 hands the laws of love; by either not loving at all, or if we love, by loving 
 contrary to God’s pleasure. 
 
42 CHAPTER I. -v. 11. 
 
 tius: “Si forte Dei voluntas felicitatem mihi indulgeat, ad vos ve- 
 niendi. In 2 Maccabees x. 23, it is used in the same import, τῷ εὖο- 
 δώσαντι καθαξφισθῆναι, * who graciously permitted us to be cleansed.” 
 In the phrase ἐν τῷ θελήματι the ἐν is like the Hebrew 3 by or 
 through. 
 
 V.11. Here the Apostle states the reason of his desire to make a 
 journey to Rome. Well might Theodoret say of this 11th and 12th 
 Verse, ταπεινοῦ φρονήματος εἰξημένα μεστά. He affectionately declares 
 that the object of his journey was the spiritual invigoration of the 
 Roman Christians, or rather, as he subjoins, in limitation of the ex- 
 pression, to establish them in what they already possess. Nay, he 
 wishes not to appear only as one conferring a benefit, but desires to 
 have his own faith strengthened by his intercourse with them. Thus, 
 in these words he unites both humility and love, and removes every 
 possible suspicion of spiritual usurpation. 
 
 χάρισμα πνευματικόν. Many of the commentators have given a very 
 strained interpretation of this simple phrase. Bengel and Michaelis 
 deem that it refers to the power of working miracles, arguing from 
 the circumstance, that the Apostle, at the time he wrote, was present 
 in the Corinthian church, then richly endowed with this gift. Au- 
 gustine thinks that χάρισμα means the love of our neighbour, as if 
 the Christianized Jews were not to grudge the gospel to the heathen. 
 Ambrosius infers from the words, that the Romans were’ previously 
 commended only for having, in a general manner, embraced the faith, 
 that as yet, however, they did not possess faith of the genuine kind, 
 but were cleaving to righteousness by works, and that he uses yéeuo- 
 μα πνευματιχὸν to denote spiritual righteousness. But even if it 
 were not self-evident, the twelfth verse would show, that there is 
 nothing in all this. What the Apostle there hopes to obtain from 
 his brethren, is what he also hopes to be able, on his part, to give to 
 them, viz. the spiritual παφξάκλησις. The gospel itself, is elsewhere 
 called τὰ πνευματικὰ, Eph. xv. 27, 1 Cor. ix. 11. 
 
 εἰς τὸ στηφιχθῆναυ ὑμας. It is not necessary to conclude from this 
 expression, as both ancient and modern commentators have done, 
 comparing chapter xiv. 21, that the Roman Christians were still very 
 weak in faith. For then we should be forced to infer from verse 12th, 
 that the apostle was so likewise. Στηφιχθῆναν does not refer to an 
 increase of knowledge, but to a more lively and cheerful acceptation 
 of what they already knew,—to that more vigorous excitement of 
 spiritual life, which is always the consequence of intercourse among 
 men of congenial sentiments in religion. It is consequently unneces- 
 sary to give to στηξιχθῆναν that collateral signification which Theo- 
 doret mentions; οὐ yae ἑτέραν ὑμῖν διδασκαλίαν πεοσφέξειν, ἀλλὰ τὴν 
 ἤδη πεοσενεχθεισαν βεβαιώσασθαν βούλομαι; καὶ τοῖς ἡδη φυτενθεῖσι φυτοῖς" 
 τὴν ἀφδειαν προσενεγκεὺν.ἕ 
 
 *T wish not to bring among you another doctrine, but to establish that 
 
 which has been already brought, and water the plants which were planted 
 before. 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 12, 13. 43 
 
 V. 12. τοῦτο δέ ἐστι. By this epanorthosis the Apostle gives his 
 words a still humbler and more affectionate turn, placing himself on 
 a footing of entire equality with the members of the church, for the 
 purpose of yet farther softening the στηξυχθήναι" which kind charien- 
 tismus, Erasmus, somewhat too strongly, calls pia vafrities et sancta 
 adulatio. Sadoletus: Prius tanquam prebiturus illis, ex se et sua in 
 fidem Christi constantia solatium, post mitigat orationem, ne velut 
 censor et magister loqui videretur, paremque sese et unum de illis 
 facit. 
 
 The συμπαφακληθῆναν depends on ἐπυποθὼ. Among the Athenians, 
 παρμαχαλεῖν meant fo summon, invite, impel; in the Greek of later 
 times, fo sepplicate, exhort; among the Hellenists, to soothe, com- 
 fort, cheer, instruct. (See Knapp. Scripta, p. 124.) Several, and 
 among others Beza, give too exclusive prominence to the sense of 
 instruction: Quum omnes ex parte cognoscamus, non dubium, quin 
 et illi ex Paulo partim multa intelligere, partim ea que intelligebant 
 accuratius cognoscere, et Paulus etiam ipse, quantumvis excellens, ab 
 ecclesia ill’ tum erudiri magis atque magis, tum confirmari etiam 
 docendo potuerit. ‘This view is much too partial. The sense to be 
 preferred is to refresh, stir up, which is always the fruit of social 
 intercourse between men of vital religion, 2 Cor. vil. 7. ‘Theodoret: 
 ov γὰρ μόνον δοῦναν βούλομαι; αλλὰ καὶ λαβεῖν wae” ὑμῶν. παρακαλεῖ δὲ 
 χαὶ διδάσκαλον, ἡ ἡ πεοθυμία τῶν μαθητων.ὃ Calvin: Fidei alacritas— 
 vide in quantam moderationem se submittat plum pectus, quod non 
 recusat a rudibus tirunculis confirmationem petere. Neque tamen 
 simulanter loquitur, siquidem nemo est adeo inops in ecclesia Christi, 
 qui non possit aliquid in profectum nostrum momenti afferre, sed 
 impedimur superbia, quominus talem ultro citroque fructum colliga- 
 mus. We must not, however, suppose that mere communication by 
 words is here meant; there is also implied that inexplicable imme- 
 diate action of spirit upon spirit, which takes place wherever there 
 is a fellowship in love, and more especially among Christians. 
 
 V. 13. The Aposile did not cherish an empty wish; that wish 
 had become a purpose. Admirably Chrysostom: ὅτυ μὲν ἐκωλύθη, 
 λέγει, διὰ τί δὲ, οὐκέτι. οὐ yae ἐξετάζει τοῦ δεσπότου τὸ πξόσταγμα; ἀλλὰ 
 πείθεταν μόνον. καίτοιγε εἰκὸς ἦν διαπορήσαι, τίνος ἕνεκεν πόλιν οὕτω 
 λαμπεὰν καὶ μεγάλην, καὶ πρὸς ἣν ἅπασα ἔβλεπεν ἡ οἰκουμένην ἐκώλυσεν ὃ 
 Θεὸς ἀπολαῦσαν διδασκάλου τουούτου, καὶ ἐπὺ χρόνον τοσοῦτον. ὃ μὲν yae 
 τῆς REATOVONS πόλεως πεῤρυγενόμενος; καὶ τοῖς ἀρχομένοις ῥᾳδίως ἐπήει. ὃ 
 δὲ τὴν βασιλικωτέφαν ἀφεὶς, τοῖς δὲ ὑπηκόους ἐφεδρεύων, τὸ κεφάλαιον εἶχεν 
 ἠμελημένον. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὐδὲν τούτων πεξιεργάζεται, GARG παραχωρεῖ τῷ 
 τὴς MEovoras ἀχαταλήπτῳ, τό τε ἐμμελὲς ἐπιδειχνύμενος τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆς» 
 καὶ παιδεύων πάντας yyas μηδέποτε τὸν Θεὸν ἀπαιτεῖν εὐθύνας τῶν γινομ- 
 évav, κἂν δοχῇ πολλοὺς θορυδεῖν τὰ πεαττόμενα. «- - ++ «πάλιν δὲ δὲ ἑτέρων 
 ἐνδείκνυται τὴν ἀγάπην; οὐδὲ γὰρ, ἐπειδὴ ἐκωλύθην, φησιν; ἀπέστην τοῦ 
 
 * My desire is not merely to bestow, but to receive in my turn from you. 
 The alacrity of the scholars is a stimulus even to the master. 
 
44 CHAPTER I. v. 13. 
 
 ἐπιχειρεῖν; ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ μὲν ἐπεχείρουν, Gel δὲ ἐκωλυόμην; οὐδέποτε δὲ ἀφιστάμην» 
 τῷ μὲν θελήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐχ ἀντυπίτιτων, τὴν δὲ ἀγάπην τηρῶν. At 
 what time he began to cherish that wish, and first formed the often 
 renewed purpose, cannot be given with precision. In chap. xv. 23, 
 he speaks of having done so for many years, perhaps from the period 
 when Aquila and Priscilla were banished from Rome, and came to 
 him with the intelligence of the establishment of the church in that 
 place. 
 
 καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι tov δεῦξο is to be regarded as parenthetical. ‘The 
 καὶ is adversative, like the Hebrew}, and equivalent to xo zee, John 11]. 
 13, 32, villi. 55. ‘The hindrance lay in the circumstance of so many 
 other places so imperatively demanding his ministrations. In the 
 Acts, St. Luke occasionally alludes to an inward impulse, urging the 
 Apostle to go, or restraining him from going, to a particular place. 
 The reason here alleged for his desire to visit Rome, is the same as 
 in the 11th verse. It is not necessary however, on that account, to 
 put, as some expositors have done, upon xaezdv ἔχειν the sense fruc- 
 tum offerre. As Kypke shows, ἔχειν has rarely the same import as 
 παξέχειν. Chrysostom justly observes, that the expression xaezov 
 ἔχειν emanates, as before, from the affectionate humility of Paul, who 
 wished to represent the instructing and confirming of the Roman 
 church, which is the χαφπὸς» in that point of view from which the 
 contemplation of it was dear and agreeable to himself. ἔχευν in mani- 
 fold collocations with τιμὴν, δόξαν, &c. signifies assequi, and so here. 
 Moreover, from modesty, he merely says xaeztov ruvd. 
 
 καὶ ty μιν. Καὶ is here emphatic. ‘The Apostle alludes to the 
 fact, that in all the regions where, as mentioned, chap. xv. 18, 19, 
 he had proclaimed the gospel, it had manifested his efficacy. Sub- 
 lime are the words of Chrysostom. od νῦν οἱ σοφοὶ τῶν “Ἑλλήνων; οὗ 
 τοὺς βαθεῖς πώγωνας ἔλκοντες» καὶ Tas ἐξωμίδας ἀναβεβλημένοιν καὺ τὼ με- 
 γάλα φυσῶντες; τὴν “Eanada, τὴν Βάρβαξον πᾶσαν 6 σκηνοποιὸς ἐπέστξεψεν. 
 ὁ δὲ παῤ αὐτοῖς ἀγόμενος καὶ πεξιφεξόμενος Πλάτων; τρίτον; εἰς Σικελίαν 
 ἐλθὼν μετὼ TOV κόμπου τὼν ῥημάτων ἐκείνων, μετὰ τῆς ὑπολήψεως τῆς λαμ- 
 MAS, οὐδὲ ἑνὸς περιεγένετο τυδάννου; ἀλλ᾽ οὕτως ἀθλίως ἀπήλλαξεν, ὡς καὶ 
 
 * He says, that he had been hindered, but he does not say why; for it is 
 not his way to scrutinize, but to obey the commandment of the master. And 
 yet there was room to doubt, on what account it was, that for so long a period 
 God prevented that mighty and splendid city, to which the eyes of the whole 
 habitable globe were turned, from profiting by so great a master. For when 
 once the capital is reduced, it is easy to invade the towns that are subject to 
 it; whereas he who leaves the royal city alone, to besiege the inferior places, 
 is guilty of neglecting that which is most important. Paul, however, does not 
 curiously search into such things, but submits to the inscrutability of Provi- 
 dence; thereby both showing the moderation of his mind, and teaching us 
 never to question God about the reasons of what he does, although his dis- 
 pensations may seem to trouble many...And again, he shows them his love 
 in another way. For I did not, he says, when hindered, desist from my 
 attempt. My efforts were made commensurate with my hindrances, and I 
 never abandoned them, thus neither resisting the will of God, nor failing in 
 charity to you. 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 14. 45 
 
 αὐτῆς ἐχπεσεῖν τῆς ἐλευθερίας. ὃ δὲ σκχηνοποιὸς οὗτος οὐ Σιχελίαν μόνον, 
 οὐδὲ ᾿Ιταλίαν, ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν ἐπέδξαμε τὴν οἰχουμένην, καὶ οὐδέ ἐν τῷ κηξύτ- 
 τειν τῆς τέχνης ἀπέστη: ἀλλὰ xo τότε SéCuata ἔῤῥαπτεν καὶ ἐξγαστηξῖου 
 προειστήχει" καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐσχανδάλυσε τοὺς ἐξ ὑπάτων.ἢ 
 
 V. 14. Here, as was remarked so early as by Origen, there is 
 difficulty in the construction. The easiest way would be to take 
 verse 14 entirely by itself, and then consider ofza—v. 15—as refer- 
 ring to it, in the sense of consequently, wherefore. It is true, that 
 οὕτω alone has not this signification; stillit may have it, if, in a fore- 
 going clause, a silent χαθὼς be understood, as in Matt. v.16. The 
 Ἕλλησί ve καὶ Baepaegors, however, appears too obviously to be an 
 apposition to ἔθνεσιν" and as, moreover, σοφοὺς ve καὶ ἄνοήτοις is like- 
 wise an apposition to Ἕλλησί τε καὶ βαφβάξοις, we must construe the 
 whole 14th verse with ἔθνεσιν, and then the words, from χαθὼς as far 
 aS ὀφειλέτης εἰ μιν WOUld be the premises to which verse 15th forms the 
 conclusion. Itis thus that Origen construes and translates: Propo- 
 sui venire ad vos, ut fructum aliquem haberem etiam inter vos, sed 
 prohibitus sum usque adhuc; sicut in ceteris gentibus, quibus debitor 
 sum, ita quantum in me est, paratus sum etiam vobis, qui Rome estis, 
 evangelizare. ‘This is a collocation, however, which a more minute 
 consideration of verse 13 will disincline us to adopt. In that verse, 
 the xai ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν 15 too closely connected with ἐν ὑμῶν to be 
 separated without violence; and were we, nevertheless, to choose to 
 begin a new sentence with χαθὼς, then the xa: which follows it would 
 be totally superfluous, and the construction of ὀφειλέτης εἰμὴ with ἐν 
 would create a new, and though not, perhaps, insurmountable diffi- 
 culty, still one so great as to have made Origen think it necessary to 
 complete the phrase by the insertion of ozs, the relative in the dative 
 plural, before ὀφειλέτης. ‘The conclusion is, that there is no other 
 outlet, but to suppose, with the Greek scholia, that the Apostle has 
 here deviated from the right construction, and that he refers the οὕτω 
 in the 15th verse to the χαθὼς in the 13th, as if he deemed he had 
 there written a ὥστε before the χαθὼς, and instead of ἐν τοῖς λόιποὺὶς 
 ἔθνεσιν, the bare dative without the preposition. Whoever is inclined 
 to seek, in outward occasions, the cause of a negligent construction, 
 (the only source of which, however, was undoubtedly the liveliness 
 of the Apostle’s character,) may imagine that Paul was here called 
 away, and that upon resuming his pen, he supposed that he had 
 begun a new sentence with χαθώς. 
 
 * Where are now those Grecian sages, with their long beards and tunics 
 and lofty pretensions? Greece and the whole country of the barbarians, have 
 been converted by the tent-maker. Even Plato, whom they so much boast 
 of and applaud, although he thrice visited Sicily, was unable, with all his 
 pomp of language and splendid reputation, to overcome a single tyrant; but, 
 on the contrary, escaped with such difficulty as even to lose his freedom. 
 Whereas, this maker of tents has compassed not Sicily alone, nor Italy, but 
 the whole world. Nor, while he preached, did he leave off his trade, but still 
 continued to sew his skins and mind his shop; at which men of rank took no 
 offence. 
 
46 CHAPTER I. v. 14, 15. 
 
 Ἕλλησί ve καὶ βαρβάροις. It is asked, whether the Apostle here 
 classes the Romans with the Greeks or with the barbarians. Many, 
 such as Bengel and Heumann, embrace the first opinion, and many, 
 as Krebs and Wolf, the second. If we appeal to the use and wont 
 of language, that is decisive as to the fact, that the Greeks, under the 
 term βάρβαφοι, comprehended even the Romans. Philo always gives 
 them that name, and Plautus himself calls Italy Barbaria, and the 
 Latin barbara lingua. Notwithstanding, however, it would not be 
 justifiable to assume that Paul here does the same. The point of 
 discrimination is not, who spoke the Greek, and who the other lan- 
 guages, but, as is denoted by the succeeding epexegesis of cope τε 
 xai ἄνοητοι, Who did, and who did not, possess the Grecian civiliza- 
 tion? and if the difference of civilization be indeed the point regarded, 
 then there cannot be a doubt, that the Romans were comprehended 
 with the civilized—the “Ἕλληνες. ‘This seems even to be implied in 
 what the Apostle gives us to understand, in verse 16, viz. that seeing 
 it was the seat of Grecian refinement and culture, he might well have 
 entertained scruples about appearing at Rome. Perhaps, however, 
 the opinion of Koppe may be most safely adopted, viz. that the 
 Apostle, when he used “Ἑλλησί τε καὶ BagBagors never thought of the 
 Romans at all, but that he merely gives an epexegesis of πάντα τὰ 
 ἕθνη, and that he first adverted to them at σοφοί τε καὶ ἀνόητοι» With 
 the former of whom, as appears from the 16th verse, he indisputably 
 classes them. Leaving the Romans out of view, he had already 
 preached to other and these rude βάφβαξου, viz. the Lycaonians and 
 I}lyrians. 
 
 σοφοῖς καὶ ἀνοήτοις. These two adjectives specify not the natural 
 capacity, but the existing condition, the educated and the uneducated. 
 Erasmus: eruditi et rudes. Beza, and others suppose that a diseri- 
 mination is intended between the individuals of a nation; but it is 
 better to refer it to different nations. Grotius: Monstrat apostolus ita 
 omnibus hominibus aptatum esse Evangelium, ut nee stupidos con- 
 temnat, nec ab ingeniosis contemni debeat. 
 
 ὀφειλέτης εἰμί. Justly Theodoret: πᾶσιν ὀφείλω τῆς διδασκαλίας τὸ 
 χρέος. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 16, Where the Apostle says he was 
 bound, yea that necessity was laid upon him, to preach the gospel. 
 Koppe’s translation is totally erroneous. He makes ὀφειλέτης εἰμο 
 τινὶ, bene meritus est alter de me. 
 
 V. 15. οὕτω we refer back to χαθώς. 
 
 τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ may relate to the circumstance he had just mentioned, 
 of God having put obstacles in his way. If taken in this sense, it 
 behoves to be translated as if it were τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ, quantum in me est. 
 So 2d Esdras vi. 11, Kai 6 οἶκος τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμὲ ποιηθήσεται" and so Adlian, 
 Var. Hist. L. 1.§ 32. In this case, however, πρόθυμον would want ' 
 its substantive and subject, although in Latin the phrase can be so 
 formed as that the quantum in me est itself appears as subject. Gro- 
 tius: Quod mez est potestatis paratum est. We must here regard 
 the xaz’ ἐμὲ as a circumlocution for wou, and resolve the phrase into 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 16. 47 
 
 τὸ πρόθυμόν μου ἐστὶν, Which is similar to ἐγὼ πεόθυμον ἔχω. For this 
 last, see Euripid. Iphig. in Taur. v. 989, τὸ πρόθομον would thus 
 stand for ἡ πεοθυμία. Still the τὸ xar’ ἐμὲ may be considered a direct 
 eircumlocution for ἐγὼ, in like manner as τἀμά and τὸ ἐμὸν Sometimes 
 are. And then πρόθυμον would be its predicate. We might also, in 
 this case, compare with it ra nae’ ἐμοὺ, as used for ἐγὼ, and the com- 
 plete τὸ xar’ ἐμαυτοῦ μέξος, in Tyrius (Diss. vi. p. 59;) where, how- 
 ever, it must be confessed, Schiifer ad Bos Ellipses Grece, and 
 others, remove xara from the text. ‘The circumstance on which the 
 duty of the Apostle, in respect of the Romans, is made to hinge, is 
 their being highly civilized. Lying as he did, under equal obliga- 
 tions to preach the doctrine of the cross to wise and polished nations, 
 as to the rude Illyrians, the Apostle was bound to go to Rome. 
 
 V. 16. οὐ yae ἐπαισχύνομαυ, has a reference to the σοφοί. When 
 Paul, who was in his external aspect mean, and, though esteemed 
 among his countrymen for his skill in the law, wholly unknown to 
 the heathen—when Paul, despised for his deficiency in Greek refine- 
 ment, no less than because he was a Jew, was called to make his 
 appearance in Rome, the far-famed city, where all the wisdom of the 
 old world, combined with the highest profligacy and insolence, of 
 which a race perverted by false culture is capable, where the Roman 
 pride of power was associated with the darkness of Greek philoso- 
 phy, and the humility of the gospel had to encounter the exclusive 
 arrogance of the Jews on the subject of their revelation,—when such 
 a person, and in such a place, required to speak of the Saviour and 
 King of men, appearing in the form of a servant, coming despised 
 into a world in which he had not where to lay his head, and after 
 publishing a kingdom which was likewise not of this world, depart- 
 ing from it with a crown of thorns upon his brow; how should not 
 fear and trembling have overwhelmed the man of God? But as Jesus 
 had not been of this world, so neither was he. The hatred it had 
 shown to his master, he knew it must show to himself; and there- 
 fore he was not ashamed. Comp. 2'Tim. i. 8—12, which was writ- 
 ten in chains. Even in the Imperial palace, he did not blush for the 
 divine message. Phil. i. 13. He alone has power to overcome the 
 world, whom the world has not overcome. 
 
 εὐαγγέλιον tov Χειστοῦ. Χειστοῦ is here genitivus objecti, and must 
 be rendered the gospel concerning Christ, i. 6. whose chief subject 
 is Christ. 
 
48 CHAPTER I. v. 16. 
 
 PART (Li. 
 THESIS. v. 16 AND 17. 
 
 V. 16. While the Apostle points to the nature of the gospel, as the 
 reason for his not being ashamed to propound it to mankind, he states 
 in so doing, the Thesis of his whole Epistle, which he afterwards 
 demonstrates, in regard both to the heathen and the Jews. 
 
 δύναμις yae Θεον ἐστιν εἰς σωτηξίαν, per meton. effectus pro appella- 
 tione cause, (Glass. philol. sacra, p. 1450.) John xii. 50, xvii. 3. The 
 gospel exerts a power which conducts man to blessedness, 1 Cor. i. 18. 
 Admirably says Theodoret: ἐκ ταύτης yae ot πιστεύσαντες τὴν σωτηξίαν 
 τευγῶσιν. οὕτω καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν πολλὰ κεχρυμμένην ἔχεν τὴν οἰκείαν ἐνέφ- 
 γειαν. καὶ yae τὸ πέπερυ ψυχρὰν μὲν ἔχευ τὴν περιφάνειαν, καὶ τοῖς ἀγνοοῦ- 
 συν οὐδεμίαν δείχνυσυ θεεμότητος ἔμφασιν. ὁ δὲ τοῖς ὀδοῦσι λεπτύνας» τῆς 
 πυροειδοὺς θεομότητος δέχεταν τὴν αἰσθησυιν.---τοὕύτω καὶ ὃ σίτος δυναταῦ 
 μὲν ELVAL καὶ ῥίζα, καὶ καλάμην καὶ ἀσταχυς" οὐ Φαίνεταυ δὲ τοιοῦτος: πρὺν 
 εἰς τὰς αὔλακας κατασπαξήναυ τῆς γῆς. ἢ The condition of this divine 
 efficacy on the part of man is πίστις. Grotius: Sicut medicamentum 
 non prodest nisi haustum, ita nec evangelium nisi fides habeatur. 
 Henceforward, through the whole composition, from every point of 
 view, and under all forms, the Apostle repeats the great truth, with 
 which he was himself penetrated, and which forms the central point 
 of his doctrine, viz. that the entire sanctification and pardon of man 
 has its ground, not in what he originates within himself, but in what 
 he obtains from God. πίστις is a spiritual impulse founded in the 
 moral and religious nature of man. Whatever, in virtue of this prin- 
 ciple, a man receives, must become vital within him, and determine 
 his whole mind. ‘The sense accordingly is, ‘‘ this doctrine begets a 
 power in man, which leads to salvation, from the moment he receives 
 it, 7. 6. admits it into his inward consciousness, experiences in him- 
 self its truth.”’ 
 
 ᾿Ιουδαίῳ τε πεῶτον καὶ Ἕλλην. ‘The observation of Chrysostom is 
 just. Paul himself declares that neither circumcision availeth any- 
 thing nor uncircumcision, why then does he give precedence to the 
 Jews? οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπειδὴ πρωτὸς ἐστι, καὶ πλέον ramBaver τῆς χάριτος. 
 
 * For from it those who believe derive salvation. In the same way, many 
 sensible objects have their innate efficacy concealed. Pepper, for instance, 
 appears outwardly to be cold, and to those unacquainted with it, shows no 
 semblance of heat. But let one grind it with his teeth, and he perceives that 
 it is hot like fire—Thus also a grain of corn may contain a root and stalk 
 and ear, but that does not become manifest, until it is sown in the furrows of 
 the earth. 
 
CHAPTER I. ν. 17. 49 
 
 Ἢ γάρ αὐτὴ Saeed xat τούτῳ κἀκείνῳ δύδοταυν ἀλλὰ τάξεώς ἔστι τιμὴ μόνον 
 τὸ πεῶτος.Σ As our Saviour first addressed his preaching to the 
 Jews, and was imitated in this respect by the Apostles, so here could 
 Paul also represent the gospel as a method of salvation intended, in 
 tH first instance, for that nation. ‘The same expression, C. 11. 9, 10, 
 Heumann rightly renders jirst of all, immediately. 
 
 V.17. The radical theme of the Epistle is more particularly enu- 
 merated in this verse, viz. that through the gospel, the justification of 
 men is possible. But, as the acknowledgment that man needs justi- 
 fication, depends upon the acknowledgment of his sinfulness and guilt, 
 the Apostle takes up this subject in v. 18, and, as far as the end of 
 the chapter, describes the state of moral depravity into which the hea- 
 then had sunk. From the beginning of the second chapter, to the 
 21st verse of the third, he gives a similar description of the Jews, 
 and then infers, as the result, ‘‘ That a// men, those within the Old 
 ‘Testament Theocracy, and those out of it, are equally in want of 
 salvation.” 
 
 The γὰρ is to be translated ¢o wit, itexplains in how far the gospel 
 is able to help man to salvation. 
 
 Δικαιοσύνη Means originally the condition of one who has done all 
 required of him by the law. ‘This signification had its source in 
 the conception of a certain relation subsisting between two parties, @ 
 covenant called δίκη. ‘The genitive Θεοῦ stands in place of what St. 
 Paul commonly employs ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ; as it also does, chap. 11]. 
 21,22. Among others, Origen and Osiander deem that the divine 
 attribute of Justice is here meant; on which supposition, Θεοῦ would 
 be the genitivus subjecti. ‘This does not, however, suit the context, 
 seeing that the knowledge of God’s penal justice is for man, no δύναμυς 
 εἰς σωτηδξίαν. Besides, διχαιοσύνη here forms an antithesis to the ἀσίο- 
 χάλυψις τῆς ὀργῆς in v.18. It would be equally discordant with the 
 meaning of the context, to adopt, with Chrysostom and Schittgen, 
 what Paul rarely intends, the Helenistic sense of δυχαιοσύνην viz. cle- 
 mency. Accordingly we thus expound, ‘'The gospel makes known 
 a way to that perfect fulfilment of the law, which is required by 
 God.” 
 
 ἐν αὐτῷ in that gospel. 
 
 ἀποχαλύτιτεται. Beza: Hoc ita intelligo, quasi Paulus non eo dun- 
 iaxat nomine commendet evangelium, quod in eo retegatur, et spec- 
 tandum proponatur, quod gentes quidem antea ignorabant, patres 
 autem Judzi procul et umbris tectum intuebantur: sed etiam quod 
 hance justificandi rationem ita proponat, ut nunc etiam re ipsa exhi- 
 beat....itaque pro consuetudine Hebreorum cum antecedente intelli- 
 gendum est consequens, id est, cum patefactione conjungendum est 
 ipsius patefacte rei prestatio. Obviously, not the mere act of revela- 
 
 * He does not by being first, receive a larger measure of grace. On one 
 and all the same gift is bestowed. ‘The being first is but a distinction of 
 order. 
 
 7 
 
50 CHAPTER I. ν. 17. 
 
 tion, per se, is here spoken of, but at the same time, the operation of 
 the truth revealed, which, according to its inward nature, quickens 
 and transforms all susceptible of its influence. 
 tx πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. Expositors differ very widely in the mean-- 
 ing they attach to these words. ‘The readiest way is to take the tWo 
 nouns together, and understand them as a climax, This answers 
 to the use of éx, which is especially employed to denote the transi- 
 tion from one into another state; γελᾷν tx τῶν πρόσθεν Saxedwy" SO 
 Heliod. Aeth. βάσιν tx βάσεως παξαμείδευν. 2 Cor. iil. 18, ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς 
 δόξαν would then be a parallel passage. ‘Thus Theophylact: Οὐ yae 
 ἀρκεῖ τὸ πρώτως πιστεῦσαι; GAN kx τῆς ἐισαγωγικῆς πίστεως Set ἡμᾶς owa- 
 ϑαίνειν εἰς τὴν τελειοτέφξαν πῦστιν. Ὁ Clemens Alex. explains this more 
 exactly (Strom. b. v. 6. 1,) where he says: There is ἃ xow mores 
 xabanee Oeuéncos.t like that of which our Lord said, ** Thy faith hath 
 made thee whole,” and a perfect faith, by which a man may remove 
 mountains. Hence it was, that even the Apostles prayed, * Lord 
 we believe, help thou our unbelief.”’ In like manner Melancthon, 
 Beza, Calovius, Clericus, and others. Compare Glassius in his 
 Philol. Sacra, p. 1027. Faith may certainly be regarded as in this 
 manner progressive. ‘The more powerfully in any individual, the 
 sense, on the one hand, of his spiritual want, and, on the other, of 
 that harmony or blessedness which springs from a religious life, is 
 awakened, the more lively will become the inward necessity, the 
 impulse urging him to recognize as true the objective doctrines of 
 religion. Neither can it be said, that this meaning is not sufficiently 
 well based in the context. ‘The general design of the Apostle is to 
 set forth, how in Christianity all depends, not upon what man origi- 
 nates within himself, but upon the appropriation of an objective da- 
 tum. Now this design is attained, if he shows that that appropriation 
 is in its subject infinite, something which must undergo continual 
 progressive increase, whereby the individual is ever more and more 
 transformed into the objective truth. ‘The only other view of the 
 passage, which recommends itself as worthy of attention, is that 
 which couples x πίστεως with δυκανοσύνη, according as Bengel ex- 
 ounds. ‘* Paul wishes to show, that in this message all rests upon 
 faith: Fides est prora et puppis. Hence he says it is a righteousness 
 of faith, indeed it only exists for faith.” So also Hammond and 
 others. Rom. vi. 19, and 2 Cor. ii. 16, would afford some analogy. 
 Nor can it be said, that the addition εἰς πίστιν would then be super- 
 fluous, seeing that it lies in the Apostle’s intention, that the necessity 
 of a subjective appropriation of the objective datum should be pro- 
 minently set forth. ‘There is harshness, however, in the wide sepa- 
 ration of πίστεως from δικαιοσύνην and if it be alleged that this is done 
 to heighten the emphasis, by the juxtaposition of the double πίστις» 
 
 * It is not sufficient to have believed at first. We must ascend from initial 
 to more perfect faith. 
 + A common faith, and as it were fundamental. 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 17. 51 
 
 it may be answered, that the same emphasis is likewise retained in 
 the view previously stated. ‘To the other expositions of the passage, 
 besides these two, it may be objected, either that they have too slen- 
 der a basis in the context, or that they are too far-fetched. They are 
 as follows; Ist, The first πίστις is a general faith in the truth of the 
 gospel, the second, the special application of the same to the subject, 
 **from a belief of the gospel’s revealing to man a way to fulfil the 
 law, proceeds the belief, that by me also, the believing subject, this 
 fulfilment of the law and justification before God is realized.’’ So 
 Witsius and Sadoletus. But the two things cannot, in respect of 
 time, be imagined as separate from each other. 2. The first πύστις is 
 faith in the Old, the second, faith in the New Testament. ‘Thus Origen, 
 Theodoret, Zegerus, and others. 3. Augustine: (De Spiritu et Lit- 
 tera, c. 11,) Ex fide predicantium in fidem audientium. 4. Ex fide 
 obscura in claram visionem in ce@lis. (Augustine Ques. Ev. 1. ii. 
 c. 39. Bede.) 
 
 καθὼς yéyeartrac’ 6 δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως δησεταυ- The pious Jew 
 loved to use Bible phrases, in speaking of the things of common life, 
 as this seemed to connect in a manner his personal observations and 
 the events of his own history, with those of holy writ. ‘Thus, the 
 Talmud contains numerous quotations introduced by such forms 
 DDI or WANT WAIT or pian WNIT WIN * behold that is what 
 stands written,”’ ‘‘ as says the verse,”’ without there being understood 
 any real fulfilment of the text in the fact which is spoken of. ‘This 
 practice was also followed by the Apostles. Acts xxviii. 25, Rom. 
 Vill. 36, ix. 33, x. 5, xi. 26, xiv. 11. ‘These references to passages 
 of the Old Testament often serve to indicate the deep analogy sub- 
 sisting between that and the New, in so far as the latter, in outline and 
 germ, was already contained in the former. So also in the present 
 citation. In these words of the prophet, what is set forth as the 
 characteristic of the just, is not the external opus operatum, but the 
 inward disposition of faith and trust in God, that direct confidence 
 in him transcending all reflection, of which Chrysostom on this pas- 
 sage Says, Τοιαύτη yde ἡ τῶν λογισμὼν Φύσις" λαβυξίνθῳ Tod καὶ γείφους 
 ἔοικεν; οὐδὲν οὐδαμοὺ τέλος ἔχουσα. οὐδὲ ἀφιείσα τὸν λογισμὸν ἑστάναυ ἐπὶ 
 τῆς πέτρας." In the Prophet Habac. ii. 4, God, according to the 
 LXX., declares, «‘'The man who flies from the coming calamities, to 
 him will I not show favour, but the just shall live, that is, shall pros- 
 per through his confidence in me.’ We have stiJl to observe, that 
 the LXX. read éx πίστεώς μου, while in the original, the word is 
 wns. Only Symmachus renders it exactly. ‘The genitive of the 
 pronoun of the first person must then be considered as genitivus ob- 
 jecti, for εἰς iué. Faith towards me. One codex and the Syrian 
 also read this μοῦ. Several interpreters and editions insert a point 
 
 * For such is the nature of reasonings. They are like a labyrinth or net, 
 which has nowhere an end, and will not permit the judgment to rest upon the 
 rock. 
 
 < 
 
52 CHAPTER I. v. 17, 18. 
 
 after πίστεως, Which makes the sense, ““ He who is justified by faith 
 shall live.” ‘That the prophet did not so construe his 11282 is 
 unquestionable; as little the LXX. their éx πίστεώς μου. It must, 
 therefore, be assumed, that it was Paul himself, who, with the view 
 of better adapting the declaration of the prophet to his subject, gave 
 this violent construction to the translation of the Septuagint. But it 
 is impossible to discover any grounds for his doing so, and so much 
 the less, if, in the previous clause, the ἐκ πίστεως is not immediately 
 connected with δικαιοσύνη. And, moreover, the declaration is highly 
 pertinent when the ἐκ πίστεως is coupled with ζήσεται. Even Jews 
 of later times know how to appreciate the worth of such faith. R. 
 Schemtob upon Cant. iv. 8, thus speaks: Dicent Israelite canticum 
 novum tempore futuro, Ps. xeviii. Cujus autem merito dicet Israel 
 carmen? Merito Abrahami, quia credidit Deo, Gen. xv. Hee est 
 fides in qua Israel possidet, de qua Scriptura dicit, Hab. 11. 
 
 Pa Nic 
 
 ELUCIDATION OF THE THESIS IN THE CASE OF THE HEATHEN, TAKING 
 INTO VIEW THE SPECULATIVE ERRORS INTO WHICH THEY WERE LED 
 BY PRACTICAL DEPRAVITY. v. 18—24. 
 
 V. 18. Tue thought, that the revelation of the righteousness of 
 God is a scheme so richly fraught with blessings for all mankind, 
 pre-supposes that all men stand in need of it, and that their sinfulness 
 is so great, as to make the communication of this righteousness from 
 a source above, absolutely indispensable to them. Accordingly, the 
 Apostle now proceeds to demonstrate that. And, in the first place, he 
 shows that the heathen are chargeable with the most complete aliena- 
 tion from God, and have thereby become obnoxious to the divine 
 éeyn- This alienation discovers itself in the obscuration of their 
 knowledge of the Divine Being, which has led them to substitute in 
 place of the true and holy God, the most contemptible idols as the 
 object of their worship. Such a deviation from right views of what 
 God is can only arise from the want of religious and moral life in the 
 heart. It afterwards acts, however, reciprocally as a cause leading 
 to a still wider departure from God. 
 
 ’Oey7 Θεοῦ 15 equal to Sixacoxercia, chap. ii. 5. ‘The word is an- 
 thropopathic, and is well explained by Damien Orthod. fidei ]. i. v. 14. 
 --- Οεγὴν καὶ θυμὸν ἐννοοῦμεν τὴν πρὸς THY κακίαν ἀπέχθειάν τε καὺ ἀποσ- 
 TeOPHY’ καὶ YA ἡμεῖς» τὰ ἐναντία τῆς γνώμης μυσοῦντες» ὀδγιζόμεθα, ‘The 
 wrath of God is that relation of God to evil, in virtue of which, he 
 leaves it, in so far as it resists him, to itself, whereby it becomes a 
 prey to misery. ‘This abandonment to itself, entailing as it does 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 18. 53 
 
 wretchedness, is consequently a penalty. Hence, 6ey7 was anciently 
 interpreted as synonymous with τυμωξία and χόλασις. See Suicer, 
 she Vs 
 ’Anoxariarera ἀπ᾽ otgavov. Previously the Apostle had spoken 
 of the ἀποχάλυψις of the divine righteousness. In antithesis to this, 
 he now places another ἀποχάλυψιυς, that of wrath, by which the former 
 is rendered necessary. Now the question here is, by what means 
 this second ἀποκάλυψις is brought about? As it stands, like an anti- 
 strophe, on a parallel with the other, it might be fairly deemed that 
 in this instance, also, the Apostle meant a revelation effected by the 
 Gospel. It is the general doctrine of Scripture, that by the instru- 
 mentality of the Holy Spirit, the knowledge of sin, and the sense of 
 guilt are awakened in man. Christ reckons it expressly among the 
 operations of that Divine Being, that he reproves the world of sin, 
 Sohn xvi. 8,9. Christianity also teaches in the most distinct man- 
 ner the doctrine of a future judgment, Rom. ii. 6; xiv. 10. The im- 
 port of the passage might, therefore, be: ‘* By the same gospel men 
 are brought to the knowledge of the penal justice of the Supreme 
 Being.” It may, however, be questioned, whether the Apostle does 
 not rather here appeal to the sense of guilt, which, apart from the 
 gospel, is always to be found in man. ‘The persons, whom he has 
 in view, are such as were presently destitute of belief in the gospel, 
 and his object is to guide them to the acknowledgment of their want 
 of it; besides, that he pre-supposed in the heathen an inward sense 
 of their guilt and of God’s penal justice, appears from verse 32. And 
 how strong in fact were the manifestations which they frequently 
 gave of that sentiment, and to what severe penances did they resort 
 in order to satisfy their awakened conscience, and attain to a state of 
 reconciliation with the δαίμων! This is especially attested by Plu- 
 tarch in his admirable treatise Meei Δευσιδαυμονίας. If such be the 
 meaning, the passage would require to be interpreted as follows: 
 “ You cannot disown the consciousness which God has implanted in 
 your breast, that his retributive justice extends to all that is sin.” 
 Equally in both cases may the phrase ἀπ᾽ oveavos be viewed asa 
 figurative expression, for the origin of the revelation in question. 
 The superiority of God to every limitation, and to all the sin and evil 
 of this world, we are wont, in compliance with a certain natural in- 
 stinct to which even the heathen were not strangers—(See Pseudo 
 Aristot. de Mundo, |. i. 6. 1. Beza: In celo natura duce Deum 
 querimus,) to denote, by conceiving him as placed in some upper 
 region elevated above the earth. Accordingly, in conformity with 
 the second view, we might here paraphrase the expression ‘* Emanat- 
 ing from the higher invisible economy, the presentiment of the di- 
 vine justice enters our minds.”? The first of these elucidations has 
 been adopted by Jerome, (Comm. in Abacue. |. 2, 6. 3,) Erasmus, 
 and Grotius; the second by Bugenhagen and Wolf. In the hands 
 of P. Martyr it undergoes some degree of modification. He contends 
 that the giving over of man to a reprobate mind is here implied, in 
 
54 CHAPTER I. V. 18. 
 
 consequence of which he unconsciously becomes his own chastiser. 
 These, however, are not the only interpretations which have been 
 offered of the passage. Others less admissible are the following: 1. 
 The firmament, in the general glorious testimony which it bears to 
 God, gives intimation also of the stern retribution which such a Being 
 must execute against all his despisers. ‘So Ambrose, Thomas Aqui- 
 nas, and others. 2. Frequent calamities descending from the skies 
 upon men, such as thunder, lightning, and hail, display the retribu- 
 tive justice of God. So Pelagius, Zegerus, and Buddeus. 3. The 
 revelation of Christ for judgment at the last day; which is the view 
 Chrysostum, Theodoret, ‘Mheophylact, Limborch, and most others 
 adopt. In this case, the present ἀποχαλύπτεταυ requires to be taken 
 in a future sense, which, however, is in so far the less allowable, 
 from the circumstance that it stands parallel with that of the 17th 
 verse. 4. Disasters and judgments proceeding from God, whose 
 seat is regarded as in heaven. So Origen, Cyril, Beza, Calvin, and 
 Bengel. 
 
 ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων. las here signifies like We, 
 every kind, species. Perhaps it was the Apostle’s intention to denote 
 the equality of the sins of the heathen, with those of the Jews. More 
 eorrectly, he wished to show the wide extent and compass of the 
 heathen’s amenability to punishment. Chrysostom: ’Evraida δείκχ- 
 yuo ὅτι πολλαὶ τῆς ἀσεβείας αἱ ὁδοὶ, ἡ δὲ τῆς ἀλεθείας; μία" καὶ yee που- 
 κίλον, καὶ πολυειδὲς, καὶ συγχκεχυμένον ἡ πλάνη" ἡ δὲ ἀλήθεια, μια. ἕ 
 Theophylact: Ἢ μὲν, τοῦ θεωρητικοῦ ἁμάρτημα, ἣ δὲ τοῦ πρακτικοῦ. 
 According to the use of the Greek language, ἀσέβειω refers to our 
 trespasses against God, ἀδικία to those against men. 
 
 τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων. κατέχειν tO hinder, keep 
 back—xarézew τὸν γέλωτα, the opposite of χρατεύσθαυ ὑπὸ τοῦ γέλωτος 
 —to restrain. Luke iv. 42. 2. ‘Thess. 11. 6, 'Theophylact, χατα- 
 καλύπτειν, oxoricew τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Here all depends on what is the 
 signification of ἀλήθεια. One might consider it as standing absolutely 
 for the Christian truth, and view the words of the Apostle as directed 
 against those who, by their carnal minds, hinder the spread of the 
 gospel, hostilely oppose it. ‘The meaning would then be, ‘* Men 
 now appear obnoxious to punishment, because they will not accept 
 the scheme proposed to them for their justification, but, on the con- 
 trary, rather oppose its efficacy, as warring with their sinful desires.” 
 But this meaning would not harmonize with the context. ‘The yae 
 at the commencement of the verse leads us to expect the reason of a 
 thought enunciated in the preceding. According to the explanation 
 in question, however, there results only a contrast. ‘The gospel 
 provides a means of salvation; on the other hand, it reveals wrath 
 against all who resist the truth.” If this were the relation of the 
 sentences, we should have looked, not for a yag but a δέ, Moreover, 
 
 * Here he shows that many are the ways of ungodliness, but that the way 
 of truth is one. For error is a various and multiform, and confused thing, 
 whereas truth is simple. 
 
CHAPTER I. ν. 18. 55 
 
 that explanation is contradictory to the following 19th verse, which 
 speaks of a knowledge of God, not now for the first time imparted, 
 but that had already, and for a long period, been accessible to man. 
 Hence we must consider ἀλήθεια as signifying the religious truth 
 which was extant, prior to the publication of the Gospel. But by 
 that religious truth, two things may be understood, viz. either the 
 primeval traditions which were handed down from age to age among 
 the heathen, or the religious and moral sense inherent in the human 
 mind. It is most correct to suppose that the latter is meant; for 
 those traditions only exerted a quickening power upon man in so far 
 as he admitted them into his mind, and allowed them to operate upon 
 his conscience. ‘The 19th verse even leads to this view; Ammon 
 prefers the former. Now, that by which the inward conviction of 
 religious truth was restrained and suppressed is the ἀδυχία, un- 
 righteousness: The ἐν is instrumental. ‘The Apostle here founds 
 upon the great experimental truth, that the source of our knowledge 
 of divine things lies in the immediate consciousness, in which prac- 
 tice and theory are inseparably united, so that an ungodly disposition 
 destroys all clear insight into divine things. In illustration of this 
 sympathy of our religious and moral knowledge with the posture of 
 the heart towards God, we may quote the beautiful passage of 
 Chrysostom, ad 1 Cor. iii. 3, Homil. 8, ἐντεῦθεν μανθάνομεν dre εἰότως 
 ἔλεγεν ὃ Χριστὸς ὅτυ ὃ ποιὼν τὰ φαῦλα οὐκ ἔῤχεταυ πξὸς τὸ Hus, χαὶ ὅτι 
 Bios dxabaeros ἐμποδίζει δόγμασιν ὑψηλοῦς» οὐκ ἀφεὺς τὸ διοξατυκὸν Φανῆναυ 
 τῆς διανοίας" ὥσπεξ οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν πλάνῃ ὄντα xai ὀδρθὼς διοῦντα μεῦναυ 
 ἐν πλάνῃ ποτὲ, οὕτως οὐ ῥῴδιον πονηδίῳ συντρεφόμενον ἀναδλέψαυ ταχέως 
 meds τὸ τῶν nae’ ἡμῖν δογμάτων ὕψος, ἀλλὰ YEN πάντων καθαρεύειν TOY παδὼν 
 τὸν μέλλοντα Oneav τὴν ἀλήθειαν. So also the same author, in Joan. 3. 
 (Hom. 24.) ᾿Ἔστυ γὰρ ἔστι καὶ ἀπὸ τρόπων διεφθαρμένων οὐκ ἀπὸ πολυ- 
 πιραγμοσύνης μόνον ἀχαίξου σκοτωθῆναν τὴν διάνοιαν. «- « «..«. ἂν τῇ πρὸς 
 Ἑβεαίους δὲ xai πολλαχοὺ τῶν πονηφὼν δογμάτων ταύτην Sov tus ἂν τὸν 
 Παῦλον τὴν αἰτίαν εἴναν λέγοντα, τὴν yae ἐμπαθὴ ψυχὴν οὐ δύνασθαυ μέγα 
 τυ γενναῖον ἰδεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥστιερ ὑπὸ τινὸς λήμης θολουμένην ἀμβλυωπίαν ὑπο- 
 μένειν τὴν χαλεπωτάτην. +. +++ μὴ σπείρωμεν ἐπ᾽ ἀκάνθαις. Similar is 
 the sentiment of Augustine: (De vera Relig. 6. 14,) Illa est enim 
 
 * Hence we learn the truth of Christ’s saying, that “every one that doeth 
 evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light,” and that an impure life is 
 an impediment in the way to sublime doctrines, not permitting the discern- 
 ment of the mind to expand. In like manner, therefore, as it is not possible 
 for a man involved in error, and yet leading a good life, to remain in error 
 long, so it is not easy for the man living in sin, to raise his eyes to the altitude 
 of our doctrines. He must be purified from the passions, who means to en- 
 gage in the pursuit of truth. 
 
 + For not by unseasonable curiosity only, but also by depraved morals, 
 may the understanding be darkened. Both in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 
 in many other passages, we find Paul assigning this as a cause of false 
 opinions; because that the mind, enslaved by passion, is unable to discern 
 any thing great and generous, but resembles the eye, whose vision, when be- 
 dimmed by rheum, is greatly blunted......Let us not, then, sow upon thorns. 
 
56 CHAPTER I. v. 18, 19. 
 
 peccati pena justissima, ut amittat quisque quo bene uti noluit, cum 
 sine ulla posset difficultate, si vellet. Id est autem, ut qui sciens 
 recte non facit, amittat scire quod rectum sit, et qui recte facere cum 
 posset, noluit, amittat posse cum velit. With respect to the mode 
 in which the Gentile Polytheism may be conceived to have arisen 
 from carnal-mindedness, what must chiefly be taken into view, is 
 that the heathen deities were deities of nature,—the finite world per- 
 sonified without the idea of holiness. Hence the very attribute which, 
 as Paul informs us, the character of the heathen did not possess, was 
 also wanting in their gods. ‘They were gods who, having emanated 
 from the earthly-mindedness of the nations, could have no reflex 
 power to elevate above the earth. This more profound theory of the 
 derivation of heathenism from moral and religious causes, is found 
 among the ancient apologists. (Theophilus of Antioch, ad Autol. 1. 
 1. 6. 2. Athanasius, Apologia, opp. Par. 1728, p. 8. Philastrius, 
 De Heresibus, her. 60. Bibl. Max. Patr. vol. iv. P.1i. p. 30.) 
 Comp. the Introduction to the Treatise on the moral influence of 
 Heathenism, in Neander’s Denkwurdigkeiten, Th. 1. Among the 
 different expositors, the following express with greatest force the 
 sense here given. Calvin: Veritas est vera Dei cognitio. Erasmus: 
 Veritatem cognitam non accommodarunt ad pie sancteque vivendum. 
 Grotius: De iis dicit hominibus qui τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας de Deo, de ejus 
 bonitate ac justitia, de honesto, per malos mores ita opprimunt, ut 
 non magis appareant quam qui in atro carcere captivi detinentur. 
 Simile illud in choro vetere: “Ageoves δὲ ὁπόσοι τὸ δίκαιον ἄγουσυν ὑπὸ 
 τὰς adixov Boras ἀφανές. In fine Thomas Aquinas; Vera Dei cog- 
 nitio, quantum est de se, homines inducit ad bonum, sed ligatur quasi 
 captivitate detenta per injustitiz affectum, per quam ut dicitur, Ps. 11. 
 diminute sunt veritates a filiis hominum. We have to mention 
 another ingenious explanation of ἀδικία, viz. an act of violence or 
 robbery, whereby God is defrauded of what rightfully belongs to him. 
 Thus Chrysostom: ‘“ When one, to whom royal money has been en- 
 trusted, (as the knowledge of God has been to man,) with orders to 
 spend it in the king’s honour, squanders it upon thieves, harlots, and 
 jugglers, (the unholy deities of nature,) he must be punished for the 
 embezzlement. And thus also 'Theophylact, Gicumenius, and Beza. 
 The context, however, does not favour this explanation. 
 
 V. 19. As is shown by the dis, in this and the 20th verse the 
 ἀλήθεια Of the 18th is explained, and in the 21, 22, 23, the mode of 
 the κατέχειν. 
 
 τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘The Apostle means to show in what respect 
 the heathen were in possession of religious truth. Γνωστὸν may be 
 viewed in various lights.. It may stand for the substantive ἡ γνῶσις» 
 as elsewhere the adjective in the neuter τὸ ἀσθενὲς for ἀσθένεια, 1 Cor. 
 1. 25, τὸ χεηστὸν for χρηστότης» Rom. ii. 4. So Justin, Apol. ii. c. 14. 
 Ἔν τή Φύσει τὴ τῷν ἀνθρώπων ἔστι τὸ yvaerotov καλοῦ καὶ αἰσχεοῦ. It 
 
 * There is in human nature ἃ knowledge of right and wrong.. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 19. oi 
 
 may also retain its meaning as verbal adjective, in which case it 
 must be rendered the knowable, just as in philosophical language are 
 often found τὸ νοητὸν, τὸ αἰσθητὸν, τὸ ἀόρατον, V. 20. Even the very 
 word γνωστὸν frequently oceurs in Plato, who in the fifth Book of the 
 Republic several times places τὸ γνωστὸν and τὸ δοξαστὸν in opposition, 
 (478 Steph.) In things theoretical, the termination τὸς denotes usu- 
 ally the possibilitas, in things practical, the officiwm or facultas, 
 orvyntos, ἀγαπητὸς. See on such words as used by Plato, Wytten- 
 bach’s Pheedo, p. 295, ed. Lips. To this way of understanding γνωσ- 
 zov, we must here give the preference, because the circumstance, that 
 in the sequel an ddgazov of God is spoken of, implies that God is, in 
 ‘one respect, knowable, in another not. Josephus employs a mode 
 of expression exactly similar, when he says, 6. Apion I. xi. ὁ. 16. 
 Θεὸς δυνάμευ μόνον Hucv γνώριμος ὅποῖος δὲ χατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἄγνωστος. It is 
 in this manner also, that the majority of commentators have explained 
 the word. Pelagius: Quod potest naturaliter sciri de Deo, quod sit, 
 et quod justus sit, 7. e. that there is but one, and he a holy God. 
 Calvin: Intelligit id totum quod pertinet ad gloriam Domini illustran- 
 dam, vel, quod idem est, quidquid nos movere excitareque debet ad 
 Deum glorificandum. Quo verbo significat, Deum quantus est min- 
 ime posse mente nostra capi, sed aliquem esse modum intra quem se 
 cohibere debeant homines, sicut Deus ad modulum nostrum attempe- 
 rat quidquid de se testatur. Melancthon: Addit que sit illa ἀλήθεια. 
 Est notitia, inquit de Deo et cxtere notitiz, que vocantur leges natu- 
 rales, que omnes sunt testimonium de Deo, et docent qualis sit Deus, 
 et quod judicaturus sit. Ernesti proposed to consider the expression 
 as periphrastic, for ὁ Θεὸς 6 γνωστὸς and appealed to the LXX. Gen. ii. 
 9. τοῦ εἰδέναν γνωστὸν καλοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ" where it does indeed appear to 
 be used periphrastically, but where it may yet with much greater 
 probability be considered as a substitute for γνῶσις, signifying the 
 grounds of the knowledge of good and evil. In the passage before 
 us, however, the ἀόξατα which succeeds, shows that a certain empha- 
 sis lies on the γνωστὸν, and accordingly that it cannot be used merely 
 as a periphrasis. 
 
 φανεξόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς. Here the meaning depends upon the ἐν. If 
 it be translated among, we are led with Theophylact and Erasmus, 
 to think of the few among the heathen, who possessed a deeper in- 
 sight into religion. But, as the Apostle is speaking of the more 
 universal guilt and sinfulness of the heathen, he cannot mean that 
 religious truth which was confined to a few of them. Hence, we 
 must either suppose that ὃν forms with αὐτοῖς» a periphrasis for the 
 dative, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 11, (John xi. 10, 12,35, 1 Cor. ii. 6, ii. Cor. 
 viii. 1, are appealed to, but without sufficient grounds for the same 
 use of ἐν) or, taking it in its proper signification, render the passage 
 is manifest within them. 'Thom. Aquinas: Quod cognoscibile est 
 de Deo ab homine per rationem, manifestum est illis ex eo quod in 
 illis est, ex homine intrinseco. ‘The connection of the present with 
 the following verse, by the yde, shows that the Apostle principally 
 
 8 
 
58 CHAPTER I. V. 20. 
 
 intends that conviction which man derives from the works of Goa. 
 This, however, is not by any means inconsistent with the view we 
 take of the passage. ‘The creation, contemplated per se, does not 
 confer upon man the knowledge of God in question; it but awakens 
 his slumbering consciousness, so that he comes of himself to the 
 apprehension of these elements of divine knowledge that lie within 
 his breast. Hence, although it is by means of the external world 
 that the mind develops its knowledge of God, that knowledge is still 
 within itself. ‘The Apostle supposes an inward relationship of the 
 human with the Divine mind, Acts xvii. 27,28. With much preci- 
 sion, therefore, does Melancthon say: Quanquam enim, ut postea 
 dicit, mens ratiocinatur aliquid de Deo, ex consideratione mirabilium 
 ejus operum in universa rerum natura, tamen hune syllogismum ratio 
 non haberet, nisi etiam Deus, aliquam notitiam xara πεόληψιν indi- 
 disset mentibus nostris, et illa mirabilia specula rerum σπφόληψιν ex- 
 citant. 
 
 V.20. A more precise statement of the way in which men are 
 capable of knowing God. Ta γὰφ ἀόρατα dvrov, κτλ. The incom- 
 prehensibility of the Divine Being is more accurately defined by the 
 specification of those attributes with which the contemplation of 
 nature makes us acquainted. Δύναμις is omnipotence, ἡ δημιουδγία» 
 as Theodoret explains it. ‘The idea which first suggests itself to 
 man, on contemplating nature, is that of a force far surpassing his 
 own, infinite power. ‘This is observed in the Book of Wisdom, xiit. 
 4, where the author, speaking of the heathen surveying the material 
 world, SAYS ἐκπλαγέντες δυναμυν xa ἐνέφγειαν. Θειότης» different from 
 Θεότης which denotes the Divine Being, Col. 11. 9, expresses the 
 sum of all the attributes of God, that in virtue of which God is God 
 tous. Itis hence also used by periphrasis for Θεὸς, as in the Book 
 of Wisdom, xvili. 9, 5 τῆς θειότητος νόμος. The quality which first 
 impresses itself upon man, is omnipotence; Paul, however, here 
 seeks to express that this omnipotence is not blind, but that along 
 with it we come to have a sense of the other divine attributes. In 
 like manner, in the 13th chapter of the Book of Wisdom the author 
 endeavours to show how the observations of nature ought to have 
 awakened the heathen to the consciousness of God. The passage 
 so strongly resembles that on which we are commenting, that one 
 might almost imagine St. Paul to have had it in his eye, if the subject 
 were not so much a locus communis among the Jewish doctors, as 
 makes it easy to suppose a fortuitous accordance between the two 
 writers. Calvin: Non recenset autem sigillatim que in Deo consi- 
 derari possunt, sed docet ad zternam usque ejus potentiam et divini- 
 tatem perveniri. Nam qui omnium est auctor, eum oportet sine initio 
 esse et a seipso. Ubi eo ventum est, jam se profert divinitas, Que 
 nisi cum singulis Dei virtutibus nequit consistere, quando sub ea 
 omnes continentur. 
 
 ἀπὸ κτίσεως χόσμου. ‘The ἀπὸ may mean either by or since. In 
 the former sense, it is found even in the New Testament united with 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 20, 21. 59 
 
 γινώσκειν, Mat. vil. 16 and 20, but that sense is far more frequently 
 expressed by ix, aS ix τῶν ὀνύχων λέοντος; and being here moreover 
 contained in the woujuace it is more correct to give to ἀπὸ the second 
 meaning of since as dx’ ἀεχῆς κτίσεως, Mark x. 6, Ecclesiasticus xvi. 
 25. Of χοσμοὺ; it may be remarked, that what is termed the physico- 
 theological proof lies already in the etymon of the word. (Plin. 
 Hist. Nat. 1. ii. c. 4.) 
 
 τοὺς ποιήμασι νοούμενα καθορᾶται. On the ποιήμασυ νοούμενα Bengel 
 observes, Incomparabile oxymoron! Invisibilia Dei, si unquam, certe 
 in creatione facta essent visibilia, sed tum quoque non nisi per intel- 
 ligentiam. Pelagius: ‘Tam evidenter intellecta sunt, ut conspecta 
 dicantur. In like manner, Arist. De Mundo, 6. 6. πάσῃ θνητῇ φύσει 
 γενόμενος ἀθεώρητος, an’ avrav Tay teywy θεωξείται 6 θεός. ‘There are 
 several who take ποίημα in the sense of action, by God’s operation 
 in the created world. It may unquestionably bear this sense, which 
 the Hebrew nwyn likewise bears, and which has been retained by 
 the LXX., Eccles. vii. 14, vill. 17, Ps. exlii. 5. Plato also (De leg. 
 X.) places in contrast τὼ ποιήματα and τὼ παθηματα τὼν ἀνθρώπων. But 
 it is more natural to hold by the common signification, by means of 
 the creatures. The νοούμενα is illustrative of xadoeara:, an inward 
 exercise of thought and reflection being necessary in order to recog- 
 nize in nature those divine attributes. Mosheim: ‘‘ when we consider 
 them.’’ ‘The meaning of the passage is happily expanded by Eras- 
 mus in his paraphrase. 
 
 εἰς τὸ εἰναὶ" εἰς τὸ used, as it frequently is, in the New Testament 
 for ὥστε. Chrysostom: Καύτοιγε οὐ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα ἐποίησεν ὃ Θεὸς, 
 εἰ χαὺ τοῦτο ἐξέδη. Οὐ γὰς ἵνα αὐτοὺς ἀπολογίας ἀποστεξήσῃ»ν διδασκαλ- 
 tay τοσαύτην εἰς μέσον προύθηκεν; ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα αὐτὸν ἐπὺγνῶσιν.ἕ To which 
 observation Gicumenius appends the exegetic rule: Ieooeze your του- 
 ούτῳ ἰδιώματι τῆς Yeahs, καὶ od προσχόψεις. πολλὼ γὰρ τοιαῦτα πανταχοῦ 
 λέγονται; ἃ δεῖ λύειν οὕτως: ὡς Ex τοὺ ἀποτελέσματος αἰτιολογούμενα.Ἷ 
 
 V. 21. According to the syntax, the διότι refers to ἀναπολογήτους» 
 as illustrative of why they are without excuse. According to the 
 sense, however, and connection with the entire preceding context, it 
 is, as we have already said, an explication of the xazéyew in verse 18. 
 The general assertion formerly made by the Apostle, that the origi- 
 nal knowledge of God was merely suppressed by the heathen, he 
 now establishes by showing how they came, first to entertain un- 
 worthy conceptions, and afterwards, as a natural consequence, to 
 make unworthy representations of the Divine Being. In the Old 
 Testament they are also styled os naw, forgetters of God, Ps. 
 ix. 17. Their true apprehensions of God were suppressed, and then 
 
 * God did not make them for this end. Although it has so turned out. The 
 great lesson he brought forward was not intended to deprive them of an ex- 
 cuse, but that they might learn to know himself. 
 
 + Give heed to such idioms and you will not err. For many such things 
 are everywhere said which require to be resolved, as specifying the cause 
 from the event, 
 
60 CHAPTER I. v. 21. 22. 
 
 false and unworthy gods substituted in the place of Him who is 
 almighty and holy. It was thus that the heathen, as Jeremiah up- 
 braids the Jews, committed two great evils. ‘They forsook the 
 fountain of living waters, and hewed out for them broken cisterns 
 that could hold no water. And their guilt in this respect, as Thomas 
 Aquinas observes, was in reality twofold. An offence, which is the 
 offspring of ignorance, is forgiven, but it waxes doubly heinous when 
 that ignorance itself is culpable; just as he commits a double crime, 
 who first intoxicates himself, and then perpetrates a murder. 
 
 The two duties of δσξάζειν and εὐχαριστεῖν are thus illustrated by 
 Melanethon. 700 glorify God as God, is to acknowledge him in the 
 integrity of his divine attributes, and then, for the sake of these, to 
 love, invoke, and fear him. 1700 be thankful to him, is to acknow- 
 ledge that God manifests actively all these attributes in the direction 
 and government of the world, Now, in so far as men mistook these 
 positive duties, implied in their state of relationship to God, the 
 negative found place, they formed erroneous conceptions of his nature. 
 
 The verb ματαιοῦσθαι has in the LXX. the double signification of 
 irritum fieri and stultum fieri, like “Don. The Vulgate takes the 
 first, and translates, evanuerunt. And so likewise, or nearly so, 
 many of the expositors. Erasmus has frustrati sunt, to wit, in their 
 attempts to bring some great discovery to light by their researches. 
 The other signification, however, appears the more eligible, were it 
 for no other reason than that the delusion consisted chiefly in the 
 adoration of false deities, which in Acts xiv. 15, are styled τὰ μάταια. 
 According to this view, Calvin expounds correctly as follows: Dere- 
 licta Dei veritate, ad sensus sui vanitatem conversi sunt, cujus omnis 
 perspicacia inanis est. Hee illa est injustitia, quod semen rect 
 ΠΟΙ: mox sua pravitate suffocent, priusquam in segetem emergat. 
 
 ἐν toes διαλογισμοῖς. The word διαλογισμὸς is generally used in a 
 bad sense, Rom. xiv. 1, 1 Cor. iii. 20. All the thinking of man is 
 only the manifestation of his mind, his inward being. Hence, in as 
 far as that was turned away from God, his thoughts with respect to 
 God, took likewise a perverse direction; his conceptions became 
 foolish, as religious and moral error is always the consequence of 
 religious and moral perversity, upon which it has also a reflex opera- 
 tion. Kaedva, like the Hebrew 39, is a designation of the entire in- 
 ward man, the disposition; here the inward and immediate sense 
 of divine things. ‘This was originally ἀλήθεια or φῶς» as Christ, Mat. 
 vi. 22, calls it, but now it has lost its vigour, 7. e. was darkened. 
 
 V. 22. It is the invariable property of error in morals and religion, 
 that men take credit to themselves for it, and extol itas wisdom. So 
 the heathen. ‘They were proud of their knowledge in general, and 
 boasted of their learning. 1 Cor. i. 21. Philosophy made them 
 vain also of their discernment of divine things. Notwithstanding all 
 this, however, on the subject of the Deity they laboured under the 
 greatest delusion. With regard even to their philosophers, it may 
 be true that they were not enslaved by the common idolatry; still the 
 
CHAPTER. ν. 23. 61 
 
 pantheistical doctrines which they entertained were closely allied to 
 polytheism, and served it as a kind of defence, by representing it as 
 involving some profounder meaning. ‘The word φάσκχω is not with- 
 out emphasis. It most frequently denotes in Greek the vawnting of 
 a pretender. See Wetstein and Kypke, ἃ. ἢ. 1. and Sturz. Lex. 
 Xen. Hence the proverbial expression οὗ φιλοσοφεῖν φάσκοντες. Ci- 
 cero, (Tusc. 1. i. 6. 9.) Qui se sapientes esse profitentur. Comp. 
 LXX. Jer. x. 14. 
 
 V. 23. Chrysostom, πρῶτον ἔγκλημα; ὅτυ Θεὸν οὐχ ebeor δεύτεξον; 
 OTL χαὺ ἀφορμὰς ἔχοντες μεγάλας καὺ σαφεῖς" τρίτον, ὅτι σοφοὶ λέγοντες 
 εὐναυ" TETAETOV, OTL οὐ μόνον οὐχ εὗδον, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς δαίμονας κατήγαγον: 
 καὺ λίθους, καὶ ξύλα τὸ σέβας ἐκεῦνο....τὴν yae γνῶσιν ἣν ἔδευ περὶ τοῦ 
 πάντων ἀσυγκείτως ὑπεξφέχοντος ἔχειν, ταύτην τῷ πάντων ἀσυγχξύτως εὖτε- 
 λεστέρῳ περφιέθηχαν.ἢ Lact. (Inst. Div. ]. ii. c. 6.) Duplici ra- 
 tione peccatur ab insipientibus, quod elementa, id est, Dei opera Deo 
 preferunt, deinde quod elementorum ipsorum figuras colunt. Verse 
 21. merely pointed to the error so long as it was confined to the mind 
 of the deluded sages, here the Apostle shows how it manifested itself 
 externally. ‘The false conceptions of God gave rise to false repre- 
 sentations of him. 
 
 Kai ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ apdaerov Θεοῦ. ‘The Apostle’s object is 
 to set forth the infinite distance of God from all created beings; and, 
 hence the contrast between δόξα ἀφθάφτον Θεοῦ and POaerds ἄνθρωπος. 
 ἀλλάσσειν τὴν δόξαν Θεοῦ, 15 an Old ‘Testament expression, ἡ 1123 V3" 
 found in Ps. evi. 20, Jer. ii. 11, Hoseaiv. 7. The Hebrew word 
 713 denotes generally the discovery or manifestation of the being 
 of God, and more particularly his majesty and glory. With the 
 7123 of the invisible glory is contrasted the εἰκών. But the polytheists 
 did not even choose the image of the noblest among the perishing 
 creatures; they had recourse to that of brutes, yea, even of the most 
 despicable of these. 
 
 Ἔν duousuari instead of εἰς ὁμοίωμα, according to the usual substitu- 
 tion of ἐν for εἰς, when it is a translation of the Hebrew 2. So Ps. 
 ev. 10, ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁμοιώματι μόσχου. ὋὉμοίωμα εἰχό- 
 vos is also a Hebraism instead of εἰς εἰκόνα ὁμοῖον DO¥ ὨΊΪ)Ἴ9. Similar 
 passages are found in Philo the monotheist. See Wetstein and Carp- 
 zovius, 5. h.]. See also in Josephus, the passage c. Apion, 1, 2, 
 where, in forcible terms, he paints how unfit even the noblest sub- 
 stances are to represent the glory of the invisible Jehovah. 
 
 * The first charge is, that they did not find God; the second, that they failed 
 to do so, although favoured with the best and most manifest opportunities; 
 the third, that they failed, though calling themselves wise; and the fourth, 
 that they not merely did not find him, but degraded his worship to demons 
 and stones and blocks...... The knowledge which they ought to have had con- 
 cerning him who is incomparably the most excellent of all, they transferred 
 to that which is incomparably the most vile. 
 
62 CHAPTER I. v. 24. 
 
 PHT) Vs 
 
 EXPLICATION O* THE THESIS IN THE CASE OF THE HEATHEN, WITH 
 REFERENCE TO THE PRACTICAL DEPRAVITY INTO WHICH THEY SANK 
 IN CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR SPECULATIVE ERRORS. v. 24—382. 
 
 Tue Apostle, in the sequel, sketches from the life a picture of the 
 monstrous immoralities of the heathen. This subserves his design, 
 which is to manifest their guiltiness and need of a Saviour. At the 
 same time, however, he represents their moral depravity in the as- 
 pect of a divine judgment. Nor is there any discrepancy in these 
 two views. For, seeing that in God’s government of the world, a 
 sense of guilt and physical evil are inseparably connected with sin, 
 in so far the divine condemnation is thereby always connected with 
 it. John iii. 19. Here the Apostle’s attention is principally directed 
 to that arrangement in the moral economy of the world, by virtue of 
 which, the obscuration of a man’s knowledge of God, blinds him 
 with respect to practical duty, so as that he becomes capable of dis- 
 honouring himself. '‘Theophylact: ὃ yae τὸν Sedv μὴ Sérwy εὐδέναυ; εὖ- 
 ϑὺς χαὺ κατὰ τὸν βίον ScapSeveerar.* Even the heathen had observed 
 how irreligious men become blinded and enslaved to error as to 
 practical duties, falling into the ἀδόχιμος vows, of which Paul speaks, 
 v. 28; and in this they saw a moral Nemesis of the gods. Lycurg. 
 adv. Leocr. p. 213. Οὗ γὰρ Seot οὐδὲν πρότερον ποιοῦσιν ἢ τῶν πονηρῶν 
 ἀνθρώπων τὴν διάνοιαν παράγουσι.ἱ So likewise the verses of Eu- 
 ripides, 
 
 ὅταν γὰρ ὀργὴ δαιμιύνων βλάπτει τινὰ, 
 τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸ πεῶτον ἐξαφαιρεῖται φρενῶν 
 τὸν γοῦν τὸν ἐσθλὸν, εἴς TE τὴν χείρω τρέπει 
 γνώμην" ἵν᾽ εἰδὴ μηδὲν ὧν ἁμαρτάνει. 
 
 See Ruhnken ad 8116]. Pat. ii. c. 57. With regard to the present 
 case, it is obvious that such a thing as a deification of nature, could 
 only be introduced where there was a defect in the religious and 
 moral sense. On the other hand, however, it was also inevitable 
 that, when once the worship of nature was established, the religious 
 and moral sense would, even from infancy, be enfeebled, and at last 
 gradually destroyed; whence immorality would necessarily arise. 
 In like manner, as a tendency towards nature, as such, is the peculiar 
 
 * He that will not know God is speedily corrupted also in his morals. 
 + There is nothing more common for the gods to do than pervert the minds 
 of wicked men. 
 
CHAPTER I. v. 24. 63 
 
 property of both pantheism and polytheism, so is the native tendency 
 of theism towards morality. We may form a still more precise con- 
 ception of the retribution thus inflicted upon the heathen. God had 
 been degraded not only beneath the divine, but even beneath the hu- 
 man dignity, being represented in the form of a beast. Hence, 
 according to the secret laws of this aberration, man came at last to 
 sink not only below his own rank, but below the brutes themselves. 
 The differentia constitutiva between man and the other animals is the 
 gift of reason. But this distinction is done away for the time during 
 which the blind sinful inclination is awake: and where that is per- 
 mitted Jong and powerfully to predominate, the understanding is 
 utterly destroyed, and man sinks to a perfect level with the brute. 
 Nay, by certain unnatural crimes, repugnant to the brute itself, he 
 even debased himself lower. A terrific judgment! 
 
 Διὸ xa’ παρέδωχεν. What has been said above determines the 
 sense of παρέδωχεν. It signifies neither a violent compulsion, nor 
 yet a mere passive permission. Having once ordained as a Jaw of 
 his moral government, that practical transgression should emanate 
 from the suppression of divine knowledge in the mind of man, God 
 did not, in the present instance, suspend this law, but suffered it to 
 come into operation; and thus by his judgment was evil begotten of 
 evil. It is hence obvious, that in another point of view, it might also 
 be said of the heathen, that they gave themselves up. Eph. iv. 19. 
 Strikingly illustrative of this meaning of παρέδωχεν 15 the passage of 
 Ecclesiasticus iv. 19, where the author speaks of the conduct of di- 
 vine wisdom towards the man who voluntarily deviates from her 
 ways. ‘* Butif he go wrong she will forsake him, and give him over 
 to his own ruin.” Comp. Acts vii.42. Chrysostom: Kas γὰς εἴ 7υς 
 βασιλέως υἱὸς ὧν, Tov malign ἀ7ιμάσας ἕλοι7ο εἶναν me7a λῃσήῶν; καὶ ἀνδρο- 
 φόνων; χαὺ TyuBoevyar, καὶ 7ὰ ἐχεύνων προ͵ιμήσειε τῆς malegas οἰκίας; 
 ἀφίησιν αὐ7ὸν ὃ πα7ὴδν dole δια Ths πείρας αὐτῆς μαθεῖν Τῆς οἰκείας ἀνοίας 
 7ὴν ὑπερβολήν. Compare Calvin, ad. ἢ. 1. 
 
 ἐν Tavs ἐπιθυμίαις. ‘This is most frequently coupled with ἀχαθαξσίαν, 
 which again is made to depend upon wagédaxev" and the passage is 
 rendered, he “gave them up through their lusts to uncleanness.”’ 
 But the Hebrew mode of construction is the most proper, according 
 to which, ἐν stands for εἰς, and the εἰς dxadagovay is regarded as an 
 elucidation of ἐν ἐπιθυμίαις. ‘Thus in the Hebrew, substantives in- 
 tended to illustrate substantives going before, are connected with them 
 by 5. ‘*He gave them up to their lusts, to uncleanness, 7. 6. so that 
 they become unclean.”” ’Axafagova principally sensualities. 
 
 Tov ἀγιμάξεσθαι Koppe very needlessly supposes passive. It is 
 better to suppose it medial, and that ἐν éav7ocs stands for ἐν ἀλλήλοις» 
 
 * Were any king’s son, despising his father, to join himself to robbers, 
 murderers, and violators of tombs, and prefer their company to his home, the 
 father leaves him to himself, in order that he may learn from experience the 
 excess of his folly. 
 
64 CHAPTER I. V. 25. 
 
 for which it is substituted, Eph. iv. 32, and below, v. 27. It is so 
 likewise even, in classical authors. See Ast. ad Plat. leg. p. 74. 
 
 Ver. 25. οἵτινες» as being such, to be resolved by yap. ‘This verse 
 is only to be regarded as an illustrative parenthesis intended to point 
 out the retributive nature of their self-inflicted dishonour. 
 
 μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει. ‘The words ἀλήϑεια 
 and ψεῦδος may be regarded as they have been by most interpreters, 
 as abstracta pro concretis. In which case, ψεῦδος requires to be 
 translated idol, what is not God. Thus in Hebrew the Pagan dei- 
 ties are often called “py, Is. xliv. 20; Jer. iil. 10, ΧΗ]. 25. ᾿Αληϑειαν 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ, according to a well known Hebraism, would then be equi- 
 valent to Θεὸς ἀληδὴς» and the passage of Philo, 1. 3, De vita Mosis, 
 p- 578, would furnish a striking parallel, where that author says, of 
 the Israelites who had made the golden calf, that Moses was amazed, 
 ὅσον ψεῦδος ἀνθ᾽ ὅσης ἀληθείας ὑτιηλλάξαντο. “ἡ It is possible, however, 
 that ἀλήθευα may here signify the nature of God, in contradistinction 
 to that which is ascribed to him when he 15 represented as corporeal, 
 and resembling the creatures. Ψεῦδος would then mean his imagi- 
 nary nature. ‘This signification of ἀλήθεια is frequent even among 
 profane authors, 6. g. Aulian, Hist. Var. Τὰ, li. c. 8. ἕππος ἐν eixove 
 stands in distinction to ἀληθεινὸς ἵππος. Polyb. Hist. 1. 84, 6, ἐπ᾽ 
 αὐτῆς ἀληθείας ἣν ovvedecv, “ Be convinced by the thing itself.” 1014. 
 iii. 115, 2. μάχη ἀληθινή. Cicero (‘Tusc. Ὁ. 1. 5,) c. 1, uses pictura 
 and imagines virtutum for res and veritas. Ambrose explains the 
 passage as follows: Nomen Dei, qui verus est, dederunt his qui non 
 sunt Dei. Lapidibus enim, vel lignis, vel ceteris metallis auferentes 
 quod sunt, dant illis quod nont sunt, hoe est immutare verum in fal- 
 sum. So also Calvin. Neither is it a bad exposition of Wolf to 
 understand by ἀλήθεια the innate idea of God, and by ψεῦδος the same 
 in its obscured form. 
 
 ᾿Εσεϑάσθησαν. Σεδάζομαι is Synonymous with σέδεσθαι and λατρεύειν. 
 Only some will here have ce6a2ecdar stand for inward reverence, in 
 order that λατρεύειν, which properly signifies external worship, may 
 preserve that meaning exclusively to itself. 
 
 παξὰ τὸν xricavza is by some rendered passing by the Creator, as 
 Beza, Grotius, Heumann, and among the ancients, Hilarius. But, 
 although occasionally παξὼ may have this meaning, it is not the one 
 which it most frequently bears. The LXX., Josephus and Philo 
 use it always as the comparative particle, expressing the same as the 
 Hebrew 725, above, more than, Xenoph. Mem. i. 4, 14, maga τὰ ἄλλα 
 ζῶα ὥσπερ θεοὶ of ἄνθξωπου διοτεύουσι. So likewise the Syrian. ‘The 
 same thought which is here expressed by the Apostle, is found also 
 expressed by Philo (De Opif. m. p. 2.) τινὲς τὸν κόσμον μάλλον ἢ τὸν 
 χοσμοποιὸν θαυμάσαντες. It is a doubtful point, however, whether. 
 Paul means, that the deities represented by statues, were powers of 
 nature, in which case he contends against a theologia naturalis, or 
 
 * What a lie they had substituted for how great a reality! 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 26, 27. 65 
 
 whether his thought be, that inasmuch as these representations were 
 material, matter was the object of adoration to the heathen. 
 
 ὃς ἔστιν εὐλογητός. This doxology it is customary both for Jews 
 and Mahometans to append to the name of God, whenever any thing 
 unworthy requires to be said of the Divine Being, as if the writer 
 wishes to remove every suspicion of his acquiescing in the impious 
 words. In an Arabian work, Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. Berol. on*the 
 various religious sects of Isfrajini, the pious Mahometan subjoins 
 after every heresy of which he makes mention: “ God is exalted 
 above what they say.’’ Doxologies of the kind are found elsewhere 
 in Paul’s writings, Gal. i. 5, 2Cor. xi. 31. εὐλογητὸς worthy of 
 praise, blessed. Chrysostom: ἀλλ᾽ od διὰ 7οῦτό τι παξεδλάδη; φησίν" 
 αὐτὸς μὲν γὰρ εἰς Τοὺς αἰῶνας εὐλογηΐῆος. ’Ev7avda δείκνυσιν Ore οὐχ ἑαυγῷ 
 ἀμύνων εἴασεν avJovs, ὅπουγε αὐ7ὸς οὐδὲν ἔπασχεν. ἢ 
 
 V. 26. After having thus pointed out the retributive hand of God 
 manifested by the accordance between the penalty inflicted upon the 
 sin, and the sin itself, he resumes the delineation of the former, which 
 had been commenced in verse 24, and he uses the same words to 
 connect as he had there done. Unnatural lust, of which the Apostle 
 here speaks as the lowest stage of debasement, prevailed in the old 
 world amongst most heathen nations. In Greece it was in some 
 places forbidden by law, in others, as for example in Crete, tolerated 
 by the state. At the period in which our Apostle writes, it broke out 
 to the most revolting extent not only at Rome, but over the whole 
 empire. He who is unacquainted with the historical monuments of 
 that age, especially Petronius, Suetonius, Martial, and Juneval, can 
 scarcely figure to himself these excesses so frightful as they really 
 were. A view into this moral corruption has been opened up by 
 Meiners in his Geschichte des Verfalls der Sitten und der Staatsver- 
 fassung der Rimer, Leipzig, 1791. See also Neander’s Denkwur- 
 digkeiten, Ὁ. i. s. 143. 
 
 maby ἀτιμίας by a Hebrew idiom for ἀτιμότατα. Chrysostom: πάσ- 
 Hel ἐν τοῖς ἁμαφτήμασιν ἡ ψυχὴ μᾶλλον, καὶ καταισχύνεταυ, ἢ TO σῶμα ἐν 
 τοῖς νοσήμασι.Ϊ ‘Ihe Apostle here mentions, in the first instance, the 
 shamelessness of that sex, to which modesty is indispensable. The 
 degeneracy of women is spoken of by Seneca, (Ep. 95.) Martial, 
 (Epigr. 1. 1. ep. 90, ad Bassam,) Atheneus, (Deipnos, 1. 13, p. 605.) 
 Women addicted to the crime alluded to were common in Lesbos, 
 and were called τειβάδες, Erarecorevar.—Xerous, USUS Venereus. 
 
 V. 27. ἐξεχαύθησαν, ᾿Εχκαίω antique ἐχχαύω, also ardere, and xara- 
 φλέγω; αἴθεσθαυ τῷ ἔφωτι are usual expressions for lascivious desires, 
 80 teeSus.— ’ Αντιυμισθία, Merces par opere.—’ Ey ἑαυτοῖς. "Ev, like the 
 
 * But thereby, says the Apostle, he received no wrong, for he is blessed for 
 ever. Here he shows, that it could not be to avenge himself that God gave 
 them up, for he suffered nothing. 
 
 Ἶ t More than the body by disease does the soul suffer, and is put to shame, 
 y sin. 
 
66 CHAPTER I. v. 28. 
 
 Hebrew 3, instrumentum. ἑαυτοις stands for ἀλλήλοις one by another. 
 —TIladvy is, in the Septuagint, the translation of yw, revolts it also 
 means idolatry. 
 
 Of the punishment itself Theodoret thus speaks: ὃ yae οὐδεὶς αὐτοὺς 
 τῶν πολεμίων ἐπειράθη διαθεῦῖναυ More, ταῦτα μετὰ πάσης ἀσπάζονται πξο- 
 θυμίας᾽ καὶ ἣν οὐδεὶς ἂν αὐτῶν δικαστὴς κατεψηφίσατο τιμωρίαν, ταύτην 
 αὐτοὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἐπισπωνται. Chrysostom, ᾿Επειδὴ yae need γεέννης 
 καὶ κολάσεως λέγων, VEY οὐχ ἐδόχευ πιστὸς ELVAL τοῖς ἀσεβέσιν» καὶ οὕτω ζῇν 
 πεοαιξουμένοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταγέλαστος, δείκνυσιν ἐν ἀυτῇ τῇ ἡδονῇ ταύτην 
 τὴν κόλασιν οὖσαν. εὖ δὲ οὐκ αἰσθάνονται» ἀλλ᾽ ἥδονται, μὴ θαυμάσῃς" καὶ 
 ae χαὶ οἱ μαινόμενον χαὶ οἱ φξενίτιδι κατεχόμενον νόσῳ πολλὼ ἑαυτοὺς 
 GOuXOVvYTES, καὶ ἐλεεινὰ πράσσοντες: ἐφ᾽ οἷς αὐτοὺς ET ECOL δαχρύουσι; γελῶσι 
 καὶ Evrevpace τοῖς γινομένους αὐτοί. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ διὰ τοῦτό φαμεν αὐτοὺς ἀπην- 
 λάχθαν χολάσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ δὲ αὐτό μὲν οὖν τοῦτο ἐν χαλεπωτέξῳᾳ εἴναν 
 τιμωρίᾳ, OTL οὐδὲ ἴσασιν ἐν οἷς εἰσιν οὐ γὰξ ἀπὸ τῶν νοσούντων 
 GAN ἀπὸτῶν Dyvavovtar, Sev φέρειν τὰς ψήφου ς.ἷ Pelagius: 
 Ita ut quasi amentes ipsi in se suorum sint vindices delictorum. 
 
 V. 28. The Apostle has shown, in v. 21, that the suppression of 
 the innate knowledge of God among the heathen, entailed, as a neces- 
 sary consequence, a perversion of the reflective powers, and wrong 
 conceptions of the deity, such as they ought to have been ashamed 
 of. He extends this thought, and shows that the same cause gave 
 rise to a blindness on moral subjects in general, which was no less 
 disgraceful to them. And it is always found, that the want of a sense 
 of religion blunts the sense for general morality. ‘This, the natural 
 consequence of things, according to the economy of the moral world 
 at present obtaining, and which is founded on the nature of God, the 
 Apostle again lays down, as he had done before in verse 24, as a 
 Divine judgment. 
 
 ἔχειν ἐν ἐπυγνώσεν May be regarded as a circumlocution for the verb 
 invywooxew, according to the common practice of forming such cir- 
 cumlocutions with ἔχειν and ἐν, ἔχειν ἐν dey for deyi2ecbar, ἔχειν ἐν 
 αἰτίαις for αἰγιάσθαι" SO in Latin, in spe habere for sperare. See Vig. 
 ed. Herm. p. 608. In this instance, however, it may possess a pecu- 
 
 * What none of their enemies ever attempted to inflict upon them, they 
 with all alacrity embrace, and what no judge ever decreed as a punishment, 
 they voluntarily entail upon themselves. 
 
 + For as when he spake of hell and punishment, he seemed to the wicked, 
 and such as followed that kind of life, to be now unworthy of belief, and more 
 an object of ridicule; he shows that the punishment of the pleasure lies in 
 the pleasure itself. And though men may not be sensible of this, but rather 
 the contrary, do not you, on that account, be surprised. In the same way, 
 madmen and those who labour under the delirium of a fever, do much injury 
 to themselves, and commit such pitiful things, as make others weep for them; 
 and yet they laugh all the while, and are delighted with what they have done. 
 But we do not, for that reason, pronounce their case to be less unhappy; on 
 the contrary, we deem their misery aggravated by the circumstance that they 
 are unconscious of it. For we must take the opinion, not of the sick, but of 
 them that are whole. 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 28, 29, 30. 67 
 
 liar significancy, like ἔχειν 7ὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μένοντα ἐν ὑμὸν, John v. 
 38. It seems indeed to denote continuance, persevering in the 
 knowledge of God. Aox wae originally means fo prove; then fo 
 favour or choose, and is equivalent to δόκομον ἡγείσθαν" aS δεδοχυμάσ- 
 μεθα, 1 Thes. ii. 4, is also to be understood, Comp. Joseph. Antiq. 
 li. 7, 8, τὰ μὲν οὖν ὀνόμαω δηλῆσαυ τούτων ovx edoxiuagov, Where we 
 must translate it ‘I did not think it right.” The Arabian version 
 gives the meaning ‘as they would not resolve.’ In the English 
 translation, (one which is in many respects admirable,) it is given 
 with great precision, ‘‘as they did not like to retain God in their 
 knowledge.”” Erasmus: Non visum est eis Deum quem cognosce- 
 bant, agnoscere et venerari. 
 
 &Sdxtwoy vovy stands by paronomasia, with reference to ἐδοχύμασαν. 
 ἀδόχιμος may be taken either as active or passive. As active, it would 
 signify a mind incapable of proving, as passive, reprobate. Eras- 
 mus: Mens reproba que omnibus displiceat. The Syrian, a vain 
 mind. Beza characterizes this sense as flat, and doubtless the other, 
 viz. a blinded mind, one that is no longer capable of judging, is far 
 more significant. It casts a stronger light upon the retribution in the 
 case. So Limborch, Wolf, and others. ‘The old French translation, 
 which follows that of Beza, is ‘un jugement dépourvu de tout juge- 
 ment.” Adopting this sense, ἀδόχιμος vovg would be equivalent to 
 dxevoia. It ought, however, to be taken into account, that the use of 
 this word, in an active sense, must be considered as still undemon- 
 strated. It is true, that adjectives in ὑμος, have an active no less than 
 a passive import, as, ex. 27. τρόφιμος, μάχιμος. With most authors, 
 however, they are used almost exclusively in the passive significa- 
 tion. ‘This is likewise the case with dddxcuos, which frequently 
 occurs, both in the classics and in the New Testament. Beza holds 
 that it is employed actively in Tit. i. 16. Thus sometimes νόμισμα 
 ἀδόχυμον, “money which the assayer does not approve,” stands for 
 ov χεήσιμον. Polyb. Hist. vi. 45, 4, ἀδόκιμος gore naga Λακχεδαιυμονιόυς 
 ἡ tov Svapdgov τίμησις. ‘The Lacedemonians declare all the worth 
 of money to be nothing.” 
 
 ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα. This denotes in general actions inconsist- 
 ent with the moral dignity of man. It is well known as a terminus 
 technicus of the Stoics, and by Cicero is translated officia. 
 
 V. 29, 30. Without any definite order the Apostle, as at 2 Tim. iii. 
 2, now enumerates a long catalogue of sins, such as among the hea- 
 then were connected with polytheism. It must not be left out of 
 view that this picture of the corruption of morals must have been the 
 more striking to the Apostle’s readers, inasmuch as they were eye- 
 witnesses of the wild excess to which depravity was carried in the 
 profligate metropolis. See besides the works of Neander and Meiners 
 already referred to, Corn. Adami Observ. Philol. Theol. t. 11. Grotius 
 and Wetstein, a. ἢ. 1. The only testimony we produce of contempo- 
 raries is that of the Greek Pausanias, (Grecizx Descriptio, l. viii. 6. 2.) 
 "Em ἐμοῦ δὲ (xaxia yde δὴ txt πλεῖστον ηὔξετο καὶ γὴν Te ἐπενέμε7ο πᾶσαν. 
 
68 CHAPTER I. ν. 29, 30. 
 
 καὶ πόλεις πάσας) OVE θεὸς ἐγίνετο οὐδεὶς E70 ἐξ ἀνθρώπου πλὴν ὅσον λόγῳ 
 χαὶ χολακείῳ πεὸς τὸ ὑπεξέχον. And that of the Roman Seneca. (De 
 Ira, ]. 11. c. 8.) Omnia sceleribus ac vitiis plena sunt. Plus com- 
 mittitur, quam quod possit coercitione sanari. Certatur ingenti quo- 
 dam nequitiae certamine: major quotidie peccandi cupiditas, minor 
 verecundia est. Expulso melioris aequiorisque respectu, quocunque 
 visum est, libido se impingit; nec furtiva jam scelera sunt, preter 
 oculos eunt. Adeoque in publicum missa nequitia est, et in omnium 
 pectoribus evaluit, ut innocentia non rara sed nulla est. Numquid 
 enim singuli aut pauci rupere legem? Undique, velut signo dato, ad 
 fas nefasque miscendum coorti sunt. 
 
 Tewajeouévor. Even profane authors employ the verba plenitudinis 
 in reference to actions as well as dispositions. Tas, Oe of every 
 kind. 
 
 Ilopyeca is omitted in many manuscripts; by several, it is placed 
 after πονηεία. ‘The Syrian reads wxeva instead of πονηεία. It is 
 obvious, therefore, that either πονηξία or ποενεία is false. Judging 
 from external reasons, the last must be given up. According to in- 
 ternal, the first. πορνεία, if wanting, would be an omission in the 
 specification of all other sins; whereas πονηξία is rendered superfluous 
 by the use of καχία. Still, however, the very circumstance of πορνεία 
 seeming to be absent, furnishes a reason for its having been interpo- 
 lated. 
 
 πονηρία besides xaxia may have the special meaning of cupiditas 
 nocendi, malitia. Ammonius de diff. verb: xaxos πονηξοῦ διαφέρειν 
 ὥσπερ ὃ axaxos Tov ἀγαθοῦ, καχὸς μὲν γὰρ ὃ mavoveyos, πονηξὸς δὲ 6 δδασ- 
 τιχὸς κακοῦ. κακία may however bear the sense of wickedness, which 
 Suidas adopts in this passage. δόλος, Juv. 3,41. Quid Rome fa- 
 ciam? mentiri nescio. Κακοήθεια specially signifies malevolentia. 
 The Vulgate translates it malignitas. Ammon expounds xaxta xe- 
 xevupévy. Ψιθυξιστὴς a secret, καταλάλος an open slanderer. Θεοστυ- 
 yecs may be taken passively, with the circumflex upon the last sylla- 
 ble. This is its usual sense, in which it is synonymous with θεήλατος. 
 Vul. Deo odibiles. But it may also be taken actively, and then it 
 has the accent upon the penult, and means abhorrentes a Deo, being 
 derived from θεοστύγης» a Synonyme of Geoucons, although it cannot be 
 proved that compounds of the third declension, when used in an 
 active sense, change the accent. Thus 'Theodoret, Gicumenius, and 
 Beza. As it is human vices which are here spoken of, the active 
 appears the more probable signification, and it would immediately 
 lead the mind to think of those heathen mentioned by Cyprian, who, 
 whenever a calamity befell them, used to cast the blame of it upon 
 God, and denied a providence. Superstition, however, even begat 
 a hatred of the gods, as is shown by Plutarch in his work, weed devoe- 
 δαυμονίας. Ὑδρισταὶ is often, by Josephus, placed side by side with 
 doe6qs, the former denoting pride towards a fellow creature, the 
 latter towards God. ‘The emperors uttered the most shameful inde- 
 cencies in the ears of honourable men, and forced them to actions of 
 
CHAPTER I. V. 31, 32. 69 
 
 the same kind. See fearful vouchers of this fact, in the life of Helio- 
 gabalus by lius Lampridius, in Script. Hist. Aug. Ὑπεξφηφάνους. 
 Theoph: χαταφεόνησις πλὴν αὐτοῦ τῶν ἄλλων. ᾿Αλαζόνας ‘This vice 
 defined by Plato ἕξις περοσποιητικὴ ἀγαθοῦ ἢ ἀγαθῶν μὴ ὑπαφχόντων 
 Polybius (Hist. 4. 8, 1.) speaks οἵ an ἔμφυτος ἀλαζονεία among the 
 AMtolians. Plautus translates ἀλαϑὼν gloriosus. Martial describes 
 the manners of the Romans as personatos. ’Epeveérau κακῶν. 2 Mace. 
 Vil. 31. Σὺ δὲ πάσης κακίας εὑξφετὴς γενόμενος. Philo uses the same 
 expression. ‘T'acitus, Repertores flagitiorum. In these times, new 
 refinements in pleasure and luxury, and new tortures and cruelties 
 were invented every day. 
 
 V. 31. ᾽᾿Ασύνεου in the Hebrew sense, in which paeds elsewhere 
 appears, signifies stupid about things divine, and comprehends 
 moral delinquency. Comp. Ecclesiasticus xv. 7, 8, where ἀσύνεου 
 and ἀμαε)ωλοὶ are placed parallel to each other. “AcJogyo. without 
 affection for relations, especially without filial and parental love. 
 Emperors murdered their parents, and violated their sisters. “Aozov- 
 δου is by some codices improperly omitted, perhaps from having been 
 thought entirely synonymous with ἀσύνθε7ου" it has the peculiar mean- 
 ing of implacable. So the Syrian and Vulgate. Polyb. (Hist. 1. 
 65, 6,) speaks of a πόλεμος ἄσπονδος, a war for life or death, and 'Ta- 
 citus says of the Romans of his age: Non sperandum esse, ut qui 
 pacem belli amore turbarent, bellum pacis charitate deponerent. 
 ᾿Ανελεήμονεςς Melancthon: Crudelis est qui ledit alium atrociter sine 
 justa causa, immisericors, qui, cum probabilis causa est, non mitigat 
 justam asperitatem. 
 
 V. 32. By these words the Apostle, on the one hand seeks to com- 
 plete the picture of the moral corruption of the heathen, by specifying, 
 as it were, its extreme point, and on the other, intends again to in- 
 culcate the leading thought, that on account of that moral corruption, 
 they are involved in guilt. Accordingly, he refers back to the fact 
 that they have an inward law (c. ii. 14,) which in spite of the sup- 
 pression of their original knowledge of God, avouches to them the 
 baseness of their dispositions. With respect to his designing in 
 these words to mark as it were the acme of the depravity, this may 
 seem less fully attained, inasmuch as to approve of wickedness may 
 be thought less criminal than the commission of it. It must, how- 
 ever, be remarked, that in many instances, civil law prevents the 
 breaking out of evil, and that what chiefly imparts moral worth to 
 man is the nature of his dispositions or inclinations. Moreover, there 
 are many manifestations of sin which emanate from the momentary 
 power of passion, and are afterwards seriously repented; and hence 
 it implies a higher degree of depravity, when in cold blood we can 
 find satisfaction in the wickedness of others. ‘The scope of the 
 Apostle is contravened, by supposing, as Grotius does, that the phi- 
 losophers are here intended, as those who, even in theory, had pro- 
 nounced certain sins to be lawful; Aristotle justifying revenge, and 
 
70 CHAPTER I. ν. 32. 
 
 the Epicurians and Stoies sodomy and incest. The Apostle evidently 
 speaks of something which applies to the heathen as such. 
 
 Δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ equivalent to pn law or ordinance. In profane 
 authors, sentence, right, statute. Melancthon, correctly: Lex na- 
 turze eademque Dei; est enim lux a Deo in mentibus nostris condita. 
 
 ἀξιοι θανάτου. @avayos may either be taken in a more extensive 
 sense for misery, punishment, or in a more confined for death, the 
 greatest of all bodily punishments for the greatest of all transgres- 
 sions, defection from God, which is manifest in these sins. 
 
 We have still to mention another reading, given among the Greeks 
 by Isidorus Pelusiota, so early as the fifth century, and which has 
 found its way into the Vulgate: οὐ μόνον οἱ ποιοῦν7ες αὐτὼ ἀλλὰ καὶ οὐ 
 cvvevdoxorv7es. It is, however, neither confirmed by external au- 
 thority, nor does it harmonize with the context or the scope of the 
 Apostle. And there are just as few reasons, external and internal, 
 to approve of the interpolation of od συνῆχαν before ὅτι», which has 
 been made in some later codices and the Vulgate, which thus trans- 
 lates: Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent non intellexerunt quoniam 
 (quod) .... morte digni sunt. This reading has obviously had its 
 source in the inability of those who praposed it to seize the profound 
 meaning in the words of Paul, which led them to substitute another, 
 in order to escape from their embarrassment. 
 
CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 _ Arter having thus described the miserable state of the heathen through sin, 
 the Apostle turns to the Jews, who looked upon themselves as greatly su- 
 perior; and at first, by evident allusions, without directly naming them, but 
 afterwards using undisguised rebukes, he shows that their condition is 
 even worse than that of the heathen, because, while the perfect knowledge 
 with which they are favoured, and on which they place reliance, increases 
 their responsibility, they still manifested no greater holiness in their life. 
 Accordingly God, whose decisions are never influenced by partiality, must 
 necessarily judge the Jews, supposing their dispositions to be worse, by a 
 severer rule than the heathen. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. The mere knowledge of what is good does not free from sin. V. 1—11. 
 
 2. God judges of men according to the different means of grace and degrees 
 of knowledge vouchsafed to them. V. 12—16. 
 
 3: By this rule, the Jew, who is favoured with a variety of means of grace 
 and superior knowledge, and still breaks the law, is worse than the 
 heathen, who, without these external advantages, is faithful to the law 
 within him. V. 17—29. 
 
 PAR ΤΥ. 
 
 THE MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WHICH IS GOOD DOES NOT EXEMPT 
 FROM SIN. v. 1--ὶ], : 
 
 V. 1. Ir entered into the plan of the Apostle to speak of the Jews 
 as well as the Gentiles, and prove to them also their need of salva- 
 tion. A natural transition to this subject here presented itself. In 
 the last verse of the first chapter, he incidentally mentioned that the 
 heathen, although possessing a knowledge of the Divine will, ap- 
 proved notwithstanding of sin; and this very naturally called his 
 countrymen, the Jews, to his remembrance, who were always ready 
 to condemn the heathen as sinners, and who might, from the judg- 
 ment he had pronounced, have taken occasion for vain glory. He 
 does not as yet, however, openly state the contrast between those 
 who recognize sin to be criminal, and yet approve of and take plea- 
 sure in it, and those who, although they condemn, still practise if, as 
 
“9, CHAPTER II. V. ]. 
 
 a contrast obtaining between heathens and Jews; but he states it, 
 which indeed it is, as one applicable to all men. He thus in some 
 sort, divides mankind into avowed sinners and pretended saints. In 
 a way precisely similar, he had said in v. xvill. 6. 1, 2nd πᾶσαν aoé- 
 δειαν τῶν κατεχόντων, Where the truth is brought forward as of univer- 
 sal application. Bugenhagen: Hec non solum de Judzis accipienda, 
 verum de omnibus hominibus qui faciles sunt ad judicandum alios, 
 tamen precipue de Judzis dicuntur. ‘That St. Paul, in this general 
 address, has the Jews principally in view, appears more clearly even 
 at the 4th and 5th verse, and at the 11th it comes fully into light. 
 Augustine (Prop, 8.) and Stolz take the same view. The context is 
 decisive against supposing with Clericus, that he here speaks of the 
 Gentile philosophers, or with Chrysostom, Theodoret and Grotius, 
 of the Gentile magistrates. It is also decisive against the opinion of 
 Calvin, that he alludes to the mutual judgments which the heathens 
 passed upon each other. 
 
 Aw. ‘To what this causal particle refers, it is not easy to say, as 
 we should rather have expected one expressive of a contrast; such 
 as ἀλλά. We must presume, that the Apostle had in view, what does 
 not at once meet the eye, a causal connection between the inexcusa- 
 bleness of the person judging, and tlie 32d verse; and this, as Gro- 
 tius has remarked, is just that connection which we have already 
 sought to trace. He very frequently appends a long explication to 
 a thought founded but not enunciated, or perhaps only incidentally 
 expressed in the preceding context. ‘The διὸ here denotes some 
 such sequence of ideas as the following. ‘I have upbraided those 
 who, having a sense of what is right, approve of sin in others. By 
 this, however, it is not meant that Crery one is justified who merely 
 condemns his neighbour.” 
 
 ὦ ἀνθξωπε. Donatus upon erent. Adelph. i. 2, 31. Homo de 
 iis dicimus, quos parce reprehendimus. So Plut. De Superstitione, 
 C. 7: ἔα me, ἄνθρωπε; διδόναι δίκην. 
 
 ἐν ᾧ may signify after the Hebrew, because that, like wx3; so 
 Erasmus and Beza. It may also be taken in the Hebrew accepta- 
 lion, in the matter wherein. So the Vulgate. This gives force to 
 the conclusion. 
 
 xevvers, according to the Hebrew, synonymous with χαταχείνω. It 
 may, perhaps, appear extraordinary in the Apostle to assume, as he 
 here does, that the Jews would at once acknowledge that with which 
 he charges them. But, in the first place, he as yet speaks, withdut 
 having named the Jew, and only covertly summons him, as it were, 
 to search his conscience; just as Jesus did with the Pharisees, in the 
 case of the adulteress. Moreover, it must also be remarked, that at 
 this period, depravity among the Jews was unprecedentedly great. 
 In proof of which, we require only to open Josephus, and peruse his 
 delineation of the life of the courtiers, and history of the court of 
 Herod the Great. 
 
 V.2. The connection of this with the preceding verse is well 
 
CHAPTER II. Vv. 2; 3, 4. 73 
 
 given by Calvin: Concilium Pauli est blanditias hypocritis excutere, 
 ne se magnum aliquod adeptos putent, si vel a mundo laudentur, vel 
 se ipsi absolvant; quia longe aliud examen eos in celo maneat. 
 
 οἴδαμεν. Koppe deems that there is here an allusion to the Jews, 
 who boasted that they alone possessed the true knowledge. But the 
 Apostle has rather in view, those apprehensions of a divine judgment, 
 which are spread among all mankind, and to which he had alluded 
 in verse 32. Grotius: Ipsa ratio nos docet. 
 
 χατὰ ἀλήθειαν in profane authors, is the common form of assevera- 
 tion; in like manner as ὄντως, or τὸ ἀληθές. The Hellenistic dialect 
 generally uses ἐν ἀληθείᾳ OY ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας in this sense. In the LXX. 
 however, zac’ ἀλήθειαν signifies agreeably to truth or justice. 
 According to which Beza expounds correctly: Ex ipsius rei natura, 
 de qua apud Dei tribunal dijudicanda queritur, non ex ulla rect 
 specie. ‘I'his signification likewise agrees better with the train of 
 thought, as Paul is speaking against hypocrites. 
 
 V. 3. The nerve of the first part of the chapter. Knowledge 
 without corresponding dispositions is of no avail. Pelagius: Si enim 
 tu peecatorem tibi similem judicas, quanto magis Deus justus te ju- 
 dicabit injustum? Chrysostom: τὸ σὸν οὐχ ἐξέφυγες xecua, καὶ τὸ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ διαφεύξῃ.ἢ 
 
 V. 4. The Apostle presupposes that the hypocrite, or, to take it 
 now more specially, the Jew, will be too hardened to acknowledge 
 his sinfulness, and will rather choose to infer his innocence from his 
 impunity, which is the common character of hypocrisy; he therefore 
 appeals pointedly to another life. Could it be supposed that he here 
 speaks of the Israelites as a people collectively, which is not probable, 
 the Jew might perhaps have concluded from the permanence of the 
 theocracy, the favour of God towards him. Beza, who imagines the 
 punishment of the heathen to be intended, remarks, that from the 
 prosperity and growth of the Roman empire, they inferred that they 
 enjoyed the divine approval. But it is quite obvious that the Apostle 
 does not again revert to the heathen. ‘The substance of the whole 
 argument is thus given by Theophylact: Ei δὲ διὰ τὸ μήπω xoracdnvat, 
 καταφρονεῖς TOV πλούτου τῆς ἀγαθότητος; αὐ7ὸ TovTO εἰς πλείω σου χολασίν 
 ἐστιν. Ἢ γὰξ μαχροθυμία, τούς μὲν πρὸς διόρθωσιν αὐτῇ HEw@pméEVOLS, σωτήξιος" 
 τοῖς δὲ εἰς πδοσθήχην ἁμαφτίας δαπανῶσιν αὐγὴν, τιμωρίας μείζονός ἐστιν 
 ἀφορμή" ov maga τὴν αὐτῆς φύσιν, ἀλλὰ Maeda τήν ἐκείνων σχληφότητα.ἷ 
 
 πλοῦτος τῆς χρηστότητος. The Hellenists are fond of translating the 
 Hebrew 35 by πλοῦτος. Ps. Ixix. 16; cvi. 7. Χρηστότης is love in 
 
 ἕ Bric have not escaped your own judgment, and shall you escape that of 
 od? 
 
 + If you take occasion from your impunity hitherto, to despise the riches 
 of his goodness, that itself will aggravate your punishment. For to those 
 who improve it for their amendment, his long-suffering is of saving efficacy, 
 but to such as waste it in accumulating sin, it is the occasion of a doom 
 more severe; not by reason of its own nature, but of their hardness. 
 
 10 
 
74 CHAPTER II. Vv. 4, 5, 6. 
 
 general. ἀνοχὴ and waxeoSvpia is this love modified by God’s rela- 
 tion to sinners. 
 
 ᾿Αγνοῶν. ᾿Αγνοέω signifies not merely not to know, but not to 
 acknowledge or consider. So in the Hebrew py, and also in the 
 Hellenistic, Wisdom of Solomon, vii. 22. 
 
 τὸ χρηστόν. ‘The neuter adjective for the substantive χρηστόγης» as 
 frequently occurs. See i. 19. 
 
 “Ayer. In the Hebrew, as in other languages, verbs in the present 
 often denote endeavour. (S. Glassius, Philol. saera, p. 765.) So 
 here seeks to lead thee. 
 
 V.5. By neglecting to take advantage of the long-suffering of God 
 for his salvation, man adds impenitence to his sinfulness, and thus 
 makes an accumulation of guilt. This is called SycovecSew, which 
 the LXX. use instead of \¥x, Amos iii. 10, and also for32¥. In the 
 same manner the Rabbins employ 731 metaphorically. Bava Bathra, 
 f. xi. 2. Hardness of heart betokens a deficiency of love. Love in- 
 clines to the reception of the beloved object; hence, susceptibility for 
 the μαχξοθυμία of God. 
 
 Ἔν ἡμέξᾳ deyys does not merely stand for εἰς ἡμέξαν. ‘The expres- 
 sion is pictorial; ‘The Apostle figuring to himself the event. ‘The 
 Old Testament, agreeably to the idea of a retribution which pervades 
 it, always represents the Divine blessing as coming after a previous 
 time of sifting and purification. Such seasons are called x12 DY, 
 sometimes Oj7 OV Ez. xxii. 24.—" ἣν OY Zeph. 11. 2,3. The New 
 Testament proclaims such a period of general sifting; after which, 
 the kingdom of Christ, purified from all the dross of evil and sin, 
 shall be gloriously established. ‘This great period bears particularly 
 the name of ἡμέξα seyns Rev. vi. 17, also ἡ μέλλουσα, and ἡ texouévy 
 éeyyj- Ἡμέξα is figurative. In the Koran it is even more emphatic, 
 where the day of judgment is called the Hour, c. 9, Sura 6. 
 
 V. 6. The Zeya of a man, are the manifestation of his disposition. 
 His disposition cannot be sanctified otherwise than by his being filled 
 with the love of God, and that can only take place when he is pene- 
 trated with the belief of things divine. Hence, the texts in which 
 salvation is made dependent upon works, do not stand in contradic- 
 tion to those, where it is made to depend upon religious faith. Ina 
 certain degree, even the morality of the heathen may rest upon re- 
 ligious faith, and in so far be pure. Accordingly, the Apostle does 
 not here mean the Zeya vouov, which only in an outward manner, cor- 
 respond with the requirements of a holy God, but the Zeya ἀγαθά. 
 Whether at all, and to what extent, it is possible for man without the 
 redeeming influence of the Spirit of Christ, to execute such teya ἀγα- 
 6a, and yield entire satisfaction to the law of God, are questions 
 which he leaves totally untouched. His only object is to designate 
 two distinct classes of men; those who, possessing moral seriousness, 
 really labour in their actions to fulfil the law, and those who, pretend- 
 ing to be holy, condemn others, and deceive themselves about their 
 own condition. 
 
CHAPTER Il. Vv. 7, 8. 75 
 
 V. 7. xad’ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ayaSov. Ὑπομονὴ is perseverance. In 
 this sense, the verb is used by classical authors. Plato de Leg. x. 9. 
 In Xenoph. Cyrop. 1. vii. c. 1. § 30, it signifies the continuance of 
 an enemy’s attack. So Gicumenius: ὑπομονὴν εἰπὼν, γενναίως ἔχειν 
 διδάσκει πρὸς τοὺς rteveacuors.* Paul wishes to express that occa- 
 sional virtuous emotions are not enough, but that the direction of the 
 character must be habitually towards what is good. It is clear from 
 the union of these words with @yvovc:, that he presupposes the ex- 
 istence of a disposition, and regards perseverance in actions as the 
 symptom of a lively principle within. 
 
 ᾿ς Δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν is a Hendiatria borrowed from the 
 Hebrew, and should be translated a glorious and honourable im- 
 mortality. Reversely, Ambrose considers ἀφθαρσίαν, as a predicate 
 of σιμὴν and this gives him occasion to make the beautiful remark. 
 ‘« Paul here speaks of the superior degree of glory which awaits the 
 Christian in the life to come. In presenti enim honor vel gloria, 
 frequenter amittitur, quia corruptibilis est qui dat, et quod dat, et qui 
 accipit.”” Tur is often coupled with δόξα, Heb. ii. 7, 1 Tim. i. 17, 
 especially 1 Pet. i. 7. And then the two words answer to 777) ΓΙ. 
 Chrysostom has the following fine observation upon them as here 
 used. ‘‘ Behold how in discoursing of the things to come, being 
 unable to describe them, he but calls them glory and honour. For 
 as they surpass all that is human, human things cannot supply any 
 image adequate to represent them. From among the objects of this 
 earth, however, which seem to us the brightest, he instances, (and he 
 could do no more,) glory, honour, and life.” CX&cumenius does 
 violence to the language, when he here supposes a hyperbaton, and 
 construes the words in the following manner: τοῦς καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν teyou 
 ἀγαθοῦ ζητοῦσι Gury αἰώνιον, ἀποδώσει δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ apPagovar. 
 Equally violent and unnecessary is the procedure of Beza and Her- 
 zog, who construe Yeyou ἀγαθοῦ with δόξαν, and thus translate: Qui 
 secundum patientem exspectationem querunt boni operis gloriam. In 
 that case, ἀφθαφσία would require to be construed in like manner with 
 ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ, which would be totally unintelligible. 
 
 V.8. τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐφιθείας. ᾽Εξ forms with the noun a periphrasis for the 
 adjective, as in Phil. i. 16and 17, where we have both οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης and οἱ 
 ἐξ ἐριθείας. So also οἱ ἐκ στοᾶς and οἱ 2x neevrouns, LJohniv.5. ‘Theo- 
 phylact explains it, πονήξοι ἀπὸ praoverxias. Beza: Litigiosi sive dog- 
 mata sive mores spectentur. Pelagius: Contentiosus qui aliquid 
 contra suam conscientiam nititur defensare. ‘This would be consist- 
 ent with the ordinary usage of the Greek language. The Hellenistic 
 sense of the word, however, is greatly preferable, corresponding as 
 it does with the usual signification of 1 770, to be stubborn, which is 
 specially employed to characterize the wicked, Deut. xxi. 20. Hence 
 the Septuagint have also ἐφεϑύίζειν τὸν Seov and ted2ew τῷ θεῷ. In the 
 Ethiopian version, it is rendered the apostate. 
 
 * By the word perseverance he teaches us vigorously to resist temptation. 
 
76 CHAPTER Il. v. 8, 9. 
 
 ᾿Απειϑδοῦσι μὲν τῇ ἀληδεὶᾳφ. What ἀλήδεια is here meant? It ἰδ. 
 most natural to suppose the same which was treated of in the first 
 chapter, viz. the universal, moral, and religious sense. Correctly 
 Calvin: Veritatis nomine simpliciter regula divine voluntatis, que 
 sola veritatis lux est, designatur. Nihil medium est quominus in 
 peccati servitium mox concedant, qui subjugari a Domini lege nolu- 
 erunt. Pelagius and Gicumenius take it in a more restricted sense, 
 viz. the truth of the gospel; and Ambrose in a narrower still, the 
 truth that there is an eternal judgment. ‘The ἀπειθέω signifies a 
 headstrong intentional sinning. 'Theodoret: οὐ τοῖς ἐκ πεξιστάσεῶς 
 τινος ὀλυσϑαίνουσιν εἰς αὐτὴν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς μετὰ πολλῆς αὐτὴν μετιοῦσι σπου- 
 δῆς.Ὁ 
 
 πειδομένουις δὲς Cicumenius ἑκὼν ae πείϑεταυ ὃ πειϑόμενος. ᾿Αδιχίᾳ 
 is opposed, as in 18th verse of the 1st chapter, to ἀληδεύᾳ, unrighteous- 
 ness, sinful inclinations, which withstand the moral consciousness. 
 The terms δυμὸς xai deyq are probably synonymous, and both are 
 used to strengthen the emphasis. A difference between them may, 
 however, be discovered. Ammonius: Θυμὸς μὲν ἐστὶ πρόσκαιρος, ὀξγὴ 
 δὲ πολυχεόνιος μνησικακία. Eustathius makes ϑυμὸς anger rising 
 within, ὀργὴ vented outwardly. When aversion and positive anger 
 at sin, and, in so far, penal justice, are ascribed to God, we must 
 necessarily abstract the element of passion and irregularity, which 
 usually mingles with these emotions in human beings, and is even 
 implied in the terms δυμὸς and ὀργή. There is here an anomaly in 
 the syntax, seeing that these words, like ϑωὴν αἰώνιον ought to stand 
 in the accusative: but while in that case, Paul supplies ἀποδώσει; in 
 the present he probably had χαταβήσεται in his mind. 
 
 V.9. This and the tenth verse contain a summary of what was 
 said in verses 6, 7, and 8; the Apostle besides, expressly intimating 
 to whom his words in these former verses were meant to apply, viz. 
 to Jews and Heathen. Beza: Thesis posterior ad hypothesin appli- 
 catur. A verb requires to be supplied to ini πᾶσαν ψυχήν. AS δυμὸς 
 καὶ 6eyn expressed what are the effects of human sin upon God, so do 
 Sardes and στενοχωρία the manifestation of these effects towards man. 
 The two words are frequently coupled in profane authors, as p13) 
 my the synonymous ones are in Hebrew, Is. xxx. 6. The distine- 
 tion between them, if a distinction must be made, is suggested by 
 Paul himself in 2 Cor. iv. 8, SarBouevor, dan’ οὐ orevoxyoeordmevor, Where, 
 by the first, he intends outward calamities; by the second, secret 
 anguish. 
 
 ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχήν. Ambrosius: Desuper animam dicit, ut spiritua- 
 lem pcnam intelligas, non corporalem, quia animam invisibilibus 
 penis arctabitur. It is better, as Pelagius observes, to take ψυχὴν as 
 like 25) paraphrastiec for person. 
 
 ᾿Ιουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος. πρῶτον is here to be rendered 
 
 * Not those who fall into it by some misfortune, but those who pursue it 
 with great eagerness. 
 
CHAPTER 11. v. 10, 11, 12. ~ "ha 
 
 in the first instance, and the import of the words is, that Divine jus- 
 tice will begin by manifesting itself upon those who stood in the 
 most defined and intimate relation to it. It will be the Jews who 
 shall, as it were, first make their appearance before the judgment seat, 
 and that, in consequence of their close connection with God. Pre- 
 cisely the same is the meaning of πρῶτον in the similar expression, 
 c.i. 8. And hence, the explication here given of it by Origen and 
 Chrysostom, although invoking a just principle, is not admissible. 
 They suppose it to express, that the Jews, as having possessed a 
 greater measure of knowledge, will be so much the more severely 
 punished. Chrysostom: ‘O γὰρ πλείονος ἀπολαύσας τῆς δυδασκαλίας» 
 μείξονα ἂν εἴη καὶ τιμωρφίαν ἀξιος ὑπομεῦναν παξανομὼν.ἢ 
 
 V. 10 and 11. Δόξα xai τιμὴ is the Hebrew 111717. Ἑϊρήνη is 
 pow salvation, blessing, xwi 0°19 to receive a person, kindly enter- 
 tain, favour; and then in a bad sense, when applied to a judge, fo 
 regard the person instead of the cause. ‘This in the New ‘Testa- 
 ment is the sense of πεόσωπον λαμβάνειν OF εἰς πρόσωπον βλέπειν. What 
 the Apostle therefore means to say is, that in the judgment, God will 
 not favour the Jew for the sake of his person, 7. e. because he is a 
 
 Jew, but look only to the merits of the case, even purity and holi- 
 ness. 
 
 Pan Ter: 
 
 GOD JUDGES MEN ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENT MEANS OF GRACE 
 AND DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE VOUCHSAFED TO THEM. v. 12—16. 
 
 V. 12. The general proposition which the Apostle had announced 
 in verse 11, he now applies to the particular case. If God were to 
 favour the Jews, as such, he would try them by the lower standard, 
 according to which he tries the heathen. Correctly Gicumenius: 
 Δεῖξαυ θέλευ ἐν δνο ἁμαφτήσασιν ᾿Ιουδαίῳ τε καὶ ἀχξοβύστῳ; χεῖξον τὸν Ἴου- 
 δαῖον τιμωξεῦσθαί, ὅσῳ καὶ νόμου ὁδηγοῦ εὐποξήσας ἥμαξτεν.-....«ὅσῳ πλείο- 
 νος ἀπήλαυσεν ἐπιμελείας, τοσούτῳ μείζονα δώσει δίχην.Ἷ 
 
 ᾿Ανόμως is commonly equivalent to παφανόμος" but here to χωεὶς νό- 
 μου. Compare a passage which throws light upon it, 1 Cor. ix. 21. 
 We must not, however, strictly assume that the heathen knew nothing 
 
 * For he that has had the advantage of better instruction, must deserve to 
 endure a greater punishment when he transgresses. 
 
 + He wishes to show, that in the case of a Jew and a Gentile, having sin- 
 ned, the Jew, inasmuch as he has had the advantage of the law to direct him, 
 
 is more severely punished. In proportion to the care bestowed upon him 
 will be the heaviness of his chastisement. 
 
78 CHAPTER Il. v. 12, 13. 
 
 of a Divine law. The νόμος here meant is the will of God, in so far 
 as it was expressed by the law of Moses. In verse 15, the Divine 
 law is referred to as written upon the heart of the heathen. 
 ᾿Απολλύεσθαυ, like 128 to which in the LXX. it answers to become 
 wretched, be brought to dishonour, Ecclesiasticus: Βασιλεὺς ἀπαύδευ- 
 τος ἀπολεὺ τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ. CXcumenius explains the ἀνόμως in this 
 second passage, οὐ μετὰ ἀκριβείας νόμου, ὃ δηλοῦ τὴν σύμμετεον ἀπώλειαν. 
 
 Ἔν νόμῳ Signifies as much as ἔννομος; used by Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 21, 
 having the law. In like manner, οὗ ἐν πεξιτομῇ, those who are cir- 
 cumcised. 
 
 xevonoovrat. ‘The Vulgate, judicare. ‘The ordinary signification 
 to condemn is preferable. 
 
 διὰ νόμον. As the voice of the moral sense, which the perverse 
 and ungodly bias of the will may now sometimes overpower, but 
 which nothing can destroy, shall bear testimony against the heathen, 
 so against the subjects of the theocracy, shall the declaration of the 
 will of God, once engraven upon stone, and therefore never to be 
 effaced. Kant and Fichte in the Critik aller Offenbarung, draw our 
 attention to the fact, that it is possible for man to doubt whether the 
 voice of the moral law in his heart be really from God, and that hence 
 arises a necessity for an external discovery and ratification of it, in 
 order to establish its divinity. We have to add, in reference to this 
 passage, that it is also possible for the inward judge to be deceived, 
 and to have his eye obscured, whereas, the law, as externally re- 
 vealed, is unalterable. Hence, a more inexorable judgment awaits 
 the Jews. The thought in general is as follows:—‘ The decisions 
 of God are always made with a regard to the particular relations of 
 the party, and hence, both Jew and Greek shall, each in his own 
 way, be proved guilty before him.” 
 
 V. 13. In this and in the following verse, the Apostle appends an 
 explanation of what he had said. In the one, he justifies himself 
 from the possible imputation of lowering too far the Israelitish law; 
 in the other, from the objections of those who might find fault with 
 his ascribing the possession of a law to the heathen no less than to 
 the Jew. Itis impossible for man to conceal from himself the need 
 he has of salvation, and the secret longing which he feels for some 
 certainty as to the mode of attaining it, a sentiment which is itself a 
 spark kindled by God. At the same time, however, the tendency to 
 seek the blessedness for which he sighs in the creature instead of the 
 Creator, is so strong, that he would fain come to a compromise with 
 the desires of his soul, and secure what he wants by external means, 
 in order to resign himself undisturbed to the enjoyment of what is 
 unconnected with God. This perverted tendency is particularly 
 apparent in Judaism and Catholicism. According to the intention 
 of God, the law should only have been the means of attaining a 
 higher end, even holiness. In place of which, Israel wished to con- 
 vert the means into the end, and imagined that in the mere posses- 
 sion of the law, they held a magical earnest of salvation. The word 
 
CHAPTER 11. v. 14, 15. 79 
 
 &xeoarjs is to be explained by the fact, that to the great majority of 
 the Jewish people the Mosaic law was known, not by personal read- 
 ing, but by listening to the Sabbath lessons. Even the Greeks, how- 
 ever, sometimes styled readers οἱ ἀχούοντες. Polyb. Hist. i. 13, 6. 
 Frequently also as ib. ix. 1, 2, ἀκροατής. Δικχαιοῦσθαιν to be declared 
 innocent. 
 
 V. 14. Chrysostom: οὐκ ἐχβάλλω τὸν νόμον, Φησὶν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐντεῦθεν 
 δικαιὼ τὰ ἔθνη. Ὅταν yap. ‘The yap refers to ποιεῖν τὸν νόμον, which 
 the Apostle here ascribes to the heathen, likewise annexing the proof, 
 that, to a certain degree, they always possess alaw. Φύσει» the same 
 as sponte, by innate instinct. Φύσις denotes among classical authors 
 ingenium, nativa virtus. Elsewhere it is opposed to πλαστῶς, and 
 equivalent to ὄντως. 
 
 τὼ TOV νόμου OF τὸν νόμον ποιεῖν, OF τὸν νόμον πράσσειν. 25, 0 fulfil 
 the law. When they do so, their own moral consciousness is their 
 rule. ‘There is a parallel passage Arist. Ethic. iv. 14. ὁ δὴ χαρίεις 
 xar ἐλεύθεφος οὕτως ἕξευ οἷον νόμος ὧν ἑαυτῷ. ‘The Rabbins also dis- 
 tinguish between M010") Myav ΠῚ see Buxt. Lex. p. 1349. It may 
 be objected to this interpretation, that it seems to imply, that the 
 heathen sometimes really fulfilled the law of God. This, however, 
 cannot be the meaning of the Apostle, for he had before described 
 them as all involved in moral obduration and perversity. It has 
 accordingly been suggested to give xovery τὰ τοῦ vouov, the meaning 
 of Idem facere quod lex facit, 7d. est. honesta precipere, turpia ve- 
 tare. So first Beza, and after him, Elsner, Capellus, Limborch, 
 Flatt and others. ‘Taking the words in this signification, they may 
 be easily connected with what follows. But it is obvious, that ποιεῦν 
 τὰ Tov νόμου requires to be interpreted in the same sense as that in 
 which ποιεῦν τὸν νόμον is so frequently used; it seems also manifestly 
 to correspond with the ποιηταὺ νόμου of the 13th verse. Moreover, it 
 cannot be said that in the preceding delineation of the depravity of the 
 heathen, the Apostle meant to comprehend every individual, without 
 exception, and deny the possibility of at least an exterior morality. 
 Now it is only of such an outward conformity to the law, that he 
 here speaks, and to that in many of the relations of life, he never 
 would have disputed the claims of the heathen. We have still far- 
 ther to add, that when the Gentile contemplated the νόμος yeanros 
 within him, as a commandment inscribed by God himself upon his 
 heart, he might feel himself excited to obedience by a reverential awe 
 of what is holy. This feeling, although it did not govern men’s 
 lives among the Greeks, comes yet nobly forward in many senti- 
 ments of the tragic poets. ‘To cite one example, see the admirable 
 chorus upon conscience, in Gidipus Tyr. v. 845. 
 
 V. 15. A confirmation of the 14th verse, St. Paul means to bring 
 proof, that such actions of the heathen, as are conformable to law, 
 really have their basis upon an inward law in their breast, For this 
 
 * I do not reject the law, but even from thence I justify the Gentiles. 
 
80 CHAPTER Ii. v. 15. 
 
 _ purpose he appeals to the conflict which takes place between the 
 opposite tendencies of the will in man, and to the judgments pro- 
 nounced upon these by the moral sense. He again uses ofzwes as a 
 connexive, which must here also be resolved by yae, quasi ἐνδείκνυν- 
 var γάρ. ‘This verb is not to be interpreted, as Grotius has done, by 
 the gloss, vite scilicet innocentia. ‘The object of the Apostle is to 
 account for the manifestations of a purer morality among the heathen, 
 by the revelation of the will of God within them, consequently, ἐν- 
 devxvevrae Signifies that such a law becomes apparent upon a strict 
 search of the heart. What then, it may be asked, is the meaning of 
 Zeyov in its connection with νόμου The simplest way is to under- 
 stand it collectively in the sense in which τὰ Zeya τοῦ νόμου is always 
 found, ‘* they show the works prescribed by the law within them.” 
 So Theophylact and the majority of the ancients. It is improbable, 
 however, that the singular should be used in a sense which the plu- 
 ral has once been received as exclusively expressing, as is the case, 
 unless in 1 Thessalonians i. 3, we take Zeyov πίστεως for τὰ teya τῆς 
 muotews, Which is done by Vorstius de Hebr. N. T. p. 256. ‘The 
 expositors who, in verse 14, understand ποιεῖν τὼ τοῦ νόμου fo execute 
 the function of the law, also give to ἔδγον the sense of officium, ne- 
 gotium. Grotius, who in the interpretation of that verse, is by no 
 means explicit, here defines ἔργον, Id quod Jex in Judzis efficit, nempe 
 cognitionem liciti et illiciti. Legis virtus est imperare, vetare, per- 
 mittere, punire. De Wette renders it, “das Thun des Gesetzes.’’ 
 This meaning of ?eyoy is sufficiently well grounded in the use of the 
 language, but it seems to coincide exactly with the interpretation 
 stated of ποιεῖν τὰ τοῦ νόμου. Hence, it only remains to consider %eyoy 
 as periphrastic, which Palairet, Wolf, Schleusner, and others do. In 
 justification of this use, may be instanced the following passages from 
 classical authors. Polynus: (Strat. 1. i. 6. 18.) τοὺ χογιοῦ τὸ ἔξγον 
 ἐπιϑαίνει τῇδε. Diogenes Laert. (Proem. ad Hist. Phil.) τὸ τῆς φιλο- 
 σοφίας ἔφγον ἔνιοι φασὶν ἀπὸ BagBagwyv ἄρξαι. The periphrastic use of 
 χεήμα and πράγμα is well known. See Viger, p. 159. As these 
 words are not always, however, purely pleonastic, so neither also, 
 would zeyov in the present instance be, but denote almost as much 
 as ὑπόστασις, Which Erasmus conjectured. Seiler, in this view, trans- 
 lates the contents of the law, Michaelis, the substance. Bolten, 6. 
 ili. 20, even renders τὼ teya τοῦ νόμου, the contents of the law, 
 and so also Con. Vorstius. In support of this use of Zeyov, might be 
 cited Baruch vi. 51, where Θεοὺ Zeyor is used for Θεῖον" the interpre- 
 tation of it, as virtus operosa, given by Schleusner, in his Thesaurus 
 in LXX., can by no means be received. It is found in the same 
 sense as in the present passage, in Eph. iv. 12, and perhaps also 1 
 Thess. i. 3. - 
 
 συμμαξτυρφούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως. It may be questioned, 
 whether St. Paul under συνείδησις, and afterwards under λογισμοὶ, IN- 
 tends something different from the νόμος γεαπτὸς ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις. In 
 that case, these three clauses of the verse would require to be made 
 
CHAPTER 11. Vv. 15. 81 
 
 co-ordinate, as three distinct proofs of the fact, that the acts of the 
 heathen, which are conformable to law, really emanate from a law 
 existing within them. This has been done by Luther, and the ex- 
 positor Heming. But although it may be defended upon good 
 grounds, the more natural way is to subordinate the second and third 
 clause to the first, and regard them as an explanatory epexegesis. 
 The expression νόμος γραπτὸς was not one of ordinary use. Paul, 
 therefore, explains it by terms more familiar, and which point at the 
 same time to the facts by which he was justified, in employing so 
 uncommon an expression. By νόμος γξαπτὸς, Paul meant the συνεί- 
 dyots, that which constitutes the bond of relationship between man 
 ‘and God, and which discovers itself, as a sense of what is just and 
 good. One might, perhaps, lay weight upon the σὺν in συμμαξτυξού- 
 ons, and refer it either to the νόμος γεαπτὸς or to the ταῦς xaedvars. "he 
 συνείδησις, however, must be considered as identical with the νόμος 
 yeanros’ the xaegdva, or the disposition, gives a testimony only in 
 virtue of the νόμος γεαπτὸς within it, and hence it cannot be well con- 
 sidered as another and a distinct witness besides the συνείδησις. Ac- 
 cordingly we take the compound in the sense of the simple word. 
 Συνευδέναν likewise means knowing along with another, but the 
 sense of simul sciendi frequently disappears, and hence it is construed 
 with the dative of the thing. See Plato Phedon, p. 92. With re- 
 spect to the third clause, it is again an epexegesis and elucidation 
 of the second, to wit, ‘‘ the direct moral consciousness of man is the 
 offspring of certain thoughts which arise in the reflexion.”” Μεταξὺ 
 ἀλλήλων. μεταξὺ 15 here equivalent to ἐναλλάξ. So the Syrian. The 
 Vulgate renders it invicem. It is used in the same sense, Mat. xviii. 
 15, Acts xv. 9. The antithesis which it marks is the complaint of 
 one party before a tribunal, and the defence of another, here repre- 
 sented as taking place in the conscience of the individual. 
 Κατηγοδούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένον Must not, as has been done by 
 CEcumenius and Sebastian Schmidt, be referred to different persons, 
 of whom the one justifies, while the other condemns the dictates of 
 the conscience. ‘The apostle speaks of the twofold action of the 
 conscience in one and the same individual. ‘To both verbs it will be 
 best to supply ἄνθξωπον as the object, although perhaps ἑαυτοὺς would 
 answer better to μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων. It is not, however, the dictates of 
 conscience which mutually accuse and excuse each other, but it is 
 these which approve or disapprove the inclinations and desires. A 
 parallel passage may be found in the Wisdom of Solomon, iv. 20, 
 and in Philo, de Decal. p. 756: ed. Frankf. Ὃ μὲν ἐν ἑκάστῃ ψυχῇ 
 συνουχὼν xal συμπεφυκχὼς ἔλεγχος» ὡς μὲν κατήγορος GITLATAL, KATH YOEEL, 
 δυσωπεῖ, πάλιν δὲ ὡς διχαστὴς διδάσχευν νουθετ εἰ.) παξαινεῖγ μεταϑάλλεσθαιυ. Ἐ 
 The Rabbins also called the conscience SUP the accuser. ‘This 
 
 * That conviction, which is the innate inhabitant of every soul, like an 
 accuser, censures, charges, and upbraids; and again, as a judge, teaches, 
 admonishes, and exhorts to repent. 
 
82 CHAPTER 11. v. 16. 
 
 verse has been happily paraphrased by Erasmus: Etenim cum na- 
 tiones a lege Mosaica aliene, ultro nature ductu, que lege jubentur, 
 faciunt; quamvis nullo legis Mosaice prescripto moneantur, tamen 
 ipsi sibi legis vice sunt, propterea quod rem legis exprimunt, non 
 tabulis sed ipsis mentibus insculpte, et quidquid apud eos, qui sub 
 lege vivunt, geri solet apud tribunal, hoc in istorum pectore geritur, 
 dum pro te aut adversum te testimonium dicit conscientia. 
 
 V. 16. The connection of this with the preceding context has fur- 
 nished grammatical difficulties for the expositors, although, in regard 
 to the sense, no doubt can be entertained as to its close coherence. 
 The great majority have extricated themselves by placing verses 13, 
 14, and 15 within parenthesis, in order thus to bring ἐν ἡμέρῳ into 
 immediate connection with χειθήσονται. So Grotius, Limborch, Wolf, 
 and Winer. But as Heumann has remarked, so long a parenthesis 
 does not seem natural from the pen of a person of so fervid a tem- 
 perament as Paul, and can only be explained on the supposition that 
 he added these verses upon a subsequent perusal of the Epistle. 
 This way of evading difficulties, however, to which Heumann has 
 frequent recourse, is likewise of very questionable propriety. But 
 leaving the character of Paul out of yiew, there exists such a strong 
 inward coherence between verses 13, 14, 15, and so close a connec- 
 tion of verse 13 with verse 12, that the supposition of a parenthesis 
 is very improbable, and that only as the result of anxious search, 
 could the expedient of annexing verse 16 to verse 12 have been 
 thought of. Neither can we admit, what Heumann also suggests, 
 and Beza in his translation actually practises, viz. to enclose verses 
 14 and 15 only; because, in the first place, verse 14 is as closely 
 united to verse 13 as verse 13 to verse 12; and, secondly, verse 14 
 contains an evident antithesis to verse 17. In fine, it will not answer 
 to make verse 15 by itself parenthetic seeing that dices marks a 
 closely connected continuation of verse 14. ‘The method adopted by 
 Koppe and Rosenmiiller to escape from the difficulty is the most 
 forced of all. ‘The former gives to μεταξὺ the meaning of μετέπειτα,» 
 which it undeniably has, and then ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων 
 ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων becomes a genitive absolute, to which ἑαυτῶν is to 
 be supplied. He farther connects μεταξὺ with ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, and thus ob- 
 tains the following artificial translation: ‘Their own conscience tells 
 them, and their principles shall hereafter accuse or excuse them on 
 the day when God shal] judge.”” Far better than all these, is the 
 simple mode of construction proposed by Bengel, who unites ἐν ἡμέρᾳ 
 with ἐνδεύκνυνταν as may well be done, when the second and third 
 clauses of the fifteenth verse are subordinated to the first. He then 
 observes in explanation: Quale quidquid fuit, tale cum conspicietur, 
 definietur et manebit. In illo die constabit illud in cordibus seriptum 
 legis, apologiam etiam aliquam recte factorum conjunctam habens, 
 quamvis homo in judicto succumbat, semet accusatore, propter cetera. 
 Idque infert accusationem vel etiam defensionem (a majore ad minus 
 procedendo) in hac quoque vita constantem, quoties vel ipsum repre- 
 
CHAPTER 11. ν. 16. : 83 
 
 sentatur homini judicium futurum, vel preludia ejus in conscientia, 
 homine inscio, aguntur. Bengel is followed by Chr. Schmid. Some- 
 what different from this view is that of Calvin, which Jerome like- 
 wise adopts, in his Com. in 165. 1. xviii. c. 66, v. 18 upon the verse; 
 ** Opera et cognitiones eorum venio ut congregem.”” ‘I'hey construe 
 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ immediately with the preceding ἀπολογουμένων; which is very 
 agreeable to the Hebrew mode of construction, and especially that of 
 St. Paul; and taking ἐν in the sense of εἰς ἡμέξαν, they give to the 
 whole the signification, ‘that the great end of this struggle of the 
 conscience with the perverse bias of the will, is, that on the day of 
 judgment man may be self-refuted and self-convicted.”? Calvin: Ra- 
 “tiones autem istas accusandi et defendendi ad diem Domini confert, 
 non quia sint tunc primum emersure, que assidue nunc vigent et 
 officium suum exercent, sed quia sint tune quoque valitura, ne quis 
 ut frivolas et evanidas contemnat. Qcumenius and Theophylact, 
 and equally, as it seems, heodoret and Chrysostom, connect, in the 
 same way, ἐν guéea with ἀπολογουμένων not taking it, however, in the 
 sense of εἰς ἡμέξαν. According to their explanation, these decisions 
 of the conscience are first to be delivered in the judgment. The view 
 they take of the passage, however, is throughout obscure. ‘The 
 choice seems to lie between the constructions of Bengel and of Calvin. 
 That of the Grecian fathers may also be safely retained, with only 
 the modification of taking ἐν ἡμέξᾳ as emphatic, so that the meaning 
 would be, ‘their thoughts excuse or accuse them always, but chiefly 
 on the day when,” &c. Precisely so Erasmus: Secundum hee igi- 
 tur judicabit illos Deus olim, quum quod nunc occulte fit in precor- 
 diorum latebris, tum propalam fiet sub oculis omnium. In verse 12 
 and 13 the Apostle had proposed to speak of the judgment to come. 
 But first, the thought suggests itself to his mind of that judgment 
 which already goes on in the heart of man. From this connection 
 it is easy to conceive how, in Paul’s lively imagination, the present 
 and the future should mingle and be confounded together. What 
 now takes place inwardly, will then be manifested openly. In fa- 
 vour of this explanation, the sequel furnishes a proof in the contrast 
 of the za xevxza with the public judgment. By construing verse 16 
 with verse 12, the τὰ xevwca appears divested of any special reference 
 whatever; according to the view we have now proposed, however, 
 we may, and must refer it to those conflicts of the conscience with 
 the ungodly bias of the mind, which presently, indeed, are hidden 
 from the external eye, but which are one day to be subjected to a 
 visible judgment. Of the manifestation of the hidden things of dark- 
 ness, and the counsels of the heart at that great period, the Apostle 
 also speaks, 1 Cor. iv. 5. 
 
 xath τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μον. So does the Apostle call the collective 
 doctrines committed to him to preach, Rom. i. 16, 2 Tim. ii. 8, 
 comp. with 1 Cor. xv. 1. 
 
 Διὰ Ἰησοῦ Xevorov. That Christ, in his state of exaltation, will 
 one day be the judge of the human race, is elsewhere taught by St. 
 
‘ 
 
 84 CHAPTER Ul. Vv. 17. 
 
 Paul, Acts xvii. 31, as it also is by Peter, Acts x.42. We must not, 
 however, in imitation of Pelagius and Grotius, lay, in the present 
 instance, any particular stress upon that circumstance, as if, forsooth, 
 Paul had expressly annexed κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μον, because the hu- 
 man understanding cannot of itself discover by whom God will judge 
 the world. By the addition of these words, he only means to certify, 
 in a solemn manner, the great truth of a judgment to come. Itisa 
 still greater mistake to construe χατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μον With διὰ Ἰησοῦ 
 Χειστοῦ, according to my Gospel received from Jesus Christ. In 
 concluding, we may state Semler’s arbitrary hypothesis, viz. that the 
 ὅτε before χρινεῦ is a gloss, and that the words from ἐν ἡμέξῳ are to 
 be taken ἀσυνδέτως, unconnectedly, and that expression translated 
 publice. 
 
 PARE LTA 
 
 BY THIS RULE, THE JEW WHO, ENJOYING VARIOUS MEANS OF GRACE 
 AND BETTER KNOWLEDGE, NEVERTHELESS TRANSGRESSES THE LAW, 
 1S WORSE THAN THE HEATHEN, WHO, WITHOUT SUCH EXTERNAL AD- 
 VANTAGES, IS TRUE TO THE LAW IN HIS HEART. Vv. 17—29. 
 
 V. 17. Tuer Apostle, in this and the following verses, enumerates 
 all the privileges and advantages, which the Jew, who had his re- 
 ligion sincerely at heart, really possessed; describing them in the 
 vain-glorious language of the Jew himself. 
 
 Ei δὲ is, for preponderating reasons, both external and internal, to 
 be received into the text as the truereading. ‘The substitution of ἔδε 
 seems indeed to impart simplicity, for by reading εἰ δὲ we miss the 
 conclusion which might be expected to follow. But, besides that the 
 great majority of the codices are in favour of εἴ δὲν it is also probable 
 that iS: was only adopted for the purpose of simplifying the con- 
 nection. Moreover, it is not accordant with the style of our Apostle 
 to begin a new train of thought with és. ‘The conclusion which εὐ 
 δὲ seems to require, and which escaped in the warmth of discourse, 
 is found substantially, although not in form, in the 21st verse. 
 
 Ιουδαῖος, That the Apostle here plays, as is generally supposed, 
 upon the etymology of the word mm 717, fo praise God, has little 
 probability. Rather is the observation of Grotius correct: Nomen 
 erat religionis eo tempore et significabat μονόθεον. The name Jew 
 awakens the remembrance of all the great things which God had 
 wrought for the Fathers, and which furnished the Israelite with 
 grounds of boasting. How much he presumed upon this name, we 
 may learn from Gal. ii. 15; Phil. ili. 5; Rev. ii. 9. Hence the 
 Apostle employs the word ἐπονομάζειν, which has a loftier tone. 
 
CHAPTER Il. v. 17, 18. 85 
 
 Plato, de Leg. L. i. p. 8. Bip. Ὦ ξένε “Adevace’ od yde σὲ ᾿Αττικὸν 
 ἐθέλοιμ᾽ ἂν τἰξοσαγοξεύειν. Soxeis yae μον τῆς ϑεοῦ ἐπωνυμίας ἄξιος eivas 
 μᾶλλον ἐπονομάζεσθαι. 
 
 ἐπαναπαύῃ τῷ νόμῳ: This is the verb by which the LXX. render 
 wi, Micah iii. 11. It is equivalent to πεποιθέναι. Comp. | Macc. 
 viii. 12; Phil. iii. 4. Beza: Excitat Judeos legi quasi placide in- 
 dormientes, ut apertum et proximum periculum cernant. 
 
 νόμος is not here to be understood in the more comprehensive sense 
 of the writings of the Old Testament, but restricted to the law of 
 Moses, as is obvious from the sequel. 
 
 χαυχᾶσαν ἐν Θεῷ. ‘The same expression occurs Rom. v.11. While 
 
 the heathen felt themselves to be ἄθεου ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ; their deities having 
 no vital influence upon life, the Jew stood in real and historical con- 
 nection with his God, of whose deeds he could speak. Deut. iv. 7, 
 ἐς For what nation is there so great, who hath God (or Gods) sv nigh 
 unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon 
 him for.” Ps. exlvii. 19 and 20, ** He showeth his word unto Jacob, 
 his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so 
 with any nation: and as for his judgments they have not known 
 them. Praise ye the Lord.’”? Comp. 2 Sam. vil. 23. Oecum: ὡς 
 μόνος ἀγαπηθεὶς Maga τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους. 
 
 V.18. Other privileges of the Jew described in his own words, 
 χαὶ γινώσχεις τὸ θέλημα SC. τοῦ Θεοῦ. So Baruch iv. 4. Μακάξιου éo- 
 μὲν ᾿Ισξαὴν ὅτι τὰ ἀρεστὰ τοὺ δεοῦ ἡμῖν γνωστὼ ἐστί. 
 
 δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέξοντα. ‘The same expression is found in Phil. 1. 
 10. Aoxcuwa2euv—comp. at i. 28—has a twofold signification, either 
 to discriminate, prove, or to commend, favour; and in like manner, 
 τὰ διαφέξοντά means things, either opposed or distinguished. Of the 
 last of these meanings, we have an example in Andocydes, Or. iv. in 
 Alcib. Δεινὸν μὲν οὖν tort καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγνοούντων τὰ δίχαια πάσχειν xa- 
 λῶς, πολὺ δὲ χαλεπώτεξον ὅταν τις ἐπιστάμενος τὰ διαφέροντα παξαβαίνευν 
 τολμᾷ" of the former, in Xenophon. Mem iv. 8,11. ἐπειδὴ πολλὰ μὲν 
 χαλὰ χαὶ ὠφέλιμα διαφέφοντα δὲ ἀλλήλων ἐστὶ. Accordingly, we may 
 either translate the passage, “and provest things that differ,’’ as 
 Erasmus, Beza, Elsner, Clericus, and even Theodoret have done, 
 who thus expounds τὰ Scapégovra ἀντὴ τοῦ ἐναντία ἀλλήλοις Sixacoovyny 
 xat ἀδιχίαν᾽ OF Wwe may translate it ‘‘approvest the things that are 
 more excellent.” Vulgate: Probas utiliora. So Chrysostom, cu- 
 menius, Theophylact, and Luther. Looking only to this passage, 
 we should prefer a third to either of these senses of the word. It 
 sometimes signifies cause dissidii, controversie. Xenophon. Hist. 
 Gree. vi. 8. 4. Sapedven μὲν δήπου ἐστὶ» μηδὲ εὖ μὴ woxen τὰ διαφέ- 
 ξοντα ein πόλεμων ἀναιξεῖσθαι. Polybius: Hist. xxxi. 18,1, τὰ δια- 
 φέροντα τῷ δασιλεῖ meds τοὺς Γαλάτας. ‘* The contentions of the king 
 with the Galatians.’”? According to this meaning, the passage would 
 be translated, “thou triest controversies.”’ ‘This, however, would 
 not answer at Phil. i. 10, and as it is certain that the Apostle uses 
 the expression in the same import in both passages, we decide in 
 
86 CHAPTER 11. v. 19, 20. 
 
 favour of the second interpretation, which agrees best with the latter. 
 Calvin says: Duplex est probatio, altera electionis, quum id quod 
 bonum probavimus, amplectimur; altera judicii, qua discernimus 
 quidem bonum a malo, sed conatu vel studio minime sectamur. Sic 
 ergo erant eruditi in lege Judi, ut possent morum censuram exer- 
 cere, sed de vita sua ad hane censuram exigenda parum erant soliciti. 
 
 V. 19. Having in the 17th and 18th verses described the privileges 
 of the Jews, confining his view to the fruits which that nation itself 
 might have reaped from them, the Apostle now adverts to the lofty 
 position which they assumed in relation to the heathen, proposing 
 themselves, as indeed, when piously disposed, they were calculated 
 to be their guides to salvation. 
 
 ὁδηγὸν εἶναυ τυφλῶν. In like manner, did our Lord himself upbraid 
 the Pharisees with being blind leaders of the blind, Matt.xv. 14. It 
 is well known that they took great pains to gain proselytes, which 
 endeavours, among the worst sort of the sect, (the ‘‘almud shows 
 that there were good men among them, Bux. Lex. 'Talm.) proceeded 
 partly from well meaning ignorance, and partly from vanity, Matt. 
 xxiii. 15. 
 
 φῶς τὼν ἐν σχότει. ‘Che Messias was to prove the light of the 
 Gentiles, according to Is. xlix. 6, comp. Luke ii. 32. And as it was 
 thought that at the period of his coming, his people were to partici- 
 pate in his glory, and to go forth as missionaries among the heathen, 
 Is. Ixvi. 19, every individual Jew, who was versed in the law, con- 
 sidered himself as a light of the Gentiles. 
 
 V. 20. “Agedves, like 1ND, Ps. xix. 7, is synonymous with νήπιος, 
 which is used in contrast to σοφοὶ, Matt. xi. 25. Here the object of 
 the Apostle’s thoughts was probably the Jewish proselytes, who were 
 figuratively so called, (Selden de Jure nat. ii. 4.) Whence also, in 
 the New ‘Testament, νεόφυτου and νηπύου are applied to young Chris- 
 tians. It may be objected, that the Rabbins did not show such 
 haughtiness towards their proselytes as this name would imply, but 
 rather demeaned themselves kindly. With respect to their pride, 
 however, see Andr. Schmid, De Symb. Apost. in ‘Talmude ruderibus, 
 Helmst. s. 26, 27. 
 
 ἔχοντα τὴν poepwow. ‘This word signifies the form or image of a 
 thing. ‘This signification may be here retained, as contrasted with 
 the inward substance, and then the word is to be translated the sem- 
 blance. Phavor.: τὸ ἐπίπλαστον εἰχὼν καὶ σχῆμα ἀληθείας οὐκ ὃν δέ. 
 In this bad sense it is used by the Apostle, 2 Tim. iii. 15; and in this 
 sense it is here understood by Hammond, Lange, and others. Theo- 
 phylact: "Ἔχεις τὴν μόφφωσιν, οὐκ ἐν ταῖς meakeou καὶ τοῖς κατορθώμασιν; 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, πεποιθὼς ἀυτῷ, ὡς μορφοῦντυ τὴν ἀξετήν. Gorse ἐάν Tes 
 βασιλέως εἰκόνα ἔχων, αὐτὸς μὲν κατ᾽ αὐτήν μηδὲν ϑωγξαφοίη" οἱ δὲ μὴ πιο- 
 τευθέντες αὐτὴν» καὶ χωρὶς τοὺ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀποβλέπειν, μετὰ ἀληθείας 
 αὐτὴν μιμουντο. ἢ Μόξφωσις, however, may denote ἃ correct impression, 
 
 * You have the form of knowledge and of the truth, not in your actions and 
 
CHAPTER Il. ν. 21, 22. : 87 
 
 and then it stands in a good sense, like the verb in Gal. iv. 19, and 
 is equivalent to ὑποτύπωσις. « In Latin, the word forma, forma officii, 
 (Cic. Off. i. 29,) forma reipublice is used in the same way. ‘This 
 sense must be here preferred, seeing that what is spoken of, is a 
 privilege, of which the subject of the 'Theocracy boasts. Chrysos- 
 tom: Διὸ xai ἐπιδαψιλεύεται τοὺς Soxovow αὐτῶν εἶναι ἐγκωμίους» εἰδὼς 
 ὅτυ μείζονος χκατηγοξίας ὑποθέσις τὼ λεγόμενα. ἕ 
 
 V. 21. Now follows what is properly the conclusion to εἰ δὲ in v. 
 17. The Apostle resumes his consideration of the privileges of the 
 Jew, and of the superiority of his position to that of the heathen, 
 and, in a forcible antanaclasis, turns the eyes of his countrymen to 
 the discrepancy of their life, which so many advantages, in point of 
 knowledge, rendered still more appalling. ‘The interrogative form 
 in which it is expressed, gives additional force to the rebuke. ‘Theft 
 and adultery, against which the Apostle inveighs, need not be consi- 
 dered, as Michaelis and others have imagined, the sins which were 
 principally prevalent among the Jews. It is obvious from ἑεξοσυλεῖ ς» 
 that he merely instances peculiarly heinous sins, of which among a 
 nation so highly favoured by God, there ought not to have been a 
 single example. It is natural to suppose that he chiefly referred to 
 the teachers of the law in this passage, since, as we remarked, in the 
 instance of proselytising, verse 20, what was the character of the 
 depraved nation in general, belonged particularly to them. Hence 
 the declarations of our Saviour with respect to the Scribes and Pha- 
 risees, may be quoted as parallel passages, for instance, Matt. xxiii. 
 14, where he reproves their avarice. Kzevoow here, in the import of 
 the Hebrew 7p proclamare, mandatum edere, Jonah iii. 5. 
 
 V. 22. The most celebrated Rabbins, such as R. Akiba, Meir, Ele- 
 asar, and others, are accused in the Talmud of adultery. 
 
 Λέγω in the sense to give a judicial decision. Matt. xv. 5, Mark 
 vil. 11. So ΓΝ a commandment, is translated a decree. Esth. 
 lil. 3. 
 
 6 βδελυσσόμενος τὰ eidara* Eidwroy signifies an image, idol, and 
 thence the heathen deities, which are also called βδελύγματα Ὁ ΧΡ. 
 The Israelites, especially after the captivity, felt a real horror for 
 these. When Pilate, for example, made the military standards, 
 which were adorned with representations of the emperor, be brought 
 to Jerusalem, with the Roman soldiers, the Jews, in vast multitudes, 
 flew to meet him at Caesarea. During five days they were refused 
 an audience; and when Pilate at last appeared, he ordered them, 
 upon pain of death, to withdraw. ‘They, however, cast themselves 
 upon the ground and exposed their necks, exclaiming that they would 
 
 duties, but in the law, to which you trust for the formation of virtue; just as if 
 one possessing the likeness of a king were not himself to use it as a copy to 
 draw by, while others, who had nothing of the kind to look at, imitated it cor- 
 rectly. 
 
 * Paul adds to the catalogue of their apparent commendations, knowing 
 that what he says is the ground of a heavier accusation. 
 
88 CHAPTER II. v. 22, 23. 
 
 all to a man choose rather to die than that their law should be violated 
 by the entrance of idols into the city. (Jos. Archeol. 1. xviii. ¢. 3, 
 § 1. De Bel. Jud. 1. ii. ὁ. 9, 5. 2 and 3. It had been well if such 
 zeal had been combined with rightful dispositions! 
 
 ἱεξοσυλεῖν admits of a twofold interpretation. It commonly signi- 
 fies to plunder a temple, and hence the meaning may be, “ dost thou 
 rob an idol’s temple?”’ This view is taken by Chrysostom, Theophy- 
 lact, Koppe, and Clericus, who thus paraphrases the passage: ‘Tu 
 qui te ab idolis abhorrere fingis, quasi rebus summopere pollutis, quas 
 ne attingere quidem velles, tamen si detur occasio, ipsa eorum templa 
 spoliare non vereris. Such conduct was in direct opposition to the 
 law, which peremptorily forbade the appropriation of heathen pro- 
 perty, Deut. vii. 25. (Michelis, Mos. Recht. Th. v. 5. 248.) It is 
 also condemned in Josephus. (Archeol. |. iv. c. 8,§ 10.) Accord- 
 ing to this sense of the word, the passage would require to be inter- 
 preted as follows: ‘* Dost thou who hast such an abhorrence of all 
 that belongs to idol worship, make property taken from heathen tem- 
 ples thine own?”’ But it may be objected to this interpretation, both 
 that history has not recorded any instance of the spoliation of hea- 
 then temples by the Jews, and that it is a crime, for the commission 
 of which the opportunities must obviously have been exceedingly 
 rare. Accordingly some have proposed another interpretation of the 
 word, viz. to take it as metaphorically applied to a withholding of the 
 temple dues on the part of the laity, and the embezzlement of the 
 temple revenues by the priests. So Pelagius, Grotius, and a host of 
 others, who support their opinion by quoting the passage from Jos. 
 Archeol. lviii. 6. 3, § 3, where it is related how the Jews appropriated 
 to their own use the rich contributions made to the temple by the 
 proselyte Fulvia. ‘They also appeal to the accusations brought 
 against the Jews in Malachi, chap. i. 8, 12, 13, 14; chap. iii. 10. 
 To refer the passage in this manner, however, to dishonest practices 
 with respect to tithes, appears too restricted an application, and hence 
 it is, perhaps, best to take ἑεξοσυλεῖς in a still more general sense: 
 Art thou a violater of that which is holy? without determining what 
 special kind of profanation the Apostle had in view, to whom the 
 word was suggested by the feeling of the moment. Thus Bengel: 
 Deo non das gloriam, que proprie Dei est. So also Chr. Schmidt 
 and Schleusner.* 
 
 V. 23. Ὃς ἐν νόμῳ χαυχᾶσαι" In Baruch iv. 3, the law is called ἡ 
 δόξα τοῦ Ἴσξαηλ. Aud τῆς παφαβάσεως τοῦ νόμον τὸν Θεὸν ἀτιμάξεις" Chry- 
 sostom remarks: They commita threefold sin; they dishonour God; 
 they dishonour him by means of that whereby themselves were 
 honoured; they dishonour that God who had honoured them. Who- 
 ever boasts of any particular token of Divine grace, is under obliga+ 
 tion to walk so much the more worthily and piously; for otherwise, 
 
 * [The author has since declared his preference of the literal sense, as 
 yielding a stronger antithesis.] 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 23, 24. 80 
 
 God is dishonoured for having bestowed his favour upon an unde- 
 serving object. Hence it is said, Is. lil. 5, Ezek. xxxvi. 20, 23, 
 That God is blasphemed, and his name profaned, by his people being 
 led away captives. He was, indeed, compelled to send them into 
 captivity, in consequence of their numerous transgressions; and 
 hence these had the effect of spreading an evil report of God, who 
 was called their God. In like manner, Christ commands us to let 
 our light so shine before men, that our Father in heaven may be glo- 
 rified, Matt. v. 16. 
 
 V.24. We already remarked, at chap.i. v. 17, how fond the Jews 
 in general, and Paul] among the rest, were of speaking in the language 
 of the Old Testament. ‘This our Apostle especially practises, when 
 he has any thing to say, which might seem severe or strange to the 
 Jews. It is particularly exemplified in chap. xi., and is also the 
 ease here. When such quotations are made, we may add, as a para- 
 phrase, ‘It is not I only who say this, ye are already described in 
 the Old Testament.”’ C&icumenius: ᾿Επειδὴ Baed einer, ὅτι τὸν Θεὸν 
 ἀτιμάζεις, τὸν προφήτην παξάγεν μάρτυρα.“ Paul does not mention the 
 text of scripture. He quotes from memory, and gives the sense 
 rather than the words. ‘The texts, which were before his mind, and 
 resemble this, are the following: Ezek. xxxvi. 23; 2Sam. xii. 14; 
 Neh. ν. 9; and more especially Is. lii. 5. 
 
 In the whole preceding context the Apostle had sufficiently shown 
 how the preference enjoyed by Israel, is so far from being able of 
 itself to secure them the favour of God, that on the contrary unless it 
 be associated with a corresponding character, the Jew stands on pre- 
 cisely the same level with the Gentile, nay that the latter takes a 
 higher place, in proportion to the superior excellence of his character. 
 This he had not as yet distinctly expressed. But he now does so, 
 though still with great moderation, in order that the Judaizing zeal- 
 ots might not have occasion to decry him as an eccentric despiser of 
 the ancient Theocracy. Accordingly he leaves the honour of being 
 God’s covenant people, and guardians of the Divine revelations in 
 unimpaired respect, and instead of putting the Gentiles on the same 
 footing with the Jews, by declaring that honour to be a nonentity, 
 and that all depends upon holiness of mind, he says, I readily acknow- 
 ledge it as a high distinction to be the covenant people of the Lord; it 
 was conferred by God himself, and upon persons who, he wished, 
 might fully appreciate, and live in conformity to it. But, seeing that 
 itis altogether misconceived by them, the Gentile, who labours to 
 observe the moral law, enters into the enjoyment of the distinction in 
 question, and the Jew, who lives unconcerned about obeying the 
 moral law, is regarded as destitute of any interest in it. Cireumci- 
 sion being the badge of one who belonged to the covenant people, 
 Paul uniformly uses the sign for the thing itself. περυτομὴ is the 
 
 ἡ Having made the heavy charge, thou dishonourest God, he brings forward 
 the prophet to attest it. 
 
 12 
 
90 CHAPTER II. v. 26, 27. 
 
 quality of a covenant people; axeobvoria the state of exclusion from 
 a near connection with God. ‘There is a passage entirely parallel 
 to this both in the sense and the metonymical character of the lan- 
 guage, (although indelicately expressed,) Schemoth rabba, sect. 19. 
 fol. 118. (In Schottgen, ἃ h.1.) dixit R. Berachias: Ne heretici et 
 apostate et impii ex Israelitis dicant: Quandoquidem cirecumcisi 
 sumus, in infernum non descendimus, quid agit Deus 5. B.? ΜΈ 
 angelum et preputia eorum attrahit, ut ipsi preeputiati in infernum 
 descendant. 
 
 V.26. The first ἀχξοβυστια, as is manifest from the αὐτοῦ, in place 
 of αὐτῆς» subjoined to the second, is here by metonyme—the abstract 
 for the concrete—used for ἀκφοβύστοι, which is equivalent to οἱ décor 
 ἐν τῷ χόσμω. Διχαιώματα pn are the single precepts. Φυλάσσειν 
 after the Hebrew nw tokeep. The εἰς before πεφυτομὴ is the Hebrew 
 5, which is always placed before what is derived from something 
 else. 
 
 V. 27. xa: may be either regarded as connexive, uniting the clauses 
 before and after it, so as to comprehend the latter in the interrogation, 
 which the Vulgate, Beza, Limboreh, and Calvin have done, and 
 which yields a construction more accordant with pure Greek, or it 
 may be considered as marking progression; in which case the pre- 
 sent verse is separated, as being an inference, from the preceding; 
 and this, again, would be more agreeable to the Hellenistic. Thus, 
 Luther, and Erasmus in his paraphrase: Imo non solum equabitur 
 tibi in hac parte, quin imo preeferetur. 
 
 xewet. The fulfilment of the law by the heathen will serve as a 
 living witness against the Jews. Grotius: comparatione sui tuam 
 culpam evincet. See a similar use of the word, Matt. xii. 42. Heb. 
 mids 
 
 Ἢ ἐκ φύσεως axeoBvoria. There is no doubt that these words are to 
 be taken together. The Apostle had before spoken metaphorically of 
 the uncircumcised, among whom he numbered the Jews. In order 
 to apprise the reader that he now relinquishes the metaphor, he here 
 annexes ἐκ φύσεως. So Galat. ii. 15, ἡμεῖς φύσεν Ἰουδαῖοι. There is 
 not, therefore, in the sentence the smallest occasion for the violent 
 construction adopted by Koppe, who construes ἐκ φύσεως with νόμον 
 τελοῦσα.- ; 
 
 Τὸν δα γεάμματος καὶ περιτομῆς nagaBarny νόμου. Γράμμα Signifies 
 per met. the written law, as 2 Cor. 111. 6. In specifying the law and 
 circumcision, Paul embraced all those privileges of Israel, which his 
 present purpose required him to take into account. ‘The motives by 
 which the Jew might be influenced to comply with the law, were, on 
 the one hand, the thought of having obtained merey as a subject of 
 the covenant; and, on the other, the distinct knowledge which had 
 been imparted to him of the Divine will. Beza gives διὰ in its 
 proper sense, as denoting instrumentality, as if the law and the 
 covenant, with which he was favoured, had operated as occasions of 
 the moral deterioration of the Jew. It is subsequently, however, 
 
CHAPTER II. V. 28, 29. 91 
 
 that St. Paul takes up this thought. Here διὰ designates the state or 
 circumstances under which any thing takes place. In this sense it 
 is frequently used in the New ‘Testament, particularly by Paul, Acts 
 xii. 9, 1 John v. 6, Rom. iv. 11; xiv. 10, 2Cor. ii. 4, 2 Cor. v. 10, 
 Phil. i. 20. In short, διὰ embraces, like the Latin per, and the Eng- 
 lish through, the idea of causality and place. Now, according as 
 the first or the second, but especially the second, of these ideas pre- 
 vails, it may also signify dur¢ng, which likewise implies under the 
 circumstances. ‘This sense of διὰ occurs also in classical Greek; 
 partly in phrases in which certain auxiliary verbs are coupled with 
 substantives, and supply the place of the proper verbs, such as διὰ 
 θαύματος ἔχειν, διὰ σπουδῆς ἄγειν, διὰ φόβου yiwecbar, διὰ μνήμης φέξευν» 
 instead of θαυμάζεσθαι, σπουδάζειν, &c., partly in other combinations, 
 as διὰ χευρὼν ἔχειν, διὰ χαξφίτων ducrecv and partly in fine, where it is 
 used for the formation of adverbs, as διὰ ταχέων; δὲ ἀπεχθείας, διὰ Bea- 
 χυτάτων. Ast. in Plat. Remp. p. 429. 
 
 V. 28. Here the Apostle closes the proof of the guiltiness of Is- 
 rael, and entirely overthrows external reliance upon the Theocracy, 
 as a magical means of obtaining salvation, Chrysostom makes the 
 just observation, that even in this place he does not deny that God 
 had connected the tokens of his grace with the Jewish people in par- 
 ticular. Only we must rightly understand whom God means under 
 that Israel to whom he has designed the accomplishment of his 
 promises, even the converted part of the covenant people, like the 
 inward church of the believers in the external Theocracy. ΤῸ that 
 inward community, a large portion of the Jewish nation manifestly 
 did not belong; and hence, it follows, that they stood equally with 
 the Gentiles in want of a δικαιοσύνην available with God. Ov yae ὁ ἐν 
 τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖος ἐστι. Grotius, in the most violent manner, couples 
 these words with δὺ ὁ ἔπαινος in the 29th verse; ‘* Not he who is a 
 Jew outwardly has the praise.’’ It is obvious that "Iovdacos is to be 
 supplied after 6 ἐν τῷ gaveeq, and meevroun after ἡ tv τῷ Φανεξῷ. Storr 
 quite unnaturally says, that ἐστὺ stands for ἐστί τιν valet aliquid. Ἔν 
 oaext 15 Epexegesis to ἐν τῷ φανεξῷ. 
 
 V. 29. Circumcision was a symbol of purity of heart, and hence 
 the Hebrews, substituting the sign signified for the thing, spoke of 
 a circumcision of the heart. Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6, Jer. iv. 4. In 
 the New Testament it is called πεφιτομὴ ἀχευξοποίητος, Col. ii. 26, 
 Phil. iii. 3. 
 
 ἐν πνεύματι ov yedumars. Beza and Heumann consider ἐν πνεύματι 
 as an epexegesis to πεξιτομὴ καρδίας» circumcision that takes place 
 in the heart and in the spirit. In this manner, however, the con- 
 trast with yeduua is lost. Accordingly, the great majority of ex- 
 positors, G2cumenius, Grotius, and others, apply πνεῦμα to the Di- 
 vine Spirit as the producing cause, give to ἐν the Hebrew sense of 
 through, and making γράμμα antithetical to πνεῦμα, and taking it in 
 the acceptation, the precept of the law, thus translates the passage, 
 “the circumcision which is operated by the Holy Spirit, and not by 
 
92 CHAPTER 11. v. 29. 
 
 the mere commandment of the law.”’ In this case, it is the Apostle’s 
 object to show, that in the old Testament economy there reigned an 
 imperative law; whereas in the New there reigns an inwardly 
 quickening spirit. ‘This is a contrast which he is fond of drawing. 
 ἐν πνεύματι and ὃν γράμματι may also, however, be taken adverbially, 
 according to the Hebrew manner of forming adverbs by prefixing 3, 
 and would then signify spiritually and literally. So Augustine, 
 Clericus and others; and so also does Beza explain ἐν yedupare, but 
 in such a manner as to lose, at least in form, the contrast with ἐν 
 πνεύματι. ‘The Rabbins furnish numerous parallel passages. ‘The 
 following is from the Talmud, Tract. Nidda f. xx. 2. ‘The Jew 
 sits in the interior of the heart.”” There is a striking one from R. 
 Lipman in Nizzachon, num. xxi. p. 19, which is thus translated: 
 “Faith depends not upon circumcision, but rather upon the heart. 
 Circumcision will not make an unbeliever a Jew.” 
 
 “Ov refers both to the Jew inwardly and to the circumcision of the 
 heart, as antecedents, and hence is to be regarded as neuter. It is 
 altogether a Hebraic construction, and requires to be thus resolved, 
 τοῦτο γὰρ ἐπαινεῖται οὐ μόνον mag’ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ χαὶ παξὼ τοῦ Θεοῦ- 
 For the judicial sense of the word ἔπαινος; comp. 1 Pet, ii. 14, Rom. 
 xill. 3. 
 
CHAPTER THIRD. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Tue Apostle replies to those who, in spite of his guarded expressions in the 
 previous chapter, might still charge him with detracting from the respect 
 due to the Old Testament Theocracy. He shows, on the contrary, that he 
 leaves it in full possession of its honour. At the same time, however, he 
 must testify, that if questioned as to the relative situation of Jew and Gentile 
 with respect to guilt in the sight of God, and need of salvation, he cannot 
 do otherwise than place them both upon the same level, as being alike des- 
 titute of that δικαιοσύνη, which God may rightfully require from man. But 
 seeing, as it appears from this, that neither Gentile nor yet Jew, can estab- 
 lish for himself such a δικαιοσύνη by a faultless obedience to the Divine Law, 
 so God now reveals an entirely new way of acquiring it in that Gospel, 
 which Paul, according to chap. i. 16, glories to promulgate. 'To participate 
 in the δικαιοσύνη according to this new mode, a man must embrace the 
 salvation which has been procured by Christ. In that way, heathens and 
 Jews, without distinction, attain to justification, and all occasion of exalting 
 self is cut off. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1, Proof that Paul by no means lowers the dignity of the Old Testament 
 Theocracy. V. 1—8. 
 
 2. Explanation how, notwithstanding, in as far as regards guilt through sin, 
 
 and need of salvation, there is no difference whatever between him that 
 
 is a Jew, and him that is not. V. 9—20. 
 
 3. Announcement of the new method by which God justifies all, and which 
 
 he has devised in consequence of their inability to acquire justification 
 
 for themselves, by a perfect fulfilment of the law. V.21—26. 
 
 4, Epiphonema: in which it is shown, how, by this scheme of justification, 
 all opportunity of aggrandizing self is done away, and Heathen and Jew 
 
 obtain mercy on the same terms. V.27—31. 
 
 PART, 
 
 PROOF THAT PAUL BY NO MEANS LOWERS THE HONOUR OF THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT THEOCRACY. v. 1—8. 
 
 V. 1. Tue Apostle had terminated the former chapter with the 
 
 assertion, that the privileges conferred upon Israel as a covenant 
 people, could not in the least degree free them from the guilt of sin, 
 or affect their need of salvation. He now brings forward as a speaker 
 a character whom he disliked, viz. a bigoted Jew with his orthodox 
 
94 CHAPTER III. V. 2. 
 
 objection. Οὖν if so be as was said, verse 28 and 29, of chap. il. 
 To neevsoov' the Vulgate, amplius; better, prerogativa. Diod. Sic. 
 ed. Bip. Il. p. 278, διὰ τὴν περιτότητα μνημονεύεσθαι. ‘The second 
 question is nothing but a more specific definition of the first, cireum- 
 cision being the badge of the subjects of the Theocracy. 
 
 V. 2. The members of the old covenant had advantages of a two- 
 fold description over the heathen world. In the first place, anterior 
 to the advent of Him, who was the object and end of the whole Old 
 Testament economy, it was a noble privilege to stand in a closer 
 connection with God, and enjoy more peculiarly his guidance than 
 the heathen. ‘The advantages which they enjoyed also at the open- 
 ing of the new kingdom of God, were important. ‘They possessed 
 revelations concerning it; among them it appeared; they were the 
 first to whom it was proclaimed, and they were thus far more fa- 
 vourably situated for entering into it. As the great object of the 
 Apostle was to lead the Jews to the acknowledgment of the spiritual 
 necessities under which they laboured after Christ’s advent, he passes 
 over the former class of privileges, and of the second, instances in 
 this verse, only the one which we first mentioned. It is clear, how- 
 ever, from what has already been said, that all that these privileges 
 could effect, was merely to smooth the way to the great end, in doing 
 which they proportionably increased the culpability of those who 
 failed toreach it. The tokens of the divine favour exhibit, in stronger 
 contrast, the faithfulness of the Jews. Chrysostom: εὖδες οὐδαμοῦ τὰ 
 κατορθώματα αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ θεοὺ τὰς εὑεφγεσίας ἀπαξιθμοῦντα.ἢ 
 
 κατὰ πάντα πρόπον. St. Paul probably used these words without 
 attaching to them any definite idea, but there is nothing to hinder us 
 from referring them to the two descriptions of privileges enjoyed by 
 Israel, those anterior to the period of the Messiah, and those con- 
 temporaneous with his advent. 
 
 Πεῶτον μὲν yae. There is no secondly to correspond with this: 
 Grotius, Hammond, and others, indeed travel so far as chap. ix. 4, 
 for what is wanting in the immediate context. But this is highly 
 forced. Some, accordingly, have taken it up as an adjective, in the 
 sense the most important. Beza: Primarium illud est, quod. The 
 μὲν, however, points, not necessarily indeed, but still with probability, 
 to a following δέ. Moreover, it is more in accordance with the fervour 
 of Paul’s mind to suppose, either that he had forgotton what ought 
 to have followed, or that he deemed what he had already said in the 
 first place, to be sufficient for his purpose. Bucer, Calvin: Etsi 
 unum istud esset, satis valere debet ad eorum dignitatem. Origen 
 violently construes ὅτου and πρῶτων together; ‘‘ unto them were first 
 committed.” 
 
 ἐπυστεύθησαν. ‘The subject is not τὰ λόγια, So as to require the’ 
 supplement of illis, as the Vulgate and the Syrian have supposed. 
 
 * Do you observe how he still enumerates, not their righteous deeds, but 
 the benefits conferred upon them by God? 
 
CHAPTER III. v. 2, 3. 95 
 
 According to an Attic form of construction, instead of being put in 
 the dative, the person is made nominative to the passive verb, in 
 which it is here included, and to which it forms the subject. τὰ ad- 
 για is accusative, and the proper translation is, they were entrusted 
 with the oracles. We have other examples in 1 Cor. ix. 17, Gal. 
 ii. 7, and also Philo in Flacc. p. 987. Αὐγυπτον ἐπὶ ἐξαετίαν ἐπυτρά- 
 mevs. Lucian, Nigrin, c. 34, οἱ EMLTETCUMMEVOL τὰς πόλεις. 
 
 Λόγια τοῦ @zov, according to the common use of the language, of 
 which there are instances in Philo, may signify, generally, the Di- 
 vine precepts, but in particular, the ten commandments 011277, as in 
 Acts vil. 38. But as Paul had showed above, that the possession of 
 the νόμος could do little for the Jews, we must here adopt some other 
 signification. Δόγιον means primarily a Divine declaration, and 
 hence may be applied particularly to promises and prophecies, like 
 xzenouo. Profane writers employ it as synonymous with μαντεύματα. 
 The LXX. translate jWN λόγιον xevoews, and Josephus λόγιον. Philo, 
 Quis rer. div. ἢ, p. 482 dxeorénevroy λογίου τοὺ χεησθέντος αὐτοῦ τὼ 
 υἱεῖ. Hunnius, Seb. Schmidt, and others, take it here in the sense of 
 ἐπαγγέλια. Ambrosius, Gicumenius, Beza, and Beausobre in that of 
 προστάγματα, in which case the passage would resemble Ps. exlvii. 
 19, 20. It was a high distinction of the Jews, as members of the 
 theocracy, that they were honoured with praintimations of the future 
 plan of salvation. 
 
 V. 3. The Apostle himself starts an objection, which might pos- 
 sibly be raised against the privilege of the Israelites which he had 
 specified. It might be said, of what avail is it, that the Jews, for so 
 many hundred years before his advent, were favoured with prophe- 
 cies and promises respecting the Messiah. Now that he is come, a 
 vast majority of them do not believe, and these, therefore, cannot be 
 looked upon as having been a very extraordinary benefit. To this 
 Paul replies: The advantages which a Jew, believing in Jesus, de- 
 rives from these ancient promises, remain precisely the same, not- 
 withstanding the multitudes of his countrymen who remain uncon- 
 vinced; for God unalterably fulfils his promise to all who are willing 
 to have them fulfilled; and thus the Jew, who becomes a believer, 
 has in so far the advantage over the Gentile, that these promises 
 guide him more easily to the faith, and strengthen his convictions 
 when he has believed; 2 Tim. ii. 13, presents a passage which is 
 parallel in sense. Theophylact: Tatra δὲ λέγων, δοκεῖ μὲν αὐτῶν 
 ὑπεξαπολογείσθαυ" ἔγχλημα δὲ ὅμως πάλιν ἄλλο εἰς μέσον αὐτοὺς προσφέρειν 
 χαὶὺ δείχνυσιν αὐτοὺς ἀπιστήσαντας τοῖς θείοις AOYoLS, δὲ ὧν ἐτιμήθησαν. 
 
 ἠπίστησαν. ‘Those who make λόγια the law, require to take this 
 word as synonymous with ἠπείθησαν, which is, indeed, the reading 
 of one codex. It is questionable, however, if the rules of the lan- 
 
 * While in saying this, he seems to apologize for them, he in fact brings 
 against them a fresh accusation, showing that they had disbelieved the divine 
 oracles which had been granted to them as a high distinction. 
 
96 CHAPTER 111 V. 4. 
 
 guage warrant this interpretation. Hesychius, by whom it is pro- 
 posed, may have adopted it for the same reason as the codex we 
 have alluded to did the various readings, viz. for the explanation of 
 the passage. In some codices of the LXX. it is used as the transla- 
 tion of 113 in Ps. xxv. 8. But there, for sound critical reasons, dyo- 
 μοῦντες is to be received. Koppe thinks, that the Apostle was led to 
 choose the verb ἀπιστεὼν by the noun πίστις following; but it is far 
 more natural to suppose, that he selected the πίστις that follows in 
 consequence of ἀπιστεῦν going before. reves per charientismum for 
 οὗ πλευστου. 
 
 Πίστις credibility, trust-worthiness. In ἃ like sense it seems also 
 to be used in many passages of the New Testament. Gal. v. 22. 
 Comp. Ecclus. xl. 12. Profane authors have πόλεμος ἄπιστος, bel- 
 lum contra datam fidem. Melancthon: Hic locus continet egregiam 
 consolationem, ac monet ne propter ingentem multitudinem impiorum, 
 suspicemur promissionem gratie Ecclesie factam irritam esse, sed 
 sciamus vere eam exhiberi etiamsi paucissimi sint. 
 
 V. 4. Paul replies in the negative to the question, which he had 
 himself started as an objection. In order to show how utterly ground- 
 Jess that objection is, he utters in the warmth of discourse, the wish 
 that all mankind might prove covenant-breakers, as this would only 
 tend to glorify God the more, by being the occasion of manifesting 
 how great is his fidelity. Theophylact: Θῶμεν ὅτι πάντες ἠπίστησαν" 
 καὶ τί τοῦτο; χᾷάντευθεν δικαιοῦταυ ὃ θεός. 
 
 Μὴ γένοιτο is the strongest form of negation. ‘The corresponding 
 phrase in Hebrew is ΓΙ} ΤΊ, profana res mihi sit. The Rabbins use 
 wn; Be quiet and dismiss such thoughts. Profane authors have 
 εἰς χεφαλήν σοι. Kuster ad Aristoph. Plut. v. 525. From having 
 used this γένοιτο, the Apostle is led for the sake of the paronomasia 
 to employ γινέσθω in the next clause. ‘That word is capable of being 
 interpreted two ways, according to the punctuation. Herzog, who 
 is followed by Koppe, places a colon after δὲ, and takes up the sequel 
 as the quotation of a text of Scripture, Ps. exvi. 11; γινέσθω would 
 then signify, let that be fulfilled, or as Koppe renders it, “" so let it 
 rather be.’” According to the latter translation, we miss ὧδε in the 
 text. According to the first, there arises the scruple whether γινέσθαυ; 
 without any further supplement, can mean fo be fulfilled, which does 
 not follow, as Wolf justly observes, from 1 Cor. xv. 54, seeing that 
 there it is joined to ὁ λόγος ὃ yeyeaupévos. Accordingly it is more 
 natural, not to place a point after γινέσθω δὲν but to construe it imme- 
 diately with ὁ Θεός. Its meaning would then be, let God become, 
 which amounts to as much as let God appear. ‘Theophylact, φανε- 
 ξοῦσθαι. ᾿Αληθὴς according to the Hebraistic use, refers to practical 
 veracity, trust-worthy. 
 
 Wevorns denotes practical falsehood, and is to be translated faith- 
 
 * Grant that all have disbelieved. What of that?’ Even by their disbelief 
 God is justified. 
 
CHAPTER Ill. V. 4, 5. 97 
 
 less. Hesychius, ψευδος, ἀπάτη, πλάνη. The Old Testament fre- 
 quently speaks with emphasis of the uncertainty of the word of man, 
 and of the imprudence of relying upon it, as Jer. xvii. 5. The sen- 
 timent of the Apostle would have been more appropriately expressed, 
 if the second had here preceded the first clause. A similar declara- 
 tion is made with respect to men, in Ps. exvi. 11. As that, how- 
 ever, wants the Θεὸς ἀληθὴς. it is not probable that it is what the 
 Apostle cites. ‘The citation which immediately follows, contains an 
 analogous thought. Itis quoted from Ps. li. precisely according to 
 the LXX. David acknowledges that he had sinned against Ged, and 
 does so, in order that God, in inflicting punishment upon him, might 
 be seen to be just. So here the acknowledgment, that all men are 
 faithless, serves to show forth the unspeakably great covenant-fidelity 
 of God. διχοιωθῇς PI¥N ΤΡ to be right, to be justified. Adyos an 
 action or law-suit, Acts xix. 38. Ncxayv, is in like manner, and even 
 by profane authors, used in the sense fo win a law-plea. ‘The He- 
 brew text employs to express the same thing ΤΊΣΙ fo be pure. 
 
 Ἔν τῷ κχείνεσθαί σε may be viewed either as passive, or as mid- 
 dle. Several have even taken it in an active acceptation. ‘To sup- 
 pose it passive in the Hebrew text, would not yield a suitable meaning, 
 although it would be grammatically correct. This, however, is no 
 sufficient proof of the passive acceptation not having been adopted 
 by the Septuagint, and afterwards by Paul, which would here make 
 the meaning, when thou art judged, although that meaning, it must 
 be coffessed, does not seem perfectly to accord with the Apostle’s 
 scope. The parallel passages from the LXX. appear also in favour 
 of it, and for these reasons, it has been espoused by Lambertus Bos, 
 whom the majority of expositors follow. On the other hand, the 
 active signification is what would best coincide both with the Hebrew 
 text, and the Apostle’s design in the passage before us; as there are 
 no examples, however, to support it, and as χρίνεσθαι, when not 
 passive, is always middle, we here take it in the latter mood. Although 
 the Hebrew will not bear this, bw being in Kal. and requiring to be 
 understood actively, the LX X. might nevertheless, have adopted the 
 middle, frém its analogy to the active. Comp. Is. xliii. 26, in the 
 Septuagint. For these reasons we thus translate, ‘ that thou in con- 
 troversy with men mayest appear just, and maintain the superiority, 
 when thou judgest.”’ 
 
 V.5. The answer now given to the objection which Paul had 
 himself brought forward, viz. as to whether the unbelief of the Jews 
 with respect to Christ, did not deprive the dispensation of prophecy 
 of its whole value, might give occasion to a still more dangerous 
 assertion. When he said, that the falsehood of man was the 
 means of shedding a brighter light upon the covenant-fidelity of God, 
 the insolent sophistry of the Jews might conclude from that proposi- 
 tion, that the sinner was no longer amenable to punishment, as thus 
 contributing to the glory of the Divine Being. ‘The ἡμὼν has no spe- 
 
 13 
 
98 CHAPTER 111. V. 5. 
 
 cial reference either to Jews or Christians, but applies generally to 
 all men committing sin. ᾿Αδικία and δικαιοσύνη are the generic ideas 
 for the ἀπιστία and πίστις Of the 3d verse. Συνιστάναι to commend, 
 manifest. Philo: (De migr. Abrah. p. 394,) τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ διασυ- 
 νίστησιν-τττὲχ tov τὸν χόσμον Sedyuuroveyyxévar. ‘The τί ἐξοῦμεν iS ἃ 
 figure of Rabbinical Dialectics, 1229 XIX “ND, quid est dicendum? 
 which in the Talmud, always appears in the abbreviated form of 98. 
 In like manner, it is peculiar to the Rabbins, to repel the opponent 
 by a negative, cast into the form of an interrogation. 
 
 In the μὴ ἀδικος ὃ Θεὸς the Apostle gives the false reply to the above 
 sophistical question. Were this reply true, it would justify the per- 
 nicious sophistry which dictates the question, and might certainly be 
 deduced from the former impious inference. ‘The μὴ which, as is 
 well known, like the Latin num, introduces a question to which 
 we expect a negative answer, may accordingly be here paraphrased, 
 ‘* Shall we then reply to that objection by conceding that God, &c.”’ 
 
 κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. There are three several acceptations in which 
 this formulary may be taken. I speak agreeably to the nature 
 or understanding of man, or I speak as men are wont to do, or, 
 finally, in a still more restricted sense, I speak as those men do. 
 These various meanings may frequently indeed coincide; it is never- 
 theless possible to point out one of them as the most common, and 
 that isthe second. This is the meaning of the phrase in Gal. ili. 15, 
 and Rom. vi. 19, where we read xara ἀνθρώπινον λέγω. In support 
 of it, it is usual, since the time of Grotius, to instance Eccles. ii. 18, 
 but there 31» has a somewhat different signification. On the 
 other hand, it is of frequent occurrence among the T'almudists, who, 
 when they borrow any illustration from common life, are wont to 
 say ‘WIS NNT 193 as men usually speak. The same mode of speech 
 is prevalent among classical authors; and takes its rise from the gene- 
 ral meaning of ἀνθρώπινον, that which is customary among men. 
 Comp. Aristoph. νεβρῷ, v. 1174. Μὴ μοίγε μύθους ἀλλὰ τῶν avOga- 
 πίνων οἵους λέγομεν μάλιστα τούτους κατ᾽ οἰκίαν. Rane, v. 1174, ἣν 
 οὖν σὺ λέγῃς AvxaBytovs, καὶ ἸΤαφνασσὼν ἡμῖν μεγέθη» τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὰ χεηστὰ 
 διδάσκειν ὃν χρὴ φράζειν ἀνθξωπείως" Strato, the comic author, has 
 GrOeanivws λαλεῖν. It is likewise equally common in Latin. Petro- 
 nius: (Satyricon, 6. 90.) Minus quam duabus horis mecum moraris, 
 et sepius poeticé quam humané locutus es. Furthermore, Symma- 
 chus: (Epp. ed. Leccius, p. 47, ep. 32.) Persuasisti mihi epistole 
 mez concinnationem inhumanam non esse. So likewise Cicero (De 
 divinatione, |. xi. 6. 64) uses the expression, hominum more dicere, in 
 the sense “to speak in ordinary language.”’ Such is the meaning 
 given to xara dvOgwzov λέγω in the present passage by Theodoret. 
 See his Expos. of Gal. iii. 15. More ancient commentators deviate ' 
 from him, as, for example, Suicer, in this very place, opposes to him 
 Theophylact. Already Chrysostom expounded the xara dv0ganov by 
 κατ᾿ ἀνθρώπινον διαλεχθείη λογισμὸν, Which Theophylact and Gicume- 
 
CHAPTER Iti. v. 6. 99 
 
 nius more minutely explain. ‘The former says, ἐγὼ μὲν τοιαῦτα ἀπο- 
 Aoyoumat ὑπὲφ Tov Θεοὺ;, xata ἀνθρώπινον Aoyromor, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν, ὡς ἔνι 
 δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λογίζεσθαν δικαιολογίας. ᾿Επεὶ ὅσω mover 6 Sedsy ἔχεο 
 τινὰς ἀποῤῥήτους λόγοῦς. ὃ By this exposition, a false reference is given 
 to the formula by its being brought into connection with the follow- 
 ing answer of Paul, ἐπεὺ πῶς xeiver, &c. ‘The Ambrosiaster interprets: 
 Absit ne deus iniquus dicatur, quia hoc homini competit, quem con- 
 stat errare. Modern commentators differ greatly from each other. 
 Many unnaturally render it, as the opponents say. 
 
 V. 6. The Apostle repels the insolent sophistical objection under 
 review, by retreating to a truth which no Jew denied. If, as he 
 argues, from the circumstance of sin’s bringing the Divine perfections 
 into clearer light, it could be inferred, that God ought not to punish 
 the sinner, it would follow that he could not be the judge of the 
 world, for it universally happens, that the sins of men become sub- 
 servient to the manifestation of God’s glory, without their native 
 turpitude being thereby done away. We, accordingly, expound as 
 follows: ‘* Were such the case, how would he then judge the world. 
 A future judgment must also be given πρ.᾿ So Grotius, Beza, and 
 others. With a slight variation of idea, the majority of interpreters 
 render it, ‘‘ were such the case, how would he hold, 7. 6. would he 
 have revealed that he will hold, a judgment?”’ ‘This is in so far 
 expressed with precision by 'Theophylact: Accs ce xonager, δὲ αὐτὸ 
 τοῦτο οὐκ εἰ αὐτῷ τῆς νύκης aiTLOS* ἀδικία yae τὸ τὸν αἴτιον τῆς vixNS 
 παξφὰ τοῦ νικῶντος κολάζεσθαι. Even so Origen, 'Theodoret, Gicume- 
 nius, and Bucer, who says, that ‘to judge, involves the idea of 
 avenging sin.”” ‘There is still another shade of the idea, suggested 
 by Clarius, but which is far-fetched. He lays the emphasis upon 
 Θεὸς, and determines the meaning to be “ ought not we rather to judge 
 the world, who would thus bring good out of our sins?”’ An inter- 
 pretation, deviating far from the common one, has been proposed by 
 Limborch and Koppe, who understand χόσμος to mean the heathen 
 world. ‘This would yield the following sense. ‘If, as by your fond 
 sophistry ye conclude, the sins of Jews make God unrighteous in 
 punishing you, you must also grant that the sins of the heathen 
 equally conduce to the Divine glory, and hence that it is equally 
 wrong for him to punish them; an inference which, as Jews, you 
 will not admit.’ ‘To this interpretation no objection, on the score 
 of language, can be offered. ‘The Jews were fond of distinguishing 
 Danw: and odiyn nix, those who belonged to the external theocracy, 
 and those who were excluded from it. ‘The same distinction was 
 transferred to the spiritual theocracy, and κόσμος came to denote all 
 
 * This I state in apology for God, according to human judgment, that is, 
 as an umpire decides upon the defences of the parties. There are always 
 some secret reasons in God’s doings. 
 
 } The mere fact of his punishing you does not constitute you the cause of 
 his overcoming. ‘To inflict a penalty on the author of his victory would be 
 injustice in the conqueror. 
 
106 CHAPTER Ill. v. 6, 7. 
 
 who have no part in the kingdom of Christ. Under these the 
 heathen are comprehended. Besides, it is no less true, that the 
 Jews believed that the great judgment day, which they looked for at 
 the advent of the Messiah, was especially designed as a day of ven- 
 geance against the enemies of the theocracy, viz. the heathen. See 
 Lightfoot ad Joh. iii. 17. In spite of all this, however, it is more 
 correct to suppose, that the Apostle here refers to that universal 
 judgment to which God will bring the whole world. For, in the 
 first place, as Paul did not believe on a judgment of the heathen, 
 according to the Jewish views, he could not properly appeal to that, 
 as a perfectly certain event, which the use of the future tense xeuvet 
 shows that he does. In his conception, the judgment of the heathen 
 must have been comprised in God’s general office of 87 9. DEW, 
 as he is always called in the Old Testament. Again, it is obvious, 
 from the 8th verse, that under χόσμος the Apostle had in view sinners 
 of every kind, and not exclusively the heathen. Moreover, he who 
 uniformly offered such decided opposition to the delusion of the 
 Jews, who flattered themselves, that, by virtue of mere bodily ex- 
 traction, they belonged to the kingdom of God, insisting with them 
 that their character rather showed them to be of the world, would 
 scarcely have made so erroneous an idea of the foundation of an argu- 
 ment. 
 
 ᾿Επεὶ alioquin, see Ast. ad Plat. Remp. p. 633, Alberti Obs. p. 
 341. χρίνευν, in our acceptation of the passage, means not fo con- 
 demn but to judge. 
 
 V.7. This verse justifies the statement contained in verse 6th, 
 viz. that by the sophistical perversion of the truth in question, the 
 idea of a judgment is entirely done away. Instead, however, of in- 
 troducing the sinner, supposed to be unjustly subjected to judgment, 
 and making him speak in the third person, the Apostle, by an ordi- 
 nary figure of rhetoric, takes the part upon himself. ‘The connection 
 of this verse with the preceding is hence as follows: ‘It cannot be 
 allowed that God is unrighteous when he punishes the sinner, for 
 otherwise we must deny that he will one day judge the world, inas- 
 much as I, a sinful person, cannot lawfully be judged as such, seeing 
 that my sin conduces to the divine glory.” ‘The exposition of the 
 verse shows at once the incorrectness of Limborch and Koppe’s in- 
 terpretation of χόσμος;, it being obvious, that sinners of every kind are 
 here spoken of. 
 
 ψεῦσμα for ψεῦδος» is to be taken as ἀδικία in verse 5th, after the 
 Hebrew 7pw, which signifies worthlessness; ἀλήθεια is practical truth, 
 equivalent to δικαιοσύνη holiness, which Old Testament use of speech, 
 the Rabbins still preserve, giving Dwp, the meaning of truth and 
 holiness. ‘That, in translating this passage, the generic term ought 
 to be used to express the idea, is obvious from the fact that the Apos- 
 tle has been led by the mention of the judgment of the world, to make 
 a transition from the special relationship of the Israelite to God, 
 which consisted in covenant-faithlessness on the one side, and cove- 
 
CHAPTER III. ν. 8. 101 
 
 nant truth on the other, to the contemplation of that general relation 
 in which man, as a sinner, stands to the Divine Being. It is entirely 
 forced when Koppe interprets ψεῦσμα idolatry, and ἁμαρτωλὸς, an 
 idolater, in order to make the passage apply to the heathen. 
 
 ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, is in place οἵ πεξφισσοτέφως ἐδόξασεν 
 αὐτὸν, after the Hebrew 12102 VMN. Κἀγὼ. The xa is here not 
 altogether devoid of meaning, in so far as it co-ordinates the fate of 
 man with the advantage which God gains in the case: it may be ex- 
 pressed by besides, moreover. 
 
 V. 8. continues the confirmatory elucidation of what was said in 
 verse 6th. Supposing the sophism in question to be laid down, two 
 consequences follow, not only does God cease to be the judge of the 
 world, but we are landed upon a proposition, which is revolting to 
 every moral feeling, viz. that we are bound to do evil that good may 
 come. It is very difficult to find the correct grammatical construc- 
 tion here. We mention, in the first instance, the modes proposed 
 by those who do not supply any thing. Grotius considers 6c. as 
 meaning why, and the μὴ at the beginning of the verse with the ὅτι 
 in the middle, as standing per metathesin ὅτυ μὴν why not. For ren- 
 dering ὅτι, why, the only example, (and it is a questionable one,) 
 which can be produced, is Mark ix. 11, 28; a metathesis of this 
 kind is in the highest degree violent; and, in fine, the words are at 
 too great a distance from each other, to admit of their being trans- 
 posed. Others, such as the Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Baumgarten, 
 consider ὅτι as merely a particle of resumption, required after the 
 parenthetical clause, and contend that the μὴ should be united imme- 
 diately with ποιήσωμεν. Such a use of ὅτι must be copied from the 
 Hebrew, and there are even passages in which it is exemplified, as 
 Isa. xlix. 19. The exposition is hence not inadmissible. We may 
 also, however, suppose that we have here an example of negligent 
 construction, and that something is to be supplied after μή. Some 
 suggest λέγομεν, as Erasmus, Calvin, and Koppe. Louis de Dieu 
 and Sebast. Schmidt γένοιτο. It is better, however, to supply ποιοὺ- 
 μεν OF ποιήσωμεν, as is done by the Arabian translator, and by Luther, 
 Bengel, and Heumann, who thinks himself the first author of the 
 expedient. ‘The Apostle had intended to use this word after καὶ μὴ», 
 but being then diverted from his purpose, he afterwards subjoins it to 
 ὅτι. According to this view, we endeavour to copy the turn of the 
 sentence in the following manner:—‘‘ And why should we not, as 
 some, traducing us, say, we recommend to—do evil that good may 
 come.” By this involution of the thought, which we have attempted 
 to imitate in the translation, the omission of the πουήσωμεν is very 
 easily explained. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gi cumenius, ap- 
 pear to have adopted the same construction. Theodoret, on the other 
 hand, supplies λέγομεν» likewise taking the sentence in an affirmative 
 acceptation. As in some respects analogous, we may regard Thucyd. 
 Hist. 1. 1. c. 184, xav αὐτὸν ἐμέλλησαν μέν εἰς τὸν Keada (ἐμβάλλειν) 
 οὗπερ τοὺς xaxoveyous ἐμβάλλεῖν εἰώθεσαν. Compare also for the con- 
 
102 CHAPTER III. v. 8, 9. 
 
 struction, 2 Cor. iii. 183, Why the Christians were charged with 
 this blasphemy is mentioned by Chrysostom, Ambrose, and ‘Theodo- 
 ret. Hear the last: addéy, Φησὶ, τούτων ἧμεις Φαμὲν, παρ᾽ ἑτέρων δὲ 
 λέγειν συκοφαντούμεθα; οὗ τῆς συκοφαντίας τίσουσι δίκας. εἰδέναι μέντου 
 XEN, ὡς τὼν ἱερὼν ἀποσφόλων λεγόντων, ὅπου ἐπλεόνασεν ἣ ἁμαρτία; ὑπεξε- 
 πεξίσσευσεν ἡ χάξις: τινὲς τῇ θεοσεβείᾳ δουλεύοντες» ψευδολογίαις xar αὐτῶν 
 κεχφημένοι, λέγειν αὐτοὺς ἔφασκον, ποιήσωμεν τὰ κακὰν ἵνα ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά.ἢ 
 
 ὧν τὸ xeiua ἔνδικόν ἐστι. This supplement is not, as is usually sup- 
 posed, a refutation of those who urge the calumnious charge. Their 
 refutation is already contained in the clause, πῶς χξινεῦ ὃ Θεὸς τὸν xOs- 
 μον. Here they are only incidentally alluded to, and, therefore, this 
 clause does not form a link of the argument. ᾿Ἔνδυχος quasi ἐν dixy 
 ov? Hesychius: Svxavos, ἀξιος. 
 
 PAC ΓΟ ΤΣ 
 
 EXPLANATION HOW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRIVILEGES OF THE THE- 
 OCRACY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATEVER, IN AS FAR AS RE- 
 GARDS GUILT THROUGH SIN, AND NEED OF SALVATION, BETWEEN 
 HIM THAT IS A JEW, AND HIM THAT IS NOT. v. 9—21. 
 
 V.9, The defence which the Apostle makes for himself in the 
 preceding section, against the charge of undervaluing the theocratical 
 dispensation of God to Israel, was forced from him, and did not 
 properly belong to the train of proofs which he is bringing forward, 
 with the sole purpose of showing the guilt and need of salvation, 
 both of those who were, and of those who were not, members of the 
 theocracy. Accordingly, he now resumes his proper theme, which 
 he had relinquished at the end of chapter 2d. Although, as his 
 meaning is, this intermediate inquiry yields the result, that, in re- 
 spect of what has been done for them by God, the Jews enjoy great 
 privileges, by means of which it is made easier for them to enter into 
 the kingdom of Christ, we are compelled, nevertheless, to come back 
 to our former proposition, that in an equal degree with the heathen 
 they are involved in guilt, and stand in need of salvation. So far as 
 their divine ordinances are concerned, they have much, but, as re- 
 gards their real character, they have no advantage at all over the 
 
 * We say, affirms the Apostle, no such thing, but are traduced as saying 
 so by others, who shall one day receive the punishment of their calumny. It 
 is right to know, that when the holy Apostles taught, that where sin hath 
 abounded, grace did much more abound, some professors of the old religion, 
 spreading falsehoods to their prejudice, reported that they said, let us do evil 
 that good may come. ς 
 
CHAPTER IiI. v. 9, 16. 108 
 
 Gentiles. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ambrose. Origen: 
 Paulus velut arbiter inter Judzos et gentes temperat sermonem sem- 
 per et librat, ut nunc nos nun¢ illos in quibusdam videatur arguere, et 
 rursum singulas partes certa spe promissionis animat. 
 
 The middle weoéyec6a. means to hold before one’s self, and hence 
 is used with ἀσπίδα. It is also employed metaphorically with zeo- 
 φασιν, and signifies to pretend, make an excuse. In this sense it may 
 be taken along with zc ovy, as is done in the Syrian and Arabian ver- 
 sions and by Koppe, and then the translation is, What pretext can 
 we now allege? The reply would be οὐ πάντως, in the sense none 
 at all. As οὐ πάντως, however, cannot very well have this meaning, 
 it has been joined to the following verb; and the particle yae, which 
 seems to resist such a conjunction, has, on the authority of several 
 codices, been removed from the text. What pretext had the Apostle 
 here in view? might now be asked. ‘The most natural reply would 
 be, that which he stated in the context immediately preceding, and 
 by which the Jews thought to evade the penal justice of God. But 
 this does not accord with πεοῃτιασάμεθα κτλ.» Which treats of some- 
 thing entirely different. We would therefore require to go still far- 
 ther back, to the place at which Paul shows that the mere knowledge 
 of the law does not profit the Jew, and that he is a sinner no less 
 than the Gentile. In this way might the interpretation of weozyoueda, 
 now under consideration, be defended, but at the expense of several 
 suppositions, which are unnatural. Moreover, such a use of πεξοέχεσ- 
 θαι; although frequent in classical Greek, is by no means so in Hel- 
 lenistic. In that dialect weoéyew, in the active voice, signifies fo 
 surpass. Now supposing, according to Wetstein’s opinion, that 
 neosxoucda Meant, are we surpassed by the heathen? it is clear this 
 would not harmonize with the sense of the passage, for in the first 
 verse, mention was made of a περισσὸν τοῦ ᾿Ιουδαιοῦ, We must con- 
 sequently embrace the plan of giving, what is unusual, an active 
 signification to the Medial πεοέχεσθαι, according to which it is synony- 
 mous with πεοβαλλεσθαυ, ὑπεξέχειν. In this manner, we are able to 
 sunder τί οὖν, and οὐ πάντως retains its ordinary signification. τί οὖν 
 is the Rabbinical 7319 pa; “xno, What comes from thence? A for- 
 mula in use among the Rabbins when they take up the result of an 
 inquiry. Πεοαιτιᾶσθαι. Grotius, who adopts the usual interpretation, 
 translates this word by the legal phrase, accusationem prestruximus. 
 Vulg. precausati sumus. Here correctly rendered by Ambrose, pro- 
 bare. ‘Vo’ duaeriar, as undera lord. See Matt. vill. 9, Gal. ili, 22. 
 
 V. 10. The declarations from the Psalms which delineate the great 
 corruption of the men who surrounded David in the court of Saul, 
 Paul here employs in order to describe the universal depravity of the 
 whole human race. The 19th verse, however, shows that he meant 
 the words of the Psalmist to apply, in the first instance, to the Jews. 
 The quotations are collected from different Psalms. In the codex 
 Alexandrinus of the LXX. they are all appended to the 14th, un- 
 questionably from this passage. V.10—12 is from Ps. 14, after the 
 
104 CHAPTER Ill. v. LI—19. 
 
 LXX. The words ὅτι οὐχ gore δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἴς are the Apostle’s own, 
 in which he gives the substance of the following quotations. 
 
 V. 11. Ps. xiv. 2. Συνιὼν 72:2, An enlightened knowledge 
 comes only from converse with God, and an unenlightened is averse 
 to holiness, 1 Cor. ii. 14, Ὃ ἐκζητῶν τὸν Θεόν. Pelagius: qui non 
 requirit fundamentum, necesse est ut declinet. ‘To man, as a fallen 
 creature, God is a hidden God. But a certain longing and presenti- 
 ment, more or less strong, impels us to seek after that hidden being, 
 until at last we find him, and are so closely united to him, that we 
 can say, Ps. Ixxiii. 25, ““ Whom have I in heaven but thee, and there 
 is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.”’ 
 
 V. 12. ᾿Εξέχλιναν means, according to the Hebrew, which is 10, fo 
 deviate from the way which leads to God. "Hyezusnoav to become 
 useless or unprofitable; in the Hebrew mos to corrupt, metaphor- 
 ically fo have an inward germ of vileness. “Eas ἑνός, a Hebraism 
 for οὐδὲ eis, Calvin: Ut optimum mutue inter nos conjunctionis vin- 
 culum nobis est in Dei cognitione, ita ejus ignorantiam fere sequitur 
 inhumanitas, dum unusquisque, 8115 contemptis se ipsum amat. 
 
 V. 13. Literally quoted from the LXX. of Psalm v. 9. The 
 Psalmist calls the mouth of the wicked an open sepulchre, because, 
 as from the one comes the stench of corruption, so from the other 
 proceed pestilential words. Δολιοῦν to act deceitfully. ‘The Beo- 
 tian Alexandrine termination of all the historical tenses is in σαν; as 
 ex. gr. ἐλάβοσαν, ἐμάθοσαν. ἐδολιοῦσαν stands for ἐδολυοῦν-. 
 
 V.14. After the LXX., with a slight alteration from Ps. x. 7, 
 ᾿Αξὰ as used by the LXX., signifies an oath. Greek authors have 
 aeacdor obtestari. Suidas ἐπιθειάφειν τινί. aed in this place, how- 
 ever, would seem, from the connection with the following noun, to 
 mean perjury. For the word in the Hebrew is not mn, which 
 would correspond with the πυκεία of the Septuagint, but nv, which 
 signifies fraud.* 
 
 V. 15. This passage is quoted, with some abbreviation, from Is. 
 lix. 7. The man who is thoroughly corrupted does not hesitate at a 
 wicked act, but executes it at once. 
 
 V. 16. Also from Is. lix. 7, Σύντξιμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία VWI W. 
 “Odor is, after the Hebrew, the way of living. 'The sense, accord- 
 ingly, is ‘in all that they do there is destruction and misery;” sup- 
 ply either for themselves or others. 
 
 V.17. ὁδὸς εἰρήνης means a way of life from which flows salva- 
 tion. Τινώσκειν to know practically, hence, to acknowledge. 
 
 V. 18. is from Ps. xxxvi. 1. Φόβος Θεοῦ, the fear of God, arising 
 from ἃ sense of his holiness. 
 
 V. 19. Although, when he began to cite these passages, Paul had 
 not the Jews exclusively before his eyes, but meant to paint the de- 
 pravity of the whole race, he now, however, applies them directly to 
 
 * [Tholuck has acknowledged, that the exposition here is too artificial. 
 The passage probably means, “ their mouth is full of cursing and anger.”] 
 
CHAPTER II. v. 19, 20. 105 
 
 that nation; and, as he perhaps thought that they might be misled by 
 pride to fancy that such statements could not be intended for them, he 
 subjoins, that whatever the Old ‘Testament declares, it declares of all 
 who are under it. So Chrysostom, Calvin and Grotius. 
 
 ὃ νόμος. In compliance with the exposition here given, we require 
 to take νόμος in its more general acceptation, as when joined with χαὺ 
 οὗ neopyntar, the writings of the Old Testament. In this acceptation 
 it is used, John x. 34, xii. 34, 1 Cor. xiv. 21. It may be objected, 
 that when the word is so interpreted, the expression of ty τῷ νόμῳ 
 does not correspond with it, but neither is this necessary, if the dif- 
 ferent idea be but expressed by a similar word. On the other hand, 
 it is not inadmissible to take νόμος in the narrower sense of the law, 
 as is done by Calovius and Ammon. In this case Paul must have 
 viewed the νόμος as the reigning principle of the Old ‘Testament; as 
 throughout the New, it is the χάρις which speaks to man: and his 
 meaning is, “ whatsoever emanates from the spirit of the law, in the 
 writings of the the Old Testament, is addressed precisely to such as 
 lived under the constitution of the Old Testament, and hence the Jew 
 must take it home to himself, and urges to no purpose his proud 
 objections.”” Hesychius gives as synonymous with ὑπόδικος, ὑπεύ- 
 θυνος, EEworNs, ἔνοχος δίκης. 
 
 V. 20. With admirable skill the Apostle now puts the key-stone 
 to the inquiry which he has been carrying on from the 18th verse of 
 the Ist chapter. "Eeya νόμου. We here already encounter this 
 term, so full of import in the doctrine of Paul. Under vowos, many, 
 from ancient times, have contended, that nothing else was meant, 
 than that portion of the Mosaic law which contains the ritual 
 precepts. We may enumerate Ambrose, ‘Theodoret, ‘Theophylact, 
 Pelagius, Lombard, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, 
 and Ammon. But the fact, that such a separation of the ceremonial 
 from the moral part of the law, was by no means usual among the 
 Jews, is decidedly opposed to this restricted interpretation of the 
 vouos. In their constitution, the two were intimately combined. 
 The observance of the ritual was to them a duty of precisely the 
 same obligation as the performance of the moral precepts. For this 
 reason alone, it behoves us, when the Apostle speaks of the veyous τοῦ 
 νόμου; to understand the whole amount of the duties obligatory upon 
 the Jews, whether they relate to external rites or moral actions 
 properly so called. That by the word νόμος the idea which he 
 means to express, is that of a religious and moral law, externally im- 
 posing a command and obligation, apart from any regard to its sub- 
 ject matter, results indisputably from the connection of the whole 
 doctrine of St. Paul, as well as from that of particular texts. Comp. 
 the exposition of Usteri, Paulinischer Lehrbegriff, S. 23. ff. Even 
 in the present passage, the connection demands this acceptation of 
 νόμος. His object, throughout the whole of the foregoing inquiry, 
 had been to show that the Jew is guilty, because he does not keep 
 
 14 
 
106 CHAPTER III. v. 20. 
 
 the divine Jaw, outwardly imposing obligations upon him; and that 
 for the same reason, the heathen is guilty, even as transgressing that 
 law implanted by nature within him, and which is also outwardly 
 obligatory. Now, how inconsistent would it be with all this, were 
 he to draw the conclusion, that in so far as it respects a certain sub- 
 ject, viz. the ritual precepts, the law is incapable of justifying a man, 
 but that it is able to do so, in as far as it respects what is properly 
 moral. The hinge, upon which his argumentation turns, is not the 
 matter and subject of the law, but the relation of every divine pre- 
 ‘cept, to the fulfilment of it on the part of man. And if such be the 
 case, it follows that, in what he says of the νόμος, he refers also to 
 the moral law with which we are acquainted, seeing that that is not 
 a mere subjective instinct, but an objective command. In the second 
 chapter, he had in fact placed the moral Jaw, as engraved on the 
 conscience of the heathen, upon a level with the law of Moses; and 
 subsequently, in the seventh chapter, after speaking in the Ist and 
 7th verses of the Mosaic law, he insensibly makes a transition to the 
 γόμος tov νοὸς, V. 23. The right comprehension of these terms νόμος» 
 and feya τοῦ νόμου is of high importance. For if we are to under- 
 stand by them nothing but the mere rityal precepts, it follows, that 
 the chief merit of the Old ‘Testament consisted in imposing a number 
 of superfluous and burdensome ordinances, and that all we are in- 
 debted for to the New, is the abrogation of these. But if Christianity 
 did nothing more than liberate man from a multitude of oppressive 
 rites, its utility would be altogether of a negative kind. Under such 
 circumstances, we cannot blame Melancthon, when, in his excursus 
 xiv., he gives the preference, among the expositors, to Augustine, for 
 having extended the meaning of Zeya νόμου, beyond mere ritual ob- 
 servances. He adds: Quid enim sit liberatio a lege, prorsus ignorant 
 illi, qui eam intelligunt tantum de ceremoniis. Several Roman 
 Catholic expositors take a middle path, holding that moral actions 
 are meant, but only those that precede conversion. ‘this is suggested 
 by Augustine in Quest. 83. Qu. 67, whom Thomas Aquinas, and 
 Salmeron follow. ‘The negative with vas, means none at all. Beza: 
 Omnis caro non justificatur, pro quo planius dixeris, nuila caro justi- 
 ficatur. ‘Che Apostle designates man by cae, which has the con- 
 comitant idea of weakness, as it were,“ poor feeble man cannot jus- 
 tify himself before the eye of God.’’ ‘The law, whether written 
 upon the conscience, or engraved upon tables, may teach man to 
 know what sin is; but it cannot teach him to hate it, nor inspire the 
 love of what is holy. Hence it aggravates his sinfulness, by show- 
 ing him on all hands what things he ought to do, and what to leave 
 undone. Chrysostom: εἰ yae αὐχεῖς ἐπὶ τῷ νομῳ, αὐτός σε μᾶλλον κα- 
 ταισχύνει. οὗτός σον τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἐχπομπεύει. 5 Melancthon: Hee ' 
 
 * If you glory in the law, it rather puts you to shame, by making a display 
 of your sins. 
 
CHAPTER Ill. v. 21, 22. 107 
 
 responsio prorsus nova et absurda videtur mundo, lege tantum ostendi 
 peccata non tolli. Nam legum latores in imperiis ferunt leges, non 
 tantum ut ostendant peccata, sed ut tollant. Verum non concionatur 
 Paulus de moribus externis. 
 
 FP Ag TPE, 
 
 ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE NEW METHOD BY WHICH GOD JUSTIFIES ALL, 
 AND WHICH HE HAS DEVISED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR INABILITY 
 TO ACQUIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR THEMSELVES, BY A PERFECT FUL- 
 FILMENT OF THE LAW. Vv. 21—27. 
 
 V. 21. Paul has stated the grounds on which all men stand in 
 need of some salvation, similar to that of which he had announced 
 himself as the messenger to the Romans, chap. i. 16, 17. He has 
 thrown Jew and Gentile into perplexity as to the way of obtaining 
 justification before God, no one being capable of securing it by ful- 
 filment of the law. He now therefore at once draws aside the cur- 
 tain, and exposes to the eyes of mankind an entirely new and hitherto 
 unheard of scheme, devised by God, and calculated for the justifica- 
 tion of the whole human race. Cicumenius: ᾿Επιδεύξας αὐτοὺς μηδὲν 
 ὠφελημένους ἐκ τοῦ νόμου, KOU εἰς ἐπιθυμίαν ἀγαγὸν μεθόδου σῶσαυ δυναμέ- 
 γῆς: εὐκαίρως εἰς τὴν πίστιν εἰσβάλλει Χριστοῦ. 
 
 Νυνὶ δὲ is not a particle of transition, but designates the time, now, 
 in the revelation of the New Testaments; ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ, V. 26. 
 
 Xwels νόμου without any respect to moral obligations, without the 
 Taw, in so far as it is a νόμος ἔργων. 27. δΔικχαιοσύνη Θεοῦ is the same 
 as inc. i. 17. πΠεφανέφωται. ‘Theophylact: Καλῶς sive τὸ, πεφανέ- 
 carat, ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι ἐχέχρυπτο πάλαι οὖσα. καὶ διὰ τοῦ Ermey, μαξτυ- 
 δουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου; δηλοῦ ὅτυ οὐ MEOSPATOS ἐστι. 
 
 Μαεξτυξουμένη. The Apostle here intimates, as he had before done, 
 c. i. 2, that it is not a new doctrine which in teaches, and that the 
 Christian revelation was closely connected with the preparatory 
 economy, partly by the law which awakened a sense of sin, and 
 partly by the prophecies, as the presentiment of a coming salvation. 
 
 V. 22. A more special definition of the justification in question. 
 
 * Having shown them that they were destitute of all help from the law, and 
 brought them to desire some effectual way of salvation, he casts them oppor- 
 tunely into the faith of Christ. 
 
 He uses well the word manifested, showing that, although hidden, it was 
 of ancient date, and, in like manner, when he says, z/ was witnessed by the law, 
 he declares the same, even that it is not of to-day. 
 
108 CHAPTER III. v. 23, 24, 25. 
 
 Διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It is the effect of a beleving ward 
 acceptance of Christ in all that he was for mankind. 
 
 εἰς πάντος καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. Supply, as suggested 
 by Luther, ἐχομένη. One is tempted to attach to each of the prepo- 
 sitions a special meaning of its own; and accordingly, Seb. Schmidt 
 and Chr. Schmid refer εἰς to the mere publication, and é7 te the ap- 
 propriation of grace. ‘The ancients, Theodoret and CScumenius, 
 very arbitrarily apply the former πάντας to the Jews, and the latter 
 to the Gentiles. It is better, however, not to suppose a difference of 
 meaning in the two prepositions. Paul’sJively temperament led him 
 to vary his expressions, without attaching to them in every instance 
 a different import. See Gal. i. 1. 
 
 V. 23. To the self-righteous Jew it must have been a very re- 
 pulsive doctrine, that by obedience to his law, he could by no means 
 earn a title to salvation, and so distinguish himself above the heathen. 
 But the more difficult it was for him to admit this truth, the more 
 does the Apostle feel himself obliged to insist upon it. He, there- 
 fore, once more declares it, ‘‘ If, on our part, there were conformity 
 to the law, this new way of justification might not perhaps be neces- 
 sary, but seeing that we are destitute of that, God’s justifying us 
 through Christ is a work of free grace.’ δόξα like 1123, and also 
 monn, praise, glory. 1 Chr. xvi. 28, 29. Equivalent are the expres- 
 sions δόξα παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, John v. 44, and δόξα τοὺ Θεοῦ, John xii. 43, 
 and so likewise, καύχημα neds τὸν Θεόν. It is altogether arbitrary on 
 the part of Glassius and Calov. to interpret δόξα, the Divine image. 
 
 V. 24. The new way of justification, which is stated generally in 
 verses 21 and 22, is now, as far as the 27th, clearly and magnificently 
 unfolded, and its relation to the human race at the same time taken 
 into view. So that verse 23 is to be regarded as interrupting the 
 development of the subject. 
 
 Διχαιούμενου SUpply εἰσὶ, or rather it is to be considered as properly 
 a participle to be collocated Hebraistically with ὑστεφοῦνταυ. It would 
 have added to the perspicuity if, at this place, where he begins a prin- 
 cipal head of argument, the Apostle had made the transition with 
 aang, and a verbum finitum. 
 
 Δωρεὰν, Without any thing done on our parts, but the believing 
 acceptance of that which has been objectively wrought out for us. 
 We require to bring neither sacrifice for expiation, nor any fixed 
 amount of legal performances. Ambrose: Nihil operantes nee vicem 
 reddentes. In the two following verses the ἀπολύτεωσις ἐν Xevora 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ, is explained and evolved. 
 
 V. 25 and 26 are closely interwoven, and hence arises the question: 
 In what relation does the latter stand to the former? Is it co-ordinate 
 or subordinate? It will be necessary, however, in the first instance, 
 to determine the sense of the particular words. 
 
 Ἱλαστήξιον. ‘This word is properly an adjective, and we have to 
 inquire, What is the noun to be joined with it?) The choice lies be- 
 tween two, ἐπίθεμα and θῦμα. Like other ancient nations, the He- 
 
CHAPTER III. v. 25, 26. 109 
 
 brews had a sacred ark as a symbol of the Divine presence. This 
 was covered with a golden lid, called N33, from 952, fo cover. Upon 
 the lid, and wrought as a part of it, were two cherubim, turned face 
 to face, and spreading out their wings as a covering to the lid of the 
 ark. Over these cherubim was the throne of God, whence Moses 
 received the Divine oracles. See Ex. xxv, 22, Num. vii. 89, (Jahn’s 
 Archeologie, Ὁ. iii. 5. 242; Lundius Von den Jiidischen Heiligthii- 
 mern, |. i. 6. 13, and the learned treatise, De arca Feederis, c. 9. in 
 Bux. Fil. Exercitationes Historice, Bas. 1659.) On the yearly feast 
 of expiation, the High-Priest sprinkled upon the lid of the ark the 
 blood of a bullock seven times, and seven times also the blood of a 
 goat, as a sign of the atonement of the sins of the people. Even the 
 Jews recognized in the ark of the covenant a most important typical 
 meaning. Abarbanel says on the subject: ‘¢ Far be the thought, that 
 the cherubim served as a mere ornament, and betokened nothing 
 higher.”’” In the marginal gloss to the Talmud, (‘Tract. Berachoth, 
 chap, v.) it is declared, ‘ God hath given us the figures of the taber- 
 nacle, and of the holy place, and of all their furniture, that we may 
 thence learn the heavenly truths.” Now, as the lid of the ark was 
 in this manner likewise a symbol of the grace of God, it is probable, 
 that the LXX. thence derived its name; 752, besides the primitive 
 meaning fo cover, having also the metaphorical meaning to afone, 
 and that they accordingly translated it ἑλαστήξιον, the expiatory. In 
 two passages, Ex. xxv. 17, xxxvii. 6, they even annex ἐπίθεμα. 
 Even so Philo (de vita Mosis, 1. iii. p. 668. D. ed. Frank.) speaks 
 of a πῶμα ἱλαστήξιον, and afterwards of an invdeua πεοσαγοφξεύομενον 
 ἱλαστήξιον, and says Οἵ it, ἔοιχεν εἶναυ σύμβολον φυσικώτερον τῆς ἵλεω τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ δυνάμεως. ‘The same expression is also used, Heb. ix. 5. This 
 signification of ἱλαστήξιον has accordingly been adopted by numerous 
 expositors, as Origen, Theodoret, Theophylact, G@2cumenius, Eras- 
 mus, Luther, and others; and the meaning of the passage which 
 results from it is as follows: ‘‘ As the lid of the ark of the covenant, 
 when sprinkled with blood, imparted to the Israelite a firm confidence 
 of the forgiveness of his sins, in like manner the Saviour, and spe- 
 cially his death, is the security for our redemption, to which we may 
 believingly look. Itis objected to this explanation, that the Apostle, 
 in a letter, addressed as much to heathen as to Hebrew Christians, 
 would scarcely have used an image so entirely Jewish. On the one 
 hand, however, the ἱλαστήδιον was a thing of such consequence in 
 the Jewish worship, that Gentile Christians must necessarily have 
 been acquainted with it, accustomed as they were to the diligent study 
 of the scriptures of the Old Testament, and as, moreover, many of 
 them were previously proselytes to Judaism. Again, on the other 
 hand, the Apostle in this, as in all the other Epistles, mentions nume- 
 rous special facts, the knowledge of which, by those to whom he 
 wrote, he ought as little, according to that doctrine, to have assumed. 
 Rom. ix. 10, 1 Cor. x. Nor can any exception be taken to the ex- 
 planation in question on the score of the unsuitableness of the image. 
 
110 CHAPTER III. Vv. 25, 26. 
 
 It is said, that the blood of the Saviour is the blood of the victim, and 
 that hence Christ may well be compared to the sacrificed ammal, but 
 with no propriety to the lid of the ark. Strictly speaking, the simi- 
 litude requires to be represented in the manner contended for, and the 
 felt want of correspondence, when it is so represented, made the 
 Fathers have recourse to the most forced expositions. Just, how- 
 ever, as Christ is represented in the New ‘Testament, sometimes as 
 high priest, and sometimes also as victim, so, in like manner, under 
 the Old, may not only the slaughtered animal, but also the mercy- 
 seat sprinkled with atoning blood, be considered as furnishing a type 
 ofhim. From all this it appears, that there is nothing which can he 
 brought forward as a valid objection to the meaning we have given to 
 ἱλαστήφιον. Nevertheless, however, the other explanation of the word, 
 according to which θῦμα is the noun supplied, expiatory sacrifice, 
 seems more eligible, and especially for this reason, that, as Bucer 
 remarks, it has in the New ‘Testament the analogy of doctrine more 
 decidedly in its favour. John i. 29, Eph. v. 2, 1 Pet. i. 19; ii. 24, 
 Heb. ix. 324. As to the elliptical form of the word, it corresponds 
 exactly with that of other terms applied to a sacrifice, as, ex. gr. 
 χαφιστήξιον; σωτήξιον; τὰ ET NOLO, τὰ γενέθλια. It is found in Josephus 
 with this import, which, accordingly, has been embraced by Hesy- 
 chius, Grotius, Clericus, Kypke, Elsner, Heumann, and others. 
 There remains, however, a third meaning to be mentioned, which is 
 also admissible. ‘Inacrzevov, the neuter of the adjective, may be con- 
 sidered as used for the substantive, and synonymous with iaacpos, 
 and thus, the abstract standing for the concrete, for Serye. This is 
 the interpretation adopted by the Vulgate, which renders the word 
 propitiatio; so also, as it would appear, the Syrian, and we may 
 add, Louis de Dieu and Zegerus. ‘The parallel passage, 1 John ii. 2, 
 where Christ is called ἑλασμὸς, favours this reading. 
 
 How then shall we understand weoedevo? προτίθημι primarily sig- 
 nifies spectandum proponere, fo set in view for the purpose of selec- 
 tion, or sale, or sacrifice, &c. Hesiod. Theogon, V. 537, where, of 
 the offering made by Prometheus to Jupiter, it is said μέγαν βοῦν 
 προύθηκεν, Διὸς νόον ἐξαπαφίσχων. “Transferred to things spiritual, it 
 has a variety of senses, fo offer, produce, prefer. In the middle 
 voice, it is specially used to denote all kinds of exhibitions, also to 
 resolve. If, now, we inquire which meaning best suits the present 
 passage, that will depend upon whether we interpret ἑλαστήξιον, 
 mercy-seat or atoning sacrifice. In the first case, the sense fo set 
 up to view is the one to be chosen. In the second, the strong ana- 
 logy with Eph. i. 9, would lead to a preference of constituere. In- 
 deed the prominence given in that Epistle to the fact of the purpose 
 of salvation having been formed before the creation of the world, ren- 
 ders it probable that, in the text quoted from it, and therefore in the 
 present passage, the idea of time expressed by πρό and the idea of 
 space are both included. 
 
 πίστις ἐν τῷ αὐτοὺ αἵματι for εἰς τὸ αἵμᾳ Stands, by metonomy, for 
 
CHAPTER Ili. v. 25, 26. 111 
 
 bloody death, the ἀχμὴ of his holy and love-devoted life. ‘The clause 
 is best conjoined as an epexegesis with ἱλαστήξιον. ‘Thus far extends 
 the general proposition of the Apostle, which, in substance, means 
 as follows: ‘* By the believing appropriation of that, which Jesus 
 Christ, during the whole course of his blessed life, until it terminated 
 in a bloody death, was, and did, for the human race, men are made 
 partakers of justification before God.’’ He now proceeds to show, 
 what the Saviour’s life and death actually achieved for mankind. 
 The explanation of the sequel depends upon what is the meaning of 
 δικαιοσύνη" how διὰ τὴν πάξεσιν is to be understood; whether διὰ with 
 the accusative, is equivalent to διὰ with the genitive; if wageovs is the 
 same as ἀφεσις; and, in fine, whether we are to view eos ἔνδειξιν as a 
 mere resumption of εἰς ἔνδειξιν. First, with respect to Scxacoovry, 
 some, as Ambrose and Locke, interpret faithfulness, others, accord- 
 ing to a sense in which it is elsewhere used by Paul, goodness. So 
 Theodoret, Socinus, Grotius, Bolten, and Koppe. Now it is true that, 
 considered per se, it may signify goodness, even like the Hebrew 
 MPT, which is sometimes synonymous with 107. ‘The διὰ with the 
 aaeative is furthermore supposed to be of the same force as διὰ with 
 the genitive, and πάρξεσις to be synonymous with ἀφεσις, from which 
 the following sense results, ‘for the manifestation of his goodness 
 by the forgiveness of sins before committed.”” According to this 
 view, ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ is best construed with προγεγονότων, committed in 
 the time of forbearance. eis ἔνδειξιν this class of expositors are 
 disposed to consider as a returning upon εἰς ἔνδειξιν, “ for the mani- 
 festation of his goodness in the time now being.”’ In this case, δίχαιον 
 will also be taken in the sense of good, and the clause, in which it 
 occurs, interpreted, ‘*so that even he appears full of kindness, and in 
 virtue thereof justifies the believer.”” ‘There are many things, how- 
 ever, which speak against this exposition. In the first place, it can- 
 not be shown, that δικαιοσύνη occurs any where in the writings of 
 Paul in this strange sense, but uniformly means righteousness or 
 holiness. Much less can any shade of the idea goodness be imparted 
 to δίκαιος and δικαιοῦν. Again, the mistake of the case after dia is not 
 probable, considering how scrupulous Paul always is in this respect. 
 Moreover, it is unlikely that weds %vSe should be a mere resumption 
 of εἰς ἔνδειξιν. ‘The change of the preposition makes the reverse 
 more probable. Finally, as to πάξεσις» it is true that it may be con- 
 sidered equivalent to ἄφεσις. In Dion. Halic. we read (Antiqu. 1. 7, 
 p- 446,) τὴν μὲν ὁλοσχεξὴ ndecow οὐχ εὕξοντο; τὴν δὲ eis χξεόνον ὧν ἂν 
 ἠξίουν ἀναβολὴν ἔλαβον, Where delay is opposed to total remission, 
 πάρφεσις. If we compare, however, Acts xvii. 80, τοὺς μὲν οὖν χεό- 
 vous τῆς ἀγνοίας ὑπεξιδὼν ὁ Θεὸς, We Shall feel inclined to affix another 
 meaning to πάρεσις, and interpret it passing by, overlooking. In this 
 signification it was certainly used by the Greeks, Xenophon, (Cyr. 
 5, 4, '7,) has πολὺ pec2or mag eis θαῦμα, ἐμὲ θαυμάζεις. Id. (Hipparch. 
 a0. ) ἁμαφτήματα παξίεναυ ἀκόλαστα. So also Dion. Hal. παξίεναι 
 ἁμαφτάδα ἀζήμιον. Appian uses πάξεσις like ἀμέλεια, χαταφεόνησις. In 
 
112 CHAPTER III. V. 27. 
 
 Ecelesiasticus μὴ φείδεσθαν and μὴ παρξίεναν are used parallel. Book 
 of Wisdom, xagoear signifies to overlook sin. Accordingly the Apos- 
 tle first shows the relation of the scheme of redemption to the period 
 before Christ. God has, as it were, permitted sin to pass as if he 
 did not observe it. But now in this plan of salvation, his holiness is 
 manifested in such a way that the former sins, which he tolerated the 
 while with ἀνοχὴν are made to appear odious in his sight. The πρό 
 in προγεγονότων relates naturally to the period before Christ’s advent. 
 Paul further shows the relation of the scheme of redemption to the 
 τῷ νῦν καιρῷ. In this also must God’s holiness be manifested. ‘The 
 voy καιρὸς forms a contrast to the ἐν τῇ dvoyy. We would not, how- 
 ever, say, that the other view, according to which eds ἔνδειξιν 15 con- 
 sidered as a repetition of the ets %vdec, is inadmissible. In con- 
 formity with it, Michaelis expounds stiflly but correctly, ‘‘ for the 
 vindication of his justice with regard to sins once committed, and 
 which he with patience and long-suffering bore—for the vindication 
 of his righteousness at the present time.’’? ‘The Apostle is hence 
 enabled to conclude, that by this institution, the Divine holiness is 
 placed upon a firm basis, while, at the same time, the justification 
 of men is wrought out. As to the manner in which the plan of sal- 
 vation produces these effects, see the observations upon chap. v. 15 
 —19. Bengel: Summum hoc paradoxon evangelicum, nam in lege 
 conspicitur Deus justus et condemnans, in evangelio justus ipse et 
 justificans peccatores. 
 
 POA ts  ΤΥ": 
 
 EPIPHONEMA: IN WHICH IT IS SHOWN HOW BY THIS SCHEME OF JUSTI- 
 FICATION, ALL OPPORTUNITY OF AGGRANDIZING SELF IS DONE 
 AWAY, AND HEATHEN AND JEW OBTAIN MERCY ON THE SAME 
 TERMS. v. 27—3l1. 
 
 V. 27. It may be asked, whether the Apostle addressed himself 
 principally to the Jews, or jointly and equally to Jews and Gentiles. 
 The former is the more likely. He has still in his thoughts the pre- 
 sumption of the Jews, against which he had inveighed up to the 21st 
 verse, and to them he again reverts at verse 29. In this view, the 
 thought here uttered by the Apostle is the same with what is delivered 
 in the 9th verse, viz. ‘Inasmuch as Christianity finds the subject of 
 the theocracy equally with the man who is an alien to it, in the con- 
 dition of not fulfilling the law, it lays the same necessity upon both 
 of taking refuge in the new plan of salvation, and does away that 
 status of the Jew, in virtue of which he arrogated to himself the right 
 
CHAPTER Ill. v. 28, 29, 30. 113 
 
 ef looking down upon the Gentile. Theodoret: Καύχησιν δὲ καλεῖ τὸ 
 ὑψηλὸν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων geovyua. Compare Ephes. ii. 8, 1 Cor. i. 29. 
 It would perhaps, however, be more correct to take the abstract xav- 
 χήσις in the sense of the concrete xavynua, materia gloriandi. 
 
 ᾿Εξεχλείσθη. Theodoret: οὐκ tru χώξαν ἔχει. Chrysostom: émee 
 ἀχαιρίας Zort. In this sense, Paul speaks of a παλαιοτης γράμματος; 
 Rom. vii.6. If it is only by the acceptance of an objective redemp- 
 tion that men are justified and sanctified, no one can boast of his own 
 efforts. 
 
 Διὰ ποίου νόμου; Chrysostom: Ἰδοὺ χαὺ τὴν πίστιν νόμον ἐχάλεσεν» 
 ἐμφιλοχωρὼν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν; ὥστε παφαμυθείσθαυ τὴν δοχοῦσαν εἶναυ χαυνο- 
 τομίαν. τίς δὲ ὁ τῆς πίστεως νόμος: διὰ χάρυτος σώζεσθαι. Νόμος 15 
 most frequently, like 777, interpreted in the general sense of doc- 
 trine, as in James i. 25. In several passages of Paul's writings, 
 which are cited as examples, this sense, it must be confessed, is less 
 suitable, Rom. viii. 2, vii. 25, where, according to the Apostle’s pe- 
 culiar phraseology, it ought rather to be rendered rule or method. As 
 this latter sense, however, does not answer in the present case, νόμος 
 must undoubtedly be translated doctrine, which is an extension of 
 the original meaning law. Νόμος ἔφγων is a very common expression, 
 and may here, for the sake of assimilation, have suggested the phrase 
 νόμος πίστεως. 
 
 V. 28. is an inference drawn from the preceding, as οὖν itself in- 
 dicates. Several codices, instead of οὖν read γὰρ, which, however, 
 does not conform so well to St. Paul’s train of thought. 
 
 Λογιδόμεθα. Not properly συλλογιδόμεθα, argumentando concludi- 
 mus, as Thevdoret expounds it, but as in chap. viii. 18, Heb. xi. 19, 
 persuasum nobis habemus. So 2 Cor. x. 7, Phil. iv. 8. Erasmus 
 skilfully: Existimamus enim, (better igitur) id quod res est, posthac 
 quemvis hominem per fidem justitiam consequi posse. 
 
 Idsree is translated by Luther allein durch den glauben. Against 
 this the shallow-minded among his Catholic opponents raised a 
 mighty outery. The ἐὰν μὴ of Gal. ii. 16, amounts to as much, and 
 even Catholic translations introduce the alone in the present passage. 
 
 Thus, in the Niirnberg edition, 1483, it is nur durch den glauben. 
 The LXX. frequently interpolate it where it does not stand in the 
 Hebrew, Lev. iii. 11, Deut. vi. 13, 1 Sam. x. 19. The Fathers 
 often affirm, ‘that by faith only is man justified.”” Hence Erasmus 
 (De ratione concionandi, 1. 3) says: Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapi- 
 data hoe seculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur. With 
 regard to νόμος teyav, which many imagine to imply only ritual pre- 
 cepts, see the comment upon v. 20. 
 
 V. 29 and 30. The Apostle could not deny, that in one respect 
 God might be regarded as the God of the Jews only, viz. in his having 
 
 * Observe, he has called even faith a law, fondly dwelling upon such names, 
 for the purpose of softening what has the semblance of being a novelty. What 
 is then the law of faith? It is, that salvation must be obtained through grace. 
 
 15 
 
114 CHAPTER Ill. V. 31. 
 
 given to them exclusively institutions preparatory to the redemption. 
 Inasmuch as these very institutions, however, were intended to be 
 subservient to the introduction of a salvation designed for all mankind, 
 God’s interest in the fate of Gentile nations was not in abeyance even 
 in the establishment of the Old Testament theocracy. Besides, 
 even in the Old Testament, it is in many places distinctly averred, 
 that heathen nations are by no means shut out from manifestations of 
 the Divine love, so that Paul might confidently look for an acknow- 
 Jedgment on the part of the Jews, that the God whom Abraham styled 
 ys) ΟἿ 7p was also the God of the heathen. 
 
 Several codices read εἴπερ in place of ἐπείπερ, which cements more 
 closely the connection between the two verses, and gives greater em- 
 phasis to the thought. ‘The prepositions ?x and διὰ must be supposed 
 to possess the same force, and yet the change can scarcely be thought 
 to have been undesigned. Perhaps it implies a gentle stroke of irony, 
 of which we have elsewhere, in St. Paul’s writings, still stronger 
 examples, Gal. v. 12. 
 
 V. 31. Ananthypophora. Here, where the Apostle affirms that 
 salvation is attainable apart from all demands of the law, he might be 
 met with that scruple which at all times has forced itself upon the 
 mind of man, in contemplating this extraordinary scheme of salva- 
 tion, viz. whether such a doctrine does not lead to immorality. The 
 formal confutation of this objection he takes up at chaps. vi. vii. but 
 especially at the viii. At present he does no more than briefly and 
 generally attest that the Christian doctrine of faith produces holiness. 
 Equally forced and insipid are the expositions of this verse, given by 
 those who understand by Zeya νόμου; the observance of the ceremonial 
 law. So that Cocceius might well say of it: Haec jugulant opinio- 
 nem Socinianorum. Of all these, Erasmus undoubtedly gives the 
 best; and yet how unnatural is even his! Adeo non abolemus legem 
 aut labefactamus, ut eam etiam confirmemus stabiliamusque, id pre- 
 dicantes factum quod lex futurum promiserat, eumque nuntiantes in 
 quem, ceu scopum, summa legis spectabat. Neque enim id aboletur, 
 quod in meliorem reparatur statum, non magis quam si defluentibus 
 arborum floribus succedat fructus, aut umbre succedat corpus. In 
 what manner and in how far the Christian doctrine of justification 
 establishes the law, the Apostle does not here say, but it is shown in 
 chaps. Vi., vii., vill., where he describes how, subjectively at least, the 
 redeemed yield a certain satisfaction to the law. He demonstrates, 
 to wit, how this moral law, per se, does not suffice to beget love for 
 the performance of it; that there exists in man, according to the 
 present circumstances of his nature, a conflict of tendencies, some of 
 which are favourable and some repugnant to what is divine; that, on 
 the other hand, a believing acquiescence in the scheme of salvation 
 engenders in the heart the love of God, and therewith the love of 
 God’s law; and that thus a new principle of life is implanted in him, 
 which operates from the heart outwards, and brings forth the χαξπὸς 
 τοῦ πνεύματος. In this way, in the case of the believing Christian, 
 
CHAPTER Ill. V. 8]. 115 
 
 obedience is actually rendered to the law, and that of the genuine 
 kind, seeing that it rests on the inward basis of a mind penetrated 
 with love to God. Such is the manner in which faith subjectively 
 establishes the law. It likewise establishes it, however, objectively, 
 inasmuch as Christ by his holy life and death, perfectly fulfilled it, 
 and thereby satisfied the demands of the moral government of the 
 world. Compare the fine sentiments of Calvin upon this verse. 
 However true this is, and much although it may seem to stand here 
 in its right place, still it cannot be denied that a still closer coherence 
 with the sequel is effected by another explanation, suggested by 
 Flatt and Koppe. The Apostle had declared in the 21st verse, that 
 he was the preacher of a method of justification, which, however 
 new it might appear, had nevertheless been already anticipated and 
 foretold in the Old Testament. In the 4th chapter he endeavours to 
 establish this by proofs. It is not impossible, therefore, that by the 
 word νόμος we are to understand the books of the Old Testament, 
 and that Paul means to say, that the entire doctrines he had before 
 been teaching were founded upon truths already recognized under the 
 former covenant. In this acceptation the verse forms a convenient 
 transition to the 4th chapter. In regard to its meaning, Chrysostom 
 observes: τεία τοίνυν ἐνταῦθα ἀπέδειξε, καὶ OTe χωρὶς νόμου δυνατὸν δι- 
 καιωθήναιγ καὶ OTL τοῦτο οὐκ ὑσχυσεν 6 νόμος, καὶ ὅτι ἡ πίστις αὐτῷ οὐ 
 μάχεται. 
 
 * He has here demonstrated three things; that justification is possible with- 
 out the law; that the law was unable to effect it; and that it is not hostile to 
 the law. 
 
CHAPTER FOURTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 For the purpose of still further corroborating in the eyes of Jews the Christian 
 doctrine of justification, the Apostle shows that under the Old Testament, 
 no less than under the New, the source of the divine goodness was on 
 God’s part free grace, and the condition of its reception on the part of man, 
 faith. This is manifest from a Psalm of David’s, but more especially from 
 the history of Abraham, that is, from the relation to God of two individuals 
 who, above all other men, might, if the thing had been possible, have 
 founded a claim upon the merit of their works. The life of Abraham par- 
 ticularly evinces that his works by no means sufficed to accomplish his justi- 
 fication. If, however, the Israelites chose to ascribe, either to circumcision, 
 which is the sign, or to the law, which is the foundation of the theocracy, 
 any influence and co-operation in the matter of justification, it could be 
 shown, that, on the contrary, these distinctions of Israel rested solely and 
 exclusively upon the righteousness which is by faith, which was thus, as 
 it were, the cause of the theocracy. 
 
 PARTITION. 
 
 1. Proof that Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith. V. 1—6. 
 
 2. Proof that David was justified by free grace. V.6—8. 
 
 3. Proof that circumcision, the sign of the theocratical covenant, had no share 
 in the justification of Abraham. Far from being subservient to thatend, 
 it was much more aconsequence of it. V.9—12. 
 
 4, Proof of the establishment of the theocracy without the co-operation of the 
 law. So far from the law having given rise to the theocracy, both the 
 theocracy and the law rested upon the righteousness which is by faith. 
 Υ. 13—17. 
 
 5. Description of Abraham’s faith, and statement of the noble benefits accru- 
 ing to believers, as exhibited in his example. V. 18—25. 
 
 RAG al. 
 
 PROOF THAT ABRAHAM WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, BUT BY FAITH. 
 v. 1—6. 
 
 V.1. Ir was natural for the Israelite, upon hearing of this new 
 method of salvation proposed by Paul, to reflect upon the Old Tes- 
 tament, and to ask, in objection, whether the holy men, whose lives 
 are there related, did not obtain justification before God by perfect 
 obedience to the law? Theophylact: xai φησὺν, ὅτυ οὐδὲ οὗτος ὁ τοσαῦ- 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. l. 117 
 
 τα χαὶ τὰ τηλιχαῦτα κατορθώσας, ἐδικαιώθη Ex TOY ἔῤγων, GAA Ex τῆς 
 πίστεως." 
 τί ov. ‘The οὖν need not here be considered as a mere formula 
 transeundi, it is grounded in the Apostle’s train of ideas: What then, 
 that being the case with justification, shall we say of the righteous 
 men who lived under the Old ‘Testament? 
 τὸν πατέρα, ἡμῶν. We must not follow Cocceius, and take this 
 appellation in the spiritual sense, which is afterwards at the 16th 
 verse developed by St. Paul. It here means our bodily progenitor, 
 the Hebrew 18 forefather, Gen. xxviii. 13, 1 Kings xv. 11.. The © 
 _ Rabbins give the same name to Abraham. Κατὰ σάφχα is by most 
 expositors, and, among others, by Chrysostom, Erasmus and Lim- 
 borch, joined to xaréea. But to this it may be objected, first, that it 
 produces a harsh hyperbaton, to avoid which, several codices of au- 
 thority have placed εὐξφηκέναν before τὸν xaréga ἡμῶν, and, 2cly, that 
 in such a conjunction, κατὰ odexa would be a superfluous addition, 
 while, on the other hand, some supplementary clause would be re- 
 quired to define etenxévax. It is, therefore, more correct to construe 
 it with εὑρηκέναι. 
 ebevoxewy, both in profane and sacred authors, means, like the Hebrew 
 N31, fo acquire, earn, Luke i. 30, Heb. ix. 12. What then, in con- 
 nection with this word, does χατὼ σάρκα imply? The usual meaning 
 of Saez, in reference to the Old Testament theocracy, is ‘ the out- 
 ward privileges conferred by God upon the Israelites.” So 1 Cor. 
 _x. 18, Phil. iii. 3, Gal. vi. 12. In this general sense it is taken by 
 Cocceius and Witsius, who thus explain the text, “by the Mosaic 
 economy it was impossible for him to be justified, for it did not then 
 exist.”” Wetstein and Michaelis suppose that it refers in a more re- 
 stricted sense to circumcision, “in virtue of the circumcision in his 
 body.” In the immediate context, however, the Apostle is showing, 
 not the inefficacy of circumcision to secure the patriarch’s acceptance 
 with God, but the inefficacy of his works in general. It is obvious, 
 therefore, that for an explanation of xara oaexa, we must have re- 
 course to the ἐξ ἔργων of v. 2. Not that we ought to follow Theodo- 
 ret, and view xara oaexa as precisely equivalent to ἐξ ἔργων, which is 
 not the case. ‘The Apostle rather considers πίστις, as in fact it is, an 
 inward principle of life, and hence contemplates it in the aspect of a 
 πνευματικὸν implanted by God, in contrast with which he views works, 
 as but the product of the weak and enslaved moral powers of the 
 natural man. Κατὰ oaexa is therefore to be looked upon as opposed 
 to χατὰ πνεῦμα, and translated humanly, by his own moral en- 
 deavours. Comp. the observ. upon Sdeé at chap. i. 8, 7. The in- 
 terpretation of Calvin, who makes it naturaliter, and the identical one 
 of Grotius, ‘ propriis viribus,’’ are therefore virtually correct. We 
 
 * And he says, that not even he, viz. Abraham, who had performed such 
 mighty acts of righteousness, was justified by works but by faith. 
 
118 CHAPTER IV. V. 2, 3. 
 
 require only to notice, farther, an unnatural interpunctuation adopted 
 by Grotius and Clericus, who place a point of interrogation after 
 ἐροῦμεν and translate, ““ What shall we then say? ‘That Abraham has 
 attained (justification) by his own endeavours?” 
 
 V. 2. We here desiderate a proper answer to the question. The 
 yae, however, indicates, as usual, a silent thought. See Fritzsche 
 Comm. in Matt. ind. 5. ἢ. v. The οὐδοτιοῦν, which the sense re- 
 quires, is suppressed. Abraham, it is true, had whereof to glory, but 
 that only before men, who cannot try the heart, and even of the 
 external conduct survey only an inconsiderable part: and his glory, 
 however universally acknowledged, would avail him nothing so long 
 as he did not stand justified in the eye of the omniscient God. A 
 consideration, which is not indeed founded on a connection with 
 these words, but which indicates, in a very beautiful manner, the 
 difference between evangelical and legal righteousness, is brought 
 forward by Cicumenius:...."Eyeu μὲν καύχημα; ἀλλ᾽ ob meds τὸν Θεὸν, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ὡς κατωφθωχότι" 6 δὲ Ex πίστεως σωθεὶς, Entel μὴ ἔχευ εἰς 
 ἑαυτὸν χαυχήσασθαυ, οὐδὲν yae teyor ἔπραξεν, εἰς τὸν Θεὸν χαυχαταυ" μεῦ- 
 Gov δὲ τὸ εἰς Θεὸν καυχᾶσθαι, yee εἰς ἑαυτόν. Ta μὲν γὰρ χατορθώματα, 
 πολλάκις καὶ ἀφανίζεταν ἑτέραις πλημμελείαις" ἡ δὲ εἰς Θεὸν χαύχήσις» 
 ἄτρεπτος διαμένει.ἢ 
 
 V. 8. Τί γὰρ ἡ γεαφὴ λέγει; A corroboration of what the Apostle 
 has just declared, that God could by no means consider the character 
 of Abraham as conformable to the law. ‘The yae must therefore be 
 translated for. In proof of this, he now quotes Gen. xv. 6, verbatim 
 from the LXX., excepting only that he substitutes a δὲ for a xav. 
 The whole life of the patriarch displayed an extraordinary strength 
 of faith. The first great manifestation of it was his unreserved com- 
 pliance with the will of God in his departure from his native land 
 and kindred. ‘The second was that recorded in the 15th chap. of 
 Genesis, when he admits into his belief what, from the advanced 
 years both of himself and his wife, appears to be an impossibility, 
 even that Sarah should bear him a son, and that by means of that 
 son, a blessing should be diffused not merely over Canaan, but over 
 the whole earth. The third instance, in fine, in which he manifested 
 his faith, was his willingly giving up, when required to do so by God, 
 this very son of promise, on whom all his future prospects depended. 
 Gen. xxii. On account of this persevering faith, Abraham is highly 
 extolled even among the Jews. 1 Macc.ii.52. ᾿Αβεξαὰμ οὐχὶ ἐν πευ- 
 ξασμῷ eveEOy πιστὸς: καὶ ἐλογύσθη αὐτῷ εἰς διχαιοσυνὴν; Philo de Abra- 
 hamo, p. 386, ed. Frankf. ἔστι δὲ xai dvayearos ἔπαινος αὐτοῦ; xens- 
 
 * He would have whereof to glory, not before God, indeed, but in himself, 
 as having acted righteously. But the man who is saved by faith, being des-' 
 titute of any ground for glorying in himself, seeing he has done nothing, glories 
 in God. And it is better to glory in God than in ourselves. For our good 
 deeds often disappear before our sins, whereas the glory that is in God re- 
 mains for ever immutable. 
 
CHAPTER IV. V. d. 119 
 
 mors μαφτυφηθεὶς ods Μωσῆς ἐθεσπίσθη, δὶ οὔ μηνύετοι ὅτι ἐπίστευσε τῷ 
 Θεῷ. ὅπεξ λεχθήῆναν μὲν βαφύτατον ἐστὶ; tey@ δὲ βεβαιωθῆναν μέγιστον ..ἢ 
 In the Jewish commentary of R. Ismael Mechilta, it is, in like 
 manner, said of Abraham: De Abrahamo legimus, quod mundum 
 hune et futurum non nisi ea de causa consecutus sit, quam quia in 
 Deum credidit, quod dicitur, Gen. xv. 6. ‘The occasion upon which 
 Abraham showed the faith that obtained for him the above testimony 
 from God, was not indeed of so trying a nature as the offering up of 
 Isaac, still it was a most heroic act of believing, and the extraordinary 
 energy of mind required for it, is described by Paul himself, v. 18, 
 19. ‘The common Jew looked only at the external act of Abraham. 
 Paul proves that it is not that which constitutes its true worth, but 
 the believing devotion of self to God, that laying hold of his promises, 
 which is also the great characteristic of a Christian. Among the 
 Jews, there are many who appreciate the high importance of religious 
 faith, as an inward giving up of self to God. ‘To this purpose, 
 Philo has various beautiful passages, De Abrahamo, p. 387. ‘* The 
 one only sure and infallible good is faith, the faith that is fixed upon 
 God; it is the consolation of life, the fulfilment of hope, the absence 
 of evil, and the price of every blessing; it is the ignorance of misery, 
 the knowledge of piety, and the inheritance of felicity; it is that 
 which perfects every thing, depending as it does upon him who is 
 the great first cause, who has power to do all things, but who wills 
 only the best.’’ In the sequel, he styles faith, the queen of virtues. 
 More especially, however, in his work, Quis rerum divinar. heres? 
 Ρ. 493, ‘Abraham believed in God, and to have done so redounds to 
 his praise. Some indeed may perhaps insinuate that there is nothing 
 very commendable in that, and may ask, if any one, even the most 
 unjust and impious of men, would not give heed to the words and 
 promises of God. ‘To whom we reply, beware thou of inconsider- 
 ately defrauding the wise man of his merited eulogium, of assigning 
 faith, which is the most perfect of virtues, to the unworthy, or of 
 casting reproach upon our knowledge of this subject. For if you 
 please to search more deeply, and not keep to the mere surface of 
 things, you will readily perceive, that to believe in God alone, and 
 in nothing else besides, is by no means an easy matter. And what 
 makes it hard is our relationship to the mortal body with which we 
 are yoked, and which persuades us to believe in riches, and glory, 
 and power, and friends, and health, and strength, and many other 
 things. But to be weaned from all these, and to disbelieve a genera- 
 tion which denies whatever lies beyond itself, and to believe in God 
 only, who is the only true object of belief, is the act of a great and 
 heavenly mind, elevated above the allurements of any thing here be- 
 
 * And his praise has been recorded, being testified by the oracles which 
 Moses delivered, by whom it is reported that he believed in God. And that 
 this has been said of him is a great thing, but it is a far greater that it has 
 been confirmed by acts. 
 
120 CHAPTER IV. V. 4. 
 
 low. And well is it said, that faith was counted to him for righteous- 
 ness, for there is nothing so righteous as to exercise a pure and un- 
 mingled faith in God alone.”” In heathen antiquity, we find few 
 traces of a recognition of the high importance of religious faith. 
 There is a passage in Plutarch which has some reference to the sub- 
 ject, Sept. Sap. Conv. c. 18. Speaking of Arion as he rode upon 
 the dolphin’s back, he says that he was neither very much afraid of 
 death, nor yet desirous to live, but longed to be saved, ὡς λάβου meee 
 θεῶν δόξαν βέβαιον. In the heathen philosophy zvorvs and δόξα coin- 
 cided. 
 
 Δικαιοσύνη, in Hebrew ΠΡῸΣ, denotes here subjective holiness. God 
 looked upon Abraham’s childlike submission as if it were real holi- 
 ness, and attached value to it alone. Parallel is Ps. evi. 30,31. Deut. 
 xxiv. 13; vi. 25, may likewise be compared, and for an exposition 
 of the Old ‘Testament citation, Luther’s Auslegung des Genesis. 
 
 V. 4. Paul here defines more precisely the substance and meaning 
 of the above quotation. A doubt might arise, whether the words 
 really implied that Abraham had not been able to attain by his works 
 a perfect state of justification before God. Accordingly the Apostle 
 shows, that the idea of ascribing faith as righteousness, implies the 
 impossibility of the party otherwise having such a righteousness as 
 God could accept. 
 
 τῷ δὲ ἐφγαξομένῳ is best translated by Luther, ‘‘der mit Werken 
 umgeht” and Beza: Is qui ex opere est aliquid promeritus. The 
 great majority of expositors, however, take it in the emphatic sense 
 of ‘‘acting faultlessly.” ‘Theodoret expounds it thus, ὃ γὰρ τῆς Sex ac 
 οσύνης ἐξγάτης μισθὸν ἀπαυτεῖν and so also Limborch, Baumgarten, 
 and Christ. Schmid, who deems it synonymous with ἐσγαδόμενος δυ- 
 χαιοσύνην, Heb. xi. 33. The context might, it is true, impart this 
 meaning to the word, but it is by no means probable that it does so. 
 That man in general, and Abraham no less than others, is incapable 
 of yielding a perfect obedience to the demands of the moral law, it is 
 not the object of the Apostle here to show; what he asserts is, that 
 in point of fact, Abraham’s works were not the ground of his justifi- 
 cation. Grolius puts a false interpretation upon the whole clause: 
 Sicut qui operam alicui prestat, non ideo amicus est illius, sed mer- 
 cedem accipit oper respondentem, 516 etiam qui nativa vi, ut potest, 
 Dei preceptis externis aliquo modo paret, habet mercedem, liberatur a 
 suppliciis, sed non ideo fit amicus; Xaecs hic amicitiam significat. 
 Calovius justly denominates these interpretations, ‘Strabe, plane 
 alien a mente Apostoli.”’ 
 
 ὋὉ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται xara χάριν. λογίξεσθαι is here either put, per 
 meton. cause pro consequentia, for reckoning instead of paying, in 
 which case, it might also be supplied to xara τὸ ὀφείλημα and xara ὁ 
 χάριν would be entirely parallel with εἰς δικανοσύνην. Here the em- 
 phasis lies solely upon yéew and ὀφείλημα, Whereas in verse 5, it lies, 
 if not upon εἰς δικαιοσύνην, at least upon the whole clause λογίδεταυ 
 αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Or, on the other hand, the xara yaew Is an eX- 
 
CHAPTER IV. V. 5. 121 
 
 plicatory supplement to λογίξεταυν to which we must imagine it con- 
 nected by a silent τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, and the xara τὸ ὀφεύλημα is united per 
 zeugina with λογίζεται, upon which the whole emphasis rests, being 
 considered by the Apostle as fully involving, and sufficiently express- 
 ing the idea of what is undeserved. ‘This last is at once the weightier 
 exposition, the more conformable to the usual diction of Paul, and is 
 no less agreeable to the context than the others. It is expressed with 
 great precision by Michaelis. “ΤῸ him who does works, the reward 
 is not said to be reckoned, an expression which makes it appear as 
 if it were given from grace, but he obtains it because it is his due.” 
 Even in profane authors χάρις and ὀφείλημα stand opposed to each 
 other. 
 
 V.5. The counting of faith as righteousness, the Apostle here says, 
 implies that Abraham had not the power of placing himself in any 
 other way in a state of justification. He now transfers the analogy 
 furnished by the case of Abraham to the domain of Christianity, show- 
 ing how the term λογίζεσθαι, as used in reference to the patriarch, 
 designates precisely the relation in which the sinner who is justified 
 through the redemption of Christ, stands to the Divine justice. ‘That 
 we must here suppose a transition from the example of Abraham to 
 the case of the Christian, who believes in God’s justification through 
 Christ, is clear from the expression πυσϑεύοντυ ἐπὶ τὸν διχαιοῦντα τὸν 
 ἀσεβῆ. seeing, that in that particular act, which the Apostle has men- 
 tioned, the object of the patriarch’s belief was by no means the justi- 
 fying grace of God. ‘This remark is made by Sebastian Schmidt, 
 Baumgarten, and Chr. Schmid. On the other hand, the commenta- 
 tors who think these words have a special reference to Abraham, 
 either call the attention, like Beza, to the fact, that even Abraham 
 might be characterized as ἀσεβὴς» in so far as he did not yield a per- 
 fect obedience to the moral law—which observation is certainly just 
 in itself, but does not do away with the difficulty, that in the instance 
 alluded to it cannot be Abraham’s faith in the pardoning grace of 
 God, which is here spoken of; or like Michaelis, Rosenmiiller and 
 Koppe, they follow Grotius and Wetstein in taking up ἀσεβὴς in the 
 sense of idolater, and supposing that it referred to the patriarch’s 
 having been once addicted, like his father 'Terah, Josh. xxiv. 2, to 
 idol worship, according to the tradition of the Rabbins Mirchand, 
 Philo, and Josephus, which interpretation is peculiarly unnatural. 
 Guarding against the abuse of this passage, Calvin says: Neque enim 
 fideles vult esse ignavos, sed tantum mercenarios esse vetat qui a Deo 
 quidquam reposcant quasi jure debitum. Et jam prius admonuimus 
 non hic disseri, qualiter vitam instituere nos oporteat, sed queri de 
 salutis causa. We have only farther to add, that the Vulgate, and 
 several Latin Fathers, append to the verse, Secundum propositum 
 gratiz Dei, which, however, is wanting in the Greek Codices. 
 
 16 
 
122 CHAPTER Iv. V. 6, 7, 8. 
 
 ΡᾺ ΤΟΙΣ ΤΊ. 
 
 PROOF THAT DAVID WAS JUSTIFIED BY FREE GRACE. v. 6—8. 
 
 Tue Apostle now appeals to another most distinguished forefather 
 of the Jews, even David, and shows how he had not boasted of his 
 merits, nor claimed from God any recompense as his due, but, on 
 the contrary, had extolled God’s pardoning mercy. In respect of 
 the form, this second Old ‘Testament instance of righteousness by faith 
 is not, as Seb. Schmidt accurately observes, co-ordinate with that of 
 Abraham. For although, in respect of the sense, there is such a 60- 
 ordination, still the sentence is only appended as a voucher for the 
 meaning given to λογίζεσθαι in verse 5. ‘The transition is as follows: 
 ἐς That the idea of justification, which I express by λογίζεσθαυν 15 cor- 
 rect, will be apparent from the fact, that- David in the Psalms extols 
 the same kind of justification, and when he speaks of the ground of 
 his acceptance with God, passes over in silence his sin-stained 
 works.”’ In this view, Chrysostom justly observes, it would be 
 more appropriate if the words of the Apostle were paxdevos ᾧ ἐλογίσθη 
 εἰς δικαιοσύνην. ‘Che quotation is made from Psalm xxxii. 1, 2, verba- 
 tim after the LXX. According to the opinion of commentators, this 
 Psalm was composed after David’s transgression with Bathsheba. It 
 was consequently very well adapted to the purpose of Si. Paul; for 
 at that time, it must have been very natural for the fallen king to look 
 entirely away from himself, and appeal only to the Divine mercy. 
 
 Maxaecopos, attribution of blessedness; hence réyeu τὸν μακαφισμὸν 
 is equivalent to paxaevGre τὸν dvOeunorv. Χωρὶς teyav. Zeya here is the 
 same as ἔργα νόμου, an additional proof that the latter means works 
 of the moral law. 
 
 V.7 and 8. ἀφίεναι to put away, and ἐπιχαλύπτειν to cover, are, 
 like the two corresponding Hebrew words sw and N02, synonymous 
 metaphorical expressions for the forgiveness of sins. ‘Theodoret in 
 Psal. a. ἢ. 1.: τοσαύτῃ yae meds αὐτοὺς xixenrar φιλοτιμίᾳ, ὡς ov μόνον 
 ἀφίεναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαλύψαυ τὰς ἁμαφτίας καὶ μηδὲ ἔχνη τούτων καταλιπεῖν. ἢ 
 
 Λογίζεσθαν to place to account, a figurative word, which, in like 
 manner as fo retain is used with respect to sin. Job employs an 
 expression implying even a stronger figure, ch. xiv. 17. 
 
 * Such generosity does he exercise towards them, as not only to forgive, 
 but even to cover their sins, so that not even the traces of them are left. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. ν. 9, 10. 123 
 
 ΡΑΝΤ ΤΙ. 
 
 PROOF THAT THE SIGN OF THE THEOCRATICAL COVENANT, CIRCUMCI- 
 SION, HAD NO EFFICACY IN THE JUSTIFICATION OF ABRAHAM.  IN- 
 STEAD OF BEING A PROCURING CAUSE, IT WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF 
 Ir. v. 9—12. 
 
 V.9. SEvERAL modern expositors, and among others, Chr. Schmid 
 and Koppe, connect these words closely with the preceding context, 
 supposing that the Apostle suddenly starts aside, and, instead of wait- 
 ing the opponent’s answer, hastens to resume the former theme of 
 Abraham. ‘This, however, is a wrong view of the course of the 
 ideas. It is more correct, as Theophylact, amongst others, has 
 shown, to suppose, that at the commencement of the 9th verse, a new 
 point of the inquiry is taken up. ‘The Apostle has been hitherto 
 demonstrating, that in the case of the holiest men of the Old Testa- 
 ment, the ground of justification was not the fulfilment of the law, 
 but the free grace of God. ‘That the Israelite might have granted, 
 but he would have restricted the principle to the members of the the- 
 ocracy. In opposition to which, Paul now shows that this kind of 
 justification took effect upon Abraham, on the one hand, before he 
 had received the sign of the theocracy, and on the other before the 
 promulgation of the law, in which respect the patriarch appears to 
 stand perfectly on a level with every Gentile. Ὃ μακαξισμὸς οὖν ob ros, 
 according to the view of the train of thought which we have adopted, 
 we must interpret as follows: ‘ Does this counting one’s self blessed, 
 on account of the free grace of God, belong only to the Theocrat?”’ 
 The verb to be supplied is, as suggested by Theophylact, acarev, but 
 better perhaps ἔστι. The χαὺ before ἐπὶ τὴν dxeosvoriay is a sign that 
 the sense requires us to conceive a μόνον introduced after ἐπὸὺ τὴν περυ- 
 τομήν. It is, therefore, false in Gicumenius and 'Theophylact so to 
 state the question of Paul, as if he ascribed to the heathen a greater 
 right to the μακχαξισμὸς than to the Jew. Λέγομεν γὰρ. The yae links 
 the new argumentation to the previous concessions. The Apostle 
 supposes the Jew to have allowed that Abraham was pronounced just 
 without a regard to works. It would unquestionably be more correct 
 to include this clause in verse 10th, with which it is so closely con- 
 nected, and with which it must be combined to make a whole. 
 
 V. 10. The Apostle might have confuted this new and exclusive 
 restriction of the Jews, by urging what he had already brought for- 
 ward at the commencement of the 8d chapter, viz. that God had im- 
 parted circumcision to the members of the theocracy, as a gift of free 
 grace, and that, hence, it could only possess that degree of value in 
 
124 CHAPTER Iv. V. 1]. 
 
 the eyes of God, which he in the counsels of his free-will chose to 
 attribute to it. ‘The history of Abraham, however, afforded him an 
 opportunity of employing a still more triumphant argument against 
 them. ‘The declaration of God, wherein he justified Abraham for 
 the sake of his faith, was made, if not twenty-five, at the least fifteen 
 years anterior to the introduction of circumcision, Gen. xvii. 23. 
 When the patriarch received it, he did not, of course, as yet belong 
 to the theocracy. Πῶς here signifies, under what circumstances? 
 
 V.11. The Apostle strengthens the proof. Not only, he main- 
 tains, is circumcision, as the sign of the covenant, not the condition 
 of justification by free grace, it is nothing more than a consequence 
 of it. Chrysostom: Οὐχ ὑστέξα δὲ μόνον (πεξιτομὴ) τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλὰ 
 καὶ σφόδεα αὐτῆς καταδεεστέφα. καὶ τοσοῦτον ὅσον σήμεῖον τοῦ πράγματος 
 οὗπεξ ἔστι σημεῖον. AS iscommon with our author, he here restricts 
 the facts of the Old ‘Testament more than is done in the Old Testa- 
 ment itself, by giving prominence to the essential point. The sign 
 of the covenant was not really conferred upon the patriarch in conse- 
 quence of that great act of faith, but for his general childlike aequi- 
 escence in the plans and purposes of the free grace of God. As, how- 
 ever, that act of faith was a particularly distinguished instance of his 
 submissive compliance with the Divine economy, the Apostle was 
 justified in representing the covenant sign as a consequence of justi- 
 fication by faith. We have to observe, in the first place, with respect 
 to the text, that several of the Greek fathers read περιτομὴν in the 
 accusative. ‘The genitive, however, is preferable, and the accusative 
 has been substituted in its room only because of its infrequency. It 
 is the genitivus appositionis, similar to the Latin flos viole, and re- 
 quires to be resolved into ἡ πεξφυτομὴ ἡ ἔστι σημεῖον. In precisely the 
 same manner, the Rabbins are accustomed to connect nD circum- 
 cision, as the genitivus appositionis with MIs a sign, ἃηἀ ΤΡ a 
 seal, 
 
 Speayis Means τὸ δαχτύλιος. rarely δαχτυλίον ONIN, τὰ σημεῖα τῶν 
 δακχτυλίων, and τὸ ἐχμαγετίον τῶν σημείων. Here it signifies the latter. 
 An impressed seal is the sign of the strongest confirmation, and 
 hence in the New ‘Testament opeayis is frequently used in the sense 
 of BeBatwors, 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2'Tim. ii. 19, and by the fathers, baptism is 
 styled ἡ ἀθανατοποιὸς xav σωτήξιος opeayes. (Grabe Spicil. Patr. tom. 
 i. p. 332.) ‘The Sabeans likewise call it the seal of life. With re- 
 spect to the thing itself, circumcision was but the sign of reception 
 into the theocracy. As Philo says, (De Opif. Mundi, p. 36.) τὰ aio- 
 θητὰ σημεῖα εἶναν σύμβολα τῷν νοητῶν. In that light it was regarded 
 by the Jews, (See Schiéttgen and Wetstein.) ‘They denominate it 
 in Jalkut Rubeni, f. 65, 4, the sign of the covenant, and in the Chal- 
 dee Paraphrase to the Song of Solomon, ‘‘ the seal of cireumcision Ὁ 
 which strengthens like swords those who bear it.”’ It is also called 
 
 * Not merely is circumcision posterior to faith, but even far inferior, as 
 much so indeed as the sign to the thing signified. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 11. 125 
 
 the seal of Abraham and the holy sign. (Comp. Liber Cosri, ed. 
 Buxt. p. 1. 6. 115.) In this view, therefore, the Israelite could not 
 but grant the truth of what the Apostle said, and just as little was he 
 able to contradict him, when he made the covenant sign dependent 
 upon the earlier act of faith. Long before Abraham had shown him- 
 self worthy of it, God opened the way for him to become the founder 
 of a blessed family upon the earth. With childlike obedience, the 
 patriarch followed the heavenly intimations, and in faith laid hold of 
 the promises. ‘This simple and submissive acceptance on his part 
 of the offered grace of God, now became the cause of God’s actually 
 imparting to him that covenant sign, and thereby constituting him, 
 in fact, the author of a Divine commonwealth, at first comprehending 
 only a single family, which soon, however, extended to a nation, 
 until finally, at the appearance of Christ, it spread over the whole 
 human race. Eis τὸ etvar, is a copy of the Hebrew method of join- 
 ing 5 to the infinitive, and stands for χαὶ οὕτως byéveto. Πιστενόντες 
 δὺ axeoBvorias. On the use of διὰ like the Hebrew 3, to signify with 
 and in, see chap. ii. v. 27. It is here to be resolved into xavmee dx- 
 ἐόβυστοι ὄντες. 
 
 Πατέξα τῶν πιστευόντων δὶ αχξοβυστίας. The word father is figu- 
 ratively used by eastern nations to denote the most multifarious rela- 
 tions. ‘The most common is the general one of dependence. In the 
 present case it is to be taken in the sense of author or founder. 
 Comp. Job xxxviii. 28; Gen. iv. 21; 1 Mace. il. 54. Φινεὲς ὃ πατὴξ 
 ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ δηλῶσαι ζῆλον, John vill. 44. Carpzovius: exemplar. 
 Schleusner prefers the meaning, antesignanus. ‘The two, however, 
 are virtually identical. Abraham, as the first of those who received 
 justification in this way, leads the train of all who in the same way 
 receive it after him. ‘There is a similar passage in the dictionary 
 Michlal Jophi upon Mal. ii. ‘Abraham is the father of all those who 
 follow him in faith.” The word father is used in the same sense by 
 Maimon. Opp. Poc. 1. p. 63. ‘* Moses is the father of all succeed- 
 ing prophets.” 
 
 The εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναν Expresses more distinctly in what this pater- 
 nity consists, viz. that as children partake the nature of their father, 
 so may all the heathen appropriate to themselves the privileges 
 which were enjoyed by him, who by his childlike faith founded the 
 kingdom of justification by free grace. Theodoret, pushing the com- 
 parison too far, has the following words: ‘O yae τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς; πδοευ- 
 δὼς ὡς Θεὸς» καὶ ὡς ἕνα λαὸν ἐξ ἐθνῶν χαὶ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀθροίσει; καὶ διὰ πίστεως 
 αὐτοῖς τὴν σωτηξίαν παρέξει, ἐν τῷ ἸΤατριάρχῃ 'ABeadu ἀμφότεξα προδίε- 
 γέαψε. Δείξας yae αὐτὸν, καὶ πρὸ τῆς περιτομῆς τὴν ἐκ πίστεως δικαιο- 
 σύνην κτησάμενον, AL μετὰ τὴν πεφιτόμὴν, οὐ κατὰ τὸν Μωσαϊχὸν πολι- 
 τευσάμενον νόμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιμείναντα τῇ τῆς πίστεως ποδηγίᾳ, πατέρα τῶν 
 ἐθνῶν αὐτὸν προσηγόξευσεν. ἢ 
 
 * He who is the God of all, foreseeing, as God, that he would gather one 
 people from among Jews and Gentiles, and impart to them salvation through 
 
126 CHAPTER IV. v. 12. 
 
 V. 12. What the Apostle here meant to say is, that the members 
 of the Israelitish theocracy are as little excluded from justification by 
 the fact of Abraham’s having received the righteousness of faith when 
 he did not as yet belong toit. All, however, depends upon their choos- 
 ing to take the same way to it as Abraham did. CEcumenius: Ὥσπες 
 γὰφ οἱ ἐν ἀχροβυστίᾳ; οὐ διὰ τοῦτο μόνον σχοῖεν ἂν τὸν ABendu πατέρα; διὰ 
 τὸ ἐν axeoBvoria αὐτὸν πεπιστευκέναι, εἰ μὴ καὶ τὴν πιστιν μιμήσαιντο» 
 οὕτως οὐδὲ οἱ ἐν πεφυτομῇ σχήσουσι, οὐ Sid τὸ μόνον περιτμηθήναυ τὸν 
 Αβεαὰμ; ξὰν μὴ καὶ τὴν πίστιν αὐτοῦ μιμήσωνταιυΐ 
 
 The dative τοὺς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον is put according to the ana- 
 logy of the Hebrew, instead of the genitive τῶν. The genitive, in 
 that language, being often expressed by Ὁ. There is a twofold way 
 of understanding the meaning and scope of these words, for each of 
 which weighty arguments may be alleged. ‘The Syrian interpreter, 
 and the Vulgate find here, not as we do, an antithesis between exclu- 
 sive self-righteous Jews and subjects of justification by faith, but 
 between Jews and Gentiles. And the same opinion is adopted by 
 Theodoret, Anselm, Castalio, Grotius, and Koppe. ‘These exposi- 
 tors regard τοὺς οὐκ éx πεξιτομῆς μόνον as an inversion for οὐ τοῖς ἐκ 
 περιτομῆς μόνον, Of which latter collocation we have an instance in 
 verse 16th. As exemplifications of this harsh construction, Castalio 
 appeals to 1 Thessalonians i. 8, 2 Tim. ii. 6, and Koppe quotes the 
 present passage in support of his unnatural explanation of ἐκ φύσεως, 
 Rom. ii. 27. But not one of the three passages furnishes sufficient 
 authority for so violent an inversion, as these expositors propose. It 
 is true, that partly the xac before τοῖς standing in immediate connec- 
 tion with ἀλλὰ, and more especially the repetition of the article before 
 orovzovet, Speak in their favour. ‘This last reason, however, is not 
 enough to countervail the harshness of the inversion, and the reasons 
 for the opposite exposition which we have adopted. In favour of 
 that may be urged, that it would be totally superfluous to repeat what 
 had been said in the 11th verse touching the justification of the Jews: 
 Moreover, that, according to the other interpretation, the waréea περι- 
 τομῆς», Without any further addition, would be quite destructive of the 
 sense. It would only refer, as Koppe makes it refer, to the lineal 
 descent of the Israelites, which is here quite contrary to the train of 
 thought. In fine, it is also confirmatory of our explanation, that if 
 Abraham is here stated to be the father of the subjects of the theo- 
 
 faith, prefigured both in the person of the Patriarch Abraham. For having 
 shown, that even prior to circumcision, he possessed the righteousness which 
 is through faith, and subsequent to his circumcision, that he was not subject 
 to the Mosaic law, but continued under the discipline of faith, he calls him 
 the Father of nations. : 
 
 * For as those in uncircumcision have not Abraham for their father, for 
 the sole reason, that he believed in an uncircumcised state, unless they are 
 also imitators of his faith; so neither, without this condition, shall they of the 
 circumcision have him for their father, from the mere circumstance of his 
 having been circumcised. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 13. 127 
 
 cracy, some sort of limitation, like that which the Apostle makes, 
 appears indispensably necessary. ‘This view has accordingly been 
 adopted by Chrysostom, Ambrosius, (who had the Latin translation 
 before his eyes,) Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Carpsovius and others. 
 ᾿Αλλὰ χαὺ We must translate but rather, and not but also, καὶ having 
 often this intensifying power. Τοῖς στοιχοῦσυ τοὺς ἰχνεσι. ‘The repe- 
 tition of the article is to be considered a solecism. Στοιχεὺν Means 
 to follow. 
 
 ῬΑ Gory. 
 
 PROOF OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THEOCRACY WITHOUT THE 
 CO-OPERATION OF, WHAT WAS ITS CHIEF PILLAR, THE LAW. _ IN- 
 STEAD OF THE LAW HAVING FOUNDED THE THEOCRACY, THEY WERE 
 BOTH THE OFFSPRING OF RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. v. 13—18. 
 
 Besipes the covenant sign of circumcision, their having received the 
 law operated as another cause to lead Israel into the error of ima- 
 gining the privilege of an interest in divine mercy, inherent in their 
 mere position, whereas that could only acquire value, when connected 
 with suitable dispositions. Even the distinction of possessing the 
 law belonged not to Abraham, at the pericd when God gave him the 
 great promises. Paul, accordingly, now demonstrates from the in- 
 stance of the patriarch, that the possession of the law contributed 
 nothing to the establishment of the prerogatives of the theocracy, but 
 that no less in the case of the law, than in that of circumcision, it is 
 clearly evinced, that the theocracy of which the Jew made his boast, 
 far from rendering the righteousness of faith superfluous, was founded 
 and reposed upon no other basis than free grace on the part of God, 
 and a cheerful and childlike faith, accepting it on the part of man. 
 That this faith, whose character is to think humbly of self, insures 
 the fulfilment of the promises, is declared by the ‘Talmud itself, ‘Ty. 
 Berachoth, fol. 63,1, where it is written, ‘*‘ The promises of the law 
 pass into accomplishment, only in the instance of him who looks 
 upon himself \3°sw 192 as if he were nothing.”’ ‘The fourth head ‘of 
 St. Paul’s demonstration does not, in the manner in which itis stated, 
 correspond entirely with the third. In order to make it thus coin- 
 cide, he would have required to say, ‘In like manner, as ecircum- 
 cision was imparted for the sake of the righteousness by faith, so also 
 were the law, and all the concomitant theocratical distinctions given 
 to Israel on account of the faith and consequent justification of the 
 patriarch, and were far from having been conditional upon the fulfill- 
 ing of the law.”” Paul did not, however, choose to state his propo- 
 
128 CHAPTER Iv. v. 13. 
 
 sition in this manner; because the law had not, like circumcision, 
 been bestowed immediately upon Abraham. As the reward of his 
 faith and confidence, he had received the ἐπαγγελία that in his seed 
 should all the nations of the earth be blessed, Gen. xxii. 18. In this 
 promise was contained the germ of the theocracy, which in time 
 gradually unfolded itself, first in weakness under the Old Testament, 
 but subsequently in perfection under the New. Hence virtually the 
 same parallelism still lies in the words before us. 
 
 V. 13. This new argument the Apostle links to the preceding, 
 simply by yae, which with the οὐ must be translated ** neque porro.”’ 
 Or we may also suppose, with Gicumenius, that in point of form it 
 is brought forward, as a farther corroboration of his former proposi- 
 tion, 7. 6. that by a conclusion a majori ad minus, he still more 
 firmly establishes the doctrine, that circumcision has no justifying 
 efficacy. 
 
 ἡ ἐπαγγελία, TO κληφονόμον αὐτὸν eivar Tov χύσμον. Kaneovduos equi- 
 valent to xvevos signifies @ proprietor, xaneovowery δόξαν, φήμην; are 
 common Greek phrases implying possession. So also in Hebrew 
 ΤῊ 212 the property. ‘There is no promise to be found in the Old 
 Testament expressed in these words. ‘The quotations of Jews, how- 
 ever, were not always literally exact. (See Surenhusius in Βίβλιῳ 
 καταλλαγῆς 6. 2. De modis allegandi, Thes. v.) Sometimes they 
 extend the meaning by additions made from parallel passages. Many 
 commentators deem that the Apostle has before his eyes, Gen. xv. 7, 
 where it is said, that to Abraham shall be given TAWA) ANI PRN, 
 this land to inherit it. Now if such be the case, Paul must have 
 seen more in the promise than the mere inheritance of the terrestrial 
 Canaan; for in the 16th verse we find he speaks of that promise as 
 extending also to believing Christians from among the heathen. And 
 it is a very obvious conjecture, that he interpreted the words typi- 
 cally, and considered the possession of Palestine as a figure of the 
 possession of the spiritual kingdom of God. ‘There are analogous 
 instances of Canaan being taken in this figurative sense, Heb. iv. and 
 so likewise Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 2. Κόσμος would then stand for 
 κόσμος μέλλων, αἰὼν μέλλων. According to a similar typical view, 
 Philo wrote his book, ‘O τῶν θείων πεαγμάτων xajneovouos. ‘This way 
 of understanding the words has been followed by Brent, Chr. Schmid, 
 and Carpzov. It is, however, difficult to see, how χόσμος can stand 
 immediately for χόσμος wéarwy* and immediately it does not admit of 
 a spiritual sense. It would hence no more serve for a spiritual expo- 
 sition than for a proper translation of ΠΟΤ ax. One would rather 
 be disposed to conclude with Gicumenius, that χληδονομεῖν τὸν κόσμον 
 is a form of expression, which, in the course of time, lost its original 
 signification, and came at length to signfy, generally, the enjoyment ᾿ 
 of welfare and blessing, as Matt. v.5. comp. with Ps. xxv. 13, par- 
 ticularly Ps. xxxvii. 9; Prov. ii. 20,21. ‘The best way, however, 
 might be to take χόσμος, as signifying all the nations of the earth, 
 and then to consider the promises intended to be, such as Gen, xxii. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 13, 14. 129 
 
 17,18. The prophets often foretell the taking possession wy, of 
 foreign nations, at the time of the Messiah. In that was implied their 
 reception into the theocracy, and hence, indirectly, their participation 
 in the kingdom of the Messiah; so that the promise before us, that 
 Abraham with his race should fill the whole earth, is viewed by St. 
 Paul as including the prospect of all mankind becoming subjects of 
 the Messiah’s kingdom. ‘This is also precisely the meaning of the 
 17th verse. The passage in Philo, Quis rerum divin. heres? p. 520, 
 may be compared, where he calls Abraham, Ἡ γεμόνα ἔθνους xox γένους 
 ἑτέρον μέλλοντα. Also among the Rabbins, Maim. T'r. Bikkurim, c. 
 4, § 1, where it is said, ‘‘'The proselyte presents his firstlings, and 
 confesses (his faith on one God) as it stands written of Abraham, J 
 have made thee a father of many nations, Gen. xvii. 5. Lo he is 
 the father of all the earth.”’ Mechilta upon Exod. xiv. ‘ Our father 
 Abraham possesses the world that now is and that which is to come, 
 by faith alone.” Gen. xv. 6. Philo uses a similar expression in 
 reference to Moses, De vita Mosis, p. 626, ed. Frankf. xowwwvov yae 
 ἀξιώσας ὃ θεὸς ἀναφανῆναι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ λήξεως, ἀνῆχε πάντα τὸν κόσμον ὡς 
 χληξονόμῳ κτῆσιν ἁδμόζουσαν.ἢ 
 
 Ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. In the promises made to Abraham, his 
 posterity were also included. This it entered into the design of Paul, 
 to bring prominently into view, as it showed, in the clearest manner, 
 how the theocratical privileges, in which the Jews so proudly gloried, 
 rested entirely upon the faith of Abraham, and fell at once from their 
 hands the moment they wished to make them depend upon the 
 law. 
 
 dud δικαιοσύνης πίστεως. ‘The promises of blessing were made to 
 Abraham, at first under the condition of his childlike compliance with 
 all the purposes of God, with respect to him, Gen. xii. 2, 3. Accord- 
 ingly, after having in all things manifested perfect fidelity to God, he 
 obtained the seal of the covenant, was set apart for the founder of the 
 theocracy, and, in consideration of his former cheerful faith, those 
 numerous promises, before exhibited only from afar, were confirmed 
 to him, Gen. xvii. 5. At length the third great and most severe trial 
 of his faith was made, in which the aged patriarch having stood firm, 
 the promises were once more repeated, and with a still richer en- 
 largement, xxii. 18. 
 
 V. 14. Abraham received the promise in consequence of his child- 
 like faith, and for us also its significance depends upon our believing. 
 If it were only upon the ground of a fulfilment of the demands of the 
 religious and moral law, that God imparts grace, then does religious 
 faith, that noblest act of the human spirit, lose its value, and the 
 promise made to Abraham, of one day obtaining a participation in 
 the glorious kingdom of God, is made of none effect, and cannot be 
 fulfilled. So Calvin, Beza, and Limborch. 
 
 * For God thinking fit to make apparent the commonness of his inherit- 
 ance, has left the whole world as a suitable property to an heir. 
 17 
 
130 CHAPTER Iv. v. 15, 16, 17. 
 
 ot ἐκ νόμον is exactly parallel with οἱ ἐξ ἔργων, Gal. iii. 10, to which, 
 in the foregoing verse, οἱ 2x πίστεως is there placed in opposition. 
 The meaning is those who trust to their works, and those who trust 
 to faith. 'Theod.: οἱ κατὰ νόμον πολιτευσάμενοι. 
 
 χεχένωται ἡ πίστις. "This verb is used by the LXX. as the trans- 
 lation of S5nox, Jer. xiv. 2. to lose power or value. Se 1 Cor. 17, 
 according to which the sense of the present passage is, ‘* Religious 
 faith is made insignificant.” Christ. Schmid: Fidei vis tollitur. 
 
 xaraeyéw in the LXX. is put for 902 to hinder or prevent. Cicu- 
 MENLUS: at ἐπαγγελίαν dyenoror καὶ ἀτέλεστοι γεγένηνται. ‘The prophecy 
 made to Abraham cannot be carried into accomplishment, if the con- 
 dition of its accomplishment is our fulfilling the law. ‘Thomas Aqui- 
 nas: Si aliqua promissio sit implenda per id quod impletionem pro- 
 missionis impedit, talis promissio aboletur, enimvero lex impedit 
 consecutionem hereditatis. 
 
 V. 15. The idea of law, and the idea of penal justice are eorrela- 
 tive, because it is impossible to conceive of man, except as a trans- 
 gressor. In another train of thought, chap. vii. 7, Paul expands this 
 thought. Calvin: Ea est nature nostre vitiositas: Quo magis doce- 
 mur quid rectum sit ac justum, eo apertius nostra iniquitas detegitur, 
 maximeque contumacia, atque hoc modo gravius Dei judicium accer- 
 situr. 
 
 V.16. If God’s promise of receiving the true posterity of the 
 Patriarch into his kingdom is to remain sure, its certainty must be 
 founded upon his own free grace, and not upon so doubtful a thing 
 as man’s obedience to the law. Seeing, however, that grace, and 
 the manifestation of it, that is, the operation of the Divine Spirit upon 
 the heart of man, on the one hand, and a believing susceptibility for 
 its reception, upon the other, are co-relative, it follows, that if God 
 justifies us by free grace, our justification necessarily rests upon the 
 ground of a believing acquiescence or appropriation upon our parts. 
 
 To διὰ τοῦτο we may supply, from verse 13 and 14, χληξονόμον 
 γινόμεθα. One might be here tempted to understand the οὐ τῷ x τοῦ 
 νόμου μόνον κτλ. in the same sense with the τοῖς οὐχ ἐκ περιτομῆς Of 
 the 12th verse, in order to introduce an accordance between the two 
 expressions. ‘This, however, is by no means necessary. ΤῸ 
 displace the οὐ in the present, would be no less violent than in 
 that former instance. Accordingly, we regard the words τῷ 
 ix πίστεως "ABeadu, as designing the heathen; and this opinion is 
 corroborated by παντὺ τῷ oxéeuarc, Which obviously leads us to ex- 
 pect a subsequent μερισμὸς, and still more, by the final clause ὅς tore 
 πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν, by which the Apostle intimates, that although he 
 had before denominated Abraham, more especially, the Father of the 
 Jews, still the heathen might also participate in that privilege. 
 
 V.17. The passage from Gen. xvii. 5, is quoted verbatim from 
 the LXX. It ought rightly to be joined to the previous verse. 
 Τυθέναυ in the Hellenistic dialect, answers to the Hebrew {ni, to con- 
 stitute. ‘The promise as it stands, refers solely to the numerous 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 17. 131 
 
 bodily progeny of the Patriarch. In so far, however, as his bodily 
 progeny founded the theocracy, and were subservient to the recep- 
 tion of all the nations of the earth into the covenant originally made 
 with Abraham, Paul had good ground to say, that that promise, even 
 in a higher sense, had met its accomplishment. 
 
 xavévarte ov ἐπίστευσε Θεοῦ. "These words are particularly difficult 
 to be understood. Hence, probably the variations in translation 
 among the ancients. ‘The Syrian and Arabian versions, besides two 
 codices, read ἐπίστευσας, which is what Luther also translates, con- 
 necting the words with the preceding address of God to Abraham. 
 Ambrose, on the contrary, expounds as follows: Ut unum Deum 
 omnium doceat, alloquitur gentiles, Abraham ipsi Deo credidisse, et 
 justificatum esse ante eum in quem et gentes credunt. This reading 
 and translation, however, is unfounded. If, then, we keep to the 
 common reading, still the sense may be determined very variously. 
 With respect to the construction, it will be found necessary to sup- 
 pose an attraction and rhetorical transposition, which must be resolved 
 into χατέναντυ τοῦ Θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπίστευσε. See upon such forms of syntax, 
 Herman zu Viger, 5. 891. Winer Gramm. des N. Test. 5 50. The 
 meaning of the expression is thus given by Theodoret: donee πάντων 
 Este ποιητὴς ὃ Θεὸς, καὺ πάντων Θεός τε χαὺ κηδεμών οὕτω καὶ τὸν 
 ᾿Αβεαὰμ πατέρα πάντων κεχειροτόνηκεν. ἢ So also Chrysostom, Theo- 
 phylact, Erasmus and Brentius, who take χατέναντο in the sense of 
 καθ᾽ ὁμοίωμα OF ὁμοίως. In this sense it may be found in the Old, 
 but nowhere in the New Testament. It would give to the passage 
 the following meaning: ‘Abraham should be the founder of a mul- 
 titude of nations, just as the Almighty God, upon whom he believed, 
 was the author of numerous beings, and also raises the dead. Leaving 
 out of view, however, that this import of xazévaze has not been suf- 
 ficiently proved, it must be obvious, that that statement would be 
 here superfluous and moreover unsuitable. ‘To prove such a simi- 
 larity between Abraham and God would be highly affected. Seb. 
 Schmid proposes to give another sense to χατέναντυ respectu ad, 
 according to which the meaning would be, ‘‘as regards the object of 
 our faith, we are Abraham’s children; his faith and ours were fixed 
 upon the same being.’’ But neither does this meaning answer, and 
 such a use of χατέναντι is undemonstrated. ‘The attempts of Grotius 
 and Herzog to explain it are also violent. ‘They separate by a point 
 of interrogation, placed by the one after ἐπίστευσε by the other after 
 ob, the χατέναντι ov from what follows, and it is thus that the former 
 translates, “Ἅ Before whom did Abraham believe? Answer; before 
 God.” Augustine, Cornelius ἃ Lapide and Bengel, join the κατέναντι 
 οὔ With the citation from Gen. xvii. 5, and make the sense, “1 have 
 made thee a father of many nations in the sight of God, because to 
 the eye of man they did not as yet exist.”” Others give different ex- 
 
 * As God is the maker of all, and the God and guardian of all, so has he 
 appointed Abraham the Father of all. 
 
132 CHAPTER Iv. ν. 17. 
 
 planations, But itis at once most agreeable to the language and 
 meaning, to take χατέναντι here in the sense ‘*‘ according to the judg- 
 ment or design of God,”’ as in the Hebrew *3y'3 and among the later 
 Jews, 395. So Origen, Cocceius, Beausobre, De Wette. The 
 purpose of appending the clause unquestionably was to intimate, that 
 God already foresaw the many that were one day to follow Abraham 
 upon the path of believing submission, and thereby be numbered 
 among his people. It is to this, accordingly, that the epithet con- 
 ferred upon God refers. He who has power to call the dead from 
 their graves, and to whom that which is not is as if it were, could 
 even then perceive the whole race of believers, who were destined 
 to unite themselves with Abraham, and in this view denominate the 
 Patriarch a father of many nations. Others contend that Paul be- 
 stows the epithet in question from an anticipation of what he was 
 about to say in verses 18 and 19. ‘They, therefore, either consider 
 the vexeou. here as equivalent to νενεκρωμένος, Heb. xi. 12, comp. with 
 Rom. iv. 19; so Theophylact, Grotius, Christ. Schmid and Beza. 
 Or they imagine, that Paul ascribes faith to Abraham, in reference to 
 the future offering up of Isaac. Even if, at the Divine command, he 
 had completed the sacrifice, God could still have easily recalled the 
 victim from the dead. So Erasmus. According to the former view, 
 CEcumenius observes: ὁ γὰς τοὺς νεκροὺς ζωοποιὼν, καὶ τὰ μὴ ὄντα οὐ- 
 σιῶν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον δυνήσεταυ τῷ νενεχξωμένῷ διὼ τὸ γῆἥξας σώματι δοῦναι 
 σπέρμα ζωογόνον. 
 
 καὶ χαλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. There is difficulty in the con- 
 struction of these words. The simplest way is to take ὡς as ἃ com- 
 parative particle, and to expound, ‘* With God existence and non-ex- 
 istence are the same; when he commands, the latter must obey him 
 no less than the former.” In precise uniformity with this view, the 
 Vulgate translates: vocat que non sunt, tanquam ea que sunt. Beza: 
 apud quem jam sunt, que alioqui re ipsa non sunt. It has been de- 
 fended among moderns by Chr. Schmidt, Lisner, and Koppe. We 
 might then compare the passage from Philo: (De Josepho, p. 544.) 
 Ἔν ταῖς χαθ᾽ ὕπνον φαντασίαις, βλέποντες οὐ BAdMOEMEY, τῆς διανοίας ἄνα- 
 yeapovons καὶ εἰδολοποιούσης τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. Likewise from the 
 same author: (in Flace. p. 988,) χατ᾽ dvae εἶδον πλάσματα ψυχῆς ὕσως 
 dvayeapovens τὰ μὴ ὑπάξχοντα ὡς ὄντα." ‘This sense, however, ap- 
 pears to want simplicity. Now it suggests itself at once to suppose 
 that ὡς ὄντα stands for εἰς τὸ εἶναι; for the expression xarsiy OF maed- 
 yew τὰ μὴ ὄντᾳ εἰς τὸ εἶναυ 15 exceedingly common, (See Lisner, a. ἢ. 
 1.) no less in classical, than in Philo, and Ecclesiastical authors. 
 Epiphanius: (Heres. t. iii. p. 267.) Ὑειὰς ἁγία ἐξ ἧς τὰ πάντα καλῶς 
 ἐχτισμένα----ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων xexdnuéva εἰς τὸ εἶναι. Lucian: (Philop. ec. 
 11.) ἄνθρωπον ἐκ μὴ ὅντων εἰς τὸ εἶναν παξήγαγε. Philo: (de vita Μο-’ 
 sis, 1. 3. p. 693.) Ex τοὺ μὴ ὄντος εἰς TO εἴναν TO τελειόφατον ἔφγον τὸν 
 
 * In our dreaming fancies, seeing we do not see, the mind describing and 
 imagining things that are not as though they were. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. V. 17. 133 
 
 χόσμον ἀπέφηνε. Id. (de Creat. princ. p. 728.) τὰ γὰρ μὴ ὄντα ἐκάλε- 
 σεν εἰς εἶναι. In like manner Luther translates “das sie seyen.” ‘The 
 question now arises whether this way of understanding the words 
 can be shown to be grammatically correct. With this view, Elsner 
 quotes a multitude of passages, where ὡς is construed with the par- 
 ticiple, to express the end or design. That, however, it was unne- 
 cessary to prove; the question is whether, in such cases, the present 
 participle stands for the future. ‘The participle of εἴμιν which occurs 
 in two of the instances cited, cannot prove this, seeing that cus, even 
 in the present participle, has the sense of the future, and it does not 
 seem evident that either Xenophon or Aristides there used them in 
 the present tense. If then we are to abide by this explanation, 
 nothing is left for us but to consider ὡς as equivalent to εἰς (See 
 Matthie, 5. 846, Hermann, zu Viger, p. 807,) and ὅντα to τὸ εὔναυ.- 
 A parallel passage would then be found in Plato’s Symp. p. 205, éx 
 τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ ἕν ἰόντα. In fact, Mangey has proposed (ad Phil, 
 t. ii. p. 317,) to emend the text, by substituting εἰς for ὡς. But itis 
 sufficient of itself to discredit this expedient, that ὄντα is unaccom- 
 panied by the article, which would, in that case, be indispensable. 
 We, therefore, prefer taking ὡς in the sense of the Hebrew Caph 
 veritatis, a use of it which occurs in classical Greek, (see Zeune zu 
 Viger, p. 563,) and not merely with adverbs and adjectives, but with 
 substantives also. It would then be translated, not tanquam, but ut; 
 and the idea of calling involve that of bringing into existence. 
 With respect now to the verb χαλέω, its proper meaning of éo call is 
 here to be held fast, as it implies an allusion to the call of Jehovah 
 “7. This designation of the creative energy of the Divine Being as 
 a calling was prevalent among the Jews. Com. Isa. xli. 4. W870 
 ANI NIP, and in the Book of Wisdom, xi. 26. We find the same 
 term also among the Samaritans. Chrysostom observes to the point: 
 οὐδὲ εὔπε TOV παξάγοντος τὼ οὐχ ὄντα ἀλλὰ, XAAOVVTOS, τὴν πλείονω 
 εὐχολίαν δηλῶν. But to come now to the sense upon the determina- 
 tion of which the construction has no real influence. In like manner 
 as to the former, many expositors give to this clause, a direct refer- 
 ence to the case of Abraham, several understand the words “ those 
 things that be not,” to refer to the defective power of procreation 
 which God had restored; while others, which is certainly the most 
 natural way, if we seek to give the words a more special scope, refer 
 τὰ μὴ ὄντα, to the late spiritual posterity of Abraham. ‘This interpre- 
 tation is followed by Origen, Ambrose, and Beza. Chr. Schmid, 
 Beausobre and Erasmus, likewise adopt it, but take ὄντα in the pla- 
 tonic sense of things excellent, important, and τὰ μὴ ὄντα, things 
 unimportant. In illustration, we may cite the following passage 
 from Athanasius: ‘‘ For if it be true, that they whose nature was not 
 to be, were by the appearance and love of the word called into ex- 
 
 * He speaks not of creating, but of calling the things that are, to express 
 the greater facility. 
 
134 CHAPTER Iv. V. 17, 18. 
 
 istence, it may be inferred, that being once emptied of all sense of 
 God, and having turned from him to things that are not, men must 
 have been so emptied for ever. Now what is meant by the things 
 that are not, is evil, whereas the things that are, mean good things, 
 having been made by the God that is.”? It may be, however, that 
 we have to suppose the words to refer generally to the creation of 
 the world, which is one of the most difficult objects for faith. A 
 belief in the creation of the world without pre-existent matter, dis- 
 tinguished the Hebrew from every heathen nation. Hence, to de- 
 signate the omnipotence of the Divine Being, the Jews oft appealed 
 to this great act, as 2 Mace. vii. 28; and Philo, in the passage we 
 have quoted from de vita Mosis, 1. iii. p. 693. Perhaps, therefore, 
 Paul merely meant to point in general to an object in reference to 
 which it was hard for Abraham, as it is for all, to believe. 
 
 P ART WV 4 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM AND STATEMENT OF THE 
 NOBLE BLESSINGS ACCRUING TO BELIEVERS, AS EXHIBITED IN HIS 
 EXAMPLE. Vv. 18—25. 
 
 As the Apostle does not write systematically, he here yields to his 
 feelings, which prompt him to delineate the greatness of faith and 
 power of confidence, manifested in the instance alluded to from the 
 life of Abraham, and in this manner he gives us the characteristics 
 of his διχαιοσύνη. Bengel: Ostendit Paulus fidem non esse rem 
 tenuem, cui justificationem adscribat, sed vim eximiam. Were we 
 to point out the right place for this admirable delineation in the chain 
 of proof, it would be between the 3d and 4th verses of the chapter. 
 Here it is worth while to compare Philo, de Abrah. 
 
 V. 18. Ὃς παρ᾽ ἐλπύδα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν. An oxymoron similar 
 to 5065 insperata. The antithesis of the double ἐλπὶς designates the 
 twofold sphere with which the spirit of the believer is conversant, 
 one inferior, that of the usual order of things, and one that is supe- 
 rior, and into which we cannot penetrate but by faith. ‘The Apostle’s 
 meaning is, that on the one hand Abraham might look to the order 
 and laws of nature; on which side he had no hope. On the other, 
 he might contemplate the omnipotence and promise of God, and upon 
 these build the strongest expectations. Chrysostom: παρ᾽ ἐλπίδα τὴν 
 ἀνθρωπίνην, ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Melancthon: Fidei objectum est 
 verbum, quod pugnat cum externa specie, ut Abrahae promittitur se- 
 men et posteritas, cui velit Deus benedicere, interim conjux est sterilis, 
 ipse esteffcetus. Nobis promittit pacem et vitam, interim exercemur 
 omni genere affictionum, et in morte vita non conspicitur. Bengel: 
 
CHAPTER Iv. v. 18, 19. 135 
 
 Una eademque res et fide et spe apprehenditur, fide ut res que 
 vere edicitur, spe ut res leta, que certo et fieri potest et fiet; preter 
 spem rationis, in spe promissionis credidit. Calvin obtains a differ- 
 ent interpretation by taking παρὰ aS comparative: Potest etiam legi 
 supra spem, et forsan magis apposite, quasi diceret, ipsum sua fide 
 longe superasse quidquid concipere poterat. Nisi enim sursum alis 
 celestibus evolet fides, ut omnes carnis sensus procul despiciat, in 
 luto mundi semper herebit. : 
 
 εἰς τὸ yevéodai may be resolved into xat οὕτως ἐγένετο; as is done by 
 Luther, Michaelis, and de Wette in their translations; or again εἰς 
 like the Hebrew 9, indicates the subject of Faith. So Castalio and 
 Beza, who translates: fore ut fieret. Οὕτως ἔσται τὸ onéeua σον is from 
 Gen. xv. 5. The οὕτως refers to the multitude of stars, which Abra- 
 ham, who received the promise by night, beheld in the sky. Ps. exlvit. 
 4, ‘The stars are represented as uncountable. 
 
 V.19. This and the following verse afford the explanation of παρ᾽ 
 ἐλπίδα and ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι. In the present, Paul mentions what, accord- 
 ing to the lower order of things, might have yielded a hope, and yet now 
 yielded none to him. In the 20th, what, in the higher order of things, 
 afforded him a sufficient ground of faith. Beautifully Chrysostom: εὖδες 
 πῶς τιθήσυ καὶ τὰ κωλύματα; καὶ THY ὑψηλὴν Tov δικαίου γνώμην πάντα 
 ὑπερβαύνουσαν; mae’ εχπίδα, φησὶ, τὸ ἐπαγγελθέν. τοῦτο χώλυμα πεὼ- 
 tov’ οὐδὲ yae εἶχεν αὐτὸς ἕτεξον ᾿Αβεαὰμ οὕτω λαβόντα παύδα ἐἰδεῦν" οὗ μὲν 
 yae μετ᾽ αὐτὸν; εἰς αὐτὸν ἔβλεπον. ἐκεῖνος δὲ εἰς οὐδένα; ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν θεὸν 
 μόνον" διὸ χκαὺ mae’ ἐλπίδα ἔλεγεν. εἴτα τὸ σῶμα νενεκρωμένον. δεύτερον 
 τοῦτο. χαὺ ἡ νέχρωσις τῆς μήτεας Σάῤῥας. τοῦτο καὶ τρίτον. ἢ 
 
 μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστεις. Τῇ πίστει is here to be translated in re- 
 spect of faith. It is the dative of the quality. The Apostle, accord- 
 ing to a frequent Hebrew practice, here applies the μείωσις, and by 
 prefixing the negative, renders more forcible the declaration he makes 
 of the strength of Abraham’s faith. We would paraphrase it, ‘* And 
 in truth he gave no small proof of faith, but......”” Opposed to this 
 ἀσθένεια πίστεως, Stands πληξοφορηθεὶς Of verse 21. Comp. Rom. xiv. 
 1; 1 Mace. xi. 49. 
 
 Οὐ χατενόησε, κτλ. There were three circumstances calculated to 
 weaken Abraham’s faith. His own age, the age of Sarah, and her 
 former barrenness. χατανοεὺν, to take into consideration. Luther 
 on Gen. xv. 1. ‘ Denn wo Gott seine hand abzeucht, spintisirt ihm 
 das Fleisch gar auf eine wunderliche Dialectica und Rhetorica uhd 
 denkt der Sache gar seltsam nach.”” This χατανοεὺν to consider, is 
 
 * Observe how he states both the obstacles in the case, and how the lofty 
 mind of the just man triumphed over them all. What had been promised 
 was against hope, he says. This is the first hindrance, for he had no in- 
 stance to look to of any former Abraham having thus received a son. They 
 who came after, looked back upon him. He, however, had none to look to 
 but God; and therefore it is that Paul says against hope. Besides his body 
 was dead, which was a second; and so was Sarah’s womb, and that was a 
 third obstacle. 
 
136 CHAPTER Ivy. v. 20, 21. 
 
 the opposite of inward confidence. In the latter, the mind’s eye is 
 directed steadily to one object, and hence flows strength of will and 
 resolution; in the former, however, it fluctuates between two direc- 
 tions, and hence weakness of purpose and determination. 
 
 τὸ copa ἥδη vevexeouévorv, κτλ. Heb. xi. 12. ᾿Εχατονταετὴς. Gen. 
 Xvil. 17. véxewors, is with Paul equivalent to θάνατος, 2 Cor. iv. 10. 
 It stands here in place of the adjective μήτεα vevexeouévy. Sarah 
 was ninety years old. Gen. xvii. 17. 
 
 Ver. 20. Chrysostom: Οὐδὲ yae ἀπόδειξιν ἔδωχενν οὐδὲ σημεῖον 
 ἐποίησεν ὃ Θεὸς, ἀλλὰ ῥήματα ἣν ψιλὰ μόνον, ἐπαγγελλόμενα ἅπερ οὐχ ὑπισ- 
 χνεῖτο ἣ Φύσις. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὐ διεχείθη. ὃ Οὐ διεχεφίθη, he staggered not. 
 It is also used in this sense, Rom. xiv. 23; Jas. i. 6, il. 4. Ty ἀπι- 
 στίᾳ, instead of διὰ τῆς ἀπιστίας. Vulgate, diffidentia. ‘The Syrian, 
 ‘like one of little faith.” Falsely rendered by Michaelis, “he suf- 
 fered not his doubts to wax into disbelief of the promise of God.” 
 Εἰς ἐπαγγελίαν. The preposition here means in regard to, we should 
 rather have expected πρός. 
 
 ἐνεδυναμώθηῆ. The Apostle appears to have chosen this form for 
 the sake of the parallel with διεκείθη. For a similar reason he seems 
 to use the dative τῇ πίστει, which corresponds with τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ. ‘The 
 dative τῇ πίστει, however, is not of the same import with τῇ ἀπίστίᾳῳ" 
 but rather as at v. 19, is the dative of the quality, in respect of faith. 
 The passive voice in which the verb is used, has the force of the 
 Hebrew Hithpael. Qicumenius: δείκνυσι πολλῷ καμάτῳ καὶ δυνάμευ 
 “ψυχῆς κατοφξθουμένην τὴν πίστιν. 
 
 δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ. ‘This expression 57 123 Dw denotes, according 
 to Hebrew idiom, “ to manifest practically that we recognize certain 
 attributes of God.”’ In this sense it is especially used when a call is 
 made for sincerity, John ix. 24, Jos. vi. 19. ‘The meaning here 
 accordingly is, ‘ Abraham proved by his actions that he had no doubt 
 of the omnipotence of God.’? So in 1 John v. 10, itis said, that he 
 who believeth not the gospel, ‘‘ hath made God a liar.”” Chrysos- 
 tom: ἄρα τὸ μὴ meereeyalecbar, δοξάξειν ἐστὶ τὸν Θεὸν; ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ πεξ- 
 LECYACECOAL πιλημμελεῦν...... τί δέ ἔστιν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δόξαν; ἐνενόησεν 
 αὐτοῦ τὴν δικαιοσύνην, τὴν ἄπειρον δύναμιν---καὶ τὴν πεοσήκουσαν πσίεξὺ 
 αὐτοῦ ἔννοιαν λαβὼν, οὕτως ἐπληξοφορφήθη περὶ τῶν ὑποσχέσεων. Calvin: 
 Extra certamen quidem nemo Deum omnia posse negat: verum simul- 
 ac objicitur aliquid quod cursum promissionum Dei impediat, Dei 
 virtutem e suo gradu dejicimus. It would be better, however, to 
 take δοὺς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ into the following verse. 
 
 Ver. 21. states in what the δοὺς δόξαν consisted. 
 
 * For God neither afforded him a proof, nor made any sign. Mere words 
 announced to him what nature did not promise, and yet he did not stagger. 
 
 } Hence, to abstain from curious inquiries is to glorify God, as to make 
 them is to transgress....... What means “giving glory to God?” It is, that he 
 reflected upon his justice and infinite power, and forming proper views of 
 these, he was assured of the promises. 
 
CHAPTER IV. V. 22, 23, 24. 137 
 
 Ver. 22. With these words St. Paul resumes his theme, and re- 
 turns properly to the third verse of this chapter. ‘Theod: οὕτω καὶ 
 ἐν τοὺς ὑπὸ τὸν νόμον; καὶ ἐν τοὺς MEd τοῦ VOMOVs δείξας τὴν πίστιν ἀνθήσασαν;, 
 Ent τὸ πεδοχείμενον μεταφέρει τὸν λόγον. We must supply the whole 
 preceding context as subject to ἐλογίσθη. ‘* His superiority to all 
 doubts, and, amidst the greatest temptations, giving God the glory.” 
 
 Ver. 23. Calvin: Quoniam probatio ab exemplo non semper firina 
 est, ne id in questionem veniat, diserte asserit Paulus in Abrahez per- 
 sona editum fuisse specimen communis justitiz, que ad omnes spec- 
 tat. ‘The Jew might certainly have still objected, that although on 
 historical grounds, this narrative, and especially this mode of justifi- 
 cation, had been recorded to the praise of Abraham, it was, however, 
 impossible to deduce from thence any inference applicable to other 
 men. The Apostle maintains, on the contrary, that the great doctrine 
 of faith being counted for righteousness, stands for all times, and 
 therefore is true of the Christian. In the Rabbinical Comm. Bere- 
 schit Rabba, there is a similar passage, ‘* What is written of Abra- 
 ham is written also of his children.”’ And Philo, with reference to 
 the histories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (de Abrah. p. 350.) says: 
 ὧν τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐν ταῖς ἱερωτάταις ἐστηλιτεῦσθαν γραφαῖς συμβέβηκεν, od 
 τρὸς τὸν ἐκείνων ἔπαινον αὐτὸ μόνον; ἀλλὰ χαὶ ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας 
 mporpépacdar, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν τῶν ὁμοίων ζῆλον wyayecy.t 
 
 V. 24. Seeing that now, under the New Testament, there obtains 
 a system of imputation by free grace, we are entitled to look back 
 upon the Old, and if we find any similar case, to apply the particular 
 circumstances of it to ourselves. It may here be questioned, whether 
 what the Apostle proceeds to say about the work of Christ, has any 
 reference to what he had previously said about Abraham, or if it be 
 totally unconnected with it. Several, as Bengel and Cocceius, sup- 
 pose, that Abraham’s faith in the resurrection in general is put as a 
 counterpart to the Christian’s faith in a risen Christ. It cannot be 
 said, however, that verse 17 speaks directly of Abraham’s belief in 
 the resurrection of the dead. Others, as Grotius, compare Abra- 
 ham’s belief in the recovery of his lost power of procreation, with 
 the Christian’s in the resurrection of the Saviour, which is still more 
 untenable. Itis far better to suppose that Paul, as he is wont, here 
 regards the resurrection, as the first step in the exaltation of Christ, 
 and hence, as the summit of the work of redemption. As to Paul’s 
 not making a risen Christ the direct object of our faith, but speaking ἡ 
 of the God who raised him, this is done for the sake of perfecting the 
 parallel between the Christian faith and that of Abraham. We may, 
 therefore, paraphrase the passage in the following manner: ** We who 
 believe on the same God on whom Abraham believed, but who ap- 
 
 * And thus having shown that faith had flourished equally among those 
 before and those under the law, he transfers his discourse to the subject. 
 
 { Whose virtues have come to be inscribed in our sacred books, not for 
 the sake of their praise, but in behalf of those to whom it should fall, to ex- 
 hort and guide to a zeal for the same. 
 
 18 
 
138 CHAPTER Iv. V. 25. 
 
 pears to us in a peculiar relation, as finisher of the work of redemp- 
 tion.” 
 
 V. 25. The Apostle now states, in few words, wherein that work 
 of redemption consists, which has been accomplished by the God in 
 whom Christians believe, and in doing so, he returns, as it were, to 
 chap. iii. 21, 22. 
 
 ὃς παρεδόθη scilicet, εἰς θάνατον, Which the LXX. add in Is. xxxviii. 
 13, where they render ‘mown by παρεδόθην. So also, Is. liii. 12, 
 καὺ διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας αὐτῶν παρεδόθηή. ‘The Apostle again separates by a 
 μερισμὸς, two things properly conjoined as one. ‘The διὰ τὰ παραπ- 
 τώμοτα strictly considered, cannot mean any thing different from 
 διὰ Inv δικαίωσιν. ‘The manifestation of the ideal of holiness, ὁ. 6. 
 of love supreme, rendered necessary the sufferings and the death 
 of Christ. But it is by his accomplishment of a perfect obedience, 
 and realization of a perfect love, that the διχαίωσις is wrought out. 
 We must, however, suppose the Apostle had some end in view, when 
 he made the separation. The δικαίωσις of believers through Christ 
 is a very extensive term, comprehending the removal of present 
 guilt, which is the ἀπολύγρωσις in its narrower sense, and the commu- 
 nication of the new principle of life, issuing at last in the accom- 
 plishment and glorification of the saints in the αἰὼν μέλλων, which is 
 the ἀπολύρωσις in a wider sense. ‘The Redeemer could not complete 
 and crown the δικαίωσις, Without being emancipated from the barriers 
 of terrestrial life, and raised to a glorified state of existence. Con- 
 templated from this point of view, the Apostle might well represent 
 the Scxa’wous, aS an especial product of the resurrection, the more so 
 when we take into account that Paul, in speaking of the resurrection 
 of Christ, comprehends in it the whole ensuing interval, c. i. 4, the 
 life in and with God. ‘There is the example of a similar μερισμὸς, in 
 which δικαιωσύνη and σω7ηρία are disjoined, in Rom. x. 10. Calvin 
 draws the attention to this point: Summa vero est, ubi fructum mortis 
 Christi et resurrectionis tenemus, nihil ad implendos omnes justitiz 
 numeros deesse. Neque enim dubium est, quin mortem ἃ resurrec- 
 tione separans, ruditati nostra sermonem accommodet, quia alioqui 
 verum est, Christi obedientia, quam in morte exhibuit, partam fuisse 
 nobis justitiam. Sed quia resurgendo patefecit Christus quantum 
 morte sua profecisset, hec quoque distinctio ad docendum apta est, 
 sacrificio, quo expiata sunt peccata, inchoatam fuisse salutem nos- 
 tram, resurrectione vero demum fuisse perfectam. Nam justitie prin- 
 cipium est, nos reconciliari Deo, complementum autem, abolita morte 
 vitam dominari. With these words terminates the first section of 
 the doctrinal part of the Epistle, the Apostle having hitherto shown 
 man’s want of salvation, and what is the only, the indispensable re- 
 medy, justification through the free grace of God in Christ. He: 
 now proceeds to delineate the effects which flow from receiving the 
 pardon of sin and justification. 
 
CHAPTER FIFTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Hiraerro the Apostle has been describing the misery of man through sin, 
 and its only antidote, redemption by Christ; he now proceeds to show what 
 are the fruits and consequences of that redemption in the individual who 
 becomes the subject of it. These consist in the sense of peace and joy, 
 which the justified believer even now experiences in his heart,and in the 
 prospect of the future glory of the children of God. Nor have the afflictions 
 of time any power to destroy either his present blessedness, which is in- 
 ward, or yet the hope of that which awaits him hereafter, and which is both 
 inward and outward. ‘To make still more apparent the magnitude of the 
 fruits secured by this redemption, the Apostle, viewing mankind as a 
 whole, places their miserable condition, as unredeemed, in contrast with 
 their blessed condition as a redeemed community, describes, in a magnifi- 
 cent parallel, Adam as the head and founder of the race in the state of fall, 
 and Christ as its head and founder in the state of recovery, and thus de- 
 monstrates, that the redemption is the greatest and most important event 
 in the history of man, the centre of all spiritual life and felicity. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. The blessed consequences of justification through Christ, are peace and 
 joy in the soul even here upon earth, joined to the hope of glory in 
 the world beyond the grave. Neither this hope of future glory, both 
 within and around him, nor yet that foretaste of it, which is even now 
 his portion, but which for the present is only inward, can be troubled by 
 the afllictions which the Christian meets with upon earth. V.1—11. 
 
 2. The noble effects of the redemption, contemplated by means of a contrast 
 between the general condition of mankind, as involved in the ruin en- 
 tailed by Adam, and their condition, as advanced to the felicity which 
 is derived from Christ. V.12—21. 
 
 BART. Τὶ 
 
 THE BLESSED CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION THROUGH CHRIST ARE 
 PEACE AND JOY IN THE SOUL EVEN HERE UPON EARTH, TOGETHER 
 WITH THE HOPE OF GLORY IN THE WORLD BEYOND THE GRAVE. 
 NEITHER THIS HOPE OF FUTURE GLORY, BOTH WITHIN AND AROUND 
 HIM, NOR EVEN THAT FORETASTE OF IT, WHICH IS EVEN NOW HIS 
 PORTION, BUT WHICH FOR THE PRESENT IS ONLY INWARD, CAN BE 
 TROUBLED BY THE CALAMITIES WHICH BEFALL THE CHRISTIAN UPON 
 EARTH. v. 1--1]. 
 
 V. 1. Δικαιωθέντες οὖν. The very last topic which the Apostle 
 had touched in the former chapter was the mode of the διχαίωσις. 
 
140 CHAPTER V. V. I. 
 
 This enables him to unite the present closely with the previous sec- 
 tion of his epistle, 
 
 εἰρήνην ἔχομεν. ‘The Codd. A. C. and D., the Greek Fathers, and 
 the Syrian, Arabic, and Koptie versions, all read ἔχωμεν. The ex- 
 ternal evidences for both readings are nearly equiponderant; the in- 
 ternal speak decidedly for the indicative. ‘The explanation of these 
 words by the Greek Fathers, Origen, Chrysostom, ‘Fheophylact 
 and Theodoret, is false. ‘They suppose that the Apostle intends a 
 cessation from sin, considered as war with God. Qicumenius: Ids 
 δ᾽ ἂν τις εἰξηνεύοι πρὸς τὸν Θεόν; axorovOay ταῖς ἐντολαῖς αὐτοῦ; ὡς ὅγε 
 ἁμαρτάνων πολεμεῖ Θεῷ. ἢ Origen: Sciens quia bellum contra Diabo- 
 lum pacem patrat ad Deum. Far more truly did the Reformers un- 
 derstandghe peace here spoken of to mean the tranquillity of con- 
 science, which ensues upon the fall of that barrier of separation 
 mentioned in Is. lix.2. As such do the Scriptures describe this 
 peace, Phil. iv. 7, 1 John iii. 2. Beza: Nihil est horribilius terro- 
 ribus conscientiz suorum peccatorum morsibus sauciate. Hine 
 omnes falsarum religionum species, dum adversus hoc tantum malum 
 queritur remedium, idque frustra. Calvin: Eam nee Phariseus 
 habet qui falsa operum fiducia turget, nec stupidus peccator, qui vi- 
 tiorum dulcedine ebrius, non inquietatur. Quanquam enim neuter 
 apertum bellum videtur habere, quemadmodum is qui peccati sensu 
 feritur: Quia tamen non vere accedunt ad Dei judicium, nequaquam 
 concordiam cum illo habent. Stupor enim conscientia, quidam est 
 veluti a Deo recessus. 
 
 neds τὸν Θεόν. ‘The more complete the harmony between the spirit 
 of man and all without him, the greater is the blessedness which he 
 enjoys. For all that man seeks in love is concord with his own 
 being. But the highest law of every individual existence is the will 
 of that God who alone is a law to himself. Consequently the har- 
 mony after which an individual strives, as well for himself as where 
 others are concerned, is only to be attained by entire obedience to the 
 divine will. We have the perfect ideal of such a general harmony 
 presented to us in the fellowship of the blessed, who for this reason 
 that God is every thing to all of them, live together in tne fullest en- 
 joyment of love. Now, misery must necessarily be the portion both 
 of the man who still decidedly follows his sinful propensities, and of 
 him in whose breast a war, but not through Christ, has begun against 
 them. While the former still obeys the laws of his own will, or 
 rather (as there can be no genuine will which is not founded upon 
 knowledge) of his own wilfulness, and that has no laws, and to that 
 would like to subject every thing else in the world, a voice from his 
 inmost being proclaims aloud the glory and supremacy of the law of 
 the divine will, to which, let him resist as he may please, he must ' 
 at last, if he values his own happiness, submit. Death itself, which 
 
 * But how can one have peace with God? By obeying hiscommandments, 
 as he that transgresses wars with God. 
 
CHAPTER V. v. 1,2. 141 
 
 puts an end to every other anguish, only aggravates this, by bringing 
 the sinner nearer to the domain where that holy and unalterable law 
 obtains. He thus feels that peace and harmony can never be his 
 portion, except he renounce his pride and his struggle after autonomy, 
 which he mistakes for genuine freedom. Even the man, however, 
 who, disdaining to be the slave of his wilfulness, takes arms against 
 it, cannot attain to peace so long as he is destitute of fellowship with 
 Christ. Deep in his heart he feels, it is true, an approbation (vii. 
 22.) of the divine will, but he is too weak to carry the sentiment into 
 action; sin overpowers him, he finds, like a blind force, (vii. 17, 23,) 
 and contrary to the desire of his better self, he sees himself involved 
 in a state of rebellion against his God. From a believing surrender 
 of the heart to Christ, as Him who does away sin, arises the certainty 
 of pardon and sanctification, and through these peace also in our re- 
 lation to God. 
 
 Διὰ τοῦ Κυρίον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Xevorov. 'Theophylact considers the 
 co-operation of Christ, here expressed, to consist in ἃ protecting 
 power against sin. He says: Ὁ yag δικαιώσας ἧμας ἁμαφτωλοὺς ὄντας» 
 συνεργήσειν καὶ εἰς τὸ φυλαχθήναυ ἡμὰς ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ αὐτοῦ. More 
 correctly, ‘*‘ By means of the redemption which was wrought out by 
 Christ.” 
 
 V. 2. At οὗ xoi τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήχαμεν. Tleocwywyy Means ac- 
 cess, approach. 'The word is borrowed from the usage of eastern 
 courts, where a xeooaywysis conducted the stranger into the presence 
 of the king. Our περοσαγωγεὺς to God is Jesus Christ. Hence else- 
 where, also, our πεοσαγωγὴ is described as a consequence of the re- 
 demption, Eph. ii. 18; iil. 12, where it is joined to the παῤῥησία" 
 comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18. In these passages, πξοσαγωγὴ either stands in- 
 dependently, or is connected with eds τὸν πατέφξα. In the same way 
 it behoves us to take it here, viz. in direct reference to God. We 
 require, accordingly, to place the point after toyjxauev, although it 
 cannot be denied that προσαγωγὴ in that case stands somewhat abrupt. 
 So Gcumenius, Lamb. Bos and Michaelis. By far the greater num- 
 ber of expositors, however, without any interpunctuation, unite the 
 neocayayn With εἰς τὴν yaew ταύτην. ‘To this it cannot be objected, 
 that then the preposition πεὸς would have been used, for there are 
 innumerable instances of εἰς standing in the place of weds, 6. ρ΄. Rom. 
 iii. 22. Still the mode in which πεοσαγωγὴ is uniformly employed 
 in the New Testament, appears to be against it, denoting, as we have 
 remarked it always does, approach to God. ‘The Apostle here by 
 the xai distinguishes the πεοσαγωγὴν from the εἰρήνη of our conscience, 
 as another distinct fruit of the atonement; and in what, it may be 
 asked, do they differ? The εἰρήνη refers to the inward state of the 
 believer, the πεοσαγωγὴ to the relation of his soul to God, as some- 
 thing first resulting from peace of conscience. For it is only in con- 
 
 * For he who justified us while we were sinners, will also contribute to 
 our being protected in his righteousness. 
 
142 CHAPTER V. V. 2. 
 
 sequence of his conscience being pacified, that man derives filial 
 confidence at all times to draw near to God in prayer, and that he 
 ceases to be any longer slavishly afraid of him. “Eyew is here used 
 in the sense, lo obfain. 
 
 τῇ πίστει εἰς τὴν χάξιν ταύτην, is by Michaelis translated in con- 
 nection with the foregoing, ‘through whom we also, by means of 
 faith in this grace in which we stand, obtain access to God. Χάξιν. 
 Whether we construe this word with προσαγωγὴ, or, as we prefer, 
 with πίστει, in both cases we can only understand it, as meaning 
 κε that objective relation which has, once for all, been established be- 
 tween the holy God and sinful humanity,’’ even the relation of chil- 
 dren to a father, into which men have entered through Christ. ‘Taking 
 it in this sense, the former mode of construction would make the 
 meaning as follows: ‘Through the Saviour, we have free access to 
 the everlasting justification, under the economy of which we are at 
 present placed, so that, however often we fall, we may yet in faith 
 hold fast the assurance that Christ will accomplish for us the work 
 of οὔ  δικαίωσις.᾽ According to the second, the meaning becomes, 
 « By believing in the gracious institution of salvation under which we 
 now live, there is secured for us such a childlike relationship towards 
 God, that it is always a joyful thing to hold intercourse with him.” 
 
 Ἔν ᾧ ἑστήχαμεν. Here Grotius most unnaturally makes niore 
 the antecedent to the relative. As objectionable is Beza’s translation, 
 per quam. ἑστήκαμεν is rendered by Ambrose, Theophylact, Grotius, 
 and Michaelis, with various shades of the emphatic meaning, fo perse- 
 vere, be established, set up. It is, however, equally probable that it 
 has not here the same emphasis asin 1 Pet. v.12. Hence De Wette, 
 ‘in possession of which we are.’’ How beautifully does Chrysostom 
 observe at this place! Ez τοίνυν μαχξὸν ὄντας neosnyays, πολλῷ μᾶλλον 
 ἐγγὺς γενομένους καθέξει. Σὺ δέ μου σχόπει tas πανταχοῦ τὰ δύο τίθησι; 
 καὶ τὰ mae’ αὐτοῦ; καὶ τὰ Ue ἡμῶν. ἀλλὰ τὼ μὲν αὐτοὺ πουκχίλα; καὶ 
 πολλὰ καὶ διάφορα. καὶ γὰρ ἀπέθανε δὺ ἡμας, καὶ χατήλλαξεν ἡμᾶς» καὶ 
 meoonyays, καὶ yaew ἔδωκεν ἀφατον᾽ ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν πύστυν εἰσηνέγχαμεν 
 μόνον. ἢ 
 
 χαὶ χαυχώμεθα ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι. Besides peace in the soul, there is the 
 hope of glory beyond the grave. Beza: Non solum ab omni dam- 
 nationis formidine liberi sumus, immo, magna laetitia perfusi exulta- 
 mus de hereditate celesti. Pelagius: 'l'antumque est quod speramus, 
 quantum ex se nuilus auderet, ne non spes sed blasphemia putare- 
 tur, 60 quod multis pro sua magnitudine incredibile videtur. Chrysos- 
 tom: ᾽Εννόησον τοίνυν ἡλίκα τὰ μέλλοντα; ὅταν καὶ ἐπὺ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν εἶναν 
 
 * If then he hath given us access when we were far away, much more will 
 he uphold us being brought near. And remark, I pray, how the Apostle every- 
 where distinguishes, on the one hand, what was accomplished by him (Christ), 
 on the other, what by us. And various,and many, and different are the things 
 which he hath done; for he died on our account, and reconciled us, and 
 brought us near to God, and gave us grace unspeakable; while all that we on 
 our part contribute is only faith. 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 8. 143 
 
 λυπηξοῖς μέγα Φρονῶμεν. Τοσαύτη ἣ Tov Θεοῦ δωξεὰ; καὶ οὕτως οὐδὲν αὖ- 
 τῆς ἀηδές. int μὲν γὰρ τὼν ἔξωθεν πεαγμάτων; οἱ μὲν ἀγῶνες πόνον ἔχουσι 
 καὶ ὀδύνην καὶ ταλαιπωξφίαν; οἱ δὲ στέφανοι καὶ τὰ ἔπαθλα τὴν ἡδονὴν χο- 
 μίδουσιν. ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐπάθλων τὼ παλαίσματα οὐχ 
 ἧττον ἦμιν ἡδίω. Instead of δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Vulgate, and several 
 Latin interpreters, read gloria filiorum Dei. We may either under- 
 stand by the expression, as is usually done, the glory which emanates 
 from God, and is imparted to the blessed, or the blessedness of God 
 himself, of which we are to partake. 
 
 V. 3. In the foregoing verse, the Apostle had spoken of the Chris- 
 tian’s prospect in a future world. Upon this subject, infidels, as 
 heathen infidels actually did, might scoff. (See Minut. Felix, Octav. 
 6. 12. Arnob. adv. Gentes ]. ii. in fin. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. iv.) 
 He therefore proceeds to say, that even the calamities of this life, so 
 far from rendering the Christian miserable, rather tended to elevate 
 his hopes, thereby contributing to his felicity. Chrysostom: ὅξα πά- 
 λιν τὴν Φιλονειχκίαν ἸΤαύλον, πῶς εἰς TO ἐναντίον περιτρέπευ τὸν λόγον. «+e 
 οὐ γὰξ μόνον οὐχ ἀναιξεγικαὶ τῆς τοιαύτης ἐλπίδος αἱ θλίψεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ κα- 
 τασχευαστιχαί. Clem. Alex. (Strom. 1. ii.) “ Exulting in these 
 arms, Ὁ Lord, says the enlightened Christian, give me but a field 
 and see how I shail acquit myself. Let calamity come. Strong in 
 thy love, I mock at danger.’’ Melancthon: Multi deriserunt Chris- 
 tianos predicantes liberationem a peccato et a morte, cum nullum 
 genus hominum sit calamitosius. Imo et sanctorum conscientie, cum 
 agnoscunt suam infirmitatem, dolent et luctantur cum dubitatione, 
 disputantes an Deo placeant, cum adeo sint infirmi. Nec est levis 
 tentatio, quia cum fides ex verbo debeat pendere et statuere, quod 
 Deus certo propitius sit propter Christum, nostra infirmitas hoe oculis 
 et sensibus comprehendere conatur. ‘The Apostle, in proceeding, 
 begins with a formula which is very common with him, and the force 
 of which is to heighten the emphasis οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ καὶ. 
 
 He makes a climax, by which the leading thought is more strongly 
 brought out. Itis as follows: ‘That hope of future glory at which 
 you scoff, is so far from being damped by our tribulations, that, on 
 the contrary, it is even greatly elevated by them. In the glow of 
 language the Apostle loves this figure, which we find chap. vili. 29, 
 30; x. 14,15. Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. 1. iv. ὁ. '7,) cites the 
 present passage as a proof that Paul did not despise the ornament of 
 eloquence when opportunity occurred. ‘The Rabbins also not un- 
 
 * Judge then how great must be the things to come, when we glory even 
 in what wears the semblance of distress. So precious is the gift of God, and 
 so utterly is it devoid of all bitterness. For in regard to external things, our 
 struggles are ever attended with toil, and pain, and misery, and only crowns 
 and rewards confer the pleasure. Buthere itis not so. Our very struggles 
 are no less sweet than the prize itself. 
 
 + Observe, again, the Apostle’s taste for controversy, and how he turns the 
 argument the opposite way..... Tribulations are not merely not destructive, 
 they are even confirmatory of such a hope. 
 
144 CHAPTER V. V. 3, 4, 5. 
 
 frequently use the climax. So Schir. Haschiram Rabba, fol. 3, 2, 
 (in Schéttgen): R. Pinehas fil. Jair dixit: Sedulitas nos perducit ad 
 innocentiam, innocentia ad puritatem, puritas ad sanctitatem, sancti- 
 tas ad humilitatem, humilitas ad metum peccatorum, metus peceato- 
 rum ad pietatem, pietas ad spiritum sanctum, spiritus sanctus ad re- 
 surrectionem mortuorum. 
 
 Καυχάσθαν 15 construed with ἑπὸὺ and περὶ, and also with ἐν, Rom. 
 ii. 17, 23. It may hence be said, that the θλίψεις are the object of 
 the glorifying, which sense would make the text a fine parallel to 
 ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης. ἐν may also, however, be regarded as denoting 
 the state of the persons. ‘“Yxouory, patience. See ati. 7. Thom. 
 Aquinas: Non quidem sic, quod tribulatio sit ejus causa effectiva, 
 sed quia tribulatio est materia et occasio exercendi patientie actum. 
 
 V. 4. Δοχυμὴν can have either an active or a passive sense. It 
 may be taken, like Soxuasia, to signify probation, trial, in compli- 
 ance with which view, Luther translates it experience; so 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 3. ‘Thus also Grotius expounds: Exploratio sui ipsius; nam 
 patiendo discit homo suas vires; And Camerarius: ‘Tentatione divina 
 innotescit, non quidem Deo sed hominibus, quod antea latuit. Beza, 
 Melancthon, and Carpzovius follow in the same path. The word 
 may also, however, have a passive signification, confirmedness, 
 genuineness. Phil. ii. 22. 2 Cor. ix. 13. In 1 Peter i. 7, the 
 word δοχίμιον has, contrary to the rule, the same passive signification, 
 and perhaps also in James i. 3. Theophylact: Ἢ δὲ ὑπομονὴ δόκυ- 
 μον τὸν πειραζομενον ἀπεργάζεται" δόκιμος δὲ γενόμενος ὃ avOgwrtos, καὶ 
 θαῤῥὼν ἐπὶ τὼ ἀγαθῷ αὐτοῦ συνειδότι ὅτι διὼ τὸν Θεὸν ZOU By, ἐλπίζεν τὰς 
 brie τῶν τοιούτων θλίψεων ἀμουβάς. ἢ If δοχύμιον in James i. 3, bears 
 the passive signification, the derivation of these two Christian virtues 
 by the two Apostles is reversed. But yet neither of them is less 
 true than the other; for not more does patience confirm faith, than 
 faith, when confirmed, begets patience. ‘The climaxes of the Apostle, 
 however, are not always to be urged, e. g. 2 Pet. i. 5, 7. 
 
 ἡ δὲ δοχιμὴ ἐλπίδα. Calov: Qui in cruce confirmantur imagini filii 
 Dei, ex eo confirmantur, quod etiam eidem aliquando confirmandi 
 sint in gloria. Rom. viii. 29. Limborch: Hee spes non conditio- 
 nata, qua quis sperat si patiatur se adepturum coronam gloria, sed 
 quee in fideli existit post conditionem impletam, estque promissionis 
 divine generalis specialis applicatio. Such the Apostle describes his 
 own hope to be, 2 Tim. iv. 6, 8. 
 
 V. 5. Ἢ δὲ éanis ov καταισχύνευ. This declaration is true of every 
 right hope in God. Ecclesiasticus ii. 10. But here the article ἡ 
 stands for the demonstrative pronoun αὕτη ἡ ἐλπίς. Καταισχύνειν 10 
 expose false pretensions. Ambrose: Non confundit, dum stulti et 
 hebetes a perfides judicamur, credentes que mundana carent ratione. 
 
 * Patience makes him who is tempted experienced. But when aman has 
 become experienced, and has confidence in his good conscience, he cherishes 
 the hope of obtaining compensation for the afilictions to which God has sub- 
 jected him. 
 
CHAPTER Iv. V. 5. 145 
 
 ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ. This clause may be connected with what 
 precedes, in three different ways. It may either be united dovvdé7as, 
 and so co-ordinated with the two foregoing smaller clauses, by the 
 word <iSézes supplied, in which case ὅτου would be objective. This 
 view is taken by Baumgarten, but is very unnatural. Or again, oz, 
 as causal particle, refers to the two smaller previous clauses, and 
 gives the reason why Christians reap such blessed effects from afilic- 
 tion; which construction is very apposite. Still better, however, is 
 the Hebraistic one, by which ὅτι is connected with the clause imme- 
 diately preceding it, as Erasmus does in the following words: Neque 
 vero periculum est ut ea spes nos fallat, quandoquidem jam nunc 
 certissimum pignus et arrhabonem tenemus, miram et inauditam Dei 
 caritatem erga nos. Melancthon justly observes, that we require to 
 suppose an intermediate member to the sentence. Our hope will not 
 be put to shame, because God loves us supremely, and of this we 
 are conscious. Chrysostom: ᾿Απαλλάξας 7οίνυν av7ovs ἱκανῶς ἀμφισβη- 
 φήσεως ἁπάσης διὰ Τούων Tov ῥημάγων, οὐχ ἴστησυ μέχρι 7ὼν παξόνήων Tov 
 λόγον. ἀλλὰ καὶ 7ὰ μέλλον)ὰ πάλιν ἐπάγειν εἰδὼς 7οὺς ἀσθενεστέξους καὶ Ta, 
 nagdvla ϑηγοῦν7ας» καὶ οὐκ agxovpévovs 7ού7οις. καὺ πισήου7αυ αὐτὼ ἀπὸ 
 7ὼν ἤδη δοθένγων......εἰ δὲ οὐχ ἐβούλε7ο μεγάλοις Nuas μεγὼ 7οὺς πόνους σ7ε- 
 φάνοις δωρήσασθαι οὐκ ἂν πρὸ Tov πόνων τοσαῦτα ἔδωχεν ἀγαθά. νὺν δὲ τὸ 
 θεφμὸν αὐτοὺ τῆς ἀγάπης δείκνυταυ ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἠρέμα» καὶ KATA μυ- 
 κεὸν ἡμὰς ἐτίμησεν, ἀλλ᾽ GOCOOY τὴν πηγὴν τῶν ἀγαθὼν ἐξέχεε; καὶ ταῦτα πρὸ 
 τῶν ἀγώνων. ὥστε κἂν μὴ σφόδεα Hs ἀξιος, μὴ ἀπογίνωσχε; ἔχων μεγάλην συνη- 
 γόξον τοὺ δικάξοντος; τὴν dyarny.™ 
 
 ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ. Among the older commentators, Theodoret, Au- 
 gustine, and Pelagius, understand here, the love of man to God. 
 The last of whom remarks: Magnitudo beneficiorum excitat in se 
 magnitudinem caritatis. Even so the Catholic expositors, appealing 
 to Luke xi. 42, John v. 42, 1 John iii. 17, v. 3, where ἀγάπη τοὺ Θεοῦ 
 stands objectively. It is more correctly understood, however, by 
 Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Luther, Melancthon, and others, as 
 meaning the love of God to man, as at Rom. viii. 39, 2 Cor. xii. 14, 
 1 John iv. 9. Exactly in the same way do we find mentioned in 
 verse 8th, what God hath done in commendation of his love toward 
 us. Besides, St. Paul, who is at so much pains always to point man 
 
 * Having by these words fully freed their minds from all doubts, he does 
 not bound his discourse by things present, but again introduces things future, 
 from a consideration of the weakness of some who, not content with the latter, 
 seek what is within their reach, and, by appealing to those which are already 
 in hand, he proves what are afterwards to come. For unless he designed to 
 bestow noble crowns upon us when our toils were over, he would never have 
 conferred such blessings before they are begun. But now he manifests the 
 ardour of his affection, by not bestowing his honours upon us insensibly and 
 by degrees, but pouring out the full fountain of his blessings, and this before 
 the battle. Learn from hence, not to despair, though you feel your own un- 
 worthiness, seeing you have a powerful intercessor with the Judge, even love. 
 
146 CHAPTER V. V. 5, 6. 
 
 away from himself to the objective ground of faith in God, woald 
 scarcely have proposed the liveliness of man’s love to God as the 
 proper basis of his confidence. ‘The expression ἐχχέχυται ἐν ταῖς 
 xaedvacs must obviously signify something more than the mere know- 
 
 ledge of this love of God derived from reflection, a bare understand- 
 ing “of the promises of Scripture on the subject, as Calov. and Grotius 
 are disposed to regard it; the latter of whom says: E/ffusa, id est 
 abundanter testata hominibus. We must naturally view it as imply- 
 ing a consciousness in the heart, such as is spoken of in Rom. viii. 
 16, 2 Cor.i.22. ‘The Spirit is that element of new life, whereof we 
 
 become partakers by faith,—the σπέομα Θεοῦ, 1 John iil. 9,—byv which 
 all the inward experiences of the Christian are produced, and through 
 which all the communications of God to him are made. In this way 
 it is understood by Bugenhagen and Seb. Schmid, among Lutheran 
 divines. Calvin: Significat participium diffusa adeo uberem esse 
 divini in nos amoris revelationem, ut corda nostra impleat. Sic au- 
 tem in omnes partes effusa, non modo tristitiam in rebus adversis 
 mitigat, sed quasi suave condimentum amabiles reddit tribulationes. 
 ....-Certum est non aliud doceri a Paulo, quam hunc verum esse 
 omnis dilectionis fontem, quod persuasi sunt fideles a Deo se amari; 
 nec leviter duntaxat hic persuasfone tincti sunt, sed animos prorsus 
 delibutos habent. Admirable is the observation of Ambrose: As the 
 stranger in a foreign land cannot prove his origin, so does our faith 
 wander as an exile here upon earth; et quia natura ejus verbis expli- 
 cari non potest, virtutis, que major res est, testimonio commendatur. 
 ᾿Εχχέχυται. This word denotes always plenitude of communication, 
 John, vii. 38, Acts 11. 17. 
 
 V. 6. The verses from this to the 12th, containing, as they do, a 
 description of the love of God, the blessed sense of which is known 
 to us through his dwelling in our hearts, are connected, in point of 
 form, with the 5th; in point of sense, however, they are a justifica- 
 tion of the καύχησις in hope of eternal clory, expressed at the end of 
 the 2d verse, and to which, at verse 11th, the Apostle again returns. 
 He accordingly states, in the first instance, the great objective proof 
 of the love of God to man, whereby the holy Spirit awakens in our 
 hearts the sense of it in its unspeakable and unmerited greatness. 
 
 ἔτι yae. Instead of this, the Syriac, Arabic, and Koptic versions 
 read εἴ ye Isidorus and Augustine εἰ yae’ F. G εἰς 713 and the Vul- 
 gate, Ireneeus, and Ambrose. translate, ut quid. It was probably the 
 unusual position of the ἔτι, which led to all these various readings. 
 If we read εἰ yae or εἴ ye, a harsh aposiopesis is introduced, or we 
 must resolve to consider verse 7th as parenthetical, and seek the con- 
 clusion in the 8th, which cannot, however, be done, as there is 
 there a δὲν Besides, the Codex. Alexr. reads ἔσο once more after - 
 ἀσθενῶν. and Griesbach has admitted it into the text. The external 
 authority for this second ἔτι is certainlyweighty; and, according to 
 the canon, which prescribes the preference of the more difficult to 
 the easier reading, it ought to be received. With respect to the first 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 6, 7. 147 
 
 eu, it is taken by Cider and Koppe in the sense over and above, as 
 Luke xiv. 26. It cannot be denied, however, that in that case it would, 
 in so animated a discourse, have a very trailing air; and it must like- 
 wise be added, that the Apostle in reality brings forward nothing 
 new, but merely enlarges on what has been already said. It will 
 accordingly be more correct to construe it with dr7ay ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν, as 
 verse eighth will also induce us to do, and to suppose, that for the 
 sake of emphasis, it has been here placed in front. 
 
 The precise meaning of ἀσθενὴς it is not easy to determine. It 
 stands here parallel with auag7w2d5 in verse 8. As such, its meaning 
 may be twofold. It may, in the first place, signify, wretched, un- 
 worthy. In this sense it is understood by Calvin, Chr. Schmid, and 
 Wahl, and may be compared with 1 Cor. xii. 22, and 2 Cor. x. 10. 
 "Phe LXX. moreover render “Ip by ἀσθενὴς. Prov. xxii. 22; xxxi. 5, 
 9. When understood in this sense, however, ἀσθενὴς expresses too 
 feebly the ἐχθεὰ of men to God, which is spoken of in the tenth 
 verse, and would rather excite compassion. We prefer, accordingly, 
 the other Sealbeawouyomsalcs by the powers of the divine life. 
 Thus interpreted, it corresponds very accurately with the meaning of 
 σὰρξ, as given by the Reformers, and adopted by us. So Beza, Gro- 
 tius, and others. Michaelis. following the practice of the LXX., who 
 render 23 by ἀσθενεῖν, make it fallen. ‘The two ideas of weakness 
 and sin border very near upon each other; Heb. iv. 15; v. 2, where 
 (Ecumenius remarks: ἀσθένειαν, 7ὴν duag7iav λέγει. Grotius: Cum 
 nondum vires accepissemus ad serviendum Deum. 
 
 If we must now dispose of the second 27, the simplest manner of 
 doing so, would be by construing xa? καιρὸν with ἀσεβῶν. ** Being 
 yetsinuers by the rule of that period.”’? So Pelagius, Erasmus, Cas- 
 talio, Calvin, and others. Such a restriction οἷ ἀσεβὼν, however, 
 would be totally contrary to the design of Paul, and weaken the im- 
 pression of the whole. ‘The ordinary sense in which χαιξὸς is used, 
 leads us to an entirely different interpretation. As employed by pro- 
 fane authors and the LXX., xa7a xaveov means at the appointed time. 
 Job v. 26. Is. Ix. 22. In the New Testament ἐν xwed is substituted 
 in its place. ee is used to denote the period of the Messiah’s 
 advent, Mark i. 15. Luke xxi. 8, and that, by the settled decree of 
 God, Christ appeared at a particular time, is declared in Gal. iv. 4; 
 ete, 20:, Heb. ix. 26. Accordingly, Cicumenius correctly ob- 
 serves: Κατὰ XOLCOVs EVXALCOVs xa meoonxov7a καὶ πξεοωρισμένον. We 
 construe it therefore with ἀπέθανε. ‘There now remains, however, 
 nothing else for the second ἔτυ but to unite it with ἀσεβῶν, which, 
 however, in consequence of the intermediate xa7a xavedy, Cannot pos- 
 sibly be done. It may be, that Paul having forgotten the ἔτι at the 
 commencement, put down the second by an oversight. If this be 
 also a supposition we are unwilling to adopt, there is no help for it 
 but to consider the word as a gloss. 
 
 V.7. The yae which is here declarative, and not causative, ex- 
 presses the vast importance of the fact announced, In the explication 
 
148 CHAPTER V. V. 7. 
 
 of this sentence, all depends upon the sense given to δίκαιος and dya- 
 66s. Even in his time, Jerome (in Epist. 121, ad Algasiam) enume- 
 rates five different, and partly heretical interpretations of the passage. 
 We could mention a still greater number, and perhaps of more weight, 
 but shall select only the most important. In the ordinary use of the 
 Greek language, it is certain that d¢xacos and ἀγαθὸς are not precisely 
 synonymous, but still, as the meaning of the one may include that of 
 the other, they are sometimes used as such. Acxaos properly signi- 
 fies equitable, honest. ‘The radical idea is the same with νόμυμος, as 
 is observed by Aristotle. Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. 1. i. 6. 8, 5. 14, 
 Enev7a δὲ ἔφη 70 μὲν νόμιμον δίχαιον εἶναι. ᾿Αγαθὸς again signifies able, 
 excellent, hence γεωργὸς ἀγαθὸς ὦ skilful husbandman. Xenoph. Cy- 
 rop.1.5,10. τά πολεμικὰ ἀγαθοὶ, peritus rei militaris,i.5,9. Hence 
 the phrases ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ γενέσθαι, ἐπ᾽ ἀγαθῷ εἰπεῖν. This distinction of 
 the two words, which is peculiar to classical Greek, cannot have 
 place here, we must, therefore, consult the Hellenistic. ‘That dialect 
 would permit us to regard δίκαιος as signifying one irreprehensible 
 in the eye of the law, and ἀγαθὸς one perfectly good. So Gatacker 
 in this passage. It is, however, too subtle a distinction; besides that 
 in the Old Testament δίκαιος often signifies holy, and stands here 
 opposed to the ἁμαξ7ωλὸς of the 8th verse. Another expedient, ac- 
 cordingly, has been adopted by Origen, Jerome, Erasmus in his 
 Commentary, Luther, Melancthon, and Bugenhagen. [It consists in 
 taking either the two words δικαίον and daydov, or at least the former 
 of them as neuter nouns. Origen: Est enim amor vite tantus, ut 
 etiam cum justa causa mortis advenerit, vix unusquisque mortem pa- 
 tienter accipiat. Justa autem eausa mortis videtur cum nature legi 
 defertur. ‘The same author applies the ἀγαθὸς to our Saviour, for 
 whom unquestionably the martyrs dared to die. ‘The close connec- 
 tion, however, in which the words stand with the masculine duae7u- 
 205 forbids either the one or other to be considered as neuter. More- 
 over, according to this view, the antithesis between δίκαιος and ἀγαθὸς 
 is lost, which has led the Syriac interpreter arbitrarily to change the 
 text, and translate as if instead of δίχαιος» there stood ἀἄδεχος; in which 
 he has been followed by the Arabian. Grotius inconsiderately lends 
 the aid of his authority to this groundless alteration, and quotes as a 
 parallel passage the sentiment of Seneea: Succurram perituro, sed ut 
 Ipse non peream, nisi si futurus ero magni hominis aut magne rei 
 merces. It helps usas little, with Findeisen (Com. Theoll. ed. Velth. 
 et Rup. t. iv.) and Schleusner, to cut the knot, take δίκαιος in the 
 sense of worthy, and supplying θανάτου, force out in this manner the 
 meaning of godless or wicked. <A great multitude of expositors, in 
 utter despair, have given up the antithesis altogether, regard δύχαιος 
 and ἀγαθὸς as identieal, and having interpreted raya, perchance however, ᾿ 
 and set it in Opposition to μόλις, bring out the following meaning: 
 “Scarcely for a good man will one die; perchance however, one 
 might dare to die for a good man.”’ So Ambrose, Jerome, Erasmus 
 in his Paraphrase, Calvin, Beza, Calov, Limborch, and others. The 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 7. 149 
 
 very structure of the sentence, however, involves an objection to this 
 view, for cov ἀγαθοῦ Seems purposely to be placed before τάχα; to 
 mark its antithesis with ime δικαίου. It may also well be objected 
 that it makes the Apostle first enunciate a sentiment with great em- 
 phasis, and then again render it weak and insipid; as Jerome says: 
 Pendulo gradu sententiam temperat. ‘There is therefore no alterna- 
 tive but to have recourse to a finer verbal distinction between δίκαιος 
 and ἀγαθὸς, of which Cocceius, Bengel, and Seb. Schmid appear to 
 have had some presentiment, and which Heumann in Latin, and Ra- 
 phelius in Greek, sought to establish upon philological grounds. 
 (Heum. in Bibl. Bremensis class. 4, Fascic. 2. Raphelius in Annot. 
 ad ἢ.. 1.) The words von in Hebrew, ἀγαθὸς in Greek, and bonus 
 in Latin, involve the idea of beneficence as the chief element of their 
 meaning. In Hebrew this idea is easily derivable from that of Jove, 
 kindness, which is the primary sense of 10n. ‘That that word be- 
 tokens a higher degree of the quality than p1¥, may be inferred from 
 the practice of the LXX. who translate it ὅσιος, Ps. iv. 3. The 
 ‘meaning beneficence is peculiarly prominent in a passage of the 
 Talmudie Tract. Pirke Avoth, c. 5,§ 10. ‘There are four classes 
 of men: the one say, what is my own is my own, and what is yours 
 is yours. M232 NID ΠῚ, this is the way of the middle class. ‘The 
 others say, what is mine is thine, and what is thine is mine, ΚΝ 
 Ὁ» nao πὶ. This is the way of the populace. But he who says, 
 what is mine is thine, and let what is thine be thine, is a pious man, 
 von. Whereas, he who says, what is thine is mine, and let what is 
 mine be mine, is yw, a villain.’”? In Rabbinical Hebrew, the proper 
 meaning of s710M is beneficentia, beneficium. In the New ‘Testa- 
 ment, in like manner, ἀγαθὸς, at Matt. xx. 15, may be understood in 
 the sense of beneficent, for ὀφθαλμὸς novyeds, which is opposed to it, 
 in the Hebrew and in the Apocrypha signifies an evil eye, Prov. 
 xxvill. 22. In classical Greek, this sense is also exemplified in the 
 following passages. Kugov ἀναχκαλοῦνγες Tov ebeeyét yyy Tov avdea Tov ἀγα- 
 θόν. AXlian. Var. Histor. 1. 111. c. 17. Tagar7ivors ἐγενεῖο ἀγαθὸς Aexv- 
 tas. ᾿Αγαθὸς in the same sense is used in inscriptions. See Gruter, 
 Corpus inscrip. Rom. p. 491, i. 846, 8. Phavorinus, accordingly, 
 defines the word ἀγαθὸς, 6 Ta xara χαξιζόμενος ἀφθόνως. With respect 
 to the Latin bonus, that it is used in the same sense, is shown by the 
 following passages. Cicero, De offic. 1. ili. c. 15: Si vir bonus is est, 
 qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemeni, recte justum virum, bonum 
 non facile reperiemus. Id: De nat. Deor. 1. ii. Jupiter optimus dic- 
 tus est, id est, beneficentissimus. Publius Syrus says: In nullum 
 avarus bonus est, in se pessimus. As to the use of dvxacos in Greek, 
 Xenophon in his Sympos. 6. iv. 5. 42, declares the δίχαιου to be 
 such, οἷς γὰρ μάλισ7α 7a παξόντα ἀρχεῖ, ἥκιστα τῶν ἀλλοήρίων ὀξέγονγαι. 
 And in De Giconomia, he designates δίκαιον the slaves who did not 
 steal. On the other hand, the same author, both in the Symposion and 
 in the book de Agesilao, c. ii. 5. 8, puts ἐλευθέφιος in Opposition to dexacos, 
 which ἐλευθέξιος there signifies as much as ἀγαθὸς does with St. Paul. 
 
150 CHAPTER V. V. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 In the latter place it is said: χεήμασί ye μὴν od μόνον δικαίως, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
 ἐλευθερίως Evento. τῷ μὴν δικαίῳ ἀρκεῖν ἡγόυμενος 7ὸ ἐᾷν 7a ἀλλότεξια», 
 τῷ δὲ ἐλευθεξίω καὶ Tov ἑαυτοῦ προσωφεληέον είναι. Perhaps also the 
 article before ἀγαθὸς is here significant, and stands for the pronoun, 
 quasi, his benefactor. So the Spanish version, which, like the Vul- 
 gate, sometimes comments instead of translating: ‘* Por su bien 
 hechor.”” Comp. Hombergk Parerga Sacra, p. 204. 
 
 Tayo. Theodoret, tows, which, in classical Greek is often coupled 
 with it; τάχ᾽ ἂν ἴσως. Τολμᾷν is used in reference to any enterprise 
 which demands a struggle, to dare, be bold enough. Eurip. Alees- 
 tis: “Hatxos τ᾽ ὧν κἀπὶ téeu’ ἥκων βίου, οὐκ ἠθέλησας; οὐδ᾽ ἐτόλμησας θανεῖν 
 τοῦ σοὺ πρὸ παιδός. ‘The xai prefixed elevates the sense of the verb. 
 So Polybius: mepi δὲ τῶν διαδεξαμένων πῶς καὶ τολμᾶτε μνημονενεῦν. Ham- 
 mond, in his paraphrase, gives the meaning as follows: Hine quantus 
 ejus fuerit amor, intelligere est,quod inter homines pro viro quopiam 
 beneficentissimo aliquis forte vite periculum adeat, at qui pro viro 
 etiam justissimo de vita periclitari velit, egerrime inveniatur. Sadol. 
 In quibus verbis unum uni, justus impio, bonus hosti redditur. 
 
 V.8. While among men there is thus none who will die for the 
 innocent, and not many who will die for a benefactor, the holy one 
 submits to death for sinners, for those who had offended against God 
 himself. Συνιστάναι, see chapter iii. 5. ‘The word ἁμαξγωλὸς involves 
 the idea of that alienation—the ἔχθρα of the 10th verse—of man from 
 God, which has been produced by sin. “trie may signify, in favo- 
 rem et commodum alicujus, and does so in John x. 15, ‘Tit. i. 14, 
 where Christ’s death is spoken of; but it may likewise signify loco, 
 synonymously with dvi, in which sense it is also used with refer- 
 ence to the same subject, 1 Tim. ii, 6. Comp. Ecclesiasticus xxix. 
 15. Xen. Hist. ii. 4, 15: Πεοειπὼν δὲ ὃ ᾿Αγησίλαος, ὅστις παφδέχου τὸ 
 ἐπιπιχὸν xat ὅπλα; καὶ ἄνδρα δόκιμον, ore ἐξέσταν αὐτῷ μὴ στξατεύεσθαυ; 
 ἐποίησεν, οὕτω ταῦτω ξυντόμως πράττεσθαι; ὥσπερ ἀν τις τὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ 
 ἀποθανούμενον πξοθύμως ζητοίη. Hence also the verb ὑπεξαποθνήσχειυν. 
 The author of the Epistle to Diognetus: ἐπεὶ δὲ πεπλήξωτο μὲν ἡ Quem 
 τέρα ἀδικία καὶ τελείως πεφανέρωτο ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς «+ . κόλασις καὶ θάνωτος 
 προσεδοκᾶτο. ἤλθε δὲ ὁ χαιξὺς, ὃν θεὸς πϑόεθετο λοιπὸν PavEegwoat τὴν éav- 
 τοὺ χεηστότητα καὶ δύναμιν ὡς.εὑπεξ βαλλούσης φυλανθρωπίας μία ἀγάπη... 
 οὐκ ἐμίσησεν ἡμᾶς, οὐδὲ ἐπώσατο; οὐδὲ ἐμνησικάκησεν, ἀλλὰ ἐμακξοθύμησεν; 
 ἠνέσχετο, λέγων αὐτὸς» τὰς ἡμετέφξας ἁμαρτίας ἀνεδέξατο" αὐτὸς τὸν ὑδιον 
 υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο, λύτεον ὑπὲς τῶν χακῷν; τὸν δίκαιον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδύκων, τὸν 
 ἄφθαρτον brie τῶν θνητῶν. 
 
 V. 9,10. ‘The Apostle here gives a popular view of the relation in 
 which man stands towards God, by a reference to the analogous re- 
 lations which subsist between man and man. Such popular repre- 
 sentations, however, must always rest upon a basis of objective truth. 
 It was a noble demonstration of God’s love, that while men were all 
 involved in a situation of revolt from him, he suffered Christ to 
 appear among them, who, in order to break the power of evil, took 
 upon himself the consequences of sin, even death and all its pains. 
 
CHAPTER v. v. 9, 10. 151 
 
 Hence, now that he has passed into ἃ state of glory, when believing 
 Christians have laid hold of him, and, by his Spirit, have entered 
 anew into fellowship with God, well may the Apostle say, that they 
 have no more reason to be afraid, lest the sufferings of the present 
 should prove an obstacle to their future blessedness. 
 
 ἐχθροὶ ὄντες. It is vain to wish to discriminate whether the 
 enmity of men towards God, or of God towards men, is here de- 
 signed. In the expressions of the Apostle, both in this and other 
 passages, we can find no ground for such a distinction, seeing, that 
 in point of fact, the two things are correlative, so that the one cannot 
 be supposed without the other. Only we must be upon our guard, 
 when transferring this ἔχθεα, as well as all other passions, even that 
 of love, from man to the Divine Being, to abstract every mixture of 
 human sinfulness. Freed from this element, there remains only the 
 idea of an objective antithesis, a spiritual repulsion of evil. If it be 
 impossible, in cases where the relations of man to man are spoken of, 
 to avoid supposing the words ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες, (used of Pilate and He- 
 rod, Luke xxiii. 12,) to imply that the enmity is mutual, it will be 
 equally impossible to do so here. Not that we would thereby deny, 
 that sometimes it may be the Apostle’s intention to bring more into 
 view the one side, the sense of alienation from, and variance with 
 God, on the part of the sinner; as seems to be the case, Col. i. 21. 
 Even that sentiment, however, presupposes opposition on the part of 
 God to man, which is evinced by the consciousness of guilt, of which 
 God and not man is the author. Moreover, the scriptural doctrine of 
 the dey of God itself involves essentially the idea of the ἔχθεα, which 
 is manifested by the dey, in the sense of guilt and the numerous 
 evils connected with it. On the other hand, the ἔχθεα cot duaerwrov 
 εἰς Θεὸν is implied in the idea of sin, as a more negative or more po- 
 sitive contrariety to the holy law and will of God, Rom. vi. 7, James 
 iv. 4. "Theodoret: οἱ ἐχθεοὶ δὴ τῶν ἐντολὼν avg μηδὲ DraxNxdadty γενό- 
 μένου ὥσπερ φίλου οἱ ὑπαχηχκοότεςς Clem. Alex. Strom. |. ili. χαὺ μὴ ce 
 καϑάπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐδενὺ μὲν ἀντίχεισϑαν λέγομεν τὸν Θεὸν; οὐδὲ EXSEov 
 εύναυ τινός. πάντων γὰρ κτίστης: καὶ οὐδέν ἐστι τὸν ὑποστάντων 6 μὴ ϑέλευ. 
 Φαμὲν δὲ αὐτῷ ἐχϑοοὺς εἰναυ τοὺς ἀπειϑεῖς καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ 
 πορευομένους. Pelagius: Inimici actibus non natura, reconciliati au- 
 tem quia conciliati naturaliter fueramus. Melancthon takes occasion 
 to observe: Estque consolatio necessaria his, qui cum sint sanctifi-_ 
 eati, tamen vident se adhuc habere reliquias peccati, et obnoxios esse 
 terroribus et pavoribus, item immergi asperrimis calamitatibus, et 
 luctantur cum diffidentia. 
 
 ἐν τῇ ξωῇ αὐτοῦ. ‘The Apostle uniformly considers the life of the 
 Saviour as divided into two sections. ‘That holy one, who, as being 
 free from sin, was also not subject to evil, becomes a member of the 
 race which had made themselves guilty of it, bears all its conse- 
 quences, suffering of every kind, and death itself. But having passed 
 triumphantly through these ἡμέραν τῆς σαρκὸς, Heb. v. 7, the same per- 
 sonage enters the state of glory, where he no longer lives, as he once 
 
152 CHAPTER V. V. 11, 12. 
 
 did here below, in any manner connected with ἁμαρτία or Savaros, 
 but solely in relationship with God. Rom. vi. 10, Phil. 11. 6. This 
 period commences with the resurrection. 
 
 V.11. At this verse, the Apostle returns to verse 2d. By what 
 has hitherto been said, it has been established, that the disciples of 
 Christ, amidst afflictions of every kind, have a title to glory and exult, 
 it being indisputably certain, from what they have already experi- 
 enced of God’s compassion, that everlasting bliss is secured to them. 
 
 Καυχώμενου scil. ἐσμὲν. Εν τῷ Θεῷ᾽ because his love towards Chris- 
 tians is the basis of all their glory. Calvin: Nam dum gloriamur 
 Deum esse nostrum, quidquid fingi vel optari potest bonorum conse- 
 quitur et, ex hoc fonte manat. Non enim supremum tantum bonorum 
 omnium est Deus, sed summam quoque et singulos partes in se con- 
 linens. 
 
 di οὔ νῦν τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν. The νῦν stands opposed to that 
 everlasting glory, in the prospect of which, the Christian, surrounded 
 by calamities, rejoices, to the ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοὺ, ν. 2d. ‘The 
 pledge of the δόξα is the present καταλλαγή- The redemption, which 
 is already finished and complete, is the surest guarantee, that those 
 who believingly appropriate it, shall also be partakers of heavenly 
 bliss. 
 
 PAR Tei Te 
 
 THE NOBLE EFFECTS OF THE REDEMPTION, CONTEMPLATED BY MEANS 
 OF A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE GENERAL CONDITION OF MANKIND, 
 AS INVOLVED IN THE RUIN ENTAILED UPON THEM BY ADAM, AND 
 THEIR CONDITION, AS PARTAKERS OF THAT GLORY WHICH IS DE- 
 RIVED FROM CHRIST. v. 12—2l1. ‘ 
 
 Ver. 12. Tur Apostle had begun at the first verse to paint the 
 effects of God’s great scheme of salvation. He now essays to make 
 these more apparent, by showing how they comprehend the whole 
 race, and bring about an entirely new period in the existence of man- 
 kind. Accordingly, setting up the one who fell, as the head of sin- 
 ful humanity, he contrasts him with the restorer, as head of humanity 
 now regenerated, and received afresh into sonship with God; and 
 shows in what manner the fall of the first Adam is related to the re- 
 storation effected by the second. ‘The conclusion, verse 21, coin- 
 cides with the conclusion of the first half of the chapter, verse 11, the 
 Apostle merely re-affirming as true of the whole of mankind, and with - 
 reference to the state of fall, what he had there declared without 
 taking in these regards. Hence also, we may perceive how this 
 second part of the 5th chapter is properly only an elucidation, and 
 exposition on a grander scale, of the first. The observation of Ben- 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 12. 153 
 
 gel is therefore just: Non tam digressionem facit Apostolus quam 
 regressum..... Ex justificatione homo demum respiciens doctrinam 
 capit de origine mali. Chrysostom: Καθάπες ot τῶν ἱατρὼν ἀξιστοι 
 τὴν ῥίζαν ἀεὶ πολυπξαγμονοῦσυ τῶν νοσημάτων, καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν ἔρχονταν τὴν 
 πηγὴν τοῦ κακοῦ" οὕτω χαὶ ὃ μακάξιος ἸΤαῦλος" εἰπὼν xae ὅτι ἐδικαιώθη- 
 μεν, καὶ δείξας ἀπὸ Tov πατριάρχου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ Ex τοὺ ἀπὸ- 
 Pavey τὸν Xevoror, οὐδὲ γὰς ἂν ἀπέθανεν εἰ μὴ ἔμελλε δυκαιοῦν, κατασχευάζευ 
 λοιπὸν καὶ ἑτέξωθεν τὰ διὰ τούτων ἀποδειχθέντα; καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων συνισ- 
 τὰς τὸ πξοκείμενον; τουτέστιν; ἀπὸ τοῦ θανάτου xai τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Calvin 
 observes with great precision: Non possumus clarius perspicere quid 
 habeamus in Christo, quam ubi nobis demonstratum fuerit quid per- 
 diderimus in Adamo. Διὰ τοῦτο, 7. 6. proinde, it follows from what 
 has been said. ‘The Hebrew j39 serves in the same way to draw 
 inferences. 
 
 onze. This particle gives mse to much difficulty, as there is a 
 doubt whether the consequence it infers is expressed at all, and if so, 
 where it is to be sought. ‘The majority of commentators make a 
 parenthesis from verse 13 to verse 17 inclusive, and contend that at 
 the 18th the proposition is continued. So Luther, Melancthon, Gro- 
 tius, Bengel, and others. So extended a parenthesis, however, is 
 highly improbable, not to mention that dea οὖν in the 18th verse far 
 too obviously appears to mark an inference, drawn from the imme- 
 diately preceding context, and by no means the resumption of a pro- 
 position, which after such an interval has disappeared from the mind. 
 Others, Cocceius, Elsner, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and Stolz, after dca 
 τοῦτο supply ἐλάβομεν τὴν καταλλαγὴν from the foregoing verse, and 
 form the conclusion of the words succeeding ὥσπεφ. ‘Thus Elsner: 
 Itaque reconciliationem accepimus, quemadmodum per unum homi- 
 nem peceatum in mundum introit. It is difficult to perceive, how- 
 ever, why at the commencement of his proposition, the Apostle 
 should have omitted so many words, and these so necessary for the 
 right understanding of what he says. But even were we to supply 
 them, still no complete comparison would arise, inasmuch as it is 
 only by contrasting the single points in the work of redemption and 
 the fall, that their parallelism can be made apparent. Others attempt 
 to evade the difficulty by an inversion. ‘They assume that xac οὕτως 
 in verse 12, should properly stand for of7 xa. So Clericus, Wolf, 
 and others. Such a transposition, however, is quite unusual, and 
 moreover when admitted, subverts what is the great scope of the 
 Apostle—the comparison of Adam with Christ. Much more natural 
 
 *Itis the constant practice of the best physicians to explore the root of 
 their patient’s disease, and thus come to the source of the evil; and this is 
 what the blessed Apostle does here. For having said that we were justified, 
 and having shown it from the example of the patriarch, and from the Holy 
 Spirit, and from the death of Christ, who would not have died but to accom- 
 plish this end, he forthwith proceeds to bring proofs of the same thing from 
 another quarter, and establishes his proposition by arguments drawn from 
 the opposite things, viz. from death and sin. 
 
154 CHAPTER V. v. 12. 
 
 is the construction of Erasmus and Beza, who consider the xac before 
 διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας as the particle to the conclusion. But against this 
 also we have to object, that it is far too evident that the Apostle de- 
 signed to set in apposition Adam and Christ, and that by the construc- 
 tion proposed, the words 8¢ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, which, as appears from the 
 train of thought pursued through the whole of the latter section of 
 the chapter, must be emphatic, lose all their significance. As all 
 these modes of placing the conclusion, are thus inadmissible, we 
 have no resource but to suppose an epanorthosis or an anantapodoton. 
 The acute Calvin adopts the first. According to this view, we have 
 to imagine that the Apostle had written as far as the 15th verse in 
 the consciousness of his protasis, but that being there reminded by 
 the expression ὃς ἐστὶ τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος of his intention to compare 
 Adam and Christ, it strikes his glowing mind, that it is not enough 
 merely to point out an equality between the two, and he gives asud- 
 den turn to the proposition. ‘This explanation has much in its favour, 
 but there appears to be still more to recommend an anantapodoton. 
 The only question is, where does the Apostle cease to retain the 
 premises in his thoughts. Even Origen supposes an anantapodoton, 
 but he strangely seeks the ground of it, not in a negligence of lan- 
 guage, but in the design, on the part of the Apostle, not to weaken 
 in Christians the zeal for sanctification, by subjoining the counter- 
 part of Christ. Erasmus in his paraphrase, Castalio and others, 
 supply the conclusion immediately at the end of the 12th verse. 
 Erasmus gives it in these words: Ita per unum Christum, in quo 
 renascimur omnes per fidem, innocentia inducta est. It is more pro- 
 bable, however, that the Apostle does not lose sight of his premises 
 till he comes to ὃς ἐστὶ τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος. The parenthesis of verse 
 13, 14, might cause him to forget that he had begun his comparison 
 with ὥσπερ, although he still remembered that he was drawing one. 
 At the close of that parenthesis, in his own lively manner, he at once 
 fully enunciates it, and following a Hebrew construction, instead of 
 καὶ οὔτος connects it by the relative ὃς. ‘The conclusion, accordingly, 
 in point of sense, is contained in this appended proposition. Such 
 is the view of the difficult construction, which possesses the greatest 
 verisimilitude, and is to be preferred to what is otherwise allowable, 
 the adoption of an epanorthosis. We now pass to the consideration 
 of the single words. The subject of the Apostle is the entrance of 
 sin into the world, and its spread: εἰσήλδε and διῆλϑεν. Now, inas- 
 much as an opposition, though not expressed, is here implied to a 
 state devoid of sin, it is impossible to distinguish, and vain to make 
 a question, whether the ἁμαρτία means the peccatum habituale or 
 actuale, ὃ. 6. whether the propensity to sin, or the manifestation of that 
 propensity. ‘I'he whole dominion of sin is intended. Along with sin, 
 and dependent upon it, appeared the ϑάνατοςς Comp. Ecclesiasticus, 
 XXV. 24, “And γυναιχὸς ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας, καὺ δὲ αὐτὴν ἀποδνήσκομεν πάν- 
 τες. Θάνατος has, by Pelagius and others, been understood to signify 
 spiritual misery, and by the great majority, mere bodily death. But 
 
CHAPTER V. Vv. 12. 155 
 
 both interpretations are too confined, as appears evident when we 
 consider to what ϑάνατος and ἀποϑνήσκξιν are opposed in v. 15, 17,21. 
 In the 15th they are opposed to ἡ χάρις and ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι. In the 
 17th and 21st to ἡ χάρις and ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Now to look only to the 
 latter ἡ 207 αἰώνιος expresses much more than the mere prolongation 
 of existence after death, which certainly is also implied in it. ‘The 
 words ζωὴ and ϑάνατος along with the cognate verbs, although appear- 
 ing in very various applications, are most clearly explained, when we 
 suppose the following views to have lain at the basis of them. God 
 is the ζωὴ ἀνώνιος, 1 John v. 20, or the φὼς, 1 Johni.5; Jam. 1. 7. 
 Beings made in the image of God have true life only in fellowship 
 with him. Wherever this life is absent, there is ϑάνατος. Accordingly, 
 the idea of 2 comprehends holiness and bliss, that of Savdzos sin 
 and misery. Now as both the ζωὴ and the ϑάνατος manifest them- 
 selves sometimes in different degrees, sometimes under different 
 aspects, the words acquire a variety of significations. ‘The highest 
 grade of the 2.7 is the life which the redeemed live with the Saviour 
 in the glorious βασιλεῖα τῶν odpavav. Viewed on this side, 2.7 denotes 
 continued existence after death, communion with God, and blessed- 
 ness, of which each is implied in the other. ‘The highest grade of the 
 life out of God, 7. 6. of the Scdvaros, is external exclusion from com- 
 munion with the members of the βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. Regarded in this | 
 vieW, ϑάνατος comprehends bodily death, existence in the realm of | 
 spirits, full sense of guilt and misery, each of which is also involved , 
 in the other. ‘This explication of the two words we shall hereafter ἡ 
 establish with greater exactness. Now, although in other passages 
 in which he employs the terms, the Apostle may only intend one or 
 other of these significations, still it might be anticipated, that in that 
 before us, where the object is to delineate in contrast the domains of 
 sin and light in their full extent, ζωὴ and Savaros are to be taken in 
 their largest sense. Where there is no sin, there does the ζωὴ reign 
 in its whole expansion. Where sin exists, there the ϑάνατος appears 
 in all its multifarious modifications, and the consequences which it 
 entails. Even the text, Gen. ii. 17, is applied by the Rabbins to 
 death, in its most comprehensive import. Sepher Ikkarim, b. 4, ec. 
 41. ‘The ΠῚ is repeated, in order to show ἬΝ AN) wan ANN,” 
 It now remains to explain ἐφ᾽ @ πάντες ἥμαξτον, whereby it will 
 likewise be brought to light in what way the διελθεῖν, (which Luther- 
 renders happily, by a German word, meaning fo penetrate, De Wette, 
 less happily, fo go over,) has taken place. For reasons which shall 
 be produced forthwith, we understand ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in the sense of the He- 
 brew Ws inasmuch as, because that. So that the Apostle adduces 
 the fact of men being sinners as the reason why death also manifested 
 itself among them. ‘The thought, accordingly, lies in this, that éuae- 
 zia and ϑάνατος are correlatives, and stand necessarily connected to- 
 gether as cause and effect, so that neither can be supposed without 
 the other. Now, in consequence of the reciprocity between evil and 
 sin, as the latter came upon all, the former necessarily did the same, 
 
156 CHAPTER V. Vv. 12. 
 
 With respect to the word ἁμαφξτάνειν, it may either indicate more 
 the commencement of sin, 7. 6, the becoming sinful or guilty, in 
 which sense it corresponds in the LXX. with the Hebrew 0Wx, or 
 it may rather denote stn in its course. ‘The latter is the meaning 
 most commentators adopt, from the supposition, that the justice of 
 God is better vindicated when δανάτος is reckoned only the conse- 
 quence and punishment of the sins of the individual. Hence ‘Theo- 
 doret: οὐ γὰρ διὰ τὴν τοῦ προπάτορος ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν 
 ἕχαστος δέχεται τοῦ Savarov τὸν ὅρον. Whether, in a doctrinal point 
 of view, any advantage be really gained in this manner, seeing it must 
 still be acknowledged, that without Christ man is destitute of all 
 ability to conquer the inborn propensity to sin, we do not at present 
 inquire, but merely observe, that a comparison of the 18th and 19th 
 verses affords ground for preferring the former of the two interpreta- 
 tions. For, while it is there left entirely out of view, what part the 
 individual himself may have contributed, the sinfulness of the entire 
 race is represented as standing in immediate and causal connection 
 with the sin of the first man. Now, if from these passages, we judge 
 of the present, it might perhaps be questioned, whether doctrinal 
 partialities have not introduced something foreign into the Apostle’s 
 train of thought, when it is contended, that by the ἥμαρτον, the self- 
 determining principle in man is brought into view. More consenta- 
 neous with the circle of ideas, which the Apostle here developes, is 
 the interpretation given by the Reformers, and with certain modifica- 
 tions, thus stated by Usteri: (Entwickelung des Paulinishen Lehr- 
 begriffes, 5. 18.) ““ Of any other connection than that of the identity 
 of human nature, and consequently the transference of its sinfulness 
 to all posterity, no intimation is given. For even the statement, v. 
 19, διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπον ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάϑησαν οἱ πολλοὺν 
 declares nothing more than that, in the sinfulness of Adam, which 
 first manifested itself as actual and deliberate sin, by the transgression 
 of a positive commandment, the sinfulness of the human nature en- 
 tire was brought to light, and that in the sin of the first of the race, 
 the sinfulness of all the rest was already implied, and by it brought 
 about and necessitated.”” Augustine: (De verbis Dom. Sermo. 14.) 
 
 Quod in Adam fuit culpe non nature, nobis propagatis jam factum 
 est nature. , 
 
 Having thus found the import of the text, we now subjoin some 
 discussions upon particular points. And first, with respect to the 
 sense of Savaros. As in general, the Old Testament comprehends, at 
 least in germ, the truths of the New, it should not appear extraor- 
 dinary, that the peculiar meaning of certain terms in the latter are 
 also found in an initial form in the former, and in the apocryphal 
 books. D“n, denotes in the Old Testament the aggregate of all good,’ 
 ny, of all evil. We have an instance in Moses’ declaration, Deut. 
 
 * Because each man for his own, and not for the sin of Adam, comes under 
 the decree of death. 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 12. 157 
 
 xxx. 15, ὈΠΠΠ AS ΟΥΤ 7295 ΩΣ TIST, PIT ASN) AT PR) DN NN, 
 which phrase returns, Jer. xxi. 8, Ecclesiasticus, xv. 17. This life 
 man finds in following the Divine commands, and hence in holiness. 
 Prov. xi. 19, ‘As righteousness tendeth to life, so he that pursueth 
 evil, pursueth it to his own death.” Wisd. of Sol. xv. 3: To γὰρ 
 ἐπίστασθαί σε ὁλόκληξος διχαιοσύνην καὶ εἰδέναι TO χράτος σου ῥίζα ἀθανα- 
 sias. Com. Proverbs iv. 13; vi. 23; x. 17; xii. 28. Baruch iv. 1. 
 True life is, hence, properly with God, Ps. xxxvi. 9. and in the state 
 of saints, after death, so Ps. xvi. 11. Wisdom, v. 15, Atxavov ets τὸν 
 αἰῶνα ζῶσι; καὶ ἐν κυξίῳ ὃ proSds αὑτῶν. ‘The blessedness of the good 
 in the world to come, is indeed, expressly called Ὁ)» “Ππ, Dan. xii. 
 2. We may compare the way in which ἫΝ and wn are used, which, 
 as the Dictionaries show, mean in like manner, happiness and misery, 
 good and evi/. But, above all, the beautiful passage, Ps: xxxvit 19; 
 ‘* With thee is the fountain of life, and in thy life shall we see light.” 
 We also meet with the expression in the same sense in Philo, with 
 whom, however, it is mixed up with Platonic ideas: (De Post. Caini.) 
 τοὺς μὲν οὕτως (ἀσεβῶς) ἀποδανόντας ἡ ἀδάνατος ἐχδέξεται ζωὴ; τοὺς δὲ 
 ἐχείνους ὃ ἀΐδιος ϑάνατος. Generally, indeed, the practice of de- 
 nominating happiness, and more especially spiritual happiness, life, 
 and on the other hand, misery, but chiefly that kind of it which 
 springs from moral evil, death, together with those more profound 
 views, according to which, virtue and felicity are considered as a 
 manifestation of the life in God, was borrowed from the east by 
 several of the Grecian sages, viz. Pythagoras, Plato, and Heraclitus, 
 who speak of a Sdvazos of the soul in this life, and of an ἀναβίωσις in 
 the next. See Plato, Gorgias, ed. Heind. s. 156, Annot. Also 
 Phedo, ed. Wyttenb. p. 142, 165. The Rabbins also retained this 
 use of the words. In the Talmud, Tr. Berachoth, c. 8, the ὉΠ, 
 Eccles. ix. 5, is expounded by ΟΡ Σ, and the ὉΠ by Oywr. In 
 Ὀ2Δ Vy 5. 20, col. 3, it is written: ND AWN PwIen Awyl Taw 
 mwiy wronny. In the work mwsx1nDDn the author, Elias de Widas 
 thus speaks, “" He who repents, weeps, and says to his soul PAIN 
 7, for he has brought it from the place of life to the place of death. 
 All his life long he mourns, w5) mnonw ἡ». We come now to the 
 New Testament. Here by almost all the different writers, the words 
 δὴν and ἀποδνήσκχειν, ξωὴ and Sdvaros, Cav and vexeds are employed in 
 the emphatic metaphorical sense of life in God, and life without God. 
 Most commonly, it is true, by John and Paul. Matt. viii. 22; Luke 
 x. 28; Luke xv. 32; John v. 24, and many more. 1 John iii. 14; 
 2 Cor. ii. 16; Rom. vi. 21, vii. 5, 24, viii. 2, 6; 1 Tim. v. 6; Rom. 
 vii. 9, viii. 18; Eph. v. 14; James i. 15, ii. 17, 20, and numerous 
 others. Now Christ is represented as He who brought the true ζωὴ 
 to light. But as fellowship with him is first rightly enjoyed in the 
 state hereafter, and, consequently, as the δωὴν in its full extent, does 
 not commence until that is reached, the life to come, is emphatically 
 styled ἡ 7, (see above at v. 10, and below at v. 18,) and more par- 
 ticularly ἡ ξωὴ αἰώνιος. According to this view, the life of the believer, 
 
158 CHAPTER Y. V. 12. 
 
 in the future world, and that in the world that now is, are not spe- 
 cifically different, but form a progressive series; and hence Gow, as at 
 v. 18 below, and ζωὴ αἰώνιος as at John v. 24, frequently comprehends 
 both. Again, on the other hand, with respect to ϑάνατος, should we 
 comply with the analogy we have just explained, it would, when 
 used antithetically to ζωὴ in the sense of 207% αἰώνιος, denote the life 
 of misery and separation from God hereafter. Now, into the 
 conceptions formed by the Apostles of the future state, the idea of a 
 definite locality always entered as asubstratum. ‘lhe Φωὴ was in the 
 oveavos OF in the ἄνω ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ. Hence it is not an improbable 
 opinion, to which Dr. Bretschneider in particular, has in modern 
 times called the attention, viz. that the Apostles conceived the Old 
 ‘Testament Scheol to be the place into which all are conducted, who 
 do not receive life by fellowship with Christ. It must be confessed, 
 however, when they speak upon the subject, the idea of locality is 
 left in the shade, and it is that of the condition itself which pre- 
 dominates. ‘This condition is one of misery, but more of a negative 
 kind arising from deprivation, Rev. xx. 6 and 14, xxi. 8, we read 
 of a Savaros δεύτερος; and thatseems to denote the condition of proper 
 and positive wretchedness, which follows the period of existence in 
 the Scheol. 
 
 ‘The χαὺ οὕτως can be understood in two ways. Οὕτως may be 
 equivalent to ὡσαύτως, and then the similarity expressed between the 
 subject of the second with that of the first member of the verse will 
 consist in this, that as the first man constituted the ground for the 
 existence of sin and death, so did he also for their propagation. Thus 
 Seb. Schmid. Or the comparison may perhaps lie in this, that, as 
 in the case of Adam, sin was the condition of evil, it is so likewise 
 in all that follow him. On that supposition, it ought to be translated: 
 “And after the same manner sin passed upon all, seeing that all are 
 sinners.”’ It is, however, far more conformable to the use of the 
 language, especially as οὕτως is preceded by xai, to consider it as the 
 particula consecutionis. So Erasmus: Atque ita factum est. In this 
 view it refers to the intimate connection of all the individuals with 
 the head of the species, which in every member of the race, neces- 
 sarily entails that discord manifesting itself inwardly as sin and out- 
 wardly as evil. ‘Ihe same thing is also very pointedly expressed 
 by διῆλθεν. ‘The meaning, accordingly, is: “ In consequence of sin 
 and evil being brought forth in the instance of the first man, they 
 have also passed upon all who belong to the race.”’ 
 
 Ep’ ᾧ is in the old Latin version rendered in quo; and it was 
 upon that translation that Augustine founded his doctrine of im- 
 putation. Accordingly, it has been retained by the great majority 
 of Catholic expositors, and among the Reformers by Beza, Calixt, ° 
 Erasmus, Schmidt, Calov, Raphelius and others. Augustine: (Op. 
 imp. 6. Jul. Pel. 1. v. 6. 12.) Fuerunt enim omnes ratione seminis 
 in lumbis Adam, quando damnatus est, et ideo sine illis damnatus 
 non est; quemadmodum fuerunt Israelite in lumbis Abrahe quando 
 
CHAPTER V. v. 12. 159 
 
 decimatus est, Ep. ad Heb. 7. Also (De pecc. mer. et rem. 1. 3, ¢. 
 7,): In Adam omnes tune peccaverunt, quando in ejus natura, ila 
 insita vi qua eos gignere poterat, adhue omnes ille unus fuerunt. So 
 likewise Origen and Ambrose. Augustine proceeded upon the realist 
 view, that God did only once create, placing the whole of each 
 Species in the first individual, so that all subsequent existence is 
 nothing more than the manifestation and development of what has a 
 previous being. Inasmuch then as at the first, the man Adam was 
 when he fell, both individual and species, the species also fell in him. 
 Acute expositions of this view, and a philosophical application of the 
 Aristotelian principles de universalibus in re to the doctrine of impu- 
 tation, are to be found among the schoolmen, e. g. Anselm and Odo- 
 ardus, in De peccato originali. ‘There are, however, strong objec- 
 tions to such an interpretation of ἐφ᾽ @: Ist, The antecedent dvSeumos 
 is much too remote. So early as by Augustine it was remarked, 
 (Contra duas Epp. Pell. 1. iv. c. 4.) that one might be tempted to 
 refer the relative to the preceding substantive ϑάνατος. ‘The sense 
 would then, however, be obscure. 2d, When ἐπὶ governs the dative, 
 it has not the meaning of 7m but upon. And hence in the passage 
 cited by Origen and Augustine as parallel, Heb. vii. 10, there stands 
 not ἐπὶ but ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ. Grotius suggests another meaning of ἐπὶ, viz. 
 through or by occasion a This is agreeable to the usage of the 
 language, (566 Luke v. 5; 1x. 48,) but owing to the false reference 
 of the relative cannot be sustained; it is, moreover, founded by Gro- 
 tius on his peculiar interpretation of ἥμαρτον, which see below. 
 Cocceius understands it in the sense of with, together with, and 
 quotes as authorities in’ ἐμοὺ μευρακίῳ τοῦτο γέγονεν. ἐτελεύτησεν Ext 
 δυσὶ παισίν. ‘There, however, it is merely a particle denoting time, 
 which it cannot be in the declaration of Paul. It would be easier to 
 defend the rendering of it post, after the precedent of Adam. See 
 Matthias’ Gram. In which case, the clause would either express 
 the Pelagian view of sin, viz. That it is the imitation of Adam’s 
 transgression, (as if there could be imitation without similarity of dis- 
 position,) or it is idle and nugatory. Upon these grounds we have 
 interpreted ἐφ᾽ 6 in the sense of ws1 following the example of the 
 Syriac, Theodoret, Erasmus, Vatablus, Luther, Calvin, and many 
 others. It has the same meaning, 2 Cor. v. 4; Phil. ili. 12. As 
 has probably also even ἐν &, Rom. viii. 3; Heb. ii. 18. 
 
 There is still another way of understanding ἥμαρτον, upon which 
 we have not as yet touched. Chrysostom, Theophylact and Grotius, 
 take it metonymically for ‘* have suffered the penalty of sin,”’ ‘are 
 treated as sinners.” Chrysostom: ’Exetvov πεσόντος, καὶ οἱ μὴ φαγόν- 
 τες ἀπὸ Tov ξύλου; γεγόνασιν ἐξ ἐκείνου πάντες θνητοί. Now, there can be 
 no doubt, that in many a connection it might be justifiable to interpret 
 ἁμαρτάνειν in this manner; here, however, there is the objection 
 
 * After his fall, even they who eat not of the tree have all through him be- 
 come mortal. 
 
160 CHAPTER V. v. 12. 
 
 against it, that ἁμαρτία in a different sense occurs before, to which 
 juaetov obviously refers, 
 
 In conclusion, it deserves also to be taken into consideration, that 
 when the Apostle here teaches that all evil has its source in sin, and 
 all sin in that of the author of the human race, he by no means pro- 
 pounds an entirely new doctrine. It is substantially contained in the 
 3d chapter of Genesis, and is frequently declared in the Apocrypha, 
 Wisd. of Sol. ii. 23, 24, Ecclesus. xxv. 24. It has likewise been 
 handed down in the exegetical tradition of the Rabbins, among whom, 
 for example, are to be found such sentiments as the following. The 
 Targum, on the text, Ecclesiastes vii. 29. ‘God hath made man 
 upright,’’ observes: ‘* But the serpent and the woman seduced him, 
 and caused death to be brought upon him and all the inhabitants of 
 the earth.”” And on Ruth iv. 22, when relating that David’s father 
 was also called wm) it adds, ‘* Jesse lived many days, until the coun- 
 sel, which the serpent gave to Eve, was called to mind before God. 
 In consequence of this counsel all men upon the earth are obnoxious 
 to death.’’ ‘To the same purpose are the words of R. Shemtob (died 
 an. 1293.) in the Book Sepher Haemunoth. ‘In their mystical 
 commentaries our doctor says, that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, 
 their descendants would not have been infected with the propensity 
 to evil; their form would have remained perfect like that of the angels, 
 and they would have continued for ever in the world, subject neither 
 to death nor change.”’ Bereschith Rabba, a mystical commentary 
 upon Genesis from an early period of the middle ages, par. 12, 14. 
 ‘Although created perfect, yet when the first man sinned, all was 
 perverted, and shall not return to order until the Messiah come.”’ R. 
 Mosche of the Trana in the 15th cent. (Beth Elohim, f. 105. e. 1.) 
 “The whole world sinned the same sin with Adam; for he was the 
 whole world.’ R. Jacob: (Neve Schalom Tract 9. c. 5. fol. 160, 2.) 
 ‘“‘As the first man was the one that sinned, so shall the Messiah be 
 the one to do sin away.’ R. Mayer Ben Gabbai in Avodath Hakko- 
 desch, f. 62, says: ‘‘Adam by his fall opened a fountain of impurity, so 
 that uncleanness and poison have overspread the whole world.”? On 
 the opinions of the Rabbins, see Snabelii Ameenitates Typice et 
 Emblematice, the first treatise, Sommeri Theologia Soharica, p. 23 
 and 24. Schiéttgen on this passage, and Wetstein on chap. v. 14. 
 On the other hand, however, there were numerous learned Jews who 
 contended, on the contrary, that not only the death, but likewise the 
 fall of Adam, was the inevitable consequence of the constitution of 
 his nature, and that God implants a principle of evil in every indi- 
 vidual. See Vitringa, Observ. Sacre, 1. 3. ch. 8 and 9. Siisskind 
 in the Magazin fiir Dogma. und Moral. st. 13. Bartolocci, Bibl. _ 
 Magna Rabbinica, v. ii. p. 47,sqq. Ina peculiarly glaring manner is 
 the doctrine expressed in the passage, Bereschith Rabba, par. 28, p. 
 30. Col. 3, where God is made to say, ‘It distresses me that I 
 have created them with the Yetzer Hara, (the propensity to evil.) 
 Had I not done so, they would not have rebelled against me.” It 
 
CHAPTER νον. 12, 13. 161 
 
 is to the views of these Hebrew scholars, that Vitringa and Siisskind 
 appeal in support of their opinion, that the Apostle did not derive his 
 doctrine from the creed of Jewish theologians. It must not be over- 
 looked, however, that the Rabbins, who contended that God implants 
 evil in every man at birth, do not on that account suppose it uncon- 
 nected with Adam; they merely speak as Creatians. Calvin in his 
 Institutions expresses himself in a way equally obscure, endeavouring, 
 along with the doctrine of Creatianism, to demonstrate upon this 
 subject a connection between our sinfulness and that of our first pa- 
 rent. ‘The opinion, on the contrary, that even the first man was 
 created with the N1Nn ν᾽" is not to be found among orthodox Jews, 
 but was only held by Emanatistical Kabalists, who look upon evil as 
 a negation; or those imbued with platonism, who give it an origin in 
 matter, and consequently also consider it as a negation. We may 
 instance Moses Maimon., R. Jehuda Levita, and others. Comp. the 
 learned treatise of Ammon, Nava Opusce. De vestigiis theol. Jud; in 
 Ep. ad Rom. where other authorities are likewise quoted. 
 
 V. 13. This and the following verse constitute an explanatory 
 supplement, and may be regarded as parenthetical. ‘The yae shows 
 that the writer means to justify some previous statement. ‘The near- 
 est proposition is, That by virtue of the connection between auaeria 
 and θάνατος, (of which latter a single aspect only is brought to view, 
 viz. the transition, by bodily dissolution, into the realm of spirits,) 
 as cause and effect, in the case of the first man, the same had passed 
 upon all. In confirmation of this, what does the Apostle say? He 
 speaks of a twofold duaeravew, the one tei τῷ ὁμοιώματιὶ τῆς παξαβά- 
 σεως Adau, the other taking place μὴ ὄντος νόμου. The first, accord- 
 ingly, is such as is committed contrary to a distinct command. With 
 respect to the latter, he affirms that, in a certain sense of the word, 
 
 it is not imputable. Notwithstanding of this, however, death has 
 
 exercised its dominion over the persons who were guilty of it. If 
 then, from these premises, we draw a conclusion, it can scarcely be 
 any other than.'That θάνατος is the natural consequence of the sinful- 
 ness which has been transmitted from the Founder to all the indivi- 
 duals of the species, precisely as is expressed in ver. 17. Now that 
 is a conclusion which obviously goes to confirm the foregoing pro- 
 position; for it proves That the general basis of the θάνατος and duoe- 
 τία lies in the author of the race. And this it is here the chief design 
 of the Apostle to show, in order thereby to establish, as an antistro- 
 phe, How, in like manner, the general basis of the 207 and Sdexadwors 
 lies in Christ. Usteri, Entwick. des Paul. Lehrbeg. 5. 26: * Sin is 
 not imputed so long as man has no law, that is, Man does not feel 
 the evil consequence of his sin as a punishment, so long as he does 
 not recognize sin to be what it is; he is a réxvov éeyys, God’s law 
 of nature connecting together evil and sin, goes of itself into execu- 
 tion againsthim. So then it may be said ὅσου ἀνόμως ἥμαφτον, ἀνόμως 
 καὶ ἀπολοῦνται. Not that this condition is at all better than the oppo- 
 
 5116 ONE, ὅσου ἐν νόμω ἥμαξτον dud νόμου χρυθήσονται. For, on the one 
 2] 
 
 / 
 
162 CHAPTER V. V. 13. 
 
 hand, excepting only the state of childhood, it is founded upon a 
 total obduracy adegaous, and upon the other it constitutes what is pro- 
 perly the βασιλεία τοῦ θάνατου, Rom. v. 14, where the sum of all evil 
 has fixed its seat, and exercises unbounded lordship. ‘This non-im- 
 putation, however, does by no means do away guilt, for the Apostle 
 has beforehand expressly proved that men are ἀναπολόγητοι. But in 
 the state of sinfulness now become habitual, guilt does not reach the 
 individual so much as the historical whole.”’ 
 
 We might here also, perhaps, take exception, if not to the thing 
 proved, at least to the mode in which the Apostle proves it, viz. inas- 
 much as he at once assumes as granted, that without a positive pre- 
 cept, there can be no ἐλλογεῦσθαι, although he has already asserted in 
 chapter second, that the heathen shall be judged according to the 
 νόμος yeanros ἐν τῇ xaedcq. It cannot be denied, however, that in 
 proportion to the degree in which this inward νόμος has been oblite- 
 rated, the special responsibility of the individual (provided always 
 he has not himself been guilty of blunting his moral sense) is dimin- 
 ished. And what idea can we form of the ἀνοχὴν chap. ill. 26, with 
 which God overlooked the yedvo τῆς ἀγνοίας, if it do not presuppose 
 a withdrawal of special accountability? Quite analogous is the decla- 
 ration of Christ, John xv. 22. Ei μὴ ἦλθον καὶ ἐλάλησα αὐτοῖς ἁμαρτίαν 
 οὐκ εἶχον. Although, therefore, it may be said, that man theoretically, 
 or as belonging to the world of intelligences, can and must be judged 
 according to the entire law, and so condemned as absolutely guilty; 
 still, however, as regards his historical existence, and considering 
 him as belonging to the actual world, we can deem him only ina 
 limited degree responsible, Mat. xi. 21. In this way might we find 
 a satisfactory side from which to consider the declaration of the 
 Apostle. This view of the passage, Schott, in his Opuse. t. 1, has 
 defended with great doctrinal impartiality. Still, however, it may be 
 questioned, whether we ought not to prefer, to the one stated, another 
 exposition which at least creates no difficulties with reference to the 
 declaration of the Apostle we have now discussed. It might be said, 
 that he here anticipates verse 20th. He imagines to himself an 
 opponent starting the objection, that although all men may be re- 
 garded as sinners, yet as sin can only exist where there is a positive 
 law, it cannot be ascribed to those who lived prior to Moses. In 
 opposition to this, however, the Apostle has now shown, that even 
 over these persons, the θάνατος had reigned; and hence, in so far sin 
 must necessarily be presumed in them, even although it might have 
 arisen in contrariety only to an inward law. ‘That the outward law 
 had been added, merely to subserve the tavyrwous τῆς ἁμαῤτίας. In 
 this manner Photius, and several others among the ancients, whom 
 Chrysostom mentions and confutes, and among the moderns, Schétt- : 
 gen and Koppe, expound the passage. ‘The words of Photius are as 
 follows: Εἰπὼν ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες juaerov, ἵνα μὴ τις εἰπῇ» καὶ πὼς ἣν ἅμαρ- 
 TELY νόμου μὴ ὄντος; οὗτος γὰξ σὺ ἀνωτέξω ἔφης OTL οὗ οὐκ ἔστυ νόμος; οὐδὲ 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 13. 163 
 
 παράβασις. παξαβάσεως δὲ μὴ οὔσης οὐδὲ ἁμαρτία δηλονότι. πὼς οὖν διῆλθεν 
 6 θάνατος εἰς πάντας, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες Nuaetov; ἵνα οὖν μὴ ἢ τις λέγων τοῦτο, 
 παξαλαβὼν Aveo τὴν ἀπορίαν, καὶ Pyotr, ὅτι ἣν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ νόμου" ἐπεάτ- 
 TETO γὰρ; καὶ τὸ πραττόμενον οὐκ ἔστι μὴ γενέσθαι. Cicumenius adds: 
 dea δὲ τὴν ἀσφάλειαν τοῦ Αποστόλου, ἵνα μὴ δόξωμεν λοιπὸν ἀδυκεῦσθαιυ» 
 δὲ ἄλλον ἀποθνήσκοντες» εἶπεν, ἁμαφτία ἣν ἐν κόσμῳ, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐλογίζετο. 
 τουγαξοῦν οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸν᾽ Αδὰμ; ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν ἁμαδτίαν ἀποθνήσχομεν.ἢ 
 As far as the language is concerned, there is certainly nothing to ob- 
 ject to this explanation, besides, that the thought thus expressed is 
 by no means strange to the Apostle. ‘The structure and position of 
 the verse, however, will by no means suit such an interpretation. It 
 is presumed that the Apostle means to refute a silent objection, viz. 
 that anterior to Moses there was no sin. But looking to the pro- 
 position, as it stands, it has not at all the semblance of, a refutation. 
 Far more does the exegetical feeling constrain us to consider this 
 first proposition as the major, and the 2d ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ tan. (δὲν atqui) 
 as the minor, to which the daa’ forms an antithetic conclusion. Indeed, 
 without an affirmative particle, such as ὄντως, or a comparative one, 
 such as ὡσαύτως, it seems impossible to agree to that explanation. 
 To this it must be added, that as the Apostle, verse 12, speaks of 
 the mutual relation of the Savaros and ἀμαρτῖα, and both are here 
 again introduced, the train of thought would rather prepare us to 
 expect some announcement with respect to their connection, and 
 about the universality of the ἁμαρτία. ‘The more so, that such an 
 objection, as is supposed on the part of the Jew, has no great proba- 
 bility, inasmuch as it would tend to prove that the Gentiles, not being 
 Yyvouot, Were hence not avanoardyyror, whereas the Jew considered 
 them as obnoxious to the xaraxpyua. And in fine, were any one to 
 attempt to discredit the sense we have proposed, it might, perhaps, 
 be possible on doctrinal grounds to elude it in the present instance. 
 Not so, however, in verse 17, where it is plainly expressed. In 
 fact, a large majority of expositors, even thosé who, from doctrinal 
 partialities, would have wished to decide otherwise, although they 
 have not viewed the proposition in the same precise light as we, have 
 yet concluded from its entire disposition, that the Apostle means to 
 point out our ϑάνατος as fundamentally rooted in that of Adam. So 
 
 * To what the Apostle had said about all having sinned, some might per- 
 haps reply, How could sin be committed when there was nolaw? Even you 
 yourself declare in the sequel, that where there is no law neither is there 
 transgression, and it is clear that without transgression there can be no sin. 
 How then has death passed upon all, for that all have sinned? That no one 
 might speak thus, he takes up and solves the difficulty, declaring that.sin 
 existed even before the law, for it was committed, and what is done can never 
 be undone. 
 
 ¢ Behold the caution of the Apostle. Lest we should deem ourselves un- 
 justly treated in being subjected to death for another, he says, that sin was 
 in the world, although it was not imputed. Hence it is not on account of 
 Adam alone that we die, but likewise for sin. 
 
164 CHAPTER V. νυ. 13, 14. 
 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grot., Limb., Bengel, Christ. Schmid, 
 Michaelis, and many others. According to their view, the imputa- 
 tion is of an outward, juridical kind; which, however, the observation 
 of Limborch is by no means suflicient to justify: Non fuit quidem 
 gratiosa Dei actio, sed severa, attamen neutiquam injusta. Non enim 
 injustum est, nocentem, cui alias fortassis parciturus sis, tractare ut 
 nocentem, ac punire quia natus est ex parente magis nocente et pe- 
 nam insigniter merito. Quite erroneous is the interpretation of those, 
 Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Melancthon, Beza, Cornel. a 
 Lapide, and others, who imagine that St. Paul here speaks of the 
 guilt of infants. The train of thought obviously contradicts such an 
 application, as the judicious Calvin justly observes, and hence these 
 interpreters see themselves obliged to have recouse to the most forced 
 explanation of the terms. Augustine, Melancthon, and Theodoret, 
 take the ἄχρι in the larger sense of the word, as equivalent to the 
 Hebrew ‘y, in which it includes the term in quo, and thus denotes 
 the period from Adam to Christ. Augustine, Ep. 157, ad Hilarium, 
 expounds: Quianec lex data per Moisen potuit regnum mortis auferre 
 quod sola abstulit gratia. Origen, Thos. Aquinas, and in occasional 
 passages, Augustine, think the words μὴ ὄντος νόμου refer to the moral 
 law, of which children are unconscious. Not only, however, do 
 these expositions deviate from the natural sense of the language, but 
 they make it difficult to see the connection between the 13th and 14th 
 verses. Cornelius a Lapide has expressed it most clearly in the fol- 
 lowing terms: “‘ You will object, that where there is no law, there 
 can be no sin. As the men, however, in the interval between Adam 
 and Moses died. it is obvious that they must necessarily have been 
 sinners. And in case you may perchance insinuate that this is merely 
 a proof of their peccata actualia, and not of the peccatum originale, I 
 appeal to children, who although they had not offended against any 
 positive Divine law, were also during that period subject to death.” 
 So also Beza. 
 
 We have still to notice another expedient of rather a violent kind, 
 which many have adopted for removing the difficulties of this text. 
 Instead of its common signification, they take ἐλλογεῶν in the sense 
 of to regard, take to heart. So Luther, in his ‘Translation, Heu- 
 mann and Camerarius, who has these words: Cum aperte propone- 
 retur lex, clarum fuit peccatum, cum tacite, peccatum minus com- 
 punxit conscientiam. Heumann gives the connection thus: ** The 
 Jew might ask, how then can Adam’s posterity have sinned, when 
 the law of Moses was not yet given? Paul replies, For that very 
 reason they sinned the more thoughtlessly, and therefore death also 
 reigned.”” Against this we have to say, that ἐλλογεῖν has no such 
 meaning, and that it would be contrary to the use of the Greek lan- , 
 guage, to consider ἀλλὰ as an inferential particle. 
 
 V.14. ἐβασίλευσεν. Photius: Τοὺτ tore’ κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν πολλὴν ἐχεά- 
 τήσε; KOU εἰς ἔννομον ἐξουσίαν ελλογίσθη αὐτοῦ ἢ τυξαννὶς, τῷ TE χρόνῳ σεμ- 
 
- 
 
 CHAPTER V. v. 14. 165 
 
 νυνομένη, καὶ τοῖς ἡμῷν ἁμαρτήμασι κρατυνομένη. ὃ Thus in Wisd. of 
 Sol. i. 14, οὐχ Yoru ἄδου βασύλειον ἐπὶ γῆς. So likewise, to denote the 
 powerful efficacy of the θανατος, the Rabbins use the verb bow. (See 
 Schéttgen) Usteri, s. 18: ‘* Upon all who did not possess a positive 
 law, death has come, as a natural consequence, according to that 
 διχαίωμα tov Θεοῦ, Rom. 1. 32, ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ako θανά- 
 του εἰσὶν, or the connection which God has established between sin 
 and evil. ‘This condition, to distinguish it from that in which death 
 might be considered as the positive penalty for transgressing the 
 law, Paul here denominates a βασιλεία τοῦ Savarov'”’ 
 
 ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαφτήσαντας. Several Latin codices omit the py, 
 though Augustine confesses that in no Greek one is this done. Sem- 
 ler, who so often violently changes the text, judges that the Latin 
 ought here also to be followed. Probably, the difficulty of interpre- 
 tation, which is occasioned by the presence of μὴ, and of which even 
 Origen and Ambrose complained, led to its commission. 
 
 ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς naeaBacews’ Addu. Ἐπὶ conjoined with a sub- 
 stantive in the dative, is used in place of the Hebrew 5, for the pur- 
 pose of forming adverbs. ‘Thus, the LXX., at Ps. xvi. 9, translate 
 M039, ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι, which is used in the same way, Acts v.14. In 
 Hebrew there would have stood in this place the substantive n7D, 
 which, in Daniel x. 16, is translated literally, ὡς ὁμοίωσις υἱοῦ avOeu- 
 mov. The expression, accordingly, means ὁμοίως τῷ "Addu nagaBarte. 
 As this transgression of Adam’s is put upon a parallel with that of 
 the law of Moses, the aspect in which it is here to be contemplated, 
 is his having broken a distinct and positive Divine law. ‘The gene- 
 ralization, therefore, of Grotius is incorrect, who says: Solent graves 
 transgressiones comparari transgressioni Adami, Hos. vi.7. Equally 
 unnatural is the application of the words made by those who think 
 that in these two verses children are spoken of. According to them, 
 children had not sinned like Adam, inasmuch, as even at birth they 
 are already infected with sin and its guilt. Augustine, (Ep. 157, ad 
 Hilar.) Quia in semet ipsis, cum jam nati essent, nec ratione adhuc 
 uterentur, qua ille utebatur quando peccavit, nec preceptum accepis- 
 sent, quod ille transgressus est, sed solo originali vitio tenerentur 
 obstricti. 
 
 ὅς ἐστι τύπος tov μέλλοντος. Paul still bore in mind that he was 
 drawing a comparison between the Saviour and the fallen progenitor 
 of the human race, which comparison he had begun with donee. The 
 parenthesis of verses 12th and 13th had caused him in some degree 
 to deviate from it. Here, without remembering to connect it asa 
 conclusion with doce, he simply affirms the counterpart, and annexes 
 it not by xai οὔτος, but, according to a Hebrew construction, by the 
 
 * That is, lorded it with mighty power, and its tyranny was considered as 
 a legitimate authority, being sanctioned by time, and confirmed by our trans- 
 gressions. 
 
166 CHAPTER V. V. 14, 15. 
 
 relative ὅς. ΤῸ μέλλοντος we must supply ᾿Αδάμ" as in the same way, 
 1 Cor. xv. v. 45, Christ is denominated ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδάμ. 
 
 τύπος from τύπω, a copy taken by impression, John xx. 25, τύπος 
 τῶν ἥλων" and, hence, metaphorically an image or type. ‘The Apostle 
 had set out with the design of showing what extent of salvation and 
 blessing had been procured for men by Christ. With this view, 
 he had described the extent of ruin emanating from the original founder 
 of the human race. Now, with that before his mind, the thought 
 naturally suggested itself, that this First head of the race might be 
 regarded as an image of the Second. Usteri: (5. 121,) “Adam and 
 Christ, each the emanating point of a general and opposite life, the 
 two poles, as it were, of humanity, that fly from each other, and 
 attract the mass, 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22. Even Rabbinical theologians 
 advert to a certain relation betwixt Adam and the Messias. In the 
 book Tseror Hamor, Sect. Bereschith, it is said, “ The secret of 
 Adam is the secret of the Messiah.”” The author of Neve Schalom 
 has, moreover, Ὁ. ix. c. 5,8, the remarkable statement: ** The last 
 Adam is the Messias, as it is written, He will be greater than Moses. 
 It is also true, as is declared, He will be higher than the angels that 
 serve God. ‘Then shall be taken away the ancient sin which ocea- 
 sioned death. In his time shall be the resurrection of the dead. 
 God intended Adam to be immortal, but sin brought death. Thus 
 the divine purpose has been accomplished in the King Messias, as 
 in his counterpart, the first Adam.’’ Untenable are the explications 
 of others, who, as Bengel and Homberg, supply yeovov, and make 
 the sense, ‘‘ He was the type of the time to come,”’ for it is evident 
 from verse 15th, that the Apostle has spoken of a comparison between 
 Adam and Christ; or who take μέλλων absolutely, like ὁ tezouevos, to 
 signify the Messias, which it would be impossible to establish by 
 parallel passages; or, finally, who supply an indefinite neuter, ‘‘ the 
 type of future events,’”’ like Erasmus and Christ. Schmid. Against 
 which exposition there lies the same objection as against that of 
 Bengel. 
 
 V. 15. Scarcely has the Apostle expressed how Adam represented 
 in outline what was done by the great Redeemer, than the thought 
 occurs that the work of Christ is unspeakably greater. Accordingly, 
 he now seeks to show, by a comparison of the diametrically opposite 
 influences respectively exercised by these two personages, that while 
 they exhibit great equality, in respect of what is positive, they still 
 differ very widely in degree. With much precision Bengel remarks: 
 Adam et Christus sécindum rationes contrarias conveniunt in posi- 
 tivo, differunt in comparativo. Bucubstence De indncnee proceeding 
 from Adam is sin_and destruction; that from Christ, holiness_and 
 felicity. The equality in the positive, consists in this, that both. 
 kingdoms originate in a single person, the first Adam and the second, 
 being each the head and founder of an entire race. The comparative 
 difference, according to v. 16, is, that when Adam fell, he had before 
 him a pure, uncontaminated progeny, upon which his sin operated 
 
CHAPTER V. Vv. 15. 167 
 
 so perniciously as to constitute them all sinners. On the other hand, 
 Christ has the entire race, with its innumerable sinners, before him, 
 and, by his perfect obedience, not only does away the whole conse- 
 quences of that original sin, but restores afresh the δικαίωσις ζωῆς 2. 6. 
 the justification which brings along with it a perfect, divine, and 
 blessed life. See on this subject the acute treatise of Siisskind, in 
 Flatt’s Magazin fiir Dogmatick und Moral, Bd. xiii. s. 86, and the 
 admirable Paraphrase of Usteri, 5. 122. Photius says well: “ there 
 are three things to be noticed in the subjects here brought into com- 
 parison, a certain resemblance, a certain opposition, and an excess in 
 the point of similarity. ‘The opposition lies between sin and sinless- 
 ness, enmity to God, and reconciliation with him, condemnation and 
 justification, ruin, offence, and death, and salvation, life, and resur- 
 rection. ‘These are opposite. ‘The similarity again consists in that, 
 as by one man these evils fell upon all, so also by one man came the 
 blessings upon all. And as to the excess, it is, that whereas with 
 regard to the evils, the many co-operated with the one in order to 
 become partakers, with respect to the blessings, this was not the case; 
 but the free gift came by Christ singly and alone, so that even as re- 
 gards the point in which the two agree, there is excess and super- 
 abundance upon the one side. Moreover, not only were the evils 
 introduced by Adam taken away by Christ, but the better things 
 substituted in their place. 
 
 In this fifteenth verse, the Apostle does not as yet state the ine- 
 quality in the case, but only directs our attention to the fact, that ὦ 
 priort grace might be expected to operate in a far richer way than 
 sin. Incapable of deducing any clear meaning from these words, 
 some commentators make them an interrogation. By that means, 
 however, ἀλλὰ would lose its true signification, and become a mere 
 formula transeundi. So Schéttgen and Heumann. Others conjoin 
 with the negative some sort of limitation, such as xara πάντα τρόπον" 
 but to say nothing of other objections, the subsequent εἰ yae is a suf- 
 ficient one of itself. παράπτωμα. Beza: Sic dicitur ipsa Adami 
 ruina, unde manat ἡ auaerca, id est, tum reatus ille, tum corruptio in 
 omnium hominum natura herens. Χάρισμα. ‘This term is chosen 
 by Paul in place of δὲχαίωμα, which would have been the strict doc- 
 trinal expression. ‘The yde is a note of explication, fo wit. Οἱ πολ- 
 aot. The article here has a retrospective reference, meaning the vast 
 multitude of mankind. Itis hence to be considered not as compara- 
 tive, but absolute, according to Augustine’s observation (I. vi. ὁ. 12. 
 Cont. Jul.): Multi constituti sunt peccatores, 7. 6. omnes, qui revera 
 sunt multi. ‘The Father here alludes to the impropriety there is in 
 Pelagius appealing to this passage, and in the Socinians to this word, 
 in order to prove that all men have not been sinners, but those only 
 who imitated Adam. ᾿Απέθανον. It is manifest, both from the an- 
 tithesis and the connection, that here ἀπέθανον is not used simply in 
 the limited signification of corporeal death, but comprehends the 
 θάνατος in its widest extent, viz. the sense of guilt, physical evil, and 
 
168 CHAPTER νον 15, 16. 
 
 the future consequences of sin. “H ydeus τοῦ Θεοῦ xai ἡ Saeed, is best 
 taken as a Hendyadis for 7 δωρεὰ τῆς χάξιτος, Which is but another 
 name for the δικαίωμα obtained through Christ. ᾿Εν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ 
 ἐνὸς ἀνδρώπου. ‘The article τῇ here shows that the genitive τοὺ ἑνὸς 
 ἀνδοώπου is to be construed not with dweca but with χάριτι. ‘That 
 genitive, however, is susceptible of different significations. Xdecs 
 may mean the favour in which Christ stands with the Father, and 
 by which he obtains the love of God for us. ‘This is its most im- 
 probable signification. Or the genitive may here denote the subject, 
 the grace which Christ manifests towards us. Such is the opinion 
 entertained by the majority of commentators, but who yet regard 
 Christ only as the channel of communication. Thomas Aquinas: 
 Sic enim a Deo gratia in multos effunditur ut eam per Christum 
 accipiant. Or in fine, the genitive may be considered objectively. 
 The grace of God, which through and in the redemption of Christ 
 is imparted to us. ‘his interpretation of Erasmus coincides best 
 with the train of thought. «Ἑνὸς dSeéxov. Paul calls Christ dvSeu- 
 mos, because in respect of his pure humanity he was the founder of a 
 new race; and as the chief point of similitude between him and 
 Adam is, that from both, as progenitors, there emanated respectively, 
 blessings on the one hand and misery on the other, he expressly an- 
 nexes the εἴς. 
 
 V. 16. That which the Apostle had only generally premised in the 
 foregoing verse, he now states with greater exactness, viz. in what con- 
 sists the formal difference between the effects entailed by Adam and 
 those by Christ upon their respective offspring. Erasmus: Siquidem 
 pernicies sic est orta, ut unius peccatum in omnes posteros propaga- 
 retur, atque ita tandem omnes redderet obnoxios; contra, Dei beneficium 
 sic confertur, ut universa omnium delicta jam agglomerata, jam con- 
 firmata, semel Christi morte aboleantur, neque solum aboleantur ad- 
 missa, Verum etiam justitia gratis conferatur. Chrysostom: Kat τί ποτέ 
 ἐστι τοῦτο TO λεγόμενον; OTL τὸν μὲν ϑάνατον καὶ TO xaTaxeLua ἴσχυσεν 
 ἁμαφτία μία εἰσενεγκεῖν" ἡ δὲ χάξις οὐ τὴν μίαν ἐκείνην ἀμαφτίαν ἀνεῖλε 
 μόνον. ἀλλὰ χαὶ τὰς μετ᾽ ἐκείνην ἐπεισελϑδούσας.ἢ Highly expressive 
 are the words of Pelagius: Quia non invenit Adam multam justitiam, 
 quam suo exemplo destrueret, Christus autem gratia suai multorum 
 peccata dissolvit. From this clause, Melancthon beautifully points 
 to the consoling truth, that in the individual, grace uniformly brings 
 to the contest with sin not only equal but superior forces, so as both 
 to annihilate its consequences, ‘and establish an opposite reign. 
 Nothing but a misapprehension of the whole context could have led 
 some, as 6. g. Heumann, to make this sentence interrogative, quasi: 
 “And is it not the same with the gift of grace as it is with sin?”’ 
 
 The Codices D. E. F. G. the Syriac, the Vulgate and the Latin: 
 
 * What means this saying? It is, that one sin availed to introduce death 
 and judgment, but grace not merely took away that single transgression, but 
 those also which followed after it. 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 16. 169 
 
 fathers, all reau ἁμαρτήματος in place of ἁμαξτήσαντος. And a variety 
 of evidence, both internal and external, support this reading. The 
 meaning then becomes, ‘* We are not, however, to suppose as if the 
 redemption came in consequence of one transgression.” ‘The clause 
 would be self-contained, and διὰ πολλῶν ἁμαφτησάντων becomes the 
 antithetic member. But to say nothing of other reasons, such a use 
 of οὐχ ὡς would be too anomalous, inasmuch as we uniformly find it 
 employed in drawing a comparison, and followed by a corresponding 
 οὕτω. It is more probable, that ἁμάφτημα has been interpolated, partly 
 to increase the analogy with magaxrwua in verses 15 and 17, partly 
 in consequence of the subsequent ἐξ ἑνὸς» to which it is necessary to 
 supply παξαπτώματος, and that duagrjoavros, the more difficult read- 
 ing, is nevertheless the more correct. After auaerjoarros there fails 
 a substantive answering to the ddéezua in the comparison. ‘The viva- 
 city of Paul’s mind may have led to its omission. Expositors supply 
 either something perfectly indefinite, as Beza and Piscator: illud 
 quod introiit, or as Michaelis the ““ consequence of sin,’ or more 
 definitely, *‘ that precise consequence of sin here opposed to the ya- 
 φισμα, Which is xecua.’’ So Wolf and others. This is the most 
 natural way, seeing that τὸ yde χεῦμα only resumes the former subject 
 of the Apostle’s thoughts. Accordingly, there are here four points 
 of contrast, Ist, the agents; the one transgressing, the other fulfilling 
 the law. 2d, The actions performed; that of the former, which was 
 a single sin, that of the latter, which concerned numerous sins. 86, 
 The consequences of what they have done; in the one ease, the ob- 
 jective sentence of condemnation, xecuo, which embraces all connected 
 with Adam, and is manifested by the sense of guilt, and in the other 
 case, the objective forgiveness, χάρισμα, of all united with Christ, 
 which appears subjectively, as cheerful confidence towards and peace 
 with God. In fine, the issue of that sentence of condemnation, viz. 
 objective damnation, which, subjectively, displays itself as misery in 
 all who are involved with the first sinner, κατάκριμα, and the issue 
 of the gracious gift of forgiveness, even the objective pardon of be- 
 lievers δικαίωμα, manifested in the subject as perfect holiness, and 
 hence also bliss. In the interpretation of these statements, we must 
 take special care to discriminate between subjective and objective. 
 These cannot indeed be separated in the concrete; for man has nothing 
 subjectively divine, but what he derives from him who is so ob- 
 jectively, and what God says with respect to man is like all divine 
 volition, an operation. His word is deed.- What he wills with re- 
 ference to us is an effect within us. In the language of Paul, who 
 always speaks from the life, from direct intuition, these things are 
 not unnaturally disjoined. ‘The expositors who seized exclusively 
 the one or the other view, have never been able to arrive at perfect 
 perspicuity. Kecua is therefore the objective sentence of rejection, 
 which, in virtue of the holiness entering into the conception of the 
 divine character, God must pronounce upon all who coincide in the 
 bias of their will with Adam. The discovery or revelation of this 
 22 
 
170 CHAPTER V. v. 16,17. 
 
 sentence of rejection on the part of God, is subjectively the sense of 
 sin in man. Rejection issues in damnation, which is manifested in 
 and upon man as misery. 
 
 τὸ μὲν yae κεὺμα ἐξ ἑνὸς. "To the ἑνὸς we must not here supply 
 ἀνθρώπου, as is done in the Atthiopic version, and by Louis de Dieu. 
 For πολλὰ παξαπτώματα, which immediately follows, is contrasted 
 
 with it. Besides, when man was mentioned at the 12th verse as a 
 sinner, διὰ and not ἐξ, was the preposition made use of. It would be 
 better to supply xaganrauaros, and regard ἑνὸς as the genitive mascu- 
 line, and then to consider πολλῶν as in the same case and gender, 
 which is what Le Dieu proposes. In defence of this, we might ap- 
 peal to the δὲ ἑνὸς Gpaetnoavtos, OF in v. 17, to the τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς Maeantw- 
 ματι. ‘The meaning would thus be left the same, and only the point 
 of comparison slightly modified. Bengel: unus lapsus, unius hominis, 
 multi lapsus, multorum. ‘The ἐξ has here another signification, than 
 in the 2x ἴῃ ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων. Itstates the cause, by. Michae- 
 lis: in consequence of sin. 
 
 εἰς xaraxecua. The verb ἐγένετο is to be supplied. The εἰς» as in 
 Hebrew, shows what a thing becomes. ‘The xazaxecvew is the effect 
 of the xecvew, wherever wickedness exists. 1 Cor. 11. 32. 
 
 Δικαίωμα denotes objectively the act of justifying, subjectively the 
 condition of being obedient to the law, 2. e. perfect holiness, which 
 condition, in respect of the objective announcement, is the beginning, 
 and in respect of the subjective realization, is the end of redemption. 
 In Baruch ii. 17 and 18, διχαίωμα and δικανοσύνη stand parallel to 
 each other in the sense of obedience to the law. At the 18th verse, 
 below, we have instead of it, δικαίωσις Guys, justification which 
 brings divine hfe with it. This justification is wrought out by the 
 δωξεὰ διχαιοσύνης. 
 
 V. 17 Corresponds with the 15th, inasmuch as it expresses 
 generally, how it might have been expected from divine grace, that 
 its efiicacy would be more powerful than that of sin. But whereas, 
 at v. 16, the sinner’s state was described more objectively, 2. 6. in his 
 relation to the divine holiness, or according as he must appear in the 
 eyes of God, here the Apostle rather describes him subjectively, or as 
 he is in himself, ὁ. e. his misery, and at once places in juxtaposition 
 the blessedness of the man who is, and the wretchedness of him who 
 is not redeemed. Calvin beautifully paints this contrast of the two 
 kingdoms, entered the one by birth, the other by regeneration: Ut 
 misera peccati hereditate potiaris, satis est esse hominem, residet 
 enim in carne et sanguine; ut Christi justitia fruaris, fidelem esse ne-- 
 cessarium est, quia fide acquiritur ejus consortium. 
 
 εβασύλευσεν ὃ θάνατος. ‘There is elevation in the thought of Bengel: 
 Sermo preteriti temporis ex ceconomia gratie respicit in cconomiam ° 
 peccati, ut mox regnabunt futurum ex ceconomia peccati prospicit 
 in economiam vite et vite perennis. 
 
 πεξισσείαν τῆς xaevtos. Wherein this consists, is expressed by the 
 dweea τῆς δικαιοσύνης, Which immediately follows. By fellowship 
 
CHAPTER V. v. 17, 18. 171 
 
 with Christ, man becomes a partaker of the πνεῦμα and thereby of 
 the δικαιοσύνην which subjective δικαιοσύνη is the effect of acceptance 
 of the objective announcement of it. This δικαιοσύνη is subjectively 
 the 2a7 of God in man; its issue is yet to come ineternity. See Com. 
 on v. 12, John iv. 14. See also verse 18, the 2.7, v. 19, the fut. 
 κατασταθήσονταυ, V. 21, εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, Chap. vi. 21, τὸ τέλος ζωὴ 
 αἰώνιος. Hence it is that the Apostle uses the future βασυλεύουσι. 
 The βασιλεύειν of Christians in the life to come denotes the higher 
 degree of perfection in power to which, with their forerunner Christ, 
 they shall be raised, John xvii, 24, Matth. xix. 28, 2 Tim. ii. 12, 
 Heb. vi. 20. The parallelism is not strictly observed, in as far as in 
 this place the subject is not the bliss, but the redeemed who partake 
 of it. Chrysostom: Ἰτολλῷ yae πλείονα ὧν ὀφείλομεν χατέβαλεν 6 Χεισ- 
 τὸς, καὶ τοσούτῳ πίλείονο ὅσῳ πρὸς ῥανίδα pexedy πέλαγος ἄπείξον. Μὴ 
 τοίνυν ἀμφύβαλλε, ἀνϑξωπε, τοσοῦτον πλοῦτον ὁρὼν wWyaSar, μηδὲ ζήτευ 
 πῶς ὁ σπινδὴξ ἐκεῖνος TOV ϑανάτου καὶ τῆς ἁμαδτίας EAVSY, τοσαύτης ϑαλάτ- 
 τῆς χαξισμάτων ἐπενεχθείσης αὐϑῷ.ἕ 
 
 V.18. With the majority of commentators, as we before stated, 
 this verse passes for a continuation of the 12th, and dea for the formula 
 of resumption. It is, however, far more natural to consider the deo, 
 as here the particle of inference from the preceding context, and to 
 suppose that the Apostle, after yielding to the glow of his emotions, 
 which urged him to demonstrate how much more powerful had been 
 the efficacy of grace than of sin, wished again to insist upon the re- 
 semblance which, nevertheless, obtains between the two heads of 
 mankind. For by the epanorthosis which he has been developing 
 from the 15th verse, it has by no means been denied, that notwith- 
 standing the great diversity, in form and substance, there is much 
 resemblance between the two subjects in what is positive. The 
 genitive ἑνὸς, may be considered, as is done by Clericus and Locke, 
 of the neuter gender, but better, in conformity with verse 17th, as of 
 the masculine. It is remarkable, that in both clauses, the subject is 
 wanting; on which account, the Syrian omits εἰς, before xaraxevua 
 and δυκαίωσις, and makes these words the subjects. But the pre- 
 ceding context shows that xecua and χάρισμα are to be supplied. 
 
 δικαίωμα is here predicated of Christ in precisely the same sense 
 in which at the 16th verse it is ascribed to believers. He realized 
 the ideal of holiness. Viewed in the objective aspect, accordingly, 
 he satisfied all the demands which the holy God could make; in the 
 subjective, he thereby implanted a new principle of life into sinful 
 humanity, and originated a new species of it. By entering into fel 
 lowship with him, and becoming partakers of his holiness, believers 
 
 * Far more than what we owed was paid by Christ, as much more, as the 
 immeasurable ocean exceeds a drop. Doubt not, therefore, O man, when be- 
 holding such a treasure of blessings, nor ask how the old spark of death and 
 of sin has been extinguished, seeing that such a sea of the gift of grace has 
 been poured upon it. 
 
172 CHAPTER Vv. Vv. 19. 
 
 likewise attain to the condition of the δικαίωμα here called δικαίωσιυς. 
 The ζωῆς is genitivus effectus, so however, as that we cannot sepa- 
 rate the effect, even in thought, from its ground in the concrete. In 
 this instance also Paul probably uses 27 in the more comprehensive 
 sense, which we explained at verse 12th, 2. 6. as including the perfect 
 and divine life in eternity. So also, hereafter, in verse 21, εἰς ζωὴν 
 αἰώνιον. 
 
 V.19. The Apostle repeats the statement, giving it at the same 
 time a turn which brings more prominently forward the subjective 
 relation of man to the fall and the redemption. Instead of the more 
 general expressions παξάπτωμα and χάρισμα, he chooses the more 
 specific of παξακοὴ and ὑπακοή. Παξαχοὴ, when used with regard to 
 Adam, may refer either to the transgression of the single command 
 not to eat of the forbidden tree, of which he was guilty, or to the 
 proud disposition of heart, which made him aspire to autonomy, 
 according as we adopt the literal or the symbolical interpretation of 
 the 3d chapter of Genesis. Even in the former case, the desire of 
 autonomy must still be supposed as the basis of the act of disobedi- 
 ence. ‘Thus Augustine: (De pecc. merr. et. rem. ]. 11. 6.19.) Ῥτῶ- 
 cedit in voluntate hominis appetitus quidam propriz potestatis, ut fiat 
 inobediens per superbiam. The entire holy life of our Saviour, on 
 the contrary, is termed ὑπακοὴν inasmuch as holiness is nothing else 
 but subjection to the laws of the one only Being who is a law to him- 
 self, the αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν. ‘This ὑπακοὴ accordingly embraces in indivisi- 
 ble unity, what the Church has split into the obedientia activa and 
 obedientia passiva; which things are also inseparable in the concrete. 
 The active holiness was the perfect love of the Saviour. This im- 
 plied an entrance into the condition of the being who is its object, 
 and who needs to be saved. So did the Redeemer, prompted by 
 love, come into the present state of men, and take upon himself all 
 the consequences of sin which that involves. So did he feel with 
 sinners the magnitude of their apostasy and guilt. So did he bear 
 the sufferings prepared for him by the sin of the race, which he de- 
 signed to deliver from their fall, more especially in his final tortures 
 and death, and hence it was that his active obedience required to 
 manifest itself in suffering. 
 
 χαθίστασθαν has the sense to be made, to become, 6. g. James iv. 4. 
 Interpreters have started the question whether the Apostle here refers 
 to the objective purpose and decree of God, or to the subjective being 
 made a sinner, and being justified on the part of man. Exclusively, 
 as we have already observed at v. 16, neither the one nor the other 
 is ever spoken of. Such separations belong to the theocratical expo- 
 sitions of doctrine. And, therefore, the only question which can pro- 
 perly be made is, which side of the case does the Apostle bring most . 
 into the light. In answer to this, it may be said, that χατασταθήσον- 
 va. gives greater prominence to the subjective. ‘* Owing to the iden- 
 tity of human nature, by means of the inward discord in the mind 
 of Adam, with whom the race was involved, sin and its consequences 
 
CHAPTER V. V. 19, 20. 173 
 
 were entailed upon all. By means of the holiness of the second 
 Head of the race, and in virtue of the spiritual communion and one- 
 ness of believers with him, the δικαιοσύνη is entailed upon them, 
 which shall be still more clearly displayed in the life to come.’’ The 
 Apostle, in like manner as at v. 17, chooses the future tense, because 
 the δικαίωσις and the ζωὴ, during the present life, are incipient, and 
 only reach perfection in the future world. ‘They who cling to the 
 objective view, are obliged to translate χαθίστασθαν declarari, which, 
 however, is a sense that cannot be defended.. Schleusner indeed in 
 his Thesaurus, quotes χαθίστημι from Daniel xiii. 60. (Cod. Chis.) 
 as bearing that signification, but it rather means, coarguere. The 
 Socinian interpretation, which may be found substantially in Chry- 
 sostom and heodoret, which Grotius was the principal means of 
 spreading, and of which Whitby has written a minute defence, (De 
 imput. div. pecc. Adami, Lond. 1711, ο. 3, p. 47, 544.) takes auae- 
 ravew, as formerly at v. 12th, in the metonymical sense, effectus pro 
 
 causa, to become punishable. In the present instance, however, itis } 
 liable to the same objection as in that. From the circumstance of / 
 οἱ πολλοὶ, and not πάντες being used, it is even more impossible to \ 
 
 infer any thing doctrinal than Matth. xxvi. 28, from the weei πολλῶν 
 
 ἐχχυνόμενον. ‘The very use of the article with πολλοὶ shows that the , 
 
 πάντες are here contrasted in a mass with the one. 
 
 V. 20. Paul had set in opposition the two heads of mankind, and 
 the effects which they have respectively produced upon it. He had 
 stated two extensive periods in the developement of the species. Now, 
 here the question naturally arose; what was the purpose of the eco- 
 nomy of the New Testament, if it is the New alone which has 
 formed the great epoch of humanity? He answers this question, by 
 showing the relation of the Old Testament economy to sin. Beauti- 
 ful are here the words of Calvin: Erant quidem naufragi ante legem; 
 quia tamen in suo interitu sibi videbantur natare, in profundum de- 
 mersi sunt, quo illustrior fieret liberatio, quum inde preter humanum 
 sensum emergunt. This author, however, is mistaken, when he 
 supposes the present verse expository of the 13th. 
 
 παξευσῆλθεν. ‘Che παξὰ may here be mute, as for example, Philo: 
 (de Temul. p. 268.) ἄγνοια μήτε φὼς, μήτε λόγον παξευσελθεῖν ἑῶσαν and 
 Polyb. (Hist. ii. 55,3); or it may indicate the secrecy of its incoming, 
 or, best of all, according to the translation of Beza: Preterea introiit, 
 and of Luther: es ist nebeneinkommen. 
 
 ἵνα. Chrysostom: iva, ἐνταῦθα οὐκ αἰτιὀλογίας πάλιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐχβάσεως 
 ἔστιν. Οὐ γὰρ dua τοῦτο ἐδόθη ἵνα πλεονάσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐδόθη μὲν ὥστε μειῶσαι 
 καὶ ἀνελεῖν τὸ παράπτωμα. ἐξέβη δὲ τοὐναντίον; οὐ naga τὴν τοῦ νόμου φύσιν, 
 ἀλλὰ, maga τὴν τῶν δεξαμένων ῥᾳθυμίαν. So also the majority οἵ Ca- 
 
 * The tahere again points not to the intention but to the event. For it (the 
 law) was not given to increase, but that it might diminish and take away sin. 
 The very reverse, however, took place, not from the nature of the law, but 
 from the sloth of those who received it. 
 
 ἂν 
 
174 CHAPTER V. Vv. 20, 21. 
 
 tholic interpreters. But it is manifest that (va is here in fact used 
 τελιχῶς, for it was the Apostle’s intention to show what was the 
 purpose of the law, and all that is requisite is to fix the true meaning 
 of πλεονάση. What Paul meant to express by that word, was how 
 the law ought to have produced the acknowledgment of sin; by which 
 indeed sin itself is increased, inasmuch as its guilt grows with the 
 knowledge of him who commits it, and where that exists in a small 
 degree, the responsibility appears proportionably diminished. See 
 'y. 13. As that, however, is a condition of ἄγνοια or πώξωσις, it re- 
 quires to be done away, and hence, the law must bring to a con- 
 sciousness of variance with God. It is only after this has existed as 
 an interval of transition, that the grace of God can be known. 
 
 ‘Yxeeeneeiocevcey. This compound is again used by St. Paul, 
 2 Cor. vii. 4, and ὑπεεπλεονάφω, 1'Tim.i.14. Bengel: Victi victo- 
 rem vincens, tertius utroque melior est. Hominem vicit peccatum, 
 peccatum vicit gratia, ergo gratie vis maxima. Pelagius: Sicut et 
 Salvator, ‘cui plus dimittitur amplius diligit,’ manifestata est enim 
 quantitas peccati ut sciretur grati# magnitudo, et redderemus com- 
 petens debitum charitatis. Augustine in Psalm cii.: Lex ideo data 
 est, ut crescente peccato, humiliarentur superbi, humiliati confiteren- 
 tur, confessi sanarentur. 
 
 V.21. The Apostle restates what he had already said, v. 17th, 
 and concludes the observations, commenced with the 15th verse, by 
 contrasting once more, in their grand features, the two domains of 
 sin and of grace. Βασιλεύειν has the same meaning as at verse 17th. 
 Δικαιοσύνη Should properly stand immediately opposed to ἁμαρτία" 
 but this Paul avoids, in order to mark emphatically, how all holiness 
 must be traced to its higher source. Here also, as at verse 17th, the 
 Apostle brings forward the final issue, in which the whole work of 
 the διχαίωσις 15 consummated, even the ζωὴ αἰώνιος. 
 
CHAPTER SIXTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 A new subject commences with this chapter. Persons who clave to the law 
 and legal piety, might suppose that, by this doctrine of the ἀπολύτρωσις and 
 χάρις, the Apostle forced the subjective moral agency of man too much 
 into the shade; and that thus the gospel doctrine of salvation might be 
 made auxiliary to sin. Paul now shows the contrary. The χάρις or the 
 πνεῦμα, the operative principle in the heart of the Christian incites him to 
 sanctification. Even the rite of baptism demonstrates that to be his scope. 
 He enters, however, upon a new relation to holiness; and does what is 
 right, not because of the outward law and its stern commands, but in con- 
 sequence of a new and vital impulse within him. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. The moral effect of the doctrine of redemption upon the Christian is in- 
 crease of holiness, as is shown even by the baptismal rite. V.1—11. 
 
 2. Grace and not the law, leads the Christian to sanctification, which is pro- 
 moted by that very circumstance. V.12—19. 
 
 3. Prospect of the final consummation, in which holiness is to be rewarded. 
 V. 20—23. 
 
 PA Rui. ς 
 
 THE MORAL EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE OF REDEMPTION UPON THE 
 CHRISTIAN IS, INCREASE OF HOLINESS, AS IS SHOWN EVEN BY THE 
 BAPTISMAL RITE. v. 1—12. 
 
 V.1. Tuer can be no doubt, if we strictly separate the doctrines 
 of justification and sanctification, that here, after the discussion of 
 the first, the proper place presents itself for treating the second. But 
 it is, as we have already observed, unusual with the Apostle to dis- 
 criminate very nicely objective from subjective. We must not, there- 
 fore, think of seeking, in a systematic arrangement, the reason of his 
 bringing forward, at this place, what we term the doctrine of sanctifi- 
 cation. It was, however, natural for him, after having delineated 
 the grand and novel scheme of salvation, to recollect the insinuations 
 of the legal Judaizer, (c. iii. 8.) who objected to his doctrine of the 
 δυκαίωσις and χάρις, that it only served as an encouragement to sin. 
 
176 CHAPTER VI. v. 1,2. 
 
 This objection he now meets. Calvin justly remarks: Quum huma- 
 no sensui παξαδοξώτατον sit quidquid de Christo predicatur, nihil 
 novi videri debet si, audita fidei justificatione, caro toties, tanquam 
 ad adversos scopulos, impingit. Pergendum est tamen, nec Christus 
 ideo supprimendus, quia multis sit in lapidem offensionis et petram 
 scandali. Qua enim ratione impiis cedet in ruinam, piis vicissim in 
 resurrectionem erit. Sic enim se res habet......in hune finem nos 
 justificari, ut deinde vite puritate Deum colamus......Plus quam igitur 
 prepostera esset operis Dei inversio, si occasione gratize que nobis 
 in Christo offertur peccatum vires colligeret. Neque enim medicina 
 morbi, quem extinguit, fomentum est. It would hence be highly 
 incorrect to follow Chrysostom, in regarding what follows as a set of 
 moral precepts, independent altogether of the preceding context. 
 The Apostle links his discussion upon sanctification to the extraordi- 
 nary statement made at v. 20th of the former chapter. ‘The false 
 inference which he seeks to refute, he had already touched, chap. 
 111. v. 5th and 8th. Compare the commentary at v. 15, 1 Peter ii. 16, 
 Jude iv., where the persons are described, who really perverted in 
 this manner the doctrine of salvation. 
 
 V.2. While the Apostle repugns the false conclusion in question, 
 he was bound, of necessity, to state the grounds, why it is not con- 
 ceivable that the regenerated Christian should continue in sin. ‘The 
 liveliness of his mind, however, prevents him here, in like manner as 
 at chap. 111. v. 3 and 5, from coming to a refutation in form, other- 
 wise he must have shown that what God has effected by the redemp- 
 tion, likewise becomes manifest in those who are the subjects of it, 
 according as at verse 15th of the previous chapter, he adverts to the 
 fact, that the χάρις is not merely objective, something existing ex- 
 ternally of man, but is something operative within him; or as Augus- 
 tine states the argument in prop. 31: Hine ostendit de preteritis pec- 
 catis factum esse ut donarentur, et in eo superasse gratiam ut preterita 
 peccata demitterentur. Ergo quisquis adhuc querit augmenta pec- 
 cati, ut augmentum gratiw sentiat, non intelligit se id agere, ut nihil 
 in eo gratia operetur. Opus enim gratiz est ut moriamur peccato. 
 In place of this answer, he merely replies by the assertion, that the 
 discrepancy is as great between Christianity and sin, as between death 
 and life. Οἵτινες ἀπεδάνομεν. ‘This verb, with the dative, denotes 
 being dead in reference to a particular object, Gal. ii. 19. So ζῇν, 
 1 Peter ii. 24. ‘The natural man has pleasure in sin, and no com- 
 mandment has power to root that feeling from his heart. Upon a 
 believing surrender of the soul to Christ, however, the new principle 
 of life takes its rise within him, the yaecs, the consciousness of the 
 love of God manifested towards him in the redemption. ‘Thus Chry- 
 sostom: Τί δέ ἐστιν, νεκροὺς αὐτῇ γεγονέναι; τὸ πρὸς μηδὲν ὑπακούειν αὐτῇ 
 λουπόν᾽ τοῦτο yae τὸ μὲν βάπτισμα ἐποίησεν ἅπαξ, ἐνέκρωσεν Huas αὐτῇ- 
 dec δὲ λοιπὸν παξὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σπουδῆς κατοφθοῦσθαν αὐτὸ Sunvexus. 
 ὥστε, κἃν μυξία ἐπιτάττῃ; μηκέτι ὑπακούειν, ἀλλὰ μένειν ἀκίνητον ὥσπερ 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 3. ΤΣ 
 
 τὸν νεχρόν. A similar expression to the ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ is 
 the following used by Philo. (Qwod det. Pot. Insid. p. 164. ed. Fr.): 
 ὁ ΓΑβελ, τὸ παραδοξώτατον, ἀνήξηταί τε καὶ ζῇ. ᾿Ανήξηταυ μὲν tx τῆς 
 τοῦ apeovos διανοίας» δῇ δὲ τὴν ἐν θεῷ ζωὴν εὐδαίμονα. 
 
 V.3. The Apostle ought now to show, that by virtue of the very 
 nature of the doctrine they profess, Christians must appear dead in 
 respect of sin, and in how far this is the case. All that he does, 
 however, is to appeal to the well-known baptismal rite, whose sym- 
 bolical meaning he explains, thereby endeavouring to demonstrate, 
 how a spiritual regeneration is necessarily connected with the recep- 
 tion of Christianity. ‘The basis of what he delivers is the thought, 
 that every endeavour after salvation, and acquiescence in the Christian 
 scheme of it, presupposes a sense of the need of emancipation from 
 sin. ὅσου, more forcibly than οἵτινες, shows the universality of the 
 Christian obligation to be inwardly conformed to the death of the 
 Saviour. 
 
 ἐβαπιτίσϑημεν εἰς Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν. The εἰς expresses the same as the 
 baptismal formula, Matt. xxviii. 19, although ὄνομα is here wanting. 
 That word in the formula, as elsewhere the Hebrew dw, seems indeed 
 to be pleonastic; of which the special proof is the observation of Vi- 
 tringa, (Observ. Sacre, Frankf. 1700, 1. ili. c. 22.) that among the 
 Rabbins, a similar expression was used in the baptism of proselytes, 
 When the proselyte, for example, is a slave, the master declares 
 whether he chooses still to keep him as a slave, or to grant him his 
 freedom, and, in doing so, uses ihe following words, |W 12 Dw2 430 
 or 13 nwa 020 “to baptize in the name of a freeman’? or “in that of 
 aslave.”” It but remains to inquire what the εἰς in the baptismal 
 form signifies. Usually it is explained as meaning info the acknow- 
 ledgment. Now that sense it certainly may have, but to pass over 
 other grounds, there are certain parallel passages against it, 6. g. 1 
 Cor. i. 13, Id. x. 2, Id. xii. 13, in which it rather seems to denote 
 participation in that with which it is construed. In the present 
 case, consequently, it would imply znto participation of the blessings 
 of Christ’s grace. 
 
 εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ. ‘The preposition has obviously the same 
 meaning here, as in the preceding context, and that, according to the 
 explication we have given, is also highly suitable to the scope, viz. 
 ‘that if baptized into fellowship with Christ in general, we must also 
 be baptized into fellowship with his death.” So Ambrose. (De 
 Sacram. |. II. c. 7.) Chrysostom: εἰς τὸ ἀποθανεῖν ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος. 
 Bengel says excellently: Qui baptizatur, induit Christum, Adamum 
 
 * But what means, To have become dead to sin? It means to obey it in 
 nothing any more. This result baptism hath accomplished for us once, hay- 
 ing slain us in regard to sin. Henceforth it is incumbent upon us to carry 
 this death, by our own pains, continually into effect, so as even although sin 
 command us a thousand times, to remain motionless like a corpse. 
 
 + Abel, marvellous to tell, is taken away, and yet lives. He is taken away 
 from a foolish understanding, and lives the life of blessedness in God. 
 
 23 
 
178 CHAPTER VI. V. 4. 
 
 secundum; in Christum, inquam, totum, adeoque etiam in mortem 
 ejus baptizatur, et perinde est, ac sieo momento Christus pro tali 
 homine, et talis homo cum Christo, pateretur, moriretur, sepeliretur. 
 So also Bucer. In this view βαπτίξεσθαν εἰς τὸν ϑάνατον αὐτοῦ is not 
 different from the συνεσταυφώθημεν which occurs, Rom. vi. 6, and Gal. 
 ii. 20. 
 
 V.4. The figurative expressions ἀπεδάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ leads the 
 Apostle to compare Christ’s bodily with our spiritual death, and 
 thence to deduce the obligation incumbent upon Christians to sacrifice 
 their life of sin, as the Saviour sacrificed his earthly existence. He 
 had said that the right of baptism, which takes place at the entrance 
 into Christianity, manifests that it is the will of the Christian to con- 
 ‘form spiritually to the death of Christ. The very obvious idea here- 
 upon occurs to him, that the baptismal symbol itself may be regarded 
 as a figure of the death of Christ, and accordingly he in this verse 
 represents the Christian undergoing baptism, as being in some sort 
 buried with his Saviour. Having proceeded thus far with the em- 
 blematical meaning of baptism and the death of Christ, it was natural 
 for the Apostle to assimilate in like manner the coming out of baptism, 
 and the resurrection of Christ, which accordingly he does. We find 
 at another place the same symbolical allusion, Col. 11. 12. For the 
 explanation of this figurative description of the baptismal rite, it is 
 necessary to call the attention to the well known circumstance, that, 
 in the early days of the church, persons when baptized, were first 
 plunged below, and then raised above the water, to which practice, 
 according to the direction of the Apostle, the early Christians gave 
 a symbolical import. See Suiceri Thes. T. I. sub voce ᾿Αναδύσις- 
 In the same sense Chrysostom on the third chap. of John, observes: 
 Καθάπερ γὰρ ἔν tut τάφῳ τῷ ὕδατυ χαταδνόντων ἡμῶν τὰς κεφαλας ὃ πα- 
 λαιὸς ἄνθρωπος δϑάπτεται; καὶ χαταδὺς κάτω χρύτίτεται ὅλος καθάπαξ.ἢ 
 
 Συνετάφημεν. "The συν here expresses similarity quasi, donee αὖτος» 
 Rom. viii. 17; Col. iii. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 11. The Apostle uses the 
 word buried in place of died, as being more emphatic. Bengel: 
 Sepultura mortem ratam facit. Melancthon: Sepelimur autem una 
 cum Christo, quia postquam natura nostra mortificari ccepit, pecca- 
 tum sepultum est dupliciter. Primum imputatione, quanquam enim 
 reliquiz manent, tamen sunt condonate. Secundo, quod ad affectum 
 attinet, quia natura vitiosa desinit esse efficax. At nondum sumus 
 glorificati. Quare etsi sumus justi, tamen jacemus sepulti exspec- 
 tantes glorificationem, sicut Paulus inquit: Vita nostra abscondita est 
 cum Christo, id est, etsi habemus gloriam, justitiam, vitam, tamen 
 hee gloria latet adhuc tecta cum Christo donec resuscitabimur. ‘The 
 οὖν is here requisite to denote the continuance of the sense. In ex- 
 plication of it, Seb. Schmidt very justly applies the following canon: ° 
 Particulz illative non semper conclusiones precedentibus subjungunt, 
 
 * For when we sink our heads in the water, as if it were in a tomb, the old 
 man is buried, and going down is hidden entire and at once. 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 4, 5. 179 
 
 et ex jis inferunt formales, sed seepe quid, uno alterove posito, dicen- 
 dum porro sit, et ex iis inferendum: Inasmuch, viz. as συνετάφημεν 1s 
 here in no respect different from the ἀπεθάνομεν. 
 
 εἰς τὸν ϑάνατον. Calovius, Castalio, Seb. Schmidt, and Wolf, have, 
 in a very forced manner, connected this clause with the verb ovvera- 
 onuev, understanding it to mean the death of sin. But if such were the 
 case, some supplementary clause would here have been absolutely 
 necessary, Seeing εἰς ϑάνατον occurred before referring to the death of 
 Christ. Hence the ancients, and Homberg, Chr. Schmid, and other 
 moderns construe εἰς τὸν ϑάνατον With βαπτίσματος, and again under- 
 stand it to signify the death of Christ, into fellowship with which 
 believers are baptized. 
 
 διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός. Beza supposes that there is here a mis- 
 take of the case, and that it should be εἰς τὴν δόξαν. Castalio and 
 Carpzovius consider the διὰ with the noun to be used for the adjec- 
 tive, and translate; in paterna gloria resurrexit. But Camerarius 
 refutes this interpretation, and renders correctly: Per potentiam glo- 
 riosam. The word δόξα, to wit, in Heb. 1323, as Bucer likewise 
 observes, means generally, singularis presentia divinitatis. It denotes 
 the sum of all the divine perfections, and hence also any single, pe- 
 culiarly prominent attribute. So in Ps. Ixviii. 34, and Is. xii. 2. the 
 Hebrew iy is rendered δόξα, Col. i. 2, xearos τῆς δόξης. We may 
 therefore take 5.a with the genitive in its usual signification. Tees- 
 πατεῖν is a copy of the Hebrew phrase ]7n7 or 797 to lead a mode 
 of life. Καινότης ξωῆς likewise a Hebraism for χαυνὴ ζωή, 
 
 V. 5. Some look upon this verse as demonstrative of the foregoing. 
 So Mylius, who says, that the Apostle states the reason why Chris- 
 tians, by conforming to the death of the Lord, must likewise conform 
 to his resurrection. ‘The reason is twofold. One is given meta- 
 phorically; Christians being incorporated with the Saviour, as the 
 graft is with the tree, must share all things with him. ‘The other is 
 derived from the necessary connexion between death and resurrec- 
 tion. It is better, however, to consider the verse as an explanatory 
 appendage. 
 
 Siupveos. The old interpreters took this word in its primary 
 meaning. ‘The Vulgate translates: complantati facti sumus; the 
 Syriac: una plantati sumus; Beza: plantati coaluimus; and Chrysos- 
 tom thus comments: τῷ τῆς PTE Las ὀνόματι τὸν ἐκ ταύτης καρπὸν ἥμιν 
 αἰνιξάμενος. Καθάπεξ yae τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ταφὲν ἐν τῇ γῇ» καξπὸν τῆς 
 οἰκουμένης τὴν σωτηξίαν ἡνεγκεν᾽ οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἡμέτερον ταφὲν ἐν τῷ βατσί- 
 TLOMATL, καρπὸν ἤνεγχε τὴν δικαιοσύνην, τὸν ἁγιωσμὸν, τὴν υἱοθεσίαν, τὰ 
 μνεία ἀγαθά. In the same sense also, Calvin beautifully says: In- 
 
 * By the word planting, he alludes to the fruit we reap from his death; for, 
 as his body, when buried in the earth, produced the salvation of the whole 
 world, so ours also, when buried in baptism, has borne the fruits of righteous- 
 ness, sanctification, adoption, and a thousand blessings. 
 
180 CHAPTER VI. v. 5. 
 
 sitio non tantum exempli conformitatem designat, sed arcanam con 
 junctionem, per quam cum ipso coaluimus, ita ut nos spiritu suo 
 vegetans, ejus virtutem in nos transfundat. Ergo ut surculus com- 
 munem habet vite et mortis conditionem cum arbore in quam insertus 
 est, ita vite Christi non minus quam et mortis participes nos esse 
 consentaneum est. And Bengel: Omnis vis vegetativa spiritualis est 
 in Christo, eaque in baptismum collata est. So also Beza, Bucer, 
 and Heumann. vupvros and συμφυὴς, however, signify no more 
 than συγγενὴς and συνών. Plato de leg. i. 10. ὅτι μὲν ἡγῆ Seovs, ovy- 
 γένειά τις ἴσως σὲ meds τὸ ξύμφυτον ἄγει τιμᾷν καὶ νομίξειν εἶναι: Where 
 ξύμφυτον is equivalent to συγγενές. Hesychius explains σύμφυτον by 
 ovpnogevousvoy and ovvdy, according to which it here differs in no re- 
 spect from ὅμοιος. Now as ὁμοίωμα, with a noun in the genitive, is 
 a Hebraism for the adjective ὅμοιός cove, SO σύμφυτοι τῷ ὁμοιώματιυ τοῦ 
 Sovarov αὐτοῦ is merely a pleonastic expression for ὁμοίως ἀπεθάνομεν 
 ὥσπερ αὐτὸς, OF ἐν τῷ ϑανάτῳ αὐτοῦ ὅμοιον αὐτῷ γεγόναμεν. 
 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ is the particle indicating a climax, and usually stands in 
 the conclusion after conditional premises. See Palairet Observ. 
 
 τῆς ἀναστάσεως. "[Ὸ this genitive we must again supply τῷ ὁμοιώ- 
 pare, NOt μέτοχοι aS Hrasmus and Heumann incorrectly suggest. ‘The 
 translation of Luther, ** we shall be like the resurrection,”’ is false. 
 The sense is as follows: By conquering death, Christ completed his 
 terrestrial task, 7. e. his existence in fellowship with humanity, bur- 
 dened with the consequences of sin. As a risen Christ, he had 
 already entered upon his exaltation, as he indeed appears not to have 
 lived habitually upon the earth. In like manner we, so soon as we 
 have in baptism acknowledged our sins and received pardon, are 
 bound to arise to a new existence, which is founded on heavenly- 
 mindedness. Chrysostom: καὶ πὼς ἀνάστασις; τῆς μὲν Guaerias νεκξω- 
 ϑεύσης, τῆς δὲ δικαιοσύνης ἀνασγάσης: καὶ 775 μὲν Maracas ζωῆς ἀφανυσϑείση ς» 
 Ins δὲ καινῆς 7Ταύήης καὶ ἀγγελικῆς πιολυτευομένης. ὅταν δὲ ἀχούσῃς καυνὴν 
 ζωὴν πολλὴν ξήτευ δὴν ἐναλλαγὴν» καὶ μεγάλην τὴν μεταβολὴν. ἀλλὰ yae 
 Saxevoar μοι λοιπὸν ἔπεισιν, xai στενάξαι μέγα, ὅταν ἐννοήσω πίόσην μὲν 
 ἡμᾶς ἀπαιτεῖ φιλοσοφίαν ὃ ἸΤαῦλος, πόσῃ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς ἐξεδώκαμεν ῥαθυμίᾳ, 
 μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα ἐπὶ τὸ πεότεξον ἐπανιόντες γήξας» καὶ εἰς τὴν Αὔγυπτον 
 ἀνακάμτιτοντες» καὶ σκορόδων μεμνημένου μετὰ τὸ μάννα.“ 
 
 ᾿Εσόμεθα. ‘The future tense here occasions difficulty, for it seems 
 to intimate that ἀνάστασις means the resurrection of the body. So 
 Cicumenius: Molas ἀναστάσεως; τῆς ὅταν ἀναστῶμεν. Καὶ dea ἀγαθό- 
 
 * How is this resurrection? It takes place in the death of sin and the re- 
 storation of righteousness, in the disappearance of the old, and the reign of a 
 new and angelical life. And when you hear mention made of a new Life, be 
 sure that implies a great change and diversity. For myself, 1 forthwith burst’ 
 into tears and groans, when I reflect what strictness Paul demands of us, and 
 to what indolence we have given ourselves up, relapsing after baptism into 
 
 our previous old age, returning to Egypt, and hankering after the garlic though 
 we have tasted the manna. 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 5, 6. 181 
 
 ἕητα Θεοῖ. τὸν μὲν ϑάνατον τοῦ χυξίον; ὡς ἐν eixdve ἀπεθάνομεν, τῆς δὲ 
 ἀναστάσεως, ἀληθὼς κοινωνήσομεν.ὃ If bodily resurrection is meant, it is 
 not easy to bring the passage into concord with the previous and sub- 
 sequent context. Now, if we follow the bulk of the commentators, 
 and suppose, as the connection certainly requires, that allusion is 
 made to spiritual resurrection, then the circumstance of the verb being 
 in the future, either expresses obligation, ‘*so owght we also to be,”’ 
 a sense which Raphelius endeavours to justify grammatically; (An- 
 nott. in Herod) or following Baumgarten, we must interpret it as sig- 
 nifying, ‘* that in the present life the Christian never attains to com- 
 plete spiritual resurrection.’ This interpretation seems to be verified 
 by verse 8. Most to the purpose, is the supposition of Limborch, 
 that both meanings, the resurrection of the spirit, and the resurrection 
 of the body, blended together in the Apostle’s mind when he used 
 the word ἀνάστασις» inasmuch as the latter may in some sort be re- 
 garded as the complement of the former, it being only after the re- 
 moval of the Christian from this earth, that the perfect 2.7 begins. 
 See observations at chap. v. verse 12 and 17. In compliance with 
 this view, viz. that the external ἀνάστασις is but as it were the com- 
 pletion of that which has already taken place within, the Saviour 
 himself in the 5th chap. of John, connects the description of the 
 former immediately with that of the latter. 
 
 V. 6. The Apostle proceeds to extend the emblematical compari- 
 son, and now applies the particular kind of death which our Saviour 
 suffered, spiritually to believers. He again unites this proposition 
 with the foregoing, by the participle instead of a finite tense of the 
 verb, a construction which is especially frequent with the verbs εὐδέ- 
 var and γιγνώσκειν. See numerous examples from Polybius in Ra- 
 phelius, note Polybb. Grotius well: Modo hoe infigamus animo. 
 Ὃ παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος. As we have already hinted, at chap. ii. 20, the 
 Israelite regarded the Gentile who joined himself to the external 
 theocracy, as undergoing a new birth. So the Talmud expresses it, 
 Tr. Jevamoth, f. 62,1. ‘*A proselyte who comes over is like alittle 
 child,’ upon which passage Maimonides remarks, “ and his relatives 
 are his relatives no more.”’ By entering into entirely new relations 
 of life, such a person was looked upon as another man, so that the 
 common appellation of proselytes was ΓΦ ΓΙ AN 2, new creature. 
 This mode of speech was, it is probable, transferred by our Saviour 
 from the old to the new dispensation, John iii. under which the mind 
 becomes more spiritualized, and which required not merely an exter- 
 nal renunciation of the previous course of life, but an inward with- 
 drawal and separation from all former relations, Language referring 
 in the same way to the Old ‘Testament theocracy, appears to have 
 
 * What resurrection does he mean? That which takes place when we rise 
 from the grave. And mark the goodness of God. We have died only in the 
 likeness of the Lord’s death. But in the resurrection we shall have real fel- 
 lowship with him. 
 
182 CHAPTER VI. V. 6. 
 
 been transferred by Paul to Christians, when he discriminates between 
 the παλαιὸς and the χαυνὸς ἄνθδωπος. Schittgen tells us that, in Sohar 
 Chadash, the fallen Adam, (an expression often used by Cabalistical 
 authors, only as the symbol of humanity not yet assimilated to its 
 prototype, 7. 6. of man as a sinner) whom they also call ‘the evil 
 nature,’’ is also denominated 20 O78 the old Adam. As every hu- 
 man being in his natural state bears the image of the fallen Adam, so 
 ought every Christian to exhibit instead of that the image of the glo- 
 rified and holy Jesus. ‘lhe whole previous being of the individual, in 
 knowledge, sentiment, and volition, should be renewed and changed 
 by virtue of fellowship with the Saviour, into which we are brought 
 by the redemption. It is hence manifest, what profound meaning 
 there lies in that appellation, seeing that all human wisdom and doc- 
 trine improve only partially. 'Theodoret at Col. iii. 9: παλαιὸν dv- 
 Beano τὴν προτέραν ἐκάλεσε σίολιτείαν. Of the new Adam he says at 
 verse 10: “Avadev ἡμᾶς ἐδημιούξγησεν ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς; καὺ τοὺς τῆς θείας 
 εἰκόνος χαξαχτῆξας: οὖς ἡ ἁμαρτία διέφθειρεν, ἀκρυβέστεξον ἐν Hucy ἐξετύ- 
 πωσε. Itis a very perverted interpretation which is given by Seb. 
 Schmid: Vetus homo est collapsus, novus integer!! 
 
 Συνεστανεῴθη. ‘The application here.made of the special kind of 
 death suffered by our Saviour, to the spiritual death of the old man, is 
 the more emphatic, inasmuch as the former is peculiarly accompanied 
 with pain, and resembles the way in which the love of sin is actually 
 extinguished in the Christian. Crucifixion, first painfully robs a 
 man of all power ofaction. He still lives, but lives under constraint 
 and torture. By slow degrees does he sink away, until the breaking 
 of his limbs puts an end to him at last. In like manner might it be 
 said, is the love of sin pierced through by the impressions which the 
 Holy Spirit makes upon the heart. It can no more do what it 
 would, but still it does not expire. As the opposite thirst for holiness, 
 however, which flows from and keeps pace with the believer’s grow- 
 ing passion for his soul’s invisible friend, augments in fervour, the 
 love of sin feels itself miserable and tormented, and declines apace 
 until death inflicts upon it the finishing stroke, and conducts the 
 Christian, purified by the contest, into the peaceful bosom of his 
 Saviour. 
 
 iva καταργηθῇ. Beza: Notandum est proponi metam sanctifica- 
 tionis non quasi ad eam usque jam in hae vita perveniemus, sed quo- 
 niam ad eam contendimus ac tandem etiam pervenerimus, quum vi- 
 delicet Deus erit omnia in omnibus. 
 
 σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας. We can suppose a fourfold way of interpret- 
 ing this expression. The first is, that a body is metaphorically at- 
 tributed to sin. So Chrysostom: οὐ τὸ σῶμα τοῦτο οὕτω καλὼν; ἀλλὰ 
 τὴν πονηξίαν ἅπασαν. ὥσπερ yae παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον river τὴν ὁλόκληρον 
 χαχίαν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ σῶμα Tov ἀνθεώπου ἐκείνου τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν διαφόρων 
 
 * Originally the God of all created us, and stamped more correctly the 
 characters of the divine image, which sin corrupted. 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 6. 183 
 
 μερὼν πονηξίας συγκειμένην mud κακίαν. ἢ Origen gives the same in- 
 terpretation along with another. So also Pelagius: Hoc est, ut om- 
 nia vitia destruantur. Quia unum vitium membrum est peccati, om- 
 nia corpus totum. ‘Thomas Aquinas: Congeries malorum operum, 
 which is the interpretation many give to σῶμα in chap. vil. 24. This 
 sense is here adopted by Erasmus, Grotius, Limborch, Koppe, and 
 Wolf. But, although we may metaphorically consider sin as a man 
 to whom bodily members are attributed, it is less natural to give a 
 body to sin, more especially as the Apostle makes no farther appli- 
 cation of this comparison, as he does in that other passage where he 
 speaks of the members of a metaphorical body. A second way is to 
 understand σῶμα in the sense which owe generally bears, human na- 
 ture weak and abandoned by the quickening Spirit of God. No 
 passage, however, can be pointed out where there is a necessity for 
 giving this meaning to σῶμα. ‘There is none even at Rom. viii. 10. 
 It is a meaning which, in Hebrew, cleaves exclusively to the word 
 “wa, and hence, in the Hellenistic, always to the corresponding caeé. 
 A third interpretation is as follows; Σῶμα may be used in like man- 
 ner, as in the language of the Rabbins oxy and 411, for intensifying 
 the following noun, as it were the being of sin, an exemplification of 
 which we would have in Rom. vii. 24, and perhaps also in Col. i. 
 22. This resemblance to the Hebrew 4) and Oxy is here supposed 
 by Clarius, Hammond, Schittgen, Conrad Vorst, and Glassius, (Phi- 
 lol. Sacra. p. 1234 and 1654,) only that these expositors hold σῶμα 
 to be purely periphrastic, as the Hebrew words frequently are. It 
 is better, however, to consider it as giving intensity to the noun it 
 governs. ΠῚ ‘D1 among the Rabbins means substantialia legis. In 
 Greek, also, σῦμα frequently signifies the mass.’ Aristotle says, 
 Probl. xxiv. 9, τὸ σῶμα τὸ τοῦ ὕδατος πᾶν. Hence, Schneider has 
 defined σῶμα, “any whole composed of parts or members.”” Now, 
 although the views of the word which we have stated, and more 
 especially the last, are by no means inadmissible, still the most na- 
 tural way is, to take σῶμα in its usual sense, to regard the following 
 noun in the genitive case as used, instead of the adjective ἁμαφτητι- 
 κὸν, (in like manner, as Plato says, φύσις τῆς ἀσθενείας.) and to sup- 
 pose that Paul speaks directly of that kind of sin which manifests 
 itself in the body, partly because sensuality and intemperance are 
 the most ordinary and apparent offences, partly because the compa- 
 ‘ rison with the crucified Saviour is thus most easily drawn. So also 
 below, at v. 12, 7. and 24, and chap. viii. 10,13. The xavagyev 
 naturally refers to the ἁμαρτητιχὸν and not to the σῶμα. Δουλεύειν. In 
 Scripture this expression is used to denote the relation of man to the 
 power of good as well as to that of evil, which shall be more fully 
 
 * Tt is not to the body itself that he gives this name, but to sinfulness in 
 general. For as he elsewhere denominates the whole of sin the old man, in 
 like manner, considering it as composed of the various constituent parts of 
 wickedness, he now calls it the body of that man. 
 
 » 
 
184 CHAPTER VI. V. 7, 8. 
 
 explained at verse 16th. Man is purely an organ; he must either 
 devote himself to the service of God, in doing which he is truly 
 free; or to the service of that which is contrary to God, and then he 
 ever more and more annihilates the idea of his own being. 
 
 V.7. Paul further corroborates what he has just said, by a general 
 proposition. ‘This proposition may be understood in three different 
 ways. Let ἀποθνήσκειν be taken in its spiritual meaning, and δικαυόω 
 as signifying acquit, deliver, and there will result the following sense 
 of the words: “" He who is spiritually dead with Christ is freed from 
 sin.”’ Such is the sense adopted by Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 and Limborch. Or let guaez’a be supposed to mean the guilt or 
 penalty of sin, δικαίοῦν would then signify, to justify, absolve judi- 
 cially, and guided by the Talmudic sentence, Sanhedr. ὁ. 6, D’SOn 
 52 macnn mn. Let my death atone for all my sins, we 
 should obtain the following meaning. ‘Since Christ has suffered 
 death, and the believer is one with Christ, so has he also died for 
 sin, and consequently is now free from its penalty.”’ So Jac. Alting, 
 Wolf, Carpzovius, and others. It appears most natural, however, 
 that as the Apostle is applying to the Christian spiritually, what is 
 true of the corporeal death and resurrection of Christ, he in like man- 
 ner transfers also the laws which came into operation on the death of 
 the body to spiritual mortification. So 'Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 (icumenius, Beza, and others. In this view it would be best to 
 translate it, “‘ He that is dead bodily has no more to do with sin.” 
 Thus the Talmud, in Tr. Nidda, declares, “ΓΘ man who dies is 
 freed from the commandments. So also Philo (1. 1, Alleg. towards 
 the close:) εἰ ἀποθάνοιμεν ἀπηλλαγμένη ἡ ψυχὴ (ἔσται) κακοῦ καὸ vexeov 
 σώματος. Precisely similar is the statement, 1 Peteriv. 1. The 
 διχαιοῦσθαυ Means in ‘that case the same as ἐλευθεφοῦσθαν Which is 
 employed in the 18th verse, inasmuch as liberation is the consequence 
 of justification and acquittal. 
 
 V.8. What the Apostle here appends does not ‘differ from what 
 is said in verse 5th. It rather seems that he wishes merely to im- 
 press that statement more deeply, and hence repeats it in a somewhat 
 more comprehensive form. He shows, to wit, that Christ had been 
 subjected to mortality only for a brief period, and to death but once, 
 while, on the contrary, the state of glory upon which he entered at 
 the resurrection is eternal; and he infers, that in the second birth, 
 there is imparted to the Christian a seed (1 John iii. 9) which is in- 
 destructible, and which unfolds itself in evergrowing glory and bliss 
 through all eternity. Regeneration, he thus intimates, is not merely 
 a resurrection, but an eternal resurrection, upon which no death shall 
 ever intrude. Πιστεῦομεν ὅτι χαὺ συξήσομεν. The Apostle, in verse 
 5th, had made use of the future ἐσόμεθα. He does the same here, - 
 only adding, that the life of union with the Saviour is a subject of 
 faith; and ‘the reason why he adds this is, that he looks upon that 
 life to come as an uninterrupted continuation, as but the completion 
 and exaltation of the life that now is. As it doth not yet appear what 
 
CHAPTER v1. v. 9, 10. 185 
 
 we shall be, when our life, which is now hid in God, shall be re- 
 vealed, the Apostle has good grounds for representing the full accom- 
 plishment of our spiritual resurrection as a matter of faith. Erasmus: 
 Igitur si commortui sumus Christo mortuo, a pristinis vitiis liberi, 
 confidimus fore ejusdem beneficio, ut posthac per vite inculpate in- 
 nocentiam una cum vivente vivamus, et ita vivamus, ne relabamur 
 unquam in mortem, et in hoc Christi simulacrum quoad fieri potest 
 referentes. Neque enim ille sic resurrexit, ut denuo jus aliquod 
 morti in se permitteret, sed revixit immortalis deinde futurus. 
 
 V.9. For the purpose of establishing the redemption, the guiltless 
 Jesus had once entered this earthly sphere, which has been subverted 
 by the consequences of sin, and, as connected with it, had taken 
 upon himself the θάνατος. ‘That being accomplished, death has no 
 more influence upon him. xverevew seems to involve the idea of a 
 usurped power, for properly, as Christ was an innocent being, there 
 was no reason why he should die. 
 
 V. 10. ‘The Apostle states the reason why, in the instance of 
 Christ, death can only once take effect. Here we have first to re- 
 mark, with respect to the punctuation, that the Greek interpreters 
 place the comma before éuaezria, which is correct. While the Syriac, 
 the Vulgate, Erasmus and others, place it after that word, which 
 yields a sense no doubt, but by no means so apposite a one. ‘To 
 justify the latter punctuation, it does not suffice to urge that τῇ auae- 
 τίῳ and τῷ Θεῷ do not form a suitable antithesis. In point of fact, 
 ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτίῳ Should not form a counterpart to ζῆν τῷ Θεῷ; 
 the object of the Apostle being, as it frequently is, to make only a 
 formal parallelism. Following on the other hand the more generally 
 received mode of pointing, which places the comma before duaeria, 
 we find here a very adequate reason assigned why Christ could not 
 die more than once. (CE£cumenius: Kai τοσοῦτον οὐκ ἔτι ἀποθανεῖται, 
 Ore ἔχεῖνο τὸ ἅπαξ 6 ἀπέθανεν, οὐχ ὡς ὑπεύθυνος θανάτου κατὰ τοὺς AoLMOVS 
 ἀνθρώπους ἀπέθανεν, GAAG διὰ τὴν τοὺ κόσμου ἁμαρτίαν; ἵνα ταύτην ἀνέλῃ 
 καὶ θανατώσῃ.ἔ Chrysostom: Καὶ σχόπευ πάλιν αὐτοῦ τὴν φιλονεικίαν, 
 καὶ πῶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων αὐτὸ κατασκενάζει. ᾿Ἐπειδὴ yae εἰκὸς ἣν τινας 
 θορφυβείσθαυ διὰ τὸν σταυδὸν καὶ τόν θάνατον, δείκνυσιν Ore δὲ αὐτὸ μὲν 
 οὖν φοῦτο χρὴ θαῤῥεὶν λοιπόν. Μὴ yae ἐπειδὴ ἅπαξ ἀπέθανέ, φησιν νομίσῃς 
 αὐτὸν θνητὸν εὖναι. xat γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὸ ἀθάνατος μένει. θανάτου yae 
 θάνατος ὃ θάνατος αὐτοῦ γέγονε. καὶ ἐπειδὴ ἀπέθανε; διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀπο- 
 θνήσκει. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνον τὸν θάνατον τῇ ἀμαφτία ἀπέθανε. Calvin: 
 
 * And thus he will never die any more, because in the death he once en- 
 dured, he did not die like other men, as being subject to death, but in conse- 
 quence of the sin of the world, that he might take away, and destroy it. 
 
 { Remark again his love of argument, and how he proves his point by 
 what seems to prove the contrary. For as it was likely that some would be 
 dismayed by the cross and death of the Saviour, he shows that these ought to 
 be rather a ground of future confidence. You must not, he says, conclude 
 from the circumstance of his having once died, that he is mortal. That is 
 the very reason why henceforth he is immortal. His death was the death of 
 
 24 
 
186 CHAPTER VI. v. 10. 
 
 Dominium mortis ad momentum subeundo in ezternum ipsam de- 
 glutivit. It is hence obvious that ἀποθνήσκειν τῇ ἁμαρτία must here 
 have a different meaning from where it is applied to men. The 
 readiest way would be to consider it as equivalent in sense to ize 
 τῶν apaetiov. Paul may have preferred using the dative, either for 
 the purpose of making his present declaration with respect to Christ, 
 analogous, even in the form of expression to what he had before said 
 of believers, or as appears more probable, for the sake of the paral- 
 lelism with τῷ Θεῷ. In the Andromache of Euripides, we have an 
 example of the same construction: τέθνηκα τῇ σῇ θυγατρὶ instead of 
 baie τῆς ons Ovyareds. It might, however, be more apposite to 
 regard auaeria as the xvevos, in like manner as davaros was before 
 so called. Christ, having once taken upon himself the conse- 
 quences of sin, and appeared in the human nature according as now 
 constituted, (Phil. ii. 7,) required to make this oblation to sin, to die 
 unto or in consequence of it. Augustine gives a false interpretation 
 of this dative in his Enchiridion, ec. 41, where he considers it as 
 standing per metonomen for sinful body: Itaque quodam modo 
 peccato moreretur, dum moritur carne in qua erat similitudo peccati. 
 Compare on the subject, Heb. ix. 26, 28, where in the same way the 
 Saviour’s once dying is represented as sufficing for the establishment 
 of an everlasting atonement. 
 
 662 ζῇ. ‘The Greek grammarians, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 and others, consider 6 as used instead of ὅτε. But Beza more cor- 
 rectly supposes it an ellipsis, to which xag’ is wanting, as in τὼ 
 roma, τ᾽ ἀλλά. See Bos. 
 
 Ζῇ τῷ Θεῷ. An expression which has created difficulties. Theo- 
 phylact expounds the dative: ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Θεοῦ. Cicumenius: 
 ‘thereby that he is God, by his divinity.”’ We must, however, in 
 this instance also take the dative in the same general sense, as pre- 
 viously τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, and in which men are, v. 11, said gj» τῷ Θεῷ, ** to 
 live in relation to, or for God.” ‘This same expression is found, 
 2Cor. v. 15. In classical Greek ζῇν zu has the like sense. Thus 
 Demosthenes, meet ᾿Αλονήσου: οἵ οὐκ αἰσχύνονταυ Φυλίτιπῳ ζῶντες, καὶ οὐ 
 τῇ ἑαυτῶν πατείδι. ‘The ζῇν τῷ Θεῷ in reference to Christ, stands in 
 contrast with the ἡμέξαις ἀσθενείας OF τῆς σαρχὸς, Heb. v. 2,7. Hence 
 Justinius correctly observes at this passage, ‘‘ It may in a certain 
 degree be affirmed, that upon this earth our Saviour lived both to us 
 and to his God, inasmuch as it was for our sakes that he lived in a 
 certain connection with evil, sin, death and Satan. This connection 
 is now dissolved, and God is the only scope of his life.’’ So like- 
 wise Beza. Pelagius accurately expresses the sense: Vivit in gloria 
 Deitatis. Origen: expleto eo quod in forma Dei positus exinanivit 
 semetipsum, formam servi accepit, permanet in forma Dei et equalis: 
 Patri. 
 
 death. Because he has died he now dies no more, for that death he died to 
 sin. 
 
CHAPTER Vi. V. 11, 12. 187 
 V.11. Here again follows the application to us of the example 
 of our Head. In regard to the text, it is to be noted, that Codices 
 A DE F QG, and, on their authority Griesbach, omit the εὖναν 
 after vexeovs μὲν and that in the same Codices, τῷ χυξίω ἡμῶν is 
 wanting. We may follow Griesbach and others, in placing a colon 
 after ὑμεῖς. A better way, however, is to supply a χαθὼς to the sense 
 at verse 10th, and construe ὑμεῖς with royi2ecde. Matt. v. 16. affords 
 an example of οὕτω, standing in the same relation to a preceding 
 clause. λΛογίδεσθε. Beza: colligite; refero ad syllogismum, ut inde 
 colligamus, ac vere sentiamus, nos tum peccato esse mortuos per 
 Christi mortis communicationem, tum Deo vivere id est justitiz. 
 Comp. 3, 28. 
 
 Peete rt, 
 
 IT IS GRACE, AND NOT THE LAW, WHICH LEADS THE CHRISTIAN TO 
 SANCTIFICATION, WHICH IS PROMOTED BY THAT VERY CIRCUMSTANCE. 
 V. 12—19. 
 
 V. 12. Ar the former verse the Apostle had already passed from) 
 the domain of doctrine into that of admonition. He now delivers his 
 admonitions on a more enlarged scale, connecting with them, at the 
 14th verse, the promise of certain victory which belongs to believers, | 
 as standing under grace. ‘This circumstance does not weaken but/ 
 rather heightens diligence after holiness. It is not without reason 
 that Bucer observes on the composition of these admonitions: Cum 
 primis hic et in omnibus adhortationibus Paulinis observandum est, 
 quod ardent omnia, quod densa sunt argumentis, iisque urgentissimis. 
 There is great variation in the text of the last words of this verse. 
 Some of the fathers leave all after αὐτῷ away. Several codices omit 
 αὐτῇ tv. Others reject αὐτῇ itself, as well as all that follows it. And 
 instead of αὐτῇ, others read αὐτῷ ΟΥ̓́αὐτοῦ ΟΥ̓ αὐτὴν. Griesbach is one 
 of those who terminate the verse with ὑπακούειν. It is certainly very 
 difficult to imagine that Paul used no pronoun at all, for in that case 
 the sentence is quite obscure, it being impossible even to discover 
 what is the subject to ixaxovew. From this point of view we might 
 be inclined to receive a dative into the text. As the reading of airy, 
 however, is so very various, and the dative τῇ ἁμαξτίῳ may be sup- 
 plied from the subsequent verse, the reading of Griesbach, which 
 closes the verse with ὑπακούειν, is probably correct. 
 
 μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω. The older expositors justly observe upon these 
 words, that the Apostle does not expect from the Christian at once 
 the total eradication of every sinful propensity in the heart, although 
 that certainly is the ultimate end at which he aims, but for the present, 
 
188 CHAPTER VI. V. 12. 
 
 that the ungodly inclinations shall merely not be lords of his inward 
 life. According to this, although sin breaks out in the Christian’s 
 ~ jife, his inclination must be averted from it. Aug. Prop. 35. Quia 
 non consentimus desideriis pravis in gratia sumus. What Chrysos- 
 tom says upon this verse is truly admirable: Οὐχ εἶπεν μὴ οὖν ζήτω ἡ 
 σὰρξ, μηδὲ éveeysita, ἄλλ᾽ ἡ ἁμαξτία μὴ βασιλευέτω. Od yae τὴν 
 φύσιν ἤλθεν ἀνελεῖν», ἀλλὰ τὴν πεοαίρεσιν διορθῶσαι. ετα δεικνὺς OTL OD 
 βίᾳ καὶ ἀνάγχῃ κατεχόμεθα ὑπὸ τῆς Movnerasy ἀλλ᾽ ἑχόντες» οὐκ εὐπίενγ μὴ 
 τυξαννεῖτο, ὅπες ἀνάγκης ἣν» ἀλλὰ μὴ βασιλευέτω. Καὶ γὰρ ἄτοπον 
 εἰς βασιλείαν ἀγομένους τῶν οὐξανῶν; βασιλίδα τὴν ἁμαφτίαν ἔχειν» καὶ κα- 
 λουμένους συμβασιλεῦσαυ τῷ Χριστῷ, αἰξεισθαν γενέσθαι τῆς ἁμαξτίας αἱ χ- 
 μαλώτους. ὥσπερ ἂν ku τις τὸ διάδημα ῥίψας ἀπὸ τῆς κεφαλῆς» δαυμονώσῃ 
 γυναυκὺ καὶ MeocaLTovoy καὶ ῥάκια πεξφιβεβλημένῃ δουλεύειν ἐθέλοι. εὗτο» 
 ἐπευδὴ Baev τὸ περιγενέσθαι ἁμαφτίας, ὅρα πῶς καὶ κοῦφον ἔδειξε, καὶ τὸν 
 πόνον παξεμυθήσατο εἰπὼν, ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμὼν σώματι. τοῦτο γὰρ 
 δείκνυσι πιξοσχαίρους ὄντας τοὺς ἀγῶνας; καὶ ταχέως xararvomévors.* With 
 the natural man it is confessed, that what is lord should be the slave, 
 and that the slave, which should be lord. Hence there is reason for 
 the Rabbins calling as they do the sinful nature of man 9173 92 the 
 great king, and on the other hand the good, Dom) {201 ad, the wise 
 poor child. (More Nebothim, p. iii. c.22.) A beautiful allegorical 
 exposition of Eccles. ix. 14, referring to this expression, is to be 
 found in Beth Israel, p. 19, col. 4. 
 
 ἐν τῷ θνητῷ σώματι. Among the ancients, by Origen and Photius, 
 among moderns, by Turretin, Chr. Schmid, and others, θνητὸς is con- 
 sidered as the same with vexeos, and as having a metaphorical sense. 
 Both words they interpret as implying, bereaved of the powers of 
 divine life, aS vexeos Means in the phrases πίστις vexed, ἔργα νεχξά. 
 Turretin: Cum dominium omne morte finiatur, hine colligit Paulus, 
 non debere amplius Christianos corpore suo abuti ad imperia peccati 
 exequenda, cujus respectu corpus ipsorum veluti mortuum est. 
 Others, among whom Seb. Schmidt, considers σῶμα to be emphatical, 
 like céeg, and to mean human nature in general in its present state of 
 depravity. Which seems likewise what Calvin intends by, tota 
 hominis massa. Σῶμα might also stand for the designation of man’s 
 visible frame, by which the Apostle meant to express, as it were, the 
 
 * He does not say, let not the flesh live, neither act, but let not sin reign. 
 For he came not to subvert human nature but to rectify the will. Moreover, 
 to show that we are not kept by force or necessity in the power of wickedness, 
 but of our own free will, he does not say, let it not tyrannize, which would 
 have implied a necessary subjection on our part, but the word he uses is 
 reign. And surely it would be absurd for those who are bound for the king- 
 dom of heaven, to take sin for a queen, and to choose to be her captives when 
 called to reign along with Christ. As if one were to cast a diadem from his : 
 head, and prefer to be the slave of some demoniac beggarly and ragged fe- 
 male. And then, seeing it is hard to vanquish sin, observe how he proves 
 that it is easy, and encourages us to the task by the words in your mortal 
 body: showing thereby, that our struggles are but for a season and will 
 speedily terminate. 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 12, 13. 189 
 
 domain, within which the love of sin manifests its power; and then 
 
 it would imply as much as if there stood ὄντων ὑμῶν ἐν τῷ θνητῷ σώ- 
 
 ματι. It seems most natural, however, to take σῶμα θνητὸν here in 
 
 its usual sense of, the body which is subject to decay, especially as 
 
 the Apostle immediately proceeds to discourse of the bodily mem- 
 
 bers. He does not thereby deny, that every sin has its origin in the 
 
 depravity of the mind. It only comes into external manifestation, 
 
 however, when man employs the bodily members in its service, when, 
 his eye obeys the lusts of the soul, to look upon what is forbidden, 
 and his hand the angry impulse of the heart, to do some act of vio-| 
 lence, and so on. Now, it not being the Apostle’s design to give 
 
 any doctrinal exposition of the source of sin, he is satisfied with 
 
 warning against evil inclinations in their visible form. Bengel with 
 
 precision: Cupiditates corporis sunt fomes; peccatum ignis. In other 
 
 passages Paul admonishes to keep both the soul and body pure, 1 
 
 Thes. v.23. θνητὸς is doubtless added, as Chrysostom, Grotius, and 
 
 others remark, to encourage the Christian, by pointing his thoughts 
 
 to that never-ending glory, into which this frail tabernacle shall one 
 
 day be transformed. 'Theodoret: Ἢ μὲν yae τῶν παθημάτων κίνησίς te 
 
 χαὶ ἐνόχλησις κατὰ φύσιν Huey ἐγγίνεται" τῶν δὲ ἀπειρημένων ἡ πρᾶξις τῆς 
 
 γνώμης ἐξηφτηται" ἔδειξε δὲ χαὺὶ Tov πολέμου τὸ περόσχαιξον; θνητὸν τὸ 
 
 σῶμα πεοσαγοξεύσας. τούτου yae δεξαμένου τοῦ θανάτου τὸν ὅξον; παύεταῦ 
 
 καὶ τῶν παθημάτων ἣ πξοσβολη. 
 
 V. 13. ‘The Apostle enlarges upon the admonition given in the 
 preceding verse. ‘The mortification of sin must bring along with it the 
 positive effect of engaging in the service of holiness. ‘Theodoret: βασι- 
 λείας μημονεύσας: Grayxatas καὶ τὴν ταύτης ἔδειξε πανοπλίαν, καὶ τὸν τῆς 
 νίκης ἡμᾶς ἐξεπαύίδευσε τρόπον. ὅπλους γὰρ χαθ᾽ ἡμῶν ἡ ἁμαξτία τοὺς ἡμετέροις 
 xéxenrac wéacow.t When man is regenerated, and the divine prin- 
 ciple of life has become operative within him, all must be made to 
 serve it. ‘The human body too and its members are not sinful in 
 themselves, but are first made so by the perverse inclination of the 
 will; according to the remark of Chrysostom upon this passage, who 
 says, ‘that the defender of his country, and the murderer alike make 
 use of arms, without there being any thing hurtful in these as such.” 
 In him who has undergone the new birth, all those things which were 
 previously organs of the love of sin, now become organs of heavenly- 
 mindedness, and so means of promoting holiness. ‘There is beauty 
 in the comment of Pelagius: Ut oculis, qui ante videbat ad concu- 
 
 * For the movements and turbulence of the passions is in us by nature, 
 but to carry those that are forbidden into action depends on our mind. He 
 has shown also the temporary nature of the war by calling the body mortal. 
 For when that has found its termination in death, the assault of the passions 
 also ceases. 
 
 + Having spoken of reigning, he is naturally led to show what armour is 
 used under it, and instruct us how to gain the victory. For sin uses ourown 
 members aS weapons against us. 
 
190 CHAPTER V1. v. 13, 14. 
 
 piscendum, nune videat nudum ad vestiendum. Sic de reliquis 
 membris adverte. 
 
 Παξιστάνετε. Παριστάναι τινί τὶ, to present to any one something 
 for his free use. Polyb. ill. 55, 6: παξαστήσας τὼ πλήθη, πρὸς τὸ ἐξου- 
 xodomery τὸν xenuvove ‘This word corresponds to the βασυιλενέτω in 
 the foregoing verse, showing, as Pelagius says: Quod homo membra 
 sua cul velit parti exhibeat per arbitrii libertatem. 
 
 | τὰ μέλη. ‘Turretin: Non tantum externas notant corporis partes, 
 3 
 
 sed etiam internas, adeoque ipsos affectus. ‘These the Apostle does 
 not exclude, although they are not what he properly intends. Ὅπλον. 
 The Hebrew "22, signifies an instrument or weapon. Many adopt 
 the latter meaning. Here the first is very appropriate, organs. 
 ᾿Αδικία, ungodliness in general. ‘Apaeria, the indwelling pre- 
 dominant love of sin. 
 
 ὡς ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας. Commentators have needlessly sought a spe- 
 ciality of reference. Majus and Deyling believe that Paul has in his 
 eye the ὑστεξοπότμοι Of the ancients, who, when they returned to 
 life, were regarded as sacred. Wolf, Chr. Schmid and others are 
 of opinion that he means to signify how, while the Jews made obla- 
 tions of slaughtered animals, the Christians presented themselves as 
 living sacrifices, according to the thought expressed, Rom. xii.1. In 
 that case, however, the Apostle could scarcely have found a more 
 obscure way to enunciate his meaning. Far more eligible is the 
 simple sense of the words thus given by Pelagius: Tanquam qui jam 
 resurrexistis, quia tunc nec carnaliter vivitur nec peccato. 
 
 ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης τῷ Θεῷ. ‘The genitive here denotes the object of 
 the arms or organs. ‘The dative may be construed with παξαστήσατε" 
 it is, however, more natural to consider it as the dativus commodi, in 
 or for God’s cause. 
 
 V. 14. Several expositors look upon χυφιεύσευ as imperative. Itis 
 thus interpreted even by Pelagius; also by Hunnius, Locke, Taylor, | 
 Heumann and others. Assuming it to be so, the verse would be. 
 thus connected with the following: Sin must not have dominion over 
 you, were it for no other reason than that you no longer stand under 
 the law, and accordingly, as Christians, have superior obligations. 
 This interpretation is not quite to be despised. It must yield, how- 
 ever, to another, which is decidedly better, and has been more 
 generally adopted. According to that, the present verse contains a 
 promise, and the following context states the grounds of it. So Ori- 
 gen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret and many others. Calvin: 
 Exhortatus erat, ut omnes suas facultates in obsequium justitiz appli- 
 carent. At quum circumferant carnis reliquias, necesse est eos ali- 
 quantum claudicare. Proinde ne infirmitatis sue conscientia fracti, 
 animos despondeant, tempestive occurrit, interposita consolatione ex ° 
 eo petita, quod jam non exiguntur eorum opera ad severum legis 
 examen. Melancthon: Non dominabitur idem est ac non damnat 
 vos, sed placeat inchoata obedientia propter Gratiam. Photius: Μὴ 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 14. 191 
 
 γὰ ἔστω ὑμῖν ὃ τὴς ἁμαρτίας πόλεμος πξοφασις" ἀσθενὴς ἐστί νυν ἡ ἁμαρτία" 
 οὐ δύναται xuprEeverv, ἐὰν, μὴ ἥμεις ἑκόντες ὑποχατακλιθῶμεν αὐτῇ» ἀλλὰ 
 πεοσβάλλει μὲν, οὐ κυφιεύευ δέ. 5 Erasmus: Neque vero periculum est, 
 ne peccatum vos volentes in pristinam retrahat servitutem, quando- 
 quidem jam non estis obnoxii legi, que cupiditates irritabat potius 
 quam coercebat. It is consequently quite false to do like Koppe, 
 with whom Rosenmiiller also injudiciously agrees, make a pause 
 here in the middle of the 14th verse, as if a section of the chapter 
 came to a conclusion, and with the words ov yae ἐστὲ to commence a 
 new section and a new verse. Even the yde is hostile to this sub- 
 division of the verse, which Koppe considers as transitive particle, 
 and translates indeed. 
 
 οὐ yae ἐστὲ χτλ. ‘The νόμος presents itself to man with its external 
 precepts, and cannot inspire him with the love of good. ‘The Χάξις 
 operates inwardly and renews. Here also objective and subjective 
 coalesce in the mind of the Apostle. ‘The χάξις objectively, is the 
 unmerited affection of God for the sinner. Subjectively, it is the 
 new principle of life within, which is wakened by faith in the ob- 
 jective truth of pardon in and through,Christ. Chrysostom: νόμος 
 μετὰ τοὺς πόνους; τοὺς στεφάνοις ἐπγγγελτο. αὕτη δὲ πρότερον ἐστεφά- 
 νωσε; καὶ τότε εἰς τοὺς ἀγῶνας εἵλκυσεν. Very appositely Augustine: 
 (De continentia, 1. 3.) Non sumus sub lege bonum quidem jubente, 
 non tamen dante, sed sumus sub gratia, que id quod lex jubet faciens 
 nos amare, potest liberis imperare. ‘The two following quotations 
 also serve to throw light upon the thought. Ad Num. 13. Ante 
 legem sequebantur homines conecupiscentiam carnis; sub lege trahe- 
 bantur cum sua concupiscentia; sub gratia nec sequimur concupiscen- 
 tiam, nec trahimur ab ea; in pace nulla est concupiscentia carnis. 
 And Prop. 13, ad Rom. iii. 20. Quod cum fit (cum gratia homini 
 sub lege constituto donatur), tametsi desideria quedam carnis, dum 
 in hac vita sumus, adversus spiritum pugnant, ut eum ducant in pec- 
 eatum, non tamen his desideriis consentiens spiritus, quoniam est 
 fixus in gratia et caritate Dei, desinit peccare. Non enim in ipso 
 desiderio pravo, sed in nostra consensione peccamus. On the other 
 hand, it by no means harmonizes with the doctrine of Paul, when 
 ὑπὸ νόμον and ὑπὸ Xape are interpreted to denote something merely 
 external, as is done by Grotius, Clericus, Limborch, and others, 
 who render it, the Old and New Testament, the Jewish and Chris- 
 tian religion. Ὑπὸ νόμον. Beza: Apud impios sub lege non esse 
 significat pro arbitrio suo quidvis audere, sub gratia autem esse non 
 posse damnari. 
 
 V. 15. At the commencement of the chapter, the Apostle had 
 stated and refuted a false inference, in as far as that applied to the 
 
 * Let not your war with sin be a pretence, for it is now enfeebled, and has 
 no power to rule, unless we willingly submit to it. Assail it may but it can- 
 not reign. 
 
 { The law promised a crown when the struggle was over. Grace first aa 
 crowned, and then led the soldier to battle. 
 
192 CHAPTER VI. ν. 15, 16. 
 
 reception of Christianity, viz. that it required no conversion. He 
 had pointed to the baptismal ordinance, which alone suffices to show 
 that entire conversion is the end for which it is calculated. ‘The same 
 inference is here again brought forward in reference to the progress- 
 ive walk of the Christian. ‘That consists in the permanent enjoy- 
 ment of a sense of the objective Divine favour, and in the subjective 
 experience, through the Holy Spirit, of certain quickening and ani- 
 mating impressions which are thence derived. May not that be 
 detrimental to growth in sanctification? ‘To this Paul now proceeded 
 to answer as follows: When a person living in sin accepts of forgive- 
 ness and salvation, he thereby evinces that he is in earnest about 
 holiness and the happiness with which it is connected, so that the 
 reception of Christianity is the manifestation of a decided desire after 
 holiness issuing in an inward sense of the want of it. Hence the 
 act of accepting redemption of sin, is, in some sort, an entrance into 
 the service of a holy God. But as forgiveness is only bestowed 
 upon those who really desire to serve God, such persons are thereby 
 also brought under obligations to fulfil their service by earnest en- 
 _deavours after holiness; and in the career upon which they have en- 
 tered towards that, it is impossible to suppose any interruption. 
 Chrysostom: “Eyed δὲ τούτοις ἀναπνεῦσαι πεποίηκε τὸν ἀκροατὴν; ἀσ- 
 φαλίζεταν πάλιν αὐτὸν, ἐξ ἀντιϑέσεως παραίνεσιν εἰσάγων. Theremarks 
 of Calvin are excellent: Quia Dei mysteriis perpetuo carnis sapientia 
 obstrepit, necessario subjicit hance prolepsin. Nam quum lex bene 
 vivendi sit regula, putamus, ea soluta, protinus corruere omnem dis- 
 ciplinam, frangi repagula, nullum denique manere discrimen boni et 
 mali.... Hae quidem propria solutio est, nihil aliud quam maledictio- 
 nem tolli, cui extra gratiam obnoxii sunt cuncti mortales. Sed Paulus 
 quamvis id diserte non exprimit, oblique tamen ostendit. The re- 
 proaches thrown upon Christians by the heathen on this point are 
 to be found strongly stated, in the words of Celsus, in Origen, con. 
 Celsum, |. 3, c. 58. See also Origen’s fine reply. It is likewise 
 curious to remark how the heathen Xosimus misrepresents Chris- 
 tianity in this particular, (Histor. 1. ii. p, 114, ed. Oxon.) where he 
 mentions the sins of Constantine. Julian in his Cawsares, when 
 speaking of that emperor, does the same. On the subject of the ob- 
 jection that grace abrogates the law, compare Rom. iii. 31, and 1 
 Cor. ix. 21. “Δμαρτήσομεν, in the future, as interrogatio deliberativa. 
 _ See Lipsius de indic. p. 19. 
 
 V.16. In this sentence there is no tautology. The sense is as 
 follows: When once the will of an individual has taken a decided 
 determination in favour of a particular power whether of good or evil, 
 he is, henceforth, on the one hand, insensibly swayed and directed 
 by that power, and, on the other, comes under the engagement to ᾿ 
 make all his energies subservient to its interests. By the free course 
 
 _* Having by these things given the listener time to breathe, he strengthens 
 him again by introducing an admonition drawn from the very objection. 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 16. 193 
 
 which the natural man gives to his own wilful inclinations, sin ac- 
 quires still greater and greater attractive influence over him, and, by 
 directly darkening his understanding, makes him ever more and more 
 the blinded slave of his unbridled desires. On the other hand, 
 the natural man on his part, with perceptions indirectly obscured, 
 sees himself as in some measure bound to devote his powers to the 
 reign of passion. For, to secure the enjoyment of the fruits of his 
 sin, new acts of iniquity are constantly necessary, and as no sin, like 
 no righteous act, stands isolated, he finds himself constrained, unless 
 indeed, an entire conversion takes place, by the mere progressive 
 connection of the ensuing with the past period of his life, to commit 
 fresh trespasses. It is a beautiful saying of the Talmudists, in Pirke 
 Aboth.: ‘A good action is the reward of a good action, as a wicked 
 action is punished by asecond.”’ In respect of this obligatory power 
 of sin, whereby, partly in a direct, and partly in an indirect manner, 
 it blinds the understanding of man, it was even by the ancients repre- 
 sented as a Mistress, and sinners as her slaves. We produce as 
 vouchers, only the two following passages, Xenophon: (Mem. ]. iv. 
 c. 5.) Ὅστις οὖν agxetar ὑπὸ τὼν διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἡδονῶν, καὶ dua ταύ- 
 τὰς μὴ δύναται πράττειν τὰ βέλτιστα, νομίζεις τοῦτον ἐλεύθερον εἶναι; Se- 
 neca: (Natural. Quest. 1. iii.) Liber est qui servitutem effugit sui. 
 Hee est assidua servitus et ineluctabilis, et per diem et noctem equa- 
 liter premens, sine intervallo, sine commeatu; Sibi servire gravissi- 
 ma servitus est. Even the Rabbins are acquainted with this meta- 
 phor, (Sohar, Exod. fol. 48:) Quia malus est, sub potestate ipsius 
 (concupiscientiz prave) est, sicut servus sub potestate domini sui. 
 So also in the declaration of our Lord, John viii. 34. But although it 
 be with acknowledged propriety that he speaks of a δουλεία of sin, it 
 is more remarkable when Paul likewise supposes a δουλεία of holi- 
 ness. He even intimates at verse 19th, that the expression is not to 
 be too much insisted upon. Still there cannot be a doubt that it is 
 here also perfectly apposite. For, on the one hand, holiness, no less 
 than sin, in consequence of its connection with happiness, by the 
 peace, the joy, the tranquillity of soul which it confers, exercises a 
 gentle charm over the man who knows it, and, by a certain mysteri- 
 ous longing, again allures him beneath its sway. While, on the other 
 hand, it holds true, especially of the Christian, that, upon conversion, 
 he in some respects binds himself to the service of holiness, and that 
 for the reason above assigned, viz. that the sorrow and penitence 
 which he feels for his former subjection to sin, and which make him 
 seek forgiveness and salvation, involve the confession that it is his 
 wish now to belong to another power. Itis in this manner that most 
 expositors understand the connection of ideas and reasoning of the 
 Apostle. Some, however, among whom are Baumgarten and Mos- 
 heim, too partially bring forward the εἰς θάνατον, and the εἰς δικαιοσύνην 
 as denoting the recompense obtained, and make the argument of the 
 Apostle consist in repelling the false inference by a statement of the 
 bitter wages of sin. ‘This view, however, when considered by itself, 
 25 
 
194 CHAPTER VI. v. 16, 17. 
 
 is not apposite, and besides, to say nothing of other reasons, their 
 very position shows εἰς θάνατον and εἰς δικαιοσύνην are subordinate. 
 The allusion to the recompense at verse 22d is connected solely 
 with the admonition. Ὧν παξιστάνετε. This expresses the sponta- 
 neous direction of the will, which gives itself up to slavery, and then 
 is bound to fulfil all its duties. 
 
 ᾧ ὑπαχούετε. Calvin, Grotius, and Cocceius consider this ᾧ as in 
 the ablative case: eo quod obeditis. It is more natural, following the 
 Vulgate and Syriac versions, to suppose it here also in the dative, 
 and to view these two words as a pleonastic addition, equivalent to 
 ἐχείνου, OF, Which seems preferable, as a separate supplementary 
 clause united to the previous one by the relative pronoun, instead of 
 the demonstrative with xa* accordingly we translate it, “ his servants 
 ye are and him ye then in fact obey.” 
 
 sig θάνατον is wanting in Codd. D, Εἰ, the Syrian and elsewhere. 
 It is not easy, however, to account for its reception into the text, 
 supposing it to have been originally absent. It does not form a pro- 
 per counterpart to εἰς δικαιοσύνην» and hence could scarcely have been 
 interpolated for the sake of the parallelism; and as, moreover, the 
 external authorities do not preponderate against it, we retain it in the 
 text. The contraposition of θάνατος and δικαιοσύνη seems to indicate 
 that the former refers principally to moral depravity. Seeing, how- 
 ever, that δυκαιοσύνη also implies blessedness, it is not necessary to 
 exclude the other meanings of θάνατος. 
 
 ΦὉπακοή. Beza: Novitas vite que nos ad obedientiam Dei dispo- 
 nit. Comp. 6. v. 19, ὑπαχοή. On this verse Chrysostom observes: 
 οὔπω λέγω τὴν γέενναν, Φησὶν; οὐδὲ τὴν πολλὴν ἐκείνην κόλασιν» ἀλλὰ τὴν 
 ἐνταῦθα αἰσχύνην, ὅταν δοῦλον γίνεσθε, καὶ ἑχόντες δούλου, καὺ ἁμαξτῖας 
 δοῦλοι, καὶ ἐπὶὺ τοιούτῳ μισθῷ ὥστε πάλιν ἀποθανεῖῦν.....«Μὴ τοίνυν ἑκὼν 
 σεαυτὸν τίροδῷς. ᾿᾽Επὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν πολέμων καὶ ἄχοντες παξαδίδονταν πολ" 
 λάκις οἱ στρατιῶται" ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἂν μὴ αὐτὸς αὐτομολήσῃς» οὐδεύς σον πε- 
 ξιέσται. In the 7th chapter the objection of the previous verse is 
 more pointedly answered than in the present. ‘There the Apostle 
 specially shows how the law has no power to promote holiness in 
 man. 
 
 V.17. The Apostle declares that Christians have become so from 
 the heart,and accordingly have acknowledged their sin from the 
 heart, and from the heart sought forgiveness, and hence have deci- 
 dedly surrendered themselves as in some sort servants to holiness. 
 ' The sentence is not constructed with care. It ought to be: ὅτι» πρίν 
 μὲν ὄντες δούλου τῆς ἁμαρτίας: νυν δὲ ὑπηχούσατε; ΟΥ̓́, at all events, ἃ μὲν 
 ought to come after ἦτε. Paul enunciates this argument in the form 
 
 * T speak not of hell, he says, nor its awful punishment, but of the disgrace 
 there is in being slaves, and willing slaves, and slaves of sin, and slaves for 
 such a wage as the second death.....Do not then voluntarily betray yourself; 
 for it often happens, that in war soldiers are betrayed against their will. 
 Here, however, unless you desert of your own accord none shall overcome 
 you. 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 17. 195 
 
 of abenediction. On which Bengel makes the just remark: Idioma 
 Paulinum est, quod propositiones categoricas solet non categorice et 
 nude, sed cum guodam quasi modo, 7. 6. cum significatione affectus, 
 gratiarum actionis, voti d&c. efferre; Vide 1 Cor. xiv. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 7. 
 Hec observatio faciet, ut multis in locis et sententia sermonis et 
 ardor pectoris apostolici distincte appareat. Chrysostom: οὐδὲ yde 
 ἀνθξωπίνης ἰόχύος ἣν» φησιν, ἐκείνων ἡμᾶς ἀπαλλάξαι πάντων, ἀλλὰ τῷ 
 Θεῷ χάρις τῷ τοσαῦτα καὶ βουληθέντι καὶ δυνηθέντιυ. XO καλῶς εἶπεν ὑξίην 
 κούσατε ἐκ xaedias. οὐδὲ yae ἠναγκάσθητε; οὐδὲ ἐβιάσθητε; ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἑχόντες μετὰ προθυμίας ἀπέστητε. τοῦτο δὲ χαὶ ἐγκωμιάζοντός ἐστιν ὁμοῦ, 
 καὶ καταπτομένον. οὗ γὰρ ἑχόντες προσελθόντες, καὶ μηδεμίαν ὑπομεύναν- 
 τες ἀνάγκην; ποίαν ἂν exainte συγγνώμην»; Tuva δὲ ἀπολογίαν ἐπὺ τὼ meo= 
 TECH manrvySeoovye es; * 
 
 ὑπηκούσατε sis ὃν ποφεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς. The verb ὑπακούειν, 
 although not very appropriate, is retained by the Apostle, in conse- 
 quence of his having previously spoken of the Christian ὑπακοή. 
 There may be hence a twofold hypallage. If, for instance, we un- 
 derstand ὑπακούειν to be here, as it often is elsewhere, (see in Kypke 
 examples from Appian and Josephus,) construed with «cs, the ex- 
 pression is to be resolved into ὑπηκούσατε εἰς τύπον διδαχῆς ὃς magedo- 
 θη ὑμὸν, in compliance with the rule that verbs which in the active 
 have the dative of the person, in the passive change that into the 
 nominative. Heb. vii. 11, ὁ λαὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο. So Castalio, 
 for which he is blamed by Beza: Paruistis ei doctrine rationi, que 
 vobis tradita est. If we suppose, on the other hand, that the Apostle 
 meant to construe ὑπακούειν as usual with the dative, then the hypal- 
 lage consists in the noun’s having taken the sense of its relative, in 
 consequence of which it would require to be resolved into τῷ τύπῳ εἰς 
 ὃν παρεδόθητε. This construction is defended by Beza, who says in 
 explanation of it: Hoc dicendi genus habet magnam emphasin. Ita 
 enim significatur evangelicam doctrinam quasi instar typi cujusdam 
 esse, cui velut immittamur ut ejus figure conformemur et totam istam 
 transformationem aliunde provenire. Adopting the same mode of 
 construction, Theophylact observes upon παξεδόθητε: Δεικνύων ὅτυ εἰ 
 xOU αὐτοὶ MEOCHAOOY, GAN ὅμως τῆς τοῦ Θεοὺ χάξιτος τὸ Har, πίξοσεθηκε TO 
 naeedoOnzs.t The passive form of the verb would here evince, that it 
 is by the operation of the Spirit of God that a man is brought to sur- 
 render himself to the gospel, and the ἐδουλώθητε of the 18th verse 
 
 * For it was not in human strength, he says, to rescue us from all these 
 evils; but thanks be to God, who has had both the will and the power to do 
 so! And justly does he say ‘ye have obeyed from the heart,’ for ye were 
 neither obliged nor constrained, but with free will and alacrity revolted from 
 your former slavery. And this he mentions both as an encomium and a re- 
 proach; for as persons, who have of their own accord and not constrained by 
 any necessity, embraced Christianity, what kind of an excuse, what apology 
 would you have for returning to the side you have deserted. 
 
 + To show that albeit they had themselves drawn near, still all had pro- 
 ceeded from the grace of God, he has added παρεδόθητε. 
 
| 
 
 | 
 
 196 CHAPTER VI. v. 18, 19. 
 
 might be adduced as an instance of agreement. The latter verb, 
 however, points directly to the fact, that a free determination of the 
 will preceded, and brought the Christian into this state of holy bond- 
 age; and, in like manner, in the present verse, the ὑπηχούσατεν espe- 
 cially as connected with ἐκ καρδίας, lays emphasis on what the 
 whole train of argumentation shows to be emphatic, the exercise of 
 the free will in the first acceptance of forgiveness and compliance 
 with the purpose of salvation. We do not hesitate, therefore, to 
 adopt the first mode of construction. The formula παξαδυδόναν τινί τὺ 
 means, to teach, make known. Acts xvi. 4, 1 Cor. xi. 2, xv. 3, 2 Pet. 
 ii. 21. So in Latin, tradere disciplinam. Grotius adopts a totally 
 different construction, taking εἰς τύπον διδαχῆς as equivalent to xara 
 τύπον, and translating: obedistis ad eum modum quem Evangelium 
 prescribit, quique vobis est traditus. 
 
 τύπος διδαχῆς. Compare Rom. ii. 20, μόρφωσις τῆς γνώσεως, 2 Tim. 
 1.18, ὑποτύπωσις ὑγιαινόντων λόγων. Jamblichus, Vita Pyihag. c. 16: 
 xOL ἣν αὐτῷ τῆς παϊδεύσεως ὃ τύπος τοιοῦτος χαὺὶ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀποβλέπων. 
 6. 23, ἕνεκα τοῦ σαφέστερον γενέσϑαν τὸν τύπον τῆς διδασχαλίας. 
 
 tx καρδίας. ‘This supplement was necessary for the purpose of 
 showing the obligation of abiding true to him, to whom we have 
 made a free-will surrender of ourselves. 
 
 V..18. ἐδουλώθητε τῇ δικαιοσύνη denotes the existing condition of de- 
 pendence. Grotius mistakes when he says with respect to δικαιο- 
 ovvy: Justitia, id est laus pro justitia. ‘To this Caloy. rightly 
 answers: Justitia notat proprie justitiam, 7. e. sanctitatem vite. 
 Obedimus enim non ut laudem reportemus vel gloriam sed ut justi 
 et sancti simus. 
 
 | V. 19. The expression ἐδουλώθητε, ye became the servants of 
 righteousness, was extraordinary. ‘There was a possibility of its 
 giving rise to some kind of legal notion, and hence Paul deems it 
 necessary to resolve it into the more ordinary expression of ‘ yield- 
 ing the members to the service of righteousness.”” ’Av6edmuvov λέγω. 
 This adjective has a double signification, which must here be taken 
 into consideration. Sometimes it means, ‘“ what man’s powers are 
 equal to. Pollux expounds it in this sense by the synonymes τὸ 
 χοῦφον, evpoeove So a Greek would say, ἀνθοώπινα apag7avew, Xe- 
 nophon Cyrop. 1. iii. 6. 1. 5. 22. It is thus used, 1 Cor. x. 13, (com- 
 pare in the Hebrew, 2Sam. vii. 14.) This sense has been adopted, 
 in the present passage, by Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Bucer, 
 and Wetstein, who deem that Paul designs to show the practicability 
 of what he requires of them, quasi, “" 1 exact of you nothing above 
 your powers.”” Theodoret: Τῇ pices ered τὴν παξαίνεσιν. οἶδα yae 
 τὰ ἐν τῷ θνητῷ σώματι κινούμενα πάθη. What the Apostle here en- 
 joins, viz. to become δοῦλος τῆς δυκαιοσύνης, is however something of 
 an arduous nature, is properly a πνευματικὸν» Which he would scarcely 
 
 * I proportion my admonition to human nature, aware of the passions that 
 work in the mortal body. 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 19. 197 
 
 have described as light and easy. We adhere, accordingly, to the 
 usual sense in which he employs the word, and of which we have 
 treated, c. ili. 5. Agreeably to that, it would mean, ‘I avail myself 
 of the more usual manner of thinking and speaking.”’ But this again 
 may have various shades of signification, in determining which we 
 require to take into consideration the διὼ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς capxds, by 
 which either moral or intellectual imperfection may be chiefly de- 
 signed. In the latter case the sense would be as follows: ‘The fee- 
 bleness of your human nature makes it necessary for me to select 
 very plain images from ordinary life. Grotius: Sensus spirituales 
 exprimo per similitudines rerum vulgarium et vobis notarum. By 
 this interpretation, the Apostle points to the slender power of com- 
 prehension possessed by the Romans. ‘The word σὰρξ would not 
 then, however, be suitable, for it always indicates general humanity. 
 The exposition is better, and more signficant when we take ἀσϑένεια 
 τῆς σαρχὸς in a moral sense, the earthly carnal mind. ‘To that, holi- 
 ness appears as a dovaéca, but to the man spiritually enlightened, to 
 the πνευματυκχὸς, itis the true liberty. Agreeably to this view, the 
 ἀνδρώπινος refers more to the way of thinking common amongst men. 
 Erasmus, Beza, Seb. Schmidt take it up as follows: “ On account of 
 your ungodly dispositions, you need powerful correctives; I require 
 to paint the matter to you in strong colours.” 
 
 ὥσπερ παρμεστήσατε.  Cicumenius: Πολλῷ μὲν μείζονα ἔδεν τῷ 
 Χριστῷ τὴν δουλείαν παρασχεῖν καὶ τῇ δυκχαιοσύνῃ, ἥπερ ὅσην παρέσχετε 
 τῇ ἀκχαθαξσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομία, πλὴν διὰ τὴν ἀσϑένειαν τῇς σαρκὸς» τὴν 
 ἴσην ἀπαιτὼ.Σ How beautiful is the comment of Anselm: Sicut 
 ad peccandum vos nullus cogebat timor, sed ipsius libido voluptasque 
 peccati, sic ad juste vivendum non vos supplicii metus urgeat, sed 
 dueat delectatio justitie. Sicut ergo ille iniquissimus, quem ne pene 
 quidem temporales deterrent ab immundis operibus, ita justissimus 
 ille, qui ne peenarum puidem temporalium timore revocatur a sanctis 
 operibus. 
 
 axaSagova generally means Just, but that signification may here be 
 extended. Calvin supposes it to denote chiefly sensual sins, as 
 ἀνομία does acts of violence. 
 
 εἰς τὴν ἀνωμίαν must be interpreted according to the parallel ex- 
 pression opposed to it, sis ἁγιασμόν. Agreeably to this, the εἰς ex- 
 presses the purpose. The first ἀνομία is the lawless, unbridled desire; 
 the second denotes the continual manifestations of such inordinate 
 feelings as they spring up within, and of which man makes his 
 members the instruments. So Beza, Baumgarten, and Mosheim. 
 Heumann translates accurately, “so that ye became sinners.”’ ‘Theo- 
 phylact takes a contrary view: Οὐ γὰρ ὁπηνίκα τινὰ ἁμαρτίαν ἐπουήσατε; 
 ἵστασϑε AXEL ταὐτης» ἀλλ᾽ ὑπέχχαυμα ταὺὐτην ἔχε7ε εἰς 70 ἐπὶ πλέον ἄνο- 
 
 _* You are bound to yield to Christ and to righteousness, a far greater ser- 
 vice, than that which you have given to uncleanness; on account of the 
 weakness of your flesh, however, I only ask that it shall be equal. 
 
Pe Rislameeen 
 
 198 CHAPTER VI. v. 20. 
 
 wecy.* And in this he is followed by Luther, Erasmus, and many 
 others. But both the parallelism forbids, and the language scarce 
 admits of it, for it would require ἐξ ἀνομίας εἰς ἀνομίαν. The sense 
 accordingly is, ** As formerly your sensual passions always found in 
 your members instruments to accomplish their purposes, actually 
 proceeding to forbidden acts, now let your members be willing in- 
 struments of the holy emotions of your heart, for the promotion of 
 holiness.” 
 
 PART Lid. 
 
 PROSPECT OF THE FINAL CONSUMMATION, IN WHICH HOLINESS IS TO 
 BE REWARDED. v. 20—23. 
 
 ' V.20. After the Apostle has thus shown that it lies in the very 
 
 πιο of Christianity to produce progressive holiness, he now en- 
 
 | courages to the pursuit of it, by intimating what is to be its final 
 lissue. The yap, introducing the consideration by which Christians 
 are to be strengthened in holiness, refers to what is said in verse 22d 
 of the reward which awaits them. ᾿Ελεύϑερου Are τῇ δικαιοσῦνῃ. Most 
 expositors, both ancient and modern, ex. g. Origen, Theophylact, 
 Cicumenius, Beza. and Limborch, look upon this second member of 
 the verse as merely confirmatory of the first, “" While engaged in 
 the service of sin, ye were entirely estranged from holiness,” thus 
 making ἐλεύδερου equivalent to, plane alieni. In this case, the verse 
 would not agree with that which follows. By reflecting upon the 
 connection between the two, it will be manifest that the 20th sug- 
 gests something desirable in the service of sin, which, however, the 
 21st, by pointing to what is to be the ultimate end of that service, 
 again disparages. Now, the advantage connected with the service 
 of sin, is freedom from the Divine authority of the law of holiness. 
 For, so long as man surrenders himself without reserve to sin, his 
 understanding is more and more obscured, and he becomes propor- 
 tionally less alive to the upbraiding voice of conscience, and also, in 
 some sort, as he deems, stands in no relation to holiness. This 
 state of license, if desirable at all, the Apostle allows; only he now, 
 at verse 21st, inquires what is to be the issue of it. Conformably 
 with this view, we give the connection of the two verses as follows. 
 **While engaged in the service of sin, you possessed, it is true, the 
 advantage of standing entirely out of all subjection to righteousness, . 
 but let us look at what is to be the final result.’? Erasmus states the 
 
 * When you committed a sin, you did not stop at that, it did but prove an 
 incentive to further transgression. 
 
CHAPTER VI. V. 21. 199 
 
 meaning of the verses correctly, although he misapprehends their 
 connection: Quamdiu versabamini in paganismo, quoniam serviebatis 
 peccato, videbamini a justitia alieni, neque quidquam illi debere, cu 
 nondum eratis addicti. Nune nihil est quod possit pretexi. Quodsi 
 ipsa recti natura parum vos movet, fructum obsequii longe diversissi- 
 mum expendite, qui utrumque servitutis genus estis experti. Upon 
 the ethical import of this declaration of the Apostle’s, ‘Thomas Aqui- 
 nas well remarks: Quantum ad hoe quod dicit ‘ liberi fuistis justitia,’ 
 id precipue contingit his qui ex certo proposito peccant. Nam illi 
 qui ex infirmitate vel passione peccant aliquo freno justitie retinen- 
 tur. Sciendum tamen est, quod iste status habet veram servitutem, 
 libertatem autem non veram sed apparentem. Cum enim homo sit 
 id quod est secundum rationem, tunc homo vere est servus quando 
 ab aliquo extraneo abducitur ab eo quod est rationis. 
 
 V. 21. The Apostle calls Christians to the salutary employment } 
 
 of looking back upon the past, in which they had been unhappy, in | 
 
 order thereby to refresh their remembrance of the noble gifts of grace 
 which were now become their portion as disciples of Jesus. Calvin: 
 Pii simul atque illuminari incipiunt Christi spiritu, totam vitam pre- 
 teritam, quam extra Christum egerunt,damnabilem libenter agnoscunt, 
 ac tantum abest ut conentur excusare, ut potius eos sui pudeat. Quin- 
 etiam hanc ignominie sue recordationem perpetuo in animum revo- 
 cant, quo sic pudefacti verius ac propensius coram Deo humilientur. 
 Eo’ οἷς viv ExauoyvveoSe. We have here a choice between two 
 modes of construction. ‘The ἐφ᾽ οἷς may be appended to χαρπὸν, and! 
 the whole sentence brought within the limits of the question. But) 
 on this supposition, we must supply éx τῶν ἔργων τούτων before 9’! 
 ois. So Chrysostom, Erasmus, Bengel, and others. It is, however, | 
 at once more natural, and far more emphatic, to make the answer | 
 commence with ἐφ᾽ ots, supply τοιαῦτα before it, and translate ‘Such | 
 fruit as ye are now ashamed of.’ ‘This construction is confirmed 
 by the circumstance, that τὸ γὰρ τέλος immediately succeeds ἐπαυσχὺ- 
 
 veode. So Clemens Alexandrinus, Luther, Heumann, and others. | 
 Calvin very pointedly calls the attention to the fact, that it is at this | 
 
 stage, that shame first enters a man, at the time of sinning, being 
 insensible to the degradation to which he is sunk: Innuit enim quam 
 ceco nostri amore laboremus, dum peccatorum tenebris sumus obvo- 
 luti, qui tantas in nobis sordes non reputemus. Sola est lux Domini, 
 que potest oculos nostros aperire, ut perspicere queant latentem in 
 carne nostra feeditatem. 1116 igitur demum Christiane philosophie 
 
 \ 
 
 4 
 
 primordiis imbutus est, qui sibi serio displicere, ac sua miseriz vere- / 
 eundia confundi bene didicerit. ‘Tandem a consequenti apertius . 
 etiamnum indicat quantum erubescere debeant, quum intelligant se | 
 
 fuisse in precipitio mortis et ruine propinquos, imo mortis portas 
 ingressos, nisi Dei misericordia retracti essent. } 
 τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἐκείνων Savatos. It would not be improper to place | 
 a point of interrogation after ixe(vay and consider ϑάνατος as the an-| 
 swer, ᾿ΓῸ τέλος commentators have given a variety of significations. 
 
200 CHAPTER VI. ν. 22, 23. 
 
 In the LXX. it stands for D2 50 and 1}. Some make it synony- 
 mous with xaends. Erasmus and Schmidt: vectigal. Others, as 
 Carpzovius and Krebs, penalty. We ought not, however, to give it 
 a different signification from what it bears shortly after in reference 
 to δικαιοσύνη. ‘There it is different from χαφςπὸς, and signifies issue, 
 termination. Chr. Schmid: ultima linea flagitiorum. It is used in 
 the same sense, Phil. iii. 19; 2 Cor. xi. 15. Θάνατος as a counterpart 
 to ζωὴ αἰώνιος, implies everlasting misery. 
 
 V. 22. εἰς ἁγιασμόν. The proposition is here susceptible of a two- 
 fold interpretation. Either it may be used instead of ἐν, which 
 would make the sense, ‘‘ In holiness there is so much bliss, that it is 
 its own remuneration.”” Or the εἰς really expresses the end or con- 
 summation of the reward itself, just as the Hebrew 5 often forms 
 supplementary clauses in the same sense. In this view, Seb. 
 Schmidt, with little propriety, considers good works to be the fruit 
 which is meant. It would be far better, however, to understand the 
 influences of the Holy Spirit, or divinely imparted strength to do 
 good, by which alone holiness is possible. ‘The common opinion 
 
 \ is, that xaenis εἰς ἁγιασμὸν 15 equivalent to xaends ἁγιασμοῦ. To δὲ 
 τέλος. (ο.: "Ex τῶν δεδομένων τὰ περοσδοχώμετα πιστοῦται; τοὐτέστυν 
 ἀπὸ ἁγιασμοῦ τὴν αἰώνιον Gary. 
 
 V. 23. ᾿Οψώνιον means ὦ soldier’s pays; and the phrase is inasmuch 
 the more appropriate, as the Apostle had represented the sinner as 
 in subjection to sin. At the time a man surrenders himself to its 
 ‘sway, it promises, indeed, something very different, but while he 
 
 {seeks what is durable, sin deceives him with apparent blessings, 
 / which prove afterwards to be destruction, his true nature being alto- 
 ' gether overlooked in the enjoyment they impart. ‘There is great 
 ' beauty in the Apostle using, on the side of holiness, the word χάξισ- 
 μα as the counterpart to this ὀψώνιον. For sin being really hostile to 
 human nature, promises him reward, whereas holiness, which alone 
 satisfies it, calls upon him for obedience, and allows him to regard 
 ..the happiness connected with that, only as a gift of grace. Augus- 
 tine, (Ep. 105, ad Sixtum): Adversus elationis pestem vigilantissime 
 militans, stipendium inquit peccati mors. MRecte stipendium, quia 
 debetur, quia digne retribuitur, quia meritum redditur. Deinde ne 
 justitia de humano se extolleret bono merito, sicut humanum malum 
 non dubitatur esse peccatum, gratia inquit Dei, vita eterna. It is 
 too learned and hence incorrect, when Grotius and Wetstein interpret 
 χάρισμα in the military sense of a bounty, in contrast to ὀψώνιον, the 
 
 proper pay. 
 
CHAPTER SEVENTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Havine maintained, in the foregoing chapter, that, just because they are no 
 longer under the law, but under grace, Christians certainly achieve sanctifi- 
 cation, Paul now farther seeks to show, that, in point of fact, they no more 
 stand in any relation whatever to the law as an incitement to holiness; and 
 how, so long as a man is urged by the law, and by that only, a continual 
 struggle will indeed be carried on within him; but that, owing to the absence 
 of all affection for the commandment, that struggle, instead of advancing 
 him in holiness, only ends in grief and despair, at the incurable variance 
 which is felt. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. Christians are actually nowise connected with the Law as an impellent to 
 what is good, and for that very reason are holier than the man who is 
 subject to it. V. 1—6. 
 
 2. The relation of the Law to the perverse inclinations of the human will is 
 exhibited; from which it appears, that in itself the Law is holy, and that 
 only the wrong bias of their wills makes men take occasion from it to 
 sin, but that, just on that account, the law is incapable of operating holi- 
 ness. It discloses, but it cannot do away the discord. V.7—25. 
 
 Poh Rel cB: 
 
 CHRISTIANS HAVE ACTUALLY NO SORT OF CONNECTION AT ALL WITH 
 THE LAW AS AN INCITEMENT TO GOODNESS, AND FOR THAT VERY 
 REASON, THEY ARE HOLIER THAN THE MAN WHO STANDS UNDER IT. 
 Vv. 1—6. 
 
 V. 1. Ir is true that, at the close of the previous chapter, the 
 Apostle had spoken less of the relation of νόμος to Christ, than of the 
 ἁμαρτία and the oapé The point from which he had set out, however, 
 just was, that so long as a man continues under the νόμος, the ἁμαρτία 
 is not slain. ‘There is, hence, a good connection, when he now 
 shows, that the Jaw is no longer of use as an efficient means of sanc- 
 tification to Christians, but that their sanctification must henceforward 
 be altogether the result of grace; inasmuch as it is grace which ob- 
 jectively is proposed to man, and which subjectively serves him as 
 the inward spring of action. Now, in order to show how Christians 
 
 26 
 
202 CHAPTER VII. Vv. l. 
 
 are absolved from the law, as the impulsive means of sanctification, 
 he here, as elsewhere, abstains from stating abstract ideas, and seeks 
 to make the matter intelligible by again employing a figure. In this 
 figure, however, there is much obscurity, and hence the elucidations 
 it has received, are manifold and various. We shall take notice of 
 the variations of opinion upon the several points, when we come to 
 the explanation of these. Of the views which have been taken of the 
 whole, the two most diverse—we name them after their most ancient 
 authors—are those of Origen and Augustine. ‘The latter expresses 
 himself as follows, in Prop. 36: Cum ergo tria sint, anima, tanquam 
 mulier, passiones peccatorum tanquam vir, et lex tanquam lex viris 
 non ibi peccatis mortuis, tanquam viro mortuo liberari animam dicit, 
 sed ipsam animam mori peccato, et liberari a lege, ut sit alterius virl, 
 ἢ. 6. Christi, cum mortua fuerit peceato, quod fit, cum adhue manen- 
 tibus in nobis desideriis et incitamentis quibusdam ad peccandum, 
 non obedimus tamen, nec consentimus, mente servientes legi Dei. 
 This exposition is followed by Justinian, Toletus and Beza, who 
 says: ‘here are two marriages. In the first the old man is the wife, 
 predominating sinful desires the husband, transgressions of every 
 kind the offspring. In the second, the mew man is the wife, Christ, 
 the husband, and the fruits of the Spirit—Gal. v. 22—are the chil- 
 dren. If this exposition be followed, the image gives rise to less 
 difficulty than when it is otherwise explained. ‘The meaning is then 
 as follows: Your former husband was sin. In respect of its conse- 
 quences, that has been done away by Christ upon the cross, which 
 necessarily leads to the removal of the thing itself. Ye are, hence, 
 absolved from the conjugal union. But, in regard sin has been put 
 to death, you, on your side, bear to it the relation of persons dead. 
 In adopting this explanation of the passage, we must suppose that the 
 Apostle means to repeat once more, under other figures, what he had 
 last delivered in the close of the previous chapter. Although, how- 
 ever, the similitude itself, when thus explained, occasions no difficulty, 
 the connection is completely against doing so, inasmuch as the whole 
 7th chap., from the 7th verse, treats throughout of the relation of the 
 moral law, and not of that of sin to man. It must be added, that the 
 τῷ νόμῳ in the 4th, and the ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμον in the 6th verse, are in a 
 highly unnatural way, understood of the marriage law, and the first 
 mention allowed to be made of the moral law is at verse 6th; from 
 which it would appear that the weighty inquiry in the 7th, is but 
 casually appended. On the contrary, there is far more in favour of 
 the other explanation which is found in Origen, Chrysostom, Gcu- 
 menius, Theodoret, Ambrose and Hilary, as has been adopted by 
 Thom. Aquinas, Calvin, Bucer and others. It is as follows: Man is 
 represented as the female standing in need of a husband, in as much’ 
 as he can only rest in some one above himself, as the rule of his life. 
 Formerly, that husband was the moral law; now, however, it has lost 
 all its efficacy as a lord and master, and is become as good as dead 
 to man, who accordingly is at liberty, and under obligation to choose 
 
CHAPTER VII. V. 1. 203 
 
 for himself another. Such is the train of thought so far as verse 4. 
 There the Apostle suddenly reverses the comparison, when he says, 
 ** Ye have become dead to the law.’’ ‘Two similitudes thus blend 
 together. Nor is it difficult to explain the sudden transition from 
 the one to the other, when we take into consideration the vivacity of 
 his character, and the fact, that on both sides the comparison is en- 
 tirely just. Compare Stier, Beitr. zu gl. Schriftverst. Th. 2. S. 287. 
 Chrysostom and Theophylact: Td ἀκόλουϑον ἦν εἰπεῖν, Ὥστε ἀδελφοί, 
 οὐ xvevever ὑμῶν ὁ νόμος" ἀπέϑανε yae. "AAA οὐχ εὔπεν οὕτως, ἵνα μὴ 
 πλήξῃ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, ἀλλὰ τὴν γυναῖκα εἰσάγεν τελευτήσασαν, τουτέστιν» 
 αὐτούς, ὥστε διπλῆς ἀπολαύειν τῆς ἐλευθερίας. Ei γὰρ τελευτήσαντος τοῦ 
 ἀνδρὸς ἀπήλλακται τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ νόμου; πολλῷ μάλλον ἡλευθέρωταινγ ὅταν 
 καὶ αὐτὴ τετελευτηχυία φαίνηται. ἢ ν 
 
 As to the meaning οἵ νόμος, the Apostle is here addressing Jews 
 and Judaising converts, and hence it must denote primarily the Mo- 
 saic law, not, however, with reference to its matter but to its form, 
 2. 6. in 80 far as it is daw, and imposes an external obligation. Com- 
 pare the comment atc. iii. 20. As this character, however, of out- 
 wardly binding, instead of quickening from within, belongs to every 
 moral law, there lies at the bottom of this reasoning something which 
 holds true of all times and of all men. 
 
 ἀδελφοὶ, (γινώσκουσι γὰρ νόμον λαλὼ) κτλ. The Apostle makes this 
 so affectionate preface, in order to engrave what he is about to say, 
 deeply upon the heart. ‘The fact of his ascribing a knowledge of the 
 law to those whom he addresses, does not altogether prove that they 
 were Jewish Christians. Many of the heathen converts had pre- 
 viously been proselytes to Judaism, and hence were acquainted with 
 the Law. ‘The νόμος accordingly here signifies the Law of Moses. 
 Similar is the address, Gal. iv. 21. It may, however, be inquired, 
 to what part of the Law the Apostle refers. ‘The majority of ex- 
 positors suppose him to have in his eye the Law of marriage, Deut. 
 v. 18; Lev. xx. 10. It is manifest, however, that it is solely in regard 
 to verse 1, that the Apostle appeals to the hearers’ knowledge of the 
 law; for he appends verse 2d merely as a case of subsumption to 
 verse Ist. Accordingly, he seems to allude to the Talmudic axiom 
 of law, Mynn yD 232 DANN ΠΡ) 2, «When man dies he is no more 
 under the obligation of the commandments.” With this axiom 
 heathen proselytes to Judaism, who required to attend to such mat- 
 ters, might have well been acquainted. 
 
 ὅτι 6 νόμος xvevevere It would be wrong, with Chr. Schmid to un- 
 derstand by the νόμος here, the Law of marriage. It much rather 
 means the whole Mosaic Law. And hence Carpzov goes still farther 
 
 * The right thing to have said was, Wherefore, brethren, the law reigns 
 not over you, for it has died. But the Apostle does not say that, in order not 
 to wound the Jews. He introduces the wife, 7. 6. themselves, as having ex- 
 pired, so as to reap the twofold liberty. For if by the death of the husband, 
 she has been made to pass from the power of the law, much more has she 
 been freed when even herself is shown as dead. 
 
204 CHAPTER Vit. v. 1, 2, 3. 
 
 astray when he not merely interprets νόμος, the marriage law, but 
 considers ἀνϑεώπος to mean the wife, and then to the verb ζῇ supplies 
 ὁ ἄνδεωπος, 1. 6. the husband, giving already to the words the special 
 sense: The law of marriage binds the wife so long as the husband 
 liveth. Ina manner no less forced, others, as Hammond and Elsner, 
 connect dvSeanov With νόμος in the sense of ἀνδϑεώπινος. 
 
 ἐφ ὅσον yeovoy ζῇ. ‘I'he question here is, What shall we supply as 
 subject to Gy? Origen, Ambrose, and in later times Erasmus, Gro- 
 tius and Koppe suppose νόμος. But far more properly Augustine, 
 CEcumenius, ‘Thom. Aquinas and many more supply dvSeunos. This 
 appears partly from the {vce dvder, which, in verse 2, is immediately 
 linked to the present by the yae, and partly from the parallel passage, 
 1 Cor. vii. 39. It must indeed be confessed, that, as in that case it 
 is the husband who is properly intended, one would have expected 
 the Apostle to speak of the death of the wife, by which the husband 
 is set free from the dominion of the law, and for that reason even the 
 interpreters who supply ἀνϑέωπος, are of opinion that the Apostle has 
 in view the turn given to the similitude in verse fourth. This, how- 
 ever, is by no means necessary. As Gicumenius observes, Paul, in so 
 general a statement of the proposition, is at liberty to make either the 
 man or the woman die, and the proposition is to be conceived in the 
 following more general form: Wherever death takes place, the obli- 
 gation of law ceases. Κυξιεύευ signifies, ‘*has legal power.’ In the 
 writings of the Rabbins also we find the law personified. See R. 
 Ismael, De Anima, c. 7. 
 
 V. 2. The yae shows, that the confirmation of the general propo- 
 sition now follows. 
 
 inovdeos. ‘This word appears in profane authors (See Raphelius 
 and Wetstein,) as well as in the Apocrypha. LEcclesiasticus ix. 8; 
 ΧΙ. 26, It has even asynonyme in the Hebrew, Numb. v. 29, ΓΙ 
 pnn ws, which the LXX., in like manner, render ὕπανδρος. 
 
 ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ. The Talmud, Tr. Kidduschin, Fol. ii. 1, 
 has the following words: ‘‘A woman is restored to herself, (becomes 
 free) by divorcement and the husband’s demise.”’ 
 
 δέδεται νόμῳ by the precept relating to marriage in the Law of 
 Moses. Karneynzor, Cicumenius: ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπολέλυται, ἠλευθέρωται. 
 In the LXX. the word is only found in the sense fo hinder, but ἃ 
 corresponding phrase jp 203 in the Chaldaic and Rabbinical dialeets, 
 has in both the same sense of to be freed. So likewise in the New 
 Testament, verse 6 below, and Gal. v. 4. Perfectly synonymous is 
 the expression 17) ‘703, in the passage of the Talmud, Berachoth ec. 
 2, where R. Gamaliel says: “I will not let you persuade me to be 
 released, even for a moment from the law of God.”’ 
 
 "And τοῦ νόμου τοῦ avdeds, Grotius pertinently expounds: A lege 
 que viro consulebat and Beza: Ab imperio viri, ab eo vinculo quod 
 eam ad virum astringebat. 
 
 V. 3. χεηματίζω used in the Act. and Mid. in the sense fo acquire 
 or bear a name, is found in profane authors, and the New Testament, 
 
CHAPTER VII. v. 4, 5. 205 
 
 Acts xi. 26. γίνεσθαι ἀνδρὶ ἑτέξῳ is a Hebraism, see LXX., Lev. xxii. 
 11. Tod μὴ εἶναι αὐτὴν» the customary Hebrew form instead of ὥστε. 
 V. 4. Paul now advances to the application of his comparison. 
 Inasmuch as, strictly speaking, it ought to have been said, The law 
 is become dead to you, the question arises, in how far he could have 
 said so with truth? Origen thinks, that as the Old ‘Testament con- 
 tained only an intimation of the glory of the New, the σκιά has been 
 done away by the σῶμα, Heb. x. 1. But far better does St. Paul 
 give us the answer to this question at Col. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 15. Man 
 was unable to realize the ideal of holiness, perfectly fulfilling all the 
 demands of thelaw. Christ appeared and manifested perfect holiness. 
 Objectively, the believer contemplates this as his own, while sub- 
 jectively it is transfused into him by the πνεῦμα τοὺ Xevorov. In so 
 far, the law is no longer judge over man, its claims are satisfied. See 
 Augustine c. Faust. |. xv.c. 8. The Apostle, however, maintains 
 also the converse of the proposition, viz. that we are dead to the 
 law. This is the natural consequence of the law being dead to us. 
 For if, objectively, we have the assurance that it has no more any 
 judicial authority over us, it follows as a natural result, that we have 
 no more to consider ourselves inwardly as standing in relation to it 
 as to our judge. 
 τῷ νόμῳ is, in accordance with Augustine’s exposition which we 
 have stated above, understood by Justinian to mean the law of mar- 
 riage, while Beza contends that it is here synonymous with ἁμαφτία; 
 the causa-efficiens being per meton. placed pro effecto, which no man 
 will believe. 
 διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Xevorov. Certain Catholic expositors interpret 
 σῶμα, the mystical body of Christ, ‘he church, into which Christians 
 are incorporated by baptism. But it is perfectly clear that Paul 
 means the crucified body of Christ, by which the claim of the law 
 for the expiation of guilt, is satisfied. Of similar import are the texts 
 Col. i. 22, ii. 14;°1 Pet. ii. 24; Heb. x. 5, 10; Eph. ii. 15. 
 τῷ ἐκ vexeav ἐγεφθέντι forms a gentle contrast to σῶμα, requiring to 
 have ϑανατωδὲν Χριστοῦ understood. ‘The risen Saviour is the second 
 spouse of the soul, and also the champion who separates it by death 
 from the first, whom, too, by his own death, he as it were slays. 
 Paul brings forward the resurrection, inasmuch as it is since that 
 event that Christ has obtained fulness of power to conduct the re- 
 _ deemed to their destination, and especially to communicate to them 
 the energies necessary for a new life. 
 iva καρποφορήσωμεν τῷ Θεῷ. Theodoret: καί ἐπειδὴ συνάφειαν xai 
 γάμον τὴν εἰς τὸν Ἱζύριον προσηγόρευσε πύστιυν; εἰκότως δεύχνυσυ καὶ τὸν τοῦ 
 γάμου χαρπόν. Erasmus: Ita nune felicius nacti matrimonium, fruc- 
 tum edatis, Deo socero Christoque Sponso dignum. God is in fact 
 represented as the head of a family, who unites the redeemed with 
 Christ as with their Bridegroom. 
 V. 5. That this union of man with Christ, instead of with the law, 
 has likewise become absolutely indispensable, in order to the attain- 
 
206 CHAPTER VII. Vv. 5. 
 
 ment of real holiness, Paul now proves by appealing to the experience 
 of Christians in their former state, in which indwelling sin manifested 
 so great a power. 
 
 ore yap nuev ἐν τῇ oapxc. That the Apostle intends by this expres- 
 sion, life before conversion, is obvious: In the more special explana- 
 tion, notwithstanding, interpreters deviate from each other. ‘Theo- 
 doret, GEcumenius, Grotius and Schleusner understand at once by 
 σάρξ, the Old Testament. But although σάρξ, in contrast with πνεῦμα; 
 may by a derivative process, be referred to the Old Testament theo- 
 eracy, still the primitive signification is never to be overlooked. 
 Primarily, σάρξ denotes the condition in which man, according to his 
 historical connection, finds himself by nature placed, and wherein he 
 is destitute of the powers of divine life. Now, in as far as this was 
 the case with the subjects of the Old Testament theocracy, in so far 
 may that entire dispensation be termed Sap&. Ἔν σαρκὶ ecrvac, ch. vill. 
 8, 9, equivalent to xara σάρχα πεξιπατεῦν, 6. Vili. 5, 13. Compare 
 commentary onc. vii. 14, andi. 8. With great precision, Calvin: 
 Solis nature dotibus esse preditum, sine singulari gratia, qua electos 
 suos Deus dignatur. Chrysostom: Οὐχ εἶπεν, ὅτε quev ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, 
 πανταχοῦ Φειδόμενος δοῦναν aigetexors λαβήν᾽ GAA’, ὅτε ἦμεν ἐν τῇ σαξκχί» 
 τουτέστιν ταῖς mMovyears πράξεσι; τῷ σαδχιχῷ βίῳ. τοῦτο δὲ εἰπὼν, οὔτε 
 GLTLOY ELYaL φησιν ἁμαρτημάτων τὸν νόμον; οὔτε ἀπαλλάτϑευν αὐτὸν ἄπεχ- 
 θείας. κατήγόξου yae τάξιν ἐπεύχε πυκξοῦ, ἀπογυμνῶν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα. 
 ὃ γὰς τῷ ἐὸν πείθεσθαι βουλομένῳ πλείονω ἐπιτάττων, πλεονάζειν τὸ 
 πάραπτωμα.ἢ 
 
 τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαξτιῶν, passions, affections. So used by pro- 
 fane authors, and also in Gal. v. 24, Xenophon, Cyr. 3, 1, 10: πά- 
 θημά ov λέγεις τῆς YAS evar τὴν σωφροσύνην, ὥσπερ λύυπην--οοὺ μάθημα. 
 
 τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου. Chrysostom and Carpzov here falsely supply 
 φαινόμενα OF γνωστά. Locke takes the διὰ as denoting the state: 
 «That remained in us wnder the law;’’ in like manner, as Rom. ii. 
 27. Michaelis follows him and says: ‘* Which remain along with 
 the law.”” But there are strong reasons for supplying γεγονότα, 
 according to verse 8. Calvin: Hominis perversitas, quo magis jus- 
 titi repagulis coercetur, eo furiosius erumpit. Here, however, as 
 little as in the 8th verse, has the Apostle said, ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου, the law 
 being only the occasional cause. 
 
 évmeyerto ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν. Some, as for example Outhof, would 
 have ἐνηέγεῖτο understood in a passive sense, which is doubtless 
 allowable. It appears, however, innumerable times in the New 
 Testament as middle, and no less in profane writers, (Raphel. Not. 
 Polyb.), and hence is here better taken as such. Erasmus observes 
 
 * He did not say, “ When we were in the law,” always avoiding to give a 
 handle to heretics; but “ When we were in the flesh,” ὁ, 6. in evil works, a 
 carnal life. And by so saying, he neither calls the law the cause of sins, nor 
 totally exempts it from hatred. For it acts the part of a stern accuser by ex- 
 posing sins; for whoever multiplies commands to one who refuses the least 
 obedience, thereby augments his transgression. 
 
CHAPTER VII. V. 9, 6. 207 
 
 upon it: Secreto agebant, nam occulta vis dicitur évéeyev velut in 
 semine, et vis mentis in homine. The ἐν before μέλεσι is translated by 
 Grotius through; so that the members, as formerly in the 6th chap- 
 ter, are considered as instruments. We take it in its proper signi- 
 fication, comparing verse 23. ‘The Apostle figures the sinful desire 
 as a poison, which, produced in the inmost recesses of the will, per- 
 vades, in course, the entire man, and takes into its service all his 
 powers both of mind and body. Limborch: Sub membris etiam 
 comprehenduntur intellectus et voluntas. Chrysostom: “Iva μηδὲ τῆς 
 OUXOS κατηγοξήσῃ: οὐκ εὖπεν; ἃ ἐνέφγει τὰ μέλη; ἀλλ᾽ ἃ ἐνηξγεῦτο ἐν τοῖς 
 μέχεσιν ἡμῶν' δεικνὺς ἑτέφωθεν οὖσαν τῆς πονηξίας τὴν ἀρχὴν; ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν- 
 εφγούντων λογισμὼν; οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνεῤδγουμένων μελῶν. Ἢ μὲν yae ψυχὴ 
 τεχνίτου τάξιν ἐπεῖχε; xOaeas δὲ τῆς σαφκὸς ἡ Φύσις, οὕτως ἠχοῦσα ὡς 
 ἠνάγκαξεν ὃ τεχνίτης. Melancthon: Primum enim illa ingens dubita- 
 tio, que in omnium hominum animis heret, certe est eflicax inmem- 
 bris, quia propter illam dubitationem ruunt homines contra voluntatem 
 Dei, ut, quia non confidunt Deo, multa faciunt metu et diffidentia 
 contra voluntatem Dei. Hane autem diffidentiam auget Lex, que, 
 quia semper accusat, facit ut corda sint aversa Deo, fugiant Deum, 
 non invocent, non confidant........Est autem hic locus diligenter ob- 
 servandus, ut discamus illam dubitationem esse peccatum, ut repug- 
 nemus et erigamus nos Evangelio, et sciamus esse culéum Det, in 
 illos terroribus repugnare dubitutioni et diffidentiz.” A great and 
 novel doctrine! 
 
 εἰς τὸ καφποφορῆσαι τῷ ϑανάτῳ. The wretchedness of sin is per- 
 sonified and set in opposition to God in verse 4th, as if it in some 
 sort felt satisfaction when the sinner plunges into the love of sin. 
 The law could do no more than awaken the consciousness of discord. 
 Nay often was the pleasure of sinning even heightened by the cer- 
 tainty of its being forbidden, verse 8; and hence, by means of the 
 law, the ϑάνατος» or human wretchedness, was but raised to its highest 
 pitch. 
 
 V. 6. In contrast with that legal condition, Paul now shows how 
 Christians, possessed of a new element of life, serve God and strive 
 after holiness. We have first to take the reading into consideration. 
 ᾿Αποθανοντες is found in A C, and in a great many minor codices, as 
 is also the case with the Greek fathers and Rufinus. But DEF 
 G, the Vulgate and the majority of the Latin fathers read cov ϑανάτου. 
 In fine, it was said that ἀποϑανόντος was in Chrysostom, and on that 
 supposition Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Vitringa and various others re- 
 ceived it into the text, although without the sanction of any codex. 
 It is true that, at first sight, it does appear as if Chrysostom had so 
 
 * That he might also not accuse the flesh, he did not say, “which our 
 members work,” but which “did work in our members,” showing that the 
 principle of evil is from a foreign source, from our thoughts that work, and 
 not from our members that are wrought upon. For the soul does the office 
 of μα artist, and the flesh is as it were a lyre which sounds as the artist 
 makes it. 
 
208 CHAPTER VII. v. 6. 
 
 written, for he makes the following note: ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγεν, ὁ δεσμὸς δὲ οὔ 
 κατειχόμεθα; ἐνεχρώθη καὶ Sveppwn, ὥστε τὸν κατέχοντα μηδὲν κατέχειν 
 λοιχίὸν; τουτέστι; τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. ἢ Previously, however, he had said: 
 καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς κατηξγήθημεν: τοῦ κατεχομένου maga τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀνθρώπου 
 παλαιοῦ ἀποθανόντος χαὶ ταφέντος. t From this it appears, that what he 
 means to express is: Seeing that the old man is dead in regard to the 
 fetter of sin which bound him, that fetter is likewise dead in regard 
 to him. Hence he has construed: ἀποθανόντες meds ἐκεῖνο ἔν ᾧ 
 xarecyouesa. In like manner, as he had before supposed a recip- 
 rocal compact between the law and man, so here he does the same 
 between sinand man. ‘This sense is fully expressed by Theophylact: 
 Οὐχ εἴπον; ὅτι xatney7dy ὃ νόμος; (va μὴ πλήξῃ» τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους" ἀλλὰ χα- 
 τηξγήδημεν ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ TOL νόμου; ὃ ἐστιν, ἀπελύϑημεν ἀποδανόντες, καὺ 
 VEXEOL καὶ ἀχίνητου γενόμενου τ δὸς EXELVO τὸ πξαγμα ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεϑα- 
 Ἂν αὐτὴ yae οἷόν tow δεσμῷ κατειχόμεδα. ‘The external authori- 
 ties, therefore, speak decisively, for ἀπαϑδϑανόντ ες. which coincides 
 appropriately with the t3avara3qze of verse 4; so that the comparison 
 there remains unchanged, inasmuch as man is still represented as the 
 defunct party. We have to add, that the unusual hypallage of ἀπο- 
 δϑανόντες affords us a simple explanation of the change of reading. 
 For we have to conceive the ἀποϑανόντες placed after νυνὺ δὲ at the top 
 of the verse. Most inconsiderately did Semler propose to banish the 
 disputed word from the text. The χατέχεσδαν corresponds with the 
 xvevepe, Which, in verse Ist, was ascribed to the law. 
 
 ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος. ‘The genitive is the genitivus exegeticus, 
 in anew way, i.e. by means of a new element of spiritual life. 
 Correctly Calvin: Spiritum liter opponit, quia antequam ad Dei 
 voluntatem voluntas nostra per spiritum sanctum formata sit, non 
 habemus in Lege nisi externam literam, que frenum quidem exter- 
 nis nostris actionibus injicit, concupiscentiz autem nostre furorem 
 minime cohibet. Melancthon: Ideo dicitur litera, quia non est verus 
 et vivus motus animi, sed est ofiosa imitatio interior vel exterior, 
 nec ibi potest esse vera invocatio, ubi cor non apprehendit remissio- 
 nem peccatorum. ‘To carry the proposition to its height, one might 
 say: All the good deeds of the man under the law are hypocritical, 
 inasmuch as they are but a dead copying of a command which stands 
 opposed to the inclinations of his own will; and hence, that God, 
 whose life is holiness itself, must first, by means of faith in the redemp- 
 tion, have become the life of man, in order that human holiness may 
 
 * As if he had said, The bond, by which we were held, has been put to 
 death and broken, so that that which once detained us, even sin, detains us 
 no more. 
 
 + And how are we absolved? By the old man, who was held by sin, being 
 put to death and buried. 
 
 + He does not say, The law has been absolved, for fear of offending the 
 Jews, but We have been absolved from the law, that is, we have escaped from 
 it by dying, and becoming extinct and motionless with respect to that thing 
 by which we were detained; for in it we were held as by a bond. 
 
CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 209 
 
 emanate from spontaneous impulse. ‘Thus Augustine very per- 
 tinently says, that the old man is sub lege, the new man cum lege. 
 Compare Usteri Paul. Lehrb. 5. 31. 
 
 PAK Tre 
 
 VIEW OF THE RELATION OF THE LAW TO THE PERVERTED INCLINA- 
 TIONS OF THE WILL OF MAN. FROM WHICH IT APPEARS THAT IN 
 ITSELF THE LAW IS HOLY, AND THAT IT IS ONLY THE WRONG BIAS 
 OF THEIR WILL WHICH MAKES MEN TAKE FROM IT OCCASION OF 
 SINNING; BUT THAT ON THAT VERY ACCOUNT IT IS INCAPABLE OF 
 OPERATING HOLINESS. IT DISCOVERS, BUT IT CANNOT DO AWAY THE 
 DISCORD. v. 7—25. 
 
 V.7. The Apostle had before refuted the opinion, that the law 
 was more conducive than grace to sanctification. Here, where he 
 bids Christians consult their experience for evidence, that sin lords it 
 over man, far more under the law than under grace, the thought might 
 arise, May not perhaps the law itself be ungodly? Accordingly, in 
 an exposition, which evinces so deep a knowledge of the human 
 heart, that one is tempted to say, It is the Creator of the heart him- 
 self describing it, the Apostle now paints the relation of the divine 
 law to the opposite propensities of man. ‘The inference from what 
 he says is, that the divine law is in itself holy and good, but that the 
 corrupted disposition of man takes occasion from it to sin; so that 
 here moral evil manifests itself to be evil indeed, by its abuse of that 
 which is good and divine. On the other hand, however, this very 
 statement makes it evident, that the law cannot possibly produce true 
 holiness. A commentary upon Paul’s estimate of the worth of the 
 Jaw may be found in Aug. c. Faust. 1. xv. c. 8: Lex semper est bona, 
 sive obsit hominibus gratiaé vacuis, sive prosit gratia plenis. Que- 
 madmodum Sol semper est bonus sive dolentibus oculis noceat, sive 
 sanos mulceat. Proinde quod est oculis sanitas ad videndum Solem, 
 hoe est gratia mentibus ad implendam Jegem; et sicut oculi sani non 
 delectationi Solis moriuntur, sed illis ictibus asperis radiorum, quibus 
 egri reverberati in densiores tenebras pellebantur, ifa etiam anima, 
 que per caritatem Spiritus salva facta est, non justitie legis mortua 
 dicitur, sed illi reatui ac preevaricationi, in quam lex per literam, cum 
 gratia defuit, favebat. Compare the beautiful passage from Jerome, 
 Quest. vill. ad Algas. See likewise Suiceri Thes. Τ᾿, ii. p. 424. 
 
 Before, however, we advance to the explanation of particulars, 
 we must here take up a question, the answer to which has an influ- 
 ence upon the comprehension of the whole following section. ‘I'he 
 
 question is this, Whether is the usual condition of a person standing 
 27 
 
210 CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 
 
 under the law, or of one under grace, here described? The different 
 views taken of this subject deeply affect doctrine and morals, and 
 the pastoral care. If, indeed, the least notice is paid to the connec- 
 tion of this section of the 7th chapter, with that which precedes and 
 that which follows, it is not possible to explain it of any other than 
 of a person standing under the law.” ‘There is much truth in what 
 Adam Clarke says in his commentary: ‘If the contrary could be 
 proved, the argument of the opponent would go to demonstrate the 
 insufficiency of the gospel as well as the law.”” We must, however, 
 point the attention to the grounds of our opinion. ‘The thesis of this 
 second portion of the chapter stands in verse 5th, where the condition 
 of the legalist is described as one altogether sinful. In like manner, 
 the thesis of chap. viii. is in verse 6th, where the condition of the 
 believer is described, as one of relative freedom from sin. Now, as 
 Paul has undertaken the task of pointing out the holiness of the law 
 as such, and what is the true ground of sin, it is manifest that he here 
 paints the state of the legalist. ‘The 7th and 8th chapters, too, are 
 as decidedly counterparts to each other, as are the 5th and 6th verses 
 of the former. At the close of that chapter we read under the for- 
 mula aga ovy, the compressed result of the section under review. It 
 states that to be an insuperable discord. On the other hand, at the 
 commencement of the 8th chapter, under the same formula, we read 
 the result of something previously stated with respect to the condition 
 of the believer, and that is the doing away of condemnation, and a 
 walk after the Spirit. ‘The νῦν in this verse corresponds entirely 
 with the νῦν in chap. vil. 6. Just, again, as in this manner, the 7th 
 and 8th chapters, are throughout opposed the one to the other, so 
 likewise several particulars. ‘The complaint, verse 24, answers to 
 the thanksgiving, v.25. Whilst the subject of the description speaks 
 of himself, verse 23, as taken captive under the law of sin, the sub- 
 ject of the description in chap. viii. declares himself at verse 2d to be 
 delivered from the law of sin. While chap. vii. 14, an invincible 
 strife is maintained between the spiritual law and the carnal mind, 
 and the person in verse 18th cannot find how to perform that which 
 is good, the believer, according to chap. viii. 4, fulfils the righteous- 
 ness of the law by walking after the Spirit. In fine, while, chap. vii. 
 5, we read ὅτε μεν ἐν oaexr, we read, chap. vill. 9, Ὑμεῦς οὐχ ἐστὲ ἐν 
 σαρκί. Many of these points, along with the connection, have been 
 admirably developed by Turretin. Accordingly, the mere consider- 
 ation of the substance and connection of the two chapters, were there 
 nothing else, furnishes a definite result. Besides this, however, the 
 dignity and the spirit of Christianity would forbid us to suppose that 
 all it can accomplish is to waken a sense of the inward discord, with- 
 out being able to do it away. ‘That sense many teachers of tlie 
 ancient world knew how to awaken, although certainly not so tho- 
 roughly as Christianity; but actually to secure the ascendancy for 
 the principle, which ought to be predominant in man, was what no 
 philosophy could effect. Ad. Clarke: ‘‘ This opinion has most piti- 
 
CIIAPTER VII. V. ἢ. 211 
 
 fully and shamefully not only lowered the standard of Christianity, 
 but destroyed its influence, and disgraced its character.”’ 
 
 Let us now survey the history of the exposition of this section. 
 The more ancient teachers of the church had unanimously explained 
 it of the man who has not as yet become a Christian, nor is upheld 
 in his struggle by the spirit of Christ. So Origen, ‘Tertullian,Chry- 
 sostom and Theodoret. At an earlier period, Augustine also fol- 
 lowed this view. (Prop. 41 in Ep. ad Rom., Confes. 1. vii. ὁ. 21; 
 1. viii. c. 5; Ad Simpl. 1. i.) In the dispute with the Pelagians, how- 
 ever, the two declarations, verse 17 and verse 22, raised his scruples. 
 These, he thought, could not be put into the mouth of a man prior to 
 regeneration, for then they would assign him too lofty a degree of 
 personal goodness, (Aug. Cont. duas Epp. Pelag. 1.1. 6.12, Re- 
 tract. 1.1. 6. 23; |.ii.c. 1.) In determining the question, all depends 
 upon the conception we form of regeneration. Under that word, the 
 fathers frequently comprise two different moral states; one, the state 
 of inward dissension, in which the person has before his mind’s eye 
 his own and the divine will, and struggles which of the two he ought 
 to follow; the other, the state of living xazd πνεῦμα, in which the in- 
 clinations and dispositions of man are in unison with the divine will, 
 and love prompts him spontaneously to obey it. By a person rege- 
 nerated, they understood generally, One who has at heart the fulfil- 
 ment of the will of God. [5 regeneration conceived in this compre- 
 hensive sense, then is the wnregenerate, one without law, one in 
 whom no sense at all of inward discord has as yet been called forth. 
 It was just of such reckless sinners, and, ideed, more particularly of 
 Jews, who entertained more or /ess the persuasion of the bindingness 
 of the law, that the fathers of the church understood these declara- 
 tions of Paul. Now certainly, in declaring himself for the contrary, 
 Augustine had sufficient ground; for in persons of this description 
 no such lively discord as the Apostle here paints is discoverable. 
 Calvin justly observes: Homo sue nature relictus, totus sine repug- 
 nantia in cupiditates fertur. Quanquam enim impii stimulis con- 
 scientie lanciuntur, non possis tamen inde colligere aut malum ab 
 illis odio haberi, aut amari bonum. If, then, we call the person here 
 described an unregenerate man, we understand by the name, a legal- 
 ist; one who is seriously concerned about his sanctification, zealously 
 strives after purity of heart, and who falls short of the mark, only 
 because he does not set out from that-love which first loved him, but 
 thinks by his own, to deserve the love of God, because the redemp- 
 tion of Christ is not the fountain from which his holiness emanates 
 free and lively as a stream. For just as art, with its toilsome and 
 piecemeal labours, stands related to nature, with her free and whole- 
 sale creations, so also is the law, as a school-master of holiness, re- 
 lated to free grace as an affectionate mother. Now, although on this 
 ground we certainly cannot, according to the gospel, regard such a 
 legal state of concern, as amounting to regeneration, it still is never- 
 theless a work of the spirit of God, so that the θέλω τὸ dyaSdv and 
 
212 CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 
 
 the συνήδομαν τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ vods μόν, are unquestionably to be regarded 
 as a divine operation (gratia preveniens. ) , 
 
 Among latter expositors, by far the greater number acquiesced 
 entirely either with Augustine or with the Greek fathers. ‘The for- 
 mer was followed by Anselm, Thom. Aquinas, Corn. a Lapide and 
 many others; the latter by Erasmus, Faustus Socinus (who wrote a 
 very complete treatise, De loco in Ep. ad Rom. e. vii. disp. ed. 2. 
 Racov. 1612. Defensio disputationis illius, Rac. 1618), by Raphe- 
 lius, Arminius, Episcopius in a letter to Arminius, but of no very 
 great weight, Epp. Ecclesiastice, Amst. 1684, Ep. 131, p. 228, by 
 Limborch, Turretin, Clericus, Heumann and many more. ᾿ 
 
 A different view, however, gained ground among those Protestants, 
 who had apprehended more deeply the nature of the Christian doe- 
 trine as unfolded by Paul. ‘They discriminated distinctly betwixt 
 the lawless, the legal, and the spiritual or regenerate state. One 
 class, to which Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Spener, Buddeus and 
 many others belong, supposed that chapters vil. and viii., taken to- 
 gether, present us with a description of the regenerate man; so as 
 that chapter vil. delineates one aspect of his inward life, in virtue of 
 which he does not as yet belong to Christ, while chap. viii. especially 
 delineates the other side of evangelical consolation, which lies in the 
 certainty of the objective redemption. A second class, however, to 
 which Bucer, Schomer, A; H. Franke, Gottfr. Arnold, Bengel and 
 others (Spener also in his Theol. Bedenk, Th. i. sect. 23.) belong, 
 separate between the vii. and viii. chapters, as descriptive of two dif- 
 ferent periods, the former the condition of the legalist, who is indeed 
 in earnest in the business, but does not found his sanetification upon 
 grace, and who consequently is unable to triumph over sin; the lat- 
 ter, the state of the justified man, who seeks to kindle his own love 
 at the love of God. ‘To this explanation we likewise fully assent, 
 appealing in proof of it to the explication given above of the connec- 
 tion. With respect to the two opposite views, those who suppose a 
 person totally without law to be meant, lay a stress upon two points. 
 The expressions, say they, in verses 15 and 22, θέλω, μισῶ; συνήδομαυ 
 do not necessarily denote an actual inclination of the heart to that 
 which is good, they may designate merely the approval of the un- 
 derstanding. (See the exposition of these verses.) In like manner, 
 according to the phraseology of Paul, νοὺς and ἔσω ἄνθφωπος do not 
 stand directly for πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. On that supposition it might be 
 remarked, that Paul contemplates the state of the lawless man from 
 the state in which he himself stands, and which has been matured 
 into self-consciousness, and transfers into it his present feelings. In 
 point of fact, personal feelings may have a share in the exclamation 
 of Paul at verse 24. It is impossible to think, however, that the 
 Apostle, merely from his after sensations, describes a strife as taking 
 place where it does not actually exist, and yet, following the exegeti- 
 cal feeling, one is inclined both to suppose in general, that here such 
 a strife is described, and also to regard θέλω, wrod, συνήδομαν as de- 
 
CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 213 
 
 noting it. Generally, however, the condition of a person without 
 law is delineated in the 9th verse, and, in fact, how different is it as 
 there described from the condition of the legalist! The first class we 
 mentioned of evangelical expositors, give the sense and connection of 
 the section as follows: Up to verse 14, Paul speaks in the preterite 
 tense, and hence describes the early contention of the legalist with 
 the law, in which (verse 11) he is overthrown. Onward from verse 
 14, he desires still more fundamentally to show the divinity of the 
 law, and hence represents it in conflict with the man regenerate, on 
 which account we have then the present. ‘True that even in the case 
 of the latter, sin has the ascendancy, still it no longer meets with the 
 inward consent. ‘There is a war waged, but along with that, there 
 is the inward peace, such as is described viii. 1. ‘This view of Au- 
 gustine’s is also recommended by a great truth which should not be 
 overlooked, viz. that somewhat of the legal state ever manifests itself 
 anew in the redeemed, and times without number occur in life, in 
 which he can apply himself to what Paul here says. (And hence it 
 is with truth that Beza observes: Nam certe ita est, ef qui hoc non 
 novit, nondum seipsum novit. Compare Spener, Theol. Bed. B. i. 
 s. 167, where he makes similar remarks in defence of the view of 
 Augustine. Arndt has some peculiarly excellent expressions to the 
 same effect. Vom wahren Christenthum, B. i. c. 16.) Hence it is 
 that Bugenhagen observes: Quantum in nobis peccati et veteris Ada, 
 tantum adhue habet imperii Jex, which may thus be understood: As 
 long as the love of sin remains alive within us, so long will this in- 
 veterate discord likewise be manifested. It must, however, be ob- 
 served, in opposition, that the love of sin is gradually extinguished 
 in the Christian, in respect, first, of sins of a gross, and afterwards 
 of those of a more refined description; so that thus, as Augustine 
 early expresses himself, the Christian is then no more sub lege but 
 cum lege. Moreover, even though the love of sin do stir up within 
 him the discord which is here portrayed, the Christian need not 
 permit himself to be overcome in the struggle. He has the objective 
 announcement of his redemption, and so when by a believing direc- 
 tion of the mind, he acquiesces therein, the power of the χάρις is re- 
 alized subjectively in his faith. It is true, that is not always the 
 case; frequently does the σάρξ triumph over the πνεῦμα. At any 
 rate, however, these occasions are to be considered abnormal in the 
 Christian life, as they do not occur in it in so far as it is, but only in 
 so far as it has not yet become, Christian. ‘They must hence be 
 there only as something evanescent. 
 
 Respecting the subdivision, again, which these interpreters make 
 at verse 14, there is no ground for it at all, inasmuch as what follows, 
 from that verse, and onwards, with respect to the contest with the 
 law, is just what was already said in the previous context; nor con- 
 sidering the lively manner of describing which St. Paul loves, is the 
 circumstance that thence forward verbs present are used, by any 
 means extraordinary. 
 
214 CHAPTER VII. V. 7. 
 
 Having thus answered the important question, whether in this sec- 
 tion the legalist or the justified man is spoken of, we have now still 
 to inquire whether Paul throughout the whole of it, where he speaks 
 in the first person, speaks of himself and his own circumstances, or 
 whether he transfers to himself the circumstances of others. Augus- 
 tine is of the former opinion, and many go along with him. On that 
 supposition, however, it is still-more incredible that the Apostle, in 
 the words of the chapter, should paint that state of his as lasting. 
 Supposing it again only momentarily such as he describes it, he had 
 no occasion, as we have remarked, to represent these transient excep- 
 tional states of inward life as peculiarly Christian, Even Origen 
 felt that such an acknowledgment, when considered as applicable to 
 the present, did not become St. Paul: Et extera in quibus confitetur 
 a lege, que in membris suis est, et repugnat legi mentis sue, capti- 
 vum duci se lege peccati, quomodo Apostolice convenient dignitati 
 et Paulo precipue, in quo Christus et vivit et loguitur. Hence even 
 in the ancient church, among Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Je- 
 rome and Pelagius, the opinion was more general, that Paul transfers 
 to himself the state of others. Cases of the same kind, called in his 
 own language μετασχηματισμός, 1 Cor. iv. 6, are frequently to be met 
 with in St. Paul’s writings, 1 Cor. vi. 12; x. 23,29, 30; xiii. 11, 12; 
 Gal. ii. 18. Hence likewise we find by turns, chap. vil. 14, and 
 viii. 1, the plural used, which goes through the whole of the viii. 
 chapter. With regard to the person whose state he takes to himself, 
 Chrysostom, Grotius, Clericus, and indeed most others, look upon 
 the Jews before and under the law as intended; Erasmus maintains 
 a contraposition of the Gentile without, and the Jew under the law. 
 ‘Theodoret, at verses 9 and 10, imagines that there is no less than 
 an assumption of the person of Adam. But Pelagius and Photius, 
 even in their day, hit upon the truth, the one supposing generally a 
 transference of the circumstances of a person about to be, and of a 
 person that already is, converted, 2. e. he thinks that state of man to 
 be meant, in which the individual has not yet been brought to a 
 knowledge of the obligation of the law, and that wherein the law 
 presents itself to him as obligatory. Phot. τοῦτο οὐχ εἰς ἑαυτὸν ὃ 
 Παῦλος stenxev, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης οἰχειούμενος φύσεως. 
 Ambrose: Sub sua persona quasi generalem causam agit. It cer- 
 tainly cannot well be denied, as the occasional substitution of the 
 plural shows, that the Apostle depicts generally the relation of the 
 Jaw, and afterwards that of grace to man, and in so far makes use of 
 the μετασχηματισμόςς. But then, Paul had himself passed through 
 the states which he describes; he had himself experienced in his 
 own person the insufficiency of a religious law, imposing mere out- 
 ward commands and obligations. And hence what more natural 
 than that he should at the same time speak on the subject from per- 
 
 * Paul does not say this of himself, but appropriating the person of human 
 nature. 
 
CHAPTER VII. ν. 7, 8. 215 
 
 sonal experience, in such a way as that it might be hard to sever 
 what is μετασχηματισμός and what delineation of his own feelings. 
 We require always to keep in view, that Paul compresses individual 
 experiences into general propositions and results. ‘That what he 
 says does emanate from his own inward life and experience, is par- 
 ticularly apparent from verse 25. 
 
 The Apostle accordingly designs,’in the first place, to show that 
 the law, in virtue of its own inward nature, does not produce the 
 ἁμαρτία. He means to declare what use it answers. Its great use 
 is, that it teaches us to recognize sin as sin. C&cumenius: Ὥστε οὐ 
 τοῦ ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ διαγινώσκειν THY ἁμαξτίαν ὁ νόμος αἴτιος. Pelagius: 
 Excusationem ignorantie abstulit, gravius enim facit quam ante pec- 
 care. 
 
 To this he appends a confirmation. Τὴν τε yae ἐπιθυμίαν, &c. We 
 may co-ordinate this with the preceding clause, and regard the ἐπιθυ- 
 μία aS a particular auaeria, “1 myself, 6. g. had not known sin, ex- 
 cept,” &c. The proposition, however, becomes far weightier, when 
 by ἐπιθυμία, we understand the inward sinful propensity. ‘I knew 
 not sin in general, because I had not been made attentive to its in- 
 ward root. After ἐπιθυμήσεις, we have to supply, “and so on,”’ Ex. 
 xx. 14; Deut. v. 18. 
 
 V.8. In verse 7th, the law was vindicated. Now follows, That 
 sin only abuses it. ‘The Apostle carries to its height the doctrine of 
 the opposition betwixt the law and inclination. His meaning is, 
 **So little did the commandment help, that it rather.....’’ Perti- 
 nently Erasmus: Cum ante legem proditam quedam peccata nesci- 
 rem, quedam ita scirem ut mihi tamen licere putarem, quod vetita 
 non essent, levius ac languidius sollicitabatur animus ad peccandum, 
 ut frigidius amamus ea, quibus ubi, libeat, potiri fas est. Czaterum 
 legis judicio, proditis tot peccati formis universa cupiditatum cohors 
 irritata prohibitione ccepit acrius ad peccandum sollicitare. When 
 by means of a prohibition, the idea is brought before the mind of a 
 man, that certain gratifications are sinful, these gratifications do, in 
 that way, present themselves more distinctly to him in the form of a 
 good, so that he more frequently thinks of them. Man is disposed 
 to regard as a good, whatever is prohibited, merely because it is pro- 
 hibited. Frequent thinking of an object, and that in the light of 
 something good, is apter to kindle the desire. ‘This experimental 
 truth was expressed even by the Heathen. In Livy, l. xxxiv. ὃ. 4. 
 Cato says: Nolite eodem loco existimare, Quirites, futuram rem, quo 
 fuit, antequam lex de hoc ferretur. Et hominem improbum non ac- 
 cusari, tutius est quam absolvi, et luxuria non mota tolerabilior esset, 
 quam erit nunc, ipsis vinculis, sicut fera bestia, irritata deinde emissa. 
 Seneca, De clementia, |. 1. 6. 23: Parricide cum lege ceeperunt. Hor. 
 Carm. |. i. Od. 3: Audax omnia perpeti Gens humana ruit per veti- 
 tum nefas. Hence Ovid, Amor. 1. iii. et iv: Nitimur in vetitum 
 semper cupimusque vetata. And so likewise as it is said in Scripture: 
 Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant, Prov. 
 
216 CHAPTER VII. Vv. 8, 9. 
 
 my AY “Auaerca denotes here the sinful bias of the will; '᾽Ἐπι- 
 δυμία, its modification when manifested; ’Evvoay is the particular 
 commandment. 
 
 ᾿Αφορμὴν λαμβάνειν, πρόφασιν λαμβάνειν, is likewise quite common 
 among classical authors. In the New Testament dpoguy occurs in 
 malam partem, 1 Tim. v. 14. Gal. v. 13. 
 
 χωρὶς γὰξ νόμον κτλ. Usteri, 5. 25. ** Before a νόμος is either given 
 to man from without, or developes itself within him, sinfulness exists 
 indeed, as a disposition, but it is dead, ὁ, 6. it has not, as yet, become 
 an object of consciousness, inasmuch as no contest betwixt his sin- 
 fulness and a command could, as yet, take place within him.” Cal- 
 vin: Perinde est ac si diceret, sepultam esse sine lege peccati noti- 
 tiam. Chrysostom: οὐχ οὕτω γνώξιμός ἐστι. Pelagius: Impune 
 committitur, nam male dicente infante parentibus, videtur esse pecca- 
 tum non tamen vivum sed mortuum. Augustine: Non quia est, sed 
 quia latet. In such circumstances there exists also less temptation 
 to sin, as that takes its rise most effectually, when sin is brought to 
 our knowledge under the form of the prohibition. Accordingly, 
 vexeos denotes, likewise, want of operativeness. So, Jas. ii. 17, 26, 
 it is applied to faith. So, likewise, ‘Heb. ix. 14, those works are 
 termed teya vexea, which are destitute of inward spirit, which have 
 not emanated from a vital moral disposition. Compare also, 1 Cor. 
 xv. 56: Ἢ δύνᾳμις τῆς auaertias, ὃ νομός. The meaning accordingly 
 is, “ Without the law we are not sensible of sin as such, and hence, 
 come less under its tempting power.” 
 
 V.9. From this to verse 11, we have but a more detailed repeti- 
 tion of verses 7th and 8th. The δέ after ἐγώ must not lead us astray. 
 It forms, what we have already had examples of, a formal antithesis 
 betwixt vexea and ἔζων, which the Apostle prosecutes still farther in 
 the following ἀνέζησεν and ἀπέθανεν; On which account, transferring 
 the yweis yae νόμον from the foregoing verse, Bengel not amiss trans- 
 lates: Nam absque lege peccatum quidem erat mortuum, ego vero 
 vivus eram absque lege quondam, precepti autem illius adventu, pec- 
 catum quidem revixit ego vero mortuus sum. We may perceive 
 even from this contraposition, that ἔζων here stands in an emphatic 
 sense. Beza: vivus eram, nempe quod non ita turbaretur ejus con- 
 scientia, quum morbum suum ignoraret maxima ex parte. ‘The sin- 
 ner in whom the moral discord has not as yet been stirred up, often 
 enjoys an apparent freshness and freedom of life. So Augustine, in 
 his day. In like manner Philo, Quod det pot. Insid. p. 164, B: 6 
 δὲ φαῦλος ζὼν τὸν ἐν κακίῳ βίον, τέθνηκε τὸν evdatmova.* Comp. Rev. iii. 
 1. The ἀπέθανον thus signifies in more extensive sense, ‘‘ lost my 
 proper being, became miserable (viz. by means of the strife within 
 which admits no tranquillity of life.) Compare Baruch iv. 1: αὐτὴ 
 ἡ βίβλος τῶν πδοσταγμάτων τοῦ Θεοῦ xaL ὁ νόμος: πάντες οἱ xEaTOUYTES 
 αὐτὴν, εἰς ζωὴν" οὐ δὲ χαταλείποντες αὐτὴν ἀποθανοῦνταυ. Compare 
 
 * The wicked man who lives an evil life is dead, as regards a happy one. 
 
CHAPTER VII. Vv. 9. 217 
 
 what was said upon θάνατος and ἀποθνήσκειν at chap. v. 12. Others, 
 of whom are Chrysostom and Cocceius, translate became wholly 
 sinful. But this does not suit with the context, as also appears from 
 the εἰς ϑάνατον which follows in the 10th verse. 
 
 ἀνέζησεν, it revived; having in the period when there was no law, 
 fallen asleep. Here also it is better to understand ζῇν emphatically. 
 lt awakens and acquires its true force. Accordingly we shall 
 adopt the meaning of this verse, as stated by Cameronius, who thus 
 correctly expounds: (Cameron. in Crit. Sacr. ad Rom. viii. 15:) 
 Homo naturaliter in peccato suo jacet consopitus, ignarus miserie 
 sux, priusquam a Deo in Legis notitia illuminetur. Ad illumina- 
 tionis illius primum usque momentum putat vivere, ἢ. 6. quiete pa- 
 cateque vitam agere, verum ubi a lege pulsatur ejus conscientia, 
 statim moritur ἢ. 6. mire exagitatur atque animo percellitur, sive 
 applicet se bono (quod nunquam appetivisset nisi per mandatum id 
 jussus esset proptereaque non nisi invitus illi se applicat), sive a 
 malo sibi temperet (quod illaa natura mire allubescit), id non nisi 
 egre et reluctanti animo prestat, sive oculos conjiciat in maledic- 
 tionem, quam contumacibus lex interminatur, quamque scit se effu- 
 gere non posse, nisi Deus aliqua ratione, quam ipse non vidit, suc- 
 currat, id non sine horrore potest animo concipere. Supposing, now, 
 that Paul here directly describes his own personal experience, we 
 may ask (as has been done by Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Arndt) 
 on what periods of his life may we conceive him to have thought in 
 this description of the time when the νόμος has not as yet awakened. 
 In respect of mankind in general, however, we may also inquire 
 when and where the circumstances here delineated occur. With re- 
 ference to what we asserted above, of the Apostle’s comprising 
 manifold isolated experiences in general results, we might reply, that 
 here too the Apostle does not depict experiences which occur in one 
 single period of life, but merely collects into the picture of the man 
 without law, certain circumstances which are manifested more or 
 less in different periods, and upon different stages of development. 
 In point of fact, a state of absolute lawlessness, in which man en- 
 counters nothing obligatory whatsoever, or whencesoever, could not 
 at all occur. Still the want of consciousness of a law is met with, 
 chiefly upon the lowest stages of social life, (although it is just there 
 that the mighty force of conscience, and hence at least of the inward 
 νόμος, frequently manifests itself); moreover, among men of great 
 levity, or of very obtuse perceptions, who not unfrequently possess 
 a certain instinctive good-heartedness, which deceives both them- 
 selves and others with respect to their character; finally, among such 
 as, from youth up, have been deprived of all religious and moral dis- 
 cipline. With the Apostle, indeed, none of these was the case. 
 According to what, at Phil. iii. 6, and elsewhere, he says of himself, 
 one might believe that he had always manifested a sincere zeal and 
 fidelity towards his religious law, as may well be concluded also 
 from his training under Gamaliel, known to us (from the Talmud 
 
 28 
 
218 CHAPTER Vil. V. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13._ 
 
 and other sources) as an estimable and pious man. If verse 24 be 
 the utterance of the Apostle’s own vivid experience, at no period of 
 his life can he have belonged to those Pharisees who were satisfied 
 with a mere outward and superficial fulfilment of the law. - And thus 
 one would have to suppose, that when he delineates the state of 
 being without law, it is merely isolated circumstances and facts de- 
 rived likewise from his own experience that float before his mind. 
 He might, in an especial manner, have thought of his youth before 
 his entrance into the school of Gamaliel. Augustine and Calvin are 
 inclined to believe that it is Paul’s life as a Pharisee, which is 
 meant, when his attention had not as yet been called to an inward 
 obedience to the law. 
 
 V. 10. The law of God holds out to those who obey it life, i. e. 
 blessedness, Lev. xviii. 5. Amos v. 4. Deut. ν. 16,32,33. Comp. 
 Gal. ili. 12. Chrysostom: οὐχ εἶπε, γέγονέ Sdvatos, ἀλλ᾽ eveéOn, τὸ 
 χαυνὸν καὶ παράδοξον τῆς ἀτοπίας, οὕτως Eeunvevar.* 
 
 V. 11. Ἐξηπάτησε. Most unnatural is the explanation of Calvin 
 and others, as if this were to be understood to mean solely, knowing 
 that we have been deceived. Calvin: Verbum ἐξαπατᾷν non de re 
 ipsa, sed de notitia exponi debet, quia scilicet ex lege palam, fit, 
 quantum a recto cursu discesserimus. It is better with most ex- 
 positors to understand: It seduced, enticed me to sin, or it insidiously 
 deprived me of the advantage attainable by a right use of the law. 
 
 ἀπέκτεινεν. ‘This word we must explain from the ἀπέϑανον and 
 Sdvaros. It means: made me totally wretched. Sohar, Genes. fol. 
 97, col. 384. R. Eheser dixit: Quicunque operam dat legi nomine 
 ipsius, (7. e. ea intentione ut eam exsequatur) ille non occiditur a 
 concupiscentia prava. In Bechai, (Vitr. Observ. ‘I. II. p. 599,) we 
 read, R. Simeon Ben Lakisch says: 1nn9 wpam roy ay 525 yaann 
 pix ow ity", “The sinful nature of man every day rises up against 
 and seeks to slay him.’’ Hence also among the Rabbins, the innate 
 corruption of human nature is called the Death Angel. There are 
 many who must be reduced to this extreme of inward wretchedness, 
 before they feel any desire after salvation. Hence Bengel: Hic ter- 
 minus Giconomiz peccati in confinio gratie. 
 
 V. 12. Conclusion drawn from the nature of the contest described. 
 Νόμος answers to MND, the sum of the law of Gods ἐντοχή to pn, the 
 particular precept. 'Theodoret: ‘Aytav neoonyogevoe, ὡς τὸ δέον δυ- 
 δάξασαν' δικαίων δέ; ὡς ὀφξθὼς rors παξαβάταις τὴν ψῆφον ἐξενεγχοῦσαν. 
 ἀγαθὴν δέ, ὡς ζωὴν τοῖς φυλάττουσιν εὐτρεπίζουσαν.ἷ Comp. 1 Tim. 
 ii8e 
 
 V. 13. ᾿Αλλὰ ἡ ἁμαφτιά,. Erasmus rightly renders the ἀλλά by 
 
 * He does not say became, but was found, thereby explaining the new and 
 unlooked for absurdity. 
 
 + He pronounces it holy, as having inculcated what is proper; just as hav- 
 ing rightfully passed sentence upon transgressors, and good as having pro- 
 vided life for those who keep it. 
 
 - 
 
CHAPTER VII. ν. 13, 14. 219 
 
 imo; for after the duaer’a we require to supply ἐμοὶ γέγονε Savaros. 
 Ἵνα φανῇ ἁμαξτία «ta. Here the construction gives rise to some dif- 
 ficulty. First, it is a question, whether the second ἕνα should be 
 co-ordinated with, or subordinated to the first. In the latter case, it 
 would be the least objectionable, although still a harsh way, with the 
 Vulgate, Erasmus and Heumann, to supply ἣν to χατεφγαζομένην and 
 understand φανῇ, to become evident: Ut appareat peccatum per bo- 
 num mihi operatum esse mortem, ut fiat, ὅσο, Still more unnaturally 
 Elsner, whom De Wette follows, and who takes φανῇ with the par- 
 ticiple, as a pleonasm, for χκατεφγάζηται, a construction of which we 
 certainly have examples in profane authors. Highly preferable is 
 the co-ordination of the second to the first clause. ‘The participle 
 κατεῤγαζομένῃ is then explicative: Utpote quod mihi efliciat mortem, 
 and the clause with the second ἕνα is a more profound exhibition of 
 the first. Beza: Ut appareret esse peccatum mihi per id quod bo- 
 num est efficiens mortem, i. 6. ut peccatum fieret admodum peccans 
 per illud preceptum. In this way also it is not necessary to sup- 
 pose that γένηται is epanalepsis of φανῇ. Nor is that a bad connection 
 which Michaelis adopts, viz. to regard ἕνα φανῇ ἁμαρτία, as a paren- 
 thetical clause, and immediately after duaez/a to supply γέγονε Savaros, 
 “No. But sin, that it might truly appear as such, having procured 
 death for me by the commandment, in order that sin by means of the 
 commandment might strongly appear in her black and sinful aspect.” 
 
 Kas’ ὑπερβολήν, instead of ὑπεφβαλλόντως frequently used by Paul. 
 1 Cor. xii. 81. 2 Cor. i. 8; iv. 17. ‘The meaning of the clause is 
 pertinently given by Calvin: Valde enim pestiferam rem esse oportet, 
 que efficiat ut quod alioqui salubre est natura, noxam afferat. Sensus 
 est; oportuisse detegi per Jegem peccati atrocitatem, quia nisi pecca- 
 tum immani quodam vel enormi excessu prorumperet, non agnosce- 
 retur peccatum. Excessus hic eo se violentius profundit, dum vitam 
 convertit in mortem. It is the royal privilege of good, that from all 
 evil it knows how to educe good, as it is the curse of evil that it per- 
 verts to evil all that is good. 
 
 V. 14. The majority of the expositors of Augustine’s school, sup- 
 pose that from this point forth, the special reference to a person re- 
 deemed takes place. (Others too make no break at all from ver. 7.) 
 The Apostle, they say, means now to demonstrate more particularly 
 the divinity of the law, by setting forth the opposition into which it 
 comes, even with the man redeemed. ‘This exposition can only 
 meet with approval, when we rend away the section from its con- 
 nection. If, however, we keep in view, first, the introduction of the 
 chapter, which represents the Christian as wholly delivered from the 
 condemnation of the law, and 2dly, the thesis ver. 5, where the 
 ascendancy of sin in man, is placed within the term of the legal 
 state, and then ver. 6, which, on the other hand, places the spiritual 
 walk, in the period of the redemption, if we consider, in fine, how 
 chap. vill. 1, again resumes this connection, and proclaims the 
 spiritual walk of the redeemed and freedom from the law, it is mani- 
 
230 CHAPTER VII. V. 14. 
 
 fest that Paul could have had no other object in painting the struggle 
 he here describes, than to show the nature of the legal state. For 
 it was solely with this view, that he had undertaken even to demon- 
 strate the holiness of the law. It must be added, that upon examining 
 the following section, nothing whatever appears which differs in sub- 
 stance from the preceding verse. What we find is rather just a spe- 
 cific detail of what in that verse is laid down generally, viz. That 
 by the knowledge of the divine law, the inward variance is not di- 
 minished, but only exasperated. Neither can it afford any ground 
 at all for here seeking another subject, that henceforward we have 
 only present tenses. Bengel: Utitur Paulus ante versum 14 verbis 
 preteriti temporis; tum expeditioris sermonis causa, presentis, in 
 preteritum resolvendis, perinde ut alibi casus, modos, &e. facilitatis 
 gratia permutare solet; et v. gr. mox, chap. vill. 2, 4, a numero sin- 
 gulari ad pluralem, ibidem, ver. 9, a prima persona ad secundam 
 transit. Eoque commodius a preterito tempore ad presens flectitur 
 oratio, quod status illius legalis indolem tum demum vere intelligat, 
 postquam sub gratiam venerit, et ex presenti Jiquidius possit judicare 
 de preterito. Denique unus ille idemque status processusque varios 
 habet gradus, vel magis preterito vel minus preterito tempore expri- 
 mendos, et sensim suspirat, connititur, enititur ad libertatem; inde 
 paulatim serenior fit oratio Apostoli. ‘The yae shows that there fol- 
 lows a filling up of the previous subject; and thus would we give the 
 tenor of the explication: ‘‘ Such must be the case, for it cannot be 
 denied that there subsists an incurable discrepancy betwixt God’s 
 law and our inclinations.”’ 
 
 oldauev. Semler and Koppe insist that seeing ἐγώ is used in all 
 the other passages, oda μέν should be read. But, on the one hand, 
 the reason is not sufficient, and on the other, Paul is wont to deliver 
 just such maxims of general experience as this in the plural number. 
 C. ii. 2. 
 
 Here, where πνευματικός and σαρκικός are set in opposition, it is 
 necessary to develope generally the Bible meaning of πνεύμα and 
 σάρξ, as all the sequel rests upon this antithesis. In the Old Testa- 
 ment, man is frequently called wa, which then involves the adjunct 
 idea of weakness and frailty. We find, in general, that in the mind 
 of the Hebrew, the ἀ αν τ was attached to the notion of man. This 
 is involved even in Gen. iii. 19, with which Eceles. iii. 20, and Ee- 
 clesiasticus xvii. 1, and xxxiil. 10 are to be compared. It is also 
 shown by the etymology of wx. In this signification Wa more 
 particularly occurs, Gen. vi. 8. Ps. Ixxviii. 39; Ivi. 4. Jer. xvii. 
 5. Is. xl. 6. The contrast with ny we find expressly drawn, Is. 
 ΧΧΧΙ. 3: WI ὉΠ ΟἹΟῚ Deed DAN ΟΠ δ. ~The New Testament, 
 takes up this usus loquendi of the Old, and in it the antithesis of odeg 
 and πνεύμα everywhere recurs. Σάρφξ here denotes, ** human nature, 
 as weak and impotent for good,” in contrast with the new principle 
 of life, which, through fellowship of men with Christ, is implanted | 
 therein. ‘Theodoret: Σαῤκιχὸν χαλεῖγ τὸν μηδέπω τῆς σιίνευματικῆς 
 
CHAPTER VII. v. 14. 221 
 
 ἐπικονξίας tervynxdra.* Hence we find, 1 Cor. ili. 3, caextxds εἶναι» 
 made the same with κατὰ drGewnoy πεξφιπατεῦν, t. 6. “like man as 
 he commonly is.”” At 2 Cor, i. 12, the copia σαξκχική is opposed to 
 the εἰλικδίνεια τοῦ Θεοῦ, accordingly ‘the wisdom attained by the 
 ordinary powers of man,”’ to that imparted by peculiar divine influ- 
 ence. 2 Cor. i. 17. xara odexa βουλεύειν Means, without higher con- 
 siderations. 2 Cor. x. 8. ἐν oaext γὰρ περιπατοῦντες» οὐ κατὰ σάρκα 
 στρατευόμεθα, Although we sojourn in feeble human nature, still is 
 our warfare of such a sort, as is not carried on merely with 
 powers borrowed from this weak nature,’’ and so on. Here too, i 
 particular, are to be placed, from among the sayings of Christ hime 
 self, such as Matt. xxvi. 41, “ The higher divine element within’) 
 you is willing, but human nature is too weak.’ Matt. xvi. 17, 
 “That has not emanated from weak human nature, but from an in- 
 fluence from on high.” John iii. 6, ‘* Man as such, is destitute of ὦ 
 divine life, and can only acquire it by a generation of a higher kind.” * 
 So also do ecclesiastical writers oppose to each other, τὸ ἀνθφώπινον 
 and τὸ πνευματικόν; xa’ ἀνθρώπους ony and χατὰ TOV Χριστόν. See 
 Ignat. ep. 1, ad Eph. 6. 5, ad Phil. c. 7, ad Trall. &c. 
 
 One might perhaps, however, conceive the antithesis in a different 
 way from what is here done, understanding by cae§ the σῶμα, the 
 whole organs of sensation; and—as the contrast would then require 
 —by πνεῦμα, the rors, that which connects us with God, which exists 
 even in the natural man, but which in the Christian bears rule, the 
 religious and moral sense, the intellect. So even in ancient times, 
 the Alexandrine school, and among moderns, the majority of theo- 
 logians, Erasmus, Michaelis, Stolz and many others. Now, doubt- 
 Jess, the corporeal system is the organ through which many sins are 
 executed, and doubtless, also, it too often prevails over the spiritual 
 interests to the prejudice of the individual. ‘Still we must take into 
 consideration, that per se that system cannot be evil; moreover that 
 it does not necessarily occasion inordinate desires, some discord in 
 the spiritual part always requiring to precede, before such a prepon- 
 derance of the bodily appetites can take place. (Not the oaeé but¢ 
 the φροόνημα τῆς caexds is evil.) Hence the Apostle points deeper to Ὁ 
 the source of good and evil, when he derives the former from a ζῆν) 
 τῷ Θεῷ, and consequently the latter, from the éavrw env, 2 Cor. ν. 15. 
 Rom. xiv. 7. Τὸ the same more deeply seated source we are also 
 conducted, when, in the manner shown, we trace historically the use 
 of the word σάρξ. ‘There are, moreover, domains of transgression, 
 which are nowise dependent upon the corporeal organization of man, 
 as want of affection, hatred, envy, pride. ‘These, however, are de- 
 signated by the Apostle, ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, Gal. v. 19—22. Nay 
 even to the Theosophists, who practised ascetical severities (Col. ii. 
 22, 23,) and occupied themselves solely with speculations upon the 
 world of spirits, the Apostle ascribes a vows τῆς σαρκός. Comp. like- 
 
 * He calls that man carnal who has not as yet obtained spiritual aid. 
 
4 
 
 ἔ 
 } 
 
 222 CHAPTER VII. V. 14. 
 
 wise Eph. ii. 3. 1 Cor. iii. 8, Rom. viii. 1,5—9. In passages 
 of this sort, a natural exegesis is only to be obtained, when we un- 
 derstand by πνεῦμα, not the human intellect, but the new Christian 
 principle of life, and in compliance therewith, by oae, the human 
 nature abandoned to itself, and being as sucha vexeov. Inthe present 
 passage, we have not, it is true, the contrast of σάξξ and πνεῦμα, but as 
 afterwards appears, of σάρξ and νοὺς OF ἔσω ἄνθξωπος. For this reason, 
 however, we could not hold ourselves justified in concluding that 
 πνεῦμα is everywhere the same as νοῦς» or that σάρξ is equivalent to 
 σῶμα. For, as the connection shows, the Apostle is here speaking 
 of the man, and only of him, who is as yet destitute of the πνεῦμα» 
 and not until he reaches, c. viii. 4, 5, 6, does he make the transition 
 to the man by whom it has been obtained. Accordingly he can do 
 nothing else but contrast the νοῦς with the σάεξ. Comp., upon the 
 signification of σάρξ, Augustine De civit. Dei, 1. xiv. c. 8. Buddei 
 Dissert. de anima sede pece, orig. in Miscell. Sacris. Τὶ, ΠΙ,, and 
 Knapp, Scripta Theolog. p. 220, sq. 
 
 Let us now consider the πνευματιχὸς and the caexvxds in the con- 
 trast into which they are here brought. ‘The law, both the moral 
 law in the bosom of man, and the expressure of that in the Deca- 
 logue, is, as Augustine profoundly expresses it, a revelation of the 
 higher order of things founded in the being of God. (It is hence a 
 ᾿πνευματιχόν.) "To carry it into execution, we require, in respect of 
 ‘our inward man, to be incorporated into that order of things; we must, 
 ‘in like manner, as the law, become πνευματικοί. But without an in- 
 
 } terest in the redemption, man cannot become πνευματικός: ‘The con- 
 
 sequence accordingly is, an incurable discrepancy. Comp. the An- 
 notations on ver. 6. Usteri, p. 23. ‘The law, if merely law or 
 γεάμμα; dwells only in the understanding, is something objectively 
 known. The subjective side of man, upon which his will also is 
 based (whence Paul always denotes that by ἐγώ), has originally no 
 concern with it. Inasmuch, however, as the law promulgates some- 
 thing which ought to emanate from the will of man, the will is there- 
 by provoked to oppose what is originally foreign to it, and thus the 
 nature of the will, as fleshly and hostile to the Spirit, becomes mani- 
 fest.” A similar saying is found in the book Reschith Chochma. 
 Tony NWI KIX TAWA NO ΤΠ) MN 25:0 TANNA ID 439.“ The Tho- 
 rah, on account of her spirzfuality, dwells only in the soul that is 
 free from all dross.” 
 
 In place of caextxds Codd. A C D E F G and many Greek fathers, 
 read cdexwos. Now, inasmuch as, 1 Cor. iii. 1, and Heb. vii. 16, 
 the best codices read caexwos, We must reasonably suppose that in 
 common usage odaexwos, which has properly only the sensible mean- 
 ing fleshly, bore aiso the metaphorical one, and that that is here the ’ 
 proper reading. 
 
 The Apostle describes the ἐγώ as the caexcvdv, because the velleitas 
 in man, which, according to ver. 15 and 16, is found on the side of 
 the law of God, is all too powerless, and because, as a consequence 
 
CHAPTER VII. v. 14, 15. 223 
 
 of its impotence, the entire man appears in contradiction to the law. 
 In the same way the Platonic formulas χξείττων xou ἥττων ἑαυτοῦ are 
 also to be explained, in which the love of evil is regarded as the true 
 self. Comp. de Rep. 1. IV. p. 347. 'T. VI. Bip. ‘The sublime 
 thing in the nature of that moral law, which we bear about with us 
 in our bosom, is just that it addresses us by, ‘Thou! and that, though 
 all our desires tend the contrary way, we are yet compelled to ac- 
 ‘knowledge its supremacy. It is thence manifest, that by the medium 
 of the conscience, a higher order of things is directly manifested in 
 the lower, its creator in the creature, (Comp. Heidenreich, Ueber 
 natiirl. Rel. Leipz. 1790, 5. 173.) On the other hand, however, we 
 may also regard that which addresses to us the Z’how as the proper 
 Me in man, inasmuch as this religious and moral sense must make 
 the entire nature of man homogeneous wiih itself, and inasmuch as 
 the idea of man is only then fulfilled, when his nature has been 
 brought into harmony with this νόμος γεαπτὸς ἐν τῇ xaediq. In this 
 respect, accordingly, the Apostle, in ver. 17, actually designates by 
 the ἐγώ, the religious and moral sense, and, on the contrary, repre- 
 sents the guaerda as an unlawful settler in human nature. 
 
 πεπιραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαέτιαν. He who was vanquished in war, 
 was sold asaslave. And hence the Apostle describes the man who 
 has been overcome in the struggle with the ungodly impulses of his 
 will, as given up for a slave tosin. ‘The expression was already 
 common in Hebrew, and was applied to those who, as it were, stood 
 under the despotism of the wicked one.  727An, 1 Kings xxi. 20, 
 25. 2Kings xvii. 17. So also 1 Macc. i. 15: éxeadqoav tov ποιῆσαι 
 zo πονηεόν. ‘The Rabbins too have the phrase 22) pon Ww 12. 
 With them 72} signifies to be sold, or in general fo be delivered 
 over. So Sanh. f. 97, col. 2, MMII on 301. Disciples of 
 Christ are no more δοῦλου τῆς ἁμαδτίας, Rom. vi. 17. John viii. 36. 
 Melancthon: Hee (summa corruptela nature nostra) necesse est 
 tradi in ecclesia, ut cognoscamus e regione magnitudinem beneficil 
 Christi. Grotius cuts the nerve of this profound saying of Paul, and 
 makes the words insipid and empty by the notes: Alia est natura 
 Legis, alia magne partis hominum et major pars Judzorum (!!) 
 affectibus abripitur. 
 
 V. 15. The Apostle again connects with yde, for the proposition 
 is meant to prove the blindness of the oaeé of man. 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. In order to attain clearness of perception on this 
 matter, we require to state, and psychologically define, the different 
 subjects which occur in the Apostle’s explication. We set out with 
 the fact that the Apostle still supposes an original element in man 
 cognate with the Divine Being. (See i. 18.) This is the religious 
 and moral sense (vows) which never can be totally eradicated in man, 
 without his thereby ceasing to be man. He would, in that case, be 
 a physical being. It always manifests itself at least in certain move- 
 
224 CHAPTER Vil. v. 15. 
 
 ments of the conscience. Now, as kindred things attract, each the 
 other, no sooner is the external νόμος proposed to man, than a certain 
 attraction takes place within him towards it, a longing to fulfil it. 
 There occurs, accordingly, an agreement of the inward with the out- 
 ward law, (ver. 16,) and for that reason the Apostle does not nar- 
 rowly distinguish whether it is of the inward or of the outward νόμος 
 that he speaks. Now, to this inward godly element of his being, 
 there stands opposed the inclination to wilfulness, ἢ. e. to sin. Look- 
 ing to what man manifests himself actually to be, he might call this 
 inclination his proper se/f, for the Divine element we spoke of does 
 not exert its efficacy. And hence the Aposile also calls the oaeé, the 
 ἐγώ of man, ver. 14, 18. On the other hand, however, even the in- 
 dividual who sinks very low, never entirely loses the consciousness 
 that that divine element constitutes his proper self, and that to it all 
 the rest must become homogeneous, in fact, that it is the Divine seed 
 in him, which is choked, indeed, but no more. Accordingly the 
 Apostle represents the ἁμαξτία or oaeé as something foreign to man, 
 and the godly element as his proper ἐγώ, ver. 17,20. Hence also 
 does he call that element, the ἔσω dvOeazos, the true core of man, 
 Now of what sort is the volition which he ascribes to this inward 
 man? A sound and mght volition it cannot be, otherwise it would 
 carry so strong an impulse with it, as would bring the effect to pass. 
 It is accordingly only of a feeble kind. The scholastics distinguish be- 
 twixt the voluntas completa and incompleta, and call the latter velleitas. 
 Even of this velleitas,we may imagine to ourselves various degrees. We 
 can suppose the θέλειν and σύμφημι and συνήδομαν More as an approval 
 with the understanding, accompanied to be sure by some, but at the same 
 time by a quite feeble, movement of the religious and moral sense. 
 In this sense, as Thomas Aquinas observes, even the most aban- 
 doned shows a certain willing, i. e. approval of what is good. So 
 Chrysostom: οὐ ϑέλω, τουτέστιν οὐκ ἐπαινὼ. Of what sort such a vel- 
 leitas is, Augustine shows from his own experience, Conf. 1. VIII. 
 c. 8: Undique ostendenti vera te dicere, non erat omnino, quod re- 
 sponderem veritate convictus, nisi tantum verba lenta et somnolenta: 
 Modo, ecce modo, sine paululum! Sed modo et modo non habe- 
 bant modum, et sine paululum in longum ibat. On the other hand, 
 of that voluntas which is operated by Divine grace alone, and by it 
 alone also reaches the mark, the same author says, (ibid. 1]. VIII. c. 8,): 
 Non solum ire, verum etiam pervenire illuc, nihil erat aliud, quam 
 velle ire, sed velle fortiter et integre, non semisauciam hac atque hac 
 versare et jactare voluntatem, hac parte assurgentem cum alia parte 
 cadente luctantem. (Compare the remarkable avowals on this sub- 
 ject in Petrarch’s Autobiography. G. Miiller’s Selbstbekentnisse 
 merkwurd. Manner, Winterthur, 1791, B. I. 5. 44.) ‘The connec- : 
 tion, however, and likewise the words severally considered, as for 
 instance συνήδομαιν Make it likelier, that here under the Séaew some- 
 thing more than assent by the understanding is meant. Were the 
 Apostle describing a person in whose breast no sense of moral dis- 
 
CHAPTER Vil. v. 15. 225 
 
 cord is in any degree awakened, then, doubtless, we should have to 
 understand by the Séxew only a cold assent. But he speaks of one 
 in whom sin has engaged in warfare with the law, and vividly 
 does he paint the inward anguish of such a person, (ver. 24.) It is 
 hence scarcely possible to avoid understanding by the Séaew, a higher 
 degree of willing, a species of longing. Should any, from a doc- 
 trinal point of view, object that before regeneration we cannot pro- 
 perly suppose such a feeling in man, seeing that it can only be the 
 fruit of the χάρις, we might reply, that the Apostle, chap. vill. 15, 
 also speaks of a πνεῦμα Sovaécas, among legal Jews, and that he thus, 
 in like manner, derives their zeal for the law, from a divine influence, 
 which might well be designated as the gratia preveniens. 
 
 οὐ γινώσκω. Augustine, even in his day, and following him, Beza,Gro- 
 tius and others, gave this a sense which also belongs to the Hebrew 
 yy, to approve. Hos. viii. 4. Compare the Annot. of Elsner. In 
 like manner Wolf: to acknowledge, determine. In that case, how- 
 ever, it would not differ from what follows. More correctly do Chry- 
 sostom, Theodoret, Pelagius and others, understand it of an obscura- 
 tion of the knowing faculty. Chrysostom: Tv οὖν ἐστίν, οὐ γινώσκω; 
 σχοτοῦμαί, φησι», ovvaenalouar, ἐπήξειαν ὑπομένω. ‘Theodoret: Ὃ yae 
 ἡττώμενος ὑπὸ τῆς ἡδονῆς» καὶ μέντοι καὶ τῆς ὀόγῆς τῷ πάθει μεθύων, οὐκ 
 ἔχεν cay τὴν γνῶσιν τῆς ἁμαφτιάς" μετὰ δέ γε τὴν παῦλαν τοὺ πάθους: τὴν 
 αὔσθησιν δέχεται τοῦ xaxov.t Although, by means of sin, a mighty 
 discord has been introduced among the powers and capacities of the 
 human spirit, still, that original disposition, according to which they 
 should all act in harmony, is still manifest; man can never will with- 
 out having reasons in his mind for the volition. Inasmuch, as sin is 
 a thing blind and lawless, however, there cannot possibly be any 
 solid, but only the semblance of grounds for it,—grounds, moreover, 
 which both before and after the act, are instantly recognized by man 
 himself as false pretexts, although in the moment of execution they 
 appear satisfactory. In so far the Apostle may say that, at the time 
 of sinning, he knows not what he does, is wholly blinded. 
 
 ov yae 6 ϑέλω χτλ. Bengel: Mancipium indigno domino primum 
 servit cum gaudio, deinde cum merore, postremo jugum excutit. 
 Although, according to the above observations, we might here, with 
 Chrysostom, understand $éa to mean merely a cold approval, we 
 prefer taking it in the sense of ἥδομαυν which it has in the Hellenistic. 
 Matt. xxvii. 43. Frequently in the LXX. for yon. Deut. xxi. 14. 
 1 Sam. xviii. 22. What man wishes before and after the commis- 
 sion of sin, what he cannot but judge to be right, is not yet brought 
 to pass. ‘The experiences which Paul here delineates, force them- 
 selves so strongly upon every man who has become sensible of the 
 
 * What then is this od γινώσκω It means, lam involved in darkness, I am 
 hurried away, I sustain a wrong. 
 
 + For he that is overcome by pleasure, or again the man intoxicated with 
 the passion of anger, has nota clear perception of the sin; but, after the pas- 
 sion has ceased, he acquires a sense of its evil. 
 
 29 
 
226 CHAPTER vil. v. 15. 
 
 moral dissonance in his nature, that in fact it is not necessary to sup- 
 pose with Dr. von Ammon, that the Apostle exaggerates the matter, 
 in order afterwards rightly to exalt the gospel. The following 
 weighty testimonies of heathen authors, who agree with Paul, are 
 here quoted in their right place. 'Thucyd. Histor. 1. II. c. 45, Dio- 
 dorus says: ᾿Απλὼς δὲ ἀδύνατον xat πολλῆς εὐηθείας» ὅστις οἰέταυ, τῆς 
 ἀνθρωπείας φύσεως δεμωμένης πεξοθύμως τι πξαξαι, ἀποτροπήν τινα ἔχειν» 
 ἢ νόμων ἰσχύϊ, ἢ ἄλλῳ τῷ dég.* Diodorus Sic. Biblioth. 1. Lc. 71: 
 The Egyptians never permitted their kings to judge absolutely, but 
 only according to the laws, for they believed,t worraxus ἐνιόυς εἰδότας 
 ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἁμαφτάνειν, μηδὲν ἧττον NEGTTEW τὰ POVAG, κατισχνομένους 
 ὑπ᾽ ἔφωτος; ἢ μίσους, ἢ τινος ἄλλον πάθους. Xenophon. Cyrop. |. VI. 
 ce. 1,§ 21. The Persian Araspes says: {Avo yae σαφῶς ἔχω ψυχάς..... 
 οὐ yae δὴ μία γε οὖσα; ἅμα ἀγαθή τέ ἐστὶ καὶ κακὴν οὐδ᾽ ἅμα καλῶν τε καὺ 
 αἰσχφὼν ἔργων eq, καὶ ταυτὰ ἅμα βούλεταί τε καὶ οὐ βούλεται πράττειν" 
 Gand δηλονότι δύο ἐστὸν ψυχά, καὶ ὅταν μὲν ἡ ἀγαθὴ xeaTy, τὰ κακὰ πράτ- 
 état, ὅταν δὲ ἡ πονηξά, τὰ αἰσχεὰ ἐπιχειξεῖται. Euripides, Medea, 
 vi 1077: 
 
 Μανθάνω μέν, οἷα δρᾶν μέλλω κακά» 
 φΘυμὸς δὲ κρείσσων τῶν ἐμῶν βουλευμάτων. 
 
 The same Poet (in Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. II. ο. 15.) 
 
 ΔΛέληθεν οὐδὲν τῶνδέ μ᾽, ὧν ov νουθετεῖς 
 Γνώμην δ᾽ ἔχοντά μ᾽ ἣ φύσις βιάζεται. 
 
 Epictetus, Enchirid. 1. IT. c. 26: Ὃ ἁμαξτάνων, 6 μὲν ϑέλευν οὐ ποιεῖ; 
 καὶ ὃ μὴ ϑέλει, ποιεῦ. And Simplicius in his Annot. on Epictetus: 
 Τινὲς your καὶ δυσχεξαίνοντες τὰς ἑαυτῶν deéEers, καὶ βουλόμενον μὴ κυνεὶσ- 
 θαυ αὐτάς, ὠθοῦνταυ ὅμως ὑπὸ τῶν ἕξεων Eni τὰ οἰκεία ὀρξεχκτά. Plautus, 
 Trinummus, Act IV. sc. 2, v. 81. Scibam ut esse me deceret, fa- 
 cere non quibam miser. Seneca, Ep. III: Quid est hic, Lucili, quod 
 nos alio tendentes alio trahit, et eo unde recedere cupimus repellit? 
 
 * It is an impossibility, and shows great simplicity for any one to think, 
 that when human nature is driven eagerly to the commission of any act, it 
 can be hindered either by the force of laws, or any thing however formida- 
 ble. [ 
 
 { There are often men who, sensible that they are about to sin, neverthe- 
 less commit vice, overpowered by love or hatred or some other passion. 
 
 + For I have manifestly two spirits. For a spirit that is one and single, is 
 not both good and bad at once, nor at once loves things virtuous and things 
 vicious, and at once is willing and unwilling to do them. But it is clear that 
 there are two spirits, and that when the good prevails, the virtuous things 
 are done, and when the bad, then are wrong things attempted. 
 
 § Iam aware they are crimes I am about to perpetrate, but rage is stronger 
 than my purposes. 
 
 | Not one of those things you advise has escaped my attention, but nature 
 overpowers me when I have made my resolve. 
 
 4 Many being even indignant at their lusts, and desirous not to excite them, 
 are nevertheless urged by their habits to the indulgences familiar to them. 
 
CHAPTER Vil. Vv. 15, 16, 17. 227 
 
 Quid colluctatur cum animo nostro, nec permittit nobis quidquam 
 semel velle? Ovid, Metam. VII. 19. Aliudque Cupido, Mens 
 aliud suadet; video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor. Seneca, 
 Hippol. v. 604: Vos testor, omnes Ceelites, hoe quod volo, me nolle. 
 Hence Lactantius, Instit. 1. IV. c. 29, makes the heathen say: Volo 
 equidem non peccare, sed vincor, indutus enim sum carne fragili. 
 Itaque ducor incertus et pecco, non quia volo, sed quiacogor. After 
 the same manner the Rabbins, Berach. c. 2. p. 17.“ R. Aleksan- 
 dri said in his prayer, Lord of the worlds, known and open it is to. 
 thee that our will is to execute thine NO yaw Ww 33; 2), and who 
 prevents it? The leaven that is in the lump.” Grotius justly ob- 
 serves, however, that it would be a sad thing, indeed, if the Christian, 
 as such, could apply these sayings to himself. 
 
 V. 16. Calvin: Dum cor meum in Lege acquiescit, oblectatur ejus 
 justitia, in eo sentit et fatetur legis bonitatem, ut satis, vel experientia 
 docente convincamur, legi nihil mali esse imputandum, imo saluta- 
 rem hominibus eam fore siin recta puraque corda incideret. Bengel: 
 Assensus hominis, legi contra semel ipsum prestitus, illustris charac- 
 ter est religionis, magnum testimonium de Deo. 
 
 V. 17. This opposition, the Apostle means to say, is not of such 
 sort, that, as man, I must carry it within me. Much rather does it 
 arise from the fact, that lama sinful man. My proper self—that 
 within me, which expresses my ideal, and with which all should be- 
 come homogeneous—remains, as such, unaffected by sin. Comp. 
 the remarks upon ἐγώ at ver. 15. For the illustration of this, what 
 Augustine says, Conf. 1. VIII. c. 5, upon the relation of the ἐγώ to 
 the ode, may be made subservient: Ego quidem in utroque (in the 
 vous and in the cagé) sed magis ego in eo, quod in me approbabam, 
 quam in eo quod in me improbabam. Ibi enim magis jam non ego; 
 quia ex magna parte id patiebar invitus, quam faciebam volens. 
 Thom. Aquinas: [llud homo dicitur operari, quod ratio operatur, quia 
 homo est id quod est secundum rationem: Unde motus eencupiscen- 
 tia, qui non sunt a ratione sed ἃ fomite, non operatur homo. ‘Theo- 
 doret: ᾿Αμέλησας (ὁ νοῦς) καὶ καταλιπὼν τὰς ἡνίας» σκυιρτᾷν μὲν τοὺς πώλους 
 παξασκευάζει, σύξεταυ δὲ αὐτός, καὶ εἰς Paga%ea καὶ χρημνοὺς σὺν αὐτοὺς 
 καταπίπτει. Ὁ Thus Philo (Quod det. pot. insid. p. 170) calls the 
 vous, the true dvOgazos, in Opposition to the cae’. Compare Cicero, 
 Somn. Scip. c. 8: Mens cujusque is est quisque, non ea figura que 
 digito monstrari potest. 
 
 The νυνί has been falsely taken for an adverb of time by Augustine, 
 Grotius, Cocceius, Koppe and many others, as if Paul intended to 
 specify the difference betwixt the redeemed and the legal state, as at 
 ver. 6. By this means, however, to pass over other reasons, the 
 18th verse, although obviously very closely connected, is wholly 
 
 ’ 
 * The mind becoming neglectful and relinquishing the reins, causes the 
 steeds to start aside, and is itself carried away and falls into gulfs and pre- 
 cipices. 
 
228 CHAPTER Vil. v. 17 —21. 
 
 torn apart, inasmuch as it is appended by the yae, and again deline- 
 ates the legalist. Compare also ver. 20, where Paul says the same 
 thing, and where the νυνί, as mere inferential particle, is left out, but 
 where many would erroneously urge the οὐχέτι, as Koppe translates 
 it: ex quo Christiani sumus, whereas it only stands in reference to 
 the antecedent proposition, and is correctly given by the Vulgate: jam 
 non ego. ‘lhe Apostle means to depict the state of sin in its increase. 
 Hence, we may here and ver. 20, render the ovxéz., ‘* So far has it 
 come with me that....”’ The νυνί, accordingly, is merely an inferen- 
 tial particle. Erasmus: Quoties igitur mens consentiens legi nititur 
 ad honesta, et tamen quod diversum est agit, non ego videor agere, 
 quod ago. Quis enim agat, quod nolit? 
 
 V.18. Expressing himself somewhat tautologically, Paul now 
 means, by referring back to the inward schism he has before described, 
 to vindicate the startling assertion, that itis not properly man him- 
 self, but that it is the blind love of sin,considered as blind, inasmuch 
 as the knowing faculty not merely does not assent to it, but is dark- 
 ened by it, that executes the sinful actions. Accordingly the ex- 
 pressions here used, and at ver. 19 and si, are but repetitions of what 
 goes before. 
 
 The etedoxw is omitted by A C. 47, 67, and some translations 
 which read, τὸ δὲ χατεφγάζεσθαι, o3. For this reading the internal 
 evidence may perhaps speak, but the majority of the codices decide 
 in favour of the recepta. ‘The ἐγώ, as we saw at ver. 15, is more 
 commonly used by the Apostle to designate the true se/f of man, the 
 inward divine disposition. Hence, for the sake of distinction, he 
 here adds, that what he intends is the oéegin man. ‘Theodoret: Ti» 
 ae πεξὶ τὰ καλὰ προθυμίαν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ νόμου δυδασκαλίας προσέλαβον" ἀσ- 
 θενὼ δὲ ὅμως πεξὶ τὴν πέαξιν, ἑτέξαν Excxoveray οὐκ ἔχων.ἢ 
 
 οἰκεῖ. Pelagius: Habitat quasi hospes et quasi aliud in alio, non 
 quasi unum, ut accidentia scilicet non naturalia. 
 
 παξάχειται. ‘he word properly signifies to be near, to be ready. 
 Hence Judith iii. 2, to be at one’s command. Accordingly it here 
 means, as De Wette turns it: ‘* to will is already at my hand, 7. 6. is 
 not difficult for me.’” Pelagius: Est voluntas, sed non est effectus. 
 Bengel: Jacet in adspectu sine victoria. Oxy’ sbevoxuw. The He- 
 brew 8¥1 in the sense, fo be able. 
 
 Vers. 19 and 20. See vers. 15 and 17. 
 
 V. 21. This verse contains a summary of all that has been said 
 from verse 14th, and that still continues to be illustrated from the 22d 
 onward. ‘The construction is singular, and has been resolved in very 
 different ways. First, there are a number of expositors, who take 
 ὅτι in the sense of seeing that, (the Vulgate, quoniam,) but who then 
 again deviate from each other in their views. Origen supposes a 
 hyperbaton, and thus explains: ‘ Seeing there is evil in me, the law 
 
 * [have received alacrity for things virtuous from the discipline of the law, 
 but I am feeble in the practice, having no other aid. 
 
CHAPTER VII. v. 21. 229 
 
 of God presents itself, and to that, after the inner man, I consent.” 
 So likewise Eckerman, (Beitr. III. St.) Qicumenius gives several 
 views of it. 1. αὐτὸν εὑφίσκω τὸν νόμον ἐμοὶ τὸ καλὸν ποιεῖν Meonenuév@ 
 meoteonyy παξέχοντα, τί οὖν μετὰ τοῦτο; τὸ κακὸν παξάχειται. ὥστε 
 οὐδὲ βουλομένῳ wou τὸ καλὸν πδάξαι ἱκανός ἐστιν ὃ νόμος βοηθῆσαι. πλὴν 
 yae tov προτρέψασθαι οὐδὲν ἰσχύει. We should then require to supply 
 magervac OF παξίστασθαν before δέοντι. So Chrysostom. Theophylact 
 and the Syriac interpreter. In that way the thought is doubtless in 
 the style of Paul. He would, however, have expressed himself very 
 darkly; neither moreover would it so suit the connection, as the 
 Apostle is not speaking of the design of the law, but of the conse- 
 quences of its operation. 2. ebecoxw piv τὸν νόμον εἰς τὸ καλὸν τῷ 
 ϑέλοντυ ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν, καὶ τοῦτο μόνον χαξιζόμενον. τὸ yae χαχὸν 
 εὑφύσχω; ὅτι ὁμοίως ἐμοὶ παφάχειται.Ϊἱ But we should then unnaturally 
 have to supply an ὠφέλιμον εἶναι. So also Ambrose and Augustine 
 e. duo ep. Pell. 1. I. c. 10. And so too Bengel: Egregia sermonis 
 subulitate exprimuntur prima stamina harmonize inter legem et ho- 
 minem. 3. εὑξίσχω, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι xarevonoa καὶ κατελαβόμην τὴν ἰσχὺν 
 καὶ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ romov. ἐξεῦδον αὐτὸν axevBus, Oru οὐδὲν pov βοηθῆσαν 
 ἔσχυσε. πόθεν δῆλον; ὅτυ ϑέλοντί pou ποιεὸν τὸ καλὸν οὐδὲν ἐπυκουρεῖν 
 ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοίως τὸ κακὸν παξφάκειταιν, ἀπρακτόν μου τὸ ϑέλχειν ποιοῦν. In this 
 ease ἃ hyperbaton must be supposed, and the quite unnatural mean- 
 ing of to apprehend, or see throwgh, be given to eveioxa. 
 
 We pass to the expositors who take ὅτι in the sense of that. They 
 also deviate from each other according as they place the point. Some 
 do so after the τὸν νόμον, and make the sequel depend either upon <é- 
 ptoxw OF UPON τὸν νόμου. EKrasmus, Augustine, De Nupt. et Concup. 
 1. I. ec. 30, Seb. Schmidt, Castalio and others do the former; in which 
 case we must either supply a xara to νόμον OF an ἀποκαλύσέτοντα after 
 it. Erasmus: Facit lex, si quando conor illi parere, ut intelligam 
 meum malum penitus insitum. Beza again, Grotius and Wolf make 
 what follows to depend upon νόμον. ‘They conceive the word to 
 mean the νόμος ἐν τοὺς μέλεσι Mentioned in a future verse, so that the 
 article before νόμον would be demonstrative. ‘I find that sinful law, 
 viz. that when......evil is present with me.” ‘This explanation how- 
 ever of νόμος with the article is totally contrary to the usus loquendi. 
 More eligible is another, which gives it the more general meaning of 
 
 * To me preferring to do that which is good,I find the law itself offering 
 an incitement. What happens thereafter? Evil is present with me. So 
 that even, when I am willing to do good, the law is not competent to help. 
 For, except urging me, it has no power. 
 
 Τ I find the law indeed subservient to good when I am willing to do good, 
 and that it delights in that alone. For I find that evil is equally present with 
 me. 
 
 + I find, ἡ. 6.1 have considered and comprehended the force and nature of 
 the law. I have discovered for certain that it has no power to help me. How 
 does this appear?’ Because when I will to do good, it helps me nothing, but 
 evil is equally present, making my will unexecuted. 
 
230 CHAPTER VII. Vv. 21, 22. 
 
 rule, as at ver. 23, chap, viii. 2. Clarke: aconfirmed habit. Hesy- 
 chius: συνήθεια. In this signification it is also supposed to be found 
 in Plat. Phedrus, Ed. Heind. s. 203. So Calvin, Venema, Lim- 
 borch: Experior in me hance constitutionem, que mihi legis instar 
 est cul sum obnoxius. Michaelis: Being then so willing to do good, 
 I find myself burdened by a law, according to which, evil cleaves to 
 mer? 
 
 Another set of interpreters, however, follow a different punctuation. 
 They place a comma after dpa and before oz. In this way τὸν νόμον 
 —xanov, forms a parenthesis, in which we must consider superfluous, 
 either νόμον, which Homberg, or κάλον, Which Hemsterhusius has ex- 
 cluded from the text. Knapp remarks justly, that if an alteration is 
 to be made, it were better to read τὸν χάλου. Without changing the 
 text L. Bos supplies xara before νόμον, and translates, ‘* [ find then, 
 while according to the law, I would do good, that evil......"” To us 
 also it appears most eligible to put the point after dea, we prefer, 
 however, approximating τὸ xdaoy as apposition to τὸν νόμον. Thus 
 Ccumenius, after the explanations cited above: Eiz δ᾽ ἀν, εἰ συνταχθείη 
 οὕτως, τῶν εἰρημένων σαφέστεξον᾽ εὑρίσκω τῷ HeAoVTL ἐμοί TO καλὸν, HT OL 
 τὸν νόμον, ὅτιΐ...... ‘Theodoret, Homberg, Knapp. In Paul’s writ- 
 ings explanatory appositions are frequent, Rom. vill. 23; xii. 1. 
 The occurrence of the ἐμοί twice ought not to create surprise, as, in 
 consequence of the hyperbaton, such a repetition was made even 
 necessary. We may also conceive the occasion of the apposition. 
 Paul wished to place the xaxoy in antithesis to the νόμος, but the an- 
 tithesis would not have been so decided as it is, when τὸ χάλον is put 
 side by side with the νόμος. We consider, ποτ ποτε as standing on 
 a level in point of eligibility with this construction, the one which 
 puts the point after νόμος, and takes that in the sense of rude. In 
 this case, we might say that the sequel is appended in explanation, 
 seeing the Apostle there, verse 23, describes the ἕτερος νόμος. 
 
 V. 22. This and the verse following are properly a repetition of 
 verses 15, 16, and 17, and that by means of a figure, which makes 
 still more palpable what is there said. In place of the σύμφημι of 
 verse 16, the Apostle here uses ow7doua, and the ἔσω ἀνθξωτίος for 
 the ἐγώ itself. With respect to the ovrzSouar, we understand it to mean 
 an actual delight in the law, and a longing after its fulfilment, such as 
 the spiritual man experiences even although still in a legal state, Ps. 
 exix. Compare the remarks upon verse 14. Doubtless, however, as 
 was observed above, it might equally with the ϑέλευν, also indicate such 
 a proposition as even the totally carnal man feels, who is not yet 
 awakened to any vivid consciousness of the discord in the heart, but 
 still cannot altogether suppress the Divine principle in his nature. 
 Such a propension would, in that case, amount merely to allowance, ’ 
 approval, in which the understanding has a larger share than the will. 
 
 * It may be better than any of the ways were we also to construe it thus: I 
 find when I desire to do good, to wit, the law, that... 
 
CHAPTER VII. V. 22, 23. Z31 
 
 Thus we meet with this comprobatio in the carnal man, e. g. in 
 Herod, Mark vi. 20; at John v. 35, among the Jews, and among the 
 stony ground hearers, Matt. xiii. 20. In this sense the profound 
 Hugo'a Sane. Victore here remarks: Ratio naturalis in vita pre- 
 senti omnino extingui non potest. Ipsa est enim aquila que super- 
 volat, puer qui ceteris periclitantibus pueris non periclitatur. Homo 
 legis legi Dei condelectatur magis secundum rations approbationem, 
 quam secundum amoris delectationem. Instead of the ἐγώ we have 
 here the ἔσω dvewxos-. Originally it is true this phrase designated 
 the spirit generally, in opposition to the bodily organization. In 
 that sense we find it in Philo and Plato. Philo, De Agricult. p. 180, 
 ed. Fr.: ἀνδρωπος tv ἐχάστῷ ἡμῶν τις ἂν εἴη πλὴν ὁ νοῦς; and De Congr. 
 Quer. p. 438: 6 νοὺς χυξφίως ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἄνθρώτιῳ;, κρείττων ἐν χείρονι. 
 Already Plato, De Rep. b. 1X. p. 275, ‘Tom. vii. Bip. had named the 
 yous, Tov GrOganov ὃ ἐντὸς drOewnos. Even so the Rabbinical Book, 
 Jalkut Rubeni, Bl. 10. 8. ΔῈ My DIS NIP) 2a NI OW? wI29N 
 sm. Skin and flesh are the garment of man, the Spirit within, 
 that is man.”? The Platonists and many Rabbins whom they taught, 
 in like manner as the Essenes and the Eastern Theosophists in gene- 
 ral had done before, also placed the principle of evil in the σῶμα, the 
 ὕλη. The Spirit in that view, appeared to them pure and sinless. 
 According to Paul, the ἔσω ἀνθφωπος, as is clear from the passages 
 before us, as well as from 2 Cor. iv. 16; Eph. iii. 16, denotes not so 
 much the spirit in general, as more especially the disposition, the 
 religious and moral sense, the inward ἀλήθεια (see on chap. i. 18), as 
 it is also called, 1 Pet. iii. 4, ὁ χφυπ τὸς τῆς xagdias ἄνθρωπος. Now, 
 although this be considered in itself as good, all evil is yet not there- 
 by devolved from the Spirit upon the body. Paul speaks of a two- 
 fold ἐγώ, both of which we must necessarily ascribe to the Spirit. 
 Pertinently Bengel: Hic jam interni, sed nondum novi tuetur homi- 
 nis nomen. Compare, moreover, on the ἔσω ἄνθξωπος the learned 
 annotations of Venema in Steph. de Brais Opusc. Leow. 1735, p. 
 293 and 94, which, without any communication, wholly harmonize 
 with the results at which we have arrived. 
 
 V. 23. It may be asked, of how many laws, each differing from 
 the other, does Paul speak in this and the preceding verse? Some 
 say four, others two, and others again three. Jerome and Gicume- 
 nius suppose four, which are thus designated by the latter; one of 
 God, and external, 2. 6. the νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ, or the Mosaic law; an- 
 other also of God and inward, the νόμος τοῦ νόος; one ungodly and 
 external, the νόμος ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν the inordinate lusts of the flesh, and 
 a fourth ungodly and inward, the νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, the inclinations 
 to sin that reside in the soul. Justinian, following Ambrose, is dis- 
 posed to assume two different νόμου, the νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ being identical 
 with the νόμος τοῦ νόος, and the νόμος ἐν μέλεσι With the νόμος τῆς auae- 
 τίας. The most correct way is to suppose a threefold law. ‘The 
 νόμος Tov Θεοῦ 18, without doubt, different from the νόμος τοῦ νόος, for 
 
232 CHAPTER VII. V. 29. 
 
 Paul says that this has a delight in the former. It is impossible, 
 however, strictly to maintain the distinction, seeing that the νόμος τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ; 18 likewise revealed in the νόμος γραπτὸς τῆς καρδίας, and conse- 
 quently belongs to ἔσω ἄνθρωπος. ‘Whe νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας in fine is 
 identical, as Augustine and Photius already remarked, with the νόμος 
 ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι. 
 
 We have, first, to illustrate this νόμος ἐν τοίς μέλεσι. The word 
 νόμος is here used improperly by the Apostle, as at chap. viii. 2, in 
 order to oppose it to the νόμος τοῦ Θεοῦ and τοῦ νόος. Nothing ungodly 
 can properly be a law, because that alone is law which is founded 
 in the divine Being, like the voice of conscience in us. As sin, 
 however, has usurped a blind domination over us, the love of sin 
 may, figuratively, be represented as law. Aptly does Bengel, in 
 rendering the different νόμου, choose the word dictamen; less happily 
 Seiler, Trieb, izapulse. In how far then does the Apostle style the 
 law of the love of sin, the νόμος ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι! Eveninhis day Chry- _ 
 sostom remarks, that this does not affirm that the members or body, 
 as such, are the basis of sin, Paul merely speaking of the power of 
 sin, which manifests itself in the members, and he beautifully con- 
 tinues: Ὥσπερ οὖν ἡ ἐντολὴ οὐκ Lore πονηρὰ, ἐπειδὴ δὲ αὐτῆς ἀφορμὴν 
 ἔλαβεν ἡ ἁμαδτία" οὕτως οὐδὲ τῆς σαρχὸς | Φύσις, εἰ καὶ δὺ αὐτῆς ἡμᾶς 
 καταγωνίζεται. ἐπεὶ οὕτως ἔσταν καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πονηξὰ, καὺ πολλῷ μᾶλλον 
 ἐχεύνη, ὅσῳ καὶ τὸ κῦδος τῶν περαχτέων Eyer. GAN οὐκ Lore ταῦταν 
 οὐκ ἔστιν. οὐδὲ γὰρ εὖ ϑαυμαστὸν οἶχον καὶ βασιλικὰς αὐλὰς τύξαννος 
 λάβῃ xai ληστὴς» διαβολὴ τῆς οἴκιας τὸ γινόμενον. The Apostle means 
 to state whatin man is opposed to the ἔσω ἀνθρωπος. ‘The term 
 ἔσο ἀνθρωτίος for the inward ἀλήθεια, the φὼς in man, leads him 
 to represent evil as an ἔξω ὄν, and so ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι. On the one 
 hand, he may have had still passing before his mind, what he 
 had already said at verse 17, viz. that sin, inasmuch as, properly 
 speaking, it has invaded human nature, may be termed an ἔξω ὄν, on 
 the other, that most usually it manifests itself in the inordinate incli- 
 nations of the corporeal system, or more correctly in a yielding on 
 the part of the mind with reference to these Hence he represents _ 
 the law of the mind, the νόμος yeanros ἐν τῇ xapdiq, as the proper core 
 of man, the citadel in which the true man has his throne. ‘The ex- 
 ternal part of man, the enemy as it were before that citadel, is the 
 love of sin. A similar image, in which the godly element is repre- 
 sented as the kernel of man, the ungodly as the outward shell by 
 which that is encompassed, is to be found in the Book Reschith 
 Chochma (Vitr. Observ. Sacre, |. III. c. 8): “ΒΥ sin man passes 
 
 * For as the commandment is not evil, because sin took occasion from it, 
 not more so is the nature of the flesh, although by that sin torments us. In’ 
 that way even the Spirit would be evil, for a much stronger reason, as it is 
 she who has the government of the actions. But itis not so by any means. 
 For were a tyrant or robber to seize some noble mansion or royal hall, the 
 fault would not belong to the house. 
 
CHAPTER VII. Vv. 23, 24. 233 
 
 more and more into the outward shell, until the whole compass of 
 the soul is therein enveloped. ‘Then may it be said: Our sins have 
 gone over our heads.” 
 
 Αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με τῷ νομῷ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. ‘The expression αὐχμαλω- 
 φίϑόντα is very descriptive, as Limborch says: Sicut captivus non 
 libenter, sed animo reluctante in captivitatem abducitur, a validiori, 
 cui resistendo impar fuit, superatus, ita et hic homo cum luctu quadam 
 animi, a peccato abripitur. That the νόμος auaerias is not different 
 from that ἐν τοὺς μέλεσι, we likewise perceive from the appended τῷ 
 ὄντι ἐν τοὺς μέλεσι. The Dat. τῷ νόμῳ we may take up either as Dat. 
 comm.: ‘‘ for the law of sin, yielding myself up thereto,”’ or as ablative 
 ‘‘by the law of sin, as the instrument.”’ In both cases, the expression 
 has something singular. In the first construction, it must strike, that 
 Paul does not the second time merely place the pronoun, but appears 
 to make a distinction betwixt the party who receives the prey and 
 the party who conquers. In the second construction we, on the 
 contrary, look for a distinction, and in place of it, find that the cap- 
 tive taken is himself represented as the instrument of taking captive. 
 We decide for the second construction, and, consequently, acquiesce 
 in the adoption ofa cerfain distinction betwixt the νόμος ἁμαφτίας and 
 that ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι. It is, that the Apostle seems, by the νόμος auaerias, 
 to understand the νόμος ἐν τοὺς wéAeoe, in its several manifestations and 
 symptoms, so as to make the meaning: ‘“ The love of sin, taken as 
 a whole, subjects me by the sinful motions in which it manifests 
 itself.’ ‘That the condition delineated in this verse, however, does 
 not suit a regenerated Christian, Augustine, in accordance with his 
 earlier views, thus declared, Prop. 45: Intelligitur hine ille homo 
 describi, qui nondum est sub gratia. Si enim repugnaret tantum 
 consuetudo carnis et non caplivarefur, non esset damnatio; in eo 
 enim est damnatio, quod obtemperamus pravis desideriis. 
 
 V. 24. The man involved in this way in an interminable discord, 
 seeing within him a strife consuming bone and marrow, and from 
 which he knows no way of deliverance, breaks forth into an excla- 
 mation of despair. It is impossible, however, to determine with per- 
 fect certainty, how much of this bitter feeling is to be attributed to 
 the person whom the Apostle has described as being in a legal state, 
 and how much of it, on the other hand, is the utterance of emotions 
 which he himself, now that he has experienced the efficacy of re- 
 demption, cannot yet help feeling, while contemplating the legal man 
 engaged in this warfare. Augustine, who was so deeply versed in 
 the struggles of the inward man, repeats, while in the legal state, the 
 exclamation after the Apostle, Conf. 1. VIII. ὁ. 5. The same dis- 
 tress of mind is exhibited by the publican in like circumstances. 
 Luke xviii. 18. (Comp. Ps. xxxvii. 4, 5,6.) ‘The sword of the 
 law which divideth asunder the bones and marrow, seems not to have 
 pierced so deeply into the soul of the knight Michaelis. He is 
 pleased to call the mourner in question an ‘* over-anxious Jew!!”’ to 
 whom the Apostle, with no small phlegm, replies, ‘* For my part I 
 
 30 
 
234 CHAPTER VI. v. 24. 
 
 have no need to utter such a complaint.’”? Here we may apply: At 
 ego prorsus nescio, quid sit scripturam diluere, si hoc non est. 
 
 τίς μὲ ῥύσεται. Beza: Num vero ignorabat, a quo esset hee libe- 
 ratio expectanda? Minime profecto. Mox enim usque adeo agnos- 
 cit, ut illigratias etiam agat. Sed ita loquitur ut in extremo angore, 
 cogitant qualem et quantum cum esse oporteret, qui hoc posset 
 prestare. 
 
 éx τοῦ σώματος Tov ϑανάτον τούτου. It is a question, what the Apos- 
 tle here understands by the σῶμα τοὺ 3avarov; and expositors separate 
 into a fivefold view upon the subject. Ist, Many take σῶμα meta- 
 phorically, as, according to several, it should also be taken in chap. 
 vi.6. It would then have the sense, compages, structura. Ambrose: 
 universitas vitiorum, and, doubtless, even wanting the addition of 
 ἁμαρτία; it might still signify the body of sin. According to Grotius 
 and Mosheim, Savazov must signify the effect of this fabric of sin, ὁ. e. 
 misery; according to Limborch, its nature, destitution of the powers of 
 divine life. If, however, it is improbable, in general, that St. Paul 
 speaks metaphorically of a σῶμα, in any case where he does not like- 
 wise employ the metaphor, and mention the μέλη at the same time, it 
 will be still more unlikely that σῶμα, without other addition, can sig- 
 nify the metaphorical body of sins. Others, such as Schéttgen and 
 Koppe, consider σῶμα as purely paraphrastic as the Rabbinical ἢ}. 
 Akin to this would be the explanation mass or substance, after the 
 Rabbins and the Greek. See on vi. 6. It might also be supposed, 
 4thly, that σῶμα involves the same accessory notion as σάξξ, VIZ. 
 ‘‘human nature left destitute of the powers of divine life.” Or 
 finally, and this, as being the most obvious, is the meaning to which 
 we adhere, σῶμα may be taken in its ordinary signification. On that 
 supposition, the Apostle describes in this legalist the highest degree 
 of despair, so that, torn by the strife within, the man would willingly 
 strip off this earthly covering, and free himself by violence from his 
 condition. The ἀπαλλάττεσθαι τοῦ βίου was also the last consolation 
 of the heathen, when they could no longer bear up against the xaxca. 
 See Antoninus and Gatacker in Anton. p. 323. ‘The fathers took 
 σῶμα tov δανάτον for Sgro, (Suicer, Thes. T. Il. p- 1212,) and 
 after them, the majority of moderns, Erasmus, Clericus, Carpzovius 
 and others, have done the same. It is then usual to suppose a Hebra- 
 ism in the position of the pronoun τούτου, as in Hebrew the pronoun 
 always comes after the one in the genitive case, when two substan- 
 tives are so united by the genitive as to form one idea. See Vorstius 
 de Hebr. N. ΤῸ V. II. p. 189. Gesenius, Ausfuhrl. Lehrg. 5. 732, 
 to which, in the New Testament, add such examples as Acts xiii. 26, 
 λόγος τῆς σωτηξίας ταύτης; for οὗτος ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηξίας. So also Acts 
 v. 20. It is not, however, absolutely necessary to suppose this mis- 
 placing of the pronoun. Nothing prevents us translating, “ the body 
 of this misery,’’ in the sense, the body in which I undergo this 
 misery. ‘The various translations render the text very literally. ‘The 
 Spanish one of Amat has the supplement: Esto cuerpo de muerte 6 
 
CHAPTER VII. V. 25. 280 
 
 concupiscentia mortifera. Seiler: “ὙὙἼπὸ will deliver from the 
 power of inordinate sensuality, which entails upon me punishment 
 and death?” De Wette: ‘From the body of such ruin?” 
 
 V.25. After the struggle of the legalist, with the wretchedness 
 arising from his sense of inward schism, has, in this description, 
 been wrought up to the highest pitch, Paul comes forward, of a sud- 
 den, in his own person, and breaks forth in thankfulness to God, for 
 having delivered him by the redemption from that miserable condi- 
 tion. As this sally of gratitude, however, interrupts the course of 
 the argument, and is quite involuntary, inasmuch as Paul meant 
 still to draw his inference from all that he had previously said, he 
 finds himself compelled, in a way not the most appropriate, after the 
 expression of his gratitude, still to append the conclusion, which is 
 intended briefly and distinctly to show the state of the legalist. From 
 the circumstance of the Apostle’s representing himself as thankful for 
 deliverance from the painful strife,—for that, in expressing his grati- 
 tude, it is in his own person he speaks, is manifest from the mere fact, 
 that this thanksgiving forms no part of the argumentation, but is an 
 immediate movement of feeling. It also becomes clear, that when de- 
 lineating the state of the legalist in his own person, he had, at the same 
 time, painted experiences of his own at a former period. In perfect 
 unison with our view of this verse, Bucer thus speaks: Dum Apos- 
 tolus commemorando expenderet, ut sepe cum peccato misere con- 
 flictasset, videbatur sibi in ea conditione adhuc laborare, proque sensu 
 mortis istius, de ea exclamat. Mox autem, ut extulit se in considera- 
 tionem beneficii Christi, quod acceperat, exultavit animo, et in con- 
 trariam exclamationem, nimirum gratulationis erupit. Even so Lim- 
 borch and Turretin. On the contrary, the expositors of the school 
 of Augustine suppose, that the thanksgiving amounts to no more than 
 that Paul, as a subject of grace, sins without the acquiescence of his 
 will, nay, contrary to it; which exposition is, in point of fact, what 
 Limborch ealls it, nimis diluta. 
 
 It is equally unnatural, when some would have the final inference 
 to be taken conditionally, in order thereby to impart unity to the 
 Apostle’s declaration. So Erasmus: Quod nisi esset factum (if 
 Christ had not delivered me), ipse quoque cum unus et idem sim 
 homo, ad eundem modum distraherer, ut mente servirem legi Dei, 
 carne legi peccati. Precisely so Stolz. ὸ 
 
 In place of εὐχαριστῶ, D E and the Vulgate read ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ; 
 F G, ἡ χάρυς τοῦ Κυρίου; and C, with several translations, Method., 
 Damascenus and Jerome have χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ: The two first read- 
 ings are manifestly false, and have only had their origin in the idea 
 that the foregoing question,—which is properly, however, less ques- 
 tion than exclamation—required an answer, and that εὐχαριστῶ or 
 χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ appears too abrupt. Betwixt these two last readings, 
 however, it might be hard to choose; χάρις δὲ suits better with the 
 preceding question, inasmuch as it forms a glaring contrast; εὐχαξιστῶ 
 appears quite dissevered, but has more authority in its favour. In 
 
236 CHAPTER VII. ¥. 25. 
 
 the two passages adduced as parallel, 1 Cor. xiv. 18, and 1 Cor. i. 14, 
 εὐχαξιστὼ equally appears, but neither of these passages is a proper 
 parallel. ‘The abruptness in this exclamation may be very naturally 
 accounted for according to the words of Bucer: Ingens hic affectus 
 sermonem precidit, nec enim exprimit pro quo gratias agit. 
 
 ἄρα οὖν the conclusion from the whole chapter. 
 
 αὐτὸς ἐγώ, according to the grammar, ego ipse. So already the 
 Vulgate, also the English version. See chap. ix. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 95 
 xii. 13. This meaning, however, appears not to agree with the con- 
 nection, for evidently Paul’s intention, in the passage, is not to show 
 that such a one as He (the sense which αὐτὸς ἐγώ has, see Matthie 
 Gram. § 467.) and not merely others, serves sin according to the 
 σάρξ, but that the self-same person who, on the one hand, obeys the 
 law of God, obeys on the other, the law of sin. Accordingly Eras- 
 mus, Luther and Heumann have translated, ego idem ille; one and 
 the same go serves on the one hand sin, and on the other God. In 
 that case, however, the grammar requires the article ἐγὼ 6 αὐτός 
 (Matthiea, § 146, § 467. 3.) What then is to be done? We may 
 say as follows, 1. In place of αὐτός let aizds be read. ‘The most an- 
 cient codices are without accents, and the more modern might have 
 substituted the spiritus lenis for the spiritus asper, a mistake which 
 has not unfrequently happened in the codices of the classics. See 
 Schweighaeuser, zu. Polyb. B. VIII. s.52. Walknaer; Phenisse, 
 p- 553, 556. 2. Αὐτός may signify myself, and yet in respect of 
 sense amount to se/f-same. We must, in this case, conceive the 
 contrast as follows: No other person except my J, that is, the an J. 
 This I, however, is here not Paul as such, but in like manner as be- 
 fore, the universal human 7. So is it said in German: Ich selbst 
 regiere als Kénig, und verfertige zu gleich meine kleider, I myself 
 reign as king, and also make my clothes, ἡ. 6. without another help- 
 ing me. So also in Latin: Suorum liberorum ipse frater est et pater, 
 and so in Greek. See Herman, zu Sophocles et Antigone, ν. 920. 
 
CHAPTER EIGHTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Arrrr it has become manifest by what has been said, that the law cannot 
 possibly stand any longer in a judicial relation to the Christian, but that 
 this by no means gives rise to any relaxation on his part in the work of 
 sanctification, that being what the law was incapable of operating, St. Paul 
 proceeds to show, in what way true holiness is wrought out in the Christian. 
 It is by his being delivered from the curse of thelaw. He likewise annexes 
 a delineation of the exalted glory which awaits those who have attained in 
 sanctification to the image of the Son, seeing that as his brothers, they be- 
 come also co-heirs; and here closes the description of the scheme of sal- 
 vation delivered in this Epistle. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. Sanctification which the law was unable to effect, is actually wrought out 
 by faith in the redemption; and the issue of it is blessedness. V.1—9. 
 
 2. Admonitory parenthesis, wherein all professors of Christianity are exhorted 
 to a true inward life of faith. V. 10—16. 
 
 3. The childship of believers gives them also the right to a blessed eternity. 
 V. 17—28. 
 
 4, Although the eternal glory of Christians be for the present concealed, it 
 is not on that account the less certain. V.24—39. 
 
 PART. I. 
 
 THE SANCTIFICATION WHICH THE LAW WAS UNABLE TO EFFECT IS 
 ACTUALLY WROUGHT OUT BY FAITH IN THE REDEMPTION. V.1—9. 
 
 V. 1. Wiru this chapter, the explication of the scheme of salvation 
 is brought to a close, inasmuch as, what had been already done in 
 chapter vi. perfected holiness, and eternal bliss as its result, are once 
 more described. Hence, Spener justly observes, Cons. Theol. P. 
 IIL. p. 596: Si scripturam sacram annulo comparemus, Epistolam 
 Pauli ad Romanos gemmam credo cujus summum fastigium in capite 
 octavo exsurgit. Accordingly nothing comes near the lofty flight 
 with which the Apostle terminates the chapter. Singularly enervated 
 is Erasmus’ Paraphrase of the first half of it. 
 
238 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. l. 
 
 οὐδὲν dea νῦν κτλ. These words cannot be looked upon as a con- 
 clusion derived from what immediately precedes, but are rather an 
 inference from chapter iii. to the subject of which the Apostle again 
 returned in the second half of the fifth chapter. It follows, however, 
 from the circumstance of Paul’s thus at once connecting with the dpa, 
 that he presupposes his readers still keep in memory, what is the 
 main point of the whole Epistle, viz. the free justification of Chris- 
 tians, as above described. Accordingly this dea, as conclusion in 
 reference to the man converted, forms a sharp contrast with the dea 
 of chap. vii. ver. 25, as conclusion in reference to the man in a legal 
 state. It is hence far amiss, in several Catholic expositors, such as 
 Erasmus and Cornel. a Lap. when, following the steps of Augustine, 
 Cond. duas Epist. Pel. 1. I. c. 10, they make this dea, an inference 
 from the one before, and conclude, that the condition in which the 
 believer involuntarily, and without the acquiescence of his mind, 
 commits sin, is guiltless, consequently, that whatever of sin remains 
 in him, has no condemning power. Adopting this exposition, it 
 would be best to take χατάχξιμα as the abstr. pro concr.; according 
 as Luther has translated it: nichts verdammliches, (condemnable) 7. 6. 
 verdammenswerthes, (deserving condemnation.) Rather, however, 
 must xataxe:uwa be here taken in the same sense as chap. v. 18. 
 Hence, Melancthon rightly says: Significatur peccatum, quod adest 
 remitti. If we here apply the explanation which we there gave of 
 xataxerua, the idea would be as follows: Believers who through fel- 
 lowship with Christ, have become partakers of that new life which 
 leaves them no more involved in irremediable discord, but always 
 more and more produces obedience to the law, are, in virtue thereof, 
 delivered likewise from the xaraxe.ua, that being proximately pro- 
 mulgated objectively, and hereafter also to be subjectively realized. 
 
 “tors ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. ‘This expression refers to the mysterious 
 and intimate union with the Saviour, into which the believing Chris- 
 tian at once enters. A merely outward sense is given to it by Wahl 
 and Schleusner: οὗ ἐν Xevora, viri Christiani. Correctly Erasmus: 
 Qui in Christo insiti sunt. 
 
 μὴ κατὰ oaexa χτλ. ‘The whole of this addition, as far as πνεῦμα, 
 is wanting in C D F G, and in several versions and fathers. It is 
 also banished from the text by Mill and Semler, who suppose it to 
 have been brought from ver. 4. ᾿Αλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα 15. all that is left 
 out in A D, the Vulgate, the Syriac and Armenian versions, and by 
 Basil, Chrysostom and a whole multitude of fathers. In the context, 
 no reason can be found for removing the clause; with that, on the 
 contrary, it perfectly agrees; and as for ver. 4, it might be said, that 
 there Paul purposely means to refer once more to what he has here. 
 said. Still the authorities against the reception of the clause into the 
 text are so many, and it is so easy, on the other hand, to explain 
 how, as marginal gloss, it came to be inscribed, that if we think of 
 receiving it at all, we must at least regard the ἀλλὰ xara πνεῦμα as 
 spurious. If, however, we adopt the received reading, we require to 
 
CHAPTER VIII. V. 1, 2. 239 
 
 put the point after Ἰησοῦ, and not as Bos does, connect the οἱ ἐν 
 Χειστῷ with περιπατοῦσιν. We ought much rather to consider the 
 
 μὴ κατὰ σάρκα πεξιτίατοῦσιν as epexegesis. But neither must we then 
 take the appended clause as conditional, like Calvin, Melancthon and 
 others, as if Paul meant to bring forward the walk of holiness as the 
 condition upon which no condemnation takes place. ‘That clause is 
 to be resolved nearly as follows: ‘And then shall they walk,......” 
 In the very circumstance, that these believers, by virtue of their 
 spiritual fellowship in life with the Saviour, no longer walk xara 
 oaexa, lies also the reason, that in the event of their persevering in 
 faith, and at last fully imbibing the spirit of the Saviour, the doing 
 away of the xardxecua, is for them even already secured. Hence, 
 likewise, the whole context manifests the fallacy of that exposition 
 of the xara oaexa περιπατοῦσιν, Which the interpreters of Augustine’s 
 school, both catholic and protestant, walking in their master’s track, 
 adopt, viz: Sentire et perficere quidem peccatum, non vero consentire. 
 The Aposile attributes to Christians a φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, spiritual 
 mindedness; in proportion as this obtains, in proportion accordingly 
 as man is a true Christian, the propensity to sin, the love of what is 
 evil—which surely involves the sentire—dies away. ‘The sentire 
 and not the consenéire is just the proper description of the discord 
 which was felt in the legal state. 
 
 V. 2. The reason why condemnation no more falls upon the man 
 who lives in Christ; It is because the power of sin is broken by the 
 new πνεῦμα. And how have men acquired this new πνεῦμα The 
 answer follows in ver. 3, viz. ‘Through the medium of that obedience 
 to the law which Christ has wrought out, and which frees men from 
 the law’s curse. Pointed is the remark of Chrysostom: Τούτον γὰς 
 τὸν χαλεπὸν κατέλυσε πόλεμον ϑανατώσασα τὴν ἁμαδτίαν ἡ τοὺ πνεύματος 
 χάρις, καὶ ποιήσασα τὸν ἀγῶνα κοῦφον ἡμῖν, χοὺ πρότερον στεφανώσασα; χαὺ 
 τότε μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς συμμαχίας ἐπὺ τὰ παλαίσματα ἑλκύσασα. ἢ 
 
 The Apostle again uses the νόμος as he had done before, iii. 27; 
 vii. 23, (comp. the remarks upon the former of these texts,) in a more 
 general sense. We may place the comma either after ᾿Ιησοῦ, and so 
 connect the ἐν Χριστὼ ᾿Ιησοῦ with ζωῆς» or after ϑωῆς» which would 
 connect these words with the verb. ‘The latter has been done by 
 Erasmus, Michaelis and others, in which case the ἐν receives the 
 sense of through. But the ἐν Χριστῷ is too common a designation 
 of the spiritual life, and would here too unfitly stand before, in place 
 of after, the verb, to allow us to sustain this construction. 
 
 Tov πνεύματος τὴς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ, Stands opposed to the ἁμαρτία and 
 the Sdvacos. We might hence consider it as no more than an ἀσύνδε- 
 τὸν for πνεύματος καὶ ζωῆς. ‘This, however, is not necessary. Rather 
 does the τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ, describe the nature of the πνεῦμα, which 
 
 * The Spirit’s grace, by slaying sin, terminates this bitter warfare, making 
 the struggle light to us, first, bestowing the crown, and then with a multitude 
 of auxiliaries leading us to the battle. 
 
240 CHAPTER VIIi. v. 2, 3. 
 
 the Christian has now received. For the same reason we also do not 
 take ζωή in the sense of blessedness, the strict antithesis to the Save- 
 vos that follows, but render the phrase by this circumlocution: “ The 
 impulse of that new and godly life-principle which spiritual fellow- 
 ship with Christ imparts.” So correctly Heumann. 
 
 νόμος ἁμαδτίας καὶ ϑανάτου. Some, even in ancient times, against 
 whom Chrysostom takes arms, Witsius, (De Gicon. Fed. p. 380,) 
 and Ammon will have the Mosaic law to be meant by the νόμος here. 
 It might, in vindication of the view, be said, that the Apostle only 
 employs the word νόμος in the more general sense, where the contrast 
 with the νόμος, properly so called, entices him to do so, and, conse- 
 quently, that here, where νόμος would not stand in such a contrast 
 with the proper νόμος, it must itself denote that, and that the νόμος 
 above must be taken in the improper, more general meaning. Unless 
 we thus understand it, it has the sense of δυναστεία, as ‘Theodoret 
 explains. This Sdvazos is the same as that whose weight, according 
 to vii. 24, he felt as a legalist. 
 
 V. 3. By a measure of an extraordinary kind, has God effected 
 the removal of the curse of the law. 
 
 To yae ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου. ‘The sentence appears elliptical. If, 
 with Erasmus and others, we consider the ἐν as relative to ἀδύνατον» 
 then must we doubtless suppose the premises to go the length of oae- 
 xos, and, like Erasmus, supply a prestitit after ὁ Θεός and indeed this 
 can only be in the participial form of πονήσας or xareeyaSopevos. This 
 construction, however, is violent in a very high degree, inasmuch as 
 we require to supply not merely a finite verb but a participle, and 
 that too in a sentence, which is already provided with a participle of 
 its own. It is hence preferable, to take the τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον, as 
 Nomin. Abs. Very skilful in this view, is the translation of Clericus, 
 who places the whole phrase as far as caexos, at the end of the verse. 
 ‘God condemned......a thing, which the law, by reason of its weak- 
 ness, could not have done.’’ Bengel has also very happily trans- 
 lated: Deus (id quod lex non poterat, nempe condemnare peccatum, 
 salvo peccatore), condemnavit peccatum, We. ...... 
 
 τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον is the adjective in place of the substantive dév- 
 vauia. Respecting this ἀσθένεια of the law, see Gal. iii. 21; Acts xiii. 
 59. Compare τὸ ἀσθενὲς τοῦ νόμον. Heb. vii. 18. 
 
 ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένευ διὰ τῆς caexos. In compliance with what we have just 
 said, we shall take the ἐν 6 as causal, like the Hebrew 3 with the 
 relative, as is also perhaps, done at Heb. ii. 18. ‘The meaning, ac- 
 cordingly, is as follows: ‘That ἀσθένεια of the νόμος does not properly, 
 lie in any defect of the νόμος itself. It is the inclinations of our will 
 taking quite a different direction, it is our sinful nature, that must 
 bear the blame, as the 7th chap. already taught. ; 
 
 Now comes the means by which this ἀσθένεια was remedied. 
 
 ἐν ὁμοιώματι caexds auagrias. aes, as in John i. 14, (Comp. 
 Heb. ii. 14. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Phil. 11. 7), designates human nature 
 with the accessory notion of weakness. Hence, Col. i. 22, ἐν τῷ 
 
CHAPTER VIII. V. 3. Way 
 
 σώματυ τῆς σαρχός. ἴῃ man, the σάεξ ever exists as ἁμαρτία, and 
 hence the appended τῆς ἁμαδτίας. The ὁμοίωμα, however, relates 
 not to the τῆς ἁμαξτίας, but to the oaef only. ‘The uncommon pe- 
 culiar feature in our Saviour’s appearing just was, that in him we 
 behold a human nature encumbered with all the consequences of sin- 
 fulness, and yet without sin itself coming to light. See Tertullian, 
 con. Marcion, |. v. c. 14. Pel.: Ostendit eum eandem quidem car- 
 nem sed absque peceato portasse. Similitudo hic habet veritatem. 
 
 χαὺ meer ἁμαστίας. We have first a word to say respecting the 
 punctuation. ‘The Vulgate, and following it, Erasmus, Corn. a La- 
 pide and others, place the point before xa:, and connect περὶ ἁμαξτίας 
 with xacéxewe. Wulgate: De peccato condemnavit peccatum. ‘his, 
 however, will not do, because between the participle πέμψας and the 
 verb xazéxewe, Which is joined with it, a xa¢ cannot be interposed. 
 Hence the Syriac interpreter leaves the xa: out altogether. Moreover 
 by this combination of the words, we do not obtain a suitable sense. 
 In the trace of Origen, Erasmus most unnaturally comments; Coar- 
 guit peceatores, ut qui antehac falsa justitia imagine deceperant, nunc 
 palam esset eos impios fuisse, cum Christum legis finem sub pre- 
 textu legis servande occiderent. Best of all Bengel: Eo nomine 
 quod peccatum est; which, however, is still feeble. If, however, we 
 conjoin the wee: ἁμαξτίας with what precedes it, which is, also, for 
 this reason, becoming, that πέμπειν is usually construed with περὶ 
 zwos, then may we either apprehend it in the more general sense of 
 on account, in respect of sin, which is done by Theophylact: ἕνεκα 
 Tov καταγωνίσασθαι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, and by Gicumenius: ἕνεκα τῆς apae- 
 τίας tov ἐξᾶφαν αὐτήν: or in the more confined sense, which Augustine, 
 Pelagius, Calvin, Melancthon, Heumann and others prefer, viz. that 
 ἁμαφτία, per meton. abstr. pro concr. stands for sin offering, just as 
 the LXX. also translate DWN, by πεεὶ ἁμαρτίας (Heb. x. 6. Ps. xl. 6), 
 and just as his expiatory death‘is in the strictest sense, represented 
 as the purpose of the Saviour’s appearing; so too does auaerca in this 
 metonymic sense occur at 2 Cor. v.21. And Philo himself, De 
 Vict. p. 837, has weed auaerias instead of ἡ Svoia περὶ ἁμαρτίας. The 
 former of these senses appears the more natural, although being the 
 more general, it does not exclude, but rather chiefly refers, to the 
 more special one. 
 
 xaréxewe τὴν auaervay ἐν τῇ oaexte In the elucidation of these 
 words, which also affect the apprehension we form of the preceding 
 context, expositors have been much divided, as to whether xazaxec- 
 vew Stands in the sense, fo punish, and consequently that which, in 
 ecclesiastical terminology, is called the obedientia passiva, is treated 
 of; or whether it stands in the metonymic sense (per meton. cause 
 pro effectu) of doing away, and so involving a reference to the obe- 
 dientia activa. ‘The former view is found in Origen, Erasmus, Cas- 
 talio, Hammond and others, the latter in [renzeus, Chrysostom, Ter- 
 tullian, Augustine, Beza, Justinian, Grotius and many more. ‘There 
 are some whio, in rather an obscure way, endeavour to blend the two. 
 
 31 
 
242 CHAPTER Vill. v. 3, 4. 
 
 So Melancthon, Bucer and Limborch. They give to xacaxevvew the 
 sense of fo take away, and to mei ἁμαρτίας that of on account of the 
 sin offering, and expound: In consequence of Christ’s oblation, he 
 took away sin in the human nature, inasmuch as he has done all that 
 is necessary for its removal, and from this its removal gradually en- 
 sues. When we weigh the admissibility of the two views, no objec- 
 tion can be brought against either. ‘The idea that sin was punished 
 in the person of Christ, or that he has borne the penalty of it, is in 
 the New Testament of very common occurrence. Nor is the other 
 metonymical meaning of xaraxevew unfrequent. We find χρίσις 
 used in that way, in regard to Satan, John xii. 31; xvi. 11, in which 
 passages it denotes making inoperative, breaking its power. Ire- 
 neus: Condemnavit peccatum, et jam quasi condemnatum ejecit ex- 
 tra carnem. Hence Tertullian translates: evacuavit peceatum in 
 carne. It is, consequently, equivalent to xavaeyey, c. vi. 6, and Paul 
 may have selected the word with a reference to χατάχειμα in ver. 1. 
 To choose betwixt the two, and exclusively enforce one is difficult, 
 considering, as we have already shown atc. v. 19, that the obedien- 
 tia passiva and activa cannot be separated in the concrete. When 
 he entered into human nature, now subverted as it is by the effects 
 of sin, the Saviour, moved by his perfect love, took upon himself all 
 sin’s consequences and penalties, not excepting death and the pains 
 with which it is connected. This is the xaraxecvewy in the first sense. 
 Inasmuch, however, as such taking upon himself of human nature 
 and sin’s consequences, was an act of the highest love, Christ did 
 thereby likewise take away sin in human nature, robbed it of its 
 power, and fulfilled the law, which hitherto the Sapé had been unable 
 todo. ‘This is the xacaxpivew in the second sense. Supposing the 
 two senses to have generally stood distinctly apart in the Apostle’s 
 mind, and thaf\he here brings forward but one, that probably was the 
 last, inasmuclrasit is the one with which the τὸ yap ἀδύνατον τοῦ νὸ- 
 pov best suits. Comp. Usteri, s. 89. 
 
 To ἐν τῇ σαρκί, the Syriac translator, even in his day, supplied αὐ- 
 τοῦ. But the pronoun is better away, so as that σάρξ may denote 
 human nature in general. 
 
 V.4. The import of this verse points us back to verse 2. We 
 were there told that the man redeemed is no more subjected to the 
 domination of sin. Why? Because Christ has realized the ideal of 
 holiness, and exhibited a holy humanity. The intention of that was, 
 that the requirements of the Divine law should by this mediation be 
 also realized in us. For, it is said in the sequel, Christians have the 
 φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος. ‘The mode of the causal connection of this 
 new frame of mind with the appearing of that sinless humanity in 
 the Saviour, Paul does not in this place more minutely state. (Com- 
 pare, however, verse 9.) 
 
 That which constitutes the end and aim of the whole work of re- 
 demption is here set forth, viz. that state in which the objective 
 announcement of sins having been done away, shall be subjectively 
 
CHAPTER Vit. Vv. 4, 5. 243 
 
 realized. In the life temporal, preparation is made towards such a 
 state, according to the measure of appropriating faith. ‘To the sub- 
 jective side of justification, the statement has been referred by Bucer 
 alone of ail evangelical expositors. ‘The rest find here a description 
 merely of what is objective. (On the relation of that which is sub- 
 jective, to that which is objective, in the redemption, compare the 
 commentary on chap. v. 16.) So perhaps even Chrysostom: Τί γὰρ 
 ἐχεῖνος ἐβούλετο, καὶ τί ποτε ἐπέτασσεν; ἀναμάρτητον ELVaL. τοῦτο τοίνυν 
 κατώξθωται νῦν ἦμιν διὰ Χειστοῦ. χαὶ τὸ μὲν iin τς χαὶ πεξυγενέσ- 
 Gat, γέγονεν ἐχείνου. τὸ δὲ ἀπολαῦσαυ τῆς νύίχης: ἡμέτερον. ἢ And 50, like- 
 wise, Theodoret and Ambrose: Quomodo autem impletur in nobis 
 justificatio, nisi cum datur remissio omnium peccatorum? Evangeli- 
 eal expositors lay stress upon ἐν jucv, which, they say, is to be distin- 
 cuished from ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, and intimates that the fulfilment of the law is 
 duly conveyed over to us, in as far as the law is by faith fulfilled in 
 us. So Wolf, Hunnius and others. Melancthon insists, but in an 
 obscure way, that the communication of righteousness of life is also 
 involved. Still less will it do to take, with Carpzovius, the ἐν ἡμῦν, in 
 the sense, among us. Paul selected this preposition, to put before 
 ἡ μῦν, and no other, because the ¢nward fulfilment of the law, by the 
 bent of the soul that way, is the main point. 
 
 τοῖς μὴ κατὰ odexa πεξιπατοῦσιν. ‘The xara here denotes, that all 
 that comes out in the life, is of a piece with the inclination of the 
 cap or the πνεῦμα. The περιπατεῖν is the expression of the φρόνημα. 
 The more the φρόνημα stands under the influence of the πνεῦμα τοὺ 
 Xecorov, the more will this be manifested in the πεξιπατεὶν. 
 
 V.5. The intermediate idea here omitted is: By the believing re- 
 ception of Christ as a Saviour, man is no more xara oaexa, the πνεῦμα 
 manifests its efficacy. ‘Thos. Aquinas states the connection of the 
 verse in the following way, which, however, is forced: ‘*'The Apos- 
 tle means to show, that Christians enjoy blessedness. Ver. 5 must 
 be the minor, ver. 6 the major proposition, and the conclusion as 
 follows: Therefore, wherever as among you, the geovqjua τοῦ πνεύμα- 
 τος exists, there must there be blessedness.”’ 
 
 geovovow. Erasmus: curant. Correctly Grotius: φρονεῖν Paulo 
 non ad intellectum, sed ad studium solet referri. ‘The same is the 
 ease in the LXX. the Apocrypha and profane authors. Thus in 
 Dion. Halic. 1. 1.11: οὐκ ἀναλήψεσθε τὴν peovtida τῆς πατρίδος. Me- 
 Jancthon: Aliqui imaginati sunt carne significari tantum appetitiones 
 sensuum. Deinde affingunt rationem et voluntatem legi Dei etiam 
 sine Spiritu sancto, posse obedire. Et Spiritu intelligunt cogitationes 
 et conatus rationis et voluntatis sine Spiritu sancto, atque ita trans- 
 formant Evangelium in philosophiam. Hee depravatio Pauline sen- 
 
 * What was the object of his wishes and what did he enjoin? It was, that 
 you might be without sin. Now, Christ has already achieved this for us. To 
 combat and to vanquish it, was his part. It is ours, to enjoy the victory. 
 
244 CHAPTER VIII. v. 6, 7. 
 
 tentie procul repudianda est, et e contra statuendum, quod caro vere 
 et proprie significet totam naturam hominis sine Spiritu sancto. 
 
 Ver. 6. As on frequent other occasions, when mentioning the two- 
 fold kingdom of grace and of sin, the Apostle feels himself moved to 
 state the final issue of each, so likewise here. ‘The yae is no more 
 than transitive particle; δέ would have been preferable, but it had 
 occurred just before. ‘The peovyua has the same sense as the φξονεὲν 
 in the former verse. "This sentiment has been most inappropriately 
 cited as an argument against the authority of reason in divine things. 
 So ex. g. Gerhardi Loci Theol. T. IL. p. 362. Accordingly the word 
 is neither correctly interpreted by reason, nor with ‘Theophylaet by 
 παχεῖα καὶ ὑλικὴ διάνοιαν nor with the Vulgate by Prudentia, but 
 with Grotius and Castalio, studiwm; Disposition: Hesychius: ϑέλημα. 
 Θάνατος ζωή: Misery and blessedness. (See on 6. v. ver. 12.) 
 
 V. 7. Paul designs to show in how far the state of a person un- 
 converted must necessarily be a state of misery, viz. inasmuch as he 
 is involved in continual war with God. Comp. James iv..4. Pro- 
 vided that the knowing faculty of man has not been darkened, he 
 must recognize it as his chief felicity, that he depends upon God, see- 
 ing that thereby alone his want ean be supplied. But sin blinds 
 man, and persuades him that life apart from God, will procure him 
 happiness. In this manner the natural relation betwixt God and 
 man is reversed, and man begins to hate and to fly from the Being 
 whom he yet properly seeks. For even while engaged in the pur- 
 suit of sin, the sinner is seeking a good, whose enjoyment will make 
 him fully and for ever happy, consequently God, he alone being such 
 a good. 
 
 The τῷ yae κτλ. expresses how that enmity manifests itself, and 
 the οὐδὲ κτλ. which follows, how an opposition of the sort lies in the 
 nature of the unregenerate man. Qcumenius: Ἔν ὅσῳ μὲν yae ἔστι 
 δῆλον ὅτι οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται: ἐν ὅσῳ καὶ παρέλθη χαὶ ἀπογένηταυ τοῦ ἄνθρώ- 
 που, οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἔστιν; ὥστε οὐδ᾽ οὕτως ὑποτάσσεται. Ὁ Augustine, Prop. 
 49. Quomodo recte diceretur, nivem non posse calefieri, neque enim 
 potest; sed cum adhibito calore solvitur, et calescit aqua, jam nemo 
 potest nivem eam dicere. Comp. Jer. xiii. 23. 1John ii. 8, 9. 
 Mat. vii. 18. Melancthon: Hic locus maxime refutat Pelagianos et 
 omnes qui imaginantur, homine sine Spiritu sancto legi Dei obedire. 
 Sed hic error inde oritur, quod putant lege Dei tantum externam dis- 
 ciplinam requiri, hee imaginatio abducit eos a recta via. Sciendum 
 est igitur lege Dei requiri interiorem obedientiam et quidem perfect- 
 am etintegram. Animus securus sine Spiritu sancto non videt iram 
 et judicium Dei. Rursus animus perterrefactus, ut in Saul et Juda, 
 ubi sunt terrores sine fide et consolatione Spiritus sancti, concipit hor- 
 
 * In so far as it exists, it evidently is not subject, and in as far as it has 
 passed away and departed from a man, it does not at all exist. So that even 
 thus it is not subject. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. v. 8, 9. 245 
 
 ribilem fremitum et indignationem adversus Deum. Itaque Paulus 
 hie non tantum libidines vel alia nota vitia, odia, &c. accusat, sed 
 multo magis fontes horum malorum, scil. ignorationem Dei, dubita- 
 tionem, indignationem adversus Deum. 
 
 V. 8. The antithetical form which the δέ indicates, seems not to 
 suit the statement here made. Hence we must either suppose that, 
 in an anomalous way, the δέ stands for yae, in which case the sen- 
 tence would be of the nature of a corollary to the preceding verse; 
 So Chr. Schmid and De Wette. Or we must, on the other hand, 
 consider δέ as substituted for οὖν, and as deducing an inference from 
 the whole preceding context. So Beza, who translates it, ergo. 
 Taken in this way, it begins a new sentence, and to that, v. 9 stands 
 in opposition. We find it so used at 2 Cor. i. 6. he transition in 
 the ideas would then be as follows: I have just said that the law is 
 fulfilled in Christians by means of the πνεῦμα. ‘Thereby do ye be- 
 come acceptable to God. Because what | have been saying infers, 
 that the man who is living in the σώρξ can not please God. Now ye 
 have the πνεῦμα, and in virtue of that, and of the fulfilment of the law 
 to which it leads, and which operates friendship with God, ye must 
 be well pleasing in his sight. 
 
 V.9. With this verse, St. Paul properly reverts to ver.4. Now 
 ye have the zvetua, by means of it, the fulfilment of the law, and 
 thereby again, blessedness. 
 
 eimee κῦλ. The Apostle makes the application of what he has 
 said in general, respecting the distinction between πνευματίχος and 
 oagxixos, to the persons whom he is addressing. He is thus drawn 
 into a parenesis, and through it is conducted again into his theme at 
 ver. 17; from which he again repeats in detail what he had said at 
 ver. 6, viz. that the redeemed look for life and peace, as the issue of 
 their course, an exaltation to great glory. Were it only on account 
 of the following exclusive declaration, εἴ cus πνεῦμα Χειστοῦ οὐκ ἔχεν 
 xa. it would be improper in Chrysostom, Theophylact and Suicer, 
 to take εἔπεξφ for ἐπειδήπεξν as asseverative, according to which Eras- 
 mus translates guandoquidem. More correct is Theodoret’s way, 
 ἀμφιβολιας δὲ τοῦτό ἐστιν. ‘The οἰκεῖν expresses the permanency of 
 this state of being filled with God's spirit. In this sense we read, 2 
 Sam. vii. 5, 6, of God’s dwelling in the temple. Eph. 1.17. To 
 the same effect is the μονὴν ποιεὺν, John xiv. 23. Rabbinical authors 
 use the corresponding verb, Mw of the ΡΠ ΠῚ". 
 
 εὖ δέ τις mvevua Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχευ κτλ. We have here a warning that 
 faith, which is only seated in the understanding, is not accounted 
 Christianity. There is in the true Christian, the life of Christ. The 
 πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ is made the same with the πνεῦμα Θεοῦ in the pre- 
 ceding context, and the same with the Χριστός in the one following, 
 inasmuch as the spirit of the Redeemer vouchsafed to the believer, is 
 but a peculiar manifestation of the spirit of God. John xvii. 10, 
 
 * Expressive of doubt. 
 
246 CHAPTER Vil. v. 10. 
 
 PART ΤΙ: 
 
 ADMONITORY PARENTHESIS, IN WHICH ALL PROFESSING CHRISTIANS 
 ARE EXHORTED TO LEAD A TRUE INWARD LIFE OF FAITH. v. 10— 
 16. 
 
 V. 10. The exposition of this verse is involved in that of the fol- 
 lowing one. It may take a threefold form. We may suppose both 
 verses to refer to a spiritual resuscitation; or this may be supposed 
 referred to in ver. 10, alone, and in ver. 11, a corporeal resuscitation; 
 or, in fine, both verses may speak of the physical revival of the body. 
 We shall consider each of these three modes of viewing the passage 
 by itself, According to the first, the connection of the ideas is as 
 follows: In saying that every Christian must be filled with the Spirit 
 of Christ, I do not mean thereby to deny, that this quickening pro- 
 cess, effected by the Redeemer’s spirit, proceeds in man very slowly. 
 In the first instance, the soul is filled with new vital powers; it is by 
 degrees only that the body is sanctified. But God, who was power- 
 ful enough to liberate Christ’s body from physical death, will also 
 know how to weaken the power of spiritual death in you. In this 
 explanation, the yexgov is taken in the sense of, destitute of the 
 powers of divine life, a sense which it bears in conjunction with πίσ- 
 τις teyae Bucer: Mortuum dicitur, quia vita ejus nil quam peccare 
 est. The 207 would then signify specially, holiness. ‘The ϑνητά 
 would either stand for vexea, in the same spiritual sense as formerly 
 the vexedr, or be an epithet intended merely to express the misery of 
 the body, in the same sort of way as at chap. vi. 12. The entire 
 thought, viz. that, in the regenerated Christian, the inordinate desires 
 of the body, are later of ceasing than those of the soul, although 
 even to them grace extends at last her healing power, is, as Βα ἃ 
 remarks, a well-founded experience. In allusion to it, Chrysostom 
 pertinently says: Οὐ τὴν τυξαννίδο τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἔσβεσε μόνον ὃ XEevoros, 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν σάρχα κουφοτέραν καὶ πνευματικωτέραν ἐποιήσεν, οὐ τῷ τὴν 
 Φύσιν μεταβαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῷ πτερῶσαν μᾶλλον αὐτήν. καθάπερ γὰρ πυρὸς 
 ὁμυλοῦντος συδήρῳ, καὶ 6 σίδηρος γίνεταν πῦρ ἐν TH οἰκείῳ μένων φυσεῦ; 
 οὕτω καὶ τῶν πιστῶν χαὺ πνεῦμα ἐχόντων | σὰρξ λοιπὸν πρὸς ἐκεύνην με- 
 θίσταταυ τὴν Evépyeray, ὅλη πνευματικὴ γινομένη, σταυρουμένη πάντοθενς 
 καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ συναναπιτερουμένη. ἢ Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 19. ‘This construc- 
 
 * Christ did not merely extinguish the tyranny of sin, but elevated and 
 spiritualized the flesh, which he did, not by changing its nature, but rather 
 by giving it wings. For just as when fire has been long beside iron, even 
 the iron becomes fiery, though retaining the while its own nature, so the very 
 
CHAPTER VI. v. 10. 247 
 
 tion of the passage is defended, although with some modifications, 
 by Chrysostom, Erasmus Piscator, Locke, Chr. Schmid and others. 
 In its favour may be urged, in regard to ver. 10, that this verse is 
 then very appropriately connected with the preceding context, and in 
 regard to ver. 11, that what is there spoken of, is the efficacy of the 
 spirit of God in man, from which we should expect, not a bodily, but 
 a spiritual quickening. ‘To the same effect is the circumstance, that 
 by xai τὼ δνητὰ σώματα, the resuscitation of the body is put upon a 
 level with that of the soul, although it must not be forgotten that in 
 Paul’s writings, we are accustomed to find a blending of allusions to 
 a bodily and spiritual resurrection. ‘There are, however, several 
 things to be objected to this explanation, particularly in ver. 11. It 
 is unnatural to make the ϑνητά there metaphorical, like νεκρόν; in that 
 sense it never does appear. (Compare, however, 2 Cor. ν. 4.) It 
 is equally improbable that here, where bringing to life is really 
 spoken of, it should be an almost idle epithet, expressing no more 
 than, in a general way, the misery of the body. Nor is it very likely, 
 moreover, that the Spirit of God should here be spoken of as having 
 raised up Jesus from the dead, for no other reason but because the 
 ascription of that to him, served as a proof that he must also possess 
 great power in quickening the Spirit. Still, Col. ii, 12, would be 
 very analogous. 
 
 The second way of apprehending the passage must hence appear the 
 more eligible. ‘Chat way explains this 11th verse, of bodily resur- 
 rection, but finds spiritual quickening in the 10th. Now, the inter- 
 preters who take this view separate into classes. Origen, ‘Theodoret, 
 CEcumenius, Clarius, Grotius, Raphelius, Taylor, Heumann and 
 others, will have νεχρός stand in the sense of revexpapévos, 1. 6. with- 
 out power for sinning, lifeless in respect of that, a meaning which 
 occurred, chap. vi. 11. Inasmuch, however, as yepxos, where it has 
 this meaning, appears in conjunction with the substantive to which 
 the deadness refers, the δὲ ἁμαρτίαν must here be translated with re- 
 spect to sin. ‘This signification of διά, ‘Taylor thinks he can prove 
 from John xi. 15, 42; xii. 9, 30. Rom. ii. 24; iii. 25, and Raphe- 
 lius on the last text, attempts to justify it by a passage from Polybius. 
 It has no place, however, either in that author or in the texts of 
 Scripture. Moreover, the two members of our verse, have not the 
 form of a parallel, but of a contrast (and that not merely logical). To 
 the other class of these interpreters, that which adopts the second 
 mode of explanation, belong Melancthon, Bucer, Hunnius, Michaelis 
 and others. ‘These take vexed; in the sense we have already designed. 
 Melancthon: Quanquam in anima inchoata est lux et vita eterna, 
 tamen adhue in massa carnali heret peccatum; Ideo destrui massam 
 carnalem oportet, ut postea induamur corpore purificato. ‘They must 
 
 flesh of those who believe and possess the Spirit, is changed at last into that 
 kind of essence, becoming altogether spiritual, crucified in every part, and 
 obtaining wings along with the Spirit. 
 
248 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 10. 
 
 suppose that here, as frequently elsewhere, Paul looks upon the bodily 
 resurrection of Christ, as the symbol of our spiritual resurrection, 
 Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. Eph. ii. 5,6, and, as a solace under the 
 thought, that it does not, in the present life, fully serve as organ to 
 the sanctified soul, wished to associate the remembrance of the glori- 
 fication, which one day awaits the body. In this manner certainly 
 an easier transition is opened up from ver. 10 to ver. 11. 
 
 Even this view, however, has less to recommend it than the one 
 which we have stated above as the third. For when we narrowly 
 examine both verses, it does seem that the ϑνυνητὼ σώματα must be a 
 resumption of the σώμα νεκρόν, and, accordingly, that it is more judi- 
 cious to understand ver. 10, as also referring to the bodily resurrec- 
 tion. In this case, the two verses involve a prolepsis, whereby Paul 
 means to obviate the objection, that Christians while upon earth are 
 not yet fully delivered from the Savaros, laid down in verse 6, as the 
 consequence of the state of sin. (Beza: Quia dixerat hominem, in 
 quo Spiritus Christi esset, altera adhue sui parte herere in morte, 
 non videbatur nisi dimidiz salutis spem nobis fecisse.) That the 
 Apostle wished to clear away this objection is very probable, consi- 
 dering that from verse 6, there was present to his mind the intention 
 to speak of the glorification of believers, which he takes up consecu- 
 tively at verse 18. ‘This will be an additional motive disposing us 
 to understand verse 10 of bodily death. So Augustine, Calvin, Ben- 
 gel, Baumgarten and many others. ‘The sense accordingly would 
 be: In your spirit the new life which Christ imparts already exists; 
 it has not, however, as yet done away all ἁμαρτία, nor even all the 
 consequences of sin. Your body still continues subject to mortality, 
 but as Christians are assimilated to the glorified Saviour, upon all 
 the stages of his being, (John xvii. 24,) so shall they, in as far as they 
 have become one with him by the Spirit, experience the operation of 
 that even in their body, and equally with himself shall rise again. 
 This view, according to which the bodily, is but the compliment or 
 culminating point of the spiritual resurrection, frequently recurs in 
 the New Testament. See in the sequel, verse 23, where the ἀπολύ- 
 Teadis Tov σώματος is spoken of, 
 
 Χειστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. This must not be enervated, as is done by Lim- 
 borch: Scilicet per doctrinam; it is as.the resumption of πνεῦμα Xeco- 
 zou, the positive reception of the life divine into men. Compare 
 Gal. iv. 19. 
 
 vexeov according to our view, requires to be translated, mortal. 
 This sense it may have in the Hellenistic usus loquendi, after the 
 analogy of the Hebrew nn, which also means, moribundus. Theo- 
 dotion, Isa. xxxi. 14, (as quoted by Schleusner,) has νεχφόν in the 
 sense of ϑνητόν, which we also find in the domain of pure Greek’ 
 literature. Arrianin Epict.]. UI. ὁ. 10: τὸ σωμάτιον; τὸ οὐκ ἐμόν; τὸ 
 φύσει νεκρόν. 
 
 δὲ ἁμαρτίαν. Augustine de Pecc. mer. et rem. |. I. c. 7: Hoe dic- 
 tum est, ne ideo putarent homines, vel nullum vel parvum se habere 
 
CHAPTER VIII. v. 11, 12. 249 
 
 heneficium de gratia Christi, quia necessario morituri sunt corpore. 
 Owing to the causal relation, which subsists betwixt ἁμαρτία and Sa- 
 vatos, EVerY vexeov is a consequence of the ἁμαστία. The δικαίωμα 
 on the contrary, diffuses fo upon all the stages of existence. 
 
 πνεῦμα is not here the Divine Spirit, as several contend, but the 
 spirit of man, as is clear from the contrast with σῶμα. : 
 
 ζωή is emphatical, the life of glory, to which, by means of ἃ re- 
 fined organization, the body will equally be raised. In place of ζωήν 
 F G, the Armenian and the Vulgate read ζῇ, for no other reason, it 
 would seem, but because the substantive appeared less appropriate. 
 That, however, is the most forcible, although it does not involve the 
 precise emphasis, which Chrysostom gives it, who understands the 
 πνεῦμα Of God: οὐχ etme, τὸ πνεῦμα ζῶν, ἀλλὰ δωὴν, ἵνα δείξε xai ἑτέρους 
 τοῦτο δυνάμενον παρασχεῖν. In a similar way, the substantive is 
 used by Philo, De Profug. p. 459. ‘O δὲ ἀγαθός ἐστι ἡ ἀρετὴ καὺ ἡ 
 Bun, ὁ δὲ xaxds ὃ Savaros. 
 
 διὰ δικαιοσύνην. The basis of the spiritual life in glory is righteous 
 ness, holiness through Christ, which is objectively proclaimed to 
 man, and subjectively realized within him. 
 
 V.11. See on ver. 10. ‘The Spirit of Christ gradually assimilates 
 to Christ the whole sinful nature of man. Animz plenissima beati- 
 tudo,—as Augustine expresses himself in a letter—redundat etiam in 
 inferiorem naturam. ‘This harmonious relation subsisting between 
 the corporeal life and the πνεῦμα, and between the πνεῦμα and the 
 Spirit of God, which the Apostle declares to be the issue of redemp- 
 
 ‘tion in Christians, is described by Augustine, in the instance of man 
 before the fall. Augustine de Pecc. mer. et rem. 1. II. c. 22. Fa- 
 ciebat hoc ordo justitiz ut, quia eorum anima famulum corpus ἃ 
 Domino acceperat, sicut ipsa eidem Domino suo, ita illi corpus ejus 
 obediret, atque exhiberet vite illi congruum, sine ulla resistentia fa- 
 mulatum. 
 
 Φωοποιεῖν, used also of the resuscitation of the body, 1 Cor. xv. 22. 
 
 διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ Πνεῦμα ἐν ὑμῖν. Instead of this reading A B, 
 Clemens, Athanasius, Macarius and some others, have dca τοῦ ἐνου- 
 χοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος. Seeing, however, that partly the way in 
 which this reading has originated, and which it is so easy to explain, 
 awakens suspicions, and partly, as the weight of the external evi- 
 dences in its favour does not preponderate, we must prefer keeping 
 by the reading which we have given. If, then, the dca is causal, the 
 idea expressed is as follows: When the human Spirit is animated by 
 the Spirit of God, it follows as a natural consequence, that its corpo- 
 real organ also shall be glorified. 
 
 V.12. Where there is an ungodly walk, the blessing which is the 
 fruit of the redemption, cannot be taken in. Hence arises the obli- 
 
 * He says not the diving Spirit, but /ife, to. show that it could impart it to 
 others also, 
 
 32 
 
250 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 13,14. 
 
 gation incumbent upon Christians, to lead a godly life. Upon σάρξ, 
 see c. vii. 14. 
 
 V. 13. Retrospect upon verse 6. 
 
 ἀποθνήσκειν, as at Romans vii. 6. 1 Tim. v. 6, to become miserable. 
 Compare the Annot. on chap. vii. 12. In like manner, ζῆν means 
 to become blessed. Gal. vi. 8, is a parallel. 
 
 πράξεις τοὺ σώματος. Just as little as at vi. 6 and vii. 24, would 
 any other explanation be here more natural than that which is the 
 most obvious, and which considers σῶμα to mean the body, used by 
 the φρόνημα τῆς σαρχός for the service of sin. Beza: Tutus homo 
 quatenus non est regenitus. He thus takes it as altogether synony- 
 mous with σάρξ. ‘Theodoret: Tovréore τὸ φρόνημα τῆς capxos, τὰ τὼν 
 παθημάτων σχιρτήματα.δ By explanatory glosses of this sort even 
 the reading σαρκὸς has here been introduced into several manuseripts. 
 Paul uses πεάξεις in the same way at Col. iii. 9, where it has the 
 more general signification of, motions. In the condition of the legal- 
 ist, described by Paul at chap. vii. this Sovarovy was an impossibility 
 --τὸ κακὸν naegdxerrar, evil cleaves to him. 
 
 Savarovre. Ambrose: Mortificari dicuntur si cessent; non sunt 
 enim si cessant: peccatum enim non est, si non fit: (having no pro- 
 per being.) Compare Mark ix. 43, 45, 47. 
 
 V. 14. It is with this, that Paul introduces the description of the 
 glories that are to be the portion of Christians, founding it upon the 
 fact, that they are the children of God. ‘The ὅσοι ἄγονταν again takes 
 up what was said in ver. 9 and 10 of the ἐνοίκησις of Christ. In 
 profane authors ἄγεσθαι likewise expresses, a strong inward impulse. 
 This expression recurs in Gal. v. 18. It finely designates the vitality 
 and force of that new principle imparted to man by regeneration, and 
 of which Claudius admirably says (Wandsbecker Bote, Th. 4, 5. 
 105): ‘*As the grain of wheat softens and is dissolved in the earth, 
 and after awhile, without our knowing or comprehending how, takes 
 on a life of its own kind, puts forth shoots and silently waxes apace, 
 until the stalk appears above the ground, just the same according to 
 the holy Scripture, is the process which goes on insuch a heart. By 
 degrees it loses its own proper frame, and the propensities and views 
 it had before. It feels a something working with life and power 
 within it, and which more and more sets free the Spirit and elevates 
 it above this world, until the day breaks, and the morning star arises, 
 and the mystery, Christ in us, is brought to completion. Chrysos- 
 tom: Οὔτος yap παλίν πολλῷ Tov πίροτέρον μείξων ὁ στέφανος" διὸ ὀυδὲ 
 ἁπλὼς εἶπεν, ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι Θεοῦ φῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽, ὅσου πνεύματι Θεοῦ ἄγον- 
 TOby δειχνὺς ὅτι οὕτω βούλεται αὐτὸ κύριον εἶναν τῆς ἡμετέρας Cars, ὡς τὸν 
 κυβερνήτην τοῦ πλοίου, καὶ Yov ἡνίοχον τοῦ ζεύγους τῶν ἵπίπων.ἷ 
 
 * The mind of the flesh consists in the sallies of the passions. 
 Ὁ For this crown again is far greater than the former one. Wherefore he 
 does not simply say,as many as live by the Spirit of God, but as many as are 
 
CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 15. 251 
 
 υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. This appellation is doubtless merely figurative, and 
 means but to express the close relationship of the love of God to the 
 regenerate. ‘Ihere lies at the bottom of it, however, this profound 
 sense, that the regenerated man, by virtue of his direct entrance upon 
 the life of God, is really become of divine extraction, and a being after 
 his own kind. 
 
 V.15. Christians bear in their own hearts the evidence that the 
 divine life, which they receive, constitutes them children of God, for 
 from the time of his becoming a believer, the Christian feels within 
 him a tender filial love to his God, whereas the man who is still in 
 bondage to the law, from a sense of the variance betwixt them, ex- 
 periences apprehension and anxiety before God. Melancthon: Do- 
 nec conscientia sine fide est, in pavoribus desperanda fugit Deum, 
 dubitat an exaudiat, an respiciat, &c. non invocat Deum. Hee fides 
 et agnitio misericordiz Dei facit proprie discrimen inter Christianos 
 et impios, quia in impiis manet dubitatio et indignatio adversus 
 Deum. 
 
 MVEDMA δουλείας. Chrysostom: ἐχεῦνου φόβῳ τιμωρίας πάντα ἔπραττον 
 ἀγόμενοι; οἱ δὲ πνευματικοὶ ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ πόθῳ." Calov: Non distinguit 
 ceu diversos spiritus, sed eundem spiritum designat a diversis effectis. 
 Even the alarm which the legalist feels for a holy God is divine, and 
 takes its rise from the sway of the πνεῦμα in man. Itis not, how- 
 ever, the New Testament zvevua, which did not become operative 
 till after the redemption of Christ, John vil. 39. The πνεῦμα δουλείας» 
 even John the Baptist might have imparted, but not the πνεῦμα υἷοθε- 
 σίας. The disciples of John know nothing of the Christian πνεῦμα 
 ἅγιον, Acts xix. 2. And hence it is that he specially ascribes to 
 Christ, baptizing with the πνεῦμα, Matt. iii. 11. 
 
 xed2ousv. Correctly, Calvin: Clamoris nomen ad fiduciam expri- 
 mendam positum est, ac si diceret non dubitanter nos precari, sed 
 intrepide claram vocem attollere in celum. So also Keuchen, Obs. 
 in New 'Testamentt 
 
 ᾿Αββὰ is the Chaldaic, sas, Father. The Status Emphat. of the 
 word is expressed by the suff. prime pers. Opit. Chald. p.49. ‘The 
 6 narre is vocative, which case in the Hebrew is expressed by the 
 article with the nominative. The Greek word has been appended to 
 the Chaldaic, probably to explain it, and the reason for preferring the 
 Chaldaic for the paternal name, is that it sounds more childlike; for 
 there is but little probability in the opinion of Selden that the Tal- 
 mudie passage from the Gemarah, is here to be applied, Berachoth, 
 fol. 16, where we read that among the Hebrews, man-servants and 
 maids were not permitted to call the master 828, but only 28. Origen 
 and Ambrose expound as we have done. On the other hand, Theo- 
 
 led by the Spirit of God, showing it to be his wish that the Spirit should be 
 the governor of our life, in the same way as the helmsman is of the ship, or 
 the charioteer of the yoked steeds. 
 
 * They did all things, impelled by the fear of punishment; but spiritual 
 men by desire and affection. 
 
252 CHAPTER VIII. v. 15, 16. 
 
 doret holds that the double position of the name is intended to imi- 
 tate the repetition of it, which is common with children. And Au- 
 gustine, whom even the sagacious Calvin follows, goes so far as to 
 imagine, that being given in two languages, expresses that both Jews 
 and heathens would enjoy the privilege. ‘There are two more pas- 
 sages in which the 33a is found along with the ὁ warye, Mark xiv. 
 36. Gal. iv. 6. 
 
 V. 16. The Apostle says that the Divine Spirit beareth witness to 
 the human. ‘The chief question is, how, according to the Apostle’s 
 opinion, does this take place? ‘The Socinians, Limborch and others 
 suppose that the gospel is meant, that having been inspired by the 
 Divine Spirit. But this it cannot be. For the Divine πνεῦμα here, 
 cannot well be taken for any other than that mentioned, ver. 15, as 
 inwardly reigning in man. Now, as in that sense there is aseribed 
 to the new and divine πνεῦμα, the peculiar virtue of filling our hearts 
 with so childlike a love towards God, that in fulness of confidence we 
 address ourselves to him, it would appear that it is just in this reign 
 of love within us, that the divine witness consists. In 1 John v. 10, 
 likewise, we read, “" He that believeth on the Son of God, hath the 
 witness in himself.’’ It follows then, that as that love, that Godward 
 striving of the heart, manifests itself in prayer, which is hence so 
 beautifully termed by Claudius the secret (wellenschlagen) billowing 
 
 j of the heart, the majority of the ecclesiastical fathers, as for instance 
 { G@cumenius, Ambrose and others are correct, when, in the very im- 
 
 " pulse of prayer, they recognize the testimony of the Holy Spirit. So 
 also Calvin: Itaque non abs re Paulus nos ad hoc examen revocans, 
 tune demum constare ostendit, quam serio quisque credat, ubi se 
 precibus exercent, qui gratia promissionem amplexi sunt. Atque 
 hic egregie refutantur nuge ille sophistarum de morali conjectura, 
 que nihil alind est quam animi incertitudo et anxietas, imo potius 
 vacillatio. 
 
 συμμαφτυξεῖ τῷ πινεύματι ἡμῶν. The compound verb, like others 
 of the kind, as for instance συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι, and like ovuuaerveccy 
 itself, in Rom. 11. 15; ix. 1, may, doubtless, have the sense of the 
 simple one, which the Vulgate, and following that, Luther gave it. 
 But here the proper meaning of the compound would not be unap- 
 propriate. Calvin: Neque enim sponte mens nostra, nisi preeunte 
 Spiritus testimonio, hane nobis fidem dictaret. Erasmus: Neque 
 quidquam vetat ut dicamus mutuam charitatem inter Deum et homi- 
 nem, cum charitas sit Dei donum; ita mutuum esse testimonium 
 inter Spiritum Dei et nostrum non quod noster Spiritus confirmet 
 Deum, sed quod sibi testis est. Chrysostom: οὐδὲ γὰρ βασιλέως χειρο- 
 τονησαντοός τινα, καὶ GVAXNEVTTOVTOS τὴν τιμὴν παρὰ πᾶσι; τολμήσειεν ἄν 
 τις τῶν ὑπηχόων ἀντειπεῖν. Our spirit concludes that we are the 
 children of God. His spirit impresses the seal upon that conclusion. 
 
 * Were a king to prefer an individual, and to publish to all the honour he 
 had conferred, would any of his subjects dare to gainsay him. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. v. 16. 253 
 
 Compare on the subject of the testimony, of which Paul speaks, 
 Buddei Inst. Dogm. p. 1849, and Spener Cons. ‘Theol. Lat. P. ΠῚ, 
 p- 831. 
 
 The Rabbins likewise speak of an inward witness of the Spirit, 
 which, in one passage, resembles that here mentioned by the Apostle. 
 We read in the commentary Siphre, (Schoettgen): Hac ratione rede- 
 misti nos, ut, si peccemus, tu statim propitius nobis sis, e¢ Spiritus 
 Sanctus dicat omni tempore, quod si sic fecerimus, remissus nobis 
 sit reatus sanguinis. In a style of superlative excellence, does the 
 Jew Philo, also speak of this blissful revelation of God within, 1. IL. 
 Alleg. p. 92, ed. Fr. In general, however, it may be aflirmed, that 
 the more profound thinkers of all climes have been alive to some- 
 thing like this voice of God in the heart of man, and conscious of 
 moments, in which something appears and stirs in the inmost re- 
 cesses of our being, manifesting itself to be of a far higher source 
 than ourselves. Who is not acquainted with the noble passage in 
 the letters of Plato, preserved in Origen, c. Celsum, 1. VI. ο. 3? My- 
 dames ἐστι ῥητὸν τὸ πρωτόν ἀγαθὸν; ἀλλ᾽ Ex πολλῆς συνουσίας ἐγγιγνόμενον, 
 καὶ ἐξαίφνης οἷον ἀπὸ πυρὸς πηδῆσαν. Who has not heard of the φωνή 
 of the son of Sophroniscus, which he himself calls Secov τὸ xat δαιμό- 
 veov! Still oftener do the more profound men of eastern climes notice 
 this manifestation of God in the heart. Suffice it to quote one from 
 innumerable passages. Dschelaleddin Rumi, the author of the 
 Methnewi, exclaims at the opening of the poem: 
 
 Now from the body’s thraldom broke the spirit daringly, 
 Ha! ’Tis the scent of Joseph’s robe,t I feel approaching nigh! 
 
 Among moderns, compare the profound Francis Hemsterhuys, Sur 
 Homme et ses Rapports, Giuvres Phil. T. I. p. 208. Ceux qui 
 sont assez malheureux pour n’avoir jamais eu de telles sensations, 
 soit par la foiblesse naturelle de l’organe, soit pour ne l’avoir jamais 
 enltivé, ne me comprendront pas. It needs not be added, moreover, 
 that that testimony of childship should not be explained to be iden- 
 tical with God’s speaking as here mentioned. ‘The analogies ad- 
 duced are for the sake of those, who, surrounding with a magic circle 
 the desolate waste of man’s misery, would make him a secluded 
 solitary, born although he was for fellowship with God, whose na- 
 ture he partakes. 
 
 * The prime good is in no wise to be described in words, but arises within 
 us from much intercourse, and as if starting suddenly from fire. 
 { The symbol of Deity. 
 
254 CHAPTER VIII. v. 17. 
 
 Pa wee te ee 
 
 THE CHILDSHIP OF BELIEVERS GIVES THEM ALSO THE RIGHT TO A - 
 BLESSED ETERNITY. v. 17—24. 
 
 Δ ΣΤ. ὋὉρᾶας πῶς φιλονευκεῦ ἐγγὺς ἡμᾶς ἀγαγεῖν τοῦ δεσπότου; ἐπειδὴ yae 
 οὐ πάντα τὰ τέκνα χληξονόμου; δείκνυσιν, OTL ἡμεις καὶ τέκνα καὶ XANCOVOMOL. 
 ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐ πάντες χληξονόμου; μεγάλων εἰσὶ κληρονόμου πραγμάτων; δείκνυ- 
 σιν OTL καὶ τοῦτο ἔχομεν; χληρονόμοι ὄντες Θεοῦ. πάλιν ἐπειδὴ κληρονόμον 
 μὲν εὐναν συμβαίνει Θεοῦ, οὐ πάντως δὲ τῷ Movoyever συγχληρονόμον, δείκνυ- 
 σιν ἡμας καὶ τοῦτο ἔχοντας. KO σκόπει σοφίαν. τὰ γὰξ λυπηδὰ συστείλας; 
 ἡνίχα ἔλεγεν τί πεύσονταν οἱ κατὰ caexa ζῶντες; ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἀποθνήσκειν; 
 ἐπειδὴ τῶν χρηστοτέρων ἥψατο, εἰς εὐρυχωρίαν πολλὴν ἐξάγευ τὸν λόγον. 
 
 κληρονόμος, possessor. Grotius; Sententia est conveniens non tan- 
 tum Israelitico, Num. xxvii, sed etiam Gentium juri. Man comes 
 to have part with God, to be an heir of God, when he permits him- 
 self to be filled with the divine riches, communicating to him truth, 
 holiness and bliss. 1 Cor. xv. 24. 
 
 συγκληξονόμοι Χριστοῦ. Paul’s first object in adding this, is to 
 make manifest the dignity of the Christian bliss, inasmuch as it may 
 well be supposed, that that must needs be a glorious possession which 
 is shared with Christ himself. He, at the same time, however, takes 
 occasion from this expression, as he is always wont to do in speak- 
 ing of the glory that awaits Christians, not to leave untouched the 
 afflictions they suffer in the present life. Just as he had before con- 
 joined these two at chap. v. 3. Christ is here represented in his holy 
 human nature, in virtue whereof he is the first born, that is the most 
 distinguished, among the citizens of the new commonwealth of God, 
 and wherein—that he might be a pattern in all things to his brethren 
 —he first attained his glorification through humiliation and sufferings. 
 Phil, ii..8, 9.. Heb. v. 7,.8,,9... 2 Tim. ii..11,, 12.. ΤῸ 5: ΠΕῈΒ 
 also be kept in mind, that according to the doctrine of the New Tes- 
 tament, believers, in as far as they have been received into the fellow- 
 
 * See you how he strives to bring us near to the Lord? For inasmuch as 
 not all children are heirs, he shows that we are both children and heirs. And 
 forasmuch as all heirs do not inherit great possessions, he shows that this 
 advantage is ours, we being heirs of God. Moreover, since it has fallen to 
 some to be an heir of God, but not to be altogether a co-heir with the only 
 begotten, he shows that we possess this privilege also. And mark his wis- 
 dom. Compressing what was grievous when he said, What shall they suffer 
 who live according to the flesh,—that they are destined to die; here, when he 
 touches the more favourable views, he extends the discourse into much am- 
 plitude. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 17, 18, 19. 255 
 
 ship of Christ’s life, follow him in all the stages of his being. Com- 
 pare what is said upon ov@yv, 6. vi. 8. Calov: Passiones non sunt 
 cause meritorie, sed modus vel ordo, quem Deus in huminibus ad 
 eternam hereditatem admittendis constituit et observat. Causa enim 
 unica constituta est υἱοδεσία. 
 
 V. 18. It here strikes the Apostle how little the present apparent 
 condition of Christians corresponds with what they shall hereafter be. 
 Chrysostom: ὅρα πῶς ὁμοῦ καταστέλλει xal ἐπαίρει τὸ φρόνημα Tov ἀγω- 
 νιζομένων. ὅταν yae δείξῃ μείζονα τὰ ἔπαθλα τῶν πόνων, καὶ meoteéner 
 μειζόνως, καὶ οὐχ ἀφίησυ μέγα φρονεῖν, ἅτε νικωμένους τῇ τῶν στεφάνων 
 ἀντιδόσει.ἢ 
 
 λογίζομαι. Wulgate, existimo, which Erasmus justly considers 
 feeble. He puts reputo, and says: Agit Paulus de consideratione 
 eorum que credit, per quam veluti rationem subducit. It were best 
 to make it reor or persuasum mihi est. Compare iil. 28. When 
 expressed by a Paul, who, according to 2 Cor. xi. 23, had been ἐν 
 κόποις περισσοτέρως ἐν πληγαὺς ὑπερβαλλόντως, ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως» 
 ἐν ϑανάτοις πολλάκις, and who consequently was well acquainted with 
 the παθήματα of a disciple, such a persuasion as this has a double 
 weight. He expresses himself to the same effect, at 2 Cor. iv. 17. 
 In the Talmudic Tr. Pirke Aboth, c. 4, § 17, we read, ‘* R. Jacob 
 said: One hour’s refreshment in the world to come, is better than the 
 whole of life on this side the grave.”’ Bernhard, de Convers. ad 
 Cler. ὁ. 30: Non sunt condigne passiones hujus temporis ad prete- 
 ritam culpam, que remittitur, ad presentem consolationis gratiam, 
 que immittitur, ad futuram gloriam que promittitur nobis. 
 
 πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν. The preposition πρός with an accusa- 
 tive is comparative particle. Μέλλουσα ἀποχαλυφθῆναι. In joyful 
 exultation the Apostle conceives its commencement at hand. Before 
 the foundation of the world this glory was appointed for the disciples 
 of the Lord, Matt. xxv. 34. Here upon earth, however, it is still 
 hidden in God, Col. iii. 3, and will only be revealed beyond the 
 grave, 1 John iii. 2. 
 
 V. 19. The Apostle now paints the greatness of that glory. It 
 occurs to his mind, how even the glorifying of the irrational creation 
 is dependent upon that of Christians. ‘The development of this 
 thought, he connects with a γὰρ, inasmuch as supposing the glorifica- 
 tion of the faithful to reflect its splendour upon the inanimate creation, 
 this infers that believers have to expect an unspeakably great mani- 
 festation of divine grace in themselves. In this way did even 
 Chrysostom state the connection: @appec τοίνυν ὑπὲς αὐτῆς» (τῆς μελ- 
 λούσης δόξης), παρεσχεύασται yae ἤδη τοὺς σοὺς ἀναμένουσα πόνους. εἰ δὲ 
 τὸ μέλλευν σε λυπεῖ, αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν εὐφραινέτω σε τούτο; τῷ YAE μεγάλη Ths 
 
 * Mark how he, at the same time, depresses and raises the spirits of those 
 engaged in the struggle. For when he shows that greater are the rewards 
 than the toils, it is more an exhortation, whereby he prohibits us to be uplifted 
 in mind, seeing we are overcome in the recompense of crowns which we re- 
 ceive. 
 
256 CHAPTER VII. v. 19. 
 
 εἶναι, καὶ ἀφξαστος; καὶ THY παφοῦσαν ὑπεξβαίνειν κατάστασιν, ἐκεῖ τετα- 
 μίευταιυ....««ἐπαίρων δὲ καὶ ἑτέξως τὴν ἀχξοατὴν», καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως 
 ξξογχοῦ τὸν λόγον, δύο κατασχευάζων διὰ τῶν λεχθήσεσθαυν μελλόντων, καὶ 
 ὑπεξφονιάν τῶν παφόντων, καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν τῶν μελλόντων, καὺ TELTOV με- 
 τὰ τούτων, μᾶλλον δὲ πρῶτον, τὸ δειξαν πὼς περισπούδαστον TH Θεῷ τὸ 
 τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος ἐστί, καὶ ἐν ὅσῃ τὴν φύσιν τὴν ἡμετέραν ἄγεν τιμῇ 
 The whole of this section to the 24th verse is very variously under- 
 stood by expositors, according as they interpret the word χτίσις. We 
 may separate into two classes the manifold meanings which have 
 been given to it. Standing as abstr. pro concr. for κτίσματα» it may 
 be understood either of the rational or of the irrational creation. 
 The first class of interpreters fall again into subdivisions. We pass 
 by the dreams of those who, under κτίσις, will have the Angels, or 
 the Spirits in the Stars understood, nay even dam and Eve, (see 
 Pelag. ad ἢ. 1.) and shall only take into consideration their views, 
 who think that by xz/ocs is meant either a portion of the human race, 
 some say Christians in general, others heathen converts in par- 
 ticular, or the human race at large, especially the heathen in contrast 
 with Christians. The word signifies regenerated Christians, accord- 
 ing to the opinion of Gregory the Great, of Lyra, Socinus, Limborch, 
 Schoettgen and others. But even the usus loquendi refutes this as- 
 sertion, inasmuch as without the addition χαυνήν Christians are never 
 called χείσις, (Eph. ii. 10; James i. 18, prove nothing,) which de- 
 signation indeed, if used absolutely, would have no meaning at all. 
 It is further to be observed, that at verse 19, the υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ» are 
 expressly distinguished from the xcvovs, and even supposing we were 
 here to sustain the solution, which Augustine proposes, Quest. 
 LXVII. viz. that by a Hebraism, instead of the pronoun being put, 
 the noun is repeated, still this cannot at all be sustained at verse 21, 
 where the αὐτή ἡ χτύσις, Is Once more opposed to the τέχνα τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 The overeva2e. of verse 22, comes in confirmation, not to mention 
 other grounds. 
 
 That the heathen converts to Christianity are meant by χτίσις» is 
 the supposition of Clericus and Noesselt, in which case the αὐτοί of 
 verse 23 denotes Jewish Christians. ‘This hypothesis is founded 
 upon the circumstance that m2, the creature, is an expression 
 by which the Rabbins designate the heathen in particular. It may, 
 accordingly, be very suitably applied to heathen converts. Now, 
 
 * Be confident then, with respect to it, for it is already prepared and awaits 
 your toils. If, however, you lament thatit is future, let this very circumstance 
 give you joy. For just because it is something great and ineffable, and sur- 
 passing the present state of things, is it there kept in custody And in 
 another way, stirrmg up the listener, he even amplifies his discourse froin 
 the creation, preparing to effect by what is to be said,a double object, disdain 
 of things present, and desire of things to come. Along with this he has a 
 third in view, or rather a primary one, which is to show how much the hu- 
 man race is cared for by the Almighty, and in how great honour he holds our 
 nature. 
 
CHAPTER vill. v. 19. 257 
 
 even were we to admit that the appellation 7°02 was a customary one 
 for the heathen, we should still require to consider the transference of 
 it to Christians inadmissible. It was only in contrast with the Old 
 Testament 'Theocracy, that the Jews applied to the heathen the 
 names χτισίς and κόσμος. ‘To the place of the Old ‘Testament Theo- 
 cracy, succeeded that of the New. Now, the heathen who became 
 Christians, did thereby cease to stand opposed to the Theocracy. 
 Accordingly, as an Apostle would hardly have called the heathen 
 Christians xésuos, just as little could he have called them χτίσις. We 
 leave other reasons untouched. 
 
 On the other hand, there is much more to recommend the suppo- 
 sition that χτίσις here designates the human race at large, in contrast 
 with the regenerated Christian. ‘This meaning, viz. the animated 
 rational creation, actually belongs to χτίσις, Mark xvi. 15. Col. 
 i. 23. 1 Pet. ii. 13. Among the Rabbins, 7.72 means men, but 
 especially the heathen. Now it might be said, that Paul contem- 
 plating, from the Christian point of view, the disorder in all the rela- 
 tions of society, the monstrous spiritual debasement and wretchedness 
 of the Gentile world, supposes among the heathen a feeling of dis- 
 gust, a sense of the nothingness of the human race (ματαιότης, φθορά); 
 and that he has ascribed to them, along with that, an unconscious 
 longing after a transformation of all things, a redemption. In the 
 first place, however, even supposing such a dull feeling of disgust 
 and sense of the nothingness of life, to have, in point of fact, spread 
 at that time among the heathen, (according to Augustine, De civ. 
 Dei, they complained of the world’s growing old,) it is much to be 
 questioned whether Paul would have represented this as an uncon- 
 scious longing after the Christian glorification, considering how 
 much the feeling was destitute of a moral basis. Furthermore, the 
 Apostle announces for this κτίσις, a participation in the glory awaiting 
 Christians; to the Gentile κόσμος, however, as such, no part im the βασι- 
 λεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ could be promised. In fine, according to this exposi- 
 tion, the words ματαιότης and δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς. can only be applied 
 forcibly to the heathen, whereas they are perfectly natural, provided 
 we understand xzéocs to mean the irrational part of existence. ‘This 
 explanation has been defended by Augustine, Prop. 53, Hammond, 
 Lightfoot, Locke, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Ammon, Usteri and others. 
 
 We now then proceed to the second class of expositions, according 
 to which by xe/ovs, is understood the irrational creation, wherein 
 some include the brutes, others do not. Here too we pass over 
 several as altogether groundless, that of Heumann for instance, which 
 was likewise adopted by Sadoletus, and which makes χτίσις signify 
 the body of Christians one day to be renovated. ‘That the word 
 does mean the whole inanimate creation (whether the stars, and 
 whether the brutes are included, it is impossible to determine, although 
 this may be supposed, at least in respect to the latter), may be de- 
 monstrated both from the very words of Paul, and also from the 
 tenor of the Jewish, as well as of the Christian creed. ‘The opinion 
 
 33 
 
258 CHAPTER VIII. v. 19. 
 
 may be inferred with a very high degree of probability from the 
 words of Paul, partly because χτύσις standing absolutely, does usually 
 mean the inanimate creation, partly seeing that αὐτὴ ἡ χτίσυς Seems 
 to intimate a descending from the more to the less noble, partly be- 
 cause we have afterwards, ver. 22, πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις» and, in fine, partly 
 because to the inanimate creation, the predicates ματάιϊότης and δολεία 
 τῆς φθορὰς are perfectly applicable. It is furthermore to be observed, 
 that the supposition of a future glorification of the visible world is not 
 merely a thing which can be concluded abstractly as involved in Ju- 
 daism and Christianity, but that the tenet may be established as having 
 actually belonged to their systems of doctrine. (‘To the analogy of 
 the religious tenets of the Jews upon the point in question, and to its 
 importance for the exposition of Paul’s declaration, the attention was 
 first directed by Lakemacher, Bibl. Bremensis, Classis vii. who did 
 not, however, adduce the authorities.) 
 
 The original account by Moses, Gen. iii. 17, 18, seems to contain 
 an intimation that sin, which, in every case, brought along with it 
 ϑάνατος, does also stand in causal connection with the enslaved state 
 of nature. From this alone, it might be inferred that Paul expected 
 the abolition of the ϑάνατος in inanimate nature as a consequence of 
 the abolition of the ἁμαρτία and the Savaros in man. Est areana, 
 says Clericus, quedam cognatio et consensus, quem habent cum 
 homine res universe. In this case, there would be a gradation. ‘The 
 Spirit of Christ, which, according to James i. 25, is ἃ νόμος ἐλευθε- 
 ecas, and according to Paul, a νόμος τῆς ζωῆς, diffuses its sanctifying 
 and emancipating influence, from the ἔσω ἀνθφωπος where it began to 
 operate, outward, first upon the ϑνητὰ σώματα (ver. 11), and then 
 universally over the inanimate creation. Highly beautiful is the re- 
 mark of Chrysostom: Καθάπες γὰρ τιθήνη παιδίον τεξέφεσα βασιλικόν» 
 ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐχεῦῖνου γινομένου τῆς πατρικῆς» καὶ ALTY συναπολαύει τῶν 
 ἀγαδῶν, οὕτω χαὶ ἡ χτίσις.Ῥ It is this idea which is expressed in 
 many prophetical descriptions of the period of the Messias (Is. xi. 5; 
 Ixv. 25.) Such descriptions are neither to be interpreted altogether 
 outwardly, nor yet altogether inwardly. Much more does the 
 prophet combine the ideas by which both the external and the inter- 
 nal glory of the Messias’ kingdom is disclosed, and delivers these in 
 several suitable images, the idea of which, so far as it respects what 
 is inward, passed into fulfilment at the appearance upon earth of the 
 inward kingdom of God; and, in so far as respects what is outward, 
 shall pass into fulfilment when, at Christ’s second coming, the inward 
 kingdom of God shali be outwardly revealed. ‘The same is the case 
 with what the Zend-Avesta, in like images, says respecting the glo- 
 rification of the spiritual and material world at the end of time. 
 (Zend-Avesta, Th. ii. 5. 307.) These Old Testament ideas were, at 
 
 * Like as the nurse who has reared the child of a king, enjoys the benefit 
 
 along with him, upon his succeeding to his paternal dominion;—so is it with 
 the creation. 
 
CHAPTER Vill. v.19. ᾿ 259 
 
 an after period, extended by the Jewish Theologians, and thence 
 arose the dogma of the Ὁ)» win, the renovation of the world at the 
 advent (the return) of the Messias. Abarb. on Is. liii. calls it wn 
 wiin. So is it said in the book, Emek Hammelech, Bl. 121. Sp. 
 3. ‘In the days of the Messias, the Blessed One shall renew the 
 world, (O71 wim) and the place of hell itself shall be purged and 
 consecrated.”” Now, in their tenet of the renovation of the world, 
 the Rabbins likewise taught the glorification of the lifeless creation. 
 To this effect is the passage from Bereschith Rabba, Bl. 11. Sp. 3, 
 which we before quoted in an abridged form, at ch. v. ver. 14, “ΒΕ. 
 Berachja said, in the name of R. Samuelis, Though all things were 
 created perfect, they nevertheless became corrupt when the first man 
 sinned, nor will they return to their right condition, until Pherez (the 
 Messias) comes, as is written (Ruth iv. 18.) yr modin nox. ~=Here 
 the word nit) is written plene with the waw, because there are six 
 things (waw, as a number, denotes six,) which shall return to their 
 primeval state, the beauty of man, his life, the length of his stature, 
 the fruits of the earth, the fruits of the trees, and the lights of 
 heaven.” R. Bechai in Schiilchan Orba, Bl. 9. Sp. 4. ‘In those 
 days shall the whole creation be changed for the better, and return 
 to her perfection and purity, as she was in the time of the first man, 
 before he sinned.’’ Coarser delineations of this idea of the glorifi- 
 cation of the world may be found in Corodi, Geschichte des Chili- 
 asmus, B, I. 5. 368. Ejisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, Th. II. 
 5. 826. 
 
 The passage in Philo is analogous, where he describes how all 
 nature ἀσθένειαν ἐνδέχεται and χάμνει, De Cherub. p. 123, and how 
 ἐξημεφωθέντων τῶν κατὰ διάνοιαν καὶ τὰ Coa ἡμεφωθήσεταιν De prem. et 
 pen. p. 924, where he adds: τὸτε xai σχοφρπίων γένη καὶ ὄφεων 
 ἄπρακτον ἕξευ τὸ ἴον. In the sayings of Christ we find nothing about 
 this glorifying of the inanimate creation. ‘True, that with reference 
 to the period of the glorification of God’s inward kingdom, at the 
 place where he figuratively applies to his second appearing certain 
 phrases in common use among Jewish theologians, as referring to 
 the Messias’ kingdom, he employs the word παλυγγενεσία, Matt. xix. 
 28, which perfectly corresponds with the pyr win of the Rabbins, 
 aecording to which the Syriac translator, at that passage, renders 
 “new world.’’ In the Rabbinical use, however, that word included 
 the whole extent of the renovation, which was to take place at the 
 era of the Messias, and inasmuch as Christ had no occasion in the 
 saying quoted, to limit the phrase, παλιγγενεσία would seem to have 
 a meaning no less general than DY won. It may certainly be 
 affirmed, however, that the name παλιγγενεσίαν like DY WIN, by no 
 means excludes the glorification of the inanimate creation, as little as 
 the perfectly analogous name ἀποκατάστασις πάντων, Acts iii. 21. The 
 glorification of the visible creation is more precisely declared in Rev. 
 xxi. 1, although we must there keep in view that it is a prophetical 
 
260 CHAPTER Vilt. v. 19. 
 
 vision which is described; and with yet greater precision do we find 
 the transformation of the material world mentioned in 2 Pet. iii. 7— 
 12, where we must doubtless hold, what Usteri says, p. 174, that 
 the conception of a transference of the perfected βασιλεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 into the heavens is, properly speaking, modern, seeing that, according 
 to Paul, and especially the Apocalypse, the seat of the kingdom of 
 God is the earth, inasmuch as that likewise participates in the general 
 renovation. Now this is moreover the view which has been adopted 
 by the greatest number, and the most ancient of the expositors, 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome ad Eph. iv. 8. les. xxx. 36, Au- 
 gustine de civ. Dei, 1. xx. c. 14, 17, 18, Ambrose, Luther, Koppe 
 and many others. See upon the point, as upon the whole section, 
 the learned Dissertation of J. Marck, Exercit. xviii. in Sylloge Dis- 
 sert. ad N. ‘T’. Rotterd. 1721. Bucer likewise has an admirable 
 commentary upon this section. On the history of the exposition of 
 the passage, compare Flatt, Vorlesungen, 8. 241. With his usual 
 naiveté Luther (Simmtl. Werke, Altenb. Ausg. B. ix. p. 14, 15) 
 thus speaks, ‘ God will not only make the earth, but also the heavens 
 far fairer than they now are. The present world is his working 
 clothes: hereafter he will put on an Easter and Whitsunday suit,” 
 With respect to the How, nothing certainly can be determined. 
 Here the beautiful saying of Bucer applies: Ista evangelizat tantum, 
 non probat, modis enim omnibus humanum sensum superant. This 
 much, however, we may maintain with Calvin, that in such a glori- 
 fication, we are not to suppose the abolition of any of the inferior 
 orders of being, but a purification which shall take place upon each, 
 according to its own peculiar nature. (Among philosophers, com- 
 pare the ideas upon the Fall and Recovery of Creation delivered by 
 Francis Hemsterhuys, in his talented Dialogue, Alexis on sur l’Age 
 d’or, in the Giuvres Philos. T. II.) 
 
 Ἡ γὰρ ἀποχαραδοχία τῆς κτίσεως ἀπεχδ. instead of ἡ χτυσις ἀποχαρα- 
 δοχᾶσα ἀπεχδ. There is in this description of Paul, an almost poeti- 
 eal prosopopeia. It ought not, however, to occasion much surprise, 
 when we consider, on the one hand, the lively feeling of the Apostle, 
 and, on the other, how greatly the subject here called for it. As Old 
 Testament analogies, we may compare Is, lv. 12. Ps. xeviii. Baruch 
 ili. 84. Hab. ii. 11. Ez. xxxi. 15.. Hunnius: Declarat ipsasmet 
 creaturas inanimatas, si sensu aliquo preditae forent, sueque vanita- 
 tis sortem intelligerent, summo desiderio expetituras esse tempus 
 illud. 
 
 Several expositors take awoxapadox’a in an emphatic sense. Beza: 
 Exerto capite expectat, (from the etymology of the word as com- 
 pounded of xdpa and δοκέω,) Luther, Sehnliche erwartung, passion- 
 ate expectation, Ernesti, Instit. Interp. N. T. P. I. Chap. 11. § 12,* 
 cites this very explanation as an instance of false emphasis. So like- 
 
 * See Binnreat Canrnet, Vol. I. p. 166—7. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. v. 20. 261 
 wise Loesner and Krebs. Considering, however, that according to 
 Chrysostom and Suidas, the Etymol. magnum and the usus loquendi, 
 ἀποχαραδοχία may be emphatic, that the emphasis is here suitable, 
 and that it has accordingly been expressed by the Syriac Interpreter, 
 we may well regard it as amounting to, looking forward to, waiting 
 for something. 
 
 τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ @es. The word is descriptive, inas- 
 much as Christians already possess that glory, though without its 
 being visible. Itis the φανέρωσις ἐν S087, Col. ili. 4. 1 John in. 2. For 
 the act of judgment consists in this, that the members of God’s king- 
 dom, who here live under temptations from within and without, and 
 divided and dispersed over the world, shall then be delivered from 
 all strife, and become united in a close and visible fellowship of 
 glory. 
 
 V.20. Statement of the reason of this longing on the part of the 
 inanimate creation. It lies in its ματαιότης. ‘This word many have 
 taken up in a false sense. For inasmuch as, according to the analogy 
 of the Hebrew 437, it denotes idolatry (comp. Acts xiv. 15), it has 
 been supposed, that Paul here means to state how the creatures were 
 compelled to submit to be by man abused to all kinds of sinful pur- 
 poses, more particularly to idolatrous adoration. So even Tertullian, 
 De corona Militis, 6. vi., and so likewise Luther, Marck, Baumgarten 
 and others. But that this application is incorrect, we perceive from 
 even the explanatory δουλεία τῆς p00eas, 50 that Erasmus very perti- 
 nently remarks: Ματαιότης sonat frustratio, quod creatura interim non 
 assequatur, quod utcunque contendit efficere. Verbi causa, dum aliud 
 ex alio propagans, individuis vicissim cadentibus ac renascentibus 
 speciem tuetur ne intercidat, meditatur immortalitatem quandam sed 
 frustra. Chrysostom likewise remarks, Gen. iv. 1, in Nicetae Cat. 
 in Octateuchum, that the propagation of the human race was only 
 introduced after the Fall, as an indemnification for the loss of the 
 immortality possessed before. Theodoret: Ματαιότητα καλεῖ τὴν 
 φθορὰν...«ἔπευδή περ Tov ὅλων 6 ποιητὴς προεώρα Ts’ Αδὰμ τὴν παξάδασιν, 
 καὶ τὴν ἐπενεχθησομένην αὐτῷ τοῦ ϑανάτον ψῆφον. οὐ γὰρ ἣν εἰκὸς» δδὲ δί- 
 XALOY, TH μὲν Ov αὐτὸν γεγεννημένα μεταλαχεὶν ἀφθαφσίας, αὐτὸν δὲ; οὗ χάξιν 
 ταῦτα ἐπεποὶητο, SUNTOY εἴναυ καὶ παϑητόν. ἢ Philo, De Mundi opif. p. 33, 
 adduces as the cause of the Fall of Nature, that if she had continued 
 in her plenitude, fallen man would have sunk into haughty indolenee. 
 A proud heathen, on the contrary, who was unable to account for the 
 δουλεία, and who yet had not modesty enough to believe in ‘a secret 
 wisdom,” dared to utter, as he contemplated the deterioration of 
 
 * He calls corruption, vanity; inasmuch as the Maker of the universe fore- 
 saw the transgression of Adam, and the sentence of death that was to be 
 passed upon him. For it was neither right nor just that the things which 
 were made for him should obtain incorruption, but that he for whose sake 
 they were made, should be subject to death and suffering. 
 
262 CHAPTER VIIt. v. 20, 21. 
 
 nature, the following bold words, Lucr. De Natura Rerum, 1. v. ver. 
 196. 
 
 Quod si jam rerum ignorem primordia, que sint, 
 Hoc tamen ex ipsis cceli rationibus ausim 
 Confirmare, aliisque ex rebus reddere multis, 
 Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paraiam 
 
 Naturam rerum, tanta stat preedita culpa. 
 
 To these words, Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 1. I. c. 20, gives but a feeble 
 echo 
 
 οὐχ ἑκοῦσα. Bucer: Cum a corruptione natura res omnes abhorre- 
 ant. ‘There is nothing but seeks to fulfil, and then to rest in, its idea, 
 and hence to be striving after its idea, in a course of continual rise 
 and downfall is contrary to the nature of the creature. 
 
 διὼ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα. Hammond and Locke, who understand ματαιό- 
 τῆς to mean chiefly idolatry, contend that the ὃ ὑποτάξας is Satan. It 
 would be still more sensible with Jac. Capellus to suppose Adam. It 
 is, however, most natural of all to think of the Lord of the whole cre- 
 ation, of God. Gen. iii. 17. 
 
 V.21. Statement of the condition under which the creation was 
 subjected to the principle of decay. ‘The ὅτι may stand either αὐτιο- 
 λογικῶς aS is held by most, and among these, by Luther, or objective, 
 as it is taken by Baumgarten, Koppe, De Wette and others. The 
 latter is the preferable way, ‘‘in hope—that....’? The αὐτὴ pre- 
 fixed to χτίσις forms a climax. Chrysostom: Ti ἐστε καὶ αὐτὴ; 
 οὐχὶ ob μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ σβ ote xatadeégeeov.* Alberti and Vene- 
 ma, would forcibly construe the ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι with ἐπεκδέχεταν ver. 19, 
 so as to make ver. 20, parenthetical. 
 
 δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς. Compare the analogous expression, 2 Peter il. 
 19. ‘The expositors who understood ματαίοτης to signify man’s 
 abuse of nature, understand it here likewise in the same sense, 
 Luther on Gal. iii. Calov and others. Gerhard (Loci Theol. Tom. 
 IV.§ 55) takes φθοξὰ as directly synonymous with ἄνθρωπος φθαρτός. In 
 Platonic phraseology we should here say: As man will attain to the 
 ὄν, so must also the φαινόμενον of nature regain its image in the ov. 
 
 εἰς τὴν ἐλευθεξίαν τῆς δόξης. ‘The εἰς is by Chrysostom taken un- 
 grammatically, as equivalent to διά governing the accusative, on ac- 
 count of...., and by Grotius and Carpzov, with an equal violation of 
 grammar, in the sense of in; as if it were ἐν, in the time of....Rather, 
 however, does the εἰς denote the state to which nature will attain. 
 The state of ἐλευθερία for the children of God, will be that in which, 
 consistently with the nature of their being, they shall feel themselves 
 to be blessed in God alone; it will consequently be that for which 
 they were destined, and wherein no disturbing causes, such as sin, ’ 
 evil or death shall interrupt their life. ‘The genitive δόξης», according 
 
 * What means the Creature itself?—Not only thou, but that which is be- 
 neath thee. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. V. 22, 23. 263 
 
 to the Hebrew idiom, stands for the adjective, the glorious liberty. 
 Let us here add Calvin’s annotation: Non intelligit consortes ejus- 
 dem glorie fore creaturas cum filiis Dei, sed suo modo melioris sta- 
 tus fore socias. The creatures will then fill up thezr idea. 
 
 V.22. Summary of what has just been said. ‘The assurance 
 expressed by oidauev shows, as Bucer justly remarks, that the Jew- 
 ish Christians, as having once been Jews, and the heathen Christians 
 whom they instructed, were firmly persuaded of such a close connec- 
 tion of the inanimate creation with man. 
 
 συστενάζει χαὶ συνωδίνει. ‘The σύν Grotius here refers to the crea- 
 tures themselves, they groan altogether. ‘The Syriac, Lésner, 
 Michaelis and others will have it to be destituteof meaning. It is 
 more natural, however, to refer it to the concord in the fates of nature 
 and of man. So C£cumenius, Ambrose and others. ‘The word 
 &divery Sometimes meaning, in a general way, fo feel pain, and some- 
 times more specifically applied to the pains of parturition, has cer- 
 tainly this latter special signification here, considering that the fruit 
 of these pains is to be the condition of imperishableness arising out 
 of the perishable. Perhaps, however, there is involved an allusion 
 to the period preceding the age of the Messias, which Jewish theo- 
 iogians distinguished by the name won “Yan, and which, in the 
 New Testament, is likewise termed ὠδῖνες. See Schoettgen, Hore 
 Talmud. T. II. p. 511. 
 
 "Axec cov νῦν. Calvin: Si tot seculis duraruntin suo gemitu Crea- 
 ture, quam inexcusabilis erit nostra mollities vel ignavia, si in brevi 
 umbratilis vite curriculo deficimus. 
 
 V.23. The longing after glorification is not merely a groaning on the 
 part of nature, it is the same likewise on ours, notwithstanding that we 
 have already the commencementof such a state within us. As a con- 
 firmation of the blessedness which awaits the Christian, Paul had 
 adduced the desire on the part of nature. Having mentioned its 
 groaning, he finds himself led to the acknowledgment, that the sub- 
 ject of redemption must likewise sigh after glory. ‘This accordingly 
 opens up to him an opportunity of speaking upon the relation betwixt 
 the sonship ascribed in faith to the Christian and the vision of it 
 hereafter. ‘The transition, from the former to the present verse, 
 ought consequently not to be progressive and ascending, as itis here, 
 but one strictly opposite. ‘That ascending, however, is brought 
 about by its being casually connected with στενάζει. 
 
 To οὐ μόνον δὲ, we have to conceive an αὐτὴ στενάζευ supplied. 
 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ THY ἀπαφχὴν Tov πνεύματος ἔχοντες. On this passage, 
 the very learned treatise in Keil is to be consulted, Οραδο. ‘I’. I. p. 
 194. By the αὐτοὶ some imagine that Paul only is meant, who 
 speaks of himself, they say, in the plural. So Koppe. Others, as 
 Cicumenius, Bucer, Melancthon and Grotius, hold that the Apostles 
 generally, are intended; while most, and that most appositely, refer 
 the word to all πνευματικοί, seeing that it holds true of all such that 
 they have received the awagyz. ‘The Apostles, in their humility, 
 
264 CHAPTER VIII. V. 23. 
 
 uniformly place themselves, as Christians, upon a level with all the 
 rest. Calvin: Accipio de universis fidelibus, qui in hoe mundo 
 guttulis duntaxat Spiritus adspersi. Well also speaks Gcumenius, 
 and after him Clarius, who yet seems to give prominence to the 
 miraculous powers vouchsafed to the Apostles: ‘Tanto magis inge- 
 miscimus nos, quanto nos avidiores ille gustus facit, nam si primitiz 
 spiritus tam ingentes sunt ut miracula fiant ex sola umbra, qualis erit 
 ipsa perfectio ac plenitudo? Doubiless the word ἀπασχὴ is here quite 
 appositely used by the Apostle, to denote that even here the Chris- 
 tian bears within him, his glory begun. Hence it was not only in- 
 correct, but even unnecessary, for Keuchen to try to show, that 
 ἀπαρχὴ signifies a gift, which would rob the meaning of all its 
 beauty. ‘he inward experiences of the Christian, even in this life, 
 give him a certainty with respect to his glorification hereafter. Hence 
 the term Earnest, applied to the πνεῦμα ἅγιον. 2 Cor. i. 223 v. 5. 
 Eph. i. 14. 
 
 καὶ ἡμεὺς αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν. It is first to be inquired, whe- 
 ther ἡμεῖς αὐτοί is again a heightening or merely a resumption of 
 αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαξχὴς τοῦ Πνεύματον ἔχοντες. In the former case, were 
 that αὐτοὶ to denote Christians in general, here it might mean Paul 
 himself or the Apostles. ‘To Paul it is referred by Turretin, Koppe 
 and others; to the Apostles, by Grotius, Lakemacher and others. 
 Indisputably, however, it is far better to suppose an epanalepsis, for, 
 in the first place, such a climax as is supposed, would elevate the 
 Apostles too far above all other Christians, and that in a point in 
 respect of which they do not distinguish themselves. For we know 
 that precisely in regard of their inward misery and struggles on the 
 one hand, and of their inward consolations upon the other, they stood 
 on a level with the other disciples of the Savionr. Even Paul must 
 needs be satisfied with the grace vouchsafed to him. Moreover, we 
 can here very well explain the epanalepsis, it having a peculiar em- 
 phasis. Even the Syriac interpreter adopts it, and after him Eras- 
 mus, Luther, Beza and many others. Correct is the observation of 
 Wolf: Gemitus ille non est doloris et molestie, nec etiam imipa- 
 tientiz, multo minus murmuris adversus Deum, sed desiderii et 
 vehementissimi affectus ex dilata spe. ‘The ἐν ἑαυτοῖς descriptively 
 marks how the Christian bears this holy desire in the recesses of his 
 breast, and only reveals it to God. Hence it never can degenerate 
 into carnal impatience. The longer too that the true Christian, 
 amidst all his temptations from without and within, quietly nourishes 
 the flame of desire after heavenly freedom, the more refined does it 
 become, so that, when after along life of struggles, he obtains a look 
 into eternity, and beholds the heavenly Canaan at hand, there re- 
 mains one single and sacred longing, purified from every other pas- 
 sion, which allures him over—it is the love of Christ himself. 
 
 υἱοθεσίαν ἀπτίεκδεχόμενοι. It was formerly said that Christians had 
 already received the υἱοθεσία. Itis the same with this, however, as 
 with all the spiritual good things of believers; the δικαίωμα», the ζωὴ, 
 
CHAPTER VIII. V. 23, 24. 265 
 
 the participation in the βασιλεία τοῦ Χριστοῦ, are to them at present, 
 and yet likewise a future something. It is offered objectively, the 
 subjective realization is a gradual process. Chrysostom: Νὺν μὲν yae 
 ἐν ἀδήλῳ τὼ ἡμέτεξα ἕστηκεν; ἕως ἐσχάτης ἀναπνοῆς. 
 
 τὴν ἀπιολύτεωσιν τοὺ σώματος ἡμῶν. ‘Thisis an apposition to υἱοθεσία, 
 showing a substantial consequence resulting from the attainment of 
 our childship. Far-fetched are the explanations of σῶμα given by 
 Ambrose, who will have it mean the Christian Church, and by Bol- 
 tens, who takes it periphrastically, in the sense of person. ‘The 
 only question is, whether the genitive be gen. subjecti or gen. objectt, 
 whether it be ὦ deliverance from our body, or an elevation of the 
 body above the frailty which cleaves to it. The former is supposed 
 by Erasmus, Clericus, Heumann and others. The latter by Chry- 
 sostom, Theodoret and Grotius. ‘This is to be preferred, for accord- 
 ing to the doctrine which Paul teaches with respect to the resurrec- 
 tion, not a word is said of the annihilation of our present body, but 
 solely of its glorification. At 2 Cor. v. 4, he says: ob ϑέλομεν éxdv- 
 casbat, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπενδύσασθαι. We have also to compare the 10th verse 
 of the present chapter, where, in the same way, it is said, that the 
 spirit is the first to feel the higher element; that has not as yet ex- 
 tended to the body its transforming power. The following senti- 
 ment of Augustine, De doctr. Chr. 1. 1. ὁ. 24, very appositely illus- 
 trates the exposition which we have embraced: Quod nonnulli dicunt, 
 malle se omnino esse sine corpore, omnino falluntur. Mon enim 
 corpus suum sed corruptiones ejus et pondus oderunt. ‘The first 
 exposition may likewise, however, be retained; but, in that case, we 
 require to suppose, that it is the σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας which is meant, 
 the σῶμα in as far as it is tyrannized over by the φεόνημα τῆς cagxos. 
 
 PARP hv: 
 
 ALTHOUGH THE EVERLASTING GLORY OF CHRISTIANS BE FOR THE 
 PRESENT CONCEALED, IT IS NOT, HOWEVER, ON THAT ACCOUNT THE 
 LESS CERTAIN. v. 24—39. 
 
 V.24. Paul shows that it is also an established appointment in 
 the economy of salvation, that Christians do not at once experience 
 the consequences of redemption. Objectively, perfect salvation from 
 the dmaeria and ϑάνατος is offered to their faith. It is only in a gra- 
 dual manner, however, that, by the appropriation of it, on their parts, 
 it becomes their subjective property. Accordingly, just as at ver. 
 
 * For now what is ours is concealed until the last breath we draw. 
 
 34 
 
266 CHAPTER VIII. v. 24, 25, 26. 
 
 23, Paul represented the υἱοθεσία to be something future, (also chap. 
 xiii. 11,) so likewise does he here represent σωτηξία, which is no 
 less something present. In 1 Peter i. 5, we read, Σωτηξία ἑτοίμη 
 ἀποχαλυφθῆναν ἐν xe ἐσχάτῳ. The dat. τῇ ἐλπύδιυ, is not to be 
 conceived, as if the tamds were the deyavov ληπτικὸν Of the σωτηξία. 
 Everywhere Paul represents that to be faith. ‘The dative stands 
 here by itself, as it does in classical authors, (Matthie § 547,) for ἐπί 
 governing the dat. which may be rendered upon hope, by means of 
 hope. Chrysostom very appositely remarks on Heb. xi. 1, with 
 respect to the relation of the ἐλπίς to the ges: ᾿Επειδὴ yde τὰ ἐν 
 ἐχπίδι ἀνυπόςατα εἶναν Boxer, ἡ MvorLs ὑπόστασιν αὐτοὺς χαξιζεταυν 
 μᾶλλον δὲ; οὐ χαρίζεται, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτή ἐστιν οὐσία αὐτῶν. Ἐ 
 
 ἐλπὶς δὲ βλεπομένη. Per met. abstr. pro concr. ἐλπίς stands here in 
 place of τὸ ἐλπίδόμενον, as at Col. i. 5, 2. Thess. ii. 16. Calvin: Si 
 enim vita invisibilis, mortem oportet habere pre oculis, si invisibilis 
 gloria, ergo prasens ignominia, 
 
 Τί χαὶ ἐλπίζει. The τύ here means why. The xa: may be a pleonasm, 
 which, in certain interrogatory phrases, has an elegance, (in genuine 
 Greek it has sometimes, however, a peculiar meaning. See Herm. 
 zu Viger. § 837.) Or it may signify besides. 
 
 V. 25. What the Apostle means to say is this: In the very mode 
 of our redemption it is involved that we must patiently wait for its 
 completion. ‘Tit. 11. 12. 
 
 V. 26. This holy patience, Paul means to say, finds a support in 
 the Holy Spirit. He, by a divine movement within us, draws forth 
 sighs, which, when unbosomed before God, become a fountain of 
 heavenly consolation. 
 
 ὡσαύτως. Grotius and Koppe, violating the rules of the language, 
 make this, preterea, which, however, it never signifies directly. If 
 we urge its proper meaning, we may suppose a twofold reference. 
 Either with Pelagius: Sec. hane spem adjuvat ut non terrena sed ce- 
 lestia postulemus; or, just as for the present we know the kingdom 
 of glory not by vision, and, consequently know it but darkly, so also 
 is the supplication of the Spirit, something dark and undefined. The 
 simplest way is to suppose that the reference is indefinite. It ap- 
 pears properly to be the same which lies in συναντιλαμβάνεται, and 
 the idea is then as follows: While-we in our assaults labour to keep 
 ourselves erect, by the ὑπομονὴ, which is the offspring of the wires 
 ἐλπίζουσα, the Holy Spirit comes to our aid in this matter, and seeks 
 likewise to uphold us. So Erasmus, Hunnius and others. 
 
 τὸ Πνεῦμα. ‘That mysterious undulation of the heart towards God, 
 which, in the hour of temptation, amidst the multitude of the thoughts 
 within us, yields us heavenly comfort, is a manifestation of God in 
 our breasts. Compare the beautiful words of the great Fenelon in 
 
 * For seeing that things in hope appear to be unsubstantial, faith imparts 
 substance to them, or rather does not impart it, but is itself their substance. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. V. 26. 267 
 
 the Essay: Que l’Esprit de Dieu enseigne en dedans. Ciuvres, 
 Paris, 1792. T’. VIII. p. 1617, where, amidst more of the kind, it 
 is justly said: l’Esprit de Dieu est l’Ame de notre (des Chretiens) 
 aime. In a manner altogether forced, Sadoletus and Michaelis will 
 have the human mind striving against the lusts, to be understood by 
 πνεῦμα. Melancthon: Loquitur autem Paulus de vera et ingenti lucta, 
 non de frigidis et otiosis cogitationibus. Ideo hee a securis non pos- 
 sunt intelligi, sed singuli pro suo modo in suis tentationibus aliqua 
 ex parte experiri debebant in invocatione vim hujus consolationis. 
 
 συναντιλαμβάνεται ταὶς ἀσθενείαις. ‘The σύν merely strengthens the 
 idea of helping. The plural éo6éveca. enforces the idea of the singu- 
 lar, and must not, as is done by Chrysostom, Grotius and others, be 
 expounded to mean outward sufferings. Just as little will it bear 
 to be applied, after Origen, Cocceius and others, to our ignorance of 
 what to pray for. It refers to the timidity of our soul. Hunnius: 
 Perficit Spiritus Sanctus in nostra imbecillitate virtutem. 
 
 Τὸ yae τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ Se. ‘The τό serves to introduce the 
 following words as the defined object. Luke ix. 46. Erasmus: 
 Tantum abest ut ipsi nobis possimus esse presidio, ut nesciamus 
 quibus presidiis sit opus. Augustine, Prop. 54: Duas ob res, (nes- 
 cimus quid sit orandum,) quod et illud quod futurum speramus et 
 quo tendimus nondum apparet, et in hae ipsa vita, possunt nobis 
 prospera videri que adversa sunt, et adversa que prospera. For 
 this reason vain was the prayer of Paul for the removal of the thorn 
 in the flesh, vain that of Moses to behold Canaan, and vain Abra- 
 ham’s that Sodom might be saved.” 
 
 The χαθὸ Sec some construe very inappropriately with οὐχ οὐδαμεν» 
 non satis scimus, by which the sense is enfeebled. 
 
 ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπεξεντυγχάνει. ‘Totally contrary to the con- 
 nection is the view of Chrysostom, Clarius and others, that St, Paul 
 here speaks of a peculiar χάξισμα vouchsafed to the first Christians, 
 and which consisted in the circumstance of a single individual, in a 
 preternatural way, praying for the whole congregation. Correctly 
 Calvin: Opportune anxiis piorum desideriis preces attexuit, quia 
 non ideo zrumnis eos Deus afiligit, ut intus ceecum dolorem vorent, 
 sed ut se exonerent precando atque ita fidem suam exerceant. 
 
 ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπέρ τινος, to plead one’s cause, which idea is, by the 
 compounding with ize, still more enforced. ‘The sort of interces- 
 sion which, in doctrinal systems, is called ἔντευξις» is not here meant. 
 The supplication of the Spirit is doubtless supplication on the part of 
 man, which, however, is occasioned and excited by the inward stir- 
 ring up of the Spirit. Augustine, Tract. VI. in Joh. § 2: Non Spi- 
 ritus Sanctus in semet ipso apud semet ipsum in illa trinitate gemit, 
 sed in nobis gemit quia gemere nos facit. Nec parva res est quod 
 Spiritus Sanctus nos docet gemere, insinuat enim nobis quia (quod) 
 peregrinamur, et docet nos in patriam suspirare, et in ipso desiderio 
 gemimus, Theodoret, ὑπὸ yae τῆς χάξιτος διεγευξόμενοι xataveTToucda, 
 
268 CHAPTER VII. v. 26, 27. 
 
 πυδφσευόμενου προθυμότεξον περοσευχόμεθα. ἡ St. Martin, L’>homme de 
 desir, Lyon. 1790, p. 280. ‘As the mother does to the child, so 
 does the Holy Spirit repeat before us the supplications, which we 
 must seek to lisp after him.” 
 
 στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτους May, in an improper sense, be understood of 
 inward sighs, whose meaning cannot be resolved into distinct speech, 
 like dvexaaanros, 1 Peter i. 8, and usually ἀῤῥητος. So Calvin, Mi- 
 chaelis and others. The latter says, ‘* with sighs in whose stead we 
 ean find no words.”’ 2 Cor. xii. 14, might then be compared: ἄῤῥητα 
 ῥήματα; ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι. It may also, however, be equiva- 
 lent to ἀῤῥητος in the narrower sense, ‘* Sighs, which do not even 
 escape from the breast, but which spring up, and again perish within 
 us.’’ Such is the common signification of the word ἀλάλητος: and 
 in the same sense, is ἐν ἑαυτοὺς also used at ver. 23. These silent 
 prayers, like silent grief itself, are wont to be the deepest. ‘The 
 book Sohar observes, on Ps. xviii. 16, ‘*' These are words which 
 cannot be uttered, and thoughts which the mouth cannot express, 
 Comp. Is. xxxvill. 14. 1Sam.i.13. So Beza, Grotius, Lambertus 
 Bos and many others. ‘The Apostle is here thinking of those states 
 of the inward life, in which the sense of happiness and fellowship with 
 the Saviour has lost its liveliness, anda man has no resource but to rest 
 his faith upon the objective announcement of salvation. In such eir- 
 cumstances a war arises within, during which al] that the Christian 
 experiences is but sighs, which secretly spring up and soon again 
 secretly perish in the breast. Of such states the mystical writers of 
 the Catholic church frequently speak. Molinos, Guida Spirituale, 
 Venetia, 1785, |. I. c. 8. Chiaro sta, que ὃ gran martirio, e non 
 pieciol dono di Dio, ritrovandosi l’anima priva de’ sensibili gusti, ehe 
 haveva, il caminar colla sola santa fede per i calignosi e deserti sen- 
 tieri della perfettione, alla quale perd non puo arrivarsi, che per 
 questo penoso se ben sicuro mezzo. Onde procura di star constante, 
 e non retornare in dietro, benche ti manchi nell’ oratione il discorso, 
 credi allora con fermezza, taci con quiete e persevera con patienza! 
 
 V. 27. ‘That deep and heavenly longing which awakens the 
 speechless sigh in the breast of the tempted, is not to man himself a 
 distinct object of apprehension. Arising, however, as it does from 
 the divine Spirit within us, God himself knows it better than we. 
 Ambrose: Deo loquitur cum nobis tacere videatur, quia et videt cum 
 non videatur. 
 
 ὃ δὲ ἐξευνῶν τὰς xaedvas. A common circumlocution for God, Ps 
 vii. 9; Jer. xi. 20, to which an apposite special application is here 
 given. 
 
 olde τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ mverparos. ‘That in those moments when the 
 soul turns with deepest ardour to its Original, it is not that which is 
 human in man, that rises Godward, but the Divine Spirit in the hu- 
 
 * Stirred up by grace we feel compunction, and when inflamed to greater 
 ardour, we pray. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. ¥. 27. 269 
 
 man breast which seeks to meet God, the profound thinkers of every 
 clime have been aware. Dschelaleddin in the Methnewi (Cod. MS. 
 Bibl. reg. Ber. T. ILL. p. 146) thus sings of a Mahometan saint, Da- 
 kuki: 
 
 O never think a prayer like this like other prayer; for know, 
 
 It is not mortal man, but God, from whom the accents flow. 
 Behold God prays! the lowly saint stands deep abased the while; 
 And God who gave the humbled mind upon his prayers will smile. 
 
 ὅτι κατὰ Θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει. The ὅτι gives the reason why God un- 
 derstands the holy Spirit in the heart of man. The κατὰ Θεὸν is by 
 some, as Cocceius, construed with the verb, in which case xara would 
 be equivalent to πεὸς. But even were there no grammatical objection 
 to this, it is difficult to understand how the proposition here can pos- 
 sibly be a confirmation of the preceding. Origen and Ambrose trans- 
 late: ‘*As, according to his divine nature, pertains to him.’’ ‘The 
 former says: ‘‘ If we men are often incapable of expressing what our 
 own spirit inwardly desires, how much less will that be intelligible 
 to us, which the Spirit of God in our hearts addresses to God!’ ‘This 
 interpretation would be profound as well as apposite. Only in de- 
 fiance of all the laws of language, however, can xard Θεόν be trans- 
 lated, agreeably to his Divinity. It would be much more allowable 
 to translate it, 2n the way that pertains to God, which translation 
 would admit of a similar meaning. Betwixt this explanation and 
 that which we shall immediately give, Bengel wavers. He says, 
 what may be reconciled with both: Spiritus Sanctus intelligit stilum 
 curie celestis, patri acceptum. More commendation, however, is 
 due to the common interpretation, which, following the Syriac and 
 Chrysostom, translates, according to the will of God. ‘This meaning 
 of χατὰ Θεόν is likewise usual among profane authors: See Wetstein. 
 We might then compare the praying xara τό ϑέλημα Θεοῦ of 1 John 
 v.14. The xara Θεὸν, among classical authors, denotes, by divine 
 appointment, which is a kindred signification. See Euthydemus, 
 ed. Heind. p. 405. 
 
 “Ayov are here the Disciples of Christ; See c.i.'7. When the 
 Christian, in the hours of his inward agony, has nothing in his breast 
 but speechless sighs which rise up, and again expire the import of 
 these divine heavings of the heart, is usually the self emptying sur- 
 render of a love melting away in deepest humility. Whatever a love 
 thus divinely self-denying wills, the accomplishment of the volition 
 is vouchsafed along with it. God understands and answers such 
 sighings of love breathed forth from the divine Spirit, for they already 
 contain within themselves heavenly consolation and tranquillity. 
 What the Mystic wants is an objective ground for his faith and affec- 
 tion, and it is this which forms the essential distinction betwixt him 
 and the Christian. Even the Mystic, however, might make the ex- 
 perience we allude to, on the ground of his subjective faith, We 
 have a memorable and sublime evidence of this in the following pas- 
 
270 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 27, 28. 
 
 sage from the Methnewi of Dschelaleddin (Cod. M. S. Bibl. Reg. 
 Ber. J. II. p. 13.) 
 
 Allah! was all night long the cry of one oppressed with care. 
 
 Till softened was his heart, and sweet became his lips with prayer. 
 Then near the subtle tempter stole, and spake, Fond babbler, cease, 
 For not one, Here am I, has God ere sent to give thee peace. 
 
 With sorrow sank the suppliant’s heart, and all his senses fled, 
 But, lo! at midnight, Chiser* came, and gently spake and said, 
 What ails thee now, my child, and whence art thou afraid to pray, 
 And why thy former love dost thou repent, declare and say. 
 
 Ah! cries he, Never once to me spoke God, Here am JI, son. 
 
 Cast off, methinks I am, and warned far from his gracious throne. 
 To whom Elias, Hear, my son, the word from God I bear, 
 
 Go tell—he said—yon mourner sunk in sorrow and despair. 
 
 Each Lord appear thy lips pronounce contains my Here am J, 
 
 A special messenger I send beneath thine every sigh. 
 
 Thy love is but a girdle of the love I bear to thee, 
 
 And sleeping in thy Come, O Lord, there lies, Here, Son, from me. 
 
 V. 28. The Apostle had stated how Christians are enabled to bear 
 up under all their afflictions, by having the certainty of everlasting 
 glory, and how, in the hardest pressure of these, an inward invigo- 
 ration through the Divine Spirit is never denied them. Even apart 
 from this, however, he now avers, that all the occurrences of life are, 
 under the Divine governance, made means of the Christian’s advance- 
 ment, inasmuch as God knows how to order every thing in such a 
 way, as to issue in the welfare of their souls. Melancthon: Nulla 
 philosophia et nulla humana sapientia videre potest, quare hee in- 
 firma natura humana istis ingentibus calamitatibus onerata est. Ratio 
 disputat utrum casu accidant. Lex Dei clamitat esse peenas peccati 
 et signa ire Dei. At Evangelium proponit nobis filium Dei, hine 
 testatur, non casu sed certo consilio Dei nos subjectos esse afflictio- 
 nibus, non ut pereamus sed ut exerceamur. Chrysostom: αὐτοὺς 
 τοὺς δεινοὺς xEYEnTaL εἰς τὴν τῶν ἐπιβουλενομένων ἐνδοχίμησιν; ὅπερ πολὺ 
 μειξζόν ἔστι Tov κωλῦσαι ἐπελθεῖν τὰ δεινὰ.Ἷ 
 
 πάντα cuveeyeee The πάντα must be restricted to the antecedent 
 subject, and so refers to the afflictions and events of life. Augustine, 
 De Corrept. et gratia, endeavours to show how, even the sin of be- 
 lievers, is, by the grace of God, made subservient to their good, an 
 assertion which, although not directly, is still relatively, ὃ, 6. txBazc- 
 χῶς correct; but it is not deducible from this passage. Συνεῤγεῖν εἰς 
 rv, Lo work together for something. The σὺν is not insignificant, 
 but intimates how the affectionate heart is the true cause of the work- 
 ing of salvation, while the events of life are but occasional causes. 
 To the man who is filled with enmity to God, every affliction isa 
 
 * Name of Elias, whom the Easterns describe as-the counsellor of men. 
 
 + He employs adversity itself in advancing the glory of those who are be- 
 set with snares, which is much greater than it would be to hinder adversity 
 from coming. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 28. 271 
 
 new incentive to his grudge, while in him who has made a filial sur- 
 render,of himself to the Divine Being, humility and love strengthen 
 amidst affliction, as fire does in the storm. ‘ Does the enemy draw 
 t . - . 
 
 the sword,” says Augustine, in his Sententiz, “ we lay hold of pa- 
 tience. Does he take recourse to reproach and derision, we practice 
 benevolence and love.”? Yes, as in the case of the individual, suf- 
 ferings are like inundations of the Nile, leaving the earth more fertile 
 than before, so is it with the church of Christ at large, which 
 flourishes best under hardships. Plures eflicimur, says ‘Tertullian 
 in his Apolog. quoties a vobis metimur. Semen est Sanguis Chris- 
 tianorum. Conf. Cyprianus, Sermo V. De lapsis. 
 
 τοῖς κατὰ ποόθεσιν κλητοὶς οὖσιν. ‘The Apostle subjoins one other 
 ground, why the regenerate may be of good cheer amidst all assaults, 
 viz. that the fact of their being Christians is the fulfilment of a decree 
 made by God, before the foundation of the world. His meaning 
 accordingly is, that just as indestructible as is the divine knowledge, 
 as little ean that which God has once known and determined upon, 
 fail to fulfil its destination. From this the Apostle proceeds to deduce 
 as an inference, that God can never prove unfaithful to his purpose, 
 and by affliction and hardship, lay an obstacle in the Christian’s 
 way. Much more, supposing the believer himself faithful, may the 
 sufferings that befal him, be by God’s conduct, made the means of 
 promoting his salvation. Even by the statement of this, which is 
 obviously Paul’s design, we may perceive how wide it must lie from 
 his purpose, to speak of an absolute election. It may clearly be dis- 
 covered from ver. 35—89, that his sole object is to show, that God’s 
 love is by no means rendered doubtful by the sufferings, which are 
 allotted to us. ‘The argumentation of the Apostle in this section, 
 rests principally upon the fact, that even before the creation of the 
 world, God had formed the purpose of calling believers, of destining 
 them to fellowship with Christ, of justifying and glorifying them. 
 All this had been already, from all eternity, determined on God’s 
 part, and in God, and consequently fulfilled. This aspect of the re- 
 demption, and of the relation of believers to it, is frequently expressed 
 by the Apostle, Eph. i. 5,11. 2 Tim. i. 9. 2 Thess. ii. 13. It 
 was mainly pondering such passages as these, that called forth among 
 Christians the question, which has occupied men in every age, viz. 
 How God’s foreknowledge stands related to man’s freedom, and 
 whether the former does not do away the latter, as soon as it is sup- 
 posed that God foreknows with absolute certainty all that comes to 
 pass. Even in his day, Cicero treated this question, De divin. 1. 11. 
 6. 5—7, and rather inclines to deny God the prescience of the free 
 actions of man. So likewise Socinus, Prelect. Theol. c.8—11. On 
 the contrary, Augustine, speaking from the plenitude of a sense of 
 the Deity, De Civit. Dei, 1. 5, 6. 9, says: Multo tolerabiliores sunt, 
 qui vel siderea fata constituunt, quam iste qui tollit Dei prascientiam 
 futurorum. ‘The answer in which modern theologians, since the 
 days of Kant, rejoice, is to be found both in Augustine and Boethius, 
 
272 CHAPTER VIII. V. 28. 
 
 viz. That the transference of the idea of time to the Divine intuition, 
 is anthropopathic; that in the divine knowledge, there is neither a 
 fore nor an after, but that all must be as an eternal at once: Bethius, 
 De consol. phil. 1. 5, pr. 6: Scientia Dei omnem temporis supergressa 
 motionem, in sue manet simplicitate presenti, infinitaque preteriti 
 ac futuri spatia complectens, omnia quasi jam gerantur in sua sim- 
 plici cognitione considerat. Itaque si prescientiam pensare velis, 
 qua cuncta dignoscit, non esse prescientiam, quasi futuri, sed scien- 
 tiam nunquam deficientis instantiz, rectius estimabis. Unde non 
 prezvidentia, sed providentia potius dicitur, quod porro ab rebus in- 
 fimis constituta, quasi ab excelso rerum cacumine cuncta prospiciat. 
 Doubtless, however, this evasion of the difficulty can satisfy those 
 only who bring themselves to regard time, as a mere semblance, and 
 not at all those, by whom that is denied. (Ch. G. Schmid, Rel. und 
 Theol. 1 B. s. 47. and the excellent work of Bockshammer, Die 
 Freiheit des menschlichen Willens, s. 83.) Much more ought the 
 question to be looked at from quite a different point of view. Thus. 
 As the prescience of good,—of rational freedom,—is considered 
 generally exempt from the difficulty in question, seeing that a ra- 
 tional freedom is agreeable to a rule, the difficulty attaches solely to 
 the prescience of arbitrary and unruled volition, to whose nature it 
 belongs, that it cannot beforehand be known as necessary. ‘The 
 whole inquiry, accordingly, has nothing else to take into view, but 
 mere wilfulness; and the point is, whether that be really in every 
 respect independent of God, or, whether its nature may not be of such 
 sort as also, perhaps, to depend upon him, 7. 6. Whether God be not 
 equally Lord over that which is evil, as over that which is good; a 
 truth which both reason and Scripture oblige us to believe. Granting, 
 however, that that which constitutes the substance of evil, is no less 
 dependent upon God, than good, it follows that there is a necessity, 
 and hence a prescience, to be supposed in evil also. Scripture, at 
 least, speaks of time as by no means a mere semblance, and that 
 doctrine, according to which, the purpose of redeeming and calling 
 believers, is placed xed χαταβολῆς κόσμου, 15 in no wise devoid of im- 
 port. Its momentous import is this, that the plan of redemption and 
 restoration in Christ, was not one supplemented under casual circum- 
 stances, or that arose ex-improviso, but, on the contrary, was cotem- 
 poraneous with the plan of creation; that the fall, with the long term 
 of defection, was not an unfortunate occurrence in the creation of 
 God, but was adopted by God, with free choice, which freedom is 
 evinced on the one hand, by the plan of salvation and by eternal 
 damnation on the other. ‘The Apostle proceeds upon the fact, that 
 in God’s sight the redemption is complete, even to its last manifesta- 
 tion, reception into the δόξα. God who is elevated above all time, 
 and sees in every thing the end in the beginning, knows how be- 
 lievers, by perseveringly clinging to the Saviour, take in his life and 
 are drawn into close fellowship with him. By virtue of this also he 
 delivers the objective announcement, that true believers, even here 
 
CHAPTER VIII. v. 28. 273 
 
 below, receive pardon and adoption, along with every title to heaven, 
 although, for the present, they have but initiatively an interest in 
 Christ. On the χλῆσις of Christians, see ὁ. 1. 7. ‘The appellation 
 χλητὸς, does not involve, per se, the averment that those of whom it 
 is used, have obeyed the call addressed to them; this accessory sense, 
 however, has become fixed, and so the appellation χλητοὺὶ is in the 
 New Testament used of those disciples of Christ, who have actually 
 obeyed the call, and connected themselves with his church. 1 Cor. 
 i. 24. Judei. Rev. xvii. 14. An exception must be made of Matt. 
 xx. 16, and xxii. 14, where it only signifies persons invited, without 
 regard to their consenting or refusing to come, whereas ἐχλεχτοὺὶ, de- 
 notes the accepted among those to whom the call was delivered. It 
 is consequently perfectly synonymous with Christian. ‘That it is 
 here a substantive is also clear, from the circumstance of oto: being 
 affixed. 
 
 xara πεόθεσιν. The πρόθεσις is the resolve, purpose of God, which 
 is avouched by the usus loquendi in the New ‘Testament and Greek 
 authors, Rom. ix. 11, ἡ xar’ ἐχλογὴν πεόθεσις, Eph. i. 11; iii. 11. 
 2Tim.i.9. 2 Mace. iii.8. Diod. Sic. 1.1, 6. 986. Nothing but a 
 spirit of controversy, choosing amiss amidst the means of warfare, 
 could ever have brought expositors to fancy that πρόθεσις denotes the 
 bias of the will in men. Origen: Secundum propositum vocati di- 
 euntur, qui priusquam vocarentur, propenso jam tunc erant animo ad 
 cultum divinum, quorumque promte jam voluntati tantum deerat 
 vocatio. So likewise Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cyril, Pelagius 
 and Suidas. Hammond seeks, with much learning, to vindicate this 
 sense, and is followed by Clericus. The parallel passages adduced, 
 and which state the fact of their being called, according to the x eo- 
 θεσις Of God, as the prerogative of Christians, inasmuch as in this 
 view their salvation appears the more certain, testify decidedly 
 against such an interpretation of xeddeors. In other passages, when 
 speaking of men’s conversion, the Apostle does not bring forward 
 what themselves have contributed thereto, being ever fully penetrated 
 with the sense of the divine influence alone. On the other hand, 
 however, the predestinarians, following Augustine (De corrept. et 
 vratia, ¢. 23), have no Jess introduced an extraneous reference into 
 the passage, inasmuch as they suppose that the annexation τοῖς xard 
 πρόθεσιν κλητοὺς οὖσυ States the ground of the aforementioned perse- 
 vering, and therefore true, love of God. Such love they affirm is 
 not to be found in all the xanzocs, but in those only who are called 
 κατὰ πρόθεσιν, 2. 6. those in whom God makes not merely the out- 
 ward call by the word to take effect, but likewise the inward action 
 of grace. ‘This reference, however, needs not to be brought into the 
 text. All that can be naturally found in the words, is merely the 
 confirmation of the fact that, God having once determined the recep- 
 tion of true Christians into his kingdom, all that He brings upon 
 them, even tribulation itself, can be no hinderance in the way of that, 
 provided only that the Christian does not injure himself. 
 
274 CHAPTER VII. v. 29. 
 
 V.29. Here the Apostle gives a description in detail of the xajous 
 xata τὴν πεόθεσιν, Which is connected quite casually with the forego- 
 ing. The appointing of men to be citizens of the kingdom of heaven, 
 is decomposed into various transactions. ‘These are for man sepa- 
 rate, but cannot, so far as God is concerned, be viewed as different 
 and successive. Although we may relatively predicate succession 
 in reference to them, in God they must necessarily be one. The 
 Apostle accordingly represents them as having been altogether extant 
 in God from eternity. In the following verbs, to be sure, the xeo 
 merely designates the priority of the decree to the execution, it also 
 relates, however, to the χαταβολὴ τοῦ xdcuov. It thus expresses that 
 God, in the original production of the world, had already in his eye 
 the entire developement of the decree of salvation in the instance of 
 the individual, and had already calculated every thing with regard to 
 it. Bucer: Omnia hee apud Deum perfecta sunt, cum ex animo 
 destinavit, utcunque in nobis suo demum tempore perficiantur. 
 
 ὅτι ods πξοέγνω καὶ προώξισε. ‘The ὅτι we may thus paraphrase: 
 “To the disciples of Christ all must work together for good. For 
 supposing them actually to be his disciples, it follows that by the very 
 fact of their having become believers, they were recognized, in the 
 eyes of God, from all eternity, as likewise heirs of the kingdom. 
 How should they then, under such circumstances, regard the suffer- 
 ings of time as a mark of God’s wrath, or of the loss of his love, and 
 not rather as an avenue to glory?’ The first question which meets 
 us here is, whether, as Cornelius a Lapide, for instance, wishes, 
 neotyva and προώξισε taken together form the antecedent clause, so 
 that ἐκάλεσε is what first answers to it. One might conclude this from 
 the circumstance, that in the following verses τούτους» in each case, 
 answers to the ots. We perceive, however, even from the δὲ after 
 οὕς» instead of which there would else have been an οὖν, that meowevoe 
 must be the after clause, and that xai signifies also. 
 
 With respect now to προέγνω we find, even in ancient times, a 
 double signification given to it, whereupon modern expositors also 
 divide. Origen takes it in the sense of »1, to love, prefer, which it 
 often bears. On the contrary, Theophylact, @icumenius, Ambrose, 
 Augustine in the Prop. 55, give it the sense of to foreknow. Upon 
 this twofold exposition, the Calvinistic and Lutheran churches sepa- 
 rate. ‘The Lutheran expositors, Bucer, Baldwin, Hunnius, Calov, 
 and among moderns, Heumann and Michaelis take the foreknowing 
 in the proper sense of the term, explaining it, ** he knew beforehand 
 the action of their free will in believing.”” ‘The Calvinists again dis- 
 cover, with Origen, in the xegoywdoxew, the intimation of a peculiar 
 complacency, which, in their view, flows, without any ulterior 
 ground, from the decretum absolutum. Compare, in particular, 
 Peter Martyr upon this passage, who at once says: Videtur hic pre- 
 scientia non latius aut fusius accipi, quam predestinatio. He cites, 
 in support of his opinion, the texts in which γινώσχευν is used solely 
 in reference to the true disciples of Jesus, John x. 14, 15. 2 Tim. 11. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 29. 275 
 
 19; also 1 Pet. 1.90. He further argues, that Acts ii. 23, πεόγνωσις 
 is closely connected with ὡρφισμένη βουλὴν and at 1 Pet. i. 2, with 
 ἐχλεχτὸς. In fine, that the climax, in which to all whom the Apostle 
 here encourages with the wedyveors, future glory is likewise guaran- 
 
 teed, manifests that the πρόγνωσις must denote the /ove of God, im- 
 
 parting powers of grace to all upon whom it acts. Calvin says: Dei 
 
 ~ preeognitio non nuda est prescientia, ut stulte fingunt quidam impe- 
 
 riti, sed adoptio, qua filios suos a reprobis semper discrevit. Quo 
 sensu venit 1 Petri i. 1. Quare insulse colligunt illi, quos dixi, 
 Deum non alios elegisse, nisi quos sua gratia dignos fore previdit. 
 Neque enim Petrus fidelibus blanditur, ac si pro suo quisque merito 
 electus foret, sed eos ad eternum consilium Dei revocans omni digni- 
 tate prorsus abdicat. 
 
 With regard to the Catholic interpreters, most of them, and among 
 others Erasmus, in his Com. take γινώσχειν in the metonymic sense 
 of fo love, approve, and blend with it in a greater or less degree ac- 
 eording to their several schools, and likewise, with more or fewer 
 distinctions, the predestinarian meaning. In his paraphrase, Eras- 
 mus, while he also gives reoywdoxew the sense of to foreknow, ex- 
 presses himself quite synergistically: [lud habemus certissimum, 
 quicquid malorum piis acciderit, omnia cedere in bonum, tantus est 
 Dei favor in eos, quos ex destinata animi sui voluntate delegit ac vo- 
 eavit in hane felicitatem. Noster est conatus, ceterum eventus pen- 
 det a decreto Di. Non temere delegit Deus. Novit ille suos 
 multo antequam vocaret. In fine, the Arminians also take πξογινώσ- 
 xew in the sense, fo regard with affection, to acknowledge, but they 
 affirm, at the same time, that it is left wholly undetermined by the 
 Apostle, for what reason God makes these the peculiar objects of his 
 love, whether the bias of their own will contributes any thing to this 
 effect, or whether God loves them without any ground at all, and 
 according to a decretum absolutum. ‘The same view of the Apostle’s 
 declaration is also entertained by several Lutherans, Mosheim, Baum- 
 garten, Chr. Schmid and others. It appears, however, that neither 
 of the two mentioned verbal interpretations of πεἪογινώσκειν ought to 
 be sustained. Just as γινώσκω itself has the meaning fo resolve. (See 
 Kypke Obs. ad 1 Petri i. 20, 6. g. Josephus, Antiqu. 1. 1. ¢. 11, it is 
 said of God with regard to the Sodomites: ἔγνω τιμωφήσασθαι τῆς ὑπεδ- 
 npavias αὐτούς.) SO likewise has προγινώσκω" and as often as the verb 
 or the noun xeoyvdors appears in the New Testament—with the sole 
 exception of Acts xxvi.5; and 2 Pet. iii. 17—they have uniformly 
 the sense of, (before) to resolve, resolution. ‘This meaning is by 
 far the likeliest in the passage, Rom. xi. 2, ὁ λαὸς ὃν weoéyva, ‘* the 
 people which he destined or elected before the foundation of the 
 world.”” Acts ii. 23, wedyvaors is evidently equivalent to decretum, 
 statutum. In like manner most expositors allow, 1 Peter i. 20, that 
 nedeyvasmévos is to be translated elected, destined. (‘The xeo in this 
 case may be without signification.) So likewise 1 Pet. i. 2, does 
 κατὰ πρόγνωσιν ἐχλεχτοὶ appear to bear the same signification as else- 
 
 \ 
 
276 CHAPTER VIII. Vv. 29. 
 
 where (2 Tim. i. 9. Eph. iii. 11,) xara weodeow. In this way, 
 moreover, we also perceive how the οὖς weoéyvw again takes up the 
 xara πρόθεσιν κλητοιν and obtain a very close transition. A doctrinal 
 bias brought the Calvinists very near the signification we have given, 
 only they have always endeavoured to derive it from the idea of lov- 
 ing, which they supposed contained in weoéyyo. Notwithstanding, 
 however, that we take πιξοέγνω in the sense, ‘to destine for disciples 
 of Christ before the world’s foundation,”’ the Calvinistic doctrine can 
 as little be found in it as in the χατὰ πεόθεσιν χλητοις. Let us but 
 pay attention to the connection and the Apostle’s design, and it will 
 be seen that the xara πεόθεσιν χλήτοις οὔσυ can merely denote that 
 God having. from all eternity, resolved to call those who are Chris- 
 tians, and his purpose being irreversible, the glorification that awaits 
 them hereafter, can never be rendered doubtful by any suffering of 
 the present. Accordingly we may translate: “For whom he re- 
 solved, before the foundation of the world was laid, to make citizens 
 of the kingdom of heaven, them has he also......””. The point re- 
 maining quite undecided, whether God’s purpose emanated from a 
 baseless decretum absolutum, or whether, in any way, a relation is 
 to be supposed betwixt the bias of ‘the will in man and the divine 
 influences. 
 
 καὶ προώρισε συμμόρφους. ‘The Lutheran expositors, who deride 
 the Calvinists for giving to προέγνω almost the same sense as to προ- 
 weuse, are in the wrong. It is by no means true, as they suppose, 
 that this gives rise to the tautology, pradestinavit, quos predestinavit: 
 Much more is xegodeuse closely connected with ovunoepovs, and thus 
 declares what is the object and issue of the call, whereas προέγνω inti- 
 mates more the call itself. ‘The Syriac expresses the προορίζειν by 
 a term which means fo mark out, to appoint. It is to be found in 
 a similar connection at Eph. 1. ὅ, 11. Acts iv.28. As that whereto 
 God destined his own, was conceived as something future, we must, 
 with Grotius, supply a γενέσθαι. Συμμόξφους which ought properly 
 to govern the dative, is used here as a substantive, and consequently 
 has the genitive. 
 
 τῆς εἰκόνος Tov υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ. The εἰχὼν might be pleonastic; the LXX. 
 use it as they also do ὁμοίωμα for the translation of the Hebrew word 
 nis, Gen. v. 1. The Hebrew n97, however, and after it the ὁμοίω- 
 μα in Hellenistic, when joined to adjectives as well as verbs, signify- 
 ing likeness, are purely pleonastic, (Rom. v. 14; vi. 5.): So also 
 might εἰκὼν be in the present case. It may, however, significantly 
 denote the peculiar expressure of the ideal of humanity, in the person 
 of Christ, the God in man; as in 1 Cor. xv. 49, it is said, that be- 
 lievers in the state of glory, shall bear the image of the heavenly 
 Adam. ‘That the prototype of humanity may be realized in us, by 
 our assimilation to the glorified Son of God, is the ultimate scope of 
 the developement of the human species, and of the divine predestina- 
 tion. Several expositors, as Calov, Calixt, Limborch and others 
 contend, that Paul here brings into view the thought so familiar to 
 
CHAPTER VIII. v. 29, 30. 277 
 
 him, viz. that God has chosen to make Christians like to their 
 Captain in all things, in suffering no less than in glorification, and 
 that this thought is the more appositely introduced, seeing that the 
 object of Paul is to show, that the final issue of suffering must be 
 glory. Properly, however, this allusion cannot be in these words, 
 for all that Paul means to specify, is the glorious scope towards 
 which, as he afterwards says, the xajocs Scxacwors, and the exaltation 
 to glory, conduct. It hence follows, that the statement of that scope 
 cannot include the allusion to suffering. 
 
 εἰς τὸ elvac αὐτὸν πρωτότοχον xtra. The expression is concise, and 
 properly, in compliance with the Apostle’s intention, we must re- 
 solve it thus: εἰς τὸ eae ἧμας ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ. αὐτὸν δὲ πρωτότοκον. 
 Christians received into fellowship with Christ, become, through 
 him, χοινωνοὺ ϑείας φύσεως, 2 Pet. i. 4. According to Hebrews ii. 11, 
 12, the Redeemer and the redeemed are equally of God, and hence 
 the Redeemer is not ashamed to call them his brethren. The pattern 
 of glorified humanity is head of the church, and from it, according to 
 Eph. iv. 16, the whole body is fitly framed together, and one mem- 
 ber depends upon another through all the joints. In as far, however, 
 as the pattern holds a higher place than the copy, Christ takes the 
 precedence among his brethren, he being the first born. ‘The new 
 creation of human nature glorified has proceeded from him. It is 
 not necessary, accordingly, to take the word zewroroxos merely in the 
 improper sense of, the one chiefly esteemed, although this is a sense 
 which it may, and which in the New Testament it likewise does 
 bear. Thus David, Ps. Ixxxix. 27, is styled 23, the first born, 
 and Ex. iv. 22, Israel is called God’s first born. Col. i. 15, Christ 
 is called πεωτότοχος πάσης κτίσεως and Heb. i. 6, expressly, ὁ πρωτότο- 
 xos. ‘Theophylact: Mewroroxos δὲ ἐστὶν ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοὺς κατὼ τὴν 
 οἰκονομίαν" κατὼ γὰρ τὴν Θεότητα μονογενής. ‘Enel γὰρ ἡ πξοσληφθεῖσα 
 σὰρφξ ἐχείσθη παξουσίᾳ ὅλου Tov χξίοντος, καὶ ἀπαῤχὴ ἡμῶν ἐγένετο, ἁγιασ- 
 θεύσης ἐν Χριστῷ τῆς καταχφίτου φύσεως, εἰχότως πρωτότοχος ἐστι; καὶ 
 ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ χεηματίζομεν. ἢ 
 
 V. 30. Those men whom God, according to his mercy, has re- 
 solved to receive into the kingdom of his Son, nay even to assimilate 
 to himself, do, moreover, in time receive their call, their invitation 
 into the kingdom. Calvinistic expositors, and also Augustine him- 
 self, understand by this call, the inward operation of grace, which 
 constitutes the only true χλῆσις. On the contrary, Lutherans under- 
 stand by it, vocation by the preaching of the word, in so far as that is 
 complied with. ‘There can be no doubt that by the xaascy we have 
 primarily to understand the mere invitation to the kingdom of God, 
 
 * He is the first born among many brethren, according to the covenant; for 
 in respect of his Divinity, he is the only begotten. For when the flesh he 
 assumed, was anointed by the presence of the entire anointer, and became 
 our first fruits, the condemned nature being sanctified in Christ, he is right- 
 fully the first born, and we are reckoned his brethren. 
 
278 CHAPTER VIII. v. 30, 31. 
 
 in all the passages where it appears, 1 Cor. i. 9; vii. 15, 17, 18, 20, 
 21,24. Gal. i. 6; v. 8, 13; Eph. iv. 1,4, andso on. It may well, 
 however, be supposed, that the Apostle used the verb, as well as the 
 participle χλητοὶν only of that vocation which is complied with, and 
 by which the divine purpose is actually accomplished. Contrary 
 both to the connection, and to the χλητὸς in v. 28, Grotius and Lim- 
 borch want to limit the χλῆσις exclusively to the call to suffering. 
 
 τούτους xai ἐδικαίωσεν. ‘hose who are called as persons to whom, 
 according to his eternal purpose, God vouchsafes admittance into the 
 kingdom of heaven, are also justified. The Apostle here treats of 
 the objective act of justification, Compare what was said on ver. 28. 
 
 τούτους xai ἐδόξασε. Before the divine intuition, which is inde- 
 pendent of time, fallen humanity appears, from all eternity, not only 
 as redeemed, but likewise as enjoying the fruits of redemption, and 
 as exalted to glory. ΤῸ us, however, whose development takes 
 place in time, it doth not yet appear what we shall be, 1 John iii. 2. 
 One day, however, we shall reign with him the elder brother, 2 
 Tim. ii. 19. 1 Thess. ii. 12. 2 Thess. ii. 14. Thus we read, 
 Heb. x. 14, that by the ὑπακοή of Christ, once manifested in the his- 
 tory of the world, all who shall be gradually sanctified, have already 
 become τέλειον in the sight of God. Bengel: Loquitur in preterito, 
 tanquam a meta respiciens ad stadium fidei, et ex eterna gloria in 
 ipsam quasi retro zternitatem. 
 
 V.31. The Apostle rises into an almost poetical enthusiasm, of 
 which Erasmus, with all reason, says: Quid unquam Cicero dixit 
 grandiloquentius! From the explication he here makes of his former 
 theme, we moreover clearly see, that the sole purpose of the Apostle 
 was to show, that nothing can harm the Christian, if the Christian 
 does not harm himself. ‘Io speak of a decretum absolutum, in vir- 
 tue of which God chooses to confer faith, and with faith, salvation, 
 only on certain individuals, would have lain entirely out of the train 
 of ideas which has hitherto been pursued. ‘The Apostle shows that 
 suffering cannot frustrate the Divine call, the χλῆσις. ‘Io make this 
 section furnish a proof of the Calvinistic view, it must have said, that 
 even by revolt and sin the χλῆσις could, under no circumstances, be 
 endangered. That the κλῆσις of believers may, however, be shaken 
 by culpable unfaithfulness on their own part, appears at least to be 
 implied in 2 Pet. 1. 10. 
 
 The τί οὖν gpovper, as has been already explained, ec. iii. 9, here in- 
 troduces the result of the previous contemplation. The πεὸς ταῦτα 
 makes the formula more complete, when, following the Syriac and 
 the Vulgate, we translate πρὸς, with respect to, Heb. iv. 13, and un- 
 der ταῦτα, understand the whole previous detail. Bolten translates 
 connectedly: ‘‘ From this we now draw the conclusion, that seeing ° 
 God loves, nothing is able to injure us.’ Others rendering xeds, 
 against, translate as Mosheim: ‘* What have we now to object to 
 this argument?’’ Admirably speaks Chrysostom: ‘Qs ἂν εἴποι, μὴ 
 τοίνυν λέγε μου χουπὸν περὶ τῶν χενδύνων χαὺ τῆς παρὰ πάντων ἐπυβουλῆς- 
 
CHAPTER VIII. v. 31, 32, 33. 279 
 
 εἰ yde καὶ τοὺς μέλλουσι τινες διαπιστοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὰ ἤδη γεγενημένα, 
 ἀγαθὰ οὐδὲν ἂν ἔχοιεν εἰπεῖν" οἷον, τὴν ἄνωθεν Tov Θεοῦ meds σὲ φιλίαν; 
 τὴν διχαίωσιν, τὴν δόξαν. χαὶ yae ταῦτά σου διὰ τῶν δοχούντων εἶναι Av- 
 πηρὼν ἐχαξισατο. καὶ ὅπερ ἐνόμιζες αἰσχύνην εἶναν τὸν σταυξὸν, τὰς 
 μάστιγας; τὰ δεσμὰ, ταῦτά ἐστιν ἃ τὴν οἰκουμένην κατώρθωσεν ἅπασαν---- 
 Tis καθ᾽ ἡμὼν; τίς yae οὐ χαθ᾽ ἡμῶν; nots καὶ yae ἡ οἰκουμένη χαθ᾽ ἡμὼν, 
 χαὺ TVEAVYOL, καὶ δῆμοι, καὶ συγγενεῖς, καὶ πολυταυ. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὗτοι, οἱ 
 χαθ᾽ ἡμῶν τοσοῦτον ἀπέχουσιν ἐπηξεάζειν ἡμῖν, OTL XOL GxOVTES στεφάνων 
 MLV αἴτιος γίνονται» χαὶ μυξίων ἀγαθῶν πρόξενοι, τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ σοφίας τὰς 
 ἐπιβουλὰς εἰς τὴν ἡμετέδαν σωτηξίαν καὶ δόξαν τρεπούσης.ἢ Calvin: Con- 
 eutiuntur fideles non dejiciuntur. The interrogation heightens, as it 
 always does, the liveliness of the sentiment. 
 
 V. 32. Ὅσγε τοῦ iSvov υἱοῦ οὐχ ἐφείσατο. What in Abraham was a 
 mark of peculiar love to God (Gen. xxii. 12), is a special mark of 
 the love of God to men. “Ooys, De Wette, He who, or He, surely. 
 Vids Θεοῦ. Compare chap. i. 4. Although idcog, like the Latin pro- 
 prius, frequently bears the sense of swws, it also frequently bears that 
 of proprius. (See Bretschn. Lexicon), and, accordingly, it is here 
 equivalent to the μονογενὴς joined to wosin John. Hence, Luther 
 and De Wette translate well “" seines eigenen Sohnes,”’ his own son. 
 As the latter, likewise, John v. 18, correctly renders ἐδιον πατέρα; his 
 proper father. 
 
 bree ἡμὼν πάντων παρέδωκεν. Το παρέδωκεν, εἰς ϑάνατον ought 
 properly to be supplied, as it stands in full, Matt. x. 21. Compare 
 John iii. 16. Luke xxii. 19. Gal. i. 4. On the idea to be con- 
 nected with izie, see chap. v. 8. It becomes a question, whether 
 under πάντες we are to understand all men, or merely Christians. 
 Lutheran expositors usually take it universally, so that the ἡμεῖς de- 
 notes Men. ‘The aim of the Apostle being, however, only to com- 
 fort Christians, and likewise, as the vocation of Christians exclu- 
 sively has hitherto been spoken of, it is most probable that ἡμεῖς de- 
 notes such. 
 
 καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ, is a concise expression, used in place of χαξισάμενος ai- 
 τὸν ἡμῖν. Kai, Bengel: Addit epitasin argumento a majori ad minus. 
 
 V.33. Expositors differ in the punctuation of this verse. Augustine, 
 De doctr. Chr. 1. III. ο. 3, for the purpose of adding animation to the 
 diction, wants to put a point of interrogation after δικαιῶν, and also 
 
 * As if he said, Tell me no more of dangers and snares laid for us by all 
 the world. For were any to disbelieve future things, still they could have 
 nothing to object to the blessings already bestowed, such, for example, as the 
 love of God to you, justification, glory. These he has conferred upon you 
 by means of what appeared calamities. And as for your esteeming a dis- 
 grace, the cross, the scourge and bonds, these are just what have restored the 
 whole habitable globe. Who its against us? Who is not against us, he 
 says? The whole world, princes and people and kinsmen and fellow citizens 
 are all against us. Nevertheless, even they who are against us are so far 
 from doing us any harm, that even against their will, they make crowns, and 
 procure for us a thousand blessings, the wisdom of God converting their plots 
 into our salvation and glory. 
 
280 CHAPTER VIII. V. 30> 
 
 after every separate proposition from ver. 34. So likewise Erasmus 
 in his Commentary, Locke, Schéttgen, Griesbach and others. Au- 
 gustine was doubtless betrayed into this mistake, solely by the Latin 
 translation, which renders the passage as if it were pointed in the 
 manner specified. ‘That punctuation, however, cannot be defended, 
 for it would create a quite unnatural accumulation of questions, seeing 
 there would be seven in verses 33 and 34, and, again, seven more 
 following in ver. 36. Just as little is it allowable for Chrysostom, 
 (Ecumenius, Theodoret, Beausobre, Heumann and others, to unite 
 into one sentence, Θεὸς ὃ δικαιῶν and τίς 6 χαταχφίνων. In that case, 
 the first question, τίς ἐγχαλέσει, would have no answer, the answer 
 to the second question would then be contained already in the former 
 clause, and ver. 34, which, according to our view, gives the answer 
 to the τίς 6 xaraxecvw», would thereby lose its whole weight. We 
 prefer, accordingly, the common punctuation likewise followed by 
 Luther, according to which the only points of interrogation are one 
 after Θεοῦ, and another after 6 xazaxevvwr. In that way, the two par- 
 ticiples ὁ δικαιὼν and Χριστὸς ὁ ἀποθανὼν, after the Hebrew idiom, 
 form, with the article, the predicate, coming in the place of the ver- 
 bum finitum, as Deut. iii. 31, msn Pry, and 1 Sam. xvii. 20, syn 
 nn. See Gesenius Lehrgeb. 5. 708. The Syriac also translates 
 the δικαιῶν here by the participle. Calvin observes, that the question 
 with ἐγχαλέσευ, would be better placed beside the answer with Xeco- 
 τὸς, seeing that Christ is properly the intercessor, as on the other 
 hand would the Θεὸς ὁ δικανῶν, beside that with xacaxecvev, inasmuch 
 as it is properly God, who, in the character of judge, does away con- 
 demnation for the sake of Christ. He then adds. Sed Paulus non 
 temere alio modo transtulit, volens a summo usque ad infimum mu- 
 nire fiducia filios Dei. Magis ergo emphatice colligit, filios Dei non 
 obnoxios esse accusationi, quia Deus justificat, quam si dixisset, 
 Christum esse patronum, quia melius exprimit viam judicii eminus 
 preclusam esse, ubi pronuntiat judex, se a reatu prorsus eximere, 
 quem ad penam volebat trahere accusator. Secunde quoque anti- 
 theseos eadem est ratio. Longe enim abesse ostendit fideles a sube- 
 undz damnationis periculo, quum Christus peccata expiando preve- 
 nerit Dei judicium. 
 
 τίς ἐγκαλέσει. In profane authors, likewise, ἔγχαλεῦν cove τὺ has 
 the meaning, to lay something to the charge, to accuse. It seems 
 not improbable, according to the opinion of Grotius, Limborch, and 
 Bolten, that Paul alludes to the accusations brought by the Gentiles 
 against the Christians. ‘This cannot, however, be all, and, moreover, 
 it does not agree with the τίς ὁ xavaxewwrv. We shall do better to 
 imagine some man, angel, or devil, accusing Christians before God’s 
 tribunal. It is taken in this general way by Ambrose and others.’ 
 
 ἐχλεχτὸς Means properly, selected. In that sense, equally with the 
 Hebrew wna and ¥n32, and also N23), all derivatives of ὝΠ2, to select, 
 it is used in the sense of 1p", precious, dear, and is equivalent to 
 ἔντιμος, according to 1 Pet. 11.4. Hence dyyenou ἐκλεχτοὺν ** the angels 
 
CHAPTER VIII. V. 33, 34, 35. 251 
 
 beloved of God,’’ 1 Tim. v. 21. Hence also are Christians called a 
 γένος ἐκλεκτὸν βασιλικὸν; 1 Pet. 11. 9. ‘O τοὺ Θεοῦ ἐκλεκτὸς 18 a title of 
 the Messias, Luke xxiii. 35. It is according to this usus loquendi 
 that Christians come to be styled, favourites. of God, 1 Peter i. 1. 
 Mark xiii. 20. Matt. xxiv. 22,31. Luke xviil. 7. Colos. iii. 12. 
 Titus i. 1. Rev. xvii. 14. According to the usus loquendi, there 
 is. therefore, in this word not the slightest basis for the doctrine of 
 absolute election. In Matt. xx. 16; xxii. 14, likewise, txaexvos, In 
 contrast with χλητὸς. signifies only the favourite, the dear child of 
 God. UHence the Ne translates, the pure, the chosen. 
 
 Χειστὸς 6 ἀποθανών. Luther translates well: Christus tst hier, der... 
 Christ has taken upon himself the punishment of all. Were any 
 therefore to condemn, still no penalty would any more fall upon us. 
 
 V. 34. By the representation which, as he is wont to do, Paul 
 here makes of the resurrection of the Saviour as a higher, and of his 
 exaltation and entrance into glory, as the highest stage of his work 
 of redemption, a fine elevation is effected simultaneously, and in pro- 
 portional degrees, of the proof of the impossibility of condemnation. 
 For the train of the ideas is now as follows: How can any one be 
 for condemning us, when Christ not only died for our sings, but the 
 selfsame person who satisfied for these, is even himself joint Judge 
 and likewise intercessor with God. 
 
 Sitting at the right hand of God is descriptive of participation in 
 his government. Among the ancients, persons who were to receive 
 honour were usually seated at the king’s right hand, 1 Kings 11. 19. 
 1 Sam. xx. 25. 1 Macc. x. 63. Matt. xx. 21. Mark x. 37. Sueton, 
 Tiber, c. 6. Sallust. Jugur.c. 11. Among the Greeks, the deiues 
 of chief esteem were, in like manner, conceived as ovrPeovoe, obvedéeor, 
 assitting on the right hand of Jupiter. Callimachus, Hymn. in Apoll. 
 v. 28, 29. Hence likewise in Psalm ex. 1, the Messias is repre- 
 sented as sitting at God’s right hand; and so in the New Testament 
 is Christ described as He who sits in the same throne with God, 
 Rev. iii. 21, and at his right hand, Matt. xxvi. 63, 64. 
 
 ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει. "This ἔντευξυς Ἢ Christ, which is also alluded to 
 at Heb. vii. 25; ix. 24. 1 John ii. 1, expresses in a figure, that the 
 power of Chrisi’s redemption ese itself as continually opera- 
 live. Chrysostom: To ἐντυγχάνειν δι᾿ οὐδὲν ἕτεξον εὔρηκενν ἄλλ᾽ ἵνα τὸ 
 see wor καὶ ἀχμάζον τῆς περὶ ἡμᾶς ἀγάπης ἐνδείξηται. * : 
 
 ‘V. 35. The import of this conclusion, which glows with holy 
 enthusiasm, is as follows: Whatsoever, therefore, may befall us in 
 this life, in the shape of affliction, persecution, and temptation, still, 
 as Christ loves us in an everlasting way, we may be immovably per- 
 suaded that his love will be continual. ‘The Apostle, therefore, does 
 not represent, as a thing irreversible, that the man who has once be- 
 lieved, is secure from the possibility of wholly falling away in such 
 
 * For nothing else has he spoken of interceding, but to show the fervour 
 and vehemence of his love for us. 
 
 36 
 
282 CHAPTER VIII. V. 39. 
 
 temptations. What he says is, that suffering tribulation ought 
 never to make us doubtful of the love of God. Some expositors, 
 such as Ambrose, Erasmus, Majus and Heumann, have proposed 
 taking the genitive Χριστοῦ as gen. obj. our love for Christ, but then 
 the whole design of the Apostle was to lead the believer off from the 
 thought, the offspring of a little faith, that afflictions were tokens of 
 wrath, or changeableness on the part of God. Accordingly, the 
 ἀγάπη Χειστοὺ is in ver. 39, styled the ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 
 which makes it sufficiently clear that we have to consider the Χεισ- 
 τοῦ here as gen. subj. Clarius deems that it is to be taken as the 
 gen. obj. and subj. together, which, however, is inconceivable. The 
 reading Θεοῦ καὶ Χειστοῦ is not supported by any external evidence 
 whatever, and just as little by internal, it being easy to account for its 
 origin. Calvin beautifully observes with respect to the whole verse: 
 Sicuti enim nebula quamvis liquidum solis conspectum obscurent, 
 non tamen ejus fulgore in totum nos privant, sic Deus in rebus ad- 
 versis per caliginem emittit gratia sue radios, ne qua tentatio despe- 
 ratione nos obruat, imo fides nostra promissionibus Dei tanquam alis 
 fulta, sursum in coelos per media obstacula penetrare debet. Chry- 
 sostom: Ὅξα τῇ μακαξίον Παύλου σύνεσιν. οὐ γὰρ εἶπε ταῦτα οἷς xa” 
 ἡμέξαν ἁλὶ σκόμεδα, χεημάτων ἔρωτα; καὶ δόξης ἐπιϑυμίαν, καὶ ὀξγῆς τυξαν- 
 νίδα, ἀλλ᾽ ἃ πολλῷ τότων ἐστὶ τυξαννυκώτεξα, καὶ τὴν φύσιν αὐτὴν ἱκανὰ 
 βιάσασθαι, καὶ διανοίας στεῤῥότητα ἀναμοχλεῦσαν πολλάκις καὶ ἀκόντων 
 ἡμῶν, ταῦτα τίθησι, ϑλύψεις καὶ ςενοχωρίας. εἰ ae καὶ εὐαφίθμητα τὰ 
 εἰρημένα, ἀλλὰ μυξίους Eyer πειξασμῶν Seuabas ἑκάςη λέξις. ὅταν yae ἔυπῃ 
 Sauber, καὶ δεσμωτήξια λέγῃ» Seopa, καὶ συκοφαντίας, καὶ ἐξορίας» καὶ τὰς 
 ἄλλας ταλαιπωξίας ἁπάσας: Eve ῥήματι πέλαγος κινδύνων διατέχων ἄπειρον» 
 χαὶ πάντα ἁπλὼς τὰ ἐν ἀνδεώποις δεινὰ διὰ μιᾶς ἡμῖν ἐμφαίνων λέξεως. 
 ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως πάντων αὐτὼν κατατολμᾷ. διὸ καὶ κατὰ ἐρώτησιν αὐτὸ προάγειν 
 ὡς ἀναντίῤῥητον ὃν, ὅτι τὸν &tws ἀγαπηϑέντα, καὶ τοσαύτης ἀπολαύσαντα 
 rteovoras, οὐδέν ἔστιν ὃ διαςήσαυ δυνήσεται. ἢ 
 
 If desirous, moreover, of fully feeling the weight of this question, 
 and fully appreciating the divine power which enabled the Apostle 
 to express a sentiment of the kind, we must here remember that he 
 
 * Remark the judgment of the blessed Paul. He does not mention those 
 things by which we are daily enticed; such as the love of riches, and the 
 desire of glory, and the tyranny of anger; but he specifies things which ex- 
 ercise a far more imperious sway, which are such as to do violence to our 
 very nature, and shake the firmness of the mind, even in spite of our wills, 
 viz. tribulation and distress. For, although the things here enumerated, may 
 easily be counted, yet every word includes innumerable trains of temptation. 
 For, in specifying tribulation, he likewise speaks of dungeons, fetters, calum- 
 nies, exiles, and all other calamities, crossing with one word an untried ocean 
 of dangers, and exhibiting by a single term the whole range of objects that’ 
 are terrible to man. At the same time, however, he courageously bears up 
 against them all. By the question, accordingly, he brings this forward as a 
 truth not to be gainsaid, viz. That there is nothing which shall be able to 
 separate the person who is the object of so fond a love, and οἵ so watchful a 
 providence. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. V. 36, 37. 283 
 
 speaks as one experienced in suffering, and who, for his Saviour’s 
 sake, was made as ‘‘ the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all 
 things,”’ 2 Cor. xi. 23—32. 1 Cor.iv.10—13. All that he says of 
 persecution and hunger, nakedness and the sword, was just what he 
 had himself gone through, as he describes in the texts quoted. The 
 man who, in such circumstances, as according to Cor. vi. 4—10, he 
 represents himself to have been in chastened, and not killed; sor- 
 rowful, yet always rejoicing; dead, and yet alive, was enabled to 
 endure, yea even to exclaim, ‘In all these things we are more than 
 conquerors!’’ in that man Christ was of a truth become the life, and 
 it was not himself merely who bore it all. 
 
 On the τίς Calvin makes the noble reflection: The Apostle does 
 not use zc but evs, just as if all the creatures and all affiictions were 
 so many gladiators taking arms against the Christian. On ϑλύψις 
 xai στενοχωξία; 588 6. il. 9. 
 
 V. 36. An expression in the Old Testament occurs to the Apostle, 
 which accurately describes the relation of Christ’s disciples to their 
 persecuting adversaries. As those Israelites laid down their lives for 
 the outward, so do the Christians theirs, for the spiritual ‘heocracy. 
 The passage is correctly cited out of the LXX. from Psalm xliy. 22. 
 That Psalm is referred by most expositors to the persecutions of the 
 Jews under Epiphanes. It is unnecessary, however, to go back to 
 so remote a period, the Psalm might also have been composed upon 
 an incursion of the Assyrians. 
 
 neopata σφαγῆς. ‘The expression is by Surenh. specially referred 
 to the sheep which were all day long slaughtered in the outer court 
 of the temple. ‘The general meaning “of ‘cattle destined for 
 slaughter,”’ is, however, the more natural. At 1 Cor. iv. 9, Paul 
 styles the Apostles ἐπιθανατίους. 
 
 V.37. The ἀλλὰ, as is justly observed by Beza, is not merely a 
 particle of transition, but forms a forcible contrast like πλὴν ἀλλὰ. 
 
 ὑπερνιχῶμεν. Even the Vulgate does not look upon the ὑπέρ as 
 emphatical; so likewise Alberti and others. But Beza justly trans- 
 lates it: Amplius quam victores sumus, quoniam in cruce etiam glo- 
 riamur, nedum ut animum despondeamus. Except where the con- 
 text forbids its being retained, there is no reason to renounce the 
 emphatic sense. ‘The same is the case with many other verbs, as 
 iregayarnay, ὑπερισχύειν, ὑπεξλυπειν. SO imeextaowar xaxdv signifies, 
 “61 have a grief which I have brought upon myself;’’ 7. e. above 
 what rightfully falls to me, Sophocles, Electra, s. 217. Luther 
 finely and pertinently: “ Wir tiberwinden weit,” We conquer far. 
 Chrysostom: To γὰξ δὴ ϑαυμαστὸν τῦτον ἐστιν» οὐχ᾽ ὅτυ νὺν νυκῶμεν μό- 
 νον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι καὶ δὲ ὧν ἑπίβελενόμεδα νικῶμεν. καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς νυκῶμεν, 
 ἀλλ᾽ ὑπεξδνιχῶμεν, τουτέστι, μετὼ εὐχολίας ἁπάσης, χωρὶς ἱδρώτων καὶ 
 πόνων. οὐ γὰς πξάγματα ὑπομένοντες» ἀλλὰ τὴν γνώμην παξασχευάζοντες 
 μόνον, οὕτω πάνταχἕ τὰ τξβόπαια ἱςῶμεν xara Tov ἐλ χϑξῶν. χκαὺ μάλα 
 εἰκότως. δεὸς γὰρ ἔστιν ἡμῖν ὃ συναγωνιζόμενὸς. μὴ τοίνυν ἀπιστήσῃς εἰ 
 
284 CHAPTER VIII. V. 37, 38. 
 
 μαςιϑόμενοι τῶν μαστιδόντων πεδιγινόμεδα: εἰ ἐλαυνόμενοι τῶν διωκόντων 
 κρατᾶμεν, εἰ ἀποθνήσκοντες τὰς δῶντας τρεπόμεϑδα. ὅταν γὰρ καὺ THY δυ- 
 ναμιν τοὺ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ἀγάτίην S75, οὐδὲν τὸ χωλύον τὰ ϑαυμαςὰὼ ταῦτα 
 ἐχβήναυνγ καὶ παράδοξα. καὶ τὴν ἐκ περιϑσίας λάμψαυ νύχην.ἢ 
 
 διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος. The Vulgate, the Ethiopic version, Ambrose, 
 Cyprian and Koppe will have it that διὰ stands with the genitive in- 
 stead of with the accusative, and that Paul’s intention is to say, how 
 the love felt by the Christian to the Saviour, enables him to over- 
 come all difficulties. Luther too translates in this sense. But, apart 
 from the consideration, that the exchange of the two eases after dud, 
 is not yet certainly demonstrated, we have no more reason to sup- 
 pose such substitution, than not to suppose it. We obtain equally 
 an appropriate sense, if the Apostle maintains a power of Christ, in- 
 wardly strengthening him under his temptation, as he does, Phil. iv. 
 13: πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμᾶντί με Kevotas where ἐν is equivalent to 
 διὰ with the genitive. This inward power of Christ, however, rests 
 on the consciousness of the redemption secured through him. 
 
 V.38. The same thought more forcibly brought forward. A fer- 
 vour of divine love, like that with which the Apostle here glows, and 
 kindled like his, by love on the part of God to him, may take home 
 the words in the song of Solomon, viii. 6: “ Love is strong as death; 
 jealousy is cruel as the grave; the coals thereof are coals which have 
 a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither 
 ean the floods drown it.’? Admirably does the great Chrysostom, 
 interpreting Paul’s fervour with a like fervour of his own, remark: 
 Ταῦτα δὲ ἔλεγεν, οὐχ ὡς τῶν ἀγγέλων Tito ἐπυχειρόέντων. ἢ τῶν ἀλλῶν δυνά- 
 μεων, μὴ γένοιτο; ἀλλὰ μεδ᾽ ὑπεξδολῆς ἁπάσης τὸ Φίλτρῥον, ὃ πρὸς τὸν 
 ριυρὸν εἶχε, ἐπιδεῦῖξαν βελόμενος. οὐ yae τὸν Χριςὸν ἐφίλει διὰ τὰ τῇ 
 Χοιςῇ, ἀλλὰ δὲ αὐτὸν τὰ ἐκείνε, καὶ meds αὐτὸν ἑώρα μόνον, καὶ ἕν ἐδεδοί- 
 XEly τὸ μὴ τῆς ἀγάπης ἐκείνης ἐχπεσεῖν. τοῦτο γὰξ αὐτῷ xau γεέννης Φοβε- 
 Et ee ov ἦν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ μένειν ἐν αὐτῇ βασιλείας ποϑεινότερον. τίνος οὖν 
 ἂν ἔιημεν ἄξιον λοιπὸν Huecg, ὅταν ἔχεινος μὲν μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐξανοίς 
 δαυμάζῃ weds τὸν τῇ Ness πόδϑον, ἥμευς δὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ βοφβόξῳ καὶ τῷ πηλῷ 
 τὸ Nes προτιμὼμεν-....«ἔκεινος οὐδὲ βασιλείαν ἡγεύταίύ ty διὰ τὸν Κριςὸν 
 εἶναι, ἡμεῖς δὲ αὐτᾷ καταφέξονδμεν, τῶν δὲ αὐτὰ πολὺν ποιόμεθα λόγον, καὺ 
 εἶδε χὰν τῶν αὐτοῦ. νῦν δὲ οὐδὲ τῦτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ βασιλείας ἧμιν προχειμέ- 
 
 * For the wonderful thing is not merely, that we gain the victory, but that 
 we conquer by means of things, that were meant to ensnare us, and do not 
 merely conquer, but more than conquer, z.e. with the utmost ease, and with- 
 out sweat and toil. For not merely when actually suffering, but even when 
 we but prepare our mind, do we erect trophies against the enemy. And 
 rightfully too, for God is our fellow soldier. Do not therefore disbelieve, if, 
 when scourged, we overcome the scourgers, if, when put to flight, we van-' 
 quish our pursuers, if, when dying, we route the living. For when you have 
 supposed both the power and the love of God, there is nothing to hinder these 
 strange and incredible things from taking place, and the victory to be above 
 measure splendid. . 
 
CHAPTER VIII. ν 38. 285 
 
 UNS) ἐκείνην ἀφέντες». τὰς σκιὰς καὶ τὼ ὀνείρατα χαδ᾽ txagny διώκομεν τὴν 
 ἡμέραν." Origen and Theodoret likewise comment with enthusiasm 
 upon this verse. 
 
 οὔτε Sdvaros, οὔτε ζωὴ. Koppe takes both these words metonymi- 
 eally, as abstr. pro concr. neither dead nor living being. More 
 eorrectly, along with most others, we interpret Sdvazos, as signifying 
 death by violence, the threat of which might deter, and ζωὴ, either 
 with Mosheim and Heumann, of the joys of life, or with Grotius, 
 Turretin and others, of life promised under the condition of separa- 
 tion, or with Limborch, and as best accords with the notion of God’s 
 ἀγάπη, of the afflicted life of Christians. Similar is the passage, 
 1 Cor. iii. 22. Baumgarten takes ϑάνατος metaphorically, in the sense 
 of misery, ζωὴ, happiness. 
 
 οὔτε ἄγγελου, οὔτε dpyare The codices AB C DE F G, the Cop- 
 tic, Armenian, and Syriac translations, with several of the fathers, 
 read οὔτε δύνάμεις after οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα, οὔτε μέλλοντα. Now, however 
 unsuitable this location of the δυνάμεις may appear, seeing that else- 
 where it is constantly found united with ἄγγελοι, we must still re- 
 cognize the authority of the codices, even should we thereby be 
 compelled to suppose an error of the pen on the part of the Apostle. 
 And, with respect to the import of these three words, they are either 
 all the three taken as designations of angels, or all three, or at least 
 the two last, as designating something else. Wolle and Bolten 
 translate ἀἄγγελου, deputies (of the government), legates, ἀρχαὺ and 
 δυνάμεις», Heathen or Jewish magistracies. ‘The two last words are 
 by numerous expositors, Turretin, Brais, Baumgarten, Heumann 
 and others understood in this sense, supposing as they do, that thrée 
 names for the higher spirits would be too tautological. Cocceius 
 will have dpyot and δυνάμεις taken quite generally, every great and 
 powerful person. Carpzov, according to Philo’s mode of using the 
 words, conceives them to mean ¢he elements, just as some translate 
 δυνάμεις at Mat. xxiv. 29. Elsner has shown, however, that ἀρχαὺ 
 and δυνάμεις, even in Philo, have not this sense, when standing alone, 
 but only when they have some other addition. Now, although 
 apyad and δυνάμεις May certainty designate magistrates, inasmuch as 
 
 * These things he said, not as if the angels or the other powers would 
 attempt this, God forbid! But from the desire of showing with every hyper- 
 bole, his love to Christ. For he did not love Christ, because of the things of 
 Christ, but loved his things for Christ’s sake, and looked to him alone, and of 
 one thing only was he afraid, viz. to fall from that love. This was to him 
 more dreadful than hell; just as to continue in it was more desirable than 
 heaven. What consequently must we deserve? He did not esteem the 
 things that were in heaven, compared with the love of Christ, we prefer to 
 Christ things of clay and filth.....He, on Christ’s account, does not reckon 
 even a kingdom worth any thing; we despise himself, but have great esteem 
 for his things. Nay, wouid indeed that we had esteem even for these. But 
 now, is the case not even this, that, relinquishing the kingdom that is offered 
 to us, we pursue shadows and dreams day after day? 
 
286 CHAPTER VIII. V. 39. 
 
 the two words have this signification, even in profane authors, we 
 still prefer considering them equally with ἄγγελου, as designations of 
 the higher spirits. ‘The Jews were accustomed to divide the angels, 
 whom they called by the beautiful name ow sons, his family, into 
 several classes ponwn, DWwW DINIW, OND, DIDS DDW, OWN, 
 pox, 32 to each of which they assigned particular angels as pre- 
 sidents. See Eisenm. Entd. Judenth, Th. 11. 5. 374, Bartolocci. 
 Bibl. Rabb. T. I. p. 267.) The New Testament writers mention 
 similar orders of the world of spirits, Eph. i. 21, where ἀρχὴν ἐξουσία 
 and δύναμις are conjoined, Col. 1. 16, δεόνοι, xuprornress apyat, ἐξουσίαυ» 
 1 Peier ill. 22, ἄγγελοι, ἐξουσίαι», δυνάμεις. The abstracts, in all these 
 instances, stand in place of the concretes. It appears that these New 
 Testament names likewise are borrowed from Judaism. Among the 
 Rabbins at least we find the word which answers to δυνάμεις, and it 
 is a very common one among them, 1990 Sw nim (Philo likewise 
 styles the angels δυνάμεις, see Elsner, Obss. a. ἢ. 1.), and again the 
 pw and 0°37 answering to χυριότης and ἀρχὴ, and in fine D°'NDD an- 
 swering to ϑρόνοι, (comp. Schittgen on Col. i. 18), all designating 
 orders of angels. Accordingly, as it is demonstrated that the Apos- 
 tles, agreeably to the doctrine of the-Jewish theology, believed in 
 several classes of angels, as these classes are, in other passages like- 
 wise, mentioned, side by side, with the view of amplifying the idea, 
 as the very words dpyoi and δυνάμεις, connected with names of 
 angels, appear elsewhere in the New ‘Testament designating angels, 
 but not as names of civil authorities, (ἀρχαὺ occurs at Tit. iii. 1, as 
 designation of the magistracy, but joined with ἐξουσίαν and not with 
 δυνάμεις)» aS, Moreover, were it joined with ἄγγελοι, and still retained 
 the meaning civil authorities, Paul would have spoken very ob- 
 scurely, in fine, as it would be very feeble to mention the terrestrial, 
 immediately after the heavenly powers, it appears preferable to look 
 upon épyai and δυνάμεις, aS being likewise names of heavenly beings. 
 But it may, moreover, be asked again, whether, under all the three 
 designations, as Origen thought, the Apostle intended the fallen 
 angels, or whether, as Grotius, Turretin and others, he merely in- 
 tended ἄγγελον to signify these, or whether he meant to designate 
 good angels by all the three names. The fallen spirits are likewise 
 named ἀρχαὶ xat ἐξουσίαι»; 1 Cor. xv. 24. Eph. vi. 12. Col. ii. 15. 
 They are also called ἄγγελοι, 2 Peter ii. 4, although with the adjunct 
 ἁμαρτήσαντες. In support of this signification, it might be urged, that 
 at Eph. vi. 12, likewise, Paul brings forward these fallen angels as 
 adversaries of the Christians. In the present passage, however, he 
 does not so much mention those creatures which are usually hostile 
 to Christians, as rather, with Jofty poetical expression, all that can 
 be conceived conflicting with them. Origen: Ait Paulus, hyperbo- 
 lice, non solum per ea, que accidere possunt, sed ne per ea quidem, 
 que evenire omnino non possunt, ullo pacto a Dei charitate deflecti- 
 mur. It is accordingly more probable that he meant the powers 
 
CHAPTER VIII. V. 39. 287 
 
 nearest to God among the orders of heavenly spirits. ‘Their opposi- 
 tion to the Christians he mentions only in the same hypothetical 
 way as the preaching of the angel, Gal. 1. 8, 
 
 οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα; οὔτε μέλλοντα 501]. πράγματα. So too 1Cor. iii. 22, and 
 among these, persecutions are mainly to be understood. Calvin: Quia 
 non tantum cum dolore, quem e malis presentibus sentimus, nobis 
 lucta est, sed etiam cum metu et sollicitudine quibus angunt nos que 
 impendent pericula. 
 
 V.39. οὔτε ὕψωμα, οὔτε βάθος. These words have been interpreted 
 in an extraordinary variety of ways. Origen understands by them, 
 the wicked spirits dwelling in the air and in hell. Ambrose: Heights 
 of presumptuous speculation, as Christ unites the knowledge celes- 
 tial, with that of this earth, and deeps of sin, Christ having also de- 
 scended into the lower parts of the earth, to do away our sins. 
 Augustine: Vain curiosity about the things above, and below us, 
 which separates us from God, Nisi caritas vincat, que ad certa spi- 
 ritualia non vanitate rerum, que foris sunt, sed veritate, que intus, 
 hominem invitat. Melancthon: Heretical speculations of the learned, 
 and the vulgar superstition of the people. Wolf, Grotius: The ho- 
 nour and the reproach of the world. Erasmus: High and low places 
 from which assaults are made. Gicumenius, Cocceius, Chr. Schmid: 
 Prosperity and adversity. Limborch: ‘The lifting up of Christians, 
 when put to death by crucifixion, or their sebmersion in the sea. 
 Heumann: All things one with another, (he compares the proverbial 
 expression in Latin, Summa imis miscere, superis inferis notum est.) 
 It requires, however, to be demonstrated, that the same usus loquendi 
 in regard to ὕψωμα and βάθος prevailed in Greek. Without going 
 over this multitude of different expositions, we shall endeavour to 
 justify that which we regard as the best. ‘There are three objections 
 to be made against them generally; either they are too special, or 
 they find in βάθος and ὕψωμα something much too trivial, and which 
 would appear feeble, after the hinderances before specified, or, finally, 
 they are not supported by the usus loquendi. According to that, the 
 most admissible would be the meaning, prosperity and adversity, 
 which might then pass over into the more special one of honour and 
 reproach, sos being the special designation of outward consequence 
 and wealth, or of welfare generally, βάθος» on the contrary, of misery, 
 Job xxiv. 24, in the LXX. 1 Macc.x. 24. Judithix. 20. Jas.i. 9. 
 2Cor. xi.7. 2Cor. viii.2. More eligible notwithstanding appears 
 the exposition of Theophylact, particularly of Theodoret. ‘The 
 former interprets ὕψωμα, of the heavens, and βάθος, of the earth, and 
 that per metonomen continentis pro contento, ‘all that is in heaven, 
 and all that is upon the earth,” so that the sentiment would be of a 
 piece with Ps. Ixxiii. 25, 26. Were this the meaning, we should 
 have a sublime close of this sublime epinicion. In respect of ὕψωμα 
 moreover, it would be easy to justify the signification. In Hebrew 
 p17) means always heaven. By the LXX. it is uniformly rendered 
 tos, Which has also this sense in the New Testament, Luke i. 78. 
 
288 CHAPTER VIII. V. 39. 
 
 Eph. iv. 1. On the other hand, in support of the meaning put upon 
 βάθος, the earth, Eph. iv. 9, could alone be cited, where τὰ χατώ- 
 reea μέρη τὴς γῆς» is to be found, γῆς being gen. appos. Doubtless, 
 also, Paul chose this less usual expression, only for the sake of the 
 more specific contrast. Whether in the LXX. Is. vii. 11, the ets 
 βάθος, and εἰς ὕψος, signify, ** in heaven or upon the earth,” is as yet 
 doubtful. ‘Theodoret says: Bados yae, ὡς οἶμαι; τὴν γέενναν ὀνομάζει» 
 Bios, τὴν βασιλείαν. ‘This meaning of βάθος is more easily demon- 
 strable than the former. In Hebrew the Scheol frequently receives 
 the names 1 AYAAN, AANA yoR, Henny, 12, all of which answer 
 to the βάθος; Rom. x. 7, the Scheol is called ina general way, ἀβυσ- 
 cos; Luke viii. 31, and frequently in Revelation, that quarter of the 
 Scheol, which contains the damned, is in particular called ἄβυσσος; 
 Phil. ii. 10, the inhabitants of the Scheol, are styled χαταχθόνιου. 
 Now this contrast of heaven and hell is still better adapted than all 
 the forementioned meanings, to form the copestone of the Apostle’s 
 epinicion. So is it conceived particularly by Bengel and Wetstein. 
 
 οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέφα. ‘Theodoret takes χτίσις in the sense Natures 
 Πᾶσαν ὁμοῦ τὴν χτίσιν ἀντιταλαντεύσας τῇ πεξὺ τὸν Θεὸν ἀγάπῃ, καὶ τοὺς 
 deapévors συνάψας τὰ νοητὰ; ἀγγέλους», καὶ ἀρχὰς, καὶ δυνάμεις», καὺ Φοὺς 
 παξοῦσυ τὰ πεοσδοχώμενα ἀγαθὰ; καὶ μὲν δὴ καὶ τὰς ἠπειλημένας κολάσεις" 
 καὶ Meds τούτοις τὴν αἰώνιον ζωὴν; καὶ τὸν αἰώνιον δάνατον᾽ καὶ δεασάμενος 
 Eze τοῦτο τὸ méeos ἐλλεῖπον, ζητεῖ μὲν ἀλλο TL πξοσθειναι" οὐχ εὑξὼν dé, 
 ἄλλην τοσαύτην κτίσιν καὶ πολλαπλασίαν διαπλάττειν τῷ λόγῳ᾽ καὶ οὐδὲ 
 οὕτως ἐξισούμενω ταῦτα πάντα ὁξᾷ τῇ πεξὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἀγάπῃ «ἷ More cor- 
 rectly, creature, being. 
 
 ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης tov Θεοῦ, τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ. ‘They who before, at ver. 
 35, understood the love of man to Christ, seek to explain these 
 words, in compliance with that view. Now, although one may 
 doubtless say, that, as in general, the way to the Father is only by 
 the Son, so in like manner it is only in Christ that man can truly 
 love God, still itis much more natural to suppose, that the Apostle 
 means here to affirm, what is the. cardinal point of the doctrine of 
 the gospel, that God has forgiven us in Christ, Eph. iv. 32, and that 
 we are accepted in the beloved, Eph. i. 6. So is it elsewhere said, 
 that the grace of God has been given us in Christ, 1 ‘Tim. i. 14. 
 2'Tim. i. 9, and so likewise of yexororys τοῦ Θεοῦ, Eph. 11. 7. On 
 the other hand, there is no parallel text on the love of man to God 
 in Christ. 
 
 * The depth, as I think, he calls hell, the height, the heavenly kingdom. 
 
 Having weighed all nature in the scale with love towards God, and 
 having with the things that are seen, connected things known only by the 
 intellect, angels and principalities and powers, and with present blessings, 
 those that are expected in the future, yes, and even the punishments which 
 are then threatened, and in addition to these, eternal life and eternal death; 
 and having perceived this part to be, as yet, defective, he seeks something 
 else to add, and not finding it, fabricates with a word another creation, 
 equally great and manifold, and not even thus dves he see all these things 
 equalling love to God. 
 
CHAPTER NINTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Wiru the eighth chapter the Apostle had terminated the doctrinal part of his 
 Epistle. Henceforward to the twelfth, there follows another section, which 
 we may Call a historical corollary. Were that way, which he had hitherto 
 been inculcating, the only way of salvation, it followed, that the Jews, 
 who still strove after blessedness, through the medium of fulfilling the law, 
 would be wholly excluded from mercy. Moreover, as a much greater 
 number of Gentiles than Jews were received into the church of Christ, 
 there actually resulted, from Paul’s doctrine, the rejection of almost all 
 the members of the Israelitish theocracy. This might appear severe. 
 Accordingly Paul affirms, in the first place, That it distressed himself to 
 think that the majority of Israelites should be rejected. But, nevertheless, 
 that was the truth. Moreover, it cannot be objected that, in that case, the 
 promise made to Abraham, of Israel being the covenant people, is left un- 
 fulfilled: for the promise did not extend to αὐ the bodily descendants of 
 Abraham, as such. Isaac and Ishmael, in respect of corporeal descent, 
 had both been Abraham’s children; and yet, in this instance, God had 
 vouchsafed the privileges to Isaac only, who was born according to Divine 
 promise. With the same free will does God now act, in not receiving all 
 the subjects of the Old Testament theocracy into the new kingdom of God, 
 but those only who comply with the divine condition of faith in Christ, 
 without relying upon their own righteousness by works. Should the Isra- 
 elite object, however, that the example was inapplicable, inasmuch as Sarah 
 was a holy woman and rightful wife of Abraham, whereas Hagar was not 
 even a Hebrew, but proud tempered and a maid servant, we have a 
 still more decisive example of God’s not binding himself to a bodily 
 descent in the instance of Rebecca, who bare Jacob and Esau as twins. 
 But, notwithstanding, Jacob was destined by God for the possession of 
 Canaan, while Esau obtained no privilege of the kind. Inasmuch too as 
 God declared his decree to this effect, even at the birth of the children, it 
 might thence be likewise gathered, that not even works, on their part, ex- 
 isted as condition of that decree, and, accordingly, that what he had vouch-- 
 safed to Jacob, whether we look to his birth or works, he vouchsafed to 
 him from the free purpose of his grace. On the other hand, however, least 
 of all can it be thence inferred, that God is unjust. We must only acknow- 
 ledge, Paul means to affirm, that on God’s side all is grace, while on 
 ours, nota word can be said of claims of any kind whatever. It follows 
 that any endeavour in our own strength to enforce certain claims (as 
 Israel does bodily extraction and fulfilment of the law), to privileges from 
 God, can never gain itsend. Nay,we learn from the case of Pharaoh, that by 
 the divine forbearance the stubborn may be, for a certain time, endured, 
 but that punishment surely overtakes them at last, and then is all the more 
 severe, to the increase of the divine glory. It follows, proceeds Paul, that 
 man must be content if God, recognizing no rights upon his side, accepts 
 of him when he complies with the Divine conditions, aud gives others 
 
 37 
 
290 CHAPTER Ix. V. 1. 
 
 over to their obduracy. God certainly appears compassionate enough, in 
 enduring the latter with patience, instead of visiting them, as they deserve, 
 with instant punishment, and when, in contrast with them, he exalts to 
 glory such as comply with his conditions. The persons who in this way, 
 i. e. by means of conditions, prescribed by God, and independent of right- 
 eousness by works, attained to salvation, are, now-a-days, believers on 
 Christ, both from amongst Jews and Gentiles. Such persons, it is true, 
 acquire their justification as something to which they have no kind of right 
 whatever. But then, on the other hand, God imposes upon them no other 
 condition than mere belief of the heart. In behalf of this new procedure, 
 however strange it might seem to the Israelite, even the Old Testament 
 spoke. For there were to be found there, on the one hand, passages in 
 which the vocation of the heathen is announced, and, on the other, pass- 
 ages wherein the prophets foretell to but an inconsiderable number of 
 Jews, the grace that was tocome. Accordingly, the ground of Israel’s not 
 being received into the new kingdom of God, manifestly does not lie in 
 God; Israel has to attribute this rejection to itself, having wanted to receive 
 pardon through efforts of its own, and upon the ground of certain rights, 
 and refusing to comply with the condition laid down by God, according to 
 his free purpose, viz. acquiescence with childlike faith in the redemption 
 of Christ. ᾿ 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 _ 
 
 . Protestation of the Apostle, that it was a distress to himself to think that 
 the rejection of the ancient covenant people as a whole follows from 
 the doctrine of salvation he has been hitherto delivering. V. 1—6. 
 
 2. God recognizes neither bodily extraction nor man’s works as a claim to 
 justification. V. 6—13. 
 
 3. God has an absolute right to impart to whom, and in what way soever he 
 pleases, the tokens of his love. He is also free to prescribe conditions 
 of justification, under which Gentiles, and these even in greater num- 
 bers than Jews, obtain forgiveness. V. 14—24. 
 
 4, Even the Old Testament predicts that an inconsiderable number of Jews, 
 on the one hand; and on the other, that the Gentiles should be forgiven. 
 V. 25—33. 
 
 PA ea 
 
 PROTESTATION OF THE APOSTLE, THAT IT WAS A DISTRESS TO HIMSELF 
 TO THINK THAT THE REJECTION OF THE ANCIENT COVENANT PEOPLE, 
 AS A WHOLE, FOLLOWS FROM THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION HE HAS 
 HITHERTO BEEN DELIVERING. 
 
 V. 1. Tue Apostle has now brought to a close the explication of 
 that great message of salvation, he had announced in chap. i. 16. 
 Here, then, he, as it were, looks around him, and considers in how 
 far it actually effects the salvation of the sinful race. His eye meets 
 the mighty company of the subjects of the Old Testament theocracy, 
 which, offering as a whole, a hostile resistance to that divine scheme 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 1. 291 
 
 of salvation, seems, on that ground, to deserve total rejection. Aware, 
 as Paul is, of the mournful but still indisputable truth of this inference, 
 he feels himself compelled, at the close of his explication, to give 
 some more notices respecting the relation of the old covenant people 
 to the new scheme of salvation. He shows that they have themselves 
 to blame, if the Israelites are not received; that their pride is their 
 ruin, in consequence of which, they endeavour to enforce claims of 
 their own, and refuse to comply with the divine purposes. He fur- 
 ther shows, that already the Old ‘Testament gives intimation of the 
 obduracy of the Jews, in the time of the Messiah, and likewise of the 
 calling of the Gentiles, and, finally, he opens up, in the eleventh 
 chapter, the prospect into a distant future, that after the majority of 
 the heathen should have entered the kingdom of God, the bulk of the 
 Jewish people will repent, and embrace the salvation offered in 
 Jesus. With that glorious prospect, which exhibits Gentiles and 
 Jews, as citizens of the kingdom of Christ, in equal glory and in- 
 timate fellowship, the Apostle terminates the doctrinal part of his 
 Epistle. In introducing the section now before us, he feels himself 
 moved to premise the averment, how dearly he himself loves his na- 
 tion. We must not suppose that this prefatory declaration of his 
 attachment was the result of reflection, as if, according to the opinion 
 of the majority of expositors, he had purposely introduced it, because 
 the partiality of the heathen towards him might awaken suspicion of 
 the sincerity of his regard for Israel, or because it was the Gentiles 
 who were principally converted, and the Apostle might have been 
 accused of cherishing, on that account, hatred for the Jews. It is 
 much more natural to regard what he here says as the direct expres- 
 sion of his feeling. 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ. Most interpreters, both ancient and modern, look upon 
 this as a form of oath, similar to πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν», so that the sense 
 would be, ‘* By the loss of Christ,’’ or, ‘As sure as Christ lives.” 
 Glassius, Noldius and Schiéttgen appeal to the use of 3 in the oaths 
 of the Jews. Partly, however, we find the ἐν in the forms of oath 
 in the New Testament, only in cases where a verb of swearing is 
 used, and partly, it may be said in general, that we have no example 
 of the Apostle having, in the proper sense, sworn by Christ. Eph. 
 iv. 17, where μαρτύρομαι only means exhort, adjure, and where 
 there is no place for a form of oath, the ἐν κυρίῳ is to be conceived in 
 the same way as we shall here immediately explain the ἐν Χριστῷ» 
 viz. ‘the Lord himself being present in my mind, and moving me.” 
 At 1 Tim. v. 21, the ἐνώπιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ must not be conceived as a 
 form of oath, and even if it were, the χαὺ τὼν ἐκλεκτὼν ἀγγέλων Which 
 is appended, would show that in this passage, it would be a quite 
 peculiar exception, it having certainly been the practice neither 
 among Jews nor Christians to swear by the angels. It is hence 
 better and more analogous to the common use of ty Χριστῷ and ἐν 
 πνεύματι ayia, that we should suppose ἐν Χριστῷ to denote the element 
 in which, while he was speaking, his soul moved; as the New ‘Tes- 
 
292 CHAPTER Ix. Vv. l, 2. 
 
 tament, in like manner, mentions a χαρὰ ἐν Χριστῷ and an ἀγάπη ἐν 
 Χριστῷ. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 10. With the exception of ἐν Χριστῷ we 
 have the same formula, 1 ‘Tim. ii. 7. Pelagius: Ostendit quidquid 
 vel facit vel loquitur, in Christo eum loqui vel agere, cujus est mem- 
 brum. Jac. Capellus: Cum in Christo sim, ut verax est ille, ego 
 quoque vere vobis dico. So likewise Cocceius. More feebly, and 
 more in the rationalist style, Clericus, who expounds the ἐν Χριστῷ» 
 as a vir Christianus, whose religion forbids him to lie. 
 
 οὐ ψεύδομαι. ‘The negation side by side with the affirmation, 
 strengthens the affirmation, John i. 20. Eph. iv. 25. Sam. ti. 17. 
 Precisely similar is 1 Tim. ii. 7. It is a quite perverted connection 
 which Nisselt, Bolten, Koppe and Koppe’s imitator Rosenmiiller, 
 adopt, according to which, the ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ is to be conjoined 
 with οὐ ψεύδομαι, as form of oath; so that the ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ an- 
 swers as such to the ἐν Χριστῷ. Apart from the violent construction 
 which then results, it is totally undemonstrable that any Christian 
 ever swore by the Holy Ghost. ‘The most natural way is to con- 
 strue the ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ With συμμαρτνυξούσης. Conscience is in man 
 the voice of God. In the unconverted, however, it is frequently 
 darkened; as for the Christian, in him it is elevated, inasmuch as the 
 Spirit of God, that new element which fills and quickens the mind 
 of the converted man, penetrates also his conscience. Fr this rea- 
 son, the testimony of a Christian, even when he appeals to his con- 
 science, is higher than that of the man unconverted. ‘The Apostle 
 writes what he writes, ἐνώπιον τοῦ @cov, Gal. 1. 20. So in particular 
 Bucer. Respecting the σύν in συμμαξτυξούσης see chap. ii. 15, where 
 the same formula appears. 
 
 V. 2. The grounds of his distress Paul does not explicitly state. 
 We discover them, however, from the sequel. Even if Paul had not 
 said how deeply it pained him that Israel did not acknowledge her 
 Lord and Saviour, we might still have been able to conceive it, by 
 ealling to mind that ardent affection which the Apostle cherished for 
 all the churches of his Master, and even for believers individually. 
 It was not enough for the holy man, under his: many assaults from 
 without and within, to remember uninterruptedly in his prayers the 
 churches which himself had gathered, and which he continued to 
 love as children, (1 Cor. i. 4. Phil. i.3,4. Eph.i.16. 1 Thess. 
 i. 2,) he mentions without ceasing those also which, to the honour 
 of Christ, had been gathered by others, nay, every individual who 
 is known and related to him as a brother, (Philem. 4. 2 Tim. i. 
 3, 4,) is in prayer present to hissoul. In short, he feels the sorrows 
 and the joys of all the members of the great body to which he be- 
 longs. ‘I bear,’’ he cries, “" the care of all the churches. Who is. 
 weak and I am not weak! Who is offended and I burn not! (2 Cor. 
 xi. 29.) I will give up for you very gladly, yes, my very self will 
 I give up for your souls, though the more abundantly I love you, the 
 less am I loved,” (2 Cor. xii. 15.) So fervent a brotherly love, 
 which affectionately embraced in the Spirit, as fellow members all 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 2, 3. 293 
 
 who are engrafted into Christ, which, eager to unite the whole globe 
 into one church of the Saviour, found not space enough for the ve- 
 hemence of its operation in all the region from Jerusalem to Illyria, 
 (Rom. xv. 19, 23,) could not but glow to incorporate into the Lord’s 
 church, the peculiar people which, in its maternal bosom, had borne 
 the germ of that church and brought it forth into the world. 
 
 V. 3. This declaration of the Apostle, which has received very 
 various interpretations, we shall first explain according to the sense 
 which offers itself to the impartial view as the most natural and cor- 
 rect. ‘The word ἀνάθεμα is originally equivalent to ἀνάθημά, as evee- 
 μα and evenua, ἐπίθεμα and ἐπίθημα, (the first is the modern form of 
 the word,) which ‘Theodoret observes at this passage, as he also does 
 at Is. xii. and Zeph. i. (Lobeck, Phryn. p. 446) and denotes some- 
 thing separated from common use. Afterwards, however, ἀνάθημα 
 came to be taken in the better sense of ‘*something specially set 
 apart for the gods,’ and ἀνάθεμα in the worse, of ‘*something set 
 apart from common use on account of its vileness,’’ although the two 
 meanings are sometimes exchanged. Similar is the usage in Latin, 
 according to which, sacer signifies execrabilis and intestabilis. It is 
 thus that with many others, Hesychius also draws the distinction. 
 Now, as the word oecurs both in profane authors and in the Hel- 
 lenists, a further question arises, as to whether it is here used with 
 the reference it bears in the Greek, or with that which it bears in the 
 Hebrew usus loquendi. Among the Greeks it is equivalent to xa- 
 Oagua and περίψημα. ‘These are expressions which, it is well known, 
 were applied to such persons as were offered for a public atonement; 
 upon whom accordingly, the reproach and guilt of all men were in a 
 manner transferred. Suidas: Οὕτως ἐπέλεγον τῷ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν συνέ- 
 χοντυ τῶν καχὼν, πεξίψημα ἡμῶν γένου, ἤτου σωτηξία καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις. καὶ 
 ἐνέβαλον τῇ θαλάσσῃ: ὡσανεὶ τῷ ἹἸΠοσειδῶνυ θυσίαν ἀποτινύοντες. Such 
 persons were Meneceus, Codrus, Curtius, the Decii. Compare also 
 what Servius on Virgil, Aun. |. HII. v. 56, says of the atonement which 
 was required to be made among the Massilians yearly, by casting 
 aman into the sea. ‘To illustrate the expiatory death of Christ, even 
 Origen appealed to the idea universally spread among the heathen, 
 that the guilt of many might be devolved upon one. Origen, ο. Cel- 
 sum, |. I. ο. 31. In the New Testament, however, this idea seems’ 
 neither to lie in ἀνάθεμα, nor 1 Cor. iv. 13, in περίψημα. For in that 
 passage, πεξίψημα has the more general meaning of ‘*men con- 
 temptible,”’ as is clear from the context. In those texts where ἀνά- 
 θεμα elsewhere occurs, Acts xxili. 14. 1 Cor, xii. 3; xvi. 22; Gal. 
 i. 8, 9, the Greek use of the term, which we have quoted, is either 
 wholly inadmissible, or at least merely figurative. (Comp. Winer, 
 N. T. Gram. s. 20.) Now as it is likewise more probable that, in 
 general, Paul adopted the Jewish use of the word, we make no 
 scruple here also to ascribe the same to the ἀνάθεμα. In the LXX. 
 ἀνάθεμα answers to the Hebrew 097 and ἀναθεματίζω, aS also dvari- 
 Onur, to the verb ONT. Now, the Hebrew word ow, derived from 
 
294 CHAPTER IX. V. 3. 
 
 a root found in the Arabic, signifying arcere, denotes equally the 
 setting apart of men, or beasts, or cities for Jehovah. Such separated 
 things or beings, were afterwards, in consequence thereof, annihilated 
 or slain, and hence Ὁ, Zech. xiv. 11, has the sense curse of de- 
 struction, and Ὁ ΓΙ per met. effect. pro causa, that of to annihilate. 
 Were we then to derive the common meaning of ἀνάθεμα from this 
 old Hebrew one, it might signily, ‘“*one devoted to extermination; 
 and Paul, to say the thing i in other words, would be prepared to suf- 
 fer death for his brethren. ᾿Ανάθεμα would thus be equivalent to “2 
 wx, 1 Kings xx. 42, which the LXX. rightly translate dvSea ὀλέθριον. 
 In that case we might compare with Paul’s declaration, 2 Cor. xii. 
 15. ‘This is the sense actually given to the ἀνάθεμα by Jerome, 
 Quest. 9, ad Algas. and Hilary ad Ps, 8, among the ancients, and 
 
 among the moderns, by Justinian, Beausobre, Elsner, Zeger, Am- 
 mon and others. In opposition to it, however, Chrysostom, even in 
 his day, remarks generally, that it is too flat. ‘Those, says the 
 bishop, commenting with holy indignation upon the passage, who 
 here suppose corporeal death to be meant, τῆς σφοδρότητος τῆς ἐκείνου 
 πόῤῥω καὶ paxeay ἑστήκασιν. ὃ γὰρ χαθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέξαν ἀποθνήσκων; καὶ 
 νιφάδας κινδύνων θεὶς, καὶ εἰπὼν, τίς ἡμὰς χωρφίσευ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ 
 Χεριστοῦ; Hades, ἢ στενοχωρία; ἢ λιμός, ἢ διωγμός: xal οὐχ ἀδφκεσθεὶς τοῖς 
 λεχθεῖσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερβὰς τὸν οὐξανὸν, καὶ τὸν οὐξανὸν τοῦ οὐξανοῦ; καὶ ἀγγέ- 
 λους καὶ ἀδρχαγγέλους» XAL πάντα τὼ ἄνω περξιδραμὼν, καὶ συλλαβὼν ὁμοῦ τὰ 
 παρόντα; τὰ μέλλοντα; τὰ ὁρώμενα: τὰ νοούμενα, τὰ λυπηξὰ, τὰ χρηστὰ, 
 καὶ οὐδὲν ὅλως ἀφεὶς, χαὶ οὐδὲ οὕτω χοδεσθεὶς ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑτέξαν τοσαύτην 
 κτίσιν τὴν οὐκ οὖσαν ὑποστησάμενος, πὼς ὡς μέγα τὰ λέγων μετ᾽ ἐχεῖνα 
 πάντα, θανάτου τοῦ πξοσκαΐρου ἐμνημόνευσεν ἀνἢ But the chief argument 
 against it is, that if we suppose this exposition, the ἀπὸ Xevorov sus- 
 tains no suitable interpretation. For in that case, one would be 
 forced to take ἀπό in the rarer sense of ὑπό, and Christ would be re- 
 garded as the author of the death. ‘Then might the Rabbinical usus 
 Joquendi be compared, in which “3 ΝΟΣ is a customary formula. 
 This addition, would, however, be here all too trifling; and even 
 were it not, it still would be impossible to explain why the Apostle 
 will have himself condemned to death by Christ, and not much rather 
 by God. Or again we must, with Elsner and Carpzov, connect 
 ἀπὸ Xevstow with ηὐχόμην, Which, however, would be a very unusual 
 Latinism (petere ab aliquo; in Greek εὔχεσθαυ τῷ Θεῷ OF meds τὸν 
 
 *,.... stand far from his vehemence. For he who died daily, who sup- 
 posing dangers numberless, exclaimed: Who shall separate us from the love 
 of Christ? “Shall tribulation or distress, or famine, or persecution? who, not 
 being satisfied with this when said, but going beyond heaven and the heaven 
 of heavens, and angels and archangels, ‘and “enumerating all things that are 
 above, and collecting into one, things present and things future, the seen and 
 the imagined, all that grieves, and all that profits, and having omitted nothing, 
 is not even then satisfied, but, supposing another creation of equal magnitude 
 and not existing, how would he, meaning to say something great, after all 
 these things, mention death temporal? 
 
CHAPTER LX. V. 3. 295 
 
 Θεὸν.) This construction would be in itself harsh, and one would 
 just as little be able to understand why the Apostle annexed the ad- 
 dition. We accordingly prefer giving ἀνάθεμα, a meaning which the 
 corresponding 01M, in the more modern Hebrew or Rabbinical dialect, 
 possesses, and which likewise predominates in all the New Testa- 
 ment texts in which it occurs. Among the Rabbins, to wit, 07n de- 
 notes a bann, by which a person was excluded from company, from 
 frequenting the synagogue, and from other privileges. This signifi- 
 eation might grow out of that it bears in the Old ‘Testament, and 
 already, Ezra x. 8, mention is made of the Ὁ over the property of 
 a transgressor in connection with his exclusion from the nan Dap. 
 The later Rabbins distinguish three kinds of bann. ‘The first and 
 lightest degree was 113 (seclusio). It consisted in a removal to the 
 distance of four ells, from all the members of the family, and lasted a 
 month. The second degree was ὉΠ. With the individual standing 
 under this, no one was allowed to learn, or deal, to eat or drink. 
 Admission into the synagogue was also prohibited to him. (Accord- 
 ing to the ‘Talmudic ‘Tract, Middot, it is true, they might enter the 
 temple, but this was probably only into the atrium gentium, into 
 which even the impure might come.) ‘he third degree of the ex- 
 communication was called ΝΠ (compare upon the etymology of 
 this word, Jost Geschichte der Israeliten, Th. 3, s. 150.) By it, 
 exclusion from divine worship and intercourse with men forever was 
 imposed. RK. Solomo says, ‘* Whosoever lies under the bann Scham- 
 matha, is like fat spread upon a hot furnace, it dries up and returns 
 no more.” How fearful a thing excommunication was among the 
 Jews, appears from the form of bann in Buxtorff’s Lexicon Talm. p. 
 828, which inspires horror to read. Many more of the kind are to 
 be found in Imbonati’s Bibl. Rabb. p. 450. Does the ἀνάθεμα here, 
 accordingly, denote a person cursed with the bann, then is the ἀπό 
 also to be very naturally taken up as designating the terminus, as 
 Gal. v. 4, κατηέγηθητε ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Now the Χειστός is by 
 several expositors taken metonymically, to denote the body of Christ, 
 i.e. the church. So Grotius, Hammond, Selden and others. Like- 
 wise Theodoret, not here, indeed, but yet at 1 Cor. xvi. 22, where 
 the ἀνάθεμα is explained: ἀλλότριος ἔστω τοῦ xowor σώματος τῆς ἐχκλη- 
 σίας. Much would depend upon whether Xecords, without any ad- 
 juncet, ever stands for ἡ ἐκκλησία Χριστοῦ. The text, 1 Cor. xii. 12, is 
 not sufficient to prove this; for there Xecords does not directly signify 
 the church itself, but Christ dwelling in the church. Hence, even 
 supposing Paul to speak of separation from the church, that would 
 still be equally a separation from the blessings of grace that are in 
 Christ. In this manner, the present view does not really differ from 
 the most ancient, which understands by Χριστός, Christ himself, fel- 
 lowship with him, and all the blessings of salvation to be found in 
 that fellowship. So Origen, Chrysostom, ‘Theodoret, Gicumenius, 
 Calvin, Bucer, Witsius, Bengel and others. Admirably do the fol- 
 lowing explanations speak of the love which is here expressed by 
 
296 CHAPTER IX. VY. 3. 
 
 St. Paul. Chrysostom: xai yde πελάγους παντὸς εὐρυτέφα; καὶ proyos 
 ἁπάσης σφοδροτέξα ἦν αὕτη ἡ ἀγάπη, καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτὴν κατ᾽ αξίαν ἀναγο- 
 ξεῦσαι δυνήσεται λόγος, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχεινος μόνος οἷδεν αὐτὴν ὃ μετὰ ἀχριβείας αὖ- 
 τὴν χτηπάμενος.Ὁ Photius: ὃν οὐδὲν δύναταυ χωρίσαν τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ, ov ϑάνατος ἀπειλούμενος, οὐ ζωή προτεινομένη οὐ τὼ EXELOEV UMAWS, 
 οὐ τὰ ἐνταῦθα, οὐχ᾽ ὅπερ ἂν τις ἐπινοησῃ» ὃν τοίνυν οὐδὲν χωφίσαν δύναταυ, 
 πὼς αὐτὸς ἑκουσίως ἀφίσταται; τί οὖν ἐστὶ τοῦτο; πῶς συμβήσεταν τὰ ἀσύμ- 
 Bata; πρῶτον μέν φαμεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι ταῦτα ἐναντία. οὐ γὰρ ἐστὶν ἔναν- 
 τίον τὸ dyangy τὸν Χριστὸν οὕτως ὥστε μήτε διὰ κολάσεως μήτε δὺ ὑποσ- 
 χέσεως πάσης ἀφίστασθαι τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ ἀγαπᾷν τὸν πλησίον 
 οὕτως; ὥστε τὴν σωτηξίαν αὐτῶν Lony καὶ μείζονα τῆς ἰδίας ἡγεῖσθαν σωτη- 
 δίας, οὔχουν ταῦτα ἐναντίαν ἀλλὰ χαὶ μάλλον συνάδοντα. ὃ yae ἀγαπὼν 
 ἀδελφὸν αὐτοὺ, ἀγαπᾷ χαὶ τὸν δεσπότην καὶ ἔμπαλιν. val, φησί τις» ἀλλ᾽ 
 ἐνταῦθα προχρίνει τὴν Tov πλησίου ἀγάπην τῇ πξὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ EVYST AL 
 ἔχεινον ἀπαρνήσασθαι τοὺ ἐκείνους κεόδῆσαι. Ὃ δὲ Χειστός φησιν" ὃ Φιλῶν 
 πατέρα ἡ μητέξα brie ἐμὲ, οὐκ ἔστι mov ἀξιος. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἔστι τοῦτο φιλειν 
 ὑπὲρ τὸν Χριστὸν. τί γὰρ ἦν τὸ φιλεῖν Exevvovs; τὸ οἰχειῶσαυ αὐτοὺς τῷ 
 Χεριστῷ. πῶς οὖν ἐστὶ φιλεῖν ἐκείνους ὑπὲς τὸν Χριστὸν, ὅπου χἀκείνους 
 εἰς τὴν φιλίαν χαὶ ὑπαχοὴν ἑλκύσαι ἔσπευδε TOV Χριστοῦ.....«καὺ γὰρ Stio- 
 τάμενος 11. ὑπὲξ τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χειστοὺ xat τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τὼν Ἰουδαίων ἑνώ- 
 σεως, ῥᾷον πάλιν ἥνουτο XAL συνήπτετο; WOME τις πῶλος μιχξὸν τῆς μητεὸς 
 ἀποσπασθεὶς. καὶ οὕτως πάλιν αὐτός τε ἐσώζετο, καὶ ὃ Χριστὸς Ene πλέον ἐδοξά- 
 ζετο, καὶ τὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἔθνος ἐσώζετο, καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἐπαγγελίαν εἰς πέρας 
 ἠέχοντο. μᾶλλον δὲ οὕτως διϊστάμενος οὐ διίστατο; ἀλλὰ πλέον ἥνοῦτο. ἢ οὐ 
 δοχεῖ cov ὁτε Τιμόθεον περιέτεμνεν, ὅτε αὐτὸς ἡγνίσατο; OTE τὰ TOV νόμον 
 ἐτέλει τὴν χάριν κηρύσσων; ὅτι τξύπον τινὰ πρὸς τὴν χάξιν ἐδόχευ διίστασ- 
 θαι καὶ ἑαυτῷ ἐναντιοῦυσθαὶ; ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε διίστατο, οὔτε ἑαυτῷ ἠναντιοῦτο. 
 ὑπὲρ γὰξ τῆς χάριτος καὶ Tov προσαγαγεῖν πάντας τῷ Χριστῷ κχκαὺ ταῦτα 
 xai τάλλα πάντα ἔπραττεν. Bengel: Verba humana non sunt plane 
 
 * For broader than every sea, and keener than every flame, was that love, 
 and no language is able worthily to express it. But he alone who really pos- 
 sesses, knows what it 15. 
 
 { Paul, whom nothing is able to separate from the love of God, neither 
 death threatened, nor life promised, nor things beyond, nor things on this side 
 the grave, nor whatsoever a man may conceive. If then nothing be able to 
 separate him, whence comes it that he voluntarily deserts. What is this? 
 How shall things discordant be reconciled? First we say, that these two 
 things are not inconsistent. For to love Christ in such a way, as neither by 
 any punishment nor yet promise, to renounce his love, is not contrary to 
 loving our neighbours so strongly as to reckon their salvation equal or supe- 
 rior to one’s own. So far are these things from being inconsistent, that they 
 are rather harmonious. For whosoever loves his neighbour, loves also the 
 Master, and the contrary. Yes, says some one, but here he prefers the love 
 of our neighbours to the love of God, and prays that he may be denied the 
 former for the sake of gaining them; whereas Christ says: He that loveth 
 father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me. To love them, however, 
 in that way is not to love them more than Christ. For what was the loving 
 of them? Itconsisted in conciliating them to Christ. How then is it loving 
 them more than Christ, when he endeavours to draw them into the friendship 
 and “obedience of Christ. For Paul being divided regarding the glory of 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 3. 297 
 
 apta, quibus includantur motus animarum sanctarum, neque semper 
 iidem sunt motus illi neque in earum potestate est, tale semper votum, 
 ex sese elicere. Non capit hoc anima non valde provecta. De 
 mensura amoris in Mose (Ex. xxxii. 32), et Paulo non facile est 
 existimare. Eum enim modulus ratiocinationum nostrarum non 
 eapit, sicut heroum bellicorum animos non capit parvulus. Apud 
 ipsos illos duumviros intervalla illa, que bono sensu extatica dici 
 possint, subitum quiddam et extraordinarium fuere. Witsius: Per- 
 suasus sum, non esse illos harum rerum estimatores, qui cogitationes 
 suas longe supra illius, que plerumque obtinet et landari solet, chari- 
 tatis teporem extollere non didicerunt. Si quis quaodammodo saltem 
 divini amoris raptus expertus est, is demum rite cognoscet, omnia 
 sic amartis vota ef verba ad vivum resecanda non esse. Such is in- 
 deed the case. ‘The objections which have been brought against this 
 portentosus amor, as Bucer styles it, arises all from a cool way of 
 contemplating it, which altogether forgets what a loving heart, in the 
 fervour of its passion, is capable of uttering. Just as little, accord- 
 ingly, can we bring ourselves to suppose that Paul has merely applied 
 a proverbial mode of speech, common among Eastern nations. ‘The 
 Arabians, for instance, in order to express a strong affection. use 
 words which signify ‘* My soul is the ransom of thine.” Compare 
 Caab, Ben Zohair, ed. Lette Lugd. Bat. 1748, p. 97, and Schulten’s 
 zu Harvirii consessus, Franeq. 1731, p. 83. Maimonides, zu San- 
 hedrin, fol. 18, 1, in explanation of the ‘Talmudic phrase, 4793 
 ‘raw, ‘Behold I am thy ransom, atonement,” remarks, that it is a 
 common expression of love. Even the grave manner, however, in 
 which St. Paul introduces his words, does not permit us to suppose a 
 mere proverbial form of speech; which, moreover, becomes so much 
 the less possible, when we do not understand by ἀνάθεμα ἀπὸ Xecorov, 
 the death of Paul. Upon ἀνάθεμα in this passage, compare further 
 Witsius’ very learned treatise, Miscellanea Sacra, T. 11., and De 
 Prado Obs. Selecte, ed. Fabric. Hamb. 1712, a. h. 1. We now ad- 
 vance to the exposition of the remaining words, which will bring to 
 view still another and different conception of the passage. 
 
 inte τῶν ἀδελφῶν. We may take the ove in its narrower meaning 
 of instead, in the room of. ‘The dictionary Baal Aruch, introduces 
 under 73, the form common among the Rabbins, 19793 13, and re-, 
 marks that it signifies the same as My 7304, yaIpoa yw “" Behold, 
 
 Christ, and the union of the Jews in him, was easily again united and recon- 
 ciled, like some colt separated a little from its mother; and thus himself again 
 was saved, and Christ was the more glorified, and the Jewish nation was 
 saved, and the covenants and promises attained their destination. ‘hus di- 
 vided, it was rather no division but a closer union. Or think you not, when 
 he circumcised Timothy, and when he purified himself, and when he fulfilled 
 the requirements of the law, while preaching grace, that he seemed, in some 
 way, to be divided in regard to grace, and to oppose himself. But neither the 
 one nor the other was the case, because it was for the sake of grace, and 
 in order to lead all to Christ, that he did these and every thing else. 
 
 38 
 
298 CHAPTER IX. Y. 3, 4. 
 
 here am ἴ in his place, to bear his guilt.”” According to the usus 
 loquendi familiar to them in the application of that formula, the ixée 
 must have the meaning of substitution. In Greek usage, also ὑπές 
 in conjunction with περικάθαρμα; had entirely the same. Witsius, 
 de Prado, Bengel call attention to the fact, that the Jews ought espe- 
 cially to be excluded from the kingdom of Christ, and hence, that if 
 Paul wished in their stead to be exiled from Christ, the szge must be 
 taken in the vicarious sense. We think it more advisable, however, 
 not to urge this sense of ixée, but to take it in the more general one 
 
 of, “ for the good of.” 
 
 τῶν ovyyevav μον κατὰ σάρχα. (According to DE FS, τῶν xara 
 oaexa.) ‘This expresses in how far the Israelites are dear to him, as 
 possessed of human feelings, while ver. 4 and 5, show in how far 
 they interest him as a believer. In the appended κατὰ odexa, odes 
 has the sense of bodily extraction, in contrast with a connection of 
 a spiritual kind. Ἡὐχόμην. The Vulgate, Cyprian, Ambrose, Pela- 
 gius, Bucer, Heumann and others translate it in Latin by the imperf. 
 indic., and thence arises one way more of expounding the verse, dif- 
 ferent from those which we have hitherto stated. Pelagius, for 
 instance, and others after him, explain: Optabam aliquando, cum 
 prosequerer Christum. ‘The connection which the sentence, thus ex- 
 plained, must have with what precedes, is then as follows: “1 have 
 (at the end of the 8th chapter), so affectingly, and in all its greatness, 
 described the love of Christ to us (or as Heumann insists, my love 
 to Christ), that 1 cannot avoid adding how much it distrésdte me to 
 have once cherished the desire for my brethren’s sake, of continuing 
 separated by a bapn from him.’ ‘The explanation, however, totally 
 rends asunder the connection. Such a declaration of his grief, more- 
 over, if once it be viewed in immediate connection with the close of 
 the 8th chapter, would be greatly too much sundered from the last 
 verse of that chapter. ‘The whole following description, given in 
 ver. 4 and 5 of the prerogatives of the Israelites, would then be with- 
 out any proper object. And just as needless would the more minute 
 defining of ἀνάθεμα by the ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφὼν μον appear. We shall, 
 therefore, be more correct in rendering the imper. by the conjunct. 
 I could wish. In truth the imp. ind. is just what expresses the im- 
 possibility of the object which is wished, for which reason it is not 
 perfectly wished, whereas the optative admits the possibility of the 
 object wished, and the present presupposes its certainty. Compare 
 Gal. iv. 20, Ἐπ Winer Gramm. Excurse, s. 90. 
 
 αὐτὸς ἐγὼ. Erasmus: Ipse qui tantum laboriarim, ne sejungar a 
 Christo. ‘Theodoret: Σφόδρα ἁρμοδίως παρενέθηχε χαὶ τὸ αὑτὸς ἐγὼ, τῶν 
 ἤδη περὺ τῆς ἀγάπης τῆς περὺ τὸν “Χριστὸν εἰρημένων ἀναμιμνήσκων.ἢ 
 
 V. 4. Having in ver. 3, expressed by th® τὼν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ 
 capxa, how even human sensibilities moved him to a special love for 
 
 * And very aptly has he added the αὐτὸς ἐγὼ, calling to remembrance what 
 he had said of love to Christ. 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 4. 299 
 
 the Jews, he now states how every disciple of Christ must be kindled 
 to alike regard for this people, by the peculiar place which they 
 occupy in the economy of salvation, as the channel of the light 
 vouchsafed by God to man. ‘The privileges of the Israelites, here 
 specified by Paul, are, however, of a sort not founded upon their 
 merits, but upon the free grace of God. Chrysostom: éxecva τίθησιν; 
 ἅπερ τῆς Tov Θεοῦ δωρεᾶς ἐστιν ἐνδεικτικὰ μόνον, οὐκ ἐκείνων éyxduca.* 
 
 ᾿Ισραηλίται.Ϊ ‘This name is honourable, referring back to that 
 which the father of the race had received from God himself, Striver 
 with God, Gen. xxxii.29. ‘Thus it is joined, as a peculiarly lauda- 
 tory epithet, with oxéeua "ABeadu, 2 Cor. xi. 22, and there, as well 
 as at Phil. ili. 5, used side by side with ‘Egegatos. ‘Theodoret: Ἣν 
 τοῦτο τὺ ὄνομα καθάπερ τις XANES εἰς τοὺς ἐκγόνους παξαπεμφθέν. 
 
 ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία. While God declared Israel to be his peculiar pos- 
 session (0730), in which he was himself king, Israel could also boast 
 on its side of a childship, i. e. a closer relationship to God. Hence 
 God is also called the Father of the subjects of the theocracy, (Deut. 
 xxxii. 6,) and the Israelites, his Children (Deut. xiv. 1; xxxii. 5). 
 As the whole Israelitish theocracy, however, only outwardly prefi- 
 gures what the new covenant inwardly bestows, so also is this viode- 
 ova of the Israelite, merely an external reception into childship, along 
 with which, the πνεῦμα δουλείας (ch. vill. 14), still continued inwardly 
 to exist. Compare Gal. iv. 1. 
 
 καὶ ἡ δόξα. ‘The simplest explanation to be given of this word is, 
 that it is either to be regarded as an epexegesis of υἱοθεσία, or as 
 forming with it a hendiadis. The reception of the Israelites to child- 
 ship conferred upon them glorious privileges, so that it might justly 
 be styled viodecta τῆς δόξης. ‘Thus do Origen, Theodoret, Chrysos- 
 tom, Anselm, Hunnius, Calov and others understand it. Still δόξα 
 may also, per meton. effect. pro causa denote the ark of the covenant, 
 which, 1 Sam. iv. 21. 22, is called Ν᾽ 1122. So Calvin, Grotius, 
 Koppe. Or, what would have still more in its favour, the δοξα 
 might here intimate that visible appearance of God, which, in the 
 Old Testament, is called the * 1123. According to the account of 
 the Old Testament, God does not himself appear, but is manifested 
 by a being, which is conceived, sometimes with more, sometimes 
 with less personality. Usually as the representative of Jehovah, 
 appears the angel of God, » 1879, (compare upon this subject the 
 able treatise of Vitringa, Observ. Sacre, ‘Tom. Il. De Angelo Sa- 
 cerdote,) who, as such, is identified with Jehovah, Gen. xvi. 17; 
 wherewith compare ver. 13, Gen. 111. 11, wherewith compare ver. 
 16. Exod. iii. 2, compare ver. 4, particularly Exod. xxxiv. 5, and 
 xxxill. 19, ‘The same personage who, Exod. xxxii. 34; xxxiii. 12, 
 
 * He brings forward things which serve to indicate God’s free gift, not 
 encomiums of them. 
 + This name was, as it were, a heritage transmitted to posterity. 
 
300 CHAPTER Ix. v. 4. 
 
 was called the angel of God, is, Ex. xxxili. 14, called God’s pre- 
 sence. Nay, Is. |xiv.9, mention is made of an angel of his presence. 
 According to another and less substantiating conception, this revealer 
 of God is represented as his glory, inasmuch as the glory, the irra- 
 diation from a being, intimates, equally as much, the coming forth of 
 that being from his concealment, as does the unveiling of the face. 
 The glory of God appears as Jehovah’s representative, principally 
 in the eloud which covered the ark of the covenant, and from which 
 God spake to Moses (Ex. xl. 34, 35, Lev. ix. 6. Exod. xxv. 22). 
 And, in truth, this dweéling, as R. Bechai says, (Buxt. De Arca 
 Foed. c. 10, p. 109,) is not to be conceived as a restriction of the 
 Divine presence, but it is like some cave upon the shore, being filled 
 with water, which does not make the sea the less. But even apart 
 from that, when God’s appearing is mentioned, it is always the ap- 
 pearing of his 1122, which is spoken of. Ez.i.28; x.4. 1 Kings viii. 
 10. ‘The Targum, in fine, always employs δ ΠΣ as periphrasis 
 for God, and likewise the LXX. in several passages which mention 
 God’s appearance (Is. vi. 1), have δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ, though there be not 
 the corresponding 1122 in Hebrew. Now, that Paul here means to 
 attribute to the Israelites, as a peculiar privilege, their participation 
 in those theophanies, is the opinion of ‘Thos. Aquinas, Beza, Justi- 
 nian, Turretin, Heumann and many others. And, certainly, a privi- 
 lege this was; still, however, it could not be well said of the appear- 
 ing of the Divine being, that it was a property of the Israelites, in 
 the same way as the other things which Paul here describes, and the 
 more so, that the second temple, according to the express avowal of 
 the Jews, was destitute of the Shekinah. It is to be added, that sup- 
 posing δόξα to signify the Hebrew * 1122, we should desiderate the 
 addition of τοῦ Θεοῦ, unless, indeed, we were to assume that the Apos- 
 tle has here copied, not the Hebrew expression, but the Chaldaie, in 
 which sn32v stands absoluté. On the grounds stated, we prefer 
 keeping by the first-mentioned explanation, according to which δόξα 
 denotes, in general, the noble distinctions of the people of God. 
 
 at διαθῆχαι. If man had invented the idea of a covenant made by 
 the Infinite being, with a creature of the dust, like himself, it would 
 have been the height of boldness and presumption. Now, that it 
 has been vouchsafed, on the part of God, it deserves of all things to 
 be most adored. From Noah downwards, all the patriarchs obtained 
 the distinction of these διαθήκαις and hence it is, that here the plural 
 is used, as Eph. ii. 12. Origen wilh have it, that the διαθῆκαι, are 
 the several renewals of the assurance of God’s mercy through the 
 prophets. It may be said, at least, that these are not excluded. But 
 very unsuitable does the explanation of Beza and Grotius appear, 
 that διαθῆκαι Stands per met. for the tables of the covenant, for in that 
 case, the νομοθεσία would be superfluous. 
 
 ἡ νομοθεσία. ‘I'he word is used, even by profane authors, as equi- 
 valent to νόμος. So also 2 Mace. vi. 23. ‘The law they possessed, 
 
CHAPTER Ix. V. 4, 5. 301 
 
 distinguished Israel above other nations, and made them an object of 
 envy, Deut. iv. 5, 6. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. Comp. Rom. ii. 18, 19, 20; 
 vii. 20. 
 
 ἡ naresia. Theodoret: ἡ νομικὴ tepoveyva. Origen: Sacerdotalia 
 officia. It corresponds with M712), Exod. xxxv. 24; xxx. 17. In 
 the Talmudie tract, Pirke Avoth, c. 1, 7 and 7702p are, in like 
 manner, found side by side. We read: Simon the Just said, By 
 three things does the world subsist, by the TWA by the M712y, and by 
 the pon ΠΥ 7). Grotius erroneously wished to restrict the word 
 chiefly to the Paschal Lamb. 
 
 αἱ ἐπαγγελία. Some, as Justinian, Grotius, Carpzov, will 
 have it to be equivalent with εὐλογίαι, 572, and refer it to the pro- 
 mises which were held out to the fulfilment of the law. But the 
 sense is then feeble. ᾿Επαγγελίαι, even in the plural, denotes not 
 unfrequently (Rom. xv. 8. Gal. iil. 16. Heb. xi. 13, 17, 33) pro- 
 mises; and well may we here more particularly understand, as we 
 do, ch. iii. 2, under λόγια, the predictions relative to the time of the 
 Messias. 
 
 V.5. The Apostle is concerned to place, in a strong light, the 
 privileges of the Israelites, in order to justify his love for them, In 
 doing so, however, their guilt was likewise rendered the more mani- 
 fest. Ambrose: Tanta preconia nobilitatis Juadeorum enumerat, ut 
 omnibus pro his dolorem incutiat, quia, non recipiendo salvatorem, 
 prerogativam patrum et promissionis meritum perdiderunt, pejores 
 gentilibus facti. Propensius enim malum est dignitatem perdidisse 
 quam non habuisse. Jerome, qu. x.ad Alg.: Christus iste tantus ac 
 talis, ab eis non recipitur, de quorum stirpe generatus est. In qui- 
 bus igitur tanta fuerunt bona, dolet cur nune tanta mala sunt. 
 
 τὯν of πατέρες. God resolved to impart the promises to the patri- 
 archs. With them, accordingly, the whole glory of the Messias 
 was connected (Rom. xi. 28). Although all distinguished men of 
 the Old Testament were styled πατέρες (Sirach xliv. the title and ver. 
 1. Soalso is David called πατὴρ», Acts ii. 29), still it is more pro- 
 bable, that the appellation here refers, in its narrower sense, solely 
 to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to whom the promises were made, and 
 by whom God condescended to name himself, Ex. iii. 13, where he 
 is called oD. WAN TIN. Compare Matt. xxii. 32. / 
 
 xat ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ oapxa. This is the greatest mark of Di- 
 vine favour of which Israel was deemed worthy. ‘The Messias him- 
 self sprang from their race. Calvin: Neque enim nihil estimandum 
 est cognatione carnali cum mundi servatore cohaerere: nam si hono- 
 ravit universum hominum genus, quum se nature communione nobis 
 copulavit, multo magis eos, quibuscum habere voluit arctum conjunc- 
 tionis vinculum. Upon xara σάρκα; as used respecting the Messias, 
 compare Rom. i. 43. 
 
 ὁ ὧν ent πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ᾿Δμήν. If, with- 
 out having previously formed any doctrinal opinion, we examine 
 this expression exegetically, it will appear that Christ himself is 
 
302 CHAPTER IX. V. D. 
 
 styled Θεὸς éat πάντων. ‘That construction presenting itself as next 
 at hand, we shall first develope. ‘The participle with the article sup- 
 plies the place of the verb. fin. with the relative, which is often the 
 case, (John i. 18: iil. 13; xii. 17, particularly, however, 2 Cor. xi. 
 31, where, in similar connection, stands: 6 Θεὸς χαὶ πατὴξ τοῦ Κυρίον 
 ἡμῶν οἶδεν, 6 ὧν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας); it is accordingly to be re- 
 solved into ὅς ἐστι, as the Syriac interpreter does. It was just here 
 that the Apostle had occasion to say the utmost that could be said, of 
 the Messias, for he was desirous of showing the Jews what an un- 
 speakable token of grace it was to them, that they stood in so close 
 a relation to the Divine Saviour. It requires to be added, that the 
 foregoing χατὰ σάρκα, aS Origen and Theodoret observe, entails here, 
 just as at Rom. i. 3, a description of the higher element in Christ. 
 ‘The ἐπὶ πάντων is intended to define more minutely the Θεός», show- 
 ing as it does, that Paul means to put Christ on an equality with him 
 who alone is true God, with the almighty Jehovah himself. In He- 
 brew, M828 ΠΝ and “Ww, just as among the writers of the New 
 ‘Testament, (in the Revelation,) the word ὁ παντοκράτωρ answering 
 in the LXX. to both of these, are designations of the only true God. 
 It would doubtless answer this purpose better, if Θεὸς had the arti- 
 cle; still, however, even when it does denote the true God, and espe- 
 cially when it is a predicate, Θεός stands often without the article, 
 (John i. 6, 13,18; iii. 2. 2Cor. 1. 21.) In the present case, more- 
 over, owing to the preceding 6 ὧν, the article could not well be placed. 
 There is far less to recommend the explanation of Beza, Limborch 
 and others, according to which πάντων is masculine, and is to be re- 
 ferred to the Fathers, over whom Christ is exalted. We require to 
 put a comma before εὐλογητός. It was a pious practice of the Jews, 
 upon mentioning the name of the Most High God, and particularly 
 when they spoke of peculiar tokens of his grace, to append to it a 
 doxology. So Paul, Gal. i. 5. 2Cor. xi. 31. ‘They likewise did 
 so more especially, when they noticed the blasphemies of others 
 against God’s name. See Rom. i. 25. We are thus enabled to ex- 
 plain, how, among the later Jews, instead of using the name of God, 
 the periphrasis w7=pn 87 P23, is common. Nay, even in the New 
 Testament, we find ὃ εὐλογητός as periphrastic appellation of God, 
 Mark xiv. 61. This doxology, then, which elsewhere is addressed 
 to God only, (Luke i. 68. Eph. i. 3. 1 Pet.i.3, and the passages 
 already quoted,) manifests that the Saviour is connected in indissolu- 
 ble unity with God; according to Paul, partakes equal honour with 
 Him. Asa parallel, may be compared Rev. v. 13, where the same 
 lofty doxology is made to the Lamb as to God the Most High, 2 Pet. 
 iii. 18. Now, it might be objected, that it is contrary to the creed 
 of Paul, to place Christ upon an entire equality in being and power 
 with the Father. ‘This, however, is by no means the fact. It is 
 true, indeed, that according to this Apostle’s doctrine, God the Father 
 is the basis of all being. ‘There is One God only as the fountain of 
 existence, 1 Cor. viii. 6. (John v. 26, it is said, according to the 
 
 eed 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 5. 303 
 
 saine view, that the Father hath given power to the Son to have life 
 in himself.) The Son is only the image of his being, Col. i. 15. 
 2Cor. iv. 4. (The ἀπαύγασμα Heb. i. 8, is the same with the εἰκών 
 here used by Paul.) Still, even as the image of the Divine Being, 
 the Son is in no respect different from the Father, but is perfectly 
 expressive of the Being of God. According to the definition of the 
 Church, the ἀγεννεσία is the sole quality which the Father alone pos- 
 sesses. In the Son dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, 
 Col. ii. 9. He has ἴσα τῷ Θεῷ, Phil. ii. 6. In 1 Tim. iv. 10, the 
 reading ὃς is undoubtedly the more correct, but the Son is expressly 
 called Θεός, ‘Tit. i. 3; ii. 18, Accordingly, the Son is also an object 
 of adoration to all angels and men, Phil. ii. 10. It is impossible to 
 quote 1Cor. vill. 6, as a contradictory passage, for the xvevorgs, 
 which pre-eminently belongs to Christ, as the revealer of the hidden 
 Deity, as the Lord of that realin of Spirits, united into a Divine Com- 
 monwealth, just as little excludes the ϑεότης, as the δεότης does the 
 xvevorns. Neither does 1 Cor. xv. 22—29, disprove the equality of 
 Christ’s divine nature with the Father; for in this passage, just as in 
 1 Cor. viii. 6, it is not the Divine nature of Christ merely which 
 is spoken of, but his entire person, as God and man, who then 
 delivers up his lordship to the Father, when the Redemption 
 has become subjectively the portion of sinful humanity, and the life 
 of God pervades the total mass of the believing species. Hence Au- 
 gustine observes correctly upon that passage, De Trin. 1 I. ¢. 8: 
 Christus in quantum Deus est, nos cum illo subjectos habet, in quan- 
 tum sacerdos, nobiscum illi subjectus est. Accordingly, what Paul 
 teaches respecting the relation of the Son to the Father, and that of 
 the εὐχών τοῦ Θεοῦ in union with humanity, to God himself, is per- 
 fectly consistent with the doctrine of John. (Compare the excellent 
 work: Kleuker, Johannes Petrus und Paulus als Christologen. Riga, 
 1785.) Nay, it can be demonstrated, that the Jewish theology, in 
 the centuries after Christ, in like manner assumed and taught the 
 identity in person of the Messias with God. On the one hand, the 
 Messias was described by these theologians, asa holy human being, 
 who should be raised from the state of humiliation to the state of 
 exaltation, (Maii Theol. Jud. loc. VIII. § 12. Martini Pugio fidei. 
 passim,) on the other, as the Shekinah itself, (Sommeri Theologia , 
 Soharica, Thesis VIII. p. 35 et 38,sqq. Bertholdt, Christologia, p. 
 132 et 133.) According to the doctrine of the Book Sohar, whose 
 composition, to judge from the reasons particularly urged by Schitt- 
 gen against Glasener, is to be dated not later than the second century 
 after Christ, the Ancient of Days reflects himself in the PDIN ΤῊΣ 
 the little countenance. From that the light is poured forth upon all 
 creatures, and these again beam back their borrowed rays to the 
 Ancient of Days. (Idra Rabba, Sect. VIII. § 126.) ‘The same 
 little countenance bears also the name Shechinah, (i. e. the fulness of 
 God,) and is expressly called j)pr7, εἰκών; it is the beginning of all 
 creation. It is likewise called Metatron, (Mediator,) and compre- 
 
304 CHAPTER IX. V. 5. 
 
 hends the upper and the lower world, in centro, being created after 
 God’s image. These are literally the expressions upon the subject. 
 in Sohar. In complete unison speaks the book Jezirah, (the age of 
 which it is impossible to fix, but which is already quoted in the Ge- 
 marah, so that it cannot well fall later than into the fifth century.) We 
 there read, (Liber Jezirah, ed. Rittang. Amst. 1642, § 2.): ‘* The 
 second intelligence is that which enlightens. It is the crown of cre- 
 ation, Mwn AINA Ww, the Brightness entirely equal to the unity, 
 and is exalted above all heads.*’ In virtue of this conception of the 
 great primeval Revealer of God, who, imbibing the whole plenitude 
 of the Divine life, irradiates it out upon other beings, and in virtue of 
 the view, that this very Revealer and Mediator of the upper and 
 lower world has appeared in the humanity of the Messias, the Mes- 
 sias is by Jewish theologians contemplated as identical with God. 
 He bears the all holy name of Jehovah, likewise that of mpm, i. €. 
 δι Π2 wapn, which thus perfectly coincides with Paul’s here as- 
 cribing to him the doxology, (Sommer. Theol. Soharica, p. 78. 
 Maii Theol. Jud. 1. VII. § 1. Schéttgen, Hore Hebr. T. II. p. 8.) 
 With these doctrines of the Jewish theology, we have, moreover, 
 likewise to compare the germs of them, which are already contained 
 in the Apocryphal books. (Wisdom vii. 22, 25. Sirachi. 4, 9. Chp. 
 xliii.) And thus, on historical, no less than on grammatical grounds, 
 the construction of the saying which we have mentioned seems to 
 be confirmed as the most correct. 
 
 That construction, accordingly, has been defended by the majority 
 of ancient and more modern expositors, Origen, Ignatius, Tertullian, 
 Cyprian, Augustine, Ambrose, ‘Theodoret, Athanasius, Gicumenius, 
 Cassian, Calvin, Melancthon, Wolf, Heumann, Chr. Schmid and 
 many others. Several of these even found upon the text, an argu- 
 ment against the assailants of Christ’s divinity. So that all, even 
 exegetical tradition, conspires to establish the received exposition. 
 Notwithstanding of this, however, various variations of exposition 
 have, since the time of Erasmus, been attempted; but these, to their 
 own disadvantage, deviate very far from each other. ‘The first who 
 proposed a different exposition was Erasmus, who, in the enlarged 
 edition of his Annotations, as if to display upon this passage his 
 whole ingenuity, (for in the Paraphrase he translates agreeably to 
 the common interpretation,) stated three, nay, four modes of punc- 
 tuation, each giving rise to a variety of meaning. Others afterwards 
 followed. In the first place, he proposes as allowable, to place a 
 point after xara σάρχα, and to apply the doxology altogether to the 
 Father, as a laud for his mercy shown to the Israelites. So Enjed- 
 din, Whiston, Semler. It is an objection to this, however, that the 
 εὐλογητός» Which should be the predicate to Θεός, stands contrary to 
 rule, beliind its subject. Bengel, in fact, and prior to him, Faustus 
 Socinus, remarked, that, in Hebrew the 12, and after the same man- 
 ner, the εὐλογητός in Greek, stand always at the beginning of the 
 doxologies; the sole exception to this rule, being Ps. Ixvili. 20, in the 
 
CHAPTER IX. Y. 5, 6. 305 
 
 LXX. But especially might it be objected that then the ὧν would be 
 a wholly idle and highly unnatural addition. 
 
 Erasmus, moreover, proposes that the point be placed after πάντων; 
 that ὁ ὧν tat πάντων be regarded as descriptive of Christ in contrast 
 to the τὸ xara odexa, and that a doxology be supposed from Θεός on- 
 ward. Locke, Clark, Justin and Ammon take the same course. 
 With this interpretation, it is true the forced character of the previous 
 one is in some degree done away, for the τὸ χατὰ σάφχα obtains an 
 
 “Antithesis, and the ὧν is no longer superfluous. But then again there 
 is something strange, on the one hand, in the undefined nature of the 
 expression ὁ ext πάντων, which cannot be excused by the ἐπάνω πάν- 
 τῶν of John iii. 31, and on the other, in the position of the predicate 
 εὐλογητὸς after the subject; in fine also Θεός, as that subject, would 
 have required the article. We pass over the other misconstructions 
 of the passage, and only further notice the subterfuge of the Socinians, 
 who contend, that by the addition of ἐσὺ πάντων, it is clearly shown, 
 that Θεός is to be here taken in the more general sense of ‘* Lord 
 Ruler.”’ More arbitrary still than the misinterpretations of the mean- 
 ing, are the alterations of the text. Erasmus shows, that in several 
 manuscripts of Cyprian, Hilary and Chrysostom, the passage is cited 
 without Deus; this, however, is but an error of the pen, for the best 
 manuscripts contain it. Grotius maintains that the Syriac translator 
 does not express it, which is not true. He distinctly renders: “ Who 
 is God above 81]. Stolzleaves it out in his translation. It remains 
 to say, that Whitby, Crell, ‘Taylor and others, instead of ὁ ὧν and ὧν 
 6, ‘*to whom belongs also the ever blessed God,” in violation alike 
 
 of all the manuscripts and of sound understanding. Upon this text 
 is to be particularly consulted the dissertation of Seigm. Baumgarten, 
 
 Comm. ad difficiliora verba Rom. ix. 5. Hale, 1746, and Flatt, An- 
 
 not. ad loca quedam, Epist. ad Rom. 1801, p. 18 —27. 
 
 V.6. How now! might the haughty Jew ask. You condemn 
 us all for refusing to believe in your Christ, and thereby will bring 
 a charge upon God himself of not being trust-worthy, for has he not 
 promised that all Israel shall be received into the commonwealth of 
 the Messias? Paul replies, that from the very beginning, the promise 
 of God had not designed to ensure, to every Israelite, as such, the 
 Messias’ kingdom. Calvin: Quia voti sui fervore quasi in ecstasin, 
 raptus fuerat Paulus, jam ad suas docendi partes redire volens, spe- 
 ciem correctionis adhibet, ac si seipsum ex immodico cruciatu colli- 
 geret. 
 
306 CHAPTER Ix. v. 6. 
 
 PAR Ted 1: 
 
 GOD RECOGNIZES NEITHER BODILY EXTRACTION, NOR YET MAN'S WORKS 
 AS CLAIMS TO MERCY. ΡΥ. 6—14. 
 
 Ver. 6. οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐχπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Even the an- 
 cient expositors, Gicumenius, ‘Theophylact and the Latin, take οἷον 
 correctly, as an adverb, in the sense, if, as if, and, agreeably to that, 
 supply a τοῦτο λέγω after οὐχ: The ὅτι is then pleonastically united to 
 οἷον, aS both in profane authors and in the New Testament, 6c else- 
 where appears conjoined with ὡς», (2 ‘Thess. il. 2.) Gicumenius: οὐκ 
 ἐπειδὴ ἐχπέτιτωκεν ὃ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ; ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα τὴν meds αὐτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐν- 
 δείξωμαι. If, however, objections are taken to consider the ὅτου as 
 pleonastic, it might do to take οἷον in its original signification, as 
 relative, and supply before it, οὐ τοιοῦτον δὲ λέγω. At any rate, either 
 of these two constructions, which are also to be found in Calvin, Lu- 
 ther, Camerarius, Carpzov, Alberti and others, is preferable to the 
 third, which has been embraced by Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Coc- 
 ceius, Venema, De Wette and many more, viz. that οἷον is here used 
 as elsewhere οἷόν rz, and should be translated, «It is, however, im- 
 possible that..." Nowhere can we find examples of this exchange. 
 There is something naive in Heumann’s remark, ‘ That zz is a very 
 little vocable, and serves no purpose but ornament; it may, conse- 
 quently, be omitted.” Wetstein indeed pretends to produce authori- 
 ties. ‘They are, however, inappropriate, inasmuch as it is either the 
 masculine of the relative οἷος which is used, or the neuter with the 
 dative of the person. Besides the infinitive follows after οἷος. More- 
 over, acircumstance, which speaks still more against that explanation, 
 is, that even allowing the omission of the τες the peculiar construction 
 of οἷον τε 1s opposed to it, that being always followed by the infinitive, 
 so that it would run οὐχ οἷόν τε ixmentoxévar. 
 
 λόγος means here promise, like “727. ᾿Ἐχπίπτειν, which in the 
 LXX. answers to 55), is here, just like its Hebrew counterpart (Josh. 
 xxi. 45. 1 Kings viii. 56. 2 Kings x. 10), used of promises un- 
 fulfilled. As there are many vouchers for this in the New Testa- 
 ment (compare 6. g. 1 Cor. xiii. 8), that is itself sufficient to show, 
 that we cannot admit the explanation of Casaubon, who, appealing 
 to 2 Mace. vi. 8, takes it in the sense, ‘‘ to proceed out of the mouth,” 
 and translates: At id fieri non potest, nam a Deo profectus est hic 
 sermo. 
 
 οὐ yae πάντες οἱ ἐξ "Ioegann οὗτοι Ioganrx. ‘The Apostle means by 
 these words, merely to confute the conceit of the Jews, as if bodily 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 6, 7. 307 
 
 extraction conferred a prerogative. He proceeds here, in the same 
 manner as at the beginning of chap. 111. Just as there, he did not 
 deny that the Jew possesses advantages over the Gentile, but merely 
 showed that the former, notwithstanding all of these, and just so much 
 the more culpably, proved himself equally sinful, so likewise here, 
 he allows that /srael and the seed of Abraham enjoy a distinction, 
 but restricts the sense of the word, /srael and seed of Abraham, in 
 the same way as in chap. ii. 28, he limited the appellation of Jew. 
 And doubtless it was the fact, that when God promised felicity to the 
 Jewish people, through the Messias, he did not intend thereby to re- 
 ceive the whole nation as such, into the divine kingdom, but merely 
 contemplated, that salvation should proceed from the midst of Israel, 
 and those be admitted to its enjoyment, who complied with the con- 
 ditions under which it was imparted. But highly pernicious was the 
 effect of the delusion under which the Jews laboured, in imagining 
 that a title to pardon belonged to them as Jews. ‘This delusion is 
 censured by Justin M. Dial. cum. Tryph. c. 44, p. 140, ed. Ben. 
 καὶ ἐξαπατάτε ἑαυτοὺς ὑπονοοῦντες διὰ τὸ εὖναυ τοῦ “ABeadm xara σάρκα 
 σπέρμω πάντως κληξονομήσειν τὰ κατηγγελμένω παρὰ Jou Θεοῦ διὰ 7οῦ Χευσ- 
 7οῦ δοθήσεσθαι ἀγαθά. It is roughly expressed in the Talmud, Tract. 
 Sanhedrin, c. 11, at the commencement, in the following words, 
 which have since become a universal principle among the Jews. 
 nan ody pan ond δ Ssow> 5a, “All Israel has a share in the life 
 eternal.”” From this totality of Israel, the Gemara, at the passage 
 mentioned, excepts only the various classes of heretics. Even our 
 Saviour assailed the delusion of a claim to favour, founded on bodily 
 extraction, John viii. 39. Compare Matt. iii. 9. Gal. 11. 29. And 
 the Jews themselves admit, that he who does not live like Abraham 
 is not to be reckoned as belonging to Israel; Only in saying this, they 
 attribute a claim of right to human virtue. So Philo, De Nobilitate, 
 p- 906. De prem. et pen. p. 919, and Abarbanel in.the book Na- 
 chalath Avoth, f. 183, c. 1: ‘* The disciple whose morals are corrupt, 
 even though he belongs to the children of Israel, is still not of the 
 disciples of Abraham, and the reason is, that he does not endeavour 
 after his manners.”” 
 
 V.7. Even in the case of Abraham’s own children, Paul means 
 to say, it is manifest that bodily extraction, as such, confers no fiéle. 
 Ishmael and the sons of Keturah, were no less Abraham’s children 
 than Isaac. Nay, Ishmael was the first-born, (for his being born of 
 a maid-servant, need no more have invalidated his right than the right 
 of the sons of Jacob, who were born of maid-servants, was invalidated 
 on that account.) God, nevertheless, permitted the promise made 
 to the patriarch, to be fulfilled by Isaac. Highly interesting, and 
 very similar to that of Paul, is the description which R. Jehuda Le- 
 
 * Ye deceive yourselves, when you suppose that because you are the seed 
 of Abraham according to the flesh, you will surely inherit the blessing 
 promised to be vouchsafed by God, through Christ. 
 
308 CHAPTER IX. V. 7. 
 
 vita (he lived about 1140) gives of the manifestation of God’s free 
 grace in the election of the founders of the theocracy. He says 
 (Liber Cosri ed. Buxt. Bas. 1660, P. I. c. 95, and P. II. ὁ. 12) * that 
 ONT PD, (this phrase, which literally means Divine thing, has 
 probably been substituted by the Hebrew translators for an Arabic 
 one signifying Divine essence,) has, from the beginning of time, been 
 preserved in a certain line of the human race, and if a man had several 
 sons it was transmitted to one, and the rest of them were shut out 
 from it. The former then becomes, as it were, the kernel of the 
 race, the latter, with all others excluded, forms the shell. According 
 to God’s decree, Ishmael, although he was the first-born, was rejected 
 as the shell, and Isaac obtained the τι Ν ΓΙ ray. In the same way 
 Esau was rejected, although the stronger, and Jacob, although the 
 weaker of the two, obtained Canaan.’’ ‘True it is, that the connec- 
 tion, in which Levita speaks thus, shows that he takes a very dif- 
 ferent view of the economy of God from that of Paul, still the one 
 has many points of contact with the other. 
 
 Now, from this example, and still more from that of Jacob and 
 Esau, which comes after, the Calvinist might draw the following 
 conclusion: Does Paul, in order to justify the mode of dispensing 
 admission into the inward kingdom of God, appeal to the mode in 
 which admission is administered into the outward kingdom of God, 
 and is this the same in both cases, then the decretum absolutum ne- 
 cessarily follows. For Paul describes the dispensation of the ancient 
 theocratical institution as something emanating merely from the 
 absolute will of God, and even the opponents of Calvinism allow, that 
 the reason why the Jews were taken for the covenant people, is to 
 be traced directly to the will of God. (That the Jews were raised 
 to be the covenant people, not for their works’ sake, God himself 
 declares, Deut. ix. 6, and the prophets frequently speak to the same 
 effect. It does not follow, however, that the election of Israel took 
 place, without any grounds in the Divine wisdom. Several of these 
 grounds we are enabled to discover, even while here upon earth; the 
 whole will be clear to us, when we come to understand the whole 
 plan of the universe. See Lessing, Erziehung des Mensechenge- 
 schlechts, § 8, 18; Tholuck, Apologet. Winke, zum Studium des A. 
 T. Berlin, 1821.) Accordingly, Paul gives us to understand that the) 
 ground why God vouchsafes invincible grace to some, and with such 
 grace, salvation, lies also in the will of God, and in that alone. This 
 inference, however, is nowise to be admitted. With regard to the 
 outward theocracy, all that Paul denies, is, that it was conferred in 
 virtue of claims founded upon bodily extraction, or good works, with- 
 out, however, thereby meaning to deny the existence of other mo- 
 tives in the Divine wisdom. And so far as the inward New Testa- 
 ment theocracy is concerned, there is to be found in the mode of dis- 
 pensing admission thereto, no more than a negative coincidence with 
 the mode of dispensing admission into that of the Old Testament, 7. e. 
 inasmuch as admission into the kingdom of Christ is not obtained 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 7, 8. 309 
 
 upon the ground of bodily extraction or of works. But whereas 
 the kingdom of Christ is something which does not merely concern 
 the outward man, like the Jewish church, there will be found, if we 
 weigh the positive side of the matter, this difference obtaining, viz. 
 that the kingdom of Christ comes to men, solely under a condition, 
 which is, that they do not reject grace. Now, in thus comparing 
 this entrance into the kingdom οἵ Christ, with the entrance into the 
 Jewish theocracy, he merely brings forward the resemblance of the 
 admission into both, in a negative respect, and means to show no 
 more than that in the one case, as in the other, there were no ante- 
 cedent claims. 
 
 οὐδ᾽ ὅτι. ‘This the Vulgate renders by: Neque qui. It is better 
 as the Syriac does, to take ὅτυ as equivalent to διότι. ‘To τέχνα we 
 may supply with Theodoret, τοὺ Θεοῦ, which, ver. 8, stands beside 
 τέχνα. ‘That passage, however, can prove nothing as to the present, 
 inasmuch as there the allusion is not precisely the same. We rather 
 look here for τοὺ ᾿Αβεαάμ to be supplied, and the more so from the 
 proposition appearing to harmonize with the preceding one in ver. 6. 
 
 ty "Ioaax κτλ. The passage is quoted from Gen. xxi. 12. The 
 χαλεῖν has here, after Sp, the sense, fo choose. In the Divine Re- 
 velations a progression is discernible from the lower to the higher, 
 from the more general and undefined to the more defined, just as in 
 nature. Abraham first receives the general assurance, that his seed 
 should inherit the land, and then, afterwards, the more specific one, 
 that Isaac was the one who should be heir. According to a free 
 οἰκονομία, God ordained the latter no less than the former. 
 
 V.8. The τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν may give the historical exegesis of God’s 
 declaration. It may also, however, serve to introduce the prefigura- 
 tive intimation which, according to Paul’s judgment, was involved 
 in that declaration. Baldwin, Mosheim, ‘Taylor and others construe 
 it in the first way. ‘The sense, in that case, would be: We see, then, 
 that according to his free purpose, God does not regard those children 
 as heirs of the Heavenly Kingdom, who descend in a bodily way 
 from the patriarch, but those only whom, according to his free pur- 
 pose, he has actually called. Now, doubtless, by this explanation, 
 the object of the Apostle would be attained. 'The example would 
 sufficiently teach, that a purpose of free grace of some kind or other, , 
 such, perhaps, as in the present case, to link the tokens of favour to 
 the promise, suffices to open to any the entrance into God’s kingdom. 
 By this explanation, however, the ἐπαγγελία falls into the back- 
 ground, although the Apostle obviously intends to bring it forward, 
 as is also clear from ver. 9. Even on this account alone, we have to 
 suppose with Origen, Theophylact, Gicumenius, Ambrose, Eras- 
 mus, Grotius, Limborch and many others, that Paul finds in that pro- 
 cedure of God with Abraham, and in the special election of Isaac, a 
 typical allusion to the believers of the New Testament. ‘The τοῦτ᾽ 
 ἔστι accordingly is to be paraphrased: “ Accordingly, it is inti- 
 mated to us by that procedure of God, that......”’. This is the precise 
 
310 CHAPTER Ix. V. 8. 
 
 import of the Rabbinical phrase 27 Ὁ Nim). We have now to 
 answer the question, In what, according to Paul’s view, does the 
 similarity of believers to Isaac consist? 
 
 The great bulk of the expositors we have quoted, suppose it to lie 
 in the circumstance, that Isaac was born in a miraculous and extra- 
 ordinary way, just as Christians, in respect of the inner man, are 
 preternaturally begotten, whereas the other sons of the patriarch 
 came into the world precisely in the common course of nature. ‘The 
 Arminians in particular conceive the type in this manner. On the 
 contrary, Ambrose, and, for the most part, the Lutherans, regard the 
 resemblance as consisting in this, that a mere promise called Isaac 
 into life, just as in the case of believers, the objective proposal of the 
 forgiveness of sins, on the part of God, and the simple reception of 
 the same, on the part of men, suffice for their acquittal, without any 
 external condition being fixed. ‘This allusion, certainly very closely 
 connected with that before mentioned, is indisputably the most ap- 
 propriate. Accordingly Paul was able, by the instance he quoted of 
 Abraham and Isaac, not only to show what appears, from the second 
 example, which is without typical significance, to have been origi- 
 nally his sole aim, viz. that God, in a.way altogether free, may either 
 vouchsafe or deny admission into his kingdom (it is to be particu- 
 larly noticed, that through the whole of this argumentation, one side 
 of the question alone is uniformly brought forward, while the other, 
 or what man is to do when the grace of God is offered to him, re- 
 mains here altogether untouched); but we obtain from the instance 
 selected, a still deeper intimation, viz. that God appointed to be the 
 father of the theocracy, that particular individual who had been called 
 into existence, by a simple promise of God, apart altogether from 
 the way of ordinary bodily propagation. Here, as in other passages, 
 the Apostle puts a typical construction upon the Old ‘Testament, in 
 whose narratives both of individuals and of the nation, so many ana- 
 logies are to be found. In virtue of these, the beautiful saying of the 
 Cabbalists, often so perversely applied, may, in a certain respect, be 
 approven (Synopsis Sohar, p. 27, No. 19): 4s an angel of God, 
 never, but inaterrestrial garb, appears upon earth, so there is amys- 
 terious meaning of Scripture arrayed in the open one. And, with 
 no less truth than beauty, does Augustine say, upon the same grounds, 
 Quest. ev. in Exod.: “The whole Old Testament resembles the 
 mystery of the ark of the covenant, over which the cherubim spread 
 their covering wings.’’ In Gal. iv. 23, likewise, the Apostle con- 
 templates Isaac, in respect of his birth being the consequence of a 
 promise, as a type of Christian believers. In a perfectly similar 
 way, the γεννηθεὶς xara σάρκα and the γεννηθεὶς χατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν Stand in 
 opposition, although there the point of contrast is different. Calvin’s 
 construction of this declaration and its meaning is as follows: Duo 
 sunt hie consideranda, promissionem salutis Abrahze datam ad omnes 
 pertinere, qui ad eum carnis originem referunt, quia omnibus sine 
 exceptione offeratur, atque hac ratione jure appellari federis cum 
 
CHAPTER Ix; v. 9, 10. 811 
 
 Abrahamo concussi heredes. Nam quum Dominus voluerit foedus 
 suum non minus in Ismaele et Esau quam in Isaac et Jacob assignari, 
 apparet non fuisse penitus ab ipso alienos, nisi forte pro nihilo habeas 
 circumcisionem. Alterum est, filios promissionis proprie nuncupari, 
 in quibus ipsius virtus et eflicacia exstet. Ea ratione hic negat Pau- 
 lus omnes Abrahe filios esse filios Dei.’’ ‘This distinction between 
 the gratia efficax et ineflicax is, however, totally inapplicable, as it 
 is manifest that here the subject spoken of, is solely the bestowal of 
 external privileges (such as the Theocracy), and not the influences 
 of Divine grace upon the soul; not to mention that the Calvinistic 
 exposition does not accord with the connection. ‘The Remonstrants 
 justly remark: agitur hic non de datione fidei sed justitiz. ‘The 
 expression τέχνα τῇ Θεᾷ denotes those members of the 'Theocracy who 
 are acceptable to God, and obtain entrance into the Messias’ king- 
 dom. Λογίζεσθαι zug τι, to look upon as something, like the Hebrew 
 5 awn). 
 
 V.9. Paul brings a text from the Old Testament to vouch that 
 Isaac’s birth really was the consequence of a promise of grace. ‘The 
 passage is from Gen. xviii. 10,14. In the LXX. the translation does 
 not run precisely the same way. For χατὰ τὸν καιφὸν τοῦτον, there 
 stands in the Hebrew, the difficult phrase ΠΤ ny2, which the LXX. 
 render xara τὸν xacedv τοῦτον εἰς Seas, Onkelos: [5 pI |W. The 
 likeliest grammatical explanation is that 7m is adjective Gen. fem. 
 as Drusius expounds: hoe tempore vivente, 7. 6. redeunte. ‘The 
 same phrase returns 2 Kings iv. 16. 
 
 V.10. The instance adduced of the election of Isaac was, doubt- 
 less, decisive enough, more especially considering that Ishmael, as 
 first born, ought to have had a prior title. Still the reason of Isaac’s 
 vocation to be Founder of the Theocracy, might have been sought, 
 not in God’s free purpose, but in some circumstance connected with 
 the children; as, for example, in the fact that Ishmael was born ofa 
 different mother, and she a slave, a haughty and impious woman, &c. 
 For that reason, Paul shows, in a still more pertinent example, how 
 God’s purposes recognize no claims whatever on the part of man. 
 Rebecca bore Jacob and Esau, twin brothers, consequently both had 
 the same father and the same mother, nay, Esau was in this instance 
 also the first born, but nevertheless God made the call to be founder , 
 of the Theocracy be transferred to Jacob. Several expositors, such 
 as Ambrose, Arminius, Hunnius, Cornelius a Lapide and others, 
 suppose that here also Jacob and Esau have a typical signification. 
 And, doubtless, that opinion might be evinced somewhat in the fol- 
 lowing way: Ishmael and Esau are both first-born sons, both boisterous 
 and wild, both excluded from the Theocracy, both expelled from 
 their home. Isaac and Jacob are both younger brothers, both gen- 
 tle and meek, both founders of the Theocracy, and inhabitants of 
 Canaan, as prefigurative, first, of the gospel promises, and secondly, 
 of the βασιλεία τοῦ Xevorou in glory. In this way is the type under- 
 stood by Barnabas, Epp. c. 12. p. 48. ed. Cot., by Tertullian, adv. 
 
312 CHAPTER Ix. V 10. 
 
 Mare. 1. III. p. 412. ed. Rig., and likewise by Cyprian, Testimon. 
 adv. Judeos. Although, however, the matter admits such a repre- 
 sentation, still Paul has not here brought the typical sense promi- 
 nently forward. Neither was this possible, inasmuch as the election 
 of Jacob, he not having been born on the ground of so weighty a 
 promise as Isaac, was not in a typical point of view of such a sort as 
 to demonstrate any thing in favour of the free justification of be- 
 lievers. 
 
 ov μόνον δέ, Heightening of the proof. ‘'Theodoret: Ei vduifeus, 
 φησὶ, διὰ τὴν Σάῤῥαν προτιμηθῆναν τὸν ᾿Ισαὰκ cov ᾿Ισμαὴλ: τί ἂν εὔπῃς 
 περὶ τῆς Ῥεβέκκας. We have not only to fill up a blank after οὐ μόνον 
 δέ, but to suppose an ἀνακόλουθον. After od μόνον δέ many supply 
 ᾿Αβραὰμ τοῦτο ἔπαθεν, as Beza; others ᾿Αβεαὰμ τοῦτο δείκνυσιν, as 
 Baumgarten, in which case it would be unnecessary to explain the 
 word Rebecca by an ἀναχόλουθον. It is, however, more probable, 
 that after the ascending μόνον, we have merely to supply what is 
 usually supplied, a τοῦτο, as is done by Luther; ‘not only is such 
 the case,”’ (and this τοῦτο we might explain with Theophylact: ᾿Επὸ 
 τοὺ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦτο tous, or better ἐπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αβεαὰμ τοῦτο ὑδοις.) and that 
 Rebecca, instead of the nominative, should stand in the dative, see- 
 ing it ought properly to be construed with the ἐῤῥήθη inv. 12. This 
 is the way Castalio translates, Rebecce, and at v. 12. he again takes 
 up the dative: Rebeccee inquam dictum est; so also Luther. We 
 cannot suppose, with Schiéttgen, that, according to the analogy of 
 the Hebrew, in which a nominativus absol. can precede and be re- 
 ferred to by a subsequent pronoun in the dative, Rebecca is here to 
 be rendered: Quod attinet ad Rebeccam. It is rather evident from 
 the yée at the commencement of ver. 11. that Paul has let the con- 
 struction slip. It will not answer, whatever way the sentence from 
 ἀλλὼ καὶ may be conceived, to supply the name Σάῤῥα after od μόνον 
 dé, as, so long ago, Ambrose and the Syrian did, for the allusion to 
 the Patriarch himself predominates so greatly in the example of Isaac, 
 that Sarah is thrown into the shade. 
 
 ἐξ ἑνός. ‘The Vulgate translates, ex uno concubitu, and Origen, 
 Augustine and others, expound conformably. The view is defended 
 by Havercamp, but, to say nothing of other objections, it would, in 
 that case, be impossible to know what to supply, for the masculine 
 κοῦτος has not the signification of consuetudo maritalis. It is also 
 improper to supply yedvor with Zeger and Hammond. The most 
 natural way is that adopted of old by the Syriac, viz. to construe ἑνός 
 as the masculine genitive with ’Icadx, so that the sense is: There 
 was but one mother and one father. 
 
 V. 11. However clearly the connection, as hitherto explained, de- 
 monstrates that Paul cannot, in the three following verses, intend to 
 deliver the doctrine of absolute election, his words have nevertheless 
 
 * If you deem that it was on Sarah’s account Isaac was preferred to Ish- 
 mael, what can you say about Rebecca’? 
 
CHAPTER IX. v. 11. 313 
 
 been expounded to that effect, and when the conrection and analogia 
 Jidet are overlooked, it is very possible to doso. Baldwin: Hoc est 
 illud mare periculosum, in quo, qui cynosuram verbi divini, quod 
 omne consilium Dei nobis revelavit, non attendit, naufragium fidei 
 facit. Augustine, at an earlier period of his life, had laboured in his 
 Prop. 60, and more especially ad Simpl. 1. I. q. 2, to show that these 
 verses cannot speak of adecretum absolutum. He afterwards retracted 
 his opinion, however, and endeavoured to establish the contrary, Re- 
 tract. 1. I. c. 23; De Predest. Sanct. c. iv. 16, 17, 18. Among the 
 defenders of the doctrine of absolute election are principally to be 
 compared, Pareus, Dub. 6, ad. ἢ. ο.; Polanus, Syloge dissert. de 
 praedest. p. 664; Calvin himself, Instit. ]. III. c. 21, § 7, sqq.; and 
 Mark, Exercitationes, ad. N. et V. 'T. Exercit. IV. Among the 
 opponents of the decretum absolutum, see in particular Gerhard, Loci 
 Theol: T. 1V.; Baldwin, Obs. ad. ἢ. οἱ; Arminius, Acta Dordracena 
 Remonstr. p. 113—129; Limborch on the text; Deyling, Obs. Sacre. 
 T.1V. Obs. V. against Mark’s Exercit. 1V. As the defenders of 
 the decretum can only be refuted by a careful exposition of particulars 
 in unison with the connection, we at once proceed to this. 
 
 μήπω yae γεννηθέντων. The yae introduces the ἀνακόλουθον; ‘To 
 γεννηθέντων We have to supply τῶν παίδων. In place of xaxov some 
 codices read φαῦλον. In order to understand this verse, we must 
 conceive ver. 12, as preceding it. The sum of both is as follows: 
 ‘Their fate was determined before their external relations or 
 actions could give them opportunity of establishing a claim.” Here, 
 however, arises the momentous question, what kind of fate was it 
 which was determined? Surely not their eternal happiness or dam- 
 nation? Ver. 13 shews that privileges and distinctions in general 
 are the subject spoken of, just as at Mal. 1. 3, mention is made merely 
 of outward blessing of all kinds, partaken by the sons of Jacob; but 
 the connection and the foregoing example of Isaac likewise lead us 
 to conclude, that along with the decree respecting outward privileges 
 in general, the theocratical vocation of both individuals, and of the 
 nations that descended from them, was ἴδ) a more particular manner 
 decided. Independent of claims which Esau might have advanced 
 to the honour of propagating by his seed the Theocracy and other 
 advantages connected with it, God vouchsafed this prerogative, to- ’ 
 gether with the occupancy of the Theocratical country, to Jacob. 
 Now, inasmuch as the doctrine involved in that history was meant 
 to show the Jews the connection in which they stood with Christ, 
 doubtless what took place must also have some application to them. 
 That, however, will not consist in this, that the instance demonstrates, 
 that God, according to his absolute decree, gives faith in Christ to 
 some, but denies it to others, or, that as Esau, of God’s mere good 
 pleasure, was shut out from the actual, and consequently, likewise, 
 from the typical Canaan, so are many arbitrarily excluded from the 
 kingdom of Christ. Much rather does the bearing upon the Jews 
 consist in this, that just as God, without acknowledging right, con- 
 
 40 
 
314 CHAPTER Ix. V. 1]. 
 
 ferred the outward Theocracy and various advantages upon whom he 
 chose, so also does he now convey the inward Theocracy to, or per- 
 mits to enter therein, the person whom he chooses. And, in fact— 
 for this is the argument against the Jews—he permits those only to 
 enter, who acknowledge the despised Nazarene, as the anointed of 
 the Lord, and seek salvation by closing with his redemption. Jerome, 
 Ep. 120, ad Hedibiam, qu. 10, ed. Vall.:—non salvat (nos) Deus 
 irrationabiliter et absque judicii veritate, sed causis praecedentibus, 
 quia alii non susceperunt filium Dei, alii vero recipere sua sponte 
 voluerunt. See especially ‘Turretin, ad ἢ. 1. Accordingly, the 
 Apostle does not even touch the relation betwixt what is done by man, 
 and what by God, in the work of conversion, and we again find 
 nothing more than an application of that old Testament history to the 
 New Testament dalio justitizx, not however fidet. 
 
 ἵνα ἡ κατ᾽ ἐχλογὴν πεόθεσις μένῃ, Statement of the design which lies 
 in that prediction of God. Mévew applied to purposes, means, like 
 the Hebrew 1ny, fo have permanence. (Palairet brings examples 
 from profane authors.) The eternal purpose of God seems then to 
 be unchangeable to man when God in time, and ere any thing has 
 occurred to make him alter it, makes-it known to man. IedGeous, as 
 at 6. viii. 28, means the purpose of God, and, indeed, the word refers 
 positively to the advantages imparted to Jacob; Esau’s exclusion, 
 however, from a variety of tokens of grace, and especially from the 
 Theocracy, is not represented as a positive transaction. That such 
 is the case appears from the circumstance, that wherever a πρόθεσις» 
 in regard to man, is ascribed to God, it universally denotes a pur- 
 pose of salvation on the part of God, Rom. viii. 28. Eph. iii. 11. 
 2 Tim. i. 9. Just as, in point of fact, the exclusion of men from the 
 outward as well as from the inward kingdom of God, is no act of 
 God’s, but merely a preterition. This πρόθεσις is further defined by 
 the addition xar’ ἐχλογήν. Now that may be very variously taken 
 up. First, there are some, as Origen, Grotius, Venema, Wolf and 
 Koppe, who understand it objectively, as designation of the object, 
 what the πρόθεσις respects; and, in truth, not unfrequently in Greek, 
 xara is to be rendered, in respect to. Grotius: Voluntas libera Dei 
 in iis que pertinent ad prelationem. ‘Then again there are others 
 who take this addition subjectively, as descriptive of the nature of 
 the πεόθεσις; and this meaning of substances, when joined by xara 
 to another noun, is at least the mere common, κατά with the accusa- 
 tive being used to form adjectives. Here again, however, the various 
 expositors divide in their conception of the meaning of ἐκλογή. 
 Chrysostom, Photius and Ambrose, understand by it, God’s electing, 
 according to the actions which he foresaw. Photius: Εἰπὼν xar’ 
 ἐχλογὴν:» ἔδειξεν OTe καὶ διέφερον ἀλλήλων. οὐδεὺς Yue ἐκλέγεται Prego ἀφ᾽ 
 ἑτέρου; εἰ μή τι αὐτοῦ διαλλάσσοι.ἔ ‘This exposition is connected with 
 
 * By the words κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, he shows that they differed from each other; 
 for no one elects one of two before the other, unless for some difference. 
 
CHAPTER Ix. V. ll. 315 
 
 that which, in an unnatural way, the same expositors put upon οὐκ 
 ἐξ Yeyeav, viz. “not of works already performed, but yet of works 
 foreseen,”’ which is wholly contrary to the connection. Chr. Schmid 
 proposes to take ἐχλογή as Synonymous with ayany, just as ἐχλεχτός 
 is equivalent to ἀγαπητός, and translates: ut appareret Dei decretum 
 benevolentia niti. But ἐχλογήν except where it stands as abstr. pro 
 concr. can never be totally equivalent to ἀγάπη. Ernesti justly ob- 
 serves, Institut. Interp. N. 'T. P. ii. c. 8, that the Hebrew endeavours 
 to illustrate the idea of freedom by that of choice, that Josephus also, 
 De Bello. Jud. 1. Il. c. 1, § 14, uses éxaoyy in the sense of freedom, 
 (The passage treats of the Sadducees, and says: φασὶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνθρώτιων 
 ἐχλογῇ τὸ τε xaxdv καὶ τὸ καλὸν meoxeLcbat. In Plutarch, ἐχλογή 1S 
 found employed in the same way,) and, accordingly, that here too 
 the xar’ ixaoyjv must indicate still more the absoluteness of the πρό- 
 θεσις. Now, this grammatical exposition is adopted by anti-predes- 
 tinarians, as well as by predestinarians, and, in this respect, there is 
 no difference betwixt the two parties. Calvin explains: propositum 
 Dei quod sola ejus beneplacito continetur, and Bengel: in sola elec- 
 tione liberrima πρόθεσις suam rationem sitam habet. Latine diceres, 
 propositum Dei electivum. Very different, however, is the doctrinal 
 bearing connected with this idea of an absolutely free choice by the 
 Calvinists on the one hand, and by the Lutherans, Arminians and 
 many Catholics on the other. The Calvinists, with whom the notion 
 of God’s freedom passes too easily into that of arbitrariness, under- 
 stood under zxaoyy, as was done by Augustine in his day, that unre- 
 stricted liberty of choice, on the part of God, in virtue of which he 
 ean impart faith to whomsoever he will, while their opponents under- 
 stand by it, that freedom of choice whereby he can choose and appoint 
 what conditions he will, on which to vouchsafe admission into his 
 kingdom. In compliance with the doctrinal conception which Au- 
 gustine and Calvin form of the word éxaoyz, the former thus expounds 
 it, (Augustine c. duas Ep. Pell. |. II. c. 7): Electionem quippe dixit, 
 ubi Deus non ab alio factum, quod eligat invenit, sed quod inveniat 
 ipse facit. Here, also, this exposition is refuted by the fact, that the 
 Apostle (after Mal. i. 3), is speaking of the dispensation of external 
 tokens of grace alone, and among these, of the external theocracy, 
 but assuredly not at all of inward operations of grace, that hence, the 
 New Testament subject to which that of the Old refers, is not faith 
 in the scheme of salvation for all mankind, but this scheme itself, 
 which God, according to his free purpose, has indicated as the door 
 through which all must pass, who wish to have an interest in the 
 kingdom of Christ. The construction of Paul’s entire expression 
 by the Lutherans, many Catholics and the Arminians, is the same, 
 only that the latter, as usual, expound more historico-grammatically. 
 Limborch: πεόθεσις est propositum quod Deus fecit cum quadam 
 electione, vel per modum electionis, quo unum pretulit alteri. Electio 
 enim discrimen aliquod et prelationem unius pre altero includit; 
 
316 CHAPTER Ix. v. 1]. 
 
 nempe propositum quo Deus constituit sibi jus reservare declarandi 
 quovis tempore, quos et quales pro semine Abrahami habere velit. 
 οὐχ ἐξ ἔργων. ‘There are two kinds of false evasion to which the 
 opponents of the decretum absolutum have here recourse. Several 
 suppose that Paul merely refuses to acknowledge works performed, 
 as conditional ground of election, but by no means intends to exclude 
 them in so far as God, from the bias of men’s will, foresaw them. So 
 in particular Photius: Εἰπὼν οὐκ ἐξ teyav, παξέστησε TO μέγεθος τῆς 
 χλήσεως καὶ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ; OTL καὶ μηδὲν πραξάντων ἐχλέγεταυ καὶ 
 πιδοσχαλεῦται; ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μηδὲν πραξάντων ἐχλέγεται; πὼς ἐκλέγεται; ἢ μὲν Ya 
 ξχλογὴ ἐπὶ τῶν τι γίνεται διαφερόντων. οἱ δὲ μηδὲν πράξαντες, τί διαφέ- 
 Covet; καὶ πάνυ. ἀνθξωπίνοις μὲν yae ὀφθαλμοῖς ἐπεὶ οὐδὲν ἔπραξαν; οὐδὲν 
 διαφέξουσιν Sera δὲ πδογνώσει τοῦ μέλλοντος, πολλὰ διαφέξειν, καὺ ὃ μὲν εὐα- 
 ξέστησε τῷ Θεῷ; ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἔτι. So likewise Theodoret: οὐχ ἐνέμεινεν 6 
 δεὸς τῶν πραγμάτων τὴν πεῖραν. And so no less Augustine, Enchir. 
 6. 98. Pelagius, (Compare particularly Julian’s declarations in 
 Augustine, opus imp. con. Jul. 1. I. c. 131, Ambrose, Heumann, 
 (Philo too, Alleg. 1. III. p. 77, explains God’s saying in this way, 
 just like Pelagius). ‘This exposition, however, is altogether un- 
 natural; and not without reason does’ Peter Martyr accuse its advo- 
 cates, eos adverso flumine navigare. See also Augustine speaking 
 against it, c. duas Ep. Pel. 1. 11. 6. 7, 5.15. On the other hand, there 
 are some, especially Augustine, in Prop. 60, and Simplicius, 1. 1, 6. 
 2, who would exclude works, in as far as they emanate from the love 
 vouchsafed by God, but would not exclude faith on account of which 
 that love was first bestowed. In the Prop. Augustine says: Quid 
 ergo eligit Deus?’ Si enim cui vult donat Spiritum Sanctum per quem 
 dilectio bonum operatur, quomodo elegit cui donat? Si enim nullo 
 merito non est electio; Aquales enim omnes sunt ante meritum, nec 
 potest in rebus omnino equalibus electio nominari. Sed quoniam 
 Spiritus Sanctus non datur nisi credentibus, non quidem Deus eligit 
 opera que ipse largitur, sed tamen eligit fidem. Quia nisi quisque 
 credat in eum, et in accipiendi voluntate permaneat, non accipit do- 
 num Dei. Augustine himself, at a subsequent period, rejected this 
 shift, having learned, as he says, from Eph. vi. 23, that man derives 
 faith likewise from God. Now, doubtless, from this point, the shift 
 might be assailed, seeing that genuine belief of the heart presupposes 
 an operation of the Divine Spirit in man. We cannot but imagine 
 
 * By saying “not of works,” the Apostle exhibits the magnitude of God’s 
 calling and grace, inasmuch as He calls and elects from among persons, who 
 have done nothing. But if it be from among such that he elects, how is there 
 any election at all? For election takes place among objects which are at 
 least somewhat different; Wherein, however, lies the difference of persons 
 who have done nothing? ’Tis all true. To human eyes, having done nothing, 
 they differ in nothing. But in the divine foreknowledge which extends to the 
 
 future, there is a mighty difference. The one has pleased God, while the 
 other has not. 
 
CHAPTER IX. ν. Ll. 317 
 
 faith to depend upon that inward compulsion, which forces itself upon 
 a man’s religious and moral sense, and urges him in this way to yield 
 his assent. But such compulsion is the work of God, which a man 
 may resist, evade, but never call forth within himself. ‘This disputed 
 point of doctrine, however, does not here come at all into question, 
 inasmuch as it is proved by the connection, that the Apostle does not 
 explain the relation between what is divine and what human in the 
 work of conversion. It suffices for the exegesis of the passage be- 
 fore us to say: “" Works confer no title to the acquisition of the 
 Theocracy, God can impart admission to that to whomsoever he 
 will.”” Elsewhere it is laid down who they are upon whom, in the 
 times of the New Testament, he does choose to confer it. On the 
 other hand, the Predestinarians are to blame, who, imitating Augus- 
 tine, (in his later writings, De predest. sanct.) follow the Vulgate in 
 the division of the words, and construe the οὐχ ἐξ-ττκαλοῦντος not with 
 what goes before, but with ἐῤῥήθη, by which means the pretended 
 predestinarian sense is brought somewhat more boldly out. Luther 
 likewise expresses this connection. It is, however, highly unnatural. 
 Much rather is the clause a more precise definition of the sort and 
 manner of the πεόθεσις of God. ‘The éx τοῦ χαλοῦντος denotes that 
 God’s purposes are not to be restrained by claims urged on the part 
 of men. Were we to tear the declaration from its connection with 
 the context, and refer it to eternal bliss or perdition, and were we 
 further to regard neither the usus loquendi nor the analogia fidei, it 
 would then, to be sure, be possible to demonstrate from it the decre- 
 tum absolutum. In that case, we might include the not repelling 
 the persuasive influence of the Holy Spirit as among the works, and 
 say that man, according to the unconditional good pleasure of God, 
 is converted by irresistible grace, and so brought into the spiritual 
 kingdom of Christ. Not only, however, as we already showed, 
 would this be altogether contrary to the connection, it would be as 
 much contrary to Paul’s usus loquendi and the analogia fidei. For 
 in respect of the former, it is justly observed in the Act. Syn. Dordr. 
 Remonstr. as follows: “ With Paul, the expressions ἐξ ἔργων, κατὰ 
 σάρκα, κατ᾽ ὀφείλημα; ἐξ Yeyav νόμου are always equivalent, Ubi enim 
 Joquitur Scriptura ad hune modum, ut dicat fidem dari ex aut non ex 
 operibus.”’ (It treats solely of the datio justitie not fidei.) ‘ Ubi 
 aut quando hee questio mota est? Contra scriptura N. "δ. passim, 
 et imprimis epistolae Paulinae, abunde agunt de imputando justitiam. 
 Unde etiam manifeste liquere potest, quo pacto propositum Dei se- 
 cundum electionem est, aut cum electione conjunctum, ita videlicet 
 ut ex Judaeis peccatoribus eos eligat, qui sunt ex fide Christi, iis re- 
 lictis, qui ex lege aut ex operibus sunt.’’ And as to the analogia 
 fidei, Melancthon truly remarks, ‘There are two propositions so very 
 demonstrable from Scripture, that we cannot avoid placing them in 
 front of every inquiry into predestination: 1. Quod Deus non sit 
 causa peccati. 2. Quod promissio universalis. ‘To the passages 
 
318 CHAPTER Ix. v. 11, 12, 13. 
 
 which vouch the universality of the promise—and that certainly not 
 in mere semblance—Ez. xxxiii. 11. 1 Tim. ii. 4. Tit. ii, 11. 
 Rom. v. 12—19.° 2 Pet. iii. 9; we may add those which clearly 
 represent the will to show mercy on God’s part, and the want of de- 
 sire and the resistance on the part of men: Is. Ixv. 2. Jer. iii. 12. 
 Matt. xxiii. 37. Acts vii. 51. Heb. iii. 8, 15. Acts xiii. 46. 
 Memorable are the words of Calvin upon 2 Pet. iii. 9: Sed hic queri 
 potest, 51 neminem Deus perire velit, cur tam multi pereunt? Res- 
 pondeo, non de arcano Dei consilio hie fieri mentionem quo destinati 
 sunt reprobi in suum exitium, sed tantum de voluntate que nobis in 
 Evangelio patefit. (And why should we not believe just what 
 stands in the Gospel?) Omnibus enim promiscue manum illic por- 
 rigit Deus, sed eos tantum apprehendit ut ad se ducat, quos ante 
 mundum conditum elegit. Alas for the poor reprobate! How God 
 mocks them, stretching out his hand and yet refusing to draw them 
 to himself. 
 
 V.12. This saying was made to Rebecca, when the two children 
 struggled in her womb, and she wished to have the thing explained, 
 Gen. xxv. 22, 23. The words 6 μείζων and ὁ ἐλάσσων do not refer to 
 Esau and Jacob, but immediately to tlie two nations that were re- 
 spectively to descend from them. ‘This the parallelism in that pass- 
 age shows, the first member of the verse being γ᾽ 0870089. In 
 point of fact too Esau never served Jacob, as Augustine justly ob- 
 serves. See Deyling, Observ. Τ᾽. IV. Obs. V. ρ. 715. From the 
 circumstance that the declaration by God does not refer to the indi- 
 viduals, it becomes still more manifest, that there can be no mention 
 here of the communication to them of the gratia irresistibilis, but that 
 it respects solely the freedom with which God imparts a right to the 
 outward 'Theocracy, and the privileges therewith connected, and that 
 the inference of the Apostle is simply as follows: It is thus in God’s 
 power, without recognizing a claim which Israel desired to enforce, 
 to appoint conditions of entrance into the new kingdom of God, 
 under which all believing heathen, equally with believing Israel, 
 may obtain salvation. Excluded from the divine commonwealth, 
 the Idumzans were actually, as the prediction says, made slaves by 
 David, 2 Sam. vill. 14, subdued by the Maccabees, 1 Macc. x. 27,31, 
 and finally brought wholly into subjection by Hyrcanus. Josephus, 
 Archeol. 1. xii. c. 9. § 1. 6. 15.§4. Compare also the observations 
 on ver. 6. 
 
 V.13. The Apostle quotes another saying from the Old Testa- 
 ment in order to confirm what goes before. This time it is taken 
 from Mal. i. 3. Jehovah there, by the mouth of his prophet, up- 
 braids the people of Israel with having forsaken and despitefully. 
 entreated Him, although upon them he had showered down blessings, 
 whereas the Edomites, who yet sprang from the same progenitor, 
 were living under oppression. Accordingly that saying too speaks 
 of the nation standing without the Theocracy, and not of indivi- 
 
CHAPTER Ix. v. 13, 14,15. 319 
 
 duals; nay, the subject is not so much as reception into the external 
 Theocracy, far less inward conversion, but outward prosperity 
 alone. 
 
 Nevertheless, the Calvinists, and in their sense likewise certain 
 Catholics, like Dionysius Carthusianus, remark upon the passage: 
 Odisse est velle gratiam juste subtrahere. So too Salmeron, Disp. 
 4, inc. 9. 
 
 μισεὺν Stands here not positively but privatively. It marks merely 
 a miner degree of love for Esau than for Jacob. When a Hebrew 
 compares a less with a greater love, he is wont to call the former 
 hatred. See Gen. xxix. 30, 31. Deut. xxi. 15. Prov. xiii. 24. Matt. 
 vi. 24. Luke xiv. 26. (Comp. Matt. x. 37.) John xii. 25. Com- 
 pare Glassius Rhet. sacra. 1, III. tr. 8, can. 19. It is shocking to 
 hear the gross predestinarian explain this hatred, as if it were a per- 
 sonal antipathy of God towards Esau, in consequence of which he 
 withheld from him his grace. ‘To maintain such a misanthropy on 
 the part of God, when the New Testament extols his φιλανθρωπία, 
 Tit. ii. 4, is to be met with by the saying: ἀγαπᾷς yde τὰ ὄντα πάντα, 
 καὶ οὐδὲν βδελύσσῃ ὧν ἐποίησας, οὐδὲ yae ἂν μισὼν τι κατεσκεύασας: Wis- 
 dom of Sol. xi. 24. So long as ἃ creature has in it any thing divine, 
 that creature God cannot hate, for τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἥδεται. Now 
 so long as there exists in the rational and moral being a manifestation 
 of conscience, there is certainly something divine in it. Every man, 
 accordingly, in whom conscience has not been wholly effaced, is 
 necessarily an object of divine love. How it lies with God to invest 
 one individual with fewer, and another with more privileges upon 
 earth, considering that every inferiority and tribulation may prove 
 beneficial to the soul, Sirach declares, xxxvi. 11, 12, in a way simi- 
 lar to Paul. 
 
 ῬΑ ab lie 
 
 GOD HAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO IMPART TO WHOM, AND IN WHAT-~ 
 SOEVER WAY, HE PLEASES, THE TOKENS OF HIS LOVE. ACCORDING- 
 LY HE IS ALSO FREE TO PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS OF JUSTIFICATION, 
 UNDER WHICH THE GENTILES NO LESS, NAY EVEN MORE NUMEROUSLY, 
 THAN THE JEWS, OBTAIN MERCY. v. 14—24. 
 
 V.14. Result of what has been said. To charge God with un- 
 righteousness, would be contrary to the declaration, Deut. xxxii. 4, 
 as it is to the entire doctrinal system of the Old Testament. This 
 can never, therefore, be the scope of Paul. 
 
 Ver. 15. In order to evince that the freedom, ascribed in the pre- 
 
320 CHAPTER PX vied Os 
 
 ceding context to God, supposes no unrighteousness in him, the 
 Apostle shows that the Scripture, in express words, represents God’s 
 mercy as independent of all human deserts and claims. Erasmus, 
 accordingly, states the connection in perfect conformity to the design 
 of Paul: Absit ut ejusmodi cogitatio subeat animum cujusque, neque 
 sic interpretetur, quod in Exodo Moysi loquitur Deus. ‘To oppose 
 the gainsayer with so stern a Scripture was harsh, but the Apostle 
 seems to delight in assailing, with iron front, the pretensions of 
 righteousness by works. Bengel pertinently observes: Alia est sen- 
 tentia verborum Pauli, qua satisfacit responsatoribus operariis, alia 
 mitior latet in enigmate verborum pro fidelibus. Etiam in sacris 
 scripturis, presertim ubi a thesi ventum est ad hypothesin, za ἤθη» 
 non modo οἱ λόγοι, expendi debent. Et tamen commentarius nullus 
 ita planus esse potest, quem facilius quam Pauli textum intelligat 
 operarius. ‘The Apostle’s argumentation is what the Rabbins call 
 my m1, confirming by another, any saying doubtful to the adversary. 
 A want of simplicity and acuteness seduced several expositors, de- 
 sirous of removing the decretum absolutum from this and the follow- 
 ing verses, to cut the knot, by putting them, up to the 20th, into the 
 mouth of a Jew, imbued with the Pharisaic principles of a fate, and 
 here brought forward as the opponent of the Apostle; so that it would 
 be such a person, who adduces the following texts as objections 
 against Paul. Origen was the first to adopt this course. So Chry- 
 sostom in regard to ver. 16, Jerome ad Hedib. qu. 10. (This father, and 
 so likewise Photius, strangely enough, in the 20th verse, thus, some- 
 what unskilfully, make Paul reply to the opposer of predestination: Ex 
 eo quod respondes Deo et caluniniam facis, ostendis te esse liberi arbi- 
 trii, et facere quod vis, vel tacere vel loqui{!] So too Camerarius, 
 Kohlreif, but in particular Heumann, who takes great credit to him- 
 self for the exposition. Wolf long ago stated many solid objections 
 toit. The following are counter arguments: 1. The Apostle is wont, 
 in refutation, never to be satisfied with a μὴ γένοιτο, but follows it up 
 with a proposition by which the opponent is repelled, Rom. iil. 6: ων 
 “St; vi. 2,2; xi.1. 2. It would then be necessary with Heumann, 
 to render the yae in τῷ yae Maoy, but. ‘This is contrary to the rules 
 of the language. It may indeed be conjoined with ἀλλά, as enim 
 with at; even then, however, it is not per se, part. adv. 3. Paul 
 never makes his opponent’s arguments with texts of Scripture; these 
 he keeps for himself. 4. In ver. 19 the οὖν indicates clearly a fresh 
 objection on the part of the adversary, which has been derived no 
 farther back than from ver. 17 and 18. Had the preceding words 
 been one and all the opponent’s, this zeecs οὖν would have been 
 wholly redundant. 5. The defenders of this exposition gain nothing, 
 for the words which, by their own admission, were delivered by 
 Paul, ver. 10—13, are no less strong than the following. ‘The text 
 adduced«by Paul is taken from Ex. xxxiii. 19, and quoted literally 
 as it stands in the LXX. It there occurs in the following connection. 
 
CHAPTER IX. v. 15. 321 
 
 Moses had entertained a wish to behold a preternatural manifestation 
 of the Divine Being. ‘To a certain extent God vouchsafed it to him, 
 but appends the words before us in order that the patriarch might not 
 be uplifted, but might understand that so great a privilege had been 
 imparted to him by free grace alone, and not upon the ground of his 
 own worthiness. Accerdingly the Hebrew words 13n and om, to 
 which the Greek éacecy and ocxceveew answer, are rather to be trans- 
 lated, **to vouchsafe tokens of love and favour.’’ (Clericus, ad 
 Exod. i. 1, translates: favebo cui faveo; the sense faveo is correct, 
 but the explanation which Clericus gives of the tenses in Hebrew, 
 as if God means to say: Henceforward I shall be gracious to those 
 to whom I am so now, is improbable. ‘The two tenses here are 
 aorists.) In that way we should avoid being led by the Greek and 
 English terms to suppose, that a positive temporal or even eternal 
 reprobatio was spoken of; as if it stood in God’s absolute good plea- 
 sure what souls he chooses to let perish in their sins, without yield- 
 ing them any help. ‘The repetition of the verb, with the relative, in 
 the minor proposition, expresses, according to a Hebrew idiom, the 
 unconditional nature of the transaction. So 2Sam. xv. 20, pin 
 ὨΝΤΦΝ Op pins), “I go whither I may.” So likewise Exod. xvi. 
 23. So frequently in Arabic, the phrase, ‘He did what he did,’”’ 
 ὃ. 6. what he chose to do. Such forms of speech as these are parti- 
 eularly common in Vita Timuri, Auct. Ebn Arabschah, ed. Golius, 
 p- 6, ete. Accordingly, the sense of the divine declaration is cor- 
 rectly given by Hunnius: Nemo poterit sibi demereri meam miseri- 
 cordiam, ex mero beneplacito voluntatis mez misereor cujus misereor, 
 sine respectu propriz dignitatis hominum, aut humani meriti inter- 
 ventu. He proceeds to add in regard to the New Testament period: 
 Cujus autem Dominus velit misereri, id non opus est ex humana 
 ratione divinare, aut conjecturis colligere, aut abyssum majestatis 
 scrutari aut in celum ascendere, sed prope est verbum fidei revelans 
 nobis, quos Dominus certo misericordia sua dignari velit. Bengel: 
 Nemini licet cum Deo ex syngrapha agere. ‘The bearing of the 
 declaration, moreover, upon God’s relationship to the Jews, Lim- 
 borch places still more distinctly in the light: Inde liquet injustum 
 non esse Deum in eligendis beneficiis suis libertate uti, eaque largiri 
 eni vult, idque vel sine ulla conditione, vel sub aliqua eaque qualicun- 
 que ili placuerit, atque istos a beneficiis suis excludere quotquot 
 conditionem a se prescriptam rejiciunt, aut acceptare recusant. Quia 
 enim miserationes et beneficia sunt quid indebitum, ideo non tantum 
 ipsa beneficia, sed et conditio, qua prestita beneficia obtineri possint, 
 a benefactoris arbitrio dependent. It is to be considered as an artful 
 subterfuge to evade the doctrine of predestination, when even with 
 regard to this declaration of Paul’s, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo- 
 phylact, dScumenius, Pelagius and Ambrose suppose, that God used 
 these words only in respect of those whose good works he foresaw. 
 Pelagius: Hoe recto sensu ita intelligitur; illius miserebor quem 
 prescivi posse misericordiam-promereri, ut jam tune illius sim mi- 
 41 
 
322 CHAPTER Ix. v. 15, 16. 
 
 sertus. Comp. the forced Pelagian interpretation of the text in 
 Augustine, c. Julian, |. I. c. 131.* 
 
 V.16. From God’s words to Moses, the Apostle infers, that all 
 human exertions are unable to achieve worthiness, and with that a 
 title to tokens of love, on the part of God. Bengel: Non quo irri- 
 tum sit recte velle et, quod magis est, recte currere sive contendere, 
 sed quod velle et currere operariorum nil efliciat. So does the 
 Apostle speak, verse 30 and 31, of a not following after, on the part 
 of the Gentiles, which yet attains the end, and of a following after 
 by the self-righteous Jews, which does not; and immediately at ver. 
 32, adds the cause why the following after of the Jews was of no 
 avail, viz. because they sought to attain by the Zeya νόμου, what is 
 attainable by the πίστις alone. ‘That the will must be present on the 
 part of the individual to be forgiven, and that his not willing hinders his 
 receiving forgiveness, is declared at Matt. xxiii. 37. John v. 40. They 
 who desire to obtain mercy, must run, 1 Cor.ix.21. Heb. xii. 1. 
 Nay, by violent desire, must the sinner force his way into the king- 
 dom of heaven, Matt. xi. 12. (For such is the exposition which 
 the language there demands.) Compare what St. Paul says of 
 himself, 1 Cor. ix. 26. Phil. iii. 13.- 2‘Tim. iv.'7. When besides 
 all this, the compassion of God is placed in direct contrast with hu- 
 man endeavours, it clearly results, that under human endeavour is 
 meant a proud, self-sufficient endeavour, which trusts to establish a 
 claim not upon God’s compassion, but upon his justice. Imme- 
 diately afterwards Pharaoh is brought forward as an instance of such 
 an obstinate running in ways of one’s own. Jerome, Ep. 133, ad 
 Ctesiph. ed. Vall.: Velle et currere meum est, sed ipsum meum sine 
 
 * In the review spoken of in the preface, the author thus states his present 
 views upon this passage: “In ver. 15, ἐλεήσω ὃν dv ἐλεῶ κτλ.» the emphasis is 
 usually laid upon the repetition, and considered as expressive of indepen- 
 dence and mere good pleasure, whereas it ought to be laid upon the words 
 ἐλεεῖν and οἰκτείρειν, according to their peculiar import. ‘The reasons are: 
 Firstly, because it is only in this way that a suitable connection can be 
 effected betwixt the preceding and succeeding context. The proposition, 
 “There is no unrighteousness with God, for he saith to Moses, It depends 
 upon myself alone to whom I will show mercy,” is much less stringent than, 
 «There is no unrighteousness with God, for he says to Moses, It is mercy 
 when I show mercy to any.” Moreover, in ver. 16, we find ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἐλεοῦντος 
 Θεοῦ expressly put, proving in the clearest manner, that it was upon that the 
 emphasis lay. Besides, even with regard to the Hebrew text, Ex. xxxiii. 19, 
 this construction is by much the more suitable. Doubtless, we still obtain an 
 appropriate meaning, if God says to Moses: I will, as thou (ver.17), hast 
 found grace in my sight, make all my goodness pass before thee. Itis of my 
 free will if I show mercy to any one.” We obtain a still better one, 
 however, when, with grammatical precision, we understand the preterites 
 ‘nym and ΓΙ, as referring to the practical bestowal of grace, and the 
 futures jTN and DNS to the incomplete, or intentional: “ΤῸ whom I wish 
 well, to him do I show myself a well-wisher.” I cannot, however, agree with 
 the opinion that it is quite inadmissible to take the words of the text, as ex- 
 pressive of free good pleasure.” 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 16, 17. 322 
 
 Dei semper auxilio, non erit meum.... Peto ut accipiam, et quum 
 accepero rursus peto. Avarus sum ad accipienda beneficia Dei, nec - 
 ille deficit in dando, nee ego satior in accipiendo. Comp. Origen, 
 De principiis, 1. iii. § 18. Where, in illustration of Paul’s expres- 
 sion, he alludes to Ps. 127: ‘* Except the Lord build the house, they 
 labour in vain that build 11. And yet the builders must labour. 
 Compare likewise the beautiful words of Gregory Naz. upon this 
 passage. Orat. xxxi. in Ev. Mat. 19, and Augustine, ad Simpl. J. 1. 
 qu. 1. As to what further respects the metaphorical expression reé- 
 zew, it may be borrowed in a general way from a restless running to 
 and fro, or it may also be derived from the race course of the prize 
 runners, according to an image very common with the Apostle, 1Cor. 
 ix. 24. Gal. v. 7. Heb. xii. 1; in which figurative sense profane 
 authors likewise use reéyo. The peculiar application of this verse 
 to the Jews, is as follows: Would you by bodily extraction and ful- 
 filment of the law, proudly merit the kingdom of the Messias; to 
 these God pays no attention, requiring of us to accept of salvation 
 through Christ as a gift of free grace.* 
 
 V.17. The Apostle means to bring proof from history, that God 
 by no means spares the obstinate; rather does his long suffering tend 
 to the destruction of such, when they persist in their pride of heart. 
 Thus Pharaoh beheld six plagues brought, one after another, upon 
 his land, at the time when God’s declaration, quoted by Paul, was 
 executed upon him. Actuated by his headstrong disposition, he 
 still, however, persevered in unbelief towards Moses, and rebellion 
 against God. God had endured with patience (v.22) his contumacy, 
 
 * In the review already alluded to, Dr. Tholuck quotes the following ob- 
 servations of Beck: “ Why then, in these genitives τοῦ θέλοντος, &c., to which 
 Ἐστί 15 Supplied, is not the simple and primary genitive meaning retained, 
 expressing the closest and earliest relation of dependence? From the ulti- 
 mate idea of procession, derivation, out of which original right and authority 
 emanate, arises the conception: To belong tc any one by virtue of the causal- 
 nexus, to lie within his essential and inward province or domain, a conception 
 which here connects itself quite logically with the foregoing proposition, 
 where the subject itself is designated according to its inmost peculiarity. We 
 have here, then, a decision given respecting its essential appurtenance, that 
 viz. by which right and authority over it are determined. Instead of this, the 
 genitive connection is interpreted solely of outward power, competence and’ 
 effect, so that the exposition never emerges from its circle of exterior being, 
 to its inward basis. Even in the case of the more disguised translation “it 
 concerns” or “it rests with,’ the proper accent, inward appertaining, is still 
 blunted, the mistake against which we contend, as if the éxadys, capriciously 
 and unjustly falls, so entirely into the province of the electing party, is en- 
 couraged, the matter always appearing as mere outward necessity, and not 
 as ὦ law involved in or pertaining to its essence.’ On this quotation, Dr. Tho- 
 luck remarks, “ Here too we must agree in opinion. The translation, ‘it rests 
 with,’ is more especially to be rejected, and by no means fits the connection. 
 Above all others, we would prefer “it does not therefore depend,” explaining 
 the nature of this relation of dependence as the author does, “it is not within 
 le ressort—participation in the kingdom of God, has not as its causa primaria, 
 human efforts; on the contrary, God is the independent original of mercy. 
 
324 CHAPTER Ix. V. 17. 
 
 but, notwithstanding, did not alter his plans. From that forbearance, 
 it was by no means to be concluded, that God would finally allow 
 the stubborn king to have his will. In the event of perseverance 
 in obstinacy, God had resolved, through the medium of his patience, 
 to make the self-willed arrogance, issue in the still worse destruction 
 of Pharaoh, (Rom. ii. 5, and the observations on it,) but in an increase 
 of glory to himself. In this way, Pharaoh’s example strikingly 
 shows, that, by a running in his own strength, and by efforts con- 
 trary to the divine purposes, man is utterly unable to accomplish any 
 thing; on the contrary, because of God’s long-suffering, and just of 
 that, the longer he persists, the more does he plunge himself in ruin. 
 This sense, quite founded in the connection, is developed with sin- 
 gular ability in the Acta Syn. Dordr. Remonstr. p. 139—i45. Stern 
 Calvinists, such as Beza, Peter Martyr, Pareus and Gomar give the 
 Apostle’s sentiment the following sense: “1 have created thee, O 
 Pharaoh, to make of thee a vessel of wrath, by whose perdition I 
 may display my omnipotence.’ Were it possible for God to speak 
 thus to man, then alas for us! What are we but dwarfs, who must 
 be content to be formed by the hand of an unconquerable Cyclops, 
 and broken into pieces again as toys for his amusement? The point 
 which the expositors and doctrinalists of this school have overlooked, 
 is, that we must never suppose God to act, except in complete har- 
 mony with himself, and consequently with the whole of his attributes. 
 In the decretum absolutum, however, justice would act and determine 
 without wisdom and without love. Augustine by just consequence, 
 had written (De gratia et lib. arb. c, 21): Quis non ἰδία judicia divina 
 contremiscat, quibus agit Deus in cordibus etiam malorum hominum 
 quidquid vult, reddens tamen eis secundum merita eorum? — — His 
 et talibus testimoniis sctipturarum satis manifestatur operari Deum 
 in cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluntates quocunque vo- 
 luerit, sive ad bona pro sua misericordia, sive ad mala pro meritis 
 eorum, judicio utique suo, aliquando aperto, aliquando occulto, sem- 
 per tamen justo. Pursuant of this idea, Gomar taught, with the 
 supralapsarians: ‘* There is no injustice in God’s condemning the 
 sinner, for, along with the condemnation, he has also ordained the 
 means to that end,i. e. sin, so that he condemns no one, without 
 having first plunged him into sin;”’ (Halesii, epp. ed. Mosh. p. '753,) 
 and pursuantly, too, of the same opinion, these stern Calvinists here 
 say: In order to gain his end, God himself put tempting thoughts 
 into Pharaoh’s soul. (There can be no doubt that God tempts, but 
 not as the devil does; the one tempts, wf subruat, the other, wt coro- 
 net, 1 Cor. x. 13.) Augustine: Excitavi te, ut contumacius resisteres, 
 non tantum permittendo, sed multa etiam tam intus quam foris ope- 
 rando. ‘There has thus, it appears, been an exchange of parts, and 
 Satan has resigned his office to God. It is God who goes about like 
 a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, while Satan rejoices 
 that the Most High, from whose hand there is no escape, casts the 
 victim into his jaws. Moreover, if, in this way, God be made the 
 
CHAPTER Ix. v. 17. 9398 
 
 author of sin, pantheism is clearly established, the nature of sin itself 
 denied, and all distinction between good and evil done away. Hence 
 it is, that those pantheistical mystics, the Sufi, who deny the differ- 
 ence betwixt good and bad, God being, according to them, the one 
 sole agent, shadow as well as light, and all individual beings merely 
 semblance, make Pharaoh, who, they say, was but a different mirror 
 of God’s omnipotence from Moses, thus pray to the Divine Being, 
 (Methnewi des Dschelaleddin Rumi, cod. MS. Bibl. reg. Ber. t. i. 
 Ρ. 158): 
 
 From that fountain whence thou mad’st the face of Moses’ light, 
 Thou hast darkened mine, O Lord, until ’tis blacker than the night. 
 Yet better can a star expect than even the moon to be, 
 
 Eclipses spare not it, and spare I know they will not me. 
 
 Whate’er the Hebrew prophet’s worth, ’tis true I am as good, ‘ 
 But with supreme dominion reigns thine axe throughout thy wood. 
 Here graciously it grafts the twig into the fostering root, 
 
 There severs with relentless stroke, the stock and tender shoot. 
 
 Those expositors who always fall back upon the foreknowledge of 
 God, as Gicumenius, Ambrose, Theodoret, are in total perplexity 
 respecting this sentence. Others among the moderns adopt a con- 
 nection of the ideas different from that we have stated. Erasmus: 
 Neque culpari debet Deus, si nostris malis bene utitur. Imo hoc 
 ipsum summz bonitatis argumentum. Wolff: ‘So much is com- 
 passion concerned, that God exercised forbearance even towards the 
 stifl-necked Pharaoh, and contrary to his will.”? Stolz: ‘*So far was 
 Pharaoh’s running from gaining his end, that he rather wrought into 
 the hands of God.’’ It is, moreover, to be well-considered, that only 
 after the sixth miracle, consequently after numerous proofs of contu- 
 macy, did God address these words to Pharaoh, and that he even 
 desired his conversion, which is shown by the question immediately 
 following: ‘As yet exaltest thou thyself against my people, and 
 wilt not let them go?’ Yea, as Origen observes, De prine. 1. iii. 
 6. 1, § 11: The miracles for awhile, and to a certain extent, 
 fulfilled their end, for, at the fourth sign, Pharaoh seriously deter- 
 mined to let the Jews depart, at least three days’ journey, (Ex. viii. 
 28.) 
 λέγευ ἡ yearn τῷ Pagad, in place of ὁ Θεὸς xard τὴν γεαφήν; 50 also 
 Gal. iii. 8, 22; iv. 80. So ἄο the Rabbins, in their quotations, in- 
 terchange DW 78 and 21NI7 7px, and denote both by the abbrevia- 
 tion 728. In the LXX., the verse which is taken from Ex. ix. 16, 
 TUNS: καὶ ἕνεχεν rovrs Sveryerdys, iva ἐνδείξωμαν ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν μου, 
 καὶ ὅπως κτλ. For the ἐξήγειξα of Paul, and the διετηδήθης of the 
 LXX., there stands in the Hebrew, ὙΠ. The sense of this 
 word, is most accurately rendered by the LXX. for Tnyn here sig- 
 nifies to let stand, to keep, the Hiphil in Hebrew, intimating not 
 merely the effecting of what the Kal expresses, but a preservation in 
 the condition which is intimated by the Kal, as is especially the case 
 
326 CHAPTER ΙΧ. Y. 17. 
 
 with the Hiphil of 7m. Now, as there are many verbs in the Hel- 
 lenistic, which answer to the Hebrew Hiphil, they likewise assume 
 the special sense which that bears. ‘Thus δωπουεῦν, as translation of 
 mnn, also signifies in the New Testament, fo preserve in life, 1 Pet. 
 iil. 18. And thus, too, does iyeveew which properly means, fo set 
 up, (in the LXX. for apn) here bear that Hiphil-sense of letting 
 stand. In this way, it has been translated by the Syrian, viz. kept 
 standing, (Ephr. Syr. Op. T. i. p. 46.) ‘The Arabian, likewise, 
 translates in the Polygl. in Ex. ix. 16: “1 have kept thee in life.” 
 Even in Heb. 7 signifies, fo remain, Ex. ix. 28; Lev. xiii. 5; 
 Dan. x. 17, and thus the Hiphil is so much the more naturally trans- 
 lated, to allow to remain. It gives additional recommendation to 
 this meaning, that the connection immediately suggests it; for Pharaoh 
 might already have been carried off by the preceding plagues, and 
 still more might this have happened in the threatened pestilence. 
 Calvin, who rejects this meaning in the present passage, and, in op- 
 position to it, translates constituit, approves it in his Comm. on Ex. 
 ix. 16; even he acknowledging it to be more agreeable to the con- 
 nection. Many Calvinists take ἐγείφειν directly in the sense, to 
 create. Beza: feci ut existeres; Anselm still more dreadfully: Cum 
 malus esses, prodigiis quasi sopitum excitavi, wf in malitia persis- 
 teres atque deterior fieres. Is it the Devil or God who thus speaks? 
 Others, as Cocceius, take it in the meaning, ‘ad dignitatem evehi,”’ 
 which, however, as Calvin observes, is less demonstrable from the 
 language, and would be less agreeable to the connection of the Mo- 
 saic narrative.* 
 
 ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαυ x72. The sense of this minor proposition, we shall 
 thus be able to express: Usque adeo non connivi in sceleribus tuis, 
 etiamsi propter μαχεξοθυμίαν meam ita fortasse tibi videretur, ut eo 
 graviore ruina te perditurus sim. It was not deceit on the part of 
 God, as the Calvinist maintains, which made the various signs and 
 wonders overpass Pharaoh, in order thereby to bring about the end 
 of his destruction; it was compassionate long-suffering, as ver. 22 
 asserts, desirous of giving opportunity for amendment. Indeed, as 
 we have already observed, the stubborn king had at last, in. some 
 degree relented, (Ex. viii. 28, and did so still more at an after period, 
 chap. x. 24; ix. 27.) Only the fowls came and devoured up the 
 seed that was sown in his heart. ‘This long-suffering, however, was 
 of such a sort, that the stiff-necked man might mistake its intention, 
 and hence, intimation was also given him, that if he would not let 
 the people go, it would serve both to aggravate the ruin brought upon 
 him, and to manifest the power of God, who knows to weave evil 
 
 ἘΠῚ consider it as decided, says Dr. Tholuck, that the ξξήγειρα must not be in- 
 terpreted according to the διητηρήϑης of the LXX. as I have done in my com- 
 mentary, conscious at the time that it was not natural, and solely because I 
 believed I could, in that way, better refute the Calvinistic view. Beyond all 
 doubt, the correct exposition is, “I have set thee up—brought thee forward 
 (in history).” 
 
CHAPTER 1X: V..17; 18. 327 
 
 itself into the plan of the world in such a way as to promote his own 
 glory. Gregory of Nyssa, in Niceph. Cat. in Octat. has the fine 
 circumlocution: EQ’ Gy ἐπιμένεις ἀπειθὼν, xneveov axav τὸν Θεὸν ὃν 
 ἑχουσίως ἀρνῇ. ‘There obtains what Antonin. |. '7, 6. 35, ascribes to 
 the φύσις, and expresses by the very significant compound ἐπυπερυ- 
 teénew: Πᾶν τὸ ἐνιστάμενον καὶ ἀντιβαυνον ἐπιπερυτρέπευ xou κατατάσσει 
 εἰς τὴν εἱμαρμένην καὶ μέφος ἑαυτῆς movece We must not then, for ἃ mo- 
 ment, leave out of view, that this ὅπως x72. relates only to the event 
 of Pharaoh’s continuing unconverted, by means of that long-suffering, 
 for once again he is expressly called upon by God, to repent, Ex. 
 x. 3, “* How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me.” 
 
 τὴν δύναμίν μου. In Hebrew n>. It is impossible to conceive a 
 mightier conflict, than that betwixt an impenitent human heart and 
 its God. But the Divine Being gains glory, whatever the issue be, 
 whether blessing or perdition. Does the proud heart yield the vic- 
 tory, it then gives thanks of itself to Him who conquered it; does it 
 persist in obstinacy, then the witnesses of the struggle bring the 
 praise and adoration, which they have learnt to be due, partly to the 
 mercy of God, partly to the infinite power and wisdom, by which he 
 knows how to prepare a triumph for his kingdom, even from van- 
 quished foes. 
 
 ἐν πάσῃ τῇ yy. As the Jews themselves everywhere spoke of their 
 deliverance by a mighty hand, the name of God was, in point of fact, 
 celebrated by that means in all quarters. ‘The wondrous downfall 
 of Pharaoh was recounted by the Greeks, Artapanus, (Eus. Prep. 
 Ey. 1. ix. c. 29,) and Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. 1. If]. c. 39), and by 
 the Latin, Trogus (Justini Hist. 1. xxxvi.c. 2). By the Koran, the 
 story was still more widely spread, and Christianity will publish it 
 to the end of the world. 
 
 V. 18. The Apostle draws the inference from the matter of fact in 
 regard to Moses, and from the same in regard to Pharaoh. ‘The 
 oxanevvev, as here ascribed to God, has been especially urged by the 
 Calvinists. By Calvin himself it is expounded as follows: Indurandi 
 verbum quum Deo in Scripturis tribuitur, non solum permissionem (ut 
 volunt diluti quidam moderatores) sed divine quoque ire actionem 
 significat; nam res omnes externe, que ad excecationem reprobo- 
 ruin faciunt, illius ire sunt instrumenta. Satan ipse, qui intus efli-, 
 caciler agit, wlius est minister ut non nisi ejus imperio agat. 
 Docet et Solomon, non modo precognitum fuisse impiorum interitum, 
 sed impios ipsos fuisse destinato creatos ut perirent, Prov. xvi. 4. 
 Some few modern theologians likewise, whose rationalism allowed 
 them to suppose that Paul had committed a mistake, would have the 
 words so explained, and agreeably, as they supposed, to the gram- 
 matical and historical interpretation. So Ammon on the passage, 
 and, in like manner, in a former age, the English rationalist Morgan. 
 It is, however, just that sort of interpretation which militates most 
 strongly against the Calvinistic opinion, as has been already shown 
 by its authors, Grotius on this passage, and Clericus on Ex. ix. For 
 
328 CHAPTER Ix. v. 18. 
 
 as in general the Eastern, much more than an inhabitant of the west, 
 seeks to trace up all the events of life to the first cause, 7. e. God, so 
 do we find this more particularly manifested in the Jewish history. 
 Even such occurrences as without properly emanating from God, 
 merely stand under his governance, are referred back to him, without 
 any design on the part of the writer to deny the self-determining 
 power of man. Agreeably to this law, which prevails in the Jewish 
 as it generally does in all eastern style and history, God himself is 
 wont to be represented as the cause of sin,both where he but per- 
 mits it_(cvyzopyroxds), 2 Sam. xii. 11; xvi. 10. 1 Kings xxii. 22. 
 Is. |xiil. 17.) and even where, as inthe present.case, he callsatforth 
 by certain occasions (ἀφορμητικῶς), Deut. ii. 30. Ps. ev, 25. 1 
 Kings xi. 23. Nay, in case of a refusal to consider God as being 
 merely in this metonymic way, the author of such actions, a similar 
 office would be assigned to Him as to the Devil, for the same action 
 of which God, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, is called the author, is ascribed, 1 
 Chron. xxi. 1, to the Devil as author. A suitable parallel to these 
 Old Testament texts is afforded by certain quite similar passages of 
 the Koran, Sure. xiv. v. 32, ‘*God leads evil doers astray and does 
 what he will.’’ So likewise, Sure. iv. ver. 90, and vii. ver. 139. 
 Moreover, Sure. vii. ver. 180: ‘* Many genii and men have we 
 formed for hell; these have hearts and they do not understand, eyes 
 and see not, ears and they do not hear.’’ Sure. vii. ver. 146: “1 
 will make the evil doers to see my signs and not believe,’”’ and in 
 fine, Sure. v. ver. 46: ** God punishes whom he will, and pardons 
 whom he will, for he is mighty above all.’’ Now in spite of the 
 Koran thus decidedly denying, as it appears to do, the free agency 
 of man, notwithstanding it teaches, “'That every man has his fate 
 bound about his neck,” we still must maintain that it was not Ma- 
 homet’s intention so absolutely to deny moral liberty to man. For 
 not only do we find many passages in the Koran standing related to 
 those we have quoted, in precisely the same way that certain pas- 
 sages in the Old and New ‘Testament, ascribing freedom to man, are 
 related to others in the same books, which trace back all to God, but 
 we have, moreover, a tradition of Abu Harira, bearing the stamp of 
 credibility, in which Mahomet expressly declares his ignorance on 
 this subject (Tholuck, Ssufismus, sive ''heosophia Pantheistica Per- 
 sarum, p. 234). In fine, the doctrinal affirmations upon the point, 
 
 by which man is wholly robbed of all freedom, were not made by 
 the Mahometan theologians previous to the second century of the 
 Hedschira. ‘To the passages of the Koran, which declare the uni- 
 versality of God’s grace in opposition to a decretum absolutum, be- 
 long, for instance, the following, which are also akin to passages in 
 the Bible, Sure. v. ver. 45; xx. ver. 84; iii. ver. 82: ** Whosoever 
 is converted after his iniquity and amends, to him does God turn, for 
 he is forgiving and merciful,’’ Sure. vii. ver. 156: I punish whom I 
 will, but my grace extends to all men; of a truth I write it in the 
 book of life for all who believe,” “*Sure. xiv. ver. 25: ** Beholdest 
 
CHAPTER IX. v. 18. 329 
 
 thou not those who transform my grace into unbelief and so on.” 
 Now inasmuch as God, unalterably faithful to his plan of conducting 
 the Israelites out of Egypt, gave occasion, by a series of signs and 
 wonders, for heightening the obstinacy of Pharaoh, the Old 'Testa- 
 ment says that God hardened him. As an evidence, however, that 
 this hardening was not to be ascribed to God as its proper author, it 
 is again said in other passages, Exod. viii. 15, 28; ix. 34, that Pha- 
 raoh hardened himself, and in others likewise, Exod. vii. 18, 22; 
 vill, 11; ix. 7, that his heart was hardened without any reference to 
 the cause. Moreover, at Exod. iii. 19, God speaks merely from a 
 foreknowledge of the hardening of Pharaoh, and elsewhere the blame 
 of their obduracy is cast upon men themselves, 1 Sam. vi. 6. 2 
 Chron. xxxvi. 13. Ps. xev. Hos. xiii. 8. It ought to surprise us 
 the less, when God, in consequence of bringing about the circum- 
 stances under which the obstinate still more and more presume, is 
 himself represented as the occasioner of their obstinacy, finding, as 
 we do, that the man through whom, as the innocent occasion, some 
 other comes under a delusion, is represented as its immediate author. 
 Thus the injunction goes forth to Isaiah, (chap. vi. 10.) ‘* Make the 
 heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their 
 eyes.” ‘The Hebrew usus loquendi also occurs in the New Testa- 
 ment. Partly we find, that here too Christ assigns ἀφορμητικὼς, as 
 the purpose of his coming, what only arose out of it, in consequence 
 of the perversity of men, Mat. x. 84. (See Grotius’ Annotations.) 
 John ix. 39; partly Is. vi. 10 is applied in the same sense which it 
 bears in the prophet, Mat. xiii. 15. Mark iv. 12. John xii. 40. 
 Acts xxvili. 26, 27. Admirable are the remarks which the Greek 
 fathers make upon this Jewish usus loquendi, and in quite a dis- 
 tinguished way does Origen discuss St. Paul’s declaration, and the 
 questions involved in it, Origen, Philocalia, c. 20, ed. Spenc., bor- 
 rowed from De principiis, 1. III. c. 1. The thoughts, which he there 
 developes, are as follows: You look upon Pharaoh as being either 
 wholly depraved or not. In the former case, we no longer deplore 
 his being condemned. But why then did God harden him? Harden- 
 ing takes place upon a subject that is naturally soft. Suppose him, 
 accordingly, not to have been altogether depraved, and that God 
 closed up the heart that wanted to open itself to him, what injustice 
 would that be on the part of God! With respect to that hardening, 
 we ought much more to avoid imagining any particular action of God 
 upon the soul; on the contrary, it is a consequence that results from 
 the tokens of God’s love emanating incessantly, and in the same way 
 to the corrupted human race, that one individual becomes ever more 
 and more compliant with Divine grace, another ever more contu- 
 macious and wicked. According to Hebrews vi. 7, 8, one and the 
 same rain bringeth forth herbs upon one soil and thorns upon another. 
 While one and the same sunbeam in this place softens and moistens, 
 in that makes the earth dry and parched. So does God’s grace 
 operate different effects on different hearts. Even affectionate mas- 
 42 
 
330 CHAPTER Ix. v. 18. 
 
 ters are wont to say to demoralized slaves, whom they have reared 
 with much gentleness, I have spoilt you. But when a soul has for 
 a time been hardened by the kindness of God, and then again re- 
 pents, it derives from its obduracy one advantage, that of learning the 
 quantity of the sinful virus within it. Hence just as physicians 
 excite the diseased matter, and try to gather it to a point, in order the 
 more thoroughly to heal, so also does God often do to the human 
 heart.”’?. This last thought he extends in the Comm. in Exod. ed. 
 Dela Rue, Tom. II. p. 114: ὥσπερ δὲ int τινων σωματικὼν παθημάτων, 
 εἰς βάθος τοῦ, ἵν᾽ οὕτως εἴπω, κεχωρηκότος κακοῦ; ὃ LaTeds εἰς τὴν ἐπιφά- 
 ψεῖαν διά φινων Φαρμάκων EAxEL καὶ ἐπισπαάταυ τὴν ὕλην, φΦλεγμονὰς χαλεπὰς 
 ἐμποιὼν καὶ διουδήσευ ς. χαὶ πόνους πλείονας ὧν εἶχέ τις πεὶν Ext τὸ θεξα- 
 πευθῆναν ddevoas’ ὥσπερ ἔρος ποιεῖν αὐτοῖς Ent λυσσοδήκτων, καὶ ἑτέφων 
 τινὼν TH παξαπλήσια τούτοις πιεπονθότων᾽ οὕτως οἶμαυ χαὺ τὸν Θεὸν οἴκονο- 
 μεῦν τὴν κρύφιον κακίαν εἰς τὸ βάθος xeYwenxway τῆς ψυχῆς. καὶ ὥσπερ 
 λέγευ ὃ ἰατεὸς Enc xovdé τινος᾽ ἐγὼ φλεγμονὰς ποιήσω mei τὸν τόπον τῆς 
 ἀνέσεως: καὶ διοιδῆσαν τάδε TG μέρη; ὥστε ἀπόστημα χαλεπὸν ἐφγάσασθαυ; 
 λέγοντος δὲ ταῦτα τοῦ LarEeov, ὁ μὲν ἀκούων αὐτοῦ ἐπιστημονυκώτερος; οὐκ 
 αὐτιάσεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπαινέσεταν τὰ τοιαῦτα οἱονεὶ ἀπειλοῦντα ἐδγάσασθοαι" 
 ὁ δέ τις λέξει φάσκων ἀλλότξιον τῆς τῶν ἰατεὼν ἐπαγγελίας ποιεῦν; τὸ δὲον 
 ὑγιάζειν, Ext φλεγμονὰς καὶ ἀποστήματα ἄγοντα" οὕτω δὲ οἶμαν xow τὸν 
 Θεὸν elenxévar τὸ" ἐγὼ σχληδυνὼ τὴν xaedvay Φαραώ. ἢ Compare, more- 
 over, Theodoret, qu. 12, in Exod. Basil, in Gicumen. Theodorus 
 Mopsuest. and Diodorus 'Tars. in Niceph. Cat. in Octat. We have 
 still to notice two forced explanations, by which the opponents of 
 predestination endeavoured to maintain their cause. Herzog wanted 
 to place a point of interrogation after the sentence; Rambach, Carp- 
 zov, and Ernesti wished to take oxazevyew in the sense, to treat 
 harshly. In support of this meaning they quote 2 Chron. x. 4, 
 where there stands in the Hebrew 115) nx nw, but this passage 
 proves nothing, as no accus. persone is added. At Job xxxix. 16, 
 we find in the Hebrew Twp", and in the Greek ἀποσκληφύνω. The 
 meaning, accordingly, is demonstrated in regard to neither of the 
 languages. Independently of this, however, there is much against it. 
 
 * And as in the case of certain bodily diseases, when the evil has (so to 
 speak) penetrated into the inmost parts, the physician draws and brings forth 
 the virus by certain medicines to the surface, causing more inflammations 
 and tumours, and worse pains, than the patient suffered before his cure was 
 attempted, which is the way in which they treat persons labouring under hy- 
 drophobia, and others similarly affected; in like manner, methinks, does God 
 deal with that secret distemper which has penetrated into the inmost soul. 
 And just as the physician says, respecting such a patient, I will excite in- 
 flammation around the place of the wound, and force such and such parts to 
 swell, so as to produce a severe abscess; which, were any skilful person to 
 hear, far from blaming he would commend the man for proposing such a 
 practice, whereas the mere pretender will say, that when he produces an in- 
 flammation or abscess, he does what is foreign to the vocation of a physician, 
 whose duty it is to heal. Itis in this way I suppose God to have spoken, 
 when he said, I will harden the heart of Pharaoh. 
 
CHAPTER IX. v. 18. 331 
 
 As used by Paul, the word must have the same sense as in Exodus. 
 The objection of ver. 19 would then be unsuitable. And so on.* 
 
 * Dr. Tholuck now acknowledges that the meaning “severe treatment,” is, 
 in respect of language, not inadmissible; while, with regard to the connection, 
 it has, in the first place, this consideration in its favour, that only when so 
 interpreted, does σκληρύνειν yield an answerable contrast to ἐλεεῖν. According 
 to the whole nexus of the passage, ἐλεεῖν cannot be understood of the datio 
 Jidei, as the remonstrants express themselves, which alone would form a strict 
 antithesis to the σκληρύνειν, but solely of the bestowal of favours, such as those 
 conferred upon Moses. Moreover it is to be observed that the Apostle’s quo- 
 tation, ver. 17, speaks in the strongest way in favour of the meaning, fo treat 
 severely. The character of this citation has not, by any means, been inves- 
 tigated with sufficient care. Looking no farther than itself, can we suppose 
 that Paul means to demonstrate, that God, of his own proper choice hardened 
 the king? Whosoever closely investigates the nature of the Apostle’s cita- 
 tions, must be convinced of the care and accuracy with which they are chosen. 
 Why then has he not here done, what was the simplest and readiest thing for 
 him to do, adduced one of the passages from the Old Testament, where it is 
 said that “God hardened the heart of Pharaoh.” He would thus have proved, 
 in the shortest way, the dogma ascribed to him, and the proposition with ἄρα, 
 —in the sense which the Calvinist puts upon it,—would have followed with 
 the utmost logical strictness. In place of this, however, there is brought for- 
 ward, as the main idea in the Apostle’s citation, That God wished to glorify 
 himself by the stubborn king. If then we inquire of history, in what way did 
 he glorify himself? It was, we find, that he σκληρὰ ἔδειξε (Ps.1x.3), and by his 
 dreadful overthrow. In this manner, ver. 17, when we understand σκληρύνειν 
 to mean hard treatment, is closely connected. Well; but is ver. 19 not con- 
 trary to such an interpretation! We think we may say, No. Is the import 
 of the citation “My special reason for bringing you forward, was, that (by 
 thy downfall) I might display my power,” and does there follow it the in- 
 ference, “ Consequently, he treats with severity whom he chooses” we might 
 well ask: If God, in the appointment of our lot, binds himself by no claims 
 on our side, how can he then blame us, for not binding ourselves by him? 
 He does what he pleases to do.”,. While Dr. Tholuck admits, however, that 
 this meaning of σκληρύνειν is rather favoured than refuted by the connection, 
 he maintains, on the other hand, that nothing is hereby gained towards the 
 removal of the offence taken at this section of the Epistle; and so there is no 
 use in deviating from the usual interpretation. For when Faul, in order to 
 prove that the goodness shown by God to man, is based upon no claim of 
 right whatsoever, but is pure mercy, appeals to the fact, that, in the opposite 
 case, God says to Pharaoh, that on this sole account, he had raised him up, 
 that (as ver. 22, adds), he might show his might and his wrath, 7. 6. that 
 he might treat him with severity, almost the self-same offence is occasioned, as © 
 when we put in its place, that he might harden him. The answer to the ob- 
 jection is as follows: The Apostle wants to show that in the divine πεύθεσις,ΟΥ 
 plan of the universe projected from all eternity, God is the primary and sole 
 cause. How can he do so more strikingly than by showing in the instance 
 of Pharaoh, that even his hardening was ordained by God, and subserved 
 the divine purposes, no less than the rich display of God’s fae? That the 
 hardening of the Egyptian was, on one side, ordained by God, no disciple of 
 Christian theology can deny. It is an essential doctrine of Christianity, that 
 God would not permit evil, unless he were Lord over it, and that he permits 
 it, because it cannot act as a check upon his plan of the world, but must be 
 equally subservient to him as good, the only difference being, that the former 
 is so compulsorily, the latter optionally. That, on the other hand, evil is 
 something hostile to God, and therefore not an object of his volition, and that 
 
332 CHAPTER Ix. v. 19, 20. 
 
 V.19. The haughty Jew, only concerned to find a door of escape 
 for his unbelief, lays hold of the subterfuge for which a handle was 
 given him, in the last words of the Apostle. He would like to de- 
 volve upon God, the ἀπιστία which the Apostle blames as the ground 
 of his rejection. (Ch. ix. 32; x. 8, 9; xi. 23.) 
 
 éeecs οὖν is the Rabbinical 57 Non. So ὁ. xi. 19; and ἀλλ᾽ Zeer τις» 
 in 1 Cor. xv. 35. Jas. ii. 18. In the question, the subject, God, is 
 left out, agreeably to the tone of mind in a man under the influence 
 of passion. Μέμφεσθαι, with the Hellenists, means sometimes fo 
 blame, 2 Mace. ii. 7. Heb. viii. 8; sometimes fo complain, to be dis- 
 pieased, Sirach xi. 7; xli. 10. Hesychius, μέμφεται, airiarar, κατα- 
 γινώσκει. The ἔτι is designative, even now, after you have your- 
 self said, that he hardens whom he will.”’ ’AvSésnxe, the pret. Indic. 
 agreeably to a Hebraism, in place of the aor. opt. 
 
 V.20. A proper answer to this question of the obdurate Jew, the 
 Apostle could not return, inasmuch as the objection rested altogether 
 upon a misconception and perversion of the texts quoted. Accord- 
 ingly, he repels the perversion (comp. ch. iii. 6.) ‘The Gemara 
 sometimes gives a preliminary answer, for the purpose, generally, 
 of turning aside an argument; it is called Syd pnt 79, ‘on account 
 of being much pressed.” ‘The phrase for it is 7 8) 1 AN, “not 
 merely this, but this,’ Halichoth. Olam, B. III. c. ii. §183. What 
 Paul properly intended, however, by bringing forward these passages 
 of Scripture, he declares in vers. 22 and 23. "1Ὸ be sure, he might 
 have simply told the Jew, that he only abused the texts, and what 
 was added in elucidation of them, nay, purposely perverted them. 
 But instead of answering thus, he does what was done by our Saviour 
 
 as evil, it has its source in man, came not here into consideration. In the case 
 before us, the divine agency must be limited to the fact: That God brought 
 about those circumstances, which make a heart disposed to evil still harder. ‘That 
 God did this to Pharaoh is shown by history. That such is the only sense 
 in which it is said that God hardened Pharaoh, is evinced by the fact of its 
 being declared in the context, that Pharaoh hardened himself, Lev. viii. 15; viii. 
 28; ix. 34. Withrespect to the question, Whether this meaning suits the con- 
 nection of the passage? we here likewise reply in the affirmative. The hard 
 treatment, which, in contrast to ἐλεεῖν, ought here to be spoken of, was effected 
 by God’s bringing about the circumstances under which the king’s heart grew 
 hard. The difference betwixt the two, accordingly, would but be this: When 
 the Apostle says, “ Consequently he treats harshly whom he will,” he states 
 the proposition in its general significance, when he says, “ Consequently he 
 hardens whom he will,” he states it with reference to the specialties of the 
 present case, in which hardening formed the transition to the downfall or 
 severe treatment. V.19,—as hardening merely means to place ina situation 
 in which one hardens oneself,—would be connected precisely as in the former 
 construction of the words. For that v. 19—21, cannot serve to vindicate for 
 σκληρύνειν, the meaning to harden inwardly is demonstrable from the fact, that 
 here the sole question is, Whether God has the right to set up any one in the 
 history of the world as object of his ὀργή. Comp. ver. 22. Now, this har- 
 monizes with the citation, ver. 17, which does not declare that God can cause 
 obduracy, “in whomsoever he will,” but that he can and does give the wicked 
 up as a prey to destruction, in order thereby to reveal his might. 
 
CHAPTER Ix. v. 20. 333 
 
 himself, replies, not so much to the question of the opponent, as to 
 the disposition from which it issued. It was obstinacy and pride 
 which led to the perversion of Paul’s words, and to these sentiments 
 he points his opponent. In the same way we find that our Saviour 
 himself, when replying, ofttimes pays less regard to the question 
 put, than to the disposition from which it emanated, speaking pro- 
 perly to that, as the great searcher of hearts, (Matt. viii. 20, 22; xix. 
 16, where the person who addressed him, a vain man, wished by 
 the epithet he employs, to flatter him, John iii. 8. ‘That the Saviour 
 thus looked to the dispositions, he himself declares, John vi. 65,) or, 
 in the case of objections made, that he first corrected the radical error, 
 before obviating them, (Matt. xxii. 29, 31.) And certainly it is in 
 fact true, that, where darkness 18 /oved better than the light, there 
 can be no right perception of religious truth; see ch. i. 18, Chry- 
 sostom: τῦτο devors διδασχάλου, Tas ἀκάνϑας ἀποσπᾶν καὶ τότε καταβάλ- 
 λεὺν τὰ onéguara. Now, ἃ merely evasive reply is the more due, if, 
 which is here the case with the objection of the Jew, not mere un- 
 conscious delusion suggests doubts and difficulties. but obduracy and 
 pride intentionally pervert. We must presume that the Jew knew 
 full well, that he was, out of pride, perverting Paul’s words; if, then, 
 he discovered that Paul saw so deeply into his heart, as to detect 
 the root of the objection, the objection was in that way itself over- 
 turned. Moreover, the Jew could not but aamit the cogency of the 
 sayings, which Paul here brings forward to confute him, these being 
 taken from the Old Testament. For the sake of the candid reader, 
 however, he afterwards states in verses 22 and 23, the result of the 
 investigation. Erasmus: Non indignatur quod interroget, nee deter- 
 ret illum ne interrogat, sed objurgat quod sit ausus sic interrogare. 
 We would thus paraphrase, ‘* And even were it so, thou haughty 
 Israelite, how canst thou presume to lift thyself up thus against 
 God?” ‘That it was not really as the Jew imagined, however, is 
 involved in the δέ of ver. 92, Not unlike is 4 Ezr. v.33. Ezra had 
 searched and inquired, “* Why does God love, among all fields only 
 one vineyard, among all seas but one fountain, among all flowers but 
 one lily, among all nations but Zion alone? Hereupon the angel of 
 the Lord approaches him and says, ‘‘/t is a great mistake that thou 
 shouldst love men better than he who made them.’ Not until after’ 
 this, does he begin to reason with him.” 
 
 Μὲν οὖν ye. ‘This always denotes the decided proposal of some 
 objection, Rom. x. 18; Luke xi. 28. It answers to at enim. *Q 
 dvSeane is expressive of contempt; see onch. 11. 1. Σὺ τίς ef} Chry- 
 sostom: Κοινωνὸς εὖ τῆς ἀρχῆς; ἀλλὰ διχαςὴς ἐκάϑισας τῷ Θεῷ; meds yae 
 τὴν ἐκείν ovyxerouv οὐδὲ εἶναί Te δύνασαι" οὐ τόδε, ἢ τόδε, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ εἶναὺ 
 τι) τ γὰρ εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲν εἶ, πολὺ τὸ εἰπεῖν, Tis el, οὐδαμινέςεφον. ὃ ὋὉ 
 
 * Art thou ἃ partner in his government? Dost thou sit a judge with God? 
 For, in comparison with him, thou art not even any thing. Not this or that, 
 but nothing at all. For, to say, Who art thou? is much more expressive of 
 contempt than to say, Thou art nothing. 
 
334 CHAPTER IX. v. 20, 21. 
 
 ἀνταποκρινόμενος is the verb used by the LXX. for 78 TWN and 73)’, 
 and, like that, means “to give a contradictory or gainsaying answer,’ 
 Luke xiv. 6. 
 
 μὴ épet χτλ. The text is quoted from Is. xl. 9. (Comp. xxix. 16.) 
 For, when Jewish theologians wish to turn off their adversary, they 
 are wont to prefer doing so by a Bible text, whether that serve di- 
 reetly or indirectly to refute or turn aside. ‘The formula used by the 
 Rabbins for this purpose is "pw 799 7.293, ** according as we read 
 in the text.’? Equivalent is the phrase in the discourse of Christ, 
 οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε, Matt. xxi. 16,42; xii. 3. What the point of simi- 
 litude is, is brought forward by Chrysostom: ’Evzav$’ οὐ τὸ αὐτεξού- 
 σιον ἀναιφὼν τοῦτο λέγει, ἀλλὰ Sevxvis méxeu moos Sev πείθεσθαι τῷ Θεῷ. 
 2 ++ + Eis τοῦτο yae μόνον τὸ ὑπόδειγμα ἔλαβεν; οὐκ εἰς τὴν τῆς πολιτείας 
 ἐπίδειξιν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὴν ὑποτεταγμένην ὑπακοὴν καὶ σιγήν. καὶ τοῦτο παν- 
 ταχοὺ Se παρατηξείν, OTL τὰ ὑποδείγματα οὐ πάντα χαϑόλου 
 dec λαμβάνειν, GAAG τὸ χρήσιμον αὐτῶὼν ἐχλεξαμένες εἰς 
 ὅπεξ παρείληπται, τὸ λοιπὸν ἅπαν ἐᾷν. Were the immortal 
 souls of men really stones, there might be some truth in what Tho- 
 mas Aquinas, as Aristotelian fatalist says: Si aliquis edificare volens 
 haberet multos lapides zquales, posset ratio assignari, quare ponat 
 quosdam in summo, quosdam in imo; sed quare ponat hos in sum- 
 mo, hos in imo, id non habet aliquam rationem nisi quia artifex 
 voluit. 
 
 V.21. This saying, likewise, is in part contained in the Old Tes- 
 tament and in the Apocrypha, Jer. xviii. 6; Book of Wisd. xv. 7; 
 Ecclesiasticus xxxiii. 18. ‘The same simile is to be found in Philo, 
 De sacrif. Ab. et Cain, p. 148, and among the Rabbins. See Wet- 
 stein. 
 
 éégsva Means power over any thing, and is joined with the gen. 
 objecti, πηλοὺ, both here and at Matt. x. 1. f 
 
 σκεύη εἰς τιμὴν καὶ εἰς ἀτιμίαν. Τιμὴ and ἀτιμία are abstr. pro concr. 
 The two words denote “a noble and a base use.”” Thus Philo De 
 Vita contempl. p. 890, explains the oxevy ἀτιμότεξα, to be: ἃ meds τὰς 
 ἐν σχότῳ χξείας ὑπηξετεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ Tas ἐν φωτί. ‘To the same effect, 
 Jerome ad Hos. x. 8. The same distinction between σχεύη τιμώμενα 
 and ἄτιμα, according to the use made of the vessel, is also to be found 
 /@lian, Hist. Var. 1. XIII. c. 40. It is likewise drawn, 2 Tim. ii. 
 20, where the Apostle, in the same way, figuratively styles the con- 
 tumacious and ungodly minded, σκεύη εἰς ἀτιμίαν, leaving it, how- 
 ever, to their option to become if they so will, σκεύη εἰς τὶμὴν, for he 
 adds: ἐὰν οὖν τις ἐχχαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων; ἔσταν oxevos εἰς τιμὴν; 
 
 * Here he does not say this, as if he would deprive us of free will, but to 
 show in how far we are bound to obey God...... The only end for which 
 he selected this example, was, not to lay down a rule of action, but inculcate 
 submission and silence. And this is a rule which ought always to be ob- 
 served, that we must not take all the parts of a simile, without exception, but 
 selecting what is subservient to the purpose for which it is employed, omit 
 every thing else. 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 21, 22. $35 
 
 ἡγιασμένον καὶ evyensrov τῷ δεσπότῃ. We must here take a firm hold 
 of the connection. ‘The self-righteous Jew looked upon his own 
 nation, according to the measures previously adopted, as the sole 
 φύραμα, from which God could fashion the σχεύη τιμῆς. ‘The Apostle 
 accordingly replies to him, that it lies wholly with God to choose 
 the mass from which to make σκεύη εἰς τιμήν. Origen: Tibi qui in- 
 solenter interrogas, hec audisse sufficiat. Qui vero opera sapientiz 
 Dei in dispensationibus ejus desiderat contueri, audiat in alio loco de 
 his ipsis Paulum divinorum secretorum conscium disputantem, 2'Tim. 
 il. 20. Ita ergo rationem quem ibi indigne poscentibus claudit, hic 
 digne desiderantibus pandit. Now, as the Calvinists, on the other 
 hand, explain the similitude here used by Paul, consonantly to the 
 doctrinal view which they form of the whole passage, Beza says: 
 Dico Paulum elegantissima ista similitudine adhibita ad ipsius Adami 
 creationem alludere, et ad eternum usque Dei propositum adscendere, 
 qui neque ut creato neque ut creando debitor, antequam humanum 
 genus conderet, (before the fall then, it would seem, which event he 
 simultaneously decreed) jam tum et in quibusdam per misericordiam 
 servandis, et in quibusdam justo judicio perdendis, gloriam suam 
 illustrare, pro suo jure et mera voluntate decreverit. In how far this 
 explication, judging from the whole connection, ought to be regarded 
 as false, results from what we have said above. ‘I‘hat it is incorrect 
 in itself, however, follows, if, as we must dc, we deny that God is 
 an arbitrary being; for if he be not such, he must uniformly act in 
 harmony with himself, ὁ. e. with the totality of his attributes. ‘There 
 cannot therefore exist, as the Calvinist maintains, ἃ manifestation of 
 God’s justice, which is not, at the same time, a manifestation of his 
 love. Supposing the gratia irresistibilis, it would be a glorious mani- 
 festation of God’s omnipotence, were he to effect the salvation of all. 
 Seb. Castalio: Sapiens vas nullum facit ad frangendum, sed si quod 
 vas vitiosum esse contingit, id frangit. 
 
 V.22. Now that the haughty Jew, who had intentionally perverted 
 the declaration of his own holy scriptures, has been scared away, 
 the Apostle delivers, for the behoof of the candid reader, the result 
 of his previous averments. ‘This goes to evince, that God, in his 
 dealing with the ungodly, as well as with the Christian, manifests 
 himself to be a God of boundless compassion and boundless wisdom. - 
 The elocutio, as even Origen remarks, is incomposita, and at both 
 ver. 22 and 23 something is to be supplied in general, as something 
 is also at ver. 23 in particular. Among the various expositors, there 
 are several, who will hear of nothing to be supplied. So Schiéttgen, 
 Heumann, Nésselt. Heumann is for putting a point of interrogation 
 after ver. 22 and 23, which, in fact, many editions have, taking εἰ for 
 ON as interrogative, and along with the interrogative a negation, and 
 translating, ‘‘ Has not God willed to,—and so on.” But were we 
 even to concede all else, it would be impossible to concede that εἰ 
 expresses a question with the negative. Schiéttgen supposes that the 
 particle ϑέλων, stands in place of the finite verb Séaec, and that qveyxe- 
 
336 CHAPTER IX. V. 22. 
 
 forms the after clause, so that ver. 22 is included within itself. The 
 καὶ, in ver. 23, he connects with the entire proposition of ver. 22; 
 23 then becomes the antecedent, and ver. 24 the consequent, the ots 
 being taken in the sense of the demonstrative τούτους. ‘This proce- 
 dure, however, is ungrammatical and altogether violent. ‘The same 
 may also be said of Theodoret’s explanation, who places a period 
 after εἰ δέ, and wants to conceive supplied: Ei τοῦτο ποθεῖς μαθεῖν, 
 τίνος ἕνεκα, πλειόνων ἁμαφτανόντων; τοὺς μὲν κολάζει, τοὺς δὲ δὲ Exevvav 
 EDECYET EL, καὶ πολλὼν τὴν ἀρετὴν μετιόντων; τοὺς μὲν περιφανεῖς ἀποφψαί- 
 νει, τοὺς δὲ διὰ τούτων ὑποφαίύνευ τὰς τῶν μελλόντων ἐλπίδας: ἄκουσον τῶν 
 ἑξῆς. With respect to what we ought to supply to the clause ἢ 
 εἰ δέ in ver. 22, the expositors agree in the main. Augustine and 
 
 Ccumenius suppose that σὺ τίς εἶ is to be supplied once more from 
 ver. 20, Cocceius, that οὐχ ἔχεν ἐξουσίαν is to be resumed from the 
 context immediately preceding. It is most correct to say, that Paul 
 here employs an aposiopesis, such as is to be found in almost all 
 languages after a conditional antecedent clause. Compare, after an 
 antecedent clause with ἐάν, the same aposiopesis of τί ἐρεῦτε; in John 
 vi. 62, while at John xxi. 22, the τί weds σὲ is added after a similar ma- 
 jor clause. So Elsner Obs. Moreover, in Rabbinical dialectics, it is very 
 customary to break off a demonstrative clause with the words [5310 “Ἵν 
 ‘‘enough for the wise,’’ according to the proverb common among 
 the Rabbins, 87072 NDDN, ** to the wise by a wink.’ It is, however, 
 less easy to explain how ver. 23 is to be conceived. We know not 
 what xa: is connected with, and just as little upon what verb ἕνα de- 
 pends. he Vulgate, and a few insignificant codices which Locke fol- 
 lows, in order to get quit of the difficulty, leave the xac out, as the 
 Syriac does the iva. QCicumenius, before ἀπὸ cov xowov, supplies 
 another ἤνεγκεν, and, moreover, in the case of the justified, the state- 
 ment of the purpose, viz. εἰς σωτηξίαν, as in the case of the condemned, 
 the εἰς ἀπώλείαν. Schlichting before iva yrwecoy supplies another οὐχ 
 ἐξουσίαν ἔχει, and takes ἕνα in the sense that. In that case, however, 
 it would be requisite for the ellipse to precede the xa, and that can- 
 not be supposed. ‘The two common views are as follows: A certain 
 number of expositors co-ordinate the clause χαὺ ἕνα κτλ. to the ϑέλων 
 6 Θεὸς x7a., and then subordinate both to the ἤνεγκεν, so that the sense 
 would be: ““ God had a twofold purpose in his long-suffering endur- 
 ance of the reprobate. On the one hand, he wished to manifest his 
 power, and on the other meant to display, by the contrast of the re- 
 probate, the greatness of his compassion, when he forgives the elect, 
 who yet are taken from the same corrupt mass.”’ So the Calvinists, 
 Calvin himself, Beza and Pet. Martyr. So likewise, however, Cas- 
 
 * If you are curious to know, wherefore it is, that whilst there are many 
 sinners, he punishes some, and by their means confers benefits on others; 
 and that whilst many follow after virtue, he renders some conspicuous, and 
 through them dimly discovers to others the hopes of futurity, Hear what 
 follows. 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 22. 337 
 
 talio, Grotius and Taylor, who are not of that school. Another class 
 of interpreters make the zai iva depend upon ϑέλων, and co-ordinate 
 the ἕνα yrwedon to the ἐνδείξασθαι, 50 as to make it describe an oppo-— 
 site mode of treatment on the part of God. So Wolf, Chr. Schmid 
 and Stolz. Itis here presumed, that ἕνα γνωρίσῃ stands in place of 
 the infin. γνωρίσαι. ‘The translation would then be as follows: “1 
 God intending to show his power, endured, with long suffering, the 
 vessels of wrath, and if he intended to manifest his glory on the ves- 
 sels of his mercy.’’ Both modes of construction, however, are unsa- 
 tisfactory. The first mentioned is so, in as far as then the reprobate 
 alone would be the subject spoken of in both the verses, whereas in 
 a result derived from all that has been said, one necessarily expects 
 some mention likewise of the redeemed, and the more, that from 
 ver. 24 onwards, it is just upon them that the Apostle expatiates. 
 Besides, it is only with much violence that the xac ἕνα can be joined 
 as a co-ordinate clause with the ϑέλων xrx., and as a subordinate one 
 with ἤνεγκεν. On a frequent perusal, the exegetical tact leads one, 
 ever more and more, to commence with the xai ἕνα, an entirely new 
 sentence. With respect again to the construction mentioned as the 
 second, it also is attended with difficulties. In the first place, ϑέλων 
 is, in ver, 22, taken as a participle; when supplied, however, to the 
 iva of ver. 23, as a verbum finit. Then, supposing this difficulty to 
 be overlooked, ver. 23, on a general view, would ill suit the dispo- 
 sition of ver. 22. It appears, on the contrary, that ver. 23 is so dis- 
 posed, as to form a complete parallel to ver. 22. ‘This becomes 
 perceptible to the exegetical tact, as was felt, although not distinetly, 
 by Gicumenius. The καὶ ἵνα κτλ.» as Statement of the purpose, an- 
 swers to the Séawy x72. the ἃ προητοίμασεν to the xarneresuéva, and 
 the obs καὺ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς to the ἤνεγκεν. It is hence much more pro- 
 bable, that we have here δΔη ἀναχόλουθον, and that the Apostle properly 
 intended to write: εἰ δὲ Sénav.. .«ἥνεγκχεν oo ey καὺ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ oe ἐχά- 
 λεσεν ἡμᾶς. ΓῸ suppose this is so much the more natural, that the 
 Apostle shows a constant fondness for connecting clauses with the 
 relative. Ina similar way Seiler appears to have construed. 
 
 We now advance to the exposition of particulars. ‘The participle 
 ϑέλων is to be resolved into χαΐπερ ϑέλων. “Stolz: And if God, 
 although he had resolved to inflict punishment.” 
 
 τὴν seyyv. Augustine, De Civ. Dei. 1. xv. c. 35: Ira Dei non per- 
 turbatio animi ejus est, sed judicium quo irrogatur pena peccato. 
 Comp. annot. on ὁ. i. v. 18. 
 
 zo δυνατὸν, the neuter adjective in place of the substantive. The 
 word points back to δύναμις in ver. 17. God employs his power in 
 punishing the sinner, not becausé it profits Him. He stands in no 
 need of our holiness: Neque enim, says Augustine, De Civ. Dei 1. 
 x. 6. 5, fonti se quisquam dixerit profuisse si biberit, aut luci si ad- 
 spexerit. Just as his attribute of holiness, however, in regard to 
 himself, requires of himself perfect harmony with himself, so is the 
 same holiness conceived in regard to the creatures, in which case it 
 
 43 
 
338 CHAPTER IX. V. 22, 
 
 obtains the name righteousness, or harmony of the creatures with 
 him, as the ultimate rule of all existence; this constituting also the 
 supreme felicity of the creatures, which only then really exist, 
 when they exist in Him, and according to Him. 
 
 paxeoduuca. See the annot. on chap. ii. 4. Comp. 2 Maec. vi. 14. 
 As the Calvinist does not suppose that God waits upon the wicked 
 to see if he will improve, or that it is for repentance, he gives him 
 opportunity, the μαχεοθυμία loses entirely its biblical import, accord- 
 ing to which it signifies God’s waiting for repentance, (Rom. ii. 4, 
 5. 2 Pet. iii.9.) In the most favourable view, it becomes an act of 
 justice; in the least, an act of cunning, which refuses to help the 
 wanderer. Philo speaks to the contrary, Quod Deus immutabilis, 
 Ρ. 304: Πεεσβύτεξος yae δίκης ὁ ἔλεος nae’ αὐτῷ. Compare, moreover, 
 the fine passage from Jarchi on Gen. i. ν. 5. “Αἱ the beginning, 
 God wished to create the world solely by the rule of justice (35 
 ni); he saw, however, that then it would not be able to subsist, 
 and he added the rule of love (Ὁ ΠῚ AND).’’ Further, Philo, De 
 Provid. in Euseb. Prep. Ev. 1. VIII. ο. 14. 
 
 σκεύη ὀφγῆς. ‘Chis expression the Apostle selects solely in conse- 
 quence of the preceding figure. He could do so the more readily, 
 inasmuch as the word 2 was common in Hebrew, ina metaphorical 
 sense. So Pirke Avoth, § 3, the law is called ΠΣ 2. Is. xiii. 6, 
 the Persians are styled Opi 43. More particularly, the Jews called 
 women 092, Sometimes, also, profane authors apply σκεῦος in the 
 metaphoric sense to men. Comp. Acts ix. 15, σχεῦος ἐχλογῆς. In 
 σκεύη oeyns, however, the genitive is not, as in oxevos Exaroyys, to be 
 taken actively, as if God had created them in his wrath, which indeed, 
 if we conceive wrath as hatred and punishment of evil, would be 
 senseless, seeing that God only creates for the purpose of communi- 
 cating himself; but the genitive is to be taken passively, ‘ vessels 
 worthy of punishment.” 
 
 Κατηξτισμένα. In the LXX., xaraerilew, equally with ἑτοιμάζειν, 
 corresponds with }'25. Several Arminians take the participle pass- 
 ive, as pure middle, the way in which it is also usually taken by Lu- 
 therans and Arminians, at Acts xiii. 48, on which passage Limborch, 
 with much learning, seeks to establish the middle sense. Now, 
 although it certainly admits of being so taken, we too easily perceive, 
 from this explanation, that it has emanated from docirinal views. 
 Hence, Lutherans and Calvinists almost all agree in here acknow- 
 ledging a participle passive; the only difference between them being, 
 that the latter look upon God as the agent in the matter, while the 
 former, following the lead of 'Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact 
 and (Xcumenius, will have it to be undefined, but that man is to be 
 supposed. Christian Schmid differs from the rest of the Lutheran 
 expositors. He takes χατηξτισμένα, in like manner, as passive parti- 
 ciple, and of like significance with the corresponding phrase, ἃ πξοη- 
 Φοίμασεν᾽ just as at 2'Tim. ill. 17, the ἐξηξφτισμένος is equivalent to the 
 ἡτουμασμένος, 2 Tim. 11, 21; accordingly, God is to be looked upon as 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 22. 339 
 
 the person operating, only not φελικῶς» but, as in the case of Pha- 
 raoh, ἐχβατικῶς. ‘This exposition has much in its favour, to wit, in 
 as far, as in the ὅσου ἦσαν τεταγμένοι Of Acts ΧΙ]. 48, it seems proba- 
 ble, that the conversion spoken of is in like manner, merely accord- 
 ing to the popular usus loquendi, traced wholly back to God, as the 
 final cause, whereas properly he is but ὑλιχὼς and διαταχτικῶς the 
 author, and in as far also as the Rabbinical usus loquendi coincides 
 with it. See Wetstein on Acts xiii. 47. So R. Bechai: “ ‘The 
 Heathen are prepared (0°3319) for hell, but Israel for life.’’ And, 
 Bechoroth, f. 8. 2, it is said, ‘*R. Joseph taught, They are the Per- 
 sians who are prepared (0°32) for Gehennah.”’ Similar is the pass- 
 age of Jude 4, οὗ mpoysyeaumévor sis τοῦτο τὸ xevmo- In the participle, 
 j212, the Jew conceived to himself God as the Author, although not 
 éveeyntixas. Although, however, much may be said in favour of 
 this exposition, it seems preferable with Grotius and Limborch, to 
 suppose at the present passage, that the participle stands in the place 
 of the adjective verb, in which way, Luke vi. 40, xarjercopévos is to 
 be explained; and 2 Tim. ii. 21, ἡτοιμασμένον appears united in the 
 same sense with oxevos. For as the Hebrew wants, in his language, 
 the adjective verb, he puts participles in the place of them. So is 
 the participle Niphal of 713 also used for the adject. verb. 712) ““ firm, 
 ready.” ‘The Rabbinical participle, Pual 3012, has in like manner 
 the signification of the adject. verb, ** ready, suited.”’ Nay, the par- 
 ticiple Pual }217, which properly signifies ‘* prepared,”’ serves in the 
 Rabbinical just like TAy in Hebrew, that equally signifies “‘ prepared,” 
 for a direct periphrasis of the future. In the Hellenistic, this Hebraism 
 is to be found again, for instance, John xix. 38, xexevuuévos, in place 
 of xevaios, 2' Tim. ii. 21. So has the Vulgate also here, apta, although 
 some codices read aptata. ‘The predestinarian construction of the 
 whole saying is given in the most unobjectionable form by Augus- 
 tine, Ep. 186, ad Paulinum § 24: Pertulit vasa ire in interitum ap- 
 tata, non quod illi essent necessaria ..... sed ne se (vasa misericor- 
 diz) in bonis operibus tanquam de propriis extollerent viribus, sed 
 humiliter intelligerent, nisi illis Dei gratia, non debita sed gratuita, 
 subveniret, id fuisse reddendum meritis suis, quod aliis in eadem 
 massa reditum cernerent. ‘The subject of redemption, however, will 
 believe this, even without the arbitrary and eternal damnation of ἡ" 
 many of his fellow men. ‘The usual (we say so, inasmuch as ours 
 deviates a little), anti-predestinarian view is given with greatest pre- 
 cision by Clarius: Vas erat Pharaoh quod sese apparaverat ad inte- 
 ritum, dignus erat qui continuo plecteretur, verum ingentem erga eum 
 tolerentiam Deus exercuit, atque interea, ut sub Dei regno ne mala 
 quidem sine aliquo éssent usu, ita sapienter omnia moderatus est ut 
 ejus correctio multis documento fuerit ac saluti. Ita uno negotio hac 
 omnia confecit, Ostendit iram suam, notam fecit potentiam, leni- 
 tatem ingentem ferendo pre se tulit, indicavit quanti faceret vasa 
 misericordiz. 
 
340 CHAPTER IX. V. 23, 24. 
 
 V.23. Upon the καὶ iva, see ver. 22. [ῃ σχεύη ἐλέους» the ἐλέους is 
 gen. passivi, ‘upon which the divine mercy diffuses itself.”’ 
 
 πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης. Rom. ii. 4. Eph. i. 7, 18; ii. 7. Col. i. 27. 
 The δόξα is the blessedness, which, by means of the love of God, is 
 imparted to the Christian. Hence, Theophylact explains incorrectly 
 when he says: ἡ τελεία δόξα Θεοῦ τὸ ἔλεευν. The ἃ πεοητοίμασεν cor- 
 responds with the χατηξτισμένα. The πεὸ might stand destitute of 
 significance, in proof of which Lésner quotes the passage from Philo: 
 De Opif. p. 17: Ὃ Θεὸς τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ πάντα προητουμάσατο. -- ++ - εἰς 
 ἔρωτα καὶ πόθον αὗτου. But even in that passage of Philo, the πεὸ 
 is not entirely devoid of meaning. In the present case, that is so 
 much the less to be conceived, that Christ himself (Mat. xxv. 34), 
 and the Apostles (see observations on Rom. viii. 28, 29), state it as 
 a particular distinction of the redeemed, that from eternity their par- 
 don, and consequently also their exaltation to glory, was determined 
 before the eyes of God. Precisely the same way as here, is πξοεθοι- 
 patew used, Wisdom ix. 8: εἶπας» οὐἰκοδομῆσαυ ναὸν ἐν deer ἁγίῳ σου, καὶ 
 ἐν πόλει χατασχηνώσεώς σου ϑδυσιαστήξιον; μίμημα σκηνῆς ἁγίας ἣν πεοητοί- 
 μασας an’ ἀρχῆς. ‘The purpose of God, in so far as it brings along 
 with it the fulfilment, is represented as an ideal action on God’s 
 part. Accordingly, supplying what needs to be supplied, we translate 
 the present and foregoing verses in their connection thus: ‘ But if 
 God had the intention to manifest his holiness and his omnipotence 
 upon those who only merited punishment from his divine holiness, and 
 were wholly fitted for being driven into eternal perdition, but did, 
 nevertheless, endure such men, waiting with patience for their re- 
 pentance, If, on the other hand, he had the intention to make 
 known the riches of his glory to those who were to be the partakers 
 of his compassion, and to whom he had already, before the founda- 
 tion of the world, assigned eternal glory, and now called them, Hea- 
 thens as well as Jews, into his kingdom, without making a distinction 
 between the nations, what could well be said in opposition?”’ 
 
 V.24. Ods is, without reference to the sense, construed with oxevn, 
 that word standing metaphorically for men. After zxcdaecev, Erasmus, 
 Luther, Beza and others place a comma, and take ἡμᾶς as apposition. 
 We do better, however, to connect ἡμᾶς directly as object with ἐχά- 
 λεσεν» and to regard the relative as predicate, “‘as which persons he 
 hath also called us.’? The od μόνον ἐξ ᾿Ιουδαίων then forms a new 
 addition, which it frequently does: ** And indeed not only.”” ‘Thus 
 does the Apostle with these words, again take his stand upon the 
 ground from which he had departed at the commencement of the 
 chapter, ver. 7, viz. that it was not merely the Jews, as such, who 
 were to come into the kingdom of the Messias, but that God has 
 the right to appoint those conditions of mercy, under which, only 
 certain Jews, and the Heathen no less than they, should obtain ad- 
 mission. And clearly do we see, from this inference, that it is not 
 the vocation of individuals into the kingdom of grace which is treated 
 
CHAPTER Ix. V. 24,25, 26. 341 
 
 of, but that of entire national masses, and so not of an absolute, but 
 only of such a conditional decree on God’s part, as depends upon 
 faith, consequently upon the bias of the will. 
 
 1 50 ΙΓ. 
 
 EVEN THE OLD TESTAMENT PREDICTS, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT ONLY 
 A FEW, FROM AMONG THE JEWS, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT 
 THE HEATHEN TOO SHALL BE SAVED. v. 25—33. 
 
 V. 25. The passage which St. Paul quotes, is from Hos. il. 23, 
 with which we have to compare Hos. i. 6—10. The text is not 
 correctly cited. It there runs TAN DY ΡΝ) “MAND NON NTA 
 ‘ony. The LXX. have ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐχ ἠγαπημένην. But the — 
 Codex Alex. and likewise the Aldine have ἐλεήσω τὴν οὐκ ἐλεημένην. 
 This translation is also the one here expressed by the Syriac, and by 
 the Apostle Peter, 1 Peter ii. 10. According to the Hebrew usus lo- 
 quendi, both translations are good, inasmuch as 0M signifies fo love 
 as well as fo pity, which last, however, more commonly belongs to the 
 Piel. The feminine 79M and ἠγαπημένη arises from the circumstance, 
 that the prophet required to represent by his daughter, the kingdom 
 of Israel, to which the words apply. In fact, the declaration of the 
 Lord in the prophet, refers properly to the manifestation of mercy, 
 not to Gentiles but to the Jews. Inasmuch, however, as Israel had 
 fallen to a par with the idolatrous heathen, the Apostle applies the 
 sense of it also to the latter, in compliance with the Rabbinical mode 
 of interpreting texts, by which one and the same may be referred to 
 several things and persons, provided the idea is applicable to them. 
 See Appendix to Surenhusius, Βυβλ. καταλλ. Thesis xii. p.51. The 
 Apostle Peter, at the passage cited, applies in the same manner the 
 words of Hosea to the heathen. 
 
 V.26. The saying here quoted is from Hosea i. 10, faithfully 
 given according to the Hebrew and the LXX. Equally with the 
 former one, it refers, in the Hebrew text, to the ten tribes, foretelling 
 the blessedness of which they were to be partakers when, after their 
 dispersion, they should repent, enter the kingdom of the Messias, and 
 united with Juda, should enjoy its glory. The xaé most likely be- 
 longs to the text quoted. As the Rabbins are accustomed to do in 
 their citations, Paul conjoins two similar texts immediately with each 
 other; others make a colon after the xai, as if it were meant to con- 
 nect two different clauses. κχαλεῦσθαι is frequently equivalent to fo 
 be, according to the Hebrew 87), Is. iv. 3; ix. 6; lvi. 7. Matt. v. 
 9. They shali then, as true Theocrats, be υἱοὺ τοῦ Θεοῦ ζῶντος. The 
 
342 CHAPTER IX. V. 27, 28. 
 
 ἐν τῷ τόπῳ is not to be urged. It is only added, in order to give 
 greater effect to the change in the divine intention. 
 
 V. 27. By the previous saying, the Apostle had shown, that the 
 Heathen should be admitted into the Divine kingdom. He now 
 shows that Jews should also be admitted, but only in an incon- 
 siderable number. A time of sifting, according to the prophets, is to 
 precede the era of the Messias (compare what was observed on chap. 
 ii. 5), which a few and but a few purified members of the theocracy 
 having survived, (ΠΝ) they shall form the new kingdom of God. 
 A small remnant only of the entire number shall then be saved, and 
 only this remnant, **a poor and afflicted people,” (Zeph. iii. 12,) 
 enters into the kingdom of the Messias. ‘They are then, however, 
 refined as silver is refined, and tried as gold is tried, Zech. xiii. 9. 
 These are they who, when all Israel is sifted, like the grains of corn, 
 do not fall upon the earth, Amos ix. 9. ‘They form that holy seed,” 
 which remains over from the tree that has cast its leaves, Is. vi. 13. 
 Yea, every one of them is called holy, and written in the book of 
 life, Is. iv. 3. Even for the heathen who at that great time of sifting, 
 ’ shall flee to Zion, there shall be found deliverance there, Joel ii. 32. 
 Upon the ground of these predictions, R. Sinai in Perek. Melech., 
 declares: ‘* That to Canaan, of 600,000 people there came but two, 
 this shall happen in the days of the Messiah.”’ Now to the sayings 
 of this kind belongs also the prophetical passage, applied by the 
 Apostle, Is. x. 22. He was by it able to evince, as it was his pur- 
 pose to do, that even the prophets did not announce to the nation, as 
 such, an entrance into the Messias’ kingdom, but only to a chosen 
 number. 
 
 Ἡσαΐας χράζει bate τοῦ Ἰσξαήλ. ‘The word xeafew, among the 
 Rabbins, is often used emphatically in citations. So especially in 
 the formula wapn m7 Ayo Any. Also my #7237. Similarly Aris- 
 tides, Orat. in Ap. p. 124: ἡ πόλις αὐτὴ συνομολογεὶ xai xéxeays. The 
 ὑπὲρ like περὶ “ἴῃ regard to.” ‘The translation agrees perfectly with 
 the Hebr. and the LXX., excepting only, that the 13 which we find in 
 the Hebrew, and which the LXX. express correctly by αὐτῶν, is 
 wanting. The Codex Alexr. has this αὐτῶν just as little. 
 
 V.28. The Hebrew of this citation, Is. x. 22 and 23, runs thus: mba 
 3 Apr Aow pn yr7 pany 2 apa ΠΩ» Msay Ὁ ΥΝ ΤΙΝ ΠΣ. The 
 correct explanation of which words is: ‘* The extermination is deter- 
 mined, it accordingly streams forth bringing righteousness, (so has 
 Gesenius rightly translated in this passage,) for the Lord God of 
 hosts executeth the appointed destruction in all the land.””. We have 
 now to answer the question, how the Codex Alexr. came to translate 
 as it has done. The Hebrew }153 was probably taken by the LXX. 
 in the sense decree, appointment, In this signification the substan- 
 tive 152 stands, 1 Sam. xx. 33, and the verb, 1 Sam. xx. 7,9. Es- 
 ther vil. 7. ‘The λόγος in the Greek ought, accordingly, in the same 
 way to signify decree. ‘The Syriac translation is hence less correct, 
 as is that of the Vulgate, verbum, of Erasmus, sermo, and of Beza 
 
CHAPTER IX. v. 28, 29. 343 
 
 and many others, res. To the συντελὼν and the σνυντέμνων ἐστὶ or 2o- 
 ταν is to be supplied; the participles stand for the verbum finit. the 
 subject is 6 Kvews. The Syriac renders with the verbum finit. The 
 LXX. sometimes change the actives of the Hebrew into passives, 
 Gen. xv. 6, and sometimes likewise, as in this instance, passives, 
 such as ὙΠ, into actives. Thus συντέμνων is here the translation of 
 yon. In profane authors συντέμνειν has the signification accelerate, 
 so also has the Hebrew yn. ‘This is here most suitable, and cer- 
 tified by the usus loquendi. Less appropriate, and not demonstrated 
 by the usus loquendi, is the signification which Hesychius gives to 
 the συντέμνειν, explaining it by συντελεῖν, to accomplish. Many others 
 take it in the sense to conclude. ‘This is without example among 
 profane authors, and in the LXX., it is the less frequent, although 
 to be found in Dan. ix. 24, 26. It would also suit with the following 
 λόγος συντετμημένος, but does not suit here. How then came the 
 translators to interpolate ovyrendy? Certainly this cannot be an elu- 
 cidation of συντέμνων. Rather does it seem intended to exhaust the 
 idea of 1752, which is not fully expressed by λόγος. That the LXX., 
 in the book of Isaiah, endeavour, by small interpolations, to give their 
 version more perspicuity, is observed by Gesenius, zu Is. Th. I. 5. 
 58. But then the \Ow, appears to be untranslated. Venema main- 
 tains the violent hypothesis, that the LXX. had read vow. Were 
 not 77M in every other passage, even in its derivatives, translated 
 with συντέμνευν, it would be by no means improbable that \uw, which 
 elsewhere has the signification fo rush on, (Jer. viii. 6,) had been 
 here taken by the translator transitively, and rendered by ovyréuvew, 
 in the sense, fo hasten. If this conjecture, however, is not adopted, 
 it must be said that the translator believed the sense of "nw was 
 already sufliciently expressed by συντέμνων and συντελῶν. Arxarootyy 
 is here doubtless penal justice, or like prs, the truth. The Codex 
 Alexr. the Coptic, Syriac and Arabic versions, and several fathers 
 leave ἐν δυκαιοσύνῃ----συντετμημένων out. ‘The Aithiopic and 'Theodo- 
 ret omit from συντελῶν to ὅτι λόγον. Both omissions are occasioned 
 by difficulties in the interpretation. 
 
 Λόγον συντετμημένον. Here συντέμνειν might be suitably translated 
 by to resolve. We prefer, however, the meaning to expedite. The 
 whole verse contains the description of the time of sifting, which is 
 to precede the Messias’ kingdom, See, upon this citation, the able 
 treatise of Von Célln, Keil and Tzschirner Anal. Th. III. 5. 2. 
 
 V. 29. Another prophetical passage relating to the Israelites, who 
 survive the penal judgments, and obtain salvation. Isaiah’s words, 
 however, do not stand in any determinate bearing upon the period of 
 the Messias. The text is faithfully quoted after the Hebrew and 
 LXX. The πρεοείρηκεν has here not the meaning, to prophecy, but 
 to. say above, at some previous passage, 2 Cor. vii. 3; Heb. x. 15; in 
 the language of the Rabbins 79 ον 9. Σαβαὼθ is the name which 
 God usually bears in the‘authentic part of Isaiah. It may well be 
 that this name, 777 ΠΊΝΩΝ, which means “God of Hosts,’’ was 
 
344 CHAPTER Ix. V. 29, 30, 31, 32. 
 
 originally, as Von Célln supposes, applied to God as the warrior 
 (133) of Israel, who went forth before their armies in the ark of the 
 covenant, and that only at an after period was it applied to the ce- 
 lestial hosts of stars. Σπέρμα stands for the Hebrew, 17w, not be- 
 cause, as Rosenmiiller, on Is. i. 9, maintains, 17w primarily signified 
 left seed, for it comes from an Arabic root, which means * to fly,” 
 but because only the person who fled remamed as a seed for propa- 
 gation; Job xx. 21, Ww stands expressly for the remnant, and the 
 LXX. translate ὑπόλειμμα. Compare Is. vi. 13. ὋὉμοιοῦσθαι joined 
 by the LXX. with ὡς instead of with the dative (Hos. iv. 6; Ez. 
 Xxxii. 2), because in Hebrew ΠῚ is so with 3. 
 
 V. 30. Result respecting which Melancthon justly says: Hie ex- 
 presse ponit causam reprobationis, quia scilicet nolint eredere Evan- 
 gelio. Ideo supra dixi, similitudinem de luto non ita accipiendam 
 esse, quasi non sit in ipsa voluntate hominis causa reprobationis. 
 
 ἔθνη τὼ μὴ διώκοντα δικαυοσύνην. ‘The character of the Gentile, 
 generally considered, is, that he does not inquire whether or not there 
 be a God, and He a holy being; the character of the Jew, that he is 
 aware of it, and trembles, but again takes courage from himself; the 
 character of the Christian, that he too knows it, trembles, but consents 
 to receive comfort. ‘The Heathen is without zeal; the Jew has a 
 zeal, but not according to knowledge, Rom. x. 2; Gal. iv. 17. 
 Chrysostom: xai γὰξ δύο ἐστὶ τὰ ζητούμενα» Ore καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἐπέτυχεν Kad 
 μὴ διώκοντα ἐπέτυχε, τοῦτ᾽ ote μὴ σπουδάσαντα. καὶ πάλιν end τῶν 
 ᾿ἸΙουδαίών ὁμοίως τὰ δύο ἀποξα" ὅτι καὶ Ἰσξαὴν ovx ἐπέτυχεν καὶ σπουδάζων 
 οὐκ ἐπέτυχε. 5 Upon δικαυνοσύνη compare Rom. 1. 17; ill. 21, Διώχω 
 is frequently used by profane authors in the place of ζητεῖν. In the 
 same way, also, ΤΊ occurs in the Hebrew for wp2, and so too in 
 Rabbinical, Pirke Avoth, c. 4, § 2, 77 MN ΤῚΝ. 
 
 V. 31. Νόμος, as at vii. 23; viii. 2, has the general signification of 
 rule, law. It is falsely supposed by Bengel and Bolten, that νόμος 
 δικαιοσύνης Stands per hypallagen for δικαιοσύνη νόμου. 
 
 φθάνειν és τι. Hesychius: καταλαμβάνειν. It means precisely to 
 altain. Soin the LXX. and among profane authors. See in the 
 N. T. Phil. iii. 16. 
 
 V. 32. Chrysostom: “αὐτὴ ἧ σαφεστάτη τοῦ χωρίου παντὸς λύσις. 
 Here we must look back to ver. 16. From that it becomes clear, of 
 what description the running of Israel was, which did no good. 
 
 ὡς ἐξ teyov. The ὡς answers to the Hebrew caph veritatis (Gese- 
 nius, Lehrg. 5. 846, Gesenius, zu Is. i. 7,) 2. 6. it involves a com- 
 parison with all objects of the same species. The use of it is par- 
 ticularly manifest at John i. 14, where Chrysostom, so early as in 
 
 * Two things are inquired about, viz. the Gentiles obtaining, and obtaining 
 although they did not seek, 7. 6. without taking pains; and again, in respect 
 of the Jews, there are equally two difficulties; viz. that Israel did not attain, 
 and that they did not attain, although they strove to do so. : 
 
 { This is the clearest solution of the whole passage. 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 32, 33. 345 
 
 his day, remarks it, likewise at John vii. 10; Phil. ii. 12; Philem. 
 14. In Greek, also, the ὡς is soused with adverbs, particularly with 
 ἀληθὼς; 6. g. Plato, Apol. T. I. Bip. p. 94: εὑρήσει τοὺς ὡς ἀληθὼς δικασ- 
 vas, Which must be resolved into οὕτω δικαστὰς ὄντας, ὡς ἀληθὼς ὀνομά- 
 Coe ἂν τις. 
 
 V. 33. The Apostle means to show, that it was announced in the 
 Old Testament itself that Israel would reject the Messias. Were he 
 able to show that, it would appear less surprising, if, now-a-days, 
 agreeably to his statement, the major part of the Jews were excluded 
 from the kingdom of the Messias. ‘The passage to which he appeals 
 is Is. xxviii. 16. As it there stands, it does not suit his purpose; 
 and accordingly he inserts a few words from another similar passage, 
 Is. viii. 14. In the same way the Rabbins also proceed, introducing 
 into their Scripture citations, words taken from texts of a kindred 
 signification. Examples are given by Surenh. Βιβλ. xazana. de modis 
 alleg. T. V. p. 43. The text Is. xxviii. 16, runs as follows: [38 13} 
 ΤᾺΣ INN wi kD PeXnA ἼΟῚ Ow Np NID {Π2.. “Lo, I have 
 laid in Zion a foundation-stone, a tried stone, a corner-stone, precious 
 and surely founded, He that trusts it need not fly.” Isaiah viii. 14, 
 reads thus: wna "710 wa ὍΣ) ἢ) JaNd) wIpr mM “ΗΒ, 
 (the subject is 717, who is likewise the speaker) will be for a sanc- 
 tuary, but also for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to both 
 the houses of Israel.” The Apostle accordingly would seem to 
 have inserted the predicates which the stone has in Isaiah viii. into 
 the text from Isaiah xxviii, and omitted what are there to be found. 
 Let us then weigh the prophetical sense of Is. xxviii. The words 
 are uttered by God through his prophet against an ungodly-minded 
 popular faction, who were desirous of a league with Egypt against 
 Assyria. In opposition to this, the Divine Being replies, that for all 
 his true subjects, he had laid in the theocracy, a foundation-stone that 
 was more firmly set than all human plans, and that is the theocratical 
 king, Messias. It is objected that the passage cannot refer to the 
 Messias, inasmuch as 10) is the preterite, and consequently the stone 
 is described as already laid and existing, and so that it is the young 
 King Hezekiah who is meant, the hopes of all the members of the 
 theocracy being founded upon him. Moreover, that to these persons 
 in these days, the Messias who appeared so long after, could impart 
 no consolation under their fears of Assyria. With respect to the first 
 objection, it may be answered, that the pret. is a pret. proph., the 
 thing being in God’s counsel already present. So even Jarchi: 725 
 57 ΠῚ 7123: “Long ago has the decree been settled by me.” 
 Still less can the second be urged, it being easy to conceive, that the 
 prophets, once penetrated with the thought of a glory to which their 
 commonwealth should attain in the Messias’ days, might well com- 
 fort themselves under whatsoever affliction, with the outlook into the 
 future, which they certainly imagined near at hand. ‘The Chaldaic 
 translates at the passage quoted: *pn qo qo wea 13ND NIN NA ID: 
 “ Behold, [ establish in Zion, a king, a strong and mighty king.” 
 
 44 
 
846 CHAPTER Ix. v 33. 
 
 The text is, however, corrupted. In Martini’s Pugio fidei, where it 
 is cited, we find in both editions of the work, mwnn after the first 
 752. Gesenius observes in his Com. zum. Is. that this is spurious, 
 as otherwise it would be ἈΠ 2. Doubtless. But might not a He- 
 brew gloss have found its way into the Chaldaic text, and existed 
 there in Martini’s day. This might be still more corrupted by the 
 Jews from controversial motives, omitting mwnn. Even the Baby- 
 lonie Talmud, Tract. Sanhedrin, fol. 38, 1, and the book Sohar in- 
 terpret this passage of the Messias, see Schittgen Hore Talm. J. ii. 
 p- 170, 290, 607. Jarchi too does the same. It is likewise referred, 
 in the New Testament, to the Messias, 1 Pet. ii.'7. We have, 
 moreover, to compare with this prediction, Ps. cxviil. 22. See the 
 expositions, many of them singular, by the Jewish theologians in 
 Schittgen, Hore Talm. T. ii. p. 11, 88, 106, 107,213. Jarchi and 
 Kimehi also testify that it was explained of the Messias. In the 
 New Testament, Christ applies it to himself, Matt. xxi. 42,44. Luke 
 xx. 17. (On these passages, Augustine, Sermo 40, De Verbis Do- 
 mini, says: “ Christ in the state μὰ humiliation is the little stone at 
 the feet, on which the daring runner stumbles. Christ in the state 
 of exaltation is the mighty rock which, falling from on high, dashes 
 the rebellious to pieces.’’) Peter also applies it to Christ, Acts iv. 
 11. 1 Pet. 11. 7. Let us now turn to the other passage, Is. viii. 14. 
 The words are delivered by the prophet in the name of Jehovah, to 
 such of the Theocrats in the kingdom of Juda, as stood in danger of 
 being seduced into distrust of the divine aid against their enemies, 
 Israel and Syria. In opposition to such fears, God here offers him- 
 self to all who yield him the honour, for a secure sanetuary; but, on 
 the other hand, to such as assume a position of hostility against him, 
 for a stone of offence and fall. ‘This passage of the prophet also was 
 expounded, even by the Jews, as treating of the Messias. See the 
 Gemarah zu Sanhedr. c. 4. That, at the time of our Saviour, the 
 pious Jews universally applied it in the same way, is clear from Luke 
 11. 34, where Simeon says: οὗτος χεῦταυ εἰς πτῶσιν καὶ ἀνάστασιν mor- 
 nav ἐν τῷ ᾿Ισφαὴλ: καὶ εἰς σήμεῖον ἀντιλεγόμενον. ‘The rejection of the 
 Messias by the Israelites, agreeably to the typical exposition, is in- 
 volved in many psalms, as it is in Zech. xi. 12, and also Is, liii. 1. 
 Several Jewish theologians, particularly the author of the Midrasch, 
 taught it in express terms. ‘Thus in Bereschith Rabba, (a mystical 
 commentary upon Genesis, by R. Bar-Nachmani, about 300 years 
 after Christ,) we read: ἼΝΣ MYEN PNY WwW AVY PII Ws 11. 
 ‘«« They sing no Psalm, until the Messias is decries: as is written, 
 Ps) lxxxix. 51." 
 
 Λίθος προσκόμματος. In Hebrew, the stone upon which the 
 runner strikes and falls, is an image for failure in one’s aim, and then 
 generally for misfortune. Usually 5wa29 is the word which the 
 LXX.—except in translating Is. vili., where they have xraiua,— 
 render by σκάνδαλον, which Paul afterwards, deviating from the LXX., 
 puts into the citation itself. Chrysostom: τὸ δὲ πξοσχόπτευν tx τοῦ 
 
CHAPTER IX. V. 33. 347 
 
 μὴ προςέχειν γίνεται, ἐκ τοῦ meds ἕτερα χεχηνέναϊ. ἐπεὶ οὖν χαὲ οὗϑοι τῷ 
 ψόμῳ πιδοσείχον, προσέχοψων τῷ λίθῳ. ἢ 
 
 οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται. In Hebrew there stands wm, which signifies, 
 to be afraid. Accordingly, Capellus and Grotius suppose that the 
 LXX. read wr. Pococke showed that the corresponding Arabic 
 word has in the vii. conj. the meaning fo blush, and supposed that 
 the Hebrew win, besides its now customary signification, trepidare, 
 had that meaning also. Modern expositors embrace the same opi- 
 nion, and among the rest, Gesenius. ‘The meaning given to the 
 Arabie word, however, is unusual. We do better to suppose, that 
 to the LXX., the sense frepidare implied as much as pessum ire, 
 and hence that χαταυσχύνεσθαι stands here, in what, agreeably to their 
 use of wan, is to them a very familiar meaning, to be ashamed, (be- 
 cause one quakes.) ‘The import of the verse, as Paul understands 
 it, is accordingly as follows: As Christ is the rock, through which ° 
 alone the man who is alive to his need of salvation, can obtain firm 
 footing; so is he likewise, however, the rocky point upon which the 
 proud and self-righteous dash themselves, and break their hard heads. 
 Calvin: Si quid nobis arrogamus justitie, cum Christi virtute quo- 
 dammodo, luctamur; siquidem ejus officium est, non minus omnem 
 carnis superbiam conterere, quam laborantes sublevare. 
 
 * Offending arises from not attending, and from panting after other things; 
 because they. gave their minds to the law, they struck against the stone. 
 
CHAPTER TENTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 The Apostle once more protests his distress at the unbelief and consequent 
 rejection of the covenant people. He shows that it depends upon them- 
 selves whether they shall obtain grace. All God requires is faith. This 
 kind of justification, moreover, is so much easier than that by works. Neither 
 has God denied the Israelites the knowledge of the doctrine of salvation. It 
 has been abundantly preached to them. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1. The ground of Israel’s rejection is unbelief, and that alone. Description of 
 justification by faith. V.1—13. 
 2. Israel has not wanted preachers of this doctrine of salvation. V.14—21. 
 
 PAE Tike 
 
 THE GROUND OF ISRAEL’S REJECTION IS UNBELIEF, AND THAT ALONE. 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH IS DESCRIBED. v. 1—13. 
 
 V.1. Rather with the warmth of enthusiasm, than in a calm di- 
 dactic tone, had the Apostle, in the former chapter, stated the ground 
 of Israel’s exclusion from the new kingdom of God. In general, 
 indeed, he had there been more occupied with assigning to God the 
 right of excluding whom hechooses from his favours, than with speci- 
 fying precisely the ground of Israel’s exclusion. Accordingly, more 
 quietly, and with a sort of melancholy repose, which however, in 
 the progress of the lesson, soon rises into enthusiasm, he begins at 
 last to explain the cause of Israel’s exclusion. Chrysostom: Μέλλει 
 πάλιν αὐτῶν καθάπτεσθαυ σφοδρότερον, ἢ πεότεξον" διὸ πάλιν ἀναιξεὶ πάσης 
 ἀπεχθείας ὑπόνοιαν; καὶ πολλῇ κέχξηταν τῇ πέεοσδιορθώσει" μὴ yae πξοσέ- 
 χετε τοῖς λόγοις, φησὶ, μηδὲ ταῖς χατηγοξίαις, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὐχ ἀπὸ διανοίας 
 ἐχθρᾶς ταῦτα φθέγγομαι. Οὐ γὰρ ἐστὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ σωθῆναί τε αὐτοὺς ἐπυ- 
 θυμεῖν, καὺ μὴ μόνον ἐπιθυμεῖν ἀλλὰ χαν εὔχεσθαι, καὶ πάλιν μυσεῦν καὶ 
 ἀποστρέφεσθαι. καὶ yae εὐδοχίαν ἐνταῦθα τὴν σφοδρὰν ἐπιθυμίαν φησι. καὶ 
 bea χαὶ τὴν δέησιν πῶς ποιεῖται ἀπὸ διανοίας. οὐ yae ὥστε ἀπαλλαγῆναν 
 χολάσεως μόνον», ἀλλ᾽ ὥστε χαὶ σωθῆναι αὐτοὺς: πολλὴν καὶ τὴν σπουδὴν 
 
CHAPTER X. Vv. 1, 2. . 349 
 
 ποιεῖται, καὶ τὴν εὐχήν. καὶ οὐχ ἐντεῦθεν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ χαὶ tx τῶν ἑξῆς 
 δείχνυσι τὴν εὔνοιαν, ἣν Eyer Weds αὐτοὺς. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν ἐγχωξούντων: ὡς 
 οἷός τε ἦν, βιάζεται καὶ φυλονευκεῖν ζητῶν oxaw γοῦν τινα ἀπολογίας αὐτοὺς 
 εὑξφεῖν. καὶ οὐχ ἰσχύει. ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων νυκώμενος φύσεως. ἢ 
 
 ᾿Αδελφοὺ, ἡ μὲν εὐδοχία τῆς ἐμῆς καρδίας. ‘The ἀδελφοὶ forms a kindly 
 introduction, as atc. vii. 1. Ἑὐδοχία answers to the Hebrew j1¥9, and 
 means here wish. So Ecclesiasticus xvill. 31, εὐδοκία ἐπιθυμίας. 
 As must take place in all true Christians, the wish, in the case of 
 Paul takes the form of a prayer, and hence there immediately follows 
 here δέησις. 
 
 εἰς σωτηξίαν.. The εἰς may stand in the sense of as touching, with 
 respect to, but it is better to take it as designation of the use or pur- 
 pose, and so equivalent to iva σωθῶσυ. 
 
 V.2. The Apostle declares, that notwithstanding their unbelief, 
 he cannot but, in a certain respect, love the Jews more than the un- 
 believing heathens, and consequently he cherishes a peculiar wish for 
 their salvation. It could not be questioned, that the Jews, even 
 during their disbelief of the Gospel, were anxiously concerned for 
 their salvation. But the heathen were notsoatall. Inthe same way 
 would a real Christian feel deeper sympathy with a Catholic flock, 
 which, under the burden of the Law, deals much with penances and 
 fastings, than with a Protestant one given over to levity and flesh- 
 pleasing. The burning zeal of the Jews for their Law and their 
 acceptance with God, is described by Philo (Legat. at Caium, p. 
 1008,) in the following words: ("Eév0s) εἰωθὸς ἑκουσίους ἀναδέχεσθαν θα- 
 γάτους Gonee ἀθανασίαν, daze Tov μηδὲν τῶν πατρίων περιϊδεῖν ἀναιφούμε- 
 vor, εἰ κοαὺ βεαχύτατον εἴη. ibid. p. 1022: ἅπαντες yae ἀνθρωποι φυλαχ- 
 τικοὺ τῶν (Otay ἐδὼν εἰσίν. διαφεξόντως δὲ τὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἔθνος. τοῖς 
 yae nin καθαιφοῦσιν ἢ χλευάζουσιν ὡς πολεμιωτάτοις ἀπέχθονταί, καὶ πε- 
 φερίκασυ μὲν ἕχαστον τῶν διηγοξευομένων οὕτως, ὡς ἅπασαν τὴν nae ἀνθρώ- 
 Mois, εὖτε εὐτυχίαν Eire εὐδαιμονίαν χρὴ καλεῖν, μηδέποτ᾽ ἂν dnie παξαβά- 
 σεὼς χαὶ τοῦ τυχόντος ἂν ὑπαλλάξασθαι. We may compare the animated 
 
 * He is about to reprove them more sharply than before. Hence he again 
 removes all suspicion of enmity, and employs much previous explanation. 
 Dwell not, he says, upon my words and accusations, but remember I do not 
 utter them from hostile feelings. For it belongs not to one and the same man 
 
 ~ to desire that such and such persons should be saved, nay, not only to desire, 
 but to pray for this, and at the same time to hate and turn away from them. 
 Here he calls his vehement desire his will. And observe how he makes his 
 prayer from the sentiments of his mind. For he uses both much pains and 
 much prayer, not merely that they may be delivered from punishment, but 
 that they might even attain to salvation. And not merely by what he here 
 says, but also by the sequel does he show the good will he cherished towards 
 them. For he strives and contends with all his might, endeavouring to find, 
 among the things which might be excused, some shadow of apology for them; 
 but is not able, being overcome by the nature of the circumstances. 
 
 + A nation wont to submit to voluntary death, as if it were immortality, 
 rather than neglect any, were it even the least, of the traditions of their 
 fathers. All men are careful of their own customs, but pre-eminently the 
 
350 CHAPTER X. V. 2, 3. 
 
 description of faithfulness to, and zeal for the Law, in Jos. 6. Apion, 
 1. ii. 6. 20. Historical instances are to be found in numerous pass- 
 ages of Josephus, de Bel. Jud. (6. g. 1. ii. c. 17.) Compare the ob- 
 servations on 6. ii. 22. Even the heathen historian, Hecateus Ab- 
 derita, makes special mention of the ἐσχυξογνωμοσύνη of the Jews. In 
 the New Testament, Jewish converts are spoken of as ζηλωταὶ τοῦ 
 νόμου, Acts xxi. 20. Comp. Rom. ii. 17. Paul calls himself ϑηλω- 
 τὴς tov νόμου, Acts xxii. 3. Gal.i. 14. Comp. Phil. iii. 5, 6. 
 
 μαφξτυφὼ yae αὐτοῖς. Itis wrong for moderns to insist on having 
 paerveéo here taken in the New Testament meaning of ἔο praise, as 
 Beza, Grotius, Koppe. The primary sense of testify, not to deny, 
 suits best.with the minor proposition. 
 
 ζῆλος Θεοῦ. Some, as Schottgen, will have Θεοῦ conceived, in com- 
 pliance with that Hebraism, by which the name 717” whenever joined 
 to an object in a genitive relation, denotes its magnitude. But how 
 very unnatural is this! In like manner as here, the genitive * 3 is 
 joined with Np at Ps. lxix. 10, and οὔχον Θεοῦ with ζῇλος, John 
 ES by 
 
 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν. Ambrose upon Ps. exviii. v. 28: Est zelus 
 ad vitam, et est zelus ad mortem. ‘The zeal unto death is the run- 
 ning in ways of one’s own, the ἐθελοθεξησκχεία, Col. ii. 23. It is true, 
 indeed, that the ἐπύγνωσις is ofttimes present where the ζῆλος is want- 
 ing. ‘Then, however, it is not the right ἐπίγνωσις. 
 
 V.3. Statement of what the want of knowledge consists in. 
 
 ἀγνοοῦντες yae τὴν Tov Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην. Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη is the 
 righteousness which God imparts to man and so justification. Op- 
 posed to it stands the ἐδία δικαιοσύνην, which man works out for him- 
 self by fulfilment of the law. The latter is, Phil. iii. 9, styled ἐμὴ 
 δικαιοσύνη» ἡ ἐκ νόμου, the other 7 ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη. ‘The ground on 
 which the ascription of personal righteousness takes place, lies in the 
 Law, whenever it is perfectly fulfilled, declaring the person righteous. 
 No man, however, perfectly fulfils the spiritual law of holiness. Ac- 
 cordingly, the person who seeks and thinks to possess the ἐδία δικαιο- 
 σύνης if ever he attains peace in this way, falls into a fatal self-decep- 
 tion, (Matt. v. 20.) If not, he becomes a prey to despair at the un- 
 attainableness of his object. By the appearing of Christ in humanity, 
 the means are now offered by which a new spirit is diffused over it. 
 Through the belief that in Christ the δικαίωμα is bestowed upon man, 
 man obtains a participation in the holy life of Christ, and the δικαίω- 
 μα is also realized in him. 
 
 ζητοῦντες στῆσαι. ἹἹστάναν here, to establish, to enforce, a meaning 
 it frequently has in classical authors. See several passages in Poly- 
 bius, ed. Schweigh. T. 8. P. 2, p. 308. 
 
 Jewish nation. For any that would do away or ridicule them, they hate as 
 their worst foes; and they shudder at all such as say that whether we call it 
 good fortune or happiness that happens to man, it can never be changed on 
 account of transgression or accident. 
 
CHAPTER X. V. 3, 4. 351 
 
 οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν. ‘The aorist refers to the time when the new doc- 
 trine of salvation was first offered to Israel. ‘The passive stands in 
 place of the middle, as often occurs in Greek when the aorist is 
 used, (Buttm. 5. 501.) See the examples in the N. ‘Test. in Winer, 
 5.112. Ὡποτάσσεσθαι stands here as translation of the Aramaic 3p. 
 This word is rendered, agreeably to its common meaning, by δέχεσ- 
 θαι, and causes that verb to receive the Aramaic accessory import fo 
 belong, follow. But it is likewise, according to its less frequent 
 signification, rendered ὑποτάσσεσθαι lo follow, to be subject, and then 
 again receives in Greek the cognate sense fo accept, to give credit. 
 
 V. 4. Paul shows in how far it is improper in the Jews to cleave 
 to the righteousness that is by the law. Τέλος has been very vari- 
 ously understood. As to νόμος» the meaning which we already de- 
 veloped in a former text (ili. 20) here recurs, viz. “The entire Jew- 
 ish law, ritual and moral, as law, ἃ. 6. imposing an external obligation, 
 and thus opposite to the πνεῦμα, as a quickening principle within.” 
 Now, as the imperfection of that law is demonstrable on various 
 grounds, and as τέλος has a multiplicity of meanings, it follows that 
 the sense of this-statement of the Apostle has been very differently 
 conceived. The first class of interpretations takes τέλος in the sense 
 of: termination, and understands it, per met. abstr. pro concr, as 
 meaning ὁ ἀφαιφῶν; ὁ xaraeyav. The great majority take νόμος to 
 signify, at once, the ritual Jaw, or at least the religious institutions of 
 the Jews, in regard to the externals of divine worship. So Augus- 
 tine, even in his day, c. Advers. Legis et Proph. 1. II.c.'7. Gregory 
 the Great, Hom. XVI. in Ezech. Schliching, Clericus, Limborch. 
 In that case, we may compare ὃ νόμος χαὺ of πφοφῆταυν ἕως ᾿Ιωάννου, 
 Luke xvi. 16, (Eph. ii. 15.) Even, however, if we assume the 
 moral law as specially designed, the expression may be justified. 
 For although Christ did not abrogate the substance of the moral law, 
 he still abrogated the form as /aw, the substance of the law existing 
 in the gospel as inward principle of life. We might compare Col. 
 ii. 14; Eph. ii.15. In this manner the meaning of τέλος might well 
 be justified, even when, as is necessary, we do not strictly discrimi- 
 nate betwixt the ritual and moral parts of the Law, but conjoin the 
 two as both imposing obligation. Another class of expositors take 
 τέλος» in the sense, τελείωσις OF πλήξωμα, fulfilment, and this, per 
 meton. abstr. pro concr. ‘They conceive the meaning to be, that 
 Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law, inasmuch as its types were 
 realized by him; particularly, however, that the moral precepts were 
 completely fulfilled by his perfect obedience. There are also truths 
 founded in Scripture, the former respecting the ceremonial law, at 
 Heb. x. 1, the latter, at Mat. vi. 17; Heb. vii. 18. This explanation 
 is given by Origen, Augustine, in Ps. iv., Pelagius, Ambrose, Me- 
 lancthon, Vatablus, Calvin and many more. Pelagius: Talis est ille 
 qui Christum credidit, illa die qua credidit qualis ille qui universam 
 Jegem implevit. It would, likewise, fit excellently into the context; 
 the only objection is, that it is less demonstrable in respect of lan- 
 
352 CHAPTER X. Vv. 4. 
 
 guage. In Greek, it is true, we have the following phrases exem- 
 plifying the usus loquendi, εἰς τέλος ἄγειν, εἰς τέλος νικᾶν, TO τέλος τῆς 
 ἀνθεωπίνης σοφίας. ‘These, however, prove nothing, for in the two 
 last examples, τέλος means summit, in the first, isswe, execution. It 
 would be most pertinent to quote Plato, de Legibus, 1. viii. ed. Bip. 
 p. 409, where, side by side, we find οἱ ἵπποι of τέλειοι, and οἱ τέλος 
 ἔχοντες, ** those having the finished shape, the full grown.’’ Even 
 this, however, is not demonstrative, and we still want a parallel for 
 the meaning, accomplishment, fulfilment. In the LXX. and the 
 Apocrypha too, this meaning does not appear. ‘There is supposed 
 to be an instance of it at 1 'Tim.i.5. In compliance, however, with 
 the usual usus loquendi, we will there explain τέλος, * the end and 
 aim, that on which all depends, the cardo rerum.’ (In the same 
 sense we find μύθου τέλος Ilias, l. xvi. v. 84.) Neither can the πλή- 
 Coma τοῦ νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη οἵ Rom. xiii. 10, be adduced to render indis- 
 putable the supposed meaning of τέλος in 1 Tim. i. 5. Doubtless 
 πλήξφωμα has the signification of perfect execution. But why should 
 it be thought that, in the kindred text, 1 Tim.i.5, the Apostle says 
 literally the same thing, and not rather that he gives the thought 
 under a variety of shade? ‘The Syrian, with much correctness, puts 
 the fulfilment at Rom. xiii. 10, but at 1 Tim. i, 5, the sum. More- 
 over, in this explanation the supposed metonyme of τέλος for ὁ τελειῶν 
 is also harsh. We accordingly turn to the third conception formed 
 of the word, which is to be found among the Greek fathers, Chry- 
 sostom and Theodoret, and was afterwards adopted by Beza, Bucer, 
 Seb. Schmidt, Bengel, Turretin, Heumann and others. All these 
 expositors embrace the signification, end and aim, which is quite 
 common. In as far, to wit, as the utmost that the law, in all its 
 parts, intends, consists in making man aware of his self-seeking 
 endeavours after independence, and of his want of love to God, in so 
 far was the whole period of the old covenant but a παιδαγωγὸς to- 
 wards Christ, and in so far is Christ the end and aim of the law. 
 For this signification of τέλος likewise, the Scripture speaks; indeed, 
 the kindred passage Gal. iii. 24, is to be regarded as quite particu- 
 larly parallel to the one before us. Bengel: Lex hominem urget 
 donec is ad Christum confugit, tum ipsa dicit: Asylum eo nactus, 
 desino te persequi, sapis, salvus es. - Chrysostom: Ei γὰς τοῦ νόμου 
 τέλος ὃ Χριστὸς, ὃ τὸν Xevordv οὐχ ἔχων, κἂν ἐκεῖνον Soxy ἔχειν, οὐχ ἔχευ" 
 6 δὲ τὸν Χειστὸν ἔχων, κἂν μὴ ἢ κατωφθωκὼς τὸν νὸμον, τὸ παν εὐλήφε" χαὺ 
 γάρ τέλος Larerans ὑγιεία. ὥσπες οὖν 6 δυνάμενος ὑγίη ποιεῖν, κἂν μὴ τὴν 
 ἱατρικὴν ἔχειν τὸ πᾶν ἔχει" ὁ δὲ μὴ εἰδὼς θεραπεύειν: κἂν μετίέναυ Soxy τὴν 
 τέχνην: τοῦ παντὸς ἐξέπεσεν οὕτω χαὶ Env τοῦ νόμον καὶ τῆς πίστεως" ὃ 
 μὲν ταύτην ἔχων; καὶ τὸ ἐχείνου τέλος ἔχει" ὁ δὲ ταύτης ἔξω ὧν ἀμφοτέρων͵ 
 Roce ἀλλότριος. ὙΥΘ are wholly to discard the exposition of some 
 
 * For if Christ is the end of the law, he who has not Christ has not the 
 law, i. 6. legal righteousness, even although he should seem to possess it. But 
 he who has Christ has got all, even though he should not have fulfilled the 
 
CHAPTER x. V. 5, 6. 353 
 
 who take τέλος in the sense: ‘*Custom of the law, by which its de- 
 mands are mitigated.’”” The εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὺ τῷ πιστεύοντι Stands 
 in contrast with the former legal economy, under which the task 
 was a more difficult one. 
 
 V.5. The yae is merely transition particle. Paul now begins to 
 lay down explicitly the relation of the two kinds of justification. 
 His design in doing so is to show, that the law must in fact impel 
 men to Christ. The statement, however, is connected with the παντὶ 
 τῷ πιστεύοντι. We have first to remark, in respect of the reading, 
 that it is very various. Codex A has ὅτι τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐκ πίστεως; 
 Codex D, the Coptic, Vulgate, Damascenus and others, ὅτου d.xavoov- 
 vnv tx τοῦ νόμου ὃ ποιήσας. Some smaller codices accordingly read 
 αὐτῇ» in place of αὐτοῖς, as do also the Coptic, the Vulgate and seve- 
 ral fathers. ‘That the recepta, however, is the true reading, is mani- 
 fest. The two others specified, show themselves clearly to be ex- 
 planatory glosses, the more so, that not even all Codices that deviate, 
 change the αὐτοῖς into αὐτῇ. 
 
 Maio7s yae yeaper. Τεάφευν Stands in place of xazayedpeww, accord- 
 ing to the Hebrew, in which there are no compound verbs. 
 
 ὃ ποιήσας αὐτὰ κτλ. The text is from Levit. xviii. 5. The αὐτὰ 
 refers to the ‘\pn-which precedes it in the text. Ζῆν, after the He- 
 brew 77 signifies to be happy. ‘The ἐν, in like manner as the 2, 
 has the sense through, by means of. Among the later Jews, we 
 find the notion widely diffused, that the blessings promised likewise 
 involve those of the life eternal. Onkelos translates: «* Whosoever 
 keeps these commandments, shall thereby live in the life eternal.’ 
 And in the Targum of the Pseudo Jonathan, Moses’ words are ren- 
 dered: ‘* Whosoever fulfils the commandments shall thereby live in 
 the life eternal, and his portion shall be with the righteous.” Eben 
 Ezra observes, that to those who know the secret of the law, 7wn7 
 10, Moses promises “eternal, to others temporal blessings, Luke x. 
 25, 26. 
 
 V.6. Moses (Deut. xxx. 12) had once more, awhile before his 
 death, inculeated upon the people what a distinguished blessedness 
 had fallen to their lot, in their being made acquainted with the Divine 
 will. ‘The words of which he there made use, and which intimate 
 the blessedness of the man, who needs to be no longer in doubt as to 
 how he ean please God, having received a revelation upon the sub- 
 ject, are applied by Paul to the man, who, in the New Testament 
 period, is concerned about his salvation. ‘This application to the 
 Christian of Moses’ words, will appear the less extraordinary, con- 
 
 law. The end and aim of the medical art is health. Just, then, as he who 
 can restore health has the whole matter, though he possess no medical know- 
 ledge; whereas he who knows not how to cure, though he pretend to practise 
 medicine, makes a total failure: so is it respecting the law and faith. He who 
 has the latter has also the end of the former, but he who is without the latter 
 is a stranger to both. 
 
 45 
 
354 CHAPTER X. V. 6, ἣν 
 
 sidering as even R. Bechai (who lived at the close of the thirteenth 
 century) says of the same, that in their true sense, they will first 
 pass into fulfilment, at the time of the Messias. (See Fagius and 
 Miinster in the Crit. Sacra T. If. ad Deut. xxx. 12.) What’ Paul 
 means to say then is: When, now-a-days, a sinner attains to the 
 knowledge of himself, and sighs for enlightenment and justification, 
 he requires not to look far and wide around him for help. If even 
 Moses has commended the revelation of God’s law, because it brings 
 the way of salvation so near to man, the Christian has still more 
 occasion to congratulate himself on the same account: All that he. 
 wants is faith, and for its attainment, he does not require to have 
 even once seen Christ. He needs not more than simply “to believe 
 with the heart, and to confess with the mouth.” 
 
 By a personification, Paul puts into the lips of righteousness by 
 faith, what any teacher of that might say. 
 
 μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σοῦ, according to the Hebrew- 1292 70x, to 
 think. ‘The cove’ ἔστι denotes the application which Paul makes of 
 Moses’ declaration. In the self-same way the Rabbins introduce 
 their applications of Biblical sayings with a 771. It is falsely main- 
 tained by the major part of expositoys, ‘Theodoret, @icumenius, An- 
 ‘selm, Erasmus, Melancthon, Capellus and others, that by the inter- 
 pretation he gives to the Mosaic words, Paul means to convey a 
 reproof to the unbelieving. Ccumenius: ἕνα μὴ νομισθῇ ἡ mores εὖ- 
 XATOCOWTOS, καὶ εὐχαταφεφόνητος; διὰ τοῦτο δείκνυσυ χαὺ αὐτὴν πόνου δεο- 
 μένην, καὶ Meds τοὺς ἀφανεῖς λογισμοὺς ἔχουσαν τὴν πάλην. Melancthon: 
 Illustribus figuris depingit impietatem cordis humani. But to give 
 such a bearing to this declaration, would be wholly contrary to the 
 Apostle’s train of ideas. In that case also, Paul’s interpretation 
 would ill agree with Moses’ language and meaning. We are much 
 rather to consider it as the Apostle’s object, to show how easy a 
 matter righteousness by faith is. Accordingly, the infinitives after 
 the τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, are to be regarded as statement of the purpose of that 
 proceeding, which forms the subject of the question. ‘The member 
 of the Old Testament theocracy needed no more te ask, Who shall 
 ascend into heaven, to make known unto me God’s will? ‘The sub- 
 ject of the New Testament needs just as little to put this question, 
 nay, not even, Who shall ascend into heaven to bring Christ down? 
 
 V.7. In Hebrew, there stands N17 Ὁ 2} Nd), and in the LXX. εἰς τὸ 
 πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης. Several expositors, as Koppe and Bolten, suppose 
 that the expression in Hebrew was the designation of the Scheol, the 
 entrance to which the Hebrews, as the Greeks did that of Hades, 
 (Ilias, B. vir. 478,) conceived at the farthest end of the earth and 
 sea, or that the Hebrews had imagined something similar to the 
 islands of the blessed, which the Greeks, as you well know, placed 
 
 *In order that faith may not be considered an easy and contemptible 
 acquisition, he shows that it too requires exertion, andhas a struggle to main- 
 tain with the secret thoughts. 
 
CHAPTER x. v. 7, 8. 355 
 
 in the Western Ocean, (Odyssey, B. IV. ν. 568, and the Scholiast 
 on the passage.) This hypothesis, however, is destitute of all foun- 
 dation. We nowhere read of a particular entrance into the Scheol. 
 As to those islands of the blessed, it is true, Josephus relates, De 
 Bel. Jud. 1. ii. 6. 8, § 11, that the Essenes had supposed something 
 of the kind; but this demonstrates nothing, more especially for the 
 era of Moses. It must be added, that the Chaldee 'argums, which 
 are wont precisely to render, by circumlocution and definition, every 
 doctrinal expression, translate here exactly as the LXX. ‘The con- 
 jecture of Grotius might be better maintained, viz. that some other 
 Greek translation or reading had εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον, ἄβυσσος being taken 
 in the sense of Sea, (comp. Job xxviii. 14,) but that Paul here ap- 
 plied the word in another sense. The Targum Jeruschalmi has: 
 ** Had we but a prophet Jonah to dive into the depths of the 568! 
 There is, however, no need for this conjecture. Following the 
 practice of the Rabbins in their application of Bible texts, Paul might 
 very well modify the words of Scripture, in conformity to his pur- 
 pose. The expression 0° 739 in Moses, is by no means of parti- 
 cular significance; but rather of the proverbial kind. ‘The sea is of 
 boundless extent, Job xi. 9. There unspeakable dangers threaten, 
 Ps. evii. 24—26. It is accordingly the image of mighty difficulties 
 opposing the attainment of any object. In the same way, flying to 
 the Ὁ» NAN’ Ps. exxxix. 9, is given as an image for the accomplish- 
 ment of something exceedingly difficult, or nearly impossible. But 
 instead of it, Moses might have mentioned the depths of the earth. 
 In the same way, heaven and hell are proverbially placed in opposi- 
 tion to each other in Euripides, Pheeniss. v. 517. 
 
 Ασπτρων ἂν EnOorn’ ἡλίου πρὸς ἀνατολὰς» 
 Καὶ γῆς ἔνερθεν, δυνατὸς ὧν δρᾶσαι τάδε. 
 
 Compare in the Old Testament, Amos ix. 2. Ps. exxxix. 8. 
 Thus, considering the expression meeav τῆς θαλάσσης, had no particu- 
 lar significance, Paul might very well exchange it for another, which 
 Moses might equally have used, and which better answered the 
 Apostle’s design. A perfectly similar application of Moses’ saying 
 is made by Philo, Quod omnis probus liber, p. 875, and De prem. et 
 pen. p. 922, where he also uses a periphrasis for Ὁ) 12yn, as fol- 
 lows: οὐδὲ μαχεὰν τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀφέστηκεν; ἢ πέξαν θαλάσσης; ἢ ἐν toxatvars 
 γῆν ὡς δεύσθαυ πολυχξονίοῦ χαὺ xamarneas ἀποδημίας, 
 κτλ. In substance, it is one and the same thing, whether the sin- 
 ner, in fond desire after illumination and holiness, wishes Christ out 
 from the grave, or down from heaven. This second member of the 
 sentence is only rhetorical amplification. 
 
 V.8. Here St. Paul applies the positive description he has given 
 
 * Nor has he removed the good far away, or beyond the sea, or to the remote 
 parts of the earth, so that it requires a long and laborious pilgrimage. 
 
356 CHAPTER Χ. V. 8, 9. 
 
 of the relation of the law to man, to the relation of the gospel, in 
 reference to which Moses’ words contained a still more elevated 
 truth. Respecting the law, Moses boasted that the revelation of the 
 divine will was now so well known to the people of Israel, that any 
 man whatever might carry them in his heart, 7. e. in his thoughts and 
 upon his lips. (‘Targum Jonathan paraphrases })2v77 733, ‘in 
 ‘your schools.”) In afar higher sense does this redound to the 
 praise of faith on the gospel. For, although Israel bore the revela- 
 tion of the divine will upon the lip and in the soul, they still were 
 not on that account blessed; the Christian, however, attains to 
 blessedness, when he bears Christ as his Saviour, in his heart and 
 on his lips. 
 
 ἐγγύς σον τὸ ῥῆμα. 127 in Hebrew, and ῥῆμα here in Greek, might 
 mean thing; the better meaning, however, in Moses, is revelation, 
 and that Paul meant it to be here understood in that sense results 
 from the ῥῆμα ὃ κηδυσσόμεν, which follows. Ῥῆμα πίστεως, for which 
 there stands elsewhere λόγος πίστεως, 1 Tim. iv. 6, preaching or doc- 
 trine. In Hebrew, we find also the part. 189 side by side with ap, 
 and in the LXX. σφόδεα. The LXX. moreover, append χαὺ ἐν ταῖς 
 xeeot σου. Chrysostom: Ei μηδὲ αὐτὸν βουληϑῇς ὑπεξβήναν cov οὐδὸν, 
 ἔξεστί σου καὶ οἴκου καδημένῳ σωϑῆναι. ἐν γὰρ τῷ στόματι σου xat ἐν Τῇ 
 xaedia tore τῆς σωτηξίας ἡ ἀφοομή. 
 
 V.9. The description which St. Paul here gives of saving faith is 
 closely connected with the words of Moses. As mention was made 
 of the mouth, Paul speaks of confession. And because the mouth 
 was first noticed, and then the heart, the Apostle adopts the same 
 order, although, from the nature of the thing, it ought to have been 
 inverted; confession emanating from faith, which consequently pre- 
 cedes it. On the other hand, to be sure, Beza correctly observes, 
 that it is confession which manifests the existence of faith. Calvin: 
 Non est ignis ubi nihil flamme neque caloris. 
 
 ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς. ‘Theophylact: Δεῦταν καὶ % χκαφδία, cov στόματος; 
 τότε γὰξ διαλάμπεί ἡ πῦστις καὶ πλείονες ὠφελοῦνται. δεῦταυ μέντου καὺ 
 τὸ στόμα τῆς καρδίας» πολλοὶ peor yae ὁμολογοῦνφαυ “Χριστὸν καϑ΄ ὑπό- 
 xevow.t A genuine confession of Christ, such as bears upon the face 
 the seal of a divine παῤῥησία; is necessarily a testimony to belief of the 
 heart, because no one ean, from inward conviction, call Christ Lord, 
 except by the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. xii. 3. (Comp. 1 John iv. 2.) 
 The xvecos is here the predicate of ᾿Ιησοῦν. 
 
 ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν wyeveev. Here, according to Paul’s usual practice, 
 when speaking of faith in the resurrection of Christ, it is not meant 
 to be taken nude, as an article of faith, in reference to our resurrec- 
 
 * If you should not wish to cross even your threshold, you have it in your 
 power to be saved while sitting at home. For the means of salvation is in 
 thy mouth and in thy heart. 
 
 + The heart requires the help of the mouth, for then faith shines forth, and 
 many are benefited, but the mouth also needs the heart, for there are many 
 who confess Christ in hypocrisy. 
 
 Ν 
 
CHAPTER x. v. 9, 10, 11, 12. 357 
 
 tion, which Pelagius and Limborch maintain. But the resurrection 
 is the glorified point of exit to the life and death of the Saviour, as 
 has been already mentioned, see on ch. iv. 25. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 
 17; 1 Pet. i. 21. Bucer: Hee summa Evangelii est, nam cum cre- 
 ‘ dimus Christum excitatum e mortuis credimus eum pro peccatis 
 satisfecisse et in celis regnare, ut nos ad imaginem suam perficiat. 
 Calvin: Tenendum est quorsum Christus resurrexerit, nempe quod 
 in eo excitando consilium Patri fuerit nos omnes in vitam restituere. 
 Cordis nomen pro serio et sincero affectu. 
 
 V. 10. Familiar with the rhythm of the Hebrew parallelism, the 
 
 Apostle loves it even in prose. Accordingly, the two members of 
 the verse are to be considered parallels, as at Rom. iv. 25. But just 
 as even in Hebrew, two parallel members of a verse do not always 
 contain a perfect equality of thought—we saw, ch. iv. 25, that there 
 was a certain difference in the two propositions placed in this rela- 
 tion—such likewise is the case here. Properly confession is vouch- 
 safed with true faith, as blessedness is with justification. But then 
 again confession may be conceived as the complement of faith, and 
 blessedness as the complement of justification. Melancthon: Dis- 
 cernit justitiam et salutem propter perseverantiam etsi enim quisquis 
 est justus, est heres vite wterne, tamen fieri potest, ut justus iterum 
 amittat justitiam. Ideo inquit: Si confiteberis videlicet propter fidem, 
 quasi dicat si fides fuerit firma. The εἰς before δικαιοσύνην stands 
 as at ver. 1 to indicate the purpose. 
 
 V.11. The same passage from Is. xxviii. 16, which has been 
 expounded at chap. ix. 33, and which shows how sure is the hope 
 that rests upon the Messias. 
 
 V.12. The casual occurrence of πὰς in the preceding quotation, 
 is again taken advantage of by St. Paul, in order once more to intro- 
 duce what he has always so much at heart, viz. that the believing 
 Heathen are called to the kingdom of the Messias equally with the 
 believing Jews. 
 
 ὁ yae αὐτὸς Κύξιος x. ὋὉ αὐτὸς, one and the same; Kies is the 
 predicate. - It is unnatural with Carpzov to look upon αὐτὸς» as NIT, 
 aname of Jehovah. It is a question whether Christ is here spoken 
 of, as Origen, Gicumenius,.Calov, Bengel, Wolf and others insist, or 
 God, as the majority believe. ‘True that, v. 9, Christ has been called 
 xvecos* that, however, of itself, is not decisive. If Paul means to 
 show, that Heathens and Jews have an equal interest in the work of 
 atonement, this he is accustomed at other places to prove from the 
 fact, that all stand in the same relation to God, from whom the whole 
 plan of salvation emanates. So Rom. ili. 30. Moreover, in oppo- 
 sition to the reference of the word to Christ, it may be adduced, that 
 in the citation, ver. 13, Kvecos cannot directly refer to Christ. On 
 the other hand, however, it is also to be remarked, that at ver. 14, 
 the eis ὃν οὐχ ἐπίστευσαν relates to Christ, and with regard to the cita- 
 tion, Paul might apply it to the same, sensu eminentiore, seeing that, 
 so far as it relates to the eflicacy of God in time of the Messias, it is, 
 
358 CHAPTER Ix. V. 12, 13, 14. 
 
 in point of fact, to be understood, sensu eminentiore, of turning to the 
 Saviour. ‘This citation, moreover, properly answers to that in ver. 
 11, which Paul likewise expounded of Christ. 
 
 πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπυχκαλουμένους αὐτόν. Ammon will have 
 πλουτεὺν taken in the sense of zaovriGew* in that sense, however, we 
 do not find it used. is denotes the direction, according to the con- 
 ception borrowed from sense, of the divine riches extending to men. 
 The connection, however, seems to intimate, that we have here to 
 think of the rich grace of Christ, Eph. iii. 8. Col. ii. 8. Chrysos- 
 tom: “Ogds πῶς δεύκνυσιν αὐτὸν σφοδρῶς ἐφιέμενον ἡμῶν τῆς owrneiass 
 εὖγε καὶ πλοῦτον οἰκεῖον ἥγείταυ ταύτην. ὥστε μηδὲ νῦν αὐτοὺς ἀπογνῶναυ» 
 μηδὲ νομίσαι, εἶγε βουληθεῖεν μετανοῆσαι; ἀσυγγνώστους εἶναι. ὃ γὰρ πλοῦ- 
 τὸν οἰκεῖον ἡγούμενος τὸ σώζειν ἡμᾶς; οὐ παύσεται πλουτῶν" ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦτο 
 πλοῦτος τὸ εἰς πάντας ἐἔχχεῖσθαν τὴν Sweedy.* Calvin: The Jews 
 needed not to be envious, even although the heathen obtained the 
 same privilege with them of drawing from the divine treasury. ‘That 
 is not diminished, according to the numbers who seek to share it. 
 ᾿Ἐπικαλέομαι, as in the LXX. for δὲ», to invoke God’s aid, to adore. 
 
 V. 13. The Apostle confirms what he had said anew, by an Old 
 Testament citation from Joel iii. 5. There the great sifting time is 
 spoken of, which is to precede the introduction of the Messias’ king- 
 dom. In so far, accordingly, may Paul justly apply to the invoca- 
 tion of Christ, what the passage says of the invocation of Jehovah. 
 
 raw tia. 
 
 ISRAEL HAS NOT WANTED PREACHERS OF THIS DOCTRINE OF SALVATION. 
 v. 14—21. 
 
 V. 14. There was but one more evasion left to the Israelite, viz. 
 that he had never heard of the new message of salvation. But this 
 excuse, likewise, the Apostle takes away. Ccumenius: Οὐδεμία νῦν 
 πεόφασις τοῦ σωθῆναι. Paul shows more than was properly required 
 for his proof. He shows that the gospel in general is the common 
 property of mankind. Leaving this theme at ver. 19, he again re- 
 turns to the Jews, who were, equally with others, included in, the 
 general message of salvation, nay, who had even a special interest in 
 it. Very improbable is Grotius’ opinion, that ver. 14 and 15 are the | 
 
 * Do you see how he represents him as exceedingly desirous of our salva- 
 tion, inasmuch as he deems it his own riches. So that now they need not 
 despair, nor think that they are excluded from salvation, if they choose to 
 repent. For he who deems it his own riches to save us, will never cease 
 being rich, this being his riches, to pour out the free gift upon all. 
 
CHAPTER X. v. 14, 15. 359 
 
 words of a Jewish antagonist, which, at ver. 16, the Apostle answers. 
 To pass silently over other reasons, even the Bible citation of ver. 15 
 should refute this, inasmuch as St. Paul scarcely ever makes his op- 
 ponents argue with Scripture text; (See on c. ix. 15,) and in the 
 present case, the text in their mouth would be particularly inappro- 
 priate. Paul states the objection in an animated sorites, in which he 
 mounts from stage to stage to the final cause. Melancthon: Diligen- 
 tissime hic locus observandus, ut sciamus quomodo Deus sit efficax 
 in nobis nec queramus alias illuminationes preter verbum. 
 
 nus οὖν ἐπυχαλέσονται. Neither in profane authors, nor the New 
 Testament, does the οὖν always denote an inference consonant with 
 the foregoing proposition; but sometimes, like the yam vero, an ob- 
 jection flowing from what precedes. Rom. iv. 10. Matt. xxvi. 54. 
 John xviii. 10. The εἰς ὃν cannot be referred otherwise than to 
 Christ. Κηεύσσω; ἕο preach. Marki. 4. Luke iv. 19. 
 
 . 15, ἐὰν μὴ ἀποσταλῶσι. Calvin: Non fortuito pluit Evange- 
 lium e nubibus, per manus hominum affertur quo divinitus missum 
 est. Nullus preco est quem non peculiari sua providentia Deus 
 suscitarit, quare non est dubium, quin Deus nationem visitet, in qua 
 Evangelium annuntiatur. ‘The prophets who go where God has not 
 called them, he rejects, Jer. xxiii. 21. 
 
 καθὼς γέγεξαπιται, κτλ. ‘he mission of the messengers of the gos- 
 pel was something so glorious, and their arrival so pleasant, that in 
 order to show this more explicitly, St. Paul quotes a beautiful text 
 containing a reference to their preaching. The text is borrowed 
 from Is. 11. 7. In this whole latter part of Isaiah, the after estab- 
 lishment of the ancient theocracy under the Messias, is delineated, 
 but in a new and extraordinary glorious way. As was done by all 
 the prophets, the poet, in these songs, figures the Messias and his 
 kingdom as just at hand. The pictures which he draws, both of 
 the kingdom and person of the Messias, are of so elevated a spirit-. 
 uality, that they are almost Evangelical descriptions, around which 
 the prophetical veil of the outward theocracy hangs as it were like a 
 transparent chrysalis. In the passage quoted, the prophet describes 
 the Seers of the new kingdom of God appearing upon the mountains 
 on the north of Jerusalem,-and thence announcing the glory of the 
 theocracy, as they there preach, ‘‘ Jerusalem thy God is, king.’ 
 Jewish expositors no less apply to the Messias almost the whole of 
 the chapter, besides the quotation. See Wetstein, ad-h.]. Paul 
 deviates in his citation from the LXX., who translate the Hebrew 
 with greater accuracy, but darkly. ‘They have: ὡς deatoe éxt τῶν 
 ὀξέων ot πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου (ed. Ald. εὐαγγελιζομένῳν) ἀχοὴν εἰρήνης» 
 ὡς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά. Paul translates the Hebrew more clearly, 
 only omitting whatever does not serve his purpose in the text. We 
 have a passage in Nahum ii. 1, which greatly resembles that of 
 Tsaias. 
 
 &eacov ot πόδες. Per meton. the feet are described as the members 
 which act in the messenger. There occurs a kindred meton. in 
 
360 CHAPTER x. Vv. 15, 16, 17. 
 
 Sophocles, Electra, v. 13857, ὡς ἥδιστον ἔχουσι ποδὼν ὑπηξέτημα; to 
 which the Scholiast: ποδὼν ὑπηφέτημα; διὰ yae τούτων τὰ meds σωτηξίαν 
 ἡμῖν ὑπηφέτησας. Indeed, in solemn diction, the Hebrew generally 
 used the metonymical circumlocution, ‘‘ the feet of some one come,” 
 Thus in ‘Tikkune Sohar, fol. 32, 1, 2: ‘*So long as thou dost not yet 
 behold the bright rainbow in the clouds, srw 22} ADSN 8.” 
 Compare in the N. Test. Acts v. 9. The εἰρήνη is here, like niqw, 
 salvation. 
 
 V. 16. In this verse Paul delivers the result of the foregoing cli- 
 max of questions. ‘That result, however, is to be found, not in the 
 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντες, κτλ.» but in the dea ἡ πίστις, κτλ.» aS appears from the 
 answer which, ver. 17 to 19, immediately succeeds. ‘The ἀλλ᾽ οὐ 
 πάντες κτλ.» forms, as Calvin observes, a mere appendage to the last 
 query in ver. 15. On which account Michaelis appositely translates 
 it: “ But yet all have not, and so on.”” In Greek ἀλλὰ ought to have 
 some other particle after it, ἀλλὼ yae, or ἀλλὰ καὶ. Several, among 
 whom are Chrysostom, 'Theodoret, Gicumenius, Seb. Schmidt, con- 
 ceiving themselves bound to regard ἀλλὼ as the result of the previous 
 questions, and who yet found that result to be properly contained in 
 the dea, absurdly placed a point of interrogation after εὐαγγελίῳ, and 
 supposed that Ἡσαΐας yae κτλ. inust be the answer to the question, a 
 thing which would be inadmissible, even were there no other reason 
 but that yag must then denote a contrast. Cicumenius: ᾿Επειδὴ τοῦτο 
 αὐτῷ GPTEXELTOs OT by ἐὰν ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἀπεστάλητεν διὼ Tu μὴ πάντες ὑπήκουσον» 
 φησὶν ὅτι xai τοῦτο πρὸ πολλοῦ ἐλέχθη." The passage is from Isa. lili. 
 1, where the prophet, in prophetic vision, foretels the offence which 
 the Jews would take at the humbleness of the future Messias, and 
 their disbelief of his eventual exaltation. ‘The LXX. have, in their 
 version, added the Κύριε, which is not in the Hebrew: St. Paul re- 
 tains it. 
 
 ἀχοὴ answers to the nyw, message. ‘The same prophetical pas- 
 sage is quoted by John xii. 38, who says, that in this disbelief of the 
 Jews respecting Christ, it had received its accomplishment. The 
 Jewish theologians also understood it of the Messias. See Schitt- 
 gen, Hore alm. T. II. in indice. 
 
 V.17. This is the result of the preceding climax, for it would be 
 unnatural to suppose, with Bengel, Heumann and Mosheim, that dea 
 is here a conclusion drawn from the quotation. It might certainly be 
 admitted, that in this clause, which is inferential from the previous 
 queries, Paul borrows the word ἀχοὴ from the quotation. Still it is 
 not necessary to suppose so, as at ver. 14, he had in the same way 
 joined the verb jxovoay with πύίστεύω; and as λόγος axons, Moreover, is 
 elsewhere used by the Apostle in the sense publication, preaching, 
 1 Thess. ii. 13, as it also stands at Heb. iv. 2. 
 
 ῥῆμα Θεοῦ, agreeably to the common usus loquendi, must be taken 
 
 * Since it was objected to him, that if ye were sent by God, why have not 
 all believed, he says that this was declared long before. 
 
CHAPTER x. V. 17, 18. 361 
 
 as the translation of * 737 in the sense, divine revelation. Chrysos- 
 tom: ob yae τὰ αὐτῶν ἔλεγον; ἀλλὰ τὰ παξὰ Tov Θεοῦ μανθάνοντες ἀπήγγελον» 
 ὃ σημείων ἐστὶν ὑψηλότερον." ‘The only scruple which then arises is, 
 that the proposition is not founded in the preceding questions. For 
 this reason, Baumgarten’ wanted to understand ῥήμα in the sense com- 
 mand. (Mark xvi. 15, this divine injunction is spoken of.) The 
 proposition would then be the affirmative of the question contained 
 in ver. 15. The sense of ῥῆμα; joined to God, is, however, improba- 
 ble. It is more correct to suppose, that the affirmation does indeed 
 involve a reference to the question of ver. 15, but one not altogether 
 direct. God, Paul affirms, must act and communicate a revelation, 
 if men are to preach. 
 
 V. 18. Paul now at last gives the answer to the questions, proving 
 that the Jew cannot make the objections they contain. Bucer: Cum 
 fides ex Evangelio veniat, honestior causa incredulitatis Judeorum 
 fuisset, si Evangelium non audiissent. ‘The ἀλλὰ shows that Paul 
 obviates the objection derivable from the result he himself stated. 
 We may fitly supply in thought, after ἀλλὰ, an εἴγε οὕτως ἔχει. The 
 explanation of the λέγω is to be found in the dialectics of the Rabbins, 
 in which, when questions occur, they are introduced by 72)8 *3N) or 
 SIND NIN. Beza very absurdly supposes, that the ἀλλὰ λέγει», beside 
 the question, and no less the same words with the question, ver. 19, 
 are words of a Jewish opponent. Peculiar to himself is the expo- 
 sition of Van Hengel (Annot. in loca, N. T. Amst. 1824, p. 142.) 
 He will have ver. 18 taken as the objection of a Jewish antagonist, 
 who meant to say as follows: Nonne injuste agit Deus, qui Judzis, 
 quoniam voci ipsius auscultare noluerunt a se rejectis, nunc suo se 
 favore, ad exteras convertit gentes, que eadem plane culpa tenentur, 
 cum eque atque illi vocem ejus audiverunt. Under this voice the 
 opponent understands the yoice of nature. To which the Apostle, 
 admitting more than was required of him, replies: Profecto! non 
 tantum fateor, gentes illas quibus annunciata nune doctrina Christi 
 est vocem Dei jam antea audivisse, sed ipse ego contendo, nullam 
 prorsus gentem hac caruisse institutione. ‘The ἀλλὰ reya, in ver. 19, 
 would, in that case, be again Paul’s own language, in refutation of 
 the objection. This second ἀλλὰ χαὶ would not be co-ordinate with 
 the first, but opposed, just as in Latin at—at occurs, and also ὠλλὰ---- 
 ἀλλὰ in Greek. See Wyttenbach ad Phed. p. 148. Lips. It would 
 be easy to defend this construction, but it is destitute of simplicity, 
 especially does it appear, that too much has been brought into the μὴ 
 οὐχ ἠκουσαν. 
 
 Upon μενὄῦνγε; see ch, 1x. 20, The citation is from Psalm xix. 5, 
 and agrees both with LXX. and the Hebrew text. φθόγγος answers 
 to the Hebrew 1p, string. Paul did not want to describe the propa- 
 
 * For they spoke not their own things, but preached what they had learned 
 from God, which is something nobler than miracles. 
 
 46 
 
362 CHAPTER x. v. 18, 19. 
 
 gation of the gospel in language of his own. He consequently em- 
 ploys those words of the Psalmist, which were properly spoken, it is 
 true, of the revelation of God in nature, but which Paul, in inspired 
 elevation, likewise saw to be true with respect to the revelation of 
 God in history. The Jews themselves discovered in this sublime 
 passage of the Psalmist, a reference to the diffusion of the knowledge 
 of the Messias’ kingdom. Sohar Genes. f. 9, observes upon it: 
 “These are the words of my servant Messias, which penetrate the 
 heavenly and earthly spheres.”” When we reflect what it must have 
 imported to a Jew, to behold that divine revelation, which hitherto 
 had only been promulgated within the narrow limits of Judea, con- 
 veyed by numerous messengers, to Greeks, Romans, and Barbarians; 
 when we reflect how it must have floated, before the mind of Paul, 
 that now a fire had been cast into humanity which, continuing to 
 kindle, generation after generation, would bring about upon the earth 
 a totally new order of things; when we reflect upon all this, ean it 
 appear strange that although, as yet, but an inconsiderable part of the 
 οἰκουμένη had received the word of life, the Apostle should use such 
 comprehensive expressions? Compare what, with the same eleva- 
 tion of mind, he says at Col. i.23. What a fresh inspiration diffused 
 over the new spiritual creation, by Christianity, and what prophetic 
 hopes for the future are, even. after the lapse of three centuries, ex- 
 pressed by Eusebius, in the Introduction to Prep. Ev. and in the 
 conclusion of Athanasius’ Apol.! Philo, De Vita Mos. 1. II. p. 
 654, speaks a kindred language in praise of the Mosaic law: τῶν νό- 
 Mwy τὸ κλέος» Obs ἀπολέλοϊπε, διὰ πάσης τῆς οἰχουμένης mMEPoLTyxds, ἄχδι 
 καὶ τῶν τῆς γῆς τεθμάτων ἔφθακεν.ἕ 
 
 V.19. The proposition is difficult, in consequence of Paul not 
 having stated what it was that Israel did not know. Now certainly 
 it is most natural to go back to the prophetical declarations which are 
 afterwards alluded to, and to derive from them what that was. It 
 would then be, ** Did not Israel know that the heathen should like- 
 wise be called?”’ In this way many expositors take it, as for instance 
 Justin, Limborch, Baumgarten and Koppe. So expounded, how- 
 ever, the meaning is so very special, as that the question does not 
 furnish a suitable parallel to that of ver. 18. Besides, it cannot be 
 denied, the ellipsis in the μὴ οὐκ ἔγνω is peculiarly harsh. The most 
 judicious way would be to take the ἔγνω as intransitive, ‘* Was Israel 
 not instructed?”’ It would then in some degree correspond with the 
 μὴ οὐκ ἤκουσαν. So very groundless was the pretext of the Jews, 
 (Comp. on v. 10) as to their being denied the dxoz, that, on the 
 contrary, even all the Gentiles had received the glad tidings. Having 
 shown that fact, the Apostle returns to the Jews, who had been the 
 nearest to the message of salvation. In this general way has the 
 
 * The fame of the laws which he left behind, spread through the whole 
 habitable world, has reached even to the extremities of the earth, 
 
CHAPTER X. v. 19, 20. 363 
 
 passage been understood by Chrysostom and Grotius. Other inter- 
 preters deviate widely from each other. Ambrose: ‘* Have not some 
 from among Israel known?’’ Erasmus: ‘Tad they then received 
 no clear knowledge of Christ??? Calvin: ‘* Has it then been possible 
 for such a nation as Israel to misunderstand?*’ Baldwin: “ Did not 
 Israel know that they were the chosen people?”” Heumann: ‘ Have 
 the Israelites not believed?” Wetstein construes meazos with ᾿Ισφαήλ. 
 πρῶτος Muwiions λέγει. The πεῶτος has probably been placed here, 
 in consequence of the following citations from Isaiah being, in respect 
 of time, subsequent to Moses. ‘The testimony acquired weight, from 
 the fact of having been already uttered at so remote a period as that 
 of Moses. The passage is taken from Deut. xxxii. 21, agreeably— 
 except as regards ihe word ὑμᾶς, in whose place stands abrois—to 
 the LXX. and to the original text. The παξαζηλώσω, for which we 
 have ΡΝ in Hebrew, is to be explained from that conjugal relation 
 in which, according to a trope common among all eastern nations, 
 God stands with the people. In the previous part of the text it was 
 said: ‘* They have moved me to jealousy, by that which is not God.” 
 This jealousy on God’s part, accordingly, is the effect of his love, 
 and hence it is said of prophecies which emanate from his love, that 
 the zeal of the Lord will perform them, (Is. ix. 7. 2 Kings xix. 
 31.) The prophet longs for the zeal of the Lord, (Is. Ixiii. 15.) 
 
 oix ἔθνος stand joined together per hyphen, which in the Hebrew 
 is common for substantives and adjectives, and so also in the Greek: 
 ἡ ov περιτεύίχίσις, “the not walling around.”? ‘Thuc. Hist. 1. III. ο. 
 95. Only in Latin this is not allowable. The meaning of the pas- 
 sage in Moses is: ‘If you serve gods which are not gods, I will move 
 you to jealousy, by favouring the nation of the Canaanites, which is 
 as good as no nationatall.’”? That the passage contains a prediction, 
 properly so called, can therefore not be affirmed. ’Ezi, as in various 
 modes of construction, e. g. verba letandi, dolendi, denotes the occa- 
 sion. 
 
 V. 20. Still more strongly is God’s dealing with unbelieving Israel, 
 on the one hand, and on the other with the heathen, expressed in the 
 text, Is.lxv.1,2. The one from Moses could properly serve only 
 to characterize generally God’s conduct towards the Jews, in the 
 event of their proving rebellious, whereas the present appears to be 
 a genuine prediction respecting the admission of the heathen to 
 the place of the covenant people. There follows, viz. after the 
 words quoted: “I said behold me, behold me, unto a nation that 
 was not called by my name.” In Hebrew, the passage runs: x97 
 smegma Rw x09 ΓΙ Ὑ2 03 In the LXX. ἐμφανὴς ἐγενήθην τοῖς 
 ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν, εὑφέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ξητοῦσιν. Paul quotes from 
 memory. ’ 
 
 “Hoaias δὲ ἀποτολμᾷ. ‘The δέ stands opposed to a μέν, which must 
 be mentally supplied after πεῶτος inv. 19. The construction ἀποτολμᾷ 
 καὺ Aéyec, in place of the infin. aéyew is considered as a Hebraism, 
 
364 CHAPTER X. Y. 20, 21. 
 
 inasmuch as in that language, certain verbs are taken with others to 
 form one idea. Here, however, the usage is a sort of universal one, 
 Paul calls that a boldness in the prophet; and, in truth, the boldness 
 of several declarations in the latter part of Isaiah cannot be suffi- 
 ciently wondered at. Comp. Ixvi. 3. Nay, in v.21, he speaks with 
 such a boldness, as only a member of the New Testament could have 
 assumed, for he declares, that even from among the heathen, priests 
 of God shall be called. Who can fail to be surprised that such a 
 divine παῤῥησία remained unresented by the blind people! 
 
 ζητεὶν and ἐπερωτὰν τὸν Θεὸν is, according to the Hebrew, signifi- 
 cant of adoration. Here again we have a picture of the character of 
 Gentilism, as at ch. ix. 30. 
 
 V.21. Although the heathen do not seek after God, still they re- 
 ceive him when he makes himself known, whereas Israel, when he 
 presents himself, resists him. ‘The passage forms the 2d verse of Is. 
 Ixv., and is quite according to the version of the LX X. excepting only 
 that ὅλην τὴν ἡμέξαν stands after yeceus. 
 
 neos would not be appropriately taken in the sense of fo, as Luther 
 translates; better in regard, respecting, which sense it frequently 
 has in other passages of the New Testament, Luke xii. 41; xviii. 1. 
 To stretch out the hand, is equivalent to calling, Prov.i.24. Chry- 
 sostom: Εἶδες nosy ἡ κατηγορία; ovroe μὲν οὐδὲ παξακαλοῦντν ἐπείσθησαν, 
 ἀλλὰ χαὺὶ ἀντεῖπον; καὶ ταῦτα οὐχ ἅπαξ, οὐ δὺς» οὐ TELS, ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ παν- 
 τὸς τῇ YEOvE ταῦτα τοιαῦτα ὁξῶντες. ἔτερου δὲ οἱ μηδέποτε αὐτὸν ἐγνω- 
 κότες ἴσχυσαν αὐτὸν ἐπισπάσασθαι, ἄλλ᾽ οὐ λέγευ OTL αὐτοὶ ἴσχυσαν, ἀλλὰ 
 καϑαιρὼν καὶ τῶν ἐξ ἐδνὼν τὸ φρόνημα; καὶ δεικνὺς τὴν αὐτὰ yaew τὸ πᾶν 
 ἐδγασαμένην. Φησὶν OTL ἐγὼ ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην, καὶ Ἐγὼ εὑφέϑην. οὐκοῦν 
 κενοὶ πάντων ἔχεῖνοί φησιν; οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλὰ τὸν εὑφεϑέντα λαβεῦν καὶ τὸν 
 φανέντα ἐπυγνῶναυ, τοῦτο παρ᾽ ἑαυτῶν εἰσήνεγχαν. εἶτα iva μὴ λέγωσιν 
 οὗτοι, διὰ τί οὖν χαὶ μιν ἐμφανὴς οὐχ ἑγίνου; τὸ πλέον τούτον τίθησιν; OTL 
 οὐ μόνον ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην,» ἀλλὰ καὶ παξέμευνα τὰς χεῖρας ἀναπεταννὺς καὺ 
 παξακαλῶν, πατρὸς PrAosoeys καὶ μητρὸς φιλόπαιδος κηδεμονίαν ἐπυδευκνύ- 
 μενος. ὅρα πῶς σαφεστάτην τῶν ἔμπξοσθεν διαπορηθέντων ἁπάντων τὴν 
 λύσιν ἐπήγαγε, δείξας τῆς γνώμης αὐτῶν τὴν ἀπώλειαν γενομένην, καὶ ὡς 
 πάντοϑεν ἀνάξιοι συγγνώμης εἰσί. If from this passage, we once more 
 
 * Observe you how great the accusation ist Even when he entreated them, 
 the Jews refused to obey, nay, they resisted him, and that not once or twice 
 or thrice, but even during the whole period they beheld him doing these great 
 things. Whereas the others (the Gentiles) who had never known him, were 
 enabled to lay hold of him. He does not, however, say that they were able 
 of themselves, but overthrowing the pride even of believers from among the 
 Gentiles, and in order to show that all is done by his grace, he says: I was 
 made manifest and I was found. Are they then destitute of all share in the 
 matter, you say? Not at all. The reception of him when found, and the 
 recognition of him when’revealed, came from them. Again, that the former 
 (the Jews) may not plead, Why then, wert thou not manifested to us also? 
 he urges something more than this, that he had done. Not only was I made 
 manifest, but I even continued stretching out my hand and beseeching you, 
 
CHAPTER X. Vv. 21. 365 
 
 look back upon the 10th and 9th chapters, it is manifest how little 
 Paul ever designed to revert to a decretum absolutum, but meant to 
 cast all blame upon the want of will in man, resisting the gracious 
 will of God. 
 
 showing the care of an affectionate father and of a loving mother. Mark how 
 wise a solution of all former difficulties, proving that they had voluntarily 
 brought destruction upon themselves, and how in every way they were un- 
 worthy of pardon. 
 
CHAPTER ELEVENTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Tut Apostle had shown how, and why it happens that Israel, the first-born, 
 was excluded from the Messias’ kingdom, while the Heathen obtained 
 admission. To obviate misconception, he now lays down that his words 
 must not be interpreted to the effect that the Jewish nation, as such, were 
 to be excluded. It is much more true, not only that many of them do 
 at present obtain salvation, but that at a future period, the nation once 
 more, as a whole, shall acquiesce in the Christian economy of salvation. 
 The Gentile ought therefore to beware of indulging vain glory over Israel 
 on account of the present rejection of the major part of the nation, and the 
 reception of multitudes of the heathen. It is the grace of God which gives 
 the Gentile salvation, and only rebellious resistance to that grace, which 
 excludes the Jew. Let once the Gentile be puffed up on this account, and 
 God will so much the more readily exclude him, that he did not spare his 
 old covenant people. At last the Apostle finishes with an elevating pros- 
 pect of a time, when Jew and Gentile would both be united in faith upon 
 Christ Jesus. To overcome men’s unbelief, God employs various means; 
 so great, however, are his wisdom and mercy, that he knows how to bring 
 all at last to the one great goal of salvation in Christ. 
 
 DIVISION. 
 
 1, Israel has not been wholly rejected. V.1—10. 
 2. Let not the Heathen be puffed up at the fall of Israel. V. 11—24. 
 
 3. After the fulness of the Gentiles shall have entered in, there will be a con- 
 version of Israel as a whole. V.25—32. 
 
 4, The unfathomable wisdom and love of God, with which the whole economy 
 of salvation has been arranged. V.33—36. 
 
 PA B/E: i. 
 
 ISRAEL HAS NOT BEEN ENTIRELY CAST OFF. v. 1---10. 
 
 V.1. Ar the close of the previous chapter, the Apostle had spoken 
 so strongly and decidedly on the subject of the stubbornness of Israel, 
 that it might appear as if the whole nation, conjointly and severally, 
 had, by some special judgment of God, been shut out from the Mes- 
 sias’ kingdom. ‘This Paul denies. The purposes of God have not 
 
CHAPTER ΧΙ. y. 1, 2. 367 
 
 been wholly frustrated with respect to Israel; from it the first heralds 
 of the gospel have gone forth. ‘The οὖν is to be here explained as 
 at ch. x. 14. The question which Paul proposes is not framed with 
 sufficient precision. He ought properly to have appended ἅπαντα or 
 ὅχον tO τὸν λαὸν αὑτοῦ. Accordingly, what he hereby denies is an 
 unconditional sentence of rejection. ‘The Apostle instances himself; 
 and his example carried with it the more weight, inasmuch as it was 
 he who had taught the rejection of Israel. ‘The minuter definition 
 of Ἰσξαηλίτης, ἐκ onéeuaros ’AGe., only serves for amplification. In 
 the Talmud. Jerusch. Tr. Berachoth: 72 ‘sw “N17. Pelagius: 
 Ex semine Abraham non ex semine proselytorum. In the same way 
 Paul describes his extraction, Phil. iii. 5. Chrysostom: 6ea οὖν τὴν 
 χατασχευνὴν τήν τε πξοτέξαν, καὶ τὴν μετ᾽ ἐκείνην. πεοτέρα μὲν γὰφ ἐστὶ 
 τὸ δεῖξαι Gre αὐτὸς ἐχεῖθεν ἦν. οὐχ ἂν δὲν εὖ ἀπωθεῦσθαν αὐτοὺς ἔμελλεν» 
 ᾧ τὸ χήφυγμα πᾶν, xdi τὰ πεάγματα τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐνεπίστευσε, καὺ τὰ 
 μυστήξια πάντα, χαὶ τὴν οἰχονομίαν ὅλην, τοῦτον ἂν ἐκεῖθεν ἐξελέξατο. 
 αὕτη μὲν οὖν μία κατασκενή.ἢ 
 
 _ V.2. In instancing himself as a proof that God had not rejected 
 his people, he only proposed to obviate an erroneous assertion. He 
 now positively maintains, that the number of believing Israelites, dis- 
 persed, as they were, in all quarters, and living, as many of them, 
 although conscientious Christians, still did, under the external garb 
 of Judaism, appeared doubtless very inconsiderable, but might yet, 
 if properly known, be in reality of no small magnitude. ‘The article 
 τὸν before λαὸν, most expositors conceive to be demonstrative, and 
 λαὸν αὑτοῦ equivalent to οἱ éxaexroc, as in other passages iS λαὸς τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ Paul meaning, they suppose, to say, that God does not reject 
 that pious portion of Israel, whom he zeoéyrw. So Origen, Augus- 
 tine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin, Limborch, Baldwin, 
 Schlichting and many others. ‘These expositors, however, vary in 
 the explanation of πξοέγνω. Lutherans and the Greek Fathers inter- 
 pret it, ‘to foreknow, viz. that they shall one day believe,” (‘Theo- 
 doret: τοὺς» τῆς θεογνωσίας ἀξίους» τοὺς τῆς πίστεως δεξαμένους τὴν αἴγλη»); 
 the Arminians and Calvinists, as Augustine had already done, to 
 love before. See what is said on chap. vili. 29. But it appears to 
 be a very arbitrary exegesis, when the relative is here taken restrict- 
 ively, as if it referred to the demonstrative τὸν, and when λαὸς αὑτοῦ 
 obtains a different sense from what it bore at ver. 1, viz. the empha- 
 tic one of * people whom God loves,” in which sense the Hebrew 
 word ‘py was already used. If Paul, under the λαὸν αὑτοῦ, had meant 
 to understand the spiritual Israel, he must in some way have modi- 
 fied the expression, in order that it might not be considered as re- 
 
 * Behold then, both the first and second proof. The firstis to show that he 
 himself sprang from that nation. For, haditbeen God’s intention to reject that 
 nation, he never would have selected from it the individual to whom he was 
 about to entrust the entire work of preaching and the concerns of the whole 
 globe, and all the mysteries and the whole economy of his church. This, 
 then, is one proof. 
 
368 CHAPTER XI. V. 2. 
 
 sumption of ver. 1. And although the aim of the Apostle to show, 
 that God had not rejected the people as such and in foto, is certainly 
 likewise attained, when he demonstrates that those favourites of God 
 whom he foreknew or fore-loved, are not excluded, still the argument 
 becomes far more decisive, when we suppose that he shows, from the 
 relation of God to Israel as the covenant people, that no rejection of 
 them nationally can-take place. We hence perceive that this τὸν 
 λαὸν αὑτοῦ is merely a resumption of the same words in ver. 1, and 
 hold ὃν xeoéyra to be a description which applies to the whole people 
 of Israel. It is thus taken by Heumann, Bengel, ‘Taylor, Mosheim, 
 Baumgarten, Chr. Schmid and others. Hunnius: Deus jam olim 
 agnovit hune populum pro suo, quem sibi in peculium sanctissimo 
 foedere delegit et assumsit. Ergo non jam feederis illius ita erit im- 
 memor, ut sine omni discrimine omnes et singulos Hebrezos, etiam 
 credentes, a sua gratia projectos velit. As to the πεοέγνω, we shall 
 take it in that sense which it is so very easy to vindicate in re- 
 spect of language, and which here suits so admirably with the con- 
 nection, “to predetermine, viz. to make them the covenant people.” 
 See upon the word, ch. viii. 29. Asa parallel to our text, we might 
 then consider ver. 29 of the present éhapter, which also serves to 
 confirm the exposition we have embraced. ‘The sense accordingly 
 is: ** God having, from the world’s foundation, assigned to Israel its 
 vocation as covenant people, it cannot be conceived that God would 
 now reject them as a people.” 
 
 Ἣ obx οἴδατε ἐν Haig χτλ. The Apostle adduces a case from the 
 history of the Old 'lestament, which conveys a fine doctrine with 
 respect to the subject in hand. When the idolatrous Ahab had made 
 a massacre of all the prophets of the true God, Elias, having fled 
 from the sword, imagined himself the only one who had escaped, 
 and who truly served the Lord. Contrary to his conjecture, how- 
 ever, there were still a great number of true Israelites concealed. Pe- 
 lagius; Omnes prophete illa tantummodo sciebant, que illis fuerant 
 a Deo revelata. Ita et Elias preter se esse alios qui Deum colerent 
 ignoravit. Si prophetam tanti latuerunt, quanto magis vos nescitis 
 quam multi Judzorum salvati sunt et salvandi. Chrysostom: 6 δὲ 
 λέγει τοιοῦτόν ἔστι" οὐκ ἀπώσατο ὃ Θεὸς τὸν λαόν. εἰ γὰξ ἀπώσατο; οὐδένα 
 ἂν ἐδέξατο. εἰ δὲ ἐδέξατό τινας», οὐκ ἀπώσατο. καὶ μήν, φησιν; εἰ μὴ ἀπώ- 
 σατο, τάντα ἂν ἐδέξατο. οὐδαμῶς. καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ "Hara ἐν ἑπτακισχιλίους 
 περίεστη τὰ τὴς σωτηξίας, καὶ νῦν δὲ evxds πολλοὺς εἶναυ τοῦς πεπιστευ- 
 κότας. εἰ δὲ ἀγνοεῖτε ὑμεῖς, θαυμαστὸν οὐδὲν, ἐπεὺ δὲ ὃ προφήτης ἐκεῖνος 6 
 τοσοῦτος καὶ τηλικοῦτος GYNE ἠγνόει» ἀλλ᾽ ὃ Θεὸς φχονόμεν τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, καὺ 
 τοῦ πεοφήτου ἀγνοοῦντος" σχόπευ δὲ αὐτοῦ τὴν σύνεσιν; πῶς ἐν τῷ κατα- 
 σχευάζειν τὸ πδοχείμενον λανθανόντως THY κατηγοξίαν αὐτῶν αὔξει. διὰ γὰξ 
 τοῦτο χαὶ πάσης ἐμνήσθη τῆς μαξτυξίας, ἵνα αὐτὼν ἐχπομπεύσῃ τὴν Gyva- 
 μοσύνην, καὶ δείξῃ τοιούτους ἄνωθεν ὄντας. ἢ 
 
 * What he says is to this effect: God has not rejected the people. Forhad 
 he rejected them, he would not have received one. If, however, he has re- 
 
CHAPTER XI. ν. 2, 3, 4. 369 
 
 ἐν "Hata. + This ἐν has been misunderstood by not a few, who, 
 imagining that, after the Hebrew, an interchange of 3 and 4y has 
 taken place, explain it de, concerning. So Vatablus, Beza, Calov. 
 But it is much more correct to take it in its:proper sense, and consi- 
 der “Haig as designating that part of Holy Scriptures where Elias is 
 spoken of. ‘That, the Rabbins are wont, in this way, to cite the 
 Scripture, according to the chief topic, is asserted by Surenhusius. 
 We have another instance in the New Testament, in which the same 
 thing is clearly shown, Mark xii. 26. zac τῆς βάτου ‘in the place 
 which speaks of the bush.”? ‘The Greeks, too, sometimes quoted 
 Homer in this manner. It is, for instance, quite common to say: ἐν 
 τῷ τῶν νεῶν καταλόγῳ; ἐν νεχνομανφείᾳ. So Thucydides, Hist. |. 1. 6.9, 
 quoting that poet, says, ἐν τῇ σχήτέτξον παξαδόσει; by which he de- 
 signs the 2d Book of the Iliad, v. 100, where it is related how 
 Jupiter devolved the kingdom upon Agamemnon. ‘The formula τί 
 λέγευ ἡ yeapy, after the Rabbinical 31Ndn WN. 
 
 ἐντυγχάνειν tui, is per se the same as προσέφχεσθαι; but joined to 
 ὑπέρ τινος, it means, both in profane authors and in the New Testa- 
 ment, fo intercede, with xara τινος, to accuse, complain. 1 Mace. 
 Vili SS. ποθ}: 
 
 V.3. The passage is from 1 Kings xix.10. It is quoted by Paul © 
 in an abridged form from the LXX. The θυσιαστήριά σου are the 
 altars of the true God, which the idolatrous Ahab had caused to be 
 destroyed. ‘The prophets of the Lord had been slain by command 
 of Jezebel, 1 Kings xviii. 4, so that Elias says, in ver. 22 of that 
 chapter, “I, even I only, remain a prophet of the Lord, but Baal’s 
 prophets are four hundred and fifty men.”” The phrase, ζητεῖν τὴν 
 ψυχήν also stands at Mat.ii.20. Ψυχή, as translation of the Hebrew 
 w5), means here, life. 
 
 V. 4. Xenuarcoucs. In the Old Testament passage, God himself 
 does not deliver this saying, but only a@ voice of God, 1 Kings xix. 
 13. Agreeably to the Jewish theology, God, in the latter days of 
 the Theocracy, appeared ever more and more seldom. It was merely 
 by a np na, daughter of the voice, that he intimated his presence. 
 Jarchi zu Berachoth, c. 1, explains the expression, Echo of the voice. 
 It was imagined that in Bath Kol, the analogon only of the voice 
 divine is audible to man. ‘The foundation of this doctrine, which 
 
 ceived some, he has not rejected them. Nay, but you will say, If he had 
 not rejected them, he would have received them all. By no means. Be- 
 cause, in the days of Elias, salvation was confined to seven thousand, and it 
 is probable that now there are many who believe. And as to your ignorance 
 of this, that is no way wonderful, considering that that prophet, being such 
 and so great a man, was also ignorant in the other case. But God managed 
 his own affairs notwithstanding the prophet’s want of knowledge. Reflect 
 upon the Apostle’s skill, and how, in proving the proposition before him, he 
 secretly augments the charge against them. For the object he had in view 
 in bringing forward the whole of that testimony, was to manifest their ingra- 
 titude, and show that of old they had been what they now were. 
 AT 
 
370 CHAPTER XI. V. 4. 
 
 conceals a profound idea, is to be discovered in 1 Kings xix. 13. 
 Xenuareouds is the translation of yp. 
 
 In the LXX., the passage—excepting only the xavanevpers—is thus 
 faithfully translated after the Hebrew: Καὶ καταλεύψευς ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἑπτὰ yen 
 λιάδας ἀνδρῶν, πάντα γόνατα ἃ οὐκ ὥκλασαν γόνυ τῷ Baar. The Complu- 
 tensian alone, agreeably to the Hebrew, reads χαταλεύψω. In like 
 manner, the Vulgate also translates in the first person. Moreover, 
 the Compl., in place of ὄὥχλασαν, has ἔχαμψαν. Paul cites the saying 
 merely as an excerpt, and, agreeably to the Hebrew ‘1Nwn, puts 
 the first person. ᾿Ἐμαντῷ means, for my service. “Encaxaytacovs 15 
 like the Latin sexcenti, a round number. Both the simple number 
 7, 70, and likewise 40, are used as round numbers. 
 
 τῇ Βάαλ. ὮΨᾺ properly means Zord, and was the name which 
 the Phenicians gave to the sun, adored by them as a masculine di- 
 vinity. They styled it likewise Moloch, or king. In the LXX. the 
 masculine article is usually joined with this name, occasionally, how- 
 ever, as in the present instance, the feminine; to wit, Hosea ii. 8. 
 Jer. ii. 8; xix. 5, Zeph.i.4. In Tobit i. 5, there stands τῇ Βάαλ» 
 τῇ δαμάλει, or as the Compl. reads, τοῦ Βάαλ τῇ δυνάμει. (This must 
 not be considered either as Drusius ‘affirms the translation of 5x, or 
 as most others, of 7133, but, according to the common usage of the 
 LXX., appears to be used for 823, and is then to be rendered by Star: 
 Thus Zeph. i. 5, after tues τὰ ὀνόματα τῆς Βάαλ; there follows im- 
 mediately xai τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐξανοῦ. In this 
 passage, however, the recepta is the more correct reading, for both 
 the Hebrew translation of Fagius, as well as that edited by Miinster, 
 gives the δάμαλις», and the Syriac renders accordingly. ‘There then 
 arises the question, from what source in these passages of the LXX., 
 and in the present of Paul, proceeds the use of the word in the femi- 
 nine gender?’ Erasmus, Beza and Grotius suppose a constructio ad 
 sensum, to wit, with ἡ εἰκὼν, as vouchers for which they produce, 
 Dan. ill. 8, εὐστήκευσαν ἐνώπιον τῆς εἰκόνος; and ver. 18, τῇ εὐχόνι προσ- 
 χυνοῦμεν. Now, doubtless, these texts demonstrate that statues 
 were adored, but they do nothing more. Others on ‘the contrary, 
 supposed that Βάαλ was also the name of a female divinity, perchance 
 of the moon. So Brais, Beyer: addit. ad Selden de diis Syris, Chr. 
 Schmid and others. In support of this opinion it might be urged, 
 that along with the name of the male divinity 5», that of the female, 
 noon was revered by the Phenicians. (Even in his time Abarbanel 
 observes, on Jer. xliv., that it is highly probable 729: means queen, 
 and was applied to the moon, as 4 and 5y3, to the sun. Gesenius 
 has scruples about this explanation. It appears exceedingly admis- 
 sible, however, if we take into account, that Plautus in the Poe- 
 nulus calls Moloch, Baalsaamen. This name Augustine, who 
 was master of the Punic, Qu. 15, ad Judic. 2, 13, expressly inter- 
 prets by ‘‘dominus celorum.” How consonant then would be o'nwn 
 nan. Nay, it even seems that Herodotus knew this name of Astarte, 
 when he calls the Urania, which Dido brought from Pheenicia to the 
 
CHAPTER XI. Υ.᾽ 4, 5, 6. 371 
 
 Carthaginians, ’Acreodeyy. ‘Tertullian styles her Dea celestis, and 
 the road which led to her temple, was called Via celestis: (See 
 Miinster, Ueber die Religion der Carthager.) It might likewise be 
 urged, that there was a Phenician goddess, with the female name of 
 Βααλτὶς (Euseb. Prep. Ev. 1. I., ¢. 10. p. 38), and, in fine, that most 
 nations adore the sun and moon, as male and female. But against 
 the whole hypothesis there lies the decisive objection, that ἡ Βάαλ 
 occurs along with Astarte, who, according to Lucian and Creutzer 
 (Symb. b. II. s. 105), is the moon, or at least the personification of 
 the female principle. Moreover, in Jer. xxxii. 35, ἡ Βάαλ is used as 
 identical with ὁ Moaoy, and 1 Kings xix. 18, the mase. pron. αὐτῷ 
 refers to it. Others would have it that Baoa had been a deity of 
 double sex, as Deus Lunus and Dea Luna (Creutzer Β. II. 5. 9), 
 which, they say, both pictures and coins avouch. It is well known 
 that even the Dea Syria, is represented with the phallus. It cannot, 
 however, be supposed that Baal, when mentioned along with Astarte, 
 can be conceived of both genders, as, according to the ancient ‘Theo- 
 sophy, the two principles were either represented as identical, or 
 separately opposed to each other. It hence appears most judicious 
 to suppose, that the feminine is expressive of contempt. Jerome on 
 Hosea x. 5, holds that there the feminine ΠῚ} stands ad irrisionem. 
 In the Koran, the Heathen Arabs, whose deities had female names, 
 are thus reproachfully addressed: ‘* Would you wish to have only 
 male children, and yet give to God female ones?’’ Sure, LIII. v. 19. 
 (See on this passage Pococke, Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 91.) Compare 
 Sure, xvi. ver. 59, and Sale’s Annot. Moreover, not only is the 
 Arabie word for an idol feminine, but likewise the Rabbins. call the 
 heathen deities, M7178. 
 
 V.5. Now comes the application of the divine words to the case 
 in hand. The points of similitude are as follows: Just as little as 
 the residue of faithful believers, in those days, was discoverable 
 by the human eye, can any individual at the present time see how 
 great is the number of believers on Jesus from among Israel. As 
 God, in the days of an idolatrous Ahab, took care to preserve a holy 
 seed, he does sonow. With regard to λεῖμμα, we have to compare 
 what, in a doctrinal sense, was said, chap. ix. 29, upon χατάλεῦμμα. 
 The Apostle seems to use λεύμμα in precisely the same sense. As to 
 the number of this aciuua it isspoken of, Acts il. 41; xxi. 20. Kar’ 
 ἐχλογὴν χάρυτος. ‘The genitive of the noun, according to the well 
 known Hebraism, stands here forthe adj., ‘‘the gracious election.” 
 In proof, see Eph. i. 5, χατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν τοῦ ϑελήματος αὐτοῦ. Upon 
 ixaoyn, compare the obs. onc. ix. 11. 
 
 V.6. According to his usual practice of improving every opportu- 
 nity to destroy the delusion of a claim on the part of man, Paul does 
 so here. ‘This statement of the sharp antithesis betwixt ἔργα and 
 χάρις is quite casually connected with the xaz’ ἐχλογὴν χάριτος. Chap. 
 iv. 4, is parallel. The meaning, accordingly, is simply as follows: 
 Grace and desert by work stand in absolute antithesis, and mutually 
 
372 CHAPTER ΧΙ. V. 7, 8. 
 
 exclude one another. In regard to the reading, we have to observe, 
 that the words εἰ δὲ ἐξ teyav—eyow are wanting in Codd, AC DEF, 
 47, and in the Koptic, Arminian and Athiopic, the Vulgate and Italian 
 versions, in Chrysostom, 'Theodoret, Damascenus and Jerome. The 
 proposition, which is just the preceding one inverted, manifests itself 
 at the same time so strongly to be a gloss, and in the lips of Paul 
 would appear so weak and impotent, that its spuriousness, both on 
 ‘internal, as well as on external grounds, is not to be doubted. Eras- 
 mus, Grotius,-Wetstein and Griesbach agree in declaring it to be a 
 loss. 
 
 V.7. Summary of the result. Grotius: Quid ergo est quod doceo? 
 An eos qui olim amati fuerant a Deo jam dispectos? Non sane. 
 Chrysostom: ‘Eavra yae μάχεταί, φησιν, ὃ Iovdaios, ζητῶν δικαιοσύνην 
 ἣν οὐ βούλεται λαβεῖν. εἶτα ἀποστερῶν αὐτοὺς πάλυν συγγνώμης» ἀπὸ τῶν 
 εἰληφότων δείκνυσιν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀγνωμοσύνην, οὕτω λέγων. ἡ ae ἐκλογὴ 
 ἐπέτυχε, κἀκχεῖνον τούτους κατακχρινοῦσι....««(ἵνα γὰρ μηδεὶς τῇ TOV πράγ- 
 ματος φύσει ἐγκαλῇ»ν ἀλλὰ τῇ ἐκείνων γνώμῃ» δείκνυσυ καὶ τοὺς ἐπυτυχόντας.Ἐ 
 In place of τούτον Codices A Ο D E ἘΝ 1, 13,14, 17,18, read τοῦτο. 
 It could be said against this reading, that it only suits the aceusative 
 of the relative 6. It might, however, be perhaps more correct, espe- 
 cially as the external proofs are of some weight, to suppose that the 
 gen. τούτου is spurious, and was introduced merely because it is 
 only in Greek poetry that τυγχάνειν governs the accusative. ᾿Επιδητεῦν 
 is stronger than ζητεῖν. ᾿Ἰσξαὴλ means here the people as a whole, 
 What it sought was the διχαιοσύνη. Chap. ix. 31, is parallel. Ἢ 
 ἐχλογὴ is abst. pro concr. like ἡ πεξιτομὴ; ἡ axeoBvorca. Soin Hebrew 
 snap. At Dan. xi. 15, stands r3nan oy, for which the LX X. render 
 οἱ ἐχλεχτοὶ αὐτοῦ. ᾿Επωφώθησαν from πῶξος callus, occaluerunt. 
 
 ν. 8. The Apostle produces examples from Scripture to show, 
 that it is nothing new for Israel to be hardened, on the contrary, that 
 often before it had fallen into a similar delusion, and that what now 
 took place was just what the men of God had formerly declared re- 
 specting her. ‘The words of the quotation are blended together from 
 two parallel passages, as is often done by the Rabbins, see ix. 33. 
 As far as χατανύξεως they are from Is. xxix. 10, to which passage 
 Paul likewise appeals, 2 Cor. ili. 14,15, Paul quotes from memory, 
 and hence substitutes the more unusual word πεπότικεν ὑμᾶς xvevos IN 
 Is. xxix. 10, to which 02) answers in Hebrew with the more unusual 
 ἔδωκεν. 
 
 κατάνυξις, according to the usus. loquendi of the LXX., means 
 deep sleep, as translation of the Hebrew nna. Where the spirit of 
 slumber exists, nothing that is spiritual can be rightly understood. 
 
 * The Jew, he says, fights against himself. Although he seeks righteous- 
 ness, he does not choose to accept of it. Again, depriving them of every 
 excuse, he shows, from all they had received, their ingratitude, speaking to 
 this effect: “The election hath obtained it; and these will condemn them... 
 For that no one may complain of the nature of the thing, but their own mind, 
 he declares who they are that have obtained it. 
 
CHAPTER XI. Vv. 8, 9. 373 
 
 God is represented as ἀφοσμητιχῶς the author of this Spirit. ‘The 
 passage in Deut. xxix. 3, runs: pow) ONT MIND DWI AT 39 Ὁ27 
 μὰ > nin arn ay. Now, as in this passage from Moses, the nega- 
 tion is wanting beside the verbs of seeing and hearing, it was sup- 
 posed that only the final words, “until this day,’’ were taken’ from 
 Deut. xxix. 3, but that those which precede are from Is. vi. 10, 
 where they occur precisely as here quoted. This is certainly possi- 
 ble; it is, however, no less so, that Paul quoted merely the meaning 
 of the passage, as 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15. The eye and ear are the instru- 
 ments of the understanding. ‘The impenitent are destitute of the 
 right sense for understanding what is spiritual. 
 
 V.9. The passage is borrowed from Ps. lxix. 22, where David, 
 under his oppression, invokes severe calamities upon his foes. He 
 regards the enemies of the theocracy as his own; and, agreeably to 
 his position in the Old Testament economy, he wishes that the divine 
 justice might be revealed, and visibly manifest itself in the protection 
 of the theocracy. In what way David, in opposition to those who 
 were his adversaries, looked upon himself as the representative of 
 such as feared the Lord, and his enemies as the enemies of God and 
 the Theocracy, we perceive, from Ps. cxxxix. 21, ‘Do not I hate 
 them, Ὁ, Lord, that hate thee? and am 1 not grieved with them that 
 rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred, I count them 
 mine enemies.” David calls upon God to chastise the enemies of 
 order, because otherwise the divine-authority would be contemned. 
 Ps. x. 12, 13; exl.9. The help, vouchsafed by God to the righteous 
 against their adversaries, shows that he favours those that fear him, 
 Ps. xli. 12. When contemplated from the theocratical point of view, 
 that even the imprecation of the prophets against foreign nations are 
 not so dreadful as might be supposed, that the nation might be cursed, 
 and yet the individual loved, is shown by Lessing in an ingenious 
 - narrative, (Siimmtliche Schriften, Bd. vii. 5. 114.) A noble elevation, 
 above private revenge, in perfect accordance with Prov. xxiv.'17, 18, 
 and Matt. v. 44, is displayed by David in history, 1 Sam. xxiv. 2 
 Sam. xvi. 6; xix. 2,3. 2 Sam. xviii. ΤῸ the Apostle’s purpose 
 only ver. 24 of Ps. lxix. belongs. He takes in, however, the words 
 joined to them. ‘The citation coincides almost perfectly with the 
 LXX., which, however, deviates somewhat from the Hebrew. , 
 
 γενηθήτω ἡ τεάπεξα αὐτῶν εἰς παγίδα κτλ. O7ea is equivalent to πα- 
 yis, and is to be found neither in the LX X. nor in the Hebrew. “ May 
 their table be a snare,”’ the Psalmist says, in grder to express that 
 dangers should overwhelm them where they least expect it. Me- 
 lancthon: Significat mensa hoc ipsum in quo acquiescunt homines, 
 quod videtur afferre consolationem. Ita Judzis lex et prasens po- 
 litia et ille gloriosissimus titulus populi Dei erat mensa. The other 
 hemistich runs in Hebrew: wpy4 ὉΔῚ Ὑ2) “Ὁ to them at rest for a fall.” 
 The LXX. read om, retribution. So likewise Paul. Σ χαάνδαλον 
 means here a snare, as it elsewhere does. 
 
374 CHAPTER ΧΙ. v. 10, 11. 
 
 V. 10. The several images of ruin are to be regarded merely as 
 poetical. ‘The poet mentions the painful consequences of old age, 
 dimness of sight and a bent back. 
 
 PA RY TE 
 LET NOT THE HEATHEN EXULT OVER ISRAEL’S FALL. ΨΥ. 11—25. 
 
 V.11. The Apostle felt the necessity of exhorting the Gentile 
 Christians to humility, and warning them against a self-righteous 
 hauteur over the rebellious people of God, their elder brother. He 
 does 80, and paves the way to the subject by once more showing, 
 even in the mournful fact of Israel’s obstinacy, the noble manifesta- 
 tion of the wisdom, omnipotence and mercy of God, which from all 
 evil and human transgression, makes glory be educed. _ Chrysostom: 
 Σκόπευ τὴν σύνεσιν τὴν Παύλον. τὴν μὲν xarnyoevay and τῶν προφητῶν 
 εἰσήγαγε» τὴν δε παξαμυθίαν nae’ ἑαυτοῦ τίθησιν. ὅτι μὲν yae αὑτοὺς 
 ἡμάρτηται μεγάλα, φησίν, οὐδεὶς ἀντεξεὺ. δωμεν δὲ εἰ τοιοῦτον τὸ πτὼ- 
 HO, ὡς καὶ ἀνίατον εἶναι» καὶ μηδεμίαν & ἔχειν διόφθωσιν.- ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι του- 
 ovroy. εἶδες πὼς αὐτῶν πάλιν καθάπτεται; καὶ ἐν πιξοόδδοχίῳ παξαμυθίας 
 ὑπευθύνους ποιεῦ ἁμαξτημάτων ὡμολογημένων; Τίς οὖν ἣ παξαμυθία; ὅταν 
 δὲ τὸ πλήξωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐσέλθῃ, φησὶ, τότε πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται κατὰ 
 τὸν καιξὸν τῆς συντελείας. ἀλλ᾽ εὐθέως μὲν τοῦτο οὐ λέγει. ἐπειδὴ δὲ 
 opodgus αὐτῶν χκατέδξἝαμε, χαὺ κατηγορίας συνήψε͵ κατηγοξίαις» 7 πξοφήτας 
 ἐπὶ προφήταις εἰσάγων καταβοῶντας αὐτῶν; τὸν Hoatays τὸν ᾿Ἦλίαν, τὸν 
 Muioéoa, τὸν Aavid, τὸν Ὡσηὲ, καὶ ἅπαξ, καὶ dvs, χαὶ πολλάκις», ἵνα μὴ 
 ταύτη καὶ τούτους εἰς ἀπόγνωσιν ἐμβαλὼν, ἀποτειχίσῃ τὴν πρὸς τὴν πίστιν 
 ἐπάνοδον, xou τους ἐξ ἐθνῶν παλιν πιστεύσαντας els ἀπόνοιαν ἐπάρῃ καὶ 
 Φυσηθέντες δὲ αὐτοὶ βλαβῶσιν εἰς τὸν τῆς πίστεως λόγον, παξαμυθειται πά- 
 λιν αὐτοὺς λέγων, ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐτῶν παξαπτώμοατι ἧ σωτηξία τῶν ἐθνῶν. Ἐ΄ 
 Clarius: Miras hic divinus vir consolandi vias excogitat. 
 
 * Mark the wisdom of Paul. He had introduced the accusation on the au- 
 thority of the prophets, he gives the consolation from himself. For that they 
 have committed great sins, says he, none will deny. Let us see, however, if 
 the fall has been such ag to admit of no remedy and no reparation. That is 
 by no means the case. Thus you see how he aims a blow at them again, 
 and in the prospect of the consolation, makes them responsible for the sins 
 confessed. What then is the consolation? “When the fulness of the Gen- 
 tiles shall have come in,” he says, “then shall all Israel be saved,” at the 
 time of the consummation. He does, not, however, at once say this. Butas 
 he had greatly run them down, and strung accusation upon accusation, 
 bringing forward prophet after prophet crying out against them, Isaiah and 
 Elias and Moses and David and Hosea, and that not once nor twice, but fre- 
 
CHAPTER 1x. v. 11, 12. 379 
 
 μὴ ἔπταισαν, ἵνα πέσωσι. τιταΐω is the figurative expression for 
 being stopped in one’s course, and hence for the scandal which the 
 Jews took at Christ. The ἕνα πέσωσι has been explained by ex- 
 positors ina twofold way. The Vulgate, Origen, Pelagius, Gicu- 
 menius, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Michaelis and others take iva as 
 synonymous with ὥστε and πίπτειν in the emphatic sense, fo con- 
 tinue fallen, to fall for ever. Stolz even translates, “" that they may 
 mortally fall.”’ In support of this meaning, Grotius appeals to Rev. 
 xviii. ὦ. Erasmus paraphrases: Num ita lapsi sunt ut prorsus con- 
 ciderint, nulla resurgendi spe reliqua? Photius: τὸ xracopa αὑτῶν 
 ODYL εἰς κατάπτωσιν τελείαν γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ» μόνόν ὑπεσχελίσθησαν. Still, 
 although it cannot be denied that, according to this explanation, the 
 question would be appropriately connected with the preceding con- 
 text, it is yet somewhat forced to take πίπτειν in that emphatic mean- 
 ing, nor can it be demonstrated that it ever is so used. Moreover, 
 the answer, which immediately follows the question, does not apply 
 to that when so expounded. It is hence preferable to suppose, that 
 in these words Paul means to state, not so much the magnitude, as 
 the consequences of the fall. He wants to demonstrate, That this 
 very rebellious unbelief has been turned by God to a happy end. 
 Thus even Augustine: Non ita deliquerunt ut caderent, 7. e. ut tan- 
 tummodo caderent, quasi ad penam suam solam, and in like manner 
 Pet. Martyr, Turretin and others. 
 
 ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐτῶν naganrauate xtra. This is the glorious conse- 
 quence which the divine wisdom educed from the obstinacy of the 
 Jews (Acts xiii. 46). Even Christ himself had predicted the trans- 
 ference of salvation from the rebellious Israelites to the Heathen, 
 Matt. xxi. 43. Chrysostom adduces Matt. xxii. 9. As those that 
 were bidden were not worthy, the Lord caused others to be invited. 
 It is even a doctrine of Jewish Theologians, that if Israel sins, God 
 transfers his benediction to the Gentiles. Soon Ps. xxv. in Midrasch 
 Tehillim. 
 
 παράπτωμα has here a more comprehensive sense than in the pure 
 Greek. In the LXX. also it is the translation of pw) and Syn. 
 
 εἰς τὸ παραξηλῶσαν αὐτούς. In this way, even in the days of Moses, 
 God had wished, by tokens of love towards the Canaanites, to stir 
 the people up to jealousy, Deut. xxii. 21. Calvin: Sicuti uxorema 
 marito sua culpa rejectam accendit emulatio, ut se reconciliare stu- 
 deat, ita nune fieri posse dicit, ut Judai, quum viderint Gentes in 
 locum suum subrogatas, repudii sui dolore tacti ad reconciliationem 
 aspirent. ᾿ 
 »  Y.12. Paul now endeavours, by this very consideration of Israel’s 
 
 quently, lest in this way he might plunge them in despair, and obstruct their 
 return to the faith; and, on the other hand, lest he might lift the believers 
 from among the Gentiles into arrogance, and by pufling up, injure them in the 
 article of their faith, he again consoles the Jews, saying, that by their fall, 
 salvation is come to the Gentiles. , 
 
376 CHAPTER XI. v. 12. 
 
 fall, to dispose the Israelites for the truth, showing,as he does, that 
 since even their fall had proved a blessing, a still more glorious des- 
 tiny awaited them in the event of their conversion. Calvin: Est 
 enim illud contra naturam factum, hoc nature ordine fieret. Theo- 
 doret: Ei yae τῶν πλειόνων ἀπιστησάντων, οἱ ἐξ αὐτῶν πεπιστευκότες τοὺς 
 ἔθνεσι τῆς θεογνωσίας τὸν πλοῦτον προσήνεγκαν, δηλονότι πάντες πιστεὺ- 
 σώπα ἘΞ μειζόνων ἀγαθῶν πᾶσιν ἀνθξώποις ἐγένοντο ἂν πρόξενοι. ῥᾷον yae 
 ἐπίστευον πάντες, οὐκέτι τούτων ἀντιλεγοντων; ἀλλὰ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν 
 xnevtrovrav.* Bengel: Ubi multi semina eorum, major proventus. 
 πλοῦτος xoouov.e Τίλοῦτος per met. adjuncti, beatitude, as Heb. xi. 
 26. Κόσμος is here to be taken in the more special sense of the 
 Heathen world. See one. iii. '7; it stands parallel with ἐθνῶν. It is 
 particularly difficult to determine the meaning of ἥττημα and πλήφωμὸ; 
 and the chief reason is, because the signification of both words is 
 almost equally vague, and yet the explanation of the one necessarily 
 decides that of the otheryas they are mutually contrasted. Of the 
 two, the meaning of πλήφωμα can be most certainly fixed, and conse- 
 quently with it we begin. In ver. 25, the πλήξωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν is spoken 
 of. Now, there it signifies the great bulk, a signification which can 
 be fully demonstrated. Πλήξωμα Means x90, the multitude, fulness, 
 John i, 16; Eph. iii. 19; Rom. xv. 29. Specially, too, the ἰβγεδξ 
 number. ‘Thus, in Gen. xlviii. 19, the LXX. render oy NOD by 
 πλῆθος ἐθνῶν. In that sense, among the Fathers, we meet πλήξωμα 
 Ins ἐκκλησίας. See Suicer, Thes. T. II. s. hh. v. Nay, even in the 
 Greek usus loquendi, this active signification is to be found; for 
 among the Classics, πλήφωμα is used to signify “the crew of a 
 vessel, passengers, seamen;’’ see Schweighauser, Lex. ad Polyb. and 
 Reiske, Index Grac. ad Demosth. 5. h. v. In later authors, we also 
 find the expression wajeaua 775 πόλεως for ‘ the entire population of 
 the city.”” So in Aristides in the Orat. περὶ ov μὴ δεῖν κωμῳδεῖν» P 
 282, ed. Canter: παύδας, γυναῖκας καὶ πάν7α 7a 74s πόλεως πληφξώμαϊα. 
 In the Sing. in Liban. Orat. ed. Reiske, T. I. p.301. Accordingly, 
 it would be very probable, that wajeoua is here equivalent to πᾶς 
 Ἰσραὴλ in ver. 26. Now, for the contrast’s sake, 777yu0 would re- 
 quire to stand in the sense, the small number. It would then answer 
 to the ἀπὸ μέρες in ver. 25, and to the χαγάλειμμα inc. ix. 27. ‘Thus 
 do Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Grotius and others conceive 
 the words. Erasmus: Quod si lapsus illorum per oceasionem sic 
 profuit, ut Judzorum defectio non solum nihil attulerit dispendii, sed 
 fides in multo plures sit propagata, dum, paucis deficientibus, ad 
 omnes derivatum est evangelium, et unius gentis jactura tot nationes 
 lucrifecerit Christo, quanto magis ditabitur mundus, cum vestra pie- 
 
 * For if, whilst the majority disbelieved, such of them as did believe, con- 
 veyed to the Gentiles the riches of the knowledge of God, it is clear, that sup- 
 posing all to have believed, they would have. become the authors of still 
 greater blessings to the whole human race. Yor all would have more readily 
 relieved, if they, i in place of denying, had preached the truth along with us. 
 
CHAPTER XP verre: 377 
 
 tate provocata, jam et ea natio ceteris adjungetur? The sense is one 
 that may well be taken. ‘There is somewhat, however, to be said 
 against it. In the first place, it would not fit the place in Paul’s 
 train of argument, were he to say, ‘The small number, viz. of be- 
 lieving Jews, has profited the heathen, how much more shall the 
 great bulk.’? He should rather have said, “The great number of 
 Jews cast away, has been of advantage, how much more will the 
 great number of those received?’’ It is further to be observed, that 
 we expect a kindred word to be joined with ragax7oua, and not one 
 of an entirely different signification. If these objections, however, 
 be of less weight, the following is of so much the more, viz., ‘That 
 the usage of ἡγήημα can scarcely be defended, when understood to 
 mean the small number. ‘Two considerations only can be urged in 
 its favour, First, that ἐλάγζωμα signifies the state of diminution, and 
 so might 777qua in like manner mean the minor number. Again 
 that, Is. xxxi. 8, 477jua seems to bear this meaning in the LXX. 
 But, although defended by Déderlein at that passage, it ought not to 
 be embraced. The εἰς #77qua is there translation of the Hebrew 00%. 
 If the LXX. translated that word, for melting, for the melted num- 
 ber, they might doubtless use 7777uo in the sense, “ὁ small number.” 
 But whether they translated on, melted number, or for vassalage, 
 it is more probable that they took εἰς 777yuo in the sense, into an in- 
 ferior condition, may they become prisoners of war. Besides it is 
 strange that no translation of the New Testament takes ἥττημα in the 
 sense melted number. What other meaning, then, remains for ἡττη- 
 po? ‘The customary significations of it, which are partly resolvable 
 the one into the other, are, 1. Harm, 2. Defeat, 3. Needy condition, 
 4.'Transgression. The first is adopted by Origen, Ambrose, Luther, 
 Limborch, Bolten and others. By harm they understand the loss 
 of their dignity as covenant people. ‘The second meaning is em- 
 braced by Weller, Calov and Heumann; as the Israelites have been 
 discomfited in the contest with their own unbelief. 'The third is ad- 
 vocated by Photius, Calvin and Wahl. The Ethiopic translator has 
 introduced the fourth into the Polygl. According to the sense which 
 the Syriac and Arabic connect with the meaning harm, the former 
 translates * condemnation,” the latter, **rwin.’’? If, however, re- 
 versing the order, the meaning of xajeauo is to be determined by that 
 of ἥττημα, it might, to answer the first sense of ἥττημα, Mean com- 
 pletion, exaltation, agreeably to the third, the state of perfect wel- 
 fare, and agreeably to the fourth, legal perfection. In point of fact, 
 any of these three meanings of πλήφωμα may be vindicated. In the 
 same way we find classical authors contrast μειονέχτημα and πλεονέχ- 
 τήμα. ‘To us, however, the fourth construction put upon ἥττημα, 
 which, in truth is involved in the third, and partly also in the first, 
 appears the most suitable. Ἥτημα occurs in the New Testament, 
 1 Cor. vi. 7, in the sense of ““ἃ depraved moral state,”’ according 
 to which the orthodox moralists, in reference to the adiaphora, 
 48 
 
378 CHAPTER XI. v. 12, 13, 14. 
 
 founded the distinction betwixt ἥττημα and ἁμάρτημα. TWajeouo 
 means “the perfect fulfilment (of the law), Rom. xiii. 10, and so 
 may well denote the legal condition. The Ethiopic gives the cir- 
 cumlocution, ‘*when they shall be made righteous.”’ By this ex- 
 planation we have the advantage that the ἥττημα perfectly answers 
 to the παξάπτωμα and warewua to both of these words. τταράπτωμα and 
 ἥττημα are equivalent to the ἀποβολὴ in ver. 15, and πλήφωμα to the 
 πρόληψις there. We shall only further incidentally notice the in- 
 genious explanation of πλήφωμα in Origen. He says: The heavenly 
 economy upon earth, shall first be completed when the Jews shall 
 likewise have been converted. ‘They are the complementum of all;” 
 then follows the resurrection; according to which τὸ πλήφωμα αὐτῶν 
 means “the completion of the kingdom of God proceeding from 
 them.” 
 
 V. 13. The design of Paul to guard the Gentiles, against haughty 
 exultation over the people of Israel, now emerges more prominently. 
 He goes so far as to profess, that in his most zealous endeavours to 
 lead the heathen to Christ, he had still his eye directed towards the 
 ancient people of God, expecting that the conversion of the heathen 
 would provoke some of them to emulation. Ambrose: Ostendit gen- 
 tibus quo affectu diligat Judeos. Nam ministerium suum, quo 
 Apostolus gentium est, honorificat, si propter affectum generis sui 
 data opera etiam Judzos acquirat ad fidem. 
 
 ὑμῖν γὰρ κτλ.» Stands partly in antithesis to what went before, and 
 was simultaneously aimed at the awakening of the Jews. 
 
 ἐφ᾽ ὅσον δοξάζω. The ἐφ᾽ ὅσον is falsely translated by the Vulgate, 
 quamdiu. Here, more correctly, as Erasmus has amended it, qua- 
 tenus. ‘The Apostle wants to prevent the Gentile, from insinuating 
 in proof of his being no friend of the Jews, that he cares only for the 
 conversion of the heathen. For this reason he here describes him- 
 self in the character to which he had actually been called by the 
 Lord, ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος. Acts xxii. 21, and yet he says, never do I lose 
 sight of the sacred people. 
 
 διακονίαν δοξάδειν admits a twofold exposition. The verb, accord- 
 ing to its customary meaning. may signify to praise, extol; so Heu- 
 menius, Luther, Heumann, Michaelis and many others. ‘The sense 
 would then be, “ While I congratulate myself in being the Apostle 
 of the Gentiles, some Jews may, perchance, be excited to a laudable 
 emulation.”’ The other signification of δοξάδειν is, however, the 
 more suitable, to magnify, ὁ. 6. practically. In this way it is taken 
 by the majority of both ancients and moderns, and then the sense is, 
 *T call forth all my powers to convert as many as possible of the 
 Gentiles,” Gal. 1. 8. Theodoret: τὴν σωτηξίαν τῶν ἐθνῶν πραγμα- 
 “εύομαιυ. 
 
 Ὗ. 14. εἴπως for ἵνα, εἰ δυνατόν. Σώσω τινὰς» VIZ. by the preaching 
 of the gospel, 1 Cor. vil. 16. Ἢ σὰεξ, abst. pro cone. for οὗ ἀδελφοὶ 
 xara τὴν σάρχα. Gen. xxix. 14, and elsewhere, also “wa for ‘* my 
 relative.” 
 
CHAPTER ΧΙ. v. 15. 379 
 
 V. 15. Once more the Apostle shows the mighty effects which 
 the conversion of Israel will produce, as he had already done at v. 
 12, justifying, in that way, the greatness of his zeal for the people of 
 God. Chrysostom: ἀλλὰ xa τοῦτο αὐτοὺς καταδικάζει πάλιν, εἴ γε 
 ἄλλου μὲν Ex τὼν ἁμαρτημάτων αὐτὼν txéedavor, οὗτου δὲ οὐδὲ ix τῶν ἑτέ- 
 Gav κατοξθωμάτων ὠφελήθησαν. εἰ δὲ τὸ ἐξ ἐνάγχης συμβὰν, τοῦτο ἐκεύ- 
 you εἶναί φησι, μὴ θαυμάσης" ἵνα γὰρ καὶ τούτους καταστείλῃ: κἀκείνους 
 neoreédy, οὕτω σχηματίζει τὸν λόγον. ἢ 
 
 εἰ yde ἡ ἀποβοχὴ αὐτὼν χτλ. ᾿Αποβάλλειν iS equivalent 10 ἀπωθεῖν. 
 In the LXX. ἀπόβλητος stands for NID. Καταλλαγή per met. effec. 
 pro causa. Tis ἡ πεόσληψις xtra. Πεόσληψις, gracious reception. 
 The ζωή ἐκ vexecv has been very variously interpreted. The chief 
 difference consists in the majority of the ancients taking the expres- 
 sion corporeally, and the moderns spiritually. ‘Theodoret: εἰ yde 
 τούτων ἀπιςζησάντων, προσελήφθη τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ τῆς πξοτέρας ἀγνοίας ἤλευθε- 
 e00y, δῆλον ὡς εὖ πάντες οὗτοι πιστεῦσαι θελήσαιεν, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ὑπολείπε- 
 ται, ἢ τὸ γενέσθαι τῶν νεχρὼν τὴν ἀνάστασιν. τοῦτο δὲ xat ὁ xbELos ἔφη» 
 (Matt. xxiv. 14.) χηξυχθήσεταν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦτο 7ης βασιλείας εἰς 
 πάντα 7ὰ ἔθνη εἰς μαφτύξιον αὐτοῖς καὶ 767ε Hee 70 7έλος. So Origen, 
 Chrysostom, Anselm, Erasmus, Baumgarten and others. One cir- 
 cumstance, urged particularly by Origen, is favourable to this inter- 
 pretation; it is, that there then arises a very important heightening of 
 the χααλλαγή. Wemay now inquire, whether it is favoured by the 
 connection, by doctrinal analogy, and by the usus loquendi. The 
 connection is doubtless not against it. Paul might well have de- 
 signed to say, that the kingdom of God reaches its final completion 
 with the conversion of the Jews, which event is then to be attended 
 by the second zagovora of the Lord, and the resurrection of the dead. 
 Moreover, according to the 32d verse of the chapter before us, one 
 might believe, that with the conversion of the Jews as a nation, the 
 course of the world is to be terminated. ‘This explanation receives 
 countenance, both from the Jewish and Christian systems of doctrine. 
 If we choose to take the ἀνγίχεισος of John, and even the ἀνγιχείμενος» 
 (2 Thess. ii. 4,) of Paul, as a collective conception, (see Liicke 
 Comm. zu d. Br. Joh. 5. 145,) it involves the idea, that, prior to the 
 coming of Christ’s perfected kingdom, the anti-Christian principle 
 would manifest itself in a powerful manner. Thus, even the pro- 
 phets had declared, that prior to the establishment of the Messias’ 
 kingdom, a bitter struggle with the enemies of the external theocracy 
 
 * But even this again condemns them, that while others profited by their 
 sins, they were nothing bettered by the right conduct of those others. Butdo 
 not be surprised at his attributing to them what arose from necessity, for he 
 so manages his discourse that he may humble the one and encourage the 
 other. 
 
 { For, if whilst they disbelieved, the Gentiles were adopted and delivered 
 from their former ignorance, it is clear that if they all had chosen to believe, 
 nothing else could happen but the resurrection of the dead. This also the 
 Lord said, (Matt. xxiv. 14): “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached 
 to all nations, for a witness to them, and then shall the end come.” 
 
380 CHAPTER XI. v. 15. 
 
 must take place. The same idea also lies at the basis of what Eze- 
 kiel says of the war with Gog and Magog. Comprehensively viewed, 
 the hostility of the Jews to the gospel belonged no less to that anti- 
 Christian principle. Let that hostility be but subdued, and the intro- 
 duction of the Messias’ kingdom in completion, might be expected. 
 If, however, we consider the usus loquendi, the adoption of that sense 
 οἵ ζωὴ ἐκ Τῶν vexeav appears less allowable. We should first have to 
 suppose, that ζωὴ stands for ζωοπουήσις, and then to prove the usus 
 loquendi, by which ζωοποίησιυς, just as ἀνάσγασις; is united with tx 7ὼν 
 vexeav, Which preposition can properly only be joined with dywe7nu. 
 The proof of these two points, however, lies in the @ar7es tx vexeav, 
 6. vi. 13; on which expression we must yet observe, that St. Paul 
 would not have chosen it, had he not intended to use it figuratively. 
 It is a weightier objection, that if he had understood it to mean the 
 resurrection, the δωὴ could scarcely have wanted the article. In 
 general, indeed, there being nothing else to explain the unusual ex- 
 pression, this is just the passage in which one would have expected 
 a more common word for a doctrine so well known. Moreover, no 
 Eastern translator takes the words in the proper sense. Hence, 
 although much may be said for that, we side with those who under- 
 stand it differently. ‘They who advocate the figurative meaning, 
 deviate again from each other. Some consider the phrase a tropical 
 designation of a mutual commerce betwixt Israel and the heathen, in 
 a walk of holiness. So Pelagius, Calvin, Calov, Heumann. This 
 figurative conception may certainly be vindicated by the usus loquendi 
 of the New Testament, (Eph. ii. 1, 5, and especially Rom. vi. 13.) 
 In the first place, however, it is erroneous in these expositors to ex- 
 tend the spiritual ϑωοποίησις to the Jews. The Apostle treats solely 
 of the influence the conversion of the Jews is to have upon the 
 Heathen world. Moreover, if ξφωὴ tx 7ῶν νεκρῶν applies to the 
 Heathen, it is no heightening of the χαγαλλαγὴ spoken of in the pre- 
 vious member of the verse. Perhaps their opinion comes nearest 
 the truth, who take the expression proverbially. ‘Turretin: Quid erit 
 admissio eorum nisi quoddam genus resurrectionis. In Ezek. xxxvii., 
 the resurrection had been employed as the image of a total revolution 
 and amelioration of things. ‘The Arabians say proverbially of great 
 convulsions and shocks—* as if the resurrection day were come.” 
 In the Methnewi, Th. I. p. 124, Cod. Ms. Berol., it is said of a 
 harper, ‘‘ By means of his tones, a resurrection took place.”” The 
 same work, Th. viii. s. 148, ‘* When Dakuki beheld that resurrection, 
 (the calamity spoken of is a shipwreck. )’’ Such an antithesis of life 
 and death, usual as a proverb, seems also to lie at the basis of the 
 question, Luke xxiv. 5. The later Jews were likewise wont to say 
 proverbially of a matter which would never alter, “So will it continue 
 until the resurrection from the dead,”’ as it were, ‘ until the day when 
 in the mighty convulsion all may be changed.” ‘Thus, it is stated in 
 the Targum, of Lot’s wife, when changed into a pillar of salt, Gen. 
 xxv. 34: ‘So will she remain, till the time when in the resurrection, 
 the dead shall live.’ Although, then, by the expression ζωὴ ἐκ ve- 
 
’ CHAPTER XI. v. 15, 16. 381 
 
 κρῶν, the resurrection is, in point of fact, intended, it is so not di- 
 rectly, but indirectly. Beza: De resurrectione proprie non loquitur 
 Apostolus hoe in loco, verum proverbiali quadam dicendi figura fore 
 dicit, ut quum ad evangelium accesserint etiam Judei, mundus quasi 
 reviviscat. With the same generality, but yet too near its proper 
 sense, the expression is taken by Bengel: Sermo est de vivificatione 
 totius, ut non sit residua massa mortua. ‘'Totius generis humani sive 
 mundi conversio comitabitur conversionem Israelis. In the like pro- 
 verbial way, but arbitrarily giving it a special limitation, Grotius and 
 Zeger take the expression, interpreting it, summum gaudium. 
 
 V. 16. ‘The Apostle shows how the theocratical people, as 
 such, possess, once for all, a high importance in the history of 
 mankind, an importance which is not done away by the fact, that 
 a large proportion of them disbelieved. ’Azwaeyy and ῥίζα, on the 
 one hand, and on the other @veaua and xaddo, intimate the same 
 thing, only in different images. As there are two species of first- 
 fruits, the two words ἀπαεχὴ and φύξαμα are explained in a two- 
 fold way. ‘There are, to wit, first-fruits, which consisted in coarse 
 natural productions, in the state in which they had just been reaped; 
 these first fruits were called NWN DI. There were also, how- 
 ever, others which were usually brought from the earliest gathered 
 produce, after it had been prepared; these were called nian WweN. 
 Both are mentioned together at Neh. x. 36—38. Now several ex- 
 positors believe that the former are here meant, viz. Grotius, Bolten,’ 
 Rosenmiiller. But this will not do, for the corresponding word 
 pveoua would not suit it. In a way altogether forced, they will have 
 that interpreted, “heap of the earliest reapings.”” We have much 
 rather to understand the second sort of first fruits, which in the LXX., 
 Deut. xv. 20, are likewise called dwagyy φυξάματος, in the Hebrew 
 mony mvs. If from them the first is given to God, the whole resi- 
 duary mass is thereby declared legal. Now that the Apostle means, 
 under the ἀπαεχὴν the patriarchs, can scarcely admit of doubt, espe- 
 cially when we compare the ἀγαπητοὶ διὰ τοὺς πατέξας in Ver. 28. So 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret and the majority of others. On the con- 
 trary, Pelagius, Ambrose, Anselm, Carpzov and Ammon, insist that 
 the ἀπαρχὴ is the Apostles or early Christians, according to Rom. 
 viii. 93, ‘This view, however, when considered from various sides, 
 appears altogether inappropriate. ‘The ἅγιος, if to be here referred 
 to the Jewish nation as a whole, must not certainly be considered as 
 a predicate, in a moral point of view, but, like the Hebrew wip, | 
 merely denotes ** something separated from common use.”’ And in- 
 deed it does not here serve to characterize the persons who are the 
 subjects of the comparison, but the things to which they are com- 
 pared. Applied to the persons, it denotes, accordingly, that they 
 stand under the peculiar guidance of God, are distinguished above 
 all others. ‘The second image, borrowed from the root and branches, 
 intimates the same thing. 
 
382 CHAPTER XI. Vv. 17. 
 
 V.17. By what he now says, the Apostle means to show, in what 
 way the heathen properly have attained to be held worthy of enter- 
 ing into the kingdom of God. He here again declares, as he also 
 does in certain other passages, (e. g. Eph. 11. 123 iii. 6.) the lofty 
 destination of the Israelitish theocracy, showing that the Jewish — 
 people are, as it were, the divine canal pervading the whole human 
 race, and from which all who desire to enjoy divine illumination, 
 must derive its vital stream. By Christianity, he says, Judaism is 
 not properly done away: that was rather the veil by which Chris- 
 tianity was once concealed. So little then ought the Gentile to look 
 down upon the Jew, as the follower of a false religion, that he must 
 rather regard him as one belonging to the true religion, but who 
 does not appreciate that as he ought, and so is in error regarding his 
 own faith. On the contrary, the Gentile, instructed in Christianity, 
 becomes thereby a true Jew. Such a view of the matter, will have 
 the effect, that every Gentile convert, on beholding a Jew, will im- 
 mediately call to mind, on the one hand, how greatly the children of 
 the house are to be pitied, who having no esteem for the treasure 
 that was put into their hands, permitted strangers to enter in, and, on 
 the other hand, that the Gentiles hold‘ all that they have in Christ, 
 only as a gift of grace. ‘The Apostle here makes use of a figure 
 which has something striking. He compares the Jewish theocracy 
 to a good olive tree, the Gentiles to a wild one, of which a branch is 
 engrafted upon the former, and which by that means acquires fruitful- 
 ness. Now, the singularity, as Pelagius observed, consists in this, 
 that the wild branch is improved by this generous stock, whereas it 
 is always the case that the engraft changes the juices of the stock. 
 It might just be said, that Paul does not borrow the image from 
 what usually does, but from what might take place, inasmuch as 
 one would expect, that as the stomach conveys vital nourishment 
 to all parts of the body, the root would do the same to the stock. 
 In this way expositors generally take it up. Still the amelio- 
 ration of branches of the wild olive, by implantation into the gene- 
 rous one, may be something not so rare. ‘Two passages from the 
 ancients, Columella, de re Rustica, l. v. 6. 9, and Palladius, de re 
 Rustica, |. xiv. c. 53, and 54, testify that twigs of the wild olive have 
 such an effect upon a dry generous one, that it again grows green, 
 and nourishes the wild olive branches, so that these become of a 
 generous quality. And Stephen Schulz, in his beautiful work, Lei- 
 tungen des Héchsten, ‘Th. v.s. 88, observes that at Jerusalem many 
 people assured him, it was a frequent practice to engraft twigs of the 
 wild into the generous olive tree, in order to make the latter green. 
 The reason why Paul chooses the olive tree for a comparison is be- 
 cause it is likewise beautiful and prolific, Ps. lil. 10. Compare on 
 the subject Wetstein. Chrysostom: Σὺ δέ μου σχόπει αὐτοῦ τὴν σοφίαν» 
 πὼς δοχὼν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν λέγειν, καὶ παξαμυθίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπινοεῖν, πλήττευ 
 λανθανόντως,) καὶ πάσης ἀπολογίας δείχνυσιν ἐστεφημένους, ἀπὸ τῆς ῥίζης» 
 
CHAPTER XI. ν. 17,18, 19. 383 
 
 ἀπὸ τῆς ἀπαρχῆς. ἐννόησον yae πονηφίαν τῶν κλάδων, ὅτυ μήδὲ ῥὶζαν ἔχον- 
 τες γλυκεῖαν, μιμοῦνταν αὐτήν. ἢ 
 
 τινὲς τῶν κλάδων, per charientismum as 6. iil. 8. 
 
 ἀγξιέχαιος, is the wild olive tree, which commonly over the East is 
 likewise very prolific, only the fruit is not fit for use. ‘There is, 
 however, a particular species of it, called Kotinos or Agrippas, dis- 
 tinguished by definite characters, which is altogether barren. Hence 
 in Greek, the proverbs, ἀχαφπότεξος ayecnnov. But it is unlikely 
 that the Apostle speaks of this species. ‘he ἐν before αὐτοῖς is pleo- 
 nastic. 
 
 τῆς ῥίζης καὶ τῆς πιότητος, iS Hendiadis for τῆς ῥίζης τῆς πίονος. As 
 illustration of this saying of Paul’s, the passage from the book Sohar 
 may serve, Amst. ed. P. ii. f. 51, which is also to be found in Som- 
 meri, Theol. Soharica, p. 32, and whose meaning is as follows: 
 “ God has his holy temple in heaven, but thither we cannot go, with- 
 out having first been with the Matronita. She is the mediatrix from 
 below upwards, and from above downwards. All has been put into 
 her hands. She manages the cause of God. ‘This matronita now 
 is the protectress of Israel, for he said, All Gentiles are to the con- 
 gregation of Israel, as nothing. She is my dear dove, what shall] I 
 do to her, but commit my whole house into her hands.”’ (This pass- 
 age is still further remarkable for its coincidence with Pseudo Esra. 
 B. 4, c. 5, 26. Ex omnibus creatis volucribus unam {101 nominasti 
 columbam, probably after the Song of Solomon ii. 14.) In virtue of ᾿ 
 the circumstance that Israel stands under the Metraton, that nation, 
 according to the opinion of the author, is also the mediator betwixt 
 God and men, the owner of all the treasures of divine revelation. 
 And in a certain respect Paul agrees with him. Κατακαυχᾶσθαυ τινος 
 means, ‘10 uplift oneself, and treat another with contempt.” 
 
 V. 18. Calvin: Non possunt contendere gentes cum Judzis de 
 generis Sui prestantia, quin certamen cum ipso Abrahamo suscipiant, 
 quod esset nimis improbum, cum ille sit instar radicis, a qua feruntur. 
 The Gentile did not form the kingdom of Christ; its foundation- 
 stone lies in the Israelitish Theocracy, and had not the Gentiles 
 been able to build upon that, no kingdom of Christ would have 
 risen. 
 
 V.19. The Gentile might object that the relation which had pre- 
 viously obtained betwixt God and Israel, had been abolished by God 
 himself, that the Jews had been declared to have forfeited their dig- 
 nity as the covenant people, in order that the heathen might succeed 
 to their place as such. Pertinently Pelagius: Tu dices ideo illos 
 fractos ut tu inseraris; videamus si propterea et non magis prepter 
 incredulitatem suam. Correctly also Limborch: Ethnico-Christianus 
 
 * But mark his wisdom, how, whilst he appears to speak in their behalf, 
 and to intend encouraging them, he gives them a secret blow, and shows 
 that they are altogether inexcusable, from the root, from the first fruits. For 
 conceive the badness of the branches, that not having a sweet root, they 
 imitate 1t. 
 
384 CHAPTER XI. V. 20, 21, 22. 
 
 ait: Verum quidem est me non portare radicem sed radicem me, atque 
 adeo me contra radicem gloriari minime posse, at ego non glorior 
 contra radicem sed contra ramos defractos—Codd. A C F G, 3, 7, 
 37,46, 47,54. Chrysostom and Damascenus omit the article before 
 κλάδοι. 
 
 V.20. Paul refutes the evasion, with the remark, that God had not on 
 his part changed the relation in which he previously stood to Israel. 
 It is his will still to acknowledge them as covenant people, only they 
 do not fulfil the conditions on which he can do so. ‘The χαλῶς, which 
 elsewhere denotes direct approval, is here followed by a limitation. 
 The datives τῇ πίστει and τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ have the sense of ablatives. 
 στάναυ, is the emphatic signification, to stand fast. 1 Cor. x. 12. 
 “ἡ ψηλοφεονεὺν not merely signifies “to esteem oneself above others, 
 but to esteem oneself higher than one really is.”’ ‘The Apostle re- 
 quires true self-knowledge. This will beget an apprehension of the 
 possibility of falling by unbelief, and from thence will flow compassion 
 for the Jews, who fell from that cause. 
 
 V.21. The Gentile Christian has a twofold ground for living in 
 fear. Not only may he, as well as the Jew, fall into unbelief, but, 
 supposing him to do so, he has so much the more reason to dread 
 the divine judgment, that God has so severely punished the unbelief 
 of the original covenant people. The fut. indic. φείσεταν is the 
 proper reading. Just as ἕνα, in place of the pres. conj., governs the 
 ful. indic., both in the New Testament, and also among classical 
 authors (see Viger. 5. 557), so does μήποτε likewise in the New 
 Testament, Heb. iii. 12. 
 
 V. 22. The Apostle now tells the Heathen Christians, how they 
 may improve to their advantage the consideration of their own and 
 the Jews’ fate. Chrysostom: Οὐ γὰρ ἀκύνητά σου μένει τὰ ἀγαθὰ; ἐὰν 
 ῥαθυμῇς: ὥσπεξ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐκεύνους τὰ κακὰν ἐὰν μεταβάλωνταυ: καὶ γὰξ σὺ» 
 φησὶν, ἐὰν μὴ ἐπιμείνῃς TH πίστευ ἐκκοπήσῃ.ἢ The holiness and the 
 love of God are the two attributes on which his whole connection 
 with men is based. ’Azorouia, even among profane authors, means 
 severity, rigidness, from ἀποτέμνειν. ᾿Απότομος seyj, Book of Wisdom, 
 v. 20. 
 
 ἐὰν ἐπιμείνῃς τῇ χρηστότητι. By the addition of this conditional 
 clause, the antithesis of ἀποτομία and yenororns properly is once more 
 weakened. Paul, however, wished to use every argument, in order 
 to keep the Gentile Christians in becoming humility. It is made a 
 question, whether χρης)όγης denote the quality in man, as Clemens 
 Alex. Paedag. 1. i. ὁ. 8. and Chr. Schmid maintain, or the quality in 
 God. In favour of the former, the usus loquendi of the LXX. in Ps, 
 xiv. 1. Rom. iii. 12, speaks, where χρησγόγης denotes a blameless. 
 walk, and besides that, Paul, in the following verse, says, ἐπιμένειν 
 
 * For the blessings now yours will not continue immovably so, if you are 
 careless and indolent, just as little as their evils will to them, if they reform. 
 For thou also, he says, shalt be cut off, unless thou continuest in the faith. 
 
CHAPTER XI. V. 22, 23, 24. 385 
 
 Τῇ ἀπισγίᾳ. We shall be more correct, however, in regarding the 
 xenolomms here as the dealing of God to man, which the latter ought 
 not on his part to hinder. In several passages of the New ‘Testa- 
 ment, χρησγότης stands for the ἀγάπη and χάρις of God, Rom. 11. 4. 
 Tit. iii. 4. Eph. 11. 7; and were it here, by an antanaclasis, to de- 
 note the human attribute, we should expect the antithesis to be inti- 
 mated by a ov. ᾿Επιμένειν 7ινὺ means to persevere in any thing. 
 ᾿ΕἘπεὺ since, and then afterwards equivalent to <i δὲ μή. See c. ili. 6; 
 xi. 6. Chrysostom: εἶδες ὅσον τῆς πἰδοαιξέσεως τὸ κῦδος; πόση τῆς γνώ- 
 μῆς ἣ ἐξουσία; οὐδὲν yae τούτων ἀκίνητον; οὐτὲ τὸ σὸν καλὸν, οὔτε τὸ ἐκεί- 
 ψου χαχόν. εἶδες πὼς χαὶ ἐχεῦνον ἀπογινώσκοντω ἀνέστησε; καὶ τοῦτον 
 θαῤῥοῦντα κατέστευλε. ἢ 
 
 V.23. The present exclusion of the disbelieving Jews will lay no 
 obstacle in the way of their future reception. Let them but believe, 
 and they may at once enter upon the enjoyment of their filial rights. 
 This must certainly have been unlikely at that time, when it seemed 
 as if a divine unalterable curse hung over the Jews, the infant church 
 receiving augmentation from among the Gentiles, from hour to hour; 
 whereas the Jews, as if smitten with blindness, burned with an ever 
 hotter zeal against their salvation; at a time, moreover, when, accord- 
 ing to our Lord’s prediction, the entire downfall of the external the- 
 ocracy was just about to ensue. Paul, however, only speaks of 
 what may take place, and does not yet venture as it were to declare 
 what at that period actually shall happen. ‘This he first mentions 
 
 _at ver. 25. 
 
 V.24. As the Apostle had made the Gentile apprehensive, by 
 leading him to draw a conclusion, ver. 21, a majore ad minus, from 
 the rejection of the disbelieving Jews to that of the disbelieving Hea- 
 then, he now again, in order to humble him, draws a conclusion, a 
 minore ad majus, from the pardoning of the believing Heathen to 
 that of the believing Jews. Chrysostom: εἰ yae τὸ raed φύσιν ἔσχυσεν 
 ἡ πίστις, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὸ κατὰ Φύσιν.....«.παρὼ φύσιν καὶ κατὰ φύσιν ὅταν 
 ἀκούσῃς αὐτοῦ συνεχὼς λέγοντος; μὴ τὴν ἀκίνητον ταύτην φύσιν νόμιζε λέγειν 
 αὐτὸν, GAAG χαὺὶ τὸ εἰχὸς καὺ τὸ ἀχόλουθον, καὶ τὸ ὀπευχὸς πάλιν τούτους 
 δηλοῦν τοῖς ὀνόμασιν. οὐ γὰρ φυσυκὰ τὰ χαλὰ; ἀλλὰ προαιρέσεως povns.t 
 
 * Do you see how sovereign is the power of choice, how great the authority 
 of the will! For none of these things is immovably settled, neither thy 
 desirable lot nor his evil one. Do you see how he has both uplifted thé one 
 in despair, and humbled the other when over-confident. 
 
 { For if faith can achieve that which is contrary to nature, much more can 
 it achieve what is according to it...... When you thus hear him arguing of 
 contrary to nature, and consistently with nature, do not suppose that he calls 
 this nature unalterable; but that he manifests by these names what is proba- 
 ble and likely to happen, and what unlikely; for moral good is not of nature, 
 but of choice alone. 
 
 49 
 
386 CHAPTER XI. Vv» 25. 
 
 tS ie Aas i 1B 
 
 AFTER THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES SHALL HAVE COME IN, THE 
 CONVERSION OF ISRAEL AS A WHOLE WILL TAKE PLACE. V. 25— 
 32. 
 
 V.25. Paul now goes on to say, that not only does no obstacle 
 exist on God’s part to the reception of the believing Israelites into:the 
 kingdom, but, with an eye enlightened from above, he casts a look 
 into the most distant future, in virtue of which he announces, that, 
 after the conversion of the bulk of the Heathen, the Israelitish nation 
 shall one day, as a whole, undergo conversion, and be received into 
 the kingdom of the Saviour. Unprejudiced exposition cannot deny 
 that such is the correct meaning of the passage, founded both on the 
 words and on the connection. It is so interpreted by Origen, Chry- 
 sostom, Augustine, De Civ. D. 1. xx. c. 29, Ambrose, Gregory the 
 Great, Hom. 12. in Ezech., Theophylact, Gicumenius, ‘Thomas 
 Aquinas, Erasmus, Peter Martyr, Beza, Boétius, Calixt, Hunnius, 
 Baldwin, Spener, Heumann, Michaelis and Koppe. Erasmus gives 
 the following excellent periphrasis of it: Incidit hee cecitas.in gen- 
 tem Judaicam, sed nec in universum, nec in perpetuum. Complures 
 et hinc agnoscunt Christum, et ceteri tantisper in sua eacitate per- 
 sistent, donee gentium numerus fuerit expletus, quibus nune Judeo- 
 rum lapsus aditum aperuit. Verum ubi viderint universum orbem 
 florere professione fidei Christiane, suum illum Messiam frustra ex- 
 pectari, urbem, templum, sacra, gentem dissipatam ac sparsam, inci- 
 piant receptis oculis tandem errorem suum agnoscere, et intelligent 
 Christum verum esse Messiam. In consequence, however, of the 
 many enthusiastic spirits who appeared at the time of the Reforma- 
 tion, and who heated their fancies with corporeal delineations of 
 Christ’s reign upon earth, the reformers, induced by the dangers 
 which thence arose to disavow generally the advent of an earthly 
 kingdom of Christ, (it is on similar grounds that Jerome, ad Jes. ΧΙ. 
 rejects the national conversion of the Jews, reckoning it among the 
 opinions of the Judaizantes. Elsewhere, however, he embraces it, 
 Jer. xvi. 15. Mat. xvii. 11,12,) were betrayed into denying along 
 with it, what was wont to be regarded as a token of its approxima- 
 tion, viz. a general conversion of the Jews, and in the exposition of 
 this passage of the Apostle, which plainly speaks for that, were 
 forced to have recourse to most artificial renderings. Other exposi- 
 tors endeavoured, upon different and more rationalist grounds, to 
 expound away the prophecy, because, in general, so positive a pre- 
 
CHAPTER XI. v. 25. 387 
 
 diction, referring to such a specialty in a distant future, displeased 
 them in the Apostle, inasmuch as—supposing it not to be a piece of 
 coarse fanaticism—he could only have received it by a particular 
 divine revelation. ‘The various forced expositions are as follows. 
 The Lutherans commonly take up the Apostle’s declaration thus: ΤῸ 
 the dyeus οὗ they give the meaning, as long as, to πλήξωμα; that of 
 the great bulk, and to πὰς ᾿Ισραὴχ, that of “all spiritual Israelites, 
 converted Jews as well as converted Gentiles,’’ so that the transla-— 
 lation becomes, ‘ Blindness has happened to Israel in part, as long 
 as the heathen shall be entering in the divine kingdom. ‘This will 
 continue to the end of the world; at which period the whole spiritual 
 Israel will obtain blessedness.’’ So Melancthon, Bugenhagen, Osi- 
 ander, Calov. (He, however, understands was ᾿Ισεαὴν of the bodily 
 Israel, in so far, to wit, as that is also spiritual, consequently of the 
 called among them.) At the same time these expositors suppose, 
 that Paul also intimates by the words, ἀπὸ uéeous ἡ πώρφωσις γέγονεν the 
 conversion of several Jews until the end of the world. With some 
 modification, the same way of viewing the passage is found in Calvin. 
 He, too, understands πὰς Iceaja of the spiritual Israel; ἄχεις οὗ is to 
 be explained, so that, and ἀπὸ μέξους, in a certain degree. In this 
 way the translation would be: ‘To a certain degree Israel has, we 
 may affirm, been blinded, so that the Gentiles, too, may come into 
 the kingdom of God, and thus all belonging to the spiritual Israel 
 be saved.” How forced and how feeble these explanations are, is 
 at once perceived. The judicious Melancthon confesses properly, 
 by his silence, that he feels it. 
 
 nas ᾿Ισφαὴλ, which even Augustine, ep. 149, ad Paulinum, and 
 Theodoret explain of the spiritual Israel, cannot possibly signify that 
 here, as is certainly the case, Gal. vi. 16 { Rom. ix. 6], inasmuch as 
 the word Ἰσεαήν always signified the Jews, in contrast with the 
 Gentiles, and even here stands opposite πλήξωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν. More- 
 over Christians, who had received grace, could never be directly 
 called 6 ᾿Ισξαὴλ, without some descriptive predicate, such as πίνευμα- 
 τυκὸς ΟΥ̓ the like. ‘The ayers οὗ is contrary to the usus loquendi, 
 taken in the sense as long as, or even so that. (After the Hebrew 
 1y, indeed the former meaning of dyecs would not be impossible. 
 There are, however, no examples of it in the New Testament, and 
 it is even but rarely that 1p has this meaning in the Old.) In fine, 
 were the exposition we have alluded to correct, the Apostle would 
 but repeat what is already implied in ver. 11, and—not to take into 
 account that we do not expect such a thing—the grave introduction 
 would then appear very strange, and the Apostle’s declaration, that 
 he meant to disclose to his readers a μυστήξιον. Another forced ex- 
 position is that to be found in Grotius, Limborch and Wetstein. 
 ‘They take the words πλήρωμα and πᾶς in the more lax sense of a 
 considerable number, and conceive that they were fulfilled at the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, inasmuch as then, after a multitude of 
 Gentiles had confessed themselves Christians, a very considerable 
 
388 CHAPTER XI. Vv. 25. 
 
 number of Jews might also have joined the cause. Now even, 
 although one were to allow that πλήξωμα may signify ‘¢a considera- 
 ble number,”’ it must still be regarded as highly unnatural to give the 
 same meaning to πᾶς Ἰσεαήλ. Besides, the supposition of the con- 
 version of a multitude of Jews at the capture of Jerusalem, is nothing 
 more than a supposition. No historical testimony can be adduced 
 in its favour. 
 
 ' We have still to notice the exposition of Carpzov and Semler, 
 who suppose σωθήσεταυ to amount to as much as Sivarac σωθῆναι. In 
 this case, however, the Apostle would idly repeat himself, having 
 already taught the same thing in ver. 23. Besides, even allowing 
 that σωθήσεταυ might signify can be saved, who could be persuaded 
 that Paul would have had recourse to a citation from the Bible in 
 proof of this possibility. In ver. 31 he speaks of the reception of 
 Israel as of a determinate future event. Compare upon these words 
 of the Apostle, Buddzus, Instit. Dog. p. 672, Spener, Appendix to 
 the Pia Desideria; Geistliche Schriften, Bd. II. s. 329; Deutsche 
 Theolog. Bedenken, Bd. I. 215. Calov, Commen. on the passage. 
 
 The simple and correct exposition of the passage is as follows: 
 With the formula οὐ yae θέλω ὑμᾶς dyioecv the Apostle usually begins 
 sentences, which contain something striking and unexpected, Rom. 
 i. 13. 1 Cor. xii. 1. 2 Cor. 1. 8. 1 ‘Thess. iv. 13. Chrysostom here 
 explains μυστήξιον cor rectly: ἐνταῦθα, τὸ ἀγνοούμενον χαὺ ἀποῤῥητον 
 λέγων, καὶ πολὺ μὲν τὸ θαῦμα; πολὺ δὲ τὸ παξάδοξον ἔχον. ‘The word, 
 in fact, as used in Scripture, but rarely signifies what it does in eccle- 
 siastical language. It is commonly applied to the Christian doctrines, 
 inasmuch as prior to their revelation, they could never have been 
 divined by any process of human intellect, 1 Cor. xv. 51. Eph. i. 9; 
 111. 3,9. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Bengel: Mysterium fuerat vocatio gentium, 
 ‘nunc item mysterium est conversio Israelis. 
 
 ἵνα μὴ ἦτε nae’ ἑαυτοῖς Φεόνιμοι. "This doctrine of the future con- 
 version of the entire nation of Israel, was well calculated to cure the 
 Gentiles of the delusion, that having now become the covenant peo- 
 ple in place of Israel, they might ‘look down upen them as lying 
 under the curse of God. Gennad. in Gicum.: τῷ γὰς ἀγνοεῖν τὴν 
 ἐδίαν éxveovy βουλήν. Wherever a divine revelation is vouchsafed, 
 there all the schemes of human wisdom are annihilated. As an 
 ancient Greek poet says: Ta δοχηθέντ᾽ οὐκ ἐτελέσθη, τῶν δ᾽ ἀδοχήτων 
 mogov εὗρεν Θεός. Φεόνιμος παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ answers to DIN 1.2}, Prov. iii. 
 7. We find elsewhere in the LXX. φρόνιμος ἐν ἑαυτῷ. 
 
 Orb πώφωσις ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσξαὴν γέγονε. ‘The πώξωσις of the Jews 
 is impressively described, 1 'Thes. ii. 15, 16. 
 
 ἀπὸ péeovs, agreeably to the analogous classical use of xard péeous 
 and μέρος τί, cannot well signify any thing else but in part. We 
 find it also in Diodorus, ed. Bip. V. 445. The Apostle elsewhere, 
 
 * Here calling that a mystery which was unknown and undivulged, con- 
 taining much that was strange and contrary to expectation. 
 
CHAPTER XI. V. 25, 26, 27. 389 
 
 several times, uses 2x péeovs, partially. The proposition ἀπὸ with 
 substantives, forms, as is well known, adverbs in classical Greek, as 
 for instance, ἀπὸ τοῦ neoparods, ἀπὸ μνήμης. The Apostle puts this 
 word, like the τινές of ver. 17, again per charientismum, by far the 
 greater part of the people having suffered the πώξωσις in question. It 
 here stands opposed to the πὰς in ver. 26. TWanewua has the signifi- 
 eation which we contended for at vey. 12. In the Hellenistic it 
 meant, according to the usus loquendi, the great bulk; in the later 
 Greek, the entire population. Accordingly it here also signifies 
 the great mass, the totality. Hence the word comprises not every 
 individual of every nation, but nations as nations. ‘The signification 
 of “‘complement, viz. of the number of Apostate Jews,’’ in which 
 Bengel, Gusset, Wolf and others understand it, would here be less 
 appropriate. 
 
 εὐσελθῃ SCil. εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The verbs Soy and x3 
 among the Rabbins, and eicéeyecdu in the New Testament, are joined 
 with several words, denoting the life eternal, the kingdom of the 
 Messias. In the New Testament, ecoéeyecbou εἰς τὴν ζωήν, Matt. xviil. 
 9; xix. 17. Mark ix. 43, εἰς τὴν δόξαν, Luke xxiv. 26, eis τὴν κατά- 
 navow, Heb, iii. 11; xviii. 19; iv. 1, εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν ovearar, 
 Mat. v. 20; vii. 21; xviii. 3; xix. 23,24. On the same phraseology 
 
 _also rests the comparison of Christ at John x. 9, where εἰσελεύσεταυ 
 stands per se. Now as this mode of expression was so customary, 
 it became a practice to say εἰσελθεῦν by itself, in place of εἰσελθεῖν εἰς 
 τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν odeavay. So Matt. vii. 13. Luke xiii.24. Compare 
 Matt. xxiii. 13. Speaking of the commencement of a new life, An- 
 tonin., l. X. c. 8, also says: εὐσέρχεσθαι εἰς βίον ἕτερον. ‘The entering 
 in of the πλήξωμα of the heathens is intimated by our Lord himself, 
 John x. 16. 
 
 V.26. xo οὕτω signifies as much as xai τότε Acts vii. 8; xvii. 33. 
 Tas Iceaja stands opposed to the ἀπὸ μέξες» and denotes the totality 
 of the Israelitish nation as such. ‘The Apostle appends a citation 
 from Isaiah lix. 20, which does not altogether allude to the national 
 conversion of Israel here spoken of by himself, but which will cer- 
 tainly receive its proper fulfilment at that event. He seems to have 
 quoted from memory. for, in place of tx Σιὼν, there stands in Hebrew, 
 ΤΟΝ, and in the LXX. ἕνεχεν Σιών. He probably put tx from the 
 recollection of other passages regarding the Messias, where ἐκ Σιών 
 stands, as Ps. xiv. 7. In place of ῥυόμενος, there is in the Hebrew 
 5x13, which is a standing name among the Rabbins for the Messias. 
 The clause xai axooreéyec κτλ.» runs so likewise in the LXX., 2pyra 
 »»ῶϑ "3. The Chaldaic and Arabie seem in place of ‘2v9 to have 
 read 7w, 
 
 V. 27. This passage is also quoted from memory. The first 
 words are still from Is. lix. 21, those that follow from ὅταν αὐτῶν, 
 from Isa. xxvii. 9. ‘The new covenant, which, at the time of the 
 Messias, God shall make with Israel, will not again consist in the 
 bestowal of a law, but in the forgiveness of transgression. Jer, xxxili. 
 
390 CHAPTER XI. V. 28, 29. 
 
 33, 34, is a kindred passage. Ἢ nae’ ἐμοῦ διαϑήκη is, in pure Greek, 
 also a periphrasis for ἡ διαϑήχη μου. 
 
 V.28. The Apostle means further to specify in how far Israel has 
 still to hope for mercy, and in how far it has been cast away. He 
 accordingly shows, that God continues to hold fast his plan of 
 making the members of the external theocracy, citizens of God’s 
 inward kingdom, and that, in this respect, Israel will still have rea- 
 son to rejoice in the divine care. ‘The Apostle sets τὸ eayyéaroy and 
 ᾧ éxaoyn in opposition, as two diverse points of view, from which 
 ihe divine being may contemplate the nation of the Theocracy. ‘The 
 ?xaoyy is here not absolute election to a participation in the gratia 
 irresistibilis, as is manifest even from its opposition to “εὐαγγέλιον, but 
 election to the place of outward theocratical covenant people. ‘This 
 grace God had once vouchsafed to the Israelites. He aceordingly 
 kept continually in view, whether they who had paved the way for 
 the Christian kingdom of God, would themselves, one day, enter 
 into it. Yea, as the Apostle here intimates, God beholds with par- 
 ticular satisfaction, when those very persons who prepared the world 
 for the Saviour, themselves embrace him. At the same time, how- 
 ever, he likewise shows, how the intentions of the divine love may 
 be hindered by resistance on the part of man, affirming that on 
 account of their ἀπιστία, Israel is for the present rejected. This 
 close connection with the foregoing context does not permit us to 
 supply a μοῦ after the 2?y6eoi, as if Paul were speaking of the relation 
 of the Israelites to himself, as above, c. ix. 2; xi. 13. In that case, 
 too, ver. 29, which immediately follows, would not be appropriately 
 connected. Much more ought we to supply the genitive Θεοῦ after 
 ἐχθϑοί. Mov was supplied by Theodoret, Luther, Grotius, Camera- 
 rius, Baumgarten and others. 
 
 δὺ ὑμᾶς is appended by Paul, in order not, by this ἐχθροὺ, to afford 
 the Heathen oceasion for being uplifted over the Jews. He says the 
 same as in ver. 11. Augustine, ep. 149, ad Paulin. observes upon 
 these words: Sicut illorum nequitiz est male uti bonis operibus ejus, 
 sic illius sapientia bene uti malis operibus eorum. 
 
 διὰ τοὺς πατέξας Stands, not in sense, but in form, parallel with δὲ 
 ὑμᾶς. Augustine: Quia et quod patribus promissum erat, oportebat 
 impleri. Calvin: Non quod dilectioni causam dederint, sed quoniam 
 ab illis Dei gratia propagata fuerat ad posteros secundum pacti for- 
 mam: Deus tuus et seminis tui. On account of the faithfulness with © 
 which they surrendered themselves to his directing grace, God had 
 made a covenant with the patriarchs, which formed as it were a basis 
 upon which the whole economy of salvation was raised. It hence 
 could not but be God’s desire, that a nation which had been favoured, 
 with so peculiarly gracious a guidance, and which sprang from such 
 progenitors, should not*merely in part, but as a whole, be admitted 
 into his kingdom. 
 
 V. 29. In a universal axiom, the Apostle declares why that cove- 
 nant of God with the Fathers still manifests its power and blessing. 
 
CHAPTER ΧΙ. v. 29, 30, 31. 391 
 
 If God had wholly cast off Israel, when he saw that they did not re- 
 ceive the Messias, this might lead to the conjecture, that he had no 
 previous apprehension of their so doing, and must now experience 
 the human sentiment of regret. So perfectly, however, had it been 
 foreknown by him, that he had even proclaimed it by the prophets. 
 Accordingly, as God nevertheless elected the Israelitish nation to be . 
 his covenant people, it follows, that even now, after the ancient mem- 
 bers of the Theocracy have fallen into disbelief and been excluded, 
 a particular regard still continues to be due to them, as the people 
 who first laid the foundation of the kingdom of Christ. The axiom, 
 delivered by the Apostle against anthropopathy, is also to be found 
 in Heathen authors. Xoaedouara xai ἡ χλῆσις Stands per hendiadyoin, 
 the χλῆσις being just the gift which God has given to the Israelites. 
 Kayocs, as formerly the ?xaoy7, must not be understood of the inward 
 vocation to Christ’s kingdom by the gratia irresistibilis, but of their 
 appointment as outward covenant people, which properly involved 
 likewise an outward call to the gospel; and accordingly that was 
 preached, in the first instance, to them. 
 
 V. 30. Here Paul sums up what he had delivered in the preceding 
 context. ‘The result is as follows: The Gentiles enter the kingdom 
 of God by occasion of the unbelief of the Jews; just as the Gentiles 
 were once unbelieving, so are now the Jews; but, like the Gentiles 
 now, so shall the Jews one day believe. In regard to the reading, 
 we have to observe, that Codd. A C Da. p. m. E FG, and the Greek 
 Fathers omit χοῦ. And doubtless it appears to have been brought 
 from ver. 31 into the text. The verb ἀπειθέω, as likewise its deriva- 
 tives, has moreover, in the Hellenistic, the meaning of ἁπιστέω. So 
 in the LXX.: Is. xxx. 12; Ecclesiasticus xli. 2. Phavorinus: ἀπιυ- 
 στίαν καὶ ἀπείθειαν λέγουσι. Hesych: ἀπειθεῖ, ἀντιλέγει. In the LXX. 
 it is the translation of OND and 12, which words not unfrequently 
 denote a presumptuous unbelief. In classical Greek, likewise, 
 ἀπειθής denotes as much as μὴ πειθόμενος, t. 6. unbelieving. ‘There 
 are numerous examples of this in the New Test. The τῇ τούτων 
 ἀπειθείῳ 15 Only to be understood ἀφοφμητικῶὼς. 
 
 V. 31. We can imagine a double construction of τῷ ὑμεφτέξφῳ ξλέει. 
 It might be joined to ἠπείθησαν; the comma would then come before 
 iva, and the ground of the ἀπείθεια of the Jews would lie in the τῷ 
 ὑμετέξῳ ἐλέει. In this case, the jealousy of the Jews at the calling 
 of the Gentiles would be the ground of their rejection. So Erasmus, 
 Beausobre, Baumgarten and others. But, to leave other reasons un-. 
 ‘ noticed, the Apostle has hitherto maintained the very opposite fact, 
 viz. that the Gentiles were not called until after the Jews had de- 
 spised, as we read Acts xiii. 46. Besides, the ἕνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐλ. would 
 then trail very feebly behind. Luther translates, ‘*’They have not 
 chosen to believe in the mercy which you have experienced.” So 
 likewise the Syrian; this, however, affords no meaning. And so 
 too the Vulgate; but the in vestram misericordiam of it, we may with 
 many explain ἐκβατυκῶὼς" εἰς τὸ ἐλεηθῆναι ὑμᾶς. ‘The other construc- 
 
392 CHAPTER XI. v. 31, 32. 
 
 tion is doubtless preferable, which places the comma after #mevonoay, 
 and supposes that iva, as is often the case, comes after certain intro- 
 ductory words, 1 Cor. ix. 15; 2 Cor, 11. 4; Gal. ii. 10. ‘The words 
 that go before are thereby more highly intonated. The dative τῷ 
 ἐλέει, accordingly, does not here express the cause, but the mode of 
 the divine mercy towards Israel. 
 
 V. 32. After having summed up, in the two previous verses, all 
 he had said from ver. 11, Paul now infers the result. He points out 
 what had been the real course of the divine plan of salvation in regard - 
 to the whole human race. We have first to notice, respecting the 
 reading, that Codices D E have τὰ πάντα, Codices F G, the Vulgate 
 and the Latin fathers, πάντα. Now, one certainly might suppose 
 that the masculine had only been written as a gloss beside the neuter; 
 but the external authorities do not preponderate, and hence it is also 
 supposable, that πάντα found its way into the margin from the kindred 
 passage, Gal. ii. 22. 
 
 συγκλείευν has here the sense of 71 1207, either 5 or Sx, which Ps. 
 xxxi. 8; Ixxviii. 50, is rendered by ovyxascew. Diodorus Siculus 
 uses the word in a similar way, 1. xix. c. 19; εἰς τοιαύτην ἀμηχανίαν 
 συγκλεισθεὶς ᾿Αντίγονος μετεμέλετο, Where we should translate συγκλευσ- 
 devs, overthrown. Accordingly, in this passage, it amounts to maga- 
 διδόναι, and denotes the relation in which God stands towards those 
 who strive against him, whom he resigns to their contumacy, with- 
 out, however, giving up their recovery. ‘The word has the same 
 meaning in the parallel passage, Gal. iii. 22, only that there the sub- 
 ject is % yeapy, which in respect of sense, answers to ὃ νόμος. ‘There, 
 accordingly, must συνέκλευσε be understood declaratorily (comp. Glas- 
 sius Phil. Sacr. p. 789), “‘ The law convicted them all of being given 
 up to sin,” just as we were wont to say, “the law condemns, visits 
 with punishment,” in place of, ‘‘ declares that......””_ Compare Mat- 
 thew xix.6. The Greek expositions and Scholia will have συνέχλεισε 
 here also understood declaratorily, equivalent to ἤλεγξε, ἀπέδειξε. 
 Pelagius: Non vi conclusit, sed ratione conclusit, quos invenit in in- 
 credulitate. So likewise do most modern expositors take itup. But 
 in the present passage, ὃ Θεὸς being the subject, this view is not 
 natural, It is better as follows; God permitted the germ of sin to 
 be developed and become manifest in the whole species, not, however, 
 with the intention of giving men over to their misery, but in order 
 that, when they should have learned, by being made the prey of sin, 
 what a terrible thing it is, he might make known to all the way of 
 salvation.”? We may apply, as illustration, what Gregory of Nyssa, 
 in his Orat. de die Nat. Jesu Christi, ‘T’. Il. Opp. p.'773, and in Ep. 
 ad Theophilum adv. Appollin. ib. p. 695, and what, in like manner,, 
 Theodoret in Grec. affect. Curat. Sermo VI. says, in justification of 
 the late appearance of Christ upon the earth. ‘The divine Being, 
 they tell us, treated the human race as a patient in a fever. So long 
 as the causes of the fever are yet active, so long as the virus has not 
 been brought out, the physician administers no antidote. In the same 
 
CHAPTER XI. V. 32, 33. 393 
 
 way, the mighty tree of sin was not assailed at the root, until after it 
 had put forth allits twigs and branches. As, even after the appearing 
 of the Saviour, a portion of Israel still resisted, God gave them over 
 to their obstinacy, until they should be vanquished by his love, and 
 so Israel at last be saved. Τοὺς πάντας means here all the masses of 
 population upon the earth, as Gal. ili. 22, does τὼ πάντα also. Eras- 
 mus makes a beautiful cireumlocution, expressing the connection of 
 this saying with the exclamations that follow: Sic enim Deus ineffa- 
 bili consilio dispensat ac temperat res humanas, ut nullum sit genus 
 hominum non obnoxium peccato, non quod ille cuiquam sit auctor 
 peceandi, sed quod ad tempus sinat homines suo vitio prolabi, ut, 
 agnito errore, sentiat se non suo merito, sed gratuita Dei misericordia 
 servatos esse, ne possint insolescere. Atque interim dum hee agit, 
 adeo nemini malum.immittit, ut etiam aliena mala sua bonitate mire 
 vertat in bonum nostrum. Sed altius fortassis ingredimur adytum 
 hujus arcani, quam par est homini apud homines eloqui. Stupor 
 aboritur contemplanti ineffabilem divini consilii rationem, et cwm ex- 
 plicare nequeam, exclamare libeat, O profunditatem exuberantissime 
 sapientia! &c. 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 THE UNFATHOMABLE WISDOM AND LOVE OF GOD, WITH WHICH THE 
 WHOLE ECONOMY OF SALVATION HAS BEEN CONTRIVED. V. 33—36. 
 
 V. 33. The subject of the second half of the chapter was God’s 
 love, first alluring Israel, which, as it would not hear was suffered to 
 fall, then turning Israel’s fall into the riches of the Gentiles, and so 
 introducing the Heathen into God’s kingdom, using that as a farther 
 means, at the end of time, for enticing the Jews, and as a terminating 
 point of the world’s developement, incorporating that nation likewise 
 into the great spiritual community of the invisible church. This 
 magnitude of the divine wisdom and love, which, in such various 
 ways, seek admission into the proud heart of man, with a view of 
 bringing it to the knowledge of its happiness and peace, forces from 
 the Apostle an animated exclamation. With that terminates the his- 
 torical corollary of the doctrinal part of the Epistle; and a worthy 
 conclusion it is. It is clear from the connection, that these words 
 are merely the expression of adoring wonder at the magnitude of the 
 divine compassion; and, accordingly, that they cannot be applied, 
 as is done by Augustine and predestinarians in general, to put to si- 
 lence the man who denies an unconditional withholding of the 
 grace of God. ‘The words are rather a testimony against a decretum 
 
 50 
 
394 CHAPTER XI. Vv. 33. 
 
 absolutum on the part of God. Chrysostom: Ἐνταῦθα ini τοὺς meo- 
 τέξους χρόνους ἐπανελθὼν, καὶ τὴν ἅνωθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ κατανοήσας οὐκονομίαν 
 τὴν ἐξ οὗπερ ὃ κόσμος ἐγένετο, μέχου τοὺ παρόντος, καὺ λογισάμενος πῶς 
 πουκίλως πάντα ᾧκονόμησε;: ἐξεπλάγη καὶ ἀνεβόησε: πιστούμενος τοὺς axov- 
 οντας OTL ἔσται, πάντως ἅπεξ εἶπεν. οὐ yae ἂν ἀνεβόησε καὶ ἐξεπλάγη» εἰ 
 μὴ πάντως ἔμελλεν ἔσεσθαυ τοῦτο, καὶ ὅτι μὲν βάθος ἐστὶν, olds" πόσον δὲν» 
 οὐκ ode θαυμάζοντος yae ἔστιν ἡ ῥῆσιςν οὐχ εἰδότος τὸ πᾶν. θαυμάσας 
 δὲ χαὺ ἐκπλαγεὶς τὴν χρηστότητα; καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐγχωροῦν αὐτῷ διὰ δύο τῶν 
 ἐπιτατικῶν ὀνομάτων αὐτὴν ἀνεχήφυξε» τοῦ πλούτου; xav Tov βάθους; καὺ 
 ἔξεπλάγην. ὅτι καὶ ἠθέλησε καὶ ἴσχυσε ταῦτα: xat διὰ τῶν 
 ἐναντίων τὰ ἐναντία κατεσκεύασεν. In regard to the words 
 used by Paul, a double construction is admissible. Σοφίας and γνώ- 
 σεως may, as Luther, Beza and many others have done, be considered 
 as dependent upon βάθος πλούτου, Or πλούτου be made co-ordinate with 
 σοφίας and γνώσεως, and so all the three dependent upon βάθος. In the 
 former case the double xac would need to be translated ‘*as well as 
 moreover.’’? The substantive βάθος would stand in the place of the 
 adjective βαθύς. It militates against this exposition, however, that 
 we would then have to suppose that Paul strictly discriminated the 
 ideas of σοφία and γνῶσις. Sometimes, it is true, he has done so, as 
 we see from 1 Cor. xii. 8, where γνῶσις denotes the higher theoretical 
 knowledge of religion, σοφία practical wisdom, as Eph. v. 15. But 
 such a distinction could: not well be made here with respect to the 
 divine knowledge. It is hence more advisable to consider σοφία and 
 γνῶσις to be in this, what they are at other passages, 6. g. Col. ii. 3 
 equivalent. We would not then need to refer πλοῦτος so explicitly 
 as is done by Grotius, to the Jove of God, but to the fulness of the 
 divine life in general, as πλοῦτος Χριστοῦ, Eph. ili. 8. In pure Greek 
 the phrase πλοῦτος βαθὺς, (Adlian, Var. Hist. 1. iii. 6. 18,) and the 
 adjective βαθύπλουτος are common. In regard to wisdom the phrases 
 ΡΝ xnDdNT and 1 ὙΟΥ } pry P19, “depths of wisdom, and secrets 
 deep and hidden,” occur in the book Sohar. 
 
 τὰ κρίματα had best be taken in the sense “ dispensations, oixovo- 
 μία." So, likewise, Dvowd, Ps. xix. 9; xxxvi. 6. In the latter 
 passage from the Psalms, it is said, that the dispensations of God 
 are as difficult to explore as the abyss of the sea. In this case it is 
 
 * Here, going back to former times, and contemplating the divine economy 
 from the beginning, yea, from the time the world was made, until now, and 
 _reflecting with himself how’ variously God had administered all things, he is 
 struck with astonishment, and utters an exclamation designed to persuade 
 his hearers, that what he said will assuredly take place. For he would not 
 have uttered his exclamation, or been astonished, had not the thing been cer- 
 tain to take place. And that it was a depth he was aware, but how great a 
 one he knew not. For the language is of a person amazed, and who does not 
 know all. But amazed and struck at the goodness, he announced it to the 
 best of his ability, by the two forcible words, riches and depth. What sur- 
 prised him was, that God should have had the will and the power to do these tra 
 and effected contraries by contraries. 
 
CHAPTER XI. Vv. 33, 34, 35. 395 
 
 quite synonymous with the ὁδοὶ, 0.17, which has the same signifi- 
 cation in Hebrew, and which here, in the Apostle’s animation, is 
 placed on a parallel as counterpart to χρίματα. ‘The adjectives ἄνεξε- 
 δεύνητος and ἀνεξυχνίαστος denote that man is not able to judge of God’s 
 wisdom by his own. As the etymology of ἀνεξιχνίαστος declares, 
 there are no foot-marks to guide us into that mysterious deep. All 
 we know is only what, to us undiscoverable, he himself, of his un- 
 speakable compassion, has been pleased to disclose from out his 
 mysterious concealment. And yet how rich is this! A compassion 
 that extends to all! A term to the developement of the corrupt spe- 
 cies at which his redeemed shall see him as he is, and God shall be 
 all in all. 
 
 V.34. We find a declaration in unison with this at Is. xl. 13, 14, 
 where, in the LXX., it is said: Tis ἔγνω νοῦν Κυξίου; xai τίς αὐτοῦ σύμ- 
 βουλος ἐγένετο, ὃς συμβιβᾷ αὐτον. St. Paul likewise quotes it at 1 Cor. 
 ii. 16. The meaning which, in the present instance, he attaches to 
 it, is as follows: From below, out of onr misery, no path leads up- 
 wards to God. He being all-sufficient in himself, must descend, if 
 man is to know him. Consonant also are the beautiful words of 
 Sophocles, (Fragm. No. vii. ed. Bothe aus Stobzus.) 
 
 ᾽Αλλ᾽ οὗ γὰρ ἂν τὰ θεῖα κρυπτόντων θεῶν 
 Μάθοις ἂν, οὐδ᾽ εἰ πάντ᾽ ἐπεξέλθοις σκοπῶν. 
 
 Similar, likewise, is the fine saying of a Persian in Dschami’s 
 Spring Garden: ‘* The face of the beloved (of God,) is covered with 
 a veil. Except he himself remove it off, nothing can-tear it from 
 him.’’ Parallels to the texts from Paul and Isaiah are to be found, 
 Wisdom ix. 17; Ecclesiasticus xviii. 2—5. 
 
 V.35. This sentence stands in Hebrew, Job xli.11. In the LXX., 
 however, a totally different sense of the orginal words is expressed. 
 The Apostle means to teach, by the expression, that not merely can 
 no mortal fathom the depths of divine wisdom and love, but that all 
 which we thence receive is nothing but grace. Chrysostom: ὃ δὲ 
 λέγευ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν; ὅτι οὕτω σοφὸς ὧν, οὐδὲ mae” ἑτέρου σοφὸς ἐστιν, GAN 
 αὑτὸς ἐστιν ἡ πηγὴ τῶν ἀγαθῶν" καὺ τοσαῦτα ἐφγασάμενος, καὶ χαφισάμενος 
 ἡ μῦν; οὐ παρ ἑτέρου δανεισάμενας ταῦτα ἔδωκεν» ἀλλ᾽ οἴκοθεν ἄναβλύσας, 
 οὐδὲ ἀμοιβὴν ὀφεύλων τινὶ, ὡς παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰληφώς τι, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς κατάξχων 
 GEL τῶν εὐεξγεσιὼῶν. τοῦτο γὰρ μάλιστά ἐστι πλούτου; TO καὺ ὑπεδχεῦσθαιν 
 χαὶ μὴ δεῖσθαυ ἑτέρου.᾽ / 
 
 We cannot ask, what has he given me? ‘He has conferred upon us 
 every thing. And when from this point of view we contemplate all 
 
 * What he says is, that respecting this wisdom of his, he does not derive 
 it from another, but is himself the fountain of good. And as to his doing for, 
 and bestowing upon us great things, he did not borrow them from another, 
 but drew them from his own resources. Nor does he owe a return to any 
 one, as if he had received aught from him, but is himself always the origi- 
 nator of his blessings. For this is the characteristic of true riches—to abound 
 and have no need of another. 
 
396 CHAPTER XI. V. 35, 36. 
 
 his dealings and dispensations, we do not merely reverence, we adore 
 in the dust, his wisdom and his love. It is into such a feeling of 
 adoring self-abasementand humility, that the reader sinks at the con- 
 clusion of this epistle, after having had brought before him, by the 
 . Apostle, all the great and unspeakable things which God has done 
 for the sinful race. 
 
 V. 36. Paul-had delineated the indescribable wisdom, and bound- 
 less love of God, and then affirmed, that in no way whatsover, not 
 even so far as regards any part of the manifestations of these attri- 
 butes, could the creature advance a claim; but that in every degree 
 in which they are exercised towards the creature, it is pure grace. 
 In what worthier manner then could the Apostle conclude than by 
 this epiphonema, in which he, as it were, lays down the reason for 
 the plenitude of the divine attributes being so exceeding great, and 
 why all that man receives from them is nothing else but grace. 
 Many expositors suppose no difference between the particles ἐξ, διὰ 
 and sist ἐξ and εἰς, however, stand manifestly opposed to each other, 
 and ca naturally shows itself to be mediatory betwixt them. At 1 Cor. 
 viii. 6, ἐξ οὗ and εἰς ὃν stand opposed in a similar relation, and δὲ οὗ 
 beside them. At Col. i. 16, it is said of Christ: ra πάντα δὲ αὐτοῦ 
 xai εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, and afterwards: xai τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνεστηχε- 
 The meaning of these words accordingly is: God is the basis of all 
 that exists, for from him all took its rise. God is the means of 
 all that exists, for he directs all that exists to its destination. God 
 is the end of all that exists, for in him alone all the creatures rest. 
 It was from God that man derived his being; to God must he return 
 if he would truly be. ‘Through God must he be led to God. And 
 thus God’s mercy is the beginning, the middle, and the end! 
 
CHAPTER TWELFTH. 
 
 SHORTER GLOSSES UPON THE ADMONITORY PART OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Exhortation to heavenly-mindedness—against over-estimating the gifts con- 
 ferred upon us—to faithfulness in the application of them,—to the exhibi- 
 tion of Christian dispositions, in a variety of occasions. 
 
 V.1. Tue Apostle connects his exhortations to a truly Christian 
 walk, with the foregoing doctrinal part, by the particle οὖν, just as if 
 he presupposed that, by the contemplation of the grand display of 
 divine grace, which had hitherto been described, the minds of his 
 readers would be softened, and prepared for all good works. The 
 διὰ τῶν oixtveuay Tov Θεοῦ, relates also to the previous delineation of 
 the divine mercy, as revealed in the work of salvation. In the New 
 Testament, διὰ is used in all admonitions and adjurations, with the 
 genitive (Rom. xv. 30. 1 Cor.i. 10. 2 Cor. x. 1), this use emanating 
 from the local signification of διὰ, and διά standing in the sense, as it 
 were, of ἐπ presence. The plural oixcveuoi accords with the Hebrew 
 Ὀ ΓΤ. : 
 
 παξιστάναι ϑυσίαν, is, in profane authors, the technical expression 
 for the oblation of the sacrifice. In Latin, sistere is the word. ‘The 
 Apostle says, τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, because this was more suited to the 
 comparison. “Ayios, here applied to the sacrifice, corresponds with 
 the Hebrew ὉΠ, and means being free from any of the defects 
 which God forbids in what was offered to him. Evaeeoros is then a 
 sort of exegesis to it, and 2éoa denotes the point of difference betwixt 
 the sacrifices in question, and those of the Old Testament. 
 
 τὴν λογιχὴν AaTeévav κτλ. 15 apposition to’ the whole previous sen- 
 tence, and so must be resolved into ὅπες ἔστιν ἡ λογικὴ κτλ. The 
 λογιχὸς, however, is variously interpreted. Basil, Gregory Naz., 
 Theophylact and others: ὅταν μηδὲν ἄλογον πάδϑος ἐν ἡμῖν κρατῇ, ἀλλὰ 
 ὁ λόγος τὰ πάντα διουχῇ. Origen, Bengel: Rationabiliter offerenda. 
 Theodoret says, that it stands in opposition to the irrational animals. 
 But here too, it will be most correct to suppose a comparison with 
 the Old Testament victims, such as was previously involved in ζῶσα. 
 Precisely in the same way, in the Testam. XII. Patr. p. 547: seoo- 
 
398 CHAPTER ΧΙ v. 1, 2,3. 
 
 φέρουσι (οἱ ἄγγελοι) χυξίῳ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας λογικὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον πιροσφο- 
 εάν. Τί 15 not therefore opposed to the ψυχιχὸς but to the cagxixos. A 
 similar comparison of the New Testament inward theocracy with 
 the outward theocracy of the Old Testament, is to be found in 
 1 Peter ii. 5. 
 
 V.2. The Codices A D E F G, and many Cod. Minusc. read 
 συσχηματίζεσθαυν and μεταμοξφοῦσθαν in the infinitive, which, both as 
 respects outward authority, as well as because it is the more unusual 
 and difficult form, is to be held as the correct reading. In that case, 
 indeed, the infinitive stands in place of the imperative, as occasion- 
 ally occurs among the classics, especially in poetry, and frequently 
 in Hebrew, and in the New Testament, in the following passages, 
 Rom. xii. 15. Luke ix. 3. 2 Cor.ix.10. The expression αἰὼν οὗτος 
 is to be explained from the Judaical doctrines which designated the 
 period prior to the appearing of the Messiah, nin Dy, in opposition 
 to the 827 D7, αἰὼν μέλλων, that is the Messias’ age. With the ap- 
 pearing of Christ upon the earth, the Messias’ reign, a new era in 
 the world’s history has begun. ‘The kingdom of God, which, pro- 
 perly speaking, and in its completed form, will be set up beyond the 
 grave, already exists. In this view, the Apostle admonishes those 
 who belong to it, to walk upon earth, but yet to live in heaven (Col. 
 iii. 1—3.) ‘The Christian ought not to have a like σχήμα (manner 
 or form of being) with those who as yet are not incorporated into 
 this invisible church, 1 Pet. i. 14. 
 
 τῇ ἀνακχαινώσευ Tov νοὸς ὑμῶν. Νοῦς ἰ5 here the disposition, Col. il. 
 18. The purpose of this ἀνακαίνωσυς lies in the εἰς τὸ δοκίμάζειν. 
 The Apostle considers it as a peculiar operation of the Christian 
 faith, that believers are seriously concerned to prove in every thing 
 what is the will of God (Eph. v. 10); whereas man, in his natural 
 state, looks more to the point of how he may please men. ‘The 
 words ἀγαθὸν χαὶ εὐάξεστον xai τέλειον Were by the Syrian, the Vul- 
 gate, ‘Theophylact, Gicumenius, and most others, conjoined as ad- 
 jectives with θέλημα, a silent contrast being supposed with the will 
 of God in the Old Testament, which was not altogether acceptable. 
 Such a contrast would be much out of place; but even in other re- 
 spects, the number of the adjectives makes the sentence trail, and 
 εὐάρεστος does not well suit as a predicate to θέλημα τοὺ Θεοῦ. Hence, 
 even Erasmus and Bucer, in their day, co-ordinate these adjectives 
 as substantives to θέλημα. Comp. Eph. v.10; Phil. iv. 8. To cia- 
 ξεστον we have to supply τῷ Θεῷ, which is oft conjoined with it. 
 See above, ver. 1; likewise 2 Cor. v. 9; Col. iii. 20. 
 
 V. 3. The yde indicates that the Apostle means to corroborate a 
 special admonition by the more general one which preceded. The 
 intellectual nature of man reveals itself in a variety of gifts, which, 
 when he is brought under the influence of the Christian spirit, are 
 purified and exalted, and ofttimes receive a new direction. In the 
 early churches, the Apostles conferred the various ecclesiastical 
 offices according to the diverse purified, nay possibly enlarged na- 
 
CHAPTER XI. ν, 3, 4, 5. 399 
 
 tural gifts of the individual. When the new life principle of Christ’s 
 spirit began to be operative upon the earth, there were also found, 
 however, persons in whom talents were awakened, previously unex- 
 ampled, and in whom the spirit of God wrought manifestations, not 
 falling beneath the judgment of the human understanding, 1 Cor. 
 xii. Even such gilts as these, the individuals to whom:they, were 
 vouchsafed were to regard as pure gifts of grace, and to employ for 
 the benefit of the church. But it soon happened, that one man set 
 about comparing his peculiar gift—suppose it to have been either 
 some purified natural talent, or one wholly preternatural—with that 
 which had been imparted to another, and according to this rule, to 
 esteem himself superior. Against such conduct as this, the Apostle 
 gives a fine warning at 1 Cor. xii. 4—7. He urges them to reflect, 
 that the spirit of God in all is but one, variously manifesting itself in 
 a variety of vessels. He makes use of the very apposite similitude 
 of the human body. Just like it, the spiritual body of the church of 
 Christ constitutes an organic whole, in which not even the most in- 
 considerable member can be wanted, without destroying its entire- 
 ness. In this passage before us, also, while he warns against the 
 mistake in question, Paul applies the same likeness, and exhorts 
 every man, in the particular station to which, in consequence of his 
 spiritual gift, he has been appointed, to seek to be all that his ap- 
 pointment requires, 1 Pet. iv. 10. 
 
 By χάξις, he means the grace of having been invested with the 
 apostolical office. Rom. i. 5; xv. 15. 
 
 παντὺ τῷ ὄντι ἐν ὑμὸν iS doubtless somewhat more than mere circum- 
 locution. As Erasmus observes, its drift is, that no one, on account 
 of his rank and nation, &c., is justified in excepting himself from this 
 exhortation of the Apostle. Peovery εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν, in place of σωφ- 
 φόνως Peover “ to have such sentiments as beget modesty,” 1 ‘Tim. 
 11, 9: μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὺ σωφξοσύνης. The πύστις» as Shown by the con- 
 text, is here put for the χαξίσματα, and so, properly speaking, is 
 causa pro effectu.§ Faith in an unseen Christ brings man into con- 
 nection with a world unseen, in which he moves without distinetly 
 apprehending it; and, in proportion as he learns to look with faith to 
 that world, the more is the measure of his spiritual powers elevated. 
 When Paul, however, admonishes every man to estimate himself 
 according to the measure of the faith vouchsafed to him, he means not 
 to say, that the higher that is, so much the more highly are we to 
 think of ourselves. What he wants is, that none should compare 
 himself with another, but that every man, having made himself 
 acquainted with his particular gift, should look to “nothing farther 
 than its application in such a way as to please God. Gal. vi. 4. 
 
 V. 4. πεᾶξις, function, as at Ecclesiasticus ix. 10. Ambrose: 
 officia. 
 
 V. 5. Doubtless, this exalted union, this co-operation in love to- 
 wards one great end, ought to manifest itself in the outward church, 
 which is intended to image forth the inward church; and it is an ob- 
 
400 CHAPTER XII. v. 5, 6. 
 
 ject, with a view to which an enlightened and really Christian eccle- 
 siastical government ought to act. It is, however, actually to be 
 found among the true members of the visible church, in the invisible 
 kingdom of believers. ‘The ἐν Xecorg denotes the spiritual life-prin- 
 ciple by which the whole is upheld. This highly descriptive com- 
 parison of-the relation of the bodily organization as a whole, and of 
 the several members to each other, is applied by Antoninus, 1. 7, 6. 
 13, to the universal body of beings gifted with reason, which certainly 
 ought, according to the design of their creation, to form sucha union, 
 and are only hindered from doing so by sin: Οἷόν ἔστιν ἐν ἡνωμένοις 
 τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος; τοῦτον ἔχευ ΤῊΝ λόγον ἐν διεστῶσι τὰ λογυκὰνγ πεὸς 
 μίαν τινὰ συνεῤγίαν χαφεσχκενασμένα. ἢ 
 
 ὁ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς is, as Lucian expressly observes, ἃ solecism in place 
 of xa’ ἕνα πάντες, altogether. ‘The same solecism is to be found 3 
 Maceab. v. 84. So likewise εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς John viii. 9; Mark xiv. 19; 
 and ava εἷς Rev. xxi. 21. 
 
 V. 6. This sentence with ἔχοντες is joined merely as appendage 
 to the foregoing, inasmuch as, whatever may be the unity, variety 
 must also be manifested. In this way, the εὖτε προφητείαν 15 still to 
 be connected with the ἔχοντες; by the xara τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως, 
 however, Paul departs out of the province of description into that of 
 admonition. For were we not to suppose so, even with reference to 
 the ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ, ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ; ἐν τῇ παξακλήσευ, it not being incon- 
 ceivable that Paul, in these words, does no more than describe wherein 
 the diversity of operation consists, still we would require to give up 
 that view, in consideration of the χατὼ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως» ἐν 
 ἁπλότητι, tv σπουδῇ; tv ἱλαρότητι. ‘That he has dropped the construe- 
 tion, admits so much the less of doubt, seeing that, in vers. 11,12, 13, 
 we have participles, at ver. 14 imperatives and infinitives, and at ver. 
 16 participles again. Accordingly, to each of the several offices 
 mentioned, we must supply the corresponding verbs, which signify 
 the discharge of them. A like ellipsis is to be found 1 Pet. iv. 11. 
 Very similar, also, are the following examples in Arrian’s Epictetus, 
 Dissert. Lay. exes δ 34: "Ayou δὲ μ᾽ ὦ Zev καὶ σὺ γ᾽ a Πεπρωμένη. 
 Θέλετ᾽ Ets “Ῥώμην; εἰς “Ῥώμην. εἰς Γύαρα; εὺς Γύαρα. εἰς ᾿Αθήνας: εἰς 
 ᾿Αθήνας. And ]. ill. 6. 28, § ὅ: ᾧ μὲν cis ἐστι χοινὴ ἀναφορὰ, ἡ δ᾽ 
 ἐδία. . .« .« ἡ δ᾽ ἰδία πεὸς τὸ ἐπιτήδευμά ἑκάστου χαὶ τὴν πέοαίξεσιν. ὃ 
 κιθαξῳδὸς ὡς χιθαφῳδός᾽ ὃ τέχτων ὡς τέκτων" ὃ Φυλόσοφος ὡς φιλόσοφος. 
 
 site προφητείαν. Before explaining this word, we shall notice 
 generally the several Christian functions that occur in the sequel. On 
 this subject, expositors have taken various views. Some consider 
 each of the functions as a private business belonging to individuals 
 among the Christians. So Chrysostom, Gicumenius and Limborch, 
 Others as a public charge. So Calvin, Bucer, Grotius, Mosheim. 
 
 * Just as the members of the body are in things united, the same design 
 have beings rational as separate, having been formed to co-operate towards 
 one end. 
 
CHAPTER XII. V. 6. 401 
 
 The first supposition might be admitted with respect to προφήτης» 
 inasmuch as that was not a standing office, doubtless also with 
 respect to πεοιστάμενος in ver. 8, but in regard to διάκονος and 
 διδάσχων, the usus loquendi speaks otherwise. ‘There is some- 
 thing also which might be said in favour of the other view, see- 
 ing that ver. 7 manifestly specifies public offices, and yet no notice 
 is taken of a transition from these two offices of a private kind. 
 In like manner the xeotorduecvos, in the middle of ver. 8, appears 
 again to be a public office. ‘There is a difficulty which at once 
 presents itself on this view of the passage; it is, that in the infancy 
 of the church, the παρακαλῶν was not different from the διδάσκαλος; 
 nor the μεταδιδοὺς and ἐλεῶν from the διάχονος. Several of the ex- 
 positors we have named, however, skilfully extricate themselves from 
 this difficulty, by supposing διδασκαλία and παξάκλησις to be the two 
 functions of the neopntns, and μεταδιδόναι, mpovoravac and ἐλεεῖν the 
 special business of the δὶ άκονος, so that Paul properly speaks only of 
 the office of προφητεία and διακονία, including under them those more 
 particular duties, which were again distributed among the various 
 προφήταις and διαχόνοις. So Beza, Brais, Koppe and others. But 
 the διδάσκαλος was certainly different from the προφήτης, as we shall 
 afterwards see, the διάχονος cannot be called προύστάμενος, and in 
 general such a subordination of the clauses is not, even in the most 
 distant way, intimated by the structure of the whole. It is very dif- 
 ficult to regard μεταδιδοὺς and ἐλεῶν as particular offices. We hence 
 decide in favour of their exposition, who consider that, without any 
 precise discrimination, Paul here speaks partly of the public, partly 
 of the private functions of Christians, taking into account, as is re- 
 quisite, that in those days the latter were not by any means so dis- 
 tinctly sundered from the functions of a public character (which is 
 shown by the προφῆται), and on the other hand, that even the public 
 functions were not public, in our sense of the word (of this the dea- 
 conesses and even the presbyters are instances). Which is likewise 
 the view of Origen, Theodoret, Ambrose and others. 
 
 Let us now consider the office of the προφήτης. In the New Tes- 
 tament the word corresponds, in respect, both of the sense and of the 
 usus loquendi, with the Hebrew δ 2). Both terms denote a conscious 
 utterance and exposition of divine inspirations. "23 is equivalent to 
 ἐξηγητὴς in Ex. vii. 1. In the case of the Greek oracles, προφῆται 
 means the deliberate expounders of the deliverances of the μάντιες, 
 who was not self-possessed. ‘The office of the πεοφήταυ in the Chris- 
 tian churches was similar to that among the Hebrews. ‘They taught, 
 roused and reproved believers, besides disclosing futurity. ‘They are 
 distinguished, however, from the διδάσκαλος, not merely by their de- 
 elaring the future, but partly by the fact, that their vocation was con- 
 fined to moments of particular excitement, and partly that they ad- 
 dressed more the heart than the understanding. 
 
 χατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως. In the classics, Josephus and 
 Philo, ἀναλογία means agreement; and hence Hesychius expounds 
 
 51 
 
402 CHAPTER XI. v. 6, 7, 8. 
 
 correcily: xara μέτρον 7 xavova, or as it was said at ver. 3, κατὰ μέ- 
 reov πίστεως. If then the Apostle intends that the προφητεία should 
 stand in a just relation to the πιστυς» it is necessary to determine what 
 the πυστις here is. Πίστις denotes the believing faculty of man, over 
 which the inspired discourse ought not in enthusiastic intoxication to 
 soar. Compare the serious admonition, Jer. xxiii. 28. While the 
 heathen μάντυς was wildly borne away by the impulse, in which hu- 
 man passion commingled with the higher element, the Christian 
 prophet was enabled, by his enlightenment, to retain a consciousness 
 of whether he was speaking from his own or divine instigation. So 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gicumenius, Pelagius, Calvin and many 
 more. Others, however, have understood πίστις objectively, of the 
 Christian doctrine from which the πεοφητεία was not to deviate. So 
 first ‘Thos. Aquinas, and following him Salmeron, Cocceius, Piscator 
 and Calov. In this sense is the phrase analogia fidei used in 
 dogmatical theology. In the passage before us, however, this inter- 
 pretation is opposed by the fact, that in his inmost heart, and aceord- 
 ing to the degree of faith which belonged to him, the πξοφήτης was 
 moved by God to bring forth what was new. (Neander, Kirchen 
 Gesch. I. 1, s. 279): ‘* The divine operation in the prophets mani- 
 fested itself as something creative.’’ Moreover, although the Chris- 
 tian prophets did not fall into a state of heathenish μανίαν they still 
 _ fell into one of ἔκστασις, in which the cool judgment is not available, 
 although, in regard to one point, the Apostles taught something dif- 
 ferent. , 
 
 V. 7. In the early church, the διάκονος was the person to whom 
 the charge of externals was committed, such as cleaning the place of 
 worship, the care of the indigent and the sick, Acts vi. 1. In the 
 synagogue this office-bearer was called jim. Such a person stood ex- 
 posed to the dangers of striving after the teacher’s office. 'To the ἐν 
 τῇ διακονίῳ We must here supply μενέτω ΟΥ ἔστω. (Compare the use 
 of εἶναν ἔν τινι, 1 Tim. iv. 15.) Acdacxaaca was the regular business 
 of instruction, that in which the understanding alone had part. 
 
 V.8. With the word παξαχαλῶν, the Apostle enters the domain 
 of such spiritual gifts as were not employed in distinct offices. TTaea- 
 καλεῦν has the double meaning, to admonish or to encourage, comfort. 
 The first would be here the most suitable. ‘Thus λόγος παξακχλήσεως» 
 Acts xiii. 15. Justin, M. (Apol. i. 6. 67,) says, that after the read- 
 ing of the Bible, the zeocozds spoke a word of νουθεσία and πεόκλησις. 
 Grabe, in place of πρόκλησις reads παράκλησις. 
 
 ὃ μεταδοὺς ἐν ἁπλότητι, 7. 6. without any side or by-views, but from 
 the single regard that he who solicits alms is really in want of them. 
 Paul here calls for the putting away of all showing off of self. Com- 
 pare 2 Cor. ix. 13, and Jas. i. 5. ᾿Απλοῦς has certainly also the 
 meaning abundant, generous, (the citations from the classics and 
 Josephus, by Kypke and Krebs, upon these texts are decisive): Here, 
 however, the usual meaning is the more suitable. ‘That μεταδοὺς was 
 the official name of the treasurer (823), who distributed the contribu- 
 
7 CHAPTER ΧΙ. 8, 9, 10, 11. 403 
 tions of others, is no less difficult to believe than that ἐλεῶν was he 
 who had the oversight of the poor, (ata later period parabolanus.) 
 
 ὁ τιδοϊστάμενος ἐν σπουδῇ. Standing, as it here does, among the 
 private functions of Christians, this word might certainly be appre- 
 hended, generally, as ‘* the person elected to oversee any affair what- 
 soever.” ‘The expression, however, is rather to be taken up officially. 
 Paul applies it 1o the bishop or presbyter, Justyn Martyr also calls 
 the presbyter πεοεστὼς τῶν ἀδελφῶν, (Apol. i. 6. 67). 1 Cor. xii. 28, 
 the xvBéevyars is reckoned among the gifts of grace. The πρεεσβύτε- 
 δου, in fact, were divided into the διδάσκοντες and xvBeerarres, accord- 
 ing to their various gifts. The latter office is the one here meant. 
 "Ry ἑλαφότητι, compare 2 Cor. ix. 7. Paul wages hostility to the 
 opus operatum, as when the monks used often, through constraint of 
 the law, to attend to the sick. The true Christian ought to feel it to 
 be a pleasure to minister to the sufferer. 
 
 V. 9. Here the admonitions become of a still more general cha- 
 racter. ‘The mutual affection of Christian brethren for each other 
 ought not to consist merely in outward semblance, but to emanate 
 from the heart, 2 Cor. vi. 6. 1 Pet. 1.22. Following after the men- 
 tion of the ἀγάπην and as verse 10 resumes the subject of φιλαδελφία, 
 πονηφὸν would seem not to stand in the general sense, but to denote 
 a malicious, inimical disposition, and ἀγαθὸν in contrast, en affec- 
 tionate disposition. In profane authors, likewise, wovneds signifies 
 malicious, ἀγαθὸς» benevolent. 
 
 V.10. Φιλόστοξγου, cherishing such tender affections as the nearest 
 relatives do for each other. Eis ἀλλήλους. Chrysostom: Μὴ μένε 
 φιλεῦσαν παρ᾽ ἑτέρου: ἄλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐπιυπήδῳ τούτῳ καὶ κατάξχου. οὕτω γὰρ 
 τῆς ἐκείνου φιλίας μισθὸν καφπώσῃ.ἢ 
 
 πιδοηγούμενοι. ἸΙξοηγεῖσθαυν means to go before, to give an exam- 
 ple. 2 Mace. iv. 40. ‘The dative in τιμῇ means in honour. Chry- 
 SsOstom: οὐδὲν οὕτω φίλους ποιεῖ ὡς τὸ σπουδάξειν τῇ τιμῇ νικᾷν τὸν πλή- 
 cwov.t So too the Syriac and Vulgate. Others, as ‘Theodoret and 
 Pelagius, take πξοηγεῦσθαι in the sense fo prefer, to reckon superior. 
 We should then have to compare Phil. ii. 8, This meaning, how- 
 ever, is not consonant with the usus loquendi. 
 
 V.11. Chrysostom refers the zeal here spoken of to what has 
 preceded: Καὶ yae εἰσι πολλοὺ xard διάνοιαν φιλοῦντες καὶ οὐχ deé- 
 γοντὲς χεῖίφα. Sud τοῦτο πάντοθεν οἰκοδομεῦ τὴν ἀγάπην. It will 
 searcely do, however, to connect this admonition with the former. 
 Sxovdy means the disposition of zeal for the kingdom of God, in 
 which the Christian ought to be indefatigable. Paul raises still 
 higher this demand, by requiring a fervent spirit. ‘The verb ζέω is 
 
 * Wait not until thou art loved by another, but make advances and begin. 
 For thus shalt thou reap the reward of his friendship. 
 
 + Nothing tends so much to make friends, as endeavouring to overcome 
 one’s neighbour in doing him honour. 
 
 4 There are many indeed, who love in the heart, but who do not stretch forth 
 the hand; wherefore he promotes love on every side. 
 
404 CHAPTER xi. v. 11, 12, 138, 14. 
 
 used of the emotions, compare Acts xviii. 28. It is doubtful whether 
 τῷ πνεὐμάτι is to be referred to the Holy Spirit, or to that of man. 
 The former reference is adopted by ‘Theodoret, Chrysostom, 'Theo- 
 phylact, Calvin and many others, and in that case we might compare 
 1 Thess. v. 19. Calvin: Caro torpet, stimulis opus habet, solus 
 autem est spiritus fervor, qui nosiram pigritiam corrigit. Quanquam 
 Dei donum est, he tamen partes injunguntur fidelibus, ut torpore 
 excusso, flammam divinitus accensam concipiant, sicuti ut plurimum 
 contingit, spiritus impulsum nostra incuria suffocari et extingui. 
 
 τῷ Κυξίῳ δουλεύοντες. ‘The reading τῷ Κυξίῳ has most external 
 authority in its favour. ‘The only objection would be, that being 
 the more common, it had been substituted in the place of that which 
 is less so, καιρῷ, It may likewise, however, be said, that some one 
 had wished to annex a limitation, or, perhaps also an extension to 
 . the πνεύματι ζέοντες. OF again the abbreviated form of χυξίῳ might 
 have been read incorrectly, and in this way the expression by καυξῷ 
 δουλεύοντες might have been changed into a locus communis. ‘The 
 internal evidences for the two readings are ata par. If xaved be the 
 word, the sentence may relate to what goes before, and the meaning 
 be ‘improve every opportunity.’’ But in this sense δουλεύειν xaved 
 is unusual, or it may—which is then the best supposition—prepare 
 for the sequel. Koed δουλεύοντες might also limit ζέοντες τῷ πνεύματι» 
 but in this passage, that would be weak, although elsewhere Paul 
 gives such a counsel, Eph.v.16. At any rate, it has the significa- 
 tion in which ἀχολουθεὺν τοῖς xaveors usually appears, Polyb. Hist. 28. 
 6,7. If Κυείῳ be the word, it may serve to intimate more definitely 
 the object, to which the σπουδὴ and the πνεῦμα δέον refer. Seeing 
 then that the external evidence in favour of Κυείῳ preponderates, 
 and that there is no internal evidence against it, we adopt that as the 
 reading. ‘The Apostle in his warmth frequently expresses in several 
 divided sentences, what he might have said by one. 
 
 V.12. Deportment of the Christian under calamity. Rejoicing 
 in the prospect of the help of the Lord; perseverance through the 
 might of the Lord, an always invincible weapon; prayer incessant. 
 With the previous verse there may be the unexpressed connection of 
 ideas; wherever the work of the Lord is zealously performed, there 
 the θλύψις does not fail. ἢ 
 
 V.13. “Ayo are the members of the spiritual theocracy, being 
 persons devotedto God. Κοινωνέω to communicate, with the dative of 
 the thing or person to whom one communicates. Φιλοξενία. By this 
 fine virtue of the early Christians, their fellowship as brethren was 
 promoted in avery high degree. ‘The Apostle esteemed it so highly, 
 that he enjoined it as a condition of their office, upon the ministers 
 of the church. 1 Tim. v. 10. Tit. i. 8. 
 
 V. 14. Conduct of Christians towards those that are without. 
 Compare the commandment of the Lord, Matt. v. 44, Chrysostom: 
 ὅξα ὅσα ἐντεῦθεν γίνεταν τὼ χαλά. καὶ σοὶ μισθὸς μείζων χκαὺ ὃ πειξασμὸς 
 
CHAPTER xi. v. 15, 16. 405 
 
 ἐλάττων, κἀκεῖνος ἀποστήσεταν διώκων; καὶ ὁ Θεὸς δοξασθήσεταυ καὶ ἡ δι- 
 δασχαλία; καὶ τῷ πεπλανημένῳ γενήσεταυ NEOs εὐσέβειαν ἡ σὴ φυλοσοφία. ἢ 
 
 Υ. 15. Infinitives in place of imperatives. See observations on 
 v. 2. Chrysostom: ‘One might think it was no difficult task to 
 rejoice with others. But it is harder than to weep with them. For 
 that is done even by the natural man when he beholds a friend in 
 distress., There is need of grace, however, to enable us, not merely 
 to abstain from envying, but even with all our hearts to rejoice at 
 the good fortune of a friend.” Yes, doubtless, and it also requires 
 spiritual affection of a loftier sort to accommodate in general the flue- 
 -tuation of our sentiments to the state of our Christian brother. A 
 permanent and genuine tenderness of feeling, can only be founded 
 upon a high degree of love. ᾿ 
 
 V.16. Origen, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Ambrose: ‘ Let each put 
 himself in another’s place, in order to conceive what his feelings 
 would be.”’ In this way, the meaning would be the same as at v. 
 15. C£cumenius, Erasmus and others: ‘* Think of others as well 
 as of yourselves.”? ‘This interpretation has to recommend it, that 
 the sentence would then be closely connected with the sequel. But, 
 to say nothing of the objections to these two interpretations, the usus 
 loquendi goes to prove that the τὸ αὐτὸ péovery means fo be of one 
 mind, 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. ii. 2. Rom. xv. 5, which is equivaient 
 to the τὸ ἕν φεονεὶν in Phil. ii. 2. In place of εἰς ἀλλήλους», there usu- 
 ally stands ἐν ἀλλήλοις, Mark ix. 50. John xiii. 35. Rom. xv. 5. So 
 likewise Dion. Halic. Antiq. R. 1. iv. c. 20, p. 250, ed. Huds. Even 
 taking this explanation, the proposition is connected with the sequel, 
 inasmuch as the greatest enemy to concord is pride. 
 
 ἀλλὰ τοῖς ταπεινοις συναπαγόμενοι. Συναπάγεσθαν tue Means fo be 
 led forth, or borne away with any one. ‘'Tropically in a bad sense, 
 ἐς 10 let one’s self be carried away, (seduced) by any thing. So Gal. 
 ii. 13. 2 Pet. ili.17. Now ταπεινοὺς may be the mase. adject. and 
 συναπάγεσθαν conjoined with it in its proper sense. ‘The meaning 
 would then be, ‘consent to be dragged, with the ταπεινοῖς (the de- 
 spised Christians), before the court.’””? So Koppe, Schleusner, Stolz. 
 In this case, however, the contrast to the ὑψηλὰ peovecv would be 
 highly forced. Others take it in the tropical way we have specified, 
 but in a good sense, interpreting ταπεινοί the humble, and thus 
 making the meaning, ‘* Be led by the humble to humility.” So 
 Grotius, Limborch, Chr. Schmid. As, however, the neuter ὑψηλά 
 went before, many, and among thers, Calvin and Beza, prefer to 
 consider ταπεινοῖς as likewise neuter, and hence, retaining the same 
 tropical meaning of συναπάγεσθαι, translate, ‘Be guided by humi- 
 lity.”” To both of these last mentioned explanations, however, there 
 
 * Behold how many good effects flow from such conduct, both a greater 
 reward to thyself, and less temptation, and thy persecutor will cease to per- 
 secute, and God will be glorified, and the Christian discipline, and thy wis 
 dom shall bring back the mistaken man to piety. 
 
406 CHAPTER ΧΙ. v. 17, 18, 19. 
 
 is much to object. It cannot by any means be shown, that συναπά- 
 yeodae in the good sense also, can mean, ““ to let one’s self be carried 
 away.’ Even in profane authors, it means this only in a sinister 
 sense, for which alone the etymology of the word would speak. 
 Supposing ταπεινοὺς to be neuter, one would rather have expected 
 canewopeodvry, to be used. Supposing it masculine, the expression 
 would be unnatural, for natural it certainly is not, if Paul recom- 
 mends the imitation of the humble, instead of the endeavour after 
 humility. It would be more judicious to take συναπάγομαυ here, in 
 the sense of συμποξεύομαι; as it is explained by Hesychius; under- 
 standing it, at the same time, tropically of intercourse with any one. 
 Ταπεινοί may then mean, those to whom no peculiar spiritual gifts 
 were vouchsafed. The more gifted Christians might be blinded by 
 the conceit of having no fellowship with such weaker brethren. It 
 is thus that Chrysostom, Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger and others, under- 
 stand the συναπάγομαι; the ταπεινοί means with them poor and de- 
 spised persons. 
 
 V.17. Μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι κτλ. See on ch. xi. 25. He who does 
 not willingly hear the opinions of the brethren, but in all things seeks 
 counsel at himself, knows not the bond of perfectness, and disturbs 
 unity. We may learn something even from the lowliest Christian. 
 
 μηδενὶ xaxdv ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἀποδὶδόντες. Viewing evil as the Christian 
 does, in the aspect of its being divinely permitted, and in so far as 
 the dispensation of God, it is easy for him to bear it with resigna- 
 tion. ‘The peace which accompanies such a disposition, is more 
 elevating than the sense of gratified revenge. 
 
 πεονοούμενοι κτλ. The passage is from Prov. iii. 4. Teovdeouar, 
 in the active as well as the middle, signifies, like prospicio, fo care 
 for any thing. ᾿Ἐνώπιον after the Hebrew 15) or "ry, ‘ according 
 to the judgment.” ‘The Christian ought, as far as conscience per- 
 mits, so to walk that even the world shall take no offence, (1 Cor. 
 x. 32.) What Tertullian makes the Heathen say of such Christians, 
 is borrowed from the life: Bonus vir Caius Seius, tantum quod 
 Christianus! (Tert. Apol. ¢. 3.) 
 
 V.18. The Christian ought not to seek offence; neither should 
 he, by that which does not flow from the Christian spirit, oecasion 
 offence. The Saviour, accordingly, pronounces his μακαξισμός upon 
 those only who are persecuted for his sake. 
 
 V.19. This admonition is connected with the previous one. For 
 the purpose of avenging ourselves, we should not fall out with the 
 world. We ought to leave vengeance to God. ‘There are three 
 ways of interpreting τόπον διδόναι τῇ deyy. 1. ‘Oeyy is the wrath of 
 the adversary, and τόπον διδόναν means, to go out of the way. So 
 Pelagius, Ambrose, Basil, Schittgen, Ammon. In Rabbinical Dip 
 1) means, fo retreat, go out of the way. 2. ’Oeyy is one’s own 
 wrath. Τόπον διδόναι, after the Latin, means spatium dare rei, to 
 defer. So Bos, Surenhusius and Koppe. For this use of τόπος» we 
 might compare Wisd. xii. 20. It is however most accordant with 
 
CHAPTER XII. v. 19, 20. 407 
 
 the usus loquendi, to take τόπον δυδόναν in the sense, fo give access, 
 allow to operate, in which case ὀργή applies to the wrath of God. In 
 this sense τόπον διδόναν is quite common, whereas the two other sig- 
 nifications are not demonstrable. Joseph. Archael. 1. xvi.c.11,§ 6, 
 SayS τῷ ἐνδοιασμῷ τόπον διδοναι. Eph. iv. 27, we have τῷ διαβόλῳ 
 tézoy δυδόναι. Compare also Luke xiv. 9. Plutarch de Ira cohibenda, 
 6. 14, has likewise, in reference to anger, the self-same phrase: dec 
 δὲ μήτε παίζοντας αὐτῇ (τῇ deyy) διδόναυ τόπον. Elsewhere, we have 
 also χώξαν διδόνάν ὀδύομοις. Anton. Comm. 1. iii. 6. 6. So also in 
 Ignatius ad Philad. c. 2, of the teachers of error: ἐν τῇ ἑνότητι ὑμῶν 
 οὐχ ἕξουσι τόπον. Even in the Rabbinical, the usus loquendi may be 
 evinced. Berach. c. 4, it is said: Ὁ ΓΞ. pip mn, ** what is the 
 occasion to this prayer?’’? The Apostle’s meaning accordingly is, 
 The Christian must patiently await what God himself will do for 
 the protection of innocence, and the punishment of evil. ‘The Old 
 Testament passage is Deut. xxxii. 35. 
 
 V.20. The Apostle raises still higher the duties of the Christian, 
 in respect of enemies. Not merely must he abstain from vengeance, 
 he must manifest love. The figurative saying is borrowed from 
 Proverbs xxv. 21,22. To feed and give drink, is an image for 
 benefits; burning coals are the same for pain. In this sense, there 
 occurs among the Rabbins the phrase formed after Ps. xi. 6; xviii. 9, 
 poma jn) Dd), “to give any one coals and lightning.” ‘Thus also 
 do we read in Consessus Hariri, Cons. v. p. 175, ed. Shult, * He 
 bade me farewell, and left behind him in my heart, glowing coals of 
 the Tamarisk, (which long retains the heat.’’) In Arabschah, Vita 
 Timuri, ed. Gol. p. 126, and elsewhere, occur such phrases as ‘‘to 
 roast and burn the heart,’”’ expressive of giving pain. Nay, the ex- 
 pression, 4 Ezra xvi. 54, agrees still better with that before us: Ne 
 neget nocens se peccasse, nam carbones ignis comburet super caput 
 ejus, qui se in dominum Deum peccasse negaverit. In Pirke Av. ct. 
 2, § 10, “coals of the wise,’’ are equivalent to ‘cutting jests that 
 give pain.” Now, the saying may be understood, to the effect, that 
 in this manner the punishment of the wicked would be heightened. 
 So it is understood by Chrysostom, Theodoret, ‘Theophylact, Pho- 
 tius, Grotius, Cameron, Wetstein and others. But the expositors of 
 a more ancient date connect the following verse as follows: “ Doubt- 
 less a severer penalty is thereby brought upon the wicked. But this 
 ought not to be the motive for your showing him affection. Your 
 intention must always be, to overcome evil with good.” It will be 
 more correct, however, to consider the coals of fire as image for that 
 tormenting sense of shame, which, in the end, forces the adversary 
 to supplicate forgiveness, inasmuch as no heart, however hard, can 
 permanently resist a love so uniform, patient, and everywhere for- 
 getting and subordinating self. ‘This is just what is afterwards said 
 without a figure in v.21. In the way specified, these verses have 
 been admirably expounded by Augustine, De doctr. Christ. 1. ili. e. 
 16, and Jerome, ep. 120, ad Hedib. ed. Vall, (150 in the other edi- 
 
408 CHAPTER XII. v. 20, 21. 
 
 tions, qu. 1.) In the same way is the passage understood by Pela- 
 gius, Ambrose, Erasmus, Clarius and others. 
 
 V. 21. Anger and malice constitute a state of slavery. We are 
 overcome of evil, when we permit ourselves to be driven from the 
 submissiveness of a heavenly frame, and plunged into these passions. 
 But we overcome evil with good, when, by our calmness, we even 
 make the adversary calm. 
 
CHAPTER THIRTEENTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Apmonttton to be subject to the magistracy, that being ordained of God, con- 
 nected with the admonition to maintain, in general, a heavenly walk, and 
 especially to exercise love. 
 
 V.1. The Apostle exhorts Christians to be subject to the ma- 
 gistracy, to which same effect we find exhortations in Tit. iii. 1; 1 
 Pet. ii. 18... These were of great importance for believers, especially 
 at that time. Recent converts being now introduced into quite a new 
 and spiritual order of things, finding themselves placed, with respect 
 to friends, parents, and fellow-citizens, on a different footing from 
 before, nay, being called upon to come forward in hostile opposition 
 to temporal relations and modes of life, might by all this, be betrayed 
 into a haughty spirit, tending to the destruction of the ancient order 
 of things. We remark how, in the convulsions of their time, the 
 reformers had to obviate such errors. Moreover, the Christians of 
 the early age, being subject to a secular magistracy, often saw them- 
 selves compelled, at ihe command of conscience, to resist their be- 
 hests. ‘To a certain extent this conduct gave them the semblance 
 of a revolutionary character; and, indeed, they were represented by 
 the heathen, as foes of the emperor and ἀνυπότακτοι; (Comp. the accu- 
 sations brought against them by the Jews, Acts xvii. 7.) And, partly 
 from the causes specified, the desire of disburdening themselves of 
 such domination, might actually be kindled in their breasts. It is to 
 be added that the Jewish converts did introduce a rebellious spirit 
 into the Christian churches, inasmuch as the Jews, according to Deut. 
 xvii. 15, ambitious of having a ruler of their own nation, offered con- 
 tinual resistance to the Roman power, (Joseph. Archaeol. 1. xvii. 6. 2, 
 § 4. Sueton. Claud. ὁ. 25,) and produced politico-religious enthu- 
 siasts, such as Judas of Gamala. It is not, however, after outward 
 independence and freedom that genuine Christianity strives, but after 
 
 the freedom of the soul from the yoke of sin, (Comp. the beautiful. 
 
 words of ‘Tertullian, in the Apol. c. 1: Nihil de causa sua [religio 
 
 christ. | deprecatur, quia nec de conditione miratur, scit se peregrinam 
 
 in terris agere, inter extraneos facile inimicos invenire, ceterum sedes, 
 
 spem, gratiam, dignitatem czxlis habere. And, although, in the 
 
 breasts of potentates, true Christianity would prevent the rise of des- 
 52 
 
 5 
 
Ἅ 
 
 γ΄ 
 
 410 CHAPTER XIll. v. 1. 2, 3, 4. 
 
 potism, yet, in the Christian who finds himself once subjected to a 
 despotic sceptre, instead of awakening resistance to evil, it will ope- 
 
 yrate in making this yoke also, like many more in life, be borne as 
 
 from God, and improved for the advancement of the. good of the 
 soul. Here, too, the wxa ἐν τὼ ἀγαθῷ τὸ xaxdv applies. And if the 
 Apostle Inculeated such submission to severe heathen magistracies, 
 much more ought it to take place under Christian magistracies of the 
 same character. 
 
 πᾶσα ψυχή after the Hebrew for ἕκαστος. 
 
 ὑπερέχων ** the superior, sovereign,” Wisdom vi. 5. 1 Pet. ii. 13. 
 ot ἐν ὑπεξοχῇ κείμενου, 2 Mac. iil. 11. Theodoret: ἐστέον μέντοι, ὡς 
 τὸ ἄρχειν καὶ ἄρχεσθαυ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ πξομηθείας ἔξήφτησεν 6 θεῖος ἀπόστο- 
 Ros, οὐ τὸ τὸν δεῖνα ἢ τὸν δεῦνα Geyew. OV γὰξ Tov Θεοῦ χειξοφονίω τῶν 
 ἀδύχων 7 ἐξουσία, ἀλλὰ αὐτὴ ἡ τῆς ἡγεμονίας οἰκονομία. εὐμενὴς μέντου ὧν 
 δίδωσιν ἄδχοντας τιμῶντας τὸ δίχαιον---παιδεῦσαυ δὲ πλημμελοῦντας βου- 
 AOMEVOS, καὶ Aa πονηξὼν ἀρχόντων ἀἄρχεσθαν συγχωρεῖ. Chrysostom:. 
 “Let not the Christian say: Paul! How is this? Destined as we 
 are to reign with Christ, dost thou subject us to terrestrial kings? 
 The Apostle explains that in doing so he but subjects them to God.” 
 The δέ merely indicates the logical opposition; the οὖσαν are the 
 “actually existing.” 
 
 V. 2. ἑαντοὺς κείμὰ λήψονται. We havea like expression in 2 Pets 
 ii. 1. It intimates, as a consequence of the very order of things, that 
 every insurrection brings along with it its due punishment. Κρίμα 
 λήψονταυ is, after the Hebrew Dawn NW), to suffer punishment. 
 
 V. 3. Augustine, in his day, observes that the heathen magistracy 
 was not of such a character as to praise the good conduet of Chris- 
 tians, and that hence ἔπαινος must mean the martyr’s crown, So, too, 
 Pelagius, Zeger and others. But the Apostle is only speaking of the 
 dealing of the magistracy in respect of what, even to the Christian, 
 was sin, to wit, rebellion. Were the Christian to fall into such un- 
 
 -christian sins as that, his Christianity could not protect him. 
 
 V. 4. Here, too, we must keep in view the allusion principally 
 before the mind of the Apostle, viz. to disturbers of the peace. Upon 
 such the magistracy exercises its authority as a divine ordinance.. 
 The sword is the ensign of the potentate. We find in the Talmudists, 
 ΓΙ 722 8290, “the king who wears a sword.’ Among the old 
 Romans, the lictor carried the axe before the dictator, consul, &e. 
 The emperors wore a dagger as type of their power over life and 
 death (Suetonius, Galba, ὁ. 11. ‘T'aciti Historiar. 1. iii. 6. 68,) which 
 was also done by the prefecti pretorio and the highest military 
 
 * Be it known, moreover, that the divine Apostle makes the institution of 
 civil government depend upon the providence of God, not, however, the fact 
 of this or that person being ruler. For the power of wicked men does not 
 proceed from the divine choice, but the ordinance itself of government. 
 When he is propitious he gives rulers who pay respect to justice, but when 
 he means to correct men for their errors, he permits them to be governed by 
 wicked rulers. 
 
 - 
 
CHAPTER XIII. V. 5, 6, 7. 411 
 
 officers. ’Ogy; denotes metonymically the consequences of wrath; 
 accordingly, it means punishment. 
 
 V. 5. The Christian is admonished from every side, to yield obe- 
 dience to the-magistracy; on the one, from a regard to the power of 
 punishing committed to magistrates by God; on the other, from a re- 
 gard to his own conscience, which enjoins upon him this obedience 
 as a duty not to be omitted. In the same way ought servants, for 
 their God’s sake, to obey the command of their masters, Eph. vi. 6. 
 
 V. 6. φόρες τελεῖτε may be either imperative or indicative. Agu 
 zovpyo yap κτλ. ‘There is a twofold exposition of this saying. We 
 may understand λευτόργοί in the narrower sense of tax-gatherers. In 
 that case, the αὐτὸ τοῦτο is their office, Θεοῦ stow 15. predicate, and 
 Θεοῦ 15 equivalent to ἀπὸ Θεοῦ: ‘*'Tax-gatherers are divinely ap- 
 pointed, and it is for this very business that they are made.’ The 
 φελεῦτε Would then have to be taken as imperative. Such is the ex- 
 position of Koppe, and much may be said in its favour. It fits very 
 well into the connection, and suggests a motive for the injunction to 
 pay tribute. It was the more necessary, considering that the Jews 
 had not merely in general a very low esteem for the τελώναις, on 
 account of their peculation, but even entertained scruples about pay- 
 ing tribute to a heathen magistracy. (Mat. xxii. 17. Judas of Ga- 
 mala, according to Josephus, Archeol. 1. xvili. c. 1, taught: τὴν ἀπο- 
 Pipnow οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ ἀντιχρὺς δουλείαν ἐπιφέρειν). Besides, it is easy in 
 this way, to explain the αὐτὸ τοῦτο. But λευφουργός, without farther 
 addition, cannot well be equivalent to τελώνης. Besides, it certainly 
 appears unnatural in this place to regard the Θεοῦ εἰσύν as predicate, 
 and translate: “they are appointed by God.”’ Hence the common 
 exposition is to be preferred, according to which λειτουργοὶ Θεοῦ 15 
 predicate of magistrates in general, they being, as it were, instru- 
 - ments of God to maintain justice upon the earth, the αὐτὸ τοῦτο is the 
 λειτουργεῖν τῷ Θεῷ. Even on this view of the words, it is better to 
 regard φτελεῦτε aS imperative. ‘The exhortation was necessary, be- 
 cause, at that period, the crime of embezzling the tribute and taxes, 
 prevailed over the whole Roman empire. The more striking in this 
 respect, was the contrast of the Christians, who, although enemies 
 of the heathen, yet manifested such integrity in regard to the tribute, 
 that ‘Tertullian affirms, what the Romans lost by Christians in the 
 way of temple-dues, was compensated by their conscientiousness in 
 paying the taxes (Tertullian, Apol. ὁ. 42, in fine). ‘This took place 
 even under a heathen magistracy, under a Claudius, and a Nero! 
 
 γ. 7. The Christian’ subjects himself to every human ordinance 
 which is not hostile to that of God. ‘This is admirably expressed 
 by ‘Tatian with reference to the present text, contra Gracos, ¢. iv. p. 
 246, ed. Bened.: Ei μὴ τοῖς τινῶν vomimors συγχεῆσθαυν βούλομαι, τίνος 
 χάξιν χαδάπιερ μιαρώτατος μεμίσημαι; προστάττει φόρους τελεὺν ὁ βασιλεύς; 
 Eroumos παξέχειν. δουλεύειν ὁ δεσπότης καὶ ὑπηξετεῖν; τὴν δουλείαν γινώσ- 
 xove τὸν μὲν γὰς ἀνϑέωπον ἀγθρωπίνως τυμητέον, φοβη- 
 
412 CHAPTER XIII. v. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 φέον δὲ μόνον τὸν Θέον." πᾶσι is not to be referred to all sorts of 
 magistracies, as Melancthon, Grotius and others will have it, but to 
 all sorts of men. ᾿Ὀφειλή, debt, figuratively, duty. To τὸν Φόρον, 
 per attract. in place of ᾧ τὸν qdgov ὀφείλετε, τούτῳ τὸν Φόρον᾽ according 
 to Winer, τῷ τὸν φόξφον αἰτοῦντι. Τέλος properly denotes the tax 
 charged upon goods, φόξος and χκῆνσος (Matt. xvii. 25.) that upon per- 
 sons and property. ‘I'he words are often, however, interchanged. 
 Φόρος and τιμή are both due to those who are set over us, zuuq to 
 those who are not. ᾿ 
 
 V. 8. Even the concluding words of the previous verse, had no 
 longer any very special reference to magistrates, and now St. Paul 
 passes over to a subject which is altogether general. He means to 
 show that true and vital charity is the best instructress in all our du- 
 ties. He connects this thought ingeniously with the preceding con- 
 text, by the admonition not to leave any duty altogether unfulfilled, 
 except that of love, which in its whole extent we never can fulfil. 
 On these words, Augustine (Ep. 62. ad Coelest,) admirably says: 
 Semper debeo caritatem que sola etiam reddita semper detinet debi- 
 torem. Redditur enim cum impenditur, debetur autem etiam si red- 
 dita fuerit, quia nullum erat tempus quando impendenda jam non, sit, 
 nec cum redditur amittitur, sed potius reddendo multiplicatur. 
 Habendo enim redditur non carendo. Et cum reddi non possit nisi 
 habeatur, nec haberi possit nisi reddatur, imo jam cum redditur ab 
 homine, crescit in homine, et tanto major acquiritur quanto pluribus 
 redditur. 
 
 ὃ yae ἀγαπὼν κτλ. All transgression proceeds from self-love, which 
 consists in opposition to the love of God, for his own sake, and of 
 our neighbour for God’s. Love is the emptying of self, and the 
 taking another in; consequently it is the total annihilation of selfish- 
 ness, and, therefore, also the fulfilment of all the commandments 
 Gal. v.14. Mat. xxii. 39,40. 1Tim.1.5. Jas. i. 8. 
 
 V. 9. ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν and συγχεφαλαιοῦν mean, ““ ἴο add several num- 
 bers together,”’ and hence, ‘‘ to comprehend several things in one.” 
 
 V. 10. As πληξοῦν in the New Testament, signifies to fulfil a 
 command, so does x27eaua also signify, accomplishment, the perfect 
 observance. Of the same kind are the predicates which love re- 
 ceives, 1 Tim. i. 5, and Jas. ii. 8. R. Akibha in like manner styled 
 the commandment, Lev. xix. 8. 9737 779, the great summary. 
 Chrysostom: Thus then shall we love one another, and thus, him 
 who has most loved us, that is God. Among men, love is full of 
 jealousy, and demands a return of love to itself alone. God’s 
 
 * Why is it, that because I do not please to live according to the precepts 
 of certain men, I am hated as a most impure person? +Does the king com- 
 mand me to pay tribute? I am ready to supply it. Does my master require 
 me to serve and obey him? I submit andserve him. For man is to be 
 honoured as man, but God alone is to be feared. 
 
CHAPTER Xill. v. 10,11, 12. 413 
 
 language, however, is: Let me strive with thee which shall love men 
 the most. ‘The greater thy love for them, the more dost thou thereby 
 love me.” 
 
 V.11. The Apostle adds a weighty reason for Christians showing 
 zeal in love. Every day brings the present temporal economy 
 nearer to its close, at which Christ shall appear, and, therefore, the 
 Christian ought to become proportionally more serious in his walk. 
 
 xa’ φοῦτο, is well expounded by Theodoret: χαὺ μάλιστα, as in the 
 Latin, idque. ‘There is an entirely corresponding passage in Heb. 
 x. 25, where, in the same way an admonition is urged by the motive 
 of the speedy appearing of Christ: χαὺ τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον, ὅσῳ βλέπετε 
 ἐγγίζουσαν τὴν ἡμέξαν. 
 
 εἰδέναι, Means here, fo reflect, ponder, as at Acts xxiii. 5. 
 
 dea is tantamount to χαιφός. 
 
 Sleep, the state of total torpor, and darkness of the understanding, 
 is often used by the Apostle, (1 Thess. v. 6. 1 Cor. xv. 84. Eph.v. 
 14), as image of the life without Christ. This protracted night, 
 which brooded over the globe, became dawn at Christ’s appearing 
 on the earth, and will be clearly day-light when he appears again.’ 
 (In other passages, where merely the walk of Christ’s church ts 
 contrasted with that of the world, it is directly said that the disciples 
 of Christ have come from darkness into the light, Eph. v. 8, 11. 
 1 Pet. ii. 9. John iii. 20,21.) We might compare the phrase taken 
 from the Rabbins, ‘the ruddy dawn of the Messias,”’ which they 
 apply to the period of his appearing, mw bw 1703, Jalkut Schimeoni, 
 Th. ii. f. 26. Schittgen, Hore ii. 667. From the day when the 
 faithful first assembled around their Messias, until the date of this 
 Epistle, a series of years had elapsed; the full day-break, as Paul 
 deemed, was already close at hand. We find here corroborated, what 
 is also evident from several other passages, (Phil. iv. 5. 1 Thess. v. 
 6. Heb. x. 25,37. Rev. xxii. 12), that the Apostles expected the 
 speedy advent of the Lord.. The reason of this lay, partly in the 
 general law, that man is fond to imagine the object of his hope at 
 hand, partly in the circumstance, that the Saviour had often delivered 
 the admonition, to be every moment prepared for the crisis in ques- 
 tion, (Matt. xxiv. 42; xxv. 13. Luke xxi. 34—36), and had also, 
 according to the usus loquendi of the prophets, who speak of the 
 judgments and blessings of God as hastening on, (Is. xlvi. 18; li. 5; 
 Ix. 22. Rev. i. 1; xxii. 6, 7, 12, 20), described the period as fast 
 approaching, Matt. xxiv. 29. , 
 
 V.12, ἡμέρα does not-here stand for ἡμέρα τοῦ Κυρίου, but is used 
 figuratively. ‘The meaning is: The shades of sin and of misery, 
 which encompass us anterior to Christ’s appearing, will soon cease. 
 Already the day begins, as it were, to break, and to chase them 
 away. We ought, therefore, to wear the kind of armour which is 
 suitable to the light of day. At the time when Christ our Lord ap- 
 pears, all will be holiness and love; it becomes us then, even now, 
 to take up such arms. 
 
* ‘ 
 
 414 CHAPTER Xill. v. 13, 14. 
 
 V.13. In the day time one is ashamed to practise wantonness and 
 open sin, (Erasmus: Nox pudore vacat.) ‘The majority of exposi- 
 tors, accordingly, Theodoret, Pelagius and others, give as Paul’s 
 meaning: ‘‘ Let us not yield ourselves any more to sin, as formerly, 
 under the protection of night, we deemed that we might do; but let 
 us abstain from open sins, as if we lived only in the clear day light.” 
 This meaning, however, is very feeble. We do better to take ἡμέρα 
 figuratively, as designating the moral kingdom of light. Evidences of 
 the licentious manners of the heathen here adverted to by Paul, are to 
 be found in Meiners, Ueber den verfall der Sitten der Rimer. Con- 
 trast the noble pictures of Christian temperance in earthly enjoyment, 
 hallowed wherever it takes place, by elevating the soul to things 
 heavenly, through spiritual converse and hymns, See Tertullian, 
 Apolog. 6. 39; compare Minutius Felix, Octav. c. 12. § 5, 6. As 
 the natural man only sees what, among his pleasures, Christians 
 want, but does not know the new enjoyments they secretly taste, 
 when the heathen, Ceecilius here paints their abstinence, to his eyes 
 so mournful, and pities them for their joyless life, he adds: Ita nee 
 resurgitis miseri, nec interim vivitis. 
 
 V.14. Notwithstanding that ἐνδύεσθαί τινα directly signifies, even 
 in Greek, to imitate any one, it is more probable that Paul here uses 
 it after the Hebrew, where w39, in a figurative sense, means fo be 
 wholly filled with any thing. Paul, accordingly, exhorts to a close 
 communion of soul with Christ. ‘The same expression is to be 
 found, Gal. iil. 27. Sae§ is here like σῶμα. So does Josephus, 
 Archeol. 1. xvill. c. 18, § 8, say: τξέπεσθαυ ἐπὶ τὴν συνήθη τοῦ σώματος 
 MEOVOLAVs 
 
CHAPTER FOURTEENTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Admonitions addressed to the Gentile converts not to behave haughtily, but 
 with affectionate forbearance towards those of Jewish extraction, who 
 entertained scruples about many things which to them were innocent. 
 Every one ought to seek to be firmly established in his convictions. 
 
 V..1. In the explanation of this chapter, there arises first, the ques- 
 tion, What description of persons were the weak believers of whom 
 the Apostle speaks through the whole of it? ‘The common opinion, 
 which also first suggests itself to the mind, is, that they were Jewish 
 converts, who had brought along with them from Judaism into Chris- 
 tianity an anxious tenderness of conscience. Moreover, according 
 to Clemens Alexandrinus and Augustine, this timid scrupulosity 
 applied merely to the use of the flesh that was left over from the 
 Heathen sacrifices. On the other hand, Chrysostom, Origen, 'Theo- 
 doret and Jerome, suppose it comprehended all the kinds of food 
 forbidden in the law. ‘The most correct way is not to separate be- 
 twixt these two, inasmuch as a conscientious Jewish Christian, who 
 was scrupulous in the one point, was likely to be so likewise in the 
 other. From ver. 5, we see that this party also held certain days as 
 sacred, which were so esteemed by the Jew. A similar controversy, 
 and with similar arms, is maintained by the Apostle, 1 Cor. viii. It 
 is, however, another supposition as. to the weak believers here de- 
 scribed, that they were Jewish converts of an ascetical turn of mind, 
 who, in a special endeavour after purity, had, even under Judaism, 
 given up eating all kinds of flesh whatsoever. ‘This explanation is 
 found so early as the days of Pelagius, among some whom Erasmus 
 confutes; and, among moderns, it has been defended by Koppe and 
 Hichhorn, (Einleit. ins. N. T. Bd. iii. 5. 222.) There can be no 
 doubt, certainly, that, at the time of Christ, there were many seriously 
 disposed persons among the Greeks and Romans, as well as Jews, 
 who laboured to attain a special degree of purity, and abstained from 
 the use of flesh in general. Among the Heathen, such ascetical 
 views were propagated by the new Pythagorean school, which 
 flourished in those days; while, among the Jews, not only had the 
 Essenes bound themselves to abstain from flesh, but this had been 
 done by other Jews following the same rigid maxims. Josephus, 
 for instance, (in Vita sua, c. 3,) mentions certain pious priests who 
 
416. CHAPTER Χιν.ν. ]. 
 
 fed solely on figs and dates. In like manner, Banus the pious ascetic, 
 once the master of Josephus, ate no food but what was supplied by the ᾿ 
 vegetable kingdom, in Vita Jos. 6. 2. In fact, even among Chris- 
 tians, as early as the first age, we find notice taken of pious ascetics 
 of the kind. Origen, c. Cels. 1. v. ὁ, 49, speaks of some living in 
 his time. In the Canones Apost., Canon L., a distinction is drawn 
 betwixt the clergy who, from ascetical considerations, shunned the 
 use of flesh and wine, and those who esteemed the use of them as 
 actually sinful, and the latter are condemned. ‘There is likewise 
 mention made of a rigid Christian ascetic, in Marcus Aurelius’ time, 
 among the martyrs. (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 1, v. 6. 8.) He was, 
 however, prevailed upon by other Christians to taste with thankfulness 
 the gifts vouchsafed by God. Clemens Alexr. Pedag. |. ii. p. 148, 
 ed. Sylb., relates, that the Apostle Matthew belonged to the class of 
 ascetics. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, however, it is not likely that St. Paul’s 
 polemics are here directed against such a party. The party of whom 
 he speaks are characterized as weak in the faith, so that the others 
 looked proudly down upon them. But this was not the case with 
 these ascetics. Not only were they,.so far from being despised, 
 regarded by Greeks and Jews with wonder and astonishment, as 
 men of a superior order, but, among Christians, they were likewise 
 looked upon as persons who gave themselves more than usual con- 
 cern to practise a faithful imitation of Christ. On the other hand, it 
 never occurred to those ascetics to condemn others for not choosing 
 so rigid a mode of life as theirs; they rather believed that but few 
 were called to it. In fine, were he here speaking of ascetics, never, 
 certainly, would Paul address the opposite party with admonitions 
 to forbearance and gentleness. He would, on the contrary, attack 
 the ascetics themselves, and severely blame them for condemning 
 others, or upbraid them generally with assigning a particular worth 
 to their mode of life: Just as, in the Epistle to the Colossians, ii. 21 
 —23, he speaks with stern decision against haughty self-righteous 
 ascetical practices. If Paul had had imaginary ascetics before his 
 eyes, he would certainly have attacked the source of their disposi- 
 tions, and not enlarged upon their outward circumstances. 
 
 ἀσθενὴς τῇ more. ‘The like expression is found, 1 Cor. viii. 11, 
 —12. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 22, on the same subject. The Gentile 
 could have no scruples at St. Paul’s doctrine, to wit, that we are to 
 enjoy all that God has made with gratitude to the giver. In the case 
 of the Jew, however, a longer experience in the Christian faith was 
 required, in order gradually to become established in the conviction, 
 that he had now nothing more to do with the law. If, then, a choice. 
 is to be made betwixt two evils, it is better, through misjudging faith- 
 fulness, to admit a scruple, than, with daring levity, to overleap every 
 restraint. Hence it is that St. Paul treats these weak brethren with 
 so much affection and tenderness. 
 
 προσλαμβάνεσθαν means here to admit into intercourse, which is, 
 
CHAPTER XIv. v. 1, 2, 3. 417 
 
 however, ex adjuncto, equivalent to, to treat kindly, take a concern 
 in any one. Compare chapter xv. 7. We have the same verb used 
 in the same way by the LXX. Ps. lxv. 4; Ixxiii. 24. 1 Sam. xii. 2. 
 In the latter Greek, also, πφοσλαμβάνειν appears to have signitied 
 directly, to treat with indulgence or kindness. In Lucian, De non 
 eredendo calumn. ὁ. 17, Ρ. 147, ed. Reiz. T. iii. We find the pass- 
 age: ὑπολαμβάνοντες οἱ χόλαχες τὴν μειρακιώδη τοῦ ᾿Αλεξάνδξου ἐπιθυ- 
 μίαν. Here ὑπολαμβάνοντες clearly means fo be indulgent, to flatter. 
 Now the Scholiast expounds it by πεοσλαμβάνειν. Krebs will have 
 it taken as tantamount to ἀναλαμβάνω, and this, in the sense, fo im- 
 prove, alter the tone, in which case we would have to compare Gal. 
 vi. 1. ‘That sense of ἀναλαμβάνω is, however, linked to the preposi- 
 tion ἀνά; which imparts to several verbs the signification of improve- 
 ment. (See Wyttenbach Comm. in Plut. T. vi. P. I. p. 76.) Cer- 
 tainly not in the spirit of the love either of Jesus or Paul, does Calov 
 on this passage, combat the Lutherans, who adduced it as a proof 
 that none of their party ought to accuse a Calvinist of heresy. Calov 
 entertains the opposite opinion, viz. that he ought not even to salute 
 him, according to 2 John v. 10. 
 
 μὴ εἰς διαχείσεις διαλογισμῶν may be explained in a threefold way. 
 Avaxeive means fo judge, according to which the expression might 
 mean, ‘not to judging of the thoughts;”’ so that the Apostle would 
 prohibit judging. So Chrysostom, Augustine, Grotius and others. 
 In the Hellenistic, however, the middle Scaxevveodae περί revos signifies 
 to dispute about any thing, which would make the sense: ‘So as 
 to contend about (immaterial) opinions.” Or διακχεξίνεσθανυ may sig- 
 nify to be doubtful, and then διάκεισις would mean the scruple. 
 Under seruple, however, might be implied, that of the weak in faith, 
 who is disquieted in his conscience, or that of the strong in faith, as 
 to whether he ought to acknowledge the other for a brother. In this 
 latter way it is taken by the Syrian, Chr. Schmid and Koppe; in 
 the former by Luther, Cocceius, Bengel and many others. Indispu- 
 tably, it agrees best with the connection to translate: ‘* In order that 
 the other may not be doubtful in his own convictions, without, how- 
 ever, possessing sufficient power of faith to follow yours.” In this 
 case, ver. 23, is illustrative. Acaroyecuo’ must be taken in its general 
 sense of thoughts. We have farther to remark, that Paul expresses 
 himself concisely. The εἰς denotes the consequence, ‘that there 
 may not thence arise.” Compare 6, 2. 6. vi. 19. 
 
 V. 2. This verse is particularly urged in support of their opinion, 
 by those who think that ascetics are here meant. It is likewise easy, 
 however, to apply the words to the social feasts of Christians, at 
 which the Jewish converts preferred abstaining altogether from meats 
 of flesh, being afraid of eating what was unclean. 
 
 V. 3. xeway is again equivalent to xavaxevveew. By the fact that 
 the person of weak faith has received forgiveness of his sins, and 
 therewith peace with God, God has acknowledged him as his own, 
 
 53 
 
418 CHAPTER XIv. v. 4, 5, 6. 
 
 and vouchsafed him mercy. How then should man wish to ito 
 greater severity than God? 
 
 V. 4. Στήχω and πίπτω ‘to keep one’s ground, 1]. 11. 348, aha to 
 fall,”’ used figuratively with reference to faith. ‘This also implies, 
 ‘to be acquitted, declared righteous before the court, and to be con- 
 demned.’”” We may compare the images frequently occurring in 
 the Psalms, of standing and falling, and being upheld by God. Ps. 
 xl. 3; ἵν]. 14; exvi. 8; xxxi.9. ‘The dative is the dative of judging. 
 Winer 3te Aufl. s. 175. 
 
 δυνατὸς yae κτλ. God can impart to him ability, and as supreme 
 Judge, declare, that he may enter the kingdom of Christ, even 
 though he should possess that weak faith, and men pronounce him 
 on account of it, rejected. Chrysostom: Οὐ yde ἐπεὶ ἄξια τοῦ μὴ xedveo~ 
 θαυ mover, διὰ τοῦτο κελεύω μὴ KELVAL, ἀλλ᾽ ἑπεὶ ἀλλότειός ἔστιν οὐχέτης: τοῦτ᾽ 
 ἔστιν οὐ σὸς GAAG τοῦ Θεοῦ" εἶταυ παξαμυθούμενος αὐτὸν πάλιν, οὐκ εἶπέεν, OTE 
 πίπτει; ἀλλὰ τί; στήκχει ἢ πίπτει. ἂν δὲ τοῦτο ἂν δὲ ἐκεῖνο ἢ. τῷ δεσπότῃ 
 διαφέξευ ταῦτοα....««φαῦτα δὲ; εἰ μὴ τὸν σκοπόν πάλιν Tov ἸΤαύλου κατίδωμεν; 
 βουλομένου μὴ MEd καιφοὺ τοῦ πδοσήκοντος ἐπυφιμᾶσθαν αὐτοὺς» opodea ἂν- 
 ἄξια τῶν Χεριστιανὼν τῆς κηδεμονίας ἐστίν. ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ ἀεὶ Aéyws τὴν 
 γνώμην ἐξετάζειν δεῖ μεθ᾽ ἧς λέγει. ἢ 
 
 V. 5. Here it is clearly seen that Paul is speaking of scrupulous 
 Judaists unable to renounce the Sabbath, the new moon and other 
 Jewish holidays, (Col. ii. 16. Gal. iv. 10.) In a way altogether 
 forced, Koppe explains: ‘Some believed that it was their duty to 
 abstain only on certain days from eating flesh.”” Now, to refer this 
 declaration to ascetics, we would require to suppose that the days 
 were determined horoscopically. As is commonly the case, xaed in 
 a comparison denotes the preference. Κρίνειν might here both times 
 be taken in the sense fo select, 2 Mac. xiii. 15. Joseph. Archeol. 
 1. XI. ὁ. 3,§ 10. πληξόφοξεῦν in profane authors also signifies to fill 
 up, thoroughly convince. 
 
 V. 6. Φεονεῦν, which properly means to take a thing into con- 
 sideration, has here the signification of παξατηρεῖν, which is what 
 stands in the parallel passage, Gal. iv. 10. 
 
 evyaevorecy May, in the narrower sense, relate to the grace at meat, 
 which was common among the Jews, and hence also among the early 
 Christians, (1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. Justin Mar. Apol. Tertullian, Apolo- 
 geticus), or generally in the wider, to the thankful disposition of the 
 person eating. ‘The meaning of the passage is, that the external act 
 is neither good nor bad; all depends upon the disposition. 
 
 ἘΠῚ do not command you to abstain from judging, on the ground, that he 
 does things which ought not to be judged, but because he is another’s servant, 
 z. 6. not thine, but God’s. Then encouraging him again, he does not say he 
 falleth, but what? he standeth or falleth. “But as to whether the one or the 
 other happen, that concerns the Lord. Now these things, unless we again 
 overlook the scope of Paul, who wishes them not to be teproved before the 
 proper time, are altogether unworthy the regard of Christians. But as I 
 always say, itis necessary to examine the view with which he speaks. 
 
CHAPTER XIv, v. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 419 
 
 V. 7. The Christian lives no longer according to his own good 
 pleasure; he has become a servant of Christ, (Rom. vi. 18.) Hence 
 whatsoever he undertakes he weighs in his Master’s sight, and if in 
 doing so he experience no reproach of conscience, he is in circum- 
 stances to act without temptation. 
 | Ζῇν τινί means likewise among the Greeks, fo live with a constant 
 reference or regard to any one. See c. vi. 10. Even his death, 
 the most important event that can befall him, is viewed by the Chris- 
 tian not merely in its bearing upon himself, but likewise upon his 
 Master. Of this Paul gives us a fine example, Phil. i. 23, 25. 
 
 V. 8. A great, and to the natural man a strange thought! In his 
 whole being, the subject of redemption makes the Saviour the centre 
 of all his movements, the mark to which his will points. 
 
 sivas τινός “10 depend upon or appertain to any one, inasmuch as 
 our whole being has a bearing upon him.”? Compare 2 Tim. ii. 19. 
 
 V. 9. According to the evidence, both external and internal, ἀνέστη 
 is to be considered a gloss upon the unusual term ἔζησεν as may be 
 inferred from the third reading ἀνέζησεν which also illustrates ἔζησε. 
 The xav before ἀπέθανε is, on similar grounds, to be held spurious, 
 and as originating solely in consequence of the gloss ἀνέστη. Ζῇν 
 might certainly signify fo rise again, as in Hebrew, simples often 
 stand where we should put compounds. It would better accord with 
 Paul’s doctrinal system, however, were we here to understand ζῇν, in 
 the emphatic sense, of the Saviour’s state of exaltation. ‘Christ, in his 
 humiliation, died on that account, and has onee for all attained to the 
 life of glory and exaltation.” Compare Rom. vi. 10. Since the 
 completion of the work of redemption, Christ is the lord of all who 
 are admitted into the divine kingdom, and this not only during their 
 pilgrimage tpon earth, but even beyond the grave, (τῶν vexeay). 
 
 V. 10. The first σύ refers to the weak in faith, the second, to the 
 Gentile converts. If Christ be indeed our master, it is not for us to 
 exclude from the kingdom of God, brethren who only deviate in 
 non-essentials, before he has sat in judgment. 
 
 V. 11, 12. To corroborate the general truth, that God will judge 
 every man, Paul founds it upon a quotation from the old Testament, 
 Is. xlv. 23. 
 
 V. 13. He urges still farther his demands upon the strong in faith. 
 Hitherto he had only wished to persuade the two parties not mutually 
 to condemn each other. Now, however, he asks of the strong in 
 faith, that for their weaker brethren’s sake, they should not do a 
 thing which might be in itself indifferent, even though they felt free 
 in their own minds to do it. For instance, when they observed that 
 their eating the flesh of sacrifices, or any thing soever which seemed 
 to have been prohibited, gave their brethren pain or offence, they 
 were rather to deny themselves such an adiaphoron. ‘The disposition 
 which Paul evinces in these exhortations, proves what a mighty in- 
 fluence the Christian faith had had in making him indulgent and: 
 humble, for if we reflect upon his natural character, we can well 
 
420 CHAPTER XIv. v. 13, 14, 15, 16. 
 
 suppose, that he would have been more disposed to. kindle into anger 
 at the weak and scrupulous, and to treat them with severity. But 
 the spirit of Christ had taught him to be weak with the weak, so 
 that, 1 Cor. viii. 13, he says, ‘‘ Wherefore if meat make my brother 
 to offend, I will eat no meat while the world standeth, lest I make 
 my brother to offend.’ And in the Christian church, which is never 
 but composed of those who bear, and of those who are borne, this is 
 the only way in which the bond of perfectness and of peace can sub- 
 sist, to wit, when the child aspires to manhood, and the man becomes 
 achild. Such mutual subordination and forbearance is a salutary 
 medicine for pride. 
 
 Κείνατε. An antanaclasis. Keiyew means here, to propose to 
 one’s self or resolve. So Acts xvi. 15; xx. 16. 1 Cor. vii. 37, and 
 frequently. 
 
 V. 14. πέπεισμαυ ἐν xveva. The Christian is susceptible of a higher 
 degree of conviction than the natural man. In the light of a superior 
 illumination, truths may become certain to him, as soon as he per- 
 ceives them in the consciousness of his fellowship with Christ. 
 
 xowos the impure, Acts x. 14, 28; xi. 18, in antithesis to Gy.os, 
 what is set apart. 
 
 V. 15. Λυπεῖν τινά to distress any one. ᾿Απόλλυε. There isa 
 double exposition of this word. 1. ’Amoaavecr, like the Latin per- 
 dere, for cruciari. In Aristophanes for instance, we find ἀπολοῦμαι 
 so used, Nub. v. 790. ἀπολῶ, Plutus, v. 65, 68, also ἀπολεῖς με. So 
 Elsner. 2. ᾿Απολλύευν may be taken ἀφοσμητυκῶς, and this also ina 
 twofold manner. Paul may mean to say: When thou repellest thy 
 brother by thy harsh blame, he becomes perplexed about Christianity 
 altogether, and cleaving, as he does, so strongly to the observance of 
 the law, relapses again into Judaism. So do Theophylact, Gicume- 
 nius, Grotius, Taylor and others understand the passage. Paul may 
 likewise, however, mean to say:. Seduce him not into eating contrary 
 to his conscience, thereby incurring the sentence of God, inasmuch 
 as whatsoever is done contrary to conscience is sin. So Origen, 
 Theodoret, Bengel, Limborch and many others. This latter view is 
 confirmed, 1 Cor. viii. 11, and Rom. xiv. 20. The die οὗ, κτλ. is 
 added by Paul, for the purpose of showing how little this would be 
 imitating Christ; he having died for. that very soul, for whose sake 
 it is refused to remove a little scandal out of the way. 
 
 V. 16. ᾿Αγαθόν is by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrose, Eras- 
 mus and others, explained generally of the Christian religion, which 
 is slandered, when men fall into disputes about such trifles. Origen, 
 Pelagius, Theodoret, Bengel and Clarius take it more correctly in 
 the narrower sense, and expound it of that spiritual freedom enjoyed 
 by the strong in faith, which was a great blessing, but of which they 
 might be deprived, or which might at least be slandered, unless they 
 manifested love and prudence in the use of it. This meaning ad- 
 mirably suits the connection, and at 1 Cor. x. 29, 30, Paul expresses 
 himself to the same effect. 
 
 "9 
 
CHAPTER XIv. Vv. 17, 18,19, 20. 421 
 
 V. 17. Βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ Stands here subjectively, and denotes the 
 life of man therein. To the same effect is 1 Cor. iv. 20. In oppo- 
 sition to the Judaizers, Paul maintains that prescribed external ob- 
 servances do not procure an entrance into the kingdom of heaven, nor 
 make out our belonging to, or connection with it. In opposition 
 again to the haughty Gentile converts, he maintains that in joining 
 in the.observance of certain outward customs indifferent in them- 
 selves, they did not thereby break their connection with Christ and 
 believers. His doctrine, accordingly is, that outward forms and 
 observances avail neither to estrange man from Christianity, nor yet 
 to approximate to it. Where the Spirit reigns, there does freedom 
 dwell. But where does the Spirit reign, and where alone can a 
 claim te such freedom be advanced? It reigns wherever the follow- 
 ing qualities are to be found, the δικαιοσύνην the, εἰρήνη and the yaed, 
 by which it is manifested whether a man inwardly and truly belongs 
 to the kingdom of Christ. Supposing a man not to belong to it in 
 this way, the divine freedom spoken of does not exist for him. ‘The 
 ἐν πνεύματι may be referred to the yagd, or to all the three qualities. 
 In the first case, it serves specially to distinguish the mild inward 
 cheerfulness of the Christian from the impure jollity of the natural 
 man. Acxacoovry, holiness. Where these qualities exist within the 
 _ breast, no more regard is paid to outward forms. 
 
 VY. 18. As man, in virtue of his natural affinity to God, perceives 
 that the moral condition produced by Christianity is the aim towards 
 which the development of the species tends, he cannot avoid acknow- 
 ledging these fruits of Christian faith. 
 
 V.19. Εἰξήνη is here to be understood of the amicable and harmo- 
 nious behaviour which had been previously speken of. The word 
 οἰχοδομή is to be explained, from that image so common to the 
 Apostles, according to which they compare a spiritual walk to a 
 building which gradually improves in firmness. It is accordingly 
 equivalent to τὸ ovupégov, as the Greek expositors explain it. One 
 Christian ought to seek to promote the spiritual growth of another. 
 
 V. 20. Καταλύειν used in reference to the oixodouz, means fo pull 
 down, destroy. "Eeyov Θεοῦ denotes the working of God in the hearts 
 of men. Just as in other passages, 1 Cor. ix. 1, Paul styles the be- 
 lieving Corinthians Zeyoy μου ἐν Κυρίῳ. ‘The spiritually-minded Chris- 
 tian is hence also called, in virtue of the power of God which has 
 operated upon him, οἰκοδομὴ Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. ri. 9. This work of God 
 is hindered by the strong in faith, when he unsettles the conscience. 
 Chrysostom: τὸ ἔξγον τοὺ Θεοῦ. τὴν σωτηξίαν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ οὕτω καλῶν, 
 καὺ ἐπυφθείνων τὸν Φόβον, xai δεικνὺς Ore τοὐναντίον τοῦ <eyov τὸν Θεοῦ; ov 
 σπουδάζει, ποιεῖ. οὐ γὰφ μόνον οὐκ οἰχοδομεῖς» φησιν; ὃ νομίζεις, ἀλλὰ 
 καὶ χαταλύευς, καὶ οὐκοδομὴν οὖκ ἀνθεωπίνην, ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ, χαὺ οὐδὲ μεγᾷ- 
 λου τινὸς ἕνεχεν, ἀλλὰ πράγματος εὐτελοῦς. Upon the dca before πεοσ- 
 χόμματος, 566 6. li. 27. 
 
 * Calling by this name the salvation of a brother, and augmenting fear, by 
 showing that he does the contrary of the work of God at which he aims. For 
 
422 CHAPTER XIv. V. 21, 22, 23, 24. 
 
 V.21. Compare 1 Cor. viii. Codd. A. C. 67, the Syriac, Arabie, 
 and Koptie Versions, Origen and Augustine omit σχανδαλίζεταν ἢ 
 ἀσθενεῖ. And, in point of fact, it stands here so idly as to appear 
 nothing but a double gloss upon xeocxonres. εὐ 
 
 V.22. Σὺ πίστιν κτλ. Chrysostom: Θέλευς μου Seca Ore τέλειος εἶν 
 μὴ ἐμοὶ δείκνυε, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφχεύτω τὸ ovverdos.* Pelagius: Sic manduca ut 
 nemo tuo infirmetur exemplo. Μακχάξιος xra. Chrysostom: πάλιν 
 τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα πλήττειν καὶ δείκνυσι τούτῳ ἀξκοῦντα στέφανον; τὸν τοῦ 
 συνειδότος.ἷ ; 
 
 V.23. This passage must be expounded in connection with the 
 preceding context. Only in proportion to the measure of our know- 
 ledge respecting any thing to be left undone, are we chargeable with 
 guilt. He who is not convinced that this or that action or omission 
 is sin, may safely dg, or leave it undone. It must not, however, be 
 overlooked, that it may be guilt on a man’s part, when he is deficient 
 in knowledge. 
 
 V.24. The last three verses of chapter xvi. belong to this place. 
 They occupy it in the Codex Alexr., and 106 Codd. Minuse., in the 
 majority of the Greek Fathers, the Syriac and Arabic. ‘They stand 
 at the end of the letter in the Cod. Vat., 3 Uncial Codd., some Codd. 
 Minusce., and in the Latin Fathers. Doubtless, they intimate the 
 close of the Epistle; and, doubtless, the beginning of chapter xv. 
 seems to connect itself immediately with the end of chapter xiv. Sup- 
 posing, however, the verses to have originally stood at the end of 
 the Epistle, it is impossible to conceive how they should have been 
 transferred to the end of the 14th chapter. There is hence more 
 likelihood in the supposition, that St. Paul intended here to terminate 
 the letter, but that he afterwards felt himself urged to resume a sub- 
 ject which lay so near his heart, and so appended the 15th chapter. 
 
 The dat. τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ has no verb. ‘There is here an ἀνακόλου- 
 gov, inasmuch as St. Paul had in view a doxology to the Father, but 
 gives it, 6. xvi. ver. 27, to the Son. We have, accordingly, to sup- 
 ply, δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. 
 
 Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον μου κτλ. Κατά here denotes the occasion, so 
 that it is equivalent to through, just like the χατὰ Θεόν, (see on Viil. 
 27.) ‘by divine dispensation”’ of the Classics, among whom, it pro- 
 perly signifies ‘in consequence of,’’ and intimates the way and 
 manner, at the same time hkewise expressing the effect. Others, 
 ‘*as my message confirms,”’ or ‘‘ faith upon the gospel.” ᾿Ιησοῦ is 
 best taken as gen. objecti, “ through the gospel of the Mediator, and 
 my message concerning it, ye may be strengthened.” 
 
 xara ἀποχάχυψιν may be co-ordinated with the preceding χαρά. 
 
 not only do you not build up the work of God, which is what you intend to 
 do, but you destroy, and that a building not of man, but of God, and not for the 
 sake of something great, but of a contemptible matter. 
 
 * Do you wish to show me that you are perfect? Do not show it to me, 
 but let the consciousness of it suffice you. 
 
 + Again he strikes at the weak disciple, and shows that this crown is 
 enough for him, viz. that of conscience. 
 
 ‘@ 
 
CHAPTER XIv. v. 24, 25, 26, 27. 423 
 
 But it is more suitably subordinated by the ancient expositors. ‘The 
 Apostle frequently reverts with pleasure to the thought that, even 
 prior to the commencement of this earthly economy, God had pro- 
 jected the plan of the redemption, with a reference to which all was 
 accordingly arranged. He represents this plan, however, as one 
 that had been kept secret—only the prophets, perchance, knowing 
 any thing of it—no human being, having, of himself, anticipated 
 such a method of obtaining for man redemption and glory. Col. i. 
 26; 11.2. Eph. vi. 19. 1 Pet. 1. 20. ἐ 
 
 V. 25, 26. The Apostle had certainly proposed to contrast the 
 pt of Christ’s appearing, which first made manifest the plan of 
 Salvation, absolutely with the earlier period. Remembering, how- 
 ever, the Old Testament prophecy, by which that plan had been 
 foreknown and declared, he appends with the τέ, in some Codd. im- 
 properly omitted, the testimony of the yeapai neopyrixoi. ‘The xar’ 
 ἐπυταγὴν is better referred to φανερωθέντος. ‘The predicate αἰώνιος has 
 certainly not been used here unintentionally. It intimates that, in 
 all his arrangements for mankind, God remains eternally the same, 
 eternally like himself. Eis πάντα τὰ ἔθνη γνωφισθέντος. The presenti- 
 ment and prediction of the mighty scheme of salvation was entrusted 
 to but one people—the realizing of it belongs to the whole race. 
 
 V.27. The thought that God had, from all eternity, arranged the 
 scheme, and the whole course of its fulfilment, was very naturally 
 ealeulated to lead the Apostle to the reflection, how little short-sighted 
 man is able to penetrate into its fitness; and in this way he comes to 
 give to God, as he here does, the predicate of the only-wise. 
 
CHAPTER FIFTEENTH. ~~ 
 
 ARGUMENT. 7 
 
 Reiterated exhortation to concord betwixt the believers of weak, and those 
 of strong faith. Paul speaks of his Apostolical office, of his pon 
 and the journey in which he proposes to visit the Romans. ᾿ 
 
 V.1. What the Apostle had said of the relation betwixt the strong 
 and the weak in faith, appeared to him still insufficient. Accordingly, 
 although he had terminated the Epistle, he appends an addition. 
 
 δυνατός Means, even among profane authors, one able or mighty, 
 and is, in every respect, equivalent to δείνος. We find it conjoined 
 with ἐν rey καὶ λόγῳ; Luke xxiv. 19. Acts vii. ver. 22. It here 
 amounts to 6 σφοδρὸς τὴν πίστιν. It is again used with respect to 
 faith, 2 Cor. xiii. 19. As the Homeric fight is composed of the van- 
 quished and the victorious, so is Christ’s church, of them who bear 
 and them who are borne. Paul’s own example, in the case before 
 us, may be learned from 1 Cor. ix. 22. 
 
 ἀρέσκειν φυνύ is “ probari alicui, to force approbation from any one.’ 
 Hence, ἀρέσκειν ἑαυτῷ means fo live so as to please oneself, to  llow 
 one’s own wishes. In ASschylus, Prom. Vinct. ver. 186, we read: 
 nae’ ἑαυτῷ δίκαιον ἔχων Ζεύς» on which the Scholiast observes: πάντα 
 δικαίως οἰόμενος ποιεῖν, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἀρέσχων χαὶ δίκαιον νομίζων εἴναζ 
 ὅπερ ἂν βούληται πράττειν. Compare 1 Cor. χ. 38. 1 Thess. ii. 4. 
 Gal. i. 10. ‘True love produces such self-denial, because it is only 
 in some other being that she lives. 
 
 V.2. But this living to please another ought constantly to aim 
 at the ἀγαθόν, which ἀγαθόν, however, consists in the οἰχοδομή, when, 
 by so bearing a brother’s burden, his spiritual condition is promoted. 
 See Paul’s example, 1 Cor. ix. 19; x.33. For there is a false deéo- 
 xeva towards men, on whose account this word is sometimes, in pro- 
 fane authors, equivalent to xorxaxeia. (‘Theoph., Charact. VI.) 
 
 V.3. The Saviour, who came, not to be ministered unto, but to 
 minister, is, in respect of this relation also, a model to believers. The. 
 Old ‘Testament passage is from Ps. Ixix. 9, on which compare the 
 observations made at ὁ. xi. 9. Christ undertook all he did in God’s 
 cause; and hence he lived not to please himself. 
 
 V.4. Paul means to show, that if the Old Testament does not 
 yield instruction bearing directly upon the conversation of the Chris- 
 
CHAPTER xv. v. 4—8. 425 
 
 tian, much of it may nevertheless be used for that end. In this way, 
 the passage which applies immediately to David, and in its higher 
 sense to Christ, may serve for direction to the Christian how to 
 walk so as to please God. The xeo is partic. temp. 
 
 If we connect διὰ τῆς ὑπόμονῆς with τῆς nagaxagoews, then the ὑπο- 
 μονὴ καὶ παξάχλησις τὼν γεαφὼν are the patience and quietness of 
 mind which are imparted by the reading of the Scriptures, without 
 its being needful to suppose, with Theodoret and many others, that 
 the ὑπομονή involves a direct allusion to the examples of steadfast- 
 ness recorded in the word. Other expositors, as for instance Eras- 
 mus and Ammon, wish to connect the διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς with ἐλπίδα 
 ἔχωμεν, and doubtless this construction has somewhat to recommend 
 it. ‘The ἐλπίς is here the confident cutlook to the glorious end of all 
 trouble. 
 
 V.5. God here receives a name from his operations, as at ver. 13, 
 33. 1Thess.v.23. The Apostle, in this manner, leads us back 
 again to his subject, from which the observation in ver. 4 had brought 
 him away. Κατὰ Χριστόν. CXicumenius: ᾿Επειδὴ to καὺ ἐπὺ κακῷ 
 ἀγάπη ἐπάγεν κατὰ Χειστόν."Σ ‘The κατά then denotes the object of 
 concord. But Theodoret expounds more correctly: Δυδάσχευ ὡς οὐκ 
 hogloras αὐτοὺς τὴν ὁμόνοιαν γενέσθαι προσεύχεται» ἀλλὰ τὴν εὐσεβή συμ- 
 guviar αἰτεῖ. ‘The spirit of Christ ought to be the animating princi- 
 ple of unity. 
 
 V.6. The noble consequence of that concord is, that the whole 
 church, like a fraternal choir, gives praise to God. 
 
 V.7. On πεοσλαμβάνεσθε; See our observations, c. xiv. 1. “Yuas, in 
 place of the more usual ἡμᾶς» is the reading in AC DE FG. δόξα 
 Θεοῦ is eternal blessedness, Heb. ii. 10. Rom. ν. 2. 1Pet.v.4. The 
 argument is the same as atc. xiv.3. Has Christ, without distinction, 
 been so gracious to us, then shall we, receiving all things as we do 
 through grace alone, make no scruple to show ourselves humble and . 
 condescending to our brethren? 
 
 V.8. Paul specifies in how gracious a manner Christ actually had 
 introduced Jews and Gentiles into the kingdom of God, the former, 
 inasmuch as the promises once vouchsafed to them were fulfilled, 
 and the latter, inasmuch as, although they themselves did not receive 
 the promises, they yet obtained a share in their fulfilment. ‘Thus, 
 both races have reason to regard their reception into the kingdom of 
 Christ as pure grace. Calvin: Ostendit qualiter nos omnes amplexus 
 sit Christus, ubi nihil discriminis reliquit inter Judzos et Gentes. 
 Utrosque ex misera dissipatione collegit, collectos in regnum patris 
 adduxit, ut fierent unus grex in uno ovili sub uno pastore. In 
 place of δέ, the best codices read γάρ, and, doubtless, γώς would 
 afford a more convenient connection. We must suspect, however, 
 
 * Since during and after evil, love leads to Christ. 
 { He shows that he does not ask them to have a vague agreement, but de- 
 mands a pious record. 
 
426 CHAPTER Xv. v. 9—I15. 
 
 that on that very_account, it has been used in the room of δέ, which 
 here forms a logical antithesis. ὃ 
 
 V.9. The infinitive δοξάσαν depends upon λέγω δέ. Ambrose: 
 Quia his nulla promissio erat, quasi indigni per solam misericor- 
 diam assumpti sunt. The structure of this clause is not sufficiently 
 parallel to the foregoing. Paul describes the pardoning of the Gen- 
 tiles in the words of the Old Testament, which declare the share they 
 were one day to have in Israel’s salvation. The first passage is from 
 Ps. xviii. 49. 
 
 V.10. The indefinite λέγευ is the Rabbinical formula of quotation. 
 The Rabbins supply wapn mn or adn. ‘The passage is from Deut. 
 ΧΧΧΊΙ. 43. 
 
 V.11. The passage is from Ps. exvii. 1. 
 
 V.12. The passage is fromIs. xi. 10. 
 
 V.13. The conclusion of what Paul has to say to the church re- 
 specting their own circumstances. The denomination of God, as 
 the God of hope, connects itself with the ἐλπιοῦσιν which has just 
 gone before. Where faith is to be found, and, along with faith, 
 spiritual joy and spiritual peace, there, too, must the hope of a future 
 salvation be lively; nor can this fail, inasmuch as the spirit of God 
 is the quickening element of believers. ‘Theophylact: Καὶ πεοξενεῦ 
 yae ἡμῖν τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ πνεύματος ἡ ἐλπὶς», καὺ πάλιν ὑπὸ Tov ἁγίον 
 σίνεύματος ἐν ἡμιν χραταιοτέξα γίνεται. 
 
 V.14. As Paul was neither the founder, nor appointed pastor of 
 the church at Rome, in the tenderness of his feelings he wishes to 
 remove even the shadow of suspicion that, in addressing them, 
 though being strangers to him, he had acted presumptuously. ‘The 
 αὐτὸς ἐγώ Stands opposed to an objection which might have been 
 made by the Romans, viz. that he did not believe they possessed the 
 qualities he required, which yet existed among them. ᾿Αγαθωσύνῃ 
 _may denote, more specifically, an affectionate brotherly disposition, 
 (Theophylact: τὸ φιλάδελφον.) as Eph. v. 9, or, in the larger sense, 
 the admirable disposition and frame of mind of the gospel, 2 Thess. i. 
 11. Chrysostom correctly explains γνῶσυς to mean the proper pru- 
 dence for behaving towards brethren. 
 
 V.15. The corunedzzeor is referred by Calvin, Bengel and others, 
 to the act of writing, which, as there was no close intimacy betwixt 
 the Romans and the Apostle, was bold. The majority of expositors, 
 however, refer it to the language, Paul having not only in ch. xiv., 
 but ix. xi., expressed himself very strongly. Erasmus translates it, 
 paulo familiarius. In this case, we might compare Plato’s Gorg. ed. 
 Heind. 134: εἴ τὸ xai dyeovxoregov εἰρῆσθαι. But as, in the sequel, 
 
 he refers solely to his vocation to preach among the Gentiles, the 
 former exposition is better adapted to the connection. Whatever 
 meaning we give to τολμηξότεξον, ἀπὸ wégovs must be a limitation of 
 
 * For hope procures for us the power of the Spirit, and is itself again 
 strengthened within us by the Holy Ghost. 
 
CHAPTER xv. v. 15—19. 427 
 
 it. Cicumenius: ἀπὸ μέρους ἀντὶ τοῦ τεόπον τινὰ, καὶ εἴ τις μὴ τὴν 
 διάνοιαν ὅλην βλέπευ; ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὰς τὰς λέξεις ἐκ μέρους πολυπραγμονεῖ γυμ- 
 νώσας τὰς διανοίας. In the ὡς ἐπαναμιμνήσκων, to be resolved into εἰς 
 τὸ ἐπαναμιμνήσκειν, lies the true purport of Paul’s letter. He did not 
 take upon himself to set up to instruct the ignorant, he but wished 
 to recall what is apt to escape from the memory. In forming the 
 resolution to attempt such a new awakening of the Romans, he was 
 moved by his vocation as Apostle of the Gentiles. Ccumenius: 
 Δεύκνυσι ὅτι οὐδὲ ἀναμνῆσαυ ἂν ἐτόλμησεν, εἰ μὴ τὼ ἔϑνη ἐπεπίστευτο. 
 
 V.16. Description of the exalted duties which the apostolical 
 office brings along with it. Paul makes use of an image common 
 among the early Christians, and which represented the whole church 
 of believers as an oblation made to God. In the same way, 6. xii. 
 1, he had exhorted the Christians to present themselves as a sacrifice 
 to God, and at Phil. ii. 17, calls the faith of the church the priestly 
 sacrifice. Led by this image, the Apostle also employs the an- 
 swerable expression λευτουξγός, Whose cognate forms in the LXX. 
 are all employed to denote sacerdotal functions. In the same man- 
 ner, too, does fsezeyscyv in Josephus, Philo and profane authors, 
 signify directly ‘* to sacrifice, do the work of a priest.”? . Here it 
 means, “to discharge in a sacerdotal way.’? Similar is the ex- 
 pression τὸν νόμον iegoveyecv, 4 Mac. vii. 8. While the Jewish 
 priests clean the altar, kindle the fire, slay the victim, and then pre- 
 sent it to God, the sole priestly office of the Apostle consists in pro- 
 claiming the Gospel, and the Gentiles are the oblation which follows. 
 ᾿Αγιάξω, like wap, is equivalent to προσφέρειν. ‘The ἐν πνεύματι 
 ἁγίῳ contrasts this offering as spiritual, with that which is external. 
 
 V. 17. The thought that, as Apostle of the Gentiles, and priest of 
 Christ, he had addressed the Roman church, now leads him to speak 
 of what God had enabled him to accomplish in this holy office. 
 Καύχησις, as at Rom. iii. 37, materia gloriandi. The ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 
 denotes that the Apostle only boasts under the consciousness of the 
 aids of Christ’s grace. Ta neds τὸν Θεόν, Supply here xara. The 
 glory consists in divine, and not terrestrial things. 
 
 V. 18. Calvin: Tantam mihi glorize materiam ipsa veritas suppe- 
 ditat, ut non sit mihi opus accersere falsa et aliena encomia, veris 
 sum contentus. Eis ὑπαχοὴν ἐδνῶν. Compare the obs. on 6. i. 5. 
 See further, 1 Pet. i. 2, 22. 
 
 V.19. Σημεῖα xa’ τέξατα, if combined, are as little different as 
 ona) mn. Philo too uses them as equivalent. Old interpreters, 
 however, make a distinction. Σημεῖον; they say, is ἃ phenomenon 
 
 * In part, in place of in some sort. Andalthough one may not perceive the 
 full meaning, still he may partly expiscate the sense of the words, by investi- 
 gating the train of thought. : 
 
 Τ He shows that he would not have presumed to stir up their memories, 
 had he not been set over the Gentiles. 
 
428 CHAPTER Xv. v. 19 —24. 
 
 of an unusual kind, but still conformable to nature, as when Christ 
 instantaneously cures Peter’s mother-in-law of a fever. On the other 
 hand, zéeas is a phenomenon not according to nature, such, for in- 
 stance, as the cure of the person born blind. ‘The ἐν δυνάμει πνεὺμα- 
 τος Θεοῦ, is, by Theodoret, Chrysostom, Erasmus and many others, 
 regarded as subordinate to the preceding ἐν δυνάμει" they suppose 
 that Paul means to specify the basis of his miraculous power. ‘To 
 that ἐν δυνάμευς it appears, however, more suitable to co-ordinate it, 
 as Beza, Justin, Grotius and others do. Not only was a superior 
 influence manifested in the outward miracles, but this was even more 
 the case, in the discoveries of spiritual power. Πληξόω τὸ εὐαγγέλιον» 
 to fulfil, 7. 6. fully preach, the gospel, Col. i. 25. See upon the ex- 
 pression, Fritzsche, Dissert. du, etc. p. 134. The χύκλῳ may well 
 refer to Paul’s residence in Arabia, of which he speaks at Gal. i. 17. 
 Of his preaching the gospel in Illyria, the Acts of the Apostles is 
 silent, as it also says nothing of his founding the church in Crete. 
 
 V. 20. It was, doubtless, one and the same doctrine which the 
 first teachers of Christianity all taught; they did so, however, in 
 various ways. Accordingly, when in any church, different teachers 
 modelled their labours according to different types, the weak disciple 
 might be led astray by the variety of the forms, and seduced to place 
 too much weight upon some one or other of them, which we find 
 was the case in the Corinthian church. 
 
 V. 21. The passage is from Isa. lii. 15. 
 
 V. 22. In consequence of there being still so many Gentile na- 
 tions in the countries more adjacent to him, the Apostle could not as 
 yet gratify the fond wish of visiting the church at Rome he enter- 
 tained, and which he had also expressed, c. i. v. 10. 
 
 V. 23. It had been Paul’s desire to labour in those localities where 
 no one else had preceded him. By this time, however, he had 
 planted the gospel in the principal cities of Greece, in Ephesus, 
 Corinth, Thessalonica, and Philippi, from which it was rapidly 
 propagated to the smaller towns. In this way the Apostle could 
 affirm that he had no longer any field for his activity in the East. 
 
 V. 24. Whether the Apostle ever actually was in Spain, the fur- 
 thest region of the West, and there preached the gospel, as the tra- 
 dition of the church, although on no very certain grounds, asserts, 
 depends upon whether we suppose him to have suffered a second 
 imprisonment. In that case,—and certainly more grounds speak iz 
 favour of a second imprisonment, than speak against it,—we may 
 well suppose also a journey into Spain. (Compare Chr. Schmid, 
 Historia Antiqua Canonis, V. et N. T. p. 597.) On the departure 
 of Christian teachers from any city, they were wont to be convoyed 
 by several of the brethren, Acts xv. 3; xvii. 14, 15; xx. 38; xxi. 5. 
 
 Paul qualifies the ἐμπλησθῶ, with an ἀπὸ μέρους, inasmuch as the 
 impulse of his vocation did not permit his heart to taste full satisfaec- 
 tion in enjoyment. Chrysostom: οὐδείς με χεόνος ἐμπλῆσαι δύναται» 
 
CHAPTER XV. V. 24-—33. 429 
 
 οὐδὲ ἐμποιῆσαί μου xogov τῆς ὁμιλίας ὑμῶν. With respect to the read- 
 ing, we have to observe, that both ἐλεύσομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς and yae after 
 ἐλπίζω are awanting in the codices AC DE FG, in the Syriac, 
 Arabic, Koptic, &c., and are unquestionably spurious. 
 
 V. 25. This is Paul’s last journey to Jerusalem. He was there 
 and then seized, and brought a prisoner to Rome. 
 
 V. 26. Macedonia and Achaia were the two provinces into which 
 the Romans divided the whole of Greece. 
 
 V. 27. Spiritual salvation came from the Jews. Compare also 1 
 Cor. ix. 11. 
 
 V. 28. SoeayiSecda. means - properly to seal, and then ¢o deliver 
 safely; in Latin, pecuniam consignare. Kagzdg is the amount of the 
 collection. 
 
 V. 29. Codices A C Ὁ E F G, the Coptic, Athiopic and others, 
 omit the τοῦ εὐαγγελίου «ov, which is accordingly to be considered as 
 a gloss. The sense remains the same. Αἱ ὁ. i. 11, the Apostle 
 said, he hoped to give his brethren a χάξισμω πνευματικόν, on which, 
 see the observations we have made. 
 
 V. 30. The Apostle foresaw what severe tribulation awaited him 
 in Jerusalem; and as he himself was at all times diligent in interces- 
 sion for others, he hence encourages the brethren to intercede for 
 him. Aw τῆς ἀγάπης τοὺ πνεύματος. Christian affection is dis- 
 tinguished from worldly love and attachment; it is the offspring of 
 that spirit which dwells in the hearts of the regenerate. Συναγωνί- 
 σασθαι. ‘The life of the Apostle was a continual war, and of the 
 weapons which he used in carrying it on, the chief was prayer. Am- 
 brose: Si et ipsi cupidi sint videndi Apostolum, impensius orent ut 
 inde liberetur. 
 
 V. 31. Paul himself knew beforehand the rage of his countrymen, 
 and prior to his arrival in Jerusalem it was foretold him by prophets, 
 Acts xxi. 11. At the same time, he also wished to conciliate the 
 Christian brethren of Jewish extraction, as these, on account of their 
 strict observance of the ceremonial law, (Acts xxi. 10.) did not as yet 
 regard him with unrestrained affection. Or it may perhaps have 
 been his wish, that the gifts, coming as they did from Gentile Chris- 
 tians, should be affectionately received by the Jews, and excite to 
 mutual attachment. 
 
 V. 32. Aca is here intimation of the circumstances in which, or 
 under which, any thing happens; in sense equivalent to κατά, 2 Cor. 
 Vili. 3. 
 
 V. 33. ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης iS a predicate the Apostle loves to use in 
 benedictions. See c. xvi. 20. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. iv. 9. 1 
 Thess. v. 23. 
 
 * For no length of time is able to satiate, or inspire me with a distaste for 
 your society. 
 
CHAPTER SIXTEENTH. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 Salutations and pious wishes. 
 
 V. 1. Cenchrea is the harbour of Corinth towards Asia Minor. 
 The deaconesses, in the churches, had the same services to perform as 
 the deacons, excepting only that they chiefly devoted themselves to 
 their own sex. ‘Through their means Christianity, in its early days, 
 was introduced, in an unsuspected way, into the bosom of Gentile 
 families. 
 
 V. 2. The ἐν Κυρίῳ indicates how, on the appearance of the Chris- 
 tian sisters, that sort of brotherly sentiment which is founded on the 
 Lord, should be inspired. ‘The Apostle likewise explains it by ἀξίως 
 τῶν ἁγίων. ἸΙροστάτιυς, properly female superintendent, then pa- 
 troness, curatrix. 
 
 V. 3. At 2 Tim. iv. 19, we find Prisca in place of the diminutive 
 Priscilla. Prisca and Aquila, of Jewish extraction, had, by the edict 
 of the Emperor Claudius for the banishment of the Jews, been driven 
 from Rome. Whether so early as at that period, they had embraced 
 Christianity, or were converted afterwards, cannot certainly be said. 
 At Corinth Paul lodged in their house, as Aquila, like himself, ear- 
 ried on the trade of tent-making. When the Apostle quitted Corinth, 
 Aquila and Priscilla accompanied him, but on his proceeding farther 
 towards Jerusalem, they remained at Ephesus, and exerted them- 
 selves for the kingdom of God. (Acts xviii. xix.) In 1 Cot. xvi. 19, 
 we find salutations sent by them; and in the 2 Epistle to Tim., writ- 
 ten several years after, iv. 19, greetings fo them, which shows that 
 they had remained for some considerable time in Ephesus. Ata 
 subsequent date, (under Nero), they had, as would appear from the 
 greeting before us, returned to Rome. 
 
 V. 4. On what occasion these persons risked their lives for the 
 Apostle, we do not know. It may have been in the uproar raised by 
 the goldsmith Demetrius at Ephesus. The éxxanoia κατ᾽ οἶκον is the 
 family and all the domestics, each household in the great church ἢ 
 forming a diminutive one. Comp. vi. 14 and 15, the οἱ σὺν αὐτῶ 
 ἀδελφοί. ; 
 
 V. 5. The external authorities speak for the reading ᾿Ασίας instead 
 of ᾿Αχαίας. The internal authorities in favour of it also predominate. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. v. 7—19. 431 
 
 ᾿Ασία would here signify Asia proconsularis, whose capital was 
 Ephesus. It was easy for a copyist, overlooking its special import, 
 and considering "Asia to be the name of that entire quarter of the 
 globe, to put the more confined country in its place. If Αχαίΐα were 
 the correct reading, there wouid be here a contradiction of 1 Cor. xvi. 
 15, although in that case, we would not require to take amaeyy quite 
 so strictly, but might translate it, one of the first. Eis Xevordv. 
 Here εἰς» as it also does in profane authors, signifies touching, in 
 reference to. ‘Che names, from Epenetus to Olympus, in v. 15, are 
 wholly unknown. 
 
 V. 7. Συγγενής may signify a bodily relative, it may also, how- 
 ever, merely intimate the Jewish origin of these two persons, which 
 is the more probable opinion. See ver. 11 and 21: Compare Rom. 
 ix. 3. When Junius and Andronicus were imprisoned with Paul is 
 unknown. The name ἀπόστολος is here to be taken in its larger 
 sense, 2 Cor. vili. 23. Acts xiv. 4, 14, where Barnabas is also 
 called an Apostle. 
 
 V.13. The xai ἐμοὺ is put es Paul from gratitude for the affection 
 she had shown him. 
 
 V.16. The kiss, as the natural τ - of fraternal and sisterly 
 affection, was, in the infancy of the church, the common sign of salu- 
 tation. Chrysostom calls this kiss of Christian brotherhood, a cin- 
 der, which kindles love of a stronger kind than prevails betwixt rela- 
 tions—the one flowing from grace, the other from nature. As, in 
 the kiss, the bodies are brought together, it is a symbol of union 
 betwixt the souls. (Hom. xx. in 2 Cor.) ‘This token of love was 
 particularly usual at the administration of the Supper. After 2 Bex ay 
 oat, we Should, were we to yield to external authorities, adopt πᾶσαν 
 into the text. It must not, however, be pressed. The Apostle re- 
 ports the salutation of those churches only through which he had 
 passed, and of which he had learned that they took an interest in 
 the welfare of the Christians of the metropolis. 
 
 V.17. In conclusion, Paul adds a warning against those danger- 
 ous men who, in all the Christian churches, endeavoured, at that 
 period, to sow the seeds of discord, those, to wit, who wanted to 
 force the ceremonial law upon the Gentiles. By the picture which 
 Paul is wont.to draw of them, the only motive that actuated them, 
 was the desire of ingratiating themselves with the more strict among 
 the Jewish converts, of whom they hoped to make a gain. ‘To the 
 same improper motives did our Saviour ascribe the zeal of the Phari- 
 sees. 
 
 V.18. Paul applies the same language to these persons at Phil. 
 ili. 18, 19. 
 
 V.19. As the church had acquired so noble a reputation for tract- 
 ableness, (such is here the meaning of ὑπαχοή, see Philem. v. 21,) 
 the Apostle wishes that, in compliance with Christ’s precept, they 
 should join the wisdom of the serpent to the simplicity of the dove. 
 
432 CHAPTER XVI. Vv. 20, 23, 24. 
 
 CEcumenius: Φξονήσεν μὲν κεχρῆσθαν εἰς 7d μὴ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἀδικεῖσθαι, 
 ἀκχεξαιότητι δὲ εἰς τὸ μὴ ἑτέξους ἐπιβουλεύειν. ἢ 
 
 V.20. Σατανᾶς, as the author of the hateful dispositions of those 
 false‘ brethren, the Judaizers. It is likewise in reference to their 
 wicked endeavours to stir up discord, that God is here called Θεὸς 
 εἰρήνης. Συντείβειν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας, 15 constructio pregnans, and a 
 biblical expression for total discomfiture. Not improbably, it is an 
 allusion to Gen. ili. 15. 
 
 V. 23. The congregation had their meetings in the house of Caius. 
 According to a tradition of Origen’s, this Caius afterwards became 
 Bishop of Thessalonica. Οἰχονόμος is the Steward of the city trea- 
 sury, equivalent to Questor. ‘The same use of the word is to be 
 found in Joseph. Archeol. |. xi. c. 6, § 12; 1. vill. c. 6, v. 4. 
 
 V.24. Ἢ ydeus τοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ παντων ὑμῶν. Chrysostom: Kat 
 οὕτω χαταπαύεν τὸν λόγον πξοσεικῶς εἰς εὐχὴν" ἡ χάφξις TOV χυξίον ἡμῶν- 
 ταύτην yae θεμέλιον, ταύτην Gov ἀεὶ ποιεῖν αὐτῷ φίλον. 
 
 * To use wisdom, in order not to be made the objects of injustice by 
 others, and simplicity, in order, on your part, not to circumvent them. 
 
 + And thus he concludes the discourse becomingly with prayer; the grace 
 of our Lord. For he ever delights to make this the commencement, and this 
 the conclusion. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
il 
 
 ui i