tibtaxy  of  Che  theological  ^cmimxy 
 
 PRINCETON    .   NEW  JERSEY 
 
 •^«€- 
 
 PRESENTED  BY 
 
 Mrs.    Minot   Morgan 
 
 MGes 
 
Q)(^.u^rr^,^v;t     z 
 
 C<-M^ 
 
 <N«A.A^ 
 
^,..^-  «  ""*«35jj 
 
 JUL   12  1965 
 
 COMMENTARY     \^«a„iu«»!J^ 
 
 i 
 
 ON    THE 
 
 EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS. 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES   HODGE,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
 
 LATE  PHOFESSOE    IN    THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY,    AT    PKINCETON. 
 
 Neto  lEtiition, 
 
 EEVISED,  AND  IN  GREAT  MEASURE  REWRITTEN. 
 
 NEW   YORK: 
 A.    C.   ARMSTRONG  AND   SON, 
 
 51  East  10"'  Street,  Near  Broadway. 
 1896. 
 
COPVUIGHT. 
 
 H.  B.  GAENEB, 
 188  3. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 The  author  of  this  Commentary  is  more  widely  known  as  a 
 writer  in  the  departments  of  controversial  and  systematic 
 theology  than  as  an  expositor  of  Scripture.  Nevertheless, 
 his  whole  life  was  primarily  devoted  to  the  critical  and  sys- 
 tematic study  of  the  Bible,  and  his  entire  theological  method 
 and  system  is  eminently  biblical.  He  became  a  teacher  of 
 the  Original  Languages  of  Scripture  in  Princeton  Theo- 
 logical Seminary  in  1820,  and  the  professor  of  Oriental  and 
 Biblical  Literature  in  1822.  He  spent  two  years  in  Ger- 
 many, from  1828  to  1828,  with  Tholuck  and  Hengstenberg 
 and  Gesenius,  in  pursuing  exclusively  biblical  studies.  For 
 twenty  years  his  time  was  wholly  occupied  with  the  study 
 of  the  languages,  literature,  historical  genesis,  criticism,  and 
 interpretation  of  the  Bible,  especially  of  the  New  Testament. 
 He  continued  to  lecture  on  the  Pauline  Epistles  to  successive 
 classes  for  fifty-six  years,  —  from  1822  to  1878. 
 
 It  was  not  until  1840  that,  much  to  his  own  regret,  he 
 was  transferred  to  the  department  of  Didactic  Theology. 
 And  hence  the  result  was  inevitable  that  his  theology  should 
 bear  the  mark  of  his  own  personal  history  and  habit,  and 
 that  it  should  be  distinguished  from  that  of  the  majority  of 
 his  eminent  contemporaries,  alike  of  the  New  England 
 and  of  the  German  schools,  as  being  a  simple  induction 
 from  the  teachings  of  Scripture,  instead  of  being  adjusted 
 to,  if  not  founded  upon,  some  of  the  prevalent  philosophical 
 schemes  of  the  day.  It  is  the  mode  in  this  day  of  violent 
 reactions  to  exaggerate  one-sidedly  partial  truths.  Especially 
 is  it  asserted  with  unconscientious  indiscrimination  that  sys- 
 tematic theologians  of  the  past  as  a  class  have  ignored  the 
 
iv  PREFxiCE. 
 
 human  and  historical  genesis  of  the  several  writings  which 
 compose  the  Bible ;  and  that,  evolving  their  systems  by  a 
 speculative  process  from  narrow  premises,  they  have  sought 
 to  support  them  by  disconnected  and  irrelevant  citation  of 
 separate  texts.  Yet  even  Archdeacon  Farrar,  in  his  recent 
 "Bampton  Lectures,"  acknowledges  that  Calvin,  the  father 
 of  Protestant  systematic  theology,  "  was  one  of  the  greatest 
 interpreters  of  Scripture  who  ever  lived."  Yet  Calvin 
 published  his  Institutes  first,  and  his  Commentaries  after- 
 wards. The  order  in  which  Dr.  Hodge  was  providentially 
 led  to  conduct  his  studies  was  more  natural  and  more 
 certain  to  result  in  a  system  in  all  its  elements  and  propor- 
 tions inspired  and  controlled  by  the  word  of  God.  All 
 candid  students  of  the  theology  of  the  past  generation  must 
 acknowledge  that  Dr.  Hodge  has  anticipated  and  preserved 
 in  his  syste"m  much  of  the  results  of  the  deservedly  vaunted 
 discipline  of  Biblical  Theology,  having,  as  a  matter  of  actual 
 history,  as  well  as  of  intention,  so  immediately  drawn  his 
 material  from  a  continuous  study  of  the  sacred  text. 
 
 His  "Commentary  on  Romans"  was  first  published  in 
 1835.  An  abridged  edition  appeared  in  1836.  The  former 
 was  translated  and  published  in  France  in  1841,  and  the 
 latter  republished  in  England  in  1838.  The  whole  work  was 
 rewritten  and  enriched  with  his  mature  studies  in  1864. 
 It  is  this  last  and  most  perfect  edition  which  is  now  offered 
 to  the  public.  It  should  continue  to  be  used  by  all  students 
 of  the  author's  "  Systematic  Theology,"  presenting  as  it  does, 
 in  continuous  exposition  of  the  most  systematic  of  the 
 doctrinal  Epistles,  the  biblical  ground  and  verification  of 
 the  "  system "  which  he  elsewhere  so  clearly  states  and 
 defends. 
 
 A.  A.  HODGE. 
 
 Princeton,  N.  J.,  August,  1886. 
 
liNTRODUCTION. 
 
 The  Apostle  Paul. 
 When  Paul  and  the  other  apostles  were  called  to  enter  npon 
 their  important  duties,  the  world  was  in   a  deplorable  and  yet 
 most  interesting  state.     Both  Heathenism  and  Judaism  were  in 
 the  last  stages  of  decay.     The  polytheism  of  the  Greeks  and 
 Romans  had  been  carried  to  such  an  extent  as  to  shock  the 
 common  sense  of  mankind,  and  to  lead  the  more  intelligent 
 among  them  openly  to  reject  and  ridicule  it.     This  scepticism 
 had  already  extended  itself   to  the  mass  of  the  people,  and 
 become  almost  universal.     As  the  transition  from  infidelity  to 
 superstition  is  certain,  and  generally  immediate,  all  classes  of 
 the  people  were  disposed  to  confide  in  dreams,  enchantments, 
 and  other  miserable  substitutes  for  religion.     The  two  reigning 
 systems  of  philosophy,  the  Stoic  and  Platonic,  were  alike  insuf- 
 ficient to  satisfy  the    agitated   minds    of  men.     The   former 
 sternly  repressed  the  best  natural  feelings  of  the  soul,  incul- 
 cating nothing  but  a  blind  resignation  to  the  unalterable  course 
 of  things,  and  promising  nothing  beyond  an  unconscious  exist- 
 ence hereafter.    The  latter  regarded  all  religions  as  but  different 
 forms  of  expressing  the  same  general  truths,  and  represented 
 the  whole  mythological  system  as  an  allegory,  as  incomprehen- 
 sible to  the  common  people,  as  the  pages  of  a  book  to  those 
 who  cannot  read.     This  system  promised  more  than  it  could 
 accomplish.     It  excited  feelings  which  it  could  not  satisfy,  and 
 thus  contributed  to  produce  that  general  ferment  which  existed 
 at  this  period.     Among  the  Jews,  generally,  the  state  of  things 
 was  hardly  much  better.     They  had,  indeed,  the  form  of  true 
 religion,  but  were  in  a  great  measure  destitute  of  its  spirit. 
 The  Pharisees  were  contented  with  the  form:  the  Sadduceea 
 were  sceptics ;  the  Essenes  were  enthusiasts  and  mystics.    Such 
 being  the  state  of  the  world,  men  were  led  to  feel  the  need  of 
 some  surer  guide  than   either  reason  or  tradition,  and  some 
 
4  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 better  foundation  of  confidence  than  either  heathen  philosophers 
 or  Jewish  sects  could  afford.  Hence,  when  the  glorious  gospel 
 was  revealed,  thousands  of  hearts,  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
 were  prepared,  by  the  grace  of  God,  to  exclaim,  This  is  all  our 
 desire  and  all  our  salvation. 
 
 The  history  of  the  apostle  Paul  shows  that  he  was  prepared 
 to  act  in  such  a  state  of  society.  In  the  first  place,  he  wag 
 born,  and  probably  educated  in  part,  at  Tarsus,  the  capital  of 
 Cilicia ;  a  city  almost  on  a  level  with  Athens  and  Alexandria, 
 for  its  literary  zeal  and  advantages.  In  one  respect,  it  is  s:ud 
 by  ancient  writers  to  have  been  superior  to  either  of  them.  In 
 the  other  cities  mentioned,  the  majority  of  students  were 
 strangers,  but  in  Tarsus  they  were  the  inhabitants  themselves.* 
 That  Paul  passed  the  early  part  of  his  life  here  is  probable, 
 because  the  trade  which  he  was  taught,  in  accordance  with  the 
 custom  of  the  Jews,  was  one  peculiarly  common  in  Cilicia. 
 From  the  hair  of  the  goats,  with  which  that  province  abounded, 
 a  rou^h  cloth  was  made,  which  was  much  used  in  the  manufac- 
 ture  of  tents.  The  knowledge  which  the  apostle  manifests  of 
 the  Greek  authors,  1  Cor.  xv.  33,  Titus  i.  12,  would  also  lead 
 us  to  suppose  that  he  had  received  at  least  part  of  his  education 
 in  a  Grecian  city.  Many  of  his  characteristics,  as  a  writer, 
 lead  to  the  same  conclusion.  He  pursues,  far  more  than  any 
 other  of  the  sacred  writers  of  purely  Jewish  education,  the 
 logical  method  in  presenting  truth.  There  is  almost  always  a 
 regular  concatenation  in  his  discourses,  evincing  the  spontane- 
 ous exercise  of  a  disciplined  mind,  even  when  not  carrying  out 
 a  previous  plan.  His  epistles,  therefore,  are  far  more  logical 
 than  ordinary  letters,  without  the  formality  of  regular  disserta- 
 tions. Another  characteristic  of  his  manner  is,  that  in  discuss- 
 ing any  question,  he  always  presents  the  ultimate  principle  on 
 which  the  decision  depends.  These  and  similar  characteristics 
 of  this  apostle  are  commonly,  and  probably  with  justice, 
 ascribed  partly  to  his  turn  of  mind,  and  partly  to  his  early 
 education.  We  learn  from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  that  the 
 Holy  Spirit,  in  employing  men  as  his  instruments  in  conveying 
 truth,  did  not  change  their  mental  habits;  he  did  not  make 
 Jews  write  like  Greeks,  or  force  all  into  the  same  mould.    Each 
 
 •  Strabo,  Lib.  \i,  chap.  6. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  5 
 
 retained  his  own  peculiarities  of  style  and  manner,  and,  there- 
 fore, whatever  is  peculiar  to  each,  is  to  be  referred,  not  to  his 
 inspiration,  but  to  his  original  character  and  culture.  While 
 the  circumstances  just  referred  to,  render  it  probable  that  the 
 apostle's  habits  of  mind  were  in  some  measure  influenced  by  his 
 birth  and  early  education  in  Tarsus,  there  are  others  (such  as 
 the  general  character  of  his  style)  which  show  that  his  residence 
 there  could  not  have  been  long,  and  that  his  education  was  not 
 thoroughly  Grecian.  We  learn  from  himself,  that  he  was  prin- 
 cipally educated  at  Jerusalem,  being  brought  up,  as  he  says,  at 
 the  feet  of  Gamaliel.   (Acts  xxii.  3.) 
 
 This  is  the  second  circumstance  in  the  providential  prepara- 
 tion of  the  apostle  for  his  work,  which  is  worthy  of  notice.  As 
 Luther  was  educated  in  a  Roman  Catholic  seminary,  and  tho- 
 roughly instructed  in  the  scholastic  theology  of  which  he  was 
 to  be  the  great  opposer,  so  the  apostle  Paul  was  initiated  into 
 all  the  doctrines  and  modes  of  reasoning  of  the  Jews,  with 
 whom  his  principal  controversy  was  to  be  carried  on.  The 
 early  adversaries  of  the  gospel  were  all  Jews.  Even  in  the 
 heathen  cities  they  were  so  numerous,  that  it  was  through  them 
 and  their  proselytes  that  the  church  in  such  places  was  founded. 
 We  find,  therefore,  that  in  almost  all  his  epistles,  the  apostle 
 contends  with  Jewish  errorists,  the  corrupters  of  the  gospel,  by 
 means  of  Jewish  doctrines.  Paul,  the  most  extensively  useful 
 of  all  the  apostles,  was  thus  a  thoroughly  educated  man ;  a  man 
 educated  with  a  special  view  to  the  work  which  he  was  called  to 
 perform.  We  find,  therefore,  in  this,  as  in  most  similar  cases, 
 that  God  effects  his  purposes  by  those  instruments  which  he 
 has,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  his  providence,  specially  fitted 
 for  their  accomplishment. 
 
 In  the  third  place,  Paul  was  converted  without  the  interven- 
 tion of  human  instrumentality,  and  was  taught  the  gospel  by 
 immediate  revelation.  *'I  certify  you,  brethren,"  he  says  to 
 the  Galatians,  "that  the  gospel  which  was  preached  of  me,  was 
 not  after  man.  For  I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was  I 
 taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."  These  cir- 
 cumstances are  important,  as  he  was  thus  placed  completely  on 
 a  level  with  the  other  apostles.  He  had  seen  the  Lord  Jesus, 
 and  could  therefore  be  one  of  the  witnesses  of  his  resurrection; 
 
6  INTivODnCTION. 
 
 he  was  able  to  claim  the  authority  of  an  original  inspired 
 teacher  and  messenger  of  God.  It  is  obvious  that  he  laid  great 
 stress  upon  this  point,  from  the  frequency  with  which  he  refers 
 to  it.  He  was  thus  furnished  not  only  with  the  advantages  of 
 his  early  education,  but  with  the  authority  and  power  of  an 
 apostle  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 His  natural  character  was  ardent,  energetic,  uncompromising, 
 and  severe.  How  his  extravagance  and  violence  were  subdued 
 by  the  grace  of  God,  is  abundantly  evident  from  the  modera- 
 tion, mildness,  tenderness,  and  conciliation  manifested  in  all  his 
 epistles.  Absorbed  in  the  one  object  of  glorifying  Christ,  he 
 was  ready  to  submit  to  any  thing,  and  to  yield  any  thing  neces- 
 sary for  this  purpose.  He  no  longer  insisted  that  others  should 
 think  and  act  just  as  he  did.  So  that  they  obeyed  Christ,  he 
 was  satisfied;  and  he  willingly  conformed  to  their  prejudices, 
 and  tolerated  their  errors,  so  far  as  the  cause  of  truth  and 
 righteousness  allowed.  By  his  early  education,  by  his  miracu- 
 lous conversion  and  inspiration,  by  his  natural  disposition,  and 
 by  the  abundant  grace  of  God,  was  this  apostle  fitted  for  his 
 work,  and  sustained  under  his  multiplied  and  arduous  labours. 
 
 Origin  and  Condition  of  the  Church  at  Rome. 
 
 One  of  the  providential  circumstances  which  most  effectually 
 contributed  to  the  early  propagation  of  Christianity,  was  the 
 dispersion  of  the  Jews  among  surrounding  nations.  They  were 
 widely  scattered  through  the  East,  Egypt,  Syria,  Asia  Minor, 
 Greece,  and  Italy,  especially  at  Rome.  As  they  were  permitted, 
 throughout  the  wide  extent  of  the  Roman  Empire,  to  worship 
 God  according  to  the  traditions  of  their  fathers,  synagogues 
 were  every  where  established  in  the  midst  of  the  heathen.  The 
 apostles,  being  Jews,  had  thus  always  a  ready  access  to  the 
 people.  The  synagogues  furnished  a  convenient  place  for  regu- 
 lar assemblies,  without  attracting  the  attention  or  exciting  the 
 euspicion  of  the  civil  authorities.  In  these  assemblies  they 
 were  sure  of  meeting  not  only  Jews,  but  the  heathen  also,  and 
 precisely  the  class  of  heathen  best  prepared  for  the  reception 
 of  the  gospel.  The  infinite  superiority  of  the  pure  theism  of  the 
 Old  Testament  Scriptures  to  any  form  of  religion  known  to  the 
 ancients,  could  not  fail  to  attract  and  convince  multitudes  among 
 
INTRODUCTION.  7 
 
 the  pagans,  irherever  the  Jewish  worship  was  established.  Such 
 persons  became  either  proselytes  or  "devout,"  that  is,  worship- 
 pers of  the  true  God.  Being  free  from  the  inveterate  national 
 and  religicas  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  and  at  the  same  time  con- 
 vinced of  the  falsehood  of  polytheism,  they  were  the  most  sus- 
 ceptible of  all  the  early  hearers  of  the  gospel.  It  was  by  converts 
 from  among  this  class  of  persons,  that  the  churches  in  all  the 
 heathen  cities  were  in  a  great  measure  founded.  There  is 
 abundant  evidence  that  the  Jews  were  very  numerous  at  Rome, 
 and  that  the  class  of  proselytes  or  devout  persons  among  the 
 Romans  was  also  very  large.  Philo  says  (Legatio  in  Caium, 
 p.  1041,  ed.  Frankf.)  that  Augustus  had  assigned  the  Jews  a 
 large  district  beyond  the  Tiber  for  their  residence.  He  accounts 
 for  their  being  so  numerous,  from  the  fact  that  the  captives  car- 
 ried thither  by  Pompey  were  liberated  by  their  masters,  who 
 found  it  inconvenient  to  have  servants  who  adhered  so  strictly 
 to  a  religion  which  forbade  constant  and  familiar  intercourse 
 with  the  heathen.  Dion  Cassius  (Lib.  60,  c.  6)  mentions  that 
 the  Jews  were  so  numerous  at  Rome,  that  Claudius  was  at 
 first  afraid  to  banish  them,  but  contented  himself  with  forbid- 
 ding their  assembling  together.  That  he  afterwards,  on  account 
 of  the  tumults  which  they  occasioned,  did  banish  them  from  the 
 city,  is  mentioned  by  Suetonius  (Vita  Claudii,  c.  25,)  and  by 
 Luke,  Acts  xviii.  2.  That  the  Jews,  on  the  death  of  Claudius, 
 returned  to  Rome,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  Suetonius  and 
 Dion  Cassius  speak  of  their  being  very  numerous  under  the  fol- 
 lowing reigns ;  and  also  from  the  contents  of  this  epistle,  espe- 
 cially the  salutations  (chap.  16)  addressed  to  Jewish  Christians. 
 That  the  establishment  of  the  Jewish  worship  at  Rome  had 
 produced  considerable  effect  on  the  Romans,  is  clear  from  the 
 statements  of  the  heathen  writers  themselves.  Ovid  speaks  of 
 the  synagogues  as  places  of  fashionable  resort ;  Juvenal  (Satire 
 14)  ridicules  his  countrymen  for  becoming  Jews;*  and  Tacitua 
 
 *  Quidam  sortiti  metuentem  sabbata  patrem, 
 Nil  prseter  nubes,  cceli  numen  adorant: 
 Nee  distare  putant  humana  came  suillam, 
 Qua  pater  abstinuit,  mox  et  prteputia  ponvmt. 
 Romanas  autem  soliti  contemnere  leges, 
 Judaicum  ediscunt,  et  servant,  ac  metuunt  jus, 
 Tradidit  arcano  quodcunque  volumine  Moses,  &c. 
 
8  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (Hist.  Lib.  5,  ch.  5*)  refers  to  the  presents  sent  by  Roman 
 proselytes  to  Jerusalem.  The  way  was  thus  prepared  for  the 
 early  reception  and  rapid  extension  of  Christianity  in  the  impe- 
 rial city.  When  the  gospel  was  first  introduced  there,  or  by 
 whom  the  introduction  was  effected,  is  unknown.  Such  was  the 
 constant  intercourse  between  Rome  and  the  provinces,  that  it  is 
 not  surprising  that  some  of  the  numerous  converts  to  Christian- 
 ity made  in  Judea,  Asia  Minor,  and  Greece,  should  at  an  early 
 period  find  their  way  to  the  capital.  It  is  not  impossible  that 
 many,  who  had  enjoyed  the  personal  ministry  of  Christ,  and 
 believed  in  his  doctrines,  might  have  removed  or  returned  to 
 Rome,  and  been  the  first  to  teach  the  gospel  in  that  city.  Still 
 less  improbable  is  it,  that  among  the  multitudes  present  at  Jeru- 
 salem at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  among  whom  were  "  strangers 
 of  Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,"  there  were  some  who  carried 
 back  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel.  That  the  introduction  of 
 Christianity  occurred  at  an  early  period,  may  be  inferred  not 
 only  from  the  probabilities  just  referred  to,  but  from  other  cir- 
 cumstances. When  Paul  wrote  this  epistle,  the  faith  of  the 
 Romans  was  spoken  of  throughout  the  world,  which  would  seem 
 to  imply  that  the  church  had  already  been  long  established. 
 Aquila  and  Priscilla,  who  left  Rome  on  account  of  the  decree 
 of  Claudius  banishing  the  Jews,  were  probably  Christians  before 
 their  departure ;  nothing  at  least  is  said  of  their  having  been 
 converted  by  the  apostle.  He  found  them  at  Corinth,  and 
 being  of  the  same  trade,  he  abode  with  them,  and  on  his 
 departure  took  them  with  him  into  Syria. 
 
 The  tradition  of  some  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  that  Peter  was 
 the  founder  of  the  church  at  Rome,  is  inconsistent  with  the 
 8tatem.ents  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Irengsus  (Hasres. 
 III.  1)  says,  that  "Matthew  wrote  his  gospel,  while  Peter  and 
 Paul  were  in  Rome  preaching  the  gospel  and  founding  the 
 church  there."  And  Eusebius  (Chron.  ad  ann.  2  Claudiij  says, 
 "Peter  having  founded  the  church  at  Antioch,  departed  for 
 Rome,  preaching  the  gospel."  Both  these  statements  are  incor- 
 rect.    Peter  did  not  found  the  church  at  Antioch,  nor  did  he 
 
 •  Pessimus  qnisque,  spretis  religionibua  patriis,  tributa  et  stipes  illuc  con- 
 gerebat,  uptie  auotae  Judaeorum  rea. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  9 
 
 and  Paul  preach  together  at  Rome.  That  Peter  was  not  at 
 Rome  prior  to  Paul's  visit,  appears  from  the  entire  silence  of 
 this  epistle  on  the  subject;  and  from  no  mention  being  made  of 
 the  fact  in  any  of  the  letters  written  from  Rome  by  Paul  during 
 his  imprisonment.  The  tradition  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome, 
 rests  on  very  uncertain  authority.  It  is  first  mentioned  by 
 Dionysius  of  Corinth,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century, 
 and  from  that  time  it  seems  to  have  been  generally  received. 
 The  account  is  in  itself  improbable,  as  Peter's  field  of  labour 
 was  in  the  East,  about  Babylon  ;  and  as  the  statement  of  Diony* 
 sius  is  full  of  inaccuracies.  He  makes  Peter  and  Paul  the 
 founders  of  the  church  at  Corinth,  and  makes  the  same  asser- 
 tion regarding  the  church  at  Rome,  neither  of  which  is  true. 
 He  also  says  that  Paul  and  Peter  suffered  martyrdom  at  the 
 same  time  at  Rome,  which,  from  the  silence  of  Paul  respectinor 
 Peter,  during  his  last  imprisonment,  is  in  the  highest  degree 
 improbable.*  History,  therefore,  has  left  us  ignorant  of  the 
 time  when  this  church  was  founded,  and  the  persons  by  whom 
 the  work  was  effected. 
 
 The  condition  of  the  congregation  may  be  inferred  from  the 
 circumstances  already  mentioned,  and  from  the  drift  of  the 
 apostle's  letter.  As  the  Jews  and  proselytes  were  very  numer- 
 ous at  Rome,  the  early  converts,  as  might  be  expected,  were 
 from  both  these  classes.  The  latter,  however,  seem  greatly  to 
 ha,ve  predominated,  because  we  find  no  such  evidence  of  a  ten- 
 dency to  Judaism,  as  is  supposed  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Gralatians. 
 Paul  no  where  seems  to  apprehend  that  the  church  at  Rome 
 would  apostatize,  as  the  Galatian  Christians  had  already  done. 
 And  in  chapters  14  and  15,  his  exhortations  imply  that  the 
 Gentile  party  were  more  in  danger  of  oppressing  the  Jewish, 
 than  the  reverse.  Paul,  therefore,  writes  to  them  as  Gentiles 
 (chap.  i.  13,)  and  claims,  in  virtue  of  his  office  as  apostle  to  the 
 Gentiles,  the  right  to  address  them  with  all  freedom  and  author- 
 ity (xv.  16.)  The  congregation,  however,  was  not  composed 
 exclusively  of  this  class ;  many  converts,  originally  Jews,  were 
 included  in  their  numbers,  and  those  belonging  to  the  other 
 
 *  See  Eichhorn's  Einleitung,  Vol.  III.  p.  203,  and  Neander'e  Geschichte  def 
 Pflanzung,  &c,  p.  456. 
 
10  INTRODUCTION". 
 
 class  were  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  opinion?. 
 The  apostle,  therefore,  in  this,  as  in  all  his  other  epistlea 
 addressed  to  congregations  similarly  situated,  refutes  those 
 doctrines  of  the  Jews  which  were  inconsistent  with  the  gospel, 
 and  answers  those  objections  which  they  and  those  under  their 
 influence  were  accustomed  to  urge  against  it.  These  diflferent 
 elements  of  the  early  churches  were  almost  always  in  conflict, 
 both  as  to  points  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  The  Jews 
 insisted,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  on  their  peculiar  privileges 
 and  customs;  and  the  Gentiles  disregarded,  and  at  times 
 despised  the  scruples  and  prejudices  of  their  weaker  brethren. 
 The  opinions  of  the  Jews  particularly  controverted  in  this 
 epistle  are,  1.  That  connection  with  Abraham  by  natural 
 descent,  and  by  the  bond  of  circumcision,  together  with  the 
 observance  of  the  law,  is  sufficient  to  secure  the  favour  of  God. 
 2.  That  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  reign  were  to  be  con- 
 fined to  Jews  and  those  who  would  consent  to  become  prose- 
 lytes. 3.  That  subjection  to  heathen  magistrates  was  incon- 
 sistent with  the  dignity  of  the  people  of  God,  and  with  their 
 duty  to  the  Messiah  as  King. 
 
 There  are  clear  indications  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  as 
 well  as  in  their  own  writings,  that  the  Jews  placed  their  chief 
 dependence  upon  the  covetiant  of  God  with  Abraham,  and 
 the  peculiar  rites  and  ordinances  connected  with  it.  Our 
 Saviour,  when  speaking  to  the  Jews,  tells  them,  "  Say  not, 
 We  have  Abraham  to  our  father ;  for  I  say  unto  you,  that 
 God  is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abra- 
 ham," (Luke  iii.  8.)  It  is  clearly  implied  in  this  passage,  that 
 the  Jews  supposed  that  to  have  Abraham  as  their  father 
 was  sufficient  to  secure  the  favour  of  God.  The  Rabbins 
 taught  that  God  had  promised  Abraham,  that  his  descendants, 
 though  wicked,  should  be  saved  on  account  of  his  merit. 
 Justin  Martyr  mentions  this  as  the  ground  of  confidence  of  the 
 Jews  in  his  day.  "Your  Rabbins,"  he  says,  "deceive  them- 
 selves and  us,  in  supposing  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  pre- 
 pared for  all  those  who  are  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham,  even 
 though  they  be  sinners  and  unbelievers."  {Dialogue  with 
 Trypho.)  They  were  accustomed  to  say,  "  Great  is  the  virtue 
 of  circumcision;  no  circumcised  person  enters  hell."     And  one 
 
INTRODUCTION.  H 
 
 of  their  standing  maxims  was,  "  All  Israel  hath  part  in  eternal 
 life."* 
 
 ■  The  second  leading  error  of  the  Jews  was  a  natural  result 
 of  the  one  just  referred  to.  If  salvation  was  secured  by  con- 
 nection with  Abraham,  then  none  who  were  not  united  to  their 
 great  ancestor  could  be  saved.  There  is  no  opinion  of  the  Jews 
 more  conspicuous  in  the  sacred  writings,  than  that  they  were 
 greatly  superior  to  the  Gentiles ;  that  the  theocracy  and  all  its 
 blessings  belonged  to  them;  and  that  others  could  attain  even 
 an  inferior  station  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  only  by 
 becoming  Jews. 
 
 The  indisposition  of  the  Jews  to  submit  to  heathen  magis- 
 trates, arose  partly  from  their  high  ideas  of  their  own  dignity, 
 and  their  contempt  for  other  nations ;  partly  from  their  erro- 
 neous opinions  of  the  nature  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom,  and 
 partly,  no  doubt,  from  the  peculiar  hardships  and  oppressions 
 to  which  they  were  exposed.  The  prevalence  of  this  indisposi- 
 tion among  them  is  proved  by  its  being  a  matter  of  discussion 
 whether  it  was  even  lawful  to  pay  tribute  to  Caesar ;  by  their 
 assertion  that,  as  Abraham's  seed,  they  were  never  in  bondage 
 to  any  man ;  and  by  their  constant  tumults  and  rebellions, 
 which  led  first  to  their  banishment  from  Rome,  and  finally  to 
 the  utter  destruction  of  their  city.  The  circumstances  of  the 
 church  at  Rome,  composed  of  both  Jewish  and  Gentile  con- 
 verts; surrounded  by  Jews  who  still  insisted  on  the  necessity 
 of  circumcision,  of  legal  obedience,  and  of  connection  with  the 
 family  of  Abraham,  in  order  to  salvation ;  and  disposed  on 
 many  points  to  differ  among  themselves,  sufficiently  account  for 
 the  character  of  this  epistle. 
 
 Time  and  Place  op  its  Composition. 
 
 There  are  no  sufficient  data  for  fixing  accurately  and  cer- 
 tainly the  chronology  of  the  life  and  writings  of  the  apostle 
 Paul.  It  is  therefore,  in  most  cases,  only  by  a  comparison  of 
 various  circumstances,  that  an  approximation  to  the  date  of  the 
 principal  events  of  his  life  can  be  made.     With  regard  to  this 
 
 *  See  Raymundi  Martini  Pugio  Fidei,  P.  III.  Disc.  3,  o.  16.  Pococke's  Mis- 
 cellanea, p.  172,  227.  Witsii  Miscellanea,  P.  II.  p.  553.  Michaeli's  Introduo* 
 tion  to  the  New  Testament,  Vol.  III.  p.  93. 
 
12  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 epistle,  it  is  plaiu,  from  its  contents,  that  it  was  written  just  as 
 Paul  was  about  to  set  out  on  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  In 
 the  fifteenth  chapter  he  says,  that  the  Christians  of  Macedonia 
 and  Achaia  had  made  a  collection  for  the  poor  saints  in  Jeru- 
 salem, and  that  he  was  on  the  eve  of  his  departure  for  that  city 
 (ver.  25.)  This  same  journey  is  mentioned  in  Acts  xx.,  and 
 occurred  most  probably  in  the  spring  (see  Acts  xx.  16)  of  the 
 year  58  or  59.  This  date  best  suits  the  account  of  his  long 
 imprisonment,  first  at  Cesarea,  and  then  at  Rome,  of  four  years, 
 and  his  probable  liberation  in  62  or  63.  His  subsequent  labours 
 and  second  imprisonment  would  fill  up  the  intervening  perio'i 
 of  two  or  three  years,  to  the  date  of  his  martyrdom,  towards 
 the  close  of  the  reign  of  Nero.  That  this  epistle  was  written 
 from  Coi-inth,  appears  from  the  special  recommendation  of 
 Phebe,  a  deaconess  of  the  neighbouring  church,  who  was  pro- 
 bably the  bearer  of  the  letter  (chap.  xvi.  1 ;)  from  the  saluta- 
 tions of  Erastus  and  Gaius,  both  residents  of  Corinth,  to  the 
 Romans  (chap.  xvi.  23 ;)  compare  2  Tim.  iv.  20,  and  1  Cor. 
 i.  14 ;  and  from  the  account  given  in  Acts  xx.  2,  8,  of  Paul's 
 journey  through  Macedonia  into  Greece,  before  his  departure 
 for  Jerusalem,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  the  contributions  of 
 the  churches  for  the  poor  in  that  city. 
 
 Authenticity  op  the  Epistle. 
 
 That  this  epistle  was  written  by  the  apostle  Paul,  admits  of 
 no  reasonable  doubt.  1.  It,  in  the  first  place,  purports  to  be 
 his.  It  bears  his  signature,  and  speaks  throughout  in  his  name. 
 2.  It  has  uniformly  been  recognised  as  his.  From  the  apostolic 
 age  to  the  present  time,  it  has  been  referred  to  and  quoted  by  a 
 regular  series  of  authors,  and  recognised  as  of  divine  authority 
 in  all  the  churches.  It  would  be  requisite,  in  order  to  disprove 
 its  authenticity,  to  account  satisfactorily  for  these  facts,  on  the 
 supposition  of  the  epistle  being  spurious.  The  passages  in  the 
 early  writers,  in  which  this  epistle  is  alluded  to  or  cited,  are 
 very  numerous,  and  may  be  seen  in  Lardner's  Credibility^ 
 Vol.  II.  3.  The  internal  evidence  is  no  less  decisive  in  its 
 favour,  (a)  In  the  first  place,  it  is  evidently  the  production  of 
 a  Jew,  familiar  with  the  Hebrew  text  and  the  Septuagint  ver- 
 sion of  the  Old  Testament,  because  the  language  and  style  are 
 
INTRODUCTION.  13 
 
 sucli  as  no  one,  not  thus  circumstanced,  could  adopt;  and  be- 
 cause the  whole  letter  evinces  such  an  intimate  acquaintance 
 "with  Jewish  opinions  and  prejudices,  (b)  It  agrees  perfectly  in 
 style  and  manner  with  the  other  epistles  of  this  apostle,  (c)  It 
 is,  in  the  truth  and  importance  of  its  doctrines,  and  in  the  eleva- 
 tion and  purity  of  its  sentiments,  immeasurably  superior  to  any 
 uninspired  production  of  the  age  in  which  it  appeared.  A  com- 
 parison of  the  genuine  apostolic  writings  with  the  spurious  pro- 
 ductions of  the  first  and  second  centuries,  affords  one  of  tho 
 strongest  collateral  evidences  of  the  authenticity  and  inspiration 
 of  the  former,  {d)  The  incidental  or  undesigned  coincidences, 
 as  to  matters  of  fact,  between  this  epistle  and  other  parts  of  the 
 New  Testament,  are  such  as  to  afford  the  clearest  evidence  of 
 its  having  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  the  apostle.  Compare 
 Rom.  XV.  26 — 31  with  Acts  xx.  2,  3,  xxiv.  17,  1  Cor.  xvi.  1—4, 
 2  Cor.  viii.  1 — 4,  ix.  2,  Rom.  xvi.  21 — 23  with  Acts  xx.  4,  Rom. 
 xvi.  3,  et  seqq.  with  Acts  xviii.  2,  18 — 26,  1  Cor.  xvi.  19,  &c., 
 (see  Paley's  Horas  Paulinse.)  4.  Besides  these  positive  proofs, 
 there  is  the  important  negative  consideration,  that  there  are  no 
 grounds  for  questioning  its  authenticity.  There  are  no  discre- 
 pancies between  this  and  other  sacred  writings ;  no  counter 
 testimony  among  the  early  Fathers;  no  historical  or  critical 
 difficulties  which  must  be  solved  before  it  can  be  recognised  as 
 the  work  of  Paul.  There  is,  therefore,  no  book  in  the  Bible, 
 and  there  is  no  ancient  book  in  the  world,  of  which  the  authen- 
 ticity is  more  certain  than  that  of  this  epistle. 
 
 Analysis  of  the  Epistle. 
 
 The  epistle  consists  of  three  parts.  The  first,  which  includes 
 the  first  eight  chapters,  is  occupied  in  the  discussion  of  the  doc- 
 trine of  justification  and  its  consequences.  The  second,  embrac- 
 ing chs.  ix. — xi.,  treats  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  the  rejec- 
 tion and  future  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  third  consists  of 
 practical  exhortations  and  salutations  to  the  Christians  at  Rome. 
 
 The  first  part  the  apostle  commences  by  saluting  the  Roman 
 Christians,  commending  them  for  their  faith,  and  expressing  his 
 desire  to  see  them,  and  his  readiness  to  preach  the  gospel  at 
 Rome.  This  readiness  was  founded  on  the  conviction  that  the 
 gospel  revealed  the  only  method  by  which  men  can  be  savoa, 
 viz.,  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  this  method  is  equally  appli- 
 
14  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 cable  to  all  mankind,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  chap.  i.  1 — 17. 
 Paul  thus  introduces  the  two  leading  topics  of  the  epistle. 
 
 In  order  to  establish  his  doctrine  respecting  justification,  ha 
 first  proves  that  the  Gentiles  cannot  be  justified  by  their  own 
 works,  chap.  i.  18 — 39 ;  and  then  establishes  the  same  position 
 in  reference  to  the  Jews,  chs.  ii.  iii.  1 — 20.  Having  thus  shown 
 that  the  method  of  justification  by  works  is  unavailable  for 
 sinners,  he  unfolds  that  method  which  is  taught  in  the  gospql. 
 chap.  iii.  21 — 31.  The  truth  and  excellence  of  this  method  he 
 confirms  in  chs.  iv.  and  v.  The  obvious  objection  to  the  doc- 
 trine of  gratuitous  acceptance,  that  it  must  lead  to  the  indulgence 
 of  sin,  is  answered,  and  the  true  design  and  operation  of  the  law 
 are  exhibited  in  chs.  vi.  and  vii.;  and  the  complete  security  of 
 all  who  confide  in  Christ  is  beautifully  unfolded  in  chap.  viii. 
 
 In  arguing  against  the  Gentiles,  Paul  assumes  the  principle 
 that  God  will  punish  sin,  chap.  i.  18,  and  then  proves  that  they 
 are  justly  chargeable  both  with  impiety  and  immorality,  because, 
 though  they  possessed  a  competent  knowledge  of  God,  they  did 
 not  worship  him,  but  turned  unto  idols,  and  gave  themselves  up 
 to  all  kinds  of  iniquity,  chap.  i.  19 — 32. 
 
 He  commences  his  argument  with  the  Jews  by  expanding  the 
 general  principle  of  the  divine  justice,  and  especially  insisting 
 on  God's  impartiality  by  showing  that  he  will  judge  all  men, 
 Jews  and  Gentiles,  according  to  their  works,  and  according  to 
 the  light  they  severally  enjoyed,  chap.  ii.  1 — 16.  He  shows  that 
 the  Jews,  when  tried  by  these  rules,  are  as  justly  and  certainly 
 exposed  to  condemnation  as  the  Gentiles,  chap.  ii.  17 — 29. 
 
 The  peculiar  privileges  of  the  Jews  afi"ord  no  ground  of  hope 
 that  they  will  escape  being  judged  on  the  same  principles  with 
 other  men,  and  when  thus  judged,  they  are  found  to  be  guilty 
 before  God.  All  men  therefore  are,  as  the  Scriptures  abun- 
 dantly teach,  under  condemnation,  and  consequently  cannot  be 
 justified  by  their  own  works,  chap.  iii.  1 — 20. 
 
 The  gospel  proposes  the  only  method  by  which  God  will 
 justify  men — a  method  which  is  entirely  gratuitous ;  the  condi- 
 tion of  which  is  faith ;  which  is  founded  on  the  redemption  of 
 Christ;  which  reconciles  the  justice  and  mercy  of  God;  hum- 
 bles man;  lays  the  foundation  for  an  universal  religion,  and 
 establishes  the  law,  chap.  iii.  21 — 31. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  15 
 
 The  truth  of  this  doctrine  is  evinced  from  the  example  of 
 Abraham,  the  testimony  of  David,  the  nature  of  the  covenant 
 made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
 law.  He  proposes  the  conduct  of  Abraham  as  an  example  and 
 encouragement  to  Christians,  chap.  iv.  1 — 25. 
 
 Justification  by  faith  in  Christ  secures  peace  with  God,  pre- 
 sent joy,  and  the  assurance  of  eternal  life,  chap,  v.  1 — 11.  The 
 method,  therefore,  by  which  God  proposes  to  save  sinners,  ia 
 analogous  to  that  by  which  they  were  first  brought  under  con- 
 demnation. As  on  account  of  the  ofi'ence  of  one,  sentence  has 
 passed  on  all  men  to  condemnation ;  so  on  account  of  the  right- 
 eousness of  one,  all  are  justified,  chap.  v.  12 — 21. 
 
 The  doctrine  of  the  gratuitous  justification  of  sinners  cannot 
 lead  to  the  indulgence  of  sin,  because  such  is  the  nature  of  union 
 with  Christ,  and  such  the  object  for  which  he  died,  that  all  who 
 receive  the  benefits  of  his  death,  experience  the  sanctifying 
 influence  of  his  life,  chap.  vi.  1 — 11.  Besides,  the  objection  in 
 question  is  founded  on  a  misapprehension  of  the  effect  and  design 
 of  the  law,  and  of  the  nature  of  sanctification.  Deliverance 
 from  the  bondage  of  the  law  and  from  a  legal  spirit  is  essential 
 to  holiness.  When  the  Christian  is  delivered  from  this  bondage, 
 he  becomes  the  servant  of  God,  and  is  brought  under  an  influ- 
 ence which  effectually  secures  his  obedience,  chap.  vi.  12 — 23. 
 
 As,  therefore,  a  woman,  in  order  to  be  married  to  a  second 
 husband,  must  first  be  freed  from  her  former  one,  so  the  Chris- 
 tian, in  order  to  be  united  to  Christ,  and  to  bring  forth  fruit 
 unto  God,  must  first  be  freed  from  the  law,  chap.  vii.  1 — 6. 
 
 This  necessity  of  deliverance  from  the  law,  does  not  arise 
 from  the  fact  that  the  law  is  evil,  but  from  the  nature  of  the 
 case.  The  law  is  but  the  authoritative  declaration  of  duty; 
 which  cannot  alter  the  state  of  the  sinner's  heart.  Its  real 
 operation  is  to  produce  the  conviction  of  sin  (vs.  7 — 13,)  and, 
 in  the  renewed  mind,  to  excite  approbation  and  complacency  in 
 the  excellence  which  it  exhibits,  but  it  cannot  effectually  secure 
 the  destruction  of  sin.  This  can  only  be  done  by  the  grace  of 
 God  in  Jesus  Christ,  chap.  vii.  7 — 25. 
 
 Those  who  are  in  Christ,  therefore,  are  perfectly  safe.  They 
 are  freed  from  the  law ;  they  have  the  indwelling  of  the  life- 
 giving  Spirit:  they  are  the  children  of  God;  they  are  chosen, 
 
16  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 called,  and  justified  according  to  the  divine  purpose ;  and  they 
 are  the  objects  of  the  unchanging  love  of  God,  chap.  viii.  1 — 39. 
 
 The  second  part  of  the  epistle  relates  to  the  persons  to 
 whom  the  blessings  of  Christ's  kingdom  may  properly  be  offered, 
 and  the  purposes  of  God  respecting  the  Jews.  In  entering  upon 
 this  subject,  the  apostle,  after  assuring  his  kindred  of  his  affec- 
 tion, establishes  the  position  that  God  has  not  bound  himself  to 
 regard  as  his  children  all  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham, 
 but  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  choose  whom  he  will  to  be  heirs  of 
 his  kingdom.  The  right  of  God  to  have  mercy  on  whom  he 
 will  have  mercy,  he  proves  from  the  declarations  of  Scripture, 
 and  from  the  dispensations  of  his  providence.  He  shows  that 
 this  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty  is  not  inconsistent  with 
 the  divine  character  or  man's  responsibility,  because  God 
 simply  chooses  from  among  the  undeserving  whom  he  will  as 
 the  objects  of  his  mercy,  and  leaves  others  to  the  just  recom- 
 pense of  their  sins,  chap.  ix.  1 — 24. 
 
 God  accordingly  predicted  of  old,  that  he  would  call  the 
 Gentiles  and  reject  the  Jews.  The  rejection  of  the  Jews  was 
 on  account  of  their  unbelief,  chs.  ix.  25 — 33,  x.  1 — 5.  The 
 two  methods  of  justification  are  then  contrasted  for  the  purpose 
 of  showing  that  the  legal  method  is  impracticable,  but  that  the 
 method  proposed  in  the  gospel  is  simple  and  easy,  and  adapted 
 to  all  men.  It  should,  therefore,  agreeably  to  the  revealed 
 purpose  of  God,  be  preached  to  all  men,  chap.  x.  6 — 21. 
 
 The  rejection  of  the  Jews  is  not  total ;  many  of  that  genera- 
 tion were  brought  into  the  church,  who  were  of  the  election  of 
 grace,  chap.  xi.  1 — 10.  Neither  is  this  rejection  final.  There 
 is  to  be  a  future  and  general  conversion  of  the  Jews  to  Christ, 
 and  thus  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,  chap.  xi.  11 — 36. 
 
 The  third  or  practical  part  of  the  epistle,  consists  of  direc- 
 tions, first,  as  to  the  general  duties  of  Christians  in  their  vari- 
 ous relations  to  God,  chap,  xii.;  secondly,  as  to  their  political 
 or  civil  duties,  chap,  xiii.;  and  thirdly,  as  to  their  ecclesiastical 
 duties,  or  those  duties  which  they  owe  to  each  other  as  mem- 
 bers of  the  church,  chs.  xiv.  xv.  1 — 13. 
 
 The  epistle  concludes  with  some  account  of  Paul's  labours 
 and  purposes,  chap.  xv.  14 — 33,  and  with  the  usual  saluta- 
 tions, chap.  xvi. 
 
A   COMMENTARY 
 
 EPISTLE    TO    THE    ROMANS. 
 
 CHAPTER    I. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first  extends  to 
 the  close  of  ver.  17,  and  contains  the  general  introduction  to 
 the  epistle.  The  second  commences  with  ver.  18,  and  extends 
 to  the  end  of  the  chapter:  it  contains  the  argument  of  the 
 apostle  to  prove  that  the  declaration  contained  in  vs.  16,  17, 
 that  justification  can  only  be  obtained  by  faith,  is  true  with 
 regard  to  the  heathen. 
 
 ROMANS   I.    1—17. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 This  section  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first  from  vs.  1  to  7 
 inclusive,  is  a  salutatory  address ;  the  second,  from  vs.  8  to  17, 
 is  the  introduction  to  the  epistle.  Paul  commences  by  an- 
 nouncing himself  as  a  divinely  commissioned  teacher,  set  apart 
 to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  ver.  1.  Of  this  gospel,  he  says, 
 1.  That  it  was  promised,  and  of  course  partially  exhibited  in 
 the  Old  Testament,  ver.  2.  2.  That  its  great  subject  iras 
 Jesus  Christ,  ver.  3.  Of  Christ  he  says,  that  he  was,  as  to  his 
 human  nature,  the  Son  of  David ;  but  as  to  his  divine  nature, 
 the  Son  of  God,  vs.  3,  4.  From  this  Divine  Person  he  had 
 received  his  office  as  an  apostle.  The  object  of  this  office  was 
 to  bring  men  to  believe  the  gospel;  and  it  contemplated  all 
 2  (17) 
 
18  ROMANS  I.  1. 
 
 nations  as  the  field  of  its  labour,  ver.  5.  Of  course  the  Romans 
 were  included,  ver.  6.  To  the  Roman  Christians,  therefore, 
 he  wishes  grace  and  peace,  ver.  7.     Thus  far  the  salutation. 
 
 Having  shown  in  what  character,  and  by  what  right  he  ad- 
 dressed them,  the  apostle  introduces  the  subject  of  his  letter 
 by  expressing  to  them  his  respect  and  affection.  He  thanks 
 God,  not  only  that  they  believed,  but  that  their  faith  was  uni- 
 versally known  and  talked  of,  ver.  9.  As  an  evidence  of  his 
 concern  for  them,  he  mentions,  1.  That  he  prayed  for  them 
 constantly,  ver.  9.  2.  That  he  longed  to  see  them,  vs.  10,  11. 
 3.  That  this  wish  to  see  them  arose  from  a  desire  to  do  them 
 good,  and  to  reap  some  fruit  of  his  ministry  among  them,  as 
 well  as  among  other  Gentiles,  vs.  12,  13.  Because  he  was 
 under  obligation  to  preach  to  all  men,  wise  and  unwise,  he  was 
 therefore  ready  to  preach  even  at  Rome,  vs.  14,  15.  This 
 readiness  to  preach  arose  from  the  high  estimate  he  entertained 
 of  the  gospel.  And  his  reverence  for  the  gospel  was  founded 
 not  on  its  excellent  system  of  morals  merely,  but  on  its  efficacy 
 in  saving  all  who  believe,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  ver.  16. 
 This  efficacy  of  the  gospel  arises  from  its  teaching  the  true 
 method  of  justification,  that  is,  the  method  of  justification  by 
 faith,  ver.  17.  It  will  be  perceived  how  naturally  and  skil- 
 fully the  apostle  introduces  the  two  great  subjects  of  the 
 epistle — the  method  of  salvation,  and  the  persons  to  whom  it 
 may  properly  be  ofi"ered. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Ohrist,  called  an  apostle. 
 Agreeably  to  the  ancient  mode  of  epistolary  address,  the 
 apostle  begins  with  the  declaration  of  his  name  and  offi-ce.  It 
 was  his  office  which  gave  him  the  right  to  address  the  believers 
 at  Rome,  and  elsewhere,  with  that  tone  of  authority  which  per- 
 vades all  his  epistles.  Speaking  as  the  messenger  of  Christ, 
 he  spake  as  he  spake,  as  one  having  authority,  and  not  as  an 
 ordinary  teacher. 
 
 The  original  name  of  the  apostle  was  Saul,  b^sd  demanded. 
 He  is  first  called  Paul  in  Acts  xiii.  9,  As  this  change  of  his 
 name  is  mentioned  "n  the  paragraph  which  contains  the  account 
 of  the  conversion  oi  Sergius  Paulus,  the  proconsul  of  Cyprus, 
 
ROMANS  I.  1.  ^^  19 
 
 some  have  supposed  that  the  name  was  assumed  in  compliment 
 to  that  distinguished  convert.  This  supposition  does  not  seem 
 to  accord  with  the  apostle's  character,  and  is,  on  other  grounds, 
 less  probable  than  either  of  the  two  following.  First,  as  it  was 
 not  unusual,  among  the  Jews,  to  change  the  name  of  a  person 
 in  consequence  of  some  remarkable  event,  as  in  the  case  of 
 Abraham  and  Jacob,  Gen.  xvii.  5,  xxxii.  8 ;  or  when  he  was 
 advanced  to  some  new  office  or  dignity.  Gen.  xli.  45,  Dan.  i 
 6,  7 ;  so  that  a  new  name  is  sometimes  equivalent  to  a  new 
 dignity.  Rev.  ii.  17,  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  apostle  re- 
 ceived the  name  of  Paul,  when  called  to  the  office  of  an  apostle. 
 This  supposition  is  favoured  by  the  consideration  that  he 
 received  the  name  soon  after  he  entered  upon  the  public  exer- 
 cise of  his  apostleship,  and  by  the  fact  that  Simon  was  called 
 Cephas  when  called  to  be  an  apostle,  John  i.  42,  Matt.  x.  2, 
 and  that  James  and  John  were  called  Boanerges,  Mark  iii.  17. 
 Hence  Theophylact  says  that  it  was  in  order  that  even  in  this 
 matter,  he  should  not  be  behind  the  very  chief  of  the  apos- 
 tles, that  Saul  was  called  Paul.  Second,  as  it  was  very  com- 
 mon for  those  Jews  who  had  much  intercourse  with  the  hea- 
 then to  bear  two  names,  one  Jewish  and  the  other  Greek  or 
 Roman,  which  names  were  sometimes  entirely  distinct,  as  Hillel 
 and  Pollio,  sometimes  nearly  related  as  Silas  and  Silvanus,  it  is 
 very  probable  that  this  was  the  case  with  the  apostle.  He 
 was  called  Saul  among  the  Jews,  and  Paul  among  the  Gentiles ; 
 and  as  he  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  the  latter  name 
 became  his  common  designation.  As  this  change  was,  however, 
 made  or  announced  at  an  epoch  in  the  apostle's  history,  Acts 
 xiii.  9,  the  two  explanations  may  be  united.  "  The  only  sup- 
 position," says  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  in  his  comment  on 
 Acts  xiii.  9,  "which  is  free  from  all  these  difficulties,  and 
 aflfords  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  facts  in  question,  is,  that 
 this  was  the  time  fixed  by  Divine  authority  for  Paul's  manifes- 
 tation as  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  that  manifestation  was 
 made  more  conspicuous  by  its  coincidence  with  the  triumph 
 over  a  representative  of  unbelieving  and  apostate  Judaism,  and 
 the  conversion  of  an  official  representative  af  Rome,  whose 
 name  was  identical  with  his  own  apostolic  title." 
 
 In  calling  himself  a  Ecrvant  (bondsman)  of  Jesus  Christy  he 
 
20  KOMANS  I.  1. 
 
 may  have  intended  either  to  declare  himself  the  defenJant  and 
 ■worshipper  of  Christ,  as  all  Christians  are  servants  (slaves)  of 
 Christ,  Eph.  vi.  6;  or  to  express  his  official  relation  to  the 
 Church  as  the  minister  of  Christ.  This  is  the  more  probable 
 explanation,  because,  in  the  Old  Testament  nin*^  na?  is  a  com- 
 mon official  designation  of  any  one  employed  in  the  immediate 
 service  of  God,  Joshua  i.  1,  xxiv.  29,  Jer.  xxix.  19,  Isaiah 
 xlii.  1 ;  and  because  in  the  New  Testament  we  find  the  same 
 usage,  not  only  in  the  beginning  of  several  of  the  epistles,  as 
 "Paul  and  Timothy,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Phil.  i.  1. 
 "James,  the  servant  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ,"  James  i.  1. 
 "Peter,  a  servant  and  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  1  Peter  i.  1; 
 but  also  in  other  cases  where  the  word  doukoi;  is  interchanged  with 
 dcdxovo^  minister.  Comp.  Col.  i.  7,  iv.  7,  12.  It  is,  therefore, 
 a  general  official  designation  of  which,  in  the  present  case, 
 apostle  is  the  specific  explanation.  "Apostolatus  ministerii  est 
 species."  Calvin.  It  has  also  been  properly  remarked,  that 
 as  the  expression,  servant  of  Christ,  implies  implicit  obedience 
 and  subjection,  it  supposes  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Redeemer. 
 That  is,  we  find  the  apostle  denying  that  he  was  the  servant  of 
 men,  rejecting  all  human  authority  as  it  regards  matters  of  faith 
 tind  duty,  and  yet  professing  the  most  absolute  subjection  of 
 conscience  and  reason  to  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 yJrjTOQ  dTtoaToXoi;,  called  an  apostle.  Paul  was  not  only  a 
 servant  of  Christ,  but  by  Divine  appointment  an  apostle.  This 
 idea  is  included  in  the  word  xXr^ro^,  which  means  not  only 
 called,  but  chosen,  appointed;  and  the  xXr^ac^,  or  vocation,  as 
 well  of  believers  to  grace  and  salvation,  as  of  the  apostles  to 
 their  office  is  uniformly  ascribed  to  God  or  Christ ;  see  Gal. 
 i.  1,  1  Cor.  i.  1,  Tit.  i.  1,  Gal.  i.  15.  As  the  immediate  call  of 
 Christ  wa^  one  of  the  essential  requisites  of  an  apostle,  Paul 
 means  to  assert  in  the  use  of  the  word  xXiJTo^  that  he  wa-s 
 neither  self-appointed  nor  chosen  by  men  to  that  sacred  office 
 
 The  word  dnoaroko!;  occurs  in  its  original  sense  of  messenger 
 in  several  cases  in  the  New  Testament.  John  xiii.  16,  oux  lazt 
 djcdazoXo^  nd^cov  too  7iefj.(pavroz  abzov.  Phil.  ii.  25,  ^Enaippo 
 8cTov  .  .  .  ^/Jiwu  8s  aTtbazoXov.  Comp.  iv.  18.  In  2  Cor.  viii.  23, 
 Paul  speaking  of  the  brethren  who  were  with  him,  calls  them 
 ditoazoXM  ixxX/]<T:(ou;  zouzeazcv  says  Chrysostom,  [)7:b  ixxXr^aicou 
 
ROMANS  I.  1.  21 
 
 TiS/jL^^hTe^.  Theophylact  adds,  xai  ^scpozopr^i&euTSi;.  Our 
 translators,  therefore,  are  doubtless  correct  in  rendering  this 
 phrase,  messengers  of  the  churches.  As  a  strict  official  desig- 
 nation, the  word  apostle  is  confined  to  those  men  selected  and 
 commissioned  by  Christ  himself  to  deliver  in  his  name  the 
 message  of  salvation.  It  appears  from  Luke  vi.  13,  that  tlie 
 Saviour  himself  gave  them  this  title.  "And  wheA  it  was  day, 
 he  called  his  disciples,  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve,  whom  also 
 he  named  apostles."  If  it  be  asked,  why  this  name  Avas 
 chosen?  it  is  perhaps  enough  to  say,  that  it  was  peculiarly 
 appropriate.  It  is  given  to  those  who  were  sent  by  Christ 
 to  perform  a  particular  service,  who  were  therefore  properly 
 called  messengers.  There  is  no  necessity  to  resort  for  an 
 explanation  of  the  term,  to  the  fact  that  the  word  n'^b'i  mes- 
 senger, was  applied  sometimes  to  the  teachers  and  ministers  of 
 the  synagogue,  sometimes  to  plenipotentiaries  sent  by  the  San- 
 hedrim to  execute  some  ecclesiastical  commission. 
 
 The  apostles,  then,  were  the  immediate  messengers  of  Christ, 
 appointed  to  bear  testimony  to  what  they  had  seen  and  heard. 
 "Ye  also  skill  bear  witness,"  said  Christ,  speaking  to  the 
 twelve,  "because  ye  have  been  with  me  from  the  beginning." 
 John  XV.  26.  This  was  their  peculiar  office ;  hence  when 
 Judas  fell,  one,  said  Peter,  who  has  companioned  with  us  all 
 the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us,  must  be 
 ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection.  Acts  i.  21. 
 To  be  an  apostle,  therefore,  it  was  necessary  to  have  seen 
 Christ  after  his  resurrection,  1  Cor.  ix.  1,  and  to  have  a 
 knowledge  of  his  life  and  doctrines  derived  immediately  from 
 himself.  Without  this  no  man  could  be  a  witness,  he  would 
 only  report  what  he  had  heard  from  others,  he  could  bear  no 
 independent  testimony  to  what  he  himself  had  seen  and  heard. 
 Christ,  therefore,  says  to  his  disciples,  after  his  resurrection, 
 "Ye  shall  be  my  witnesses,"  Acts  i.  8,  and  the  apostles 
 accordingly  constantly  presented  themselves  in  this  character. 
 Acts  ii.  32,  iii.  15,  xiii.  31.  "  We  are  witnesses,"  said  Peter, 
 speiking  of  himself  and  fellow-apostles,  "of  all  things  which 
 he  did,  both  in  the  land  of  Judea,  and  in  Jerusalem."  Acts 
 X.  39.  When  Paul  was  called  to  be  an  apostle,  the  Saviour  said 
 to  him.    '  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for  this  purpose,  to  make 
 
22  ROMANS  I.  1. 
 
 tnce  a  minister  and  a  witness  of  these  things  which  thou  hast 
 seen,  and  of  those  things  in  the  which  I  will  appear  unto  thee."' 
 Acts  xxvi.  16.  We  accordingly  j6nd,  that  whenever  Paul  was 
 called  upon  to  defend  his  apostleship,  he  strenuously  asserted 
 that  he  was  appointed  not  of  men  nor  by  man,  but  by  Jesus 
 Christ ;  and  as  to  his  doctrines,  that  he  neither  received  them 
 of  man,  neither  was  he  taught  them,  but  by  revelation  of  Jesus 
 Christ.     Gal.  i.  12. 
 
 As  the  testimony  which  the  apostles  were  to  bear  related  to 
 all  that  Jesus  had  taught  them,  it  was  by  preaching  the  gospel 
 that  they  discharged  their  duty  as  witnesses.  Hence  Paul 
 says,  "  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize  but  to  preach  the  gos- 
 pel." 1  Cor.  i.  17.  To  the  elders  of  Ephesus  he  said,  "I 
 count  not  my  life  dear  unto  me,  so  tliat  I  might  finish  my 
 course  with  joy,  and  the  ministry  which  I  have  received  of  the 
 Lord  Jesus,  to  testify  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God."  Acts 
 XX.  24. 
 
 To  give  authority  to  this  testimony  the  apostles  were  inspired, 
 and  as  religious  teachers  infallible.  John  xiv.  28,  xvi.  13. 
 They  had  the  power  of  working  miracles,  in  confirmation  of 
 their  mission.  Matt.  x.  8,  and  the  Acts  of  the  A^postles passim. 
 This  power  they  could  communicate  to  others  by  the  laying 
 on  of  their  hands.  Acts  ix.  15,  17,  18,  xix.  6.  This  is 
 what  is  meant  by  giving  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  apostles 
 never  claimed  the  power  of  communicating  the  sanctifying 
 influences  of  the  Spirit.  Nor  was  the  power  of  giving  the 
 Spirit,  in  the  sen&e  above-mentioned,  peculiar  to  them,  for  we 
 read  that  Ananias,  a  disciple,  was  sent  to  Paul  that  he  might 
 receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  ix.  17.  The  apostles  seem  also 
 to  have  had  the  gift  of  "discerning  spirits,"  1  Cor.  xii.  10, 
 and  of  remitting  sins.  John  xx.  23.  They  ordained  presbyters 
 over  the  congregations  gathered  by  their  ministry.  Acts  xiv. 
 23,  &c. ;  and  exercised  a  general  jurisdiction  over  the  churches. 
 1  Cor.  V.  3—5,  2  Cor.  x.  6,  8,  11,  1  Tim.  i.  20.  The  apos- 
 tles, therefore,  were  the  immediate  messengers  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 sent  to  declare  his  gospel,  endued  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  render- 
 ing them  infallible  as  teachers,  and  investing  them  with  mira- 
 culous powers,  and  clothed  with  peculiar  prerogatives  in  the 
 organization  and  government  of  the  Church. 
 
ROMANS  I.  2.  23 
 
 It  is  in  explanalion  of  his  apostolic  office,  and  in  tlio  further 
 assertion  of  his  divine  commission  that  Paul  adds,  d^w/^^c/iivo^ 
 e^'f  zhayykhoM  d-zou^  separated,  unto  the  gospel  of  Grod.  \4<popc!^eci^ 
 is  to  limit  off,  to  separate,  to  select  from  among  others.  It  is  so 
 used  in  Levit.  xx.  24,  26,  "I  am  the  Lord  your  God,  which 
 have  separated  you  from  other  people."  In  the  same  sen.se,  in 
 Gal.  i.  15,  "when  it  pleased  God,  who  separated  me  from  my 
 mother's  womb;"  that  is,  who  singled  me  out,  or  chose  me.  It 
 is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  apostle  here  refers  to  his  appoint- 
 ment by  God  to  his  office.  In  Acts  xiii.  2,  it  is  said,  "  Separate 
 [dipofHaaze)  unto  me  Barnabas  and  Saul,"  where  a  separation 
 not  to  the  ministry,  much  less  to  the  apostleship,  but  to  a  special 
 mission  is  referred  to.  Paul's  designation  to  office  v/as  neither 
 of  man,  nor  by  man.  Gal.  i.  1.  The  words  £rc  zoayyiXeov,  unto 
 the  gospel,  express  the  object  to  which  he  was  devoted  when  thus 
 separated  from  the  mass  of  his  brethren ;  it  was  to  preach  the 
 gospel.  The  divine  origin  of  the  gospel  is  asserted  in  calling 
 it  the  gospel  of  Gfod.  It  is  the  glad  annunciation  which  God 
 makes  to  men  of  the  pardon  of  sin,  of  restoration  to  his  favour, 
 of  the  renovation  of  their  nature,  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
 body,  and  of  eternal  life. 
 
 Verse  2.  Which  he  promised  afore.  That  is,  the  gospel 
 which  Paul  was  sent  to  preach,  was  the  same  system  of  grace 
 and  truth,  which  from  the  beginning  had  been  predicted  and 
 partially  unfolded  in  the  Avritings  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
 reason  why  the  apostle  here  adverts  to  that  fact  probably  was, 
 that  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  of  the  divine  origin  of  the 
 gospel  is  found  in  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
 advent,  the  character,  the  work,  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah, 
 are  there  predicted,  and  it  was  therefore  out  of  the  Scriptures 
 that  the  apostles  reasoned,  to  convince  the  people  that  Jesus  is 
 the  Christ ;  and  to  this  connection  between  the  two  dispensa 
 tions  they  constantly  refer,  in  proof  of  their  doctrines.  See 
 ch.  iii.  21,  iv.  3,  ix.  27,  33,  x.  11,  20.  Comp.  Luke  xxiv.  44, 
 John  xii.  16,  Acts  x.  43. 
 
 Bg  his  prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  As  in  Scripture  the 
 term  7ipoipr}xr]z,  Heb.  «'i23,  is  applied  to  any  one  who  spake  by 
 inspiration  as  the  ambassador  of  God  and  the  interpreter  of  his 
 will;  TtDO<prjT(bv  here  includes  all  the  Old  Testament  writers, 
 
24  ROMANS  I.  3. 
 
 whether  prophets  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  or  teachers,  or 
 historians.  Meyer  indeed  insists  that  the  line  of  the  prophets 
 begins  with  Samuel,  according  to  Acts  iii.  24 — "all  the  prophets 
 from  Samuel,  and  those  who  follow  after,"  and  therefore  that 
 the  earlier  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  are  not  here  included. 
 But  Moses  was  a  prophet,  and  what  is  here  expressed  by  the 
 words  "his  prophets,"  is  explained  by  the  phrase  "the  law  and 
 the  prophets,"  in  ch.  iii.  21. 
 
 By  the  Holy  Scriptures  must  of  course  be  understood,  those 
 writings  which  the  Jews  regarded  as  holy,  because  they  treated 
 of  holy  things,  and  because  they  were  given  by  the  inspiration 
 of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 Verse  3.  Concerning  his  Son.  These  words  are  either  to  be 
 connected  with  zbayyEXcov,  the  gospel  concerning  his  Son;  or 
 with  TTpozTtTjYtiXaro,  which  he  promised  concerning  his  Son. 
 The  sense  in  either  case  is  much  the  same.  As  most  com- 
 mentators and  editors  regard  the  second  verse  as  a  parenthesis, 
 they  of  course  adopt  the  former  construction ;  but  as  there  is 
 no  necessity  for  assuming  any  parenthesis,  the  natural  gram- 
 matical connection  is  with  TTpoeTzrjyye'^aro.  The  personal  object 
 of  the  ancient  promises  is  the  Son  of  God. 
 
 It  is  a  well  known  scriptural  usage,  that  the  designations 
 employed  in  reference  to  our  Lord  are  sometimes  applied  to 
 him  as  a  historical  person,  God  and  man,  and  sometimes  exclu- 
 sively to  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  natures,  the  divine  and 
 human,  which  enter  into  the  constitution  of  the  theanthropos. 
 Thus  the  term  Son  designates  the  Logos  in  all  those  passages 
 in  which  he  is  spoken  of  as  the  Creator  of  all  things ;  at  other 
 times  it  designates  the  incarnate  Logos;  as  when  it  is  said, 
 "the  Son  shall  make  you  free."  Sometimes  the  same  term  is 
 used  in  the  same  passage  in  reference  first  to  the  incarnate 
 Word,  and  then  to  the  Word  as  the  second  person  of  the 
 Trinity.  Thus  in  Heb.  i.  2,  it  is  said,  "  Hath  spoken  unto  us 
 by  his  Son,  (the  historical  person,  Jesus  Christ,)  by  whom  (the 
 eternal  Word)  he  made  the  worlds."  So  here,  "concerning  his 
 Son,"  means  the  Son  of  God  as  clothed  in  our  nature,  the  Word 
 made  flesh ;  but  in  the  next  clause,  "  declared  to  be  the  Son 
 of  God,"  the  word  Son  designates  the  divine  nature  of  Christ. 
 In  all  cases,  h.iwever,  it  is  a  designation  implying  participation 
 
ROMANS  I.  3.  25 
 
 of  the  divine  nature.  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God  because 
 he  is  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  and  therefore  equal  to  him 
 in  power  and  glory.  The  term  expresses  the  relation  of  the 
 second  to  the  first  person  in  the  Trinity,  as  it  exists  from 
 eternity.  It  is  therefore,  as  applied  to  Christ,  not  a  term  of 
 office,  nor  expressive  of  any  relation  assumed  in  time.  He  was 
 and  is  the  Eternal  Son.  This  is  proved  from  John  i.  1 — 14, 
 where  the  term  ujoc  is  interchanged  with  ?.6i-o^.  It  was  the 
 Son,  therefore,  who  in  the  beginning  was  with  God,  who  was 
 God,  who  created  all  things,  in  whom  was  life,  who  is  the  light 
 of  men,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father.  In  John  v.  17 — 31, 
 Christ  calls  himself  the  Son  of  God,  in  a  sense  which  made  him 
 equal  to  the  Father,  having  the  same  power,  the  same  author- 
 ity, and  a  right  to  the  same  honour.  In  John  x.  29 — 42,  Christ 
 declares  God  to  be  his  Father  in  such  a  sense  as  to  make  him- 
 self God,  one  with  the  Father;  and  he  vindicates  his  claim  to 
 this  participation  of  the  divine  nature  by  appealing  to  his 
 works.  In  Col.  i.  13 — 17,  he  is  said  as  Son  to  be  the  image  of 
 the  invisible  God,  the  exact  exemplar,  and  of  course  the  revealer 
 of  the  Divine  nature;  the  Creator  of  all  things  that  are  in 
 heaven  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible.  In  Heb. 
 i.  4 — 6,  the  title  Son  is  adduced  as  proof  that  he  is  superior  to 
 the  angels,  and  entitled  to  their  worship.  He  is  therefore 
 called  God's  proper  Son,  cdiot;,  Rom.  viii.  32,  (comp.  Tzavepa 
 tdcov  s^^sys  Tou  d-eov^  John  v.  18 ;)  his  own  Son,  kaurou,  Rom. 
 viii.  3;  his  only  begotten  Son,  [xovoyBvij^,  John  i.  14,  18,  iii. 
 16,  18,  1  John  iv.  9.  Hence  giving,  sending,  not  sparing  this 
 Son,  is  said  to  be  the  highest  conceivable  evidence  of  the  love 
 of  God,  John  iii.  16,  Rom.  viii.  32,  1  John  iv.  9.  The  histo- 
 rical sense  of  the  terms  X6yo<;,  dxcov,  oloi;,  npayxoroxoc;,  as 
 learned  from  the  Scriptures  and  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  apos- 
 tolic age,  shows  that  they  must,  in  their  application  to  Christ, 
 be  understood  of  his  Divine  nature. 
 
 Who  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David.  As  yhofio!,  from  the 
 assumed  theme  yiu(o,  to  beget,  signifies  to  begin  to  be,  to  come 
 into  existence,  it  is  often  used  in  reference  to  descent  or  birth, 
 ysvofjLsvou  ix  y^vouxo^,  Gal.  iv.  4 ;  -^c  kysvij^r^ve  zkxva,  1  Pet. 
 iii.  6.  "Made  of  the  seed  of  David,"  is  therefore  equivalent 
 to  *'born  of  the  seed  of  David."     That  the  Messiah  was  to  be 
 
26  ROMANS  I.  4. 
 
 of  the  family  of  David,  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
 affirmed  in  the  New.  Isa.  xi.  1,  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  Matt.  xxii.  45, 
 John  vii.  42,  Acts  xiii.  23. 
 
 The  limitation  xaxa  adpxa,  according  to  the  flesh,  obviously 
 implies  the  superhuman  character  of  Jesus  Christ.  Were  he  a 
 mere  man,  it  had  been  enough  to  say  that  he  was  of  the  seed 
 of  David ;  but  as  he  is  more  than  man,  it  was  necessary  to  limit 
 his  descent  from  David  to  his  human  nature.  That  the  word 
 adp^  here  means  human  nature  is  obvious  both  from  the  scrip- 
 tural usage  of  the  word,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  See 
 John  i.  14,  Rom.  ix.  5,  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  1  John  iv.  2,  3.  It  is 
 not  the  fiesh  or  body,  as  opposed  to  the  soul,  but  the  human,  as 
 opposed  to  the  divine  nature,  that  is  intended.  Neither  does 
 adp^  here  mean  the  purely  material  element  with  its  organic 
 life,  the  aojfxa  and  (po"/"^,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Trusupa,  or 
 rational  principle,  according  to  the  Apollinarian  doctrine,  but 
 the  entire  humanity  of  Christ,  including  "  a  true  body  and  a 
 reasonable  soul."  This  is  the  sense  of  the  word  in  all  the 
 parallel  passages  in  which  the  incarnation  is  the  subject.  As 
 when  it  is  said,  "The  Word  was  made  flesh,"  John  i.  14;  or, 
 "God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  These  are 
 explained  by  saying,  "  He  was  found  in  fashion  as  a  man," 
 Philip,  ii.  8.  The  word  therefore  includes  everything  which  con- 
 stitutes the  nature  which  a  child  derives  from  its  progenitors. 
 
 Verse  4.  Declared  to  be  the  Son  of  Crod.  The  word  bpc^scv 
 means,  1.  To  limit,  or  bound,  and,  in  reference  to  ideas,  to 
 define.  2.  To  determine.  Luke  xxii.  22,  Acts  ii.  23,  Heb. 
 iv.  7.  3.  To  appoint,  or  constitute.  Acts  x.  42.  6  6)pi(T/jt£uoi; 
 uTtb  TOO  d^eoi)  xpcrr^^  ^(optcou  xac  i^expcov.  Acts  xvii.  31.  This  last 
 sense  is  given  by  some  few  commentators  to  bpca&ivro!;  in  this 
 passage.  The  apostle  would  then  say  that  Christ  was  appointed, 
 or  constituted  the  Son  of  God,  by  or  after  his  resurrection 
 But  this  is  inconsistent  with  what  he  elsewhere  teaches,  viz 
 that  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God  before  the  foundation  of  the 
 world.  Col.  i.  15.  As  shown  above,  Son  of  God  is  not  a 
 title  of  office,  but  of  nature,  and  therefore  Christ  cannot  be  said 
 to  have  been  constituted  the  Son  of  God.  This  interpretation 
 also  would  involve  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  in  great  difficul- 
 ties.    Hence  even  those  commentators  who  most  strenuously 
 
ROMANS  1.  4.  27 
 
 insist  on  adhering  to  the  signification  of  words,  are  constrained, 
 ex  necessitate  loci,  to  understand  bpcadspzo^  here  declaratively, 
 or  in  reference  to  the  knowledge  of  men.  That  is,  when 
 Christ  is  said  to  be  constituted  the  Son  of  God,  we  are  not  to 
 understand  that  he  became  or  was  made  Son,  but  was,  in  the 
 view  of  men,  thus  determined.* 
 
 The  Vulgate  reads,  qui  ijraedestinatus  est,  which  version 
 is  followed  by  most  of  the  Roman  Catholic  interpreters,  and  by 
 Grotius.  This  rendering  is  probably  founded  on  the  reading, 
 npoopiad-euToi;,  which,  although  old,  has  little  evidence  in  its 
 favour.  Neither  is  the  sense  thus  expressed  suited  to  the  con- 
 text. Christ  was  not  predestinated  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  He 
 was  such  from  eternity. 
 
 With  poioer;  Touziazi,  says  Theophylact,  dzb  ri^^c  ouuduscoc 
 T(ou  ar^fxeicov  <Lv  ircoUi ;  Theodoret  also  understands  these 
 words  to  refer  to  the  miracles  which  Jesus,  by  the  power  of 
 the  Holy  Ghost,  wrought  in  confirmation  of  his  claim  to  be 
 the  Son  of  God.  The  former  of  these  commentators  takes 
 iu  duudfxei,  xard  Tzutd/xa,  i^  d-yaardoEw^,  as  indicating  three 
 distinct  sources  of  proof  of  the  Sonship  of  Christ.  He  was 
 proved  by  his  miraculous  power,  by  the  Holy  Spirit  either  as 
 given  to  him,  or  as  by  him  given  to  his  people,  (the  latter  is 
 Theophylact's  view,)  and  by  his  resurrection,  to  be  the  Son 
 of  God.  But  the  change  of  the  prepositions,  and  especially 
 the  antithetical  structure  of  the  sentence,  by  which  xazd 
 7Tv$u/jLa  is  obviously  opposed  to  xazd  adpxa,  are  decisive  objec- 
 tions to  this  interpretation.  Others  propose  to  connect  iu 
 d'jvdpitt  with  uldb,  Son  in  power,  for  powerful  Son;  a  more 
 common  and  more  natural  construction  is  to  connect  them  with 
 bpca&evzo^,  proved,  or  declared  with  power,  for  powerfully, 
 efTectually  proved  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  He  was  declared 
 with  emphasis  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  ita  ut  ejus  rei  plenissima  et 
 certissima  sit  fides.  Winzer. 
 
 *  Es  bleibt  daher,  says  De  Wette,  nichts  abrig,  als  den  Gedanken  des 
 Bestimmen  modalisch,  d.  h.  in  Beziehung,  auf  die  menschliche  Erkenntniss,  za 
 nehmen.  Much  to  the  same  purpose  Fritzsche  says,  Fuerit  enim  Christus,  ut 
 ruit,  ante  mundum  Dei  filius,  hoc  certe  apparet,  eum  inter  mortaUs  iis  demum 
 rebus  talom  a  Deo  constitutum  esse,  sine  quibus  eum  esse  Dei  filiura  homi- 
 nes cognoscere  non  potuissent,  yelut  reditu  es  inferis. 
 
28  ROMANS  I.  4 
 
 According  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness.  As  just  remarked,  these 
 words  are  in  antithesis  with  xara  adpxa;  as  to  the  flesh  he  waa 
 the  Son  of  David,  as  to  the  Spirit  the  Son  of  God.  As  aap^ 
 means  his  human  nature,  nveu/xa  can  hardly  mean  anything 
 else  than  the  higher  or  divine  nature  of  Christ.  The  word 
 TiVVJfia  may  be  taken  in  this  sense  in  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  iScxaccb&rj 
 iv  TTveufiarc,  justified  hy  the  Spirit,  i.  e.  he  was  shown  to  be  just, 
 his  claims  were  all  sustained  by  the  manifestations  of  his  divine 
 nature,  i.  e.  of  his  divine  power  and  authority.  Heb.  ix.  14, 
 OQ  dca  TTveu/uaroi;  accoviou,  who  with  an  eternal  Spirit  oflfered 
 himself  unto  God.  1  Pet.  iii.  18  is  a  more  doubtful  passage.  The 
 genitive  d.Yuoauv7jz  is  a  qualification  of  ;rv£u//a,  Spirit  of  holiness ; 
 the  Spirit  whose  characteristic  is  holiness.  This  expression 
 seems  to  be  here  used,  to  prevent  ambiguity,  as  Holy  Spirit  is 
 appropriated  as  the  designation  of  the  third  person  of  the 
 Trinity.  As  the  word  holy  often  means  august,  venerandus,  so 
 S.y:a)(Tuu7^  expresses  that  attribute  of  a  person  which  renders  him 
 worthy  of  reverence ;  Ttvtufia  &YC(oauv7jz  is,  therefore,  Spiritus 
 summe  venerandus,  the  -d^eoTrji;,  divine  nature,  or  Godhead, 
 which  dwelt  in  Jesus  Christ ;  the  Logos,  who  in  the  beginning 
 was  with  God,  and  was  God,  and  who  became  flesh  and  dwelt 
 among  us.  That  Tiveu/jia  does  not  here  mean  the  spiritual  state 
 of  exaltation  of  Christ,  is  plain;  first,  because  the  word  is 
 never  so  used  elsewhere ;  and,  secondly,  because  it  is  inconsis- 
 tent with  the  antithesis  to  xard  adpxa.  Those  who  understand 
 the  phrase  "  Spirit  of  holiness"  to  refer  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
 either,  as  before  remarked,  suppose  that  the  apostle  refers 
 to  the  evidence  given  by  the  Spirit  to  the  Sonship  of  Christ, 
 hence  Calvin  renders  xara  nveu/jta  per  Spiritum;  or  they 
 consider  him  as  appealing  to  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  as 
 given  in  the  Scriptures.  '  Christ  was  declared  to  be  the  Son 
 of  God,  agreeably  to  the  Spirit.'  To  both  these  views,  how- 
 ever, the  same  objection  lies,  that  it  destroys  the  antithesis. 
 
 1^  dvaaTdffso)^  vtxpojv,  is  rendered  by  Erasmus,  Luther,  and 
 others,  after  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  It  was  not  until 
 Christ  had  risen  that  the  evidence  of  his  Sonship  was  complete, 
 or  the  fulness  of  its  import  known  even  to  the  apostles.  But  it 
 is  better  suited  to  th  3  context,  and  more  agreeable  to  the  Scrip- 
 ture, to  consider  the  resurrection  itself  as  the  evidence  of  his 
 
ROMANS  I.  4.  2y 
 
 Sonsliip.  It  was  by  the  resurrection  that  he  was  proved  to  be 
 the  Son  of  God.  "  God,"  says  the  apostle,  "will judge  the  world 
 in  righteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained,  whereof 
 he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him 
 from  the  dead."  Acts  xvii.  31.  The  apostle  Peter  also  says, 
 that  "  God  hath  begotten  us  to  a  lively  hope  by  the  resurrec- 
 tion of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead."  1  Pet.  i.  3.  Comp.  iii.  21, 
 Acts  xiii.  35,  xxvi.  23,  1  Cor.  xv.  20.  In  these  and  many 
 other  passages  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is  represented  as  the 
 great,  conclusive  evidence  of  the  truth  of  all  that  Christ  taught, 
 and  of  the  validity  of  all  his  claims.  If  it  be  asked  how  the 
 resurrection  of  Christ  is  a  proof  of  his  being  the  Son  of  God, 
 it  may  be  answered,  first,  because  he  rose  by  his  own  power. 
 He  had  power  to  lay  down  his  life,  and  he  had  power  to  take 
 it  again.  John  x.  18.  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  fact 
 taught  in  so  many  other  passages,  that  he  was  raised  by  the 
 power  of  the  Father,  because  what  the  Father  does  the  Son 
 does  likewise;  creation,  and  all  other  external  works,  are 
 ascribed  indifferently  to  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit.  But  in 
 the  second  place,  as  Christ  had  openly  declared  himself  to  be 
 the  Son  of  God,  his  rising  from  the  dead  was  the  seal  of  God 
 to  the  truth  of  that  declaration.  Had  he  continued  under  the 
 power  of  death,  God  would  thereby  have  disallowed  his  claim 
 to  be  his  Son ;  but  as  he  raised  him  from  the  dead,  he  publicly 
 acknowledged  him ;  saying.  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I 
 declared  thee  such.  "  If  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preach- 
 ing vain,"  says  the  apostle,  "and  your  faith  is  also  vain.  But  now 
 is  Christ  risen,  and  become  the  first  fruits  of  them  tnat  slept." 
 
 Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  These  words  are  in  apposition  with 
 rob  otou  auTou  of  the  third  verse;  "his  Son,  Jesus  Christ  our 
 Lord."  All  the  names  of  Christ  are  precious  to  his  people. 
 He  is  called  Jesus,  Saviour,  because  he  saves  his  people  from 
 their  sins.  Matt.  i.  21.  The  name  Christ,  i.  e.  Messiah, 
 Anointed,  connects  him  with  all  the  predictions  and  promises 
 of  the  Old  Testament.  He  is  the  anointed  prophet,  priest,  and 
 king,  to  whom  all  believing  eyes  had  been  so  long  directed,  and 
 on  whom  all  hopes  centred.  He  is  xupioi;  -^[jlmv  our  Lord. 
 This  word  indeed  is  often  used  as  a  mere  term  of  respect, 
 equivalent  to  Sir,  but  as  it  is  employed  by  the  LXX.  as  the 
 
30  ROMANS  I.  5. 
 
 common  substitute  of  Jehovah,  or  rather  as  the  translation  of 
 *i3iis<,  in  the  sense  of  supreme  Lord  and  possessor,  so  it  is  in 
 the  New  Testament  applied  in  the  same  sense  to  Christ.  He  is 
 our  Supreme  Lord  and  possessor.  We  belong  to  him,  and  his 
 authority  over  us  is  absolute,  extending  to  the  heart  and  con- 
 science as  well  as  to  the  outward  conduct ;  and  to  him  every 
 knee  shall  bow  and  every  tongue  confess  that  he  is  Lord,  to  the 
 glory  of  God  the  Father.  He,  then,  who  in  this  exalted  sense 
 is  our  Lord,  is,  as  to  his  human  nature,  the  Son  of  David,  and 
 as  to  his  Divine  nature,  the  Son  of  God. 
 
 Verse  5.  Through  ivhom  we  have  received  grace  and  apostle- 
 ship.  As  it  was  of  the  utmost  importance  that  Paul's  authority 
 as  an  apostle  should  be  acknowledged  in  the  Church,  he  here 
 repeats  the  assertion  that  he  received  his  office  immediately 
 from  Jesus  Christ,  whose  exalted  character  as  the  Son  of  God 
 and  our  supreme  Lord  he  had  just  declared.  Though  di'  ob 
 properly  means  through  whom,  by  whose  instrumentality,  the 
 preposition  must  here  be  taken  in  a  more  general  sense  as  indi- 
 cating the  source  from  whom.  Comp.  Gal.  i.  1,  dca  §eou 
 Ttarpo^.  Rom.  xi.  36,  1  Cor.  i.  9.  The  words  ')[dp:v  xal  dTcotzoXijv 
 may  either  be  taken  together  and  rendered  the  favour  of  the 
 apostleship,  or  each  word  may  be  taken  separately.  Then 
 X^P^'^  refers  to  the  kindness  of  God  manifested  to  the  apostle 
 in  his  conversion  and  vocation.  '  Through  whom  we  received 
 grace,  favour  in  general,  and  specially,  the  apostleship.' 
 
 Unto  the  obedience  of  faith.  These  words  express  the  object 
 of  the  apostleship ;  Tzlarecoi;  is  either  the  genitive  of  apposition, 
 "  obedience  which  consists  in  faith;"  or  it  is  the  genitive  of  the 
 source,  "obedience  which  flows  from  faith;"  or  it  is  the  geni- 
 tive of  the  object,  "obedience  to  faith,"  i.  e.  to  the  gospel.  In 
 favour  of  the  last  interpretation  reference  may  be  made  to 
 2  Cor.  X.  5.  jj  57:axorj  too  Xpcazou ;  1  Pet.  i.  22,  jJ  bnaxo^  rrjz 
 dX7j&s.ia(;,  obedience  to  the  truth.  See  Gal.  i.  23,  Acts  vi.  7,  Jude 
 iii.  for  examples  of  the  use  of  TclarcQ  in  this  objective  sense.  The 
 subjective  sense,  however,  of  the  word  Tziarcc:  in  the  New  Testa- 
 ment is  so  predominant  that  it  is  safest  to  retain  it  in  this  pas- 
 sage. The  obedience  of  faith  is  that  obedience  which  consists  in 
 faith,  or  of  which  faith  is  the  controlling  principle.  The  design 
 of  the  apostleship  was  to  bring  all  nations  so  to  believe  in  Christ 
 
ROMANS  I.  6.  31 
 
 the  Son  of  God  that  they  should  be  entirely  devoted  to  his  ser- 
 vice. The  sense  is  the  same  if  Tiiarc:;  be  taken  objectively,  un- 
 derstood however  not  of  the  gospel,  but  of  the  inward  principle 
 of  faith  to  Avhich  the  nations  were  to  be  obedient.  Among  all 
 nations.  The  apostles  were  not  diocesans  restricted  in  jurisdic- 
 tion to  a  particular  territory.  Their  commission  was  general. 
 It  was  to  all  nations.  If  these  words  are  connected  with  we  re- 
 ceived, they  express  directly  the  extent  of  the  apostle's  mission, 
 'We  have  received  a  mission  among  all  nations.'  If,  as  is  much 
 more  natural  on  acccount  of  their  position,  they"  are  connected 
 with  the  immediately  preceding  words,  they  express  the  same 
 idea  indirectly;  his  office  was  to  promote  obedience  to  the  faith 
 among  all  nations.  For  Ms  name.  That  is  for  the  sake  of 
 [bTzip)  his  name  or  glory.  These  words  are  most  naturally 
 connected  with  the  whole  preceding  verse,  and  express  the  final 
 end  of  the  apostleship,  viz.  the  honour  of  Christ.  It  was  to 
 promote  the  knowledge  and  glory  of  Christ  that  Paul  had 
 received  his  office  and  laboured  to  make  the  nations  obedient  to 
 the  gospel. 
 
 Verse  6.  Among  whom  are  ye  also.  The  apostle  thus  justi- 
 fies his  addressing  the  Church  at  Rome  in  his  official  character. 
 If  the  commission  which  he  had  received  extended  to  all  nations, 
 he  was  not  transcending  its  limits  in  writing  as  an  apostle  to 
 any  church,  though  it  had  not  been  founded  by  his  instrument- 
 ality, nor  enjoyed  his  personal  ministry.  Called  of  Jesus 
 Christ.  This  may  mean,  Those  whom  Christ  has  called.  But 
 as  the  x^an;,  or  vocation  of  believers,  is  generally  in  the  New 
 Testament  referred  to  God,  the  meaning  probably  is,  The  called 
 who  belong  to  Christ.  Qui  Dei  beneficio  estis  Jesu  Christi. 
 Beza.  The  word  y.Xrjz6<;  is  never  in  the  epistles  applied  to  one 
 who  is  merely  invited  by  the  external  call  of  the  gospel.  01 
 xXrfoi,  the  called,  means  the  efiectually  called;  those  who  are 
 so  called  by  God  as  to  be  made  obedient  to  the  call.  Hence 
 the  xXrjzoi  are  opposed  to  those  who  receive  and  disregard  the 
 outward  call.  Christ,  though  an  ofience  to  the  Jews  and  Greeks, 
 is  declared  to  be  {to2(;  xXrjrol^)  to  the  called  the  wisdom  and 
 power  of  God.  1  Cor.  i.  24.  Hence,  too,  x/.t^toc  and  ix?.sxToi 
 are  of  nearly  the  same  import ;  xava  npo&saiu  xAtjToc,  Rom.  viii, 
 28 ;  corap.  Rom.  ix.  11,  1  Cor.  i.  26,  27.    We  accordingly  find 
 
32  ROMANS  I.  7. 
 
 xk^toi  n!>ed  as  a  familiar  designation  of  believers,  as  in  Rev 
 xvii.  14,  ol  fxer  auvou,  xXr^zol  xal  exAexrol  xal  mazoi.  See  Jude 
 i.  1.  Comp.  Rom.  viii.  30,  ix.  24,  1  Cor.  i.  9,  vii.  17,  et  seq., 
 Gal.  i.  15,  Eph.  iv.  1,  Col.  iii.  15,  1  Thess.  ii.  12,  v.  24, 
 2  Tim.  i.  9.  In  these  and  in  many  other  passages,  the  verb 
 xaUii)  expresses  the  inward  efficacious  call  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 
 Theophylact  remarks  that  the  word  xl'qxoi  is  applied  to  Chris- 
 tians, since  they  are  drawn  by  grace,  and  do  not  come  of  them- 
 selves. God,  as  it  were,  anticipates  them.  The  same  remark 
 may  be  made  of  most  of  the  other  terms  by  which  believers  are 
 designated.  They  all  more  or  less  distinctly  bring  into  view  the 
 idea  of  the  agency  of  God  in  making  them  to  differ  from  others. 
 They  are  called  ixXtxrol  '&zou.  Rom.  viii.  83,  Col.  iii.  12, 
 1  Tim.  i.  1 ;  or  more  fully,  ixXtxrol  xaxa  Trpoyvaxnu  ■d^eou,  1  Pet. 
 i.  2 ;  -jycaa/iiuoc,  sanctified,  which  includes  the  idea  of  separa- 
 tion, 1  Cor.  i.  1,  Jude  i.  1,  7:poopca&ivze(;  xaza  izpb&taiv  zou 
 &eov,  Eph.  i.  11,  aco^o/ispoc,  1  Cor.  i.  18,  2  Cor.  ii.  15,  zsza- 
 Yfjiivoc  dQ  ^(OTji^  alwvcov,  Acts  xiii.  48. 
 
 Verse  7.  To  all  who  are  in  Rome.  These  words  are,  in 
 sense,  connected  with  the  first  verse,  "  Paul,  the  servant  of 
 Jesus  Christ,  to  all  who  are  in  Rome."  Beloved  of  Grod.  This 
 is  the  great  distinction  and  blessedness  of  believers,  they  are 
 the  beloved  of  God.  They  are  not  so  called  simply  because,  as 
 was  the  case  with  the  ancient  Israelites,  they  are  selected  from 
 the  rest  of  the  world,  and  made  the  recipients  of  peculiar 
 external  favours ;  but  because  they  are  the  objects  of  that  great 
 love  wherewith  he  hath  loved  those  whom,  when  they  were  dead 
 in  sins,  he  hath  quickened  together  with  Christ,  Eph.  ii.  4,  5. 
 They  are  the  elect  of  God,  holy  and  beloved.  Col.  iii.  12 :  they 
 are  brethren  beloved  of  the  Lord,  2  Thess.  ii.  13.  Called  to  be 
 saints.  The  former  of  these  words  stands  in  the  same  relation 
 to  the  latter  that  xkqzoi^  does  to  aTioozoXo^  in  ver.  1,  called  to  he 
 xn  apostle,  called  to  he  saints.  It  is  one  of  those  designations 
 peculiar  to  the  true  people  of  God,  and  expresses  at  once  their 
 vocation,  and  that  to  which  they  are  called,  viz.  holiness.  The 
 word  ayioi;,  in  accordance  with  the  meaning  of  mip  in  the  Old 
 Testament,  signifies  clean,  p)ure  morally,  consecrated,  and  espe- 
 cially as  applied  to  God,  holy,  ivorthy  of  reverence.  The  people 
 of  Israel,  their  land,  their  temple,  &c.,  are  called  holy,  as  sepa- 
 
ROMANS  I.  7.  33 
 
 rated  and  devoted  to  God.  The  term  ^ycoc  as  applied  to  the 
 people  of  God  under  the  new  dispensation,  includes  this  idea. 
 They  are  saints,  because  they  are  a  community  separated  from 
 th«  world  and  consecrated  to  God.  But  agreeably  to  the  nature 
 of  the  Christian  dispensation,  this  separation  is  not  merely 
 external;  believers  are  assumed  to  be  really  separated  from 
 sin,  that  is,  clean,  pure.  Again,  as  the  impurity  of  sin  is, 
 according  to  Scripture,  twofold,  its  pollution,  and  guilt  or  just 
 liability  to  punishment,  so  the  words  xaO-aifjecu,  xa&api^tcv, 
 Sifid^eiv,  which  all  mean  to  cleanse,  are  used  both  to  express  the 
 cleansing  from  guilt  by  expiation,  and  from  pollution  by  the 
 Holy  Spirit.  Sometimes  the  one  and  sometimes  the  other,  and 
 often  both  of  these  ideas  are  expressed  by  the  words.  See 
 John  XV.  2,  Heb.  x.  2,  for  the  use  of  xa&aioa) ;  Acts  xv.  9, 
 Eph.  V.  26,  Tit.  ii.  14,  Heb.  ix.  14,  22,  1  John  i.  7,  for  the  use 
 of  xa^apc^o);  John  xvii.  19,  Acts  xxvi.  16,  1  Tim.  iv.  5,  Heb. 
 ii.  11,  X.  10,  14,  29,  for  the  use  of  Sl-^-m^co.  Hence  Christians 
 are  called  dycoc,  ^ycaansvoc,  not  only  as  those  who  are  conse 
 crated  to  God,  but  also  as  those  who  are  cleansed  both  by 
 expiation,  and  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 "  Novam  Mc  periodum  incipio,"  says  Beza,  "  adscripto  puncto 
 post  Siycoc^."  In  this  punctuation  he  is  followed  by  Knapp, 
 Lachmann,  Fritzsche,  and  many  others.  The  sense  then  is, 
 "Paul,  an  apostle — to  the  saints  in  Rome."  And  then  follows 
 the  salutation,  "Grace  and  peace  to  you."  That  the  words 
 va^ofC  xa:  dpijvr]  are  in  the  nominative,  and  the  introduction  of 
 bpilv  show  that  a  new  sentence  is  here  begun. 
 
 G-race  be  to  you,  and  peace.  Xdpi^  is  kindness,  and  espe- 
 cially undeserved  kindness,  and  therefore  it  is  so  often  used  to 
 express  the  unmerited  goodness  of  God  in  the  salvation  of  sin- 
 ners. Very  frequently  it  is  used  metonymically  for  the  effect 
 of  kindness,  that  is,  for  a  gift  or  favour.  Anything,  therefore, 
 bestowed  on  the  undeserving  may  be  called  ^dpcc.  In  this 
 sense  Paul  calls  his  apostleship  y^dp:^,  Rom.  xii.  3,  Eph.  iii.  2,  8 ; 
 and  all  the  blessings  conferred  on  sinners  through  Jesus  Christ, 
 are  graces,  or  gifts.  It  is  in  this  sense  repentance,  faith,  love, 
 and  hope  are  graces.  And  especially  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit  in  the  heart,  in  connection  with  the  gift  of  the  Son,  the 
 greatest  of  God's  free  gifts  to  men,  is  with  peculiar  propriety 
 3 
 
34  ROMANS  I.  8. 
 
 called  X'^P-'^i  ^^  grace.  Such  is  its  meaning  in  1  Cor.  xv.  10, 
 2  Cor.  viii.  1,  Rom.  xii.  6,  Gal.  i.  15,  and  in  many  other  pas- 
 sages. In  the  text,  it  is  to  be  taken  in  the  comprehensive 
 sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  apostolic  benediction,  for  the 
 favour  and  love  of  God  and  Christ.  The  word  v-pr^vr]^  which 
 is  so  often  united  with  '/(dpe(;  in  the  formulas  of  salutation,  is 
 used  in  the  wide  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word  tiiid,  well-being, 
 prosperity,  every  kind  of  good.  Grace  and  peace  therefore 
 include  everything  that  we  can  desire  or  need,  the  favour  of 
 God,  and  all  the  blessings  that  favour  secures.  "Nihil  prius 
 optandum,"  says  Calvin,  "quam  ut  Deum  propitium  habeamus ; 
 quod  designatur  per  gratiam.  Deinde,  ut  ab  eo  prosperitas 
 et  successus  omnium  rerum  fluat,  qui  significatur  Pacis  voca- 
 bulo." 
 
 From  Crod  our  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This 
 association  of  the  Father  and  Christ  as  equally  the  object  of 
 prayer,  and  the  source  of  spiritual  blessings,  is  a  conclusive 
 proof  that  Paul  regarded  Christ  as  truly  God.  God  is  called 
 our  Father,  not  merely  as  the  author  of  our  existence,  and  the 
 source  of  every  blessing,  but  especially  as  reconciled  towards 
 us  through  Jesus  Christ.  The  term  expresses  the  peculiai 
 relation  in  which  he  stands  to  those  who  are  his  sons,  whc 
 have  the  spirit  of  adoption,  and  are  the  heirs  or  recipients 
 of  the  heavenly  inheritance.  Jesus  Christ  is  our  Lord,  as 
 our  supreme  Ruler,  under  whose  care  and  protection  we  are 
 placed,  and  through  whose  ministration  all  good  is  actually 
 bestowed. 
 
 Verse  8.  From  this  verse  to  the  end  of  the  17th,  we  have 
 the  general  introduction  to  the  epistle.  It  has  the  usual 
 characteristics  of  the  introductory  portions  of  the  apostle's 
 letters.  It  is  commendatory.  It  breathes  the  spirit  of  love 
 towards  his  brethren,  and  of  gratitude  and  devotion  towards 
 God;  and  it  introduces  the  reader  in  the  most  natural  and 
 appropriate  manner  to  the  great  doctrines  which  he  means  to 
 exhibit.  First,  I  thank  my  Grod.  The  words  Tipwzov  fisv 
 imply  an  enumeration,  which  however  is  not  carried  out. 
 Comp.  1  Cor.  xi.  18,  2  Cor.  xii.  12,  and  other  cases  in  which 
 the  apostle  begins  a  construction  which  he  does  not  continue. 
 My  G-od,  that  is,  the   God  to  whom  I  belong,  whom  I  serve, 
 
ROMANS  I.  9.  35 
 
 and  who  stands  Lo  me  in  the  relation  of  God,  as  father,  friend, 
 and  source  of  all  good.  "I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they 
 shall  be  to  me  a  people,"  is  the  most  comprehensive  of  all  pro- 
 mises. ThroiLgh  Jesus  Christ,  are  not  to  be  connected  with  the 
 immediately  preceding  words,  *My  God,  through  Jesus  Christ;' 
 but  with  tbiapcaroi,  'I  thank  God,  through  Jesus  Christ.' 
 Tills  form  of  expression  supposes  the  mediation  of  Christ,  by 
 whom  alone  we  have  access  to  the  Father,  and  for  whose  sake 
 alone  either  our  prayers  or  praises  are  accepted.  See  Rom. 
 vii.  25,  Eph.  v.  20,  "  Giving  thanks  always  for  all  things  unto 
 God  and  the  Father,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
 And  Col.  iii.  17,  "  Whatsoever  ye  do  in  word  or  deed,  do  all  in 
 the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving  thanks  to  God  and  the 
 Father  by  him."  Heb.  xiii.  15,  "By  him  therefore  let  us 
 offer  the  sacrifice  of  praise  to  God."  All  this  is  in  accordance 
 with  the  command  of  Christ,  John  xiv.  13,  and  xvi.  23,  24, 
 "Hitherto  have  ye  asked  nothing  in  my  name:  ask,  and  ye 
 shall  receive."  Such  then  being  the  clear  doctrine  of  the 
 Bible,  that  in  all  our  approaches  to  God  in  prayer  or  praise, 
 we  must  come  in  the  name  of  Christ,  that  is,  in  him,  referring 
 to  him  as  the  ground  of  our  acceptance,  there  is  no  need  of  the 
 various  forced  interpretations  of  the  words  in  the  text,  which 
 have  been  given  by  those  who  are  unwilling  to  admit  the  idea 
 of  such  mediation  on  the  part  of  Christ.  For  you  all.  Several 
 manuscripts  have  nepi  instead  of  unsp,  which  is  probably  a 
 correction.  The  sense  is  the  same.  The  special  ground  of  the 
 apostle's  thankfulness  is  expressed  in  the  following  clause: 
 That  your  faith  is  spohen  of  throughout  the  whole  world. 
 Their  faith  was  of  such  a  character  as  to  excite  general  atten- 
 tion and  remark.  Not  only  the  fact  that  the  Romans  believed, 
 'out  that  their  faith  was  of  such  a  character  as  to  be  everywhere 
 spoken  of,  was  recognized  by  the  apostle  as  cause  of  gratitude 
 to  God.     God  therefore  is  the  giver  of  faith. 
 
 Verse  9.  In  confirmation  of  his  declaration  of  gratitude 
 for  their  conversion,  and  for  the  eminence  of  their  faith,  Paul 
 appears  to  his  constant  remembrance  of  them  in  his  prayers. 
 For  Crod  is  my  ivitness.  This  reverend  appeal  to  God  as  the 
 oearcher  of  hearts,  is  not  uncommon  in  the  apostle's  writings. 
 2  Cor.  i.  23,  Gal.  i.  20,  Philip,  i.  8.     It  is  an  act  of  worship, 
 
36  ROMANS  I.  10. 
 
 a  devout  recognition  of  God's  omnipresence  and  omniscience. 
 Whom  I  serve.  The  word  Xavpeuu)  is  in  the  New  Testament 
 always  used  of  religious  service,  either  as  rendered  to  God  or  to 
 creatures — 'Who  worship  and  serve  the  creature  more  than  the 
 Creator,'  chap.  i.  25.  This  service  may  consist  either  in  ivorship, 
 or  in  the  performance  of  external  duties  of  a  religious  nature. 
 The  service  of  which  Paul  here  speaks  is  characterized  in  the 
 following  clause ;  in  my  spirit.  This  is  opposed  at  once  to  an 
 insincere,  and  to  a  mere  external  service.  Jn  the  gospel  of  his 
 Son.  That  is,  it  was  a  service  rendered  in  preaching  the 
 gospel.  The  priests  served,  iXdrpeuaav,  when  performing  the 
 duties  of  their  office ;  and  Paul  served  in  performing  the  duties 
 of  an  apostle.  The  gospel  of  his  /Son,  may  mean  either  the 
 gospel  concerning  his  Son,  or  which  his  Son  himself  taught. 
 The  former,  perhaps,  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  use  of  this 
 and  similar  phrases,  as,  'gospel  of  the  kingdom,'  'gospel  of  the 
 grace  of  God,'  &c.  That  I  constantly  make  mention  of  you. 
 It  is  plain,  from  the  occurrence  of  the  word  dso/ueuo^  in  the 
 next  verse,  and  from  the  use  of  this  expression  in  other  places, 
 Philip,  i.  3,  1  Thess.  i.  2,  that  Paul  here  refers  to  his  remem- 
 bering the  Roman  Christians  in  his  prayers,  and  not  to  his 
 bearing  them  in  his  mind,  or  talking  about  them.  The  particle 
 d>C  may  be  connected  with  ddcahinzajz,  how  uninterruptedly ; 
 or  with  the  clause,  '  God  is  my  witness  that,'  &c.  Comp.  Acts 
 X.  28,  1  Thess.  ii.  10. 
 
 Verse  10.  I  make  mention  of  you,  always  in  my  prayers 
 praying  {el'  izax;)  if  possibly,  if  it  may  he,  expressing  the  sub- 
 mission to  the  will  of  God  with  which  the  apostle  urged  his 
 request,  'qdrj  nozi,  now  at  last,  as  though  he  had  long  looked 
 forward  with  desire  to  what  there  was  now  a  prospect  of  his 
 seeing  accomplished.  I  may  he  so  happy,  hy  the  will  of  Grod, 
 to  come  to  you.  Euodouu  is,  to  lead  in  the  right  way,  to  pros- 
 per one's  journey.  Gen.  xxiv.  48,  and  jfiguratively,  to  prosper, 
 1  Cor.  xvi.  2,  3  John  2.  In  the  passive  voice,  it  is,  to  be 
 prospered,  successful,  favoured.  In  the  present  case,  as  Paul 
 had  neither  commenced  his  journey,  nor  formed  any  immediate 
 purpose  to  undertake  it,  see  chap.  xv.  25 — 29,  his  prayer  was 
 not  that  his  journey  might  be  prosperous,  but  that  he  might  be 
 permitted  to  undertake  it;  that  his  circumstances  should  be  so 
 
ROMANS  I.  11.  37 
 
 favourably  ordered  that  he  might  be  able  to  execute  his  long 
 cherished  purpose  of  visiting  Rome.  Knowing,  however,  that 
 all  things  are  ordered  of  God,  and  feeling  that  his  own  wishes 
 should  be  subordinated  to  the  Divine  will,  he  adds,  hy  the  will 
 of  God;  which  is  equivalent  to,  If  it  be  the  will  of  God. 
 'Praying  continually,  that,  if  it  be  the  will  of  Cod,  I  may  be 
 prospered  to  come  unto  you.' 
 
 Verse  11.  Why  the  apostle  was  anxious  to  visit  Rome,  he 
 states  in  this  verse.  He  desired  to  see  them,  not  merely  for 
 his  own  gratification,  but  that  he  might  confer  some  spiritual 
 gift  upon  them,  which  would  tend  to  strengthen  their  faith. 
 For  I  long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart  [/xsraouj  share  with 
 you)  sotne  spiritual  gift.  By  spiritual  gift  is  not  to  be  under- 
 stood a  gift  pertaining  to  the  soul  in  distinction  from  the  body, 
 but  one  derived  from  the  Spirit.  The  gifts  of  which  the  Holy 
 bpirit  is  the  author,  include  not  only  those  miraculous  endow- 
 ments of  which  such  frequent  mention  is  made  in  the  Epistle  to 
 the  Corinthians,  and  the  ordinary  gifts  of  teaching,  exhorta- 
 tion, and  prophesying,  1  Cor.  xii.,  but  also  those  graces  which 
 are  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  The  extraordinary  gifts  were 
 communicated  by  the  imposition  of  the  apostles'  hands,  Acts 
 viii.  17,  xix.  6,  and  therefore  abounded  in  churches  founded  by 
 the  apostles,  1  Cor.  i.  7,  Gal.  iii.  5.  As  the  church  at  Rome 
 was  not  of  this  number,  it  has  been  supposed  that  Paul  was 
 desirous  of  conferring  on  the  Roman  Christians  some  of  those 
 miraculous  powers  by  which  the  gospel  was  in  other  places 
 attended  and  confirmed.  The  following  verses,  however,  are 
 in  favour  of  giving  the  phrase  here  a  wider  signification.  Any 
 increase  of  knowledge,  of  grace,  or  of  power,  was  a  -/fjipcaixa 
 TLVtup.artxbv  in  the  sense  here  intended.  In  order  that  ye  may 
 he  strengthened.  This  includes  not  only  an  increase  of  con- 
 fidence in  their  belief  of  the  gospel,  but  an  increase  of  strength 
 in  their  religious  feelings,  and  in  their  purpose  and  power  of 
 obedience.  Comp.  1  Thess.  iii.  2:  I  sent  Timothy — "to  estab- 
 lish you,  and  to  comfort  you  concerning  your  faith."  And 
 2  Thess.  ii.  17,  "Now  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  comfort  your 
 hearts,  and  stablish  you  in  every  good  word  and  work."  And 
 the  apostle  prays  that  the  Ephesians  might  be  strengthened 
 IS  to  the  inner  man. 
 
38  ROMANS  I.  12. 
 
 Yerse  12.  That  is,  that  I  may  he  comforted  amcng  you. 
 This  is  obviously  intended  to  be  an  explanation  or  correction 
 of  what  precedes.  He  had  desired  to  see  them,  in  order  that 
 he  might  do  them  good ;  but  this  was  not  his  whole  object,  he 
 hoped  to  receive  benefit  himself.  As  to  the  grammatical 
 construction,  the  infinitive  aofjuiapaxXr^drjiJac  may  depend  on 
 (j-rjpcy^d^YjVfu.  The  sense  would  then  be,  'That  you  may  be 
 strengthened,  that  I  may  be  comforted.'  Or  the  one  infinitive 
 is  coordinate  with  the  other;  then  both  depend  on  the  ha 
 fiSTado)  of  ver.  10,  '  That  I  may  impart  some  spiritual  gift  tc 
 you,  in  order  that  you  may  be  strengthened;  that  is,  that  I 
 may  be  comforted  together  with  you.'  This  seems  the  most 
 natural  construction ;  yet  as  Paul  expected  to  be  refreshed  by 
 their  faith,  and  not  by  his  giving  them  spiritual  gifts,  the  sense 
 seems  to  require  that  (TUjuTiaprxydr^d^Y^uai  should  depend  on  the 
 first  words  of  ver.  10,  '  I  desire  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart 
 (Jua  jusvado))  some  spiritual  gift  to  you ;  that  is,  that  I  may  be 
 comforted  [(TU/x7TapaxX-/j^7jpac),'  &c.  It  is  not  a  valid  objection  to 
 this  interpretation,  that  it  supposes  a  change  of  the  construe 
 tion  from  the  subjunctive  to  the  infinitive.  A  similar  change 
 occurs  (probably)  in  ch.  ix.  22,  23;  and  much  greater  irregu- 
 larities are  not  unfrequent  in  the  New  Testament. 
 
 The  word  rcapaxaXeo)  is  used  in  such  various  senses,  that  it  is 
 not  easy  to  determine  what  precise  meaning  should  be  attached 
 to  it  here.  It  signifies  to  call  near,  to  invite,  Acts  xxviii.  20, 
 to  call  upon,  and  more  generally  to  address,  either  for  instruc- 
 tion, admonition,  exhortation,  confirmation,  or  consolation. 
 Our  translators  and  the  majority  of  commentators  choose  the 
 last  mentioned  sense,  and  render  auii-n:apo:tXrj&rjvai  (e//£)  that  I 
 may  he  comforted.  This  is  probably  too  narrow.  The  word 
 expresses  all  that  excitement  and  strengthening  of  faith  and 
 pious  feeling,  as  well  as  consolation,  which  is  Avont  to  flow  from 
 the  communion  of  saints.  This  appears  from  the  context,  and 
 especially  from  the  following  clause,  oca  r^c  ^v  dXXrjXocz 
 TTcffTeiOt^,-  upLcdu  re  xal  iftou,  thro^lgh  our  mutual  faith,  as  well 
 yours  as  mine.  The  faith  of  the  Romans  would  not  only  com- 
 fort, but  strengthen  the  apostle;  andhis  faith  could  not  fail  to 
 produce  a  like  effect  on  them.  '^T/uou  ts.  xal  kjiod  are  the 
 explanation  of  the  preceding  ev  dXXijXoc^,  and  should  therefore 
 
ROMANS  I.  13,  14.  39 
 
 be  in  the  dative.     Fritsche  refers  to  Luke  i.  55,  for  a  similar 
 case  of  variation  in  the  construction. 
 
 Verse  13.  I  would  not  have  you  ignorant^  brethren;  a  mode 
 of  expression  which  the  apostle  often  adopts,  when  he  would 
 assure  his  readers  of  anything,  or  call  their  attention  to  it  par- 
 ticularly. That  oftentimes  I  purposed  to  come  unto  you.  In 
 chap.  XV.  23,  he  states  that  he  had  cherished  this  purpose  for 
 many  years.  And  was  hindered  until  now.  Our  version  ren- 
 ders xai  adversatively  hut.  This  is  objected  to  as  unnecessary, 
 especially  as  xo.i  often  introduces  a  parenthesis ;  and  such  is 
 this  clause,  because  the  following  Iva  must  depend  on  Trpoz&iirr^v 
 of  the  preceding  clause.  As  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  the  apos- 
 tle says,  that  having  no  more  place  in  the  countries  around 
 Greece,  he  was  ready  to  visit  Rome,  it  is  probable  that  the 
 hindering  to  which  he  here  refers,  was  the  incessant  calls  for 
 apostolic  labour,  which  left  no  time  at  his  command.  As,  how- 
 ever, his  course  seems  to  have  been  under  the  guidance  of  a 
 special  providence.  Acts  xvi.  6,  7,  9,  it  may  be  that  the  Spirit 
 who  had  forbidden  his  preaching  in  Asia,  had  hitherto  forbidden 
 his  visiting  Rome.  That  I  may  have  some  fruit  among  you,  as 
 among  other  gentiles.  Kaprtbv  lyzcv  is  to  have  profit.,  or  advan- 
 tage. See  chap.  vi.  21,  22.  The  profit,  however,  which  Paul 
 desired,  was  the  fruit  of  his  ministry,  the  conversion  or  edifica- 
 tion of  those  to  whom  he  preached. 
 
 Verse  14.  Both  to  Greeks  and  barbarians,  to  the  wise  and 
 to  the  univise,  I  am  debtor.  That  is,  I  am  under  obligation  (to 
 preach)  to  all  classes  of  men.  His  commission  was  a  general 
 one,  confined  to  no  one  nation,  and  to  no  particular  class. 
 Greeks  and  barbarians,  mean  all  nations;  wise  and  unwise, 
 mean  all  classes.  BdpSapoz  means  properly  a  foreigner,  one 
 of  another  language,  1  Cor.  xiv.  11.  Greeks  and  barbarians, 
 therefore,  is  equivalent  to  Greeks  and  not  Greeks,  all  nations. 
 As  the  Greeks  however  excelled  other  nations  in  civilization, 
 the  word  came  to  signify  rude,  uncultivated;  though  even  by 
 later  writers  it  is  often  used  in  its  original  sense,  and  not  as  a 
 term  of  reproach.  The  apostle  distinguishes  men  first  as 
 nations,  Greeks  and  not  Greeks,  and  secondly  as  to  culture, 
 wise  and  unwise.  The  Romans,  whose  city  was  called  "  an 
 epitome  cf  the  world,"  belonged  exclusively  neither  to  the  one 
 
40  ROMANS  I.  15,  16. 
 
 class  nor  to  the  other.  Some  were  wise  and  some  unwise, 
 some  Greeks  and  some  barbarians. 
 
 Verse  15.  And  so,  or  hence.  That  is,  since  I  am  bound  to 
 all  men,  Greeks  and  barbarians,  I  am  ready  to  preach  to  you, 
 who  are  at  Rome.  The  clause,  to  xar  ejus  Trpo&u/jtou,  admits  of 
 different  interpretations.  According  to  the  English  version,  to 
 xaT  i/jti  must  be  taken  together;  npo&ufiov  is  taken  as  a  sub- 
 stantive, and  made  the  nominative  to  ioTi.  Hence,  as  much  as 
 is  in  me,  (or,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,)  there  is  a  readiness, 
 i.  e.  I  am  ready.  Thus  Calvin,  "Itaque,  quantum  in  me  est, 
 paratus  sum."  This  gives  a  good  sense,  and  is  specially  suited 
 to  the  context,  as  it  renders  prominent  Paul's  dependence  and 
 submission.  He  did  not  direct  his  own  steps.  As  far  as  he 
 was  concerned,  he  was  willing  to  preach  in  Rome ;  but  whether 
 he  should  do  so  or  not,  rested  not  with  him,  but  with  God.  A 
 second  explanation  makes  to  xut  i/ue  the  subject  of  the  sen- 
 tence, and  Ttfjo&ufxov  the  predicate.  'What  is  in  me  is  ready.' 
 Thus  Beza,  "  Quicquid  in  me  situm  est,  id  promptum  est."  Or, 
 as  Beza  also  proposes,  to  xaT  ifis  may  be  taken  as  a  peri- 
 phrase  for  e-jf(o,  and  the  clause  be  translated,  "  Promptus  sum 
 ego."  But  it  is  denied  that  such  a  periphrase  for  the  personal 
 pronoun  ever  occurs ;  to.  u/isTspa  for  u/jtil(;,  and  to.  ip.d  for  iyo), 
 to  which  Beza  refers,  are  not  parallel.  The  third  explanation, 
 refers  to  to  TrpS&u/iop,  and  makes  xut  ifjti  equal  to' k/jtoti,  'My 
 readiness,  or  desire  is.'  Comp.  Eph.  i.  15,  ry^v  xad-'  u/jlu^ 
 iTcffTiv,  your  faith;  Acts  xvii.  28.  tcou  xu.(P  bpLUt;  TtocrjToJv, 
 xviii.  15,  uofxau  too  xad-'  bfia^.  To  preach  the  gospel.  The 
 verb  euajyeXiaaad^ac  is  commonly  followed  by  some  word  or 
 phrase  expressing  the  subject  of  the  message — kingdom  of  God, 
 gospel,  word  of  God,  Christ.  In  writing  to  Christians,  who 
 knew  what  the  glad  tidings  were,  the  apostles  often,  as  in  the 
 present  case,  use  the  word  absolutely  so  that  the  word  by 
 itself  means,  to  preach  the  gospel,  &c.  See  ch.  xv.  20,  Acts 
 xiv.  7,  Gal.  iv.  13. 
 
 Verse  16.  For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.* 
 This  he  assigns  as  the  reason  why  he  was  ready  to  preach  even 
 
 *  The  words  tw  Xfirrou  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  B.  C.  D.  E.  G.  17.  67.  in 
 many  of  the  versions  and  Fathers,  and  are  rejected  by  Mill,  Bengel,  Griesbach, 
 Lachmanii,  Tischendorf,  and  others.  They  are  found  in  the  Complutensian 
 text  and  are  defended  by  Wetstein  and  Matthsei. 
 
ROMANS  I.  16.  41 
 
 at  Rome.  To  the  wise  of  this  world  the  gospel  was  foolishness, 
 1  Cor.  i.  23,  yet  Paul  was  not  ashamed  of  it,  but  was  ready 
 among  the  wise  and  unwise  to  preach  Christ  and  him  crucified. 
 The  reason  of  this  regard  for  the  gospel  is  stated  in  the  follow- 
 ing clause :  For  it  is  the  power  of  G-od  unto  salvation.  By 
 dovafui;  dsod,  some  understand  great  pozver,  in  accordance  with 
 an  assumed  Hebrew  idiom,  agreeably  to  which  '  mountains  of 
 God'  mean  great  mountains,  '  wind  of  God'  great  wind,  '  zeal 
 of  God'  great  zeal,  &;c.  But  the  existence  of  such  an  idiom  in 
 the  Hebrew  is  very  doubtful,  and  its  application  to  this  passage 
 is  unnatural  and  unnecessary.  Others  make  6soi>  a  mere  quali- 
 fying genitive,  'power  of  God,'  meaning  'divinely  powerful.' 
 Beza's  explanation  is,  "Organon  Dei  vere  potens  et  efficax." 
 The  gospel  is  then  declared  to  be  that  through  which  God  exer- 
 cises his  power.  Most  commonly  dsou  is  taken  as  the  genitive 
 of  the  Author,  and  power  of  God  is  made  to  mean  power  derived 
 from  God.  There  are  two  things  then  asserted  of  the  gospel, 
 first  that  it  is  powerful,  and  secondly  that  it  is  from  God.  Comp, 
 1  Cor.  i.  18,  24.  The  main  idea,  however,  is  that  expressed  by 
 Beza,  The  gospel  is  that  in  which  God  works,  which  he  renders 
 efficacious — e/c  oiozrjp'uxv,  unto  salvation.  That  is,  it  is  effica- 
 cious to  save.  The  nature  of  the  salvation  here  intended  is  to 
 be  learned  from  the  nature  of  the  gospel.  It  is  deliverance 
 from  sin  and  its  punishment,  and  admission  into  eternal  life 
 and  blessedness.  This  is  what  no  means  of  man's  devising,  no 
 efforts  of  human  wisdom  or  human  power  could  effect  for  any 
 human  being.  The  gospel  effects  it  Ttavrt  tcH  TicaTeuovtc,  for 
 every  one  that  believes.  Emphasis  must  be  laid  on  both  the 
 members  of  this  clause.  The  gospel  is  thus  efficacious  to  every 
 one,  without  distinction  between  Jew  and  gentile,  Greek  or  bar- 
 barian, wise  or  unwise ;  and  it  is  efficacious  to  every  one  that 
 believes,  not  to  every  one  who  is  circumcised,  or  baptized,  or 
 who  obeys  the  law,  but  to  every  one  who  believes,  that  is,  who 
 receives  and  confides  in  Jesus  Christ  as  he  is  offered  in  the 
 gospel.  We  have  here  the  two  great  doctrines  set  forth  in  this 
 epistle.  First,  salvation  is  by  faith ;  and  secondly,  it  is  univer- 
 sally applicable,  to  the  Greek  as  well  as  to  the  Jew.  The  faith 
 of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks  includes  a  firm  persuasion 
 of  the  truth,  and  a  reliance  or  trust  on  the  object  of  faith. 
 
42  ROMANS  I.  16. 
 
 Sometimes  the  one,  sometimes  the  other  v.f  ihesc  ideas  ia 
 expressed  by  the  word,  and  very  often  both  are  united.  The 
 meaning  of  the  term  is  not  to  be  determined  so  much  by  philo- 
 sophical analysis  as  by  scriptural  usage.  For  the  question  is 
 not  what  is  the  abstract  nature  of  the  act  of  believing,  philoso- 
 phically considered,  but  what  act  or  state  of  mind  is  expressed 
 by  the  words  mazsuecv  and  Ttiavc^  in  the  various  constructions 
 in  which  they  occur.  It  is  rare  indeed  that  the  state  of  mind 
 expressed  by  any  word  is  so  simple  as  not  to  admit  of  being 
 resolved  into  various  elements.  The  exercise  expressed  by  the 
 word  love,  for  example,  includes  the  perception  of  agreeable 
 qualities  in  its  object,  a  judgment  of  the  mind  as  to  their 
 nature,  a  delight  in  them,  and  a  desire  for  their  enjoyment. 
 And  these  differ  specifically  in  their  nature,  according  to  the 
 nature  of  the  thing  loved.  It  is  not  to  any  one  of  these 
 elements  of  the  complex  affection  that  the  word  love  is  applied, 
 but  to  the  state  of  mind  as  a  whole.  So  also  with  the  word 
 faith,  the  exercise  which  it  expresses  includes  a  perception  of 
 its  object  and  its  qualities,  that  is,  it  includes  knowledge; 
 secondly,  an  assent  of  the  mind  to  the  truth  of  the  thing 
 believed,  and  very  often  a  reliance  or  trust  on  the  object  of 
 faith.  Assent  is  therefore  but  one  of  the  elements  of  saving 
 faith,  that  is,  it  is  but  one  of  the  constituents  of  that  state 
 of  mind  which,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  is  in  the  Bible  expressed 
 by  the  word.  And  as  the  great  object  of  interest  to  Christians 
 is  not  a  philosophical  definition  of  a  word,  but  a  knowledge  of 
 the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  word  of  God,  we  must  recur 
 to  the  usage  of  the  Scriptures  themselves  to  determine  what 
 chac  faith  is  which  is  connected  with  salvation. 
 
 There  is  no  doubt  that  Ttcareuzcv  is  often  used  to  express 
 mere  assent.  It  means — to  receive  as  true,  to  be  persuaded  of 
 the  truth  of  anything.  Hence  Tiiazcc  is  persuasion  of  the  truth. 
 When  TTiazeuecu  has  this  simple  meaning,  it  is  commonly  fol- 
 lowed by  the  accusative,  as  in  1  Cor.  xi.  18,  John  xi.  26 ;  or 
 by  the  dative,  Mark  xvi.  13,  ouds  ixdvoc^:  kTziareuaav,  John 
 v.  46;  or  by  ore,  Mark  xi.  23,  Rom.  x.  9.  Yet  in  these  cases 
 the  word  often  expresses  confidence  or  trust,  as  well  as  assent ; 
 Tttartutcv  dtw  is  in  many  connections,  to  confide  in  God;  ag 
 Acts  xxvii.  25,  ncazeuco  yap  z(p  dsaJ  ozt  oSrwc  lazaz. 
 
ROMANS  I.  16.  43 
 
 "When  Tzcareozcv  is  followed  by  im  with  an  accusative,  as  in 
 Rom.  iv.  5,  Tiiaztmvxi  inc  vbv  duacowra,  or  by  iiii  Avith  a 
 dative,  as  Bom.  ix.  33,  6  martocov  in  aurcp,  1  Tim.  i.  16,  it 
 commonly  means  to  trust,  to  believe  upon,  to  confide  in.  It  has 
 the  same  sense  when  followed  by  ei^,  as  in  John  xiv.  i., 
 7ri<TTc'j$T£  ec<;  zbv  6zbv,  xa'c  ecc;  iftk  mareusre,  xvi.  9,  Rom.  x.  14, 
 Gal.  ii.  16,  and  often  elsewhere.  The  construction  with  iv  is 
 less  common;  see,  however,  Mark  i.  15,  fiZTavoetze,  xal  -Kca- 
 TzusTt  iv  xu)  tba:(jz)l(ji);  comp.  Gal.  v.  10,  TZSTcocd^a  iv  Kopiiv, 
 2  Thess.  iii.'  4. 
 
 The  substantive  iztazc^  also  in  various  constructions  signifies 
 reliance,  or  trust;  thus  when  followed  by  ere,  as  in  Acts  xx.  21, 
 TTcazcv  ZYjV  etc;  zbv  Kopcov  j/Jtcov,  xxiv.  24,  xxvi.  18 ;  by  irzc,  with 
 the  accusative,  Heb.  vi.  1 ;  by  tt^oc,  as  1  Thess.  i.  8,  Tztazi^ 
 bfJLoiv  -^  Tipb^  zbv  Stov ;  by  iv,  Rom.  iii.  25,  dca  Z7j^  rriazsco^  iv 
 Z(p  ahzoo  aiixazc,  comp.  Gal.  iii.  26,  1  Tim.  iii.  13,  Tziffzei  z7j  iv 
 Xpc<TZ(v,  2  Tim.  iii.  15 ;  or  by  the  genitive,  as  in  Rom.  iii.  22,  26, 
 Gal.  ii.  16,  iii.  22,  and  often.  That  faith,  therefore,  which  ia 
 connected  with  salvation,  includes  knowledge,  that  is,  a  percep- 
 tion of  the  truth  and  its  qualities ;  assent,  or  the  persuasion  of 
 the  truth  of  the  object  of  faith ;  and  trust,  or  reliance.  The 
 exercise,  or  state  of  mind  expressed  by  the  word  faith,  as  used 
 in  the  Scriptures,  is  not  mere  assent,  or  mere  trust,  it  is  the 
 intelligent  perception,  reception,  and  reliance  on  the  truth,  as 
 revealed  in  the  gospel. 
 
 To  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  G-reek.  To  render  Trpiozov 
 {first,)  here  especiaUi/,  would  make  the  apostle  teach  that  thr 
 gospel  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  Jews,  or  specially  designed 
 for  them.  But  he  frequently  asserts  that  this  is  not  the  case, 
 chap.  iii.  9,  22,  29,  x.  12.  FIpcozov,  therefore,  must  have  refer- 
 ence to  time,  '  To  the  Jew  in  the  first  instance,  and  then  to  the 
 Greek.'  Salvation,  as  our  Saviour  said  to  the  woman  of 
 Samaria,  is  of  the  Jews.  Of  them  the  Messiah  came,  to  them 
 the  gospel  was  first  preached,  and  by  them  preached  to  the 
 Gentiles.  The  apostle  often,  as  in  the  present  instance,  says 
 Jews  and  Greeks,  for  Jews  and  Gentiles,  because  the  Greeks 
 were  the  Gentiles  with  whom,  at  that  period,  the  Jews  were 
 most  familiar. 
 
44  ROMANS  I.  IT. 
 
 Verse  17,  The  reason  why  the  gospel  has  the  efficacy 
 ascribed  to  it  in  the  preceding  verse,  is  not  because  of  its  pure 
 morality,  or  because  it  reveals  and  confirms  a  future  state  of 
 retribution,  but  because  the  righteousness  of  Crod  is  therein 
 revealed.  As  this  is  one  of  those  expressions  which  are 
 employed  to  convey  ideas  peculiar  to  the  gospel,  its  meaning 
 is  to  be  learned  not  merely  from  the  signification  of  the  words, 
 but  from  parallel  passages,  and  from  the  explanations  given  in 
 the  gospel  itself  of  the  whole  subject  to  which  it  relates.  Tliat 
 dcxcuoauv/j  cannot  here  be  understood  of  a  divine  attribute,  such 
 as  rectitude,  justice,  goodness,  or  veracity,  is  obvious,  because 
 it  is  a  dcxacoaovYj  ix  Tt'tazcOiQ,  a  righteousness  which  is  hy  faith, 
 I.  e.  attained  by  faith,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks.  Besides, 
 it  is  elsewhere  said  to  be  without  law,  Rom.  iii.  21,  to  be  a 
 gift,  V.  17,  not  to  be  our  own,  x.  3,  to  be  from  God,  Philip, 
 iii.  9.  These  and  similar  forms  of  expression  are  inconsistent 
 with  the  assumption  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  a  divine 
 attribute.  The  righteousness  of  God,  therefore,  must  mean 
 either  the  righteousness  of  which  God  is  the  author,  or  which 
 he  approves.  Luther,  Calvin,  and  many  others,  prefer  the 
 latter.  "Die  Gerechtigkeit  die  vor  Gott  gilt,"  is  Luther's 
 version.  Calvin  says,  "Justitiam  Dei  accipio,  quae  apud  Dei 
 tribunal  approbatur."  Beza,  Reiche,  De  Wette,  Riickert,  and 
 others,  prefer  the  latter.  These  ideas  are  not  incompatible. 
 This  righteousness  is  at  once  a  dcxacoauvr]  ^  ix  deou,  Philip, 
 iii.  9;  and  a  dcxatoauvrj  napa  zip  dew,  Rom.  ii.  13,  iii.  20,  Gal. 
 iii.  11.  The  gospel  reveals  a  righteousness,  which  God  gives, 
 and  which  he  approves ;  it  is  a  righteousness,  "  qua  quisquis 
 donatus  est,  sistitur  coram  Deo,  sanctus,  inculpatus,  et  nullius 
 labis  possit  postulari."    Beza. 
 
 This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  all  that  the  Scriptures 
 teach  respecting  the  manner  of  our  justification  before  God. 
 The  Bible  represents  God  in  the  character  of  a  moral  governor 
 or  judge.  Man  is  placed  under  a  law  which  is  the  rule  of  his 
 duty,  and  the  standard  by  which  he  is  to  be  judged.  This  law 
 may  be  variously  revealed,  but  it  is  ever  substantially  the 
 same,  having  the  same  precepts,  the  same  sanction,  and  the 
 same  promises.  Those  who  comply  with  the  demands  of  this 
 law  are  o'cxacoc^  righteous ;  those  who  break  the  law  are  ddcxoi, 
 
ROMANS  I.  17.  45 
 
 unrighteous;  to  pronounce  one  righteous  is  Bcxaiouv,  to  justify; 
 the  righteousness  itself,  or  integrity  which  the  law  demands  is 
 dexacoaovfj.  .  Those  who  are  righteous,  or  who  have  the  right- 
 eousness which  the  law  requires,  or  who  are  justified,  have  a 
 title  to  the  favour  of  God. 
 
 Now,  nothing  is  more  clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures  than 
 that  no  man  in  himself  is  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God. 
 "There  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one;  for  all  have  sinned  and 
 come  short  of  the  glory  of  God."  It  is  no  less  clearly  taught 
 that  no  man  can  make  himself  righteous ;  that  is,  he  cannot 
 attain  the  righteousness  which  the  law  demands,  and  which  is 
 necessary  to  his  acceptance  with  God.  The  reason  is  that  the 
 law  demands  perfect  obedience,  which  no  one  has  rendered 
 or  can  render.  It  is  hence  plain  that  by  the  works  of  the 
 law  no  flesh  can  be  justified  before  God.  Rom.  iii.  20,  Gal. 
 ii.  16 ;  daacoabvYj  is  not  ix  vofxou,  Gal.  iii.  21,  or  dca  vofjtou, 
 ii.  21,  or  i^  Ipjcov,  ii.  16.  Men  are  not  justified  coia  dcxatoaourj 
 by  their  own  righteousness.  Rom.  x.  3.  And  yet  righteous- 
 ness is  absolutely  necessary  to  our  justification  and  salvation. 
 Such  a  righteousness  the  gospel  reveals ;  a  righteousness  which 
 is  Xinph  uofj.ou,  without  the  law;  which  is  not  of  works;  a 
 oixacoa'JUT]  Ttiareo)^  or  ix  mateco^y  which  is  hy  faith;  a  right- 
 ousness  which  is  not  our  own,  Philip,  iii.  9 ;  which  is  the  gift 
 of  God,  Rom.  v.  17 ;  which  is  ix  dsou  from  Grod ;  which  is 
 imputed  x^pcc:  epycov  without  works.  Christ  is  our  righteous- 
 ness, 1  Cor.  i.  30,  or  we  are  righteous  before  God  in  him. 
 2  Cor.  V.  21. 
 
 From  this  contrast  between  a  righteousness  which  is  our 
 own,  which  is  of  works,  and  that  which  is  not  our  own,  which 
 is  of  God,  from  God,  the  gift  of  God,  it  is  plain  that  the 
 bixaxoabvri  Osod  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  is  that 
 dcxacoauvrj  by  which  we  are  made  dixatoc  napa  ruJ  dew  ;  it  is  a 
 righteousness  which  he  gives  and  which  he  approves.  This 
 is  the  interpretation  which  is  given  substantially  by  all  the 
 modern  commentators  of  note,  as  Tholuck,  Reiche,  Fritzsche, 
 Riickert,  Koellner,  De  Wette,  &c.,  however  much  they  may 
 diiFer  as  to  other  points.  "Alle  Ei'klarungen,"  says  De  Wette, 
 "welche  das  Moment  der  Zurechnung  iibersehen,  und  das  thun 
 besonders  die  katholischen,  auch  die  des  Grotius,  sind  falsch." 
 
4G  ROMANS  I.  17. 
 
 That  Is,  "All  interpretations  whicli  overlook  the  idea  of  impu- 
 tation, as  is  done  in  the  explanations  given  by  the  Romanists, 
 and  also  in  that  of  Grotius,  are  false." 
 
 The  nature  of  this  righteousness,  it  is  one  great  design  of 
 this  epistle,  and  of  the  whole  gospel  to  unfold.  This,  there 
 fore  is  not  the  place  to  enter  fully  into  the  examination  of 
 that  point ;  it  will  present  itself  at  every  step  of  our  progress. 
 It  is  sufficient  here  to  specify  the  three  general  views  of  the 
 nature  of  that  righteousness  by  which  men  are  justified  before 
 God.  The  first  may  be  called  the  Pelagian,  according  to 
 which  the  apostle  teaches  that  righteousness  cannot  be  attained 
 by  obedience  to  the  ritual  law  of  the  Jews,  but  consists  in 
 works  morally  good.  The  second  view  is  that  of  the  Roman- 
 ists, who  teach  that  the  works  meant  to  be  excluded  from  our 
 justification  are  legal  works ;  works  done  without  grace  and 
 before  regeneration ;  but  the  righteousness  which  makes  us  just 
 before  God,  is  that  inherent  righteousness,  or  spiritual  excel- 
 lence which  is  obtained  by  the  aid  of  divine  grace.  The  third 
 view,  which  is  the  common  doctrine  of  Protestant  churches  is, 
 that  the  righteousness  for  which  we  are  justified  is  neither  any- 
 thing done  by  us  nor  wrought  in  us,  but  something  done  for  us 
 and  imputed  to  us.  It  is  the  work  of  Christ,  Avhat  he  did  and 
 suffered  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law.  Hence  not  merely 
 external  or  ceremonial  works  are  excluded  as  the  ground  of 
 justification ;  but  works  of  righteousness,  all  works  of  what- 
 ever kind  or  degree  of  excellence.  Hence  this  righteousness 
 is  not  our  own.  It  is  nothing  that  we  have  either  wrought 
 ourselves,  or  that  inheres  in  us.  Hence  Christ  is  said  to  be 
 our  righteousness ;  and  we  are  said  to  be  justified  by  his  blood, 
 his  death,  his  obedience ;  we  are  righteous  in  him,  and  are 
 justified  by  him  or  in  his  name,  or  for  his  sake.  The  right- 
 eousness of  God,  therefore,  which  the  gospel  reveals,  and  by 
 which  we  are  constituted  righteous,  is  the  perfect  righteous- 
 ness of  Christ  which  completely  meets  and  answers  all  the 
 demands  of  that  law  to  which  all  men  are  subject,  and  which 
 all  have  broken. 
 
 This  righteousness  is  said  in  the  text  to  be  of  faith.  It  is 
 obvious  that  the  words  kx  Trioztuj^  are  not  to  be  connected  with 
 ^Tio'Aa/Jj-XTtxcu      They   must    be  connected   either   directly   or 
 
ROMANS  I.  17.  At 
 
 indirectly  with  buruoabvq.  It  is  either  dcxacoauv/j  ix  niarem^ 
 anoxaA'JTZT&Toi,  righteousness  by  faith  is  revealed;  or,  baaioa\jvq 
 d.7ioxa)JjTZTZT(u  ix  TTcazsa)^  ouaa,  righteousness  is  revealed,  being 
 of  faith,  X.  e.  which  is  by  faith.  Not  an  excellence  of  which 
 faith  is  the  germinating  principle,  or  which  consists  in  faith, 
 because  this  is  inconsistent  with  all  those  representations  Avhich 
 show  that  this  righteousness  is  not  subjective. 
 
 The  meaning  of  the  words  £:c  rciazcv  in  the  formula  ex 
 Tzcazecoc  ere  Ttiarcv,  from  faith  to  faith,  is  very  doubtful.  They 
 must  be  explained  in  a  manner  consistent  with  their  connection 
 with  oixaxoawq.  It  is  a  righteousness  whicii  is  of  faith  to  faitli. 
 Now  it  cannot  be  said  that  our  justification  depends  on  our 
 believing  first  the  Old  Testament,  and  then  the  New,  which  is 
 the  interpretation  of  Theodoret — oft  yap  -tazzoaru  zol^  Tcpocpij- 
 Tcui;,  xac  oi  kxeivoiv  eci;  zirjv  zoo  edayYS/uou  Tttoztv  ~odrjrj&Y^uac; 
 nor  does  it  seem  to  suit  this  connection  to  make  the  phrase  in 
 question  express  a  progress  from  a  weak  or  imperfect  faith 
 to  that  which  is  more  perfect.  This  however  is  a  very  gene- 
 rally received  interpretation.  Calvin  says,  "  Quum  initio  gusta- 
 mus  evangelium,  lactam  quidem  et  exporrectam  nobis  cernimus 
 Dei  frontem,  sed  eminus;  quo  magis  augescit  pietatis  erudi- 
 tio,  velut  propiore  accessu  clarius  ac  magis  familiariter  Dei 
 gratiam  perspicimus."  The  sense  is  however  perfectly  clear 
 and  good,  if  the  phrase  is  explained  to  mean,  faith  alone. 
 As  "death  unto  death"  and  "life  unto  life"  are  intensive, 
 so  "faith  unto  faith"  may  mean,  entirely  of  faith.  Our  jiisti- 
 fication  is  by  faith  alone ;  works  form  no  part  of  that  right- 
 eousness in  Avhich  we  can  stand  before  the  tribunal  of  God. 
 "Dicit,"  says  Bengel,  "fidem  meram;  namque  justitia  ex  fide 
 
 subsistit  in  fide,   sine   operibus Fides,   inquit  Paulus, 
 
 manet  fides ;  fides  est  prora  et  puppis,  apud  Judeeos  et  Gentiles, 
 etiam  apud  Paulum,  usque  ad  ipsam  ejus  consummationem." 
 Most  of  the  modern  commentators  regard  tii;  in  the  words  d-z 
 TTcaziv,  as  indicating  the  terminus.  Righteousness  is  from  faith 
 and  unto  faith,  comes  to  it.  This  makes  ■^iazcv  here  virtually 
 equivalent  to  Triazeuouza^,  as  in  chap.  iii.  22,  the  dr/.a:oa6vfj 
 6s.oi)  is  said  to  be  eiq  7idvza(;  toi>c  Tieaztuouza^.  Righteousness 
 then  is  by  faith  and  unto  faith,  i.  e.  is  granted  unto  or  bestowed 
 upon  believers. 
 
48  ROMANS  I.  17. 
 
 This  doctrine  of  the  apostle,  that  the  righteousness  which  is 
 unto  life  is  to  be  obtained  by  faith,  he  conj&rms  by  a  reference 
 to  Hab.  ii.  4,  where  it  is  said,  6  3k  dixacoz  ix  Trcavsco:;,  C,ijazTcu^ 
 he  that  is  righteous  hy  faith,  shall  live;  or,  the  righteous  shall 
 live  hy  faith.  The  connection  of  kx  niavuoi;  with  dlxaio;;  is 
 certainly  best  suited  to  the  apostle's  object,  which  is  to  show 
 that  righteousness  is  by  faith ;  but  in  either  construction  the 
 sense  is  substantially  the  same.  Salvation  is  by  faith.  In  the 
 Hebrew  also,  either  construction  is  allowable,  as  the  words  are 
 "The  righteous  in  his  faith  shall  live."  The  Masoretic  accen- 
 tuation however  connects,  as  Paul  does,  the  first  two  words 
 together,  'The  righteous  in  his  faith,  shall  live.'  Shall  live, 
 shall  attain  that  life  which  Christ  gives,  which  is  spiritual, 
 blessed,  and  everlasting ;  comp.  chap.  v.  17,  viii.  13,  x.  3.  This 
 passage  is  cited  in  confirmation  of  the  apostle's  own  doctrine, 
 and  is  peculiarly  pertinent  as  it  shows  that  under  the  old  dis- 
 pensation as  well  as  under  the  new,  the  favour  of  God  was 
 to  be  secured  by  faith. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 .  1.  The  apostolic  office,  except  as  to  what  was  peculiar  and 
 extraordinary,  being  essentially  the  same  with  the  ministerial 
 office'  in  general,  Paul  teaches,  1.  That  ministers  are  the 
 servants  of  Christ,  deriving  their  authority  from  him,  and  not 
 from  the  people ;  2.  That  their  calling  is  to  preach  the  gospel. 
 to  which  all  other  avocations  must  be  made  subordinate; 
 3.  That  the  object  of  their  appointment  is  to  bring  men  to 
 the  obedience  of  faith;  4.  That  their  field  is  all  nations; 
 5.  That  the  design  of  all  is  to  honour  Christ;  it  is  for  his 
 name,  vs.  1 — 5. 
 
 2.  The  gospel  is  contained  in  its  rudiments  in  the  Old 
 Testament.     It  is  the  soul  of  the  old  dispensation,  ver.  2. 
 
 3.  Christ  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of  the  gospel.  In 
 stating  the  substance  of  the  gospel,  Paul  says,  '  It  concerns 
 Jesus  Christ,'  ver.  3. 
 
 4.  Christ  is  at  once  God  and  man;  the  son  of  David  and 
 the  Son  of  God,  vs.  3,  4. 
 
 5.  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God  in  reference  to  his  Divine 
 nature,  and  on  account  of  the  relation  in  which,  as  God,  he 
 
ROMANS  I.  17.  49 
 
 stands  to  the  Father.     The  name,  therefore,  is  expressive  of 
 his  Divine  character,  vs.  3,  4. 
 
 6.  He  is  the  proper  object  of  prayer,  and  the  source  of 
 spiritual  blessings,  ver.  7. 
 
 7.  He  is  the  Mediator  through  whom  our  prayers  and 
 thanksgiving  must  be  presented  to  God,  ver.  8. 
 
 8.  God  is  the  source  of  all  spiritual  good;  is  to  be  wor- 
 shipped in  spirit,  and  agreeably  to  the  gospel;  and  his  pro- 
 vidence is  to  be  recognized  in  reference  to  the  most  ordinary 
 affairs  of  life,  vs.  8 — 10. 
 
 9.  Ministers  are  not  a  class  of  men  exalted  above  the  people, 
 and  independent  of  them  for  spiritual  benefits,  but  are  bound 
 to  seek,  as  well  as  to  impart  good,  in  all  their  intercourse  with 
 those  to  whom  they  are  sent,  vs.  11,  12. 
 
 10.  Ministers  are  bound  to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  men, 
 rich  as  well  as'  poor,  wise  as  well  as  unwise ;  for  it  is  equally 
 adapted  to  the  wants  of  all,  vs.  14,  15. 
 
 11.  The  salvation  of  men,  including  the  pardon  of  their  sins 
 and  the  moral  renovation  of  their  hearts,  can  be  effected  by  the 
 gospel  alone.  The  wisdom  of  men,  during  four  thousand  years 
 previous  to  the  advent  of  Christ,  failed  to  discover  any  ade- 
 quate means  for  the  attainment  of  either  of  these  objects ;  and 
 those  who,  since  the  advent,  have  neglected  the  gospel,  have 
 been  equally  unsuccessful,  ver.  16,  &c. 
 
 12.  The  power  of  the  gospel  lies  not  in  its  pure  theism,  or 
 perfect  moral  code,  but  in  the  Cross,  in  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
 cation by  faith  in  a  crucified  Redeemer,  ver.  17,  &c. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  Ministers  should  remember  that  they  are  "  separated  unto 
 the  gospel,"  and  that  any  occupation  which,  by  its  demands 
 upon  their  attention,  or  from  its  influence  on  their  character  or 
 feelings,  interferes  with  their  devotion  to  this  object,  is  for 
 them  wrong,  ver.  1. 
 
 2.  If  Jesus  Christ  is  the  great  subject  of  the  gospel,  it  is 
 evident  that  we  cannot  have  right  views  of  the  one,  without 
 having  correct  opinions  respecting  the  other.  What  think  ye 
 of  Christ  ?  cannot  be  a  minor  question.  To  be  Christians,  we 
 must  recognize  him  as  the  Messiah,  or  son  of  David ;  and  as 
 
 4 
 
&0  ROMANS  I.  18—32. 
 
 Divine,  or  the  Son  of  God;  we  must  be  able  to  pray  to  him,  to 
 look  for  blessings  from  him,  and  recognize  him  as  the  Mediator 
 between  God  and  man,  vs.  1 — 8. 
 
 3.  Christians  should  remember  that  they  are  saints ;  that  is, 
 persons  separated  from  the  world  and  consecrated  to  God. 
 They  therefore  cannot  serve  themselves  or  the  world,  without  a 
 dereliction  of  their  character.  They  are  saints,  because  called 
 and  made  such  of  God.  To  all  such,  grace  and  peace  are 
 secured  by  the  mediation  of  Christ,  and  the  promise  of  God, 
 ver.  7. 
 
 4.  In  presenting  truth,  everything  consistent  with  fidelity 
 should  be  done  to  conciliate  the  confidence  and  kind  feelings  of 
 those  to  whom  it  is  addressed ;  and  everything  avoided,  which 
 tends  to  excite  prejudice  against  the  speaker  or  his  message. 
 Who  more  faithful  than  Paul  ?  Yet  who  more  anxious  to  avoid 
 offence  ?  Who  more  solicitous  to  present  the  truth,  not  in  its 
 most  irritating  form,  but  in  the  manner  best  adapted  to  gain 
 for  it  access  to  the  unruffled  minds  of  his  readers  ?  vs.  8 — 14. 
 
 5.  As  all  virtues,  according  to  the  Christian  system,  are 
 graces  (gifts,)  they  afford  matter  for  thanksgiving,  but  never 
 for  self-complacency,  ver.  8. 
 
 6.  The  intercourse  of  Christians  should  be  desired,  and  made 
 to  result  in  edification,  by  their  mutual  faith,  ver.  12. 
 
 7.  He  who  rejects  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith, 
 rejects  the  gospel.  His  whole  method  of  salvation,  and  system 
 of  religion,  must  be  different  from  those  of  the  apostles,  ver.  17. 
 
 8.  Whether  we  be  wise  or  unwise,  moral  or  immoral,  in  the 
 sight  of  men,  orthodox  or  heterodox  in  our  opinions,  unless 
 we  are  believers,  unless  we  cordially  receive  "  the  righteousness 
 which  is  of  God,"  as  the  ground  of  acceptance,  we  have  no  part 
 or  lot  in  the  salvation  of  the  gospel,  ver.  17. 
 
 ROMANS  I.  18—32. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  apostle  having  stated  that  the  only  righteousness  avail- 
 able in  the  sight  of  God  is  that  which  is  obtained  by  faith, 
 proceeds  to  p~ave  that  such  is  the  case.     This  proof  required 
 
IIOMANS  I.  18.  51 
 
 that  he  should,  in  the  first  instance,  demonstrate  that  the 
 righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  or  of  works,  was  insufficient 
 for  the  justification  of  a  sinner.  This  he  does,  first  in  refer- 
 rence  to  the  Gentiles,  chap.  i.  18 — 32 ;  and  then  in  relation  to 
 the  Jews,  chap,  ii.,  iii.  1 — 20.  The  residue  of  this  chapter 
 then  is  designed  to  prove  that  the  Gentiles  are  justly  exposed 
 to  condemnation.  The  apostle  thus  argues :  God  is  just ;  his 
 displeasure  against  sin  (which  is  its  punishment)  is  clearly 
 revealed,  ver.  18.  This  principle  is  assumed  by  the  apostle,  as 
 the  foundation  of  his  whole  argument.  If  this  be  granted,  it 
 follows  that  all  who  are  chargeable  with  either  impiety  or 
 immorality  are  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  cannot  claim 
 his  favour  on  the  ground  of  their  own  character  or  conduct. 
 That  the  Gentiles  are  justly  chargeable  with  both  impiety  and 
 immorality,  he  thus  proves.  They  have  ever  enjoyed  such  a 
 revelation  of  the  divine  character  as  to  render  them  inexcusa- 
 ble, vs.  19,  20.  Notwithstanding  this  oppoi'tunity  of  knowing 
 God,  they  neither  worshipped  nor  served  him,  but  gave  them- 
 selves up  to  all  forms  of  idolatry.  This  is  the  height  of 
 impiety,  vs.  21 — 23.  In  consequence  of  this  desertion  of  God, 
 he  gave  them  up  to  the  evil  of  their  own  hearts,  so  that  they 
 sank  into  all  manner  of  debasing  crimes.  The  evidences  of 
 this  corruption  of  morals  were  so  painfully  obvious,  that  Paul 
 merely  appeals  to  the  knowledge  which  all  his  readers  possessed 
 of  the  fact,  vs.  24 — 31.  These  various  crimes  they  do  not 
 commit  ignorantly ;  they  are  aware  of  their  ill-desert ;  and  yet 
 they  not  only  commit  them  themselves,  but  encourage  others  in 
 the  same  course,  v.  32. 
 
 The  inference  from  the  established  sinfulness  of  the  Gentile 
 world,  Paul  does  not  draw  until  he  has  substantiated  the  same 
 charge  against  the  Jews.  He  then  says,  since  all  are  sinners 
 before  God,  no  flesh  can  be  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law, 
 chap.  iii.  20. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  18.  ^ AnoxalvTCTerac  yap  dpy^  dsou  dri  obpavou.  For 
 the  ivratli  of  Crod  is  revealed  from  heaven.  The  apostle's  object 
 is  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  preceding  verse,  viz.  that  right- 
 eousness is  by  faith.     To  da  this  it  was  necessary  to  show  that 
 
52  ROMANS  I.  18. 
 
 men  in  themselves  are  exposed  to  condemnation,  or  are  desti 
 tute  of  any  righteousness  which  can  satisfy  the  demands  of 
 God.  His  argument  is,  God  is  just ;  he  is  determined  to  punish 
 sin,  and  as  all  men  are  sinners,  all  are  exposed  to  punishment. 
 Hence  this  verse  is  connected  by  ydp  to  the  preceding  one. 
 Men  must  be  justified  by  faith,  for  the  wraih  of  God  is 
 revealed,  &c. 
 
 Tlie  wrath  of  Grod  is  his  punitive  justice,  his  determination 
 to  punish  sin.  The  passion  which  is  called  anger  or  wrath, 
 and  which  is  always  mixed  more  or  less  with  malignity  in  the 
 human  breast,  is  of  course  infinitely  removed  from  what  the 
 word  imports  when  used  in  reference  to  God.  Yet  as  anger  in 
 men  leads  to  the  infliction  of  evil  on  its  object,  the  word  is, 
 agreeably  to  a  principle  which  pervades  the  Scriptures,  applied 
 to  the  calm  and  undeviating  purpose  of  the  Divine  mind,  which 
 secures  the  connection  between  sin  and  misery,  with  the  same 
 general  uniformity  that  any  other  law  in  the  physical  or  moral 
 government  of  God  operates. 
 
 Is  revealed.  \47roxo2u7ZTio  is  properly,  to  uncover,  to  bring  to 
 light,  and  hence  to  make  known,  whether  by  direct  communica- 
 tion, or  in  some  other  way.  A  thing  is  said  to  be  revealed, 
 when  it  becomes  known  from  its  efiects.  It  is  thus  that  the 
 thoughts  of  the  heart,  the  arm  of  the  Lord,  and  the  wrath  of 
 God  are  said  to  be  "revealed."  It  is  not  necessary  therefore  to 
 infer  from  the  use  of  this  word,  that  the  apostle  meant  to  inti- 
 mate that  the  purpose  of  God  to  punish  sin  was  made  known 
 by  any  special  revelation.  That  purpose  is  manifested  in 
 various  ways ;  by  the  actual  punishment  of  sin,  by  the  inherent 
 tendency  of  moral  evil  to  produce  misery,  by  the  voice  of  con- 
 science. Nor  do  the  words  "from  heaven"  imply  any  extraor- 
 dinary mode  of  communication.  They  are  added  because  God 
 dwells  in  heaven,  whence  all  exhibitions  of  his  character  and 
 purposes  are  said  to  proceed.  It  is  however  implied  in  the 
 whole  form  of  expression,  that  this  revelation  is  clear  and 
 certain.  Men  know  the  righteous  judgment  of  God;  they 
 know  that  those  who  commit  sin  are  worthy  of  death.  As  this 
 is  an  ultimate  truth,  existing  in  every  man's  consciousness, 
 it  is  properly  assumed,  and  made  the  basis  of  the  apostle's 
 argument. 
 
ROMANS  I.  19.  53 
 
 This  displeasure  of  God  is  revealed  against  all  ungodliness 
 and  unrighteousness  of  men;  that  is,  against  all  impiety  towards 
 God  (daej^eia,)  and  injustice  towards  men  (adcxta.)  This  dis- 
 tinction is  kept  up  in  the  following  part  of  the  chapter,  in 
 which  the  apostle  proves  first  the  impiety,  and  then  the  gross 
 immorality  of  the  heathen.  Who  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteous- 
 ness. The  word  d?.ijd-sia  is  used  in  the  Scriptures  in  a  more 
 comprehensive  sense  than  our  word  truth.  It  often  means 
 what  is  right,  as  well  as  what  is  true ;  and  is  therefore  often 
 used  in  antithesis  to  ddixca,  unrighteousness,  as  in  Rom.  ii.  8 ; 
 see  Gal.  iii.  1,  v.  7.  It  is  used  especially  of  moral  and  religious 
 truth ;  see  John  iii.  21,  viii.  32,  2  Cor.  iv.  2,  2  Thess.  ii.  12.  It 
 is  therefore  equivalent  to  true  religion,  that  is,  what  is  true  and 
 right,  in  reference  to  God  and  duty.  As  xarkyziv  sometimes 
 means  to  have  in  the  sense  of  possessing,  as  in  1  Cor.  vii.  30, 
 this  clause  may  be  rendered,  'Who  have  the  truth,  together 
 with  unrighteousness;'  i.  e.  although  they  possess  the  truth, 
 are  unrighteous.  Comp.  James  ii.  1,  //>ji  iv  Tipoaco-KoXrjipiat^ 
 e^STS  zrjv  niar-v.  The  sentiment  is  then  the  same  as  in  ver.  21, 
 where  the  heathen  are  said  to  know  God,  and  yet  to  act 
 wickedly.  But  as  xazsyziv  also  means  to  detain,  to  repress  or 
 hinder,  2  Thess.  ii.  6,  7,  the  passage  may  be  translated,  Who 
 hinder  or  oppose  the  truth.  The  great  majority  of  commenta- 
 tors are  in  favour  of  this  latter  interpretation.  The  words  Iv 
 didcxia  may  either  express  the  means  of  this  opposition,  and 
 be  rendered,  through  unrighteousness;  or  they  may  be  taken 
 adverbially.  Who  unjustly,  or  wickedly  oppose  the  truth.  The 
 former  is  to  be  preferred. 
 
 Vehse  19.  That  this  opposition  is  wicked,  because  inex- 
 cusable on  the  plea  of  ignorance,  is  proved  in  this  and  the 
 following  verses.  They  wickedly  oppose  the  truth,  because  the 
 knowledge  of  God  is  manifest  among  them.  Agreeably  to  this 
 explanation,  this  verse  is  connected  with  the  immediately  pre- 
 ceding clause.  It  may  however  refer  to  the  general  sentiment 
 of  ver.  18.  God  will  punish  the  impiety  and  unrighteousness 
 of  men,  because  he  has  made  himself  known  to  them.  The 
 former  method  is  to  be  preferred  as  more  in  accordance  with 
 the  apostle's  manner,  and  more  consistent  with  the  context, 
 inasmuch  as   he   goes   on   to  prove   that   the  impiety  of  the 
 
54  ,       ROMANS  I.  19. 
 
 heathen  is  inexcusable.  Since  that  which  may  he  hnoton  of 
 God,  is  manifest  in  them.  This  version  is  not  in  accordance 
 "with  the  meaning  of  yvworov,  which  always  in  the  Bible  means, 
 what  is  known,  not  what  may  be  known.  Besides,  the  English 
 version  seems  to  imply  too  much ;  for  the  apostle  does  not  mean 
 to  say  that  everything  that  may  be  known  concerning  God  was 
 revealed  to  the  heathen,  but  simply  that  they  had  such  a  know- 
 ledge of  him  as  rendered  their  impiety  inexcusable.  We  find 
 yvcoaxbc,  used  in  the  sense  of  ^-vctiroc,  hnoivn^  Acts  i.  19,  ii.  14, 
 XV.  18,  yvcoaxa.  drt  aiiovo^  iorc  tuj  dew  Tidvra  xa  ipya  avxou; 
 and  often  elsewhere.  Hence  xb  yvcoaxov  is=.Yvwacz,  as  in  Gen. 
 ii.  9,  yvioaxoD  xou  xaXob  y.al  xou  Txovrjpou.  The  knowledge  of 
 God  does  not  mean  simply  a  knowledge  that  there  is  a  God, 
 but,  as  appears  from  what  follows,  a  knowledge  of  his  nature 
 and  attributes,  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead,  ver.  20,  and  his 
 justice,  ver.  32.  0avtpbv  eaxcu  kv  abxdl^,  may  be  rendered, 
 either  is  manifest  among  them,  or  in  them.  If  the  former 
 translation  be  adopted,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  as  declaring 
 that  certain  men,  the  Pythagoreans,  Platonists,  and  Stoics,  as 
 Grotius  says,  had  this  knowledge ;  but  that  it  was  a  common 
 revelation,  accessible,  manifest  to  all.  In  them,  however,  here 
 more  properly  means,  in  their  minds.  "In  ipsorum  animis," 
 says  Beza,  "quia  haec  Dei  notitia  recondita  est  in  intimis 
 mentis  penetralibus,  ut,  velint  nolint  idololatrge,  quoties  sese 
 adhibent  in  consilium,  toties  a  seipsis  redarguantur."  It  is  not 
 of  a  mere  external  revelation  of  which  the  apostle  is  speaking, 
 but  of  that  evidence  of  the  being  and  perfections  of  God  which 
 every  man  has  in  the  constitution  of  his  own  nature,  and  in 
 virtue  of  which  he  is  competent  to  apprehend  the  manifesta- 
 tions of  God  in  his  works.  For  Grod  hath  revealed  to  them., 
 viz.  the  knowledge  of  himself.  This  knowledge  is  a  revelation ; 
 it  is  the  manifestation  of  God  in  his  works,  and  in  the  consti- 
 tution of  our  nature.  "Quod  dicit,"  says  Calvin,  "Deum 
 manifestasse,  sensus  est,  ideo  conditum  esse  hominem,  ut  spec- 
 tator sit  fabrige  mundi;  ideo  datos  ei  oculos,  ut  intuitu  tarn 
 pulchrae  imaginis,  ad  auctorem  ipsum  feratur."  God  there- 
 fore has  never  left  himself  without  a  witness.  His  existence 
 and  perfections  have  ever  been  so  manifested  that  his  rational 
 
ROMANS  I.  20.  55 
 
 creatures  are  bound  to  acknowledge  and  worship  him  as  the 
 true  and  only  God. 
 
 Verse  20.  This  verse  is  a  confirmation  and  amplification  of 
 the  preceding,  inasmuch  as  it  proves  that  God  does  manifest 
 himself  to  men,  shows  how  this  manifestation  is  made,  and 
 draws  the  inference  that  men  are,  in  virtue  of  this  revelation, 
 inexcusable  for  their  impiety.  The  argument  is,  God  has  mani- 
 fested the  knowledge  of  himself  to  men,  for  the  invisible  things 
 of  him,  that  is,  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead  are,  since  the 
 creation,  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  his  works ;  they  are 
 therefore  without  excuse.  The  invisible  things  of  Idm.  By  the 
 invisible  things  of  God,  Theodoret  says  we  are  to  understand 
 creation,  providence,  and  the  divine" juHgments ;  'i'lieopKylact 
 understands  them  to  refer  to  his  goodness,  wisdom,  power, 
 and  majesty.  Between  these  interpretations  the  moderns  are 
 divided.  The  great  majority  prefer  the  latter,  which  is  obvi- 
 ously the  better  suited  to  the  context,  because  the  works  of 
 God  are  expressed  afterwards  by  Ttocqixara^  and  because  the 
 invisible  things  are  those  which  are  manifested  by  his  works, 
 and  are  explained  by  the  terms  "power  and  Godhead."  The 
 subsequent  clause,  -q  rs  d'toco^  aurou  duuafii^  xal  d-tcov/j^,  is  in 
 apposition  with  and  an  explanation  of  the  former  one.  The 
 particle  ri  followed  by  xai,  serves  then,  as  Tholuck  remarks,  to 
 the  partition  of  abpaxa  into  the  two  ideas  duvafic:;  and  ^sioTrji^, 
 and  not  to  annex  a  distinct  idea,  as  though  the  meaning  were, 
 'and  also  his  power  and  Godhead.'  The  power  of  God  is  more 
 immediately  manifested  in  his  works ;  but  not  his  poAver  alone, 
 but  his  divine  excellence  in  general,  which  is  expressed  by 
 ■dttozTj^^  from  d-tlo^.  deorr]^,  from  ^soc,  on  the  other  hand, 
 expresses  the  being,  rather  than  the  excellence  of  God.  The 
 latter  is  Godhead;  the  former,  divinity,  a  collective  term  for 
 all  the  divine  perfections. 
 
 This  divine  revelation  has  been  made  d.7tb  xzcasco^  xoauoo, 
 from  the  creation  of  the  world,  not  hy  the  creation ;  for  xz'tm^ 
 here  is  the  act  of  creation,  and  not  the  thing  created ;  and  the 
 means  by  which  the  revelation  is  made,  is  expressed  immedi- 
 ately by  the  words  ro?c  Ttocqfiaat,  which  would  then  be  redun- 
 dant. The  TtocfjpLara  rou  dsou,  in  this  connection,  are  the 
 things  made  by  God,  rather  than  the  things  done  by  him.    The 
 
56  ROMANS  I.  21. 
 
 apostle  says  the  d.bpava  xa^opazac,  the  unseen  things  are  seen^ 
 because  they  are  perceived  by  the  mind ;  uooupsua  being  under- 
 stood by  means  of  the  things  made,  So  that  they  are  inexcum- 
 hle.  These  words  are  by  Griesbach,  Knapp,  and  others,  made 
 to  depend  on  the  last  clause  of  ver.  19 ;  and  then  the  interpre- 
 tation of  Beza  and  the  elder  Calvinists  would  be  the  most 
 X^  natural.  God  has  revealed  the  knowledge  of  himself  to  men,  in 
 order  that  they  might  be  without  excuse.  But  this,  to  say  the 
 least,  is  unnecessary.  The  connection  with  aadoparac  is  per- 
 fectly natural.  '  The  perfections  of  God,  being  understood  by 
 his  works,  are  seen,  so  that  men  are  without  excuse.'  Paul  does 
 not  here  teach  that  it  is  the  design  of  God,  in  revealing  himself 
 to  men,  to  render  their  opposition  inexcusable,  but  rather,  since 
 this  revelation  has  been  made,  they  have  in  fact  no  apology  for 
 their  ignorance  and  neglect  of  God.  Though  the  revelation  of 
 — «■  God  in  his  works  is  sufficient  to  render  men  inexcusable,  it  does 
 not  follow  that  it  is  sufficient  to  lead  men,  blinded  by  sin,  to  a 
 saving  knowledge  of  himself.  As  Paul  says  of  the  law,  that  it 
 was  weak  through  the  flesh,  that  is,  insufficient  on  account  of 
 our  corruption,  so  it  may  be  said  of  the  light  of  nature,  that, 
 although  sufficient  in  itself  as  a  revelation,  it  is  not  sufficient, 
 considering  the  indisposition  and  inattention  of  men  to  divine 
 things.  "Sit  haec  distinctio,"  says  Calvin,  " demonstratio 
 Dei,  qua  gioriam  suam  in  creaturis  perspicuam  facit,  esse, 
 quantum  ad  lucem  suam,  satis  evidentem;  quantum  ad  nos- 
 tram  c£ecitatem,  non  adeo  sufficere.  Caeterum  non  ita  caeci 
 sumus,  ut  ignorantiam  possimus  prsetexere,  quin  perversitatis 
 arguamur." 
 
 Verse  21.  Since  knowing  God.  The  most  natural  and 
 obvious  connection  of  this  verse  is  with  the  last  clause  of  the 
 preceding,  '  Men  are  without  excuse,  since,  although  they  knew 
 God,  they  worshipped  him  not  as  God.'  This  connection, 
 moreover,  is  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's  manner,  who 
 often  establishes  a  proposition,  which  is  itself  an  inference,  by 
 a  new  process  of  argument.  Thus  in  the  present  instance,  in 
 vs.  19,  20,  he  proved  that  the  heathen  had  a  knowledge  of  God 
 which  rendered  them  inexcusable,  and  then  the  fact  that  they 
 were  without  excuse,  is  proved  by  showing  that  they  did  not 
 act  in  accordance  with  the  truth.     Ruckert,  however,  who  is 
 
ROMANS  I.  21.  57 
 
 followed  by  Tholuck,  considering  that  the  apostle's  obj  Ect  is  to 
 show  that  the  heathen  wickedly  oppose  the  truth,  as  stated  in 
 ver.  18;  and  that  this  proof  consists  of  two  parts,  first,  the 
 heathen  had  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  vs.  19,  20,  and 
 secondly,  that  they  did  not  act  according  to  it,  vs.  21 — 23; 
 assumes  that  the  connection  is  rather  with  the  last  clause  of 
 ver.  18,  and  that  something  is  implied  here  which  is  not 
 expressed,  and  that  the  logical  reference  of  diozi  is  to  this 
 omitted  thought.  '  The  heathen  are  without  excuse,  and  wick- 
 edly oppose  the  truth,  since  although  they  knew  God,  they 
 glorified  him  not  as  God.'  This  sense  is  good  enough,  but  it 
 is  a  forced  and  unnatural  interpretation. 
 
 The  apostle  having  shown  in  ver.  19,  that  the  knowledge  of 
 God  was  revealed  to  men,  has  no  hesitati(m  in  saying  that  the 
 heathen  knew  God ;  which  does  not  mean  merely  that  they  had 
 the  opportunity  of  knowing  him,  but  that  in  the  constitution  of 
 their  own  nature,  and  in  the  works  of  creation,  they  actually 
 possessed  an  intelligible  revelation  of  the  Divine  existence  and 
 perfections.  This  revelation  was  indeed  generally  so  neglected, 
 that  men  kncAV  not  what  it  taught.  Still  they  had  the  know- 
 ledge, in  the  same  sense  that  those  who  have  the  Bible  are  said 
 to  have  the  knowledge  of  the  will  of  God,  however  much  they 
 may  neglect  and  disregard  it.  In  both  cases  there  is  knowledge 
 presented,  and  a  revelation  made,  and  in  both  ignorance  is 
 without  excuse.  As  there  is  no  apology  for  the  impiety  of  the 
 heathen  to  be  found  in  any  unavoidable  ignorance,  their  idola- 
 try was  the  fruit  of  depravity.  The  apostle  therefore  says, 
 that  although  they  knew  God,  they  glorified  him  not  as  Grod, 
 neither  were  thankful  to  him.  Jo^d^eiv  is  to  ascribe  honour 
 to  any  one,  to  praise,  and  also  to  honour,  to  make  glorious, 
 or  cause  that  others  should  honour  any  one.  Men  are  said 
 to  glorify  God  either  when  they  ascribe  glory  to  him,  or 
 when  they  so  act  as  to  lead  others  to  honour  him.  In  the 
 present  case,  the  former  idea  is  expressed  by  the  word.  They 
 did  not  reverence  and  worship  God  as  their  God ;  neither  did 
 they  refer  to  him  the  blessings  which  they  daily  received  at  his 
 hands. 
 
 Instead  of  thus  rendering  unto  God  the  homage  and  grati- 
 tude which  af  3  his  due,  they  became  vain  in  their  imaginations. 
 
58  ROMANS  I.  22. 
 
 Vain,  {i/!jLaTaia>&r^aau)  that  is,  according  to  constant  scriptural 
 usage,  became  both  foolish  and  wicked.  Vain  conversation  is 
 corrupt  conversation,  1  Pet.  i.  18 ;  and  vanity  is  wiclcedness, 
 Eph.  iv.  17.  These  words  are  all  frequently  used  in  reference  to 
 idolatry,  as  idols  are  in  the  Bible  often  called  fxdraca,  vanities. 
 In  their  imaginations,  oiaXoyiauolz,  properly  thoughts)  but  usu- 
 ally, in  the  New  Testament,  with  the  implication  of  evil ;  evil 
 thoughts  or  machinations.  Here  the  word  also  has  a  bad  sense. 
 The  thoughts  of  the  heathen  concerning  God  were  perverted  and 
 corrupt  thoughts.  The  whole  clause  therefore  means,  that  the 
 heathen,  in  refusing  to  recognize  the  true  God,  entertained 
 foolish  and  wicked  thoughts  of  the  Divine  Being ;  that  is,  they 
 sank  into  the  foll^  and  sin  of  idolatry.  And  their  foolish  heart 
 was  darkened;  they  lost  the  light  of  divine  knowledge ;  dauuezoi;, 
 destitute  of  aui>eac(;  understanding,  insight  into  the  nature  of 
 divine  things.  The  consequence  of  this  want  of  divine  know- 
 ledge was  darkness.  The  word  xapdia,  heart,  stands  for  the 
 whole  soul.  Hence  men  are  said  to  understand  with  the  heart, 
 Matt.  xiii.  15 ;  to  believe  with  the  heart,  Rom.  x.  ]  0 ;  the  heart 
 is  said  to  be  enlightened  with  knowledge,  2  Cor.  iv.  6 ;  and  the 
 eyes  of  the  heart  are  said  to  be  opened,  Eph.  i.  8.  The  word 
 otavoia,  mind,  is  used  with  the  same  latitude,  not  only  for  the 
 intellect,  but  also  for  the  seat  of  the  affections,  as  in  Eph.  ii.  3, 
 we  read  of  the  desires  of  the  mind.  It  is  not  merely  intel- 
 lectual darkness  or  ignorance  which  the  apostle  describes  in 
 this  verse,  but  the  whole  moral  state.  We  find  throughout  the 
 Scriptures  the  idea  of  foolishness  and  sin,  of  wisdom  and  piety, 
 intimately  connected.  In  the  language  of  the  Bible,  a  fool  is 
 an  impious  man ;  the  wise  are  the  pious,  those  who  fear  God ; 
 foolishness  is  sin;  understanding  is  religion.  The  folly  and 
 darkness  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  are  therefore  ex- 
 pressive of  want  of  divine  knowledge,  which  is  both  the  eff'ect 
 and  cause  of  moral  depravity. 
 
 Verse  22.  Professing  themselves  to  he  wise.  0dffxouTe^  elvat 
 ao(po't,  (for  aoifouc;,  by  attraction.)  Saying  in  the  sense  of  pre- 
 tending to  be.  The  more  they  boasted  of  their  wisdom,  the 
 more  conspicuous  became  their  folly.  What  greater  folly  can 
 there  be,  than  to  worship  beasts  rather  than  God  ?  To  this 
 the  apostle  refers  in  the  next  verse. 
 
ROMANS  I.  23.  59 
 
 Verse  23.  They  became  fools,  and  exchanged  the  glory  of 
 the  incorrujJtible  Grod  for  the  likeness  of  the  i7nage  of  corrujytible 
 man.  Herein  consisted  their  amazing  folly,  that  they,  as 
 rational  beings,  should  worship  the  creature  in  preference  to 
 the  Creator.  The  common  construction  of  the  verb  dkkdaatcv 
 in  Greek  when  it  means  to  exchange,  is  either  W  tcvoc^,  or  zi 
 d.vTc  uuo<;:  but  the  apostle  imitates  the  Hebrew  construction, 
 a  ^'^??!i,  which  by  the  LXX.  is  rendered  aDAaaztv  iv,  as  in  Ps. 
 cvi.  20.  The  sense  is  not  that  they  change  one  thing  into 
 another,  but  that  they  exchanged  one  thing  for  another.  The 
 glory,  a  collective  term  for  all  the  divine  perfections.  They 
 exchanged  the  substance  for  the  image,  the  substantial  or  real 
 divine  glories  for  the  likeness  of  an  image  of  corruptible  man, 
 i.  e.  an  image  like  to  corruptible  man.  The  contrast  is  not 
 merely  between  God  and  man,  or  between  the  incorruptible, 
 imperishable,  etei'nal  God,  and  frail  man,  but  between  this 
 incorruptible  God  and  the  image  of  a  man.  It  was  not,  hov,-^- 
 ever,  in  the  worship  of  the  images  of  men  only  that  the  degra- 
 dation of  the  heathen  was  manifested,  for  they  paid  religious 
 homage  to  birds,  beasts,  and  reptiles.  In  such  idolatry  the 
 idol  or  animal  Avas,  with  regard  to  the  majority,  the  ultimate 
 object  of  worship.  Some  professed  to  regard  the  visibl'e  image 
 as  a  mere  symbol  of  the  real  object  of  their  adoration ;  while 
 others  believed  that  the  gods  m  some  way  filled  these  idols,  and 
 operated  through  them;  and  others  again,  that  the  universal 
 principle  of  being  was  reverenced  under  these  manifestations. 
 The  Scriptures  take  no  account  of  these  distinctions.  All 
 who  bowed  down  to  stocks  and  stones  are  denounced  as  wor- 
 shipping gods  which  their  own  hands  had  made ;  and  idolatry 
 is  made  to  include  not  merely  the  worship  of  false  gods,  but  the 
 worship  of  the  true  God  by  images.  The  universal  prevalence 
 of  idolatry  among  the  heathen,  notwithstanding  the  revelation 
 which  God  had  made  of  himself  in  his  works,  is  the  evidence 
 which  Paul  adduces  to  prove  that  they  are  ungodly,  and  conse- 
 quently exposed  to  that  wrath  which  is  revealed  against  all 
 ungodliness.  In  the  following  verses,  to  the  end  of  the  chap- 
 ter, he  shows  that  they  are  unrighteous ;  that  as  the  con- 
 sequence of  their  departure  from  God,  they  sank  into  the 
 grossest  vices. 
 
60  ROMANS  I.  24. 
 
 Verse  24.  WJwrefore  also  he  gave  them,  in  their  lusts,  unto 
 uncleanness.  The  most  natural  construction  of  this  passage  is 
 to  connect  e/c  d.xo.&apaiav  with  Trapidojxev,  he  gave  up  unto 
 uncleanness.  We  have  the  same  construction  in  vs.  26,  28, 
 and  frequently  elsewhere.  To  construct  napioauxsu  with  iu 
 Tac<;  imd^u/xcaci;,  as  Beza  and  others  do,  gives  indeed  a  good 
 sense,  He  gave  them  up  to  their  desires  unto  uncleanness, 
 i.  e.  so  that  they  became  unclean,  but  is  opposed  to  the  con- 
 stant usage  of  the  New  Testament,  inasmuch  as  Tzapadiotopc 
 never  occurs  in  construction  with  iv.  If  the  former  construc- 
 tion be  adopted,  Iv  rale  iTrc&upiiai^  may  be  rendered  as  in  our 
 version,  through  their  lusts;  or  better  in  their  lusts;  iv  ex- 
 pressing their  condition,  or  circumstances ;  them  in  their  lusts, 
 i.  e.  being  in  them,  immersed  in  them.  To  dishonour,  tou 
 dzipd^eff&oii.  This  infinitive  with  too  may  depend  on  the  pre- 
 ceding noun;  'the  uncleanness  of  dishonouring,'  &c.,  "quae 
 cernebatur  in,"  &c.  Winer,  §  45.  4.  b.  But  as  the  infinitive 
 with  the  genitive  article  is  so  frequently  used  to  express  design, 
 or  simple  sequence,  it  is  better  to  make  it  depend  on  the  whole 
 preceding  clause,  '  He  gave  them  up  to  uncleanness,  to  dis- 
 honour,' i.  e.  either  in  order  that  they  might  dishonour,  or  so 
 that  they  dishonoured,  &c.;  dLzipid^ea&ac  may  be  taken  either  as 
 middle,  so  that  they  dishonoured  their  bodies;  or  as  passive,  so 
 that  their  bodies  were  dishonoured.  The  former  best  suits  the 
 context.  ^Ev  kauzolz  is  either  equivalent  to  iv  d.X?.-jXoc(;,  reci- 
 procally, they  dishonoured  one  another,  as  to  their  bodies ;  or 
 in  themselves,  dishonouring  their  bodies  in  themselves ;  "  signi- 
 ficantius  exprimit,"  says  Calvin,  "qu^m  profundas  et  inelui- 
 biles  ignominise  notas  corporibus  suis  inusserint." 
 
 This  abandonment  of  the  heathen  to  the  dominion  of  sin 
 is  represented  as  a  punitive  infliction.  They  forsook  God, 
 deb  xa't,  wherefore  also  he  gave  them  up  to  uncleanness.  This 
 is  explained  as  a  simple  permission  on  the  part  of  God. 
 But  it  removes  no  real  difliculty.  If  God  permits  those  who 
 forsake  him,  to  sink  into  vice,  he  does  it  intelligently  and  inten- 
 tionally. The  language  of  the  apostle,  as  well  as  the  analogy 
 of  Scripture,  demands  more  than  this.  It  is  at  least  a  judicial 
 abandonment.  It  is  as  a  punishment  for  their  apostasy  that 
 God  gives  men  up  to  the  power  of  sin.     Tradidit  Deus  ut  Justus 
 
ROMANS  I.  25.  61 
 
 judex.  He  withdraws  from  the  wicked  the  restraints  of  his 
 providence  and  grace,  and  gives  them  over  to  the  dominion  of 
 sin.  God  is  presented  in  the  Bible  as  the  absolute  moral  and 
 physical  ruler  of  the  world.  He  governs  all  things  according 
 to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will  and  the  nature  of  his  creatures. 
 What  happens  as  consequences  does  not  come  by  chance,  but 
 as  designed;  and  the  sequence  is  secured  by  his  control.  "It 
 is  beyond  question,"  says  Tholuck,  "that,  according  to  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  sin  is  the  punish- 
 ment of  sin."  So  the  Rabbins  teach,  "The  reward  of  a  good 
 deed  is  a  good  deed,  and  of  an  evil  deed,  an  evil  deed."  This 
 is  also  the  teaching  of  all  experience.  We  see  that  sin  fol- 
 lows sin  as  an  avenger.  De  Wette  truly  says,  "Diese  Ansicht 
 ist  nicht  bloss  jiidisch,  sondern  allgemein  wahr  vom  absoluten 
 Standpunkte  der  Religion  aus."  "This  is  no  mere  Jewish 
 doctrine,  but  it  is  universally  true  from  the  absolute  stand-point 
 of  religion."  God  is  not  a  mere  idle  spectator  of  the  order  of 
 events ;  he  is  at  once  the  moral  governor  and  eflficient  controller 
 of  all  things.  "Man  is  not  'a  virtue-machine,' "  says  Meyer, 
 "when  God  rewards  virtue  with  virtue;  neither  is  he  '  a  sin- 
 machine,'  when  God  punishes  sin  with  sin."  Men  are  as  free 
 in  sinning  as  they  are  in  obeying;  and  what  in  one  passage 
 and  from  one  point  of  view,  is  properly  presented  as  the  work 
 of  God,  in  another  passage  and  from  another  point  of  view,  is 
 no  less  properly  presented  as  the  work  of  man.  What  is  here 
 said  to  be  God's  work,  in  Eph.  iv.  19,  is  declared  to  be  the 
 sinner's  own  work. 
 
 Verse  25.  Who  change,  {oivcvti;.)  The  pronoun  has  a  causal 
 sense,  being  such  as  those  who,  i.  e.  because  they  exchanged  tht 
 truth  of  Cfod  for  a  lie.  The  construction  is  the  same  as  in 
 ver.  23,  iizx'ri'k'ka^av  iv,  they  exchanged  for,  not,  they  changed 
 into.  The  truth  of  Crod,  either  a  periphrase  for  the  true  God,  or 
 the  truth  concerning  God,  i.  e.  right  conceptions  of  God.  For 
 a  lie,  that  is,  either  a  false  god,  or  falsehood,  i.  e.  false  views 
 of  God.  The  former  is  the  better  explanation.  The  glory  of 
 God  is  God  himself  as  glorious,  and  the  truth  of  God,  in  this 
 connection,  is  God  himself  as  true ;  that  is,  the  true  God.  In 
 the  Old  Testament,  as  in  Jer.  xiii.  25,  xvi.  19,  the  gods  of  the 
 heathen  are  spoken  of  as  lies.     Anything  which  is  not  what  it 
 
62  ROMANS  I.  26. 
 
 pretends  to  be,  or  what  it  is  supposed  to  be,  is  in  tbe  Scriptures 
 called  a  lie.  The  proof  of  this  apostasy  is,  that  tliey  worshipped 
 [iasj^diT&r^Gav)  and  served  {eXdzpeooav.)  These  words  are  often 
 synonymous,  both  being  used  to  express  inward  reverence  and 
 outward  worship;  although  the  former  properly  expresses  the 
 feeling,  and  the  latter  the  outward  service.  The  creature 
 (xTcasc,)  not  the  creation,  but  any  particular  created  thing. 
 This  noun  belongs,  in  sense,  to  both  the  preceding  verbs, 
 although  the  first  by  itself  would  require  the  accusative.  3Iore 
 than  the  Creator,  izapa  tou  xTtaauza,  i.  e.  heyond,  in  the  sense 
 of  more  than,  or  in  the  sense  of  passing  by,  neglecting; 
 "prgeterito  Creatore,"  as  Beza  translates.  The  latter  suits 
 best.  WJio  is  blessed  for  ever.  Amen.  Who,  notwithstanding 
 the  neglect  of  the  heathen,  is  the  ever-blessed  God.  This  is 
 the  natural  tribute  of  reverence  toward  the  God  whom  men  dis- 
 honoured by  their  idolatry.  The  word  iuAoyy^Td^  is  by  Harless, 
 Eph.  i.  3,  and  by  Meyer,  made  to  mean  pi-aised,  as  the  Hebrew 
 '^inn,  to  which  it  so  constantly  answers ;  not,  therefore,  worthy 
 of  praise,  but  who  is  in  fact  the  object  of  praise  to  all  holy 
 beings.  Bretschneider  (Lexicon,)  Tholuck,  and  others,  render 
 it  "  celebrandus,  venerandus."  Amen  is  properly  a  Hebrew 
 adjective,  signifying  true  or  faithful.  At  the  beginning  of  a 
 sentence  it  is  often  used  adverbially,  verily,  assuredly;  at  the 
 end  of  a  sentence  it  is  used  to  express  assent,  it  is  true,  so  let  it 
 he.  Paul  says  Amen  to  the  declaration  that  God  is  the  ever- 
 blessed. 
 
 Verse  26.  For  this  cause,  &c.  That  is,  because  they  wor- 
 shipped the  creature  rather  than  the  Creator,  God  gave  them 
 up  to  corrupt  affections.  Fld&rj  drcixiai:;,  shameful  lusts,  pas- 
 sions which  are  degrading,  and  the  indulgence  of  which  covers 
 men  with  ignominy.  This  verse  is  therefore  an  amplification 
 of  the  idea  expressed  in  ver.  24.  The  reasons  why  Paul  refers 
 in  the  first  instance  to  the  sins  of  uncleanness,  in  illustration 
 and  proof  of  the  degradation  of  the  heathen,  probably  were, 
 that  those  sins  are  always  intimately  connected  with  idolatry, 
 forming  at  times  even  a  part  of  the  service  rendered  to  the 
 false  gods ;  that  in  turning  from  God  and  things  spiritual,  men 
 naturally  sink  into  the  sensual;  that  the  sins  in  question  are 
 peculiarly  degrading ;  and  that  they  were  the  most  notorious, 
 
ROMANS  I.  27,  28.  63 
 
 previilont,  and  openly  acknowledged  of  all  the  crimes  of  the 
 heathen  world.  This  corruption  of  morals  was  confined  to  no 
 one  class  or  sex.  The  description  given  by  profane  writers, 
 of  the  moral  corruption  of  the  ante-Christian  ages,  is  in  all 
 respects  as  revolting  as  that  presented  by  the  apostle.  Of  this 
 the  citations  of  Wetstein  and  Grotius  furnish  abundant  proof. 
 Paul  first  refers  to  the  degradation  of  females  among  the 
 heathen,  because  they  are  always  the  last  to  be  affected  in  the 
 decay  of  morals,  and  their  corruption  is  therefore  proof  that  all 
 virtue  is  lost. 
 
 Verse  27.  The  apostle  for  the  third  time  repeats  the  idea 
 that  the  moral  degradation  of  the  heathen  was  a  punishment  of 
 their  apostasy  from  God.  Receiving,  he  says,  in  themselves  the 
 meet  recom,pense  of  their  error.  It  is  obvious  from  the  whole 
 context  that  tz/Aut^  here  refers  to  the  sin  of  forsaking  the  true 
 God ;  and  it  is  no  less  obvious  that  the  recompense  or  punish- 
 ment of  this  apostasy  was  the  moral  degradation  which  he  had 
 just  described. 
 
 The  heathen  themselves  did  not  fail  to  see  the  intimate  con- 
 nection between  impiety  and  vice.  Silius,  iv.  794.  "Heu 
 primoe  scelerum  causoe  mortalibus  segris  naturam  nescire  Deum. 
 Cicero  De  natura  Deorum,  12.  Hand  scio,  an,  pietate  adversus 
 Deos  sublata,  fides  etiam  et  societas,  et  una  excellentissima 
 virtus  justitia  tollatur."  See  Wetstein.  Those  therefore  who 
 would  merge  religion  into  morality,  or  who  suppose  that  moral- 
 ity can  be  sustained  without  religion,  are  more  ignorant  than 
 the  heathen.  They  not  only  shut  their  eyes  to  all  the  teach- 
 ings both  of  philosophy  and  of  history,  but  array  against  them- 
 selves the  wrath  of  God,  who  has  revealed  his  purpose  to 
 abandon  to  the  most  degrading  lusts  those  who  apostatize 
 from  him. 
 
 Verse  28.  And  as  they  did  not  think  it  worth  while  to  retain 
 G-od  in  their  knowledge,  he  gave  them  up  to  a  reprobate  mind. 
 Another  repetition  of  the  sentiment  is  expressed  in  vs.  24,  26, 
 that  God  abandons  those  who  abandon  him.  Aoid  as,  xac 
 ■'(a&io^.  The  cases  are  parallel ;  as  they  deserted  God,  so  God 
 abandoned  them;  comp.  John  xvii.  2.  They  did  not  like,  obx 
 kdoxip.aaav;  the  verb  means  to  try  or  put  to  the  test,  to  ex- 
 imine,  to  approve,  and,  iignum  habere,  to  regard  as  worthy, 
 
64  ROMANS  I.  29—31. 
 
 1  Cor.  xvi.  3,  1  Thess.  ii.  4,  and  when  followed  by  an  infinitive, 
 to  think  it  worth  luhile.  The  heathen  did  not  think  it  worth  the 
 trouble  to  retain  the  knowledge  of  God.  They  considered  reli- 
 gion as  useless,  and  supposed  they  could  live  without  God.  The 
 phrase  ey^eiv  ev  iTieyi^coasi  is  stronger  than  simply  to  know;  both 
 because  iTKyuaxn^,  full  knowledge,  is  stronger  than  yutoan;,  and 
 because  i^siu  iu  imyvojaec  is  stronger  than  eTTij-iyucoaxeip.  The 
 text  therefore  means  to  retain  in  accurate  or  practical  know- 
 ledge. It  was  the  practical  recognition  of  the  only  true  God, 
 whose  eternal  power  and  Godhead  are  revealed  in  his  works, 
 that  men  were  unwilling  constantly  to  make.  Crod  gave  them 
 up  to  a  reprobate  mind.  Beza,  Bengel,  and  others,  give 
 ddoxcfioi;  here  the  sense  of  judicii  expers,  incapable  of  judgment 
 or  discernment.  But  this  is  contrary  to  usage,  and  contrary  to 
 the  etymology  of  the  word.  Joxi/io^,  from  Si^ofiai,  means 
 receivable,  worthy  of  being  received;  and  dd6xiftO(;,  worthy  of 
 rejection,  reproba.te.  To  do  things  not  becoming;  that  is,  to  do 
 things  not  becoming  the  nature  and  duties  of  man.  Of  the 
 things  meant,  the  following  verses  contain  a  long  and  painful 
 catalogue.  Ilocelv  is  the  exegetical  infinitive,  to  do,  that  is,  so 
 that  they  did.  It  expresses  the  consequence  of  the  dereliction 
 just  spoken  of,  and  the  natural  fruit  of  a  reprobate  mind. 
 
 Verses  29 — 31.  Being  filled  with  all  unrighteousness,  forni- 
 cation, wickedness,  &c.  The  accusative  TteTTAr^pcofiipou^  is  con- 
 nected with  auTo'u^  of  the  preceding  verse.  He  gave  them  up^ 
 filled  with  all  unrighteousness;  or  it  depends  on  the  preceding 
 infinitive  Ttotelv,  so  that  they,  filled  with  all  unrighteousness, 
 should  commit,  &c.  It  is  not  so  connected  with  Tzapidioxzv,  as 
 to  imply  that  God  gave  them  up  after  they  were  thus  corrupt, 
 but  it  is  so  connected  with  :zoctl)^  as  to  express  the  consequence 
 of  God's  abandoning  them  to  do  the  things  which  are  not  con- 
 venient. The  crimes  here  mentioned  were  not  of  rare  occur- 
 rence. The  heathen  were  filled  with  them.  They  not  only 
 abounded,  but  in  many  cases  were  palliated  and  even  justified. 
 Dark  as  the  picture  here  drawn  is,  it  is  not  so  dark  as  that  pre- 
 sented by  the  most  distinguished  Greek  and  Latin  authors,  of 
 their  own  countrymen.  Commentators  have  collected  a  fearful 
 array  of  passages  from  the  ancient  writers,  which  more  than 
 sustain  the  account  given  by  the  apostle.     We  select  a  single 
 
ROMANS  I.  29—31.  65 
 
 passage  from  Senca  de  Ira,  II.  8 :  "  Oronia  sceleribus  ac  vitiia 
 plena  sunt;  plus  committitur  quam  quod  possit  coercitione 
 sanari.  Certatur  ingenti  quodam  nequitioe  certamine;  major 
 quotidie  peccandi  cupiditas,  minor  verecundia  est.  Expulso 
 melioris  aequiorisque  respectu,  quocunque  visum  est,  libido  se 
 impingit;  nee  furtiva  jam  scelera  sunt,  prreter  oculos  eunt. 
 Adeoque  in  publicum  missa  nequitia  est,  et  in  omnium  pectori- 
 bus  evaluit,  ut  innocentia  non  rara,  sed  nulla  sit.  Numquid  enim 
 singuli  aut  pauci  rupere  legem?  undique,  velut  signo  dato,  ad 
 fas  nefasque  miscendum  coorti  sunt."  What  Paul  says  of  the 
 ancient  heathen  world,  is  found  to  be  true  in  all  its  essential 
 features  of  men  of  all  generations.  Wherever  men  have  ex- 
 isted, there  have  they  shown  themselves  to  be  sinners,  ungodly, 
 and  unrighteous,  and  therefore  justly  exposed  to  the  wrath  of 
 God.  Of  the  vices  with  which  the  heathen  were  filled,  Ttopveia 
 stands  first  as  the  most  prominent;  izovrjp'ca,  malice,  the  dispo- 
 sition to  inflict  evil;  nXeovs^ia,  rapacity,  the  desire  to  have 
 more  than  is  our  due ;  xaxia,  malignity,  malice  in  exercise ; 
 (fd-ovo^  and  (povoQ,  envy  and  murder,  united  either  from  simi- 
 larity in  sound,  or  because  the  former  tends  to  the  latter ;  spc(;, 
 doXoi;,  contention  and  fraud,  nearly  related  evils.  The  primary 
 meaning  of  doXa;  is  a  bait,  food  exposed  to  entrap  an  animal ; 
 then  the  disposition  to  deceive,  or  an  act  of  deception;  /.axo- 
 Tjd-eia  [xaxo^  and  ^&oi;,)  malevolence,  the  disposition  to  make  the 
 worst  of  everything ;  (pc&opcaz-^z-,  ^  ^vhisperer,  clandestine  slan- 
 derer ;  xaxdlaXo^,  a  detractor,  one  who  speaks  against  others ; 
 ■&B0(JTUj7j^,  hateful  to  Grod,  or  hating  Grod.  Usage  is  in  favour 
 of  the  passive  sense,  the  connection  of  the  active.  All  wicked 
 men,  and  not  any  one  particular  class,  are  the  objects  of  the 
 divine  displeasure.  To  meet  this  difficulty,  Meyer  proposes  to 
 make  this  word  a  mere  qualification  of  the  preceding,  Crod- 
 abhorred  detractors.  This,  however,  is  out  of  keeping  with  the 
 whole  passage.  The  great  majority  of  commentators  adopt  the 
 active  sense.  Then  follow  three  designations,  expressive  of  the 
 different  forms  of  pride,  b^ptazai,  the  insolent;  brttp^^dvoc,  the 
 self -conceited;  dXa-^ous^,  boasters;  kfzupezal  xaxcov,  inventors  of 
 crimes;  disobedient  to  parents.  That  such  should  be  included 
 in  this  fearful  list,  shows  the  light  in  which  filial  disobedience 
 IS  regarded  by  the  sacred  writers.  In  ver.  31,  all  the  worda 
 5 
 
Q6  ROMANS  I.  32. 
 
 begin  with  the  d  privative,  dauverout;.  witliout  {abvzaii^j  insight 
 into  moral  or  religious  things,  i.  e.  blinded,  besotted,  so  as  to 
 think  evil  good,  and  good  evil;  dauv&izoo^^  perfidious;  darop- 
 yo'j^,  those  in  whom  the  natural  affection  for  parents  or  cliild- 
 ren  is  suppressed ;  daTzoudou^,  implacable;  duzXe-jfiovai;,  witJiout 
 pitT/. 
 
 Verse  32.  Who  loell  knowing  the  righteous  judgment  of 
 Grod;  that  is,  although  tliey  well  knozv,  &c.  They  were  (orr^vec) 
 such  as  who.  The  heathen  whose  acts  had  been  just  described, 
 are  declared  to  be,  3Ien  who,  although  they  kneiv  the  righteous 
 judgment,  &c.,  {drAa.uop.fi)  decree,  a  declaration  of  what  is  right 
 and  just ;  and  dr/.auopo.  zoo  6sou  is  the  declaration  of  God  as  to 
 what  is  right  and  just.  The  import  of  this  declaration  is  con- 
 tained in  the  clause,  that  they  who  do  [Tipdaoooac,  commit)  such 
 things  are  worthy  of  death.  By  death  here,  as  often  elsewhere, 
 is  meant  punishment,  in  the  general  meaning  of  that  word.  It 
 expresses  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  includes  all  evil  inflicted 
 for  the  satisfaction  of  justice.  Paul  therefore  teaches  that  the 
 heathen  knew  they  deserved  punishment  for  their  crimes,  or  in 
 other  words,  that  they  were  justly  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God, 
 which  was  revealed  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness 
 of  men.  The  source  of  this  knowledge  he  explains  in  the  fol- 
 lowing chapter,  ver.  14.  It  was  a  knowledge  written  on  their 
 hearts,  or  included  in  the  constitution  of  their  nature ;  it  was 
 implied  in  their  being  moral  agents.  As  he  had  before  shown 
 that  the  impiety  of  the  heathen  was  without  excuse,  inasmuch 
 as  they  had  a  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  so  here  he  shows  that 
 their  immorality  was  inexcusable,  since  their  sins  were  not  com- 
 mitted in  ignorance  of  their  nature  or  desert.  This  passage 
 also  shows  that  the  judicial  abandonment  of  God  does  not 
 destroy  the  free  agency  or  responsibility  of  men.  They  are 
 given  up  to  work  iniquity,  and  yet  know  that  they  deserve 
 death  for  what  they  do.  The  stream  which  carries  them  away 
 is  not  without,  but  within.  It  is  their  own  corrupt  nature.  It 
 is  themselves.  Notwithstanding  this  knowledge  of  the  ill-desert 
 of  the  crimes  above  enumerated,  they  not  only  commit  them, 
 hut  approve  cf  those  loho  do  (or  practise)  them.  This  is  the 
 lowest  point  of  degradation,  To  sin,  even  in  the  heat  of  pas- 
 sion, is  evil;  but  to  delight  in  the  sins  of  others,  shows  that 
 
ROMANS  I.  18—32.  67 
 
 men  are  of  set  purpose  and  fixed  preference,  wicked.  Such  is 
 the  apostle's  argument  to  prove  that  the  heathen  are  all  under 
 sin,  that  thej  are  justly  chargeable  with  ungodliness  and 
 unrighteousness,  and  consequently  exposed  to  the  wrath  of 
 God. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  punitive  justice  of  God  is  an  essential  attribute  of  his 
 nature.  This  attribute  renders  the  punishment  of  sin  neces- 
 sary, and  is  the  foundation  of  the  need  of  a  vicarious  atone- 
 ment in  order  to  the  pardon  of  sinners.  This  doctrine  the 
 apostle  assumes  as  a  first  principle,  and  makes  it  the  basis  of 
 his  whole  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of  justification,  ver.  18. 
 
 2.  That  sin  is  a  proper  object  of  punishment,  and  that, 
 under  the  righteous  government  of  God,  it  will  be  punished,  are 
 moral  axioms,  which  have  "a  self-evidencing  light,"  whenever 
 proposed  to  the  moral  sense  of  men,  vs.  18,  32. 
 
 3.  God  has  never  left  himself  without  a  witness  among  his 
 rational  creatures.  Both  in  reference  to  his  own  nature  and  to 
 the  rule  of  duty,  he  has,  in  his  works  and  in  the  human  heart, 
 given  sufficient  light  to  render  the  impiety  and  immorality  of 
 men  inexcusable,  vs.  19,  20,  32. 
 
 4.  Natural  religion  is  not  a  sufficient  guide  to  salvation. 
 What  individual  or  what  nation  has  it  ever  led  to  right  views 
 of  God  or  of  his  law?  The  experience  of  the  whole  world, 
 under  all  the  variety  of  circumstances  in  which  men  have 
 existed,  proves  its  insufficiency;  and,  consequently,  the  neces- 
 sity of  a  special  divine  revelation,  vs.  21 — 23. 
 
 5.  The  heathen,  who  have  only  the  revelation  of  God  in  his 
 works  and  in  their  own  hearts,  aided  by  the  obscure  tradition- 
 ary knowledge  which  has  come  down  to  them,  need  the  gospel. 
 In  point  of  fact,  the  light  which  they  enjoy  does  not  lead  them 
 to  God  and  holiness,  vs.  21 — 23. 
 
 6.  Error  (on  moral  and  religious  subjects)  has  its  root  in 
 depravity.  Men  are  ignorant  of  God  and  duty,  because  they 
 do  not  like  to  retain  him  in  their  knowledge,  vs.  21,  28. 
 
 7.  God  often  punishes  one  sin  by  abandoning  the  sinner  to 
 the  commission  of  others.  Paul  repeats  this  idea  three  times, 
 vs.  24,  26,  28.     This  judicial  abandonm-ent  is  consistent  with 
 
6b  ROMANS  I.  18—82. 
 
 the  holiness  of  God  and  the  free  agency  of  man.  God  does  noi 
 impel  or  entice  to  evil.  He  ceases  to  restrain.  He  says  of  the 
 sinner,  Let  him  alone,  vs.  24 — 28. 
 
 8.  Religion  is  the  only  true  foundation,  and  the  only  eflFectual 
 safeguard  for  morality.  Those  who  abandon  God,  he  abandons. 
 Irreligion  and  immorality,  therefore,  have  ever  been  found  inse- 
 parably connected,  vs.  24 — 28. 
 
 9.  It  evinces,  in  general,  greater  depravity  to  encourage 
 others  in  the  commission  of  crimes,  and  to  rejoice  in  their  com- 
 mission, than  to  commit  them  one's  self,  ver.  32. 
 
 10.  The  most  reprobate  sinner  carries  about  with  him  a 
 knowledge  of  his  just  exposure  to  the  wrath  of  God.  Con- 
 science can  never  be  entirely  extirpated,  ver.  32. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  It  lies  in  the  very  nature  of  sin,  that  it  should  be  inex- 
 cusable, and  worthy  of  punishment.  Instead,  therefore,  of 
 palliating  its  enormity,  we  should  endeavour  to  escape  from  its 
 penalty,  vs.  18,  32. 
 
 2.  As  the  works  of  God  reveal  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
 head, we  should  accustom  ourselves  to  see  in  them  the  mani- 
 festations of  his  perfections,  vs.  18 — 21. 
 
 '  3.  The  human  intellect  is  as  erring  as  the  human  heart.  We 
 can  no  more  find  truth  than  holiness,  when  estranged  from 
 God;  even  as  we  lose  both  light  and  heat,  when  we  depart 
 from  the  sun.  Those,  in  every  age,  have  sunk  deepest  into 
 folly,  who  have  relied  most  on  their  own  understandings.  "In 
 thy  light  only,  0  God,  can  we  see  light,"  ver.  21,  &c. 
 
 4.  If  the  sins  of  the  heathen,  committed  under  the  feeble  light 
 of  nature,  be  inexcusable,  how  great  must  be  the  aggravation 
 of  those  committed  under  the  light  of  the  Scriptures,  ver.  20. 
 
 5.  As  the  light  of  nature  is  insufficient  to  lead  the  heathen 
 to  God  and  holiness,  it  is  one  of  the  most  obvious  and  urgent 
 of  our  duties  to  send  them  the  light  of  the  Bible,  vs.  20 — 23. 
 
 6.  Men  should  remember  that  their  security  from  open  and 
 gross  sins  is  not  in  themselves,  but  in  God ;  and  they  should 
 regard  as  the  worst  of  punishments,  his  withdrawing  from  them 
 his  Holy  Spirit,  vs.  24—28. 
 
ROMANS  II.  1—16.  69 
 
 7.  Sins  of  uncleanness  are  peculiarly  debasing  and  demoral- 
 izing. To  be  preserved  from  them  is  mentioned  in  Scripture 
 as  a  mark  of  the  divine  favour,  Eccl.  vii.  26,  Prov.  xxii.  14 ;  to 
 be  abandoned  to  them,  as  a  mark  of  reprobation. 
 
 8.  To  take  pleasure  in  those  who  do  good,  makes  us  better ; 
 as  to  delight  in  those  who  do  evil,  is  the  surest  way  to  become 
 even  more  degraded  than  they  are  themselves,  ver.  32. 
 
 CHAPTER    II. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The  object  of  this  chapter  is  to  establish  the  same  charges 
 against  the  Jews,  which  had  just  been  proved  against  the 
 Gentiles ;  to  show  that  they  also  were  exposed  to  the  wrath  of 
 God.  It  conF-sts  of  three  parts.  The  first  contains  an  exhi- 
 bition of  those  simple  principles  of  justice  upon  which  all  men 
 are  to  be  judged,  vs.  1 — 16.  The  second  is  an  application  of 
 these  principles  to  the  case  of  the  Jews,  vs.  IT — 24.  The  third 
 .  is  an  exhibition  of  the  true  nature  and  design  of  circumcision, 
 intended  to  show  that  the  Jews  could  not  expect  exemption  on 
 the  ground  of  that  rite,  vs.  25 — 39. 
 
 ROMANS   II.  1^  16. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 That  men  so  impious  and  immoral,  as  those  described  in  the 
 preceding  chapter,  deserved  the  divine  displeasure,  and  could 
 never,  by  their  own  works,  secure  the  favour  of  God,  the  Jew 
 was  prepared  readily  to  admit.  But  might  there  not  be  a  set 
 of  men,  who,  in  virtue  of  some  promise  on  the  part  of  God,  or 
 of  the  performance  of  some  special  duties,  could  claim  exemp- 
 tion from  the  execution  of  God's  purpose  to  punish  all  sin? 
 To  determine  this  point,  it  was  necessary  to  consider  a  little 
 more   fully  the  justice    of   God,  in  order   to   see  whether  it 
 
70  ROMANS  II.  1. 
 
 admitted  of  impunity  to  sinners  on  the  ground  supposed  Thia 
 first  section  of  the  chapter,  therefore,  is  employed  in  expanding 
 the  principle  of  ver.  18  of  the  first  chapter.  It  contains  a 
 development  of  those  principles  of  jusj^ice  which  commend 
 themselves  at  once  to  every  man's  conscience.  The  first  is, 
 that  he  who  condemns  in  others  what  he  does  himself,  does 
 thereby  condemn  himself,  ver.  1.  The  second,  that  God's 
 judgments  are  according  to  the  truth  or  real  state  of  the  case, 
 ver.  2.  The  third,  that  the  special  goodness  of  God,  manifested 
 towards  any  individual  or  people,  forms  no  ground  of  exemp- 
 tion from  merited  punishment;  but  being  designed  to  lead  them 
 to  repentance,  when  misimproved  aggravates  their  condemna- 
 tion, vs.  3 — 5.  The  fourth,  that  the  ground  of  judgment  is  the 
 works,  not  the  external  relations  or  professions  of  men :  God 
 will  punish  the  wicked  and  reward  the  good,  whether  Jew  or 
 Gentile,  without  the  least  respect  of  persons,  vs.  6 — 11,  The 
 fifth,  that  the  standard  of  judgment  is  the  light  which  men  have 
 severally  enjoyed.  Those  having  a  written  law  shall  be  judged 
 by  it,  and  those  who  have  only  the  law  written  on  their  hearts, 
 (and  that  the  heathen  have  such  a  law  is  proved  by  the  opera- 
 tions of  conscience,  vs.  13 — 15,)  shall  be  judged  by  that  law, 
 ver.  12.  These  are  the  principles  according  to  which  all  men 
 are  to  be  judged  in  the  last  day,  by  Jesus  Christ,  ver.  16. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  In  order  to  appreciate  the  force  of  the  apostle's 
 reasoning  in  this  and  the  following  verses,  it  should  be  remem- 
 bered that  the  principal  ground  on  which  the  Jews  expected 
 acceptance  with  God,  was  the  covenant  which  he  had  made 
 with  their  father  Abraham,  in  which  he  promised  to  be  a  God 
 to  him  and  to  his  seed  after  him.  They  understood  this  pro- 
 mise to  secure  salvation  of  all  who  retained  their  connection 
 with  Abraham,  by  the  observance  of  the  law  and  the  rite  of 
 circumcision.  They  expected,  therefore,  to  be  regarded  and 
 treated  not  so  much  as  individuals,  each  being  dealt  with 
 according  to  his  personal  character,  but  as  a  community  to 
 whom  salvation  was  secured  by  the  promise  made  to  Abraham. 
 Paul  begins  his  argument  at  a  distance ;  he  states  his  principles 
 
ROMANS  II.  1.  71 
 
 in  such  general  terms,  that  they  could  not  fail  to  secure  the 
 assent  of  the  Jew,  before  he  was  aware  of  theh^  application  to 
 himself.  That  the  Jews  are  addressed  in  this  chapter  is  evident 
 from  the  whole  strain  of  the  argument,  and  from  the  express 
 application  of  the  reasoning  of  the  case  of  the  Jews,  from 
 ver.  17  onward.  This  view  of  the  passage  is  now  generally 
 adopted,  though  many  of  the  earlier  commentators  supposed 
 either  that  no  particular  class  of  persons  is  here  addressed,  or 
 that  the  apostle  has  in  view  the  better  portion  of  the  heathen, 
 or  at  least  those  who  did  not  seem  to  approve  of  the  crimes 
 mentioned  in  the  preceding  chapter,  but  rather  condemned 
 them. 
 
 The  connection  between  this  chapter  and  what  precedes,  as 
 indicated  by  the  particle  dto,  wherefore,  is  somewhat  doubtful. 
 Some  suppose  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  doctrine 
 taught  from  ver.  18  of  the  preceding  chapter.  God  is  just,  and 
 determined  to  punish  all  unrighteousness  and  ungodliness  of 
 men ;  wherefore  they  are  without  excuse  who  commit  the  sins 
 which  they  condemn  in  others.  In  this  case,  however,  the  con- 
 clusion is  not  exactly  in  the  form  suited  to  the  premises.  It  is 
 not  so  much  the  inexcusableness  of  sinners  as  the  exposure  to 
 punishment,  that  follows  from  the  justice  of  God.  Most  com- 
 mentators therefore  consider  the  inference  as  drawn  frcm  the 
 last  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter.  It  is  there  said  that  all 
 men  know  that  those  who  sin  are  worthy  of  death ;  and  the 
 inference  is,  that  they  who  commit  sin  are  without  excuse,  how- 
 ever censorious  their  self-conceit  may  render  them  towards 
 others.  Every  one  who  judges.  Though  from  what  follows  it 
 is  plain  that  the  Jews  are  here  intended,  yet  for  the  reasons 
 above  stated  the  proposition  is  made  general.  Kpivcov,  judging; 
 but  by  implication,  condemning.  For  wherein  thou  judgest 
 another,  thou  condemnest  thyself.  Wherein  (kv  w,)  either  in 
 the  thing  which,  or  thereby,  i.  e.  in  the  same  judgment,  or 
 ivMlst.  See  Mark  ii.  19,  John  v.  7.  The  reason  of  this  asser- 
 tion is  given  in  the  following  clause,  for  thou  that  judgest  doest 
 the  same  things.  It  is  the  thing  done  which  is  the  ground  of 
 condemnation;  and  therefore  he  who  condemns  the  act,  con- 
 demns the  agent,  whether  the  agent  be  himself  or  some  one 
 else,  whether  he  be  a  Jew  or  a  Gentile. 
 
72  ROMANS  II.  2,  3. 
 
 Verse  2.  But  we  know.  That  is,  however  perverse  and 
 partial  ni  ay  be  the  judgment  you  pass  on  yourself,  we  know,  &c. 
 We  does  not  refer  to  the  Jews,  as  peculiarly  instructed,  but  to 
 all  men.  Every  one  knows.  The  proposition  contained  in 
 this  verse  is:  The  judgment  of  Grod  is  against  those  who  do 
 such  things.  That  is,  however  they  may  excuse  themselves, 
 God  will  judge  them.  The  words  xaza  dXij^emu,  therefore,  do 
 not  form  the  predicate  of  the  sentence,  as  though  the  sense 
 wore,  The  judgment  of  God  is  according  to  truth.  The  mean- 
 ing rather  is,  the  judgment  of  God,  which  is  according  to  truth, 
 is  against  those,  &c.  There  are  two  things  therefore  asserted, 
 the  certainty  of  this  divine  judgment,  and  its  being  according 
 to  truth,  i.  e.  without  error,  without  respect  of  persons.  It  is 
 not  founded  upon  mere  appearances  or  professions,  but  upon 
 the  real  truth  of  the  case.  Comp.  Prov.  xxix.  14,  kv  dXrjd^eia 
 xpivcDV  ■KTco'iobz^  and  John  viii.  16,  -^  xpiac<:  -^  i/iYj  d^d:j(;  iartv. 
 This  verse  then  contains  the  second  general  principle  of  justice, 
 according  to  which  all  men,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  are  to  be 
 judged.  The  whole  hope  of  the  Jews  was  founded  on  the 
 assumption  that  the  judgment  of  God  regarding  them  would  be 
 guided  by  some  other  rule  than  truth.  He  was  not  to  judge 
 them  according  to  their  real  merits,  but  according  to  their 
 national  and  ecclesiastical  relations,  just  as  men  now  hope  to 
 be  saved  because  they  belong  to  the  true  Church. 
 
 Verse  3.  But  thinkest  thou  this,  0  man,  that  judgest,  &c. 
 The  truth  that  God's  judgment  is  just,  and  will  fall  on  those 
 who  themselves  commit  the  sins  which  they  condemn  in  others, 
 is  so  plain,  that  the  apostle  exclaims  at  the  folly  of  those  who 
 seem  to  deny  it.  The  emphasis  lies  on  the  word  thou,  in  the 
 middle  of  the  verse.  Dost  thou  think  that  thou,  a  Jew,  and 
 because  a  Jew,  shalt  escape  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  ? 
 Shalt  escape,  ixcpeu^rj.  "Every  one,"  says  Bengel,  "who  is 
 arraigned,  (peuyei,  tries  to  escape;  he  who  is  acquitted,  kxipeux^e, 
 escapes."  In  ver.  1,  the  apostle  had  shown  that  the  man 
 who  did  what  he  condemned  in  others,  condemned  himself. 
 "If  then,"  as  Theophylact  says,  "he  cannot  escape  his  own 
 judgment,  how  can  he  escape  the  judgment  of  God?  If 
 forced  to  condemn  ourselves,  how  much  more  will  the  infi- 
 nitely Holy  condemn  us?"     The  ground  on  which   this  false 
 
ROMANS  II.  4.  73 
 
 and  absurd  expectation  rested  is  mentioned  in  the   following 
 verso : 
 
 Verse  4.  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness,  and 
 forbearance,  and  long-suffering?  That  is,  admitting  the  general 
 principle,  that  those  who  do  what  they  condemn  in  others  are 
 themselves  exposed  to  condemnation,  do  you  expect  exemption 
 on  the  ground  of  the  peculiar  goodness  of  God  ?  That  this  was 
 the  expectation  of  the  Jews  is  plain  from  the  apostle's  argu- 
 ment here  and  in  the  following  chapter,  and  from  chap.  ix. 
 and  xi.  Comp.  also  Matt.  iii.  9,  "  Think  not  to  say,  We  have 
 Abraham  to  our  father,"  and  John  viii.  33.  Despisest.  To 
 despise,  xaTa(ppove1v,  is  to  form  a  low  estimate  of.  They 
 despise  the  goodness  of  God,  who  form  such  a  wrong  estimate 
 of  it,  as  to  suppose  that  it  gives  them  a  license  to  sin;  who 
 imagine  that  he  will  not  punish,  either  because  he  long  for- 
 bears, or  because  his  goodness  towards  us  is  so  great  that  we 
 shall  escape,  though  others  perish.  The  words  •^prjororrj^,  avoyj^, 
 and  pLaxpo&op.ia,  express  the  Divine  goodness  under  different 
 aspects.  The  first  means  kindness  in  general,  as  expressed  in 
 giving  favours ;  the  second,  patience ;  the  third,  forbearance, 
 slowness  in  the  infliction  of  punishment.  The  reason  why  the 
 Jews,  as  referred  to  by  the  apostle,  and  men  in  general,  thus 
 abuse  the  goodness  of  God,  is  expressed  by  the  clause,  not 
 knowing  that  the  goodness  of  Cfod  leadeth  thee  to  repentance. 
 'A-jfVoo)v,  not  knowing,  not  understanding;  and  here,  not  com- 
 prehending the  true  nature  and  design  of.  Men  abuse  the 
 goodness  of  God,  because  they  do  not  rightly  apprehend  that 
 instead  of  indicating  a  purpose  not  to  punish,  it  is  designed  to 
 lead  them  to  forsake  their  sins.  The  goodness  of  God  leads  us 
 to  repentance,  because  it  shows  us  our  duty  towards  a  Being 
 who  is  so  kind,  and  because  it  gives  us  ground  to  hope  for 
 acceptance.  "The  word  dysi,  leads,"  says  Dr.  Wordsworth, 
 Canon  of  Westminster,  in  his  elegant  and  scholarly  work  on 
 the  Greek  Testament,  "intimates  not  only  the  will  of  God,  but 
 the  will  of  man.  God  leads,  but  man  ma^/  refuse  to  be  led : 
 '  Deus  ducit  volentem  duci,'  as  Bengel  says,  'ducit  suaviter 
 non  cogit  necessitate.'  "  Very  true;  but  who  gives  the  will  to 
 be  led  ?  Is  there  no  preventing  grace  ?  Does  not  God  work  in 
 us  to  will,  as  well  as  to  do  ?     Surely  there  is  such  a  thing  aa 
 
74  ROMANS  II.  5,  6. 
 
 being  made  willing  without  being  forced.  There  is  a  middle 
 ground  between  moral  suasion  and  coercion.  God  supersedes 
 the  necessity  of  forcing,  by  making  us  willing  in  the  day  of  hia 
 power.  The  apostle,  however,  is  not  here  speaking  cf  gracious 
 influence,  but  of  the  moral  tendencies  of  providential  dis- 
 pensations. 
 
 Vekse  5.  The  goodness  of  God,  so  far  from  being  a  ground 
 of  reasonable  expectation  that  we  shall  ultimately  escape 
 punishment,  becomes,  when  abused,  an  aggravation  of  our 
 guilt.  This  principle  the  apostle  here  applies  to  the  Jews, 
 who,  through  their  abuse  of  the  peculiar  mercy  of  God,  were 
 treasuring  up  wrath  for  themselves.  Kaza  oe  zrju  axXTjpozrjzd 
 TOO,  after  thy  hardness,  i.  e.  as  might  be  expected  from  thy 
 hardness ;  agreeably  to  its  nature  and  degree — xal  afiizavoT^zov 
 tapbiav^  heart  incapable  of  repentance.  "  ' A^xezavo'/jzo^,  vim 
 activam  habet,  animus,  qui  resijncet'e  non  potest,  poenitere 
 nescius.  Enervat  hunc  locum  Grotius  quum  explicat,  animus, 
 qui  poenitentiam  non  agit."  Fritzsche.  To  treasure  up  is  to 
 lay  up  little  by  little,  and  thus  accumulate  a  store  of  anything, 
 whether  good  or  evil.  The  abusers  of  God's  goodness  accumu- 
 late a  store  of  wrath  for  themselves.  "Ev  'qfJ-^pf^  ^PVt^  is  com- 
 monly rendered  unto  the  day  of  wrath ;  but  this  unnecessarily 
 gives  Iv  the  force  of  £:V-  It  is  better,  with  De  "Wette,  Meyer, 
 and  others,  to  connect  iv  with  dpj^v,  'wrath  at  or  on  the  day 
 of  wrath.'  They  treasure  up  for  themselves  wrath  at  that  day 
 when  wrath  shall  be  manifested.  That  day  is  further  described 
 as  the  day  diToxaA6(pcco^  drxoioxpiaca^  zoo  0sou,  of  the  revelation 
 of  the  righteous  judgment  of  Grod.  Some  manuscripts  insert 
 xac  between  drroxaXuipsco^  and  dcxacoxpca'ta^;  which  reading  is 
 preferred  by  Bengel,  Wetstein,  Mill,  and  Knapp.  The  sense 
 then  is,  the  day  of  revelation,  and  of  the  righteous  judgment 
 of  Grod.  The  day  of  revelation,  viz.  of  Christ,  whose  second 
 coming  is  always  associated  in  Scripture  with  the  final  judg- 
 ment ;  and  therefore  the  day  of  revelation  may  well  express 
 the  day  of  judgment.  But  as  the  phrase  "day  of  revelation" 
 nowhere  else  occurs  in  this  sense,  and  as  the  oldest  manuscripts 
 are  in  favour  of  the  common  text,  it  should  be  allowed  to  stand. 
 
 Verse  6.  Wlio  will  render  to  every  man  accotding  to  hi9 
 works.     This   is   the    fourth    important    principle    which    the 
 
EOMANS  11.  6.  75 
 
 apostle  teaches  us  regulates  the  judgment  of  God.  He  will  judge 
 men  neither  according  to  their  professions  nor  their  relations, 
 but  according  to  their  works.  The  question  at  his  bar  will  be, 
 not  whether  a  man  is  a  Jew  or  a  Gentile,  whether  he  belongs  to 
 the  chosen  people  or  to  the  heathen  world,  but  whether  he  has 
 obeyed  the  law.  This  principle  is  amplified  and  applied  in 
 what  follows,  in  vs.  7 — 11.  The  question  has  been  asked,  how 
 the  declaration  that  God  will  render  to  every  man,  whether  Jew 
 or  Gentile,  according  to  his  works — to  the  good,  eternal  life,  to 
 the  wicked,  indignation  and  wrath  — is  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
 apostle's  doctrine,  that  no  man  is  justified  by  works,  that  right- 
 eousness and  life  are  not  by  works,  but  by  faith,  and  through 
 grace.  In  answering  this  question,  two  things  are  to  be  borne 
 in  mind.  The  first  is,  that  notwithstanding  the  doctrine  of 
 gratuitous  justification,  and  in  perfect  consistency  with  it,  the 
 apostle  still  teaches  that  the  retributions  of  eternity  are  accord- 
 ing to  our  works.  The  good  only  are  saved,  and  the  wicked 
 only  are  condemned.  "For  we  must  all  appear  before  the 
 judgment-seat  of  Christ,  that  every  one  may  receive  the  things 
 done  in  his  body,  whether  good  or  bad,"  2  Cor.  v.  10,  Eph.  vi.  8. 
 "Reproborum,"  says  Calvin,  "malitiam  justa  ultione  si  puniet 
 Dominus,  rependet  illis  quod  meriti  sunt.  Rursum  quia  sancti- 
 ficat,  quos  olim  statuit  glorificare,  in  illis  quoque  bona  opera 
 coronabit,  sed  non  pro  merito."  With  this  accord  the  words 
 of  Bernard:  "Bona  opera  sunt  via  regni,  non  causa  regnandi." 
 The  wicked  will  be  punished  on  account  of  their  works,  and 
 according  to  their  works ;  the  righteous  will  be  rewarded,  not 
 on  account  of,  but  according  to  their  works.  Good  works  are 
 to  them  the  evidence  of  their  belonging  to  that  class  to  whom, 
 for  Christ's  sake,  eternal  lifejis  graciously  awarded;  and  they 
 are,  in  some  sense  and  to  some  extent,  the  measure  of  that 
 reward.  But  it  is  more  pertinent  to  remark,  in  the  second 
 place,  that  the  apostle  is  not  here  teaching  the  method 
 of  justification,  but  is  laying  down  those  general  principles 
 of  justice,  according  to  which,  irrespective  of  the  gospel,  all 
 men  are  to  be  judged.  He  is  expounding  the  law,  not  the 
 gospel.  And  as  the  law  not  only  says  that  death  is  the  wages 
 of  sin,  but  also  that  those  who  keep  its  precepts  shall  live  by 
 them,  so  the  apostle  says,  that  God  will  punish  the  wicked  and 
 
76  ROMANS  II.  7,  8. 
 
 reward  the  righteous.  This  is  perfectly  consistent  with  what 
 he  afterwards  teaches,  that  there  are  none  righteous;  that 
 there  are  none  who  so  ohey  the  law  as  to  be  entitled  to  the  life 
 which  it  promises ;  and  that  for  such  the  gospel  provides  a  plan 
 of  justification  without  works,  a  plan  for  saving  those  whom  the 
 law  condemns.  He  is  here  combatting  the  false  hopes  of  the 
 Jews,  who,  though  trusting  to  the  law,  were  by  the  principles 
 of  the  law  exposed  to  condemnation.  This  he  does  to  drive 
 them  from  this  false  dependence,  and  to  show  them  that  neither 
 Jew  nor  Gentile  can  be  justified  before  the  bar  of  that  God, 
 who,  while  he  promises  eternal  life  to  the  obedient,  has  revealed 
 his  purpose  to  punish  the  disobedient.  All  therefore  that  this 
 passage  teaches  is,  that  irrespective  of  the  gospel,  to  those  who 
 either  never  heard  of  it,  or  who  having  heard,  reject  it,  the 
 principle  of  judgment  will  be  law. 
 
 Verses  7,  8.  The  principle  laid  down  in  ver.  6,  is  here 
 amplified.  God  will  render  eternal  life  to  the  good,  indignation 
 and  wrath  to  the  wicked,  without  distinction  of  persons ;  to  the 
 Jews  no  less  than  to  the  Gentiles.  Though  the  sense  of  these 
 verses  is  plain,  there  is  great  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
 grammatical  construction.  The  explanation  adopted  by  our 
 translators  is  perhaps  the  most  natural,  and  is  the  one  which  is 
 most  generally  followed.  To  the  verb  dTtodcoaec  of  ver.  6, 
 belong  the  two  accusatives,  ^cor^v  accoucou,  and  ^ufiov  xai  opyqv; 
 and  the  two  datives,  xdlc,  filv — ^Tjzooat  and  zdi^  3e  i^  ipiSsca^. 
 The  accusatives  do^av  xai  TC[JLrjV  xai  dipd^apalav  then  of  course 
 depend  on  (^tjtolxtc,  and  xad-'  [iKopioviqv  spyoo  dyad-ou  is  an 
 adverbial  qualification.  The  passage  then  reads  thus:  "To 
 those,  who  through  perseverance  in  good  works,  seek  glory, 
 honour,  and  immortality,  eternal  life;  but  to  those  who  are 
 contentious,  indignation  and  wrath."  Another  construction, 
 adopted  by  Bengel,  Fritzsche,  and  others,  supposes  that  ro?c 
 fxkv  xafT  57:ouour^v  epjou  d,ya&ou  (scil.  dbai)  are  to  be  taken 
 together;  to  those  wlio  are  according  to  'perseverance^  i.  e.  to 
 those  who  persevere;  (comp.  o\  xazd  (Tdpxa=ot  aapxcxoi,  and  ol 
 xara  nveu[ia=zol  rrvsu/uaTcxoc.)  The  following  clause,  do^au — 
 ^r^Touac,  is  then  in  apposition  with  the  preceding :  "  To  those 
 who  persevere  in  good  works,  seeking  glory,  honour,  and 
 immortality,  he  will  render  eternal  life."     This  view  of  the 
 
ROMANS  II.  3.    •  77 
 
 passage  is  recommended  by  the  correspondence  thus  established 
 between  the  ro7c  [J-sv  xad-'  unofxov^u  of  ver.  7,  and  the  ro?c  oh  i^ 
 ipe&c'Mc;  of  ver.  8.  It  is  opposed,  however,  by  the  following  con- 
 siderations: 1.  The  interpretation  of  the  phrase  of  xad-'  urto- 
 fxoviqv  i[)you  dya&o~j,  is  hardly  borne  out  by  a  reference  to  the 
 phrases  ol  xava  adpxa  and  ol  xard  fluvjiia.  2.  The  second 
 clause  of  ver.  7,  if  a  mere  amplification  of  the  first  clause, 
 should  be  introduced  by  xal,  as  in  ver.  8 :  Tdl<:  dk  i^  ifjcdsca^, 
 xal  d.~ecd-ouac.  Luther,  after  Oecumenius,  translates  thus: 
 "  Welcher  geben  wird  Preis  und  Ehre  und  unverganglichea 
 Wesen  denen,  die  mit  Geduld  in  guten  Werken  trachten  nach 
 dem  ewigen  Leben:"  "Who  will  give  glory,  honour,  and 
 immortality  to  those,  who,  in  patient  continuance  in  well-doing, 
 seek  eternal  life."  According  to  this  view,  the  accusatives 
 do^au,  Tc/jtifjv,  d^d^apdcau,  depend  upon  dnodcoasi,  and  ^a)r]> 
 auovcov  on  ^Yjrouac.  But  this  the  position  of  the  words  will 
 hardly  bear.  Luther's  fluent  and  forcible  version  is  effected  by 
 an  entire  transposition  of  the  clauses.  The  construction  there- 
 fore first  mentioned  is  on  the  whole  to  be  preferred.  In  the 
 English  version  of  the  words  xaff"  bnofiov/jv,  xard  is  rendered 
 through.  So  also  Grotius,  De  Wette,  and  others.  See  1  Cor. 
 xii.  8,  Eph.  iii.  3,  7.  Others  translate  it  by  the  Latin  preposi 
 tion  secundum,  according  to,  or  in  virtue  of.  '  TTzofxouJj  is  ren- 
 dered patience  by  the  Vulgate,  and  Luther ;  patiens  expectation 
 byBeza;  constancy,  or  patient  continuance,  in  our  version, 
 In  illustration  of  the  combination  uTtoiiovrjv  epyoo  dya&ou.  comp, 
 uTTopLOvrj  r-^c  i?^7zcdo::,  1  Thess.  i.  3.  The  sing,  epyou  is  used 
 collectively  for  ipycov,  as  in  Gal.  vi.  4,  1  Thess.  i.  3,  and  else- 
 where. What  is  immediately  afterwards  expressed  by  eternal 
 life,  is  here  expressed  by  the  three  words,  glory,  honour,  and 
 immortality.  The  manifested  excellence  or  splendour  of  the 
 future  condition  of  the  saints  is  expressed  by  do^a;  the  honour 
 due  such  excellence  by  riptij;  and  the  endless  nature  of  their 
 blessedness  by  dcp^apma. 
 
 Verse  8.  To  those  who  are  of  contention,  that  is,  the  con- 
 tentious. Comp.  ol  ix  Tziazsoj^,  believers;  ol  ix  rcepirop:?^^,  tJie 
 circumcised;  ol  ix  dxpo^uavia^,  the  uncircumcised;  ol  ix  voptou, 
 those  who  belong  to  the  law,  legalists.  Instead  of  the  ordinary 
 derivation  of  ipc&tia  from  l/^^c,   Riickert  traces  it  to  ipi&oi;,  a 
 
78  ROMANS  II.  8. 
 
 hireling,  whicli  derivation  is  sustained  by  Tholuck,  "Beitrage  zur 
 Spracherkliirung  des  Neuen  Testaments,"  p.  25,  and  Fritzsche, 
 Excursus  to  his  Commentary  on  the  second  chapter  of  this 
 Epistle,  and  is  now  generally  adopted.  The  signification  of  the 
 word,  as  determined  by  its  etymology  and  its  classical  usage  is, 
 work  for  Jiire,  selfishness,  ambition,  parti/  spirit,  malice.  In  the 
 New  Testament  it  is  used  several  times  in  the  same  sense,  as  in 
 Philip,  i.  16,  of  fisu  i^  iptdtia^,  some  of  rivalry,  or  malice;  the 
 antithetical  expression  is  ol  oe  i^  aydnrjc;.  In  Philip,  ii.  3,  it  ia 
 connected  with  xsvodo^ca,  vain  glory.  In  James  iii.  14,  16,  it 
 is  connected  with  ^rj?.o^,  envy.  In  2  Cor.  xii.  20,  it  is  distin- 
 guished from  epci^.  These  passages  show  that  the  scriptural 
 usage  of  the  word  agrees  with  the  classical.  Still  in  the  present 
 case  it  seems  to  have  a  somewhat  wider  meaning.  It  is  not 
 envy,  or  rivalry,  but  malicious  opposition  to  God  and  his 
 requirements  that  is  here  expressed.  This  is  plain  from  the 
 explanatory  clauses  that  follow.  The  disposition  expressed  by 
 kpc&zia  is  manifested  in  disobeying  the  truth,  and  obeying 
 unrighteousness.  Bretschneider  therefore  explains  ol  ig  ipc^ 
 &daz  to  mean  qui  malitia  ducti  Deo,  i.  e.  rei  divince,  adversan- 
 tur:  "Those  who  through  malice  oppose  themselves  to  God." 
 The  same  interpretation  is  given  by  Reiche  and  De  Wette,  as 
 well  as  by  the  older  commentators.  Who  obey  not  the  truth. 
 \47tsid^ico  is  to  refuse  belief,  to  disbelieve,  as  well  as  to  disobey. 
 This  clause  therefore  means,  who  refuse  assent  and  obedience 
 to  the  truth.  ^AX/j&sia  is  divine  truth;  what  is  true  and  right 
 as  to  faith  and  practice.  See  i.  18.  "  Saepe,"  says  Bengel,  "  haec 
 duo  {d.):/j&£ca  and  dd:xca)  inter  se  opponuntur:  Veritas  continet 
 justitiam,  et  injustitia  connotat  mcndacium."  Who  yield  them- 
 selves to,  or  folloio  unrighteousness,  indignation  and  tvrath, 
 (shall  be  rendered.)  The  words  d-uiib^  xac  opyij  should  regularly 
 be  in  the  accusative,  as  depending  on  dTZodcixrec  of  ver.  6 ;  but 
 as  they  are  in  the  nominative,  ifrra:  or  drrodcoaztac  must  be 
 supplied.  There  may  be,  as  some  suppose,  force  in  the  change 
 of  construction  and  omission  of  the  verb.  God  gives  eternal 
 life;  indignation  and  wrath  come  as  earned  by  man,  so  to 
 speak,  Deo  nolente.  God  wills  all  men  to  be  saved.  Comp. 
 Rom.  vi.  23.  Both  words  are  used  for  the  sake  of  intensity. 
 As  to  their  specific  difference,  both  ancient  and  modern  philo- 
 
ROMANS  II.  9.  79 
 
 legists  difler.  The  majority  make  §0^6^  express  the  momentary 
 impulse  of  anger,  dpyrj  the  permanent  feeling.  Others  make 
 opYT,  to  include  the  desire  of  vengeance,  and  therein  to  differ 
 trym  idvfjLOc;.  The  former  distinction  is  more  in  accordance  with 
 the  primary  meaning  of  the  words ;  as  <?u//dc  means  the  mind 
 as  the  seat  of  the  emotions,  and  hence  is  used  for  any  strong 
 passion,  and  dpyr^  means  disposition,  habit  of  mind. 
 
 Verse  9.  Tribulation  and  anguish;  -dXiipe^,  (from  d/'.ifico,  to 
 press,)  means  pressure,  affliction;  azenoycopia,  straitncss  of 
 place,  anguish.  They  are  often  associated ;  see  chap.  viii.  35, 
 2  Cor.  vi.  4.  The  latter  is  the  stronger  of  the  two  terms,  as 
 may  be  inferred  from  its  always  following  the  other,  and  espe- 
 cially from  2  Cor.  iv.  8,  d-Xe^oiuvoc,  'ak?'  ob  aztvoyjiopobfxzvoi, 
 troubled,  but  not  distressed.  Every  soul  of  man,  that  is,  every 
 man.  Comp.  Acts  ii.  41,  Rom.  xiii.  1,  and  the  Hebrew  ffi?.:"*23 
 ans.  Ruckert,  Meyer,  and  others,  give  </>oyr]  its  full  force, 
 upon  every  soul  that  belongs  to  a  man,  to  express  the  idea,  that 
 the  soul  and  not  the  body  is  to  suffer  the  penalty.  But  in 
 xiii.  1,  ipoyyj  evidently  stands  for  the  whole  person :  '  let  every 
 soul,'  means  let  every  person;  and  such  is  a  common  scriptural 
 meaning  of  the  word,  "if  a  soul  sin,"  "if  a  soul  lie,"  "if  the 
 priest  buy  a  soul  with  his  money,"  &c.  Of  the  Jew  first,  and 
 also  of  the  Greek.  It  becomes  now  apparent  that  the  apostle, 
 in  laying  down  these  general  principles  of  justice,  had  the  Jews 
 specially  in  view.  God,  he  says,  will  render  to  every  man 
 according  to  his  works ;  to  the  good,  eternal  life ;  to  the  evil, 
 tribulation  and  anguish.  And  lest  the  every  man  should  fail  to 
 arrest  attention,  he  adds  expressly,  that  the  Jew  as  well  as  the 
 Greek  is  to  be  thus  judged.  The  word  Ttpaizov  may  express 
 either  order  or  preeminence.  If  the  former,  the  sense  is  what 
 is  expressed  by  Calvin,  "  Haec  universalis  est  divini  judicii  lex, 
 quae  a  Judgeis  incipiet,  et  comprehendet  totum  orbem."  The 
 judgment  shall  begin  with  the  Jews,  and  extend  to  the  Gen- 
 tiles. If  the  latter,  the  sense  is.  The  Jew  shall  not  only  be 
 punished  as  certainly  as  others,  but  more  severely,  because  he 
 has  been  more  highly  favoured.  "The  Jew  first,"  is  equivalent 
 then  to  the  Jew  especially.  The  same  remark  applies  to 
 the  following  verse.  If  the  Jew  is  faithful,  he  shall  be  spe- 
 cially rewarded      What   is  true  of  all  men,  is  specially  true 
 
dO  EOMANS  II.  10—12. 
 
 of  those  to  whom  God  has  revealed  himself  in  a  peculiar 
 manner. 
 
 Verse  10.  But  glory,  Jionour,  and  peace,  to  every  one  doing 
 good;  lo  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek.  This  verse  com- 
 pletes the  statement  of  the  principle  of  law  announced  in  ver.  6. 
 The  law,  while  it  threatens  death  to  the  transgressor,  promises 
 life  to  the  obedient ;  and  it  matters  not  in  either  case,  whether 
 it  is  a  Jew  or  Gentile  who  receives  its  award.  Glory,  honour, 
 and  peace  are  descriptive  terms  for  eternal  life.  It  is  a  life 
 glorious  in  itself,  an  object  of  reverence  or  regard  to  others, 
 and  a  source  of  unspeakable  blessedness  or  peace. 
 
 Vekse  11.  For  there  is  no  respect  of  persons  with  God.  He 
 is  righteous  and  impartial,  looking  not  at  the  person,  but  the 
 conduct  of  those  whom  he  judges.  This  is  the  ground  of  the 
 assurance  that  he  will  judge  Jews  and  Gentiles  according  to 
 their  works.  The  words  7:poaco7ioXrj(pia,  -npoacDTioAiJTiTT^^,  npoa- 
 oinoXrpzrko),  are  all  peculiar  to  the  New  Testament,  and  all  owe 
 their  origin  to  the  phrase  -KpoouiTiov  Xap^dvtev,  which  is  used  in 
 the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  phrase,  ti'^aQ  SC3,  to  lift  up,  or  accept 
 the  face  of  any  one,  that  is,  to  be  favourable  to  him.  This  is 
 sometimes  used  in  a  good  sense,  as  Gen.  xxxii.  21,  "Peradven- 
 ture  he  will  accept  of  me,"  literally,  lift  up  my  face.  Gen. 
 xix.  21,  Job  xlii.  8.  Most  frequently  in  a  bad  sense,  for  par- 
 tiality. Hence  judges  are  forbidden  to  accept  the  face  of  any 
 one.  Lev.  xix.  15,  Deut.  x.  17.  In  the  New  Testament,  all  the 
 expressions  above  mentioned  are  used  in  the  sense  of  unjust 
 partiality.  All  TrpoaconoXrjdi'ia,  respect  of  persons,  is  denied 
 to  God,  and  forbidden  to  men.  See  Eph.  vi.  9,  Col.  iii.  25, 
 James  ii.  1. 
 
 Verse  12.  In  the  preceding  verse  it  was  stated  that  God  is 
 just  and  impartial  in  all  his  judgments.  This  is  confirmed  not 
 only  by  the  previous  assertion,  that  he  will  judge  every  man 
 according  to  his  works,  but  also  by  the  exhibition  of  the  impor- 
 tant principle  contained  in  this  verse.  Men  are  to  be  judged 
 by  the  light  they  have  severally  enjoyed.  The  ground  of  judg- 
 ment is  their  works ;  the  rule  of  judgment  is  their  knowledge. 
 For  as  many  as  sinned  without  law.  That  is,  God  is  impartial, 
 for  he  will  judge  men  according  to  the  light  which  they  have 
 enjoyed.     Our  Lord  teaches  the  same  doctrine  when  he  says, 
 
ROMANS  11.  13.  81 
 
 "The  servant  -which  knew  his  lord's  will,  .  .  .  =l.all  be  beaten 
 with  many  stripes;  but  he  that  knew  not,  and  did  commit  things 
 worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes."  Luke 
 xii.  47,  48.  By  law,  is  here  meant  a  written  or  supernaturally 
 revealed  law.  In  1  Cor.  ix.  21,  the  heathen  are  called  duo/xoc, 
 without  law,  as  distinguished  from  the  Jews,  v,'ho  were  67:6 
 p6fj.ou,  under  law.  Ndjuo^,  as  used  by  the  apostle,  means  the 
 rule  of  duty,  the  will  of  God  revealed  for  our  obedience;  com- 
 monly, however,  with  special  reference  to  the  revelation  made 
 in  the  Scriptures.  'Apofjtaj^  is  equivalent  to  y^cofji^  uoiiou,  zoith- 
 out  law,  and  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  moral  sense,  without 
 restraint,  i.  e.  recklessly.  ^Audfuo^  xac  diioXouvTac,  shall  also 
 perish  without  law,  that  is,  their  punishment  shall  be  assigned 
 without  reference  to  the  written  law.  Kac  before  drcoXouuTac, 
 says  Ruckert  and  Tholuck,  indicates  the  relation  between  the 
 cause  and  effect,  or  premise  and  conclusion;  or  as  Fritzsche 
 says,  "  necessitatem  indicat,  qu^  to  dvofKo^  dTidXXoad^a:  ex  zui 
 dudficot;  d/Jtaprdueev  consequatur."  Neither  of  these  explana- 
 tions seems  to  express  the  true  force  of  the  particle ;  it  rather 
 serves  to  indicate  that  as  the  sinning  is  duS/ico:;,  so  also  is  the 
 punishment.  ^ArcoXXufu  is  to  destroy,  to  put  to  death,  spoken 
 of  physical  death,  and  also  of  eternal  death,  Matt.  x.  28,  Luke 
 iv.  34 ;  and  in  the  passive  form,  Luke  xiii.  3,  5,  John  iii.  15, 16, 
 1  Cor.  viii.  11.  The  word  is  strong  in  its  own  import ;  and  as 
 explained  by  other  passages,  it  here  teaches  that  those  who  sin 
 without  a  written  revelation — although  they  are  to  be  judged 
 fairly,  and  are  to  be  treated  far  less  severely  than  those  who 
 have  enjoyed  the  light  of  revelation — are  still  to  perish. 
 "Vide  igitur,  quale  patrocinium  suscipiant,  qui  pr£epostera 
 misericordia  gentes  evangelii  lumine  privatas  ignorantise  prae- 
 textu  Dei  judicio  eximere  tentant."    Calvin. 
 
 Verse  13.  For  not  the  hearers  of  the  latv.  This  verse  is 
 connected  with  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding,  and  assigns  the 
 reason  why  the  Jews  shall  be  judged  or  punished  according  to 
 the  law :  the  mere  possession  or  knowledge  of  the  law  would 
 not  avail,  for  it  is  not  the  hearers,  but  the  doers  of  the  law 
 that  are  just  before  God.  The  expression  hearers  instead  of 
 readers,  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  law  was  read  in  the 
 presence  of  the  people,  and  by  hearing  rather  than  by  reading, 
 6 
 
82  ROMANS  II.  14. 
 
 their  kno',\^ledge  of  it  was  obtained.  Comp.  Matt,  v.  21,  John 
 xii.  34,  Gal.  iv.  21,  James  i.  22.  To  he  just  before  G-od,  and 
 to  be  justified,  are  the  same  thing.  They  are  both  forensic 
 expressions,  and  indicate  the  state  rather  than  the  character  of 
 those  to  whom  they  refer.  Those  are  just  in  the  sight  of  God, 
 or  are  justified,  who  have  done  what  the  law  requires,  and  are 
 regarded  and  treated  accordingly ;  that  is,  are  declared  to  be 
 free  from  condemnation,  and  entitled  to  the  favour  of  God.  In 
 obvious  allusion  to  the  opinion,  that  being  a  Jew  was  enough  to 
 secure  admission  to  heaven,  the  apostle  says,  It  is  not  the 
 hearers  but  the  doers  of  the  law  that  are  justified.  He  is  not 
 speaking  of  the  method  of  justification  available  for  sinners,  as 
 revealed  in  the  gospel,  but  of  the  principles  of  justice  which 
 will  be  applied  to  all  who  look  to  the  law  for  justification.  If 
 men  rely  on  works,  they  must  have  works ;  they  must  be  doers 
 of  the  law ;  they  must  satisfy  its  demands,  if  they  are  to  be 
 justified  by  it.  For  God  is  just  and  impartial ;  he  will,  as  a 
 judge  administering  the  law,  judge  every  man,  not  according  to 
 his  privileges,  but  according  to  his  works  and  the  knowledge  of 
 duty  which  he  has  possessed.  On  these  principles,  it  is  his 
 very  design  to  show  that  no  flesh  living  can  be  justified. 
 
 Verse  14.  For  whenever  the  G-entiles,  not  having  the  law. 
 In  the  preceding  verse  the  apostle  had  said.  That  not  the  hear- 
 ers but  the  doers  of  the  law  are  justified  before  God ;  and  then 
 adds.  For  whenever  the  Gentiles,  not  having  the  law,  do  by 
 nature  the  things  of  the  law,  they  are  a  law  unto  themselves. 
 But  the  fact  that  the  Gentiles  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  has 
 nothing  to  do,  either  as  an  illustration  or  confirmation,  with  the 
 general  proposition  contained  in  ver.  13.  Those  who  insist  on 
 establishing  such  a  connection,  suppose  that  ver.  14  refers  to 
 the  last  clause  of  ver.  13,  and  is  designed  to  prove  either  that 
 with  regard  to  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  doing  is  the  thing 
 required ;  or  that  there  are  doers  of  the  law  who  may  be  justi- 
 fied, among  the  heathen.  '  The  doers  of  the  law,'  says  the 
 apostle,  '  shall  be  justified ;  but  the  heathen  do  the  law,  there- 
 fore they  shall  be  justified.'  This,  however,  is  not  the  con- 
 clusion at  which  the  apostle  is  aiming.  He  is  not  teaching  the 
 method  of  justification,  or  arguing  to  prove  that  the  Gentiles  as 
 well  as  the  Jews  may  be  doers  of  the  law,  and  thus  be  justified 
 
ROMANS  II.  14.  83 
 
 In  the  sight  of  God.  He  is  expounding  the  law;  he  is  showing 
 the  principles  by  which  God  will  judge  the  world,  Gentiles  as 
 well  as  Jews.  Those  who  are  without  the  written  law,  he  will 
 judge  without  any  reference  to  that  law;  and  those  who  are 
 under  the  law,  he  will  judge  by  that  law.  This  general  pro- 
 position he  confirms  first  by  saying,  in  ver.  13,  that  the  mere 
 possession  of  the  law  is  not  enough ;  and  secondly  by  saying, 
 in  ver.  14,  that  the  Gentiles  have  a  law  by  which  they  may  be 
 judged.  The  logical  connection  of  ver.  14,  therefore,  is  not 
 with  ver.  13,  but  with  ver.  12.  Thus  Calvin,  who  says,  "Pro- 
 bationem  prioris  membri  (ver.  12)  nunc  repetit.  Probat  enim 
 frustra  obtendi  a  gentibus  ignorantiam,  quum  factis  suis  de- 
 clarent,  nonnullam  se  habere  justitise  regulam.  Nulla  enim 
 gens  unquam  sic  ab  humanitate  abhorruit,  ut  non  se  intra  leges 
 aliquas  contineret."  When^  whenever,  as  often  as,  which  may 
 be  the  sense  of  the  particle  in  this  case,  '  Whenever,  or  as  often 
 as  the  heathen  do  so  or  so.'  Or  it  may  have  the  sense  of  while, 
 because:  'Because,  or  since  the  heathen  do  so  or  so.'  Comp. 
 1  Cor.  XV.  27.  As  i&urj  is  without  the  article,  many  would 
 render  it  heathen,  that  is,  some  heathen.  But  in  the  first  place, 
 it  is  evident  from  the  context  that  this  is  not  what  the  apostle 
 means  to  say.  His  object  is  to  show  that  the  heathen  would 
 have  a  rule  of  duty  wi-itten  on  their  hearts;  a  fact  which  is  not 
 proved  by  some  heathen  obeying  the  law,  but  which  is  proved 
 by  the  moral  conduct  of  all  men.  Men  generally,  not  some 
 men,  but  all  men,  show  by  their  acts  that  they  have  a  know- 
 ledge of  right  and  wrong.  And  secondly,  this  word  has,  with- 
 out the  article,  in  virtue  of  its  frequent  occurrence,  a  definite 
 sense.  Comp.  iii.  9,  ix.  24,  and  especially  ver.  30 :  id-v/]  .  .  . 
 •/.aviXa^t  dtxacoa'jvr^v;  the  heathen  attained  righteousness.  Do 
 by  nature  the  things  of  the  laiv.  There  are  two  misinterpreta- 
 tions of  the  phrase,  za  zou  vofxau  rtocelu.  The  one  is,  that  it 
 means  to  fulfil  the  laAV ;  the  other,  to  do  the  ofiice  of  the  law, 
 i.  e.  to  command  and  forbid.  The  former  is  unnecessary,  and 
 is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  express  and  repeated  declaration 
 of  the  apostle,  that  ncne,  whether,  Jew  or  Gentile,  has  ever 
 fulfilled  the  law.  To  dD  the  things  of  the  law,  is  indeed  to  do 
 what  the  law  prescribes,  (comp.  x.  5,  Gal.  iii.  12 ;)  but  whether 
 complete  or  partial  obedience  is  intended,  depends  upon  the 
 
84  ROMANS  II.  14. 
 
 context.  The  man  who  pays  his  debts,  honours  hu  parents,  is 
 kind  to  the  poor,  does  the  things  of  the  law;  for  these  are 
 things  which  the  law  prescribes.  And  this  is  all  the  argument 
 the  apostle  requires,  or  his  known  doctrine  allows  us  to  under- 
 stand by  the  phrase,  in  the  present  instance.  This  being  the 
 case,  there  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  the  second  interpreta- 
 tion mentioned  above,  which  was  proposed  by  Beza,  and  adopted 
 by  Wetstein,  Flatt,  and  others.  Though  rrocecv  za  too  vofjLOO 
 might  mean  to  do  what  the  law  does,  prescribe  what  is  good  and 
 forbid  what  is  evil,  it  certainly  has  not  that  sense  elsewhere  in 
 Paul's  writings,  see  x.  5,  Gal.  iii.  12;  and  is  especially  out  of 
 place  here,  in  immediate  connection  with  the  phrase  Tzocr^xai  too 
 wixou,  in  the  sense  of  doers  of  the  law.  The  heathen  do  (puasi, 
 hy  nature^  the  things  of  the  law.  The  tpuaiz  of  anything  is  the 
 peculiarity  of  its  being,  that  in  virtue  of  which  it  is  what  it  is ; 
 it  is  that  which  belongs  to  its  original  constitution,  and  is 
 opposed  to  what  is  taught,  acquired,  or  made.  The  word  is 
 sometimes  used  for  a  disposition  or  sentiment  arising  out  of  our 
 nature,  as  opposed  to  mere  arbitrary  rules,  as  in  1  Cor.  xi.  14, 
 In  the  present  case,  the  opposition  is  to  vbfxo^.  It  is  hy  nature, 
 not  by  an  external  law,  that  the  Gentiles  are  led  to  perform 
 moral  acts.  Comp.  Gal.  iv.  8,  Eph.  ii.  3.  The  proper  connec- 
 tion of  (puaet  with  rd  tou  v6[iou  Tioirj,  they  do  hy  nature  the  things 
 of  the  law,  is  retained  in  our  version,  and  by  the  great  majority 
 of  commentators.  Bengel,  Ruckert,  and  a  few  others,  connect 
 it  with  /XT]  vojuou  e^ouva,  not  having  the  law  hy  nature;  but  this 
 is  saying  very  little  to  the  purpose  of  the  apostle.  His  object 
 is  to  show  that  (pOai^  supplies  to  the  Gentiles  the  place  of  voixoz. 
 These  not  having  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves.  No/jlou, 
 without  the  article,  maybe  rendered  either,  a  law,  "not  having 
 a  law,"  by  implication,  a  written,  external  law;  or  the  law, 
 i.  e.  the  Jewish  law,  since  that  word  is  often  used  without  the 
 article  for  the  law  of  the  Jews ;  that  is,  the  law  of  God,  as 
 revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  The  Gentiles,  then,  are  law  unto 
 themselves ;  they  have  in  their  own  nature  a  rule  of  duty ;  a 
 knowledge  of  what  is  right,  and  a  sense  of  obligation.  As 
 the  absence  of  all  moral  acts  among  the  lower  animals  shows 
 that  they  have  no  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  that  they  are 
 not  under  a  moral  law,  so  the  performance  of  such  acts  by 
 
ROMANS  II.  15.  85 
 
 the  Gentiles,    shows    that   they  have  a  law  written  on  their 
 hearts. 
 
 Verse  15.  WTio  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  on  their 
 hearts.  Here,  as  in  i.  25,  and  often  elsewhere,  the  relative  has 
 a  causal  force :  '  They  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  because  they 
 show  the  work  of  the  law,'  &c.  Wolf,  Tholuck,  and  others 
 make  ipyon  too  vofxou  a  periphrase  for  the  law  itself;  Grotius, 
 the  effect  of  the  law,  that  is,  a  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong ; 
 most  modern  commentators  make  zb  ipyov  equivalent  to  ra 
 ipya.  The  same  works  which  the  Jews  have  prescribed  in  their 
 law,  the  Gentiles  show  to  be  written  on  their  hearts.  It  is  by 
 doing  the  things  of  the  law,  that  the  Gentiles  show  they  have 
 this  inward  rule  of  duty ;  their  conscience  also  hearing  witness. 
 Grotius,  Koppe,  and  Tholuck,  take  auixixafjzupslu  in  the  sense 
 of  the  simple  verb.  Comp.  Jer.  xi.  7,  in  the  LXX.,  Rom.  ix.  1, 
 viii.  16.  'Their  conscience  bearing  Avitness,'  that  is,  to  the  fact 
 that  there  is  a  law  written  on  their  hearts.  But  as  ao^'xapzo- 
 pscu  is  properly  una  testari,  and  as  the  context  presents  no 
 reason  for  departing  from  the  common  meaning  of  the  Avord, 
 the  great  majority  of  commentators  give  the  <7yv  its  proper 
 force.  That  with  which  conscience  joins  its  testimony  is  the 
 honestas  vitce,  the  moral  acts  of  the  heathen ;  and  the  fact  to 
 which  this  joint  testimony  is  borne,  is  that  they  are  a  law  unto 
 themselves.  The  apostle  appeals  not  only  to  their  external 
 conduct,  but  to  the  inward  operations  of  their  moral  nature. 
 love'idrjacQ  is  the  conscientia  consequens,  the  inward  judge, 
 whose  acts  are  described  in  the  following  clause :  Their  thoughts 
 alternately/  accusing  or  even  excusing.  Our  version  takes  ptsza^u 
 as  an  adverb,  and  makes  d.Uij?Mu  the  object  of  the  following 
 participles,  'And  in  the  meanwhile,  their  thoughts  accusing,  or 
 else  excusing  one  another.'  Kollner  defends  this  interpreta- 
 tion, and  declares  that  pisza^u,  between,  cannot  mean  vicissim. 
 It  is  used,  he  asserts,  only  of  time,  between  two  portions  of 
 time,  i.  e.  during;  or  of  space,  between  two  places,  persons,  or 
 things.  It  is  not,  however,  so  much  the  signification  of  the 
 word  psza^u,  as  the  sense  of  the  phrase  pieza^h  akkqloiv,  that  is 
 expressed  by  the  translation,  vicissim,  sive  alternante  sententid. 
 'Between  one  another,'  implies  reciprocal  or  alterrate  action; 
 comp.  Matt,  xviii.  15.     The  order  of  the  words  is  obviously 
 
86  ROMANS  II.  1(5. 
 
 oppose  3  to  the  separation  of  dXl-jXcov  from  fietOgU,  ami  to 
 making  the  former  the  object  of  the  following  participles ; 
 which  are  rather  to  be  taken  absolutely.  Their  thoughts  alter- 
 nately accusing  and  excusing,  viz.  their  conduct.  The  inward 
 monitor  acquits  or  condemns,  as  the  case  demands.  Bengel 
 remarks  on  the  ^  xac,  or  even,  that  xac  is  concessive,  and  shows 
 "  cogitationes  longe  plus  habere  quod  accusent,  quam  quod 
 defendant." 
 
 Verse  16.  The  greatest  difficulty  in  relation  to  this  verse  is 
 to  determine  its  connection  with  the  preceding  context.  In  the 
 common  copies  of  our  Bible,  vs.  13,  14,  15,  are  marked  as  a 
 parenthesis,  and  ver.  16  is  placed  in  connection  with  ver.  12 : 
 '  The  heathen  shall  be  judged  without  the  law,  and  the  Jews  by 
 the  law,  in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men.' 
 Thus  the  passage  is  arranged  by  Griesbach  and  Knapp ;  a  mode 
 of  connection  adopted  also  by  Beza,  Grotius,  Reiche,  and  others. 
 The  objections  to  this  explanation  are,  first,  the  distance  at 
 which  this  verse  stands  from  ver.  12 ;  and  secondly,  that  the 
 intervening  verses  have  not  the  nature  of  a  parenthesis,  but  are 
 intimately  connected  with  the  idea  contained  in  ver.  12.  Calvin, 
 Bengel,  Riickert,  Fritzsche,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Tholuck,  &c., 
 connect  this  verse  A'^'tJi  ver.  15.  The  difficulty  then  is,  that  the 
 verb  and  participles  of  ver.  15  are  in  the  present  tense,  whereas 
 xpcvel  of  this  verse  is  future :  '  Their  thoughts  accusing  or  ex- 
 cusing in  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men.' 
 To  meet  this  difficulty,  Calvin  proposes  to  give  ev  'j/j^epa  the 
 force  of  £fC  'jf^spav,  in  the  sense  of  until,  or  in  reference  to  the 
 day,  Tholuck  modifies  this  by  making  iv  include  sic:,  '  until 
 and  on  that  day.'  Not  only  does  conscience  now  exercise  its 
 office,  but  will  do  so  especially  on  the  day  of  judgment.  Riick- 
 ert, De  Wette,  and  others,  suppose  that  the  apostle  thought 
 only  of  the  present  when  he  wrote  evdscxuuvtai,  but  extends  the 
 reference  to  the  future,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse.  That 
 is,  the  present  participles  express  what  will  be  present  on  the 
 day  of  judgment :  '  The  heathen  show  the  work  of  the  law 
 written  on  their  hearts,  and  their  conscience  also  bearing  wit- 
 ness,' &c.,  on  the  day  of  judgment.  But  the  main  objection  to 
 this  connection  is,  that  the  sense  thus  expressed  is  not  suited  to 
 the  apostle's  object.     He  designs  to  prove  that  the  Gentiles  are 
 
ROMANS  II.  16.  87 
 
 a  law  to  themselves.  This  is  proved  by  the  present  operation 
 of  conscience,  which  approves  or  condemns  their  conduct.  But 
 it  seems  forced  to  bring  that  proof  from  Avhat  conscience  will 
 do  on  the  day  of  judgment.  It  seems  best  therefore  to  refer 
 this  verse  back  to  ver.  12.  God,  it  is  said,  will  judge  the  secrets 
 of  men;  the  things  which  have  escaped  the  knowledge  of  others ; 
 those  hidden  deeds  of  the  heart  and  life,  which  are  the  surest 
 criterion  of  character.  The  searching  character  of  this  judg- 
 ment ;  its  justice,  as  not  guided  by  mere  external  appearance ; 
 and  its  contrast  with  mere  human  judgments,  are  all  intimated 
 by  this  expression.  The  clause,  according  to  my  gospel,  is  not 
 to  be  connected  with  xpii^ec,  as  though  the  gospel  was  to  be  the 
 rule  of  this  divine  judgment;  for  this  would  contradict  the 
 apostle's  doctrine,  that  men  are  to  be  judged  by  the  light  they 
 possess.  It  refers  to  the  fact  of  a  final  judgment,  which  is 
 declared  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  gospel,  or  a  part  of  that 
 message  which  Paul  was  commissioned  to  deliver.  By  Jesus 
 Ohrist  is  to  be  connected  with  xpcvzl.  God  will  judge  the  world 
 through  Jesus  Christ,  agreeably  to  our  Saviour's  own  declara- 
 tion, "  The  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  has  committed  all  judg- 
 ment to  the  Son."  Sometimes  this  judgment  is  referred  directly 
 to  the  Messiah,  as  in  1  Cor.  iv.  5,  2  Cor.  v.  10,  2  Tim.  iv.  1 ; 
 sometimes  indirectly,  as  though  he  were  but  the  representative 
 of  God,  as  in  Acts  xvii.  31.  These  representations,  however, 
 are  perfectly  consistent.  The  preposition  dtd  in  such  cases  only 
 expresses  the  idea  that  the  power  or  authority  which  belongs  to 
 the  Godhead  is  specially  exercised  through  the  Son.  Thus 
 sometimes  it  is  said,  God  created  all  things  through  the  Son, 
 Heb.  i.  2,  and  sometimes  that  the  Son  himself  is  the  Creator, 
 Col.  i.  16. 
 
 Such  then  are  the  principles  on  which  Paul  assures  us  that 
 all  men  are  to  be  judged.  They  commend  themselves  irresisti- 
 bly to  every  man's  conscience  as  soon  as  they  are  announced, 
 and  yet  every  false  hope  of  heaven  is  founded  on  their  denial 
 or  neglect.  It  may  be  proper  to  repeat  them,  that  it  may  be 
 seen  how  obviously  the  hopes  of  the  Jews,  to  which  Paul,  from 
 ver.  17  onward,  applies  them,  are  at  variance  with  these  moral 
 axioms.  1.  He  who  condemns  in  others  what  he  does  himself, 
 ipso  facto  condemns  himself.    2.  God's  judgments  are  according 
 
88  ROMANS  II.  1—16. 
 
 to  the  real  character  of  men.  3.  The  goodness  of  God,  being 
 designed  to  lead  us  to  repentance,  is  no  proof  that  he  will  not 
 punish  sin.  The  perversion  of  that  goodness  will  increase  our 
 guilt,  and  aggravate  our  condemnation.  4.  God  will  judge 
 every  man  according  to  his  works,  not  according  to  his  pro- 
 fessions, his  ecclesiastical  connections  or  relations.  5.  Men 
 shall  be  judged  by  the  knowledge  of  duty  which  they  severally 
 possess.  God  is  therefore  perfectly  impartial.  These  are  the 
 principles  on  which  men  are  to  be  tried,  in  the  last  day,  by 
 Jesus  Christ;  and  those  who  expect  to  be  dealt  with  on  any 
 other  plan,  will  be  dreadfully  disappointed. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  leading  doctrine  of  this  section  is,  that  God  is  just. 
 His  judgments  are  infinitely  removed  above  all  those  disturbing 
 causes  of  ignorance  and  partiality,  by  which  the  decisions  of 
 men  are  perverted,  vs.  1,  16. 
 
 2.  The  refuge  which  men  are  always  disposed  to  seek  in  their 
 supposed  advantages  of  ecclesiastical  connection,  as  belonging 
 to  the  true  Church,  &c.,  is  a  vain  refuge.  God  deals  with  men 
 according  to  their  real  character,  vs.  2,  3. 
 
 3.  The  goodness  of  God  has  both  the  design  and  tendency 
 to  lead  men  to  repentance.  If  it  fails,  the  fault  must  be  their 
 own,  ver.  4. 
 
 4.  It  is  a  great  abuse  of  the  divine  goodness  and  forbearance 
 to  derive  encouragement  from  them  to  continue  in  sin.  Such 
 conduct  will  certainly  aggravate  our  condemnation,  vs.  3 — 5. 
 
 5.  None  but  the  truly  good,  no  matter  what  the  pi-ofessions, 
 connections  or  expectations  of  others  may  be,  will  be  saved; 
 and  none  but  the  truly  wicked,  whether  Gentile  or  Jew,  Chris- 
 tian or  heathen,  will  be  lost,  vs.  6 — 10. 
 
 6.  The  goodness  which  the  Scriptures  approve  consists,  in  a 
 great  degree,  in  the  pursuit  of  heavenly  things :  it  is  a  seeking 
 after  glory,  honour  and  immortality,  by  a  persevering  continu- 
 ance in  well-doing.  It  is  the  pursuit  of  the  true  end  of  our 
 being,  by  the  proper  means,  ver.  7. 
 
 7.  The  1  esponsibility  of  men  being  very  different  in  this 
 world,  their  rewards  and  punishment  will,  in  all  probability,  be 
 
ROMANS  XL  1—16.  88 
 
 very  different  in  the  next.  Those  who  knew  not  their  Lord's 
 will,  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes.  And  those  who  are 
 faithful  in  the  use  of  ten  talents,  shall  be  made  rulers  over  ten 
 cities,  vs.  9,  10. 
 
 8.  The  heathen  are  not  to  be  judged  by  a  revelation  of  which 
 thev  never  heard.  But  as  they  enjoy  a  revelation  of  the  divine 
 character  in  the  works  of  creation,  chap.  i.  19,  20,  and  of  the 
 rule  of  duty  in  their  own  hearts,  vs.  14,  15,  they  are  inexcusa- 
 ble. They  can  no  more  abide  the  test  by  which  they  are  to  be 
 tried,  than  we  can  stand  the  application  of  the  severer  rule 
 by  which  we  are  to  be  judged.  Both  classes,  therefore,  need  a 
 Saviour,  ver.  12. 
 
 9.  The  moral  sense  is  an  original  part  of  our  constitution, 
 and  not  the  result  of  education,  ver.  14. 
 
 10.  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  secrets 
 of  all  men,  must  be  possessed  of  infinite  knowledge,  and  there- 
 fore be  divine,  ver.  16. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  deceitfulness  of  the  human  heart  is  strikingly  exhi- 
 bited in  the  different  judgments  which  men  pass  upon  them- 
 selves and  others;  condemning  in  others  what  they  excuse  in 
 themselves.  And  it  not  unfrequently  happens  that  the  most 
 censorious  are  the  most  criminal,  vs.  1,  3. 
 
 2.  How  does  the  goodness  of  God  affect  us  ?  If  it  does  not 
 lead  us  to  repentance,  it  will  harden  our  hearts  and  aggravate 
 our  condemnation,  vs.  4,  5. 
 
 3.  Genuine  repentance  is  produced  by  discoveries  of  God's 
 mercy,  legal  repentance  by  fear  of  his  justice,  ver.  4. 
 
 4.  Any  doctrine  which  tends  to  produce  security  in  sin,  must 
 be  false.  The  proper  effect  of  the  enjoyment  of  peculiar  advan- 
 tages is  to  increase  our  sense  of  responsibility,  and  our  grati- 
 tude to  God,  and  not  to  make  us  suppose  that  we  are  his  special 
 favourites.     God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  vs.  3 — 10. 
 
 5.  How  vain  the  hopes  of  future  blessedness,  indulged  by  the 
 immoral,  founded  upon  the  expectation  either  that  God  will  not 
 deal  with  them  according  to  their  works,  or  that  the  secrets  of 
 their  hearts  will  not  be  discovered !  vs.  6 — 10,  16. 
 
90  ROMANS  II.  17—29. 
 
 6.  If  God  is  a  just  God,  his  wrath  is  not  to  be  escaped  by 
 evasions,  but  in  the  way  of  his  own  appointment.  If  we  have 
 no  righteousness  of  our  own,  we  must  seek  that  of  the  Saviour, 
 vs.  1 — 16. 
 
 7.  He  who  died  for  the  sins  of  men  is  to  sit  in  judgment 
 upon  sinners.  This  is  a  just  ground  of  fear  to  those  who  reject 
 his  offered  mercy,  and  of  confidence  to  those  who  trust  in  his 
 righteousness,  ver.  16. 
 
 ROMANS  11.  17—29. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 This  section  consists  properly  of  two  parts.  The  first, 
 vs.  17 — 24,  contains  an  application  of  the  principles  laid  down 
 in  the  former  section,  to  the  case  of  the  Jews.  The  second, 
 vs.  25 — 29,  is  an  exhibition  of  the  nature  and  design  of  circum- 
 cision. The  principal  grounds  of  dependence  on  the  part  of  the 
 Jews  were,  1.  Their  covenant  relation  to  God.  2.  Their  supe- 
 rior advantages  as  to  divine  knowledge.  3.  Their  circumcision. 
 Now  if  it  is  true  that  God  will  judge  every  man,  Jew  or  Gentile, 
 according  to  his  works,  and  by  the  law  which  he  has  enjoyed, 
 what  will  it  avail  any  to  say,  We  are  Jews,  we  have  the  law, 
 ver.  17 ;  we  have  superior  knowledge,  ver.  18 ;  we  can  act  as 
 guides  and  instructers  to  others  ?  ver.  19.  This  may  all  be  very 
 true;  but  are  you  less  a  thief,  merely  because  you  condemn 
 stealing  ?  less  an  adulterer,  because  you  condemn  adultery  ?  or 
 less  a  blasphemer,  because  you  abhor  sacrilege?  vs.  21,  22. 
 This  superior  knowledge,  instead  of  extenuating,  only  aggra- 
 vates your  guilt.  While  boasting  of  your  advantages,  you  by 
 your  sins  bring  a  reproach  on  God,  vs.  23,  24.  According  to 
 the  first  principles  of  justice,  therefore,  your  condemnation  will 
 be  no  less  certain,  and  far  more  severe  than  that  of  the  Gentiles. 
 As  to  circumcision,  to  which  the  Jews  attached  so  much  impor- 
 tance, the  apostle  shows  that  it  could  avail  nothing,  except  on 
 condition  of  obedience  to  the  law  or  covenant  to  which  it  be- 
 longed, ver.  25.  If  the  law  be  broken,  circumcision  is  worth- 
 less, ver.  25,  latter  clause      On  the  other  hand,  if  the  law  is 
 
ROMANS  II.  17.  91 
 
 obeyed,  tlie  want  of  circumcision  will  not  prevent  a  blessing, 
 ver.  26.  More  than  this,  if  those  less  favourably  situated  than 
 the  Jews  are  found  obedient,  they  will  rise  up  in  judgment 
 against  the  disobedient,  though  favoured  people  of  God,  ver.  27. 
 All  this  proves  that  an  external  rite  can,  in  itself,  have  no 
 saving  power;  because  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  requires  and 
 regards  spiritual  obedience  alone.  This  principle  is  stated, 
 first  nega^-'vely,  he  is  not  a  Jew  who  is  such  in  profession 
 merely,  ver.  28 ;  and  then  affirmatively,  he  is  a  Jew  who  is  one 
 inwardly,  ver.  29. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  17.  Instead  of  i'ds,  beJiold,  which  is  in  the  common 
 text,  most  of  the  ancient  manuscripts,  many  of  the  versions, 
 and  of  the  Fathers,  read  e:  <5i,  but  if;  which  reading  is  adopted 
 by  Bengel,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  and  Lachmann,  and  is  followed 
 by  almost  all  the  recent  commentators.  We  have  then  the 
 protasis  of  a  sentence  of  which  the  apodosis  does  not  follow: 
 *  But  if  thou  art  called  a  Jew,  and  hast  the  law,  tJiou  shouldst 
 act  according  to  it;'  comp.  2  Pet.  ii.  4.  Or  the  answering  clause 
 may  be  found  in  ver.  21,  '  If  thou  art  called  a  Jew,'  &c., 
 'teachest  thou  then  [ohu)  not  thyself?'  Winer,  §  64,  II.  1.  Art 
 called,  eTTouojud^r^,  called  after,  or  in  addition  to;  a  sense 
 insisted  on  here  by  Theodoret,  who  says,  "  oux  d~cv  duofm^r], 
 d/x'  knovo/xd^Tj."  Bengel,  Kollner,  Meyer,  and  others,  take  the 
 same  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  word :  '  Besides  your  proper 
 name,  you  call  yourself  a  Jew.'  But  as  the  compound  word  is 
 used  for  the  simple  one  in  Gen.  iv.  17,  25,  26,  and  elsewhere, 
 and  as  Jew  was  then  the  common  name  of  the  people,  it  is 
 better  rendered,  thou  art  called.  '  loudalo^,  a  Jeto,  a  descendant 
 of  Judah,  in  the  New  Testament  applied  to  all  the  Israelites,  as 
 inhabitants  of  Judea.  It  was  considered  a  title  of  honour,  not 
 only  on  account  of  its  etymology,  n^in^  meaning  praised,  Gen. 
 xlix.  8,  but  because  it  designated  the  people  of  God.  Comp. 
 vs.  28,  29,  and  Rev.  ii.  9 :  "  I  know  the  blasphemy  of  those  who 
 say  they  are  Jews,  and  are  not."  To  be  a  Jew  in  this  sense, 
 was  to  be  one  of  the  covenant  people  of  God,  a  member  of  thp 
 
92  ROMANS  11.  17. 
 
 theocracy,  cr  of  the  true  Church.  As  this  was  the  principal 
 ground  of  the  false  confidence  of  the  Jews,  the  apostle  mentions 
 It  before  all  others.  It  was  not  enough  that  they  were  the 
 children  of  Abraham ;  if  they  sinned,  they  were  exposed  to  the 
 displeasure  of  that  God  who  will  render  to  every  man  according 
 to  his  works,  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Gentile.  And 
 restest  on  the  law.  That  is,  Thou  placest  thy  confidence  upon 
 the  law.  In  the  Septuagint,  the  word  occurs  in  Micah  iii.  11, 
 a  passage  illustrative  of  the  one  before  us,  "  The  heads  thereof 
 judge  for  reward,  and  the  priests  thereof  teach  for  hire,  the 
 prophets  thereof  divine  for  money ;  yet  will  they  lean  upon  the 
 Lord,  and  say,  Is  not  the  Lord  among  us  ?  none  evil  can  come 
 upon  us."  The  laiv  here  means  the  whole  Mosaic  system,  the 
 civil  and  religious  polity  of  the  Jews.  This  they  relied  upon ; 
 the  fact  that  they  were  within  the  Church,  were  partakers  of 
 its  sacraments  and  rites ;  that  they  had  a  divinely  appointed 
 priesthood,  continued  in  unbroken  succession  from  Aaron,  and 
 invested  with  the  power  to  make  atonement  for  sin,  was  the 
 ground  on  which  they  rested  their  hope  of  acceptance  with  God. 
 Within  that  pale  they  considered  all  safe ;  out  of  it,  there  was 
 no  salvation.  Such  was  the  false  confidence  of  the  Jews ;  such 
 has  been  and  is  the  false  confidence  of  thousands  of  Christians. 
 And  maJcest  thy  boast  of  Gfod.  See  Winer,  §  13.  2,  on  the 
 form  of  the  word  xawj^daa:.  To  boast,  or  glory  in  any  person 
 or  thing,  is  to  rejoice  in  him  or  it  as  a  source  of  honour,  happi- 
 ness, or  profit  to  ourselves.  We  are  forbidden  thus  to  glory  in 
 ourselves,  or  any  creature,  as  the  ground  of  our  confidence  and 
 source  of  our  blessedness.  "Let  no  man  glory  in  men;  but  he 
 that  glories,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord."  This  glorying  in  God 
 may  be  right  or  wrong,  according  to  the  reasons  of  it.  If  it 
 proceeds  from  a  sense  of  our  own  emptiness,  and  from  right 
 apprehensions  of  the  excellence  of  God,  and  from  faith  in  his 
 promises,  then  it  is  that  glorying  which  is  so  often  commanded. 
 But  if  it  arises  from  false  notions  of  our  relation  to  him,  as  his 
 peculiar  favourites,  then  it  is  vain  and  wicked.  The  Jews 
 regarded  themselves  in  such  a  sense  the  people  of  God,  as  to  be 
 secure  of  his  favour,  let  their  personal  character  be  what  it 
 might.  They  boasted  that  he  was  their  God,  that  they  mono- 
 polized his  favour,  all  other  nations  being  his  enemies. 
 
ROMANS  11.  18.  93 
 
 Verse  18.  And  hnoioest  the  will,  &c.,  of  God.  Superior 
 knowledge  was  another  of  the  peculiar  distinctions  of  the  Jews. 
 The  particulars  to  which  the  apostle  refers  in  this,  as  well  as  in 
 the  preceding  and  succeeding  verses,  constituted  real  and  great 
 privileges,  by  which  the  Jews  were  distinguished  from  all  other 
 people.  To  he  the  people  of  God,  to  have  the  law,  to  know  the 
 divine  will,  were  indeed  great  advantages ;  but  these  advantages 
 only  increased  the  obligations  of  those  who  enjoyed  them.  They 
 did  not  of  themselves  constitute  any  ground  of  confidence  of 
 acceptance  with  God;  much  less  did  the  mere  possession  of 
 these  distinguishing  favours  give  exemption  from  those  princi- 
 ples of  just  retribution,  according  to  which  God  will  judge  the 
 world.  The  apostle,  however,  grants  the  Jews  all  they  claimed : 
 he  grants  that  they  were  the  people  of  God ;  that  they  had  the 
 law,  knew  the  divine  will,  &c.,  and  then  shows  that  they  were 
 nevertheless  exposed  to  condemnation.  If  real  advantages, 
 such  as  distinguished  the  Jews  above  all  other  nations,  were  of 
 no  avail  to  their  justification  or  acceptance  before  God,  what  is 
 to  be  said  or  thought  of  those  who  place  their  confidence  in 
 fictitious  advantages,  in  mere  imaginary  superiority  to  their 
 fellow  men  or  fellow  Christians ;  as  belonging  to  the  true 
 Church,  having  the  true  succession,  the  real  sacraments,  when 
 in  fact  in  these  respects  they  are  even  less  favoured  than  those 
 whom  they  look  upon  as  outside  the  Church  and  the  covenant? 
 And  approvest  the  things  that  are  more  excellent.  Joxcud^scv 
 is  to  try,  to  examine,  as  in  1  Cor.  iii.  13 ;  and  then,  to  regard 
 as  tried,  i.  e.  to  approve,  as  in  1  Cor.  xvi.  3.  Aeaipipzcv  means 
 to  differ,  as  in  Gal.  ii.  6 ;  and  also,  to  excel,  as  in  Matt.  x.  31. 
 See  also  Matt.  vi.  26,  Luke  xii.  7,  &c.  This  is  the  most  common 
 meaning  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament.  We  have  then  the 
 choice  of  the  two  interpretations.  Thou  approvest  the  things  that 
 are  more  excellent,  or,  Thou  dost  distinguish  the  things  that  are 
 different.  Our  version  gives  the  former,  both  here  and  in 
 Philip,  i.  10,  where  the  same  words  occur.  The  latter  is  adopted 
 by  Theodoret,  who  explains  dia<pipovTa  by  iuavzla  dlKqXotz, 
 dr/.acoaov/jv  xac  ddixcau;  and  Theophylact,  re  ds7  rcpd^ac  xai  zi  [xtj 
 dtl  7ipa~ac.  The  same  view  is  taken  by  most  of  the  recent  com- 
 mentators. It  is  suitable  to  the  context,  inasmuch  as  the 
 apostle  is  here  speaking  of  the  peculiar  advantages  of  the  Jews, 
 
94  ROMANS  II.  19,  20. 
 
 one  of  wliich  was  their  superior  knowledge,  and  their  ability  to 
 do  what  others  could  not,  that  is,  decide  what  was  and  what 
 was  not  consistent  with  the  will  of  God.  On  the  other  hand, 
 however,  to  approve  of  what  is  right,  to  discern  it  to  be  right, 
 is  a  higher  attainment  than  merely  to  discriminate  between 
 good  and  evil.  And  as  the  apostle  is  here  conceding  to  the 
 Jews  everything  they  could  claim,  it  is  better  to  give  his  words 
 their  highest  sense.  He  admits  that  theoretically  they  were 
 right  in  their  judgments.  It  was  not  their  moral  judgments, 
 but  their  moral  conduct  that  was  in  fault.  Being  instructed, 
 xaz-qio''jp.Evoz,  (orally  instructed,  as  the  word  literally  means,) 
 out  of  the  law,  i.  e.  the  Scrij)tures,  as  vbyLOc,  often  means.  The 
 word  or  law  of  God  was  a  light  to  their  feet,  to  which  they 
 could  at  all  times  refer  to  guide  their  steps. 
 
 Verses  19,  20.  And  art  confident  that  thou  thyself  art  a 
 guide  of  the  blind.  The  apostle  in  these  verses  states  the  eifect 
 which  the  peculiar  advantages  of  the  Jews  produced  upon  them. 
 They  considered  themselves  to  be  greatly  superior  to  all  other 
 nations ;  capable  of  instructing  them ;  and  of  being  the  guides 
 and  light  of  the  world.  This  idea  is  presented  in  diiferent 
 lights,  in  what  follows — a  light  of  them  ivhich  are  in  darhyiess, 
 an  instructor  of  the  foolish,  a  teacher  of  babes.  They  looked 
 upon  themselves  as  qualified  to  act  as  the  instructors  of  others, 
 e^oj^za,  having,  i.  e.  because  they  had  the  form,  &c.  Having 
 the  form  of  knowledge  and  of  truth  in  the  law.  Mofxptoac^ 
 occurs  in  the  New  Testament  only  here  and  in  2  Tim.  iii.  5. 
 In  the  latter  passage  it  is  opposed  to  the  reality  [dova/jii^,)  and 
 means  mere  appearance.  This  however  cannot  be  its  meaning 
 here ;  for  the  clause  in  which  it  occurs,  assigns  the  reason 
 which  the  Jews  felt  themselves  to  have,  and  which  they  had  in 
 fact,  for  their  superior  knowledge.  They  supposed  themselves 
 to  be  able  to  guide  others,  because  they  had  the  form  of  know- 
 ledge in  the  law.  It  therefore  here  means,  forma  quce  rem 
 exprimat,  as  Grotius  expresses  it.  The  form  of  knowledge,  is 
 knowledge  as  represented  or  expressed  in  the  law.  In  other 
 words,  the  exhibition  of  knowledge  and  truth  in  the  law  is 
 given  in  a  form  which  expresses  their  true  nature.  The  words 
 yvwac::  and  d.):/j&tca  do  not  essentially  differ.  The  former,  says 
 De  Wette,  is  truth  as  known ;  the  latter,  truth  in  itself. 
 
KOMANS  II.  21,  22.  95 
 
 Verses  21,  22.    Thou  therefore  that  teachest  another.     We 
 have  here  the  virtual  apodosis  of  ver.  17.     '  If  thou,  although  a 
 Jew,  and  related  to  God  as  one  of  his  peculiar  people,  and  well 
 instructed  out  of  the  law,  violate  the  law,  and  do  the  things  thou 
 condemnest  in  others,  how  canst  thou  escape  the  judgment  of 
 that  God  who  Avill  render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works?' 
 It  is  evident  the  apostle  means  to  assert  that  the  Jews  were 
 guilty  of  the  crimes  here  specified ;  and  it  matters  little  whether 
 the   several    clauses   be  read    interrogatively   or   affirmatively. 
 The  former,  as  the  more  forcible,  is  generally  preferred.     To 
 set  ourselves  up  as  instructors,  and  yet  not  to  apply  our  prin- 
 ciples to  ourselves,  is  not  only  an  inconsistency,  but  ofiensive 
 arrogance   and  hypocrisy.     To    steal   and  to  commit  adultery 
 are  great  sins,  but  for  those  who  preach  against  them  and  con- 
 demn them  in  others,  to  commit  them,   is  to  quadruple  their 
 guilt.     The  Jews,  therefore,  who  committed  the  sins  which  they 
 so  loudly  condemned  in  the  heathen,  were  more  guilty  in  the 
 sight  of  God  than  the  heathen  themselves.     While  flatterino; 
 themselves  that  they  were  s'ecure  from  the  divine  wrath,  in  the 
 enclosure  of  the  theocracy,  they  Avere  the  special  objects  of 
 God's  displeasure ;  so  that  publicans  and  harlots  were  nearer  to 
 :he  kingdom  of  God  than  they.      Thou  that  abhorrest  idols,  dost 
 thou  rob  temples?  That  the  Jews,  subsequently  to  the  captivity, 
 did  abhor  idols,  is  a  well  known  fact;    that  they  robbed  the 
 temples  of  idols  is  not  knoAvn.     Besides,  robbing  the  temples 
 of  idols  was  not  sacrilege ;  for  iii  the  mind  of  the  Jew  there  was 
 no  sacredness  in  those  temples.     It  was  to  him  robbery,  and 
 nothing  more ;  probably  something  less.     The  objurgatory  cha- 
 racter of  these  several  clauses  requires  that  the  thing  here 
 charged  should  be  of  the  same  nature  with  idolatry,  not  its 
 opposite.     The  Jew  taught  that  men  should  not  steal,  yet  he 
 himself  stole ;  he  said.  Commit  not  adultery,  yet  he  was  guilty 
 of  that  crime;  he  abhorred  idols,  yet  was  guilty  of  idolatry. 
 It  is  something  analogous  to  idolatry  that  is  here  charged,  not 
 the  despoiling  of  heathen  temples,  which  would  be  the  natural 
 expression  of  the   abhorrence  of  idols.     The   essence   of  idol- 
 atry was  profanation  of  God ;  of  this  the  Jev.' s  Avere  in  a  high 
 degree  guilty.     They  had  made  his  house  a  den  of  thieves. 
 Instead  therefore  of  taking  the  word  Upoauhl^  literally,  which 
 
96  ROMANS  II.  23—25. 
 
 the  context  forbids,  it  should  be  understood  in  a  secondary 
 sense.  It  expresses  the  sin  of  irreverence  in  its 'higher  forms ; 
 either  as  manifested  in  withholding  from  God  his  due,  which 
 the  prophet  denounces  as  robbery — "  Will  a  man  rob  God  i  yet 
 ye  have  robbed  me.  But  ye  say,  Wherein  have  we  robbed 
 thee?  In  tithes  and  offerings,"  Mai.  iii.  8:  or  it  may  be  taken 
 in  the  still  more  general  sense  of  profanation,  the  irreverent 
 disregard  of  God  and  holy  things.  This  is  all  the  context 
 requires:  'You  profess  great  reverence  for  God,  in  eschewing 
 idolatry ;  and  yet,  in  other  forms,  you  are  guilty  of  the  greatest 
 irreverence.' 
 
 Verses  23,  24.  Another  striking  instance  of  the  incon- 
 sistency between  their  principles  and  their  conduct  was,  that 
 while  they  made  a  boast  of  the  law,  they  so  disregarded  its 
 precepts  as  to  lead  the  heathen  to  think  and  speak  evil  of  that 
 God  who  gave  the  law,  of  whose  character  they  judged  by 
 the  conduct  of  his  people.  This  charge  he  expresses  in  the 
 language  of  their  own  prophets;  see  Isa.  Iii.  5,  and  Ezek. 
 xxxvi.  20,  23.  In  the  former  passage  we  find  in  the  LXX. 
 nearly  the  same  words  as  those  used  by  the  apostle :  "  Sc'  bfiaz 
 dcarzauzb^  to  6uo[xd  fxou  ^Xaafpr^ixtlvac  ku  zdl^  ed-usa:."  Both 
 Isaiah  and  Ezekiel,  indeed,  refer  to  that  blaspheming  of  God 
 by  the  heathen,  which  arose  from  the  misery  of  his  people, 
 whose  God  they  were  thus  led  to  regard  as  unable  to  protect 
 his  worshippers.  This  however  does  not  render  the  reference 
 of  the  apostle  less  appropriate;  for  it  is  the  mere  fact  that 
 God's  name  was  blasphemed  among  the  Gentiles,  on  account 
 of  the  Jews,  that  the  apostle  means  to  confirm  by  this  reference 
 to  the  Scriptures.  And  besides,  as  their  sins  were  the  cause 
 of  their  captivity,  their  sins  were  the  cause  also  of  the  evil 
 speaking  of  God,  of  which  their  sufferings  were  the  immediate 
 occasion. 
 
 Verse  25.  The  apostle,  in  vs.  1 — 16  of  this  chapter,  had 
 proved  that  God  would  judge  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  accord- 
 ing to  their  works;  in  vs.  17 — 24,  that  the  Jews,  notwith- 
 standing their  peculiar  privileges,  were  no  less  sinful  than 
 the  Gentiles ;  the  obvious  conclusion  therefore  was,  that  they 
 were  no  less  liable  to  condemnation.  It  is  with  this  conclusion 
 implied,  but  not  expressed,  that  this  verse  is  connected  by  the 
 
ROMANS  II.  25.  97 
 
 particle  fdp:  'You  are  exposed  to  condemnation,  for  circum- 
 cision, in  which  you  trust,  profits  only  on  condition  that  you 
 keep  the  law.'  Comp.  chap.  iv.  2,  and  iv.  9,  and  other  places  in 
 which  ydp  refers  to  a  thought  omitted.  Circumcision  is  not 
 here  to  be  taken  for  Judaism  in  general,  of  which  that  rite  was 
 the  sign,  but  for  the  rite  itself.  It  is  obvious  that  the  Jews 
 regarded  circumcision  as  in  some  way  securing  their  salvation. 
 That  they  did  so  regard  it,  may  be  proved  not  only  from  such 
 passages  of  the  New  Testament  where  the  sentiment  is  implied, 
 but  also  by  the  direct  assertion  of  their  own  writers.  Such 
 assertions  have  been  gathered  in  abundance  from  their  works 
 by  Eisenmenger,  Schoettgen,  and  others.  For  example,  the 
 Rabbi  Menachem,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Moses, 
 fol.  43,  col.  3,  says,  "  Our  Rabbins  have  said,  that  no  circum- 
 cised man  will  see  hell."  In  the  Jalkut  Rubeni,  num.  1,  it  is 
 taught,  "Circumcision  saves  from  hell."  In  the  Medrasch 
 Tillim,  fol.  7,  col.  2,  it  is  said,  "  God  swore  to  Abraham,  that 
 no  one  who  was  circumcised  should  be  sent  to  hell."  In  the 
 book  Akedath  Jizehak,  fol.  54,  col.  2,  it  is  taught  that  "Abra- 
 ham sits  before  the  gate  of  hell,  and  does  not  allow  that  any 
 circumcised  Israelite  should  enter  there."*  The  apostle  con- 
 siders circumcision  under  two  diiferent  aspects.  First,  as  a  rite 
 supposed  to  possess  some  inherent  virtue  or  merit  of  its  own ; 
 and  secondly,  as  a  sign  and  seal  of  God's  covenant.  In  the 
 former  view,  Paul  here  as  well  as  elsewhere,  says,  "Circum- 
 cision is  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is  nothing,"  Gal.  vi.  15; 
 in  the  latter,  it  had  its  value.  As  a  seal  it  was  attached  in  the 
 first  place  to  the  national  covenant  between  God  and  the  Jews. 
 It  was  a  sign  of  the  existence  of  that  covenant,  and  tliat  the 
 person  to  whom  it  was  affixed  was  included  within  its  pale.  It 
 was  a  pledge  on  the  part  of  God  that  he  would  fulfil  the  pro- 
 mises of  that  covenant.  If  any  Jew  fulfilled  his  part  of  the 
 national  covenant,  and  in  that  sense  kept  the  law,  his  circum- 
 cision profited  him.  It  secured  to  him  all  the  advantages  of 
 Judaism.  But  this  rite  was,  in  the  second  place,  attached  to 
 the  spiritual  covenant  formed  with  Abraham;  that  is,  "it  was 
 a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith;"   it  was  designed  as  an 
 
 *  Eisenmenger's  Entdecktes  Ju^enthum,  Part  II.  p.  285. 
 
 7 
 
98  ROMANS  11.  26. 
 
 assurance  that  Abraham  was,  in  virtue  of  his  faith,  regarded  as? 
 righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  To  all  those  Jews  who  had  tho 
 faith  of  Abraham,  and  thus  kept  the  covenant  established  with 
 him,  circumcision  was  in  like  manner  profitable.  It  was  the 
 visible  sign  and  pledge  that  all  who  believed  should  be  justified. 
 On  the  other  hand,  if  either  the  national  or  spiritual  covenant 
 was  broken,  circumcision  was  of  no  avail.  The  fact  that  an 
 Israelite  was  circumcised,  did  not  save  him  from  excision  from 
 the  people,  if  he  broke  any  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  Moses ; 
 neither  could  circumcision  save  those  who,  being  destitute  of 
 the  faith  of  Abraham,  appeared  as  sinners  before  the  bar  of 
 God.  Paul  therefore  teaehes  that  circumcision  had  no  inherent, 
 magical  efficacy ;  that  it  had  no  value  beyond  that  of  a  sign  and 
 seal ;  that  it  secured  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  to  those  who 
 kept  the  covenant ;  but  to  the  transgressors  of  the  law  it  was 
 of  no  avail.  This  latter  idea  he  expresses  by  saying,  ^  Ttepczofirj 
 aou  dxpoj^oazca  yeyovzv^  thy  circumcision  has  become  uncircum- 
 cision.  That  is,  it  is  of  no  use.  It  cannot  prevent  your  being 
 dealt  with  as  a  transgressor,  or  treated  as  though  you  had  nevei 
 been  circumcised. 
 
 Verse  26.  Therefore,  if  the  uncircumcision  keep  the  right- 
 eousness of  the  law.  This  verse  is  an  inference  (o5v)  from  the 
 preceding.  It  was  there  taught  that  everything  depends  upon 
 obedience  to  the  law.  God  will  judge  every  man  according  to 
 his  works.  If  a  Jew,  though  circumcised,  break  the  law,  he 
 shall  be  condemned ;  and  if  a  Gentile,  though  uncircumcised, 
 keep  the  law,  he  shall  be  justified.  The  one  proposition  flows 
 from  the  other ;  for  if  circumcision  is  in  itself  nothing,  its  pre- 
 sence cannot  protect  the  guilty ;  its  absence  cannot  invalidate 
 the  claims  of  the  righteous.  Aafuibp.aza,  decrees,  precepts,  what 
 the  law  prescribes  as  right.  The  apostle  does  not  mean  to 
 intimate  that  the  Gentiles  do  in  any  case  keep  the  righteous- 
 ness of  the  law ;  contrary  to  his  own  explicit  assertion,  that 
 there  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one.  It  is  a  mere  hypothetical 
 statement,  designed  to  show  that  everything  depends  on  obedi- 
 ence, and  that  circumcision  cannot  be  the  ground  either  of 
 justification  or  condemnation.  Shall  not  his  uncircumcision  he 
 counted  for  circumcision ?  The  phrase  lox't^za&ai  zc  tiz  re,  in 
 accordance  with  the  Hebrew  b  nmn,  1  Sam.  i.  13,  Isa.  xxix.  17, 
 
ROMANS  II.  27.  99 
 
 often  means  to  reckon  or  regard  one  thing  as  another.     Uncir- 
 cumcision  shall  be  taken  for  circumcision. 
 
 Verse  27.  Calvin  makes  this  verse  a  part  of  the  interro- 
 gation begun  in  ver.  26,  a  mode  of  pointing  followed  by  Koppe, . 
 Lackmann,  Fritzsche,  and  many  others.  '  Shall  not  uncir- 
 cumclsion  be  reckoned  circumcision,  and  condemn  you  who 
 break  the  law?'  Our  translators  supply  ob^c  before  xpiuei, 
 and  make  ver.  27  a  distinct  interrogation,  '  and  shall  not  the 
 uncircumcision  condemn  you,'  &c.  Meyer  takes  ver.  27  cate- 
 gorically, and  xac  in  the  sense  of  even  or  onoreover,  so  that 
 ver.  27  is  virtually  an  answer  to  the  preceding  question. 
 '  Shall  not  uncircumcision  be  taken  for  circumcision  ?  (Yes, 
 verily,)  it  will  even  condemn  you,'  &c.  In  either  way  the 
 idea  is,  that  the  obedient  uncircumcised  heathen  would  be 
 better  off,  he  would  stand  on  higher  ground,  than  the  disobe- 
 dient circumcised  Jew.  It  is  only  putting  the  truth  taught 
 in  this  verse  into  different  words,  to  say,  'the  unbaptized 
 believer  shall  condemn  the  baptized  unbeliever.'  The  uncir- 
 cumcision which  is  hy  nature,  -^  kx  (fuaeco^  dxpo^oarta.  The 
 position  of  the  article  shows  plainly  that  h.  (fuazoiz,  qualifies 
 axpo^oazia,  and  is  not  to  be  connected  with  the  following  par- 
 ticiple zeXooaa.  The  sense  is,  "the  uncircumcision  which  is 
 natural,"  and  not  'which  by  nature  keeps  the  law.'  If  it 
 fulfil  the  law,  i.  e.  provided  it  is  obedient,  and  therefore  right- 
 eous. Shall  judge,  xptvd,  by  implication,  shall  condemn;  the 
 judgment  is  by  the  context  supposed  to  be  a  condemnatory 
 one.  Comp.  Matt.  xii.  41.  Thee  who  hy  the  letter,  &c.;  ah 
 zbv  dia  Ypd/xfxazoi^,  thee  with  the  letter,  i.  e.  the  written  law. 
 In  the  present  case  it  is  not  used  in  a  disparaging  sense,  for 
 the  mere  verbal  meaning  in  opposition  to  the  spirit.  The 
 context  rather  requires  that  fpS-ppa  and  Tispczoprj  should  be 
 taken  as  expressing  the  real  and  substantial  benefits  of  the 
 Jews.  Our  version  renders  ocd  hy,  Beza  also  has  per.  He 
 understands  the  apostle  to  mean  that  external  circumcision 
 being  profaned  only  rendered  the  Jews  so  much  the  worse. 
 But  as  dcd  with  the  genitive  so  often  means  with,  as  expressing 
 the  circumstances  under  which  anything  is  done,  (as  dc  bnopbvqz 
 with  patience,  dca  7ipoax6ppazo(;  with  offence,)  the  meaning  is, 
 Ti,  qui  literas  et  circumcisionem  habens,  contra  legem  facis. 
 
100  ROMANS  II.  28,  29 
 
 Notwithstanding  they  had  the  law  and  circumcision,  they  ■were 
 transgressors  of  the  law.  Calvin  makes  letter  and  circumcision 
 to  mean  literal  circumcision;  but  this  is  unnecessary,  and 
 unsuited  to  the  context ;  for  vrhen  speaking  of  the  advant£.ges 
 of  the  Jews,  the  law  is  of  too  much  importance  to  allow  of 
 the  word  which  expresses  it  being  merged  into  a  mere  epithet. 
 
 Verses  28,  29.  For  not  he  who  is  externally  a  Jew,  is  a 
 Jew,  &c.  These  verses  assign  the  reason  why  the  external 
 rite  of  circumcision  can  avail  so  little.  God  looks  upon  the 
 heart,  and  does  not  regard  mere  external  circumstances.  It 
 is  not,  therefore,  mere  descent  from  Abraham,  nor  connection 
 with  the  external  theocracy  or  church,  that  can  secure  his 
 favour;  but  the  possession  of  those  internal  dispositions  which 
 external  rites  are  intended  to  symbolize.  Verse  28  contains 
 the  negative,  ver.  29  the  affirmative  statement  of  this  gene- 
 ral truth.  The  word  '  louddioi;  is  to  be  supplied  in  the  first 
 member  of  the  sentence,  as  the  subject  is  6  iv  zcv  tpavzpw 
 '  loudalo^,  and  the  predicate  'Jouoalo^  hazcv.  The  same  remark 
 may  be  made  with  regard  to  the  following  clause,  where  the 
 subject  is  )J  kv  rep  <pavepaJ,  iv  aap-Zc  Trepcvopij,  and  the  predicate 
 Tzepaopij  laziv.  External  circumcision  in  the  flesh  is  not  circum- 
 cision. 0a.vzpbz  apparent,  visible,  what  falls  under  the  observa- 
 tion of  the  senses,  hence  external.  The  word  Jew  is  of  course 
 to  be  taken  as  the  designation  of  the  people  of  God.  '  He  is 
 not  one  of  the  people  of  God  who  is  such  externally.'  It  is 
 nothing  external  that  constitutes  or  secures  this  peculiar 
 relation  to  God.  The  affirmative  statement  is,  d.XX  6  kv  Tip 
 xpuTTTui  'loudalo^,  \^Iouddco(;  iauv,']  but  the  Jeiv  in  secret  is  a 
 Jew.  As  in  the  preceding  verse,  part  of  the  subject  is  bor- 
 rowed from  the  predicate,  so  here  and  in  the  following  clause 
 the  predicate  is  to  be  borrowed  from  the  subject;  that  is, 
 'Iouda7o(:  iazcv  is  to  be  supplied  after  the  first  clause,  and 
 TcepiTopTJ  larcv  after  the  second  clause  of  this  verse,  so  that 
 the  whole  reads  thus:  "But  he  who  is  inwardly  a  Jew,  is 
 really  a  Jew;  and  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  in  spirit  and 
 not  in  letter,  is  circumcision."  This  is  the  construction 
 of  the  passage  almost  universally  adopted.  KpuTtvoz  hidden, 
 and  as  opposed  to  (pavepo^  inward;  hence  ei'  zcp  xpm  ^tp 
 inwardly,  in  heart.    Comp.  1  Pet.  iii.  4.     True  circumci'  tij 
 
ROMANS  II.  28,  29.  101 
 
 is  described  as  jzepcTOfiT]  xapdia^,  Iv  Tzveufiazc,  ou  ypdfifiaTi. 
 These  latter  words  admit  of  diflferent  interpretations.  The 
 apostle  contrasts  Tivso/ia  and  ypd/ipa  in  Rom.  vii.  6,  and  2  Cor. 
 iii.  6,  much  as  he  does  here.  In  chap.  vii.  6,  oldness  of  the  letter 
 may  mean  the  condition  and  spirit  of  those  who  were  under  the 
 law,  now  become  old;  and  newness  of  the  spirit  may  mean  that 
 new  condition  and  temper  which  the  Holy  Spirit  gives.  In 
 2  Cor.  iii.  6,  Paul  says  he  was  made  a  minister  of  the  new  cove- 
 nant, 01)  ypdppaxoi:^^  dJXa.  ■Kvzbpa.zo^^  not  of  the  letter,  but  of  the 
 epirit,  i.  e.  not  of  the  law,  but  of  the  gospel ;  not  of  a  mere  ob- 
 jective, legal  covenant,  but  of  that  which  derives  its  whole  cha- 
 racter from  the  Spirit,  and  therefore  is  spirit,  or  in  the  widest 
 sense  of  the  word,  spiritual.  Comp.  also  Gal.  iii.  3.  Guided  by 
 these  passages,  Riickert  understands  npsu/na  here  to  mean  the 
 new  principle  of  life  imparted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  iu  to  ex- 
 press instrumentality.  Thus  the  sense  is :  The  circumcision  of 
 the  heart  is  not  produced  or  effected  by  the  law,  but  by  this  new 
 divine  principle  of  life.  The  same  interpretation  substantially 
 is  given  by  Kollner.  It  is  not,  however,  strictly  in  accordance 
 with  the  modb  of  representation  adopted  in  the  Scriptures,  to 
 speak  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  i.  e.  sanctification,  as 
 effected  by  anything  implanted  in  us.  Beza  makes  iv  Tzuzopavc 
 simply  exegetical  of  xapoia^,  and  gives  the  sense  thus:  "  Cujus 
 vis  est  interior  et  in  animo,  sive  qua  circumcisi  sunt  affectus." 
 Erasmus:  "Quae  Spiritu  constat,  referens  ad  Spiritum  Sanc- 
 tum, cujus  unius  opus  est  ista  circumcisio  d^siporrocrjTo:;.  Mihi 
 vero  videtur  iu  Tzveuparc  additum  partim  propter  antithesin 
 Ypdppatoc;,  partim  ut  explicaret,  quid  vocaret  circumcisionem 
 cordis."  According  to  this  view,  iv  TivzopLazc  is  in  heart, 
 and  is  tautological  with  the  clause  (circumcision  of  the  heart) 
 which  it  should  explain.  And  besides,  the  opposition  between 
 Ttvzupa  and  ypdppa  is  thus  destroyed.  Others  again  take  kv 
 nvsupazc  and  iv  ypdppazc  adverbially,  "after  a  spiritual,  not 
 after  a  literal  or  external  way;"  or  adjectively,  spiritual,  not 
 literal.  The  most  common,  and  on  the  whole  the  preferable 
 interpretation  refers  Ttveupa  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  gives  iv 
 the  sense  of  hy.  The  circumcision  of  the  heart  is  then  described 
 as  effected  by  the  Spirit,  and  not  by  the  letter,  i.  e.  in  obedi- 
 ence to  the  prescriptions  of  the  law.     Whose  praise  is  not  of 
 
102  ROMANS  II.  17—29. 
 
 meUy  but  of  God.  The  relative  oh  is  to  be  referred  to  ''loudalo^. 
 The  true  Jew,  or  child  of  God,  is  one  whose  excellence  is  inter- 
 nal, seen  and  acknowledged  by  God ;  not  in  its  nature  external, 
 securing  the  notice  and  approbation  of  men.  If  the  relative  ob 
 be  taken  as  neuter,  then  the  idea  is  the  same,  but  presented  in 
 another  form :  '  Of  which  (i.  e.  of  this  spiritual  Judaism)  the 
 praise  is  of  God.'  As,  however,  ^ loodaioz  is  the  main  subject  in 
 the  context,  the  former  explanation  is  the  more  natural.  The 
 spiritual  import  of  circumcision  was  clearly  taught  in  the  Old 
 Testament,  as  in  Deut.  xxx.  6 :  "I  will  circumcise  your  heart, 
 and  the  heart  of  your  children,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God."  See 
 Deut.  X.  16,  Jer.  iv.  4 :  *'  Circumcise  yourselves  to  the  Lord, 
 and  take  away  the  foreskins  of  your  heart."  The  wicked  are 
 therefore  called  "the  uncircumcised  in  heart,"  Jer.  ix.  29, 
 Ezek.  xliv.  9,  Acts  vii.  56.  Comp.  Col.  ii.  11:  "In  whom  also 
 ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands." 
 This  is  what  he  calls  "the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  or  Christian 
 circumcision;  that  which  Christ  secures  and  gives.  As  circum- 
 cision thus  signifies  inward  purification,  and  was  a  seal  of  the 
 righteousness  of  faith,  it  was,  as  to  its  import  and  design,  ideU'- 
 tical  with  baptism.  Hence  what  in  Col.  ii.  11,  Paul  expresses 
 by  saying.  Ye  are  circumcised,  he  expresses  in  ver.  12,  by 
 saying,  Ye  are  buried  with  him  in  baptism.  What,  therefore, 
 he  teaches  of  the  worthlessness  of  external  circumcision,  without 
 internal  purity,  and  of  the  possibility  of  the  external  sign  being 
 received  without  the  internal  grace,  is  no  less  true  of  baptism 
 See  1  Cor.  vii.  18,  19,  Gal.  vi.  15. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  Membership  in  the  true  Church,  considered  as  a  visible 
 society,  is  no  security  that  we  shall  obtain  the  favour  of  God. 
 The  Jews,  before  the  advent,  were  members  of  the  true  and 
 only  Church,  and  yet  Paul  teaches  that  they  were  not  on  this 
 account  the  more  acceptable  to  God.  Multitudes  of  Jewish 
 converts  were  members  of  the  apostolic  Church,  and  yet, 
 retaining  their  former  doctrines  and  spirit,  were  in  the  gall  of 
 bitterness,  ver.  17. 
 
ROMANS  II.  17—29.  103 
 
 2  Mere  knowledge  cannot  commend  us  to  God.  It  neither 
 sanctifies  the  heart,  nor  of  itself  renders  men  more  useful. 
 When  made  the  ground  of  confidence,  or  the  fuel  of  pride  and 
 arrogance,  it  is  perverted  and  destructive,  vs.  18 — 20. 
 
 3.  Superior  knowledge  enhances  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  in- 
 creases the  certainty,  necessity,  and  severity  of  punishment, 
 without  in  itself  increasing  the  power  of  resistance.  It  is, 
 therefore,  a  great  mistake  to  make  knowledge  our  sole  depend- 
 ence in  promoting  the  moral  improvement  of  men,  vs.  18 — 20. 
 
 4.  The  sins  of  the  professing  people  of  God,  are  peculiarly 
 ofiensive  to  him,  and  injurious  to  our  fellow-men,  vs.  22 — 24. 
 
 5.  Here,  as  in  the  former  part  of  the  chapter,  the  leading 
 idea  is,  that  God  is  just.  He  asks  not  whether  a  man  is  a  Jew 
 or  a  Gentile,  a  Greek  or  barbarian,  bond  or  free,  but  what  is 
 his  character?    Does  he  do  good  or  evil?  vs.  17 — 24. 
 
 6.  According  to  the  apostle,  the  true  idea  of  a  sacrament  is 
 not  that  it  is  a  mystic  rite,  possessed  of  inherent  efficacy,  or 
 conveying  grace  as  a  mere  opus  operatum;  but  that  it  is  a  seal 
 and  sign,  designed  to  confirm  our  faith  in  the  validity  of  the 
 covenant  to  which  it  is  attached;  and,  from  its  significant 
 character,  to  present  and  illustrate  some  great  spiritual  truth, 
 ver.  25. 
 
 7.  All  hopes  are  vain  which  are  founded  on  a  participation 
 of  the  sacraments  of  the  Church,  even  when  they  are  of  divine 
 appointment,  as  circumcision,  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  supper; 
 much  more  when  they  are  of  human  invention,  as  penance,  and 
 extreme  unction,  vs.  26,  27. 
 
 8.  Religion  and  religious  services,  to  be  acceptable  to  God, 
 must  be  of  the  heart.  Mere  external  homage  is  of  no  account, 
 vs.  28,  29. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  sins  and  refuges  of  men  are  alike  in  all  ages.  The 
 Jew  expected  salvation  because  he  was  a  Jew,  so  does  the 
 Roman  Catholic  because  he  is  a  Roman  Catholic,  the  Greek 
 because  he  is  a  Greek,  and  so  of  others.  Were  it  ever  so  cer- 
 tain that  the  Church  to  which  we  belong  is  the  true,  apostolic, 
 
104  ROMANS  II.  17—29. 
 
 universal  Church,  it  remains  no  less  certain  that  without  holi- 
 ness no  man  shall  see  God,  ver.  17,  &c. 
 
 2.  The  possession  of  superior  knowledge  should  make  us 
 anxious,  first,  to  go  right  ourselves,  and  then  to  guide  others 
 right.  To  preach  against  evils  which  we  ourselves  commit, 
 while  it  aggravates  our  guilt,  is  little  likely  to  do  others  much 
 good,  ver.  18,  &c. 
 
 3.  Christians  should  ever  remember  that  they  are  the  epistles 
 of  Jesus  Christ,  known  and  read  of  all  men;  that  God  is 
 honoured  by  their  holy  living,  and  that  his  name  is  blasphemed 
 when  they  act  wickedly,  vs.  23,  24. 
 
 4.  Whenever  true  religion  declines,  the  disposition  to  lay 
 undue  stress  on  external  rites  is  increased.  The  Jews,  when 
 they  lost  their  spirituality,  supposed  that  circumcision  had 
 power  to  save  them.  '  Great  is  the  virtue  of  circumcision,' 
 they  cried;  'no  circumcised  person  enters  hell.'  The  Chris- 
 tian Church,  when  it  lost  its  spirituality,  taught  that  water  in 
 baptism  washed  away  sin.  How  large  a  part  of  nominal  Chris- 
 tians rest  all  their  hopes  on  the  idea  of  the  inherent  efficacy  of 
 external  rites !  ver.  25,  &c. 
 
 5.  While  it  is  one  dangerous  extreme  to  make  religion  con- 
 sist in  the  observance  of  external  ceremonies,  it  is  another  to 
 undervalue  them,  when  of  divine  appointment.  Paul  does  not 
 say  that  circumcision  was  useless;  he  asserts  its  value.  So, 
 likewise,  the  Christian  sacraments,  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
 supper,  are  of  the  utmost  importance,  and  to  neglect  or  reject 
 them  is  a  great  sin,  ver.  26,  &c. 
 
 6.  If  the  heart  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God,  it  matters  little 
 what  judgment  men  may  form  of  us ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
 the  approbation  of  men  is  a  poor  substitute  for  the  favour  of 
 God,  ver.  29. 
 
ROMANS  III.  1—8.  105 
 
 CHAPTER    III. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 TuiS  chapter  may  be  divided  into  three  parts.  The  first  con- 
 tains a  brief  statement  and  refutation  of  the  Jewish  objections 
 to  the  apostle's  reasoning,  vs.  1 — 8.  The  second,  a  confirma- 
 tion of  his  doctrine  from  the  testimony  of  Scripture ;  and  a 
 formal  drawing  out  and  declaration  of  his  conclusion,  that  by 
 the  works  of  the  law  no  flesh  living  can  be  justified  before 
 God,  vs.  9 — 20.  The  third,  an  exposition  of  the  gospel  method 
 of  justification,  vs.  21 — 31. 
 
 ROMANS   III.  1—8. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  first  objection  to  Paul's  reasoning  here  presented  is, 
 that  according  to  his  doctrine  the  Jew  has  no  advantage  over 
 the  Gentile,  ver.  1.  The  apostle  denies  the  correctness  of  this 
 inference  from  what  he  had  said,  and  admits  that  the  Jews  have 
 great  advantages  over  all  other  people,  ver.  2.  The  second 
 objection  is,  that  God  having  promised  to  be  the  God  of  the 
 Jews,  their  unfaithfulness,  even  if  admitted,  does  not  release 
 him  from  his  engagements,  or  make  his  promise  of  no  effect, 
 ver.  3.  Paul,  in  answer,  admits  that  the  faithfulness  of  God 
 must  not  be  called  in  question,  let  what  will  happen,  vs.  4,  5 ; 
 but  he  shows  that  the  principle  on  which  the  Jews  expected 
 exemption  from  punishment,  viz.  because  their  unrighteousness 
 commended  the  righteousness  of  God,  was  false.  This  he 
 proves  by  showing  first,  that  if  their  principle  was  correct,  God 
 could  not  punish  any  one,  Gentile  or  Jew,  vs.  5 — 7 ;  and 
 secondly,  that  it  would  lead  to  this  absurdity,  that  it  is  right  to 
 do  evil  that  good  may  come,  ver.  8. 
 
106  ROMANS  III.  1,  2. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  What  then  is  the  advantage  of  the  Jeiv?  The 
 conclusion  at  which  the  apostle  had  arrived  at  the  end  of  the 
 preceding  chapter  was,  that  the  Jews,  no  less  than  the  Gentiles, 
 are  to  be  judged  according  to  their  works,  and  by  their  know- 
 ledge of  the  divine  will ;  and  that  being  thus  judged,  they  are 
 exposed  to  condemnation,  notwithstanding  their  circumcision 
 and  all  their  other  advantages.  The  most  obvious  objection  in 
 the  mind  of  a  Jew  to  this  conclusion  must  have  been,  that  it 
 was  inconsistent  with  the  acknowledged  privileges  and  supe- 
 riority of  his  nation.  This  objection  the  apostle  here  presents; 
 the  answer  follows  in  the  next  verse :  IlepcaooQ^  over  and  above, 
 abundant;  and  in  a  comparative  sense,  better,  and  substantively, 
 as  in  the  present  instance,  excellence,  preeminence.  What  is 
 the  preeminence  or  superiority  of  the  Jew?  Comp.  Eccles. 
 vi.  11,  zl  7i£.f}taobv  zuJ  d.v&p(t)7ico;  what  advantage  has  man? 
 The  second  question  in  this  verse,  what  is  the  benefit  of  circum- 
 cision ?  is  by  some  considered  as  a  repetition  of  the  first ;  cir- 
 cumcision being  taken  as  the  mere  sign  of  Judaism.  '  What  is 
 the  advantage  of  the  Jew?  or  v/hat  is  the  benefit  of  Judaism?' 
 But  circumcision  as  a  rite  was  so  important  in  the  estimation 
 of  the  Jews,  and  is  made  so  prominent  by  the  apostle  in  the 
 preceding  context,  that  it  is  better  to  consider  the  second  ques- 
 tion as  referring  to  the  rite  itself. 
 
 Verse  2.  Much,  in  every  way.  The  answer  to  the  objection 
 implied  in  the  preceding  verse,  is  a  denial  of  its  correctness  as 
 an  inference  from  the  apostle's  reasoning.  It  does  not  follow, 
 because  the  Jews  are  to  be  judged  according  to  their  works, 
 that  there  is  no  advantage  in  being  the  peculiar  people  of  God, 
 having  a  divine  revelation,  &c.  Upcozov  ixku  ydp.  These  words 
 are  rendered  by  Beza,  primarium  enim  [illud  est;)  comp.  Luke 
 xix.  47,  Acts  V.  2.  Calvin  says,  ^'■Tifjcozop  significat  prsecipue 
 vel  prsesertim,  hoc  sensu,  Etsi  unum  istud  esset,  quod  habent 
 Dei  oracula  sibi  commissa,  satis  valere  debet  ad  eorum  digni- 
 tatem." Our  translators  adopt  the  same  view.  But  to  both 
 of  the  interpretations  the  particle  ydp  furnishes  an  objection. 
 The  third  and  simplest  view  is,  that  the  words  in  question  mean 
 first,  in  the  first  place,  as  in  1  Cor.  xi.  18;  ydp  is  then  tiamely^ 
 
ROMANS  III.  3.  107 
 
 for  example.  That  the  enumeration  is  not  carried  on,  is  no 
 serious  objection  to  this  explanation,  as  we  have  other  examples 
 of  the  same  kind.  See  chap.  i.  8.  Because  tliey  were  enti'iisted 
 with  the  oracles  of  G-od.  The  subject  of  iruoTzdd^T^aav^  viz. 
 ^ Ioo8a~.oc  is  implied  by  the  connection;  za  Xojia  is  the  accusa- 
 tive ;  comp.  Gal.  ii.  7 :  7Lt7iiaTtu[>m  to  sbayyikou,  1  Cor.  ix.  17, 
 1  Thess.  ii.  4.  Some,  as  Theodoret,  Beza,  &c.,  understand  by 
 r«  ?.o-^ca  TOO  dzo~j,  the  law;  others,  as  Grotius,  Tholuck,  &c., 
 the  Messianic  promises;  others,  as  Calvin,  Rosenmiiller,  De 
 Wette,  the  whole  Scriptures.  In  favour  of  this  last  is  the  usage 
 of  the  phrase  which  in  the  Old  Testament  is  used  for  the  reve- 
 lation of  God  in  general,  and  in  the  New  Testament,  for  any 
 divine  communication.  Heb.  v.  12,  1  Pet.  iv.  11.  The  Avords 
 therefore  are  general  in  their  meaning,  and  there  is  nothing  in 
 the  context  to  limit  them ;  foi  ■'he  apostle  is  speaking  of  the 
 treasure  committed  to  the  safe  custody  of  the  Jews;  that 
 deposit  of  divine  knoAvledge  by  which  they  were  distinguished 
 from  all  other  nations.  Here,  as  in  innumerable  other  places, 
 the  sacred  writers  of  the  New  Testament  use  forms  of  express- 
 ion which  clearly  imply  that  they  regarded  the  sacred  writings 
 of  the  Jews  as  really  the  word  of  God. 
 
 Verse  3.  Ti  ydrj;  Wliat  then?  See  Philip,  i.  18 — a  formula 
 used  to  introduce  an  explanation,  confirmation,  or  vindication 
 of  a  preceding  assertion ;  or  to  start  an  objection  for  the  pur- 
 pose of  answering  it.  In  the  present  instance  it  is  agreed  that 
 the  apostle  designs  to  vindicate  what  he  had  previously  taught ; 
 but  whether  ver.  3  refers  to  ver.  2,  or  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
 Jews  were  as  much  exposed  to  condemnation  as  the  Gentiles,  is 
 not  so  plain.  According  to  the  former  view,  the  design  of  this 
 verse  is  to  confirm  what  is  said  in  ver.  2 :  'To  the  Jews  were 
 committed  the  promises  of  God,  or  oracles  of  God.  This  is  a 
 great  advantage  ;  for  if  some  of  them  disbelieve  those  promises, 
 and  re^ject  the  Messiah,  God  remains  faithful,  and  will  accom- 
 plish all  his  gracious  purposes.'  Thus  substantially,  Calvin, 
 Beza,  Tholuck,  Fritzsche,  Ruckert,  Meyer,  and  many  others. 
 According  to  the  other  view,  the  apostle  here  presents  and 
 ansAvers  another  objection  to  his  previous  reasoning:  'What  if 
 we  are  unfaithful,'  says  the  Jew,  '  does  that  invalidate  the  faith- 
 fulness of  God  ?    Has  he  not  promised  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham 
 
108  ROMANS  III.  3. 
 
 and  to  his  seed?  Has  he  not  entered  into  a  solemn  covenanf 
 to  grant  his  people  all  the  benefits  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  ? 
 This  covenant  is  not  suspended  on  our  moral  character.  If  we 
 adhere  to  the  covenant  by  being  circumcised  and  observing  the 
 law,  the  fidelity  of  God  is  pledged  for  our  salvation.  We  may 
 therefore  be  as  wicked  as  you  would  make  us  out  to  be ;  that 
 does  not  prove  that  we  shall  be  treated  as  heathen.'  For  the 
 latter  view  it  may  be  urged,  1.  That  it  is  better  suited  to  the 
 context.  It  is  plain  that  the  whole  of  the  first  part  of  this 
 chapter  is  an  answer  to  the  objections  of  the  Jews  to  the  apos- 
 tle's doctrine  that  they  were  exposed  to  condemnation.  This  is 
 clear  as  to  the  first  verse,  and  to  the  fifth  and  those  that  follow 
 it.  It  is  therefore  more  consistent  with  the  design  of  the  pas- 
 sage, to  make  this  verse  an  answer  to  the  main  objection  of  the 
 Jews,  than  to  consider  it  a  mere  confirmation  of  what  is  said  in 
 ver.  2.  This  consideration  has  the  more  force,  since  on  the 
 other  view  of  the  passage  the  principal  ground  of  confidence  of 
 the  Jews,  viz.  their  peculiar  relation  to  God,  is  left  unnoticed. 
 Their  great  objection  to  Paul's  applying  his  general  principles 
 of  justice  to  their  case  was  that  their  situation  was  peculiar : 
 '  God  has  chosen  us  as  his  people  in  Abraham.  If  we  retain 
 our  relation  to  him  by  circumcision  and  the  observance  of 
 the  law,  we  shall  never  be  treated  or  condemned  as  the  Gen- 
 tiles.' Traces  of  this  opinion  abound  in  the  New  Testament, 
 and  it  is  openly  avowed  by  the  Jewish  writers.  "Think  not," 
 says  our  Saviour,  "to  say  within  yourselves,  We  have  Abraham 
 for  our  father,"  Matt.  iii.  9.  "We  be  Abraham's  seed,"  John 
 viii.  33.  Comp.  Rom.  ii.  17,  ix.  6,  and  other  passages,  in  which 
 Paul  argues  to  prove  that  being  the  natural  descendants  of 
 Abraham  is  not  enough  to  secure  the  favour  of  God.  That  such 
 was  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews  is  shown  by  numerous  passages 
 from  their  writings.  "If  a  Jew  commit  all  manner  of  sins," 
 says  Abarbanel,  "  he  is  indeed  of  the  number  of  sinning  Israel- 
 ites, and  will  be  punished  according  to  his  sins ;  but  he  has 
 notwithstanding  a  portion  in  eternal  life."  The  same  sentiment 
 is  expressed  in  the  book  Torath  Adam,  fol.  100,  in  nearly  the 
 same  words,  and  the  reason  assigned  for  it,  "  That  all  Israel  has 
 a  portion  in  eternal  life."*     This  is  a  favourite  phrase  with 
 
 *  Eisenmenger's  Ent,  Judenthum,  Part  II.  p.  293. 
 
ROMANS  III.  3,  109 
 
 tne  Rabbins,  and  frequently  occurs  in  th^ir  writings.  Justin 
 Martyr,  as  quoted  by  Grotius  on  chap.  ii.  13,  attributes  this 
 doctrine  to  the  Jews  of  his  day :  "  They  suppose  that  to  them 
 universally,  who  are  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  no  matter  how 
 sinful  and  disobedient  to  God  they  may  be,  the  eternal  kingdom 
 shall  be  given."  This  interpretation  therefore  makes  the  verse 
 in  question  present  the  objection  which  the  Jews  would  be  most 
 likely  to  urge.  2.  A  second  consideration  in  its  favour  is,  that 
 it  best  satisfies  the  meaning  of  the  words.  The  other  view 
 makes  Paul  say  that  the  unfaithfulness  of  some  of  the  .Jews, 
 some  here  and  there,  could  not  render  the  promise  of  no  effect. 
 It  would  be  natural  for  the  Jews  thus  to  soften  down  the  state- 
 ment of  the  case.  But  Paul  had  not  said  that  some  of  the  Jews 
 were  unfaithful,  but  that  they  were  all  under  condemnation; 
 that  as  to  this  point  there  was  no  difference  between  them  and 
 the  Gentiles,  since  all  had  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory 
 of  God.  It  cannot  escape  notice  how  completely  the  doctrine 
 of  the  Jews  has  been  transferred  by  ritualibts  to  Christianity. 
 They  held  that  if  a  man  was  circumcised  and  remained  within 
 the  Theocracy,  he  might  be  punished  for  his  sins,  but  he  would 
 ultimately  be  saved.  So  ritualists  hold  that  all  who  are  bap- 
 tized and  remain  within  the  pale  of  the  true  Church,  though 
 they  may  suffer  for  their  sins  here  or  hereafter  (in  purgatory,) 
 are  certain  to  be  finally  saved. 
 
 If  some  did  not  believe?  The  word  l^rdarT^aav  may  mean 
 disbelieved,  or  luere  unfaithfid.  Tholuck,  Fritzsche,  Rlickert 
 (2d  edition,)  Meyer,  say  the  former,  and  explain  the  passage 
 thus:  'The  promises  [za  Xdyea)  committed  to  the  Jews  are  a 
 great  distinction ;  and  though  some  of  the  Jews  have  not 
 believed  those  promises,  nor  received  the  Messiah,  still  God  is 
 faithful.'  The  great  majority  of  commentators  say  the  latter, 
 and  consider  the  apostle  as  stating  the  want  of  fidelity  of  the 
 Jews  to  the  trust  committed  to  them,  i.  e.  to  the  covenant  made 
 with  their  fathers,  as  no  reason  for  assuming  a  want  of  fidelity 
 on  the  part  of  God.  That  d-Ttcazzlv  may  have  the  sense  here 
 assigned  to  it  is  plain  from  2  Tim.  ii.  13 ;  and  from  the  sense 
 of  dmaua  in  Heb.  iii.  12,  19,  and  of  dziffTO!;  in  Luke  xii.  46, 
 Rev.  xxi.  8.  To  understand  the  passage  as  referring  to  want 
 of  faith  in  Christ,  seems  inconsistent  with  the  whole  context. 
 
110  ROMANS  III.  4. 
 
 The  apostle  has  not  come  to  the  exposition  of  the  gospel ;  he  h. 
 still  engaged  in  the  preliminary  discussion  designed  to  sho'w 
 that  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  under  sin,  and  exposed  to  con- 
 demnation ;  an  exposure  from  which  no  peculiar  privileges  of 
 the  former,  and  no  promise  of  God  to  their  nation,  could  pro- 
 tect them. 
 
 Verse  4.  Let  it  not  be;  the  frequently  recurring  formula  to 
 express  strong  aversion  or  denial.  The  objection  presented 
 in  the  preceding  verse  is,  that  the  apostle's  doctrine  as  to  the 
 condemnation  of  the  Jews  is  inconsistent  with  the  faithfulness 
 of  God.  Is  the  faith  of  God  without  effect?  asks  the  objector. 
 By  no  means,  answers  the  apostle;  that  is  no  fair  inference 
 from  my  doctrine.  There  is  no  breach  of  the  promises  of  God 
 involved  in  the  condemnation  of  wicked  Jews.  How  the  con- 
 demnation of  the  Jews  is  consistent  with  the  promises  of  God, 
 he  shows  in  a  subsequent  part  of  his  epistle,  chaps,  ix. — xi.; 
 here  he  merely  asserts  the  fact,  and  shows  that  the  opposite 
 assumption  leads  to  an  absurdity.  Let  Gfod  be  true,  but  every 
 man  a  liar.  That  is,  the  truth  and  fidelity  of  God  must  be 
 acknowledged,  whatever  be  the  consequence.  This  is  said  to 
 express  the  strongest  aversion  to  the  consequence  charged  on 
 his  doctrine.  Fcvsa&co  has  its  proper  sense,  fiat,  let  him 
 become,  i.  e,  be  seen  and  acknowledged  as  true.  This  disposi- 
 tion to  justify  God  under  all  circumstances,  the  apostle  illus- 
 trates by  the  conduct  and  language  of  David,  who  acknowledged 
 the  justice  of  God  even  in  his  own  condemnation,  and  said, 
 "Against  thee  only  have  I  sinned;  that  thou  mightest  be 
 justified  in  thy  sayings,  and  overcome  when  thou  art  judged;" 
 i.  e.  that  thy  rectitude,  under  all  circumstances,  might  be  seen 
 and  acknowledged.  In  the  Hebrew,  the  last  verb  of  the  verse 
 is  active,  when  thou  judgest;  in  the  Septuagint,  a  passive  form 
 is  used,  when  thou  art  judged.  This  latter  Paul  follows, 
 because  the  sentiment  in  either  case  is  the  same.  God  is  seen 
 and  acknowledged  to  be  just.  The  sacred  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament  often  depart  from  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
 their  citations,  being  careful  only  to  give  the  mind  of  the  Spirit. 
 "  Scimus,"  says  Calvin,  "  apostolos  in  recitandis  Scripturae 
 verbis  saepe  esse  liberiores ;  quia  satis  liabebant  si  ad  rem  appo- 
 site citarent ;  quare  non  tanta  illis  fuit  verborum  religio." 
 
ROMANS  III.  5.  Ill 
 
 Verse  5.  But  if  our  unrighteousness  commend  the  righteous- 
 ness of  Crod,  lohat  shall  we  then  say?  Aocxia  is  not  to  be  taken 
 in  the  restricted  sense  of  injustice,  nor  as  equivalent  to  aTnaria 
 in  the  preceding  verse,  but  in  the  comprehensive  sense  of  im- 
 righteousness,  wickedness.  It  is  the  opposite  of  ocxacoauvrj, 
 rectitude,  righteousness,  which  includes  all  moral  excellence. 
 The  righteousness  of  God  is  here,  not  his  goodness,  which  the 
 context  does  not  require  and  usage  does  not  authorize,  but 
 rectitude,  that  attribute  which  is  manifested  in  doing  right. 
 Zuv'axrifu,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  to  place  with  or  hfore  any 
 one ;  and  hence  either  to  commend,  to  recommend,  Rom.  xvi.  1, 
 2  Cor.  iii.  1,  v.  12 ;  or  to  set  forth,  to  render  conspicuous;  see 
 Rom.  V.  8,  2  Cor.  vi.  4.  The  latter  is  obviously  the  sense 
 required  in  the  present  instance.  That  this  verse  is  in  answer 
 to  an  objection  is  obvious;  but  that  objection  is  not  derived 
 from  the  language  of  ver.  4.  Paul  had  said  nothing  there  to 
 give  any  colour  to  the  suggestion,  that  he  himself  held  that  it 
 would  be  unrighteous  in  God  to  punish  the  wicked.  He  had 
 simply  said,  that  the  truth  of  God  was  to  be  admitted  and 
 acknowledged,  though  all  men  were  liars.  From  this  it  could 
 not  be  made  an  inference  that  we  may  do  evil  that  good  may 
 come.  It  is  not  a  false  inference  from  ver.  4,  but  a  new  objec- 
 tion to  his  general  conclusion  that  he  is  here  answering:  'Not 
 only  is  God's  fidelity  pledged  to  our  salvation,  but  the  very  fact 
 of  our  being  unrighteous  will  render  his  righteousness  the  more 
 conspicuous;  and  consequently  it  would  be  unjust  in  him  to 
 punish  us  for  what  glorifies  himself.'  This  is  the  thought;  the 
 form  in  which  it  is  presented  is  determined  by  the  fact  that  the 
 apostle  does  not  introduce  the  person  of  the  objector,  but  states 
 the  objection  in  his  own  person,  in  the  form  of  a  question.  It 
 is  plain,  however,  that  the  point  of  the  argument  is  that  God 
 cannot  consistently  punish  those  whose  unrighteousness  serves 
 to  display  his  own  rectitude ;  and  this  is  supposed  to  be  urged 
 to  show  that  the  Jews,  notwithstanding  their  sins,  were  not 
 exposed  to  condemnation.  If  our  unrighteousness  commend 
 the  righteousness  of  God  is  the  suggestion ;  the  inference,  which 
 the  Jews  were  disposed  to  draw,  and  which  Paul  asks,  whether 
 they  would  venture  to  make,  is  that  God  is  unjust  who  taketh 
 vengeance:    6   0e6c  6  e7:i<pepwv  trjv  opyr^v,   Grod  the  taker  of 
 
112  ROMANS  III.  6. 
 
 vengeance;  he  whose  prerogative  it  is  to  inflict  the  punishment 
 due  to  sin.  That  the  apostle  is  not  in  this  verse  expressing  his 
 own  sentiments,  he  intimates  by  saying,  xara  dv^pconov  Asfco,  1 
 speak  as  a  man.  This  formula,  which  is  of  frequent  occurrence, 
 means  to  speak  as  men  are  accustomed  to  speak ;  and  as  men 
 are  in  general  wicked,  to  speak  or  act  after  the  manner  of  men, 
 is  to  speak  or  act  wickedly.  It  depends,  however,  entirely  on 
 the  context  whether  this  idea  is  implied.  When  Paul  asks, 
 "Are  ye  not  carnal,  and  walk  as  men?"  1  Cor.  iii.  3,  the  case 
 is  plain.  But  when  in  Gal.  iii.  15,  he  says,  "Brethren,  I  speak 
 as  a  man,"  he  means  merely  to  appeal  to  what  was  commonly 
 acknowledged  as  true  among  men.  See  also  1  Cor.  ix.  8.  When 
 in  Rom.  vi.  19,  he  says,  d.vd-pcb-itivov  Xifoj,  it  is  plain  from  the 
 context  that  he  means,  in  a  manner  adapted  to  the  comprehen- 
 sion of  men.  And  in  the  present  case,  where  he  is  not  express- 
 ing his  own  sentiments,  xaza  dv&pcoTzov  Xiyo)  is  designed  to 
 declare  that  he  is  not  speaking  in  his  character  of  an  apostle 
 or  Christian,  but  speaking  as  others  speak,  expressing  their 
 thoughts,  not  his  own. 
 
 Verse  6.  In  answer  to  the  question  whether  God  is  unjust 
 in  punishing  those  whose  unrighteousness  renders  his  own 
 righteousness  the  more  conspicuous,  he  says :  By  no  means, 
 since  in  that  case  how  can  Gfod  judge  the  worlds  There  is  here 
 an  answer  to  the  question,  and  a  proof  of  the  correctness  of 
 that  answer.  There  are  three  views  which  may  be  taken  of  the 
 nature  of  this  proof.  The  first  supposes  xoafxo^  to  mean  the 
 Gentiles  as  distinguished  from  the  Jews.  The  sense  then  is : 
 If  God  cannot  punish  sin  under  the  circumstances  supposed,  he 
 cannot  even  punish  the  heathen,  for  their  unrighteousness 
 serves  to  commend  his  righteousness.  This  view  is  clear  and 
 satisfactory  as  far  as  the  argument  is  concerned,  and  is  adopted 
 by  Koppe,  Reiche,  Olshausen,  &c.  Besides  the  pertinency  of 
 the  argument  as  thus  explained,  this  interpretation  is  supported 
 by  the  frequent  US'C  of  xbapoq,  to  designate  the  world  in  dis- 
 tinction from  the  Theocracy,  or  the  Church.  1  Cor.  vi.  2,  xi.  32, 
 Rom.  xi.  12,  John  xii.  31,  1  John  iv.  17,  &c.  The  principal 
 objection  to  it  arises  from  the  difficulties  in  which  it  involves 
 the  explanation  of  the  following  verse.  The  second  view  of  the 
 passage  supposes  the  argument  to  rest  on  the  admitted  fact  that 
 
ROMANS  III.  6.  113 
 
 God  is  the  judge  of  all  the  earth;  if  so,  he  must  be  just.     It  is 
 impossible  that  God   should  be  unjust,   if  he  is  to  judge  the 
 world ;  but  he  is  to  judge  the  world,  therefore  he  is  not  unjust. 
 *'Sumit  argumentum  ab  ipsius  Dei  officio,"  says  Calvin,   "quo 
 probet  id  esse  impossibile;  judieahit  Deus  liunc  munduni,  ergo 
 injustus  esse  non  potest."     To  the  same  purpose  Grotius  says: 
 "Nullo  modo  possumus  Deum  injustum  imaginari   quern   cum 
 Abrahamo  judicem  mundi  agnoscimus."     This  view   is  given 
 also  by  Tholuck,    De  Wette,    RUckert,   Kbllner,   and  Meyer. 
 The  obvious  objection  to  it  is,  that  it  makes  the  apostle  assume 
 the  thing  to  be  proved.     He  says,   '  God  cannot  be  unjust, 
 because  he  is  the  judge  of  the  world,  and  the  judge  of  the  world 
 must  be  just.'     But  it  is  no  more  certain  that  the  judge  of  the 
 world  must  be  just,  than  that  God  is  just,  which  is  the  point  to 
 be  established.     RUckert,  in  his   characteristic  assumption  of 
 superiority  to  the  apostle,  admits  that  the  argument  is  "weak, 
 very  weak;"  but  he  not  the  less  confidently  ascribes  it  to  tne 
 apostle.     The  misapprehension  of  the  argument  in  this  veise 
 arises  out  of  a  misapprehension  of  the  previous  reasoning,  a  id 
 of  the  precise  point  of  the  objection  which  is  here  answen  d. 
 Paul  is  not  guarding  against  any  false  inference  from  his  o  vn 
 reasoning;  he  is  not  teaching  that  though  God  is  seen  to  be 
 just  when  he  speaks,  and  clear  when  he  judges,  we  must  i.ot 
 hence  infer  that  he  is  unjust  in  punishing  the  sin  which  cona- 
 mends  his  own   righteousness,  which  would  be  indeed   "  eine 
 erbarmliche  Einwendung,"  (a  pitiable   subterfuge,)  as  Reiche 
 calls  it ;  but  he  is  answering  the  objections  of  the  Jews  to  his 
 doctrine,  not  their  false  inferences.     To  the  declaration  that 
 they  were  exposed  to  condemnation,  the  Jews  pleaded  the  pro- 
 mise of  God,  which  their  unfaithfulness  could  not  render  of  no 
 effect,  and  the  less  so  because  their  unrighteousness  would  serve 
 to  render  the  righteousness  of  God  the  more  conspicuous.    Paul 
 says  on  this  principle  God  cannot  judge  the  world.     The  ground 
 assumed  by  the  Jews  might  be  assumed  by  all  mankind,  and  if 
 valid  in  the  one  case  it  must  be  in  all.     In  this  view  the  answer 
 is  complete  and  satisfactory;   it  is  a  reductio  ad  absurdwn. 
 The    correctness    of   this   explanation   is    confirmed   by   what 
 follows. 
 
114  ROMANS  III.  7,  8. 
 
 Verses  7,  8.  Tliese  verses  ai-e  tlie  amplification  and  con- 
 firmation of  the  answer  given  in  the  sixth  to  the  objection  of 
 the  Jews.  These  verses  are  designed  to  show  that  if  the  ground 
 assumed  by  them  was  valid,  not  only  may  every  sinner  claim 
 exemption,  but  it  would  follow  that  it  is  right  to  do  evil  that 
 good  may  come.  The  connection  by  ydp  is  therefore  with  the 
 sixth  verse :  '  God  could  not  judge  the  world,  for  any  sinner 
 may  say.  If  the  truth  of  God  more  abounds  through  my  lie, 
 to  his  glory,  why  am  I  yet  judged  as  a  sinner?'  The  truth 
 of  God.  As  d.X'q&zca  is  not  unfrequently  opposed  to  dduca, 
 it  may  have  here  the  sense  of  dexacoaov/],  and  designate  the 
 divine  excellence;  then  (peuafxa,  in  the  following  clause,  must 
 mean  falsehood  towards  God,  wickedness :  '  If  the  excellence  of 
 God  is  rendered  more  conspicuous  by  my  wickedness.'  But  as 
 it  was  on  the  truth  or  veracity  of  God,  his  adherence  to  his 
 promises,  that  the  false  confidence  of  the  Jews  was  placed,  it  is 
 probable  that  the  apostle  intended  the  words  to  be  taken  in 
 their  more  limited  sense.  Hath  more  abounded  unto  his  glory. 
 ns.pcaot'Js.iv,  to  he  abundant,  rich,  or  great;  and  by  implication, 
 in  a  comparative  sense,  to  be  more  abundant,  or  conspicuous, 
 Matt.  V.  ilO,  1  Cor.  xv.  58.  The  latter  is  the  sense  here,  'If 
 the  truth  of  God  has  been  made  the  more  conspicuous;'  ere  riyy 
 do^ai)  wjxoo,  so  that  he  is  glorified.  Why  am  I  also  still  judged 
 as  a  sinner?  y-dy^,  either  even  I,  or  /  also;  I  as  well  as  others ; 
 or  even  I  a  Jew;  or,  according  to  another  view  of  the  context, 
 even  I  a  Gentile :  evi,  yet,  i,  e.  notwithstanding  my  falsehood  is 
 the  means  of  displaying  the  glory  of  God.  According  to  the 
 view  now  given,  the  use  of  the  first  person  is  sufficiently  ex- 
 plained by  saying,  as  has  often  been  done,  "suam  personam 
 ponit  pro  quavis  alia."  /,  therefore,  stands  for  any  one:  'Any 
 one  may  say,  Why  am  I  also  judged  as  a  sinner  ?'  Those  how- 
 ever who  understand  xoafjiot;,  in  the  preceding  verse,  to  mean 
 the  Gentiles,  suppose  that  the  apostle  here  personates  a  heathen, 
 who  is  made  to  ask,  'If  the  divine  majesty  is  the  more  disj)layed 
 by  my  idolatry,  why  am  even  I  judged  as  a  sinner?'  This 
 Interpretation  gives  a  very  good  sense,  because  the  Jews  readily 
 admitted  that  the  Gentiles  were  exposed  to  condemnation,  and 
 therefore  any  principle  which  was  shown  to  exculpate  them,  the 
 Jews  mu«t   acknowledge  to  be  false.     The   objections  to  thia 
 
ROMANS  III.  8.  115 
 
 view  of  tLe  passage  are  the  unnecessary  limitation  which  it 
 imposes  on  the  word  xdajxoz,  ver.  6,  and  the  unusual,  if  not 
 unauthorized  sense,  which  it  requires  to  he  given  to  the  words 
 ak^&zca  and  <pt~J6u.a^  the  latter  not  being  elsewhere  used  for 
 idolatry,  and  the  former,  in  this  connection  at  least,  not  ad- 
 mitting of  the  version,  truth  concerning  Crod,  i.  e.  the  true 
 God. 
 
 Verse  8.  Almost  all  the  modern  commentators  are  agreed 
 in  considering  this  verse  as  a  continuation  of  the  question  com- 
 menced in  the  seventh,  and  in  assuming  an  irregularity  in  the 
 construction,  arising  from  the  introduction  of  the  parenthetical 
 clause  in  the  middle  of  the  verse:  'If  your  principle  is  correct, 
 why  am  I  judged  as  a  sinner;  and  why  not  let  us  do  evil,  that 
 good  may  come  T  Having  commenced  the  question,  he  inter- 
 rupts himself  to  notice  the  slanderous  imputation  of  this  doc- 
 trine to  himself — as  we  are  slandered,  and  as  some  affirm  we 
 say,  that  we  should  do  evil  that  good  may  come.  /lorrjaMfiev, 
 therefore,  instead  of  being  connected  with  the  (W)  /iij  at  the 
 beginning  of  the  verse,  is  connected  by  5tc  with  the  immediately 
 preceding  verb.  See  Winer,  §  63.  Whose  condemnation  is  just. 
 Paul  thus  expresses  his  abhorrence  of  the  principle  that  we  may 
 do  evil  that  good  may  come.  Tholuck  and  others  refer  (Zv  to 
 the  ^Xaaiprjixouvztz,  to  the  slanderers  of  the  apostle;  but  that 
 clause  is  virtually  parenthetical,  and  it  is  not  blaspheming  the 
 apostle,  but  teaching  a  doctrine  subversive  of  all  morality,  that 
 is  here  condemned.  Calvin  unites,  in  a  measure,  both  views  of 
 the  passage :  "  Duplici  autem  nomine  damnabilis  fuit  eorum 
 perversitas;  primum  quibus  venire  haec  impietas  in  mentem 
 potuerit  usque  ad  ipsum  assensum,  deinde  qui  traducendo  evan- 
 gel io  calumniam  inde  instruere  ausi  fuerint." 
 
 Such  is  the  apostle's  argument  against  the  grounds  of  con- 
 fidence on  which  the  Jews  rested  their  hope  of  exemption  from 
 condemnation.  '  Our  unfaithfulness  serves  to  commend  the 
 faithfulness  of  God,  therefore  we  ought  not  to  be  punished.' 
 According  to  this  reasoning,  says  Paul,  the  worse  we  are,  the 
 better ;  for  the  more  wicked  we  are,  the  more  conspicuous  will 
 be  the  mercy  of  God  in  our  pardon ;  we  may  therefore  do  evil 
 that  good  may  come.'  By  reducing  the  reasoning  of  the  Jews 
 to  a  conclusion  shocking  to  the  moral  sense,  he  tht-reby  refutes 
 
116  ROMANS  III.  1—8. 
 
 it.  The  apostle  often  thus  recognizes  the  authority  of  the 
 intuitive  moral  judgments  of  our  nature,  and  thus  teaches  us 
 that  those  truths  which  are  believed  on  their  own  evidence,  as 
 soon  as  presented  to  the  mind,  should  be  regarded  as  fixed 
 points  in  all  reasonings;  and  that  to  attempt  to  go  beyond 
 these  intuitive  judgments,  is  to  unsettle  the  foundation  of  all 
 faith  and  knowledge,  and  to  open  the  door  to  universal  skepti- 
 cism. Any  doctrine,  therefore,  which  is  immoral  in  its  ten- 
 iency,  or  which  conflicts  with  the  first  principles  of  morals, 
 must  be  false,  no  matter  how  plausible  may  be  the  arguments 
 in  its  favour. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  advantages  of  membership  in  the  external  Church, 
 and  of  a  participation  of  its  ordinances,  are  very  numerous 
 and  great,  vs.  1,  2. 
 
 2.  The  great  advantage  of  the  Christian  over  the  heathen 
 world,  and  of  the  members  of  a  visible  ecclesiastical  body  over 
 others  not  so  situated,  is  the  greater  amount  of  divine  truth 
 presented  to  their  understandings  and  hearts,  ver.  2. 
 
 3.  All  the  writings  which  the  Jews,  at  the  time  of  Christ 
 and  his  apostles,  regarded  as  inspired,  are  really  the  word  of 
 God,  ver.  2. 
 
 4.  No  promise  or  covenant  of  God  can  ever  be  rightfully 
 urged  in  favour  of  exemption  from  the  punishment  of  sin,  or 
 of  impunity  to  those  who  live  in  it.  God  is  faithful  to  his 
 promises,  but  he  never  promises  to  pardon  the  impenitently 
 guilty,  vs.  3,  4. 
 
 5.  God  will  make  the  wrath  of  men  to  praise  him.  Their 
 unrighteousness  will  commend  his  righteousness,  without,  on 
 that  account,  making  its  condemnation  less  certain  or  less 
 severe,  vs.  5,  6. 
 
 6.  Any  doctrine  inconsistent  with  the  first  principles  of 
 morals  must  be  false,  no  matter  how  plausible  the  metaphysical 
 argument  in  its  favour.  And  that  mode  of  reasoning  is  correct, 
 which  refutes  such  doctrines  by  showing  their  nconsistency 
 w\th  moral  truth,  ver.  8. 
 
ROMANS  III.  1—8.  117 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  We  should  feel  the  peculiar  responsibilities  which  rest 
 upon  us  as  the  inliabitants  of  a  Christian  country,  as  members 
 of  the  Christian  Church,  and  possessors  of  the  word  of  God; 
 as  such,  we  enjoy  advantages  for  which  we  shall  have  to  render 
 a  strict  account,  vs.  1,  2. 
 
 2.  It  is  a  nj.ark  of  genuine  piety,  to  be  disposed  always 
 to  justify  God,  and  to  condemn  ourselves.  On  the  other  hand, 
 a  disposition  to  self-justification  and  the  extenuation  of  our 
 sins,  however  secret,  is  an  indication  of  the  want  of  a  proper 
 sense  of  our  own  unworthiness  and  of  the  divine  excellence, 
 vs.  4,  5. 
 
 3.  Beware  of  any  refuge  from  the  fear  of  future  punish- 
 ment, founded  upon  the  hope  that  God  will  clear  the  guilty,  or 
 that  he  will  not  judge  the  world  and  take  vengeance  for  our 
 sins,  vs.  6,  7. 
 
 4.  There  is  no  better  evidence  against  the  truth  of  any  doc- 
 tiine,  than  tLat  its  tendency  is  immoral.  And  there  is  no 
 greater  proof  that  a  man  is  wicked,  that  his  condemnation  is 
 just,  than  that  he  does  evil  that  good  may  come.  There  is 
 commonly,  in  such  cases,  not  only  the  evil  of  the  act  com- 
 mitted, but  that  of  hypocrisy  and  duplicity  also,  ver.  8. 
 
 5.  Speculative  and  moral  truths,  which  are  believed  on  their 
 own  evidence  as  soon  as  they  are  presented  to  the  mind, 
 should  be  regarded  as  authoritative,  and  as  fixed  points  in  all 
 reasonings.  When  men  deny  such  first  principles,  or  attempt 
 to  push  beyond  them  to  a  deeper  foundation  of  truth,  there  is 
 no  end  to  the  obscurity,  uncertainty,  and  absurdity  of  their 
 speculations.  What  God  forces  us,  from  the  very  constitution 
 of  our  nature,  to  believe,  as,  for  example,  the  existence  of  the 
 external  world,  our  own  personal  identity,  the  diiference  be- 
 tween good  and  evil,  &c.,  it  is  at  once  a  violation  of  his  will 
 and  of  the  dictates  of  reason  to  deny  or  to  question.  Paul 
 assumed,  as  an  ultimate  fact,  that  it  is  wrong  to  do  evil  that 
 good  may  come,  ver.  8. 
 
118  ROMANS  III.  9. 
 
 ROMANS  III.  9—20. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  apostle  having  demonstrated  that  the  JeTVS  cannot 
 expect  exemption  from  condemnation,  on  the  ground  of  their 
 being  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  except  on  principles  incom- 
 patible with  the  government  of  the  world,  and  inconsistent 
 with  the  plainest  moral  truths,  draws,  in  ver.  9,  the  conclusion, 
 that  the  Jew,  as  to  the  mntter  of  justification  before  God,  has 
 no  preeminence  over  the  Gentile.  He  confirms  his  doctrine  of 
 the  universal  sinfulness  of  men  by  numerous  quotations  from 
 the  Scriptures.  These  passages  speak  of  men  in  general  as 
 depraved,  vs.  10 — 12 ;  and  then  of  the  special  manifestations 
 of  that  depravity  in  sins  of  the  tongue,  vs.  13,  14 ;  and  in  sins 
 of  violence,  vs.  15 — 18.  The  inference  from  all  his  reasoning, 
 from  chap.  i.  18,  derived  from  consciousness,  experience,  and 
 Scripture  is,  that  "the  whole  world  is  guilty  before  God," 
 ver.  19 ;  and  that  "no  flesh  can  be  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the 
 law,"  ver.  20. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  9.  What  then?  do  we  excel?  What  then?  i.  e.  what 
 is  the  conclusion  from  the  preceding  discussion?  are  we  Jews 
 better  off  than  the  Gentiles  ?  Wahl  points  the  passage  thus : 
 Ti  oov  ■Kpozyoixzd-a;  What  then  do  we,  or  can  we  pretend  or  pre- 
 sent as  an  excuse?  Then,  however,  as  RUckert  and  others 
 remark,  the  answer  should  be,  ouoiu,  nothing,  and  not  ou 
 TzavzajQ.  The  principal  difiiculty  in  this  verse  is  to  determine 
 the  meaning  of  Tzpoeyofxe&a.  The  most  commonly  received  and 
 the  most  satisfactory  explanation  assumes  that  the  middle  form 
 has  here  the  sense  of  the  active.  Ilpoi-^ecv  means  to  hold 
 before,  or  intransitively  and  topically,  to  have  before  another,  to 
 excel.  In  the  middle  voice,  the  verb  means  to  hold  before  one- 
 self, as  a  shield,  or  figuratively,  to  use  as  a  pretext.  Though 
 the  middle  does  not  elsewhere  occur  in  the  sense  of  the  active, 
 '.ts  use  in  the  present  instance  in  that  sense,  may  be  justified 
 
ROMANS  III.  9.  119 
 
 either  by  tlie  remark,  that  the  later  writers  often  use  the  middle 
 form  where  the  earlier  authors  employ  the  active,  [Tholuck);  or 
 by  assuming  the  sense  of  the  active  to  be  here  somewhat  modi- 
 fied, since  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  a  superiority  which  the 
 Jews  attributed  to  themselves,  so  that  the  strict  sense  is : 
 "Licetne  nobis  tribuere  majorem  dignitatem?"  BretscJmeider. 
 The  context  suits  the  sense  commonly  attributed  to  the  word. 
 The  whole  discussion  has  brought  the  apostle  to  the  conclusion, 
 that  the  Jews  as  sinners  have  no  advantage  over  the  Gentiles, 
 and  this  is  the  conclusion  which  he  here  confirms.  If  the 
 middle  force  of  the  verb  be  retained,  then  the  sense  is,  as  given 
 by  Meyer:  'What  then?  Have  we  protection  or  defence?' 
 That  is,  are  we  Jews  and  Gentiles,  men  as  sinners,  protected 
 from  the  justice  of  God?  The  answer  is.  By  no  means.  But 
 this  does  not  so  well  suit  the  context  or  the  form  of  the  answer 
 to  the  question  presented.  The  verb  -npotypuz^a  should,  as 
 Ruckert  says,  in  that  case  have  an  accusative,  designating  the 
 excuse  or  pretext:  'Have  we  anything  for  a  pretext?'  And  the 
 answer  would  be,  Nothing.  The  passive  sense.  Are  we  excelled? 
 adopted  by  Wetstein  and  others,  is  still  less  suited  to  the  con- 
 text. For  whether  the  Gentiles  or  the  Jews  be  supposed  to  ask 
 the  question,  there  is  nothing  to  account  for  it,  or  to  suggest  it. 
 Paul  had  given  no  reason  to  either  to  ask.  Are  we  excelled? 
 He  had  not  proved  that  the  Gentiles  were  worse  off  than  the 
 Jews,  or  the  Jews  than  the  Gentiles,  but  that  both  were  alike 
 under  condemnation.  The  question,  therefore.  Do  we  excel? 
 are  we  Jews  better  oif  than  the  Gentiles  ?  is  the  only  one  which 
 the  occasion  calls  for,  or  that  the  answer  suits.  This  is  the  view 
 given  by  Theophylact,  who  says,  odxvuat  jurjokv  auroh^  s'jfs^v 
 Tzspcaabv,  oaov  ix  zcou  oixsccov  Tcpd^etoii;  and  which  is  adopted  by 
 Calvin,  Beza,  Grotius,  and  the  modern  commentators,  Tholuck, 
 Riickert  (2d  edition,)  Reiche,  and  De  "Wette. 
 
 I^ot  at  all,  not  in  the  least,  (ou  TtdDvco^,)  the  ndwax;  strength- 
 ening the  negation.  Grotius,  Wetstein,  and  Kollner  translate, 
 not  altogether,  not  in  all  respects.  But  the  former  version  is 
 shown  by  Winer,  §  65,  to  be  consistent  with  usage,  and  is  much 
 better  suited  to  the  context ;  for  it  is  the  obvious  design  of  the 
 apostle  to  show  that,  as  to  the  point  in  hand,  the  Jews  did  not 
 at  all  excel  the  Gentiles.     This  strong  negation  the  following 
 
120  ROMANS  III.  10. 
 
 clause  confirms.  The  Jews  are  not  better  off;  for  we  have 
 before  charged  both  Jews  and  G-entiles  with  being  under  sin. 
 Aiztila&ac  is  properly,  to  accuse,  here  as  in  other  cases  followed 
 by  an  accusative  and  infinitive.  Our  version,  we  have  before 
 proved,  though  it  may  be  justified  by  imj^lication,  is  not  in 
 strict  accordance  with  the  meaning  of  the  words.  The  same 
 sense,  however,  is  expressed  by  Erasmus,  "ante  causis  redditis 
 ostendimus,"  and  is  adopted  by  Reiche  and  others.  There  is 
 force  in  the  remark  of  Calvin:  "Verbum  Grsscum  ahcda&ai 
 proprie  est  judiciale:  ideoque  reddere  placuit  constituimus. 
 Dicitur  enim  crimen  in  actione  constituere  accusator,  quod 
 testimoniis  ac  probationibus  aliis  convincere  paratus.  Citavit 
 autem  apostolus  universum  hominum  genus  ad  Dei  tribunal,  ut 
 totum  sub  unam  damnationem  includeret."  To  be  under  sin 
 means  to  be  under  the  power  of  sin,  to  be  sinners :  whether  the 
 idea  of  guilt,  just  exposure  to  condemnation,  or  of  pollution,  or 
 both,  be  conveyed  by  the  expression  depends  on  the  context. 
 Comp.  1  Cor.  XV.  17,  Gal.  iii.  10,  22,  John  xv.  22.  Here  both 
 ideas  are  to  be  included.  Paul  had  arraigned  all  men  as  sin* 
 ners,  as  the  transgressors  of  the  law,  and  therefore  exposed  to 
 condemnation. 
 
 Verses  10 — 18,  contain  the  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of 
 the  universal  sinfulness  of  men  by  the  testimony  of  the  Scrip- 
 tures. These  passages  are  not  found  consecutively  in  any  one 
 place  in  the  Old  Testament.  Verses  10 — 12  are  from  Psalms 
 xiv.  and  liii.;  ver.  13  is  from  Ps.  v.  10;  ver.  14  is  from  Ps.  x.  7; 
 vs.  15 — 17  are  from  Isa.  lix.  7,  8;  and  ver.  18  is  from  Ps. 
 xxxvi,  1.  These  passages,  it  will  be  observed,  are  of  two 
 different  classes;  the  one  descriptive  of  the  general  character 
 of  men;  the  other  referring  to  particular  sinful  acts,  on  the 
 principle,  "by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  This  method 
 of  reasoning  is  common  and  legitimate.  The  national  character 
 of  a  people  may  be  proved  by  the  prevalence  of  certain  acts  by 
 which  it  is  manifested.  The  prevalence  of  crime  among  men  is 
 a  legitimate  proof  that  the  race  is  apostate,  though  every  man 
 is  not  a  shedder  of  blood,  or  guilty  of  robbery  or  violence. 
 
 Verse  10.  There  is  none  righteous,  7io  not  one.  Ps.  xiv.  1, 
 in  the  Hebrevs^  is,  "  there  is  none  doing  good ;  "  in  the  Scptua- 
 gint  it  is,  iroiSiv  ^(^pr^crTOTqra  ;  Paul  has,  ovk  ean  SUaLo<;,  there  is 
 
ROMANS  III.  11,  12.  121 
 
 none  righteous.  The  sense  is  the  same.  Paul  probably  uses 
 dixaco^,  righteous,  because  the  question  which  he  is  discuss- 
 ing is,  whether  men  are  righteous,  or  can  be  justified  on  the 
 ground  of  their  own  righteousness  in  the  sight  of  God.  This  is 
 a  declaration  of  the  universal  sinfulness  of  men.  The  two  ideas 
 included  in  the  negation  of  righteousness,  want  of  piety  and 
 want  of  rectitude,  are  expressed  in  the  following  verses. 
 
 Verse  11.  There  is  none  who  understands,  there  is  none  who 
 seeks  after  Crod.  In  the  Psalms  it  is  said :  "  God  looked  down 
 from  heaven  upon  the  sons  of  men,  to  see  if  there  was  one  wise, 
 seeking  after  God."  Here  again  the  apostle  gives  the  thought, 
 and  not  the  precise  words.  Instead  of  "if  there  was  one  wise," 
 he  gives  the  idea  in  a  negative  form,  "  There  is  none  who  under- 
 stands," obx  iazc  b  aovccav.  The  participle  6  auucaiv,  der  ver- 
 standige,  the  mse,  is  stronger  than  the  verb,  who  understands; 
 as  the  former  expresses  a  permanent  characteristic,  the  latter 
 properly  only  an  act.  The  words  a-vvtrjfXL  and  crvveari^  are  fre- 
 quently used  in  the  New  Testament  to  express  the  right  appre- 
 hension of  divine  truth.  See  Matt.  xiii.  15,  Acts  vii.  25,  Eph. 
 iii.  4,  V.  17,  Col.  1.  9,  ii.  2.  In  this  case,  o-vvlcov  (a-vviwv, 
 Winer,  14,  §  3,)  answers  to  ^'^'f"?,  a  word  often  used  in  a 
 religious  sense,  as  in  the  Scriptures,  wisdom  and  religion  are 
 convertible  terms.  This  right  apprehension  or  spiritual  discern- 
 ment of  divine  things  is  always  attended  with  right  affections 
 and  right  conduct — lie  that  understands  seeks  after  God — 
 which  latter  expression  includes  all  those  exercises  of  desire, 
 worship,  and  obedience,  which  are  consequent  on  this  spiritual 
 discernment. 
 
 Verse  12.  They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way.  Blinded  by 
 s'lQ  to  the  perfections  and  loveliness  of  God  and  truth,  they 
 have  turned  from  the  way  which  he  has  prescribed  and  which 
 leads  to  himself,  and  have  made  choice  of  another  way  and  of 
 another  portion.  Here,  as  in  the  first  chapter,  the  loss  of  the 
 knowledge  of  God  is  represented  as  followed  by  spiritual  blind- 
 ness, and  spiritual  blindness  by  moral  degradation.  Men  do 
 not  understand,  i.  e.  have  no  right  apprehension  of  God ;  then 
 they  turn  away  from  him,  then  they  become  altogether  unprofit- 
 able, ■/j'/^psc(b&rjaav,  worthless,  morally  corrupt.  This  depravity  is 
 universal,  for  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no  not  one.     The 
 
122  ROMANS  III.  13—17. 
 
 words  ohx  ico<;  Ivoc,  not  so  7nuch  as  one,  are  a  Hebrewism  for 
 oude  £fc-  This  passage  is  taken  from  the  Septuagint  transla- 
 tion of  Psalm  xiv.  8. 
 
 Verses  13, 14.  These  verses  relate  to  the  sins  of  the  tongue. 
 The  passages  quoted  are  from  Ps.  v.  9,  cxl.  3,  and  x.  7.  Their 
 throat  is  an  open  sepulchre.  The  point  of  comparison  may  be 
 the  offensive  and  pestiferous  character  of  the  exhalations  of  an 
 open  grave.  This  is  forcible,  and  suited  to  the  context.  Or  the 
 idea  is,  that  as  the  grave  is  rapacious  and  insatiable,  so  the 
 wicked  are  disposed  to  do  all  the  injury  with  their  tongues 
 which  they  can  accomplish.  In  Jer.  v.  16,  it  is  said  of  the 
 Chaldeans,  "Their  quiver  is  an  open  sepulchre,"  i.  e.  destruc- 
 tive. But  as  in  the  following  verses  sins  of  violence  are  brought 
 distinctly  into  view,  the  former  explanation  is  to  be  preferred. 
 What  issues  from  the  mouths  of  the  wicked  is  offensive  and 
 pestiferous.  With  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit.  The 
 word  kdoXiouaav  is  in  the  imperfect,  for  ioohouv,  implying  con^ 
 tinuous  action.  In  the  Hebrew  it  is,  "  They  make  smooth  their 
 tongue,"  i.  0.  they  flatter.  The  LXX.  and  Vulgate  give  the 
 version  which  the  apostle  adopty.  The  jyoison  of  asjjs  is  under 
 their  lips.  This  is  the  highest  expression  of  malignit3^  The 
 bite  of  the  adder  causes  the  severest  pain,  as  well  as  produces 
 death.  To  inflict  suffering  is  a  delight  to  the  malignant.  This 
 is  a  revelation  of  a  nature  truly  diabolical.  Their  mouth  is  full 
 of  cursing  and  bitterness.  The  Hebrew  in  Ps.  x.  7,  is,  "  His 
 mouth  is  full  of  deceit  and  violence  ; "  the  Septuagint,  "  His 
 mouth  is  full  of  cursing,  bitterness,  and  deceit."  The  Vulgate 
 follows  the  LXX. ;  Paul  condenses  the  idea. 
 
 Verses  15 — 17.  These  verses  adduce  the  sins  of  violence 
 common  among  men,  in  proof  of  the  general  depravity  of  the 
 race.  Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood.  That  is,  on  the 
 slightest  provocation  they  commit  murder.  The  life  of  their 
 fellow-men  is  as  nothing  in  their  estimation,  in  comparison  with 
 the  gratification  of  their  pride  or  malice.  The  words  are  quoted 
 from  Isa.  lix.  7:  "  Their  feet  run  to  evil,  and  they  make  haste 
 to  shed  innocent  blood."  Here  the  Septuagint  agrees  with  the 
 Hebrew,  and  Paul  again  condenses  the  sense.  Destruction  and 
 misery  are  in  their  ways.  Their  path  through  life  is  marked 
 not  only  with  blood,  but  with  the  ruin  and  desolation  which 
 
ROMANS  III.  18,  19.  123 
 
 thoy  spread  around  them.  In  Isaiah  the  passage  runs,  "Their 
 thoughts  are  thoughts  of  iniquity ;  wasting  and  destruction  are 
 in  their  paths."  The  way  of  -peace  they  have  not  knoivn.  "The 
 way  of  peace"  is  the  way  that  leads  to  peace,  or  pacific  ways. 
 "They  have  not  known,"  means  they  have  not  approved  or  fre- 
 quented. The  idea  is  to  be  taken  in  its  most  comprehensive 
 form,  as  the  apostle  designs  to  prove,  not  from  any  specific 
 form  of  violence,  but  from  the  general  prevalence  of  sins  of 
 violence  among  men,  that  human  nature  is  depraved.  The  tree 
 which  produces  such  fruit  so  abundantly  must  be  evil. 
 
 Verse  18.  There  is  no  fear  of  Crod  before  their  eyes.  This 
 is  taken  from  Psalm  xxxvi.  1:  "The  dictum  of  depravity  con- 
 cerning the  wicked  man  in  my  heart  is.  There  is  no  fear  of  God 
 before  his  eyes."  That  is,  his  depravity  proves  or  reveals  to 
 me  that  he  does  not  fear  God.  See  Alexander  on  the  Psalms, 
 who  proposes  this  with  other  versions  of  the  passage.  However 
 the  previous  part  of  the  verse  may  be  understood,  the  clause 
 quoted  by  the  apostle  is  plain.  The  course  of  wicked  men,  as 
 previously  described,  is  proof  that  they  are  destitute  of  the  fear 
 of  God.  And  by  "the  fear  of  God,"  we  may  understand,  accord- 
 ing to  Scripture  usage,  reverence  for  God,  piety  towards  him ;  or 
 fear,  in  the  more  restricted  sense,  dread  of  his  wrath.  In  either 
 way,  the  reckless  wickedness  of  men  proves  that  they  are  desti- 
 tute of  all  proper  regard  of  God.  They  act  as  if  there  were  no 
 God,  no  Being  to  whom  they  are  responsible  for  their  conduct, 
 and  who  has  the  purpose  and  power  to  punish  them  for  their 
 iniquity. 
 
 Verse  19.  JVow  zoe  hnoio;  it  is  a  thing  plain  in  itself,  and 
 universally  conceded,  that  what  things  soever  the  law  saith^  it 
 saith  to  them  that  are  under  the  law.  The  word  v6/io^  means 
 that  which  binds,  that  to  which  we  are  bound  to  be  conformed. 
 It  is  that  which  binds  the  reason,  the  conscience,  the  heart,  and 
 the  life,  whether  it  be  revealed  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature, 
 or  in  the  decalogue,  or  in  the  law  of  Moses,  or  in  the  Scrip- 
 tures. It  is  the  word  or  revelation  of  the  will  of  God,  consi- 
 sidered  as  the  norm  or  rule  to  which  men  are  to  conform  their 
 faith  and  practice.  It  depends  on  the  context,  under  what 
 aspect  this  rule  is  in  any  particular  case  contemplated.  It  may 
 le  the  rule  as  written  on  the  heart,  ii.  14,  or  the  law  of  Moses, 
 
124  ROMANS  III.  19. 
 
 or  the  wliole  Scriptures,  as  John  x.  34.  In  this  passage  it  obvi- 
 ously means  the  whole  Old  Testament,  for  the  quotations  given 
 above  are  taken  from  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets.  In  every 
 instance  the  principle  applies,  that  what  the  law  says,  it  says  to 
 those  who  have  the  law.  Those  to  whom  any  revelation  of  the 
 divine  will  is  made,  are  bound  to  be  conformed  to  it.  What  the 
 law  written  in  the  heart  says,  it  says  to  those  who  have  that 
 law :  and  what  the  law  as  written  in  the  Scriptures  says,  it  says 
 to  those  who  have  the  Scriptures.  The  declarations  therefore 
 contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  the  revelation  of 
 God's  will  made  to  the  Jews,  were  the  norm  or  rule  to  which 
 they  were  obliged  to  conform  their  judgments  and  conduct.  If 
 the  Old  Testament  declared  that  all  men  are  under  sin,  that 
 there  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one,  the  Jews  could  not  deny  the 
 truth  of  this  universal  declaration  in  its  application  to  them- 
 selves. These  passages  speak  not  of  heathen  as  heathen,  but 
 of  fallen  men  as  such,  and  therefore  are  to  be  understood  of  all 
 men,  of  the  Jews  as  well  as  of  the  Gentiles.  That  every  mouth 
 may  he  stopped.  The  word  is  rVa,  in  order  that.  That  is,  the 
 design  of  God  in  these  general  declarations  was,  that  every 
 mouth  should  be  stopped;  that  all  men  should  be  reduced  to 
 sil  ence  under  the  conviction  that  they  had  nothing  to  say  against 
 the  charge  of  sin.  This  idea  is  expressed  in  another  form  in  the 
 following  clause :  That  the  whole  world  {ndt;  b  xofffio^,)  all  man- 
 kind, Jews  and  Gentiles,  should  become  {jivr^zox,)  in  their  own 
 conviction,  guilty  before  Grod.  That  is,  that  all  men  should  be 
 convinced  of  guilt.  Guilt,  here,  as  always  in  theological  lan- 
 guage, means  liability  or  exposure  to  punishment  on  account 
 of  sin.  It  is  not  to  be  confounded  either  with  moral  pollution, 
 or  with  mere  demerit.  It  may  exist  where  neither  pollution  nor 
 personal  demerit  is  to  be  found.  And  it  may  be  removed  where 
 both  remain.  Christ  is  said  to  have  borne  the  guilt  of  our  sins, 
 although  immaculate  and  without  personal  demerit ;  and  justifi- 
 cation removes  the  guilt  (or  just  exposure  to  punishment)  of  the 
 sinner,  but  it  does  not  change  his  inward  character.  This  is 
 the  proper  meaning  of  bnodcxo:;  {ivoYp^  8'ixrji;,)  guilty,  satisfac- 
 tionem  alteri  debens,  obnoxious  to  punishment.  Before  Grod, 
 T(p  dscp,  in  relation  to  God,  as  it  is  to  him  that  satisfaction  for 
 ^in  is  due.     It  is  he  whom  we  have  offended,  and  under  whose 
 
ROMANS  III.  20.  125 
 
 sentence  we  lie.  There  are  three  things  involved  in  the  con- 
 sciousness of  sin ;  sense  of  moral  turpitude,  sense  of  demerit  or 
 of  ill-desert,  and  the  conviction  that  we  ought  to  be  punished. 
 This  last  element  is  often  the  most  clearly  revealed;  so  that  a 
 criminal  often  voluntarily  gives  himself  up  to  justice.  It  is  this 
 that  is  denominated  guilt,  the  obligation  to  suffer  punishment ; 
 80  that  the  guilty  are  not  merely  those  who  may  be  punished, 
 but  those  who  justice  (or  moral  rectitude)  demands  should  be 
 punished.  It  is  this  that  stops  the  sinner's  mouth ;  and  it  is 
 this  which  is  met  by  satisfaction,  so  that  although  in  the  justi- 
 fied believer  a  sense  of  pollution  and  of  ill-desert  remains,  there 
 is  no  longer  this  dreadful  conviction  that  God  is  bound  to 
 punish  him.  The  conclusion  to  which  the  apostle's  argument, 
 from  experience  and  Scripture,  has  thus  far  led  is,  that  all  men 
 are  guilty  in  the  sight  of  God ;  and  if  guilty,  they  cannot  be 
 justified  on  the  ground  of  their  personal  character  or  conduct. 
 To  justify  is  to  declare  not  guilty;  and  therefore  the  guilty 
 cannot,  on  the  ground  of  character,  be  justified. 
 
 Verse  20.  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh 
 be  justified  in  his  sight.  Therefore.  The  particle  is  diorc,  which 
 is  equivalent  to  oi"  o  ri,  on  account  of  which  thing,  wherefore. 
 In  this  sense  it  indicates  a  conclusion  from  preceding  premises. 
 This  would  suit  this  connection,  as  ver.  20  is  a  fair  conclusion 
 from  what  is  said  in  ver.  19:  'All  the  world  is  guilty  before 
 God,  wherefore,  hence  it  follows  that,  no  one  can  be  justified  by 
 works.'  This  is  the  conclusion  which  the  apostle  has  had  in 
 view  from  the  beginning  of  his  argument.  His  whole  design  is 
 to  prove  that  men  cannot  be  justified  by  their  own  righteous- 
 ness, in  order  to  prepare  them  to  receive  the  righteousness  of 
 God.  This  view  of  the  connection  is  assumed  in  our  version, 
 by  Beza,  Turrettin,  Rosemmliller,  and  others.  But  in  the  New 
 Testament,  8(du  is  almost  uniformly,  perhaps  in  every  case, 
 used  in  the  sense  of  Sea  touto  ore,  on  this  account  that,  or  of  the 
 simple  5t(,  that.  The  great  majority  of  commentators  there- 
 fore render  it  here,  because,  as  in  i.  19,  viii.  7,  &c.  Verse  20 
 then  assigns  the  reason  of  what  is  said  in  ver.  19:  'Every 
 mouth  must  be  stopped,  because  no  flesh  can  be  justified  by 
 works.'  This  view  is  to  be  preferred,  not  because  more  suita- 
 ble, but  because  more  consistent  with  the  common  use  of  the 
 
126  ROMANS  III.  20. 
 
 particle  in  question.  JVo  flesh.  When  men  are  called  flesh,  in 
 the  Bible,  there  was  originally  a  reference  to  their  weakness 
 and  faults,  as  the  flesh  is  earthly  and  perishable.  But  in  many 
 cases  there  is  no  such  implication;  "no  flesh"  is  simply  equiva- 
 lent to  no  man.  The  Greek  is  here  naaa  aap^  ob  x.z.X,  every 
 flesh  shall  not;  according  to  the  familiar  Hebraism,  no  flesh 
 shall.  The  future  is  used  not  in  reference  to  the  day  of  final 
 judgment,  for  the  act  of  justification  takes  place  in  this  life. 
 It  expresses  the  certainty  of  the  thing  afiirmed :  No  flesh  shall 
 ever  be  (i.  e.  ever  can  be)  justified.  The  apostle  seems  evi- 
 dently to  have  had  in  his  mind  the  passage  in  Psalm  cxliii.  2 : 
 "Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servant;  for  in  thy  sight 
 shall  no  man  living  be  justified."  A:y.ac6u),  to  justify,  is  not 
 simply  to  pardon.  A  condemned  criminal,  in  whose  favour  the 
 executive  exercises  his  prerogative  of  mercy,  is  never  said  to  be 
 justified;  he  is  simply  pardoned.  Nor  is  it  to  pardon  and  to 
 restore  to  favour.  When  a  king  pardons  a  rebellious  subject, 
 and  restores  him  to  his  former  standing,  he  does  not  justify 
 him.  Nor  is  it  to  make  just  inwardly.  When  a  man  accused 
 of  a  crime  is  acquitted  or  declared  just  in  the  eye  of  the  law, 
 his  moral  character  is  not  changed.  To  justify  is  a  forensic 
 term ;  that  is,  it  expresses  the  act  of  a  judge.  Justification  is 
 a  judicial  act.  It  is  a  declaration  that  the  party  arraigned  is 
 dixaco^,  just;  and  dixaco:;  means  right,  conformed  to  the  law. 
 To  justify,  therefore,  is  to  declare  that  the  party  implicated  is 
 rectus  in  foro  judicii;  that  dixv],  justice,  does  not  condemn,  but 
 pronounces  him  just,  or  declares  herself  satisfied.  This  is  the 
 uniform  meaning  of  the  word,  not  only  in  Scripture,  but  also 
 in  ordinary  life.  We  never  confound  justification  with  pardon, 
 or  with  sanctification.  It  is  always  used  in  the  sense  antithe- 
 tical to  condemnation.  To  condemn  is  not  merely  to  punish, 
 but  to  declare  the  accused  guilty  or  worthy  of  punishment ;  and 
 justification  is  not  merely  to  remit  that  punishment,  but  to 
 declare  that  punishment  cannot  be  justly  inflicted.  Much  less 
 does  to  condemn  mean  to  render  wicked,  and  therefore  neither 
 does  to  justify  mean  to  render  good.  When  we  justify  God,  we 
 declare  him  to  be  just ;  and  when  God  justifies  the  sinner,  he 
 declares  him  to  be  just.  In  both  cases  the  idea  is,  that  there 
 ifl  no  ground  for  condemnation ;  or  that  the  demands  of  justice 
 
ROMANS  III.  20.  127 
 
 are  satisfied.     Hence  the  terms  and  expressions  used  in  Scrip- 
 ture, convertibly  with  the  word  to  justify,  all  express  the  same 
 idea.     Thus,  in  ii.  13,  it  is  said:  "Not  the  hearers  of  the  law 
 are  just  before  God  (ocxaioc  rrapd  raJ  decjj,)  but  the  doers  of 
 the  law  shall  be  justified  (dcxano&rjaovxac.'')     Here,  to  be  just 
 before  God,  (in  his   siffht   or  estimation,)  and  to  be  justified, 
 mean  the  same  thing      It  is  clearly  impossible  that  the  apostle 
 should  mean  that  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  pardoned.    What 
 should  thej  be  pardoned  for  ?     Doing  the  law  does  not  call  for 
 pardon:  it  is  declared  to  be  the  ground  of  justification.    Pardon 
 and  justification  therefore  are  essentially  distinct.     The  one  is 
 the  remission  of  punishment,  the  other  is  a  declaration  that  no 
 ground  for  the  infliction  of  punishment  exists.    Quite  as  evident 
 is  it  that  the  apostle  does  not  mean,  in  the  passage  referred  to, 
 to  say  that  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  made  holy.    To  justify, 
 therefore,  cannot  mean  to  make  inherently  just  or  good.     In 
 iv.  6,  he  speaks  of  the  "  blessedness  of  the  man  to  whom  the 
 Lord  imputeth  righteousness  without  works."    To  impute  right- 
 eousness is  to  justify.     To  impute  is  to  ascribe  to,  to  reckon  to 
 one's  account.     But  when  we  pardon  a  man,  we  do  not  ascribe 
 righteousness  to  him ;  and  therefore,  again,  justification  is  seen 
 to  be  difi"erent  from  pardon.    It  is  quite  as  clear,  that  to  impute 
 righteousness  cannot  mean  to  render  holy;  and  therefore  to 
 justify,  which  is  to  impute  righteousness,  cannot  mean  to  make 
 good.     In  viii.  1,  the  apostle  says,  "  there  is  no  condemnation 
 to  those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus."     Not  to  condemn  is  neither 
 to  pardon  nor  to  sanctify,  but  it  is  to  pronounce  just.     Nothing 
 can  be  clearer  as  a  question  of  exegesis,  than  that  the  word 
 dcxcuoo)  (to  justify)  expresses  a  judicial,  as  opposed  to  an  execu 
 tive,  and  also  to  an  efficient  act.     This  indeed  is  plain  from  the 
 very  form  of  the  statement  in  this  and  ot'her  passages.     It 
 would  be  utterly  unmeaning  to  say  that  "no  flesh  shall  be  par- 
 doned by  the  works  of  the  law,"  or  that  "no  man  shall  be  sanc- 
 tified by  the  deeds  of  the  law."     In  the  fifth  chapter  of  this 
 epistle,    Paul  uses    the  phrase    "sentence  unto   condemnation 
 {xpifxa  ere  xaxd-xpifia."^  in  antithesis  to  "sentence  unto  justifi- 
 cation [xp'tyLa  dc,  dcxauoacv")     Justification  therefore  is  as  much 
 a  sentence,  a  xpe/jta,  a  judgment,  a  declarative  act,  as  condemna- 
 tion.    It   need  not  be  remarked  that  this  is  a  point  of  vital 
 
128  ROMANS  III.  20. 
 
 importance.  How  can  man  be  just  with  God  ?  is  the  question 
 which  of  all  others  most  immediately  concerns  our  eternal 
 interests.  The  answer  which  Pelagians  and  Remonstrants  give 
 to  this  question  is,  that  to  justify  is  simply  to  pardon  and  to 
 restore  to  divine  favour.  The  Romanists  say,  that  it  is  to 
 render  inwardly  pure  or  good,  so  that  God  accepts  as  right- 
 eous only  those  who  are  inwardly  conformed  to  the  law,  and 
 because  of  that  conformity.  Protestants  say,  that  to  justify  is 
 to  declare  just ;  to  pronounce,  on  the  ground  of  the  satisfaction 
 of  justice,  that  there  is  no  ground  of  condemnation  in  the 
 sinner ;  or  that  he  has  a  righteousness  which  meets  the  demands 
 of  the  law.  The  Romish  doctrine  of  subjective  justification, 
 against  which  the  Protestants  contended  as  for  the  life  of  the 
 Church,  has  in  our  day  been  revived  in  different  forms.  The 
 speculative  and  mystic  theologians  of  Germany  all  repudiate 
 the  doctrine  of  objective  justification ;  they  all  teach  in  some 
 way,  that  to  justify  is  to  make  just;  to  restore  the  ruined 
 nature  of  man  to  its  original  state  of  purity  or  conformity  to 
 the  law  of  God.  They  are  all  disposed  to  say,  with  Olshausen : 
 "  Von  Gott  kann  nie  etwas  als  gerecht  anerkannt  oder  daflir 
 erklart  werden,  was  es  nicht  ist;"  i.  e.  Giod  can  never  acknow- 
 ledge or  declare  that  just,  lohich  is  not  so  in  itself.  This  is  said 
 to  prove  that  God  cannot  pronounce  the  sinner  just,  unless  he  is 
 inherently  righteous.  If  this  is  so,  then  no  flesh  living  can  be 
 justified;  for  no  human  being  in  this  life,  whether  under  the  law 
 or  the  gospel,  is  inherently  just,  or  inwardly  conformed  to  the 
 law  of  God.  The  conscience  of  the  holiest  man  on  earth  con- 
 demns him,  and  God  is  greater  than  our  hearts,  and  knoweth  all 
 things.  If  not  righteous  in  our  own  eyes,  how  can  we  be  right- 
 eous in  the  sight  of  omniscient  and  infinite  holiness  ?  Agreea- 
 bly to  the  principle  just  stated,  Olshausen  defines  dcxo^oauvrj, 
 conformity  to  law,  so  that  "  not  only  the  outward  act,  but  the 
 mward  feeling  and  disposition  answer  to  the  divine  law;"  and 
 dcxacoco  is  said  to  express  "die  gottliche  Thatigkeit  des  Her- 
 vorrufens  der  ocxacoa'jvrj,  welches  natlirlich  das  Anerkennen 
 derselben  als  solcher  in  sich  schliesst."  That  is,  to  justify  is  to 
 produce  moral  rectitude,  and  to  acknowledge  it  as  such.  See 
 Olshausen's  Commentary,  Rom.  iii.  21.  Justification  therefore 
 includes  two  things ;  first,  making  a  man  inwardly  just ;  and 
 
ROMANS  III.  20.  129 
 
 secondly,  ackno^w  lodging  him  to  be  so.  No  man  tnerefore  can 
 be  justified  who  is  not  inwardly  conformed  to  the  perfect  law 
 of  God.  This  is  a  sentence  of  eternal  condemnation  on  all 
 mankind;  for  there  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one;  neither  by 
 works  nor  by  faith,  neither  by  nature  nor  by  grace.  Blessed 
 be  God,  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  God  justifies  the 
 ungodly;  that  is,  he  pronounces  just,  those  Avho,  personally  con- 
 sidered, are  unjust.  He  imputes  righteousness  to  those  without 
 works;  that  is,  to  those  who  are  in  themselves  unrighteous.  In 
 no  instance  in  the  Scriptures  has  dcxacoco  the  sense  of  producing 
 dcxcuoauvrj.  We  do  not  make  God  holy  when  we  justify  him  ; 
 the  unrighteous  judge  does  not  make  the  wicked  holy  when  he 
 justifies  him  for  a  reward,  Isa.  v.  23.  He  surely  is  not  an 
 abomination  to  the  Lord,  who  makes  the  unrighteous  good,  but 
 he  is  declared  to  be  such  an  abomination,  who  either  justifies  the 
 wicked  or  condemns  the  just,  Prov.  xvii.  15.  This  doctrine  is 
 not  less  inconsistent  with  the  faith  of  the  Church,  than  it  is 
 with  the  plain  meaning  of  the  Scriptures.  The  people  of  God 
 of  every  denomination  are  led  as  by  instinct  to  renounce  all 
 dependence  upon  anything  done  by  them  or  wrought  in  them, 
 and  to  cast  themselves,  for  acceptance  before  God,  on  what 
 Christ  has  done  for  them.  Their  trust  is  in  him,  and  not  on 
 their  own  inward  conformity  to  the  law.  No  previous  training, 
 and  no  trammels  of  false  doctrine  can  prevent  those  who  are 
 truly  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God  from  thus 
 renouncing  their  own  inward  righteousness,  and  trusting  to  the 
 righteousness  of  the  Son  of  God. 
 
 To  justify  then  is  not  merely  to  pardon  and  restore  to  favour ; 
 nor  is  it  to  make  inwardly  just  or  holy,  but  it  is  to  declare  or 
 pronounce  just ;  that  is,  judicially  to  declare  that  the  demands 
 of  justice  are  satisfied,  or  that  there  is  no  just  ground  for  con- 
 demnation. The  apostle  here  as  everywhere  teaches  that  no 
 human  being  can  be  thus  pronounced  just,  on  the  ground  of  his 
 personal  character  or  conduct,  because  all  have  sinned  and  are 
 guilty  before  God.  This  is  here  expressed  by  saying,  that  no 
 flesh  can  be  justified  hy  works  of  the  law.  By  works  of  the  law 
 are  not  meant  Avorks  produced  or  called  forth  by  the  law  as  a 
 mere  objective  rule  of  duty,  as  opposed  to  works  produced  by  an 
 inward  principle  of  faith,  but  works  which  the  law  prescribes. 
 9 
 
130  ROMANS  III.  20. 
 
 It  is  not  by  obedience  to  the  law,  by  doing  the  works  which  the 
 law  enjoins,  that  any  man  can  be  justified.  As  to  tlie  nature 
 of  the  works  which  are  thus  expressly  declared  not  to  be  the 
 ground  of  justification,  there  are  different  opinions  arising  out 
 of  the  different  views  taken  of  the  plan  of  salvation  revealed 
 in  the  Scriptures.  1.  The  Pelagian  doctrine,  that  the  works 
 intended  are  the  ceremonial  works  prescribed  by  the  Mosaic 
 law.  The  doctrine  assumed  to  be  taught  by  the  apostle  is,  that 
 men  are  not  justified  by  any  external  rites,  such  as  circumcision 
 and  sacrifice,  but  by  works  morally  good.  2.  The  Komish 
 doctrine,  that  the  works  of  the  law  are  works  performed  under 
 the  stress  of  natural  conscience.  The  Romish  theory  is,  that 
 works  done  before  regeneration  have  only  the  merit  of  con- 
 gruity ;  but  those  done  after  regeneration,  and  therefore  from  a 
 principle  of  grace,  have  the  merit  of  condignity,  and  are  the 
 ground  of  acceptance  with  God.  3.  The  Remonstrant  or 
 Arminian  doctrine  is,  that  by  the  works  of  the  law  is  to  be 
 understood  the  perfect  legal  obedience  enjoined  on  Adam  as 
 the  condition  of  eternal  life.  Under  the  gospel,  such  perfect 
 obedience  is  not  required,  God  for  Christ's  sake  being  willing 
 to  accept  of  imperfect  obedience.  Men  therefore  are  not  justi- 
 fied by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by  the  works  of  the  gospel, 
 which  requires  only  a  fides  ohsequiosa.  4.  The  modern  doc 
 trine  already  referred  to  is  only  a  philosophical  statement  of 
 the  Romish  theory.  Olshausen,  Neander,  and  the  school  to 
 which  they  belong,  teach  that  the  law  as  an  objective  rule  of 
 duty  cannot  produce  real  inward  conformity  to  the  will  of  God, 
 but  only  an  outward  obedience,  and  therefore  there  is  need  of  a 
 new  inward  principle  which  produces  true  holiness  in  heart  and 
 life.  "Das  Gesetz,"  says  Olshausen,  "konnte  es  nicht  liber 
 eine  aussere  Legalitat  hinausbringen,  durch  die  Wiedergeburt 
 wird  aber  durch  Gnade  ein  innerer  Zustand,  die  dcxaioauvTj  6tou, 
 im  Glaiibigen  geschaffen,  der  den  hochsten  Forderungen  ent- 
 spricht;"  (see  his  Comment,  on  i.  17.)  "The  law  can  only 
 effect  an  external  legal  obedience;  but  by  regeneration,  an 
 inward  state,  the  oexacoaovrj  dsou,  is  produced  by  grace,  which 
 meets  the  highest  demands."  The  works  of  the  law,  therefore, 
 according  to  this  view,  the  dcxacoauvfj  too  uofxou,  or  ix  i^ofxoo,  or 
 daaccauv/j  cdca,   are  those  vorks  or  that  righteousness  which 
 
ROMANS  III.  20.  181 
 
 men  by  their  own  power,  without  the  cooperation  of  divine 
 grace,  can  effect;  ("der  Mensch  sie  gleichsam  mit  seinen 
 eignen,  nach  dem  Fall  ihm  gebliebenen  sittlichen  Kraften,  ohne 
 Wirkuug  der  Gnade,  zu  Stande  bringt.")  Such  works  or  such 
 righteousness  cannot  justify;  but  the  inward  righteousness  pro- 
 duced bj  the  grace  of  God,  and  therefore  called  the  dr/.axoaOvfj 
 6c0u  or  iz  Tt'.avzo)^,  meets  the  demands  of  the  law,  is  the  true 
 ground  of  justification.  Olshausen,  3,  21.  See  also  Neanders 
 Gfescldchte  der  Pjlanzung,  pp.  503 — 510.  The  doctrine  of  the 
 divines  of  the  school  of  Schleiermacher,  presented  in  formulas 
 more  or  less  mystic  and  transcendental  is,  that  as  we  derive  a 
 corrupt  nature  from  Adam,  and  on  the  ground  of  that  nature 
 are  condemned,  so  we  derive  a  holy  nature  from  Christ,  and  on 
 the  ground  of  that  nature  are  justified.  5.  In  opposition  to  all 
 these  views,  which  place  the  ground  of  justification,  so  far  as  it 
 is  a  declarative  act,  in  man's  own  inward  character  or  state, 
 Protestants  with  one  heart  and  one  voice  teach  that  by  the 
 works  of  the  law,  which  are  excluded  from  the  ground  of  justi- 
 fication, are  meant  not  only  ceremonial  works,  not  merely  the 
 works  of  the  unregenerate  done  without  grace,  not  only  the 
 perfect  obedience  required  by  the  law  originally  given  to 
 Adam,  but  works  of  all  kinds,  everything  either  done  by  us  or 
 wrought  in  us.  In  proof  of  this,  it  may  be  urged:  1.  That  the 
 law  of  which  the  apostle  speaks,  is  the  law  which  binds  all  man- 
 kind. It  is  the  law,  the  violation  of  which  renders  all  men 
 guilty  before  God,  as  stated  in  ver.  19.  The  whole  of  the  pre- 
 ceding argument  is  designed  to  show  that  both  Jews  and  Gen- 
 tiles, viewed  as  to  their  personal  character,  are  under  sin  and 
 incapable  of  justification  on  the  ground  of  their  own  character 
 or  conduct.  2.  This  law  which  thus  binds  all  men,  demands 
 the  highest  kind  of  moral  obedience.  It  is  spiritual,  extending 
 not  merely  to  the  external  act,  but  to  the  secret  motives.  It 
 says,  "thou  shalt  not  covet;"  thus  condemning  all  irregular 
 or  inordinate  desires.  It  is  holy,  just,  and  good.  It  requires 
 us  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  our  neighbour  as  our- 
 selves. There  can  therefore  be  no  form  or  kind  of  righteous- 
 ness,  whether  natural  or  gracious,  higher  than  that  which  the 
 law  demands,  and  which  is  comprehended  in  the  works  of  the 
 law.     3.  The  contrast  or  opposition  is  never  between  one  kind 
 
132  ROMANS  III.  20. 
 
 of  works  and  another.  Paul  does  not  teacli  that  we  caunot  be 
 justified  by  ceremonial  works,  but  are  justified  by  good  works ; 
 he  does  not  exclude  merely  opera  ex  soils  naturce  virihus,  i.  e. 
 works  of  the  unregenerate,  and  assert  that  works  flowing  from 
 a  principle  of  grace  are  the  ground  of  justification;  he  does  not 
 contrast  imperfect  obedience  under  the  gospel  with  the  perfect 
 obedience  required  of  Adam;  but  the  opposition  is  always 
 between  works  in  general,  all  works,  and  faith.  4.  The  works 
 rejected  as  inadequate  are  called  "works  of  righteousness," 
 Titus  iii.  5;  that  is,  works  of  the  highest  order,  for  there  is  no 
 designation  of  excellence  of  higher  import  than  that.  5.  The 
 works  intended  are  such  as  Abraham,  the  father  of  the  faithful, 
 whose  obedience  is  held  up  as  a  model  to  all  generations,  per- 
 formed. 6.  Whenever  the  ground  of  our  justification  is  affirma- 
 tively stated,  it  is  declared  to  be  the  obedience,  the  death,  the 
 blood  or  work  of  Christ.  7.  The  objection  to  the  apostle's 
 doctrine,  which  he  answers  at  length  in  chap,  vi.,  supposes  that 
 good  works  of  every  kind  are  excluded  from  the  ground  of  our 
 justification.  That  objection  is,  that  if  works  are  not  the 
 ground  of  justification,  then  we  may  live  in  sin.  There  could 
 be  no  room  for  such  an  objection,  had  the  apostle  taught  that 
 we  are  not  justified  by  mere  ceremonial  or  moral  works,  but  by 
 works  of  a  higher  order  of  merit.  It  was  his  rejecting  all 
 works,  every  kind  and  degree  of  personal  excellence,  and 
 making  something  external  to  ourselves,  something  done  for  us 
 as  opposed  to  everything  wrought  in  us,  the  ground  of  our 
 acceptance  with  God,  that  called  forth  the  objection  in  question. 
 And  this  objection  has  been  urged  against  Paul's  doctrine  from 
 that  day  to  this.  8.  Appeal  may  safely  be  made  on  this  subject 
 to  the  testimony  of  the  Church  or  the  experience  of  the  people 
 of  God  of  every  age  and  nation.  They  with  one  accord,  at 
 least  in  their  prayers  and  praises,  renounce  all  dependence  on 
 their  own  inward  excellence,  and  cast  themselves  on  the  work 
 or  merit  of  Christ.  In  reference  to  this  cardinal  doctrine, 
 Calvin  says:  "Neque  vero  me  latet,  Augustinum  secus  expo- 
 nere ;  justitiam  enim  Dei  esse  putat  regenerationis  gratiam ;  et 
 banc  gratuitam  esse  fatetur,  quia  Dominus  immerentes  Spiritu 
 suo  nos  renovat.  Ab  hac  autem  opera  legis  excludit,  hoc  est 
 quibus  homines  a  seipsis  citra  renovationem  conantur  Deum 
 
ROMANS  III.  20.  133 
 
 promereri.  Mihi  etiam  plus  satis  notum  est,  quosdam  novos 
 speculatores  hoc  dogma  superciliose  proferre  quasi  hodie  sibi 
 revelatum.  Sed  apostolum  omnia  sine  exceptione  opera  com- 
 piecti,  etiam  quoe  Dominus  in  suis  efficit,  ex  contextu  planum 
 fiet.  Nam  certe  regeneratus  erat  Abraham,  et  Spiritu  Dei 
 agebatur  quo  tempore  justificatum  fuisse  operibus  negat.  Ei-go 
 a  justificatione  hominis  non  opera  tantum  moraliter  bona  (ut 
 vulgo  appellant)  et  quge  fiunt  naturje  instinctu  excludit,  sed 
 qugecunque  etiam  fideles  habere  possunt.  Deinde  si  ilia  est 
 justitiae  fidei  definitio,  Beati  quorum  remissas  sunt  iniquitates, 
 Ps.  xxxii.  1 ;  non  disputatur  de  hoc  vel  illo  genere  operum ; 
 sed  abolito  operum  merito  sola  peccatorum  remissio  justitisxi 
 causa  statuitur.  Putant  hoec  duo  optime  convenire,  fide  justifi- 
 cari  hominem  per  Christi  gratiam;  et  tamen  operibus  justificari, 
 quae  ex  regeneratione  spirituali  proveniant;  quia  et  gratuito 
 nos  Deus  renovat,  et  ejus  donum  fide  percipimus.  At  Paulus 
 longe  aliud  principium  sumit :  nunquam  scilicet  tranquillas  fore 
 conscientias,  donee  in  solam  Dei  misericordiam  recumbant ;  ideo 
 alibi  postquam  docuit  Deum  fuisse  in  Christo,  ut  homines  justi- 
 ficaret,  modum  simul  exprimit,  non  imputando  illis  peccata." 
 
 For  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin.  No  flesh  can  be 
 justified  by  the  law,  for  by  the  law  we  are  convinced  of  sin. 
 The  law  condemns  by  bringing  sin  clearly  to  our  knowledge 
 as  deserving  the  wrath  of  God,  which  is  revealed  against  all 
 sin,  and  therefore  it  cannot  justify.  "Ex  eadem  scatebra," 
 says  Calvin,  "non  prodeunt  vita  et  mors."  Eriifvcoac:;  [full  or 
 accurate  knowledge)  is  stronger  than  the  simple  word  yviTjcz 
 [knowledge.)  When  the  object  of  knowledge  is  something  in 
 our  own  consciousness,  as  in  the  case  of  sin,  knowledge  involves 
 a  recognition  of  the  true  nature  of  that  object,  and  a  cor- 
 responding experience.  The  knowledge  of  sin  is  therefore  not 
 a  mere  intellectual  cognition,  but  an  inward  conviction,  includ- 
 ing both  an  intellectual  apprehension  and  a  due  sense  of  its 
 turpitude  and  guilt.  This  is  the  office  of  the  law.  It  was  not 
 designed  to  give  life,  but  so  to  convince  of  sin  that  men  may  be 
 led  to  renounce  their  own  righteousness  and  trust  in  the  right- 
 eousness  of  Christ  as  the  only  and  all-sufficient  ground  of  theiu 
 acceptanci?  with  God. 
 
134  ROMANS  III.  9—20. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  However  men  may  diflFer  among  themselves  as  to  indlvi 
 dual  character,  as  to  outward  circumstances,  religious  or  social, 
 when  they  appear  at  the  bar  of  God,  all  appear  on  the  same 
 level.     All  are  sinners,  and  being  sinners,  are  exposed  to  con- 
 demnation, ver.  9. 
 
 2.  The  general  declarations  of  the  Scriptures,  descriptive  of 
 the  character  of  men  before  the  advent  of  Christ,  are  applicable 
 to  men  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  because  they  describe  human 
 nature.  They  declare  what  fallen  man  is.  As  we  recognize 
 the  descriptions  of  the  human  heart  given  by  profane  writers  a 
 thousand  years  ago,  as  suited  to  its  present  character,  so  the 
 inspired  description  suits  us  as  well  as  those  for  whom  it  was 
 originally  intended,  vs.  10 — 18. 
 
 3.  Piety  and  morality  cannot  be  separated.  If  men  do  not 
 understand,  if  they  have  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  they 
 become  altogether  unprofitable,  there  is  none  that  doeth  good, 
 vs.  10—12. 
 
 4.  The  ojBfice  of  the  law  is  neither  to  justify  nor  to  sanctify. 
 It  convinces  and  condemns.  All  efforts  to  secure  the  favour  of 
 God,  therefore,  by  legal  obedience  must  be  vain,  ver.  20. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  As  God  regards  the  moral  character  in  men,  and  as  we 
 are  all  sinners,  no  one  has  any  reason  to  exalt  himself  over 
 another.  With  our  hands  upon  our  mouth,  and  our  mouth  in 
 the  dust,  we  must  all  appear  as  guilty  before  God,  ver.  9. 
 
 2.  The  Scriptures  are  the  message  of  God  to  all  to  whom 
 they  come.  They  speak  general  truths,  which  are  intended  to 
 apply  to  all  to  whom  they  are  applicable.  What  they  say  of 
 sinners,  as  such,  they  say  of  all  sinners ;  what  they  promise  to 
 believers,  they  promise  to  all  believers.  They  should,  there- 
 fore, ever  be  read  with  a  spirit  of  self-application,  vs.  10 — 18. 
 
 3.  To  be  prepared  for  the  reception  of  the  gospel,  we  must 
 be  convinced  of  sin,  humbled  under  a  sense  of  its  turpitude, 
 silenced   under   a   conviction    of  its    condemning   power,    and 
 
ROMANS  III.  21.  135 
 
 prostrated  at  the  footstool  of  mercy,  under  a  feeling  that  we 
 cannot  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law,  that  if  ever  saved,  it 
 must  be  by  other  merit  and  other  power  than  our  own,  ver.  20. 
 
 ROMANS   III.  21—31 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Having  proved  that  justification,  on  the  ground  of  legal 
 obedience  or  personal  merit,  is  for  all  men  impossible,  Paul 
 proceeds  to  unfold  the  method  of  salvation  presented  in  the 
 gospel.  With  regard  to  this  method,  he  here  teaches,  1.  Its 
 nature.  2.  The  ground  on  which  the  offer  of  justification  is 
 made.     3.  Its  object.     4.  Its  results. 
 
 I.  As  to  its  nature,  he  teaches,  1.  That  the  righteousness 
 which  it  proposes  is  not  attainable  by  works,  but  by  faith, 
 vs.  21,  22.  2.  That  it  is  adapted  to  all  men,  Jews  as  well 
 as  Gentiles,  since  there  is  no  difference  as  to  their  moral  state, 
 vs.  22,  23.     3.  It  is  entirely  gratuitous,  ver.  24. 
 
 II.  As  to  its  ground,  it  is  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ 
 Jesus,  or  Jesus  Christ  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  vs.  24,  25. 
 
 III.  Its  object  is  the  display  of  the  divine  perfections,  and 
 the  reconciliation  of  the  justice  of  God  with  the  exhibition  of 
 mercy  to  the  sinner,  ver.  26. 
 
 IV.  Its  results.  1.  It  humbles  man  by  excluding  all  ground 
 of  boasting,  vs.  27,  28.  2.  It  presents  God  in  his  true  charac- 
 ter as  the  God  and  father  of  all  men,  of  the  Gentile  no  less 
 than  of  the  Jew,  vs.  29,  30.     3.  It  confirms  the  law,  ver.  31. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  21.  But  now  the  righteousness  of  Crod  without  the  law 
 is  manifested^  &o.  Having  demonstrated  that  no  flesh  can  be 
 justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  in  the  sight  of  God,  the  apostle 
 proceeds  to  show  how  the  sinner  can  be  justified.  With  regard 
 to  this  point,  he  teaches,  in  this  verse,  1.  That  the  righteous- 
 ness which  is  acceptable  to  God  is  not  a  legal  righteousness; 
 and,  2.  That  it  had  been  taught  already  in  the  Old  Testament. 
 
136  ROMANS  III.  21. 
 
 The  words  hut  now  may  be  regarded  as  merely  marking  the 
 transition  from  one  paragraph  to  another,  or  as  a  designation 
 of  time,  now,  i.  e.  under  the  gospel  dispensation.  In  favour  of 
 this  view  is  the  phrase,  "to  declare,  at  this  time,  his  righteous- 
 ness," in  ver.  26;  compare  also  i.  17.  Is  manifested,  i.  e.  clearly 
 made  known,  equivalent  to  the  phrase  is  revealed,  as  used  in 
 i.  17.  The  words  righteousness  of  God,  are  subjected  here  to 
 the  same  diversity  of  interpretation  that  was  noticed  in  the 
 passage  just  cited,  where  they  first  occur.  They  may  mean, 
 1.  A  divine  attribute,  the  justice,  mercy,  or  general  rectitude 
 of  God.  2.  That  righteousness  which  is  acceptable  to  God, 
 which  is  such  in  his  estimation.  3.  God's  method  of  justifica- 
 tion ;  compare  i.  17.  The  last  interpretation  gives  here  a  very 
 good  sense,  and  is  one  very  commonly  adopted.  '  The  method 
 of  justification  by  works  being  impossible,  God  has  revealed 
 another,  already  taught  indeed,  both  in  the  law  and  prophets,  a 
 method  which  is  not  legal  (without  law,)  i.  e.  not  on  the  condi- 
 tion of  obedience  to  the  law,  but  on  the  condition  of  faith,  which 
 is  applicable  to  all  men,  and  perfectly  gratuitous,'  vs.  21 — 24. 
 But  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  in  the  remarks  on  i.  17,  the 
 interpretation  which  best  suits  both  the  force  of  the  words  and 
 Paul's  usage  is,  '  The  righteousness  of  which  God  is  the  author, 
 which  comes  from  him,  which  he  gives,  and  which  consequently 
 is  acceptable  in  his  sight.'  The  word  righteousness  is  employed 
 to  designate  that  excellence  which  the  law  demands,  or  which 
 constitutes  a  man  ocxaco^  (righteous)  in  the  sight  of  the  law,  and 
 the  genitive  (too  deoo)  of  God,  indicates  the  source  or  author 
 of  that  righteousness.  As  men  therefore  cannot  attain  such 
 righteousness  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  God  has  revealed  in  the 
 gospel  another  righteousness,  which  is  not  legal,  but  is  attained 
 or  received  by  faith,  and  is  offered  to  all  men,  whether  Jews  or 
 Gentiles,  as  a  free  gift.  The  words  x^pk  i^o/jtou,  loithout  law, 
 may  qualify  the  word  righteousness.  It  is  a  righteousness 
 without  law,  or  with  which  the  law  has  nothing  to  do.  It  is 
 not  a  product  of  the  law,  and  does  not  consist  in  our  inward 
 conformity  to  its  precepts ;  so  that  ][copi^  i^d/jiou  is  equivalent  to 
 X^^pk  ipycov  voptou.  Gal.  ii.  16.  The  connection  however  may 
 be  with  the  verb :  '  Without  the  law  (i.  e.  without  the  coopera- 
 tion of  the  law)  the  righteousness  of  God  is  revealed.     But  the 
 
ROMANS  III.  22.  137 
 
 whole  context  treats  of  justification  without  works,  and  there- 
 fore the  interpretation  which  makes  the  apostle  say  that  a 
 righteousness  without  the  works  of  the  law  is  made  known  in 
 the  gospel,  is  more  suited  to  the  connection.  The  perfect 
 7CB(pavipu)Tcu  has  its  appropriate  force.  The  revelation  has 
 been  made  and  still  continues.  This  righteousness,  which,  so 
 to  speak,  had  long  been  buried  under  the  types  and  indistinct 
 utterances  of  the  old  dispensation,  has  now  in  the  gospel  been 
 2iade  [(pavspd)  clear  and  apparent.  The  apostle  therefore  adds, 
 being  testified  by  the  law  and  the  prophets.  The  word  is  pap- 
 Tupo'juev/j,  being  testified  to;  the  present  is  used  because  the 
 testimony  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  gospel  was  still  con- 
 tinued. The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  divide  the  Scriptures 
 into  two  parts — the  Law  including  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and 
 the  Prophets  including  all  the  other  books.  The  word  prophet 
 means  one  who  speaks  for  God.  All  inspired  men  are  prophets, 
 and  therefore  the  designation  applies  to  the  historical,  as  well 
 as  to  the  books  Avhich  we  are  accustomed,  in  a  more  restricted 
 sense  of  the  word,  to  call  prophetical.  The  Law  and  the  Pro- 
 phets therefore  mean  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Matt. 
 V.  17,  vii.  12,  Luke  xvi.  31,  Acts  xiii.  15,  &c.  The  words  desig- 
 nated a  well  known  volume,  and  had  to  the  minds  of  the  Jews 
 as  definite  a  meaning  as  the  word  Bible  has  with  us.  The  con- 
 stant recognition  of  that  volume  in  the  New  Testament  as  of 
 divine  authority,  relieves  us  of  the  necessity  of  proving  sepa- 
 rately the  inspiration  of  its  several  books.  In  sanctioning  the 
 volume  as  the  word  of  God,  Christ  and  his  apostles  gave  their 
 sanction  to  the  divine  authority  of  all  that  the  volume  contains. 
 That  the  Old  Testament  does  teach  the  doctrine  of  "  a  right- 
 eousness without  woi-ks,"  Paul  proves  in  the  next  chapter,  from 
 the  case  of  Abraham,  and  from  the  declarations  of  David. 
 
 Verse  22.  JEven  the  righteousness  of  Grod.  The  repetition 
 of  the  subject  from  the  preceding  verse;  ds  is  therefore  not- 
 adversative,  but  is  properly  rendered  even.  This  righteousness, 
 of  which  God  is  the  author,  and  which  is  available  before  him, 
 and  which  is  now  revealed,  is  more  particularly  described  as  a 
 {otxMoa'jv/j  (pvao)  dca  Ttiazeoj^)  righteousness  which  is  of  faith, 
 i.  e.  by  means  of  faith,  not  dta  Tvcartv,  on  account  of  faith.  Faith 
 is  not  the  ground  of  our  justification;  it  is  not  the  righteousness 
 
138  ROMANS  III.  22. 
 
 which  makes  us  righteous  before  God,  (it  is  not  itself  the 
 dcxaxoawrj  zou  dsou,)  nor  is  it  even  represented  as  the  inward 
 principle  whence  that  righteousness  proceeds.  It  is  indeed  the 
 principle  of  evangelical  obedience,  the  source  of  holiness  in 
 heart  and  life;  but  such  obedience  or  holiness  is  not  our  justi- 
 fying righteousness.  Holiness  is  the  consequence  and  not  the 
 cause  of  our  justification,  as  the  apostle  proves  at  length  in  the 
 subsequent  parts  of  this  epistle.  This  righteousness  is  through 
 faith,  as  it  is  received  and  appropriated  bv  faith.  It  is,  more- 
 over, not  faith  in  general,  not  mere  confidence  in  God,  not 
 simply  a  belief  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  much  less 
 a  recognition  of  the  truth  of  the  spiritual  and  invisible,  but  it  is 
 faith  of  Ch'ist;  that  is,  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object.  A 
 man  may  believe  what  else  he  may;  unless  he  receives  and  rests 
 on  Christ  alone  for  salvation,  receives  him  as  the  Son  of  God, 
 who  loved  us  and  gave  himself  for  us,  he  has  not  the  faith  of 
 which  the  apostle  here  speaks  as  the  indispensable  condition 
 of  salvation.  This  important  doctrine  is  not  only  clearly  but 
 frequently  brought  into  view  in  the  New  Testament.  What  our 
 Lord  constantly  demanded  was  not  merely  religious  faith  in 
 general,  but  specifically  faith  in  himself  as  the  Son  of  God  and 
 Saviour  of  the  world.  It  is  only  faith  in  Christ,  not  faith  as 
 such,  which  makes  a  man  a  Christian.  "  If  ye  believe  not  that 
 I  am  he,"  saith  our  Lord,  "ye  shall  die  in  your  sins,"  John 
 viii.  24.  "  To  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power 
 to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  as  many  as  believed  on  his 
 name,"  John  i.  12.  "That  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should 
 not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life,"  John  iii.  14,  16.  "Whoso- 
 ever believeth  on  him,  shall  not  be  confounded,"  Rom.  ix.  33. 
 "How  shall  they  call  on  him  on  whom  they  have  not  believed," 
 X.  14.  Such  passages  are  almost  innumerable.  So  when  the 
 object  of  saving  faith  is  designated,  it  is  said  to  be  not  truth  in 
 general,  but  Christ  himself.  See  ver.  25,  (through  faith  in  his 
 blood,)  Gal.  ii.  16,  20,  iii.  24,  Eph.  iii.  12,  &c.  The  act  there- 
 fore which  the  sinner  is  required  to  perform,  in  order  to  be 
 made  a  partaker  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  is  to  believe  on 
 Christ ;  that  is,  to  receive  him  as  he  is  revealed  in  the  gospel 
 as  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  clothed  in  our  nature,  loving  us  and 
 giving  himself  as  a  propitiation  for  our  sins.     As  there  is  no 
 
ROMANS  III.  23.  139 
 
 verb  in  the  text,  of  which  ouatoauvq  {rignteousness)  is  the  nomi- 
 native, we  must  either  borrow  the  verb  7iB(pavsp(OTac  from  ver. 
 21,  'the  righteousness  of  Gocl  is  vianifested  unto  all;'  or  what 
 better  suits  what  follows,  supply  Ipyzrac^  comes  (or  simply  £<rrr, 
 is)  unto  all  and  upon  all.  The  words  xat  knc  Tzavza^  {and  upon 
 all)  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  a.  c.  20.  31.  47.  Q^.  67;  in  the 
 Coptic  and  Ethiopic  versions;  and  by  several  of  the  Fathers. 
 Griesbach  and  Lachmann  leave  them  out  of  the  text;  most 
 modern  critical  editions  retain  them,  both  on  external  and 
 internal  grounds.  This  righteousness  is  ere  rrduza^,  extending 
 unto  all,  xal  inc  irdura^,  and  over  all,  as  covering  them  or  over- 
 flowing them.  "Eine  Gnadenfluth,"  says  Olshausen,  "die  an 
 alle  herandringt  und  sogar  liber  alle  hinliberstromt."  There 
 is  no  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile  recognized  in  this 
 method  of  salvation.  The  question  is  not  as  to  whether  men 
 are  of  this  or  that  race,  or  of  one  or  another  rank  in  life,  or  in 
 the  Church  visible  or  out  of  it.  This  righteousness  is  unto  all 
 who  believe.  Faith  is  all  that  is  demanded.  The  reason  why 
 the  same  method  of  salvation  is  suited  to  all  men  is  given  in  the 
 following  clause :  For  there  is  no  difference  among  men  as  to 
 their  mural  state  or  relation  to  God,  or  as  to  their  need  of  sal- 
 vation, or  as  to  what  is  necessary  to  that  end.  What  one  man 
 needs  ail  require,  and  what  is  suited  to  one  is  suited  to  and 
 sufficient  for  all.  The  characteristics,  therefore,  of  the  plan  of 
 salvation  presented  in  this  verse  are :  1.  That  the  righteousness 
 of  God  which  is  revealed  in  the  gospel  is  to  be  attained  by 
 faith,  not  by  works,  not  by  birth,  not  by  any  external  rite,  not 
 by  union  with  any  visible  Church,  but  simply  and  only  by 
 believing  on  Christ,  receiving  and  resting  upon  him.  2.  That 
 this  righteousness  is  suited  to  and  sufficient  for  all  men;  not 
 only  for  all  classes,  but  for  all  numerically;  so  that  no  one  can 
 perish  for  the  want  of  a  righteousness  suitable  and  sufficient, 
 clearly  revealed  and  freely  offered. 
 
 Verse  23.  For  all  have  sinned.  This  is  the  reason  why 
 there  is  no  difference  as  to  the  condition  of  men.  All  are 
 sinners.  The  apostle  uses  the  aorist  rjiiaprov,  sinned,  and  not 
 the  perfect,  have  sinned.  Riickert  says  this  is  an  inaccuracy; 
 Bengel  explains  it  by  assuming  that  the  original  act  in  paradise, 
 and  the  sinful  disposition,  and  also  the  acts  of  transgression 
 
140  ROMANS  III.  24. 
 
 flowing  from  it,  are  all  denoted.  Olshausen  says  that  the 
 reference  is  mainly  to  original  sin;  for  where  there  are  no 
 peccata  actualia,  there  is  still  need  of  redemption.  Dr.  Words- 
 worth, Canon  of  Westminster,  gives  the  same  explanation; 
 "All  men  sinned  in  Adam,  all  fell  in  him."  Meyer  says, 
 "  The  sinning  of  each  man  is  presented  as  an  historical  fact  of 
 the  past."  The  idea  that  all  men  now  stand  in  the  posture 
 of  sinners  before  God  might  be  expressed  either  by  saying,  All 
 have  sinned  (and  are  sinners,)  or  all  sinned.  The  latter  is  the 
 form  adopted  by  the  apostle.  And  come  short,  uaz^fjoovrai,  in 
 the  present  tense.  The  sinning  is  represented  as  past;  the 
 present  and  abiding  consequence  of  sin  is  the  want  of  the  glory 
 of  Grod.  By  do^a  vou  deou  is  most  naturally  understood  the 
 approbation  of  God,  the  do^a  which  comes  from  God ;  comp. 
 John  xii.  43,  "They  love  the  praise  of  men  rather  than  the 
 praise  (^do^au)  of  God."  Calvin  explains  it  as  the  glory  quce 
 coram  Deo  locum  habet,  glory  before  God,  i.  e.  in  his  estimation, 
 as  he  explains  bixacoauvq  dsou  to  be  righteousness  in  his  sight, 
 what  he  regards  as  such.  This  is  against  the  natural  force  of 
 the  genitive.  Others  understand  36^a  in  the  sense  of  glorying, 
 non  habent,  unde  coram  Deo  glorienticr,  Estius ;  so  also  Luther, 
 Tholuck,  (who  refers  to  John  v.  44,  So^av  Tzapa  rou  dsou,)  and 
 others.  This  idea  would  be  expressed  by  the  word  xauj^r^a:^, 
 ver.  27,  or  xaoj^/^jua,  iv.  2,  1  Cor.  v.  6,  ix.  16,  &c.  Others  again 
 say  that  the  glory  of  Crod  here  means  that  glory  which  God 
 promises  to  the  righteous,  as  in  v.  2.  So  Beza,  who  says, 
 "  do^a  est  meta  ad  quam  contendimus,  id  est,  vita  seterna,  quee 
 in  glorise  Dei  participatione  consistit."  RUckert  and  Olshausen 
 say  it  means  the  image  of  God :  '  Men  are  sinners,  and  are 
 destitute  of  the  image  of  God.'  But  this  is  not  the  sense  of  the 
 words ;  '  the  glory  of  God'  does  not  mean  a  glory  like  to  that 
 of  God.  The  first  interpretation,  which  is  the  simplest,  is  per- 
 fectly suited  to  the  context.  All  men  are  sinners  and  under 
 the  disapprobation  of  God.  In  this  respect  there  is  no  diifer- 
 ence  between  them ;  and  therefore  all  need  a  righteousness 
 not  their  own,  in  order  to  their  justification  before  God. 
 
 Verse  24.  Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the 
 redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  apostle  continues  his 
 exhibition  of  the  method  of  salvation  by  using  the  participle 
 
ROMANS  III.  24.  141 
 
 *being  justified,'  instead  of  the  verb  'we  are  justified,'  agreea- 
 bly to  a  mode  of  construction  not  unusual  in  the  Greek,  though 
 much  more  frequent  in  the  Hebrew.  Jr/.acoufisuo:  therefore 
 depends  on  vazepdbvrcu,  '  all  come  short  of  the  favour  of  God, 
 being  ju-stified  freely.  That  is,  since  justification  is  gratuitous, 
 the  subjects  of  it  are  in  themselves  unworthy;  they  do  not  merit 
 God's  favour.  Justification  is  as  to  us  ocoptdv,  a  matter  of  gift ; 
 on  the  part  of  God  it  is  an  act  of  grace ;  we  are  justified  rf^ 
 auToi)  yap'.Tc  hy  his  grace.  The  act,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
 is  altogether  gratuitous.  We  have  not  the  slightest  degree  of 
 merit  to  offer  as  the  ground  of  our  acceptance.  This  is  the 
 third  characteristic  of  the  method  of  justification  which  is  by 
 the  righteousness  of  God.  Though  it  is  so  entirely  gratuitous 
 as  regards  the  sinner,  yet  it  is  in  a  way  perfectly  consistent 
 with  the  justice  of  God.  It  is  through  "the  redemption  that  is 
 in  Clirist  Jesus,"  that  is,  of  which  he  is  the  auther. 
 
 The  word  d7ro?.'jTpa)<7c^,  redemption,  has  two  senses  in  the 
 New  Testament.  1.  It  means  properly  'a  deliverance  effected 
 by  the  payment  of  a  ransom.'  This  is  its  primary  etymological 
 meaning.  2.  It  means  deliverance  simply,  without  any  refer- 
 ence to  the  mode  of  its  accomplishment,  whether  by  power  "^r 
 wisdom.  Luke  xxi.  28,  "The  day  of  redemption  (i.  e.  of  del. 
 verance)  draweth  nigh;"  Heb.  xi.  25,  and  perhaps  Rom.  viii.  23; 
 compare  Isa.  1.  2,  "  Is  my  hand  shortened  at  all,  that  it  cannot 
 redeem?"  &c.  When  applied  to  the  work  of  Christ,  as  affect- 
 ing our  deliverance  from  the  punishment  of  sin,  it  is  always 
 taken  in  its  proper  sense,  deliverance  effected  hy  the  payment 
 of  a  ransom.  This  is  evident,  1.  Because  in  no  case  where  it 
 is  thus  used,  is  anything  said  of  the  precepts,  doctrines,  or 
 power  of  Christ,  as  the  means  by  which  the  deliverance  is 
 effected;  but  uniformly  his  sufferings  are  mentioned  as  the 
 ground  of  deliverance.  Eph.  i.  7,  "In  whom  we  have  redemp- 
 tion through  his  blood;"  Heb.  ix.  15,  "By  means  of  death,  for 
 the  redemption  of  transgressions,"  Col.  i.  14.  2.  In  this  pas- 
 sage the  nature  of  this  redemption  is  explained  by  the  following 
 verse :  it  is  not  by  truth,  nor  the  exhibition  of  excellence,  but 
 through  Christ  '  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  through  faith  in  his 
 blood.'  3.  Equivalent  expressions  fix  the  meaning  of  the  term 
 beyond  doubt.     1  Tim.  ii.  6,  "  Who  gave  himself  as  a  ransom 
 
142  ROMANS  III.  25. 
 
 for  all;"  Matt.  xx.  28,  "The  Son  of  man  came  to  give  his  life 
 as  a  ransom  for  many;"  1  Peter  i.  18,  "Ye  were  not  redeemed 
 with  corruptible  things,  such  as  silver  and  gold,  but  with  the 
 precious  blood  of  Christ,"  &c.  Accordingly  Christ  is  presented 
 as  a  Redeemer,  not  in  the  character  of  a  teacher  or  witness,  but 
 of  a  priest,  a  sacrifice,  a  propitiation,  &c.  That  from  which  we 
 are  redeemed  is  the  wrath  of  God ;  the  price  of  our  redemption 
 is  the  blood  of  Christ.  That  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  may 
 mean  bi/  him,  ev  having  its  instrumental  force,  as  in  Acts 
 xvii.  31,  (iv  divdp'c  <j5,)  h^  the  man.  As  this  use  of  the  prepo- 
 sition with  names  of  persons  is  infrequent,  others  retain  its 
 usual  force,  in.  Compare  Eph.  i.  7,  "  In  whom  (iv  (/))  we  have 
 redemption,"  &c.;  and  Col.  i.  14,  'We  are  justified  by  means 
 (dcd)  of  the  redemption  which  we  have  in  virtue  of  union  to 
 Christ.' 
 
 Verse  25.  WJiom  Cfod  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation^ 
 through  faith  in  his  blood,  &c.  This  clause  contains  the  ground 
 of  our  deliverance  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  of  our  accept- 
 ance with  God,  and  constitutes  therefore  the  second  step  in  the 
 apostle's  exhibition  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  He  had  already 
 taught  that  justification  was  not  by  works,  but  by  faith,  and 
 entirely  gratuitous ;  he  now  comes  to  show  how  it  is  that  this 
 exercise  of  mercy  to  the  sinner  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
 justice  of  God  and  the  demands  of  his  law.  The  word  T:po£- 
 d^sTo,  hath  set  forth,  also  signifies  to  purpose,  to  determine, 
 iiom.  i.  13;  compare  viii.  28.  If  this  sense  be  adopted  here, 
 the  meaning  would  be,  '  whom  God  hath  purposed  or  decreed  to 
 he  a  propitiation.'  But  the  context  refers  to  a  fact  rather  than 
 a  purpose ;  and  the  words  ec^  ivozt^cv  [for  the  manifestation,^ 
 as  expressing  the  design  of  the  manifestation  of  Christ,  is 
 decidedly  in  favour  of  the  common  interpretation.  There  are 
 three  interpretations  of  the  word  llaax'qptov,  [propitiation,) 
 which  are  worthy  of  attention.  It  was  understood  by  many 
 of  the  Fathers,  and  after  them  by  Luther,  Calvin,  Grotius, 
 Olshausen,  and  others,  to  mean  the  propitiatory,  or  mercy-seat, 
 3ver  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  on  which  the  high  priest,  on  the 
 great  day  of  atonement,  sprinkled  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices. 
 Here  it  was  that  God  was  propitiated,  and  manifested  himself 
 as  reconciled  to  his  people.     The  ground  of  th^.s  interpretation 
 
ROMANS  III.  25.  143 
 
 is,  that  the  original  word  here  used  is  employed  in  the  Septua- 
 gint  as  the  designation  of  the  mercy-seat,  Exod.  xxv.  18 — 20 ; 
 and  often  elsewhere.  The  meaning  would  then  be,  '  that  God 
 had  set  forth  Jesus  Christ  as  a  mercy-seat,  as  the  place  in 
 which,  or  the  person  in  whom  he  was  propitiated,  and  ready  to 
 forgive  and  accept  the  sinner.'  But  the  objections  to  this 
 mterpretation  are  serious.  1.  The  use  of  the  word  by  the 
 Greek  translators  of  the  Old  Testament,  probably  arose  from 
 a  mistake  of  the  proper  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  term.  The 
 Hebrew  word  means  properly  a  cover;  but  as  the  verb  whence 
 it  comes  means  literally,  to  cover,  and  metaphorically,  to  atone 
 for,  to  propitiate,  the  Greek  translators  incorrectly  rendered 
 the  noun  IXaarjptov,  the  Latin  propitiatoriuvi,  and  our  trans- 
 lators, the  mercy-seat,  a  sense  which  triBS  never  has.  It  is, 
 therefore,  in  itself  a  wrong  use  of  the  Greek  word.  2.  This 
 interpretation  is  not  consistent  with  the  analogy  of  Scripture. 
 The  sacred  writers  are  not  accustomed  to  compare  the  Saviour 
 to  the  cover  of  the  ark,  nor  to  illustrate  his  work  by  such  a 
 reference.  This  passage,  if  thus  interpreted,  would  stand  alone 
 in  this  respect.  3.  According  to  this  view,  there  is  an  obvious 
 incongruity  in  the  figure.  It  is  common  to  speak  of  the  blood 
 of  a  sacrifice,  but  not  of  the  blood  of  the  mercy-seat.  Besides, 
 Paul  in  this  very  clause  speaks  of  '■''his  blood."  See  Deylingit 
 Observationes,  Part  II.,  sect.  41,  and  Krebss  New  Testament, 
 illustrated  from  the  writings  of  Josephus. 
 
 The  second  interpretation  supposes  that  the  word  d^ufia 
 {sacrifice)  is  to  be  supplied :  '  Whom  he  has  set  forth  as  a  pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice.'  1.  In  favour  of  this  interpretation  is  the 
 etymology  of  the  word.  It  is  derived  from  t?daxo/jtai,  to  appease, 
 to  conciliate.  Hence  UaaTijpco(;,  as  an  adjective,  is  applied  to 
 anything  designed  to  propitiate;  as  in  the  expressions  "pro- 
 pitiatory monument,"  "propitiatory  death."  {Josephus,  Ant. 
 XVI.  7.  1  Lib.  de  Mace,  sect.  17.  See  Krebs  on  this  verse.) 
 2.  The  use  of  analogous  terms  in  reference  to  the  sacrificial 
 services  under  the  old  dispensation,  as  aoDzrjpcov,  sacrificium  pro 
 salute,  Exod.  xx.  24,  xxviii.  29,  for  which  we  have  in  Exod. 
 xxiv.  5,  d^uaia  acoTrjpiou;  so  yaptaz-qpia,  thank-offerings,  to 
 xa&dpffcov,  the  offering  for  purification.  In  keeping  with  all 
 these  terms  is  the  use  of  IXaazijpcov  {?^u/ia)  in  the   sense  of 
 
144  ROMANS  III.  25. 
 
 propitiatory  sacrifice.  3.  The  whole  context  favours  this  ex- 
 planation, inasmuch  as  the  apostle  immediately  speaks  of  the 
 blood  of  this  sacrifice,  and  as  his  design  is  to  show  how  the 
 gratuitous  justification  of  men  can  be  reconciled  with  the  justice 
 of  God.  It  is  only  a  modification  of  this  interpretation,  if 
 tXaazi^pcov  be  taken  substantively  and  rendered  propitiation,  as 
 is  done  in  the  Vulgate  and  by  Beza. 
 
 The  third  interpretation  assumes  that  IXaoTr^pcov  is  here  used 
 in  the  masculine  gender,  and  means  propitiator.  This  is  the 
 explanation  given  by  Semler  and  Wahl ;  but  this  is  contrary  to 
 the  usao-e  of  the  word  and  inconsistent  with  the  context.  The 
 obvious  meaning,  therefore,  of  this  important  passage  is,  that 
 God  has  publicly  set  forth  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  sight 
 of  the  intelligent  universe,  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the 
 sins  of  men.  It  is  the  essential  idea  of  such  a  sacrifice,  that  it 
 is  a  satisfaction  to  justice.  It  terminates  on  God.  Its  primary 
 design  is  not  to  produce  any  subjective  change  in  the  ofierer, 
 but  to  appease  God.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  the  word,  from 
 which  we  have  no  right  to  depart.  Such  also  is  the  idea  which 
 it  of  necessity  would  convey  to  every  Gentile  and  every  Jewish 
 reader,  and  therefore  such  was  the  idea  which  the  apostl-e 
 intended  to  express.  For  if  we  are  not  to  understand  the 
 language  of  the  Bible  in  its  historical  sense,  that  is,  in  the 
 sense  in  which  the  sacred  writers  knew  it  would  be  understood 
 by  those  to  whom  they  wrote,  it  ceases  to  have  any  determinate 
 meaning  whatever,  and  may  be  explained  according  to  the 
 private  opinion  of  every  interpreter.  But  if  such  be  the  mean- 
 ing of  these  words,  then  they  conclusively  teach  that  the  ground 
 of  our  justification  is  no  subjective  change  in  us,  but  the  propi- 
 tiatory sacrifice  of  Christ.  Olshausen,  who  elsewhere  plainly 
 teaches  the  doctrine  of  subjective  justification,  in  his  comment 
 on  this  verse,  admits  the  common  Church  doctrine.  He  denies 
 that  the  work  of  Christ  terminates  on  the  sinner.  "Every 
 sacrifice,"  he  says,  "proposed  to  expiate  the  guilt  of  man,  and 
 to  appease  the  wrath  of  God,  consequently  the  sacrifice  of  all 
 sacrifices,  in  which  alone  all  others  have  any  truth,  must 
 accomplish  that  which  they  only  symbolized."  The  doctrine 
 of  the  Scotists,  he  adds,  of  gratuita  aceeptatio,  refutes  itself, 
 because  God  can  never  take  a  thing  for  what  it  is  not,  and 
 
ROMANS  III.  25.  145 
 
 therefore  cannot  accept  as  a  satisfaction  what  is  no  satisfaction. 
 Grotius's  view  of  an  acceptilatio,  which  amounts  to  the  same 
 thing  with  the  doctrine  of  Scotus,  and  resolves  the  atonement 
 into  a  mere  governmental  display,  (a  popular  theory  reproduced 
 as  a  novelty  in  the  American  Churches,)  he  also  rejects.  He 
 says,  "So  there  remains  nothing  but  the  acute  theory  of 
 Anselm,  properly  understood,  of  a  satisfactio  vicaria,  which 
 completely  agrees  with  the  teachings  of  Scripture,  and  meets 
 the  demands  of  science."*  According  to  Olshausen,  therefore, 
 ("die  tiefste  Erorterungen,")  the  profoundest  disclosures  of 
 modern  science  have  at  last  led  back  to  the  simple  old  doctrine 
 of  a  real  vicarious  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God,  as  the 
 ground  of  the  sinner's  justification. 
 
 Through  faith.  These  words,  dca  Tztaricoi;,  may  be  connected 
 with  dcxacou/jLSUoc  as  coordinate  with  dca  d.7toXuTpcoat(o^:  'Being 
 justified  through  the  redemption^  that  is,  being  justified  through 
 faith.^  But  this  breaks  the  connection  between  Ttpoi&tzo  and 
 e/c  iudei^iv.  Meyer  connects  both  dca  mazsox:  and  iv  rcw  aifiarc 
 with  ■Kpoed^BTo:  '  God  hath,  by  means  of  faith,  by  his  blood,  set 
 forth  Christ  as  a  propitiation.'  But  the  faith  of  man  is  not  the 
 means  by  which  God  set  forth  Christ.  The  most  natural  con- 
 nection is  with  tXaaz^pcou,  '  a  propitiation  through  faith,'  i.  e. 
 which  is  received  or  appropriated  through  faith.  It  is  a  more 
 doubtful  question  how  the  words  in  his  blood  are  to  be  con- 
 nected. The  most  obvious  construction  is  that  adopted  in  our 
 version,  as  well  as  in  the  Vulgate,  and  by  Luther,  Calvin, 
 Olshausen,  and  many  others,  'Through  faith  in  his  blood;'  so 
 that  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  is  the 
 ground  of  the  confidence  expressed  in  Tr/orrc,  "in  Christi  san- 
 guine repositam  habemus  fiduciam."  Calvin.  To  this  it  is 
 objected,  that  the  construction  of  n'cazcz  with  kv  is  altogether 
 unauthorized.  But  there  are  so  many  cases  in  the  New  Testa 
 ment  in  which  this  construction  must  be  admitted,  unless 
 violence  be  resorted  to,  that  this  objection  cannot  be  allowed 
 much  weight.  <  See  Gal.  iii.  26,  Eph.  i.  15,  Col.  i.  4,  1  Tim.  iii.  13, 
 2  Tim.  iii.  15.     Others  connect  both  dca  ;rr'oT£wc  and  ev  zcf 
 
 *  So  bleibt  nur  die  richtig  verstande  hOchst  scharfsinuige  Anselmische 
 Theorip  (satisfactio  vicaria)  als  diejenige  abrig,  die  der  Schriftlehre  eben  sf 
 sehr  genttgt,  als  den  AnsprQcher  der  Wissenscbaft. 
 
 10 
 
146  ROMANS  III.  25. 
 
 mfiazi  as  distinct  qualifying  clauses  with  DMfTVTJp^ov;  the  former, 
 as  De  Wette  says,  expressing  the  means  of  the  subjective  appro- 
 priation, the  other  the  means  of  the  objective  exhibition.  That 
 is,  '  God  has  set  forth  Christ  as  a  propitiation,  which  is  availa- 
 ble through  faith,  and  he  is  a  propitiation  by  his  blood.'  Still 
 another  method  is  to  connect  c v  zaJ  ac/xavi  with  ov;  '  Whom  God 
 has  set  forth  in  his  blood  as  a  propitiation.'  The  construction 
 first  mentioned,  and  sanctioned  by  the  translators  of  the  English 
 Bible,  gives  a  perfectly  good  sense,  and  is  most  agreeable  t<i> 
 the  collocation  of  the  words.  The  blood  of  Christ  is  an  ex- 
 pression used  in  obvious  reference  to  the  sacrificial  characte'* 
 of  his  death.  It  was  not  his  death  as  a  witness  or  as  an  exam 
 pie,  but  as  a  sacrifice,  that  expiates  sin.  And  by  his  blood,  is 
 not  to  be  understood  simply  his  death,  but  his  whole  work  for 
 our  redemption,  especially  all  his  expiatory  sufferings  from  the 
 beginning  to  the  end  of  his  life. 
 
 This  whole  passage,  which  Olshausen  happily  calls  the  "Acro- 
 polis of  the  Christian  faith,"  is  of  special  importance.  It 
 teaches  that  we  are  justified  in  a  manner  which  is  entirely  of 
 grace,  without  any  merit  of  our  own;  through,  or  by  means 
 of  faith,  and  on  the  ground  of  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  Jesua 
 Christ.  It  is  evident  from  this  statement,  that  Paul  intended  to 
 exclude  from  all  participation  in  the  meritorious  ground  of  our 
 acceptance  with  God,  not  only  those  works  performed  in  obedi- 
 ence to  the  law,  and  with  a  legal  spirit,  but  those  which  flow 
 from  faith  and  a  renewed  heart.  The  part  assigned  to  faith  in 
 the  work  of  our  reconciliation  to  God  is  that  of  an  instrument ; 
 it  apprehends  or  appropriates  the  meritorious  ground  of  our 
 acceptance,  the  work  or  righteousness  of  Christ.  It  is  not 
 itself  that  ground,  nor  the  means  of  attaining  an  inherent 
 righteousness  acceptable  to  God.  This  is  obvious,  1.  Because 
 our  justification  would  not  then  be  gratuitous,  or  without  works. 
 Paul  would  then  teach  the  very  reverse  of  the  doctrine  which 
 he  has  been  labouring  to  establish,  viz.  that  it  is  not  on  account 
 of  works  of  righteousness,  i.  e.  works  of  the  highest  order  of 
 axcellence,  that  we  are  accepted,  since  these  works  would  then 
 be  the  real  ground  of  our  acceptance.  2.  Because  we  are  said 
 to  be  justified  by  faith  of  which  Christ  is  the  object,  by  faith 
 in  his  blood,  by  faith  in  him  as  a  sacrifice.     These  expressions 
 
ROMANS  III.  25.  147 
 
 cannot  possibly  mean,  that  faith  in  Christ  is,  or  produces,  a 
 state  of  mind  which  is  acceptable  to  God.  Faith  in  a  sacrifice 
 is,  by  the  very  force  of  the  terms,  reliance  on  a  sacrifice.  It 
 would  be  to  contradict  the  sentiment  of  the  whole  ancient  and 
 Jewish  world,  to  make  the  design  of  a  sacrifice  the  production 
 of  a  state  of  mind  acceptable  to  the  Being  worshipped,  which 
 moral  state  was  to  be  the  ground  of  acceptance.  There  is  no 
 more  pointed  way  of  denying  that  we  are  justified  on  account 
 of  the  state  of  our  own  hearts,  or  the  character  of  our  own  acts, 
 than  by  saying  that  we  are  justified  by  a  propitiatory  sacri- 
 fice. This  latter  declaration  places  of  necessity  the  ground  of 
 acceptance  out  of  ourselves ;  it  is  something  done  for  us,  not 
 something  experienced,  or  produced  in  us,  or  performed  by  us. 
 There  is  no  rule  of  interpretation  more  obvious  and  more 
 important  than  that  which  requires  us  to  understand  the  lan- 
 guage of  a  writer  in  thfe  sense  in  which  he  knew  he  would  be 
 understood  by  the  persons  to  whom  he  wrote.  To  explain, 
 therefore,  the  language  of  the  apostle  in  reference  to  the  sacri- 
 fice of  Christ,  and  the  mode  of  our  acceptance  with  God,  other- 
 wise than  in  accordance  with  the  universally  prevalent  opinions 
 on  the  nature  of  sacrifices,  is  to  substitute  our  philosophy  of 
 religion  for  the  inspired  teachings  of  the  sacred  writers. 
 
 To  declare  Ms  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are 
 past,  through  the  forbearance  of  Grod.  Having  stated  the 
 nature  and  ground  of  the  gospel  method  of  justification,  Paul 
 comes,  in  this  clause,  to  state  its  object:  'God  has  set  forth 
 Christ,  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  to  declare  his  righteousness.' 
 It  should  be  remembered  that  the  object  of  the  death  of  Christ, 
 being  very  comprehensive,  is  variously  presented  in  the  word 
 of  God.  In  other  words,  the  death  of  Christ  answers  a  great 
 number  of  infinitely  important  ends  in  the  government  of  God. 
 It  displays  "his  manifold  wisdom,"  Eph.  iii.  10,  11;  it  was 
 designed  "to  purify  unto  himself  a  people  zealous  of  good 
 works,"  Titus  ii.  14;  to  break  down  the  distinction  between  the 
 Jews  and  Gentiles,  Eph.  ii.  15 ;  to  effect  the  reconciliation  of 
 both  Jews  and  Gentiles  unto  God,  Eph.  ii.  16;  "to  deliver  us 
 from  this  present  evil  world,"  Gal.  i.  4;  to  secure  the  forgive- 
 ness of  sins,  Eph.  i.  7;  to  vindicate  his  ways  to  men,  in  so  long 
 passing  by  or  remitting  their  sins,  Rom.  iii.  25 ;  to  reconcile  the 
 
148  ROMANS  III.  25. 
 
 exercise  of  mercy  "with  the  requirements  of  justice,  ver.  26,  &c. 
 These  ends  are  not  inconsistent,  but  perfectly  harmonious. 
 The  end  here  specially  mentioned  is,  to  declare  his  righteous- 
 ness. These  words  here,  as  elsewhere,  are  variously  explained. 
 1.  They  are  understood  of  some  one  of  the  moral  attributes 
 of  God,  as  his  veracity,  by  Locke ;  or  his  mercy,  by  Grotius, 
 Koppe,  and  many  of  the  moderns.  Both  of  these  interpreta- 
 tions are  forced,  because  they  assign  very  unusual  meanings  to 
 the  word  righteousness,  and  meanings  little  suited  to  the  con- 
 text. 2.  Most  commentators,  who  render  the  phrase  'right- 
 eousness, or  justification  of  God,'  in  chap.  i.  17,  iii.  21,  God's 
 method  of  justification,  adopt  that  sense  here.  The  meaning 
 would  then  be,  that  '  God  had  set  forth  Christ  as  a  propitia- 
 tion, to  exhibit  his  method  of  justification,  both  in  reference  to 
 the  sins  committed  under  the  old  dispensation,  and  those  com- 
 mitted under  the  new.'  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the 
 meaning  of  dcxa.coa()v/j,  which  never  has  the  sense  of  "method 
 of  justification,"  and  is  unsuited  to  the  context.  3.  The  great 
 majority  of  commentators  understand  the  biy.moawfj  deou  here 
 spoken  of  to  be  the  justice  of  God.  This  is  the  proper  meaning 
 of  the  terms,  and  this  the  context  demands.  Justice  is  the 
 attribute  with  which  the  remission,  or  passing  by,  of  sins  with- 
 out punishment,  seemed  to  be  in  conflict,  and  which  therefore 
 required  vindication.  It  was  necessary  that  the  justice  of  God 
 should  be  publicly  exhibited,  because  he  forgave  sin.  Besides, 
 the  apostle  himself  explains  what  he  means  by  dcxouoabvTj,  when 
 he  adds  that  God  set  forth  Christ  as  a  propitiation,  in  order 
 that  he  might  he  just,  and  yet  justify  the  ungodly.  The  satis- 
 faction of  justice  therefore  was  the  immediate  and  specific  end 
 of  the  death  of  Christ.  This  was  indeed  a  means  to  a  higher 
 end.  Justice  was  satisfied,  in  order  that  men  might  be  sancti- 
 fied and  saved ;  and  men  are  sanctified  and  saved,  in  order  that 
 might  be  known,  in  the  ages  to  come,  the  exceeding  riches  of 
 the  grace  of  God. 
 
 For  the  remission  of  sins,  dta  ttjv  Tzdpeacv,  x.t.X.  This  admits 
 of  different  explanations.  1.  Some  give  did  with  the  accusa- 
 tive the  same  force  as  with  the  genitive ;  through  the  forgive- 
 ness of  sins.  That  is,  the  righteousness  of  God  was  manifested 
 by  means  of  remitting  sins.     This  is  contrary  to  the  proper 
 
ROMANS  III.  25.  149 
 
 meaning  of  the  words,  and  supposes  that  dcxacoauvrj  means  good- 
 ness.    Beza,  however,  adopts  this  view,  and  renders  the  words, 
 per  remissionem;  so  also  Reiche,  Koppe,  and  others.     2.  It  is 
 taken  to  mean,  as  to,  as  it  regards.     This  gives  a  good  sense. 
 '  To  declare  his  righteousness,  as  to,  or  as  it  'regards  the  remis- 
 iion  of  sins.'     So  Raphelius,  [Observationes,  &c.,  p.  241,)  who 
 quotes  Polybius,  Lib.  5,  ch.  24,  p.  517,  in  support  of  this  inter- 
 pretation.    This  view  is  given  by  Professor  Stuart.     But  the 
 preposition  in  question  very  rarely  if  ever  has  this  force.     No 
 such  meaning   is   assigned  to  it  by  Wahl,    Bretschueider,  or 
 Winer.     3.  The  common  force  of  the  preposition  is  retained, 
 on  account  of.     This  clause  would  then  assign  the  ground  or 
 reason  of  the  exhibition  of  the  righteousness  of  God.    It  became 
 necessary  that  there  should  be  this  exhibition,  because  God  had 
 overlooked  or  pardoned  sin  from  the  beginning.     This  is  the 
 most  natural  and  satisfactory  interpretation  of  the  passage.    So 
 the  Vulgate,  propter  remissionem,  and  almost  all  the  moderns. 
 4.  Others  again  make  the  preposition  express  the  final  cause  or 
 object,  'To  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  sake  of  the  remis- 
 sion of  sins,'  i.  e.  that  sins  might  be  remitted.     So  Calvin,  who 
 says,    "  Tantundem   valet    prsepositio    causalis,    acsi    dixisset, 
 remissionis  ergo,  vel  in  hunc  finem  ut  peccata  deleret.     Atque 
 haec  definitio  vel  exegesis  rursus  confirmat  quod  jam  aliquoties 
 monui,    non  justificari    homines,   quia  re  ipsa   tales    sint,  sed 
 imputatione."     But  this  is  a  very  questionable  force  of  the  pre- 
 position: see  Winer  s  G-ram.,  §  53,  c.    The  third  interpretation, 
 therefore,  just  mentioned,  is  to  be  preferred.    The  word  Tzdpeac;;, 
 remission,  more  strictly  means  pretermission,  a  passing  by,  or 
 overlooking.     Paul  repeatedly  uses  the  proper  term  for  remis- 
 sion {d<feac(;,)  as  in  Eph.  i.  7,  Heb.  ix.  22,  &c.;  but  the  word 
 here  used  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament.    Many, 
 therefore,  consider  the  selection  of  this  particular  term  as 
 designed  to  express  the  idea,  that  sins  committed  before  the 
 advent  of  Christ  might  more  properly  be  said  to  be  overlooked, 
 than  actually  pardoned,  until  the  sacrifice  of  the  Redeemer  had 
 been  completed ;  see  Wolf's  Curoe.    Reference  is  made  to  Acts 
 xvii.  30,  where  God  is  said  to  have  overlooked  the  times  of 
 ignorance.     But  as  the  word  used  by  the  apostle  is  actually 
 used  to  express  the  idea  of  remission,  in  Greek  writers,  (see 
 
150  ROMANS  III.  25. 
 
 Eisner,)  the  majority  of  commentators  adopt  that  meaning  here. 
 The  words  7zdps.ac(:  and  aiptai^:  exjDress  the  same  thing,  but  under 
 different  aspects.  They  differ  only  as  not  punisUng,  and  par- 
 doning. To  say  that  God  did  not  punish  sins  under  the  old 
 dispensation,  is  only  a  different  way  of  saying  that  he  pardoned 
 them.  So  "not  to  impute  iniquity"  is  the  negative  statement 
 of  justification.  This  passage,  however,  is  one  of  the  few  which 
 the  Romanists  quote  in  support  of  their  doctrine  that  there  was 
 no  real  pardon,  justification,  or  salvation,  before  the  advent  of 
 Christ.  The  ancient  believers  at  death,  according  to  their  doc- 
 trine, did  not  pass  into  heaven,  but  into  the  limbus  patrum, 
 where  they  continued  in  a  semi-conscious  state  until  Christ's 
 descensus  ad  inferos  for  their  deliverance.  The  moden  trans- 
 cendental theologians  of  Germany,  who  approach  Romanism  in 
 so  many  other  points,  agree  with  the  Papists  also  here.  Thus 
 Olshausen  says,  "  Under  the  Old  Testament  there  was  no  real, 
 but  only  a  symbolical  forgiveness  of  sins."  Our  Lord,  however, 
 speaks  of  Abraham  as  in  heaven;  and  the  Psalms  are  filled 
 with  petitions  and  thanksgiving  for  God's  pardoning  mercy. 
 
 The  words,  that  are  past,  seem  distinctly  to  refer  to  the  times 
 before  the  advent  of  Christ.  This  is  plain  from  their  opposition 
 to  the  expression,  at  this  time,  in  the  next  verse,  and  from  a 
 comparison  with  the  parallel  passage  in  Heb.  ix.  15,  "  He  is  the 
 Mediator  for  the  redemption  of  sins  that  were  under  the  first 
 testament."  The  words  Iv  vfj  ^yo^yj,  rendered  through  the  for- 
 bearance of  G-od,  admit  of  different  explanations.  1.  They  may 
 ^e  connected  with  the  words  just  mentioned,  and  the  meaning 
 be,  '  Sins  that  are  past,  or,  which  were  committed  during  the 
 forbearance  of  God;'  see  Acts  xvii.  20,  where  the  times  before 
 the  advent  are  described  in  much  the  same  manner.  2.  Or  they 
 may  be  taken,  as  by  our  translators,  as  giving  the  cause  of  the 
 remission  of  these  sins,  'They  were  remitted,  or  overlooked 
 through  the  divine  forbearance  or  mercy.'  Forgiveness  however 
 is  always  referred  to  grace,  not  to  forbearance.  The  former 
 interpretation  is  also  better  suited  to  the  context.  The  mean- 
 ing of  the  whole  verse  therefore  is,  '  God  has  set  forth  Jesus 
 Christ  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice,  to  vindicate  his  righteousness 
 or  justice,  on  account  of  the  remission  of  the  sins  committed 
 under   the   former  dispensation;'    and   not   under  the  former 
 
ROMANS  III.  26.  151 
 
 dispensation  only,  but  also  in  the  remission  of  sin«  at  the  pre- 
 sent time,  as  the  apostle  immediately  adds.  The  interpretation 
 of  the  latter  part  of  this  verse,  given  above,  according  to  which 
 rd  Tzpoyeyovoza  hixapz'jfJLaTa,  {the  sins  before  committed,)  mean 
 the  sins  committed  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  is  that  which 
 both  the  context  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture  demand.  In  the 
 early  Church,  however,  there  were  some  who  held  that  tliere  is 
 no  forgiveness  for  post-baptismal  sins — a  doctrine  recently 
 reproduced  in  England  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Pusey.  The  advocates 
 of  this  doctrine  make  this  passage  teach  that  Christ  was  set 
 forth  as  a  propitiation  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  committed 
 before  baptism,  that  is,  before  conversion  or  the  professed 
 adoption  of  the  gospel.  Ruckert  and  Reiche,  among  the  recent 
 Grerman  writers,  give  the  same  interpretation.  This  would 
 alter  the  whole  character  of  the  gospel.  There  could  be  no 
 salvation  for  any  human  being ;  for  all  men  sin  hourly,  after  as 
 well  as  before  baptism  or  conversion.  No  man  at  any  moment 
 of  his  life  is  perfectly  conformed  to  the  law  of  God.  Conscience 
 always  pronounces  sentence  against  us.  There  could  be  no 
 peace  in  believing,  no  imputation  or  possession  of  righteousness. 
 We  should  not  now  be  under  grace,  but  under  law,  as  com- 
 pletely as  though  Christ  had  never  died. 
 
 Vekse  26.  To  declare,  I  say,  his  righteousness,  &c.  This 
 clause  is  a  resumption  of  what  was  said  before,  rrpbc;  euosc^iv 
 being  coordinate  with  the  foregoing  src  ivdec^cv,  both  depending 
 upon  Tipoed-ezo:  'He  set  him  forth  eli;  and — npo^.'  The  two 
 prepositions  have  the  same  sense,  as  both  express  the  design  or 
 object  for  which  anything  is  done :  '  Christ  was  set  forth  as  a 
 sacrifice  for  the  manifestation  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  on 
 account  of  the  remission  of  the  sins  of  old — for  the  manifesta- 
 tion of  his  righteousness  at  this  time.'  There  were  two  pur- 
 poses to  be  answered ;  the  vindication  of  the  character  of  God 
 in  passing  by  former  sins,  and  in  passing  them  by  now.  The 
 words  h  r(p  vuv  xcupcp,  [at  this  time,)  therefore  stand  opposed 
 to  iv  T7j  dvo^fj,  (during  the  forbearance.)  The  death  of  Christ 
 vindicated  the  justice  of  God  in  forgiving  sin  in  all  ages  of  the 
 world,  as  those  sins  were  by  the  righteous  God,  as  Olshauben 
 Bays,  "punished  in  Christ." 
 
 That  he  might  be  just,  &c..  e/c  ^o  elvoi  abzbv  dixoiov,  in  order 
 
152  ROMANS  III.  26. 
 
 that,  as  expressing  the  design,  and  not  merely  the  result  of  the 
 exhibition  of  Christ  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  This  clause 
 therefore  expresses  more  definitely  what  is  meant  by  elz  iudee^eu 
 daacoauvr^(;.  Christ  was  set  forth  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  mani- 
 festation of  the  righteousness  or  justice  of  God,  that  is,  that  he 
 might  be  just,  although  the  justifier  of  the  ungodly.  The  word 
 Just  expresses  the  idea  of  uprightness  generally,  of  being  or 
 doing  what  the  nature  of  the  case  demands.  But  when  spoken 
 of  the  conduct  of  a  judge,  and  in  reference  to  his  treatment  of 
 sin,  it  must  mean  more  specifically  that  modification  of  general 
 rectitude,  which  requires  that  sin  should  be  treated  according 
 to  its  true  nature,  that  the  demands  of  law  or  justice  should  not 
 be  disregarded.  A  judge  is  unjust  when  he  allows  a  criminal 
 to  be  pronounced  righteous,  and  treated  accordingly.  On  the 
 other  hand,  he  acts  justly  when  he  pronounces  the  ofi"ender 
 guilty,  and  secures  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  which  the  law 
 denounces.  What  the  apostle  means  to  say  is,  that  there  is  no 
 such  disregard  to  the  claims  of  justice  in  the  justification  of  the 
 sinner  who  believes  in  Christ.  This  is  seen  and  acknowledged, 
 when  it  is  known  that  he  is  justified  neither  on  account  of  his 
 own  acts  or  character,  nor  by  a  mere  sovereign  dispensing  with 
 the  demands  of  the  law,  but  on  the  ground  of  a  complete  satis- 
 faction rendered  by  his  substitute,  i.  e.  on  the  ground  of  the 
 obedience  and  death  of  Christ.  The  gratuitous  nature  of  this 
 justification  is  not  at  all  afiected  by  its  proceeding  on  the 
 ground  of  this  perfect  satisfaction.  It  is,  to  the  sinner,  still  the 
 most  undeserved  of  all  favours,  to  which  he  not  only  has  not  the 
 shadow  of  a  personal  claim,  but  the  very  reverse  of  which  he 
 has  most  richly  merited.  It  is  thus  that  justice  and  mercy  are 
 harmoniously  united  in  the  sinner's  justification.  Justice  is  no 
 less  justice,  although  mercy  has  her  perfect  work ;  and  mercy 
 is  no  less  mercy,  although  justice  is  completely  satisfied. 
 
 'Just  and  the  justifier,'  &c.  In  the  simple  language  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  propositions  and  statements  are  frequently  con- 
 nected by  the  copulative  conjunction  whose  logical  relation 
 would  be  more  definitely  expressed  by  various  particles  in  other 
 languages;  as  Malachi  ii.  14,  "Against  whom  thou  hast  dealt 
 treacherously,  and  she  was  thy  companion,"  i.  e.  although  she 
 was  thy  companion.     "They  spake  in  my  name,  and  (although) 
 
ROMANS  III.  26.  153 
 
 I  sent  them  not;"  see  Cf-esenius's Lexicon.  In  like  manner  the 
 corresponding  particle  in  the  Greek  Testament  is  used  with 
 scarcely  less  latitude.  Matt.  xii.  5,  "  The  priests  profane  the 
 Sabbath,  and  (and  yet)  are  blameless;"  Rom.  i.  13,  "I  pur- 
 posed to  come  unto  you,  and  (but)  was  let  hitherto;"  Heb. 
 iii.  9,  "Proved  me,  and  (although  they)  saw  my  works;"  see 
 WaJiVs  Lex.  and  Winer  8  Gram.,  §  57.  So  in  the  present 
 instance  it  may  be  rendered,  "  That  God  might  be  just,  and 
 yet,  or  although  the  justifier,"  &c.  Him  which  helieveth  in 
 Jesus,  literally,  'Him  who  is  of  the  faith  of  Jesus;"  so  Gal. 
 ii.  7,  "They  which  are  of  faith,"  for  believers;  Gal.  ii.  12, 
 "They  of  the  circumcision,"  i.  e.  the  circumcised;  see  Rom. 
 ii.  8,  iv.  12,  &c.  Faith  of  Jesus,  faith  of  which  Jesus  is  the 
 object ;  see  ver.  22.  Our  version  therefore  expresses  the  sense 
 accurately.  He  whom  God  is  just  in  justifying,  is  the  man  who 
 relies  on  Jesus  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice.  That  justification  ia 
 a  forensic  act,  is  of  necessity  implied  in  this  passage.  If  to 
 justify  was  to  make  subjectively  just  or  righteous,  what  neces- 
 sity was  there  for  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  ?  Why  should  he  die, 
 in  order  that  it  might  be  just  in  God  to  render  men  holy  ?  It 
 were  an  act  of  mercy  to  make  the  vilest  malefactor  good;  but 
 to  justify  such  a  malefactor  would  be  to  trample  justice  under 
 foot.  The  doctrine  therefore  of  subjective  justification  perverts 
 the  whole  gospel.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  orthodox 
 interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  this  whole  paragraph  is 
 acknowledged  to  be  correct,  even  by  those  who  cannot  them- 
 selves receive  the  doctrine  which  it  teaches.  Thus  Kollner,  one 
 of  the  latest  and  most  candid  of  the  German  commentators, 
 says :  "  It  is  clear  that  the  true  sense  of  this  passage  entirely 
 agrees  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  concerning  vicarious 
 satisfaction,  as  unfolded  in  the  Lutheran  symbols.  Neverthe- 
 less, although  it  is  certain  that  Paul  intended  to  teach  the  doc- 
 trine of  vicarious  satisfaction,  not  merely  as  a  figure,  (or  in  the 
 way  of  accommodation,)  but  as  a  matter  of  full  personal  con- 
 viction; yet  it  is  easy  to  see  how  he  was  necessarily  led  to 
 adopt  this  view,  from  the  current  opinions  of  the  age  in  which 
 he  lived."  He  proceeds  to  show  that  as  the  idea  of  vicarious 
 punishment  was  incorporated  in  the  Jewish  theology,  the  guilt 
 of  the  ofiendor  being  laid  upon  the  head  of  the  victim  offered  ia 
 
164  ROMANS  III.  27. 
 
 sacrifice,  Paul  was  unavoidably  led  to  conceive  of  the  work  of 
 Christ  under  this  form.  As,  however,  this  theory,  according 
 to  KoUner,  arose  out  of  a  false  view  of  the  nature  of  God,  and 
 of  his  relation  to  the  world,  he  cannot  regard  it  as  a  divine 
 revelation.  He  proceeds  to  unfold  what  he  supposes  to  be 
 the  eternal  truth  contained  under  these  Jewish  ideas,  (unter 
 der  Hulle  der  Zeitvorstellungen,)  and  presents  very  much  the 
 governmental  view  of  the  atonement  introduced  by  Grotius,  and 
 reproduced  in  this  country  by  the  younger  Edwards  and  his 
 followers.  "Did  Paul,"  says  Kollner,  "merely  teach  that  God 
 made  a  symbolical  exhibition  of  justice  in  the  sufferings  of 
 Christ,  we  might  acquiesce  in  his  teaching,  but  he  says  more ; 
 he  constantly  asserts  that  men  are  justified  or  constituted  right- 
 eous through  the  blood  of  Christ,  iii.  21,  v.  19,  Eph.  i.  7,  Col. 
 i.  14."  Such  writers  are  at  least  free  from  the  guilt  of  per- 
 verting the  word  of  God.  They  allow  the  Bible  to  mean  what 
 it  says,  although  they  refuse  to  submit  to  its  teaching.  This  is 
 better  than  not  only  refusing  to  submit,  but  forcing  the  Scrip- 
 tures to  teach  our  own  foregone  conclusions.  In  Germany,  the 
 subjection  of  the  Bible  to  philosophy  has  come  to  an  end.  In 
 this  country,  it  is  still  struggling  for  liberty.  It  is  desirable 
 that  the  separation  should  here,  as  there,  be  made  complete, 
 between  those  who  bow  to  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God, 
 and  those  who  acknowledge  some  higher  rule  of  faith.  Then 
 both  parties  can  agree  as  to  what  the  Bible  really  teaches. 
 
 Verse  27.  Where  is  boasting  then?  It  is  excluded.  By 
 what  law  ?  of  works  ?  Nay;  hut  by  the  law  of  faith.  In  this 
 and  the  following  verses  the  apostle  presents  the  tendency  and 
 results  of  the  glorious  plan  of  salvation,  which  he  had  just 
 unfolded.  It  excludes  boasting,  ver.  27.  It  presents  God  in 
 his  true  character,  as  the  God  and  Father  of  the  Gentiles  as  well 
 as  of  the  Jews,  vs.  29,  30 ;  and  it  establishes  the  law,  ver.  81. 
 The  word  xabyri^aic,  (boasting,)  is  used  to  express  the  idea  of  self- 
 gratulation  with  or  without  sufficient  reason.  In  the  former 
 case,  it  is  properly  rendered  rejoicing.,  as  when  Paul  speaks  of 
 the  Thessalonians  being  his  "crown  of  rejoicing."  In  the 
 latter,  the  word  boasting  is  the  correct  version.  The  word 
 properly  means  the  act  of  boasting  or  rejoicing;  at  times,  by 
 metonymy,  the  ground  or  reason  of  boasting,  as  in  Rom.  xv.  17. 
 
ROMANS  III.  28.  155 
 
 Either  sense  suits  this  passage.  The  article  .)  '/.aby^iicii^  the 
 boasting,  may  have  its  appropriate  force.  The  reference  row- 
 ever  is  not  specially  to  ver.  1  of  this  chapter,  the  boasting  of 
 the  Jews  over  the  Gentiles,  but  the  boasting  of  the  sinner  b-^iore 
 God.  The  latter  however  includes  the  former.  A  plan  of  »al- 
 vation  which  strips  every  man  of  merit,  and  places  all  sin  ers 
 on  the  same  level  before  God,  of  course  cuts  off  all  assumption 
 of  superiority  of  one  class  over  another.  Paul  means  to  say 
 that  the  result  of  the  gospel  plan  of  salvation  is  to  prevent  all 
 self-approbation,  self-gratulation  and  exaltation  on  the  part  of 
 the  sinner.  He  is  presented  as  despoiled  of  all  merit,  and  as 
 deserving  the  displeasure  of  God.  He  can  attribute,  in  no 
 degree,  his  deliverance  from  this  displeasure  to  himself,  and  he 
 cannot  exalt  himself  either  in  the  presence  of  God,  or  in  com- 
 parison with  his  fellow-sinners.  As  sin  is  odious  in  the  sight 
 of  God,  it  is  essential,  in  any  scheme  of  mercy,  that  the  sinner 
 should  be  made  to  feel  this,  and  that  nothing  done  by  or  for  him 
 should  in  any  measure  diminish  his  sense  of  personal  ill-desert 
 on  account  of  his  transgressions.  This  result  obviously  could 
 not  follow  from  any  plan  of  justification  that  placed  the  ground 
 of  the  sinner's  acceptance  in  himself,  or  his  peculiar  advantages 
 of  birth  or  ecclesiastical  connection ;  but  it  is  effectually  secured 
 by  that  plan  of  justification  which  not  only  places  the  ground 
 of  his  acceptance  entirely  out  of  himself,  but  which  also  requires, 
 as  the  very  condition  of  that  acceptance,  an  act  involving  a 
 penitent  acknowledgment  of  personal  ill-desert,  and  exclusive 
 dependence  on  the  merit  of  another.  In  this  connection,  the 
 phrases  "by  what  law,"  "the  law  of  works,"  and  "the  law  of 
 faith,"  are  peculiar,  as  the  word  voixo^  {lavS)  is  not  used  in  its 
 ordinary  sense.  The  general  idea,  however,  of  a  rule  of  action 
 is  retained.  '  By  what  rule  ?  By  that  which  requires  works  ? 
 Nay;  by  that  which  requires  faith.'  By  the  "law  of  faith," 
 therefore,  is  obviously  meant  the  gospel.    Compare  ix.  31. 
 
 Verse  28.  Therefore  we  conclude^  &c.  The  common  text 
 has  GOV,  therefore^  giving  this  verse  the  character  of  a  conciu- 
 sion  from  the  preceding  argument.  The  great  majority,  how- 
 ever, of  the  best  manuscripts,  the  Vulgate  and  Coptic  versions, 
 and  many  of  the  Fathers,  have  ydp,  which  almost  all  the  modern 
 editors  adopt.     This  verse  then  is  a  confirmation  of  what  is  said 
 
156  ROMANS  III.  28. 
 
 before:  'Boasting  is  excluded,  Xoyd^ofitd^a  ydp,  for  we  think, 
 i.  e.  are  sure,'  &c.  See  ii.  3,  viii.  18,  2  Cor.  xi.  5,  for  a  similar 
 use  of  the  word  Xoyi^ofxcu.  That  a  man  is  justified  hy  faith. 
 If  bj  faith,  it  is  not  of  works ;  and  if  not  of  works,  there  can 
 be  no  room  for  boasting,  for  boasting  is  the  assertion  of  per- 
 sonal merit.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  if  justification  is  by 
 faith,  it  must  be  by  faith  alone.  Luther's  version,  therefore, 
 allein  durch  den  glauben,  is  fully  justified  by  the  context.  The 
 Romanists,  indeed,  made  a  great  outcry  against  that  version  as 
 a  gross  perversion  of  Scripture,  although  Catholic  translators 
 before  the  time  of  Luther  had  given  the  same  translation.  So 
 in  the  Nuremberg  Bible,  1483,  "Nur  durch  den  glauben." 
 And  the  Italian  Bibles  of  Geneva,  1476,  and  of  Venice,  1538, 
 per  sola  fede.  The  Fathers  also  often  use  the  expression, 
 "man  is  justified  by  faith  alone;"  so  that  Erasmus,  De  Ratione 
 Ooncionandt,  Lib.  III.,  says,  "Vox  sola,  tot  clamoribus  lapi- 
 data  hoc  sseculo  in  Luthero,  reverenter  in  Patribus  auditur." 
 See  Koppe  and  Tholuck  on  this  verse. 
 
 Without  works  of  the  law.  To  be  justified  without  works,  is 
 to  be  justified  without  anything  in  ourselves  to  merit  justifica- 
 tion. The  works  of  the  law  must  be  the  works  of  the  moral 
 law,  because  the  proposition  is  general,  embracing  Gentiles  as 
 well  as  Jews.  And  as  our  Saviour  teaches  that  the  sum  of  the 
 moral  law  is  that  we  should  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  mind, 
 and  strength,  and  our  neighbour  as  ourselves,  and  as  no  higher 
 form  of  excellence  than  supreme  love  to  God  is  possible  or  cola- 
 ceivable,  in  excluding  works  of  the  law,  the  apostle  excludes 
 everything  subjective.  He  places  the  ground  of  justification 
 out  of  ourselves.  Olshausen,  on  this  verse,  reverts  to  his 
 Romish  idea  of  subjective  justification,  and  explains  works  of 
 the  lato  to  mean  works  produced  by  the  moral  law,  which  he 
 says  spring  only  from  ourselves,  and  are  perishable,  whereas 
 "the  works  of  faith  are  imperishable  as  the  principle  whence 
 they  spring."  That  is,  we  are  not  justified  by  works  performed 
 from  a  principle  of  natural  conscience,  but  by  those  which  are 
 the  fruits  of  a  renewed  nature.  How  utterly  subversive  this  is 
 of  the  gospel,  has  already  been  remarked.  The  works  of  the 
 law  are  not  works  which  the  law  produces,  but  works  which  the 
 law  demands,  and  the  law  demands  all  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
 
ROMANS  III.  29,  30.  157 
 
 effects,  even  in  the  just  made  perfect.  And  therefoie  spiritual 
 as  well  as  legal  works  are  excluded.  The  contrast  is  not 
 between  works  produced  by  the  law  and  works  produced  by 
 faith,  but  between  works  and  faith,  between  what  is  done  by 
 us  (whether  in  a  state  of  nature  or  a  state  of  grace)  and  what 
 Christ  has  done  for  us. 
 
 Verses  29,  30.  Is  he  the  Grod  of  the  Jews  only?  is  he  not 
 aha  of  the  G-entiles?  Yes,  of  the  Grentiles  also;  seeing  it  is 
 one  Grod  who  shall  justify,  &c.  We  have  here  the  second  result 
 of  the  gospel  method  of  justification;  it  presents  God  as 
 equally  the  God  of  the  Gentiles  and  of  the  Jews.  He  is  such, 
 because  'it  is  one  God  who  justifies  the  circumcision  by  faith, 
 and  the  uncircumcision  through  faith.'  He  deals  with  both 
 classes  on  precisely  the  same  principles;  he  pursues,  with 
 regard  to  both,  the  same  plan,  and  offers  salvation  to  both  on 
 exactly  the  same  terms.  There  is,  therefore,  in  this  doctrine, 
 the  foundation  laid  for  a  universal  religion,  which  may  be 
 preached  to  every  creature  under  heaven;  which  need  not,  as 
 was  the  case  with  the  Jewish  system,  be  confined  to  any  one 
 sect  or  nation.  This  is  the  only  doctrine  which  suits  the  cha- 
 racter of  God,  and  his  relation  to  all  his  intelligent  creatures 
 upon  earth.  God  is  a  universal,  and  not  a  national  God ;  and 
 this  is  a  method  of  salvation  universally  applicable.  These 
 sublime  truths  are  so  familiar  to  our  minds  that  they  have,  in  a 
 measure,  lost  their  power ;  but  as  to  the  Jew,  enthralled  all  his 
 life  in  his  narrow  national  and  religious  prejudices,  they  must 
 have  expanded  his  whole  soul  with  unwonted  emotions  of 
 wonder,  gratitude,  and  joy.  We  Gentiles  may  now  look  up  to 
 heaven,  and  confidently  say,  "Thou  art  our  Father,  though 
 Abraham  be  ignorant  of  us,  and  though  Israel  acknowledge  us 
 not." 
 
 Paul  here,  as  in  ver.  20,  uses  the  fiiture,  otxatwau,  will 
 justify,  not  for  the  present,  nor  in  reference  to  the  final  judg- 
 ment, but  as  expressing  a  permanent  purpose.  There  is  no 
 distinction  as  to  the  meaning  to  be  sought  between  kx  mareiu^, 
 [by  faith)  and  dca  maTeco^  {through  faith,)  as  Paul  uses  both 
 forms  indiscriminately;  kx,  for  example,  in  i.  17,  iii.  20,  iv 
 16,  &c.,  and  3cd  in  iii.  22,  25,  Gal.  ii.  16,  and  sometimes  first 
 the  one,  and  then  the  other,  in  the  same  connection.     There  is 
 
158  ROMANS  III.  31. 
 
 no  greater  difference  between  the  Greek  prepositions,  as  here 
 used,  than  between  the  English  by  and  through. 
 
 Verse  31.  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith? 
 G-od  forbid:  yea,  we  establish  the  law.  This  verse  states  the 
 third  result  of  this  method  of  salvation ;  instead  of  invalidating, 
 it  establishes  the  law.  As  Paul  uses  the  word  law  in  so  many 
 senses,  it  is  doubtful  which  one  of  them  is  here  principally 
 intended.  In  every  sense,  however,  the  declaration  is  true. 
 If  the  law  means  the  Old  Testament  generally,  then  it  is  true ; 
 for  the  gospel  method  of  justification  contradicts  no  one  of  its 
 statements,  is  inconsistent  with  no  one  of  its  doctrines,  and 
 invalidates  no  one  of  its  promises,  but  is  harmonious  with  all, 
 and  confirmatory  of  the  whole.  If  it  means  the  Mosaic  insti- 
 tutions specially,  these  were  shadows  of  which  Christ  is  the 
 substance.  That  law  is  abolished,  not  by  being  pronounced 
 spurious  or  invalid,  but  by  having  met  its  accomplishment,  and 
 answered  its  design  in  the  gospel.  What  it  taught  and  promised, 
 the  gospel  also  teaches  and  promises,  only  in  clearer  and  fuller 
 measure.  If  it  means  the  moral  law,  which  no  doubt  was  pro- 
 minently intended,  still  it  is  not  invalidated,  but  established. 
 No  moral  obligation  is  weakened,  no  penal  sanction  disregarded. 
 The  precepts  are  enforced  by  new  and  stronger  motives,  and  the 
 penalty  is  answered  in  Him  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
 on  the  tree.  "Ubi  vero  ad  Christum  ventum  est,"  says  Calvin, 
 "  primum  in  eo  invenitur  exacta  Legis  justitia,  quse  per  imputa- 
 tionem  etiam  nostra  fit.  Deinde  sanctificatio,  qua  formantur 
 corda  nostra  ad  Legis  observationem,  imperfectam  quidem  illam, 
 sed  ad  scopum  collimat."  Instead  of  making  ver.  31  the  close 
 of  the  third  chapter,  many  commentators  regard  it  as  more 
 properly  the  beginning  of  the  fourth.  The  proposition  that  the 
 gospel,  instead  of  invalidating,  establishes  the  law,  they  say  is 
 too  important  to  be  dismissed  with  a  mere  categorical  assertion. 
 This,  however,  is  Paul's  method.  After  showing  that  the  law 
 cannot  save,  that  both  justification  and  sanctification  are  by  the 
 gospel,  he  is  wont  to  state  in  a  sentence  what  is  the  true  end 
 of  the  law,  or  that  the  law  and  the  gospel  being  both  from  God, 
 but  designed  for  different  ends,  are  not  in  conflict.  See  above, 
 ver.  20,  Gal.  iii.  19,  20.  If  this  verse,  however,  be  made 
 the  Veginning   of  the    exhibition   contained  in  the   following 
 
ROMANS  III.  21—31.  159 
 
 chapter,  then  by  lato  must  be  understood  the  Old  Testament, 
 and  the  confirmation  of  the  law  by  the  gospel  consists  in  the 
 fact  that  the  latter  teaches  the  same  doctrine  as  the  former. 
 '  Do  we  make  void  the  law  by  teaching  that  justification  is  by 
 faith  ?  By  no  means :  we  establish  the  law ;  for  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment itself  teaches  that  Abraham  and  David  were  justified 
 gratuitously  by  faith,  and  without  works.'  Although  the  sense 
 is  thus  good,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  sufficient  reason 
 for  departing  from  the  common  division  of  the  chapters.  The 
 next  chapter  is  not  connected  with  this  verse  by  ydp,  which 
 the  sense  would  demand,  if  the  connection  was  what  Meyer, 
 De  Wette,  and  others  would  make  it :  '  We  establish  the  law 
 when  we  teach  faith,  for  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith.'  The 
 connecting  particle  is  simply  ovv,  then,  and  gives  a  very  dif- 
 ferent sense.  Besides,  it  is  a  very  subordinate  object  with  the 
 apostle  to  prove  that  the  law  and  the  gospel  agree.  His  design 
 is  to  teach  the  true  method  of  justification.  The  cases  of  Abra- 
 ham and  David  are  referred  to,  to  prove  his  doctrine  on  that 
 point,  and  not  merely  the  agreement  between  the  old  dispensa- 
 tion and  the  new. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  evangelical  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Old,  no  less  than  of  the  New  Testament,  ver.  21. 
 
 2.  Justification  is  pronouncing  one  to  be  just,  and  treating 
 him  accordingly,  on  the  ground  that  the  demands  of  the  law 
 have  been  satisfied  concerning  him,  vs.  24 — 26. 
 
 3.  The  ground  of  justification  is  not  our  own  merit,  nor  faith, 
 nor  evangelical  obedience ;  not  the  work  of  Christ  in  us,  but  his 
 work  for  us,  i.  e.  his  obedience  unto  death,  ver.  25. 
 
 4.  An  act  may  be  perfectly  gratuitous  as  regards  its  object, 
 and  at  the  same  time  proceed  on  the  ground  of  a  complete 
 satisfaction  to  the  demands  of  the  law.  Thus  justification  is 
 gratuitous,  not  because  those  demands  are  unsatisfied,  but 
 because  it  is  granted  to  those  who  have  no  personal  ground  of 
 recommendation,  vs.  24,  26 
 
 5.  God  is  the  ultimate  end  of  all  his  own  acts.  To  declare 
 his  glory  is  the  highest  and  best  end  which  he  can  propose  for 
 himself  or  his  creatures,  ver.  25. 
 
160  ROMANS  III.  21  -31. 
 
 6.  The  atonement  does  not  consist  in  a  display  to  others  cf 
 the  divine  justice.  This  is  one  of  its  designs  and  results ;  but 
 it  is  such  a  display  only  by  being  a  satisfaction  to  the  justice 
 of  God.  It  is  not  a  symbol  or  illustration,  but  a  satisfac- 
 tion, ver.  26. 
 
 7.  All  true  doctrine  tends  to  humble  men,  and  to  exalt 
 God;  and  all  true  religion  is  characterized  by  humility  and 
 reverence,  ver.  27. 
 
 8.  God  is  a  universal  Father,  and  all  men  are  brethren, 
 vs.  29,  30. 
 
 9.  The  law  of  God  is  immutable.  Its  precepts  are  always 
 binding,  and  its  penalty  must  be  inflicted  either  on  the  sinner 
 or  his  substitute.  When,  however,  it  is  said  that  the  penalty 
 of  the  law  is  inflicted  on  the  Redeemer,  as  the  sinner's  substi- 
 tute, or,  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  that  "he  was  made  a 
 curse  for  us,"  it  cannot  be  imagined  that  he  sufiered  the  same 
 kind  of  evils  (as  remorse,  &c.)  which  the  sinner  would  have  suf- 
 fered. The  law  threatens  no  specific  kind  of  evil  as  its  penalty. 
 The  term  death,  in  Scripture,  designates  any  or  all  of  the  evils 
 inflicted  in  punishment  of  sin.  And  the  penalty,  or  curse  of 
 the  law,  (in  the  language  of  the  Bible,)  is  any  evil  judicially 
 inflicted  in  satisfaction  of  the  demands  of  justice.  To  say, 
 therefore,  that  Christ  sufi"ered  to  satisfy  the  law,  to  declare 
 the  righteousness  of  God,  or  that  he  might  be  just  in  justifying 
 him  that  believes  in  Jesus,  and  to  say  that  he  bore  the  penalty 
 of  the  law,  are  equivalent  expressions,  ver.  31. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  As  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  the  Bible  is  justification  by 
 faith,  so  the  turning  point  in  the  soul's  history,  the  saving  act, 
 is  the  reception  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  propitiation  for  our 
 sins,  ver.  25. 
 
 2.  All  modes  of  preaching  must  be  erroneous,  which  do  not 
 lead  sinners  to  feel  that  the  great  thing  to  be  done,  and  done 
 first,  is  to  receive  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  turn  unto 
 God  through  him.  And  all  religious  experience  must  be  de 
 fective,  which  does  not  embrace  distinctly  a  sense  of  the  justice 
 of  our  condemnation,   and  a  conviction  of  the   sufficiency  of 
 
ROMANS  IV.  1—17.  161 
 
 the  work  of  Christ,  and  an  exchisive  reliance  upon  it  as  such, 
 ver.  25. 
 
 3.  As  God  purposes  his  own  glory  as  the  end  of  all  that  he 
 does,  so  ought  we  to  have  that  glory  as  the  constant  and  com- 
 manding object  of  pursuit,  ver.  25. 
 
 4.  The  doctrine  of  atonement  produces  in  us  its  proper  effect, 
 when  it  leads  us  to  see  and  feel  that  God  is  just ;  that  he  is 
 infinitely  gracious ;  that  we  are  deprived  of  all  ground  of  boast- 
 ing ;  that  the  way  of  salvation,  which  is  open  for  us,  is  open 
 for  all  men ;  and  that  the  motives  to  all  duty,  instead  of  being 
 weakened,  are  enforced  and  multiplied,  vs.  25 — 31. 
 
 5.  In  the  gospel  all  is  harmonious :  justice  and  mercy,  as  it 
 regards  God  ;  freedom  from  the  law,  and  the  strongest  obliga- 
 tions to  obedience,  as  it  regards  men,  vs.  25,  31. 
 
 CHAPTER    IV. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The  object  of  this  chapter  is  to  confirm  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
 cation by  faith.  It  is  divided  into  two  parts.  The  first,  from 
 ver.  1  to  17  inclusive,  contains  the  argumentative  portion.  The 
 second,  ver.  18  to  25,  is  an  illustration  of  the  faith  of  Abraham. 
 
 ROMANS  IV.  1—17. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Paul,  from  the  21st  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter,  had  been 
 setting  forth  the  gospel  method  of  salvation.  That  this  is  the 
 true  method  he  now  proves,  1.  From  the  fact  that  Abraham 
 was  justified  by  faith,  vs.  1 — 5.  That  this  was  really  the  case 
 he  shows,  first,  because  otherwise  Abraham  would  have  had 
 ground  of  boasting,  even  in  the  sight  of  God,  ver.  2 ;  second, 
 because  the  Scriptures  expressly  declare  that  he  was  justified 
 by  faith,  ver.  8.  Verses  4,  5,  are  designed  to  show  that  being 
 11 
 
162  ROMANS  IV.  1. 
 
 justified  by  faith  is  tantamount  with  being  justified  gratu- 
 itously, and  therefore  all  those  passages  which  speak  of  the 
 gratuitous  forgiveness  of  sins  may  be  fairly  cited  in  favour  of 
 the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  2.  On  this  principle  he 
 adduces  Ps.  xxxii.  1,  2,  as  his  second  argument;  for  there 
 David  speaks  not  of  rewarding  the  righteous  as  such,  or  for 
 their  righteousness,  but  of  the  free  acceptance  of  the  unworthy, 
 vs.  6 — 8.  3.  The  third  argument  is  designed  to  show  that  cir- 
 cumcision is  not  a  necessary  condition  of  justification,  from  the 
 fact  that  Abraham  was  justified  before  he  was  circumcised,  and 
 therefore  is  the  head  and  father  of  all  believers,  whether  cir- 
 cumcised or  not,  vs.  9 — 12.  4.  The  fourth  argument  is  from 
 the  nature  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  in  which  the 
 promise  was  made  on  the  condition  of  faith,  and  not  of  legal 
 obedience,  vs.  13,  14.  5.  And  the  fifth,  from  the  nature  of  the 
 law,  vs.  15 — 17. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  What  shall  we  then  say  that  Abraham,  our  father 
 as  pertaining  to  the  flesh,  hath  found  ?  The  connection  of  this 
 verse  with  the  preceding  train  of  reasoning  is  obvious.  Paul 
 had  taught  that  we  are  justified  by  faith ;  as  well  in  confirma- 
 tion of  this  doctrine,  as  to  anticipate  an  objection  from  the  Jew, 
 he  refers  to  the  case  of  Abraham :  '  How  was  it  then  with 
 Abraham?  How  did  he  obtain  justification?'  The  point  in 
 dispute  was,  how  justification  is  to  be  attained.  Paul  proposes 
 to  decide  the  question  by  reference  to  a  case  about  which  no 
 one  could  doubt.  All  admitted  that  Abraham  was  justified. 
 The  only  question  was.  How?  The  particle  odv,  therefore,  is 
 not  inferential,  but  simply  indicates  transition.  What  then 
 shall  we  say  about  Abraham?  In  the  question,  however,  W 
 ouv  epoufiev,  x.z.X.  the  ri  belongs  to  eupr^xiuai:  'What  shall  we 
 say  that  Abraham  hath  found  ?'  i.  e.  attained.  The  words 
 xazd  adpxa  do  not  belong  to  rtarepa,  '  our  father  according  to 
 the  flesh,'  but  to  the  preceding  infinitive,  zhprpukvax,  'what  hath 
 he  attained  through  the  flesh?'  Although  the  question  is  inde- 
 finite, the  connection  shows  that  Paul  meant  to  ask  whether 
 Abraham  secured  justification  before  God,  xaza  adpxa.  through 
 
ROMANS  IV.  2.  1G8 
 
 the  flesh.  The  word  flesh  admits  in  this  connection  of  different 
 explanations.  Calvin  says  it  is  equivalent  to  naturaliter,  ex 
 seipso,  and  Grotius  much  to  the  same  effect,  iwopriis  virihus^ 
 'throush  his  own  resources.'  Not  much  different  from  this  is 
 the  explanation  of  Meyer,  Tholuck,  and  De  Wette — nach  sein 
 menschlicher  Weise — that  is,  after  a  purely  human  way ;  so  that 
 adp^  stands  opposed  to  the  divine  Ilvzoiia,  (Holy  Spirit.)  If 
 this  implies  that  Abraham  was  not  justified  by  natural,  but  was 
 justified  by  spiritual  works,  (works  done  after  regeneration,)  it 
 contradicts  the  whole  teaching  of  the  apostle.  This,  however, 
 though  naturally  suggested  as  the  meaning  of  the  passage  as 
 thus  explained,  is  not  the  doctrine  of  either  of  the  commenta- 
 tors just  named.  Paul  gives  his  own  interpretation  of  y.aza 
 adpxa  in  the  following  verse:  'Did  Abraham,'  he  asks,  'attain 
 justification  according  to  the  flesh  ?  No,  for  if  he  was  justified 
 by  works,  he  hath  whereof  to  boast.'  It  is  plain  that  he  uses 
 the  two  expressions,  according  to  the  flesh  and  hy  ivorks,  as 
 equivalent.  This  meaning  of  adp^  is  easily  explained.  Paul 
 uses  the  word  for  what  is  external,  as  opposed  to  what  is  inter- 
 nal and  spiritual,  and  thus  for  all  external  rites  and  ceremonial 
 works,  and  then  for  works  without  limitation.  See  Gal.  iii.  3, 
 vi.  12,  Philip,  iii.  3,  4.  In  this  last  passage  Paul  includes, 
 under  the  flesh,  not  only  his  Hebrew  descent,  his  circumcision, 
 his  being  a  Pharisee,  his  blameless  adherence  to  the  Jewish  law, 
 but  everything  comprehended  under  his  "own  righteousness," 
 as  distinguished  from  "the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  {kTzi 
 TciaTEc)  on  the  condition  of  faith."  This  is  clearly  its  sense  here. 
 It  includes  everything  meant  by  "works,"  and  "works"  includes 
 all  forms  of  personal  righteousness.  This  same  result  is  reached 
 in  another  way.  Kara  adpxa  may  mean,  as  Meyer  and  others 
 say,  after  a  human  method,  i.  e.  after  the  manner  of  men;  and 
 this  may  be  understood  to  mean  after  the  manner  common 
 among  men,  i.  e.  through  works,  or  personal  merit,  which  is  the 
 way  that  men  adopt  to  secure  favour  with  others.  This  is  the 
 explanation  given  by  Kollner. 
 
 Verse  2.  For  if  Abraham  were  justified  hy  works,  he  hath 
 whereof  to  glory,  hut  not  hefore  Grod.  The  apostle's  mode  of 
 reasoning  is  so  concise  as  often  to  leave  some  of  the  steps  of 
 his  argument  to  be  supplied,  which,  however,  are  almost  alwaya 
 
164  ROMANS  IV.  3. 
 
 sufficiently  obvious  from  the  context.  As  just  remarked,  a 
 negative  answer  is  to  be  supposed  to  the  question  in  the  firsi 
 verse.  Abraham  did  not  attain  the  favour  of  God  through 
 the  flesh.  The  force  of  /or,  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse,  is 
 then  obvious,  as  introducing  the  reason  for  this  answer.  The 
 passage  itself  is  very  concise,  and  the  latter  clause  admits  of 
 different  interpretations.  '  If  Abraham  was  justified  by  works, 
 he  might  indeed  assert  his  claim  to  the  confidence  and  favour 
 of  his  fellow-men,  but  he  could  not  have  any  ground  of  boasting 
 before  God.'  This  view,  however,  introduces  an  idea  entirely 
 foreign  from  the  passage,  and  makes  the  conclusion  the  very 
 opposite  of  that  to  which  the  premises  would  lead.  For  if  justi- 
 fied by  works,  he  would  have  ground  of  boasting  before  God. 
 The  interpretation  given  by  Calvin  is  altogether  the  most  satis- 
 factory and  simple:  "Epichirema  est,  id  est  imperfecta  ratio- 
 oinatio,  quae  in  banc  formam  colligi  debet.  Si  Abraham  operibus 
 justificatus  est,  potest  suo  merito  gloriari;  sed  non  habet  unde 
 glorietur  apud  Deum;  ergo  non  ex  operibus  justificatus  est." 
 '  If  Abraham  was  justified  by  works  he  hath  whereof  to  glory ; 
 but  he  hath  not  whereof  to  glory  before  God,  and  therefore  he 
 was  not  justified  by  works;'  the  very  conclusion  which  Paul 
 intended  to  establish,  and  which  he  immediately  confirms  by 
 the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures.  The  argument  thus  far  is 
 founded  on  the  assumption  that  no  man  can  appear  thus  con- 
 fidently before  God,  and  boast  of  having  done  all  that  was 
 required  of  him.  If  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  works 
 involves,  as  Paul  shows  it  does,  this  claim  to  perfect  obedience, 
 it  must  be  false.  And  that  Abraham  was  not  thus  justified,  he 
 proves  from  the  sacred  record. 
 
 Verse  3.  For  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Abraham  believed 
 Grod,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness.  The  con- 
 nection of  this  verse  with  the  preceding  is  this :  Paul  had  just 
 said  that  Abraham  had  no  ground  of  boasting  with  God ;  for, 
 what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Does  it  refer  the  ground  of  Abra- 
 ham's justification  to  his  works?  By  no  means.  It  declares 
 he  was  justified  by  faith;  which  Paul  immediately  shows  is 
 equivalent  to  saying  that  he  was  justified  gratuitously.  The 
 passage  quoted  by  the  apostle  is  Gen.  xv.  6,  "Abraham  be- 
 lieved God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  (i.  e.  imputed  to  him) 
 
ROMANS  IV.  3.  165 
 
 for  righteousness."  This  is  an  important  passage,  as  the  phrase 
 "to  impute  faith  for  righteousness,"  occurs  repeatedly  in  Paul's 
 writings.  1.  The  primary  meaning  of  the  word  Xoyi^ofxcu,  here 
 rendered  to  count  to,  or  impute,  is  to  reason,  then,  to  reckon,  or 
 number;  2  Chron.  v.  5,  "Which  could  not  be  numbered  for 
 multitude;"  Mark  xv.  28,  "He  was  numbered  with  the  trans- 
 gressors;" see  Isa.  liii.  17,  &c.  2.  It  means  to  esteem,  or 
 regard  as  something,  that  is,  to  number  as  belonging  to  a  cer- 
 tain class  of  things ;  Gen.  xxxi.  15,  "Are  we  not  counted  of  him 
 strangers?"  Isa.  xl.  17,  &c.;  compare  Job  xix.  11,  xxxiii.  10, 
 in  the  Hebrew.  3.  It  is  used  in  the  more  general  sense  oi  2)ur- 
 posing,  devising,  considering,  thinking,  &c.  4.  In  strict  con- 
 nection with  its  primary  meaning,  it  signifies  to  impute,  to  set 
 to  one's  account;  that  is,  to  number  among  the  things  belonging 
 to  a  man,  or  chargeable  upon  him.  It  generally  implies  the 
 accessory  idea  of  '  treating  one  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
 thing  imputed.'  Thus,  in  the  frequent  phrase,  to  impute  siri, 
 as  2  Sam.  xix.  19,  "Let  not  my  Lord  impute  iniquity  unto 
 me,"  i.  e.  'Let  him  not  lay  it  to  my  charge,  and  treat  me 
 accordingly;"  compare  1  Sam.  xxii.  15,  in  the  Hebrew  and 
 Septuagint;  Ps.  xxxii.  2,  (Septuagint,  xxxi.)  "Blessed  is  the 
 man  to  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  not  iniquity,"  &c.  And  in 
 the  New  Testament,  2  Cor.  vi.  19,  "Not  imputing  unto  men 
 their  trespasses;"  2  Tim.  iv.  15,  "J  p7'a^  G-od  that  it  may  not 
 be  laid  to  their  charge,"  &c.  These  and  numerous  similar  pas- 
 sages render  the  scriptural  idea  of  imputation  perfectly  clear. 
 It  is  laying  anything  to  one's  charge,  and  treating  him  accord- 
 ingly. It  produces  no  change  in  the  individual  to  whom  the 
 imputation  is  made;  it  simply  alters  his  relation  to  the  law 
 All  those  objections,  therefore,  to  the  doctrine  expressed  by 
 this  term,  which  are  founded  on  the  assumption  that  imputation 
 alters  the  moral  character  of  men ;  that  it  implies  an  infusion 
 of  either  sin  or  holiness,  rest  on  a  misconception  of  its  nature. 
 It  is,  so  far  as  the  mere  force  of  the  term  is  concerned,  a  matter 
 of  perfect  indifference  whether  the  thing  imputed  belonged 
 antecedently  to  the  person  to  whom  the  imputation  is  made  or 
 not.  It  is  just  as  common  and  correct  to  speak  of  laying  to  a 
 man's  charge  what  does  not  belong  to  him,  as  what  does.  That 
 a  th!ng  can  seldom  be  justly  imputed  to  a  person  to  whom  it 
 
166  ROMANS  IV.  3. 
 
 does  not  personally  belong,  is  a  matter  of  course.  But  that  the 
 word  itself  implies  that  the  thing  imputed  must  belong  to  the 
 person  concerned,  is  a  singular  misconception.  These  remarks 
 have,  of  course,  reference  only  to  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
 Whether  the  Bible  actually  teaches  that  there  is  an  imputation 
 of  either  sin  or  righteousness,  to  any  to  whom  it  does  not  per- 
 sonally belong,  is  another  question.  That  the  Bible  does  speak 
 both  of  imputing  to  a  man  what  does  not  actually  belong  to 
 him,  and  of  not  imputing  what  does,  is  evident  from  the  follow- 
 ing, among  other  passages,  Levit.  xvii.  3,  4 :  '  What  man  soever 
 killeth  an  ox,  and  bringf^th  it  not  to  the  door  of  the  taberna- 
 cle,' &c.,  "blood  shall  be  imputed  to  that  man;"  that  is,  blood- 
 guiltiness  or  murder,  a  crime  of  which  he  was  not  actually 
 guilty,  should  be  laid  to  his  charge,  and  he  should  be  put  to 
 death.  ^'•Sanguis  hie  est  ccedes,  says  Rosenmliller ;  perinde  Deo 
 displicebit,  ac  si  ille  hominem  occidisset,  et  mortis  reus  judi- 
 cabitur."  "Als  Blutschuld  soil  es  angerechnet  werden  diesem 
 Manne."  Gesenius.  On  the  other  hand,  Levit.  vii.  18,  if  any 
 part  of  a  sacrifice  is  eaten  on  the  third  day,  the  offering  "shall 
 not  be  imputed  to  him  that  made  it."  Paul,  speaking  to  Phile- 
 mon of  the  debt  of  Onesimus,  says,  "put  that  on  my  account," 
 i.  e.  impute  it  to  me.  The  word  used  in  this  case  is  the  same 
 as  that  which  occurs  in  Rom.  v.  13,  "  Sin  is  not  imputed  where 
 there  is  no  law;"  and  is  in  its  root  and  usage  precisely  synony- 
 mous with  the  word  employed  in  the  passage  before  us,  when 
 the  latter  is  used  in  reference  to  imputation.  No  less  than 
 twice  also,  in  this  very  chapter,  vs.  6  and  11,  Paul  speaks  of 
 'imputing  righteousness,'  not  to  those  to  whom  it  personally 
 belongs,  certainly,  but  to  the  ungodly,  ver.  5;  to  those  who 
 have  no  works,  ver.  6. 
 
 Professor  Storr,  of  Tiibmgen,  Be  vario  sensu  vocis  daaco^, 
 &c.,  in  Nov.  Test.,  in  his  Opuscula,  Vol.  I.,  p.  224,  says, 
 "  Since  innocence  or  probity  (expressed  by  the  word  righteous- 
 ness) does  not  belong  to  man  himself,  it  must  be  ascribed  or 
 imputed  to  him.  In  this  way  the  formula,  '  righteousness  which 
 IS  of  God,'  Philip,  iii.  9,  and  especially  the  plainer  expressions, 
 'to  impute  faith  for  righteousness,'  Rom.  iv.  5,  and  'to  impute 
 righteousness,'  are  to  be  understood."  We  readily  admit,  he 
 says,  that  things  which  actually  belong  to  a  man  may  also  be 
 
ROMANS  ly.  3.  167 
 
 said  to  be  imputed  to  him,  as  was  the  case  with  Phineas,  &c., 
 and  then  adds,  "Nevertheless,  as  he  is  said  not  to  impute  an 
 action  really  performed,  Levit.  vii.,  2  Sam.  xix.,  &c.,  who  does 
 not  so  regard  it  as  to  decree  the  fruit  and  punishment  of  it ;  so, 
 on  the  other  hand,  those  things  can  be  imputed,  Levit.  xvii.  4, 
 which  are  not,  in  fact,  found  in  the  man,  but  which  are  so  far 
 attributed  to  him,  that  he  may  be  hence  treated  as  though 
 he  had  performed  them.  Thus  righteousness  may  be  said  to 
 be  imputed,  Rom.  iv.  6,  11,  when  not  his  own  innocence  and 
 probity,  which  God  determines  to  reward,  is  ascribed  to  the 
 believer,  but  when  God  so  ascribes  and  imputes  righteousness, 
 of  which  we  are  destitute,  that  we  are  treated  as  innocent  and 
 just."  On  page  233,  he  says,  "Verbum  Xoyi^ea&cu  monstrafc 
 gratiam,  Rom.  iv.  4,  nam  ocxacoa'jvrjv  nostram  negat." 
 
 This  idea  of  imputation  is  one  of  the  most  familiar  in  all  the 
 Bible,  and  is  expressed  in  a  multitude  of  cases  where  the  term 
 is  not  used.  When  Stephen  prayed,  Acts  vii.  60,  "  Lord,  lay 
 not  this  sin  to  their  charge,"  he  expressed  exactly  the  same 
 idea  that  Paul  did,  when  he  said,  2  Tim.  iv.  16,  '■'■I jpray  G-od  it 
 may  not  be  laid  to  their  charge,"  although  the  latter  uses  the 
 word  impute  {Xoycad-e'c/],)  and  the  former  does  not.  So  the 
 expressions,  "his  sin  shall  be  upon  him,"  "he  shall  bear  his 
 iniquity,"  which  occur  so  often,  are  perfectly  synonymous  with 
 the  formula,  "his  sin  shall  be  imputed  to  him;"  and,  of  course, 
 "to  bear  the  sins  of  another,"  is  equivalent  to  saying,  "those 
 sins  are  imputed."  The  objection,  therefore,  that  the  word 
 impute  does  not  occur  in  reference  to  the  imputation  of  the  sin 
 or  righteousness  of  one  man  to  another,  even  if  well  founded, 
 which  is  not  the  fact,  is  of  no  more  force  than  the  objections 
 against  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  vicarious  atonement,  per- 
 severance of  the  saints,  &c.,  founded  on  the  fact  that  these 
 words  do  not  occur  in  the  Bible.  The  material  point  surely  is, 
 Do  the  ideas  occur  ?  The  doctrine  of  "  the  imputation  of  right- 
 eousness" is  not  the  doctrine  of  this  or  that  school  in  theology. 
 It  is  the  possession  of  the  Church.  It  was  specially  the  glory 
 and  power  of  the  Reformation.  Those  who  differed  most  else- 
 where, were  perfectly  agreed  here.  Lutherans  and  Reformed, 
 alienated  from  each  other  by  the  sacramentarian  controversy, 
 were  of  one  mind  on  this  great  doctrine.     The  testimony  of  the 
 
168  ROMANS  IV.  3. 
 
 learned  Rationalist,  Bretsehneider,  if  any  testimony  on  so 
 notorious  a  fact  is  necessary,  may  be  here  cited.  Speaking 
 with  special  reference  to  the  Lutheran  Church,  he  says,  "The 
 symbolical  books,  in  the  first  place,  contradict  the  scholastic 
 representation  of  justification,  followed  by  the  Romish  Church, 
 that  is,  that  it  is  an  act  of  God,  by  which  he  communicates  to 
 men  an  inherent  righteousness,  {justitia  habitualis,  iyifusa,) 
 I.  e.  renders  them  virtuous.  They  described  it  as  a  forensic  or 
 judicial  act  of  God,  that  is,  an  act  by  which  merely  the  moral 
 relation  of  the  man  to  God,  not  the  man  himself  (at  least  not 
 immediately,)  is  changed."  "Hence,  justification  consists  of 
 three  parts :  1.  The  imputation  of  the  merit  of  Christ.  2.  The 
 remission  of  punishment.  3.  The  restoration  of  the  favour  and 
 the  blessedness  forfeited  by  sin."  "By  the  imjmtatio  justitice 
 (or  meriti)  Ohristi,  the  symbolical  books  understand  that  judg- 
 ment of  God,  according  to  which  he  treats  us  as  though  we  had 
 not  sinned,  but  had  fulfilled  the  law,  or  as  though  the  merit  of 
 Christ  was  ours;  see  Apol.,  Art.  9,  p.  226,  Merita  propitiato- 
 ris — aliis  donantur  imputatione  divina,  ut  per  ea,  tanquam 
 propriis  meritis  justi  reputemur,  ut  si  quis  amicus  pro  amico 
 solvit  aes  alienum,  debitor  alieno  merito  tanquam  proprio  libe- 
 ratur." — Bretsclineider  s  Entwichelung  aller  in  der  Dog.  vor- 
 kommenden  Begriffe,  pp.  631,  682,  &c. 
 
 But  to  return  to  the  phrase,  '  Faith  is  imputed  for  righteous- 
 ness.' It  is  very  common  to  understand  faith  here,  to  include 
 its  object,  i.  e.  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  so  that  it  is  not 
 faith  considered  as  an  act,  which  is  imputed,  but  faith  consi- 
 dered as  including  the  merit  which  it  apprehends  and  appro- 
 priates. Thus  Jiope  is  often  used  for  the  thing  hoped  for,  as 
 Rom.  viii.  24,  "Hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope,"  &c.;  and  faith 
 for  the  things  believed.  Gal.  i.  23,  "  He  preacheth  the  faith,"  &c. 
 In  illustration  of  this  idea,  Gerhard,  the  leading  authority  in 
 the  Lutheran  Church,  during  the  seventeenth  century,  says, 
 '  Quemadmodum  annulus,  cui  inclusa  est  gemma,  dicitur  valere 
 aliquot  coronatis,  pretiosissima  ita  fides,  quse  apprehendit  Christi 
 justitiam,  dicitur  nobis  imputari  ad  justitiam,  quippe  cujus  est 
 organum  apprehendens."  Loci  Tom.  VII.  238.  Although  there 
 are  difficulties  attending  this  interpretation,  it  cannot,  with  any 
 consistency,  be  exclaimed  against  by  those  who  make  faith  to 
 
ROMANS  IV.  3.  169 
 
 include  the  whole  work  of  the  Spirit  on  the  heart,  and  its  fruits 
 in  the  life  ;  as  is  done  by  the  majority  of  those  who  reject  this 
 view  of  the  passage.  Besides  this  interpretation,  there  are 
 three  other  explanations  which  deserve  consideration.  The  first 
 is  that  adopted  by  the  Remonstrants  or  Arminians.  According 
 to  their  view,  BiKatoavvr)  is  to  be  taken  in  its  ordinary  sense  of 
 righteousness,  that  which  constitutes  a  man  righteous  in  the 
 eye  of  the  law.  They  understand  the  apostle,  when  he  says, 
 "  Faith  was  imputed  for  righteousness,"  as  teaching  that  faith 
 was  regarded  or  counted  as  complete  obedience  to  the  law. 
 As  men  are  unable  to  render  that  perfect  obedience  which  the 
 law  given  to  Adam  required,  God,  under  the  gospel,  according 
 to  this  view,  is  pleased  to  accept  of  faith,  (a  fides  obsequiosa,  as 
 it  is  called,  i.  e.  faith  including  evangelical  obedience,)  instead 
 of  the  righteousness  which  the  law  demands.  Faith  is  thus 
 made,  not  the  instrument,  but  the  ground  of  justification.  It 
 is  imputed  for  righteousness  in  the  sense  of  being  regarded  and 
 treated  as  though  it  were  complete  obedience  to  the  law.  It 
 must  be  admitted,  that  so  far  as  this  single  form  of  statement  is 
 concerned,  this  interpretation  is  natural,  and  consistent  with 
 usage.  Thus  uncircumcision  is  said  to  be  imputed  for  circum- 
 cision, that  is,  the  former  is  regarded  as  though  it  were  the 
 latter.  This,  however,  is  not  the  only  sense  the  words  will 
 naturally  bear,  and  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  what  the 
 Scriptures  elsewhere  teach.  1.  It  contradicts  all  those  passages 
 in  which  Paul  and  the  other  sacred  writers  deny  that  the  ground 
 of  justification  is  anything  in  us,  or  done  by  us.  These  passages 
 are  too  numerous  to  be  cited ;  see  chap.  iii.  20,  where  it  is  shown 
 that  the  works  which  are  excluded  from  the  ground  of  justifica- 
 tion are  not  ceremonial  works  merely,  nor  works  performed 
 with  a  legal  spirit,  but  all  works,  without  exception ;  works  of 
 righteousness,  Titus  iii.  5,  i.  e.  all  right  or  good  works.  But 
 faith  considered  as  an  act,  is  as  much  a  work  as  prayer,  repent- 
 ance, almsgiving,  or  anything  of  the  kind.  And  it  is  as  much 
 an  act  of  obedience  to  the  law,  as  the  performance  of  any  other 
 duty;  for  the  law  requires  us  to  do  whatever  is  in  itself  right. 
 2.  It  contradicts  all  those  passages  in  which  the  merit  of  Christ, 
 in  any  form,  is  declared  to  be  the  ground  of  our  acceptance. 
 Thus   in    chap.   iii.  25,   it   is    Christ's   propitiatory   sacrifice; 
 
170  ROMANS  IV.  3. 
 
 chap.  V.  18,  19,  it  is  his  obedience  or  righteousness ;  in  many 
 other  places  it  is  said  to  be  his   death,   his   cross,  his   blood. 
 Faith  must  either  be  the  ground  of  our  acceptance,  or  the  means 
 or  instrument  of  our  becoming  interested  in  the  true  meritorious 
 ground,  viz.  the  righteousness  of  Christ.     It  cannot  stand  in 
 both  relations  to  our  justification.     3.  It  is  inconsistent  with 
 the  office  ascribed  to  faith.     We  are  said  to  be  saved  by,  or 
 through  faith,  but  never  on   account   of  our  faith,  or  on  the 
 ground   of  it.     (It  is  always   dca  TTcazeo)^,  or  ix  rciarewz,  but 
 never  ^^a  Ttiauy.)  The  expressions,  "through  faith  in  his  blood," 
 iii.  25,  "by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,"  &c.,  admit  of  no  other  inter- 
 pretation than  '  by  means  of  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  or  in 
 Christ  himself,  as  the  ground  of  confidence.'     The  interpreta- 
 tion, therefore,  under  consideration  is  at  variance  with  the  very 
 nature  of  faith,  which  necessarily  includes   the  receiving  and 
 resting  on  Christ  as  the  ground  of  acceptance  with  God ;  and^ 
 of  course,  implies  that  faith  itself  is  not  that  ground.     4.  We 
 accordingly  never  find  Paul,  nor  any  other  of  the  sacred  writers, 
 referring  his  readers  to  their  faith,  or  anything  in  themselves, 
 as  the  ground  of  their  confidence.     Even  in  reference  to  those 
 most  advanced  in  holiness,  he  directs  them  to  what  Christ  has 
 done  for  them,  not  to  anything  wrought  in  them,  as  the  ground 
 of  their  acceptance.     See  a  beautiful  passage  to  this  efiect,  in 
 Neanders  G-elegenheitschriften,  p.  23.     After  stating  that  the 
 believer  can  never  rest  his  justification  on  his  own  spiritual  life, 
 or  works,   he  adds,   "It  would,   indeed,   fare  badly  with  the 
 Christian,  if  on  such  weak  ground  as  this  he  had  to  build  his 
 justification,  if  he  did  not  know  that  '  if  he  confesses  his  sins, 
 and  walks  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light,  the  blood  of  Jesus 
 Christ  his  Son  cleanses  from  all  sin.'     Paul,  therefore,  refers 
 even  the  redeemed,  disturbed  by  the  reproaches  of  conscience, 
 amidst  the  conflicts  and  trials  of  life,  not  to  the  work  of  Christ 
 in  themselves,  but  to  what  the  love  of  God  in  Christ  has  done  for 
 them,  and  which,  even  notwithstanding  their  own  continued  sin- 
 fulness,  remains   ever   sure."     5.  Paul,   by  interchanging  the 
 ambiguous  phrase,   'faith  is  imputed  for   righteousness,'  with 
 the  more  definite  expressions,  'justified  through  or  by  means 
 of  faith,"  'justified  through  faith  in  his  blood,'  fixes  the  sense 
 in  which  the  clause  in  question  is  to  be  understood.     It  must 
 
ROMANS  lY.  8.  171 
 
 express  the  idea,  that  it  was  by  means  of  faith  that  Abraham 
 came  to  be  treated  as  righteous,  and  not  that  faith  was  taken 
 in  lieu  of  perfect  obedience.  See  this  subject  more  fully  dis- 
 cussed in  Owen  on  Justification,  chap,  xviii. 
 
 According  to  the  second  view,  the  word  rigliteousness  is  taken 
 in  a  much  more  limited  sense,  and  the  phrase  'to  impute  faith 
 for  righteousness,'  is  understood  to  mean  'faith  was  regarded  as 
 right,  it  was  approved.'  This  interpretation  also  is  perfectly 
 consistent  with  usage.  Thus,  Ps.  cvi.  31,  it  is  said  of  the  zeal 
 of  Phineas,  "  It  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness."  This 
 of  course  does  not  mean  that  it  was  regarded  as  complete 
 obedience  to  the  law,  and  taken  in  its  stead  as  the  ground  of 
 justification.  It  means  simply  that  his  zeal  was  approved  of. 
 It  was  regarded,  says  Dr.  Owen,  "  as  a  just  and  rewardable 
 action."  "Divinitus  approbatum  erat,"  says  Tuckney,  Prcelec- 
 tiones,  p.  212,  "  tanquara  just6  factum."  In  like  manner,  Deut. 
 xxiv.  13,  it  is  said  of  returning  a  pledge,  "  It  shall  be  right- 
 eousness unto  thee  before  the  Lord  thy  God."  Agreeably  to 
 the  analogy  of  these  passages,  the  meaning  of  this  clause  may 
 be,  '  his  faith  was  regarded  as  right ;  it  secured  the  approbation 
 of  God.'  How  it  did  this,  must  be  learned  from  other  passages. 
 The  third  interpretation  agrees  with  the  first,  in  taking  dcxac' 
 oabvTj  in  its  proper  sense,  [righteousness,]  but  gives  a  difierent 
 force  to  the  preposition  tl<;:  'Faith  was  imputed  to  him  unto 
 righteousness,'  that  is,  in  order  to  his  being  regarded  and  treated 
 as  righteous.  In  support  of  this  view,  reference  is  made  to  such 
 frequently  recurring  expressions  as  ere  (Tcorrjp'tav,  {unto  salva- 
 tion,) 'that  they  might  be  saved,'  x.  1;  £:c  fJLtrdvocav,  [unto 
 repentance,)  'that  they  might  repent,'  Matt.  iii.  11.  In  x.  10, 
 of  this  epistle,  the  apostle  says,  '  With  the  heart  man  believeth 
 unto  righteousness,'  [dz  dr/acoa'jvrjv,)  i.  e.  in  order  to  becoming 
 righteous,  or  so  as  to  become  righteous.  Faith  secures  their 
 being  righteous.  According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  all  it 
 teaches  is,  that  faith  and  not  works  secured  Abraham's  justifica- 
 tion before  God.  And  this  is  the  object  which  the  apostle  has 
 in  view.  The  precise  relation  in  which  faith  stands  to  justifi- 
 cation, whether  it  is  the  instrument  or  the  ground,  however 
 clearly  taught  elsewhere,  this  particular  expression  leaves  unde- 
 termined.    It  simply  asserts  that  Abraham  was  justified  as  » 
 
172  ROMANS  IV.  3. 
 
 believer,  and  not  as  a  -worker,  {epya^o/jisvot:,)  as  Paul  expresses 
 it  in  the  next  verse. 
 
 The  Rationalistic  theologians  of  modern  times  agree  with  the 
 Socinians  in  teaching  that  justification  by  faith,  as  distinguished 
 from  justification  by  works,  is  nothing  more  than  the  doctrine 
 that  moral  character  is  determined  more  by  the  inward  princi- 
 ple than  by  the  outward  act.  By  faith,  in  the  case  of  Abraham, 
 they  understand  confidence  in  God;  a  pious  frame  of  mind, 
 which  is  influenced  by  considerations  drawn  from  the  unseen 
 and  spiritual  world,  the  region  of  truth  and  eternal  principles, 
 rather  than  by  either  mercenary  feelings  or  outward  objects. 
 When,  therefore,  the  Scriptures  say,  '  God  imputed  Abraham's 
 faith  for  righteousness,'  the  meaning  is,  God  accepted  him  for 
 his  inward  piety,  for  the  elevated  principle  by  which  his  whole 
 life  was  governed.  If  this  is  what  Paul  means,  when  he  speaks 
 of  Abraham  being  justified  by  faith,  it  is  what  he  means  when 
 he  teaches  that  men  are  now  justified  by  faith.  Then  the  whole 
 gospel  sinks  to  the  level  of  natural  religion,  and  Christ  is  in  no 
 other  sense  a  Saviour,  than  as  by  his  doctrines  and  example  he 
 leads  men  to  cultivate  piety.  It  is  perfectly  obvious  that  Paul 
 means  to  teach  that  sinners  are  now  justified  in  the  same  way 
 that  Abraham  was.  He  proves  that  we  are  justified  by  faith, 
 because  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith.  If  faith  means  inward 
 piety  in  the  one  case,  it  must  have  the  same  meaning  in  the 
 other.  Bat  as  it  is  expressly  said,  over  and  over,  in  so  many 
 words,  that  men  are  now  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  it  follows 
 of  necessity  that  faith  in  Christ  was  the  faith  by  which  Abra- 
 ham was  justified.  He  believed  the  promise  of  redemption, 
 which  is  the  promise  that  we  embrace  when  we  receive  and  rest 
 on  Christ  for  salvation.  Hence  it  is  one  principal  object  of  the 
 apostle's  argument  in  the  latter  part  of  this  chapter,  and  in  the 
 third  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  to  show  that  we 
 are  heirs  of  the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  because  we  have 
 the  same  faith  that  he  had  ;  the  same,  that  is,  both  in  its  nature 
 and  object. 
 
 It  is  further  to  be  remarked,  that  Xojl^eaOat  et?  8iKacoavvr)v, 
 (to  impute  for  righteousness,)  and  SiKatovadat,  (to  be  justified,) 
 mean  the  same  thing.  Thus  Calvin  says,  "  Tantum  notemus, 
 eos  quibus  justitia  imputatur,  justificari ;  quando  haec  duo  a 
 
ROMANS  IV.  3.  173 
 
 Paulo  tanquam  synonyma  ponuntur."  Yet,  strange  lo  say, 
 Oishausen  asserts  that  they  are  very  diflferent.  To  be  justified 
 [dcxacoud-ac)  and  to  have  righteousness  imputed,  he  says,  differ  as 
 the  Romish  and  the  Protestant  doctrines  of  justification  difi'er. 
 The  former  means  to  be  made  subjectively  righteous,  the  latter 
 simply  to  be  regarded  as  righteous.  "  Was  Jemandem  ange- 
 rechnet  wird,  das  hat  er  nicht,  er  wird  aber  angesehen  und 
 behandelt,  als  hatte  er  es."  What  is  imputed  to  a  man,  that  he 
 has  not,  but  he  is  regarded  and  treated,  as  though  he  had  it. 
 Abraham  therefore  was  not  justified,  because  before  the  coming 
 of  Christ,  any  true  righteousness  {ocxatoauvi^  deoo,  as  Oishausen 
 says)  was  impossible;  he  was  only  regarded  as  righteous.*  But 
 as  what  is  said  of  Abraham  is  said  also  of  believers  under  the 
 gospel,  since  to  them  a?  well  as  to  him,  righteousness  is  said  to 
 be  imputed,  it  follows  that  believers  are  not  really  justified  in 
 this  life.  This  is  the  conclusion  to  which  he  is  led  by  two  prin- 
 ciples. The  first  is,  that  the  word  dexacoco  means  to  make 
 righteous  inwardly,  (es  bedeutet  die  gottliche  Thatigkeit  des 
 Hervorrufens  der  dexacoauvrj,)  and  no  man  is  perfectly  holy  in 
 this  life;  the  second  is,  that  God  cannot  regard  any  one  as 
 being  what  he  is  not,  and  therefore  he  cannot  regard  the 
 unrighteous  as  righteous.     The  former  of  these  assumptions  is 
 
 *  The  doctrine  of  the  transcendentalists  (so  called)  regarding  the  incarna- 
 tion, the  person  of  Christ,  and  his  relation  to  the  Church,  necessarily  leads  to 
 the  assumption  of  a  great  distinction  between  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament 
 and  that  of  the  New,  and  between  the  state  and  privileges  of  believers  then  and 
 now.  If  our  redemption  consists  in  our  being  made  partakers  of  the  thean- 
 thropic  nature  of  Christ,  as  there  was  no  such  nature  before  the  manifestation 
 of  God  in  the  flesh,  there  conld  be  no  real  redemption,  no  deliverance  from  the 
 guilt  and  power  of  sin,  before  that  event.  Hence  Oishausen  says  there  could 
 be  no  ifKxtonvM  &*ou  really  belonging  to  those  who  lived  before  the  advent;  and 
 on  page  171  he  says,  if  we  admit  there  was  any  regeneration  at  all  under  the 
 Old  Testament,  it  could  only  be  symbolical;  and  on  page  167,  he  says,  before 
 Christ,  forgiveness  of  sin  was  not  real,  but  only  symbolical.  In  a  foot  note  he 
 adds,  that  under  the  theocracy  there  was  the  pardon  of  separate  acts  of  trans- 
 gression, but  not  the  forgiveness  of  all  sins,  actual  and  original,  which  can 
 only  proceed  from  Christ.  It  follows  also  from  this  theory,  that  justification 
 is  a  subjective  change,  a  change  wrought  in  the  soul  by  the  reception  of  a  new 
 nature  from  Christ.  These  conclusions  the  Romanists  had  reached  long  ago, 
 by  a  difi"erent  process.  It  is  not  wonderful,  therefore,  that  so  many  of  the 
 transcendentalists  of  Germany,  and  of  their  abettors  elsewhere,  have  passed 
 OTer  to  the  Church  of  Borne. 
 
174  ROMANS  IV.  3. 
 
 utterly  unfounded,  as  dcxacoa)  always  means  to  declare  just,  and 
 never  to  make  just.  The  second  principle,  Olshausen,  in  hid 
 comment  on  this  verse,  modifies  so  far  as  to  say  that  God  can 
 only  regard  as  just  those  whom  he  purposes  to  render  just ;  and 
 as  with  God  there  are  no  distinctions  of  time,  he  regards  as 
 already  possessed  of  righteousness  those  whom  he  has  purposed 
 to  render  so.  (This  would  seem  to  imply  eternal  justification, 
 or  at  least  an  imputation  of  righteousness  from  eternity  to  all 
 whom  God  has  purposed  to  save.)  Without  this  modification, 
 he  says,  the  objection  of  Romanists  to  the  Protestant  doctrine 
 would  be  unanswerable.  There  is  a  sense,  however,  in  which 
 the  principle  in  question  is  perfectly  sound.  God  must  see 
 things  as  they  are,  and  pronounce  them  to  be  what  they 
 are.  The  Protestant  doctrine  does  not  suppose  that  God 
 regards  any  person  or  thing  as  being  other  than  he  or  it  really 
 is.  When  he  pronounces  the  unjust  to  be  just,  the  word  is 
 taken  in  different  senses.  He  does  not  pronounce  the  unholy 
 to  be  holy;  he  simply  declares  that  the  demands  of  justice 
 have  been  satisfied  in  behalf  of  those  who  have  no  righteousness 
 of  their  own.  In  sin  there  are  the  two  elements  of  guilt  and 
 pollution — the  one  expressing  its  relation  to  the  justice,  the 
 other  its  relation  to  the  holiness  of  God ;  or,  what  amounts  to 
 the  same  thing,  the  one  expressing  its  relation  to  the  penalty, 
 and  the  other  its  relation  to  the  precept  of  the  law.  These  two 
 elements  are  separable.  The  moral  character  or  inward  state 
 of  a  man  who  has  suffered  the  penalty  of  a  crime,  and  thus 
 expiated  his  offence,  may  remain  unchanged.  His  guilt,  in  the 
 eye  of  human  law,  is  removed,  but  his  pollution  remains.  It 
 would  be  unjust  to  inflict  any  further  punishment  on  him  for 
 that  offence.  Justice  is  satisfied,  but  the  man  is  unchanged. 
 There  may  therefore  be  guilt  where  there  is  no  moral  pollution, 
 as  in  the  case  of  our  blessed  Lord,  who  bore  our  sins ;  and  there 
 may  be  freedom  from  guilt,  where  moral  pollution  remains,  as 
 m  the  case  of  every  justified  sinner.  When,  therefore,  God 
 justifies  the  ungodly,  he  does  not  regard  him  as  being  other 
 than  he  really  is.  He  only  declares  that  justice  is  satisfied,  and 
 in  that  sense  the  man  is  just ;  he  has  a  dcxatoaovrj  which  satisfies 
 the  demands  of  the  law.  His  moral  character  is  not  the  ground 
 if  that   declaration,    and   is   not   affected  by  it.     As   to  the 
 
ROMANS  IV.  4,  5.  175 
 
 distinction  made  by  Olshausen  betAveen  imputing  righteousness 
 and  justifying,  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  it.  lie 
 himself  makes  them  synonymous,  (p.  157.)  The  two  forms  of 
 expression  are  used  synonymously  in  this  very  context.  In 
 ver.  ?,  it  is  said,  'faith  is  imputed  for  righteousness;'  in  ver.  5, 
 'God  justifies  the  ungodly;'  and  in  ver.  6,  'he  imputes  righteous- 
 ness'— all  in  the  same  sense.  Olshausen,  although  a  representa- 
 tive man,  exhibits  his  theology,  in  his  commentary,  in  a  very 
 unsettled  state.  He  not  only  retracts  at  times,  in  one  volume, 
 what  he  had  said  in  another,  but  he  modifies  his  doctrine  from 
 page  to  page.  In  his  remarks  on  Romans  iii.  21,  he  himself  as- 
 serts the  principle,  (as  quoted  above,)  that  "by  God  nothing  can 
 ever  be  regarded  or  declared  righteous,  which  is  not  righteous," 
 (p.  145;)  but  in  his  comment  on  this  verse,  he  pronounces  the 
 principle,  "  das  Gott  nach  seiner  Wahrhaftigkeit  nicht  Jeman- 
 den  fiir  etwas  ansehen  kann,  was  er  nicht  ist — falsch  und  liber 
 den  Heilsweg  durchaus  irreleitend,"  (p.  174.)  That  is,  he  says 
 that  the  principle  "  that  God,  in  virtue  of  his  veracity,  cannot 
 regard  one  as  being  what  he  is  not — is  false,  and  perverts  the 
 whole  plan  of  salvation."  On  page  157,  he  says,  "The  passing 
 over  of  the  nature  (Wesen)  of  Christ  upon  the  sinner,  is  expressed 
 by  saying  righteousness  is  im.putsd  to  him;"  whereas,  on  pages 
 173 — 5,  he  labours  to  show  that  imputing  righteousness  is  some- 
 thing very  different  from  imparting  righteousness.  He  prevail- 
 ingly teaches  the  doctrine  of  subjective  justification,  to  which 
 his  definition  and  system  inevitably  lead ;  but  under  the  stress 
 of  some  direct  assertion  of  the  apostle  to  the  contrary,  he  for 
 the  time  brings  out  the  opposite  doctrine.  He  exhibits  similar 
 fluctuations  on  many  other  points. 
 
 Verses  4,  5.  Hoto  to  him  that  worketh,  is  the  reivard  not 
 reckoned  of  grace,  hut  of  debt;  hut  to  him  that  worketh  not,  &c. 
 These  verses  are  designed,  in  the  first  place,  to  vindicate  the 
 pertinency  of  the  quotation  from  Scripture,  made  in  ver.  3,  by 
 showing  that  the  declaration  'faith  was  imputed  for  righteous- 
 ness,' is  a  denial  that  works  were  the  ground  of  Abraham's 
 acceptance ;  and,  secondly,  that  to  justify  by  faith,  is  to  justify 
 gratuitously,  and  therefore  all  passages  which  speak  of  gratui- 
 tous acceptance  are  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  justification 
 by  faith. 
 
17  b  ROMANS  IV.  4,  5. 
 
 New  to  him  that  worketh,  that  is,  either  emphatically  '  tc 
 him  who  does  all  that  is  required  of  him;'  or  'to  him  who 
 seeks  to  he  accepted  on  account  of  his  works.'  The  former 
 explanation  is  the  better.  The  words  then  state  a  general  pro- 
 position, '  To  him  that  is  obedient,  or  who  performs  a  stipulated 
 work,  the  recompense  is  not  regarded  as  a  gratuity,  but  as  a 
 debt.'  The  reward,  6  [xcad^b^,  the  appropriate  and  merited  com- 
 pensation. Is  not  imputed,  xaxa  yjipiv,  dX/A  dfpeiXr^fia,  not 
 grace,  but  debt,  which  implies  that  a  claim  founded  in  justice  la 
 the  ground  and  measure  of  remuneration.  Paul's  argument  is 
 founded  on  the  principle,  which  is  so  often  denied,  as  by 
 Olshausen,  (p.  172,)  that  man  may  have  merit  before  God ;  or 
 that  God  may  stand  in  the  relation  of  debtor  to  man.  The 
 apostle  says  expressly,  that  r(ji  ipya^oftiucfj,  to  him  that  vjorks, 
 the  reward  is  a  matter  of  debt.  If  Adam  had  remained  faith- 
 ful and  rendered  perfect  obedience,  the  promised  reward  would 
 have  been  due  to  him  as  a  matter  of  justice ;  the  withholding 
 it  would  have  been  an  act  of  injustice.  When,  therefore,  the 
 apostle  speaks  of  Abraham  as  having  a  ground  of  boasting,  if 
 his  works  made  him  righteous,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  simply 
 of  boasting  before  men.  He  would  have  had  a  ground  of 
 boasting  in  that  case  before  God.  The  reward  would  have  been 
 to  him  a  matter  of  debt. 
 
 But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  tcp  8k  [xtj  ipYa^ojuiucp.  That  is, 
 to  him  who  has  no  works  to  plead  as  the  ground  of  reward ; 
 TrcaveuouTc  ok  im  x.t.L,  but  believeth  upon,  i.  e.  putting  his  trust 
 upon.  The  faith  which  justifies  is  not  mere  assent,  it  is  an  act 
 of  trust.  The  believer  confides  upon  God  for  justification.  He 
 believes  that  God  will  justify  him,  although  ungodly;  for  the 
 object  of  the  faith  or  confidence  here  expressed  is  6  dcxaioJi)  rbv 
 d.as^7j,  he  who  justifies  the  ungodly.  Faith  therefore  is  appro- 
 priating; it  is  an  act  of  confidence  in  reference  to  our  own 
 acceptance  with  God.  To  him  who  thus  believes,  faith  is 
 counted  for  righteousness,  i.  e.  it  is  imputed  in  order  to  his 
 becoming  righteous.  It  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  faith  of  which 
 Paul  spei-ks,  that  he  who  exercises  it  should  feel  and  acknow- 
 ledge that  he  is  ungodly,  and  consequently  undeserving  of  the 
 favour  of  God.  He,  of  course,  in  relying  on  the  mercy  of  God, 
 must  acknowledge  that  his  acceptance  is  a  matter  of  grace,  and 
 
IIOMANS  IV,  4,  5.  177 
 
 not  of  debt.  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  is  plainly  this :  '  To 
 him  that  worketh,  the  reward  is  a  matter  of  debt,  but  to  him 
 who  worketh  not,  but  believeth  simply,  the  reward  is  a  mattei 
 of  grace.'  Instead,  however,  of  saying  'it  is  a  matter  of  grace,' 
 he  uses,  as  an  equivalent  expression,  "to  him  faith  is  counted 
 for  righteousness."  That  is,  he  is  justified  by  faith.  To  be 
 justified  by  faith,  therefore,  is  to  be  justified  gratuitously,  and 
 not  by  works.  It  is  thus  he  proves  that  the  passage  cited  in 
 ver.  3,  respecting  Abraham,  is  pertinent  to  his  purpose  as  an 
 argument  against  justification  by  works.  It  at  the  same  time 
 shows  that  all  passages  which  speak  of  gratuitous  acceptance, 
 may  be  cited  in  proof  of  his  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
 The  way  is  thus  opened  for  his  second  argument,  which  is 
 derived  from  the  testimony  of  David. 
 
 It  is  to  be  remarked,  that  Paul  speaks  of  God  as  justifying 
 the  ungodly.  The  word  is  in  the  singular,  rov  dasj^rj,  the 
 ungodly  man,  not  with  any  special  reference  to  Abraham,  as 
 though  he  was  the  ungodly  person  whom  God  justified,  but 
 because  the  singular,  ipya^ofiiuaj,  (to  him  that  worketh,)  mareu- 
 ovTc,  (to  him  that  believeth,)  is  used  m  the  context,  and  because 
 every  man  must  believe  for  himself  God  does  not  justify  com- 
 munities. If  every  man  and  all  mon  are  ungodly,  it  follows 
 that  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous,  not  on  the 
 ground  of  their  personal  character;  and  it  is  further  apparent 
 that  justification  does  not  consist  in  making  one  inherently  just 
 or  holy;  for  it  is  as  ungodly  that  those  who  believe  are  freely 
 justified  for  Christ's  sake.  It  never  was,  as  shown  above,  the 
 doctrine  of  the  Reformation,  or  of  the  Liitheran  and  Reformed 
 divines,  that  the  imputation  of  righteousness  afiiects  the  moral 
 character  of  those  concerned.  It  is  true,  whom  God  justifies  he 
 also  sanctifies;  but  justification  is  not  sanctification,  and  the 
 imputation  of  righteousness  is  not  the  infusion  of  righteousness. 
 These  are  the  first  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers. 
 '*  The  fourth  grand  error  of  the  Papists  in  the  article  of  •justifi- 
 cation," says  an  old  divine,  "is  concerning  that  which  we  call 
 the  form  thereof.  For  they,  denying  and  deriding  the  imputa- 
 tion of  Christ's  righteousness,  (without  which,  notwithstanding, 
 no  man  can  be  saved,)  do  h  Did  that  men  are  justified  by  infusion, 
 and  not  by  imputation  of  righteousness ;  we,  on  the  contrary, 
 12 
 
178  ROMANS  IV.  6—8. 
 
 do  hold,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  that  we  are  justified  before 
 God,  only  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  not 
 by  infusion.  And  our  meaning,  when  we  say  that  God  imputeth 
 Christ's  righteousness  unto  us,  is  nothing  else  but  this :  that  he 
 graciously  accepteth  for  us,  and  in  our  behalf,  the  righteousness 
 of  Christ,  that  is,  both  as  to  his  obedience,  which,  in  the  days 
 of  his  flesh,  he  performed  for  us ;  and  passive,  that  is,  his  suf- 
 ferings, which  he  sustained  for  us,  as  if  we  had  in  our  own  per 
 sons  both  performed  and  suffered  the  same  ourselves.  Howbeit, 
 we  confess  that  the  Lord  doth  infuse  righteousness  into  the 
 faithful;  yet  not  as  he  justifieth,  but  as  he  sanctifieth  tliem,' 
 &;c.  Bishop  Downame  on  Justification,  p.  261.  Tuckney,  one 
 of  the  leading  members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and 
 principal  author  of  the  Shorter  Catechism,  in  his  Prceleetiones, 
 p.  213,  says,  "Although  God  justifies  the  ungodly,  Rom.  iv.  5, 
 i.  e.  him  who  was  antecedently  ungodly,  and  who  in  a  measure 
 remains,  as  to  his  inherent  character,  unjust  after  justification, 
 yet  it  has  its  proper  ground  in  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,"  &c. 
 On  page  220,  he  says,  "  The  Papists  understand  by  justifica- 
 tion, the  infusion  of  inherent  righteousness,  and  thus  confound 
 justification  with  sanctification ;  which,  if  it  was  the  true  nature 
 and  definition  of  justification,  they  might  well  deny  that  the 
 imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  is  the  cause  or  formal 
 reason  of  this  justification,  i.  e.  of  sanctification.  For  we  are 
 not  so  foolish  or  blasphemous  as  to  say,  or  even  think,  that  the 
 righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us  renders  us  formally  or 
 inherently  righteous,  so  that  we  should  be  formally  or  inhe- 
 rently righteous  with  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Since  the 
 righteousness  of  Christ  is  proper  to  himself,  and  is  as  insepara- 
 ble from  him,  and  as  incommunicable  to  others,  as  any  other 
 attribute  of  a  thing,  or  its  essence  itself." 
 
 Verses  6 — 8.  SJven  as  David  also  descriheth  the  blessedness 
 of  the  man  to  whom  Gfod  imputeth  righteousness  without  tvorJcs. 
 Paul's  first  argument  in  favour  of  gratuitous  justification  was 
 from  the  case  of  Abraham ;  his  second  is  from  the  testimony  of 
 David.  The  immediate  connection  of  this  verse  is  with  ver.  5. 
 At  the  conclusion  of  that  verse,  it  was  said,  to  him  who  had  no 
 works,  faith  is  imputed,  in  order  to  his  justification,  i.  e.  he  is 
 justified  grati  itously,  even  as  David  speaks  of  the  blessednesa 
 
ROMANS  IV.  6—8.  179 
 
 of  him  -whom,  although  destitute  of  merit,  God  regards  and 
 treats  as  righteous.  Descriheth  the  blessedness,  i.  e.  pronounces 
 blessed.  The  words  are  Xsyec  zbv  [laxapcaixov,  utters  the  declara- 
 tion of  blessedness  concerning  the  man,  &c.  To  whom  God 
 imputeth  righteousness  without  works,  that  is,  whom  God  regards 
 and  treats  as  righteous,  although  he  is  not  in  himself  righteous. 
 The  meaning  jf  this  clause  cannot  be  mistaken.  '  To  impute 
 sin,'  is  to  lay  sin  to  the  charge  of  any  one,  and  to  treat  him 
 accordingly,  as  is  universally  admitted ;  so  'to  impute  right- 
 eousness,' is  to  set  righteousness  to  one's  account,  and  to  treat 
 him  accordingly.  This  righteousness  does  not,  of  course,  belong 
 antecedently  to  those  to  whom  it  is  imputed,  for  they  are  un- 
 godly, and  destitute  of  works.  Here  then  is  an  imputation  to 
 men  of  what  does  not  belong  to  them,  and  to  which  they  have 
 in  themselves  no  claim.  To  impute  righteousness  is  the  apos- 
 tle's definition  of  the  term  to  justify.  It  is  not  making  men 
 inherently  righteous,  or  morally  pure,  but  it  is  regarding  and 
 treating  them  as  just.  This  is  done,  not  on  the  ground  of  per- 
 sonal character  or  works,  but  on  the  ground  of  the  righteous- 
 ness of  Christ.  As  this  is  dealing  with  men,  not  according  to 
 merit,  but  in  a  gracious  manner,  the  passage  cited  from  Ps. 
 xxxii.  1,  2,  is  precisely  in  point:  "Blessed  are  they  whose 
 iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is 
 the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin."  That  is, 
 blessed  is  the  man  who,  although  a  sinner,  is  regarded  and 
 treated  as  righteous.  As  the  remission  of  sin  is  necessarily 
 connected  with  restoration  to  God's  favour,  the  apostle  speaks 
 of  it  as  the  whole  of  justification;  not  that  the  idea  of  remission 
 exhausts  the  whole  idea  of  justification,  but  it  necessarily 
 implies  the  rest.  In  like  manner,  in  Eph.  i.  7,  it  is  said,  "  in 
 whom  we  have  redemption,  .  .  .  the  forgiveness  of  sins;"  which 
 does  not  imply  that  forgiveness  is  the  whole  of  redemption,  that 
 the  gift  of  the  Spirit,  the  glorification  of  the  body,  and  eternal 
 life,  which  are  so  constantly  spoken  of  as  fruits  of  Christ's 
 work,  as  parts  of  the  purchased  inheritance,  are  to  be  excluded. 
 Here  again  the  doctrine  of  a  personal,  inherent  righteous- 
 ness, which  it  is  the  special  object  of  the  apostle  to  exclude,  is 
 introduced  by  the  modern  mystical  or  transcendental  theolo- 
 gians.   On  the  declaration  that  righteousness  is  imputed  without 
 
180  ROMANS  IV.  9. 
 
 works,  Olshausen  remarks :  "  No  matter  how  abundant  or  pure 
 works  may  be,  the  ground  of  blessedness  is  not  in  them,  but  in 
 the  principle  whence  they  flow;  that  is,  not  in  man,  but  in 
 GDd."  The  whole  doctrine  of  the  apostle  is  made  to  be,  that 
 men  are  justified  (made  holy,)  not  by  themselves,  but  by  God; 
 thus  confounding,  as  E-om-anists  do,  justification  "with  sanctifica- 
 tion.  In  Ps.  xxxii.  1,  2,  as  quoted  by  Paul  from  the  LXX., 
 aifikvai  {to  remit,)  and  k-rtcxolunztcv  {to  cover,)  are  inter-changed. 
 Olshausen  says  the  former  expresses  the  New  Testament  idea 
 of  forgiveness,  (die  reale  Hinwegschafiung  der  SUnde,)  i.  e.  the 
 real  removal  of  sin ;  the  latter,  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  non- 
 imputation  of  sin — the  sin  remaining,  but  being  overlooked. 
 This  view  of  the  nature  of  remission,  and  of  the  difference 
 oetween  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  is  purely  Romish. 
 
 Verse  9.  Oometh  this  blessedness  upon  the  circumcison  only^ 
 or  upon  the  uncircumcision  also?  &c.  The  apostle's  third  argu- 
 ment, commencing  with  this  verse  and  continuing  to  the  12th, 
 nas  special  reference  to  circumcision.  He  had  proved  that 
 Abraham  was  not  justified  on  account  of  his  works  generally; 
 he  now  proves  that  circumcision  is  neither  the  ground  nor  con- 
 dition of  his  acceptance.  The  proof  of  this  point  is  brief  and 
 conclusive.  It  is  admitted  that  Abraham  was  justified.  The 
 only  question  is,  was  it  before  or  after  his  circumcision?  If 
 before,  it  certainly  was  not  on  account  of  it.  As  it  was  before, 
 circumcision  must  have  had  some  other  object. 
 
 'Cometh  this  blessedness.'  There  is  nothing  in  the  original 
 to  answer  to  the  word  cometh,  although  some  word  of  the  kind 
 must  be  supplied.  The  most  natural  word  to  supply  is  Xeyzvai. 
 David  utters  the  declaration  of  the  blessedness  'of  the  man 
 whose  sins  are  pardoned.'  Concerning  whom  is  this  declara- 
 tion uttered?  The  word  rendered  blessedness  means,  more 
 properly,  'declaration  of  blessedness.'  'This  declaration  of 
 blessedness,  is  it  upon,  i.  e.  is  it  about,  {XiytTat)  is  it  said  con- 
 cerning the  circumcision  only?'  The  preposition  (im)  used  by 
 the  apostle,  often  points  out  the  direction  of  an  action,  or  the 
 subject  concerning  which  anything  is  said.  This  question  has 
 not  direct  reference  to  the  persons  to  whom  the  offers  of  accept- 
 ance are  applicable,  as  though  it  were  equivalent  to  asking,  'Is 
 this  blessedness  confined  to  the  Jews,  or  may  it  be  extended  to 
 
ROMANS  IV.  10,  11.  181 
 
 the  Gentiles  also?'  because  this  is  not  the  subject  now  in  hand. 
 It  is  the  ground  or  condition  of  acceptance,  and  not  the  persona 
 to  whom  the  oflfer  is  to  be  made,  that  is  now  under  consideration. 
 The  question  therefore  is,  in  substance,  this :  '  Does  this  decla- 
 ration of  blessedness  relate  to  the  circumcised,  as  such  ?  Is  cir- 
 cumcision necessary  to  justification?' — the  blessing  of  which 
 Paul  is  speaking.  The  answer  obviously  implied  to  the  pre- 
 ceding question  is,  '  It  is  not  said  concerning  the  ch'cumcised, 
 as  such;  for  we  say  that  faith  was  imputed  to  Abraham  for 
 righteousness.'  It  was  his  faith,  not  his  circumcision,  that  was 
 the  condition  of  his  justification.  The  preceding  verses  are 
 occupied  with  the  testimony  of  David,  which  decided  nothing  as 
 to  the  point  of  circumcision.  To  determine  whether  this  rite 
 was  a  necessary  condition  of  acceptance,  it  was  requisite  to 
 refer  again  to  the  case  of  Abraham.  To  decide  the  point  pre- 
 sented in  the  question  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  the  apostle 
 argues  from  the  position  already  established.  It  is  conceded 
 or  proved  that  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith;  to  determine 
 whether  circumcision  is  necessary,  we  have  only  to  ask,  Under 
 what  circumstances  was  he  thus  justified,  before  or  after  cir- 
 cumcision ? 
 
 Verse  10.  How  was  it  then  reckoned  9  when  he  was  in 
 circumcision  or  uncircumcision?  Not  in  circumcision,  hut  in 
 u,ncircunicision.  Of  course,  his  circumcision,  which  was  long 
 subsequent  to  his  justification,  could  not  be  either  the  ground 
 or  necessary  condition  of  his  acceptance  with  God. 
 
 Verse  11.  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  the  seal 
 of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet  uncir- 
 cumcised,  &c.  As  Paul  had  shown  that  circumcision  was  not  the 
 condition  of  justification,  it  became  necessary  to  declare  its  true 
 nature  and  design.  The  sign  of  circumcision,  i.  e.  circumcision 
 which  was  a  sign,  (genitive  of  apposition;)  as  "the  earnest  of 
 the  Spirit,"  for  'the  Spirit  which  is  an  earnest,'  2  Cor.  i.  20. 
 The  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  &c.  The  phrase,  right- 
 eousness of  faith,  is  a  concise  expression  for  'righteousness 
 which  is  attained  by  faith,'  or,  as  it  stands  more  fully  in  Philip, 
 iii.  9,  "the  righteousness  of  God,  which  is  by  faith."  The 
 word  righteousness,  in  such  connections,  includes,  with  the  idea 
 of  excellence  ,'>r  obedience,  that  of  consequent  blessedness.     It 
 
182  ROMANS  IV.  11. 
 
 is  the  'state  of  acceptableness  with  God.'  Tie  circumcision  of 
 Abraham  was  designed  to  confirm  to  him  the  fact,  that  he  was 
 regarded  and  treated  bj  God  as  righteous,  through  faith,  which 
 was  the  means  of  his  becoming  interested  in  the  promise  of 
 redemption.  From  this  passage  it  is  evident  that  circumcision 
 was  not  merely  the  seal  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  the 
 Hebrews  as  a  nation.  Besides  the  promises  made  to  Abraham, 
 of  a  numerous  posterity,  and  of  the  possession  of  the  land  of 
 Canaan,  there  was  the  far  higher  promise,  that  through  his  seed 
 (i.  e.  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  16)  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should 
 be  blessed.  This  was  the  promise  of  redemption,  as  the  apos- 
 tle teaches  us  in  Gal.  in.  13 — 18:  "Christ,"  he  says,  "has 
 redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law — in  order  that  the  bless- 
 ing of  Abraham  might  come  upon  the  Gentiles."  The  blessing 
 promised  to  Abraham,  in  which  the  Gentiles  participate  through 
 Jesus  Christ,  can  be  none  other  than  redemption.  As  that 
 blessing  was  promised  to  Abraham  on  the  condition,  not  of 
 works,  but  of  faith,  the  apostle  hence  argues,  that  in  our  case 
 also  we  are  made  partakers  of  that  blessing  by  faith,  and  not 
 by  works.  This  was  the  covenant  of  which  circumcision  was 
 the  seal.  All  therefore  who  were  circumcised,  professed  to 
 embrace  the  covenant  of  grace.  All  the  Jews  were  professors 
 of  the  true  religion,  and  constituted  the  visible  Church,  in  which 
 by  divine  appointment  their  children  were  included.  This  is 
 the  broad  and  enduring  basis  of  infant  church-membership. 
 
 Abraham,  says  the  apostle,  was  thus  assured  of  his  justifica- 
 tion by  faith,  (e/c  ^o  dvou,)  in  order  that  he  might  be  the  father  t 
 or,  80  that  he  is  the  father,  &c.  The  former  explanation  is  to 
 be  preferred,  not  only  because  SfC  with  the  infinitive,  commonly 
 expresses  design,  but  also  because  the  whole  context  shows  that 
 the  apostle  intends  to  bring  into  view  the  purpose  of  God  in  the 
 justification  of  Abraham.  The  father  of  all  them  that  believe, 
 though  they  he  not  circumcised,  Tiduriov  za>v  ncaveoovziov  dc 
 dxpo^ufTTca^,  i.  e.  'of  all  believing,  with  uncircumcision.'  That 
 is,  of  all  uncircumcised  believers.  The  preposition  did,  here,  as 
 in  ii.  27,  and  elsewhere,  simply  marks  the  attendant  circum- 
 stances. The  word  father  expresses  community  of  nature  or 
 character,  and  is  often  applied  to  the  head  or  founder  of  any 
 school  or  class  of  men,  whose  character  or  course  is  determined 
 
ROMANS  IV.  11.  183 
 
 by  the  relation  to  the  person  so  designated;  as  Gen.  iv.  20, 
 21:  "  Jabal  .  .  .  was  the  father  of  such  as  dwell  in  tents;"  and, 
 "  Jubal  .  .  .  was  the  father  of  all  such  as  handle  the  harp  and 
 organ."  Hence  teachers,  priests,  and  kings  are  often  called 
 fathers.  Believers  are  called  the  children  of  Abraham,  because 
 of  this  identity  of  religious  nature  or  character,  as  he  stands 
 out  in  Scripture  as  the  believer ;  and  because  it  was  with  him 
 that  the  covenant  of  grace,  embracing  all  the  children  of  God, 
 whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  was  reenacted ;  and  because  they  are 
 his  heirs,  inheriting  the  blessings  promised  to  him.  As  Abra- 
 ham was  the  head  and  father  of  the  theocratical  people  under 
 the  Old  Testament,  this  relation  was  not  disowned  when  the 
 middle  wall  of  partition  was  broken  down,  and  the  Gentiles 
 introduced  into  the  family  of  God.  He  still  remained  the  father 
 of  the  faithful,  and  we  are  "the  sons  of  Abraham  by  faith," 
 Gal.  iii.  7.  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  speak  in  the  same 
 way  of  Abraham :  Michlol  Jophi  on  Malachi  ii.  15,  by  the  one 
 there  mentioned,  "Abraham  is  intended,  for  he  was  one  alone, 
 and  the  father  of  all  who  follow  and  imitate  him  in  faith." 
 Bechai,  fol.  27,  he  is  calkd  "The  root  of  faith,  and  father 
 of  all  those  who  believe  in  one  God."  Jalkut  Chadash,  fol. 
 54,  4,  "  On  this  account  Abraham  was  not  circumcised  antil  he 
 was  ninety-nine  years  old,  lest  he  should  shut  the  door  on 
 proselytes  coming  in."  See  Schoettgen,  p.  508. 
 
 That  righteousness  might  he  imputed  unto  them  also.  The 
 connection  and  design  of  these  words  are  not  very  clear,  and 
 they  are  variously  explained.  They  may  be  considered  as 
 explanatory  of  the  former  clause,  and  therefore  connected  with 
 the  first  part  of  the  verse.  The  sense  would  then  be,  'Abraham 
 was  justified,  being  yet  uncircumcised,  that  he  might  be  the 
 father  of  believers,  although  uncircumcised,  that  is,  that  right- 
 eousness might  be  imputed  unto  them  also.'  This  clause  is 
 most  commonly  regarded  as  a  parenthesis,  designed  to  indicate 
 the  point  of  resemblance  between  Abraham  and  those  of  whom 
 he  is  called  the  father:  'He  is  the  father  of  uncircumcised 
 believers,  since  they  also  are  justified  by  faith,  as  he  was.' 
 The  words  etc  to  loyia&y^vax  are  explanatory  of  e^c  to  €tvcu  auzhv 
 narkpa:  '  He  was  justified  in  uncircumcision,  in  order  that  he 
 might  he  the  father ^  &c.;  that  is,  in  order  that  faith  might  le 
 
184  ROMANS  IV.  12. 
 
 imputed  to  them  also.'  From  this  it  appears  that  "to  impute 
 faith  for  righteousness"  and  "to  impute  righteousness,"  are 
 synonymous.  To  Abraham  righteousness  Avas  imputed;  he  had 
 the  {bixaxoabvq  TrjC,  niazzcoz)  righteousness  of  faith  as  truly  and 
 really  as  believers  now  have.  Nothing  can  be  more  opposed  to 
 the  whole  tenor  of  apostolic  teaching  than  the  Romish  and 
 modern  mystical  doctrine,  that  the  Old  Testament  believers 
 were  not  fully  justified ;  that  their  sins  were  pretermitted,  but 
 not  remitted;  that  their  regeneration  was  symbolical,  but  not 
 real. 
 
 "Verse  12.  And  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them,  who  are 
 not  of  the  circumcision  only,  &c.  That  the  preceding  clause  is 
 parenthetical  is  plain,  because  the  grammatical  construction  in 
 this  verse  is  continued  unbroken.  Father  of  circu7ncisio7i,  i.  e. 
 of  the  circumcised.  To  them,  auzdlc;.  This  change  of  con- 
 struction from  the  genitive  to  the  dative  may  be  accounted  for 
 either  by  the  fiict,  that  in  the  Hebrew  it  may  be  said  "  father 
 to"  as  well  as  "father  of;"  or  by  assuming  that  ahzolz  is  the 
 dative  of  advantage,  '■'■for  them."  The  meaning  of  this  verse 
 is  somewhat  doubtful.  According  to  our  version,  which  adheres 
 closely  to  the  Greek,  the  meaning  is,  'Abraham  is  not  the  father 
 of  uncircumcised  believers  only,  as  stated  in  ver.  11,  but  he  is 
 the  father  of  the  circumcised  also,  provided  they  follow  the 
 example  of  his  faith.'  According  to  this  view,  as  ver.  11  pre- 
 sents him  as  the  father  of  the  believing  Gentiles,  this  presents 
 him  as  the  father  of  the  believing  Jews.  The  only  grammatical 
 objection  to  this  interpretation  is  the  repetition  of  the  article 
 xoiz  before  azoi^ouai,  which  would  seem  to  indicate  that  "  those 
 who  follow  the  steps  of  his  faith"  were  a  different  class  from 
 the  circumcised.  Hence  some  commentators  interpret  the  pas- 
 sage thus :  '  He  is  the  father  of  the  circumcision,  and  not  of  the 
 circumcision  only,  but  also  of  those  who  follow  his  faith,  which 
 he  had  being  yet  uncircumcised.'  But  this  is  inconsistent  with 
 the  construction.  1.  It  overlooks  the  xac  at  the  beginning  of 
 the  verse,  by  which  it  is  connected  with  ver.  11 :  '  He  is  the 
 father  of  the  uncircumcised,  (ver.  11,)  and  father  of  the  circum- 
 sised,  (ver.  12.)  2.  It  requires  a  transposition  of  the  words 
 role  ou,  so  as  to  rea  i  oo  zdl^.  What  Paul  says  is,  '  To  those 
 ^ho   are  not  of  the  circumcision  only.'     This   interpretation 
 
ROMANS  IV.   13.  185 
 
 makes  him  say,  'Not  to  those  only  who  are  of  the  circumcision.' 
 3.  It  is  very  unnatural  to  make  this  verse  repeat  what  had  just 
 been  said  in  ver.  11.  There  Paul  had  said  that  Abraham  was 
 the  father  of  Gentile  believers ;  why  should  he  here  say  he  was 
 the  father  of  the  Jews,  and  also  of  the  Gentiles  ?  The  former 
 interpretation,  which  is  adopted  by  the  great  body  of  com- 
 mentatois,  is  therefore  to  be  preferred. 
 
 Verses  13 — 16  contain  two  additional  arguments  in  favour 
 of  the  apostle's  doctrine.  The  first,  vs.  13,  14,  is  the  same  as 
 that  presented  more  at  length  in  Gal.  iii.  18,  &c.,  and  is  founded 
 on  the  nature  of  a  covenant.  The  promise  having  been  made 
 to  Abraham  (and  his  seed,)  on  the  condition  of  faith,  cannot 
 now,  consistently  with  fidelity,  be  made  to  depend  on  obedience 
 to  the  law.  The  second  argument,  vs.  15,  16,  is  from  the  nature 
 of  the  law  itself. 
 
 Verse  13.  For  the  promise^  that  he  should  he  heir  of  the 
 world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or  to  his  seed,  &c.  The  word  for 
 does  not  connect  this  verse  with  the  one  immediately  preceding, 
 as  a  proof  of  the  insufficiency  of  circumcision.  It  rather  marks 
 the  introduction  of  a  new  argument  in  favour  of  the  general 
 proposition  which  the  chapter  is  designed  to  establish.  Aa 
 Abraham  was  not  justified  for  his  circumcision,  so  neither- was 
 it  on  arcount  of  his  obedience  to  the  law.  If,  however,  it  be 
 preferred  to  connect  this  verse  with  what  immediately  precedes, 
 the  argument  is  substantially  the  same.  In  the  preceding 
 verses  Paul  had  said  that  Abraham  is  the  father  of  believers ; 
 in  other  words,  that  believers  are  his  heirs,  for  the  promise 
 that  he  should  inherit  the  world  was  made  on  the  condition  of 
 faith.  The  promise  here  spoken  of  is,  that  Abraham  and  his 
 seed  should  be  the  heirs  of  the  world.  The  word  heir,  in  Scrip- 
 ture, frequently  means  secure  possessor.  Heb.  i.  2,  vi.  17, 
 xi.  7,  &c.  This  use  of  the  term  probably  arose  from  the  fact, 
 that  among  the  Jews  possession  by  inheritance  was  much  more 
 secure  and  permanent  than  that  obtained  by  purchase.  The 
 promise  was  not  to  Abraham,  nor  to  his  seed,  {^q  T(p  aTiepfxan 
 auToo,)  i.  e.  neither  to  the  one  nor  to  the  other.  Both  were 
 included  in  the  promise.  And  by  his  seed,  is  not  here,  as  in  Gal. 
 iii.  16,  meant  Christ,  but  his  spiritual  children.  This  is  evident 
 from  ver.  16,  where  the  apostle  speaks  of  tiuv  to  aytspfjia,  the 
 
186  ROMANS  IV.  13. 
 
 whole  seed.  The  clause  to  xkrjpovofiov  aurbv  sluai  is  explauatoi^ 
 of  ij  inaffeXia.  It  states  the  contents  of  the  promise.  The 
 article  to,  attached  to  the  infinit.ve,  renders  it  more  prominent 
 or  emphatic.  As  no  such  promise  as  that  mentioned  in  this 
 verse  is  contained,  in  so  many  words,  in  the  Old  Testament,  the 
 apostle  must  have  designed  to  express  what  he  knew  to  be  the 
 purport  of  those  actually  given.  The  expression,  however,  has 
 been  variously  explained.  1.  Some  understand  the  world  to 
 mean  the  land  of  Canaan  merely.  But  in  the  first  place,  this 
 IS  a  very  unusual,  if  not  an  entirely  unexampled  use  of  tho 
 word.  And,  in  the  second  place,  this  explanation  is  incon- 
 sistent with  the  context ;  for  Paul  has  reference  to  a  promise 
 of  which,  as  appears  from  ver.  16,  believing  Gentiles  are  to 
 partake.  2.  Others  understand  the  apostle  to  refer  to  the 
 promise  that  Abraham  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations, 
 Gen.  xvii.  5,  and  that  his  posterity  should  be  as  numerous  as 
 the  stars  of  heaven,  Gen.  xv.  5 ;  promises  which  they  limit  to 
 his  natural  descendants,  who,  being  widely  scattered,  may  be 
 said,  in  a  limited  sense,  to  possess  the  world.  But  this  inter- 
 pretation is  irreconcilable  with  ver.  16.  3.  Besides  the  pro- 
 mises already  referred  to,  it  was  also  said,  that  in  him  all  the 
 nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.  Gen.  xii.  3.  This,  as 
 Paul  explains  it.  Gal.  iii.  16,  &c.,  had  direct  reference  to  the 
 blessings  of  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  the  seed 
 of  Abraham.  And  here  too  he  speaks  of  blessings  of  which  all 
 believers  partake.  The  possession  of  the  world,  therefore,  here 
 intended,  must  be  understood  in  a  manner  consistent  with  these 
 passages.  The  expression  is  frequently  taken  in  a  general 
 sense,  as  indicating  general  prosperity  and  happiness.  "  To  be 
 heir  of  the  world"  would  then  mean,  to  be  prosperous  and 
 happy,  in  the  best  sense  of  the  words.  Reference  is  made,  in 
 support  of  this  interpretation,  to  such  passages  as  Matt.  v.  5, 
 Ps.  xxxvii,  11,  "The  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth;"  Ps.  xxv. 
 13,  "  His  seed  shall  inherit  the  earth."  The  promise  then,  to 
 be  the  heir  of  the  world,  is  a  general  promise  of  blessedness. 
 And  as  the  happiness  promised  to  believers,  or  the  pious,  as 
 such,  is  of  course  the  happiness  consequent  on  religion,  and  is 
 its  reward,  the  promise  in  this  sense  may  include  all  the  bless- 
 ings of  redemption.    So  in  Gal.  iii.  14,  Paul  uses  the  expression 
 
ROMANS  IV.  13.  187 
 
 "that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles," 
 as  equivalent  to  saying  'that  all  the  blessings  of  the  gospel 
 mio-ht  come  upon  there.'  4.  Or  the  promises  in  question  may 
 have  reference  to  the  actual  possession  of  the  world  by  the 
 spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  and  Christ  their  head.  The  declara- 
 tion that  Abraham  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations,  and 
 that  his  seed  should  be  as  the  stars  of  heaven  for  multitude, 
 included  far  more  than  that  his  natural  descendants  should  be 
 very  numerous.  If  they  who  are  of  faith  '  are  the  seed  of  Abra- 
 ham, and  heirs  of  the  promise,'  Gal.  iii.  9,  29,  then  Avill  the  pro- 
 raise,  as  stated  by  the  apostle,  have  its  literal  accomplishment 
 when  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  are  given  to  the  saints  of  the 
 most  high  God  (Dan.  vii.  27,)  and  when  the  uttermost  parts  of 
 the  earth  become  the  possession  of  Christ.  In  this  sense,  the 
 promise  includes  the  universal  prevalence  of  the  true  religion, 
 involving  of  course  the  advent  of  Christ,  the  establishment  of 
 his  kingdom,  and  all  its  consequent  blessings.  The  Jewish 
 writers  were  accustomed  to  represent  Abraham  as  the  heir  of 
 the  world.  "Bemidbar,  R.  xiv.,  fol.  202,  'The  garden  is  the 
 world  Avhicli  God  gave  to  Abraham,  to  whom  it  is  said,  Thou 
 shalt  be  a  blessing.'  '  God  gave  to  my  father  Abraham  the  pos- 
 session of  heaven  and  earth.'  Midrasch  Mischle,  19.  Mechila. 
 in  Ex.  xiv.  31,  'Abraham  our  father  did  not  obtain  the  inhe- 
 ritance of  this  world,  and  the  world  to  come,  except  through 
 faith.'  "    Wetstein. 
 
 The  promise  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  was  not  through  the 
 laiv,  hut  throwjh  the  righteousness  of  faith.  That  is,  it  was  not 
 on  condition  of  obedience  to  the  law,  but  on  condition  of  his 
 liaving  that  righteousness  which  is  obtained  by  faith.  Through 
 the  law,  is  therefore  equivalent  to  through  the  ivorks  of  the  lazv, 
 as  appears  from  its  opposition  to  the  latter  clause, '  righteous- 
 ness of  faith.'  By  the  law,  is  to  be  understood  the  whole  rule 
 of  duty,  as  in  other  passages  of  the  same  kind  ;  see  iii.  20.  In 
 this  sense  it  of  course  includes  the  Mosaic  law,  which,  to  the 
 Jews,  was  the  most  prominent  portion  of  the  revealed  will  of 
 God,  and  by  obedience  to  which  especially  they  hoped  for  the 
 mercy  of  God.  The  parallel  passage,  Gal.  iii.  18,  &c.,  where 
 tlie  law  is  said  to  have  been  given  four  hundred  years  after  the 
 covenant  formed  with  Abraham,  shows  it  was  one  part  of  the 
 
188  ROMANS  IV.  14. 
 
 apostle's  design  to  convince  the  Jews,  that  as  Abraham  was  not 
 justified  by  his  circumcision,  (ver.  11,)  so  also  it  was  not  in 
 virtue  of  the  Mosaic  economy  not  yet  established ;  and  therefore 
 the  promise  could  not  be  made  to  depend  on  the  condition  of  obe- 
 dience to  that  dispensation.  This  idea,  although  included,  is  not 
 to  be  urged  to  the  exclusion  of  the  more  comprehensive  mean- 
 ing of  the  word  law,  which  the  usage  of  the  apostle  and  the  con- 
 ti)xt  show  to  be  also  intended.  It  was  neither  by  obedience  to  the 
 law  generally,  nor  to  the  particular  form  of  it,  as  it  appeared 
 in  the  Mosaic  institutions,  that  the  promise  was  to  be  secured. 
 
 Verse  14.  For  if  they  which  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  &c. 
 The  original  condition  being  faith,  if  another  be  substituted  the 
 covenant  is  broken,  the  promise  violated,  and  the  condition 
 made  of  none  effect.  "  They  who  are  of  the  law"  (of  kx  p6/xoo,) 
 sometimes,  as  ver.  16,  means  the  Jews,  i.  e.  those  who  have  the 
 law;  compare  ver.  12,  "Those  of  circumcision,"  &c.  But  here 
 it  means  legalists,  those  who  seek  justification  by  the  works  of 
 the  law;  as  'those  who  are  of  faith'  are  believers,  those  who  seek 
 justification  by  faith;  compare  Gal.  iii.  10,  "As  many  as  are 
 of  the  works  of  the  law  are  under  the  curse,"  i.  e.  as  many  as 
 seek  acceptance  by  their  own  works.  The  apostle's  meaning, 
 therefore,  obviously  is,  that  if  those  who  rely  upon  their  own 
 works  are  the  heirs  of  the  promise,  and  are  accepted  on  the 
 condition  of  obedience  to  the  law,  the  whole  covenant  is  broken, 
 faith  is  made  void,  and  the  promise  made  of  none  effect.  "  Is 
 made  void"  (xexivovai,)  is  rendered  useless;  see  1  Cor.  i.  17, 
 "The  cross  of  Christ  is  made  useless,"  ix.  15,  &c.;  compare 
 1  Cor.  XV.  17,  "Your  faith  is  vain,"  not  only  without  founda- 
 tion but  of  no  use.  The  promise  is  made  of  none  effect  (xavTJp- 
 pjrai,)  i.  e.  is  invalidated;  see  chap.  iii.  3,  31.  It  is  plain 
 from  the  whole  design  and  argument  of  the  apostle,  that  by 
 law,  in  this  whole  connection,  he  means  not  specifically  the 
 law  of  Moses,  but  the  law  of  God,  however  revealed  as  a  rule 
 of  duty  for  man.  He  has  reference  to  the  Gentiles  as  well  as 
 to  the  Jews.  His  purpose  is  not  simply  to  convince  his  readers 
 that  obedience  to  the  Mosaic  law  cannot  save  them,  but  that 
 obedience  in  any  form,  works  of  any  kind,  are  insufficient  for  a 
 man's  justification  before  God.  So  far,  therefore,  from  the 
 Ciootflxt  requiring,   as  so  many  of  the  modern  commentator? 
 
ROMANS  U.  .15.  189 
 
 assert,  an  exclusive  reference  in  this  connection  to  the  law  of 
 Moses,  it  imperatively  demands  the  reverse. 
 
 A^EKSE  15.  For  the  imo  worketh  wrath,  &c.  That  is,  it  causes 
 men  to  be  the  subjects  of  wrath.  It  brings  them  under  con- 
 demnation. So  far  from  imparting  life,  it  causes  death.  If, 
 therefore,  the  inheritance  is  suspended  on  the  condition  of  obe- 
 dience to  the  law,  it  can  never  be  attained ;  for  by  the  law  no 
 flesh  living  can  be  justified.  The  connection  of  this  verse, 
 therefore,  may  be  with  what  immediately  precedes.  The  pro- 
 mise fails  if  it  be  by  the  law,  for  the  law  worketh  death.  The 
 truth  here  presented,  however,  although  thus  incidentally  intro- 
 duced, is  none  the  less  a  new  and  substantive  argument  for  the 
 doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  It  is  the  same  argument  as 
 that  urged  in  Gal.  iii.  10,  derived  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
 law.  If  it  works  wrath,  if  all  who  are  under  the  law  are  under 
 the  curse,  if  the  law  condemns,  it  cannot  justify.  As,  however, 
 there  are  two  ways  in  which,  according  to  the  apostle,  the  law 
 works  wrath,  so  there  are  two  views  of  the  meaning  of  this  pas 
 sage.  First,  the  law  works  wrath,  because  it  says,  "  Cursed  is 
 every  one  who  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book 
 of  the  law  to  do  them,"  Gal.  iii.  10.  As  the  law,  from  its  very 
 nature,  demands  perfect  obedience,  and  condemns  all  who  are 
 not  perfect,  it,  by  its  very  nature,  is  unsuited  to  give  life  to 
 sinners.  It  can  only  condemn  them.  If  there  were  no  law, 
 there  would  be  no  sin,  and  no  condemnation.  But  as  all  are 
 under  the  law,  and  all  are  sinners,  all  are  under  the  curse.  The 
 other  way  in  which  the  law  works  wrath  is,  that  it  excites  and 
 exasperates  the  evil  passions  of  the  heart ;  not  from  any  defect 
 in  the  law  itself,  but  from  the  nature  of  sin.  This  idea  the 
 apostle  presents  fully  in  the  seventh  chapter ;  where  it  is  pro- 
 perly in  place,  as  he  is  there  treating  of  sanctification.  Here, 
 where  he  is  treating  of  justification,  that  idea  would  be  inappro- 
 priate, and  therefore  the  former  interpretation  is  to  be  decidedly 
 preferred.  Calvin,  Tholuck,  and  others,  however,  understand 
 the  apostle  to  reason  thus:  'The  law,  instead  of  freeing  men 
 from  sin,  incidentally  renders  their  transgressions  more  numer- 
 ous, conspicuous,  and  inexcusable,  and  thus  brings  them  more 
 and  more  under  condemnation.'  "Nam  quum  Lex  nihil  quam 
 ultionem  generet,  non  potest  afiere  gratiam.     Bonis  quidem  a« 
 
190  ROM^J^S  ly.  15. 
 
 integris  viam  vitoe  m^nstraret:  sed  quatenus  viaosis  ac  cor 
 ruptis  prgecipit,  quid  debeant,  pr?estandi  autem  vires  non  sub- 
 ministrat,  reos  apud  Dei  tribunal  peragit.  Quae  enim  est  naturaa 
 nostras  vitiositas,  quo  magis  docemur,  quid  rectum  sit  ac  justum, 
 60  apertius  nostra  iniquitas  detegitur,  maximeque  contumacia; 
 atque  hoc  modo  gravius  Dei  judicium  acccrsitur."  For  ivJiere 
 there  is  no  lazo,  there  is  no  transgressian.  The  interpretation 
 given  to  this  clause  depends  upon  the  view  taken  of  the  preced- 
 ing one.  It  assigns  the  reason  why  the  law  works  wrath.  If 
 the  law  be  understood  to  work  v/rath  by  exasperating  the  evils 
 of  our  corrupt  nature,  then  the  meaning  of  this  confirmatory 
 clause  must  be,  that  the  law  makes  sin  more  inexcusable.  It 
 exalts  sins  into  transgressions,  6.fxapTio.  into  7:apd^aac(;.  Thus 
 again  Calvin  says,  that  the  reason  why  the  law  works  wrath  is, 
 "  quia  cognitione  justitioe  Dei  per  legem  percepta,  eo  gravius 
 peccamus  in  Deum,  quo  minus  excusationis  nobis  superest — non 
 loquitur  apostolus,"  he  adds,  "de  simplici  justitias  transgress- 
 ione,  a  qu^  nemo  eximitur ;  sed  transgressionem  appellat,  ubi 
 animus  edoctus,  quid  Deo  placeat  quidve  displiceat,  fines  voce 
 Dei  sibi  definitos  sciens  ac  volens  perrumpit.  Atqui  ut  unc 
 verbo  dicam,  transgressio  hie  non  simplex  delictum,  sed  destina 
 tam  in  violanda  justiti^  contumaciam  significat."  But  all  this 
 belongs  to  the  inefficacy  of  the  law  to  produce  holiness,  and  not 
 to  its  impotency  in  the  matter  of  justification,  which  is  the  point 
 he-re  under  consideration.  The  apostle's  argument  here  is,  that 
 the  inheritance  must  be  by  faith,  not  by  the  law,  for  the  law 
 can  only  condemn.  It  works  wrath,  for  without  it  there  would 
 be  no  condemnation,  because  there  would  be  no  transgression. 
 Besides,  Paul  does  not  make  the  distinction  between  sin  and 
 transgression,  between  b-iiapxia  and  izapd^aai^,  which  the  former 
 interpretation  supposes.  What  is  here  said  of  transgression,  is, 
 in  v.  13,  said  of  sin.  Where  there  is  no  law,  there  can  be  no 
 sin,  because  the  very  idea  of  sin  is  the  want  of  conformity  to  a 
 rule,  to  which  conformity  is  due ;  so  that  where  there  is  no  rule 
 or  standard,  there  can  be  no  want  of  conformity.  Such  being 
 the  meaning  of  this  clause,  it  is  plain  that  by  law,  the  apostle 
 does  not  intend  the  Mosaic  law,  but  law  as  the  standard  to 
 which  rational  creatures  are  bound  to  be  conformed.  If  men 
 would  only  icquiesce  in  Paul's  idea  of  law,  they  could  not  fail 
 
ROMANS  IV.  16.  191 
 
 to  receive  his  doctrine  concerning  sin  and  justification.  If  the 
 law  is  holy,  just,  and  good;  if  it  is  spiritual,  taking  cognizance 
 not  only  of  outward  acts,  but  of  feelings,  not  only  of  active 
 feelinffs,  but  of  the  inherent  states  of  the  mind  whence  these 
 {iTzcd-op.'uu)  spring ;  if  it  condemns  all  want  of  conformity  to  its 
 own  inflexible  standard  of  complete  perfection,  then  there  must 
 be  an  end  to  all  hope  of  being  justified  by  the  law. 
 
 Verse  16.  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  hy  grace; 
 to  the  end  that  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed,  &c. 
 This  and  the  following  verse  contain  the  conclusion  from  the 
 previous  reasoning,  and  especially  from  the  two  preceding 
 arguments :  '  The  inheritance  promised  to  Abraham  and  his 
 seed  must  be  either  of  the  law,  or  of  faith.  It  cannot  be  of  the 
 law,  for  the  law  works  wrath,  therefore  it  is  of  faith.'  The 
 expression  in  the  original  is  simply  dco  touto  ix  mazeco^,  there- 
 fore of  faith.  It  matters  little,  so  far  as  the  sense  is  concerned, 
 whether  we  supply  the  words  ol  xXtjOovoiioc  elac  {therefore  the 
 heirs  are  of  faith,)  from  ver.  14,  or  the  word  l-ayjzUa  [the 
 promise,)  from  ver.  13;  or  with  Luther,  baaxoa'jvrj,  out  of  the 
 general  context — darum  muss  die  G-erechtigkeit  aus  dem  Grlau- 
 ben  Jcommen.  These  are  only  diff"erent  ways  of  saying  the  same 
 thing.  The  connection,  as  stated  above,  is  in  favour  of  the  first 
 explanation.  The  inheritance  is  of  faith,  (Jva  xara  ydpcv,)  in 
 order  that  it  might  be  a  matter  of  grace.  And  it  is  of  grace, 
 (src  ^o  dvax  j^sj^aJau  ttjv  iTvayyskcau,)  in  order  that  the  promise 
 onight  be  sure.  If  salvation  be  in  any  form  or  to  any  degree 
 dependent  on  the  merit,-  the  goodness,  or  the  stability  of  man, 
 it  never  can  be  sure,  nay,  it  must  be  utterly  unattainable. 
 Unless  we  are  saved  by  grace,  we  cannot  be  saved  at  all.  To 
 reject,  therefore,  a  gratuitous  salvation,  is  to  reject  the  only 
 method  of  salvation  available  for  sinners.  Salvation  being  of 
 grace,  suspended  on  the  simple  condition  of  faith,  without 
 regard  to  parentage,  to  national  or  ecclesiastical  connection,  it 
 is  available  for  all  classes  of  men.  And  therefore  the  apostle 
 says,  '  The  promise  is  sure  {rtavrl  zaJ  aitspixazc)  to  all  the  seed; 
 i.  e.  to  all  the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham.  He  had  already 
 shown  in  vs.  11,  12,  that  Abraham  was  the  father  of  believing 
 Gentiles  as  well  as  of  believing  Jews.  The  word  anippa  [seed) 
 must  therefore,  in  this  connection,  be  understood  of  believers 
 
192  ROMANS  IV.  17. 
 
 who,  in  a  higher  sense  than  mere  natural  descendants,  are  the 
 children  of  Abraham.  Both  classes  of  his  seed  are  included  in 
 the  promise  which  is  sure,  (ou  ru)  kx  vou  1^6/100  fiouou,)  not  to  that 
 of  the  law  only,  i.  e.  not  only  to  that  portion  of  the  seed  who 
 are  of  the  law,  that  is,  believiijg  Jews,  but  also  {toj  ix  Ti'tozewz 
 'A^j:ad/j)  to  that  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham.  These  for- 
 mulas are  indefinite,  and  susceptible,  taken  by  themselves,  of 
 diiferent  interpretations;  but  the  context  renders  all  plain. 
 Paul  is  speaking  of  the  spiritual  children  of  Abraham ;  of  those 
 who  are  heirs  of  the  inheritance  promised  to  him.  Of  these 
 there  are  two  classes;  believing  Jews  and  believing  Gentiles. 
 The  former  are  distinguished  as  [ix  vofiou)  of  the  law,  the  latter 
 as  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  because  their  connection  with  him 
 is  purely  spiritual,  whereas  the  Jewish  believers  were  connected 
 with  him  by  a  twofold  tie — the  one  natural,  the  other  spiritual. 
 Who  is  the  father  of  us  all,  i.  e.  of  all  believers.  The  highest 
 privilege  of  New  Testament  saints  is  to  be  partakers  of  the 
 inheritance  promised  to  Abraham.  They  are  not  exalted  above 
 him,  but  united  with  him  in  the  blessings  which  flow  from  union 
 with  Christ. 
 
 Verse  17.  As  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of 
 many  nations.  Gen.  xvli.  5.  This  declaration,  the  apostle 
 informs  us,  contains  a  great  deal  more  than  the  assurance  that 
 the  natural  descendants  Abraham  should  be  very  numerous. 
 Taken  in  connection  with  the  promise,  that  "in  him  all  the 
 nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed,"  it  refers  to  his  spiritual 
 as  well  as  his  natural  seed,  and  finds  its  full  accomplishment  in 
 the  extension  of  the  blessing  promised  to  him,  to  those  of  all 
 nations  who  are  his  children  by  faith.  This  clause  is  very  pro- 
 perly marked  as  a  parenthesis,  as  the  preceding  one,  "who  is 
 the  father  of  us  all,"  must  be  connected  immediately  with  the 
 following  words,  before  him  whom  he  believed,  even  Crod,  who 
 quickeneth  the  dead,  &c.  The  words  xarivavrc  ob  iTrcareuas 
 dead,  admit  of  different  explanations.  They  are  commonly 
 regarded  as  an  example  of  the  substantive  being  attracted  to 
 the  case  of  the  relative,  instead  of  the  relative  to  that  of  the 
 substantive,  dsod  being  in  the  genitive,  because  oh  is.  The 
 clause  may  therefore  be  resolved  thus :  xavevavzi  6eou  w  iTzia- 
 reoffSy  before  God  whom  he  believed.     To  this,  however,  it  ia 
 
ROMANS  IV.  17.  193 
 
 objected,  that  this  form  of  attraction  with  the  dative  is  very 
 unusual,  and  therefore  "Winer,  §  24,  2,  5,  and  others,  adopt  the 
 simple  explanation,  xarsvavrt  dsou  xarivavri  oh  iTTcarsuas,  (before 
 0-od,  before  whom  he  believed.)  The  sense  in  either  case  is 
 the  same.  Abraham  is  the  father  of  us  all,  {xaTivavrc,)  before^ 
 in  the  sight  of  that  God  in  ■whom  he  believed.  God  looked  upon 
 him  as  such.  He  stood  before  his  omniscient  eye,  surrounded 
 by  many  nations  of  children. 
 
 It  is  not  unusual  for  the  apostle  to  attach  to  the  name  of  God 
 a  descriptive  periphrase,  bringing  into  view  some  divine  attri- 
 bute or  characteristic  suited  to  the  subject  in  hand.     So  here, 
 when  speaking  of  God's  promising  to  Abraham,  a  childless  old 
 man,  a  posterity  as  numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  it  was 
 most  appropriate  to  refer  to  the  omnipotence  of  God,  to  whom 
 nothing  is  impossible.     Abraham  believed,  what  to  all  human 
 appearance  never  could  happen,  because  God,  who  made  the 
 promise,  is  he  who  quicheneth  the  dead,  and  calleth  those  things 
 which  be  not,  as  though  they  tvere.     To  originate  life  is  the  pre- 
 rogative of  God.     It  requires  almighty  power,  and  is  therefore 
 in  Scripture  specified  as  one  of  God's  peculiar  works ;  see  Deut. 
 xxxii.  39,  1  Sam.  ii.  6,  2  Kings  v.  7,  Ps.  Ixviii.  20.     The  being 
 who  can  call  the  dead  to  life,  must  be  able  to  fulfil  to  one, 
 although  as  good  as  dead,  the  promise  of  a  numerous  posterity. 
 The  other  clause  in  this  passage,  [xai  xaloovzo^  to.  [xtj  dura  a>c 
 ovza,)  and  calling  things  that  be  not,  as  being,  is  more  doubtful. 
 There  are  three  interpretations  of  these  words,  founded  on  three 
 different  senses  of  the  word  (xaXsiv)  to  call.    1.  To  call,  means  to 
 command,  to  control,  to  muster  or  dispose  of.    Thus  the  psalm- 
 ist says,  "  The  mighty  God,  even  the  Lord  hath  spoken,  and 
 called  the  earth,  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  unto  the  going  down 
 thereof."    Isaiah,  speaking  of  the  stars,  says,  "Who  .  .  .  bring- 
 eth  out  their  host  by  number :  he  calleth  them  all  by  name,  by 
 the  greatness  of  his  might,"  xl.  26,  also  Ps.  cxlvii.  4,  Isa.  xlv.  3, 
 xlviii.  13.     This  gives  a  sense  perfectly  suited  to  the  context. 
 God  is  described  as  controlling  with  equal  ease  things  which 
 are  not,  and  those  which  are.     The  actual  and  the  possible  are 
 equally  subject  to  his  command.     All  things  are  present  to  his 
 view,  and  all  are  under  his  control.     This  interpretation  also  is 
 suited  to  the  peculiar  form  of  expression,  who  calls  (ra  /jlt]  ovra 
 13 
 
194  ROMANS  IV.  1—17. 
 
 (5>C  oura,)  things  not  being,  ai  being.  It  gives  Jjc  its  appropri- 
 ate force.  2.  To  call,  however,  is  often  used  to  express  the 
 creating  energy  of  God.  See  Isa.  xli.  4,  xlviii.  13.  Compare 
 Ps.  xxix.  3 — 9.  Philo  de  Great.,  to.  [itj  ovza  kxd.haz\^  srV  to 
 ehou.  This  also  gives  a  good  sense,  as  the  omnipotence  of  God 
 cannot  be  more  forcibly  expressed  than  by  saying,  '  He  calls 
 things  not  existing  into  existence.'  But  the  difficulty  is,  that 
 a»C  opra  is  not  equivalent  with  s^c  ^o  elpai,  nor  with  kaofxzva,  nor 
 with  d^  TO  eluac  a>c  ov'col,  as  Kollner  and  De  Wette  explain  it. 
 This  indeed  is  not  an  impossible  meaning,  inasmuch  as  ovra,  as 
 Fritzsche  says,  may  be  the  accusative  of  the  effect,  as  in  Philip. 
 lii.  21,  "  He  shall  change  our  vile  body  (aufjifiOfj(pou)  like  unto 
 his  glorious  body,"  i.  e.  so  as  to  be  like;  see  also  1  Thess.  iii.  13. 
 As,  however,  the  forra.er  interpretation  gives  so  good  a  sense, 
 there  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  these  constrained  explanations. 
 3.  To  call,  is  often  used  to  express  the  effectual  calling  of  men 
 by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  some  understand  the  apostle  aa 
 here  saying,  '  God  calls  to  be  his  children  those  who  were  not 
 children.'  But  this  is  entirely  foreign  to  the  context.  Paul 
 is  presenting  the  ground  of  Abraham's  faith  in  God.  He 
 believed,  because  God  was  able  to  accomplish  all  things. 
 Everything  is  obedient  to  his  voice. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  If  the  greatest  and  best  men  of  the  old  dispensation  had 
 to  renounce  entirely  dependence  upon  their  works,  and  to 
 accept  of  the  favour  of  God  as  a  gratuity,  justification  by  works 
 must,  for  all  men,  be  impossible,  vs.  2,  3. 
 
 2.  No  man  can  glory,  that  is,  complacently  rejoice  in  his 
 own  goodness  in  the  sight  of  God.  And  this  every  man  of  an 
 enlightened  conscience  feels.  The  doctrine  of  justification  by 
 works,  therefore,  is  inconsistent  with  the  inward  testimony  of 
 conscience,  and  can  never  give  true  peace  of  mind,  ver.  2. 
 
 3.  The  two  methods  of  justification  cannot  be  united.  They 
 are  as  inconsistent  as  wages  and  a  free  gift.  If  of  works,  it  is 
 not  of  grace ;  and  if  of  grace,  it  is  not  of  works,  vs.  4,  5. 
 
 4.  As  God  justifies  the  ungodly,  it  cannot  be  on  the  ground 
 of  their  own  merit,  but  must  be  by  the  imputation  of  a  right- 
 
EOMANS  IV.  1—17.  195 
 
 eousness  which  does  not  personally  belong  to  them,  and  -which 
 they  received  by  faith,  vs.  5,  6,  11. 
 
 5.  The  blessings  of  the  gospel,  and  the  method  of  justifica- 
 tion which  it  proposes,  are  suited  to  all  men ;  and  are  not  to  be 
 confined  by  sectai'ian  limits,  or  bound  down  to  ceremonial 
 observances,  vs.  9 — 11. 
 
 6.  The  sacraments  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church,  although 
 in  the  highest  degree  useful  when  viewed  in  their  proper  light, 
 become  ruinous  when  perverted  into  grounds  of  confidence. 
 What  answers  well  as  a  sign,  is  a  miserable  substitute  for  the 
 thing  signified.  Circumcision  will  not  serve  for  righteousness, 
 nor  baptism  for  regeneration,  ver.  10. 
 
 7.  As  Abraham  is  the  father  of  all  believers,  all  believers  are 
 brethren.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  bond  nor  free, 
 among  them  as  Christians,  vs.  11,  12. 
 
 8.  The  seed  of  Abraham,  or  true  believers,  with  Jesus  Christ 
 their  head,  are  the  heirs  of  the  world.  To  them  it  will  ulti- 
 mately belong ;  even  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  shall  be 
 their  possession,  ver.  13. 
 
 9.  To  speak  of  justification  by  obedience  to  a  law  which  we 
 have  broken,  is  a  solecism.  That  which  condemns  cannot 
 justify,  ver.  15. 
 
 10.  Nothing  is  sure  for  sinners  that  is  not  gratuitous.  A 
 promise  suspended  on  obedience,  they  could  never  render  sure. 
 One  entirely  gratuitous  needs  only  to  be  accepted  to  become 
 ours,  ver.  16. 
 
 11.  It  is  the  entire  freeness  of  the  gospel,  and  its  requiring 
 faith  as  the  condition  of  acceptance,  which  renders  it  suited  to 
 all  ages  and  nations,  ver.  16. 
 
 12.  The  proper  object  of  faith  is  the  divine  promise;  or 
 God  considered  as  able  and  determined  to  accomplish  his 
 word,  ver.  17. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  renunciation  of  a  legal  self-righteous  spirit  is  the  first 
 requisition  of  the  gospel.  This  must  be  done,  or  the  gospel 
 cannot  be  accepted.  '  He  who  works,'  i.  e.  who  trusts  in  his 
 works,  refuses  to  be  saved  by  grace,  vs.  1 — 5. 
 
196  ROMANS  IV.  18—25. 
 
 2.  The  more  intimately  we  are  acquainted  with  our  o^rc 
 hearts  and  with  the  character  of  God,  the  more  ready  shall  we 
 be  to  renounce  our  own  righteousness,  and  to  trust  in  his 
 mercy,  vs.  2,  3. 
 
 3.  Those  only  are  truly  happy  and  secure,  who,  under  a 
 !*ense  of  ill-desert  and  helplessness,  cast  themselves  upon  the 
 grace  and  promise  of  God,  vs.  7,  8. 
 
 4.  Nothing  is  more  natural,  and  nothing  has  occurred  more 
 extensively  in  the  Christian  Church,  than  the  perversion  of  the 
 means  of  grace  into  grounds  of  dependence.  Thus  it  was  with 
 circumcision,  and  thus  it  is  with  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  ; 
 thus  too  with  prayer,  fasting,  &c.  This  is  the  rock  on  which 
 millions  have  been  shipwrecked,  vs.  9 — 12. 
 
 5.  There  is  no  hope  for  those  who,  forsaking  the  grace  of 
 God,  take  refuge  in  a  law  which  worketh  wrath,  ver.  15. 
 
 6.  All  things  are  ours  if  we  are  Christ's ;  heirs  of  the  life 
 that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is  to  come,  ver.  13. 
 
 7.  As  the  God  in  whom  believers  trust  is  he  to  whom  all 
 things  are  known,  and  all  things  are  subject,  they  should  be 
 strong  in  faith,  giving  glory  to  God,  ver.  17. 
 
 ROMANS  IV.  18—25. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  object  of  this  section  is  the  illustration  of  the  faith  of 
 Abraham,  and  the  application  of  his  case  to  our  instruction. 
 With  regard  to  Abraham's  faith,  the  apostle  states,  first,  its 
 object,  viz.  the  divine  promise,  ver.  18.  He  then  illustrates  its 
 strength,  by  a  reference  to  the  apparent  impossibility  of  the 
 thing  promised,  vs.  19,  20.  The  ground  of  Abraham's  con- 
 fidence was  the  power  and  veracity  of  God,  ver.  21.  The  con- 
 sequence was,  that  he  was  justified  by  his  faith,  ver.  22.  Hence 
 it  is  to  be  inferred  that  this  is  the  true  method  of  justification ; 
 for  the  record  was  made  to  teach  us  this  truth.  We  are  situ- 
 ated as  Abraham  was;  we  are  called  upon  to  believe  in  the 
 Almighty  God,  who,  by  raising  up  Christ  from  the  deai,  has 
 accepted  him  as  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  vs.  23 — 25. 
 
ROMANS  IV.  18.  197 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 "Verse  18.  7F^o  against  hope  believed  in  hope.  Here  kit  iXncd, 
 may  be  taken  adverbially,  confidently/:  'Against  all  human  hope 
 or  reasonable  expectation,  he  confidently  believed.'  Or  it  may 
 indicate  the  subjective  ground  of  his  faith :  he  believed,  because 
 he  had  a  hope  founded  on  the  promise  of  God.  Ho  believed, 
 that  he  might  become  the  father  of  many  nations.  The  Greek 
 is,  ere  ^o  ysviad-ae  aozbv  natipa,  x.t.L,  that  is,  according  to  one 
 explanation,  the  object  of  his  faith  was,  that  he  should  be  the 
 father  of  many  nations.  The  idea  thus  expressed  is  correct. 
 Abraham  did  believe  that  God  would  make  him  the  father  of 
 many  nations.  But  to  this  it  is  objected  that  ncazsuscu  s^c,  "with 
 an  infinitive  used  as  a  substantive,  although  grammatically  cor- 
 rect, is  a  construction  which  never  occurs.  Had  the  apostle, 
 therefore,  intended  to  express  the  object  of  Abraham's  faith,  he 
 would  probably  have  used  on,  he  believed  that  he  should  be,  &c. 
 Others  make  ec^  to  ysviad-ac  express  the  result  of  his  faith:  'He 
 believed  . . .  and  hence  he  became,'  &c.  The  consequence  of  his 
 faith  was,  that  the  promise  was  fulfilled.  Most  recent  commenta- 
 tors assume  that  s/c  with  the  infinitive  here,  as  it  commonly  does, 
 expresses  design,  or  intention ;  not  however  the  design  of  Abra- 
 ham, but  of  God:  'He  believed  in  order  that,  agreeably  to  the 
 purpose  of  God,  he  might  become  the  father  of  many  nations.' 
 This  best  agrees  with  what  is  said  in  ver.  11,  and  with  the  con- 
 text. According  to  that  ivhich  was  spoken,  So  shall  thy  seed 
 be.  This  is  a  reference  to  the  promise  which  was  the  object  of 
 Abraham's  faith.  It  is  a  quotation  from  Gen.  xv.  5.  The 
 word  so  refers  to  the  stars  of  heaven,  mentioned  in  the  passage 
 as  it  stands  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  promise,  therefore, 
 particularly  intended  by  the  apostle  is,  that  Abraham  should 
 be  the  father  of  many  nations,  oi  that  his  seed  should  be  as 
 numerous  as  the  stars.  It  has  already  been  seen,  however,  that 
 the  apostle  understood  this  promise  as  including  far  more  than 
 that  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  should  be  very  numer- 
 ous ;  see  vs.  13,  17.  The  expression  in  the  text  is  a  concise 
 allusion  to  the  various  promises  made  to  the  ancient  patriarch, 
 which  had  reference  to  all  nations  being  blessed  through 
 him      The  promise  c^  a  numerous  posterity,  therefore,  included 
 
198  ROMANS  IV.  19—21. 
 
 the  promise  of  Christ  and  his  redemption.  This  is  evident, 
 1.  Because  Paul  had  been  speaking  of  a  promise  (ver.  16,)  in 
 which  believing  Jcays  and  Gentiles  were  alike  interested;  see 
 Gal.  iii.  14.  2.  Because  Paul  asserts  and  argues  that  the  seed 
 promised  to  Abraham,  and  to  which  the  promise  related,  was 
 Jesus  Christ,  Gal.  iii.  16.  3.  So  Abraham  himself  understood 
 it,  according  to  the  declaration  of  our  Saviour ;  John  viii.  56, 
 "Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day;  and  he  saw  it,  and  was 
 glad."  He  looked  forAvard  under  the  greatest  discouragements 
 to  the  Redeemer  as  yet  to  come.  We  have  the  easier  task  to 
 look  back  to  the  same  Deliverer,  who  has  died  for  our  sins,  and 
 risen  again  for  our  justification,  ver.  25. 
 
 Verse  19.  Aiid  being  not  weak  in  faith,  he  considered  not 
 his  own  body,  now  dead,  &c.  The  18th  verse  had  stated  it  was 
 contrary  to  all  appearances  that  Abraham  believed ;  this  verse 
 states  the  circumstances  which  rendered  the  accomplishment  of 
 the  promise  an  apparent  impossibility,  viz.  his  own  advanced 
 age,  and  the  age  and  barrenness  of  his  wife.  These  circum- 
 stances he  did  not  consider,  that  is,  he  did  not  allow  them  to 
 have  weight,  he  did  not  fix  his  mind  on  the  difficulties  of  the 
 case.  Had  he  been  weak  in  faith,  and  allowed  himself  to  dwell 
 on  the  obstacles  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise,  he 
 would  have  staggered.  This  does  not  imply  that  there  was  no 
 inward  conflict  with  doubt  in  Abraham's  mind.  It  only  says, 
 that  his  faith  triumphed  over  all  difficulties.  "The  mind,"  says 
 Calvin,  "is  never  so  enlightened  that  there  are  no  remains  of 
 ignorance,  nor  the  heart  so  established  that  there  is  no  misgiv- 
 ings. With  these  evils  of  our  nature,"  he  adds,  "faith  main- 
 tains a  perpetual  conflict,  in  which  conflict  it  is  often  sorely 
 shaken  and  put  to  great  stress ;  but  still  it  conquers,  so  that 
 believers  may  be  said  to  be  in  ipsa  infirmitate  firmissimi.'" 
 Paul  says  Abraham  was  not  weak,  rf/  Tzlatec,  as  to  faith. 
 
 Verses  20,  21.  He  staggered  not  at  the  promise  of  God;  ob 
 dcsxpid-T].  The  aorist  passive  is  here  used  in  a  middle  sense,  he 
 was  not  in  strife  with  himself  i.  e.  he  did  not  doubt ;  e^c  tt^v 
 knayjsXiav,  in  reference  to  the  promise  of  God ;  rfj  dncovia,  the 
 dative  has  a  causal  force,  through  unbelief.  Want  of  faith  in 
 God  did  not  cause  him  to  doubt  the  divine  promise,  alia,  but, 
 i.  e.  on  the  contrary;  iueouva/icod-/^,  not  middle,  made  himself 
 
ROMANS  IV.  22.  199 
 
 strong^  but  passive,  he  was  made  strong;  rjj  niarec,  either  hy,  or 
 
 as  to  faith.      Griving  glory  to  Crod;  that  is,  the  strength  avjis 
 
 manifested  in  his  giving  glory  to  God.     To  give  glory  to  God, 
 
 is  to  take  him  to  be  what  he  really  is,  almighty  and  faithful. 
 
 It  is  to  show  by  our  conduct  that  we  give  him  credit,  (so  to 
 
 speak,)  that  he  will  and  can  do  what  he  says.     Therefore  the 
 
 apostle   adds,   xal  Ttlqpoipop-qd-ii^^  and  being  fully  'persuaded; 
 
 that  is,  he  gave  glory  to  God  by  being  fully  persuaded  that 
 
 what  he  had  promised  he  was  able  also  to  perform.     "  Quod 
 
 addit,"  says  Calvin,  ^^  dedisse  gloriam  Deo,  in  eo  notandum  est, 
 
 non  posse  Deo  plus  honoris  deferri  quam  dum  fide  obsignamus 
 
 ejus  veritatem;  sicuti  rursus  nulla  ei  gravior  contumelia  inuri 
 
 potest  quam  dum  respuitur  oblata  ab  ipso  gratia,  vel  ejus  verbo 
 
 derogatur  auctoritas.     Quare  hoc  in  ejus  cultu  priecipuum  est 
 
 caput,  promissiones  ejus  obedienter  amplecti :  vera  rcligio  a  fide 
 
 incipit."     It  is  therefore  a  very  great  error  for  men  to  suppose 
 
 that  to  doubt  is  an  evidence  of  humility.     On  the  contrary,  to 
 
 doubt  God's  promise,  or  his  love,  is  to  dishonour  him,  because 
 
 it  is  to  question  his  word.  Multitudes  refuse  to  accept  his  grace, 
 
 because  they  do  not  regard  themselves  as  worthy,  as  though 
 
 their  worthiness  were  the  ground  on  which  that  grace  is  ofi"ered. 
 
 The  thing  to  be  believed  is,  that  God  accepts  the  unworthy ; 
 
 that  for  Christ's  sake,  he  justifies  the  unjust.     Many  find  it  far 
 
 harder  to  believe  that  God  can  love  them,  notwithstanding  their 
 
 sinfulness,  than  the  hundred-years-old  patriarch  did  to  believe 
 
 that  he  should  be  the  father  of  many  nations.     Confidence  in 
 
 God's  word,  a  full  persuasion  that  he  can  do  what  seems  to  us 
 
 impossible,  is  as  necessary  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.    The 
 
 sinner  honours  God,  in  trusting  his  grace,  as  much  as  Abraham 
 
 did  in  trusting  his  power. 
 
 Verse  22.  Therefore  also  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  right- 
 eousness. That  is,  the  faith  of  Abraham  was  imputed  to  him 
 for  righteousness.  He  was  accepted  as  righteous  on  account 
 of  his  faith  ;  not  that  faith  itself  was  the  ground,  but  the  con- 
 dition of  his  justification.  He  believed,  and  God  accepted  him 
 as  righteous;  just  as  now  we  believe,  and  are  accepted  as  right- 
 eous, not  on  account  of  any  merit  in  our  faith,  but  simply  on 
 the  ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  is  imputed  to 
 us  when  we  believe ;  that  is,  it  is  given  to  us,  whenever  we 
 
200  ROMANS  IV.  23,  24. 
 
 are  willing  to  receive  and  rest  upon  it.  "Nihil  plus  conferre 
 fides  nobis  potest,  quam  a  verbo  acceperit.  Quaro  non  protinus 
 Justus  erit,  qui  generali  tantum  confusaque  notitia  imbutus 
 Deum  veracem  esse  statuet,  nisi  in  promissione  gratise  quiescat." 
 Faith  justifies  by  appropriating  to  ourselves  the  divine  promise. 
 But  if  that  promise  does  not  refer  to  our  justification,  faith 
 cannot  make  us  righteous.  The  object  of  justifying  or  saving 
 faith,  that  is,  of  those  acts  of  faith  which  secure  our  acceptance 
 with  God,  is  not  the  divine  veracity  in  general,  nor  the  divine 
 authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but  the  specific  promise  of  gratu- 
 itous acceptance  through  the  mediation  and  merit  of  the  Lord 
 Jesus  Christ. 
 
 Verses  23,  24.  Now^  it  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone, 
 that  it  was  imputed  to  him.  The  record  concerning  the  faith 
 and  consequent  justification  of  Abraham,  was  not  made  with  the 
 simple  intention  of  giving  a  correct  history  of  that  patriarch. 
 It  had  a  much  higher  purpose.  Abraham  was  a  representative 
 person.  What  was  true  of  him,  was  true  of  all  others  who  stood 
 in  the  same  relation  to  God.  The  method  in  which  he  was  jus- 
 tified, is  the  method  in  which  other  sinners  must  be  justified. 
 That  he  was  justified  by  faith,  is  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  to 
 be  a  perpetual  testimony  as  to  the  true  method  of  justification 
 before  God.  The  apostle  therefore  adds,  that  it  was  dc'  '^fJ.a<:, 
 on  our  account.  That  is,  on  account  of  those  to  whom  it  shall 
 be  imputed;  o2^  iieXXec  Xoyc^ead-ai,  to  whom  it  is  appointed  to  be 
 imputed,  in  case  they  should  believe.  As  all  men  are  sinners, 
 the  method  in  which  one  was  certainly  justified  is  the  method 
 by  which  others  may  secure  the  same  blessing.  If  Abraham 
 was  justified  by  faith,  we  may  be  justified  by  faith.  If  the 
 object  of  Abraham's  faith  was  the  promise  of  redemption,  the 
 same  must  be  the  object  of  our  faith.  He  believed  in  God  as 
 quickening  the  dead,  that  is,  as  able  to  raise  up  from  one  as 
 good  as  dead,  the  promised  Redeemer.  Therefore  those  to 
 whom  faith  shall  now  be  imputed  for  righteousness  are  described 
 as  those  who  believe  that  Grod  hath  raised  up  Jesus  from  the 
 dead.  By  thus  raising  him  from  the  dead,  he  declared  him  to 
 be  his  Son,  and  the  seed  of  Abraham,  in  whom  all  the  nations 
 of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed.  The  object  of  the  Christian'? 
 faith,  therefore,  is  the  same  as  the  object  of  the  faith  of  Abra- 
 
ROMAICS  IV.  25.  201 
 
 ilam.  Both  believe  the  promise  of  redemption  through  the 
 promised  seed,  which  is  Christ.  When  we  are  said  to  believe 
 in  God,  who  raised  up  Christ,  it  of  course  implies  that  we 
 believe  that  Christ  was  thus  raised  up.  As  the  resurrection  of 
 Christ  was  the  great  decisive  evidence  of  the  divinity  of  his 
 mission,  and  the  validity  of  all  his  claims,  to  believe  that  he 
 rose  from  the  dead,  is  to  believe  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  the 
 propitiation  for  our  sins,  the  Redeemer  and  the  Lord  of  men ; 
 that  he  was  all  he  claimed  to  be,  and  had  accomplished  all  he 
 purposed  to  effect.  Compare  Rom.  x.  9,  Acts  i.  22,  iv.  33, 
 1  Cor.  XV.,  and  other  passages,  in  which  the  resurrection  of 
 Christ  is  spoken  of  as  the  corner-stone  of  the  gospel,  as  the 
 great  fact  to  be  proved,  and  which,  being  proved,  involves  all 
 the  rest. 
 
 Verse  25.  Wlio  was  delivered  for  our  offences,  and  raised 
 again  for  our  justification.  This  verse  is  a  comprehensive  state- 
 ment of  the  gospel.  Christ  was  delivered  unto  death  for  our 
 offences,  i.  e.  on  account  of  them,  and  for  their  expiation ;  see 
 Isa.  liii.  5,  6,  Heb.  ix.  28,  1  Peter  ii.  21.  This  delivering  of 
 Christ  is  ascribed  to  God,  Rom.  viii.  32,  Gal.  i.  3,  and  else- 
 where ;  and  to  himself,  Tit.  ii.  14,  Gal.  ii.  20.  It  was  by  the 
 divine  purpose  and  counsel  he  suffered  for  the  expiation  of  sin ; 
 and  he  gave  himself  willingly  to  death.  "  He  was  led  like  a 
 lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers  is 
 dumb,  so  he  opened  not  his  mouth."  Christ  is  said  to  have 
 been  delivered  unto  death,  dta  xa  7iapa7:za)fjiaza  -^fiMv,  and  to 
 have  been  raised,  dcd  zr^v  dcxaia)aiv  fjfxdjv;  that  is,  he  was 
 delivered  in  order  that  our  sins  might  be  expiated,  and  he  was 
 raised  in  order  that  we  might  be  justified.  His  death  and  his 
 resurrection  were  alike  necessary ;  his  death,  as  a  satisfaction 
 to  divine  justice.  He  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the 
 tree.  That  is,  he  bore  the  punishment  of  our  sins.  "  Significat 
 ergo  Paulus,"  says  Calvin,  "  satisfactionem  pro  peccatis  nostris 
 in  cruce  fuisse  peractam.  Nam  ut  Christus  nos  in  graiiam 
 Patris  restitueret,  reatum  nostrum  ab  ipso  aboleri  oportuit; 
 quod  fiei'i  non  poterat,  nisi  poenam,  cui  solvendi3e  pares  non 
 eramus,  nostro  nomine  lueret."  His  resurrection  was  no  less 
 necessary,  first,  as  a  proof  that  his  death  had  been  accepted  aa 
 an  expiation  for  our  sins.    Had  he  not  risen,  it  would  have  bee» 
 
202  ROMANS  IV.  25. 
 
 evident  tuat  he  was  not  what  he  claimed  to  be.  We  should  be 
 yet  in  our  sins,  1  Cor.  xv.  17,  and  therefore  Btill  under  con- 
 demnation. Our  ransom,  in  that  case,  instead  of  being  publicly 
 accepted,  had  been  rejected.  And  secondly,  in  order  to  secure 
 the  continued  application  of  the  merits  of  his  sacrifice,  he  rose 
 from  the  dead,  and  ascended  on  high,  there  to  appear  before 
 God  for  us.  He  stands  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  ever  to  make 
 intercession  for  his  people,  thereby  securing  for  them  the  benefits 
 of  his  redemption.  With  a  dead  Saviour,  a  Saviour  over  whom 
 death  had  triumphed  and  held  captive,  our  justification  had  been 
 for  ever  impossible.  As  it  was  necessary  that  the  high  priest, 
 under  the  old  economy,  should  not  only  slay  the  victim  at  the 
 altar,  but  carry  the  blood  into  the  most  holy  place,  and  sprinkle 
 it  upon  the  mercy-seat ;  so  it  was  necessary  not  only  that  our 
 great  High  Priest  should  suflfer  in  the  outer  court,  but  that  he 
 should  pass  into  heaven,  to  present  his  righteousness  before 
 God  for  our  justification.  Both,  therefore,  as  the  evidence  of 
 the  acceptance  of  his  satisfaction  on  our  behalf,  and  as  a  neces- 
 sary step  to  secure  the  application  of  the  merits  of  his  sacrifice, 
 the  resurrection  of  Christ  was  absolutely  essential,  even  for  our 
 justification.  Its  relation  to  inward  spiritual  life  and  eternal 
 blessedness  is  not  here  brought  into  view;  for  Paul  is  not  here 
 speaking  of  our  sanctification.  That  dcxaiaxjc^  means  justifica- 
 tion, and  not  the  act  of  making  holy,  need  hardly  be  remarked. 
 That  follows  of  necessity,  not  only  from  the  signification  of  the 
 word,  but  from  the  whole  scope  of  this  part  of  the  epistle.  It 
 is  only  by  those  who  make  justification  identical  with  regenera- 
 tion, that  this  is  called  into  question.  "Pervertunt  autem," 
 says  Calovius,  "sententiam  Apostoli  PapistaB,  cum  id  eum  velle 
 contendunt,  mortem  Christi  exemplar  fuisse  mortis  peccatorum, 
 resurrectionem  autem  exemplar  renovationis  et  regenerationis 
 internge,  per  quam  in  novitate  vitge  ambulamus,  quia  hie  non 
 agitur  vel  de  morte  peccatorum,  vel  de  renovatione  et  novitate 
 vitse ;  de  quibus,  cap.  vi.,  demum  agere  incipit  Apostolus ;  sed 
 de  non  imputatione  vel  remissione  peccatorum,  et  imputatione 
 justitias  vel  justificatione."  Olshausen  agrees  substantially 
 with  the  Romish  interpretation  of  this  passage,  as  he  gives 
 dcxaiwffc;  an  impossible  sense,  viz.  (die  den  neuen  Menschen 
 schafi'ende  Thatigkeit,)  the  regenerating  activity  of  God.     It 
 
ROMANS  IV.  18—25.  203 
 
 will  be  observed,  that  the  theology  of  Olshausen,  and  of  the 
 mjpticai  school  to  "which  he  belongs,  has  far  greater  affinity  for 
 the  Romish,  than  for  the  Protestant  system. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  Faith  is  an  operative  assent  to  the  divine  testimony,  not 
 the  reception  of  truth  as  something  which  can  be  proved  by  our 
 own  arguments,  vs.  18,  20. 
 
 2.  When  faith  is  genuine  it  is  founded  on  correct  apprehen- 
 sions of  the  divine  character,  and  has  a  controlling  influenco 
 over  the  heart  and  life,  vs.  20,  21. 
 
 3.  The  method  of  salvation  has  never  been  changed;  Abra- 
 ham was  not  only  saved  by  faith,  but  the  object  of  his  faith  was 
 the  same  as  the  object  of  ours,  vs.  24,  17. 
 
 4.  The  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  an  historical  fact,  estab- 
 lished by  the  most  satisfactory  evidence,  (see  1  Cor.  xv.,) 
 authenticates  the  whole  gospel.  As  surely  as  Christ  has  risen, 
 so  surely-  shall  believers  be  saved,  ver.  25. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  true  way  to  have  our  faith  strengthened  is  not  to 
 consider  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  thing  promised,  but 
 the  character  and  resources  of  God,  who  has  made  the  pro- 
 raise,  ver.  19. 
 
 2.  It  is  as  possible  for  faith  to  be  strong  when  the  thing  pro- 
 mised is  most  improbable,  as  when  it  is  probable.  Abraham's 
 faith  should  serve  as  an  example  and  admonition  to  us.  He 
 believed  that  a  Saviour  would  be  born  from  his  family,  when 
 his  having  a  son  was  an  apparent  impossibility.  We  are  only 
 called  upon  to  believe  that  the  Saviour  has  been  born,  has  suf- 
 fered, and  risen  again  from  the  dead — facts  established  on 
 the  strongest  historical,  miraculous,  and  spiritual  evidence, 
 vs.  20,  24,  25. 
 
 3.  Unbelief  is  a  very  great  sin,  as  it  implies  a  doubt  of  the 
 veracity  and  power  of  God,  vs.  20,  21. 
 
 4.  All  that  is  written  in  the  Scriptures  is  for  our  instruction. 
 ^VIlat   is   promised,    commanded,   or  threatened,   (unless  of  a 
 
•204  ROMANS  V.  1—11 
 
 strictly  personal  nature,)  although  addressed  originally  to  indi- 
 viduals, belongs  to  them  only  as  representatives  of  classes  of 
 men,  and  is  designed  for  all  of  similar  character,  and  in  similar 
 circumstances,  ver.  23. 
 
 5.  The  two  great  truths  of  the  gospel  are,  that  Christ  died 
 as  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins,  and  that  he  rose  again  for  our  justifi- 
 cation. Whosoever,  from  the  heart,  believes  these  truths,  shall 
 be  saved,  ver.  25,  Rom.  x.  9. 
 
 6.  The  denial  of  the  propitiatory  death  of  Christ,  or  of  his 
 resurrection  from  the  dead,  is  a  denial  of  the  gospel.  It  is  a 
 refusing  to  be  saved  according  to  the  method  -which  God  has 
 appointed,  ver.  25. 
 
 CHAPTER    V. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 From  verse  1  to  11,  inclusive,  the  apostle  deduces  some  of  the 
 more  obvious  and  consolatory  inferences  from  the  doctrine  of 
 gratuitous  justification.  From  the  12th  verse  to  the  end,  he 
 illustrates  his  great  principle  of  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
 ness, or  the  regarding  and  treating  "the  many"  as  righteous, 
 on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  one  man,  Christ  Jesus,  by  a 
 reference  to  the  fall  of  all  men  in  Adam. 
 
 ROMANS  V.  1—11. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  first  consequence  of  justification  by  faith  is,  that  we 
 have  peace  with  God,  ver.  1.  The  second,  that  we  have  not 
 only  a  sense  of  his  present  favour,  but  assurance  of  future 
 calory,  ver.  2.  The  third,  that  our  afflictions,  instead  of  being 
 inconsistent  with  the  divine  favour,  are  made  directly  conducive 
 to  the  confirmation  of  our  hope ;  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing  witness 
 to  the  fact  that  we  are  the  objects  of  the  love  of  God,  vs.  3 — 5. 
 
ROMAISS  V.  1.  205 
 
 The  fourth,  the  certainty  of  the  final  salvation  of  all  believers. 
 This  is  argued  from  the  freeness  and  greatness  of  the  divine 
 love ;  its  freeness  being  manifested  in  its  exercise  towards 
 the  unworthy;  and  its  greatness,  in  the  gift  of  the  Son  of  God, 
 vs.  6 — 10.  Salvation  is  not  merely  a  future  though  certain 
 good,  it  is  a  present  and  abundant  joy,  ver.  11. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  Therefore,  being  justified  hy  faith,  ive  have*  peace 
 with  Grod;  that  is,  we  are  reconciled  to  God.  We  are  no  longer 
 the  objects  of  God's  displeasure,  his  favour  having  been  propi- 
 tiated by  the  death  of  his  Son,  ver.  10.  As  a  consequence  of 
 this  reconciliation,  we  have  conscious  peace  with  God,  that  is, 
 we  have  neither  any  longer  the  present  upbraidings  of  an  unap- 
 peased  conscience,  nor  the  dread  of  divine  vengeance.  Both 
 these  ideas  are  included  in  the  peace  here  spoken  of.  The 
 latter,  however,  is  altogether  the  more  prominent.  The  phrase 
 elp'jvrjv  iyoiiiv  nphz  zbv  Oeov,  we  have  peace  in  regard  to  God, 
 properly  means,  God  is  at  peace  with  us,  his  opy^  (wrath) 
 towards  us  is  removed.  It  expresses,  as  Philippi  says,  "not  a 
 state  of  mind,  but  a  relation  to  God."t  It  is  that  relation 
 which  arises  from  the  expiation  of  sin,  and  consequently  justi 
 ficatioQ.  We  are  no  longer  his  enemies,  in  the  objective  sense 
 of  the  term,  (see  ver.  10,)  but  are  the  objects  of  his  favour. 
 The  whole  context  still  treats  of  reconciliation  and  propitiation, 
 of  the  removal  of  the  wrath  of  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son, 
 and  not  of  inward  sanctification.  It  is  true  that  the  immediate 
 and  certain  effect  of  God's  reconciliation  to  us  is  our  reconcilia- 
 tion to  him.  If  he  is  at  peace  with  us,  we  have  inward  peace. 
 Conscience  is  only  the  reflection  of  his  countenance,  the  echo, 
 
 *  Instead  of  •;^o/xfl',  toe  have  peace,  t^i^ufxa,  let  us  have,  is  read  in  the  MSS.  A. 
 C.  D.  17,  18,  19,  22,  24,  34,  36,  37,  42,  44,  46,  55,  66,  in  the  Syriac,  Coptic,  and 
 Vulgate  versions,  and  by  several  of  the  Fathers.  The  latter  reading  is  adopted 
 by  Lactiinann.  But  as  the  external  authorities  are  nearly  equally  divided,  and 
 as  the  common  reading  gives  a  sense  so  much  better  suited  to  the  context,  it 
 is  retained  by  the  majority  of  critical  editors. 
 
 f  Commentar  Qber  den  Brief  Pauli  an  die  ROmer  von  Friederick  Adolph 
 Philippi,  Doktor  und  ord.  Professor  der  Theologie  zu  Dorpat;  since  of 
 Boetock 
 
206  ROMANS  V.  2. 
 
 often  feeble  and  indis.tinct,  often  terribly  clear  and  unmistaka- 
 ble, of  his  judgment;  and  therefore  subjective  peace  uniformly 
 attends  faith  in  the  love  of  God,  or  assurance  of  our  justifica- 
 tion. Although,  therefore,  the  primary  idea  of  the  apostle  is, 
 that  God  is  at  peace  with  us,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  inward 
 tranquillity  of  mind  is  the  fruit  of  justification  by  faith.  It  is 
 peculiarly  an  evangelical  doctrine,  that  pious  affections  are  the 
 fruit  of  this  reconciliation  to  God,  and  not  the  cause  of  it.  Paul 
 says  this  peace  is  the  result  of  justification  by  faith.  He  who 
 relies  on  his  works  for  justification,  can  have  no  peace.  He  can 
 neither  remove  the  displeasure  of  God,  nor  quiet  the  apprehen- 
 sion of  punishment.  Peace  is  not  the  result  of  mere  gratuitous 
 forgiveness,  but  of  justification,  of  a  reconciliation  founded 
 upon  atonement.  The  enlightened  conscience  is  never  satisfied 
 until  it  sees  that  God  can  be  just  in  justifying  the  ungodly; 
 that  sin  has  been  punished,  the  justice  of  God  satisfied,  his  law 
 honoLired  and  vindicated.  It  is  when  he  thus  sees  justice  and 
 mercy  embracing  each  other,  that  the  believer  has  that  peace 
 which  passes  all  understanding;  that  sweet  quiet  of  the  soul  in 
 which  deep  humility,  in  view  of  personal  unworthiness,  is  min- 
 gled with  the  warmest  gratitude  to  that  Saviour  by  whose  blood 
 God's  justice  has  been  satisfied,  and  conscience  appeased. 
 Hence  Paul  says  we  have  this  peace  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ.  It  is  not  through  ourselves  in  any  way,  neither  by  our 
 own  merit,  nor  our  own  efi"orts.  It  is  all  of  grace.  It  is  all 
 through  Jesus  Christ.  And  this  the  justified  soul  is  ever 
 anxious  to  acknowledge.  '■^Pacem  hahemus.  Singularis  justitise 
 fidei  fructus.  Nam  siquis  ab  operibus  conscientise  securitatem 
 petere  velit,  (quod  in  profanis  et  brutis  hominibus  cernitur,) 
 frustra  id  tentabit.  Aut  enim  contemptu  vel  oblivione  Divini 
 judicii  sopitum  est  pectus,  aut  trepidatione  ac  formidine  quoque 
 plenum  est,  donee  in  Christum  recubuerit.  Ipse  enim  solus  est 
 pax  nostra.  Pax  ergo  conscientise  serenitatem  significat,  quae 
 ex  60  nascitur,  quod  Deum  sibi  reconciliatum  sentit."   Calvin. 
 
 Verse  2.  By  whom  also  we  have  access  hy  faith  into  this 
 (/race,  &c.  This  verse  admits  of  difi'erent  interpretations.  Ac- 
 cording to  one  view,  it  introduces  a  new  and  higher  benefit  than 
 peace  with  God,  as  the  consequence  of  our  justification:  'We 
 nave  not  only  peace,  but  access  (to  God,)  and  joyful  confidence 
 
nOMANS  V.  2.  207 
 
 of  salvation.'  Besides  other  objections  to  this  interpretation, 
 it  overlooks  the  difference  between  lyofxzv  and  ia-jrqxafiz'j^  ren- 
 dering both,  ive  have:  'We  have  peace,  and  we  have  access;' 
 whereas  kayrjAayLZv  is  properly,  we  have  had.  This  clause,  there- 
 fore, instead  of  indicating  an  additional  and  higher  blessing 
 than  the  peace  spoken  of  in  ver,  1,  expresses  the  ground  of  that 
 p<*ace:  'We  have  peace  with  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
 Lord,  through  whom  also  we  have  had  access  into  this  grace.' 
 So  Meyer,  Philippi,  &c.  '  We  are  indebted  to  Christ  not  only 
 for  peace,  but  also  for  access  to  this  grace,  (this  state  of  justifi- 
 cation,) which  is  the  ground  of  our  peace.'  The  word  Tz^toaayoiyrj 
 means  either  introduction  or  access.  In  Eph.  ii.  18,  and  iii.  12, 
 it  has  the  latter  meaning,  which  may  be  retained  here.  In  both 
 the  other  places  in  which  it  occurs,  it  is  used  of  access  to  God. 
 Many  commentators  so  understand  it  in  this  place,  and  there- 
 fore put  a  comma  after  iayrjxaixzv.,  and  connect  iziazzt  with  ere 
 rriv  ')(dpcv  zauTrjv.  The  sense  would  then  be,  '  Through  whom 
 also  we  have  had  access  to  God,  by  faith  on  this  grace.'  The 
 objections  to  this  explanation  are,  that  it  supposes  an  omission 
 in  the  text,  and  that  the  expression  "faith  on  the  grace,"  has 
 no  scriptural  analogy.  The  obviously  natural  construction  is 
 to  connect  TzpooayioyrjV  with  zlz  rrpj  X^P^^  zaozrjv,  as  is  done  in 
 our  version,  and  by  the  great  majority  of  commentators,  and  to 
 take  r^  niazsc  instrumentally,  by  faith.  The  grace  to  whi^oh  we 
 have  access,  or  into  which  we  have  been  introduced,  is  the  state 
 of  justification.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  we  are  justified,  wg, 
 rather  than  others,  is  not  due  to  anything  in  us.  We  did  not 
 open  the  way,  or  introduce  ourselves  into  this  state.  We  were 
 brought  into  it  by  Christ.  "Accessus  quidem  nomine  initiura 
 salutis  a  Christo  esse  docens,  preparationes  excludit,  quibus 
 stulti  homines  Dei  misericordiam  se  antevertere  putant;  acsi 
 diceret,  Christum  nihil  promeritis  obviam  venire  manumque 
 porrigere."  Calvin.  In  which  we  stand.  The  antecedent  of 
 the  relative  (^)  is  not  Tziaztc,  but  y^dpcv;  in  which  grace  we 
 stand;  that  is,  we  are  firmly  and  immovably  established.  So 
 in  John  viii.  44,  it  is  said  of  Satan,  that  he  stood  not  (od^ 
 iazi^xsu)  in  the  truth,  did  not  remain  steadfast  therein.  1  Cor. 
 XV.  1,  "Wherein  ye  stand,"  2  Cor.  i.  24.  The  state,  therefore, 
 into  which  the  believer  is  introduced  by  Christ,  is  not  a  preca- 
 
208  ROMANS  V.  2. 
 
 rious  one.  He  has  not  only  firm  ground  on  which  to  stand,  bin 
 he  has  strength  divinely  imparted  to  enable  him  to  keep  his 
 foothold.  A7id  rejoice  in  hope  of  the  glory  of  God.  The  word 
 xau'j^ao/jiac  is  one  of  Paul's  favourite  terms.  It  properly  means 
 to  talk  of  one's  self,  to  praise  one's  self,  to  boast;  then  to  con- 
 gratulate one's  self,  to  speak  of  ourselves  as  glorious  or  blessed; 
 and  then  to  felicitate  ourselves  in  anything  as  a  ground  of  conr 
 fidence  and  source  of  honour  and  blessedness.  Men  are  com- 
 manded not  to  glory  (xauj^atT&Oi)  in  themselves,  or  in  men,  or  in 
 the  flesh,  but  in  God  alone.  In  this  passage  the  word  may  be 
 rendered,  to  rejoice,  'we  rejoice  in  hope.'  Still  something  more 
 than  mere  joy  is  intended.  It  is  a  glorying,  a  self- felicitation 
 and  exultation,  in  view  of  the  exaltation  and  blessedness  which 
 Christ  has  secured  for  us.  In  hope  of  the  glory  of  God.  The 
 object  or  ground  of  the  rejoicing  or  boasting  expressed  by  this 
 verb  is  indicated  here  by  em;  commonly,  in  the  New  Testament, 
 the  matter  of  the  boasting  is  indicated  by  iv,  sometimes  by 
 dTtep  and  nepL  The  glory  of  God  may  mean  that  glory  which 
 God  gives,  or  that  glory  which  he  possesses.  In  either  case,  it 
 refers  to  the  exaltation  and  blessedness  secured  to  the  believer, 
 who  is  to  share  in  the  glory  of  his  divine  Redeemer.  "  The 
 glory  which  thou  gavest  me,"  said  our  Lord,  "I  have  given 
 them,"  John  xvii.  22.  There  is  a  joyful  confidence  expressed 
 in  these  words,  an  assurance  of  ultimate  salvation,  which  is  the 
 appropriate  effect  of  justification.  We  are  authorized  and 
 bound  to  feel  sure  that,  having  through  Jesus  Christ  been 
 reconciled  to  God,  we  shall  certainly  be  saved.  This  is  only  a 
 becoming  confidence  in  the  merit  of  his  sacrifice,  and  in  the  sin- 
 cerity of  God's  love.  This  confidence  is  not  founded  on  our- 
 selves, neither  on  the  preposterous  idea  that  we  deserve  the 
 favour  of  God,  nor  the  equally  preposterous  idea  that  we  have  in 
 ourselves  strength  to  persevere  in  faith  or  obedience.  Our  con- 
 fidence is  solely  on  the  merit  of  Christ,  and  the  gratuitous  and 
 infinite  love  of  God.  Although  this  assurance  is  the  legitimate 
 effect  of  reconciliation,  and  the  want  of  it  is  evidence  of  weak- 
 ness, still  in  this,  as  in  other  respects,  the  actual  state  of  the 
 believer  generally  falls  far  short  of  the  ideal.  He  ever  lives 
 below  his  privileges,  and  goes  limping  and  halting,  when  he 
 should  mount  up  as  with  the  wings  of  the  eagle.     Still  it  is 
 
ROMANS  V.  3,  4.  209 
 
 important  for  him  to  know  that  assurance  is  not  an  unseemly 
 presumption,  but  a  privilege  and  duty.  "  Hie  evertuntur,'' 
 says  Calvin,  "  pestilentissima  duo  sophistarum  dcgmata,  alte- 
 ram, quo  jubent  Christianos  esse  contentos  conjectura  morali 
 in  percipienda  erga  se  Dei  gratia,  alteram,  quo  tradunt  omnes 
 esse  incertos  finalis  perseverentise.  Atqui  nisi  et  certa  in  prae- 
 sens  intelligentia,  et  in  futurum  constans  ac  minime  dubia  sit 
 persuasio,  quis  gloriari  auderet?" 
 
 Verses  3,  4.  And  not  only  so,  but  we  glory  in  tribulations 
 also.  Not  only  do  we  rejoice  in  this  hope  of  future  glory,  but 
 we  glory  in  tribulations  also.  Since  our  relation  to  God  is 
 changed,  the  relation  of  all  things  to  us  is  changed.  Afflictions, 
 which  before  were  the  expressions  of  God's  displeasure,  are  now 
 the  benevolent  and  beneficent  manifestations  of  his  love.  And 
 instead  of  being  inconsistent  with  our  filial  relation  to  him,  they 
 serve  to  prove  that  he  regards  and  loves  us  as  his  children ;  Rom. 
 viii.  18,  Heb.  xii.  6.  Tribulations,  therefore,  although  for  the 
 present  not  joyous,  but  grievous,  become  to  the  believer  matter 
 of  joy  and  thankfulness.  The  words  xau-^coiie&a  iv  ra?c  '&Xi(p£mv 
 do  not  mean  that  we  glory  in  the  midst  of  afflictions,  but  on 
 account  of  them.  They  are  themselves  the  matter  or  ground 
 of  the  glorying.  So  the  Jews  are  said  to  glory  [Iv)  in  the  law, 
 others  glory  in  men,  the  believer  glories  in  the  Lord ;  so  con- 
 stantly. Afflictions  themselves  are  to  the  Christian  a  ground  of 
 glorying;  he  feels  them  to  be  an  honour  and  a  blessing.  This 
 is  a  sentiment  often  expressed  in  the  word  of  God.  Our  Lord 
 says,  "Blessed  are  they  who  mourn:"  "Blessed  are  the  perse- 
 cuted;" "Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  revile  you."  He  calls 
 on  his  suffering  disciples  to  rejoice  and  be  exceedmg  glad  when 
 they  are  afflicted.  Matt.  v.  4,  10 — 12.  The  apostles  departed 
 from  the  Jewish  council,  "rejoicing  that  they  were  counted 
 worthy  to  suffer  shame  for  Christ's  name."  Acts  v.  41.  Peter 
 calls  upon  Christians  to  rejoice  when  they  are  partakers  of 
 Christ's  sufferings,  and  pronounces  them  happy  when  they  are 
 reproached  for  his  sake.  1  Pet.  iv.  13,  14.  And  Paul  says, 
 "Most  gladly  therefore  will  I  glory  in  (on  account  of)  my 
 infirmities,"  (i.  e.  my  sufferings.)  "I  take  pleasure,"  he  says, 
 "in  infirmities,  in  reproaches,  in  necessities,  in  persecutions,  in 
 distresses  for  Christ's  sake."  2  Cor.  xii.  10,  11.  This  is  not 
 14 
 
210  ROMANS  V.  5. 
 
 irrational  or  fanatical.  Christians  do  not  glory  in  suffering,  as 
 such,  or  for  its  own  sake,  but  as  the  Bible  teaches,  1.  Because 
 they  consider  it  an  honour  to  suffer  for  Christ.  2.  Because  they 
 rejoice  in  being  the  occasion  of  manifesting  his  power  in  their 
 support  and  deliverance ;  and,  3.  Because  suffering  is  made  the 
 means  of  their  own  sanctification  and  preparation  for  usefulness 
 here,  and  for  heaven  hereafter.  The  last  of  these  reasons  is 
 that  to  which  the  apostle  refers  in  the  context.  We  glory  in 
 afflictions,  he  says,  because  affliction  worketh  patience,  UTio^ovij. 
 constancy.  It  calls  into  exercise  that  strength  and  firmness 
 evinced  in  patient  endurance  of  suffering,  and  in  perseverance 
 in  fidelity  to  truth  and  duty,  under  the  severest  trials.  And 
 this  constancy  worketh  experience,  doxcfrj.     This  word  means, 
 
 1.  Trial,  as  in  2  Cor.  viii.  2,  "In  a  great  trial  of  affliction." 
 i.  e.  in  affliction  which  is  a  trial,  that  which  puts  men  to  the  test. 
 
 2.  Evidence,  or  proof,  as  in  2  Cor.  xiii.  3,  "  Since  ye  seek  a 
 proof  of  Christ  speaking  in  me."  Compare  2  Cor.  ii.  9,  Philip, 
 ii.  22.  This  would  give  a  good  sense  here :  '  Constancy  produces 
 evidence'  of  the  fidelity  of  God,  or  of  our  fidelity.  3.  The  word 
 is  used  metonymically  for  the  result  of  trial,  i.  e.  approbation, 
 or  that  which  is  proved  worthy  of  approbation :  '  doxcfi-^  est 
 qualitas  ejus,  qui  est  doxi/io:;.'  Bengel.  It  is  tried  integrity,  a 
 state  of  mind  which  has  stood  the  test.  Compare  James  i.  12, 
 "Blessed  is  the  man  that  endureth  temptation,  (oc  b~o[jL£vu 
 Tzsipaafjtou;)  for  when  he  is  tried  (ozi  doxe/io^  ytv6p.BV0!;)  he  shall 
 receive  the  crown  of  life."  ''TTtofj.ovij,  the  endurance  of  trial, 
 therefore,  makes  a  man  86xi/jto<:;  in  other  words,  it  worketh 
 doxifiij.  It  produces  a  strong,  tested  faith.  Hence  the  parallel 
 expression,  to  doxifjLcov  bfichv  rrjq  Trcazsco^,  the  trying  of  your 
 faith.  1  Pet.  i.  7.  And  this  doxifxj,  well  tested  faith,  or  this 
 endurance  of  trial  produces  hope;  tends  to  confirm  and 
 strengthen  the  hope  of  the  glory  of  God,  which  we  owe  to  our 
 justification  through  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 Verse  5.  And  hope  maketh  not  ashamed,  {xaxaxayuvzt^  Not 
 to  make  ashamed,  is  not  to  put  us  to  the  shame  of  disappoint- 
 ment. The  hope  of  the  believer,  says  Calvin,  "habet  certissi- 
 mum  salutis  exitum."  It  certainly  eventuates  in  salvation. 
 See  ix.  33.  The  hope  which  true  believers  entertain,  founded 
 on  the  very  nature  of  pious  exercises,  shall  never  disappoint 
 
ROMANS  V.  6.  211 
 
 them,  Ps.  xxii.  5.  The  ground  of  this  assurance,  however,  is 
 not  the  strength  of  our  purpose,  or  confidence  in  our  own  good- 
 ness, but  the  love  of  God.  The  latter  clause  of  the  verse  assigns 
 the  reason  why  the  Christian's  hope  shall  not  be  found  delusive; 
 it  is  because  the  love  of  Grod  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts,  hy  jj 
 the  Holy  Crhost  given  unto  us.  '  The  love  of  God'  is  his  love  to  i 
 us,  and  not  ours  to  him,  as  appears  from  the  following  verses, 
 in  which  the  apostle  illustrates  the  greatness  and  freeness  of 
 this  love,  by  a  reference  to  the  unworthiness  of  its  objects.  To 
 %hed  abroad^  {ixxij^uzae,  it  has  been,  and  continues  to  be  shed 
 abroad,)  is  to  communicate  abundantly,  and  hence  to  evince 
 clearly.  Acts  ii.  17,  x.  45,  Titus  iii.  6.  This  manifestation  of 
 iivine  love  is  not  any  external  revelation  of  it  in  the  works  of 
 Providence,  or  even  in  redemption,  but  it  is  in  our  hearts,  iu 
 Toci;  xapoioii;  -^ficov,  difiiised  abroad  within  our  hearts,  where  kp, 
 in,  is  not  used  for  ere,  into.  "The  love  of  God,"  says  Philippi, 
 "does  not  descend  upon  us  as  dew  in  drops,  but  as  a  stream 
 which  spreads  itself  abroad  through  the  whole  soul,  filling  it 
 with  the  consciousness  of  his  presence  and  favour.  And  this 
 inward  persuasion  that  w^e  are  the  objects  of  the  love  of  God,  is 
 not  the  mere  result  of  the  examination  of  evidence,  nor  is  it  a 
 vain  delusion,  but  it  is  produced  by  the  Holy  Ghost:  "The 
 Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirits,  that  we  are  the 
 children  of  God,"  Rom.  viii.  16,  2  Cor.  i.  21,  22,  Eph.  i.  14. 
 As,  however,  the  Spirit  never  contradicts  himself,  he  never 
 bears  witness  that  "the  children  of  the  devil"  are  the  children 
 of  God ;  that  is,  that  the  unholy,  the  disobedient,  the  proud  or 
 malicious,  are  the  objects  of  the  divine  favour.  Any  reference, 
 therefore,  by  the  immoral,  to  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  their 
 favour,  must  be  vain  and  delusive. 
 
 Verse  6.  For  when  we  were  yet  without  strength.  The  con- 
 nection of  this  verse,  as  indicated  by  ydp,  is  with  ver.  5.  We 
 are  the  object  of  God's  love,  for  Christ  died  for  us.  The  gift 
 of  Christ  to  die  on  our  behalf,  is  everywhere  in  Scripture 
 represented  as  the  highest  possible  or  conceivable  proof  of  the 
 love  of  God  to  sinners.  John  iii.  16,  1  John  iii.  16,  iv.  9,  10. 
 The  objection  that  the  Church  doctrine  represents  the  death  of 
 Christ  as  exciting  or  procuring  the  love  of  an  unloving  God,  is 
 without  the  shadow  of  foundation.     The  Scriptures  represent 
 
212  ROMANS  V.  6. 
 
 the  love  of  God  to  sinners  as  independent  of  the  work  of  Christ, 
 and  anterior  to  it.  He  so  loved  us  as  to  give  his  only  begotten 
 Son  to  reconcile  our  salvation  with  his  justice.  In  the  Greek 
 of  this  passage,  izc  yap  Xpcazb^  duvwv  '^pajv  da&evoJv^  the  err, 
 yet,  is  out  of  its  natural  place ;  it  belongs  to  ovtujv  aa&evwu, 
 (as  in  ver.  8,  izc  d^paprcoXaJv,)  and  not  to  Xpcazoq.  Such  tra- 
 jections  of  the  particles  are  not  unusual  even  in  classical  Greek. 
 See  Winer,  §  65,  4 :  '  Christ  died  for  us,  when  we  were  yet  weak.' 
 This  slight  irregularity  has  given  rise  to  considerable  diversity 
 of  readings,  even  in  the  older  manuscripts.  Some,  instead  oi" 
 ire  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse,  have  dye  or  e/c  zi,  and  place 
 izc  after  aa&evcov;  others  have  izc  both  at  the  beginning  and  at 
 the  end  of  the  clause.  The  great  majority  of  editors  and  com- 
 mentators retain  the  common  reading,  and  refer  the  er^  to 
 duz(ov,  &c.,  as  is  done  in  our  version.  We  being  yet  weak.  The 
 weakness  here  intended  is  spiritual  weakness,  destitution  of 
 strength  for  what  is  spiritually  good,  a  weakness  arising  from, 
 and  consisting  in  sinfulness.  The  same  idea,  therefore,  is  ex- 
 pressed in  ver.  8,  by  the  words  izc  Si/xapzwXcoii,  when  we  were 
 yet  sinners.  What,  in  Isa.  liii.  4,  is  expressed  by  the  LXX.  in 
 the  words  rac  h.papzlaz  ^pcov  cpspsc,  he  bears  our  sins,  is,  in 
 Matt.  viii.  17,  expressed  by  saying,  za^  da&zvsia.^  fipcbv  i?M^s, 
 he  took  our  weaknesses.  In  due  time,  xaza  xo^pou,  are  not  to 
 be  connected  with  the  preceding  participial,  '  we  being  weak 
 according-  to  (or  considering)  the  time,'  secundum  rationem 
 temjjoris,  as  Calvin  and  Luther,  after  Chrysostom  and  Theo- 
 doret,  render  it,  but  with  the  following  verb,  direOave,  he  died 
 Kara  Kaipov.  This  may  mean,  at  the  appointed,  or  at  the  appro- 
 priate time.  The  former  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  analogy 
 of  Scripture.  Christ  came  at  the  time  appointed  by  the  Father. 
 The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  Gal.  iv.  4,  by  "  the  fulness  of 
 time ;"  compare  Eph.  i.  10,  1  Tim.  ii.  6,  Titus  i.  3,  John  v.  4. 
 Of  course  the  appointed  was  also  the  appropriate  time.  The 
 question  only  concerns  the  form  in  which  the  idea  is  expressed. 
 He  died,  virlp  dae^oiv,for  the  ungodly.  As  the  apostle  had  said, 
 '  when  ive  were  weak,'  it  would  have  been  natural  for  him  to 
 say,  '  Christ  died  for  ms,'  rather  than  that  he  died  for  the 
 ungodly,  had  it  not  been  his  design  to  exalt  the  gratuitous 
 nature  of  God's  love.     Christ  died  for  us  the  ungodly  ;  and 
 
ROMANS  V.  6.  213 
 
 therein,  as  the  apostle  goes  on  to  show,  is  the  mysteriousness 
 of  the  divine  love  revealed.  That  (rod  should  love  the  good, 
 the  righteous,  the  pure,  the  godly,  is  what  we  can  understand; 
 but  that  the  infinitely  Holy  should  love  the  unholy,  and  give 
 his  Son  for  their  redemption,  is  the  wonder  of  all  wonders. 
 "  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us, 
 and  sent  his  Son  to  be  a  propitiation  for  our  sins."  1  John 
 iv.  10.  As  the  love  of  a  mother  for  her  child,  with  which  God 
 condescends  to  compare  his  love  towards  us,  is  not  founded  on 
 the  attractive  qualities  of  that  child,  but  is  often  strongest  when 
 its  object  is  the  least  worthy,  so  God  loves  us  when  sinners. 
 The  whole  confidence  of  the  apostle  in  the  continuance  of  this 
 love  (and  therefore  in  the  final  perseverance  of  the  saints)  is 
 founded  on  its  being  thus  gratuitous.  If  he  loved  us  because 
 we  loved  him,  he  would  love  us  only  so  long  as  we  love  him,  and 
 on  that  condition ;  and  then  our  salvation  would  depend  on  the 
 constancy  of  our  treacherous  hearts.  But  as  God  loved  us  as 
 sinners,  as  Christ  died  for  us  as  ungodly,  our  salvation  depends, 
 as  the  apostle  argues,  not  on  our  loveliness,  but  on  the  con- 
 stancy of  the  lOve  of  God.  This  idea  pervades  this  whole  para- 
 graph, and  is  brought  more  distinctly  into  view  in  the  following 
 verses.  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly ;  that  is,  in  their  place, 
 and  for  their  salvation.  The  idea  of  substitution  is  not  indeed 
 necessarily  involved  in  the  force  of  the  preposition  uTrip,  which 
 means  for,  in  behalf  of,  while  dvW  means  in  the  place  of. 
 None  the  less  certainly,  however,  is  the  doctrine  here  taught. 
 To  die  for  a  man,  means  to  die  for  his  benefit.  And  there- 
 fore, if  this  were  all  that  the  Scriptures  taught  concerning  the 
 relation  between  Christ's  death  and  our  salvation,  it  would 
 remain  undecided,  whether  he  died  for  us  as  an  example,  as  a. 
 martyr,  or  as  a  substitute.  But  when  it  is  said  that  he  died 
 as  a  sacrifice,  that  he  gave  his  life  as  a  ransom,  that  he  was 
 a  propitiation,  then  the  specific  method  in  which  Christ's 
 death  benefits  us  is  determined.  It  is  therefore  with  bi^ip,  as 
 with  our  preposition  for;  whether  or  not  it  expresses  the 
 idea  of  substitution  depends  on  the  context,  and  the  nature 
 of  the  subject.  In  such  passages  as  this,  and  2  Cor.  v.  15, 
 20,  21,  Gal.  iii.  13,  Philemon  8,  unip  involves  in  it  the  mean- 
 ing of  dvzi. 
 
21i  ROMANS  V.  7. 
 
 Vekse  7.  For  scarcely  for  a  righteous  man  wiV  one  die,  ye: 
 peradventure  for  a  good  man  some  would  even  dare  to  die.  The 
 greatness  and  freeness  of  the  love  of  God  is  illustrated  in  this 
 and  the  following  verse,  by  making  still  more  prominent  the 
 unworthiness  of  its  objects;  'It  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that 
 any  one  would  die,  in  the  place  of  a  merely  righteous  man, 
 though  for  the  good  man,  this  self-denial  might  possibly  be 
 exercised.  But  we,  so  far  from  being  good,  were  not  even 
 righteous;  we  were  sinners,  ungodly,  and  enemies.'  The  dif- 
 ference between  the  words  righteous  and  good,  as  here  used,  is 
 that  which,  in  common  usage,  is  made  between  just  and  kind. 
 The  former  is  applied  to  a  man  who  does  all  that  the  law  or 
 justice  can  demand  of  him,  the  latter  to  him  who  is  governed 
 by  love.  The  just  man  commands  respect ;  the  good  man  calls 
 forth  affection.  Respect  being  a  cold  and  feeble  principle,  com- 
 pared to  love,  the  sacrifices  to  which  it  leads  are  comparatively 
 slight.  This  distinction  between  dcxoao^  and  ayad^bi^  is  illustrated 
 by  that  which  Cicero,  De  Officiis,  Lib.  III.  15,  makes  between 
 Justus  and  bonus:  "Si  vir  bonus  is  est  qui  prodest  quibus 
 potest,  nocet  nemini,  recte  justum  virum,  honum  non  facile 
 reperiemus."  The  interpretation  given  above  is  the  one  gene- 
 rally adopted;  it  suits  the  context,  the  signification  of  the 
 words,  and  the  structure  of  the  passage.  The  design  of  the 
 apostle  is  to  represent  the  death  of  Christ  as  an  unexampled 
 manifestation  of  love.  Among  men,  it  was  never  heard  of  that 
 one  died  for  a  man  simply  just;  the  most  that  human  nature 
 could  be  expected  to  accomplish  is,  that  one  should  die  for  his 
 benefactor,  or  for  the  good  man — one  so  good  as  to  be  charac- 
 terized and  known  as  the  good.  There  is  evidently  a  climax  in 
 the  passage,  as  indicated  by  the  opposition  between  {[x6Xc<:  and 
 Tci;fa)  scarcely  and  possibly.  The  passage,  however,  has  been 
 differently  interpreted.  Luther  takes  both  duaioo  and  zou 
 dya&oi)  as  neuters :  "  Scarcely  for  the  right  will  any  one  die, 
 possibly  for  something  good  some  one  might  dare  to  die." 
 Calvin  makes  no  distinction  between  the  words :  "  Rarissimum 
 sane  inter  homines  exemplum  exstat,  ut  pro  justo  quis  mori 
 sustineat  quanquam  illud  nonnunquam  accidere  possit."  Meyer 
 takes  dcxaioo,  as  it  is  without  the  article,  as  masculine,  but 
 TOO   dja&oi)   as   neuter,    and  renders   the   latter  clause  of  the 
 
ROMANS  V.  8,  9.  215 
 
 verse  interrogatively :  "  Hardly  for  a  righteous  man  will  one 
 die,  for  who  can  easily  bring  himself  to  die  for  what  is  good 
 [to  dj-ad^ou,  the  good)?"  The  common  interpretation  is  per- 
 fectly satisfactory,  and  to  these,  other  objections  more  or  lesa 
 decisive  may  be  adduced.  Instead  of  dixaiou,  the  Syriac  reads 
 ddcxou^  'Scarcely  for  an  unrigJdeous  man  will  one  die.'  But 
 this  is  not  only  unauthorized,  but  the  sense  is  not  so  appro- 
 priate. 
 
 Verse  8.  But  Grod  commendeth  his  love  towards  us,  in  that, 
 while  we  were  ^et  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us.  'Commendeth,' 
 auviarrjae,  proves,  or  renders  conspicuous;  see  iii.  5.  What 
 renders  the  love  of  God  so  peculiarly  conspicuous,  is  his  send- 
 ing his  Son  to  die,  not  for  the  good,  nor  even  for  the  righteous, 
 but  for  sinners,  for  those  who  were  deserving  of  wrath  instead 
 of  love.  The  word  sinners  expresses  the  idea  of  moral  turpi- 
 tude, and  consequent  exposure  to  the  divine  displeasure.  It 
 was  for,  or  in  the  place  of  those  who  were  at  once  corrupt,  and 
 the  enemies  of  God,  that  Christ  died. 
 
 Verse  9.  Much  more  then,  being  now  justified  by  his  blood, 
 we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him.  This  and  the  fol- 
 lowing verse  draw  the  obvious  inference,  from  the  freeness  and 
 greatness  of  the  love  of  God,  as  just  exhibited,  that  believera 
 shall  be  ultimately  saved.  It  is  an  argument  a  fortiori.  If  the 
 greater  benefit  has  been  bestowed,  the  less  will  not  be  withheld. 
 If  Christ  has  died  for  his  enemies,  he  will  surely  save  his 
 friends.  Being  justified.  To  be  justified  is  more  than  to  be 
 pardoned ;  it  includes  the  idea  of  reconciliation  or  restoration 
 to  the  favour  of  God,  on  the  ground  of  a  satisfaction  to  justice, 
 and  the  participation  of  the  consequent  blessings.  This  idea  is 
 prominently  presented  in  the  following  verse.  'We  are  justified 
 by  his  blood.'  This  expression,  as  remarked  above  (chap.  iv.  3,) 
 exhibits  the  true  ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God.  It  is  not 
 our  works,  nor  our  faith,  nor  our  new  obedience,  nor  the  work 
 of  Christ  in  us,  but  what  he  has  done  for  us;  chap.  iii.  25, 
 Eph.  ii.  13,  Heb.  ix.  12.  Having  by  the  death  of  Christ  been 
 brought  into  the  relation  of  peace  with  God,  being  now  regarded 
 for  his  sake  as  righteous,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through 
 him.  He  will  not  leave  his  work  unfinished ;  whom  he  justifies, 
 them  he  also  glorifies.     The  word  wrath,  of  course,  means  the 
 
216  ROMANS  V.  10. 
 
 effects  of  wrath  or  punishment,  those  sufferings  with  which  the 
 divine  displeasure  visits  sin;  Matt.  iii.  7,  1  Thess.  i.  10,  Rom. 
 i.  18.  Not  only  is  our  justification  to  be  ascribed  to  Christ,  but 
 our  salvation  is  through  him.  Salvation,  in  a  general  sense, 
 includes  justification ;  but  when  distinguished  from  it,  as  in  this 
 '^ase,  it  means  the  consummation  of  that  work  of  which  justifi- 
 cation is  the  commencement.  It  is  a  preservation  from  all  the 
 causes  of  destruction;  a  deliverance  from  the  evils  which  sur 
 round  us  here,  or  threaten  us  hereafter;  and  an  introduction 
 into  the  blessedness  of  heaven.  Christ  thus  saves  us  by  his 
 providence  and  Spirit,  and  by  his  constant  intercession ;  chap, 
 viii.  34,  Heb.  iv.  14,  15,  vii.  25,  Jude  v.  24,  1  John  ii.  1. 
 Olshausen  here  also  introduces  his  idea  of  subjective  justifica- 
 tion, and  says  that  the  meaning  of  this  passage  is,  "  If  God 
 regenerates  a  man,  we  may  hope  that  he  will  uphold  and  per- 
 fect him,  and  reduce  his  liability  to  apostasy  to  a  minimum." 
 According  to  this,  to  justify  is  to  regenerate,  and  to  save  from 
 wrath  is  to  reduce  our  liability  to  apostasy  to  a  minimum. 
 
 Verse  10.  For  if,  when  we  were  yet  enemies,  we  were  recon- 
 ciled to  Gfod  hy  the  death  of  his  Son,  &c.  This  verse  contains 
 nearly  the  same  idea  as  ver.  9,  presented  in  a  different  form. 
 The  word  enemies  is  applied  to  men  not  only  as  descriptive  of 
 their  moral  character,  but  also  of  the  relation  in  which  they 
 stand  to  God  as  the  objects  of  his  displeasure.  There  is  not 
 only  a  wicked  opposition  of  the  sinner  to  God,  but  a  holy 
 opposition  of  God  to  the  sinner.  The  preceding  verse  presents 
 the  former  of  these  ideas,  and  this  verse  the  latter  most  promi- 
 nently. There  it  is  said,  'though  sinners,  we  are  justified;' 
 and  here,  'though  enemies,  we  are  reconciled.'  The  word 
 i-^&poi  has  the  same  passive  sense  in  xi.  28.  And  this  is  the 
 principal  difference  between  the  two  verses.  To  he  reconciled 
 to  G-od,  in  such  connections,  does  not  mean  to  have  our  enmity 
 to  God  removed,  but  his  enmity  to  us  taken  out  of  the  way,  to 
 have  him  rendered  propitious,  or  his  righteous  justice  satisfied. 
 This  is  evident,  1.  Because  the  reconciliation  is  ascribed  to  the 
 death  of  Christ,  or  his  blood,  ver.  9.  But,  according  to  the 
 constant  representations  of  Scripture,  the  death  of  Christ  is  a 
 sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  or  to  propitiate  the  favour  of 
 God,  and  not  immediately  a  means  of  sanctification.    The  former 
 
ROMANS  V.  10.  217 
 
 is  its  direct  object,  the  latter  an  incidental  result.  This  is  the 
 very  idea  of  a  sacrifice.  The  most  liberal  commentators,  that 
 is,  those  least  bound  by  any  theological  system,  admit  this  to 
 be  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  of  this  particular  passage. 
 Thus  Meyer:  "  Christi  Tod  tilgte  nicht  die  Feindschaft  der 
 Menschen  gegen  Gott;"  that  is,  "The  death  of  Christ  does  not 
 remove  the  enmity  of  men  towards  God,  but  as  that  which 
 secures  the  favour  of  God,  it  removes  his  enmity  towards  men, 
 whence  the  removal  of  our  enmity  towards  him  follows  as  a  con- 
 sequence." So  also  RUckert:  "The  reconciled  here  can  only 
 be  God,  whose  wrath  towards  sinners  is  appeased  by  the  death 
 of  his  Son.  On  man's  part  nothing  has  happened ;  no  internal 
 change,  no  step  towards  God;  all  this  follows  as  the  conse- 
 quence of  the  reconciliation  here  spoken  of."  De  Wette  also 
 says,  that  '•'■  xazaXXayrj  must  mean  the  removal  of  the  wrath  of 
 God,  and  consequently  the  reconciliation  is  of  God  to  man, 
 which  not  only  here,  but  in  iii.  25,  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19,  Col.  i.  21, 
 Eph.  ii.  16,  is  referred  to  the  atoning  death  of  Christ."  2.  The 
 object  of  the  verse  is  to  present  us  as  enemies,  or  the  objects 
 of  God's  displeasure.  'If  while  we  were  the  objects  of  the 
 divine  displeasure,'  says  the  apostle,  'that  displeasure  has  been 
 removed,  or  God  propitiated  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  how 
 much  more  shall  we  be  saved,'  &c.  That  is,  if  God  has  been 
 reconciled  to  us,  he  will  save  us.  3.  This  is  the  proper  mean- 
 ing of  the  word,  2  Cor.  v.  18,  19.  See  also  Matt.  v.  24,  "First 
 go  and  be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,"  i,  e.  go  and  appease  his 
 anger,  or  remove  the  ground  of  his  displeasure;  compare  Heb. 
 ii.  17,  "  He  is  a  priest  to  make  reconciliation  {sic;  to  IXdaxta&cu) 
 for  the  sins  of  the  people."  It  is  the  appropriate  business  of 
 a  priest  to  propitiate  God,  and  not  to  reform  men.  See  also 
 1  Sam.  xxix.  4 :  "  Wherewith  should  he  reconcile  himself  [dcaX- 
 la-frjazrat)  to  his  master  ?  should  it  not  be  with  the  heads  of  these 
 men?"  Eph.  ii.  16,  "That  he  might  reconcile  {d.T[oxazaXXd^rj) 
 both  unto  God  by  the  cross,"  not  remove  their  enmity  to  God, 
 but  secure  for  them  his  favour  and  access  to  the  Father,  ver.  18. 
 The  verbs  xaTaXXAaao),  diaXXdatJco,  and  dTroxaraXXdacra),  are  used 
 interchangeably.  The  main  idea,  of  course,  as  expressed  by 
 dXXd<T(Ta>    to  change,  is    slightly  modified  by  the  force  of  the 
 
218  ROMANS  V.  10. 
 
 several  prepositions  witTi  which  it  is  combined — to  change  xant 
 in  relation  to,  ded  between,  dno  from.  The  three  verbs,  however, 
 are  all  used  to  express  the  idea  of  reconciliation,  i.  e.  changing 
 the  relation  of  parties  at  enmity,  so  that  they  are  at  peace. 
 Whether  this  reconciliation  is  effected  by  the  propitiation  of  the 
 justly  offended  party,  or  by  a  change  of  feeling  in  the  offender, 
 or  both,  depends  on  the  connection.  4.  The  context  obviously 
 requires  this  sense  here.  "  Being  reconciled  by  the  death  of 
 his  Son,"  evidently  corresponds  to  the  phrase,  "  Being  justified 
 by  his  blood."  The  latter  cannot  mean  that  our  feelings  towards 
 God  are  changed,  but  is  admitted  to  express  the  idea  that  we 
 are  forgiven  and  restored  to  the  divine  favour.  Such  therefore 
 must  be  the  meaning  of  the  former.  Besides,  it  is  the  object 
 of  the  apostle  to  illustrate  the  greatness  and  freeness  of  the  love 
 of  God,  from  the  unworthiness  of  its  objects.  While  sinners, 
 we  are  justified;  while  enemies,  we  are  reconciled.  To  make 
 the  passage  mean,  that  when  enemies  we  laid  aside  our  enmity, 
 and  became  the  friends  of  God,  would  be  to  make  it  contradict 
 the  very  assertion  and  design  of  the  apostle. 
 
 We  shall  he  saved  hy  his  life.  This  rather  unusual  mode  of 
 expression  was  doubtless  adopted  for  the  sake  of  its  correspond- 
 ence to  the  words,  hy  his  death,  in  the  preceding  clause,  and  is 
 a  striking  example  of  Paul's  fondness  for  such  antithetical  con- 
 structions; see  chap.  iv.  25,  Gal.  iii.  3,  2  Cor.  iii.  6.  The  mean- 
 ing is  obvious :  '  If  while  we  were  enemies,  we  were  restored  to 
 the  favour  of  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son,  the  fact  that  he 
 lives  will  certainly  secure  our  final  salvation.'  1.  His  life  is  a 
 pledge  and  security  for  the  life  of  all  his  people;  see  John 
 xiv.  19,  "Because  I  live,  ye  shall  live  also;"  Rom.  viii.  11, 
 1  Cor.  XV.  23.  2.  He  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost,  "because 
 he  ever  lives  to  make  intercession  for  us,"  Heb.  vii.  25,  &c. 
 3.  At  his  resurrection,  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  was  com- 
 mitted to  his  hands.  Matt,  xxviii.  18 ;  and  this  power  he  exer- 
 cises for  the  salvation  of  his  people ;  Eph.  i.  22,  '  He  is  head 
 over  all  things,  for  the  benefit  of  his  Church;'  Rev.  i.  18,  Heb. 
 ii.  10,  1  Cor.  XV.  25,  &c.;  see  also  the  passages  cited  on  the 
 last  clause  of  ver.  9.  There  is,  therefore,  most  abundant 
 ground  for  confidenc'^  for  the  final  blessedness  of  believers,  not 
 
ROMANS  V.  11.  219 
 
 only  in  the  amazing  love  of  God,  by  which,  though  sinners  and 
 enemies,  they  have  been  justified  and  reconciled  by  the  death 
 of  his  Son,  but  also  in  the  consideration  that  this  same  Saviour 
 that  died  for  them  still  lives,  and  ever  lives  to  sanctify,  protect, 
 and  save  them. 
 
 Verse  11.  Not  only  so,  but  we  rejoice  in  Crod,  through  our 
 Lord  Jesus  Christ;  ou  fjiovov  dh,  dlXa  xal  xao^foiizvot  kv  ruJ  dew. 
 There  are  three  ways  of  explaining  the  participle  xau^tovsuoi; 
 the  one  is  to  make  it  antithetical  to  y.aTaUay£UTe(;,  'not  only 
 reconciled,  but  exulting  in  God,  shall  we  be  saved.'  But  this 
 is  not  only  an  unnatural  form  of  expression,  but  in  ver.  9, 
 xaTaXlayivTB^  is  not  a  qualification  of  aw^Tjffoiizda.  The  mean- 
 ing is  not,  'We  shall  be  saved  reconciled,'  but,  '  Since  we  are 
 reconciled  we  shall  be  saved.'  Another  interpretation  supplies 
 the  verb  from  the  preceding  clause,  'Not  only  shall  we  be 
 saved,  but  saved  rejoicing  in  God.'  The  best  sense  is  obtained 
 by  supplying  ia/xiv  after  the  participle,  as  is  assumed  in  the 
 English  version,  and  advocated  by  the  majority  of  commenta- 
 tors :  '  We  shall  not  only  be  ultimately  saved,  but  we  now  glory 
 in  God.'  The  benefits  of  redemption  are  not  all  future.  It  is 
 not  only  deliverance  from  future  wrath,  but  the  joy  and  glory 
 of  the  present  favour  and  love  of  God,  that  we  owe  to  Jesus 
 Christ.  Thus  the  Vulgate,  which  renders  xau^M/xtpo:  as  a  verb, 
 (sed  et  gloriamur,)  as  does  Luther,  "Wir  riihmen  uns  auch 
 Gottes."  We  glory  in  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
 That  is,  it  is  to  him  that  we  are  indebted  for  this  joy  in  God 
 as  our  God  and  portion.  Through  whom  we  have  now  received 
 atonement.  This  is  the  reason  why  we  owe  our  present  glory- 
 ing in  God  to  Christ;  it  is  because  he  has  secured  our  recon- 
 ciliation. The  word  rendered  by  our  translators,  atonement,  is 
 xaxalhj.fri,  the  derivative  of  xazaXXdatro),  properly  rendered  in 
 the  context,  as  elsewhere,  to  reconcile.  The  proper  rendering, 
 therefore,  of  the  noun  would  be  reconciliation:  '  Through  whom 
 we  have  received  reconciliation,  that  is,  have  been  reconciled.' 
 This  verse  therefore  brings  us  back  to  ver.  2.  There  it  is  said, 
 'Having  peace  with  God,  we  rejoice  in  hope  of  his  glory;'  and 
 here,  'Being  reconciled,  we  glory  or  rejoice  in  God.'  Salvation 
 is  begun  on  earth. 
 
220  ROMANS  V.  1—11. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  Peace  with  God  is  the  result  of  that  system  of  religion 
 which  alone,  by  providing  at  once  for  the  satisfaction  of  divine 
 justice  and  the  sanctification  of  the  human  heart,  is  suited  to 
 the  character  of  God  and  the  nature  of  man.  All  history 
 shows  that  no  system  other  than  the  gospel  has  ever  produced 
 this  peace,  ver.  1. 
 
 2.  All  the  peculiar  blessings  of  redemption  are  inseparably 
 connected  with  and  grow  out  of  each  other.  Those  who  are  jus- 
 tified have  peace  with  God,  access  to  his  presence,  joy  under  the 
 most  adverse  circumstances,  assurance  of  God's  love,  and  cer- 
 tainty of  final  salvation ;  see  the  whole  section,  and  compare 
 chap.  viii.  30. 
 
 3.  The  Holy  Ghost  has  intimate  access  to  the  human  soul, 
 controlling  its  exercises,  exciting  its  emotions,  and  leading  it 
 into  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  ver.  5. 
 
 4.  The  assurance  of  hope  is  founded  on  the  consciousness  of 
 pious  affections,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  is  a 
 grace  to  which  believers  may  and  ought  to  attain,  vs.  4,  5. 
 
 5.  The  perseverance  of  the  saints  is  to  be  attributed  not  to 
 the  strength  of  their  love  to  God,  nor  to  anything  else  in  them- 
 selves, but  solely  to  the  free  and  infinite  love  of  God  in  Christ 
 Jesus.  The  praise  is  therefore  no  more  due  to  them,  than  com- 
 mendation to  a  helpless  infant  for  its  mother's  sleepless  care. 
 "  Can  a  woman  forget  her  sucking  child,"  &c.,  vs.  6 — 10. 
 
 6.  Redemption  is  not  by  truth  or  moral  influence,  but  by 
 blood,  vs.  9, 10. 
 
 7.  The  primary  object  of  the  death  of  Christ  was  to  render 
 God  propitious,  to  satisfy  his  justice,  and  not  to  influence  human 
 conduct,  or  display  the  divine  character,  for  the  sake  of  the 
 moral  effect  of  that  exhibition.  Among  its  infinitely  diversified 
 results,  all  of  which  were  designed,  some  of  the  most  important, 
 no  doubt,  are  the  sanctification  of  men,  the  display  of  the  divine 
 perfections,  the  prevention  of  sin,  the  happiness  of  the  universe, 
 &c.  But  the  object  of  a  sacrifice,  as  such,  is  to  propitiate,  vs.  9, 
 10,  Heb.  ii.  17. 
 
 8.  All  we  have  or  hope  for,  we  owe  to  Jesus  Christ — peace, 
 communion  with  God,  joy,  hope,  eternal  life;  see  the  whole 
 3ection   and  the  whole  Bible. 
 
ROMANS  V.  12—21.  221 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  If  we  are  the  genuine  children  of  God,  we  have  peace  of 
 conscience,  a  sense  of  God's  favour,  and  freedom  of  access  to 
 his  throne.  We  endure  afflictions  with  patience.  Instead  of 
 making  us  distrustful  of  our  heavenly  Father,  they  afford  us 
 new  proofs  of  his  love,  and  strengthen  our  hope  of  his  mercy. 
 And  we  shall  have  also,  more  or  less  of  the  assurance  of  God's 
 love,  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  vs.  1 — 5. 
 
 2.  None  of  these  fruits  of  reconciliation  Avith  God  can  be  ob- 
 tained until  the  spirit  of  self-righteousness  and  self-dependence 
 is  removed.  They  are  secured  through  faith,  and  by  Christ 
 Jesus,  and  not  by  our  own  works  or  merit,  ver.  1,  &c. 
 
 3.  The  hope  of  the  hypocrite  is  like  a  spider's  web ;  the 
 hope  of  the  believer  is  an  anchor  to  his  soul,  sure  and  stead- 
 fast, ver.  5. 
 
 4.  Assurance  of  the  love  of  God  never  produces  self-com- 
 placency or  pride ;  but  always  humility,  self-abasement,  wonder, 
 gratitude,  and  praise.  The  believer  sees  that  the  mysterious 
 fountain  of  this  love  is  in  the  divine  mind ;  it  is  not  in  himself, 
 who  is  ungodly  and  a  sinner,  vs.  8 — 10. 
 
 5.  As  the  love  of  God  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  the  love  of 
 Christ  in  dying  for  us,  are  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  the 
 gospel,  no  one  can  be  a  true  Christian  on  whom  these  truths  do 
 not  exert  a  governing  influence,  vs.  9, 10 ;  compare  2  Cor.  v.  14. 
 
 6.  True  religion  is  joyful,  vs.  2,  11. 
 
 ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 I.  Scope  of  the  passage.  The  design  of  this  section  is  the 
 illustration  of  the  doctrine  of  the  justification  of  sinners  on  the 
 ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  by  a  reference  to  the 
 condemnation  of  men  for  the  sin  of  Adam.  That  such  is  its 
 design  is  evident,  1.  From  the  context.  Paul  has  been  engaged 
 from  the  beginning  of  the  epistle  in  inculcating  one  main  idea. 
 VIZ.  that  the  ground  of  the  sinner's  acceptance  with  God  is  not 
 in  himself,  but  the  merit  of  Christ.     And  in  the  preceding 
 
222  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 verses  lie  had  said,  "-we  are  justified  by  his  blood,"  ver.  9:  by 
 his  death  we  are  restored  to  the  divine  favour,  ver.  10;  and 
 through  him,  i.  e.  by  one  man,  we  have  received  reconciliation, 
 that  is,  are  pardoned  and  justified,  ver.  11.  As  this  idea  of 
 men's  being  regarded  and  treated,  not  according  to  their  own 
 merit,  but  the  merit  of  another,  is  contrary  to  the  common  mode 
 of  thinking  among  men,  and  especially  contrary  to  their  self- 
 righteous  efforts  to  obtain  the  divine  favour,  the  apostle  illus- 
 trates and  enforces  it  by  an  appeal  to  the  great  analogous  fact 
 in  the  history  of  the  world.  ^2.  From  an  inspection  of  vs.  12, 
 18,  19,  which  contain  the  whole  point  and  substance  of  the 
 comparison.  f^Verses  13 — 17  are  virtually  a  parenthesis  ;  and 
 vs.  20,  21,  contain  two  remarks,  merely  incidental  to  the  dis- 
 cussion. Verses  12,  18,  19,  must  therefore  contain  the  main 
 idea  of  the  passage. !  In  the  12th,  only  one  side  of  the  com- 
 parison is  stated;  but  in  vs.  18,  19,  it  is  resumed  and  carried 
 out:  'As  by  the  offence  of  one  all  are  condemned,  so  by  the 
 righteousness  of  one  all  are  justified.'  This,  almost  in  the  words 
 of  the  apostle,  is  the  simple  meaning  of  vs.  18,  19,  and  makes 
 the  point  of  the  comparison  and  scope  of  the  passage  perfectly 
 clear.  3.  The  design  of  the  passage  must  be  that  on  which  all 
 its  parts  bear,  the  point  towards  which  they  all  converge.  The 
 course  of  the  argument,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  bears  so 
 uniformly  and  lucidly  on  the  point  just  stated,  that  the  attempt 
 to  make  it  bear  on  any  other  involves  the  whole  passage  in 
 confusion.  All  that  the  apostle  says  tends  to  the  illustration 
 of  his  declaration,  'As  we  are  condemned  on  account  of  what 
 Adam  did,  we  are  justified  on  account  of  what  Christ  did.'  The 
 illustration  of  this  point,  therefore,  must  be  the  design  and 
 scope  of  the  whole. 
 
 It  is  frequently  and  confidently  said  that  the  design  of  the 
 passage  is  to  exalt  our  views  of  the  blessings  procured  by 
 Christ,  by  showing  that  they  are  greater  than  the  evils  occa- 
 sioned by  the  fall.  But  this  is  not  only  improbable,  but  impos- 
 sible. 1.  Because  the  superabounding  of  the  grace  of  the  gospel 
 is  not  expressly  stated  until  ver.  20.  That  is,  not  until  the 
 whole  discussion  is  ended;  and  it  is  introduced  there  merely 
 incidentally,  as  involved  in  the  apostle's  answer  to  an  objection 
 to  his  argument,  implied  in  the  question,  '  For  what  purpose  did 
 
ROMANS  V.  12—21.  223 
 
 the  law  enter?'  Is  it  possible  that  the  main  design  of  a  passage 
 should  be  disclosed  only  in  the  reply  to  an  incidental  objection? 
 The  pith  and  point  of  the  discussion  would  be  just  what  they 
 are  now,  had  no  such  objection  been  suggested  or  answered; 
 yet,  if  this  view  of  the  subject  is  correct,  had  the  objection  not 
 been  presented,  the  main  design  of  the  passage  would  have  been 
 unexpressed  and  undiscoverable.  2.  The  idea  of  the  superiority 
 of  the  blessings  procured  by  Christ  to  the  evils  occasioned  by 
 Adam,  although  first  expressly  stated  in  ver.  20,  is  alluded  to 
 and  implied  in  vs.  16,  17.  But  these  verses,  it  is  admitted, 
 belong  to  a  parenthesis.  It  is  conceded  on  all  hands,  that 
 vs.  13,  14,  are  designed  to  confirm  the  statement  of  ver.  12,  and 
 that  vs.  15 — 17,  are  subordinate  to  the  last  clause  of  ver.  14, 
 and  contain  an  illustration  of  its  meaning.  It  is  therefore  not 
 only  admitted,  but  frequently  and  freely  asserted,  that  vs.  12, 
 18,  19,  contain  the  point  and  substance  of  the  whole  passage, 
 vs.  13 — 17  being  a  parenthesis.  Yet,  in  vs.  12,  18,  19,  the 
 superabounding  of  the  grace  of  Christ  is  not  even  hinted.  Can 
 the  main  design  of  a  passage  be  contained  in  a  parenthesis,  and 
 not  in  the  passage  itself?  The  vei-y  nature  of  a  parenthesis  is, 
 that  it  contains  something  which  may  be  left  out  of  a  passage, 
 and  leave  the  sense  entire.  But  can  the  main  design  and  scope 
 of  an  author  be  left  out,  and  his  meaning  be  left  complete  ?  If 
 not,  it  is  impossible  that  an  idea  contained  only  in  a  parenthesis 
 should  be  the  main  design  of  the  passage.  The  idea  is  in  itself 
 true  and  important,  but  the  mistake  consists  in  exalting  a  corol- 
 lary into  the  scope  and  object  of  the  whole  discussion.  The 
 confusion  and  mistake  in  the  exposition  of  a  passage,  conse- 
 quent on  an  entire  misapprehension  of  its  design,  may  be 
 readily  imagined. 
 
 II.  The  connection.  The  design  of  the  passage  being  the 
 illustration  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  righteousness 
 of  Christ,  previously  established,  the  connection  is  natural  and 
 obvious :  '  Wheeeforb,  as  by  one  man  we  have  been  brought 
 under  condemnation,  so  by  one  man  we  are  brought  into  a  state 
 of  justification  and  life.'  The  ivherefore  [dca  touto)  is  conse- 
 quently to  be  taken  as  illative,  or  marking  an  inference  from 
 the  whole  of  the  previous  part  of  the  epistle,  and  especially 
 from  the  preceding  verses.     '  Wherefore  we  are  justified  by  the 
 
224  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 righteousness  of  one  man,  even  as  we  were  brought  into  con- 
 demnation by  the  sin  of  one  man.'  It  would  seem  that  only  a 
 misapprehension  of  the  design  of  the  passage,  or  an  unwilling- 
 ness to  admit  it,  could  have  led  to  the  numerous  forced  and 
 unauthorized  explanations  of  these  words.  Some  render  them 
 moreover;  others,  in  respect  to  this,  &c. 
 
 III.  The  course  of  the  argument.  As  the  point  to  be  illus- 
 trated is  the  justification  of  sinners  on  the  ground  of  the  right- 
 eousness of  Christ,  and  the  source  of  illustration  is  the  fall  of 
 all  men  in  Adam,  the  passage  begins  with  a  statement  of  this 
 latter  truth :  'As  on  account  of  one  man,  death  has  passed  on 
 all  men;  so  on  account  of  one,'  &c.,  ver.  12.  Before  carrying 
 out  the  comparison,  however,  the  apostle  stops  to  establish  his 
 position,  that  all  men  are  condemned  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
 Adam.  His  proof  is  this :  The  infliction  of  a  penalty  implies 
 the  transgression  of  a  law,  since  sin  is  not  imputed  where  there 
 is  no  law,  ver.  13.  All  mankind  are  subject  to  death  or  penal 
 evils ;  therefore  all  men  are  regarded  as  transgressors  of  a  law, 
 ver.  13.  This  law  or  covenant,  which  brings  death  on  all  men, 
 is  not  the  law  of  Moses,  because  multitudes  died  before  that  was 
 given,  ver.  14.  Nor  is  it  the  law  of  nature  written  upon  the 
 heart,  since  multitudes  die  who  have  never  violated  even  that 
 law,  ver.  14.  Therefore,  as  neither  of  these  laws  is  sufficiently 
 extensive  to  embrace  all  the  subjects  of  the  penalty,  we  must 
 conclude  that  men  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  Adam ; 
 that  is,  it  is  for  the  oifence  of  one  that  many  die,  vs.  13,  14. 
 Adam  is,  therefore,  a  type  of  Christ.  "As  to  this  important 
 point,  there  is  a  striking  analogy  between  the  fall  and  redemp- 
 tion. We  are  condemned  in  Adam,  and  we  are  justified  in 
 Christ.  But  the  cases  are  not  completely  parallel.  In  the  first 
 place,  the  former  dispensation  is  much  more  mysterious  than 
 the  latter;  for  if  by  the  ofi"ence  of  one  many  die,  much  more 
 by  the  righteousness  of  one  shall  many  live,  ver.  15.  In  the 
 second  place,  the  benefits  of  the  one  dispensation  far  exceed  the 
 evils  of  the  other.  For  the  condemnation  was  for  one  offence ; 
 the  justification  is  from  many.  Christ  saves  us  from  much  more 
 than  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  ver.  16.  In  the  third  place, 
 Christ  not  only  saves  us  from  death,  that  is,  not  only  frees  us 
 from  the  evils  consequent  on  our  own  and  Adam's  sin,  but 
 
ROMANS  V.  12.  225 
 
 introduces  us  into  a  state  of  positive  and  eternal  blessedness, 
 ver.  17.  Or  this  verse  may  be  considered  as  an  amplification 
 of  the  sentiment  of  ver.  15. 
 
 Having  thus  limited  and  illustrated  the  analogy  between 
 Adam  and  Christ,  the  apostle  resumes  and  carries  the  compari- 
 son fully  out :  '  Therefore,  as  on  account  of  one  man  all  mei 
 are  condemned;  so  on  account  of  one,  all  are  justified,'  ver.  18. 
 'For,  as  through  the  disobedience  of  one,  many  are  regarded 
 and  treated  as  sinners;  so  through  the  righteousness  of  one 
 many  are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous,'  ver.  19.  This 
 then  is  the  sense  of  the  passage — men  are  condemned  for  the 
 sin  of  one  man,  and  justified  for  the  righteousness  of  another. 
 If  men  are  thus  justified  by  the  obedience  of  Christ,  for  what 
 purpose  is  the  law?  'It  entered  that  sin  might  abound,'  i.  e.  that 
 men  might  see  how  much  it  abounded ;  since  by  the  law  is  the 
 knowledge  of  sin.  The  law  has  its  use,  although  men  are  not 
 justified  by  their  own  obedience  to  it,  ver.  20.  As  the  law  dis- 
 closes, and  even  aggravates  the  dreadful  triumplis  of  sin  reign- 
 ing, in  union  with  death,  over  the  human  family,  the  gospel 
 displays  the  far  more  efi"ectual  and  extensive  triumphs  of  grace 
 through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  ver.  21. 
 
 According  to  this  view  of  the  passage  it  consists  of  five  parts. 
 The  first,  contained  in  ver.  12,  presents  the  first  member  of  the 
 comparison  between  Christ  and  Adam.  The  second  contains 
 the  proof  of  the  position  assumed  in  ver.  12,  and  embraces 
 vs.  13,  14,  which  are  therefore  subordinate  to  ver,  12.  Adam, 
 therefore,  is  a  type  of  Christ.  The  third,  embracing  vs.  15 — 17, 
 is  a  commentary  on  this  declaration,  by  which  it  is  at  once 
 illustrated  and  limited.  The  fourth,  in  vs.  18,  19,  resumes  and 
 carries  out  the  comparison  commenced  in  ver.  12.  The  fifth 
 forms  the  conclusion  of  the  chapter,  and  contains  a  statement 
 of  the  design  and  eff"ect  of  the  law,  and  of  the  results  of  the 
 gospel,  suggested  by  the  preceding  comparison,  vs.  20,  21. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  12.    Wlierefore,  as  hy  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
 
 world,  and  death  hy  sin,  &c.    The  force  of  dca  tooto,  wherefore, 
 
 has  already  been  pointed  out,  when  speaking  of  the  connection 
 
 of  this  passage  with  the  preceding :  '  It  follows,  from  what  has 
 
 15 
 
226  ROMANS  V.  12. 
 
 been  said  jf  tlio  method  of  justification,  that  as  by  one  man  ah 
 became  sinners,  so  by  one  are  all  constituted  righteous.'  This 
 passage,  therefore,  is  the  summation  of  all  that  has  gone  before. 
 As  (ojaTTsp,)  obviously  indicates  a  comparison  or  parallel.  There 
 is  however  no  corresponding  clause  beginning  with  so,  to  com- 
 plete the  sentence.  Examples  of  similar  incomplete  compari- 
 sons may  be  found  in  Matt.  xxv.  14,  with  coaTzep,  and  in  1  Tim. 
 i.  3,  with  xd&io^.  It  is  however  so  obvious  that  the  illustration 
 begun  in  this  verse  is  resumed,  and  fully  stated  in  vs.  18,  19, 
 that  the  vast  majority  of  commentators  agree  that  we  must  seek 
 in  those  verses  the  clause  which  answers  to  this  verse.  The 
 other  explanations  are  unnecessary  or  unsatisfiiictory.  1.  Some 
 say  that  this  verse  is  complete  in  itself,  ^As  by  one  man  sin 
 entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  so  also  death  passed 
 on  all  men,  because  all  sinned.'  The  two  insuperable  objections 
 to  this  explanation  are,  first,  that  it  does  violence  to  the  words. 
 It  makes  the  apostle  say  what  he  does  not  say.  It  makes  xar 
 o5r<-(;c,  ci'^d  so,  to  mean  the  same  with  ouzco  xai,  so  also,  which  is 
 impossible.  And  secondly,  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  whole 
 design  and  argument  of  the  passage.  Instead  of  having  a  com- 
 parison between  Christ  and  Adam,  the  comparison  would  be 
 between  Adam  and  other  men :  ^As  he  sinned  and  died,  so  they 
 sinned  and  died.'  2.  Others  say,  that  we  find  in  the  last  clause 
 of  ver.  14,  in  substance,  although  not  in  form,  the  apodosis  of 
 this  clause:  ^As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world-;  so. 
 Adam  is  the  type  of  Christ.'  But  this  is  obviously  inconsistent 
 with  the  wording  and  connection  of  the  clause  in  ver.  18. 
 3.  De  Wette  proposes,  after  Cocceius,  Eisner,  and  a  few  others, 
 to  make  the  wurrzp  of  this  verse  introduce  not  the  first,  but  the 
 second  member  of  the  comparison,  the  first  being  to  be  supplied 
 in  thought,  or  borrowed  from  what  precedes :  '  We  receive  right- 
 eousness and  life  through  Christ,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into 
 the  world;'  or,  'Wherefore  Christ  stands  in  a  relation  to  man- 
 kind analogous  to  that  of  Adam,  as  by  one  man,'  &c.  But  it  is 
 plain  that  no  reader  could  imagine  that  Paul  intended  so  essen- 
 tial a  member  of  the  comparison  to  be  conjectured  or  framed 
 from  the  preceding  discussion.  He  does  not  leave  his  readers 
 to  supnly  one  half  of' a  sentence;  he  himself  completes  it  in 
 ver.  18. 
 
ROMANS  V.  12.  227 
 
 By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  oc  Ivoc  d)jd^p(i)~ou, 
 x.T.X.  These  words  clearly  declare  a  causal  relation  between 
 the  one  man,  Adam,  and  the  entrance  of  sin  into  the  world. 
 Benecke,  who  has  revived  the  doctrine  of  the  preexistence  of 
 souls,  supposes  that  Adam  was  the  leader  of  the  spirits  who  in 
 the  preexistent  state  sinned,  and  were  condemned  to  be  born  as 
 men.  Adam  was  therefore  the  cause  of  sin  entering  into  the 
 world,  because  he  was  the  author  of  this  ante-mundane  apos- 
 tasy. The  Pelagian  theory  is,  that  Adam  was  the  mere  occa- 
 sional cause  of  men  becoming  sinners.  He  was  the  first  sinner, 
 and  others  followed  his  example.  Or,  according  to  another 
 form  of  the  same  general  idea,  his  sin  was  the  occasion  of  God's 
 giving  men  up  to  sin.  There  was  no  real  connection,  either 
 natural  or  judicial,  between  Adam's  sin  and  the  sinfulness  of 
 his  posterity;  but  God  determined  that  if  the  first  man  sinned, 
 all  other  men  should.  This  was  a  divine  constitution,  without 
 there  being  any  causal  connection  between  the  two  events. 
 Others  again  say  that  Adam  was  the  efficient  cause  of  the  sin- 
 fulness of  his  race.  He  deteriorated  either  physically  or  morally 
 the  nature  which  he  transmitted  to  his  posterity.  He  was 
 therefore,  in  the  same  sense,  the  cause  of  the  sinfulness  of  the 
 race,  that  a  father  who  impairs  his  constitution  is  the  cause  of 
 the  feebleness  of  his  children.  Others  push  this  idea  one  step 
 farther,  and  say  that  Adam  was  the  race.  He  vras  not  only  a 
 man,  but  man.  The  whole  race  was  in  him,  so  that  his  act  was 
 the  act  of  humanity.  It  was  as  much  and  as  truly  ours  as  his. 
 Others  say  that  the  causal  relation  expressed  by  these  words  is 
 that  which  exists  between  sin  and  punishment.  It  was  the 
 judicial  cause  or  reason.  All  these  views  must  come  up  at 
 every  step  in  the  interpretation  of  this  whole  passage,  for  the 
 explanation  of  each  particular  clause  must  be  determined  by 
 the  nature  of  the  relation  which  is  assumed  to  exist  between 
 Adam  and  his  posterity.  All  that  need  be  said  here  is,  that 
 the  choice  between  these  several  explanations  is  not  determined 
 by  the  mere  meaning  of  the  words.  All  they  assert  is,  that 
 Adam  was  the  cause  of  all  men  becoming  sinners ;  but  whether 
 he  was  the  occasional,  the  efficient,  or,  so  to  speak,  the  judicial 
 cause,  can  only  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  the 
 analfgy  of  Scripture,  and  the  context.     One  thing  is  clear— 
 
228  ROMANS  V.  12. 
 
 Adam  was  the  cause  of  sin  in  a  sense  analogous  to  that  in  which 
 Christ  is  the  cause  of  righteousness. 
 
 Sin  entered  into  the  ivorld.    It  is  hardly  necessary  to  remark, 
 that   -KoaiLOc,    does   not  here  mean  the  universe.     Sin  existed 
 before  the  fall  of  Adam.     It  can  only  mean  the  world  of  man- 
 kind.    Sin  entered  the  world ;  it  invaded  the  race.     There  is  a 
 personification  here  of  sin,  as  afterwards  of  death.     Both  are 
 represented  as  hostile  and  evil  powers,  which  obtained  dominion 
 over  man.     By  the  words  elarjX&t  d<;  tov  xoa/uov,  much  more  is 
 meant  than  that  sin  began  to  be  in  the  world.     It  means  that 
 the  world,  x6(jfjio<;,  mankind  became  sinners ;  because  this  clause 
 is  explained  by  saying,  all  sinned.    The  entrance  of  sin  is  made 
 the  ground  of  the  universality  of  death,  and  therefore  all  were 
 involved  in  the  sin  whose  entrance  is  mentioned.     The  word 
 dfjcapzca  means,  1.  Actual  sin,  (d/jidpr/^/jia,)  an  individual  act  of 
 disobedience  or  want  of  conformity  to  the  law  of  God.     In 
 the  plural  form  especially,  dfxapria  means  actual  sin.     Hence 
 the  expressions,  "this    sin,"   "respect  of  persons  is  sin,"  &c. 
 2.  Sinful  principle  or  disposition ;  an  immanent   state  of  the 
 mind,  as  in  Rom.  vii.  8,  9,  17,  23.     3.  Both  ideas  are  united, 
 as  when  it  is  said,  "the  sting  of  death  is  sin,"  "an  ofiering  for 
 sin."    This  comprehensive  sense  of  the  word  is  perhaps  the  most 
 common.     4.  It  often  means  the  guilt  of  sin  as  distinguished 
 from  sin  itself,  as  when  it  is  said,  "he  shall  bear  his  sin,"  or, 
 "the  son  shall  not  bear  the  sin  of  his  father;"  or  when  Christ 
 is  said  "to  bear  our  sin,"  and,  "to  take  away  sin  by  the  sacri- 
 fice of  himself,"  &c.     In  this  passage,  when  it  is   said  "sin 
 entered  into  the  world,"  the  meaning  may  be,  actual  sin  com- 
 menced  its    course,   men   began   to   sin.     Or  the   meaning  is, 
 depravity,  corruption  of  nature  invaded  the  world,  men  became 
 corrupt.     This  is  the  interpretation  given  to  the  words  by  a 
 large  class  of  commentators,  ancient  and  modern.     So  Calvin, 
 "  Istud  peccare  est  corruptos  esse  et  vitiates.     Ilia  enim  natu- 
 ralis  pravitas,  quam  e  matris  utero  afferimus,  tametsi  non  ita 
 cito  fructus  sues  edit,  peccatum  est  coram  Deo,  ejus  ultionem 
 meretur.     Atque  hoc  est  peccatum  quod  vocant  originale."    So 
 also  Olshausen,  who  says  it  means  habitus  peccandi,  that  inward 
 principle  of  which  individual  sins  are  the  expression  or  manifest- 
 ation.    Tholuck  gives  the  same  interpretation:  a  new,  abiding, 
 
ROMANS  V.  12.  229 
 
 corrupting  element,  he  says,  was  introduced  into  the  organism 
 of  the  world.  De  Wette's  explanation  amounts  to  the  same 
 thing :  "  Siinde  als  herrschende  Macht,  (sin  as  a  ruling  power 
 entered  the  world,)  partly  as  a  principle  or  disposition,  which, 
 according  to  vii,  8,  slumbers  in  every  man's  breast,  and  reveals 
 itself  in  the  general  conduct  of  men,  and  partly  as  a  sinful 
 condition,  such  as  Paul  had  described  in  the  opening  chapters 
 of  this  epistle."  Riickert,  Kollner,  Bretschneider,  and  most 
 moderns,  unite  with  the  older  expositors  in  this  interpretation. 
 Or  dfiapria  may  here  have  the  third  signification  mentioneii 
 above,  and  "sin  entered  into  the  world,"  mean  that  men  became 
 guilty,  i.  e.  exposed  to  condemnation.  The  objection  to  these 
 several  interpretations  is,  that  each  by  itself  is  too  limited.  AH 
 three,  taken  collectively,  are  correct.  "  Sin  entered  into  the 
 world,"  means  "men  became  sinners,"  or,  as  the  apostle 
 expresses  it  in  ver.  19,  "they  were  constituted  sinners."  This 
 includes  guilt,  depravity,  and  actual  transgression.  "  The  sin- 
 fulness of  that  estate  into  which  man  fell,  (that  is,  the  sin 
 which  Adam  brought  upon  the  world,)  consists  in  the  guilt  of 
 Adam's  first  yin,  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  and  the 
 corruption  of  his  whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called 
 original  sin ;  together  with  all  actual  transgressions  which  pro- 
 ceed from  it." 
 
 And  death  by  sin;  that  is,  death  entered  the  world,  men 
 became  subject  to  death,  dta  r^^  d-ixapziai;^  hy  means  of  sin. 
 Sin  was  the  cause  of  death ;  not  the  mere  occasional  cause,  not 
 the  efficient  cause,  but  the  ground  or  reason  of  its  infliction. 
 This  passage,  therefore,  teaches  that  death  is  a  penal  evil,  and 
 not  a  consequence  of  the  original  constitution  of  man.  Paul, 
 in  1  Cor.  xv.  40 — 50,  appears  to  teach  a  contrary  doctrine,  for 
 he  there  says  that  Adam's  body,  as  formed  from  the  earth,  was 
 earthy,  and  therefore  corruptible.  It  was  flesh  and  blood, 
 which  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  must  be  changed, 
 so  that  this  corruptible  put  on  incorruption,  before  we  can  be 
 fitted  for  immortality.  These  representations,  however,  are  not 
 inconsistent.  It  is  clear,  from  Gen.  ii.  17,  iii.  19,  that  had 
 Adam  never  sinned,  he  would  never  have  died ;  but  it  does  not 
 follow  that  he  would  never  have  been  changed.  Paul  says  of 
 believers,  "we  shall  not  all  die,  but  we  shall  all  be  changed,' 
 
230  ROMANS  V.  12. 
 
 1  Cor.  XV.  51.  The  penal  character  of  death,  therefore,  whinh  ia 
 so  prominently  presented  in  Scripture,  or  that  death  in  the  case 
 of  every  moral  creature  is  assumed  to  be  evidence  of  sin,  is  per- 
 fectly consistent  with  what  the  apostle  says  of  the  aajfia  (poy^cxon 
 (the  natural  body,)  and  of  its  unsuitableness  for  an  immortal 
 existence.  It  is  plain  that  ^dvazo;;  here  includes  the  idea  of 
 natural  death,  as  it  does  in  the  original  threatening  made  to 
 our  first  parents.  In  neither  case,  however,  is  this  its  whole 
 meaning.  This  is  admitted  by  a  majority  of  the  modern  com- 
 mentators— not  only  by  such  writers  as  Tholuck,  Olshausen, 
 and  Philippi,  but  by  others  of  a  different  class,  as  De  Wette, 
 Kollner,  and  Riickert.  That  the  death  here  spoken  of  includes 
 all  penal  evil,  death  spiritual  and  eternal,  as  well  as  the  disso- 
 lution of  the  body,  is  evident,  1.  From  the  consideration  that 
 it  is  said  to  be  the  consequence  of  sin.  It  must,  therefore, 
 mean  that  death  which  the  Scriptures  elsewhere  speak  of  as  the 
 consequence  and  punishment  of  transgression.  2.  Because  this 
 is  the  common  and  favourite  term  with  the  sacred  writers,  from 
 first  to  last,  for  the  penal  consequences  of  sin.  Gen.  ii.  17, 
 "In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  i.  e. 
 thou  shalt  become  subject  to  the  punishment  due  to  sin;  Ezek. 
 xviii.  4,  "The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die;"  Rom.  vi.  23, 
 "The  wages  of  sin  is  death;"  chap.  viii.  13,  "If  ye  live  after 
 the  flesh,  ye  shall  die."  Such  passages  are  altogether  too 
 numerous  to  be  quoted,  or  even  referred  to;  see,  as  further 
 examples,  Rom.  i.  32,  vii.  5,  James  i.  15,  Rev.  xx.  14,  &c. 
 3.  From  the  constant  opposition  between  the  terms  life  and 
 death,  throughout  the  Scriptures ;  the  former  standing  for  the 
 rewards  of  the  righteous,  the  latter  for  the  punishment  of  the 
 wicked.  Thus,  in  Gen.  ii.  17,  life  was  promised  to  our  first 
 parents  as  the  reward  of  obedience;  and  death  threatened  as 
 the  punishment  of  disobedience.  See  Deut.  xxx.  15,  "I  have 
 set  before  thee  life  and  death;"  Jer.  xxi.  8,  Prov.  xi.  19,  Ps. 
 xxxvi.  9,  Matt.  xxv.  46,  John  iii.  15,  2  Cor.  ii.  16,  &c.  4.  From 
 the  opposition  in  this  passage  between  the  life  which  is  by 
 Christ,  and  the  death  which  is  by  Adam,  vs.  15,  17,  21,  '  Sin 
 reigns  unto  death,  grace  reigns  through  righteousness  unto 
 eternal  life.'  As,  however,  natural  death  is  a  part,  and  the 
 most  obvious  part  of  the  penal  evils  of  sin.   it  no  doubt  wa& 
 
ROMANS  V.  12.  231 
 
 prominent  in  the  apostle's  mind,  as  appears  from  vs.  13,  14. 
 Death,  therefore,  in  this  passage,  means  the  evil,  and  any  evil 
 which  is  inflicted  in  punishment  of  sin. 
 
 And  so  death  passed  on  all  men.  That  is,  as  death  is  the 
 necessary  consequence  of  sin,  death  {dr7j?.&s)  passed  through, 
 reached  to  all  men,  because  all  sinned.  Death  is  universal, 
 'because  sin  is  universal.  As  Adam  brought  sin  on  all  men,  he 
 brought  death  on  all.  That  this  is  the  true  interpretation  of 
 this  clause,  or  that  xac  outoj^  means  demzufolge,  consequently^ 
 hence  it  happens,  is  admitted  by  almost  all  modern  commenta- 
 tors. As  already  remarked,  the  interpretation  which  assumes 
 that  xal  ouToj^  is  to  be  rendered  so  also,  is  entirely  inadmissible, 
 1.  Because  it  is  inconsistent  with  their  meaning.  As  it  is  impos- 
 sible that  and  so  should  mean  so  also,  it  is  no  less  impossible 
 that  xac  outoji;  should  mean  the  same  as  ouzo)  xac.  Compare 
 vs.  18,  19,  1  Cor.  xi.  12,  xii.  12,  xv.  22.  This  interpretation 
 therefore  does  violence  to  the  language.  2.  It  is  no  less  incon- 
 sistent with  the  context.  It  is  not  Paul's  design  to  teach  the 
 inseparable  connection  between  sin  and  death,  by  saying,  ^As 
 Adam  sinned,  and  therefore  died,  so  also  all  die,  because  all 
 sin.'  His  purpose  is  to  teach  the  connection  between  Adam's  sin 
 and  the  death  of  all  men :  '  It  was  by  one  man  that  men  became 
 sinners,  and  hence  all  men  die.'  As  all  were  involved  in  his 
 sin,  all  are  involved  in  his  death.  3.  The  comparison  carried 
 through  this  whtle  paragraph  is  not  between  Adam  and  his 
 posterity,  but  between  Adam  and  Christ;  and  therefore  xae 
 ouTo)^  cannot  possibly  refer  to  the  atarrep  at  the  beginning  of 
 the  verse,  as  has  been  already  shown. 
 
 For  that  all  have  sinned,  k<p'  ip  Trdvze^  ^/lapzou.  The  words 
 i<p'  w  are  rendered  in  the  Vulgate,  in  quo,  (in  whom,)  and  are  so 
 understood  by  many  of  the  older  interpreters,  not  only  in  the 
 Romish  Church,  where  the  Vulgate  is  of  authority,  but  also  by 
 many  Calvinists  and  Arminians.  The  objections  to  this  inter- 
 pretation are,  1.  It  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  meaning  of 
 the  words  as  used  elsewhere.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  proper 
 force  of  kite  [on,  upon,)  which  is  not  equivalent  with  iv  (in,) 
 and  no  less  inconsistent  with  the  use  of  &f  w  in  combination, 
 which,  in  2  Cor.  v.  4,  means,  as  here,  because;  in  Philip,  iii.  12, 
 for  which  cause;  and  in  Philip,  iv.  10,  for  which-     In  other 
 
232  ROMANS  V.  12. 
 
 places  ■where  it  occurs,  it  means  on  which,  as  a  bed,  Mark  ii.  4, 
 Luke  V.  25,  or  as  a  place.  Acts.  vii.  33.  2.  The  proper  mean- 
 ing of  the  words  is,  Itii  rouzifj  otc,  on  account  of  this,  or  that. 
 3.  The  structure  of  the  sentence  is  opposed  to  this  explanation. 
 The  antecedent  dud^pioTzou  is  too  far  separated  from  the  relative 
 (p;  almost  the  -whole  verse  intervenes  betAveen  them.  4.  This 
 interpretation  is  altogether  unnecessary.  The  ordinary  and 
 natural  force  of  the  words  expresses  a  perfectly  good  sense : 
 *A11  men  die,  because  all  sinned.'  So  Calvin,  quandoquidem, 
 Luther,  dieweil,  and  all  the  moderns,  except  a  few  of  the 
 Romanists.  "  Sin  brought  death,  death  has  come  on  all,  because 
 sin  came  on  all;  i^'  qj  must  therefore  necessarily  be  taken  as 
 a  conjunction."  Philippi. 
 
 As  to  the  important  words  Tzdvzt^  vjixapzov,  rendered  in  our 
 version  all  have  sinned,  we  find  the  several  interpretations 
 already  referred  to  as  growing  out  of  the  different  views  of  the 
 nature  of  man  and  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  First,  on  the  assump- 
 tion that  all  sin  consists  in  the  voluntary  transgression  of  known 
 law,  and  on  the  further  assumption  that  one  man  cannot,  in  any 
 legitimate  sense,  be  said  to  sin  in  another,  a  large  class  of  com- 
 mentators, from  Pelagius  down,  say  these  words  can  only  mean 
 that  all  have  sinned  in  their  own  persons.  Death  has  passed 
 on  all  men,  because  all  have  actually  sinned  personally.  This 
 interpretation,  although  consistent  with  the  signification  of  the 
 verb  dfjtapTduco,  is,  by  the  almost  unanimous  judgment  of  the 
 Church,  utterly  inadmissible.  1.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the 
 force  of  the  tense.  The  aorist  {rjpLapzov)  does  not  mean  do  sin, 
 nor  have  sinned,  nor  are  accustomed  to  sin.  It  is  the  simple 
 historical  tense,  expressing  momentary  action  in  past  time.  All 
 sinned,  i.  e.  sinned  in  Adam,  sinned  through  or  by  one  man. 
 "Omnes  pecc^runt,  peccante  Adamo."  This  is  the  literal, 
 simple  force  of  the  words.  2.  It  is  also  incompatible  with  the 
 design  of  this  verse,  to  make  -^papzov  refer  to  the  personal  sins 
 of  men.  As  so  often  remarked,  the  design  is  to  show  that 
 Adam's  sin,  not  our  own,  is  the  cause  of  death.  3.  Verses 
 13,  14,  are  intended  to  prove  what  is  asserted  in  ver.  12;  but 
 ^hey  do  not  prove  that  all  men  personally  sin,  but  the  very 
 reverse.  4.  This  interpretation  destroys  the  analogy  between 
 Adam  and  Christ.     It  would  make  the  apostle  teach,  that  as 
 
ROMANS  V.  12  233 
 
 all  men  die  because  they  personally  sin,  so  all  men  lire  because 
 they  are  personally  and  inherently  righteous.  This  is  contrary 
 not  only  to  this  whole  passage,  but  to  all  Paul's  teaching,  and 
 to  the  whole  gospel.  5.  This  interpretation  is  not  only  thus 
 inconsistent  with  the  force  of  the  tense  in  which  the  verb 
 6.fxapTdva)  is  here  used,  with  the  design  of  the  verse,  with  the 
 apostle's  argument,  and  the  analogy  between  Christ  and  Adam, 
 but  it  makes  the  apostle  assert  what  is  not  true.  It  is  not  true 
 that  all  die  because  all  personally  sin;  death  is  more  exten- 
 sive than  personal  transgression.  This  is  a  fact  of  experience, 
 and  is  asserted  by  the  apostle  in  what  follows.  This  interpre- 
 tation, therefore,  brings  the  sacred  writer  into  conflict  Avith  the 
 truth.  Candid  expositors  admit  this.  They  say  Paul's  argu- 
 ment is  founded  on  a  false  assumption,  and  proves  nothing. 
 Even  Meyer,  one  of  the  most  dignified  and  able  of  the  modern 
 German  commentators,  who  often  defends  the  sacred  writers 
 from  the  aspersions  of  irreverent  expositors,  is  obliged  to  admit 
 that  in  this  case  Paul  forgot  himself,  and  teaches  what  is  not 
 true.  "The  question,"  he  says,  "how  Paul  could  write  itp  <Z 
 ndvTE^  -^Hapzov  {since  all  sinned,)  when  children  die,  although 
 they  have  not  sinned,  can  only  be  answered  by  admitting  that 
 he  did  not  think  of  this  necessary  exception.  For,  on  the  one 
 hand,  Tzdurs^  must  have  the  same  extent  of  meaning  as  the  pre- 
 vious ec^  Tidvra^  dvd-ptoTiout;^  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  death  of 
 innocent  children  is  proof  positive  that  death  is  not  in  all  men 
 the  consequence  of  individual  sin;  and  hence,  moreover,  the 
 whole  doctrine  that  death  is  by  divine  constitution  due  to  sin, 
 is  overthrown."  An  interpretation  which  makes  the  aposth; 
 teach  what  is  not  true,  needs  no  further  refutation. 
 
 A  second  large  class  of  commentators,  as  they  make  d.fiapzia, 
 in  the  former  clause  of  the  verse,  to  mean  corruption,  translate 
 kip'  (p  /Tcfvrsc  ^fJ-aprov,  because  all  are  corrupt.  Adam  having 
 defiled  his  own  nature  by  sin,  that  depraved  nature  was  trans- 
 mitted to  all  his  posterity,  and  therefore  all  die  because  they 
 are  thus  inherently  corrupt.  We  have  already  seen  that  this  is 
 Calvin's  interpretation  of  these  words:  "Nempe,  inquit,  quo- 
 niam  omnes  peccavimus.  Porro  istud  peccare  est  corruptoa 
 esse  et  vitiatos."  In  this  view  several  of  the  modern  commenta- 
 tors concur.     According  to  this  interpretation,  the  doctrine  of 
 
234  ROMANS  V.  12 
 
 the  apostle  is,  that  the  inherent,  hereditary  corruption  of  nature 
 derived  from  Adam,  is  the  ground  or  reason  why  all  die.  This 
 is  what  is  called  mediate  imputation ;  or  the  doctrine  that  not 
 the  sin  of  Adam,  but  inherent  depravity  derived  from  him,  ia 
 the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  his  race.  Although  Calvin 
 gives  this  interpretation  of  the  passage  on  which  this  theory  is 
 founded,  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  he  was  an  advocate  of  that 
 theory.  He  frequently  and  clearly  discriminates  between  inhe- 
 rent depravity  as  a  ground  of  condemnation  and  the  sin  of 
 Adam  as  distinct,  and  says  that  we  are  exposed  to  death,  not 
 solely  for  the  one,  but  also  for  the  other.  He  lived  in  a  day 
 when  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  was  made,  by  the  theolo- 
 gians of  the  Romish  Church,  so  prominent  as  to  leave  inherent 
 depravity  almost  entirely  out  of  view.  The  whole  tendency  of 
 the  Reformers,  therefore,  was  to  go  to  the  opposite  extreme, 
 Every  theology  is  a  gradual  growth.  It  cost  the  Church  ages 
 of  controversy,  before  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  of  the 
 Person  of  Christ  were  wrought  out  and  definitively  settled.  In 
 like  manner,  the  Theology  of  the  Reformation  was  a  growth. 
 It  was  not  the  reproduction  of  the  theology  of  any  class  of  the 
 schoolmen,  nor  of  Augustin  as  a  whole.  It  was  the  gathering 
 up  and  systematizing  of  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures,  and  of 
 the  faith  of  the  Church  as  founded  on  Scripture.  That  this 
 should  be  done  without  any  admixture  of  foreign  elements,  or 
 as  perfectly  at  the  first  attempt,  as  in  the  course  of  successive 
 subsequent  efforts,  would  have  been  a  miracle.  That  it  was 
 done  as  perfectly  as  it  was,  is  due,  under  God,  to  the  fact  that 
 the  Reformers  were  men  endowed  with  minds  of  the  very  highest 
 order,  and  filled  with  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  Still  it  is  only  in 
 ubedience  to  an  established  law,  that  the  theology  of  the  Re- 
 formation appears  in  a  purer  form  in  the  writers  of  the  seven- 
 teenth, than  in  those  of  the  sixteenth  century.  We  need  not 
 then  be  surprised  that  inconsistencies  appear  in  the  writings  of 
 Luther  and  Calvin,  which  are  not  reproduced  in  those  of  Hutter 
 or  Turrettin. 
 
 In  opposition  to  the  interpretation  which  makes  -dvrt^ 
 rjfiapzov  mean  all  became  corrupt,  it  is  obvious  to  object,  1.  That 
 it  is  contrary  to  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words.  In  no  case 
 has  &/iapzduai  the  sense  here  assigned  to  it.     2.  It  supposes 
 
ROMANS  V.  12.  235 
 
 that  the  corresponding  phrase,  "sin  entered  into  the  world," 
 means  "men  became  depraved,"  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not 
 the  true  or  adequate  meaning.  3.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the 
 apostle's  argument.  Verses  13,  14,  are  designed  to  prove,  and 
 do  prove,  that  all  men  sinned  in  Adam ;  but  do  not  prove,  and 
 cannot  be  made  to  prove,  that  all  men  are  inherently  corrupt. 
 4.  It  vitiates  the  whole  analogy  between  Christ  and  Adam,  and 
 therefore  saps  the  very  foundation  of  the  gospel.  That  doc- 
 trine on  which  the  hope  of  God's  people,  either  implicitly  or 
 explicitly,  has  ever  been  founded  is,  that  the  righteousness  of 
 Christ  as  something  out  of  themselves,  something  distinguished 
 from  any  act  or  subjective  state  of  theirs,  is  the  ground  of  their 
 justification.  They  know  that  there  is  nothing  in  them  on 
 which  they  dare  for  a  moment  rely,  as  the  reason  why  God 
 should  accept  and  pardon  them.  It  is  therefore  the  essential 
 part  of  the  analogy  between  Christ  and  Adam,  the  very  truth 
 which  the  apostle  designs  to  set  forth,  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  as 
 distinguished  from  any  act  of  ours,  and  from  inherent  corrup 
 tion  as  derived  from  him,  is  the  ground  of  our  condemnation. 
 If  this  be  denied,  then  the  other  great  truth  must  be  denied, 
 and  our  own  subjective  righteousness  be  made  the  ground  of 
 our  justification ;  which  is  to  subvert  the  gospel.  5.  This  inter- 
 preiation  is  inconsistent  with  the  true  meaning  of  vs.  15 — 19, 
 and  with  the  often  repeated  and  explicit  declaration  of  the 
 apostle,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  ground  of  our  condemna- 
 tion. Although,  therefore,  it  is  true  that  our  nature  was  cor- 
 rupted in  Adam,  and  has  been  transmitted  to  us  in  a  depraved 
 state,  yet  that  hereditary  corruption  is  not  here  represented  as 
 the  ground  of  our  condemnation,  any  more  than  the  holiness 
 which  believers  derive  from  Christ  is  the  ground  of  their  justi- 
 fication. 
 
 A  third  class  of  interpreters,  especially  those  of  the  later 
 mystical  school,  understand  the  apostle  to  assert  that  all  men 
 sinned  actually  in  Adam ;  that  his  act  was  not  merely  repre- 
 sentatively or  putatively  their  act,  but  theirs  in  the  strict  and 
 proper  sense  of  the  term.  He  being  not  simply  a  man  as  one 
 among  many,  but  the  man  in  whom  humanity  was  concentrated 
 as  a  generic  life,  his  act  as  an  act  of  that  generic  humanity  wa3 
 the  act  of  all  the  individuals  in  whom  human  nature  subse- 
 
236  ROMANS  V.  12. 
 
 quently  developed  itself.  But,  1.  In  the  first  place,  the  pro- 
 position, "all  men  sinned  actually  in  Adam,"  has  no  meaning. 
 To  say  that  "in  Adam  all  die,"  conveys  a  distinct  idea;  but  to 
 say  that  "all  actually  expired  in  Adam,"  conveys  no  idea  at 
 all.  It  has  no  sense.  Even  on  the  extremest  realistic  assump- 
 tion that  humanity  as  such  is  an  entity,  the  act  of  Adam  was 
 not  the  act  of  all  men.  His  act  may  have  vitiated  his  generic 
 nature,  not  only  for  his  own  person,  but  for  his  posterity ;  but 
 this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  his  act  being  their  act.  His 
 sin  was  an  intelligent  act  of  self-determination;  but  an  act  of 
 rational  self-determination  is  a  personal  act.  Unless,  there- 
 fore, all  men  as  persons  existed  in  Adam,  it  is  impossible  that 
 they  acted  his  act.  To  say  that  a  man  acted  thousands  of  years 
 before  his  personality  began,  does  not  rise  even  to  the  dignity 
 of  a  contradiction ;  it  has  no  meaning  at  all.  It  is  a  monstrous 
 evil  to  make  the  Bible  contradict  the  common  sense  and  com- 
 mon consciousness  of  men.  This  is  to  make  God  contradict 
 himself.  2.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  this  interpreta- 
 tion is  inconsistent  with  the  whole  drift  and  design  of  the  pas- 
 sage, and  with  the  often  repeated  assertion  of  the  apostle,  that 
 for  the  offence  of  one  man  (not  of  all  men,)  the  judgment  came 
 on  all  men  to  condemnation.  If  we  all  actually  sinned  in  Adam, 
 so  that  his  act  was  strictly  ours,  then  we  all  obeyed  in  Christ, 
 and  his  righteousness  and  death  were  strictly  our  own  acts ; 
 which  again  is  not  only  unscriptural,  but  impossible. 
 
 The  fourth  class  of  interpreters,  including  commentators  of 
 every  grade  of  orthodoxy,  agree  in  saying  that  what  is  meant 
 is,  that  all  sinned  in  Adam  as  their  head  and  representative. 
 Such  was  the  relation,  natural  and  federal,  between  him  and  his 
 posterity,  that  his  act  was  putatively  their  act.  That  is,  it  was 
 the  judicial  ground  or  reason  why  death  passed  on  all  men.  In 
 other  words,  they  were  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on 
 account  of  his  sin.  In  support  of  this  interpretation,  it  may  be 
 urged,  1.  That  it  is  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words.  It  has 
 already  been  remarked,  that  the  aorist  rjfjLaprov  does  not  mean 
 are  sinful,  or  have  ginned,  but  simply  sinned.  All  sinned  when 
 Adam  sinned.  They  sinned  in  him.  But  the  only  possible 
 way  in  which  all  men  can  be  said  to  have  sinned  in  Adam,  is 
 putatively.     Hif   act,  for  some  good  and  proper  reason,  was 
 
ROMANS  V.  12.  237 
 
 regarded  as  their  act,  just  as  the  act  of  an  agent  is  regarded  as 
 the  act  of  his  principal,  or  the  act  of  a  representative  as  that 
 of  his  constituents.  The  act  of  the  one  legally  binds  the  others. 
 It  is,  in  the  eye  of  law  and  justice,  their  act.  2.  This  is  sustained 
 by  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  Paul  says,  "in  Adam  all  died." 
 This  cannot  possibly  be  understood  to  mean  that  all  men  ex« 
 pired  when  Adam  died.  It  can  only  mean  that  when  Adam 
 incurred  the  sentence  of  death  for  himself,  he  incurred  it  also 
 for  us.  In  like  manner  we  are  said  to  die  in  Christ;  we  "were 
 crucified  with  him,"  we  "rose  with  him,"  we  are  now  "sitting 
 with  him  in  heavenly  places."  All  this  obviously  means,  that 
 as  Christ  was  the  head  and  representative  of  his  people,  all  that 
 he  did  in  that  character,  they  are  regarded  as  having  done. 
 The  rationalistic  and  the  mystical  interpretations  of  such  pas- 
 sages are  only  different  modes  of  philosophizing  away  the 
 meaning  of  Scripture — the  one  having  what  is  called  "  common 
 sense,"  and  the  other  pantheism,  as  its  basis.  3.  The  common 
 interpretation  of  this  passage  may,  in  another  form,  be  shown 
 to  be  in  accordance  with  scriptural  usage.  As  remarked  above, 
 h-iiapxta  sometimes  means  guilt,,  and  the  phrase  "  sin  entered 
 into  the  world,"  may  mean  Tnen  became  guilty;  and  d.fxo.rjzdvai 
 at  times  means  to  contract  guilt;  or,  as  "VVahl  in  his  Lexicon 
 defines  it,  peccati  culpam  sustineo;  equivalent  to  d.iiaf)zcoXbc, 
 xazeard&TjV.  He  refers  to  the  use  of  ston,  in  Gen.  xliv.  32,  a 
 passage  which  the  LXX.  renders  ^fxaprTjxu);;  iaofxac;  the  Vul- 
 gate, peccati  reus  ero;  Luther,  "will  ich  die  Schuld  tragen;" 
 u,nd  the  English,  I  shall  hear  the  blame.  So  in  Gen.  xliii.  9, 
 Judah  says  to  his  father,  "If  I  bring  him  not  back,  I  will 
 bear  the  blame  (literally,  I  will  sin)  all  my  days."  In  1  Kings 
 i.  21,  Bathsheba  says  to  David,  (according  to  the  Hebrew,) 
 "I  and  my  son  Solomon  shall  be  sinners,"  where  the  LXX. 
 translates,  ia6fj.e&a  iyo)  xai  HaX^o/icbv  6  uio^  fxoo  h.iiapra)Xo'., 
 the  sense  of  the  passage  being,  as  correctly  expressed  in  our 
 version,  "I  and  my  son  Solomon  shall  be  counted  offenders." 
 To  sin,  therefore,  or  to  be  a  sinner  may,  in  scriptural  language, 
 mean  to  be  counted  an  offender,  that  is,  be  regarded  and  treated 
 as  such.  "When,  therefore,  the  apostle  says  that  all  men  sinned 
 in  Adam,  it  is  in  accordance  not  only  with  the  nature  of  the 
 case,  but  with  scriptural  usage,  to  understand  him  to  mean  that 
 
238  ROMANS  V.  12. 
 
 we  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on  his  account.  His  sin 
 was  the  reason  why  death  came  upon  all  men.  Of  course  all 
 that  is  meant  by  this  is  the  universally  recognized  distinction 
 between  the  signification  and  the  sense  of  a  word.  /Zdtyrsc 
 7jp.aprov  signifies  "all  sinned,"  and  it  can  signify  nothing  else; 
 just  as  ndi^TSQ  aned-avov,  2  Cor.  v.  15,  signifies  "all  died."  But 
 when  you  ask  in  what  sense  all  died  in  Christ,  or  all  sinned  in 
 Adam,  the  question  is  to  be  answered  from  the  nature  of  the 
 case  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  We  did  not  all  literally  and 
 actually  die  in  Christ,  neither  did  we  all  actually  sin  in  Adam. 
 The  death  of  Christ,  however,  was  legally  and  effectively  our 
 death ;  and  the  sin  of  Adam  was  legally  and  effectively  our  sin. 
 4.  It  is  almost  universally  conceded  that  this  12th  verse  con- 
 tains the  first  member  of  a  comparison  which,  in  vs.  18,  19,  is 
 resumed  and  carried  out.  But  in  those  verses  it  is  distinctly 
 taught  that  'judgment  came  on  all  men  on  account  of  the 
 offence  of  one  man.'  This  therefore  is  Paul's  own  interpreta- 
 tion of  what  he  meant  when  he  said  "all  sinned."  They  sinned 
 in  Adam.  His  sin  was  regarded  as  theirs.  5.  This  interpreta- 
 tion is  demanded  by  the  connection  of  this  verse  with  those 
 immediately  following.  Verses  13,  14,  introduced  by  /or,  are 
 confessedly  designed  to  prove  the  assertion  of  ver.  12.  If  that 
 assertion  is,  'all  men  are  regarded  as  sinners  on  account  of 
 Adam,'  the  meaning  and  pertinency  of  these  verses  arc  clear. 
 But  if  ver.  12  asserts  merely  that  all  men  are  sinners,  then 
 vs.  13,  14  must  be  regarded  as  proving  that  men  were  sinners 
 before  the  time  of  Moses — a  point  which  no  one  denied,  and  no 
 one  doubted,  and  which  is  here  entirely  foreign  to  the  apostle's 
 object.  Or  if  Trdvrz^  yjfiaprov  be  made  to  mean  all  became  cor- 
 rupt, the  objection  still  remains.  The  passage  does  not  prove 
 what  it  is  designed  to  prove.  Verses  13,  14,  therefore,  present 
 insuperable  difiiculties,  if  we  assign  any  other  meaning  than 
 that  just  given  to  ver.  12.  6.  What  ver.  12  is  thus  made  to 
 assert,  and  vs.  13,  14  to  prove,  is  in  vs.  15 — 19,  assumed  as 
 proved,  and  is  employed  in  illustration  of  the  great  truth  to  be 
 established:  "For  if  through  the  offence  of  one  many  be 
 dead,"  ver.  15.  But  where  is  it  said,  or  where  proved,  that  the 
 many  die  for  the  offence  of  one,  if  not  in  ver.  12  and  vs.  13,  14? 
 So  ir  all  the  other  verses.     This  idea,  therefore,  must  be  coa- 
 
ROMANS  V.  12.  239 
 
 tained  in  ver.  12,  if  any  consistency  is  to  be  maintained  between 
 the  several  parts  of  the  apostle's  argument.  7.  This  interpre- 
 tation is  required  by  the  whole  scope  of  the  passage  and  drift 
 of  the  argument.  The  scope  of  the  passage,  as  shown  above, 
 is  to  illustrate  the  doctrine  of  justification  on  the  ground  of  the 
 righteousness  of  Christ,  by  a  reference  to  the  condemnation  of 
 men  for  the  sin  of  Adam.  The  analogy  is  destroyed,  the  very 
 point  of  the  comparison  fails,  if  anything  in  us  be  assumed  as 
 the  ground  of  thf  infliction  of  the  penal  evils  of  which  the 
 apostle  is  here  speaking.  That  we  have  corrupt  natures,  and 
 are  personally  sinners,  and  therefore  liable  to  other  and  further 
 inflictions,  is  indeed  true,  but  nothing  to  the  point.  In  like 
 manner,  it  is  true  that  we  are  sanctified  by  our  union  with 
 Christ,  and  thus  fitted  for  heaven ;  but  these  ideas  are  out  of 
 place  when  speaking  of  justification.  It  is  to  illustrate  that 
 doctrine,  or  the  idea  of  imputed  righteousness,  that  this  whole 
 passage  is  devoted ;  and,  therefore,  the  idea  of  imputed  sin  must 
 be  contained  in  the  other  part  of  the  comparison,  unless  the 
 whole  be  a  failure.  Not  only  does  the  scope  of  the  passage 
 demand  this  view,  but  it  is  only  thus  that  the  argument  of  the 
 apostle  can  be  consistently  carried  through.  We  die  on  account 
 of  Adam's  sin,  ver.  12 ;  this  is  true,  because  on  no  other  ground 
 can  the  universality  of  death  be  accounted  for,  vs.  13,  14.  But 
 if  we  all  die  on  Adam's  account,  how  much  more  shall  we  live 
 on  account  of  Christ!  ver.  15.  Adam  indeed  brings  upon  us  the 
 evil  inflicted  for  the  first  great  violation  of  the  covenant,  but 
 Christ  saves  us  from  all  our  numberless  sins,  ver.  16.  As, 
 therefore,  for  the  offence  of  one  we  are  condemned,  so  for  the 
 righteousness  of  one  we  are  justified,  ver.  18.  As  on  account 
 of  the  disobedience  of  one  we  are  treated  as  sinners,  so  on 
 account  of  the  obedience  of  one  we  are  treated  as  righteous, 
 ver.  19.  The  inconsistency  and  confusion  consequent  upon 
 attempting  to  carry  either  of  the  other  interpretations  through, 
 must  be  obvious  to  any  attentive  reader  of  such  attempts. 
 8.  The  doctrine  which  the  verse  thus  explained  teaches,  is  one 
 of  the  plainest  truths  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  experience.  Is 
 it  not  a  revealed  fact,  above  all  contradiction,  and  sustained  by 
 the  whole  history  of  the  world,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  altered 
 the  relation  in  which  our  race  stood  to  God  ?     Did  not  that  sin 
 
240  ROMANS  V.  12. 
 
 of  itself,  and  independently  of  anything  in  us,  or  done  by  us, 
 bring  evil  on  the  world?  In  other  words,  did  we  not  fall  when 
 Adam  fell  ?  The  principle  involved  in  this  great  transaction  is 
 explicitly  and  frequently  asserted  in  the  word  of  God,  and  runs 
 through  all  the  dispensations  of  his  providence.  He  solemnly 
 declares  himself  to  be  a  God  who  "visits  the  iniquities  of  the 
 fathers  upon  the  children,  and  upon  the  children's  children, 
 unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation."  And  so  he  does.  The 
 curse  of  Canaan  fell  on  his  posterity:  the  Egyptians  perished 
 for  the  sins  of  Pharaoh;  the  Moabites  and  Amalekites  were 
 destroyed  for  the  transgressions  of  their  fathers ;  the  leprosy 
 of  Naaman  was  to  cleave  to  Gehazi,  and  "to  his  seed  for  ever;" 
 the  blood  of  all  the  prophets  was  exacted,  says  our  Lord,  of  the 
 men  of  his  i^eneration.  We  must  become  not  only  infidels  but 
 atheists,  if  we  deny  that  God  thus  deals  with  men,  not  merely 
 as  individuals,  but  as  communities  and  on  the  principle  of 
 imputation.  The  apostacy  of  our  race  in  Adam,  therefore,  and 
 the  imputation  of  his  sin  to  his  posterity,  although  the  most 
 signal  of  the  illustrations  of  this  principle,  is  only  one  among 
 thousands  of  a  like  kind.  9.  The  doctrine  of  the  imputation 
 of  Adam's  sin,  or  that  on  account  of  that  sin  all  men  are 
 regarded  and  treated  as  sinners,  was  a  common  Jewish  doctrine 
 at  the  time  of  the  apostle,  as  well  as  at  a  later  period.  He 
 employs  the  same  mode  of  expression  on  the  subject,  which  the 
 Jews  were  accustomed  to  use.  They  could  not  have  failed, 
 therefore,  to  understand  him  as  meaning  to  convey  by  these 
 expressions  the  ideas  usually  connected  with  them.  And  such, 
 therefore,  if  the  apostle  wished  to  be  understood,  must  have 
 been  his  intention ;  see  the  Targum  on  Ruth  iv.  22,  "  On 
 account  of  the  counsel  given  to  Eve  (and  her  eating  the  fruit,) 
 all  the  inhabitants  of  the  world  were  constituted  guilty  of 
 death."  R.  Moses  of  Trana,  Beth  Elohim,  fol.  105,  i.  e.  "With 
 the  same  sin  with  which  Adam  sinned,  sinned  the  whole  world." 
 Many  such  passages  are  to  be  found  in  the  pages  of  Wetstein, 
 Schoettgen,  Eisenmenger,  Tholuck,  and  other  collectors  and 
 commentators.  Meyer  therefore  admits  that  such  was  unde- 
 niably the  doctrine  of  the  Jews.  On  this  point,  Knapp,  in  his 
 Theological  Lectures  (German  edition,  page  29,)  says,  "In  the 
 Mosaic  account  of  the  fall,  and  in  the  Old  Testament  generally, 
 
ROMANS  V.  12.  243 
 
 the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  is  not  mentioned  under  the  term 
 imputation,  although  the  doctrine  is  contained  therein."  'But 
 in  the  writings  of  the  Talmudists  and  Rabbins,  and  earlier  in 
 the  Chaldee  Paraphrases  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  the  fol- 
 lowing position  asserted  in  express  words,  '  that  the  descendants 
 of  Adam  would  have  been  punished  with  death  (of  the  body)  on 
 account  of  his  sin,  although  they  themselves  had  committed  no 
 sin.'  "  On  the  next  page  he  remarks,  "We  find  this  doctrine 
 most  clearly  in  the  New  Testament,  in  Rom.  v.  12,  &c.  The 
 moderr.  philosophers  and  theologians  found  here  much  which 
 was  inconsi'st^nt  with  their  philosophical  systems.  Hence  many 
 explained  and  refined  on  the  passage,  until  the  idea  of  imputa- 
 tion was  entirely  excluded.  They  forgot,  however,  that  Paul 
 used  the  very  words  and  expressions  in  common  use  on  this 
 subject  at  that  time  among  the  Jews,  and  that  his  immediate 
 readers  could  not  have  understood  him  otherwise  than  as  teach- 
 ing this  doctrine."  And  he  immediately  goes  on  to  show,  that 
 unless  we  are  determined  to  do  violence  to  the  words  of  the 
 apostle,  we  must  admit  that  he  represents  all  men  as  subject  to 
 death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  This  is  a  theologian  who 
 did  not  himself  admit  the  doctrine. 
 
 It  may  be  well  to  remark,  that  this  interpretation,  so  far 
 from  being  the  offspring  of  theological  prejudice,  or  fondness 
 for  any  special  theory,  is  so  obviously  the  true  and  simple 
 meajiing  of  the  passage  required  by  the  context,  that  it  has  the 
 sanction  of  theologians  of  every  grade  and  class  of  doctrine. 
 Calvinists,  Arminians,  Lutherans,  and  Rationalists,  agree  in  its 
 support.  Thus  Storr,  one  of  the  most  accurate  of  philological 
 interpreters,  explains  the  last  words  of  the  verse  in  the  manner 
 stated  above :  "  By  one  man  all  are  subject  to  death,  because 
 all  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners,  i.  e.  because  all  lie 
 under  the  sentence  of  condemnation."  The  phrase,  all  have 
 ginned,  ver.  12,  he  says  is  equivalent  to  all  are  constituted  sin- 
 ners, ver.  19;  which  latter  expression  he  renders,  "sie  werden 
 als  Sunder  angesehen  und  behandelt,"  that  is,  they  were 
 regarded  and  treated  as  sinners;  see  his  Commentary  on 
 Hebrews,  pp.  636,  640,  &c.  (Flatt  renders  these  words  in  pre- 
 cisely the  same  manner.)  The  Rationalist,  Ammon,  also  con- 
 eiders  the  apostle  as  teaching,  that  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
 16 
 
242  ROMANS  V.  12. 
 
 Adam  all  men  are  subject  to  death ;  see  Excursus  C.  to  Koppe's 
 Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.     Zacharise,  in  hia 
 Bihlische  Tlieologie,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  128,  has  an  excellent  exposi- 
 tion of  this  whole  passage.     The  question  of  the  imputation  of 
 Adam's  sin,  he  says,  is  this,  "whether  God  regarded  the  act 
 of  Adam  as  the  act  of  all  men,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing, 
 whether  he  has  subjected  them  all  to  punishment,  on  account 
 of  this  single  act."     This,  he  maintains,  the  apostle  asserts  and 
 proves.     On  this  verse  he  remarks:  "The  question  is  not  here 
 immediately  about  the  j^ropagation  of  a  corrupted  nature  to  all 
 men,   and  of  the  personal  sins  committed  by  all  men,  but  of 
 universal  guilt  [Strafivurdigkeit,  liability  to  punishment,)  in  the 
 sight  of  God,  which  has  come  upon  all  men ;  and  which  Paul, 
 in  the  sequel,  does  not  rest  on  the  personal  sins  of  men,  but 
 only  on  the  offence  of  one  man,  Adam,  ver.  16."     Neither  the 
 corruption   of  nature,   nor  the  actual   sins   of  men,   and  their 
 liability  on  account  of  them,  is  either  questioned  or  denied,  but 
 the  simple  statement  is,  that,  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  all 
 men  are  treated  as  sinners.     Zacharise,  it  must  be  remembered, 
 was  not  a  Calvinist,  but  one  of  the  modern  and  moderate  theo- 
 logians of  Gottingen.     Whitby,  the  great  advocate  of  Armini- 
 anism,  says,  on  these  words :   "  It  is  not  true  that  death  came 
 upon  all  men,  for  that,  or  because  all  have  sinned.     \_IIe  con- 
 tends for  the  rendering,  in  whom.']     For  the  apostle  directly 
 here  asserts  the  contrary,  viz.  that  the  death,  and  the  condem- 
 nation to  it,  which  befell  all  men,  was  for  the  sin  of  Adam  only ; 
 for  here  it  is  expressly  said,  that  bg  the  sin  of  one  man  many 
 died;  that  the  sentence  was  from  one,  and  by  one  man  sinning 
 to  condemnation;  and  that  by  the  sin  of  one,  death  reigned  by 
 one.     Therefore,  the  apostle  doth  expressly  teach  us  that  this 
 death,  this  condemnation  to  it,  came  not  upon  us  for  the  sin 
 of  all,  but  only  for  the  sin  of  one,  i.  e.  of  that  one  Adam,  in 
 whom  all  men  die,  1  Cor.  xv.  22."    Dr.  Wordsworth,  Canon  of 
 Westminster,  in  his  recent  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  says, 
 in  his  comment   on   this  verse :    "  Observe   the   aorist   tense, 
 Yjnaptov,  tJiey  all  sinned;  that  is,  at  a  particular  time.     And 
 when  was  that?     Doubtless,  at  the  fall.     All  men  sinned  in 
 Adam's  sin.     All  fell  in  his  fall."     Philippi  says:  "We  must 
 supply  in  thought  to  vjijuapzov,  iu  'Add/x,   or  more  precisely, 
 
ROMANS  V.  13,  14.  243 
 
 Adamo  peccante.  'Non  agitur  de  peccato  singulorum,'  says 
 Bengel,  'omnes  pejc^runt,  Adamo  peccante.'  "  Such  extracts 
 might  be  indefinitely  multiplied  from  the  most  vai'ied  sources. 
 However  these  commentators  may  differ  in  other  points,  they 
 almost  all  agree  in  the  general  idea,  which  is  the  sum  of  the 
 whole  passage,  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  not  their  own  indi- 
 vidual actual  transgressions,  is  the  ground  and  reason  of  the 
 subjection  of  all  men  to  the  penal  evils  here  spoken  of.  With 
 what  plausibility  can  an  interpretation,  commanding  the  assent 
 of  men  so  various,  be  ascribed  to  theory  or  philosophy,  or  love 
 of  a  particular  theological  system  ?  May  not  its  rejection  with 
 more  probability  be  attributed,  as  is  done  by  Knapp,  to  theo- 
 logical prejudice  ?  Certain  it  is,  at  least,  that  the  objections 
 against  it  are  almost  exclusively  of  a  philosophical  or  theologi- 
 cal, rather  than  of  an  exegetical  or  philological  character. 
 
 Verses  13,  14.  For  until  the  law,  sin  was  in  the  world,  (Sc. 
 These  verses  are  connected  by /or  with  ver.  12,  as  introducing 
 the  proof  of  the  declaration  that  death  had  passed  on  all  men, 
 on  account  of  one  man.  The  proof  is  this :  the  infliction  of 
 penal  evils  implies  the  violation  of  law ;  the  violation  of  the  law 
 of  Moses  will  not  account  for  the  universality  of  death,  because 
 men  died  before  that  law  was  given.  Neither  is  the  violation 
 of  the  law  of  nature  sufficient  to  explain  the  fact  that  all  men 
 are  subject  to  death,  because  even  those  die  who  have  never 
 broken  that  law.  As,  therefore,  death  supposes  transgression, 
 and  neither  the  law  of  Moses  nor  the  law  of  nature  embraces 
 all  the  victims  of  death,  it  follows  that  men  are  subject  to  penal 
 evils  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  It  is  for  the  offence  of 
 one  that  many  die. 
 
 In  order  to  the  proper  understanding  of  the  apostle's  argu- 
 ment, it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  term  death  stands  for 
 penal  evil ;  not  for  this  or  that  particular  form  of  it,  but  for 
 any  and  every  evil  judicially  inflicted  for  the  support  of  law. 
 Paul's  reasoning  does  not  rest  upon  the  mere  fact  that  all  men, 
 even  infants,  are  subject  to  natural  death;  for  this  might  be 
 accounted  for  by  the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  or  of  the 
 law  of  nature,  or  by  their  inherent  native  depravity.  This 
 covers  the  whole  ground,  and  may  account  for  the  universality 
 of  natural  death     But  no  one  of  these  causes,  nor  all  combined. 
 
244  ROMANS  V.  13,  14. 
 
 can  account  for  the  infliction  of  all  the  penal  evils  to  which  men 
 are  subjected.  The  great  fact  in  the  apostle's  mind  was,  that 
 God  regards  and  treats  all  men,  from  the  first  moment  of  their 
 existence,  as  out  of  fellowship  with  himself,  as  having  forfeited 
 his  favour.  Instead  of  entering  into  communion  with  them  the 
 moment  they  begin  to  exist  (as  he  did  with  Adam,)  and  forming 
 them  by  his  Spirit  in  his  own  moral  image,  he  regards  them  as 
 out  of  his  favour,  and  withholds  the  influences  of  the  Spirit. 
 Why  is  this?  Why  does  God  thus  deal  with  the  human  race? 
 The  fact  that  he  does  thus  deal  with  them  is  not  denied  by  any 
 except  Pelagians.  Why  then  is  it  ?  Here  is  a  form  of  death 
 which  the  violation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  the  transgression  of  the 
 law  of  nature,  the  existence  of  innate  depravity,  separately  oi 
 combined,  are  insufficient  to  account  for.  Its  infliction  is  ante- 
 cedent to  them  all ;  and  yet  it  is  of  all  evils  the  essence  and  the 
 sum.  Men  begin  to  exist  out  of  communion  with  God.  This  is 
 the  fact  which  no  sophistry  can  get  out  of  the  Bible  or  the  his- 
 tory of  the  world.  Paul  tells  us  Avhy  it  is.  It  is  because  we 
 fell  in  Adam ;  it  is  for  the  one  off'ence  of  one  man  that  all  thu8 
 die.  The  covenant  being  formed  with  Adam,  not  only  for  him- 
 self, but  also  for  his  posterity,  (in  other  words,  Adam  having 
 been  placed  on  trial,  not  for  himself  only,  but  also  for  his  race,) 
 his  act  was,  in  virtue  of  this  relation,  regarded  as  our  act ;  God 
 withdrew  from  us  as  he  did  from  him ;  in  consequence  of  this 
 withdrawing,  we  begin  to  exist  in  moral  darkness,  destitute  of  a 
 disposition  to  delight  in  God,  and  prone  to  delight  in  ourselves 
 and  the  world.  The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  ruined  us ;  it  was 
 the  ground  of  the  withdrawing  of  the  divine  favour  from  the 
 whole  race ;  and  the  intervention  of  the  Son  of  God  for  our  sal- 
 vation is  an  act  of  pure,  sovereign,  and  wonderful  grace. 
 
 Whatever  obscurity,  therefore,  rests  upon  this  passage,  arises 
 from  taking  the  word  death  in  the  narrow  sense  in  which  it  is 
 commonly  used  among  men.  If  taken  in  its  scriptural  sense,  the 
 whole  argument  is  plain  and  conclusive.  Let  penal  evil  be  sub- 
 stituted for  the  word  death,  and  the  argument  will  stand  thus: 
 'All  men  are  subject  to  penal  evils  on  account  of  one  man ;  this 
 is  the  position  to  be  proved,  ver.  12.  That  such  is  the  case  ia 
 evident,  because  the  infliction  of  a  penalty  supposes  the  viola- 
 tion of  law.    But  such  evil  was  inflicted  before  the  giving  of  the 
 
ROMANS  V.  13,  14.  245 
 
 Mosaic  law;  it  comes  on  men  before  the  ti ausgression  of  tho 
 law  of  nature,  or  even  the  existence  of  inherent  depravity;  it 
 must  therefore  be  for  the  offence  of  one  man  that  judgment  has 
 come  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.'  The  wide  sense  in  which 
 the  sacred  writers  use  the  word  death,  accounts  for  the  fact  that 
 the  dissolution  of  the  body  (which  is  one  form  of  the  manifesta- 
 tion of  the  divine  displeasure)  is  not  only  included  in  it,  but  is 
 often  the  prominent  idea. 
 
 Until  the  law.  The  law  here  mentioned  is  evidently  the  law 
 of  Moses.  The  word  d.-j(^pc  is  properly  rendered  until,  and  not 
 during  the  continuance  of,  a  sense  which  the  particle  has  in 
 some  passages.  Until  the  law  is  immediately  explained  by  the 
 words  from  Adam  to  Moses.  Sin  was  in  the  world,  i.  e.  men 
 were  sinners,  and  were  so  regarded  and  treated.  Sin  is  not 
 imputed,  that  is,  it  is  not  laid  to  one's  account,  and  punished. 
 See  iv.  8,  "Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  imputeth 
 not  iniquity;"  and  the  familiar  equivalent  expressions.  "His 
 iniquity  shall  be  upon  him,"  Numb.  xv.  31;  and,  "He  shall 
 bear  his  iniquity."  The  word  {kXXofdTac)  here  used,  occurs 
 nowhere  else  in  any  Greek  writer,  except  in  Philemon  18.  The 
 common  word  for  impute  is  Xoyl^o/jifM.  When  there  is  no  law, 
 fiTj  duTo<;  v6/j.ou,  there  not  being  law.  Sin  is  correlative  of  law. 
 If  there  is  no  law,  there  can  be  no  sin,  as  Paul  had  already 
 taught,  iv.  15.  But  if  there  is  no  sin  without  law,  there  can  be 
 no  imputation  of  sin.  As,  however,  sin  was  imputed,  as  sin 
 was  in  the  world,  as  men  were  sinners,  and  were  so  regarded 
 and  treated  before  the  law  of  Moses,  it  follows  that  there  must 
 be  some  more  comprehensive  law  in  relation  to  which  men  were 
 sinners,  and  in  virtue  of  which  they  were  so  regarded  and 
 treated.  The  principle  here  advanced,  and  on  which  the  apos- 
 tle's argument  rests  is,  that  the  infliction  of  penal  evil  implies 
 the  violation  of  law.  If  men  were  sinners,  and  were  treated  as 
 such  before  the  law  of  Moses,  it  is  certain  that  there  is  some 
 other  law,  for  the  violation  of  which  sin  was  imputed  to  them. 
 
 Instead  of  the  interpretation  just  given,  there  are  several 
 other  methods  of  explaining  this  verse,  which  should  be  noticed. 
 Calvin,  Luther,  Beza,  and  not  a  few  of  the  modern  commenta- 
 tors, say  that  the  clause,  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no 
 law,  means,  men  do  not  impute  sin  to  themselves,  i.  e.  do  not 
 
246  ROMANS  V.  13,  14. 
 
 regard  themselves  as  sinners ;  do  not  feel  their  guilt,  when  there 
 is  no  law.  To  a  certain  extent,  the  sentiment  thus  expressed 
 is  true.  Paul,  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  vii.  8,  says,  "  Without 
 the  law,  sin  was  dead;"  that  is,  unknown  and  disregarded.  It 
 is  true,  that  ignorance  of  the  law  renders  the  conscience  torpid, 
 and  that  by  the  clear  revelation  of  the  law  it  is  brought  to  life ; 
 so  that  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin.  If,  however,  by 
 ?aw,  is  meant  a  written  law,  or  a  full  and  authenticated  revela- 
 tion of  the  will  of  God  as  a  rule  of  duty,  then  it  is  only  com- 
 paratively speaking  true,  that  without  law  (i.  e.  such  a  law.)  sin 
 is  unknown  or  disregarded.  There  is  another  law,  as  Paul 
 teaches,  ii.  14, 15,  written  on  the  heart,  in  virtue  of  which  men 
 feel  themselves  to  be  sinners,  and  know  the  righteous  judgment 
 of  God,  by  which  they  are  exposed  to  death  ;  see  i.  32.  The 
 objections,  however,  to  this  interpretation  are  decisive:  1.  In 
 the  first  place,  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  moaning  of  the  words 
 here  used.  "  To  impute  sin  "  never  means  to  lay  sin  to  heart. 
 The  imputation  is  always  made  from  without,  or  by  another, not 
 by  the  sinner  himself.  Tholuck,  therefore,  calls  this  interpreta- 
 tion "  a  desperate  shift."  "  Noch,"  he  says,  "  ist  eine  gewalt- 
 same  Hiilfe  zu  erwalmen  die  'Blanche  diesem  Ausspriiche  dcs 
 Apostels  zu  bringen  gesucht  haben.  Sie  liaben  dem  iWoyelv 
 eine  andere  Bedeutung  beigelegt.  Sie  haben  es  in  der  Bedeu- 
 tung  achten,  RUcksicht  nehmen  genommen."  2.  This  interpre- 
 tation proceeds  on  a  wrong  assumption  of  the  thing  to  be 
 proved.  It  assumes  that  the  apostle  designs  to  prove  that  all 
 men  are  in  themselves  sinners,  and  for  their  personal  guilt  or 
 defilement,  are  exposed  to  death.  But  this,  as  has  been  shown, 
 leaves  out  of  view  the  main  idea  of  ver.  12.  It  is  true,  that  all 
 men  are  sinners,  either  in  the  sense  of  actual  transgressors,  or 
 of  having  a  depraved  nature,  and  consequently  are  exposed  to 
 death ;  but  the  specific  assertion  of  ver.  12  is,  that  it  was  by 
 ONE  MAN  death  passed  on  all  men.  This,  therefore,  is  the  thing 
 to  be  proved,  and  not  that  all  men  are  personally  sinners.  Of 
 course  it  is  not  denied  that  men  are  subject  to  death  for  their 
 own  sins ;  but  that  is  nothing  to  the  point  which  the  apostle  has 
 in  hand.  His  design  is  to  show  that  there  is  a  form  of  death, 
 or  penal  evil,  to  which  men  are  subject,  anterior  to  any  personal 
 transgression  or  inherent  corruption.     3.  This   interpretation 
 
ROMANS  V.  13,  li.  247 
 
 assumes  that  the  apostle  is  answering  an  objection  which  has 
 no  force,  or  refuting  an  opinion  which  no  one  entertained.  It 
 supposes  that  the  Jews  held  that  the  Gentiles,  before  the  law 
 of  Moses,  were  not  sinners,  whereas  they  regarded  them  as  pre- 
 eminently such.  It  makes  the  apostle  reason  thus :  'All  men 
 are  sinners.  No,'  objects  the  Jew,  'before  Moses  there  was  no 
 law,  and  therefore  no  sin.  Yes,'  replies  Paul,  'they  were  sin- 
 ners, although  they  were  not  aware  of  it.'  But  as  no  human 
 being  believed  that  men  were  not  sinners  before  the  giving  of 
 the  Mosaic  law,  as  Paul  himself  had  proved  at  length  that  the 
 whole  world  was  guilty  before  God,  as  he  had  expressly  taught 
 that  the  Gentiles,  although  they  had  no  written  law,  were  a  law 
 unto  themselves,  and  that  they  stood  self-condemned  in  the  pre- 
 sence of  God,  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  apostle 
 would  stop  to  refute  an  objection  which  has  not  force  enough  tc 
 be  even  a  cavil.  Paul  had  before  laid  down,  the  principle 
 (iv.  15,)  that  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression, 
 which  is  only  another  form  of  saying,  "sin  is  not  imputed 
 when  there  is  no  law."  But  as  sin  was  imputed  before  the  law 
 of  Moses,  there  must  have  been  some  other  law,  for  the  violation 
 of  which  men  were  condemned.  It  is  that  the  apostle  designs 
 to  prove,  and  not  that  men  were  personally  sinners ;  a  fact,  so 
 far  as  the  heathen  were  concerned,  no  Jew  denied. 
 
 Another  interpretation,  which  is  adopced  by  a  large  number 
 of  commentators  and  theologians,  supposes  that  the  word  death 
 is  to  be  understood  of  natural  death  alone.  The  reasoning  of 
 the  apostle  then  is,  'As  on  account  of  the  sin  of  one  man,  all 
 men  are  condemned  to  die,  so  on  account  of  the  righteousness 
 of  one,  all  are  made  partakers  of  life,'  ver.  12.  The  proof  that 
 all  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  is  given 
 in  vs.  13,  14 :  '  The  infliction  of  the  specific  penalty  of  death, 
 supposes  the  violation  of  a  law  to  which  that  particular  penalty 
 was  attached.  This  could  not  be  the  law  of  Moses,  since  those 
 die  who  never  violated  that  law;  and,  in  short,  all  men  die, 
 although  they  have  never  broken  any  express  command  attende  i 
 by  the  sanction  of  death.  The  liability  of  all  men,  therefore,  to 
 this  specific  form  of  evil,  is  to  be  traced  not  to  their  own  indi- 
 vidual character  or  conduct,  but  to  the  sin  of  Adam.'  Some  of 
 those  who  adopt  this  view  of  the  passage,  are  consistent  enough 
 
248  ROMANS  V.  13. 
 
 to  carry  it  through,  and  make  the  life  which  is  restored  to  all 
 b}^  Christ,  as  here  spoken  of,  to  be  nothing  more  than  the  life 
 of  the  body,  i.  e.  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.*  It  will  be 
 observed,  that  this  interpretation  is,  as  to  its  main  principle, 
 identical  with  that  presented  above  as  correct.  That  is,  it 
 assumes  that  ver.  12  teaches  that  God  regarded  the  act  of  Adam 
 as  the  act  of  the  whole  race,  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  sub- 
 jected all  men  to  punishment  on  account  of  his  transgression. 
 And  it  makes  vs.  13,  14,  the  proof  that  the  subjection  of  all 
 men  to  the  penal  evil  here  specially  in  view,  to  be,  not  the  cor- 
 ruption of  their  nature,  nor  their  own  individual  sins,  but  the 
 sin  of  Adam.  It  is,  however,  founded  on  two  assumptions  ;  the 
 one  of  which  is  erroneous,  and  the  other  gratuitous.  In  the 
 first  place,  it  assumes  that  the  death  here  spoken  of  is  mere 
 natural  death,  which,  as  shown  above,  is  contrary  both  to  the 
 scriptural  use  of  the  term  and  to  the  immediate  context.  And, 
 secondly,  it  assumes  that  the  violation  of  the  law  of  nature 
 could  not  be  justly  followed  by  the  death  of  the  body,  because 
 that  particular  form  of  evil  was  not  threatened  as  the  sanction 
 of  that  law.  But  this  assumption  is  gratuitous,  and  would  be 
 as  well  authorized  if  made  in  reference  to  any  othei  punishment 
 of  such  transgressions;  since  no  definite  specific  evil,  as  the 
 expression  of  the  divine  displeasure,  was  made  known  to  those 
 who  had  no  external  revelation.  Yet,  as  Paul  says,  Rom.  i.  3'2, 
 the  wicked  heathen  knew  they  were  worthy  of  death,  i.  e.  of  the 
 effects  of  the  divine  displeasure.  The  particular  manner  of  the 
 exhibition  of  that  displeasure  is  a  matter  of  indifference.  It 
 need  hardly  be  remarked,  that  it  is  not  involved  either  in  this 
 or  the  commonly  received  interpretation  of  this  passage,  that 
 men,  before  the  time  of  Moses,  were  not  punishable  for  their 
 own  sins.  While  this  is  admitted  and  asserted  by  the  apostle, 
 he  proves  that  they  were  punished  for  Adam's  sin.  No  one 
 feels  that  there  is  any  inconsistency  in  asserting  of  the  men  of 
 this  generation,  that  although  responsible  to  God  for  their  per- 
 sonal transgressions,  they  are  nevertheless  born  in  a  state 
 of  spiritual  death,  as  a  punishment  of  the  sin  of  our  great 
 progenitor.  The  pains  of  child-birth  do  not  cease  to  be  part 
 of  the  penalty  of  the    original   transgression,   although  each 
 
 *  Sjc  Whitby  on  this  passage. 
 
ROMANS  V.  13.  249 
 
 suffering  mother  is  burdened  with  the  guilt  of  personal  trans- 
 gression. 
 
 As  the  effort  to  make  these  verses  prove  that  all  men  are 
 actual  sinner«  fails  of  giving  them  any  satisfactory  sense,  so 
 the  interpretation  which  assumes  that  they  are  designed  to 
 prove  inherent,  hereditary  depravity,  is  no  less  untenable.  If 
 iff'  (^  Trdure^  T^fxaprov,  in  ver.  12,  means,  '  Death  has  passed  on 
 all,  because  all  are  tainted  with  the  hereditary  corruption  derived 
 from  Adam,''  then  the  argument  in  vs.  13,  14,  must  stand  thus: 
 'All  men  are  by  nature  corrupt,  for  as  sin  is  not  imputed  when 
 there  is  no  law,  the  death  of  all  men  cannot  be  accounted  for 
 on  the  ground  of  their  actual  sins ;  therefore,  since  those  die 
 who  have  never  sinned,  as  Adam  did,  against  a  positive  law, 
 they  must  be  subject  to  death  for  their  innate  depravity.'  But, 
 so  far  as  this  argument  assumes  that  men,  before  the  time  of 
 Moses,  were  not  justly  subject  to  death  for  their  actual  sins,  it 
 is  contrary  to  truth,  and  to  the  express  teaching  of  the  apostle. 
 Yet  this  is  the  form  in  which  it  is  generally  presented.  And 
 if  it  only  means  that  actual  sin  will  not  account  for  the  absolute 
 universality  of  death,  since  those  die  who  have  never  committed 
 any  actual  transgression,  the  argument  is  still  defective.  Innate 
 depravity  being  universal,  may  account  for  the  universality  of 
 natural  death;  but  ^dvaro^  includes  much  more  than  natural 
 death.  What  is  to  account  for  spiritual  death?  Why  are  men 
 born  dead  in  sin  ?  This  is  the  very  thing  to  be  accounted  for. 
 The  fact  is  not  its  own  solution.  Paul's  argument  is,  that  they 
 are  so  born  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  It  is  another  objection 
 to  this  interpretation,  that  it  destroys  the  analogy  between 
 Christ  and  Adam,  and  therefore  is  inconsistent  with  the  great 
 design  of  the  whole  passage.  Paul's  object  is  to  show,  that  as 
 we  are  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  something  out 
 of  ourselves,  so  we  are  condemned  for  the  sin  of  Adam  as  some- 
 thing out  of  ourselves.  To  make  him  teach  that  we  are  con- 
 demned for  our  inherent  depravity,  to  the  exclusion  of  Adam's 
 sin,  necessitates  his  teaching  that  we  are  justified  for  our  inhe- 
 rent goodness,  which  destroys  all  hope  of  heaven.  There  is  no 
 interpretation  of  this  passage  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the 
 words,  the  nature  of  the  argument,  the  design  of  the  context, 
 and  the   analogy  of  Scripture,  but  the   one  given  above,  as 
 
250  ROMANS  V.  14. 
 
 commonly  received.  Kollner  complains  that  Paul's  argument 
 is  very  confused.  This  he  accounts  for  by  assuming  that  the 
 apostle  had  two  theories  in  his  mind.  The  one,  that  men  die 
 for  their  own  sins ;  the  other,  that  they  die  for  the  sin  of  Adam. 
 His  natural  feelings  led  him  to  adopt  the  former,  and  he  accord- 
 ingly says,  in  ver.  12,  "•'  Death  passed  on  all  men,  because  all 
 have  sinned."  But  as  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  his  age,  that  men 
 were  condemned  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  afforded  such  an  admira- 
 ble illustration  of  his  doctrine  of  salvation  through  the  merit 
 of  Christ,  the  apostle,  says  Kollner,  could  not  help  availing 
 himself  of  it.  Thus  he  has  the  two  theories  mixed  up  together, 
 asserting  sometimes  the  one,  and  sometimes  the  other.  To  those 
 who  reverence  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  it  is  assuredly 
 a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the  common  interpretation  of 
 the  passage,  that  it  saves  the  sacred  writer  from  such  asper- 
 sions. It  is  better  to  admit  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  than  to 
 make  the  apostle  contradict  himself. 
 
 Verse  14.  Nevertheless,  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses. 
 That  is,  men  were  subject  to  death  before  the  law  of  Moses  was 
 given,  and  consequently  not  on  account  of  violating  it.  There 
 must  be  some  other  ground,  therefore,  of  their  exposure  to 
 death.  Neverthelesss,  {dUa,)  the  clause  thus  introduced  stands 
 in  opposition  to  the  preceding  clause,  oux  i-Xkoyelrac.  That  is, 
 '  although  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law,  nevertheless 
 death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses.'  Death  reigned,  i.  e.  had 
 undisputed,  rightful  sway.  Men  were  justly  subject  to  his 
 power,  and  therefore  were  sinners. 
 
 Even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of 
 Adam's  transgression.  Instead  of  connecting  km  zip  biiouoixarc, 
 as  is  usually  done,  with  fXTj  6.fxaptrjoavTS.(:,  Chrysostom  connects 
 them  with  ij^aathuaev.  The  sense  would  then  be,  'death 
 reigned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,  even  over 
 those  who  had  not  sinned.'  That  is,  death  reigned  over  those 
 who  had  not  personally  sinned,  just  as  it  reigned  over  Adam. 
 This  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Bengel,  who  says,  "Quod 
 homines  ante  legem  mortui  sunt,  id  accidit  eis  super  si7nilitudine 
 transgressionis  Adam,  i.  e.  quia  illorum  eadem  atque  Adami 
 transgredientis  ratio  fuit:  mortui  sunt,  propter  alium  reatum, 
 non  propter  eum,  quern  ipsi  per  se  contraxere,  id  est,  propter 
 
ROMANS  V.  14.  251 
 
 reatum  ab  Adamo  contractuin."  Although  the  sense  thua 
 expi'essed  is  good,  and  suited  to  the  context,  the  construction 
 is  evidently  forced.  It  is  much  more  natural  to  take  the  words 
 as  they  stand.  Death  reigned  over  a  class  of  persons  who  had 
 not  sinned  as  Adam  had.  The  question  is,  What  is  the  point 
 of  dissimilarity  to  which  the  apostle  here  refei's  ?  Some  say  it 
 is,  that  Adam  violated  a  positive  command  to  which  the  sanction 
 of  death  was  expressly  added,  and  that  those  referred  to  did 
 not.  The  principal  objections  to  this  interpretation  are,  1.  That 
 it  destroys  the  distinction  between  the  two  classes  of  persons 
 here  alluded  to.  It  makes  Paul,  in  effect,  reason  thus :  '  Death 
 reigned  over  those  who  had  not  violated  any  positive  law,  even 
 over  those  who  had  not  violated  any  positive  law.'  It  is  obvi- 
 ous that  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  describes  a  general  class, 
 and  the  second  clause,  which  is  distinguished  from  the  first  by 
 the  word  even,  only  a  portion  of  that  class.  All  men  who  died 
 from  Adam  to  Moses,  died  without  violating  a  positive  com- 
 mand. The  class,  therefore,  which  is  distinguished  from  them, 
 must  be  contrasted  with  Adam  on  some  other  ground  than  that 
 which  is  common  to  the  whole.  2.  This  interpretation  is  incon- 
 sistent with  the  context,  because  it  involves  us  in  all  the  diffi- 
 culties specified  above,  attending  the  sense  which  it  requires 
 us  to  put  upon  vs.  13,  14,  and  their  connection  with  ver.  12. 
 We  must  suppose  the^e  verses  designed  to  prove  that  all  men 
 are  sinners,  which,  as  just  shown,  is  at  variance  with  the  con- 
 text, with  the  obvious  meaning  of  ver.  12,  with  the  scope  of  the 
 passage,  and  the  drift  of  the  argument.  Or  we  must  adopt  the 
 interpretation  of  those  who  confine  the  word  death  to  the  dis- 
 solution of  the  body,  and  make  the  apostle  argue  to  show  that 
 this  particular  evil  is  to  be  referred  not  to  the  personal  sins  of 
 men,  but  to  the  sin  of  Adam.  Or  we  are  driven  to  some  other 
 unsatisfactory  view  of  the  passage.  In  short,  these  verses,  when 
 the  clause  in  question  is  thus  explained,  present  insuperable 
 difficulties. 
 
 Others  understand  the  difference  between  Adam  and  those 
 intended  to  be  described  in  this  clause,  to  be,  that  Adam  sinned 
 personally  and  actually,  the  others  did  not.  In  favour  of  this 
 view  it  may  be  argued,  1.  That  the  words  evidently  admit  of  this 
 interpretation  as  naturally  as  of  the  other.     Paul  simply  says 
 
2:52  ROMANS  V.  14. 
 
 the  persons  referred  to  did  not  sin  as  Adam  did.  Whether  he 
 means  that  they  did  not  sin  at  all ;  that  they  were  not  sinners 
 in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  term ;  or  that  they  had  not  sinned 
 against  the  same  kind  of  law,  depends  on  the  context,  and  is 
 not  determined  by  the  mere  form  of  expression.  2.  If  ver.  12 
 teaches  that  men  are  subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin 
 of  Adam,  if  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  passage,  and  if, 
 as  is  admitted,  vs.  13,  14  are  designed  to  prove  the  assertion 
 of  ver.  12,  then  is  it  necessary  that  the  apostle  should  show 
 that  death  comes  on  those  who  have  no  personal  or  actual  sins 
 to  answer  for.  This  he  does:  'Death  reigns  not  only  over 
 those  who  have  never  broken  any  positive  law,  but  even  over 
 those  who  have  never  sinned  as  Adam  did;  that  is,  who  have 
 never  in  their  own  persons  violated  any  law,  by  which  their 
 exposure  to  death  can  be  accounted  for.'  All  the  arguments, 
 therefore,  which  go  to  establish  the  interpretation  given  above 
 of  ver.  12,  or  the  correctness  of  the  exhibition  of  the  course 
 of  the  apostle's  'argument,  and  the  design  of  the  whole  passage, 
 bear  with  all  their  force  in  support  of  the  view  here  given  of 
 this  clause.  The  opposite  interpretation,  as  was  attempted  to 
 be  proved  above,  rests  on  a  false  exegesis  of  ver.  12,  and  a  false 
 view  of  the  context.  Almost  all  the  objections  to  this  interpre- 
 tation, being  founded  on  misapprehension,  are  answered  by  the 
 mere  statement  of  the  case.  The  simple  doctrine  and  argument 
 of  the  apostle  is,  that  there  are  penal  evils  which  comb 
 UPON  men  antecedent  to  any  transgressions  of  their 
 own;  and  as  the  infliction  of  these  evils  implies  a 
 violation  of  law,  it  follows  that  they  are  regarded 
 and  treated  as  sinners,  on  the  ground  of  the  disobedi- 
 ENCE OF  ANOTHER.  In  Other  words,  it  was  "by  the  oifence 
 of  one  man  that  judgment  came  on  all  men  to  condemnation." 
 It  is  of  course  not  implied  in  thiti  statement  or  argument,  that 
 men  are  not  now,  or  were  not  from  Adam  to  Moses,  punishable 
 for  their  own  sins,  but  simply  that  they  are  subject  to  penal 
 evils,  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  their 
 personal  transgressions,  or  their  hereditary  depravity.  This 
 statement,  which  contains  the  whole  doctrine  of  imputation,  is  so 
 obviously  contained  in  the  argument  of  the  apostle,  and  stands 
 out  so  conspicuously  in  th6  Bible,  and  is  so  fully  established  by 
 
ROMANS  V.  14.  25*> 
 
 the  history  of  the  world,  that  it  is  frequentl;)  and  freely  ad- 
 mitted by  the  great  majority  of  commentators. 
 
 JVlio  is  a  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come,  rimoc,  tou  ixillouro!;. 
 JJco^  TU7Z0(;;  (p'jatv  on  w^rrep  kxdvo^  zdl^  1^  auzou,  xairocye  /li^ 
 ipaydbaiv  drcb  rov  ^uXoo,  yiyoi^sv  ac'zco^  ^aidrou  tou  oca  riju 
 ^pojacu  £c<Ta'^d£UTO(;,  ouzco  xal  b  XpcazoQ  zo7^  i^  auzou,  xaizocys. 
 ou  dcxacoTcpayi^aaac^  yiyovt  Ttpd^tvo^  dixouoauy/^:;,  y^u  oca  zou 
 ffzaopou  Tzaacv  i^piiv  ij^apcaazc  did  zouzo  dvco  xal  xdzco  zou  Ivor 
 lytzajL,  xal  auvtjihci  zouzo  tiQ  fiiaov  (pipee. — Chrysostom.  "  How 
 a  type?  he  says:  because  as  he  was  the  cause  of  the  death 
 introduced  by  eating  (the  forbidden  fruit,)  to  all  who  are  of 
 him,  although  they  did  not  eat  of  the  tree;  so  also  Christ,  to 
 those  who  are  of  him,  though  they  have  not  wrought  right- 
 eousness, is  become  the  procurer  of  the  righteousness  which, 
 by  means  of  the  cross,  he  graciously  gives  to  us  all ;  on  this 
 account  he  first  and  last  makes  the  one  so  prominent,  continu- 
 ally bringing  it  forward."  This  is  an  interesting  passage 
 coming  from  a  source  so  different  from  the  Augustinian  school 
 of  theology.  Every  essential  point  of  the  common  Calvinistic 
 interpretation  is  fully  stated.  Adam  is  the  cause  of  death 
 coming  on  all,  independently  of  any  transgressions  of  their 
 own ;  as  Christ  is  the  author  of  justification  without  our  own 
 works.  And  the  many,  in  the  one  clause,  are  all  who  are  of 
 Adam ;  and  the  many,  in  the  other,  those  who  are  of  Christ. 
 
 The  word  rendered  figure,  zutto^,  from  tottzm  [to  strike,) 
 means  a  print,  or  impression  made  by  a  blow;  as  in  John 
 XX.  25,  zbv  zuTtov  zcov  ^?xov,  the  print  of  the  nails.  In  a  wider 
 sense  it  means  a  figure  or  form,  literally,  as  when  spoken  of  an 
 image,  Acts  vii.  43,  or  figuratively  when  used  of  a  doctrine, 
 Rom.  vi.  17.  More  commonly  in  the  Scriptures  it  means  either 
 a  model  after  which  anything  is  to  be  made,  Heb.  viii.  5,  or  an 
 example  to  be  followed,  Philip,  iii.  17,  "  as  ye  have  us  for  an 
 example,"  xa&co^  £^£Z£  zuttov  '^ptdi;.  Besides  these,  so  to  speak 
 secular  meanings,  it  has  the  religious  sense  of  type,  a  designed 
 prefiguration,  or  counterpart,  either  historically,  as  the  pass- 
 over  was  a  type  or  significant  commemoration  of  the  passing 
 over,  by  the  destroying  angel,  of  the  habitations  of  the  Hebrews 
 in  Egypt ;  or  prophetically,  as  the  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 ment were  types  of  the  great  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb  of  God.     A 
 
254  ROMANS  V.  14. 
 
 type,  tlieiefore,  in  the  religious  sense  of  the  term,  is  not  a  mere 
 historical  parallel  or  incidental  resemblance  between  persons  or 
 events,  but  a  designed  resemblance — the  one  being  intended  to 
 prefigure  or  to  commemorate  the  other.  It  is  in  this  sense  that 
 Adam  was  the  type  of  Christ.  The  resemblance  between  them 
 was  not  casual.  It  was  predetermined,  and  entered  into  the 
 whole  plan  of  God.  As  Adam  was  the  head  and  representative 
 of  his  race,  whose  destiny  was  suspended  on  his  conduct,  so 
 Christ  is  the  head  and  representative  of  his  people.  As  the 
 sin  of  the  one  was  the  ground  of  our  condemnation,  so  the 
 righteousness  of  the  other  is  the  ground  of  our  justification. 
 This  relation  between  Adam  and  the  Messiah  was  recognized  by 
 the  Jews,  who  called  their  expected  deliverer,  li^ni^in  tiiKH'  the 
 last  Adam,  as  Paul  also  calls  him  in  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  6  layaxoi, 
 Add/u.  Adam  was  the  type,  zoo  ix£XXovto<;,  either  of  the  Adam 
 who  was  to  come,  or  simply  of  the  one  to  come.  The  Old  Testa- 
 ment system  was  preparatory  and  prophetic.  The  people  under 
 its  influence  were  looking  forward  to  the  accomplishment  of  the 
 promises  made  to  their  father.  The  Messianic  period  on  which 
 their  hopes  were  fixed  was  called  "the  world  or  age  to  come,"  and 
 the  Messiah  himself  was  6  ip^ofxsvoi;,  b  ^iXXcov,  the  one  coming.* 
 As  Paul  commenced  this  section  with  the  design  of  insti- 
 tuting this  comparison  between  Christ  and  Adam,  and  inter- 
 rupted himself  to  prove,  in  vs.  13,  14,  that  Adam  was  really  the 
 representative  of  his  race,  or  that  all  men  are  subject  to  death 
 for  his  offence ;  and  having,  at  the  close  of  ver.  14,  announced 
 the  fact  of  this  resemblance  by  calling  Adam  a  type  of  Christ, 
 he  again  stops  to  limit  and  explain  this  declaration  by  pointing 
 out  the  real  nature  of  the  analogy.  This  he  does  principally 
 by  showing,  in  vs.  15 — 17,  the  particulars  in  which  the  com- 
 
 *  Philippi,  Professor  in  the  University  at  Rostock,  one  of  the  most  recent  as 
 he  is  one  of  the  best  of  the  German  commentators,  says,  in  a  note  to  this  pas- 
 sage, "The  Protestant  Church  had  abundant  scriptural  authority  as  well  aa  theo- 
 logical reasons  for  their  doctrine  of  the  impuiaiio  peccati  Adamitici  ad  culpam  et 
 pcenam,  audits  consequent peccatum  originale,  consisting  in  the  habilus peccandi, 
 and  hence  involving  guilt.  It  is  one  of  the  merits  of  Julius  MQller's  work 
 (die  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  SOnde,)  that  he  rejects  the  modern  doctrine, 
 that  innate  depravity  or  the  corruption  of  nature  in  man,  consequent  on  the 
 fall  of  Adam,  is  simply  an  evil,  so  that  only  voluntary  assent  thereto  is  pro- 
 perly cf  the  nature  of  sin." 
 
ROMANS  V.  15.  255 
 
 parison  does  not  hold.  In  verses  18,  19,  which  ttre  a  resump- 
 tion of  the  sentiment  of  ver.  12,  he  states  the  grand  point  of 
 their  agreement. 
 
 Verse  15.  But  not  as  the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  The 
 cases,  although  parallel,  are  not  precisely  alike.  In  the  first 
 place,  it  is  far  more  consistent  with  our  views  of  the  character 
 of  God,  that  many  should  be  benefitted  by  the  merit  of  one 
 man,  than  that  they  should  suffer  for  the  sin  of  one.  If  the 
 latter  has  happened,  MUCH  more  may  we  expect  the  former  to 
 occur.  The  attentive  reader  of  this  passage  will  perceive  con- 
 stantly increasing  evidence  that  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  not 
 to  show  that  the  blessings  procured  by  Christ  are  greater  than 
 the  evils  caused  by  Adam;  but  to  illustrate  and  confirm  the 
 prominent  doctrine  of  the  epistle,  that  we  are  justified  on  the 
 ground  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  This  is  obvious  from  the 
 sentiment  of  this  verse,  '  If  we  die  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  much 
 more  may  we  live  through  the  righteousness  of  Christ.'  But 
 not  as  the  offence,  &c.  'J^A'  oy^  (a»c  ^o  Tza^odTtTiojua,  out(o  xai  to 
 j^dpcapia,  a  singularly  concise  expression,  which  however  the 
 context  renders  sufficiently  plain.  /TapdnTcofjia,  from  TtapamrrrM 
 (to  fall,)  means  fall,  and  ydpiaiia,  an  act  of  grace,  or  gracious 
 gift,  which  is  explained  by  ■^  ocopsd  in  this  verse,  to  d(oprj[ia  in 
 ver.  16,  and  /J  dcopsd  t7j<;  dcxacoauvrj^  (the  gift  of  righteousness,) 
 in  ver.  17.  The  meaning  therefore  is,  that  '  the  fall  is  not  like 
 the  gracious  restoration.'  The  reason  why  the  one  is  not  like 
 the  other,  is  stated  in  what  follows,  so  that  ydp  has  its  appropri- 
 ate force :  '  They  are  not  alike,  for  if  by  the  offence  of  one  many 
 be  dead.'  The  dative  -riapaiZTiopaTc  expresses  the  ground  or 
 reason.  The  offence  of  one  was  the  ground  or  reason  of  the 
 many  dying ;  and  as  death  is  a  penalty,  it  must  be  the  judicial 
 ground  of  their  death,  which  is  the  very  thing  asserted  in 
 ver.  12,  and  proved  in  vs.  13,  14.  Many  he  dead;  the  words 
 are  ol  TtoXXol  OKed-avov,  the  many  died,  the  aorist  a~e&avov 
 cannot  mean  he  dead.  By  the  many  are  intended  all  mankind, 
 of  TtoXXol  and  rcduTSi;  being  interchanged  throughout  the  con- 
 text. They  are  called  the  many,  because  they  are  many,  and 
 for  the  sake  of  the  antithesis  to  the  one.  The  many  died  for 
 the  offence  of  one ;  the  sentence  of  death  passed  on  all  for  his 
 offence.     The  same  idea  is  presented  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22. 
 
256  ROMANS  V.  15. 
 
 It  is  here,  therefore,  expressly  asserted  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
 was  the  cause  of  all  his  posterity  being  subjected  to  death,  that 
 is,  to  penal  evil.  But  it  may  still  be  asked  whether  it  was 
 the  occasional  or  the  immediate  cause.  That  is,  whether  the 
 apostle  means  to  say  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of 
 all  men  being  placed  in  such  circumstances  that  they  all  sin, 
 and  thus  incur  death ;  or  that  by  being  the  cause  of  the  cor- 
 ruption of  their  nature,  it  is  thus  indirectly  the  cause  of  their 
 condemnation ;  or  whether  he  is  to  be  understood  as  saying  that 
 his  sin  is  the  direct  judicial  ground  or  reason  for  the  infliction 
 of  penal  evil.  It  has  been  frequently  said  that  this  is  all 
 theory,  philosophy,  system,  &c.  But  any  one  may  see  that  it 
 is  a  mere  exegetical  question — what  is  the  meaning  of  a  given 
 phrase?  Does  the  dative  here  express  the  occasional  cause,  or 
 the  ground  or  reason  of  the  result  attributed  to  the  offence  of 
 one  man  ?  It  is  a  mere  question  of  fact ;  the  fact  is  all,  and 
 there  is  neither  theory  nor  philosophy  involved  in  the  matter. 
 If  Paul  says  that  the  offence  of  one  is  the  ground  and  reason 
 of  the  many  being  subject  to  death,  he  says  all  that  the  advo- 
 cates of  the  doctrine  of  imputation  say.  That  this  is  the  strict 
 exegetical  meaning  of  the  passage,  appears  from  the  following 
 reasons :  1.  That  such  may  be  the  force  and  meaning  of  the 
 words  as  they  here  stand,  no  one  can  pretend  to  doubt.  That 
 is,  no  one  can  deny  that  the  dative  case  can  express  the  ground 
 or  reason  as  well  as  the  occasion  of  a  thing.  2.  This  interpre- 
 tation is  not  only  possible,  and  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
 meaning  of  the  words,  but  it  is  demanded,  in  this  connection, 
 by  the  plainest  rules  of  exposition;  because  the  sentiment 
 expressed  by  these  words  is  confessedly  the  same  as  that  taught 
 in  those  which  follow;  and  they,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel, 
 will  not  bear  the  opposite  interpretation.  3.  It  is  demanded 
 by  the  rhole  design  and  drift  of  the  passage.  The  very  point 
 of  the  comparison  is,  that  as  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and 
 not  our  own  works,  is  the  ground  of  our  justification,  so  the 
 sin  of  Adam,  antecedently  to  any  sins  of  our  own,  is  the 
 ground  of  the  infliction  of  certain  penal  evils.  If  the  latter 
 be  denied,  the  very  point  of  the  analogy  between  Christ  and 
 Adam  is  destroyed.  4.  This  interpretation  is  so  plainly  the 
 correct  and  natural  one,   that  it  is,   as  shown  above,  freely 
 
ROMANS  V.  16.  257 
 
 admitted  by  the  most  strenuous  opponents  of  the  doctrine  which 
 it  teaches. 
 
 Much  more  the  grace  of  Grod,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is 
 hy  one  man,  hath  abounded  unto  many.  Had  Paul  been  studi- 
 ous of  uniformity  in  the  S'tructure  of  his  sentences,  this  clause 
 would  have  been  diflFerently  worded :  '  If  by  the  offence  of  one 
 many  die,  much  more  by  the  free  gift  of  one  shall  many  live.' 
 The  meaning  is  the  same.  The  force  of  the  passage  lies  in  the 
 words  much  more.  The  idea  is  not  that  the  grace  is  more 
 abundant  and  efficacious  than  the  offence  and  its  consequences; 
 this  idea  is  expressed  in  ver.  20 ;  but,  '  if  the  one  dispensation 
 has  occurred,  much  more  may  the  other;  if  we  die  for  one, 
 much  more  may  we  live  by  another.'  The  TtoXXw  fxdXXov  does 
 not  express  a  higher  degree  of  efficacy,  but  of  evidence  or  cer- 
 tainty :  '  If  the  one  thing  has  happened,  much  more  certainly 
 may  the  other  be  relied  upon.'  The  first  clause  of  the  verse 
 may  be  thus  interpreted,  '  the  grace  of  God,  even  the  gift  by 
 grace ;'  so  that  the  latter  phrase  is  explanatory  of  the  former. 
 If  they  are  to  be  distinguished,  the  first  refers  to  the  cause,  viz. 
 the  grace  of  God;  and  the  second  to  the  result,  viz.  the  gift  by 
 grace,  i.  e.  the  gracious  or  free  gift,  viz.  the  gift  of  righteous- 
 ness, as  explained  in  ver.  17.  Wliich  is  by  one  man,  J>'8us 
 Christ;  that  is,  which  comes  to  us  through  Christ.  This  free 
 gift  is  of  course  the  opposite  of  what  comes  upon  us  for  the 
 sake  of  Adam.  Guilt  and  condemnation  come  from  him ;  right- 
 eousness and  consequent  acceptance  from  Jesus  Christ.  What 
 is  here  called  the  free  gift  is,  in  ver.  17,  called  the  gift  of  right- 
 eousness. Hath  abounded  unto  many,  ec(;  rouf  7to?.?.o6c,  unto  tha 
 many;  that  is,  has  been  freely  and  abundantly  bestowed  on  the 
 many.  Whether  the  many,  in  this  clause,  is  co-extensive 
 numerically  with  the  many  in  the  other,  will  be  considered 
 under  ver.  18. 
 
 Verse  16.  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,*  so  is  the 
 gift,  &c.  This  clause,  as  it  stands  in  the  original,  and  not  as 
 by  one  that  sinned,  the  gift,  is  obviously  elliptical.  Seme  word 
 corresponding  to  gift  is  to  be  supplied  in  the  first  member; 
 
 *  Instead  of  a^stjri»Vct»Tof,  the  MSS.  D.  E.  F.  G.  26,  the  Latin  and  Syriao 
 versions  read  a/xA^rifjutrtc.  The  common  text  is  retained  by  most  editors,  even 
 by  Lachmann. 
 
 17 
 
258  ROMANS  V.  16. 
 
 either  offence.,  -which  is  opposed  to  the  free  gift  in  the  preceding 
 verse:  or  judgment,  which  occurs  in  the  next  clause.  The 
 sense  then  is,  '  The  gift  (of  justification,  see  ver.  17)  was  not 
 like  the  sentence  which  came  by  one  that  sinned.'  So  Professor 
 Stuart,  who  very  appositely  renders  and  explains  the  whole 
 verse  thus :  "  Yea,  the  [sentence]  by  one  who  sinned,  is  not  like 
 the  free  gift ;  for  the  sentence  by  reason  of  one  [oftence]  was 
 unto  condemnation  [was  a  condemning  sentence] ;  but  the  free 
 gift  [pardon]  is  of  many  ofiences,  unto  justification,  i.  e.  is  a 
 sentence  of  acquittal  from  condemnation."  \The  point  of  this 
 verse  is,  that  the  sentence  of  condemnation  which  passed  on  all 
 men*  for  the  sake  of  Adam,  was  for  one  ofi'ence,  whereas  we 
 are  justified  by  Christ  from  many  ofi'ences.  Christ  does  much 
 more  than  remove  the  guilt  and  evils  consequent  on  the  sin 
 of  Adam.  This  is  the  second  particular  in  which  the  work 
 of  Christ  difi"ers  from  that  of  Adam. 
 
 For  the  judgment  ivas  hy  one  to  condemnation.  By  one,  ii 
 Ivoc,  either  by  one  man,  or  by  one  offence.  As  iLfiaprrjaaMzoz 
 is  the  true  reading  in  the  preceding  clause,  most  modern  com- 
 mentators say  that  Ivoc  must  be  masculine,  by  one  man.  The 
 antithesis,  however,  between  Ivoc  and  TcoXXiov  is  so  obvious,  that 
 it  is  more  natural  to  supply  TrapaTizcbfxaroi;,  from  the  next  clause, 
 as  in  Hebrew  parallelisms,  an  ellipsis  in  the  first  member  must 
 at  times  be  supplied  from  the  second.  An  example  of  this  kind 
 Gesenius  finds  in  Isa.  xlviii.  11.  Here  the  very  object  of  the 
 apostle  is  to  contrast  the  one  offence  for  which  we  suffer  through 
 Adam,  with  the  many  offences  from  the  guilt  of  which  Christ 
 delivers  us.  Luther,  Beza,  Olshausen,  Rothe,  and  others,  take 
 kvo::  as  neuter,  one  offence.  "A  judgment  to  condemnation"  is 
 a  Hebraic  or  Hellenistic  idiom,  for  a  condemnatory  judgment, 
 or  sentence  of  condemnation.f  The  word  xpifxa,  rendered /ucZt/- 
 ment,  properly  means  the  decision  or  sentence  of  a  judge,  and 
 
 *  The  words  all  men  are  expressed  in  ver.  18,  where  this  clause  is  repeated: 
 "By  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  on  all  men  to  condemnation." 
 
 f  See  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  'The  first  Adam  was  made  (ik  ■\uX'^^  ^Z<rxv)  to  a  living 
 soul.'  'The  last  Adam  to  a  quickening  spirit.'  Or  the  preposition  (iJf)  may 
 express  the  grade  or  point  to  which  anything  reaches,  and  tU  intToitg/^t  be  equi- 
 valent to  wc  TO  »*T£tJtg/yw3a«,  a  sentence  unto  condemnation;  a  decision  which 
 went  to  the  extent  of  condemning.  So,  in  the  next  clause,  tU  tiKxiitfjui.,  unto 
 futiificaiion,  a  sentence  by  which  men  are  justified. — See  Wahl,  p.  428. 
 
R0MA:NS  v.  16.  259 
 
 IS  nerc  to  be  taken  in  its  usual  and  obvious  signification.  It  is 
 then  plainly  stated  that  '  a  sentence  of  condemnation  has  passed 
 on  all  men  on  account  of  the  one  sin  of  Adam.'  This  is  one 
 of  the  clauses  which  can  hardly  be  forced  into  the  meaning 
 that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  merely  of  men  being 
 condemned,  because  it  was  the  means  of  their  being  led  into 
 sin.  Here  again  we  have  a  mere  exegetical  question  to  decide ; 
 not  a  matter  of  theory  or  deduction,  but  simply  of  exposition. 
 What  does  the  phrase  '  a  sentence  of  condemnation  by,  or  for 
 one  offence,'  in  this  connection,  mean?  The  common  answer 
 to  this  question  is,ftt  means  that  the  one  offence  was  the  ground 
 of  the  sentence.  Tnis  answer,  for  the  following  reasons,  appears 
 to  be  correct :  1.  It  is  the  simple  and  obvious  meaning  of  the 
 terms.  To  say  a  sentence  is  for  an  offence,  is,  in  ordinary  lan- 
 guage, to  say  that  it  is  on  account  of  the  offence ;  and  not  that 
 the  offence  is  the  cause  of  something  else,  which  is  the  ground 
 of  the  sentence.  Who,  uninfluenced  by  theological  prejudice, 
 would  imagine  that  the  apostle,  when  he  says  that  condemna- 
 tion for  the  offence  of  one  man  has  passed  on  all  men,  means 
 that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  occasion  of  our  sins,  on  account 
 of  which  we  are  condemned  ?  The  preposition  (iz),  here  trans- 
 lated by,  expresses  properly  the  idea  of  the  origin  of  one  thing 
 from  another;  and  is,  therefore,  used  to  indicate  almost  any 
 relation  in  which  a  cause  may  stand  to  an  effect.  The  logical 
 character  of  this  relation  depends,  of  course,  on  the  nature  of 
 the  subject  spoken  of.  In  the  phrases  "  faith  is  by  hearing" 
 (e|r  cbfo^c)  chap.  x.  17;  "  by  this  craft  [ix  zauzr^^  zr^^  ipyaaiaz) 
 we  have  our  wealth,"  Acts  xix.  25;  "our  sufficiency  is  of  God" 
 (sx  vol)  dsou,)  2  Cor.  iii.  5 ;  and  a  multitude  of  similar  cases,  the 
 general  idea  of  causation  is  expressed,  but  its  precise  character 
 differs  according  to  the  nature  of  the  subject.  In  the  former 
 of  these  examples  the  word  indicates  the  instrumental,  in  the 
 latter  the  efficient  cause.  But  when  it  is  said  that  "  a  man  is 
 not  justified  by  works"  (i^  ef^ycDU,)  Gal.  ii.  16;  that  the  purpose 
 of  election  "is  not  of  works,"  Rom.  ix.  11;  that  our  salvation 
 is  not  "by  works  of  righteousness  (if  epywu  tojv  iu  dcxaeoabi^r^) 
 which  we  have  done,"  Tit.  iii.  5;  and  in  a  hundred  similar 
 examples,  the  preposition  expresses  the  ground  or  reason.  We 
 are  not  elected.  3r  justified,  or  saved  on  account  of  our  works. 
 
260  ROMANS  V.  16. 
 
 In  like  manner,  when  it  is  said  we  are  condemned  5y,  or  fof 
 the  offence  of  one,  and  that  we  are  justified  for  the  righteous- 
 ness of  another,  the  meaning  obviously  is,  that  it  is  on  account 
 of  the  offence  we  are  condemned,  and  on  account  of  the  right- 
 eousness we  are  justified.  If  it  is  true,  therefore,  as  is  so  often 
 asserted,  that  the  apostle  here,  and  throughout  this  passage, 
 states  the  fact  merely  that  the  offence  of  Adam  has  led  to  our 
 condemnation,  without  explaining  the  mode  in  which  it  has  pro- 
 duced this  result,  it  must  be  because  language  cannot  express 
 the  idea.  The  truth  is,  however,  that  when  he  says  "the  sen- 
 tence was  by  one  offence"  {to  xpcjua  i^  hvo^,)  he  expresses  the 
 mode  of  our  condemnation  just  as  clearly  as  he  denies  one  mode 
 of  justification  by  saying  it  "is  not  by  works;"  and  as  he 
 affirms  another  by  saying  it  is  "by  the  righteousness  of  Christ." 
 2.  This  interpretation  is  not  only  the  simple  and  natural  mean- 
 ing of  the  words  in  themselves  considered,  but  is  rendered 
 necessary  by  the  context.  We  have,  in  this  verse,  the  idea  of 
 pardon  on  the  one  hand,  which  supposes  that  of  condemnation 
 on  the  other.  If  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse  means,  as  is 
 admitted,  that  we  are  pardoned  for  many  offences,  the  former 
 must  mean  that  we  are  condemned  for  one.  3.  The  whole 
 force  of  the  contrast  lies  in  this  very  idea.  The  antithesis  in 
 this  verse  is  evidently  between  the  07ie  offence  and  the  many 
 offences.  To  make  Paul  say  that  the  offence  of  Adam  was  the 
 means  of  involving  us  in  a  multitude  of  crimes,  from  all  of 
 which  Christ  saves  us,  is  to  make  the  evil  and  the  benefit 
 exactly  tantamount :  'Adam  leads  us  into  offences  from  which 
 Christ  delivers  us.'  Here  is  no  contrast  and  no  superiority. 
 Paul,  however,  evidently  means  to  assert  that  the  evil  from 
 which  Christ  saves  us,  is  far  greater  than  that  which  Adam  has 
 brought  upon  us.  According  to  the  simple  and  natural  inter 
 pretation  of  the  verse,  this  idea  is  retained :  'Adam  brought  the 
 condemnation  of  one  offence  only;  Christ  saves  us  from  that 
 oimany.'  4.  Add  to  these  considerations  the  obvious  meaning 
 of  the  corresponding  clauses  in  the  other  verses,  especially  in 
 ver.  19,  and  the  design  of  the  apostle  in  the  whole  passage,  so 
 often  referred  to,  and  it  seems  scarcely  possible  to  resist  the 
 evidence  in  favour  of  this  view  of  the  passage.  5.  This  inter- 
 pretation is  so  clearly  the   correct  one,   that  it  is  conceded 
 
ROMANS  V.  16.  261 
 
 oy  commentators  and  theologians  of  every  shade  of  doctrine. 
 "Justly  indeed,"  says  Koppe,  "on  account  of  one  oflFence, 
 many  are  subjected  to  punishment ;  but  by  divine  grace  many 
 are  freed  from  the  punishment  of  many  offences."  His  own 
 words  are,  "Jure  quidem  unius  delicti  causa  poenas  subeunt 
 irulti;  ex  gratia  ver6  divina  a  multorum  poenis  liberantur 
 beanturque  multi."  Flatt  says,  ^'- Kazdxpcfia  setzt  als  nicht 
 nothwendig  eigene  Verschuldung  voraus,  so  wie  das  gegentheil 
 duaicofxa  nicht  eigene  dcxaioauv/]  voraussetzt.  Um  einer  einzi- 
 gen  Siinde  willen  wurden  alle  dazu  verurtheilt,  den  ^di/aroi;, 
 (vs.  15,  17,)  zu  leiden."  That  is,  'Condemnation  does  not 
 necessarily  suppose  personal  transgression,  any  more  than  the 
 opposite,  justification,  presupposes  personal  righteousness.  On 
 account  of  one  single  sin,  all  are  condemned  to  suffer  death.' 
 So  Storr :  "  Damnatio  qua  propter  Adamum  tenemur,  unius 
 peccati  causa  damnatio  est."  'The  condemnation  which  we 
 suffer  on  account  of  Adam,  is  a  condemnation  on  account  of  one 
 sin.'  Whitby  expresses  the  meaning  thus :  "  The  judgment  was 
 by  one  sin  to  condemnation,  we  being  all  sentenced  to  death  on 
 account  of  Ad<im's  sin." 
 
 The  free  gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justification;  that  is, 
 the  free  gift  is  justification.  The  free  gift,  to  ds  j^dpiff/^xa,  the 
 act  of  grace  is  antithetical  to  xpc/jia,  the  judgment;  as  the  clauses 
 xpcjuLU  e/c  xavdxpijua  and  ydpiafia  Etc,  dcxaiu)[j.a,  [sentence  of  con- 
 demnation and  gratuitous  justification,)  are  opposed  to  each 
 other.  The  word  dcxai(v[xa  is  (i.  32)  righteous  judgment;  here, 
 as  antithetical  to  xazdxpc[ia,  condemnation.  It  means  justifica- 
 tion, which  is  a  righteous  judgment,  or  decision  of  a  judge, 
 pronouncing  one  to  be  just.  This  interpretation  suits  the  signi- 
 fication of  the  word,  and  is  to  be  preferred  to  making  it  mean 
 righteousness,  a  sense  which  the  word  has  in  ver.  18,  when 
 opposed  to  transgression,  and  interchanged  with  obedience. 
 This  justification  is  Ix  tzo/Jmu  TrapaTrzcopdrajv,  from  many 
 offences.  The  relation  indicated  by  ix,  in  the  first  clause, 
 where  it  is  said  'the  sentence  was  i^  Ivo'c,  for  one  offence,'  is 
 slightly  different  from  what  it  is  in  the  second  clause,  where  it 
 is  said  justification  is  ix  tzoXXwv  TiapaTzzcDpidtcov,  from  many 
 offences.  That  is,  sin  stands  in  a  different  relation  to  con- 
 demnation from  that  which  it  sustains  to  justification;  both, 
 
262  ROMANS  V.   L7. 
 
 however,  may  be  expressed  bj  the  same  preposition  Christ 
 has  done  far  more  than  remove  the  curse  pronounced  tn  us  for 
 the  one  sin  of  Adam;  he  procures  our  justification  from  our 
 own  innumerable  offences.  This  is  the  main  idea  presented  in 
 this  verse. 
 
 Verse  17.  For  if  hy  one  mans  offence,  &c.  The  connection 
 of  this  verse,  as  indicated  by  for,  is  with  ver.  16:  'We  are  jus- 
 tified by  Christ  not  only  from  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  but 
 from  our  own  innumerable  transgressions ;  for  if  death  reigned 
 over  us  for  one  offence,  much  more  shall  life  reign  through  one 
 who  is  none  other  and  no  less  than  Jesus  Christ.'  It  is  doubt- 
 ful, however,  whether  this  verse  is  a  mere  amplification  of  the 
 idea  of  ver.  15,  which,  in  import  and  structure,  it  so  much 
 resembles ;  or  whether  the  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  last  clause, 
 reigning  in  life;  so  that  the  point  of  the  difference  between 
 Adam  and  Christ,  as  here  indicated,  is,l  Christ  not  only  delivers 
 from  death,  but  bestows  eternal  life;  or,  finally,  whether  the 
 emphasis  is  to  be  laid  on  the  word  receive.  The  idea  would 
 then  be,  *If  we  are  thus  subject  to  death  for  an  offence,  in 
 which  we  had  no  personal  concern,  how  much  more  shall  we  be 
 saved  by  a  righteousness  which  we  voluntarily  embrace.'  This 
 appears  to  be  Calvin's  view,  who  says :  "  Ut  miseria  peccati 
 hgereditate  potiaris,  satis  est  esse  hominem,  residet  enim  in 
 carne  et  sanguine;  ut  Christi  justitia  fruaris,  fidelem  esse 
 necessarium  est,  quia  fide  acquiritur  ejus  consortium."  The 
 decision  of  these  questions  is  not  at  all  material  to  the  general 
 interpretation  of  the  passage.  Both  of  the  ideas  contained  in 
 the  two  latter  views  of  the  verse  are  probably  to  be  included. 
 By  one  mans  offence,  T(p  zou  Ivoc  TtapanzMfxarc,  hy  the  offence 
 of  the  one  (viz.  Adam)  death  reigned,  i.  e.  triumphed  over  all 
 men,  hy  one.  Here  again  the  dative  TtapanzMfxarc  has  a  causal 
 force,  and  the  assertion  of  the  apostle  is,  that  the  offence  of 
 Adam  was  the  cause  of  death  coming  on  all  men.  His  sin  was 
 not  the  cause  of  death  by  any  physical  efficiency ;  nor  as  the 
 mere  occasion  of  leading  men  to  incur  by  their  own  act  the 
 nenalty  of  death ;  nor  by  corrupting  the  nature  of  man,  which 
 corruption  is  the  ground  of  the  inflicted  curse;  but,  as  is 
 asserted  in  the  preceding  verse,  because  his  sin  was  the  ground 
 of  the  judicial   condemnation,   zb  xpifxa   e:V  xazdxptita,  which 
 
ROMANS  Y.  17.  263 
 
 passed  on  all  mankind.  If  that  is  so,  much  more,  sa^s  the 
 apostle,  shall  they  which  receive;  6:  Xa[i^dvovrs<:  maj  be  taken 
 substantively,  the  receivers;  or  the  present  participle,  those 
 receiving,  is  used  to  express  the  condition  on  which  the  enjoy- 
 ment of  the  blessing  is  suspended.  The  abundance  of  grace^ 
 the  abounding  grace,  the  grace  which,  in  ver.  15,  is  said 
 [sKspiaasuae)  hath  abounded  towards  us.  This  grace  is  the 
 unmerited  love  of  God,  which  is  the  source  of  the  gift  of  right- 
 eousness, dioped  Z7fi  dcxatoa'jvr^z,  i.  e.  righteousness  is  the  gift 
 offered  and  received.  That  righteousness  here  does  not  mean 
 holiness,  is  evident  from  the  constant  use  of  the  word  by  Paul 
 in  a  different  sense  in  this  epistle;  from  the  fact  that  it  is 
 pardon,  justification,  justifying  righteousness,  not  sanctification, 
 that  Paul  in  the  context  represents  as  the  blessing  received 
 from  Christ;  and  because  it  is  in  this  verse  opposed  to  the 
 reigning  of  death,  or  state  of  condemnation  on  account  of  the 
 offence  of  Adam.  Professor  Stuart,  therefore,  in  accordance 
 with  the  great  majority  of  commentators,  very  correctly  states 
 the  sentiment  of  the  verse  thus :  "  For  if  all  are  in  a  state  of 
 condemnation  by  reason  of  the  offence  of  one,  much  more  shall 
 those  towards  whom  abundance  of  mercy  and  pardoning  graca 
 are  shown,  be  redeemed  from  a  state  of  condemnation,  and 
 advanced  to  a  state  of  happiness."  The  general  sentiment  of 
 the  verse  is  thus  correctly  exhibited;  but  some  of  the  more 
 prominent  terms  do  not  appear  to  have  their  full  force  assigned 
 to  them.  They  which  receive  the  abundant  grace,  expresses 
 more  than  that  this  grace  is  manifested  to  them ;  all  such  do 
 not  reign  in  life.  This  phrase  evidently  implies  the  voluntary 
 reception  of  the  offered  boon.  The  gift  of  righteousness,  too,  is 
 something  more  than  pardoning  grace.  It  is  that  which  is 
 expressed  in  ver.  15,  by  the  free  gift;  and  in  ver.  16,  by  the 
 free  gift  unto  justification.  It  is,  therefore,  the  gift  of  justifica- 
 tion ;  or  what  is  but  another  method  of  stating  the  same  idea. 
 It  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ  by  which  we  are  justified,  since 
 the  gift  of  justification  includes  the  gift  of  Christ's  righteous- 
 ness. The  meaning  of  the  verse  consequently  is,  '  If  on  account 
 of  the  offence  of  one  man  we  are  condemned,  much  more  shall 
 those  who  receive  the  righteousness  graciously  offered  to  them 
 in  the  gospel,  not  only  be  delivered  from  condemnation,  but 
 
264  ROMANS  V.  18. 
 
 also  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ;'  that  is,  be  gloriously 
 exalted  in  the  participation  of  that  life  of  holiness  and  com- 
 munion with  God  which  is  the  end  of  our  being. 
 
 By  one,  Jesus  Christ.  As  it  was  by  one  man,  antecedently 
 to  any  concurrence  of  our  own,  that  we  were  brought  into  a 
 state  of  condemnation,  so  it  is  by  one  man,  without  any  merit 
 of  our  own,  that  we  are  delivered  from  this  state.  If  the  one 
 event  has  happened,  much  more  may  we  expect  the  other  to 
 occur.  If  we  are  thus  involved  in  the  condemnation  of  a  sin  in 
 which  we  had  no  personal  concern,  much  more  shall  we,  who 
 voluntarily  receive  the  gift  of  righteousness,  be  not  only  saved 
 from  the  consequences  of  the  fall,  but  be  made  partakers  of 
 eternal  life. 
 
 Verse  18.  Therefore,  as  hy  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came 
 on  all  men  to  condemnation;  even  so,  &c.  The  words  d.pa  ohv 
 {therefore)  are  the  inferential  particles  so  often  used  in  Paul's 
 epistles,  at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence,  contrary  to  the  ordinary 
 classical  usage — vii.  3,  25,  viii.  12,  ix.  16,  &c.  They  frequently 
 serve  to  introduce  a  summation  of  what  had  previously  been 
 said.  The  inference  from  the  whole  discussion,  from  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  epistle  to  ver.  12  of  this  chapter,  is  introduced  in 
 that  verse  by  Sea.  zouzo,  wherefore.  It  followed,  from  all  the 
 apostle  had  said  of  the  method  of  justification  through  Jesus 
 Christ,  that  there  is  a  striking  analogy  between  our  fall  in 
 Adam  and  our  restoration  in  Christ.  The  carrying  out  of  this 
 comparison  was  interrupted,  in  the  first  place,  to  prove,  in 
 vs.  13,  14,  the  position  assumed  in  ver.  12,  that  all  men  are 
 subject  to  death  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam ;  and,  in  the 
 second  place,  to  limit  and  explain  the  analogy  asserted  to  exist 
 between  Christ  and  Adam,  at  the  close  rf  ver.  14.  This  is 
 done  in  vs.  15 — 17.  Having  thus  fortified  and  explained  his 
 meaning,  the  apostle  now  states  the  case  in  full.  The  word 
 therefore,  at  the  beginning  of  ver.  12,  marks  an  inference 
 from  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  epistle;  the  corresponding 
 words  here  are  also  strictly  inferential.  It  had  been  proved 
 that  we  are  justified  by  the  righteousness  of  one  man,  and  it 
 had  also  been  proved  that  we  are  under  condemnation  for  the 
 offence  of  one.  Therefore,  as  we  are  condemned,  even  so  are 
 we  Justified. 
 
ROMANS  V.  18.  26.') 
 
 It  will  be  remarked,  from  the  manner  in  which  they  are 
 orinted,  that  the  words  judgment  came,  in  the  first  clause  of 
 this  verse,  and  the  free  gift  cxme,  in  the  second,  have  nothing 
 to  answer  to  them  in  the  original.  That  they  are  correctly  and 
 necessarily  supplied,  is  obvious  from  a  reference  to  ver.  16, 
 where  these  elliptical  phrases  occur  in  full.  The  construction 
 in  the  clauses  [xpc/xa)  s/f  xazdxpifjta  and  [ydpcaficL)  ec<;  dixaiioacv 
 ^(orj(;,  is  the  same  as  in  ver.  16.  Judgment  unto  condemnation 
 is  a  sentence  of  condemnation,  and  the  free  gift  unto  justiiica- 
 tion  is  gratuitous  justification.  The  sentence  is  said  to  be  di' 
 hvb^  Tzapanzcofxarot;,  through  the  offence  of  one,  and  the  justifica- 
 tion is  dc  kvbz  dixcua)p.azo^,  through  the  righteousness  of  one. 
 In  ver.  16,  this  word  dcxaio)[xa  is  rendered  justification,  because 
 it  is  there  in  antithesis  to  xazdxpcpLa,  condemnation;  it  is  here 
 properly  rendered  righteousness,  because  it  is  in  antithesis  to 
 napditz(D[j.a,  offence,  and  because  what  is  here  expressed  by 
 daaUofxa,  is  in  ver.  17  expressed  by  uttoxotj,  obedience.  This 
 explanation  is  consistent  with  the  signification  of  the  Avord 
 which  means  a  righteous  thing,  whether  it  be  an  act,  a  judg- 
 ment, or  an  ordinance.  In  Rev.  xix.  8,  za.  dcxaccopaza  zd)U 
 SipcDV  is  correctly  rendered  the  righteousness  of  the  saints. 
 Luther  translates  the  word  in  the  passage  before  us,  gerecht- 
 igkeit,  agreeing  with  our  translators.  Calvin  renders  it  justifi- 
 catio,  'by  the  justification  of  one.'  In  this  interpretation  many 
 of  the  modern  commentators  concur.  The  principal  argument 
 for  this  explanation  of  the  word  is,  that  it  is  used  in  that  sense 
 in  ver.  16 ;  but  there,  as  just  remarked,  it  is  opposed  to  xazd- 
 xp'.fia,  condemnation,  while  here  it  is  opposed  to  itapditzcopa, 
 offence.  As  the  word  may  mean  either  justification  or  right- 
 eousness, that  sense  should  be  adopted  which  suits  the  immediate 
 context.  Many  of  the  older  theologians  render  it  satisfaction; 
 according  to  the  Aristotelian  definition,  dcxaiojpa  zb  snavopd^ojfxa 
 zo~j  ddexijfiazoi:.  This  gives  a  good  sense :  '  By  the  satisfaction 
 of  one,  the  free  gift  has  come  on  all  men  unto  justification  of 
 life.'  But  this,  although  in  accordance  with  the  strict  classical 
 use  of  the  word,  is  not  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  Bible, 
 and  it  is  not  so  suitable  to  the  context. 
 
 Instead  of  rendering  di'  Ivoc  napanziofiazot;,  hy  the  offence  of 
 one,  and  bt  ivo^  dixacwjuazo!;,  hy  the  righteousness  of  one,  a  large 
 
266  ROMANS  Y.  18. 
 
 class  of  commentators  render  them,  'by  one  offence,'  and  'by 
 one  righteousness.'  This  does  not  materially  alter  the  sense, 
 and  it  is  favoured  by  the  absence  of  the  article  before  kvoQ.  In 
 vs.  17,  19,  it  is  Tou  Ivo'c,  the  one.  In  favour  of  the  version  in 
 our  English  translation,  however,  it  may  be  urged:  1.  That 
 A.  Ivoc,  throughout  the  whole  context  in  vs.  12,  15,  17,  19,  is 
 masculine,  except  in  ver.  16,  where  it  is  opposed  to  the  neuter 
 7:o)l(Jbu.  The  omission  of  the  article  is  sufficiently  accounted 
 for  from  the  fact  that  the  one  intended,  viz.  Adam,  had  been 
 before  distinctly  designated.  'n2.  The  comparison  is  between 
 Adam  and  Christ,  rather  than  between  the  sin  of  the  one  and 
 the  righteousness  of  the  other.  3.  The  expression,  one  right- 
 eous7iess,  is  awkward  and  unusual ;  and  if  Ivoc  dexauopLaro^  be 
 rendered  one  righteous  act,  then  it  is  inappropriate,  inasmuch  as 
 we  are  not  justified  by  one  act  of  Christ,  but  by  his  whole  life 
 of  obedience  and  suffering.  4.  The  natural  opposition  between 
 one  and  all,  requires  Ivo^  to  be  masculine :  '  It  was  by  the 
 offence  of  one  man  that  all  men  were  condemned.' 
 
 That  the  apostle  here  again  teaches  that  there  is  a  causal 
 relation  between  the  sin  of  Adam  and  the  condemnation  of  his 
 race,  cannot  be  denied.  The  only  possible  question  is,  What  is 
 the  nature  of  that  relation,  as  expressed  by  dcd  1  It  was  dc  hoc 
 TtapanrojfjiaTOi;,  '■hy  the  offence  of  one  that  judgment  came  upon 
 all  men.'  Does  this  mean  that  the  offence  of  one  was  simply 
 the  occasion  of  all  being  condemned,  or  that  it  was  the  ground 
 or  reason  of  their  condemnation  ?  It  is  of  course  admitted  that 
 the  proper  force  of  dcd  with  the  genitive  is,  hy  means  of,  and 
 with  the  accusative,  on  account  of.  As  the  genitive  and  not  the 
 accusative  is  here  used,  it  might  seem  that  the  apostle  design- 
 edly avoided  saying  that  all  were  condemned  {dcd  to  rrapdirzcopa 
 TOO  Ivo'c)  on  account  of  the  offence  of  one.  But  there  is  no 
 necessity  for  departing  from  the  ordinary  force  of  the  preposi- 
 tion with  the  genitive,  in  order  to  justify  the  interpretation 
 given  above.  The  relation  of  a  means  to  an  end,  depends  on 
 the  nature  of  that  means.  To  say  that  condemnation  is  through, 
 or  by  means  of  an  offence,  is  to  say  that  the  offence  is  the 
 rational  or  judicial  means,  i.  e.  the  ground  of  the  condemnation. 
 No  man  doubts  that  when,  in  ver.  12,  the  apostle  says,  that 
 death  was  {3cd  tyjc  d/xapTcac)  by  means  of  sin,  he  means  that  it 
 
ROMANS  V.  18.  267 
 
 was  on  account  of  sin.  This  is  not  a  solitary  case.  In  chap, 
 iii.  24,  we  are  said  to  be  justified  [Sia  tyj^  drzoXorpwaBio^)  through 
 the  redemption  of  Christ,  i.  e.  by  means  of  the  redemption ;  but 
 the  ransom  paid  by  Christ,  in  being  the  means,  was  the  ground 
 of  our  redemption.  So  in  the  familiar  phrases,  "  through  his 
 blood,"  Eph.  i.  7,  Col.  i.  20;  "through  his  death,"  Rom.  v.  10, 
 Col.  i.  22;  "by  his  cross,"  Eph.  ii.  16;  "by  the  sacrifice  of 
 himself,"  Heb.  ix.  26;  "through  the  oifering  of  the  body  of 
 Jesus,"  and  in  many  similar  expressions  the  preposition  retains 
 its  proper  force  with  the  genitive,  as  indicating  the  means,  and 
 yet  the  means,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  is  the  ground  or 
 reason.  Thus  also,  in  this  immediate  connection,  we  have  the 
 expressions,  '■'hy  the  righteousness  of  one"  all  are  justified,  and 
 "6?/  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  We 
 have,  therefore,  in  this  single  passage,  no  less  than  three  cases, 
 vs.  12,  18,  19,  in  which  this  preposition  with  the  genitive  indi- 
 cates such  a  means  to  an  end,  as  the  ground  or  reason  on 
 account  of  which  something  is  given  or  performed.  All  this  is 
 surely  sufiicient  to  prove  that  it  may,  in  the  case  before  us, 
 express  the  ground  why  the  sentence  of  condemnation  has 
 passed  on  all  men.  That  such,  in  this  connection,  must  be  its 
 meaning,  appears,  1.  From  the  nature  of  the  subject  spoken  of. 
 To  say  that  one  man  has  been  corrupted  by  another,  may 
 indeed  express  very  generally,  that  one  was  the  cause  of  the 
 corruption  of  the  other,  without  giving  any  information  as  to  the 
 mode  in  which  the  result  was  secured.  But  to  say  that  a  man 
 was  justified  by  means  of  a  good  action,  or  that  he  was  con- 
 demned by  means  of  a  bad  one ;  or  plainer  still,  in  Paul's  own 
 language,  that  a  condemnatory  sentence  came  upon  him  by 
 means  of  that  action ;  according  to  all  common  rules  of  inter- 
 pretation, naturally  means  that  such  action  was  the  reason  of 
 the  sentence.  2.  From  the  antithesis.  If  the  phrase,  "by  the 
 righteousness  of  one  all  are  justified,"  means,  as  is  admitted, 
 that  this  righteousness  is  the  ground  of  our  justification,  the 
 opposite  clause,  "by  the  ofience  of  one  all  are  condemned," 
 must  have  a  similar  meaning.  3.  The  point  of  the  comparison, 
 as  frequently  remarked  before,  lies  in  this  very  idea.  The  fact 
 that  Adam's  sin  was  the  occasion  of  our  sinning,  and  thus 
 incurring  the  Divine  displeasure,  is  no  illustration  of  tho  fact 
 
268  ROMANS  V.  18. 
 
 that  Christ's  righteousness,  and  not  our  own  merit,  is  the  ground 
 of  our  acceptance.  There  would  be  some  plausibility  in  this 
 interpretation,  if  it  were  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel  that  Christ's 
 righteousness  is  the  occasion  of  our  becoming  holy,  and  that  on 
 the  ground  of  this  personal  holiness  we  are  justified.  But  this 
 not  being  the  case,  the  interpretation  in  question  cannot  be 
 adopted  in  consistency  with  the  design  of  the  apostle,  or  the 
 common  rules  of  exposition.  4.  This  clause  is  nearly  identical 
 with  the  corresponding  one  of  ver.  16,  "  the  judgment  was  by 
 one  (offence)  to  condemnation."  But  that  clause,  as  shown 
 above,  is  made,  almost  by  common  consent,  to  mean  that  tho 
 offence  was  the  ground  of  the  condemnatory  sentence.  Such, 
 therefore,  must  be  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  in  this  verse; 
 compare  also  vs.  15,  17,  19. 
 
 The  second  question  of  importance  respecting  this  verse  is, 
 whether  the  all  men  of  the  second  clause  is  co-extensive  with 
 the  all  men  of  the  first.  Are  the  all  who  are  justified  for  the 
 righteousness  of  Christ,  the  all  who  are  condemned  for  the  sin 
 of  Adam  ?  In  regard  to  this  point,  it  may  be  remarked,  in  the 
 first  place,  that  no  inference  can  be  fairly  drawn  in  favour  of  an 
 affirmative  answer  to  this  question,  from  the  mere  universality 
 of  the  expression.  Nothing  is  more  familiar  to  the  readers  of 
 the  Scriptures  than  that  such  universal  terms  are  to  be  limited 
 by  the  nature  of  the  subject  or  the  context.  Thus,  John  iii.  24, 
 it  is  said  of  Christ,  "all  men  come  to  him;"  John  xii.  32,  Christ 
 says,  "I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me."  Thus 
 the  expressions,  "all  the  world  should  be  taxed,"  "all  Judea," 
 "all  Jerusalem,"  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  limited. 
 In  a  multitude  of  cases,  the  words  all,  all  things,  mean  the 
 all  spoken  of  in  the  context,  and  not  all,  without  exception ; 
 see  Eph.  i.  10,  Col.  i.  20,  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  51,  2  Cor.  v.  14,  &c. 
 2.  This  limitation  is  always  implied  when  the  Scriptures  else- 
 where speak  of  a  necessary  condition  connected  with  the  bless- 
 ing to  which  all  are  said  to  attain.  It  is  everywhere  taught 
 that  faith  is  necessary  to  justification ;  and,  therefore,  when  it 
 is  said  "all  are  justified,"  it  must  mean  all  believers.  'By 
 him,"  says  the  apostle,  "aZ^  that  believe  are  justified  from  all 
 things,"  &c.  Acts  xiii.  39.  3.  As  if  to  prevent  the  possibility 
 of  mistake,  Paul,  in  ver.  17,  says  it  is  those  who  "  receive  the 
 
ROMANS  Y.  18.  269 
 
 gift  of  righteousness"  that  reign  in  life.  4.  Even  the  all  men, 
 in  the  first  clause,  must  be  limited  to  those  descended  from 
 Adam  "by  ordinary  generation."  It  is  not  absolutely  all.  The 
 man  Christ  Jesus  must  be  excepted.  The  plain  meaning  is,  all 
 connected  with  Adam,  and  all  connected  with  Christ.  5.  A 
 reference  to  the  similar  passage  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22,  confirms  this 
 interpretation,  "As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be 
 made  alive;"  that  is,  shall  be  made  partakers  of  a  glorious  resur- 
 rection and  of  eternal  life.  Thus  the  original  word  {^(do-oc/j&ij- 
 aovzac)  and  the  context  require  the  latter  clause  of  that  verse 
 to  be  understood.  The  all  there  intended  are  immediately  called 
 "they  that  are  Christ's,"  ver.  23,  i.  e.  all  connected  with  him, 
 and  not  numerically  the  all  that  die  in  Adam.  6.  This  inter- 
 pretation is  necessary,  because  it  is  impossible,  with  any  regard 
 to  scriptural  usage  or  truth,  to  carry  the  opposite  interpretation 
 through.  In  this  whole  passage  there  are  two  classes  of  per- 
 sons spoken  of — those  connected  with  Adam,  and  those  con- 
 nected with  Christ.  Of  the  former,  it  is  said  "they  die," 
 ver.  15;  "they  are  condemned,"  vs.  16,  18;  "they  are  made 
 sinners,"  ver.  19,  by  the  offence  of  one  man.  Of  the  latter  it 
 is  said,  that  to  them  "  the  grace  of  God  and  the  gift  by  grace 
 hath  abounded,"  ver.  15;  that  "they  are  freely  justified  from 
 many  offences,"  vs.  16,  18;  that  "they  shall  reign  in  life 
 through  Christ  Jesus,"  ver.  17;  that  "they  are  regarded  and 
 treated  as  righteous,"  ver.  19.  If  these  things  can  be  said  of 
 all  men,  of  impenitent  sinners  and  hardened  reprobates,  what 
 remains  to  be  said  of  the  people  of  God?  It  is  not  possible  so 
 to  eviscerate  these  declarations  as  to  make  them  contain  nothing 
 more  than  that  the  chance  of  salvation  is  offered  to  all  men. 
 To  say  that  a  man  is  justified,  is  not  to  say  that  he  has  the 
 opportunity  of  justifying  himself;  and  to  say  that  a  man  shall 
 reign  in  life,  is  not  to  say  he  may  possibly  be  saved.  Who  ever 
 announces  to  a  congregation  of  sinners,  that  they  are  all  justi- 
 fied, they  are  all  constituted  righteous,  they  all  have  the  justifi- 
 cation of  life?  The  interpretation  which  requires  all  these 
 strong  and  plain  declarations  to  be  explained  in  a  sense  which 
 they  confessedly  have  nowhere  else  in  the  Bible,  and  which 
 makes  them  mean  hardly  anything  at  all,  is  at  variance  with 
 every  sound  principle  of  construction.     If  the  all  in  the  latter 
 
270  ROMANS  V.  19. 
 
 part  of  the  verse  is  co-extensive  with  the  all  in  the  former, 
 the  passage  of  necessity  teaches  universal  salvation;  for  it  ii? 
 impossible  that  to  he  justified,  constituted  righteous,  can  mean 
 simply  that  justification  is  offered  to  all  men.  The  all  who  are 
 justified  are  saved.  If  therefore  the  all  means  all  men,  the 
 apostle  teaches  that  all  men  are  saved.  And  this  is  the  use  to 
 which  many  Universalists  have  put  the  passage.  As,  however, 
 not  only  the  Scriptures  generally,  but  Paul  himself,  distinctly 
 teach  that  all  men  are  not  to  be  saved,  as  in  2  Thess.  i.  9,  this 
 interpretation  cannot  be  admitted  by  any  who  acknowledge  the 
 inspiration  of  the  Bible.  It  is  moreover  an  unnatural  interpre- 
 tation, even  if  the  attention  be  limited  to  this  one  passage ; 
 because  as  death  on  account  of  Adam  supposes  union  with 
 Adam,  so  life  on  account  of  Christ  supposes  union  with  Christ. 
 It  is  all  who  are  in  Adam  who  are  condemned  for  his  offence, 
 and  the  all  who  are  in  Christ  who  are  justified  by  his  righteous- 
 ness. The  modern  German  commentators,  even  those  who  dc 
 not  hesitate  to  differ  from  the  apostle,  admit  this  to  be  the 
 meaning  of  the  passage.  Thus  Meyer  says,  Die  TzdvTSt;  dn&pct)- 
 7T0C  in  the  first  clause,  are  die  gesammtheit  der  Adams-genera- 
 tion, and  in  the  second  clause,  die  gesammtheit  der  Christus- 
 generation.  Philippi  says,  "The  limitation  of  the  Ttdvre^ 
 dvd^ptoTro:  is  of  necessity  to  be  assumed.  It  can  only  mean  all 
 who  believe.  .  .  .  The  apostle  views,  on  the  one  hand,  the  gene- 
 ration of  those  lost  in  Adam,  and  on  the  other,  the  generation 
 of  those  saved  in  Christ." 
 
 Verse  19.  For  as  hy  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
 sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous. 
 This  verse  presents  the  doctrine  of  the  preceding  one  in  a  some- 
 what different  form.  As  in  the  doctrine  of  justification,  there 
 are  the  two  ideas  of  the  ascription  of  righteousness,  and  treat- 
 ing as  righteous ;  and  in  the  doctrine  of  the  fall,  the  ascription 
 of  guilt  (legal  responsibility,)  and  the  treating  all  men  as  guilty ; 
 80  either  of  these  ideas  is  frequently  presented  more  promi- 
 nently than  the  other.  In  ver.  18,  it  is  the  latter,  in  each  case, 
 which  is  made  most  conspicuous,  and  in  ver.  19,  the  former.  In 
 ver.  18,  it  is  our  being  treated  as  sinners  for  the  sin  of  Adam, 
 and  our  being  treated  as  righteous  for  the  righteousness  of 
 Christ,  that  is  most  prominently  presented.     In  ver.  19,  on  the 
 
ROMANS  V.  19.  271 
 
 contrary,  it  is  our  being  regarded  as  sinners  for  the  disobedience 
 of  Adam,  and  our  being  regarded  as  righteous  for  the  obedience 
 of  Christ,  that  are  rendered  most  conspicuous.  Hence,  Paul 
 begins  this  verse  with  for:  '  We  are  treated  as  sinners  for  the 
 offence  of  Adam,  for  "we  are  regarded  as  sinners  on  his 
 account,'  &c.  Though  the  one  idea  seems  thus  to  be  the  more 
 prominent  in  ver.  18,  and  the  other  in  ver.  19,  yet  it  is  only  a 
 greater  degree  of  prominency  to  the  one,  and  not  the  exclusion 
 of  the  other,  that  is  in  either  case  intended. 
 
 By  one  maris  disobedience.  The  disobedience  here  is  evidently 
 the  first  transgression  of  Adam,  spoken  of  in  ver.  lo,  as  the  one 
 offence.  The  obedience  of  Christ  here  stands  for  all  his  work 
 in  satisfying  the  demands  of  the  law;  his  obedience  unto  and 
 in  death;  that  by  which  the  law  was  magnified  and  rendered 
 honourable,  as  well  as  satisfied.  From  its  opposition  to  the 
 disobedience  of  Adam,  his  obedience,  strictly  speaking,  rather 
 than  his  sufferings,  seems  to  be  the  prominent  idea.  "  Paulus 
 unterscheidet  in  dem  Werke  Christi  diese  beiden  Momente,  das 
 Thun  und  das  Leiden."  Neander.  'Paul  distinguishes,  in  the 
 work  of  Christ,  these  two  elements — doing  and  suffering.' 
 GeschicJite  der  Pjianzung,  kc,  p.  543.  In  the  paragraph 
 which  follows  this  statement,  Neander  presents  the  old  distinc- 
 tion between  the  active  and  passive  obedience  of  Christ,  very 
 nearly  in  its  usual  form.  On  p.  546,  he  says,  "Dies  heilige 
 Leben  Christi  will  Gott  als  That  der  ganzen  Menschheit 
 betrachten."  'God  regards  the  holy  life  of  Christ  as  the  act 
 of  all  men.'  The  words  the  many^  in  both  clauses  of  this  verse, 
 are  obviously  equivalent  to  the  all  of  the  corresponding  clauses 
 of  ver.  18,  and  are  to  be  explained  in  the  same  manner. 
 
 The  words  Si/j.aprcv?iOc  xazeazddr^aav  oi  ttoIXoi,  rendered  "  the 
 many  were  made  sinners,"  properly  mean,  were  set  down  in  the 
 rank  or  category  of  sinners.  Kad-iarrjfic  never,  in  the  New  Tes- 
 tament, means  to  make,  in  the  sense  of  effecting,  or  causing  a 
 person  or  thing,  to  be  in  its  character  or  nature  other  than  it 
 was  before.  Ka&cardvae  rcva  ^jiapzioXov  does  not  mean  to  make 
 one  sinful,  but  to  set  him  down  as  such,  to  regard  or  appoint 
 him  to  be  of  that  class.  Thus,  when  Christ  is  said  to  have  been 
 "constituted  the  Son  of  God,"  he  was  not  made  Son,  but 
 declared  to  be  such:   "Who  constituted  thee  a  ruler  or  judge?" 
 
272  ROMANS  V.  19. 
 
 i.  e.  Who  appointed  thee  to  that  oflfice  ?  So,  "  Whom  his  lord 
 made  ruler."  When,  therefore,  the  apostle  says,  that  the 
 many  were  {xazeazd&Tjaav)  constituted  sinners  by  the  disobedi- 
 ence of  Adam,  it  cannot  mean,  that  the  many  thereby  were 
 rendered  sinful,  but  that  his  disobedience  was  the  ground  of 
 their  being  placed  in  the  category  of  sinners.  It  constituted  a 
 good  and  sufficient  reason  for  so  regarding  and  treating  them. 
 The  same  remark  applies,  of  course,  to  the  other  clause  of  this 
 verse:  otxouoc  xaraaza^ijaovTac  ol  izoXXoi.  This  cannot  mean, 
 that  by  the  obedience  of  one  the  many  shall  be  made  holy.  It 
 can  only  mean,  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  was  the  ground  on 
 which  the  many  are  to  be  placed  in  the  category  of  the  right- 
 eous, i.  e.  shall  be  so  regarded  and  treated.  It  is  not  our 
 personal  righteousness  which  makes  us  righteous,  but  the 
 imputation  of  the  obedience  of  Christ.  And  the  sense  in  which 
 we  are  here  declared  to  be  sinners,  is  not  that  we  are  such  per- 
 sonally, (which  indeed  is  true,)  but  by  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
 disobedience. 
 
 Of  course  the  several  interpretations  above  mentioned  are 
 applied  to  this  verse.  1.  That  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  mere 
 occasion  of  other  men  becoming  sinners ;  Avhether  this  was  by 
 the  force  of  example,  or  by  an  unfavourable  change  in  theii 
 external  circumstances,  or  in  some  other  unexplained  manner, 
 Deing  left  undecided.  2.  That  in  virtue  of  community,  or 
 numerical  oneness  of  nature  between  Adam  and  his  posterity, 
 his  act  was  strictly  their  act,  and  made  them  sinners  as  it  made 
 him  a  sinner.  3.  That  as  the  apostasy  of  Adam  involved  a 
 corruption  of  nature,  that  corruption  was  transmitted  to  his 
 descendants,  by  the  general  physical  law  of  propagation. 
 4.  That  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  judicial  ground  of  the  con- 
 demnation of  his  race.  They  were  by  his  sin  constituted  sin- 
 ners in  a  legal  or  forensic  sense ;  as  by  the  righteousness  of 
 Christ  we  are  constituted  legally  righteous. 
 
 That  this  last  is  the  true  interpretation,  is  plain,  1.  Because 
 it  is  in  accordance  with  usage.  To  make  clean,  to  make  unclean, 
 to  make  righteous,  to  make  guilty,  are  the  constant  expressions 
 for  regarding  and  treating  as  clean,  unclean,  righteous,  or  un- 
 righteous. 2.  The  expression,  to  make  sin,  and  to  make  righteous- 
 ness^ occurring  in  a  corresponding  sense,  illustrate  and  confirm 
 
ROMANS  V.  19.  273 
 
 this  interpretation.  Thus  in  2  Cor.  v.  21,  Christ  is  said  to  be 
 "made  sin,"  i.  e.  regarded  and  treated  as  a  sinner,  "that  we 
 might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,"  i.  e.  that  we 
 might  be  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God. 
 on  his  account.  3.  The  antithesis  is  here  so  plain  as  to  be  of 
 itself  decisive.  "To  be  made  righteous"  is,  accordin";  to  Pro- 
 fessor  Stuart,  "to  be  justified,  pardoned,  regarded  and  treated 
 as  righteous."  With  what  show  of  consistency  then  can  it 
 be  denied  that  "to  be  made  sinners,"  in  the  opposite  clause, 
 means  to  be  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  ?  If  one  part  of 
 the  verse  speaks  of  justification,  the  other  must  speak  of  con- 
 demnation. 4.  As  so  often  before  remarked,  the  analogy 
 between  the  case  of  Adam  and  Christ  requires  this  interpreta- 
 tion. If  the  first  clause  means  either  that  the  disobedience  of 
 Adam  was  the  occasion  of  our  committing  sin,  or  that  it  was  the 
 cause  of  our  becoming  inherently  corrupt,  and  on  the  ground  of 
 these  sins,  or  of  this  corruption,  being  condemned;  then  must 
 the  other  clause  mean  that  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  the  cause 
 of  our  becoming  holy,  or  performing  good  works,  on  the  ground 
 of  which  we  are  justified.  But  this  confessedly  is  not  the  mean- 
 ing of  the  apostle.  If  then  the  same  words,  in  the  same  con- 
 nection, and  the  same  grammatical  construction,  have  the  same 
 meaning,  the  interpretation  given  above  must  be  correct.  5.  The 
 design  of  the  apostle  tc  illustrate  the  great  doctrine  of  the 
 gospel,  that  men,  although  in  themselves  ungodly,  are  regarded 
 and  treated  as  righteous  for  Christ's  sake,  demands  this  inter- 
 pretation. 6.  This  view  of  the  passage,  so  obviously  required 
 by  the  usage  of  the  words  and  the  context,  is,  as  remarked 
 above  on  ver.  16,  adopted  by  commentators  of  every  class,  as 
 to  theological  opinion.  See  the  passages  .there  quoted.  '■'■The 
 many  are  here  again  all,  who,  from  the  opposition  to  the  one, 
 are  in  this  place,  as  in  ver.  15,  denominated  from  their  great 
 number.  These  have  without  exception  become  sinners  {d.[iap- 
 TwXoc  xareard&r^aav,)  not  in  reference  to  their  own  inward  cor- 
 ruption, of  which  Paul  is  not  here  speaking,  but  in  reference  to 
 their  guilt  (Strafwurdigkeit)  and  actual  punishment  on  account 
 of  Adam's  sin."*  Even  Flatt,  whose  general  view  of  the  pas- 
 sage would  lead  to  a  difi"erent  interpretation,  gives,  as  a  correct 
 *  Zachariae.  P^blische  Theologie,  Vol.  II.  p.  388. 
 
 18 
 
274  ROMANS  V.  19. 
 
 exhibition  of  the  meaning  of  the  apostle,  "As  on  account  of  the 
 disobedience  of  one  the  many  are  treated  as  sinners,  so  on 
 account  of  the  obedience  of  one  shall  the  many  be  treated  as 
 righteous."  Storr  also  renders  the  first  clause,  "They  were 
 regarded  and  treated  as  sinners;"  this,  he  says,  must  be  its 
 meaning,  from  its  opposition  to  the  words  "were  constituted 
 righteous,"  which  obviously  express  the  idea  of  justification, 
 and  also  from  the  use  of  the  word  condemnation  in  the  corres- 
 ponding clause  of  ver.  18.  These  writers  are  referred  to  rather 
 than  Calvinistic  commentators,  to  show  how  entirely  destitute 
 of  foundation  is  the  reproach,  that  the  interpretation  given 
 above  is  the  result  of  theological  prejudice. 
 
 The  meaning  then  of  the  whole  passage  is  this :  By  one  man 
 sin  entered  into  the  world,  or  men  were  brought  to  stand  in  the 
 relation  of  sinners  to  God;  death  consequently  passed  on  all, 
 because  for  the  offence  of  that  one  man  they  were  all  regarded 
 and  treated  as  sinners.  That  this  is  really  the  case  is  plain, 
 because  the  execution  of  the  penalty  of  a  law  cannot  be  more 
 extensive  than  its  violation ;  and  consequently,  if  all  are  subject 
 to  penal  evils,  all  are  regarded  as  sinners  in  the  sight  of  God. 
 This  universality  in  the  infliction  of  penal  evil  cannot  be 
 accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  the  violation  of  the  law  of 
 Moses,  since  men  were  subject  to  such  evil  before  that  law  was 
 given ;  nor  yet  on  account  of  the  violation  of  the  more  general 
 law  written  on  the  heart,  since  even  they  are  subject  to  this 
 evil,  who  have  never  personally  sinned  at  all.  We  must  con- 
 clude, therefore,  that  men  are  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners 
 on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 
 
 He  is,  therefore,  a  type  of  Christ.  The  cases,  however,  are 
 not  entirely  analogous ;  for  if  it  is  consistent  with  the  Divine 
 character,  that  we  should  suffer  for  what  Adam  did,  how  much 
 more  may  we  expect  to  be  made  happy  for  what  Christ  has 
 done !  Besides,  we  are  condemned  for  one  sin  only,  on  Adam's 
 account;  whereas  Christ  saves  us  not  only  from  the  evils  con- 
 sequent on  that  transgression,  but  also  from  the  punishment  of 
 our  own  innumerable  offences.  Now,  if  for  the  ofience  of  one, 
 death  thus  triumphs  over  all,  how  much  more  shall  they  who 
 receive  the  grace  of  the  gospel,  not  only  be  saved  from  evil,  but 
 reign  in  life  through  Christ  Jesus  ! 
 
ROMANS   V.   19.  275 
 
 Wherefore,  as  on  account  of  one  the  condemnatory  sentence 
 has  passed  on  all  the  descendants  of  Adam,  so  on  account  of  the 
 righteousness  of  one,  gratuitous  justification  comes  on  all  who 
 receive  the  grace  of  Christ ;  for  as  on  account  of  the  disobedi- 
 ence of  one  we  are  regarded  as  sinners,  so  on  account  of  the 
 obedience  of  the  other  we  are  regarded  as  righteous. 
 
 It  may  be  proper  to  add  a  few  remarks  on  the  preceding 
 interpretation  of  this  whole  section.  1.  The  first  is,  that  the 
 evidence  of  its  correctness  is  cumulative,  and  is  therefore  not 
 to  be  judged  exclusively  by  what  is  said  in  favour  of  the  view 
 presented  of  any  one  of  its  parts.  If  it  {^probable  that  ver,  12 
 asserts,  that  all  men  became  subject  to  death  on  account  of  one 
 man,  this  is  rendered  still  plainer  by  the  drift  and  force  of 
 vs.  13,  14 ;  it  is  rendered  almost  certain  by  ver.  15,  where  it  is 
 asserted,  that  for  the  offence  of  one  the  many  die ;  by  ver.  16, 
 where  it  is  said  that  for  one  oflFence  all  are  condemned;  by 
 ver.  17,  which  affirms  again,  that  the  ground  of  death's  reigning 
 over  all  is  to  be  found  in  this  one  oflence;  and  it  would  appear 
 to  be  raised  almost  beyond  the  reach  of  doubt  by  ver.  18,  where 
 the  words  of  ver.  16  are  repeated,  and  the  analogy  with  the 
 method  of  our  justiiication  is  expressly  asserted;  and  by  ver.  ly, 
 in  which  this  same  idea  is  reiterated  in  a  form  which  seems  to  set 
 all  efforts  at  misunderstanding  or  misinterpretation  at  defiance. 
 
 2.  The  force  of  a  remark  previously  made  may  now  be  more 
 fully  appreciated,  viz.  that  the  sentiment  attributed  to  ver.  12, 
 after  having  been  proved  in  vs.  13,  11,  is  ever  after  assumed  as 
 the  ground  of  illustrating  the  nature,  and  confirming  the  cer- 
 tainty of  our  justification.  Thus,  in  ver.  16,  FOR  IP  by  the 
 offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  &c.;  and  ver.  17,  for  if  by  one 
 man's  offence,  &c.;  in  ver.  18,  therefore  as  by  the  offence  of 
 one  all  are  condemned,  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  all 
 are  justified  ;  and,  finally,  in  ver.  19,  for  as  by  one  man's  dis- 
 obedience, &c. 
 
 3.  In  connection  with  these  remarks,  it  should  be  remem- 
 bered that  the  interpretation  given  to  the  several  clauses  in  this 
 passage  is  the  simple  natural  meaning  of  the  words,  as,  with 
 scarcely  an  exception,  is  admitted.  The  objections  relied  upon 
 against  it  are  almost  exclusively  of  a  theological,  rather  than  a 
 philological  or  exegetical  character.     This  interpretation,  too, 
 
276  ROMANS  V.  19. 
 
 is  perfectly  consistent  with  itself,  harmonious  with  the  design 
 of  the  apostle,  and  illustrative  of  the  point  which  he  proposed 
 to  explain.  If  all  these  separate  sources  of  proof  be  properly 
 considered  and  brought  to  bear,  with  their  mutually  sustaining 
 force,  on  a  candid  mind,  it  can  hardly  fail  to  acknowledge  that 
 the  commonly  received  view  of  this  interesting  portion  of  the 
 word  of  God,  is  supported  by  an  amount  and  force  of  evidence 
 not  easily  overthrown  or  resisted. 
 
 4.  This  interpretation  is  old.  It  appears  in  the  writings  of 
 the  early  Christian  fathers  ;  it  has  the  sanction,  in  its  essential 
 features,  of  the  great  body  of  the  Reformers  ;  it  has  commanded 
 the  assent  of  men  of  all  parties,  and  of  every  form  of  theolo- 
 gical opinion.  The  modern  Rationalist,  certainly  an  impartial 
 witness,  who  considers  it  a  melancholy  proof  of  the  apostle's 
 subjection  to  Jewish  prejudices,  unites  with  the  devout  and 
 humble  Christian  in  its  adoption.  An  interpretation  which  has 
 stood  its  ground  so  long  and  so  firmly,  and  which  has  com- 
 mended itself  to  minds  so  variously  constituted,  cannot  be  dis- 
 missed as  a  relic  of  a  former  age,  or  disparaged  as  the  offspring 
 of  theological  speculation. 
 
 5.  Neither  of  the  opposite  interpretations  can  be  consistently 
 carried  through.  They  are  equally  at  variance  with  the  design 
 of  the  apostle,  and  the  drift  of  his  argument.  They  render  the 
 design  and  force  of  vs.  13,  14,  either  nugatory  or  unintelligible. 
 They  require  the  utmost  violence  to  be  done  to  the  plainest 
 rules  of  exposition ;  and  the  most  unnatural  interpretations  to 
 be  given  to  the  most  perspicuous  and  important  declarations  of 
 the  apostle.  Witness  the  assertion,  that  "receiving  the  abun- 
 dance of  grace  and  gift  of  righteousness,"  means  to  be  brought 
 under  a  dispensation  of  mercy  ;  and  that  "  to  reign  in  life  by 
 one,  Jesus  Christ,"  is  to  be  brought  under  a  dispensation  of  life. 
 Thus,  too, "  the  free  gift  of  justification  of  life  has  come  upon  all 
 men,"  is  made  to  mean  that  all  are  in  a  salvable  state  ;  and  "  all 
 are  constituted  righteous,"  (i.  e.  "  justified,  pardoned,  regarded 
 and  treated  as  righteous,")  is  only  to  have  the  offer  of  pardon 
 made  to  all.  These  are  but  a  tithe  of  the  exegetical  difficulties 
 attending  the  other  interpretations  of  this  passage,  which  make 
 the  reception  of  either,  the  severest  of  all  sacrifices  to  prejudice 
 or  authority. 
 
ROMANS  V.  20.  277 
 
 Verse  20.  Moreover,  the  law  entered,  that  the  offence  might 
 abound,  &c.  Paul,  having  shown  that  our  justification  was 
 ejSected  without  the  intervention  of  either  the  moral  or  Mosaic 
 law,  was  naturally  led  to  state  the  design  and  effect  of  the 
 renewed  revelation  of  the  one,  and  the  superinduction  of  the 
 other.  The  law  stands  here  for  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
 economy,  including  the  clear  revelation  of  the  moral  law,  and 
 all  the  institutions  connected  with  the  former  dispensation. 
 The  main  design  and  result  of  this  dispensation,  considered  as 
 law,  that  is,  apart  from  the  evangelical  import  of  many  of  its 
 parts,  was  Iva  to  TtapdnzcDfia  Tzhoudajj,  that  the  offence  might 
 abound.  The  offence  to  Ttapdnzcoixa  is  in  the  context  used  of 
 the  specific  offence  of  Adam.  But  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the 
 entrance  of  the  law  made  the  offence  of  Adam  to  abound,  unless 
 ihe  idea  is,  that  its  dire  effects  were  rendered  more  abundant. 
 It  is  more  probable  that  the  apostle  uses  the  word  in  a  collective 
 sense ;  compare  Gal.  iii.  19.  Agreeably  to  this  view,  the  mean- 
 ing of  the  clause  is,  that  the  great  design  of  the  law  (in  refer- 
 ence to  justification)  is  to  produce  the  knowledge  and  conviction 
 of  sin.  Taking  the  word  in  its  usual  sense,  the  meaning  is,  that 
 the  result  of  the  introduction  of  the  law  was  the  increase  of 
 sin.  This  result  is  to  be  attributed  partly  to  the  fact,  that  by 
 enlarging  the  knowledge  of  the  rule  of  duty,  responsibility  was 
 proportionably  increased,  according  to  chap.  iv.  15,  and  partly 
 to  the  consideration  that  the  enmity  of  the  heart  is  awakened 
 by  its  operation,  and  transgressions  actually  multiplied,  agree- 
 ably to  chap.  vii.  8.  Both  views  of  the  passage  express  an 
 important  truth,  as  the  conviction  of  sin  and  its  incidental 
 increase  are  alike  the  result  of  the  operation  of  the  law.  It 
 seems,  however,  more  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's  object, 
 and  with  the  general,  although  not  uniform  force  of  the  particle 
 {l)^a)  rendered  that,  to  consider  the  clause  as  expressing  the 
 design,  rather  than  the  result  simply  of  the  giving  of  the  law. 
 The  word  7tapecarjX&ev  does  not  mean  simply  entered,  nor 
 entered  between,  that  is,  came  between  Adam  and  Christ.  This 
 is  indeed  historically  true,  but  it  is  not  the  meaning  of  the 
 word,  and  therefore  not  the  idea  which  the  apostle  intended  to 
 express.  Nov  does  the  word  mean  here,  as  in  Gal.  ii.  4,  entered 
 surreptitiously,  *' crept  in  unawares,"  for  this  is  not  true.     It 
 
278  ROMANS  V.  21. 
 
 rather  means  entered  thereto,  i.  e.  as  the  same  idea  is  expressed 
 in  Gal.  iii.  19,  "it  was  added."  It  was  superinduced  on  a  plan 
 already  laid,  and  for  a  subordinate,  although  necessary  purpose. 
 It  was  not  intended  to  give  life,  but  to  prepare  men  to  receive 
 Christ  as  the  only  source  of  righteousness  and  salvation. 
 
 But  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound.  That 
 is,  great  as  is  the  prevalence  of  sin,  as  seen  and  felt  in  the  light 
 of  God's  holy  law,  yet  over  all  this  evil  the  grace  of  the  gospel 
 has  abounded.  The  gospel  or  the  grace  of  God  has  proved 
 itself  much  more  efficacious  in  the  production  of  good,  than  sin 
 in  the  production  of  evil.  This  idea  is  illustrated  in  the  follow- 
 ing verse.  The  words  ov  and  e/cet  have  a  local  force,  ^¥here, 
 i.  e.  in  the  sphere  in  which  sin  abounded ;  there,  in  the  same 
 sphere  grace  superabounded  ;  virepeirepLacTevetv  is  superlative, 
 and  not  comparative,  and  ireptaaeveiv  is  stronger  than  irXeovd- 
 ^eiv,  as  ireptaaov  is  more  than  trkeov.  The  fact,  therefore,  of  the 
 triumph  of  grace  over  sin,  is  expressed  in  the  clearest  manner. 
 
 Veese  21.  That  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death,  &c.  That, 
 %va,  in  order  that,  as  expressing  the  divine  purpose.  The  design 
 of  God  in  permitting  sin,  and  in  allowing  it  to  abound,  was  to 
 bring  good  out  of  evil ;  to  make  it  the  occasion  of  the  most 
 wonderful  display  of  his  glory  and  grace,  so  that  the  benefits 
 of  redemption  should  infinitely  transcend  the  evils  of  the  apos- 
 tasy. Sin  reigned,  ev  tm  davcncp,  not  unto,  but  in  death,  or 
 through  death.  Death  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal —  evil  in  its 
 widest  sense,  as  the  judicial  consequence  of  sin,  was  the  sphere 
 in  which  the  power  or  triumph  of  sin  was  manifested.  Even  so 
 might  grace  reign,  (oi<i'iTep  — ovno  Kat,)  as  the  one  has  happened, 
 so  also  the  other.  The  one  is  in  order  to  the  other.  Grace  is 
 the  unmerited  love  of  God  and  its  consequences.  It  reigns, 
 i.  e.  it  is  abundantly  and  effectively  displayed,  unto  eternal  life, 
 (ei?  ^(orjv  aldoviov,^  in  securing  as  the  result  of  its  exercise,  eter- 
 nal life.  This  is  done  (Sia  hiKaioavvriq^  by  means  of  righteous- 
 ness, and  that  righteousness  is  theough  Jesus  Cheist  oue 
 LoED.  As  the  triumph  of  sin  over  our  race  was  through  the 
 offence  of  Adam,  so  the  triumph  of  grace  is  through  the  right- 
 eousness of  Christ.  The  construction  of  this  passage,  assumed 
 in  the  above  interpretation,  is  to  be  preferred  to  that  which  con- 
 nects hLKaio<yvv7)<i  eh  ^wrjv  alcoviov, '  righteousness  which  is  unto 
 
ROMANS  V.  12- -21.  279 
 
 eternal  life,  because  the  antithesis  is  not  between  death  and 
 righteousness,  but  between  death  and  life:  '  Sin  reigns  in  dea.th, 
 grace  reigns  unto  life.'  That  the  benefits  of  redemption  shall 
 far  outweigh  the  evils  of  the  fall,  is  here  clearly  asserted.  This 
 we  can  in  a  measure  comprehend,  because,  1.  The  number  of 
 the  saved  shall  doubtless  greatly  exceed  the  number  of  the  lost. 
 Since  the  half  of  mankind  die  in  infancy,  and,  according  to  the 
 Protestant  doctrine,  are  heirs  of  salvation;  and  since  in  the 
 future  state  of  the  Church  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  is  to 
 cover  the  earth,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  lost  shall 
 bear  to  the  saved  no  greater  proportion  than  the  inmates  of  a 
 prison  do  to  the  mass  of  the  community.  2.  Because  the  eter- 
 nal Son  of  God,  by  his  incarnation  and  mediation,  exalts  his 
 people  to  a  far  higher  state  of  being  than  our  race,  if  unfallen, 
 could  ever  have  attained.  3.  Because  the  benefits  of  redemp- 
 tion are  not  to  be  confined  to  the  human  race.  Christ  is  to  be 
 admired  in  his  saints.  It  is  through  the  Church  that  the  mani- 
 fold wisdom  of  God  is  to  be  revealed,  throughout  all  ages,  to 
 principalities  and  powers.  The  redemption  of  man  is  to  be  the 
 great  source  of  knowledge  and  blessedness  to  the  intelligent 
 universe. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 I.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  clearly  taught  in  this  pas- 
 sage. This  doctrine  does  not  include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious 
 identity  of  Adam  and  his  race ;  nor  that  of  a  transfer  of  the 
 moral  turpitude  of  his  sin  to  his  descendants.  It  does  not  teach 
 that  his  offence  was  personally  or  properly  the  sin  of  all  men, 
 or  that  his  act  was,  in  any  mysterious  sense,  the  act  of  his  pos- 
 terity. Neither  does  it  imply,  in  reference  to  the  righteousness 
 of  Christ,  that  his  righteousness  becomes  personally  and  inhe- 
 rently ours,  or  that  his  moral  excellence  is  in  any  way  trans- 
 ferred from  him  to  believers.  The  sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  is 
 no  ground  to  us  of  remorse ;  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is 
 no  ground  of  self-complacency  in  those  to  whom  it  is  imputed. 
 This  doctrine  merely  teaches,  that  in  virtue  of  the  union,  repre- 
 sentative and  natural,  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  his  sin 
 is  the  ground  of  their  condemnation,  that  is,  of  their  subjection 
 to  penal  evils;  and  that  in  virtue  of  the  union  between  Christ 
 
280  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 and  his  people,  his  righteousness  is  the  ground  of  their  justi- 
 fication. This  doctrine  is  taught  almost  in  so  many  words  in 
 vs.  12,  15 — 19.  It  is  so  clearly  stated,  so  often  repeated  or 
 assumed,  and  so  formally  proved,  that  very  few  commentators 
 of  any  class  fail  to  acknowledge,  in  one  form  or  another,  that  it 
 is  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle. 
 
 It  would  be  easy  to  prove  that  the  statement  of  the  doctrine 
 just  given  is  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  form  in  which  it  was 
 held  by  the  great  body  of  the  Reformed  Churches  and  divines. 
 A  few  quotations  from  men  of  universally  recognized  authority, 
 as  competent  witnesses  on  this  subject,  must  suflBce.  Turrettin 
 [Theol.  Elench.  Quaest.  IX.,  p.  678)  says,  "Imputation  is  either 
 of  something  foreign  to  us,  or  of  something  properly  our  own. 
 Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us  which  is  personally  ours;  in 
 which  sense  God  imputes  to  sinners  their  transgressions.  Some- 
 times that  is  imputed  which  is  without  us,  and  not  performed 
 by  ourselves;  thus  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  said  to  be 
 imputed  to  us,  and  our  sins  are  imputed  to  him,  although  he 
 has  neither  sin  in  himself,  nor  we  righteousness.  Here  we 
 fipeak  of  the  latter  kind  of  imputation,  not  of  the  former, 
 because  we  are  treating  of  a  sin  committed  by  Adam,  not  by 
 us."  The  ground  of  this  imputation  is  the  union  between  Adam 
 and  his  posterity.  This  union  is  not  a  mysterious  identity  of 
 person,  but,  1.  "Natural,  as  he  is  the  father,  and  we  are  the 
 children.  2.  Political  and  forensic,  as  he  was  the  representa- 
 tive head  and  chief  of  the  whole  human  race.  The  foundation, 
 therefore,  of  imputation  is  not  only  the  natural  connection 
 which  exists  between  us  and  Adam,  since  in  that  case  all  his 
 sins  might  be  imputed  to  us,  but  mainly  the  moral  and  federal, 
 in  virtue  of  which  God  entered  into  covenant  with  him  as  our 
 head."  Again,  "We  are  constituted  sinners  in  Adam  in  the 
 same  way  in  which  we  are  constituted  .righteous  in  Christ." 
 Again,  (Vol.  II.,  p.  707,)  to  impute,  he  says,  "is  a  forensic 
 term,  which  is  not  to  be  understood  physically  of  the  infusion 
 of  righteousness,  but  judicially  and  relatively."  Imputation 
 does  not  alter  the  moral  character ;  hence  the  same  individual 
 may,  in  different  respects,  be  called  both  just  and  unjust;  "For 
 when  I'eference  is  had  to  the  inherent  quality,  he  is  called  a 
 fiinner  and  ungodly ;  but  when  the  external  and  forensic  relation 
 
ROMANS  Y.  12—21.  281 
 
 CO  Christ  is  regarded,  he  is  pronounced  just  in  Christ."  "When 
 God  justifies  us  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  his 
 judgment  is  still  according  to  truth ;  because  he  does  not  pro- 
 nounce us  just  in  ourselves  subjectively,  which  would  be  false, 
 but  in  another  putatively  and  relatively."  Tuckney,  {Prcelee 
 tiones,  p.  234,)  "We  are  counted  righteous  through  Christ  in 
 the  same  manner  that  we  are  counted  guilty  through  Adam. 
 The  latter  is  by  imputation,  therefore  also  the  former."  "We 
 are  not  so  foolish  or  blasphemous  as  to  say,  or  even  to  think, 
 that  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  makes  us  formally  and 
 subjectively  righteous;"  see  further  quotations  from  this  writer 
 on  chap,  iv.  5.  Owen  (in  his  work  on  Justification,  p.  236) 
 says,  "  Things  which  are  not  our  own  originally,  inherently, 
 may  yet  be  imputed  to  us,  ex  justitia,  by  the  rule  of  righteous- 
 ness. And  this  may  be  done  upon  a  double  relation  unto  those 
 whose  they  are,  1.  Federal.  2.  Natural.  Things  done  by  one 
 may  be  imputed  unto  others,  propter  relationem  foederalem, 
 because  of  a  covenant  relation  between  them.  So  the  sin  of 
 Adam  was  imputed  unto  all  his  posterity.  And  the  ground 
 hereof  is,  that  we  stood  in  the  same  covenant  with  him  who  was 
 our  head  and  representative."  On  page  242,  he  says,  "This 
 imputation  (of  Christ's  righteousness)  is  not  the  transmission  or 
 transfusion  of  the  righteousness  of  another  into  them  which  are 
 to  be  justified,  that  they  should  become  perfectly  and  inherently 
 righteous  thereby.  For  it  is  impossible  that  the  righteousness 
 of  one  should  be  transfused  into  another,  to  become  his  sub- 
 jectively and  inherently."  Again,  page  307,  "As  we  are  made 
 guilty  by  Adam's  actual  sin,  which  is  not  inherent  in  us,  but 
 only  imputed  to  us ;  so  are  we  made  righteous  by  the  righteous- 
 ness of  Christ,  which  is  not  inherent  in  us,  but  only  imputed  to 
 us."  On  page  468,  he  says,  "Nothing  is  intended  by  the 
 imputation  of  sin  unto  any,  but  the  rendering  them  justly 
 obnoxious  unto  the  punishment  due  unto  that  sin.  As  the  not 
 imputing  of  sin  is  the  freeing  of  men  from  being  subject  or 
 liable  to  punishment."  It  is  one  of  his  standing  declarations, 
 "  To  be  alienee  culpce  reus,  makes  no  man  a  sinner."  Knapp 
 (in  his  Lectures  on  Theology,  sect.  76)  says,  in  stating  what  the 
 doctrine  of  imputation  is,  "  God's  imputing  the  sin  of  our  first 
 parents  to  their  descendants,  amounts  to  this :  God  punishes  the 
 
282  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 descendants  on  account  of  the  sin  of  their  first  parents."  Iliife 
 he  gives  as  a  mere  historical  statement  of  the  nature  of  the 
 doctrine,  and  the  form  in  which  its  advocates  maintained  it. 
 Zacharise  [Bib.  Theologie^  Vol.  II.,  p.  394)  says,  "If  God  allows 
 the  punishment  which  Adam  incurred,  to  come  on  all  his  de- 
 scendants, he  imputes  his  sin  to  them  all.  And,  in  this  sense. 
 Paul  maintains  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  all,  because 
 the  punishment  of  the  one  offence  of  Adam  has  come  upon  all." 
 And  Bretschneider,  as  quoted  above,  on  chap.  iv.  3,  when 
 stating  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformers,  as  presented  in  the 
 various  creeds  published  under  their  authority,  says,  that  they 
 regarded  justification,  which  includes  the  idea  of  imputation,  as 
 a  forensic  or  judicial  act  of  God,  by  which  the  relation  of  man 
 to  God,  and  not  the  man  himself,  was  changed.  And  imputation 
 of  righteousness  they  described  as  "that  judgment  of  God, 
 according  to  which  he  treats  us  as  though  we  had  not  sinned, 
 but  had  fulfilled  the  law,  or  as  though  the  righteousness  of 
 Christ  was  ours."  This  view  of  justification  they  constantly 
 maintained  in  opposition  to  the  Papists,  who  regarded  it  as  a 
 moral  change,  consisting  in  what  they  called  the  infusion  of 
 righteousness. 
 
 Though  this  view  of  the  nature  of  imputation,  both  of  sin  and 
 righteousness,  is  so  familiar,  yet  as  almost  all  the  objections  to 
 the  doctrine  are  founded  on  the  assumption  that  it  proceeds  on 
 the  ground  of  a  mysterious  identity  between  Adam  and  his  race 
 on  the  one  hand,  and  Christ  and  his  people  on  the  other ;  and 
 that  it  implies  the  transfer  of  the  moral  character  of  the  acts 
 imputed,  it  seemed  necessary  to  present  some  small  portion  of 
 the  evidence  Avhich  might  be  adduced,  to  show  that  the  view 
 of  the  subject  presented  above  is  that  which  has  always  been 
 held  by  the  great  body  of  the  Reformed  Churches.  The  objec- 
 tions urged  against  this  doctrine  at  the  present  day,  are  pre- 
 cisely the  same  which  were  urged  by  the  Roman  Catholics 
 against  the  Reformers ;  and  the  answers  which  we  are  obliged 
 to  repeat,  are  the  same  which  the  Refoi'mers  and  their  suc- 
 cessors gave  to  those  with  whom  they  had  to  contend. 
 
 It  will  be  seen  how  large  a  portion  of  the  objections  are 
 answered  by  the  mere  statement  of  the  doctrine.  1.  It  is 
 objected  that  this  doctrine  "  contradicts  the  essential  principles 
 
ROMANS  V.  12—21.  283 
 
 cf  moral  consciousness.  We  never  did,  and  never  can  feel 
 guilty  of  another's  act,  which  was  done  without  any  knowledge 
 or  concurrence  of  our  own.  We  may  just  as  well  say  we  can 
 appropriate  to  ourselves,  and  make  our  own,  the  righteousness 
 of  another,  as  his  unrighteousness.  But  we  can  never,  in  either 
 case,  even  force  ourselves  into  a  consciousness  that  any  act  is 
 really  our  own,  except  one  in  which  we  have  had  a  personal  and 
 voluntary  concern.  A  transfer  of  moral  turpitude  is  just  as 
 impossible  as  a  transfer  of  souls;  nor  does  it  lie  within  the 
 boundary  of  human  effort,  that  we  should  repent  of  Adam's 
 sin."  Prof.  Stuart,  p.  239.  This  idea  is  repeated  very  fre- 
 quently in  his  commentary  on  this  passage,  and  the  Excursus^ 
 IV.  V.  "  To  say  Adam's  disobedience  was  the  occasion,  or 
 ground,  or  instrumental  cause  of  all  men  becoming  sinners,  and 
 was  thus  au  evil  to  them  all,  and  to  say  thnt  his  disobedience 
 was  personaUi/  theirs,  is  saying  two  very  different  things.  I 
 see  no  way  in  which  this  last  assertion  can  ever  be  made  out  by 
 philology."  Compare  Mr.  Barnes,  p.  119.  Professor  Stuart 
 further  says,  page  212,  that  if  verse  12  speaks  of  the  imputation 
 of  Adam's  sin,  it  could  not  be  said  men  had  not  sinned  after  the 
 likeness  of  Adam's  transgression.  "  So  far  from  this  must  it 
 be,  that  Adam's  sin  is  their  very  sin,  and  the  ground  why  death 
 reigns  over  them."  Mr.  Barnes  says,  page  119,  "If  the  doc- 
 trine of  imputation  be  true,  they  not  only  had  sinned  after 
 the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression,  but  had  sinned  the  very 
 identical  sin.  It  was  precisely  like  him.  It  was  the  very  thing 
 itself."  In  like  manner,  on  page  96,  he  says,  "But  if  the  doc- 
 trine of  the  Scriptures  was,  that  the  entire  righteousness  of 
 Christ  was  set  over  to  them,  was  really  and  truly  theirs,  and 
 was  transferred  to  them  in  any  sense,  with  what  propriety  could 
 the  apostle  say  that  God  justified  the  ungodly?"  &c.  "They 
 are  eminently  pure,  and  have  a  claim  not  of  grace,  but  of  debt, 
 to  the  very  highest  rewards  of  heaven."  It  will  be  at  once 
 perceived  that  these  and  similar  objections  are  all  founded  on  a 
 misapprehension  of  the  doctrine  in  question.  They  are  all 
 directed  against  the  ideas  of  identity  of  person,  and  transfer  of 
 moral  character,  neither  of  which  is,  as  we  have  seen,  included 
 in  it;  they  are,  moreover,  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  true 
 nature  of  the  doctrine,  but  with  the  statements  and  arguments 
 
284  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 of  these  writers  themselves.  Thus  Professor  Stuart,  page  239, 
 sajs,  "  That  '  the  son  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of  the  father,' 
 is  as  true  as  that  '  the  father  shall  not  die  for  the  iniquity  of 
 the  son;'  as  God  has  most  fully  declared  in  Ezek.  xviii." 
 According  to  this  view  of  the  subject,  "  for  the  son  to  die  for 
 the  iniquity  of  the  father,"  is  to  have  the  sin  of  the  father 
 imputed  to  him,  or  laid  to  his  charge.  The  ideas  of  personal 
 identity  and  transfer  of  moral  character  are  necessarily  excluded 
 from  it,  by  its  opponents  themselves,  who  thus  virtually  admit 
 the  irrelevancy  of  their  previous  objections.  The  fact  is,  that 
 imputation  is  never  represented  as  affecting  the  moral  charac- 
 ter, but  merely  the  relation  of  men  to  God  and  his  law.  To 
 impute  sin  is  to  regard  and  treat  as  a  sinner ;  and  to  impute 
 righteousness  is  to  regard  and  treat  as  righteous. 
 
 2.  It  is  said  that  this  doctrine  is  nothing  but  a  theory,  an 
 attempt  to  explain  what  the  apostle  does  not  explain,  a  philo- 
 sophical speculation,  &c.  This  again  is  a  mistake.  It  is  neither 
 a  theory  nor  a  philosophical  speculation,  but  the  statement  of  a 
 scriptural  fact  in  scriptural  language.  Paul  says,  For  the 
 offence  of  one  man  all  men  are  condemned :  and  for  the  ri^ht- 
 eousness  of  one  all  are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous.  This 
 is  the  whole  doctrine. 
 
 3.  It  is  asserted  that  the  word  impute  is  never  used  in  the 
 Bible,  in  reference  to  reckoning  or  charging  upon  a  man  any 
 thing  which  is  not  strictly  and  properly  his  own.  But  this  has 
 been  shown  to  be  incorrect ;  see  chap.  iv.  3.  It  is  used  twice 
 in  chap,  iv.,  of  "imputing  righteousness"  to  those  without 
 works,  to  the  ungodly,  &c.  But  if  the  objection  were  well 
 founded,  it  would  be  destitute  of  any  force;  for  if  the  word 
 means  so  to  ascribe  an  action  to  a  man  as  to  treat  him  as  the 
 author  of  it,  it  would  be  correct  and  scriptural  to  say  that  the 
 Bin  or  righteousness  of  one  man  is  imputed  to  another,  when 
 that  sin  or  righteousness  is  made  the  ground  of  the  condemna- 
 tion or  justification  of  any  other  than  its  personal  authors. 
 
 4.  It  is  denied  that  Adam  was  the  representative  of  his  pos- 
 terity, because  he  is  not  so  called  in  Scripture,  and  because  a 
 representative  supposes  the  consent  of  those  for  whom  he  acts. 
 But  this  is  a  mistake.  It  is  rare  that  a  representative  is 
 appointed  by  the  choice  of  all  on  whom  his  acts  are  binding. 
 
ROMANS  V.  12—21.  285 
 
 This  is  the  case  in  no  country  in  the  world;  and  nothing  is 
 more  common  than  for  a  parent  or  court  to  appoint  a  guardian 
 to  act  as  the  representative  of  a  minor.  If  it  is  competent  for 
 a  parent  to  make  such  an  appointment,  it  is  surely  proper  in 
 God.  It  is  a  mere  question  of  fact.  If  the  Scriptures  teach 
 that  Adam  was  on  trial  not  for  himself  only,  but  also  for  his 
 posterity ;  if  the  race  fell  when  he  fell ;  then  do  they  teach  that 
 he  was  in  fact  and  form  their  representative.  That  they  do 
 teach  the  fact  supposed,  can  scarcely  be  denied ;  it  is  asserted  y 
 as  often  as  it  is  stated  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  ground  of 
 the  condemnation  of  men. 
 
 5.  It  is  said  that  the  doctrine  of  imputation  is  inconsistent 
 with  the  first  principles  of  justice.  This  objection  is  only  of 
 force  against  the  mistaken  view  given  above.  It  has  no  weight 
 against  the  true  doctrine.  It  is  on  all  hands  admitted  that  the 
 sin  of  Adam  involved  the  race  in  ruin.  This  is  the  whole  diflB- 
 culty.  How  is  it  to  be  reconciled  with  the  divine  character, 
 that  the  fate  of  unborn  millions  should  depend  on  an  act  over 
 which  they  had  not  the  slightest  control,  and  in  which  they  had 
 no  agency  ?  This  difficulty  presses  the  opponents  of  the  doc- 
 trine more  heavily  than  its  advocates.  The  former  have  no 
 advantage  over  the  latter;  not  in  the  amount  of  evil  inflicted, 
 because  they  make  the  evil  directly  inflicted  on  account  of 
 Adam's  sin  much  greater  than  the  others  do ;  not  in  the  pro- 
 vision made  for  the  redemption  of  the  race  from  this  evil, 
 because  both  maintain  that  the  work  of  Christ  brings  the  offer 
 of  life  to  the  whole  race,  while  it  infallibly  secures  the  salvation 
 of  a  multitude  which  no  man  can  number.  The  opinion  of  those 
 writers  not  only  has  no  advantage  over  the  common  doctrine, 
 but  it  is  encumbered  with  difficulties  peculiar  to  itself.  It 
 represents  the  race  as  being  involved  in  ruin  and  condemnation, 
 without  having  the  slightest  probation.  According  to  one  view, 
 they  "  are  born  with  a  corrupt  disposition,  and  with  the  loss 
 of  righteousness,  and  subjection  to  pain  and  wo,"  by  a  mere 
 arbitrary  appointment  of  God,  and  without  a  trial,  either  per- 
 sonally, or  by  a  representative.  According  to  another  view, 
 men  are  born  without  any  such  corrupt  disposition,  but  in  a 
 state  of  indifference,  and  are  placed  on  their  probation  at  the 
 very  first  moment  of  moral  agency,  and  under  a  constitution 
 
286  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 ■whicli  infallibly  secures  their  becoming  sinners.  According  to 
 the  realistic  doctrine,  revived  by  the  modern  speculative  theo- 
 logians of  the  school  of  Schleiermacher,  humanity  existed  as  a 
 generic  life  in  Adam.  The  acts  of  that  life  were  therefore  the 
 acts  of  all  the  individuals  to  whom,  in  the  development  of  the 
 race,  the  life  itself  was  communicated.  All  men  consequently 
 sinned  in  Adam,  by  an  act  of  self-determination.  They  are 
 punished,  therefore,  not  for  Adam's  act,  but  for  their  own  ;  not 
 simply  for  their  innate  depravity,  nor  for  their  personal  acts 
 only,  but  for  the  act  which  they  committed  thousands  of  years 
 ago,  when  their  nature,  i.  e.  their  intelligence  and  will,  were 
 determined  to  evil  in  the  person  of  Adam.  This  is  avowedly  a 
 philosophical  doctrine.  This  doctrine  assumes  the  objective 
 reality  of  human  nature  as  a  generic  life.  >.  It  takes  for  granted 
 that  persons  can  act  before  they  exist,  or  that  actual  sin  can  be 
 committed  by  an  impersonal  nature,  which  is  a  contradiction  in 
 terms,  inasmuch  as  an  intelligent,  voluntary  act  is  an  act  of  a 
 person.  If  we  actually  sinned  in  Adam,  then  ive  (as  persons) 
 were  then  in  conscious  being.  This  doctrine  is  directly  opposed 
 to  Scripture,  which  expressly  teaches  that  the  sin  of  Adam,  and 
 not  our  personal  sin,  was  the  original  ground  of  condemnation ; 
 as  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  not  our  personal  righteous- 
 ness, is  the  ground  of  our  justification.  No  less  clearly  does 
 the  Bible  condemn  the  other  doctrines  just  mentioned.  ^xT^aul 
 represents  the  evils  which  came  on  men  on  account  of  the 
 offence  of  Adam,  as  a  condemnation ;  not  as  an  arbitrary  inflic- 
 tion, nor  as  a  merely  natural  consequence.  We  are  bound  to 
 acquiesce  in  the  truth  as  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and  not  to 
 introduce  explanations  and  theories  of  our  own.  The  denial 
 of  this  doctrine  involves  also  the  denial  of  the  scriptural  view 
 of  atonement  and  justification.  It  is  essential  to  the  scriptural 
 form  of  these  doctrines,  that  the  idea  of  legal  substitution  should 
 be  retained.  Christ  bore  our  sins ;  our  iniquities  were  laid  upon 
 him,  which,  according  to  the  true  meaning  of  scriptural  lan- 
 guage, can  only  signify,  that  he  bore  the  punishment  of  those 
 sins ;  not  the  same  evils,  indeed,  either  in  kind  or  degree ;  but 
 still  penal,  because  judicially  inflicted  for  the  support  of  law. 
 It  matters  little  whether  a  debt  be  paid  in  gold  or  copper,  pro- 
 vided it  is  cancelled.     And  as  a  comparatively  small  quantity 
 
ROMANS  V.  12—21.  287 
 
 of  the  former  is  of  equal  value  with  a  great  deal  of  the  latter, 
 so  the  temporary  sufferings  of  Christ  are  of  more  value  for  all 
 the  purposes  of  punishment,  than  the  eternal  sufferings  of  all 
 mankind.     It  is  then  no  objection  to  the  scriptural  doctrine  of 
 sacrifice  and  atonement,  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  the  same 
 kind  or  degree  of  evil,  which  those  for  whom  he  died  must  have 
 endured  in  their  own  persons.     This  idea  of  legal  substitution 
 enters  also  into  the  scriptural  view  of  justification.     In  justifi- 
 cation, according  to  Paul's  language,  God  imputes  righteousness 
 to  the  ungodly.     This  righteousness  is  not  their  own ;  but  they 
 are  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous  on  account  of  the  obedi- 
 ence of  Christ.     That  is,  his  righteousness  is  so  laid  to  their 
 account,  or  imputed  to  them,  that  they  are  regarded  and  treated 
 as  if  it  were  their  own;  or  "as  if  they  had  kept  the  law."    This 
 is  the  great  doctrine   of  the  Reformation,   Luther's  articulus 
 stantis  vel  cadentis  ecclesice.     The  great  question  between  the 
 Papists    and    Protestants   was,   whether   men   are   justified    on 
 account  of  inherent  or  imputed  righteousness.     For  the  latter, 
 the  Protestants  contended  as  for  their  lives,  and  for  the  life  of 
 the  Church.    See  the  passages  quoted  above  on  chap.  iv.  3,  and 
 the  Confessions  of  that  period.* 
 
 *  Apol.,  art.  9,  p.  226.  Merita  propitiatoris — aliis  donantur  imputatione 
 divina,  ut  per  ea,  tanquam  propriis  meritis  justi  reputentur,  ut  si  quis  amicus 
 pro  amico  solvit  aes  alienum,  debitor  alieno  merito  tanquam  proprio  liberatur. 
 
 F.  Concordantiae,  art.  3,  p.  687.  Ad  justificationem  tria  requiruutur:  gratia 
 Dei,  meritum  Christi  et  fides,  quae  haec  ipsa  Dei  beneficia  amplectitur;  qua 
 ratioue  nobis  Christi  justitia  imputatur,  unde  remissionem  peccatorum,  recon- 
 ciliationem  cum  Deo,  adoptionem  in  filios  Dei  et  hnereditatem  vitae  aeternse 
 consequimur. 
 
 F.  C.  III.,  p.  684.  Fides  non  propterca  justiScat,  quod  ipsa  tarn  bonum  opus, 
 tamque  prreclara  virtus  sit,  sed  quia  in  promissione  evangelii  meritum  Christi 
 apprehendit  et  amplectitur,  illud  enim  per  fidem  nobis  applicari  debet,  si  eo  ipso 
 merito  justificari  velimus. 
 
 F.  C.  III.,  p.  688.  Christi  justitia  nobis  imputatur,  unde  remissionem  pecca- 
 torum consequimur. 
 
 Bretschneider,  Dog.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  254,  says  that,  according  to  the  creeds  of 
 the  Reformation,  justification  "is  that  act  of  God  in  which  he  imputes  to  a  man 
 the  merit  of  Christ,  and  no  longer  regards  and  treats  him  as  a  sinner,  but  as 
 righteous."  "It  is  an  act  in  which  neither  man  nor  God  changes,  but  the  man 
 is  merely  freed  from  guilt,  and  declared  to  be  free  from  punishment,  and  hence 
 the  relation  only  between  God  and  man  is  altered."  This,  he  says,  the  sym- 
 bolical books  maintained,  in  opposition  to  the  Romish  Church,  which  makes 
 justification  a  moral  change. 
 
288  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 6.  As  the  term  death  is  used  for  any  and  every  evil  judicially 
 inflicted  as  the  punishment  of  sin,  the  amount  and  nature  of  the 
 evil  not  being  expressed  by  the  word,  it  is  no  part  of  the  apos- 
 tle's doctrine,  that  eternal  misery  is  inflicted  on  any  man  for 
 the  sin  of  Adam,  irrespective  of  inherent  depravity  or  actual 
 transgression.  It  is  enough  for  all  the  purposes  of  his  argu- 
 ment, that  this  sin  was  the  ground  of  the  loss  of  the  divine 
 favour,  the  withholding  of  divine  influence,  and  the  consequent 
 corruption  of  our  nature.  Turrettin,  Theologia  Elenct.,  vol.  i., 
 page  680 :  "  PoBna  quam  peccatum  Adami  in  nos  accersit,  vel 
 est 2yrivativa,Ye\positiva.  Quoad  primam  dicimus  Adami  pec- 
 catum nobis  imputari  immediate  ad  posnam  privativam,  quia  est 
 causa  privationis  justitiae  originalis,  et  sic  corruptionem  antece- 
 dere  debet  saltem  ordine  naturse :  Sed  quoad  posteriorem  potest 
 dici  imputari  mediate  quoad  poanam  positivam,  quia  isti  poena? 
 obnoxii  non  sumus,  nisi  postquam  nati  et  corrupti  sumus." 
 
 7.  It  is  said  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  omniscience  and 
 veracity  of  God,  and  consequently  with  his  nature  as  God,  that 
 he  should  regard  and  treat  as  sinners  those  who  are  not  sinners, 
 or  those  as  righteous  who  are  in  fact  unrighteous.  God's  judg- 
 ments are  according  to  truth,  and  tlierefore  must  be  determined 
 by  the  real,  subjective  character  of  those  whom  they  concern. 
 This  difficulty  arises  simply  from  the  ambiguity  of  language. 
 The  words  sinner,  just,  unjust,  righteous,  and  unrighteous,  in 
 English,  and  the  corresponding  words  in  other  languages,  are 
 familiarly  and  properly  used  in  two  distinct  senses.  >  They 
 sometimes  express  moral  character,  and  sometimes  legal  rela- 
 tions. A  man  may  therefore  be  just  and  unjust,  righteous  and 
 unrighteous  at  the  same  time.  A  criminal  who  has  satisfied  the 
 demands  of  justice,  is  just  in  the  eye  of  the  law ;  he  cannot  be 
 again  or  further  punished  for  his  offence,  and  is  entitled  to  all 
 his  rights  as  a  citizen,  although  morally  unrighteous.  The 
 sinner,  and  every  sinner  whom  God  accepts  or  pronounces  right- 
 eous for  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  feels  himself  to  be  in  his 
 own  person  most  unrighteous.  God's  judgment,  in  pronouncing 
 him  righteous,  is  none  the  less  according  to  truth.  He  does  not 
 pronounce  the  sinner  subjectively  righteous,  which  he  is  not, 
 but  forensically  righteous,  which  he  is,  because  Christ  has 
 satisfied  the  demands  of  justice  on  his  behalf.     In  like  manner, 
 
ROMANS  V.  12—21.  2S9 
 
 when  our  blessed  Lord,  although  he  knew  no  sin,  is  said  to 
 have  been  made  sin,  it  only  means  that  he  assumed  the  respon- 
 sibility of  meeting  the  requirements  of  the  law  in  our  place ;  so 
 that  his  suflFerings  were  not  chastisements  or  calamities,  but  oi 
 the  nature  of  punishment.  He  was  condemned  for  our  sakes. 
 as  we  are  justified  for  his.  It  is  no  impeachment,  therefore, 
 of  the  omniscience  or  veracity  of  God,  when  he  holds  us  as 
 guilty  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  as  he  does  not  pronounce  us 
 morally  criminal  for  his  offence,  but  simply  declares  that  for 
 the  ends  of  justice  we  are  involved  in  his  condemnation. 
 
 8.  Perhaps  the  most  operative  of  all  objections  against  the 
 doctrine  of  imputation  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that  moral 
 character  must  be  self-originated.  It  is  assumed  that  inhe- 
 rent, hereditary  depravity  in  man  cannot  have  the  nature  of  sin 
 and  involve  guilt,  unless  it  is  due  to  his  own  act.  This  princi- 
 ple, however,  is  not  only  erroneous,  but  contrary  to  the  plainest 
 and  most  universally  received  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  It  is  the 
 intuitive  judgment  of  men  that  moral  qualities  owe  their  charac- 
 ter to  their  nature,  and  not  to  their  origin.  A  holy  being  is 
 recognized  as  holy,  whether  his  holiness  be  concreated,  infused, 
 or  self-originated.  All  Churches  believe  that  Adam  was  created 
 holy ;  all  Churches  believe  that  holiness  is  the  product  of  divine 
 power  in  regeneration ;  and  all  Churches,  that  is,  the  Latin, 
 Lutheran,  and  Reformed,  acknowledge  that  innate  depravity  is 
 truly  sin,  although  anterior  to  any  act  of  self-determination  on 
 our  part  to  evil.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  to  assume  that 
 if  men  are  born  in  sin,  their  sinfulness  is  to  be  referred  to 
 their  personal  act.  It  may,  consistently  with  the  common  judg- 
 ment of  men,  and  with  the  faith  of  the  Church  universal,  be  a 
 penal  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 
 
 II.  Whatever  evil  the  Scriptures  represent  as  coming  upon 
 •IS  on  account  of  Adam,  they  regard  as  penal ;  they  call  it 
 death,  which  is  the  general  term  by  which  any  penal  evil  is 
 expressed.  It  is  not  however  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures, 
 nor  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  nor  of  our  standards,  that  the 
 corruption  of  nature  of  which  they  speak,  is  any  depravation 
 of  the  soul,  or  an  essential  attribute,  or  the  infusion  of  any  posi- 
 tive evil.  "  Original  sin,"  as  the  Confessions  of  the  Reformers 
 maintain,  "  is  not  the  substance  of  man,  neither  his  soul  nor 
 19 
 
290  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 body ;  nor  is  it  anything  infused  into  his  nature  by  Satan,  as 
 poison  is  mixed  with  wine ;  it  is  not  an  essential  attribute,  but 
 an  accident,*  i.  e.  something  which  does  not  exist  of  itself,  an 
 incidental  quality,"  &c.  Bretschneider,  vol.  ii.,  p.  30.  These 
 confessions  teach  that  original  righteousness  was  lost,  as  a 
 punishment  of  Adam's  sin,  and  hy  that  defect^  the  tendency  to 
 sin,  or  corrupt  disposition,  or  corruption  of  nature  is  occa- 
 sioned, f  Though  they  speak  of  original  sin  as  being,  first, 
 negative,  i.  e.  the  loss  of  righteousness ;  and  secondly,  positive, 
 or  corruption  of  nature ;  yet  by  the  latter,  they  state,  is  to  be 
 understood,  not  the  infusion  of  anything  in  itself  sinful,  but  an 
 actual  tendency  or  disposition  to  evil,  resulting  from  the  loss 
 of  righteousness.  This  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  quotation 
 just  made.  It  is  therefore  in  perfect  consistency  with  his  own 
 views,  and  with  those  of  the  Protestant  creeds,  that  President 
 Edwards  teaches,  in  his  book  on  Original  Sin,  "  It  is  agreeable 
 to  the  sentiments  of  the  best  divines,  that  all  sin  comes  from  a 
 defective  or  privative  cause,"  (p.  28;)  and  that  he  argues 
 against  the  idea  of  any  evil  quality  being  infused,  implanted,  or 
 wrought  into  our  nature  by  any  positive  cause  or  influence 
 whatever,  either  of  God  or  the  creature,  &c.  With  equal  con- 
 sistency and  propriety,  he  goes  on  to  state  that  "the  absence 
 of  positive  good  principles,"  and  "the  withholding  of  special 
 divine  influence,"  and  "the  leaving  of  the  common  principles 
 of  self-love,  natural  appetite,  which  were  in  man  in  innocence," 
 are  suflScient  to  account  for  all  the  corruption  which  appears 
 among  men.  Goodwin,  one  of  the  strictest  Puritanical  divines, 
 (vol.  iii.,  p.  323,)  has  a  distinct  chapter  to  prove,  "that  there 
 is  no  necessity  of  asserting  original  sin  to  be  a  positive  quality 
 in  our  souls,  since  the  privation  of  righteousness  is  enough  to 
 infect  the  soul  with  all  that  is  evil."     Yet  he,  in  common  with 
 
 *  Accidens:  quod  non  per  se  subsistit,  sed  in  aliqua  substantia  est  et  ab  ea 
 discerni  possit. 
 
 f  F.  Concor.  I.,  p.  643:  Etsi  enim  in  Adamo  et  Heva  natura  initio  pura, 
 bona  et  sancta  creata  est;  tamen  per  lapsum  peccatum  non  eo  modo  ipsorum 
 naturam  invasit,  ut  ManichsEi  dixerunt — quin  potius  cum  seductione  Satanse 
 per  lapsum,  justo  Dei  judicio  (in  poenam  hominum)  justitia  concreata  seu 
 originalis  amissa  esset,  defectu  illo,  privatione  seu  spoliatione  et  vulneratione, 
 (quorum  malorum  Satan  causa  est)  humana  natura  ita  corrupta  est,  ut  jam 
 natura,  '.laa  cum  illo  defectu  et  corruptione,  &c. 
 
ROMANS  V.  12—21.  291 
 
 the  Reformers,  represents  original  sin  as  having  a  positive  as 
 well  as  a  negative  side.  This,  however,  results  from  the  active 
 nature  of  the  soul.  If  there  is  no  tendency  to  the  love  and 
 service  of  God,  there  is,  from  this  very  defect,  a  tendency  to 
 self  and  sin.  How  large  a  portion  of  the  objections  to  the  doc- 
 trine of  original  sin  is  founded  on  the  idea  of  its  being  an  evil 
 positively  infused  into  our  nature,  "as  poison  is  mixed  with 
 wine,"  may  be  inferred  from  the  exclamation  of  Professor 
 Stuart,  in  reference  to  the  passage  just  quoted  from  President 
 Edwards.  He  says  it  is  "  a  signal  instance,  indeed,  of  the 
 triumph  of  the  spontaneous  feelings  of  our  nature  over  the 
 power  of  system!''  It  would  seem  from  this,  that  he  has  no 
 objection  to  the  doctrine  as  thus  stated.  And  yet  this  is 
 the  form  in  which,  as  we  have  just  seen,  it  is  presented  in 
 the  creeds  of  the  Reformers,  and  the  works  of  the  "best 
 divines." 
 
 It  will  be  at  once  perceived  that  all  such  questions  as  the 
 following,  proceed  on  an  incorrect  apprehension  of  the  point  at 
 issue.  It  is  often  asked.  If  Adam's  first  sin  is  propagated  to 
 us,  why  not  all  his  other  sins,  and  the  sins  of  all  our  ancestors  V 
 No  one  properly  maintains  that  Adam's  iirst  sin,  his  act  of 
 eating  the  forbidden  fruit,  is  propagated  to  any  one.  This  is  a 
 sheer  impossibility.  We  derive  from  Adam  a  nature  destitute 
 of  any  native  tendency  to  the  love  and  service  of  God;  and 
 since  the  soul,  from  its  nature,  is  filled  as  it  were  with  suscep- 
 tibilities, dispositions  or  tendencies  to  certain  modes  of  acting, 
 or  to  objects  out  of  itself,  if  destitute  of  the  governing  tendency 
 or  disposition  to  holiness  and  God,  it  has,  of  course,  a  tendency 
 to  self-gratification  and  sin.  There  is  surely  nothing  incredible 
 or  inconceivable  in  the  existence  of  a  native  tendency  to  delight 
 in  God,  any  more  than  in  the  existence  of  a  tendency  or  dis- 
 position to  delight  in  beauty,  or  social  intercourse,  or  in  our 
 own  oflFspring.  Men  have  still  an  innate  sense  of  right  and 
 wrong,  a  natural  sense  of  justice,  &c.  Why  then  may  not  Adam 
 fiave  been  created  with  an  analogous  tendency  to  delight  in 
 God?  And  if  this  disposition  presupposes  a  state  of  friendship 
 with  his  Maker,  or  if  it  is  the  result  of  special  Divine  influence, 
 why  may  not  that  influence  be  withheld  as  the  expression  of 
 God's  displeasure  for  the  apostasy  and  rebellion  of  man?    This 
 
292  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 is  perfectly  analogous  to  the  dealings  of  God  in  his  pro\idence, 
 and  agreeable  to  the  declarations  of  his  word.  He  abandons 
 sinners  to  themselves  as  a  punishment  of  their  transgressions ; 
 he  withholds  or  withdraws  blessings  from  children,  in  punish- 
 ment, or  as  an  expression  of  his  displeasure,  for  the  sins  of  their 
 parents.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  this  doctrine  at  vari- 
 ance with  the  Divine  character  or  conduct.  On  the  contrary,  it 
 has  in  its  support  the  whole  tenor  of  his  dealings  with  our  race, 
 from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  The  objections,  therefore, 
 founded  on  the  supposed  absurdity  of  the  propagation  of  sin, 
 ind  especially  of  Adam's  first  sin,  all  rest  on  misapprehension 
 of  the  doctrine  in  dispute. 
 
 Nor  is  the  objection  any  better  supported,  that  the  doctrine 
 of  corruption  of  nature  makes  God,  from  whom  that  nature 
 proceeds,  the  author  of  sin.  Our  nature  is  not  corrupted  by 
 any  positive  act  of  God,  or  by  the  infusion,  implanting,  or 
 inworking  of  any  habit  or  principle  of  sin ;  God  merely  with- 
 holds judicially  those  influences  which  produced  in  Adam  a 
 tendency  or  disposition  to  holiness;  precisely  as  a  monarch 
 often,  from  the  purest  and  wisest  motives,  withholds  favours 
 from  the  children  of  traitors  or  rebels,  or  bestows  them  upon 
 the  children  of  patriots  and  public  benefactors.  There  is  in 
 every  human  being  a  tendency  to  act  upon  the  same  principle. 
 We  are  all  disposed  to  regard  with  less  favour  the  children  of 
 the  wicked  than  the  children  of  the  good.  If  this  principle  is 
 recognized  even  in  the  ordinary  dealings  of  Divine  Providence, 
 we  need  not  wonder  at  its  being  acted  upon  in  that  great  trans- 
 action which  decided  the  fate  of  the  world,  as  Adam  was  not  on 
 trial  for  himself  alone,  but  also  for  his  posterity. 
 
 As  little  weight  is  due  to  the  objection,  that  the  laAV  of  pro- 
 pagation does  not  secure  the  transmission  of  bodily  defects,  or 
 mental  and  moral  peculiarities  of  parents  to  their  children. 
 This  objection  supposes  that  the  derivation  of  a  corrupt  nature 
 from  Adam  is  resolved  into  this  general  law;  whereas  it  is 
 uniformly  represented  as  a  peculiar  case,  founded  on  the  repre- 
 sentative character  of  Adam,  and  not  to  be  accounted  for  by 
 this  general  law  exclusively.  It  is  constantly  represented  as 
 resulting  from  the  judicial  withholding  of  the  influences  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit  from  an  apostate  race.     See  the  Confessions  of  the 
 
HOMANS  V.  12—21.  293 
 
 Reformers  quoted  above :  Defeetus  et  concupisoentia  sunt  poence^ 
 Apolgia  I.,  p.  58.  That  the  peculiarities,  and  especially  that 
 the  piety  of  parents,  are  not  transmitted  by  the  law  of  propa- 
 gation, from  parents  to  children,  does  not  therefore  present  a 
 shadow  of  an  objection  to  the  common  doctrine  on  this  subject. 
 The  notorious  fact,  however,  that  the  mental  and  moral  pecu- 
 liarities of  parents  are  transmitted  to  their  children,  frequently 
 and  manifestly,  though  not  with  the  uniformity  of  an  established 
 law,  answers  two  important  purposes.  It  shows  that  there  is 
 nothing  absurd,  or  out  of  analogy  with  God's  dealing  with  men, 
 in  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  depravity ;  and  also,  that  the  doc- 
 trine is  consistent  with  God's  goodness  and  justice.  For  if, 
 under  the  administration  of  the  divine  Being,  analogous  facts 
 are  daily  occurring,  it  must  be  right  and  consistent  with  the 
 perfections  of  God. 
 
 The  most  common  and  plausible  objection  to  this  doctrine  is, 
 that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness  to 
 suppose  that  either  one  or  the  other  can  be  innate,  or  that  a 
 disposition  or  principle,  which  is  not  the  result  of  choice,  can 
 possess  a  morai  character.  To  this  objection,  President  Edwards 
 answers,  "  In  the  first  place,  I  think  it  a  contradiction  to  the 
 nature  of  things,  as  judged  of  by  the  common-sense  of  mankind. 
 It  is  agreeable  to  the  sense  of  the  minds  of  men  in  all  ages,  not 
 only  that  the  fruit  or  efi'ect  of  a  good  choice  is  virtuous,  but  the 
 good  choice  itself,  from  which  that  effect  proceeds ;  yea,  and  not 
 only  so,  but  the  antecedent  good  disposition,  temper,  or  affec- 
 tion of  mind,  from  whence  proceeds  that  good  choice,  is  virtu- 
 ous. This  is  the  general  notion,  not  that  principles  derive  their 
 goodness  from  actions,  but  that  actions  derive  their  goodness 
 from  the  principles  whence  they  proceed ;  and  so  that  the  act 
 of  choosing  that  which  is  good  is  no  farther  virtuous  than  it 
 proceeds  from  a  good  principle  or  virtuous  disposition  of  mind, 
 which  supposes  that  a  virtuous  disposition  of  mind  may  be 
 before  a  virtuous  act  of  choice ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  is  not 
 necessary  that  there  should  first  be  thought,  reflection,  and 
 choice,  before  there  can  be  any  virtuous  disposition.  If  the 
 choice  be  first,  before  the  existence  of  a  good  disposition  of 
 heart,  what  signifies  that  choice  ?  There  can,  according  to  our 
 natural  notions,  be  no  virtue  in  a  choice  which  proceeds  from 
 
294  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 no  virtuous  principle,  but  from  mere  self-love,  ambition,  or  some 
 animal  appetite."  Original  Sin,  p.  140.  It  is  certainly  accjrJ- 
 ing  to  the  intuitive  judgment  of  men,  that  innate  dispositions 
 are  amiable  or  unamiable,  moral  or  immoral,  according  to  their 
 nature ;  and  that  their  character  does  not  depend  on  the  mode 
 of  their  production.  The  parental  instinct,  pity,  sympathy  with 
 the  happiness  and  sorrows  of  others,  though  founded  in  innate 
 principles  of  our  nature,  are  universally  regarded  as  amiable 
 attributes  of  the  soul;  and  the  opposite  dispositions  as  the 
 reverse  In  like  manner,  the  sense  of  justice,  hatred  of  cruelty 
 and  oppression,  though  natural,  are  moral  from  their  very 
 nature.  And  the  universal  disposition  to  prefer  ourselves  to 
 others,  though  the  strongest  of  all  the  native  tendencies  of  the 
 mind,  is  no  less  universally  recognized  as  evil. 
 
 The  opposite  opinion,  which  denies  the  possibility  of  moral 
 
 dispositions  prior  to  acts  of  choice,  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
 
 nature  of  virtue,  and  involves  us  in  all  the  difficulties  of  the 
 
 doctrine,  that  indifference  is  necessary  to  the  freedom  of  the 
 
 will  and  the  morality  of  actions.     If  Adam  was  created  neither 
 
 holy  nor  unholy,  if  it  is  not  true  that  "  God  made  man  upright," 
 
 but  that  he  formed  his  own  moral  character,  how  is  his  choice 
 
 of  God  as  the  portion  of  his  soul  to  be  accounted  for  ?    Or  what 
 
 moral  character  could  it  have  ?     To  say  that  the   choice  was 
 
 made  from  the  desire  of  happiness,  or  the  impulse  of  self-love, 
 
 affords  no  solution  of  the  case ;  because  it  does  not  account  for 
 
 the  nature  of  the   choice.     It  assigns  no  reason  why  God,  in 
 
 preference  to  any  other  object,  was  chosen.     This  desire  could 
 
 only  prompt  to  a  choice,  but  could  not  determine  the  object. 
 
 If  it  be  said  that  the  choice  was  determined  by  the  superior 
 
 excellence  of  God  as  a  source  of  happiness,  this  supposes  that 
 
 this  excellence  was,  in  the  view  of  the  mind,  an  object  supremely 
 
 desirable ;  but  the  desire  of  moral  excellence  is,  from  the  nature 
 
 of  the  case,  a  moral  or  virtuous  desire ;  and  if  this  determined 
 
 the  choice,  moral  character  existed  prior  to  this  determination 
 
 of  the  will,   and  neither  consisted  in  it,  nor  resulted  from  it. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  if  the  choice  was  determined  by  no  desire 
 
 of  the  object  as  a  moral  good,  it  could  have  no  moral  character. 
 
 How  is  it  possible  that  the  choice  of  an  object  which  is  made 
 
 from  no   regard   for   its    excellence,    should  have    any  mora] 
 
ROMANS  V.  12—21.  295 
 
 character?  The  choice,  considered  as  an  act  of  tho  rnind, 
 derives  its  character  entirely  from  the  motive  by  which  it  is 
 determined.  If  the  motive  be  desire  for  it  as  morally  excel 
 lent,  the  choice  is  morally  good,  and  is  the  evidence  of  an  ante- 
 cedent virtuous  disposition  of  mind ;  but  if  the  motive  be  mere 
 self-love,  the  choice  is  neither  good  nor  bad.  There  is  no  way, 
 on  the  theory  in  question,  of  accounting  for  this  preference  for 
 God,  but  by  assuming  the  self-determining  power  of  the  will, 
 and  supposing  that  the  selection  of  one  object,  rather  than 
 another,  is  made  prior  to  the  rise  of  the  desire  for  it  as  excel- 
 lent, and  consequently  in  a  state  of  indifference. 
 
 This  reasoning,  though  it  applies  to  the  origin  of  holiness,  is 
 not  applicable  to  the  origin  of  sin ;  and,  therefore,  the  objection 
 that  it  supposes  a  sinful  disposition  to  exist  in  Adam,  prior  to 
 his  first  transgression,  is  not  valid.  Because  an  act  of  disobedi- 
 ence performed  under  the  impulse  of  self-love,  or  of  some  animal 
 appetite,  is  sinful,  it  does  not  follow  that  an  act  of  obedience, 
 performed  under  a  similar  impulse,  and  without  any  regard  for 
 God  or  moral  excellence,  is  virtuous. 
 
 Of  all  the  facts  ascertained  by  the  history  of  the  world,  it 
 would  seem  to  be  among  the  plainest,  that  men  are  born  desti- 
 tute of  a  disposition  to  seek  their  chief  good  in  God,  and  with  a 
 disposition  to  make  self-gratification  the  great  end  of  their 
 being.  Even  reason,  conscience,  and  natural  affection,  are  less 
 universal  characteristics  of  our  fallen  race.  For  there  are  idiots 
 and  moral  monsters  often  to  be  met  with ;  but  for  a  child  of 
 Adam,  uninfluenced  by  the  special  grace  of  God,  to  delight  in 
 his  Maker,  as  the  portion  of  his  soul,  from  the  first  dawn  of  his 
 moral  being,  is  absolutely  without  example  among  all  the  thou- 
 sands of  millions  of  men  who  have  inhabited  our  world.  If 
 experience  can  establish  anything,  it  establishes  the  truth  of  the 
 scriptural  declaration,  "that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh." 
 It  would  seem  no  less  plain,  that  this  cannot  be  the  original 
 and  normal  state  of  man ;  that  human  nature  is  not  now  what 
 it  was  when  it  proceeded  from  the  hand  of  God.  Every  thing 
 else  which  God  has  made,  answers  the  end  of  its  being ;  but 
 human  nature,  since  the  fall,  has  uniformly  worked  badly :  in 
 no  one  instance  has  it  spontaneously  turned  to  God  as  its  chief 
 good.     It  cannot  be  believed  that  God  thus  made  man ;  that 
 
296  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 there  has  been  no  perversion  of  his  faculties ;  no  loss  of  some 
 original  and  guiding  disposition  or  tendency  of  his  mind.  It 
 cannot  be  credited  that  men  are  now  what  Adam  was,  when  he 
 first  opened  his  eyes  on  the  wonders  of  creation  and  the  glories 
 of  God.  Reason,  Scripture,  and  experience,  therefore,  all 
 concur  in  support  of  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Christian 
 world,  that  the  race  fell  in  Adam,  lost  their  original  rectitude, 
 and  became  prone  to  evil  as  the  sparks  fly  upward. 
 
 This  doctrine  has  so  strong  a  witness  in  the  religious  experi- 
 ence of  Christians,  that  it  is  not  wonderful  that  it  has  been 
 almost  universally  received.  Individual  opponents  and  objectors 
 have  indeed  appeared,  from  time  to  time ;  but  it  is  believed  that 
 no  organized  sect,  bearing  the  Christian  name,  the  Socinians 
 excepted,  have  ever  discarded  it  from  the  articles  of  their  faith. 
 It  is  so  intimately  connected  with  the  doctrines  of  divine  influ- 
 ence and  redemption,  that  they  have  almost  uniformly  been 
 held  or  rejected  together.  It  has  indeed  often  been  said, 
 because  the  term  original  sin  was  first  used  by  Augustine,  that 
 the  doctrine  itself  took  its  origin  with  him ;  although  perfectly 
 synonymous  expressions  occur  so  constantly  in  the  writings  of 
 the  earlier  Fathers.  Equally  destitute  of  foundation  is  the 
 assertion,  so  often  made,  that  Augustine  was  driven  to  his  views 
 on  this  subject  by  his  controversy  with  Pelagius.  He  had 
 arrived  at  all  the  conclusions  on  which  he  ultimately  rested,  at 
 least  ten  years  before  any  controversy  on  the  subject.*  He 
 was  led  to  these  results  by  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  and 
 by  his  own  personal  experience.  His  earlier  views  on  the 
 intimately  related  doctrines  of  depravity,  ability,  dependence, 
 and  grace,  were  all  modified  as  he  became  more  thoroughly 
 acquainted  with  the  word  of  God,  and  with  his  own  heart. 
 When  he  passed  what  Neander  calls  the  crisis  of  his  religious 
 history,  he  saw  clearly  the  depth  of  the  evil  which  existed 
 within  him,  and  had  corresponding  views  of  the  necessity  and 
 efiicacy  of  the  grace  of  God,  by  which  alone  this  evil  could  be 
 removed. 
 
 With  regard  to  Pelagius,  the  case  was  just  the  reverse.  His 
 views  of  depravity  being  superficial,  he  had  very  high  ideas  of 
 the  ability  of  man,  and  very  low  conceptions  of  the  operations 
 
 *  Neander's  Geschlchte  der  Christlichen  Religion  und  Kirche,  ii.,  §  3. 
 
ROMANS  V.  12—21.  297 
 
 of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  latter,  as  the  author  just  referred  to 
 strikingly  remarks,  was  the  representative  and  champion  of 
 "the  general,  moral,  and  religious  consciousness  of  men;"  the 
 other,  of  "the  peculiar  nature  of  Christian  consciousness."  A 
 doctrine  which  enters  so  much  into  the  experience  of  all  Christ- 
 ians, and  which  has  maintained  its  ground  in  all  ages  and 
 sections  of  the  Church,  must  have  its  deep  foundations  in  the 
 testimony  of  God,  and  the  consciousness  of  men. 
 
 III.  It  is  included  in  the  doctrines  already  stated,  that  man- 
 kind h?ve  had  a  fair  probation  in  Adam,  their  head  and  repre- 
 sentative ,  and  that  we  are  not  to  consider  God  as  placing  them 
 on  their  probation,  in  the  very  first  dawn  of  their  intellectual 
 and  moral  existence,  and  under  circumstances  (or  "a  divine 
 constitution")  which  secure  the  certainty  of  their  sinning.  Such 
 a  probation  could  hardly  deserve  the  name. 
 
 IV.  It  is  also  included  in  the  doctrine  of  this  portion  of 
 Scripture,  that  mankind  is  an  unit,  in  the  sense  in  which  an 
 army,  in  distinction  from  a  mob,  is  one ;  or  as  a  nation,  a  com- 
 munity, or  a  family,  is  one,  in  opposition  to  a  mere  fortuitous 
 collection  of  individuals.  Hence  the  frequent  and  extensive 
 transfer  of  the  responsibility  and  consequences  of  the  acts  of 
 the  heads  of  these  communities  to  their  several  members,  and 
 from  one  member  to  others.  This  is  a  law  which  pervades  the 
 whole  moral  government  and  providential  dispensations  of  God. 
 We  are  not  like  the  separate  grains  of  wheat  in  a  measure,  but 
 links  in  a  complicated  chain.  All  influence  the  destiny  of  each, 
 and  each  influences  the  destiny  of  all. 
 
 V.  The  design  of  the  apostle  being  to  illustrate  the  nature 
 and  to  confirm  the  certainty  of  our  justification,  it  is  the  leading 
 doctrine  of  this  passage,  that  our  acceptance  with  God  is  founded 
 neither  on  our  faith  nor  our  good  works,  but  on  the  obedience 
 or  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  to  us  is  a  free  gift.  This  is 
 the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  vs.  18, 19. 
 
 VI.  The  dreadful  evil  of  sin  is  best  seen  in  the  fall  of  Adam, 
 and  in  the  cross  of  Christ.  By  the  one  ofi'ence  of  one  man,  what 
 a  waste  of  ruin  has  been  spread  over  the  whole  world !  How  far 
 beyond  conception  the  misery  that  one  act  occasioned !  There 
 was  no  adequate  remedy  for  this  evil  but  the  death  of  the  Son 
 of  God,  vs,  12, 15, 16,  &c. 
 
298  ROMANS  V.  12—21. 
 
 VII.  It  is  the  prerogative  of  God  to  bring  good  out  of  evil, 
 and  to  make  the  good  triumph  over  the  evil.  From  the  fall  has 
 sprung  redemption,  and  from  redemption  results  which  eternity 
 alone  can  disclose,  vs.  20,  21. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  Every  man  should  bow  down  before  God,  under  the  humi- 
 liating consciousness  that  he  is  a  member  of  an  apostate  race ; 
 the  son  of  a  rebellious  parent ;  born  estranged  from  God,  and 
 exposed  to  his  displeasure,  vs.  12,  15,  16,  &c. 
 
 2.  Every  man  should  thankfully  embrace  the  means  provided 
 for  his  restoration  to  the  Divine  favour,  viz.  "the  abundance  of 
 grace  and  gift  of  righteousness,"  ver.  17. 
 
 3.  Those  that  perish,  perish  not  because  the  sin  of  Adam  has 
 brought  them  under  condemnation;  nor  because  no  adequate 
 provision  has  been  made  for  their  recovery ;  but  because  they 
 will  not  receive  the  offered  mercy,  ver.  17. 
 
 4.  For  those  who  refuse  the  proffered  righteousness  of  Christ, 
 and  insist  on  trusting  to  their  own  righteousness,  the  evil  of  sin 
 and  God's  determination  to  punish  it,  show  there  can  be  no  rea- 
 sonable hope;  while,  for  those  who  humbly  receive  this  gift, 
 there  can  be  no  rational  ground  of  fear,  ver.  15. 
 
 5.  If,  without  personal  participation  in  the  sin  of  Adam,  all 
 men  are  subject  to  death,  may  we  not  hope  that,  without  per- 
 sonal acceptance  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  all  who  die  in 
 infancy  are  saved? 
 
 6.  We  should  never  yield  to  temptation  on  the  ground  that 
 the  sin  to  which  we  are  solicited  appears  to  be  a  trifle,  (merely 
 eating  a  forbidden  fruit ;)  or  that  it  is  but  for  once.  Remember 
 the  ONE  offence  of  one  man.  How  often  has  a  man,  or  a  family, 
 been  ruined  for  ever  by  one  sin !  ver.  12. 
 
 7.  Our  dependence  on  Jesus  Christ  is  entire,  and  our  obliga- 
 tions to  him  are  infinite.  It  is  through  his  righteousness,  with- 
 out the  shadow  of  merit  on  our  own  part,  that  we  are  justified. 
 He  alone  was  adequate  to  restore  the  ruins  of  the  fall.  From 
 those  ruins  he  has  built  up  a  living  temple,  a  habitation  of  God 
 through  the  Spirit. 
 
 8.  We  must  experience  the  operation  of  the  law,  in  producing 
 <;he  knowledge  and  conviction  of  sin,  in  order  to  be  prepared 
 
ROMANS  VI.  1—11.  299 
 
 for  the  appreciation  and  reception  of  the  work  of  Christ.  The 
 Church  and  the  world  were  prepared,  by  the  legal  dispensation 
 of  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  gracious  dispensation  of  the 
 New,  ver.  20. 
 
 9.  We  should  open  our  hearts  to  the  large  prospects  of  purity 
 and  blessedness  presented  in  the  gospel ;  the  victory  of  gracp 
 over  sin  and  death,  which  is  to  be  consummated  in  the  triumph 
 of  true  religion,  and  in  the  eternal  salvation  of  those  multitudes 
 out  of  every  tribe  and  kindred,  which  no  man  can  number, 
 ver.  21. 
 
 CHAPTER    VI. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 As  the  gospel  reveals  the  only  effectual  method  of  justification, 
 so  also  it  alone  can  secure  the  sanctification  of  men.  To  exhibit 
 this  truth  is  the  object  of  this  and  the  following  chapter.  The 
 sixth  is  partly  argumentative,  and  partly  exhortatory.  In 
 vs.  1 — 11,  the  apostle  shows  how  unfounded  is  the  objection, 
 that  gratuitous  justification  leads  to  the  indulgence  of  sin.  In 
 vs.  12 — 23,  he  exhorts  Christians  to  live  agreeably  to  the  nature 
 and  design  of  the  gospel ;  and  presents  various  considerations 
 adapted  to  secure  their  obedience  to  this  exhortation. 
 
 ROMANS   VI.  1—11. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  most  common,  the  most  plausible,  and  yet  the  most 
 unfounded  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  is, 
 that  it  allows  men  to  live  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound.  This 
 objection  arises  from  ignorance  of  the  doctrine  in  question,  and 
 of  the  nature  and  means  of  sanctification.  It  is  so  preposterous 
 in  the  eyes  of  an  enlightened  believer,  that  Paul  deals  with  it 
 rather  by  exclamations  at  its  absurdity,  than  with  logical  argu- 
 ments.   The  main  idea  of  this  section  is,  that  such  is  the  nature 
 
300  ROMANS  VI.  1,  2. 
 
 of  the  believer's  union  with  Christ,  that  his  living  in  sin  is  not 
 merely  an  inconsistency,  but  a  contradiction  in  terms,  as  much 
 so  as  to  speak  of  a  live  dead  man,  or  a  good  bad  one.  Union 
 with  Christ,  being  the  only  source  of  holiness,  cannot  be  the 
 source  of  sin.  In  ver.  1,  the  apostle  presents  the  objection.  In 
 ver.  2,  he  declares  it  to  be  unfounded,  and  exclaims  at  its 
 absurdity.  In  vs.  3,  4,  he  exhibits  the  true  nature  and  design 
 of  Christianity,  as  adapted  and  intended  to  produce  newness  of 
 life.  In  vs.  5 — 7,  he  shows  that  such  is  the  nature  of  union 
 with  Christ,  that  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  to  share  the  benefits 
 of  his  death,  without  being  conformed  to  his  life.  Such  being 
 the  case,  he  shows,  vs.  8 — 11,  that  as  Christ's  death  on  account 
 of  sin  was  for  once,  never  to  be  repeated,  and  his  life,  a  life 
 devoted  to  God;  so  our  separation  from  sin  is  final,  and  our 
 life  a  life  consecrated  to  God. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  What  shall  we  say  then?  What  inference  is  to  be 
 drawn  from  the  doctrine  of  the  gratuitous  acceptance  of  sinners, 
 or  justification  without  works,  by  faith  in  the  righteousness  of 
 Christ? 
 
 Sliall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound?  i.  e.  be 
 more  conspicuously  displayed.  The  form  in  which  the  objection 
 to  the  apostle's  doctrine  is  here  presented,  is  evidently  borrowed 
 fi-om  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter.  Paul  had  there  spoken 
 of  the  grace  of  the  gospel  being  the  more  conspicuous  and 
 abundant,  in  proportion  to  the  evils  which  it  removes.  It  is  no 
 fair  inference  from  the  fact  that  God  has  brought  so  much  good 
 out  of  the  fall  and  sinfulness  of  men,  that  they  may  continue  in 
 sin.  Neither  can  it  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he  accepts 
 of  sinners  on  the  ground  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  instead  of  their 
 own,  (which  is  one  way  in  which  grace  abounds,)  that  they  may 
 sin  without  restraint. 
 
 Verse  2.  G-od  forbid,  [irj  yivocro,  let  it  not  be.  Paul's  usual 
 mode  of  expressing  denial  and  abhorrence.  Such  an  inference 
 is  not  to  be  thought  of.  How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live 
 any  longer  therein?  The  relative  olrtvtt;  is  as  usual  causative, 
 and  it  stands  first,  for  thf  sake  of  emphasis ;  dTre&dvo/iev  doea 
 
ROMANS  VI.  2.  301 
 
 not  mean  are  dead,  nor  have  died,  but  died.  It  refers  to  a  spe- 
 cific act  in  our  past  history :  '  Since  we  died  to  sin,  how  can  we 
 still  live  in  it?'  The  act  which  in  its  nature  was  a  dying  to  sin, 
 was  our  accepting  of  Christ  as  our  Saviour.  That  act  involves 
 in  it  not  only  a  separation  from  sin,  but  a  deadness  to  it.  No 
 man  can  apply  to  Christ  to  be  delivered  from  sin,  in  order  that 
 he  may  live  in  it.  Deliverance  from  sin,  as  offered  by  Christ, 
 and  as  accepted  by  the  believer,  is  not  mere  deliverance  from 
 its  penalty,  but  from  its  power.  We  turn  from  sin  to  God  when 
 we  receive  Christ  as  a  Saviour.  It  is,  therefore,  as  the  apostle 
 argues,  a  contradiction  in  terms,  to  say  that  gratuitous  justifica- 
 tion is  a  license  to  sin,  as  much  as  to  say  that  death  is  life,  or 
 that  dying  to  a  thing  is  living  in  it.  Instead  of  giving  rrj 
 b-iiapria  the  usual  force  of  the  dative,  to,  or  as  it  respects,  sin, 
 Storr,  Flatt,  and  many  other  commentators,  say  it  should  be 
 understood  as  in  v.  15,  xi.  20,  on  account  of.  '  How  shall  we, 
 who  in  Christ,  died  on  account  of  sin,  i.  e.  who  suffered  vicari- 
 ously its  penalty,  inasmuch  as  we  were  crucified  in  him,  live 
 any  longer  therein?' 
 
 In  favour  of  this  interpretation,  it  is  urged,  1.  That  this 
 phrase  must  express  the  same  idea  with  the  subsequent  clauses, 
 buried  with  him,  ver.  4;  associated  in  his  death,  ver.  5;  dead 
 with  Christ,  ver.  8.  2.  That  it  must  have  this  meaning  in 
 ver.  10,  where  it  is  said  of  Christ,  he  died  unto  sin,  i.  e.  on 
 account  of  sin.  3.  The  other  interpretation,  '  How  shall  we, 
 who  have  renounced  sin,  live  any  longer  therein?'  it  is  said,  is 
 not  suited  to  the  apostle's  object ;  because  it  does  not  give  any 
 adequate  answer  to  the  objection  presented  in  ver.  1.  In  order 
 to  answer  that  objection,  it  was  necessary  to  show  not  merely 
 that  the  believer  had  renounced  sin,  but  that  the  doctrine  of 
 gratuitous  justification  effectually  secures  this  renunciation. 
 According  to  the  second  interpretation,  this  answer  is  plain  and 
 conclusive :  '  How  shall  we,  who  have  died  on  account  of  sin, 
 live  any  longer  therein?  If  we  are  regarded  and  treated  bj 
 God,  in  virtue  of  our  union  with  Christ,  and  if  we  regard  our 
 selves,  as  having  suffered  and  died  with  him  on  account  of  sin, 
 we  cannot  but  look  upon  it  as  hateful,  and  deserving  of  punish^ 
 ment.' 
 
 The  objections  to  this  interpretation,  however,  are  serious 
 
302  ROMANS  VI.  3. 
 
 1.  It  is  not  consistent  with  the  common  and  familiar  import  of 
 the  expression,  to  he  dead  to  anything,  which  occurs  frequentlj 
 in  the  New  Testament;  as  Gal.  ii.  19,  "dead  to  the  law;" 
 1  Pet.  ii.  24,  "dead  to  sins;"  Rom.  vii.  4;  Col.  ii.  20;  Gal. 
 vi.  14,  &c.  In  all  cases  the  meaning  is,  to  he  free  from.  Sin 
 has  lost  its  power  over  the  believer,  as  sensible  objects  are  not 
 able  to  aflfect  the  dead.  2.  The  opposite  phrase,  to  live  therein^ 
 requires  this  interpretation.  3.  The  object  of  the  apostle  does 
 not  require  that  a  formal,  argumentative  answer  should  be  sup- 
 posed to  commence  in  this  verse.  He  simply  denies  the  justice 
 of  the  inference  from  his  doctrine,  stated  in  ver.  1,  and  asks 
 how  it  is  possible  it  should  be  correct.  How  can  a  Christian, 
 which  is  but  another  name  for  a  holy  man,  live  any  longer  in 
 sin? 
 
 Verse  3.  Knoiv  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
 into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  In  this  and  the 
 following  verse,  we  have  something  more  in  the  form  of  argu- 
 ment in  answer  to  the  objection  in  question.  The  apostle 
 reminds  his  readers,  that  the  very  design  of  Christianity  was 
 to  deliver  men  from  sin;  that  every  one  who  embraced  it, 
 embraced  it  for  that  object;  and,  therefore,  it  was  a  contra- 
 diction in  terms  to  suppose  that  any  should  come  to  Christ  to 
 be  delivered  from  sin,  in  order  that  they  might  live  in  it.  And, 
 besides  this,  it  is  clearly  intimated  that  such  is  not  only  the 
 design  of  the  gospel,  and  the  object  for  which  it  is  embraced  by 
 all  who  cordially  receive  it,  but  also  that  the  result  or  neces- 
 sary effect  of  union  with  Christ  is  a  participation  in  the  benefits 
 of  his  death.  Or  know  ye  not,  7j  dyvozire,  or  are  you  ignorant  f 
 If  any  doubt  what  is  said  in  ver.  2,  he  must  be  ignorant  of  the 
 nature  and  design  of  baptism,  and  of  the  relation  to  Christ 
 which  it  involves.  BajiTi^ecv  e:c  always  means  to  hajjtize  in 
 reference  to.  When  it  is  said  that  the  Hebrews  were  baptized 
 unto  Moses,  1  Cor.  x.  2 ;  or  when  the  apostle  asks  the  Corinth- 
 ians, 'Were  ye  baptized  unto  the  name  of  Paul?'  1  Cor.  i.  13; 
 or  when  we  are  said  to  be  baptized  unto  Christ,  the  meaning  is, 
 they  were  baptized  in  reference  to  Moses,  Paul,  or  Christ ;  i.  e. 
 to  be  brought  into  union  with  them,  as  their  disciples,  or  wor- 
 shippers, as  the  case  may  be.  In  like  manner,  in  the  expression 
 baptized  into  his  death,  the  preposition  expresses  the  design  and 
 
ROMANS  VI.  3.  30e^ 
 
 the  result.  The  meaning  therefore  is,  'we  were  baptized  in 
 order  that  we  should  die  with  him,'  i.  e.  that  we  should  be  united 
 to  him  in  his  death,  and  be  partakers  of  its  benefits.  Thus, 
 "baptism  unto  repentance,"  Matt.  iii.  11,  is  baptism  in  order  to 
 repentance;  "baptism  unto  the  remission  of  sins,"  Mark  i.  4, 
 that  remission  of  sins  maybe  obtained;  "baptized  unto  one 
 body,"  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  i.  e.  that  we  might  become  one  body,  &c. 
 Paul  aots  not  design  to  teach  that  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
 from  any  inherent  virtue  in  the  rite,  or  from  any  supernatural 
 power  in  him  who  administers  it,  or  from  any  uniformly  attend- 
 ing Divine  influence,  always  secures  the  regeneration  of  the 
 soul.  This  is  contrary  both  to  Scripture  and  experience.  No 
 fact  is  more  obvious  than  that  thousands  of  the  baptized  are 
 unregenerate.  It  cannot  be,  therefore,  that  the  apostle  intends 
 to  say,  that  all  who  are  baptized  are  thereby  savingly  united  to 
 Christ.  It  is  not  of  the  efficacy  of  baptism  as  an  external  rite, 
 that  he  assumes  his  readers  are  well  informed:  it  is  of  the 
 import  and  design  of  that  sacrament,  and  the  nature  of  the 
 union  with  Christ,  of  which  baptism  is  the  sign  and  the  seal. 
 It  is  the  constant  usage  of  Scripture  to  address  professors  as 
 believers,  to  predicate  of  them  as  professors  what  is  true  of 
 them  only  as  believers.  This  is  also  the  usage  of  common  life. 
 We  address  a  company  of  professing  Christians  as  true  Christ- 
 ians; we  call  them  brethren  in  Christ;  we  speak  of  them  as 
 beloved  of  the  Lord,  partakers  uf  the  heavenly  calling,  and  heirs 
 of  eternal  life.  Baptism  was  the  appointed  mode  of  professing 
 faith  in  Christ,  of  avowing  allegiance  to  him  as  the  Son  of  God, 
 and  acquiescence  in  his  gospel.  Those,  therefore,  who  were 
 baptized,  are  assumed  to  believe  what  they  professed,  and  to  be 
 what  they  declared  themselves  to  be.  They  are  consequently 
 addressed  as  believers,  as  having  embraced  the  gospel,  as  having 
 put  on  Christ,  and  as  being,  in  virtue  of  their  baptism  as  an  act 
 of  faith,  the  children  of  God.  When  a  man  was  baptized  unto 
 Christ,  he  was  baptized  unto  his  death;  he  professed  to  regard 
 himself  as  being  united  to  Christ,  as  dying  when  he  died,  as 
 "bearing  in  him  the  penalty  of  sin,  in  order  that  he  might  be 
 reconciled  to  God,  and  live  unto  holiness.  How  could  a  man 
 who  was  sincere  in  receiving  baptism,  such  being  its  design  and 
 import,  live  in  sin  ?     The  thing  is  impossible.     The  act  of  faith 
 
304  ROMANS  VI.  4. 
 
 implied  and  expressed  in  baptism,  is  receiving  Christ  as  our 
 sanctification  as  well  as  our  righteousness.  "  Extra  controver- 
 siam  est,"  says  Calvin,  "induere  nos  Christum  in  baptismo;  et 
 hac  lege  nos  baptizari,  ut  unum  cum  ipso  simus."  Baptism, 
 therefore,  as  an  act  of  faith,  as  the  formal  reception  of  Christ 
 as  our  Saviour,  brings  us  into  intimate  union  with  him:  "For 
 as  many  as  have  been  baptized  unto  Christ,  have  put  on 
 Christ."  Gal.  iii.  27.  And  this  baptism  has  special  reference 
 to  the  death  of  Christ ;  we  are  baptized  unto  his  death.  That 
 is,  we  are  united  to  him  in  death.  His  death  becomes  ours ; 
 ours  as  an  expiation  for  sin,  as  the  means  of  reconciliation  with 
 God,  and  consequently  as  the  means  of  our  sanctification. 
 Although  justification  is  the  primary  object  of  the  death  of 
 Christ,  yet  justification  is  in  order  to  sanctification.  He  died 
 that  he  might  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,  zealous 
 of  good  works.  If  such  is  the  intimate  connection  between  jus- 
 tification and  sanctification  in  the  purpose  of  God  in  giving  his 
 Son  to  die  for  us,  there  must  be  a  like  intimate  connection 
 between  them  in  the  experience  of  the  believer.  The  very  act 
 of  faith  by  which  we  receive  Christ  as  the  propitiation  for  sin, 
 is  spiritually  a  death  to  sin.  It  is  in  its  very  nature  a  renun- 
 ciation of  everything  which  it  was  the  design  of  Christ's  death 
 to  destroy.  Every  believer,  therefore,  is  a  saint.  He  renounces 
 sin  in  accepting  Christ. 
 
 Verse  4.  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
 death.  This  is  an  inference  from  ver.  3,  to  confirm  the  proposi- 
 tion in  ver.  2,  viz.  that  those  dead  in  sin  cannot  live  therein. 
 Therefore,  says  the  apostle,  such  being  the  nature  of  our  union 
 with  Christ,  expressed  in  baptism,  it  follows,  that  those  who  are 
 baptized  are  buried  with  Christ;  they  are  as  efiectually  shut 
 out  from  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  as  those  who  are  in  the  grave 
 are  shut  out  from  the  world.  The  words  dca  too  ^aTtriapLaroz 
 ere  Tov  ^dvazov  go  together ;  by  baptism  unto  death,  i.  e.  by  a 
 baptism  which  has  reference  to  Christ's  death,  and  by  which  we 
 are  associated  with  him  therein.  We  are  buried  with  him,  i.  e. 
 we  are  cut  off  from  the  world  in  and  with  him.  If  the  words 
 unto  death  are  connected  with  we  were  buried,  the  sense  would 
 be,  we  were  buried  unto  death,  i.  e.  we  were  buried  so  as  to  come 
 into  the  power  of  death.     But  this  is  an  incongruous  idea,  and 
 
ROMANS  VI.  4.  305 
 
 an  uneiLampled  form  of  expression.  As  in  ver.  3,  the  apostle  had 
 said  £fV  ^oy  d-i-vaxov  auroo  ij^aTzzcadrjjuei^,  there  is  no  reason  to 
 doubt  that  he  here  designs  to  speak  of  baptism  unto  death. 
 Compare  Col.  ii.  12,  "buried  with  him  in  baptism."  The  same 
 idea  is  expressed  in  ver.  8,  by  saying  "we  are  dead  with  him," 
 and  in  ver.  5,  "we  are  planted  with  him  in  the  likeness  of  his 
 death."  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume  that  there  is  any  refer- 
 ence here  to  the  immersion  of  the  body  in  baptism,  as  though 
 it  were  a  burial.  No  such  allusion  can  be  supposed  in  the  next 
 verse,  where  we  are  said  to  be  planted  with  him.  The  reference 
 is  not  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  but  to  its  effect.  Our  baptism 
 unites  us  to  Christ,  so  that  we  died  with  him,  and  rose  with  him. 
 As  he  died  to  sin,  so  do  we ;  as  he  rose  to  righteousness  and 
 glory,  so  do  we.  The  same  doctrine  concerning  baptism,  and 
 of  the  nature  of  union  with  Christ,  therein  expressed,  is  taught 
 in  Gal.  iii.  27,  and  Col.  ii.  12. 
 
 That  like  as  Christ  ivas  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
 of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life. 
 We  die  with  Christ,  in  order  that  we  should  live  with  him.  We 
 share  in  his  death,  that  we  may  be  partakers  of  his  life.  Justi- 
 fication is  in  order  to  sanctification.  The  two  are  inseparable. 
 There  can  be  no  participation  in  Christ's  life  without  a  partici- 
 pation in  his  death,  and  we  cannot  enjoy  the  benefits  of  his 
 death  unless  we  are  partakers  of  the  power  of  his  life.  We 
 must  be  reconciled  to  God  in  order  to  be  holy,  and  we  cannot 
 be  reconciled  without  thereby  becoming  holy.  .Antinomianism, 
 or  the  doctrine  that  the  benefits  of  the  atonement  can  be 
 enjoyed  without  experiencing  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
 is  therefore  contrary  to  the  very  nature  and  design  of  redemp- 
 tion. As  Christ  died  and  rose  again  literally,  so  his  people  die 
 and  rise  spiritually.  As  Christ's  resurrection  was  the  certain 
 consequence  of  his  death,  so  is  a  holy  life  the  certain  con- 
 sequence of  our  dying  with  Christ.  There  is  not  only  an 
 analogy  between  Christ's  literal  death  and  resurrection,  and  the 
 spiritual  death  and  resurrection  of  the  believer,  but  there  is  a 
 causal  relation  between  the  two.  The  death  and  resurrection 
 of  Christ  render  certain  the  justification  and  sanctification  of 
 his  people.  Paul  says  Christ  rose,  dca  Trj<;  do^rjz  zou  JldTpoi;, 
 hy  the  glory  of  the  Father.  Jo^a,  glory^  is  the  excelleace 
 20 
 
306  ROMANS  VI.  5. 
 
 of  God,  the  sum  of  all  Ms  perfections,  or  any  one  perfectiot 
 specially  manifested.  The  exhibition,  therefore,  of  God's  holi- 
 ness, or  of  his  mercy,  or  of  his  power,  is  equally  an  exhibition 
 of  his  glory.  Here  the  reference  is  to  his  omnipotence,  which 
 was  gloriously  displayed  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  In 
 1  Cor.  vi.  14,  and  2  Cor.  xiii.  4,  it  is  said  Christ  was  raised, 
 kx  duvdfxscoc;  deoo,  hy  the  'power  of  Gfod.  In  Col.  i.  11,  the 
 apostle  refers  the  sanctification  of  believers  to  the  xpdro^  r^c 
 ao'^^yc  0SOU,  to  the  power  of  his  glory.  It  is  according  to  the 
 analogy  of  Scripture,  that  the  same  event  is  attributed  at  one 
 time  to  the  efficiency  of  the  Father,  and  at  another  to  that  of 
 the  Son.  Christ  rose  from  the  dead  by  his  own  power.  He 
 had  power  to  lay  down  his  life,  and  he  had  power  to  take  it 
 again.  This  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  apostle's  declara- 
 tion, that  he  was  raised  by  the  power  of  God.  The  three  per- 
 sons of  the  Trinity  are  one  God.  The  efficiency  of  the  Father 
 is  also  the  efficiency  of  the  Son.  What  the  Father  does,  the 
 Son  also  does.  That  we  should  walk  in  newness  of  life,  iu 
 xoiuor^Ti  C,co7jQ.  The  idea  of  purity  is  associated  with  tha,t  of 
 newness  in  the  word  of  God — a  new  heart,  a  neiv  creature,  the 
 new  man.  Newness  of  life  is  a  life  that  is  new,  compared  with 
 what  is  natural  and  original ;  and  it  is  a  holy  life,  springing 
 from  a  new  source.  It  is  not  we  that  live,  but  Christ  that 
 liveth  in  us;  and  therefore  our  life  is,  in  its  manifestations, 
 analogous  to  his.     His  people  are  like  him. 
 
 Verse  5.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness 
 of  his  death,  we  shall  he  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection. 
 This  is  a  confirmation  of  what  precedes.  We  shall  walk  in 
 newness  of  life,  if  we  are  partakers  of  Christ's  death,  for  com- 
 munity of  death  involves  community  of  life.  The  general 
 meaning  of  the  verse  is  plain,  although  there  is  doubt  as  to  the 
 force  of  some  of  the  words,  and  as  to  the  construction.  First, 
 as  to  the  words.  Calvin  and  many  others  render  aofjupozo^ 
 insitus,  inserted,  engrafted,  as  though  it  were  derived  from 
 (puTS'jo).  It  is,  however,  from  <f6(o,  which  means  both  to  bear 
 and  to  grow.  Hence  <ju/i(poTO(;  sometimes  means  born  with,  in 
 the  sense  of  innate;  sometimes  it  expresses  community  of 
 origin,  or  nature,  in  the  sense  of  cognate,  congenial ;  and  some- 
 times it  is  used  in  reference  to  things  born  or  produced  at  the 
 
ROMANS  VI.  5.  307 
 
 same  time.  From  the  other  meaning  of  the  word  ipuco,  come 
 the  senses  growing  with,  overgrown  with,  &c.  In  all  cases  there 
 is  the  idea  of  intimate  union,  and  that  is  the  idea  which  the 
 word  >.s  here  intended  to  express.  As  to  the  construction,  so 
 far  as  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  is  concerned,  we  may  connect 
 aofitpuzot  with  bfiouonare,  we  have  grown  together  in  death,  i.  e. 
 been  united  in  a  like  death;  or  we  may  supply  the  words  raJ 
 Xpcazcu,  we  have  been  united  with  Christ,  as  to,  or  5y,  simi- 
 larity of  death.  The  former,  as  it  requires  nothing  to  be  sup- 
 plied, is  to  be  preferred.  In  the  second  clause,  the  word 
 bpLoudzau  may  be  supplied,  as  in  our  version:  we  shall  be 
 (united)  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection.  But  as  abynpuxoz 
 may  be  construed  with  the  genitive  as  well  as  the  dative,  many 
 commentators  unite  au[j.(poToc  t7jQ  dvaazdauoi;  iaoftsd-a,  we  shall 
 partake  of  the  resurrection.  The  sense  is  the  same :  if  united 
 in  death,  we  shall  be  united  in  life ;  if  we  die  with  him,  we  shall 
 live  with  him.  The  future  iaojus&a  does  not  here  express  obli- 
 gation, nor  futurity.  The  reference  is  not  to  what  is  to  happen 
 hereafter,  but  to  the  certainty  of  sequence,  or  causal  connection. 
 If  the  one  thing  happens,  the  other  shall  certainly  follow.  The 
 doctrine  of  this  passage  is  not  simply  that  the  believer  dies  and 
 rises,  as  Clu-ist  died  and  rose ;  that  there  is  an  analogy  between 
 his  death  and  theirs;  but,  as  before  remarked,  the  main  idea  is, 
 the  necessary  connection  between  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
 Christ  and  the  death  and  resurrection  of  his  people.  Such  is 
 the  union  between  them  and  him,  that  his  death  and  resurrec- 
 tion render  theirs  a  matter  of  necessity.  The  life  or  death 
 of  a  tree  necessitates  the  life  or  death  of  the  branches.  Says 
 Calvin,  "Insitio,  non  tantum  exempli  conformitatem  designat, 
 sed  arcanam  conjunctionem  per  quam  cum  ipso  coaluimus,  ita 
 ut  nos  Spiritu  suo  vegetans  ejus  virtutem  in  nos  transfundat. 
 Ergo  ut  surculus  communem  habet  vitse  et  mortis  conditionem 
 cum  arbore  in  quara  insertus  est;  ita  vitae  Christi  non  minus 
 quam  et  mortis  participes  nos  esse  consentaneum  est."  That 
 the  resurrection  here  spoken  of  is  a  spiritual  rising  from  the 
 dead,  seems  plain,  both  from  what  precedes  and  from  what 
 follows.  The  whole  discussion  relates  to  sanctification,  to  the 
 necessary  connection  between  the  death  of  Christ  as  an  atone- 
 ment for  sin,  and  the  holiness  of  his  people.     Those  who  are 
 
308  ROMANS  VI.  6. 
 
 cleansed  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  are  cleansed  also  from  its  pollu- 
 tion. Although  this  is  obvious,  yet  all  reference  to  the  future 
 resurrection  of  the  body  is  not  to  be  excluded.  In  chap.  viii.  11, 
 the  apostle  represents  the  quickening  of  our  mortal  bodies  as  a 
 necessary  consequence  of  our  union  with  Christ,  and  the  indwell- 
 ing of  his  Spirit.  If,  therefore,  we  are  baptized  unto  the  death 
 of  Christ,  united  and  conformed  to  him  in  his  death,  the  sure 
 result  will  be,  that  we  shall  be  conformed  to  him  in  a  holy  life 
 here,  and  in  a  life  of  glorious  immortality  of  the  soul  and  body 
 hereafter.  All  this  is  included  in  the  life  which  flows  to  us 
 from  Christ. 
 
 Verse  6.  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with 
 him,  &c.  What  in  the  preceding  verses  is  represented  as  the 
 consequence  of  our  union  with  Christ  as  a  matter  of  doctrine,  i? 
 here  presented  as  a  matter  of  experience.  We  are  united  tc 
 Christ  as  our  head  and  representative,  so  as  to  be  partakers  of 
 his  death  and  resurrection,  as  a  matter  of  law  or  of  right. 
 What  is  thus  done,  as  it  were,  out  of  ourselves,  is  attended  by 
 an  analogous  spiritual  experience.  TJiis  knowing,  i.  e.  expe- 
 riencing this.  Our  inward  experience  agrees  with  this  doctrinal 
 statement.  Our  old  man,  that  is,  our  corrupt  nature  as  opposed 
 to  the  new  m.an,  or  holy  nature,  which  is  the  product  of  rege- 
 neration, and  the  effect  of  our  union  with  Christ.  In  Eph. 
 iv.  22,  24,  we  are  exhorted  to  put  off  the  old  man,  and  to  put 
 on  the  new  man.  Col.  iii.  8,  9.  The  Scriptures  everywhere 
 assert  or  assume  the  fall  and  native  depravity  of  man.  We  are 
 born  the  children  of  wrath.  We  are  aliens  from  the  common- 
 wealth of  Israel,  without  God,  and  without  hope.  This  is  the 
 inward  state  and  outward  condition  in  which  every  man  comes 
 into  the  world.  Through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ,  a 
 radical  change  is  effected;  old  things  pass  away,  all  things 
 become  new.  The  old  man,  the  nature  which  is  prior  in  the 
 order  of  time,  as  well  as  corrupt,  is  crucified,  and  a  nature  new 
 and  holy  is  induced.  The  word  man  is  used,  because  it  is  no 
 one  disposition,  tendency,  or  faculty  that  is  changed,  but  the 
 man  himself;  the  radical  principle  of  his  being,  the  self.  Hence 
 Paul  uses  the  pronoun  I — "I  am  sold  under  sin;"  "I  cannot 
 do  the  things  that  I  would."  It  is  plain  from  this  whole  repre- 
 sentation, that  regeneration  is  not  merely  a  change  of  acts,  oi 
 
ROMANS  VI.  6.  309 
 
 A  the  affections  in  distinction  from  the  understanding,  but  a 
 change  of  the  whole  man.  Another  thing  is  also  plain,  viz.  that 
 such  a  radical  change  of  nature  cannot  fail  to  manifest  itself  in 
 a  holy  walk  and  conversation.  This  is  what  Paul  here  insists 
 upon.  To  the  believer  who  knows  that  the  old  man  is  crucified 
 with  Christ,  the  objection  that  gratuitous  justification  leads  to 
 licentiousness,  is  contradictory  and  absurd.  The  old  man  is 
 said  to  be  crucified,  not  because  the  destruction  of  the  principle 
 of  sin  is  a  slow  and  painful  process,  but  because  Christ's  death 
 was  by  crucifixion,  in  which  death  we  were  associated,  and 
 because  it  is  from  him,  as  crucified,  the  death  of  sin  in  us  pro- 
 ceeds. "  Hunc  veterem  hominem  dicit  esse  afiixum  cruci  Christi, 
 quia  ejus  virtute  conficitur.  Ac  nominatim  allusit  ad  crucem, 
 quo  expressiiis  indicaret  non  aliunde  nos  mortificari,  quam  ex 
 ejus  mortis  participatione." 
 
 That  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed.  "The  body  of  sin" 
 is  only  another  name  for  "the  old  man,"  or  rather  for  its  con- 
 crete form.  The  design  of  our  crucifixion  with  Christ  is  the 
 destruction  of  the  old  man,  or  the  body  of  sin ;  and  the  design 
 of  the  destruction  of  the  inward  power  or  principle  of  evil,  is 
 our  spiritual  freedom.  This  latter  idea  the  apostle  expresses 
 by  saying,  that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin,  i.  e.  be  in 
 bondage  to  it.  The  service  of  sin  is  a  douXeca,  a  slavery,  a  state 
 from  which  we  cannot  free  ourselves ;  a  power  which  coerces 
 obedience  in  despite  of  the  resistance  of  reason,  conscience,  and 
 as  the  apostle  teaches,  even  of  the  will.  It  is  a  bondage  from 
 which  we  can  be  delivered  in  no  other  way  than  by  the  death 
 of  the  inward  principle  of  evil  which  possesses  our  nature,  and 
 lies  back  of  the  will,  beyond  the  reach  of  our  power,  and  which 
 can  be  destroyed  only  by  union  with  Christ  in  his  death,  who 
 died  for  this  very  purpose,  that  he  might  deliver  us  from  the 
 bondage  of  corruption,  and  introduce  us  into  the  glorious  liberty 
 of  the  sons  of  God.  Compare  John  viii.  34;  Heb.  ii.  14 — 16. 
 Although  the  general  sense  of  this  verse  is  thus  plain,  there  is 
 great  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  precise  meaning  of  the  words 
 aoi[xa  r^c  dfiapvca^,  body  of  sin.  1.  Some  say  it  means  the 
 sinful  body,  that  is,  the  body  which  is  the  seat  and  source  of 
 sin.  But  it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  sin  has  its 
 6Qurce  in  matter :  it  is  spiritual  in  its  nature  and  origin.     The 
 
310  ROMANS  VI.  7. 
 
 body  is  not  its  source,  but  its  instrument  and  sla^^e.  Moreov^er, 
 the  design  of  Christ's  death  is  never  said  to  be  to  destroy  the 
 body.  2.  Others  say  that  aatfia  means  the  physical  body,  not 
 as  the  source,  but  as  the  appurtenance  of  sin,  as  belonging  to 
 it,  and  ruled  by  it.  But  this  is  subject  in  part  to  the  same 
 objection.  3.  Others  say  that  aojfxa  means  mass,  "the  mass 
 of  sin."  "Corpus  peccati,"  says  Calvin,  "non  carnem  et  ossa, 
 sed  massam  designat ;  homo  enim  naturae  propriee  relictus  massa 
 est  ex  peccato  conflata."  4.  Others  assume  that  a<h[jia  has  the 
 same  sense  as  odp^,  corrupt  nature;  so  that  "body  of  sin" 
 means  our  "sinful,  carnal  nature."  This  no  doubt  is  the  idea, 
 but  it  is  not  expressed  by  the  word  <tw/^«,  which  is  not  equiva- 
 lent to  adp^.  5.  Others  take  aCoixa,  in  accordance  with  the 
 Rabinical  use  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew  word,  to  mean 
 essenee,  or  substance;  for  which,  however,  there  is  no  authority 
 from  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  Scriptures.  6.  Perhaps  the  most 
 satisfactory  view  is  that  of  those  who  understand  the  phrase  as 
 figurative.  Sin  is  personified.  It  is  something  that  has  life,  is 
 obeyed ;  that  can  be  put  to  death.  It  is  represented  as  a  body, 
 or  organism;  as  having  its  members.  Compare  Col.  iii.  5.  In 
 Col.  ii.  11,  the  apostle  speaks  of  putting  oflF  "the  body  of  the 
 sins  of  the  flesh,"  by  which  he  means  the  totality  of  our  corrupt 
 nature.  So  here,  "the  body  of  sin,"  is  sin  considered  as  a 
 body,  as  something  which  can  be  crucified. 
 
 Verse  7.  For  he  that  is  dead  is  free  from  sin.  The  Greek 
 here  is,  6  yap  OTiod-avcov  dedixalcoza:  dnb  zrj^  dpapzcai;,  for  he 
 who  has  died  is  justified  from  shi.  The  particle  ydp,  for,  shows 
 that  this  verse  is  a  confirmation  of  what  precedes :  '  The  believer 
 (he  who  is  by  faith  united  to  Christ  in  his  death)  cannot  any 
 longer  serve  sin, /or  he  who  has  died  is  justified  from  sin.'  The 
 word  aTco&avcov  may  be  taken  in  a  physical,  a  moral,  or  a  mys- 
 tical sense.  If  in  a  physical  sense,  then  the  meaning  is,  that 
 death  frees  from  sin.  This  may  be  understood  in  two  ways : 
 first,  on  the  theory  that  the  body  is  the  source  of  sin,  death,  or 
 freedom  from  the  body,  involves  freedom  from  sin ;  or,  secondly, 
 death  considered  as  a  penalty,  is  the  expiation  of  sin ;  so  that 
 he  who  dies,  is  judicially  free  from  sin.  Some  who  adopt  this 
 interpretation,  suppose  that  the  apostle  sanctions  the  unscrip- 
 cural  Jewish  doctrine,  (see  Eisenmenger's  Enfdeckt.  Judenthum, 
 
ROMANS  VI.  7.  311 
 
 II.,  p.  283,)  that  death  is  the  full  penalty  of  sin,  and  therefore 
 its  expiation.  Others  say  he  is  to  be  understood  as  speaking 
 only  of  sin  or  guilt  in  relation  to  human  law :  '  He  who  has 
 died  for  his  crime  is  free  from  guilt  or  further  liability.'  In 
 either  way,  the  only  relation  which  this  verse,  when  understood 
 of  physical  death,  can  have  to  the  apostle's  argument,  is  that 
 of  an  illustration :  'As  the  man  who  has  suffered  for  his  crime 
 is  freed  from  it,  so  he  who  is  crucified  with  Christ  is  free  from 
 sin.  In  either  case  the  power  of  sin  is  destroyed. '  If  the  moral 
 sense  of  the  word  be  adopted,  then  the  meaning  is  either,  '  he 
 who  is  spiritually  dead  is  free  from  sin,'  (which  amounts  to 
 saying,  'he  that  is  holy  is  holy;')  or,  'he  who  is  spiritually 
 dead  is  justified  from  sin.'  But  this  last  sense  is  utterly 
 unsuited  to  the  context,  and  implies  that  spiritual  death,  or 
 holiness,  is  the  ground  of  justification ;  which  is  contrary  to  all 
 Scripture,  and  especially  to  Paul's  doctrine.  The  mystical  sense 
 of  the  word  is  the  only  one  consistent  with  the  context.  The 
 apostle  has  not  been  speaking  of  natural  death,  but  of  death 
 with  Christ;  of  the  believer  being  crucified  with  him.  It  is  of 
 that  he  is  now  speaking.  He  had  just  said  that  the  believer 
 cannot  continue  to  serve  sin.  He  here  gives  the  reason:  for 
 he  who  has  died  (with  Christ)  is  justified,  and  therefore  free 
 from  sin,  free  from  its  dominion.  This  is  the  great  evangelical 
 truth  which  underlies  the  apostle's  whole  doctrine  of  sanctifica- 
 tion.  The  natural  reason  assumes  that  acceptance  with  a  holy 
 and  just  God  must  be  founded  on  character,  that  men  must  be 
 holy  in  order  to  be  justified.  The  gospel  reverses  this,  and 
 teaches  that  God  accepts  the  ungodly ;  that  we  must  be  justi- 
 fied in  order  to  become  holy.  This  is  what  Paul  here  assumes 
 as  knoAvn  to  his  readers.  As  justification  is  the  necessary 
 means,  and  antecedent  to  holiness,  he  that  is  justified  becomes 
 holy;  he  cannot  live  in  sin.  And  he  who  is  dead,  i.  e.  with 
 Christ,  (for  it  is  only  his  death  that  secures  justification,)  is  jus- 
 tified from  sin.  To  he  justified  from  sin  means  to  be  delivered 
 from  sin  by  justification.  And  that  deliverance  is  twofold; 
 judicial  deliverance  from  its  penalty,  and  subjective  deliverance 
 from  its  power.  Both  are  secured  by  justification ;  the  former 
 directly,  the  other  consequentially,  as  a  necessary  sequence. 
 Compare  Gal.  ii.  19,  20,  vi.  14;  Col.  ii.  13,  iii.  3;  1  Pet.  iv.  1, 
 
612  ROMANS  VI.  8. 
 
 end  other  passages  in  which  the  sanctification  of  believers  is 
 represented  as  secured  by  the  death  of  Christ. 
 
 Verses  8 — 11.  These  verses  contain  the  application  of  the 
 trutli  taught  in  the  preceding  passage :  '  If  we  are  dead  with 
 Christ,  we  shall  share  in  his  life.  If  he  lives,  we  shall  live  also. 
 As  his  life  is  perpetual,  it  secures  the  continued  supplies  of  life 
 to  all  his  members.  Death  has  no  more  any  dominion  over 
 him.  Having  died  unto,  or  on  account  of,  sin  once,  he  now  ever 
 lives  to,  and  with  God.  His  people,  therefore,  must  be  con- 
 formed to  him;  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God.' 
 This  passage  does  not  contain  a  mere  comparison  between  the 
 literal  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the  spiritual  death 
 and  resurrection  of  believers,  but  it  exhibits  the  connection 
 between  the  death  and  life  of  the  Redeemer  and  the  sanctifica- 
 tion of  his  people. 
 
 Verse  8.  Wow,  if  we  he  dead  with  Christ,  &c.  If  the  truth 
 stated  in  the  preceding  verses  be  admitted,  viz.  that  our  union 
 with  Christ  is  such  that  his  death  secures  our  deliverance  from 
 the  penalty  and  power  of  sin,  we  believe  we  shall  also  live  with 
 him.  That  is,  we  are  sure  that  the  consequences  of  his  death 
 are  not  merely  negative,  i.  e.  not  simply  deliverance  from  evil, 
 moral  and  physical,  but  also  a  participation  in  his  life.  We 
 believe,  i.  e.  we  have  a  confidence,  founded  on  the  promise  and 
 revealed  purpose  of  God.  It  is  not  a  conclusion  of  reason ;  it 
 is  not  simply  a  hope,  a  peradventure ;  it  is  a  faith,  an  assured 
 conviction  that  God,  after  having  justified  us  through  the  blood 
 of  Christ,  will  not  leave  us  spiritually  defiled.  We  shall  live^ 
 au^-jaofjLsu,  the  future,  referring  not  to  what  is  to  happen  here- 
 after, but  to  what  is  the  certain  consequence  of  our  union  with 
 Christ.  If  we  are  united  mystically  with  Christ  in  his  death, 
 we  shall  certainly  live  with  him,  i.  e.  we  shall  certainly  partake 
 of  his  life.  As,  however,  this  life  is  a  permanent  and  eternal 
 life,  as  it  pertains  to  the  body  as  well  as  to  the  soul,  a  partici- 
 pation of  his  life  now  involves  a  participation  of  it,  with  all  its 
 glorious  consequences,  for  ever.  To  live  with  Christ,  therefore, 
 includes  two  ideas ;  association  with  him,  and  similarity  to  him. 
 We  partake  of  his  life,  and  consequently  our  life  is  like  his. 
 In  like  manner,  since  we  die  with  him,  we  die  as  he  died.  So, 
 too,  ■when  we  are  said  to  reign  with  him,  to  be  glorified  together^ 
 
ROMANS  VI.  9.  313 
 
 both  these  ideas  are  included;  see  chap.  viii.  17,  and  many 
 similar  passages.  The  life  here  spoken  of  is  that  "eternal  life" 
 which  believers  are  said  to  possess  even  in  this  world ;  see  John 
 iii.  36,  V.  24 ;  and  which  is  manifested  here  by  devotion  to  God, 
 and  hereafter  in  the  purity  and  blessedness  of  heaven.  It 
 includes,  therefore,  all  the  consequences  of  redemption.  We 
 are  not  to  consider  the  apostle  as  merely  running  a  parallel 
 between  the  natural  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the 
 spiritual  death  and  resurrection  of  his  people,  as  has  already 
 been  remarked,  but  as  showing  that,  in  consequence  of  union  to 
 him  in  his  death,  we  must  die  as  he  died,  and  live  as  he  lives. 
 That  is,  that  the  effect  of  his  death  is  to  destroy  the  power  of 
 sin ;  and  the  result  of  his  living  is  the  communication  and  pre- 
 servation of  Divine  life  to  all  who  are  connected  with  him.  This 
 being  the  case,  the  objection  stated  in  ver.  1  of  this  chapter,  is 
 seen  to  be  entirely  unfounded.  This  life  of  Christ,  to  which  we 
 are  conformed,  is  described  in  the  following  verses,  first  as  per- 
 petual, and  secondly,  as  devoted  unto  God. 
 
 Verse  9.  Knowing  that  Christ,  being  raised  from  the  dead, 
 dieth  no  more.  Knowing  eidozs^  is  either  equal  to  xa'c  ocdafxsv, 
 and  we  hnotv,  thus  introducing  a  new  idea,  or  it  is  causal, 
 because  Ave  know.  The  latter  is  to  be  preferred.  We  are  sure 
 we  shall  be  partakers  of  the  life  of  Christ,  because  we  know 
 that  he  lives.  Were  he  not  a  living  Saviour,  if  his  life  were  not 
 perpetual,  he  could  not  be  the  source  of  life  to  his  people  in  all 
 ages.     The  perpetuity  of  Christ's  life,  therefore,  is  presented, 
 
 1.  As  the  ground  of  assurance  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  life  of 
 believers.  We  shall  partake  of  the  life  of  Christ,  i.  e.  of  the 
 spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  of  redemption,  because  he  ever 
 lives  to  make  intercession  for  us,  and  to  grant  us  those  supplies 
 of  grace  which  we  need ;  see  chap.  v.  10 ;  John  xiv.  19 ;  1  Cor. 
 XV.  23,  &c.  As  death  has  no  more  dominion  over  him,  there  is 
 no  ground  of  apprehension  that  our  supplies  of  life  will  be  cut 
 off.  This  verse,  therefore,  is  introduced  as  the  ground  of  the 
 declaration,  "we  shall  live  with  him,"  at  the  close  of  ver.  8. 
 
 2.  The  perpetuity  of  the  life  of  Christ  is  one  of  the  points  in 
 which  our  life  is  to  be  conformed  to  his.  Christ  dieth  no  more, 
 death  hath  no  more  dominion  over  him.  This  repetition  is. for 
 the  sake  of  emphasis.     Christ's  subjection  to  death  was  volun- 
 
3J4  ROMANS  VL  10. 
 
 tary.  It  was  not  from  a  necessity  of  nature,  nor  from  any 
 obligation  to  justice.  He  laid  down  his  life  of  himself.  He 
 voluntarily  submitted  to  death  for  our  sakes,  and  was  the 
 master  of  death  even  in  dying ;  and  therefore  he  is,  so  to  speak, 
 in  no  danger  of  ever  being  subject  to  its  power.  The  object  of 
 his  voluntary  submission  to  death  having  been  accomplished,  he 
 lives  for  evermore.  This  is  more  fully  expressed  in  the  follow- 
 ing verse. 
 
 Verse  10.  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once,  kc. 
 He  can  never  die  again,  for  in  dying  he  died  once  for  all.  By 
 the  one  offering  of  himself,  he  has  for  ever  perfected  them  that 
 are  sanctified.  The  apostle,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
 while  arguing  to  show  the  necessity  of  the  death  of  Christ  as  a 
 sacrifice  for  sin,  argues  also  to  show  that  such  was  the  eSicacy 
 of  that  sacrifice,  it  need  not,  and  cannot  be  repeated.  Heb. 
 vii.  27,  ix.  12,  x.  10 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  18. 
 
 In  that  he  died,  b  d.'Tzid-avt;  b  may  be  taken  absolutely,  quod 
 attinet  ad  id,  quod,  as  to  that  he  died,  so  far  as  concerns  his 
 dying ;  compare  Gal.  ii.  20 ;  or  the  relative  may  be  taken  as 
 the  object,  the  death  he  died.  See  Winer,  III.,  §  24.  4.  2.  He 
 died  unto  sin,  rfj  d/iapria  djted-avtv,  so  far  as  the  words  are  con- 
 cerned, admits  of  different  interpretations.  It  may  mean,  he 
 died /or  the  destruction  of  sin;  or,  he  died  for  its  expiation,  i.  e. 
 on  account  of  sin ;  or,  in  accordance  with  the  force  of  the  same 
 words  in  ver.  2,  and  the  analogous  expression,  psxpolx;  z^ 
 dfjiapTca,  dead  to  sin,  ver.  11,  he  died  as  to  sin,  was  by  death 
 freed  from  sin.  In  this  last  sense,  although  the  words  are  the 
 same,  the  idea  is  very  different  in  the  two  cases.  The  believer 
 dies  to  sin  in  one  sense,  Christ  in  another.  In  both  cases  the 
 idea  of  separation  is  expressed ;  but  in  the  case  of  the  believer, 
 it  is  separation  from  personal,  indwelling  sin ;  in  that  of  Christ, 
 it  is  separation  from  the  burden  of  his  people's  sin,  which  he 
 bore  upon  the  cross.  The  context  and  the  argument  favour  this 
 last  interpretation.  Death  has  no  more  dominion  over  Christ, 
 for  he  died  to  sin ;  by  the  one  sacrifice  of  himself,  he  freed  him- 
 self from  the  burden  of  sin  which  he  had  voluntarily  assumed. 
 The  law  is  perfectly  satisfied;  it  has  no  further  penalty  to 
 inflict.  Of  course  the  same  truth  or  doctrine  is  expressed,  if  the 
 other  expositions  of  the  phrase  be  preferred.     It  is  only  a 
 
ROMANS  VI.  11.  315 
 
 question  as  to  the  form  in  which  the  same  general  truth  is  pre- 
 sented. Christ's  death  was  for  the  destruction  of  sin,  for  its 
 expiation ;  and  it  was  a  deliverance  from  it,  i.  e.  from  the  burden 
 of  its  imputed  guilt.  He  came  the  first  time  with  sin ;  he  is  to 
 come  the  second  time  without  sin  (without  that  burden,)  unto 
 salvation.  In  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  Crod.  This  is  said 
 in  contrast  to  what  precedes.  He  died  unto  sin,  he  lives  unto 
 God.  So  must  the  believer.  Death  must  be  followed  by  life ; 
 the  one  is  in  order  to  the  other.  It  is  of  course  not  implied  that 
 our  Lord's  life  on  earth  was  not  a  living  unto  God,  i.  e.  a  living 
 having  God  for  its  end  and  object.  The  antithetical  expression 
 is  used  simply  to  indicate  the  analogy  between  Christ  and  his 
 people.  They  must  be  freed  from  sin,  and  be  devoted  to  God, 
 because  their  Lord  and  Saviour,  in  whose  death  and  life  they 
 share,  died  unto  sin,  and  lives  unto  God.  Many  of  the  Fathers, 
 and  some  later  interpreters,  take  vuJ  dtui  as  equivalent  to  ttj 
 duvdfxtc  zoo  0iou,  by  the  jyotver  of  God.  But  this  is  unsuited  to 
 the  connection.  It  is  not  the  source  of  Christ's  life,  but  the 
 nature  of  it,  as  perpetual  and  holy,  that  the  apostle  would  bring 
 into  view.  Olshausen  says  Z(p  6s(f  means  for  God^  i.  e.  for 
 righteousness,  as  opposed  to  sin,  in  the  first  clause :  "  He  died 
 for  the  destruction  of  sin,  he  lives  for  the  promotion  of  right- 
 eousness." But  this  is  unnecessary,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
 context. 
 
 Verse  11.  Lihewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  he  dead 
 indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God,  &c.  What  is  true  in  itself, 
 should  be  true  in  their  convictions  and  consciousness.  If  in 
 point  of  fact  believers  are  partakers  of  the  death  and  life  of 
 Christ;  if  they  die  with  him,  and  live  with  him,  then  they 
 should  so  regard  themselves.  They  should  receive  this  truth, 
 with  all  its  consoling  and  sanctifying  power,  into  their  hearts, 
 and  manifest  it  in  their  lives.  So  also  ye,  outo)  xat  5/jieli^,  a 
 point  may  be  placed  after  5;/£?c;  so  that  the  sense  is,  so  also  are 
 ye,  as  is  done  by  Griesbach  and  others.  The  simpler  and  more 
 common  method  is  to  read  the  words  continuously:  so  also 
 regard  ye  yourselves  as  dead  to  sin,  vsxpolx;  r^  djuapzi^;  not 
 reckon  yourselves  to  be  dead,  as  the  word  ehoa,  although  found 
 in  the  common  text,  is  omitted  by  almost  all  the  critical  editors, 
 on  the  authority  of  the  oldest  manuscripts,  and  the  sense  is 
 
,16  ROMANS  VI.  1—11. 
 
 complete  withont  it ;  Xoy'tC^ea&ac  rcvd  zc,  means  to  regard  one  ais 
 something.  Believers  are  to  look  upon  themselves  in  their  true 
 light,  viz.  as  dead  to  sin,  freed  from  its  penalty  and  dominion. 
 This  is  a  freedom  which  belongs  to  them  as  believers,  and  there- 
 fore the  apostle  adds,  ku  XpeaTw  ^ Irjaou,  not  through,  but  in 
 Christ  Jesus,  that  is,  in  virtue  of  union  with  him.  These  words 
 belong  equally  to  both  clauses  of  this  verse.  It  is  in  Christ  that 
 the  believer  is  dead  to  sin,  and  alive  to  God.  The  old  man  is 
 crucified ;  the  new  man,  the  soul  as  renewed,  is  imbued  with  a 
 new  life,  of  which  God  is  the  object;  which  consists  in  fellow- 
 ship with  him,  and  which  is  manifested  by  devotion  to  his 
 service,  and  by  obedience  to  his  will.  The  words  our  Lord, 
 rw  Kupt({)  -^[iwv,  are  not  found  in  the  best  manuscripts. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  Truth  cannot  lead  to  unholiness.  If  a  doctrine  encourages 
 sin,  it  must  be  false,  vs.  1,  2. 
 
 2.  There  can  be  no  greater  contradiction  and  absurdity  than 
 for  one  who  lives  in  sin  to  claim  to  be  a  Christian,  ver.  2. 
 
 3.  Antinomianism  is  not  only  an  error,  it  is  a  falsehood  and 
 a  slander.  It  pronounces  valid  the  very  objection  against  the 
 gospel  which  Paul  pronounces  a  contradiction  and  absurdity, 
 and  which  he  evidently  regards  as  a  fatal  objection,  were  it  well 
 founded,  vs.  2 — 4,  &c. 
 
 4.  Baptism  includes  a  profession  of  the  religion  taught  by 
 him  in  whose  name  we  are  baptized,  and  an  obligation  to  obey 
 his  laws,  vs.  3,  4. 
 
 5.  The  grand  design  of  Christianity  is  the  destruction  of  sin. 
 When  sincerely  embraced,  therefore,  it  is  with  a  view  to  thia 
 end,  ver.  3. 
 
 6.  The  source  of  the  believer's  holiness  is  his  union  with 
 Christ,  by  which  his  reconciliation  to  God,  and  his  participation 
 of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  secured,  vs.  4,  6. 
 
 7.  The  fact  that  Christ  lives,  renders  it  certain  that  his  people 
 shall  live  in  holiness  here,  and  in  glory  hereafter,  ver.  S. 
 
 8.  The  only  proper  evidence  that  we  are  partakers  of  the 
 benefits  of  the  death  and  life  of  Christ,  is  our  dying  to  sin,  and 
 living  to  God,  ver.  11. 
 
ROMANS  VI.  1—11.  817 
 
 9.  The  gospel,  which  teaches  the  only  true  methvd  of  justifi- 
 cation, is  the  only  system  that  can  secure  the  sanctification  of 
 men.  This  is  not  only  the  doctrine  of  this  section,  but  it  is  the 
 leading  truth  of  this  and  the  following  chapter. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1  A.S  the  most  prominent  doctrinal  truth  of  this  passage  is, 
 that  the  death  of  Christ  secures  the  destruction  of  sin  wherever 
 it  secures  its  pardon ;  so  the  most  obvious  practical  inference 
 is,  that  it  is  vain  to  hope  for  the  latter  benefit,  unless  we  labour 
 for  the  full  attainment  of  the  former,  vs.  2 — 11. 
 
 2.  For  a  professing  Christian  to  live  in  sin,  is  not  only  to 
 give  positive  evidence  that  he  is  not  a  real  Christian,  but  it  is 
 to  misrepresent  and  slander  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  to 
 the  dishonour  of  religion,  and  the  injury  of  the  souls  of  men, 
 vs.  2— IL 
 
 3.  Instead  of  holiness  being  in  order  to  pardon,  pardon  is  in 
 order  to  holiness.  This  is  the  mystery  of  evangelical  morals, 
 ver.  4,  &c. 
 
 4.  The  only  efi'ectual  method  of  gaining  the  victory  over  our 
 ems,  is  to  live  in  communion  with  Jesus  Christ ;  to  regard  his 
 death  as  securing  the  pardon  of  sin,  as  restoring  us  to  the  Divine 
 favour,  and  as  procuring  for  us  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit.  It  is  those  who  thus  look  to  Christ  not  only  for  pardon, 
 but  for  holiness,  that  are  successful  in  subduing  sin ;  while  the 
 legalist  remains  its  slave,  vs.  6,  8. 
 
 5.  It  is  a  consolation  to  the  believer  to  know,  that  if  he  has 
 evidence  of  being  now  a  Christian,  he  may  be  sure  that  he  shall 
 live  with  Christ.  As  long  and  as  surely  as  the  head  lives,  so 
 long  and  so  surely  must  all  the  members  live,  ver.  8,  &c. 
 
 6.  To  be  in  Christ  is  the  source  of  the  Christian's  life ;  to  be 
 like  Christ  is  the  sum  of  his  excellence ;  to  be  with  Christ  ia 
 the  fulness  of  his  joy,  vs.  2 — 11. 
 
318  KOMANS  VL  12. 
 
 ROMANS  VI.  12—23. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Paul  having  shown,  in  the  preceding  section,  that  union  with 
 Christ  secures  not  only  the  pardon,  but  the  destruction  of  sin. 
 exhorts  his  brethren  to  live  agreeably  to  the  nature  and  design 
 of  the  gospel,  vs.  12,  13.  As  an  encouragement  in  their  efforts 
 to  resist  their  corruptions,  he  assures  them  that  sin  shall  not 
 have  dominion  over  them,  because  they  are  not  under  the  law, 
 but  under  grace,  ver.  14.  This  is  another  fundamental  princi- 
 ple in  the  doctrine  of  sanctification.  Holiness  is  not  attained, 
 and  cannot  be  attained  by  those  who,  being  under  the  law,  are 
 still  unreconciled  to  God.  It  is  necessary  that  we  should  enjoy 
 his  favour,  in  order  to  exercise  towards  him  right  affections. 
 This  doctrine  is  not  justly  liable  to  the  objection,  that  we  may 
 sin  with  impunity  if  not  under  the  law,  ver.  15.  The  true 
 situation  of  the  Christian  is  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  the 
 relation  between  a  servant  and  his  master.  Believers,  before 
 conversion,  were  the  servants  of  sin;  after  it,  they  are  the 
 servants  of  righteousness.  Formerly  they  were  under  an  influ- 
 ence which  secured  their  obedience  to  evil ;  now  they  are  undei 
 an  influence  which  secures  their  obedience  to  good.  The  con- 
 sequence of  the  former  service  was  death;  of  the  present,  life. 
 The  knowledge  of  these  consequences  tends  to  secure  the  con- 
 tinued fidelity  of  the  Christian  to  his  new  Master,  vs.  16 — 23. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  12.  Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal 
 body,  &c.  This  is  a  practical  inference  (ouv)  from  what  pre- 
 cedes. Since  the  believer  is  in  fact  united  to  Christ  in  his 
 death  and  life,  he  should  live  accordingly.  The  exhortation 
 contained  in  this  and  the  following  verse  has  a  negative  and 
 positive  form — yield  not  to  sin,  but  give  yourselves  up  to 
 God — corresponding  to  the  clauses,  dead  to  sin,  and  alive  unto 
 Q-od,  in  ver.  11.  To  reign  signifies  to  exercise  uncontrolled 
 authoritv.     S'n,    although    mortified   in   the   believer,    is    not 
 
ROMANS  VI.  12.  319 
 
 destroyed.  Its  power  to  injure  remains  after  its  dominion  is 
 overthrown.  The  exhortation  is,  that  we  should  not  yield  to 
 this  dethroned  adversary  of  Christ  and  the  soul,  but  strenu- 
 ously strive  against  its  efforts  to  gain  ascendency  over  us,  and 
 to  bring  us  again  into  bondage.  Let  not  sin  reign  in  your 
 mortal  body.  This  is  a  difficult  clause.  1.  Mortal  body  may 
 be  a  periphrase  for  you:  'Let  not  sin  reign  within  you;'  as 
 in  the   next  verse,  your  members   may   stand    for  yourselves. 
 
 2.  Others  say  that  -d-v^ro^  {mortal)  is  to  be  taken  in  the  figura- 
 tive sense  in  which  vexpo^,  dead,  i.  e.  corrupt,  is  often  used. 
 
 3.  Others  take  trcifxa  in  the  sense  of  ffdp^,  corrupt  nature, 
 including  everything  in  man  as  fallen,  which  is  not  due  to  the 
 indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Thus  Calvin  says,  "Nuper 
 admonui  vocem  Corporis  non  pro  carne  et  cute  et  ossibus  accipi, 
 sed  pro  tota  hominis  massa,  ut  ita  loquar.  Id  certius  colligere 
 licet  ex  prsesenti  loco :  quia  alterum  membrum,  quod  mox  sub- 
 jiciet  de  corporis  partibus,  ad  animum  quoque  extenditur.  Sic 
 autem  crasse  Paulus  terrenum  hominem  significat."  He  says 
 the  word  mortal  is  used,  "per  contemptum,  ut  docear  totam 
 hominis  naturam  ad  mortem  et  exitium  inclinare."  So  also 
 Philippi,  among  the  modern  commentators,  says  that  here,  as 
 as  in  Rom.  viii.  10,  13,  (where  d-avarouv  rd^  rcpd^sc^  too  (Tco/ia- 
 roc  is  opposed  to  xazd  adpxa  C^v,)  aiofia  is  the  antithesis  of 
 nueopta,  the  latter  being  the  soul  as  pervaded  by  the  Spirit 
 of  God,  and  the  former  our  nature  considered  as  corrupt.  This, 
 however,  is  so  contrary  to  the  general  usage  of  Scripture,  that 
 the  ordinary  sense  of  the  words  is  to  be  preferred.  Paul  does 
 not  teach  that  the  body  is  the  source  of  sin,  nor  its  exclusive  or 
 principal  seat ;  but  it  is  the  organ  of  its  manifestation.  It  is 
 that  through  which  the  dominion  of  sin  is  outwardly  revealed. 
 The  body  is  under  the  power  of  sin,  and  that  power  the  apostle 
 would  have  us  resist ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  sensual  appe- 
 tites of  the  body  tend  to  enslave  the  soul.  Body  and  soul  are 
 so  united  in  a  common  life,  that  to  say,  '  Let  not  sin  reign  in 
 your  mortal  body,'  and  to  say,  'Let  not  sin  reign  in  you,' 
 amount  to  the  same  thing.  When  we  speak  of  sin  as  dwelling 
 in  the  soul,  we  do  not  deny  its  relation  to  the  body;  so  neither 
 does  the  apostle,  when  he  speaks  of  sin  dwelling  in  the  body, 
 mean  to  deny  its  relation  to  the  soul. 
 
320  ROMANS  VI.  13. 
 
 That  ye  should  obey  it  {auT^,  i.  e.  sin,)  in  the  lusts  thereof. 
 {auTOU,  viz.  of  the  body.)  We  should  not  obey  sin  by  yielding 
 to  carnal  appetites.  The  common  text  has  here,  ere  ^o  u-axou- 
 ecu  aoTTj  kv  xdic,  km&ufxiati;  abrou.  Knapp,  Lachmann,  and 
 other  editors,  adopt  the  simpler  and  better  authenticated  read- 
 ing, £:c  ^0  biiaxobtcv  xdic,  kTic&ufJiiac<;  abzob,  to  obey  its  lusts,  i.  e. 
 the  lusts  of  the  body.  "A  man,"  says  Olshausen,  "must 
 always  serve.  There  is  no  middle  ground  between  the  service 
 of  sin  and  the  service  of  God.  We  have  justification  completely, 
 or  we  have  it  not  at  all.  Sanctification,  as  springing  from  a 
 living  faith,  and  as  the  fruit  of  God's  love  to  us,  admits  of 
 degrees,  and  may  be  more  or  less  earnestly  cultivated ;  but  this 
 determines,  not  our  salvation,  but  only  the  measure  of  future 
 blessedness.  No  wisdom  or  caution,"  he  adds,  "can  guard  this 
 doctrine  from  misunderstanding,  whether  such  misunderstand- 
 ing arise  unintentionally  from  the  understanding,  or  designedly 
 from  insincerity  of  heart.  It  nevertheless  is  the  only  way 
 which  leads  to  God,  in  which  the  sincere  and  humble  cannot 
 err."  "The  key  to  the  mystery,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "that  the 
 doctrine  of  redemption,  although  not  demanding  good  works, 
 produces  them,  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  love  excites  love 
 and  the  desire  for  holiness.  Hence  obedience  is  no  longer 
 slavish.  We  strive  to  obey,  not  in  order  to  be  saved  or  to 
 please  God,  but  because  God  saves  us  without  works  or  merit 
 of  our  own,  whom,  because  he  is  reconciled  in  the  Beloved,  we 
 delight  to  serve." 
 
 Verse  13.  Neither  yield  ye  your  members,  &c.  Do  not 
 permit  sin  to  reign  in  you,  nor  yield  your  powers  as  its  instru- 
 ments. Neither  yield,  fxr^dh  Trapcardusze.  The  word  means  to 
 place  by,  to  present,  (as  an  offering,)  Luke  ii.  22  ;  Rom.  xii.  1 ;  to 
 give  up  to  the  power  or  service  of,  vs.  16,  19,  &c.  Your  members, 
 either  literally,  members  of  the  body,  the  eye,  ear,  hand,  &c., 
 or  figuratively,  your  powers,  whether  of  mind  or  body.  The 
 choice  between  the  literal  and  figurative  interpretation  depends 
 on  the  view  taken  of  the  preceding  verse.  If  there  aaifjia 
 [body)  be  understood  literally,  then  your  members  can  only 
 mean  the  members  of  the  body ;  but  if  mortal  body  is  there  a 
 periphrase  for  yoii,  then  your  members  must  mean  your  facul- 
 ties.    The  //eAjy  {members)  are  the  parts  of  which  the  aw/ia 
 
ROMANS  VI.  14.  321 
 
 consists;  and  therefore  if  the  awiia  stands  for  the  whole  person, 
 the  members  must  include  all  our  powers,  mental  as  well  as  cor- 
 poreal. In  vii.  5,  Paul  says  that  sin  "  did  work  in  our  mem- 
 bers;" and  in  ver.  23,  he  speaks  of  "a  law  in  his  members." 
 In  neither  of  those  cases  is  the  reference  exclusively  to  the 
 body.  As  instruments  of  unrighteousness.  That  is,  instru- 
 ments which  unrighteousness  uses,  or  which  are  employed  to 
 effect  unrighteousness.  The  word  oiiXa  is  generic  ;  it  is  used  in 
 the  general  sense  of  instruments,  for  the  tackle  of  a  ship,  the 
 tools  of  an  artisan,  though  most  frequently  for  weapons.  On 
 account  of  this  general  usage,  and  of  Paul's  own  use  of  the 
 word  in  xiii.  12,  "armour  of  light,"  (2  Cor.  vi.  7,  "armour  of 
 righteousness,"  and  2  Cor.  x.  4,  "the  weapons  of  our  warfare,") 
 many  prefer  the  restricted  sense  in  this  place.  Our  members 
 are  regarded  as  weapons  which  sin  uses  to  regain  its  dominion, 
 or  the  predominance  of  unrighteousness.  The  context,  however, 
 does  not  favour  the  assumption  of  this  allusion  to  a  strife ;  and 
 therefore  the  general  sense  of  instruments,  or  implements,  is 
 more  in  keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  passage.  But  yield  your- 
 selves unto  Crod ;  d.XXa  izopaav^aazt,  hut,  on  the  contrary,  pre- 
 sent yourselves,  i.  e.  give  yourselves  up  to  God,  not  only  your 
 several  powers,  but  your  very  selves,  a  dedication  which  of 
 necessity  involves  that  of  each  separate  faculty.  In  the  first 
 clause  of  the  verse  the  present  tense,  Tttpcazdvere,  is  used ; 
 here  it  is  the  first  aorist,  present  yourselves  once  for  all.  As 
 alive  from  the  dead,  i.  e.  as  those  who  having  been  dead,  are 
 now  alive.  Having  been  quickened  by  the  power  of  God, 
 raised  from  the  death  of  sin  and  all  its  dreadful  consequences, 
 they  were  bound  to  live  unto  God.  Who,  having  been  restored 
 to  life,  would  desire  to  return  to  the  loathsomeness  of  the 
 grave  ?  And,  i.  e.  and  especially,  your  members  (i.  e.  TTsptazd- 
 vtzs,  present  your  members)  as  instruments  of  righteousness  to 
 God.  Present  all  your  powers  to  God,  to  be  employed  by  him 
 as  implements  of  righteousness ;  that  is,  instruments  by  which 
 righteousness  may  be  effected. 
 
 Verse  14.    For  sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you,  &c. 
 
 The  future  here  is  not  to  be  understood  as  expressing  either  a 
 
 command  or  an  exhortation,  not  only  because  the  third,  and 
 
 not  the  second  person  is  used,  but  also  because  of  the  connec- 
 
 21 
 
322  ROMANS  VI.  14. 
 
 tion,  as  indicated  by  for.  We  should  yield  ourselves  to  God, 
 for  sin  shall  not  have  dominion,  &c.  It  is  not  a  hopeless  strug- 
 gle in  which  the  believer  is  engaged,  but  one  in  which  victory 
 is  certain.  It  is  a  joyful  confidence  which  the  apostle  here 
 expresses,  that  the  power  of  sin  has  been  effectually  broken, 
 and  the  triumph  of  holiness  effectually  secured  by  the  work 
 of  Christ.  The  ground  of  the  confidence  that  sin  shall  not  have 
 dominion,  is  to  be  found  in  the  next  clause :  For  ye  are  not 
 under  the  law,  hut  under  grace.  By  law  here,  is  not  to  be 
 understood  the  Mosaic  law.  The  sense  is  not,  '  Sin  shall 
 not  have  dominion  over  you,  because  the  Mosaic  law  is  abro- 
 gated.' The  word  is  to  be  taken  in  its  widest  sense.  It  is  the 
 rule  of  duty,  that  which  binds  the  conscience  as  an  expression 
 of  the  will  of  God.  This  is  plain:  1.  From  the  use  of  the  word 
 through  this  epistle  and  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 
 2.  From  the  whole  doctrine  of  redemption,  which  teaches  that 
 the  law  from  which  we  are  delivered  by  the  death  of  Christ,  is 
 not  simply  the  Mosaic  law ;  we  are  not  merely  delivered  from 
 Judaism,  but  from  the  obligation  of  fulfilling  the  law  of  God  as 
 the  condition  of  salvation.  3.  Deliverance  from  the  Mosaic 
 law  does  not  secure  holiness.  A  man  may  cease  to  be  a  Jew, 
 and  yet  not  be  a  new  creature  in  Christ  Jesus.  4.  The  anti- 
 thesis between  law  and  grace  shows  that  more  than  the  law  of 
 Moses  is  here  intended.  If  free  from  the  Mosaic  law,  they  may 
 still  be  under  some  other  law,  and  as  little  under  grace  as  the 
 Pharisees.  To  be  under  the  law  is  to  be  under  the  obligation  to 
 fulfil  the  law  of  God  as  a  rule  of  duty,  as  the  condition  of  salva- 
 tion. Whosoever  is  under  the  law  in  this  sense,  is  under  the 
 curse;  for  the  law  says;  "Cursed  is  every  one  who  continueth 
 not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them."  As 
 no  man  is  free  from  sin,  as  no  man  can  perfectly  keep  the  com- 
 mandments of  God,  every  man  who  rests  upon  his  personal 
 conformity  to  the  law,  as  the  ground  of  his  acceptance  with  God, 
 must  be  condemned.  We  are  not  under  the  law  in  this  sense, 
 but  under  grace ;  that  is,  under  a  system  of  gratuitous  justifica- 
 tion. We  are  justified  by  grace,  without  works.  We  are  not 
 under  a  legal  dispensation,  requiring  personal  conformity  to  the 
 law,  and  entire  freedom  from  sin,  past  and  present,  as  the  con- 
 dition of  our  acceptance ;  but  we  are  under  a  gracious  dispensa- 
 
ROMANS  VI.  15.  323 
 
 tion,  accordiug  to  which  God  dispenses  pardon  freely,  and  accepts 
 the  sinner  as  a  sinner,  for  Christ's  sake,  without  works  or  merit 
 of  his  own.  Whoever  is  under  the  law  in  the  sense  just  ex- 
 plained, is  not  only  under  condemnation,  but  he  is  of  necessity 
 under  a  legal  or  slavish  spirit.  What  he  does,  he  does  as  a 
 Blave,  to  escape  punishment.  But  he  who  is  under  grace,  who 
 is  gratuitously  accepted  of  God,  and  restored  to  his  favour,  is 
 under  a  filial  spirit.  The  principle  of  obedience  in  him  is  love, 
 and  not  fear.  Here,  as  everywhere  else  in  the  Bible,  it  is 
 assumed  that  the  favour  of  God  is  our  life.  We  must  be  recon- 
 ciled to  him  before  we  can  be  holy ;  we  must  feel  that  he  loves 
 us  before  we  can  love  him.  Paul  says  it  was  the  love  of  Christ 
 to  him,  that  constrained  him  to  live  for  Him  who  thus  loved  him 
 and  gave  Himself  for  him.  The  only  hope  therefore  of  sinners, 
 is  in  freedom  from  the  law,  freedom  from  its  condemnation,  free- 
 dom from  the  obligation  to  fulfil  it  as  the  condition  of  accept- 
 ance, and  freedom  from  its  spirit.  Those  who  are  thus  free,  who 
 renounce  all  dependence  on  their  own  merit  or  strength,  who 
 accept  the  offer  of  justification  as  a  free  gift  of  God,  and  who 
 are  assured  that  God  for  Christ's  sake  is  reconciled  to  them, 
 are  so  united  to  Christ  that  they  partake  of  his  life,  and  their 
 holiness  here  and  salvation  hereafter  are  rendered  perfectly 
 certain. 
 
 Verse  15.  What  then  ?  shall  we  sin,  because  we  are  not 
 under  the  law,  hut  under  grace  f  God  forbid.  Because  works 
 are  not  the  ground  of  our  justification ;  because  we  are  justified 
 freely  by  his  grace,  are  we  at  liberty  to  sin  without  fear  and 
 without  restraint?  Does  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  salvation 
 give  a  license  to  the  unrestrained  indulgence  of  all  evil  ?  Such 
 has  been  the  objection  to  the  doctrines  of  grace  in  all  ages. 
 And  the  fact  that  this  objection  was  made  to  Paul's  teachings, 
 proves  that  his  doctrine  is  the  same  with  that  against  which  the 
 same  objection  is  still  urged.  As  the  further  consideration  of 
 this  difficulty  is  resumed  in  the  following  chapter,  the  apostle 
 here  contents  himself  with  a  simple  negation,  and  a  reference 
 to  the  constraining  influence  under  which  the  freely  pardoned 
 sinner  is  brought,  which  renders  it  as  impossible  for  him  to 
 serve  sin,  as  it  is  for  the  slave  of  one  man  to  be  obedient  to 
 another  man.     The  slave  must  serve  his  own  master. 
 
32i  ROMANS  VI.  16. 
 
 Verse  16.  Know  ye  not,  that  to  whom  ye  yitld  yourselves 
 servants  to  obey,  his  servants  ye  are  to  whom  ye  obey,  &c. 
 '  Know  ye  not  that  those  who  obey  sin  are  its  slaves  •  hurried 
 on  from  one  degrading  service  to  another,  until  it  works  their 
 ruin;  but  those  who  serve  holiness  are  constrained,  though 
 sweetly,  to  constancy  and  fidelity,  until  the  glorious  consum- 
 mation of  their  course?'  As  a  servant  or  slave  is  under  an 
 influence  which  secures  obedience  to  his  master,  so  also,  in 
 spiritual  or  moral  relations,  a  man  who  serves  sin  is  under  an 
 influence  which  secures  the  continuance  of  his  obedience,  and 
 he  who  serves  holiness  is  under  an  influence  which  eff"ectually 
 secures  the  constancy  of  his  service.  This  being  the  case,  it  is 
 \  not  possible  for  the  Christian  or  servant  of  holiness  to  be  found 
 I  engaged  in  the  service  of  sin.  The  language  and  the  construc- 
 tion are  here  nearly  the  same  as  in  ver.  13.  Here,  as  there, 
 we  have  TteprazdviTt  in  the  sense  of  giving  up  to  the  power  and 
 disposal  of.  Paul  says,  that  those  who  give  themselves  up  to 
 another  as  douXou^  ec^  uTiaxorjV,  slaves  to  obedience,  are  the  douXot 
 of  him  whom  they  thus  obey.  It  enters  into  the  idea  of  slavery, 
 that  the  subjection  is  absolute  and  continued.  The  slave  does 
 not  obey  his  own  will,  but  his  master's.  He  is  subject  not  for 
 a  time,  but  for  life.  He  is  under  an  influence  which  secures 
 obedience.  This  is  as  true  in  spiritual  as  in  external  relations. 
 He  who  serves  sin  is  the  slave  of  sin.  He  is  under  its  power. 
 He  cannot  free  himself  from  its  dominion.  He  may  hate  his 
 bondage ;  his  reason  and  conscience  may  protest  against  it ;  his 
 will  may  resist  it ;  but  he  is  still  constrained  to  obedience.  This 
 is  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord,  as  taught  in  John  viii.  34 :  "  He  that 
 committeth  sin  is  the  slave  of  sin."  This  remains  true,  although 
 this  service  is  unto  death:  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death."  The 
 'death  intended  is  spiritual  and  eternal.  It  is  the  absolute  loss 
 of  the  life  of  the  soul,  which  consists  in  the  favour  and  fellow- 
 ship of  God,  and  conformity  to  his  image.  What  is  true  of  sin 
 is  true  of  holiness.  He  who  by  virtue  of  union  with  Christ  is 
 made  obedient  to  God,  becomes,  as  Paul  says,  a  dooXo^  biiaxorji;^ 
 a  slave  of  obedience.  Obedience  (personified)  is  the  master  to 
 which  he  is  now  subject.  He  is  not  only  bound  to  obey,  but  he 
 is  made  to  obey  in  despite  of  the  resistance  of  his  still  imper- 
 fectly sanctified  nature.     He  cannot  but  obey.     The  point  of 
 
ROMANS  VI.  17.  325 
 
 analogy  to  which  reference  is  here  made,  is  the  certainty  of  the  | 
 effect,  and  the  constraining  influence  by  which  that  effect  is 
 secured.  In  the  case  both  of  sin  and  of  holiness,  obedience  is 
 certain ;  and  it  is  rendered  certain  by  a  power  superior  to  the 
 will  of  man.  The  great  difference  is,  that  in  the  one  case  this 
 subjection  is  abnormal  and  destructive,  in  the  other  it  is  normal 
 and  beneficent.  A  wise  man  is  free  in  being  subject  to  his 
 reason.  The  more  absolute  and  constant  the  authority  of 
 reason,  the  more  exalted  and  free  is  the  soul.  In  like  manner, 
 the  more  completely  God  reigns  in  us,  the  more  completely  we 
 are  subject  to  his  will,  so  much  the  more  are  we  free ;  that  is, 
 so  much  the  more  do  we  act  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  our 
 nature  and  the  end  of  our  being.  Servants  of  obedience  unto 
 righteousness;  dcxacoauuv^  must  here  be  taken  in  its  subjective 
 sense.  It  is  inward  righteousness,  or  holiness.  And  in  this 
 sense  it  is  eternal  life,  and  therefore  antithetical  to  &duaTO^, 
 which  is  spiritual  and  eternal  death.  The  service  of  sin  results 
 in  death,  the  service  of  God  results  in  righteousness ;  that  is,  in 
 our  being  right,  completely  conformed  to  the  image  of  God,  in 
 which  the  life  of  the  soul  consists. 
 
 Verse  17.  But  Grod  be  thanked,  that  ye  were  the  servants 
 of  sin;  but  ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart,  &c.  As  it  is  the 
 apostle's  object  to  show  that  believers  cannot  live  in  sin,  inas- 
 much as  they  have  become  the  servants  of  another  master,  he 
 applies  the  general  truth  stated  in  the  preceding  verses  more 
 directly  to  his  immediate  readers,  and  gives  thanks  that  they, 
 being  emancipated  from  their  former  bondage,  are  now  bound 
 to  a  master  whose  service  is  perfect  liberty.  The  expression  in 
 the  first  member  of  this  verse  is  somewhat  unusual,  although 
 the  sense  is  plain :  "  God  be  thanked,  that  ye  were  the  servants 
 of  sin;"  that  is,  that  this  slavery  is  past;  or,  'God  be  thanked, 
 that  ye,  being  the  servants  of  sin,  have  obeyed,'  &c. 
 
 Ye  have  obeyed  from  the  heart;  this  obedience  is  voluntary 
 and  sincere.  They  had  not  been  passively  transferred  from 
 one  master  to  another ;  but  the  power  of  sin  being  broken,  they 
 gladly  renounced  their  bondage,  and  gave  themselves  unto  God. 
 Ye  obeyed,  says  the  apostle,  the  form  of  doctrine  which  was 
 delivered  to  you.  The  zuno^  dcdayfj^,  the  form  of  doctrine,  may 
 mean  the  doctrine  which  is  a  zuno^,  a  model  or  standard  to 
 
326  ROMANS  VI.  18. 
 
 which  we  should  conform — sentiendi  agendique  norma  et  regzda. 
 Calvin  says  it  means  "expressam  justitise  imaginem,  quam 
 cordibus  nostris  Christus  insculpsit."  Another  explanation 
 assumes  tutioz  to  be  equivalent  to  form,  contents,  or  substance 
 of  the  doctrine.  Compare  fjLopfpojaa;  tyjC  yvcoaeco!;,  ii.  20,  The 
 former  explanation  is  sustained  by  a  reference  to  2  Tim.  i.  13, 
 where  Paul  speaks  of  a  67:oTU7ra)<re<;  bycacvovrcov  lojcov,  a  form 
 of  sound  words;  that  is,  sound  words  which  are  a  pattern  or 
 standard  of  faith.  Compare  Acts  xxiii.  25 :  '  Having  written 
 an  epistle  containing  this  type,'  i.  e.  form  of  words.  By  form 
 of  doctrine  is  to  be  understood  the  Gospel,  either  in  its  limited 
 sense  of  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification  through  Christ, 
 of  which  the  apostle  had  been  speaking ;  or  in  its  wider  sense 
 of  the  whole  doctrine  of  Christ  as  a  rule  both  of  faith  and  prac- 
 tice. The  former  includes  the  latter.  He  who  receives  Christ 
 as  priest,  receives  him  as  a  Lord.  He  who  comes  to  him  for 
 justification,  comes  also  for  sanctification ;  and  therefore  obedi- 
 ence to  the  call  to  put  our  trust  in  Christ  as  our  righteousness, 
 implies  obedience  to  his  whole  revealed  will.  The  words  bnrj- 
 icouaars.  ec^  ou  Ttapsdo&rjTS  ruTtov  dtda^r^i^,  may  be  resolved  thus, 
 unyjxouaaze  zutzw  8cdayfj(;,  e/j  ou  napsdd&TjTS,  ye  have  obeyed  the 
 type  of  doctrine  to  ivhich  ye  have  been  delivered.  That  is,  the 
 mould  into  which,  as  it  were,  ye  have  been  cast ;  as  Beza  says, 
 the  gospel  is  regarded  "  quasi  instar  typi  cujusdam,  cui  veluti 
 immittamur,  ut  ejus  figurse  conformemur."  This  last  idea  is 
 unnatural :  dq  ov  napsdod-i^Te  is  either  equivalent  to  oc  naped- 
 6&q  bplv,  which  was  delivered  unto  you,  (see  Winer,  §  24.  2,} 
 or,  to  which  ye  were  delivered,  "cui  divinitus  traditi  estis." 
 That  is,  to  which  ye  were  subjected.  The  intimation  is,  that 
 faith  in  the  gospel  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  obedience  is  our  con- 
 sequent act,  "The  passive  {napedod-fjre,)'"  says  Philippi,  "indi- 
 cates the  passive  relation  of  men  to  the  work  of  regeneration, 
 of  which  his  activity  {bTzrjxooaaTs)  is  the  consequence,  according 
 to  the  familiar  dictum :  Ita  a  Spiritu  Dei  agimur  ut  ipsi  quoque 
 agamus," 
 
 Verse  18,  Being  made  free  from  sin,  ye  became  the  servants 
 of  righteousness.  This  verse  may  be  regarded  as  the  conclusion 
 from  what  precedes,  8e  being  used  for  oov :  '  Being  freed  then 
 from  sin,'  &c,;  or  it  may  be  connected  immediately  with  ver,  17. 
 
ROMANS  VI.  19.  '621 
 
 a  comma  instead  of  a  period  intervening :  '  Ye  havo  obeyed  tho 
 form  of  doctrine,  having  been  freed,"  &c.  The  latter  is  better. 
 Freed  by  the  grace  of  God  from  sin  as  a  despotic  master,  t/e 
 became  the  servants,  kdooXco^rjzt,  ye  were  made  slaves  to  right- 
 eousness. It  was  not  license,  but  a  change  of  masters,  that 
 they  had  experienced.  This  being  the  case,  it  is  impossible 
 they  should  serve  sin;  they  have  now  another  master.  A 
 manumitted  slave  does  not  continue  subject  to  his  former 
 master.  "Absurdum  est,  ut  post  manumissionem  quis  in  servi- 
 tutis  conditione  maneat.  Observandum,  quomodo  nemo  possit 
 justitife  servire  nisi  Dei  potentia  et  beneficio  prius  a  peccati 
 tyrannide  liberatus."  Calvin.  To  the  same  effect  our  Lord 
 says:  "If  the  Son  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed." 
 John  viii.  36.  This  subjection  to  righteousness  is  perfect 
 liberty.  It  is  the  subjection  of  the  soul  to  God,  reason,  and\ 
 conscience,  wherein  true  liberty  consists.  This  being  the  case, 
 the  apostle  in  the  following  verse  explains  the  reason  why  he 
 used  a  figure  apparently  so  incongruous,  in  speaking  of  the 
 relation  of  the  believer  to  righteousness. 
 
 Verse  19.  /  speak  after  the  manner  of  men,  dv&pco-evov 
 Kifoi);  I  say  what  is  human,  i.  e.  common  among  men.  The 
 only  difference  between  this  expression  and  the  more  common 
 phrase,  •/.at  du&pcoTTov  Xiyco,  is,  that  the  former  characterizes  as 
 human  the  thing  said,  and  the  other  the  manner  of  saying  it. 
 The  idea  in  this  case  is  the  same.  The  apostle  means  to  say, 
 that  he  uses  an  illustration  drawn  from  the  common  relations 
 of  men,  to  set  forth  the  relation  of  the  believer  to  God.  The 
 slave  is  bound  to  serve  his  master ;  the  obedience  of  the  believer 
 to  God  is  no  less  certain.  The  one  is  slavery,  because  the  obe- 
 dience is  independent  of  the  will,  and  coerced;  the  other  is 
 perfect  freedom,  because  rendered  from  the  heart,  and  with  full 
 consent  of  the  will.  Yet  both  are  a  douXda,  so  far  as  certainty 
 of  obedience  is  concerned.  This  is  the  common  and  natural 
 interpretation  of  this  clause.  Others,  however,  take  av^ptoruvov 
 in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  1  Cor.  ix.  22.  There  it  is 
 opposed  to  what  is  superhuman,  beyond  the  strength  of  man  to 
 bear :  '  I  demand  only  what  is  human.  The  obedience  required 
 is,  on  account  of  the  weakness  of  your  flesh,  only  such  as  you 
 are  able  to  render.     For  as  ye  served  sin,  so  you  can  serve 
 
328  ROMANS  VI.  19. 
 
 righteousness.  The  one  is  as  easy  as  the  other.  The  one  is 
 the  measure  of  the  other.'  But  this  does  violence  to  the  con- 
 nection. The  wamp — outu)  do  not  refer  to  the  measure  of  the 
 obedience,  but  to  the  change  of  masters :  'As  ye  served  sin,  so 
 now  serve  God.'  Besides,  the  principle  that  the  measure  of 
 obedience  is  determined  by  our  ability,  is  utterly  at  variance 
 with  the  word  of  God  and  the  dictates  of  conscience.  The 
 eimple  design  of  the  apostle  in  this  passing  or  parenthetical 
 remark  is,  to  state  the  reason  why  he  designated  our  new  rela- 
 tion to  God  a  slavery.  He  used  this  illustration,  he  says,  on 
 account  of  the  weakness  of  their  Jlesh;  not  intellectual  weak- 
 ness, but  such  as  arose  from  the  adp^,  their  nature  as  corrupt. 
 It  was  their  lack  of  spirituality  which  rendered  such  illustra- 
 tions necessary.  The  ydp  {for)  of  the  next  clause  refers  to 
 ver.  18:  'Being  freed  from  sin,  ye  became  the  servants  of 
 righteousness;  for  as  ye  yielded  your  members,'  &c.  Your 
 jmemhers,  yourselves,  your  various  faculties,  with  special  refer- 
 /ence  to  their  bodily  organs  as  the  outward,  visible  instruments 
 of  evil.  Ye  yielded  your  members,  douXa,  hound.  This  is  the 
 only  passage  in  the  New  Testament  in  which  douXot:  is  used  as 
 an  adjective.  They  yielded  their  members  to  undeanness  and 
 to  iniquity,  zfj  dxad-apaia  xac  rij  dvopia.  These  two  words 
 express  the  same  thing  under  different  aspects.  Sin  subjec- 
 tively considered  is  pollution,  a  defilement  of  the  soul;  rela- 
 tively to  the  law  of  God,  it  is  dvopia,  what  is  unlawful,  what 
 fails  of  conformity  to  the  law.  In  the  next  clause,  unto 
 iniquity,  the  word  is  used  in  a  wider  sense.  They  gave  them- 
 selves up  to  iniquity,  that  is,  to  do  evil ;  s^c  ''^'f]^  dvopiav  being 
 equivalent  to  ere  ^o  7iois7u  dvopcav.  Men  give  themselves  up 
 to  sin  as  a  master,  to  do  what  the  law  forbids.  The  same 
 idea  is  expressed,  if  e^c  T7]v  dvopiav  means,  for  the  mani- 
 festation of  iniquity.  So  now  yield  your  members  as  servants 
 to  righteousness.  Having  been  delivered  from  bondage  to  the 
 tyrant  sin,  ye  should  act  as  becomes  your  new  relation,  and 
 be  obedient  to  your  new  master,  even  to  him  who  hath  bought 
 you  with  his  blood.  To  righteousness,  unto  holiness,  eci;  dft- 
 \  aapov,  so  as  to  be  pure  in  heart  and  life.  The  proximate  result 
 of  obedience  to  God  is  inward  conformity  to  the  Divine  image. 
 (Compare  1  Thess.  iii.  3,  4,  7. 
 
ROMANS  VI.  20—21.  329 
 
 Verse  20.  For  when  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin,  ye  Wi're  fru 
 from  righteousness.  This  verse  introduces  a  confirniation  of 
 what  precedes.  The  foregoing  exhortation  is  enforced  by  the 
 consideration  developed  in  vs.  21,  22,  that  the  service  of  sin 
 is  death.  The  particle  ydp,  therefore,  is  used  in  its  common 
 sense,  for,  and  not  namely.  Formerly,  when  the  slaves  of  sin, 
 ye  were  ihod-spoc  rf^  duacoauurj,  that  is,  either  '  free  in  the  esti- 
 mation of  righteousness,'  ("An  ille  mihi  liber,  cui  mulier  impe- 
 rat?"  Oieero ;)  or,  what  is  more  natural,  as  to  righteousness; 
 so  far  as  righteousness  is  concerned,  ye  were  free.  Righteous- 
 ness had  no  power  over  you;  your  service  was  rendered  to 
 another  master.  This  is  not  to  be  understood  ironically,  as 
 though  the  apostle  designed  to  refer  to  their  former  state  as  one 
 of  freedom  in  their  estimation.  It  is  the  simple  statement  of  a 
 fact  of  experience.  While  the  servants  of  sin,  they  did  not  and 
 could  not  serve  righteousness.  Here  are  two  services,  which  is 
 to  be  preferred  ?  This  is  the  question  which  the  apostle  pre- 
 sents for  their  consideration. 
 
 Verse  21.  The  sense  of  this  verse  depends  mainly  on  the 
 pointing.  It  may  be  read  thus :  '  What  fruit  had  ye  then  of 
 those  things  of  which  ye  are  now  ashamed?  (Answer,  i\/^one,) 
 for  the  end  of  those  things  is  death.'  Or,  'What  fruit  had  ye 
 then?  (Answer,  Such,)  of  which  ye  are  now  ashamed,  for,*  &c. 
 The  choice  between  these  interpretations  is  not  very  easy,  and 
 accordingly  commentators  are  about  equally  divided  between 
 them.  The  Vulgate,  the  English  version,  Calvin,  Beza,  Bengel, 
 Meyer,  Fritzshe,  &c.,  adopt  the  former.  Luther,  Melancthon, 
 Koppe,  Tholuck,  De  Wette,  Olshausen,  &c.,  the  latter.  The 
 decision  seems  to  depend  principally  on  the  meaning  given  to 
 the  phrase,  to  have  fruit.  If  this  means,  to  derive  benefit,  then 
 the  sense  is,  '  What  benefit  did  you  derive  from  the  things  of 
 which  you  are  now  ashamed?'  The  natural  answer  is,  'None; 
 a  course  of  conduct  which  ends  in  death  can  yield  no  benefit.' 
 This  gives  a  pertinent  sense :  it  is  suited  to  ver.  22,  where  fruit 
 may  also  mean  advantage;  and  especially  it  agrees  best  with 
 the  words  i^'  oFc,  which  otherwise  must  refer  to  xafmbv,  (fruit 
 of  which,)  which  is  not  natural.  In  favour  of  the  second  inter- 
 pretation, however,  it  is  urged  that  fruit  is  never  in  the  New 
 Testament  used  of  reward  or  emolument,  but  always  of  acts 
 
380  ROMANS  VI.  21. 
 
 The  familiar  illustration  is  tliat  of  a  tree  whose  fruit  is  good  or 
 bad  according  to  its  nature.  According  to  this  view,  Paul 
 means  to  ask,  'What  fruit  did  you  then  produce?  Such,'  he 
 answers,  'of  which  you  are  now  ashamed.'  Besides  this  general 
 use  of  the  word  (fruit,)  it  is  urged  that  in  ver.  22,  this  is  the 
 natural  sense  of  the  word:  "Ye  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness ;" 
 that  is,  'Ye  produce  fruit  which  tends  to  holiness.'  "This 
 figure,"  says  Olshausen,  "is  the  more  significant,  because  it  is 
 so  directly  opposed  to  that  Pelagianism  which  is  so  congenial 
 with  our  fallen  nature.  The  natural  man,  destitute  of  the 
 knowledge  of  God,  of  himself,  and  of  sin,  dreams  that  by  his 
 own  strength  and  efforts  he  can  produce  a  form  of  virtue  which 
 can  stand  before  the  bar  of  God.  He  does  not  know  that  of 
 necessity,  and  by  a  law  of  his  nature,  he  can  only  produce  evil 
 fruit,  just  as  a  wild  tree  can  produce  only  bitter  fruit.  Even 
 should  he  succeed  in  calling  into  exercise  all  the  good  he  has  in 
 the  most  perfect  form,  it  is  so  destitute  of  love,  and  so  cor- 
 rupted by  conceit,  that  it  merits  condemnation,  as  fully  as 
 though  the  life  were  openly  immoral.  The  beginning  of  truth, 
 of  which  holiness,  (which  is  true  liberty,)  by  a  like  organic 
 necessity  and  law  of  nature,  is  the  fruit,  is  for  man  the 
 acknowledgment  that  death  reigns  in  him,  and  that  he  must 
 be  imbued  with  life."  All  this  is  true,  and  all  this  is  really 
 involved  in  the  familiar  figure  which  our  Lord  uses  to  illus- 
 trate the  relation  between  the  state  of  the  heart  and  of  the 
 outward  life.  But  this  does  not  seem  to  be  the  idea  which 
 the  apostle  here  intends  to  present.  The  phrase,  xapnbv 
 Koielv,  does  indeed  always  mean  to  produce  fruit,  and  figura- 
 tively, to  do  good  or  evil ;  but  xapiibv  iyjcv,  to  have  fruity 
 means  to  have  the  advantage,  or  profit.  Thus,  in  i.  13,  Paul 
 says:  "That  I  might  have  some  fruit  among  you;"  i.  e.  that 
 he  might  gain  something,  win  some  souls  for  Christ.  If  this 
 be  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrase  here,  then  the  former  of  the 
 two  interpretations  is  to  be  preferred.  What  advantage  had 
 you  of  the  service  of  sin  ?  None ;  for  the  end  of  those  things, 
 the  reXoz,  the  final  result  of  the  service  of  sin,  is  death;  not 
 physical  death,  but  the  death  of  the  soul,  final  and  hopeless 
 perdition.  Such  was  their  former  condition ;  to  this  the  con- 
 trast is  given  in  the  next  verse. 
 
ROMANS  VI.  22—23.  331 
 
 Verse  22.    But  noio,  being  made  free  from  sin,  ih'jdspco- 
 t?£vr£C  OLTzb  z7jq  kanprlac,;  having  been  emancipated  from  one 
 master,  dooXco&evzz:^  oh  zaJ  OeuJ,  and  become  slaves  to  Cfod,  i.  e. 
 being  subject  to  liis  controlling  influence  by  the  power  of  his 
 Spirit,  i/e  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness;  that  is,  the  benefit  or 
 effect  derived  from  the  service  of  God  is  holiness.     Sanctifica- 
 tion  is  the  proximate  result  of  this  new  service.     And  the  end  / 
 eternal  life.     The  final  issue  of  this  service  is  complete  salva-  / 
 tion;  the  restoration  of  the  soul  to  the  favour  and  enjoyment! 
 of  God  for  ever.     "  Quemadmodum  duplicem  peccati  finem  ante 
 proposuit,  ita  nunc  justitise.     Peccatum  in  hac  vita  malte  con- 
 scienti?e  tormenta  affert,   deinde    aeternam  mortem.     Justitiaj 
 prassentem  fructum  colligimus,    sanctificationem :    in  futurum, 
 speramus  vitam  aeternam." 
 
 Verse  23.  For  the  wages  of  sin  is  death;  but  the  gift  of  G-od 
 is  eternal  life,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  The  reason  why 
 death  is  the  result  of  sin  is,  that  sin  deserves  death.  Death  is 
 due  to  it  in  justice.  There  is  the  same  obligation  in  justice, 
 that  sin  should  be  followed  by  death,  as  that  the  labourer  should 
 receive  his  wages.  As  it  would  be  unjust,  and  therefore  wrong, 
 to  defraud  the  labourer  of  his  stipulated  reward,  so  it  would 
 be  unjust  to  allow  sin  to  go  unpunished.  Those,  therefore,  who 
 hope  for  pardon  without  an  atonement,  hope  that  God  will  in 
 the  end  prove  unjust.  The  word  dipcovea  is,  strictly,  the  rations 
 of  soldiers ;  in  a  wider  sense,  the  same  as  d.'jzcfjua&ia,  or  ficadoi;, 
 anything  which  is  due  as  a  matter  of  debt.  But  the  gift  of 
 God,  TO  ok  ydpiafxa  rou  dead,  the  free,  unmerited  gift  of  God, 
 is  eternal  life.  The  connection  between  holiness  and  life  is  no 
 less  certain  than  that  between  sin  and  death,  but  on  different 
 grounds.  Sin  deserves  death ;  holiness  is  itself  the  gift  of  God,  ■ 
 and  is  freely  crowned  with  eternal  life.  The  idea  of  merit  is 
 everywhere  and  in  every  way  excluded  from  the  gospel  method 
 of  salvation.  It  is  a  system  of  grace,  from  the  beginning  to 
 the  consummation.  Through  (rather  in)  Jesus  Christ  our 
 Lord.  It  is  in  Christ,  as  united  to  him,  that  we  are  made 
 partakers  of  eternal  life.  Jesus  Christ  and  his  gospel,  then, 
 instead  of  being  the  ministers  of  sin — as  the  Jews,  and  since 
 them,  the  opponents  of  the  doctrines  of  grace,  confidently 
 asserted — effectually  secure  what  the  law  never  could  accom- 
 
832  ROMANS  VI.  12—23. 
 
 plish,  an  obedience  resulting  in  holiness  here,  and  in  eternal 
 life  hereafter. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  leading  doctrine  of  this  section,  and  of  the  whole 
 gospel,  in  reference  to  sanctification,  is,  that  grace,  instead  of 
 leading  to  the  indulgence  of  sin,  is  essential  to  the  exercise 
 of  holiness.  So  long  as  we  are  under  the  influence  of  a  self- 
 righteous  or  legal  spirit,  the  motive  and  aim  of  all  good  works 
 are  wrong  or  defective.  The  motive  is  fear,  or  some  merely 
 natural  affection,  and  the  aim,  to  merit  the  bestowment  of  good. 
 "But  when  we  accept  of  the  gracious  offers  of  the  gospel,  and 
 feel  that  our  sins  are  gratuitously  pardoned,  a  sense  of  the 
 divine  love,  shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
 awakens  all  holy  affections.  The  motive  to  obedience  is  now 
 love,  and  its  aim  the  glory  of  God,  ver.  14,  &c. 
 
 2.  Paul  teaches  that  it  is  not  only  obligatory  on  Christians 
 to  renounce  the  service  of  sin,  but  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
 authority  and  power  of  their  former  master  are  destroyed,  and 
 those  of  their  new  master  experienced,  whenever  they  embrace 
 the  gospel.  This  is  the  very  nature  of  the  change.  The  charge, 
 therefore,  that  the  gospel  leads  to  the  service  of  sin,  is  an 
 absurdity,  vs.  15 — 18. 
 
 3.  Religion  is  essentially  active.  It  is  the  yielding  up  of  our- 
 '  selves,  with  all  our  powers,  to  God,  and  the  actual  employment 
 j  of  them  as  instruments  in  doing  good.     Nothing  can  be  at  a 
 
 greater  remove  from  this,  than  making  religion  a  mere  matter 
 of  indolent  profession,  (a  saying.  Lord,  Lord,)  ver.  12,  &c. 
 
 4.  Both  from  the  nature  of  things,  and  the  appointment  of 
 God,  the  wages  of  sin  is  death.  It  renders  intercourse  with 
 God,  who  is  the  fountain  of  life,  impossible.  It  consists  in  the 
 exercise  of  feelings,  in  their  own  nature,  inconsistent  with  hap- 
 piness; it  constantly  increases  in  malignity,  and  in  power  to 
 destroy  the  peace  of  the  soul.  Apart  from  these  essential 
 tendencies,  its  relation  to  conscience  and  the  justice  of  God, 
 renders  the  connection  between  sin  and  misery  indissoluble, 
 Salvation  in  sin  is  as  much  a  contradiction,  as  happiness  in 
 misery,  vs.  21,  23. 
 
ROMANS  VI.  12—23.  33b 
 
 C.  Eternal  life  is  the  GIFT  of  God.  It  does  not,  like  eternal 
 death,  flow,  as  a  natural  consequence,  from  anything  in  us. 
 With  the  holy  angels,  who  have  never  lost  the  favour  of  God. 
 this  may  be  the  case.  But  the  tendency  of  all  that  belongs  to 
 us,  is  to  death ;  this  must  be  counteracted ;  those  excellences, 
 in  which  life  consists,  and  from  which  it  flows,  must  be  pro- 
 duced, sustained,  and  strengthened  by  the  constant,  condescend- 
 ing, and  long-suffering  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  life  thus 
 graciously  produced,  and  graciously  sustained,  is  at  last  gra 
 ciously  crowned  with  eternal  glory,  vs.  22,  23. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  We  should  cultivate  a  sense  of  the  Divine  favour  as  a 
 means  to  holiness.  We  must  cease  to  be  slaves,  before  we  can 
 be  children.  We  must  be  free  from  the  dominion  of  fear,  before 
 we  can  be  under  the  government  of  love.  A  self-righteous 
 spirit,  therefore,  is  not  more  inconsistent  with  reliance  on  the 
 righteousness  of  Christ,  in  order  to  justification,  than  it  is  with 
 the  existence  and  progress  of  sanctification.  Whatever  tends 
 to  destroy  a  sense  of  the  Divine  favour,  must  be  inimical  to 
 holiness.  Hence  the  necessity  of  keeping  a  conscience  void  of 
 offence,  and  of  maintaining  uninterrupted  our  union  with  Christ 
 as  our  sacrifice  and  advocate,  ver.  14,  &c. 
 
 2.  Those  Christians  are  under  a  great  mistake,  who  suppose 
 that  despondency  is  favourable  to  piety.  Happiness  is  one  of 
 the  elements  of  life.  Hope  and  joy  are  twin  daughters  of  piety, 
 and  cannot,  without  violence  and  injury,  be  separated  from 
 their  parent.  To  rejoice  is  as  much  a  duty  as  it  is  a  privilege, 
 ver.  14,  &c. 
 
 3.  Sinners  are  slaves.  Sin  reigns  over  them ;  and  all  their 
 powers  are  delivered  to  this  master  as  instruments  of  unright- 
 eousness. He  secures  obedience  with  infallible  certainty ;  his 
 bonds  become  stronger  every  day,  and  his  wages  are  death. 
 From  his  tyranny  and  recompense  there  is  no  deliverance  by 
 the  law;  our  only  hope  is  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  vs.  12, 
 13,  16,  &c. 
 
 4.  Christians  are  the  servants  of  God.  He  reigns  over  them, 
 and  all  their  powers  are  consecrated  to  him.     He,  too,  secures 
 
334  ROMANS  VII.  1—25 
 
 fidelity,  and  his  bonds  of  love  and  duty  become  stronger  every 
 day.     His  reward  is  eternal  life,  vs.  12,  13,  16,  &c. 
 
 5.  It  is  of  God,  that  those  who  were  once  the  servants  of  sin, 
 become  the  servants  of  righteousness.  To  him,  therefore,  all 
 the  praise  and  gratitude  belong,  ver.  17. 
 
 6.  When  a  man  is  the  slave  of  sin,  he  commonly  thinks  him- 
 self free ;  and  when  most  degraded,  is  often  the  most  proud. 
 When  truly  free,  he  feels  himself  most  strongly  bound  to  God ; 
 and  when  most  elevated,  is  most  humble,  vs.  20 — 22. 
 
 7.  Self-abasement,  or  shame  in  view  of  his  past  life,  is  the 
 necessary  result  of  those  views  of  his  duty  and  destiny,  which 
 every  Christian  obtains  when  he  becomes  the  servant  of  God. 
 ver.  21. 
 
 CHAPTER    VII. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The  apostle,  having  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  the 
 doctrines  of  grace  do  not  give  liberty  to  sin,  but,  on  the  con- 
 trary, are  productive  of  holiness,  in  this  chapter  first  illustrates 
 and  confirms  his  position,  that  we  are  not  under  the  law,  but 
 under  grace,  and  shows  the  consequences  of  this  change  in  our 
 relation  to  God.  While  under  the  law,  we  brought  forth  fruit 
 unto  sin ;  when  under  grace,  we  bring  forth  fruit  unto  right- 
 eousness. This  occupies  the  first  section,  vs.  1 — 6.  The  second, 
 vs.  7 — 25,  contains  an  exhibition  of  the  operation  of  the  law, 
 derived  from  the  apostle's  own  experience,  and  designed  to 
 show  its  insufficiency  to  produce  sanctification,  as  he  had  before 
 proved  it  to  be  insufficient  for  justification.  This  section  con- 
 sists of  two  parts,  vs.  7 — 13,  which  exhibit  the  operation  of 
 the  law  in  producing  conviction  of  sin ;  and  vs.  14 — 25,  which 
 show  that  in  the  inward  conflict  between  sin  and  holiness,  the 
 law  cannot  afford  the  believer  any  relief.  His  only  hope  of 
 victory  is  in  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
 
ROMANS  VII.  1.  335 
 
 ROMANS   VII.   1—6. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 This  section  is  an  illustration  of  the  position  assumed  in 
 ver.  14  of  the  preceding  chapter:  we  are  not  under  law,  but 
 under  grace.  Paul  remarks,  as  a  general  fact,  that  the  author- 
 icy  of  laws  is  not  perpetual,  ver.  1.  For  example,  the  law  of 
 marriage  binds  a  woman  to  her  husband  only  so  long  as  he 
 lives.  ^Yhen  he  is  dead,  she  is  free  from  the  obligation  which 
 that  law  imposed,  and  is  at  liberty  to  marry  another  man, 
 vs.  2,  3.  So  we,  being  free  from  the  law,  which  was  our  first 
 husband,  are  at  liberty  to  marry  another,  even  Christ.  We  are 
 freed  from  the  law  by  the  death  of  Christ,  ver.  4.  The  fruit 
 of  our  first  marriage  was  sin,  ver.  5.  The  fruit  of  the  second 
 is  holiness,  ver.  6. 
 
 The  apparent  confusion  in  this  passage  arises  from  the  apos- 
 tle's not  carrying  the  figure  regularly  through.  As  a  woman  is 
 free  from  obligation  to  her  husband  by  his  death,  so  we  are  free 
 from  the  law  by  its  death,  is  obviously  the  illustration  intended. 
 But  the  apostle,  out  of  respect  probably  to  the  feelings  of  his 
 readers,  avoids  saying  the  law  is  dead,  but  expresses  the  idea 
 that  we  are  free  from  it,  by  saying,  we  are  dead  to  the  law  by 
 the  body  of  Christ.  "  Caeterum  nequis  conturbetur,  quod  inter 
 se  comparata  membra  non  omnino  respondent:  praemonendi 
 sumus,  apostolum  data  opera  voluisse  exigua  inversione  deflec- 
 tere  asperioris  verbi  invidiam.  Debuerat  dicere,  ut  ordine  simi- 
 litudinem  contexeret:  Mulier  post  mortem  viri  soluta  est  a 
 conjugii  vinculo,  Lex,  quae  locum  habet  mariti  erga  nos,  mcrtua 
 est  nobis :  ergo  sumus  ab  ejus  potestate  liberi.  Sed  ne  ofiend- 
 eret  Judgeos  verbi  asperitate,  si  dixisset  legem  esse  mortuam, 
 deflectione  est  usus,  dicens  nos  legi  esse  mortuos."    Calvin. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Versi^  1.  Know  ye  not,  brethren,  [for  I  speak  to  them  that 
 know  the  laiv,)  how  that  the  law  hath  dominion  over  a  man  as 
 long  as  he  liveth  ?  In  the  English  version  of  the  words  vj  dj-vo- 
 etre,  the  particle  ^,  or,  is  overlooked.    As  that  particle  ia  almost 
 
336  ROMANS  VII.  1. 
 
 always  used  in  reference  to  the  immediately  preceding  context, 
 Meyer  and  others  insist  on  connecting  this  verse  with  vi,  23: 
 'The  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life;  or  are  ye  ignorant.'  That  is. 
 you  must  recognize  eternal  life  as  a  gift,  unless  ye  are  ignorant 
 that  the  law  does  not  bind  the  dead.  But  this  is  evidently 
 forced.  The  idea  which  ^  is  used  to  recall,  is  that  in  vi.  14 : 
 "Ye  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace."  This  is  the 
 main  idea  in  the  whole  context,  and  is  that  which  the  following 
 passage  carries  out  and  enforces.  The  thing  to  be  proved  is, 
 that  we  are  not  under  the  law.  The  proof  is,  that  the  law  does 
 not  bind  the  dead.  But  we  are  dead,  therefore  we  are  free  from 
 the  law.  This  idea,  that  the  law  binds  a  man  only  so  long  as  he 
 lives,  is  presented  as  a  general  principle,  and  is  then  illustrated 
 by  a  specific  example.  That  example  is  the  law  of  marriage, 
 which  ceases  to  bind  the  parties  when  one  of  them  is  dead.  So 
 the  law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  ceases  to  bind  us  when  death 
 has  loosed  its  bonds.  We  are  as  free  as  the  woman  whose  hus- 
 band is  dead.  " Sit  generalis  propositio,"  says  Calvin,  "legem 
 non  in  alium  finem  latam  esse  hominibus,  quam  ut  prsesentem 
 vitam  moderetur :  apud  mortuos  nullum  ei  superesse  locum. 
 Cui  postea  hypothesin  subjiciet,  nos  illi  esse  mortuos  in  Christi 
 corpore."  Brethren;  a  mode  of  address  applicable  to  all 
 believers.  He  speaks  to  his  spiritual  brethren,  and  not  to  the 
 Jewish  converts  alone,  his  brethren  according  to  the  flesh.  For 
 1 8'peak  to  them  that  know  the  law.  That  is,  I  speak  to  you  as 
 to  persons  who  know  the  law ;  not,  I  speak  to  those  among  you 
 who  know  the  law.  He  does  not  distinguish  one  class  of  his 
 readers  from  another.  That  would  require  the  participle  in  the 
 dative,  roTc  y^vioaxooacv,  to  the  knowers,  as  opposed  to  those 
 amono-  them  who  did  not  know.  He  assumes  that  all  his  read- 
 ers  were  fully  cognizant  of  the  principle,  that  the  law  has 
 dominion  over  a  man  so  long  as  he  Uveth.  What  law  does  the 
 apostle  here  refer  to  it?  It  may  be  understood  of  law  without 
 any  restriction.  Law,  all  laws,  (in  the  aspect  in  which  they  are 
 contemplated,)  bind  a  man  only  so  long  as  he  lives.  Or,  it  may 
 mean  specifically  the  Mosaic  law ;  or,  more  definitely  still,  the 
 marriage  law.  There  is  no  reason  for  these  limitations.  The 
 proposition  is  a  general  one  ;  though  the  application  is  doubt- 
 less to  the  law  of  which  he  had  been  speaking,  and  specially  to 
 
ROMANS  Vll.  1.  337 
 
 the  law  referred  to  in  vi.  14,  from  which  he  says  we  are  now 
 free.  That  certainly  is  not  the  Mosaic  law  considered  as  a  tran- 
 sient economy,  or  as  a  system  of  religious  rites  ar.d  ceremonies 
 designed  for  one  people,  and  for  a  limited  period.  It  is  the 
 Mosaic  law  considered  as  a  revelation  of  the  moral  law,  which 
 is  holy,  just,  and  good,  and  which  says,  "Thou  shalt  not 
 covet."  He  illustrates  the  mode  of  our  deliverance  from  that 
 law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  by  a  reference  to  the  admitted 
 fact,  that  law  has  no  dominion  over  the  dead. 
 
 The  original  leaves  it  doubtful  whether  the  last  clause  of  the 
 verse  is  to  be  rendered  "as  long  as  he  lives,"  or  "as  long  as  it 
 lives."  The  decision  of  this  point  depends  on  the  context.  In 
 favo-ur  of  the  latter,  it  may  be  said,  1.  That  it  is  better  suited 
 to  the  apostle's  design,  which  is  to  show  that  the  law  is  dead  or 
 abrogated.  2.  That  in  verse  6  (according  to  the  common  read- 
 ing) the  law  is  spoken  of  as  being  dead.  8.  And,  especially, 
 that  in  vs.  2,  8,  the  woman  is  said  to  be  free  from  the  law,  not 
 by  her  own,  but  by  her  husband's  death ;  which  would  seem  to 
 require  that,  in  the  other  part  of  the  comparison,  the  husband 
 (i.  e.  the  law)  should  be  represented  as  dying,  and  not  the  wife, 
 that  is,  those  bound  by  the  law.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
 must  be  admitted  that  the  laiv  lives,  and  the  law  dries,  are  very 
 unusual  modes  of  expression,  and  perfectly  unexampled  in 
 Paul's  writings,  if  the  doubtful  case  in  ver.  6  be  excepted, 
 2.  This  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with  ver.  2.  It  is  not  the 
 law  that  dies :  "  The  woman  is  bound  to  her  husband  as  long  as 
 he  liveth;  but  if  the  husband  be  dead,"  &c.  8.  Throughout  the 
 passage  it  is  said  that  we  are  dead  to  the  law  (ver.  4,)  delivered 
 from  the  law  (ver.  C,)  and  not  that  the  law  is  dead.  The  com- 
 mon interpretation,  therefore,  is  to  be  preferred :  *  The  law  has 
 dominion  as  long  and  no  longer  than  the  person  lives,  to  whom 
 it  has  respect.  For  example,  the  law  of  marriage  ceases  to  be 
 binding  when  one  of  the  parties  is  dead.'  Instead  of  under- 
 standing the  words,  as  long  as  he  liveth,  of  the  natural  or  phy- 
 sical life,  as  is  done  by  the  great  body  of  interpreters,  Philippi 
 and  others  say  the  meaning  is,  '  That  the  law  binds  a  man  so 
 long  as  his  natural,  corrupt,  unregenerated  life  continues.  When 
 the  old  man  is  crucified,  he  is  free  from  the  law.'  We  have 
 here,  he  says,  the  same  idea  as  is  expressed  above,  vi.  7,  *  He 
 22 
 
338  ROMANS  VII.  2—3. 
 
 that  dieth  is  justified  from  sin.'  This  interpretation  is  not  oni^ 
 unnatural,  but  it  necessitates  a  forced  allegorical  interpretation 
 of  the  following  verses. 
 
 Verse  2.  For  tlie  woman  which  hath  a  husband,  yuvi]  uttuv- 
 8po(;,  viro  subjeeta,  married,  answering  to  rrd'^si  nnpi,  Num. 
 V.  29.  Is  bound  by  the  law  to  her  living  husband,  zcp  (^wuzi 
 dvdpi,  i.  e.  to  her  husband  while  living.  But  if  leer  husbayid  be 
 dead,  she  is  freed  from  the  law  of  her  husband.  Is  freed  from, 
 xaz^jpYTjzac  and  is  an  expression  which  never  occurs  in  common 
 Greek.  The  same  idiom  is  found  in  ver.  6  of  this  chapter,  and 
 in  Gal.  v.  4.  Kazapytlv  means  to  invalidate,  to  render  void. 
 The  idea  is,  that  the  relation  to  her  husband  is  broken  oiF,  and 
 she  is  free.  Law  of  her  husband  means  law  relating  to  her 
 husband.  The  phrase  is  analogous  to  those  often  used  in  the 
 Old  Testament — "law  of  the  sacrifice;"  "law  of  leprosy;" 
 "law  of  defilement."  According  to  the  common  interpretation 
 of  this  verse,  ydp  {for)  introduces  a  confirmatory  illustration : 
 'Law  is  not  of  perpetual  obligation;  for  examjjle,  a  married 
 woman  is  free  from  the  law  which  bound  her  to  her  husband,  by 
 his  death.'  There  is  of  course  a  slight  incongruity  between  the 
 illustration  and  the  form  in  which  the  princi2)le  is  stated  in  the 
 first  verse.  There  it  is  said  that  the  law  has  dominion  over  a 
 man  so  long  as  he  lives.  The  illustration  is,  that  a  wife  is  free 
 (not  when  she  dies)  when  her  husband  dies.  For  this  and  other 
 reasons,  many  interpreters  do  not  regard  this  verse  as  present- 
 ing an  example,  but  as  an  allegory.  Those  who  take  this  view, 
 give  different  explanations.  After  Augustin,  Melancthon,  Beza, 
 and  others,  say :  '  The  husband  is  our  corrupt  nature,  (vis  ilia 
 nativa,  as  Beza  calls  it,  ciens  in  nobis  afFectiones  peccatorum;) 
 the  wife  is  the  soul,  or  our  members.  When,  therefore,  the 
 corrupt  nature  (or  old  man)  dies,  the  soul  is  free  from  that  hus- 
 band, and  is  at  liberty  to  marry  another.'  Others,  with  much 
 more  regard  to  the  context,  say  that  the  wife  is  the  Church, 
 the  husband  the  law;  so  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Olshausen,  Phi- 
 lippi,  &c.  This  is  indeed  the  application  which  the  apostle 
 makes  in  the  following  verses,  but  it  is  not  what  is  said  in 
 vs.  2,  3.  Here  we  have  only  an  example,  illustrating  the  truth 
 of  the  assertion  in  ver.  1. 
 
 Verse  3  is  an  amplification  and  confirmation  of  what  is  said 
 
ROMANS  VII.  4.  33? 
 
 in  ver.  2 :  That  a  woman  is  bound  by  the  law  to  her  husbana  as 
 long  as  he  lives,  is  plain,  because  she  is  called  an  adulteress  if 
 she  marries  another  man  while  her  husband  lives.  And  that 
 she  is  free  from  that  law  when  he  dies,  is  plain,  because  she  is 
 in  that  case  no  adulteress,  though  she  be  married  to  another 
 man.  She  shall  be  called,  y^p-qiiariau,  authoritatively  and 
 solemnly  declared  to  be.  Xprjiiari^Bcv  (from  Xf'W^)  ^®  literally 
 to  transact  business,  and  specially  the  business  of  the  state,  to 
 give  decisions,  or  decrees ;  and  specially  in  the  New  Testament, 
 to  utter  divine  responses,  oraeula  edere,  divinitus  admonere;  see 
 Matt.  ii.  12,  22 ;  Luke  ii.  26 ;  Acts  x.  22 ;  Heb.  viii.  5,  xi.  7. 
 Compare  Rom.  xi.  4. 
 
 Verse  4.  Wlierefore,  my  brethren,  ye  also  have  become  dead 
 to  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ.  As  the  woman  is  free  from 
 the  law  by  the  death  of  her  husband,  so  ye  also  [xat  v[tzlz)  are 
 freed  from  the  law  by  the  death  of  Christ.  This  is  the  applica- 
 tion made  by  the  apostle  of  the  illustration  contained  in  vs.  2,  3. 
 The  law  is  our  first  husband ;  we  were  bound  to  satisfy  its 
 demands.  But  the  law  being  dead,  (i.  e.  fulfilled  in  Christ,)  we 
 are  free  from  the  obligation  of  obedience  to  it  as  the  condition 
 of  justification,  and  are  at  liberty  to  accept  the  gospel.  "Lex 
 velut  maritus  fuit,"  says  Calvin,  "sub  cujus  jugo  detinemur, 
 donee  mortua  est.  Post  legis  mortem  Christus  nos  assumpsit, 
 id  est,  a  lege  solutes  adjunxit  sibi.  Ergo  Christo  e  mortuis 
 suscitato  copulati  adhaerere  ei  soli  debemus :  atque  ut  aeterna 
 est  Christi  vita  post  resurrectionem,  ita  posthac  nullum  futurum 
 est  divortium."  Instead  of  saying.  The  law  is  dead,  as  the  con- 
 sistency of  the  figure  would  demand,  the  apostle  expresses  the 
 same  idea  by  saying,  Ye  are  dead  to  the  law,  or  rather,  are 
 slain,  put  to  death,  k&avazoj&rjzt.  This  form  of  expression  is 
 probably  used  because  the  death  of  Christ,  in  which  we  died, 
 was  an  act  of  violence.  He  was  put  to  death,  and  we  in  him. 
 To  be  slain  to  the  law,  means  to  be  freed  from  the  law  by  death. 
 Death,  indeed,  not  our  own,  but  ours  vicariously,  as  we  were 
 crucified  in  Christ,  who  died  on  the  cross  in  our  behalf,  and  in 
 our  stead.  It  is  therefore  added,  by  the  body  of  Christ,  i.  e.  by 
 his  body  as  slain.  He  redeemed  us  from  the  law  by  death;  "by 
 being  a  curse,"  Gal.  iii.  13;  "by  his  blood,"  Eph.  i.  7,  ii.  13; 
 "by  his  fl^sh,"  Eph.  ii.  15;  "by  the  cross,"  Eph.  ii.  16;  "by 
 
340  ROMANS  VII.  4. 
 
 the  body  of  his  flesh,"  Col.  i.  22.  These  are  all  equhalcnt 
 expressions.  They  all  teach  the  same  doctrine,  that  Christ 
 bore  our  sins  upon  the  tree ;  that  his  sufferings  and  death  were 
 a  satisfaction  to  justice,  and,  being  so  intended  and  accepted, 
 they  effect  our  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of  the  law.  We 
 are  therefore  free  from  it.  Although  the  law  continues,  ever- 
 more to  bind  us  as  rational  creatures,  it  no  longer  prescribes 
 the  conditions  of  our  salvation.  It  is  no  longer  necessary  that 
 we  should  atone  for  our  own  sins,  or  work  out  a  righteousness 
 such  as  the  law  demands.  Christ  has  done  that  for  us.  We 
 are  thus  freed  from  the  law,  that  we  should  he  married  to 
 another,  e^C  ^o  ysvsad-ai,  as  expressing  the  design.  The  proxi- 
 mate design  of  our  freedom  from  the  law,  is  our  union  with 
 Christ;  and  the  design  of  our  union  with  Christ  is,  that  we 
 should  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God,  that  is,  that  we  should  be 
 holy.  Here,  therefore,  as  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the  apostle 
 teaches  that  the  law  cannot  sanctify ;  that  it  is  necessary  we 
 should  be  delivered  from  its  bondage,  and  be  reconciled  to  God, 
 before  we  can  be  holy.  He  to  whom  we  are  thus  united,  is  said 
 to  be  he  who  is  raised  from  the  dead.  As  Christ  is  spoken  of, 
 or  referred  to  as  having  died,  it  was  appropriate  to  refer  to  him 
 as  now  living.  It  is  to  the  living  and  life-giving  Son  of  God 
 that  we  are  united  by  faith  and  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit;  and 
 therefore  it  is  that  we  are  no  longer  barren  or  unfruitful,  but 
 are  made  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto  God.  "  Sed  ultra  progreditur 
 apostolus,"  says  Calvin,  "nempe  solutum  fuisse  legis  vinculum, 
 non  ut  nostro  arbitrio  vivamus,  sicuti  mulier  vidua  sui  juris  est, 
 dum  in  coelibatu  degit;  sed  alteri  marito  nos  jam  esse  devinc- 
 tos:  imo  de  manu  (ut  aiunt)  in  manum  a  lege  ad  Christum 
 nos  transiisse." 
 
 It  need  hardly  be  remarked,  that  the  law  of  which  the  apos 
 tie  is  here  speaking,  is  not  the  Mosaic  law  considered  as  the 
 Old  Testament  economy.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  this  or  of 
 similar  passages,  that  Christ  has  merely  delivered  us  from  the 
 yoke  of  Jewish  institutions,  in  order  that  we  may  embrace  the 
 simpler  and  more  spiritual  dispensation  of  the  gospel.  The  law 
 of  which  he  speaks,  is  the  law  which  says,  "  The  man  that 
 doeth  these  things  shall  live  by  them,"  x.  5;  Gal.  iii.  10;  that 
 is,  which  requires  perfect  obedience  as  the  condition  of  accept- 
 
ROMANS  YII.  4.  Ul 
 
 ance.  Tt  is  that  which  says,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  ver,  7; 
 without  which  sin  is  dead,  ver.  8 ;  which  is  holy,  just  and  good, 
 ver.  12 ;  which  is  spiritual,  ver.  14,  &c.  It  is  that  law  by  whose 
 works  the  Gentiles  cannot  be  justified,  chap.  iii.  20 ;  from  whose 
 curse  Christ  has  redeemed  not  the  Jews  only,  but  also  the  Gen- 
 tiles, Gal.  iii.  13,  14.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  Paul  here 
 means  by  the  law,  the  will  of  God,  as  a  rule  of  duty,  no  matter 
 how  revealed.  From  this  law,  as  prescribing  the  terms  of  our 
 acceptance  with  God,  Christ  has  delivered  us.  It  is  the  legal 
 system  which  says,  "Do  this  and  live,"  that  Christ  has  abo- 
 lished, and  introduced  another,  which  says,  "  He  that  believes 
 shall  be  saved."  Since,  however,  as  remarked  above  (chap, 
 vi.  14,)  the  Old  Testament  economy,  including  the  Mosaic  insti- 
 tutions, was  the  form  in  which  the  law,  as  law,  was  ever  present 
 to  the  minds  of  the  apostle  and  his  readers ;  and  since  deliver- 
 ance from  the  legal  system,  as  such,  involved  deliverance  from 
 that  economy,  it  is  not  wonderful  that  reference  to  that  dis- 
 pensation should  often  be  made ;  or  that  Paul  should  at  times 
 express  the  idea  of  deliverance  from  the  law,  as  such,  by  terms 
 which  would  .aeem  to  express  only  deliverance  from  the  particu- 
 lar form  in  which  it  was  so  familiar  to  his  readers.  So,  too,  in 
 ttie  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  we  find  him  constantly  speaking  of 
 a  return  to  Judaism  as  a  renunciation  of  the  method  of  gratui- 
 tous justification,  and  a  recurrence  to  a  reliance  on  the  right- 
 eousness of  works.  The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  The  Old 
 Testament  dispensation,  apart  from  its  evangelical  import,  which 
 lay,  like  a  secondary  sense,  beneath  the  cover  of  its  institutions, 
 was  but  a  reenactment  of  the  legal  system.  To  make,  however, 
 as  is  so  often  done,  the  whole  meaning  of  the  apostle  to  be,  that 
 we  are  freed  from  the  Jewish  law,  is  not  only  inconsistent  in 
 this  place  with  the  context,  and  irreconcilable  with  many 
 express  declarations  of  Scripture,  but  destructive  of  the  whole 
 evangelical  character  of  the  doctrine.  How  small  a  part  of  the 
 redemption  of  Christ  is  deliverance  from  the  Mosaic  institutions ! 
 How  slight  the  consolation  to  a  soul,  sensible  of  its  exposure  to 
 the  wrath  of  God,  to  be  told  that  the  law  of  Moses  no  longer 
 condemns  us !  How  void  of  truth  and  meaning  the  doctrine, 
 that  deliverance  from  the  law  is  necessary  to  holiness,  if  the  law 
 means  the  Jewish  economy  merely 
 
342  ROMANS  VII.  5. 
 
 Verse  5.  For  when  we  were  in  the  flesh,  the  motions  of  s/;i, 
 whiah  were  hy  the  law,  &c.  The  apostle  having,  in  ver.  4,  stated 
 that  believers  are  freed  from  the  law  by  the  death  of  Christ,  in 
 this  and  the  following  verse,  shows  the  necessity  and  the  con- 
 sequences of  this  change :  '  We  have  been  thus  freed,  because 
 formerly,  when  under  the  law,  we  brought  forth  fruit  unto 
 death ;  but  now,  being  free  from  the  law,  we  are  devoted  to  the 
 service  of  God.'  The  force  of /or,  at  the  beginning  of  this 
 verse,  is  therefore  obvious.  The  former  legal  state  of  believers 
 is  here  described  by  saying,  they  were  in  the  flesh.  In  the 
 language  of  Scripture,  the  word  flesh  expresses,  in  such  con- 
 nections, one  or  the  other  of  two  ideas,  or  both  conjointly. 
 First,  a  state  of  moral  corruption,  as  in  chap.  viii.  8,  "Those 
 that  are  in  the  flesh;"  secondly,  a  carnal  state,  i.  e.  a  state  in 
 which  men  are  subject  to  external  rites,  ceremonies,  and  com 
 mands;  or  more  generally,  a  legal  state,  inasmuch  as  among 
 the  Jews,  that  state  was  one  of  subjection  to  such  external 
 rites.  Gal.  iii.  3,  "  Having  begun  in  the  Spirit,  are  ye  now  made 
 perfect  by  the  flesh?"  Compare  Gal.  iv.  9,  where  the  expression 
 "weak  and  beggarly  elements"  is  substituted  for  the  phrase 
 "the  flesh;"  see  Rom.  iv.  1.  In  the  present  case,  both  ideas 
 appear  to  be  included.  The  meaning  is,  'when  in  your  unre- 
 nenewed  and  legal  state.'  The  opposite  condition  is  described 
 (ver.  6)  as  a  state  of  freedom  from  the  law ;  which,  of  course, 
 shows  that  the  second  of  the  two  ideas  mentioned  above  was 
 prominent  in  the  apostle's  mind  when  he  used  the  words  "in 
 the  flesh."  In  vi.  14,  the  apostle  says,  "Sin  shall  not  have 
 dominion  over  you,  for  ye  are  not  under  the  law;"  and  here,  in 
 the  exposition  of  that  passage,  he  shows  why  it  is  that  while 
 under  the  law,  sin  does  have  dominion.  It  is  because,  while  in 
 that  state  of  condemnation  and  alienation  from  God,  the  eSect 
 of  the  law  is  to  produce  sin.  He  says  the  Tta&rjfxara  zcov  dfiap- 
 vc(bv  are  dta  rou  vo/jlou.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  passions 
 of  sin  (i.  e.  which  manifest  themselves  in  sinful  acts)  are  simply 
 made  known  by  the  law,  but  they  are  by  it,  that  is,  produced 
 by  it.  The  word  na^-qiiaxa  literally  means  what  is  sufiered, 
 afflictions ;  here  it  is  used  in  a  secondary  sense  for  passions, 
 [motions,  in  the  sense  of  emotions,  feelings.)  These  two  mean- 
 ings of  the  word  are  nearly  allied,  inasmuch  as  in  passion^  or 
 
ROMANS  VII.  6.  343 
 
 feeling,  the  soul  is  rather  the  subject  than  the  agent  These 
 sinful  feelings,  aroused  by  the  law,  the  apostle  says  kv^pyelzo, 
 wrought,  (the  word  is  here,  as  everywhere  else  in  the  New  Tes- 
 tament, used  in  an  active  sense,)  in  our  members;  i.  e.  in  us, 
 not  merely  in  our  bodily  members,  but  in  all  our  faculties, 
 whether  of  soul  or  body.  To  bring  forth  fruit;  ec^  to  xaprzo- 
 (fopr^aac,  as  expressing  the  result,  not  the  design.  The  effect 
 of  the  excitement  of  sinful  feeling  by  the  law,  was  the  produc- 
 tion of  fruit  unto  death;  rw  d^avarcp,  as  opposed  to  roj  0ew  of 
 the  preceding  verse.  Death  is  personified.  He  is  represented 
 as  a  master,  to  whom  our  works  are  rendered.  They  belong  to 
 him.  Death,  in  other  words,  is  the  consequence  or  end  secured 
 by  our  sins.  The  wages  of  sin  is  death.  The  consequence  of 
 sinning  is,  that  we  die.  The  death  here  meant  is  no  more  mere 
 physical  death  than  in  vi.  23.  It  is  that  death  which  the  law 
 of  God  threatens  as  the  punishment  of  sin. 
 
 Verse  6,  But  now,  (uuvc  os,  opposed  to  ore  of  ver.  5,)  i.  e. 
 since  our  conversion,  we  were  freed  from  the  law;  y.aTrjpif7j- 
 ^Tjfitv  anb  TOO  vofiou,  (the  same  idiom  as  in  ver.  2.)  How  were 
 we  thus  freed  from  the  law  ?  By  death.  If  d.7io&av6vTOQ,  found 
 in  the  common  text,  is  the  true  reading,  {that  having  died,)  then 
 it  is  by  the  death  (i,  e.  the  abrogation  or  satisfaction)  of  the  law 
 that  we  are  thus  freed,  even  as  the  woman  is  freed  by  the  death 
 of  her  husband.  But  if,  as  all  modern  editors  agree,  ano&a.vbv' 
 rec  [we  having  died)  is  the  true  reading,  then  it  is  by  our  own 
 vicarious  death  in  Christ,  our  having  died  with  him  whose  death 
 is  a  satisfaction  to  the  law,  that  we  are  thus  delivered.  This  is 
 in  accordance  with  ver.  4,  where  it  is  said  we  died  to  the  law. 
 The  apostle  says  we  died  (toutoj)  iv  a>  xaTec^ofisd^a,  (to  that)  bp 
 which  we  were  bound.  The  law  held  us  under  its  authority, 
 and,  as  it  were,  in  bondage ;  from  which  bondage  we  have  been 
 redeemed  by  death.  jSo  that,  the  consequence  of  this  freedom 
 from  the  law  is,  we  serve  (God)  in  newness  of  the  Spirit,  and  not 
 (sin)  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter.  That  is,  we  serve  God  in  a 
 new  and  holy  state  due  to  the  Spirit,  which  the  Spirit  has  pro- 
 duced, and  not  sin  in,  or  according  to,  the  old  and  corrupt  state 
 under  the  law.  Newness  of  the  Spirit  is  that  new  state  of  mind 
 of  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  author.  Oldriess  of  the  letter  is 
 that  old  state  of  which  the  law  is  the  source,  in  so  far  as  it  was 
 
344  ROMANS  VII.  1—6. 
 
 a  state  of  condemnation  and  enmity  to  God.  That  Ilv^ufxa  here 
 is  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not  the  human  soul  as  renewed  by  the 
 Spii'it,  may  be  inferred  from  the  general  usage  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament, and  from  such  parallel  passages  as  Gal.  iii.  3,  2  Cor. 
 iii.  6,  in  both  of  which  Trvsu/xa  means  the  Gospel  as  the  revela- 
 tion and  organ  of  the  Spirit.  In  the  latter  passage,  the  apostle 
 says,  "the  letter  killeth,  but  the  Spirit  giveth  life."  There,  as 
 here,  the  letter,  ypdfxfxa,  is  what  is  written.  The  law  is  so  desig- 
 nated because  the  decalogue,  its  most  important  part,  was  origi- 
 nally written  on  stone,  and  because  the  whole  law,  as  revealed 
 to  the  Jews,  was  written  in  the  Scriptures,  or  writings.  It  was 
 therefore  something  external,  as  opposed  to  what  was  inward 
 and  spiritual.  Luther's  version  of  this  passage  gives  the  sense 
 in  a  few  words :  "Als  dass  wir  dienen  im  neuen  Wesen  des 
 Geistes,  und  nicht  im  alten  "Wesen  des  Buchstaben."  Believers 
 then  are  free  from  the  law,  by  the  death  of  Christ.  They  ai-e 
 no  longer  under  the  old  covenant,  which  said,  "Do  this  and 
 live;"  but  are  introduced  into  a  new  and  gracious  state,  in 
 which  they  are  accepted,  not  for  what  they  do,  but  for  what 
 has  been  done  for  them.  Instead  of  having  the  legal  and 
 slavish  spirit  which  arose  from  their  condition  under  the  law, 
 they  have  the  feelings  of  children. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  leading  doctrine  of  this  section  is  that  taught  in 
 ver.  14  of  the  preceding  chapter,  viz.  that  believers  are  not 
 under  a  legal  system ;  and  that  the  consequence  of  their  free- 
 dom is  not  the  indulgence  of  sin,  but  the  service  of  God,  ver.  4. 
 
 2.  This  deliverance  from  the  law  is  not  effected  by  setting 
 the  law  aside,  or  by  disregarding  its  demands ;  but  by  those 
 demands  being  satisfied  in  the  person  of  Christ,  ver.  4,  chap. 
 X.  4. 
 
 3.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  redemption  is  in  order  to 
 holiness.  We  are  delivered  from  the  law,  that  we  may  be 
 united  to  Christ ;  and  we  are  united  to  Christ,  that  we  may 
 bring  forth  fruit  unto  God,  ver.  4,  &c. 
 
 4.  Legal  or  self-righteous  strivings  after  holiness  can  never 
 be  successful.     The  relation  in  which  they  place  the   soul  to 
 
ROMANS  VII.  1—6.  345 
 
 God  is,  from  its  nature,  productive  of  evil,  and  not  of  holy 
 feelings,  ver.  5. 
 
 5.  Actual  freedom  from  the  bondage  and  penalty  of  the  law 
 is  always  attended  and  manifested  by  a  filial  temper  and  obedi- 
 ence, ver.  6. 
 
 6.  The  doctrine  concerning  marriage,  which  is  here  inci- 
 dentally taught,  or  rather  which  is  assumed  as  known  to  Jews 
 and  Christians,  is,  that  the  marriage  contract  can  only  be  dis- 
 solved by  death.  The  only  exception  to  this  rule  is  given  by 
 Christ,  Matt.  v.  32;  unless  indeed  Paul,  in  1  Cor.  vii.  15, 
 recognizes  wilful  and  final  desertion  as  a  sufficient  ground  of 
 divorce,  vs.  2,  3. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  As  the  only  way  in  which  we  can  obtain  deliverance  from 
 the  law  is  by  the  death  of  Christ,  the  exercise  of  faith  in  him 
 is  essential  to  holiness.  When  we  lose  our  confidence  in  Christ, 
 we  fall  under  the  power  of  the  law,  and  relapse  into  sin. 
 Everything  depends,  therefore,  upon  our  maintaining  our  union 
 with  Christ.     "Without  me,  ye  can  do  nothing,"  ver.  4. 
 
 2.  The  only  evidence  of  union  with  Christ  is  bringing  forth 
 fruit  unto  God,  ver.  4. 
 
 3.  As  deliverance  from  the  penalty  of  the  law  is  in  order  to 
 holiness,  it  is  vain  to  expect  that  deliverance,  except  with  a 
 view  to  the  end  for  which  it  is  granted,  ver.  4. 
 
 4.  Conversion  is  a  great  change ;  sensible  to  him  that  expe- 
 riences it,  and  visible  to  others.  It  is  a  change  from  a  legal 
 and  slavish  state,  to  one  of  filial  confidence '  manifesting  itself 
 by  the  renunciation  of  the  service  of  sin,  and  by  devotion  to  the 
 service  of  God,  ver.  6. 
 
 5.  A  contract  so  lasting  as  that  of  marriage,  and  of  which 
 the  consequences  are  so  important,  should  not  be  entered  into 
 lightly,  but  in  the  fear  of  God,  vs.  2,  3. 
 
 6.  The  practice,  common  in  many  Protestant  countries  of 
 Europe,  and  in  many  States  of  this  Union,  of  granting  divorces 
 on  the  ground  of  cruel  treatment  or  'incompatibility  of  temper,' 
 is  in  direct  contravention  of  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  the 
 Bible  on  this  subject,  vs.  2,  3 
 
346  KOMANS  VII.  7. 
 
 ROMANS  VII.  7—13. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Paul,  having  shown  that  we  must  be  delivered  fi  na  the  law, 
 in  order  to  our  justification  (chapters  iii.  iv.,)  and  that  this 
 freedom  was  no  less  necessary  in  order  to  sanctification  (chap, 
 vi.,  chap.  vii.  1 — 6,)  comes  now  to  explain  more  fully  than  he 
 had  previously  done,  what  are  the  use  and  efi'ect  of  the  law. 
 This  is  the  object  of  the  residue  of  this  chapter.  The  apostle 
 shows,  first,  vs.  7 — 13,  that  the  law  produces  conviction  of  sin, 
 agreeably  to  his  declaration  in  chap,  iii.  20;  and,  secondly, 
 vs.  14 — 25,  that  it  enlightens  the  believer's  conscience,  but 
 cannot  destroy  the  dominion  of  sin.  This  section,  therefore, 
 may  be  advantageously  divided  into  two  parts.  Paul  introduces 
 the  subject,  as  is  usual  with  him,  by  means  of  an  idea  intimately 
 associated  with  the  preceding  discussion.  He  had  been  insisting 
 on  the  necessity  of  deliverance  from  the  law.  Why  ?  Because 
 it  is  evil  ?  No ;  but  because  it  cannot  produce  holiness.  It  can 
 produce  only  the  knowledge  and  the  sense  of  sin ;  which  are  the 
 constituents  of  genuine  conviction.  These  two  effects  are  attri- 
 buted to  the  operation  of  the  law,  in  vs.  7,  8.  These  ideas  are 
 amplified  in  vs.  9 — 11.  The  inference  is  drawn  in  ver.  12,  that 
 the  law  is  good;  and  in  ver.  13,  that  the  evil  which  it  incident- 
 ally produces  is  to  be  attributed  to  sin,  the  exceeding  turpitude 
 of  which  becomes  thus  the  more  apparent. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  7.  WTiat  shall  we  say  then?  Is  the  law  sin?  Far  from 
 it,  &c.  The  apostle  asks  whether  it  is  to  be  inferred,  either 
 from  the  general  doctrine  of  the  preceding  section,  respecting 
 the  necessity  of  deliverance  from  the  law,  or  from  the  special 
 declaration  made  in  ver.  5,  respecting  the  law  producing  sin, 
 that  the  law  was  itself  evil  ?  He  answers.  By  no  means ;  and 
 shows,  in  the  next  verse,  that  the  effect  ascribed  to  the  law,  in 
 ver.  5,  is  merely  incidental.  Is  the  law  sin?  means  either.  Is 
 the  law  evil  ?  or  is  it  the  cause  of  sin  ?  see  Micah  i.  5,  '  Samaria 
 is  the  sin  of  Jacob.'     The  former  is  best  suited  to  the  context, 
 
ROMANS  VII.  7.  347 
 
 because  Paul  admits  that  the  law  is  incidentally  productive  of 
 sin.  The  two  ideas,  however,  may  be  united,  as  by  Calvin, 
 "An  peccatum  sic  generet,  ut  illi  imputari  ejus  culpa  debeat;" 
 Tioes  the  law  so  produce  sin,  as  that  the  fault  is  to  be  imputed  to 
 the  law  itself?  Grod  forbid,  fi^  ysi^azo;  let  it  not  be  thought 
 that  the  law  is  to  blame.  On  the  contrary  [dkM,)  so  far  from 
 the  law  being  evil,  it  is  the  source,  and  the  only  source  of 
 the  knowledge  of  sin.  /  had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the  law. 
 Where  there  is  no  knowledge  of  the  law,  there  can  be  no  con- 
 sciousness of  sin ;  for  sin  is  want  of  conformity  to  the  law.  If, 
 therefore,  the  standard  of  right  is  not  known,  there  can  be  no 
 apprehension  of  our  want  of  conformity  to  it.  By  the  law  here, 
 is  to  be  understood  the  moral  law,  however  revealed.  It  is  not 
 the  law  of  Moses,  so  far  as  that  law  was  peculiar  and  national, 
 but  only  so  far  as  it  contained  the  rule  of  duty.  It  is  not  the 
 experience  of  men,  as  determined  by  their  relation  to  the 
 Mosaic  dispensation,  but  their  experience  as  determined  bj'' 
 their  relation  to  the  moral  law,  that  is  here  depicted.  But  in 
 what  sense  docs  Paul  here  use  the  pronoun  I?  That  he  does 
 not  speak  for  himself  only ;  that  it  is  not  anything  in  his  own 
 individual  experience,  peculiar  to  himself,  is  obvious  from  the 
 whole  context,  and  is  almost  universally  admitted.  But  if  he 
 speaks  representatively,  whom  does  he  represent,  whose  experi- 
 ence under  the  operation  of  the  law  is  here  detailed  ?  Grotius 
 says,  that  he  represents  the  Jewish  people,  and  sets  forth  their 
 experience  before  and  after  the  introduction  of  the  law  of 
 Moses.  This  opinion  was  adopted  by  Locke,  Estius,  and 
 recently  by  Reiche.  Others  say  that  he  speaks  out  of  the 
 common  consciousness  of  men.  "Das  lyco,  reprfBsentirte  sub- 
 ject," says  Meyer,  "ist  der  Mensch  uberhaupt,  in  seiner  rein 
 menschlichen  und  natlirlichen  Verfassung."  The  experience 
 detailed  is  that  of  the  natural  or  unrenewed  man  throughout. 
 This  view  is  the  one  generally  adopted  by  modern  commenta- 
 tors. Others  again  say,  that  Paul  is  here  speaking  as  a  Christ- 
 ian ;  he  is  giving  his  own  religious  experience  of  the  operation 
 of  the  law,  as  that  experience  is  common  to  all  true  believers. 
 This  does  not  necessarily  suppose  that  the  preliminary  exercises, 
 as  detailed  in  vs.  7 — 13,  are  peculiar  to  the  renewed.  There  is 
 a  "law  work,'*  a  work  of  conviction  which,  in  its  apparent 
 
348  ROMANS  VII.  7. 
 
 characteristics,  is  common  to  the  renewed  and  the  unrenewed. 
 Many  are  truly  and  deeply  convinced  of  sin;  many  experience 
 all  that  the  law  in  itself  can  produce,  who  are  never  regene- 
 rated. Nevertheless,  the  experience  here  exhibited  is  the  expe- 
 rience of  every  renewed  man.  It  sets  forth  the  work  of  the  law 
 first  in  the  work  of  conviction,  vs.  7 — 13,  and  afterwards  in 
 reference  to  the  holy  life  of  the  Christian.  This  is  the  Augus- 
 tinian  view  of  the  bearing  of  this  passage  adopted  by  the 
 Lutherans  and  Reformed,  and  still  held  by  the  great  body  of 
 evangelical  Christians. 
 
 I  had  not  known  sin.  There  are  two  kinds  of  knowledge. 
 The  one  has  for  its  object  mere  logical  relations,  and  is  a  matter 
 of  the  intellect;  the  other  has  for  its  object  both  the  logical 
 relations  and  the  qualities,  moral  or  otherwise,  of  the  thing 
 known,  and  is  a  matter  of  the  feelings  as  well  as  of  the  intel- 
 lect. The  kind  of  knowledge  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  is  not 
 mere  intellectual  cognition,  but  also  conviction.  It  includes  the 
 consciousness  of  guilt  and  pollution.  The  law  awakened  in  him 
 the  knowledge  of  his  own  state  and  character.  He  felt  himself 
 to  be  a  sinner ;  and  by  a  sinner  is  to  be  understood  not  merely 
 a  transgressor,  but  one  in  whom  sin  dwells.  It  was  the  cor- 
 ruption of  his  nature  which  was  revealed  to  the  apostle  by  the 
 operation  of  the  law.  This  sense  of  the  word  kiiapxia  in  this 
 context  is  almost  universally  admitted.  "Die  d.fiapria,'"  says 
 Meyer,  "ist  da,s  principe  der  Sunde  im  Mensclien  (1.  v.  8.  9. 11. 
 13.  14.),  dessen  wir  erst  durch  das  Gesetz  uns  bewusst  werden, 
 und  welches  ohne  das  Gesetz  unbewusst  geblieben  ware."  That 
 IS,  "  The  kfiapzia  is  the  principle  of  sin  in  men,  of  which  we 
 become  conscious  through  the  law,  and  of  which  we  would  with- 
 out the  law  have  remained  unconscious."  So  De  Wette,  Tho- 
 luck,  Riickert,  Kbllner,  Olshausen,  and  Philippi,  among  the 
 modern  commentators,  as  well  as  the  older  doctrinal  expositors. 
 
 For  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt 
 not  covet.  This  may  be  understood  as  merely  an  illustration  of 
 the  preceding  declaration:  'I  had  not  known  sin  but  by  the 
 law.  For  example,  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had 
 Baid,  Thou  shalt  not  covet.'  According  to  this  view,  there  is 
 uo  difference  between  sin  and  lust,  d.[iapria  and  imd^ujuca,  except 
 chat  the  latter  is  specific,  and  the  former  general.     Lust  falls 
 
KOMANS  VII.  8.  349 
 
 under  the  general  category  of  sin.  But  according  to  this  inter- 
 pretation, neither  d-fxapria  nor  kyvojv  {sin  nor  knoiv)  receives  the 
 full  force  which  the  connection  requires.  This  clause,  there- 
 fore, is  not  simply  an  illustration,  but  a  confirmation  of  the 
 preceding :  '  I  had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the  law ;  for  I  had 
 not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  covet.' 
 That  is,  '  From  the  consciousness  of  desire  striving  against  the 
 law,  arose  the  conviction  of  the  principle  of  sin  within  me.' 
 Desire  revealed  as  evil  by  the  law,  itself  revealed  the  evil 
 source  whence  it  springs.  The  word  inc&o^ia  means  simply 
 earnest  desire,  and  the  verb  irci&ufjiico  is  to  desire  earnestly/.  It 
 depends  on  the  context  whether  the  desire  be  good  or  bad, 
 whether  it  is  directed  towards  what  is  lawful  or  what  is  forbid- 
 den. In  the  tenth  commandment,  here  quoted,  the  meaning  is. 
 Thou  shalt  not  desire  to  have  (i.  e.  thou  shalt  not  covet)  that 
 which  belongs  to  another.  The  point  of  the  apostle's  argument 
 is,  that  his  knowledge  of  sin  is  due  to  the  law,  because  Avithout 
 the  law  he  would  not  have  known  that  mere  desire  is  evil,  and 
 because  these  evil  desires  revealed  the  hidden  source  of  sin  in 
 his  nature. 
 
 Verse  8.  But  si7i,  taking  occasion  by  the  commandment^ 
 wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  concupiscence.  This  verse  is  not 
 logically  connected  with  the  preceding.  It  is  rather  coordinate 
 with  it,  and  is  a  virtual,  or  rather,  an  additional  answer  to  the 
 question.  Is  the  law  evil?  To  this  question  Paul  replies,  No; 
 on  the  contrary,  it  leads  to  the  knowledge  of  sin.  And  hence 
 he  adds,  It  is  not  evil  in  itself,  although  incidentally  the  cause 
 of  sin  in  us.  By  sm,  in  this  case,  cannot  be  understood  actual 
 sin.  It  must  mean  indwelling  sin,  or  corruption  of  nature; 
 sin  as  the  principle  or  source  of  action,  and  not  as  an  act. 
 '•^''Afiapria  non  potest  esse  hoc  loco  peccatum  ipsum,"  says 
 Koppe,  "  sed  ipsa  potius  prava  et  ad  peccandum  proclivis  indo- 
 les, vitiosa  hominis  natura,  vitiositas  ipsa."  To  the  same  effect, 
 Olshausen :  "Aus  der  allgemeinen  sUndhaften  natur  des  Men- 
 schen  geht  die  iTZi&Ufica,  prava  concupiscentia,  als  erste  Ausse- 
 rung  hervor  und  dann  folgt  erst  die  That."  That  is,  from  sin 
 immanent  in  our  nature,  comes  first  desire,  and  then  the  act. 
 Thus  Kollner  says,  ^^  im&ufiiav,  so  von  dfiapzca  verschieden, 
 dass    diese    das    gleichsam    im   Menschen    ruhende    siindliche 
 
350  ROMANS  VII.  8. 
 
 Princip  bezeichnet,  im^ufLia  aber  die  im  einzelnen  Fallo 
 wirksame  bose  Lust,  ganz  eigentiich  die  Begierde,  die  dann 
 zunachst  zur  Sunde  in  concreto  flirht."  Such  is  plainly  the 
 meaning  of  the  apostle.  There  is  a  principle  of  sin,  a  corrup- 
 tion of  nature  which  lies  back  of  all  conscious  voluntary  exer- 
 cises, to  which  they  owe  their  origin.  ^ E-ncdofxia,  feeling,  the 
 first  form  in  which  sin  is  revealed  in  the  consciousness,  springs 
 from  d-frnpria.  This  is  a  truth  of  great  importance.  According 
 to  the  theology  and  religious  conviction  of  the  apostle,  sin  can 
 be  predicated  not  only  of  acts,  but  also  of  inward  states. 
 
 Sin  taking  occasion,  (l(pon[jLrjv,  opportunity  or  advantage,  by 
 the  commandment,  i.  e.  the  command,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet." 
 A  part  is  taken  for  the  whole.  This  special  precept  {ivToXrj) 
 stands,  by  way  of  illustration,  for  the  whole  law.  The  words 
 dca  zr^Q  ivzoXr^Q,  by  the  commandment,  may  be  taken  with  the 
 preceding  clause,  '  taking  advantage  of  the  commandment.'  In 
 favour  of  this  construction  is  the  position  of  the  words,  and,  as 
 IS  supposed,  the  dc  aurrj^  in  ver.  11,  which,  it  is  said,  cor- 
 responds to  these  words  in  this  verse.  This  is  the  construction 
 which  is  adopted  by  our  translators,  and  by  many  commenta- 
 tors. Others  prefer  connecting  the  words  in  question  with  what 
 follows — "by  the  commandment  wrought  in  me."  In  favour 
 of  this  is  the  fact,  that  the  main  idea  of  the  passage  is  thus 
 brought  out.  The  apostle  designs  to  show  how  the  laAV,  although 
 good  in  itself,  produced  evil:  'Sin  wrought  by  it.'  Besides,  the 
 phrase  dipopur^v  Xap^dvtcv  ex,  or  Tiapd,  or  dno,  is  common,  but 
 with  d:d  it  never  occurs :  d:d  is  not  the  appropriate  preposition ; 
 whereas  xazspyd^eo^ai  did  is  perfectly  appropriate.  Wrought 
 in  me  all  manner  of  concupiscence,  naaav  km&opdav,  eyevj  (evil) 
 desire. 
 
 For  without  the  law  sin  (was)  dead.  This  is  designed  as  a 
 confirmation  of  the  preceding  declaration.  This  confirmation 
 is  drawn  either  from  a  fact  of  Paul's  personal  experience,  or 
 from  an  universally  admitted  truth.  If  the  former,  then  we 
 must  supply  was:  '  Sin  is  excited  by  the  law,  for  without  the 
 law  sin  was  dead  ;'  i.  e.  I  was  not  aware  of  its  existence.  If  the 
 latter,  then  is  is  to  be  supplied:  'Without  the  law  sin  is  dead.' 
 This  is  an  undisputed  fact :  '  Where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no 
 sin ;  and  where  is  no  knowledge  of  law  there  is  no  knowledge 
 
ROMANS  VII.  9.  351 
 
 of  sin.  The  latter  view  best  suits  the  context.  To  say  that  a 
 thing  is  dead,  is  to  say  that  it  is  inactive,  unproductive,  and 
 unobserved.  All  this  may  be  said  of  sin  prior  to  the  operation 
 of  the  law.  It  is  comparatively  inoperative  and  unknown,  until 
 aroused  and  brought  to  light  by  the  law.  There  are  two  eftects 
 of  the  law  included  in  this  declaration — the  excitement  of  evil 
 passions,  and  the  discovery  of  them.  Calvin  makes  the  latter 
 much  the  more  prominent :  "Ad  cognitionem  praecipue  refero, 
 acsi  dictum  foret :  Detexit  in  me  omnem  concupiscentiam ;  quae 
 dum  lateret,  quodammodo  nulla  esse  videbatur."  But  the  con- 
 text, and  the  analogous  declarations  in  the  succeeding  verses, 
 seem  to  require  the  former  to  be  considered  as  the  more  impor 
 tant.  The  law  then  is  not  evil,  but  it  produces  the  conviction 
 of  sin,  by  teaching  us  what  sin  is,  ver.  7,  and  by  making  us 
 conscious  of  the  existence  and  power  of  this  evil  in  our  own 
 hearts,  ver.  8.  "Ehe  dem  Menschen  ein  vofxoz  entweder  von 
 aussen  gegeben  wird,  oder  in  ihm  selbst  sich  entwickelt,  so  ist 
 die  S'dndhaftigkeit  zwar  in  ihm,  als  Anlage,  aber  sie  ist  todt, 
 d.  h.  sie  ist  ihm  noch  nicht  zum  Bewusstseyn  gekommen,  weil 
 noch  kein  Widerstreit  zwischen  seiner  Sundhaftigkeit  und 
 einem  Gcbote  in  ihm  entstehen  konnte."  Usteri  Lehrhegriff 
 Pauli,  p  25.  Such  is  certainly  the  experience  of  Christians. 
 They  live  at  ease.  Conscience  is  at  rest.  They  think  them 
 selves  to  be  as  good  as  can  be  reasonably  required  of  them 
 They  have  no  adequate  conception  of  the  power  or  hcinousness 
 of  the  evil  within  them.  Sin  lies,  as  it  were,  dead,  as  the  torpid 
 serpent,  until  the  operation  of  the  law  rouses  it  from  its  slum- 
 bers, and  reveals  its  character. 
 
 Verse  9.  For  I  was  alive  without  the  law  once,  &c.  The 
 meaning  of  this  clause  is  necessarily  determined  by  what  pre- 
 cedes. If  by  sin  being  dead  means  its  lying  unnoticed  and 
 unknown,  then  by  being  alive,  Paul  must  mean  that  state  of 
 security  and  comparative  exemption  from  the  turbulence  or 
 manifestation  of  sin  in  his  heart,  which  he  then  experienced. 
 He  fancied  himself  in  a  happy  and  desirable  condition.  He  had 
 no  dread  of  punishment,  no  painful  consciousness  of  sin.  But 
 when  the  commandment  came,  i.  e.  came  to  his  knowledge,  was 
 revealed  to  him  in  its  authority  and  in  the  extent  and  spiritu- 
 ality of  its  demands,  si7i  revived;  i.  e.  it  was  roused  from  it? 
 
352  ROMANS  VII.  10. 
 
 torpor.  It  was  revealed  in  his  consciousness  by  its  greater 
 activity ;  so  that  the  increase  of  his  knowledge  of  sin  was  due 
 to  an  increase  in  its  activity.  And  I  died.  As  by  being  alive 
 was  meant  being  at  ease  in  a  fancied  sta^^e  of  security  and  good- 
 ness, being  dead  must  mean  just  the  opposite,  viz.  a  state  of 
 misery  arising  from  a  sense  of  danger  and  the  consciousness 
 of  guilt.  This  interpretation  is  recommended  not  only  by  its 
 agreement  with  the  whole  context,  but  also  from  its  accordance 
 with  the  common  experience  of  Christians.  Every  believer  can 
 adopt  the  language  of  the  apostle.  He  can  say  he  was  alive 
 without  the  law ;  he  was  secure  and  free  from  any  painful  con- 
 sciousness of  sin ;  but  when  the  commandment  came,  when  he 
 was  brought  to  see  how  holy  and  how  broad  is  the  law  of  God, 
 sin  was  aroused  and  revealed,  and  all  his  fancied  security  and 
 goodness  disappeared.  He  was  bowed  down  under  the  con- 
 viction of  his  desert  of  death  as  a  penalty,  and  under  the  power 
 of  spiritual  death  in  his  soul.  "Mors  peccati,"  says  Calvin, 
 "vita  est  hominis;  rursum  vita  peccati  mors  hominis." 
 
 The  questions,  however — When  was  Paul,  or  those  in  whose 
 name  he  speaks,  without  the  law  ?  In  what  sense  was  he  then 
 alive  ?  What  is  meant  by  the  commandment  coming  ?  In  what 
 sense  did  sin  revive  ?  and.  What  does  Paul  mean  when  he  says, 
 he  died? — are  all  answered  by  different  commentators  in  differ- 
 ent ways,  according  to  their  different  views  of  the  context  and 
 of  the  design  of  the  argument.  Grotius  and  others  say,  that 
 being  without  the  law  designates  the  ante-Mosaic  period  of  the 
 Jewish  history,  when  the  people  lived  in  comparative  innocence ; 
 the  law  came  when  it  was  promulgated  from  Mount  Sinai,  and 
 under  its  discipline  they  became  worse  and  worse,  or  at  least 
 sin  was  rendered  more  and  more  active  among  them.  Others 
 say,  that  Paul  was  without  the  law  in  his  childhood,  when 
 he  was  in  a  state  of  childish  innocence ;  but  when  he  came  to 
 years  of  discretion,  and  the  law  was  revealed  within  him,  then 
 he  died — then  he  fell  under  the  power  of  sin.  These  interpre- 
 tations give  a  much  lower  sense  than  the  one  above-mentioned, 
 and  are  not  in  keeping  with  the  grand  design  of  the  passage. 
 
 Verse  10.  And  the  commandment  which  was  unto  life,  I 
 found  to  he  unto  death.  The  law  was  designed  and  adapted  to 
 secure  life,  but  became  in  fact  the  cause  of  death.     Life  and 
 
ROMANS  yil.  11.  353 
 
 death,  as  here  opposed,  are  figurative  terras.  Life  includes  the 
 ideas  of  happiness  and  holiness.  The  law  was  designed  to  make 
 men  happy  and  holy.  Death,  on  the  other  hand,  includes  the 
 ideas  of  misery  and  sin.  The  law  became,  through  no  fault  of 
 its  own,  the  means  of  rendering  the  apostle  miserable  and 
 sinful.  How  vain  therefore  is  it  to  expect  salvation  from  the 
 law,  since  all  the  law  does,  in  its  operation  on  the  unrenewed 
 heart,  is  to  condemn  and  to  awaken  opposition !  It  cannot 
 change  the  nature  of  man.  By  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of 
 sin,  iii.  20;  it  produces  "the  motions  of  sin,"  ver.  5;  it  "works 
 all  manner  of  concupiscence,"  ver.  8;  it  revives  sin,  ver.  9;  it 
 seduces  into  sin,  ver.  11.  How  then  can  it  save?  How  mise- 
 rable and  deluded  are  those  who  have  only  a  legal  religion ! 
 
 Verse  11.  For  sin,  talcing  occasion  hy  the  commandment^ 
 deceived  me^  and  hy  it  slew  me.  The  law  is  the  cause  of  death, 
 ver.  10,  for  by  it  sin  deceived  and  slew  me.  The  two  ideas 
 before  insisted  upon  are  again  here  presented — viz.  the  law,  so 
 far  from  giving  life,  is  the  source  of  death,  spiritual  and  penal ; 
 and  yet  the  fault  is  not  in  the  law,  but  in  sin,  i.  e.  in  our  own 
 corrupt  nature.  Here,  as  in  ver.  8,  two  constructions  are  pos- 
 sible. We  may  say,  'Sin  took  occasion  by  the  commandment;' 
 or,  *  Sin  taking  occasion,  by  the  commandment  deceived  me.' 
 For  reasons  mentioned  above,  ver.  8,  the  latter  is  to  be  pre- 
 ferred :  Sin  deceived  me,  k^/jTzdzTjae.  The  ix  is  intensive :  '  It 
 completely  deceived  me,  or  disappointed  my  expectations.' 
 How  ?  By  leading  the  apostle  to  expect  one  thing,  while  he 
 experienced  another.  He  expected  life,  and  found  death.  He 
 expected  happiness,  and  found  misery ;  he  looked  for  holiness, 
 and  found  increased  corruption.  He  fancied  that  by  the  law 
 all  these  desirable  ends  could  be  secured,  when  its  operation 
 was  discovered  to  produce  the  directly  opposite  effects.  Sin 
 therefore  deceived  by  the  commandment,  and  by  it  slew  him, 
 instead  of  its  being  to  him  the  source  of  holiness  and  blessed- 
 ness. The  reference  is  not  to  the  promised  joys  of  sin,  which 
 always  mock  the  expectation  and  disappoint  the  hopes,  but 
 rather  to  the  utter  failure  of  the  law  to  do  what  he  expected 
 from  it.  Such  is  the  experience  of  every  believer,  in  the 
 ordinary  progress  of  his  inward  life.  He  first  turns  to  the 
 law,  to  his  own  righteousness  and  strength,  but  he  soon  fin  da 
 23 
 
354  ROMANS  VII.  12,  13. 
 
 that  all  the  law  can  do  is  only  to  aggravate  his  guilt  and 
 misery. 
 
 Verse  12.  Wherefore  the  law  is  holy,  and  the  commandment 
 holy,  just,  and  good.  This  is  the  conclusion  from  the  preceding 
 exhibition.  The  law  is  not  evil,  ver.  5.  Sin  is  the  true  source 
 of  all  the  evil  which  incidentally  flows  from  the  law.  In  itself 
 the  law  is  holy,  (i.  e.  the  whole  law,)  and  the  commandment, 
 i.  e.  the  specific  command,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  is  holy, 
 just,  and  good.  That  is,  it  is  in  every  aspect  what  it  should  be. 
 It  is  in  every  way  excellent.  It  is  holy  as  the  revelation  of  the 
 holiness  of  God ;  it  is  in  its  own  nature  right,  and  it  is  good, 
 i.  e.  excellent.  In  the  next  verse  all  these  attributes  are  sum- 
 med up  in  one,  to  dya&ov,  goodness.  Hence  this  is  probably 
 the  generic  term  of  which  the  others  are  the  species.  "Lex 
 ipsa,"  says  Calvin,  "et  quicquid  lege  proecipitur,  id  totum  sanc- 
 tum est,  ergo  gumma  dignitate  reverendum ;  justum,  ergo  nuUius 
 injustitije  insimulandum ;  bonum,  ergo  omni  vitio  purum  ac 
 vacuum." 
 
 Verse  13.  Was  then  that  which  is  good  made  death  unto  me  ? 
 Grod  forbid.  In  order  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  misconcep- 
 tion, the  apostle  again  vindicates  the  law.  To  oh'j  d.yadov., 
 kfiot  yiyoue  d^dvazoz,  Has  the  good  become  death  to  me  ?  God 
 forbid.  ^AXXa,  on  the  contrary,  jy  h-fiapzia  (kjuoc  yeyovs  d^dvaroi;) 
 sin  (has  become  death  to  me.)  Not  the  law,  but  sin  is  the  cause 
 of  death.  And  it  is  made  so,  Iva  (pav^  6i[j.apr'.a,  did  tou  dya&db 
 fjioc  xarspya^ofjievr]  d-dvazou,  in  order  that  it  may  appear  sin, 
 working  in  me  death  by  means  of  good.  The  true  character  of 
 sin,  as  sin,  is  revealed  by  its  making  even  that  which  is  in 
 itself  good,  the  means  of  evil.  In  order  that  it  might  become 
 exceeding  sinful  by  the  commandment.  God  has  so  ordered  it, 
 that  the  sinfulness  of  sin  is  brought  out  by  the  operation  of  the 
 law.  Such  is  the  design  of  the  law,  so  far  as  the  salvation  of 
 sinners  is  concerned.  It  does  not  prescribe  the  conditions 
 of  salvation.  We  are  not  obliged  to  be  sinless ;  in  other  words, 
 we  are  not  obliged  to  fulfil  the  demands  of  the  law,  in  order  to 
 be  saved.  Neither  is  the  law  the  means  of  sanctification.  It 
 cannot  make  us  holy.  On  the  contrary,  its  operation  is  to 
 excite  and  exasperate  sin ;  to  render  its  power  more  dreadful 
 ind  destructive,  so  that  instead  of  being  the  source  of  life,  it  is 
 
ROMANS  VII.  7—13.  355 
 
 the  instrument  of  death.  By  it  we  are  slain.  The  construction 
 of  this  passage,  given  above,  is  that  which  the  words  demand, 
 and  which  almost  all  modern  commentators  adopt.  Calvin, 
 Luther,  the  English  translators,  and  many  others,  make  hfiapvia 
 the  subject  of  xarspya^ofisv/}  {-fjv)  taken  as  a  verb :  Sin  ivrouglit 
 death.  The  sense  thus  expressed  is  good ;  but  this  construction 
 does  violence  to  the  words,  as  it  converts  a  participle  into  a 
 verb. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  law,  although  it  cannot  secure  either  the  justification 
 or  sanctification  of  men,  performs  an  essential  part  in  the 
 economy  of  salvation.  It  enlightens  conscience,  and  secures  its 
 verdict  against  a  multitude  of  evils,  which  we  should  not  other- 
 wise have  recognized  as  sins.  It  arouses  sin,  increasing  its 
 power,  and  making  it,  both  in  itself  and  in  our  consciousness, 
 exceedingly  sinful.  It  therefore  produces  that  state  of  mind 
 which  is  a  necessary  preparation  for  the  reception  of  the 
 gospel,  vs.  7,  8. 
 
 2.  Conviction  of  sin,  that  is,  an  adequate  knowledge  of  its 
 nature,  and  a  sense  of  its  power  over  us,  is  an  indispensable 
 part  of  evangelical  religion.  Before  the  gospel  can  be  embraced 
 as  a  means  of  deliverance  from  sin,  we  must  feel  that  we  are 
 involved  in  corruption  and  misery,  ver.  9. 
 
 3.  The  law  of  God  is  a  transcript  of  his  own  nature—  holy, 
 just,  and  good.  The  clearer  our  views  of  its  extent  and  excel- 
 lence, the  deeper  will  be  our  sense  of  our  own  unworthiness, 
 vs.  9,  12. 
 
 4.  Sin  is  exceedingly  sinful.  Its  turpitude  is  manifested  by 
 the  fact,  that  the  exhibition  of  holiness  rouses  it  into  opposi- 
 tion; and  that  the  holy  law  itself  is  made  incidentally  to 
 increase  its  virulence  and  power,  ver.  13. 
 
 5.  Sin  is  very  deadly.  It  extracts  death  from  the  means  of 
 life,  and  cannot  exist  unattended  by  misery,  vs.  10 — 13. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  How  miserable  the  condition  of  those  whose  religion  is  all 
 law !  vs.  7 — 13. 
 
 2.  Though  the  law  cannot  save  us,  it  must  prepare  us  for 
 
356  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 
 
 salvation.     It   should,   therefore,    be   carefully  and   faithfully 
 preached,  both  in  its  extent  and  authority,  vs.  7,  8. 
 
 3.  It  must  be  wrong  and  productive  of  evil,  so  to  describe 
 the  nature  of  evangelical  religion  as  to  make  the  impression 
 that  it  is  a  mere  change  in  the  main  object  of  pursuit — the 
 choice  of  one  source  of  happiness  in  preference  to  another.  It 
 is  a  return  to  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  purpose  of 
 being  delivered  from  sin,  and  devoted  to  his  service.  Its  first 
 step  is  the  conviction  that  we  are  sinners,  and,  as  such,  dead, 
 i.  e.  helpless,  corrupt,  and  miserable,  vs.  7,  13. 
 
 4.  Nothing  is  more  inconsistent  with  true  religion  than  self- 
 complacency.  Because  the  more  holy  we  are,  the  clearer  our 
 views  of  God's  law ;  and  the  clearer  our  views  of  the  law,  the 
 deeper  our  sense  of  sin,  and,  consequently,  the  greater  must  be 
 our  humility,  vs.  12,  13. 
 
 5.  If  our  religious  experience  does  not  correspond  with  that 
 of  the  people  of  God,  as  detailed  in  the  Scriptures,  we  cannot 
 be  true  Christians.  Unless  we  have  felt  as  Paul  felt,  we  have 
 not  the  religion  of  Paul,  and  cannot  expect  to  share  his  reward, 
 vs.  7—13. 
 
 ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  apostle,  having  exhibited  the  operation  of  the  law  in 
 producing  conviction  of  sin,  comes  now  to  show  its  effect  on  the 
 mind  of  the  believer.  It  cannot  secure  his  sanctification.  The 
 cause  of  this  inability  is  not  in  the  evil  nature  of  the  law,  which 
 is  spiritual,  ver.  14,  but  in  the  power  of  indwelling  sin ;  "  I  am 
 carnal,"  says  the  apostle,  "sold  under  sin,"  ver.  14.  As  this 
 is  not  only  a  strong,  but  an  ambiguous  expression,  Paul  imme- 
 diately explains  his  meaning.  He  does  not  intend  to  say  that 
 he  was  given  up  to  the  willing  service  of  sin ;  but  that  he  was 
 in  the  condition  of  a  slave,  whose  acts  are  not  always  the 
 evidence  of  his  inclination.  His  will  may  be  one  way,  but  his 
 master  may  direct  him  another.  So  it  is  with  the  believer.  He 
 does  what  he  hates,  and  omits  to  do  what  he  approves,  ver.  15. 
 
ROMANS  VII.  14.  357 
 
 This  is  a  description  of  slavery,  and  a  clear  explanation  of  what 
 is  intended  by  the  expression  "sold  under  sin."  There  are  two 
 obvious  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  this  fact.  The  one  is,  that 
 the  believer,  while  denying  the  sufficiency  of  the  law,  and  main- 
 taining the  necessity  of  deliverance  from  it,  bears  an  inward 
 testimony  to  its  excellence.  He  feels  and  admits  that  the  law 
 is  good,  ver.  16 ;  for  it  is  the  law  which  he  approves,  and  the 
 transgression  of  it  he  hates,  as  stated  in  the  preceding  verse. 
 The  second  inference  is,  that  acts  thus  performed  are  not  the 
 true  criterion  of  character:  "Now  then,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do 
 it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me,"  ver.  17.  The  acts  of  a  slave 
 are  indeed  his  own  acts ;  but  not  being  performed  with  the  full 
 assent  and  consent  of  his  soul,  they  are  not  fair  tests  of  the  real 
 state  of  his  feelings.  The  propriety  and  truth  of  this  repre- 
 sentation of  the  state  of  the  believer,  and  of  the  influence  of  the 
 law,  is  reasserted  and  confirmed  in  vs.  18 — 20.  The  law  pre- 
 sents duty  clearly:  the  heart  and  conscience  of  the  believer 
 assent  to  its  excellence ;  but  what  can  the  law  do  in  destroying 
 the  power  of  our  inward  corruptions?  These  evil  principles 
 remain,  so  lar  as  the  law  is  concerned,  in  full  force.  The 
 authoritative  declaration  that  a  thing  must  not  be  done,  does 
 not  destroy  the  inclination  to  do  it. 
 
 The  result,  therefore,  is,  that  notwithstanding  the  assent  of 
 the  mind  to  the  excellence  of  the  law,  the  power  of  sin  remains, 
 so  that  when  we  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  Avith  us,  ver.  21. 
 We  delight  in  the  law  after  the  inward  man,  but  this  does  not 
 destroy  the  power  of  sin  in  our  members,  vs.  22,  23.  This 
 inward  conflict  the  law  can  never  end.  It  only  makes  us  sensi- 
 ble of  our  helpless  and  degraded  condition,  ver.  24;  and  drives 
 us  to  seek  victory,  whence  alone  it  can  be  obtained,  i.  e.  as  the 
 gift  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  ver.  25. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  14.  For  we  hnoiv  that  the  law  is  spiritual;  hut  I  am 
 carnal,  sold  under  sin.  The  connection  between  this  verse  and 
 the  preceding  passage  seems  to  be  this :  It  had  been  asserted 
 in  ver.  5,  that  the  law  was  incidentally  the  cause  of  sin. 
 This  result,  however,  was  no  reflection  on  the  law;  for  it  was 
 
358  ROMANS  VII.  14. 
 
 holy,  just,  and  good,  ver.  12.  As  the  fact  that  the  law  excitea 
 sin  is  consistent  with  its  being  good,  so  is  also  the  fact  that  it 
 cannot  destroy  the  power  of  sin.  The  law  indeed  is  spiritual, 
 but  we  are  carnal.  The  fault  is  again  in  us.  The  ydp  thus 
 introduces  the  confirmation  of  the  whole  preceding  argument. 
 If  the  connection  is  with  ver.  13,  the  sense  is  substantially  the 
 same :  '  Sin,  and  not  the  law,  works  death ;  for  the  law  is 
 spiritual,  but  I  am  carnal.'  The  apostle  says,  oida/iev  ydp, 
 "for  we  know.*'  It  is  among  Christians  an  acknowledged  and 
 obvious  truth,  that  the  law  is  spiritual.  This  is  probably  the 
 reason  that  in  this  case  he  uses  the  plural  we  instead  of  the 
 singular  /,  which  occurs  everywhere  else  in  this  connection. 
 Semler,  indeed,  and  others,  to  preserve  uniformity,  proposes  to 
 read  ol3a  [ikv  ydp,  I  know  indeed,  instead  of  we  know.  But 
 then  there  would  be  no  Si  corresponding  to  the  juiv.  The  iyo* 
 OS  is  opposed  to  po/io^,  and  not  to  iyo)  in  o2da.  The  apostle 
 would  have  said,  'The  law  indeed  is  spiritual,  but  I  am  carnal,' 
 and  not,  'I  indeed  know,'  &c.  The  common  division  of  the 
 words  is  therefore  almost  universally  adopted. 
 
 The  law  is  said  to  be  spiritual,  not  because  it  pertains  to  our 
 spirits,  reaching,  as  Beza  says,  to  the  interior  man,  ("mentem 
 et  interiorem  hominem  respicit;")  much  less  because  it  is  rea- 
 Honahle,  or  in  accordance  with  the  Tiveofia  as  the  higher  faculty 
 of  our  nature ;  nor  because  it  was  given  by  inspiration  of  the 
 Spirit;    but  as   expressing  its  nature.     It  is  spiritual  in   the 
 sense  of  being  Divine,  or  as  partaking  of  the  nature  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit,  its  divine  Author.     This  epithet  includes,  therefore,  all 
 that  was  before  expressed,  by  saying  that  the  law  is  holy,  just, 
 and  good.    But  I  am  carnal.    The  word  in  the  common  text  is 
 a-apKLKo^.  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf ,  on  the  author- 
 ity of  the  older  manuscripts,  and  of  the  Fathers,  read  a-dpKivo^. 
 The  difference  between  these  words,  (when  they  are  distin- 
 guished,) is,  that  the  former  expresses  the  nature, the  latter  the 
 substance  out  of  which  a  thing  is  made ;  so  that  a-dpKLvo^  means 
 made  of  flesh, fleshy,  corpulent.  This  is  agreeable  to  the  analogy 
 of  words  in  lvc^,  \l6ivo<i,  made  of  stone  ;  ^vXwo^,  made  of  wood. 
 This,  however,  is  not  an  uniform  rule,  as  d,v6pco7rtvo<i  means  hu- 
 man. In  2  Cor.  iii.  3,  the  word  adpKivo^  is  used  in  its  strict  sense, 
 where,  eV  TrXa^l  Kaphla<i  a-apKivaa  (in  tables  of  the  heart  made 
 
ROMANS  VII.  14.  359 
 
 of  flesh,)  it  is  opposed  to  iv  TtXa^i  Xc&haci;  (tables  made  of  stone.) 
 Even  if  odpxcvot:,  in  this  case,  is  the  true  reading,  it  must  have 
 the  same  sense  as  the  more  common  word  aapxcxoc;,  which,  for 
 internal  reasons,  the  majority  of  commentators  prefer.  As 
 gpiritual  expresses  the  nature  of  the  law,  so  carnal  must  express 
 the  nature,  and  not  the  material.  I  am  carnal  means  I  am 
 under  the  power  of  the  flesh.  And  by  flesh  is  meant  not  the 
 body,  not  our  sensuous  nature  merely,  but  our  whole  nature  as 
 fallen  and  corrupt.  It  includes  all  that  belongs  to  men,  apart 
 from  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  language  of  the  New  Testament, 
 the  Tzvtuuaztxoi,  spiritual,  are  those  who  are  under  the  control 
 of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  the  aapxcxoc  are  those  who  are  under 
 the  control  of  their  own  nature.  As,  however,  even  in  the 
 renewed,  this  control  of  the  Spirit  is  never  perfect,  as  the  flesh 
 even  in  them  retains  much  of  its  original  power,  they  are 
 forced  to  acknowledge  that  they  too  are  carnal.  There  is  no 
 believer,  however  advanced  in  holiness,  who  cannot  adopt  the 
 language  here  used  by  the  apostle.  In  1  Cor.  iii.  3,  in 
 addressing  believers,  he  says,  "Are  ye  not  carnal?"  In  the 
 imperfection  of  human  language  the  same  word  must  be  taken 
 in  diff'erent  senses.  Sometimes  carnal  means  entirely  or 
 exclusively  under  the  control  of  the  flesh.  It  designates  those 
 in  whom  the  flesh  is  the  only  principle  of  action.  At  other 
 times  it  has  a  modified  sense,  and  is  applicable  to  those  who, 
 although  under  the  dominion  of  the  Spirit,  are  still  polluted 
 and  influenced  by  the  flesh.  It  is  the  same  with  all  similar 
 words.  When  we  speak  of  'saints  and  sinners'  we  do  not 
 mean  that  saints,  such  as  they  are  in  this  world,  are  not 
 sinners.  And  thus  when  the  Scriptures  classify  men  as  TrusujuiaTe- 
 xol  and  aapxixol,  spiritual  and  carnal,  they  do  not  mean  to 
 teach  that  the  spiritual  are  not  carnal.  It  is,  therefore,  only 
 by  giving  the  words  here  used  their  extreme  sense,  a  sense 
 inconsistent  with  the  context,  that  they  can  be  regarded  as 
 inapplicable  to  the  regenerated.  The  mystical  writers,  such  as 
 Olshausen,  in  accordance  with  the  theory  which  so  many  of 
 them  adopt,  that  man  consists  of  three  subjects  or  substances, 
 body,  soul,  and  spirit,  aajpta,  (puyy^  and  nvvjiia^  say  that  by 
 n6.p^,  in  such  connections,  we  are  to  understand  das  game 
 fseelische  Leben,  the  entire  psychical  life,  which  only,  and  not 
 
360  ROMANS  VII.  14. 
 
 the  Ttusufjta,  (the  spirit  or  higher  element  of  our  nature,)  is 
 in  man  the  seat  of  sin.  In  angels,  on  the  contrary,  the 
 jtusujua  itself  is  the  seat  of  sin,  and  they  therefore  are  incapable 
 of  redemption.  And  in  man,  when  sin  invades  the  nvsufta, 
 (spirit)  then  comes  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
 redemption  becomes  impossible.  This  is  only  a  refined  or 
 mystical  rationalism,  as  Tti^eu/ia  is  only  another  name  for 
 reason,  and  the  conflict  in  man  is  reduced  to  the  struggle 
 between  sense  and  reason,  and  redemption  consists  in  giving 
 the  higher  powers  of  our  nature  ascendency  over  the  lower. 
 According  to  the  Scriptures,  the  whole  of  our  fallen  nature  is 
 the  seat  of  sin,  and  our  subjective  redemption  from  its  power 
 is  effected,  not  by  making  reason  predominant,  but  by  the 
 indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  conflicting  elements  are 
 not  sense  and  reason,  the  anima  and  animus;  but  the  flesh 
 and  spirit,  the  human  and  divine,  what  we  derive  from  Adam 
 and  what  we  obtain  through  Christ.  "  That  which  is  born 
 of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit." 
 John  iii.  6. 
 
 The  sense  in  which  Paul  says  he  was  carnal,  is  explained  by 
 saying  he  was  sold  under  sin,  i.  e.  sold  so  as  to  be  under  the 
 power  of  sin.  This,  of  course,  is  an  ambiguous  expression. 
 To  say  that  a  'man  is  sold  unto  sin'  may  mean,  as  in  1  Kings 
 xxi.  20,  and  2  Kings  xvii.  17,  that  he  is  given  up  to  its  service. 
 Sin  is  that  which  he  has  deliberately  chosen  for  a  master,  and 
 to  which  he  is  devoted.  In  this  sense  of  the  phrase  it  is 
 equivalent  to  what  is  said  of  the  unrenewed  in  the  preceding 
 chapter,  that  they  are  the  douka  zrj^  d-jj-apvia.^,  the  slaves  of  sin. 
 From  this  kind  of  bondage  believers  are  redeemed,  vi.  22. 
 But  there  is  another  kind  of  bondage.  A  man  may  be 
 subject  to  a  power  which,  of  himself,  he  cannot  effectually 
 resist ;  against  which  he  may  and  does  struggle,  and  from  which 
 he  earnestly  desires  to  be  free ;  but  which,  notwithstanding  all 
 his  eff"orts,  still  asserts  its  authority.  This  is  precisely  the 
 bondage  to  sin  of  which  every  believer  is  conscious.  He 
 feels  that  there  is  a  law  in  his  members  bringing  him  into 
 subjection  to  the  law  of  sin;  that  his  distrust  of  God,  his  hard- 
 ness of  heart,  his  love  of  the  world  and  of  self,  his  pride,  in 
 short  his  indwelling  sin,  is  a  real  power  from  which  he  longs 
 
ROMANS  VII.  15.  361 
 
 to  be  free,  against  which  he  struggles,  but  from  which  he 
 cannot  emancipate  himself.  This  is  the  kind  of  bondage  of 
 which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  as  is  plain  from  the  following 
 verses,  as  well  as  from  the  whole  context  and  from  the  analogy 
 of  Scripture. 
 
 Verse  15.  For  that  which  I  do,  I  allow  not,  &c.  This  is 
 an  explanation  and  confirmation  of  the  preceding  declaration. 
 'I  am  sold  under  sin,  for  that  which  I  do,  I  allow  not,  &c.' 
 The  word  jtv(oaxa)  rendered  I  allow,  properly  signifies,  /  know, 
 and  as  it  is  used  in  different  senses  in  the  Scriptures,  its  mean- 
 ing in  this  case  is  a  matter  of  doubt.  Retaining  its  ordinary 
 sense,  the  word  may  be  used  here  as  in  the  common  phrase,  '  I 
 know  not  what  I  do,'  expressive  of  the  absence  of  a  calm  and 
 deliberate  purpose,  and  of  the  violence  of  the  impulse  under 
 which  one  acts.  Inscius  et  invitus  facio,  quae  facio.  Or  the 
 meaning  may  be,  that  what  is  done,  is  done  thoughtlessly.  Non 
 cum  pleno  mentis  proposito.  3Iorus.  This  view  is  a  very  com- 
 mon one,  expressed  in  difierent  forms.  "  The  sinful  decision 
 occurs  not  by  rational  self-determination,  and,  therefore,  not 
 with  the  full  consciousness  with  which  we  should  act."  De 
 Wette.  To  the  same  effect  Meyer,  '  the  act  occurs  without  the 
 consciousness  of  its  moral  character,  in  a  state  of  bondage  of 
 the  practical  reason,  as  a  slave  acts  without  a  consciousness  of 
 the  nature  or  design  of  what  he  does.'  Or,  'I  do  not  do  it 
 knowingly,  because  I  know  it  to  be  right.'  This  comes  verv 
 near  the  old  interpretation  according  to  which,  to  know  means 
 to  approve.  See  Ps.  i.  6,  "  The  Lord  knoweth  the  ways  of  the 
 righteous."  With  regard  to  moral  objects,  knowledge  is  not 
 mere  cognition.  It  is  the  apprehension  of  the  moral  quality, 
 and  involves  of  necessity  approbation  or  disapprobation.  Hence 
 the  pious  are  described  in  Scripture  as  those  "who  know  God," 
 or  "the  knowers  of  his  name."  Ps.  ix.  10,  xxxvi.  10,  Hosea 
 viii.  2.  What  the  apostle,  therefore,  here  says,  is,  'what  I  per- 
 form, i.  e.,  what  I  actually  carry  out  into  action,  (xazepYdi^oftcu,) 
 I  approve  not,  i.  e.,  I  do  not  recognize  as  right  and  good.' 
 
 For  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not ;  but  what  I  hate,  that  do  I. 
 This  is  a  further  description  of  this  state  of  bondage.  As  the 
 expressions  what  I  would,  and  what  I  hate,  are  in  antithesis, 
 the  former  must  mean  what  I  love  or  delight  in.     This  use  of 
 
362  ROMAICS  VII.  15. 
 
 the  Greek  work  (<?e/a>)  is  accommodated  to  the  correspondmg 
 Hebrew  term,  and  occurs  several  times  in  the  New  Testament. 
 Matt,  xxvii,  43,  "Let  him   deliver  him,  if  he  will  have  him 
 (sr    d-ehi    auTOp),  i.  e.   if  he  delight  in  him;"    Matt.  ix.   13, 
 xii.  7,  Heb.  x.  5,  8,  and  Ps.  xxi.  9,  xxxix.  7,  in  the  Septua- 
 gint.     The  word  will,  therefore,  does   not  express  so  much  a 
 mere  determination  of  the  mind,  as  a  state  of  the  feelings  and 
 judgment.     'What  I  love  and  approve,  that  I  omit;  what  I 
 hate  and  disapprove,  that  I  do.'     This  may  not  be  philosophi- 
 cal, though  it  is  perfectly  correct  language.     It  is  the  language 
 of  common  life,  which,  as  it  proceeds  from  the  common  con- 
 sciousness of  men,  is   often  a  better  indication  of  what  that 
 consciousness  teaches,  than  the  language  of  the  schools.    Philo- 
 sophers themselves,  however,  at  times  speak  in  the  same  simple 
 language   of  nature.     Epictetus,   Enchirid.  1.  ii.  c.  26,  has   a 
 form  of  expression  almost  identical  with  that  of  the  apostle ; 
 6  dfiaprdpiou — o  jusv  ■&eXei,  ou  noise,  xai  8  /jltj  ^ihc  Ttoctl.     The 
 language  of  the  apostle,  in  this  passage,  expresses  a  fact  of 
 consciousness,  with  which  every  Christian  is  familiar.    Whether 
 the  conflict  here  described  is  that  which,  in  a  greater  or  less 
 degree,  exists  in  every  man,  between  the  natural  authoritative 
 sense  of   right    and  wrong,   and  his    corrupt    inclinations;    or 
 whether  it  is  peculiar  to  the   Christian,  must  be  decided  by 
 consid  orations  drawn  from  the  whole  description,  and  from  the 
 connection  of  this  passage  with  the  preceding  and  succeeding 
 portions  of  the  apostle's  discourse.     It  is  enough  to  remark 
 here,  that  every  Christian  can  adopt  the  language  of  this  verse. 
 Pride,  coldness,  slothfulness,  and  other  feelings  which  he  dis- 
 approves and  hates,  are,  day  by  day,  reasserting  their  power 
 over  him.    He  struggles  against  their  influence,  groans  beneath 
 their  bondage,  longs  to  be  filled  wdth  meelvness,  humility,  and 
 all  other  fruits  of  the  love  of  God,  but  finds  he  can  neitlier  of 
 himself,  nor  by  the  aid  of  the  law,  effect  his  freedom  from  what 
 he  hates,  or  the  full  performance  of  what  he  desires  and  ap- 
 proves.   Every  evening  witnesses  his  penitent  confession  of  his 
 degrading  bondage,  his  sense  of  utter  helplessness,  and  his 
 longing  desire  for  aid  from  above.     He  is  a  slave  looking  and 
 longing  for  liberty. 
 
 Two  consequences  flow  from  this  representation  of  the  experi- 
 
ROMANS  VII.  16,  17.  iQS 
 
 ence  of  the  Christian.  First,  the  fault  is  felt  and  acltnowledged 
 to  be  his  own ;  the  law  is  not  to  be  blamed,  ver.  16.  Second,  this 
 state  of  feeling  is  consistent  with  his  being  a  Christian,  ver.  17. 
 
 Verse  16.  If  then  I  do  that  ivhich  I  would  not,  I  consent 
 unto  the  law  that  it  is  good.  Paul  here  asserts  that  his  acting 
 contrary  to  the  law  was  no  evidence  that  he  thought  the  law 
 evil ;  for  what  he  did,  he  disapproved.  But  to  disapprove  and 
 condemn  what  the  law  forbids,  is  to  assent  to  the  excellence  of 
 the  law.  There  is  a  constant  feeling  of  self-disapprobation, 
 and  a  sense  of  the  excellence  of  the  law,  in  the  Christian's 
 mind.  He  is,  therefore,  never  disposed  to  blame  the  extent  or 
 severity  of  the  law,  but  admits  the  fault  to  be  in  himself.  I 
 consent  to,  aujKfTjfxc,  I  speak  with,  I  say  the  same  thing  which 
 the  law  says,  when  it  pronounces  itself  good.  There  is  no 
 conflict  between  the  law  and  the  believer;  it  is  between  the 
 law  and  what  the  believer  himself  condemns. 
 
 Verse  17.  Now  then  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that 
 dwelleth  in  me.  Noio  then,  uuuc  os,  that  is,  under  these  cir- 
 cumstances, or,  this  being  the  case.  Or  the  meaning  may  be 
 but  noiv,  i.  e.  since  I  became  a  Christian.  The  former  ex- 
 planation is  to  be  preferred  on  account  of  the  connetion  of  this 
 verse  with  ver.  15,  from  which  this  passage  is  an  inference 
 *If  the  case  be  so,  that  I  am  sold  under  sin  and  am  its 
 unwilling  slave ;  if  I  do  what  I  disapprove,  and  fail  to  accom- 
 plish what  I  love ;  it  is  clear  that  it  is  not  properly  and  fully  I 
 that  do  it,  my  real  self;  my  better  feelings  or  renovated  nature 
 is  opposed  to  what  the  law  forbids.'  Ego  quidem  in  utroque, 
 sed  magis  ego  in  eo,  quod  approbabam,  quam  in  eo  quod  in  me 
 improbabam.  Augustine,  Confess.  Lib.  viii.  ch.  5.  This  i3 
 not  said  as  an  exculpation,  but  to  exhibit  the  extent  and  power 
 of  indwelling  sin,  which  it  is  beyond  our  own  power,  and 
 beyond  the  power  of  the  law,  to  eradicate  or  effectually  control. 
 This  feeling  of  helplessness  is  not  only  consistent  with  a 
 sense  and  acknowledgment  of  accountability,  but  is  always 
 found  united  with  genuine  self-condemnation  and  penitence. 
 There  are,  in  general,  few  stronger  indications  of  ignorance  of 
 the  power  and  evil  of  sin,  than  the  confident  assertion  of  our 
 ability  to  resist  and  subdue  it.  Paul  groaned  beneath  its 
 bondage,  as  if  held  in  the  loathsome  embrace  of  a  "  body  of 
 
364  ROMANS  VII.  18—20. 
 
 death."  Th3  apostle's  object,  therefore,  is  not  to  apologize  for 
 sin,  but  to  show  that  the  experience  detailed  in  ver.  1.5,  is  con- 
 sistent with  his  being  a  Christian.  '  If  it  is  true  that  1  really 
 approve  and  love  the  law,  and  desire  to  be  conformed  to  it,  I 
 am  no  longer  the  willing  slave  of  sin;  to  the  depth  and  power 
 of  the  original  evil  is  to  be  attributed  the  fact  that  I  am  not 
 entirely  delivered  from  its  injQuence.'  This  is  obviously  con- 
 nected with  the  main  object  of  the  whole  passage.  For  if  sin 
 remains  and  exerts  its  power,  notwithstanding  our  disappro- 
 bation, and  in  despite  of  all  our  efforts,  it  is  clear  that  we 
 must  look  for  deliverance  to  something  out  of  ourselves,  and 
 that  the  mere  preceptive  power  of  the  law  cannot  remove 
 the  evil. 
 
 Verses  18,  19,  20.  These  verses  contain  an  amplification 
 and  confirmation  of  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding  verses. 
 They  re-assert  the  existence,  and  explain  the  nature  of  the 
 inward  struggle  of  which  the  apostle  had  been  speaking.  'I 
 am  unable  to  come  up  to  the  requirements  of  the  law,  not 
 because  they  are  unreasonable,  but  because  I  am  corrupt; 
 there  is  no  good  in  me.  I  can  approve  and  delight  in  the 
 exhibitions  of  holiness  made  by  the  law,  but  full  conformity  to 
 its  demands  is  more  than  I  can  attain.  It  is  not  I,  therefore, 
 my  real  and  lasting  self,  but  this  intrusive  tyrant  dwelling 
 within  me,  that  disobeys  the  law.'  This  strong  and  expressive 
 language,  though  susceptible  of  a  literal  interpretation,  which 
 would  make  it  teach  not  only  error  but  nonsense,  is  still  per- 
 fectly perspicuous  and  correct,  because  accurately  descriptive 
 of  the  common  feelings  of  men.  Paul  frequently  employs 
 similar  modes  of  expression.  When  speaking  of  his  apostolic 
 labours,  he  says,  "  Yet  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God,  which  was 
 with  me,"  1  Cor.  xv.  10.  And  in  Gal.  ii.  20,  he  says,  "I  live, 
 yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  As  no  one  supposes 
 that  the  labours  and  life  here  spoken  of  were  not  the  labours 
 and  life  of  the  apostle,  or  that  they  did  not  constitute  and 
 express  his  moral  character ;  so  no  Christian  supposes  that  the 
 greatness  and  power  of  his  sin  frees  him  from  its  responsibility, 
 even  when  he  expresses  his  helpless  misery  by  saying,  with  the 
 apostle,  "It  is  not  I,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me."  Thia 
 doctrine  of  sin  as  indwelling  is  irreconcilable  with  the  assump* 
 
ROMANS  VII.  18.  365 
 
 tion  that  sin  consists  exclusively  in  acts  of  the  will,  or  even  in 
 the  widest  sense  of  the  terms,  in  voluntary  action.  An  in- 
 dwelling act  is  a  solecism.  Sin,  in  this,  as  in  so  many  other 
 places  of  Scripture,  is  presented  as  an  abiding  state  of  the 
 mind,  a  disposition  or  principle,  manifesting  itself  in  acts.  It- 
 is  this  that  gives  sin  its  power.  We  have  measurably  power 
 over  our  acts,  but  over  our  immanent  principles  we  have  no 
 direct  control.  They  master  us  and  not  we  them.  Herein 
 consists  our  bondage  to  sin.  And  as  the  power  of  an  in- 
 dwelling principle  is  increased  by  exercise,  so  the  strength  of 
 sin  is  increased  by  every  voluntary  evil  act.  No  act  is  iso- 
 lated. "Nothing,"  says  Olshausen,  "is  more  dangerous  than 
 the  erroneous  opinion  that  an  evil  act  can  stand  alone,  or  that 
 a  man  can  commit  one  sin  and  then  stop.  All  evil  is  con- 
 catenated, and  every  sin  increases  the  power  of  the  indwelling 
 corruption  in  a  fearful  progression,  until,  sooner  than  the 
 sinner  dreams  of,  his  head  swims,  and  he  is  plunged  into  the 
 abyss." 
 
 Verse  18.  For  I  know  that  in  wie,  that  is,  in  my  flesh, 
 there  dwelleth  no  good  thing,  &c.  The  yap  refers  to  the  pre- 
 ceding clause,  "sin  dwelleth  in  me,"  which  what  follows  con- 
 firms. '  Sin  dwells  in  me,  for  in  my  flesh  there  dwelleth  no 
 good  thing;'  literally,  good  does  not  dwell.  Paul  is  here 
 explaining  how  it  is  that  there  is  such  a  contradiction  between 
 his  better  principles  and  his  conduct,  as  just  described.  The 
 reason  is,  that  in  himself,  he  was  entirely  depraved,  "In  me, 
 that  is,  in  my  flesh,  there  dwelleth  no  good  thing."  As  Paul 
 is  here  speaking  of  himself,  he  limits  the  declaration  that  there 
 was  no  good  in  him.  In  its  full  sense,  as  he  was  a  renewed 
 man,  this  could  not  be  true;  he  therefore  adds,  "in  my  flesh." 
 Agreeably  to  the  explanation  given  above,  ver.  14,  these  words 
 evidently  mean,  'in  my  nature  considered  apart  from  Divine 
 influence,'  i.  e.  'in  me  viewed  independently  of  the  effects  pro- 
 duced by  the  Spirit  of  God.'  This  is  Paul's  common  use  of  the 
 Vford  flesh.  As  he  ascribes  all  excellence  in  man  to  the  Holy 
 Spirit,  in  men,  when  destitute  of  that  Spirit,  there  is  "  no  good 
 thing."  To  be  "in  the  flesh,"  is  to  be  unrenewed,  and  under 
 the  government  of  our  own  depraved  nature;  to  be  "in  the 
 Spirit,"   is   to   be  under  the   guidance   of  the   Holy  Ghost; 
 
366  ROMANS  VII.  19. 
 
 ch.  viii.  8,  9.  So  too,  in  Scripture  language,  a  natura\  man  ia 
 a  depraved  man ;  and  a  spiritual  man  is  one  that  is  renewed ; 
 1  Cor.  ii.  14,  15.  It  need  hardly  be  remarked  that  in  the 
 flesh  cannot  here  mean  in  the  body.  Paul  does  not  mean  to 
 say  that  in  his  body  there  was  no  good  thing,  as  though  the 
 body  were  the  seat  of  sin  in  man,  and  that  exclusively.  He 
 frequently  uses  the  phrase  works  of  the  flesh,  in  reference  to 
 sins  which  have  no  connection  with  the  body,  as  envy,  pride, 
 seditions,  heresies,  &c..  Gal.  v.  19,  20. 
 
 For  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but  to  perform  that  which 
 is  good,  I  find  not.  This  again  is  connected  by  yap  with  what 
 precedes.  '  Good  does  not  dwell  in  me,  for  though  I  have  the 
 will  to  do  right,  I  have  not  the  performance.'  To  d-eXttv 
 napdxtcrai.  hoc,  not  will  as  a  faculty,  but  {zb  &iXscii)  as  an  2iOf 
 The  purpose  or  desire  is  present,  i.  e.  /  have  it;  hut  the  per- 
 formance of  the  good  I  find  not;  obj^  zbpiaxo)  is  equivalent  to 
 ob  izapdy.zctac  is  not  present.  I  have  the  one  but  not  the  other. 
 Instead  of  the  common  text  as  given  above,  Griesbach  and 
 Lachmann,  on  the  authority  of  the  Alexandrian  manuscript, 
 read  simply  ou,  omitting  ^bpiaxio,  (I  find.)  The  sense  is  the 
 same,  for  in  that  case  TiapdxtiToi  must  be  understood.  '  The 
 one  is  present,  the  other  is  not  (present).'  The  common 
 reading  is  generally  preferred,  as  the  omission  is  easily  ac- 
 counted for. 
 
 Verse  19.  For  the  good  that  I  loould,  I  do  not;  hut  the 
 evil  that  F  would  not,  that  F  do.  A  confirmation  of  what  goes 
 before.  '  I  do  not  find  good  present  with  me,  for  the  good  I 
 would  I  do  not.'  This  is  a  repetition,  nearly  in  the  same 
 words,  of  what  is  said  in  ver.  15.  Paul  reasserts  that  he  was 
 unable  to  act  up  to  his  purposes  and  desires.  For  example,  he 
 doubtless  desired  to  love  God  with  all  his  heart,  and  at  all 
 times,  but  constantly  was  his  love  colder,  and  less  operative 
 than  the  law  demands.  This  verse  is,  therefore,  but  an  ampli- 
 fication of  the  last  clause  of  ver.  18.  /  would  {&iXcj,)  means 
 either  F  approve  or  love,  as  in  ver.  15 ;  or,  /  purpose,  as  in 
 7er.  18.     The  numerous  passages*  quoted  by  commentators  in 
 
 *  The  following  are  a  few  examples  of  this  kind  selected  from  the  multitude 
 soUected  by  Grotius  and  Wetstein. 
 ■Quid  est  hoc,  Luc'H,  quod  nos  alio  tendentes  alio  trahit,  et  eo,  unde  recedero 
 
ROMANS  VII.  20.  367 
 
 illustration  of  this  and  the  preceding  verses,  though  they  may 
 serve  to  throw  light  upon  the  language,  are  expressive  of 
 feelings  very  different  from  those  of  the  apostle.  When  an 
 impenitent  man  says  'he  is  sorry  for  his  sins,'  he  may  express 
 the  real  state  of  his  feelings;  and  yet  the  import  of  this 
 language  is  very  different  from  what  it  is  in  the  mouth  of  a  mac 
 truly  contrite.  The  word  sorrow  expresses  a  multitude  of  very 
 different  feelings.  Thus,  also,  when  wicked  men  say  they 
 approve  the  good  while  they  pursue  the  wrong,  their  appro- 
 bation is  something  very  different  from  Paul's  approbation 
 of  the  law  of  God.  And  when  Seneca  calls  the  gods  to 
 witness,  'that  what  he  wills,  he  does  not  will,'  he  too  expresses 
 something  far  short  of  what  the  language  of  the  apostle  con- 
 veys. This  must  be  so,  if  there  is  any  such  thing  as  experi- 
 mental or  evangelical  religion;  that  is,  if  there  is  any  dif- 
 ference between  the  sorrow  for  sin  and  desire  of  good  in 
 the  mind  of  a  true  Christian,  and  in  the  unrenewed  and 
 willing  votaries  of  sin  in  whom  conscience  is  not  entirely 
 obliterated. 
 
 Verse  20.  Noio  if  I  do  that  I  would  noty  it  is  no  more  I 
 that  do  it,  hut  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.  The  same  conclusion 
 from  the  same  premises  as  in  ver.  17.  '  The  things  which  I  do, 
 when  contrary  to  the  characteristic  desires  and  purposes  of  my 
 heart,  are  to  be  considered  as  the  acts  of  a  slave.  They  are 
 indeed  my  own  acts,  but  not  being  performed  with  the  full  and 
 joyful  purpose  of  the  heart,  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  fair 
 criterion  of  character.' 
 
 cupimus,  repellit?  Quid  colluctatur  cum  anirao  nostro,  nee  permittit  nobis 
 quidquam  semel  velle  ?  Fluctuamus  inter  varia  consilia,  nihil  libera  volumus, 
 nihil  absolute,  niiiil  semper.  — Seneca,  Ep.  25. 
 
 Sed  traliit  invitam  nova  vis,  aliudque  cupido,  mens  aliud  suadet.  Video 
 meliora  proboque,  deteriora  sequor.  —  Odd,  Metam.  vii.  19. 
 
 Vos  testor,  omnes  coalites,  hoc  quod  volo,  me  nolle.  —  Seneca,  Tlippol.  v.  604. 
 
 'F,irfl  yap  u  afxapTavwv  ov  BeKet  aixapTaveiv,  dAAa  Karopduaai,  5rj\ov  on,  t  fxev  6f\ft, 
 oil  TToiet,  Kal  h  fj.T]  OiAei,  TToiej.  —  Airiaii's  Epict.  ii.  26.  "  Since  the  sinner  does  not 
 wish  to  err,  but  to  act  correctly,  it  is  plain  tiiat  what  he  wills  he  does  not  and 
 what  he  wills  not  he  does." 
 
 Mctyb'dvei  juh,  o'ta.  Jgaf  fJi.ih>J»  ttaxa, 
 
 QufAog  it  K^fiirircty  tZy  i/aZv  &,uxiU(juxTi»r  ■ — Euripides,  Medea,  v.  1077. 
 
 "I  know  indeed  that  what  I  am  about  to  do  is  evil; 
 
 But  passion  is  too  strong  for  my  purposes." 
 
o68  ROMANS  YIl.  21. 
 
 Verse  21.  I  find  then  a  law,  that  when  I  would  do  good,  evti 
 is  present  with  me.  This  verse  has  been  subjected  to  a  greater 
 variety  of  interpretations  than  any  other  in  the  chapter,  or 
 perhaps  in  the  whole  epistle.  The  construction  in  the  original 
 is  doubtful ;  and  besides  this  difficulty,  there  is  no  little  uncer- 
 tainty as  to  the  sense  in  which  the  word  law  is  to  be  here 
 taken.  The  question  is,  whether  Paul  means  the  law  of  God, 
 of  which  he  has  been  speaking  throughout  the  chapter,  or 
 whether  he  uses  the  word  in  a  new  sense,  for  a  rule,  course,  or 
 law  of  action.  Our  translators  have  assumed  the  latter.  If 
 the  former  sense  of  the  word  be  preferred,  the  passage  may  be 
 thus  interpreted.  '  I  find,  therefore,  that  to  me  wishing  to  do 
 good,  evil  (the  law  as  the  cause  of  evil)  is  present  with  me.' 
 See  Koppe.  This  is  very  unnatural.  Or  thus,  '  I  find,  there- 
 fore, that  to  me  wishing  to  act  according  to  the  law,  i.  e.  to  do 
 good,  evil  is  present  with  me.'*  Or,  as  Tholuck  explains  it,  'I 
 find,  therefore,  that  while  I  would  do  the  law,  (i.  e.  good),  evil  is 
 present.'  Then  rbv  voiiov  depends  on  xoceiu,  (willing  to  do  the 
 law)  and  to  xa?.6v  is  in  apposition  with  vbv  v6[iov.  The  law  is 
 the  good  which  the  apostle  desired  to  do.  But  in  the  context, 
 the  phrase  tloceIv  tov  pojutou  does  not  occur,  and  the  passage  as 
 thus  explained  is  awkward  and  unnatural.  Besides  to  xaXov 
 would  be  entirely  superfluous  as  tov  vofiov  needs  no  explana- 
 tion. The  considerations  in  favour  of  the  second  explanation 
 of  the  word  law  appear  to  be  decisive.  1.  The  other  interpre- 
 tation does  not  afford  a  sense  suited  to  the  context,  as  appears 
 from  Paul's  own  explanation  of  his  meaning  in  the  following 
 verses.  'I  find,'  he  says,  'this  law,  that  while  wishing  to  do 
 good,  I  do  evil,'  ver.  21;  that  is,  *I  find  that  while  I  delight  in 
 the  law  of  God,  after  the  inward  man,  there  is  another  law  in 
 my  members  which  causes  me  to  sin.'  vs.  22,  23.  Here  it  is 
 evident,  that  the  apostle  means  to  explain  what  he  intended  by 
 saying  m  ver.  21,  that  he  found  or  experienced  a  law  which 
 caused  him  to  act  contrary  to  his  better  judgment  and  desires. 
 2.  Having  used  the  word  law  by  itself  for  the  Divine  law 
 throughout  the  chapter,  he,  for  the  first  time,  in  ver.  22,  calls 
 
 »  Knapp's  Prolusio  in  locum,  Rom.  vii.  21,  in  his  Scripta  Varii  Argument!. 
 The  several  interpretations  of  the  passage  are  given  and  discussed  by  that 
 writer. 
 
ROMANS  VII.  22.  369 
 
 it  "  the  law  of  God,"  to  mark  the  distinction  between  the  law 
 intended  in  ver.  21,  and  that  intended  in  ver.  22.  3.  This 
 sense  of  the  word  is  not  unusual ;  it  occurs  repeatedly  in  the 
 immediately  succeeding  verses. 
 
 But  admitting  that  i^o/zoc  is  taken  here  in  the  sense  of  con- 
 trollino-  principle  or  inward  necessity,  the  construction  of  the 
 passage  is  still  doubtful.  TaJ  ^iXovn  ifjtoc  may  depend  on 
 eboiaxco,  I  find  in  me.  The  construction  is  then  regular :  '  I 
 find  in  myself  willing  to  do  good  the  law,  that  evil  is  pre- 
 sent with  me,'  so  Meyer;  or,  as  Winer  (§  65,  4.)  proposes, 
 "  Invenio  banc  legem  (normam)  volenti  mihi  honestum  facere, 
 ut  mihi,"  &c.  And  Beza :  "  Comperio  igitur  volenti  mihi 
 facere  bonum  banc  legem  esse  impositum,  quod  mihi  malum 
 adjaceat."  Most  commentators,  however,  assume  a  trajection 
 of  the  particle  or^,  placing  it  before  the  first,  instead  of  the 
 second  clause  of  the  verse :  '  I  find  this  law,  that  {otc)  to  me 
 willing  to  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me;'  instead  of,  'I  find 
 this  law  to  me  willing  to  do  good,  that  [ore)  evil  is  present.' 
 The  English  version  assumes  this  trajection.  The  sense  is  the 
 same ;  and  if  it  can  be  elicited  without  altering  the  position  of 
 the  words,  no  such  alteration  should  be  made.  Paul's  experi- 
 ence had  taught  him,  that  while  wishing  to  do  good,  he  was 
 still  subject  to  evil,  and  from  this  subjection  nothing  but  the 
 grace  of  God  could  deliver  him.  This  experience  is  common  to 
 all  believers.  "Fideles,"  says  Calvin,  "dum  ad  bonum  nitun- 
 t^ir,  quandam  in  se  tyrannicam  legem  reperire,  quia  eorum 
 meduUis  et  ossibus  infixa  est  vitiositas  legi  Dei  adversa  et 
 repugnans." 
 
 Verse  22.  For  I  delight  in  the  law  of  G-od  after  the  imvard 
 man.  This  is  both  an  explanation  and  confirmation  of  what 
 precedes.  The  inward  conflict  referred  to  in  ver.  21,  is  here 
 stated  more  fully.  Paul  had  said  that  although  he  purposed 
 to  do  good  evil  was  present  with  him :  '■For  I  delight  in  the 
 law  of  God  after  the  inner  man ;  but  I  find  a  law  in  my  mem- 
 bers bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin.'  /  delight  in 
 the  latv,  auuTJdo/jtai  ydp  rw  vo/uoj,  I  rejoice  with;  not  however 
 with  others,  to  whom  the  context  suggests  and  allows  no  refer- 
 ence, but  intus,  apud  animum  meum.  As  we  say,  to  rejoice 
 with  the  whole  heart.  Compare  auvoeda,  I  am  conscious^  i.  e.,  I 
 24 
 
370  ROMANS  VII.  22. 
 
 know  with  myself.  As  the  apostle  recognised  in  the  new  man 
 two  conflicting  principles,  he  speaks  as  though  there  were 
 within  him  two  persons,  hoth  represented  by  /.  The  one  is  I, 
 i.  e.  my  flesh ;  the  other  is  I,  i.  e.  my  inner  man.  By  the  inner 
 man  is  to  be  understood  the  "new  man;"  either  the  renewed 
 principle  in  itself  considered,  or  the  soul  considered  or  viewed 
 as  renewed.  That  this  is  the  ti'ue  meaning  of  the  phrase  is 
 evident:  1.  From  its  origin.  It  is  a  term  descriptive  of  excel- 
 lence. As  the  soul  is  better  than  the  body,  so  the  inner  man 
 is  better  than  the  outward  man.  When  the  contrast  is  simply 
 between  the  external  and  internal,  then  the  inner  man  means 
 the  soul ;  but  when  the  contrast  is,  as  here,  betvreen  two  con- 
 flicting principles  within  the  soul,  then  by  the  inward  man  must 
 be  meant  the  higher  or  better  principle  within  us.  That  this 
 higher  principle  is  not  any  natural  faculty,  anything  belonging 
 to  us  in  our  unrenewed  state,  is  plain  from  what  is  predicated 
 of  this  inner  man.  Everything  is  said  of  it  that  can  be  said 
 of  what  is  characteristic  of  the  true  children  of  God.  2.  This 
 interpretation  is  confirmed  by  a  comparison  with  those  passages 
 where  the  same  phrase  occurs.  In  2  Cor.  iv.  16,  and  Eph 
 iii.  16,  by  "inward  man"  is  meant  the  soul  as  renewed.  It  is 
 equivalent  to  the  inner,  or  divine  life,  which  is  daily  renewed 
 or  strengthened  by  the  communications  of  the  Spirit.  3.  The 
 analogous  phrases,  "the  new  man,"  as  opposed  to  the  "old 
 man,"  Rom.  vi.  6,  Eph.  iv.  22,  Col.  iii.  9,  and  "hidden  man  of 
 the  heart,"  1  Pet.  iii.  14,  serve  to  illustrate  and  confirm  this 
 interpretation.  As  "the  new  man"  is  the  soul  as  made  new, 
 so  "the  inward  man,"  of  which  the  same  things  are  predicated, 
 means  the  renewed  nature,  or  nature  as  renewed.  4.  The  use 
 of  the  terms  "inward  man,"  "law  of  the  mind,"  "the  Spirit," 
 "the  spiritual  man,"  as  opposed  to  "the  law  in  the  members," 
 "the  old  man,"  "the  flesh,"  "the  natural  man,"  shows  that 
 the  former  all  indicate  the  soul  as  regenerated,  or  as  the  seat 
 of  the  Spirit's  influences,  and  the  latter  the  soul  as  unrenewed. 
 5.  The  decision  of  the  question  as  to  what  is  here  meant  by 
 the  "inward  man,"  depends  on  what  is  elsewhere  taught  in 
 the  Scriptures  concerning  the  natural  state  of  man.  If  men, 
 since  the  fall,  are  only  partially  depraved ;  if  sin  affects  only 
 our    lower   faculties,    leaving    the    reason    undisturbed   in   its 
 
ROMANS  VII.  23.  371 
 
 original  purity,  then  by  the  "inward  man,"  we  must  under- 
 stand our  rational,  as  opposed  to  our  sensuous  nature.  But 
 if  the  Bible  teaches  that  the  whole  man  is  defiled  by  sin, 
 and  that  the  principle  of  spiritual  life  is  something  superna- 
 tural, then  it  follows  that  the  conflict  here  depicted  is  not  that 
 between  sense  and  reason,  but  that  between  the  new  and  old 
 man,  the  soul  as  renewed  and  indwelling  sin.  "  Interior  igitur 
 homo,"  says  Calvin,  "non  anima  simpliciter  dicitur,  sed  spiri- 
 tualis  ejus  pars,  quae  a  Deo  regenerata  est:  membrorum  voca- 
 bulum  residuam  alteram  partem  significat.  Nam  ut  anima  est 
 pars  excellentior  hominis,  corpus  inferior;  ita  spiritus  superior 
 est  carne.  Hac  ergo  ratione,  quia  Spiritus  locum  animse  tenet 
 in  homine,  caro  autem,  id  est  corrupta  et  vitiata  anima,  corpo- 
 ris, ille  interioris  hominis,  hoec  membrorum  nomen  obtinet." 
 So  also  Melancthon  says,  "Interior  homo  significat  hominem, 
 quatenus  renovatus  est  Spiritu  sancto."  And  Luther's  mar- 
 ginal note  is,  "  Inwendiger  Mensch  heisst  hier  der  Geist  aus 
 Gnaden  geboren,  welcher  in  den  Heiligen  streitet  Avider  den 
 ausserlichen,  dass  ist,  Vernunft,  Sinn  und  alles  was  Natur  am 
 Menschen  ist."  And  this  conflict  between  the  flesh  and  Spirit, 
 he  says,  in  his  preface  to  this  epistle,  "  continues  in  us  so  long 
 as  we  live,  in  some  more,  and  in  others  less,  according  as  the 
 one  or  the  other  principle  is  the  stronger.  Yet  the  whole  man 
 is  both  flesh  and  Spirit,  and  contends  with  himself  until  he  is 
 completely  spiritual." 
 
 Verse  23.  But  I  see  another  law  in  my  members,  &c.  /  see, 
 as  though  looking  into  his  own  soul,  and  observing  the  princi- 
 ples there  in  conflict.  Besides  "the  inward  man,"  or  principle 
 of  the  divine  life,  there  was  "another  law,'"  not  merely  dXXov, 
 another  numerically,  but  erepov,  another  in  kind,  one  that  is 
 heterogenous,  of  a  difi'erent  nature.  This  evil  principle  is  called 
 a  law,  because  of  its  permanency  and  its  controlling  power. 
 It  is  not  a  transient  act  or  mutable  purpose,  but  a  law,  some- 
 thing independent  of  the  will  which  defies  and  controls  it.  In 
 my  members,  i.  e.  in  me.  It  is  equivalent  to  "in  my  flesh," 
 ver.  18.  Warring  against  the  law  of  mind.  It  is  not  only 
 passively  antagonistic,  but  it  is  a  constantly  active  principle, 
 warring,  i.  e.  endeavouring  to  overcome  and  destroy  the  law 
 of  my  mind.     '0  vo/ioi;  zoo  voo^  fxau,  is  not  the  law  of  which 
 
372  ROMANS  VII.  23. 
 
 my  mind  is  the  author,  but  which  pertains  to  my  higher  nature. 
 As  the  one  law  is  in  the  members,  or  flesh,  the  other  is  the 
 mind;  voDc,  not  tlie  reason,  nor  the  aiFections,  but  the  higher 
 or  renewed  nature.  It  is  antithetical  to  adp^,  and  as  the  latter 
 does  not  mean  the  body,  nor  simply  our  sensuous  nature,  but 
 our  nature  considered  as  corrupt,  so  the  former  does  not  mean 
 the  soul,  nor  the  reason,  but  our  nature  as  renewed.  "  The  law 
 of  the  mind"  is  evidently  only  another  designation  for  "the 
 inward  man."  It  was  not  the  apostle's  mind,  his  rational 
 nature,  which  strove  against  the  law  in  his  members;  but  it 
 was  his  mind  or  rational  nature  as  a  Christian,  and  therefore, 
 as  such,  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  not  the 
 reason  of  the  natural  man,  but  the  illuminated  reason  of  the 
 •spiritual  man,  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks.  Bringing  me 
 into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members.  The 
 principle  of  evil  is  not  only  active,  but  it  is  conquering.  It 
 takes  the  soul  captive.  So  that  it  is,  in  the  sense  of  ver.  14, 
 the  slave  of  sin.  Not  its  willing  servant,  but  its  miserable, 
 helpless  victim.  This  does  not  mean  that  sin  always  triumphs 
 in  act,  but  simply  that  it  is  a  power  from  which  the  soul  cannot 
 free  itself.  It  remains,  and  wars,  in  spite  of  all  that  we  can 
 do.  The  law  of  sin  is  only  a  descriptive  designation  of  that 
 other  law  mentioned  in  the  preceding  clause.  They  are  not 
 two  laws.  The  law  in  the  members,  which  was  against  the  law 
 of  the  mind,  is  a  law  of  sin,  i.  e.  it  is  sin  considered  as  a  law, 
 or  controlling  power.  It  is  the  same  as  "indwelling  sin," 
 ;y  oixdbaa  ev  ijiol  d-txafnia.  In  my  memhers,  i.  e.  in  me,  as  what 
 is  here  expressed  by  iv  ro:c  jiiktol  fiou,  is  before  expressed  by 
 iv  k/ioL  It  is  only  a  modification  of  the  old  anti-Augustinian 
 interpretation,  when  Olshausen  represents,  according  to  his 
 anthropology,  man  as  composed  of  three  parts,  the  TrveD/ia, 
 (p^yfl,  and  oCoyLO.,  or  voDc,  ^y^f'J',  and  adp^.  The  ^^^yf}  he  makes 
 the  real  centre  of  our  personality.  By  the  voDc  we  are  in  com- 
 munion with  the  spiritual  world,  by  the  adp^  with  the  material 
 world.  The  (poy^^  therefore,  is  the  battle-field  of  the  voDc  and 
 aap^.  By  itself  the  (poy^-j  cannot  free  itself  from  the  dominion 
 or  power  of  the  odp^,  and  therefore  needs  redemption,  the 
 effect  of  which  is  to  give  the  higher  principle  of  our  nature  the 
 ascendency.     The  conflict  is,  from  first  to  last,  a  natural  one. 
 
ROMANS  VII.  24.  373 
 
 It  is  only  a  struggle  between  the  good  principle  in  man  which 
 has  survived  the  fall,  with  the  disorder  introduced  into  his 
 nature  by  the  apostacy. 
 
 Verse  24.  0  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  luho  shall  deliver  me 
 from  the  body  of  this  death  ?  The  burden  of  indwelling  sin 
 was  a  load  which  the  apostle  could  neither  cast  off  nor  bear. 
 He  could  only  groan  under  its  pressure,  and  long  for  deliver- 
 ance by  a  power  greater  than  his.  TaXacTTcopoi;,  (nearly  allied 
 to  xaXaTieifjco^,  from  xXdio  and  7re?/>a,  much  tried,)  tvretched, 
 Rev.  iii.  17,  where  it  is  connected  with  iXeecuo^,  compare  James 
 V.  1,  iv.  9.  Who  shall  deliver  me  ^  this  is  the  expression,  not 
 of  despair,  but  of  earnest  desire  of  help  from  without  and 
 above  himself.  "Non  quoerit,"  says  Calvin,  "a  quo  sit  liber- 
 andus,  quasi  dubitans  ut  increduli,  qui  non  tenent  unicum  esse 
 liberatorem :  sed  vox  est  anhelantis  et  prope  fatiscentis,  quia 
 non  satis  prcesentem  opem  videat."  That  from  which  the 
 apostle  desired  to  be  delivered  is  the  bodt/  of  this  death,  zic:  {is 
 puaz-at  ix  too  acofiarot:  zoo  &av6.Tou  xoOtoo.  The  demonstra- 
 tive TOOTOo  may  be  referred  either  to  aioiiazo::,  this  body  of 
 death,  or  to  d^audzou,  body  of  this  death.  It  is  not  unusual, 
 especially  in  Hebrew,  for  the  demonstrative  and  possessive-pro- 
 nouns to  be  connected  with  the  noun  governed,  when  they 
 really  qualify  the  governing  noun;  as  "idols  of  his  silver,"  for 
 his  silver  idols;  ''mountains  of  my  holiness,"  for  my  holy 
 mountains.  If  this  explanation  be  here  adopted,  then  the 
 meaning  is,  this  body  which  is  subject  to  death,  i.  e.,  this  mor- 
 tal body.  Then  what  the  apostle  longed  for  was  death.  He 
 longed  to  have  the  strife  over,  which  he  knew  was  to  last  so 
 long  as  he  continued  in  the  body.  But  this  is  inconsistent, 
 both  with  what  precedes  and  with  what  follows.  It  was  the 
 "law  in  his  members,"  "the  law  of  sin,"  which  pressed  on  him 
 as  a  grievous  burden.  And  the  victory  for  which  he  gives 
 thanks  is  not  freedom  from  the  body,  but  deliverance  from  sin. 
 To  avoid  these  difficulties,  death  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of 
 spiritual  death,  and  therefore  including  the  idea  of  sin.  "  This 
 body  of  death,"  would  then  mean,  this  body  which  is  the  seat 
 of  death,  in  which  spiritual  death  i.  e.  reigns.  It  is,  however, 
 more  natural  to  take  the  words  as  they  stand,  and  connect 
 zo'jzou  with  &avdzoo,  this  death.     Then  the  hody  of  this  death 
 
S74  ROMANS  VII.  25. 
 
 may  mean  the  natural  or  material  body,  which  belongs  or  per- 
 tains to  the  death  of  which  he  had  been  speaking.  This  agrees 
 nearly  with  the  interpretation  last  mentioned.  This  supposes 
 that  the  body  is  the  seat  of  sin — 'who  shall  deliver  me  from 
 this  death  which  reigns  in  the  body?'  It  is  not,  however, 
 Paul's  doctrine  that  the  body  is  evil,  or  that  it  is  the  seat  or 
 source  of  sin.  It  is  the  soul  which  is  depraved,  and  Avhich 
 contaminates  the  body,  and  perverts  it  to  unholy  use.  It  is, 
 therefore,  better  to  take  acoixa  (body)  in  a  figurative  sense. 
 Sin  is  spoken  of  figuratively  in  the  context  as  a  man,  as  "  the 
 old  man,"  as  having  members,  and,  in  vi.  6,  as  a  body,  "the 
 body  of  sin."  The  meaning,  therefore,  is,  'Who  will  deliver 
 me  from  the  burden  of  this  death?'  or,  'this  deadly  weight.' 
 Calvin  explains  it  thus :  "  Corpus  mortis  vocat  massam  peccati 
 vel  congeriem,  ex  qua  totus  homo  conflatus  est."  The  body 
 under  which  the  apostle  groaned  was  mortifera  peccati  massa. 
 This  exclamation  is  evidently  from  a  burdened  heart.  It  is 
 spoken  out  of  the  writer's  own  consciousness,  and  shows  that 
 although  the  apostle  represents  a  class,  he  himself  belonged  to 
 that  class.  It  is  his  own  experience  as  a  Christian  to  which 
 he  gives  utterance. 
 
 Verse  25.  The  burden  of  sin  being  the  great  evil  under 
 which  the  apostle  and  all  other  believers  labour,  from  which  no 
 efficacy  of  the  law,  and  no  efforts  of  their  own  can  deliver 
 them,  their  case  would  be  entirely  hopeless  but  for  help  from 
 on  high.  "  Sin  shall  not  have  dominion  over  you,"  is  the  lan- 
 guage of  the  grace  of  God  in  the  gospel.  The  conflict  which 
 the  believer  sustains  is  not  to  result  in  the  victory  of  sin,  but 
 in  the  triumph  of  grace.  In  view  of  this  certain  and  glorious 
 result,  Paul  exclaims,  /  thank  Grod  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
 Lord.  Th>is  is  evidently  the  expression  of  a  strong  and  sudden 
 emotion  of  gratitude.  As,  however,  his  object  is  to  illustrate 
 the  operation  of  the  law,  it  would  be  foreign  to  his  purpose  to 
 expatiate  on  a  deliverance  eiFected  by  a  difierent  power ;  he, 
 therefore,  does  not  follow  up  the  idea  suggested  by  this  excla- 
 mation, but  immediately  returns  to  the  point  in  hand.  Instead 
 of  the  common  text  thyaptaxio  rco  dsu),  I  thank  Grod,  many 
 editors  prefer  the  reading  /a,o^c  tw  &ed>,  thanks  be  to  God. 
 Some  manuscripts  have  jJ  X^^-P'^  '^^'^  ■d-s.ou.      Then  this   verse 
 
ROMANS  VII.  25.  375 
 
 would  be  an  answer  to  the  preceding.  'Who  shall  deliver  me 
 from  this  burden  of  sin?'  Ana.  'The  grace  of  God.'  For 
 this  reading,  however,  there  is  little  authority,  external  or 
 internal.  Through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Paul  does  not 
 only  render  thanks  to  God  through  the  mediation  of  Christ, 
 but  the  great  blessing  of  deliverance  for  which  he  gives  thanks, 
 is  received  through  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  lie  does  for  us 
 what  neither  the  law  nor  our  own  powers  could  effect.  He  is 
 the  only  Redeemer  from  sin. 
 
 So  then,  ana  ouu,  wherefore.  The  inference  is  not  from  the 
 immediately  preceding  expression  of  thanks.  '  Jesus  Christ  is 
 my  deliverer,  wherefore  I  myself,'  &c.  But  this  is  an  unnatural 
 combination.  The  main  idea  of  the  whole  passage,  the  subject 
 which  the  apostle  laboured  to  have  understood,  is  the  impo- 
 tence of  the  law — the  impossibility  of  obtaining  deliverance 
 from  sin  through  its  influence  or  agency.  The  inference  is, 
 therefore,  from  the  whole  preceding  discussion,  especially  from 
 what  is  said  from  ver.  14  onward.  The  conclusion  to  which 
 the  apostle  had  arrived  is  here  briefly  summed  up.  He 
 remained,  and  so  far  as  the  law  is  concerned,  must  remain 
 under  the  power  of  sin.  'With  the  mind  I  serve  the  law  of 
 God,  but  with  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin.'  Deliverance  from  the 
 power  of  sin  the  law  cannot  accomplish.  I  myself ,  aurb^  iyio. 
 The  abxbz  here  is  either  antithetical,  placing  the  iyco  in  oppo- 
 sition to  some  expressed  or  implied,  or  it  is  explanatory. 
 If  the  former,  the  opposition  is  to  oca  Ir^aou  Xpcarou,  I  alone, 
 without  the  aid  of  Christ.  So  Mayer  and  others.  But  the 
 idea  thus  expressed  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  context. 
 Paul  had  not  been  teaching  what  his  unrencAved,  unaided 
 nature  could  accomplish,  but  what  was  the  operation  of  the 
 law,  even  on  the  renewed  man.  The  aurb^  is  simply  explana- 
 tory, /  myself,  and  no  other,  i.  e.  the  same  Ego  of  which  he 
 had  spoken  all  along.  It  is  very  plain,  from  the  use  of  this 
 expression,  that  the  preceding  paragraph  is  an  exhibition  of 
 his  OAvn  experience.  All  that  is  there  said,  is  summarily  here 
 said  emphatically  in  his  own  person.  '  I  myself,  I,  Paul,  with 
 my  mind  serve  the  law  of  God,  but  with  the  flesh  the  law  of 
 sin.'  The  antithesis  is  between  voj  and  aapxi;  the  one  explains 
 the  other.     As  adp^  is  not  the  body,  nor  the  sensuous  nature, 
 
376  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 
 
 but  indwelling  sin,  ver.  18,  so  vou(;  is  not  the  mind  as  opposed 
 to  the  body,  nor  reason  as  opposed  to  the  sensual  passions,  but 
 the  higher,  renewed  principle,  ais  opposed  to  the  law  in  the 
 members,  or  indwelling  corruption.  This  interpretation  is  sus- 
 tained by  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  preceding  verses.  Paul 
 served  the  law  of  God,  in  so  far  as  he  assented  to  the  law  that 
 it  is  good,  as  he  delighted  in  it,  and  strove  to  be  conformed  to 
 it.  He  served  the  law  of  sin,  that  is,  sin  considered  as  a  law 
 or  inward  power,  so  far  as,  in  despite  of  all  his  eiforts,  he  was 
 still  under  its  influence,  and  was  thereby  hindered  from  living 
 in  that  constant  fellowship  with  God,  and  conformity  to  his 
 will,  that  he  earnestly  desired. 
 
 Having  gone  through  the  exposition  of  this  passage,  it  is 
 time  to  pause,  and  ask.  Of  whom  has  Paul  been  speaking,  of  a 
 renewed  or  unrenewed  man  ?  Few  questions  of  this  kind  have 
 been  more  frequently  canvassed,  or  more  intimately  associated 
 with  the  doctrinal  views  of  different  classes  of  theologians. 
 The  history  of  the  interpretation  of  the  latter  part  of  this 
 chapter,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  sections  of  the  doctrinal 
 history  of  the  Church.  A  brief  outline  of  this  history  may  be 
 found  in  the  Dissertation  of  Knapp,  before  referred  to,  and 
 somewhat  more  extended  in  the  Commentary  of  Tholuck.  It 
 appears  that  during  the  first  three  centuries,  the  Fathers  were 
 generally  agreed  in  considering  the  passage  as  descriptive  of 
 the  experience  of  one  yet  under  the  law.  Even  Augustine  at 
 first  concuiTod  in  the  correctness  of  this  view.  But  as  a  deeper 
 insight  into  his  own  heart,  and  a  more  thorough  investigation 
 of  the  Scriptures,  led  to  the  modification  of  his  opinions  on  so 
 many  other  points,  they  produced  a  change  on  this  subject  also. 
 This  general  alteration  of  his  doctrinal  views  cannot  be  attri- 
 buted to  his  controversy  with  Pelagius,  because  it  took  place 
 long  before  that  controversy  commenced.  It  is  to  be  ascribed 
 to  his  religious  experience,  and  his  study  of  the  word  of  God. 
 
 The  writers  of  the  middle  ages,  in  general,  agreed  with  the 
 later  views  of  Augustine  on  this,  as  on  other  subjects.  At  the 
 time  of  the  Reformation,  the  original  diversity  of  opinion  on 
 this  point,  and  on  all  others  connected  with  it,  soon  became 
 manifested.     Erasmus,  Socinus,  and  others,  revived  the  opinion 
 
ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  377 
 
 of  the  Greek  Fathers;  while  Luther,  Calvin,  Melancthon, 
 Beza,  &c.,  adhered  to  the  opposite  interpretation.  At  a  later 
 period,  when  the  controversy  with  the  Remonstrants  occurred, 
 it  commenced  with  a  discussion  of  the  interpretation  of  this 
 chapter.  The  first  writings  of  Arminius,  in  which  he  broached 
 his  peculiar  opinions,  were  lectures  on  this  passage.  All  his 
 associates  and  successors,  as  Grotius,  Episcopius,  Limborch,  &c., 
 adopted  the  same  view  of  the  subject.  As  a  general  rule, 
 Arminian  writers  have  been  found  on  one  side  of  this  question, 
 and  Calvinistic  authors  on  the  other.  This  is  indeed  the  natural 
 result  of  their  different  views  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the 
 natural  state  of  man.  Most  of  the  former  class,  going  much 
 farther  than  Arminius  himself  ever  Avent — either  denying  that 
 the  corruption  consequent  on  the  fall  is  such  as  to  destroy  the 
 power  of  men  to  conform  themselves  to  the  law  of  God,  or 
 maintaining  that  this  power,  if  lost,  is  restored  by  those  opera- 
 tions of  the  Holy  Spirit  Avhich  are  common  to  all — found  no 
 difficulty  in  considering  the  expressions,  "I  consent  to"  and 
 "delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man,"  as  the 
 language  of  a  person  yet  in  his  natural  state.  On  the  other 
 hand,  those  who  held  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  and  of 
 the  consequent  inability  of  sinners,  and  who  rejected  the  doc- 
 trine of  "common  grace,"  could  not  reconcile  with  these 
 opinions  the  strong  language  here  used  by  the  apostle. 
 
 Although  this  has  been  the  general  course  of  opinion  on  this 
 subject,  some  of  the  most  evangelical  men,  especially  on  the 
 continent  of  Europe,  have  agreed  with  Erasmus  in  his  view 
 of  this  passage.  This  was  the  case  with  Francke,  Bengel,  &c., 
 of  a  previous  age ;  and  with  Knapp,  Flatt,  Tholuck,  &c.,  of  our 
 own  day ;  not  to  mention  the  distinguished  writers  of  England 
 and  our  own  country,  who  have  adopted  the  same  view.  There 
 is  nothing,  therefore,  in  this  opinion,  which  implies  the  denial 
 or  disregard  of  any  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  evangelical 
 religion.  Still,  that  the  view  of  the  passage  which  so  long  pre- 
 vailed in  the  Church,  and  which  has  been  generally  adopted  by 
 evangelical  men,  is  the  correct  one,  seems  evident  from  the  fol- 
 lowing considerations. 
 
 I.  The  071U8  probandi  is  certainly  on  the  other  side.  When 
 the  apostle  uses  not  only  the  first  person,  but  the  present  tense, 
 
378  '  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 
 
 and  says,  "I  consent  to  the  law  that  it  is  good,"  "I  delight  in 
 the  law  of  God,"  "I  see  another  law  in  my  members  warring 
 against  the  law  of  my  mind,"  &c.,   those  who   deny  that  he 
 means  himself,  even  though  he  says  /  myself,   or  refuse  to 
 acknowledge   that  this  language   expresses  his  feelings  while 
 writing,  are  surely  bound  to  let  the  contrary  very  clearly  be 
 seen.     Appearances  are  certainly  against  them.     It  should  be 
 remembered  that  Paul  uses  this  language,  not  once  or  twice, 
 but  uniformly  through  the  whole  passage,  and  that  too  with  an 
 ardour  of  feeling  indicative  of  language  coming  directly  from 
 the  heart,  and  expressing  its  most  joyful  or  painful  experience. 
 This  is  a  consideration  which  cannot  be  argumentatively  exhi- 
 bited,  but   it   must   impress    every   attentive    and   susceptible 
 reader.     To  suppose  that  the  apostle  is  personating  another, 
 either,  as  Grotius*  supposes,  the  Jew  first  before  the  giving  of 
 the  laAV,  and  then  after  it;   or  as  Erasmus  thinks,  a  Gentile 
 without  the  law,  as  opposed  to  a  Jew  under  it ;  or  as  is  more 
 commonly  supposed,  an  ordinary  individual  under  the  influence 
 of  a  knowledge  of  the  law,  is  to  suppose  him  to  do  Avhat  he 
 does  nowhere  else  in  any  of  his  writings,  and  what  is  entirely 
 foreign  to  his  whole  spirit  and  manner.    Instead  of  thus  sinking 
 himself  in  another,  he  can  hardly  prevent  his  own  individual 
 feelings  from  mingling  with,  and  moulding  the  very  statement 
 of  objections  to  his  own  reasoning;  see  chap.  iii.  3 — 8.     One 
 great  difficulty  in  explaining  his  epistles,  arises  from  this  very 
 source.     It  is  hard  to  tell  at  times  what  is  his  language,  and 
 what  that  of  an  objector.    If  any  one  will  examine  the  passages 
 in  which  Paul  is  supposed  to  mean  another,  when  he  uses  the 
 first  person,  he  will  see  how  far  short  they  come  of  affording 
 any  parallel  to  the  case  supposed  in  this  chapter,  f     In  many 
 of  them  he  undoubtedly  means    himself,    as  in  1  Cor.  iii.  5, 
 iv.  3,  &c.;  in  others  the  language  is,  in  one  sense,  expressive 
 of  the  apostle's  real  sentiments,  and  is  only  perverted  by  the 
 objector,  as  in  1  Cor.  vi.  12 ;  while  in  others  the  personation 
 of  another  is  only  for  a  single  sentence.     Nothing  analogous  to 
 
 *  Ego,  id  est,  genus  Israeliticum  cum  vixit  ante  legem — in  Aegypto  scilicet. 
 See  his  comment  on  ver.  9. 
 
 t  The  passages  referred  to  by  Knapp  are  1  Cor.  iii.  5,  iv.  3,  &c.;  vi.  12; 
 X.  29,  30;  xiii.  11,  12;  xiv.  14,  15;  Gal.  ii.  18-21. 
 
ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  379 
 
 this  passage  Is  to  be  found  in  all  his  writings,  if  indeed  he  is 
 not  here  pouring  out  the  feelings  of  his  own  heart. 
 
 II.  There  is  no  necessity  for  denying  that  Paul  here  speaks 
 of  himself,  and  describes  the  exercises  of  a  renewed  man. 
 There  is  not  an  expression,  from  beginning  to  the  end  of  this 
 section,  Avhich  the  holiest  man  may  not  and  must  not  adopt. 
 This  has  been  shown  in  the  commentary.  The  strongest 
 declarations,  as,  for  example,  "I  am  carnal,  and  sold  under 
 sin,"  admit,  indeed,  by  themselves,  of  an  interpretation  incon- 
 sistent with  even  ordinary  morality;  but,  as  explained  by  the 
 apostle,  and  limited  b}'  the  context,  they  express  nothing  more 
 than  every  believer  experiences.  What  Christian  does  not  feel 
 that  he  is  carnal?  Alas,  how  different  is  he  from  the  spirits 
 of  the  just  made  perfect !  How  cheerfully  does  he  recognise 
 his  obligation  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  yet  how  con- 
 stantly does  the  tendency  to  self  and  the  world,  the  law  in  his 
 members,  war  against  the  purer  and  better  law  of  his  mind,  and 
 bring  him  into  subjection  to  sin !  If,  indeed,  it  were  true,  as 
 has  been  asserted,  that  the  person  here  described  "  succumbs  to 
 sin  IN  EVERY  INSTANCE  of  co7itest,"'^  the  description  would  be 
 inapplicable  not  to  the  Christian  only,  but  to  any  other  than 
 the  most  immoral  of  men.  It  is  rare  indeed,  even  in  the 
 natural  conflict  between  reason  and  passion,  or  conscience  and 
 corrupt  inclination,  that  the  better  principle  does  not  succeed, 
 not  once  merely,  but  often.  There  is,  however,  nothing 
 even  approaching  to  the  implication  ot  such  a  sentiment  in  the 
 whole  passage.  Paul  merely  asserts  that  the  believer  is,  and 
 ever  remains  in  this  life,  imperfectly  sanctified ;  that  sin  con- 
 tinues to  dwell  within  him ;  that  be  never  comes  up  to  the  full 
 requisitions  of  the  law,  however  anxiously  he  may  desire  it. 
 Often  as  he  subdues  one  spiritual  foe,  another  rises  in  a  differ- 
 ent form ;  so  that  he  cannot  do  the  things  that  he  would ;  that 
 is,  cannot  be  perfectly  conformed  in  heart  and  life  to  the  image 
 of  God. 
 
 It  must  have  been  in  a  moment  of  forgetfulness,  that  such  a 
 man  as  Tholuck  could  quote  with  approbation  the  assertion  of 
 Pr.  A.  Clarke:  "This  opinion  has  most  pitifully  and  shame- 
 fully,   not    only   lowered    the    standard   of   Christianity,    but 
 
 *  Professor  Stuart,  p.  558. 
 
380  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 
 
 destroyed  its  influence  and  disgraced  its  character."  What 
 lamentable  blindness  to  notorious  facts  does  such  language 
 evince !  From  the  days  of  Job  and  David  to  the  present  hour, 
 the  holiest  men  have  been  the  most  ready  to  acknowledge  and 
 deplore  the  existence  and  power  of  indwelling  sin.  Without 
 appealing  to  individual  illustrations  of  the  truth  of  this  remark, 
 look  at  masses  of  men,  at  Augustinians  and  Pelagians,  Calvin- 
 ists  and  Remonstrants:  in  all  ages  the  strictest  doctrines  and 
 the  sternest  morals  have  been  found  united.  It  is  not  those 
 who  have  most  exalted  human  ability,  that  have  most  advan- 
 tageously exhibited  the  fruits  of  its  power.  It  has  been  rather 
 those  who,  with  the  lowest  views  of  themselves,  and  the  highest 
 apprehensions  of  the  efficacy  of  the  grace  of  God,  have  been 
 able  to  adopt  the  language  of  Paul,  "  What  I  would,  that  do  I 
 not;"  and  who,  looking  away  from  themselves  to  him  through 
 whom  they  can  do  all  things,  have  shown  the  Divine  strength 
 manifested  in  their  weakness. 
 
 III.  While  there  is  nothing  in  the  sentiments  of  this  passage 
 which  a  true  Christian  may  not  adopt,  there  is  much  which 
 cannot  be  asserted  by  any  unrenewed  man.  As  far  as  this 
 point  is  concerned,  the  decision  depends,  of  course,  on  the  cor- 
 rect interpretation  of  the  several  expressions  employed  by  the 
 apostle.  1.  What  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrases  "inward 
 man"  and  "law  of  the  mind,"  when  opposed  to  "the  flesh"  and 
 "the  law  in  the  members"?  The  sense  of  these  expressions  is 
 to  be  determined  by  their  use  in  other  passages ;  or  if  they  do 
 not  elsewhere  occur,  by  the  meaning  attached  to  those  which 
 are  obviously  substituted  for  them.  As  from  the  similarity 
 of  the  passages,  it  can  hardly  be  questioned,  that  what  Paul 
 here  calls  "the  inward  man"  and  "law  of  the  mind,"  he,  in 
 Gal.  V.  17,  and  elsewhere,  calls  "the  Spirit;"  it  is  plain  that 
 he  intends,  by  these  terms,  to  designate  the  soul  considered  as 
 renewed,  in  opposition  to  the  "flesh,"  or  the  soul  considered 
 as  destitute  of  Divine  influence.  2.  It  is  not  in  accordance 
 with  the  scriptural  representation  of  the  wicked,  to  describe 
 them  as  consenting  to  the  law  of  God;  as  hating  sin,  and 
 struggling  against  it ;  groaning  under  it  as  a  tyrant's  yoke ; 
 as  delighting  in  the  law  of  God,  i.  e.  in  holiness :  doing  all  this, 
 not  as  men,  but  as  men  viewed  in  a  particular  aspect  as  to  tL? 
 
ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  381 
 
 inward  or  new  man.  This  is  not  the  scriptural  representation 
 of  the  natural  man,  who  does  not  receive  the  things  of  the 
 Spirit  of  God,  and  cannot  know  them,  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  On  the 
 contrary,  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  and  his  law. 
 They  therefore  who  are  in  the  flesh,  that  is,  who  have  this 
 carnal  mind,  hate  and  oppose  the  law,  Rom.  viii.  T,  8.  The 
 expressions  here  used  by  the  apostle,  are  such  as,  throughout 
 the  Scriptures,  are  used  to  describe  the  exercises  of  the  pious, 
 "whose  delight  is  in  the  law  of  the  Lord,  Ps.  i.  2.  3.  Not 
 only  do  these  particular  expressions  show  that  the  writer  is  a 
 true  Christian,  but  the  whole  conflict  here  described  is  such 
 as  is  peculiar  to  the  sincere  believer.  There  is,  indeed,  in 
 the  natural  man,  something  very  analogous  to  this,  when  his 
 conscience  is  enlightened,  and  his  better  feelings  come  into 
 collision  with  the  strong  inclination  to  evil  which  dwells  in  his 
 mind.  But  this  struggle  is  very  far  below  that  which  the 
 apostle  here  describes.  The  true  nature  of  this  conflict  seems 
 to  be  ascertained  beyond  dispute,  by  the  parallel  passage  in 
 Gal.  V.  17,  already  referred  to.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  to 
 possess  the  Spirit  is,  in  sci'iptural  language,  a  characteristic 
 mark  of  a  true  Christian.  "  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in 
 the  spirit,  if  so  be  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  you.  Now  if  any 
 man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his."  Rom. 
 viii.  9.  Those,  therefore,  who  have  that  Spirit,  are  Christians. 
 This  being  the  case,  it  will  not  be  doubted  that  the  passage  in 
 Galatians,  in  which  the  spirit  is  represented  as  warring  against 
 the  flesh,  and  the  flesh  against  the  spirit,  is  descriptive  of  the 
 experience  of  the  true  believer.  But  the  conflict  there  described 
 is  identical  with  that  of  which  the  same  apostle  speaks  in  this 
 chapter.  This  is  evident,  not  merely  from  the  fact  that  one 
 of  the  antagonist  principles  is,  in  both  cases,  called  jiesh,  but 
 because  the  description  is  nearly  in  the  same  words.  In  conse- 
 quence of  the  opposition  of  the  flesh  and  spirit,  Paul  tells  the 
 Galatians  they  cannot  do  the  things  that  they  would ;  and  he 
 says  here  of  himself,  that  in  consequence  of  the  opposition 
 between  the  flesh  and  the  law  of  his  mind,  what  he  would  he 
 did  not.  The  same  conflict  and  the  same  bondage  are  described 
 in  each  case ;  and  if  the  one  be  descriptive  of  the  exercises  of  a 
 true  Christian,  the  other  must  be  so  also. 
 
382  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 
 
 IV.  The  context,  or  the  connection  of  this  passage  with  the 
 preceding  and  succeeding  chapters,  is  in  favour  of  the  common 
 interpretation.  The  contrary  is,  indeed,  strongly  asserted  by 
 those  who  take  the  opposite  view  of  the  passage.  Tholuck 
 seems  to  admit  that,  were  it  not  for  the  context,  the  whole  of 
 the  latter  part  of  the  chapter  might  well  be  understood  of  the 
 believer:  see  his  remarks  on  ver.  14.  And  Professor  Stuart 
 says,  "  I  repeat  the  remark,  that  the  question  is  not,  whether 
 what  is  here  said  might  he  applied  to  Christians ;  but  whether, 
 from  the  tenor  of  the  context,  it  appears  to  have  been  the 
 intention  of  the  writer  that  it  should  be  so  applied.  This  prin- 
 ciple cannot  fail  to  settle  the  question  concerning  such  an 
 application."  P.  558.  It  may  be  proper  to  pause  and  remark, 
 that  such  statements  involve  a  renunciation  of  the  arguments 
 derived  from  the  inapplicability  to  the  real  Christian,  of  what 
 is  here  said.  Everything  is  here  admitted  to  be  in  itself  appli- 
 cable to  him,  did  but  the  context  allow  it  to  be  so  applied.  Yet 
 every  one  is  aware  that  no  argument  is  more  frequently  and 
 strongly  urged  against  the  common  interpretation,  than  that 
 the  description  here  given  is,  in  its  very  nature,  unsuitable  to 
 Christian  experience.  On  the  same  page  which  contains  the 
 passage  just  quoted,  Professor  Stuart  says,  "As,  however,  there 
 is  no  denying  the  truth  of  these  and  the  like  declarations,*  and 
 no  receding  from  them,  nor  explaining  them  away  as  meaning 
 less  than  habitual  victor^/  over  sin ;  so  it  follows,  that  when 
 vs.  14 — 25  are  applied  to  Christian  experience,  they  are 
 wrongly  applied.  The  person  represented  in  these  verses, 
 succumbs  to  sin  in  every  instance  of  contest."  This  is  cer- 
 tainly an  argument  against  applying  the  passage  in  question  to 
 the  Christian,  founded  on  the  assumption  that  it  is,  from  its 
 nature,  entirely  inapplicable.  And  the  argument  is  perfectly 
 conclusive,  if  the  meaning  of  the  passage  be  what  is  here  stated. 
 But  it  is  believed  that  this  is  very  far  from  being  its  true  mean- 
 ing, as  shown  above.  This  argument,  however,  it  appears,  is 
 not  insisted  upon;  everything  is  made  to  depend  upon  the 
 context. 
 
 Many  distinguished  commentators,  as  Alfonso  Turrettin, 
 Xnapp,  Tholuck,  Flatt,  and  Stuart,  consider  this  chapter,  from 
 
 *  'He  who  loveth  Christ,  keepeth  his  commandments,'  &fl. 
 
ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  383 
 
 ver.  7  to  the  end,  as  a  commentary  upon  ver.  5,  in  -^hlch  verse 
 the  state  of  those  who  are  in  "the  flesh"  is  spoken  of;  and  tho 
 first  part  of  the  next  chapter  as  a  commentary  on  ver.  6,  which 
 speaks  of  those  who  are  no  longer  under  the  law.  Accord- 
 ingly, vs.  7 — 25  are  descriptive  of  the  exercises  of  a  man  yet 
 under  the  law;  and  viii.  1 — 17,  of  those  of  a  man  under  the 
 gospel,  or  of  a  believer.  It  is  said  that  the  two  passages  are  in 
 direct  antithesis;  the  one  describes  the  state  of  a  captive  to 
 sin,  vii.  23,  and  the  other  the  state  of  one  who  is  delivered 
 from  sin,  viii.  2.  This  is  certainly  ingenious  and  plausible,  but 
 is  founded  on  a  twofold  misapprehension ;  first,  as  to  the  nature 
 of  this  captivity  to  sin,  or  the  real  meaning  of  the  former 
 passage,  vii.  14 — 25;  and,  secondly,  as  to  the  correct  inter- 
 pretation of  the  latter  passage,  or  viii.  1 — 17.  If  vii.  14 — 25 
 really  describes  such  a  captivity  as  these  authors  suppose,  in 
 which  the  individual  spoken  of  "succumbs  to  sin  in  every 
 instance,"  there  is,  of  course,  an  end  of  this  question,  and  that 
 too  without  any  appeal  to  the  context  for  support.  But,  on  the 
 other  hand,  if  it  describes  no  such  state,  but,  as  Tholuck  and 
 Professor  Stuart  admit,  contains  nothing  which  might  not  be 
 said  of  the  Christian,  the  whole  force  of  the  argument  is  gone ; 
 verses  7 — 25  are  no  longer  necessarily  a  comment  on  ver.  5, 
 nor  viii.  1 — 17  on  ver.  6.  The  antithesis  of  course  ceases,  if 
 the  interpretation,  to  which  it  owes  its  existence,  be  abandoned. 
 The  matter,  after  all,  therefore,  is  made  to  depend  on  the  cor- 
 rect exposition  of  the  passage  (vs.  14 — 25)  itself.  A  particular 
 interpretation  cannot  first  be  assumed,  in  order  to  make  out  the 
 antithesis ;  and  then  the  antithesis  be  assumed,  to  justify  the 
 interpretation.  This  would  be  reasoning  in  a  circle.  In  the 
 second  place,  this  view  of  the  context  is  founded,  as  is  believed, 
 on  an  erroneous  exegesis  of  viii.  1 — 17.  The  first  part  of  tiiut 
 chapter  is  not  so  intimately  connected  with  the  latter  part  of 
 this;  nor  is  it  designed  to  show  that  the  Christian  is  delivered 
 from  "the  law  of  sin  and  death"  in  Ms  members.  For  the 
 grounds  of  this  statement,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  com- 
 mentary on  the  passage  in  question.  Even  if  the  reverse  were 
 the  fact,  still,  unless  it  can  be  previously  shown  that  vs.  14 — 25 
 of  this  chapter  describe  the  state  of  a  man  under  the  law,  there 
 is  no  ground  for  the  assumption  of  such  an  antithesis  between 
 
384  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 
 
 the  two  passages  as  is  supposed  in  the  view  of  the  context 
 stated  above.  Both  passages  might  describe  the  same  indivi- 
 dual under  different  aspects ;  the  one  exhibiting  the  operation 
 of  the  law,  and  the  other  that  of  the  gospel  on  the  renewed 
 mind.  But  if  the  exposition  given  below  of  viii.  1 — 17,  is 
 correct,  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  foundation  for  the  argument 
 derived  from  the  context  against  the  common  interjDretation 
 of  vii.  14—25. 
 
 The  whole  tenor  of  the  apostle's  argument,  from  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  epistle  to  the  close  of  this  chapter,  is  not  only  con- 
 sistent with  the  common  interpretation,  but  seems  absolutely  to 
 demand  it.  His  great  object  in  the  first  eight  chapters,  is  to 
 show  that  the  whole  work  of  the  sinner's  salvation,  his  justifica- 
 tion and  sanctification,  are  not  of  the  law,  but  of  grace ;  that 
 legal  obedience  can  never  secure  the  one,  nor  legal  efforts  the 
 other.  Accordingly,  in  the  first  five  chapters,  he  shows  that 
 we  are  justified  by  faith,  without  the  works  of  the  law ;  in  the 
 sixth,  that  this  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification,  instead  of 
 leading  to  licentiousness,  presents  the  only  certain  and  effectual 
 means  of  sanctification.  In  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 
 chapter,  he  shows  that  the  believer  is  really  thus  free  from  the 
 law,  and  is  now  under  grace ;  and  that  while  under  the  law  he 
 brought  forth  fruit  unto  sin,  but  being  under  grace,  he  now 
 brings  forth  fruit  unto  God.  The  question  here  arises,  Why  is 
 the  holy,  just,  and  good  law  thus  impotent?  Is  it  because  it  is 
 evil?  Far  from  it;  the  reason  lies  in  our  own  corruption. 
 Then,  to  show  how  this  is,  and  why  the  objective  and  authorita- 
 tive exhibition  of  truth  cannot  sanctify,  the  apostle  proceeds  to 
 show  how  it  actually  operates  on  the  depraved  mind.  In  the 
 first  place,  it  enlightens  conscience,  and,  in  the  second,  it 
 rouses  the  opposition  of  the  corrupt  heart.  These  are  the  two 
 elements  of  conviction  of  sin ;  a  knowledge  of  its  nature,  and  a 
 sense  of  its  power  over  ourselves.  Hence  the  feeling  of  self- 
 condemnation,  of  helplessness  and  misery.  Thus  the  law  slays. 
 This  is  one  portion  of  its  effect,  but  not  the  whole ;  for,  even 
 after  the  heart  is  renewed,  as  it  is  but  imperfectly'  sanctified, 
 the  law  is  still  unable  to  promote  holiness.  The  reason  here 
 again  is  not  that  the  law  is  evil,  but  that  we  are  carnal,  ver.  14. 
 Indwelling  sin,  as  the  apostle  calls  it,  is  the  cause  why  the  law 
 
ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  385 
 
 cannot  effect  the  sanctification  even  of  the  believer.  It  pre- 
 sents, indeed,  the  form  of  beauty,  and  the  soul  delights  in  it 
 after  the  inward  man;  but  the  corrupt  affections,  which  turn 
 to  self  and  the  world,  are  still  there :  these  the  law  cannot 
 destroy.  But  though  the  law  cannot  do  this,  it  shall  eventually 
 be  done.  Thanks  to  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  our  case  is  not 
 hopeless ! 
 
 The  apostle's  object  would  have  been  but  half  attained,  had 
 he  not  thus  exhibited  the  effect  of  the  law  upon  the  believer's 
 mind,  and  demonstrated  that  a  sense  of  legal  bondage  was  not 
 necessary  to  the  Christian,  and  could  not  secure  his  sanctifica- 
 tion. Having  done  this,  his  object  is  accomplished.  The  eighth 
 chapter,  therefore,  is  not  so  intimately  connected  with  the 
 seventh.  It  does  not  commence  with  an  inference  from  the 
 discussion  in  vs.  7 — 25,  but  from  the  whole  preceding  exhibi- 
 tion. "  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that 
 are  in  Christ  Jesus."  Why?  Because  they  are  sanctified?  No; 
 but  because  they  are  not  under  the  law.  This  is  the  main 
 point,  from  first  to  last.  They  are  delivered  from  that  law, 
 which,  however  good  in  itself,  can  only  produce  sin  and  death, 
 ver.  2.  In  view  of  this  insufficiency  of  the  law,  God,  having 
 sent  his  Son  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  has  delivered  them  from  it, 
 by  condemning  sin  in  him,  and  has  thus  secured  the  justification 
 of  believers.  Through  him  they  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  law, 
 and  their  salvation  is  rendered  certain.  This,  however,  implies 
 that  they  do  not  live  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit,  agree- 
 ably to  the  doctrine  of  the  sixth  chapter ;  for  salvation  in  sin  is 
 a  contradiction  in  terms. 
 
 There  is,  therefore,  no  such  antithesis  between  the  seventh 
 and  eighth  chapters,  as  the  opposite  interpretation  supposes. 
 It  is  not  the  design  of  the  latter  to  show  that  men  are  delivered 
 from  indwelling  sin;  or  that  the  conflict  between  the  "law  in 
 the  members"  and  "the  law  of  the  mind,"  between  the  flesh 
 and  Spirit,  ceases  when  men  embrace  the  gospel.  But  it  shows 
 that  this  consummation  is  secured  to  all  who  are  in  Christ,  ^o 
 all  who  do  not  deliberately  and  of  choice  walk  after  the  flesh, 
 and  make  it  their  guide  and  master.  In  virtue  of  deliverance 
 from  the  law,  and  introduction  into  a  state  of  grace,  the  believer 
 has  not  only  his  acceptance  with  God,  but  his  final  deliverance 
 25 
 
386  ROMANS  VII.  14—25. 
 
 from  sin  secured.  Sin  shall  not  triumph  in  those  who  have  the 
 Spirit  of  Christ,  and  who,  by  that  Spirit,  mortify  the  deeds  oi 
 the  body. 
 
 If,  then,  the  context  is  altogether  favourable  to  the  ordinary 
 interpretation ;  if  the  passage  is  accurately  descriptive  of 
 Christian  experience,  and  analogous  to  other  inspired  accounts 
 of  the  exercises  of  the  renewed  heart ;  if  not  merely  particular 
 expressions,  but  the  whole  tenor  of  the  discourse,  is  inconsistent 
 with  the  scriptural  account  of  the  natural  man ;  and  if  Paul,  in 
 the  use  of  the  first  person  and  the  present  tense,  cannot,  with- 
 out violence,  be  considered  otherwise  than  as  expressing  his 
 own  feelings  while  writing,  we  have  abundant  reason  to  rest 
 satisfied  with  the  obvious  sense  of  the  passage. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  No  man  is  perfectly  sanctified  in  this  life.  At  least,  Paul 
 was  not,  according  to  his  own  confession,  when  he  wrote  this 
 passage,  vs.  14 — 25. 
 
 2.  The  law  is  spiritual,  that  is,  perfect,  deriving  its  character 
 from  its  author,  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is,  therefore,  the  unerr- 
 ing standard  of  duty,  and  the  source  of  moral  light  or  know- 
 ledge. It  should,  therefore,  be  everywhere  known  and  studied, 
 and  faithfully  applied  as  the  rule  of  judgment  for  our  own 
 conduct,  and  that  of  others.  Evangelical  doctrines,  therefore, 
 which  teach  the  necessity  of  freedom  from  the  law  as  a  cove- 
 nant of  works,  i.  e.  as  prescribing  the  terms  of  our  justification 
 before  God,  derogate  neither  from  its  excellence  nor  its  author- 
 ity. It  is  left  to  do  its  proper  work  in  the  economy  of  redemp- 
 tion ;  to  convince  of  sin,  and  be  a  guide  to  duty,  ver.  14,  &c. 
 
 3.  The  mere  presentation  of  truth,  apart  from  the  influ- 
 ences of  the  Spirit,  can  neither  renew  nor  sanctify  the  heart, 
 ver.  14,  &c. 
 
 4.  Inability  is  consistent  with  responsibility.  "  To  perform 
 that  which  is  good  I  find  not,"  that  is,  I  cannot,  ver.  18;  Gal. 
 V.  17.  As  the  Scriptures  constantly  recognise  the  truth  of 
 these  two  things,  so  are  they  constantly  united  in  Christian 
 experience.  Every  one  feels  that  he  cannot  do  the  things  that 
 he  would,  yet  is  sensible  that  he  is  to  blame  for  not  doing  them. 
 
ROMANS  VII.  14—25.  387 
 
 Let  any  man  test  his  power  by  the  requisition  to  love  God  per- 
 fectly at  all  times.  Alas !  how  entire  our  inability ;  yet  how 
 deep  our  self-loathing  and  self-condemnation ! 
 
 5.  The  emotions  and  affections  do  not  obey  a  determination 
 of  the  will,  vs.  16,  18,  19,  21.  A  change  of  purpose,  therefore, 
 is  not  a  change  of  heart. 
 
 6.  The  Christian's  victory  over  sin  cannot  be  achieved  by 
 the  strength  of  his  resolutions,  nor  by  the  plainness  and  force 
 of  moral  motives,  nor  by  any  resources  within  himself.  He 
 looks  to  Jesus  Christ,  and  conquers  in  his  strength.  In  other 
 words,  the  victory  is  not  obtained  in  the  way  of  nature,  but  of 
 grace,  vs.  14 — 25. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  As  the  believer's  life  is  a  constant  conflict,  those  who  do 
 not  struggle  against  sin,  and  endeavour  to  subdue  it,  are  not 
 true  Christians,  vs.  14 — 25. 
 
 2.  The  person  here  described  hates  sin,  ver.  15;  acknow- 
 ledges and  delights  in  the  spirituality  of  the  divine  law, 
 vs.  16,  22 ;  he  considers  his  corruption  a  dreadful  burden,  from 
 which  he  earnestly  desires  to  be  delivered,  ver.  24.  These  are 
 exercises  of  genuine  piety,  and  should  be  applied  as  tests  of 
 character. 
 
 3.  It  is  an  evidence  of  an  unrenewed  heart  to  express  or  feel 
 opposition  to  the  law  of  God,  as  though  it  were  too  strict ;  or 
 to  be  disposed  to  throw  off  the  blame  of  our  w-ant  of  conformity 
 to  the  divine  will  from  ourselves  upon  the  law,  as  unreasonable. 
 The  renewed  man  condemns  himself,  and  justifies  God,  even 
 while  he  confesses  and  mourns  his  inability  to  conform  to  the 
 divine  requisitions,  vs.  14 — 25. 
 
 4.  The  strength  and  extent  of  the  corruption  of  our  nature 
 are  seen  from  its  influence  over  the  best  of  men,  and  from  its 
 retaining  more  or  less  of  its  power,  under  all  circumstances,  to 
 the  end  of  life,  ver.  25. 
 
 5.  This  corruption,  although  its  power  is  acknowledged,  so 
 far  from  being  regarded  as  an  excuse  or  palliation  for  our  indi- 
 vidual offences,  is  recognised  as  the  greatest  aggravation  of  our 
 guilt.     To  say,  with  the  feelings  of  the  apostle,  "I  am  carnal," 
 
388  ROMANS  VIII.  1—39. 
 
 is  to  utter  the  strongest  language  of  self-condemnation  and  self- 
 abhorrence,  vs.  14 — 25. 
 
 6.  Although  the  believer  is  never  perfectly  sanctified  in  this 
 life,  his  aim  and  efforts  are  ever  onward ;  and  the  experience 
 of  the  power  of  indwelling  sin  teaches  him  the  value  of  heaven, 
 and  prepares  him  for  the  enjoyment  of  it,  vs.  14 — 25. 
 
 CHAPTER    VIII. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Paul  had  now  finished  his  exhibition  of  the  plan  of  salvation. 
 He  had  shown  that  we  are  justified  gratuitously,  that  is,  by 
 faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  without  the  works  of  the  law.  He  had 
 proved  that,  so  far  from  this  freedom  from  the  law  leading  to 
 the  indulgence  of  sin,  it  is  necessary  to  our  sanctification, 
 because  the  law  is  as  inadequate  to  the  production  of  holiness 
 in  the  sinner,  as  it  is  to  secure  pardon  or  acceptance  with  God. 
 That  such  is  the  insufficiency  of  the  law,  he  proved  by  exhibit- 
 ing its  operation  both  on  the  renewed  and  unrenewed  mind. 
 Having  accomplished  all  this,  he  leaves,  in  the  chapter  before 
 us,  the  field  of  logical  argument,  and  enters  on  the  new  and 
 more  elevated  sphere  of  joyous  exultation.  As,  however, 
 there  is  always  warmth  of  feeling  in  the  apostle's  argument, 
 so  also  is  there  generally  logical  arrangement  in  his  highest 
 triumphs. 
 
 His  theme  here  is  the  security  of  believers.  The  salvation 
 of  those  who  have  renounced  the  law,  and  accepted  the  gracious 
 offers  of  the  gospel,  is  shown  to  be  absolutely  certain.  The 
 whole  chapter  is  a  series  of  arguments,  most  beautifully 
 arranged,  in  support  of  this  one  point.  They  are  all  traced 
 back  to  the  great  source  of  hope  and  security,  the  unmerited 
 and  unchanging  love  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus.  The  proposition 
 is  contained  in  the  first  verse.  There  is  no  condemnation  to 
 those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus ;  they  shall  never  be  condemned 
 or  perish. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  1—11.  389 
 
 1.  Because  they  are  delivered  from  the  law ;  all  its  demands 
 being  fulfilled  in  them  by  the  mission  and  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
 vs.  1 — 4.  2.  Because  their  salvation  is  actually  begun  in  the 
 regeneration  and  sanctification  of  their  hearts  bj  the  Holy 
 Spirit.  Those  who  have  the  Spirit  of  Christ  have  the  Spirit 
 of  life,  vs.  5 — 11.  3.  Not  only  is  their  salvation  begun,  but 
 they  are  the  children  of  God,  and  if  children,  they  are  heirs, 
 vs.  12 — 17.  4.  The  afilictions  which  they  may  be  called  to 
 endure,  are  not  inconsistent  with  this  filial  relation  to  God, 
 because  they  are  utterly  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the 
 glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  them  ;  and  under  these  afflictions 
 they  ai*e  sustained  both  by  hope  and  the  intercessions  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit,  vs.  18 — 28.  5.  Because  they  are  predestinated 
 to  the  attainment  of  eternal  life ;  of  which  predestination  their 
 present  sanctification  or  effectual  calling  is  the  result,  and 
 therefore  the  evidence,  vs.  28 — 30.  6.  Because  God  has  given 
 his  Son  to  die  for  them,  and  thereby  to  secure  their  justifica- 
 tion and  salvation,  vs.  31 — 34.  7.  Because  the  love  of  God  is 
 infinite  and  unchangeable;  from  which  nothing  can  separate 
 us,  vs.  35 — 39.  Thus  from  the  proximate  cause  of  salvation, 
 or  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  does  the  apostle  rise  with  ever- 
 increasing  confidence,  to  the  great  source  and  fountain  of  all, 
 in  the  love  of  God.* 
 
 Although,  according  to  this  view  of  the  chapter,  it  is  one 
 whole,  it  may,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  be  divided  into 
 three  sections. 
 
 EOMANS  VIII.  1—11. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 This  section  contains  the  development  of  the  first  two  of  the 
 apostle's  arguments  in  favour  of  the  position,  that  those  who 
 are  in  Christ  Jesus  shall  never  be  condemned.  The  immediate 
 reason  is  assigned  in  the  second  verse — they  are  delivered  from 
 the  law.     For,  in  view  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  law,  God  sent 
 
 *  The  same  general  view  of  the  design  of  this  chapter,  and  of  the  course  of 
 the  apostle's  argument,  is  given  in  the  analysis  of  this  epistle,  by  Stephen 
 de  Brais. 
 
390  ROMANS  YIII.  1. 
 
 forth  his  Son  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  ver.  3 ;  and  thus  securea 
 the  justification  of  all  believers,  ver.  4.  Being  thus  delivered 
 from  the  law,  they  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit, 
 and  this  possession  of  the  Spirit  is  incipient  salvation :  because 
 the  carnal  mind,  which,  of  course,  all  who  are  in  the  flesh  pos- 
 sess, is  death;  whereas  a  mind  under  the  government  of  the 
 Spirit  is  life  and  peace.  Such  is  the  very  nature  of  the  case. 
 Holiness  is  salvation,  vs.  5 — 7.  The  reason  that  death  is  the 
 necessary  consequence  of  being  carnally  minded,  is  the  essen- 
 tial opposition  between  such  a  state  of  mind  and  God.  Hence, 
 those  who  have  this  state  of  mind  are  the  objects  of  the  Divine 
 displeasure,  vs.  7,  8.  As,  however,  believers  are  not  under  the 
 government  of  the  flesh,  but  of  the  Spirit,  their  salvation  is 
 secured,  even  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  For  if  the  Spirit 
 of  Him  who  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead,  dwell  in  them,  he 
 shall  also  quicken  their  mortal  bodies,  vs.  9 — 11. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
 which  are  in  Christ  Jesus.  It  is  a  matter  of  considerable 
 importance  to  the  understanding  of  this  chapter,  to  decide  what 
 is  its  precise  relation  to  the  preceding  part  of  the  epistle.  The 
 word  therefore  indicates  that  what  follows  is  an  inference ;  but 
 from  what  ?  From  the  conclusion  of  the  seventh  chapter,  or 
 from  the  whole  previous  discussion  ?  The  latter  seems  to  be 
 the  only  correct  view  of  the  context ;  because  the  fact  that 
 there  is  no  condemnation  to  believers,  is  no  fair  inference  from 
 what  is  said  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter.  Paul  does 
 not  mean  to  say,  as  Luther  and  others  explain  ver.  1,  that 
 there  is  nothing  worthy  of  condemnation  in  the  Christian, 
 because  with  his  mind  he  serves  the  law  of  God.  Nor  does  he 
 mean,  at  least  in  the  first  few  verses,  to  argue  that  believers 
 shall  not  be  condemned,  because  they  are  freed  from  the 
 dominion  of  sin.  But  the  inference,  in  the  first  verse,  is  the 
 legitimate  conclusion  of  all  that  Paul  had  previously  estab- 
 lished. Believers  shall  be  saved,  because  they  are  not  under 
 the  law,  but  under  grace,  which  is  the  main  point  in  all  that 
 Paul  has  yet  said.     There  is,  therefore,  now,  i.  e.  under  these 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  1.  391 
 
 circumstances,  viz.  the  circumstances  set  forth  in  the  previous 
 part  of  the  epistle.  The  decision  of  the  question  as  to  the  con- 
 nection depends  on  the  view  taken  of  the  apostle's  argument. 
 If  he  argues  that  believers  are  not  liable  to  condemnation, 
 because  with  the  mind  they  serve  the  law  of  God,  then  the  con- 
 nection is  with  what  immediately  precedes.  But  if  his  argu- 
 ment is,  that  those  in  Christ  are  not  exposed  to  condemnation, 
 notwithstanding  their  imperfect  sanctification,  because  Christ 
 has  died  as  a  sacrifice  for  their  sins,  then  the  connection  is 
 with  the  main  argument  of  the  epistle.  Since  men,  being  sin- 
 ners, cannot  be  justified  by  works ;  since  by  the  obedience  of 
 one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  the  many  are  made  righteous;  and  since 
 through  him,  and  not  through  the  law,  deliverance  from  the 
 subjective  power  of  sin  is  effected,  therefore  it  follows  that 
 there  is  no  condemnation  to  those  who  are  in  him. 
 
 There  is  no  condemnation,  obdsv  xavdxpcfia,  does  not  mean 
 nildl  damnatione  dignum  (nothing  worthy  of  condemnation,)  as 
 Erasmus  and  many  othei'S  render  it,  but  there  is  no  condemna- 
 tion. Those  who  are  in  Christ  are  not  exposed  to  condemnation. 
 And  this  again  is  not  to  be  understood  as  descriptive  of  their 
 present  state  merely,  but  of  their  permanent  position.  They 
 are  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  condemnation.  They  shall 
 never  be  condemned.  The  meaning  of  a  proposition  is  often 
 best  understood  by  the  arguments  by  which  it  is  sustained.  It 
 is  so  in  this  case.  The  whole  chapter  is  a  proof  of  the  safety 
 of  believers,  of  their  security  not  only  from  present  condemna- 
 tion, but  from  future  perdition.  Nothing  shall  ever  separate 
 them  from  the  love  of  God,  is  the  triumphant  conclusion  to 
 which  the  apostle  arrives.  Those  to  whom  there  is  and  never 
 can  be  any  condemnation,  are  described,  first  as  to  their  rela- 
 tion to  Christ,  and  secondly  as  to  their  character.  The  first 
 assigns  the  reason  of  their  security,  the  second  enables  us  to 
 determine  to  whom  that  security  belongs.  First,  thei/  are  in 
 Christ.  In  what  sense  ?  This  must  be  determined,  not  so  much 
 from  the  force  of  the  words,  as  from  the  teachings  of  Scripture. 
 1.  They  are  in  him  federally,  as  all  men  were  in  Adam,  1  Cor. 
 XV.  22,  Eom.  v.  12 — 21.  2.  They  are  in  him  vitally,  as  the 
 branch  is  in  the  vine,  John  xv.  1 — 7;  or,  as  the  head  and  mem- 
 bers of  the  body  are  in  vital  union,  1  Cor.  xii.  27,  Eph.  i.  23. 
 
392  ROMANS  VIII.  2. 
 
 This  anion  arises  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  1  Cor. 
 xii.  13,  vi.  15,  19.  3.  They  are  in  him  by  faith,  Eph.  iii.  17, 
 Gal.  iii.  26,  27.  It  is  not  in  virtue  of  any  one  of  these  bonds 
 of  union  exclusively,  but  in  virtue  of  them  all  (so  far  as  adults 
 are  concerned,)  that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  those  who  are 
 in  Christ  Jesus.  It  follows  from  the  nature  of  this  union,  that 
 it  must  transform  the  character  of  those  Avho  are  its  subjects. 
 If,  therefore,  any  man  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  he  is  a  new  creature, 
 2  Cor.  v.  17,  John  xv.  4,  Phil.  iii.  19,  Col.  ii.  6,  1  John  ii.  5, 
 iii.  6.  As  the  union  includes  the  bodies  of  believers,  as  well  as 
 their  souls,  1  Cor.  vi.  15 — 19,  so  this  transforming  power  will 
 ultimately  extend  to  the  former  as  well  as  to  the  latter,  Rom. 
 viii.  10,  11.  In  this  verse,  (according  to  the  common  text,)  the 
 transforming  power  of  this  union  with  Christ  is  expressed  by 
 saying,  that  those  who  are  in  him,  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  hut 
 after  the  Spirit.  To  walk  means  to  regulate  the  inward  and 
 outward  life.  It  includes,  therefore,  the  determination  of  the 
 judgments,  the  feelings,  the  purposes,  as  well  as  the  external 
 conduct.  The  controlling  principle  in  believers  is  not  i\iQ  flesh, 
 i.  e.  the  corrupt  nature,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  who  dwells  in 
 them,  as  the  source  of  knowledge,  of  holiness,  of  strength,  of 
 peace  and  love.  They  are  not  aapxcxoi  governed  by  the  odp^, 
 but  7Ti>£Ufj.aTixoi  governed  by  the  Spirit.  The  only  evidence 
 therefore  to  ourselves,  or  to  others,  of  our  being  in  Christ,  is 
 this  subjection  of  the  whole  life  to  the  control  of  his  Spirit,  so 
 that  we  discern  and  believe  the  truth,  1  Cor.  ii.  14 — 16,  and 
 are  governed  by  it.  When  the  word  Ttusufta  is  not  only  without 
 the  article,  and  opposed  to  adp^,  it  may  be  understood  of  the 
 Spirit  as  the  principle  of  life  in  the  believer,  and  in  that  view 
 be  equivalent  to  the  new  man,  or  the  renewed  principle.  This 
 is  the  view  adopted  by  many  as  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  this 
 passage.  This  clause,  however,  is  of  doubtful  authority.  It 
 occurs  in  ver.  4,  and  may  by  a  transcriber  have  been  trans- 
 ferred to  this  place.  The  whole  clause  is  omitted  in  the  major- 
 ity of  the  uncial  MSS.,  and  by  the  great  body  of  modern  critics. 
 The  latter  clause  only  is  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  D.  in  the  Vul- 
 gate, and  by  Chrysostom,  which  reading  is  adopted  by  Bengel. 
 Verse  2,  For  the  laio  of  the  Sjnrit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  &c. 
 This  verse  assigns  the  reason  why  there  is  no  condemnation  to 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  2.  393 
 
 those  who  are  in  Christ,  as  is  evident  from  the  use  of /or,  with 
 which  the  verse  commences. 
 
 The  law  of  the  Spirit  is  here  opposed  to  the  law  of  sin  and 
 death,  mentioned  in  the  other  clause  of  tlie  verse.  The  inter- 
 pretation of  tlie  one  phrase,  therefore,  must  decide  that  of  the 
 other.  There  are  three  different  views  which  may  be  taken 
 of  the  verse.  1.  The  word  laio  may  be  used  here  as  it  is  in 
 vs.  21,  23,  of  chap,  vii.,  for  a  directing  jooiver ;  and  Spirit,  by 
 metonymy,  for  that  wliicli  the  Spirit  produces,  i.  e.  sanctified 
 affections;  and  the  words  of  life  may  mean,  producing  hfe. 
 The  sense  would  then  be,  '  The  power  of  the  renewed  principle 
 which  tends  to  life,  has  delivered  me  from  the  power  of  sin 
 which  tends  to  death.'  In  other  words,  'The  law  of  the  mind 
 has  delivered  me  from  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  the  members.' 
 So  Beza  and  many  others.  2.  The  word  latv  is  taken  in  nearly 
 the  same  sense ;  but  Spirit  of  life  is  understood  to  mean  the 
 Holy  Spirit,  considered  as  the  author  of  life.  The  sense  then 
 is,  '  The  power  of  the  life-giving  Spirit  has  delivered  me  from 
 the  dominion  of  the  law  of  sin  and  death  in  my  members.'  So 
 Calvin,  and  others :  "  Legem  Spiritus  improprie  vocat  Dei 
 Spiritum,  qui  animas  nostras  Christi  sanguine  aspergit,  non 
 tantum  ut  a  peccati  labe  emundet  quoad  reatum ;  sed  in  veram 
 puritatem  sanctificet."  The  objection  to  this  interpretation, 
 that  it  seems  to  refer  our  freedom  from  condemnation  to  our 
 regeneration,  he  proposes  to  meet  by  saying  that  Paul  does  not 
 state  the  cause,  but  the  method  of  our  deliverance  from  guilt : 
 "  Negat  Paulus  externa  legis  doctrina  id  nos  consequi,  sed  dum 
 Spiritu  Dei  renovamur,  simul  etiam  justificari  gratuita  venia,  ne 
 peccati  maledictio  in  nos  amplius  recumbat.  Perinde  ergo  valet 
 haec  sentia  acsi  dixisset  Paulus,  regenerationis  gratiam  ab 
 imputatione  justitiag  nunquam  disjungi."  3.  According  to  the 
 third  view,  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  is  the  gospel,  i.  e.  the 
 laAV  of  which  the  life-giving  Spirit  is  the  author.  Of  course, 
 the  other  member  of  the  verse,  instead  of  describing  the  corrupt 
 principle  in  men,  means  the  law  of  God,  which,  as  Paul  had 
 taught  in  chap,  vii.,  is  incidentally  the  cause  of  sin  and  death. 
 The  sense  of  the  passage  then  is,  '  The  gospel  has  delivered  me 
 from  the  law.'     So  Witsius,  &c. 
 
 This  last  seems  decidedly  to  be  preferred,  for  the  following 
 
394  ROMANS  VIII.  2. 
 
 reasons :  1.  Although  the  two  former  interpretations  are  con- 
 sistent with  Paul's  use  of  the  word  law,  neither  of  them  so  well 
 suits  the  context,  because  neither  assigns  the  reason  why 
 believers  are  not  exposed  to  condemnation.  Paul  asserts  that 
 those  who  are  in  Christ  are  restored  to  the  divine  favour. 
 Why  ?  Because  they  are  sanctified  ?  No ;  but  because  they 
 have  been  freed  from  the  law  and  its  demands,  and  introduced 
 into  a  state  of  grace.  2.  It  is  not  true  that  believers  are  deli- 
 vered from  the  law  of  sin  in  their  members.  If  the  terms  law 
 of  the  Spirit,  and  law  of  sin,  are  to  be  understood  of  the  good 
 and  evil  principle  in  the  Christian,  how  can  it  be  said  that  by 
 the  former  he  is,  in  this  life,  delivered  from  the  latter  ?  This 
 would  be  in  direct  contradiction  to  chap.  vii.  and  to  experience. 
 3.  The  terms  here  used  may  naturally  be  so  understood,  because 
 the  word  law,  in  its  general  sense,  as  rule,  is  applicable  and  is 
 applied  to  the  gospel,  Rom.  iii.  27,  especially  when  standing 
 in  antithesis  to  the  law  of  works.  The  gospel  is  called  the  law 
 of  the  Spirit,  because  he  is  its  author :  see  the  phrase  "  minis- 
 tration of  the  Spirit,"  2  Cor.  iii.  8.  In  the  other  member  of 
 the  verse  the  law  is  called  the  law  of  sin  and  death,  because 
 productive  of  sin  and  death.  This  is  no  more  than  what  Paul 
 had  said  expressly  of  the  law  in  the  preceding  chapter,  vs.  5, 
 13,  &c.  And  in  2  Cor.  iii.  6,  the  law  is  said  to  kill :  it  is  called 
 the  oiaxovla  tou  d-audzou,  (the  ministration  of  death,)  and  the 
 dcaxopca  rij^c  xaraxpiaeo)^,  (ministration  of  condemnation.)  There 
 the  same  contrast  between  the  dsaxovia  too  d-avdzoo  and  the 
 ocaxoma  to~j  nvzbixaxoq,  is  presented,  as  here  between  the  vofioz 
 TOU  ■d-audzoo  and  the  vbixoc,  zoo  Tii^eu/iazo^.  4.  This  interpreta- 
 tion alone  assigns  an  adequate  ground  for  the  declaration  of  the 
 preceding  verse.  That  declaration,  the  result  of  all  that  Paul 
 had  yet  proved,  is  that  believers,  and  believers  only,  are  per- 
 fectly safe ;  and  the  reason  assigned  is  the  sum  of  all  the  argu- 
 ment from  the  commencement  of  the  epistle.  They  are  not 
 under  the  law,  but  under  grace ;  the  law  of  the  Spirit  has  freed 
 them  from  the  old  law  of  works.  5.  The  next  verse  favours, 
 if  it  does  not  absolutely  demand,  this  interpretation.  It  gives 
 the  reason  why  believers  are  thus  freed  from  the  law,  viz.  it 
 was  insufficient  for  their  salvation,  "  it  was  weak  through  the 
 flesh."     6.  The  use  of  the  aorist  t^hu&epwas,  which  shows  that 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  3.  395 
 
 the  freedom  spoken  of  is  an  accomplished  fact,  confirms  this 
 interpretation.  Deliverance  from  the  law  of  sin  in  the  members 
 is  a  gradual  process ;  deliverance  from  the  laAV  is  effected  once 
 for  all ;  and  with  regard  to  the  believer,  it  is  a  fact  accom- 
 plished. 
 
 The  words  ku  Xfjurrw,  in  Christ,  may  be  connected  with  the 
 immediately  preceding  words  r^c  CioVj^,  the  life  tvhich  is  in 
 Christ;  or  with  6  po/uo^  x.r.L,  the  laiv  of  the  Spirit  which  is  in 
 Christ.  As,  however,  the  connecting  article  (rij^c  or  6,)  which 
 is  necessary  at  least  definitely  to  indicate  either  of  those  con- 
 structions, is  wanting,  the  words  in  question  are  generally  con- 
 nected with  the  following  verb,  Vj/.su&sfjwas,  in  Christ  freed  me; 
 that  is,  it  was  in  him,  and  therefore  through  him,  that  this 
 deliverance  was  effected.  The  meaning  of  this  verse,  therefore, 
 in  connection  with  the  preceding,  is,  '  There  is  no  condemnation 
 to  those  who  are  in  Christ,  because  they  have  been  freed  in 
 him  by  the  gospel  of  the  life-giving  Spirit,  from  that  law  which, 
 although  good  in  itself,  is,  through  our  corruption,  the  source 
 of  sin  and  death.*  Being  thus  free  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
 and  from  the  obligation  to  fulfil  its  demands,  as  the  condition 
 of  life,  and  consequently  freed  from  a  legal  spirit,  their 
 sins  are  gratuitously  pardoned  for  Christ's  sake ;  they  are 
 made  partakers  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  transformed  more  and 
 more  into  his  image,  and  God  is  pledged  to  preserve  them  unto 
 eternal  life. 
 
 Verse  3.  This  verse  is  connected  with  the  preceding  by  the 
 particle  ydp,  for.  '  We  are  delivered  from  the  law,  for  the  law 
 could  not  effect  our  salvation.'  The  words  to  ddui^azov  rou 
 udfxou  may  be  rendered  either,  the  impotency  of  the  law,  or  what 
 is  impossible  to  the  law.  The  choice  between  these  renderings 
 depends  on  the  grammatical  structure  of  the  passage.  First, 
 TO  ddui^azou  may  be  taken  as  the  accusative,  and  the  preposition 
 dcd  be  supplied,  on  account  of  the  impotency  of  the  laiv;  or, 
 secondly,  it  may  be  taken  as  the  accusative  absolute,  as  to  the 
 impotency  of  the  law,  i.  e.  in  view  of  its  impotency;  or,  thirdly, 
 it  may  be  taken  as  the  nominative,  and  in  apposition  with  the 
 following  clause.  The  sense  would  then  be,  '  The  impossibility 
 of  the  law — God  condemned  sin ;'  i.  e.  the  condemnation  of  sin 
 is  what  is  impossible  to  the  law.     This  is  the  view  commonly 
 
396  ROMANS  VIII.  3. 
 
 adopted,  especially  by  those  who  understand  the  apostle  to  be 
 speaking  of  sanctification,  and  who  therefore  take  condemned 
 sin  to  mean  destroyed  sin.  As,  however,  that  clause  does  not 
 mean  to  destroy  sin,  but  judicially  to  condemn  it,  the  first 
 clause  cannot  strictly  be  in  apposition  with  it.  The  law  could 
 condemn  sin.  What  it  cannot  do  is  to  free  us  either  from  its 
 guilt  or  power.  It  can  neither  justify  nor  sanctify.  On  this 
 account,  the  second  exposition  of  the  first  clause  of  the  verse 
 just  mentioned,  is  to  be  preferred :  '  In  view  of  the  impotency 
 of  the  law,  God  sent  his  Son,'  &c.  This  insufficiency  of  the 
 law,  as  the  apostle  had  taught  in  the  preceding  chapters,  is  not 
 due  to  any  imperfection  of  the  law  itself.  It  is  holy,  just,  and 
 good.  It  requires  nothing  more  than  is  right.  If  men  could 
 comply  with  its  righteous  demands,  the  law  would  pronounce 
 them  just.  If  they  were  free  from  the  infection  of  sin,  "the 
 form  of  truth  and  knowledge  in  the  law,"  the  perfect  exhibition 
 which  it  makes  of  the  will  of  God,  would  avail  to  maintain  and 
 advance  them  in  holiness.  But  as  they  are  already  under  sin, 
 under  its  guilt  and  power,  the  law  is  entirely  impotent  to  their 
 justification  or  sanctification.  The  apostle  therefore  says,  that 
 the  law  is  impotent,  iv  cw,  because  that  (see  Heb.  ii.  18)  it  is 
 weak  thro2igh  the  Jiesh,  oca  rrjq  oapxb^,  i.  e.  through  our  cor- 
 ruption. It  is  our  being  depraved  that  renders  the  law  weak, 
 or  impotent  to  s.avc  Crod  sending  (or  having  sent  nifxijjaz) 
 his  own  Son,  zbv  kauvou  vlov.  The  term  Son  here  evidently 
 designates  the  eternal  personal  Son.  He  was  from  eternity, 
 and  in  virtue  of  his  Divine  nature,  and  not  in  virtue  either  of 
 his  miraculous  birth,  or  his  exaltation,  the  Son  of  God.  The 
 greatness  of  the  work  to  be  accomplished,  and  the  greatness  of 
 the  love  of  God  impelling  him  to  our  redemption,  are  strongly 
 exhibited  in  these  words.  It  was  not  a  creature,  even  the  most 
 exalted,  whom  God  sent  on  this  mission,  but  his  own  Son,  one 
 with  him  in  essence  and  glory. 
 
 Two  things  are  further  stated  concerning  this  mission  of  the 
 Son  of  God.  First,  the  form  under  which  he  appeared  in  the 
 world;  and,  secondly,  the  object  for  which  he  was  sent.  As  to 
 the  form  in  which  he  appeared,  it  was  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
 flesh.  It  was  not  simply  iv  aapxi  [in  the  flesh,)  clothed  in  our 
 nature ;  for  that  might  have  been  said,  had  he  appeared  in  the 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  3.  397 
 
 glorious,  impassive  nature  of  Adam  before  the  fall.  Much  less 
 was  it  in  ip  aapxi  b-p-apriac,  {in  sinful  Jlcsh,)  for  that  "would 
 imply  that  his  human  nature  was  defiled,  contrary  to  Heb. 
 iv.  15,  and  to  all  Scripture ;  but  it  was  iv  ofiouo/jiau  aapxbz 
 S-fxapvia^^  {in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,)  that  is,  in  a  nature 
 like  to  our  sinful  nature,  but  not  itself  sinful.  Christ  took  our 
 physically  dilapidated  nature,  subject  to  the  infirmities  which 
 sin  had  brought  into  it.  He  was  therefore  susceptible  of  pain, 
 and  weariness,  and  sorrow.  He  could  be  touched  with  a  sense 
 of  our  infirmities.  He  Avas  tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are.  He 
 is  therefore  a  merciful  and  trustworthy  High  Priest.  The 
 object  for  which  God  sent  his  Son,  clothed  in  this  feeble,  sufi"er- 
 ing  nature  of  ours,  is  expressed  by  xac  Ttepc  Si/iaprca^,  {and  for 
 sin.)  This  may  mean  either  on  account  of  sin,  whether  for  its 
 expiation  or  its  removal,  being  undetermined;  or  it  may  be 
 understood  in  a  sacrificial  sense.  Christ  was  sent  for  the  expia- 
 tion of  sin,  or  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  1.  In  favour  of  this  is  the 
 usus  loquendi,  as  Tzspc  SL/iapzia:;  is  so  often  used  in  this  sense : 
 see  Num.  viii.  8,  Ps.  xl.  7,  (in  the  LXX.  396,)  Lev.  vi.  25,  30, 
 Heb.  X.  6,  8,  18,  xiii.  11.  Thus  also  in  Gal.  i.  4,  Christ  is  said 
 to  have  given  himself  rtspc  d-ptapzcwv  '^jpiou,  for^  i.  e.  as  a  sacri- 
 fice for,  our  sins.  2.  The  analogy  of  Scripture,  as  it  is  so 
 abundantly  taught  in  the  word  of  God,  is  that  Christ  was  sent  to 
 make  expiation  for  sin,  to  wash  away  sin,  to  offer  himself  unto 
 God  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  he 
 was  sent  for  sin,  or  gave  himself  for  our  sins,  the  implication  is 
 almost  unavoidable  that  the  meaning  is,  he  was  sent  as  a  sacri- 
 fice for  sin.  3.  The  immediate  context  demands  this  interpre- 
 tation ;  for  the  effect  ascribed  to  this  sending  Christ  for  sin,  is 
 that  which  is  due  to  a  sacrifice  or  expiation.  What  the  law 
 could  not  do,  was  to  reconcile  us  unto  God.  It  was  in  view  of 
 the  impotency  of  the  law  to  effect  the  salvation  of  sinners,  that 
 God  sent  his  Son  to  make  expiation  for  their  offences,  and  thus 
 bring  them  back  to  himself.  He  thus  condemned  sin  in  the 
 flesh;  that  is,  he  condemned  it  in  the  flesh,  or  nature,  which  his 
 Son  had  assumed.  Christ  took  upon  himself  our  nature,  in 
 order  to  expiate  the  guilt  of  that  nature.  The  expiation  must 
 be  made  in  the  nature  which  had  sinned.  As  Christ,  the 
 apostle  tells  us,  Heb.  ii.  14 — 18,  did  not  undertake  the  redemp- 
 
398  ROMANS  VIII.  3. 
 
 tion  of  angels,  he  did  not  assume  their  nature,  but  took  part  in 
 flesh  and  blood.  That  the  words  xazixpius  tTjU  d-uapziav  {he 
 condemned  sin,)  does  not  mean  that  he  destroyed  sin,  but  that 
 he  punished  it,  visited  it  with  the  penalty  of  the  law,  is  evident. 
 
 1.  Because  /.ard-xfjcva)  never  means  to  destroy,  but  always  means 
 to  condemn.  It  is  perfectly  arbitrary,  therefore,  to  depart 
 from  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  in  this  particular  place. 
 
 2.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  the  condemnation  of  sin.  That 
 is,  he  bore  our  sins.  He  was  made  a  curse,  in  the  sense  that 
 he  endured  the  curse  due  to  sin.  His  sufferings  were  penal,  as 
 they  were  judicially  inflicted  in  satisfaction  of  justice.  The 
 proximate  design  and  effect  of  a  sacrifice  is  expiation,  and  not 
 reformation  or  inward  purification.  Y^hen  therefore  the  apostle 
 speaks,  as  he  here  does,  of  what  God  did  by  sending  his  Son 
 as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  he  must  be  understood  to  speak  of  the 
 sacrificial  effect  of  his  death.  3.  The  context  requires  this 
 interpretation.  The  argument  of  the  apostle  is,  that  there  is 
 no  xardpifxa  [condemnation)  to  us,  because  God  xaripcvs,  [con- 
 demned) sin  in  Christ.  The  other  interpretation  supposes  him 
 to  say,  that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  us,  because  sin  is 
 destroyed  in  us.  That  is,  we  are  justified  on  the  ground  of  our 
 own  inherent  goodness  or  freedom  from  sin.  But  this  is  con- 
 trary to  the  Scriptures,  and  to  the  faith  of  the  Church.  "  Clare 
 aflirmat  Paulus,"  says  Calvin,  "ideo  expiata  fuisse  peccata 
 Christi  morte,  quia  Legi  impossibile  erat,  justitiam  nobis  con- 
 ferre."  The  apostle,  he  adds,  teaches,  "Legem  nihil  prorsus 
 habere  moment!  ad  conferendam  justitiam.  Vides  ergo,  nos 
 penitus  excludi  ab  operum  justitia:  ideoque  ad  Christi  justi- 
 tiam nos  confugere,  quia  in  nobis  nulla  esse  potest.  Quod 
 scitu  in  primis  necessarium  est ;  quia  Christi  justitia  nonquam, 
 vestiemur,  nisi  prius  certo  noverimus,  proprise  justitice  nihil  nos 
 habere."  In  saying,  however,  that  the  proximate  object  and 
 effect  of  a  sacrifice  is  to  expiate  sin,  and  therefore  that  sin  is 
 thereby  condemned  and  not  destroyed,  it  is  not  forgotten  that 
 propitiation  is  the  end  of  expiation;  that  our  sins  are  atoned 
 for  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  in  order  to  our  being  restored  to  his 
 image  and  favour.  Justification  is  not  on  account  of,  or  on  the 
 ground  of  sanctification,  but  it  is  in  order  to  it;  and  therefore 
 the  two  are  inseparable.     The  justified  are  always  sanctified. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  4.  399 
 
 And  therefore,  so  far  as  the  meaning  is  concerned,  there  is  no 
 objection  to  saying,  that  the  condemnation  of  sin  of  which  the 
 apostle  here  speaks,  includes  the  idea  of  its  extirpation  or 
 destruction  as  a  necessary  consequence.  But  it  is  nevertheless 
 important,  not  only  to  a  due  understanding  of  his  argument, 
 but  also  to  the  integrity  of  scriptural  doctrine,  to  remember 
 that  the  condemation  of  sin  in  the  person  of  Christ,  expresses 
 its  expiation  by  his  blood,  and  not  the  destruction  of  its  power 
 in  us.  It  is  Christ  as  the  substitute  of  sinners,  bearing  the 
 curse  for  them,  that  is  here  presented  to  our  view.  This  even 
 Olshausen  admits,  who  says,  "The  conclusion  of  this  verse 
 expresses  in  the  most  decisive  terms  the  vicarious  (stellvertre- 
 tenden)  atoning  death  of  the  Saviour." 
 
 Verse  4.  That  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  he  fulfilled 
 171  us,  &c.  This  verse  expresses  the  design  of  God  in  sending 
 his  Son,  and  in  condemning  sin  in  the  flesh.  He  did  thus  con- 
 demn it,  7ua,  in  order  that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might 
 be  fulfilled.  The  meaning,  therefore,  of  this  passage  is  deter- 
 mined by  the  view  taken  of  ver.  3.  If  that  verse  means,  that 
 God,  by  sending  his  Son,  destroyed  sin  in  us,  then  of  course  this 
 verse  must  mean,  '  He  destroyed  sin,  in  order  that  we  should 
 fulfil  the  law;'  i.  e.  that  we  should  be  holy.  But  if  ver.  Sis 
 understood  of  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ,  and  of  the  con- 
 demnation of  sin  in  him  as  the  substitute  of  sinners,  then  this 
 verse  must  be  understood  of  justification,  and  not  of  sanctifica- 
 tion.  He  condemned  sin,  in  order  that  the  demands  of  the  law 
 might  be  satisfied.  This  is  the  view  of  the  passage  given  even 
 by  the  majority  of  the  early  Fathers,  and  by  almost  all  evan- 
 gelical interpreters,  including  the  Reformers.  "  Qui  intelligunt 
 Spiritu  Christi  renovates  legem  implore,  commentum  a  sensu 
 Pauli  penitus  alienum  afferunt ;  neque  enim  eo  usque  proficiunt 
 fideles,  quamdia  peregrinantur  in  mundo,  ut  justificatio  legis  in 
 iliis  plena  sit,  vel  Integra.  Ergo  hoc  ad  veniam  referre  necesse 
 est;  quia,  dum  nobis  accepta  fertur  Christi  obedientia,  legi 
 satisfactum  est,  ut  pro  justis  censeamur."  That  this  is  the  true 
 meaning  of  the  passage  appears  not  only  from  the  connection 
 and  the  course  of  the  argument,  but  also  from  the  following 
 considerations :  1.  It  is  consistent  with  the  strict  and  natural 
 meaning  of  the  words.     The  word  dcxaiwfxa,  here  used,  means, 
 
400  ROMANS  VIII.  4. 
 
 first,  something  righteous,  and  then,  second,  something  decLired 
 to  be  righteous  and  obligatory,  an  ordinance  or  precept ;  and, 
 third,  a  righteous  decision,  a  just  judgment,  as  when  in  Rom. 
 i.  29,  the  heathen  are  said  to  know  the  dcxaia)p.a,  the  righteous 
 judgment  of  God ;  and,  fourth,  the  act  of  declaring  righteous, 
 justification.  In  this  sense  dcxaiiofta  is  antithetical  to  xazdxpcfia. 
 The  ocxaUofxa  too  po/jlou,  therefore,  may  mean,  the  righteous 
 requirement  of  the  law,  that  which  satisfies  its  demands.  In 
 strict  accordance  therefore  with  the  sense  of  the  words,  we  may 
 explain  the  passage  to  mean,  'that  the  demands  of  the  law 
 might  be  satisfied  in  us.'  That  is,  that  we  might  be  justified. 
 Christ  was  condemned,  that  to  us  there  might  be  no  condemna- 
 tion. He  was  made  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  righteousness, 
 2  Cor.  V.  21.  Or,  if  we  take  dixauojua  in  the  sense  of  (Recht- 
 fertigungsurtheil)  a  declaration  of  righteousness,  an  act  of  justi- 
 fication, the  same  idea  is  expressed :  '  Sin  was  condemned  in 
 Christ,  in  order  that  the  sentence  of  justification  might  be  ful- 
 filled, or  carried  into  efiect  in  us.'  This  is  the  explanation 
 which  Eckermann,  Kollner,  Philippi,  and  other  modern  inter- 
 preters adopt.  2.  The  analogy  of  Scripture.  To  make  this 
 passage  teach  the  doctrine  of  subjective  justification,  that  we 
 are  freed  from  condemnation  or  delivered  from  the  law  by  our 
 inward  sanctification,  is  to  contradict  the  plain  teaching  of  the 
 Bible,  and  the  whole  drift  and  argument  of  this  epistle. 
 3.  The  concluding  clause  of  the  verse,  (who  walk  not  after  the 
 flesh,  &c.)  demands  the  interpretation  given  above.  In  the 
 other  view  of  the  passage,  the  latter  clause  is  altogether  unne- 
 cessary. Why  should  Paul  say,  that  Christ  died  in  order  that 
 they  should  be  holy  who  are  holy,  i.  e.  those  who  walk  not  after 
 the  flesh  ?  On  the  other  hand,  the  second  clause  of  the  verse 
 is  specially  pertinent,  if  the  first  treats  of  justification.  The 
 benefits  of  Christ's  death  are  experienced  only  by  those  who 
 walk  not  after  the  flesh.  The  gospel  is  not  antinomian.  Those 
 only  are  justified  who  are  also  sanctified.  Holiness  is  the  fruit 
 and  evidence  of  reconciliation  with  God.  There  is  no  con- 
 demnation to  those  who  walk  after  the  Spirit ;  and  the  right- 
 eousness of  the  law  is  fulfilled  by  those  who  walk  after  the 
 Spirit.  In  both  cases,  the  latter  clause  is  designed  to  describe 
 the  class  of  persons  who  are  entitled  to  appropriate  to  them- 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  5.  401 
 
 selves  the  promise  of  justification  in  Christ.  4.  Finally,  as 
 intimated  in  the  above  quotation  from  Calvin,  it  is  not  true  that 
 the  righteousness  of  the  law,  in  the  sense  of  complete  obedience, 
 is  fulfilled  in  believers.  The  interpretation  which  makes  the 
 apostle  say,  that  we  are  delivered  from  the  law  by  the  work  of 
 Christ,  in  order  that  the  complete  obedience  which  the  law 
 demands  might  be  rendered  by  us,  supposes  what  all  Scripture 
 and  experience  contradicts.  For  an  exposition  of  the  last 
 clause  of  the  verse,  see  ver.  1. 
 
 Verse  5.  For  they  that  are  after  the  flesh  do  mind  the  things 
 of  the  flesh.  The  immediate  object  of  this  and  the  following 
 verse  is  to  justify  the  necessity  of  limiting  the  blessings  of 
 Christ's  death,  to  those  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after 
 the  Spirit.  The  for,  therefore,  connects  this  verse,  not  with 
 the  main  idea,  but  with  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding.  Men 
 must  be  holy,  because  sin  is  death,  whereas  holiness  is  life  and 
 peace.  The  necessity  of  spirituality,  therefore,  lies  in  the  very 
 nature  of  things. 
 
 They  who  are  after  the  flesh,  those  who  are  in  the  flesh, 
 the  carnal,  are  expressions  of  like  import,  and  describe  those 
 who  are  governed  by  the  flesh,  or  by  their  nature  considered 
 as  corrupt.  The  corresponding  series,  they  who  are  after  the 
 Spirit,  who  are  in  the  Spirit,  the  spiritual,  describe  those  who 
 are  under  the  government  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Of  the  former 
 class  it  is  said  they  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh,  of  the  latter, 
 they  mind  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  The  word  <ppovt1v  is  de- 
 rived from  (ppTTjv,  which  is  used  for  the  seat  of  all  mental  affec- 
 tions and  faculties,  and  therefore  (fpovsu)  has  a  wide  meaning. 
 It  expresses  any  form  of  mental  activity,  any  exercise  of  the 
 intellect,  will,  or  affections.  They  mind,  {(ppovdbaiv,)  therefore, 
 means,  they  make  the  object  of  attention,  desire,  and  pursuit. 
 The  things  of  the  flesh,  are  the  objects  on  which  their  hearts  are 
 set,  and  to  which  their  lives  are  devoted.  Things  of  the  flesh 
 are  not  merely  sensual  things,  but  all  things  which  do  not 
 belong  to  the  category  of  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  Compare 
 Matt.  xvi.  23,  ou  (ppovtlt;  ra  too  deou,  thou  savourest  not  the 
 things  of  Grod.  Phil.  iii.  19,  o[  ra  Iniyeca  (ppovovvtBQ.  Col. 
 iii.  2,  &c.  The  English  word  mind  is  used  with  much  the 
 same  latitude.  The  idea  evidently  is,  that  the  objects  of  atten- 
 26 
 
402  ROMANS  VIII.  6. 
 
 tion,  desire,  and  pursuit,  to  the  carnal,  are  corrupt  and  worldly ; 
 while  to  the  spiritual,  they  are  the  things  which  the  Spirit  pro- 
 poses and  approves. 
 
 Verse  6.  For  to  he  carnally  minded  is  death.  The  ydp 
 here  is  by  many  taken  as  a  mere  particle  of  transition,  equiva- 
 lent to  hut.  'But  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death.'  The  utter 
 incompatibility  between  the  indulgence  of  sin  and  a  state  of 
 salvation  is  thus  clearly  expressed.  It  is  impossible  that  justi- 
 fication should  be  disconnected  with  sanctification,  because  a 
 sinful  and  carnal  state  of  mind  is  death.  It  is  better,  however, 
 to  take  ydp  in  its  usual  sense  of  for.  The  connection  may  then 
 be  with  ver.  4,  so  that  verses  5  and  6  are  coordinate,  ver.  6 
 presenting  an  additional  reason  why  believers  do  not  walk  after 
 the  flesh.  They  do  not  thus  walk,  for  to  do  so  is  death.  Or, 
 the  connection  is  with  ver.  5.  Justification  is  limited  to  the 
 holy,  for  to  live  after  the  flesh  is  death.  The  phrase  (ppovi^fia 
 Tr^ci  aapx6<;  is  substantially  of  the  same  import  with  (ppovtlv  r« 
 ri^c  (Tapxo^,  the  minding  the  things  of  the  flesh.  It  is  thus 
 active  in  its  signification.  It  is,  however,  more  in  accordance 
 with  the  proper  signification  of  the  word  to  understand  it  as 
 expressing  a  state  of  the  mind.  This  is  implied  in  the  English 
 version,  to  he  carnally  minded.  The  idea  is  not  merely  that 
 the  actual  seeking  the  things  of  the  flesh  leads  to  death ;  but 
 that  a  carnal  state  of  mind,  which  reveals  itself  in  the  desire 
 and  pursuit  of  carnal  objects,  is  death.  And  by  death  is  of 
 course  meant  spiritual  death,  the  absence  and  the  opposite  of 
 spiritual  life.  It  includes  alienation  from  God,  unholiness, 
 and  misery.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ippbvqpa  zou  Ttpsopazo^  is 
 that  state  of  mind  which  is  produced  by  the  Spirit,  and  which 
 reveals  itself  in  the  desire  and  pursuit  of  the  things  of  the 
 Spirit.  This  state  of  mind  is  life  and  peace.  Therein  consists 
 the  true  life  and  blessedness  of  the  soul.  This  being  the  case, 
 there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  salvation  in  sin ;  no  possibility 
 of  justification  without  sanctification.  If  partakers  of  the 
 benefits  of  Christ's  death,  we  are  partakers  of  his  life.  If  we 
 died  with  him,  we  live  with  him.  This  is  pertinent  to  the 
 apostle's  main  object  in  this  chapter,  which  is  to  show  that 
 believers  never  can  be  condemned.  They  are  not  only  de- 
 livered from  the  law,  and  justified  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  but 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  7.  403 
 
 they  are  partakers  of  his  life.     They  have  the  fpoDfjfia  too 
 TTi^eu/uaro^,  which  is  life  and  peace. 
 
 Vekse  7.  Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  Grod. 
 This  is  the  reason  why  the  <pp6ur^/jta  zy^i;  aapxbz  is  death.  It  is 
 in  its  nature  opposed  to  God,  who  is  the  life  of  the  soul.  His 
 favour  is  life,  and  therefore  opposition  to  him  is  death.  The 
 carnal  mind  is  enmity  to  God, /or  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law 
 of  God.  The  law  of  God,  however,  is  the  revelation  of  his 
 nature,  and  therefore  opposition  to  the  law,  is  opposition  to 
 God.  This  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  carnal  mind  is  not 
 casual,  occasional,  or  in  virtue  of  a  mere  purpose.  It  arises  out 
 of  its  very  nature.  It  is  not  only  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God, 
 but  it  cannot  he.  It  has  no  ability  to  change  itself.  Otherwise 
 it  would  not  be  death.  It  is  precisely  because  of  this  utter 
 impotency  of  the  carnal  mind,  or  unrenewed  heart,  to  change 
 its  own  nature,  that  it  involves  the  hopelessness  which  the  word 
 death  implies.  Compare  1  Cor.  ii.  14,  where  the  same  truth  is 
 asserted:  "The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
 Spirit  of  God — neither  can  he  know  them."  ^'■Nec  enim  i^otest. 
 En,"  says  Calvin,  "liberi  arbitrii  facultas,  quam  satis  evehere 
 sophistse  nequeunt.  Certe  Paulus  disertis  verbis  hie  affirmat 
 quod  ipsi  pleno  ore  detestantur,  nobis  esse  irapossibile  subjicere 
 legis  obedientiae.  .  .  .  Procul  igitur  sit  a  Christiano  pectore  ilia  de 
 arbitrii  libertate  gentilis  philosophia.  Scrvum  peccati  se  quis- 
 que,  ut  re  vera  est,  agnoscat,  quo  per  Christi  gratiam  manu 
 missus  liberetur;  alia  libertate  prosus  stultum  est  gloriari." 
 To  the  same  effect  the  modern  German  commentators,  whether 
 mystic,  rationalistic,  or  evangelical.  "No  man,"  says  Olshau- 
 sen,  " can  free  himself  from  himself :"  "Von  sich  selbst  kann 
 sich  keiner  selbst  losmachen,  es  muss  eine  hohere  Liebe  kom- 
 men,  die  ihn  meha  anzieht,  als  sein  Ich."  "The  will  itself  is 
 fallen  away  from  God,"  says  Baumgarten-Crusius.  And  the 
 evangelical  Philippi  says:  "This  verse  is  a  strong  argument 
 against  the  doctrine  of  the  so-called  liherum  arhitrium  of  the 
 natural  man.  For  this  carnal  state  of  mind,  which  cannot  sub- 
 ject itself  to  the  will  of  God,  is  not  produced  by  any  act  of 
 man's  will,  nor  can  it  be  removed  by  any  such  act ;  it  consti- 
 tutes, according  to  the  apostle's  doctrine,  the  original  nature 
 of  man  in  its  present  or  fallen  state." 
 
404  ROMANS  VIII.  8,  9. 
 
 Verse  8.  The  necessary  consequence  of  this  opposition  of  a 
 mind  governed  by  the  flesh,  towards  God,  is  that  those  who  are 
 in  this  state  are  the  objects  of  tlie  divine  displeasure.  So  then 
 they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  To  be  in  the 
 flesh,  as  before  remarked,  is  to  be  under  the  government  of 
 the  flesh,  or  corrupt  nature,  to  be  destitute  of  the  grace  of  God. 
 It  is  an  expression  applied  to  all  unrenewed  persona,  as  those 
 who  are  not  in  the  flesh  are  in  the  Spirit. 
 
 Cannot  please  God.  "Apitrxsiu  rm  generally  means  to  be 
 pleasing,  or  acceptable  to  any  one ;  Matt.  xiv.  6,  1  Cor.  vii.  32, 
 Gal.  i.  10,  1  Thess.  ii.  15.  Not  to  be  pleasing  to  God,  is  to  be 
 the  objects  of  his  displeasure.  Enmity  towards  God  {i-^&pa  ££C 
 6t6v)  has  as  its  necessary  consequence,  subjection  to  the  enmity 
 of  God,  [iy^d-pa  diou.)  The  apostle's  immediate  purpose  is  to 
 show,  that  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death.  It  must  be  so,  for 
 it  is  enmity  towards  God.  But  those  who  hate  God  are  the 
 objects  of  his  displeasure;  and  to  be  the  objects  of  the  wrath 
 of  God,  is  perdition.  Surely,  then,  to  be  carnally  minded  is 
 death.  In  vs.  9 — 11,  the  apostle  applies  to  his  readers  what 
 he  had  just  said,  and  shows  how  it  is  that  {(ppovrjfxa  tdb 
 TzvEOfxavo!;,)  to  be  spiritually  minded,  is  life  and  peace. 
 
 Verse  9.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh,  hut  in  the  Spirit, 
 i.  e.  ye  are  not  carnal,  but  spiritual.  The  Spirit,  so  to  speak, 
 is  the  element  in  which  you  live.  Such  the  Roman  Christians 
 were  by  profession  and  by  repute,  for  their  faith  was  spoken 
 of  throughout  the  world.  Their  real  character,  however,  was 
 not  determined  either  by  their  professions  or  their  reputation. 
 The  apostle  therefore  adds,  if  so  he  the  Spirit  of  God  divell  in 
 you.  This  is  the  only  decisive  test.  Every  other  bond  of  union 
 with  Christ  is  of  no  avail  without  this.  We  may  be  members 
 of  his  Church,  and  united  to  him  by  being  included  in  the 
 number  of  his  people,  yet  unless  we  are  partakers  of  that  vital 
 union  which  arises  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we 
 are  his  only  in  name.  Our  version  gives  eiTrep  {if  so  he)  its 
 ordinary  and  proper  sense.  '•^Einzp,'"  says  Hermann  ad  Viger, 
 §  310,  "usurpatur  de  re,  quae  esse  sumitur,  sed  in  incerto  relin- 
 quitur,  utrum  jure  an  injuria  sumatur;  tiys  autem  de  re,  quae 
 jure  sumta  creditur."  Sometimes,  however,  eintp  has  the  same 
 force  as  dy&  {since);  as,  2  Thess.  i.  6,  '■^seeing  it  is  a  righteous 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  10.  405 
 
 thing  with  God."  The  ordinary  sense  of  the  particle,  however, 
 is  better  suited  to  this  passage.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  every- 
 where; yet  he  is  said  to  dwell  wherever  he  specially  and  per- 
 manently manifests  his  presence.  Thus  he  is  said  to  dwell  in 
 heaven:  he  dwelt  of  old  in  the  temple;  he  now  dwells  in  the 
 Church,  which  is  a  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit,  Eph. 
 ii.  22 ;  and  he  dwells  in  each  individual  believer  whose  body  is 
 a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  1  Cor.  vi.  19.  Compare  John  xiv.  19, 
 1  Cor.  iii.  16,  2  Cor.  vi.  16,  2  Tim.  i.  16,  &c.  Now  if  any  man 
 have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  It  is  obvious  that  the  Spirit  of 
 Christ  is  identical  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  one  expression 
 is  interchanged  with  the  other :  '  If  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in 
 you,  you  are  true  Christians ;  for  if  the  Spirit  of  Christ  be  not 
 in  you,  you  are  none  of  his.'  This  is  the  reasoning  of  the 
 apostle.  "  Spirit  of  Christ,"  therefore,  can  no  more  mean  the 
 temper  or  disposition  of  Christ,  than  "Spirit  of  God"  can  mean 
 the  disposition  of  God.  Both  expressions  designate  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  the  third  person  in  the  adorable  Trinity.  The  Holy 
 Spirit  is  elsewhere  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  Gal.  iv.  16,  Phil, 
 i.  19,  1  Pet.  i.  11.  Whatever  the  genitive  expresses  in  the  one 
 case,  it  does  in  the  other.  He  is  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  the 
 same  sense  in  which  he  is  the  Spirit  of  God.  In  other  words, 
 the  Spirit  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  second,  that  he 
 does  to  the  first  person  of  the  Trinity.  This  was  one  of  the 
 points  of  controversy  between  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches ; 
 the  latter  insisting  on  inserting  in  that  clause  of  the  Creed 
 which  speaks  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  words 
 "filioque,"  (and  from  the  Son.)  For  this  the  gratitude  of  all 
 Christians  is  due  to  the  Latin  Church,  as  it  vindicates  the  full 
 equality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father.  No  clearer  assertion,  and 
 no  higher  exhibition  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Son  can  be  con- 
 ceived, than  that  which  presents  him  as  the  source  and  the 
 possessor  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Spirit  proceeds  from,  and 
 belongs  to  him,  and  by  him  is  given  to  whomsoever  he  wills. 
 John  i.  33,  xv.  26,  xvi.  7,  Luke  xxiv.  29,  &c. 
 
 Verse  10.  And  if,  or  rather,  hut  if  (s:  di)  Christ  he  in  you. 
 '  If  a  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his ;  hut 
 if  Christ  be  in  him,  he  is  partaker  of  his  life.'  From  this  inter- 
 change of  expression  it  is  plain  that  to  say  that  the  Spirit  of 
 
406  ROMANS  VIII.  10. 
 
 Christ  dwells  in  us,  and  to  say  that  Christ  dwells  in  us,  is  the 
 same  thing.  And  as  the  former  phrase  is  interchanged  with 
 Spirit  of  God,  and  that  again  elsewhere  with  God,  it  follows, 
 that  to  say,  God  dwells  in  us,  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  us, 
 Christ  dwells  in  us,  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ  dwells  in  us,  are 
 only  different  ways  of  expressing  the  same  thing.  "  Qui  Spi- 
 ritum  habet,  Christum  habet;  qui  Christum  habet,  Dcum 
 habet."  Bengel.  This  scriptural  usage  finds  its  explanation  in 
 the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  While  there  is  one  only,  the  living 
 and  true  God;  yet  as  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
 and  as  these  three  are  the  same  in  substance,  it  follows,  that 
 where  the  Father  is,  there  the  Son  is,  and  where  the  Son  is, 
 there  is  the  Spirit.  Hence  our  Lord  says,  "If  any  man  love 
 me,  he  will  keep  my  words,  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and 
 we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  John 
 xiv.  23.  And  the  apostle  John  says,  "  Whosoever  shall  confess 
 that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in 
 God."  1  John  iii.  15.  "I  and  my  Father,"  says  Christ,  "are 
 one."  He  therefore  who  hath  the  Son,  hath  the  Father  also. 
 There  is  another  familiar  scriptural  usage  illustrated  in  this 
 verse.  Christ  is  properly  an  official  designation  of  the  Thean- 
 thropos,  as  the  anointed  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  of  his 
 people.  It  is  however  used  as  a  personal  designation,  and  is 
 applied  to  our  Lord,  as  well  in  reference  to  his  human  as  to  his 
 divine  nature.  Hence  the  Bible  says  indifferently,  Christ  died, 
 and  that  he  created  all  things.  In  this  and  other  passages, 
 therefore,  when  Christ  is  said  to  dwell  in  us,  it  is  not  Christ  as 
 man,  nor  Christ  as  the  Theanthropos,  but  Christ  as  God. 
 Compare  2  Cor.  xiii.  5,  "  Know  ye  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  in 
 you."  His  indwelling  in  his  people  is  as  much  a  function  of 
 his  divine  nature,  as  his  creating  and  upholding  all  things  by 
 the  word  of  his  power. 
 
 And  if  Christ  (be)  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin,  &c. 
 As  this  verse  is  antithetical  to  the  preceding,  oi  should  be  ren- 
 dered but:  'If  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is 
 none  of  his ;  but  if  Christ  be  in  you,  although  the  body  must 
 die  on  account  of  sin,  the  spirit  shall  live  because  of  righteous- 
 ness.' The  Spirit  is  the  source  of  life,  and  wherever  he  dwells, 
 there  is  life. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  10.  407 
 
 The  body  indeed  is  dead,  to  fj.ev  acofia  vtxpbv.     That  aiofj.a 
 here  is  to  be  taken  in  its  literal  sense  is  plain,  because  such  is 
 the  proper  meaning  of  the  word.     It  is  rarelj,  if  at  all,  used  in 
 the  figurative  sense  in  which  adp^  {flesh)  so  often  occurs.     This 
 interpretation  also  is  required  by  the  antithesis  between  body 
 and  spirit,  in  this  verse.     The  context  also  demands  this  view 
 of  the  passage,  both  because  of  the  reference  to  the  resurrec- 
 tion of  Christ,  which  was  of  course  literal,  and  because  in  the 
 next  verse  we  have  the  phrase  "mortal  bodies,"  which  does  not 
 admit  of  a  figurative  interpretation.     The  sense  also  afforded 
 by  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  is  so  natural,  and  so  suited 
 to  the  context,  as  to  preclude  the  necessity  of  seeking  for  any 
 other.     In   this   view  the    majority   of   commentators    concur. 
 Others,  however,  understand  by  acofxa,  the  corrupt  nature,  or 
 the  whole  nature  of  man,  his  soul  and  body,  as  distinguished 
 from  the  Spirit  as  the  principle  of  divine  life.    The  Avord  vsxpbv 
 is  made  to  mean  vzvzxpio[xivov,  put  to  death,  mortified;  and  ol 
 &.(xaf)Tia.v,  on  account  of  sin,  is  made  equivalent  to  rrj  Ajmafma, 
 as  to  sin.     This   evidently   does  unnecessary  violence   to  the 
 literal  meaning  of  the  words.     The  body  is  dead  in  the  sense 
 that  it  is  not  only  obnoxious  to  death,  but  as  it  is  already  the 
 seat  of  death.     It  includes  in  it  the  principle  of  decay.     This 
 necessity  of  dying  is  on  account  of  sin.     It  is  not  inconsistent 
 with  the  perfection  of  the  redemption  of  Christ,  that  its  benefits 
 are  not  received  in  their  fulness  the  moment  we  believe.     We 
 remain  subject  to  the  pains,  the  sorrows,  the  trials  of  life,  and 
 the  necessity  of  dying,  although  partakers  of  the  life  of  which 
 he  is  the  author.     That  life  which  is  imparted  in  regeneration, 
 is  gradually  developed  until  it  has  its  full  consummation  at  the 
 resurrection. 
 
 The  spirit  is  life  because  of  rigJiteousness.  By  spirit  here, 
 is  not  to  be  understood  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the  human  spirit, 
 because  it  stands  opposed  to  body  in  the  former  clause.  The 
 body  is  dead,  but  the  spirit  is  life.  It  should  not  therefore  be 
 printed  with  a  capital  S,  as  in  the  ordinary  copies  of  the  Eng- 
 lish version.  The  sense  in  which  the  spirit  is  life,  is  antithetical 
 to  that  in  which  the  body  is  dead.  As  the  body  is  infected  with 
 a  principle  of  decay  which  renders  its  dissolution  inevitable,  so 
 the  soul,  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells,  is  possessed  of  a 
 
408  ROMANS  VIII.  11. 
 
 principle  of  life  which  secures  its  immortal  and  blessed  exist- 
 ence. Because  of  righteousness;  duacoaovrj,  as  opposed  to 
 d-iiapt'ca,  must  be  taken  in  its  subjective  sense.  It  is  inward 
 righteousness  or  holiness,  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  and 
 not  our  justifying  righteousness.  It  is  because  the  Holy  Ghost, 
 as  dwelling  in  believers,  is  the  source  of  holiness,  that  he  is  the 
 source  of  life.  The  life  of  which  he  is  the  author,  is  the  life 
 of  God  in  the  soul,  and  is  at  once  the  necessary  condition  and 
 "the  effect  of  the  enjoyment  of  his  fellowship  and  favour.  We 
 shall  continue  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  life  just  spoken  of, 
 because  the  principles  of  this  new  and  immortal  existence  are 
 implanted  within  us.  Regeneration  is  the  commencement  of 
 eternal  life.  The  present  possession  of  the  Spirit  is  an  earnest 
 of  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ,  Eph.  i.  14.  In  this  view 
 the  verse  is  directly  connected  with  the  main  object  of  the 
 chapter,  viz.  the  security  of  all  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus.  To 
 such  there  is  no  condemnation,  because  they  have  been  freed 
 from  the  law  which  condemned  them  to  death ;  and  because  the 
 work  of  salvation  is  already  begun  in  them.  They  have  eternal 
 life,  John  vi.  47. 
 
 Verse  11.  But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from 
 the  dead  dioell  in  you.  Such  periphrases  for  Grod  as  that  which 
 this  verse  contains,  are  very  common  with  the  apostle,  (see 
 Rom.  iv.  24,  &c.,)  and  are  peculiarly  appropriate  when  the  force 
 of  the  argument  in  some  measure  rests  on  the  fact  to  which  the 
 descriptive  phrase  refers.  Because  God  had  raised  up  Christ, 
 there  was  ground  of  confidence  that  he  would  raise  his  people 
 up  also.  Two  ideas  may  be  included  in  this  part  of  the  verse : 
 first,  that  the  very  possession  of  that  Spirit,  which  is  the  source 
 of  life,  is  a  pledge  and  security  that  our  bodies  shall  rise  again ; 
 because  it  would  be  unseemly  that  anything  thus  honoured  by 
 the  Spirit,  should  remain  under  the  dominion  of  death;  and, 
 secondly,  that  the  resurrection  of  Christ  secures  the  resurrec- 
 tion of  those  that  are  his,  according  to  Paul's  doctrine  in 
 1  Cor.  XV.  23.  The  argument  of  the  apostle  is,  that  the  same 
 Spirit  which  was  in  Christ,  and  raised  him  from  the  dead, 
 dwells  in  us,  even  in  our  bodies,  (1  Cor.  vi.  19,)  and  will 
 assuredly  raise  us  up. 
 
 He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  11.  409 
 
 your  mortal  bodies.  This  clause  cannot,  with  any  regard  to 
 usao-e  or  the  context,  be  understood  of  a  moral  resurrection,  or 
 deliverance  from  sin,  as  it  is  explained  by  Calvin  and  many 
 others.  See  the  analogous  passage,  2  Cor.  iv.  14.  The  apostle 
 designs  to  show  that  the  life  which  we  derive  from  Christ,  shall 
 ultimately  effect  a  complete  triumph  over  death.  It  is  true  that 
 our  present  bodies  must  die,  but  they  are  not  to  continue  under 
 the  power  of  death.  The  same  Spirit  which  raised  Christ's 
 body  from  the  grave,  shall  also  quicken  our  mortal  bodies. 
 The  word  is  not  iyeipel,  but  ^coozocrjase,  which  imports  more 
 than  a  mere  restoration  of  life.  It  is  used  only  of  believers.  It 
 expresses  the  idea  of  the  communication  of  that  life  of  which 
 Christ  is  the  author  and  the  source.  And  this  life,  so  far  as 
 the  body  is  concerned,  secures  its  conformity  to  the  glorious 
 body  of  the  risen  Son  of  God. 
 
 Bi/  Ms  Spirit  that  divelleth  in  you,  or,  as  it  must  be  rendered 
 according  to  another  reading,  "  On  account  of  his  Spirit  that 
 dwclleth  in  you.''  For  the  reading  dca  to  ivocxouv  ahxdb  Tivtufxa, 
 Wetstein  quotes  the  MSS.  D.  E.  F.  G.  and  many  of  the  more 
 modern  MSS.,  together  with  the  Syriac  and  Latin  versions, 
 and  several  of  the  Fathers.  This  reading  is  adopted  by  Eras- 
 mus, Stephens,  Mill,  Bengel,  Griesbach,  and  Knapp.  For  the 
 reading  fita  vou  iuoexouuvo^,  x.r.L,  ure  quoted  the  MSS.  A.  10. 
 22.  34.  38.  39.,  the  editions  of  Colin^us,  Beza,  the  Compluten- 
 sian,  and  many  of  the  Fathers.  Lachmann  and  Tischendorf 
 retain  the  common  text.  This  passage  is  of  interest,  as  the 
 reading  kvocxoovTo^  was  strenuously  insisted  on  in  the  Macedo- 
 nian controversy  respecting  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 The  orthodox  Fathers  contended,  that  as  the  genitive  was 
 found  in  the  most  ancient  copies  of  the  Scriptures  then  extant, 
 it  should  be  retained.  If  the  dead  are  raised  by  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  then  the  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  same  essence  with  the 
 Father  and  the  Son,  to  whom,  elsewhere,  the  resurrection  of 
 the  dead  is  referred.  This  argument  is  valid,  and,  other  things 
 being  equal,  is  a  good  reason  for  retaining  the  common  text. 
 The  sense,  however,  is  in  either  case  substantially  the  same. 
 According  to  the  former,  the  meaning  is,  that  the  resurrection 
 of  believers  will  be  effected  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God; 
 
410  ROMANS  VIII.  11. 
 
 and  according  to  the  latter,  that  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  li 
 the  ground  or  reason  why  the  bodies  of  believers  should  not 
 be  left  in  the  grave.  The  internal  evidence  is  decidedly  in 
 favour  of  the  former  reading :  1.  Because  Paul  uses  precisely 
 these  words  elsewhere,  "By  the  Holy  Spirit,"  &c.,  1  Tim. 
 i.  14,  &c.  2.  Because  throughout  the  Scriptures  in  the  Old 
 and  New  Testaments,  what  God  does  in  nature  or  grace,  he  is 
 said  to  do  by  his  Spirit.  Passages  are  too  numerous  and  too 
 familiar  to  be  cited.  3.  Because  the  Jews  seem  to  have 
 referred  the  resurrection  of  the  body  specially  to  the  Holy 
 Ghost.*  As  the  external  authorities  are  nearly  equally  divided, 
 the  case  must  be  considered  doubtful.  If  the  latter  reading  be 
 adj3pted,  this  clause  would  then  answer  to  the  phrase,  on  account 
 of  righteousness,  in  the  preceding  verse.  '  On  account  of  the 
 indwelling  of  the  Spirit,'  expressing  the  same  general  idea 
 under  another  farm.  Our  souls  shall  live  in  happiness  and 
 glory,  because  they  are  renewed;  and  our  bodies  too  shall  be 
 raised  up  in  glory,  because  they  are  the  temples  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost.  In  the  widest  sense  then  it  is  true,  that  to  be  in  the 
 Spirit,  is  to  be  secure  of  life  and  peace. 
 
 It  will  be  remarked,  that  in  this  verse,  and  elsewhere,  God 
 is  said  to  have  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  whereas,  in 
 John  X.  17,  18,  the  Saviour  claims  for  himself  the  power  of 
 resuming  his  life.  So  here  (according  to  the  common  reading) 
 we  are  said  to  be  raised  up  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  in  John  vi.  40, 
 Christ  says  of  the  believer,  "/  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
 day;"  and  in  2  Cor.  iv.  14,  and  in  many  other  places,  the 
 resurrection  of  believers  is  ascribed  to  God.  These  passages 
 belong  to  that  numerous  class  of  texts,  in  which  the  same 
 work  is  attributed  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
 Spirit,  and  which,  in  connection  with  other  sources  of  proof, 
 show  conclusively  that  "these  three  are  one;"  and  that  the 
 persons  of  the  Adorable  Trinity  concur  in  all  works  ad 
 extra. 
 
 *  Wetstein  quotes  such  passages  as  the  following,  from  the  Jewish  writers : 
 "Tempore  futuro  Spiritus  meus  vivificabit  vos."  "Spiritus  Sanctus  est 
 causa  resurrectionis  mortuorum,"  &c. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  1—11.  411 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  As  the  former  part  of  this  chapter  is  an  inference  from 
 the  previous  discussion,  and  presents  a  summary  of  the  great 
 truths  already  taught,  we  find  here  united  the  leading  doctrines 
 of  the  first  portion  of  the  epistle.  For  example,  justification  is 
 by  faith,  ver.  1;  believers  are  not  under  the  law,  ver.  2;  the 
 law  is  insufficient  for  our  justification;  God  has  accomplished 
 that  object  by  the  sacrifice  of  his  Son,  vs.  3,  4;  and  this  bless- 
 ing is  never  disconnected  with  a  holy  life,  ver.  4. 
 
 2.  The  final  salvation  of  those  who  are  really  united  to 
 Christ,  and  who  shoAV  the  reality  of  their  union  by  good  works, 
 is  secure.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  chapter.  This 
 section  contains  two  of  the  apostle's  arguments  in  its  support. 
 1.  They  are  free  from  the  law  which  condemned  them  to  death, 
 vs.  2 — 4".  2.  They  are  partakers  of  that  Spirit  Avhich  is  the 
 author  and  earnest  of  eternal  life,  vs.  5 — 11. 
 
 3.  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  divine.  He  is  "  God's  own  Son," 
 i.  e.  partaker  of  his  nature.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  his  Spirit,  and 
 he  dwells  in  all  believers,  vs.  3,  11. 
 
 4.  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  a  man.  He  came  in  the  likeness  of 
 men,  ver.  3. 
 
 5.  Christ  was  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  his  sufiierinss  were 
 penal,  i.  e.  they  were  judicially  inflicted  in  support  of  the  law. 
 'God  punished  sin  in  him,'  ver.  3. 
 
 6.  The  justification  of  believers  involves  a  fulfilling  of  the 
 law;  its  demands  are  not  set  aside,  ver.  4. 
 
 7.  Everything  in  the  Bible  is  opposed  to  antinomianism. 
 Paul  teaches  that  justification  and  sanctification  cannot  be  dis- 
 joined. No  one  is,  or  can  be  in  the  favour  of  God,  who  lives 
 after  the  flesh,  vs.  5 — 11. 
 
 8.  The  necessity  of  holiness  arises  out  of  the  very  nature  of 
 things.  Sin  is  death,  whereas  holiness  is  life  and  peace.  God 
 has  made  the  connection  between  sin  and  misery,  holiness  and 
 happiness,  necessary  and  immutable,  ver.  6.  The  fact  that 
 holy  men  suffer,  and  that  even  the  perfect  Saviour  was  a  man 
 of  sorrows,  is  not  inconsistent  with  this  doctrine.  Such  suffer- 
 ings never  proceed  from  holiness.  On  the  contrary,  the  Divine 
 Spirit  was,  and  is  a  wellspring  within  of  joy  and  peace,  to  all 
 
412  ROMANS  VIII.  1—11. 
 
 who  are  sanctified.  In  itself  considered,  therefore,  moral 
 purity  is  essentially  connected  with  happiness,  as  cause  and 
 effect. 
 
 9.  All  unrenewed  men,  that  is,  all  "  who  are  in  the  flesh," 
 are  at  once  the  enemies  of  God,  and  the  objects  of  his  dis- 
 pleasure. Their  habitual  and  characteristic  state  of  mind,  that 
 state  which  every  man  has  who  is  not  "in  the  Spirit,"  is 
 enmity  to  God,  and  consequently  is  the  object  of  his  disappro- 
 bation, vs.  6,  8. 
 
 10.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  the  source  of  all  good  in  man.  Those 
 who  are  destitute  of  his  influences,  are  not  subject  to  the  law 
 of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be  ;  for  no  man  can  call  Jesus  Lord, 
 that  is,  can  really  recognise  his  authority,  but  by  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  vs.  5 — 8. 
 
 11.  Death,  and  the  other  evils  to  which  believers  are 
 exposed,  are  on  account  of  sin,  ver.  10.  They  are  no  longer, 
 however,  the  evidences  of  God's  displeasure,  but  of  his  parental 
 love,  Heb.  xii.  6. 
 
 12.  The  redemption  of  Christ  extends  to  the  bodies  as  well 
 as  the  souls  of  his  people,  ver.  11. 
 
 KEMARKS. 
 
 1.  There  can  be  no  safety,  no  holiness,  and  no  happiness  to 
 those  who  are  out  of  Christ.  No  safety,  because  all  such  are 
 under  the  condemnation  of  the  law,  vs.  1 — 3 ;  no  holiness, 
 because  only  such  as  are  united  to  Christ  have  the  Spirit  of 
 Christ,  ver.  9;  and  no  happiness,  because  "to  be  carnally 
 minded  is  death,"  ver.  6.  Hence  those  who  are  in  Christ, 
 should  be  very  humble,  seeing  they  are  nothing,  and  he  is 
 everything ;  very  grateful,  and  very  holy.  And  those  who  are 
 out  of  Christ,  should  at  once  go  to  him,  that  they  may  attain 
 safety,  holiness,  and  happiness. 
 
 2.  The  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  his  people  free,  is 
 a  liberty  from  the  law  and  from  sin,  vs.  2,  5.  A  legal  spirit, 
 and  an  unholy  life,  are  alike  inconsistent  with  the  Christian 
 character. 
 
 3.  Believers  should  be  joyful  and  confident,  for  the  law  is 
 fulfilled ;  its  demands  are  satisfied  as  respects  them.  Who  then 
 can  condemn,  if  God  has  justified  ?  ver.  4. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  12—28.  413 
 
 4.  There  can  be  no  rational  or  scriptural  hope  without  holi- 
 ness, and  every  tendency  to  separate  the  evidence  of  the  divine 
 favour  from  the  evidence  of  true  piety,  is  anti-Christian  and 
 destructive,  vs.  4 — 8. 
 
 5.  The  bent  of  the  thoughts,  affections,  and  pursuits,  is  the 
 only  decisive  test  of  character.  "  They  who  are  after  the  flesh 
 do  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh,"  &c.,  ver.  5. 
 
 6.  It  is  therefore  a  sure  mark  of  hypocrisy,  if  a  man  who  pro- 
 fesses to  be  a  Christian,  still  minds  earthly  things,  that  is,  has  his 
 affections  and  efforts  supremely  directed  towards  worldly  objects. 
 
 7.  We  may  as  well  attempt  to  wring  pleasure  out  of  pain, 
 as  to  unite  the  indulgence  of  sin  with  the  enjoyment  of  happi- 
 ness, vs.  6,  7. 
 
 8.  How  blinded  must  those  be,  who,  although  at  enmity  with 
 God,  and  the  objects  of  his  displeasure,  are  sensible  neither  of 
 their  guilt  nor  danger !  vs.  7,  8. 
 
 9.  The  great  distinction  of  a  true  Christian,  is  the  indwell- 
 ing of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  his  dignity,  holiness,  and  hap- 
 piness, vs.  9 — 11. 
 
 10.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  dwells  in  the  Christian,  how  careful 
 should  he  be,  lest  anything  in  his  thoughts  or  feelings  would  be 
 offensive  to  this  divine  guest ! 
 
 11.  Christians  are  bound  to  reverence  their  bodies,  and  pre- 
 serve them  from  all  defilement,  because  they  are  the  members 
 of  Christ,  and  the  temples  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  ver.  11. 
 
 ROMANS  VIII.  12—28. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 This  section*  contains  two  additional  arguments  in  support 
 of  the  great  theme  of  the  chapter — the  safety  of  all  who  are  in 
 
 *  It  was  remarked  above,  that  the  division  of  this  chapter  into  sections  is 
 merely  arbitrary.  For,  although  there  are  several  very  distinct  topics  intro- 
 duced, yet  the  whole  is  intimately  interwoven  and  made  to  bear  on  one  point. 
 In  passing,  too,  from  one  argument  to  another,  the  apostle  does  it  so  naturally, 
 that  there  is  no  abruptness  of  transition.  The  connection,  therefore,  between 
 the  last  verse  of  the  preceding  section  and  the  first  verse  of  this,  and  between 
 the  last  of  this  and  the  first  of  the  following,  is  exceedingly  intimate.  It  is 
 only  for  the  sake  of  convenient  resting  places  for  review,  that  the  division 
 is  made. 
 
414  ROMANS  VIII.  12—28. 
 
 Christ.  The  first  is  derived  from  their  adoption,  vs.  12 — 17, 
 and  the  second  from  the  fact  that  they  are  sustained  by  hope, 
 and  aided  by  the  Spirit,  under  all  their  trials ;  so  that  every- 
 thing eventually  works  together  for  their  good,  vs.  18 — 28. 
 
 Paul  had  just  shown  that  believers  were  distinguished  by  the 
 indwelling  of  the  Spirit.  Hence  he  infers  the  obligation  to  live 
 according  to  the  Spirit,  and  to  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body, 
 ver.  12.  If  they  did  this,  they  should  live,  ver.  13.  Not  only 
 because,  as  previously  argued,  the  Spirit  is  the  source  of  life, 
 but  also  because  all  who  are  led  by  the  Spirit  are  the  children 
 of  God.  This  is  a  new  ground  of  security,  ver.  14.  The  reality 
 of  their  adoption  is  proved,  first,  by  their  own  filial  feelings; 
 as  God's  relation  and  feelings  towards  us  are  always  the  coun- 
 terpart of  ours  towards  him,  ver.  15.  Secondly,  by  the  testi- 
 mony of  the  Spirit  itself  with  our  spirits,  ver.  16.  If  children, 
 the  inference  is  plain  that  believers  shall  be  saved,  for  they  are 
 heirs.  Salvation  follows  adoption,  as,  among  men,  heirship  does 
 sonship.     They  are  joint  heirs  with  Jesus  Christ,  ver.  17. 
 
 It  is  nowise  inconsistent  with  their  filial  relation  to  God,  nor 
 with  their  safety,  that  believers  are  allowed  to  suffer  in  this 
 world:  1.  Because  these  sufi'erings  are  comparatively  insignifi- 
 cant, vs.  18 — 23.  2.  Because  they  are  sustained  by  hope. 
 3.  Because  the  Spirit  itself  intercedes  for  them.  In  amplifying 
 the  first  of  these  considerations,  the  comparative  insignificancy 
 of  the  sufi'erings  of  this  present  state,  the  apostle  presents  in 
 contrast  the  unspeakable  blessedness  and  glory  which  are  in 
 reserve  for  believers,  ver.  18.  To  elevate  our  conceptions  of 
 this  glory,  he  represents :  1.  The  whole  creation  as  looking  and 
 longing  for  its  full  manifestation,  ver.  19,  &c.  2.  All  those  who 
 have  now  a  foretaste  of  this  blessedness,  or  the  first  fruits  of 
 the  Spirit,  as  joining  in  this  sense  of  present  wretchedness,  and 
 earnest  desire  of  the  future  good,  ver.  23. 
 
 These  afiiictions,  then,  are  not  only  thus  comparatively  light 
 in  themselves,  but  they  are  made  still  more  tolerable  by  the 
 constant  and  elevating  anticipation  of  the  future  inheritance 
 of  the  saints,  vs.  24,  25.  And  not  only  so,  but  the  Spirit 
 also  sustains  us  by  his  intercessions,  thus  securing  for  us 
 all  the  good  we  need,  vs.  26 — 28.  The  salvation,  then,  of 
 believers  is  secure,  notwithstanding  their  sufferings,  inasmuch 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  12,  13.  415 
 
 as  they  are  chiidren,  and  are  sustained  and  aided  by  the  Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  12,  Therefore^  brethren^  we  are  debtors,  not  to  the 
 flesh,  to  live  after  the  flesh.  We  have  here  an  example  of  what 
 the  rhetoricians  call  meiosis,  where  less  is  said  than  is  intended. 
 So  far  from  being  debtors  to  the  flesh,  the  very  reverse  is  the 
 case.  This  passage  is  an  inference  from  the  exhibition  of  the 
 nature  and  tendency  of  the  flesh,  or  the  carnal  mind,  as  hostile 
 to  God,  and  destructive  to  ourselves,  vs.  5,  8.  As  this  is  its 
 nature,  and  believers  are  no  longer  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the 
 Spirit,  they  are  under  the  strongest  obligations  not  to  live  after 
 the  one,  but  after  the  other.  We  are  debtors;  dtptcXsTac  iafiev. 
 We  are  the  debtors,  not  of  the  flesh,  but,  as  the  implication  is, 
 of  the  Spirit.  Of  the  two  controlling  principles,  the  flesh  and 
 the  Spirit,  our  obligation  is  not  to  the  former,  but  to  the  latter. 
 To  live  after  the  flesh;  too  xaza  adfjxa  ^YjV.  The  genitive  is, 
 here,  either  the  genitive  of  design,  '  in  order  that  we  should  live 
 after  the  flesh;'  or  it  depends  on  oipsderac,  agreeably  to  the 
 formula,  difecXiryj(;  eifii  rcvi  r^voc,  /  am  debtor  to  some  one  for 
 something.  The  sense  would  then  be,  '  We  do  not  owe  the  flesh 
 a  carnal  life.'  The  former  explanation  is  the  simpler  and  more 
 natural. 
 
 Verse  13.  The  necessity  of  thus  living  is  enforced  by  a 
 repetition  of  the  sentiment  of  ver.  6.  To  live  after  the  flesh  i3 
 death ;  to  live  after  the  Spirit  is  life.  For  if  ye  live  after  the 
 flesh,  ye  shall  die;  but  if  ye  through  the  Sjnrit,  &c.  The 
 necessity  of  holiness,  therefore,  is  absolute.  No  matter  what 
 professions  we  may  make,  or  what  hopes  we  may  indulge,  justi- 
 fication, or  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  favour,  is  never 
 separated  from  sanctification.  Ye  shall  die;  /xe/Jeze  dno^uTj- 
 axscu,  ye  are  about  to  die ;  death  to  you  is  inevitable.  Compare 
 Matt.  iv.  24,  1  Thess.  iii.  4,  James  ii.  12.  The  death  here  spoken 
 of,  as  appears  from  the  whole  context,  and  from  the  nature  of 
 the  life  with  which  it  is  contrasted,  cannot  be  the  death  of  the 
 body,  either  solely  or  mainly.  It  is  spiritual  death,  in  the  com- 
 prehensive scriptural  sense  of  that  term,  which  includes  all  the 
 penal  consequences  of  sin  here  and  hereafter,  chap.  vi.  21,  viii.  6, 
 
416  ROMANS  VIII.  14. 
 
 Gal.  vi.  8.  But  if  ye  through  the  Spirit  do  mortify  the  deeds  of 
 the  hody^  ye  shall  live.  The  use  of  the  word  mortify,  to  put  to 
 death  or  destroy,  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  context. 
 'Ye  shall  die,  unless  ye  put  to  death  the  deeds  of  the  body;' 
 see  Col.  iii.  5.  The  destruction  of  sin  is  a  slow  and  painful 
 process. 
 
 Deeds  of  the  body.*  It  is  commonly  said  that  body  is  here 
 equivalent  to  flesh,  and  therefore  signifies  corruption.  But  it 
 is  yery  much  to  be  doubted  whether  the  word  ever  has  this 
 sense  in  the  New  Testament.  The  passages  commonly  quoted 
 in  its  behalf,  Rom.  vi.  6,  vii.  24,  viii.  10,  13,  are  very  far  from 
 being  decisive.  If  the  common  reading,  therefore,  is  to  be 
 retained,  (see  note,)  it  is  better  to  take  the  word  in  its  literal 
 and  usual  sense.  The  deeds  of  the  body  is  then  a  metonymical 
 expression  for  sinful  deeds  in  general ;  a  part  being  put  for  the 
 whole.  Deeds  performed  by  the  body,  being  the  deeds  which 
 the  body,  as  the  organ  of  sin,  performs. 
 
 The  destruction  of  sin  is  to  be  effected  through  the  Spirit, 
 which  does  not  mean  the  renewed  feelings  of  the  heart,  but,  as 
 uniformly  throughout  the  passage,  the  Holy  Spirit  which  dwells 
 in  believers :  see  ver.  14,  where  this  Spirit  is  called  "  Spirit  of 
 God."  Ye  shall  live,  that  is,  enjoy  the  life  of  which  the 
 Spirit  is  the  author;  including  therefore  holiness,  happiness, 
 and  eternal  glory. 
 
 Verse  14.  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  Grod,  they 
 are  the  sons  of  Crod.  This  is  the  reason  why  all  such  shall  live ; 
 that  is,  a  new  argument  is  thus  introduced  in  support  of  the 
 leading  doctrine  of  the  chapter.  Believers  shall  enjoy  eternal 
 life,  not  only  because  they  have  the  Spirit  of  life,  but  because 
 they  are  the  sons  of  God.  To  be  led  by  the  Spirit,  and  to  walk 
 after  the  Spirit,  present  the  same  idea,  viz.  to  be  under  the 
 government  of  the  Spirit,  under  two  different  aspects.  Gal. 
 V.  18,  2  Pet.  i.  21.  The  former  phrase  refers  to  the  constant 
 and  effectual  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  regulating  the 
 thoughts,  feelings,  and  conduct  of  believers.     Are  the  sons  of 
 
 *  Instead  of  u-ZfAdLToc,  D.  E.  F  G.,  the  Vulgate  and  many  of  the  early  writers 
 have  o-a^jtoc,  which  Bengel  and  Griesbach  approve.  Although  this  reading  looks 
 like  a  gloss,  it  has  much  in  its  favour  from  the  weight  of  these  MSS.,  and  the 
 usual  mode  of  speaking  of  this  apostle. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  15.  417 
 
 Crod.  The  term  son,  in  such  connections,  expresses  mainly  one 
 or  the  other  of  three  ideas,  and  sometimes  all  of  them  united. 
 1.  Similarity  of  disposition,  character,  or  nature ;  Matt.  v.  9,  45, 
 "  That  ye  may  be  the  children  (Gr.  sons)  of  your  Father  which 
 is  in  heaven."  So,  too,  "sons  of  Abraham"  are  those  who  are 
 like  Abraham;  and  "children  of  the  devil"  are  those  who  are 
 like  the  devil.  2.  Objects  of  peculiar  affection.  Rom.  ix.  26, 
 Those  who  were  not  my  people,  "shall  be  called  the  sons  of  the 
 living  God;"  2  Cor.  vi.  18,  "Ye  shall  be  my  sons  and  daugh- 
 ters, saith  the  Lord  Almighty."  So  frequently  elsewhere. 
 3.  Those  who  have  a  title  to  some  peculiar  dignity  or  advan- 
 tage. Thus  the  "sons  of  Abraham"  are  those  who  are  heirs 
 with  Abraham  of  the  same  promise.  Gal.  iii.  8,  seq.,  John  i.  12, 
 1  John  iii.  2.  "Beloved,  now  are  we  the  sons  of  God,  and  it 
 doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be,"  &c.  The  term  may 
 indeed  express  any  one  of  the  various  relations  in  which  child- 
 ren stand  to  their  parents,  as  derived  from  them,  dependent  on 
 them,  &c.  The  above,  however,  are  the  most  common  of  its 
 meanings.  In  this  passage,  the  first  and  third  ideas  appear 
 specially  intended :  '  Believers  shall  live,  because  they  are  the 
 peculiar  objects  of  the  divine  affection,  and  are  heirs  of  his 
 kingdom,'  vs.  15,  16.  That  those  who  are  led  by  the  Spirit  are 
 really  the  sons  of  God,  appears  from  their  own  filial  feelings, 
 and  from  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit.  The  indwelling  of  the 
 Spirit  of  God  raises  those  in  whom  he  dwells,  into  the  state  of 
 sons  of  God.  By  regeneration,  or  new  birth,  they  are  born  into 
 a  higher  life ;  are  made  partakers,  as  the  apostle  Peter  says, 
 of  the  divine  nature ;  and  are  thus,  through  and  in  Christ,  the 
 source  of  their  new  life,  the  objects  of  the  divine  love,  and  the 
 heirs  of  his  kingdom. 
 
 Verse  15.  For  ye  have  not  received  the  spirit  of  bondage 
 again  to  fear,  hut  ye  have  received  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  &c. 
 That  is,  '  The  Holy  Spirit,  which  you  have  received,  does  not 
 produce  a  slavish  and  anxious  state  of  mind,  such  as  those 
 experience  who  are  under  the  law ;  but  it  produces  the  filial 
 feelings  of  affection,  reverence,  and  confidence,  and  enables  us, 
 out  of  the  fulness  of  our  hearts,  to  call  God  our  Father.' 
 
 The  phrase,  the  spirit  of  bondage,  may  mean  a  feeling  or 
 sense  of  bondage,  as  "spirit  of  meekness,"  1  Cor.  iv.  21,  may 
 27 
 
418  ROMANS  VIII.  15. 
 
 mean  meekness  itself;  and  "spirit  of  fear,"  2  Tim.  i.  7,  fear 
 itself.  This  use  of  the  word  spirit  is  not  uncommon.  Or  it  may 
 mean  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  author  of  bondage:  'Believers 
 have  not  received  a  Spirit  which  produces  slavish  feelings,  but 
 the  reverse.'  The  context  is  decidedly  in  favour  of  this  view: 
 because  Paul  has  been  speaking  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  dwelling 
 in  Christians.  This  Spirit  is  that  which  they  have  received, 
 and  is  the  author  of  their  characteristic  feelings.  In  the  words 
 again  to  fear,  there  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the  state  of 
 believers  prior  to  the  reception  of  the  Spirit.  It  was  a  state 
 of  bondage  in  which  they  feared,  i.  e.  were  governed  by  a 
 slavish  and  anxious  apprehension  of  punishment.  In  this  state 
 are  all  unconverted  men,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  because 
 they  are  all  under  the  law,  or  the  bondage  of  a  legal  system. 
 
 Spirit  of  adoption;  the  Spirit  that  produces  the  feelings 
 which  children  have.  The  Spirit  is  so  called  because  he  adopts. 
 It  is  by  him  we  are  made  the  sons  of  God,  and  his  indwelling, 
 as  it  produces  the  character  of  sons,  so  it  is  the  jjledge  or 
 assurance  of  sonship,  and  of  final  salvation,  Eph.  i.  14.  The 
 contrast  here  presented  between  the  nusb/jta  douAetac:  and  the 
 nveofxa  ulo&saca^,  is  parallel  to  that  between  oou/m  and  uloe,  in 
 Gal.  iii.  23 — 26,  iv.  1 — 8.  Those  who  are  unrenewed,  and 
 under  the  law,  are  dooXo:,  slaves;  they  are  under  the  dominion 
 of  servile  fear,  and  they  have  no  right  to  the  inheritance. 
 Those  who  are  in  Christ  by  faith  and  the  indwelling  of  his 
 Spirit,  are  sons,  both  in  their  inward  state  and  feelings,  and  in 
 their  title  to  everlasting  life.  The  interpretation  followed  by 
 Luther,  who  renders  Ttvtvfxa  oto&sffcai;,  "ein  kindlicher  Geist,*' 
 makes  spirit,  here,  mean  disposition,  feeling,  and  the  genitive 
 {ulo&eaiaz)  the  genitive  of  the  source :  "  the  disposition  which 
 flows  from  adoption  or  sonship."  But  this  is  not  only  incon- 
 sistent with  the  context,  but  with  such  passages  as  Gal.  iv.  6, 
 where  what  is  here  called  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  is  said  to  be 
 the  Spirit  of  the  Son  of  God,  which  God  sends  forth  into  our 
 hearts.  By  which  ive  cry,  Abba,  Father,  i.  e.  which  enables  us 
 to  address  God  as  our  Father.  "Clamor,"  says  Bengel,  "sermo 
 vehemens,  cum  desederio,  fiducia,  fide,  constantia."  Abba  is 
 the  Syriac  and  Chaldee  form  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  father, 
 and  therefore  was  to  the  apostle  the  most  familiar  term.     Aa 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  16.  419 
 
 such  it  would,  doubtless,  more  naturally  and  fully  express  his 
 filial  feeling  towards  God,  than  the  foreign  Greek  word.  It  is 
 rare,  indeed,  that  any  other  than  our  mother  tongue  becomes 
 so  inwoven  with  our  thoughts  and  feelings,  as  to  come  up  spon- 
 taneously when  our  hearts  are  overflowing.  Hence,  expressions 
 'of  tenderness  are  the  last  words  of  their  native  language  which 
 foreigners  give  up ;  and  in  times  of  excitement,  and  even  deli- 
 rium, they  are  sure  to  come  back.  Paul,  therefore,  chose  to 
 call  God  his  Father,  in  his  own  familiar  tongue.  Having  used 
 the  one  word,  however,  the  Greek  of  course  became  necessary 
 for  those  to  whom  he  was  writing.  The  repetition  of  two  syno- 
 nymes  may,  however,  be  employed  to  give  fuller  utterance  to 
 his  feeling.  This  is  Grotius's  idea :  "  Imitatur  puerorum  patri- 
 bus  blandientium  voces.  Mos  est  blandientium  repetere  voces 
 easdem."  It  is  a  very  common  opinion  that  Paul  used  both 
 words,  to  intimate  that  all  distinction  between  different  nations 
 was  now  done  away.  "  Significat  enim  Paulus,  ita  nunc  per 
 totum  mundum  publicatam  esse  Dei  misericordiam,  ut  promiscue 
 Unguis  omnibus  invocetur :  quemadmodum  Augustinus  observat. 
 Ergo  inter  omnes  gentes  consensum  exprimere  voluit."  Calvin. 
 The  former  explanation  seems  more  natural  and  satisfactory. 
 
 Verse  16.  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  loitness  with  our  spirit, 
 that  tve  are  the  children  of  G-od.  'Not  only  do  our  own  filial 
 feelings  towards  God  prove  that  we  are  his  children,  but  the 
 Holy  Spirit  itself  conveys  to  our  souls  the  assurance  of  this 
 delightful  fact.' 
 
 The  Spirit  itself  [aurb  to  rrueuf/a,  and  not  to  auTO  Trusujua, 
 which  would  mean,  the  same  spirit)  is,  of  course,  the  Holy 
 Spirit.  1.  Because  of  the  obvious  distinction  between  it  and 
 our  spirit.  2.  Because  of  the  use  of  the  word  throughout  the 
 passage.  3.  Because  of  the  analogy  to  other  texts,  which  can- 
 not be  otherwise  explained.  Gal.  iv.  6,  "  God  hath  sent  forth 
 the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father;" 
 Rom.  V.  5,  "  The  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by 
 the  Holy  Ghost  given  unto  us,"  &c. 
 
 Beareth  witness  ivith  our  spirit,  auij.p.apTupel  tw  7Zvvjij.6.ti 
 •fjfiojv;  that  is,  'beareth  witness,  together  with  our  own  filial 
 feelings,  to  our  spirit.'  Although  it  is  very  common  for  com- 
 pound verbs  to  have  the  same  force  with  the  simple  ones,  yet, 
 
420  ROMANS  VIII.  17. 
 
 in  this  case,  the  context  requires  the  force  of  the  preposition  to 
 be  retained,  as  two  distinct  sources  of  confidence  are  here  men- 
 tioned, one  in  ver.  15,  the  other  in  this  verse.  Beareth  witness 
 to^  means  confirms  or  assures.  '  The  Spirit  of  God  produces  in 
 our  spirit  the  assurance  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.'  How 
 this  is  done  we  cannot  fully  understand,  any  more  than  we  can 
 understand  the  mode  in  which  he  produces  any  other  effect  in 
 our  mind.  The  fact  is  clearly  asserted  here,  as  well  as  in  other 
 passages.  See  Rom.  v.  5,  where  the  conviction  that  we  are  the 
 objects  of  the  love  of  God,  is  said  to  be  produced  "  by  the  Holy 
 Ghost  which  is  given  unto  us."  See  2  Cor.  i.  22,  v.  5,  Eph.  i.  13, 
 iv.  30 ;  and  in  1  Cor.  ii.  4,  5,  1  John  ii.  20,  27,  and  other  pas- 
 sages, the  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel  is,  in  like  man- 
 ner, attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  From  this  passage  it  is 
 clear  that  there  is  a  scriptural  foundation  for  the  assurance  of 
 salvation.  Those  who  have  filial  feelings  towards  God,  who 
 love  him,  and  believe  that  he  loves  them,  and  to  whom  the 
 Spirit  witnesses  that  they  are  the  children  of  God,  cannot 
 doubt  that  they  are  indeed  his  children.  And  if  children,  they 
 know  they  are  heirs,  as  the  apostle  teaches  in  the  following 
 verse. 
 
 Verse  17.  And  if  children,  then  heirs;  heirs  of  Gf-od,  and 
 joint  heirs  with  Christ,  &c.  This  is  the  inference  from  our 
 adoption,  in  favour  of  the  great  theme  of  the  chapter,  the  safety 
 of  believers.  If  the  children  of  God,  they  shall  become  par- 
 takers of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light.  The  words  to 
 inherit,  heirs,  and  inheritance,  are  all  of  them  used  in  a  general 
 sense  in  the  Scriptures,  in  reference  to  the  secure  possession 
 of  any  good,  without  regard  to  the  mode  in  which  that  pos- 
 session is  obtained.  They  are  favourite  terms  with  the  sacred 
 writers,  because  possession  by  inheritance  was  much  more 
 secure  than  that  obtained  by  purchase,  or  by  any  other  method. 
 There  are  three  ideas  included  in  these  words,  accessory  to  that 
 which  constitutes  their  prominent  meaning — the  right,  the  cer- 
 tainty, and  the  unalienable  character  of  the  possession.  Hence, 
 when  the  apostle  says,  believers  are  the  heirs  of  God,  he  means 
 to  recognise  their  title,  in  and  through  the  Redeemer,  to  the 
 promised  good,  as  well  as  the  certainty  and  security  of  the  pos- 
 session.    "And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed, 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  17.  421 
 
 and  heirs  according  to  the  promise,"  Gal.  iii.  29.  In  Gal.  iv.  7, 
 we  have  the  same  argument  as  in  the  passage  before  us, 
 "Wherefore  thou  art  no  more  a  servant,  but  a  son;  and  if  a 
 son,  then  an  heir  of  God  through  Christ;"  see  Col.  iii.  24, 
 Heb.  ix.  15,  Eph.  i.  14,  &c.  Joint  heirs  with  Christ.  These 
 words  are  intended  to  designate  the  inheritance  which  believers 
 are  to  receive.  It  is  not  any  possession  in  this  world,  but  it  is 
 that  good  of  which  Christ  himself  is  the  recipient ;  we  are  to  be 
 partakers  of  his  inheritance.  This  idea  is  frequently  presented 
 in  the  Scriptures.  "Enter  ye  into  the  joy  of  your  Lord," 
 Matt.  XXV.  21;  "  That  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my 
 kinnrdom,"  Luke  xxii.  30;  "To  him  that  overcometh  will  I 
 grant  to  sit  with  me  in  my  throne,"  &c..  Rev.  iii.  21,  and  in 
 many  other  places. 
 
 If  so  be  that  tve  suffer  with  him,  that  we  may  he  also  glo7'ified 
 together.  Those  sufi'er  with  Christ  who  suffer  as  he  did,  and  for 
 his  sake.  They  are  thus  partakers  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 
 We  suffer  as  Christ  suffered,  not  only  when  we  are  subject  to 
 the  contradiction  of  sinners,  but  in  the  ordinary  sorrows  of  life 
 in  which  he,  the  man  of  sorrows,  so  largely  shared.  We  are 
 said  to  suffer  with  Christ,  Tva,  in  order  that  we  may  be  glorified 
 together.  That  is,  the  design  of  God  in  the  affliction  of  his 
 people,  is  not  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  justice,  but  to  prepare 
 them  to  participate  in  his  glory.  To  creatures  in  a  state  of 
 sin,  sufferinor  ig  the  necessarv  condition  of  exaltation.  It  is  the 
 refining  process  through  which  they  must  pass,  1  Pet.  i.  6,  7. 
 The  union  of  believers  with  Christ,  in  suffering  as  well  as  in 
 glory,  is  what  he  and  his  apostles  taught  them  to  expect.  "  If 
 any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up 
 his  cross  and  follow  me.  Matt.  xvi.  24;  "If  we  be  dead  with 
 him,  we  shall  also  live  with  him.  If  we  suffer,  we  shall  also 
 reign  with  him,''  2  Tim.  ii.  11,  12.  The  blessedness  of  the 
 future  state  is  always  represented  as  exalted:  it  is  a  glory, 
 something  that  will  elevate  us  in  the  rank  of  beings ;  enlarging, 
 purifying,  and  ennobling  all  our  faculties.  To  this  state  we  are 
 to  attain  "through  much  tribulation,"  i.  e.  attain  it  as  Christ 
 did.  And  this  is  what  the  apostle  here  intends  to  say,  and  not 
 that  the  participation  of  Christ's  glory  is  a  reward  for  our 
 having  suffered  with  him. 
 
422  ROMANS  VIII.  18,  19. 
 
 Verse  18.  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present 
 time  are  not  worthy  to  he  compared^  &c.  'If  children,  then 
 heirs;  for  I  do  not  think  our  present  suiFerings  inconsistent 
 with  our  being  either  the  children  or  the  heirs  of  God: 
 1.  Because  they  are  comparatively  insignificant,  vs.  18 — 23; 
 and,  2.  Because  we  are  sustained  under  them,  vs.  24 — 28.' 
 Without  much  altering  the  sense,  the  for  may  be  considered  as 
 referring  to  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding  verse :  '  We  shall 
 be  glorified  with  Christ,  for  these  present  afilictions  are  not 
 worthy  of  thought.'  In  2  Cor.  iv.  17,  Paul  speaks  much  in  the 
 same  manner  of  the  lightness  of  the  afilictions  of  this  life  in 
 comparison  with  the  glory  that  shall  he  revealed  in  us.  We  are 
 not  only  the  recipients  of  a  great  favour,  but  the  subjects  in 
 which  a  great  display  of  the  divine  glory  is  to  be  made  to 
 others,  Eph.  iii.  10.  It  is  a  revelation  of  glory  in  us ;  see  Col. 
 iii.  4,  1  John  iii.  2.  JVot  worthy,  oux  dgiu,  not  of  like  weight. 
 'A^iov  Tuuo:;,  what  outweighs  anything.  Here,  instead  of  the 
 genitive,  Tvpd^  is  used — Not  weighty  in  reference  to,  or  in  com- 
 parison with.  As  the  glory  so  outweighs  the  suffering,  the  idea 
 of  merit,  whether  of  condignity  or  of  congruity,  is  of  necessity 
 excluded.  It  is  altogether  foreign  to  the  context.  For  it  is 
 not  the  ground  on  which  eternal  life  is  bestowed,  but  the  great- 
 ness of  the  glory  that  the  saints  are  to  inherit,  which  the 
 apostle  designs  to  illustrate.  "Neque  enim,"  says  Calvin, 
 "  dignitatem  utriusque  confert  apostolus,  sed  gravitatem  crucis 
 tantum  elevat  comparatione  magnitudinis  glorise,  idque  ad  con- 
 firmandos  patientia  fidelium  animos." 
 
 The  apostle,  fired  with  the  thought  of  the  future  glory  of 
 the  saints,  pours  forth  the  splendid  passage  which  follows, 
 (vs.  19 — 23,)  in  which  he  represents  the  whole  creation  groan- 
 ing under  its  present  degradation,  and  looking  and  longing  for 
 the  revelation  of  this  glory,  as  the  end  and  consummation  of  its 
 existence. 
 
 Verse  19.  For  the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature,  &c. 
 This  verse  is  evidently  designed  to  confirm  the  assertion  con- 
 tained in  the  preceding  verse.  As,  however,  it  is  there  asserted 
 that  the  glory  to  be  revealed  in  us  is  great,  that  it  is  certain, 
 and  that  it  is  future,  which  of  these  points  does  the  apostle 
 here,  and  in  what  follows,  design  to  establish  ?    Some  say,  that 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  19.  423 
 
 in  the  preceding  clause,  trju  fxiXlooaav  oo^au  dTtoxakucpd^r^uac, 
 fikXlorjaav  is  the  emphatic  word.  The  glory  is  future,  for  it  is 
 an  object  of  expectation.  We  are  saved  only  in  hope.  Others 
 again  say,  that  the  main  idea  is  that  this  glory  is  about  to  be, 
 i.  e.  certainly  shall  be  revealed,  agreeably  to  the  special  force 
 of  the  Avord  fiiAXs.cv.  But  the  main  idea  of  ver.  18  obviously  is, 
 that  this  future  glory  transcends  immeasurably  the  suffering  of 
 this  present  state.  All  that  follows  tends  to  illustrate  and 
 enforce  that  idea.  Tlie  earnest  expectation,  d7ioxaf)adox'ta,  from 
 xapadoxzlv,  erecto  capite  prospicere,  to  look  for  with  the  head 
 erect.  The  0.710  is  intensive ;  so  that  dTTOxapadoxca  is  earnest  or 
 persistent  expectation.  It  is  an  expectation  that  waits  the  time 
 out,  that  never  fails  until  the  object  is  attained.  The  object 
 of  this  earnest  expectation  is,  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of 
 God.  That  is,  the  time  when  they  shall  be  manifested  in  their 
 true  character  and  glory  as  his  sons.  "Beloved,  now  are  we 
 the  sons  of  God ;  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be : 
 but  we  know  that  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him." 
 1  John  iii.  2.  The  subject  of  this  expectation  is  the  xziac;,  the 
 creation,  xls  this  word  signifies,  first,  the  act  of  creating,  and 
 then,  any  individual  created  thing,  or  all  creatures  collectively, 
 its  meaning  in  any  particular  place  must  be  determined  by  the 
 context.  In  this  passage  it  has  been  made  to  mean :  1.  The 
 whole  rational  and  irrational  creation,  including  angels,  and 
 all  things  else,  animate  and  inanimate.  2.  The  whole  world, 
 excluding  angels,  but  inclusive  of  the  irrational  animals. 
 3.  The  whole  material  creation,  in  a  popular  sense,  as  we  say, 
 all  nature.  4.  The  whole  human  race.  5.  The  heathen  world, 
 as  distinguished  from  believers.  6.  The  body  of  believers. 
 The  choice  between  these  several  interpretations  must  be  deter- 
 mined by  what  is  predicated  of  the  xrlacc:  in  this  immediate 
 connection,  and  by  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  Unless  the 
 Bible  elsewhere  speaks  of  angels  as  the  subjects  of  redemption, 
 they  cannot  he  here  included,  especially  as  they,  as  a  class,  are 
 not  subject  to  corruption.  How  far  irrational  animals  are 
 included,  is  more  doubtful.  The  prophetic  representations  of 
 the  Messianic  period  set  forth  not  only  inanimate  nature,  the 
 deserts,  mountains,  and  forests,  as  rejoicing  in  the  new  ordoF 
 of  things,  but  also  the  beasts  of  the  field ;  and  therefore  there 
 
424  ROMANS  VIII.  19. 
 
 is  scriptural  ground  for  including  them  under  the  comprehen- 
 sive words  of  the  apostle.  That  xTiac(;  here,  is  to  be  taken,  not 
 as  meaning  the  whole  human  family,  nor  the  heathen  world, 
 nor  all  rational  creatures,  but  the  whole  creation  with  which  we 
 are  immediately  connected — the  earth,  and  all  its  tribes  of 
 beings,  man  excepted — is  the  opinion  of  the  great  majority 
 of  commentators  of  all  ages.  It  is  supported  by  the  following 
 considerations :  1.  In  the  first  place,  the  words  TiHaa  f^  xxtai^^ 
 the  tohole  creation,  are  so  comprehensive,  that  nothing  should 
 be  excluded  which  the  nature  of  the  subject  and  the  context  do 
 not  show  cannot  be  embraced  within  their  scope.  It  has 
 already  been  remarked,  that  as  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  benefits 
 of  redemption,  no  class  of  creatures  not  included  in  some  way 
 in  that  redemption,  can  be  here  intended.  While  the  good 
 angels  are,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  not  only  deeply  inter- 
 ested in  this  great  work,  1  Pet.  i.  12,  but  receive  through  it  the 
 clearest  manifestation  of  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God,  Eph.  ii.  7,. 
 yet  they  are  not  in  such  a  sense  partakers  of  the  redemption 
 of  Christ  as  this  passage  supposes.  They  are  not  burdened 
 with  the  consequences  of  man's  apostacy,  nor  can  they  be  repre- 
 sented as  longing  for  deliverance  from  that  burden.  Angels, 
 therefore,  must  be  excluded  from  "the  whole  creation"  here 
 intended.  2.  In  the  second  place,  as  the  apostle  clearly  dis- 
 tinguishes between  the  xziaa:  and  believers,  the  latter  cannot  be 
 included  in  the  former.  'Not  only,'  he  says,  'the  XTcaa;,  but 
 we  believers  groan  within  ourselves,'  &c.  3.  Neither  can  "the 
 creature"  mean  the  race  of  mankind  as  distinguished  from 
 Christians.  Hammond,  Locke,  Semler,  Ammon,  and  others, 
 may  be  quoted  in  favour  of  this  interpretation.  Wetstein 
 expresses  the  same  view  briefly  and  plausibly  thus:  "Genus 
 humanum  dividitur  in  eos,  qui  jam  Christo  nomen  dederunt, 
 quique  primitige  vocantur  hie  et  Jac.  i.  18,  et  reliquos,  qui 
 nondum  Christo  nomen  dederunt,  qui  vocantur  creatura,  vid. 
 Marc.  xvi.  15.  Et  Judaei  sentiunt  onus  legis  suae:  gentes 
 reliquge  tenebras  suas  palpant,  prsedicatione  evangelii  tanquam 
 e  somno  excitatse;  ubique  magna  rerum  convertio  expectatur." 
 To  this,  however,  it  may  be  objected : 
 
 (a)  It  cannot  be  said   of  the  world  of  mankind,  that   they 
 have  an  earnest  expectation  and  desire  for  the  manifestation 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  19.   '  425 
 
 of  the  sons  of  God.  The  common  longing  after  immortality,  to 
 which  reference  is  made  in  defence  of  the  application  of  this 
 verse  to  men  in  general,  is  very  far  from  coming  up  to  the 
 force  of  the  passage.  "  The  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God" 
 is  a  definite  scriptural  event,  just  as  much  as  the  second  advent 
 of  Christ.  It  can,  therefore,  no  more  be  said  that  the  world 
 longs  for  the  one  event  than  for  the  other.  Yet  had  the  apostle 
 said  the  whole  creation  was  longing  for  the  second  advent  of 
 the  Son  of  God,  can  any  one  imagine  he  meant  they  were 
 merely  sighing  after  immortality  ?  He  evidently  intends,  that 
 the  creature  is  looking  forward,  with  earnest  expectation,  to 
 that  great  scriptural  event  which,  from  the  beginning,  has  been 
 held  up  as  the  great  object  of  hope,  viz.  the  consummation  of 
 the  Redeemer's  kingdom. 
 
 {b)  It  cannot  be  said,  in  its  full  and  proper  force,  that  man- 
 kind were  brought  into  their  present  state,  not  by  their  own  act, 
 or  "willingly,"  but  by  the  act  and  power  of  God.  The  obvious 
 meaning  of  ver.  20  seems  to  be,  that  the  fact  that  the  creature 
 was  subjected  to  its  present  state,  not  by  itself,  but  by  God,  is 
 the  reason,  at  once,  why  it  longs  for  deliverance,  and  may  hope 
 to  obtain  it.  Such  exculpatory  declarations  respecting  men, 
 are  not  in  keeping  with  the  scriptural  mode  of  speaking  either 
 of  the  conduct  or  condition  of  the  world. 
 
 (c)  A  still  greater  difficulty  is  found  in  reconciling  this  inter- 
 pretation with  ver.  21.  How  can  it  be  said  of  mankind,  as  a 
 whole,  that  they  are  to  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  cor- 
 ruption, and  made  partakers  of  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 
 children  of  God?  And,  especially,  how  can  this  be  said  to 
 occur  at  the  time  of  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God, 
 i.  e.  at  the  time  of  the  second  advent,  the  resurrection  day, 
 when  the  consummation  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  is  to  take 
 place?  According  to  the  description  here  given,  the  whole 
 creation  is  to  groan  under  its  bondage  until  the  day  of  redemp- 
 tion, and  then  it  also  is  to  be  delivered.  This  description  can, 
 in  no  satisfactory  sense,  be  applied  to  mankind,  as  distinguished 
 from  the  people  of  God. 
 
 {d)  This  interpretation  does  not  suit  the  spirit  of  the  context 
 or  drift  of  the  passage.  The  apostle  is  represented  as  saying, 
 in  substance,  "The  very  nature  and  condition  of  the  human 
 
426  ROMANS  VIII.  19. 
 
 race  point  to  a  future  state :  they  declare  that  this  is  an  imper- 
 fect, frail,  dying,  unhappy  state ;  that  man  does  not  and  cannot 
 attain  the  end  of  his  being  here;  and  even  Christians,  sup- 
 ported as  they  are  by  the  earnest  of  future  glory,  still  find 
 themselves  obliged  to  sympathize  with  others  in  these  sufferings, 
 sorrows,  and  deferred  hopes."*  But  how  feeble  and  attenuated 
 is  all  this,  compared  to  the  glowing  sentiments  of  the  apostle ! 
 His  object  is  not  to  show  that  this  state  is  one  of  frailty  and 
 sorrow,  and  that  Christians  must  feel  this  as  well  as  others. 
 On  the  contrary,  he  wishes  to  show  that  the  sufferings  of  this 
 state  are  utterly  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  future 
 glory  of  the  sons  of  God.  And  then  to  prove  how  great  this 
 glory  is,  he  says,  the  whole  creation,  with  outstretched  neck,  has 
 been  longing  for  its  manifestation  from  the  beginning  of  the 
 world;  groaning  not  so  much  under  present  evil  as  from  the 
 desire  for  future  good. 
 
 As  therefore  the  angels,  the  human  race,  and  believers  as  a 
 class,  must  be  excluded,  what  remains  but  the  creation,  in  the 
 popular  sense  of  that  word — the  earth,  with  all  it  contains, 
 animate  and  inanimate,  man  excepted?  With  believers,  the 
 vyhole  creation,  in  this  sense,  is  represented  as  being  burdened, 
 and  lon^ino;  for  deliverance.  The  refutation  of  the  other  inter- 
 pretations  shuts  us  up  to  the  adoption  of  this.  It  is,  moreover, 
 consistent  with  the  context  and  the  analogy  of  Scripture.  As 
 the  object  of  the  apostle  is  to  impress  upon  believers  the  great- 
 ness of  the  glory  of  which  they  are  to  be  the  subjects,  he  repre- 
 sents the  whole  creation  as  longing  for  its  manifestation.  There 
 is  nothing  in  this  unnatural,  unusual,  or  unscriptural.  On  the 
 contrary,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  beautiful  and  effective,  and 
 at  the  same  time  in  strict  accordance  with  the  manner  of  the 
 sacred  writers.  How  common  is  it  to  represent  the  whole 
 creation  as  a  sentient  being,  rejoicing  in  God's  favour,  trem- 
 bling at  his  anger,  speaking  aloud  his  praise,  &;c.  How  often 
 too  is  it  represented  as  sympathizing  in  the  joy  of  the  people 
 of  God !  "  The  mountains  and  hills  shall  break  forth  before 
 you  into  singing,  and  all  the  trees  of  the  fields  shall  clap  their 
 hands."  Isa.  Iv.  12.  It  may  be  objected,  that  such  passages 
 are  poetical ;  but  so  is  this.     It  is  not  written  in  metre,  but  it 
 
 *  Professor  Stuart's  Commentary  on  Romans,  p.  340. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  19.  427 
 
 is  poetical  in  the  highest  degree.  There  is,  therefore,  nothing 
 in  the  strong  figurative  language  of  ver.  19,  either  inappro- 
 priate to  the  apostle's  object,  or  inconsistent  with  the  manner 
 of  the  sacred  writers. 
 
 It  may  also  with  the  strictest  propriety  be  said,  that  the  irra- 
 tional creation  was  subjected  to  vanity,  not  willingly,  but  by 
 the  authority  of  God.  It  shared  in  the  penalty  of  the  fall — 
 "  Cursed  is  the  earth  for  thy  sake."  Gen.  viii.  17.  And  it  is 
 said  still  to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  its  inhabitant? :  "  Therefore 
 hath  the  curse  devoured  the  earth,"  Isa.  xxiv.  6;  "How  long 
 shall  the  land  mourn,  and  the  herbs  of  every  field  wither,  for 
 the  wickedness  of  them  that  dwell  therein?"  Jer.  xii.  4.  This 
 is  a  common  mode  of  representation  in  the  Scriptures.  How 
 far  the  face  of  nature  was  affected,  or  the  spontaneous  fruitful- 
 ness  of  the  earth  changed  by  the  curse,  it  is  vain  to  ask.  It  is 
 fciufiicient  that  the  irrational  creation  was  made  subject  to  a 
 frail,  dying,  miserable  state,  by  the  act  of  God  (not  by  its  own,) 
 in  punishment  of  the  sins  of  men.  This  is  the  representation 
 of  the  Scriptures,  and  this  is  the  declaration  of  Paul.  While 
 this  is  true  of  the  irrational  creatiQ,n,  it  is  not  true  of  mankind. 
 
 Ths  principal  point  in  the  description  of  the  apostle  is,  that 
 this  subjection  of  the  creature  to  the  bondage  of  corruption  is 
 not  final  or  hopeless,  but  the  Avhole  creation  is  to  share  in  the 
 glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  This  also  is  in  perfect 
 accordance  with  the  scriptural  mode  of  representation  on  this 
 subject.  Nothing  is  more  familiar  to  the  readers  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  than  the  idea  that  the  whole  face  of  the  world  is  to 
 be  clothed  in  new  beauty  when  the  Messiah  appears:  "The 
 wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  shall  be  glad  for  them ;  and 
 the  desert  shall  rejoice  and  blossom  as  the  rose,"  &;c.  Isa. 
 XXXV.  1,  xxix.  17,  xxxii.  15,  16.  "The  wolf  also  shall  dwell 
 with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall  lie  down  with  the  kid,  and 
 the  calf,  and  the  young  lion,  and  the  fatling  together;  and  a 
 little  child  shall  lead  them."  Isa.  xi.  6.  Such  passages  are  too 
 numerous  to  be  cited.  The  apostle  Peter,  speaking  of  the 
 second  advent,  says  the  present  state  of  things  shall  be  changed, 
 the  heavens  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with 
 fervent  heat :  "  Nevertheless  we,  according  to  his  promise,  look 
 for  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteous- 
 
428  ROMANS  VIII.  19. 
 
 ness,"  2  Pet.  iii.  7 — 13.  "And  I  saw  a  new  heaven  and  a  new 
 earth;  for  the  first  heavens  and  the  first  earth  were  passed 
 away,"  Rev.  xxi.  1;  see  Heb.  xii.  26,  27.  It  is  common,  there- 
 fore, to  describe  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  as  attended  with  a 
 great  and  glorious  change  of  the  external  world.  Whether  this 
 is  intended  merely  as  an  exornation,  as  is  doubtless  the  case 
 with  many  of  the  prophetic  passages  of  the  Old  Testament ;  or 
 whether  it  is  really  didactic,  and  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the 
 restoration  of  the  earth  to  more  than  its  pristine  beauty,  which 
 seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  some  of  the  New  Testament  pas- 
 sages, is  perfectly  immaterial  to  our  present  purpose.  It  is 
 enough  that  the  sacred  writers  describe  the  consummation  of 
 the  Redeemer's  kingdom  as  attended  with  the  palingenesia  of 
 the  whole  creation.  This  is  all  Paul  does ;  whether  poetically 
 or  didactically,  is  too  broad  a  question  to  be  here  entered  upon. 
 In  further  confirmation  of  this  interpretation  it  may  be 
 remarked,  that  this  doctrine  of  the  renewal  of  the  external 
 world,  derived  from  the  language  of  the  prophets,  was  a  com- 
 mon doctrine  among  the  Jews.  Abundant  evidence  of  this  fact 
 may  be  seen,  in  Eisenmenger's  Entdechtes  Judenthum  (Judaism 
 Revealed,)  particularly  in  chapter  fifteenth  of  the  second  part. 
 The  following  passages  are  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in  which 
 the  Jewish  writers  speak  on  this  subject:  '*  Hereafter,  when 
 the  sin  of  men  is  removed,  the  earth,  which  God  cursed  on 
 account  of  that  sin,  will  return  to  its  former  state  and  blessed- 
 ness, as  it  was  before  the  sin  of  men,"  p.  828.  "At  this  time 
 the  whole  creation  shall  be  changed  for  the  better,  and  return 
 to  the  perfection  and  purity  which  it  had  in  the  time  of  the  first 
 man,  before  sin  was."  See  this  latter  quotation,  and  others  of 
 a  similar  import,  in  Tholuck.  In  the  early  Christian  Church, 
 this  opinion  was  prevalent,  and  was  the  germ  whence  the  extra- 
 vagances of  the  Millenarians  arose.  Almost  all  such  errors 
 contain  a  portion  of  truth,  to  which  they  are  indebted  for  their 
 origin  and  extension.  The  vagaries,  therefore,  of  the  early 
 heretics,  and  the  still  grosser  follies  of  the  Talmudical  writers 
 on  this  subject,  furnish  presumptive  and  confirmatory  evidence 
 that  the  sacred  writers  did  teach  a  doctrine,  or  at  least  employed 
 a  mode  of  speaking  of  the  future  condition  of  the  external 
 world,  which  easily  accounts  for  these  errors. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  20.  429 
 
 The  objections  to  this  view  of  the  passage  are  inconclusive. 
 1.  It  is  objected  that  it  would  require  us  to  understand  all  such 
 passages  as  speak  of  a  latter  day  of  glory,  literally,  and  believe 
 that  the  house  of  God  is  to  stand  on  the  top  of  the  moun- 
 tains, &c.  But  this  is  a  mistake.  When  it  is  said,  "The 
 heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,"  we  do  not  understand  the 
 •wor'ds  literally,  although  we  understand  them  as  speaking  of 
 the  visible  heavens.  2.  Neither  are  the  prophetic  descriptions 
 of  the  state  of  the  world  at  the  time  of  the  second  advent, 
 explained  literally,  even  when  understood  didactically,  that  is, 
 as  teaching  that  there  is  to  be  a  great  and  glorious  change  in 
 the  condition  of  the  world.  But  even  this,  as  remarked  above, 
 is  not  necessary  to  make  good  the  common  interpretation.  It 
 is  sufficient  that  Paul,  after  the  manner  of  the  other  sacred 
 writers,  describes  the  external  world  as  sympathizing  with  the 
 righteous,  and  participating  in  the  glories  of  the  Messiah's 
 reign.  If  this  be  a  poetic  exaggeration  in  the  one  case,  it  may 
 be  in  the  other.  Again,  it  is  objected  that  the  common  inter- 
 pretation is  not  suited  to  the  design  of  the  passage.  But  this 
 objection  is  founded  on  a  misapprehension  of  that  design.  The 
 apostle  does  not  intend  to  confirm  our  assurance  of  the  truth 
 of  future  glory,  but  to  exalt  our  conceptions  of  its  greatness. 
 Finally,  it  is  said  to  be  very  unnatural,  that  Paul  should  repre- 
 sent the  external  world  as  longing  for  a  better  state,  and 
 Christians  doing  the  same,  and  the  world  of  mankind  be  left 
 unnoticed.  But  this  is  not  unnatural  if  the  apostle's  design  be 
 as  just  stated. 
 
 There  appears,  therefore,  to  be  no  valid  objection  against 
 supposing  the  apostle,  in  this  beautiful  passage,  to  bring  into 
 strong  contrast  with  our  present  light  and  momentary  afflic- 
 tions, the  permanent  and  glorious  blessedness  of  our  future 
 state;  and,  in  order  to  exalt  our  conceptions  of  its  greatness, 
 to  represent  the  whole  creation,  now  groaning  beneath  the  con- 
 sequences of  the  fall,  as  anxiously  waiting  for  the  long  expected 
 day  of  redemption. 
 
 Verse  20.  For  the  creature  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  &c. 
 In  this  verse  there  are  three  reasons  expressed  or  implied  why 
 the  creature  thus  waits  for  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God. 
 The  first  is,  that  it  is  now  subject  to  vanity.     2.  That  this  sub- 
 
430  ROMANS  VIII.  20. 
 
 jection  was  not  voluntary,  but  imposed  by  God.  3.  That  it 
 was  never  designed  to  be  final.  The  creature  was  subjected, 
 {pKerdyT],  historical  aorist :  the  fact  referred  to  occurred  at  the 
 fall,  when  the  curse  fell  on  the  earth.)  To  vanity,  fxazacoTrfc. 
 This  word  expresses  either  physical  frailty  or  worthlessness,  or 
 moral  corruption.  Here  it  is  the  former;  in  Eph.  iv.  17, 
 2  Pet.  ii.  18,  it  is  the  latter.  The  two  ideas,  however,  are  in 
 the  Sci'iptures  nearly  related.  The  idea  here  expressed  is  anti- 
 thetical to  that  expressed  by  the  word  glory.  It  includes, 
 therefore,  ?J1  that  distinguishes  the  present  condition  of  the 
 creature  from  its  original  state,  and  from  the  glorious  future  in 
 reserve  for  it.  What  is  expressed  by  iiaxatozr^z,  is  in  ver.  21 
 expressed  by  (p&ofxl^,  corrujjtion.  What  the  apostle  here  says 
 of  the  creature,  Avas  familiar  to  his  Jewish  readers.  Their 
 Rabbis  taught  that :  "  Quamvis  creatse  fuerint  res  perfectoe,  cum 
 primus  homo  peccaret,  corruptge  tamen  sunt,  et  non  redibunt 
 ad  congruum  statum  suum,  donee  veniat  Pharez,"  i.  e.  Messias. 
 See  Eisenmenger.  This  subjection  of  the  creature,  the  apostle 
 says,  was  not  exouaa,  not  willingly,  not  of  its  own  choice.  It 
 was  neither  by  the  voluntai'y  act  of  the  creature,  nor  in  accord- 
 ance with  its  own  inclination.  The  inanimate  creature  was  a 
 passive  sufferer,  sharing  in  the  curse  which  fell  on  man  for  his 
 apostacy.  But  by  reason  of  him  who  hath  subjected,  d?Ja  (on 
 the  contrary)  did  zbv  uTrord^avra,  on  account,  i.  e.  in  accordance 
 with  the  will  of  Him  who  rendered  it  subject.  It  was  the  will  of 
 God,  not  of  the  creature,  which  caused  the  creature  to  be  subject 
 to  vanity.  While  this  can  be  said  with  the  strictest  propriety, 
 of  the  material  and  irrational  creation,  it  cannot  properly  be 
 said  of  sinners.  Their  subjection  to  the  bondage  of  corruption 
 was  by  their  own  voluntary  act,  or  by  the  voluntary  act  of  their 
 divinely  constituted  head  and  representative.  The  subjection 
 of  the  creature  to  vanity,  however,  was  not  final  and  hopeless; 
 it  was  £;r''  iXmdc.  These  words  may  be  connected  either  with 
 bTttTdy/j  or  with  bnord^avra:  '  the  creature  was  subjected  in 
 hope;'  or,  'on  account  of  him  subjecting  it  in  hope.'  In  either 
 case  the  sense  is  the  same.  The  subjection  was  not  a  hopeless 
 one.  By  giving  bmrd-pi  a  middle  sense,  and  connecting  iiz 
 klTzidt  therewith,  we  have  the  beautiful  idea,  that  the  creature 
 submitted  to  the  yoke  of  bondage  in  hope  of  ultimate  deliver- 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  21.  431 
 
 ance.  "Subjecit  se  jugo,  hac  tamen  spc,  ut  et  ipsa  liberetur 
 tandem  ab  eo."  Koppe.  "  Obedientise  exemplum,"  says  Calvin, 
 "in  creaturis  omnibus  proponit,  et  earn  addit  ex  spe  nasci,  quia 
 hinc  soli  et  lunae,  stellisque  omnibus  ad  assiduum  cursum  alacri- 
 tas;  liinc  terrse  ad  fructus  gignendos  sedulitas  obsequii,  hinc 
 aeris  indefessa  agitatio,  hinc  aquis  ad  fluxum  promptus  vigor, 
 quia  Deus  suas  quibusque  partes  injunxit ;  nee  tantura  praeciso 
 imperio  quid  fieri  vellet,  sed  spem  renovationis  intus  simul 
 indidit." 
 
 Verse  21.  Because  the  creature  itself  also  shall  be  delivered 
 from  the  bondage  of  corruption,  &c.  This  verse,  according  to 
 our  version,  assigns  the  reason  why  the  subjection  of  the  crea- 
 ture was  not  hopeless.  This  reason  is,  that  the  creature  was 
 to  share  in  the  glorious  redemption.  The  particle  o~i,  however, 
 rendered  because,  may  be  rendered  that,  and  the  verse  then 
 indicates  the  object  of  the  hope  just  spoken  of.  The  subjection 
 was  with  the  hope  that  the  creature  should  be  delivered.  In 
 either  way  the  sense  is  nearly  the  same.  The  creature  itself 
 also,  is  another  of  the  forms  of  expression  which  show  that  Paul 
 speaks  of  the  creation  in  a  sense  which  does  not  embrace  the 
 children  of  God.  Bondage  of  corruption,  i.  e.  bondage  to  cor- 
 ruption— the  state  of  frailty  and  degradation  spoken  of  above. 
 
 Delivered,  or  liberated  into  the  liberty,  is  an  elliptical  form 
 of  expression  for  'delivered  and  introduced  into  the  liberty.' 
 Liberty  of  glory,  as  the  Avords  literally  mean,  or  glorious  liberty, 
 refer  to  that  liberty  which  consists  in,  or  is  connected  with  the 
 glory  which  is  the  end  and  consummation  of  the  work  of 
 redemption.  This  word  is  often  used  for  the  whole  of  the 
 results  of  the  work  of  Christ,  as  far  as  his  people  are  con- 
 cerned; (see  ver.  18.)  The  creature  then  is  to  be  partaker  in 
 some  way,  according  to  its  nature,  of  the  glories  in  reserve  for 
 the  sons  of  God.  "Porro  non  intelligit,  consortes  ejusdem 
 glorias  fore  creaturas  cum  filiis  Dei,  sed  suo  modo  melioris 
 status  fore  socias :  quia  Deus  simul  cum  humano  genere  orbem 
 ^unc  collapsum  in  integrum  restituet.  Qualis  vero  futura  sit 
 integritas  ilia  tam  in  pecudibus  quam  in  plantis  et  metallis, 
 curiosius  inquirere  neque  expedit,  neque  fas  est.  Quia  prae- 
 cipua  pars  corruptionis  est  interitus:  Quaerunt  arguti,  sed 
 parum  sobrii  homines,  an  immortale  futurum  sit  omne  anima- 
 
432  ROMANS  VIII.  22,  23. 
 
 Hum  genus :  his  speculationibus  si  frenum  laxetur,  quorsum 
 tandem  nos  abripient?  Hac  ergo  simplici  doctrina  content! 
 simus,  tale  fore  temperamentum,  et  tarn  concinnum  ordinem,  ut 
 nihil  vel  deforme  vel  fluxum  appareat."   Calvin. 
 
 Verse  22.  For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth 
 and  travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now.  This  verse  is  a  repe- 
 tition and  confirmation  of  the  preceding  sentiment :  '  The  crea- 
 ture is  subject  to  vanity,  and  longs  for  deliverance ;  for  we 
 see,  from  universal  and  long  continued  experience,  the  whole 
 creation  groaning  and  travailing  in  pain.'  It  is,  however,  as 
 Calvin  remarks,  the  pains  of  birth,  and  not  of  death.  After 
 sorrow  comes  the  joy  of  a  new  existence.  The  word  together 
 may  have  reference  to  the  whole  creation  which  groans  together, 
 all  its  parts  uniting  and  sympathizing ;  or  it  may  refer  to  the 
 sons  of  God,  '  For  the  whole  creation  groans  together  with  the 
 sons  of  God.'  On  account  of  the  following  verse,  in  which 
 Christians  are  specially  introduced  as  joining  with  the  whole 
 creation  in  this  sense  of  present  misery  and  desire  of  future 
 good,  the  former  method  of  understanding  the  passage  seems 
 preferable.  Until  now,  from  the  beginning  until  the  present 
 time.  The  creature  has  always  been  looking  forward  to  the 
 day  of  redemption.  "Particula  Hactenus,  vel  ad  hunc  usque 
 diem,  ad  levandum  diuturni  languoris  taedium  pertinet.  Nam 
 si  tot  saeculis  durarunt  in  suo  gemitu  creaturae,  quam  inexcusa- 
 bilis  erit  nostra  mollities  vel  ignavia,  si  in  brevi  umbratilis  vitae 
 curriculo  deficimus?"    Calvin. 
 
 Verse  23.  And  not  only  so,  hut  ourselves  also,  who  have  the 
 first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  &c.  'Not  only  does  the  whole  crea- 
 tion thus  groan,  but  we  ourselves,  we  Christians,  who  have  a 
 foretaste  of  heavenly  bliss,  the  first  fruits  of  the  glorious  inhe- 
 ritance, we  groan  within  ourselves,  and  long  for  the  consum- 
 mation of  glory.'  The  first  fruits  was  that  portion  of  the 
 productions  of  the  earth  which  was  ofi'ered  to  God.  From  the 
 nature  of  the  case,  they  contained  the  evidence  and  assurance 
 of  the  whole  harvest  being  secured.  The  idea,  therefore,  of  an 
 earnest  or  pledge  is  included  in  the  phrase,  as  well  as  that  of 
 priority.  This  is  the  general  if  not  constant  use  of  the  word  in 
 the  New  Testament.  Thus  Christ  is  called  "  the  first  fruits  of 
 them  that  slept,"  1  Cor.  xv.  20,  not  merely  because  he  rose 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  23.  433 
 
 first,  but  also  because  his  resurrection  was  a  pledge  of  the 
 resurrection  of  his  people.  See  Rom.  xi.  16,  xvi.  5, 1  Cor.  xvi.  15, 
 James  i.  18.  In  all  these  places,  both  ideas  may  be,  and  pro- 
 bably ought  to  be  retained.  In  the  passages  before  us,  what  is 
 here  called  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  is  elsewhere  called  the 
 earnest  of  the  Spirit,  Eph.  i.  14,  &;c.  The  phrases,  the  Spirit 
 which  is  the  first  fruits,  and  the  Spirit  which  is  an  earnest,  are 
 therefore  synonymous.  The  Spirit  is  the  first  fruits  of  the  full 
 inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light.  The  expression  in  the  text, 
 therefore,  is  descriptive  of  all  Christians,  and  not  of  any  par- 
 ticular class  of  them ;  that  is,  it  is  not  to  be  confined  to  those 
 who  first  received  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  or  were  first 
 converted. 
 
 The  interpretation  given  above,  of  this  clause,  is  the  one  most 
 commonly  received,  and  the  most  natural.  There  is,  however, 
 great  diversity  in  the  MSS.  as  to  the  text,  although  the  sense 
 is  substantially  the  same,  whichever  of  the  various  readings  be 
 adopted.  The  common  text  is :  ou  fiovov  ok,  rUka  xa'c  auroi  zrju 
 Ircapyriv  rob  TrusufiaTOt;  Ijfovrsc,  xal  ^jptecQ  ahrol  iu  eaozoli; 
 aveud^ofiusu.  This  may  mean,  -Not  only  (the  xrcai^,)  but  they 
 having  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  we  ourselves  groan,'  &c. 
 A  distinction  is  thus  made  between  those  who  have  the  first 
 fruits  of  the  Spirit,  and  those  meant  by  zve  ourselves.  Those 
 who  adopt  this  interpretation  suppose  that  Paul  intended  by 
 we,  either  himself  individually,  or  himself  and  the  other  apos- 
 tles. This  view  of  the  passage,  however,  is  not  the  natural 
 one,  even  assuming  the  correctness  of  the  common  text ;  and  is 
 impossible,  if  the  true  reading  be  rjfiec^  auroi,  as  found  in  the 
 MSS.  D.  F.  G.,  and  adopted  by  many  critics.  The  abroc  in 
 the  first  clause,  and  the  ^[xtiz  auroi,  refer  to  the  same  class  of 
 persons,  and  indicate  the  subject  of  the  verb  (rrepo^o/usv.  It  is 
 more  doubtful  what  force  should  be  given  to  the  participle 
 l^fovrsc-  As  the  article  is  omitted,  most  commentators  render 
 It,  'although  having.'  'Even  we  groan,  although  having  the 
 present  influences  and  support  of  the  Spirit.'  In  our  version, 
 and  by  Calvin,  Beza,  and  Bengel,  it  is  rendered  as  though  the 
 article  was  used,  of  l^fovrec,  even  we  who  have,  i.  e.  the  possessors 
 of.  This  IS  more  pertinent,  as  the  apostle's  object  is  to  desig- 
 nate the  class  intended  by  we.  The  article  in  such  cases  is  not 
 28 
 
434  ROMANS  VIII.  23. 
 
 always  used,  (see  ver.  1,)  according  to  the  common  text.  In 
 the  phrase  d7:ap-/r}  'rob  Tcveuiiaroz,  the  genitive  may  be  taken  as 
 the  genitivus  partivus.  In  favour  of  this  is  the  signification  of 
 th-e  word,  and  its  ordinary  use.  In  such  expressions  as  "first 
 fruits  of  the  corn  and  of  the  wine,"  "of  the  dead,"  and  others 
 of  a  like  kind,  the  genitive  indicates  that  of  which  the  first 
 fruits  are  a  part.  This  gives  a  good  sense  here.  Believers  now 
 possess  and  now  enjoy,  in  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  a  pre- 
 libation  of  what  they  are  to  receive  hereafter — a  part  of  the 
 full  measure  of  divine  influence  in  reserve  for  them.  Still  the 
 analogy  of  Scripture  is  in  favour  of  taking  the  genitive  as  the 
 genitive  of  apposition.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  dnap^-j;  or  as 
 it  is  said  in  Eph,  i.  14,  2  Cor.  i.  22,  v.  5,  dfjpajicou,  the  earnest 
 of  the  Spirit.  The  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light,  is  that  of 
 which  the  Spirit  is  the  first  fruits  and  the  earnest. 
 
 £!ven  toe  ourselves  groan  within  ourselves^  ev  kauzolt;,  as 
 expressing  the  internal  load  by  which  the  believer  is  now 
 oppressed.  Waiting  for  the  adoption,  ulodtacav  without  the 
 article;  'waiting  for  adoption.'  There  is  a  sense  in  which 
 believers  are  now  the  sons  of  God  and  partakers  of  adoption. 
 But  the  full  enjoyment  of  their  blessedness  as  the  children  of 
 God,  the  time  when  they  shall  be  recognised  as  uFor,  and  enter 
 upon  their  inheritance  as  such,  is  still  future.  Here  Christians 
 are  in  the  condition  of  vqntoi,  minor  children ;  their  introduc- 
 tion into  the  state  of  yfor,  in  the  sense  of  adult  sons  entitled  to 
 their  inheritance,  is  their  olo&eaia,  for  which  they  now  wait, 
 {dmxde-)^6/jiSpo:,)  vfith  patient,  but  earnest  desire.  What,  there- 
 fore, in  the  foregoing  verse  is  expressed  by  "the  manifestation 
 of  the  sons  of  God,"  is  here  expressed  by  the  single  word 
 "adoption."  JSven  the  redemption  of  the  body.  The  redemp- 
 tion of  the  body  is  not  so  in  apposition  with  the  adoption,  that 
 the  two  phrases  are  equivalent.  The  adoption  includes  far 
 more  than  the  redemption  of  the  body.  But  the  latter  event  is 
 to  be  coincident  with  the  former,  and  is  included  in  it,  as  one 
 of  its  most  prominent  parts.  Both  expressions,  therefore, 
 designate  the  same  period:  'We  wait  for  the  time  when  we 
 shall  be  fully  recognised  as  the  children  of  God,  i.  e.  for  the 
 time  when  our  vile  bodies  shall  be  fashioned  like  unto  the  glori- 
 ous body  of  the  Son  of  God.'    How  much  stress  Paul  laid  upon 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  24,  25.  435 
 
 the  redemption  of  the  body,  is  evident  not  only  from  this  pas- 
 sage, and  that  in  Philip,  iii.  21,  just  quoted,  but  also  from  the 
 whole  of  1  Cor.  xv.,  especially  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter. 
 The  time  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  or  the  manifestation 
 of  the  sons  of  God,  is  the  time  of  the  second  advent  of  Jesus 
 Christ-  See  1  Cor.  xv.  23,  "Christ  the  first  fruits;  afterwards 
 they  that  are  Christ's,  at  his  coming."  1  Thcss.  iv.  16,  "For 
 the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout ;  and 
 the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first-  Then  we  which  are 
 alive,"  &c.  This  is  the  period  towards  which  all  eyes  and  all 
 hearts  have  been  directed,  among  those  who  have  had  the  first 
 fruits  of  the  Spirit,  since  the  fall  of  Adam;  and  for  which  the 
 whole  creation  groaneth  and  is  in  travail  even  until  now. 
 
 Verses  24,  25.  The  apostle,  intending  to  show  that  the  pre- 
 sent afflictions  of  believers  are  not  inconsistent  with  their  being 
 the  children  of  God,  and  are  therefore  no  ground  of  discourage- 
 ment, refers  not  only  to  their  comparative  insignificance,  but 
 also  to  the  necessity  which  there  is,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
 for  these  sufferings :  '  Salvation,  in  its  fulness,  is  not  a  present 
 good,  but  a  matter  of  hope,  and  of  course  future ;  and  if  future, 
 it  follows  that  we  must  wait  for  it  in  patient  and  joyful  expecta- 
 tion.' While,  therefore,  waiting  for  salvation  is  necessary,  from 
 the  nature  of  the  case,  the  nature  of  the  blessing  waited  for, 
 converts  expectation  into  desire,  and  enables  us  patiently  to 
 endure  all  present  evils. 
 
 For  we  are  saved  by  hope,  ttj  yap  iXncoi  kaco&Tjuzv.  At  the 
 close  of  the  preceding  verse,  Paul  had  spoken  of  believers  as 
 waiting  for  the  adojjtion.  They  thus  wait,  because  salvation  is 
 not  a  present  good,  but  a  future  one.  We  are  saved  in  hope, 
 i.  e.  in  prospect.  The  dative  (iAizioe)  does  not  i,n  this  case 
 express  the  means  by  which  anything  is  done,  but  the  condition 
 or  circumstances  in  which  it  is,  or  the  way  and  manner  in  which 
 it  occurs.  It  is  therefore  analogous  to  our  forms  of  expression, 
 zve  have  a  thing  in  expectation  or  p)rospect.  Salvation  is  a  bless- 
 ing we  have  in  hope,  not  in  possession:  if  it  be  the  one,  it 
 cannot  be  the  other,  since  hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope.  It  lies 
 in  the  nature  of  hope,  that  its  object  must  be  future.  The  word 
 hope  is  here  used  objectively  for  the  thing  hoped  for,  as  in  Col. 
 i.  5,  "  The  hope  that  is  laid  up  for  you  in  heaven ;  Heb.  vi.  18, 
 
436  ROMANS  VIII.  25,  26. 
 
 Eph.  i.  18,  &c.  The  latter  clause  of  the  verse,  for  what  a 
 man  seeth,  why  doth  he  yet  hope  for,  is  only  a  confirmation  of 
 the  previous  declaration,  that  it  lies  in  the  nature  of  hope  to 
 have  reference  to  the  future.  "This  passage,"  says  Olshausen, 
 "  is  specially  important  for  determining  the  true  nature  of  hope. 
 It  stands  opposed  to  (^Uttscv,  seeing — which  supposes  the  object 
 to  be  externally  present.  It  is,  however,  no  less  opposed  to  the 
 entire  absence  of  its  object.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  the  inward 
 possession  of  the  things  hoped  for,  so  far  as  they  are  spiritual. 
 A  man  can  believe,  and  hope  for  eternal  things,  only  so  far  as 
 they  are  inwardly  present  to  him.  Therefore  it  is  that  Chris- 
 tian hope  is  something  so  exalted.  It  is  the  daughter  of  expe- 
 rience, (Rom.  V.  4,)  and  maketh  not  ashamed.  It  is  the  sister 
 of  faith  and  love.  Good  wishes,  desires,  and  longings,  are  not 
 hope,  because  they  do  not  involve  the  real  jiossession  of  the 
 things  longed  for." 
 
 Verse  25.  But  if  we  hope  for  that  toe  see  not,  &c.  That  is, 
 '  If  hope  has  reference  to  the  unseen  and  the  future,  then,  as 
 salvation  is  a  matter  of  hope,  it  is  a  matter  to  be  waited  for.' 
 It  results,  therefore,  from  the  nature  of  the  plan  of  redemption, 
 that  the  full  fruition  of  its  blessing  should  not  be  obtained  at 
 once,  but  that  through  much  tribulation  believers  should  enter 
 into  the  kingdom;  consequently,  their  being  called  upon  to 
 suffer  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with  their  being  sons  and  heirs. 
 TJien  do  we  with  patience  wait  for  it;  oc  uzojuovr^c;,  with  con- 
 stancy, or  firmness,  which  includes  the  idea  of  patience,  as  its 
 consequence.  There  is  something  more  implied  in  these  words 
 than  that  salvation,  because  unseen,  must  be  waited  for.  This, 
 no  doubt,  from  the  connection,  is  the  main  idea;  but  we  not 
 only  wait,  but  we  wait  with  patience,  or  constancy.  There  is 
 something  in  the  very  expectation  of  future  good,  and  especially 
 of  such  good,  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  us,  to  produce 
 not  only  patient  but  even  joyful  endurance  of  all  present  suffer- 
 ing. "Spes  ista,"  says  Grotius,  "non  infructuosa  est  in  nobis, 
 egregiam  virtutem  operatur,  malorum  fortem  tolerationem." 
 
 Verse  26.  Not  only  does  hope  thus  cheer  and  support  the 
 suffering  believer,  but  likewise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirm- 
 ities. Likewise,  literally,  in  the  same  way.  As  hope  sustains, 
 so,  in  the  same  manner,  the  Spirit  does  also.     Not  that  the 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  26.  43T 
 
 mode  of  assistance  is  the  same,  but  simply  as  the  one  does,  so 
 also  does  the  other.  In  this  case  at  least,  therefore,  the  word 
 thus  rendered  is  equivalent  to  moreover.  The  translation 
 likewise  suits  the  context  exactly.  Uelpeth,  the  word  auvavze- 
 lafi^dvBToe,  means  to  take  hold  of  any  thing  loith  another,  to 
 take  part  in  his  burden  or  work,  and  thus  to  aid.  Compare 
 Luke  X.  40.  It  is,  therefore,  peculiarly  expressive  and  appro- 
 priate. It  represents  the  condescending  Spirit  as  taking  upon 
 himself,  as  it  were,  a  portion  of  our  sorrows  to  relieve  us  of 
 their  pressure.  "  Magna  est  vis  Graeci  verbi  auvavtdafx^dvza&ac, 
 quod  scilicet  partes  oneris  quo  nostra  infirmitas  gravatur,  ad  se 
 recipiens  Spiritus  non  modo  auxiliatur  nobis  et  succurrit,  sed 
 perinde  nos  sublevat  acsi  ipse  nobiscum  onus  subiret." — Calvin. 
 Our  infirmities'^  is  the  appropriate  rendering  of  the  original, 
 which  expresses  the  idea  both  of  weakness  and  suffering.  Heb. 
 iv.  15,  "  We  have  not  an  high  priest  which  cannot  be  touched 
 with  a  feeling  of  our  infirmities;"  2  Cor.  xii.  5,  "I  will  not 
 glory,  but  in  mine  infirmities." 
 
 For  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought; 
 but  the  Spirit,  &c.  What  we  know  not  is :  rb  rt  Tif/o^eu^cofjied-a 
 xa&b  del.  The  article  to  belongs  to  the  whole  clause,  as  in 
 Luke  ix.  46 ;  Acts  iv.  21,  and  after. —  Winer.,  20.  3.  This  is 
 said  as  an  illustration  and  confirmation  of  the  previous  general 
 declaration ;  it  is  an  example  of  the  way  in  which  the  Spirit 
 aids  us.  '  He  helpeth  our  infirmities,  for  he  teaches  us  how  to 
 pray,  dictating  to  us  our  supplications,'  &c.  The  necessity  for 
 this  aid  arises  from  our  ignorance ;  we  know  not  what  to  pray 
 for.  We  cannot  tell  what  is  really  best  for  us.  Heathen 
 philosophers  gave  this  as  a  reason  why  men  ought  not  to 
 pray  !f  How  miserable  their  condition  when  compared  to 
 ours !  Instead  of  our  ignorance  putting  a  seal  upon  our  lips, 
 and  leaving  our  hearts  to  break,  the  Spirit  gives  our  desires  a 
 language  heard  and  understood  of  God.  As  we  know  not  how 
 to  pray,  the  Spirit  teaches  us.  This  idea  the  apostle  expresses 
 by  saying,  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us.     The 
 
 *  For  Touit  aa^iuinK,  the  singular  Tg  ia^initt.  is  read  by  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  10,  23, 
 31,  37,  47,  ami  the  Syriac  and  Latin  versions.     Lachmann  has  the  singular. 
 
 f  Diogenes,  L.  VIII.  9.  Pythagoras  ubx.  i£  iS^nr^At  Ctti^  ixut-Zv'  Sta  to  (M«  siVsksm 
 TO  wfji^pii. —  Wetsiein, 
 
438  ROMANS  VIII.  26. 
 
 simple  verb  [ivTuy^duaJ),  rendered  he  maketh  intercession,  pro- 
 perly  means  to  meet,  then  to  approach  any  one  to  make  suppli- 
 cation, Acts  XXV.  24.  This  supplication  may  be  against  any 
 one,  Rom.  xi.  2,  or  for  him,  v.  34;  Heb.  vii.  25.  Hence,  to 
 intercede  for,  is  to  act  the  part  of  advocate  in  behalf  of  any 
 one.  This  Christ  is  said  to  do  for  us  in  the  last  two  passages 
 cited,  as  well  as  in  Heb.  ix.  24,  1  John  ii.  1,  and  John  xiv.  16, 
 for  Christ  calls  the  Holy  Spirit  ^'•another  advocate,"  i.  e. 
 another  than  himself.  This  office  is  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  in 
 the  last  passage  quoted  in  John  xiv.  26,  xv.  26,  and  xvi.  7,  as 
 well  as  in  the  passage  before  us.  As  the  Spirit  is  thus  said,  in 
 the  general,  to  do  for  us  what  an  advocate  did  for  his  client,  so 
 he  does  also  what  it  was  the  special  duty  of  the  advocate  to 
 perform,  i.  e.,  to  dictate  to  his  clients  what  they  ought  to  say, 
 how  they  should  present  their  cause.*  In  this  sense  the  pre- 
 sent passage  is  to  be  understood.  We  do  not  know  how  to 
 pray,  but  the  Spirit  teaches  us.  All  true  prayer  is  due  to  the 
 influence  of  the  Spirit,  who  not  only  guides  us  in  the  selection 
 of  the  objects  for  which  to  pray,  but  also  gives  us  the  appro- 
 priate desires,  and  works  within  us  that  faith  without  which 
 our  prayers  are  of  no  avail.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  the 
 Spirit  itself  prays,  or  utters  the  inarticulate  groans  of  which 
 the  apostle  here  speaks.  He  is  said  to  do  what  he  causes  us 
 to  do.  "  Interpellare  autem  dicitur  Spiritus  Dei,"  says  Cal- 
 vin; "non  quod  ipse  re  vera  suppliciter  se  ad  precandum  vel 
 gemendum  demittat,  sed  quod  in  animis  nostris  excitet  ea  vota, 
 quibus  nos  sollicitari  convenit;  deinde  corda  nostra  sic  afficiat 
 ut  suo  ardore  in  coelum  penetrent."  Nevertheless,  far  more  is 
 meant  than  that  the  Spirit  teaches  us  to  pray,  as  one  man  may 
 teach  another.  And  more  is  meant  than  that,  by  a  mere  ah 
 extra  influence,  certain  desires  and  feelings  are  awakened  in 
 our  hearts.  The  Spirit  dwells  in  the  believer  as  a  principle  of 
 life.  In  our  consciousness  there  is  no  difi'erence  between  our 
 own  acting  and  those  of  the  Spirit.  There  is,  however,  a 
 concur sus,  a  joint  agency  of  the  divine  and  human  in  all  holy 
 exercises,  and  more  especially  in  those  emotions,  desires,  and 
 
 *  See  Knapp's  Dissertation  De  Spiritu  Sancto  et  Christo  Paracletis,  p.  114, 
 if  his  Scripta  Varii  Argumenti.  Or  the  translation  of  that  Dissertation  in 
 the  Biblical  Repertory,  Vol.  I.  p.  234. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  27.  439 
 
 aspirations  which  we  are  unable  to  clothe  in  words.  The 
 axtvayfioic,  ahikqrotz  may  mean  with  unutterable  or  unuttered 
 groanings.  The  former  is  not  only  more  forcible,  but  it  is 
 more  in  accordance  with  the  experience  and  language  of  men. 
 It  is  common  to  speak  of  emotions  too  big  for  utterance,  and 
 we  all  know  what  that  means.  The  analogy  of  scripture  is 
 also  in  favour  of  this  view.  The  Bible  speaks  of  God's 
 unspeakable  gift,  2  Cor.  xii.  4,  of  appTiTu.  hr^iiaxa,  'words 
 which  cannot  be  uttered;'  and  of  'a  joy  that  is  unspeakable,' 
 jfa^a  avexXdlTjTO^. 
 
 Verse  27.  Although  these  desires  are  not,  and  cannot  be 
 uttered,  the  eye  of  Hiir>  who  searches  the  heart  can  read  and 
 understand  them.  And  (rather,  hut)  he  who  searcheth  the 
 hearts.  To  search  the  heart  is  the  prerogative  of  God,  as  it 
 implies  omniscience.  As  no  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man, 
 but  the  spirit  of  man  that  is  in  him,  to  read  the  unexpressed 
 emotions  of  the  soul  must  be  the  work  of  Him  to  whose  eyes 
 all  things  are  naked.  "  I  the  Lord,  search  the  heart,  I  try  the 
 reins."  Jer.  xvii.  10,  Ps.  cxxxix.  7,  9,  Rev.  ii.  23.  Know- 
 eth the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  By  (ppovrj/xa  too  Tzveufxaro^  is 
 meant  the  meaning,  intention  of  the  Spirit,  what  he  means  by 
 those  unutterable  groanings.  By  Spirit  must  be  here  under- 
 stood, as  the  context  requires,  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  that 
 Spirit  who  intercedes  for  the  saints  and  in  them,  and  who  is 
 expressly  distinguished  from  the  soul  in  which  he  dwells.  God 
 is  said  to  know  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  As  the  word  to  know 
 is  so  often  used  with  the  implication  of  the  idea  of  approval, 
 this  may  mean,  God  recognises  or  approves  of  the  mind  of  the 
 Spirit.  "  Hie  verbi  nosse"  says  Calvin,  "  adnotanda  est  pro- 
 prietas;  significat  enim,  Deum  non  novos  et  insolentes  illos 
 Spiritus  affectus  non  animadvertere,  vel  tanquam  absurdos 
 rejicere ;  sed  agnoscere,  et  simul  benigne  excipere  ut  agnitos 
 sibi  et  probates."  If  this  be  the  meaning  of  the  word,  then 
 the  following  ore  is  causal,  and  introduces  the  reason  why  God 
 thus  approves  of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  because  the 
 Spirit  maketh  intercession  for  the  saints  xara  deov  according  to 
 God,  i.  e.,  agreeably  to  his  will.  The  desires  produced  by  the 
 Spirit  of  God  himself  are,  of  course,  agreeable  to  the  will  of 
 God,  and  secure  of  being  approved  and  answered.     This  is  the 
 
440  ROMANS  VIII.  28. 
 
 great  consolation  and  support  of  believers.  They  know  not 
 either  what  is  best  for  themselves  or  agreeable  to  the  will  of 
 God ;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  dictates  those  petitions  and  excites 
 those  desires  which  are  consistent  with  the  divine  purposes, 
 and  which  are  directed  towards  the  blessings  best  suited  to  our 
 wants.  Such  prayers  are  always  answered.  "And  this  is 
 the  confidence  that  we  have  in  him,  that  if  we  ask  any  thing 
 according  to  his  will,  he  heareth  us,"  1  John  v.  7.  But  if 
 olds  is  to  be  taken  in  its  ordinary  sense,  then  ore  is  explicative. 
 '  God  knows  that  the  Spirit,'  &c.  Those  who  adopt  this  view 
 generally  render  xard  dsou  towards  God,  i.  e.,  before  God. 
 'The  Spirit  intercedes  before  God  for  the  saints.'  In  favour 
 of  this  interpretation  of  the  passage,  it  is  urged  that  this  is  the 
 proper  place  of  the  word  olds ;  and  as  to  the  clause  xazq  dsov, 
 it  is  said,  God's  knowing  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  does  not 
 depend  on  its  being  according  to  his  will.  He  would  know  it 
 whether  in  accordance  with  his  will  or  not.  This  difficulty, 
 however,  does  not  exist  if  ocds  means  '  he  recognises  and 
 approves.'  It  is  making  the  verse  say  comparatively  little,  if 
 it  is  made  to  mean  simply  '  that  the  Searcher  of  hearts  knows 
 that  the  Spirit  intercedes  in  his  presence  (or  toward  him)  for 
 the  saints.'  The  interpretation  adopted  by  our  translators, 
 therefore,  is  to  be  preferred.  It  is  more  to  the  apostle's  pur- 
 pose if  he  assigns  the  reason  why  God  receives  the  unutterable 
 desires  and  longings  of  the  heart  as  true  prayer.  This  indeed 
 is  a  consolation  to  believers. 
 
 Vekse  28.  And  we  know  all  things  work  together  for  good  to 
 them  that  love  Crod,  &c.  This  may  be  regarded  as  virtually, 
 though  not  formally,  an  inference  from  what  Paul  had  taught 
 concerning  afflictions.  As  they  are  comparatively  insignificant, 
 as  they  call  forth  the  exercises  of  hope,  and  give  occasion  for 
 the  kind  interposition  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  far  from  being  incon- 
 sistent with  our  salvation,  they  contribute  to  our  good.  It 
 seems,  however,  more  natural  to  consider  the  apostle  as  pre- 
 senting the  consideration  contained  in  this  verse,  as  an  addi- 
 tional reason  why  the  afflictions  of  this  life  are  not  inconsistent 
 with  our  being  the  sons  of  God.  These  afflictions  are  real 
 blessings.  All  things,  as  is  usually  the  case  with  such  general 
 expressions,  is  to   be  limited  to   the  things  spoken  of  in  the 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  28.  441 
 
 context,  i.  e.,  the  sufferings  of  the  present  time.  See  1  Cor. 
 ii.  15,  where  the  spiritual  man  is  said  to  understand  "all 
 things;"  Col.  i.  20,  where  Christ  is  said  to  reconcile  "all 
 things  unto  God;"  and  Eph.  i.  10,  with  many  other  similar 
 passages.  Of  course  it  is  not  intended  that  other  events, 
 besides  afflictions,  do  not  work  together  for  the  good  of  Chris- 
 tians, but  merely  that  the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  the  suf- 
 ferings of  believers.  "  Tenendum  est,  Paulum  non  nisi  de  rebus 
 adversis  loqui :  acsi  dixisset  Divinitus  sic  temperari  quaecunque 
 Sanctis  accidunt,  ut,  quod  mundus  noxium  esse  putat,  exitus 
 utile  esse  demonstret.  Nam  tametsi  verum  est,  quod  ait 
 Augustinus,  peccata  quoque  sua,  ordinante  Dei  providentia, 
 Sanctis  adeo  non  nocere,  ut  potius  eorum  saluti  inserviant:  ad 
 hunc  tamen  locum  non  pertinet,  ubi  de  cruce  agitur." — Calvin. 
 Those  to  whom  afflictions  are  a  real  blessing  are  described, 
 first,  as  those  who  love  Q-od ;  and  secondly,  as  those  who  are 
 called  according  to  his  purpose.  The  former  of  these  clauses 
 describes  the  character  of  the  persons  intended,  they  love  Grod, 
 which  is  a  comprehensive  expression  for  all  the  exercises  of 
 genuine  religion.  The  latter  clause  declares  a  fact,  with  regard 
 to  all  such,  which  has  a  most  important  bearing  on  the  apostle's 
 great  object  in  this  chapter,  they  are  called  according  to  his 
 purpose.  The  word  called,  as  remarked  above,  (i.  7,)  is  never, 
 in  the  epistles  of  the  New  Testament,  applied  to  those  who  are 
 the  recipients  of  the  mere  external  invitation  of  the  gospel.  It 
 always  means  effectually  called,  i.  e.,  it  is  always  applied  to 
 those  who  are  really  brought  to  accept  of  the  blessings  to  which 
 they  are  invited.  1  Cor.  i.  24,  "But  to  those  who  are  called," 
 i.  e.,  to  true  Christians.  Jude  1,  "  To  those  who  are  sanctified 
 by  God  the  Father,  and  are  preserved  in  Jesus  Christ,  and 
 called,"  1  Cor.  i.  2,  &c.  The  word  is,  therefore,  often  equiva- 
 lent with  chosen,  as  in  the  phrase  "called  an  apostle,"  1  Cor. 
 i.  1,  Rom.  i.  1;  and  "called  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Rom.  i.  6. 
 And  thus  in  the  Old  Testament,  "  Hearken  unto  me,  0  Jacob, 
 and  Israel  my  called,"  Isa.  xlviii.  12;  see  Isa.  xlii.  6,  xlix.  1, 
 li.  2.  Those  who  love  God,  therefore,  are  those  whom  he  hath 
 chosen  and  called  by  his  grace  to  a  participation  of  the 
 Redeemer's  kingdom.  This  call  is  not  according  to  the  merits 
 of  men,  but  according  to  the  divine  purpose.      "Who  hath 
 
442  ROMANS  VIII.  12—28. 
 
 saved  us,  and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling,  not  according  tc> 
 our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  Avhich 
 was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began."  2  Tim. 
 i.  9,  Eph.  .i.  11,  Rom.  ix.  11.  The  design  of  the  apostle,  in 
 the  introduction  of  this  clause,  seems  to  have  been  twofold. 
 First,  to  show,  according  to  his  usual  manner,  that  the  fact 
 that  some  men  love  God  is  to  be  attributed  to  his  sovereign 
 grace,  and  not  to  themselves;  and,  secondly,  that  if  men  are 
 called,  according  to  the  eternal  purpose  of  God,  their  salvation 
 is  secure.  By  this  latter  idea,  this  clause  is  associated  with 
 the  passage  that  follows,  and  with  the  general  object  of  the 
 chapter.  That  the  calling  of  men  does  secure  their  salvation, 
 is  proved  in  verses  29,  30. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  True  Christians  are  the  sons  of  God,  objects  of  his  affec- 
 tion, partakers  of  his  moral  nature,  and  heirs  of  his  kingdom, 
 ver.  14. 
 
 2.  The  relation  of  God  to  us  is  necessarily  the  counterpart 
 of  ours  to  him.  If  we  feel  as  friends  to  him,  he  feels  as  a 
 friend  towards  us ;  if  our  sentiments  are  filial,  his  are  parental, 
 ver.  15. 
 
 3.  God,  who  is  every  where  present  and  active,  manifests 
 his  presence,  and  communicates  with  his  creatures  in  a  manner 
 accordant  with  their  nature,  although  in  a  way  that  is  inscruta- 
 ble, ver.  16. 
 
 4.  Assurance  of  salvation  has  a  twofold  foundation,  the 
 experience  of  those  affections  which  are  the  evidences  of  true 
 piety,  and  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  latter  can  never 
 be  separated  from  the  former ;  for  the  Spirit  can  never  testify 
 to  what  is  not  the  truth.  He  can  never  assure  an  enemy  that 
 he  is  a  child  of  God,  ver.  16. 
 
 5.  Union  with  Christ  is  the  source  of  all  our  blessings  of 
 justification  and  sanctification,  as  taught  in  the  previous  chap- 
 ters, and  of  salvation,  as  taught  in  this,  ver.  17. 
 
 6.  Afflictions  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  divine  favour,  nor 
 "vith  our  being  the  sons  of  God,  vs.  18 — 25. 
 
 7.  The  future  glory  of  the  saints  must  be  inconceivably  great, 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  12—28.  443 
 
 if  the  whole  creation,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  groans 
 and  longs  for  its  manifestation,  vs.  19 — 23. 
 
 8.  The  curse  consequent  on  the  fall  has  affected  the  state  of 
 the  external  world.  The  consummation  of  the  work  of  redemp- 
 tion may  be  attended  with  its  regeneration,  vs.  20 — 22. 
 
 9.  The  present  influences  of  the  Spirit  are  first  fruits  of  the 
 inheritance  of  the  saints ;   the  same  in  kind  with  the  blessings 
 
 o 
 
 of  the  future  state,  though  less  in  degree.  They  are  a  pledge 
 of  future  blessedness,  and  always  produce  an  earnest  longing  for 
 the  fruition  of  the  full  inheritance,  ver.  23. 
 
 10.  As,  for  wise  reasons,  salvation  is  not  immediately  conse- 
 quent on  regeneration,  hope,  which  is  the  joyful  expectation 
 of  future  good,  becomes  the  duty,  solace,  and  support  of  the 
 Christian,  vs.  24,  25. 
 
 11.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  our  Paraclete  (John  xiv.  16)  or  advo- 
 cate, we  are  his  clients,  we  know  not  how  to  plead  our  own 
 cause,  but  he  dictates  to  us  what  we  ought  to  say.  This  office 
 of  the  Spirit  ought  to  be  recognised,  and  gratefully  acknow- 
 ledged, ver.  26. 
 
 12.  Prayer,  to  be  acceptable,  must  be  according  to  the  will 
 of  God,  and  it  always  is  so  when  it  is  dictated  or  excited  by  the 
 Holy  Spirit,  ver,  27. 
 
 13.  All  events  are  under  the  control  of  God ;  and  even  the 
 greatest  afflictions  are  productive  of  good  to  those  who  love 
 him,  ver.  28. 
 
 14.  The  calling  or  conversion  of  men,  involving  so  many  of 
 their  free  acts,  is  a  matter  of  divine  purpose,  and  it  occurs  in 
 consequence  of  its  being  so,  ver.  28. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  If  God,  by  his  Spirit,  condescends  to  dwell  in  us,  it  is  our 
 highest  duty  to  allow  ourselves  to  be  governed  or  led  by  him, 
 vs.  12,  13. 
 
 2.  It  is  a  contradiction  in  terms  to  profess  to  be  the  sons  of 
 God,  if  destitute  of  the  filial  feelings  of  confidence,  affection, 
 and  reverence,  ver.  15. 
 
 3.  A  spirit  of  fear,  so  far  from  being  an  evidence  of  piety, 
 is  an  evidence  of  the  contrary.  The  filial  spirit  is  the  genuine 
 spirit  of  religion,  ver.  15. 
 
 4.  Assurance  of  hope  is  not  fanatical,  but  is  an  attainment 
 
444  ROMANS  VIII.  12—28. 
 
 which  every  Christian  should  make.  If  the  witness  of  men  is 
 received,  the  witness  of  God  is  greater.  As  the  manifestation 
 of  God's  love  to  us  is  made  in  exciting  our  love  towards  him, 
 so  the  testimony  of  his  Spirit  with  ours,  that  we  are  the  sons 
 of  God,  is  made  when  our  filial  feelings  are  in  lively  exercise, 
 ver.  16, 
 
 5.  Christians  ought  neither  to  expect  nor  wish  to  escape  suf- 
 fering with  Christ,  if  they  are  to  he  partakers  of  his  glory. 
 The  former  is  a  preparation  for  the  latter,  ver.  17. 
 
 6.  The  afflictions  of  this  life,  though  in  themselves  not  joyous 
 but  grievous,  are  worthy  of  little  regard  in  comparison  with  the 
 glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  us.  To  bear  these  trials 
 properly,  we  should  regard  them  as  part  of  the  heritage  of  the 
 sons  of  God,  ver.  18. 
 
 7.  As  the  present  state  of  things  is  one  of  bondage  to  cor- 
 ruption, as  there  is  a  dreadful  pressure  of  sin  and  misery  on  the 
 whole  creation,  we  should  not  regard  the  world  as  our  home, 
 but  desire  deliverance  from  this  bondage,  and  introduction  into 
 the  liberty  of  the  children  of  God,  vs.  19 — 22. 
 
 8.  It  is  characteristic  of  genuine  piety  to  have  exalted  con- 
 ceptions of  future  blessedness,  and  earnest  longings  after  it. 
 Those,  therefore,  who  are  contented  with  the  world  and  indif- 
 ferent about  heaven,  can  hardly  possess  the  first  fruits  of  the 
 Spirit,  ver.  23. 
 
 9.  Hope  and  patience  are  always  united.  If  we  have  a  well- 
 founded  hope  of  heaven,  then  do  we  with  patience  and  fortitude 
 wait  for  it.  This  believing  resignation  and  joyful  expectation 
 of  the  promises,  are  peculiarly  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God  and 
 honourable  to  religion,  vs.  24,  25. 
 
 10.  How  wonderful  the  condescension  of  the  Holy  Spirit ! 
 How  great  his  kindness  in  teaching  us,  as  a  parent  his  children, 
 how  to  pray  and  what  to  pray  for !  How  abundant  the  conso- 
 lation thus  afibrded  to  the  pious  in  the  assurance  that  their 
 prayers  shall  be  heard,  vs.  26,  27. 
 
 11.  Those  who  are  in  Christ,  who  love  God,  may  repose  in 
 perfect  security  beneath  the  shadow  of  his  wings.  All  things 
 shall  work  together  for  their  good,  because  all  things  are  under 
 the  control  of  Him  who  has  called  them  to  the  possession  of 
 eternal  life  according  to  his  own  purpose,  ver.  28. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  29.  445 
 
 ROMANS  VIII.  29—39. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 This  section  contains  the  exhibition  of  two  additional  argu- 
 ments in  favour  of  the  safety  of  believers.  The  first  of  these 
 is  founded  on  the  decree  or  purpose  of  God,  vs.  29 — 30 ;  and 
 the  second  on  his  infinite  and  unchanging  love,  vs.  31 — 89. 
 In  his  description  of  those  with  regard  to  whom  all  things  shall 
 work  together  for  good,  Paul  had  just  said  that  they  are 
 such  who  are  called  or  converted  in  execution  of  a  previous 
 purpose  of  God,  ver.  28.  If  this  is  the  case,  the  salvation  of 
 l)elievers  is  secure,  because  the  plan  on  which  God  acts  is  con- 
 nected in  all  its  parts ;  whom  he  foreknows,  he  predestinates, 
 calls,  justifies,  and  glorifies.  Those,  therefore,  who  are  called, 
 shall  certainly  be  saved,  vs.  29,  30.  Secondly,  if  God  is  for 
 us,  who  can  be  against  us?  If  God  so  loved  us  as  to  give  his 
 Son  for  us,  he  will  certainly  save  us,  vs.  31,  32.  This  love  has 
 ah'eady  secured  our  justification,  and  has  made  abundant  pro- 
 vision for  the  supply  of  all  our  wants,  vs.  33,  34. 
 
 The  triumphant  conclusion  from  all  these  arguments,  that 
 nothing  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ,  but  that  we 
 shall  be  more  than  conquerors  over  all  enemies  and  difficulties, 
 is  given  in  vs.  35 — 39. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  29.  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predes- 
 tinate, &c.  The  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding, 
 and  the  force  of /or,  appears  from  what  has  already  been  said. 
 Believers  are  called  in  accordance  with  a  settled  plan  and 
 purpose  of  God,  for  whom  he  calls  he  had  previously  predes- 
 tinated :  and  as  all  the  several  steps  or  stages  of  our  salvation 
 are  included  in  this  plan  of  the  unchanging  God,  if  we  are  pre- 
 destinated and  called,  we  shall  be  justified  and  glorified.  Or 
 the  connecting  idea  is  this :  All  things  must  work  together  for 
 good  to  those  who  love  God,  for  the  plan  of  God  cannot  fail ; 
 those  whom  he  has  called  into  this  state  of  reconciliation,  whom 
 
446  ROMANS  VIII.  29. 
 
 he  has  made  to  love  him,  he  will  assuredly  bring  to  the  glory 
 prepared  for  his  people. 
 
 Whom  he  did  foreknow.  As  the  words  to  Jcnow  and  fore- 
 know are  used  in  three  different  senses,  applicable  to  the  present 
 passage,  there  is  considerable  diversity  of  opinion  which  should 
 be  preferred.  The  word  may  express  prescience  simply, 
 according  to  its  literal  meaning;  or,  as  to  knoiv  is  often  to 
 approve  and  love^  it  may  express  the  idea  of  peculiar  affection 
 in  this  case;  or  it  may  mean  to  select  or  determine  upon. 
 Among  those  who  adopt  one  or  the  other  of  these  general  views, 
 there  is  still  a  great  diversity  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they 
 understand  the  passage.  These  opinions  are  too  numerous  to 
 be  here  recited. 
 
 As  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word  to  foreknow  gives  no 
 adequate  sense,  inasmuch  as  all  men  are  the  objects  of  the 
 divine  prescience,  whereas  the  apostle  evidently  designed  to 
 express  by  the  word  something  that  could  be  asserted  only  of  a 
 particular  class;  those  who  adopt  this  meaning  here  supply 
 something  to  make  the  sense  complete.  Who  he  foreknew 
 would  repent  and  believe,  or  who  would  not  resist  his  divine 
 influence,  or  some  such  idea.  There  are  two  objections  to  this 
 manner  of  explaining  the  passage.  1.  The  addition  of  this 
 clause  is  entirely  gratuitous ;  and,  if  unnecessary,  it  is,  of  course, 
 improper.  There  is  no  such  thing  said,  and,  therefore,  it 
 should  not  be  assumed,  without  necessity,  to  be  implied.  2.  It 
 is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  apostle's  doctrine.  It  makes 
 the  ground  of  our  calling  and  election  to  be  something  in  us, 
 our  works ;  whereas  Paul  says  that  such  is  not  the  ground  of 
 our  being  chosen.  "Who  hath  called  us  not  according  to  our 
 works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  &c.," 
 2  Tim.  i.  9,  and  Rom.  ix.  11,  where  the  contrary  doctrine  is  not 
 only  asserted,  but  proved  and  defended.  To  say  that  faith  as 
 distinguished  from  works  is  what  is  foreseen,  and  constitutes 
 the  ground  of  election,  does  not  help  the  matter.  For  faith  is 
 a  work  or  act,  and  it  is  the  gift  of  God,  the  result  or  effect  of 
 election,  and  therefore  not  its  ground. 
 
 The  second  and  third  interpretations  do  not  essentially  differ. 
 The  one  is  but  a  modification  of  the  other;  for  whom  God 
 peculiarly  loves,  he  does  thereby  distinguish  from  others,  which 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  29.  447 
 
 is  in  itself  a  selecting  or  choosing  of  them  from  among  others. 
 The  usage  of  the  word  is  favourable  to  either  modification  of 
 this  general  idea  of  fref erring.  "  The  people  which  he  fore- 
 knew," i.  e.,  loved  or  selected,  Rom.  xi.  2;  "Who  verily  was 
 foreordained  (Gr.  foreknown).^  i.  e.  fixed  upon,  chosen  before 
 the  foundation  of  the  world,"  1  Peter  i.  20,  2  Tim.  ii.  19, 
 John  X.  14,  15 ;  see  also  Acts  ii.  23,  1  Peter  i.  2.  The  idea 
 therefore,  obviously  is,  that  those  whom  God  peculiarly  loved, 
 and  by  thus  loving,  distinguished  or  selected  from  the  rest  of 
 mankind ;  or  to  express  both  ideas  in  one  word,  those  whom  he 
 elected  he  predestined,  &c. 
 
 It  is  evident,  on  the  one  hand,  that  zpoyvwacQ  expresses 
 something  more  than  the  prescience  of  which  all  men  and  all 
 events  are  the  objects,  and,  on  the  other,  something  different 
 from  the  Tzpoo^icGiioq,  (predestination)  expressed  by  the  following 
 word:  "Whom  he  foreknew,  them  he  also  predestinated."  The 
 predestination  follows,  and  is  grounded  on  the  foreknowledge. 
 The  foreknowledge  therefore  expresses  the  act  of  cognition  or 
 recognition,  the  fixing,  so  to  speak,  the  mind  upon,  which 
 involves  the  idea  of  selection.  If  we  look  over  a  number  of 
 objects  with  the  view  of  selecting  some  of  them  for  a  definite 
 purpose,  the  first  act  is  to  fix  the  mind  on  some  to  the  neglect 
 of  the  others,  and  the  second  is  to  destine  them  to  the  proposed 
 end.  So  God  is  represented  as  looking  on  the  fallen  mass  of 
 men,  and  fixing  on  some  whom  he  predestines  to  salvation. 
 This  is  the  Tipbyvtoan^,  the  foreknowledge,  of  which  the  apostle 
 here  speaks.  It  is  the  knowing,  fixing  upon,  or  selecting  those 
 who  are  to  be  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of 
 the  Son  of  God.  Even  De  Wette  says,  Der  Begriff  der  unbe- 
 dingten  Gnadenwhal  Hegt  hier  klar  vor,  (the  idea  of  sovereign 
 election  is  here  clearly  presented.) 
 
 He  also  did  predestinate  to  he  conformed  to  the  image 
 of  his  Son.  To  predestinate  is  to  destine  or  appoint  before- 
 hand, as  the  original  word  is  used  in  Acts  iv.  28,  "To  do 
 whatsoever  thy  hand  and  counsel  determined  before  to  be 
 done;"  "Having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of 
 children,"  Eph.  i.  5;  "Being  predestinated  according  to  the 
 purpose  of  Him  who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his 
 own  will,"  Eph.  i.  11.     In  all  the  cases  in  which  this  pre- 
 
448  ROMANS  VIII.  29. 
 
 destination  is  spoken  of,  the  idea  is  distinctly  recognised,  that 
 the  ground  of  the  choice  which  it  implies  is  not  in  us.  We  are 
 chosen  in  Christ,  or  according  to  the  free  purpose  of  God,  &c. 
 This  is  a  /ore-ordination,  a  determination  which  existed  in 
 the  divine  mind  long  prior  to  the  occurrence  of  the  event, 
 even  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  Eph.  i.  4;  so  that 
 the  occurrences  in  time  are  the  manifestations  of  the  eternal 
 purpose  of  God,  and  the  execution  of  the  plan  of  which  they 
 form  a  part. 
 
 The  end  to  which  those  whom  God  has  chosen  are  pre- 
 destined, is  conformity  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  i.  e.,  that  they 
 might  be  like  his  Son  in  character  and  destiny.  He  hath 
 chosen  us  "that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before 
 him,"  Eph.  i.  4,  iv.  24.  "  He  hath  predestined  us  to  the 
 adoption,  i.  e.,  to  the  state  of  sons,  Eph.  i.  5.  "As  we  have 
 borne  the  image  of  the  earthy,  we  shall  also  bear  the  image 
 of  the  heavenly,"  1  Cor,  xv.  49;  see  Phil.  iii.  21,  1  John  iii.  2. 
 The  words  ouiinopipoix;  rr^^  etxovoQ  zou  ulou  abrou,  express  not 
 only  the  general  idea  that  believers  are  to  be  like  Christ,  but 
 ^ore  definitely,  that  what  Christ  is  we  are  to  be ;  as  He  is  uIoq 
 we  are  oloi',  as  He  was  cv  fiop<pfj  d-eou  we  are  to  be  oofipopipoc; 
 as  He  assumed  our  nature,  and  thereby  purified  and  exalted  it, 
 we  are  to  partake  of  that  purity  and  glory.  We  are  to  have 
 the  same  pop(prj  (form)  as  the  dxwv  of  Christ  has — resemble  him 
 as  the  image  answers  to  the  original.  As  Paul,  in  verse  17,  had 
 spoken  of  our  sulBTering  with  Christ,  and  in  the  subsequent  pas- 
 sage was  principally  employed  in  showing  that  though  in  this 
 respect  we  must  be  like  Christ,  it  was  not  inconsistent  with  our 
 being  sons  and  heirs,  so  here,  when  we  are  said  to  be  conformed 
 to  the  image  of  Christ,  the  idea  of  our  bearing  the  same  cross 
 is  not  to  be  excluded.  We  are  to  be  like  our  Saviour  in  moral 
 character,  in  our  present  sufferings  and  future  glory.  As  this 
 conformity  to  Christ  includes  our  moral  likeness  to  him,  and  as 
 this  embraces  all  that  is  good  in  us,  it  is  clear  that  no  supposed 
 excellence  originating  from  our  own  resources,  can  be  the 
 ground  of  our  being  chosen  as  God's  people,  since  this  excel- 
 lence is  included  in  the  end  to  which  we  are  predestined.  "  I 
 remark  here  in  passing,"  says  Olshausen,  "  that  according  to 
 Paul's  doctrine,  there  is  a  praedestinatio  sanctorum  in  the  strict 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  30.  449 
 
 sense  of  the  word;  that  is,  that  God  does  not  foreknow  those 
 who  by  their  own  decision  will  become  holy,  but  he  himself 
 creates  that  decision  in  them.  In  Trpoyeucoaxscu  the  divine 
 knowledge,  and  in  Tvpoopc^^ecu  the  divine  will,  (both  of  which 
 are  included  in  the  Tvpod-sff/^,)  are  expressed." 
 
 That  he  might  be  the  first-horn  among  many  brethren.  This 
 clause  may  express  the  design,  or  merely  the  result  of  what 
 had  just  been  said.  '  God  predestinated  us  to  be  sons,  in  order 
 that  Christ  might  be,'  &c.,  or  '  He  made  us  his  sons,  hence 
 Christ  is,'  &c.  The  former  is  on  every  account  to  be  preferred. 
 It  is  not  merely  an  unintended  result,  but  the  great  end  con- 
 templated in  the  predestination  of  God's  people.  That  end  is 
 the  glory  and  exaltation  of  Christ.  The  purpose  of  God  in  the 
 salvation  of  men,  was  not  mainly  that  men  should  be  holy  and 
 happy,  but  that  through  their  holiness  and  happiness  his  glory, 
 in  the  person  of  the  Son,  should  be  displayed,  in  the  ages  to 
 come,  to  principalities  and  powers.  Christ,  therefore,  is  the 
 central  point  in  the  history  of  the  universe.  His  glory,  as  the 
 glory  of  God  in  the  highest  form  of  its  manifestation,  is  the 
 great  end  of  creation  and  redemption.  And  this  end,  the 
 apostle  teaches,  is  accomplished  by  making  him  the  first-born 
 among  many  brethren,  that  is,  by  causing  him  to  stand  as  the 
 first-born,  the  head  and  chief,  among  and  over  that  countless 
 multitude  who  through  him  are  made  the  sons  of  God.  "  Igi- 
 tur,"  says  Calvin,  "sicut  primogenitus  familiae  nomen  sustinet; 
 ita  Christus  in  sublimi  gradu  locatur,  non  modo  ut  honore  emi- 
 neat  inter  fideles,  sed  etiam  ut  communi  fraternitatis  nota  sub 
 se  omnes  contineat." 
 
 Verse  30.  Moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also 
 called.  Those  whom  he  had  thus  foreordained  to  be  conformed 
 to  the  image  of  his  Son  in  moral  character,  in  suffering,  and  in 
 future  glory,  he  effectually  calls,  i.  e.,  leads  by  the  external 
 invitation  of  the  gospel,  and  by  the  efficacious  operation  of  his 
 grace,  to  the  end  to  which  they  are  destined.  That  the  calling 
 here  spoken  of  is  not  the  mere  external  call  of  the  gospel,  is 
 evident  both  from  the  usage  of  the  word,  and  from  the  neces- 
 sity of  the  case ;  see  1  Cor.  i.  9,  "  God  is  faithful  by  whom  ye 
 were  called  to  the  fellowship  of  his  Son,"  i.  e.,  effectually 
 brought  into  union  with  him.  In  the  same  chapter,  ver.  24, 
 29 
 
450  ROMANS  VIII.  30. 
 
 "  To  those  which  are  called,  Christ  the  power  of  God,"  &c. 
 The  called  are  here  expressly  distinguished  from  the  rejecters 
 of  the  external  invitation.  1  Cor.  vii.  15,  18,  in  which  chap- 
 ter calling  is  repeatedly  put  for  eifectual  conversion,  "  Is  any 
 man  called^  being  a  servant,"  &c.  Heb.  ix.  15,  "That  they 
 which  are  called  may  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inheri- 
 tance." Rom.  ix.  12,  Eph.  iv.  4,  1  Thess.  ii.  12,  and  many 
 similar  passages.  This  use  of  the  word,  thus  common  in  the 
 New  Testament,  is  obviously  necessary  here,  because  the  apos- 
 tle is  speaking  of  a  call  which  is  peculiar  to  those  who  are 
 finally  saved.  Whom  he  calls  he  justifies  and  glorifies;  see 
 verse  28. 
 
 Whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified;  and  whom  he  justi- 
 fied, them  he  also  glorified.  The  aorist  here  used  may  express 
 the  idea  of  frequency.  Whom  he  calls,  he  is  wont  to  justify; 
 and  whom  he  is  wont  to  justify,  is  he  accustomed  to  glorify. 
 So  that  the  meaning  is  the  same  as  though  the  present  tense 
 had  been  used,  'Whom  he  calls,  he  justifies,'  &c.;  see  James 
 i,  11,  1  Peter  i.  24,  where  the  same  tense  is  rendered  as  the 
 present,  "  The  grass  withereth,  and  the  flower  thereof  falleth 
 away."  Or,  as  this  use  of  the  aorist  is  doubtful,  or  at  least 
 unusual,  that  tense  is  employed,  because  Paul  is  speaking  of 
 that  God,  who  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning,  and  in  whose 
 decree  and  purpose  all  future  events  are  comprehended  and 
 fixed;  so  that  in  predestinating  us,  he  at  the  same  time,  in 
 effect,  called,  justified,  and  glorified  us,  as  all  these  were 
 included  in  his  purpose. 
 
 The  justification  here  spoken  of,  is  doubtless  that  of  which 
 the  apostle  has  been  speaking  throughout  the  epistle,  the 
 regarding  and  treating  sinners  as  just,  for  the  sake  of  the 
 righteousness  of  Christ.  The  blessings  of  grace  are  never 
 separated  from  each  other.  Election,  calling,  justification,  and 
 salvation  are  indissolubly  united ;  and,  therefore,  he  who  has 
 clear  evidence  of  his  being  called,  has  the  same  evidence  of  his 
 election  and  final  salvation.  This  is  the  very  idea  the  apostle 
 means  to  present  for  the  consolation  and  encouragement  of 
 believers.  They  have  no  cause  for  despondency  if  the  children 
 of  God,  and  called  according  to  his  purpose,  because  nothing 
 can  prevent  their  final  salvation. 
 
ROMANS  yill.  31.  451 
 
 Verse  31.  W7iat  shall  we  say  to  these  things  ?  That  is, 
 what  is  the  inference  from  what  has  hitherto  been  said?  If 
 Crod  he  for  us,  if  he  has  delivered  us  from  the  law  of  sin  and 
 death,  if  he  has  renewed  us  by  his  Spirit  which  dwells  within 
 us,  if  he  recognises  us  as  his  children  and  his  heirs,  and  has 
 predestinated  us  to  holiness  and  glory,  who  can  be  against  us  7 
 If  God's  love  has  led  to  all  the  good  just  specified,  what  have 
 we  to  fear  for  the  future?  He  who  spared  not  his  own  Son, 
 will  freely  give  us  all  things.  This  verse  shows  clearly  what 
 has  been  the  apostle's  object  from  the  beginning  of  the  chapter. 
 He  wished  to  demonstrate  that  to  those  who  accede  to  the  plan 
 of  salvation  which  he  taught,  i.  e.,  to  those  who  are  in  Christ 
 Jesus,  there  is  no  ground  of  apprehension ;  their  final  salvation 
 is  fully  secured.  The  conclusion  of  the  chapter  is  a  recapitu- 
 lation of  all  his  former  arguments,  or  rather  the  reduction  of 
 them  to  one,  which  comprehends  them  all  in  their  fullest  force ; 
 God  is  for  us.  He,  as  our  Judge,  is  satisfied ;  as  our  Father, 
 he  loves  us ;  as  the  supreme  and  almighty  Controller  of  events, 
 who  works  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  he  has 
 determined  to  save  us ;  and  as  that  Being,  whose  love  is  as 
 unchanging  as  it  is  infinite,  he  allows  nothing  to  separate  his 
 children  from  himself. 
 
 It  has  been  objected,  that  if  Paul  had  intended  to  teach  these 
 doctrines,  he  would  have  said  that  apostacy  and  sin  cannot 
 interfere  with  the  salvation  of  believers.  But  what  is  salvation, 
 but  deliverance  from  the  guilt  and  power  of  sin  ?  It  is,  there- 
 fore, included  in  the  very  purpose  and  promise  of  salvation, 
 that  its  objects  shall  be  preserved  from  apostacy  and  deadly 
 sins.  This  is  the  end  and  essence  of  salvation.  And,  there- 
 fore, to  make  Paul  argue  that  God  will  save  us  if  we  do  not 
 apostatize,  is  to  make  him  say,  those  shall  be  saved  who  are 
 not  lost.  According  to  the  apostle's  doctrine,  holiness  is  so 
 essential  and  prominent  a  part  of  salvation,  that  it  is  not  so 
 much  a  means  to  an  end  as  the  very  end  itself.  It  is  that  to 
 which  we  are  predestinated  and  called,  and  therefore  if  the 
 promise  of  salvation  does  not  include  the  promise  of  holiness, 
 it  includes  nothing.  Hence,  to  ask  whether,  if  one  of  the 
 called  should  apostatize  and  live  in  sin,  he  would  still  be  saved, 
 is  to  ask,  whether  he  will  be  saved  if  he  is  not  saved.    Nor  can 
 
452  ROMANS  VIII.  32. 
 
 these  doctrines  be  perverted  to  licentiousness  without  a  com- 
 plete denial  of  their  nature.  For  thej  not  only  represent  sin 
 and  salvation  as  two  things  which  ought  not  to  be  united,  but 
 as  utterly  irreconcilable  and  contradictory. 
 
 Verse  32.  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  &c.  That 
 ground  of  confidence  and  security  which  includes  all  others,  is 
 the  love  of  God ;  and  that  exhibition  of  divine  love  which  sur- 
 passes and  secures  all  others,  is  the  gift  of  his  own  Son.  Paul 
 having  spoken  of  Christians  as  being  God's  sons  by  adoption, 
 was  led  to  designate  Christ  as  his  own  peculiar  Son,  in  a  sense 
 in  which  neither  angels  (Heb.  i.  5)  nor  men  can  be  so  called. 
 That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  is  evident,  1.  Because 
 this  is  its  proper  force ;  ozvn  Son  being  opposed  to  adopted 
 sons.  An  antithesis,  expressed  or  implied,  is  always  involved 
 in  the  use  of  the  word  I'dio^,  see  Acts  ii.  6,  Rom.  xi.  24,  xiv.  4, 
 Tit.  i.  12.  The  Jews,  we  are  told,  took  up  stones  to  stone  our 
 Lord,  because  Ttazipa  i'dcov  ihys  rbu  6e6v,  thus  making  himself 
 equal  with  God.  Christ  is  in  such  a  sense  the  Son  of  God, 
 that  he  is  of  one  nature  with  him,  the  same  in  substance,  equal 
 in  power  and  glory.  2.  Because  the  context  requires  it,  as 
 Paul  had  spoken  of  those  who  were  sons  in  a  different  sense 
 just  before.  3.  Because  this  apostle,  and  the  other  sacred 
 writers,  designate  Christ  as  Son  of  God  in  the  highest  sense,  as 
 partaker  of  the  divine  nature ;  see  Rom.  i.  4. 
 
 But  delivered  him  up  for  us  all.  Ho  was  delivered  up  to 
 death;  see  Gal.  i.  4,  Rom.  iv.  25,  Isa.  liii.  6,  xxxviii.  13  (in 
 the  LXX.,)  and  Matt.  x.  21.  For  us  all;  not  merely  for  our 
 benefit,  but  in  our  place.  This  idea,  however,  is  not  expressed 
 by  the  peculiar  force  of  the  preposition  dnsp,  but  is  implied 
 from  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  benefit  secured  by  a  sacri- 
 fice is  secured  by  substitution.  It  is  offered  for  the  benefit  of 
 the  offender  because  it  is  offered  in  his  place.  There  is  no 
 restriction  or  limitation  to  be  put  on  the  word  all  in  this 
 verse,  other  than  which  the  context  and  the  analogy  of  Scrip- 
 ture imposes.  God,  says  Paul,  gave  up  his  Son  for  us  all; 
 whether  he  means  all  rational  creatures,  or  all  men,  or  all 
 those  whom  he  determined  thereby  to  redeem,  and  whom  he 
 had  foreknown  and  predestinated  to  eternal  life,  depends  on 
 what  the  Scripture  elsewhere  teaches  on  the  subject. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  33.  453 
 
 How  shall  he  not  also  (xac)  with  him  freely  give  us  all  things. 
 If  God  has  done  the  greater,  he  will  not  leave  the  less  undone. 
 The  gift  of  Christ  includes  all  other  gifts.  If  God  so  loved  us 
 as  to  give  his  Son  for  us,  he  will  certainly  give  the  Holy  Spirit 
 to  render  that  gift  effectual.  This  is  presented  as  a  ground  of 
 confidence.  The  believer  is  assured  of  salvation,  not  because 
 he  is  assured  of  his  own  constancy,  but  simply  because  he  is 
 assured  of  the  immutability  of  the  divine  love,  and  he  is  assured 
 of  its  immutability  because  he  is  assured  of  its  greatness.  Infi- 
 nite love  cannot  change.  A  love  which  spared  not  the  eternal 
 Son  of  God,  but  freely  gave  him  up,  cannot  fail  of  its  object. 
 "  Christus  non  nudus  aut  inanis  ad  nos  missus  est ;  scd  coeles- 
 tibus  omnibus  thesauris  refertus,  ne  quid  eum  possidcntibus  ad 
 plenam  felicitatem  desit."    Calvin. 
 
 Verse  88.  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  G-od's 
 elect?  This  and  the  following  verse  show  how  fully  the 
 security  of  believers  is  provided  for  by  the  plan  of  redemp- 
 tion. What  is  it  they  have  to  fear  under  the  government  of  a 
 just  and  powerful  God?  There  is  nothing  to  be  dreaded  but 
 sin ;  if  that  be  parduned  and  removed,  there  is  nothing  left 
 to  fear.  In  the  strongest  manner  possible,  the  apostle  declares 
 that  the  sins  of  believers  are  pardoned,  and  shows  the  ground 
 on  which  that  pardon  rests.  To  them,  therefore,  there  can  be 
 neither  a  disquieting  accusation  nor  condemnation.  Who  can 
 lay  any  thing?  tk;  iyxaUaee ;  the  word  iyxaklv  means  in  jus 
 vocare,  to  summon  before  the  bar  of  justice.  The  question  is 
 in  the  form  of  a  challenge,  and  implies  the  strongest  con- 
 fidence that  no  accuser  against  God's  elect  can  appear.  If 
 the  law  of  God  be  satisfied,  "the  strength  of  sin,"  its  con- 
 demning power,  is  destroyed.  Even  conscience,  though  it 
 upbraids,  does  not  terrify.  It  produces  the  ingenuous  sorrow 
 of  children,  and  not  the  despairing  anguish  of  the  convict, 
 because  it  sees  that  all  the  ends  of  punishment  are  fully 
 answered  in  the  death  of  Christ,  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own 
 body  on  the  tree. 
 
 G-od's  elect,  i.  e.  those  whom  God  has  chosen ;  see  ver.  29, 
 The  word  elect  is  sometimes  used  in  a  secondary  sense  for 
 beloved,  which  idea  is  implied  in  its  literal  sense,  as  those 
 chosen  are  those  who  are  peculiarly  beloved.     This  sense  may 
 
454  ROMANS  VIII.  33. 
 
 be  given  to  it  in  1  Peter  ii.  4,  "  elect  and  precious"  may  be 
 beloved  and  precious.  And  so  in  a  multitude  of  cases  it  were 
 optional  with  a  writer  to  say  chosen  or  beloved,  as  the  one 
 implies  the  other.  But  this  does  not  prove  that  chosen  means 
 beloved,  or  that  the  idea  of  choice  is  to  be  excluded  from  the 
 idea  of  the  word.  The  elect  are  those  whom  God  has  chosen 
 out  of  the  world  to  be  the  members  of  his  family  or  kingdom ; 
 just  as  under  the  Old  Testament  the  Hebrews,  whom  he  had 
 chosen  to  be  his  peculiar  people,  were  his  elect.  Men  may 
 dispute  as  to  what  the  elect  are  chosen  to,  and  why  some  are 
 chosen  and  not  others.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  ground  for 
 dispute  whether  "the  elect"  mean  the  chosen.  This  passage, 
 however,  proves  that  those  who  are  elect,  and  whose  election 
 has  become  recognised,  are  in  a  state  in  which  they  are  free 
 from  condemnation.  No  one  can  lay  any  thing  to  their 
 charge.  The  demands  of  justice  as  regards  them  have  been 
 satisfied.  This  is  not  true  of  those  who  are  chosen  merely  to 
 church  privileges.  There  is  an  election,  therefore,  unto  grace 
 and  salvation.  The  elect  are  safe.  This  is  the  grand  theme 
 of  this  jubilant  chapter. 
 
 It  is  Crod  who  justifieth,  0£oc  6  ocxacaju.  Editors  and  com- 
 mentators are  about  equally  divided  on  the  question  whether 
 this  and  the  following  clauses  should  be  taken  interrogatively  or 
 affirmatively.  If  the  former,  the  idea  is,  that  as  God  is  the 
 being  against  whom  we  have  sinned,  and  who  alone  has  the 
 administration  of  justice  in  his  hands,  if  he  does  not  accuse 
 there  can  be  no  accuser.  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  against  the 
 elect  of  God  ?  Shall  God,  who  justifies  them  ?  In  favour  of 
 this  view  is  the  fact,  that  the  questions  in  ver.  32,  and  also  in 
 ver.  35,  are  answered  by  questions,  and  hence  the  questions  in 
 vs.  33,  84,  are  most  naturally  so  answered.  Nevertheless,  the 
 impossibility  of  any  accusation  being  sustained  against  the  elect 
 of  God,  is  better  expressed  by  the  affirmation.  It  is  God  who 
 is  their  justifier.  If  he  justifies,  who  can  condemn  ?  Besides, 
 according  to  the  current  representation  of  Scripture,  God  is 
 the  judge,  not  the  accuser.  To  justify,  is  to  declare  the  claims 
 of  justice  satisfied.  If  God,  the  supreme  judge,  makes  this 
 declaration,  it  must  be  true,  and  it  must  stop  every  mouth. 
 No  rational  creature,  no  enlightened  conscience,  can  call  for  the 
 
ROMANS  Vm.  34.  455 
 
 punishment  of  those  whom  God  justifies.  If  justice  is  not 
 satisfied,  there  can  be  no  justification,  no  peace  of  conscience, 
 no  security  either  for  salvation  or  for  the  moral  government  of 
 God.  The  Bible  knows  nothing  of  mere  pardon.  There  can 
 be  no  pardon  except  on  the  ground  of  satisfaction  of  justice.  It 
 is  by  declaring  a  man  just,  (that  is,  that  justice  in  relation  to 
 him  is  satisfied,)  that  he  is  freed  from  the  penalty  of  the  law, 
 and  restored  to  the  favour  of  God. 
 
 Verse  34.  Who  is  he  that  condemneth?  i.  e.,  no  one  can 
 condemn.  In  support  of  this  assertion  there  are,  in  this  verse, 
 four  conclusive  reasons  presented ;  the  death  of  Christ,  his 
 resurrection,  his  exaltation,  and  his  intercession.  It  is  Christ 
 that  died.  By  his  death,  as  an  atonement  for  our  sins,  all 
 ground  of  condemnation  is  removed.  The  death  of  Christ 
 could  not  be  a  proof  that  the  believer  cannot  be  condemned, 
 unless  his  death  removed  the  ground  of  condemnation;  and  it 
 could  not  remove  the  ground  of  condemnation,  unless  it  satisfied 
 the  demands  of  justice.  His  death,  therefore,  was  a  satisfac- 
 tion, and  not  merely  an  exhibition  of  love,  or  a  didactic  symbol 
 meant  to  impress  some  moral  truth.  Yea,  rather,  that  is  risen 
 again.  The  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  the  evidence  of  the 
 sacrifice  of  his  death  being  accepted,  and  of  the  validity  of  all 
 his  claims,  is  a  much  more  decisive  proof  of  the  security  of  all 
 who  trust  in  him,  than  his  death  could  be.  See  on  chap.  i.  4, 
 iv.  25,  Acts  xvii.  31,  1  Cor.  xv.  17,  &c. 
 
 Wlio  is  even  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  i.  e.,  is  associated 
 with  God  in  his  universal  dominion.  Psalm  ex.  1,  "  Sit  thou  on 
 my  right  hand,"  i.  e.,  share  my  throne;  Eph.  i.  20,  Rev.  iii.  21. 
 "  As  I  also  overcame  and  am  set  down  with  my  Father  in  his 
 throne."  Heb.  i.  3,  "Who  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
 majesty  on  high."  From  these  and  other  passages  in  their 
 connection,  it  is  evident  that  Christ  is  exalted  to  universal 
 dominion,  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  is  given  into  his 
 hands.  If  this  is  the  case,  how  great  the  security  it  affords 
 the  believer !  He  who  is  engaged  to  effect  his  salvation  is  the 
 Director  of  all  events  and  of  all  worlds. 
 
 Who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us,  i.  e.,  who  acts  as  our 
 advocate,  pleads  our  cause  before  God,  presents  those  consid- 
 erations which  secure  for  us  pardon  and  the  continued  supply 
 
456  ROMANS  VIII.  35. 
 
 of  the  divine  grace ;  see  on  ver.  26,  Heb.  vii.  25,  ix.  24,  1  John 
 ii.  1.  Christ,  as  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  invested 
 with  universal  dominion,  is  able  to  save ;  his  interceding  for  us 
 is  the  evidence  that  he  is  willing  to  save — willing  not  only  in 
 the  sense  of  being  disposed  to,  but  in  the  sense  of  purposing. 
 He  intends  to  save  those  who  put  their  trust  in  him,  and  there- 
 fore in  their  behalf  he  presents  before  God  the  merit  of  his 
 mediatorial  Avork,  and  urges  their  salvation  as  the  reward  pro- 
 mised him  in  the  covenant  of  redemption.  He  is  our  patron, 
 in  the  Roman  sense  of  the  word,  one  who  undertakes  our  case; 
 an  advocate,  whom  the  Father  heareth  always.  How  complete, 
 then,  the  security  of  those  for  whom  he  pleads!*  Of  course 
 this  language  is  figurative ;  the  meaning  is,  that  Christ  con- 
 tinues since  his  resurrection  and  exaltation  to  secure  for  his 
 people  the  benefits  of  his  death,  every  thing  comes  from  God 
 through  him,  and  for  his  sake. 
 
 Verse  35.  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ? 
 This  is  the  last  step  in  the  climax  of  the  apostle's  argument ; 
 the  very  summit  of  the  mount  of  confidence,  whence  he  looks 
 down  on  his  enemies  as  powerless,  and  forward  and  upward 
 with  full  assurance  of  a  final  and  abundant  triumph.  No  one 
 can  accuse,  no  one  can  condemn,  no  one  can  separate  us  from 
 the  love  of  Christ.  This  last  assurance  gives  permanency  to 
 the  value  of  the  other  two. 
 
 The  love  of  Christ  is  clearly  Christ's  love  towards  us,  and 
 not  ours  towards  him.  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  great  love  of 
 God  towards  us  as  manifested  in  the  gift  of  his  Son,  and  of  the 
 love  of  Christ  as  exhibited  in  his  dying,  rising,  and  interceding 
 for  us.  This  love,  which  is  so  great,  he  says  is  unchangeable. 
 Besides,  the  apostle's  object  in  the  whole  chapter  is  to  console 
 and  confirm  the  confidence  of  believers.  The  interpretation 
 just  mentioned  is  not  in  accordance  with  this  object.  It  is  no 
 ground  of  confidence  to  assert,  or  even  to  feel,  that  we  will 
 never  forsake  Christ,  but  it  is  the  strongest  ground  of  assurance 
 
 *  "Porro  banc  intercessionem  carnali  sensu  ne  metriamur;  Non  enim  cogi- 
 tandus  est  supplex,  flexis  genibus,  manibus  expansis  Patrem  deprecari:  sed 
 quia  apparet  ipse  assidue  cum  morte  et  resurrectione  sua,  quae  vice  sunt 
 aeternae  intercessionis,  et  vivae  orationis  efficaciam  habent,  ut  Patrem  nobis 
 concilient,  atque  exorabilem  reddant,  merito  dicitur  intercedere." — Calvin. 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  36.  457 
 
 to  be  convinced  that  his  love  will  never  change.  And,  more- 
 over, verse  39  requires  this  interpretation;  for  there  Paul 
 expresses  the  same  sentiment  in  language  which  cannot  be 
 misunderstood.  "No  creature,"  he  says,  "shall  be  able  to 
 separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus." 
 This  is  evidently  God's  love  towards  us.  The  great  difficulty 
 with  many  Christians  is  that  they  cannot  persuade  themselves 
 that  Christ  (or  God)  loves  them;  and  the  reason  why  they 
 cannot  feel  confident  of  the  love  of  God,  is,  that  they  know 
 they  do  not  deserve  his  love,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  are  in 
 the  highest  degree  unlovely.  How  can  the  infinitely  pure  God 
 love  those  who  are  defiled  with  sin,  who  are  proud,  selfish,  dis- 
 contented, ungrateful,  disobedient?  This,  indeed,  is  hard  to 
 believe.  But  it  is  the  very  thing  we  are  required  to  believe, 
 not  only  as  the  condition  of  peace  and  hope,  but  as  the  condi- 
 tion of  salvation.  If  our  hope  of  God's  mercy  and  love  is 
 founded  on  our  own  goodness  or  attractiveness,  it  is  a  false 
 hope.  We  must  believe  that  his  love  is  gratuitous,  mysterious, 
 without  any  known  or  conceivable  cause,  certainly  without  the 
 cause  of  loveliness  in  its  object ;  that  it  is,  in  short,  what  it  is 
 so  often  declared  to  be  in  the  Bible,  analogous  to  the  love  of  a 
 parent  for  his  child.  A  father's  or  mother's  love  is  indepen- 
 dent of  the  attractiveness  of  its  object,  and  often  in  spite  of  its 
 deformity. 
 
 Shall  tribulation^  or  distress,  or  persecution,  &c.  This  is 
 merely  an  amplification  of  the  preceding  idea.  Nothing  shall 
 separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ,  neither  tribulation,  nor 
 distress,  nor  persecution,  &c.  That  is,  whatever  we  may  be 
 called  upon  to  sufi"er  in  this  life,  nothing  can  deprive  us  of  the 
 love  of  him  who  died  for  us,  and  who  now  lives  to  plead  our 
 cause  in  heaven;  and,  therefore,  these  afflictions,  and  all  other 
 difficulties,  are  enemies  we  may  despise.  "  Sicut  enim  nebulae 
 quamvis  liquidum  solis  conspectum  obscurent,  non  tamen  ejus 
 fulgore  in  totum  nos  privant:  sic  Deus  in  rebus  adversis  per 
 caliginem  emittit  gratiae  suae  radios,  nequa  tentatio  despera- 
 tione  nos  obruat :  imo  fides  nostra  promissionibus  Dei  tanquam 
 aiis  fulta  sui'sum  in  coelos  per  media  obstacula  penetrare  debet." 
 Calvin. 
 
 Verse  36.  As  it  is  written,  for  thy  sake  we  are  killed  all  the 
 
458  ROMANS  VIII.  37—39. 
 
 day  long,  &c.  A  quotation  from  Psalm  xliv.  22,  agreeably  to 
 the  Septuagint  translation.  The  previous  verse  of  course 
 implied  that  believers  should  be  exposed  to  many  afflictions, 
 to  famine,  nakedness,  and  the  sword;  this,  Paul  would  say,  is 
 in  accordance  with  the  experience  of  the  pious  in  all  ages.  We 
 suffer,  as  it  is  recorded  of  the  Old  Testament  saints,  that  they 
 suffered. 
 
 Verse  37.  Nay,  in  all  these  things  tve  are  more  than  cow 
 querors,  &c.  This  verse  is  connected  with  the  35th.  '  So  far 
 from  these  afflictions  separating  us  from  the  love  of  Christ, 
 they  are  more  than  conquered.'  That  is,  they  are  not  only 
 deprived  of  all  power  to  do  us  harm,  they  minister  to  our  good, 
 they  swell  the  glory  of  our  victory.  Through  him  that  loved 
 us.  The  triumph  which  the  apostle  looked  for  was  not  to  be 
 effected  by  his  own  strength  or  perseverance,  but  by  the  grace 
 and  power  of  the  Redeemer.  1  Cor.  xv.  10,  Gal.  ii.  20,  Philip, 
 iv.  13,  "  I  can  do  all  things  through  Christ  which  strengthen- 
 eth  me." 
 
 Verses  38,  39.  In  these  verses  the  confidence  of  the  apostle 
 is  expressed  in  the  strongest  language.  He  heaps  Avords 
 together  in  the  effort  to  set  forth  fully  the  absolute  inability  of 
 all  created  things,  separately  or  united,  to  frustrate  the  pur- 
 pose of  God,  or  to  turn  away  his  love  from  those  whom  he  has 
 determined  to  save. 
 
 For  I  am  persuaded,  that  neither  death,  nor  life,  &c.  It  is 
 somewhat  doubtful  how  far  the  apostle  intended  to  express 
 distinct  ideas  by  the  several  words  here  used.  The  enumera- 
 tion is  by  some  considered  as  expressing  the  general  idea  that 
 nothing  in  the  universe  can  injure  believers,  the  detail  being 
 designed  merely  as  amplification.  This,  however,  is  not  very 
 probable.  The  former  view  is  to  be  preferred.  Neither  death. 
 That  is,  though  cut  off  in  this  world,  their  connection  with 
 Christ  is  not  thereby  destroyed.  "  They  shall  never  perish, 
 neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand,"  John  x.  28. 
 Nor  life,  neither  its  blandishments  nor  its  trials.  "Whether 
 we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord,  or  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto 
 the  Lord.  So  that  living  or  dying  we  are  the  Lord's."  Rom. 
 xiv.  8. 
 
 Nor  angels,   nor  principalities,  nor  2>oivers.      Principalities 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  39.  459 
 
 and  powers  are  by  many  understood  here  to  refer  to  the 
 authorities  of  this  world  as  distinguished  from  angels.  But  to 
 this  it  may  be  objected,  that  Paul  frequently  uses  these  terms  in 
 connection  to  designate  the  different  orders  of  spiritual  beings, 
 Eph.  i.  21,  Col.  i.  16;  and  secondly,  that  corresponding  terms 
 were  in  common  use  among  the  Jews  in  this  sense.  It  is 
 probable,  from  the  nature  of  the  passage,  that  this  clause  is  to 
 be  taken  generally,  Avithout  any  specific  reference  to  either  good 
 or  bad  angels  as  such.  'No  superhuman  power,  no  angel,  how- 
 ever mighty,  shall  ever  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
 God.'  Neitlier  things  2^rese7it,  nor  things  to  come.  Nothing  in 
 this  life,  nor  in  the  future ;  no  present  or  future  event,  &c. 
 
 Verse  39.  JVor  height,  nor  depth.  These  words  have  been 
 very  variously  explained.  That  interpretation  which  seems,  on 
 the  whole,  most  consistent  with  scriptural  usage  and  the  con- 
 text, is  that  which  makes  the  terms  equivalent  to  heaven  and 
 earth.  '  Nothing  in  heaven  or  earth  ;'  see  Eph.  iv.  8,  Isa.  vii.  11, 
 "Ask  it  either  in  the  depth  or  the  height  above,"  &c.,  &c.  I^or 
 any  other  creature.  Although  the  preceding  enumeration  had 
 been  so  minute,  the  apostle,  as  if  to  prevent  despondency  having 
 the  possibility  of  a  foothold,  adds  this  all-comprehending  speci- 
 fication, no  created  thing  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the 
 love  of  God.  This  love  of  God,  Avhich  is  declared  to  be  thus 
 unchangeable,  is  extended  towards  us  only  on  account  of  our 
 connection  with  Christ,  and  therefore  the  apostle  adds,  which 
 is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord;  see  Eph.  i.  6,  2  Tim.  i.  9. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  God  chooses  certain  individuals  and  predestinates  them  to 
 eternal  life.  The  ground  of  this  choice  is  his  own  sovereign 
 pleasure ;  the  end  to  which  the  elect  are  predestinated,  is  con- 
 formity to  Jesus  Christ,  both  in  character  and  destiny,  ver.  29. 
 
 2.  Those  Avho  are  thus  chosen  shall  certainly  be  saved, 
 ver.  30. 
 
 3.  The  only  cA'idence  of  election  is  effectual  calling,  that  is, 
 the  production  of  holiness.  And  the  only  evidence  of  the 
 genuineness  of  this  call  and  the  certainty  of  our  peseverance, 
 is  a  patient  continuance  in  well  doing,  vs.  29,  30. 
 
460  ROMANS  VIII.  29—39. 
 
 4.  The  love  of  God,  and  not  human  merit  or  power,  is  the 
 proper  ground  of  confidence.  This  love  is  infinitely  great,  as 
 is  manifested  by  the  gift  of  God's  own  Son ;  and  it  is  unchange- 
 able, as  the  apostle  strongly  asserts,  vs.  31 — 89. 
 
 5.  The  gift  of  Christ  is  not  the  result  of  the  mere  general 
 love  of  God  to  the  human  family,  but  also  of  special  love  to  his 
 own  people,  ver.  32. 
 
 6.  Hope  of  pardon  and  eternal  life  should  rest  on  the  death, 
 the  resurrection,  universal  dominion,  and  intercession  of  the 
 Son  of  God,  ver.  34. 
 
 7.  Trials  and  afflictions  of  every  kind  have  been  the  portion 
 of  the  people  of  God  in  all  ages ;  as  they  cannot  destroy  the 
 love  of  Christ  towards  us,  they  ought  not  to  shake  our  love 
 towards  him,  ver.  35. 
 
 8.  The  whole  universe,  with  all  that  it  contains,  as  far  as  it 
 is  good,  is  the  friend  and  ally  of  the  Christian ;  as  far  as  it  is 
 evil,  it  is  a  more  than  conquered  foe,  vs.  85 — 39. 
 
 9.  The  love  of  God,  infinite  and  unchangeable  as  it  is,  is 
 manifested  to  sinners  only  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord, 
 ver.  39. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  plan  of  redemption,  while  it  leaves  no  room  for 
 despondency,  affords  no  pretence  for  presumption.  Those 
 whom  God  loves  he  loves  unchangeably ;  but  it  is  not  on  the 
 ground  of  their  peculiar  excellence,  nor  can  this  love  be 
 extended  towards  those  who  live  in  sin,  vs.  29 — 39. 
 
 2.  As  there  is  a  beautiful  harmony  and  necessary  connection 
 between  the  several  doctrines  of  grace,  between  election,  pre- 
 destination, calling,  justification,  and  glorification,  so  must  there 
 be  a  like  harmony  in  the  character  of  the  Christian.  He 
 cannot  experience  the  joy  and  confidence  flowing  from  his 
 election,  without  the  humility  which  the  consideration  of  its 
 being  gratuitous  must  produce ;  nor  can  he  have  the  peace  of 
 one  who  is  justified,  without  the  holiness  of  one  who  is  called, 
 vs.  29,  30. 
 
 3.  As  Christ  is  the  first  born  or  head  among  many  brethren, 
 all  true  Christians  must  love  him  supremely,  and  each  other  as 
 
ROMANS  VIII.  29—39.  461 
 
 members  of  the  same  family.     Unless  we  have  this  love,  we 
 do  not  belong  to  this  sacred  brotherhood,  ver.  29. 
 
 4.  If  the  love  of  God  is  so  great  and  constant,  it  is  a  great 
 sin  to  distrust  or  doubt  it,  vs.  30 — 39. 
 
 5.  Believers  need  not  be  concerned  if  they  are  condemned 
 by  the  world,  since  God  justifies  them,  vs.  33,  31. 
 
 6.  If  God  spared  not  his  own  Son,  in  order  to  effect  our 
 salvation,  what  sacrifice  on  our  part  can  be  considered  great,  as 
 a  return  for  such  love,  or  as  a  means  of  securing  the  salvation 
 of  others,  ver.  32. 
 
 7.  The  true  method  to  drive  away  despondency,  is  believing 
 apprehensions  of  the  scriptural  grounds  of  hope,  viz.,  the  love 
 of  God,  the  death  of  Christ,  his  resurrection,  his  universal 
 dominion  and  his  intercession,  ver.  34. 
 
 8.  Though  the  whole  universe  were  encamped  against  the 
 solitary  Christian,  he  would  still  come  off  more  than  conqueror, 
 vs.  35—39. 
 
 9.  Afilictions  and  trials  are  not  to  be  fled  from  or  avoided, 
 but  overcome,  ver.  37. 
 
 10.  All  strength  to  endure  and  to  conquer  comes  to  us 
 through  him  that  loved  us.  Without  him  we  can  do  nothing, 
 ver.  37. 
 
 11.  How  wonderful,  how  glorious,  how  secure  is  the  gospel ! 
 Those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus  are  as  secure  as  the  love  of  God, 
 the  merit,  power,  and  intercession  of  Christ  can  make  them. 
 They  are  hedged  around  with  mercy.  They  are  enclosed  in  the 
 arms  of  everlasting  love.  "  Now  unto  Him  that  is  able  to  keep 
 us  from  falling,  and  to  present  us  faultless  before  the  presence 
 of  his  glory  with  exceeding  joy;  to  the  only  wise  God  our 
 Saviour,  be  glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,  both  now 
 and  for  ever.     Amen !" 
 
462  ROMANS  IX. 
 
 CHAPTEH   IX. 
 
 With  the  eighth  chapter,  the  discussion  of  the  plan  of  salva- 
 tion, and  of  its  immediate  consequences,  was  brought  to  a  close. 
 The  consideration  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the 
 rejection  of  the  Jews,  commences  with  the  ninth,  and  extends 
 to  the  end  of  the  eleventh.  Paul,  in  the  first  place,  shows 
 that  God  may  consistently  reject  the  Jews,  and  extend  the 
 blessings  of  the  Messiah's  reign  to  the  Gentiles,  ix.  1 — 24; 
 and  in  the  second  place,  that  he  has  already  declared  that  such 
 was  his  purpose,  vs.  25 — 29.  Agreeably  to  these  prophetic 
 declarations,  the  apostle  announces  that  the  Jews  were  cast  off 
 and  the  Gentiles  called ;  the  former  having  refused  submission 
 to  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  the  latter  having  been 
 obedient,  vs.  30 — 33.  In  the  tenth  chapter,  Paul  shows  the 
 necessity  of  this  rejection  of  the  ancient  people  of  God,  and 
 vindicates  the  propriety  of  extending  the  invitation  of  the 
 gospel  to  the  heathen,  in  accordance  with  the  predictions  of 
 the  prophets.  In  the  eleventh,  he  teaches  that  this  rejection 
 of  the  Jews  was  neither  total  nor  final.  It  was  not  total,  inas- 
 much as  many  Jews  of  that  generation  believed,  and  it  was  not 
 final,  as  the  period  approached  when  the  great  body  of  that 
 nation  should  acknowledge  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  be  rein- 
 grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree.  So  that  we  have  in  this  and 
 the  following  chapters,  1st.  Paul's  lamentation  over  the  rejec- 
 tion of  the  Jews,  ix.  1 — 5.  2d.  The  proof  that  God  had  the 
 right  to  deal  thus  with  his  ancient  people,  ix.  6 — 29.  3d.  The 
 proof  that  the  guilt  of  this  rejection  was  on  the  Jews  them- 
 selves, ix.  30 — 33,  and  x.  1 — 21.  4th.  The  consolation  which 
 the  promises  and  revealed  purposes  of  God  ajQTord  in  view  of 
 this  sad  event. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 In  entering  on  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  rejection 
 of  the  Jews,  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  the  apostle  assures 
 his  brethren  of  his  love  for  them,  and  of  his  respect  for  their 
 national  privileges,  vs.  1 — 5.     That  his  doctrine  on  this  subject 
 
ROMANS  IX.  1—5.  463 
 
 vras  true,  lie  argues,  1.  Because  it  was  not  inconsistent  with 
 the  promises  of  God,  who  is  perfectly  sovereign  in  the  distribu- 
 tion of  his  favours,  vs.  6 — 24.  And  secondly,  because  it  was 
 distinctly  predicted  in  their  own  Scriptures,  vs.  25 — 29.  The 
 conclusion  from  this  reasoning  is  stated  in  vs.  20 — 33.  The 
 Jews  are  rejected  for  their  unbelief,  and  the  Gentiles  admitted 
 to  the  Messiah's  kingdom. 
 
 ROMANS  IX.  1—5. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 As  the  subject  about  to  be  discussed  was  of  all  others  the 
 most  painful  and  offensive  to  his  Jewish  brethren,  the  apostle 
 approaches  it  with  the  greatest  caution.  He  solemnly  assures 
 them  that  he  was  grieved  at  heart  on  their  account;  and  that 
 his  love  for  them  was  ardent  and  disinterested,  verses  1 — 3. 
 Their  peculiar  privileges  he  acknowledged  and  respected.  They 
 were  highly  distinguished  by  all  the  advantages  connected  with 
 the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  and,  above  all,  by  the  fact 
 that  the  Messiah  was,  according  to  the  flesh,  a  Jew,  verses  4,  5. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  I  say  the  truth  in  CJirist,  I  lie  not,  &c.  There  are 
 three  ways  in  which  the  words  in  Christ,  or  by  Christ,  may 
 here  be  understood.  1.  They  may  be  considered  as  part  of  the 
 formula  of  an  oath,  I  (swear)  by  Christ,  I  speak  the  truth.  But 
 in  oaths  the  preposition  Tvpoi;,  and  not  iu,  is  used.  In  a  few 
 cases,  indeed,  where  a  verb  of  swearing  is  used,  the  latter  pre- 
 position occurs,  but  not  otherwise.  In  addition  to  this  objec- 
 tion, it  may  be  urged  that  no  instance  occurs  of  Paul's  appeal- 
 ing to  Christ  in  the  form  of  an  oath.  The  case  which  looks 
 most  like  such  an  appeal  is  1  Tim.  v.  21,  "I  charge  thee  before 
 God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  elect  angels,"  &c. 
 But  it  is  evident  from  the  mention  of  the  angels,  that  this  is 
 not  of  the  nature  of  an  oath.  Paul  merely  wishes  to  urge 
 Timothy  to  act  as  in  the  presence  of  God,  Christ,  and  angels. 
 This  interpretation,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  approved.  2.  The 
 words  in  Christ  may  be  connected  with  the  pronoun  /.     '/  in 
 
464  ROMANS  IX.  1,  2. 
 
 Christ^''  i.  e.,  as  a  Christian,  or,  '  In  the  consciousness  of  my 
 union  with  Christ,  I  declare,'  &c.  So  the  words  are  used  in  a 
 multitude  of  cases,  "You  in  Christ,"  "I  in  Christ,"  "We  in 
 Christ,"  being  equivalent  to  you,  Z,  or  we,  as  Christians,  i.  e., 
 considered  as  united  to  Christ.  See  1  Cor.  i.  20,  "  Of  whom 
 are  ye  in  Christ,"  i.  e.,  'By  whom  ye  are  Christians,  or  united 
 to  Christ;'  Rom.  xvi.  3,  7,  9,  1  Cor.  iii.  1,  and  frequently 
 elsewhere.  3.  The  words  may  be  used  adverbially,  and  be 
 translated  after  a  Christian  manner.  This  also  is  a  frequent 
 use  of  this  and  analogous  phrases.  See  1  Cor.  vii.  39,  "  Only 
 in  the  Lord,"  i.  e.,  only  after  a  religious  manner,  in  the  Lord 
 being  equivalent  with  in  a  manner  becoming,  or  suited  to  the 
 Lord.  Rom.  xvi.  22,  "I  salute  you  in  the  Lord."  Philip,  ii. 
 29,  "Receive  him,  therefore,  in  the  Lord;"  Eph.  vi.  1,  Col. 
 iii.  18.  The  sense  of  the  passage  is  much  the  same,  whether 
 we  adopt  the  one  or  the  other  of  the  last  two  modes  of  expla- 
 nation. Paul  means  to  say  that  he  speaks  in  a  solemn  and 
 religious  manner,  as  a  Christian,  conscious  of  his  intimate  rela- 
 tion to  Christ. 
 
 /  say  the  truth,  and  lie  not.  This  mode  of  assertion,  first 
 affirmativel}'',  and  then  negatively,  is  common  in  the  Scriptures. 
 "Thou  shalt  die,  and  not  live,"  Isaiah  xxxviii.  1.  "He  con- 
 fessed, and  denied  not,"  John  i.  20.  There  is  generally  some- 
 thing emphatic  in  this  mode  of  speaking.  It  was  a  solemn  and 
 formal  assertion  of  his  integrity  which  Paul  here  designed  to 
 make.  My  conscience  also  hearing  me  witness;  auixfxapTOftouar^:;, 
 my  conscience  bearing  witness  with  my  words.  In  the  Holy 
 Ghost.  These  words  are  not  to  be  taken  as  an  oath,  nor  are 
 they  to  be  connected  with  the  subject  of  ou  (peooonat,  '/, 
 instructed,  or  influenced  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  lie  not;"  but 
 rather  with  auixp.apxupouarjZ,  his  conscience  bore  this  testimony 
 guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  Spiritu  Sancto  duce  et  moderatore, 
 as  Beza  expresses  it. 
 
 Verse  2.  That  I  have  great  heaviness,  &c.  This  it  is  which 
 Paul  so  solemnly  asserts.  He  was  not  an  indifferent  spectator 
 of  the  sorrow,  temporal  and  spiritual,  which  was  about  to  come 
 on  his  countrymen.  All  their  peculiar  national  advantages, 
 and  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  which  they  had 
 wickedly  rejected,  were  to  be  taken  away ;  they  were,  there- 
 
ROMANS  IX.  3.  465 
 
 fore,  left  without  hope,  either  for  this  world  or  the  next.  The 
 consideration  of  their  condition  filled  the  apostle  with  great  and 
 constant  heaviness.  The  sincerity  and  strength  of  this  sorrow 
 for  them  he  asserts  in  the  strongest  terms  in  the  next  verse. 
 
 Verse  3.  For  I  could  wish  that  myself  tvere  accursed  from 
 Christ  for  my  brethren,  &c.  The  word  anathema  (Attic  ai^d- 
 ^r^fia,  Hellenistic  a'jd&efia,)  means  any  thing  consecrated  to 
 God,  TO  dvart&eiJLevov  zw  6ew,  as  Suidas  explains  it.  The 
 Attic  form  of  the  word  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  only  in 
 Luke  xxi.  5.  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  Hebrew  word  to 
 which  it  answers  occurs  very  frequently,  and  probably  the  root 
 originally  meant  to  cut  off,  to  separate.  Hence,  the  substantive 
 derived  from  it,  meant  something  separated  or  consecrated.  In 
 usage,  however,  it  was  applied  only  to  such  things  as  could  not 
 be  redeemed,*  and  which,  when  possessed  of  life,  were  to  be 
 put  to  death.  It  is  evident  from  the  passages  quoted  in  the 
 margin,  that  the  word  usually  designates  a  person  or  thing  set 
 apart  to  destruction  on  religious  grounds ;  something  accursed. 
 
 In  the  New  Testament  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  is  very 
 nearly  the  same.  The  only  passages  in  which  it  occurs,  besides 
 the  one  before  us,  are  the  following;  Acts  xxiii.  14,  "We  have 
 bound  ourselves  under  a  great  curse,  (we  have  placed  ourselves 
 under  an  anathema,)  that  we  will  eat  nothing  until  we  have 
 slain  Paul."  The  meaning  of  this  passage  evidently  is,  'We 
 have  imprecated  on  ourselves  the  curse  of  God,  or  we  have 
 
 *  Levit.  xxvii.  28,  29,  "No  devoted  thing  that  a  man  shall  devote  unto  the 
 Lord  of  all  that  ha  hath,  both  of  man  and  beast,  and  of  the  field  of  his  posses- 
 sion, shall  be  sold  or  redeemed:  every  devoted  thing  (^-^n  dva'S-^wa)  is  most 
 holy  unto  the  Lord.  None  devoted,  ■which  shall  be  devoted  from  among  men, 
 shall  be  redeemed,  but  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." 
 
 Deut.  vii.  26,  "Neither  shalt  thou  bring  an  abomination  into  thy  house,  lest 
 thou  be  a  cursed  thing  (JvuS-s^a)  like  it,  but  thou  shalt  utterly  detest  it,  and 
 utterly  abhor  it;  for  it  is  a  cursed  thing."  The  sacred  writer  is  here  speak- 
 ing of  the  images,  &c.,  of  the  heathen,  which  were  devoted  to  destruction. 
 
 Joshua  vi.  17,  "And  the  city  shall  be  (uvaS-e^a)  accursed,  even  it  and  all  that 
 is  therein,  to  the  Lord,"  &c.  Verse  18,  "And  ye,  in  anywise  keep  yourselves 
 from  the  accursed  thing,  lest  ye  make  yourselves  accursed,  when  ye  take  of 
 the  accursed  thing,  and  make  the  camp  of  Israel  a  curse,  and  trouble  it." 
 
 1  Sam.  XV.  21,  "And  the  people  took  of  the  spoil,  sheep  and  oxen,  the  chief 
 of  the  things  which  should  have  been  utterly  destroyed,  &c.  In  Hebrew,  simplj 
 Q^nri)  of^  which  the  words  in  italics  are  a  paraphrase. 
 
 30 
 
466  ROMANS  IX.  3. 
 
 called  upon  him  to  consider  us  as  anathema.'  1  Cor.  xii.  3, 
 "No  man  speaking  by  the  Spirit  of  God  calleth  Jesus  accursed 
 (anathema);"  1  Cor.  xvi.  22,  "Let  him  be  anathema  mara- 
 natha;"  Gal.  i.  8,  9,  "Let  him  be  accursed  (anathema)."  In 
 all  these  cases  it  is  clear  that  the  word  is  applied  to  those  who 
 were  regarded  as  deservedly  exposed,  or  devoted  to  the  curse 
 of  God.  In  this  sense  it  was  used  by  the  early  Christian 
 writers,  and  from  them  passed  into  the  use  of  the  church.  "Let 
 him  be  anathema,"  being  the  constant  formula  of  pronouncing 
 any  one,  in  the  judgment  of  the  church,  exposed  to  the  divine 
 malediction. 
 
 Among  the  later  Jews,  this  word,  or  the  corresponding 
 Hebrew  term,  was  used  in  reference  to  the  seccad  of  the  three 
 degrees  into  which  they  divided  excommunication  (see  Buxtorf  s 
 Rabbinical  Lexicon.)  But  no  analogous  use  of  the  word  occurs 
 in  the  Bible.  Such  being  the  meaning  of  this  word  in  the 
 Scriptures,  its  application  in  this  case  by  the  apostle  admits  of 
 various  explanations.  The  most  common  interpretations  of  the 
 passage  are  the  following. 
 
 As  those  men  or  animals  pronounced  anathema  in  the  Old 
 Testament  were  to  be  put  to  death,  many  consider  the  apostle 
 as  having  that  idea  in  his  mind,  and  meaning  nothing  more 
 than  '  I  could  wish  to  die  for  my  brethren. '  &c.  But  the 
 objections  to  this  interpretation  are  serious.  Even  in  the  Old 
 Testament  the  word  expresses  something  more  than  the  idea 
 of  devotion  to  death.  An  anathema  was  a  person  devoted  to 
 death  as  accursed;  see  the  passages  quoted  above.  And  in  the 
 New  Testament  this  latter  idea  is  always  the  prominent  one. 
 
 The  connection  is  also  unfavourable  to  this  interpretation. 
 The  phrase  is,  "accursed /row  Christ.''  How  are  the  words 
 from  Christ  to  be  explained?  Some  say  they  should  be  ren- 
 dered hy  Christ.  'I  could  wish  myself  devoted  to  death  by 
 Christ.'  But  this  is  an  unusual  use  of  the  preposition  [oko) 
 which  our  version  correctly  renders  from;  and  the  whole 
 expression  is,  besides,  unusual  and  unnatural.  Others,  there- 
 fore, say  that  the  passage  should  be  rendered  thus :  '  I  could 
 wish  from  Christ,  that  I  might  be  devoted  to  death.'  But  this, 
 too,  is  an  unusual  and  forced  construction. 
 
 Others  think  that  Paul  has  reference  here  to  the  Jewish 
 
ROMANS  IX.  3.  467 
 
 use  of  the  word,  and  means  only  that  he  would  be  willing  to  be 
 cut  off  from  the  church,  or  excommunicated.  In  this  view  the 
 word  Christ  is  commonly  taken  for  the  body  of  Christ,  or  the 
 church.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  is  not  a  scriptural  use  of 
 the  word  anathema,  and  is  clearly  inapplicable  to  the  other 
 cases  in  which  it  is  used  by  the  apostle ;  and,  in  the  second 
 place,  it  gives  a  very  inadequate  sense.  Excommunication 
 from  the  church  would  not  be  a  great  evil  in  the  eyes  of  the 
 Jews. 
 
 Others  render  the  verb  which,  in  our  version,  is  translated 
 'I  could  wish,'  I  did  wish.  The  sense  would  then  be,  'I  have 
 great  sorrow  on  account  of  my  brethren,  because  I  can  sympa- 
 thize in  their  feelings,  for  I  myself  once  wished  to  be  accursed 
 from  Christ  on  their  account.'  But,  in  the  first  place,  had 
 Paul  intended  to  express  this  idea,  he  would  have  used  the 
 aorist,  the  common  tense  of  narration,  and  not  the  imperfect.* 
 2.  It  is  no  objection  to  the  common  translation,  that  the  imper- 
 fect indicative,  instead  of  some  form  of  the  optative,  is  here 
 used,  and  that,  too,  without  an  optative  particle,  see  Acts  xxv. 
 22.  3.  This  interpretation  does  not  give  a  sense  pertinent  to 
 the  apostle's  object.  He  is  not  expressing  Avhat  was  his  state 
 of  mind  formerly,  but  what  it  was  when  writing.  It  was  no 
 proof  of  his  love  for  his  brethren  that  he  once  felt  as  they 
 then  did,  but  the  highest  imaginable,  if  the  ordinary  interpre- 
 tation be  adopted.  4.  The  language  will  hardly  admit  of  this 
 interpretation.  No  Jew  would  express  his  hatred  of  Christ, 
 and  his  indifference  to  the  favours  which  he  offered,  by  sayincr 
 he  wished  himself  accursed  from  Christ.  Paul  never  so  wished 
 himself  before  his  conversion,  for  this  supposes  that  he  recog- 
 nised the  power  of  Christ  to  inflict  on  him  the  imprecated  curse, 
 and  that  his  displeasure  was  regarded  as  a  great  evil. 
 
 The  common  interpretation,  and  that  which  seems  most 
 natural,  is,  '  I  am  grieved  at  heart  for  my  brethren,  for  I  could 
 wish  myself  accursed  from  Christ,  that  is,  I  could  be  willing  to 
 be  regarded  and  treated  as  anathema,  a  thing  accursed,  for 
 their  sakes.'f      That  this  interpretation  suits  the  force   and 
 
 *  That  is,  Dli^dfAnv  Tr^ri  instead  of  >iu)(Jjy.)iv. — Noesselt. 
 
 f  Seasus  est:  optabam  Judaeorum  miseriam  in  meum  caput  conferre,  et 
 illorum  loco  esse.  Judaei,  fidem  repudiantes,  erant  anathema  a  Christo. — 
 Bengel. 
 
468  ROMANS  IX.  3. 
 
 meaning  of  the  words,  and  is  agreeable  to  the  context,  must, 
 on  all  hands,  be  admitted.  The  only  objection  to  it  is  of  a 
 theological  kind.  It  is  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  apostle's 
 character  to  wish  that  he  should  be  accursed  from  Christ.  But 
 to  this  it  may  be  answered,  1.  Paul  does  not  say  that  he  did 
 deliberately  and  actually  entertain  such  a  Avish.  The  expres- 
 sion is  evidently  hypothetical  and  conditional,  '  I  could  wish, 
 were  the  thing  allowable,  possible,  or  proper.'  So  far  from 
 saying  he  actually  desired  to  be  thus  separated  from  Christ,  he 
 impliedly  says  the  very  reverse.  '  I  could  wish  it,  were  it  not 
 wrong ;  or,  did  it  not  involve  my  being  unholy  as  well  as  mise- 
 rable, but  as  such  is  the  case,  the  desire  cannot  be  entertained.' 
 This  is  the  proper  force  of  the  imperfect  indicative  when  thus 
 used ;  it  implies  the  presence  of  a  condition  Avhich  is  known  to 
 be  impossible.  Speaking  of  the  use  of  the  imperfect  i^ouXoirrjv 
 in  Acts  XXV.  22,  Dr.  Alexander  says :  "  Most  interpreters,  and 
 especially  the  most  exact  philologists  of  modern  times,  explain 
 the  Greek  verb,  like  the  similar  imperfect  used  by  Paul  in 
 Rom.  ix.  2,  as  the  indirect  expression  of  a  present  wish,  ren- 
 dered correctly  in  the  English  version.  The  nice  distinction 
 in  Greek  usage,  as  explained  by  these  authorities,  is  that  the 
 present  tense  would  have  represented  the  result  as  dependent 
 on  the  speaker's  will  (as  in  Rom.  i.  13,  16,  19,  1  Cor.  xvi.  7, 
 1  Tim.  ii.  8) ;  the  imperfect  with  the  qualifying  particle  av 
 would  have  meant,  I  could  wish  (but  I  do  not) ;  whereas  this 
 precise  form  is  expressive  of  an  actual  and  present  wish,  but 
 subject  to  the  will  of  others,  '  I  could  wish,  if  it  were  proper,  or 
 if  you  have  no  objection.'*  2.  Even  if  the  words  expressed 
 more  than  they  actually  do,  and  the  apostle  were  to  be  under- 
 stood as  saying  that  he  wished  to  be  cut  off  from  Christ,  yet, 
 from  the  nature  of  the  passage,  it  could  fairly  be  understood 
 as  meaning  nothing  more  than  that  he  was  willing  to  suffer  the 
 
 *  Buttmann's  Larger  Grammar,  by  Professor  Robinson,  p.  187.  Matthiae, 
 sect.  508,  509.  And  Winer's  Grammar,  p.  233,  who  thus  translates  the  pas- 
 sage before  us:  "Vellem  ego  (si  fieri  posset):  ich  -wdnschte  (wenn  es  nur 
 nicht  unmOglich  ware)."  Tholuck  says:  "Tha  indicative  of  the  imperfect 
 expresses  exactly  the  impossibility  of  that  for  which  one  wishes,  on  which 
 account  it  is  not,  properly  speaking,  really  wished  at  all.  The  optative  admits 
 the  possibility  of  the  thing  wished  for,  and  the  present  supposes  the  certainty 
 of  it." 
 
ROMANS  IX.  4.  469 
 
 utmost  misery  for  the  sake  of  his  brethren.  The  difficulty 
 arises  from  pressing  the  words  too  far,  making  them  express 
 definite  ideas,  instead  of  strong  and  indistinct  emotions.  The 
 general  idea  is,  that  he  considered  himself  as  nothing,  and  his 
 happiness  as  a  matter  of  no  moment  compared  with  the  salva- 
 tion of  his  brethren.*  Brethren  according  to  the  Jlesh.  Paul 
 had  two  classes  of  brethren;  those  who  were  Avith  him  the 
 children  of  God  in  Christ ;  these  he  calls  brethren  in  the  Lord, 
 Philip,  i.  14,  holy  brethren,  &c.  The  others  were  those  who 
 belonged  to  the  family  of  Abraham.  These  he  calls  brethren 
 after  the  flesh,  that  is,  in  virtue  of  natural  descent  from  the 
 same  parent.  Philemon  he  addresses  as  his  brother  xac  ku  ao.pxl 
 xac  ku  Kufjcw,  both  in  the  flesh  and  in  the  Lord.  The  Bible 
 recognises  the  validity  and  rightness  of  all  the  constitutional 
 principles  and  impulses  of  our  nature.  It  therefore  approves 
 of  parental  and  filial  affection,  and,  as  is  plain  from  this  and 
 other  passages,  of  peculiar  love  for  the  people  of  our  own  race 
 and  country. 
 
 Verse  4.  The  object  of  the  apostle  in  the  introduction  to 
 this  chapter,  contained  in  the  first  five  verses,  is  to  assure  the 
 Jews  of  his  love  and  of  his  respect  for  their  peculiar  privileges. 
 The  declaration  of  his  love  he  had  just  made;  his  respect  for 
 their  advantages  is  expressed  in  the  enumeration  of  them  con- 
 tained in  this  verse.  Who  are  Israelites,  i.  e.,  the  peculiar 
 people  of  God.  This  includes  all  the  privileges  which  are 
 afterwards  mentioned.  The  word  Israel  means  one  who  con- 
 tends with  Grod,  or  a  prince  with  Grod.  Hosea  xii.  3,  "  He 
 took  his  brother  by  the  heel  in  the  womb,  and  by  his  strength 
 he  had  power  with  God."  As  it  was  given  to  Jacob  as  an 
 expression  of  God's  peculiar  favour,  Gen.  xxxii.  28,  its  appli- 
 cation to  his  descendants  implied  that  they  too  were  the 
 favourites  of  God.  To  whom  pertaineth  the  adoption.  As  Paul 
 is  speaking  here  of  the  external  or  natural  Israel,  the  adoptio7i 
 
 *  Utrum  privationem  duntaxat  omnis  boni,  et  destructionem  vel  annihila- 
 tionem  sui,  an  etiam  perpessionem  omnis  mali,  eamque  et  in  corpore  et  in 
 anima,  et  sempiternam,  optaret,  aut  in  ipso  voti  illius  paroxysmo  intellectui 
 sue  observantem  habuerit,  quis  scit,  an  Paulus  ipse  interrogatus  definiret? 
 Certe  illud  ego  penitus  apud  ilium  in  pausa  erat:  tantum  alios,  honoris  divini 
 causa,  spectabat. — Bengel. 
 
470  ROMANS  IX.  4. 
 
 or  sonship  which  pertained  to  them,  as  such,  must  he  external 
 also,  and  is  very  diflferent  from  that  which  he  had  spoken  of  in 
 the  preceding  chapter.  They  were  the  sons  of  God,  i.  e.,  the 
 objects  of  liis  peculiar  favour,  selected  from  the  nations  of  the 
 earth  to  be  the  recipients  of  peculiar  blessings,  and  to  stand  in 
 a  peculiar  relation  to  God.  Exod.  iv.  22,  "  Thou  shalt  say 
 unto  Pharaoh,  Israel  is  my  son,  even  my  first-born;"  Deut. 
 xiv.  1,  "Ye  are  the  children  of  the  Lord  your  God;"  Jer.  xxxi. 
 9,  "I  am  a  father  to  Israel,  and  Ephraim  is  my  first-born."  As 
 the  whole  Old  Testament  economy  was  a  type  and  shadow  of 
 the  blessings  of  the  New,  so  the  sonship  of  the  Israelites  was 
 an  adumbration  of  the  sonship  of  believers.  That  of  the  for- 
 mer was  in  itself,  and  as  common  to  ail  the  Jews,  only  the 
 peculiar  relation  which  they  sustained  to  God  as  partakers  of 
 the  blessings  of  the  theocracy.  The  latter,  common  to  all  the 
 true  children  of  God  under  any  dispensation,  is  that  relation 
 in  which  we  stand  to  God  in  virtue  of  regeneration,  the  indwell- 
 ing of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  adoption  into  the  household  of 
 God. 
 
 And  the  glory.  These  words  are  variously  explained.  They 
 may  be  connected  with  the  preceding,  as  explanatory  of  the 
 adoption,  or  as  qualifying  it,  and  the  two  words  be  equivalent 
 to  glorious  adoption.  But  as  every  other  specification  in  this 
 verse  is  to  be  taken  separately,  so  should  this  be.  Others 
 understand  it,  of  the  dignity  and  distinction  of  the  theocratical 
 people.  It  was  their  glory  to  be  the  people  of  God.  In  the 
 Old  Testament,  however,  that  symbolical  manifestation  of  the 
 divine  presence  which  filled  the  tabernacle  and  rested  over  the 
 ark,  is  called  the  glory  of  the  Lord.  Exod.  xl.  34,  "A  cloud 
 covered  the  tent  of  the  congregation;  and  the  glory  of  the 
 Lord  filled  the  tabernacle;"  Exod.  xxix.  43,  "There  will  I 
 meet  with  the  children  of  Israel,  and  the  tabernacle  shall  be 
 sanctified  by  my  glory;"  Lev.  xvi.  2,  "I  will  appear  in  the 
 cloud  upon  the  mercy-seat;"  1  Kings  viii.  11,  "The  glory  of 
 the  Lord  had  filled  the  house  of  the  Lord;"  2  Chron.  v.  14, 
 Haggai  ii.  7,  Rev.  xv.  8.  By  the  Jews  this  symbol  was  called 
 the  Shekinah,  i.  e.,  the  presence  of  God.  Besides  this,  the 
 manifestation  of  God's  presence  in  general  is  called  his  glory ; 
 Isa.  vi.  4,  "  The  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory,"  &c.     It  is 
 
ROMANS  IX.  5.  471 
 
 probable,  therefore,  that  Paul  intended  by  this  word  to  refer  to 
 the  fact  that  God  dwelt  in  a  peculiar  manner  among  the  Jews, 
 and  in  various  ways  manifested  his  presence,  as  one  of  their 
 peculiar  privileges. 
 
 The  covenanU.  The  plural  is  used  because  God  at  various 
 times  entered  into  covenant  with  the  Jews  and  their  fore- 
 fathers; by  which  he  secured  to  them  innumerable  blessings 
 and  privileges;  see  Gal.  iii.  16,  17,  Eph.  ii.  12.  The  giving 
 of  the  law,  {^fj  vono&eaid)  the  legislation.  The  word  is  some- 
 times used  for  the  law  itself  (see  the  Lexicons) ;  it  may  here  be 
 taken  strictly,  that  giving  of  the  late,  i.  e.,  the  solemn  and  glo- 
 rious annunciation  of  the  divine  will  from  Mount  Sinai.  The 
 former  is  the  most  probable ;  because  the  possession  of  the  law 
 was  the  grand  distinction  of  the  Jews,  and  one  on  which  they 
 peculiarly  relied;  see  chap.  ii.  17.  The  service  means  the 
 whole  ritual,  the  pompous  and  impressive  religious  service  of 
 the  tabernacle  and  temple.  The  promises  relate,  no  doubt, 
 specially  to  the  promises  of  Christ  and  his  kingdom.  This  was 
 the  great  inheritance  of  the  nation.  This  was  the  constant 
 subject  of  gratulation  and  object  of  hope.  See  Gal.  iii.  16, 
 "Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made;"  ver. 
 21,  "Is  the  law  against  the  promises  of  God?"  So  in  other 
 places  the  word  promises  is  used  specially  for  the  predictions 
 in  reference  to  the  great  redemption,  Acts  xxvi.  6. 
 
 Verse  5.  Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning 
 the  Jiesh,  Christ  came,  &c.  The  descent  of  the  Jews  from  men 
 so  highly  favoured  of  God  as  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  was 
 justly  regarded  as  a  great  distinction.  And  of  whom.  The 
 and  here  shows  that  whom  refers,  not  to  the  fathers,  but  to  the 
 Israelites,  to  whom  pertained  the  adoption,  the  law,  the  service, 
 and  of  whom  Christ  came.  This  was  the  great  honour  of  the 
 Jewish  race.  For  this  they  were  separated  as  a  peculiar  peo- 
 ple, and  preserved  amidst  all  their  afflictions.  As  it  was  true, 
 however,  only  in  one  sense,  that  Christ  was  descended  from  the 
 Israelites,  and  as  there  was  another  view  of  his  person,  accord- 
 ing to  which  he  was  infinitely  exalted  above  them  and  all  other 
 men,  the  apostle  qualifies  his  declaration  by  saying  as  concern- 
 ing the  Jiesh.  The  word  flesh  is  used  so  often  for  human  nature 
 in  its  present  state,  or  for  men,  that  the  phrase  as  to  the  flesh, 
 
472  ROMANS  IX.  5. 
 
 in  such  connections,  evidently  means  in  as  far  as  he  was  a  man, 
 or  as  to  his  human  nature,  chap.  i.  3.  In  like  manner,  when 
 it  is  said  Christ  was  manifested  or  came  in  the  flesh,  it  means, 
 he  came  in  our  nature,  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  1  John  iv.  2,  &c. 
 
 Who  is  over  all,  Grod  blessed  for  ever.  Amen.  There  is  but 
 one  interpretation  of  this  important  passage  which  can,  with 
 the  least  regard  to  the  rules  of  construction,  be  maintained. 
 The  words  6  wu  are  equivalent  here  to  o'c  iffTi,  as  in  John  i.  18, 
 xii.  17,  2  Cor.  xi.  31.  Over  all,  i.  e.,  over  all  things,  not  over 
 all  persons.  The  Tidvzcov  is  neuter,  and  not  masculine ;  see 
 Acts  X.  37,  1  Cor.  XV.  28.  It  is  supremacy  over  the  universe 
 which  is  here  expressed,  and  therefore  this  language  precludes 
 the  possibility  of  dtb(;  being  taken  in  any  subordinate  sense. 
 In  the  Greek  fathers,  6  hm  Trdi^vcov  dsb^  is  the  constantly 
 recurring  designation  of  the  supreme  God.  So  exalted  is  its 
 import,  that  some  of  them  used  it  only  in  reference  to  the 
 Father,  who,  being  the  first  Person  in  the  Trinity,  was,  they 
 say,  alone  as  a  person,  God  over  all.  It  is  not  the  relation  of 
 the  persons  of  the  Trinity,  however,  which  is  here  brought  into 
 viev.^,  but  simply  the  true  and  supreme  divinity  of  our  Lord. 
 Paul  evidently  declares  that  Christ,  who,  he  had  just  said,  was, 
 as  to  his  human  nature,  or  as  a  man,  descended  from  the  Israel- 
 ites, is,  in  another  respect,  the  supreme  God,  or  God  over  all, 
 and  blessed  for  ever.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage, 
 is  evident  from  the  following  arguments:  1.  The  relative  wAo 
 must  agree  with  the  nearest  antecedent.  There  is  no  other 
 subject  in  the  context  sufficiently  prominent  to  make  a  depar- 
 ture from  this  ordinary  rule,  in  this  case,  even  plausible.  "  Of 
 whom  Christ  came,  who  is,"  &c.  Who  is?  Certainly  Christ, 
 for  he  alone  is  spoken  of.  2.  The  context  requires  this  inter- 
 pretation, because,  as  Paul  was  speaking  of  Christ,  it  would  be 
 very  unnatural  thus  suddenly  to  change  the  subject,  and  break 
 out  into  a  doxology  to  God.  Frequently  as  the  pious  feelings 
 of  the  apostle  led  him  to  use  such  exclamations  of  praise,  he 
 never  does  it  except  when  God  is  the  immediate  subject  of  dis- 
 course. See  chap.  i.  25,  "Who  worship  and  serve  the  creature 
 more  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for  evermore;"  Gal.  i.  5. 
 2.  Cor.  xi.  31.  Besides,  it  was  the  very  object  of  the  apostle 
 to  set  forth  the  great  honour  to  the  Jews  of  having  Christ  born 
 
ROMANS  IX.  5.  473 
 
 among  them,  and  this,  of  course,  •would  lead  to  his  presenting 
 the  dignity  of  the  Redeemer  in  the  strongest  light.  For  the 
 greater  he  was,  the  greater  the  honour  to  those  of  whose  race 
 he  came.  3.  The  antithesis,  which  is  evidently  implied  be- 
 tween the  two  clauses  of  the  verse,  is  in  favour  of  this  interpre- 
 tation. Christ,  according  to  the  flesh,  was  an  Israelite,  but, 
 according  to  his  higher  nature,  the  supreme  God.  On  any 
 other  interpretation  there  is  nothing  to  answer  to  the  to  xazd 
 adpxa.  Tliese  words  are  used  in  distinct  reference,  and  for  the 
 sake  of  the  clause  who  is  over  all.  Why  not  simply  say,  "  of 
 whom  Christ  came"?  This  would  have  expressed  every  thing, 
 had  not  the  apostle  designed  to  bring  into  view  the  divine 
 nature.  Having,  however,  the  purpose  to  exalt  Christ,  in 
 order  to  present  in  the  highest  form  the  honour  conferred  on 
 the  Jewish  race  in  giving  the  Messiah  to  the  world,  he  limits 
 the  first  clause.  It  was  only  as  to  the  Jlesh  that  Christ  was 
 descended  from  the  patriarchs ;  as  to  his  higher  nature,  he  was 
 the  supreme  God.  See  the  strikingly  analogous  passage  in 
 chap.  i.  3,  4,  where  Christ  is  said,  according  to  one  nature,  to 
 be  the  Son  of  David,  according  to  the  other,  the  Son  of  God. 
 4.  No  other  interpretation  is  at  all  consistent  with  the  gram- 
 matical construction,  or  the  relative  position  of  the  words. 
 One  proposed  by  Erasmus  is  to  place  a  full  stop  after  the 
 words  Christ  came,  and  make  all  the  rest  of  the  verse  refer  to 
 God.  The  passage  would  then  read  thus :  "  Of  whom,  as  con- 
 cerning the  flesh,  Christ  came.  God  blessed  for  ever.  Amen." 
 But  this  is  not  only  opposed  by  the  reasons  already  urged,  that 
 such  doxologies  suppose  God  to  be  the  immediate  subject  of 
 discourse,  or  are  preceded  by  some  particle  which  breaks  the 
 connection,  and  shows  plainly  what  the  reference  is,  &c. ;  but, 
 apart  from  these  objections,  no  such  doxology  occurs  in  all  the 
 Bible.  That  is,  the  uniform  expression  is,  "blessed  be  God," 
 and  never  "God  be  blessed."*  The  word  blessed  always 
 stands  first,  and  the  word  Grod  after  it  with  the  article.  Often 
 as  such  cases  occur  in  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  Scriptures,  there 
 
 *  In  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  constant  form  of  the 
 doxology  is  tjKoynToc  o  ©kc,  or  si\oy>iri(  ttv^m  o  ©«oc,  never  the  reverse.  And  so 
 in  Hebrew,  always  nitT'  ll^^a 
 
474  ROMANS  IX.  5. 
 
 is,  it  is  believed,  no  case  of  the  contrary  arrangement.  In 
 Psalm  Ixviii.  20  (Septuagint  Ixvii.  19),  the  only  apparent 
 exception,  the  first  clause  is  probably  not  a  doxology,  but  a 
 simple  affirmation,  as  in  the  old  Latin  version,  Dominus  Deus 
 benedictus  est.  In  the  HebreAV  it  is,  as  in  all  other  cases. 
 Blessed  be  the  Lord,  and  so  in  our  version  of  that  Psalm.  See 
 also  Ps.  xxxi,  21,  Ixxii.  18,  19,  xli.  13,  Ixviii.  35,  Ixxxix. 
 f52,  Gen.  ix.  26,  Exod.  xviii.  10,  and  a  multitude  of  other  ex- 
 amples. In  all  these  and  similar  passages,  the  expression  is 
 blessed  be  Grod,  or  blessed  be  the  Lord,  and  never  God  blessed, 
 or  Lord  blessed.  This  being  the  case,  it  is  altogether  incredi- 
 ble that  Paul,  whose  ear  must  have  been  perfectly  familiar 
 with  this  constantly  recurring  formula  of  praise,  should,  in 
 this  solitary  instance,  have  departed  from  the  established 
 usage.  This  passage,  therefore,  cannot  be  considered  as  a 
 doxology,  or  an  ascription  of  praise  to  God,  and  rendered 
 Grod  be  blessed,  but  must  be  taken  as  a  declaration,  who  is 
 blessed;  see  chap.  i.  25,  "The  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for 
 ever."  2  Cor.  xi.  31,  "The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
 Jesus  Christ,  who  is  blessed  for  evermore."  See  Matt.  xxi.  9, 
 Luke  i.  68,  2  Cor.  i.  3,  Eph.  i.  3,  1  Pet.  i.  3;  in  these  and 
 all  other  cases,  where,  as  here,  the  copula  is  omitted,  it  is 
 eokoyoTo^  6  0e6^.  Where  the  relative  and  verb  are  used,  then 
 it  is  not  an  exclamation  but  an  affirmation,  as  Rom.  i.  25 :  tbv 
 xriaavza,  oz  iaviu  ehXoyrjzbz  et^  roL»c  alcbvaQ.  'Atxrjv.  2  Cor. 
 xi.  31 :  6  debt;  xal  Ttarrjp — 6  wu  euXoyr^rdt;  ec;  rah;  aliova; ;  and 
 here,  XpeaTo;,  6  wv  km  TcdvTcov  debt;,  £u?,oj'7jzb;  zc;  roue  acajva^. 
 "'Afx/jv.  To  separate  this  passage  from  the  class  to  which  it 
 obviously  belongs,  and  to  make  it  a  solitary  exception,  is  to  do 
 violence  to  the  text.  A  second  method  of  pointing  the  verse, 
 also,  proposed  by  Erasmus,  and  followed  by  many  others,  is  to 
 place  the  pause  after  the  word  all.  The  verse  would  then  read, 
 "  Of  whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over 
 all.  God  be  blessed  for  ever."  This  avoids  some  of  the  diffi- 
 culties specified  above,  but  it  is  subject  to  all  the  others.  It 
 breaks  unnaturally  the  connection,  and  makes  a  doxology  out 
 of  a  form  of  expression  which,  in  the  Scriptures,  as  just  stated, 
 is  never  so  used.  5.  There  is  no  reason  for  thus  torturing  the 
 text  to  make  it  speak  a  different  language  from  that  commonly 
 
ROMANS  IX.  5.  475 
 
 ascribed  to  it;  because  the  sense  afforded,  according  to  the 
 common  interpretation,  is  scriptural,  and  in  perfect  accordance 
 with  other  declarations  of  this  apostle.  Titus  i.  3,  *' Accoiding 
 to  the  commandment  of  God  our  Saviour."  "Looking  for  that 
 blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God  and 
 (even)  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,"  Titus  ii.  13;  see  Phil.  ii.  6, 
 Col.  ii.  9,  (fee,  &c. 
 
 Over  all  is  equivalent  to  most  high,  supreme.  The  same 
 words  occur  in  Eph.  iv.  6,  "One  God,  who  is  above  all."  This 
 passage,  therefore,  shows  that  Christ  is  God  in  the  highest 
 sense  of  the  word.  Amen  is  a  Hebrew  word  signifying  true. 
 It  is  used  as  in  the  New  Testament  often  adverbially,  and  is  ren- 
 dered verily;  or,  at  the  close  of  a  sentence,  as  expressing  desire, 
 let  it  he,  or  merely  approbation.  It  does  not,  therefore,  neces- 
 sarily imply  that  the  clause  to  which  it  is  attached  contains  a 
 wish.  It  is  used  here,  as  in  Eom.  i.  26,  for  giving  a  solemn 
 assent  to  Avhat  has  been  said.  "God  who  is  blessed  for  ever, 
 Amen."     'To  this  declaration  we  say,  Amen.     It  is  true.' 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  ever  present  with  the  souls  of  the 
 people  of  God.  He  enlightens  the  judgment  and  guides  the 
 conscience,  so  that  the  true  and  humble  Christian  often  has  an 
 assurance  of  his  sincerity,  and  of  the  correctness  of  what  he 
 says  or  does,  above  what  the  powers  of  nature  can  bestow, 
 ver.  1. 
 
 2.  There  is  no  limit  to  the  sacrifice  which  one  man  may  make 
 for  the  benefit  of  others,  except  that  which  his  duty  to  God 
 imposes,  ver.  3. 
 
 3.  Paul  does  not  teach  that  we  should  be  willing  to  be 
 damned  for  the  glory  of  God.  1.  His  very  language  implies 
 that  such  a  wish  would  be  improper.  For  in  the  ardour  of  his 
 disinterested  affection,  he  does  not  himself  entertain  or  express 
 the  wish,  but  merely  says,  in  effect,  that  were  it  proper  or  pos- 
 sible, he  would  be  willing  to  perish  for  the  sake  of  his  brethren. 
 2.  If  it  is  wrong  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  how  can  it  be 
 right  to  wish  to  be  evil  that  good  may  come  ?  3.  There  seems 
 to  be  a  contradiction  involved  in  the  very  terms  of  the  wish. 
 Can  one  love  God  so  much  as  to  wish  to  hate  him  ?     Can  he  be 
 
476  ROMANS  IX.  1—5. 
 
 so  good  as  to  desire  to  be  bad  ?  We  must  be  willing  to  give  up 
 houses  and  lands,  parents  and  brethren,  and  our  life  also,  for 
 Christ  and  his  kingdom,  but  we  are  never  required  to  give  up 
 holiness  for  his  sake,  for  this  would  be  a  contradiction. 
 
 4.  It  is,  in  itself,  a  great  blessing  to  belong  to  the  external 
 people  of  God,  and  to  enjoy  all  the  privileges  consequent  on 
 this  relation,  ver.  4. 
 
 5.  Jesus  Christ  is  at  once  man  and  God  over  all,  blessed  for 
 ever.  Paul  asserts  this  doctrine  in  language  too  plain  to  be 
 misunderstood,  ver.  5. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  Whatever  we  say  or  do,  should  be  said  or  done  as  in 
 Christ,  i.  e.,  in  a  Christian  manner,  ver.  1. 
 
 2.  If  we  can  view,  unmoved,  the  perishing  condition  of  our 
 fellow-men,  or  are  unwilling  to  make  sacrifices  for  their  benefit, 
 we  are  very  diiferent  from  Paul,  and  from  Him  who  wept 
 over  Jerusalem,  and  died  for  our  good  upon  Mount  Calvary, 
 vs.  2,  3. 
 
 3.  Though  we  may  belong  to  the  true  Church,  and  enjoy  all 
 its  privileges,  we  may  still  be  cast  away.  Our  external  relation 
 to  the  people  of  God  cannot  secure  our  salvation,  ver.  4. 
 
 4.  A  pious  parentage  is  a  great  distinction  and  blessing,  and 
 should  be  felt  and  acknowledged  as  such,  ver.  5. 
 
 5.  If  Jesus  Christ  has  come  in  the  flesh,  if  he  has  a  nature 
 like  our  own,  how  intimate  the  union  between  him  and  his 
 people ;  how  tender  the  relation ;  how  unspeakable  the  honour 
 done  to  human  nature  in  having  it  thus  exalted !  If  Jesus 
 Christ  is  God  over  all,  and  blessed  for  ever,  how  profound 
 should  be  our  reverence,  how  unreserved  our  obedience,  and 
 how  entire  and  joyful  our  confidence  !  ver.  5. 
 
 6.  These  five  verses,  the  introduction  to  the  three  following 
 chapters,  teach  us  a  lesson  which  we  have  before  had  occasion 
 to  notice.  Fidelity  does  not  require  that  we  should  make  the 
 truth  as  offensive  as  possible.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  bound 
 to  endeavour,  as  Paul  did,  to  allay  all  opposing  or  inimical 
 feelings  in  the  minds  of  those  whom  we  address,  and  to  allow 
 the  truth,  unimpeded  by  the  exhibition  of  any  thing  offensive 
 on  our  part,  to  do  its  work  upon  the  heart  and  conscience. 
 
ROMANS  IX.  6—24.  477 
 
 ROMANS   IX.  6—24. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  apostle  now  approaches  the  subject  which  he  had  in 
 view,  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 
 That  God  had  determined  to  cast  off  his  ancient  covenant 
 people,  as  such,  and  to  extend  the  call  of  the  gospel  indis- 
 criminately to  all  men,  is  the  point  which  the  apostle  is  about 
 to  establish.  He  does  this  by  showing,  in  the  first  place,  that 
 God  is  perfectly  free  thus  to  act,  vs.  6 — 24,  and  in  the  second, 
 that  he  had  declared  in  the  prophets  that  such  was  his  inten- 
 tion, vs.  25—33. 
 
 That  God  was  at  liberty  to  reject  the  Jews  and  to  call  the 
 Gentiles,  Paul  argues,  1.  By  showing  that  the  promises  which 
 he  had  made,  and  by  which  he  had  graciously  bound  himself, 
 were  not  made  to  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  as  such, 
 but  to  his  spiritual  seed.  This  is  plain  from  the  case  of  Ishmael 
 and  Isaac ;  both  were  the  children  of  Abraham,  yet  one  was 
 taken  and  the  other  left.  And  also  from  the  case  of  Esau  and 
 Jacob.  Though  children  of  the  same  parents,  and  born  at  one 
 birth,  yet  "Jacob  have  I  loved  and  Esau  have  I  hated,"  is  the 
 language  of  God  respecting  them,  vs.  6 — 13,  2.  By  showing 
 that  God  is  perfectly  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his 
 favours ;  that  he  is  determined  neither  by  the  external  rela- 
 tions, nor  by  the  personal  character  of  men,  in  the  selection  of 
 the  objects  of  his  mercy.  This  is  proved  by  the  examples  just 
 referred  to;  by  the  choice  of  Isaac  instead  of  Ishmael,  and 
 especially  by  that  of  Jacob  instead  of  Esau.  In  this  case  the 
 choice  was  made  and  announced  before  the  birth  of  the  children, 
 that  it  might  be  seen  that  it  was  not  according  to  works,  but 
 according  to  the  sovereign  purpose  of  God,  vs.  6 — 13, 
 
 Against  this  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty,  there  are  two 
 obvious  objections,  which  have  been  urged  in  every  age  of  the 
 world,  and  which  the  apostle  here  explicitly  states  and  answers. 
 The  first  is,  that  it  is  unjust  in  God  thus  to  choose  one,  and 
 reject  another,  at  his  mere  good  pleasure,  ver.  14,  To  this 
 Paul  gives  two  answers:    1.   God  claims  the  prerogative  of 
 
478  ROMANS  IX.  6. 
 
 sovereign  mercy ;  saying,  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will 
 have  mercy,"  vs.  15,  16.  2.  He  exercises  this  right,  as  is 
 evident  from  the  case  of  Pharaoh,  with  regard  to  whom  he  says, 
 "For  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up,"  vs.  17,  18. 
 The  second  objection  is,  that  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  it  destroys 
 the  responsibility  of  men,  ver.  19.  To  this  also  Paul  gives  a 
 twofold  answer :  1.  The  very  urging  of  an  objection  against  a 
 prerogative  which  God  claims  in  his  word,  and  exercises  in  his 
 providence,  is  an  irreverent  contending  with  our  Maker,  espe- 
 cially as  the  right  in  question  necessarily  arises  out  of  the  rela- 
 tion between  men  and  God  as  creatures  and  Creator,  vs.  20,  21. 
 2.  There  is  nothing  in  the  exercise  of  this  sovereignty  incon- 
 sistent with  either  justice  or  mercy.  God  only  punishes  the 
 wicked  for  their  sins,  while  he  extends  undeserved  mercy  to  the 
 objects  of  his  grace.  There  is  no  injustice  done  to  one  wicked 
 man  in  the  pardon  of  another,  especially  as  there  are  the 
 highest  objects  to  be  accomplished  both  in  the  punishment  of 
 the  vessels  of  wrath,  and  the  pardon  of  the  vessels  of  mercy. 
 God  does  nothing  more  than  exercise  a  right  inherent  in 
 sovereignty,  viz.,  that  of  dispensing  pardon  at  his  pleasure, 
 vs.  22—24. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  6.  It  has  already  been  remarked,  (chap.  iii.  3,)  that 
 it  was  a  common  opinion  among  the  Jews,  that  the  promises 
 of  God  being  made  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed,  all  his  natural 
 descendants,  sealed,  as  such,  by  the  rite  of  circumcision,  would 
 certainly  inherit  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  reign.  It  was 
 enough  for  them,  therefore,  to  be  able  to  say,  "We  have  Abra- 
 ham to  our  father."  This  being  the  case,  it  was  obvious  that  it 
 would  at  once  be  presented  as  a  fatal  objection  to  the  apostle's 
 doctrine  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  that  it  was  inconsistent 
 with  the  promises  of  God.  Paul,  therefore,  without  even  dis- 
 tinctly announcing  the  position  which  he  intended  to  maintain, 
 removes  this  preliminary  objection.  It  is  indeed  peculiarly 
 worthy  of  remark,  as  characteristic  of  the  apostle's  tenderness 
 and  caution,  that  he  does  not  at  all  formally  declare  the  truth 
 which  he  labours  in  this  chapter  to  establish.  He  does  not  tell 
 the  Jews  at  once  they  were  to  be  cast  oflf  j  but  begins  by  pro- 
 
ROMANS  IX.  6.  479 
 
 fessing  his  affection  for  them,  and  his  sorrow  for  their  destiny ; 
 thus  simply,  by  implication,  informing  them  that  they  were  not 
 to  be  admitted  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  When  he  has  shown 
 that  this  rejection  involved  no  failure  on  the  part  of  God  in 
 keeping  his  promises,  and  was  consistent  with  his  justice  and 
 mercy,  he  more  distinctly  announces  that,  agreeably  to  the  pre- 
 dictions of  their  own  prophets,  they  were  no  longer  the  peculiar 
 people  of  God.  The  remark,  therefore,  which  Calvin  makes  on 
 ver.  2,  is  applicable  to  the  whole  introductory  part  of  the 
 chapter.  Non  caret  artificio,  quod  orationem  ita  abscidit, 
 nondum  exprimens  qua  de  re  loquatur;  nondum  enim  oppor- 
 tunum  erat,  intcritum  gentis  Judaicae  aperte  exprimere.  In 
 vs.  2,  3,  in  which  ho  professed  his  sorrow  for  his  brethren  and  his 
 readiness  to  suffer  for  them,  it  was,  of  course,  implied  that  they 
 were  no  longer  to  be  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  heirs  of  the 
 promises,  (fee,  &c.  This,  Paul  shows,  involves  no  failure  on 
 the  part  of  the  divine  promises.  Not  as  tlioiigh  the  uwrd  of 
 God  hath  taken  none  effect,  Lc.  That  is,  '  I  say  nothing  which 
 implies  that  the  word  of  God  has  failed.'  The  simplest  expla- 
 nation of  the  words  oijf  olou  dk  on,  is,  not  as  that,  i.  e.,  I  say  no 
 such  thing  as  that.  It  is  thus  an  elliptical  phrase  for  vj  zo'iov 
 ok  Xeyio,  olou  ore,  non  tale,  {dico,)  quale  {Jioc  est)  excidisse  cet. 
 "Winer,  §  QQ.  5.  Others  give  ouj^  olov  ok  followed  by  ore,  the 
 force  of  ou^  olou  rs  followed  by  an  infinitive,  viz.,  it  is  not 
 possible.  This,  however,  is  not  only  contrary  to  usage,  but  to 
 the  context.  Paul  does  not  intend  to  say  that  it  is  impossible 
 the  promise  should  fail,  but  simply  that  his  doctrine  did  not 
 conflict  with  the  promise.  God  had  not  bound  himself  never 
 to  cast  off  the  Jews ;  and  therefore  what  the  apostle  taught 
 concerning  their  rejection  did  not  involve  the  failure  of  the 
 word  of  God.  Meyer,  who  generally  defends  the  apostle  from 
 the  charge  of  violating  Greek  usage,  assumes  that  he  here  con- 
 founds two  forms  of  expression,  ou-/  oJou  kxTie-zcoxtu  and  ouy  ou 
 ixTiiTZTojxsu.  He  agrees,  however,  with  the  explanation  quoted 
 above  from  Winer.  The  word  of  God  means  any  thing  which 
 God  has  spoken,  and  here,  from  the  connection,  the  promise 
 made  to  Abraham,  including  the  promise  of  salvation  through 
 Jesus  Christ.  Math  taken  7ione  effect,  literally,  hath  fallen, 
 i.  e.,  failed.     "  It  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass,  than 
 
480  ROMANS  IX.  7. 
 
 one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail,"  literally,  to  fall,  Luke,  xvi.  17. 
 So  this  word  is  used  frequently.  The  reason  why  the  rejection 
 of  the  Jews  involved  no  failure  on  the  part  of  the  divine  pro- 
 mise, is,  that  the  promise  was  not  addressed  to  the  mere  natural 
 descendants  of  Abraham.  For  they  are  7iot  all  Israel  which  are 
 of  Israel,  i.  e.,  all  the  natural  descendants  of  the  patriarch  are 
 not  the  true  people  of  God,  to  whom  alone  the  promises 
 properly  belong.  The  Avord  Israel  may  refer  either  to  Jacob  or 
 to  the  people.  'All  descended  from  the  patriarch  Jacob 
 called  Israel,  are  not  the  true  people  of  God;'  or,  'all  belong- 
 ing to  the  external  Israel  are  not  the  true  Israel;'  i.  e.,  all  who 
 are  in  the  (visible)  Church  do  not  belong  to  the  true  Church. 
 The  sense  is  the  same,  but  the  former  explanation  is  the 
 more  natural.  In  the  following  verse  the  apostle  distinguishes 
 between  the  natural  and  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  as  here  he 
 distinguishes  between  the  two  classes  of  the  descendants  of 
 Israel. 
 
 Verse  7.  Neither  because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham  are 
 they  all  childreyi.  In  this  and  the  following  verses  the  senti- 
 ment is  confirmed,  that  natural  descent  from  Abraham  does  not 
 secure  a  portion  in  the  promised  inheritance.  The  language  of 
 this  verse  is,  from  the  context,  perfectly  intelligible.  The  seed, 
 or  natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  are  not  all  his  children  in 
 the  true  sense  of  the  term;  i.  e.,  like  him  in  faith,  and  heirs  of 
 his  promise.  So  in  Gal.  iii.  7,  Paul  says,  "  They  which  are  of 
 faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham."  This  verse  is 
 part  of  the  sentence  begun  in  the  preceding  verse.  It  pre- 
 sents the  same  idea  in  a  different  form.  '  All  the  descend- 
 ants of  Israel  are  not  the  true  Israel,  neither  are  all  the 
 seed  of  Abraham  his  (true,  or  spiritual)  children.'  Children, 
 viz.,  of  Abraham.  Others  supply  roy  dzou,  "the  seed  of  Abra- 
 ham are  not  all  children  of  God."  This  is  true,  but  it  is  not 
 what  the  apostle  here  says.  His  object  is  to  show  that  the 
 promises  made  to  the  children  of  Abraham  were  not  made  to 
 his  natural  descendants  as  such. 
 
 But  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called.  As  the  word  rendered 
 called  sometimes  means  to  choose,  Isa.  xlviii.  12,  xlix.  1,  the 
 meaning  of  the  phrase  may  be  'In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be 
 chosen.'     'I  will  select  him  as  the  recipient  of  the  blessings 
 
ROMANS  IX.  8.  481 
 
 promised  to  you.'  2.  To  he  called  is  often  equivalent  to  to  be, 
 to  be  regarded,  as  Isa.  Ixii.  4,  "  Thou  shalt  not  be  called  deso- 
 late," i.  e.,  thou  shalt  not  be  desolate.  Hence,  in  this  case,  the 
 text  may  mean,  'In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be,'  i.  e.,  he  shall  be 
 thy  seed.  Or,  3.  ''After  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called,'  they 
 shall  derive  their  name  from  him.  Shall  be  named,  i.  e.,  shall  be 
 so  regarded  and  recognised.  '  Not  all  the  children  of  Abraham 
 were  made  the  heirs  of  his  blessings,  but  Isaac  was  selected  by 
 the  sovereign  will  of  God  to  be  the  recipient  of  the  promise.' 
 This  is  the  general  meaning  of  the  passage  ;  but  here,  as  before, 
 it  may  be  understood  either  of  the  individual  Isaac,  or  of  his 
 descendants.  'Isaac  shall  be  to  thee  for  a  seed;'  or,  'Through 
 Isaac  shall  a  seed  be  to  thee.'  The  former  is  the  more  con- 
 sistent with  the  context,  because  Paul's  immediate  object  is  to 
 show  that  natural  descent  from  Abraham  did  not  make  a  man 
 one  of  his  true  seed.  Ishmael  was  a  son  of  Abraham  as  well  as 
 Isaac,  but  the  latter  only  was,  in  the  spiritual  sense  of  the 
 term,  his  seed.  The  Greek  here  answers  exactly  to  the 
 original  Hebrew,  '  In  Isaac  a  seed  shall  be  called  to  thee,  or  for 
 thee.'  That  is,  'Isaac  (not  Ishmael)  shall  be  to  thee  a  son  and 
 heir.'  God  therefore  is  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his 
 favours.  As  he  rejected  Ishmael  notwithstanding  his  natural 
 descent  from  Abraham,  so  he  may  reject  the  Jews,  although 
 they  also  had  Abraham  as  a  father. 
 
 Verse  8.  That  is,  they  which  are  the  children  of  the  fiesh, 
 these  are  not  the  children  of  God.  The  simplest  view  of  this 
 verse  would  seem  to  be,  to  regard  it  as  an  explanation  of  the 
 historical  argument  contained  in  the  preceding  verse.  'The 
 Scriptures  declare  that  Isaac,  in  preference  to  Ishmael,  was 
 selected  to  be  the  true  seed  and  heir  of  Abraham,  that  is,  or 
 this  proves,  that  it  is  not  the  children  of  the  flesh  that  are 
 regarded  as  the  children  of  God,  &c.'  This  suits  the  immedi- 
 ate object  of  the  apostle,  which  is  to  show  that  God,  according 
 to  his  good  pleasure,  chooses  one  and  rejects  another,  and  that 
 he  is  not  bound  to  make  the  children  of  Abraham,  as  such,  the 
 heirs  of  his  promise.  It  is  very  common,  however,  to  consider 
 this  passage  as  analogous  to  that  in  Gal.  iv.  22 — 31;  and  to 
 regard  the  apostle  as  unfolding  the  analogy  between  the  history 
 of  Isaac  and  Ishmael,  and  that  of  the  spiritual  and  natural 
 31 
 
482  ROMANS  IX.  8. 
 
 children  of  Abraham;  Isaac  being  the  symbol  of  the  former, 
 and  Ishmael  of  the  latter.  As  Ishmael,  "who  was  born  after 
 the  flesh,  (Gal.  iv.  23,)  i.  e.,  according  to  the  ordinary  course 
 of  nature,  was  rejected,  so  also  are  the  children  of  the  flesh; 
 and  as  Isaac,  who  was  born  "by  promise,"  i.  e.,  in  virtue  of 
 the  promised  interference  of  God,  was  made  the  heir,  so  also 
 are  they  heirs,  who  in  like  manner  are  the  children  of  the 
 promise,  that  is,  who  are  the  children  of  God,  not  by  their 
 natural  birth,  but  by  his  special  and  effectual  grace.  The 
 point  of  comparison,  then,  between  Isaac  and  believers  is,  that 
 both  are  born,  or  become  the  children  of  God,  not  in  virtue  of 
 ordinary  birth,  but  in  virtue  of  the  special  interposition  of  God. 
 In  favour  of  this  view  is  certainly  the  strikingly  analogous 
 passage  referred  to  in  Galatians,  and  also  the  purport  of  the 
 next  verse.  Besides  this,  if  Paul  meant  to  say  nothing  more 
 in  this  and  the  following  verse,  than  that  it  appears  from  the 
 choice  of  Isaac  that  God  is  free  to  select  one  from  among  the 
 descendants  of  Abraham  and  to  reject  another,  these  verses 
 would  differ  too  little  from  what  he  had  already  said  in  vs.  6,  7. 
 It  is  best,  therefore,  to  consider  this  passage  as  designed  to 
 point  out  an  instructive  analogy  between  the  case  of  Isaac  and 
 the  true  children  of  God;  he  was  born  in  virtue  of  a  special 
 divine  interposition,  so  now,  those  who  are  the  real  children  of 
 God,  are  born  not  after  the  flesh,  but  by  his  special  grace. 
 
 The  children  of  the  promise.  This  expression  admits  of 
 various  explanations.  1.  Many  take  it  as  meaning  merely 
 the  promised  children^  as  child  of  promise  is  equivalent  to 
 child  which  is  promised.  But  this  evidently  does  not  suit  the 
 application  of  the  phrase  to  believers  as  made  here,  and  in  Gal. 
 iv.  28.  2.  It  may  mean,  according  to  a  common  force  of  the 
 genitive,  children  in  virtue  of  a  promise.  This  suits  the  con- 
 text exactly.  It  assigns  to  the  genitive  InayytXia::  in  this 
 clause  the  same  force  that  aap7.bc,  has  in  the  preceding.  Isaac 
 was  born  not  after  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  but  in  virtue 
 of  a  divine  promise.  See  Gal.  iv.  23,  where  the  expressions  horn 
 after  the  fleshy  and  horn  ly  promise,  are  opposed  to  each  other, 
 ft  is,  of  course,  implied  in  the  phrase  children  in  virtue  of  a 
 'promise,  that  it  is  by  a  special  interposition  that  they  become 
 children,  and  this  is  the  sense  in  which  Paul  applies  the  expres- 
 
ROMANS  IX.  9.  483 
 
 sion  to  believers  generally.  In  Gal.  iv.  28,  he  says,  "We,  as 
 Isaac  was,  are  the  children  of  promise."  Believers,  therefore, 
 are  children  of  the  promise  in  the  same  sense  as  Isaac.  The 
 birth  of  Isaac  was  xara  7ziiVJp.a,  supernatural ;  believers  also 
 are  the  children  of  God  in  virtue  of  a  spiritual  or  supernatural 
 birth.  This  is  the  main  idea,  although  not  the  full  meaning. 
 The  children  of  promise  are  those  to  whom  the  promise  belongs. 
 This  is  what  the  apostle  has  specially  in  view  in  the  passage  in 
 Galatians.  He  there  desires  to  show  that  believers  are  the 
 true  children  of  Abraham,  and  heirs  of  the  promise  made  to 
 the  father  of  the  faithful.  This  idea,  therefore,  is  not  to  be 
 excluded  even  here.  Isaac  was  not  only  born  in  virtue  of  a 
 promise,  but  was,  on  that  account,  heir  of  the  promised  bless- 
 ing. The  former,  however,  as  just  stated,  is  the  prominent 
 idea,  as  appears  from  the  following  verse.  Comp.  John  i.  13. 
 "  Who  are  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
 the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  This  idea  seems  to  be  included 
 in  the  apostle's  use  of  the  expression.  Gal.  iv.  28,  "  Now  we, 
 brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  the  children  of  promise,"  and  iii. 
 29,  "Ye  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  pro- 
 mise;" see,  too,  Gal,  iii.  18,  22,  Rom.  iv.  16,  "To  the  end  the 
 promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed."  Though  this  idea 
 seems  to  have  been  in  the  apostle's  mind,  the  second  expla- 
 nation is  most  in  accordance  with  the  context.  Are  counted 
 for  the  seed,  i.  e.,  are  regarded  and  treated  as  such.  "Not  the 
 natural  descendants  of  Abraham  are  the  children  of  God,  but 
 those  who  are  born  again  by  his  special  interposition,  are  re- 
 garded and  treated  as  his  true  children."  See  the  same  form 
 of  expression  in  Gen.  xxxi.  15. 
 
 Verse  9.  For  this  is  the  ivord  of  promise,  at  this  time  ivill 
 I  come,  and  Sarah  shall  have  a  son.  Literally,  (the  word  of) 
 the  promise  is  this  word.  This  verse  is  evidently  designed  to 
 show  the  propriety,  and  to  explain  the  force  of  the  phrase 
 children  of  the  promise.  I  aac  was  so  called  because  God  said 
 at  this  time  I  will  come,  &c.  This  is  not  only  a  prediction  and 
 promise  that  Isaac  should  be  born,  but  also  a  declaration  that 
 it  should  be  in  consequence  of  God's  coming,  i.  e.,  of  the  spe- 
 cial manifestation  of  his  power ;  as,  in  scriptural  language,  God 
 is  said  to  come,  wherever  he  specially  manifests  his  presence 
 
484  ROMANS  IX.  10. 
 
 or  power,  John  xiv.  23,  Luke  i.  68,  &c.  The  apostle  does 
 not  follow  exactly  the  Hebrew  or  the  Septuagint.  He  gives 
 the  substance  of  Gen.  xviii.  10,  and  xviii.  14.  The  words 
 ri'^n  nS'S  at  the  living  time,  either  tempore  vivente,  i.  e.,  rede- 
 unte,  or,  the  time  being,  i.  e.,  the  current  time,  are  rendered  by 
 the  LXX.  and  the  apostle,  xaza  zov  xacpbv  roDrov,  at  this  season. 
 That  is,  when  this  season  of  the  year  returns  again. 
 
 Verse  10.  And  not  only  (this);  hut  when  Rebecca  had  con- 
 ceived by  one,  (even)  by  our  father  Isaac.  Not  only  does  the 
 case  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael  prove  that  the  choice  of  God  does 
 not  depend  on  natural  descent,  but  on  the  sovereign  will  of 
 God,  but  that  of  Rebecca  evinces  the  same  truth  still  more 
 clearly.  In  the  former  case,  it  might  be  supposed  that  Isaac 
 was  chosen  because  he  was  the  son  of  Sarah,  a  free  woman,  and 
 the  legitimate  wife  of  Abraham,  whereas  Ishmael  was  the  son 
 of  a  maid-servant.  In  the  choice  between  Jacob  and  Esau, 
 there  is  no  room  for  any  such  supposition.  They  had  the  same 
 father,  the  same  mother,  and  were  born  at  one  birth.  Here, 
 assuredly,  the  choice  was  sovereign.  The  original  is  here  ellip- 
 tical, something  must  be  supplied  to  complete  the  sense.  On 
 the  principle  that  an  ellipsis  should,  if  possible,  be  supplied 
 from  the  immediate  context,  Winer,  Meyer,  and  others,  supply 
 the  ellipsis  thus :  '  Not  only  did  Sarah  receive  a  promise  of  a 
 son,  but  Rebecca  also.'  In  this  view  the  construction  of  the 
 passage  is  regular;  otherwise,  an  irregularity,  or  change  of 
 grammatical  construction,  must  be  assumed  in  ver.  12.  'Not 
 only  Rebecca — it  was  said  to  her.'  To  this  however,  it  is 
 objected,  first,  that  the  promise  was  not  made  to  Sarah,  but  to 
 Abraham ;  and  secondly,  that  no  promise  was  made  to  Rebecca. 
 Others,  therefore,  prefer  supplying  simply,  did  this  happen. 
 That  is,  not  only  was  Isaac  chosen  instead  of  Ishmael,  although 
 both  were  the  sons  of  Abraham,  but  also  Rebecca.  Then  we 
 must  either  assume  a  grammatical  irregularity,  or  the  nomina- 
 tive (Rebecca)  must  be  taken  absolutely;  or  we  can  supply 
 some  such  phrase  as,  Rebecca  also  proves  this,  i.  e.,  the  sove- 
 reignty of  God  in  election.  These  questions  do  not  affect  the 
 sense  of  the  passage.  The  apostle  proceeds  with  his  historical 
 proof  that  God,  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure,  does  choose 
 
ROMANS  IX.  11.  485 
 
 one  and  reject  another.  He  has  therefore  the  right  to  cast  off 
 the  Jews. 
 
 Verse  11.  For  the  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither 
 having  done  any  good  or  evil,  kc.  The  force  of  for  is  clear  by 
 a  reference  to  the  preceding  verse,  and  the  object  of  the 
 apostle.  'Not  only  does  the  case  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael  evince 
 the  sovereignty  of  God,  but  that  of  Rebecca  and  her  children 
 does  the  same,  in  a  still  more  striking  manner,  for  the  decision 
 between  her  children  was  made  previously  to  their  birth,  for  the 
 very  purpose  of  showing  that  it  was  not  made  on  the  ground 
 of  works,  but  of  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God.'  This  is  an 
 example  which  cannot  be  evaded.  With  regard  to  Ishmael,  it 
 might  be  supposed  that  either  the  circumstances  of  his  birth,  or 
 his  personal  character,  was  the  ground  of  his  rejection;  but 
 with  regard  to  Esau  neither  of  these  suppositions  can  be  made. 
 The  circumstances  of  his  birth  were  identical  with  those  of  his 
 favoured  brother,  and  the  choice  was  made  before  either  had 
 done  any  thing  good  or  evil.  The  case  of  Ishmael  was,  indeed, 
 sufficient  to  prove  that  having  Abraham  for  a  father  was  not 
 enough  to  secure  the  inheritance  of  the  promise,  but  it  could 
 not  prove  the  entire  sovereignty  of  the  act  of  election  on  the 
 part  of  God,  as  is  so  fally  done  by  that  of  Jacob  and  Esau. 
 This  passage  shows  clearly  that  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  not 
 simply  to  show  that  natural  descent  from  Abraham  was  a  title 
 to  Messianic  blessings,  but  that  works  also  were  excluded ;  that 
 the  choice  of  God  was  sovereign. 
 
 Neither  having  done  good  or  evil.  The  design  of  the  intro- 
 duction of  these  words  is  expressly  stated  in  the  next  clause. 
 It  was  to  show  that  the  ground  of  choice  was  not  in  them,  but 
 in  God;  and  this  is  the  main  point  in  regard  to  the  doctrine 
 of  election,  whether  the  choice  be  to  the  privileges  of  the 
 external  theocracy,  or  to  the  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings  of 
 the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
 
 That  the  purpose  of  Grod,  according  to  election,  might  stand. 
 This  is  the  reason  why  the  choice  was  made  prior  to  birth. 
 The  original  here  admits  of  various  interpretations,  which,  how- 
 ever, do  not  materially  alter  the  sense.  The  word  rendered 
 'purpose,  is  that  which  was  used  in  the  previous  chapter,  ver.  28, 
 and  means  here,  as  there,  a  determination  of  the  will,  and  of 
 
486  ROMANS  IX.  11. 
 
 itself  expresses  the  idea  of  its  being  sovereign,  i.  e.,  of  having  its 
 ground  in  the  divine  mind  and  not  in  its  objects.  Hence,  in 
 2  Tim.  i.  9,  it  is  said,  "Who  hath  called  us  not  according  to 
 our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose,  &c.,  see  Eph. 
 i.  11,  iii.  11.  The  words  (z«r'  ixloyr^v)  according  to  election,  are 
 designed  to  fix  more  definitely  the  nature  of  this  purpose.  The 
 word  election  often  means  the  act  of  choice  itself,  as  1  Thess. 
 i.  4,  "Knowing,  brethren  beloved,  your  election  of  God."  In 
 this  sense,  the  clause  means,  '  the  purpose  of  God  in  reference 
 to  election,  or  in  relation  to  this  choice.'  This  view  of  the 
 passage  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  context.  The  choice 
 was  made  prior  to  birth,  in  order  that  the  true  nature  of  the 
 purpose  of  God  in  reference  to  it  might  appear.  It  is  objected 
 to  this  interpretation  that  the  I'Aoyri  (election)  follows  the 
 Ttpo&eoez  (the  purpose)  and  not  the  reverse.  This  does  not 
 amount  to  much.  It  relates  merely  to  the  order  of  conception. 
 We  can  conceive  of  God's  electing  some  to  eternal  life,  and 
 then  purposing  to  save  them,  as  well  as  his  purposing  to  save 
 them  and  then  electing  them.  The  real  meaning  is  expressed 
 by  giving  xat  ixXoyrjv  an  adjective  force,  the  electing  purpose, 
 electivum  Dei  propositum,  as  Bengel  renders  it.  Others  give 
 kx}x>ffj  here  the  sense  of  free  choice,  or  free  will.  '  The  purpose 
 according  to  free  choice,  for,  free  or  sovereign  purpose.'  Many 
 commentators  adopt  tliis  view  of  the  passage.  This  is,  perhaps, 
 the  most  common  interpretation.  But  as  the  word  does  not 
 occur  in  this  sense  in  the  New  Testament,  the  former  mode  of 
 explanation  is  perhaps  to  be  preferred.  Should  stand,  i.  e., 
 should  be  established  and  recognised  in  its  true  character,  that 
 is,  that  it  might  be  seen  it  was  not  of  works,  hut  of  him  that 
 calleth.  This  purpose  of  God,  in  reference  to  election,  or  the 
 choice  itself,  is  not  of  works,  i.  e.,  does  not  depend  on  works, 
 but  on  him  that  calleth.  It  is  not  to  be  traced  to  works  as  its 
 source.  That  is,  as  plainly  as  language  can  express  the  idea, 
 the  ground  of  the  choice  is  not  in  those  chosen,  but  in  God  who 
 chooses.  In  the  same  sense  our  justification  is  said  to  be  "  not 
 of  works,"  Gal.  ii.  16,  and  often ;  i.  e.,  is  not  on  the  ground  of 
 works;  see  Rom.  xi.  6,  2  Tim.  i.  9.  The  language  of  the 
 apostle  in  this  verse,  and  the  nature  of  his  argument,  are  so 
 perfectly  plain,  that  there  is  little  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  his 
 
ROMANS  IX.  11.  487 
 
 general  meaning.  It  is  almost  uniformly  admitted  that  he  here 
 teaches  that  the  election  spoken  of  is  perfectly  sovereign,  that 
 the  ground  on  wliicli  the  choice  is  made  is  not  in  men,  but  in 
 God.  Commentators  of  every  class  unite  in  admitting  that  the 
 apostle  does  here  teach  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election. 
 Unde  sensus  totius  loci  sic  constituitur ;  ut  appareret,  quicquid 
 Deus  decernit,  libere  eum  decernere  non  propter  hominis 
 meritum,  sed  pro  sua  decernentis  voluntate. — Koppe.  Ut 
 benevola  Dei  voluntas  maneret,  ut  quae  non  a  meritis  cujua 
 quam  pendeat,  sed  benefactore  ipso. — Noesselt.  Das  der 
 Rathschluss  Gottes  fest  stehe,  als  ein  solcher,  der  nicht  abhange 
 von  menschlichen  Verdiensten,  sondern  von  dem  gnadigen  oder 
 freien  Willen  Gottes.  'That  the  decree  of  God  might  stand 
 firm,  as  one  which  depended  not  on  human  merit,  but  the 
 gracious  or  free  will  of  God.' — Flatt.  And  even  Tholuck 
 makes  Paul  argue  thus,  "Dass  wie  Gott,  ohne  Anrechte  anzuer- 
 kennen,  die  aussere  Theokratie  und  mancherlci  Vortheile 
 iibcrtrug  wem  er  wollte,  er  so  auch  jetzt  die  innere  dem 
 Ubertragt,  oder  den  darein  eingehen  lasst  welchen  er  will." 
 '  That  as  God,  without  recognising  any  claims,  committed  the 
 external  theocracy  and  manifold  advantages  to  whom  he  pleased, 
 so  also  now  he  commits  the  internal  to  whom  he  will,  or  allows 
 whom  he  will  to  enter  it.'  To  the  same  effect  Meyer  says,  "Er 
 wollte  namlich  dadurch  flir  immer  festsetzen,  dass  sein  zufolge 
 einer  Auswahl  unter  den  Menschen  eintretender  Beschluss,  mit 
 dem  Messianischen  Heile  zu  begliicken,  unabhangig  sei  von 
 menschlichen  Leistungen,  und  nur  von  seinem,  des  zum  Messi- 
 asheil  Berufenden,  eigenen  Willen  dependire."  His  design  was 
 to  establish,  once  for  all,  (the  principle)  that  his  purpose  in 
 reference  to  the  choice  of  those  who  were  to  enter  the  Messiah's 
 kingdom,  was  independent  of  human  conduct,  and  ivas  deter- 
 mined by  the  will  of  him  who  calls. 
 
 The  opposers  of  the  doctrine  of  personal  election  endeavour 
 to  escape  the  force  of  this  passage,  by  saying  that  the  choice  of 
 which  the  apostle  speaks,  is  not  to  eternal  life,  but  to  the  ex- 
 ternal advantages  of  the  theocracy ;  and  that  it  was  not  so  much 
 individuals  as  nations  or  communities  which  were  chosen  or 
 rejected.  With  regard  to  this  latter  objection,  it  may  be 
 answered,  1.  That  the  language  quoted  by  the  apostle  from  the 
 
488  ROMANS  IX.  12. 
 
 Old  Testament  is  there  applied  to  the  individuals,  Jacob  and 
 Esau ;  and  that  Jacob,  as  an  individual,  was  chosen  in  preference 
 to  his  brother ;  and  that  Paul's  whole  argument  turns  on  this 
 very  point.     2.  That  the  choice  of  nations  involves  and  con- 
 sists in  the  choice  of  individuals ;   and  that  the  same  objections 
 obviously  lie  against  the  choice  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 
 With  regard  to  the  former  objection,  that  the  choice  here  spoken 
 of  is  to  the  external  theocracy  and  not  to  eternal  life,  it  may 
 be  answered,  1.  Admitting  this  to  be  the  case,  how  is  the  diffi- 
 culty relieved?     Is  there  any  more  objection  to  God's  choosing 
 men  to  a  great  than  to  a  small  blessing,  on  the  ground  of  his 
 own  good  pleasure?     The  foundation  of  the  objection  is  not  the 
 character  of  the  blessings  we  are  chosen  to  inherit,  but  the 
 sovereign  nature  of  the  choice.     Of  course  it  is  not  met  by 
 making  these  blessings  either  greater  or  less.     2.  A  choice  to 
 the  blessings  of  the  theocracy,  i.  e.,  of  a  knowledge  and  worship 
 of  the  true  God,  involved,  in  a  multitude  of  cases  at  least,  a 
 choice  to  eternal  life ;  as  a  choice  to  the  means  is  a  choice  to 
 the  end.      And  it  is  only  so  far  as  these  advantages  were  a 
 means  to  this  end,  that  their  value  was  worth  consideration. 
 3.  The  whole  design  and  argument  of  the  apostle  show  that  the 
 objection  is  destitute  of  force.     The  object  of  the  whole  epistle 
 is  to  exhibit  the  method  of  obtaining  access  to  the  Messiah's 
 kingdom.     The  design  here  is  to  show  that  God  is  at  liberty  to 
 choose  whom  he  pleases  to  be  the  recipients  of  the  blessings  of 
 this  kingdom,  and  that  he  was  not  confined  in  his  choice  to  the 
 descendants  of  Abraham.     His  argument  is  derived  from  the 
 historical  facts  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.     As  God  chose 
 Isaac  in   preference   to  Ishmael,   and  Jacob  in    preference  to 
 Esau,  not  on  the  ground  of  their  works,  but  of  his  own  good 
 pleasure,  so  now  he  chooses  whom  he  will  to  a  participation  of 
 the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ :    these  blessings  are 
 pardon,   purity,  and  eternal  life,  &c.,  &c.      That  such  is  the 
 apostle's  argument  and  doctrine,  becomes,  if  possible,  still  more 
 plain,   from  his  refutation  of  the  objections  urged  against  it, 
 which  are  precisely  the  objections  which  have  ever  been  urged 
 against  the  doctrine  of  election. 
 
 Verse  12.  It   was   said   to    her,    the   elder   shall  serve  the 
 younger.     These  words  are  to  be  connected  with  the  10th  vea:se, 
 
ROMANS  IX.  12.  489 
 
 according  to  our  version,  in  this  manner,  "Not  only  this,,  but 
 Rebecca  also,  when  she  had  conceived,  &c.,  it  was  said  to  her, 
 &c."  According  to  this  view,  although  the  construction  is 
 irregular,  the  sense  is  sufficiently  obvious.  As  it  was  said  to 
 Rebecca  that  the  elder  of  her  sons  should  serve  the  younger, 
 prior  to  the  birth  of  either,  it  is  evident  that  the  choice  between 
 them  was  not  on  account  of  their  works.  It  has  been  said  that 
 this  declaration  relates  not  to  Jacob  and  Esau  personally,  but 
 to  their  posterity,  1.  Because  in  Gen.  xxv.  23,  whence  the 
 quotation  is  made,  it  is  said,  "  Two  nations  are  within  thy  womb, 
 and  the  one  people  shall  be  stronger  than  the  other  people ;  and 
 the  elder  shall  serve  the  younger.  2.  Because  Esau  did  not 
 personally  serve  Jacob,  although  the  descendants  of  the  one 
 were  subjected  to  those  of  the  other.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that 
 the  prediction  contained  in  this  passage  has  reference  not  only 
 to  the  relative  standing  of  Jacob  and  Esau  as  individuals,  but 
 also  to  that  of  their  descendants.  It  may  even  be  allowed  that 
 the  latter  was  principally  intended  in  the  annunciation  to 
 Rebecca.  But  it  is  too  clear  to  be  denied,  1.  that  this  distinc- 
 tion between  the  two  races  presupposed  and  included  a  distinc- 
 tion between  the  individuals.  Jacob  was  made  the  special  heir 
 to  his  father  Isaac,  obtained  as  an  individual  the  birth-right  and 
 the  blessing,  and  Esau  as  an  individual  was  cast  off.  The  one, 
 therefore,  was  personally  preferred  to  the  other.  2.  In  Paul's 
 application  of  this  event  to  his  ai'gument,  the  distinction 
 between  the  two  as  individuals,  was  the  very  thing  referred  to. 
 This  is  plain  from  the  11th  verse,  in  which  he  says,  "  The 
 children  being  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or 
 evil,  &c."  It  is,  therefore,  the  nature  of  the  choice  between  the 
 children  that  is  the  point  designed  to  be  presented.  As  to  the 
 objection  that  Esau  never  personally  served  Jacob,  it  is  founded 
 on  the  mere  literal  sense  of  the  words.  Esau  did  acknowledge 
 his  inferiority  to  Jacob,  and  was  in  fact  postponed  to  him  on 
 various  occasions.  The  main  idea,  however,  is  that  Esau  for- 
 feited his  birthright.  Jacob  was  preferred  to  his  elder  brother, 
 and  constituted  head  of  the  theocracy.  In  a  spiritual  or  reli- 
 gious sense,  and  therefore  in  the  highest  sense,  or  in  reference 
 to  the  highest  interests,  Esau  was  placed  below  Jacob,  as  much 
 as  Ishmael  was   below  Isaac.     This  is  the  real  spirit  of  the 
 
490  ROMANS  IX.  13. 
 
 passage.  This  prophecy,  as  is  the  case  with  all  similar  predic- 
 tions, had  various  stages  of  fulfilment.  The  relation  between 
 the  two  brothers  during  life ;  the  loss  of  the  birthright  blessing 
 and  promises  on  the  part  of  Esau;  the  temporary  subjugation 
 of  his  descendants  to  the  Israelites  under  David,  their  final  and 
 complete  subjection  under  the  Maccabees ;  and  especially  their 
 exclusion  from  the  peculiar  privileges  of  the  people  of  God, 
 through  all  the  early  periods  of  their  history,  are  all  included. 
 Compare  the  prediction  of  the  subjection  of  Ham  to  his 
 brethren;  and  of  Japheth's  dwelling  in  the  tents  of  Shem, 
 Gen.  ix.  25—27. 
 
 Verse  13.  As  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  hut  Esau 
 have  I  hated.  These  words  are  quoted  from  Malachi  i.  2,  3, 
 where  the  prophet  is  reproving  the  Jews  for  their  ingratitude. 
 As  a  proof  of  his  peculiar  favour,  God  refers  to  his  preference 
 for  them  from  the  first,  "Was  not  Esau  Jacob's  brother,  saith 
 the  Lord;  yet  I  loved  Jacob,  and  I  hated  Esau,  &c."  This 
 passage,  as  well  as  the  one  quoted  in  ver.  12,  and  just  referred 
 to,  relates  to  the  descendants  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  and  to  the 
 individuals  themselves ;  the  favour  shown  to  the  posterity  of  the 
 one,  and  withheld  from  that  of  the  other,  being  founded  on  the 
 distinction  originally  made  between  the  two  brothers.  The 
 meaning,  therefore,  is,  that  God  preferied  one  to  the  other,  or 
 chose  one  instead  of  the  other.  As  this  is  the  idea  meant  to 
 be  expressed,  it  is  evident  that  in  this  case  the  word  hate  means 
 to  love  less,  to  regard  and  treat  with  less  favour.  Thus  in 
 Gen.  xxix.  33,  Leah  says,  she  was  hated  by  her  husband ;  while 
 in  the  preceding  verse,  the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  saying, 
 "Jacob  loved  Rachel  more  than  Leah,"  Matt.  viii.  24,  Luke 
 xiv.  26 ;  "  If  a  man  come  to  me  and  hate  not  his  father  and 
 mother,  &c."  John  xii.  25.  The  quotation  from  the  prophet 
 may  be  considered  either  as  designed  in  confirmation  of  the 
 declaration  that  the  elder  should  serve  the  younger ;  or  it  may 
 be  connected  in  sense  with  the  close  of  the  11th,  '  God  is  sove- 
 reign in  the  distribution  of  his  favours,  as  it  is  written,  Jacob 
 have  I  loved,  and  Esau  have  I  hated;'  the  distinction  made 
 between  these  two  individuals  being  cited  as  an  illustration  and 
 confirmation  of  the  apostle's  doctrine. 
 
 The  doctrine  of  the  preceding  verses  is,  that  God  is  per- 
 
ROMANS  IX.  14,  15.  491 
 
 fectly  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of  his  favours,  that  the 
 ground  of  his  selecting  one  and  rejecting  another  is  not 
 their  works,  but  his  own  good  pleasure.  To  this  doctrine 
 there  are  two  plausible  objections;  first,  it  is  not  consistent 
 with  the  divine  justice,  ver.  14;  second,  it  is  incompatible  with 
 human  responsibility,  ver.  19.  To  the  former  the  apostle 
 answers,  first,  God  claims  distinctly  in  his  word  this  prerogative, 
 ver.  15 ;  and  secondly,  he  obviously  exercises  it,  as  is  seen  in  the 
 dispensations  of  his  providence,  ver.  17.  Here  again  the  sense  is 
 BO  plain  that  commentators  of  all  classes  agree  in  their  inter- 
 pretations. Thus  Meyer  says,  "  God  does  not  act  unjustly  in  his 
 sovereign  choice ;  since  he  claims  for  himself  in  the  Scriptures 
 the  liberty  to  favour  or  to  harden,  whom  he  will." 
 
 Verse  14.  What  sliall  tve  say  then,  is  there  unrighteousness 
 with  Grod  ?  God  forbid.  The  apostle,  according  to  his  usual 
 manner,  proposes  the  objection  to  his  own  doctrine  in  the  form 
 of  a  question,  denies  its  validity,  and  immediately  subjoins  his 
 reason;  see  Rom.  iii.  5,  Gal.  iii.  21.  The  obvious  objection 
 here  presented  is,  that  it  is  unjust  in  God,  thus,  according  to 
 his  own  purpose,  to  choose  one  and  reject  another.  This  Paul 
 denies,  and  supports  his  denial  by  an  appeal,  in  the  fi"st  place, 
 to  Scripture,  and  the  second,  to  experience.  It  Vv-ill  be 
 remarked  that  these  arguments  of  the  apostle  are  founded  on 
 two  assumptions.  The  first  is,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word 
 of  God ;  and  the  second,  that  what  God  actually  does  cannot 
 be  unrighteous.  Consequently  any  objection  vrhich  can  be 
 shown  to  militate  against  either  an  express  declaration  of 
 Scripture,  or  an  obvious  fact  in  providence,  is  fairly  answered. 
 And  if,  as  is  almost  always  the  case,  when  it  militates  against 
 the  one,  it  can  be  shown  to  militate  against  the  other,  the 
 answer  is  doubly  ratified. 
 
 Verse  15.  For  G-od  saith  to  Moses,  I  tvill  have  mercy  on 
 whom  I  ivill  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom 
 I  will  have  compassion.  The  connection  and  argument  are 
 obvious.  '  It  is  not  unjust  in  God  to  exercise  his  sovereignty 
 in  the  distribution  of  his  mercies, /or  he  expressly  claims  the 
 right.'  The  passage  quoted  is  from  the  account  of  the  solemn 
 interview  of  Moses  with  God.  In  answer  to  the  prayer  of  the 
 prophet  for  his  people  and  for  himself,  God  answered,  "  I  will 
 
492  ROMANS  IX.  16. 
 
 proclaim  my  name  before  thee,  and  will  be  gracious  to  whom  I 
 will  be  gracious,  &c."  Exodus  xxxiii.  19.  It  is,  therefore,  a 
 formal  declaration  of  a  divine  prerogative.  The  form  of  expres- 
 sion /  will  do  tvhat  I  will,  or  I  do  what  I  do,  is  here,  as  in 
 Ezek.  xvi.  23,  2  Sam.  xv.  20,  designed  to  convey  the  idea  that 
 it  rests  entirely  with  the  agent  to  act  or  not,  at  his  pleasure. 
 The  ground  of  decision  is  in  himself.  In  the  connection  of 
 this  verse  with  the  former,  therefore,  it  is  obvious  that  Paul 
 quotes  this  declaration  to  prove  that  God  claims  the  sovereignty 
 which  he  had  attributed  to  him.  In  order  to  avoid  the  force 
 of  this  passage,  many  deny  that  it  expresses  the  sentiment  of 
 the  apostle.  They  consider  this  and  the  following  verses  as 
 the  objections  of  a  Jewish  fatalist,  a  mode  of  interpretation  so 
 obviously  inconsistent  with  the  context,  and  even  the  proper 
 force  of  the  words,  that  it  is  mentioned  only  to  show  how  hard 
 it  is  to  close  the  eyes  against  the  doctrine  which  the  apostle  so 
 clearly  teaches.  Gottes  Erbarmen  und  Huld  sei  lediglich  von 
 seinem  eigenenen  unumschranten  Willen  abhangig;  auf  wen 
 einmal  sein  Erbarmen  gerichtet  sei,  dem  werde  er's  erweisen. — 
 Meyer.  God's  mercy  and  favour  depend  solely  on  Jus  own 
 sovereign  will,  he  will  manifest  that  mercy  towards  him  to  tvhom 
 it  has  been  once  directed.  Tittmann,  in  his  Synon.  in  JV.  T., 
 says  that  the  difference  between  olxrdpecv  and  iXt€iv  is,  that  the 
 former  denotes  the  feeling  experienced  in  view  of  the  sufferings 
 of  others,  and  the  latter  the  desire  to  relieve  them.  The  differ- 
 ence is  very  much  the  same  as  that  between  our  words  com- 
 passion and  mercy. 
 
 Verse  16.  So  then,  it  is  not  of  him,  that  willeth,  nor  of  him 
 that  runneth,  &c.  If  the  ground  of  the  decision  or  choice  of 
 the  objects  of  mercy  be  in  God,  as  asserted  in  ver.  15,  then 
 that  it  is  not  in  man,  is  a  conclusion  which  flows  of  course  from 
 the  previous  declarations.  The  word  it  refers  to  the  result  con- 
 templated in  the  context,  viz.,  the  attainment  of  the  divine 
 favour,  or  more  definitely,  admission  into  the  Messiah's  king- 
 dom. This  result,  when  attained,  is  to  be  attributed  not  to  the 
 wishes  or  efforts  of  man,  but  to  the  mercy  of  God.  That  one, 
 therefore,  is  taken,  and  another  left,  that  one  is  introduced  into 
 this  kingdom  and  another  not,  is  to  be  referred  to  the  fact 
 asserted  in  the  preceding  verse,  that  "  God  will  have  mercy  on 
 
ROMANS  IX.  17.  493 
 
 whom  he  will  have  mercy."  This  seems  plainly  to  have  been 
 the  apostle's  meaning.  It  is  said,  however,  that  the  efforts  here 
 declared  to  be  vain  are  those  of  the  self-righteous;  that  Paul 
 intends  to  say  that  the  Jews,  by  the  works  of  the  law,  could 
 not  attain  the  favour  of  God,  &c.  But  no  such  sentiment  is 
 expressed  by  the  apostle ;  it  is  all  supplied  by  the  commentator. 
 The  sentiment,  moreover,  is  not  only  not  expressed,  but  it  is  in 
 direct  contradiction  to  the  language  and  design  of  the  apostle. 
 He  says  the  ground  of  choice,  or  of  admission  into  the  kingdom 
 of  Christ,  is  not  in  us;  this  interpretation  says  it  is  in  us. 
 Paul  says  it  is  in  God ;  this  interpretation  says,  it  is  not  in 
 God.  It  is  neither  the  will  nor  the  efforts  of  men  which  deter- 
 mines their  admission  into  Christ's  kingdom.  It  depends  on 
 the  sovereign  will  of  God.  Neque  in  voluntate  nostra,  neque 
 in  conatu  esse  situm,  ut  inter  electos  censeamur:  sed  totura  id 
 divinae  bonitatis,  quae  nee  volentes,  nee  conantes,  ac  ne  cogit- 
 antes  quidem  ultro  assumit. — Calvin.  This  is  not  an  interpre- 
 tation peculiar  to  Augustinians.  It  is,  as  has  been  shown,  the 
 view  of  the  passage  adopted  by  commentators  of  every  shade 
 of  doctrine.  Also  ist's  (namlich  Gottes  Erbarmen  und  Huld 
 zu  empfangen)  nicht  von  dem  wollenden  noch  von  dem  Laufen- 
 den  abhangig,  sondern  von  dem  barmherzig  scienden  Gotte. — 
 Meyer. 
 
 Verse  17.  For  the  Scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh,  &c.  The 
 connection  of  this  verse  is  with  the  l-lth,  rather  than  with  the 
 one  immediately  preceding.  Paul  is  still  engaged  in  answering 
 the  objection  proposed  in  the  14th  verse.  There  is  no  injustice 
 with  God,  because  he  saith  to  Moses,  'I  will  have  mercy,  &c.' 
 ver.  15,  and  because  the  Scripture  saith  to  Pharaoh,  for  this 
 purpose,  &c.  ver.  17.  His  second  answer  to  the  objection  is, 
 that  God,  in  point  of  fact,  does  exercise  this  sovereignty,  as  is 
 evident  from  the  case  of  Pharaoh.  Pharaoh  was  no  worse  than 
 many  other  men  who  have  obtained  mercy ;  yet  God,  for  wise 
 and  benevolent  reasons,  withheld  from  him  the  saving  influences 
 of  his  grace,  and  gave  him  up  to  his  own  wicked  heart,  so 
 that  he  became  more  and  more  hardened,  until  he  was  finally 
 destroyed.  God  did  nothing  to  Pharaoh  beyond  his  strict 
 deserts.  He  did  not  make  him  wicked;  he  only  forbore  to 
 make  him  good,  by  the  exertion  of  special  and  altogether  un- 
 
494  ROMANS  IX.  17. 
 
 merited  grace.  The  reason,  therefore,  of  Pharaoh's  being  left 
 to  perish,  while  others  were  saved,  was  not  that  he  was  worse 
 than  others,  but  because  God  has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
 mercy;  it  was  because,  among  the  criminals  at  his  bar,  he 
 pardons  one  and  not  another,  as  seems  good  in  his  sight.  He, 
 therefore,  who  is  pardoned,  cannot  say  it  was  because  I  was 
 better  than  others ;  while  he  who  is  condemned  must  ac- 
 knowledge that  he  receives  nothing  more  than  the  just  recom- 
 pense of  his  sins.  In  order  to  establish  his  doctrine  of 
 the  divine  sovereignty,  Paul  had  cited  from  Scripture  the 
 declaration  that  God  shows  mercy  to  whom  he  will ;  he 
 now  cites  an  example  to  show  that  he  punishes  whom  he  will. 
 JEven  for  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up.  This  is 
 what  God  said  to  Pharaoh,  as  recorded  in  Exod.  ix.  16.  The 
 meaning  of  the  declaration  may  be  variously  explained.  In  the 
 Old  Testament,  the  Hebrew  word  used  in  the  passage  quoted, 
 means  literally,  I  have  caused  thee  to  stand.  This  is  understood 
 by  some  as  meaning,  I  have  called  thee  into  existence.  2.  By 
 others,  /  have  preserved  thee.  3.  By  others,  I  have  raised 
 thee  up  as  king.  4.  By  others,  /  have  placed  and  continued 
 thee  in  tliy  post.  Either  of  these  interpretations  admits  of 
 being  defended  on  philological  grounds  more  or  less  satis- 
 factory. The  first  is  sufficiently  suitable  to  the  word  used  by 
 the  apostle,  but  does  not  agree  so  well  with  the  original.  The 
 Hebrew  word  n^S",  in  Hiphil,  is  used  not  only  in  the  literal 
 sense,  to  cause  to  stand,  but  also  in  the  sense,  to  continue,  to 
 preserve,  as  in  1  Kings  xv.  4,  and  also  to  appoint  (to  office). 
 The  LXX.  (changing  the  person)  have,  in  Exod.  ix.  16,  die- 
 zrjpijd-Tjt;,  equivalent  to  vivus  servatus  es,  thou  hast  been  kept 
 alive.  Paul  renders  the  Hebrew  i^rjysipd  as,  which  answers  to 
 the  use  of  the  word  in  Nehem.  vi.  7,  "  Thou  hast  appointed 
 (caused  to  appear)  prophets ;  and  Dan.  xi.  11,  "  The  king  of 
 the  south  shall  set  forth  a  great  multitude."  In  no  case,  how- 
 ever, is  the  Hebrew  word  used  for  calling  into  existence  in  the 
 sense  of  creating.  For  the  second,  it  may  be  urged  that  verbs 
 in  the  form  (Hiphil)  used  in  the  passage  quoted,  signify  fre- 
 quently the  continuance  of  a  thing  in  the  state  which  the 
 simple  form  of  the  verb  expresses.  Thus  the  verb  meaning  to 
 live,  in  this  form,  signifies  to  preserve  alive,  Gen.  vi.  19,  20, 
 
ROMANS  IX.  18.  495 
 
 xix.  19,  &c.  Besides,  the  particular  word  used  in  Exod.  ix.  16, 
 signifies  to  preserve,  to  cause  to  continue,  in  1  Kings  xv.  4, 
 2  Chron.  ix.  8,  Prov.  xxix.  4,  &c.  The  third  interpretation  is 
 too  definite,  and  supplies  an  idea  not  in  the  text.  The  fourth, 
 which  is  only  a  modification  of  the  second,  is  perhaps  the 
 nearest  to  the  apostle's  intention.  '  For  this  purpose  have  I 
 raised  thee  up,  and  placed  thee  where  thou  art ;  and  instead 
 of  cutting  thee  off  at  once,  have  so  long  endured  thj  obstinacy 
 and  wickedness.'  It  is  not  the  design  of  Pharaoh's  creation  that 
 is  here  asserted;  but  the  end  for  which  God  determined  his 
 appearance  and  position  in  the  history  of  the  world.  Nor  does 
 the  apostle  refer  Pharaoh's  -wickedness  to  God  as  its  author, 
 but  his  appearance  at  that  period,  the  form  in  which  the  evil  of 
 his  heart  developed  itself,  and  the  circumstances  attending  its 
 manifestation,  were  all  determined  by  the  providence  of  God, 
 and  ordered  for  the  promotion  of  his  infinitely  wise  and  bene- 
 volent purposes. 
 
 That  I  might  show  my  power  in  thee,  and  that  my  name 
 might  he  declared  in  all  the  earth.  This  is  the  reason  why 
 God  dealt  with  Pharaoh  in  the  manner  described.  It  was  not 
 that  he  was  worse  than  others,  but  that  God  might  be  glorified. 
 This  is  precisely  the  principle  on  which  all  punishment  is 
 inflicted.  It  is  that  the  true  character  of  the  divine  lawgiver 
 should  be  known.  This  is  of  all  objects,  when  God  is  con- 
 cerned, the  highest  and  most  important;  in  itseii  the  most 
 worthy,  and  in  its  results  the  most  beneficent.  The  ground, 
 therefore,  on  which  Pharaoh  Avas  made  an  object  of  the  divine 
 justice,  or  the  reason  why  the  law  was  in  his  case  allowed  to 
 take  its  course,  is  not  to  be  sought  in  any  peculiarity  of  his 
 character  or  conduct  in  comparison  with  those  of  others,  but  in 
 the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God.  This  result  of  the  argument 
 Paul  formally  states  in  the  next  verse. 
 
 Verse  18.  Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he  ivill  have 
 mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth.  This  is  the  conclusion, 
 not  merely  from  the  preceding  verse,  but  from  the  whole 
 passage,  vs.  14 — 17.  This  perfect  sovereignty  in  the  selection 
 of  the  objects  of  his  mercy  and  of  his  judgment,  Paul  had 
 attributed  to  God  in  ver.  11,  and,  in  the  subsequent  verses, 
 had  proved  that  he  claims  and  exercises  it,  both  in  reference 
 
496  ROMANS  IX.  18. 
 
 to  the  recipients  of  his  favour,  ver.  15,  and  the  objects  of 
 his  wrath,  ver.  15.  The  doctrine,  therefore,  is  fully  estab- 
 lished. 
 
 The  latter  clause  of  this  verse,  wliom  he  will  he  hardeneth, 
 admits  of  various  explanations.  The  word  may  be  taken  either 
 in  its  ordinary  meaning,  or  it  may  be  understood  in  its  second- 
 ary sense.  According  to  the  latter  view,  it  means  to  treat 
 harshly,  to  punish.  This  interpretation,  it  must  be  admitted, 
 is  peculiarly  suited  to  the  context,  '  He  hath  mercy  on  whom 
 he  will,  and  he  punishes  whom  he  will.'  Nor  is  it  entirely 
 destitute  of  philological  support.  In  Job  xxxix.  16,  it  is  said 
 of  the  ostrich,  "she  treateth  hardly  her  young."  But,  on  the 
 other  hand,  it  is  liable  to  serious  objections.  1.  It  is  certain 
 that  it  is  a  very  unusual  sense  of  the  word,  and  opposed  to  the 
 meaning  in  which  it  frequently  occurs.  There  should  be  very 
 strong  reasons  for  departing  from  the  usual  meaning  of  an 
 expression  so  common  in  the  Scriptures.  2.  It  is  inconsistent 
 with  those  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which  speak  of  the 
 hardening  of  Pharaoh's  heart.  3.  It  removes  no  difficulty;  for 
 ■«yhat,  according  to  the  usual  sense  of  the  word,  is  here  said,  is 
 frequently  said  elsewhere. 
 
 1.  The  common  sense  of  the  word  is,  therefore,  doubtless,  to 
 be  preferred,  whom  he  will  he  hardens.  This  is  by  many  under- 
 stood to  express  a  direct  and  positive  influence  of  God  on  the 
 soul  in  rendering  it  obdurate.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  inter- 
 pretation is  by  no  means  necessary,  as  will  presently  be  shown ; 
 and,  in  the  second,  it  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with  our  ideas 
 of  the  divine  character. 
 
 2.  Others  think  that  this  phrase  is  to  be  explained  by  a 
 reference  to  that  scriptural  usage,  according  to  which  God  is 
 said  to  do  whatever  indirectly  and  incidentally  results  from  his 
 agency ;  on  the  same  principle  that  a  father  is  said  to  ruin  his 
 children,  or  a  master  his  servants,  or  that  Christ  is  said  to 
 produce  wars  and  divisions.  Thus,  Isa.  vi.  10,  the  prophet  is 
 commanded  to  make  the  heart  of  the  people  fat,  and  their  ears 
 heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes,  &c.,  as  though  to  him  were  to  be 
 ascribed  the  incidental  effects  of  his  preaching.  In  the  same 
 way  the  gospel  is  the  cause  of  death  (not  of  misery  only,  but  of 
 insensibility  also,)  to  those  who  hear  and  disregard  it. 
 
ROMANS  IX.  18.  497 
 
 3.  Nearly  allied  to  this  mode  of  explanation  is  that  which 
 rests  on  the  assumption  that  God  is  said  to  do  what  he  permits 
 to  be  done.  Reference  is  made  to  such  passages  as  the  follow- 
 ing. 2  Sam.  xii.  11,  "  I  will  give  thy  wives  unto  thy  neigh- 
 bour," i.  e.,  I  will  permit  him  to  take  them.  2  Sam.  xvi.  10, 
 "The  Lord  hath  said  unto  him,  curse  David."  Isa.  Ixiii.  17, 
 "  0  Lord,  why  hast  thou  caused  us  to  err  from  thy  ways,  and 
 hardened  our  hearts  from  thy  fear."  Deut.  ii.  30,  "For  the 
 Lord  thy  God  hardened  his  spirit,  (Sihon's,)  that  he  might 
 deliver  him  into  thy  hand."  1  Kings  xi.  23,  "The  Lord 
 stirred  up  another  adversary."  Ps.  cv.  25,  "He  turned  their 
 hearts  to  hate  his  people."  Li  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1,  God  is  said  to 
 have  moved  David  to  number  the  people ;  but  iu  1  Chron. 
 xxi.  1,  Satan  is  said  to  have  provoked  David  to  number  Israel. 
 From  these  and  similar  passages,  it  is  evident  that  it  is  a 
 familiar  scriptural  usage,  to  ascribe  to  God  effects  which  he 
 allows  in  his  wisdom  to  come  to  pass.  Hence,  almost  every 
 thing  is,  at  times,  spoken  of  as  if  it  was  produced  by  divine 
 agency,  although,  in  a  multitude  of  other  places,  these  same 
 results  are  referred,  as  in  some  of  the  examples  cited  above,  to 
 their  immediate  authors.  According  to  this  mode  of  representa- 
 tion, God  is  understood  as  merely  permitting  Pharaoh  to  harden 
 his  own  heart,  as  the  result  is  often  expressly  referred  to  Pha- 
 raoh himself,  Exod.  viii.  15,  32,  &c. 
 
 4.  But  there  seems  to  be  more  expressed  by  the  language  of 
 the  text  than  mere  permission,  because  it  is  evidently  a  puni- 
 tive act  that  is  here  intended,  and  because  this  view  does  not 
 suit  the  other  passages  in  which  God  is  said  to  give  sinners  up 
 to  the  evil  of  their  own  hearts,  Rom.  i.  24,  28.  It  is  probable, 
 therefore,  that  the  judicial  abandonment  of  men  "  to  a  repro- 
 bate mind,"  a  punitive  withdrawing  of  the  influences  of  his 
 Holy  Spirit,  and  the  giving  them  up  to  the  uncounteracted 
 operation  of  the  hardening  or  perverting  influences  by  which 
 they  are  surrounded,  are  all  expressed  by  the  language  of  the 
 apostle.  In  this  God  does  no  more  than  what  he  constantly 
 threatens  to  do,  or  which  the  Scriptures  declare  he  actually 
 does,  in  the  case  of  those  who  forsake  him ;  and  nothing  more 
 than  every  righteous  parent  does  in  reference  to  a  reprobate 
 son.  This,  in  connection  with  the  principle  referred  to  above, 
 32 
 
4^8  ROMANS  IX.  19. 
 
 (in  No.  2,)  seems  as  much  as  can  fairly  be  considered  as  in- 
 cluded in  the  expressions.  De  Wette  here  wisely  says,  that  we 
 are  to  exclude,  on  the  one  hand,  the  idea  that  God  merely 
 permits  evil,  and  on  the  other,  that  he  is  its  author,  and  to  hold 
 fast  the  doctrine,  that  evil  is  from  man,  and  that  God  orders 
 and  directs  it,  and  that  to  punishment.  It  is  to  be  remembered 
 that  the  hardening  of  the  sinner's  heart  is  itself  punitive.  It 
 supposes  evil,  and  is  its  punishment.  As  a  ruined  constitution 
 is  at  once  the  inevitable  consequence  and  the  punishment  of 
 intemperance,  so  insensibility,  obduracy  of  conscience,  and 
 blindness  of  mind,  are  the  penal  consequences  of  a  course  of  sin, 
 and  become  themselves  the  just  ground  of  further  punishment, 
 because  they  are  in  their  own  nature  evil.  This  we  instinc- 
 tively recognise  as  true  in  our  moral  judgments  of  men.  A 
 man  whom  a  long  course  of  crime  has  rendered  perfectly 
 callous,  is,  on  account  of  his  callousness,  justly  the  object  of 
 execration  and  abhorrence.  It  is  therefore  not  only  a  doctrine 
 of  Scripture  (Rom.  i.  24)  that  sin  is  the  punishment  of  sin,  but  a 
 fact  of  experience.  Satis  est,  says  Augustine,  (Ad  Sixtum  Ep.,) 
 interim  Christiano  ex  fide  adhuc  viventi,  et  nondum  cernenti 
 quod  perfectum  est,  sed  ex  parte  scienti,  nosse  vel  ci'edere  quod 
 neminem  Deus  liberet  nisi  gratuita  miseracordi^  per  Dominum 
 nostrum  Jesus  Christum,  et  neminem  damnet  nisi  aequisima 
 veritate  per  eundem  Dominum  nostrum  Jesum  Christum. 
 Cur  autem  ilium  potius  quam  ilium  liberet  aut  non  liberet, 
 scrutetur  qui  potest  judiciorum  ejus  tam  magnum  profundum, 
 — verumtamen  caveat  praecipitium.  The  Lutheran  Church, 
 after  the  days  of  Luther,  endeavoured  to  find  a  middle  ground 
 between  the  Augustinian  and  the  semi-Pelagian  doctrine.  In 
 the  Form  of  Concord  it  is  taught  that  the  choice  of  the  vessels 
 of  mercy  is  to  be  referred  to  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  but  the 
 passing  by  of  the  non-elect  is  to  be  referred  to  their  voluntary 
 resistance  of  his  ofi'ered  grace.  Election  is  founded,  according 
 to  this  view,  on  the  sovereignty  of  God,  but  pretention  on  the 
 foresight  of  impenitence.  This,  however,  seems  to  involve  a 
 contradiction ;  for  if  faith  be  the  gift  of  God,  the  purpose  to 
 give  it  only  to  some,  involves  the  purpose  not  to  give  it  to 
 others.  Besides,  it  is  the  very  object  of  the  apostle  in  the 
 whole  context  to  teach  the  sovereigntv  of  God  in  dealing  with 
 
ROMANS  IX.  19.  499 
 
 the  vessels  of  wrath.  This  Olshausen  admits.  "This  refer- 
 ence," he  says,  "to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  although  not 
 unfounded  so  far  as  evil  is  concerned,  tends  rather  to  pervert 
 than  to  elucidate  the  passage,  inasmuch  as  the  precise  object  of 
 the  apostle  is  to  render  prominent  the  sovereignty  of  the  divine 
 will." 
 
 Verse  19.  Thou  wilt  then  say  unto  one,  why  doth  he  yet  find 
 fault?  for  ivho  hath  resisted  his  will?  This  is  the  second 
 leading  objection  to  the  apostle's  doctrine.  If  it  be  true,  as  he 
 had  just  taught,  that  the  destiny  of  men  is  in  the  hands  of  God, 
 if  it  is  not  of  him  who  willeth,  or  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of 
 God  that  showeth  mercy,  what  can  we  do  ?  If  the  fact  that 
 one  believes  and  is  saved,  and  another  remains  impenitent  and 
 is  lost,  depends  on  God,  how  can  we  be  blamed  ?  Can  we  resist 
 his  will?  It  will  at  once  be  perceived  that  this  plausible  and 
 formidable  objection  to  the  apostle's  doctrine  is  precisely  the 
 one  which  is  commonly  and  confidently  ui'ged  against  the  doc- 
 trine of  election.  There  would  be  no  room  either  for  this 
 objection,  or  for  that  contained  in  the  14th  verse,  if  Paul  had 
 merely  said  that  God  chooses  those  whom  he  foresees  would 
 repent  and  believe ;  or  that  the  ground  of  distinction  was  in  the 
 different  conduct  of  men.  It  is  very  evident,  therefore,  that  he 
 taught  no  such  doctrine.  How  easy  and  obvious  an  answer  to 
 the  charge  of  injustice  would  it  have  been  to  say,  God  chooses 
 one  and  rejects  another  according  to  their  works.  But  teach- 
 ing as  he  does  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  selection  of  the 
 subjects  of  his  grace  and  of  the  objects  of  his  wrath,  declaring 
 as  he  does  so  plainly,  that  the  destiny  of  men  is  determined 
 by  his  sovereign  pleasure,  the  objection  (how  can  he  yet  find 
 fault?)  is  plausible  and  natural.  To  this  objection  the  apostle 
 gives  two  answers ;  1.  That  it  springs  from  ignorance  of  the 
 true  relation  between  God  and  men  as  Creator  and  creatures, 
 and  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  divine  authority  over  us, 
 vs.  20,  21 ;  2.  That  there  is  nothing  in  his  doctrine  inconsistent 
 ■with  the  divine  perfections;  since  he  does  not  make  men 
 wicked,  but  from  the  mass  of  wicked  men,  he  pardons  one  and 
 punishes  another,  for  the  Avisest  and  most  benevolent  reasons, 
 vs.  22,  23. 
 
 Why  doth  he  yet  find  fault  9     If  God  hardens  us,  why  doea 
 
500  ROMANS  IX.  20. 
 
 he  blame  us  for  being  hard.  Gross  as  is  this  perversion  of  the 
 apostle's  doctrine  on  the  part  of  the  objector,  Paul  at  first 
 rebukes  the  spirit  in  which  it  is  made,  before  he  shows  it  to  be 
 unfounded.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that  God  first 
 makes  men  wicked,  and  then  punishes  them  for  their  wicked- 
 ness. The  Scriptures  only  assert,  what  we  see  and  know  to  be 
 true,  that  God  permits  men,  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  free 
 agency,  to  sin,  and  then  punishes  them  for  their  sins,  and  in 
 proportion  to  their  guilt.  He  acts  towards  them  as  a  perfectly 
 righteous  judge,  so  that  no  one  can  justly  complain  of  his  deal- 
 ings. This  strictness  in  the  administration  of  justice,  is,  how- 
 ever, perfectly  consistent  with  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  deter- 
 mining whom  he  will  save,  and  whom  he  will  permit  to  sufier 
 the  just  recompense  of  their  deeds.  Who  hath  resisted,  rather, 
 who  resists,  i.  e.,  who  can  resist.  The  perfect  dp&iovrjxe  (as 
 iatTfAcu)  is  present;  see  xiii.  2.  His  will,  i.  e.,  his  purpose, 
 ^o'jXrjpica. 
 
 Ver&e  20,  Nay,  hut,  0  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest 
 against  Grod  ?  Shall  the  thing  formed,  &c.  In  these  words  we 
 have  both  a  reproof  and  an  answer.  The  reproof  is  directed 
 against  the  irreverent  spirit,  whence  such  cavils  always  arise. 
 After  the  clear  proof  given  in  the  preceding  verses,  that  God 
 claims  this  sovereignty  in  his  word,  and  exercises  it  in  his 
 providence,  it  argues  great  want  of  reverence  for  God,  to  assert 
 that  this  claim  involves  the  grossest  injustice.  It  is  very 
 common  with  the  sacred  writers,  and  with  Christ  himself,  when 
 questions  or  cavils  are  presented,  to  direct  their  answers  more 
 to  the  feeling  which  the  question  indicated,  than  to  the  question 
 itself.  Tholuck  refers,  in  illustration  of  this  remark,  to  John 
 iii.  3,  Matt.  viii.  19,  20,  22,  xix.  16,  xxii.  29.  But  in  this  case, 
 besides  this  reproof  of  presumption  in  attempting  to  call  our 
 '  Maker  to  account,  instead  of  considering  that  the  mere  fact 
 that  God  claims  any  thing  as  his  right,  is  evidence  enough  that 
 it  is  just,  there  is  a  direct  answer  to  the  difficulty.  The  objec- 
 tion is  founded  on  ignorance  or  misapprehension  of  the  true 
 relation  between  God  and  his  sinful  creatures.  It  supposes  that 
 he  is  under  obligation  to  extend  his  grace  to  all.  Whereas  he 
 is  under  obligation  to  none.  All  are  sinners,  and  have  forfeited 
 every  claim  to  his  mercy ;  it  is,  therefore,  the  prerogative  of 
 
ROMANS  IX.  21.  601 
 
 God  to  spare  one  and  not  another;  to  make  one  vessel  to 
 honour,  and  another  to  dishonour.  He,  as  their  sovereign 
 Creator,  has  the  same  right  over  them  that  a  potter  has  over 
 the  claj.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  Paul  does  not  here 
 speak  of  the  right  of  God  over  his  creatures  as  creatures,  but 
 as  sinful  creatures,  as  he  himself  clearly  intimates  in  the  next 
 verses.  It  is  the  cavil  of  a  sinful  creature  against  his  Creator, 
 that  he  is  answering ;  and  he  does  it  by  showing  that  God  is 
 under  no  obligation  to  give  his  grace  to  any,  but  is  as  sovereign 
 as  the  potter  in  fashioning  the  clay.  Nay,  hut,  0  man, 
 fisvoouye.  This  particle  is  often  used  in  replies,  and  is  partly 
 concessive  and  partly  corrective,  as  in  Luke  xi.  28,  where  it  is 
 rendered,  yea,  rather,  in  Rom.  x.  18,  yes,  verily.  It  may  here, 
 as  elsewhere,  have  an  ironical  force.  Sometimes  it  is  strongly 
 affirmative,  as  in  Phil.  iii.  8,  and  at  others,  introduces,  as  here, 
 a  strong  negation  or  repudiation  of  what  had  been  said. 
 
 Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it.  Why  hast 
 thou  made  me  thus  ?  See  Isaiah  xlv.  9.  In  this  clause  Paul 
 presents  mainly  the  idea  of  God's  right,  and  in  the  subsequent 
 verses  he  shows  that  nothing  unjust  is  included  in  the  right 
 here  claimed.  We  are  at  his  mercy ;  and  it  is  the  height  of 
 irreverence  and  folly  for  us  to  call  him  to  account  for  the 
 manner  in  which  he  may  see  fit  to  dispose  of  us. 
 
 Verse  21.  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay,  out  of  the 
 same  lump  to  make  one  vessel,  &c.,  &c.  The  word  k^ouaia  ren- 
 dered power,  means  also  authority  and  right.  In  this  case  it 
 means,  the  laivful power  or  right;  he  not  only  can  do  it,  but  he 
 has  a  perfect  right  to  do  it ;  see  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  in 
 Matt.  xxi.  23,  1  Cor.  viii.  9,  and  frequently  elsewhere.  This 
 verse  is  merely  an  illustration  of  the  idea  contained  in  the  last 
 clause  of  the  preceding.  The  Creator  has  a  perfect  right  to 
 dispose  of  his  creatures  as  he  sees  fit.  From  the  very  idea  of 
 a  creature,  it  can  have  no  claim  on  the  Creator;  whether  it 
 exists  at  all,  or  how,  or  where,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
 must  depend  on  him,  and  be  at  his  sovereign  disposal.  The 
 illustration  of  this  truth  which  follows,  is  peculiarly  appropriate. 
 When  the  potter  takes  a  piece  of  clay  into  his  hands,  and 
 approaches  the  wheel,  how  entirely  does  it  rest  with  himself  to 
 determine  the  form  that  clay  shall  take,  and  the  use  to  which 
 
502  ROMANS  IX.  22,  23. 
 
 it  shall  be  destined  ?  Can  any  thing  be  more  unreasonable, 
 than  that  the  clay,  supposing  it  endued  with  intelligence,  should 
 complain  that  the  form  given  it  was  not  so  comely,  or  the  use 
 to  which  it  was  destined  not  so  honourable,  as  those  which  fell 
 to  the  lot  of  a  different  portion  of  the' same  mass?  Are  not 
 these  points  on  which  the  potter  has  a  most  perfect  right  to 
 decide  for  himself,  and  regarding  which  the  thing  formed  can 
 have  no  right  to  complain  or  question  ?  And  so  it  is  with  God  ; 
 the  mass  of  fallen  men  are  in  his  hands,  and  it  is  his  right  to 
 dispose  of  them  at  pleasure ;  to  make  all  vessels  unto  honour, 
 or  all  unto  dishonour,  or  some  to  one  and  some  to  the  other. 
 These  are  points  on  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  relation,  we 
 have  no  right  to  question  or  complain.  The  illustration  here 
 employed  occurs  elsewhere  in  Scripture,  as  in  Isa.  Ixiv.  8, 
 "  But  now,  0  Lord,  thou  art  our  Father ;  we  are  the  clay,  and 
 thou  art  our  Potter;  and  we  all  are  the  work  of  thy  hands." 
 See  also  Isa.  xxix,  16,  and  Jer.  xviii.  3 — 6,  "Then  I  went  down 
 to  the  potter's  house,  and,  behold,  he  wrought  a  work  on  the 
 wheels.  And  the  vessel  which  he  made  of  clay  was  marred  in 
 the  hands  of  the  potter ;  so  he  made  it  again  another  vessel,  as 
 seemed  good  to  the  potter  to  make  it.  0  house  of  Israel, 
 cannot  I  do  with  you  as  this  potter?  saith  the  Lord.  Behold, 
 as  clay  is  in  the  potter's  hand,  so  are  ye  in  my  hand,  0  house 
 of  Israel."  In  the  sovereignty  here  asserted,  it  is  God  as 
 moral  governor,  and  not  God  as  creator,  who  is  brought  to 
 view.  It  is  not  the  right  of  God  to  create  sinful  beings  in 
 order  to  punish  them,  but  his  right  to  deal  with  sinful  beings 
 according  to  his  good  pleasure,  that  is  here,  and  elsewhere 
 asserted.     He  pardons  or  punishes  as  he  sees  fit. 
 
 Verses  22,  23.  But  what  if  Gf-od,  willing  to  show  his  wrath, 
 and  to  make  his  power  known,  endured  with  much  long-suffering 
 the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  destruction;  and  that  he  might 
 make  kyiown  the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy, 
 which  he  had  afore  prepared  unto  glory,  even  us,  &c.  ?  These 
 verses  contain  Paul's  second  answer  to  the  diflSculty  presented 
 in  the  19th  verse.  He  had  shown  in  vs.  20,  21,  that  in  virtue 
 of  his  relation  to  men  as  his  sinful  creatures,  God  is  at  perfect 
 liberty  to  dispose  of  them  at  his  pleasure,  pardoning  one  and 
 punishing  another,  as  seemeth  good  in  his  sight.     He  now  shows 
 
ROMANS  IX.  22,  23.  503 
 
 that  in  the  exercise  of  this  right  there  is  nothing  unreasonable 
 or  unjust,  nothing  of  which  his  creatures  have  the  least  right 
 to  complain.  The  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  not  an  arbitrary 
 act,  having  no  object  but  to  make  them  miserable;  it  is 
 designed  to  manifest  the  displeasure  of  God  against  sin,  and  to 
 make  known  his  true  character.  On  the  other  hand,  the  salva- 
 tion of  the  righteous  is  designed  to  display  the  riches  of  his 
 grace.  Both  in  the  punishment  of  the  one  class  and  the  salva- 
 tion of  the  other,  most  important  and  benevolent  ends  are  to  be 
 answered.  And  since  for  these  ends  it  was  necessary  that 
 some  should  be  punished,  while  others  might  be  pardoned,  as 
 all  are  equally  undeserving,  it  results  from  the  nature  of  the 
 case  that  the  decision  between  the  vessels  of  wrath  and  the 
 vessels  of  mercy  must  be  left  to  God.  The  apostle  would, 
 moreover,  have  it  remarked,  that  even  in  the  necessary  punish- 
 ment of  the  wicked,  God  does  not  proceed  with  any  undue 
 severity,  but,  on  the  contrary,  deals  with  them  with  the  greatest 
 long-suffering  and  tenderness.  Such  seems  to  be  the  general 
 purport  and  object  of  these  difficult  verses. 
 
 The  attentive  reader  will  perceive,  that  even  with  the  inser- 
 tion of  the  word  what,  which  has  nothing  to  answer  to  it  in  the 
 original,  and  with  a  sign  of  interrogation  at  the  end  of  ver.  24, 
 the  construction  of  the  passage  in  our  version  remains  ungram- 
 matical  and  the  sense  incomplete.  As  the  difficulty  exists  in 
 the  Greek  text,  and  not  merely  in  our  translation,  the  explana- 
 tions which  have  been  proposed  are  very  numerous.  Many  of 
 these  are  presented  and  canvassed  by  Tholuck  and  Wolf,  par- 
 ticularly the  latter.  There  are  three  views  taken  of  the  con- 
 nection, which  are  the  most  plausible.  1.  The  two  verses  are 
 considered  as  both  referring  to  the  rejection  of  the  wicked,  for 
 which  ver.  22  assigns  one  reason,  and  ver.  23  another.  '  What 
 if  God,  willing  to  show  his  wrath,  endured  with  much  long-suf- 
 fering the  vessels  of  wrath,  so  that  also  he  might  make  known  the 
 riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  &c.'  The  treatment 
 of  the  wicked  was  not  only  to  display  the  divine  displeasure 
 against  sin,  but  also,  by  contrast,  his  mercy  towards  his  people.* 
 
 *  So,  among  others,  Calvin,  who  translates  verse  23  thus,  Ut  notas  quoque 
 faceret  divitias  gloriae  suae  in  vasa  misericordiae,  quae  praeparavit  in  gloriam. 
 And  in  his  comment  he  remarks,  Est  autem  secunda  ratio  quae  gloriam  Dei  in 
 
504  ROMANS  IX.  22,  23. 
 
 But,  in  order  to  make  the  two  verses  cohere  in  this  way,  it  is 
 necessary  to  transpose  the  words  at  the  beginning  of  the  23d 
 verse,  and  read  that  also,  instead  of  and  that,  which  alters  the 
 sense  materially,  while  for  such  a  transposition  there  is  no 
 authority.  Besides  this,  it  makes  ver.  23  too  subordinate  to 
 ver.  22 ;  that  is,  it  maJces  God's  dealings  towards  the  vessels  of 
 mercy  merely  an  incidental  topic,  instead  of  having  equal 
 prominence  Avith  his  treatment  of  the  vessels  of  wrath.  From 
 the  context  we  are  led  to  expect  a  vindication  of  his  course,  not 
 only  in  the  destruction  of  the  latter,  but  in  the  salvation  of  the 
 former. 
 
 2.  A  second  explanation  is  to  make  the  second  clause  of  ver. 
 22  and  the  beginning  of  ver.  23  depend  on  the  first  words  of 
 ver.  22.  '  God  willing  to  show  his  wrath  and  make  his  power 
 known,  and  (willing)  that  the  riches  of  his  glory  should  be 
 known,  &c.'  This  gives  a  good  sense,  though  the  construction 
 is  suddenly,  and  rather  violently,  changed  at  the  beginning  of 
 ver.  23,  "that  he  might  make  known,"  being  substituted  for 
 the  infinitive,  "to  make  known." 
 
 3.  Tholuck  makes  ver.  24  parallel  with  ver.  23,  and  explains 
 the  passage  thus,  '  God,  willing  to  manifest  his  wrath,  bore  with 
 the  vessels  of  wrath ;  and  that  he  might  make  known  his  mercy, 
 called  us,  &c.'  This  gives  a  very  good  sense,  but  assumes  the 
 construction  to  be  irregular  to  a  very  unusual  degree.  Though 
 the  second  method  be  somewhat  irregular,  it  seems,  on  the 
 whole,  the  least  objectionable,  and  gives  a  sense  obviously  con- 
 sistent with  the  context.  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  is  suffi- 
 ciently plain.  He  asks  a  question  e:  os,  but  if.  '  What  can 
 be  said  if  God,  to  manifest  his  justice,  bears  with  the  vessels  of 
 wrath,  and  to  manifest  his  grace  prepares  the  vessels  of  mercy?' 
 There  is  nothing  in  this  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  God, 
 or  the  rights  of  his  creatures. 
 
 reproborum  interitu  manifestat;  quod  ex  eo  luculentius  divinae  bonitatis  erga 
 electos  amplitudo  confirmatur. 
 
 Much  in  the  same  way  Winer  explains  the  passage,  connecting  the  jcct/  ha. 
 of  ver.  23,  immediately  with  the  verb  heytLiv  of  ver.  22,  "Wenn  Gott  beschliess- 
 end  mit  aller  Langmuth  die  Gefasse  seines  Zornes  trug  *  *  auch  in  der 
 Absicht,  den  Reichthum  *  *  zuerkennen  zu  geben."  "If  God  willing  *  *  * 
 bore  with  all  long-suffering  the  vessels  of  wrath  *  *  *  *  also  with  the  view 
 to  make  known  the  riches,  &c."     Gram.  p.  443. 
 
ROMANS  IX.  22,  23.  605 
 
 The  two  objects  which  Paul  here  specifies  as  designed  to  be 
 answered  by  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  are  the  manifesta- 
 tion of  the  wrath  of  God,  and  the  exhibition  of  his  power. 
 The  word  wrath  is  used  here  as  in  chap.  i.  18,  for  the  divine 
 displeasure  against  sin,  the  calm  and  holy  disapprobation  of 
 evil,  joined  with  the  determination  to  punish  those  who  com- 
 mit it.*  The  power  of  God  is  conspicuously  displayed  in  the 
 destruction  of  the  wicked,  no  matter  how  mighty  or  numerous 
 they  may  be.  Though  the  inherent  ill-desert  of  sin  must  ever 
 be  regarded  as  the  primary  ground  of  the  infliction  of  punish- 
 ment, a  ground  which  would  remain  in  full  force,  were  no  bene- 
 ficial results  anticipated  from  the  misery  of  the  wicked,  yet 
 God  has  so  ordered  his  government  that  the  evils  which  sinners 
 incur  shall  result  in  the  manifestation  of  his  character,  and  the 
 consequent  promotion  of  the  holiness  and  happiness  of  his  intel- 
 ligent creatures  throughout  eternity. 
 
 God  treats  the  wicked,  not  as  a  severe  judge,  but  with  much 
 long  suffering.  The  expression  vessels  of  wrath,  no  doubt  sug- 
 gests itself  from  the  illustration  of  the  potter  used  in  the  pre- 
 ceding verse ;  though  the  term  vessel  is  used  not  unfrequently 
 in  reference  to  men,  Acts  ix.  15,  1  Peter  iii.  7.  Vessels  of 
 tvrath,  i.  e.,  vessels  to  receive  wrath,  or  which  are  destined  to 
 be  the  objects  of  wrath.  This  is  a  modification  of  the  expres- 
 sion in  ver.  21,  axsuo^  ec^  aretiiau,  vessel  unto  dishonour. 
 
 Fitted  to  destruction,  xatY^fJTeafiiua  etc;  amoXecav.  This  phrase 
 admits  of  two  interpretations.  The  passive  participle  may  be 
 taken  as  a  verbal  adjective,  fit  for  destruction.  This  leaves 
 undetermined  the  agency  by  which  this  fitness  was  effected. 
 Comp.  2  Cor.  x.  10,  1  Peter  i.  8.  In  favour  of  this  view  is  the 
 change  of  expression  adopted  in  ver.  23.  Of  the  vessels  of 
 wrath,  it  is  simply  said  that  they  are  fit  for  destruction  ;  but  of 
 the  vessels  of  mercy,  that  God  prepares  them  for  glory.  Why 
 this  change,  if  the  apostle  did  not  intend  to  intimate  that  the 
 agency  of  God  is  very  different  in  the  one  case  from  what  it  is  in 
 the  other  ?  Besides,  as  it  is  the  object  of  the  writer  to  vindicate 
 the  justice  of  God  in  these  dispensations,  it  is  specially  perti- 
 nent to  represent  the  vessels  of  wrath  as  fit  for  destruction  in 
 
 *  Ira  Dei  non,  perturbatio  animi  ejus  est,  sed  judicium  quo  irrogatur  poena 
 peccato.    August.  De  Civit.  Dei,  1.  15,  c.  35. 
 
606  KOMANS  IX.  22,  23. 
 
 the  sense  of  deserving  it.  The  other  interpretation  assumes 
 that  the  reference  is  to  God,  and  that  xaraprtayikva  has  its  full 
 participial  force ;  prepared  (by  God)  for  destruction.  This  is 
 adopted  not  only  by  the  majority  of  Augustinians,  but  also  by 
 many  Lutherans  and  Neologists.  This  sense  they  say  is  de- 
 manded by  the  context.  God  is  compared  to  a  potter,  who 
 prepares  one  vessel  to  honour,  and  another  to  dishonour.  So 
 God  prepares  some  for  wrath,  and  some  ftfr  mercy.  This, 
 however,  is  not  to  be  understood  in  a  supralapsarian  sense. 
 God  does  not  create  men  in  order  to  destroy  them.  The  pre- 
 paration intended  is  that  illustrated  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh. 
 God  did  not  make  him  wicked  and  obdurate ;  but  as  a  punish- 
 ment for  his  sin,  he  so  dealt  with  him  that  the  evil  of  his  nature 
 revealed  itself  in  a  form,  and  under  circumstances,  which  made 
 him  a  fit  object  of  the  punitive  justice  of  God.  The  dealings 
 of  God  as  a  sovereign  are  often,  by  the  Jewish  writers,  spoken 
 of  in  the  same  terms  as  those  here  used ;  see  Moed  Katon, 
 fol.  9,  1.  Exiit  filia  vocis,  dixitque  eis ;  vos  omnes  ordinati 
 estis  ad  vitam  seculi  futuri.  Megilla,  fol.  12,  2.  Memuchan, 
 Esther  i.  14,  i.  e.,  Haman.  Cur  vocatur  nomen  ejus  Memucan? 
 quia  ordinatus  est  ad  poenas.  II.  Bechai  in  Pentateuch,  fol. 
 132.  Gentes  ordinatae  ad  gehennam ;  Israel  vero  ad  vitam. 
 Fol.  220,  4,  Duas  istas  gentes  vocat  Salomo  duas  filias,  dicitque 
 ad  gehennam  ordinatas  esse.  Beclioroth.,  fol.  8,  2.  R.  Joseph 
 docuit,  hi  sunt  Persae,  qui  preparati  sunt  in  gehennam.  Wet- 
 stein  on  Acts  xiii.  48. 
 
 Verse  23.  Ayid  that  he  might  make  known  the  riches  of 
 his  glory.,  &c.  The  grammatical  construction  of  this  clause,  as 
 before  remarked,  is  doubtful.  The  ha  yvajpiarj  may  depend  on 
 jjveyxsv,  he  bore  with  the  vessels  of  wrath  in  order  that  he 
 might  make  known  the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of 
 mercy;  or,  they  may  be  connected  with  xarr^pTca/jiiua,  vessels 
 prepared  for  destruction,  in  order  that  he  might  make  known,  &;c. 
 Or,  we  must  assume  that  Iva  ypcopcaif]  is  used  for  the  infinitive, 
 and  that  this  clause  is  coordinate  with  the  preceding.  '  What 
 if  God,  to  manifest  his  wrath,  bears  with  the  wicked,  and  to 
 make  known  his  mercy,  prepares  others  for  glory.'  The  vessels 
 of  mercy,  i.  e.,  those  destined  to  mercy.  The  riches  of,  i.  e., 
 the  abundance  or  greatness  of,  his  glory.     The  glory  refers  to 
 
ROMANS  IX.  24.  507 
 
 the  divine  majesty  or  excellence  which  is  glorious,  that  is,  the 
 proper  object  of  admiration.  It  may  be  used  of  the  divine  per- 
 fection in  general,  or  for  any  of  the  divine  attributes  in  particu- 
 lar, for  his  power,  as  Rom.  vi.  4,  or  his  mercy,  in  Eph.  iii.  16. 
 Here  it  should  be  taken  in  its  comprehensive  sense,  although 
 from  its  opposition  to  the  word  wraths  the  reference  is  specially 
 to  the  mercy  of  God.  That  is  the  attribute  most  conspicuously 
 displayed  in  the  salvation  of  sinners. 
 
 Wliich  he  had  afore  'pre'pared^  TzpoTjzoiiiaazv.  This  word  is 
 used  both  in  the  sense  of  preparing  beforehand,  and  of  predes- 
 tining. Many  prefer  the  latter  sense  here ;  whom  he  had  pre- 
 destined to  glory.  Comp.  Eph.  ii.  10.  But  the  context  is  in 
 favour  of  the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  v^'ord.  God,  as  the  pot- 
 ter, prepares  or  fashions  the  vessels  of  mercy  unto  glory.  The 
 word  glory  here  evidently  refers  to  the  glorious  state  of  exist- 
 ence for  which  God  is  preparing  his  people,  and  in  hope  of 
 which  they  now  rejoice,  v.  2. 
 
 Verse  24.  Even  us  whom  he  hath  called,  not  of  the  Jews 
 only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles.  We  are  the  vessels  of  his 
 mercy,  even  we  Avhom  he  hath  called,  i.  e.,  eifectually  intro- 
 duced by  his  Spirit  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ ;  see  chap.  viii. 
 28,  30.  The  use  of  the  masculine  relative  o5c,  although  the 
 antecedent  axeui^  £?Joij^  is  neuter,  may  be  explained  as  a  con- 
 structio  ad  sensum,  or  better  as  a  case  of  attraction ;  oSc  taking 
 the  gender  of  the  following  )^//dc.  Winer,  §  63,  1.  How 
 naturally  does  the  apostle  here  return  to  the  main  subject  of 
 discussion !  How  skilfully  is  the  conclusion  brought  out  at 
 which  he  has  continually  aimed !  God  chose  Isaac  in  prefer- 
 ence to  Ishmael,  Jacob  in  preference  to  Esau ;  it  is  a  preroga- 
 tive which  he  claims  and  exercises,  of  selecting  from  among  the 
 guilty  family  of  men,  whom  he  pleases  as  the  objects  of  his 
 mercy,  and  leaving  whom  he  pleases  to  perish  in  their  sins, 
 unrestricted  in  his  choice  by  the  descent  or  previous  conduct 
 of  the  individuals.  He  has  mercy  upon  whom  he  will  have 
 mercy.  He  calls  men,  therefore,  from  among  the  Gentiles  and 
 from  among  the  Jews  indiscriminately.  This  is  the  conclusion  at 
 which  the  apostle  aimed.  The  Gentiles  are  admitted  into  the 
 Messiah's  kingdom,  vs.  25,  26 ;  and  the  great  body  of  the  Jews 
 are  excluded,  ver.  27.     This  conclusion  he  confirms  by  explicit 
 
508  ROMANS  IX.  6—24. 
 
 declarations  of  Scripture.  Ex  disputatione,  quam  hactenus  de 
 libertate  divinae  electionis  habuit,  duo  consequebantur :  nempe 
 Dei  gratiam  non  ita  inclusam  esse  in  populo  Judaico,  ut  non  ad 
 alias  quoque  nationes  emanare,  et  in  orbem  universum  effundere 
 se  posset:  deinde  ne  sic  quidera  alligatam  esse  Judaeis,  ut  ad 
 omnes  Abrahae  filios  secundum  carnem  sine  exceptione  perve- 
 niat. — Calvin. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  No  external  circumstance,  no  descent  from  pious  parents, 
 no  connection  with  the  true  church,  can  secure  admission  for 
 men  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  vs.  6 — 12. 
 
 2.  Paul  teaches  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  personal  election 
 of  men  to  eternal  life,  an  election  founded  not  on  works,  but  on 
 the  good  pleasure  of  God.  The  choice  is  to  eternal  life,  and 
 not  to  external  privileges  merely.  1.  Because  the  very  point 
 to  be  illustrated  and  established  through  this  and  the  two  fol- 
 lowing chapters,  is  the  free  admission  of  men  into  the  Messiah's 
 kingdom,  and  its  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings.  2.  Because 
 the  language  of  the  apostle  seems  of  itself  to  preclude  the  other 
 idea,  in  vs.  15,  16,  and  especially  in  ver.  18,  "  Therefore  he 
 hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth." 
 This  is  not  applicable  to  the  reception  of  men  to  a  state  of 
 peculiar  external  privileges  or  their  rejection  from  it.  3.  The 
 case  of  Pharaoh  is  not  an  illustration  of  the  refusal  to  admit 
 some  men  to  peculiar  privileges.  4.  The  choice  is  between  the 
 vessels  of  mercy  and  vessels  of  wrath ;  vessels  of  mercy  chosen 
 unto  glory,  not  unto  church  privileges,  and  vessels  of  wrath 
 who  were  to  be  made  the  examples  of  God's  displeasure  against 
 sin.  5.  The  character  of  the  objections  to  the  apostle's  doc- 
 trine shows  that  such  was  the  nature  of  the  choice.  If  this 
 election  is  to  eternal  life,  it  is,  of  course,  a  choice  of  individu- 
 als, and  not  of  communities,  because  communities,  as  such,  do 
 not  inherit  eternal  life.  This  is  still  further  proved  by  the 
 cases  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael,  and  Jacob  and  Esau,  between 
 whom,  as  individuals,  the  choice  was  made.  From  the  illustra- 
 tion derived  from  the  case  of  Pharaoh.  From  the  objections 
 presented  in  vs.  14,  19.  From  the  answer  to  these  objections 
 in  vs.  15,  16,  20,  23,  especially  from  the  passage  just  referred 
 
ROMANS  IX.  6—24.  509 
 
 to,  which  speaks  of  the  vessels  of  mercy  prepared  unto  glory; 
 which  cannot  be  applied  to  nations  or  communities.  This  elec- 
 tion is  sovereign^  i.  e.,  is  founded  on  the  good  pleasure  of  God, 
 and  not  on  any  thing  in  its  objects.  1.  Because  this  is  express- 
 ly asserted.  The  choice  between  Jacob  and  Esau  was  made 
 prior  to  birth,  that  it  might  be  seen  that  it  was  not  founded  on 
 works,  but  on  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  ver.  11.  The  same  is 
 clearly  stated  in  ver.  16,  "It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth  or  of 
 him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy;"  and  also 
 in  ver.  18,  "Therefore  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will,  &c." 
 The  decision  rests  with  God.  2.  Because  otherwise  there 
 would  be  no  shadow  of  objection  to  the  doctrine.  How  could 
 men  say  it  was  unjust  if  God  chose  one  and  rejected  another 
 according  to  their  works  ?  And  how  could  any  one  object,  as 
 in  ver.  19,  'that  as  the  will  of  God  could  not  be  resisted,  men 
 were  not  to  be  blamed,'  if  the  decision  in  question  did  not 
 depend  on  the  sovereign  will  of  God?  How  easy  for  the 
 apostle  to  have  answered  the  objector,  'You  are  mistaken,  the 
 choice  is  not  of  God ;  he  does  not  choose  whom  he  will,  but  those 
 who  he  sees  will  choose  him.  It  is  not  his  will,  but  man's  that 
 decides  the  point.'  Paul  does  not  thus  answer.  He  vindicates 
 the  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty.  The  fact,  therefore, 
 that  Paul  had  to  answer  the  same  objections  which  are  now 
 constantly  urged  against  the  doctrine  of  election,  goes  far  to 
 show  that  that  doctrine  was,  his.  3.  That  the  election  is 
 sovereign,  is  taught  elsewhere  in  Scripture.  In  2  Tim.  i.  9,  it 
 is  said  to  be  "  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his 
 own  purpose  and  grace."  Eph.  i.  5,  it  is  said  to  be  "  according 
 to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,"  i.  e.,  his  sovereign  pleasure. 
 4.  This  view  alone  harmonises  with  the  doctrine,  that  all  good 
 thoughts  and  right  purposes  and  feelings  proceed  from  God, 
 which  is  clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  For  if  the  purpose 
 not  to  resist '  common  grace,'  is  a  right  purpose,  it  is  of  God, 
 and,  of  course,  it  is  of  him  that  one  man  forms  it,  and  another 
 does  not.  5.  This  doctrine  is  alone  consistent  with  Christian 
 experience.  "  Why  was  I  made  to  hear  thy  voice  ? "  No 
 Christian  answers  this  question  by  saying,  because  I  was  better 
 than  others. 
 
 3.  The  two  leading  objections  against  the  doctrine  of  election, 
 
510  ROMANS  IX.  G— 24. 
 
 viz.,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  divine  character,  and  incom- 
 patible with  human  responsibility,  are  answered  by  the  apostle. 
 It  cannot  be  unjust,  because  God  claims  and  exercises  the  right 
 of  sovereign  choice.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  human  respon- 
 sibility, because  God  does  not  make  men  wicked.  Though,  as 
 their  Sovereign,  he  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  wicked  men  as  he 
 pleases.  He  can,  of  the  same  corrupt  mass,  choose  one  to 
 honour,  and  the  other  to  dishonour,  vs.  14 — 23. 
 
 4.  Scripture  must  ever  be  consistent  with  itself.  The  rejec- 
 tion of  the  Jews  could  not  be  inconsistent  with  any  of  God's 
 promises,  ver.  6. 
 
 5.  The  true  children  of  God  become  such  in  virtue  of  a 
 divine  promise,  or  by  the  special  exercise  of  his  grace.  They 
 are  born  not  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  but  of  God,  ver.  8. 
 
 6.  Though  children  prior  to  birth  do  neither  good  nor  evil, 
 yet  they  may  be  naturally  depraved.  They  neither  hunger 
 nor  thirst,  yet  hunger  and  thirst  are  natural  appetites.  They 
 exercise  neither  love  nor  anger,  yet  these  are  natural  passions. 
 They  know  probably  neither  joy  nor  sorrow,  yet  are  these 
 natural  emotions,  ver.  11. 
 
 7.  The  manifestation  of  the  divine  perfections  is  the  last  and 
 highest  end  of  all  things,  vs.  17,  22,  23. 
 
 8.  The  fact  that  the  destiny  of  men  is  in  the  hands  of  God 
 (that  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  or  him  that  runneth,)  is  not 
 inconsistent  with  the  necessity  of  the  use  of  means.  The  fact 
 that  the  character  of  the  harvest  depends  on  the  sovereign 
 pleasure  of  God,  does  not  render  the  labour  of  the  husbandman 
 of  no  account.  The  same  God  who  says,  "  I  will  have  mercy 
 on  whom  I  will,"  says  also,  "  Work  out  your  salvation  with 
 fear  and  trembling."  The  sovereignty  of  God  and  the  neces- 
 sity of  human  efforts  are  both  clearly  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 
 At  times  the  former,  as  ia  this  chapter,  at  times  the  latter  doc- 
 trine is  most  insisted  upon.  Neither  should  be  forgotten  or 
 neglected,  as  both  combine  to  produce  the  right  impression  on 
 the  mind,  and  to  lead  us  to  God  in  the  way  of  his  own  appoint- 
 ment, ver.  16. 
 
 9.  Men,  considered  as  the  objects  of  election,  are  regarded  as 
 fallen.  It  is  from  the  corrupt  mass  that  God  chooses  one 
 vessel  to  honour  and  one  to  dishonour,  vs.  22,  23. 
 
ROMANS  IX.  6—24.  611 
 
 10.  The  judicial  abandonment  of  men  to  their  own  ways,  the 
 giving  them  up  to  work  out  their  own  destruction,  is  a  righteous 
 though  dreadful  doom,  vs.  18,  22,  also  chap.  i.  24,  26. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  If  descent  from  Abraham,  participation  in  all  the  privi- 
 leges of  the  theocracy,  the  true  and  only  church,  failed  to 
 secure  for  the  Jews  the  favour  of  God,  how  foolish  the  expecta- 
 tion of  those  who  rely  on  outward  ordinances  and  church-rela- 
 tions as  the  ground  of  their  acceptance,  vs.  6 — 13. 
 
 2.  The  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  choice  of 
 the  objects  of  his  mercy  should  produce,  1.  The  most  profound 
 humility  in  those  who  are  called  according  to  his  purpose. 
 They  are  constrained  to  say,  "Not  unto  us,  not  unto  us,  but 
 unto  thy  name  be  all  the  glory."  2.  The  liveliest  gratitude, 
 that  we,  though  so  unworthy,  should  from  eternity  have  been 
 selected  as  the  objects  in  which  God  displays  "  the  riches  of 
 his  glory."  3.  Confidence  and  peace,  under  all  circumstances, 
 because  the  purpose  of  God  does  not  change ;  whom  he  has 
 predestinated,  them  he  also  calls,  justifies,  and  glorifies. 
 4.  Diligence  in  the  discharge  of  all  duty,  to  make  our  calling 
 and  election  sure.  That  is,  to  make  it  evident  to  ourselves  and 
 others,  that  we  are  the  called  and  chosen  of  God.  We  should 
 ever  remember  that  election  is  to  holiness,  and  consequently  to 
 live  in  sin,  is  to  invalidate  every  claim  to  be  considered  as  one 
 of  "God's  elect." 
 
 3.  As  God  is  the  immutable  standard  of  right  and  truth,  the 
 proper  method  to  answer  objections  against  the  doctrines  we 
 profess,  is  to  appeal  to  what  God  says,  and  to  what  he  does. 
 Any  objection  that  can  be  shown  to  be  inconsistent  with  any 
 declaration  of  Scripture,  or  with  any  fact  in  providence,  is  suffi- 
 ciently answered,  vs.  15,  17. 
 
 4.  It  should,  therefore,  be  assumed  as  a  first  principle,  that 
 God  cannot  do  wrong.  If  he  does  a  thing,  it  must  be  right. 
 And  it  is  much  safer  for  us,  corrupt  and  blinded  mortals,  thus 
 to  argue,  than  to  pursue  the  opposite  course,  and  maintain  that 
 God  does  not  and  cannot  do  so  and  so,  because  in  our  judgment 
 it  would  be  wrong,  vs.  15 — 19. 
 
 5.  All  cavilling  against  God  is  wicked.     It  is  inconsistent 
 
512  ROMANS  IX.  6—24. 
 
 with  our  relation  to  him  as  our  Creator.     It  is  a  manifestation 
 of  self-ignorance,  and  of  irreverence  toward  God,  ver.  20. 
 
 6.  What  proof  of  piety  is  there  in  believing  our  own  eyes, 
 or  in  receiving  the  deductions  of  our  own  reasoning?  But  to 
 confide  in  God,  when  clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him ; 
 to  be  sure  that  what  he  does  is  right,  and  that  what  he  says  is 
 true,  when  we  cannot  see  how  either  the  one  or  the  other  can 
 be,  this  is  acceptable  in  his  sight.  And  to  this  trial  he 
 subjects  all  his  people,  vs.  20 — 24. 
 
 7.  If  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  glory  is  the  highest 
 end  of  God  in  creation,  providence,  and  redemption,  it  is  the 
 end  for  which  we  should  live  and  be  willing  to  die.  To  substi- 
 tute any  other  end,  as  our  own  glory  and  advantage,  is  folly, 
 sin,  and  self-destruction,  vs.  17,  22,  23. 
 
 8.  The  fact  that  God  says  to  some  men,  "Let  them  alone;" 
 that  "he  gives  them  up  to  a  reprobate  mind;"  that  he  with- 
 holds from  them,  in  punishment  of  their  sins,  the  influences  of 
 his  Spirit,  should  fill  all  the  impenitent  with  alarm.  It  should 
 lead  them  to  obey  at  once  his  voice,  lest  he  swear  in  his  wrath 
 that  they  shall  never  enter  into  his  rest,  vs.  17,  18. 
 
 9.  We  and  all  things  else  are  in  the  hands  of  God.  He 
 worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  The  Lord 
 reigns,  let  the  earth  rejoice,  vs.  14 — 24. 
 
 ROMANS   IX.  25—33. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  conclusion  at  which  the  apostle  had  arrived  in  the  pre- 
 ceding section,  was,  that  God  is  at  liberty  to  select  the  objects 
 of  his  mercy,  indiscriminately,  from  among  the  Gentiles  and 
 Jews.  This  conclusion  he  now  confirms  by  the  declarations  of 
 the  Old  Testament,  according  to  which  it  is  clear,  1.  That 
 those  were  to  be  included  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  who  origi- 
 nally were  considered  as  aliens,  vs.  25,  26 ;  and  2.  That,  as  to 
 the  Israelites,  only  a  small  portion  should  attain  to  the  blessings 
 of  the  Messiah's  reign,  and  of  course,  the  mere  being  a  Jew  by 
 birth  was  no  security  of  salvation,  vs.  27 — 29.     The  inference 
 
ROMANS  IX.  25.  513 
 
 from  all  this  is,  that  the  Gentiles  are  called,  and  the  Jews,  as 
 Jews,  are  rejected,  vs.  30,  31.  The  reason  of  this  rejection  is 
 that  they  would  not  submit  to  the  terms  of  salvation  presented 
 in  the  gospel,  ver.  32.  As  it  had  been  long  before  predicted, 
 thej  rejected  their  Messiah,  taking  offence  at  him,  seeing 
 in  him  no  form  or  comeliness  that  they  should  desire  him, 
 yer.  33. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  25.  The  first  part  of  the  general  conclusion,  contained 
 in  the  24th  verse,  is,  that  the  Gentiles  are  eligible  to  the  bless- 
 ings of  Christ's  kingdom.  This  the  apostle  confirms  by  two 
 passages  from  the  prophecies  of  Hosea,  which  express  the 
 general  sentiment,  that  those  who,  under  the  old  economy, 
 were  not  regarded  as  the  people  of  God,  should  hereafter 
 (i.  e.,  under  the  Messiah)  become  his  people.  The  first  passage 
 cited  is  from  Hosea  ii.  23,  which  in  our  version  is,  "  I  will  have 
 mercy  on  her  that  had  not  obtained  mercy :  and  I  will  say  to 
 them  which  were  not  my  people,  thou  art  my  people."  The 
 Hebrew,  however,  admits  of  the  rendering  given  by  the  apostle, 
 as  the  word  translated  to  have  mercy  may  signify  to  love.  The 
 difiiculty  with  regard  to  this  passage  is,  that  in  Hosea  it  evi- 
 dently has  reference  not  to  the  heathen,  but  to  the  ten  tribes. 
 Whereas,  Paul  refers  it  to  the  Gentiles,  as  is  also  done  by  Peter, 
 1  Peter  ii.  10.  This  difficulty  is  sometimes  gotten  over  by 
 giving  a  different  view  of  the  apostle's  object  in  the  citation, 
 and  making  it  refer  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews.  But  this 
 interpretation  is  obviously  at  variance  with  the  context.  It  is 
 more  satisfactory  to  say,  that  the  ten  tribes  were  in  a  heathen- 
 ish state,  relapsed  into  idolatry,  and,  therefore,  what  was  said 
 of  them,  is  of  course  applicable  to  others  in  like  circumstances, 
 or  of  like  character.  What  amounts  to  much  the  same  thing, 
 the  sentiment  of  the  prophet  is  to  be  taken  generally,  '  those 
 who  were  excluded  from  the  theocracy,  who  were  regarded  and 
 treated  as  aliens,  were  hereafter  to  be  treated  as  the  people  of 
 God.'  In  this  view,  it  is  perfectly  applicable  to  the  apostle's 
 object,  which  was  to  convince  the  Jews,  that  the  blessings  of 
 Christ's  kingdom  were  not  to  be  confined  within  the  pale  of  the 
 Old  Testament  economy,  or  limited  to  those  "^ho,  in  their 
 33 
 
514  ROMANS  IX.  26,  27,  28. 
 
 external  relations,  were  considered  the  people  of  God;  on  the 
 contrary,  those  who,  according  to  the  rules  of  that  economy, 
 were  not  the  people  of  God,  should  hereafter  become  such. 
 This  method  of  interpreting  and  applying  Scripture  is  both 
 common  and  correct.  A  general  truth,  stated  in  reference  to  a 
 particular  class  of  persons,  is  to  be  considered  as  intended  to 
 apply  to  all  those  whose  character  and  circumstances  are  the 
 same,  though  the  form  or  words  of  the  original  enunciation  may 
 not  be  applicable  to  all  embraced  within  the  scope  of  the  general 
 sentiment.  Thus  what  is  said  of  one  class  of  heathen,  as  such, 
 is  applicable  to  all  others,  and  what  is  said  of  one  portion  of 
 aliens  from  the  Old  Testament  covenant,  may  properly  be 
 referred  to  others. 
 
 Verse  26.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  in  the  place  where 
 it  was  said  to  them.  Ye  are  not  my  people,  &c.  This  quotation 
 is  more  strictly  conformed  to  the  Hebrew  than  the  preceding. 
 It  is  from  Hosea  i.  10.  The  sentiment  is  the  same  as  before. 
 The  combination  of  two  or  more  disconnected  passages  in  one 
 quotation,  is  not  unusual  in  the  New  Testament,  and  was  a 
 common  practice  with  the  Jewish  Rabbins,  who,  as  Surenhusius 
 says,  Interdum  plura  loca  sacrae  Scripturae  in  unum  contrahi 
 Solent  ad  efficaciorem  rei  demonstrationem.  In  the  place  where, 
 iv  TO)  TOTKj)  00,  is  by  many  understood  of  Palestine.  The  pro- 
 phet predicts  the  ten  tribes  should  be  restored,  and  that  they 
 should  be  again  recognised  as  part  of  the  people  of  God  in  the 
 very  place  where  they  had  been  regarded  as  apostates  and  out- 
 casts. Others  think  that  the  apostle  refers  to  the  church, 
 in  coetu  Christianorum,  ubi  diu  dubitatum  est,  an  recte  Gen- 
 tiles reciperentur,  ibi  appellabantur  filii  Dei. — Fritzsche.  Much 
 the  most  common  and  natural  explanation  is,  that  the  reference 
 is  indefinitely  to  the  heathen  world.  Wherever,  in  every 
 place,  where  the  people  had  been  regarded  as  aliens,  they 
 should  be  called  the  children  of  God.  That  is,  those  formerly 
 not  his  people,  should  become  his  people. 
 
 Verses  27,  28.  The  second  part  of  the  apostle's  conclusion, 
 ver.  24,  is,  that  the  Jews,  as  such,  were  not  to  be  included  in 
 the  kingdom  of  Christ,  which,  of  course,  is  implied  in  all  those 
 predictions  which  speak  of  them  as  in  general  cut  off  an(S 
 rejected.     Two  such  passages  Paul  quotes  from  Isaiah.     The 
 
ROMANS  IX.  27,  28.  515 
 
 first  is  from  Isaiah  x.  22,  23.  Though  the  number  of  the  chil- 
 dren of  Israel  he  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  a  remnant  shall  be 
 saved,  for  he  will  fn^'sh  the  work  and  cut  it  short  in  righteous- 
 ness: because  a  short  work  ivill  the  Lord  make  in  the  earth. 
 This  passage  is  nearer  the  LXX.  translation  than  to  the  Hebrew. 
 The  general  sense  is  the  same  in  both,  and  also  in  the  apostle's 
 version,  '  However  numerous  the  children  of  Israel  might  be, 
 only  a  small  portion  of  them  should  escape  the  judgments  of 
 God.'  This  being  the  case,  it  is  evident  that  the  mere  being  a 
 Jew  was  never  considered  sufficient  to  secure  the  divine 
 favour.  The  portion  of  the  prophecy  contained  in  ver.  27  is 
 the  principal  point,  '  Only  a  few  of  the  Jews  were  to  be  saved.* 
 What  is  contained  in  ver.  28  is  an  amplification,  or  states  the 
 converse  of  the  preceding  proposition.  '  Most  of  the  Jews 
 should  be  cut  off".'  The  passage  in  Isaiah,  therefore,  is  strictly 
 applicable  to  the  apostle's  object.* 
 
 Our  version  of  ver.  28  is  consistent  with  the  original. f  But 
 it  may  also  be  rendered,  "  He  will  execute  and  determine  on 
 the  judgment  with  righteousness,  for  a  judgment  determined  on, 
 will  the  Lord  execute  in  the  earth."  The  word  {Xoyov)  ren- 
 dered work  in  our  version,  means  properly  a  word,  something 
 spoken,  and  may  refer  to  a  promise,  or  threatening,  according  to 
 the  context.  Here  of  course  a  threatening  is  intended;  the 
 judgment  threatened  by  the  prophet  in  the  context.  The  word 
 {auvTs)Mv)  rendered  he  will  finish,  means  bringing  to  an  end, 
 and  here  perhaps,  executing  at  once,  bringing  to  an  end  speedily. 
 And  the  term  {auuzi/uucov)  translated  cutting  .short,  may  mean 
 deciding  upon.  See  Dan.  ix.  24,  "  Seventy  weeks  are  deter- 
 mined {au\^eT[irj&rjaai>)  upon    my   people."     But  the  ordinary 
 
 *  Sed  quia  id  de  suo  tempore  vaticinatus  estpropheta;  videndum,  quomodo 
 ad  institutum  suum  Paulus  rite  accommodet.  Sic  autem  debet:  Quum  Dominus 
 vellet  e  captivitate  Babylonica  populum  suum  liberare,  ex  immensa  ilia  multi- 
 tudine  ad  paucissimos  modo  liberationis  suae  beneficium  pervenire  voluit ;  qui 
 excidii  reliquiae  merito  dici  possent  prae  numeroso  illo  populo  quern  in  exilio 
 perire  sinebat.  Jam  restitutio  ilia  carnalis  veram  ecclesiae  Dei  instaura- 
 tioaem  figuravit,  quae  in  Chrissto  peragitur,  imo  ejus  duntaxat  fuit  exordium. 
 Quod  ergo  tunc  accidit,  multo  certius  nunc  adimpleri  convenit  in  ipso  libera- 
 tionis progressu  et  complemento. —  Calvin. 
 
 f  Calvin  translates  it  much  in  the  same  way,  Sermonem  enim  consummans 
 et  abbrevians,  quonian  sermonem  abbreviatum  faciet  Dominus  in  terra. 
 
516  ROMANS  IX.  29. 
 
 sense  of  the  word  is  in  favour  of  our  version,  and  so  is  the  con- 
 text.* If  it  were  allowable  to  take  the  same  word  in  different 
 senses  in  the  same  passage,  the  verse  might  be  rendered  thus, 
 'For  he  will  execute  the  judgment,  and  accomplish  it  speedily, 
 for  the  judgment  determined  upon  will  the  Lord  execute  in 
 the  earth.'  This  same  word  is  used  in  one  of  these  senses, 
 Dan.  ix.  24,  and  in  the  other  in  ver.  26  of  the  same  chapter. 
 See,  too,  an  analogous  example  in  1  Cor.  iii.  17,  "  If  any  man 
 [<fd-£cf>£i)  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  will  God  [(fdepd) 
 destroy."  Here  the  same  word  is  rendered  correctly,  first 
 defile,  and  then  destroy.  We  may,  therefore,  render  the 
 last  clause  of  the  verse  either  as  in  our  version,  or  as  given 
 above. 
 
 Verse  29.  The  second  passage  quoted  by  the  apostle  is  from 
 Isa.  i.  9,  Except  the  Lord  of  hosts  had  left  us  a  seed,  we  had 
 been  as  Sodom,  been  made  like  unto  G-omorrah.  The  object  of 
 this  quotation  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  preceding,  viz.,  to 
 show  that  being  Israelites  was  not  enough  to  secure  either 
 exemption  from  divine  judgments  or  the  enjoyment  of  God's 
 favour.  The  passage  is  perfectly  in  point,  for  although  the 
 prophet  is  speaking  of  the  national  judgments  which  the  people 
 had  brought  upon  themselves  by  their  sins,  and  by  which  they 
 were  well  nigh  cut  off  entirely,  yet  it  was  necessarily  involved 
 in  the  destruction  of  the  people  for  their  idolatry  and  other 
 crimes,  that  they  perished  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  Of 
 course  the  passage  strictly  proves  what  Paul  designed  to  estab- 
 lish, viz.,  that  the  Jews,  as  Jews,  were  as  much  exposed  to  God's 
 judgments  as  others,  and  consequently  could  lay  no  special 
 claim  to  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
 
 Paul  here  again  follows  the  Septuagint.  The  only  difference, 
 however,  is,  that  the  Greek  version  has  {onepfia)  a  seed,  instead 
 of  a  remnant,  as  it  is  in  the  Hebrew.  The  sense  is  precisely 
 the  same.  The  Hebrew  word  means  that  which  remains;  and 
 seed,  as  used  in  this  passage,  means  the  seed  reserved 
 for  sowing.  The  figure,  therefore,  is  striking  and  beautiful. 
 Lord  of  Hosts  is  a  frequent  designation  for  the  Supreme  God 
 in  the  Old  Testament.     As  the  word  host  is  used  in  reference 
 
 *  See  Koppe  and  Wetstein  for  a  satisfactory  exhibition  of  the  iisus  loquendi 
 as  to  this  word. 
 
ROMANS  IX.  30.  517 
 
 to  any  multitude  arranged  in  order,  as  of  men  in  an  army, 
 of  angels,  of  the  stars,  or  of  all  the  heavenly  bodies,  including 
 the  sun  and  moon,  so  the  expression  Lord  of  hosts,  may  mean 
 Lord  of  armies.  Lord  of  angels,  or  Lord  of  heaven,  or  of  the 
 universe  as  a  marshalled  host ;  see  1  Kings  xxii.  19,  "  I  saw 
 the  Lord  sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven 
 standing  by  him;"  2  Chron.  xviii.  11,  Ps.  ciii.  21,  Ps.  cxlviii.  2, 
 "Praise  ye  him,  all  his  angels,  praise  ye  him,  all  his  hosts." 
 In  other  passages,  the  reference  is,  with  equal  distinctness, 
 to  the  stars,  Jer.  xxxiii.  22,  Deut.  iv.  19,  and  frequently.  It 
 is  most  probable,  therefore,  that  God  is  called  Lord  of  hosts 
 in  reference  to  his  Lordship  over  the  whole  heavens,  and  all 
 that  they  contain.  Lord  of  hosts  being,  equivalent  to  Lord  of 
 the  universe. 
 
 Verse  30.  Raving  proved  that  God  was  free  to  call  the 
 Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews  into  his  kingdom,  and  that  it  had 
 been  predicted  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jews  were  to  be 
 rejected,  he  comes  now  to  state  the  immediate  ground  of  this 
 rejection.  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  This  may  mean  either, 
 '  What  is  the  inference  from  the  preceding  discussion  ?'  and  the 
 answer  follows,  '  The  conclusion  is,  the  Gentiles  are  called  and 
 the  Jews  rejected;'  or,  'What  shall  we  say,  or  object  to  the 
 fact  that  the  Gentiles  are  accepted,'  &c.,  &c.  So  Flatt  and 
 others.  But  the  former  explanation  is  better  suited  to  the 
 context,  especially  to  ver.  32,  and  to  the  apostle's  common  use 
 of  this  expression ;  see  ver.  14,  chap.  vii.  7,  viii.  31. 
 
 That  the  Gentiles  which  followed  not  after  righteousness^ 
 have  attained,  &c.  The  inference  is,  that  what  to  all  human 
 probability  was  the  most  unlikely  to  occur,  has  actually  takeR 
 place.  The  Gentiles,  sunk  in  carelessness  and  sin,  have  attain- 
 ed the  favour  of  God,  while  the  Jews,  to  whom  religion  was  a 
 business,  have  utterly  failed.  Why  is  this?  The  reason  is 
 given  in  ver.  32 ;  it  was  because  the  Jews  would  not  submit  to 
 be  saved  on  the  terms  which  God  proposed,  but  insisted  on 
 reaching  heaven  in  their  own  way.  To  follow  after  righteous- 
 ness, is  to  press  forward  towards  it  as  towards  the  prize  in  a 
 race,  Phil.  iii.  14.  Righteousness,  dcxacoaov/],  uniformly  in 
 Paul's  writings,  means  either  an  attribute,  as  when  we  ascribe 
 righteousness  to  God ;  or,  what  constitutes  righteousness,  i.  e., 
 
618  ROMANS  IX.  31. 
 
 that  which  satisfies  the  demands  of  justice  or  of  the  law,  as 
 when  God  is  said  to  impute  righteousness.  That  is,  he  ascribes 
 to  men,  or  sets  to  their  account,  that  which  constitutes  them 
 righteous  in  the  sight  of  the  law.  Sometimes,  however,  the 
 word  includes  by  implication,  the  consequences  of  possessing 
 this  righteousness.  This  is  the  case  in  this  passage.  Those 
 who  sought  after  righteousness,  sought  to  be  regarded  and 
 treated  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God;  that  is,  they  sought 
 after  justification.  This,  however,  does  not  imply  that  ocxdcoaui^r^ 
 signifies  justification.  It  means  righteousness,  the  possession  of 
 which  secures  justification.  Justification  is  a  declarative  act  of 
 God ;  righteousness  is  the  ground  on  which  that  declaration  is 
 made. 
 
 Even  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith,  i.  e.,  even  that 
 righteousness  which  is  attained  by  faith.  Throughout  this 
 verse,  the  word  righteousness,  as  expressing  the  sum  of  the  di- 
 vine requisitions,  that  which  fulfils  the  law  retains  its  meaning. 
 'The  Gentiles  did  not  seek  this  righteousness,  yet  they  attained 
 it ;  not  that  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which 
 is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  of  God  by 
 faith,'  Phil.  iii.  9.  They  obtained  that  which  satisfied  the 
 demands  of  the  law,  and  was  acceptable  in  the  sight  of  God. 
 
 Verse  31.  What  the  Gentiles  thus  attained,  the  Jews 
 failed  to  secure.  The  former  he  had  described  as  "  not  follow- 
 ing after  righteousness;"  the  latter  he  characterizes  as  those 
 yfiho  follow  after  the  law  of  righteousness.  The  expression  law 
 of  righteousness  may  be  variously  explained.  Law  may  be 
 taken  in  its  general  sense  of  rule,  as  in  chap.  iii.  27,  and  else- 
 where. The  meaning  would  then  be,  '  They  followed  after, 
 i.  e.,  they  attended  diligently  to,  the  rule  which  they  thought 
 would  lead  to  their  attaining  righteousness  or  being  justified, 
 but  they  did  not  attain  unto  that  rule  which  actually  leads  to 
 such  results.*  Law  of  righteousness  is,  then,  norma  juxta  quam 
 Deus  justificat.  This  is  the  interpretation  of  Calvin,  Calovius, 
 Bengel,  and  many  others.  Or,  2.  The  word  law  may  be 
 redundant,  and  Paul  may  mean  to  say  nothing  more  than  that 
 'The  Jews  sought  righteousness  or  justification,  but  did  not 
 attain  it.'  This,  no  doubt,  is  the  substance,  though  it  may  not 
 be  the  precise  form  of  the  thought.     3.  Law  of  righteousness 
 
ROMANS  IX.  32,  33.  519 
 
 is  often  understood  here  as  equivalent  to  righteousness  which  is 
 of  the  law.  This,  howeA'er,  is  rather  forced,  and  not  very  con- 
 sistent with  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse,  "  Have  not  attained 
 to  the  law  of  righteousness,"  which  can  hardly  be  so  inter- 
 jDreted.  Meyer,  Tholuck,  and  others,  take  the  phrase  law  of 
 righteousness  in  both  parts  of  the  verse  in  vrhat  they  call  an 
 ideal  sense.  The  Jews  strove  to  realize  the  justifying  law, 
 i.  e.,  to  attain  that  standard  which  secured  their  justification. 
 It  is  more  common  to  take  the  words  as  referring  to  the  Mosaic 
 and  moral  law,  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  in  the  former  part 
 of  the  verse,  and  in  the  latter,  the  law  of  faith.  '  The  Jews 
 made  the  Mosaic  law,  (the  law  of  works,)  the  object  of  their 
 zeal,  as  the  means  of  attaining  righteousness,  and  therefore  did 
 not  attain  to  that  law  (the  law  of  faith,  Rom.  iii.  27,)  which 
 really  secures  righteousness.'  They  were  zealous  to  attain 
 righteousness,  but  failed.  Why?  The  answer  is  given  in  the 
 next  verse. 
 
 Verse  32.  Because  they  sought  it  not  hy  faith,  but,  as  it 
 were,  by  the  works  of  the  law.  In  other  words,  they  would  not 
 submit  to  the  method  of  justification  proposed  by  God,  which 
 was  alone  suitable  for  sinners,  and  persisted  in  trusting  to  their 
 own  imperfect  works.  The  reason  why  one  man  believes  and 
 is  saved,  rather  than  another,  is  to  be  sought  in  the  sovereign 
 grace  of  God,  according  to  Paul's  doctrine  in  the  preceding 
 part  of  this  chapter,  and  chap.  viii.  28,  2  Tim.  i.  9,  &c.;  but 
 the  ground  of  the  rejection  and  condemnation  of  men  is  always 
 in  themselves.  The  vessels  of  wrath  which  are  destroyed,  are 
 destroyed  on  account  of  their  sins.  No  man,  therefore,  can 
 throw  the  blame  of  his  perdition  on  any  other  than  himself. 
 This  verse,  consequently,  is  very  far  from  being  inconsistent 
 with  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  sovereignty  as  taught  above. 
 The  force  of  the  word  rendered  as  it  were,  may  be  explained 
 by  paraphrasing  the  clause  thus,  '  as  though  they  supposed  it 
 could  be  obtained  by  the  works  of  the  law.'  See  2  Cor.  iii.  5, 
 ii.  7,  'They  sought  it  as  (being)  of  the  works  of  the  law.'  For 
 they  stumbled  at  that  stumbling-stone.  That  is,  they  did  as  it 
 had  been  predicted  they  would  do,  they  took  ofi"ence  at  the 
 Messiah  and  at  the  plan  of  salvation  which  he  came  to  reveal. 
 
 Verse    38.     What   it   was   they   stumbled   at,   the  apostle 
 
520  ROMANS  IX.  33. 
 
 declares  in  this  verse,  and  shows  that  the  rejection  of  the 
 Messiah  by  the  Jews  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament. 
 As  it  is  written.  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  a  stumbling-stone,  and  a 
 rock  of  offence;  and  whosoever  believeth  on  him  shall  not  be 
 ashamed.  This  passage  is  apparently  made  up  of  two,  one 
 occurring  in  Isa.  xxviii.  16,  the  other  in  Isa.  viii.  14.  In  both 
 of  these  passages  mention  is  made  of  a  stone,  but  the  predicates 
 of  this  stone,  as  given  in  the  latter  passage,  are  transferred  to 
 the  other,  and  those  there  mentioned  omitted.  This  method  of 
 quoting  Scripture  is  common  among  all  writers,  especially  where 
 the  several  passages  quoted  and  merged  into  each  other,  refer 
 to  the  same  subject.  It  is  obvious  that  the  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament  are  very  free  in  their  mode  of  quoting  from  the  Old, 
 giving  the  sense,  as  they,  being  inspired  by  the  same  Spirit, 
 could  do  authoritatively,  without  binding  themselves  strictly  to 
 the  words.  The  former  of  the  two  passages  here  referred  to 
 stands  thus  in  our  version,  "Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foun- 
 dation a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner  stone,  a  sure 
 foundation;  he  that  believeth  shall  not  make  haste,"  which  is 
 according  to  the  Hebrew.  The  other  passage,  Isa.  viii.  14,  is, 
 *'  And  he  shall  be  for  a  sanctuary ;  but  for  a  stone  of  stumbling 
 and  a  rock  of  offence  to  both  houses  of  Israel." 
 
 Isaiah  xxviii.  is  a  prophecy  against  those  who  had  various 
 false  grounds  of  confidence,  and  who  desired  a  league  with 
 Egypt  as  a  defence  against  the  attacks  of  the  Assyrians.  God 
 says,  he  has  laid  a  much  more  secure  foundation  for  his  church 
 than  any  such  confederacy,  even  a  precious,  tried  corner  stone ; 
 those  who  confided  to  it  should  never  be  confounded.  The  pro- 
 phets, constantly  filled  with  the  expectation  of  the  Messiah, 
 and,  in  general,  ignorant  of  the  time  of  his  advent,  were  accus- 
 tomed, on  every  threatened  danger,  to  comfort  the  people  by 
 the  assurance  that  the  efforts  of  their  enemies  could  not  pre- 
 vail, because  the  Messiah  was  to  come.  Until  his  advent,  they 
 could  not,  as  a  people,  be  destroyed,  and  when  he  came,  there 
 should  be  a  glorious  restoration  of  all  things;  see  Isa.  vii. 
 14 — 16,  and  elsewhere.  There  is,  therefore,  no  force  in  the 
 objection,  that  the  advent  of  Christ  was  an  event  too  remote  to 
 be  available  to  the  consolation  of  the  people,  when  threatened 
 with  the  immediate  invasion  of  their  enemies.     This  passage 
 
ROMANS  IX.  33.  521 
 
 is  properly  quoted  by  the  apostle,  because  it  was  intended 
 originally  to  apply  to  Christ.  The  sacred  writers  of  the 
 New  Testament  so  understood  and  explain  it;  see  1  Peter 
 ii.  6,  Matt.  xxi.  42,  Acts  iv.  11 ;  compare  also  Ps.  cxviii.  22, 
 1  Cor.  iii.  11,  Eph.  k.  20,  and  other  passages,  in  which  Christ 
 is  spoken  of  as  the  foundation  or  corner  stone  of  his  church. 
 The  same  interpretation  of  the  passage  was  given  by  the 
 ancient  Jcavs  * 
 
 The  other  passage,  Isa.  viii.  14,  is  of  much  the  same  charac- 
 ter. God  exhorts  the  people  not  to  be  afraid  of  the  combina- 
 tion between  Syria  and  Ephraim.  The  Lord  of  hosts  was  to 
 be  feared  and  trusted,  he  would  be  a  refuge  to  those  who  con- 
 fided in  him,  but  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of  offence  to  all 
 others.  This  passage,  too,  as  appears  from  a  comparison  of 
 the  one  previously  cited  with  Ps.  cxviii.  22,  and  the  quotation 
 and  application  of  them  by  the  New  Testament  writers,  refers 
 to  Christ.  What  is  said  in  the  Old  Testament  of  Jehovah,  the 
 inspired  penmen  of  the  New  do  not  hesitate  to  refer  to  the 
 Saviour;  compare  John  xii.  41,  Isa.  vi.  1,  Heb.  i.  10,  11,  Ps. 
 cii.  25,  1  Cor.  x.  9,  Exod.  xvii.  2,  7.  When  God,  therefore, 
 declared  that  he  should  be  a  sanctuary  to  one  class  of  the  peo- 
 ple, and  a  rock  of  offence  to  another,  he  meant  that  he,  in  the 
 person  of  his  Son,  as  the  Immanuel,  would  thus  be  confided  in 
 by  some,  but  rejected  and  despised  by  others.  The  whole 
 spirit,  opinions,  and  expectations  of  the  Jews  were  adverse  to 
 the  person,  character,  and  doctrines  of  the  Redeemer.  He 
 was,  therefore,  to  them  a  stumbling-block,  as  he  was  to  others 
 foolishness.  They  could  not  recognise  him  as  their  fondly 
 anticipated  Messiah,  nor  consent  to  enter  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven  on  the  terms  which  he  prescribed.  In  them,  therefore, 
 were  fulfilled  the  ancient  prophecies,  which  spoke  of  their  rejec- 
 tion of  Christ,  and  consequent  excision  from  the  people  of  God. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  Exclusion  from  the  pale  of  any  visible  church  does  not  of 
 itself  imply  that  men  are  without  the  reach  of  divine  mercy, 
 vs.  25,  26. 
 
 *  Martini  Pugio  Fidei,  Lib.  II.  cap.  5,  p.  342,  and  the  passages  quoted  by 
 Rosenmtkller  and  Gesenius  on  Isa.  xxviii.  16. 
 
522  ROMANS  IX.  25—33. 
 
 2.  As  the  world  has  hitherto  existed,  only  a  small  portion  of 
 the  nominal  members  of  the  Church,  or  of  the  professors  of  the 
 true  religion,  has  been  the  real  people  of  God,  vs.  27,  28,  29, 
 
 3.  Error  is  often  a  greater  obstacle  to  the  salvation  of  men 
 than  carelessness  or  vice.  Christ  said  that  publicans  and  har- 
 lots would  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  before  the  Pharisees.  In 
 like  manner  the  thoughtless  and  sensual  Gentiles  were  more 
 susceptible  of  impression  from  the  gospel,  and  were  more  fre- 
 quently converted  to  Christ,  than  the  Jews,  who  were  wedded 
 to  erroneous  views  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  vs.  30,  31. 
 
 4.  Agreeably  to  the  declarations  of  the  previous  portion  of 
 this  chapter,  and  the  uniform  tenor  of  Scripture,  the  ground  of 
 the  distinction  between  the  saved  and  the  lost,  is  to  be  found 
 not  in  men,  but  in  God.  He  has  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
 mercy.  But  the  ground  of  the  condemnation  of  men  is  always 
 in  themselves.  That  God  gave  his  saving  grace  to  more  Gen- 
 tiles than  Jews,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church,  must  be  refer- 
 red to  his  sovereign  pleasure ;  but  that  the  Jews  were  cut  off 
 and  perished,  is  to  be  referred  to  their  own  unbelief.  In  like 
 manner,  every  sinner  must  look  into  his  own  heart  and  conduct 
 for  the  ground  of  his  condemnation,  and  never  to  any  secret 
 purpose  of  God,  ver.  32. 
 
 5.  Christ  crucified  has  ever  been  either  foolishness  or  an 
 offence  to  unrenewed  men.  Hence,  right  views  of  the  Saviour's 
 character,  and  cordial  approbation  of  the  plan  of  salvation 
 through  him,  are  characteristic  of  those  "who  are  called;" 
 i.  e.,  they  are  evidences  of  a  renewed  h«art,  ver.  33. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  consideration  that  God  has  extended  to  us,  who  were 
 not  his  people,  all  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  his  children, 
 should  be  a  constant  subject  of  gratitude,  vs.  25,  26. 
 
 2.  If  only  a  remnant  of  the  Jewish  Church,  God's  own  peo- 
 ple, were  saved,  how  careful  and  solicitous  should  all  professors 
 of  religion  be,  that  their  faith  and  hope  be  well  founded,  vs. 
 27—29. 
 
 3.  Let  no  man  think  error  in  doctrine  a  slight  practical  evil. 
 No  road  to  perdition  has  ever  been  more  thronged  than  that  of 
 false  doctrine.  Error  is  a  shield  over  the  conscience,  and  a 
 bandage  over  the  eyes,  vs.  30,  31. 
 
ROMANS  X.  523 
 
 4.  No  form  of  error  is  more  destructive  than  that  which  leads 
 to  self-dependence ;  either  reliance  on  our  own  powers,  or  on  our 
 own  merit,  ver.  32. 
 
 5.  To  criminate  God,  and  excuse  ourselves,  is  always  an 
 evidence  of  ignorance  and  depravity,  ver.  32. 
 
 6.  Christ  declared  those  blessed  who  were  not  offended  at 
 him.  If  our  hearts  are  right  in  the  sight  of  God,  Jesus  Christ 
 is  to  us  at  once  the  object  of  supreme  affection,  and  the  sole 
 ground  of  confidence,  ver.  33. 
 
 7.  The  gospel  produced  at  first  the  same  effects  as  those  we 
 now  witness.  It  had  tlie  same  obstacles  to  surmount;  and  it 
 was  received  or  rejected  by  the  same  classes  of  men  then  as 
 now.  Its  history,  therefore,  is  replete  with  practical  instruc- 
 tion. 
 
 CHAPTER    X. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The  object  of  this  chapter,  as  of  the  preceding  and  of  the 
 one  which  follows,  is  to  set  forth  the  truth  in  reference  to  the 
 rejection  of  the  Jews  as  the  peculiar  people  of  God,  and  the 
 extension  to  all  nations  of  the  offers  of  salvation.  The  first 
 verses  are  again,  as  those  at  the  beginning  of  chap,  ix.,  intro- 
 ductory and  conciliatory,  setting  forth  the  ground  of  the  rejec- 
 tion of  the  Jews,  vs.  1 — 4.  The  next  section  contains  an 
 exhibition  of  the  terms  of  salvation,  designed  to  show  that  they 
 were  as  accessible  to  the  Gentiles  as  the  Jews,  vs.  5 — 10.  The 
 plan  of  salvation  being  adapted  to  all,  and  God  being  the  God 
 of  all,  the  gospel  should  be  preached  to  all,  vs.  11 — 17.  The 
 truth  here  taught  (the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  &c.,)  was  pre- 
 dicted clearly  in  the  Old  Testament,  vs.  18 — 21. 
 
 ROMANS  X.  1—10. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 With  his  usual  tenderness,  the  apostle  assures  his  brethren 
 of  his  solicitude  for  their  welfare,  and  of  his  proper  appreciation 
 
624  ROMANS  X.  1,  2. 
 
 of  their  character,  vs.  1,  2.  The  difficulty  was,  that  they  would 
 not  suhmit  to  the  plan  of  salvation  proposed  in  the  gospel,  and, 
 therefore,  they  rejected  the  Saviour.  This  was  the  true  ground 
 of  their  excision  from  the  people  of  God,  vs.  3,  4.  The  method 
 of  justification,  on  which  the  Jews  insisted,  was  legal,  and  from 
 its  nature  must  be  confined  to  themselves,  or  to  those  who 
 would  consent  to  become  Jews.  Its  terms,  when  properly 
 understood,  were  perfectly  impracticable,  ver.  5.  But  the 
 gospel  method  of  salvation  prescribes  no  such  severe  terms,  it 
 simply  requires  cordial  faith  and  open  profession,  vs.  6 — 10. 
 This,  he  shows,  in  the  next  verses,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
 tures, and  from  it  he  infers  the  applicability  of  this  plan  to  all 
 men,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  Brethren,  my  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for 
 Israel  is,  that  they  might  be  saved*  As  the  truth  which  Paul 
 was  to  reiterate  in  the  ears  of  the  Jew  was,  of  all  others,  to 
 them  the  most  offensive,  he  endejivours  to  allay  their  enmity, 
 first,  by  assuring  them  of  his  affection,  and  secondly,  by  avoid- 
 ing all  exaggeration  in  the  statement  of  their  case.  The  word 
 eudoxca  means  either  good  pleasure,  sovereign  purpose,  Matt.  xi. 
 26,  Luke  ii.  14,  2  Thess.  i.  11,  Eph.  i.  5,  9,  or  benevolence, 
 kind  feeling,  or  desire,  as  in  Phil.  i.  15.  The  latter  sense  best 
 suits  this  passage.  Paul  meant  to  assure  his  brethren  accord- 
 ing to  the  flesh,  that  all  his  feelings  towards  them  were  kind, 
 and  that  he  earnestly  desired  their  salvation.  He  had  no 
 pleasure  in  contemplating  the  evils  which  impended  over  them, 
 his  earnest  desire  and  prayer  was  (e/c  ocovrjp'tav)  that  they  might 
 he  saved;  literally  to  salvation,  as  expressing  the  end  or  object 
 towards  which  his  wishes  and  prayers  tend;  see  chap.  vi.  22, 
 Gal.  iii.  17,  and  frequent  examples  elsewhere  of  this  use  of  the 
 preposition  dz. 
 
 Verse  2.  For  I  bear  them  record  that  they  have  a  zeal  of 
 Crod.     So  far  from  desiring  to  exaggerate  the  evil  of  their  con- 
 
 *  Hinc  videmus,  quanta  sollicitudine  sanctus  vir  ofFensionibus  obviarit. 
 Adhuc  enim,  ut  temperet  quicquid  erat  accerbitatis  in  exponenda  Judaeorum 
 rejectione,  suam,  ut  prius,  erga  eos  benevolentiam  testatur,  et  earn  ab  effectu 
 comprobat,  quod  eibi  eorum  salus  curae  esset  coram  Domino. — Calvin. 
 
ROMANS  X.  3.  525 
 
 duct,  the  apostle,  as  was  his  uniform  manner,  endeavoured  to 
 bring  every  thing  commendable  and  exculpatory  fully  into  view. 
 The  word  for,  has  here  its  appropriate  force,  as  it  introduces 
 the  ground  or  reason  of  the  preceding  declaration,  '  I  desire 
 their  salvation,  for  they  themselves  are  far  from  being  uncon- 
 cerned as  to  divine  things.'  Zeal  of  God  may  mean  very  great 
 zeal,  as  cedars  of  God  mean  great  cedars,  according  to  a  com- 
 mon Hebrew  idiom;  or  zeal  of  which  God  is  the  object;  the 
 latter  explanation  is  to  be  preferred.  John  ii.  17,  "The  zeal 
 of  thy  house  hath  eaten  me  up."  Acts  xxi.  22,  "Zealous  of 
 the  law."  Acts  xxii.  3,  "Zealous  of  God."  Gal.  i.  14,  &c., 
 &c.  The  Jews  had  great  zeal  about  God,  but  it  was  wrong  as 
 to  its  object,  and  of  consequence  wrong  in  its  moral  qualities. 
 Zeal,  when  rightly  directed,  however  ardent,  is  humble  and 
 amiable.  When  its  object  is  evil,  it  is  proud,  censorious,  and 
 cruel.  Hence,  the  importance  of  its  being  properly  guided, 
 not  merely  to  prevent  the  waste  of  feeling  and  effort,  but  prin- 
 cipally to  prevent  its  evil  effects  on  ourselves  and  others.  But 
 not  according  to  knowledge.  Commentators  notice  that  Paul 
 uses  the  word  iTttyvcoac^.  The  Jews  had  yptocri^  (knowledge), 
 what  they  lacked  was  k7:rfvcoac(;.  correct  knowledge  and  appre- 
 ciation. Their  knowledge  was  neither  enlightened  nor  wise; 
 neither  right  as  to  its  objects,  nor  correct  in  its  character.  The 
 former  idea  is  here  principally  intended.  The  Jews  were  zeal- 
 ous about  their  law,  the  traditions  of  their  fathers,  and  the 
 establishment  of  their  own  merit.  How  naturally  would  a  zeal 
 for  such  objects  make  men  place  religion  in  the  observance  of 
 external  rites ;  and  be  connected  with  pride,  censoriousness,  and 
 a  persecuting  spirit.  In  so  far,  however,  as  this  zeal  was  a  zeal 
 about  God,  it  was  preferable  to  indifference,  and  is,  therefore, 
 mentioned  by  the  apostle  with  qualified  commendation. 
 
 Verse  3.  For  they  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness , 
 and  going  about  to  establish  their  own  righteousness,  have  not, 
 &c.  The  grand  mistake  of  the  Jews  was  about  the  method 
 of  justification.  Ignorance  on  this  point  implied  ignorance  of 
 the  character  of  God,  of  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and  of 
 themselves.  It  was,  therefore,  and  is,  and  must  ever  continue 
 to  be  a  vital  point.  Those  who  err  essentially  here,  err  fatally ; 
 and  those  who  are  right  here,  cannot  be  wrong  as  to  other 
 
526  ROMANS  X.  3. 
 
 necessary  truths.  Their  own  righteousness,  zv^v  lo'tav  dcxouo- 
 abvTjV^  which  Theophylact  correctly  interprets,  riyv  i^  Ipyoiv  cduou 
 xac  Tibvcov  xarofj&oonsi^rjV.  The  phrase  righteousness  of  Grod, 
 admits  here,  as  in  other  parts  of  the  epistle,  of  various  inter- 
 pretations. 1.  It  may  mean  the  divine  holiness  or  general 
 moral  perfection  of  God.  In  this  way  the  passage  would  mean, 
 'Being  ignorant  of  the  perfection  or  holiness  of  God,  and,  of 
 course,  of  the  extent  of  his  demands,  and  going  about  to  estab- 
 lish their  own  excellence,  &c.'  This  gives  a  good  sense,  but  it 
 is  not  consistent  with  the  use  of  the  expression  righteousness  of 
 God,  in  other  similar  passages,  as  chap.  i.  17,  iii.  21,  &c.  And, 
 secondly,  it  requires  the  phrase  to  be  taken  in  two  different 
 senses  in  the  same  verse,"  for  the  last  clause,  'Have  not  sub- 
 mitted themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God,'  cannot  mean, 
 'They  have  not  submitted  to  the  divine  holiness.'  2.  The  term 
 may  mean  that  righteousness  of  which  G-od  is  the  author,  that 
 which  he  approves  and  accepts.  This  interpretation  is,  in  this 
 case,  peculiarly  appropriate,  from  the  opposition  of  the  two 
 expressions,  righteousness  of  God  and  their  own  righteousness. 
 *'  Being  ignorant  of  that  righteousness  which  God  has  provided, 
 and  which  he  bestows,  and  endeavouring  to  establish  their  own, 
 they  refused  to  accept  of  his.'  The  sense  here  is  perfectly 
 good,  and  the  interpretation  may  be  carried  through  the  verse, 
 being  applicable  to  the  last  clause  as  well  as  to  the  others.  A 
 comparison  of  this  passage  with  Phil.  iii.  9,  "Not  having  my 
 own  righteousness,  but  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God,"  is 
 also  in  favour  of  this  interpretation.  For  there  the  phrase 
 the  righteousness  which  is  of  God,  can  only  mean  that  which  he 
 gives,  and  with  this  phrase  the  expression  the  righteousness 
 of  God,  in  this  verse,  seems  to  be  synonymous.*  3.  Thirdly, 
 Some  interpreters  take  righteousness  in  the  sense  of  justifica- 
 tion, "justification  of  God"  being  taken  as  equivalent  to 
 '  God's  method  of  justification.'  'Being  ignorant  of  God's 
 method    of  justification,   and   going  about   to    establish  their 
 
 *  Judaei  habiiere  et  habent  zelum  sine  scientia,  nos  contra,  proh  dolor, 
 Bcientiam  sine  zelo. — Flacius,  quoted  by  Bengel.  Melius  est  vel  claudicare  in 
 via,  quam  extra  viam  strenue  currere,  ut  ait  Augustinus.  Si  religiosi  esse 
 volumus,  meminerimus  verum  esse,  quod  Lactantius  docet,  earn  demum  veram 
 esse  religionem  quae  conjuncta  est  cum  Dei  verbo. — Calvin. 
 
ROMANS  X.  4.  52T 
 
 own,  they  have  not  submitted  themselves  to  the  method  which 
 he  has  proposed.'  The  cause  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was 
 their  rejection  of  the  method  of  salvation  through  a  crucified 
 Redeemer,  and  their  persisting  in  confiding  in  their  own  merits 
 and  advantages  as  the  ground  of  their  acceptance  with  God. 
 Although  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  it  is  not  the  sense 
 of  the  words.  Righteousness  does  not  signify  jnstification.  It 
 is  that  on  which  the  sentence  of  justification  is  founded.  Those 
 who  have  righteousness,  either  personal  and  inherent,  or 
 imputed,  are  justified.  As  we  have  no  righteousness  of  our 
 own,  nothing  that  we  have  done  or  experienced,  nothing  per- 
 sonal or  subjective,  that  can  answer  the  demands  of  the  law,  we 
 can  be  justified  only  through  the  righteousness  of  God,  imputed 
 to  us  and  received  by  faith. 
 
 Verse  4.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness 
 to  every  one  that  believeth.  The  precise  connection  of  this  verse 
 with  the  preceding,  depends  on  the  view  taken  of  its  meaning. 
 The  general  import  of  the  passage  is  sufficiently  obvious,  but  its 
 exact  sense  is  not  so  easy  to  determine,  on  account  of  the  am- 
 biguity of  the  word  (ri^.oc)  translated  end.  The  word  may 
 signify,  1.  The  object  to  which  any  thing  leads.  Christ  is,  in 
 this  sense,  the  end  of  the  law,  inasmuch  as  the  law  was  a 
 schoolmaster  to  lead  us  to  him.  Gal.  iii.  24 ;  and  as  all  its  types 
 and  prophecies  pointed  to  him,  "  They  Avere  a  shadow  of  things 
 to  come,  but  the  body  is  of  Christ,"  Col.  ii.  17,  Ileb.  ix.  9. 
 The  meaning  and  connection  of  the  passage  would  then  be, 
 '  The  Jews  erred  in  seeking  justification  from  the  law,  for  the 
 law  was  designed,  not  to  afford  justification,  but  to  lead  them  to 
 Christ,  in  order  that  they  might  be  justified.'  To  Christ  all 
 its  portions  tended,  he  was  the  object  of  its  types  and  the 
 subject  of  its  predictions,  and  its  precepts  and  penalty  urge  the 
 soul  to  him  as  the  only  refuge.  So  Calvin,  Bengel,  and  the 
 majority  of  commentators.* 
 
 *  Indicat  legis  praeposterum  interpretem  esse,  qui  per  ejus  opera  justifi- 
 cari  quaerit,  quoniam  in  hoc  lex  data  est,  quo  nos  ad  aliam  justitiam 
 manu  duceret.  Imo  quicquid  doceat  lex,  quicquid  praecipiat,  quicquid  pro- 
 mittat  semper  Christum  habet  pro  scopo ;  ergo  in  ipsum  dirigendae  sunt  omnes 
 partes. —  Calvin. 
 
 Lex  hominera  urget,  donee  is  ad  Christum  confugit.  Turn  ipsa  dicit:  asylum 
 es  nactus,  desino  te  persequi,  sapis,  salvus  es. — Bengel. 
 
528  ROMANS  X.  4. 
 
 2.  The  word  may  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  completion  or 
 fulfihnent.  Then  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,  because  he 
 fulfils  all  its  requisitions,  all  its  types  and  ceremonies,  and 
 satisfies  its  preceptive  and  penal  demands.  See  Matt.  v.  17, 
 "  Think  not  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets,  I 
 am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil;"  and  Rom.  viii.  4.  The 
 philological  ground  for  this  interpretation  is  slight.  1.  Tim. 
 i.  5,  is  compared  with  Rom.  xiii.  10,  in  order  to  prove  that  the 
 word  {tsXoi;)  here  translated  end,  is  equivalent  to  the  word 
 {rtXrjpojfia)  which  is  there  (Rom.  xiii.  10)  rendered  fulfilling. 
 The  sense,  according  to  this  interpretation,  is  scriptural,  but  is 
 not  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  word. 
 
 3.  We  may  take  the  word  in  its  more  ordinary  sense  of  end 
 or  termination,  and  understand  it  metonymically  for  he  who 
 terminates  or  puts  an  end  to.  The  meaning  and  connection 
 would  then  be,  '  The  Jews  mistake  the  true  method  of  justifica- 
 tion, because  they  seek  it  from  the  law,  whereas  Christ  has 
 abolished  the  law,  in  order  that  all  who  believe  may  be  justified.' 
 Compare  Eph.  ii.  15,  "  Having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the 
 enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments;"  Col.  ii.  4,  "Blotting 
 out  the  handwriting  of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  &c," 
 Gal.  iii.  10,  12,  Rom.  vi.  14,  vii.  4,  6,  and  the  general  drift  of 
 the  former  part  of  the  epistle.  In  sense,  this  interpretation 
 amounts  the  same  with  the  preceding,  though  it  differs  from  it 
 in  form.  Christ  has  abolished  the  law,  not  by  destroying,  but 
 by  fulfilling  it.  He  has  abolished  the  law  as  a  rule  of  justifica- 
 tion, or  covenant  of  works,  and  the  whole  Mosaic  economy 
 having  met  its  completion  in  him,  has  by  him  been  brought  to 
 an  end.  In  Luke  xvi.  16,  it  is  said,  "  The  law  and  the  prophets 
 were  until  John;"  then,  in  one  sense,  they  ceased,  or  came  to 
 an  end.  When  €hrist  came,  the  old  legal  system  was  abolished, 
 and  a  new  era  commenced.  The  same  idea  is  presented  in 
 Gal,  iii.  23,  "Before  faith  came  we  were  kept  under  the  law," 
 but  when  Christ  appeared,  declaring,  "Believe  and  thou  shalt  be 
 saved,"  we  were  no  longer  und  erthat  bondage.  The  doctrine  is 
 clearly  taught  in  Scripture,  that  those  who  are  out  of  Christ 
 are  under  the  law,  subject  to  its  demands  and  exposed  to  its 
 penalty.  His  coming  and  work  have  put  an  end  to  its  authority, 
 we  are  no  longer  under  the  law,  but  under  grace,  Rom.  vi.  14; 
 
ROMANS  X.  5.  529 
 
 we  are  no  longer  under  the  system  which  says,  Do  this,  and 
 live;  but  under  that  which  says,  Believe,  and  thou  shalt  be 
 saved.  This  abrogation  of  the  law,  however,  is  not  by  setting 
 it  aside,  but  by  fulfilling  its  demands.  It  is  because  Christ  is 
 the  fulfiller  of  the  law,  that  he  is  the  end  of  it.  It  is  the  latter 
 truth  which  the  apostle  here  asserts.  The  word  laiv  is  obvi- 
 ously here  used  in  its  prevalent  sense  throughout  this  epistle, 
 for  the  whole  rule  of  duty  prescribed  to  man,  including  for  the 
 Jews  the  whole  of  the  Mosaic  institutions.  That  laiv  is 
 intended  which  has  been  fulfilled,  satisfied,  or  abrogated  by 
 Jesus  Christ.  For  righteousness  to  every  one  that  helieveth. 
 The  general  meaning  of  this  clause,  in  this  connection,  is,  '  So 
 that,  or,  in  order  that,  every  believer  may  be  justified;'  Christ 
 has  abolished  the  law,  ?va  ocxmco&fj  nu.^  6  ncazeowv  st:  auruJ,  in 
 in  order  that  every  believer  may  attain  righteousness,  which  is 
 unattainable  by  the  law.  The  law  is  abolished  by  Christ,  not 
 as  a  rule  of  life,  but  as  a  covenant  prescribing  the  condition 
 of  life.  The  way  in  which  this  idea  is  arrived  at,  however,  may 
 be  variously  explained.  1.  The  preposition  (se^)  rendered  for, 
 may  be  rendered  as  to,  as  it  relates  to.  '  Christ  is  the  end  of 
 the  law,  as  it  relates  to  righteousness.'  2.  It  may  be  under- 
 stood of  the  effect  or  result,  and  be  resolved  into  the  verbal 
 construction  with  that,  or  so  that;  'Christ  is  the  end,  kc,  that 
 righteousness  is  to  every  believer ;  or  so  that  every  believer  is 
 justified.'  3.  It  may  point  out  the  end  or  object.  '  Christ 
 has  abolished  the  law  in  order  that  everyone  that  believes,  &c.' 
 The  last  is  the  correct  explanation.  The  Jews,  then,  did  not 
 submit  to  the  righteousness  of  God,  that  is,  to  the  righteous- 
 ness which  he  had  provided,  for  they  did  not  submit  to  Christ, 
 who  is  the  end  of  the  law.  He  has  abolished  the  law,  in  order 
 that  every  one  that  believes  may  be  justified. 
 
 Verse  5.  For  Moses  describeth  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
 the  law.  That  is,  concerning  the  righteousness  which  is  of 
 the  law,  Moses  thus  writes.  In  the  last  clause  of  the  pre- 
 ceding verse  it  was  clearly  intimated  that  faith  was  the  con- 
 dition of  salvation  under  the  gospel.  '  To  every  one,  without 
 distinction,  that  believeth,  is  justification  secured.'  On  this 
 the  apostle  connects  his  description  and  contrast  of  the  two 
 methods  of  justification,  the  one  by  works  and  the  other  by 
 34 
 
530  ROMANS  X.  6,  7. 
 
 faith,  with  the  design  of  showing  that  the  former  is  in  its 
 nature  impracticable,  while  the  other  is  reasonable  and  easy, 
 and  adapted  to  all  classes  of  men,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and 
 should  therefore  be  offered  to  all. 
 
 The  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law.  The  word  righteous- 
 ness has  here  its  common  and  proper  meaning.  It  is  that 
 which  constitutes  a  man  righteous,  Avhich  meets  the  demands 
 of  the  law,  or  satisfies  the  claims  of  justice.  The  man  who  is 
 righteous,  or  who  possesses  righteousness,  cannot  be  condemned. 
 The  apostle  in  his  whole  argument  proceeds  on  the  assumption 
 that  God  is  just ;  that  he  does  and  must  demand  righteousness 
 in  those  whom  he  justifies.  There  are  but  two  possible  ways  in 
 which  this  righteousness  can  be  obtained — by  works,  or  by 
 faith.  We  must  either  have  a  righteousness  of  our  own,  or 
 receive  and  trust  in  a  righteousness  which  is  not  our  own,  but 
 which  has  been  wrought  out  for  us,  and  presented  to  us,  as  the 
 ground  of  our  acceptance  with  God.  The  quotation  is  from 
 Lev.  xviii.  5,  "The  man  that  doeth  those  things  shall  live  by 
 them."  Those  things  are  the  things  prescribed  in  the  law.  It 
 is  the  clear  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  that  obedience  to  the 
 law,  to  secure  justification,  must  be  perfect.  For  it  is  said, 
 *'  Cursed  is  every  one  who  continueth  not  in  all  things  written 
 in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them;"  and,  he  that  offendeth  in 
 one  point,  is  guilty  of  all.  It  is  not  necessary  that  a  man  who 
 commits  murder  should  also  steal,  in  order  to  bring  him  under 
 the  penalty  of  the  law.  The  legal  system,  then,  which 
 demanded  obedience,  required  perfect  obedience.  Those,  and 
 those  only,  who  were  thus  free  from  sin,  should  live,  i.  e.,  shall 
 enjoy  that  life  which  belongs  to  him  as  a  rational  and  immortal 
 being.  It  is  a  life  which  includes  the  whole  man,  soul  and 
 body,  and  the  whole  course  of  his  existence,  in  this  world  and 
 in  that  which  is  to  come.  Zijaszai  ex  mente  Judaeorum  inter- 
 pretatur  de  vita  aeterna,  ut  Targum,  Levit.  xviii.  4.  The 
 Jewish  writers  also  well  remark,  that  Moses  says,  Qui  fecerit 
 ea  homo;  non  dicitur,  Sacerdos,  Levita,  Israelita,  sed  homo;  ut 
 discas,  etiam  gentilem,  si  proselytus  fiat,  et  det  legi  operam, 
 intelligi.     See  Wetstein. 
 
 Verses  6,  7.  But  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith  speaJc- 
 eth  on  this  wise,  Say  not,  &c.     Moses  says  one  thing;  the 
 
ROMANS  X.  6,  7.  531 
 
 righteousness  of  faith  says  another  thing,  The  same  kind  of 
 personification  occurs  in  Gal.  iii.  23,  25.  The  phrase  righteous- 
 ness of  faith,  or  as  it  is  here,  which  is  of  faith,  admits  of  differ- 
 ent interpretations,  if  we  limit  ourselves  to  the  mere  force  of 
 the  words.  Righteousness  of  faith,  may  mean  that  righteous- 
 ness which  consists  in  faith;  or,  which  flows  from  faith,  (i.  e., 
 that  inward  excellence  which  faith  produces) ;  or,  the  righteous- 
 ness which  is  received  by  faith.  This  last  is  the  only  interpre- 
 tation consistent  with  the  context,  or  with  the  analogy  of 
 Scripture.  The  righteousness  which  consists  in  faith,  or  which 
 flows  from  faith,  is  our  own  righteousness.  It  is  as  true  and 
 properly  our  own  as  any  righteousness  of  works  on  which 
 Pharisees  relied.  Besides,  it  is  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
 apostle  and  of  the  gospel,  that  it  is  Christ's  righteousness,  his 
 obedience,  blood,  or  death,  which  is  the  ground  of  our  accept- 
 ance with  God,  and  which  it  receives  and  rests  upon. 
 
 It  is  clearly  implied  in  that  verse  that  the  attainment  of 
 justification,  by  a  method  which  prescribed  perfect  obedience, 
 is  for  sinful  men  impossible.  It  is  the  object  of  this  and  the 
 succeeding  verses,  to  declare  that  the  gospel  requires  no  such 
 impossibilities;  it  neither  requires  us  to  scale  the  heavens,  nor 
 to  fathom  the  great  abyss ;  it  demands  only  cordial  faith  and 
 open  profession.  In  expressing  these  ideas  the  apostle  skilfully 
 avails  himself  of  the  language  of  Moses,  Deut.  xxx.  10 — 14.  It 
 is  clear  that  the  expressions  used  by  the  ancient  lawgiver  were 
 a  familiar  mode  of  saying  that  a  thing  could  not  be  done.  The 
 passage  referred  to  is  the  following,  "  For  this  command  which 
 I  command  thee  this  day,  it  is  not  hidden  from  thee,  neither  is 
 it  far  ofi".  It  is  not  in  heaven,  that  thou  shouldest  say.  Who 
 shall  go  up  for  us  to  heaven,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  that  we  may 
 hear  it,  and  do  it?  Neither  is  it  beyond  the  sea,  that  thou 
 shouldest  say,  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea  for  us,  and  bring  it 
 unto  us,  that  we  may  hear  it,  and  do  it  ?  But  the  word  is  very 
 nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  that  thou  may- 
 est  do  it."  The  obvious  import  of  this  passage  is,  that  the 
 knowledge  of  the  will  of  God  had  been  made  perfectly  accessi- 
 ble, no  one  was  required  to  do  what  was  impossible ;  neither  to 
 ascend  to  heaven,  nor  to  pass  the  boundless  sea,  in  order  to 
 attain  it;  it  was  neither  hidden,  nor  afar  off",  but  obvious  and 
 
532  ROMANS  X.  6,  7. 
 
 at  hand.  Without  directly  citing  this  passage,  Paul  uses  nearly 
 the  same  language  to  express  the  same  idea.  The  expressions 
 here  used  seem  to  have  become  proverbial  among  the  Jews. 
 To  be  "high,"  or  "afar  off,"  was  to  be  unattainable;  Ps. 
 cxxxix.  6,  Prov.  xxiv.  7.  "To  ascend  to  heaven,"  or  "to  go 
 down  to  hell,"  was  to  do  what  was  impossible,  Amos  ix.  2,  Ps. 
 cxxxix.  8,  9.  As  the  sea  was  to  the  ancients  impassable,  it  is 
 easy  to  understand  how  the  question,  'Who  can  pass  over  the 
 sea?'  was  tantamount  to  'Who  can  ascend  up  into  heaven?' 
 Among  the  later  Jews  the  same  mode  of  expressions  not  unfre- 
 quently  occur.  Bava  Mezia,  f.  94,  1.  Si  quis  dixerit  mulieri, 
 si  adscenderis  in  firmamentum,  aut  descenderis  in  abyssum,  eris 
 mihi  desponsata,  haec  conditio  frustranea  est  —  Wetstein. 
 
 Instead  of  using  the  expression,  '  Who  shall  go  over  the  sea 
 for  us?'  Paul  uses  the  equivalent  phrase,  'Who  shall  descend 
 into  the  deep?'  as  more  pertinent  to  his  object.  The  word 
 ia^uaaou)  rendered  deep,  is  the  same  which  elsewhere  is  render- 
 ed ahyss^  and  properly  means,  without  bottom,  bottomless,  and, 
 therefore,  is  often  applied  to  the  sea  as  fathomless.  Gen.  i.  2, 
 vii.  11  (in  the  Septuagint),  and  also  to  the  great  cavern  beneath 
 the  earth,  which,  in  the  figurative  language  of  the  Scriptures, 
 is  spoken  of  as  the  abode  of  the  dead,  and  which  is  often 
 opposed  to  heaven.  Job  xxviii.  24,  "  The  abyss  says  it  is  not 
 in  me;"  compare  the  enumeration  of  things  in  heaven,  things 
 in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  in  Phil.  ii.  10,  and  else- 
 where ;  see  also  Gen.  xlix.  25,  God  "  shall  bless  thee  with  the 
 blessings  of  heaven  above,  blessings  of  the  abyss  which  lieth 
 under."  In  the  New  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  this 
 passage,  it  is  always  used  for  the  abode  of  fallen  spirits  and 
 lost  souls,  Luke  viii.  31,  Rev.  xvii.  8,  xx.  1,  and  frequently  in 
 that  book,  where  it  is  appropriately  rendered  the  bottomless  pit. 
 The  expression  is,  therefore,  equivalent  to  that  which  is  com- 
 monly rendered  hell  in  our  version.  Psalm  cxxxix.  8,  "  If  I 
 make  my  bed  in  hell."  Amos  x.  2,  "Though  they  dig  into 
 hell,"  &c.,  and  was  no  doubt  chosen  by  the  apostle,  as  more 
 suitable  to  the  reference  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  with 
 which  he  meant  to  connect  it,  than  the  expression  used  by 
 Moses  in  the  same  general  sense,  "Who  shall  pass  over  the 
 sea?" 
 
ROMANS  X.  6,  7.  633 
 
 Paul  connects  each  of  the  questions,  virtually  borrowed  from 
 the  Old  Testament,  with  a  comment  designed  to  apply  them 
 more  directly  to  the  point  which  he  had  in  view.  Say  not.  Who 
 shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down,  &c. 
 The  precise  intent  of  these  comments,  however,  may  be  differ- 
 ently understood.  1.  The  words  that  is,  may  be  taken  as 
 equivalent  to  namely,  or  to  wit,  and  the  apostle's  comment  be 
 connected,  as  an  explanatory  substitute,  with  the  questions, 
 '  Say  not  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven  ?  to  wit,  to  bring  Christ 
 down ;  or  who  shall  descend  into  the  deep  ?  to  bring  him  up 
 again  from  the  dead.  The  sense  would  then  be,  '  The  plan  of 
 salvation  by  faith  does  not  require  us  to  do  what  cannot  be 
 done,  and  which  is  now  unnecessary;  it  does  not  require  us  to 
 provide  a  Saviour,  to  bring  him  from  heaven,  or  to  raise  him 
 from  the  dead ;  a  Saviour  has  been  provided,  and  we  are  now 
 only  required  to  believe,  &c.'  2.  The  words  that  is,  may  be 
 taken  as  equivalent  to  the  fuller  expression,  that  is  to  say,  '  To 
 ask  who  shall  ascend  into  heaven?'  is  as  much  as  to  ask,  Who 
 shall  bring  Christ  down  from  above  ?  And  to  ask,  '  Who  shall 
 descend  into  the  deep?  is  as  much  as  to  ask,  who  shall  bring 
 Christ  again  from  the  dead?'  The  comments  of  the  apostle 
 may,  therefore,  be  regarded  as  a  reproof  of  the  want  of  faith 
 implied  in  such  questions,  and  the  passage  may  be  thus  under- 
 stood, Do  not  reject  the  gospel.  Say  not  in  thy  heart  that 
 no  one  can  ascend  to  heaven,  as  the  gospel  says  Christ  has 
 done ;  and  no  man  can  descend  into  the  abyss  and  thence 
 return,  as  is  said  of  Christ.  The  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
 God,  and  his  ascension  to  heaven,  are  not  impossibilities,  which 
 would  justify  unbelief.  The  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are  plain 
 and  simple. 
 
 Instead  of  regarding  the  apostle  as  intending  to  state  gener- 
 ally the  nature  of  the  method  of  justification  by  faith,  many 
 suppose  that  it  is  his  object  to  encourage  and  support  a 
 desponding  and  anxious  inquirer.  'Do  not  despairingly  inquire 
 who  shall  point  out  the  way  of  life?  No  one,  either  from 
 heaven  or  from  the  deep,  will  come  to  teach  me  the  way. 
 Speak  not  thus,  for  Christ  has  come  from  heaven,  and  arisen 
 from  the  dead  for  your  salvation,  and   no  other  Saviour  is 
 
534  ROMANS  X.  6,  7. 
 
 required.'*    But  this  view  does  not  seem  to  harmonize  with  the 
 spirit  of  the  context. 
 
 It  has  been  questioned  whether  Paul  meant,  in  this  passage, 
 merely  to  allude  to  the  language  of  Moses  in  Deut.  xxx.  10 — 14, 
 or  whether  he  is  to  be  understood  as  quoting  it  in  such  a 
 manner  as  to  imply  that  the  ancient  prophet  was  describing  the 
 method  of  justification  by  faith.  This  latter  view  is  taken  by 
 Calvin,  De  Brais,  and  many  others.  They  suppose  that  in  the 
 passage  quoted  in  the  5th  verse  from  Lcvit.  xviii.  5,  Moses 
 describes  the  legal  method  of  justification,  but  that  here  he  has 
 reference  to  salvation  by  faith.  This  is,  no  doubt,  possible. 
 For  in  Deut.  xxx.  10,  &c.,  the  context  shows  that  the  passage 
 may  be  understood  of  the  whole  system  of  instruction  given  by 
 Moses ;  a  system  which  included  in  it,  under  its  various  types 
 and  prophecies,  an  exhibition  of  the  true  method  of  salvation. 
 Moses,  therefore,  might  say  with  regard  to  his  own  law,  that  it 
 set  before  the  people  the  way  of  eternal  life,  that  they  had  now 
 no  need  to  inquire  who  should  procure  this  knowledge  for 
 them  from  a  distance,  for  it  was  near  them,  even  in  their  hearts 
 and  in  their  mouths.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  very  clear 
 that  this  interpretation  is  by  no  means  necessary.  Paul  does 
 not  say,  'Moses  describes  the  righteousness  which  is  of  faith 
 in  this  wise,'  as  immediately  above  he  had  said  of  the  righteous- 
 ness which  is  of  the  law.  There  is  nothing  in  the  language  of 
 the  apostle  to  require  us  to  understand  him  as  quoting  Moses 
 in  proof  of  his  own  doctrine.  It  is,  indeed,  more  in  accordance 
 with  the  spirit  of  the  passage,  to  consider  him  as  merely 
 expressing  his  own  ideas  in  scriptural  language,  as  in  ver.  19 
 of  this  chapter,  and  frequently  elsewhere.  '  Moses  teaches  us 
 that  the  legal  method  of  justification  requires  perfect  obedience; 
 but  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith,  requires  no  such  impos- 
 sibility, it  demands  only  cordial  faith  and  open  profession. 
 The  modern  interpreters  who  understand  the  apostle  as 
 quoting  the  language  of  Moses  to  prove  the  true  nature  of  the 
 gospel,  differ  among  themselves.  Meyer  and  most  other  advo- 
 cates of  this  view  of  the  context,  assume  that  Paul  departs 
 entirely  from  the  historical  meaning  of  the  original  text,  and 
 
 *  See  Knapp's  Diatribe  in  Locum  Rom.  x.  4 — 11,  &c.,  p.  543  of  hia  Script* 
 Varii  Argumenti. 
 
ROMANS  X.  8.  535 
 
 gives  it  a  sense  foreign  to  the  intention  of  the  sacred  writer. 
 Others,  as  Olshausen,  suppose  him  to  give  its  true  spiritual 
 sense.  The  passage  in  Deuteronomy  is,  in  this  view,  strictly 
 Messianic.  It  describes,  in  contrast  with  the  inexorable 
 demand  of  obedience  made  by  the  law,  the  spiritual  power  of 
 the  future  dispensation.  All  this,  however,  requires  unneces- 
 sary violence  done  both  to  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  and  to 
 the  language  of  the  apostle.  In  this  very  chapter,  ver.  18,  we 
 have  another  clear  example  of  Paul's  mode  of  expressing  his 
 own  ideas  in  the  language  of  the  Scriptures.  This  is  done 
 without  hesitation  by  every  preacher  of  the  gospel.  The 
 apostle,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  saying,  Moses 
 describes  the  righteousness  of  the  law  in  one  way,  and  the 
 righteousness  of  faith  in  another  way ;  but  he  contrasts  what 
 Moses  says  of  the  law  with  what  the  gospel  says. 
 
 According  to  the  interpretation  given  above,  it  is  assumed 
 the  design  of  this  passage  is  to  present  the  simplicity  and  suita- 
 bleness of  the  gospel  method  of  salvation,  which  requires  only 
 faith  and  confession,  in  opposition  to  the  strict  demands  of  the 
 law,  which  it  is  as  impossible  for  us  to  satisfy  as  it  is  to  scale 
 the  heavens.  According  to  the  other  view,  mentioned  aboA^e, 
 the  design  of  the  apostle  was  to  rebuke  the  unbelief  of  the 
 Jews.  They  were  not  to  regard  the  resurrection  and  ascension 
 of  Christ  as  impossible.  But  the  whole  context  shows  that  the 
 purpose  of  the  apostle  is  to  contrast  the  legal  and  the  gospel 
 method  of  salvation — to  show  that  the  one  is  impracticable,  the 
 the  other  easy.  By  works  of  the  law  no  flesh  living  can  be 
 justified;  whereas,  whosoever  simply  calls  on  the  name  of  the 
 Lord  shall  be  saved. 
 
 Verse  8.  But  what  saith  it  ?  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even 
 in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart,  that  is,  the  word  of  faith  which 
 we  preach.  As  the  expressions  to  be  hidden,  to  be  far  off, 
 imply  that  the  thing  to  which  they  refer  is  inaccessible  or  diflB- 
 cult,  so  to  be  near,  to  be  in  the  mouth  and  in  the  heart,  mean  to 
 be  accessible,  easy,  and  familiar.  They  are  frequently  thus 
 used;  see  Joshua  i.  8,  "This  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy 
 mouth,"  i.  e.,  it  shall  be  constantly  familiar  to  thee;  Exod. 
 xiii.  9,  "That  the  law  maybe  in  thy  mouth;"  Ps.  xxxvii.  31, 
 xl.  8.      The  meaning  of  this  passage  then   is,  'The  gospel, 
 
536  ROMANS  X.  9. 
 
 instead  of  directing  us  to  ascend  into  heaven,  or  to  go  down 
 to  the  abyss,  tells  us  the  thing  required  is  simple  and  easy. 
 Believe  with  thy  heart  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.'  The  word  is 
 nigh  thee,  i.  e.,  the  doctrine  or  truth  contemplated,  and  by  im- 
 plication, what  that  doctrine  demands.  Paul,  therefore,  repre- 
 sents the  gospel  as  speaking  of  itself.  The  method  of  justifi- 
 cation by  faith  says, '  The  word  is  near  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  i.  e., 
 the  word  or  doctrine  of  faith  is  thus  easy  and  familiar.'  This 
 is  Paul's  own  explanation.  The  expression  word  of  faith,  may 
 mean  the  tvord  or  doctrine  concerning  faith,  or  the  word  to 
 which  faith  is  due,  which  should  be  believed.  In  either 
 case,  it  is  the  gospel,  or  doctrine  of  justification,  which  is  here 
 intended. 
 
 Veksb  9.  That  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord 
 Jesus,  &c.  The  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding 
 may  be  explained  by  making  the  last  clause  of  ver.  8  a  paren- 
 thesis, and  connecting  this  immediately  with  the  first  clause. 
 '  It  says,  the  word  is  nigh  thee ;  it  says,  that  if  thou  shalt 
 confess  and  believe,  thou  shalt  be  saved.'  According  to  this 
 view,  this  verse  is  still  a  part  of  what  the  gospel  is  represented 
 as  saying.  Perhaps,  however,  it  is  better  to  consider  this  verse 
 as  Paul's  own  language,  and  an  explanation  of  the  "  word  of 
 faith"  just  spoken  of.  '  The  thing  is  near  and  easy,  to  wit,  the 
 word  of  faith  which  we  preach,  that  if  thou  wilt  confess,  &c.' 
 The  two  requisites  for  salvation  mentioned  in  this  verse  are 
 confession  and  faith.  They  are  mentioned  in  their  natural 
 order ;  as  confession  is  the  fruit  and  external  evidence  of  faith. 
 So  in  2  Peter  i.  13,  calling  is  placed  before  election,  because 
 the  former  is  the  evidence  of  the  latter.  The  thing  to  be  con- 
 fessed is  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord.  That  is,  we  must  openly 
 recognise  his  authority  to  the  full  extent  in  which  he  is  Lord ; 
 acknowledge  that  he  is  exalted  above  all  principality  and 
 powers,  that  angels  are  made  subject  to  him,  that  all  power  in 
 heaven  and  earth  is  committed  unto  him ,  and  of  course  that 
 he  is  our  Lord.  This  confession,  therefore,  includes  in  it  an 
 acknowledgment  of  Christ's  universal  sovereignty,  and  a 
 sincere  recognition  of  his  authority  over  us.  To  confess  Christ 
 as  Lord,  is  to  acknowledge  him  as  the  Messiah,  recognised  as 
 such  of  God,  and  invested  with  all  the  power  and  prerogatives 
 
ROMANS  X.  10.  537 
 
 of  the  Mediatorial  throne.  This  acknowledgment  is  conse- 
 quently often  put  for  a  recognition  of  Christ  in  all  his  offices. 
 1  Cor.  xii.  3,  "No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but 
 by  the  Holy  Ghost."  Phil.  ii.  11,  "Every  tongue  shall  confess 
 that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord."  'To  preach  the  Lord  Jesus,'  or 
 'that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,'  Acts  xi.  20,  is  to  preach  him  as  the 
 Saviour  in  all  his  fulness.  Kom.  xiv.  9,  "For  to  this  end 
 Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and  revived,  that  he  might  be  Lord 
 both  of  the  dead  and  of  the  living."  The  necessity  of  a  public 
 confession  of  Christ  unto  salvation  is  frequently  asserted  in  the 
 Scriptures.  Matt.  x.  32,  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  confess 
 me  before  men,  him  will  I  confess  also  before  my  Father 
 which  is  in  heaven."  Luke  xii.  8,  1  John  iv.  15,  "Whosoever 
 shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in 
 him,  and  he  in  God." 
 
 The  second  requisite  is  faith.  The  truth  to  be  believed  is 
 that  God  hath  raised  Christ  from  the  dead.  That  is,  we  must 
 believe  that  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  God  has  publicly 
 acknowledged  him  to  be  all  that  he  claimed  to  be,  and  has 
 publicly  accepted  of  all  that  he  came  to  perform.  He  has 
 recognised  him  as  his  Son  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  and 
 has  accepted  of  his  blood  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  See  Rom. 
 iv.  25,  i.  4,  Acts  xiii.  32,  33,  1  Peter  i.  3—5,  1  Cor.  xv.  14, 
 et  seq.  Acts  xvii.  31,  "Whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto 
 all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.  To 
 believe,  therefore,  that  God  has  raised  Christ  from  the  dead, 
 involves  the  belief  that  Christ  is  all  that  he  claimed  to  be, 
 and  that  he  has  accomplished  all  that  he  came  to  perform. 
 In  thy  heart.  Faith  is  very  far  from  being  a  merely  specula- 
 tive exercise.  When  moral  or  religious  truth  is  its  object,  it  is 
 always  attended  by  the  exercise  of  the  affections.  The  word 
 heart,  however,  is  not  to  be  taken  in  its  limited  sense,  for  the 
 seat  of  the  affections.  It  means  the  whole  soul,  or  inner  man. 
 Confession  is  an  outward  act,  faith  is  an  act  of  the  mind  in  the 
 wide  sense  of  that  word.  It  includes  the  understanding  and 
 the  affections.  Saving  faith  is  not  mere  intellectual  assent, 
 but  a  cordial  receiving  and  resting  on  Christ  alone  for  sal- 
 vation. 
 
 Verse  10.  For  with  the  heart  man  helieveth  unto  righteouS' 
 
538  ROMANS  X.  1—10. 
 
 ne««,  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation. 
 This  is  the  reason  why  faith  and  confession  are  alone  necessary 
 unto  salvation ;  because  he  who  believes  with  the  heart  is  justi- 
 fied, and  he  who  openly  confesses  Christ  shall  be  saved.  That 
 is,  such  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  as  the  apostle  proves  in  the 
 subsequent  verse.  Here,  as  in  the  passages  referred  to  above, 
 in  which  confession  is  connected  with  salvation,  it  is  evident 
 that  it  must  be  not  only  open  but  sincere.  It  is  not  a  mere 
 saying,  Lord,  Lord,  but  a  cordial  acknowledgment  of  him, 
 before  men,  as  our  Lord  and  Redeemer.  Unto  righteousness^ 
 i.  e.,  so  that  we  may  become  righteous.  The  word  righteousness 
 has  two  senses,  answering  to  the  two  aspects  of  sin,  guilt  and 
 moral  depravity.  According  to  the  former  sense,  it  is  that 
 which  satisfies  justice;  in  the  latter,  it  is  conformity  to  the 
 precepts  of  the  law.  A  man,  therefore,  may  be  righteous  and 
 yet  unholy.  Were  this  not  so,  there  could  be  no  salvation  for 
 sinners.  If  God  cannot  justify,  or,  pronounce  righteous,  the 
 ungodly,  how  could  we  be  justified  ?  Here,  as  generally,  where 
 the  subject  of  justification  is  discussed  in  the  Bible,  righteous- 
 ness has  its  forensic,  as  distinguished  from  its  moral,  sense. 
 And  when  Paul  says,  "  With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
 righteousness,"  he  expresses  the  relation  of  faith,  not  to  our 
 sanctification,  but  to  justification.  Unto  salvation  is  equiva- 
 lent to  saying  'that  we  may  be  saved.'  The  preposition  ren- 
 dered unto,  expressing  here  the  effect  or  result.  Acts  x.  4, 
 Heb.  vi.  8.  By  faith  we  secure  an  interest  in  the  righteousness 
 of  Christ,  and  by  confessing  him  before  men,  we  secure  the  per- 
 formance of  his  promise  that  he  will  confess  us  before  the  angels 
 of  God.  Caeterum  viderint  quid  respondeant  Paulo,  qui  nobis 
 hodie  imaginariam  quandam  fidem  fastuose  jactant,  quae  secreto 
 cordis  contenta,  confessione  oris,  veluti  re  supervacanea  et  inani, 
 supersedeat.  Nimis  enim  nugatorium  est,  asserere  ignem  esse, 
 ubi  nihil  sit  flammae  neque  caloris. — Calvin. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  Zeal,  to  be  either  acceptable  to  God  or  useful  to  men,  must 
 not  only  be  right  as  to  its  ultimate,  but  also  as  to  its  immediate 
 objects.  It  must  not  only  be  about  God,  but  about  the  things 
 which  are  well  pleasing  in  his  sight.     The  Pharisees,  and  other 
 
KOMANS  X.  1—10.  589 
 
 early  Jewish  persecutors  of  Christians,  really  thought  they  were 
 doing  God  service  when  they  were  so  exceedingly  zealous  for 
 the  traditions  of  their  fathers.  The  moral  character  of  their 
 zeal  and  its  effects  were  determined  by  the  immediate  objects 
 towards  which  it  was  directed,  ver.  2. 
 
 2.  The  doctrine  of  justification,  or  method  of  securing  the 
 pardon  of  sin  and  acceptance  with  God,  is  the  cardinal  doctrine 
 in  the  religion  of  sinners.  The  main  point  is,  whether  the 
 ground  of  pardon  and  acceptance  be  in  ourselves  or  in  another, 
 whether  the  righteousness  on  which  we  depend  be  of  ourselves 
 or  of  God,  ver.  3. 
 
 3.  Ignorance  of  the  divine  character  and  requirements  is  at 
 the  foundation  of  all  ill-directed  efforts  for  the  attainment  of 
 salvation,  and  of  all  false  hopes  of  heaven,  ver.  3. 
 
 4.  The  first  and  immediate  duty  of  the  sinner  is  to  submit  to 
 the  righteousness  of  God ;  to  renounce  all  dependence  on  his 
 own  merit,  and  cordially  to  embrace  the  offers  of  reconciliation 
 proposed  in  the  gospel,  ver.  3. 
 
 5.  Unbelief,  or  the  refusal  to  submit  to  God's  plan  of  salva- 
 tion, is  the  immediate  ground  of  the  condemnation  or  rejection 
 of  those  who  perish  under  the  sound  of  the  gospel,  ver.  3. 
 
 6.  Christ  is  every  thing  in  the  religion  of  the  true  believer. 
 He  fulfils,  and  by  fulfilling  abolishes  the  law,  by  whose  demands 
 the  sinner  was  weighed  down  in  despair ;  and  his  merit  secures 
 the  justification  of  every  one  that  confides  in  him,  ver.  4. 
 
 7.  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law,  whether  moral  or  ceremo- 
 nial. To  him  both,  as  a  schoolmaster,  lead.  In  him  all  their 
 demands  are  satisfied,  and  all  their  types  and  shadows  are 
 answered,  ver.  4. 
 
 8.  The  legal  method  of  justification  is,  for  sinners,  as 
 impracticable  as  climbing  up  into  heaven  or  going  down  into 
 the  abyss,  vs.  5 — 7. 
 
 9.  The  demands  of  the  gospel  are  both  simple  and  intelligi- 
 ble. The  sincere  acceptance  of  the  proffered  righteousness  of 
 God,  and  the  open  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord, 
 vs.  6—9. 
 
 10.  The  public  profession  of  religion  or  confession  of  Christ 
 is  an  indispensable  duty.  That  is,  in  order  to  salvation,  we 
 must  not  only  secretly  believe,  but  also  openly  acknowledge 
 
540  ROMANS  X.  1—10. 
 
 that  Jesus  is  our  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  Though  faith  and 
 confession  are  both  necessary,  they  are  not  necessary  on  the 
 same  grounds,  nor  to  the  same  degree.  The  former  is  necessary 
 as  a  means  to  an  end,  as  without  faith  we  can  have  no  part  in 
 the  justifying  righteousness  of  Christ ;  the  latter  as  a  duty,  the 
 performance  of  which  circumstances  may  render  impracticable. 
 In  like  manner  Christ  declares  baptism,  as  the  appointed  means 
 of  confession,  to  be  necessary,  Mark  xvi.  16 ;  not,  however,  as 
 a  sine  qua  non,  but  as  a  command,  the  obligation  of  which  pro- 
 vidential dispensations  may  remove,  as  in  the  case  of  the  thief 
 on  the  cross,  ver.  9. 
 
 11.  Faith  is  not  the  mere  assent  of  the  mind  to  the  truth  of 
 certain  propositions.  It  is  a  cordial  persuasion  of  the  truth, 
 founded  on  the  experience  of  its  power  or  the  spiritual  percep- 
 tion of  its  nature,  and  on  the  divine  testimony.  Faith  is,  there- 
 fore, a  moral  exercise.  Men  believe  with  the  heart,  in  the 
 ordinary  scriptural  meaning  of  that  word.  And  no  faith,  which 
 does  not  proceed  from  the  heart,  is  connected  with  justification, 
 ver.  10. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  If  we  really  desire  the  salvation  of  men,  we  shall  pray  for 
 it,  ver.  1. 
 
 2.  No  practical  mistake  is  more  common  or  more  dangerous 
 than  to  suppose  that  all  zeal  about  God  and  religion  is  neces- 
 sarily a  godly  zeal.  Some  of  the  very  worst  forms  of  human 
 character  have  been  exhibited  by  men  zealous  for  God  and  his 
 service;  as,  for  example,  the  persecutors  both  in  the  Jewish 
 and  Christian  churches.  Zeal  should  be  according  to  know- 
 ledge, i.  e.,  directed  towards  proper  objects.  Its  true  charac- 
 ter is  easily  ascertained  by  noticing  its  effects,  whether  it 
 produces  self-righteousness  or  humility,  censoriousness  or  char- 
 ity; whether  it  leads  to  self-denial  or  to  self-gratulation  and 
 praise ;  and  whether  it  manifests  itself  in  prayer  and  effort,  or 
 in  loud  talking  and  boasting,  ver.  2. 
 
 3.  We  should  be  very  careful  what  doctrines  we  hold  and 
 teach  on  the  subject  of  justification.  He  who  is  wrong  here, 
 ruins  his  own  soul;  and  if  he  teaches  any  other  than  the 
 scriptural  method  of  justification,  he  ruins  the  souls  of  others, 
 ver.  3. 
 
ROMANS  X.  11—21.  541 
 
 4.  A  sinner  is  never  safe,  do  what  else  he  may,  until  he  has 
 submitted  to  God's  method  of  justification. 
 
 5.  As  every  thing  in  the  Bible  leads  us  to  Christ,  we  should 
 suspect  every  doctrine,  system,  or  theory  which  has  a  contrary 
 tendency.  That  view  of  religion  cannot  be  correct  which  does 
 not  make  Christ  the  most  prominent  object,  ver.  4. 
 
 6.  How  obvious  and  infatuated  is  the  folly  of  the  multitude 
 in  every  age,  country,  and  church,  who,  in  one  form  or 
 another,  are  endeavouring  to  work  out  a  righteousness  of  their 
 own,  instead  of  submitting  to  the  righteousness  of  God.  They 
 are  endeavouring  to  climb  up  to  heaven,  or  to  descend  into  the 
 abyss,  vs.  5 — 7. 
 
 7.  The  conduct  of  unbelievers  is  perfectly  inexcusable,  who 
 reject  the  simple,  easy,  and  gracious  offers  of  the  gospel,  which 
 requires  only  faith  and  confession,  vs.  8 — 9. 
 
 8.  Those  who  are  ashamed  or  afraid  to  acknowledge  Christ 
 before  men,  cannot  expect  to  be  saved.  The  want  of  courage 
 to  confess,  is  decisive  evidence  of  the  want  of  heart  to  believe, 
 vs.  9,  10. 
 
 ROMANS   X.  11—21. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  object  of  the  apostle  in  the  preceding  comparison  and 
 contrast  of  the  two  methods  of  justification,  was  to  show  that 
 the  gospel  method  was,  from  its  nature,  adapted  to  all  men; 
 and  that  if  suited  to  all  it  should  be  preached  to  all.  In 
 ver.  11  the  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament  proves  two 
 points.  1.  That  faith  is  the  condition  of  acceptance;  and 
 2.  That  it  matters  not  whether  the  individual  be  a  Jew  or 
 Gentile,  if  he  only  believes.  For  there  is  really  no  difference, 
 as  to  this  point,  between  the  two  classes;'  God  is  equally  gra- 
 cious to  both,  as  is  proved  by  the  express  declarations  of 
 Scripture,  vs.  12,  13.  If,  then,  the  method  of  salvation  be 
 thus  adapted  to  all,  and  God  is  equally  the  God  of  the  Gen- 
 tiles and  of  the  Jews,  then,  to  accomplish  his  purpose,  the 
 gospel  must  be  preached  to  all  men,  because  faith  cometh  by 
 hearing,  ver.  14 — 17.     Both  the  fact  of  the  extension  of  the 
 
542  ROMANS  X.  11,  12. 
 
 gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  the  disobedience  of  the  great  part 
 of  the  Jews,  were  clearly  predicted  in  the  writings  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  vs.  18 — 21. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  11.  For  the  Scripture  saith,  Whosoever  helieveth  on 
 him  shall  not  he  ashamed.  This  passage  is  cited  in  support  of 
 the  doctrine  just  taught,  that  faith  alone  is  necessary  to  salva- 
 tion. There  are  clearly  two  points  established  by  the  quota- 
 tion ;  the  first  is,  the  universal  applicability  of  this  method  of 
 salvation ;  whosoever,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  believes,  &c. ; 
 and  the  second  is,  that  it  is  faith  which  is  the  means  of  securing 
 the  divine  favour;  whosoever  BELIEVES  on  him  shall  not  be 
 ashamed.  The  passage,  therefore,  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  the 
 apostle's  object;  which  was  not  merely  to  exhibit  the  true 
 nature  of  the  plan  of  redemption,  but  mainly  to  show  the 
 propriety  of  its  extension  to  the  Gentiles.  The  passage 
 quoted  is  Isa.  xxviii.  16,  referred  to  at  the  close  of  the  pre- 
 ceding chapter.  We  must  not  only  believe  Christ,  but  believe 
 upon  him.  The  language  of  Paul  is,  ;rdc  o  Tciazeocou  in  auruJ, 
 JTkttsusiv  im  rcvc,  to  trust  upon  any  one.  That  is,  it  expresses 
 confiding  reliance  on  its  object.  It  is  all  important  to  know 
 what  the  Bible  teaches,  both  as  to  the  object  and  nature  of 
 saving  faith.  That  object  is  Christ,  and  saving  faith  is  trust. 
 He  is  so  complete  a  Saviour  as  to  be  able  to  save  all  who  come 
 unto  God  by  him ;  and  therefore  whosoever  believeth  on  him 
 shall  not  be  ashamed.  Hoc  monosyllabon,  says  Bengel,  Tidc^ 
 (omnis),  toto  mundo  pretiosus,  propositum,  ver.  11,  ita  repetitur, 
 ver.  12  et  13,  et  ita  confirmatur  ulterius,  vs.  14,  15,  ut  non 
 modo  significet,  quicuraque  invocaret,  salvum  fore;  sed,  Deum 
 velle,  se  invocari  ab  omnibus  salutariter. 
 
 Verse  12.  For  there  is  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and 
 the  Greek,  &c.  This  verse  is  evidently  connected  logically 
 with  the  whosoever  of  ver.  12,  '  Whosoever  believes  shall  be 
 saved,  for  there  is  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and  Gentile.' 
 That  is,  there  is  no  difference  in  their  relation  to  the  law  or  to 
 God.  They  are  alike  sinners,  and  are  to  be  judged  by  pre- 
 cisely the  same  principles,  (see  chap.  iii.  22);  and  conse- 
 quently, if  saved  at  all,  are  to  be  saved  in  precisely  the  same 
 
ROMANS  X.  12.  543 
 
 way.  For  the  same  Lord  over  all,  is  rich  unto  all  who  call  upon 
 him.  This  is  the  reason  why  there  is  no  difference  between  the 
 two  classes.  Their  relation  to  God  is  the  same.  They  are 
 equally  his  creatures,  and  his  mercy  towards  them  is  the  same. 
 it  is  doubtful  whether  this  clause  is  to  be  understood  of  Christ 
 or  of  God.  If  the  latter,  the  general  meaning  is  what  has  just 
 been  stated.  If  the  former,  then  the  design  is  to  declare  that 
 the  same  Saviour  is  ready  and  able  to  save  all.  In  favour  of 
 this  latter,  which  is  perhaps  the  most  common  view  of  the 
 passage,  it  may  be  urged  that  Christ  is  the  person  referred  to 
 in  the  preceding  verse ;  and  secondly,  that  he  is  so  commonly 
 called  Lord  in  the  New  Testament.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
 the  Lord  in  the  next  verse  refers  to  God;  and  secondly,  we 
 have  the  same  sentiment,  in  the  same  general  connection,  in 
 chap.  iii.  29,  30,  "Is  he  the  God  of  the  Jews  only?  &c.  It  is 
 the  same  God  which  shall  justify  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and 
 the  uncircumcision  through  faith."  The  same  Lord  over  all, 
 in  this  connection,  means  'one  and  the  same  Lord  is  over  all.' 
 All  are  equally  under  his  dominion,  and  may,  therefore, 
 equally  hope  in  his  mercy.  As  good  reasons  may  be  assigned 
 for  both  interpretations,  commentators  are  nearly  equally 
 divided  on  the  question  whether  the  immediate  reference  be  to 
 Christ  or  to  God.  Doctrina.lly,  it  matters  little  which  view  be 
 preferred.  Faith  in  God  is  faith  in  Christ,  for  Christ  is  God. 
 This  is  the  great  truth  to  be  acknowledged.  The  condition  of 
 salvation,  under  the  gospel,  is  the  invocation  of  Christ  as  God. 
 The  analogy  of  Scripture,  therefore,  as  well  as  the  context,  is 
 in  favour  of  the  immediate  reference  of  rjpeo(;  to  Christ.  The 
 words  is  rich,  may  be  either  a  concise  expression  for  is  rich  in 
 mercy,  or  they  may  mean  is  abundant  in  resources.  He  is  suf- 
 ficiently rich  to  supply  the  wants  of  all ;  whosoever,  therefore, 
 believes  in  him  shall  be  saved. 
 
 Unto  all  who  call  upon  him,  i.  e.,  who  invoke  him,  or 
 worship  him,  agreeably  to  the  frequent  use  of  the  phrase  in  the 
 Old  and  New  Testament,  Gen.  iv.  26,  xii.  8,  Isa.  Ixiv.  6,  Acts 
 ii.  21,  ix.  14,  xxii.  16,  1  Cor  i.  2,  2  Tim.  ii.  22.  This  religious 
 invocation  of  God  implied,  of  course,  the  exercise  of  faith  in 
 him ;  and,  therefore,  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing  whether  it  is 
 said,  'Whosoever  believes,'  or,  '  Whosoever  calls  on  the  name 
 
544  ROMANS  X.  13. 
 
 of  the  Lord,  shall  be  saved.  This  being  the  case,  the  passage 
 quoted  from  Joel,  in  the  next  verse,  is  equivalent  to  that  cited 
 from  Isaiah,  in  verse  11.  The  meaning,  then,  of  this  verse  is, 
 '  That  God  has  proposed  the  same  terms  of  salvation  to  all  men, 
 Jews  and  Gentiles,  because  he  is  equally  the  God  of  both,  and 
 his  mercy  is  free  and  sufficient  for  all.' 
 
 Verse  13.  For  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the 
 Lord  shall  he  saved.  As  this  verse  is  not  introduced  by  the 
 usual  form  of  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament,  as  it  is  written, 
 or  as  the  Scripture,  or  the  prophet  saith,  it  is  not  absolutely 
 necessary  to  consider  it  as  a  direct  citation,  intended  as  an 
 argument  from  Scripture,  (compare  ver.  11.)  Yet,  as  the 
 passage  is  in  itself  so  pertinent,  it  is  probable  that  the  apostle 
 intended  to  confirm  his  declaration,  that  the  mercy  of  God 
 should  be  extended  to  every  one  who  called  upon  him,  by 
 showing  that  the  ancient  prophets  had  held  the  same  language. 
 The  prophet  Joel,  after  predicting  the  dreadful  calamities  which 
 were  about  to  come  upon  the  people,  foretold,  in  the  usual 
 manner  of  the  ancient  messengers  of  God,  that  subsequent  to 
 those  judgments  should  come  a  time  of  great  and  general 
 blessedness.  This  happy  period  was  ever  characterized  as  one 
 in  which  true  religion  should  prevail,  and  the  stream  of  divine 
 truth  and  love,  no  longer  confined  to  the  narrow  channel  of  the 
 Jewish  people,  should  overflow  all  nations.  Thus  Joel  says, 
 "  It  shall  come  to  pass  afterward,  that  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit 
 upon  all  flesh,  &c.,  and  whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name 
 of  the  Lord  shall  be  delivered,"  Joel  ii.  28,  82.  Whosoever, 
 therefore,  betakes  himself  to  God  as  his  refuge,  and  calls  upon 
 him,  in  the  exercise  of  faith,  as  his  God,  shall  be  saved,  whether 
 Gentile  or  Jew,  (see  1  Cor.  i.  2.)  The  prophecy  in  Joel  has 
 direct  reference  to  the  Messianic  period,  and  therefore  the  Lord, 
 who  was  to  be  invoked,  who  was  to  be  looked  to,  and  be  called 
 upon  for  salvation,  is  the  Messiah.  All,  whosoever,  without 
 any  limitation  as  to  family  or  nation,  who  call  on  him,  shall  be 
 saved.  This  is  Paul's  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine,  with  one 
 accord,  of  all  the  holy  men  who  spake  of  old,  as  the  Spirit  gave 
 them  utterance.  This  being  the  case,  how  utterly  preposterous 
 and  wicked  the  attempt  to  confine  the  offers  of  salvation  to  the 
 Jewish  people,  or  to  question  the  necessity  of  the  extension  of 
 
ROMANS  X.  14,  15.  54'*' 
 
 the  gospel  through  the  whole  world.  Thus  naturally  and  beau- 
 tifully does  the  apostle  pass  from  the  nature  of  the  plan  of 
 mercy,  and  its  suitableness  to  all  men,  to  the  subject  princi- 
 pally in  view,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  or  the  duty  of 
 preaching  the  gospel  to  all  people. 
 
 Verses  14,  15.  How  then  shall  they  call  on  him  in  whom 
 they  have  not  believed?  and  how  shall  they  believe  in  him,  of 
 whom  they  have  not  heard?   kc,  &c.     Paul  considered  it  as 
 involved  in  what  he  had  ah-eady  said,  and  especially  in  the 
 predictions  of  the  ancient  prophets,  that  it  was  the  will  of  God 
 that  all  men  should  call  upon  him.     This  being  the  case,  he 
 argues  to  prove  that  it  was  his  will  that  the  gospel  should  be 
 preached  to  all.     As  invocation  implies  faith,  as  faith  implies 
 knowledge,  knowledge  instruction,  and  instruction  an  instructor, 
 so  it  is  plain  that  if  God  would  have  all  men  to  call  upon  him, 
 he  designed  preachers  to  be  sent  to  all,  whose  proclamation  of 
 mercy   being   heard,  might  be  believed,   and   being   believed, 
 might  lead  men  to  call  on  him  and  be  saved.     This  is  agreeable 
 to  the  prediction  of  Isaiah,  who  foretold  that  the  advent  of 
 the  preachers  of  the  gospel  should  be  hailed  with  great  and 
 universal  joy.     According  to  this,  which  is  the   common  and 
 most  natural  view  of  the  passage,  it  is  an  argument  founded  on 
 the  principle,  that  if  God  wills  the  end,  he  wills  also  the  means ; 
 if  he  would  have  the  Gentiles  saved,  according  to  the  predic- 
 tions of  his  prophets,  he  would  have  the  gospel  preached  to 
 them.    "  Qui  vult  finem,  vult  etiam  media.    Deus  vult  ut  homines 
 invocent  ipsum  salutariter.     Ergo  vult  ut  credant.     Ergo  vult 
 ut  audiant.     Ergo  vult  ut  habeant  praedicatores.     Itaque  prae- 
 dicatores  misit." — Bengel.     Calvin's  view  of  the  object  of  the 
 passage  is  the  same,  but  his  idea  of  the  nature  of  the  argument 
 is   very  different.      He  supposes  the  apostle  to   reason  thus. 
 The  Gentiles  actually  call  upon  God;   but  invocation  implies 
 faith,  faith  hearing,  hearing  preaching,  and  preaching  a  divine 
 mission.     If,  therefore,  the  Gentiles  have  actually  received  and 
 obeyed  the  gospel,  it  is  proof  enough  that  God  designed  it  to 
 be  sent  to  them.    This  interpretation  is  ingenious,  and  affords  a 
 good  sense ;  but  it  is  founded  on  an  assumption  which  the  Jew 
 would  be  slow  to  admit,  that  the  Gentile  was  an  acceptable 
 worshipper  of  God.     If  he  admitted  this,  he  admitted  every 
 35 
 
546  ROMANS  X.  15,  16. 
 
 thing  and  the  argument  becomes  unnecessary.  According  to 
 De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others,  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  to 
 show  the  necessity  of  divine  messengers  in  order  to  ground 
 thereon  a  reproof  of  disobedience  to  that  message.  The  whole 
 context,  however,  shows,  that  he  is  not  here  assigning  the 
 reasons  for  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  but  vindicating  the  pro- 
 priety of  preaching  to  the  Gentiles.  God  had  predicted  that 
 the  Gentiles  should  be  saved ;  he  had  provided  a  method  of  sal- 
 vation adapted  to  all  men ;  he  had  declared  that  whosoever 
 called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  should  be  saved ;  from  which 
 it  follows,  that  it  is  his  will  that  they  should  hear  of  him  whom 
 they  were  required  to  invoke. 
 
 Verse  15.  As  it  is  written,  Sow  beautiful  are  the  feet 
 of  them  that  preach  the  gospel  of  peace,  and  bring  glad  tidings 
 of  good  things.  The  word  here  rendered  preach  the  gospel, 
 is  the  same  as  that  immediately  afterwards  translated,  bring 
 glad  tidings.  The  word  gospel,  therefore,  must  be  taken  in 
 its  original  meaning,  good  news,  the  good  news  of  peace.  The 
 passage  in  Isa.  lii.  7,  which  the  apostle  faithfully,  as  to  the 
 meaning,  follows,  has  reference  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom. 
 It  is  one  of  those  numerous  prophetic  declarations,  which 
 announce  in  general  terms  the  coming  deliverance  of  the 
 Church,  a  deliverance  which  embraced,  at  the  first  stage  of 
 its  accomplishment,  the  restoration  from  the  Babylonish  cap- 
 tivity. This,  however,  so  far  from  being  the  blessing  princi- 
 pally intended,  derived  all  its  value  from  being  introductory 
 to  that  more  glorious  deliverance  to  be  effected  by  the 
 Redeemer.  Ilotv  beautiful  the  feet,  of  course  means,  how 
 delightful  the  approach.  The  bearing  of  this  passage  on  the 
 object  of  the  apostle  is  sufficiently  obvious.  He  had  proved 
 that  the  gospel  should  be  preached  to  all  men,  and  refers 
 to  the  declaration  of  the  ancient  prophet,  which  spoke  of  the 
 joy  with  which  the  advent  of  the  messengers  of  mercy  should 
 be  hailed. 
 
 Verse  16.  But  they  have  not  all  obeyed  the  gospel,  for  Isaiah 
 saith,  Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report  ?  This  verse  may  be 
 viewed  as  an  objection  to  the  apostle's  doctrine,  confirmed  by 
 the  quotation  of  a  passage  from  Isaiah.  'You  say  the  gospel 
 ought  to  be  preached  to  all  men,  but  if  God  had   intended 
 
ROMANS  X.  17.  547 
 
 that  it  should  be  preached  to  them,  they  would  obey  it ;  which 
 they  have  not  done.'  This  view  of  the  passage  would  have 
 some  plausibility  if  Calvin's  representation  of  Paul's  argument 
 were  correct.  Did  the  apostle  reason  from  the  fact  that  the 
 Gentiles  believed  that  it  was  God's  intention  they  should  have 
 the  gospel  preached  to  them,  it  would  be  very  natural  to  object, 
 that  as  only  a  few  have  obeyed,  it  was  evidently  not  designed 
 for  them.  But  even  on  the  supposition  of  the  correctness  of 
 this  view  of  the  argument,  this  interpretation  of  ver.  16  is 
 barely  possible,  for  the  quotation  from  Isaiah  cannot  be  under- 
 stood otherwise  than  as  the  language  of  the  apostle,  or  as 
 intended  to  confirm  what  he  himself  had  said.  There  is  no 
 necessity  for  the  assumption  that  this  verse  is  the  language  of 
 an  objection.  Paul  had  said  that  the  preaching  of  the  gospel 
 to  all  men,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  was  according  to  the  will 
 of  God.  This  is  true  although  {d)M)  all  have  not  obeyed. 
 This  disobedience  was  foreseen  and  predicted,  for  Isaiah  saith. 
 Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report?  The  complaint  of  the 
 prophet  was  not  confined  to  the  men  of  his  generation.  It  had 
 reference  mainly  to  the  general  rejection  of  the  gospel,  especi- 
 ally by  the  theocratical  people.  Christ  came  to  his  own,  and 
 his  own  received  him  not.  And  this  was  predicted  of  old.  Our 
 report,  or  message.  The  word  is  axor},  literally  the  faculty  or 
 act  of  hearing;  then,  metonymically,  what  is  heard,  i.  e.,  a 
 message,  preaching,  or  teaching.  The  message  of  the  prophet 
 concerning  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  and  what  he  was  to  do  and 
 suff"er  for  his  people,  as  recorded  in  Isa.  liii.,  it  was  predicted 
 would  be  believed  by  the  great  majority  of  those  to  whom  it 
 was  addressed. 
 
 Verse  17.  So  then  faith  (cometh)  hy  hearing,  and  hearing 
 ly  the  word  of  Crod.  The  passage  in  Isaiah  speaks  of  an  axoTp 
 a  message,  something  addressed  to  the  ear.  The  design  of  that 
 message  was  that  men  should  believe.  They  were  required  to 
 receive  and  rest  upon  it  as  true.  Without  it,  there  could  be 
 no  ground  of  faith ;  nothing  on  which  faith  could  rest.  There- 
 fore faith  is  from  hearing.  It  is  receiving  the  message  as  true. 
 But  this  message  is  by  the  word  or  command  of  God.  It  is 
 therefore  a  sure  foundation  of  faith.  And  as  all  men  are 
 required  to  believe,  the  message  should  be  sent  to  all,  and  the 
 
548  ROMANS  X.  18. 
 
 divine  command  on  which  it  rests,  must  include  an  injunction 
 to  make  the  proclamation  universal.  Thus  the  two  ideas  pre- 
 sented in  the  context,  viz.,  the  necessity  of  knowledge  to  faith, 
 and  the  purpose  of  God  to  extend  that  knowledge  to  the  Gen- 
 tiles, are  both  confirmed  in  this  verse.  The  above  is  the  common 
 interpretation  of  this  passage.  It  assumes  that  p7jiia  deou  is  to 
 be  taken  in  the  sense  of  command  of  God,  whereas  it  commonly 
 means  the  word  or  message  of  God.  If  this  sense  be  retained 
 here,  then  dy.07^  must  mean  the  act  of  hearing.  '  Faith  cometh 
 by  hearing,  and  hearing  supposes  something  to  be  heard,  a 
 pYjfjta,  or  word  of  God.'  In  Luke  v.  5,  Heb.  xi.  3,  (compare 
 Heb.  i.  3,)  pr^/xa  deou  means  God's  (or  the  Lord's)  command. 
 There  is  no  necessity,  therefore,  for  giving  dxoifj  a  different 
 sense  here  from  that  which  it  must  have  in  the  preceding 
 verse. 
 
 Verse  18.  But  I  say,  Have  they  not  heard?  Yes,  verily ^ 
 their  sound  ivent  into  all  the  earth,  &c.  The  concise  and  abrupt 
 manner  of  argument  and  expression  in  this  and  the  verses 
 which  precede  and  follow,  renders  the  apostle's  meaning  some- 
 what doubtful.  This  verse  is  frequently  considered  as  referring 
 to  the  Jews,  and  designed  to  show  that  their  want  of  faith  could 
 not  be  excused  on  the  ground  of  want  of  knowledge.  The  sense 
 of  the  passage  would  then  be,  'As  faith  cometh  by  hearing, 
 have  not  the  Jews  heard  ?  Have  they  not  had  the  opportunity 
 of  believing  ?  Yes,  indeed,  for  the  gospel  has  been  proclaimed 
 far  and  wide.'  So  Koppe,  Flatt,  Tholuck,  Meyer,  Philippi,  &c. 
 But  there  are  several  objections  to  this  view  of  the  passage. 
 In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  context. 
 Paul  is  not  speaking  now  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  or  the 
 grounds  of  it,  but  of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  2.  If  the 
 16th  verse  refers  to  the  Gentiles,  "They  have  not  all  obeyed 
 the  gospel,"  and  therefore  this  verse,  "Have  they  not  heard?" 
 cannot,  without  any  intimation  of  change,  be  naturally  referred 
 to  a  different  subject.  3.  In  the  following  verse,  where  the 
 Jews  are  really  intended,  they  are  distinctly  mentioned,  "  Did 
 not  Israel  know?" 
 
 Paul's  object  in  the  whole  context  is  to  vindicate  the  pro- 
 priety of  extending  the  gospel  call  to  all  nations.  This  he  had 
 beautifully  done  in  vs.  14,  15,  by  showing  that  preaching  was 
 
ROMANS  X.  18.  549 
 
 a  necessary  means  of  accomplishing  the  clearly  revealed  will  of 
 God,  that  men  of  all  nations  should  participate  in  his  grace. 
 '  True,  indeed,  as  had  been  foretold,  the  merciful  oifers  of  the 
 gospel  were  not  universally  accepted,  ver.  16,  but  still  faith 
 Cometh  by  hearing,  and  therefore  the  gospel  should  be  widely 
 preached,  ver.  17.  Well,  has  not  this  been  done  ?  has  not  the 
 angel  of  mercy  broke  loose  from  his  long  confinement  within 
 the  pale  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  flown  through  the  heavens 
 with  the  proclamation  of  love  ?'  ver.  18.  This  verse,  therefore, 
 is  to  be  considered  as  a  strong  declaration  that  what  Paul  had 
 proved  ought  to  be  done,  had  in  fact  been  accomplished.  The 
 middle  wall  of  partition  had  been  broken  down,  the  gospel  of 
 salvation,  the  religion  of  God,  was  free  from  its  trammels,  the 
 offers  of  mercy  were  as  wide  and  general  as  the  proclamation 
 of  the  heavens.  This  idea  the  apostle  beautifully  and  appo- 
 sitely expresses  in  the  sublime  language  of  Psalm  xix.,  "  The 
 heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  day  unto  day  uttereth  speech, 
 there  is  no  speech  nor  language  where  their  voice  is  not  heard, 
 their  line  is  gone  through  all  the  earth,  and  their  v»'ords  to  the 
 end  of  the  world."  The  last  verse  contains  the  words  used  by 
 the  apostle.  His  object  in  using  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  was, 
 no  doubt,  to  convey  more  clearly  and  affectingly  to  the  minds 
 of  his  hearers  the  idea  that  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  was 
 now  as  free  from  all  national  or  ecclesiastical  restrictions,  as 
 the  instructions  shed  down  upon  all  people  by  the  heavens 
 under  which  they  dwell.  Paul,  of  course,  is  not  to  be  under- 
 stood as  quoting  the  Psalmist  as  though  the  ancient  prophet 
 was  speaking  of  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  He  simply  uses 
 scriptural  language  to  express  his  own  ideas,  as  is  done  involun- 
 tarily almost  by  every  preacher  in  every  sermon.*  It  is,  how- 
 ever, nevertheless  true,  as  Hengstenberg  remarks  in  his  Christ- 
 ology,  that  "The  universal  revelation  of  God  in  nature,  was  a 
 
 *  Calvin's  view  of  this  passage  is  peculiar — Quaerit,  an  Deus  nunquam  ante 
 gentes  vocem  auam  direxit,  et  doctoris  officio  functus  sit  erga  totum  mundum. 
 — Accipio  igitur  ejus  citationem  in  proprio  et  germano  prophetae  sensu,  ut  tale 
 sit  argumentum:  Deus  jam  ab  initio  mundi  suam  gentibus  divinitatem  mani- 
 festaret,  et  si  non  hominum  praedicatione,  creaturarum  tamen  suarum  testi- 
 monio. — Apparet  ergo,  Dominum  etiam  pro  eo  tempore,  quo  foederis  sui  gra- 
 tiam  in  Israele  continebat,  non  tamen  ita  sui  notitiam  gentibus  subduxisse, 
 quin  aliquam  semper  illis  scintillam  accenderet. 
 
550  ROMANS  X.  19. 
 
 providential  prediction  of  the  universal  proclamation  of  the 
 gospel.  If  the  former  was  not  fortuitous,  but  founded  in  the 
 nature  of  God,  so  must  the  latter  be.  The  manifestation  of  God 
 in  nature,  is,  for  all  his  creatures  to  whom  it  is  made,  a  pledge 
 of  their  participation  in  the  clearer  and  higher  revelations." 
 
 It  will  be  perceived  that  the  apostle  says,  "  Their  sound  has 
 gone,  &c.,"  whereas  in  the  19th  Psalm  it  is,  "•Their  line  is 
 gone."  Paul  follows  the  Septuagint,  which,  instead  of  giving 
 the  literal  sense  of  the  Hebrew  word,  gives  correctly  its  figura- 
 tive meaning.  The  word  signifies  a  line,  then  a  musical  chord, 
 and  then,  metonymically,  sound. 
 
 Verse  19.  But  I  say^  Bid  not  Israel  know?  First  3Ioses 
 saith,  I  ivill  provoke  you  to  jealousy,  &c.  Another  passage 
 difficult  from  its  conciseness.  The  difficulty  is  to  ascertain 
 what  the  question  refers  to.  Did  not  Israel  know  Avhat  ?  The 
 gospel?  or,  The  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  their  own  rejection? 
 The  latter  seems,  for  two  reasons,  the  decidedly  preferable 
 interpretation.  1.  The  question  is  most  naturally  understood 
 as  referring  to  the  main  subject  under  discussion,  which  is,  as 
 frequently  remarked,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  rejection 
 of  the  Jews.  2.  The  question  is  explained  by  the  quotations 
 which  follow.  '  Does  not  Israel  know  what  Moses  and  Isaiah 
 so  plainly  teach  ?'  viz.,  that  a  people  who  were  no  people, 
 should  be  preferred  to  Israel;  while  the  latter  were  to  be 
 regarded  as  disobedient  and  gainsaying.  According  to  the 
 other  interpretation,  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  is,  '  Does  not 
 Israel  know  the  gospel  ?  Have  not  the  people  of  God  been 
 instructed?  If,  therefore,  as  was  predicted,  they  are  supen 
 seded  by  the  heathen,  it  must  be  their  own  fault.'  Calvin 
 thinks  there  is  an  evident  contrast  between  this  and  the  pre- 
 ceding verse.  '  If  even  the  heathen  have  had  some  knowledge 
 of  God,  how  is  it  with  Israel,  the  favoured  people  of  God?  &c.' 
 But  this  whole  interpretation,  as  intimated  above,  is  incon- 
 sistent with  the  drift  of  the  context,  and  the  spirit  of  the 
 passages  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 First  Moses  says,  I  will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  hy  them 
 that  are  no  people,  &c.  The  word  jirst  seems  evidently  to  be 
 used  in  reference  to  Isaiah,  who  is  quoted  afterward,  and  should 
 not  be  connected,  as  it  is  by  many,  with  Israel.     '  Did  not 
 
ROMANS  X.  20,  21.  551 
 
 Israel  first  learn  the  gospel?  &c.'  So  Storr,  Flatt,  &c.  Better 
 in  the  ordinary  way,  'First  Moses,  and  then  Isaiah,  say,  &c.' 
 The  passage  quoted  from  Moses  is  Deut.  xxxii.  21.  In  that 
 chapter  the  sacred  writer  recounts  the  mercies  of  God,  and  the 
 ingratitude  and  rebellion  of  the  people.  In  ver.  21  he  warns 
 them,  that  as  they  had  provoked  him  to  jealousy  by  that  which 
 is  not  God,  he  would  provoke  them  to  jealousy  by  them  that 
 are  no  people.  That  is,  as  they  forsook  him  and  made  choice 
 of  another  god,  so  he  would  reject  them  and  make  choice  of 
 another  people.  The  passage,  therefore,  plainly  enough  inti- 
 mates that  the  Jews  were  in  no  such  sense  the  people  of  God, 
 as  to  interfere  with  their  being  cast  off  and  others  called. 
 
 Verses  20,  21.  But  Esaias  is  very  bold,  and  saith,  &c. 
 That  is,  according  to  a  very  common  Hebrew  construction, 
 in  which  one  verb  qualifies  another  adverbially,  saith  very 
 plainly  or  openly.  Plain  as  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  is, 
 it  is  not  so  clear  and  pointed  as  that  now  referred  to,  Isaiah 
 Ixv.  1,  2. 
 
 Paul  follows  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  passage,  merely 
 transposing  the  clauses.  The  sense  is  accurately  expressed. 
 '  I  am  sought  of  them  that  asked  not /or  me,  I  am  found  of  them 
 that  sought  me  not,'  is  the  literal  version  of  the  Hebrew,  as 
 given  in  our  translation.  The  apostle  quotes  and  applies  the 
 passage  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the 
 ancient  prophet.  In  the  first  verse  of  that  chapter  Isaiah  says, 
 that  God  will  manifest  himself  to  those  "  who  were  not  called 
 by  his  name;"  and  in  the  second,  he  gives  the  immediate 
 reason  of  this  turning  unto  the  Gentiles,  "I  have  stretched  out 
 my  hand  all  the  day  to  a  rebellious  people."  This  quotation, 
 therefore,  confirms  both  the  great  doctrines  taught  in  this 
 chapter;  the  Jews  were  no  longer  the  exclusive  or  peculiar 
 people  of  God,  and  the  blessings  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom  were 
 thrown  wide  open  to  all  mankind.  With  regard  to  Israel,  the 
 language  of  God  is  peculiarly  strong  and  tender.  All  day  long 
 I  have  stretched  forth  my  hands.  The  stretching  forth  the 
 hands  is  the  gesture  of  invitation,  and  even  supplication.  God 
 has  extended  wide  his  arms,  and  urged  men  frequently  and 
 long  to  return  to  his  love ;  and  it  is  only  those  who  refuse, 
 that  he  finally  rejects. 
 
552  ROMANS  X.  11—21. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  Christianity  is,  from  its  nature,  adapted  to  be  an  universal 
 religion.  There  is  nothing,  as  was  the  case  with  Judaism^ 
 which  binds  it  to  a  particular  location,  or  confines  it  to  a  par- 
 ticular people.  All  its  duties  may  be  performed,  and  all  its 
 blessings  enjoyed,  in  every  part  of  the  world,  and  by  every 
 nation  under  heaven,  vs.  11 — 13. 
 
 2.  The  relation  of  men  to  God,  and  his  to  them,  is  not 
 determined  by  any  national  or  ecclesiastical  connection.  He 
 deals  with  all,  on  the  same  general  principles,  and  is  ready  to 
 save  all  who  call  upon  him,  ver.  12. 
 
 3.  Whosoever  will,  may  take  of  the  water  of  life.  The 
 essential  conditions  of  salvation  have  in  every  age  been  the 
 same.  Even  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  God 
 accepted  all  who  sincerely  invoked  his  name,  ver.  13. 
 
 4.  The  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  the  great  means  of  salva- 
 tion, and  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  it  should  be  extended  to  all 
 people,  vs.  14,  15. 
 
 5.  As  invocation  implies  faith,  and  faith  requires  knowledge, 
 and  knowledge  instruction,  and  instruction  teachers,  and 
 teachers  a  mission,  it  is  evident  not  only  that  God  wills  that 
 teachers  should  be  sent  to  all  those  whom  he  is  willing  to  save, 
 when  they  call  upon  him,  but  that  all  parts  of  this  divinely 
 connected  chain  of  causes  and  effects  are  necessary  to  the  end 
 proposed,  viz.,  the  salvation  of  men.  It  is,  therefore,  as 
 incumbent  on  those  who  have  the  power,  to  send  the  gospel 
 abroad,  as  it  is  on  those  to  whom  it  is  sent,  to  receive  it, 
 vs.  14,  15. 
 
 6.  As  the  rudiments  of  the  tree  are  in  the  seed,  so  all  the 
 elements  of  the  New  Testament  doctrines  are  in  the  Old.  The 
 Christian  dispensation  is  the  explanation,  fulfilment,  and  de- 
 velopement  of  the  Jewish,  vs.  11,  13,  15. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  Christians  should  breathe  the  spirit  of  an  universal  religion. 
 A  religion  which  regards  all  men  as  brethren,  which  looks  on 
 God,  not  as  the  God  of  this  nation,  or  of  that  church,  but  as 
 the  God  and  Father  of  all,  which  proposes  to  all  the  same  con- 
 
ROMANS  X.  10,  11—21.  553 
 
 ditions  of  acceptance,  and  which  opens  equally  to  all  the  same 
 boundless  and  unsearchable  blessings,  vs.  11 — 13. 
 
 2.  It  must  be  very  offensive  to  God,  who  looks  on  all  men 
 with  equal  favour,  (except  as  moral  conduct  makes  a  difference,) 
 to  observe  how  one  class  of  mortals  looks  down  upon  another, 
 on  account  of  some  merely  adventitious  difference  of  rank, 
 colour,  external  circumstances,  or  social  or  ecclesiastical  con- 
 nection, ver.  12. 
 
 3.  How  will  the  remembrance  of  the  simplicity  and  reasona- 
 bleness of  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  the  readiness  of  God  to 
 accept  of  all  who  call  upon  him,  overwhelm  those  who  perish 
 from  beneath  the  sound  of  the  gospel !  ver.  13. 
 
 4.  It  is  the  first  and  most  pressing  duty  of  the  church  to 
 cause  all  men  to  hear  the  gospel.  The  solemn  question,  implied 
 in  the  language  of  the  apostle,  How  can  they  believe  with- 
 out A  PREACHER  ?  should  souud  day  and  night  in  the  ears  of  the 
 churches,  vs.  14,  15. 
 
 5.  "How  can  they  preach  except  they  be  sent?"  The 
 failure  of  the  whole  must  result  from  the  failure  of  any  one  of 
 the  parts  of  the  system  of  means.  How  long,  alas !  has  the 
 failure  been  in  the  very  first  step.  Preachers  have  not  been 
 sent,  and  if  not  sent,  how  could  men  hear,  believe,  or  call  upon 
 God?  vs.  14,  15. 
 
 6.  If  "faith  comes  by  hearing,"  how  great  is  the  value  of  a 
 stated  ministry !  How  obvious  the  duty  to  establish,  sustain, 
 and  attend  upon  it !  ver.  17. 
 
 7.  The  gospel's  want  of  success,  or  the  fact  that  few  believe 
 our  report,  is  only  a  reason  for  its  Avider  extension.  The  more 
 who  hear,  the  more  will  be  saved,  even  should  it  be  but  a  small 
 proportion  of  the  whole,  ver.  16. 
 
 8.  How  delightful  will  be  the  time  when  literally  the  sound 
 of  the  gospel  shall  be  as  extensively  diffused  as  the  declaration 
 which  the  heavens,  in  their  circuit,  make  of  the  glory  of  God ! 
 ver,  18. 
 
 9.  The  blessings  of  a  covenant  relation  to  God  are  the  un- 
 alienable right  of  no  people  and  of  no  church,  but  can  be  pre- 
 served only  by  fidelity  on  the  part  of  men  to  the  covenant 
 itself,  ver.  19. 
 
 10.  God  is  often  found  by  those  who  apparently  are  the 
 
654  ROMANS  XL 
 
 farthest  from  him,  while  he  remains  undiscovered  by  those  who 
 think  themselves  always  in  his  presence,  ver.  20. 
 
 11.  God's  dealings,  even  with  reprobate  sinners,  are  full  of 
 tenderness  and  compassion.  All  the  day  long  he  extends  the 
 arms  of  his  mercy,  even  to  the  disobedient  and  the  gainsaying. 
 This  will  be  felt  and  acknowledged  at  last  by  all  who  perish,  to 
 the  glory  of  God's  forbearance,  and  to  their  own  confusion  and 
 self-condemnation,  ver.  21. 
 
 12.  Communities  and  individuals  should  beware  how  they 
 slight  the  mercies  of  God,  and  especially  how  they  turn  a  deaf 
 ear  to  the  invitations  of  the  gospel.  For  when  the  blessings 
 of  a  church  relation  have  once  been  withdrawn  from  a  people, 
 they  are  long  in  being  restored.  Witness  the  Jewish  and  the 
 fallen  Christian  churches.  And  when  God  ceases  to  urge 
 on  the  disobedient  sinner  the  offers  of  mercy,  his  destiny  is 
 sealed,  v.  21. 
 
 CHAPTER    XI. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts,  vs.  1 — 10,  and  11 — 36. 
 In  the  former  the  apostle  teaches  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews 
 was  not  total.  There  was  a  remnant,  and  perhaps  a  much 
 larger  remnant  than  many  might  suppose,  excepted,  although 
 the  mass  of  the  nation,  agreeably  to  the  predictions  of  the 
 prophets,  was  cast  off,  vs.  1 — 10.  In  the  latter,  he  shows  that 
 this  rejection  is  not  final.  In  the  first  place,  the  restoration  of 
 the  Jews  is  a  desirable  and  probable  event,  vs.  11 — 24.  In  the 
 second,  it  is  one  which  God  has  determined  to  bring  to  pass, 
 vs.  25 — 32.  The  chapter  closes  with  a  sublime  declaration  of 
 the  unsearchable  wisdom  of  God,  manifested  in  all  his  dealings 
 with  men,  vs.  33 — 36,  In  the  consideration  of  the  great  doc- 
 trinal truths  taught  in  this  chapter,  Paul  intersperses  many 
 practical  remarks,  designed  to  give  these  truths  their  proper 
 influence  both  on  the  Jews  and  Gentiles,  especially  the  latter. 
 
ROMANS  XI.  1—10.  555 
 
 ROMANS   XI.   I— 10. 
 
 AXALYSIS. 
 
 The  rejection  of  the  Je"ws  is  not  total,  as  is  sufficiently  mani- 
 fest from  the  example  of  the  apostle  himself,  to  say  nothing  of 
 others,  ver.  1.  God  had  reserved  a  remnant  faithful  to  him- 
 self, as  was  the  case  in  the  times  of  Elias,  vs.  2 — 4.  That  this 
 remnant  is  saved,  is  a  matter  entirely  of  grace,  vs.  5,  6.  The 
 real  truth  of  the  case  is,  tliat  Israel,  as  a  nation,  is  excluded 
 from  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  but  the  chosen  ones  are  admitted 
 to  its  blessings,  ver.  7.  This  rejection  of  the  greater  part  of 
 the  Jews,  their  own  Scriptures  had  predicted,  vs.  8 — 10. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  I  say,  then,  /.iyco  ouv,  I  asJc,  then,  i.  e..  Is  it  to  be 
 inferred  from  what  I  have  said,  that  God  hath  rejected  his 
 people?  When  Ave  consider  how  many  promises  arc  made  to 
 the  Jewish  nation,  as  God's  peculiar  people ;  and  how  often  it 
 is  said,  as  in  Psalm  xciv.  14,  "  The  Lord  will  not  cast  off  his 
 people,"  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  doctrine  of  the  rejection 
 of  the  Jews,  as  taught  in  the  preceding  chapters,  was  regarded 
 as  inconsistent  with  the  word  of  God.  Paul  removes  this  diffi- 
 culty,  first  by  showing  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was 
 neither  total  nor  final ;  and  secondly,  by  proving  that  the 
 promises  in  question  had  reference,  not  to  the  Jewish  nation  as 
 such,  but  to  the  elect,  or,  the  spiritual  Israel.  The  word 
 druooaro  stands  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  to  show  that 
 it  is  emphatic.  Has  God  utterly  (i.  e.,  totally  and  finally) 
 rejected  his  people  ?  This  Paul  denies.  He  had  not  asserted 
 any  thing  of  the  kind.  The  rejection  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation, 
 was  consistent  with  all  that  God  had  promised  to  their  fathers. 
 Those  promises  did  not  secure  the  salvation  of  all  Jews,  or 
 of  the  Jews  as  a  nation.  And  the  doctrine  which  he  had 
 inculcated  did  not  involve  the  rejection  of  all  Jews.  In  proof, 
 he  adds.  For  I  also  am  an  Israelite.  Paul  had  not  taught  his 
 own  rejection.     The  fact  that  he  claimed  for  himself,  and  for 
 
556  ROMANS  XL  2. 
 
 all  who  with  him  believed  on  Christ,  a  part  in  the  Messiah's 
 kingdom,  made  it  clear  that  he  did  not  teach  the  rejection  of 
 all  Israel.  De  Wette,  and  Meyer,  in  opposition  to  almost 
 common  consent,  give  a  different  view  of  the  apostle's  language. 
 They  understand  him  as  repudiating  the  idea  of  the  univer- 
 sal rejection  of  the  Jews,  as  inconsistent  with  his  patriotic 
 feeling.  For  I  also  am  an  Israelite.  How  can  a  Jew  believe 
 that  God  has  cast  off  his  people  ?  But  the  context  is  clearly  in 
 favour  of  the  common  interpretation.  The  apostle  goes  on  to 
 show  that  a  general  apostacy  did  not  involve  an  entire  rejec- 
 tion. The  nation,  as  a  nation,  had  before  turned  to  idols,  and 
 yet  a  remnant  had  remained  faithful.  And  so  it  was  now. 
 Of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  see 
 Phil.  iii.  5.  Paul  was  a  Jew  by  descent  from  Abraham,  and 
 not  merely  a  proselyte ;  and  he  was  of  one  of  the  most  favoured 
 tribes.  Judah  and  Benjamin,  especially  after  the  exile,  were 
 the  chief  representatives  of  the  theocratical  people. 
 
 Verse  2.  Q-od  hath  not  cast  away  his  people  which  he  fore- 
 knew. This  verse  admits  of  two  interpretations.  The  words 
 Ms  people,  may  be  understood,  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  as 
 meaning  the  Jeivish  nation,  and  the  clause  which  he  foreknew, 
 as,  by  implication,  assigning  the  reason  for  the  declaration  that 
 God  had  not  cast  them  off.  The  clause,  according  to  this  view, 
 is  little  more  than  a  repetition  of  the  sentiment  of  the  preceding 
 verse.  '  It  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  what  I  have  said  of  the 
 rejection  of  the  Jews,  that  God  has  cast  away  all  his  chosen 
 people.  Multitudes  are  excepted  now,  as  in  the  days  of  Elias.' 
 The  second  interpretation  requires  more  stress  to  be  laid  upon 
 the  words  which  he  foreknew,  as  qualifying  and  distinguishing 
 the  preceding  phrase,  his  people.  '  God  has  indeed  rejected  his 
 external  people,  the  Jewish  nation  as  such,  but  he  has  not  cast 
 away  his  people  whom  he  foreknew.'  According  to  this  view, 
 his  people  means  his  elect,  his  spiritual  people,  or  the  true 
 Israel.  This  interpretation  seems  decidedly  preferable,  1.  Be- 
 cause it  is  precisely  the  distinction  which  Paul  had  made,  and 
 made  for  the  same  purpose,  in  chap.  ix.  6 — 8,  '  The  rejection  of 
 the  external  Israel  does  not  invalidate  the  promises  of  God, 
 because  those  promises  did  not  contemplate  the  natural  seed  as 
 such,  but  the  spiritual  Israel.     So,  now,  when  I  say  that  the 
 
ROMANS  XI.  2.  55T 
 
 external  Israel  Is  rejected,  it  does  not  imply  that  the  true  chosen 
 Israel,  to  whom  the  promises  pertained,  is  cast  away.'  2.  Be- 
 cause this  is  apparently  Paul's  own  explanation  in  the  sequel. 
 The  mass  of  the  nation  were  cast  away,  but  "a  remnant, 
 according  to  the  election  of  grace,"  were  reserved,  ver.  5. 
 Israel,  as  such,  Paul  says  in  ver.  7,  failed  of  admission  to  the 
 Messiah's  kingdom,  "but  the  election  hath  obtained  it."  It  is, 
 therefore,  evident  that  the  people  which  Crod  forekneio,  and 
 which  were  not  cast  off,  is  "the  remnant"  spoken  of  in  ver.  5, 
 and  "the  election"  mentioned  in  ver.  7.  3.  Because  the  illus- 
 tration borrowed  from  the  Old  Testament  best  suits  this  inter- 
 pretation. In  the  days  of  Elias,  God  rejected  the  great  body 
 of  the  people;  but  reserved  to  himself  a  remnant,  chosen  in 
 sovereign  grace.  The  distinction,  therefore,  in  both  cases,  is 
 between  the  external  and  the  chosen  people. 
 
 Which  he  foreknew.  On  the  different  senses  of  the  word 
 rendered  he  foreknew,  see  chap.  viii.  29.  Compare  Rom.  vii. 
 15,  2  Tim.  ii.  19,  1  Cor.  viii.  3,  Gal.  iv.  9,  Prov.  xii.  10, 
 Ps.  ci.  4,  1  Thess.  v.  12,  Matt.  vii.  32.  In  foreknowledge,  as 
 thus  used,  is  involved  something  more  than  simple  prescience, 
 of  which  all  persons  and  all  events  are  the  objects.  The 
 people  whom  God  foreknew,  were  a  people  distinguished  by 
 that  foreknowledge  from  all  other  people.  All  are  not  Israel 
 who  are  of  Israel.  God  knows  those  who  are  his,  and  in  the 
 midst  of  general  apostacy,  preserves  and  saves  those  whom  he 
 thus  foreknows  as  his  own.  Even  Luther  gives  this  view  of 
 the  passage.  "Es  ist  nicht  alles  Gottes  volk,  was  Gottes  volk 
 heisset;  darum  wird  nicht  alles  verstossen,  ob  der  mehere 
 Theil  auch  verstossen  wird."  And  Olshausen  says,  "  Vom  sicht- 
 baren  geht  er  aber  weiter,  auf  den  unsichtbaren  Kern  des 
 volkes  Gottes  iiber.  .  .  .  Offenbar  kann  Paulus  hier  nicht  von 
 bloss  die  zur  Kirche  Ubergetretenen  Juden  ineinen,  die  waren 
 kenntlich,  sondern  die  jedem  menschlichen  Auge  unbekannten, 
 die  den  verborgenen  Schatz  der  Treue  und  Aufrichtigkeit  ibnen 
 selbet  unbewusst  im  Herzen  trugen.  Diese  verhalten  sich  zur 
 Masse  des  Volks,  wie  im  Individuum  die  Reste  des  gottlichen 
 Ebenbildes  zum  alten  Menschen ;  oder  wie  im  wiedergebornen 
 der  unentwickelte,  oft  von  der  SUnde  zuriickgedrangte  neue 
 Mensch  zu  dem  ihm  umgebenden  siindlichen  Menschen.     Wie 
 
558  ROMANS  XI.  3,  4. 
 
 dieser  sterben  muss,  damit  jener  lierrsclie,  so  muss  auch  das 
 hlfifxa  frei  gemacht  werden  von  der  fremden  Schale,  in  der  er 
 wohnt,  um  sich  ausbreiten  zu  konnen.  Immer  ist  es  das 
 eigentliche  Yolk  (9,  6  ff.)  auf  das  alle  Verheisungen  gelien,  wie 
 der  unscheinbare  neue  Mensch  in  dem  ungeschlachtigen  alten 
 Menschen  allein  der  wahre  Mensch  ist." 
 
 Wot  ye  not  ivhat  the  Scripture  saith  of  Elias?  iv  'HXla,  in 
 Elias,  i.  e.,  in  the  section  which  treats  of  Elias,  or  which  is 
 designated  by  his  name.  Another  example  of  this  method  of 
 referring  to  Scripture  is  found  in  Mark  xii.  26,  "  In  the  bush 
 God  spake  unto  him;"  i.  e.,  in  the  section  which  treats  of  the 
 burning  bush.  This  method  of  quotation  is  common  with  the 
 Rabbins,  Surenh.  p.  493,  and  occurs  in  the  classic  writers. 
 IIoio  he  maJceth  intercession  to  Grod  against  Israel;  evzuy- 
 fjdvziv  means  to  approach  or  draw  near  to  any  one,  either  biikp^ 
 in  behalf  of  or  xard,  against.  The  latter  form  occurs  here 
 and  in  1  Mace.  x.  60. 
 
 Verse  3.  Lord,  they  have  killed  thy  prophets,  and  digged 
 down  thine  altars,  and  I  am  left  alone,  &c.  1  Kings  xix.  10. 
 Paul  gives  the  sense,  and  nearly  the  words  of  the  original.  The 
 event  referred  to  was  the  great  defection  from  the  true  religion, 
 and  the  murder  of  the  prophets  of  God,  under  the  reign  of 
 Ahab.  The  point  of  the  analogy  to  which  the  apostle  refers, 
 is,  that  although  then,  as  now,  the  defection  was  apparently 
 entire,  yet  many  unknown  of  men  remained  faithful,  and  escaped 
 the  doom  visited  on  the  nation  as  such.  iVs  the  law  allowed 
 only  one  altar,  and  that  at  Jerusalem,  it  has  been  asked.  How 
 the  prophet  could  speak  of  digging  down  the  altars  of  God,  as 
 though  there  were  many  ?  To  this  it  is  commonly  answered, 
 that  the  probability  is,  that  after  the  defection  of  the  ten 
 tribes,  many  altars  to  the  true  God  were  erected  in  secret 
 places,  by  those  who  adhered  to  the  religion  of  their  fathers, 
 and  which,  as  access  to  Jerusalem  was  impossible,  were 
 then  tolerated  by  the  prophets,  and  the  destruction  of  which, 
 out  of  hatred  to  the  true  religion,  was  evidence  of  apostacy 
 from  God. 
 
 Verse  4.  But  what  saith  the  answer  of  God  unto  him  f  I 
 have  reserved  to  myself  seven  thousand  men,  &c.  1  Kings  xix. 
 18.     Here   again  the  apostle  gives  the  sense  of  the  original, 
 
ROMAKS  XI    5.  559 
 
 with   slight  variations  both  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek.     In 
 the  LXX.,  the  future  xataXetipa)  is  used  where  Paul  has  the 
 aorist,   xaziXcT-.Tov.     Paul   also  inserts   the    pronoun    {kftaorw), 
 which  is  neither  in  the  Greek  nor  Hebrew.     "I  have  reserved 
 for  myself;"  i.  e.,  as  my  own  peculiar  people.     In  Kings,  God 
 threatens  the  general  destruction  of  the  people,  but  promises  to 
 reserve  seven  thousand,  who  had  not  gone  after  false  gods.    No 
 special  stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  number  seven,  as  the  whole 
 design  of  the  apostle  is  to  show  that  national  destruction  does 
 not  involve  the  destruction  of  the  true  people  of  God.     He 
 always   has    an   invisible  church  within  the  visible;    and  the 
 destruction  or  dispersion  of  the  latter  does  not  affect  the  for- 
 mer.    Ansiver  of  God,  -)(^pr^fxazca[i6<:,  divine  response,  or  oracle. 
 The  verb  yjrfjuati^co  occurs  in  Heb.  xii.  25,  xi.  7,  Matt.  ii.  12, 
 Luke  ii.  26,  Acts  x.  22.     Those  who  remained  faithful  in  the 
 time  of  Elias,  were  those  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal. 
 Baal  signifies  lord,  ruler,  and  is  used  as  the  designation  of  a 
 Phoenician  deity.     Among  the  Chaldeans  he  was  called  Bel,  or 
 Belus.     He  was  regarded  as  the  generative,  controlling  princi- 
 ple, of  which  the  sun  or  the  planet  of  Jupiter  was  the  symbol, 
 and  to  the  people  the  direct  object  of  worship.     With  him  was 
 associated  a  female  deity,  Ashtaroth,  the  Greek  Astarte,  called 
 queen  of  heaven,  the  moon.     But  as  Baal  was  also  associated 
 with  the  planet  Jupiter,  so  was  Ashtaroth  with  Venus.     In  this 
 passage    the    feminine  article  is   used  before    Baal,   r^  BdaL 
 This  is  explained  by  our  interpreters,  by  supposing  that  eixovi, 
 image,  is  omitted.     But  this  is  unsatisfactory,  not  only  because 
 if  such  ellipsis  occurred,  the  expression  would  properly  be,  t^ 
 vol)  DdaX ;  but  also  because  in  the  LXX.  and  the  Apocrypha, 
 Baal  has  repeatedly  the  feminine  article.    Zeph.  i.  4,  Hos.  ii.  8, 
 1  Sam.  vii.  4.     Some  say  this  is  done  in  the  way  of  contempt, 
 as  with  the  Rabbins  the  feminine  form  is  sometimes  thus  used. 
 There  is,  however,  no  special  indication  of  any  such  purpose  in 
 those  cases  where  the  feminine  article  occurs.     It  is  more  satis- 
 factory to  asume  that,  at  least  with  the  later  Hebrews,  both  the 
 active  generative  principle  in  nature,  and  the  passive,  or  birth- 
 giving  principle,  was  expressed  by  the  same  word ;  so  that  Baal 
 was  really  androgyne,  both  male  and  female. 
 
 Verse  5.     Even  so  then  at  this  present  time  also  there  is  a 
 
560  ROMANS  XL  6. 
 
 remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  As  in  the  days  of 
 Elias,  there  was  a  number  which,  although  small  in  comparison 
 with  the  whole  nation,  was  still  much  greater  than  appeared  to 
 human  eyes  who  remained  faithful,  so  at  the  present  time, 
 amidst  the  general  defection  of  the  Jews,  and  their  consequent 
 rejection  as  a  people,  there  is  a  remnant,  [Xelfifjta,  what  is  lefty 
 answering  to  xareXcnov  in  ver.  4,)  according  to  the  election  of 
 grace ;  that  is,  graciously  chosen.  The  election  was  gracious, 
 not  merely  in  the  sense  of  kind,  but  gratuitous,  sovereign,  not 
 founded  on  the  merits  of  the  persons  chosen,  but  the  good 
 pleasure  of  God.  This  explanation  of  the  term  is  given  by  the 
 apostle  himself  in  the  next  verse.  Remnant  according  to  the 
 gracious  election  is  equivalent  to  remnant  gratuitously  chosen; 
 see  chap.  ix.  11,  and  vs.  21,  24  of  this  chapter.  Paul,  there- 
 fore, designs  to  teach  that  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  not 
 total,  because  there  was  a  number  whom  God  had  chosen,  who 
 remained  faithful,  and  constituted  the  true  Israel  or  elected 
 people,  to  whom  the  promises  were  made.  As  in  the  days  of 
 Elias,  the  number  of  those  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to 
 Baal  was  far  greater  than  the  prophet  believed  it  to  be,  so  the 
 number  of  those  who  acknowledged  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  in 
 the  times  of  the  apostle,  was  much  larger  probably  than  is 
 generally  supposed.  The  apostle  James  speaks  of  many 
 myriads  [Tibom  fxopcddei;).  Acts  xxi.  20,  of  believing  Jews. 
 
 Verse  6.  And  if  hy  grace,  then  it  is  no  more  of  works; 
 otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace.  This  verse  is  an  exegetical 
 comment  on  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding  one.  If  the  elec- 
 tion spoken  of  be  of  grace,  it  is  not  founded  on  works,  for  the 
 two  things  are  incompatible.  It  evidently  was,  in  the  apostle's 
 view,  a  matter  of  importance  that  the  entire  freeness  of  the 
 election  of  men  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  the  Mes- 
 siah's kingdom,  should  be  steadily  kept  in  view.  He  would 
 not  otherwise  have  stopped  in  the  midst  of  his  discourse  to 
 insist  so  much  on  this  idea.  This  verse  serves  to  illustrate 
 several  declarations  of  the  apostle  in  the  preceding  chapter. 
 For  example,  ver.  11,  ii;i  which,  as  here,  men  are  said  to  be 
 chosen  in  a  sovereign  manner,  and  not  according  to  their 
 works.  It  is  obvious  ihoi  foreseen  works  are  as  much  excluded 
 as  any  other.     For  a  choice  founded  upon  the  foresight  of  good 
 
ROMANS  XI.  7.  561 
 
 works,  is  as  really  made  on  account  of  works  as  any  choice  can 
 be,  and,  consequently,  is  not  of  grace,  in  the  sense  asserted  by 
 the  apostle.  In  the  second  place,  the  choice  which  is  here 
 declared  to  be  so  entirely  gratuitous,  is  a  choice  to  the  kingdom 
 of  Christ.  This  is  evident  from  the  whole  context,  and  espe- 
 cially from  ver.  7.  It  was  from  this  kingdom  and  all  its  spirit- 
 ual and  eternal  blessings  that  the  Jews,  as  a  body,  were  reject- 
 ed, and  to  which  "the  remnant  according  to  the  election  of 
 grace"  was  admitted.  The  election,  therefore,  spoken  of  in  the 
 ninth  chapter,  is  not  to  external  privileges  merely. 
 
 The  latter  part  of  this  verse  is  simply  the  converse  of  the 
 former.  But  if  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more  grace ;  otherwise 
 work  is  no  more  work.  If  founded  on  any  thing  in  us,  it  is  not 
 founded  on  the  mere  good  pleasure  of  God.  If  the  one  be 
 affirmed,  the  other  is  denied.  This  clause  is  omitted  in  the 
 uncial  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  and  in  several  of  the  ancient 
 versions,  and  by  all  the  Latin  fathers.  On  these  grounds  it  is 
 rejected  as  a  gloss  by  Erasmus,  Grotius,  Wetstein,  Griesbach, 
 and  the  later  editors.  It  is  found,  however,  in  the  MS.  B., 
 and  in  the  Syriac  version,  both  of  which  are  important  author- 
 ities, and  is  retained  by  Beza  and  Bengel,  and  defended  by 
 Fritzfeche,  Tholuck,  and  others.  The  internal  evidence,  and  a 
 comparison  with  similar  passages,  as  Rom.  iv.  4,  Eph.  ii.  8,  9, 
 are  in  its  favour. 
 
 Verse  7.  What  then  ?  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which 
 he  seeketh  for :  hut  the  election  hath  obtained  it,  &c.  Seeketh, 
 i7rcC,yjTU  expresses  earnest  seeking,  and  the  use  of  the  present 
 tense  indicates  the  persistency  of  the  search.  The  Jews  zeal- 
 ous and  perseveringly  sought  after  righteousness.  They  failed, 
 however,  as  the  apostle  says,  because  they  sought  it  by  works. 
 This  verse  is  by  many  pointed  difierently,  and  read  thus, 
 "  What  then  ?  Hath  not  Israel  obtained  that  which  he  seek- 
 eth for?  nay,  but  the  election  have,"  &c.  The  sense  is  not 
 materially  different.  The  apostle  evidently  designs  to  state 
 the  result  of  all  he  had  just  been  saying.  Israel,  as  a  body, 
 have  not  attained  the  blessing  which  they  sought,  but  the 
 chosen  portion  of  them  have.  The  rejection,  therefore,  is  not 
 total,  and  the  promises  of  God  made  of  old  to  Israel,  which 
 contemplated  his  spiritual  people,  have  not  been  broken.  It  ia 
 36 
 
562  ROMANS  XI.  8. 
 
 clear,  from  the  whole  discourse,  that  the  blessing  sought  by  the 
 Jews  was  justification,  acceptance  Avith  God,  and  admission  into 
 his  kingdom;  see  chap.  x.  3,  ix.  30,  31.  This  it  is  which  they 
 failed  to  attain,  and  to  which  the  election  were  admitted.  It 
 was  not,  therefore,  external  advantages  merely  which  the 
 apostle  had  in  view.  The  election  means  those  elected ;  as  the 
 circumcision  means  those  who  are  circumcised.  The  election, 
 i.  e.,  reliquiae  ejus  populi,  quas  per  gratiam  suam  Deus 
 eligit. 
 
 And  the  rest  were  blinded.  The  verb  [encopiod-r^aav)  rendered 
 were  blinded,  properly  means  in  its  ground  form,  to  harden,  to 
 render  insensible,  and  is  so  translated  in  our  version,  Mark  vi. 
 52,  viii.  17,  John  xii.  40.  In  2  Cor.  iii.  14,  the  only  other 
 place  in  which  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  rendered  as 
 it  is  here.  It  is  used  in  reference  to  the  eyes  in  the  Septuagint, 
 Job  xvii.  7,  "My  eyes  are  dim  by  reason  of  sorrow."  Either 
 rendering,  therefore,  is  admissible,  though  the  former  is  pre- 
 ferable, as  more  in  accordance  with  the  usual  meaning  of  the 
 word,  and  with  Paul's  language  in  the  previous  chapters.  And 
 the  rest  tvere  hardened,  that  is,  were  insensible  to  the  truth  and 
 excellence  of  the  gospel,  and,  therefore,  disregarded  its  offers 
 and  its  claims.  This  Trcoptoac^  aflFected  the  understanding  as 
 well  as  the  heart.  It  was  both  blindness  and  obduracy.  The 
 passive  form  here  used,  may  express  simply  the  idea  that  they 
 became  hard,  or  the  reference  may  be  to  the  judicial  act  of  God, 
 see  ix.  18.  They  were  hardened  by  God,  i.  e.,  abandoned  by 
 him  to  the  hardness  of  their  own  hearts. 
 
 Verse  8.  According  as  it  is  tvritten,  God  hath  given  them 
 the  spirit  of  slumber,  eyes  that  they  should  not  see,  ears  that  they 
 should  not  hear.  This  passage,  as  is  the  case  with  ix.  33,  is 
 composed  of  several  passages  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  In 
 Isa.  vi.  9,  it  is  said,  "  Hear  ye  indeed,  but  understand  not ;  see 
 ye  indeed,  but  perceive  not;"  ver.  10,  "Lest  they  see  with 
 their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears."  Deut.  xxix.  4,  "Yet 
 the  Lord  hath  not  given  you  an  heart  to  perceive,  and  eyes  to 
 see,  and  ears  to  hear,  unto  this  day."  Isa.  xxix.  10,  "For  the 
 Lord  hath  poured  upon  you  the  spirit  of  deep  sleep,  and  hath 
 closed  your  eyes."  The  spirit,  and  to  some  extent,  the 
 language  of  these  passages,  Paul  cites  in  support  of  his  argu- 
 
ROMANS  XI.  9,  10.  563 
 
 ment.  They  are  in  part  descriptive  of  what  had  occurred  in 
 the  times  of  the  prophets,  and  in  part  prophetic  of  what  should 
 hereafter  occur,  and  are  therefore  applicable  to  the  character 
 and  conduct  of  the  Jews  during  the  apostolic  age.  See  Matt, 
 xiii.,  xiv.  The  design  of  such  citations  frequently  is  to  show 
 that  what  was  fulfilled  partially  in  former  times,  was  more  per- 
 fectly accomplished  at  a  subsequent  period.  The  Jews  had 
 often  before  been  hardened,  but  at  no  former  period  were  the 
 people  so  blinded,  hardened,  and  reprobate,  as  when  they 
 rejected  the  Son  of  God,  and  put  him  to  an  open  shame.  It 
 had  often  been  predicted  that  such  should  be  their  state  when 
 the  Messiah  came.  The  punitive  character  of  the  evils  here 
 threatened,  cannot  escape  the  reader's  notice.  This  blindness 
 and  hardness  were  not  mere  calamities,  nor  were  they  simply 
 the  natural  effects  of  the  sins  of  the  people.  They  were  puni- 
 tive inflictions.  They  are  so  denounced.  God  says,  I  will 
 give  you  eyes  that  see  not.  It  is  a  dreadful  thing  to  fall  into 
 the  hands  of  the  living  God.  The  strokes  of  his  justice  blind, 
 bewilder,  and  harden  the  soul.  The  words  even  unto  this  day^ 
 may,  as  by  our  translators,  be  connected  with  the  last  words 
 of  the  preceding  verse,  '  The  rest  were  blinded  even  unto  this 
 day.'  Or  they  may  be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  quotation, 
 as  they  occur  in  Deut.  xxix.  4. 
 
 Verses  9,  10.  And  David  saith,  Let  their  table  be  made  a 
 snare,  and  a  trap,  &c.  This  Psalm  (Ixix.)  is  referred  to  David 
 in  the  heading  prefixed  to  it,  and  the  propriety  of  the  reference 
 to  him  as  its  author  is  confirmed  both  by  external  and  internal 
 evidence.  See  Hengstenherg  s  Commentary  on  the  Psalms. 
 No  portion  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  is  more  frequently 
 referred  to,  as  descriptive  of  our  Lord's  sufi'erings,  than  the 
 Psalms  Ixix.  and  xxii.  There  is  nothing  in  this  Psalm  which 
 forbids  its  being  considered  as  a  prophetic  lamentation  of  the 
 Messiah  over  his  afflictions,  and  a  denunciation  of  God's  judg- 
 ments upon  his  enemies.  Verse  9,  "  The  zeal  of  thy  house 
 hath  eaten  me  up,"  and  ver.  21,  "They  gave  me  vinegar  to 
 drink,"  are  elsewhere  quoted  and  applied  to  Christ.  Viewed 
 in  this  light,  the  Psalm  is  directly  applicable  to  the  apostle's 
 object,  as  it  contains  a  prediction  of  the  judgments  which  should 
 befall  the  enemies  of  Christ.    Let  their  table  he,  is  only  another 
 
564  ROMANS  XL  1—10. 
 
 and  a  more  forcible  way  of  saying,  their  table  shall  he.  Isa. 
 xlvii.  5,  "Sit  thou  silent,  and  get  thee  into  darkness,  0 
 daughter  of  the  Chaldeans,"  for  'Thou  shalt  sit,  &c.'  And 
 so  in  a  multitude  of  cases  in  the  prophetic  writings.  In  the 
 Psalm,  indeed,  the  future  form  in  the  Hebrew  is  used,  though 
 it  is  correctly  rendered  by  the  Septuagint  and  in  our  version 
 as  the  imperative,  in  these  passages.  The  judgments  here  de- 
 nounced are  expressed  in  figurative  language.  The  sense  is, 
 their  blessings  shall  become  a  curse ;  blindness  and  weakness, 
 hardness  of  heart  and  misery  shall  come  upon  them.  This  last 
 idea  is  forcibly  expressed  by  a  reference  to  the  dimness  of 
 vision,  and  decrepitude  of  old  age ;  as  the  vigour  and  activity 
 of  youth  are  the  common  figure  for  expressing  the  results  of 
 God's  favour. 
 
 Even  if  the  Psalm  here  quoted  be  considered  as  referring 
 to  the  sorrows  and  the  enemies  of  the  sacred  writer  himself, 
 and  not  to  those  of  Christ,  it  would  still  be  pertinent  to  the 
 apostle's  object.  The  enemies  of  the  Psalmist  were  the 
 enemies  of  God ;  the  evils  imprecated  upon  them  were  impre- 
 cated on  them  as  such,  and  not  as  enemies  of  the  writer.  These 
 denunciations  are  not  the  expression  of  the  desire  of  private 
 revenge,  but  of  the  just  and  certain  judgments  of  God.  And 
 as  the  Psalmist  declared  how  the  enemies  of  God  should  be 
 treated,  how  dim  their  eyes  should  become,  and  how  their 
 strength  should  be  broken,  so,  Paul  says,  it  actually  occurs. 
 David  said,  let  them  be  so  treated,  and  we  find  them,  says  the 
 apostle,  suffering  these  very  judgments.  Paul,  therefore,  in 
 teaching  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jews,  the  rejectors  and 
 crucifiers  of  the  Son  of  God,  were  blinded  and  cast  away,  taught 
 nothing  more  than  had  already  been  experienced  in  various 
 portions  of  their  history,  and  predicted  in  their  prophets. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance. 
 The  people  whom  God  had  chosen  for  himself,  he  preserved 
 amidst  the  general  defection  of  their  countrymen,  vs.  1,  2. 
 
 2.  The  apparent  apostacy  of  a  church  or  community  from 
 God,  is  not  a  certain  test  of  the  character  of  all  the  individuals 
 of  which  it  may  be  composed.      In  the  midst  of  idolatrous 
 
ROMANS  XI.  1—10.  565 
 
 Israel,  there  were  many  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  unto 
 Baal.  Denunciations,  therefore,  should  not  be  made  too 
 general,  vs.  2 — 4. 
 
 3.  The  fidelity  of  men  in  times  of  general  declension  is  not 
 to  be  ascribed  to  themselves,  but  to  the  grace  of  God.  Every 
 remnant  of  faithful  men,  is  a  remnant  according  to  the  election 
 of  grace.  That  is,  they  are  faithful,  because  graciously  elected, 
 ver.  5. 
 
 4.  Election  is  not  founded  on  works,  nor  on  any  thing  in  its 
 objects,  but  on  the  sovereign  pleasure  of  God;  and  it  is  not  to 
 church  privileges  merely,  but  to  all  the  blessings  of  Christ's 
 kingdom,  vs.  6,  7. 
 
 5.  It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth  nor  of  him  that  runneth. 
 Israel,  with  all  their  zeal  for  the  attainment  of  salvation,  were 
 not  successful,  while  those  whom  God  had  chosen  attained  the 
 blessing,  ver.  7. 
 
 6.  Those  who  forsake  God,  are  forsaken  by  God.  In 
 leaving  him,  they  leave  the  source  of  light,  feeling,  and  happi- 
 ness, ver.  7. 
 
 7.  When  men  are  forsaken  of  God  all  their  powers  are  use- 
 less, and  all  their  blessings  become  curses.  Having  eyes,  they 
 see  not,  and  their  table  is  a  snare,  vs.  8 — 10. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  As  in  the  times  of  the  greatest  defection,  there  are  some 
 who  remain  faithful,  and  as  in  the  midst  of  apparently  apostate 
 communities,  there  are  some  who  retain  their  integrity,  we 
 should  never  despair  of  the  church,  nor  be  too  ready  to  make 
 intercession  against  Israel.  The  foundation  of  God  standeth 
 sure,  having  this  seal,  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his, 
 vs.  1 — 4. 
 
 2.  Those  only  are  safe  whom  the  Lord  keeps.  Those  who 
 do  not  bow  the  knee  to  Baal,  are  a  remnant  according  to  the 
 election  of  grace,  and  not  according  to  the  firmness  of  their 
 own  purposes,  vs.  5,  6. 
 
 3.  All  seeking  after  salvation  is  worse  than  useless,  unless 
 properly  directed.  Those  who  are  endeavouring  to  work  out  a 
 righteousness  of  their  own,  or  to  secure  the  favour  of  God  in 
 any  way  by  their  own  doings,  are  beating  the  air.     Success  is 
 
566  ROMANS  XI.  11—36. 
 
 to  be  obtained  only  by  submission  to  the  righteousness  of  God, 
 ver.  7. 
 
 4.  As  the  fact  that  any  attain  the  blessing  of  God  is  to  be 
 attributed  to  their  election,  there  is  no  room  for  self-compla- 
 cency or  pride ;  and  where  these  feelings  exist  and  are  cher- 
 ished in  reference  to  this  subject,  they  are  evidence  that  we  are 
 not  of  the  number  of  God's  chosen,  ver.  7. 
 
 5.  Men  should  feel  and  acknowledge  that  they  are  in  the 
 hands  of  God ;  that,  as  sinners,  they  have  forfeited  all  claim  to 
 his  favour,  and  lost  the  power  to  obtain  it.  To  act  persever- 
 ingly  as  though  either  of  these  truths  were  not  so,  is  to  set  our- 
 selves in  opposition  to  God  and  his  plan  of  mercy,  and  is  the 
 very  course  to  provoke  him  to  send  on  us  the  spirit  of  slumber. 
 This  is  precisely  what  the  Jews  did,  vs.  7,  8. 
 
 6.  Men  are  commonly  ruined  by  the  things  in  which  they 
 put  their  trust  or  take  most  delight.  The  whole  Mosaic  system, 
 with  its  rites  and  ceremonies,  was  the  ground  of  confidence 
 and  boasting  to  the  Jews,  and  it  was  the  cause  of  their  destruc- 
 tion. So,  in  our  day,  those  who  take  refuge  in  some  ecclesias- 
 tical organization  instead  of  Christ,  will  find  what  they  ex- 
 pected would  prove  their  salvation,  to  be  their  ruin.  So,  too, 
 all  misimproved  or  perverted  blessings  are  made  the  severest 
 curses,  vs.  9,  10. 
 
 ROMANS  XL  11—36. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 As  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  not  total,  so  neither  is  it 
 final.  They  have  not  so  fallen  as  to  be  hopelessly  prostrated. 
 First,  God  did  not  design  to  cast  away  his  people  entirely,  but, 
 by  their  rejection,  in  the  first  place,  to  facilitate  the  progress  of 
 the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  and  ultimately  to  make  the  con- 
 version of  the  Gentiles  the  means  of  converting  the  Jews,  ver. 
 11.  The  latter  event  is  in  itself  desirable  and  probable. 
 1.  Because  if  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  has  been  a  source  of 
 blessing,  much  more  will  their  restoration  be  the  means  of  good, 
 vs.  12,  15.  (The  verses  13,  14,  are  a  passing  remark  on  the 
 motive  which  influenced  the  apostle  in  preaching  to  the  Gen- 
 
ROMANS  XI.  11.  567 
 
 tiles.)  2.  Because  it  was  included  and  contemplated  in  the 
 original  election  of  the  Jewish  nation.  If  the  root  be  holy,  so 
 are  the  branches,  ver.  16. 
 
 The  breaking  oif  and  rejection  of  some  of  the  original 
 branches,  and  the  introduction  of  others  of  a  different  origin, 
 is  not  inconsistent  with  this  doctrine ;  and  should  lead  the  Gen- 
 tiles to  exercise  humility  and  fear,  and  not  boasting  or  exulta- 
 tion, vs.  17 — 22.  As  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  a  punish- 
 ment of  their  unbelief,  and  not  the  expression  of  God's  ultimate 
 purpose  respecting  them,  it  is,  as  intimated  in  ver.  16,  more 
 probable  that  God  should  restore  the  Jews,  than  that  he  should 
 have  called  the  Gentiles,  vs.  23,  24. 
 
 This  event,  thus  desirable  and  probable,  God  has  determined 
 to  accomplish,  vs.  25,  26.  The  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  the 
 privileges  of  God's  people  is  included  in  the  ancient  predictions 
 and  promises  made  respecting  them,  vs.  26,  27.  Though  now, 
 therefore,  they  are  treated  as  enemies,  they  shall  hereafter  be 
 treated  as  friends,  ver.  28.  For  the  purposes  of  God  do  not 
 alter;  as  his  covenant  contemplated  the  restoration  of  his 
 ancient  people,  that  event  cannot  fail  to  come  to  pass,  ver.  29. 
 The  plan  of  God,  therefore,  contemplated  the  calling  of  the 
 Gentiles,  the  temporary  rejection  and  final  restoration  of  the 
 Jews,  vs.  30—32.' 
 
 How  adorable  the  wisdom  of  God  manifested  in  the  plan  and 
 conduct  of  the  work  of  redemption  !  Of  him,  through  him,  and 
 to  him,  are  all  things ;  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever.  Amen. 
 vs.  33—36. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  11.  I  say  then,  Have  they  stumbled  that  they  should 
 fall?  G-od  forbid,  &c.  This  verse  begins  Avith  the  same 
 formula  as  the  first  verse  of  the  chapter,  and  for  the  same 
 reason.  As  there  the  apostle  wished  to  have  it  understood  that 
 the  rejection  of  God's  ancient  people  was  not  entire,  so  here  he 
 teaches  that  this  rejection  is  not  final.  That  this  is  the  mean- 
 ing of  the  verse  seems  evident,  1.  From  the  comparative  force 
 of  the  words  stumble  and/aZZ.  As  the  latter  is  a  much  stronger 
 term  than  the  former,  it  seems  plain  that  Paul  designed  it 
 should  here  be  taken  emphatically,  as  expressing  irrevocable 
 
568  ROMANS  XL  11. 
 
 ruin,  in  opposition  to  that  which  is  temporary/.  The  Jews  have 
 stumbled,  but  they  are  not  prostrated.  2.  From  the  context ; 
 all  that  follows  being  designed  to  prove  that  the  fall  of  the 
 Jews  was  not  final.  This  is  indeed  intimated  in  this  very  verse, 
 in  which  it  is  implied  that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  would 
 lead  to  the  ultimate  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  word  {irea-axTtv) 
 rendered  should  fall,  is  used  here  as  elsewhere  to  mean,  should 
 perish,  become  miserable,  Heb.  iv.  11.  The  particle  iva,  that, 
 here  as  usually,  expresses  design.  Have  the  Jews  stumbled, 
 in  order  that  they  should  fall  ?  There  are  two  views,  however, 
 as  to  the  meaning  of  the  passage.  The  first  is  that  just  men- 
 tioned, Was  it  the  design  of  God,  in  permitting  the  stumbling 
 of  the  Jews,  that  they  should  finally  perish  ?  In  other  words, 
 Was  their  rejection  designed  to  be  a  permanent  casting  them 
 out  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  ?  This  view  is  sustained  by  the 
 whole  subsequent  discussion,  in  which  the  apostle  proves  that 
 the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  are  to  be  converted.  The  other  inter- 
 pretation assumes  that  the  apostle  means  to  say,  that  the 
 design  of  God  in  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  was  not  so  much 
 their  punishment,  as  to  facilitate  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 
 '  Has  God  caused  or  allowed  them  to  stumble,  for  the  sake  of 
 punishing  them,  or  simply  that  they  should  fall  ?  By  no  means, 
 but,'  &c.  This  interpretation,  although  it  is  suited  to  the  verse, 
 considered  separately,  is  not  so  agreeable  to  the  context,  and 
 the  design  of  the  apostle.  It  is  not  his  object  in  what  follows, 
 to  prove  that  God  had  not  cast  off  his  people  for  the  simple 
 purpose  of  causing  them  to  suffer,  but  to  show  that  their  rejec- 
 tion was  not  final. 
 
 But  through  their  fall  salvation  has  come  unto  the  Grentiles. 
 The  stumbling  of  the  Jews  was  not  attended  with  the  result  of 
 their  utter  and  final  ruin,  but  was  the  occasion  of  facilitating 
 the  progress  of  the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles.  It  was,  there- 
 there,  not  designed  to  lead  to  the  former,  but  to  the  latter 
 result.  From  this  very  design  it  is  probable  that  they  shall  be 
 finally  restored,  because  the  natural  effect  of  the  conversion  of 
 the  Gentiles  is  to  provoke  the  emulation  of  the  Jews.  That 
 the  rejection  of  the  gospel  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  was  the 
 means  of  its  wider  and  more  rapid  spread  among  the  Gentiles, 
 seems  to  clearly  intimated  in  several   passages  of  the  New 
 
ROMANS  XL  11.  669 
 
 Testament.  "It  was  necessary,"  Paul  says  to  the  Jews,  "that 
 the  word  of  God  should  first  have  been  spoken  to  you;  but 
 seeing  ye  put  it  from  you,  and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of 
 eternal  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles."  Acts  xiii.  46.  And 
 in  Acts  xxviii.  28,  after  saying  that  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  was 
 fulfilled  in  their  unbelief,  he  adds,  "Be  it  known  therefore  unto 
 you,  that  the  salvation  of  God  is  sent  unto  them."  Compare 
 Isa.  xlix.  4 — 6.  The  Jews,  even  those  who  were  professors  of 
 Christianity,  were,  in  the  first  place,  very  slow  to  allow  the 
 gospel  to  be  preached  to  the  Gentiles ;  and  in  the  second,  they 
 appear  almost  uniformly  to  have  desired  to  clog  the  gospel  with 
 the  ceremonial  observances  of  the  law.  This  Avas  one  of  the 
 greatest  hinderances  to  the  progress  of  the  cause  of  Christ 
 during  the  apostolic  age,  and  would,  in  all  human  probability, 
 have  been  a  thousand-fold  greater,  had  the  Jews,  as  a  nation, 
 embraced  the  Christian  faith.  On  both  these  accounts,  the 
 rejection  of  the  Jews  was  incidentally  a  means  of  facilitating 
 the  progress  of  the  gospel.  Besides  this,  the  punishment  which 
 befell  them  on  account  of  their  unbelief,  involving  the  destruc- 
 tion of  their  nation  and  power,  of  course  prevented  their  being 
 able  to  forbid  the  general  preaching  of  the  gospel,  which  they 
 earnestly  desired  to  do.  1  Thess.  ii.  15,  16,  "They  please  not 
 God,  and  are  contrary  to  all  men ;  forbidding  us  to  preach  to 
 the  Gentiles,  that  they  might  be  saved." 
 
 For  to  provoke  them  to  jealousy.  As  the  result  and  design 
 of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  was  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles, 
 so  the  conversion  of  the  latter  was  designed  to  bring  about  the 
 restoration  of  the  former.  The  Gentiles  are  saved  in  order  to 
 provoke  the  Jews  to  jealousy.  That  is,  this  is  one  of  the  many 
 benevolent  purposes  which  God  designed  to  accomplish  by  that 
 event.  This  last  clause  serves  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the 
 apostle  in  the  former  part  of  the  verse.  He  shows  that  the 
 rejection  of  the  Jews  was  not  intended  to  result  in  their  being 
 finally  cast  away,  but  to  secure  the  more  rapid  progress  of  the 
 gospel  among  the  heathen,  in  order  that  their  conversion  might 
 react  upon  the  Jews,  and  be  the  means  of  bringing  all,  at  last, 
 within  the  fold  of  the  Redeemer.  To  provoke  to  jealousy, 
 7tapaC,r}X(j)(Tcu,  to  excite  emulation ;  i.  e.,  to  stimulate  to  follow. 
 The  word  is  not  to  be  taken  in  a  bad  sense,  notwithstanding 
 
570  ROMANS  XI.  12. 
 
 the  Ttapd.  All  the  apostle  intended  to  say  was,  that  he  hoped 
 the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  would  be  the  means  of  exciting 
 the  Jews  to  seek  salvation  in  the  gospel. 
 
 Verse  12.  Now,  if  tlce  fall  of  them  he  the  riches  of  the  world, 
 and  the  diminishing  of  them  the  riches  of  the  G-entiles,  hoio 
 much  more  their  fulness  ?  Although  there  is  considerable  diffi- 
 culty in  fixing  the  precise  sense  of  the  several  clauses  of  this 
 verse,  its  general  meaning  seems  sufficiently  obvious.  '  If  the 
 rejection  of  the  Jews  has  been  the  occasion  of  so  much  good  to 
 the  world,  how  much  more  may  be  expected  from  their  restora- 
 tion ?'  In  this  view  it  bears  directly  upon  the  apostle's  object, 
 which,  in  the  first  place,  is  to  show  that  the  restoration  of  the 
 Jews  is  a  probable  and  desirable  event.  There  is  in  the  verse 
 a  two-fold  annunciation  of  the  same  idea.  In  the  first,  the  sen- 
 tence is  incomplete.  '  If  the  fall  of  them  be  the  riches  of  the 
 world,  how  much  more  tJieir  recovery  ?  if  their  diminishing,  how 
 much  more  their  fulness?'  The  principal  difficulty  in  this  pas- 
 sage results  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  words  {fjrr/jixa  and 
 TzlripcoixfJ)  rendered  diminishing  and  fulness.  The  former  may 
 mean  feloness  or  irferiority,  a  condition  ivorse  than  that  of 
 others,  or  worse  than  a  former  one.  Those  who  adopt  the 
 former  of  these  senses,  understand  the  verse  thus :  '  If  the  few 
 Jews,  who  have  been  converted,  have  been  such  an  advantage 
 to  the  Gentiles,  how  much  more  will  the  great  multitude  of 
 them,  when  brought  to  Christ,  be  a  source  of  blessing.'  But 
 to  this  interpretation  it  may  be  objected,  1.  The  word  has 
 rarely,  if  ever,  the  meaning  here  assigned  to  it.  Passow  gives 
 it  no  such  signification  in  his  Lexicon.  The  cognate  verb  sig- 
 nifies, I  am  inferior  in  strength  or  condition  to  any  one.  2  Peter 
 ii.  19,  2  Cor.  xii.  13.  The  adjective  means  inferior,  ivorse: 
 1  Cor.  xi.  17,  "Ye  come  together  not  for  the  better,  but  for 
 the  worse."  The  only  place  in  which  the  word  here  used 
 occurs  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  is  1  Cor.  vi.  7,  "  There 
 is  utterly  a  fault  among  you,"  or  as  it  might  be  rendered,  '  It 
 is  an  injury  to  you.'  Such  too  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  in 
 the  Old  Testament:  Isa.  xxxi.  8,  "His  young  men  shall  be 
 discomfitted,"  which  expresses  the  sense  of  the  original;  and 
 so  does  the  Septuagint,  which  employs  the  word  used  by  the 
 apostle,  '  His  young  men  shall  be  brought  into  an  inferior  con- 
 
KOMANS  XL  12.  571 
 
 dition,'  i.  e.,  shall  be  conquered.  2.  This  interpretation  does 
 not  suit  the  context.  Paul  does  not  say  that  the  conversion 
 of  the  few  Jews  who  had  become  Christians,  had  been  the  occa- 
 sion of  good  to  the  Gentiles,  but  the  rejection  of  the  great  body 
 of  the  nation.  3.  It  does  not  at  all  suit  the  first  clause  of  the 
 verse.  The  fall  of  them,  ansAvers  to  and  explains  the  diminish- 
 ing of  them.  As  the  former  clause  cannot  receive  the  interpre- 
 tation objected  to,  neither  can  the  latter.  Tholuck  and  others 
 take  TjZTfjfia  in  a  moral  sense;  their  fault,  so  as  to  correspond 
 with  Ttapdntcofia.  But  this  would  make  the  two  clauses  of  the 
 verse  tautological,  and  destroy  the  antithesis  between  rjzrrjfxa 
 and  7:):f^pcop.a,  as  the  latter  cannot  mean,  their  goodness.  The 
 sense  is  clear  and  good  if  we  give  TjTZTjtxa  its  natural  meaning; 
 their  worse  estate,  or  loss.  The  Jews  lost  their  peculiar  privi- 
 leges and  blessings,  and  their  loss  was  the  riches  of  the  Gen- 
 tiles. It  enriched  them  by  being  the  means  of  transferring  to 
 them  the  treasures  of  the  gospel. 
 
 The  word  ■Klrjotoiicj.  has  various  senses  in  the  New  Testament. 
 It  properly  means  that  ivith  ivhich  anything  is  filled,  as  in  the 
 frequent  phrase,  the  fulness  of  the  earth,  or  of  the  sea,  &c.  So 
 fulness  of  the  Godhead,  all  that  is  in  God,  the  plenitude  of 
 Deity.  John  i,  16,  "Of  his  fulness  have  all  we  received;" 
 Eph.  iii.  19,  "  That  ye  might  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness  of 
 God."  It  also  means  the  complement  or  supplement  of  any- 
 thing, the  remaining  part;  see  Matt.  ix.  16.  So  in  Eph.  i.  33, 
 the  church  may  be  called  the  fulness  of  Christ,  because  he  is 
 the  head,  the  church  the  residue,  or  complement,  by  which  the 
 mystical  body  is  completed.  Of  these  several  meanings,  Storr 
 selects  the  last,  and  explains  the  verse  thus :  '  If  the  ruin  of 
 the  unbelieving  Jews  has  been  a  source  of  blessing  to  the  Gen- 
 tiles, how  much  more  shall  the  remaining  portion  of  the  nation, 
 i.  e.,  those  converted  to  Christianity,  be  the  means  of  good.' 
 But,  1.  This  interpretation  destroys  the  obvious  antithesis  of 
 the  sentence;  ''the  remaining  part"  does  not  answer  to  the 
 word  rendered  ruin,  as  it  obviously  should  do.  2.  It  is  not  in 
 accordance  with  the  context,  which  is  not  designed  so  much  to 
 set  forth  the  usefulness  of  the  Jews  then  converted,  as  to 
 declare  the  blessings  likely  to  be  consequent  on  the  final  con- 
 version of  the  whole  nation.    3.  A  comparison  of  this,  with  the 
 
572  ROMANS  XI.  13. 
 
 15th  verse,  is  unfavourable  to  this  interpretation.  These  verses 
 evidently  express  the  same  idea,  and  therefore  illustrate  each 
 other.  '  If  the  casting  away  of  them  be  the  occasion  of  recon- 
 ciling the  world,  what  will  the  receiving  of  them  be  ?'  &c. 
 Ver.  15.  Retaining  the  sense,  complement,  the  passage  admits 
 of  a  different  interpretation  from  that  given  by  Storr.  The 
 Jewish  nation  are  the  Ttk/jpcofia,  the  complement,  that  which 
 completes  the  whole  number  of  the  people  of  God.  A  rent,  or 
 loss  had  occurred  by  their  rejection ;  they  were,  however,  the 
 complemeyit  by  which  that  loss  was  to  be  made  good.  This  is 
 evidently  forced. 
 
 The  common  interpretation,  therefore,  is  to  be  preferred : 
 '  If  the  injury  or  ruin  of  the  Jews  has  been  the  occasion  of  good 
 to  the  Gentiles,  how  much  more  shall  their  full  restoration  or 
 blessedness  be?'  1.  This  agrees  with  the  antithesis,  'If  the 
 fall,  then  the  recovery;  if  the  ruin,  then  the  blessedness,'  &c. 
 2.  It  suits  the  context,  and  the  design  of  the  apostle.  3.  It  is 
 in  strict  accordance  with  the  obviously  parallel  passage  in  the 
 15th  verse,  just  quoted.  The  remark  of  Thomas  Aquinas  is 
 of  great  weight :  "Bonum  est  potentius  ad  utilitatem  inferen- 
 dam,  quam  malum,  sed  malum  Judserorum  gentilibus  magnam 
 utilitatem  contulit,  ergo  multo  majorem  confert  mundo  eorum 
 bonum."  The  izX-qpoiyia  of  the  Gentiles  is,  therefore,  that  which 
 fills  them,  and  renders  their  blessedness  full.  The  word  is  thus 
 retained  in  its  ordinary  sense. 
 
 Verse  13.  For  I  speak  to  you  G-entiles,  inasmuch  as  I  am 
 the  apostle  to  the  G-entiles.  This  and  the  following  verse  con- 
 tain a  transient  remark  relating  to  the  apostle's  own  feelings 
 and  mode  of  acting  in  reference  to  the  subject  in  hand.  His 
 readers  were  not  to  suppose,  that  because  he  was  the  apostle  to 
 the  Gentiles,  his  labours  had  no  reference  to  the  Jews,  or  that 
 he  was  unconcerned  about  their  salvation.  This  passage  is 
 therefore  connected  with  the  last  clause  of  the  preceding  verse, 
 in  which  Paul  had  said  that  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was 
 adapted  and  designed  to  bring  about  the  restoration  of  the 
 Jews.  These  two  events,  instead  of  being  at  all  inconsistent, 
 were  intimately  related,  so  that  both  ought  to  be  kept  con- 
 stantly in  view,  and  all  efforts  to  promote  the  former  had  a 
 bearing  on  the  accomplishment  of  the  latter.     This  being  the 
 
ROMANS  XI.  14.  573 
 
 case,  the  Gentiles  ought  to  consider  the  restoration  of  the  Jews 
 as  in  no  respect  inimical  to  their  interests,  but  as  on  every 
 account  most  desirable.  Paul  therefore  says,  that  what  he  had 
 just  stated  in  reference  to  the  effect  on  the  Jews,  of  the  con- 
 version of  the  Gentiles,  be  designed  specially  for  the  latter. 
 He  wished  them  to  consider  that  fact,  as  it  would  prevent  any 
 unkind  feelings  towards  the  Jews.  He  had  the  better  right 
 thus  to  speak,  as  to  him,  especially,  "  the  gospel  of  the  uncir- 
 cumcision  had  been  committed."  He  himself,  in  all  he  did  to 
 secure  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles,  or  to  render  his  office  suc- 
 cessful, had  an  eye  to  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  word 
 {oo^d^u))  rendered  /  magnify,  means,  first,  to  praise,  to  estimate 
 and  speak  highly  of  a  thing ;  secondly,  to  render  glorious,  as 
 chap.  viii.  30,  "Whom  he  justifies,  them  he  also  glorifies;"  and 
 80  in  a  multitude  of  cases.  Either  sense  of  the  word  suits  this 
 passage.  The  latter,  however,  is  much  better  adapted  to  the 
 following  verse,  and  therefore  is  to  be  preferred :  '  I  endeavour 
 to  render  my  office  glorious  by  bringing  as  many  Gentiles  as 
 possible  into  the  Redeemer's  kingdom ;  if  so  be  it  may  provoke 
 and  arouse  my  countrymen.'  His  magnifying  his  office  con- 
 sisted in  the  faithful  discharge  of  its  duties  ;  and  in  thus  labour- 
 ing assiduously  for  the  salvation  of  the  Gentiles,  he  aimed  also 
 at  the  salvation  of  the  Jews.  "Sic  gentes  alloquitur:  Quum 
 sim  vobis  peculiariter  destinatus  apostolus  ideoque  salutem 
 vestram  mihi  commissam  singulari  quodam  studio  debeam  pro- 
 curare,  et  quasi  rebus  omnibus  omissis  unum  illud  agere :  officio 
 tamen  meo  fideliter  fungar,  si  quos  e  mea  gente  Christo  lucri- 
 fecero :  idque  erit  in  gloriam  ministerii  mei,  atque  adeo  in 
 vestrum  bonum."  Calvin.  The  object  of  the  apostle,  therefore, 
 in  these  verses,  is  to  declare  that  he  always  acted  under  the 
 influence  of  the  truth  announced  at  the  close  of  the  12th  verse. 
 He  endeavoured  to  make  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  a  means 
 of  good  to  the  Jews. 
 
 Verse  14.  If  hy  any  means  I  may  provoke  to  emulation  them 
 which  are  my  flesh,  and  might  save  some  of  them.  This  is  the 
 reason  (of  course  one  among  many)  why  Paul  desired  the  con- 
 version of  the  Gentiles.  If  the  two  events,  the  salvation  of 
 both  classes,  were  intimately  related,  there  was  no  ground  of 
 ill  feeling  on  either  part.     The  Gentiles  need  not  fear  that  the 
 
bU  ROMANS  XL  15. 
 
 restoration  of  the  Jews  would  be  injurious  to  them,  as  though 
 the  happiness  of  one  class  were  incompatible  with  that  of  the 
 other. 
 
 Verse  15.  -For  if  the  casting  aioay  of  them  he  the  reconciling 
 of  the  world,  what  shall  the  receiving  of  them  be  hut  life  from 
 the  dead  ?  Although  Paul  here  returns  to  the  sentiment  of  the 
 12th  verse,  this  passage  is  logically  connected  with  the  pre- 
 ceding. The  apostle  had  said,  that  even  in  labouring  for  the 
 Gentiles,  he  had  in  view  the  salvation  of  the  Jcavs  ;  for  if  their 
 rejection  had  occasioned  so  much  good,  how  desirable  must  be 
 their  restoration.  If  the  casting  aivay  of  them  he  the  recon- 
 ciling of  the  world.  The  reconciliation  here  spoken  of  is  that 
 which  Paul  so  fully  describes  in  Eph.  ii.  11 — 22.  A  reconcilia- 
 tion by  which  those  who  were  aliens  and  strangers  have  been 
 brought  nigh ;  reconciled  at  once  to  the  church,  the  common- 
 wealth of  Israel,  and  to  God  himself,  "by  the  blood  of  Christ." 
 This  event  has  been  facilitated,  as  remarked  above,  by  the 
 rejection  of  the  Jews;  what  will  the  restoration  of  the  Jews 
 then  be,  hut  life  from  the  dead?  That  is,  it  will  be  a  most 
 glorious  event ;  as  though  a  new  world  had  risen,  not  only  glo- 
 rious in  itself,  but  in  the  highest  degree  beneficial  to  the  Gen- 
 tiles. De  Brais  and  many  others  suppose  that  the  apostle 
 refers  to  the  future  declension  of  the  Gentile  church,  from 
 which  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  shall  be  the  means  of  arous- 
 ing them.  Of  such  an  allusion,  however,  there  is  no  intimation 
 in  the  text.  The  most  common  and  natural  interpretation  is 
 that  which  considers  the  latter  clause  as  merely  a  figurative 
 expression  of  a  joyful  and  desirable  event.  The  conversion  of 
 the  Jews  will  be  attended  with  the  most  glorious  consequences 
 for  the  whole  world. 
 
 Not  only  in  the  Scriptures,  but  also  in  profane  literature,  the 
 transition  from  a  state  of  depression  and  misery,  to  one  of  pros- 
 perity, is  expressed  by  the  natural  figure  of  passing  from  death 
 to  life.  The  Old  Testament  prophets  represented  the  glorious 
 condition  of  the  theocracy,  consequent  on  the  coming  of  Christ, 
 in  contrast  with  its  previous  condition,  as  a  rising  from  the 
 dead.  This  interpretation  of  the  passage  before  us,  is  adopted 
 by  many  of  the  best  commentators,  ancient  and  modern.  There 
 are,  however,  two  other  views  presented.     According  to  some, 
 
ROMANS  XI.  15.  575 
 
 the  life  here  spoken  of  is  strictly  spiritual  life,  and  the  dead 
 from  which  it  springs  are  the  spiritually  dead.  The  meaning 
 Avould  then  be,  that  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  would  be  the 
 occasion,  or  the  means,  of  awakening  many  of  the  Gentiles  to 
 spiritual  life.  This  idea,  however,  is  included  in  the  former 
 interpretation,  because  the  summa  felioitas,  the  state  of  great 
 prosperity  which  the  church  is  to  enjoy  when  the  Jews  are 
 restored,  is  a  religious  prosperity.  It  supposes  the  conversion 
 of  great  multitudes  of  men,  and  the  general  spread  and  power 
 of  the  gospel.  But  this  does  not  justify  us  in  confining  the 
 words  to  this  spiritual  sense.  The  latter  clause,  according  to 
 this  view,  expresses  no  more  than  the  former  clause.  The 
 reconciliation  of  the  ivorld,  implies,  of  course,  the  conversion  of 
 multitudes  of  men,  and  the  prevalence  of  true  religion.  The 
 life  from  the  dead,  is  more  than  this.  It  is  not  only  a  greater 
 measure  of  the  former  blessing,  but  a  glorious  and  happy  con- 
 dition therewith  connected,  and  consequent  thereon.  The  other 
 view  of  the  passage  is  that  given  by  Chrysostom,  and  adopted 
 by  many  of  the  best  modern  commentators,  as  Tholuck  (in  his 
 second  edition,)  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others.  It  assumes  that 
 ^coTj  ix  vzxpcov  {life  from  the  dead,)  refers  to  the  resurrection 
 of  the  dead.  The  idea  is,  that  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  is 
 the  condition  precedent  of  that  great  event.  When  the  Jews 
 are  converted,  then  comes  the  resurrection  and  the  consumma- 
 tion of  Christ's  kingdom.  But  nowhere  else  in  Scripture  is  the 
 literal  resurrection  expressed  by  the  words  (^w>^  ix  vexpcou. 
 Had  Paul  intended  a  reference  to  the  resurrection,  no  reason 
 can  be  assigned  why  he  did  not  employ  the  established  and 
 familiar  words,  avdaraatz  ix  psxpcou.  If  he  meant  the  resurrec- 
 tion, why  did  he  not  say  so  ?  Why  use  a  general  phrase,  which 
 is  elsewhere  used  to  express  another  idea?  Besides  this,  it  is 
 not  according  to  the  analogy  of  Scripture,  that  the  resurrection 
 of  the  dead,  and  the  change  in  those  who  shall  be  then  alive, 
 (1  Cor.  XV.  51,  1  Thess.  iv.  14 — 18,)  are  to  be  immediate,  con- 
 sequent on  the  conversion  of  the  Jews.  The  resurrection  is 
 not  to  occur  until  ''the  end."  A  new  state  of  things,  a  new 
 mode  of  existence,  is  to  be  then  introduced.  Flesh  and  blood, 
 i.  e.,  our  bodies  as  now  organized,  (the  (rcopa  </)U^a6u,)  cannot 
 inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.     They  are  not  suited  for  the  state 
 
576  ROMANS  XI.  16. 
 
 of  being  which  is  to  follow  the  resurrection.  If,  therefore,  the 
 world  is  to  continue  after  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  that  event 
 will  not  inaugurate  the  resurrection. 
 
 Verse  16.  For  if  the  first-fruits  he  holy,  the  lump  is  also 
 holy;  and  if  the  root  he  holy,  so  also  are  the  hranches.  Under 
 two  striking  and  appropriate  figures,  the  apostle  expresses  the 
 general  idea,  'If  one  portion  of  the  Jewish  people  is  holy,  so 
 also  is  the  other.'  With  regard  to  this  interesting  passage,  the 
 first  point  to  be  settled  is  the  allusion  in  the  figurative  expres- 
 sion in  the  first  clause.  The  Jews  were  commanded  to  offer  a 
 certain  portion  of  all  the  productions  of  the  earth  to  God,  as 
 an  expression  of  gratitude  and  acknowledgment  of  depend- 
 ence. This  offering,  called  the  first-fruits,  was  to  be  made, 
 first,  from  the  productions  in  their  natural  state  (Ex.  xxiii.  19 ;) 
 and,  secondly,  from  the  meal,  wine,  oil,  and  dough,  as  prepared 
 for  use.  Num.  xv.  20,  "  Of  the  first  of  your  dough  ye  shall 
 give  unto  the  Lord  a  heave-offering  in  all  your  generations;" 
 Neh.  x.  37,  Deut.  xviii.  14.  If  the  allusion  of  the  apostle  is 
 to  the  former  of  these  offerings,  then  the  firstfruits  must  refer 
 to  a  portion  of  the  harvest  or  vintage  presented  to  God,  and  the 
 lump  to  the  residue  of  the  grain  or  grapes.  If  the  allusion  be 
 to  the  second,  then  the  firstfruits  mean  the  portion  of  dough 
 offered  to  God,  and  the  lump  the  residue  of  the  mass.  The 
 latter  is  undoubtedly  most  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the 
 word  {(popa/ia)  used  by  the  apostle,  which  can  hardly  be  under- 
 stood as  referring  to  heaps  of  grain,  or  other  productions  of  the 
 earth.  In  either  case,  however,  the  purport  of  the  illustration 
 is  the  same. 
 
 A  second  question  is.  Who  are  intended  by  the  first-fruits 
 and  the  root,  and  by  the  lump  and  the  branches,  in  these  two 
 figures  ?  With  respect  to  this  question,  the  following  are  the 
 most  common  and  plausible  answers:  1.  The  first-fruits  are 
 understood  to  mean  the  Jews  first  converted  to  the  Christian 
 faith,  who  became,  as  it  were,  the  root  of  the  Christian  church. 
 According  to  this  view  of  the  passage,  the  apostle  designs  to 
 say,  '  Since  the  first  converts  to  the  gospel  were  Jews,  it  is 
 evident  that  the  nation,  as  such,  is  not  cast  off  by  God ;  as  a 
 portion  of  them  is  holy  (or  have  been  accepted  of  God,)  so  may 
 the  residue  be.'     2.  By  the  first-fruits  and  the  root,  may  be 
 
ROMANS  XL  16.  *  577 
 
 understood  the  patriarchs,  the  forefathers  of  the  Jews ;  and  bj 
 the  lump  and  the  branches,  the  residue  of  the  nation,  or  the 
 Jews  as  a  people.  That  this  latter  is  the  true  meaning  of  the 
 passage  seems  very  evident:  1.  Because  this  interpretation 
 alone  preserves  the  propriety  of  the  figure.  How  can  the 
 unconverted  Jews  or  the  Jewish  nation  be  called  the  branches 
 of  the  portion  that  became  followers  of  Christ  ?  The  Gentile 
 Christians  might  be  so  called,  but  not  the  Jewish  people,  as 
 such.  On  the  other  hand,  nothing  is  more  natural  than  to  call 
 the  ancestors    the  root,  and  their  descendants  the  branches. 
 
 2.  This  interpretation  best  suits  the  design  of  the  apostle.  He 
 wishes  to  show  that  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  which  he  had 
 declared  to  be  so  desirable  for  the  Gentiles,  was  a  probable 
 event.  He  proves  this  by  referring  to  the  relation  of  their 
 ancestors  to  God.  If  they  were  the  peculiar  people  of  God, 
 their  descendants  may  be  regarded  as  his  also,  since  the  cove- 
 nant was   not   with  Abraham  only,   but  also  with  his    seed. 
 
 3.  This  is  the  apostle's  own  explanation  in  ver.  28,  where  the 
 unconverted  Jews,  or  Hebrew  nation,  as  such,  are  said  to  be 
 "beloved  for  the  father's  sake."  4.  This  interpretation  alone 
 can  be  consistently  carried  through  the  following  verses.  The 
 Gentile  Christians  are  not  said  (ver.  17)  to  be  grafted  into  the 
 stock  of  the  converted  Jews,  but  as  branches  with  them  they 
 are  united  to  a  common  stock.  And  the  stock  into  which  the 
 branches,  now  broken  off,  are  to  be  again  grafted,  is  not  the 
 Jewish  part  of  the  Christian  church,  but  the  original  family  or 
 household  of  God. 
 
 The  word  {dyeo^)  rendered  holt/,  which  properly  means  dean, 
 is  used  in  two  general  senses  in  the  Scriptures :  1.  Consecrated; 
 2.  Pure.  In  the  former  of  these,  it  is  applied,  times  without 
 number,  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  persons,  places,  and  things 
 considered  as  peculiarly  devoted  to  the  service  of  God.  So  the 
 whole  Jewish  people,  without  reference  to  their  moral  charac- 
 ter, are  called  a  holy  people.  So,  too,  the  temple,  tabernacle, 
 and  all  their  contents,  were  called  holy,  &c.  The  use  of  the 
 word  in  this  sense,  in  reference  to  places  and  things,  is  not 
 unfrequent  in  the  New  Testament.  Matt.  iv.  5,  where  Jerusa- 
 lem is  called  the  "holy  city;"  see  Matt.  vii.  6,  xxiv.  15,  xxvii. 
 63,  and  often.  It  is,  however,  rarely  so  used  in  relation  to 
 37 
 
578  '  ROMANS  XI.  17. 
 
 persons.  In  the  vast  majority  of  instances,  when  thus  applied, 
 it  means,  morally  pure;  yet,  in  some  cases,  it  signifies,  devoted 
 to  God.  Luke  ii.  23,  "Every  male  that  openeth  the  womb 
 shall  be  called  holy  unto  the  Lord."  Perhaps,  too,  in  the 
 expressions,  "the  holy  prophets,"  Luke  i.  70,  and  "holy  apos- 
 tles," Eph.  iii.  5,  the  reference  is  rather  to  their  relation  to 
 God,  as  persons  devoted  to  his  service,  than  to  their  moral  cha- 
 racter. In  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  the  children  of  professing  Christians 
 are  called  "holy,"  not  in  reference  to  their  moral  condition, 
 but  their  relation  to  the  church.  In  like  manner,  in  this  pas- 
 sage, the  Jews,  as  a  people,  are  called  holy,  because  peculiarly 
 consecrated  to  God,  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world  for 
 his  service.* 
 
 The  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding,  its  import 
 and  bearing  on  the  apostle's  object  are  therefore  clear.  The 
 restoration  of  the  Jews,  which  will  be  attended  with  such  bene- 
 ficial results  for  the  whole  world,  is  to  be  expected,  because  of 
 their  peculiar  relation  to  God  as  his  chosen  people.  God,  in 
 selecting  the  Hebrew  patriarchs,  and  setting  them  apart  for  Ms 
 service,  had  reference  to  their  descendants,  as  well  as  to  them- 
 selves ;  and  designed  that  the  Jews,  as  a  people,  should,  to  the 
 latest  generations,  be  specially  devoted  to  himself.  They  stand 
 now,  therefore,  and  ever  have  stood,  in  a  relation  to  God  which 
 no  other  nation  ever  has  sustained ;  and,  in  consequence  of  this 
 relation,  their  restoration  to  the  divine  favour  is  an  event  in 
 itself  probable,  and  one,  which  Paul  afterwards  teaches  (ver. 
 25,)  God  has  determined  to  accomplish. 
 
 Verses  17 — 24.  The  object  of  these  verses  is  to  make  such 
 an  application  of  the  truths  which  Paul  had  just  taught  as 
 should  prevent  any  feeling  of  exultation  or  triumph  of  the  Gen- 
 tile Christians  over  the  Jews.  It  is  true  that  the  Jews  have 
 been  partially  rejected  from  the  church  of  God;  that  the  Gen- 
 tiles have  been  introduced  into  it ;  and  that  the  Jews  are  ulti- 
 mately to  be  restored.    These  things,  however,  afford  no  ground 
 
 *  Non  est  mirum,  si  in  patre  buo  Judgei  sanctificati  sint.  Nihil  hie  erit 
 difficultatis,  si  sanctitatem  intelligas  nihil  esse  aliud,  quam  spiritualem  gene- 
 ris nobilitatem,  et  earn  quidem  non  propriam  naturse,  sed  quae  ex  foedere 
 manabat.  .  .  .  Electi  populi  dignitas,  proprie  loquendo,  supernaturale  priyi- 
 legium  est. —  Calvin. 
 
ROMANS  XI.  17.  579 
 
 )f  boasting  to  the  Gentiles,  but  rather  cause  of  thankfulness 
 ind  caution.  Paul  illustrates  these  truths  by  a  very  appropri- 
 ate figure. 
 
 Verse  17.  And  if  some  of  the  branches  he  broken  off,  and 
 thou,  being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,  &c. 
 The  words  iu  abrol^  may  refer  to  the  branches  in  general, 
 and  be  rendered  as  in  our  version,  among  them;  or  they  may 
 refer  to  the  rejected  branches,  uud  be  rendered,  in  their  place. 
 *  Some  of  the  branches  have  been  broken  off,  and  you  have  been 
 inserted  in  their  place.'  The  purport  of  the  passage  is  plain. 
 Some  of  the  Jews  were  broken  off  and  rejected ;  the  Gentiles, 
 though  apparently  little  susceptible  of  such  a  blessing,  were 
 introduced  into  the  church,  and  made  to  partake  of  all  its  pecu- 
 liar and  precious  privileges.  The  Jewish  church  is  compared 
 to  the  olive  tree,  one  of  the  most  durable,  productive,  and 
 valuable  of  the  productions  of  the  earth,  because  it  was  highly 
 favoured,  and  therefore  valued  in  the  sight  of  God.  The  Gen- 
 tiles are  compared  to  the  wild  olive,  one  of  the  most  worthless 
 of  trees,  to  express  the  degradation  of  their  state,  considered 
 as  estranged  from  God.  As  it  is  customary  to  engraft  good 
 scions  on  inferior  stocks,  the  nature  of  the  product  being  deter- 
 mined by  the  graft,  and  not  the  root,  it  has  been  thought  that 
 the  illustration  of  the  apostle  is  not  very  apposite.  But  the 
 difficulty  may  result  f  om  pressing  the  comparison  too  far.  The 
 idea  may  be  simply  this,  'As  the  scion  of  one  tree  is  engrafted 
 into  another,  and  has  no  independent  life,  but  derives  all  its 
 vigour  from  the  root,  so  the  Gentiles  are  introduced  among  the 
 people  of  God,  not  to  confer  but  to  receive  good.'  It  is  how- 
 ever said,  on  the  authority  of  ancient  writers  and  of  modern 
 travellers,  to  have  been  not  unusual  to  graft  the  wild  on  the 
 cultivated  olive.*  Even  if  this  were  so,  it  would  not  be  perti- 
 nent to  the  apostle's  object.  He  does  not  mean  to  say,  that  the 
 graft  imparts  life  and  vigour  to  the  root,  but  the  very  reverse. 
 There  is  no  necessity  for  departing  from  the   common  view. 
 
 *  Columella  de  Re  rustica,  V.  9.  Solent  terebrari  olese  laetse,  in  foramen 
 talea  viridis  oleastri  demittitur,  et  sic  velut  inita  arbor  foecundo  semine  fer- 
 tilior  exstat. 
 
 Palladids  de  Re  rustica,  XIV.  53.  Foecundat  sterilis  pinguis  oleaster 
 olivas,  et  quae  non  novit  munera  ferre  docet. 
 
580  ROMANS  XI.  18—20. 
 
 The  Gentiles  are  saved  by  their  introduction  into  that  church 
 of  which  the  patriarchs  were  the  root. 
 
 It  is  plain  from  this  verse,  that  the  root  in  this  passage  can- 
 not be  the  early  converts  from  among  the  Jews,  but  the  ancient 
 covenant  people  of  God.  The  ancient  theocracy  was  merged 
 in  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  The  latter  is  but  an  enlargement 
 and  elevation  of  the  former.  There  has,  therefore,  never  been 
 other  than  one  family  of  God  on  earth,  existing  under  different 
 institutions,  and  enjoying  different  degrees  of  light  and  favour. 
 This  family  was  composed,  of  old,  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
 Jacob,  and  their  descendants.  At  the  advent,  its  name  and 
 circumstances  were  changed;  many  of  its  old  members  were 
 cast  out,  and  others  introduced,  but  it  is  the  same  family  still. 
 Or,  to  return  to  the  apostle's  illustration,  it  is  the  same  tree, 
 some  of  the  branches  only  being  changed. 
 
 Verse  18.  Boast  not  thyself  against  the  branches;  xara- 
 yjiuyaoiiat  means,  to  boast  against,  in  the  sense  of  glorying  over 
 any  one.  But  if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the 
 root  thee.  A  concise  expression,  for.  If  thou  boast,  (i.  e.,  art 
 disposed  to  do  it.)  consider  that  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  &c. 
 The  Gentiles  had  been  brought  into  fellowship  with  the  patri- 
 archs, not  the  patriarchs  with  them.  Salvation  was  from  the 
 Jews.  The  truth  that  the  Jews  were  the  channel  of  blessings 
 to  the  Gentiles,  and  not  the  reverse,  was  adapted  to  prevent  all 
 ungenerous  and  self-confident  exultation  of  the  latter  over  the 
 former. 
 
 Yerse  19.  You  will  say  then,  The  branches  were  broken  offy 
 that  I  might  be  grafted  in.  The  apostle  guards  against  a  fur- 
 ther ground  of  self-complacency  on  the  part  of  the  Gentiles. 
 Although  forced  to  admit  that  the  root  bore  him,  and  not  he 
 the  root,  yet  he  might  pride  himself  on  the  fact,  that  the 
 branches  were  broken  off,  and  he  put  in  their  place.  To  this  it 
 is  answered,  that  the  Gentiles  are  not  authorized  to  infer,  from 
 the  fact  that  the  Jews  were  rejected,  and  they  chosen,  that  this 
 occurred  on  the  ground  of  their  being  in  themselves  better  than 
 the  Jews.  The  true  reason  of  this  dispensation  is  assigned  in 
 the  next  verse. 
 
 Verse  20.  Well,  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  &c. 
 The  fact  that  they  were  broken  off  is  admitted,  but  the  infer- 
 
ROMANS  XI.  21,  22.  581 
 
 ence  drawn  by  the  Gentiles  is  denied.  It  was  not  for  any 
 personal  considerations  that  the  one  was  rejected  and  the  other 
 chosen.  The  Jews  were  rejected  because  they  rejected  the 
 Saviour,  and  the  only  tenure  by  which  the  advantages  of  a 
 covenant  relation  to  God  can  be  retained  is  faith.  The  Gen- 
 tiles will  not  be  secure,  because  Gentiles,  any  more  than  the 
 Jews  were  safe,  because  Jews.  Instead,  therefore,  of  being 
 high-minded,  they  should  fear. 
 
 Verse  21.  If  G-od  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take 
 heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  The  clause,  fxq-Kio^  odds  ah 
 (ptioTjTW,  must  depend  on  something  understood.  Our  trans- 
 lators supply  ^XeTZtTt,  take'  heed;  others,  (foj^ou/iai,  I  fear. 
 The  Gentile  has  even  more  reason  to  fear  than  the  Jew  had. 
 It  was  in  itself  far  more  probable  that  God  would  spare  a 
 people  so  long  connected  with  him  in  the  most  peculiar  manner, 
 than  that  he  should  spare  those  who  had  no  such  claims  on  his 
 mercy.  The  idea  intended  to  be  expressed  by  this  verse  pro- 
 bably is,  that  the  Jews,  from  their  relation  to  God,  were  more 
 likely  to  be  spared  than  the  Gentiles,  inasmuch  as  God  is 
 accustomed  to  bear  long  with  the  recipients  of  his  mercy,  before 
 he  casts  them  off;  even  as  a  father  bears  long  with  a  son, 
 before  he  discards  him  and  adopts  another. 
 
 Verse  22.  Behold,  therefore,  the  goodness  and  severity/  of 
 God:  on  them  which  fell,  severity/;  but  on  thee,  goodness. 
 Instead  of  the  accusatives  d~0T0fiiau  and  ypr^axoxr^ra,  Lach- 
 mann  and  Tischendorf  read  a-Koxonia  and  '^pT^ax6T-q(^.  If  this 
 reading  be  adopted,  iax'tv  must  be  supplied.  '  Towards  the  one 
 class  there  is  severity,  towards  the  other  kindness.'  The  effect 
 which  the  consideration  of  these  dispensations  of  God  should 
 produce,  is  gratitude  and  fear.  Gratitude,  in  view  of  the  favour 
 which  we  Gentiles  have  received,  and  fear  lest  we  should  be  cut 
 off;  for  our  security  does  not  depend  upon  our  now  enjoying 
 the  blessings  of  the  church  of  God,  but  is  dependent  on  our 
 continuing  in  the  divine  goodness  or  favour,  (Rom.  iii.  4,  Titus 
 iii.  4,)  that  is,  on  our  doing  nothing  to  forfeit  that  favour;  its 
 continuance  being  suspended  on  the  condition  of  our  fidelity. 
 If  thou  continue  in  {his)  goodness,  kav  iTri/usiufj^  xrj  y^pr^axox-qxi, 
 is  sometimes  explained  to  mean,  if  thou  continue  in  goodness, 
 i.  e.,  in  being  good,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  following 
 
582  ROMANS  XI.  23. 
 
 clause,  prq  erriftecvcoae  rfj  dncaria,  if  they  continue  ?iot  in  unbe- 
 lief. But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  context.  The  -^^pr^/rzoTrj^ 
 spoken  of,  is  the  goodness  or  love  of  God.  Compare  Acts 
 xiii.  43,  Tifjoafjtsuecv  t9j  ydpcrc  tou  0sou,  to  remain  in  the  grace 
 of  Grod.  "Otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off,"  eTzsc  xai  oh 
 ixxoTt^cQ,  since,  in  that  case,  (i.  e.,  if  thou  continuest  not  in  his 
 goodness,)  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off;  sxxoTtrjorj,  second  future 
 indicative  passive.  There  is  nothing  in  this  language  incon- 
 sistent with  the  doctrine  of  the  final  perseverance  of  believers, 
 even  supposing  the  passage  to  refer  to  individuals ;  for  it  is 
 very  common  to  speak  thus  hypothetically,  and  say  that  an 
 event  cannot,  or  will  not  come  to  pass,  unless  the  requisite 
 means  are  employed,  when  the  occurrence  of  the  event  had 
 been  rendered  certain  by  the  previous  purpose  and  promise  of 
 God;  see  Acts  xxvii.  31.  The  -foundation  of  all  such  state- 
 ments is  the  simple  truth,  that  He  who  purposes  the  end,  pur- 
 poses also  the  means ;  and  he  brings  about  the  end  by  securing 
 the  use  of  the  means.  And  when  rational  agents  are  concerned, 
 he  secures  the  use  of  the  means  by  rational  considerations  pre- 
 sented to  their  minds,  and  rendered  effectual  by  his  grace,  when 
 the  end  contemplated  is  good.  This  passage,  however,  has  no 
 legitimate  bearing  on  this  subject.  Paul  is  not  speaking  of  the 
 connection  of  individual  believers  with  Christ,  which  he  had 
 abundantly  taught  in  chap.  viii.  and  elsewhere,  to  be  indissolu- 
 ble, but  of  the  relation  of  communities  to  the  church  and  its 
 various  privileges.  There  is  no  promise  or  covenant  on  the 
 part  of  God,  securing  to  the  Gentiles  the  enjoyment  of  these 
 blessings  through  all  generations,  any  more  than  there  was  any 
 such  promise  to  protect  the  Jews  from  the  consequences  of  their 
 unbelief.  The  continuance  of  these  favours  depends  on  the 
 conduct  of  each  successive  generation.  Paul  therefore  says  to 
 the  Gentile,  that  he  must  continue  in  the  divine  favour,  "  other- 
 wise thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off." 
 
 Verse  23.  And  they  also,  if  they  bide  not  in  unbelief,  shall 
 be  graffed  in,  &c.  The  principle  which  the  apostle  had  just 
 stated  as  applicable  to  the  Gentiles,  is  applicable  also  to  the 
 Jews.  Neither  one  nor  the  other,  simply  because  Jew  or  Gen- 
 tile, is  either  retained  in  the  church  or  excluded  from  it.  As 
 the  one  continues  in  this  relation  to  God,  only  on  condition  of 
 
ROMANS  XI.  24.  583 
 
 faith,  so  the  other  is  excluded  by  his  unbelief  alone.  Nothing 
 but  unbelief  prevents  the  Jews  being  brought  back,  "for  God 
 IS  able  to  graflf  them  in  again."*  That  is,  not  merely  has  God 
 the  power  to  accomplish  this  result,  but  the  difficulty  or  impedi- 
 ment is  not  in  him,  but  solely  in  themselves.  There  is  no 
 inexorable  purpose  in  the  divine  mind,  nor  any  insuperable 
 obstacle  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  which  forbids  their 
 restoration ;  on  the  contrary,  the  event  is,  in  itself  considered, 
 far  more  probable  than  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 
 
 Verse  24.  For  if  tliou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive-tree  loliich  is 
 wild  by  nature,  and  wert  graffed  contrary  to  nature  into  a  good 
 olive-tree;  liow  much  more,  kc.  The  connection  indicated  by 
 yap  (for,)  is  not  Avith  the  preceding  clause,  Crod  is  able  to  graff 
 them  in  again,  because  what  follows  does  not  prove  the  power 
 of  God  to  restore  the  Jews  to  their  ancient  privileges,  but  that 
 their  restoration  is  a  probable  event.  The  connection,  there- 
 fore, is  with  the  main  idea  in  the  context,  as  expressed  in 
 ver.  23,  "They  shall  be  graffed  in."  This  may  be  expected, 
 he  says,  for,  &c.  The  Gentiles  were  of  the  wild  olive,  having 
 no  natural  connection  with  the  tree  into  which  they  were 
 graffed.  The  Jews  were  its  natural  branches.  In  itself  con- 
 sidered, therefore,  their  reunion  with  their  native  stalk  was 
 more  probable  than  the  graffing  in  of  the  Gentiles.  The  oppo- 
 sition, however,  between  xava  (fuacv  and  napa  (foaiu,  does  not 
 refer  to  any  natural  fitness  of  the  Jews,  as  a  race,  for  the  true 
 religion,  in  opposition  to  the  unsuitableness  of  the  Gentiles. 
 According  to  the  Scriptures,  there  is  no  difference,  so  far  as 
 their  relation  to  God  is  concerned,  between  the  different  races 
 of  men,  since  all  have  sinned.  They  are  all  alike  unfit  for  the 
 service  and  enjoyment  of  God,  and  alike  unable  to  save  them- 
 selves. And,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  alike  susceptible  of 
 the  salvation  of  the  gospel,  which  is  adapted  to  all  classes  of 
 men.  The  words  in  question  are  used  only  to  preserve  the 
 figure  of  a  tree  and  its  branches.  The  simple  meaning,  there- 
 fore, of  this  verse  is,  that  the  future  restoration  of  the  Jews  is, 
 
 *  Frigidum  apud  homines  profanes  argumentum  hoc  foret.  ...  At  quia 
 fideles  quoties  Dei  potentiam  nominari  audiunt,  quasi  prsesens  opus  intuen- 
 tur,  hanc  rationem  satis  putavit  valere,  ad  percellendas  eorum  mentes. — 
 Calvin. 
 
584  ROMANS  XI.  25. 
 
 in  itself,  a  more  probable  event  than  the  introduction  of  the 
 Gentiles  into  the  church  of  God.  This,  of  course,  supposes 
 that  God  regarded  the  Jews,  on  account  of  their  relation  to 
 him,  with  peculiar  favour,  and  that  there  is  still  something  in 
 their  relation  to  the  ancient  servants  of  God,  and  his  covenant 
 with  them,  which  causes  them  to  be  regarded  with  special 
 interest.  As  men  look  upon  the  children  of  their  early  friends 
 with  kinder  feelings  than  on  the  children  of  strangers,  God 
 refers  to  this  fact  to  make  us  sensible  that  he  still  retains  pur- 
 poses of  peculiar  mercy  towards  his  ancient  people.  The 
 restoration  of  this  people,  therefore,  to  the  blessings  of  the 
 church  of  God,  is  far  from  being  an  improbable  event. 
 
 Verse  25.  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  have  you  ignorant  of 
 this  mystery,  lest  ye  should  he  wise  in  your  own  conceits,  that 
 blindness  in  part  has  happened  unto  Israel,  until  the  fulness 
 of  the  Q-entiles  be  come  in.  Although  the  interpretations  given 
 of  this  and  the  following  verses  are  very  numerous,  they  are  all 
 modifications  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  following  general 
 views  of  the  passage.  1.  Many  understand  the  apostle  as  not 
 predicting  any  remarkable  future  conversion  of  the  Jewish 
 nation,  but  merely  declaring  that  the  hardening  or  blinding  of 
 the  nation,  was  not  such  as  to  prevent  many  Jews  entering  the 
 Christian  church,  as  long  as  the  Gentiles  continued  to  come  in. 
 Thus  all  the  true  Israel,  embracing  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles, 
 should  ultimately  be  saved.  2.  The  second  general  view  sup- 
 poses the  apostle,  on  the  contrary,  to  predict  a  great  and  gene- 
 ral conversion  of  the  Jewish  people,  which  should  take  place 
 when  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  had  been  brought  in,  and  that 
 then,  and  not  till  then,  those  prophecies  should  be  fully  accom- 
 plished which  speak  of  the  salvation  of  Israel.  The  former  of 
 these  views  was  presented,  in  different  forms,  by  the  great  body 
 of  the  authors  who  lived  about  the  time  of  the  Reformation ; 
 who  were  led  by  the  extravagancies  of  the  Millenarians,  who 
 built  much  on  this  passage,  to  explain  away  its  prophetic 
 character  almost  entirely.*     Olshausen,  in  order  to  show  the 
 
 *  Wolfius,  in  his  Curse,  gives  an  account  of  the  authors  who  discuss  the 
 meaning  of  this  and  the  following  verses,  as  Calovius  in  Bibliis  lUustratis ; 
 Buddeus  in  Institutio  Theol.  Dog.,  p.  672.  Wolfius  himself  says,  "Contextus 
 saadet  credere,  Paulum  id  hie  tantum  agere,  ut  couversi  e  Gentilibua  non 
 
ROMANS  XI.  25.  585 
 
 hostile  feeling  entertained  by  the  Reformers  towards  the  Jews, 
 quotes  a  passage  from  Luther,  which  does  not  admit  of  trans- 
 lation: "Ein  judisch  Herz  ist  so  stoch-stein-eisen-teufelhart, 
 das  mit  keiner  Weise  zu  bewegen  ist ; — es  sind  junge  Teufel  zur 
 Holle  verdammt,  diese  Teufelskinder  zu  bekehren  ist  unmbg- 
 lich,  wie  etliche  solchen  Wahn  schbpfen  aus  der  Epistel  an  die 
 Rbmer." 
 
 The  second  view  has  been  the  one  generally  received  in  every 
 age  of  the  church,  with  the  exception  of  the  period  just  referred 
 to.  That  it  is  the  correct  interpretation,  appears  evident  for 
 the  following  reasons :  1.  The  whole  context  and  drift  of  the 
 apostle's  discourse  is  in  its  favour.  In  the  preceding  part  of 
 the  chapter,  Paul,  in  the  plainest  terms,  had  taught  that  the 
 conversion  of  the  Jews  was  a  probable  event,  and  that  it  would 
 be  in  the  highest  degree  beneficial  and  glorious  for  the  whole 
 world.  This  idea  is  presented  in  various  forms ;  and  practical 
 lessons  are  deduced  from  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  he 
 contemplated  something  more  than  merely  the  silent  addition 
 of  a  few  Israelites  to  the  church  during  successive  ages.  2.  It 
 is  evident  that  Paul  meant  to  say,  that  the  Jews  were  to  be 
 restored  in  the  sense  in  which  they  were  then  rejected.  They 
 were  then  rejected  not  merely  as  individuals,  but  as  a  commu- 
 nity, and  therefore  are  to  be  restored  as  a  community ;  see 
 vs.  11,  15.  How  can  the  latter  passage  (ver.  15,)  especially, 
 be  understood  of  the  conversion  of  the  small  number  of  Jews 
 which,  from  age  to  age,  have  joined  the  Christian  Church? 
 This  surely  has  not  been  as  "life  from  the  dead,"  for  the  whole 
 world.  3.  It  is  plain  from  this  and  other  parts  of  the  dis- 
 course, that  Paul  refers  to  a  great  event ;  something  which 
 should  attract  universal  attention.  4.  In  accordance  with  this 
 idea,  is  the  manner  of  introducing  this  verse,  I  would  not  have 
 you  ignorant,  brethren;  see  1  Cor.  x.  1,  xii.  1,  and  elsewhere. 
 Paul  uses  this  form  of  address  when  he  wishes  to  rouse  the 
 attention  of  his  readers  to  something  specially  important. 
 5.  The  gradual  conversion  of  a  few  Jews  is  no  mystery,  in  the 
 scriptural  sense  of*  the  word.     The  word  fiuar^piov,  secret,  is 
 
 exlstiment,  Judaeis  omnem  spem  ad  Christum  in  posterum  perveniendi  prae- 
 cisam  esse,  sed  ita  potius  statuant,  ipsis  non  minus  ceteris  Gentilibus,  nondum 
 couTersis,  viam  patere,  qua  ad  Christum  perducantur." 
 
586  ROMANS  XI.  25. 
 
 not  generally  used,  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  sense  of  the 
 word  mystery.  It  means  simply,  what  is  hidden,  or  unknown ; 
 whether  because  it  is  an  unrevealed  purpose  of  God ;  or 
 because  it  is  future ;  or  because  it  is  covered  up  in  parables  or 
 symbols,  (as  the  mystery  of  the  seven  candlesticks,  Rev.  i,  20 ;) 
 or  because  it  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  the  human  mind.  Eph. 
 V.  32.  It  is  only  in  the  last-mentioned  case  that  [xoazrjpcov 
 answers  to  our  word  mystery.  Whatever  needs  an  ojioyAhjipi^^ 
 to  become  an  object  of  knowledge,  is  a  fxuavrjpcov.  It  is  there- 
 fore used  in  reference  to  all  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  which 
 are  not  the  truths  of  reason,  but  matters  of  divine  revelation; 
 Rom.  xvi.  25,  1  Cor.  ii.  7,  iv.  1,  Eph.  vi.  19,  &c.  Hence  minis- 
 ters are  called  stewards  of  the  mysteries  (i.  e.,  of  the  revela- 
 tions) of  God.  It  is  also  used  of  some  one  doctrine,  considered 
 as  previously  unknown  and  undiscoverable  by  human  reason, 
 however  simple  and  intelligible  in  its  own  nature.  Thus,  the 
 fact  that  the  Gentiles  should  be  admitted  into  the  church  of 
 God,  Paul  calls  a  mystery,  Eph.  i.  9,  iii.  4.  Any  future  event, 
 therefore,  which  could  be  known  only  by  divine  revelation,  is  a 
 mystery.  The  fact  that  all  should  not  die,  though  all  should 
 be  changed,  was  a  mystery,  1  Cor.  xv.  51.  In  like  manner, 
 here,  when  Paul  says,  "I  would  not,  brethren,  have  you  igno- 
 rant of  this  mystery,"  he  means  to  say,  that  the  event  to  which 
 he  referred,  was  one  which,  depending  on  no  secondary  cause, 
 but  on  the  divine  purpose,  could  be  known  only  by  divine  reve- 
 lation. This  description  is  certainly  far  more  suitable  to  the 
 annunciation  of  a  prophecy,  than  to  the  statement  of  a  fact 
 which  might  have  been  confidently  inferred  from  what  God  had 
 already  revealed.  6.  The  words,  all  Israel,  in  the  next  verse, 
 cannot,  as  the  first  interpretation  mentioned  above  would 
 require,  be  understood  of  the  spiritual  Israel;  because  the 
 word  is  just  before  used  in  a  different  sense,  "  blindness  in  part 
 has  happened  unto  Israel."  This  blindness  is  to  continue  until 
 a  certain  time,  when  it  is  to  be  removed,  and  then  all  Israel  is 
 to  be  saved.  It  is  plain,  that  Israel  in  these  cases  must  be 
 understood  as  referring  to  the  same  class  of  persons.  This  is 
 also  clear  from  the  opposition  between  the  terms  Israel  and 
 Gentile.  7.  The  words  {o-xpc^  ou,)  correctly  rendered  in  our 
 version,  until,  cannot,  so  consistently  with  usage,  be  translated, 
 
ROMANS  XI.  25.  587 
 
 as  long  as,  or  so  that,  followed  as  they  are  here  by  the  aorist 
 subjunctive ;  see  Rev.  xv.  8,  xvii.  17 ;  compare  Heb.  iii.  13. 
 8.  The  following  verses  seem  to  require  this  interpretation. 
 The  result  contemplated  is  one  which  shall  be  a  full  accomplish- 
 ment of  those  prophecies  which  predicted  the  salvation  of  the 
 Jews.  The  reason  given  in  vs.  28,  29,  for  the  event  to  which 
 Paul  refers,  is  the  unchangeableness  of  God's  purposes  and 
 covenant.  Having  once  taken  the  Jews  into  special  connection 
 with  himself,  he  never  intended  to  cast  them  off  for  ever.  The 
 apostle  sums  up  his  discourse  by  saying,  'As  the  Gentiles  were 
 formerly  unbelieving,  and  yet  obtained  mercy,  so  the  Jews  who 
 now  disbelieve,  shall  hereafter  be  brought  in ;  and  thus  God 
 will  have  mercy  on  all,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.'  From  all 
 these  considerations,  it  seems  obvious  that  Paul  intended  here 
 to  predict  that  the  time  would  come  when  the  Jews,  as  a  body, 
 should  be  converted  unto  the  Lord;  compare  2  Cor.  iii.  16. 
 The  prediction  contained  in  this  verse  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
 context.  The  rejection  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ,  did 
 not  involve  the  perdition  of  every  individual  of  that  nation. 
 Thousands,  and  even  myriads,  believed  and  were  saved.  So  the 
 restoration  here  foretold  is  not  to  be  understood  as  including 
 every  individual  of  the  Jewish  people,  but  simply  that  there  is 
 to  be  a  national  restoration. 
 
 Lest  ye  should  he  wise  in  your  own  conceits.  This  is  given 
 as  the  reason  why  the  apostle  wished  the  Gentiles  to  know  and 
 consider  the  event  which  he  was  about  to  announce.  This 
 clause  may  mean  either,  '  Lest  ye  proudly  imagine  that  your 
 own  ideas  of  the  destiny  of  the  Jews  are  correct;'  or,  'Lest  ye 
 be  proud  and  elated,  as  though  you  were  better  and  more 
 highly  favoured  than  the  Jews.'  The  former  is  perhaps  most 
 in  accordance  with  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  [kv  kauroci; 
 (ffioucfxoi ;)  see  Prov.  iii.  7. 
 
 Blindness  in  part,  i.  e.,  partial  blindness ;  partial  as  to  its 
 extent  and  continuance.  Because  not  all  the  Jews  were  thus 
 blinded,  nor  was  the  nation  to  remain  blind  for  ever.  The 
 words  d/TO  ftspoo^  are  not  to  be  connected  with  7C(i)pa)ac<;,  nor 
 with  Tw  lapa-qX;  but  with  ykyo\Jzv.  'Blindness  has  partially 
 happened  to  Israel.'  The  reference,  however,  is  not  to  the 
 degree,  but  to  the  continuance  of  this  blindness.    It  is  not  final 
 
588  ROMANS  XI.  25. 
 
 and  hopeless;  it  is  only  for  a  time.  The  word  {7zc6pco(Ti;\ 
 rendered  blindness,  is  more  correctly  rendered,  in  Mark 
 iii.  5,  hardness;  compare  Eph.  iv.  16;  see  ver.  7,  and  chap. 
 ix.  18. 
 
 Until  the  fulness  of  the  G-entiles  be  come  in.     Until,  d^pci;  oh, 
 marks  the  terminus  ad  quern.     This  blindness  of  Israel  is  to 
 continue  until  something  else  happened.     There  were  to  be,  and 
 have  been  numerous  conversions  to  Christianity  from  among  the 
 Jews,  in  every  age  since  the  advent;  but  their  national  conver- 
 sion is  not  to  occur  until  the  heathen  are  converted.     What, 
 however,  is  definitely  meant  by  the  TtXrjpcofxa  toju  l&vojv,  it  is 
 not  easy  to  determine.     The  question  is  not  to  be  decided  by 
 the  mere  signification  of  the  words.    In  whatever  way  they  may 
 be  explained,  the  general  idea  is  the  same.     The  nXrjpcoiia  of 
 the  Gentiles  may  mean,  that  which  makes  the  Gentiles,  as  to 
 number,  full.     Or,  according  to  others,  the  Gentiles  themselves 
 are  the  TtXTjpwpia,  i.  e.,  the  complement;   they  make  full  the 
 vacancy  left  by  the  rejection  of  the  Jews.     Or,  as  is  commonly 
 assumed,  nXrjpojpLa  is  be  taken  in  a  secondary  sense,  for  multi- 
 tude.   Compare  Gen.  xlviii.  19:  "Multitude  (literally  fulness) 
 of  nations;"  and  Isa.  xxxi.  4,  "Multitude  (fulness)  of  shep- 
 herds."    This  does  not  mean  the  totality  of  the  Gentiles.    It  is 
 not  Paul's  doctrine,  that  all  Gentiles  who  ever  lived  are  to  be 
 introduced  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ.    Nor  does  it  mean,  that 
 all  the  Gentiles  who  may  be  alive  when  the  Jews  are  converted, 
 shall  be  true  Christians.     All  that  can  be  safely  inferred  from 
 this  language  is,  that  the  Gentiles,  as  a  body,  the  mass  of  the 
 Gentile  world,  will  be  converted  before  the  restoration  of  the 
 Jews,  as  a  nation.     Much  will  remain  to  be  accomplished  after 
 that  event;    and  in  the  accomplishment  of  what   shall   then 
 remain  to  be  done,  the  Jews  are  to  have  a  prominent  agency. 
 Their  conversion  will  be  as  life  from  the  dead  to  the  church. 
 We  must  remember,  that  Paul  is  here  speaking  as  a  prophet, 
 iv  (XTioxaXixpzc,  1  Cor.  xiv.  6,  and  therefore  his  language  must  be 
 interpreted  by  the  rules  of  prophetic  interpretation.     Prophecy 
 is  not  proleptic  history.    It  is  not  designed  to  give  us  the  know- 
 ledge of  the  future  which  history  gives  us  of  the  past.     Great 
 events   are  foretold;  but  the  mode  of  their  occurrence,  their 
 details,  and  their  consequences,  can  only  be  learned  by  the 
 
ROMANS  XI.  26.  689 
 
 event.     It  is  in  the  retrospect  that  the  foreshadowing  of  the 
 future  is  seen  to  be  miraculous  and  divine. 
 
 Verse  26.  And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,  as  it  is  written. 
 Israel,  here,  from  the  context,  must  mean  the  Jewish  people, 
 and  all  Israel,  the  whole  nation.  The  Jews,  as  a  people,  are 
 now  rejected ;  as  a  people,  thej  are  to  be  restored.  As  their 
 rejection,  although  national,  did  not  include  the  rejection  of 
 every  individual ;  so  their  restoration,  although  in  like  manner 
 national,  need  not  be  assumed  to  include  the  salvation  of  every 
 individual  Jew.  /7dc  loparjX  is  not  therefore  to  be  here  under- 
 stood to  mean,  all  the  true  people  of  God,  as  Augustin,  Calvin, 
 and  many  others  explain  it ;  nor  all  the  elect  Jews,  i.  e.,  all  that 
 part  of  the  nation  which  constitute  "  the  remnant  according  to 
 the  election  of  grace;"  but  the  whole  nation,  as  a  nation. 
 
 In  support  of  what  he  had  said,  the  apostle  appeals  to  the 
 Old  Testament  prophecies.  It  is  probable  that  here,  as  else- 
 where, he  does  not  intend  to  refer  exclusively  to  any  one  predic- 
 tion, but  to  give  the  general  sense  of  many  specific  declarations 
 of  the  ancient  prophets.  Isa.  lix.  20,  21,  xxvii.  9,  Jer.  xxxi. 
 31 — 34,  Ps.  xiv.  7,  are  the  passages  which  seem  to  have  been 
 immediately  before  the  apostle's  mind,  and  to  have  given  colour 
 to  his  language.  In  Isa.  lix.  20,  it  is  said,  "The  Redeemer 
 shall  come  to  Zion,  and  unto  them  that  turn  from  transgression 
 in  Jacob."  Instead  of  kx  laov,  out  of  Zion,  the  LXX.  have 
 £i^v/.tv  luov,  for  the  sake  of  Zion,  the  English  version,  to  Zion. 
 In  Ps.  xiv.  7,  it  is,  out  of  Zion.  The  latter  part  of  the  verse,  as 
 given  by  Paul,  does  not  agree  with  the  Hebrew,  which  is  cor- 
 rectly rendered  in  our  version,  "  To  such  as  turn  from  trans- 
 gression (literally,  to  the  converts  of  transgression)  in  Jacob." 
 Paul  follows  the  LXX.,  xal  d.T:oaTpi(pec  aas^da^  dnb  Ifixcb^, 
 and  shall  turn  iniquity  from  Jacob.  In  Isa.  xxvii.  9,  the  phrase 
 is,  "the  iniquity  of  Jacob  shall  be  purged."  The  general  idea 
 expressed  in  these  passages  is,  "  The  God,  the  deliverer,  shall 
 come  for  the  salvation  of  Jacob,"  i.  e.,  of  the  Jews.  And  this 
 is  all  that  Paul  desired  to  establish  by  these  ancient  prophecies. 
 The  apostle  teaches,  that  the  deliverance  promised  of  old,  and 
 to  which  the  prophet  Isaiah  referred  in  the  passage  above  cited, 
 included  much  more  than  the  conversion  of  the  comparatively 
 few  Jews  who  believed  in   Christ   at   the   advent.     The  full 
 
590  ROMANS  XI.  27,  28. 
 
 accomplishment  of  the  promise,  that  he  should  turn  away 
 ungodliness  from  Jacob,  contemplated  the  conversion  of  the 
 whole  nation,  as  such,  to  the  Lord.  We  are,  of  course,  bound 
 to  receive  the  apostle's  interpretation  as  correct;  and  there  is 
 the  less  difficulty  in  this,  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  original 
 passage  at  all  incompatible  with  it,  and  as  it  accords  with  the 
 nature  of  God's  covenant  with  his  ancient  people. 
 
 Verse  27.  For  this  is  my  covenant  unto  tliem;  wjtzt]  wjxotz  -^ 
 nap  ijuod  oia&qxq^  this  for  them  is  the  covenant  which  proceeds 
 from  me.  In  the  Hebrew  it  is  simply,  my  covenant;  so  that 
 Tzap  ipoo  is  for  the  genitive.  See,  however,  Winer,  iii.,  §  30. 
 The  pronoun  auzT^,  this,  is  to  be  referred  to  what  follows ;  this 
 is  my  covenant,  (ovau,  when,)  that  1  will  take  away  their  sins. 
 The  demonstrative  pronoun  may  be  followed,  and  its  reference 
 determined,  by  ha,  John  xvii.  3 ;  idp,  1  John  ii.  3 ;  and  as  in 
 this  case,  and  in  1  John  v.  2,  by  ordu.  The  quotation  in  this 
 verse,  as  that  in  ver.  26,  is  not  from  any  one  place.  The  words, 
 This  is  my  covenant  with  them,  occur  in  Isa.  lix.  21 ;  the  clause, 
 When  I  shall  take  away  their  sins,  is  from  Isa.  xxvii.  9,  as  ren- 
 dered by  the  LXX.,  Avho  give  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew,  "Their 
 iniquity  shall  be  purged;"  or,  literally,  to  take  away  his  sin. 
 All  the  apostle  intended  to  prove,  is  proved  by  the  language  of 
 the  prophets.  The  covenant  of  God  with  his  ancient  people 
 secured,  after  their  apostacy  and  consequent  banishment  in 
 Babylon,  and  their  dispersion  over  the  earth,  and  their  rejec- 
 tion of  Christ,  the  ultimate  purging  away  of  their  sin,  and  their 
 restoration,  as  a  nation,  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  This 
 national  conversion  is  also  predicted  in  Zech.  xii.  10,  and  in 
 many  other  passages  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 Verse  28.  As  concerning  the  gospel,  they  are  enemies  for 
 your  sokes;  hut  as  touching  the  election,  they  are  beloved  for  the 
 fathers'  sakes.  In  this  and  the  few  following  verses,  the  apostle 
 sums  up  what  he  had  previously  taught.  The  Jews,  he  says, 
 were  now,  as  far  as  the  gospel  was  concerned,  regarded  and 
 treated  as  enemies,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Gentiles;  but,  in 
 reference  to  the  election,  they  were  still  regarded  as  the  pecu- 
 liar people  of  God,  on  account  of  their  connection  with  the 
 patriarchs.  TJiey  are  enemies,  whether  of  the  gospel,  of  the 
 apostle,  or  of  God,  is  not  expressed,  and  therefore  depends  on 
 
EOMANS  XI.  29.  591 
 
 the  context.  Each  view  of  the  clause  has  its  advocates.  The 
 last  is  the  correct  one,  because  they  are  enemies  to  him,  by 
 whom,  on  one  account,  they  are  beloved.  The  word  ey&poi  may 
 be  taken  actively  or  passively;  see  v.  10>  They  are  inimical 
 to  GorT,  or  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as  enemies  by  him. 
 The  latter  best  suits  the  context.  They  are  now  aliens  from 
 their  own  covenant  of  promise. 
 
 As  concerning  the  gospel,  xara  to  iuayjiXcou,  tha^  is,  the 
 gospel  is  the  occasion  of  their  being  regarded  as  enemies.  This 
 is  explained  by  a  reference  to  vs.  11,  15.  By  their  punishment 
 the  progress  of  the  gospel  has  been  facilitated  among  the  Gen- 
 tiles ;  and  therefore  the  apostle  says,  it  is  for  your  sakes  they 
 are  thus  treated.  On  the  other  hand,  xara  ds  tt]v  i'/.loyrjv^  as 
 it  regards  the  election,  or  the  covenant  of  God,  they  are  still 
 regarded  with  peculiar  favour,  because  descended  from  those 
 patriarchs  to  whom  and  to  whose  seed  the  promises  were  made. 
 This  is  bat  expressing  in  a  different  form  the  idea  which  the 
 apostle  had  previously  presented,  viz.,  that  the  covenant  made 
 with  Abraham  was  inconsistent  with  the  final  rejection  of  the 
 Jews,  as  a  people.  God  foresaw  and  predicted  their  temporary 
 defect!  )a  and  rejection  from  his  kingdom,  but  never  contem- 
 plated their  being  for  ever  excluded;  see  vs.  16,  25 — 27. 
 "  Paulus  autum  docet,  ita  (Judteos)  fuisse  ad  tempus  Dei  provi- 
 dentia  excaecatos,  ut  via  evangelio  ad  gentes  sterneretur :  csete- 
 rum  non  esse  in  perpetuum  a  Dei  gratia  exclusos.  Fatetur 
 ergo  — Deum  non  esse  immemorem  foederis,  quod  cum  patribus 
 eoriim  pepigit,  et  quo  testatus  est,  se  ceterno  consllio  gentem 
 illam  dilectione  complexam  esse."      Calvi.i. 
 
 Verse  29.  For  the  gifts  and  calling  of  Q-od  are  without 
 repentance ;  ra  -^apicrixaTa  Kal  ?;  K\ijat<;,  the  gifts  of  God  in  gene- 
 ral, and  specially  the  calling  of  God.  Compare  Mark  xvi.  7. 
 God  is  not  a  man,  that  lie  should  change.  Having  chosen  the 
 Jews  as  his  people,  the  purpose  which  he  had  in  view  in  that 
 choice  can  never  be  altered ;  and  as  it  was  his  purpose  that 
 they  should  ever  remain  his  people,  their  future  restoration  to 
 hisf avour  and  kingdom  is  certain.  Having  previously  explained 
 the  nature  of  God's  covenant  with  his  ancient  people,  Paul 
 infers  from  the  divine  character,  that  it  will  be  fully  accom- 
 plished.    Calling  is  equivalent  to  election,  as  appears  from  the 
 
592  ROMANS  XI.  30,  31. 
 
 context,  the  one  word  being  substituted  for  the  other,  and  also 
 from  the  use  of  the  cognate  terms,  (see  chap.  viii.  28,  i.  7,  &c., 
 &c.)  The  general  proposition  of  the  apostle,  therefore,  is,  that 
 the  purposes  of  God  are  unchangeable;  and,  consequently, 
 those  whom  God  has  chosen  for  any  special  benefit  cannot  fail 
 to  attain  it.  The  persons  whom  he  hath  chosen  to  eternal  life 
 shall  certainly  be  saved ;  and  the  people  whom  he  chooses  to  be 
 his  peculiar  people,  as  the  Jews  were  chosen  in  Abraham,  must 
 for  ever  remain  his  people.  The  purpose  once  formed,  and  the 
 promise  once  given,  never  can  be  changed.  As  in  the  whole 
 context  Paul  is  speaking,  not  of  individuals,  but  of  the  rejec- 
 tion and  restoration  of  the  Jews  as  a  body,  it  is  evident  that 
 the  calling  and  election  which  he  here  has  in  view,  are  such  as 
 pertain  to  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  and  not  such  as  contemplate 
 the  salvation  of  individuals. 
 
 Verses  30,  31.  For  as  ye  in  times  past  have  not  believed 
 God,  yet  have  now  obtained  mercy  through  their  unbelief;  even 
 so,  &c.  These  verses  contain  a  repetition  and  confirmation  of 
 the  previous  sentiment.  The  cases  of  the  Gentiles  and  Jews 
 are  very  nearly  parallel.  Formerly  the  Gentiles  were  disbe- 
 lieving, yet  the  unbelief  of  the  Jews  became  the  occasion  of 
 their  obtaining  mercy;  so  now,  though  the  Jews  are  dis- 
 obedient, the  mercy  shown  to  the  Gentiles  is  to  be  the  means 
 of  their  obtaining  mercy.  As  the  gospel  came  from  the  Jews 
 to  the  Gentiles,  so  is  it  to  return  from  the  Gentiles  to  the  Jews. 
 Paul  had  before  stated  how  the  unbelief  of  the  Israelites  was 
 instrumental  in  promoting  the  salvation  of  other  nations,  and 
 how  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was  to  re-act  upon  the  Jews. 
 
 It  is  in  confirmation  of  what  had  just  been  said,  that  the 
 apostle  introduces  what  follows  by  yap,  for.  For  as  ye  in  time 
 past  have  not  believed.  Ye,  of  course  referring  to  the  Gentiles. 
 In  times  past,  i.  e.,  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  Have  not 
 believed  Grod,  ■ifzztd^-qaarz  ztu  deep,  disobeyed  God.  According 
 to  the  Scriptures,  however,  faith  is  an  act  of  obedience,  and 
 unbelief  is  disobedience.  Hence  the  to  obey  often  means  to 
 believe  or  confide  in.  That  is,  the  same  act  may  be  expressed 
 by  either  word.  Thus  in  Heb.  v.  9,  Christ  is  said  to  be  the 
 author  of  salvation  to  all  those  who  obey  him.  In  the  New 
 Testament  diveid-elu  and  dnec&eca  are  always  used  to  express 
 
ROMANS  XI.  32.  593 
 
 disobedience  to  the  truth;  that  is,  the  act  of  rejecting  the 
 truth.  It  is  not,  therefore,  moral  disobedience  in  general  that 
 is  here  referred  to,  but  unbelief.  Have  obtained  mercy  through 
 their  unbelief,  ttj  to'jtcou  dneid^eca.  The  dative  has  here  a 
 causal  force.  The  unbelief  of  the  Jews  was,  as  an  historical 
 fact,  the  occasion  of  the  gospel's  being  extended  to  the  Gen- 
 tiles. So  have  these  also  not  believed,  that  through  your  mercy 
 they  may  also  obtain  mercy,  outw  xai  obzoc  ui)v  -/jTtei&r^aav  rep 
 ujusTspw  i?j£i,  Iva  xal  abzol  kXtrj&coac.  The  translation  given 
 of  this  clause  in  the  English  version,  supposes  that  Iva  is 
 out  of  its  proper  place,  and  should  stand  before  rcw  bfierifjuj  i/.isc, 
 that  through  jour  mercy  they  may  obtain  mercy.  In  the  Greek 
 these  words  are  connected  with  -/^Titi&r^aav;  and  accordingly  in 
 the  Vulgate  they  are  rendered,  "ita  et  isti  nunc  non  credide- 
 runt  in  vestram  misericordiam."  And  Luther  translates, 
 "  And  these  now  have  not  chosen  to  believe  the  mercy  which 
 you  have  accepted  or  experienced."  Calvin:  "Si  nunc  in- 
 creduli  facti  sunt,  eo  quod  adepti  estis  misericordiam,"  {because 
 ye  have  obtained  mercy.)  Lachmann,  in  his  edition  of  the 
 Greek  Testament,  adopts  the  same  construction,  putting  a 
 comma  after  kXiec.  The  parallelism  of  the  verse,  and  the 
 obvious  antithesis  between  IXetc  and  dnec&tia,  [your  mercy  and 
 their  unbelief.^  demand  the  other  mode  of  explanation.  This 
 trajection  of  the  particle  Iva  is  not  unusual.  For  the  sake  of 
 emphasis,  some  clause  or  word  is  placed  before,  when  its 
 logical  position  would  be  after  the  particle.  See  2  Cor.  ii.  4, 
 xr^v  6.y6.7iriV  Iva  j-vcots. 
 
 Verse  32.  For  God  hath  concluded  all  in  unbelief;  aovxXsuo 
 EiZ,  in  a  literal  or  local  sense,  means,  to  shut  up  together  in  a 
 place;  and  metaphorically,  to  deliver  over  to  the  power  of. 
 Here  the  idea  is,  that  God,  in  the  dispensation  of  his  provi- 
 dence and  grace,  has  so  ordered  things,  that  all,  Gentiles  and 
 Jews,  first  the  one,  and  then  the  other,  should  reveal  their  true 
 character  as  sinners,  and  stand  out  in  history  confessed  as 
 unbelievers.  For  examples  of  a  similar  form  of  expression,  see 
 Ps.  xxxi.  8,  "  Thou  hast  shut  me  up  {auvixXtcaac:)  into  the 
 hands  of  the  enemy;"  Ps.  Ixxviii.  60,  "He  gave  their  life  over 
 {aovexXecaev)  to  the  pestilence."  Compare  Gal.  iii.  22.  In 
 none  of  these  cases   is   the  word  used    simply  declaratively, 
 
594  ROMANS  XL  38—36. 
 
 "God  declared  them  to  be  unbelievers."  Nor  is  mere  permis- 
 sion all  that  is  expressed.  God's  efficiencj  or  control  is 
 directly  asserted.  God  gave  the  Psalmist  into  the  hands  of 
 his  enemy,  and  he  gave  up  first  the  Gentiles  and  then  the 
 Jews,  unto  unbelief.  The  agency  of  God  in  giving  men  up  to 
 sin  is  punitive ;  it  is  consistent  with  their  liberty  and  responsi- 
 bility, and  with  his  OAvn  holiness.  He  does  not  cause  their  sin, 
 but  he  so  orders  his  dispensations,  that  their  sinfulness  is 
 revealed,  and  the  mode  of  its  manifestation  determined.  It 
 seems  also  to  enter  into  the  design  of  the  apostle  to  show 
 that  God  had  dealt  alike  with  Gentile  and  Jew.  They  stood 
 on  the  same  ground.  Both  were  dependent  on  sovereign 
 mercy.  Both  had  sunk  into  a  state  from  which  the  grace 
 of  God  alone  could  save  them.  As  all  were  equally  miserable 
 and  helpless,  God  determined  to  have  mercy  upon  all,  and 
 to  bring  all,  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles,  into  the  fold  of  Christ. 
 
 Verses  83 — 36.  The  apostle  having  finished  his  exhibition 
 of  the  plan  of  redemption,  having  presented  clearly  the  doc- 
 trine of  justification,  sanctification,  the  certainty  of  salvation 
 to  all  believers,  election,  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  the  present 
 rejection  and  final  restoration  of  the  Jews,  in  view  of  all  the 
 wonders  and  all  the  glories  of  the  divine  dealings  with  men, 
 pours  forth  this  sublime  and  affecting  tribute  to  the  wisdom, 
 goodness,  and  sovereignty  of  God.  Few  passages,  even  in  the 
 Scriptures,  are  to  be  compared  with  this,  in  the  force  with 
 which  it  presents  the  idea  that  God  is  all,  and  man  is  nothing. 
 It  is  supposed  by  many  that  these  verses  have  reference  to  the 
 doctrines  taught  in  the  immediate  context :  and  that  it  is  the 
 wisdom  of  God,  as  displayed  in  the  calling  of  men,  Gentiles 
 and  Jews,  which  Paul  here  contemplates.  Others  restrict 
 them  still  further  to  the  display  of  the  mercy  of  God,  of  which 
 the  apostle  had  just  been  speaking.  But  the  passage  should 
 be  applied  to  that  to  which  it  is  most  naturally  applicable. 
 The  question  is,  what  called  forth  these  admiring  views  of  the 
 dispensations  of  God?  The  truth  that  he  would  ultimately 
 restore  his  ancient  people?  or  the  whole  exhibition  of  the 
 economy  of  redemption?  As  the  passage  occurs  at  the  close 
 of  this  exhibition,  as  it  expresses  precisely  the  feelings  which  it 
 might  be  expected  to  produce,  and  as  there  is  nothing  to  restrict 
 
ROMANS  XL  33.  595 
 
 it  to  the  immediate  context,  it  is  most  natural  to  consider  it  as 
 referring  to  all  that  the  apostle  had  hitherto  taught. 
 
 The  principal  ideas  presented  in  this  passage  are,  1.  The 
 incomprehensible  character  and  infinite  excellence  of  the  divine 
 nature  and  dispensations,  ver.  83.  2.  God's  entire  independ- 
 ence of  man,  vs.  34,  35.  3.  His  comprehending  all  things 
 within  himself;  being  the  source,  the  means,  and  the  end  of 
 all,  ver.  35. 
 
 Verse  33.  0  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  tvisdom  and 
 knowledge  of  God!  Sow  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and 
 his  'ways  past  finding  out.  There  are  two  methods  of  interpret- 
 ing these  words.  First,  the  three  genitives,  TiXouroo,  ao<fia<:^ 
 Yvcbauo^,  may  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  j3d^o(;.  0  the 
 depth  of  the  riches,  and  of  the  wisdom,  and  of  the  knowledge 
 of  God.  Or  TiXo'jTOO  may  qualify  ^d&o^,  0  tlie  depth  of  the 
 riches,  (the  inexhaustible,  or  inconceivable,  depth)  both  of  the 
 wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God.  So  far  as  commentators  are 
 concerned,  they  are  about  equally  divided  as  to  these  explana- 
 tions. If  the  former  method  be  adopted,  riches  may  be  under- 
 stood to  refer  specially  to  the  mercy  or  goodness  of  God,  2,  4, 
 10,  12 ;  or,  to  his  resources  in  general.  '  How  inconceivable 
 are  the  resources  of  God,'  i.  e.,  his  plenitude  of  perfections  and 
 of  means.  If  the  latter,  then  it  refers  simply  to  the  inconceiv- 
 ableness  of  God's  wisdom  and  knovvdedge.  As,  however,  the 
 grace  of  God  is  not  only  prominently  presented  throughout  the 
 epistle,  but  is  specially  referred  to  as  an  object  of  admiration 
 in  these  verses,  the  former  explanation  is  on  the  whole  to  be 
 preferred.  Although  it  is  not  probable  that,  in  such  a  pas- 
 sage, every  word  was  designed  to  be  taken  in  a  very  precise 
 and  definite  sense,  yet  it  is  likely  that  Paul  meant  to  express 
 difi"erent  ideas  by  the  terms  'wisdom  and  knowledge,  because 
 both  are  so  wonderfully  displayed  in  the  work  of  redemption, 
 of  which  he  had  been  speaking.  All-comprehending  know- 
 ledge, which  surveyed  all  the  subjects  of  this  work,  all  the 
 necessities  and  circumstances  of  their  being,  all  the  means 
 requisite  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  divine  purpose,  and  all 
 the  results  of  those  means  from  the  beginning  to  the  end. 
 Infinite  wisdom,  in  selecting  and  adapting  the  means  to  the 
 object  in  view,  in  the  ordering  of  the  whole  scheme  of  creation, 
 
596  ROMANS  XI.  34,  35. 
 
 providence  and  redemption,  so  that  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
 happiness  of  his  creatures  are,  and  are  to  be,  so  wonderfully 
 promoted.  His  judgments,  za  xpip-aza  auzou,  may  be  under- 
 stood in  the  wide  sense,  his  decisions,  i.  e.,  his  purposes,  or 
 decrees ;  or  in  the  more  restricted  and  proper  sense,  his  judicial 
 decisions,  his  judgments  concerning  men ;  or  it  may  refer  to  his 
 providential  judgments  or  dispensations,  and  be  perfectly  par- 
 allel with  at  Oidoc  auzou,  his  ways.  As  of  old,  the  ruler  was 
 also  the  judge — to  judge  often  means  to  rule — and  the  same 
 word  is  used  for  the  decisions  of  the  judge  and  the  decrees  or 
 ordinances  of  the  ruler.  In  this  case,  however,  as  Paul  dis- 
 tinguishes between  wisdom  and  knowledge,  so  it  is  better  to 
 retain  the  shade  of  distinction  between  judgments  and  wags. 
 The  former  are  dpe^epeuv/^za,  incapable  of  being  investigated  as 
 to  their  grounds  or  reasons ;  the  latter  are  dve^cyvia.<Jzot,  impos- 
 sible to  trace,  (from  f^voc,  footprint.)  We  can  only  wonder  and 
 adore.  We  can  never  understand.  And  it  is  well  that  it  is  so. 
 What  can  be  understood  must  be  limited.  What  is  fully  com- 
 prehended no  longer  exercises,  excites,  or  enlarges.  It  is 
 because  God  is  infinite  in  his  being,  and  incomprehensible  in 
 his  judgments  and  in  his  ways,  that  he  is  an  inexhaustible 
 source  of  knowledge  and  blessedness. 
 
 Verse  34.  For  who  hath  known  the  mind  of  the  Lord?  or, 
 who  hath  been  his  counsellor?  This  verse  is  designed  to  con- 
 firm what  is  said  in  ver.  33.  These  clauses  may  be  taken  as 
 synonj^mous,  or  the  first  may  refer  to  God's  judgments,  and  the 
 second,  to  his  ways.  Who  hath  known  what  God  designed  to 
 do,  and  the  reasons  of  his  decrees  ?  and.  Who  hath  counselled 
 him  as  to  the  mode  of  their  execution  ?  In  his  purposes  and 
 his  dispensations  he  is  equally  and  perfectly  independent, 
 infinitely  exalted  above  the  supervision  or  direction  of  his 
 creatures. 
 
 Verse  35.  Or  ivho  hath  first  given  to  him,  and  it  shall  he 
 recom2?ensed  to  him  again  ?  This  is  not  to  be  confined  to 
 giving  counsel  or  knowledge  to  God,  but  expresses  the  general 
 idea  that  the  creature  can  do  nothing  to  place  God  under  obli- 
 gation. It  will  be  at  once  perceived  how  appropriate  is  this 
 thought,  in  reference  to  the  doctrines  which  Paul  had  been 
 teaching.     Men  are  justified,  not  on  the  ground  of  their  own 
 
ROMANS  XI.  36.  597 
 
 merit,  but  of  the  merit  of  Christ ;  they  are  sanctified,  not  by 
 the  power  of  their  own  good  purposes,  and  the  strength  of  their 
 own  will,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  they  are  chosen  and  called 
 to  eternal  life,  not  on  the  ground  of  anything  in  them,  but 
 according  to  the  purpose  of  him  who  worketh  all  things  after 
 the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  God,  therefore,  is  the  Alpha  and 
 the  Omeffa  of  salvation.  The  creature  has  neither  merit  nor 
 power.  His  hopes  must  rest  on  sovereign  mercy  alone.  There 
 is  a  correspondence  between  the  several  clauses  in  these  verses. 
 'Who  hath  given  to  God,'  refers  to  the  plenitude  and  sove- 
 reignty of  his  grace,  (the  ^a&oi;  Ttlouroo) ;  '  Who  hath  known 
 the  mind  of  the  Lord?'  to  his  unsearchable  knowledge;  and 
 'Who  hath  been  his  counsellor?'  to  his  infinite  wisdom.  This 
 was  remarked  long  ago.  Thus  Theodoret  says  :  r«  rpla  zaLra. 
 TTpb^  xa  rpia  rid^scxs,  rbv  tiXoutov  xae  ttjv  aoifiav  xai  tYjU  yxvacw 
 TO  fiev  TfC  iyvoj  uuuu  xupiuu  Tifjo^  zr^u  yvaxJiv,  to  ok  tc^  au/jpou/.ot; 
 auTol)  iyipzTo  rcpb^  ttjv  ao(piau,  to  ds  tIc;  Ttpoidwxeu  auTcp  xai 
 dvTano&rjasTai  Tzpb^  Tbu  rtXouTOV. 
 
 Verse  36.  For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all 
 things;  to  luhom  he  glory  for  ever.  Amen.  The  reason  why 
 man  can  lay  God  under  no  obligation,  is,  that  God  is  himself  all 
 and  in  all ;  the  source,  the  means,  and  the  end.  By  him  all 
 things  are ;  through  his  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  all  things 
 are  directed  and  governed;  and  to  him,  as  their  last  end,  all 
 things  tend.  The  prepositions  ix,  dca,  dc„  here  used,  indicate 
 that  God  is  the  source,  the  constantly  working  cause,  and  end 
 of  all  things.  Among  the  fathers,  it  was  a  common  opinion 
 that  the  apostle  had  reference  to  the  Trinity,  and  intended  in 
 these  words  to  indicate  the  relation  of  all  things  to  the  several 
 persons  of  the  Godhead.  All  things  are  of  the  Father,  through 
 the  Son,  and  to  the  Spirit.  So  Tholuck  and  Olshausen.  To 
 this,  however,  it  is  objected,  that  such  reference  is  not 
 demanded  by  the  context,  and  that  the  Spirit's  relation  to 
 what  is  out  of  himself  is  expressed  by  iv,  not  by  e^c-  Compare 
 Eph.  iv.  6.  It  is  God  as  God,  the  Godhead,  and  not  the 
 persons  of  the  Trinity  in  their  distinct  relations,  that  is  here 
 brought  into  view.  When  Paul  asks.  Who  hath  first  given  to 
 God?  the  answer  is,  No  one, /or  of  him,  through  him,  and  to 
 him,  are  ull  things.    It  is  for  the  display  of  his  character  every 
 
598  ROMANS  XI.  11—36. 
 
 thing  exists,  and  is  directed,  as  the  highest  and  noblest  of  all 
 possible  objects.  Creatures  are  as  nothing,  less  than  vanity 
 and  nothing  in  comparison  with  God.  Human  knowledge, 
 power,  and  virtue,  are  mere  glimmering  reflections  from  the 
 brightness  of  the  divine  glory.  That  system  of  religion,  there- 
 fore, is  best  in  accordance  with  the  character  of  God,  the 
 nature  of  man,  and  the  end  of  the  universe,  in  which  all  things 
 are  of,  through,  and  to  God ;  and  which  most  effectually  leads 
 men  to  say,  not  unto  us,  but  unto  thy  name  be  all  the 
 
 GLORY ! 
 
 Such  is  the  appropriate  conclusion  of  the  doctrinal  portion  of 
 this  wonderful  epistle ;  in  which  more  fully  and  clearly  than  in 
 any  other  portion  of  the  word  of  God,  the  plan  of  salvation  is 
 presented  and  defended.  Here  are  the  doctrines  of  grace ; 
 doctrines  on  which  the  pious  in  all  ages  and  nations  have  rested 
 their  hopes  of  heaven,  though  they  may  have  had  compara- 
 tively obscure  intimations  of  their  nature.  The  leading  prin- 
 ciple of  all  is,  that  God  is  the  source  of  all  good ;  that  in  fallen 
 man  there  is  neither  merit  nor  ability;  that  salvation,  conse- 
 quently, is  all  of  grace,  as  well  sanctification  as  pardon,  as  well 
 election  as  eternal  glory.  For  of  him,  and  through  him,  and 
 to  him,  are  all  things ;  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever.    Amen. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  There  is  to  be  a  general  conversion  of  the  Jews,  concern- 
 ing which  the  apostle  teaches  us,  1.  That  it  is  to  be  in  some 
 way  consequent  on  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  vs.  11 — 31. 
 2.  That  it  will  be  attended  with  the  most  important  and 
 desirable  results  for  the  rest  of  the  world,  vs.  12,  15.  3.  That 
 it  is  to  take  place  after  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  is  brought 
 in ;  that  is,  after  the  conversion  of  multitudes  of  the  Gentiles, 
 (how  many,  who  can  tell?)  ver.  25.  Nothing  is  said  of  this 
 restoration  being  sudden,  or  effected  by  miracle,  or  consequent 
 on  the  second  advent,  or  as  attended  by  a  restoration  of  the 
 Jews  to  their  own  land.  These  particulars  have  all  been  added 
 by  some  commentators,  either  from  their  own  imagination,  or 
 from  their  views  of  other  portions  of  the  Scriptures.  They  are 
 not  taught  by  the  apostle.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  through  the 
 mercy  shown  to  the  Grentiles,  according  to  Paul,  that  the  Jews 
 
ROMANS  XI.  11—36.  599 
 
 are  to  be  brouglit  in,  wliicli  implies  that  the  former  are  to  be 
 instrumental  in  the  restoration  of  the  latter.  And  he  every- 
 where teaches,  that  within  the  church  the  distinction  between 
 Jew  and  Gentile  ceases.  In  Christ  there  is  neither  Jew  nor 
 Greek,  Barbarian  nor  Scythian,  bond  nor  free,  Col.  iii.  11 ;  all 
 classes  are  merged  in  one,  as  was  the  case  under  the  direction 
 of  the  apostles  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church. 
 
 2.  The  church  of  God  is  the  same  in  all  ages  and  under  all 
 dispensations.  It  is  the  society  of  the  true  people  of  God, 
 together  with  their  children.  To  this  society  the  ancient 
 patriarchs  and  their  posterity  belonged ;  into  this  society,  at 
 the  time  of  Christ,  other  nations  were  admitted,  and  the  great 
 body  of  the  Jcavs  were  cast  out,  and  into  this  same  community 
 the  ancient  people  of  God  are  to  be  again  received.  In  every 
 stage  of  its  progress,  the  church  is  the  same.  The  olive-tree 
 is  one,  though  the  branches  are  numerous,  and  sometimes 
 changed,  vs.  17 — 24, 
 
 3.  The  web  of  Providence  is  wonderfully  woven.  Good  and 
 evil  are  made  with  equal  certainty,  under  the  government  of 
 infinite  wisdom  and  benevolence,  to  result  in  the  promotion 
 of  God's  gracious  and  glorious  designs.  The  wicked  unbelief 
 and  consequent  rejection  of  the  Jews,  are  made  the  means 
 of  facilitating  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles ;  the  holy  faith 
 and  obedience  of  the  Gentiles,  are  to  be  the  means  of  the 
 restoration  of  the  Jews,  vs.  11,  31. 
 
 4.  All  organized  communities,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  have  a 
 common  responsibility,  a  moral  personality  in  the  sight  of  God, 
 and  are  dealt  with  accordingly,  rewarded  or  punished  according 
 to  their  conduct,  as  such.  As  their  organized  existence  is  con- 
 fined to  this  world,  so  must  the  retributive  dispensations  of  God 
 respecting  them  be.  Witness  the  rejection,  dispersion,  and 
 suiferings  of  the  Jews,  as  a  national  punishment  for  their 
 national  rejection  of  the  Messiah.  Witness  the  state  of  all 
 the  eastern  churches  broken  off"  from  the  olive-tree  for  the 
 unbelief  of  former  generations.  Their  fathers  sinned,  and  their 
 children's  children,  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation,  suffer 
 the  penalty,  as  they  share  in  the  guilt,  vs.  11 — 24. 
 
 5.  The  security  of  every  individual  Christian  is  suspended 
 on  his  continuing  in  faith  and  holy  obedience;  which  is  indeed 
 
600  ROMANS  XI.  11—36. 
 
 rendered  certain  by  the  purpose  and  promise  of  God,  In  like 
 manner,  the  security  of  every  civil  and  ecclesiastical  society,  in 
 the  enjoyment  of  its  peculiar  advantages,  is  suspended  on  its 
 fidelity  as  such,  for  which  fidelity  there  is  no  special  promise 
 with  regard  to  any  country  or  any  church,  vs.  20 — 24. 
 
 6.  God  does  sometimes  enter  into  covenant  with  communities, 
 as  such.  Thus  he  has  covenanted  with  the  whole  human 
 race  that  the  world  shall  not  be  again  destroyed  by  a  deluge, 
 and  that  the  seasons  shall  continue  to  succeed  each  other,  in 
 regular  order,  until  the  end  of  time.  Thus  he  covenanted  with 
 the  Jews  to  be  a  God  to  them  and  to  their  seed  for  ever,  and 
 that  they  should  be  to  him  a  people.  This,  it  seems,  is  a  per- 
 petual covenant,  which  continues  in  force  until  the  present  day, 
 and  which  renders  certain  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  the 
 privileges  of  the  church  of  God,  vs.  16,  28,  29. 
 
 7.  It  is  the  radical  principle  of  the  Bible,  and  consequently 
 of  all  true  religion,  that  God  is  all  and  in  all ;  that  of  him,  and 
 through  him,  and  to  him,  are  all  things.  It  is  the  tendency  of 
 all  truth  to  exalt  God,  and  to  humble  the  creature ;  and  it  is 
 characteristic  of  true  piety  to  feel  that  all  good  comes  from 
 God,  and  to  desire  that  all  glory  should  be  given  to  God, 
 vs.  33—36. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  mutual  relation  between  the  Christian  church  and  the 
 Jews  should  produce  in  the  minds  of  all  the  followers  of  Christ, 
 
 1.  A  deep  sense  of  our  obligations  to  the  Jews  as  the  people 
 through  whom  the  true  religion  has  been  preserved,  and  the 
 blessings  of  divine  truth  extended  to  all  nations,  vs.  17,  18. 
 
 2.  Sincere  compassion  for  them,  because  their  rejection  and 
 misery  have  been  the  means  of  reconciling  the  world  to  God, 
 i.  e.,  of  extending  the  gospel  of  reconciliation  among  men, 
 vs.  11,  12,  15.     3.  The  banishment  of  all  feelings  of  contempt 
 
 .  towards  them,  or  exultation  over  them,  vs.  18,  20.  4.  An 
 earnest  desire,  prompting  to  prayer  and  effort,  for  their  restora- 
 tion, as  an  event  fraught  with  blessings  to  them  and  to  all  the 
 world,  and  one  which  God  has  determined  to  bring  to  pass, 
 vs.  12,  15,  25,  &c. 
 
 2.  The  dealings  of  God  with   his    ancient    people    should, 
 
ROMANS  XL  11—30.  601 
 
 moreover,  teach  us,  1.  That  we  have  no  security  for  the  con- 
 tinuance of  our  privileges  but  constant  fidelity,  ver.  20. 
 2.  That,  consequently,  instead  of  being  proud  and  self-con- 
 fident, we  should  be  humble  and  cautious,  vs.  20,  21.  3.  That 
 God  will  probably  not  bear  with  us  as  long  as  he  bore  with  the 
 Jews,  ver.  21.  4.  That  if  for  our  unbelief  we  are  cast  out  of 
 the  church,  our  punishment  will  probably  be  more  severe. 
 There  is  no  special  covenant  securing  the  restoration  of  any 
 apostate  branch  of  the  Christian  church,  vs.  21,  24,  with  16, 
 27—29. 
 
 3.  It  is  a  great  blessing  to  be  connected  with  those  who  are 
 in  covenant  with  God.  The  promise  is  "to  thee  and  thy  seed 
 after  thee."  "The  Lord  thy  God,  he  is  God,  the  faithful  God, 
 which  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  with  them  that  love  him 
 and  keep  his  commandments,  to  a  thousand  generations,"  Deut. 
 vii.  9.  The  blessing  of  Abraham  reaches,  in  some  of  its 
 precious  consequences,  to  the  Jews  of  this  and  every  coming 
 age,  vs.  16,  27—29. 
 
 4.  The  destiny  of  our  children  and  our  children's  children  is 
 suspended,  in  a  great  measure,  on  our  fidelity.  "  God  is  a  jeal- 
 ous God,  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children 
 unto  the  third  and  foufth  generation  of  them  that  hate  him." 
 What  words  of  woe  for  unborn  thousands,  were  those,  "  His 
 blood  be  on  us  and  on  our  children!"  As  the  Jews  of  the  pre- 
 sent age  are  suftering  the  consequences  of  the  unbelief  of  their 
 fathers,  and  the  nominal  Christians  of  the  eastern  churches 
 suffer  for  the  apostacy  of  previous  generations,  so  will  our 
 children  perish,  if  we,  for  our  unbelief  as  a  church  and  nation, 
 are  cast  off  from  God,  vs.  19 — 24. 
 
 5.  As  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  is  not  only  a  most  desirable 
 event,  but  one  which  God  has  determined  to  accomplish.  Chris- 
 tians should  keep  it  constantly  in  view  even  in  their  labours  for 
 the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  This  Paul  did,  vs.  13,  14, 
 Every  effort  to  hasten  the  accession  of  the  fulness  of  the  Gen- 
 tiles is  so  much  done  towards  the  restoration  of  Israel,  ver.  25. 
 
 6.  Christians  should  not  feel  as  though  they  were  isolated 
 beings,  as  if  each  one  need  be  concerned  for  himself  alone, 
 having  no  joint  responsibility  with  the  community  to  which  he 
 belongs.     God   will   deal   with  our  church  and  country  as  a 
 
602  ROMANS  XII.  1. 
 
 whole,  and  visit  our  sins  upon  those  who  are  to  come  after  us. 
 We  should  feel,  therefore,  that  we  are  one  body,  members  one 
 of  another,  having  common  interests  and  responsibilities.  We 
 ought  to  weep  over  the  sins  of  the  community  to  which  we 
 belong,  as  being  in  one  sense,  and  in  many  of  their  conse- 
 quences, our  sins,  vs.  11 — 24. 
 
 7.  As  the  gifts  and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance, 
 those  to  whom  he  has  given  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  has  called 
 unto  holiness,  may  rejoice  in  the  certainty  of  the  continuanc9 
 of  these  blessings,  ver.  29. 
 
 8.  Does  the  contemplation  of  the  work  of  redemption,  and 
 the  remembrance  of  our  own  experience,  lead  us  to  sympathize 
 with  the  apostle  in  his  adoring  admiration  of  the  wisdom  and 
 goodness  of  God,  and  feel  that,  as  it  regards  our  salvation, 
 everything  is  of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him  ?  vs.  33 — 36. 
 
 9.  As  it  is  the  tendency  and  result  of  all  correct  views  of 
 Christian  doctrine  to  produce  the  feelings  expressed  by  the 
 apostle  at  the  close  of  this  chapter,  those  views  cannot  be  scrip- 
 tural which  have  a  contrary  tendency;  or  which  lead  us  to 
 ascribe,  in  any  form,  our  salvation  to  our  own  merit  or  power, 
 vs.  33—36. 
 
 CHAPTER    XII. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts.  The  first,  vs.  1 — 8,  treats 
 of  piety  towards  God,  and  the  proper  estimation  and  use  of  the 
 various  gifts  and  offices  employed  or  exercised  in  the  church. 
 The  second,  vs.  9 — 21,  relates  to  love  and  its  various  manifes- 
 tations towards  diiferent  classes  of  men. 
 
 ROMANS   XII.  1—8. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 As  the  apostle  had  concluded  the  doctrinal  portion  of  the 
 epistle  with  the   preceding   chapter,   in  accordance   with   his 
 
ROMANS  XII.  1.  603 
 
 almost  uniform  practice,  he  deduces  from  liis  doctrines  import- 
 ant practical  lessons.  The  first  deduction  from  the  exhibition 
 which  he  had  made  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  the  redemption  of 
 men,  is  that  they  should  devote  themselves  to  him  as  a  living 
 sacrifice,  and  be  conformed  to  his  v/ill  and  not  to  the  manners 
 of  the  world,  vs.  1,  2.  The  second  is,  that  they  snould  be 
 humble,  and  not  allow  the  diversity  of  their  gifts  to  destroy  the 
 sense  of  their  unity  as  one  body  in  Christ,  vs.  3 — 5.  These 
 various  gifts  were  to  be  exercised,  not  for  selfish  purposes,  but 
 in  a  manner  consistent  with  their  nature  and  design;  diligently, 
 disinterestedly,  and  kindly,  vs.  G — 8. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Vekse  1.  /  beseech  pou,  therefore,  brethren,  by  the  mercies 
 of  G-od,  &c.  As  the  sum  of  all  that  Paul  had  said  of  the  justi- 
 fication, sanctification,  and  salvation  of  men  is,  that  these 
 results  are  to  be  attributed  not  to  human  merit  nor  to  human 
 efforts,  but  to  the  mercy  of  God,  he  brings  the  whole  discussion 
 to  bear  as  a  motive  for  devotion  to  God.  Whatever  gratitude 
 the  soul  feels  for  pardon,  purity,  and  the  sure  prospect  of  eter- 
 nal life,  is  called  forth  to  secure  its  consecration  to  that  God 
 who  is  the  author  of  all  these  mercies. 
 
 That  ye  present  your  bodies  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  accept- 
 able unto  Grod.  All  the  expressions  of  this  clause  seem  to 
 have  an  obvious  reference  to  the  services  of  the  Old  Testament 
 economy.  Under  that  dispensation,  animals  free  from  blemish 
 were  presented  and  devoted  to  God ;  under  the  new  dispensa- 
 tion a  nobler  and  more  spiritual  service  is  to  be  rendered;  not 
 the  oblation  of  animals,  but  the  consecration  of  ourselves.  The 
 expression,  your  bodies,  is  perhaps  nearly  equivalent  to  your- 
 selves; yet  Paul  probably  used  it  with  design,  not  only  because 
 it  was  appropriate  to  the  figure,  but  because  he  wished  to  ren- 
 der the  idea  prominent,  that  the  whole  man,  body  as  well  as 
 soul,  was  to  be  devoted  to  the  service  of  God.  "Ye  are  bought 
 with  a  price ;  therefore  glorify  God  in  your  body,  and  in  your 
 spirit,  which  are  God's,"  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  The  apostle  carries 
 the  figure  out;  the  sacrifice  is  to  be  living,  holy  and  acceptable. 
 The  first  of  these  epithets  is  generally  considered  as  intended 
 to  express  the  contrast  between  the  sacrifice  here  intended,  and 
 
604  ROMANS  XII.  1. 
 
 the  victims  which  were  placed  lifeless  upon  the  altar;  thus 
 believers,  in  1  Peter  ii.  5,  are  called  "living  stones,"  in  oppo- 
 sition to  the  senseless  materials  employed  in  a  literal  building. 
 We  are  to  present  d-oaiav  ^coaau,  a  sacrifice  that  lives.  "  Abomi- 
 nabile  est,  cadaver  offere." — Bengel.  The  word  living^  how- 
 ever, may  mean  perpetual,  lasting,  never  neglected;  as  in  the 
 phrases,  "living  bread,"  John  vi.  51,  'bread  which  never 
 looses  its  power;'  "living  hope,"  1  Peter  i.  3,  'hope  which 
 never  fails;'  "living  waters,"  "a  living  way,"  &c. ;  (see 
 WaliVs  Lexicon,  under  the  word  (;^dco.)  The  sacrifice  then 
 which  we  are  to  make  is  not  a  transient  service,  like  the  obla- 
 tion of  a  victim,  which  was  in  a  few  moments  consumed  upon 
 the  altar,  but  it  is  a  living  or  perpetual  sacrifice  never  to  be 
 neglected  or  recalled.  The  epithet  holy  has  probably  direct 
 reference  to  the  frequent  use  of  a  nearly  corresponding  word 
 (Q"!???!)  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures,  which,  when  applied  to  sacri- 
 fices, is  commonly  rendered  without  blemish.  The  word  holy  is 
 then  in  this  case  equivalent  to  immaculate,  i.  e.,  free  from  those 
 defects  which  would  cause  an  offering  to  be  rejected.  The 
 terra  acceptable  is  here  used  in  the  same  sense  as  the  phrase 
 "for  a  sweet  smelling  savour,"  Eph.  v.  2,  Phil.  iv.  18,  Lev.  i.  9, 
 i.  e.,  grateful,  well-pleasing  ;  a  sacrifice  in  which  God  delights. 
 T(p  dccp  is  to  be  connected  with  eudptatov  and  not  with 
 Tto.paarrjaac. 
 
 Your  reasonable  service.  There  is  doubt  as  to  the  gram- 
 matical construction  of  this  clause.  The  most  natural  and 
 simple  explanation  is  to  consider  it  in  apposition  with  the  pre- 
 ceding member  of  the  sentence,  as  has  been  done  by  our  trans- 
 lators, who  supply  the  words  which  is.  This  consecration  of 
 ourselves  to  God,  which  the  apostle  requires,  is  a  reasonable 
 service.  The  word  Xarpda  does  not  mean  an  offering,  but 
 worship.  It  is  not  the  thing  offered  that  is  said  to  be  reason- 
 able in  the  sense  of,  endowed  with  reason,  but  the  nature  of  the 
 service.  It  is  rendered  by  the  mind.  The  word  {Xoycxrjv)  ren- 
 dered reasonable,  is  indeed  variously  explained.  The  simplest 
 interpretation  is  that  which  takes  the  word  in  its  natural  sense, 
 viz.,  pertaining  to  the  mind;  it  is  a  mental  or  spiritual  service, 
 in  opposition  to  ceremonial  and  external  observances.  Com- 
 pare the  phrase  [Xoycxov  ydka),  'milk  suited,  or  pertaining  to 
 
ROMANS  XII.  2.  605 
 
 the  mind.'  1  Peter  ii.  2.  Others  understand  these  words  as 
 expressing  the  difference  between  the  sacrifices  under  the 
 Christian  dispensation  and  those  under  the  Old.  Formerly 
 animals  destitute  of  reason  {dXoj-a  !^o)a)  were  offered  unto  God, 
 but  now  men  possessed  of  a  rational  soul.  But  this  interpreta- 
 tion is  neither  so  well  suited  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  nor 
 does  it  give  a  sense  so  consistent  with  the  context ;  compare 
 1  Peter  ii.  5. 
 
 Verse  2.  And  be  not  conformed  to  this  world,  but  be  ye 
 transformed  by  the  renewing  of  your  mind,  &c.  Not  only  is 
 God  to  be  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  as  required  in  the 
 preceding  verse,  but  there  must  be  a  corresponding  holiness  of 
 life.  This  idea  is  expressed  in  the  manner  most  common  with 
 the  sacred  writers.  Regarding  men  universally  as  corrupted 
 and  devoted  to  sin,  the  loorld  is  with  them  equivalent  to  the 
 wicked;  to  be  conformed  to  the  world,  therefore,  is  to  be  like 
 unrenewed  men  in  temper  and  in  life.  The  word  accurately 
 rendered  conformed,  expresses  strongly  the  idea  of  similarity 
 in  character  and  manners;  and  that  rendered  transformed 
 expresses  with  equal  strength  the  opposite  idea.  Tliis  uwrld. 
 The  origin  of  this  term,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  is  no 
 doubt  to  be  sought  in  the  mode  of  expression  so  common 
 among  the  Jews,  who  were  accustomed  to  distinguish  between 
 the  times  before,  and  the  times  under  the  Messiah,  by  calling 
 the  former  period  this  world,  or  this  age,  (ntn  tibiS')  and  the 
 latter,  the  world,  or  age  to  come  (s2n  tbi3>).  The  former  phrase 
 thus  naturally  came  to  designate  those  who  were  without,  and 
 the  latter  those  who  were  within  the  kingdom  of  Christ ;  they 
 are  equivalent  to  the  expressions  the  world  and  the  church; 
 the  mass  of  mankind  and  the  people  of  God ;  compare  1  Cor. 
 ii.  8,  Eph.  ii.  2,  2  Cor.  iv.  4,  Luke  xx.  35,  Heb.  ii.  5,  vi.  5. 
 There  is,  therefore,  no  necessity  for  supposing,  as  is  done  by 
 many  commentators,  that  the  apostle  has  any  special  reference, 
 in  the  use  of  this  word,  to  the  Jewish  dispensation ;  as  though  his 
 meaning  were,  '  Be  not  conformed  to  the  Jewish  opinions  and 
 forms  -of  worship,  but  be  transformed  and  accommodated  to  the 
 new  spiritual  economy  under  which  ye  are  placed.'  The  word 
 {atu)v)  here  used,  and  the  equivalent  term  (xda/uo^)  commonly 
 translated  world,  are  so  frequently  used  for  the  mass  of  man- 
 
606  ROMANS  XII.  3. 
 
 kind,  considered  in  opposition  to  the  people  of  God,  that  there 
 can  be  no  good  reason  for  departing  from  the  common  interpre« 
 tation,  especially  as  the  sense  which  it  affords  is  so  good  in 
 Itself,  and  so  well  suited  to  the  context. 
 
 By  the  renewing  of  your  mind.  This  phrase  is  intended  to 
 be  explanatory  of  the  preceding.  The  transformation  to  which 
 Christians  are  exhorted,  is  not  a  mere  external  change,  but  one 
 which  results  from  a  change  of  heart,  an  entire  alteration  of 
 the  state  of  the  mind.  The  word  voDc,  mind,  is  used  as  it  is 
 here,  frequently  in  the  New  Testament,  Rom.  i.  28,  Eph.  iv.  17, 
 23,  Col.  ii.  18,  &c.  In  all  these  and  in  similar  cases,  it  does  not 
 differ  from  the  word  heart,  i.  e.,  in  its  wide  sense  for  the 
 whole  soul. 
 
 That  ye  may  be  able  to  prove  what  is  that  good  and  acceptable 
 and  perfect  will  of  Grod.  The  logical  relation  of  this  clause  to 
 the  preceding  is  doubtful,  as  the  original  (s^c  ro  doxifj.d^ecu) 
 admits  of  its  being  regarded  as  expressing  either  the  design  or 
 the  result  of  the  change  just  spoken  of.  Our  translators  have 
 adopted  the  former  view,  'Ye  are  renewed,  in  order  that  ye 
 may  be  able  to  prove,  &c.'  The  other,  however,  gives  an 
 equally  good  sense,  'Ye  are  renewed  so  that  ye  prove,  &c.;' 
 Buch  is  the  effect  of  the  change  in  question.  The  word  ren- 
 dered to  prove,  signifies  also  to  approve;  the  sense  of  this 
 passage,  therefore,  may  be  either,  '  that  ye  may  try  or  prove 
 what  is  acceptable  to  God,'  i.  e.,  decide  upon  or  ascertain  what 
 is  right;  or,  'that  ye  may  approve  Avhat  is  good,  &c.'  The 
 words  good,  acceptable,  and  perfect,  are  by  many  considered  as 
 predicates  of  the  word  will.  As,  however,  the  expression 
 'acceptable  wdl  of  God'  is  unnatural  and  unusual,  the  majority 
 of  modern  commentators,  after  Erasmus,  take  them  as  substan- 
 tives; 'that  ye  may  approve  what  is  good,  acceptable,  and 
 perfect,  viz.,  the  will  of  God.'  The  last  phrase  is  then  in  appo- 
 sition with  the  others.  The  design  and  result  then  of  that  great 
 change  of  which  Paul  speaks,  is,  that  Christians  should  know, 
 delight  in,  and  practise,  whatever  is  good  and  acceptable  to 
 God;  compare  Eph.  v.  10,  17,  Phil.  iv.  8. 
 
 Verse  3.  For  I  say,  through  the  grace  given  unto  me,  to 
 every  man  that  is  among  you,  not  to  think  of  himself  more 
 highly  than  he  ought  to  think,  &c.     The  apostle  connects  with 
 
ROMANS  XII.  3.  607 
 
 the  general  exhortation  contained  in  the  preceding  verses,  and 
 founds  upon  it.  an  exhortation  to  special  Christian  virtues. 
 The  first  virtue  which  he  enjoins  upon  believers  is  modesty  or 
 humility.  This  has  reference  specially  to  the  officers  of  the 
 church,  or  at  least  to  the  recipients  of  spiritual  gifts.  It  is 
 very  evident  from  1  Cor.  xii.  and  xiv.,  that  these  gifts  were 
 coveted  and  exercised  by  many  of  the  early  Christians  for  the 
 purpose  of  self-exaltation.  They,  therefore,  desired  not  those 
 which  Avere  most  useful,  but  those  which  were  most  attractive; 
 and  some  were  puifed  up,  while  others  were  envious  and  dis- 
 contented. This  evil  the  apostle  forcibly  and  beautifully 
 reproved  in  the  chapters  referred  to,  in  the  same  manner  that 
 he  does  here,  and  much  more  at  length.  He  showed  his 
 readers  that  these  gifts  were  all  gratuitous,  and  were,  therefore, 
 occasions  of  gratitude,  but  not  grounds  of  boasting.  He 
 reminds  his  readers  that  the  design  for  which  these  gifts  were 
 bestowed,  was  the  edification  of  the  church,  and  not  the  exalta- 
 tion of  the  receiver ;  that,  however  diversified  in  their  nature, 
 they  were  all  manifestations  of  one  and  the  same  Spirit,  and 
 were  as  necessary  to  a  perfect  whole  as  the  several  members 
 of  the  body,  with  their  various  offices,  to  a  perfect  man. 
 Having  one  Spirit,  and  constituting  one  body,  any  exaltation 
 of  one  over  the  other  was  as  unnatural  as  the  eye  or  ear  dis- 
 regarding and  despising  the  hand  or  the  foot.  As  this 
 tendency  to  abuse  their  official  and  spiritual  distinctions  was 
 not  confined  to  the  Corinthian  Christians,  we  find  the  apostle, 
 in  this  passage,  giving  substantially  the  same  instructions  to  the 
 Romans. 
 
 Through  the  grace  given  unto  me.  The  word  grace  in  this 
 clause  is  by  many  understood  to  mean  the  apostolic  office, 
 which  Paul  elsewhere  speaks  of  as  a  great  favour.  "  Tantun- 
 dem  valent  ejus  verba  acsi  dixisset:  Non  loquor  a  me  ipso,  sed 
 legatus  Dei,  quae  mihi  mandata  ille  injunxit,  ad  vos  perfero. 
 Gratiam  (ut  prius)  vocat  apostolatum,  quo  Dei  bonitatem  in  eo 
 commendet,  ac  simul  innuat,  se  non  irrupisse  propria  temeritate, 
 sed  Dei  vocatione  assumptum." — Calvin.  Compare  chap.  i.  5, 
 XV.  15,  Eph.  ii.  2,  8.  But  this  is  too  limited ;  the  word 
 probably  includes  all  the  favour  of  God  towards  him,  not 
 merely  in  conferring  on  him  the  office  of  an  apostle,  but  in 
 
608  ROMANS  XL  3. 
 
 bestowing  all  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  ordinary  and  extraordinary, 
 ■which  qualified  him  for  his  duties,  and  gave  authority  to  his 
 instructions.  Througli,  dia,  i.  e.,  on  account  of,  or  out  of 
 regard  to. 
 
 Hot  to  thmk  of  himself  more  highly  than  he  ought  to 
 think.  The  word  to  think  is  an  inadequate  translation  of  the 
 Greek,  {<pf)ovs7p,)  inasmuch  as  the  latter  includes  the  idea  of  the 
 exercise  of  the  affections  as  well  as  of  the  intellect ;  see 
 chap.  viii.  5,  Col.  iii.  2,  Phil.  iii.  19.  To  think  of  one-self  too 
 highly,  is  to  be  puffed  up  with  an  idea  of  our  own  importance 
 and  superiority. 
 
 But  to  think  soberly,  according  as  God  hath  dealt  to  every 
 man  the  measure  of  faith.  There  is  in  the  first  member  of  this 
 clause  a  beautiful  paranomasia  in  the  original  {(fpouslu  ec<; 
 TO  (jco(ppovslv)  which  is  lost  in  a  translation.  The  word  ren- 
 dered soberly  properly  means  to  he  of  a  sane  mind;  and  then 
 to  be  moderate  or  temperate.  Paul  speaks  of  one  who  overesti- 
 mates or  praises  himself  as  being  beside  himself;  and  of  him 
 who  is  modest  and  humble  as  being  of  a  sane  mind,  i.  e.,  as 
 making  a  proper  estimate  of  himself.  "For  whether  we  be 
 beside  ourselves,  it  is  to  God ;  or  whether  we  be  sober,  it  is  for 
 your  cause,"  2  Cor.  v.  13,  i.  e.,  'If  we  commend  ourselves,  it 
 is  that  God  may  be  honoured;  and  if  we  act  modestly  and 
 abstain  from  self-commendation,  it  is  that  you  may  be  bene- 
 fitted.' To  think  soberly,  therefore,  is  to  form  and  manifest  a 
 right  estimate  of  ourselves,  and  of  our  gifts.  A  right  estimate 
 can  never  be  other  than  a  very  humble  one,  since,  whatever 
 there  is  of  good  in  us  is  not  of  ourselves,  but  of  God. 
 
 The  expression  measure  or  proportion  of  faith,  is  variously 
 explained.  Faith  may  be  taken  in  its  usual  sense,  and  the 
 meaning  of  the  clause  be,  'Let  every  one  think  of  himself 
 according  to  the  degree  of  faith  or  confidence  in  God  which  has 
 been  imparted  to  him,  and  not  as  though  he  had  more  than  he 
 really  possesses.'  Ov  faith  may  be  taken  for  Avhat  is  believed, 
 or  for  knowledge  of  divine  truth,  and  the  sense  be,  'according 
 to  the  degree  of  knowledge  which  he  has  attained.'  Or  it  may 
 be  taken  for  that  which  is  confided  to  any,  and  be  equivalent 
 to  gift.  The  sense  then  is,  '  Let  every  one  think  of  himself 
 according  to  the  nature  or  character  of  the  gifts  which  he  has 
 
ROMANS  XII.  4,  5.  609 
 
 received."  This  is  perhaps  the  most  generally  received  inter- 
 pretation, although  it  is  arrived  at  in  different  ways;  many 
 considering  the  word  faith  here  as  used  metonymically  for  its 
 effects,  viz.,  for  the  various  {^apianaza)  graces,  ordinary  and 
 extraordinary,  of  which  it  is  the  cause.  This  general  sense  is 
 well  suited  to  the  context,  as  the  following  verses,  containing  a 
 specification  of  the  gifts  of  prophesying,  teaching,  ruling,  &;c., 
 appear  to  be  an  amplification  of  this  clause.  The  first  men- 
 tioned interpretation  is,  however,  most  in  accordance  with  the 
 usual  meaning  of  Tctazcz. 
 
 Verses  4,  5.  For  as  we  have  many  members  in  one  body, 
 and  all  members  have  not  the  same  office;  so  we,  &c.  In  these 
 verses  we  have  the  same  comparison  that  occurs  more  at  length 
 in  1  Cor.  xii.,  and  for  the  same  purpose.  The  object  of  the 
 apostle  is  in  both  cases  the  same.  He  designs  to  show  that  the 
 diversity  of  offices  and  gifts  among  Christians,  so  far  from 
 being  inconsistent  with  their  union  as  one  body  in  Christ,  is 
 necessary  to  the  perfection  and  usefulness  of  that  body.  It 
 would  be  as  unreasonable  for  all  Christians  to  have  the  same 
 gifts,  as  for  all  the  members  of  the  human  frame  to  have  the 
 same  office.  This  comparison  is  peculiarly  beautiful  and  appro- 
 priate ;  because  it  not  only  clearly  illustrates  the  particular 
 point  intended,  but  at  the  same  time  brings  into  view  the 
 important  truth  that  the  real  union  of  Christians  results  from 
 the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  union  of  the  several 
 members  of  the  body  is  the  result  of  their  being  all  animated 
 and  actuated  by  one  soul.  Nothing  can  present  in  a  clearer 
 light  the  duty  of  Christian  fellowship,  or  the  sinfulness  of  divi- 
 sions and  envyings  among  the  members  of  Christ's  body,  than 
 the  apostle's  comparison.  'Believers,  though  many,  are  one 
 body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of  another.'  01 
 TzoXXol  £v  acofid  lafiev.  We,  the  many,  are  one  body.  In  orte 
 respect  we  are  many,  in  another  we  are  one.  Just  as  the  body 
 is  many  as  to  its  members,  and  one  in  their  organic  connection. 
 Believers  are  one  body,  i.  e.,  a  living  organic  whole,  not  in 
 virtue  of  any  external  organization,  but  in  Christ,  i.  e.,  in 
 virtue  of  their  common  union  with  him.  And  as  this  union  with 
 Christ  is  not  merely  external,  or  by  profession,  or  by  unity  of 
 opinion  and  sentiment  only,  but  vital,  arising  from  the  indwell- 
 39 
 
610  ROMANS  XII.  6. 
 
 ing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  so,  the  apostle 
 adds,  the  union  of  believers  one  with  another,  is  also  a  vita} 
 union.  They  are  6  xa^'  u^  d?J.ij/Mu  fxiXrj,  every  one  members  one 
 of  another.  The  relation  of  believers  to  each  other  is  far  more 
 intimate  than  that  between  the  members  of  any  external  organi- 
 zation, whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical.  It  is  analogous  to  the 
 mutual  relation  of  the  members  of  the  same  body,  animated  by 
 one  soul.  6  •/.aff'  sl^  for  6  xad-"  eua,  in  the  sense  of  el^  exaaTO<;, 
 is  a  solecism  occurring  only  in  the  later  Greek. 
 
 Verse  6.  Saving  therefore  gifts  differing  according  to  the 
 grace  given  unto  us,  &,c.  In  this  and  the  following  verses  we 
 have  the  application  of  the  preceding  comparison  to  the  special 
 object  in  view.  'If  Christians  are  all  members  of  the  same 
 body,  having  different  offices  and  gifts,  instead  of  being  puffed 
 up  one  above  another,  and  instead  of  envying  and  opposing 
 each  other,  they  should  severally  discharge  their  respective 
 duties  diligently  and  humbly  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  and  not 
 for  their  own  advantage.'  It  is  a  common  opinion  that  the 
 apostle,  in  specifying  the  various  gifts  to  which  he  refers,  meant 
 to  arrange  them  under  the  two  heads  of  prophesging  and  admin- 
 istering; or  that  he  specifies  the  duties  of  two  classes  of  officers, 
 the  prophets  and  deacons  {ocdxovoc).  To  the  former  would  then 
 belong  prophesying,  teaching,  exhortation;  to  the  latter,  min- 
 istering, giving,  ruling,  showing  mercy.  This  view  of  the  pas- 
 sage, which  is  adopted  by  De  Brais,  Koppe,  and  others,  requires 
 that  the  terms  prophet  and  deacon  should  be  taken  in  their 
 widest  sense.  Both  are  indeed  frequently  used  with  great 
 latitude ;  the  former  being  applied  to  any  one  who  speaks  as 
 the  mouth  of  God,  or  the  explainer  of  his  will ;  and  the  latter 
 to  any  ministerial  officer  in  the  church,  1  Cor.  iii.  5,  Eph.  iii.  7, 
 Col.  i.  7,  23,  &c.  Although  this  interpretation  is  consistent 
 with  the  usage  of  the  words,  and  in  some  measure  simplifies  the 
 passage,  yet  it  is  by  no  means  necessary.  There  is  no  appear- 
 ance of  such  a  systematic  arrangement ;  on  the  contrary,  Paul 
 seems  to  refer  without  any  order  to  the  various  duties  which  the 
 officers  and  even  private  members  of  the  church  were  called 
 upon  to  perform.  The  construction  in  the  original  is  not 
 entirely  regular,  and,  therefore,  has  been  variously  explained. 
 There  is  no  interpretation  more  natural  than  that  adopted  by 
 
ROMANS  XII.  6.  611 
 
 our  translators,  who,  considering  the  passage  as  elliptical,  have 
 supplied  in  the  several  specifications  the  phrases  which  in  each 
 case  the  sense  requires.  Instead  of  beginning  a  new  sentence 
 with  ver.  6,  many  commentators  connect  i-^oi^ze^  with  la^sv  in 
 ver.  5,  and  make  the  following  accusatives  depend  on  it.  The 
 whole  passage  is  then  regarded  as  declarative,  and  not  exhorta- 
 tive. '  We  are  one  body  having  gifts,  prophecy  according  to 
 the  proportion  of  faith ;  or  the  gift  of  ministering,  in  the  minis- 
 try, he  that  teacheth,  in  teaching,'  &c.  It  is  plain,  however, 
 that  this  requires  a  very  forced  interpretation  to  be  given  to  the 
 several  terms  here  used.  Jcaxouia  does  not  in  the  same  clause 
 mean  first  the  gift,  and  then  the  exercise  of  the  gift ;  much  less 
 can  iv  tij  ~a(iax}.:/jaec,  eu  drrMTr^u,  &c.,  indicate  the  sphere  within 
 which  the  gifts  mentioned  are  exercised.  Others  retaining  the 
 exhortatory  character  of  the  passage,  still  connect  i^ouzs^  with 
 ver.  5.  '  We  are  having  gifts,  whether  prophecy  or  ministry, 
 let  us  use  tliem  aright.'  On  the  whole,  the  simplest  method  is 
 to  begin  a  new  sentence  with  iyovTs.<;,  and  supply  the  necessary 
 verb  in  the  several  clauses,  as  is  done  in  our  version,  and  by 
 Olshausen,  Fritzsche,  Phlllipi.  Comp.  1  Peter  iv.  11,  e^'  to; 
 Aa'Atl,  wz,  Xojca  6eo~j  (sc.  XaXeizu)).  kc. 
 
 Having  therefore  gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace  given 
 unto  us,  i.  e.,  as  there  are  in  the  one  body  various  ofiices  and 
 gifts,  let  every  one  act  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  nature 
 and  design  of  the  particular  gift  which  he  has  received.  Whe- 
 ther prophecy,  let  us  pi'.ophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of 
 faith.  The  first  gift  specified  is  that  of  prophecy,  with  regard 
 to  the  precise  nature  of  which  there  is  no  little  diversity  of 
 opinion.  The  original  and  proper  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
 word  rendered  prophet  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  interpreter,  one 
 who  explains  or  delivers  the  will  of  another.  And  to  this  idea 
 the  Greek  term  also  answers.  It  matters  little  whether  the 
 will  or  purpose  of  God  which  the  prophets  w^ere  called  upon  to 
 deliver,  had  reference  to  present  duty  or  to  future  events. 
 They  derived  their  Hebrew  name  not  from  predicting  what  was 
 to  come  to  pass,  which  was  but  a  small  part  of  their  duty,  but 
 from  being  the  interpreters  of  God,  men  who  spoke  in  his  name. 
 We  accordingly  find  the  term  prophet  applied  to  all  classes  of 
 religious  teachers  under  the  old  dispensation.     Of  Abraham  it 
 
612  ROMANS  XII.  6. 
 
 is  said,  "He  is  a  prophet,  and  he  shall  pray  for  thee  and  thou 
 shalt  live,"  Gen.  xx.  7.  The  name  is  often  applied  to  Moses 
 as  the  great  interpreter  of  the  will  of  God  to  the  Hebrews, 
 Deut.  xviii.  18 ;  and  the  Avriters  of  the  historical  books  are  also 
 constantly  so  called.  The  passage  in  Exod.  vii.  1,  is  peculiarly 
 interesting,  as  it  clearly  exhibits  the  proper  meaning  of  this 
 word.  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  See,  I  have  made 
 thee  a  god  to  Pharaoh ;  and  Aaron  thy  brother  shall  be  thy 
 prophet,"  i.  e.  he  shall  be  thy  interpreter.  In  chap.  iv.  16,  it 
 is  said,  "He  shall  be  a  mouth  to  thee;"  and  of  Jeremiah,  God 
 says,  "Thou  shalt  be  my  mouth,"  Jer.  xv.  19;  compare  Deut. 
 xviii.  18.  Any  one,  therefore,  who  acted  as  the  mouth  of  God, 
 no  matter  what  was  the  nature  of  the  communication,  was  a 
 prophet.  And  this  is  also  the  sense  of  the  word  in  the  New 
 Testament;*  it  is  applied  to  any  one  employed  to  deliver  a 
 divine  message.  Matt.  x.  41,  xiii.  57,  Luke  iv.  24,  vii.  26 — 29, 
 "What  went  ye  out  to  see?  A  prophet?  yea,  I  say  unto  you, 
 and  much  more  than  a  prophet.  This  is  he  of  whom  it  is 
 written,  Behold  I  send  my  messenger,  &c."  John  iv.  19, 
 "Sir,  I  perceive  that  thou  art  a  prophet,"  i.  e.,  an  inspired 
 man.  Acts  xv.  32,  "And  Judas  and  Silas,  being  prophets, 
 also  themselves  exhorted  the  brethren  and  confirmed  them." 
 1  Cor.  xii.  28,  "God  hath  set  in  the  church,  first,  apostles; 
 secondarily,  prophets;  thirdly,  teachers;  &c."  1  Cor.  xiv. 
 29 — 32,  "Let  the  prophets  speak  two  or  three,  and  let  the 
 other  judge.  If  anything  be  revealed  to  another  that  sitteth 
 by,  let  the  first  hold  his  peace.  For  ye  may  all  prophesy  one 
 by  one,  that  all  may  learn  and  all  may  be  comforted.  For  the 
 spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subjects  to  the  prophets."  "If  any 
 man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet  or  spiritual  (inspired),  let 
 him  acknowledge,  &c."     From  these  and  numerous  similar  pas- 
 
 *  In  common  Greek,  also,  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  The  /udrTt;  was 
 the  immediate  receiver  of  the  divine  influence,  and  declarer  of  the  oracles,  and 
 the  TT^o^MTn;  was  the  interpreter.  Hence  fxcvs-Zv  Tr^c^iiftu  the  interpreters  of  the 
 Muses.  These  two  words,  however,  fjtdvTK  and  jrgo<f»'T«c,  are  frequently  used 
 indiscriminately,  the  latter  being  applied  to  any  person  who  spoke  under  a 
 divine  influence.  As  poets  were  supposed  to  speak  under  a  certain  kind  of 
 inspiration,  they  too  were  called  prophets.  Paul  used  the  word  in  this  sense 
 when  he  wrote  to  Titus,  Tit,  i.  12,  "A  prophet  of  their  own  said,  the  Cretans 
 are  always  liars,"  &c. 
 
ROMANS  XIL  6.  613 
 
 sages,  it  appears  that  the  prophets  in  the  Christian  church 
 were  men  who  spoke  under  the  immediate  influence  of  the 
 Spirit  of  God,  and  delivered  some  divine  communication  rela- 
 ting to  doctrinal  truths,  to  present  duty,  to  future  events,  &c., 
 as  the  case  might  be.*  The  point  of  distinction  between  them 
 and  the  apostles,  considered  as  religious  teachers,  appears  to 
 have  been  that  the  inspiration  of  the  apostles  was  abiding,  they 
 were  the  infallible  and  authoritative  messengers  of  Christ; 
 whereas  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets  was  occasional  and 
 transient.  The  latter  differed  from  the  teachers  [ocddaxaXot)^ 
 inasmuch  as  these  were  not  necessarily  inspired,  but  taught  to 
 others  what  they  themselves  had  learned  from  the  Scriptures,  or 
 from  inspired  men. 
 
 Agreeably  to  this  view  of  the  office  of  the  prophets,  we  find 
 the  sacred  writers  speaking  of  the  gift  of  prophecy  as  consist- 
 ing in  the  communication  of  divine  truth  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
 intended  for  instruction,  exhortation,  or  consolation.  "  Though 
 I  have  the  gift  of  prophecy,  and  understand  all  mysteries  and 
 all  knowledge,"  1  Cor.  xii.  2;  "He  that  prophesieth  speaketh 
 unto  men  to  edification,  and  exhortation,  and  comfort,"  1  Cor 
 xiv.  4 ;  "If  all  prophesy,  and  there  come  in  one  that  believeth 
 not,  or  one  unlearned,  he  is  convinced  of  all,  he  is  judged  of  all, 
 &c."  ver.  24. 
 
 The  gift  of  which  Paul  here  speaks,  is  not,  therefore,  the 
 faculty  of  predicting  future  events,  but  that  of  immediate  occa- 
 sional inspiration,  leading  the  recipient  to  deliver,  as  the  mouth 
 of  God,  the  particular  communication  which  he  had  received, 
 whether  designed  for  instruction,  exhortation,  or  comfort.  The 
 apostle  required  that  those  who  enjoyed  this  gift  should  exer- 
 
 *  ng(xf»)T»c,  vates,  i.  e.,  vir  divinus,  qui  afflatu  divino  gaudet  et  cui  numen 
 retegit,  quae  antea  incognita  erant,  maxime  ad  religionem  pertinentia. —  Wahl. 
 
 Sunt  qui  prophetiam  intelligunt  divinandi  facultatem,  quae  circa  evangelii 
 primordia  in  ecclesia  vigebat.  .  .  .  Ego  vero  eos  sequi  malo,  qui  latius  extend- 
 unt  hoc  nomen  ad  peculiare  revelationis  donum,  ut  quis  dextre  ac  perite  in 
 voluntate  Dei  enarranda  munus  interpretis  obeat. — Calvin. 
 
 On  the  nature  of  the  office  of  prophet,  see  Koppe's  Excursus  III.,  appended 
 to  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians ;  and  Winer's  Realwbrter- 
 buch,  under  the  word  Propheten.  Both  these  treatises  are  rationalistic,  yet 
 both  contain  the  materials  for  a  fair  examination  of  the  fubject.  iSee  alse 
 Keander  on  the  Planting  of  the  Christian  Church,  Vol.  L 
 
614  ROMANS  XII.  6. 
 
 cise  it  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith.  This  clause  admita 
 of  different  interpretations.  The  word  [dvaAoyia)  rendered 
 proportion,  may  mean  either  proportion,  or  measure,  rule, 
 standard.  Classic  usage  is  rather  in  favour  of  the  former  of 
 these  meanings.  The  latter,  however,  is  necessarily  included 
 in  the  former ;  and  the  word  is  defined  by  Hesychius,  measure, 
 canon,  or  rule.  The  choice  between  the  two  meanings  of  the 
 word  must  depend  on  the  sense  given  to  the  word  faith,  and  ou 
 the  context.  Faith  may  here  mean  inward  confidence  or 
 belief;  or  it  may  mean  the  gift  received,  i.  e.  that  which  is 
 confided  {zb  TzeTttazzofXEvov);  or,  finally,  that  which  is  believed, 
 truths  divinely  revealed.  If  the  first  of  these  three  senses  be 
 adopted,  the  passage  means,  '  Let  him  prophesy  according  to 
 his  internal  convictions ;  that  is,  he  must  not  exceed  in  his 
 communication  what  he  honestly  believes  to  have  been  divinely 
 communicated,  or  allow  himself  to  be  carried  away  by  enthu- 
 siasm, to  deliver,  as  from  God,  what  is  really  nothing  but  his 
 own  thoughts.'  If  the  second  sense  (of  Triavc^)  be  preferred, 
 the  clause  then  means,  '  Let  him  prophesy  according  to  the 
 proportion  of  the  gifts  which  he  has  received ;  i.  e.  let  every 
 one  speak  according  to  the  degree  and  nature  of  the  divine 
 influence,  or  the  particular  revelation  imparted  to  him.'  If, 
 however,  faith  here  means,  as  it  does  in  so  many  other  places, 
 the  object  of  faitli,  or  the  truths  to  he  believed,  (see  Gal.  i.  23, 
 iii.  25,  vi.  10,  Eph.  iv.  5,  2  Thess.  iii.  5,  &c.,)  then  according 
 to  the  proportion  signifies,  agreeably  to  to  the  rule  or  standard; 
 and  the  apostle's  direction  to  the  prophets  is,  that  in  all  their 
 communications  they  are  to  conform  to  the  rule  of  faith,  and 
 not  contradict  those  doctrines  which  had  been  delivered  by  men 
 whose  inspiration  had  been  established  by  indubitable  evidence 
 In  favour  of  this  view  of  the  passage  is  the  frequent  use  of  the 
 vf or di  faith  in  the  sense  thus  assigned  to  it.  The  ordinary  sub 
 jective  sense  of  the  word  does  not  suit  the  passage.  The 
 amount  or  strength  of  faith  does  not  determine  either  the 
 extent  to  which  the  gift  of  prophecy  is  enjoyed,  or  the  manner 
 in  which  it  is  exercised.  There  were  prophets  who  had  no 
 saving  faith  at  all;  just  as  many  performed  miracles,  who  were 
 not  the  true  disciples  of  Christ.  "  In  that  day,"  says  our  Lord, 
 '*many  shall  say  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  have  we  not  prophesied 
 
ROMANS  XIL  6.  615 
 
 in  thy  name,  and  in  thy  name  cast  out  devils  ?  and  in  thy 
 name  done  m  iny  wonderful  works  ?  To  whom  he  will  say,  I 
 never  knew  you."  The  second  sense  given  to  marc:;,  that  which 
 is  confided  to  any  one,  i.  e.  a  gift,  is  without  any  authority. 
 The  objective  sense  of  the  word,  although  denied  by  many  of 
 the  strict  philological  interpreters,  is  nevertheless  well  estab- 
 lished by  such  expressions,  "obedience  to  the  faith,"  "doer  of 
 faith,"  "faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  is  perfectly 
 familiar  in  ecclesiastical  usage.  2.  The  fact  that  similar  direc- 
 tions respecting  those  who  consider  themselves  prophets  or 
 inspired  persons,  occur  in  other  passages.  Thus  Paul  says, 
 "  If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let 
 him  acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I  write  unto  you  are  the 
 commandments  of  the  Lord;"  1  Cor.  xiv.  37.  This  was  the 
 standard ;  and  no  man  had  a  right  to  consider  himself  inspired, 
 or  to  require  others  so  to  regard  him,  who  did  not  conform 
 himself  to  the  instructions  of  men  whose  inspiration  was  beyond 
 doubt.  Thus  too  the  apostle  John  commands  Christians, 
 "  Believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  be 
 of  God;  because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the 
 world,"  1  John  iv.  1.  And  the  standard  by  which  these  pro- 
 phets were  to  be  tried,  he  gives  in  ver.  6:  "We  are  of  God: 
 he  that  knoweth  God,  heareth  us ;  and  he  that  is  not  of  God, 
 heareth  not  us.  Hereby  we  know  the  spirit  of  truth  and  the 
 spirit  of  error."  It  was  obviously  necessary  that  Christians, 
 in  the  age  of  immediate  inspiration,  should  have  aome  means 
 of  discriminating  between  those  who  were  really  under  the 
 influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  those  who  were  either 
 enthusiasts  or  deceivers.  And  the  test  to  which  the  apostles 
 directed  them  was  rational,  and  easily  applied.  There  were 
 inspired  men  to  whose  divine  mission  and  authority  God  had 
 borne  abundant  testimony  by  "signs  and  wonder,  and  divers 
 miracles,  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  As  God  cannot  con- 
 tradict himself,  it  follows  that  anything  inconsistent  with  the 
 teachings  of  these  men,  though  proceeding  from  one  claiming 
 to  be  a  prophet,  must  be  false,  and  the  pretension  of  its  author 
 to  inspiration  unfounded.  Accordingly,  the  apostle  directed 
 that  while  one  prophet  spoke,  the  others  were  to  judge,  i.  e. 
 decide  whether  he  spoke  according  to  the  analogy  of  faith ;  and 
 
616  ROMANS  XII.  7. 
 
 whether  his  inspiration  was  real,  imaginary,  or  feigned.  3.  This 
 interpretation  is  also  perfectly  suitable  to  the  context.  Paul, 
 after  giving  the  general  direction  contained  in  the  preceding 
 verses,  as  to  the  light  in  which  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  were  to 
 be  Viewed,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  were  to  be  used,  in 
 this  and  the  following  verses,  gives  special  directions  with 
 respect  to  particular  gifts.  Those  who  thought  themselves 
 prophets  should  be  careful  to  speak  nothing  but  truth,  to  con- 
 form to  the  standard ;  those  who  ministered  should  devote 
 themselves  to  their  appropriate  duties,  &c. 
 
 Verse  7.  Or  ministry,  let  us  wait  on  our  ministering;  or  he 
 that  teaeheth,  on  teaching.  The  terms  minister  and  ministry 
 (3cdxovo<;  and  diaxovca,  deacon  and  deaeonship,)  are  used  in  the 
 New  Testament  both  in  a  general  and  a  restricted  sense.  In 
 the  former,  they  are  employed  in  reference  to  all  classes  of 
 ecclesiastical  officers,  even  the  apostles ;  see  1  Cor.  iii.  5,  2  Cor. 
 vi.  4,  Eph.  iii.  7,  vi.  21,  Col.  i.  7,  23,  1  Tim.  iv.  6,  Acts  i.  17, 
 25,  XX.  24,  Rom.  xi.  13,  1  Cor.  xii.  5,  2  Cor.  iv.  1,  &c.  In  the 
 latter,  they  are  used  in  reference  to  a  particular  class  of 
 officers,  to  whom  were  committed  the  management  of  the  exter- 
 nal affairs  of  the  church,  the  care  of  the  poor,  attention  to  the 
 sick,  &c.;  see  Acts  vi.  1 — 3,  Phil.  i.  1,  1  Tim.  iii.  8 — 13,  &c. 
 It  is  doubtful  in  which  of  these  senses  the  latter  of  the  above- 
 mentioned  words  is  here  used  by  the  apostle,  most  probably  in 
 the  restricted  sense.  The  apostle  exhorts  different  classes  of 
 officers  to  atteiLd  to  their  own  peculiar  vocation,  and  to  exercise 
 their  own  gifts,  without  intruding  into  the  sphere  of  others,  or 
 envying  their  superior  endowments.  The  deacons,  therefore, 
 were  to  attend  to  the  poor  and  the  sick,  and  not  attempt  to 
 exercise  the  office  of  teachers.  Luther,  and  many  others,  give 
 the  words  their  wide  sense.  "  Hat  jemand  ein  Amt,  so  warte 
 er  des  Amtes :"  If  a  man  has  an  office,  let  him  attend  to  it. 
 But  this  would  render  unnecessary  the  specifications  which 
 follow.  The  apostle,  in  this  context,  refers  to  definite  ecclesi- 
 astical offices  in  connection  with  ordinary  Christian  duties. 
 That  is,  he  exhorts  both  church  officers  and  private  Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 JTe  that  teaeheth,  on  teaching.  Teachers  are  elsewhere 
 expressly  distinguished  from  prophets,  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  2.9 :  "  God 
 
ROMANS  XII.  8.  617 
 
 hath  set  some  in  the  church;  first,  apostles;  secondarily,  pro- 
 phets ;  thirdly,  teachers.  Are  all  apostles  ?  are  all  prophets  ? 
 are  all  teachers  ?  are  all  workers  of  miracles  ?"  And  in  this 
 passage  they  are  not  to  be  confounded,  nor  is  teaching  to  be 
 regarded,  in  this  place,  as  one  part  of  prophesying.  Aa 
 remarked  above  on  ver.  6,  the  teachers  were  distinguished  from 
 prophets,  inasmuch  as  the  former  were  not  necessarily  inspired, 
 and  were  a  regular  and  permanent  class  of  officers.  Those  who 
 had  the  gift  of  prophecy,  were  to  exercise  it  aright;  those  who 
 were  called  to  the  office  of  deacons,  were  to  devote  themselves 
 to  their  appropriate  duties ;  and  those  who  had  the  gift  of 
 teaching,  were  to  teach. 
 
 Verse  8.  He  that  exhorteth,  on  exhortation.  The  word 
 {jzafjaxaXsu))  here  used,  means  to  invite,  exhort,  and  to  comfort. 
 Our  translators  have  probably  selected  the  most  appropriate 
 sense.  Teaching  is  addressed  to  the  understanding;  exhorta- 
 tion, to  the  conscience  and  feelings.  There  was  probably  no 
 distinct  class  of  officers  called  exhorters,  as  distinguished  from 
 teachers;  but  as  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  gifts  as  well  as 
 officers,  (both  are  included  in  the  word  yia(nafx(xxa^  his  direc- 
 tion is,  that  he  who  had  the  gift  of  teaching,  should  teach ;  and 
 that  he  who  had  a  gift  for  exhortation,  should  be  content  to 
 exhort. 
 
 He  that  giveth,  let  him  do  it  with  simplicity;  he  that  rulethy 
 with  diligence;  he  that  showeth  mercy,  with  cheerfulness.  These 
 directions  have  reference  to  the  manner  in  which  the  duties  of 
 church  officers  and  of  private  Christians  ought  to  be  performed. 
 In  this  connection,  the  former  no  doubt  are  principally,  though 
 not  exclusively  intended.  It  is  a  common  opinion,  that  giving, 
 ruling,  showing  mercy,  (6  fisTadidou^,  b  npocardfitvoi;,  6  ihwp,) 
 refer  to  different  functions  of  the  deaconate.  But  not  only  the 
 use  of  /lezadedout:  instead  of  diadtdou^ — the  former  properly 
 meaning  giving  (what  is  one's  own,)  and  the  latter,  distribut- 
 ing— is  opposed  to  this  view,  but  the  whole  exhortation,  which 
 refers  with  equal,  or  greater  propriety,  to  the  state  of  mind 
 and  the  manner  in  which  the  private  duties  of  Christian  fellow- 
 ship are  be  performed.  There  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for 
 the  restriction  of  the  directions  here  given  to  either  class, 
 officers  or  private  members,  exclusively.     He  that  givetli,  with 
 
618  ROMANS  XII.  8. 
 
 simplicity,  iTzlbrT^Tc,  singleness  of  mind.  This  direction,  con« 
 sidered  in  reference  to  the  deacons,  whom,  no  doubt,  Paul 
 included  in  his  exhortation,  contemplates  their  duty  of  impart- 
 ing or  distributing  to  the  necessity  of  the  saints.  This  duty, 
 by  whomsoever  performed,  is  to  be  done  with  simplicity,  i.  e., 
 with  purity  of  motive,  free  from  all  improper  designs.  This 
 same  word  is  rendered  singleness  of  heart,  in  Eph.  vi.  5,  Col. 
 iii.  22,  and  occurs  in  the  same  sense,  in  the  phrase,  "simplicity 
 and  godly  sincerity,"  2  Cor.  i.  12.  Considered  in  reference  to 
 private  Christians,  this  clause  may  be  rendered,  he  that  givethf 
 with  liberality;  see  2  Cor.  viii.  2,  ix.  11,  13. 
 
 He  that  ruleth,  with  diligence.  Here  again  the  right  dis- 
 charge of  ecclesiastical  duties  is  principally  intended ;  1  Thess. 
 V.  12,  "  We  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  (esteem,  love)  them 
 that  are  over  you  in  the  Lord;"  1  Tim.  v.  17,  "The  elders 
 that  rule  well."  There  is  considerable  diversity  of  opinion  as 
 to  the  explanation  to  be  here  given  to  6  TTpoiardfievoi;.  The 
 word  properly  means,  one  who  is  placed  over,  who  presides,  or 
 rules.  It  is,  however,  used  in  a  more  restricted  sense,  for  a 
 patron,  one  who  befriends  others,  and  especially  strangers. 
 Hence  in  xvi.  2,  Phoebe  is  called  a  Tzpoardtcz,  a  p)atroness,  one 
 who  befriended  strangers.  As  what  precedes  and  what  follows, 
 giving  and  showing  mercy,  relates  to  acts  of  kindness,  the  one 
 to  the  poor,  the  other  to  the  sick,  so  this  word,  it  is  urged, 
 should  be  understood  of  showing  kindness  to  strangers.  There 
 is  certainly  force  in  this  consideration.  But  as  there  is  very 
 slight  foundation  for  the  ascription  of  this  meaning  to  the 
 word  in  the  New  Testament,  and  as  it  is  elsewhere  used  in  its 
 ordinary  sense,  (see  1  Thess.  v.  13,  comp.  1  Tim.  vi.  17,)  it  is 
 commonly  understood  of  rulers.  Some  take  it  in  reference  to 
 rulers  in  general,  civil  or  ecclesiastical;  others,  of  church- 
 rulers  or  elders  ;  others,  specifically  of  the  forestaer,  or  pastor, 
 or  bishop  of  the  congregation.  The  objection  against  this 
 restricted  reference  to  the  presiding  officer  of  a  church,  is  the 
 introduction  of  the  term  in  the  enumeration  of  ordinary  Chris- 
 tian duties.  He  that  gives,  he  that  acts  as  pastor,  he  that 
 shows  mercy,  is  rather  an  incongruous  association.  It  is  more 
 common,  therefore,  to  understand  Tcpolcfrdfitvo!;,  of  any  one  who 
 exercises  authority  in  the  church.     Those  who  were  called  to 
 
ROMANS  XIL  1—8.  619 
 
 exercise  the  ofSce  of  ruler,  were  required  to  do  it  (ii>  ffKouorj) 
 with  diligence^  i.  e.  with  attention  and  zeal.  This  is  opposed 
 to  inertness  and  carelessness.  The  government  of  the  church, 
 in  correcting  abuses,  preventing  disorders,  and  in  the  adminis- 
 tration of  discipline,  calls  for  constant  vigilance  and  fidelity. 
 '^ ITpoiffTd/Asuoi)^  tametsi  proprie  nuncupat  eos,  quibus  mandata 
 erat  ecclesise  gubernatio  (erant  autem  illi  seniores,  qui  aliia 
 prseibant  ac  moderabantur,  vitgeque  censuram  exercebant,)  quod 
 autem  de  illis  dicit  extendi  in  universum  ad  prgefecturas  omno 
 genus  potest.  Neque  enim  aut  parva  ab  iis  solicitudo  requiri- 
 tur,  qui  omnium  securitati  consulere,  aut  parva  sedulitas  ab 
 iis,  qui  pro  salute  omnium  noctes  diesque  excubare  debent." 
 Calvin. 
 
 He  that  showeth  mercy,  with  cheerfulness,  {l)Mp6z7j<^,  hilarity.) 
 As  the  former  direction  (he  that  giveth,  with  simplicity)  had 
 reference  to  the  care  of  the  poor,  this  relates  to  the  care  of  the 
 sick  and  afflicted.  These  were  the  two  great  departments  of 
 the  deacons'  duties.  The  former  was  to  be  discharged  with 
 honesty,  this  with  cheerfulness ;  not  as  a  matter  of  constraint, 
 but  with  alacrity  and  kindness.  On  this,  the  value  of  any  ser- 
 vice rendered  to  the  children  of  sorrow  mainly  depends. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  great  principle,  that  truth  is  in  order  to  holiness, 
 which  is  so  frequently  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  is  plainly 
 implied  in  this  passage.  All  the  doctrines  of  justification, 
 grace,  election,  and  final  salvation,  taught  in  the  preceding 
 part  of  the  epistle,  are  made  the  foundation  for  the  practical 
 duties  enjoined  in  this,  ver.  1. 
 
 2.  The  first  great  duty  of  redeemed  sinners  is  the  dedication 
 of  themselves  to  God.  This  consecration  must  be  entire,  of  the 
 body  as  well  as  the  soul;  it  must  be  constant,  and  according  to 
 his  will,  ver.  1. 
 
 3.  Regeneration  is  a  renewing  of  the  mind,  evincing  itself 
 in  a  transformation  of  the  whole  character,  and  leading  to  the 
 knowledge  and  approbation  of  whatever  is  acceptable  to  God, 
 ver.  2. 
 
 4.  God  is  the  giver  of  all  good,  of  honours  and  ofiices  as 
 well  as  of  talents  and  graces;  and  in  the  distribution  of  his 
 
620  ROMANS  XII.  1—8. 
 
 favours  he  renders  to  every  man  according  to  his  own  will, 
 vs.  3,  6. 
 
 5.  Christians  arc  one  body  in  Christ.  This  unity  is  not  only 
 consistent  with  great  diversity  of  gifts,  but  necessarily  implies 
 it;  as  the  body  is  one  from  the  union  of  various  members, 
 designed  for  the  performance  of  various  functions,  vs.  4,  5. 
 
 6.  The  different  oflfices  of  the  church  are  of  divine  appoint- 
 ment, and  are  designed  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  body,  and 
 not  for  the  advantage  of  those  who  hold  them,  vs.  6 — 8. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  effect  produced  upon  us  by  the  mercies  of  God,  in 
 redemption,  and  in  his  providence,  affords  an  excellent  criterion 
 of  character.  If  they  lead  us  to  devote  ourselves  to  his  service, 
 they  produce  the  effect  for  which  they  were  designed,  and  we 
 may  conclude  that  we  are  of  the  number  of  his  children.  But 
 if  they  produce  indifference  to  duty,  and  cherish  the  idea  that 
 we  are  the  special  favourites  of  heaven,  or  that  we  may  sin  with 
 impunity,  it  is  an  evidence  that  our  hearts  are  not  right  in  the 
 eight  of  God,  ver.  1. 
 
 2.  While  Christians  should  remember  that  the  service  which 
 they  are  called  upon  to  render  is  a  rational  service,  pertaining 
 to  the  soul,  they  should  not  suppose  that  it  consists  merely  in 
 the  secret  exercises  of  the  heart.  The  whole  man  and  the 
 whole  life  must  be  actively  and  constantly  devoted  to  God, 
 ver.  1. 
 
 3.  Those  professors  of  religion  who  are  conformed  to  the 
 world,  cannot  have  experienced  that  renewing  of  the  mind 
 which  produces  a  transformation  of  character,  ver.  2. 
 
 4.  Self-conceit  and  ambition  are  the  besetting  sins  of  men 
 entrusted  with  power,  or  highly  gifted  in  any  respect,  as  dis- 
 content and  envy  are  those  to  which  persons  of  inferior  station 
 or  gifts  are  most  exposed.  These  evil  feelings,  so  offensive  to 
 God,  would  be  subdued,  if  men  would  properly  lay  to  heart, 
 that  peculiar  advantages  are  bestowed  according  to  the  divine 
 pleasure ;  that  they  are  designed  to  advance  the  glory  of  God, 
 and  the  good  of  his  church,  and  not  the  honour  or  emolument 
 of  those  who  receive  them;  and  that  very  frequently  those 
 which  are  least  attractive  in  the  sight  of  men,  are  the  most 
 
ROMANS  XII.  1—8.  621 
 
 important  in  the  sight  of  God.  It  is  hei-e  as  in  the  human 
 frame ;  not  the  most  comely  parts  are  the  most  valuable,  but 
 those  which  are  the  least  so.  The  vital  parts  of  our  system 
 never  attract  the  praise  of  men,  and  are  never  the  source  of 
 vanity  or  pride,  ver.  3. 
 
 5.  As  Christians  are  one  body  in  Christ,  they  should  feel 
 their  mutual  dependence  and  their  common  interest  in  their 
 Head,  from  whom  life,  intelligence,  enjoyment,  and  every  good 
 comes.  Thoy  should  sympathize  in  each  other's  joys  and  sor- 
 rows ;  the  hand  should  not  envy  the  eye,  nor  the  eye  despise 
 the  foot.  How  can  they,  who  are  destitute  of  this  common 
 feeling  with  their  fellow  Christians,  be  partakers  of  that  Spirit 
 by  which  true  believers  are  constituted  really  and  not  merely 
 nominally  one?  vs.  4,  5. 
 
 6.  Real  honour  consists  in  doing  well  what  God  calls  us  to 
 do,  and  not  in  the  possession  of  high  oflBces  or  great  talents, 
 vs.  6—8. 
 
 7.  No  man's  usefulness  is  increased  by  going  out  of  hia 
 sphere.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  because  one  pos- 
 session or  employment  may,  in  itself  considered,  afford  better 
 opportunity  of  doing  good  than  another,  that  therefore  any 
 or  every  man  would  be  more  useful  in  the  one  than  in  the 
 other.  The  highest  improvement  of  the  individual,  and  the 
 greatest  good  of  the  whole,  are  best  secured  by  each  being 
 and  doing  what  God  sees  fit  to  determine.  If  all  were  the 
 same  member,  where  were  the  body  ?  '  God  is  not  the  author 
 of  confusion,  but  of  order,  in  all  the  churches  of  the  saints,' 
 vs.  6—8. 
 
 8.  No  amount  of  learning,  no  superiority  of  talent,  nor  even 
 the  pretension  to  inspiration,  can  justify  a  departure  from  the 
 analogy  of  faith,  i.  e.,  from  the  truths  taught  by  men  to  whose 
 inspiration  God  has  borne  witness.  All  teachers  must  be 
 brought  to  this  standard;  and  even  if  an  angel  from  heaven 
 should  teach  anything  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  he  should  be 
 regarded  as  anathema,  Gal.  i.  8.  It  is  a  matter  of  constant 
 gratitude  that  we  have  such  a  standard  whereby  to  try  the 
 spirits  whether  they  be  of  God.  Ministers  of  Christ  should 
 see  to  it,  that  they  do  not  incur  the  curse  which  Paul  denounces 
 on  those  who  preach  another  gospel,  ver.  6. 
 
C22  ROMANS  XII.  9. 
 
 9.  Private  Christians,  and  especially  ecclesiastical  officers, 
 aro  refjuired  to  discharge  their  respective  duties  with  singleness 
 of  heart,  and  in  the  exercise  of  those  virtues  which  the  peculiar 
 nature  of  their  vocation  may  demand,  vs.  6 — 8. 
 
 EOMANS   XII.  9—21. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Having  treated  of  those  duties  which  belong  more  especially 
 to  the  officers  of  the  church,  the  apostle  exhorts  his  readers 
 generally  to  the  exercise  of  various  Christian  virtues.  There 
 is  no  logical  arrangement  observed  in  this  part  of  the  chapter, 
 except  that  the  general  exhortation  to  love  precedes  the  pre- 
 cepts which  relate  to  those  exercises  which  are,  for  the  most 
 part,  but  different  manifestations  of  this  primary  grace.  The 
 love  of  the  Christian  must  be  sincere,  and  lead  to  the  avoiding 
 of  evil,  and  the  pursuit  of  good,  ver.  9.  It  must  produce 
 brotherly  aflection  and  humility,  ver.  10 ;  diligence  and  devo- 
 tion, ver.  11 ;  resignation,  patience,  and  prayer,  ver.  12 ; 
 charity  and  hospitality,  ver.  13;  forgiveness  of  injuries,  ver. 
 14;  sympathy  with  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  others,  ver.  15; 
 concord  and  lowliness  of  mind,  ver.  16 ;  and  a  constant  endea- 
 vour to  return  good  for  evil,  vs.  17 — 21. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  9.  Let  love  he  without  dissimulation,  or.  Love  is  with- 
 out hypocrisy,  i.  e.,  sincere,  not  hypocritical,  and  not  consisting 
 in  words  merely.  The  love  intended  in  this  verse,  is  probably 
 love  to  all  men,  and  not  to  Christians  exclusively,  as  in  ver.  10, 
 brotherly  affection  is  particularly  specified.  Much  less  is  love 
 to  God  the  idea  meant  to  be  expressed. 
 
 Abhor  that  which  is  evil;  cleave  to  that  which  is  good.  There 
 is  a  number  of  participles  following  this  verse,  to  which  our 
 translators  supply  the  imperative  of  the  substantive  verb ;  '  be 
 abhorring,'  ^be  kindly  affectioned,'  &c.  Others  connect  them 
 all  with  suXoyelrs  in  ver.  14;  'abhorring  evil.'  'being  kindly 
 affectioned,'  'bless  those,'  &c.     But  these  participles  dj  not 
 
KOMANS  XII.  10.  623 
 
 express  what  should  qualify,  or  characterize,  the  act  of  blessing 
 our  persecutors;  'hating,'  'loving  the  brethren,'  ^ bless  your 
 enemies,'  &c.  It  is  more  natural  to  assume  that  the  apostle 
 departs  slightly  from  the  regular  construction,  and  writes  as 
 though,  in  ver  9,  he  had  said,  d-ydTiazs  dvorroxptTcoi;,  dTcoaruyo- 
 WTEt;,  x.T.L  Compare  2  Cor,  i.  7,  and  Heb.  xiii.  5,  difddp- 
 yopo^  b  TpoTTO^  (for,  dcfddpyopoc  TrspiTTazscTS,)  dpxoupsi^oi  ro?c 
 Tiapouatv.  This  is  the  explanation  given  by  Philippi  and  others. 
 The  words  rendered  to  abhor  {d-Koazoysco)  and  to  cleave  to  {xaX- 
 ?.dofia()  are  peculiarly  forcible,  and  express  the  highest  degree 
 of  hatred  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  persevering  devotion  on  the 
 other.  The  latter  word,  in  the  active  form,  properly  means,  to 
 glue,  and  in  the  middle,  to  attach  one's  self  to  any  person  or 
 thing.  The  words  evil  and  good^  in  this  passage,  may  be  under- 
 stood of  moral  good  and  evil ;  and  the  exhortation  be  considered 
 as  a  general  direction  to  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other.  But 
 the  great  majority  of  commentators,  out  of  regard  to  the  con- 
 text, take  the  terms  in  a  restricted  sense,  making  the  former 
 mean  injurious^  and  the  latter  kind.  The  sense  of  the  whole 
 verse  would  then  be,  '  Let  love  be  sincere ;  strive  to  avoid  what 
 is  injurious  to  others,  and  earnestly  endeavour  to  do  whatever 
 is  kind  and  useful.'  As  the  words  themselves  admit  of  either 
 of  these  interpretations,  the  choice  between  them  depends  upon 
 the  context.  The  latter  is,  on  this  ground,  perhaps  to  be  pre- 
 ferred. 
 
 Verse  10.  Be  kindly  affectioned  one  to  another  tvith  brotherly 
 love,  in  honour  j^ref erring  one  another.  '  As  to  brotherly  love, 
 be  kindly  affectioned  one  towards  another.'  This  exhortation 
 seems  to  have  special  reference  to  Christians.  The  word 
 [(pdoazopfoc:)  used  by  the  apostle,  expresses  properly  the 
 strong  natural  affection  between  parents  and  children  {(Tzoppj), 
 but  is  applied  also  to  tender  affection  of  any  kind.  Here,  no 
 doubt,  the  idea  is,  that  Christians  should  love  each  other  with 
 the  same  sincerity  and  tenderness  as  if  they  were  the  nearest 
 relatives. 
 
 In  honour  preferring  one  another.  This  passage,  thus  trans- 
 lated, cannot  be  understood  otherwise  than  as  an  exhortation 
 to  humility ;  and  such  is  the  interf  retation  generally  given  to 
 it.    But  the  word  {Trpor^ysiadai)  rendered  to  prefer,  never  occurs 
 
624  ROMANS  XII.  11. 
 
 in  that  sense  elsewhere.  It  means  properly,  to  go  before,  tc 
 lead;  and  then,  figuratively,  to  set  an  example.  And  the  word 
 translated  honour,  may  mean  deference,  respect,  and  even  kind- 
 ness, {ohservantia  et  omnia  humanitatis  officia  quae  aliis  debe- 
 mus.  Schleusner.)  The  sense  of  the  clause  may  then  be,  'as 
 to  respect  and  kindness  {Tc[ifj)  going  before  each  other,  or 
 setting  an  example  one  to  another.'  This  interpretation,  which 
 is  given  by  most  of  the  recent  commentators,  is  not  only  better 
 suited  to  the  meaning  of  the  words,  but  also  to  the  context. 
 The  Vulgate  translates,  "Honore  invicem  praevenientes ;"  and 
 Luther,  "Einer  komme  dem  Andern  mit  Ehrererbietung  zu  vor." 
 It  is  not  only  an  iujunction  of  politeness,  but  that  in  all  acts  of 
 respect  and  kindness,  we  should  take  the  lead.  Instead  of  wait- 
 ing for  others  to  honour  us,  we  should  be  beforehand  with  them 
 in  the  manifestation  of  respect. 
 
 Verse  11.  Not  slothful  in  business;  fervent  in  spirit;  serv- 
 ing the  Lord.  The  love  to  which  the  apostle  exhorts  his  readers 
 is  not  inactive  or  cold ;  on  the  contrary,  it  manifests  itself  in 
 diligence,  zeal,  and  devotion  to  God.  The  word  rendered  busi- 
 ness [anoudrj)  properly  means  haste,  activity.  It  is  the  effect  or 
 outward  manifestation  of  zeal.  The  exhortation  has  not  the 
 reference  which  our  version  would  naturally  suggest,  viz.,  to 
 the  active  performance  of  our  several  vocations ;  it  refers 
 rather  to  religious  activity ;  '  As  to  activity  or  diligence,  do  not 
 grow  weary  or  be  indolent;  on  the  contrary,  be  fervent  in 
 spirit.'  The  word  spirit  is  by  many  understood  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit;  it  most  naturally  refers  to  the  mind;  compare  Acts 
 xviii.  25,  where  it  is  said  of  Apollos,  "  being  fervent  in  spirit 
 (i.  e.,  zealous,)  he  spake  and  taught  diligently."  This  clause, 
 therefore,  stands  in  opposition  to  the  preceding.  Instead  of 
 being  inactive,  we  should  be  zealous. 
 
 Serving  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  doing  service  to  the  Lord;  influenced 
 in  cur  activity  and  zeal  by  a  desire  to  serve  Christ.  This 
 member  of  the  sentence  thus  understood,  describes  the  motive 
 from  which  zeal  and  diligence  should  proceed.  Compare  Eph. 
 vi.  5 — 8,  especially  the  expressions,  as  unto  Christ,  as  the 
 servants  of  Christ,  as  to  the  Lord,  &c.;  and  Col.  iii.  22,  23. 
 Instead  of  serving  the  Lord,  there  is  another  reading,  accord- 
 ing  to  which    the    passage    must    be    rendered,    serving   tJie 
 
ROMANS  XII.  12,  13.  625 
 
 time*  (tempori  servientes.  Calvin,)  i.  e.,  making  tlie  most  of 
 every  opportunity,  (see  Eph.  v.  16 ;)  or,  as  others  understand 
 it,  'adapting  your  conduct  to  circumstances.'  Zeal  is  to  be 
 tempered  with  prudence.  The  common  text  is  the  best  authen- 
 ticated, and  is  generally  adopted.  The  zeal  which  the  apostle 
 recommends  is  zeal  for  Christ,  and  not  for  our  own  advancement 
 or  interests. 
 
 Verse  12.  Rejoicing  in  hope;  patient  in  tribulation;  con- 
 tinuing instant  in  prayer.  These  exhortations  refer  to  nearly 
 related  duties :  Christians  are  to  be  joyful,  patient,  and  prayer- 
 ful. However  adverse  their  circumstances,  hope,  patience,  and 
 prayer  are  not  only  duties,  but  the  richest  sources  of  consola- 
 tion and  support.  'Rejoicing  on  account  of  hope,  or  in  the 
 joyful  expectation  of  future  good.'  This  hope  of  salvation  ia 
 the  most  eflfectual  means  of  producing  patience  under  present 
 afflictions ;  for  if  we  feel  "  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present 
 time  are  not  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  glory  which  shall 
 be  revealed  in  us,"  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  bear  them  patiently. 
 Intercourse  with  God,  however,  is  necessary  to  the  exercise  of 
 this  and  all  other  virtues,  and  therefore  the  apostle  immediately 
 adds,  continuing  instant  in  prayer.  The  original  could  hardly 
 be  better  translated ;  as  the  Greek  term  {rrpoaxapTepico,  inten- 
 tu8  sum  rei)  expresses  the  idea  of  perseverance  and  ardour  in 
 the  prosecution  of  any  object.  There  are  no  attributes  of 
 acceptable  prayer  more  frequently  presented  in  the  Scriptures 
 than  those  here  referred  to,  viz.,  perseverance  and  fervour, 
 which,  from  their  nature,  imply  faith  in  the  ability  and  wil- 
 lingness of  God  to  grant  us  needed  good,  Acts  i.  14,  vi.  4, 
 Eph.  vi.  18,  &c. 
 
 Verse  13.  Distributing  to  the  necessity  of  saints ;  given  to 
 hospitality.  These  virtues  are  the  immediate  fruits  of  the  love 
 enjoined  in  vs.  9,  10.  The  word  rendered  to  distribute  {xocvo>- 
 vico)  signifies,  intransitively,  to  become  a  partaker  with;  and, 
 transitively,  to  cause  others  to  partake  with  us,  to  communicate 
 
 •  K«/((d,  instead  of  jM/g/»,  is  read  only  in  the  MSS.  D.  F.  G.  All  the  other 
 MSS.,  and  the  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  Armenian,  Vulgate,  and  Syriac  versions,  have 
 B«|/«.  Mill  and  Qriesbach  prefer  the  former;  but  Wetstein,  Bengel,  Enapp, 
 Lachmann,  the  latter.  This  diversity  of  reading  is  not  surprising,  as  JSSl  WW 
 a  frequent  contraction  both  for  m/^i»  and  mad^!^. 
 
 40 
 
626  ROMANS  XIL  14. 
 
 to.  It  is  commonly  followed  by  a  dative  of  the  person  to  whom 
 the  communication  is  made,  Gal.  vi.  6.  In  this  case  the  con- 
 struction may  be  the  same  as  in  the  preceding  verses,  '  as  to  the 
 necessiti/  of  the  saints,  be  communicative;'  or,  ^give  to  the 
 necessity  of  the  saints.'  The  transitive  meaning  of  xoivwvio)  ia 
 by  many  denied,  and  is,  at  least,  infrequent.  It  is,  therefore, 
 commonly  taken  here  in  its  ordinary  sense :  '  Taking  part  in 
 the  necessities  of  the  saints ;  regard  them  as  your  own.* 
 Believers  are  xoivcovoc  in  every  thing,  because  they  are  all  mem- 
 bers of  the  body  of  Christ.  The  members  of  the  same  body 
 have  the  same  interests,  feelings,  and  destiny.  The  joy  or 
 sorrow  of  one  member,  is  the  joy  or  sorrow  of  all  the  others. 
 The  necessities  of  one  are,  or  should  be,  a  common  burden. 
 As  intimately  connected  with  this  injunction,  the  apostle  adds, 
 given  to  hospitality/,  as  our  translators  aptly  render  the  strong 
 expression  of  the  original.  The  phrase  is  (pcXovt^cav  dcwxanzt^^ 
 following  after  hospitality;  sectantes,  ut  hospites  non  mode 
 admittatis,  sed  quaeratis.  The  value  which  the  early  Chris- 
 tians placed  upon  the  virtue  of  hospitality  is  plain,  from  Paul's 
 enumerating  it  among  the  requisite  qualifications  of  a  bishop, 
 Titus  i.  8.  During  times  of  persecution,  and  before  the  gene- 
 ral institution  of  houses  of  entertainment,  there  was  peculiar 
 necessity  for  Christians  to  entertain  strangers.  As  such  houses 
 are  still  rarely  to  be  met  with  in  the  East,  this  duty  continues 
 to  be  there  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  sacred  character. 
 
 Verse  14.  Bless  them  which  persecute  you;  bless,  and  curse 
 not.  The  exercise  of  love,  and  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
 benevolence,  are  not  to  be  confined  to  the  saints,  or  people 
 of  God ;  but  the  same  spirit  is  to  be  manifested  towards  our 
 enemies.  The  word  [eukoysa))  rendered  to  bless,  signifies  both 
 to  pray  for  good  to  any  one,  and  to  do  good.  Here,  from  the 
 context,  the  former  meaning  is  to  be  preferred,  as  it  is  opposed 
 to  cursing,  which  signifies  to  imprecate  evil  on  any  one.  The 
 command  therefore  is,  that,  so  far  from  wishing  or  praying  that 
 evil  may  overtake  our  persecutors  and  enemies,  we  must  sin- 
 cerely desire  and  pray  for  their  good.  It  is  not  sufiicient  to 
 avoid  returning  evil  for  evil,  nor  even  to  banish  vindictive 
 feelings ;  we  must  be  able  sincerely  to  desire  their  happiness. 
 How  hard  this  is  for  corrupt  human  nature,  every  one  who  is 
 
ROMANS  XII.  15,  16.  627 
 
 acquainted  with  his  own  heart  well  knows.  Yet  this  is  the 
 standard  of  Christian  temper  and  character  exhibited  in  the 
 Scriptures,  Matt.  v.  44.  "Ardua  res  est,  fateor,  et  naturte 
 hominis  penitus  contraria;  sed  nihil  tarn  arduum,  quod  non 
 virtute  Dei  superetur,  quae  nobis  nunquam  deerit,  modo  ne 
 ipsam  invocare  negligamus.  Et  quanqam  vix  unum  reperiaa 
 qui  tantos  in  lege  Dei  progressus  fecerit,  ut  prasceptum  istud 
 impleat ;  nemo  tamen  filium  Dei  jactare  se  potest,  aut  Christiani 
 nomine  gloriari,  qui  non  animum  istum  ex  parte  induerit,  et 
 cum  affectu  adverse  quotidie  pugnet.  Dixi  hoc  esse  difficilius 
 quam  remittere  vindictam,  ubi  quis  laesus  fuerit.  Quidam  enim 
 licet  manus  contineant,  neque  etiam  agentur  nocendi  libidine, 
 cuperent  tamen  aliunde  hostibus  suis  accidere  cladem  vel  dam- 
 num. Deus  autem  verbo  suo  non  tantem  manus  coercet  a  male- 
 ficiis,  sed  amarulentos  quoque  affectus  in  animis  domat;  neque 
 id  modo,  sed  etiam  vult  de  eorum  salute  esse  sollicitos  qui  nos 
 injuste  vexando  sibi  exitium  accersunt."   Calvin. 
 
 Verse  15.  Rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice^  and  weep  with 
 them  that  weep.  Love  produces  not  only  the  forgiveness  of 
 enemies,  but  a  general  sympathy  in  the  joys  and  sorrows  of  our 
 fellow  men,  and  especially  of  our  fellow  Christians.  The  dis- 
 position here  enjoined  is  the  very  opposite  of  a  selfish  indiffer- 
 ence to  any  interests  but  our  own.  The  gospel  requires  that 
 we  should  feel  and  act  under  the  impression  that  all  men  are 
 brethren ;  that  we  have  a  common  nature,  a  common  Father, 
 and  a  common  destiny.  How  lovely  is  genuine  sympathy! 
 How  much  like  Christ  is  the  man  who  feels  the  sorrows  and 
 joys  of  others,  as  though  they  were  his  own ! 
 
 Verse  16.  Be  of  the  same  mind  one  towards  another;  mind 
 not  high  things,  but  condescend  to  men  of  low  estate.  Be  not 
 wise  in  your  own  conceits.  The  phrase  [to  aorb  (ppovdv)  used 
 by  the  apostle  expresses  the  general  idea  of  concord,  unanimity, 
 whether  of  opinion  or  feeling  depends  on  the  context;  see 
 2  Cor.  xiii.  11,  Phil.  ii.  2,  Rom.  xv.  5.  Here  the  latter  idea  is 
 the  prominent  one.  'Be  of  the  same  mind,'  i.  e..  be  united  in 
 feeling,  interests,  and  object,  let  there  be  no  discord  or  disagree- 
 ment. This  idea  is  then  amplified  in  the  following  clauses ;  do 
 not  be  aspiring,  but  be  humble.  Ambition  and  contempt  for 
 lowly  persons  or  pursuits,  are  the  states  of  mind  most  incon- 
 
628  ROMANS  XII.  16. 
 
 sistent  with  that  union  of  heart  by  which  all  Christians  should 
 be  united.  •'  Quocirca  illud  to  aurb  non  intelligo  idem  quod 
 alii  de  nobis  sentiunt,  sed  idem  quod  nos  de  nobis  ipsi  sentimus, 
 vel  quod  alios  de  nobis  sentire  postulamus."  De  JBrais.  Eras- 
 mus and  others  understand  this  clause  to  mean,  'Think  of 
 others  as  well  as  you  do  of  yourselves,'  (nemo  putet  alium  se 
 minorem.)  But  this  gives  too  restricted  a  sense,  and  is  no 
 better  suited  to  the  context  than  the  common  interpretation 
 given  above.  The  command  is,  that  we  should  be  united; 
 feeling  towards  others  as  we  would  have  them  feel  towards  us. 
 Mind  not  high  things,  \.  e.,  do  not  aspire  after  them,  do  not 
 desire  and  seek  them ;  see  the  use  of  the  Greek  word  here  em- 
 ployed in  chap.  viii.  5,  Col.  iii.  2,  (ra  d.v(o  (ppoueite.)  But  eon- 
 descend  to  men  of  low  estate.  The  general  idea  expressed  by 
 these  two  clauses  is  obviously  this,  'Be  not  high-minded,  but 
 humble.'  The  precise  meaning  of  the  latter  clause,  however,  is 
 a  matter  of  much  doubt.  The  word  {aoi^andyoj)  rendered  conr 
 descend  properly  means,  in  the  passive  or  middle  voice,  to  allow 
 one's  self  to  he  carried  along  with  others,  i.  e.,  influenced  by 
 them,  as  in  Gal.  ii.  13,  "Insomuch  as  Barnabas  also  was 
 (allowed  himself  to  be)  carried  away  with  their  dissimula- 
 tion." And  2  Peter  iii.  7,  "Beware  lest  ye  also,  being  led 
 away  with  the  error  of  the  wicked,  fall  from  your  own  stead- 
 fastness." "  With  the  dative  of  a  person,  auvandyzadac  means  to 
 be  carried  along  with  him ;  with  the  dative  of  a  thing,  it  means  to 
 be  carried  along  by  it."  Philippi.  If  tokbcvoIi:  be  here  taken 
 as  masculine,  one  sense  is,  allow  yourselves  to  be  carried  along 
 with  the  lowly,  i.  e.,  to  associate  with  them,  and  share  their 
 condition.  If  it  be  taken  as  neuter,  to  correspond  with  the 
 ra  bil'rjAd.  in  the  first  clause,  then  the  meaning  is,  allow  your- 
 selves to  be  carried  along  together  by  lowly  things ;  i.  e.,  instead 
 of  being  concerned  about  high  things,  let  lowly  things  occupy 
 and  control  you.  So  Calvin :  "  Non  arroganter  de  vobis  sen- 
 tientes,  sed  humilibus  vos  accommodantes.  Vocem  humilibus 
 in  neutro  genere  accipio,  ut  antithesis  ita  compleatur.  Hio 
 ergo  damnatur  ambitio,  et  quae  sub  magnanimitatis  nomine  se 
 insinuat  animi  elatio :  siquidem  praecipua  fidelium  virtus  mode- 
 ratio  est,  vel  potius  submissio,  quae  honorem  semper  malit  aliia 
 3edere  quam  praeripere."     Most  modern  commentators  concur 
 
ROMANS  XII.  17.  629 
 
 in  this  view  of  the  passage.  In  either  way  the  general  sense  ia 
 the  same.  The  thing  forbidden  is  ambition ;  the  thing  enjoined 
 is  lowliness  of  mind. 
 
 Be  not  wise  in  your  own  conceit.  This  precept  is  intimately 
 connected  with  the  preceding,  since  ambition  and  contempt  for 
 lowly  persons  and  pursuits  generally  arise  from  overweening 
 self-estimation.  No  species  of  pride  is  more  insidious  or  more 
 injurious  than  the  pride  of  intellect,  or  a  fancied  superiority  to 
 those  around  us,  which  leads  to  a  contempt  of  their  opinions, 
 and  a  confident  reliance  upon  ourselves.  The  temper  which 
 the  gospel  requires  is  that  of  a  little  child,  docile,  diffident,  and 
 humble;  see  chap.  xi.  25,  Prov.  iii.  7,  Isa.  vii.  21. 
 
 Verse  17.  Recompense  to  no  man  evil  for  evil.  Provide 
 things  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  Paul  having,  in  the  pre- 
 ceding verses,  enjoined  the  duties  of  love,  condescension,  and 
 kindness  towards  all  men,  comes,  in  this  and  the  following 
 passages,  to  forbid  the  indulgence  of  a  contrary  disposition, 
 especially  of  a  spirit  of  retaliation  and  revenge.  The  general 
 direction  in  the  first  clause  is,  not  to  retaliate ;  which  is  but  a 
 lower  exerci&e  of  the  virtue  afterward  enjoined  in  the  command 
 to  "overcome  evil  with  good." 
 
 Provide  things  honest  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  Our  transla- 
 tion of  this  clause  is  not  very  happy,  as  it  suggests  an  idea 
 foreign  to  the  meaning  of  the  original.  Paul  does  not  mean  to 
 direct  us  to  make  provision  for  ourselves  or  families  in  an 
 honest  manner,  which  is  probably  the  sense  commonly  attached 
 to  the  passage  by  the  English  reader,  but  to  act  in  such  a 
 manner  as  to  command  the  confidence  and  good  opinion  of  men. 
 In  this  view,  the  connection  of  this  with  the  preceding  member 
 of  the  verse  is  obvious.  '  We  must  not  recompense  evil  for 
 evil,  but  act  in  such  a  way  as  to  commend  ourselves  to  the  con- 
 sciences of  all  men.'  There  should  not,  therefore,  be  a  period 
 after  the  word  evil,  since  this  clause  assigns  a  motive  for  the 
 discharge  of  the  duty  enjoined  in  the  first.  The  word  [npoi^o- 
 elad-ae)  rendered  to  provide,  signifies  also  to  attend  to,  to  care 
 for.  The  sense  then  is,  '  Do  not  resent  injuries,  having  regard 
 to  the  good  opinion  of  men,'  i.  e.,  let  a  regard  to  the  honour  of 
 religion  and  your  own  charaviter  prevent  the  returning  of  evil  for 
 evil.    Thus  Paul  {2  Cor.  viii.  20,  21)  says  of  himself  that  he 
 
630  ROMANS  XII.  18,  19. 
 
 wished  others  to  be  associated  with  him  in  the  distribution  jf  the 
 alms  of  the  church,  "  having  regard  for  what  was  right,  (;r/>ovo- 
 oufjLzvoc  xa/d,)  not  only  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  but  also  in  the 
 sight  of  men."  "Summa  est,  dandam  sedulo  esse  operam,  ut 
 nostra  integritate  omnes  aedificentur.  Ut  enim  necessaria  est 
 nobis  conscientiae  innocentia  coram  Deo;  ita  famae  integritas 
 apud  homines  non  est  negligenda.  Nam  si  Deum  in  bonis  nostria 
 operibus  glorificari  convenit,  tantundem  decedit  ejus  gloriae, 
 ubi  nihil  laude  dignum  in  nobis  homines  conspiciunt."  Calvin. 
 In  Proverbs  iii.  4,  we  have  the  same  exhortation,  nearly  in  the 
 same  words  as  given  in  the  LXX. :  Tzpouoou  xaXa  Ivwncov  xupiou 
 xat  du&fJcoTTcou. 
 
 Verse  18.  If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  lieth  in  you,  live 
 'peaceably  with  all  men.  The  retaliation  of  injuries  necessarily 
 leads  to  contention  and  strife,  while  peace  is  the  natural  result 
 of  a  forgiving  disposition.  The  command  in  this  verse,  there- 
 fore, is  naturally  connected  with  that  contained  in  ver.  17.  So 
 far  from  resenting  every  oflfence,  we  should  do  all  we  can  to  live 
 at  peace  with  all  men.  As  the  preservation  of  peace  is  not 
 always  within  our  control,  Paul  limits  his  command  by  saying, 
 if  it  be  possible,  so  far  as  lieth  in  you,  to  i^  bpoJv,  as  to  whatis 
 of  you.  The  cause  of  conflict  must  not  arise  from  you.  Your 
 duty  is  to  preserve  peace.  From  the  wickedness  of  others,  this 
 is  often  impossible ;  and  Paul's  own  example  shows  that  he  was 
 far  from  thinking  that  either  truth  or  principle  was  to  be  sacri- 
 ficed for  the  preservation  of  peace.  His  whole  life  was  an 
 active  and  ardent  contention  against  error  and  sin.  The  pre- 
 cept, however,  is  plain,  and  the  duty  important.  As  far  as  it 
 can  be  done  consistently  with  higher  obligations  and  more 
 important  interests,  we  must  endeavour  to  promote  peace,  and 
 for  this  end  avoid  giving  offence  and  avenging  injuries.  Gro- 
 tius  well  expresses  the  meaning  of  this  verse :  '*  Omnium  amici 
 este,  si  fieri  potest;  si  non  potest  utrimque,  certe  ex  vestra 
 parte  amici  este." 
 
 Verse  19.  Dearly  beloved,  avenge  not  yourselves;  but  rather 
 give  place  unto  wrath,  &c.  This  is  a  repetition  and  amplifica- 
 tion of  the  previous  injunction,  not  to  recompense  evil  for  evil. 
 There  are  three  interpretations  of  the  phrase  give  place  unto 
 wrath,  which  deserve  to  be  mentioned.     According  to  the  first, 
 
ROMANS  XII.  20.  C31 
 
 the  wrath  here  intended  is  that  of  the  injured  party,  and  to  give 
 place  to,  is  made  to  signify,  to  allow  to  pass,  i.  e.,  let  it  go,  do 
 not  cherish  or  indulge  it.  But  this  is  in  direct  contradiction  to 
 the  common  and  proper  meaning  of  the  phrase  in  question, 
 which  signifies,  give  free  scope  to;  and  no  example  of  a  con- 
 trary usage  is  adduced.  In  Latin,  the  phrase,  dare  spatium 
 irae,  is  frequently  used  in  the  sense  of  deferring  the  indulgence 
 of  anger,  giving  it  space  or  time  to  cool.  But  spatium  in  these 
 cases  has  reference  to  time,  temporis  spatium,  a  sense  in  which 
 the  Greek  TOTto^  is  not  used.  The  second  interpretation  refers 
 the  wrath  to  the  injurer.  The  meaning  then  is,  '  Do  not  avenge 
 yourselves,  but  rather  yield  {cedite  irae)  or  submit  to  the  anger 
 of  your  enemies.'  This  is  consistent  with  the  literal  meaning 
 of  the  phrase  to  give  place,  i.  e.,  to  get  out  of  the  way ;  and 
 Schoettgen  says  that  the  Jewish  writers  use  the  corresponding 
 Hebrew  phrase  (taip^a  iri3)  in  the  sense  of  avoiding;  of  this 
 usage,  however,  there  is  no  example  in  the  Bible.  It  is  cer- 
 tainly contrary  to  the  uniform  scriptural  usage  of  the  expres- 
 sion, which  is  never  employed  to  convey  this  idea,  but  uniformly 
 means,  as  just  stated,  to  give  room  to,  to  allow  free  exercise  to 
 any  person  or  thing;  see  Eph.  iv.  27,  "Neither  give  place  to 
 the  devil."  The  third  interpretation,  therefore,  according  to 
 which  it  is  the  wrath  of  God  that  is  here  intended,  is  the 
 only  one  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  or  with 
 the  context.  'Dearly  beloved,  avenge  not  yourselves,  leave 
 that  matter  to  God.'  Stand  out  of  the  way.  Give  scope  to 
 :he  wrath  of  God.  It  is  his  prerogative  to  punish.  The 
 passage.  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  repay,  saith  the  Lord,  is 
 quoted  from  Deut.  xxxii.  35,  and  is  obviously  cited  to  show  the 
 propriety  of  the  command  to  leave  vengeance  to  God,  and  not 
 attempt  to  take  it  into  our  own  hands.  This  does  not  imply  a 
 desire  that  the  divine  vengeance  should  overtake  our  enemies, 
 but  simply  that  we  should  not  usurp  the  prerogative  of  God  aa 
 the  avenger. 
 
 Verse  20.  Tlierefore,  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him;  if 
 he  thirst,  give  him  drink,  &c.  That  is,  instead  of  avenging  our- 
 selves by  returning  evil  for  evil,  we  must  return  good  for  evil. 
 The  expressions, /egc?  him  and  give  him  drinJc,  are  obviously 
 not  to  be  confined  to  their  literal  meaning,  nor  even  to  the  dis- 
 
632  ROMANS  XII.  20. 
 
 charge  of  the  common  offices  of  humanity ;  they  are  figurative 
 expressions  for  all  the  duties  of  benevolence.  It  is  not  enough, 
 therefore,  that  we  preserve  an  enemy  from  perishing;  we  must 
 treat  him  with  all  affection  and  kindness. 
 
 For  in  so  doing  thou  ahalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head. 
 This  whole  verse  is  taken  from  Prov.  xxv.  21,  22,  "If  thine 
 enemy  be  hungry,  give  him  bread  to  eat ;  and  if  he  be  thirsty, 
 give  him  water  to  drink :  for  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon 
 his  head,  and  the  Lord  shall  reward  thee."  The  common  and 
 natural  meaning  of  the  expression,  to  heap  coals  of  fire  upon 
 any  one,  is  to  inflict  the  greatest  pain  upon  him,  to  punish  him 
 most  severely;  see  Ps.  exl.  10,  "Let  burning  coals  fall  upon 
 them;"  Ps.  xi.  6,  "Upon  the  wicked  he  shall  rain  coals  {y^n^ 
 for  ci^ns),  fire  and  brimstone,  and  an  horrible  tempest;" 
 Ezek.  X.  2,  4  Esdr.  xvi.  52,  "Let  not  the  wicked  deny  that  he 
 has  sinned,  for  coals  of  fire  shall  burn  upon  the  head  of  him 
 who  denies  that  he  has  sinned  against  the  Lord  God."  The 
 most  probable  explanation  of  this  figurative  expression  is,  that 
 the  allusion  is  to  the  lightning  or  fire  from  heaven,  which  is  the 
 symbol  of  the  divine  vengeance.  To  rain  fire  upon  any  one,  is 
 to  visit  him  with  the  severest  and  surest  destruction.  This 
 explanation  is  much  more  natural  than  to  suppose  the  allusion 
 is  to  the  practice  of  throwing  fire-brands  upon  the  heads  of  the 
 besiegers  of  a  city,  or  to  the  fusing  of  metals. 
 
 There  are  three  leading  interpretations  of  this  interesting 
 clause.  The  first,  which  is  perhaps  the  oldest,  and  very  gene- 
 rally received,  is,  that  Paul  means  to  say  that  our  enemies  will 
 be  much  more  severely  punished  if  we  leave  them  in  the  hands 
 of  God,  than  if  we  undertake  to  avenge  ourselves.  '  Treat  your 
 enemy  kindly,  for  in  so  doing  you  secure  his  being  punished  by 
 God  in  the  severest  manner.'  The  revolting  character  of  this 
 interpretation,  which  every  one  must  feel,  is  mitigated  by  the 
 remark,  that  the  enemy  is  not  to  be  thus  treated  from  any 
 wish  or  intention  of  drawing  down  the  divine  wrath  upon  him ; 
 it  is  only  meant  that  such  will  be  the  consequence.  But  this 
 remark  does  not  meet  the  difficulty.  This  clause  is  so  con- 
 nected with  the  preceding,  that  it  must  be  understood  as  assign- 
 ing the  motive  or  reason  for  the  discharge  of  the  duty  enjoined : 
 'Treat  thine  enemy  kindly,  for  in  so  doing,'  «S:c.     The  second 
 
ROMANS  XII.  21.  633 
 
 interpretation  is,  that  by  heaping  coals  of  fire  on  his  head,  is 
 meant,  you  will  cause  him  pain,  i.  e.,  the  pain  of  remorse  and 
 shame.  So  Tholuck,  and  many  other  commentators.  The 
 third,  which  seems  much  the  most  simple  and  natural,  is,  'for 
 in  so  doing,  you  will  take  the  most  effectual  method  of  subduing 
 him.'  To  heap  coals  of  fire  on  any  one,  is  a  punishment  which 
 no  one  can  bear;  he  must  yield  to  it.  Kindness  is  no  less 
 effectual;  the  most  malignant  enemy  cannot  always  withstand 
 it.  The  true  and  Christian  method,  therefore,  to  subdue  an 
 enemy  is,  to  "ever come  evil  with  good."  This  interpretation, 
 which  suits  so  well  the  whole  context,  seems  to  be  rendered 
 necessary  by  the  following  verse,  which  is  a  repetition  of  the 
 previous  injunctions  in  plainer  and  more  general  terms.  The 
 sentiment  which  the  verse  thus  explained  expresses,  is  also 
 more  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  '*  Vineere  dulce 
 et  proeclarum  est.  Optimara  autem  vincendi  rationem  sapientis- 
 sime  docet  Salomo  (Prov.  xxv.  21)  jubens  nos  esurientibus 
 inimicis  cibum,  sitientibus  potum  prgebere :  quia  beneficiis  eos 
 devincientes  fortius  superabimus,  quam  qui  hostem  a  vallo  et 
 moenibus  flammis  superjectis  arcent  et  repellunt."   De  Brais. 
 
 Among  the  numerous  striking  classical  illustrations  of  the 
 sentiment  of  this  verse,  quoted  by  Wetstein,  are  the  following : 
 Justinus,  XI.  12,  8,  "  Tunc  Darius  se  ratus  vere  victum,  cum 
 post  prgelia  etiam  beneficiis  ab  hoste  superaretur."  Ccesar  ap. 
 Cic.  ad  Atticum,  IX.  8,  "Haec  nova  sit  ratio  vincendi,  ut 
 misericordia  nos  muniamus,  id  quemadmodum  fieri  possit,  non- 
 nulla  mi  in  mentem  veniunt,  et  multa  reperiri  possunt."  Seneca 
 de  Beneficiis,  VII.  31,  "  Vincit  malos  pertinax  bonitas,  nee  quis- 
 quam  tarn  duri  infestique  adversus  diligenda  animi  est,  ut  etiam 
 vi  victus  bonos  non  amet."  32,  "Ingratus  est — huic  ipsi  bene- 
 ficium  dabo  iterum,  et  tanquam  bonus  agricola  cura  cultuque 
 sterilitatem  soli  vincam."  De  Ira,  II.  32,  "Non  enim  ut  in 
 beneficiis  honestum  est  merita  meritis  repensare,  ita  injuria3 
 injuriis ;  illic  vinci  turpe  est,  hie  vineere." 
 
 Verse  21.  Be  not  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with 
 good.  It  is  only  by  disconnecting  this  verse  from  the  preceding, 
 and  considering  it  as  nearly  independent  of  it,  that  any  plausi- 
 bility can  be  given  to  the  first  interpretation  mentioned  above, 
 of  ver.  20.     That  it  is  not  thus  independent  of  it,  almost  every 
 
634  ROMANS  XII.  9—21, 
 
 reader  must  feel.  'We  are  not  to  conquer  evfl  by  eviT,  hut  to 
 treat  our  enemies  with  kindness.  Thus  we  shall  most  effectually 
 subdue  them.  Do  not  therefore  allow  yourself  to  be  overcome 
 of  evil  (i.  e.,  to  be  provoked  to  the  indulgence  of  a  spirit  of 
 retaliation,)  but  overcome  evil  with  good;  subdue  your  enemies* 
 by  kindness,  not  by  injuries.' 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law;  it  leads  to  the  avoiding 
 of  every  thing  injurious  to  our  neighbour,  and  to  sedulous 
 attention  to  every  thing  adapted  to  promote  his  welfare, 
 ver.  9. 
 
 2.  The  relation  in  which  Christians  stand  to  each  other,  is 
 that  of  members  of  the  same  family.  As,  however,  it  is  not  a 
 relation  constituted  by  birth,  nor  secured  by  the  adoption  of  a 
 name,  there  is  no  evidence  of  its  existence  but  that  which  con- 
 sists in  the  exercise  of  that  'brotherly  affection'  (that  spiritual 
 axop'fTj)  which  brethren  in  Christ  feel  for  each  other,  ver.  10. 
 
 3.  Religion  is  the  soul  of  morality,  without  which  it  is  but  a 
 lovely  corpse.  Our  moral  duties  we  must  perform  as  "serving 
 the  Lord."  The  religious  affections  and  emotions  do  not  super- 
 sede those  of  a  simply  benevolent  or  social  character,  but  mingle 
 with  them,  and  elevate  all  social  and  relative  duties  into  acts  of 
 religion  and  genuine  morality,  ver.  11. 
 
 4.  The  source  of  our  life  is  in  God ;  without  intercourse  with 
 him,  therefore,  we  cannot  derive  those  supplies  of  grace  which 
 are  requisite  to  preserve  the  spirit  of  piety  in  our  hearts,  and 
 to  send  a  vital  influence  through  the  various  duties  and  avoca- 
 tions of  life.  Hence  the  absolute  necessity  of  being  "instant 
 in  prayer,"  ver.  12, 
 
 5.  God  has  made  of  one  blood  all  men  that  dwell  upon  the 
 face  of  the  earth.  There  is  in  this  fact  of  a  common  origin, 
 and  the  possession  of  a  common  nature,  a  sufficient  ground  for 
 the  inculcation  of  an  universal  sympathy  with  all  our  fellow 
 men.  As  he  is  no  true  Christian  who  is  destitute  of  a  genuine 
 sympathy  for  his  fellow  Christians,  so  he  is  very  far  from  being 
 a  man  such  as  God  approves,  who  does  not  "rejoice  with  them 
 that  do  rejoice,  and  weep  with  them  that  weep,"  ver.  15. 
 
 6.  A  wrong  estimate  of  ourselves  is  a  fruitful  source  of  evil. 
 
ROMANS  XII.  9—21.  635 
 
 Viewec!  in  relation  to  God,  and  in  our  own  absolute  insignifi. 
 cance,  we  have  little  reason  to  be  wise  or  important  in  our  own 
 conceits.  A  proper  self-knowledge  will  preserve  us  from  pride, 
 ambition,  and  contempt  of  others,  ver.  16. 
 
 7.  Abstaining  from  evil  is  but  one  half  of  duty.  It  is  not 
 enough  to  avoid  imprecating  evil  upon  our  enemies;  we  must 
 sincerely  desire  and  pray  for  their  welfare.  Nor  is  it  sufficient 
 not  to  recompense  evil  for  evil;  we  must  return  good  for  evil, 
 vs.  17—21. 
 
 8.  The  prerogatives  of  judgment  and  vengeance  belong  to 
 God,  we  have  no  right,  therefore,  to  arrogate  them  to  ourselves, 
 except  in  those  cases  in  which,  for  his  glory  and  the  good  of 
 society,  he  has  given  us  authority.  All  condemnation  of  others 
 for  self-gratification,  and  all  private  revenge  is  inconsistent  with 
 the  gospel,  vs.  11 — 21. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  Christians  should  never  forget  that  faith  without  works  is 
 dead.  It  is  not  more  important  to  believe  what  God  has 
 revealed,  than  to  do  what  he  has  commanded.  A  faith,  there- 
 fore, which  does  not  produce  love,  kindness,  sympathy,  hu- 
 mility, the  forgiveness  of  injuries,  &c.,  can  do  us  little  good, 
 vs.  9—21. 
 
 2.  It  is  peculiarly  characteristic  of  the  spirit  of  the  gospel 
 that  it  turns  the  heart  towards  others,  and  away  from  our  own 
 interests.  Self  is  not  the  Christian's  centre;  men  are  loved 
 because  they  are  men.  Christians  because  they  are  Christians; 
 the  former  with  sincere  sympathy  and  benevolence,  the  latter 
 with  brotherly  affection.  The  happiness  and  feelings  of  others, 
 the  gospel  teaches  us  to  consult  in  small,  as  well  as  in  great 
 matters,  anticipating  each  other  in  all  acts  of  kindness  and 
 attention,  vs.  9 — 13. 
 
 3.  The  benevolence  of  the  gospel  is  active  and  religious ;  it 
 leads  to  constant  efforts,  and  is  imbued  with  a  spirit  of  piety, 
 ver.  11. 
 
 4.  We  must  remember  that  without  Christ  we  can  do 
 nothing ;  that  it  is  not  we  that  live,  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  us. 
 If,  therefore,  wp  attempt  to  discharge  the  duties  here  enjoined 
 apart  from  him,  we  shall  be  as  a  branch  severed  from  the  vine; 
 
636  ROMANS  XII.  9—21. 
 
 and  unless  we  are  "instant  in  prayer,"  this  union  witli  Christ 
 cannot  be  kept  up,  ver.  12. 
 
 6.  Alms-giving  and  hospitality,  in  some  ages  of  the  church, 
 have  been  unduly  exalted,  as  though  they  were  the  whole  of 
 benevolence,  and  the  greater  part  of  piety.  While  we  avoid 
 this  extreme,  we  should  remember  that  we  are  stewards  of 
 God,  and  that  "  Whoso  hath  this  world's  good,  and  seeth  his 
 brother  have  need,  and  shutteth  up  his  bowels  of  compassion 
 from  him,  hath  not  the  love  of  God  dwelling  in  him,"  ver.  13. 
 1  John  iii.  17. 
 
 6.  One  of  the  most  beautiful  exhibitions  of  the  character  of 
 our  Saviour  was  afforded  by  his  conduct  under  persecution. 
 "He  was  led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter;"  "when  he  was 
 reviled,  he  reviled  not  again ;  when  he  suifered,  he  threatened 
 not."  Even  martyrs  dying  for  the  truth  have  not  always  been 
 able  to  avoid  the  prediction  of  evil  to  their  persecutors ;  so 
 much  easier  is  it  to  abstain  from  recompensing  evil  for  evil,  than 
 really  to  love  and  pray  for  the  good  of  our  enemies.  This, 
 however,  is  Christian  duty,  such  is  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 
 Just  so  far,  therefore,  as  we  find  our  hearts  indisposed  to  bless 
 those  who  curse  us,  or  inclined  to  indulge  even  a  secret  satis- 
 faction when  evil  comes  upon  them,  are  we  unchristian  in  our 
 temper,  vs.  19 — 21. 
 
 7.  Nothing  is  so  powerful  as  goodness;  it  is  the  most  effica- 
 cious means  to  subdue  enemies,  and  put  down  opposition.  Men 
 whose  minds  can  withstand  argument,  and  whose  hearts  rebel 
 against  threats,  are  not  proof  against  the  persuasive  influence 
 of  unfeigned  love ;  there  is,  therefore,  no  more  important  col- 
 lateral reason  for  being  good,  than  that  it  increases  our  power 
 to  do  good,  vs.  20 — 21. 
 
BOMANS  XIII.  1.  637 
 
 CHAPTER    XIII. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The  chapter  treats  mainly  of  our  political  duties.  From  ver. 
 1  to  ver.  7  inclusive,  the  apostle  enforces  the  duties  which  we 
 owe  to  civil  magistrates.  From  ver.  8  to  ver.  10,  he  refers  to 
 the  more  general  obligations  under  which  Christians  are  placed, 
 but  still  with  special  reference  to  their  civil  and  social  relations. 
 From  ver.  11  to  the  end  of  the  chapter,  he  enjoins  an  exem- 
 plary and  holy  deportment. 
 
 ROMANS  XIII.  1—14. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  duty  of  obedience  to  those  in  authority  is  enforced, 
 
 1.  By  the  consideration  that  civil  government  is  a  divine  insti- 
 tution, and,  therefore,  resistance  to  magistrates  in  the  exercise 
 of  their  lawful    authority  is    disobedience   to    God,   vs.   1,  2. 
 
 2.  From  the  end  or  design  of  their  appointment,  which  is  to 
 promote  the  good  of  society,  to  be  a  terror  to  evil  doers,  and  a 
 praise  to  them  that  do  well,  vs.  3,  4.  3.  Because  such  subjec- 
 tion is  a  moral,  as  well  as  civil  duty,  ver.  6.  On  these  grounds 
 the  payment  of  tribute  or  taxes,  and  general  deference,  are  to 
 be  cheerfully  rendered,  vs.  6,  7. 
 
 Christians  are  bound  not  only  to  be  obedient  to  those  in 
 authority,  but  also  to  perform  all  social  and  relative  duties, 
 especially  that  of  love,  which  includes  and  secures  the  obser- 
 vance of  all  others,  vs.  8 — 10.  A  pure  and  exemplary  life  as 
 members  of  society  is  enforced  by  the  consideration  that  the 
 night  is  far  spent  and  that  the  day  is  at  hand,  that  the  time  of 
 suffering  and  trial  is  nearly  over,  and  that  of  deliverance  ap- 
 proaching, vs.  11 — 14. 
 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 Verse  1.  Let  every  soul  he  subject  to  the  MgJier  powers. 
 The  expression  everi^  soul  is  often  used  as  equivalent  to  evertf 
 
633  ROMANS  XIII.  'L 
 
 one;  it  is  at  times,  however,  emphatic,  and  such  is  probably  tht 
 case  in  this  passage.  By  higher  powers  are  most  commonly 
 and  naturally  understood  those  in  authority',  without  reference 
 to  their  grade  of  office,  or  their  character.  We  are  to  be 
 subject  not  only  to  the  supreme  magistrates,  but  to  all  who 
 have  authority  over  us.  The  abstract  word  powers  or  authori- 
 ties [i^oLXTcai)  is  used  for  those  who  are  invested  with  power, 
 Luke  xii.  11,  Eph.  i.  21,  iii.  10,  &c.,  &c.  The  word  {u7tepk^(ov) 
 rendered  higher,  is  applied  to  any  one  who,  in  dignity  and 
 authority,  excels  us.  In  1  Peter  ii.  13,  it  is  applied  to  the 
 king  as  supreme,  i.  e.,  superior  to  all  other  magistrates.  But 
 here  one  class  of  magistrates  is  not  brought  into  comparison 
 with  another,  but  they  are  spoken  of  as  being  over  other  men 
 who  are  not  in  office.  It  is  a  very  unnatural  interpretation 
 which  makes  this  word  refer  to  the  character  of  the  magistrates, 
 as  though  the  sense  were,  'Be  subject  to  good  magistrates.* 
 This  is  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  term,  and  inconsistent  with 
 the  context.  Obedience  is  not  enjoined  on  the  ground  of  the 
 personal  merit  of  those  in  authority,  but  on  the  ground  of  their 
 official  station. 
 
 There  was  peculiar  necessity,  during  the  apostolic  age,  for 
 inculcating  the  duty  of  obedience  to  civil  magistrates.  This 
 necessity  arose  in  part  from  the  fact  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
 converts  to  Christianity  had  been  Jews,  and  were  peculiarly 
 indisposed  to  submit  to  the  heathen  authorities.  This  indispo- 
 sition (as  far  as  it  was  peculiar)  arose  from  the  prevailing 
 impression  among  them,  that  this  subjection  was  unlawful,  or 
 at  least  highly  derogatory  to  their  character  as  the  people  of 
 God,  who  had  so  long  lived  under  a  theocracy.  In  Deut. 
 xvii.  15,  it  is  said,  "Thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set  him  king  over 
 thee,  whom  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose ;  one  from  among 
 thy  brethren  shalt  thou  set  king  over  thee ;  thou  shalt  not  set 
 a  stranger  over  thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother."  It  was  a 
 question,  therefore,  constantly  agitated  among  them,  "Is  it 
 lawful  to  pay  tribute  unto  Csesar,  or  not?"  A  question  which 
 the  great  majority  were  at  least  secretly  inclined  to  answer  in 
 the  nesrative.  Another  source  of  the  restlessness  of  the  Jews 
 under  a  foreign  yoke,  was  the  idea  which  they  entertained  of 
 the  natur<;  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.    As  they  expected  a  terr- 
 
ROMANS  XIII.  1.  639 
 
 poral  Prince,  whose  kingdom  should  be  of  this  world,  they  were 
 ready  to  rise  in  rebellion  at  the  call  of  every  one  who  cried,  "  I 
 am  Christ."  The  history  of  the  Jews  at  this  period  shows  how 
 great  was  the  effect  produced  by  these  and  similar  causes,  on 
 their  feelings  towards  the  Roman  government.  They  were  con- 
 tinually breaking  out  into  tumults,  which  led  to  their  expulsion 
 from  Rome,*  and,  finally,  to  the  utter  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
 It  is  therefore  not  a  matter  of  surprise,  that  converts  from 
 among  such  a  people  should  need  the  injunction,  "Be  subject 
 to  the  higher  powers."  Besides  the  effect  of  their  previous 
 opinions  and  feelings,  there  is  something  in  the  character  of 
 Christianity  itself,  and  in  the  incidental  results  of  the  excite- 
 ment which  it  occasions,  to  account  for  the  repugnance  of  many 
 of  the  early  Christians  to  submit  to  their  civil  rulers.  They 
 wrested,  no  doubt,  the  doctrine  of  Christian  liberty,  as  they  did 
 other  doctrines,  to  suit  their  own  inclinations.  This  result, 
 however,  is  to  be  attributed  not  to  religion,  but  to  the  improper 
 feelings  of  those  into  whose  minds  the  form  of  truth,  without  its 
 full  power,  had  been  received. 
 
 For  there  is  no  poiuer  but  of  Grod;  and  the  powers  that  he  are 
 ordained  of  G-od.  Ob  ydp  kariv  k^ouaia  ei  //iy  oltto  dtou.  This 
 is  a  very  comprehensive  proposition.  All  authority  is  of  God. 
 No  man  has  any  rightful  power  over  other  men,  which  is  not 
 derived  from  God.  All  human  power  is  delegated  and  minis- 
 terial. This  is  true  of  parents,  of  magistrates,  and  of  church 
 oJBEicers.  This,  however,  is  not  all  the  passage  means.  It  not 
 only  asserts  that  all  government  (i^ouaca,  authority)  is  {d.7:b  &zoi)) 
 derived  from  God,  but  that  every  magistrate  is  of  God ;  that  is, 
 his  authority  is  jure  divino.  The  word  i^ouaia  is  evidently,  in 
 this  connection,  used  in  a  concrete  sense.  This  is  plain  from 
 the  use  of  the  word  in  the  other  clauses  of  the  verse.  "  The 
 higher  powers,"  and  "the  powers  that  be,"  are  concrete  terms, 
 meaning  those  invested  with  power.  Compare  vs.  3,  4,  where 
 "rulers"  and  "ministers"  are  substituted  for  the  abstract 
 "powers."  The  doctrine  here  taught  is  the  ground  of  the 
 li^ijunction  contained  in  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.     We  are 
 
 *  Suetonius,  Claud.  25,  says,  "Judseos  impulsore  Chresto  aasidue  tumulttt- 
 imtit  ^Claudius)  Boma  ezpulit;"  see  Acts  xviii.  2. 
 
640  ROMANS  XIII.  2. 
 
 to  obey  magistrates,  because  they  derive  their  authority  from 
 God.  Not  only  is  human  government  a  divine  institution,  but 
 the  form  in  which  that  government  exists,  and  the  persons  by 
 whom  its  functions  are  exercised,  are  determined  by  his  pro- 
 vidence. All  magistrates  of  whatever  grade  are  to  be  regarded 
 as  acting  by  divine  appointment;  not  that  God  designates 
 the  individuals,  but  that  it  being  his  will  that  there  should  be 
 magistrates,  every  person,  who  is  in  point  of  fact  clothed  with 
 authority,  is  to  be  regarded  as  having  a  claim  to  obedience, 
 founded  on  the  will  of  God.  In  like  manner,  the  authority 
 of  parents  over  their  children,  of  husbands  over  their  wives, 
 of  masters  over  their  servants,  is  of  God's  ordination.  There 
 is  no  limitation  to  the  injunction  in  this  verse,  so  far  as  the 
 objects  of  obedience  are  concerned,  although  there  is  as  to 
 the  extent  of  the  obedience  itself.  That  is,  we  are  to  obey  all 
 who  are  in  actual  authority  over  us,  whether  their  authority  be 
 legitimate  or  usurped,  whether  they  are  just  or  unjust.  The 
 actual  reigning  emperor  was  to  be  obeyed  by  the  Roman  Chris- 
 tians, whatever  they  might  think  as  to  his  title  to  the  sceptre. 
 But  if  he  transcended  his  authority,  and  required  them  to  wor- 
 ship idols,  they  were  to  obey  God  rather  than  man.  This  is 
 the  limitation  to  all  human  authority.  Whenever  obedience  to 
 man  is  inconsistent  with  obedience  to  God,  then  disobedience 
 becomes  a  duty. 
 
 Verse  2.  Whoso,  therefore,  resisteth  the  poweTj  resisteth  the 
 ordinance  of  Grod.  This  is  an  obvious  inference  from  the 
 doctrine  of  the  preceding  verse.  If  it  is  the  will  of  God  that 
 there  should  be  civil  government,  and  persons  appointed  to 
 exercise  authority  over  others,  it  is  plain  that  to  resist  such 
 persons  in  the  exercise  of  their  lawful  authority  is  an  act  of 
 disobedience  to  God. 
 
 And  they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation. 
 This  also  is  an  obvious  conclusion  from  the  preceding.  If  dis- 
 obedience is  a  sin,  it  will  be  punished.  The  word  (xpc/ia)  ren- 
 dered damnation,  means  simply  sentence,  judicial  decision ; 
 whether  favourable  or  adverse,  depends  on  the  context.  Here 
 it  is  plain  it  means  a  sentence  of  condemnation.  He  shall  be 
 condemned,  and,  by  implication,  punished.  As  the  word 
 damnation  is  by  modern  usage  restricted  to  the  final  and  eternal 
 
ROMANS  XITI.  3.  641 
 
 conclemnation  of  the  wicked,  it  is  unsuited  to  this  passage  and 
 some  others  in  which  it  occurs  in  our  version ;  see  1  Cor.  xi.  29. 
 PauJ  does  not  refer  to  the  punishment  which  the  civil  magis- 
 trate may  inflict;  for  he  is  speaking  of  disobedience  to  those  in 
 authority  as  a  sin  against  God,  which  he  will  punish. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  this  passage  (vs.  1,  2)  is  applicable  to  men 
 living  under  every  form  of  government,  monarchical,  aristo- 
 cratical,  or  democratical,  in  all  their  various  modifications. 
 Those  who  are  in  authority  are  to  be  obeyed  within  their 
 sphere,  no  matter  how  or  by  whom  appointed.  It  is  the  dbaat 
 k^oumac,  the  powers  that  be,  the  de  facto  government,  that  is  to 
 be  regarded  as,  for  the  time  being,  ordained  of  God.  It  was  to 
 Paul  a  matter  of  little  importance  whether  the  Roman  emperor 
 was  appointed  by  the  senate,  the  army,  or  the  people ;  whether 
 the  assumption  of  the  imperial  authority  by  Csesar  was  just  or 
 unjust,  or  whether  his  successors  had  a  legitimate  claim  to  the 
 throne  or  not.  It  was  his  object  to  lay  down  the  simple  prin- 
 ciple, that  magistrates  are  to  be  obeyed.  The  extent  of  this 
 obedience  is  to  be  determined  from  the  nature  of  the  case. 
 They  are  to  be  obeyed  as  magistrates,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
 lawful  authority.  When  Paul  commands  wives  to  obey  their 
 husbands,  they  are  required  to  obey  them  as  husbands,  not  as 
 masters,  nor  as  kings;  children  are  to  obey  their  parents  as 
 parents,  not  as  sovereigns ;  and  so  in  every  other  case.  Thia 
 passage,  therefore,  affords  a  very  slight  foundation  for  the  doc- 
 trine of  passive  obedience. 
 
 Verse  3.  For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  good  works,  hut  to 
 evil.  This  verse  is  not  to  be  connected  with  the  second,  but 
 with  the  first,  as  it  assigns  an  additional  reason  for  the  duty 
 there  enjoined.  Magistrates  are  to  be  obeyed,  for  such  is  the 
 will  of  God,  and  because  they  are  appointed  to  repress  evil  and 
 to  promote  good.  There  is  a  ground,  therefore,  in  the  very 
 nature  of  their  office,  why  they  should  not  be  resisted. 
 
 Wilt  thou  then  not  he  afraid  of  the  power?  do  that  which  ia 
 good,  and  thou  shall  have  praise  of  the  same.  That  is,  govern- 
 ment is  not  an  evil  to  be  feared,  except  by  evil  doers.  As  the 
 magistrates  are  appointed  for  the  punishment  of  evil,  the  way 
 to  avoid  suffering  from  their  authority  is  not  to  resist  it,  but 
 to  do  that  which  is  good.  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  legitimate 
 41 
 
642  ROMANS  XIII.  4,  5. 
 
 design  of  government,  not  of  the  abuse  of  power  by  wicked 
 men. 
 
 Verse  4.  For  he  is  the  minister  of  Grodfor  thee  for  good,  &c. 
 This  whole  verse  is  but  an  amplification  of  the  preceding. 
 *  Government  is  a  benevolent  institution  of  God,  designed  for 
 the  benefit  of  men;  and,  therefore,  should  be  respected  and 
 obeyed.  As  it  has,  however,  the  rightful  authority  to  punish, 
 it  is  to  be  feared  by  those  that  do  evil.'  For  good,  i.  e.,  to 
 secure  or  promote  your  welfare.  Magistrates  or  rulers  are  not 
 appointed  for  their  own  honour  or  advantage,  but  for  the  benefit 
 of  society,  and,  therefore,  while  those  in  subjection  are  on  this 
 account  to  obey  them,  they  themselves  are  taught,  what  those 
 in  power  are  so  apt  to  forget,  that  they  are  the  servants  of  the 
 people  as  well  as  the  servants  of  God,  and  that  the  welfare  of 
 society  is  the  only  legitimate  object  which  they  as  rulers  are  at 
 liberty  to  pursue. 
 
 But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid;  for  he  beareth 
 not  the  sword  in  vain;  a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  (s^c  opfjv, 
 i.  e.,  for  the  purpose  of  punishment)  wpon  him  that  doeth  evil. 
 As  one  part  of  the  design  of  government  is  to  protect  the  good, 
 so  the  other  is  to  punish  the  wicked.  The  existence  of  this 
 delegated  authority  is,  therefore,  a  reason  why  men  should 
 abstain  from  the  commission  of  evil.  He  beareth  not  the  sword 
 in  vain,  i.  e.,  it  is  not  in  vain  that  he  is  invested  with  authority 
 to  punish.  The  reference  is  not  to  the  dagger  worn  by  the 
 Roman  emperors  as  a  sign  of  office,  as  {x6.ya.tpa  in  the  New  Tes- 
 tament always  means  sword,  which  of  old  was  the  symbol  of 
 authority,  and  specially  of  the  right  of  life  and  death.  As  the 
 common  method  of  inflicting  capital  punishment  was  by  decapi- 
 tation with  a  sword,  that  instrument  is  mentioned  as  the  symbol 
 of  the  right  of  punishment,  and,  as  many  infer  from  this 
 passage,  of  the  right  of  capital  punishment.  "Insignis  locus 
 ad  jus  gladii  comprobandum ;  nam  si  Dominus  magistratum 
 armando  gladii  quoque  usum  illi  mandavit,  quoties  sontes 
 capitali  poena  vindicat,  exercendo  Dei  ultionem,  ejus  mandatia 
 obsequitur.  Contendunt  igitur  cum  Deo  qui  sanguinem  nocen- 
 tium  hominum  efFundi  nefas  esse  putant."   Calvin. 
 
 Verse  5.  Wherefore  ye  must  needs  be  subject,  not  only  for 
 tcrath,  but  also  for  conscience'  sake.     That  is,   subjection  to 
 
ROMANS  XIII.  6.  643 
 
 magistrates  is  not  only  a  civil  duty  enforced  by  penal  statutes, 
 but  also  a  religious  duty,  and  part  of  our  obedience  to  God. 
 For  wrath,  i.  e.,  from  fear  of  punishment.  For  conscience  sake, 
 i.  e.,  out  of  regard  to  God,  from  conscientious  motives.  In  like 
 manner,  Paul  enforces  all  relative  and  social  duties  on  religious 
 grounds.  Children  are  to  obey  their  parents,  because  it  is 
 right  in  the  sight  of  God ;  and  servants  are  to  be  obedient  to 
 their  master,  as  unto  Christ,  doing  the  will  of  God  from  the 
 heart,  Eph.  vi.  1,  5,  6. 
 
 Verse  6.  For,  for  this  cause,  'pay  ye  tribute  also.  This  verse 
 may  be  connected,  by  the  words  {dcd  zouzo)  rendered  for  this 
 cause,  with  the  preceding,  thus,  'Wherefore  (i.  e.,  for  conscience 
 sake,)  ye  should  pay  tribute  also.'  But  it  is  better  to  consider 
 this  clause  as  containing  an  inference  from  the  foregoing  exhi- 
 bition of  the  nature  and  design  of  civil  government:  'Since 
 government  is  constituted  for  the  benefit  of  society,  for  the 
 punishment  of  evil  doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  those  that  do 
 well,  ye  should  cheerfully  pay  the  contributions  requisite  for  its 
 support.' 
 
 For  they  are  the  ministers  of  Crod,  attending  continually  on 
 this  very  thing.  This  clause  introduces  another  reason  for  the 
 payment  of  tribute.  They,  not  the  tax-gatherers,  but  ol 
 d.pyo'uzzZ',  the  rulers,  to  whom  the  tribute  is  due.  Magistrates 
 are  not  only  appointed  for  the  public  good,  but  they  are  the 
 ministers  of  God,  and  consequently  it  is  his  will  that  we  should 
 contribute  whatever  is  necessary  to  enable  them  to  discharge 
 their  duty.  The  word  {}.zizoopyo'C)  rendered  ministers,  means 
 public  servants,  men  appointed  for  any  public  work,  civil  or 
 religious.  Among  the  Greek  democratical  states,  especially  at 
 Athens,  those  persons  were  particularly  so  called,  who  were 
 required  to  perform  some  public  service  at  their  own  expense. 
 It  is  used  in  Scripture  in  a  general  sense,  for  servants  or  minis- 
 ters, Rom.  XV.  16,  Heb.  i.  7,  viii.  2.  The  words  ef'c  abzb  zouzOy 
 to  this  very  thing,  may  refer  to  tax- gathering.  The  magistrates 
 are  divinely  commissioned,  or  authorized  to  collect  tribute. 
 This  is  necessary  to  the  support  of  government ;  and  govern- 
 ment being  a  divine  institution,  God,  in  ordaining  the  end,  has 
 thereby  ordained  the  means.  It  is  because  magistrates,  in  the 
 collection  of  taxes,  act  as  the  X&tzoupfol  &sou,  the  executive 
 
644  ROMANS  XTII.  1,  8. 
 
 officers  of  Grod,  that  we  are  bound  to  pay  them.  Others  make 
 the  auTO  touto  refer  to  the  htzoopyta,  or  service  of  God,  which 
 is  implied  in  magistrates  being  called  XtcToupyoi.  '  They  are  the 
 ministers  of  God  attending  constantly  to  their  ministry.*  The 
 former  interpretation  is  the  more  consistent  with  the  context. 
 
 Verse  7.  Render  therefore  to  all  their  dues:  tribute  to  whom 
 tribute;  custom  to  whom  custom;  fear  to  whom  fear;  honour  to 
 whom  honour.  '  Such  being  the  will  of  God,  and  such  the 
 benevolent  design  of  civil  government,  render  to  magistrates 
 Cand  to  all  others)  what  properly  belongs  to  them,  whether 
 pecuniary  contribution,  reverence,  or  honour.'  The  word  all 
 seems,  from  the  context,  to  have  special  reference  to  all  in 
 authority,  though  it  is  not  necessary  to  confine  it  to  such  per- 
 sons exclusively.  The  word  [(popoi;)  tribute  is  applied  properly 
 to  land  and  capitation  tax ;  and  {reko^)  to  the  imposts  levied  on 
 merchandise.  The  words  {(pb^o^)  fear,  and  {TtiJtrj)  honour,  are 
 generally  considered  in  this  connection  as  differing  only  in 
 degree ;  the  former  expressing  the  reverence  to  superiors,  the 
 latter  the  respect  to  equals. 
 
 Verse  8.  Owe  no  man  any  thing,  but  to  love  one  another,  &c. 
 That  is,  acquit  yourselves  of  all  obligations,  except  love,  which 
 is  a  debt  that  must  remain  ever  due.  This  is  the  common,  and 
 considering  the  context,  which  abounds  with  commands,  the 
 most  natural  interpretation  of  this  passage.  Others,  however, 
 take  the  verb  {diptiXert)  as  in  the  indicative,  instead  of  the 
 imperative  mood,  and  understand  the  passage  thus:  'Ye  owe 
 no  man  any  thing  but  love  (which  includes  all  other  duties,)  for 
 he  that  loves  another  fulfils  the  law.'  This  gives  a  good  sense, 
 when  this  verse  is  taken  by  itself;  but  viewed  in  connection 
 with  those  which  precede  and  follow,  the  common  interpretation 
 is  much  more  natural.  Besides,  "  the  indicative  would  require 
 obd^vt  oudev,  and  not  fx/jdsvc  fjrjdev.  The  use  of  the  subjective 
 negative  shows  that  a  command  is  intended."  Meyer.  The 
 idea  which  a  cursory  reader  might  be  disposed  to  attach  to 
 these  words,  in  considering  them  as  a  direction  not  to  contract 
 pecuniary  debts,  is  not  properly  expressed  by  them ;  although 
 the  prohibition,  in  its  spirit,  includes  the  incurring  of  such 
 obligations,  when  we  have  not  the  certain  prospect  of  discharg- 
 ing them.     The  command,  however,  is,  'Acquit  yourselves  of 
 
ROMANS  XIII.  9—11.  645 
 
 all  obligations,  tribute,  custom,  fear,  honour,  or  wbatever  else 
 you  may  owe,  but  remember  that  the  debt  of  love  is  still 
 unpaid,  and  always  must  remain  so ;  for  love  includes  all  duty, 
 since  he  that  loves  another  fulfils  the  law.'*  He  that  loveth 
 another  hath  fulfilled  {nsTzk-jpcoxs)  the  law.  It  is  already  done. 
 That  is,  all  the  law  contemplated,  in  its  specific  commands 
 relating  to  our  social  duties,  is  attained  when  we  love  our 
 neighbour  as  ourselves. 
 
 Verse  9.  For  this,  TJiou  shalt  not  commit  adulter^/,  Thou 
 shalt  not  kill,  Thou  shalt  not  steal,  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false 
 witness,'\'  Thou  shalt  not  covet;  and  if  there  be  ani/  other  com- 
 mandment, it  is  hriejiy  comprehended  in  this  saying,  namely^ 
 Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.  This  verse  is  evidently 
 a  confirmation  of  the  declaration  at  the  close  of  the  preceding 
 one,  that  love  includes  all  our  social  duties.  This  is  further 
 confirmed  in  the  following  verse. 
 
 Verse  10.  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  Mb  neighbour,  therefore 
 love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  That  is,  as  love  delights  in  the 
 happiness  of  its  object,  it  effectually  prevents  us  from  injuring 
 those  we  lov\>,  and,  consequently,  leads  us  to  fulfil  all  the  law 
 requires,  because  the  law  requires  nothing  which  is  not  con- 
 ducive to  the  best  interests  of  our  fellow-men.  He,  therefore, 
 who  loves  his  neighbour  with  the  same  sincerity  that  he  loves 
 himself,  and  consequently  treats  him  as  he  would  wish,  under 
 similar  circumstances,  to  be  treated  by  him,  will  fulfil  all  that 
 the  law  enjoins ;  hence  the  whole  law  is  comprehended  in  this 
 one  command.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself. 
 
 Verse  11.  And  that,  knowing  the  time,  that  now  it  is  high 
 time  to  awake  out  of  sleep;  for  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than 
 when  we  believed.     From  this  verse  to  the  end  of  the  chapter, 
 
 *  Amare;  debitum  immortale.  Si  amabitis,  nil  debitis  nam  amor  iroplet 
 legem.  Amare,  libertas  est. — Bengel.  Argute  et  eleganter  dictum:  dilectio- 
 nis  debitum  et  semper  solvitur  et  semper  manet. —  Wetstein. 
 
 A  grateful  mind, 
 By  owing  owes  not,  and  still  pays,  at  once 
 Indebted  and  discharged. — Milton's  Paradise  Lost,  IV.  55. 
 f  The  words  w  -^ojio/jiti^rvgiimK  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  D.  E.  F.  G.  1,  2,  29, 
 34,  86,  38,  39,  41,  43,  46,  47,  52,  and  in  the  Syriac  version.    They  are  rejected 
 In  the  Complutensiaa  edition,  and  in  thosa  of  Mill,  Bengel,  Griesbach,  Knapp, 
 and  Lachmann. 
 
646  ROMANS  XIII.  11. 
 
 Paul  exhorts  his  readers  to  discharge  the  duties  alreadv 
 enjoined,  and  urges  on  thern  to  live  a  holy  and  exemplary  life, 
 The  consideration  by  which  this  exhortation  is  enforced,  is, 
 that  the  night  is  far  spent,  and  that  the  day  is  at  hand,  the 
 time  of  deliverance  is  fast  approaching.  The  words  {xac  touto) 
 rendered  and  t?iat,  are  by  many  considered  as  elliptical,  and 
 the  word  {Troiecte)  do  is  supplied;  'And  this  do.'  The  demon- 
 strative pronoun,  however,  is  frequently  used  to  mark  the 
 importance  of  the  connection  between  two  circumstances  for 
 the  case  in  hand,  (Passow,  Vol.  II.  p.  319,)  and  is,  therefore, 
 often  equivalent  to  the  phrases,  and  indeed,  the  more,  &c.  So 
 in  this  case,  '  We  must  discharge  our  various  duties,  and  that 
 knowing,'  &c.,  i.  e.,  'the  rather,  because  we  know,'  &c.;  com- 
 pare Heb.  xi.  12,  1  Cor.  vi.  6,  Eph.  ii.  8.  Knowing  the 
 time,  i.  e.,  considering  the  nature  and  character  of  the  period 
 in  which  we  now  live.  The  original  word  {xacpoq)  does  not 
 mean  time  in  the  general  sense,  but  a  portion  of  time  considered 
 as  appropiate,  as  fixed,  as  short,  &c.  Paul  immediately  explains 
 himself  by  adding,  that  now  it  is  high  time  to  awake  out  of 
 sleep;  it  was  the  proper  time  to  arouse  themselves  from  their 
 slumbers,  and,  shaking  off  all  slothfulness,  to  address  them- 
 selves earnestly  to  work.  For  now  i?  our  salvation  nearer  than 
 when  we  believed.  This  is  the  reason  why  it  is  time  to  be  up 
 and  active,  salvation  is  at  hand.  There  are  three  leading  inter- 
 pretations of  this  clause.  The  first  is,  that  it  means  that  the 
 time  of  salvation,  or  special  favour  to  the  Grentiles,  and  of  the 
 destruction  of  the  Jews,  was  fast  approaching.  So  Hammond, 
 Whitby,  and  many  others.  But  for  this  there  is  no  foundation 
 in  the  simple  meaning  of  the  words,  nor  in  the  context.  Paul 
 evidently  refers  to  something  of  more  general  and  permanent 
 interest  than  the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  con- 
 sequent freedom  of  the  Gentile  converts  from  their  persecutions. 
 The  night  that  was  far  spent,  was  not  the  night  of  sorrow 
 arising  from  Jewish  bigotry;  and  the  day  that  was  at  hand 
 was  somethincr  brig-hter  and  better  than  deliverance  from  its 
 power.  A  second  interpretation  very  generally  received  of  late 
 is,  that  the  reference  is  to  the  second  advent  of  Christ.  It  is 
 assumed  that  the  early  Christians,  and  even  the  inspired  apos- 
 tles, were  under  the  constant    impression  that  Christ  was  to 
 
ROMANS  XIII.  11.  647 
 
 appear  in  person  for  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom,  befora 
 that  generation  passed  away.  This  assumption  is  founded  on 
 such  passages  as  the  following:  Phil.  iv.  5,  "The  Lord  is  at 
 hand;"  1  Tliess.  iv.  17,  "We  that  are  alive  and  remain  shall 
 be  caught  up  together  with  them  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air ;" 
 1  Cor.  XV.  51,  "We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all  be 
 changed,"  &c.     With   regard   to  this   point,  we  may  remark, 
 
 1.  That  neither  the  early  Christians  nor  the  apostles  knew 
 when  the  second  advent  of  Chi-ist  was  to  take  place.  "  But 
 of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  nor  the  angels  of 
 heaven,  but  my  Father  only.  But  as  the  days  of  Noe  ivere, 
 BO  shall  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  be,"  Matt.  xxiv.  36,  37, 
 "They  (the  apostles)  asked  of  him,  saying,  Lord,  wilt  thou  at 
 this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ?  And  he  said  unto 
 them.  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons  which 
 the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own  power,"  Acts  i.  6,  7.  "But  of 
 the  times  and  seasons,  brethren,  ye  have  no  need  that  I  write 
 unto  you ;  for  ye  yourselves  know  perfectly  that  the  day  of  the 
 Lord  so  Cometh   as    a  thief  in  the  night,"  1  Thess.  v.  1,  2. 
 
 2.  Though  they  knew  not  when  it  was  to  be,  they  knew  that  it 
 was  not  to  happen  immediately,  nor  until  a  great  apostacy  had 
 occurred.  "  Now  we  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  (or  concerning) 
 the  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  our  gathering  together  to 
 him,  that  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  m  mind  ...  as  that  the  day 
 of  Christ  is  at  hand.  Let  no  man  deceive  you  by  any  means : 
 for  that  da\/  %liall  not  come,  except  there  come  a  falling  away 
 first,  and  that  man  of  sin  be  revealed,"  &c.,  2  Thess.  ii.  1 — 3; 
 and  ver.  5,  "Remember  ye  not,  that  when  I  was  yet  with  you, 
 I  told  you  these  things?"  Besides  this  distinct  assertion,  that 
 the  second  advent  of  Christ  was  not  to  occur  before  the  revela- 
 tion of  the  man  of  sin,  there  are  several  other  predictions  in  the 
 writings  of  Paul,  which  necessarily  imply  his  knowledge  of  the 
 fact,  that  the  day  of  judgment  was  not  immediately  at  hand, 
 1  Tim.  iv.  1 — 5,  Rom.  xi.  25.  The  numerous  prophecies  of  the 
 Old  Testament  relating  to  the  future  conversion  of  the  Jews, 
 and  various  other  events,  were  known  to  the  apostles,  and  pre- 
 cluded the  possibility  of  their  believing  that  the  world  was  to 
 come  to  an  end  before  those  prophecies  were  fulfilled  3.  Wo 
 are  not  to  understand  the  expressions,  day  of  the  Lord,  the 
 
648  ROMANS  XIII.  11. 
 
 appearing  of  Clirist,  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  in  all  cases 
 in  the  same  way.  The  dai/  of  the  Lord  is  a  very  familiar 
 expression  in  the  Scriptures  to  designate  any  time  of  the 
 special  manifestation  of  the  divine  presence,  either  for  judg- 
 ment or  mercy ;  see  Ezek.  xiii.  5,  Joel  i.  15,  Isa.  ii.  12,  xiii.  6,  9. 
 So  also  God  or  Christ  is  said  to  come  to  any  person  or  place, 
 ■when  he  makes  any  remarkable  exhibition  of  his  power  or 
 grace.  Hence  the  Son  of  man  was  to  come  for  the  destruction 
 of  Jerusalem,  before  the  people  of  that  generation  all  perished ; 
 and  the  summons  of  death  is  sometimes  represented  as  the 
 coming  of  Christ  to  judge  the  soul.  What  is  the  meaning  of 
 such  expressions  must  be  determined  by  the  context,  in  each 
 particular  case.  4.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  inferred  from  such 
 declarations  as  "  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand ;"  "  the  coming 
 of  the  Lord  draweth  nigh;"  "the  judge  is  at  the  door,"  &c., 
 that  those  who  made  them  supposed  that  the  second  advent  and 
 final  judgment  were  to  take  place  immediately.  They  expressly 
 assert  the  contrary,  as  has  just  been  shown.  5.  The  situation 
 of  the  early  Christians  was,  in  this  respect,  similar  to  ours. 
 They  believed  that  Christ  was  to  appear  the  second  time  with- 
 out sin  unto  salvation ;  but  when  this  advent  was  to  take  place, 
 they  did  not  know.  They  looked  and  longed  for  the  appearing 
 of  the  great  God  their  Saviour,  as  we  do  now ;  and  the  prospect 
 of  this  event  operated  upon  them  as  it  should  do  upon  us,  as  a 
 constant  motive  to  watchfulness  and  diligence,  that  we  may  be 
 found  of  him  in  peace.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  the 
 Scriptures,  nor  in  this  immediate  context,  which  requires  us  to 
 suppose  that  Paul  intended  to  say  that  the  time  of  the  second 
 advent  was  at  hand,  when  he  tells  his  readers  that  their  salva- 
 tion was  nearer  than  when  they  believed. 
 
 The  third  and  most  common,  as  well  as  the  most  natural  inter- 
 pretation of  this  passage  is,  that  Paul  meant  simply  to  remind 
 them  that  the  time  of  deliverance  was  near;  that  the  difficulties 
 and  sins  with  which  they  had  to  contend,  would  soon  be  dis- 
 persed as  the  shades  and  mists  of  night  before  the  rising  day. 
 The  salvation,  therefore,  here  intended,  is  the  consummation  of 
 the  work  of  Christ  in  their  deliverance  from  this  present  evil 
 world,  and  introduction  into  the  purity  and  blessedness  of 
 heaven.     Eternity  is  just  at  hand,  is  the  solemn  consideration 
 
ROMANS  XIII.  12,  13.  649 
 
 that  Paul  urges  on  his  readers  as  a  motive  for  devotion  and 
 diligence. 
 
 Verse  12.  The  niglit  is  far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand:  let  us 
 therefore  cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put  on  the 
 armour  of  light.  The  general  sentiment  of  this  verse  is  very 
 obvious.  Night  or  darkness  is  the  common  emblem  of  sin  and 
 sorrow ;  day  or  light,  that  of  knowledge,  purity,  and  happiness. 
 The  meaning  of  the  first  clause  therefore  is,  that  the  time  of 
 sin  and  sorrow  is  nearly  over,  that  of  holiness  and  happiness  is 
 at  hand.  The  particular  form  and  application  of  this  general 
 sentiment  depends,  however,  on  the  interpretation  given  to  the 
 preceding  verse.  If  that  verse  refers  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem, then  Paul  means  to  say,  that  the  night  of  persecution 
 was  nearly  gone,  and  the  day  of  peace  and  prosperity  to  the 
 Gentile  churches  was  at  hand.  But  if  ver.  11  refers  to  final 
 salvation,  then  this  verse  means,  that  the  sins  and  sorrows  of 
 this  life  will  soon  be  over,  and  the  day  of  eternal  blessedness  is 
 about  to  dawn.     The  latter  view  is  to  be  preferred. 
 
 Paul  continues  this  beautiful  figure  through  the  verse.  There- 
 fore let  us  cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put  on  the 
 armour  of  light.  That  is,  let  us  renounce  those  things  which 
 need  to  be  concealed,  and  clothe  ourselves  with  those  which  are 
 suited  to  the  light.  The  works  of  darkness  are  those  Avorks 
 which  men  are  accustomed  to  commit  in  the  dark,  or  which  suit 
 the  dark ;  and  armour  of  light  means  those  virtues  and  good 
 deeds  which  men  are  not  ashamed  of,  because  they  will  bear  to 
 be  seen.  Paul  probably  used  the  word  (pnXa)  armour,  instead 
 of  works,  because  these  virtues  constitute  the  ofiensive  and 
 defensive  weapons  with  which  we  are  here  to  contend  against 
 sin  and  evil;  see  Eph.  vi.  11.  The  words  dTCOTi&zad-ac  and 
 ivduta&oi  suggest  the  idea  of  clothing.  We  are  to  cast  oif  one 
 set  of  garments,  and  to  put  on  another.  The  clothes  which 
 belong  to  the  night  are  to  be  cast  aside,  and  we  are  to  array 
 ourselves  in  those  suited  to  the  day. 
 
 Verse  13.  Let  us  walk  honestly  as  in  the  day:  not  in  rioting 
 and  drunkenness;  not  in  chambering  and  wantonness;  not  in 
 strife  and  envying.  This  verse  is  an  amplification  of  the  pre- 
 ceding, stating  some  of  those  works  of  darkness  which  we  are 
 to  put  off;  as  ver.  14  states  what  is  the  armour  af  light  which 
 
650  ROMANS  XIII.  14. 
 
 we  are  to  put  on.  The  word  {thay^fiixo'^oiz)  rendered  "honestly^ 
 means  hecominghj,  proj^erly.  There  are  three  classes  of  sins 
 specified  in  this  verse,  to  each  of  which  two  words  are  appro- 
 priated, viz.,  intemperance,  impurity,  and  discord.  Rioting  and 
 d7-unkenness  belong  to  the  first.  The  word  [xcofjLOz)  appropri- 
 ately rendered  rioting,  is  used  both  in  reference  to  the  disor- 
 derly religious  festivals  kept  in  honour  of  Bacchus,  and  to  the 
 common  boisterous  carousing  of  intemperate  young  men,  (see 
 Passow,  Vol.  I.,  p.  924.)  The  words  chambering  and  wanton- 
 ness, include  all  kinds  of  uncleanness ;  and  strife  and  envying, 
 all  kinds  of  unholy  emulation  and  discord. 
 
 Verse  14.  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  i.  e.,  be  as 
 he  was.  To  put  on  Chi'ist,  signifies  to  be  intimately  united  to 
 him,  so  that  he,  and  not  we,  may  appear.  Gal.  iii.  27 :  '  Let  not 
 your  own  evil  deeds  be  seen,  (i.  e.,  do  not  commit  such,)  but  let 
 what  Christ  was,  appear  in  all  your  conduct,  as  effectually  as 
 if  clothed  with  the  garment  of  his  virtues.' 
 
 And  make  no  provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts  theieof. 
 That  is,  let  it  not  be  your  care  to  gratify  the  flesh.  'Qj  flosh, 
 in  this  passage,  is  perhaps  generally  understood  the  body;  so 
 that  the  prohibition  is  confined  to  the  vicious  indulgence  of  the 
 sensual  appetites.  But  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason 
 for  this  restriction.  As  the  word  is  constantly  used  by  Paul 
 for  whatever  is  corrupt,  and  in  the  preceding  verse  the  sins  of 
 envy  and  contention  are  specially  mentioned,  it  may  be  under- 
 stood more  generally,  '  Do  not  indulge  the  desires  of  your  cor- 
 rupt nature.' 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  Civil  government  is  a  divine  institution,  i.  e.,  it  is  the 
 will  of  God  that  it  should  exist,  and  be  respected  and  obeyed, 
 ver.  2. 
 
 2.  While  'government  is  of  God,  the  form  is  of  men.'  God 
 has  never  enjoined  any  one  form  obligatory  on  all  communi- 
 ties ;  but  has  simply  laid  down  certain  principles,  applicable  to 
 rulers  and  subjects,  under  every  form  in  which  governments 
 exist,  vs.  1 — 7. 
 
 3.  The  obedience  which  the  Scriptures  command  us  to  render 
 to  our  rulers  is  not  unlimited ;  there  are  cases  in  which  disobe- 
 dience is  a  duty.     This  is  evident,  first,  from  the  very  nature 
 
ROMANS  XIII.  1—14.  651 
 
 of  the  case.  The  command  to  obey  magistrates  is,  from  its 
 nature,  a  command  to  obey  them  as  magistrates  in  the  exercise 
 of  their  rightful  authority.  They  are  not  to  be  obeyed  as 
 priests  or  as  parents,  but  as  civil  rulers.  No  one  doubts  that 
 the  precept,  "  Children,  obey  your  parents  in  all  things,"  is  a 
 command  to  obey  them  in  the  exercise  of  their  rightful  parental 
 authority,  and  imposes  no  obligation  to  implicit  and  passive 
 obedience.  A  parent  who  should  claim  the  power  of  a  sove- 
 reign over  his  children,  would  have  no  right  to  their  obedience. 
 The  case  is  still  plainer  with  regard  to  the  command,  "Wives, 
 submit  to  your  own  husbands."  Secondly,  from  the  fact  that 
 the  same  inspired  men  who  enjoin,  in  such  general  terms, 
 obedience  to  rulers,  themselves  uniformly  and  openly  disobeyed 
 them  whenever  their  commands  were  inconsistent  with  other 
 and  higher  obligations.  "  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
 men,"  was  the  principle  which  the  early  Christians  avowed,  and 
 on  which  they  acted.  They  disobeyed  the  Jewish  and  heathen 
 authorities,  whenever  they  required  them  to  do  anything  con- 
 trary to  the  will  of  God.  There  are  cases,  therefore,  in  which 
 disobedience  is  a  duty.  How  far  the  rightful  authority  of  rulera 
 extends,  the  precise  point  at  which  the  obligation  to  obedience 
 ceases,  must  often  be  a  difficult  question ;  and  each  case  must 
 be  decided  on  its  own  merits.  The  same  difficulty  exists  in 
 fixing  the  limits  of  the  authority  of  parents  over  their  children, 
 husbands  over  their  wives,  masters  over  their  servants.  This, 
 however,  is  a  theoretical  rather  than  a  practical  difficulty.  The 
 general  principles  on  which  the  question  in  regard  to  any  given 
 case  is  to  be  decided  are  sufficiently  plain.  No  command  to  do 
 anything  morally  wrong  can  be  binding;  nor  can  any  which 
 transcends  the  rightful  authority  of  the  power  whence  it  eman- 
 ates. What  that  rightful  authority  is,  must  be  determined  by 
 the  institutions  and  laws  of  the  land,  or  from  prescription  and 
 usage,  or  from  the  nature  and  design  of  the  office  with  which 
 the  magistrate  is  invested.  The  right  of  deciding  on  all  these 
 points,  and  determining  where  the  obligation  to  obedience 
 ceases,  and  the  duty  of  resistance  begins,  must,  from  the 
 nature  of  the  case,  rest  with  the  subject,  and  not  with  the  ruler. 
 The  apostles  and  early  Christians  decided  this  point  for  them- 
 selves, and  did  not  leave  the  decision  with  the  Jewish  or  Roman 
 
652  ROMANS  XIII.  1—14. 
 
 authorities.    Like  all  other  questions  of  duty,  it  is  to  he  (!ecicle«3l 
 on  our  responsibility  to  God  and  our  fellow-men,  vs.  1 — 7. 
 
 4.  The  design  of  civil  government  is  not  to  promote  the 
 advantage  of  rulers,  but  of  the  ruled.  They  are  ordained  and 
 invested  with  authority,  to  be  a  terror  to  evil  doers,  and  a 
 praise  to  them  that  do  well.  They  are  the  ministers  of  God 
 for  this  end,  and  are  appointed  for  "this  very  thing."  On  this 
 ground  our  obligation  to  obedience  rests,  and  the  obligation 
 ceases  when  this  design  is  systematically,  constantly,  and  noto- 
 riously disregarded.  Where  unfaithfulness  on  the  part  of  the 
 government  exists,  or  where  the  form  of  it  is  incompatible  with 
 the  design  of  its  institution,  the  governed  must  have  a  right  to 
 remedy  the  evil.  But  they  cannot  have  the  moral  right  to 
 remedy  one  evil,  by  the  production  of  a  greater.  And,  there- 
 fore, as  there  are  few  greater  evils  than  instability  and  uncer- 
 tainty in  governments,  the  cases  in  which  revolutions  are 
 justifiable  must  be  exceedingly  rare,  vs.  3 — 7. 
 
 5.  The  proper  sphere  of  civil  government  is  the  civil  and 
 social  relations  of  men,  and  their  temporal  welfare ;  conscience, 
 and  of  course  religion,  are  beyond  its  jurisdiction,  except  so  far 
 as  the  best  interests  of  civil  society  are  necessarily  connected 
 with  them.  What  extent  of  ground  this  exception  covers,  ever 
 has  been,  and  probably  will  ever  remain  a  matter  of  dispute. 
 Still  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  it  is  an  exception ;  religion 
 and  morality,  as  such,  are  not  within  the  legitimate  sphere  of 
 the  civil  authority.  To  justify  the  interference  of  the  civil 
 government,  therefore,  in  any  given  case,  with  these  important 
 subjects,  an  exception  must  be  made  out.  It  must  be  shown 
 that  an  opinion  or  a  religion  is  not  only  false,  but  that  its  pre- 
 valence is  incompatible  with  the  rights  of  those  members  of  the 
 community  who  are  not  embraced  within  its  communion,  before 
 the  civil  authority  can  be  authorized  to  interfere  for  its  sup- 
 pression. It  is  then  to  be  suppressed,  npt  as  a  religion,  but  as 
 a  public  nuisance.  God  has  ordained  civil  government  for  the 
 promotion  of  the  welfare  of  men  as  members  of  the  same  civil 
 society ;  and  parental  government,  and  the  instruction  and  dis- 
 cipline of  the  church,  for  their  moral  and  religious  improve- 
 ment. And  the  less  interference  there  is  between  these  two 
 great  institutions,  in  the  promotion  of  their  respective  objects, 
 
ROMANS  XIII.  1—14.  653 
 
 the  better.  We  do  not  find  in  the  New  Testament  any  com- 
 mands addressed  to  magistrates  with  regard  to  the  suppression 
 of  heresies  or  the  support  of  the  truth ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
 do  we  meet  with  any  directions  to  the  church  to  interfere  with 
 matters  pertaining  to  the  civil  government,  vs.  3 — 6. 
 
 6.  The  discharge  of  all  the  social  and  civil  duties  of  life  is  to 
 the  Christian  a  matter  of  religious  obligation,  vs.  5 — 7. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  Christian  religion  is  adapted  to  all  states  of  society 
 and  all  forms  of  civil  government.  As  the  Spirit  of  God,  when 
 it  enters  any  human  heart,  leaves  unmolested  what  is  peculiar 
 to  its  individual  character,  as  far  as  it  is  innocent,  and  erfects 
 the  reformation  of  what  is  evil,  not  by  violence,  but  by  a  sweetly 
 constraining  influence ;  so  the  religion  of  Christ,  when  it  enters 
 any  community  of  men,  does  not  assail  their  form  of  govern- 
 ment, whether  despotic  or  free;  and  if  there  is  anything  in 
 their  institutions  inconsistent  with  its  spirit,  it  is  changed  by 
 its  silent  operation  on  the  heart  and  conscience,  rath,er  than  by 
 direct  denunciation.  It  has  thus,  without  rebellion  or  violent 
 convulsions,  curbed  the  exercise  of  despotic  power,  and  wrought 
 the  abolition  of  slavery  throughout  the  greater  part  of  Christen- 
 dom, vs.  1 — 14. 
 
 2.  The  gospel  is  equally  hostile  to  tyranny  and  anarchy.  It 
 teaches  rulers  that  they  are  ministers  of  God  for  the  public 
 good;  and  it  teaches  subjects  to  be  obedient  to  magistrates,  not 
 only  for  fear,  but  also  for  conscience'  sake,  ver.  5. 
 
 3.  God  is  to  be  recognised  as  ordering  the  affairs  of  civil 
 society:  "He  removeth  kings,  and  he  setteth  up  kings;"  by 
 him  "kings  reign,  and  princes  decree  justice."  It  is  enough, 
 therefore,  to  secure  the  obedience  of  the  Christian,  that,  in  the 
 providence  of  God,  he  finds  the  power  of  government  lodged  in 
 certain  hands.  The  early  Christians  would  have  been  in  con- 
 stant perplexity,  had  it  been  incumbent  on  them,  amidst  the 
 frequent  poisonings  and  assassinations  of  the  imperial  palace, 
 the  tumults  of  the  pretorian  guards,  and  the  proclamation  by 
 contending  armies  of  rival  candidates,  to  decide  on  the  individual 
 who  had  de  jure  the  power  of  the  sword,  before  they  could  con- 
 scientiously obey,  vs.  1 — 5. 
 
654  ROMANS  XIV.  1—23. 
 
 4.  When  rulers  become  a  terror  to  the  good,  and  a  praise  to 
 them  that  do  evil,  they  may  still  be  tolerated  and  obeyed,  not 
 however,  of  right,  but  because  the  remedy  may  be  worse  than 
 the  disease,  vs.  3,  4. 
 
 5.  Did  genuine  Christian  love  prevail,  it  would  secure  the 
 right  discharge,  not  only  of  the  duties  of  rulers  towards  their 
 subjects,  and  of  subjects  towards  their  rulers,  but  of  all  the  rela- 
 tive social  duties  of  life ;  for  he  that  loveth  another  fulfilleth  the 
 law,  vs.  7,  8. 
 
 6.  The  nearness  of  eternity  should  operate  on  all  Christiana 
 as  a  motive  to  purity  and  devotedness  to  God.  The  night  is 
 far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand ;  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than 
 when  we  believed,  vs.  13,  14. 
 
 7.  All  Christian  duty  is  included  in  putting  on  the  Lord 
 Jesus ;  in  being  like  him,  having  that  similarity  of  temper  and 
 conduct  which  results  from  being  intimately  united  to  him  by 
 the  Holy  Spirit,  ver.  14. 
 
 CHAPTER    XIV.. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 As  in  chapter  xii.,  Paul  had  insisted  principally  upon  moral 
 and  religious  duties,  and  in  chapter  xiii.,  on  those  of  a  political 
 character,  he  here  treats  particularly  of  the  duties  of  church 
 members  towards  each  other,  in  relation  to  matters  not  binding 
 on  the  conscience.  There  are  two  points  specially  presented: 
 the  first  is  the  manner  in  which  scrupulous  Christians,  who 
 make  conscience  of  matters  of  indifference,  are  to  be  treated, 
 vs.  1 — 12 ;  and  the  second,  the  manner  in  which  those  who  are 
 strong  in  faith  should  use  their  Christian  liberty,  vs.  13 — 23. 
 
 ROMANS   XIV.  1—23. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 Scrupulous  Christians,  whose  consciences  are  weak,  are  to 
 be  kindly  received,  and  not  harshly  condemned,  ver.  1.  This 
 direction  the  apostle  enforces  in  reference  to  those  who  were 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  1—23.  655 
 
 scrupulous  as  to  eating  particular  kinds  of  food,  and  tlie  pro- 
 priety of  neglecting  the  sacred  days  appointed  in  the  law  of 
 IMoses.  Such  persons  are  not  to  be  condemned:  1.  Because 
 this  weakness  is  not  inconsistent  with  piety ;  notwithstanding 
 their  doubts  on  these  points,  God  has  received  them,  ver.  3. 
 2-  Because  one  Christian  has  no  right  to  judge  another,  (except 
 where  Christ  has  expressly  authorized  it,  and  given  him  the 
 rule  of  judgment ;)  to  his  own  master  he  stands  or  falls,  ver.  4. 
 8.  Because  such  harsh  treatment  is  unnecessary ;  God  can  and 
 will  preserve  such  persons,  notwithstanding  their  feebleness, 
 ver.  4.  4.  Because  they  act  religiously,  or  out  of  regard  to 
 God,  in  this  matter ;  and,  therefore,  live  according  to  the  great 
 Christian  principle,  that  no  man  liveth  to  himself,  and  no  man 
 dieth  to  himself,  but  whether  he  lives  or  dies,  belongs  to  God, 
 vs.  6 — 9.  On  these  grounds  we  should  abstain  from  condemn- 
 ing or  treating  contemptuously  our  weaker  brethren,  remember- 
 ing that  we  are  all  to  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ, 
 vs.  10—13. 
 
 As  to  the  use  of  Christian  liberty,  the  apostle  teaches  that 
 it  is  not  to  be  given  up  or  denied ;  that  is,  we  are  not  to  make 
 things  sinful  which  are  in  themselves  indifferent,  ver.  14.  But 
 it  does  not  follow,  that  because  a  thing  is  not  wrong  in  itself, 
 it  is  right  for  us  to  indulge  in  it.  Our  liberty  is  to  be  asserted; 
 but  it  is  to  be  exercised  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  injure  others. 
 We  must  not  put  a  stumbling-block  in  our  brother's  way, 
 ver.  12.  This  consideration  of  others,  in  the  use  of  our  liberty, 
 is  enforced :  1.  From  the  great  law  of  love.  It  is  inconsistent 
 with  Christian  charity,  for  our  own  gratification,  to  injure  a 
 brother  for  whom  Christ  died,  ver.  15.  2.  From  a  regard  to 
 the  honour  of  religion.  We  must  not  cause  that  which  is  good 
 to  be  evil  spoken  of,  ver.  16.  3.  From  the  consideration  that 
 religion  does  not  consist  in  such  things,  vs.  17,  18.  4.  Because 
 we  are  bound  to  promote  the  peace  and  edification  of  the 
 church,  ver.  19.  5.  Though  the  things  in  question  may  be  in 
 themselves  indifferent,  it  is  morally  wrong  to  indulge  in  them 
 to  the  injury  of  others,  vs.  20,  21.  6.  The  course  enjoined  by 
 the  apostle  requires  no  concession  of  principle,  or  adoption  of 
 error.  We  can  retain  our  full  belief  of  the  indifference  of  things 
 which  God  has  not  pronounced  sinful ;  but  those  who  have  not 
 
656  ROMANS  XIV.  1. 
 
 our  faith,  cannot   act   upon  it,  and  therefore   should  not  be 
 encouraged  so  to  do,  vs.  22,  23. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  Him  that  is  weak  in  faith  receive,  hut  not  to  doubt- 
 ful disputations.     This   verse   contains   the    general   direction 
 that  weak  and  scrupulous  brethren  are  to  be  kindly  received, 
 and  not  harshly  condemned.     Who  these  weak  brethren  were, 
 and  what  was  the  nature  of  their  scruples,  is  matter  of  doubt 
 Some  say  they  were  Jewish  converts,  who  held  to  the  continued 
 obligation  of  the  ceremonial  law.     But  to  this  it  is  objected, 
 that  they  abstained  from  all  flesh  (ver.  2,)  and  refused  to  drink 
 wine  (ver.  21 ;)  things   not   prohibited  in  the  law  of  Moses. 
 Others  think  they  were  persons  who  scrupled  about  the  use  of 
 such  Sesh  only  as  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols,  and 
 of  the  wine  employed  in  libation  to  false  gods.     But  for  this 
 limitation  there  is  no  ground  in  the  context.     Eichhorn,  Ein- 
 leitung  III.  p.  222,  supposes  that  they  were  the  advocates,  of 
 Gentile  birth,  of  the  ascetic  school  of  the  new  Pythagorean 
 philosophy,  which  had  begun  to  prevail   among   the   heathen, 
 and  probably  to  a  certain  extent  among  the  Jews.     But  it  is 
 plain  that  they  held  to  the  continued  authority  of  the  Jewish 
 law,  which  converts  from   among  the   heathen  would  not  be 
 likely  to  do.     The  most  probable  opinion  is,  that  they  were  a 
 scrupulous  class  of  Jewish  Christians ;  perhaps  of  the  school  of 
 the  Essenes,  who  were  more   strict  and  abstemious  than  the 
 Mosaic  ceremonial  required.    Asceticism,  as  a  form  of  self-right- 
 eousness and  will-worship,  was  one  of  the  earliest,  most  exten- 
 sive and  persistent  heresies  in  the  church.    But  there  is  nothing 
 inconsistent  with  the  assumption  that  the  weak  brethren  here 
 spoken  of  were  scrupulous  Jewish  Christians.     Josephus  says, 
 that  some  of  the  Jews  at  Rome  lived  on  fruits  exclusively,  from 
 fear  of  eating  something  unclean.    Weak  in  faith,  i.  e,,  weak  as 
 to  faith  [Tziavsc.)     Faith  here  means,  persuasion  of  the  truth ;  a 
 man  may  have  a  strong  persua&ion  as  to  certain  truths,  and  a 
 very  weak  one  as  to  others.     Some  of  the  early  Christians  were, 
 no  doubt,  fully  convinced  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  yet 
 felt  great  doubts  whether  the  distinction  between  clean  and 
 unclean  meats  was  entirely  done  away.     This  was  certainly  a 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  2.  657 
 
 great  defect  of  Christian  character,  and  arose  from  the  want 
 of  an  intelligent  and  firm  conviction  of  the  gratuitous  nature 
 of  justification,  and  of  the  spirituality  of  the  gospel.  Since, 
 however,  this  weakness  was  not  inconsistent  with  sincere  devo- 
 tion to  Christ,  such  persons  were  to  be  received.  The  word 
 (jvpoaXafij^dvofiai)  rendered  receive,  has  the  general  signification. 
 to  take  to  one-self;  and  this  is  its  meaning  here:  'Him  that  is 
 weak  in  faith,  take  to  yourselves  as  a  Christian  brother,  treat 
 him  kindly;'  see  Acts  xxviii.  2,  Rom.  xv.  7,  Philemon  va. 
 15,  17. 
 
 There  is  much  more  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  (ji^ 
 eii;  dcaxpcae:^  dcaXoycaixcov)  translated  not  to  doubtful  disputations. 
 The  former  of  the  two  important  words  of  this  clause  means,  the 
 faculty  of  discrimination,  1  Cor.  xiii.  10 ;  the  act  of  discerning, 
 Heb.  V.  14,  and  then,  dijudication,  judgment.  It  is  said  also  to 
 signify  doubt  or  inward  conjiict;  see  the  use  of  the  verb  in  chap, 
 iv.  20.  It  is  taken  in  this  sense  in  our  version,  not  to  the  doubt- 
 fulness of  disputes,  not  for  the  purpose  of  doubtful  disputation. 
 That  is,  not  so  as  to  give  rise  to  disputes  on  doubtful  matters. 
 Luther  (und  verwirret  die  Gewissen  nicht,)  and  many  others 
 take  dcaxpiasiQ  in  the  sense  of  doubt,  and  refer  the  diaXoyiapoi 
 to  the  weak  brethren :  *  Not  so  as  to  awaken  doubts  of  thought, 
 i.  e.,  scruples.'  Although  the  verb  dtaxp:v£a>,  in  the  passive, 
 often  means  to  hesitate  or  doubt,  the  noun  dcaxpiaa;  is  not  used 
 in  that  sense,  either  in  the  classics  or  in  the  New  Testament. 
 It  is  therefore  better  to  take  the  word  in  its  ordinary  sense, 
 which  gives  a  meaning  to  the  passage  suited  to  the  context,  not 
 to  the  judging  of  thoughts;  i.  e.,  not  presuming  to  sit  in  judg- 
 ment on  the  opinions  of  your  brethren.  Grotius :  "Non 
 sumentes  vobis  dijudicandas  ipsorum  cogitationes."  This  is 
 the  injunction  which  is  enforced  in  the  following  verses. 
 
 Verse  2.  For  one  believeth  he  may  eat  all  things:  another, 
 who  is  weak,  eateth  herbs — Sc  ptsv  Treareuee  (paydv  Ttdvza  does 
 not  mean,  one  believeth  he  may  eat  all  things;  much  less,  he 
 that  believeth  eats  all  things,  but,  one  has  confidence  to  eat  all 
 things.  Instead  of  Sc  /^sv  being  followed  by  5c  <5i,  one  eats 
 all  things,  another  eats  herbs,  Paul  says,  6  ds  da&evuJu,  he  who 
 is  weak  eateth  herbs.  This  is  an  illustration  of  the  weakness 
 of  faith  to  which  the  apostle  refers  in  ver.  1.  It  was  a  scrupn- 
 42 
 
(558  ROMANS  XIV.  3. 
 
 lousness  about  tlie  use  of  things  considered  as  nnclenn,  and  with 
 regard  to  sacred  days,  ver.  5.  There  were  two  sources  whence 
 the  early  Christian  church  was  disturbed  by  the  question  about 
 meats.  The  first,  and  by  far  the  most  important,  was  the 
 natural  prejudices  of  the  Jewish  converts.  It  is  not  a  matter 
 of  surprise  that,  educated  as  they  had  been  in  a  f^trict  regard 
 for  the  Mosaic  law,  they  found  it  difficult  to  enter  at  once  into 
 the  full  liberty  of  the  gospel,  and  disencumber  their  consciences 
 of  all  their  early  opinions.  Even  the  apostles  were  slow  in 
 shaking  them  oif ;  and  the  church  in  Jerusalem  seems  to  have 
 long  continued  in  the  observance  of  a  great  part  of  the  ceremo- 
 nial law.  These  scruples  were  not  confined  to  the  use  of  meats 
 pronounced  unclean  in  the  Old  Testament,  but,  as  appears  from 
 the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  extended  to  partaking  of  any- 
 thing which  had  been  offered  to  an  idol ;  and,  in  these  latter 
 scruples,  some  even  of  the  Gentile  converts  may  have  joined. 
 The  second  source  of  trouble  on  this  subject  was  less  prevalent 
 and  less  excusable.  It  was  the  influence  of  the  mystic  ascetic 
 philosophy  of  the  East,  which  had  developed  itself  among  the 
 Jews,  in  the  peculiar  opinions  of  the  Essenes,  and  which,  among 
 the  Christian  churches,  particularly  those  of  Asia  Minor,  pro- 
 duced the  evils  which  Paul  describes  in  his  Epistles  to  the 
 Colossians  (chap.  ii.  10 — 23,)  and  to  Timothy  (1  Tim.  iv.  1 — 8,) 
 and  which  subsequently  gave  rise  to  all  the  errors  of  Gnosti- 
 cism. There  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  persons  to 
 whom  Paul  refers  in  this  passage  were  under  the  influence  of 
 this  philosophy.  The  fact  that  they  abstained  from  all  meat, 
 as  seems  to  be  intimated  in  this  verse,  may  have  arisen  from 
 the  constant  apprehension  of  eating  meat  which,  after  having 
 been  presented  in  sacrifice,  was  sold  in  the  market-place,  or 
 which  had  in  some  other  way  been  rendered  unclean.  Every 
 thing  in  the  context  is  consistent  with  the  supposition  that 
 Jewish  scruples  were  the  source  of  the  difficulty ;  and  as  these 
 wevQ  by  far  the  most  common  cause,  no  other  need  be  here 
 assumed. 
 
 Verse  3.  Let  not  him  that  eateth  despise  him  that  eateth  not; 
 and  let  not  him  which  eateth  not  judge  him  that  eateth :  for  God 
 hath  received  1dm.  There  is  mutual  forbearance  to  be  exercised 
 in  relation  to  this  subject-     The  strong  are  not  to  despise  the 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  4.  659 
 
 weak  as  superstitious  and  imbecile ;  nor  the  weak  to  condemn 
 those  who  disregard  their  scruples.  Points  of  indifference  are 
 not  to  be  allowed  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  Christian  fellow- 
 ship. For  Grod  hath  received  him;  i.  e.,  God  has  recognised 
 him  as  a  Christian,  and  received  him  into  his  kingdom.  This 
 reason  is  not  designed  to  enforce  merely  the  latter  of  the  two 
 duties  here  enjoined,  but  is  applied  to  both.  As  God  does  not 
 make  eating  or  not  eating  certain  kinds  of  food  a  condition  of 
 acceptance,  Christians  ought  not  to  allo"n  it  to  interfere  with 
 their  communion  as  brethren.  The  Jewish  converts  were  per- 
 haps quite  as  much  disposed  to  condemn  the  Gentile  Christians, 
 as  the  latter  were  to  despise  the  Christian  Jews ;  Paul  there- 
 fore frames  his  admonition  so  as  to  reach  both  classes.  It 
 appears,  however,  from  the  first  verse,  and  from  the  whole  con- 
 text, that  the  Gentiles  were  principally  intended. 
 
 Verse  4.  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant? 
 to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth.  If  God  has  not  made 
 the  point  in  question  a  term  of  communion,  we  have  no  right  to 
 make  it  a  ground  of  condemnation.  We  have  no  right  to  exer- 
 cise the  office  of  judge  over  the  servant  of  another.  This  is  the 
 second  reason  for  mutual  forbearance  with  regard  to  such  mat- 
 ters as  divided  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts.  It  cannot  fail 
 to  be  remarked  how  differently  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  same 
 things  under  different  circumstances.  He  who  circumcised 
 Timothy,  who  conformed  in  many  things  to  the  law  of  Moses, 
 and  to  the  Jews  became  a  Jew,  and  who  here  exhorts  Christians 
 to  regard  their  external  observances  as  matters  of  indifference, 
 resisted  to  the  uttermost,  as  soon  as  these  things  were  urged  as 
 matters  of  importance,  or  were  insisted  upon  as  necessary  to 
 acceptance  with  God.  He  would  not  allow  Titus  to  be  circum- 
 cised, nor  give  place  even  for  an  hour  to  false  brethren,  who 
 had  come  in  privily  to  act  as  spies.  Gal.  ii.  3,  5.  He  warned 
 the  Galatians,  that  if  they  were  circumcised,  Christ  would  profit 
 them  nothing;  that  they  renounced  the  whole  method  of  gra- 
 tuitous justification,  and  forfeited  its  blessings,  if  they  sought 
 acceptance  on  any  such  terms.  How  liberal  and  how  faithful 
 was  the  apostle !  He  would  concede  every  thing,  and  become 
 all  things  to  all  men,  where  principle  was  not  at  stake;  but 
 when  it  was,  he  would  concede  nothing  for  a  moment.     What 
 
660  ROMANS  XIV.  5. 
 
 might  be  safely  granted,  if  asked  and  given  as  a  matter  of 
 indiiFerence,  became  a  fatal  apostacy  when  demanded  as  a 
 matter  of  necessity  or  a  condition  of  salvation. 
 
 To  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth,  i.  e.,  it  belongs  to 
 his  own  master  to  decide  his  case,  to  acquit  or  to  condemn. 
 These  terms  are  often  used  in  this  judicial  sense,  Ps.  i.  5, 
 Ixxvi.  7,  Luke  xxi.  36,  Rev.  vi.  17.  Yea^  he  shall  he  holden 
 up:  for  Grod  is  able  to  make  him  stand;  i.  e.,  he  shall  stand,  or 
 be  accepted,  for  God  has  the  right  and  the  will  to  make  him 
 stand,  that  is,  to  acquit  and  save  him.  This  clause  seema 
 designed  to  urge  a  further  reason  for  forbearance  and  kindness 
 towards  those  who  differ  from  us  on  matters  of  indifference. 
 However  weak  a  man's  faith  may  be,  if  he  is  a  Christian,  he 
 should  be  recognised  and  treated  as  such ;  for  his  weakness  is 
 not  inconsistent  with  his  acceptance  with  God,  and  therefore  is 
 no  ground  or  necessity  for  our  proceeding  against  him  with 
 severity.  The  objects  of  discipline  are  the  reformation  of 
 offenders  and  the  purification  of  the  church;  but  neither  of 
 these  objects  requires  the  condemnation  of  those  brethren 
 whom  God  has  received.  "God  is  able  to  make  him  stand;" 
 he  has  not  only  the  power,  but  the  disposition  and  determina- 
 tion. Compare  chap.  xi.  23,  "For  God  is  able  to  graft  them 
 in  again."  The  interpretation  given  above,  according  to  which 
 standing  and  falling  are  understood  judicially,  is  the  one  com- 
 monly adopted.  It  is  however  objected,  that  justifying,  causing 
 to  stand  in  judgment,  is  not  an  act  of  power,  but  of  grace.  On 
 this  ground,  standing  and  falling  are  taken  to  refer  to  continu- 
 ing or  falling  away  from  the  Christian  life.  God  is  able,  not- 
 withstanding their  weakness,  to  cause  his  feeble  children  to 
 persevere.  But  this  is  against  the  context.  The  thing  con- 
 demned is  unrighteous  judgments.  The  brethren  are  not 
 responsible  to  each  other,  or  to  the  church,  for  their  scruples. 
 God  is  the  Lord  of  the  conscience.  To  him  they  must  answer. 
 Before  him  they  stand  or  fall. 
 
 Verse  5.  One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another;  another 
 esteemeth  every  day  alike.  Kpivec  -qyikpav  uap  -fjfxepav  (eluae,) 
 judges  one  day  (to  be)  before  another,  (i.  e.,  better;)  xpci^ei  TtUffau 
 •^•jLSfjav  (elvai  rjpipau)  to  be  a  day,  and  nothing  more.  He  has 
 the  same  judgment  (or  estimation)  of  every  day.     As  the  la-w 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  6.  661 
 
 of  Moses  not  only  made  a  distinction  between  meats  as  clean 
 and  unclean,  but  also  prescribed  the  observance  of  certain  days 
 as  religious  festivals,  the  Jewish  converts  were  as  scrupulous 
 with  regard  to  this  latter  point  as  the  former.  Some  Chris- 
 tians, therefore,  thought  it  incumbent  on  them  to  observe  these 
 days ;  others  were  of  a  contrary  opinion.  Both  were  to  be  tole- 
 rated. The  veneration  of  these  days  was  a  weakness ;  but  still 
 it  was  not  a  vital  matter,  and  therefore  should  not  be  allowed 
 to  disturb  the  harmony  of  Christian  intercourse,  or  the  peace 
 of  the  church.  It  is  obvious  from  the  context,  and  from  such 
 parallel  passages  as  Gal.  iv.  10,  "Ye  observe  days,  and  months, 
 and  times,  and  years,"  and  Col.  ii.  16,  "Let  no  man  judge  you 
 in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy  day,  or  of  the  new 
 moon,  or  of  Sabbath  days,"  that  Paul  has  reference  to  the 
 Jewish  festivals,  and  therefore  his  language  cannot  properly  be 
 applied  to  the  Christian  Sabbath.  The  sentiment  of  the  pas- 
 sage is  this,  '  One  man  observes  the  Jewish  festivals,  another 
 man  does  not.'  Such  we  know  was  the  fact  in  the  apostolic 
 church,  even  among  those  who  agreed  in  the  observance  of  the 
 first  day  of  v-^e  week. 
 
 Let  every  man  he  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  7nind.  The 
 principle  which  the  apostle  enforces  in  reference  to  this  case,  is 
 the  same  as  that  which  he  enjoined  in  relation  to  the  other, 
 viz.,  that  one  man  should  not  be  forced  to  act  accordins:  to 
 another  man's  conscience,  but  every  one  should  be  satisfied 
 in  his  own  mind,  and  be  careful  not  to  do  what  he  thought 
 wrong. 
 
 Verse  6.  S^e  that  regardeth  the  day^  regardeth  it  unto  the 
 Lord;  and  he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord  he  doth 
 not  regard  it.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord,  &c.  Tliat  is, 
 both  parties  are  actuated  by  religious  motives  in  what  they  do ; 
 they  regulate  their  conduct  by  a  regard  to  the  will  of  God,  and 
 therefore,  although  some,  from  weakness  or  ignorance,  may  err 
 as  to  the  rule  of  duty,  they  are  not  to  be  despised  or  cast  out 
 as  evil.  The  strong  should  not  contemn  the  scrupulous,  nor  the 
 scrupulous  be  censorious  towards  the  strong.  This  is  a  fourth 
 argument  in  favour  of  the  mutual  forbearance  enjoined  in  the 
 firs*-,  verse.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord;  for  he  giveth 
 God  thanhS)  kc.     That  is,  he  who  disregards  the  Mosaic  dis- 
 
662  ROMANS  XIV.  7,  8. 
 
 tinction  between  clean  and  unclean  meats,  and  uses  iniiscrimi* 
 nately  the  common  articles  of  food,  acts  religiously  in  so  doing, 
 as  is  evident  from  his  giving  God  thanks.  He  could  not  delibe- 
 rately thank  God  for  what  he  supposed  God  had  forbidden  him 
 to  use.  In  like  manner,  he  that  abstains  from  certain  meats, 
 does  it  religiously,  for  he  also  giveth  thanks  to  God;  which 
 implies  that  he  regards  himself  as  acting  agreeably  to  the  divine 
 will.  The  Lord  is  he  who  died  and  rose  again,  that  he  might  be 
 Lord  both  of  the  living  and  the  dead.  It  is  to  him  the  believer 
 is  responsible,  as  to  the  Lord  of  his  inner  life. 
 
 Verse  7.  For  none  of  us  liveth  to  himself,  and  no  man  dieth 
 to  himself;  kauroj,  in  dependence  on  himself.  This  verse  is  an 
 amplification  and  confirmation  of  the  preceding.  The  principle 
 on  which  both  the  classes  of  persons  just  referred  to  acted,  is  a 
 true  Christian  principle.  No  Christian  considers  himself  as  his 
 own  master,  or  at  liberty  to  regulate  his  conduct  according  to 
 his  own  will,  or  for  his  own  ends ;  he  is  the  servant  of  Christ, 
 and  therefore  endeavours  to  live  according  to  his  will  and  for 
 his  glory.  They,  therefore,  who  act  on  this  principle,  are  to  be 
 regarded  and  treated  as  true  Christians,  although  they  may 
 diifer  as  to  what  the  will  of  God,  in  particular  cases,  requires. 
 Ho  man  dieth  to  himself  i.  e.,  death  as  well  as  life  must  be  left 
 in  the  hands  of  God,  to  be  directed  by  his  will  and  for  his  glory. 
 The  sentiment  is,  'We  are  entirely  his,  having  no  authority 
 over  our  life  or  death.' 
 
 Verse  8.  For  whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord;  or 
 whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord:  whether  we  live  therefore, 
 or  die,  tve  are  the  Lord's.  The  same  sentiment  as  in  the  pre- 
 ceding verse,  rather  more  fully  and  explicitly  stated.  In  ver.  7, 
 Paul  had  stated,  negatively,  that  the  Christian  does  not  live 
 according  to  his  own  will,  or  for  his  own  pleasure;  he  here 
 states,  affirmatively,  that  he  does  live  according  to  the  vrill  of 
 Christ,  and  for  his  glory.  This  being  the  case,  he  is  a  true 
 Christian ;  he  belongs  to  Christ,  and  should  be  so  recognised 
 and  treated.  It  is  very  obvious,  especially  from  the  following 
 verse,  which  speaks  of  death  and  resurrection,  that  Christ  is 
 intended  by  the  word  Lord.,  in  this  verse.  It  is  for  Christ,  and 
 in  subjection  to  his  will,  that  every  Christian  endeavours  to 
 regulate  his  heart,  his  conscience,  and  his  life.     This  is  the 
 
ROMi\NS  XIV.  9.  663 
 
 profoundest  homage  the  creature  can  render  to  his  Creator j 
 and  as  it  is  the  service  which  the  Scriptures  require  us  tc 
 render  co  the  Redeemer,  it  of  necessity  supposes  that  Christ  is 
 God.  This  is  rendered  still  plainer  by  the  interchange,  through- 
 out the  passage  (vs.  6 — 9,)  of  the  terms  Lord  and  God :  '  He 
 that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord,  for  he  givetli  God  thanks.  We 
 live  unto  the  Lord ;  we  are  the  Lord's.  For  to  this  end  Christ 
 died  and  rose,  that  he  might  be  the  Lord,'  &c.  It  is  clear  that, 
 to  the  apostle's  mind,  the  idea  that  Christ  is  God  was  perfectly 
 familiar.  Whether  we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's, 
 We  are  not  our  own,  but  Christ's,  1  Cor.  vi.  19.  This  right 
 of  possession,  and  the  consequent  duty  of  devotion  and  obedi- 
 ence, are  not  founded  on  creation,  but  on  redemption.  We  are 
 Christ's,  because  he  has  bought  us  with  a  price. 
 
 Verse  9.  For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and 
 revived,*  that  he  might  be  the  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  living. 
 The  dominion  which  Christ,  as  Mediator  or  Redeemer,  exercises 
 over  his  people,  and  which  they  gladly  recognise,  is  therefore 
 referred  to  his  death  and  resurrection.  By  his  death  he  pur- 
 chased them  for  his  own,  and  by  his  resurrection  he  attained  to 
 that  exalted  station  which  he  now  occupies  as  Lord  over  all, 
 and  received  those  gifts  which  enable  him  to  exercise  as  Medi- 
 ator this  universal  dominion.  The  exaltation  and  dominion  of 
 Christ  are  frequently  represented  in  the  Scriptures  as  the 
 reward  of  his  sufferings:  "Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly 
 exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name ; 
 that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,"  &.c.  Phil, 
 ii.  8,  9.  This  authority  of  Christ  over  his  people  is  not  con- 
 fined to  this  world,  but  extends  beyond  the  grave.  He  is  Lord 
 both  of  the  dead  and  the  living. 
 
 *  The  common  text  reads  Kti  i^rsS-avj  kxi  <ivt9-T»  kx)  un^na-tv;  most  corrected 
 editions  read  kai  am^^n  »a«  l^na-iv;  and  some  omit  kxi  before  t^i^-jin  The 
 words  Kid  uvitTTM  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  C,  in  the  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  Syriac, 
 and  Armenian  versions,  and  by  many  of  the  Fathers.  They  are  rejected  by 
 Erasmus,  Bengel,  Schmidt.  Knapp,  Lachmann,  and  others.  The  words  kx) 
 avi^»a-»  are  omitted  by  some  few  MSS.  and  Fathers;  net)  i^mriv  are  read  in  MSS. 
 A.  C.  and  in  forty-four  others.  They  are  adopted  in  the  Complutensian  edi- 
 tion, and  in  those  of  Mill,  Bengel,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Lachmann,  &c. 
 These  diversities  do  not  materially  affect  the  sense.  The  words  dvsa-TJi  and 
 .vi^»iTw  have  very  much  the  appearance  of  explanatory  glosses. 
 
664  ROMANS  XIV.  10,  11. 
 
 Verse  10.  But  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother  ?  or  why 
 dost  thou  set  at  naught  thy  brother  f  for  we  shall  all  stand 
 before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ.'*'  In  this  and  the  following 
 verses,  to  the  13th,  Paul  applies  his  previous  reasoning  to  the 
 case  in  hand.  If  a  man  is  our  brother,  if  God  has  received  him, 
 if  he  acts  from  a  sincere  desire  to  do  the  divine  will,  he  should 
 not  be  condemned,  though  he  may  think  certain  things  right 
 which  we  think  wrong ;  nor  should  he  be  despised  if  he  tram- 
 mels his  conscience  with  unnecessary  scruples.  The  former  of 
 these  clauses  relates  to  scrupulous  Jewish  Christians ;  the  latter 
 to  the  Gentile  converts.  The  last  member  of  the  verse  applies 
 to  both  classes.  As  we  are  all  to  stand  before  the  judgment- 
 seat  of  Christ,  as  he  is  our  sole  and  final  judge,  we  should  not 
 usurp  his  prerogative,  or  presume  to  condemn  those  whom  he 
 has  received. 
 
 Verse  11.  For  it  is  written,  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  every 
 knee  shall  boio  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess.  This 
 quotation  is  from  Isa.  xlv.  23,  "  I  have  sworn  by  myself,  the 
 word  is  gone  out  of  my  mouth  in  righteousness,  and  shall  not 
 return,  that  unto  me  every  knee  shall  bow,  and  every  tongue 
 shall  swear."  The  apostle,  it  will  be  perceived,  does  not  adhere 
 to  the  words  of  the  passage  which  he  quotes,  but  contents  him- 
 self with  giving  the  sense.  As  I  live,  being  the  form  of  an 
 oath,  is  a  correct  exhibition  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  / 
 have  sworn  by  myself.  And  since,  to  swear  by  any  being,  is  to 
 recognise  his  power  and  authority  over  us,  the  expressions, 
 every  tongue  shall  swear,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess,  are  of 
 similar  import.  Both  indeed  are  parallel  to  the  clause,  every 
 knee  shall  bow,  and  are  but  diiferent  forms  of  expressing  the 
 general  idea  that  every  one  shall  submit  to  God,  i.  e.,  recognise 
 his  authority  as  God,  the  supreme  ruler  and  judge.  The  apostle 
 evidently  considers  the  recognition  of  the  authority  of  Christ  as 
 being  tantamount  to  submission  to  God,  and  he  applies  without 
 hesitation  the  declarations  of  the  Old  Testament  in  relation  to 
 
 ♦  Instead  of  ;t§"'''<'">  ^^  the  close  of  this  verse,  the  MSS.  A.  D.  E.  F.  G.  read 
 &IOU,  which  is  adopted  by  Mill,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf.  The  common 
 reading  is  supported  by  the  great  majority  of  the  MSS.,  most  of  the  ancient 
 versions,  an  1  almost  all  the  Fathers.  It  is  therefore  retained  by  most  critical 
 editors. 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  12,  13.  665 
 
 the  universal  dominion  of  Jehovah,  in  proof  of  the  Redeemer's 
 sovereignty.  In  Paul's  estimation,  therefore,  Jesus  Christ  was 
 God.  This  is  so  obvious,  that  commentators  of  all  classes 
 recognise  the  force  of  the  argument  hence  deduced  for  the 
 divinity  of  Christ.  Luther  says :  "  So  muss  Christus  rechter 
 Gott  sein,  weil  solches  vor  seinem  Richterstuhl  geschehen." 
 Calvin:  "Est  etiam  insignis  locus  ad  stabiliendam  fidem  mos- 
 tram  de  seterna  Christi  divinitate."  Bengel:  "Christus  est 
 Deus,  nam  dicitur  Dominus  et  Deus.  Ipse  est,  cui  vivimus  et 
 morimur.  Ipse  jurat  per  se  ipsum."  Even  Koppe  says,  "  Quae 
 Jes.  xlv.  23,  de  Jehova  dicuntur,  eadem  ad  Christum  transferri 
 ab  apostolo,  non  est  mirandum,  cum  hunc  illi  artissime  conjunc- 
 tum  cogitandum  esse,  perpetua  sit  tum  Judseorum,  quoties- 
 cunque  de  Messia  loquuntur,  tum  imprimis  Pauli  et  Joanis 
 sententia."  This  verse  may  be  considered  as  intended  to  con- 
 firm the  truth  of  the  declaration  at  the  close  of  the  one  preced- 
 ing :  '  We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ ; 
 for  it  is  written.  To  me  every  knee  shall  bow.'  And  this  seems 
 the  natural  relation  of  the  passage.  Calvin  understands  this 
 verse,  however,  as  designed  to  enforce  humble  submission  to  the 
 judgment  of  Christ:  'We  should  not  judge  others,  since  we  are 
 to  be  judged  by  Christ;  and  to  his  judgment  we  must  humbly 
 bow  the  knee.'  This  is  indeed  clearly  implied;  but  it  is  rather 
 an  accessory  idea,  than  the  special  design  of  the  passage. 
 
 Verse  12.  So  then  every  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  him' 
 self  to  God.  'As,  therefore,  God  is  the  supreme  judge,  and  we 
 are  to  render  our  account  to  him,  we  should  await  his  decision, 
 and  not  presume  to  act  the  part  of  judge  over  our  brethren.' 
 
 Verse  13.  Let  us  not  therefore  judge  one  another  any  more; 
 but  judge  this  rather,  that  no  man  put  a  stumbling-block  or  an 
 occasion  to  fall  in  his  brother's  way.  After  drawing  the  con- 
 clusion from  the  preceding  discussion,  that  we  should  leave  the 
 office  of  judging  in  the  hands  of  God,  the  apostle  introduces 
 the  second  leading  topic  of  the  chapter,  viz.,  the  manner  in 
 which  Christian  liberty  is  to  be  exercised.  He  teaches  that 
 it  is  not  enough  that  we  are  persuaded  a  certain  course  is,  in 
 itself  considered,  right,  in  order  to  authorize  us  to  pursue  it. 
 We  must  be  careful  that  we  do  not  injure  others  in  the  use  of 
 oui-  liberty.     The  word  [xpivu))  rendered  judge^  means  also,  f« 
 
666  ROMANS  XIV.  14,  15. 
 
 determine,  to  make  up  one's  mind.  Paul  uses  it  first  in  tlie 
 one  sense,  and  then  in  the  other:  'Do  not  judge  one  another, 
 but  determine  to  avoid  giving  oifence.'  The  words  {r.fjbay.oixiia 
 and  a'/Avodkov)  rendered  a  stumhling-hlock  and  an  occasion  to 
 fall,  do  not  differ  in  their  meaning ;  the  latter  is  simply  exe- 
 getical  of  the  former. 
 
 Verse  14.  /  know,  and  am  persuaded  hy  the  Lord  Jesus, ' 
 that  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself;  hut  to  him  that  esteemeth 
 anything  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean.  'The  distinction 
 between  clean  and  unclean  meats  is  no  longer  valid.  So  far  the 
 Gentile  converts  are  right.  But  they  should  remember  that 
 those  who  consider  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament  on  this  subject 
 as  still  binding,  cannot,  with  a  good  conscience,  disregard  it. 
 The  strong  should  not,  therefore,  do  anything  which  would  be 
 likely  to  lead  such  persons  to  violate  their  own  sense  of  duty.' 
 /  know  and  am  persuaded  hy  (in)  the  Lord  Jesus,  i.  e.,  this 
 knowledge  and  persuasion  I  owe  to  the  Lord  Jesus ;  it  is  not  an 
 opinion  founded  on  my  own  reasonings,  but  a  knowledge  derived 
 from  divine  revelation.  That  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself. 
 The  word  {xoivo(;)  rendered  unclean,  has  this  sense  only  in  Hel- 
 lenistic Greek.  It  means  common,  and  as  opposed  to  [ayto::) 
 holy,  (i.  e.,  separated  for  some  special  or  sacred  use,)  it  signifies 
 impure;  see  Acts  x.  14,  28,  Mark  vii.  2,  &c.  But  to  him  that 
 esteemeth  anything  to  he  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean;  i.  e., 
 though  not  unclean  in  itself,  it  ought  not  to  be  used  by  those 
 who  regard  its  use  as  unlawful.  But,  ec  juij,  which  seems  here 
 to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  d?dd;  compare  Matt.  xii.  4,  Gal.  i.  19. 
 The  ordinary  sense  of  except  may,  however,  be  retained,  by 
 restricting  the  reference  to  a  part  of  the  preceding  clause: 
 *  Nothing  is  unclean,  except  to  him  who  esteems  it  to  be 
 unclean.'  The  simple  principle  here  taught  is,  that  it  is  wrong 
 for  any  man  to  violate  his  own  sense  of  duty.  This  being  the 
 case,  those  Jewish  converts  who  believed  the  distinction  bet.veen 
 clean  and  unclean  meats  to  be  still  in  force,  would  commit  sin 
 in  disregarding  it;  and,  therefore,  should  not  be  induced  to  act 
 contrary  to  their  consciences. 
 
 Verse  15.  But  if  thy  brother  be  grieved  with  thy  meat,  now 
 walkest  thou  not  charitably.  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat,  for 
 whom   Christ  died.     Instead  of  di,  but,  which  is  found  in  the 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  16.  667 
 
 coraraon  text,  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tischendorf,  on  the 
 authority  of  the  majority  of  the  Uncial  MSS.,  read  jdo,  for. 
 As  this  verse,  however,  does  not  assign  a  reason  for  the  princi- 
 ple asserted  in  ver.  14,  but  does  introduce  a  limitation  to  the 
 practical  application  of  that  principle,  the  majority  of  com- 
 mentators and  editors  retain  the  common  text.  The  sense 
 obviously  is,  'Though  the  thing  is  right  in  itself,  yet  if  indul- 
 gence in  it  be  injurious  to  our  Christian  brethren,  that  indul- 
 gence is  a  violation  of  the  laAV  of  love.'  This  is  the  first 
 consideration  which  the  apostle  urges,  to  enforce  the  exhorta- 
 tion not  to  put  a  stumbling-block  in  our  brother's  way.  The 
 word  [hj-zlra:^)  is  grieved,  may  mean  is  injured.  Either  sense 
 suits  the  context :  '  If  thy  brother,  emboldened  by  thy  example, 
 is  led  to  do  what  he  thinks  wrong,  and  is  thus  rendered  misera- 
 ble,' &c.  Or,  'If  thy  brother,  by  thy  example,  is  injured  (by 
 being  led  into  sin,)  thou  walkest  uncharitably.'  This  use  of  the 
 word,  however,  is  foreign  to  the  New  Testament.  It  is  a  moral 
 grievance  of  which  the  apostle  speaks,  a  wounding  of  the  con- 
 science. Destroy  not  {/utj  d7:6?du£.)  These  words  have  been 
 variously  explained.  The  meaning  may  be,  'Avoid  every  thing 
 vvhich  has  a  tendency  to  lead  him  to  destruction.'  So  De  Brais, 
 Bengel,  Tholuck,  Stuart,  and  many  others.  Or,  'Do  not  injure 
 him,  or  render  him  miserable.'  So  Eisner,  Koppe,  Flatt,  Wahl, 
 and  others.  There  is  no  material  difference  between  these  two 
 interpretations.  The  former  is  more  consistent  with  the  com- 
 mon meaning  of  the  original  word,  from  which  there  is  no 
 necessity  to  depart.  Believers  (the  elect)  are  constantly  spoken 
 of  as  in  danger  of  perdition.  They  are  saved  only,  if  they  con- 
 tinue steadfast  unto  the  end.  If  they  apostatize,  they  perish. 
 If  the  Scriptures  tell  the  people  of  God  what  is  the  tendency 
 of  their  sins,  as  to  themselves,  they  may  tell  them  what  is  the 
 tendency  of  such  sins  as  to  others.  Saints  are  preserved,  not 
 in  despite  of  apostasy,  but  from  apostasy.  '  If  thy  brother  be 
 aggrieved,  thou  doest  wrong  ;  do  not  grieve  or  injure  him.' 
 For  whom  Christ  died.  This  consideration  has  peculiar  force. 
 '  If  Christ  so  loved  him  as  to  die  for  him,  how  base  in  you  not 
 to  submit  to  the  smallest  self-denial  for  his  welfare.' 
 
 Verse  16.    Let  not  your  good  be  evil  spoken  of;  that  is, '  Do 
 not  so  use  your  liberty,  which  is  good  and  valuable,  as  to  make 
 
668  ROMANS  XIV.  17. 
 
 it  the  occasion  of  evil,  and  so  liable  to  censure.*  Thu?  Calvin 
 and  most  other  commentators.  This  supposes  that  the  exhorta- 
 tion here  given  is  addressed  to  the  strong  in  faith.  The  vniov, 
 however,  may  include  both  classes,  and  the  exhortation  extend 
 to  the  weak  as  well  as  to  the  good.  Your  good,  that  special 
 good  which  belongs  to  you  as  Christians,  viz.,  the  gospel.  This 
 view  is  taken  by  Melancthon,  and  most  of  the  later  commenta- 
 tors. "Lsedunt  utrique  evangelium  cum  rixantur  de  rebus  non 
 necessariis.  Ita  fit  ut  imperiti  abhorreant  ab  evangelio  cum 
 videtur  parere  discordias." 
 
 Verse  17.  For  the  kingdom  of  G-od  is  not  meat  and  drink; 
 hut  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Grhost.  This 
 is  a  new  reason  for  forbearance.  No  pi'inciple  of  duty  is  sacri- 
 ficed ;  nothing  essential  to  religion  is  disregarded,  for  religion 
 does  not  consist  in  external  observances,  but  in  the  inward 
 graces  of  the  Spirit.  It  has  already  been  remarked  (ver.  4,) 
 that  with  all  his  desire  of  peace,  no  one  was  more  firm  and 
 unyielding,  when  any  dereliction  of  Christian  principle  was 
 required  of  him,  than  the  apostle.  But  the  case  under  con- 
 sideration is  very  different.  There  is  no  sin  in  abstaining  from 
 certain  meats,  and  therefore,  if  the  good  of  others  require  this 
 abstinence,  we  are  bound  to  exercise  it.  The  phrase,  kingdom 
 of  God,  almost  uniformly  signifies  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah, 
 under  some  one  of  its  aspects,  as  consisting  of  all  professing 
 Christians,  of  all  his  own  people,  of  glorified  believers,  or  as 
 existing  in  the  heart.  It  is  the  spiritual  theocracy.  The  theoc- 
 racy of  the  Old  Testament  was  ceremonial  and  ritual ;  that  of 
 the  New  is  inward  and  spiritual.  Christianity,  as  we  should 
 Bay,  does  not  consist  in  things  external.  Meat  and  drink, 
 or  rather,  eating  (jSpcoai^)  and  drinking  {jcoaci;.)  The  distinction 
 between  these  words  and  ^pajfia  and  Tzofia,  is  constantly 
 observed  in  Paul's  epistles.  Righteousness,  peace^  and  joy  in 
 the  Holy  Ghost.  These  words  are  to  be  taken  in  their  scrip- 
 tural sense.  Paul  does  not  mean  to  say,  that  Christianity  con- 
 sists in  morality;  that  the  man  who  is  just,  peaceful,  and 
 cheerful,  is  a  true  Christian.  This  would  be  to  contradict  the 
 whole  argument  of  this  epistle.  The  righteousness,  peace,  and 
 joy  intended,  are  those  of  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author. 
 Righteousness  is  that  which  enables  us  to  stand  before  God. 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  18,  19.  669 
 
 because  it  satisfies  the  demands  of  the  law.  It  is  the  righteous- 
 ness of  faith,  both  objective  and  subjective;  peace  is  the  con- 
 cord between  God  and  the  soul,  between  reason  and  conscience, 
 between  the  heart  and  our  fellow-men.  And  the  joy  is  the  joy 
 of  salvation ;  that  joy  which  only  those  who  are  in  the  fellow- 
 ship of  the  Holy  Ghost  ever  can  experience. 
 
 Verse  18.  For  he  that  in  these  things  serveth  Christ,  is 
 acceptable  to  Crod  and  approved  of  men.  This  verse  is  a  con- 
 firmation of  the  preceding.  These  spiritual  graces  constitute 
 the  essential  part  of  religion ;  for  he  that  experiences  and  exer- 
 cises these  virtues,  is  regarded  by  God  as  a  true  Christian,  and 
 must  commend  himself  as  such  to  the  consciences  of  his  fellow- 
 men.  Where  these  things,  therefore,  are  found,  difference  of 
 opinion  or  practice  in  reference  to  unessential  points,  should 
 not  be  allowed  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  Christian  intercourse. 
 It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  exercise  of  the  virtues  here  spoken 
 of,  is  represented  by  the  apostle  as  a  service  rendered  to  Christ; 
 "he  that  in  these  things  serveth  Christ,"  &c.,  which  implies 
 that  Christ  has  authority  over  the  heart  and  conscience. 
 Instead  of  Iv  zoutok:,  many  of  the  oldest  MSS.  read  iv  toutw, 
 referring  to  nvtunaze :  '  He  that  in  the  Holy  Spirit  serveth 
 Christ.'  This  reading  is  adopted  by  Lachmann,  Tischendorf, 
 and  many  others.  The  external  authorities,  however,  in  favour 
 of  the  common  text,  are  of  much  weight,  and  the  context  seeme 
 to  demand  it. 
 
 Verse  19.  Let  us  therefore  follow  after  the  things  which 
 make  for  peace,  and  things  whereby  one  may  edify  another. 
 That  is,  let  us  earnestly  endeavour  to  promote  peace  and 
 mutual  edification.  The  things  which  make  for  peace,  is  equi- 
 valent to  peace  itself  {to.  r^c  eip^v7^i;=£if>rjvrjv;)  and  things 
 wherewith  one  may  edify  another,  is  mutual  edification  (rd  t7j(; 
 ocxodofjtrji;=ocxodor^ijv.)  This  verse  is  not  an  inference  from  the 
 immediately  preceding,  as  though  the  meaning  were,  '  Since 
 peace  is  so  acceptable  to  God,  therefore  let  us  cultivate  it ;'  but 
 rather  from  the  whole  passage:  'Since  Christian  love,  the 
 example  of  Christ,  the  comparative  insignificance  of  the  matters 
 in  dispute,  the  honour  of  the  truth,  the  nature  of  real  religion, 
 all  conspire  to  urge  us  to  mutual  forbearance,  let  us  endeavouf 
 to  promote  peace  and  mutual  edification.' 
 
670  ROMANS  XIV.  20. 
 
 Verse  20.  For  meat  destroy  not  the  ivorh  of  God.  This 
 clause  is,  by  De  Brais  and  many  othei'  commentators,  con- 
 sidered as  a  repetition  of  ver.  15.  "Destroy  not  him  with  thy 
 meat,  for  whom  Chi'ist  died."  The  work  of  God  then  means  a 
 Christian  brother;  see  Eph.  ii.  10.  Others  refer  the  passage 
 to  the  immediately  preceding  verses,  in  which  the  nature  of 
 true  religion  is  exhibited.  The  work  of  God,  in  that  case,  is 
 piety,  and  the  exhortation  is,  'Do  not,  for  the  sake  of  indul- 
 gence in  certain  kinds  of  food,  injure  the  cause  of  true  religion, 
 i.  e.,  pull  not  down  what  God  is  building  up.'  The  figurative 
 expression  used  by  the  apostle  fxr)  xazdXuz,  pull  not  down, 
 carries  out  the  figure  involved  in  the  preceding  verse.  Be- 
 lievers are  to  be  edified,  i.  e.,  built  up.  They  are  the  building 
 of  God,  which  is  not  to  be  dilapidated  or  injured  by  our  want 
 of  love,  or  consideration  for  the  weakness  of  our  brethren. 
 
 All  things  (i.  e.,  all  kinds  of  food)  are  pure;  hut  it  is  evil 
 {xaxon,  not  merely  hurtful,  but  sin,  evil  in  a  moral  sense)  for 
 that  man  that  eateth  with  offence.  This  last  clause  admits  of 
 two  interpretations.  It  may  mean.  It  is  sinful  to  eat  in  such  a 
 way  as  to  cause  others  to  offend.  The  sin  intended  is  that  of 
 one  strong  in  faith  who  so  uses  his  liberty  as  to  injure  his 
 weaker  brethren.  This  is  the  view  commonly  taken  of  the 
 passage,  and  it  agrees  with  the  general  drift  of  the  context, 
 and  especially  with  the  following  verse,  where  causing  a  brother 
 to  stumble  is  the  sin  agrinst  which  we  are  cautioned.  A  com- 
 parison, however,  of  this  verse  with  ver.  14,  where  much  the 
 same  sentiment  is  expressed,  leads  many  interpreters  to  a  dif- 
 ferent view  of  the  passage.  In  ver.  14  it  is  said,  '  Nothing  is 
 common  of  itself,  but  to  him  that  esteemeth  any  thing  to  be 
 unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean;'  and  here,  'All  things  are  pure, 
 but  it  is  evil  to  him  who  eateth  with  offence.'  To  eat  with 
 offence,  and,  to  eat  what  we  esteem  impure,  are  synonymous 
 expressions.  If  this  is  so,  then  the  sin  referred  to  is  that  which 
 the  weak  commit,  who  act  against  their  own  conscience.  But 
 throughout  the  whole  context,  to  offend,  to  cause  to  stumble, 
 offence,  are  used,  not  of  a  man's  causing  himself  to  offend  his 
 own  conscience,  but  of  one  man's  so  acting  as  to  cause  others 
 to  stumble.  And  as  this  idea  is  insisted  upon  in  the  following 
 verse,  the  common  interpretation  is  to  be  preferred. 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  21.  671 
 
 Verse  21.  It  is  good  neither  to  eat  flesh,  nor  to  drink  vnne, 
 nor  any  thing  whereby  thy  brother  stumbleth,  or  is  offended,  or 
 is  made  weak.  That  is,  abstaining  from  flesh,  wine,  or  any 
 thing  else  which  is  injurious  to  our  brethren,  is  right,  i.  e., 
 morally  obligatory ;  {xaXov,  id  quod  rectum  et  probum  est.)  The 
 words  stumbleth,  offended,  made  weak,  do  not,  in  this  con- 
 nection, diiier  much  from  each  other.  Calvin  supposes  they 
 differ  in  force,  the  first  being  stronger  than  the  second,  and  the 
 second  than  the  third.  The  sense  then  is,  '  We  should  abstain 
 from  every  thing  whereby  our  brother  is  cast  down,  or  even 
 offended,  or  in  the  slightest  degree  injured.'  This,  however, 
 is  urging  the  terms  beyond  their  natural  import.  It  is  very 
 common  with  the  apostle  to  use  several  nearly  synonymous 
 words  for  the  sake  of  expressing  one  idea  strongly.  The  last 
 two  words  (r/  trxaudoM^ezac  i^  aa&tvsl)  are  indeed  omitted  in  some 
 few  manuscripts  and  versions,  but  in  too  few  seriously  to  impair 
 their  authority.  Mill  is  almost  the  only  editor  of  standing 
 who  rejects  them. 
 
 There  is  an  ellipsis  in  the  middle  clause  of  this  verse  which 
 has  been  variously  supplied.  '  Nor  to  drink  wine,  nor  to  (drink) 
 any  thing;'  others,  'nor  to  (do)  any  thing  whereby,  &c.'  Ac- 
 cording to  the  first  method  of  supplying  the  ellipsis,  the  mean- 
 ing is,  'We  should  not  drink  wine,  nor  any  other  intoxicating 
 drink,  when  our  doing  so  is  injurious  to  others.'  But  the  latter 
 method  is  more  natural  and  forcible,  and  includes  the  other, 
 'We  should  do  nothing  which  injures  others.'  The  ground  on 
 which  some  of  the  early  Christians  thought  it  incumbent  on 
 them  to  abstain  from  wine,  was  not  any  general  ascetic  prin- 
 ciple, but  because  they  feared  they  might  be  led  to  use  Avine 
 which  had  been  offered  to  the  gods;  to  which  they  had  the 
 same  objection  as  to  meat  which  had  been  presented  in  sacrifice. 
 '''■  Aiigustinus  de  moribus  Manichaeorum,  II.  14,  Eo  tempore, 
 quo  haec  scribebat  apostolus,  multa  immoliticia  caro  in  macello 
 vendebatur.  Et  quia  vino  etiam  libabatur  Diis  gentilium,  multi 
 fratres  infirmiores,  qui  etiam  rebus  his  venalibus  utebantur, 
 penitus  a  carnibus  se  et  vino  cohibere  maluerunt,  quam  vel 
 nescientes  incidere  in  earn,  quam  putabaat,  cum  idolis  com- 
 municationem."    Wetstein. 
 
672  ROMANS  XIV.  22. 
 
 Verse  22.  Hast  thou  faith?  have  it  to  thyself  "before  God. 
 Happy  is   he   that  condemneth  not  himself  in  that  which  he 
 alloweth.     Paul  presents  in  this  verse,  more  distinctly  than  he 
 had  before  done,  the  idea  that  he  required  no  concession  of 
 principle  or  renunciation  of  truth.      He  did  not  wish  them  to 
 believe    a   thing   to   be   sinful  which    was   not   sinful,    or   to 
 trammel  their  own  consciences  with  the  scruples  of  their  weaker 
 brethren.     He  simply  required  them  to  use  their  liberty  in  a 
 considerate  and  charitable  manner.     He,  therefore,  here  says, 
 *  Hast  thou  faith  ?  (i.  e.,  a  firm  persuasion,  e.  g.,  of  the  lawful- 
 ness of  aU  kinds  of  meat,)  it  is  well,  do  not  renounce  it,  but 
 retain  it,  and  use  it  piously,  as  in  the  sight  of  God.'     Instead 
 of  reading  the  first  clause  interrogatively,  Hast  thou  faith?  it 
 may  be  read,  Thou  hast  faith.     It  is  then  presented  in  the 
 form  of  an  objection,  which  a  Gentile  convert  might  be  disposed 
 to  make  to  the  direction  of  the  apostle  to  accommodate  his 
 conduct  to  the  scruples  of  others.      '  Thou    hast  faith,    thou 
 mayest  say ;  well,  have  it,  I  do  not  call  upon  thee  to  renounce 
 it.'     By  faith  here  seems  clearly  to  be  understood  the  faith  of 
 which  Paul  had  been  speaking  in  the  context ;  a  faith  which 
 some   Christians  had,    and   others   had  not,  viz.,  a  firm  belief 
 "that  there  is  nothing  (no  meat)  unclean  of  itself."     Have  it 
 to  thyself^  [xaza  aeaorbv  £/£,)  keep  it  to  yourself.     There  are 
 two  ideas  included  in  this  phrase.     The  first  i>s  keep  it  pri- 
 vately, i.  e.,  do  not  parade  it,  or  make  it  a  point  to  show  that 
 you  are  above  the  weak  scruples  of  your  brethren;  and  the 
 second   is,    that   this   faith    or   firm   conviction   is   not  to   be 
 renounced,  but  retained,  for  it  is  founded  on  the  truth.     Before 
 G-od,  i.  e.,  in  the  sight  of  God.     As  God  sees  and  recognises  it, 
 it  need  not  be  exhibited  before  men.     It  is  to  be  cherished  in 
 our  hearts,  and  used  in  a  manner  acceptable  to  God.     Being 
 right  in  itself,  it  is  to  be  piously,  and  not  ostentatiously  or 
 injuriously  paraded  and  employed. 
 
 Blessed  is  he  that  condemneth  not  himself  in  that  which  he 
 alloweth.  That  is,  blessed  is  the  man  that  has  a  good  con- 
 science ;  who  does  not  allow  himself  to  do  what  he  secretly 
 condemns.  The  faith,  therefore,  of  which  the  apostle  had 
 spoken,  is  a  great  blessing.  It  is  a  source  of  great  happiness 
 to  be  sure  that  what  we  do  is  right,  and,  therefore,  the  firm 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  23.  6T8 
 
 conviction  to  which  some  Christians  had  attained,  was  not  to  be 
 undervalued  or  renounced.  Compare  chap.  i.  28,  1  Cor.  xvi.  3, 
 for  a  similar  use  of  the  word  [doxijud^o))  here  employed.  This 
 interpretation  seems  better  suited  to  the  context,  and  to  the 
 force  of  the  words,  than  another  which  is  also  frequently  given, 
 'Blessed  is  the  man  who  does  not  condemn  himself,  i.  e.,  give 
 occasion  to  others  to  censure  him  for  the  use  which  he  makes 
 of  his  liberty.'  This  gives  indeed  a  good  sense,  but  it  does  not 
 adhere  so  closely  to  the  meaning  of  the  text,  nor  does  it  so  well 
 agree  with  what  follows. 
 
 Verse  23.  But  he  that  douhteth  is  damned  if  he  eat,  because 
 he  eateth  not  of  faith;  for  whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  si)i. 
 That  is,  however  sure  a  man  may  be  that  what  he  does  is  right, 
 he  cannot  expect  others  to  act  on  his  faith.  If  a  man  thinks  a 
 thing  to  be  wrong,  to  him  it  is  wrong.  He,  therefore,  who  is 
 uncertain  whether  God  has  commanded  him  to  abstain  from 
 certain  meats,  and  who  notwithstanding  indulges  in  them,  evi* 
 dently  sins;  he  brings  himself  under  condemnation.  Because 
 whatever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin ;  i.  e.,  whatever  we  do  which  we 
 are  not  certain  is  right,  to  us  is  wrong.  The  sentiment  of  this 
 verse,  therefore,  is  nearly  the  same  as  of  ver.  14.  "  To  him  that 
 esteemeth  any  thing  to  be  unclean,  to  him  it  is  unclean."  There 
 is  evidently  a  sinful  disregard  of  the  divine  authority  on  the 
 part  of  a  man  who  does  any  thing  which  he  supposes  God  has 
 forbidden,  or  which  he  is  not  certain  he  has  allowed.  The 
 principle  of  morals  contained  in  this  verse  is  so  obvious,  that 
 it  occurs  frequently  in  the  writings  of  ancient  philosophers. 
 Cicero  de  Officiis,  lib.  1,  c.  9.  Quodcirca  bene  praecipiunt,  qui 
 vetant  quidquam  agere,  quod  dubites,  aequum  sit,  an  iniquum. 
 Aequitas  enim  lucet  ipsa  per  se :  dubitatio  cogitationem  sig- 
 nificat  injuriae.  This  passage  has  an  obvious  bearing  on  the 
 design  of  the  apostle.  He  wished  to  convince  the  stronger 
 Christians  that  it  was  unreasonable  in  them  to  expect  their 
 weaker  brethren  to  act  according  to  their  faith;  and  that  it 
 was  sinful  in  them  so  to  use  their  liberty  as  to  induce  these 
 scrupulous  Christians  to  violate  their  own  consciences.* 
 
 •  Tbe  three  verses  which,  in  the  common  text,  occur  at  the  close  of  chapteJ 
 xvi.,  are  found  at  the  close  of  this  chapter  in  the  MSS.  A,  and  in  all  those 
 written  in  small  letters  on  Wetstein's  catalogue,  from  1  to  65,  except  18,  15, 
 
 4.3 
 
674  ROMANS  XIV.  1—23. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  fellowship  of  the  saints  is  not  to  be  broken  for  unes- 
 sential matters ;  in  other  words,  we  have  no  right  to  make  any 
 thing  a  condition  of  Christian  communion  which  is  compatible 
 with  piety.  Paul  evidently  argues  on  the  principle  that  if  a 
 man  is  a  true  Christian,  he  should  be  recognised  and  treated  as 
 such.  If  God  has  received  him,  we  should  receive  him, 
 vs.  1—12. 
 
 2.  The  true  criterion  of  a  Christian  character  is  found  in  the 
 governing  purpose  of  the  life.  He  that  lives  unto  the  Lord, 
 i.  e.,  he  who  makes  the  will  of  Christ  the  rule  of  his  conduct, 
 and  the  glory  of  Christ  his  constant  object,  is  a  true  Christian, 
 although  from  weakness  or  ignorance  he  may  sometimes  mistake 
 the  rule  of  duty,  and  consider  certain  things  obligatory  which 
 Christ  has  never  commanded,  vs.  6 — 8. 
 
 3.  Jesus  Christ  must  be  truly  God,  1.  Because  he  is  the  Lord, 
 
 16,  25,  27,  28,  50,  53,  (two  of  these,  27,  53,  do  not  contain  this  epistle,  and 
 25,  28,  are  here  defective.)  To  these  are  to  be  added  many  others  examined 
 by  later  editors,  making  one  hundred  and  seven  MSS.  in  which  the  passage 
 occurs  at  tne  close  of  this  chapter.  Of  the  versions,  only  the  later  Syriac, 
 Sclavonic,  and  Arab' c,  assign  it  this  position;  with  which,  however,  most  of 
 the  Greek  father?  coincide.  Beza,  (in  his  1st  and  2d  editions,)  Grotius, 
 Mill,  Hammond,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  consider  the  passage  to  belong  to  this 
 chapter. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  MSS.  C.  D.  E.,  and  several  of  the  codd.  minusc,  the 
 early  Syriac,  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  and  Vulgate  versions,  and  the  Latin  fathers, 
 place  the  contested  verses  at  the  close  of  chapter  xvi.  This  location  is  adopted 
 in  the  Complutensian  edition,  by  Erasmus,  Stephens,  Beza,  (in  his  3d,  4th, 
 »nd  5th  editions,)  Bengel,  Koppe,  Knapp,  Lachmann,  and  others. 
 
 These  verses  are  left  out  in  both  places  in  the  MSS  F.  G.  57,  67,  68,  69,  70. 
 .ind  are  found  in  both  places  in  A.  17,  and  in  the  Armenian  version.  Tho 
 weight  due  to  the  early  versions  in  deciding  such  a  question,  is  obviously  very 
 great;  and  as  the.se  versions  all  coincide  with  the  received  text  and  some  of 
 the  oldest  MSS.  in  placing  the  passage  at  the  close  of  the  epistle,  that  is  most 
 probably  its  proper  place.  The  doxology  which  those  verses  contain,  so  evi- 
 dently breaks  the  intimate  connection  between  the  close  of  the  14th  chapter 
 and  the  beginning  of  the  15th,  that  it  is  only  by  assuming  with  Semler  that  the 
 epistle  properly  terminates  here,  or  with  Tholuck  and  others  that  Paul,  after 
 having  closed  with  a  doxology,  begins  anew  on  the  same  topic,  that  the 
 presence  of  the  passage  in  this  place  can  be  accounted  for.  But  both  these 
 assumptions  are  unauthorized,  and  that  of  Semler  destitute  of  the  least  plansi* 
 bility. — See  Koppe's  Excursus  II.  to  this  epistle. 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  1—23.  675 
 
 according  to  whose  will  and  for  whose  glory  we  are  to  live,  V3. 
 6 — 8.  2.  Because  he  exercises  an  universal  dominion  over  the 
 liv'ng  and  the  dead,  ver.  9.  3.  Because  he  is  the  final  judge 
 of  all  men,  ver.  10.  4.  Because  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
 which  are  spoken  of  Jehovah,  are  by  the  apostle  applied  to 
 Chi  1st,  ver.  11.  5.  Because,  throughout  this  passage,  Paul 
 speaks  of  God  and  Christ  indiscriminately,  in  a  manner  which 
 shows  that  he  regarded  Christ  as  God.  To  live  unto  Christ  is 
 to  live  unto  God ;  to  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ 
 is  to  give  an  account  unto  God;  to  submit  to  Christ  is  to  bow 
 the  knee  to  Jehovah, 
 
 4.  The  gospel  docs  not  make  religion  to  consist  in  external 
 observances.  "  Meat  commendeth  us  not  to  God ;  for  neither 
 if  we  eat  are  we  the  better ;  neither  if  we  eat  not  are  we  the 
 worse,"  vs.  6,  7. 
 
 5.  Though  a  thing  may  be  lawful,  it  is  not  always  expedient. 
 The  use  of  the  liberty  which  every  Christian  enjoys  under  the 
 gospel,  is  to  be  regulated  by  the  law  of  love ;  hence  it  is  often 
 morally  wrong  to  do  what,  in  itself  considered,  may  be  innocent, 
 vs.  15,  20,  21. 
 
 6.  It  is  a  great  error  in  morals,  and  a  great  practical  evil,  to 
 make  that  sinful  which  is  in  fact  innocent.  Christian  love  never 
 requires  this  or  any  other  sacrifice  of  truth.  Paul  would  not 
 consent,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  offence,  that  eating  all  kinds 
 of  food,  even  what  had  been  offered  to  idols,  or  disregarding 
 sacred  festivals  of  human  appointment,  should  be  made  a  sin ; 
 he  strenuously  and  openly  maintained  the  reverse.  He  repre- 
 sents those  who  thought  differently,  as  weak  in  faith,  as  being 
 under  an  error,  from  which  more  knowledge  and  more  piety 
 would  free  them.  Concession  to  their  weakness  he  enjoins  on 
 a  principle  perfectly  consistent  with  the  assertion  of  the  truth, 
 and  with  the  preservation  of  Christian  liberty,  vs.  13 — 23. 
 
 7.  Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin.  It  is  wrong  to  do  any 
 thing  which  we  think  to  be  wrong.  The  converse  of  this  pro- 
 position, however,  is  not  true.  It  is  not  always  right  to  do  what 
 we  think  to  be  right.  Paul,  before  his  conversion,  thought  it 
 right  to  persecute  Christians;  the  Jews  thought  they  did  God 
 service  when  they  cast  the  disciples  of  the  Saviour  out  of  the 
 synigogue.     The  cases,  therefore,  are  not  parallel.     When  we 
 
676  ROMANS  XIV.  1—23. 
 
 do  what  we  think  God  has  forbidden,  we  are  evidently  guilty 
 of  disobedience  or  contempt  of  the  divine  authority.  But  when 
 we  do  what  we  think  he  has  required,  we  may  act  under  a  cul- 
 pable mistake;  or,  although  we  may  have  the  judgment  that 
 the  act  in  itself  is  right,  our  motives  for  doing  it  may  be  very 
 wicked.  The  state  of  mind  under  which  Paul  and  other  Jews 
 persecuted  the  early  Christians,  was  evil,  though  the  persecu- 
 tion itself  they  regarded  as  a  duty.  It  is  impossible  that  a  man 
 should  have  right  motives  for  doing  a  wrong  action ;  for  the 
 very  mistake  as  to  what  is  right,  vitiates  the  motives.  The 
 mistake  implies  a  wrong  state  of  mind ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
 the  misapprehension  of  truth  produces  a  wrong  state  of  mind. 
 There  may,  therefore,  be  a  very  sinful  zeal  for  God  and  reli- 
 gion (see  Rom.  x.  2 ;)  and  no  man  will  be  able  to  plead  at  the 
 bar  of  judgment,  his  good  intention  as  an  excuse  for  evil  con- 
 duct, ver.  23. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  Christians  should  not  allow  any  thing  to  alienate  them 
 from  their  brethren,  who  afford  credible  evidence  that  they  are 
 the  servants  of  God.  Owing  to  ignorance,  early  prejudice, 
 weakness  of  faith,  and  other  causes,  there  may  and  must  exist 
 a  diversity  of  opinion  and  practice  on  minor  points  of  duty. 
 But  this  diversity  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  from 
 Christian  fellowship  any  member  of  the  family  of  Christ.  It 
 is,  however,  one  thing  to  recognise  a  man  as  a  Christian,  and 
 another  to  recognise  him  as  a  suitable  minister  of  a  church, 
 organized  on  a  particular  form  of  government  and  system  of 
 doctrines,  vs.  1 — 12. 
 
 2.  A  denunciatory  or  censorious  spirit  is  hostile  to  the  spirit 
 of  the  gospel.  It  is  an  encroachment  on  the  prerogatives  of  the 
 only  Judge  of  the  heart  and  conscience :  it  blinds  the  mind  to 
 moral  distinctions,  and  prevents  the  discernment  between  mat- 
 ters unessential  and  those  vitally  important ;  and  it  leads  us  to 
 forget  our  own  accountableness,  and  to  overlook  our  own  faults, 
 in  our  zeal  to  denounce  those  of  others,  vs.  4 — 10. 
 
 3.  It  is  sinful  to  indulge  contempt  for  those  whom  we  suppose 
 to  be  our  inferiors,  vs.  3,  10. 
 
 4.  Christians  should  remember  that,  living  or  dying,  they 
 are  the  Lord's.     This  imposes  the  obligation  to  observe  his  will 
 
ROMANS  XIV.  1—23.  677 
 
 and  to  seek  his  glory;  and  it  affords  the  assurance  that  the 
 Lord  will  provide  for  all  their  wants.  This  peculiar  propriety 
 in  his  own  people,  Christ  has  obtained  by  his  death  and  resur- 
 rection, vs.  8,  9. 
 
 5.  We  should  stand  fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  baa 
 made  us  free,  and  not  allow  our  consciences  to  be  brought  under 
 the  yoke  of  bondage  to  human  opinions.  There  is  a  strong  ten- 
 dency in  men  to  treat,  as  matters  of  conscience,  things  which 
 God  has  never  enjoined.  Wherever  this  disposition  has  been 
 indulged  or  submitted  to,  it  has  resulted  in  bringing  one  class 
 of  men  under  the  most  degrading  bondage  to  another;  and 
 in  the  still  more  serious  evil  of  leading  them  to  disregard  the 
 authority  of  God.  Multitudes  who  would  be  shocked  at  the 
 thought  of  eating  meat  on  Friday,  commit  the  greatest  moral 
 offences  without  the  slightest  compunction.  It  is,  therefore,  of 
 great  importance  to  keep  the  conscience  free;  under  no  subjec- 
 tion but  to  truth  and  God.  This  is  necessary,  not  only  on 
 account  of  its  influence  on  our  own  moral  feelings,  but  also 
 because  nothing  but  truth  can  really  do  good.  To  advocate 
 even  a  good  cause  with  bad  arguments  does  great  harm,  by 
 exciting  unnecessary  opposition;  by  making  good  men,  who 
 oppose  the  arguments,  appear  to  oppose  the  truth;  by  intro- 
 ducing a  false  standard  of  duty ;  by  failing  to  enlist  the  support 
 of  an  enlightened  conscience,  and  by  the  necessary  forfeiture 
 of  the  confidence  of  the  intelligent  and  well  informed.  The 
 cause  of  benevolence,  therefore,  instead  of  being  promoted,  is 
 injured  by  all  exaggerations,  erroneous  statements,  and  false 
 principles,  on  the  part  of  its  advocates,  vs.  14,  22. 
 
 6.  It  is  obviously  incumbent  on  every  man  to  endeavour  to 
 obtain  and  promote  right  views  of  duty,  not  only  for  his  own 
 sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  others.  It  is  often  necessary  to  assert 
 our  Christian  liberty  at  the  expense  of  incurring  censure,  and 
 offending  even  good  men,  in  order  that  right  principles  of  duty 
 may  be  preserved.  Our  Saviour  consented  to  be  regarded  as  a 
 Sabbath-breaker,  and  even  "a  wine-bibber  and  friend  of  publi- 
 cans and  sinners;"  but  wisdom  was  justified  of  her  children. 
 Christ  did  not  in  these  cases  see  fit  to  accommodate  his  conduct 
 to  the  rule  of  duty  set  up,  and  conscientiously  regarded  as  cor- 
 rect by  those  around  him.     He  saw  that  more  good  would  arise 
 
678  ROMANS  XIV.  1—23. 
 
 from  a  practical  disregard  of  the  false  opinions  of  the  Jews,  as 
 to  the  manner  in  which  the  Sabbath  was  to  be  kept,  and  as  to 
 the  degree  of  intercourse  which  was  allowed  with  wicked  men, 
 than  from  concession  to  their  prejudices.  Enlightened  benevo- 
 lence often  requires  a  similar  course  of  conduct,  and  a  similar 
 exercise  of  self-denial  on  the  part  of  his  disciples. 
 
 7.  While  Christian  liberty  is  to  be  maintained,  and  right 
 principles  of  duty  inculcated,  every  concession  consistent  with 
 truth  and  good  morals  should  be  made  for  the  sake  of  peace 
 and  the  welfare  of  others.  It  is  important,  however,  that  the 
 duty  of  making  such  concessions  should  be  placed  on  the  right 
 ground,  and  be  urged  in  a  right  spirit,  not  as  a  thing  to  be 
 demanded,  but  as  that  which  the  law  of  love  requires.  In  this 
 way  success  is  more  certain  and  more  extensive,  and  the  con- 
 comitant results  are  all  good.  It  may  at  times  be  a  difficult 
 practical  question,  whether  most  good  would  result  from  com- 
 pliance with  the  prejudices  of  others,  or  from  disregarding 
 them.  But  where  there  is  a  sincere  desire  to  do  right,  and  a 
 willingness  to  sacrifice  our  own  inclinations  for  the  good  of 
 others,  connected  with  prayer  for  divine  direction,  there  can  be 
 little  danger  of  serious  mistake.  Evil  is  much  more  likely  to 
 arise  from  a  disregard  of  the  opinions  and  the  welfare  of  our 
 brethren,  and  from  a  reliance  on  our  own  judgment,  than  from 
 any  course  requiring  self-denial,  vs.  13,  15,  20,  21. 
 
 8.  Conscience,  or  a  sense  of  duty,  is  not  the  only,  and 
 perhaps  not  the  most  important  principle  to  be  appealed  to  in 
 support  of  benevolent  enterprises.  It  comes  in  aid,  and  gives 
 its  sanction  to  all  other  right  motives,  but  we  find  the  sacred 
 writers  appealing  most  frequently  to  the  benevolent  and  pious 
 feelings;  to  the  ex-^mple  of  Christ;  to  a  sense  of  our  obligations 
 to  him ;  to  the  mutual  relation  of  Christians,  and  their  common 
 connection  with  the  Redeemer,  &c.,  as  motives  to  self-denia) 
 and  devotedness,  vs.  15,  21. 
 
 9.  As  the  religion  of  the  gospel  consists  in  the  inward  graces 
 of  the  Holy  Spirit,  all  who  have  these  graces  should  be  recog- 
 nised as  genuine  Christians;  being  acceptable  to  God,  they 
 should  be  loved  and  cherished  by  his  people,  notwithstanding 
 their  weakness  or  errors,  vs.  17,  18. 
 
 10.  The  peace  and  edification  of  the  church  are  to  be  sought 
 
ROMANS  XV.  1—13.  679 
 
 at  all  sacrifices  except  those  of  truth  and  duty;  and  the  work 
 of  God  is  not  to  be  destroyed  or  injured  for  the  sake  of  any 
 personal  or  party  interests,  vs.  19,  20. 
 
 11.  An  enlightened  conscience  is  a  great  blessing;  it  secures 
 the  liberty  of  the  soul  from  bondage  to  the  opinions  of  men, 
 and  from  the  self-inflicted  pains  of  a  scrupulous  and  morbid 
 state  of  moral  feeling;  it  promotes  the  right  exercise  of  all  the 
 virtuous  affections,  and  the  right  discharge  of  all  relative 
 duties,  ver.  25i. 
 
 CHAPTER    XV. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 This  chapter  consists  of  two  parts.  In  the  former,  vs.  1 — 13, 
 iho  apostle  enforces  the  duty  urged  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
 by  considerations  derived  principally  from  the  example  of 
 Christ.  In  the  latter  part,  vs.  14 — 33,  we  have  the  conclusion 
 of  the  whole  discussion,  in  which  he  speaks  of  his  confidence  in 
 the  Roman  Christians,  of  his  motives  in  writing  to  them,  of  his 
 apostolical  ofiice  and  labours,  and  of  his  purpose  to  visit  Rome 
 after  fulfilling  his  ministry  for  the  saints  at  Jerusalem. 
 
 ROMANS   XV.  1—13. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  first  verse  of  this  chapter  is  a  conclusion  from  the  whole- 
 of  the  preceding.  On  the  grounds  there  presented,  Paul 
 repeats  the  command  that  the  strong  should  bear  with  the  in- 
 firmities of  the  weak,  and  that  instead  of  selfishly  regarding 
 their  own  interests  merely,  they  should  endeavour  to  promote 
 the  welfare  of  their  brethren,  vs.  1,  2.  This  duty  he  enforces 
 by  the  conduct  of  Christ,  who  has  set  us  an  example  of  perfect 
 disinterestedness,  as  what  he  suffered  was  not  for  himself,  ver.  3. 
 This  and  similar  facts  and  sentiments  recorded  ia  the  Scripture 
 
680  ROMANS  XV.  1,  2. 
 
 are  intended  for  our  admonition,  and  should  be  applied  for  that 
 purpose,  ver.  4.  The  apostle  prays  that  God  would  bestow  on 
 them  that  harmony  and  unanimity  which  he  had  urged  them  to 
 cultivate,  vs.  5,  6.  He  repeats  the  exhortation  that  they  should 
 receive  one  another,  even  as  Christ  had  received  them,  ver.  7. 
 He  shows  how  Christ  had  received  them,  and  united  Jews  and 
 Gentiles  in  one  body,  vs.  8 — 13. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  We  then  that  are  strong  ovc/ht  to  hear  the  infirmi- 
 ties of  the  weak^  and  not  to  please  ourselves.  The  separation  of 
 this  passage  from  the  preceding  chapter  is  obviously  unhappy, 
 as  there  is  no  change  in  the  subject.  'As  the  points  of  differ- 
 ence are  not  essential,  as  the  law  of  love,  the  example  of  Christ, 
 and  the  honour  of  religion  require  concession,  we  that  are  fully 
 persuaded  of  the  indifference  of  those  things  about  which  our 
 weaker  brethren  are  so  scrupulous,  ought  to  accommodate  our- 
 selves to  their  opinions,  and  not  act  with  a  view  to  our  own 
 gratification  merely.'  We  that  are  strong^  [douarol,)  strong  in 
 reference  to  the  subject  of  discourse,  i.  e.,  faith,  especially  faith 
 in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  lawfulness  of  all  kinds  of  food, 
 and  the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Ought  to  bear,  i.  e., 
 ought  to  tolerate,  {j^aard^siv.)  The  infirmities,  ra  aa&zvi^iJLaza, 
 that  is,  the  prejudices,  errors,  and  faults  which  arise  from  weak- 
 ness of  faith.  Compare  1  Cor.  ix.  20 — 22,  where  the  apostle  illus- 
 trates this  command  by  stating  how  he  himself  acted  in  relation 
 to  this  subject.  And  not  to  please  ourselves;  we  are  not  to  do 
 every  thing  which  we  may  have  a  right  to  do,  and  make  our 
 own  gratification  the  rule  by  which  we  exercise  our  Christian 
 liberty.  "  Significat  non  oportere  studium  suum  dirigere  ad 
 satisfactionem  sibi,  quemadmodum  solent,  qui  proprio  judicio 
 content!  alios  secure  negligunt."   Calvin. 
 
 Verse  2.  Let  each  one  of  us  please  his  neighbour,  for  his 
 good  for  edification.  The  principle  which  is  stated  negatively 
 at  the  close  of  the  preceding  verse,  is  here  stated  affirmatively. 
 We  are  not  to  please  ourselves,  but  others;  the  law  of  love  is 
 to  regulate  our  conduct ;  we  are  not  simply  to  ask  what  is  right 
 in  itself,  or  what  is  agreeable,  but  also  what  is  benevolent  and 
 pleasing  to  our  bretkren.     The  object  which  we  should  have  in 
 
ROMANS  XV.  3.  681 
 
 view  in  accommodating  ourselves  to  others,  however,  is  their 
 good.  For  good  to  edification  most  probably  means  with  a 
 view  to  his  good  so  that  he  may  be  edified.  The  latter  words, 
 to  edification,  are,  therefore,  explanatory  of  the  former;  the 
 good  we  should  contemplate  is  their  religious  improvement; 
 which  is  the  sense  in  which  Paul  frequently  uses  the  word 
 {olxoooiJLTj)  edification;  chap.  xiv.  19,  2  Cor.  x.  8,  Eph.  iv. 
 12,  29.  It  is  not,  therefore,  a  weak  compliance  with  the 
 wishes  of  others,  to  which  Paul  exhorts  us,  but  to  the  exercise 
 of  an  enlightened  benevolence ;  to  such  compliances  as  have  the 
 design  and  tendency  to  promote  the  spiritual  welfare  of  our 
 neighbour. 
 
 Verse  3.  For  even  Christ  pleased  not  himself,  hut  as  it  is 
 written,  The  reproaches  of  them  that  reproached  thee  fell  on  me. 
 'For  even  Christ,  so  infinitely  exalted  above  all  Christians,  was 
 perfectly  disinterested  and  condescending.'  The  example  of 
 Christ  is  constantly  held  up,  not  merely  as  a  model,  but  a 
 motive.  The  disinterestedness  of  Christ  is  here  illustrated  by 
 a  reference  to  the  fact  that  he  suffered  not  for  himself,  but  for 
 the  glory  of  God.  The  sorrow  which  he  felt  was  not  on  account 
 of  his  own  privations  and  injuries,  but  zeal  for  God's  service 
 consumed  him,  and  it  was  the  dishonour  which  was  cast  on  God 
 that  broke  his  heart.  The  simple  point  to  be  illustrated  ia 
 the  disinterestedness  of  Christ,  the  fact  that  he  did  not  please 
 himself.  And  this  is  most  afi"ectingly  done  by  saying,  in  the 
 language  of  the  Psalmist,  (Ps.  Ixix.  10,)  "The  zeal  of  thy 
 house  hath  eaten  me  up;  and  the  reproaches  of  them  that 
 reproached  thee  are  fallen  upon  me;"  that  is,  such  was  my 
 zeal  for  thee,  that  the  reproaches  cast  on  thee  I  felt  as  if 
 directed  against  myself.  This  Psalm  is  so  frequently  quoted 
 and  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament,  that  it  must  be 
 considered  as  directly  prophetical.  Compare  John  ii.  17,  xv. 
 25,  xix.  28,  Acts  i.  20.* 
 
 •  Quod  si  regnet  it  nobis  Christus,  nt  in  fidelibus  sais  regnare  eum  necesse 
 est,  hie  quoque  sensus  in  animis  nostris  vigebit,  ut  quicquid  derogat  Dei  glorisB 
 non  aliter  nos  excruciet,  quam  si  in  nobis  resident.  Eantnunc,  quibus  summa 
 votoTum  est,  maximos  honores  apud  eos  adipisci  qui  probris  omnibus  Dei  nomen 
 afficiunt,  Christum  pedibus  conculcant,  evangelium  ipsius  et  contumeliose  lace- 
 rant,  et  gladio  flammaque  persequuntur.  Non  est  sane  tutum  ab  iis  tantopere 
 honorari,  a  quibus  non  modo  contenmitux  Christus,  sed  contumeliose  etiam 
 tractatur. — Calviit^ 
 
682  ROMANS  XV.  4,  5. 
 
 Verse  4.  For  whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime  were 
 written  for  our  learning,  that  we,  through  patience  and  com- 
 fort of  the  Scriptures  might  have  hope.  The  object  of  this 
 verse  is  not  so  much  to  show  the  propriety  of  applying 
 the  passage  quoted  from  the  Psalms  to  Christ,  as  to  show  that 
 the  facts  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  are  designed  for  our 
 instruction.  The  character  of  Christ  is  there  portrayed  that 
 we  may  follow  his  example  and  imbibe  his  spirit.  The  7:po  in 
 TzpozYpd^f]  has  its  proper  temporal  sense ;  before  us,  before  our 
 time.  The  reference  is  to  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
 Scriptures,  and  assumes,  as  the  New  Testament  writers  always 
 assume  or  assert,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  holy 
 men  of  old  writing  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 God  had  an  immediate  design  in  the  Scriptures  being  just  what 
 they  are ;  and  that  design  was  the  sanctification  and  salvation 
 of  men.  The  words,  through  patience  and  consolation  of  the 
 Scriptures,  may  be  taken  together,  and  mean,  'through  that 
 patience  and  consolation  which  the  Scriptures  produce;'  or  the 
 words  through  patience  may  be  disconnected  from  the  word 
 Scriptures,  and  the  sense  be,  'that  we  through  patience,  and 
 through  the  consolation  of  the  Scriptures,'  &c.  The  former 
 method  is  the  most  commonly  adopted,  and  is  the  most  natural.* 
 Might  have  hope.  This  may  mean,  that  the  design  of  the  divine 
 instructions  is  to  prevent  all  despondency,  to  sustain  us  under 
 our  present  trials ;  or  the  sense  is,  that  they  are  intended  to 
 secure  the  attainment  of  the  great  object  of  our  hopes,  the 
 blessedness  of  heaven.  Either  interpretation  of  the  word  hope 
 is  consistent  with  usage,  and  gives  a  good  sense.  The  former 
 is  more  natural. 
 
 Verse  5.  Now  the  G-od  of  patience  and  consolation  grant 
 you  to  he  like  minded  one  towards  another,  according  to  Jesus 
 Christ.  '  May  God,  who  is  the  author  of  patience  and  consola- 
 tion, grant,'  &c.  Here  the  graces,  which  in  the  preceding  verse 
 are  ascribed  to  the  Scriptures,  are  attributed  to  God  as  their 
 
 *  The  MSS.  A.  C.  1,  29,  30,  34,  36,  38,  39,  41,  43,  47,  read  ha  before  >m 
 (r(«gajt>i.»V«B)c,  which  would  render  the  second  mode  of  explaining  the  passage 
 stated  in  the  text  the  more  probable.  The  Complutensian  edition,  Bengel, 
 and  Lachmann,  adopt  this  reading,  though  the  preponderance  of  evidence  is 
 greatly  against  it. 
 
ROMANS  XV.  6.  683 
 
 author,  because  he  produces  them  by  his  Spirit,  through  the 
 instrumentality  of  the  truth.  The  patience,  bizoiiovq,  of  which 
 the  apostle  speaks,  is  the  calm  and  steadfast  endurance  of  suf- 
 fering, of  which  the  consolation,  napaxXjat^,  afforded  by  the 
 Scriptures,  is  the  source.  This  resignation  of  the  Christian  is 
 very  different  from  stoicism,  as  Calvin  beautifully  remarks: 
 "Patientia  fidelium  non  est  ilia  durities,  quam  prcecipiunt  phi- 
 losophi:  sed  ea  mansuetudo,  qua  nos  libenter  Deo  subjicimus, 
 dum  gustus  bonitatis  ejus  paternique  amoris  dulcia  omnia  nobis 
 reddit.  Ea  spem  in  nobis  alit  ac  sustinet,  ne  deficiat."  Luther 
 says :  "  Scriptura  quidem  docet,  sed  gratia  donat,  quod  ilia 
 docet."  External  teaching  is  not  enough;  we  need  the  inward 
 teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  enable  us  to  receive  and  conform 
 to  the  truths  and  precepts  of  the  word.  Hence  Paul  prays 
 that  God  would  give  his  readers  the  patience,  consolation, 
 and  hope  which  they  are  bound  to  exercise  and  enjoy.  Paul 
 prays  that  God  would  grant  them  that  concord  and  unanimity 
 which  he  had  so  strongly  exhorted  them  to  cherish.  The 
 expression  (ro  abzo  cpfwuzlv,)  to  be  like  minded,  does  not  here 
 refer  to  unanimity  of  opinion,  but  to  harmony  of  feeling;  see 
 chap.  viii.  5,  xii.  3.  According  to  Jesits  Christ,  i.  e.,  agreea- 
 bly to  the  example  and  command  of  Christ;  in  a  Christian 
 manner.  It  is,  therefore,  to  a  Christian  union  that  he  exhorts 
 them. 
 
 Verse  6.  That  ye  may  ivith  cue  mind  and  with  one  mouth 
 glorify  Crod,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This 
 harmony  and  fellowship  among  Christians  is  necessary,  in  order 
 that  they  may  glorify  God  aright.  To  honour  God  effectually 
 and  properly,  there  must  be  no  unnecessary  dissensions  among 
 his  people.  G-od,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christy 
 means  either  that  God  who  is  the  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  or 
 the  God  and  Father  of  Christ.  This  expression  occurs  fre- 
 quently in  the  New  Testament;  see  2  Cor.  i.  3,  xi.  31,  Eph. 
 i.  3,  1  Pet.  i.  3.  Most  commonly  the  genitive  zou  xuptou  is 
 assumed  to  belong  equally  to  the  two  preceding  nouns,  G.od 
 and  Father.  Many  of  the  later  commentators  restrict  it  to  the 
 latter,  and  explain  xai  as  exegetical :  '  God,  who  is  the  Father 
 of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  In  favour  of  this  explanation,  refer- 
 ence is  made  to  such  passages  as  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  Eph.  v.  20,  and 
 
68-1  ROMANS  XV.  7,  8. 
 
 others,  in  wliich  6  t^eoc  xac  TtazTJp  occur  vritliout  the  genitive 
 70L)  xupcou  x.z.X. 
 
 Verse  7.  Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another^  a»  Christ  also 
 received  us,*  to  the  glory  of  God.  Wherefore,  i.  e.,  in  order  that 
 with  one  heart  they  may  glorify  God.  This  cannot  be  done, 
 unless  they  are  united  in  the  bonds  of  Christian  fellowship. 
 The  word  [TzpoaXan^dvta&s)  receive,  has  the  same  sense  here 
 that  it  has  in  chap.  xiv.  1 :  *  Take  one  another  to  yourselves, 
 treat  one  another  kindly,  even  as  Christ  has  kindly  taken  us  to 
 himself;'  TtpoaeXd^eto,  sihi  sociavit.  The  words,  to  the  glory  of 
 (xod,  may  be  connected  with  the  first  or  second  clause,  or  with 
 both:  'Receive  ye  one  another,  that  God  may  be  glorified;' 
 or,  '  as  Christ  has  received  us  in  order  that  God  might  be  glori- 
 fied;' or,  if  referred  to  both  clauses,  the  idea  is,  'as  the  glory 
 of  God  was  illustrated  and  promoted  by  Christ's  reception  of 
 us,  so  also  will  it  be  exhibited  by  our  kind  treatment  of  each 
 other.'  The  first  method  seems  most  consistent  with  the  con- 
 text, as  the  object  of  the  apostle  is  to  enforce  the  duty  of  mutual 
 forbearance  among  Christians,  for  which  he  suggests  two  mo- 
 tives, the  kindness  of  Christ  towards  us,  and  the  promotion  of 
 the  divine  glory.  If  instead  of  "received  ws,"  the  true  reading 
 is,  received  you,"  the  sense  and  point  of  the  passage  is  materi- 
 ally altered.  Paul  must  then  be  considered  as  exhorting  the 
 Gentile  converts  to  forbearance  towards  their  Jewish  brethren, 
 on  the  ground  that  Christ  had  received  them,  though  aliens, 
 into  the  commonwealth  of  Israel. 
 
 Verse  8.  Now  I  say  that  Jesus  Qhrist  was  a  minister  of  the 
 circumcision  for  the  truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promises  made 
 unto  the  fathers.  This  verse  follows  as  a  confirmation  or  illus- 
 tration of  the  preceding.  Now  I  say,  i.  e.,  this  I  mean.  The 
 apostle  intends  to  show  how  it  was  that  Christ  had  received 
 those  to  whom  he  wrote.  He  had  come  to  minister  to  the  Jews, 
 ver.  8,  and  also  to  cause  the  Gentiles  to  glorify  God,  ver.  9. 
 The  expression,  minister,  or  servant,  of  the  circumcision,  means 
 
 *  For  i/jtai;,  i/jtat  ia  read  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  (ex  emendatione,)  E.  F.  Q.  1, 
 21,  23,  29,  30,  37,  38,  39,  43,  52,  61,  in  both  the  Syriac,  in  the  Coptic,  Gothic, 
 Latin,  and  Armenian  versions,  and  in  several  of  the  Fathers.  It  is  adopted  in 
 the  Complutensian  edition,  and  in  those  of  Qrieebach,  Mill,  Knapp,.  Lachmann, 
 and  Tischendorf. 
 
ROMANS  XV.  9.  685 
 
 a  minister  sent  to  the  Jews,  as  '  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,'  means 
 'an  apostle  sent  to  the  Gentiles.*  For  the  truth  of  G-od,  i.  e., 
 to  maintain  the  truth  of  God  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  pro- 
 mises made  to  the  fathers,  as  is  immediately  added.  The  truth 
 of  God  is  his  veracity  or  fidelity.  Christ  had  exhibited  the 
 greatest  condescension  and  kindness  in  coming,  not  as  a  Lord 
 or  ruler,  but  as  an  humble  minister  to  the  Jews,  to  accomplish 
 the  gracious  promises  of  God.  As  this  kindness  was  not  con- 
 fined to  them,  but  as  the  Gentiles  also  were  received  into  his 
 kingdom,  and  united  with  the  Jews  on  equal  terms,  this  exam- 
 ple of  Christ  furnishes  the  strongest  motives  for  the  cultivation 
 of  mutual  affection  and  unanimity. 
 
 Verse  9.  And  that  the  Gentiles  might  glorify  G-od  for  his 
 mercy.  Might  glorify,  do^daac,  have  glorified.  The  effect  is 
 considered  as  accomplished.  The  apostle's  language  is,  as 
 usual,  concise.  There  are  two  consequences  of  the  work  of 
 Christ  which  he  here  presents ;  the  one,  that  the  truth  of  God 
 has  been  vindicated  by  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  made  to 
 the  Jews ;  and  the  other,  that  the  Gentiles  have  been  led  to 
 praise  God  for  his  mercy.  The  grammatical  connection  of  this 
 sentence  with  the  preceding  is  not  very  clear.  The  most  pro- 
 bable explanation  is  that  which  makes  {po^daae)  glorify  depend 
 upon  {J.eyco)  I  say,  in  ver.  8 :  'I  say  that  Jesus  Christ  became 
 a  minister  to  the  Jews,  and  I  say  the  Gentiles  have  glorified 
 God;'  it  was  thus  he  received  both.  Calvin  supplies  ozlv,  and 
 translates,  "  The  Gentiles  ought  to  glorify  God  for  his  mercy ;" 
 which  is  not  necessary,  and  does  not  so  well  suit  the  context. 
 The  mercy  for  which  the  Gentiles  were  to  praise  God,  is  obvi- 
 ously the  great  mercy  of  being  received  into  the  kingdom  of 
 Christ,  and  made  partakers  of  all  its  blessings. 
 
 As  it  is  written,  I  mil  confess  to  thee  among  the  Gentiles, 
 and  sing  unto  thy  name,  Ps.  xviii.  49.  In  this  and  the  follow- 
 ing quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  the  idea  is  more  or  less 
 distinctly  expressed,  that  true  religion  was  to  be  extended  to 
 the  Gentiles ;  and  they  therefore  all  include  the  promise  of  the 
 extension  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  to  them,  as  well  as  to  the 
 Jews.  In  Psalm  xviii.  49,  David  is  the  speaker.  It  is  he  that 
 says:  "I  will  praise  thee  among  the  Gentiles."  He  is  contem- 
 plated as  surrounded  by  Gentiles  giving  thanks  unto  God,  which 
 
686  ROMANS  XV.  10—12. 
 
 implies  that  they  were  the  worshippers  of  God.  Our  version 
 renders  i^oixoXojijaofxcu,  I  will  confess,  make  acknowledgment 
 to  thee.  The  word  in  itself  may  mean,  to  acknowledge  the 
 truth,  or  sin,  or  God's  mercies ;  and  therefore  it  is  properly 
 rendered,  at  times,  to  give  thanks,  or  to  praise,  which  is  an 
 acknowledgment  of  God's  goodness. 
 
 Verse  10.  And  again,  Rejoice  ye  Gentiles  with  his  people. 
 This  passage  is  commonly  considered  as  quoted  from  Deut. 
 xxxii.  43,  where  it  is  found  in  the  Septuagint  precisely  as  it 
 stands  here.  The  Hebrew  admits  of  three  interpretations, 
 without  altering  the  text.  It  may  mean,  '  Praise  his  people,  ye 
 Gentiles;'  or,  'Rejoice,  ye  tribes,  his  people;'  or,  'Rejoice, 
 ye  Gentiles,  (rejoice,)  his  people.'  Hengensbenlerg  on  Ps. 
 xviii.  50,  adopts  the  last  mentioned  explanation  of  the  passage 
 in  Deuteronomy.  The  English  version  brings  the  Hebrew  into 
 coincidence  with  the  LXX.  by  supplying  with:  'Rejoice,  ye 
 Gentiles,  with  his  people.'  And  this  is  probably  the  true  sense. 
 As  the  sacred  writer  (in  Deut.  xviii.)  is  not  speaking  of  the 
 blessing  of  the  Jews  being  extended  to  the  Gentiles,  but  seems 
 rather,  in  the  whole  context,  to  be  denouncing  vengeance  on 
 them  as  the  enemies  of  God's  people,  Calvin  and  others  refer 
 this  citation  to  Ps.  Ixvii.  3,  5,  where  the  sentiment  is  clearly 
 expressed,  though  not  in  precisely  the  same  words. 
 
 Verse  11.  And  again,  Praise  the  Lord,  all  ye  Cfentiles;  and 
 laud  him,  all  ye  people.  This  passage  is  from  Ps.  cxvii.  1,  and 
 strictly  to  the  apostle's  purpose. 
 
 Verse  12.  And  again,  JEsaias  saith,  There  shall  be  a  root 
 of  Jesse,  and  he  that  shall  rise  to  rule  over  the  G-entiles;  in  him 
 shall  the  G-entiles  trust,  Isa.  xi.  1,  10.  This  is  an  explicit  pre- 
 diction of  the  dominion  of  the  Messiah  over  other  nations 
 besides  the  Jews.  Here  again  the  apostle  follows  the  Septua- 
 gint, giving,  however,  the  sense  of  the  original  Hebrew.  The 
 promise  of  the  prophet  is,  that  from  the  decayed  and  fallen 
 house  of  David,  one  should  arise,  whose  dominion  should 
 embrace  all  nations,  and  in  whom  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews 
 should  trust.  In  the  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  Christ  came, 
 and  preached  salvation  to  those  who  were  near  and  to  those 
 who  were  far  off.  As  both  classes  had  been  thus  kindly  received 
 by  the  condescending  Saviour,  and  united  into  one  community. 
 
ROMANS  XV.  14—33.  687 
 
 they  should  recognise  and  love  each  other  as  brethren,  laying 
 aside  all  censoriousness  and  contempt,  neither  judging  nor 
 despising  one  another. 
 
 Verse  13.  Now  then  the  God  of  hope  fill  you  with  all  joy 
 and  peaci  in  believing,  that  ye  may  abound  in  hope  through  the 
 power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  -dZ^^o^  means  all  possible  joy.  Paul 
 here,  as  in  ver.  5,  concludes  by  praying  that  God  would  grant 
 them  the  excellencies  which  it  was  their  duty  to  possess.  Thus 
 constantly  and  intimately  are  the  ideas  of  accountableness  and 
 dependence  connected  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  We  are  to 
 work  out  our  own  salvation,  because  it  is  God  that  worketh  in 
 us  both  to  will  and  to  do,  according  to  his  good  pleasure.  The 
 God  of  hope,  i.  e.,  God  who  is  the  author  of  that  hope  which  it 
 was  predicted  men  should  exercise  in  the  root  and  offspring  of 
 Jesse. 
 
 Fill  you  with  all  joy  and  peace  in  believing,  i.  e.,  fill  you  with 
 that  joy  and  concord  among  yourselves,  as  well  as  peace  of  con- 
 science and  peace  towards  God,  which  are  the  results  of  genuine 
 faith.  That  ye  may  abound  in  hope.  The  consequence  of  the 
 enjoyment  of  the  blessings,  and  of  the  exercise  of  the  graces 
 just  referred  to,  would  be  an  increase  in  the  strength  and  joy- 
 fulness  of  their  hope ;  through  the  poioer  of  the  Holy  Ghostf 
 through  whom  all  good  is  given  and  all  good  exercised. 
 
 ROMANS  XV.  14—33. 
 
 ANALYSIS. 
 
 The  apostle,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  epistle,  assures  the 
 Romans  of  his  confidence  in  them,  and  that  his  motive  for 
 writing  was  not  so  much  a  belief  of  their  peculiar  deficiency, 
 as  the  desire  of  putting  them  in  mind  of  those  things  which 
 they  already  knew,  vs.  14,  15.  This  he  was  the  rather  entitled 
 to  do  on  account  of  his  apostolic  office,  conferred  upon  him  by 
 divine  appointment,  and  confirmed  by  the  signs  and  wonders, 
 and  abundant  success  with  which  God  had  crowned  his  minis- 
 try, vs.  15,  16.  He  had  sufficient  ground  of  confidence  in  this 
 respect,  in  the  results  of  his  own  labours,  without  at  all  encroach- 
 ing upon  what  belonged  to  others;  for  he  had  made  it  a  rule 
 
688  ROMANS  XV.  14. 
 
 not  to  preach  where  others  had  proclaimed  the  gospel,  hut  to 
 go  to  places  where  Christ  was  previously  unknown,  vs.  17 — 21. 
 His  labours  had  been  such  as  hitherto  to  prevent  the  execution 
 of  his  purpose  to  visit  Rome.  Now,  however,  he  hoped  to  have 
 that  pleasure,  on  his  way  to  Spain,  as  soon  as  he  had  accom- 
 plished his  mission  to  Jerusalem,  with  the  contributions  of  the 
 Christians  in  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  for  the  poor  saints  in 
 Judea,  vs.  22 — 28.  Having  accomplished  this  service,  he  hoped 
 to  visit  Rome  in  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the  gospel  of 
 Christ.  In  the  mean  time  he  begs  an  interest  in  their  prayers, 
 and  commends  them  to  the  grace  of  God,  vs.  29 — 33. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 Verse  14.  And  I  mi/self  also  am  persuaded  of  you,  my 
 brethren,  that  ye  also  are  full  of  goodness,  filled  with  all  know- 
 ledge, able  also  to  admonish  one  another.*  Paul,  with  his 
 wonted  modesty  and  mildness,  apologises,  as  it  were,  for  the 
 plainness  and  ardour  of  his  exhortations.  They  were  given 
 from  no  want  of  confidence  in  the  Roman  Christians,  and  they 
 were  not  an  unwarrantable  assumption  of  authority  on  his  part. 
 The  former  of  these  ideas  he  presents  in  this  verse,  and  the 
 latter  in  the  next.  /  also  myself,  i.  e.,  I  of  myself,  without  the 
 testimony  of  others.  Paul  had  himself  such  knowledge  of  the 
 leading  members  of  the  church  of  Rome,  that  he  did  not  neea 
 to  be  informed  by  others  of  their  true  character.  That  ye  also 
 are  full  of  goodness,  i.  e.,  of  kind  and  conciliatory  feelings;  or, 
 taking  ayad^ojauvrj  in  its  wider  sense,  full  of  virtue,  or  excel- 
 lence. Filled  with  all  knowledge,  i.  e.,  abundantly  instructed 
 on  these  subjects,  so  as  to  be  able  to  instruct  or  admonish  each 
 other.  It  was,  therefore,  no  want  of  confidence  in  their  dispo- 
 sition or  ability  to  discharge  their  duties,  that  led  him  to  write 
 to  them;  his  real  motive  he  states  in  the  next  verse.  They 
 were  able,  vood^tttlv,  to  put  in  mind,  to  bring  the  truth  seasona- 
 bly to  bear  on  the  mind  and  conscience.  It  does  not  refer 
 exclusively  to  the  correction  of  faults,  or  to  reproof  for  trans- 
 
 *  For  dAAJixouf,  each  other,  axxwt,  others,  is  read  in  the  MSS.  1,  2,  4,  6,  10, 14, 
 15.  17,  18,  20,  23,  29,  32,  35,  38,  43,  46,  48,  52,  54,  62,  63;  in  the  Syriac  ver- 
 sion, and  by  many  of  the  Greek  Fathers.  The  Complutensian  editors,  Beza, 
 Wetstein,  and  Qriesbach,  adopt  this  reading. 
 
ROMANS  XV.  15,  16.  680 
 
 gression.  "Duae  monitoris  praecipuae  sunt  dotes,  tumanitaa 
 quae  et  illius  animum  ad  juvandos  consilio  suo  fratres  inclinet, 
 et  vultum  verbaque  comitate  temperet :  et  consilii  dexteritas, 
 sive  prudentia,  quae  et  auctoritatem  illi  conciliet,  ut  prodesse 
 queat  auditoribus,  ad  quos  dirigit  sermonem.  Nihil  enim  magis 
 contrarium  fraternis  monitionibus,  quam  malignitas  et  arrogan- 
 tia,  quae  facit  ut  errantes  fastuose  contemnamus,  et  ludibrio 
 habere  malimus,  quam  corrigere."    Calvin. 
 
 Verse  15.  Nevertheless,  brethren,  I  have  written  the  more 
 holdhj  unto  you  in  some  sort,  as  putting  you  in  mind,  because  of 
 the  grace  given  to  me  of  Gfod.  It  was  rather  to  remind  than  to 
 instruct  them,  that  the  apostle  wrote  thus  freely.  The  words 
 [oLTtd  fispou^)  in  some  sort,  are  intended  to  qualify  the  words 
 more  boldly,  'I  have  written  somewhat  too  boldly.'  How 
 striking  the  blandness  and  humility  of  the  great  apostle  !  The 
 preceding  exhortations  and  instructions,  for  which  he  thus 
 apologises,  are  full  of  affection  and  heavenly  wisdom.  What  a 
 reproof  is  this  for  the  arrogant  and  denunciatory  addresses 
 which  so  often  are  given  by  men  who  think  they  have  Paul  for 
 an  example!  These  words,  [in  some  sort,)  however,  may  be 
 connected  with  /  have  written;  the  sense  would  then  be,  'I 
 have  written  in  part  (i.  e.,  in  some  parts  of  my  epistle)  very 
 boldly.'  The  former  method  seems  the  more  natural.  When  a 
 man  acts  the  part  of  a  monitor,  he  should  not  only  perform  the 
 duty  properly,  but  he  should,  on  some  ground,  have  a  right  to 
 assume  this  office.  Paul  therefore  says,  that  he  reminded  the 
 Romans  of  their  duty,  because  he  was  entitled  to  do  so  in 
 virtue  of  his  apostolical  character ;  because  of  the  grace  given 
 to  me  of  Grod.  Grrace  here,  as  appears  from  the  context, 
 signifies  the  apostleship  which  Paul  represents  as  a  favour ;  eee 
 chap  i.  5. 
 
 Verse  16.  That  I  should  be  the  minister  of  Jesus  Christ  to 
 the  Crentiles;  ksiroupybv  eci;  ra  Id^va,  a  minister  for,  or,  in  refer- 
 ence to  the  Gentiles.  This  is  the  explanation  of  the  grace 
 given  to  him  of  Grod ;  it  was  the  favour  of  being  a  minister  of 
 Jesus  Christ  to  the  Gentiles.  Compare  Eph.  iii.  1,  "  Unto  me, 
 who  am  the  least  of  all  saints,  is  this  grace  given,  that  I  should 
 preach,  among  the  Gentiles,  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ.'' 
 The  word  {Xerroupr<iQ^  rendered  minister^  means  a  public  officer 
 44 
 
690  ROMANS  XV.  16. 
 
 or  servant;  see  chap.  xiii.  6,  where  it  is  applied  to  the  cIv^J 
 magistrate.  It  is,  however,  very  frequently  used  (as  is  also 
 the  corresponding  verb)  of  those  who  exercised  the  office  of  a 
 priest,  Deut.  x.  8,  Heb.  x.  11.  As  the  whole  of  this  verse  is 
 figurative,  Paul  no  doubt  had  this  force  of  the  word  in  his 
 mind,  when  he  called  himself  a  minister,  a  sacred  officer  of 
 Jesus  Christ ;  not  a  priest,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  for 
 the  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  never  so  called  in  the  New  Tes- 
 tament, but  merely  in  a  figurative  sense.  The  sacrifice  which 
 they  offer  are  the  people,  whom  they  are  instrumental  in 
 bringing  unto  God. 
 
 Ministering  the  gospel  of  God,  that  the  offering  up  of  the 
 Crentiles  might  he  acceptable,  being  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
 This  is  the  apostle's  explanation  of  the  preceding  clause.  '  He 
 was  appointed  a  minister  of  Christ  to  administer,  or  to  act  the 
 part  of  a  priest  in  reference  to  the  gospel,  that  is,  to  present 
 the  Gentiles  as  a  holy  sacrifice  to  God.'  Paul,  therefore,  no 
 more  calls  himself  a  priest  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  than 
 he  calls  the  Gentiles  a  sacrifice  in  the  literal  meaning  of  that 
 word.  The  expression,  [tepoopyouvTa  to  tbajYeXeov)  rendered 
 ministering  the  gospel,  is  peculiar,  and  has  been  variously 
 explained.  Erasmus  translates  it  sacrificans  evangelium,  'pre- 
 senting the  gospel  as  a  sacrifice ;'  Calvin,  consecrans  evan^ 
 gelium,  which  he  explains,  '  performing  the  sacred  mysteries  of 
 the  gospel.'  The  general  meaning  of  the  phrase  probably  is, 
 'acting  the  part  of  a  priest  in  reference  to  the  gospel.'  Com- 
 pare Mace.  iv.  7,  8,  hpouydv  rdv  vofxov. 
 
 The  sense  is  the  same,  if  the  word  {zbayjciXeov)  gospel  be 
 made  to  depend  on  a  word  understood,  and  the  whole  sentence 
 be  resolved  thus,  '  That  I  should  be  a  preacher  of  the  gospel 
 (efc  ^o  dva'i  fie  xrjpbaaovta  to  eu)  to  the  Gentiles,  a  ministering 
 priest  (i.  e.,  a  minister  acting  the  part  of  a  priest)  of  Jesus 
 Christ,'  WahVs  Qlavis,  p.  740.  Paul  thus  acted  the  part  of  a 
 priest  that  the  offering  of  the  Gentiles  might  he  acceptable. 
 The  word  [7vpo(T<popd)  offering  sometimes  means  the  act  of  obla- 
 tion, sometimes  the  thing  offered.  Our  translators  have  taken 
 it  here  in  the  former  sense ;  but  this  is  not  so  suitable  to  the 
 figure  or  the  context.  It  was  not  Paul's  act  that  was  to  be 
 acceptable,  or  which  was  'sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit.'     The 
 
ROMANS  XV.  17.  69J 
 
 latter  sense  of  the  word,  therefore,  is  to  be  preferred;  and 
 the  mea,ning  is,  '  That  the  Gentiles,  as  a  sacrifice,  might  be 
 acceptable;'  see  chap.  xii.  1,  Phil.  ii.  17,  2  Tim.  iv.  6.  Being 
 sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  the  sacrifices  were  purified 
 by  water  and  other  means,  when  prepared  for  the  altar,  so 
 we  are  made  fit  for  the  service  of  God,  rendered  holy  or 
 acceptable,  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  an 
 idea  which  Paul  never  omits ;  when  speaking  of  the  success  of 
 his  labours,  or  of  the  efficacy  of  the  gospel,  he  is  careful  that 
 this  success  should  not  be  ascribed  to  the  instruments,  but  to 
 the  real  author.  In  this  beautiful  passage  we  see  the  nature 
 of  the  only  priesthood  which  belongs  to  the  Christian  ministry. 
 Tt  is  not  their  office  to  make  atonement  for  sin,  or  to  offer  a 
 propitiatory  sacrifice  to  God,  but  by  the  preaching  of  the 
 gospel  to  bring  men,  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
 offer  themselves  as  a  living  sacrifice,  holy  and  acceptable  to 
 God.  It  is  well  worthy  of  remark,  that  amidst  the  numerous 
 designations  of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the  New  Testa- 
 ment, intended  to  set  forth  the  nature  of  their  office,  they  are 
 never  officially  called  priests.  This  is  the  only  passage  in 
 which  the  term  is  even  figuratively  applied  to  them,  and  that 
 under  circumstances  which  render  its  misapprehension  impos- 
 sible. They  are  not  mediators  between  God  and  man  ;  they  do 
 not  off'er  propitiatory  sacrifices.  Their  only  priesthood,  as 
 Theophylack  says,  is  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  [a"jzrj  jdp  jiot 
 UfHoaui^rj  TO  xaxayyklXziv  to  vjayykhov^  and  their  offerings  are 
 redeemed  and  sanctified  men,  saved  by  their  instrumentality. 
 "  Et  sane  hoc  est  Christiani  pastoris  sacerdotium,  homines  in 
 evangelii  obedientiam  subigendo  veluti  Deo  immolare;  non 
 autem,  quod  superciliose  hactenus  Papistae  jactarunt,  oblatione 
 Christi  homines  reconciliare  Deo.  Neque  tamen  ecclesiasticos 
 pastores  simpliciter  hie  vocat  sacerdotes,  tanquam  perpetuo 
 titulo  ;  sed  quum  dignitatem  efficaciamque  ministerii  vellet  com- 
 mendare  Paulus,  hac  metaphora  per  occasionem  usus  est." 
 Cahin. 
 
 Verse  17.  I  have  therefore  whereof  to  glory  through  Jesua 
 Christ  in  those  things  which  pertain  to  Grod.  That  is,  '  seeing 
 I  have  received  this  office  of  God,  and  am  appointed  a  minister 
 of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  I  have  {xau^y^acu)  confidence  and 
 
(592  ROMANS  XV.  18,  19. 
 
 rejoicing.*  As,  in  the  previous  verses,  Paul  had  asserted  his 
 divine  appointment  as  an  apostle,  he  shows,  in  this  and  the  fol- 
 lowing verses,  that  the  assertion  was  well  founded,  as  God  had 
 crowned  his  labours  with  success,  and  sealed  his  ministry  with 
 signs  and  wonders.  He,  therefore,  Avas  entitled,  as  a  minister 
 of  God,  to  exhort  and  admonish  his  brethren  with  the  boldness 
 and  authority  which  he  had  used  in  this  epistle.  This  boasting, 
 however,  he  had  only  in  or  through  Jesus  Christ,  all  was  to  be 
 attributed  to  him ;  and  it  was  in  reference  to  things  pertaining 
 to  Crod,  i.  e.,  the  preaching  and  success  of  the  gospel,  not  to 
 his  personal  advantages  or  worldly  distinctions.  There  is 
 another  interpretation  of  the  latter  part  of  this  verse,  which 
 also  gives  a  good  sense.  '  I  have  therefore  ground  of  boasting, 
 (i.  e.,  I  have)  oiferings  for  God,  viz..  Gentile  converts.'  (The 
 words  TO.  Ttpb^  rbu  d-eov  are  understood  as  synonymous  with  the 
 word  7:po0<fopd  of  the  preceding  verse,  TtpoazvtyrdsvTa  being 
 supplied.)  The  common  view  of  the  passage,  however,  is  more 
 simple  and  natural. 
 
 Verses  18,  19.  In  these  verses  the  apostle  explains  more 
 fully  what  he  had  intended  by  saying  he  gloried,  or  exulted.  It 
 was  that  God  had  borne  abundant  testimony  to  his  claims  as  a 
 divinely  commissioned  preacher  of  the  gospel ;  so  that  he  had 
 no  need  to  refer  to  what  others  had  done ;  he  was  satisfied  to 
 rest  his  claims  on  the  results  of  his  own  labours  and  the  testi- 
 mony of  God.  For  I  will  not  dare  to  speak  of  any  of  those 
 things  which  Christ  hath  not  wrought  by  me.  That  is,  '  I  will 
 not  claim  the  credit  due  to  others,  or  appeal  to  results  which  I 
 have  not  been  instrumental  in  effecting.'  According  to  another 
 view,  the  meaning  is,  '  I  will  not  speak  of  any  thing  as  the 
 ground  of  boasting  which  Christ  has  not  done  by  me.'  The 
 contrast  implied,  therefore,  is  not  between  what  he  had  done 
 and  what  others  had  accomplished,  but  between  himself  and 
 Christ.  He  would  not  glory  in  the  flesh,  or  in  any  thing  per- 
 taining to  himself,  but  only  in  Christ,  and  in  what  he  had 
 accomplished.  The  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  was  Christ's 
 work,  not  Paul's ;  and  therefore  Paul  could  glory  in  it  without 
 self-exaltation.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  apostle  repre- 
 sents himself  as  merely  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  Christ  for 
 the  conversion  of  men ;    the  real  efficiency  he  ascribes  to  the 
 
ROMANS  XV.  19.  693 
 
 Redeemer.  This  passage,  therefore,  exhibits  evidence  that 
 Paul  regarded  Christ  as  still  exercising  a  controlling  agency 
 over  the  souls  of  men,  and  rendering  effectual  the  labours  of  his 
 faithful  ministers.  Such  power  the  sacred  writers  never  attri- 
 bute to  any  being  but  God.  To  make  the  Gentiles  obedient, 
 i.  e.,  to  the  gospel ;  compare  chap.  i.  5,  where  the  same  form 
 of  expression  occurs.  The  obedience  of  which  Paul  speaks  is 
 the  sincere  obedience  of  the  heart  and  life.  This  result  he  says 
 Christ  effected,  through  his  instrumentality,  hi/  word  and  deed, 
 not  merely  by  truth,  but  also  by  that  operation  which  Christ 
 employed  to  render  the  truth  effectual.  It  was  not  only  by  the 
 truth  as  presented  in  the  word,  but  also  by  the  effectual  inward 
 operation  of  his  power,  that  Christ  converted  men  to  the 
 faith. 
 
 Verse  19.  Through  mighty  signs  and  wonders,  hy  the  power 
 of  the  Spirit  of  God,  i.  e.,  by  miracles,  and  by  the  influences 
 of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Greek  is,  kv  dovdfjisi  ar^/isiwu  xai 
 rzodzcov,  iu  dupd/jtsi  nvtufxaro^  Aycot),  that  is,  by  the  power  of 
 (i.  e.,  which  comes  from)  signs  and  wonders,  and,  the  powp^ 
 which  flows  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  was  thus  Christ  rendered 
 the  labours  of  Paul  successful.  He  produced  conviction,  or  the 
 obedience  of  faith,  in  the  minds  of  the  Gentiles,  partly  by 
 miracles,  partly  and  mainly  by  the  inward  working  of  the 
 Holy  Ghost.  That  Christ  thus  exercises  divine  power  both  in 
 the  external  world  and  in  the  hearts  of  men,  clearly  proves  that 
 he  is  a  divine  person.  Signs  and  wonders  are  the  constantly 
 recurring  words  to  designate  those  external  events  which  are 
 produced,  not  by  the  operation  of  second  causes,  but  by  the 
 immediate  efficiency  of  God.  They  are  called  signs  because 
 evidences  of  the  exercise  of  God's  power  and  proofs  of  the 
 truth  of  his  declarations,  and  wonders  because  of  the  effect 
 which  they  produce  on  the  minds  of  men.  This  passage  is, 
 therefore,  analogous  to  that  in  1  Cor.  ii.  4,  "My  speech  and 
 preaching  was  not  in  the  enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom,  but 
 in  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power."  That  is,  he 
 relied  for  success  not  on  his  own  skill  or  eloquence,  but  on  the 
 powerful  demonstration  of  the  Spirit.  This  demonstration  of 
 the  Spirit  consisted  partly  in  the  miracles  which  he  enabled 
 the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel  to  perform,  and  partly  in  the 
 
694  KOMANS  XV.  20,  21. 
 
 influence  with  which  he  attended  the  truth  to  the  hearts 
 and  consciences  of  those  that  believed;  see  Gal.  iii.  2 — 5, 
 Heb.  ii.  4. 
 
 So  that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  unto  Hhricum, 
 I  have  fully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Round  about,  xal 
 xuxX(fj,  in  a  circle.  Jerusalem  was  the  centre  around  which 
 Paul  prosecuted  his  labours.  He  means  to  say,  that  through- 
 out a  most  extensive  region  I  have  successfully  preached  the 
 gospel.  God  had  given  his  seal  to  Paul's  apostleship,  by 
 making  him  so  abundantly  useful.  I  have  fully  preached, 
 expresses,  no  doubt,  the  sense  of  the  original,  [TtzTz^pwAsvac  -b 
 euayyeXcov,)  to  bring  the  gospel  (i.  e.,  the  preaching  of  it)  to  an 
 end,  to  accomplish  it  thoroughly ;  see  Col.  i.  25.  In  this  wide 
 circuit  had  the  apostle  preached,  founding  churches,  and 
 advancins:  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  with  such  evidence  of  the 
 divine  cooperation,  as  to  leave  no  ground  of  doubt  that  he  was 
 a  divinely  appointed  minister  of  Christ, 
 
 Verses  20,  21.  In  further  confirmation  of  this  point,  Paul 
 states  that  he  had  not  acted  the  part  of  a  pastor  merely,  but  of 
 an  apostle,  or  founder  of  the  church,  disseminating  the  gospel 
 where  it  was  before  unknown,  so  that  the  evidence  of  his  apos- 
 tleship might  be  undeniable;  compare  1  Cor.  ix.  2,  "If  I  be 
 not  an  apost'e  unto  others,  yet  doubtless  I  am  to  you ;  for  the 
 seal  of  my  apostleship  are  ye  in  the  Lord;"  and  2  Cor.  iii.  2,  3, 
 Pea,  80  have  I  strived  to  preach  the  gospel,  not  where  Christ 
 was  named,  lest  I  should  build  on  another  man's  foundation; 
 that  is,  '  I  have  been  desirous  of  not  preaching  where  Christ 
 was  before  known,  but  in  such  a  way  as  to  accomplish  the  pre- 
 diction that  those  who  had  not  heard  should  understand.' 
 0t}.OTC[xe'l(j&ac,  so  to  prosecute  an  object  as  to  place  one's  honour 
 in  it.  The  motive  which  influenced  him  in  taking  this 
 course,  was  lest  he  should  build  upon  another  man's  founda- 
 tion. This  may  mean  either,  lest  I  should  appropriate  to 
 myself  the  result  of  other  men's  labours ;  or,  lest  I  should  act 
 the  part  not  of  an  apostle,  (to  which  I  was  called,)  but  of  a 
 simple  pastor. 
 
 Verse  21.  But,  as  it  is  written,  To  whom  he  was  not  spoken 
 of,  they  shall  see;  and  they  that  have  not  heard  shall  under- 
 stand.    That  is,  I  acted  in  the  spirit  of  the  prediction,  that 
 
ROMANS  XV.  22—24.  695 
 
 Christ  should  be  preached  where  he  had  not  been  known.  It 
 had  been  foretold  in  Isa.  lii.  15,  that  Christ  should  bo  preached 
 to  the  Gentiles,  and  to  those  who  had  never  heard  of  his  name ; 
 it  was  in  accordance  with  this  prediction  that  Paul  acted. 
 There  is,  however,  no  objection  to  considering  this  passage  as 
 merely  an  expression,  in  borrowed  language,  of  the  apostle's 
 own  ideas ;  the  meaning  then  is,  '  I  endeavoured  to  preach  the 
 gospel  not  where  Christ  was  named,  but  to  cause  those  to  see 
 to  whom  he  had  not  been  announced,  and  those  to  understand 
 who  had  not  heard.'  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  apostle's 
 manner  of  using  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament ;  see  chap. 
 X.  15,  18.  But  as,  in  this  case,  the  passage  cited  is  clearly  b, 
 prediction,  the  first  method  of  explanation  should  probably  be 
 preferred.  A  result  of  this  method  of  interweaving  passages 
 from  the  Old  Testament,  is  often,  as  in  this  case  and  ver.  3,  a 
 want  of  grammatical  coherence  between  the  different  membera 
 of  the  sentence ;  see  1  Cor.  ii.  9. 
 
 Verse  22.  For  which  cause  also  I  have  been  much  hindered 
 from  coming  to  you.  That  is,  his  desire  to  make  Christ  known 
 where  he  had  not  been  named,  had  long  prevented  his  intended 
 journey  to  Rome,  where  he  knew  the  gospel  had  already  been 
 preached.  Mmh^  ca  TioUd,  plerumque,  in  most  cases.  The 
 pressure  of  the  constant  calls  to  preach  the  gospel  where  he 
 then  was,  was  the  principal  reason  why  he  had  deferred  so  long 
 visiting  Rome.  Hindered  from  coming,  ivexoTizofxr^iJ  tdb  kA&fiv, 
 the  genitive  following  verbs  signifying  to  hinder. 
 
 Verse  23.  But  now  having  no  more  'place  in  these  parts,  and 
 having  a  great  desire  these  many  years  to  come  unto  you,  &e. 
 Great  desire,  kncTiod-iav,  summum  desiderium.  The  expression, 
 having  no  more  place  {/jf^xszc  tottov  £/ct>v,)  in  this  connection, 
 would  seem  obviously  to  mean,  'having  no  longer  a  place  in 
 these  parts  where  Christ  is  not  known.'  This  idea  is  included 
 in  the  declaration  that  he  had  fully  preached  the  gospel  in  all 
 that  region.  Others  take  the  word  {rdTvov)  rendered  place,  to 
 signify  occasion,  opportunity,  '  Having  no  longer  an  opportunity 
 of  preaching  here;'  see  Acts  xxv.  16,  Heb.  xii.  17. 
 
 Verse  24.  Whensoever  I  take  my  journey  into  Spain^  I  will 
 come  to  you;  for  I  trust  to  see  you  in  my  journey,  and  to  he 
 hrought  on  my  loay  ^Mtherward  hy  you,  if  first  I  he  somewhat 
 
696  ROMANS  XY.  25—27. 
 
 filled  with  your  company.  Wliensoever  (a»c  ^<^v  for  ojc  ^v,)  an 
 soon  as;  'As  soon  as  I  take  my  journey,'  &c.  The  words  in  the 
 original,  corresponding  to  /  will  come  unto  you,  for  are  omitted 
 in  many  MSS.*  The  sense  is  complete  without  them :  'As  soon 
 as  I  take  my  journey  into  Spain,  I  hope  to  see  you  on  my  way.' 
 If  the  word  for  be  retained,  the  passage  must  be  differently 
 pointed:  'Having  a  great  desire  to  see  you,  as  soon  as  I  go  to 
 Spain,  (for  I  hope  on  my  way  to  see  you,  &c.,)  but  now  I  go  to 
 Jerusalem.'  Spain,  the  common  Greek  name  for  the  great 
 Pyrenian  Peninsula,  was  ^I^epia,  although  STzavia  was  also 
 used.  The  Romans  called  it  '^hjiavia.  Whether  Paul  ever 
 accomplished  his  purpose  of  visiting  Spain,  is  a  matter  of  doubt. 
 There  is  no  historical  record  of  his  having  done  so,  either  in  the 
 New  Testament,  or  in  the  early  ecclesiastical  writers ;  though 
 •nost  of  those  writers  seem  to  have  taken  it  for  granted.  His 
 whole  plan  was  probably  deranged  by  the  occurrences  at  Jeru- 
 salem, which  led  to  his  long  imprisonment  at  Cesarea,  and  his 
 being  sent  in  bonds  to  Rome.  To  he  brought  on  my  way.  The 
 original  word  means,  in  the  active  voice,  to  attend  any  one  on 
 a  journey  for  some  distance,  as  an  expression  of  kindness  and 
 respect;  and  also  to  make  provision  for  his  journey;  see  Acts 
 XV.  3,  XX.  38,  1  Cor.  xvi.  6,  2  Cor.  i.  16. 
 
 Verse  25.  But  now  I  go  unto  Jerusalem  to  minister  unto  the 
 eaints,  i.  e.,  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  saints,  distributing  to 
 them  the  contributions  of  the  churches;  see  Heb.  vi.  10;  com- 
 pare also  Matt.  viii.  15,  Mark  i.  31,  Luke  iv.  39.  The  word 
 dcaxovso)  is  used  for  any  kind  of  service.  The  present  partici- 
 ple is  used  to  imply  that  the  journey  itself  was  a  part  of  the 
 service  Paul  rendered  to  the  saints  at  Jerusalem. 
 
 Verses  26,  27.  J^or  it  hath  pleased  them  of  Macedonia  and 
 Achaia  to  make  a  contribution  for  the  poor  saints  which  are  at 
 Jerusalem.  To  make  a  contribution,  xoivcouiav  xiva  Ttocr^aaadax, 
 to  bring  about  a  communion,  or  participation.  That  is,  to  cause 
 the  poor  in  Jerusalem  to  partake  of  the  abundance  of  the  breth- 
 ren in  Achaia.     In  this  way  the  ordinary  intransitive  sense  of 
 
 *  The  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  the  Syriac,  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  and  Latin  ver- 
 sions," some  of  the  Greek,  and  most  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  omit  ihitj<n/u!U  Tr^pt 
 v/jtai,  and  'nost  of  these  authorities  omit  yd^  Mill,  Qriesbach,  and  Kuapp, 
 ouiit  both;  Lachmann  retains  yd^. 
 
ROMANS  XV.  28,  29.  697 
 
 the  word  xoivojvia  is  retained.  Compare,  however,  2  Cor.  ix.  13, 
 and  Heb.  xiii.  16,  where  the  transitive  sense  of  the  word  is  com- 
 monly preferred.  Having  mentioned  this  fact,  the  apostle 
 immediately  seizes  the  opportunity  of  showing  the  reasonable- 
 ness and  duty  of  making  these  contributions.  This  he  does  in 
 such  a  way  a.s  not  to  detract  from  the  credit  due  to  the  Grecian 
 churches,  while  he  shows  that  it  was  but  a  matter  of  justice  to 
 act  as  they  had  done.  It  hath  pleased  them  verily;  and  their 
 debtors  they  are;  i.  e.,  'It  pleased  them,  /  say  (^a/>,  redor- 
 diendce  orationi  inservit,)  they  did  it  voluntarily,  yet  it  was  but 
 reasonable  they  should  do  it.'  The  ground  of  this  statement  is 
 immediately  added:  For  if  the  Crentiles  have  been  made  par- 
 takers of  their  spiritual  things^  their  duty  is  also  to  minister  to 
 them  in  carnal  things.  '  If  the  Gentiles  have  received  the 
 greater  good  from  the  Jews,  they  may  well  be  expected  to  con- 
 tribute the  lesser.'  The  word  {hcToupyrjaae)  rendered  to  minis- 
 ter, may  have  the  general  sense  of  serving;  or  it  may  be  used 
 with  some  allusion  to  the  service  being  a  sacred  duty,  a  kind 
 of  oflFering  which  is  acceptable  to  God.  "Nee  dubito,  quin 
 significet  Paulus  sacrificii  speciem  esse,  quum  de  suo  ^rogant 
 fideles  ad  egestatera  fratrum  levandam.  Sic  enim  persolvunt 
 quod  debent  caritatis  oflScium,  ut  Deo  simul  hostiam  grati  odoris 
 offerant :  sed  proprie  hoc  loco  ad  illud  mutuum  jus  compensa 
 tionis  respexit."  Calvin.  This,  however,  is  not  very  probable, 
 as  the  expression  is,  htzoupyijaat  auzo7<;,  to  minister  to  them. 
 The  Xeczoopyia  was  rendered  to  the  brethren,  not  to  God. 
 
 Verse  28.  When  therefore  I  have  done  this,  and  sealed  unto 
 them  this  fruit,  I  will  come  by  you  into  Spain.  The  word  sealed 
 appears  here  to  be  used  figuratively,  '  When  I  have  safely  deli- 
 vered this  fruit  to  them;'  compare  2  Kings  xxii.  4,  "Go  up 
 to  Hilkiah,  the  high  priest,  and  sum  (seal,  aippdycaov,)  the 
 silver,"  &c.  Commentators  compare  the  use  of  the  Latin  words 
 lonsignare^  consignatio,  and  of  the  English  word  consign. 
 
 Verse  29.  And  I  am  sure  that  when  I  come  unto  you,  I 
 shall  come  in  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the  gospel*  of  Christ. 
 
 *  The  words  tou  luajjoi/oii  Tot!  are  omitted  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  F.  G.  67,  in 
 the  Coptic  and  Ethiopic  versions,  and  by  some  of  the  Latin  Fathers.  Mill, 
 Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  and  others,  leave  them  out.  The  sense 
 remains  the  same:  "I  shall  come  in  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  Christ." 
 
698  ROMANS  XV.  30,  31. 
 
 The  fulness  of  the  blessing,  means  the  abundant  blessing.  Paul 
 was  persuaded  that  God,  who  had  so  richly  crowned  his  labours 
 in  other  places,  would  cause  his  visit  to  Rome  to  be  attended  bj 
 those  abundant  blessings  which  the  gospel  of  Christ  is  adapted 
 to  produce.  He  had,  in  chap.  i.  11,  expressed  his  desire  to  visit 
 the  Roman  Christians,  that  he  might  impart  unto  them  some 
 spiritual  gift,  to  the  end  that  they  might  be  established. 
 
 Verse  30.  Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  for  our  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ's  sake,  and  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  that  ye  strive 
 together  with  me  in  your  prayers  to  Grod  for  me.  As  the  apos- 
 tle was  not  immediately  to  see  them,  and  knew  that  he  would, 
 in  the  meantime,  be  exposed  to  many  dangers,  he  earnestly 
 begged  them  to  aid  him  with  their  prayers.  He  enforces  this 
 request  by  the  tenderest  considerations;  for  our  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ's  sake,  i.  e.,  out  of  regard  to  the  Lord  Jesus;  'whatever 
 regard  you  have  for  him,  and  whatever  desire  to  see  his  cause 
 prosper,  in  which  I  am  engaged,  let  it  induce  you  to  pray  for 
 me.'  And  for  the  love  of  the  Spirit,  i.  e.,  'for  that  love  of  which 
 the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author,  and  by  which  he  binds  the  hearts 
 of  Christians  together,  I  beseech  you,'  &c.  He  appeals,  there- 
 fore, not  only  to  their  love  of  Christ,  but  to  their  love  for  him- 
 self as  a  fellow  Christian.  That  ye  strive  together  with  me 
 {auvaywmaaada't  /Jto:,)  i.  e.,  '  that  ye  aid  me  in  my  conflict,  by 
 taking  part  in  it.'     This  they  were  to  do  by  their  prayers. 
 
 Verse  31.  That  J  may  be  delivered  from  them  that  do  not 
 believe  in  Judea.  There  are  three  objects  for  which  he  particu- 
 larly wished  them  to  pray ;  his  safety,  the  successful  issue  of 
 his  mission,  and  that  he  might  come  to  them  with  joy.  How 
 much  reason  Paul  had  to  dread  the  violence  of  the  unbelieving 
 Jews  is  evident  from  the  history  given  of  this  visit  to  Jerusa- 
 lem, in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  They  endeavoured  to  destroy 
 his  life,  accused  him  to  the  Roman  governor,  and  effected  his 
 imprisonment  for  two  years  in  Cesarea,  whence  he  was  sent  in 
 chains  to  Rome.  Nor  were  his  apprehensions  confined  to  the 
 unbelieving  Jews :  he  knew  that  even  the  Christians  there,  from 
 their  narrow-minded  prejudices  against  him  as  a  preacher  to 
 the  Gentiles,  and  as  the  advocate  of  the  liberty  of  Christians 
 from  the  yoke  of  the  Mosaic  law,  were  greatly  embittered 
 against  him.     He,  therefore,  begs  the  Roman  believers  to  praj 
 
ROMANS  XV.  32,  33.  699 
 
 that  the  service  which  (he  had)  for  Jerusalem  might  he  accepted 
 of  the  saints.  The  words  service  which  I  have,  &c.,  (>)  otaxovia 
 fjtoo  -f]  ec^'^[epou(Ta?.^fj.)  means  the  contribution  which  I  carry  to 
 Jerusalem;  see  the  use  of  this  word  {dcay.ouia)  in  2  Cor.  viii.  4, 
 ix.  1,  13.  The  ordinary  sense  of  diaxovia,  service,  however, 
 may  be  retained.  Paul  desired  that  the  work  of  love  on  which 
 he  was  to  go  to  Jerusalem  might  be  favourably  received  by  the 
 Christians  of  that  city.  Paul  laboured  for  those  whom  he 
 knew  regarded  him  with  little  favour ;  he  calls  them  saints, 
 recognises  their  Christian  character,  notwithstanding  their 
 unkindness,  and  urges  his  brethren  to  pray  that  they  might  be 
 willing  to  accept  of  kindness  at  his  hands. 
 
 Verse  32.  That  I  may  come  unto  you  with  joy  hy  the  will 
 of  Grod,  and  that  I  may  with  you  be  refreshed.  These  words 
 may  depend  upon  the  former  part  of  the  preceding  verse,  'Pray 
 that  I  may  come;'  or,  upon  the  latter  part,  'Pray  that  I  may 
 be  delivered  from  the  Jews,  and  my  contributions  be  accepted, 
 so  that  I  may  come  with  joy,  &c.'  By  the  will  of  Crod,  i.  e., 
 by  the  permission  and  favour  of  God.  Instead  of  dzou,  the 
 MS.  B.  has  Kuptou  ^Ir^aou;  D.*  E.  F.  G.  the  Italic  version,  read 
 Xpcozou  '  h^aou;  most  editors,  however,  retain  the  common  text. 
 Paul  seemed  to  look  forward  to  his  interview  with  the  Chris- 
 tians at  Rome,  as  a  season  of  relief  from  conflict  and  labour. 
 In  Jerusalem  he  was  beset  by  unbelieving  Jews,  and  harrassed 
 by  Judaizing  Christians ;  in  most  other  places  he  was  burdened 
 with  the  care  of  the  churches;  but  at  Rome,  which  he  looked 
 upon  as  a  resting-place,  rather  than  a  field  of  labour,  he  hoped 
 to  gather  strength  for  the  prosecution  of  his  apostolic  labours 
 in  still  more  distant  lands. 
 
 Verse  33.  Now  the  peace  of  God  be  with  you  all.  As  he 
 begged  them  to  pray  for  him,  so  he  prays  for  them.  It  is 
 a  prayer  of  one  petition;  so  full  of  meaning,  however,  that 
 no  other  need  be  added.  The  peace  of  God,  that  peace  which 
 God  gives,  includes  all  the  mercies  necessary  for  the  perfect 
 bles.?edness  of  the  soul. 
 
 DOCTRINE. 
 
 1.  The  sacred  Scriptures  are  designed  for  men  in  all  ages  of 
 the  world,  and  are  the  great  source  of  religious  knowledge  and 
 consolation,  ver.  4. 
 
TOO  ROMANS  XV.  1—33. 
 
 2.  The  moral  excellences  which  we  are  justly  required  to 
 attain,  and  the  consolations  which  we  are  commanded  to  seek 
 in  the  use  of  appropriate  means,  are  still  the  gifts  of  God. 
 There  is,  therefore,  no  inconsistency  between  the  doctrines  of 
 free  agency  and  dependence,  vs.  5,  13. 
 
 3.  Those  are  to  be  received  and  treated  as  Christians  whom 
 Christ  himself  has  received.  Men  have  no  right  to  make  terms 
 of  communion  which  Christ  has  not  made,  ver.  7. 
 
 4.  There  is  no  distinction,  under  the  gospel,  between  the  Jew 
 and  Gentile :  Christ  has  received  both  classes  upon  the  same 
 terms  and  to  the  same  privileges,  vs.  8 — 12. 
 
 5.  The  quotation  of  the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament  by 
 the  sacred  writers  of  the  New,  and  the  application  of  them  in 
 proof  of  their  doctrines,  involves  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
 divine  authority  of  the  ancient  prophets.  And  as  these  pre- 
 dictions are  quoted  from  the  volume  which  the  Jews  recognise 
 as  their  Bible,  or  the  word  of  God,  it  is  evident  that  the  apos- 
 tles believed  in  the  inspiration  of  all  the  books  included  in  the 
 sacred  canon  by  the  Jews,  vs.  9 — 12. 
 
 6.  Christian  ministers  are  not  priests,  i.  e.,  they  are  not 
 appointed  to  "offer  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins."  It  is  no  part 
 of  their  work  to  make  atonement  for  the  people ;  this  Christ 
 has  done  by  the  one  offering  up  of  himself,  whereby  he  has  for 
 ever  perfected  them  that  are  sanctified,  ver.  16.  A  priest, 
 according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  one  appointed  for  men  who  have 
 not  liberty  of  access  to  God,  to  draw  nigh  to  him  in  their 
 behalf,  and  to  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sin.  In  this 
 sense  Christ  is  our  only  Priest.  The  priesthood  of  believers 
 consists  in  their  having  (through  Christ)  liberty  of  access  unto 
 God,  and  offering  themselves  and  their  services  as  a  living 
 sacrifice  unto  him.  In  one  aspect,  the  fundamental  error  of 
 the  church  of  Rome  is  the  doctrine  that  Christian  ministers  are 
 priests.  This  assumes  that  sinners  cannot  come  to  God  through 
 Christ,  and  that  it  is  only  through  the  intervention  of  the 
 priests  men  can  be  made  partakers  of  the  benefits  of  redemp- 
 tion. This  is  to  put  the  keys  of  heaven  into  the  hands  of 
 priests.  It  is  to  turn  men  from  Christ  to  those  who  cannot 
 save. 
 
 7.  The  truth  of  the  gospel  has  been  confirmed  by  God,  by 
 
ROMANS  XV.  1—33.  701 
 
 signs  and  wonders,  and  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 Infidelity,  therefore,  is  a  disbelief  of  the  testimony  of  God. 
 When  God  has  given  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  mission  of  his 
 servants,  the  sin  of  unbelief  is  not  relieved  by  the  denial  that 
 the  evidence  is  satisfactory.  If  the  gospel  is  true,  therefore, 
 infidelity  will  be  found  not  merely  to  be  a  mistake,  but  a  crime, 
 ver.  19. 
 
 8.  The  success  of  a  minister  in  winning  souls  to  Christ  may 
 be  fairly  appealed  to  as  evidence  that  he  preaches  the  truth. 
 It  is,  when  clearly  ascertained,  as  decisive  an  evidence  as  the 
 performance  of  a  miracle ;  because  it  is  as  really  the  result  of  a 
 divine  agency.  This,  however,  like  all  other  evidence,  to  be 
 of  any  value,  must  be  carefully  examined  and  faithfully  applied. 
 The  success  may  be  real,  and  the  evidence  decisive,  but  it  may 
 be  applied  improperly.  The  same  man  may  preach  (and  doubt- 
 less every  uninspired  man  does  preach)  both  truth  and  error ; 
 God  may  sanction  and  bless  the  truth,  and  men  may  appeal  to 
 this  blessing  in  support  of  the  error.  This  is  often  done.  Suc- 
 cess therefore  is  of  itself  a  very  diflBcult  test  for  us  to  apply, 
 and  must  ever  be  held  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
 tures. Nothing  can  prove  that  to  be  true  which  the  Bible  pro- 
 nounces to  be  false,  vs.  18,  19. 
 
 9.  Prayer  (and  even  intercessory  prayer)  has  a  real  and 
 important  efiicacy ;  not  merely  in  its  influence  on  the  mind  of 
 him  who  offers  it,  but  also  in  securing  the  blessings  for  which 
 we  pray.  Paul  directed  the  Roman  Christians  to  pray  for  the 
 exercise  of  the  divine  providence  in  protecting  him  from  danger, 
 and  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  influence  the  minds  of  the  brethren 
 in  Jerusalem.  This  he  would  not  have  done,  were  such  peti- 
 tions of  no  avail,  vs.  30,  31. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  The  duty  of  a  disinterested  and  kind  regard  to  others,  in 
 the  exercise  of  our  Christian  liberty,  is  one  of  the  leading  topics 
 of  this,  as  it  is  of  the  preceding  chapter,  vs.  1 — 13. 
 
 2.  The  desire  to  please  others  should  be  wisely  directed,  and 
 spring  from  right  motives.  We  should  not  please  them  to  their 
 own  injury,  nor  from  the  wish  to  secure  their  favour  j  but  for 
 their  good,  that  they  may  be  edified,  ver.  2. 
 
702  ROMANS  XV.  1—33. 
 
 3.  The  character  and  conduct  of  Jesus  Christ  are  at  once  the 
 most  perfect  model  of  excellence  and  the  most  persuasive  motive 
 to  obedience.  The  dignity  of  his  person,  the  greatness  of  his 
 condescension,  the  severity  of  his  sufferings,  the  fervour  of  his 
 love  towards  ns,  all  combine  to  render  his  example  effective  in 
 humbling  us,  in  view  of  our  own  short-comings,  and  in  exciting 
 us  to  walk  even  as  he  walked,  vs.  4 — 13, 
 
 4.  We  should  constantly  resort  to  the  Scriptures  for  instruc- 
 tion and  consolation.  They  were  written  for  this  purpose;  and 
 We  have  no  right  to  expect  these  blessings  unless  we  use  the 
 means  appointed  for  their  attainment.  As  God,  however,  by 
 the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  works  all  good  in  us,  we  should 
 rely  neither  on  the  excellence  of  the  means,  nor  the  vigour  and 
 diligence  of  our  own  exertions,  but  on  his  blessing,  which  is  to 
 be  sought  by  prayer,  vs.  4,  5,  13. 
 
 5.  The  dissensions  of  Christians  are  dishonourable  to  God. 
 They  must  be  of  one  mind,  i.  e.,  sincerely  and  affectionately 
 united,  if  they  would  glorify  their  Father  in  heaven,  vs.  5 — 7. 
 
 6.  A  monitor  or  instructor  should  be  full  of  goodness  and 
 knowledge.  The  human  heart  resists  censoriousness,  pride,  and 
 ill  feeling,  in  an  admonisher ;  and  is  thrown  into  such  a  state, 
 by  the  exhibition  of  these  evil  dispositions,  that  the  truth  is 
 little  likely  to  do  it  any  good.  As  oil  poured  on  water  smooths 
 its  surface,  and  renders  it  transparent,  so  does  kindness  calm 
 the  minds  of  men,  and  prepare  them  for  the  ready  entrance 
 of  the  truth.  Besides  these  qualifications,  he  who  admonishes 
 others  should  be  entitled  thus  to  act.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
 this  title  should  rest  on  his  official  station ;  but  there  should 
 be  superiority  of  some  kind — of  age,  excellence,  or  know- 
 ledge— to  give  his  admonitions  due  effect.  Paul's  peculiar 
 modesty,  humility,  and  mildness,  siould  serve  as  an  example 
 to  us,  vs.  14,  15. 
 
 7.  We  should  be  careful  not  to  build  improperly  on  another 
 man's  foundation.  Pastors  and  teachers  must  of  course  preach 
 Christ  where  he  had  before  been  known ;  but  they  should  not 
 appropriate  to  themselves  the  results  of  the  labours  of  others, 
 or  boast  of  things  which  Christ  has  not  wrought  by  them.  The 
 man  who  reaps  the  harvest,  is  not  always  he  who  sowed  the 
 seed.     One  plants,  and  another  waters,  but  God   giveth  the 
 
ROMANS  XVI.  1.  703 
 
 increase.    So  then  neither  is  he  that  planteth  any  thing,  neither 
 he  that  watereth,  but  God  that  giveth  the  increase,  vs.  19,  20. 
 
 8.  It  is  the  duty  of  those  who  have  the  means,  to  contribute 
 to  the  necessities  of  others,  and  especially  to  the  wants  of  those 
 from  whom  they  themselves  have  received  good,  vs.  26,  27. 
 
 9.  The  fact  that  men  are  prejudiced  against  us,  is  no  reason 
 why  we  should  not  do  them  good.  The  Jewish  Christians  were 
 ready  to  denounce  Paul,  and  to  cast  out  his  name  as  evil ;  yet 
 he  collected  contributions  for  them,  and  was  very  solicitous  that 
 they  should  accept  of  his  services,  ver.  31. 
 
 10.  Danger  is  neither  to  be  courted  nor  fled  from;  but 
 encountered  with  humble  trust  in  God,  ver.  31. 
 
 11.  We  should  pray  for  others  in  such  a  way  as  really  to 
 enter  into  their  trials  and  conflicts;  and  believe  that  our 
 prayers,  when  sincere,  are  a  real  and  great  assistance  to  them. 
 It  is  a  great  blessing  to  have  an  interest  in  the  prayers  of  th© 
 righteous. 
 
 CHAPTER    XVI. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 In  this  concluding  chapter,  Paul  first  commends  to  the  church 
 at  Rome  the  deaconess  Phebe,  vs.  1,  2.  He  then  sends  his 
 salutations  to  many  members  of  the  church,  and  other  Chris- 
 tians who  were  then  at  Rome,  vs.  3 — 16.  He  earnestly  exhorts 
 his  brethren  to  avoid  those  who  cause  contentions ;  and  after 
 commending  their  obedience,  he  prays  for  God's  blessing  upon 
 them,  vs.  17 — 21.  Salutations  from  the  apostle's  companions, 
 vs.  22 — 24.     The  concluding  doxology,  vs.  25 — 27. 
 
 ROMANS  XVI.  1—27. 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Verse  1.  I  commend  unto  you  Phehe  our  sister^  which  is  a 
 
 servant  of  the   church   which   is   at    Oenchrea.     JPhebe,  from 
 
 Phoebus,  (Apollo  )     The  early  Christians  retained  their  names, 
 
 although   they  were   derived  from  the  names   of  false  gods, 
 
704  ROMANS  XVI.  2. 
 
 because  they  had  lost  all  religious  significance  and  reference, 
 In  like  manner  we  retain  the  use  of  the  names  of  the  days  of 
 the  week,  without  ever  thinking  of  their  derivation.  Corinth, 
 being  situated  on  a  narrow  isthmus,  had  two  ports,  one  towards 
 Europe,  and  the  other  towards  Asia.  The  latter  was  called 
 Cenchrea,  where  a  church  had  been  organized,  of  which  Phebe 
 was  a  servant  {pcdxovo(;,)  i.  e.,  deaconess.  It  appears  that  in  the 
 apostolic  church,  elderly  females  were  selected  to  attend  upon 
 the  poor  and  sick  of  their  own  sex.  Many  ecclesiastical  writers 
 suppose  there  were  two  classes  of  these  female  oiBcers ;  the  one 
 {Tzpta^'jTcds<:,  corresponding  in  some  measure  in  their  duties  to 
 the  elders,)  having  the  oversight  of  the  conduct  of  the  younger 
 female  Christians ;  and  the  other,  whose  duty  was  to  attend  to 
 the  sick  and  the  poor.  See  Suicer's  Thesaurus,  under  the 
 word  oidxovoi;;  Bingham's  Ecclesiastical  Antiquities,  11,  12; 
 Augusti's  Denkwiirdigkeiten  der  christl.  Archaologie. 
 
 Verse  2.  That  ye  receive  her  in  the  Lord.  The  words  in 
 the  Lord,  may  be  connected  either  with  receive,  '  receive  her  in 
 a  religious  manner,  and  from  religious  motives;'  or  with  the 
 pronoun,  her  in  the  Lord,  her  as  a  Christian.  The  apostla 
 presents  two  considerations  to  enforce  this  exhortation;  first, 
 regard  for  their  Christian  character;  and,  secondly,  the  service 
 which  Phebe  had  rendered  to  others.  As  becometh  saints;  this 
 expression  at  once  describes  the  manner  in  which  they  ought  to 
 receive  her,  and  suggests  the  motive  for  so  doing.  The  words 
 d^icDZ  zwv  dpcDu  may  mean,  '  as  it  becomes  Christians  to  receive 
 their  brethren,'  or,  '  sicut  sanctos  excipi  oportet,  as  saints  ought 
 to  be  received.'  In  the  former  case,  dytcov  (saints)  are  those 
 who  received,  and  in  the  latter,  those  who  are  received.  And 
 that  ye  assist  her  in  whatsoever  business  she  hath  need  of  you. 
 They  were  not  only  to  receive  her  with  courtesy  and  affection, 
 but  to  aid  her  in  any  way  in  which  she  required  their  assistance. 
 The  words  {iv  <^  dv  TtpdyfiaTc)  in  whatsoever  business,  are  to  be 
 taken  very  generally,  in  whatever  matter,  or  in  whatever 
 respect.  For  she  hath  been  a  succourer  of  many,  and  of 
 myself  also.  The  word  [7Tpoazdu(:)  succourer,  means  a  pat- 
 roness, a  benefactor;  it  is  a  highly  honorable  title.  As  she  had 
 80  frequently  aided  others,  it  was  but  reasonable  that  she 
 should  be  assisted. 
 
ROMANS  XVI.  3—5.  V05 
 
 Verse  3.  Salute  Prisdlld*  and  Aquila,  my  helpers  in  Christ 
 Jesus,  i.  e.,  my  fellow  labourers  in  the  promotion  of  the  gospel. 
 Priscilla  is  the  diminutive  form  of  Prisca ;  compare  Livia  and 
 Livilla,  Drusa  and  Drusilla,  Quinta  and  Quintilla,  Secunda  and 
 Secundilla.  G-rotius.  Aquila  and  Priscilla  are  mentioned  in 
 Acts  xviii.  2,  as  having  left  Rome  in  consequence  of  the  edict 
 of  Claudius.  After  remaining  at  Ephesus  a  long  time,  it 
 seems  that  they  had  returned  to  Rome,  and  were  there  when 
 Paul  wrote  this  letter;  Acts  xviii.  18,  26,  1  Cor.  xvi.  19, 
 2  Tim.  iv.  19. 
 
 Verse  4.  Who  have  for  my  life  laid  down  their  own  neeksj 
 i.  e.,  they  exposed  themselves  to  imminent  peril  to  save  me. 
 On  what  occasion  this  was  done,  is  not  recorded.  U7ito  ivhom 
 not  only  J  give  thanks^  hut  also  all  the  churches  of  the  Gentiles. 
 Their  courageous  and  disinterested  conduct  must  have  been 
 generally  known,  and  called  forth  the  grateful  acknowledg- 
 ments of  all  the  churches  interested  in  the  preservation  of  a  life 
 80  precious  as  that  of  the  apostle. 
 
 Verse  5.  The  church  that  is  in  their  house.  These  words 
 {xal  ZTjv  xaz  olxou  ahxoiv  IxxXr^aiav)  are  understood,  by  many  of 
 the  Greek  and  modern  commentators,  to  mean  their  Christian 
 family;  so  Calvin,  Flatt,  Koppe,  Tholuck,  &c.  The  most 
 common  and  natural  interpretation  is,  '  the  church  which  is 
 accustomed  to  assemble  in  their  house;'  see  1  Cor.  xvi.  19, 
 where  this  same  expression  occurs  in  reference  to  Aquila  and 
 Priscilla.  It  is  probable  that,  from  his  occupation  as  tent- 
 maker,  he  had  better  accommodations  for  the  meetings  of  the 
 church  than  most  other  Christians. 
 
 Salute  my  well  beloved  JEpenetus,  who  is  the  firstfruits  of 
 Achaia'f  unto  Christ.  This  passage  is  not  irreconcileable  with 
 1  Cor.  xvi.  15,  "Ye  know  the  household  of  Stephanas,  that  it 
 is  the  first-fruits  of  Achaia;"  for  Epenetus  may  have  belonged 
 
 ♦  Instead  of  ngjVjuA?utv,  DgiViwr  is  read  in  the  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.,  and 
 in  many  codd.  minusc;  and  this  reading  is  adopted  in  the  editions  of  Bengel, 
 Mill,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  Lachmann. 
 
 t  A«*{  is  read  in  MSS.  A.  C.  D.  E.  F.  G.  6,  67;  and  in  the  Coptic,  Ethiopia, 
 and  Latin  versions.  Mill,  Bengel,  Griesbach,  Knapp,  and  Lachmann,  adopi 
 that  reading. 
 
 45 
 
706  ROMANS  XVI.  6,  7. 
 
 to  this  family.  So  many  of  the  oldest  MSS.  and  versions,  how- 
 ever, read  Asia,  instead  of  Achaia,  in  this  verse,  that  the  great 
 majority  of  editors  have  adopted  that  reading.  This,  of  course, 
 removes  even  the  appearance  of  contradiction. 
 
 Verses  6,  7.  Greet  Mary,  who  bestowed  much  labour  upon 
 us.  Salute  Andronicus  and  Junta,  my  kinsmen  and  my  fellow- 
 prisoners.  Instead  of  sfc  'J//«C,  some  of  the  older  MSS.  read 
 e^V  ^/^«s,  and  others  ev  u/mu.  The  common  text  is,  however, 
 retained  in  the  latest  editions,  and  is  better  suited  to  the  con- 
 text, as  the  assiduous  service  of  Mary,  rendered  to  the  apostle, 
 is  a  more  natural  reason  of  his  salutation,  than  that  she  had 
 been  serviceable  to  the  Roman  Christians.  It  is  very  doubtful 
 whether  Junia  be  the  name  of  a  man  or  of  a  woman,  as  the 
 form  in  which  it  occurs  i^Iouviav)  admits  of  either  explanation. 
 If  a  man's  name,  it  is  Junias ;  if  a  woman's,  it  is  Junia.  It  is 
 commonly  taken  as  a  female  name,  and  the  person  intended  is 
 supposed  to  have  been  the  wife  or  sister  of  Andronicus.  My 
 kinsmen,  i.  e.,  relatives,  and  not  merely  of  the  same  nation;  at 
 least  there  seems  no  sufficient  reason  for  taking  the  word  in 
 this  latter  general  sense.  Fellow-prisoners.  Paul,  in  2  Cor. 
 xi.  23,  when  enumerating  his  labours,  says,  "In  stripes  above 
 measure,  in  prisons  more  frequent,  in  deaths  oft,"  &c.  He  was, 
 often  in  bonds,  (Clemens  Romanus,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Cor- 
 inthians, sect.  5,  says  seven  times,)  he  may,  therefore,  have 
 had  numerous  fellow-prisoners.  Who  are  of  note  among  the 
 apostles;  i.ma-/]fiot  iu  tocc  dnoaroXoK;.  This  may  mean  either 
 they  were  distinguished  apostles,  or  they  were  highly  respected 
 by  the  apostles.  The  latter  is  most  probably  the  correct  inter- 
 pretation ;  because  the  word  apostle,  unless  connected  with  some 
 other  word,  as  in  the  phrase,  "messengers  (apostles)  of  the 
 churches,"  is  very  rarely,  if  ever,  applied  in  the  New  Testament 
 to  any  other  than  the  original  messengers  of  Jesus  Christ.  It 
 is  never  used  in  Paul's  writings,  except  in  its  strict  official 
 sense.  The  word  has  a  fixed  meaning,  from  which  we  should 
 not  depart  without  special  reason.  Besides,  the  article  (iv  ro7c 
 dnoazoXoc^,)  among  the  apostles,  seems  to  point  out  the  definite 
 well-known  class  of  persons  almost  exclusively  so  called.  The 
 passage  is  so  understood  by  Koppe  {magma  eorum  fama  est 
 apud   apostolos,)  Flatt,  Bloomfield,  Meyer,  Philippi,  and   the 
 
ROMANS  XVI.  8—15.  707 
 
 tfiajority  of  commentators.     Who  also  were  in  Christ  hfifore  m,e^ 
 \.  e.,  who  were  Christians  before  rae. 
 
 Verses  8 — 15.  My  beloved  in  the  Lord.  The  preposition  in 
 (iy,)  here,  as  frequently  elsewhere,  points  out  the  relation  or 
 respect  in  which  the  word  to  which  it  refers  is  to  be  under- 
 stood ;  brother  beloved,  both  in  the  fiesh  and  in  the  Lord  (Phile- 
 mon, ver.  16,)  both  in  reference  to  our  external  relations,  and 
 our  relation  to  the  Lord.  And  thus  in  the  following,  ver.  9,  our 
 helper  in  Christ,  i.  e.,  as  it  regards  Christ;  ver.  10,  approved 
 in  Christ,  i.  e.,  in  his  relation  to  Christ;  an  approved  or  tried 
 Christian ;  ver.  12,  who  labour  in  the  Lord;  and,  which  laboured 
 much  in  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  who,  as  it  regards  the  Lord,  laboured 
 much;  it  was  a  Christian  or  religious  service.  The  names, 
 Tryphena,  Tryphosa,  and  Persis,  are  all  feminine.  The  last  is 
 commonly  supposed  to  indicate  the  native  country  of  the  person 
 who  bore  it,  as  it  was  not  unusual  to  name  persons  from  the 
 place  of  their  origin,  as  Mysa,  Syria,  Lydia,  Andria,  &c.:  such 
 names,  however,  soon  became  common,  and  were  given  without 
 any  reference  to  the  birth-place  of  those  who  received  them. 
 Chosen  in  the  Lord,  i.  e.,  not  one  chosen  by  the  Lord;  chosen, 
 (i.  e.,  approved,  precious;  see  1  Peter  ii.  4,)  in  his  relation  to 
 the  Lord,  as  a  Christian.  It  is  not  merely  elect  in  Christ,  that 
 is,  chosen  to  eternal  life,  for  this  could  be  said  of  every  Chris- 
 tian ;  but  Rufus  is  here  designated  as  a  chosen  man,  as  a  dis- 
 tinguished Christian.  It  is  worth  noticing,  that  at  Rome,  as  at 
 Corinth,  few  of  the  great  or  learned  seem  to  have  been  called. 
 These  salutations  are  all  addressed  to  men  not  distinguished 
 for  their  rank  or  official  dignity.  Mylius,  as  quoted  by  Calov, 
 says:  "Notanda  hie  fivlelium  istorum  conditio:  nemo  hie  nomi- 
 natur  consul,  nemo  quaestor  aut  dictator  insignitur,  minime 
 omnium  episcopatuum  et  cardinalatuum  dignitate  hie  perso- 
 nant:  sed  operarum,  laborum,  captivitate  titulis  plerique 
 notantur.  Ita  verum  etiam  in  Romana  ecclesia  fuit  olim, 
 quod  apostolus  scribit,  non  multi  potentes,  non  multi  nobiles, 
 sed  stulta  mundi  electa  sunt  a  Deo.  Papatus  autem  Caesarei, 
 qualis  adjuvante  diabolo,  in  perniciem  religionis,  posteris 
 saeculis  Romse  involuit,  ne  umbra  quidem  apostolorum  aetate 
 istic  fuit:  tantum  abest,  ut  ille  originem  ab  apostolis  ipsis 
 traxerit." 
 
708  ROMANS  XVI.  16,  17. 
 
 Verse  16.  Salute  one  another  with  a  holy  Jciss.  Reference 
 to  this  custom  is  made  also  in  1  Cor.  xvi,  20,  1  Thess.  v.  26, 
 1  Peter  v.  14.  It  is  supposed  to  have  been  of  oriental  origin, 
 and  continued  for  a  long  time  in  the  earl j  churches;*  after 
 prayer,  and  especially  before  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
 Supper,  the  brethren  saluting  in  this  way  the  brethren,  and  the 
 sisters  the  sisters.  This  salutation  was  expressive  of  mutual 
 affection  and  equality  before  God. 
 
 Verse  17.  Now  I  beseech  t/ou,  brethren,  mark  them  which 
 cause  divisions  and  offences  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye 
 have  learned,  and  avoid  them.  While  he  urges  them  to  the 
 kind  reception  of  all  faithful  ministers  and  Christians,  he 
 enjoins  upon  them  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  those  who  cause 
 divisions  and  offences.  There  were  probably  two  evils  in  the 
 apostle's  mind  when  he  wrote  this  passage ;  the  divisions  occa- 
 sioned by  erroneous  doctrines,  and  the  offences  or  scandals 
 occasioned  by  the  evil  conduct  of  the  false  teachers.  Almost 
 all  the  forms  of  error  which  distracted  the  early  church,  were 
 intimately  connected  with  practical  evils  of  a  moral  character. 
 This  was  the  case  to  a  certain  extent  with  the  Judaizers ;  who 
 not  only  disturbed  the  church  by  insisting  on  the  observance 
 of  the  Mosaic  law,  but  also  pressed  some  of  their  doctrines  to 
 an  immoral  extreme;  see  1  Cor.  v.  1 — 5.  It  was  still  more 
 obviously  the  case  with  those  errorists,  infected  with  a  false 
 philosophy,  who  are  described  in  Col.  ii.  10 — 23,  1  Tim. 
 iv.  1 — 8.  These  evils  were  equally  opposed  to  the  doctrines 
 taught  by  the  apostle.  Those  who  caused  these  dissensions, 
 Paul  commands  Christians,  first,  to  mark  (axoTieiv,)  i.  e.,  to 
 notice  carefully,  and  not  allow  them  to  pursue  their  corrupting 
 
 *  Justin  Apol.  II.,  dx\i\oui;  <pix^/u!tTi  irTrct^cfjL^x  Trava-dfjinoi  nrm  rJ^Zji;  'After 
 prayers  we  salute  one  another  with  a  kiss.'  Tertullian  de  Oratione:  "Quae 
 oratio  cum  divortio  sancti  osculi  integra?  Quern  omnino  officium  facientem 
 impedit  pax?  Quale  sacrificium  sine  pace  receditur?"  By  peace,  is  here 
 intended  the  kiss  of  peace,  for  he  had  before  said,  "Cum  fratribue  subtrahant 
 osculum  pacis,  quod  est  signaculum  orationis."  In  the  Apostolic  Constitu- 
 tions, it  is  said  (L.  2,  c.  57,)  *'  Then  let  the  men  apart,  and  the  women  apart, 
 salute  each  other  with  a  kiss  in  the  Lord."  Origen  says,  on  this  verse, 
 '*  From  this  passage  the  custom  was  delivered  to  the  churches,  that  after 
 prayera  the  brethren  should  salute  one  another  with  a  kiss." — See  Grotins 
 and  Whitby. 
 
ROMANS  XVI.  18,  19.  709 
 
 course  nnheeded;  and,  secondly,  to  avoidj  i.  e.,  to  break  oflf 
 connection  with  them. 
 
 Verse  18.  For  they  that  are  such  serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus 
 CJirist,  but  their  own  belli/;  and  by  good  words  and  fair  speeches 
 deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple.  These  men  are  to  be  avoided, 
 because  they  are  wicked  and  injurious.  The  description  here 
 given  is  applicable,  in  a  great  degree,  to  errorists  in  all  ages. 
 They  are  not  actuated  by  zeal  for  the  Lord  Jesus;  they  are 
 selfish,  if  not  sensual ;  and  they  are  plausible  and  deceitful. 
 Compare  Phil.  iii.  18,  19,  2  Tim.  iii.  5,  6.  The  words 
 {yp-qaxoXoyla  and  thXoy'ia.,  blandiloquentia  et  assentatio)  rendered 
 good  words  and  fair  speeches^  do  not  in  this  connection  materi- 
 ally differ.  They  express  that  plausible  and  flattering  address 
 by  which  false  teachers  are  wont  to  secure  an  influence  over  the 
 simple.  The  word  {dLxaxoc,)  simple,  signifies  not  merely  inno- 
 centj  but  unwary,  he  who  is  liable  to  deception.  (Prov.  xiv. 
 15,  dxaxo!^  Tciaxs.uti  Tiavrl  Xbyw,  the  simple  believes  every  thing.) 
 
 Verse  19.  For  your  obedience  is  come  abroad  unto  all  men, 
 &c.  This  clause  admits  of  two  interpretations ;  the  word  obe^ 
 dience  may  express  either  their  obedience  to  the  gospel,  their 
 faith,  (see  chap.  i.  8,)  or  their  obedient  disposition,  their  readi- 
 ness to  follow  the  instructions  of  their  religious  teachers.  If 
 the  former  meaning  be  adopted,  the  sense  of  the  passage  is 
 this,  'Ye  ought  to  be  on  your  guard  against  these  false 
 teachers,  for  since  your  character  is  so  high,  your  faith  being 
 every  where  spoken  of,  it  would  be  a  great  disgrace  and  evil  to 
 be  led  astray  by  them.'  If  the  latter  meaning  be  taken,  the 
 sense  is,  '  It  is  the  more  necessary  that  you  should  be  on  your 
 guard  against  these  false  teachers,  because  your  ready  obedience 
 to  your  divine  teachers  is  so  great  and  generally  known.  This, 
 in  itself,  is  commendable,  but  I  would  that  you  joined  prudence 
 with  your  docility.'  This  latter  view  is,  on  account  of  the 
 concluding  part  of  the  verse,  most  probably  the  correct  one; 
 gee  2  Cor.  x.  6,  Phil.  v.  21. 
 
 /  am  glad,  therefore,  on  your  behalf',  but  yet  I  would  have 
 you  wise  unto  that  which  is  good,  and  simple  concerning  eml. 
 That  is,  '  Simplicity  (an  unsuspecting  docility)  is  indeed  good ; 
 but  I  would  have  you  not  only  simple,  but  prudent.     You  must 
 
710  ROMANS  XVI.  20—24. 
 
 not  only  avoid  doing  evil,  but  be  careful  tbat  you  do  not  suffer 
 evil.  Grotius'  explanation  is  peculiarly  happy,  ita  pmdentes 
 ut  non  fallamini;  ita  honi  ut  non  fallatis;  '  too  good  to  deceive, 
 too  wise  to  be  deceived.'  The  word  (dxspcuo^  fi'om  a  et  xepday) 
 simple,  naeang  unmixed,  pure,  and  then  harmless.  '  Wise  as  to 
 (eci;)  good,  but  simple  as  to  evil;'  or,  'wise  so  that  good  may 
 result,  and  simple  so  that  evil  may  not  be  done.'  This 
 latter  is  probably  the  meaning.  Paul  would  have  them  so 
 wise  as  to  know  how  to  take  care  of  themselves;  and  yet 
 harmless. 
 
 Verse  20.  And  the  God  of  peace  shall  bruise  Satan  under 
 your  feet  shortly.  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  he  with 
 you.  Amen.  As  the  evils  produced  by  the  false  teachers  were 
 divisions  and  scandals,  the  apostle,  in  giving  them  the  assurance 
 of  the  effectual  aid  of  God,  calls  him  the  Grod  of  peace,  i.  e., 
 God  who  is  the  author  of  peace  in  the  comprehensive  scriptural 
 sense  of  that  term.  Shall  bruise  is  not  a  prayer,  but  a  consola- 
 tory declaration  that  Satan  should  be  trodden  under  foot.  As 
 Satan  is  constantly  represented  as  "  working  in  the  children  of 
 disobedience,"  the  evil  done  by  them  is  sometimes  referred  to 
 him  as  the  instigator,  and  sometimes  to  the  immediate  agents 
 who  are  his  willing  instruments.  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ  he  with  you.  This  is  a  prayer  for  the  favour  and  aid  of 
 Christ,  and  of  course  is  an  act  of  worship,  and  a  recognition  of 
 the  Saviour's  divinity. 
 
 Verse  21 — 24.  These  verses  contain  the  salutations  of  the 
 apostle's  companions  to  the  Roman  Christians,  and  a  repetition 
 of  the  prayer  just  mentioned.  /  Tertius,  who  wrote  this  epistle, 
 salute  you  in  the  Lord.  Tertius  was  Paul's  amanuensis.  The 
 apostle  seldom  wrote  his  epistles  with  his  own  hand;  hence  he 
 refers  to  the  fact  of  having  himself  written  the  letter  to  the 
 Galatians  as  something  unusual ;  Gal.  vi.  11,  "  Ye  see  how  large 
 a  letter  I  have  written  unto  you  with  my  own  hand."  In  order 
 to  authenticate  his  epistles,  he  generally  wrote  himself  the  salu- 
 tation or  benediction  at  the  close;  1  Cor.  xvi.  21,  "The  salu- 
 tation of  me  Paul,  with  mine  own  hand;"  2  Thess.  iii.  17,  "The 
 salutation  of  Paul  with  mine  own  hand ;  which  is  the  token  in 
 every  epistle:  so  I  write."     Graius  mine  host,  and  of  the  whole 
 
ROMANS  XVI.  25—27:  711 
 
 church,  i.  e.,  Gaius,  who  not  only  entertains  me,  but  Christiana 
 generally ;  or,  in  whose  house  the  congregation  is  accustomed 
 to  assemble.  Erastus  the  chamberlain  of  the  city,  {ohouofioc;) 
 the  treasurer  of  the  city,  the  quaestor. 
 
 Verses  25,  27.  These  verses  contain  the  concluding  dox- 
 ology.  N'ow  to  him  that  is  of  power  to  establish  you  accordiyig 
 to  my  gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the 
 revelation  of  the  mystery,  &c.  As  the  apostle  interweaves  with 
 his  doxology  a  description  and  eulogium  of  the  gospel,  he  ren- 
 ders the  sentence  so  long  and  complicated  that  the  regular 
 grammatical  construction  is  broken.  There  is  nothing  to  govern 
 the  words  [zw  oovafikw)  to  him  that  is  of  power.  The  words 
 be  glory  for  ever,  (which  are  repeated  at  the  end  in  connection 
 with  (p)  are,  therefore,  most  probably  to  be  supplied.  To  him 
 that  is  able  to  establish  you,  i.  e.,  to  render  you  firm  and  con- 
 Btant,  to  keep  you  from  falling.  According  to  my  gospel.  The 
 word  {xavd)  according  to,  may  be  variously  explained.  It  may 
 be  rendered,  'establish  you  in  my  gospel;'  but  this  the  proper 
 meaning  of  the  words  will  hardly  allow ;  or,  agreeably  to  my 
 gospel,  in  such  a  manner  as  the  gospel  requires ;  or,  through, 
 i.  e.,  by  means  of  my  gospel.  The  second  interpretation  is 
 perhaps  the  best.  And  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  This 
 may  mean  either  'Christ's  preaching,'  or,  'the  preaching  con- 
 cerning Christ;'  either  interpretation  gives  a  good  sense,  the 
 gospel  being  both  a  proclamation  by  Christ,  and  concerning 
 Christ.  The  apostle  dwells  upon  this  idea,  and  is  led  into  a 
 description  and  commendation  of  the  gospel.  According  to  the 
 revelation  of  the  mystery.  These  words  may  be  considered  as 
 co-ordinate  with  the  preceding  clause ;  the  sense  then  is,  '  Who 
 is  able  to  establish  you  agreeably  to  (or  through)  my  gospel, 
 agreeably  to  (through)  the  revelation  of  the  mystery,  &c.'  It 
 is,  however,  more  common  to  consider  this  clause  as  subordinate 
 and  descriptive.  '  The  gospel  is  a  revelation  of  the  mystery 
 which  had  been  hid  for  ages.'  The  word  mystery,  according  to 
 the  common  scriptural  sense  of  the  term,  does  not  mean  some- 
 thing obscure  or  incomprehensible,  but  simply  something  pre- 
 viously unknown  and  undiscoverable  by  human  reason,  and 
 which,  if  known  at  all,  must  be  known  by  a  revelation  from 
 
712  ROMANS  XVI.  26. 
 
 God.  In  this  sense  the  gospel  is  called  a  mystery,  or  "the 
 wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery,  that  is,  a  hidden  wisdom,"  which 
 the  wise  of  this  world  could  not  discover,  but  which  God  hag 
 revealed  by  his  Spirit,  1  Cor.  ii.  7 — 10,  iv.  1,  Eph.  vi.  19,  Col. 
 i,  25 — 27,  ii.  2,  &c.  In  the  same  sense  any  particular  doctrine, 
 as  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  Eph.  iii.  4 — 6 ;  the  restoration 
 of  the  Jews,  Rom.  xi.  25 ;  the  change  of  the  bodies  of  living 
 believers  at  the  last  day,  1  Cor.  xv.  51 ;  is  called  a  mystery, 
 because  a  matter  of  divine  revelation.  According  to  this 
 passage,  Paul  speaks  of  the  gospel  as  something  "  which  had 
 been  kept  secret  since  the  world  began;"  [^povoii;  aitovioK;^) 
 i.  e.,  hidden  from  eternity  in  the  divine  mind.  It  is  not  a 
 system  of  human  philosophy,  or  the  result  of  human  investiga- 
 tion, but  it  is  a  revelation  of  the  purpose  of  God.  Paul  often 
 presents  the  idea  that  the  plan  of  redemption  was  formed  from 
 eternity,  and  is  such  as  no  eye  could  discover,  and  no  heart 
 conceive,  1  Cor.  ii.  7 — 9,  Col.  i.  26. 
 
 Verse  26.  But  is  now  made  manifest,  and  by  the  Scrip- 
 tures of  the  prophets;  that  is,  '  this  gospel  or  mystery,  hidden 
 from  eternity,  is  now  revealed;  not  now  for  the  first  time 
 indeed,  since  there  are  so  many  intimations  of  it  in  the  prophe- 
 cies of  the  Old  Testament.'  It  is  evident  that  the  apostle  adds 
 the  words  and  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets,  to  avoid 
 having  it  supposed  that  he  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  plan  of 
 redemption  was  taught  in  the  Old  Testament;  compare  chap. 
 i.  2,  iii.  21.  According  to  the  command  of  the  everlasting  Crod, 
 that  is,  this  gospel  is  now  made  manifest  by  command  of  God. 
 Paul  probably  uses  the  expression,  everlasting  [aiiovioo)  God, 
 because  he  had  just  before  said  that  the  gospel  was  hid  from 
 eternity.  *  It  is  now  revealed  by  that  eternal  Being  in  whose 
 mind  the  wonderful  plan  was  formed,  and  by  whom  alone  it 
 could  be  revealed.'  Made  known  to  all  nations  for  the  obedience 
 of  the  faith.  *  Made  known  among  (s/c,  see  Mark  xiii.  10, 
 Luke  xxiv.  47)  all  nations.'  For  the  obedience  of  faith,  i.  e., 
 that  they  should  become  obedient  to  the  faith ;  see  chap.  i.  5. 
 This  gospel,  so  long  concealed,  or  but  partially  revealed  in  the 
 ancient  prophets,  is  now,  by  the  command  of  God,  to  be  made 
 known  among  all  nations. 
 
ROMANS  XVI.  27.  713 
 
 Verse  27.  To  the  only  wise  God  he  glory  through  Jesua 
 Christ  for  ever^  Amen.  There  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  original 
 which  is  not  retained  in  our  version.  '  To  the  only  wise  God, 
 through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever.'  The  con- 
 struction adopted  by  our  translators  is  perhaps  the  one  most 
 generally  approved.  *  To  him  that  is  able  to  establish  you,  to 
 the  only  wise  God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  be  glory.'  In  this 
 case  the  relative  w,  to  whom,  in  verse  27,  is  pleonastic.  Others 
 explain  the  passage  thus,  '  To  the  only  wise  God,  made  known 
 through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  (i.  e.,  Christ)  be  glory  for  ever.' 
 The  simplest  construction  is,  '  To  the  only  wise  God,  through 
 Jesus  Christ,  to  him,  I  say,  be  glory  for  ever.'  As  Paul  often 
 calls  the  gospel  the  "wisdom  of  God,"  in  contrast  with  the 
 wisdom  of  men,  he  here,  when  speaking  of  the  plan  of  redemp- 
 tion as  the  product  of  the  divine  mind,  and  intended  for  all 
 nations,  addresses  his  praises  to  its  author  as  the  only  wise 
 God,  as  that  Being  whose  wisdom  is  so  wonderfully  displayed 
 in  the  gospel  and  in  all  his  other  works,  that  he  alone  can  be 
 considered  truly  wise. 
 
 REMARKS. 
 
 1.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  receive  kindly  their 
 brethren,  and  to  aid  them  in  every  way  within  their  power,  and 
 to  do  this  from  religious  motives  and  in  a  religious  manner,  as 
 becometh  saints,  vs.  1,  2. 
 
 2.  The  social  relations  in  which  Christians  stand  to  each 
 other  as  relatives,  countrymen,  friends,  should  not  be  allowed 
 to  give  character  to  their  feelings  and  conduct  to  the  exclusion 
 of  the  more  important  relation  which  they  bear  to  Christ.  It 
 is  as  friends,  helpers,  fellow-labourers  in  the  Lord,  that  they 
 are  to  be  recognised ;  they  are  to  be  received  in  the  Lord ; 
 our  common  connection  with  Christ  is  ever  to  be  borne  in 
 mind,  and  made  to  modify  all  our  feelings  and  conduct, 
 vs.  3—12. 
 
 3.  From  the  beginning  females  have  taken  an  active  and 
 important  part  in  the  promotion  of  the  gospel.'  They  seem, 
 more  than  others,  to  have  contributed  to  Christ  of  their  sub- 
 stance.    They  were  his  most  faithful  attendants,  "  last  at  the 
 
714  ROMANS  XVI.  1—27. 
 
 cross,  and  first  at  the  sepulchre."  Phebe  was  a  servant  of 
 the  chuvch,  a  succourer  of  Paul,  and  of  many  others;  Try- 
 phena,  Tryphosa,  and  Persis,  laboured  much  in  the  Lord,  vs.  1, 
 2,  3,  6,  12. 
 
 4.  It  does  not  follow,  because  a  custom  prevailed  in  the  early 
 churches,  and  received  the  sanction  of  the  apostles,  that  we  are 
 obliged  to  follow  it.  These  customs  often  arose  out  of  local 
 circumstances  and  previous  habits,  or  were  merely  conventional 
 modes  of  expressing  certain  feelings,  and  were  never  intended 
 to  be  made  universally  obligatory.  As  it  was  common  in  the 
 East,  (and  is  so,  to  a  great  extent,  at  present,  not  only  there, 
 but  on  the  continent  of  Europe,)  to  express  affection  and  con- 
 fidence by  'the  kiss  of  peace,'  Paul  exhorts  the  Roman  Chris- 
 tians to  salute  one  another  with  a  holy  kiss;  i.  e.,  to  manifest 
 their  Christian  love  to  each  other,  according  to  the  mode  to 
 which  they  were  accustomed.  The  exercise  and  manifesta- 
 tion of  the  feeling,  but  not  the  mode  of  its  expression,  are 
 obligatory  on  us.  This  is  but  one  example ;  there  are  many 
 other  things  connected  with  the  manner  of  conducting  public 
 worship,  and  with  the  administration  of  baptism  and  the 
 Lord's  Supper,  common  in  the  apostolic  churches,  which  have 
 gone  out  of  use.  Christianity  is  a  living  principle,  and  was 
 never  intended  to  be  confined  to  one  unvarying  set  of  forms, 
 ver.  16. 
 
 5.  It  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  be  constantly  watchful  over 
 the  peace  and  purity  of  the  church,  and  not  to  allow  those  who 
 cause  divisions  and  scandals,  by  departing  from  the  true  doc- 
 trines, to  pursue  their  course  unnoticed.  With  all  such  we 
 should  break  off  every  connection  which  either  sanctions  their 
 opinions  and  conduct,  or  gives  them  facilities  for  effecting 
 evil,  ver.  17. 
 
 6.  False  teachers  have  ever  abounded  in  the  church.  All 
 the  apostles  were  called  upon  earnestly  to  oppose  them.  "Wit- 
 ness the  epistles  of  Paul,  John,  Peter,  and  James.  No  one  of 
 the  apostolical  epistles  is  silent  on  this  subject.  Good  men 
 may  indeed  hold  erroneous  doctrines ;  but  the  false  teachers, 
 the  promoters  of  heresy  and  divisions,  as  a  class,  are  character- 
 ized by  Paul  as  not  influenced  by  a  desire  to  serve  Christ,  but 
 
ROMANS  XVI.  1—27.  715 
 
 as  selfish  in  their  aims,  and  plausible,  flattering,  and  deceitful 
 in  their  conduct,  ver.  18. 
 
 7.  Christians  should  unite  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove  with 
 the  wisdom  of  the  serpent.  They  should  be  careful  neither  to 
 cause  divisions  or  scandals  themselves,  nor  allow  others  to 
 deceive  and  beguile  them  into  evil,  ver.  19. 
 
 8.  However  much  the  church  may  be  distracted  and  troubled, 
 error  and  its  advocates  cannot  finally  prevail.  Satan  is  a  con- 
 quered enemy  with  a  lengthened  chain;  God  will  ultimately 
 bruise  him  under  the  feet  of  his  people,  ver.  20. 
 
 9.  The  stability  which  the  church  and  every  Christian  should 
 maintain,  is  a  steadfastness,  not  in  forms  or  matters  of  human 
 autliority,  but  in  the  gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 God  alone  is  able  thus  to  make  his  people  stand;  and,  there- 
 fore, we  should  look  to  him,  and  depend  upon  him  for  our  own 
 preservation  and  the  preservation  of  the  church ;  and  ascribe  to 
 him,  and  not  to  ourselves,  all  glory  and  thanks,  vs.  25,  27. 
 
 10.  The  gospel  is  a  mystery,  i.  e.,  a  system  of  truth  beyond 
 the  power  of  the  human  mind  to  discover,  which  God  has 
 revealed  for  our  faith  and  obedience.  It  was  formed  from  eter- 
 nity in  the  divine  mind,  revealed  by  the  prophets  and  apostles, 
 and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  is,  by  the  command  of 
 God,  to  be  made  known  to  all  nations,  vs.  25,  26. 
 
 11.  God  alone  is  wise.  He  charges  his  angels  with  folly; 
 and  the  wisdom  of  men  is  foolishness  with  him.  To  God,  there- 
 fore, the  profoundest  reverence  and  the  most  implicit  submis- 
 sion are  due.  Men  should  not  presume  to  call  in  question  what 
 he  has  revealed,  or  consider  themselves  competent  to  sit  in 
 judgment  on  the  truth  of  his  declarations  or  the  wisdom  of 
 his  plans.  To  God  only  wise,  be  glory,  through  Jesus 
 Christ,  for  ever.  Amen. 
 
 The  subscriptions  to  this  and  the  other  epistles  were  not  added  by  the 
 sacred  writers,  but  appended  by  some  later  and  unknown  persons.  This  ia 
 evident,  1.  Because  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  apostles  would  thus  for- 
 mally state  (as  in  this  case)  what  those  to  whom  their  letters  were  addressed 
 must  have  already  known.  The  Romans  had  no  need  to  be  informed  that  this 
 epistle  was  sent  by  Phebe,  if  she  actually  delivered  it  to  them.     2.  They  ar9 
 
 ; 
 
716  ROMANS. 
 
 frequently  incorrect,  and  at  timea  contradict  the  statements  made  in  the  epis- 
 tles to  which  they  are  appended.  Thus  the  subscription  to  the  first  Epistle  to 
 the  Corinthians,  states  that  it  was  written  from  Philippi,  whereas  Paul,  chap, 
 xvi.  8,  speaks  of  himself  as  being  in  Ephesus  when  he  was  writing.  8.  They 
 are  either  left  out  entirely  by  the  oldest  and  best  manuscripts  and  versions,  or 
 appear  in  very  diflFerent  forms.  In  the  present  case  many  MSS.  have  no  sub- 
 scription at  all ;  others  simply,  "To  the  Romans;"  others,  "To  the  Romans, 
 written  from  Corinth;"  others,  "Written  to  the  Romans  from  Corinth,  by 
 Phebe,"  &c.  These  subscriptions,  therefore,  are  of  no  other  authority  than 
 as  evidence  of  the  opinion  which  prevailed  to  a  certain  extent,  at  an  early 
 date,  as  to  the  origin  of  the  epistles  to  which  they  are  attached.  Unlesa  oon- 
 firmed  from  other  sources,  they  cannot  be  relied  upon. 
 
 The  End. 
 
DATE  DUE 
 
 GAYLORD