SiBJbi^ 
 
 **', 
 
 <J 
 
 C:>-^^ 
 
 
 
 Wv« y»3 J^ 
 
 ■ili:TiESHH-a 
 
jb'" ir 
 
 -V >- 4r ,^ >f 
 
 ^r -♦ 
 
 /7 
 
 t *t IHearonf^i ^^^— 
 
 5/5^^.. 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 '""S 
 
 Section . rA s-/ I ^.X 
 Number .\/.%...^' 
 
 -*■ -^ ^ 
 
 ^ ^ A 
 
 < -V 
 
 A' >r Jf 
 
 

 ^ .^ ^ -^ 
 
 .w <r -« 
 
 »r ^ 
 
 r >< M -.< ^ 
 Jf ^ ^ H(^ jf x- 
 
 .»# *f ^ •?" 
 
 J£* ir' ■♦ 
 
 ^ Sit jt _Jt >■ 
 
 V j«r *■ ^- ^ ,jr 
 
 -< < ,« -^ jf 
 
 ^ ^- If >ir 
 
 ^ -V < JK- 
 
 *- jT 
 
 V *r 
 
 J* «r -*" 
 
 
 •f ^ >r 
 
 jr V >- V- iT j«r 
 
COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 BY 
 
 ALBERT N. ARNOLD, D. D., 
 
 AND 
 
 REV. D. B. FORD. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
 
 1420 Chestnut Street. 
 
Entered, aceording to Act of Congress, in the year 1889, by the 
 
 AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
 
 in the Office or the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 AViiEN Dr. Arnold's manuscript exposition of Romans — which by reason of ill health 
 he eould not amplify to the extent desired — was placed in my hands by the general editor, 
 with the request that I would duplicate its pages, I undertook the task with very great 
 hesitancy, j'et with this encouraging thought that, however unimjmrtant might be my 
 contributions, I could not, with the excellent work of my now lamented friend included, 
 make a really poor commentary. In endeavoring to fill out and complete a work so well 
 elaborated, I have not been specially ambitious to display original authorship, but have 
 frequently quoted from some of the ablest commentators and other writers, and I trust 
 that not a few of my readers will unite with me in thanking the Giver of every good gift 
 ^that other men, ii their studies and writings, have labored on this the profoundest treat- 
 ise of inspiration, and that we have entered into their labor. The additions, whether 
 original or selected, which I have made to Dr. Arnold's commentary, are either enclosed 
 in square brackets in the body of the text, or else are inserted as foot notes, with the 
 initials of my name attached. And now, having furnished my moiety of the work, I can 
 only commend our united labor to the God of all power and grace, that he may make it the 
 means of promoting his truth and glory, of establishing believers in the faith of the 
 gospel, and even of winning some to embrace "the righteousness of God which is 
 through faith of Jesus Christ. ' ' 
 
 DAVID B. FORD. 
 
 Hanover, Mass. 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE 
 APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 I. ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH AT ROME. 
 
 We have no certain means of knowing at what precise time Christianity first gained a 
 footing at Rome. It would seem, however, to have been many years before the date of 
 the apostle's letter to the disciples there. They were then a numerous body (1 : 7), too 
 numerous, apparently, to assemble conveniently or safely in one place, and therefore dis- 
 tributed into several companies. (16 : 5, 14, 15.) Some of them had long been disciples of 
 Christ (16: 3, 4 compared with Acts 18 : 2 ; 16: 5, 6, 7, 12), their faith was already 
 spoken of throughout the whole world (1 : 8 ; 16 : 19), and Paul had for many years 
 been intending to visit them. (1 : \',i ; 15 : 23.) All these indications point to a numerous 
 church, of no recent origin. [Thus a Christian church viay have been planted there 
 before it was at Pliilippi.] 
 
 "We read of visitors or sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, at Jerusalem 
 on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2: 10.) It is very probable that some among these were 
 converted at that time, and soon after returned to Rome, and thus became the nucleus 
 around which was afterward gathered the church to which Paul wrote. [As Fritzsche 
 says : "They left Rome as Jews and returned as Christians. "] 
 
 Had any one of the apostles been the founder of the church in Rome, we should proba- 
 bly have had, in the Book of Acts or in the Epistle itself, some intimation of this fact. 
 The later tradition, which attributes to Peter the planting of the Christian faith in this 
 metropolis of the world, is not only unsupported by any historical evidence, but is bur- 
 dened with very serious difficulties. Jerome says ("De viris illustribus. " Ch. I.) that 
 Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A. D. 42, to confute Simon Magus, 
 and that he was bishop there for twenty-five years. But we know that he was imprisoned 
 in Jerusalem by Herod Agrippa in the fourth year of Claudius ; that he was there at the 
 Council (Acts 15 : 7, seq. ), in the tenth year of Claudius— at which time, probably, the 
 agreeu)ent mentioned in Gal. 2 : 9 was made among the apostles, that Peter, James, and 
 John should devote their labors chiefly to the Jews, and Paul and Barnabas to the Gen- 
 tiles ; — that he was at Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, between the years A. D. 50 and 
 A. D. 55 (Gal. 2 : 11-13); that he wrote his First Epistle from Babylon (1 Peter 5 : 13) ; 
 probably A. D. 63 or 64, possibly seven or eight years earlier. It is not likely that there 
 would have been no mention of Peter in the salutations in Rom. 16, if he had been at 
 that time in Rome ; nor that he would have been passed over in silence if he had been 
 there with Paul when the latter wrote his five epistles from that city (Ephesians, Philip- 
 pians, Colossians. Philemon, 2 Timothy). Thus it appears that Peter is mentioned in 
 the New Testament on four different occasions between the years A. D. 42 and A. D. 67, 
 each time as being far from Rome; and that no mention is made of him on six different 
 occasions within the same period when he would naturally have been mentioned by Paul 
 if he had been in Rome. In fact, there is scarcely any period of half a dozen years, 
 during all these twenty-five, when he could have resided continuously at Rome, 
 
 7 
 
8 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 consistently with the historical notices of him in the New Testament. [Paul's invariable 
 rule "not to build upon another man's foundation" nor to "glory in another's province 
 in regard to things made ready to his hand," is alone sufficient to prove that Peter was 
 not the founder of the church in Rome — a fact which many Roman Catholic writers freely 
 acknowledge. Meyer remarks that "our Epistle — since Peter cannot have been there 
 before it was written — is a fact destructive of the historical basis of the Papacy in so far as 
 this is made to rest on the founding of the Roman Church and the exercise of its episco- 
 pate by that apostle." This, of course, does not disprove the possibility that Peter may 
 in after years have come to Rome and labored there in the gospel (without, however, found- 
 ing any particular church), and that he there finally suffered martyrdom. Bishop Lightfoot 
 even conjectures that both apostles may at some time have been together in Rome, that 
 they exchanged once more the hands of fellowship, that they gathered, or preached to, two 
 separate, though not necessarily antagonistic communities (traces of whose origin he finds 
 in Phil. 1 : 15-18 ; Col. 4 : 11), and that this basis of fact " possibly underlies the tradi- 
 tion that St. Peter and St. Paul were joint founders of the Roman Church, and may 
 explain the discrepancies in the lists of the early bishops." (See his " St. Paul and the 
 Three," p. 337, in his "Commentary on Galatians.") But it is marvelous that this 
 separation, if it ever existed, was so soon composed, for Bishop Lightfoot concedes that 
 "at the close of the first century we see no more traces of a twofold church," all the 
 Christian communities being united under the presiding eldership of Clement, and that 
 we never hear of it afterward. On the contrary, Ignatius of Autioch and Dionysius of 
 Corintli, both of whom wrote letters to Rome, and Hegesippus, who visited Rome, all of 
 whom lived in the second century, assert or imply in their writings the unity and ortho- 
 doxy of the Roman Christians. To the frequent boast of Papists that they belong to 
 that church which was the first and which will be last, we may simply reply that the Jeru- 
 salem Church was the first church of Christ on earth. If priority of age is anything, we 
 should prefer to be a Jerusalem Catholic rather than a Roman Catholic. We are aware 
 that some adherents of this church now disclaim the term "Roman." But if Rome with 
 its hierarchy were sunk by some earthquake's shock, as it yet may be, the high and 
 special claim of this church would at once be rendered null and void.] 
 
 Neither is it probable that the church at Rome owed its origin to any other apostle. 
 There is no intimation of this kind in the New Testament ; and we know that Paul made 
 it his rule not to build on another man's foundation. (Rom. 15 : 20 ; compare 2 Cor. 10 : 
 14-16.) He speaks of the Romans as belonging to his field of labor (1 : 13-15). and 
 from the salutations in chap. 16, it appears that, although he had not yet visited them, 
 many of them had been intimately connected with him. (16: 3-9, 11, 13.) While, 
 therefore, there is every probability that the church at Rome was not founded by the 
 direct labors of any apostle, it seems to have been more closely connected in its early 
 history with the labors of Paul than with those of any of the rest. [We may therefore 
 say of Paul, that he was, directly or indirectly, the founder of all the historic churches of 
 Asia Minor and of Europe.] 
 
 II. COMPOSITION OF THE CHURCH IN ROME. 
 
 The view generally held is, that the Centile element predominated in the early Roman 
 Church. It is plain that there was a very considerable Jewish element. (2 : 17-29 ; 3 : 1-4, 
 9-21 ; 4 : 1 ; 7 : 1-4 ; and chapters 9-11). There was a large population of Jews in Rome. 
 Pompey brought many captives thither from Judea ; and these had greatly multiplied in 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 9 
 
 the course of a century. Josephus speaks of eight thousand as attaching themselves to 
 an embassy which appealed t^ Augustus. ("Antiq.," xvii. 11, 1.) This emperor assigned 
 to them for their residence a district bcj'ond the Tiber. About the time when Paul wrote 
 his epistle, Seneca complains that many Romans had embraced the Jewish religion (he 
 uses the expression "victi victoribus leges dederunt — the conquered have given laws to 
 the conquerors." — Augustine, " De Civitate Dei," Lib. vi., ch. 11), and Juvenal scoflFs 
 at Judaizing Romans (Sat. xiv., v. 96-104). Still, the Jews formed but a comparatively 
 insignificant portion of the population of the great capital of the world ;^ and it seems 
 most probable that a church which had existed so long, and become so widely known, 
 must have been mostly made up of Gentile converts. The tenor of the Epistle confirms 
 this. It is as the apostle of the Gentiles that Paul writes them. (1 : 5, 6, 13 ; 9 : 3, 4; 
 10 : 1 ; 11 : 13, 14, 22, 23, 25, 30, 31 ; 15 : 15, 16.) [" From the description of mo^t of the 
 persons named in chap. 16, from the express approval given to the doctrine in which the 
 Romans had been instructed, (6 : 17 ; 16 : 17), and even from the fact of the composition 
 of the letter itself, inasmuch as not one of the now extant letters of the apostle is directed 
 to a non-PmiUne church, we may with certainty infer that Pauline Christianity was pre- 
 ponderant in Rome ; and from this it is a further necessary inference that a very import- 
 ant part of the Roman Church consisted of Gentile Christians." (Meyer.) These Gen- 
 tile believers, however, may have been Jewish proselytes before they became Christians, 
 and so the church of Rome may have been " primarily, at least, one of the churches of the 
 circumcision." (Plumptre.) Similar is the view of Jowett, who describes the Roman 
 Church as of "Gentile origin and Jewish character." And this view is not inconsistent 
 with the generally Pauline character of their doctrine, since a majority of them may have 
 come from Greece and Asia Minor, and may have been some of Paul's earliest converts in 
 tho.se countries.] 
 
 It seems most likely, on the whole, that the Gentile element formed the majority : 
 but these Gentile believers were probably in large part of Greek, rather than of Roman 
 origin. The names mentioned in the salutations are largely Greek. The earliest Latin 
 versions of the New Testament were made for use in the provinces rather than at Rome ; 
 the names of the early bishops are more generally Greek than Latin ; and the earliest 
 literature of the Roman Church was in Greek. (Justin Martyr, Clement, Caius, Hip- 
 polytus, etc.). 
 
 III. AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The proof that the Apostle Paul wrote this Epistle is such as to satisfy every unpre- 
 judiced inquirer. It bcsars his name. It has been received as his without question from 
 the earliest times. Its language and style agree with those of his other undoubted 
 epistles. It presents many striking coincidences, as to matters of fact, with other parts 
 of the New Testament. Compare 15 : 25-31 with Acts 20 : 2, 3 ; 24 : 17 ; 1 Cor. 16 : 1, 
 4 ; 2 Cor. 8 : 1-4 ; 9 : 2. Also, 16 : 21-23 with Acts 20 : 4 ; and 16 : 3, seq. with Acts 
 18: 2, 18-26; 1 Cor. 16: 19, seq. 
 
 In fine, it is no exaggeration to say, that there is no ancient writing of which the 
 authorship is more certain than that of this Epistle. Even Baur questions the last two 
 
 1 Gibbon, in chapter .xxxi., says: " We may fairly estimate the iubabitants of Rome at twelve hundred thou- 
 sand." Conybeare and Ilovvson and Canon Farrar put theirs at "more than two millions." According to Dr. 
 SohafT, the .lews in Rome itself " numbered from twenty to thirty thousand souls, had seven synagogues and 
 three cemeteries." — (F.) 
 
10 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 chapters only. [For resemblances between this Epistle and other epistles of Paul, espe- 
 cially that to the Galatians, see Lightfoot's "Commentary on the Galatians," pp. 44-48 ; 
 and for " Undesigned Coincidences," see Paley's " Horse Paulinae," chapter II.] 
 
 IV. THE PLACE FROM WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS SENT. 
 
 Three names in the salutations very distinctly point to Corinth as the place where this 
 Epistle was written. 
 
 1. We learn from 16 : 23 that the apostle was the guest of Gaius when he wrote it ; 
 and this Gaius was one of the converts baptized by Paul at Corinth. (1 Cor. 1: 14.) 
 Identity of persons is not, indeed, certainly inferred from identity of names, especially 
 when the name is a very common one. But in connection with other known circum- 
 stances, the identity of the persons is in this case a very safe inference. What more 
 natural, than that the apostle should be entertained by one of the very few Corinthians 
 whom he had baptized with his own hands. 
 
 2. Phebe, who is commended to the Roman disciples (16 : 1), and who seems to have 
 been the bearer of the Epistle, was a member, very probably a deaconess, of the church 
 at Cenchrea, the Eastern port of Corinth. 
 
 3. Erastus, designated as the chamberlain, or treasurer, of the city (16 : 23), is men- 
 tioned in 2 Tim. 4 : 20, in connection with Corinth. See also Acts 19 : 21, 22. 
 
 We may consider it settled, therefore, that the Epistle to the Romans was written 
 from Corinth. (The confirmation furnished by the subscription is of little account, as the 
 subscriptions were added at a later date, and some of them are unquestionably false. ) 
 
 V. DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Paul's first missionary tour was confined to Asia Minor. (Acts 13: 4, 14.) On his 
 second tour (Acts 15 : 36 ; 18 : 21), he visited Corinth, and remained there at least a year 
 and a half. (Acts 18 : 11-15.) At this time he became acquainted with Aquila and 
 Priscilla, and labored with them in their common handiwork, as well as in the work of the 
 gospel. (Acts 18 : 2, 3.) But the Epistle to the Romans could not have been written at 
 this time ; for, when it was written, Aquila and Priscilla were in Rome. (16 : 3-5). No 
 subsequent visit of Paul to Corinth is expressly mentioned in Acts ; but he intimates, in. 
 2 Cor. 13: 1, that he had already visited them twice; and we know that on his third 
 missionary tour (Acts 18 : 23 ; 21 : 8), he spent three months in Greece. (20 : 2, 3). He 
 would not be likely to omit visiting that city of Greece, which was, in a Christian point 
 of view, the most important of all. At this time, Sopater, Gaius, Timothy, and proba- 
 bly Erastus, were with him, (Acts 20 : 4, seq. ; 19 : 21, 22.) Now all these were with him 
 when he wrote to the Romans. (16 : 21, 23.) Paul's plans at this time, as described in 
 the Acts and in the Epistles to the Corinthians, agree exactly with those indicated in this 
 Epistle. He was about to go to Jerusalem (Acts 20 : 22), to carry thither the contribu- 
 tions which had been gathered by the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia for the relief 
 of their brethren in Judea (Acts 24: 17; 1 Cor. 16: 2-4; 2 Cor. 8 : 6-11), intending, 
 after he had done this, to visit Rome. (Acts 19 : 21.) All these circumstances agree 
 with what he writes to the Romans in 15 : 23-28.^ It is quite certain, therefore, that this 
 
 1 The fact that no mention is luado of this charitable collection in the Epistle to the Galatians, while it is 
 mentioned in other letters of this group (1,2, Corinthians, Romans) is urged by Bishop Wordsworth in proof 
 that the Epistles to the Corinthians were written subsequently to that to the Galatians, especially as itsniention, 
 had it been then undertaken, would have been exceedingly appropriate to the design of this Epistle, and could 
 hardly have failed to find place in it.— (F.) 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 11 
 
 Epistle was written during the time which Paul spent in Corinth, while engaged in his 
 third missionary journey. 
 
 It remains to fix, as nearly as we can, the date of that visit. We will take, as the 
 surest and most convenient starting point, A. D. 52, the date of the decree of Claudius, 
 banishing the Jews from Rome. See Hackett on Acts, notes on 18 : 2. Aquila and 
 Pi'iscilla had already reached Corinth after that decree, and Paul dwelt there with them 
 at least a year and a half. He could hardly have left Corinth before the spring of A. D. 
 54. Embarking from Cenchrea, he sailed for Sj-ria (Acts 18 : 18), by way of Epliesus, 
 Cesarea, and Jerusalem. At Ephcsus he made but a short stay, spending probably one 
 Sabbath with his countrymen there (Acts 18 : 9), and leaving Acjuila and Priscilla ti)ere. 
 Proceeding thence to Cesarea, and landing there, he went up to Jerusalem, and saluted 
 the church, and probably spent the Passover with them (Acts 18: 21, 22) ; after which 
 he went down to Antioch, and "spent some time there " (Acts 18 : 23) before he set out 
 on his third missionary tour. 
 
 It must have been as late as the autumn of A. D. 54, perhaps the spring of A. D. 55, 
 when he started on this journey. He went through Galatia and Phrygia to Ephesus (Acts 
 18 : 23 ; 19: 1-4), where he spent about two and a half years. (Acts 19: 8, three 
 months ; ver. 10, two years ; ver. 21, 22, a season. All these periods seem to be distinct 
 and successive.) He could not have left Ephesus earlier than the spring of A. D. 57. 
 He spent the ensuing summer in Macedonia and Achaia (x\cts 20 : 1-6), and probably at 
 this time proceeded as far west as Illyricum (15 : 19) — for it is hardly possible to find any 
 earlier place for that journey — before he came into Greece. (Acts 20 : 3.) His abode 
 there of three months (Acts 20 : 3) could hardly have begun much before the close of 
 A. D. 57, and would consequently end in the early part of A. D. 58. When he left 
 Corinth, the winter was past, for he purposed at first to go by sea (Acts 20 : 3) ; yet the 
 spring could not have been far advanced, for he hoped to be at Jerusalem at the Feast of 
 Penteco.st in May. (Acts 20 : 16.) ' 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans was therefore probably written in the early part of A. D. 58. 
 
 According to the chronology of Conybeare and Howson, Paul was taken from Cesarea 
 to be carried as a prisoner to Rome, in August, A. D. 60. (Vol. II., p. 543 Scribner's 
 ed.)* He had been a prisoner at Cesarea for two years. (Acts 24 : 27.) Allowing five or 
 six months for the previous journey from Corinth to Jerusalem, and the occurrences at 
 the latter place before he was removed to Cesarea (Acts 20 : 3 ; 23 : 35), we have a very 
 satisfactory corroboration of our previous calculation. Two years and five months, 
 reckoned backward from August, A. D. 60, would bring us to March A. D. 58. 
 
 VI. OCCASION OF WRITING THE EPISTLE. 
 
 [The Epi.stle to the Romans was not written, like those to the Corinthians and the 
 Galatians, to correct local abuses and errors; but for the most part it is enc.vclical, or 
 catholic, in its nature, and would be well adapted to the needs of any church existing in the 
 apostle's time. For in the churches of that age there were, to a greater or less degree, 
 Judaizing tendencies on the one hand, and Hellenizing or paganizing tendencies on the 
 
 1 Paul would then arrive at Rome in the spring of a. d. 61, the seventh j-ear of Nero's reign, and the twenty- 
 fourth of his life. The great tire at Rome, and the consequent persecution of Christians occurred a. d. 64, and 
 hence were probably subsequent to Paul's release from imprisonment. It is now commonly supposed that after 
 a brief second imprisonment he was beheaded on the Ostian Way, in the year 66 or 67. Nero committed 
 suicide a. d 68.— (F.) 
 
12 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 other ; and we cannot suppose the Roman Church formed an exception in this respect. 
 (14: 12; 16 : 17.) During the third missionary tour of the apostle, he wrote the first 
 four epistles of the New Testament, that to the Romans being the last written. A short 
 time before indicting this letter, he had, with much anguish of heart, written to the 
 paganizing Corinthians, and to the Judaizing Galatians. As some of them doubted or 
 denied that he was an apostle, he felt obliged in these letters to assert and prove his 
 divine call to the apostleship ; but his principal endeavor was to win back his erring 
 brethren from their disorders and immoralities, and from their vain trusting in the ritual 
 ceremonies of Judaism, those "weak and beggarly rudiments," to seek salvation in which 
 was, to him, hke seeking the living among the dead. And now, in a calmer frame of 
 mind, he sits down to write out for the benefit of his brethren in the world's capital whom 
 he intended speedily to visit, and from whom he would fain secure a favorable reception 
 for himself, and for the gospel which he preached, the substance of that which had so 
 recently and so intensely occupied his mind, to wit : "The position of the Christian in 
 reference to the Law, and of the relations of Judaism to Heathenism, and of both to 
 Christianity." (Farrar.) He had preached the gospel of grace in the principal cities of 
 the East, and he would naturally wish to do the same in the imperial city, of whose 
 church he may have heard much from the lips of Aquila and Priscilla, ^ among whose 
 members he had many personal friends, and in whose welfare he felt the deepest interest. 
 But he knew the dangers which would attend his journey to Jerusalem, as well as the 
 common uncertainties of life, and thus he who had oftentimes been hindered hitherto 
 (1 : 13 ; 15 : 22) might again be prevented from orally communicating the gospel to his 
 Roman brethren. "Besides," as Godet remarks, "should he arrive at Rome safe and 
 sound, he had too much tact to think of putting the members of such a church, as it were, 
 on the catechumen's bench. In these circumstances how natural the idea of filling up, by 
 means of writing, the blank which Providence had permitted, and of giving, in an 
 epistolary treatise addressed to the church, the Christian instruction which it had missed, 
 and which was indispensable to the solidity of its faith." At this time also, as Paul was 
 about to depart for the East to carry the offerings of Grentiles to the poor saints in Jeru- 
 salem, Phebe, a deaconess in the neighboring church of Cenchrea, was, as is commonly 
 supposed, about to sail in an opposite direction for the Empire's capital city, which Paul 
 said he "must see." (Acts 19: 21.) And this her journey Romeward furnished, of 
 course, a convenient opportunity of sending the letter. In this way, apparently, 
 originated "The Epistle of Paul to the Romans," which is characterized by Dr. Schaflf 
 as " the epistle of the epistles," by Dr. Meyer, as " the grandest and ricliest in contents 
 of all the apostle's letters," ^ and by Coleridge, as "the most profound work in existence."] 
 
 VII. LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN. 
 
 [It might be supposed that Paul, when writing to the Romans, would, if he were 
 able, use the Latin tongue, since the letter was not only addressed to Roman residents, 
 
 iDe Wette and Meyer wrsas Hemsen, Hug, Olshausen, Neander, Wieseler, Farrar, and Pluiuptre, hold that 
 these were Paul's converts at Corinth, and were not members of the Roman Church. It will be recollected that 
 Paul abode with these two disciples at Corinth for the space of at least one year and six months. — (F.) 
 
 2 The last literary work of Dr. Meyer (died June 2Ist. 1873) was the preface (written March, IS?."?) to the 
 English edition of his "Commentary on Romans." And it is an interestinp; circumstance that the words 
 inscribed on his tombstone are taken from this Epistle: 14: 8 : " Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and 
 whether we die, we die unto the Lord ; whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's." — (F.) 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 13 
 
 but was written by an amanuensis who bore a Latin name.' But it must be remembered 
 that the Greek hxnguagc had at this time become well-nigh universal. "It was," says 
 Gribbon, "almost impossible, in any province, to find a Human subject of a liberal educa- 
 tion who was at once a stranger to the Greek and to the Latin language." As vouchers 
 for this general ac(iuaintance with Greek on the part of the Romans, Tholuck, in Chapter 
 3, of his "Introduction," cites Tacitus, Ovid, Martial, Juvenal, and Suetonius. It is, 
 moreover, a singular circumstance, yet "nothing is more certain than that the Church of 
 Rome was at this time a Greek, and not a Latin Church." See Smith's "Bible Dic- 
 tionary," p. 2746, also IF. of this Introduction. "The literary language at Rome," says 
 Godet, "was Greek. This is established by the numerous Greek inscriptions in the 
 Catacombs, by the use of the Greek language in the letter of Ignatius to the Church of 
 Rome, in the writings of Justin Martyr composed at Rome, and in those of Irenaeus 
 composed in Gaul," as also in those of Ilippolytus, Bishop of Ostia, the seaport of Rome. 
 "The early bishops and divines of Rome were Greeks by descent or education, or both. 
 Pope Cornelius addressed the churches in the Hellenic language in the middle of the third 
 century. The Apostle's Creed, even in the Roman form, was originally composed in 
 Greek. The Roman Liturgy (ascribed to Clement of Rome) was Greek. The inscrip- 
 tions in the oldest catacombs, and tlie eintai)hs of the popes down to the middle of the 
 third century, are Greek." (Schaff. ) We may add that most of the manuscrii)ts di.scov- 
 ered in the ruins of Herculaneum appear to have been written in Greek. Milman, in his 
 "Latin Christianity," saj's : "The Church of Rome, and most, if not all, the churches 
 of the West were, if we may so speak, Greek religious colonies." Tarsus also, where 
 Paul was born, was of Greek origin, and was celebrated for its Greek schools and learning. 
 The geographer Strabo (born about 60 b. c.) says that in its zeal for learning and phil- 
 osophy it excelled even Athens and Alexandria. Paul "doubtless spoke Greek from 
 childhood" (Tholuck), and we do not suppose that he utterly discarded Greek study in 
 Jerusalem. His liberal-minded teacher, " Rabban Gamliel," favored Greek study, and, 
 according to the Talmud, knew Greek literature better than any other doctor of the law. 
 "A thousand students were in the academy of my grandsire," said a descendant of 
 Gamahel, "five hundred of whom studied the Greek" ; and the Talmud maintains that 
 Paul "had alwaj's a Grecian poem on his lips." Indeed, Dr. Isaac M. Wise, President 
 of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati (from whose writings we have made these last 
 extracts) says, in his "History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth," p. 307, that 
 "in the academy at Jerusalem he (Paul) was noted as paying more attention to Greek 
 poetry and infidel books than to his studies" ! From Acts 21 : 37 we are assured that 
 
 iThat Paul must have had considerable acquaintance with the Latin language, if not at the time this Epistle 
 TPas written, at least some years afterward, is most certain. The Latin dialect would, of course, naturally 
 extend itself wherever the Roman tiovernment was established, and this had at that time become almost 
 nniver.sal. This language was stamped on the national coins; it was used in trade, in public edicts, in legal 
 [)roceedings. I'aul always was a subject of the Roman Government, was born in a Roman "free city," and 
 passed his life in Roman colonies and provinces. In every country of his residence he could have seen Roman 
 soldieis, centurions, chiliarchs, or military tribunes (Acts 21 : 31), pra'tors and lictors (Acts 16 : 20, H.5), procon- 
 suls and procurators, or " governors." (Acts 13 : 7 ; 23: 24.) Latin was used to some extent in Palestine and in 
 Jerusalem. It was one of the three languages which were inscribed, not only on the inner separating wall of 
 the Court of the Gentiles, forbidding any foreigner to go within the sanctuary on pain of death (.Josephus' 
 "Antiquities," xv., xi., 5 ; " Wars," vi., ii., 4), but also on the Saviour's cross. The word Christian, though first 
 expressed in Greek letters, was yet put in a Latinized form. And when we further consider that Paul, as is 
 commonly believed, was chained to a Roman soldier during liis two yeirs' imprisonment in Cesarea and 
 his two years' impri.sonment at Rome, to say nothing of his long-protracted sea voyage, we must conclude that 
 the apostle in his last years was familiarly acquainted with Latin. — (F.) 
 
14 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 Paul could speak Greek. He certainly quoted several times from the Greek poets (Acts 
 17 : 28 : 1 Cor. 15 : 33; Titus 1 : 12), and with some of them — as when he refers his 
 Athenian audience to certain ("ves) of their own poets (to wit, Aratus and Cleanthes) — he 
 seems to have had more than a hearsay acquaintance. We have spoken of Greek as a 
 current language among the ancients.^ The Old Testament Apocrypha was written 
 mainly in Greek (only Ecclesiasticus and 1 Maccabees were originally written in modern 
 Hebrew), and the Old Testament was translated, not into Aramaic, or modern Hebrew, 
 but into Greek, and it was this version of the Seventy which the New Testament writers 
 mainly used. Noticeable also is the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews and James' 
 Epistle to the Jews of the "Dispersion" were written, not in Aramaic, but in Greek. 
 The Greek dialect, too, seems to have been almost as commou in Palestine as the 
 vernacular Aramaic. Indeed, Dr. Roberts, author of the "Companion to the Revised 
 Version," endeavors to show in his "Discussions on the Gospels" that Christ and the 
 apostles spoke mostly in Greek, and only occasionally in Aramaic. Of course, he would 
 decide that all the Gospels and other New Testament Scriptures were originally spoken or 
 written in Greek. Similarly, S. G. Green, in his " Grammar of the Greek Testament" : 
 "It was the Greek of the Septuagint, in all probability, our Lord and his apostles 
 generally spoke. The dialect of Galilee was not a corrupt Hebrew, but a provincial 
 Greek." Josephus, a Jewish priest, who lived in the time of the apostles, wrote his 
 " Wars " and "Antiquities " in Grieek, though he states that he composed the first-named 
 work originally in Hebrew for the benefit of the " Upper Barbarians." That the Greek 
 people or language had penetrated even into barbarian regions is evident from Seneca's 
 query : "What is the meaning of Greek cities in barbarous countries, and the Macedo- 
 nian language among Indians and Persians?" For the general prevalence of the Greek 
 language, especially in Palestine in the time of Christ, see Hug's "Introduction to the 
 New Testament, " pp. 326-340; Dr. SchaflF's " Companion to the Greek Testament," p. 
 7 ; Prof. Hadley's article on the "Language of the New Testament," and B. R West- 
 cott's article on the New Testament, in Smith's "Bible Dictionary," pp. 1590, 2139; 
 also articles on the "Language of Palestine in the Age of Christ and the Apostles," in 
 the April and July numbers of the "Biblical Repository " for 1831.] 
 
 VIII. THE OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The main object which the apostle had in view in writing this Epistle is nowhere 
 formally stated ; but it may be inferred from the Introduction, and from the contents of 
 the Epistle. In the Introduction he expresses his earnest desire to visit the disciples at 
 Rome, in order to contribute something to their confirmation and spiritual comfort. 
 (1 : 11, 12.) Doubtless he had the same end in view in writing to them ; and he seeks 
 to attain this end by unfolding the way of justification and salvation through faith in 
 Christ. The object of his letter, then, is to present such an exhibition of the way of 
 justification and salvation through faith in Christ, as would be adapted to comfort and 
 confirm the disciples at Rome. The Epistle might well take its title from the sixteenth 
 verse of the first chapter : "The Gospel the Power of God unto Salvation to every one 
 that believeth" ; and the manner in which the apostle treats this subject is adapted to 
 
 iPaiil evidently needed not to be specially endowed with the gift of tongues, as Wordsworth supposes, in order 
 to obey his Lord's last command, since a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew alone would enable him to preach 
 intelligently in almost all parts of the civilized world.~(F.) 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 15 
 
 promote the spiritual confirmation and comfort of all who devoutly study this Epistle. 
 May the readers of the following notes find them helpful toward that happy result. 
 Pawtuxet, R. I. ALBERT N. ARNOLD. 
 
 [On the nth day of October, 1883, the writer of the above lines ceased from hie 
 earthly toils, and entered into rest. Yet his labors for Christ were not felt by him to be 
 irksome, and those especially which were spent in the study of this noble Epistle were 
 manifestly to him an exceeding pleasure and delight. In a letter, dated January 7, 1882, 
 he thus writes : '" I heartily wish that you may have as much enjoyment in the perform- 
 ance of your work as I had in the performance of mine. And may the blessing of our 
 common Master rest upon our joint work to the glory of his name and the benefit of his 
 people." We are glad to be assured, but are not surprised to learn, that in his last days 
 the comfort of the Scriptures, and especially of the great doctrines of grace, did not fail 
 him. The old theology, which was his soul's food in life, was his abundant support in 
 his last days. On hearing, shortly before his death, of the apparently approaching end 
 of a greatly endeared classmate and friend, Thomas D. Andtrson, D. D., he said : " Mine 
 is an abundant entrance. Tell him (speaking his friend's name) that we shall soon^ meet 
 above, sinners saved by sovereign grace — sovereign, redeeming grace." "And this," 
 says the narrator. Dr. J. C. Stockbridge, "he kept repeating over and over, as if he 
 would gather up all he wished to say, of what was profoundest and dearest in his religious 
 faith, and concentrate it upon that which was the very heart and substance of his creed, 
 'sovereign, redeeming grace.' " If, since the days of the apostles, there have lived any 
 Christian men whose kindliness and guilelessness of spirit, whose blamelessness of life, 
 and whose diligence in Christian labor, could furnish a ground of acceptance with God, 
 one of those men, in my opinion, was Albert Nicholas Arnold. And yet, had it been 
 suggested to him from without, or from within, that he could properly place this reliance 
 upon the righteousness of his character and the goodness of his varied and abundant 
 works, laboring as he had done, so assiduously as a preacher and pastor, a missionary, a 
 theological instructor and writer, the thought, we believe, would have been repelled by 
 him with as emphatic a "God forbid" as was ever uttered by the Apostle Paul. 
 Yet no one was more careful than he to maintain good works, both as a fruit and evidence 
 of his love for Christ and of his fliith in him. May the readers of these lines, by a deep 
 consciousness of their lost condition by nature, and by a rich experience of the "sovereign, 
 redeeming grace " of the gospel, be made to feel that we need no other or better theology 
 than that which is so plainly set forth in the writings of this blessed apostle, and which 
 our beloved and now lamented friend sought to embody in these pages.] 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Part I. — Introduction. (1 : 1-15.) (a) Salutatory. (Ver. 1-7.) {h) Conciliatory. 
 (Ver. 8-15.) 
 
 Part 11.— Doctrinal (1 : 16-11 : 36.) 
 
 § 1. All Mankind in a Sinful and Condemned State, and therefore in Need 
 OF the Salvation which the Gospel Reveals. (1:16-3: 20. ) The subject opened. 
 (1 : 16, 17.) 
 
 lit was "soon," the 19th of the ensuing December, that the beloved Anderson, a man of kindred spirit with 
 Arnold, followed him to the land of rest. What a world of darkness they have left for what a world of light : 
 Gladly would we exchange, for just their first momenfs experience in bliss, all the theology of all the schools 
 of earth.— (F.) 
 
16 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 I. The general sinfulness of men proved. (1 : 18—2 : 29.) 
 
 A. In the case of the Gentiles. (1 : 18-22.) God has made known his displeasure 
 against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. (Ver. 18.) The Gentiles are 
 both ungodly (ver. 19-23) and unrighteous. (Ver. 24-32.) 
 
 £. In the case of the Jews. (2 : 1-29. ) Those who practice the same sins which they 
 condemn in others are equally inexcusable (2: 1), for God's judgment will be 
 impartial (ver. 2-5), and justly most severe against those who have the most 
 hght. (Ver. 6-16.) Neither the possession of the law (ver. 17-24), nor the 
 covenant of circumcision (ver. 25-29), will exempt them from condemnation. 
 
 II. Objections stated and answered. (3 : 1-8.) Objection 1. The Jew has no advan- 
 
 tage over the Gentile. (Ver. 1.) Answer : The possession of God's word is a 
 great advantage. (Ver. 2.) Objection 2. God's faithfulness obliges him to 
 show favor to the Jews, notwithstanding their unfaithfulness. (Ver. 3.) 
 Answer: God's faithfulness must not be questioned, however unfaithful men 
 maybe. (Ver. 4.) Objection 3. It would be unjust in God to punish those 
 whose sins are the occasion of displaying his righteousness. (Ver. 5, 7.) 
 Answer : The principle which this objection assumes leads to conclusions man- 
 ifestly false and impious ; as, 
 
 {a) That God cannot righteously judge and punish any. (Ver. 6) 
 {b) That it is lawful to do evil that good may come. (Ver. 8.) 
 
 III. The charge of universal sinfulness renewed, and confirmed by proofs from Scrip- 
 
 ture. (Ver. 9-20.) 
 1 2. The Way of Justification and Salvation Through Faith in Christ. 
 (3: 21-5: 21.) 
 
 I. The gospel method of justification described, as being — 
 
 A. In its nature, 
 
 (1) Conditioned not on works, but on faith. (3 : 21, 22.) 
 
 (2) Available for all mankind. (Ver. 22.) 
 
 (3) Needed by all. (Ver. 22, 23. ) 
 
 (4) Entirely gratuitous. (Ver. 24.) 
 
 B. As having, for its ground, the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. (Ver. 24, 25. ) 
 
 C. For its direct object, the reconciliation of God's righteousness with man's salva- 
 
 tion. (Ver. 25, 26.) 
 
 D. For its indirect results, 
 
 (1) The exclusion of all boasting. (Ver. 27, 28.) 
 
 (2) The display of God's impartial mercy to both Jews and Gentiles. (Ver. 29, 30. ) 
 
 (3) The confirmation, not the subversion, of the law. (Ver. 31.) 
 
 II. That the above method of justification is in harmony with the teachings of Scrip- 
 
 ture is shown by the examples of Abraham and David. (4 : 1-25.) 
 
 (1) Abraham was justified, not by works, but by faith. (Ver. 1-5.) 
 
 (2) David teaches that justification is not of merit, but of grace. (Ver. 6-8.) 
 
 (3) Circumcision is not indispensable to justification ; for Abraham was justified 
 
 before he was circumcised. (Ver. 9-12.) 
 
 (4) The law is not the ground of justification ; for Abraham, who was justified, 
 
 not by the law, but by faith, is in this respect the pattern of all who are 
 justified, both Jews and Gentiles. (Ver. 13-17.) This illustrious pattern 
 is more fully described and commended. (Ver. 18-25.) 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 17 
 
 III. Tlie happy results of the gospel way of justification, both to the individual 
 believer, and to the race at large. (5 : 1-21.) 
 
 A. As it respects the individual believer, the results are : 
 
 (1) Peace with God, including free access to him. (Ver. 1, 2.) 
 
 (2) Joyful hope of future glory. (Ver. 2.) 
 
 (3) iVfflictions made subservient to the confirmation of our hope. (Ver. 3, 4.) 
 
 (4) The certainty of this hope. 
 
 (a) For God has already given us his Spirit. (Ver. 5. ) 
 
 (6) He has already shown the fullness of his love to us, by giving his Son to 
 
 die for us while we were yet sinners. (Ver. 6-8.) 
 (c) By thus beginning the work of our salvation while we were enemies, he 
 has given the surest pledge that he will complete it now that we are 
 reconciled to him (ver. 9, 10), so that we have a present and abound- 
 ing joy. (Ver. 11.) 
 £. As it respects the race at large, the benefits of the gospel way of justification 
 are illustrated by a comparison between Adam and Christ. (Ver. 12-21.) 
 
 (a) The resemblance between the two cases. (Ver. 12-14.) 
 
 (b) The diff'erences stated under several aspects. (Ver. 15-17.) 
 
 (c) Recapitulation of the whole, showing how men are regarded and treated 
 
 in consequence of their connection with Adam and Christ respectively. 
 (Ver. 18, 19. ) As the law discloses and even aggravates, the triumphs 
 of sin, reigning in death, so the gospel displays the superior triumphs 
 of grace, reigning unto life, through .Jesus Christ. (Ver. 20, 21.) 
 § 3. This Way op Justification Favorable to Holiness. (6 : 1-8 : 39.) 
 Proposition I. Gratuitous justification does not lead to sinful living. (6: 1-23.) 
 
 (a) The objection stated. (Ver. 1.) 
 
 (b) Its validity denied. (Ver. 2.) 
 
 (c) The grounds of that denial. (Ver. 3-23.) 
 
 I. The justified believer, agreeably to the very import of his baptism, is brought 
 into such a connection and comformity with Christ as dying and rising to a new life, that 
 he cannot continue in the old life of sin. (Ver. 3-6.) As Christ's death on account of sin 
 is never to be repeated (ver. 7-10), so the believer must regard his own separation from sin 
 as final. (Ver. 11-14.) 
 
 II. The very fact that he is not under the law, but under grace, forbids that sin 
 should have dominion over him. (Ver. 14, 15.) For his relation to the law and to grace 
 is like the relation of a servant to his master : Before justification, he is a servant of sin, 
 under an influence which secures his obedience to evil ; after justification, he is a servant 
 of righteousness, under an influence which secures his obedience to good. (Ver. 16-20.) 
 The former service results in death, the latter in eternal life ; and the knowledge of these 
 opposite consequences is a still farther security for his continued fidelity to his new 
 Master. (Ver. 21-23.) 
 
 Proposition H. So long as men remain under the law, they continue under the 
 power of sin. (7 : 1-25.) 
 (a) The believer's relation to the law may be illustrated by the case of mar- 
 riage. (Ver. 1-6.) As the wife is freed from her conjugal obligations 
 by the death of her husband, so that she is afterward at liberty to be 
 married to another man (ver. 1-3) ; so we are freed from our connection 
 
 B 
 
18 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 with the law, that we may enter into a new connection with Christ. 
 (Ver. 4.) The fruit of that first connection was sin. (Ver. 5.) The 
 fruit of this second connection is holiness. (Ver. 6.) 
 
 (b) The law has no power to convert a sinner, or to make a bad man good ; 
 
 this illustrated by Paul's own experience before his conversion (ver. 
 7-13), (the effect of the law is to make sin known (ver. 7), and also to 
 excite it to greater activity (ver. 8-11), so that, while the law is good 
 (ver. 12), it becomes the occasion of manifesting more fully the exceed- 
 ing sinfulness of sin.) (Ver. 13.) 
 
 (c) The law has no power to sanctify a saint, or to make a good man better : this 
 
 illustrated by Paul's own experience after his conversion. (Ver. 14-24. ) 
 (Even the renewed man, who assents to the excellence of the law, and 
 desires and purposes to fulfill its requirements, finds that the remains of 
 indwelling sin often prove too strong for his good resolutions (ver. 14-23) ; 
 so that, as long as he looks to the law, he gets no effectual help or 
 comfort in his strivings after holiness. (Ver. 24.) Hence the conclusion, 
 that if we are ever to be freed from the dominion of sin, it must be by 
 becoming connected with Christ. (Ver. 25.) 
 Proposition III. Grace accomplishes what the law could not accomplish. (8 : 1-17.) 
 
 (a) Grace furnishes not only a justifying righteousness (ver. 1), but also a 
 regenerating and sanctifying power. (Ver. 2.) The way in which this 
 is done briefly explained. (Ver. 3, 4.) 
 
 {b) Sanctification is the indispensable evidence of justification. (Ver. 5-17.) 
 The justified will certainly walk in newness of life, because : 
 
 (1) Their inward moral disposition is thoroughly changed. (Ver. 5-8. ) 
 
 (2) The Spirit of God dwells in and actuates them. (Ver. 9-13.) 
 
 (3) They are children of God, not only by a formal adoption on his part, but 
 
 also by a filial spirit on theirs. (Ver. 14-17. ) 
 Proposition IV. The sufferings which believers undergo in this life are not incon- 
 sistent with their being fully justified and accepted of God. 
 (Ver. 17-30.) 
 (a) For they suffer with Christ, that they may be glorified with him. (Ver. 17.) 
 (6) There is an immeasurable disproportion between the present sufferings 
 and the future glory. (Ver. 18.) The greatness of that future glory is 
 seen : 
 
 (1) In the unconscious longing for its coming which pervades all nature. (Ver. 
 
 19-22.) 
 
 (2) In the conscious longing of believers, notwithstanding the happiness which 
 
 they enjoy in the present foretaste of it. (Ver. 23-25.) 
 (c) Suitable spiritual supports are afi'orded them while these sufferings con- 
 tinue. (Ver. 26, 27.) 
 {d) They are assured that all these sufferings are working for their good. 
 (Ver. 28-30.) 
 Proposition V. The certainty of the salvation of believers is established. (Ver. 
 31-39.) They for whose salvation (ver. 31) God has given his 
 Son, and for whom the Son (ver. 32, 33) of God has died and 
 risen from the dead (ver. 34), can never be separated from the 
 
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 19 
 
 ^ — _ — ■ — — — — — — — ■ — — — — — — - — 
 
 love of either by ai)y vicissitudes of the present life (ver. 
 35-37), or by any other events or agencies whatsoever. (Ver. 
 38, 39.) 
 H- The Rejection of the Jews. (9 : l-ll : 36.) 
 
 (a) The fact of tlieir rejection, though very lamentable (ver. 1-5), is not 
 inconsistent with God's truth and justice : not with his tnith, because 
 the blessings which they fail to secure were never promised indiscrimi- 
 nately to all the natural seed of Abraham (ver. 6-13) ; not with his 
 justice, because — 
 
 (1) These blessings are God's free gifts, bestowed according to his sovereign 
 
 pleasure. (V^er. 14-18.) 
 
 (2) The unbelieving Jews only receive the righteous recompense of their willful 
 
 sin. (Ver. 19-24.) 
 
 (3) Indeed, their rejection is plainly foretold by their own prophets. {Ver. 25-29.) 
 
 In fine, the Gentiles obtain righteousness through faith in Christ, and the 
 Jews fail to obtain it because of unbelief (Ver. 30-33.) Thus it appears 
 that : 
 {h) The cause of the failure of the Jews to attain justification (for which 
 failure the apostle again expresses his sorrow) (10 : 12) is, that they 
 persist in seeking justification in their own false way, instead of seeking 
 it in God's true way. (Ver. 3-11.) Justification is attainable on pre- 
 cisely the same terms by Jews and Gentiles. (Ver. 12-13.) Therefore 
 the gospel ought to be preaclied to all nations. (Ver. 14, 15.) All this 
 is confirmed by the testimony of the Scriptures. (Ver. 16-21.) 
 (c) There is a limit to this rejection, both as to persons, and as to time. 
 (Chap. 11.) 
 
 I. As to persons, it is not total, for Paul himself (ver. 1), and many others among 
 the Jews (ver. 2-5), have obtained justification through free grace (ver. 6), though the 
 greater part of the nation has been rejected (ver. 7), as their own Scriptures had fore- 
 told. (Ver. 8-10.) 
 
 II. As to time, it is not final; but God designs, by this temporary rejection of the 
 Jews, to facilitate the conversion of the Gentiles. (Ver. 11-16.) The Gentiles are 
 admonished not to glory over the Jews, as if their advantage over them was due to any 
 merit of their own. (Ver. 17-22.) So soon as the Jews turn from their unbelief, God 
 is able and willing to save them. (Ver. 23, 24. ) Nay, more ; he has positively determined 
 that they shall at last turn and be saved. (Ver. 25-32.) In all this, his unsearchable 
 wisdom is gloriously displayed. (Ver. 33-36. ) 
 
 Part 111.— Practical (12: 1-15: 13.) [a] General Precepts, applicable to all. 
 (12: 1-13 : 14.) {h) Special Directions in regard to the treatment of those who are weak 
 and over-scrupulous. (14 : 1-15 : 13. ) 
 (a) General Precepts. 
 
 (1) Exhortation to entire consecration to God. (12 : 1.) This results in a prac- 
 
 tical conformity to his will (ver. 2), and in humilitj'. (Ver. 3.) 
 
 (2) Duties to the church (ver. 4-8), and to the brethren. (Ver. 9-13.) 
 
 (3) Duties to the world, and especially to enemies. (Ver. 14-21.) 
 
 (4) Duties to rulers. (13 : 1-7.) 
 
 (5) The duty of love to all men. (Ver. 8-10.) 
 
20 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 (6) All these duties enforced by the consideration that salvation is near. [Ver. 
 11-14.) 
 (6) Special Directions in regard to the treatment of brethren whose consciences are 
 weak and are over-scrupulous. (14 : 1-15 : 13. ) 
 
 I. The Christian who regards the Jewish restrictions as to days and meats as still 
 binding is to be received without disputations. (14 : 1, 2.) 
 
 (rt) Because this weakness does not hinder his acceptance with God. (Ver. 3, 4. ) 
 {b) Because he is conscientious in it. (Ver. 5-9.) 
 
 (c) Because all such differences should be referred to the final judgment. 
 (Ver. 10-12.) 
 
 II. Those who, through better knowledge, are free from such scruples, must not so 
 use their freedom as to lead their weaker brethren into sin. (Ver. 13.) 
 
 (a) Because, though the use of this liberty is not wrong in itself, yet it is a 
 
 breach of charity to use it to the injury of a brother. (Ver. 14, 15.) 
 
 (b) Because such a course brings religion into reproach. (Ver. Ifi.) 
 
 (c) Because the rise of this liberty is no essential part of Christian duty. 
 
 (Ver. 17, 18.) 
 {d) Because it is inconsistent with the obligation to promote the peace of the 
 church, and the edification of the brethren. (Ver. 19.) They there- 
 fore who know that the eating of certain meats is not sinful, must not 
 use their liberty in such a way as to entice others who have not this 
 knowledge to do the same thing in violation of their consciences. (Ver. 
 20-23.) They must rather bear the infirmities, and seek the edification 
 of the weak. (15 : 1, 2.) Thus they must imitate the self-denying 
 example of Christ. (Ver. 3-7.) For Christ, agreeably to the predic- 
 tions of the prophets, has received both Jews and Gentiles, and united 
 them into one body. (Ver. 8-13.) 
 Part TV —Personal (15 : 14-16 : 23.) 
 
 (1) As to his own relations and feelings toward them. (15 : 14-33.) The apostle 
 
 declares his confidence in them. (Ver. 14.) He justifies the freedom with 
 which he has addressed them. (Ver. 15.) This he does on the ground of 
 his office as the apostle of the Gentiles. (Ver. 16-21.) He expresses his 
 hope of visiting them soon. (Ver. 22-29.) He asks their prayers in his 
 behalf (Ver. 30-33.) 
 
 (2) After bespeaking their Christian hospitality and kind offices for Phebe, a 
 
 servant of the church, at Cenchrea (and probably the bearer of the 
 Epistle) (16 : 1, 2), he sends his salutations to various members of the 
 church. (Ver. 3-16.) 
 
 (3) He warns them against those who cause divisions. (Ver. 17-20.) 
 
 (4) He adds salutations from Christian friends who were with him. (Ver. 21-23.) ' 
 Part V. — Conchmon. (16:24-27.) 
 
 (1) Benediction. (Ver. 24.) (2.) DoxoZo*;!/— embodying a brief summarj' of 
 gospel doctrine. (Ver. 25-27.) 
 
PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 
 
 )AUL, a servant of Jesus Christ, called lo be an apos' 
 . tie, separated unto the gospel of (jod. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Paul, a 1 servant of Jesus Christ, called lo be an 
 
 1 Gr. bondservant. 
 
 Part I. (Ch. 1: 1-15.) Introduction. 
 
 (a) Salutatory. (Ver. 1-7.) 
 
 1. Paul. It was the custom of the ancients 
 to phice the name of the writer of a letter at 
 the beginning of the letter instead of at the 
 end. We have many examples of this in 
 the Greek and Latin classics. [With this 
 name, a verb " writes" (ypa<f>ei.), or "greeting" 
 (xat><if) or, in full, gives greeting, as in 2 John 
 10, 11) Rev. Ver. (A«'y«c xaipeii'), is properly un- 
 derstood ; but in all the epistles of the New 
 Testament, save that of James, the name of 
 the writer, when expressed in the salutation, 
 stands independently. "Here the substance 
 of the verb (x<">»ii') appears in the following 
 grace to you, etc., as an independent sentence, 
 and invocation of blessing of richer fullness." 
 
 their own countrymen by their Hebrew name, 
 and among foreigners by a different name; 
 and tile fact that the apostle was born in a 
 foreign city, and inherited the rights of a 
 Roman citizen (Acts 22: 2r), makes it probable 
 that both names belonged to him from early 
 life. And on this supposition, the change 
 from the Hebrew to the Roman name is ap- 
 priately made by Luke just at the point where 
 he begins directly to speak of Paul's labors in 
 his chosen and recognized sphere as the "apos- 
 tle of the Gentiles." Compare Dr. Hackett's 
 note on Acts 13 : 19. 
 
 [In the Talmud, Paul, as certain Jewish 
 writers affirm, is called "Acher"— that is, 
 "Another" ; and one modern rabbi supposes 
 he was so called because he went under an 
 
 (Philippi.) On the New Testament use of [assumed name, or was virtually anonymous, 
 
 Perliaps the name was given to him as one 
 belonging to another and different faith, and 
 was thus nearly equivalent to heterodox or 
 heretic. Or possibly it was applied to Paul 
 even more contemptuously, just as the ancient 
 rabbis, unwilling to speak the name pig, 
 called it "the other thing." If any one 
 wishes to see how far modern rationalistic 
 Judaism can caricature the noblest of lives 
 and of characters, let him look at the account 
 given of Paul, and other apostles of Jesus 
 Christ, in the "Origin of Christianity," and 
 in the "History of the Hebrews' Second 
 Commonwealth," by Dr. Isaac M. Wise. 
 We may add that this "Acher," according 
 to the Talmud, was a married man, and that 
 he left daughters.] 
 
 A servant of Jesus Christ. The word 
 here translated 'servant' is the same that is 
 properly translated slave in classic Greek. Its 
 use here is indicative of humility, but not of 
 servility. The more absolutely submissive a 
 man is to Jesus Christ, the more surely is lie 
 free from bondage to man. "To serve God is 
 true liberty," says Augustine. So also for 
 
 21 
 
 this verb, see ver. 7.] The writer of th 
 Ejiistle is called by his Hebrew name, Saul, 
 until after his conversion. The name Paul is 
 found about one hundred and sixty times in 
 the New Testament — about one hundred and 
 thirty times in the Acts, nearlj- thirty timee 
 in his own epistles, including the salutation in 
 all the thirteen, and once it is mentioned by 
 Peter. (iPcterS: 15.) It is first introduced at 
 Acts 13: 9, and the name Saul, which has 
 been used more than twenty times before, is 
 never used afterward, except in four or five 
 l^laces, where the apostle recounts the words 
 addressed to him by Jesus, and by Ananias, 
 at the time of his conversion. (Acts 22 : 7, 13 ; 
 26: M.) Some have supposed that the name 
 Paul was assumed by the apostle out of respect 
 to Sergius Paulus. But though the change 
 from Saul to Paul is first mentioned in con- 
 nection with the account of the conversion of 
 this Roman proconsul, it is more probable 
 that both names were borne by him from the 
 beginning. It was no uncommon thing in 
 that age for Jews, especially such as associated 
 much with foreigners, to be known among 
 
22 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I 
 
 substance says the Scripture. See Ps. 116 : 16 ; 
 119: 45; John 8: 36.' Paul gives himself this 
 title only here, and, in connection with Timo- 
 thy, in Phil. 1 : 1. Elsewhere in the beginning 
 of his epistles he styles himself simply an 
 apostle of Jesus Christ. 
 
 The use of the two names 'Jesus Christ' is 
 connected with some important peculiarities 
 in the original manuscripts of the New Testa- 
 ment. In the first place, one of the names is 
 often omitted in the best manuscripts, where 
 our English version has them both. In the 
 second place, the order of the two names is 
 often inverted. This inversion is often repre- 
 sented in the English ; always, indeed, where 
 the Greek manuscripts are uniform ; but they 
 often diifer among themselves. The omissions 
 and inversions consitute a large number of the 
 so-called "various readings " in the New Tes- 
 tament manuscripts. Those are obviously of 
 very little importance. Other peculiarities in 
 the use of the two are more important. Among 
 these are the various proportions in which the 
 two are used in different parts of the New 
 Testament. In the gospels the name Jesus is 
 used between five hundred and six hundred 
 times. The word Christ is used in the gospels 
 about fifty times in connection with the name 
 Jesus, and about as many times by itself. It is 
 usually accompanied by the article in Greek, 
 and is manifestly used as a descriptive desig- 
 nation, and not as a simple proper name. 
 Jesus, the Christ, the Anointed, the Messiah— 
 the two latter words having the same mean- 
 ing, in English and Hebrew, that the former 
 has in Greek. In the Acts our Saviour is 
 commonly called simply Jesus (about fifty 
 
 times), the word Christ being added about 
 fifteen times, and this last word being found 
 by itself scarcely more than a half a dozen 
 times. In the epistles, the two words are 
 found together nearly two hundred times; 
 the name Jesus alone less than twenty times; 
 but the word Christ, now in the lapse of 
 time come to be used, according to a general 
 law of language, no longer as a descriptive 
 appellation, but simply as a proper name, is 
 found by itself about two hundred and thirty 
 times. Such a progress in the use of the word 
 from a descriptive to a proper name, can only 
 be accounted for by the fact that the epistles 
 were written at a later date than the gospels, 
 or, at least, as representing a later date in the 
 use of language ; for the gospels represent a 
 use of language from thirty to fifty years 
 earlier than their composition. On this basis 
 — namely, that the appellation Christ, from be- 
 ing always a descriptive designation in the gos- 
 pels, has come to be commonly a proper name 
 in the epistles — an ingenious refutation of Dr. 
 David F. Strauss' "Life of Christ" has been 
 published by Dr. O. T. Dobbin. Dr. Strauss 
 assumed that the epistles were written before 
 the gospels assumed their present form [so 
 Dr. Weiss in his " Biblical Theology "], and 
 this assumption is a fundamental principle of 
 his whole mythical theory of the origin of the 
 gospels. Dr. Dobbin's work is entitled "Ten- 
 tamen Anti-Straussianum : the Antiquity of 
 the Gospels asserted on Philological Grounds 
 in Refutation of the Mythic Scheme of Dr. 
 David Frederick Strauss: an Argument." 
 London, 1845, 8vo, pp. 113. Of this work 
 Allibone, in his "Dictionary of Authors," 
 
 1 Many writers designate Paul as " the slave of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ," but as this term carries with it the 
 idea of enforced and degrading bondage (similarly to 
 the Greek, a.v&pa.Tro&ov) , it is better to employ the word 
 found in the margin of the Revised Version— namely, 
 bondservant. As in the Old Testament, the title, 
 " servant of Jehovah," is generally applied to officially 
 distinguished personages, so it is thought by some that 
 in the New Testament the " servant of Christ" is one 
 who is officially appointed to some special service. It 
 is evident, however, that in Paul's estimation all true 
 Christians are servants of the Lord .Tesus. (Rom. 
 14 : 18 ; 1 Cor. 7 : 22 ; Eph. 6:6; Col. 3 : 24.) The Chris- 
 tian service of Paul, faith in Chri.st and love for 
 him as a Saviour, was ever accompanied with obedi- 
 ence to him as Lord. (See, for example, his beginning 
 and ending of this Ei)istle with the words : obedience 
 of faith.) And how great was the change from his 
 
 being a raving and murderous persecutor of Christians 
 to his becoming a willing bondservant of Jesus Christ. 
 For some twenty years the apostle had now been en- 
 gaged in Christ's service — a service which had brought 
 him much of trial and suffering. Even at the com- 
 mencement of it his divine Master had to announce to 
 him how many things he must suffer for his name's 
 sake. (Acts 9: 16.) He had at this time undergone all 
 those trials and afflictions which are enumerated in 
 2 Cor. 11 : 24-33, that " Iliad of Woes." At the time of 
 writing this Epistle he was bearing in his body the 
 deep brand-marks of his service to Christ (Gal. 6: 17), 
 and soon after this, and for many years, he was to be 
 " a prisoner of Christ Jesus," bound with chains, not to 
 a granite wall, where he might have some privacy and 
 be alone with God, but to some, perhaps, rough and un- 
 feeling Roman soldier— an intolerable bondage.— (F.) 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 23 
 
 vol. I, p. 607, quotes the following opinions : 
 " A work in no common degree acute, learned, 
 eloquent, and — what is rarer still in a region 
 so often traversed— original." "Complete, 
 conclusive, and unanswerable." "It leaves 
 Dr. Strauss without a loophole whereby to 
 escape, and establishes most unanswerably 
 the antiquity of the gospels." 
 
 [The titles which Paul gives himself in his 
 several salutations are quite varied. In 1 and 
 2 Thessalonians we have simply "Paul"; in 
 Philemon, "a prisoner of Jesus Christ" ; in 
 Philippians, he calls himself and Timotheus 
 "servants of Jesus Christ" ; in Titus, "a ser- 
 vant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ" ; 
 in 1 Corinthians, "called an apostle of Jesus 
 Christ, through the will of God" ; in 2 Corin- 
 thians, Ephesians, Colossians, 2Timoth3', "an 
 apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God" ; 
 in 1 Timothy, "an apostleofCiirist Jesus by the 
 commandment of God our Saviour and Lord 
 Jesus Christ, which is our hope" ; andinGala- 
 tians, " an apostle, not of men, neither bj- man, 
 but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father." An 
 interesting paper. Bishop Eilicott says, might 
 be written on these peculiarities of designa- 
 tion. In 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colos- 
 sians and Piiilemon, Timothy is associated with 
 Paul in the greetings; in 1 and 2 Thessalo- 
 nians, Silvanus and Timothy; in 1 Corin- 
 thians, Sosthenes; and in Galatians, "all the 
 brethren who are with me." Though Timo- 
 thy was present when Paul wrote to the 
 Romans, yet he only sends his salutation at 
 the end of the Epistle.] Called to be an 
 apostle. The former title is more general ; 
 this more specific and official. The words 'to 
 be,' supplied by the translators, might well 
 be omitted, as they are in many recent ver- 
 sions. [There is some force, however, in what 
 the "Five Clergymen" say, in their revised 
 translation of the Romans, that, " 'called an 
 apostle' is too like 'named an apostle'; a 
 called apostle seems to indicate that there are 
 some apostles not called." "We think the 
 Common Version here cannot be bettered.] 
 Apostles are special officers in the Christian 
 Church, whose principal functions are to be 
 eye-witnesses of the resurrection of Christ 
 
 (Luke 24: 4S ; Acts 1: 21, 22; ! Cor. 9: l), authorita- 
 tive teachers of his doctrines and commands 
 
 (johnl6;13; ICnr. U:S7: 2 reter3:2), foUndcrS of his 
 
 churches under him the Supreme Founder 
 
 (Matt. 16: 18; 1 Cor. 3: 10; Kph. 2: 20; Kev, 21 ; 14), and 
 
 possessors and dispensers of miraculous gifts. 
 
 (Matt. 10: 8; Acts 8: 14-17; 19: 6.) And In Order tO 
 
 exercise these functions legitimately, one must 
 have a special and direct call from Christ. 
 He must be a called apostle. "The sudden 
 call of the persecuting Saul to the apostleship 
 of the Gentiles corresponds to the sudden call 
 of the Gentiles to Christianity, just as the 
 gradual instruction of the Jewish apostles 
 accords with the long training of the Jewish 
 nation for the gospel." (SchatF.) [The term 
 apostle (occurring seventy-nine times in the 
 New Testament, chiefly in the writings of 
 Luke and Paul) literally signifies one that is 
 sent, and is used in its simple unofficial sense 
 in 2 Cor. 8: 23, Phil. 2: 25 of the "messen- 
 gers " of the churches. It seems to be applied 
 in an official sense to others than tlie twelve 
 (1 Cor. 15:7), Certainly to Barnabas, though as 
 a companion of Paul (ActriU;4, u); to James, 
 the Lord's brother (Gai. i:i9), who was prob- 
 ably not one of the twelve (see Bishop Light- 
 foot's discussion of " The Name and Office of 
 an Apostle," in his "Commentary on Gala- 
 tians," pp. 92-100); perhaps to Sylvanus and 
 Timothj', as associated with Paul (iThess.^: 6), 
 and to Andronicus and Junias, as some think. 
 (Rom. 16: 7.) In 2 Cor. 11: 6; 12: 11, Paul 
 speaks ironically of certain literally " super- 
 eminent apostles," and in 2 Cor. 11 : 13 of 
 "false apostles." In the case of Paul the 
 term is used, as Alford says, "in its higher 
 and peculiar meaning in which the Twelve 
 bore the title." Like them, he had seen the 
 risen Jesus (icor. 9:i), and had been called 
 more directly than Matthias was by the Lord 
 himself. Thecal! to the apostleship, however, 
 is generally in Paul's writings represented as 
 proceeding from God the Father (Rom. 15 : 15 : i 
 Cor. 15: 10; Eph. 3: 2), through the Lord Jesus. 
 (Rom. 1 : 5.) In Gal. 1 : 1 he received it " through 
 Jesus Christ and God the Father." Our 
 Saviour, in Matt. 22: 14, makes a wide dis- 
 tinction between called (invited) and chosen 
 (kAtjtoi and ticAeicToi) ; but in Paul's case the call- 
 ing was effectual, its idea being akin, as De 
 Wette suggests, to that of election. The call- 
 ing, considered as distinct from the choice, took 
 place in time, while the choice was from 
 eternity. Compare Gal. 1: 15; 2 Thess. 2: 
 13, 14. The apostle was not called to fill the 
 place of Judas, to which Matthias had been 
 
24 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in 
 the holy Scriptures.) 
 
 2 apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he 
 promised afore i through his prophets iu the holy 
 
 1 Or, by. 
 
 mistakenly elected, nor to fill the place of 
 James, John's brother, who had been killed 
 with the sword. His call was a special one, 
 and wholly independent of that of the twelve. 
 Their apostolate had Palestine and the twelve 
 tribes of the Dispersion mainly in view. Paul 
 was chosen to be the apostle to the Gentiles. 
 Our Saviour, in Acts 9: 15, calls him "a vessel 
 of election," (Revised Version, margin), and 
 so he speaks of himself as called of God to 
 the apostleship. In thus ascribing his aposto- 
 hite, not to his ov/n choice or merits, but to the 
 power and will of God, he, at the very outset, 
 strikes, as it were, the keynote of the whole 
 Epistle, Converted and called in the manner 
 he was, he could not but ascribe all his salva- 
 tion to the good pleasure and sovereign grace 
 of God. With his experience "he knew not 
 how," as 01shausensa3^s, " to preach anything 
 save the grace of God in Christ." To be an 
 " Arminian " or to talk like an " Arpiinian " 
 was for him an utter impossibility.] 
 
 Separated unto the gospel of God. 
 Compare Acts 9: 15: Gal. 1: 15. The pur- 
 pose for which Paul was thus set apart was 
 the formal and official announcement to men 
 of God's glad tidings. [" Set apart to preach 
 the gospel." (Noyes.) Verbs derived from 
 horos (opoi), a boundary or line of separation, 
 are of frequent use in the New Testament. 
 ' Of God' is not the genitive objective, gospel 
 concerning God, but subjective — the gospel of 
 which God is the author or giver. (De Wette. ) 
 Both nouns are destitute of the article. The 
 first, or governing noun, generally accompa- 
 nied with the article, is made sufficiently 
 definite by the genitive or noun which follows 
 — (rorf's (one and only) Gospel; and gramma- 
 rians tell us where one noun is without the 
 article the other frequently is so, "on the 
 principle of correlation." Similar examples 
 of nouns without the article are found in ver. 
 16, 17, 18, and elsewhere. The above cited 
 passages in Acts and Galatians show us that 
 Paul was separated unto the gospel both before 
 and after his conversion. Perhaps the setting 
 apart of which he here speaks occurred at 
 the time of his conversion, when the Lord 
 virtually appointed him to b^ an apostle to 
 the Gentiles in the words, "Unto whom I 
 
 send thee." (Aotsae; i7;ai30 22 : 21.) As the term 
 Pharisee denotes one who is separated or set 
 apart, it may be, from the mass of men to the 
 special keeping of the law and the traditions, 
 so some have thought that Paul would here 
 represent himself, by way of contrast, as sepa- 
 rated unto the gospel; but there is no evidence 
 that he here alludes to this matter. This 
 'gospel of God' (see 15: 16; 1 Thess. 2: 2, 
 8, 9; 1 Peter, 4: 17) is elswhere called "the 
 
 gospel of Christ" (IS: 19; Gal. l: 7: Phil. 1 : 27); " the 
 
 gospel of the kingdom" CMau.4:23); "the 
 gospel of the grace of God." (Acts, 20: 24) ; 
 "the gospel of peace" (Kpb. 6: 15) ; and "the 
 gospel of your salvation." (Eph. i:i3.) Twice 
 in this Epistle and once elsewhere, the apostle 
 speaks of it as "my gospel."] 
 
 2. Which he had promised afore by his 
 prophets. ["Not only the four great and 
 twelve minor prophets are meant, nor the 
 order of prophets in general, commencing 
 with Samuel (Acts 3: 24), but all men by whom 
 prophecies concerning Christ are found re- 
 corded in the Old Testament Scriptures. 
 Even Moses and David belong to these 
 prophets." (Philippi.) See Acts 28: 23; 
 Luke 24: 27, 44. Alford thinks the expres- 
 sion is "used in the strictest sense. Moses 
 gave the law; the prophets proclaimed the 
 gospel." The verb employed here signifies 
 to promise aforehand rather than to pre- 
 announce, though some, as Stuart and Phil- 
 ippi, decide for this latter.] This is one of the 
 many passages which show the intimate con- 
 nection between the Old Testament and the 
 New. The gospel is in the Old Testament; 
 according to the pithy saying of Augustine, 
 "the New Testament is veiled in the Old; 
 the Old Testament is unveiled in the New." 
 '^ Novum Testamentmn in Vetere latet ; Vetiis 
 TestamenUim in Novo patet." For specimens 
 of passages of similar import, compare Acts 
 10: 43; 26: 22, 23; 1 Peter 1: 10, 11. It was 
 especially important to keep this connection 
 before the minds of the Jewish converts, 
 "lest," as Chrysostom remarks, "any one 
 should think he was introducing some novel 
 doctrine." In the holy Scriptures. The 
 epithet 'holy' is ascribed to the Scriptures 
 only here and 2 Tim. 3: 15. [The literal 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 25 
 
 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which 
 was made of the seed of L>avid according to the flesli ; 
 
 3 scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of 
 
 4 the seed of David according to the flesh, who was 
 
 translation of the latter passage is sacred 
 writings'^ In 16: 26 and Matt. 26: 56, we 
 have "the Scriptures of the prophets," or 
 "^Ae prophetic Scriptures," as the Greek 
 reads, and in Matt. 26: 56, "the Scriptures of 
 the prophets." Elsewhere the word trans- 
 lated Scripture is used without any qualifying 
 adjective. It is used about fifty times in the 
 New Testament, about thirty times in the 
 singular, and twenty in the plural, always 
 accompanied in the Greek text by the definite 
 article, except in three or four places, where 
 it is made definite by some qualifying adjec- 
 tive or descriptive phrase, as in John 19: 37; 
 Rom. 16: 26; 2 Tim. 3: 16; 2 Peter 1: 20. 
 [Here the noun has no article, but is suffi- 
 ciently defined by the adjective 'holy'; 
 hence, "the holy Scriptures." (De Wette.) 
 By Meyer's rendering: "In holy writings" 
 — that is, in such writings as are holy (as espe- 
 ciallj' the prophetic), the kind of Scriptures 
 is specially characterized. Regarded in the 
 light of a proper name, it may either retain 
 or dispense with the article, just as we speak 
 of Scripture or the Scripture.] Whether in 
 the singular or in the plural, whether with the 
 article or without, it is never used in the New 
 Testament of any writings but those which 
 were recognized by the Jews as inspired. It 
 is directly applied, of course, only to the Old 
 Testament writings; but indirectly and co)i- 
 structively it may be applied to the New. 
 
 3. Concerning his Son. [Some commen- 
 tators quite naturally join this phrase to gospel 
 in ver. 1, making ver. 2 parenthetical. The 
 greater number, we think, connect it with the 
 verb 'promised.' The idea is essentially the 
 same in either case. "The personal object of 
 the ancient promises is the Son of God." 
 (Hodge.) The name Jesus Christ our Lord 
 which follows the word ' Son ' in our Common 
 Version, properly belongs at the end of ver. 
 4. We may notice here how early and how 
 often in the apostle's letters the words ' Christ ' 
 and 'gospel' are mentioned. He could not 
 write long, we might almost say, on any sub- 
 ject, without referring to that "name which 
 is above every name." An illustration of 
 this is found in 2 Cor. 8: 9-15, where, in in- 
 culcating the duty or "grace" of giving, he 
 must refer to the example of him who ' ' though 
 
 he was rich, yet for your sakes became poor," 
 and in closing the discussion of that topic 
 (9: 15), he is led by the thought of the pre- 
 ciousness of our poor earthly gifts, to lift his 
 heart in gratitude to God for "his unspeaka- 
 ble gift," the gift of "his own Son." (Rom. 8:32.) 
 
 See Ellicott's "Notes on Ephesians, ' es- 
 pecially chapter 2, verse 7, in regard to Paul's 
 frequent repetition of this "only name." In 
 this respect Paul difiPers widely from James, 
 the Lord's brother, who, thougii calling him- 
 self "a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ," yet 
 mentions this name expressly but twice in his 
 epistle, and "the gospel" not once. Both 
 writers were inspired of God, but the men 
 were different, or the bent of their minds 
 was difl'erent. Paul being himself no advocate 
 of a "dead faith," would not, we suppose, 
 object to a single sentiment in James, but 
 would heartily endorse each one. Yet Paul, 
 if we may express our feelings in the language 
 of hyperbole, could no more write the Epistle 
 of James, than he could create a W(jrld.] 
 
 Which Avas made. The distinction be- 
 tween 'was' and 'was made' {yivoy-an, to 
 become) is finely illustrated by comparing 
 John 1: 1, 2, with John 1: 14. The expres- 
 sion 'was made' here implies that his human 
 nature began to be, when he was " made of a 
 woman." (Gai.4:i.) The phrase according 
 to the flesh does not mean that his human 
 nature was limited to his flesh — that is, to his 
 body; but the expression is used here, as in 
 John 1: 14, and often elsewhere, to signify 
 the whole human nature, "body, soul, and 
 spirit," of which the outward, visible taber- 
 nacle of the flesh is the concrete representa- 
 tion to our senses. (Alford.) [On the limit- 
 ing phrase, 'according to the flesh,' Dr. 
 Hodge thus remarks: "It obviously implies 
 the superhuman character of Jesus. 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." 
 The same phrase is used in 4: 1, in reference 
 to Abraham, where (connected with the verb 
 hath found) it denotes, according to Godet, 
 "human activitj' in its state of isolation from 
 the influence of God," and is probably equiva- 
 lent to "his own labor," or "from works," of 
 
26 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 ver. 2. It is used of the relation wliich Paul 
 sustained to the Jews (s: 3) when he calls them 
 his kinsmen by race or nationality. Again, 
 in 8: 4 we read of those who walk according 
 to the flesh and according to the spirit, where 
 'according to the flesh' (Kara <rdpica) seems 
 nearly equivalent to the "law of sin in the 
 members." But none of these senses is ap- 
 plicable to the phrase ' according to the flesh ' 
 when used in the case of Christ, which is to 
 be interpreted rather in the light of such ex- 
 pressions as: "The word became flesh"'; 
 "was manifested in the flesh"; "has come 
 in the flesh" ; "made in the likeness of men " ; 
 "made of a woman," etc. See John 1: 14; 
 1 Tim. 3 : 16 ; 1 John 4:2; Phil. 2:7; Gal. 
 4: 4.] 
 
 The seed of David, rather than of Abra- 
 ham, as an intimation of his kingly char- 
 acter, and in allusion to such passages in 
 the Old Testament as Ps. 89. Compare Matt. 
 1 : 1 ; 2 Ti m. 2 : 8. [Meyer supposes that Jesus" 
 descent from the seed of David must be traced 
 through the paternal or male line, and hence, 
 thougli holding that Jesus was the Son of God 
 andtliat Paul's Son of God "is conceived in a 
 metaphysical sense, as he who had proceeded 
 out of the essence of the father, like him in 
 substance," he at the same time denies to the 
 Saviour a virgin birth, giving no credence to 
 the later embellished accounts (as he would 
 regard them) in Matthew and Luke which 
 assert it, and aflSrms that Paul nowhere, not 
 even in Rom. 8: ?>; Gal. 4: 4, indicates the 
 
 view of a supernatural generation of the 
 bodily nature of Jesus. But if Mary sprang 
 from the "seed of David," it is senseless to 
 deny that Jesus was born of David's seed.^ 
 Besides, as Philippi says: "To concede to the 
 apostle the conception of the metaphysical 
 divine Sonship and to deny to him faith in the 
 birth of God's Son of the virgin, is to impute 
 to him a conception dogmatically inconceiva- 
 ble." Godet thus remarks on this subject: 
 "But would this supposition (of an unmiracu- 
 lous birth) be consistent, on the one hand, 
 with the idea which the apostle forms of Jesus' 
 absolute ]io]\ness; on the other, with his doc- 
 trine of the transmission of sin to the whole 
 human race? He speaks of Jesus as 'sent in 
 the likeness of sinful flesli,' as one 'who knew 
 no sin,' and ascribes to him the part of an 
 expiatory victim, which excludes the barest 
 idea of a minimum of sin. And yet accord- 
 ing to him all Adam's descendants participate 
 in the heritage of sin. How reconcile these 
 propositions, if his view is that Jesus descends 
 from David and from Adam, absolutely in 
 the same sense as the other descendants of 
 Adam or David? Paul thus necessarily held 
 the miraculous birth, and that so much the 
 more, as the fact is conspicuously related in 
 the Gospel of Luke, his companion in work. 
 A contradiction between these two fellow- 
 laborers on this is inadmissible. « It is there- 
 fore through the intervention of Mary alone, 
 that Jesus, according to Paul's view, descended 
 from David. And such also is the meaning 
 
 1 Rabbi Wise (in his " History of the Hebrews' Second 
 Commonwealth," pp. 24.5, 258) with great unwisdom 
 makes Jesus deny his own Davidian descent (Luke 20: 
 41 ; compare Matt. 22: 42, 43), in the very gospels which 
 most explicitly assert it! That Jesus was of the line 
 of David is a fact abundantly atfirmed by himself and 
 his apostles, and this claim, if false, should have been 
 disproved by Paul's own teacher, Gamaliel, himself, as 
 the rabbis atfirm, a descendant of David, aud by other 
 Jews of that age, all of whom, in accordance with their 
 sacred Scriptures (Ps. 89: 36; 132: 11, 12; Jer. 23: 5), 
 expected their promised Messiah to be of the seed of 
 David. (Matt. 22: 42: John?: 42.) " That Jesus," says 
 De Wette, on Matt. 1 : 17, " was actually of the race 
 of David is plain from the account of Hegesippus in 
 Eusebius' ' Ecclesiastiacal History,' III, 20, that the 
 grandsons of Judas, his brother, were, as the posterity 
 of David, summoned before the Emperor Domitian." 
 (See further in Notes to Geikie's " Life of Christ," chap- 
 ter VIII ; also Farrar's "Early Days of Christianity," 
 'chapter XI, and Broadus on " Matthew," pp. 2, 6.) The 
 
 Jews have ceased looking for a Messiah, yet to come from 
 the lineage of David and from the tribe of Judah. TTieir 
 tribal descent is noiv lost forever, and thus no future (pre- 
 tended) Messiah from among the Jews can prove his 
 descent from the "house and family of David." The 
 Jews, indeed, make one exception as to the loss of their 
 tribal descent, and maintain that tribal distinction is 
 still preserved by the descendants of Levi. If this be 
 so, yet God has taken from them their especial duty, 
 and they have now no religious rites of divine appoint- 
 ment to perform. — (F.) 
 
 2 Luke was Paul's almost constant companion for 
 some ten or twelve years (see Prof Bliss' " Commentary 
 on Luke," p. 10), and his sole faithful attendant during 
 the apostle's last days ; " only Luke is with me," 2 Tim- 
 4: 11. Must not the evangelist, who " traced the course 
 of all things accurately from the very first," and the 
 writer of our Epistle have often conversed on all the 
 more important matters relating to our Lord's earthly 
 history?— (F.) 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 27 
 
 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, ac- 
 cording to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection 
 from the dead : 
 
 1 declared to he the Son of God ^ with power, accord- 
 ing to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the 
 5 dead ; even Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we 
 
 1 Or. determined i Or, in. 
 
 of the genealogy of Jesus in Luke's Gospel." 
 See also Neanders "Life of Christ," p. 19, on 
 our Lord's Davidian descent, and p. 16, on 
 the silence of John and of Paul in regard to 
 the miraculous conception.] 
 
 4. Declared — literall^'^, defined, nearly 
 equivalent to demonstrated, and contrasted 
 with 'was made,' to show how different he 
 really was from whsit he seemed to he to the 
 superficial view of men. [This word, "de- 
 clared," occurring in seven other places in 
 the New Testament (Luke 22: 22; Acts 2; 23; lo: «: 
 11: 29; 17: 26, 31; Heb. 4: 7) is here, in the view of 
 most commentators, equivalent to designated, 
 or instated; Chalmers saj's: "determinately 
 marked out." It must not be taken in the 
 sense, destined to becotne som,ethlng (Meyer 
 against Hofinann) ; for Christ was the Son of 
 God before the foundation of the world. Tlie 
 two predicates — 'was made,' and 'was de- 
 clared' — both refer to his Son, here regarded 
 as the entire person of Jesus. (DeWette. )] 
 With (literally, in) power. This qualifying 
 clause may be connected directly with the 
 immediately preceding words, and the sense 
 will then be, defined by his resurrection to be 
 the Son of God with power, in contrast with 
 his seeming weakness as a mere man. So 
 Stuart, [Schaflf, Philippi, and Dorner also, 
 who says that " previously, therefore, he was 
 not Son of God in power, although he was 
 Son."] Or the words may be connected with 
 the word ' declared,' and so they would indi- 
 cate the strength of the proof of his divine 
 Sonship — "declared mightily," as the Ge- 
 nevan Version has it. This interpretation 
 seems, from Acts 4: 33, to be admissible, in 
 spite of the assertion of Stuart, that this word 
 is used only of actual power, and not of logical 
 force. In the passages referred to above, it 
 seems to be used in a similar sense with our 
 
 word power, in such expressions as a powerful 
 argument, powerful conviction, etc. So Al- 
 ford, Meyer, [Olshausen, DeWette, Godet, 
 Hodge. For the adverbial use of this word, 
 see Col. 1: 29; 2 Thess. 1: 11.] According 
 to the Spirit of holiness. The reference 
 here is not to the Holy Spirit, as a divine 
 person, distinct from the Son [Wordsworth 
 and Forbes], but to Christ himself, in his 
 spiritual, holy, divine nature, as distinguished 
 from his lower nature, as the seed of David. 
 "The divine side of Christ's nature, with the 
 essential characteristic of holiness." (Lange.) 
 See a similar use of the word 'spirit' [as con- 
 trasted with the 'flesh' of Christ] in 1 Tim. 
 3: 16; 1 Peter 3: 18. Compare John 4: 24. 
 
 [This word 'holiness' (ayioavvr], not ayiaano^, 
 
 sanctification) occurs also in 2 Cor. 7: 1; 1 
 Thess. 3: 13, and is here the "genitive of 
 characterizing quality " — i. e., it characterizes 
 the spirit of Christ. De Wette defines this 
 spirit of holiness as the '''' spiritrial side of the 
 life of Christ, yet with the attribute of holi- 
 ness," etc., for which definition Dr. Schafl^ (in 
 Lange, as above quoted) would substitute the 
 divine side of Christ's pers(m with the essential 
 characteristic of holiness. Prof. Sliedd, in 
 his "Commentary on Romans," says: "The 
 spirit that constituted Christ's rational soul in 
 distinction from his animal soul Avas from the 
 seed of David; but the pneuvin (spirit) here 
 attributed to Christ was something in re- 
 spect to which he was not of the seed of 
 David." Perhaps we can do no better than 
 to adopt the interpretation of Philippi, to 
 wit: " The spirit of holiness is the higher, 
 heavenly, divine nature of Christ, according 
 to which, or in which, he is the Son of God."* 
 In reference to Paul's use of these correlative 
 terms, 'according to the flesh,' 'according to 
 the spirit,' Prof. Jowett thus remarks: "An- 
 
 1 Godet, however, thinks that by the phrase, 'spirit 
 of hnlines.t,' Paul would denote the "action displayed on 
 Christ by the Holy Spirit during his earthly existence." 
 And Prof Stuart regards the expression, 'according to 
 the Spirit,' etc., not as antithetic to the phrase, 'ac- 
 cnrdinsr to the flesh,' but as referring to his dispensing 
 the Holy Spirit after his resurrection. But we must j 
 regard these parallel phrases as evidently antithetic ; I 
 
 and, as Dr. GifTord observes, necessarily representing 
 constituent parts of Christ's own being. Scripture 
 thus appears to give two principal reasons why Jesus 
 is called the Son of God: 1, because of his miraculous 
 conception; 2, in a higher sense, because of his holy 
 spiritual nature in his pre-existing state. — Prof. W. S. 
 Tyler, in " Bib. Sac," October, 1865.— (F.) 
 
28 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. L 
 
 tithesis is a favorite figure in the writings of 
 St. Paul, almost (may we not say?) the form 
 in which he conceives the gospel itself. There 
 are times before, and times after, a first Adam 
 and a second Adam, the law and faith, the 
 flesh and the spirit, the old man and the new 
 man, death, life, burial, resurrection; the 
 identity and difference of the believer and 
 his Lord. ' AH things are double, one against 
 the other.' "] 
 
 By the resurrection from the dead. 
 Christ's resurrection from the dead was a 
 powerful demonstration of his divine Son- 
 ship. In reply to the objection that Lazarus 
 and several otliers were raised from the dead, 
 the peculiar circumstances of Christ's resur- 
 rection are to be noted. 1. His death and 
 resurrection were predicted in the Old Testa- 
 ment (ps. i6; 9-ii;uo: 1,4; isa. 53: 7-12), and repeat- 
 edly foretold by himself. (Matt. 16: 21; 17: 
 22, 23; John 10: 17, 18, and in more than a 
 dozen other places. ) 2. Jesus raised himself 
 from the dead. (John 2: 19-22.) 1 3. Jesus rose, 
 not like Lazarus, to a second term of mortal 
 life, but to die no more. (Rom. 6:9.) 4. Jesus' 
 human nature was glorified after his resurrec- 
 tion. (John 12 : 23, u : Acts 17 : 31.) Thesc peculiari- 
 ties separate the resurrection of Jesus widely 
 from all former instances of restoration to life. 
 [A very literal translation of this phrase, 
 which does not elsewhere occur, would be: 
 out of resurrection of {i\iQ) dead. In phrases 
 similar to this the Greek article is almost 
 invariably in the New Testament omitted 
 from the word dead. The preposition («) 
 denotes the "source out o/ which convincing 
 evidence flows." (Winer, 367. ) "We should 
 have expected here, "by his (or the) resur- 
 rection, from the dead." Some supply this 
 preposition (« or <l7ro) as in the example 
 quoted by Bengel from Herodotus (icao-TicTe? 
 paflpif) ; literallj', rising of seats, meaning, of 
 course, rising from the seats. The article and 
 preposition seem to be omitted here to make 
 the idea of resurrection as general as possible, 
 embracing that of Christ and "of others as 
 involved in his" (R. D. C. Robbins), or "that 
 resurrection of which Christ is the first 
 
 fruits." (Principal Sanday.) Winer regards 
 the expression, the resurrection of the dead, 
 as taken "absolutely and generically, al- 
 though consummated only in a single indi- 
 vidual." Paul, in Eph. 1: 19, 20, speaks of 
 the resurrection of Christ as eflected by the 
 "working of the strength of the might of 
 God" — that is, by the divine omnipotence. 
 The meaning, then, of the clause before us is, 
 in substance, that God, by his omnipotence, 
 instated in the sight of angels and men Jesus 
 Christ, as (in accordance with his higher 
 nature) the Son of God, by effecting his res- 
 urrection from the dead. What accrued to 
 Christ by his resurrection was, as Meyer says, 
 " not the full reality (.see 8: 3; Gal. 4: 4), but 
 the full effi.cie7icy of the Son of God," since he 
 was now raised above the limitations of his 
 kenosis, or self-emptying, and was shown to 
 be Lord of all. Through the force of this 
 potent demonstration of his divine Sonship, 
 even a 'doubting Thomas' was led to say to 
 Christ and of him : ' My Lord and my God.' 
 Of the resurrection of our Lord from the 
 dead, Paul had an assured conviction, and he 
 makes the fact of this resurrection not only a 
 proof of Christ's divine Sonship, but the 
 ground of his own salvation. Hence, the im- 
 portance which in his view the resurrection 
 of Christ has in our Christian faith and hope 
 can hardly be described in words. See 1 Cor. 
 15: 17. In Paul's discourse to the Athenians 
 (Acts 17 : 3i), he affirms that God hath instated 
 or designated the man Christ Jesus to be the 
 Judge of the world, whereof a sufficient as- 
 surance unto all men is the fact that "God 
 hath raised him from the dead." The full 
 name, Jesus Christ our Lord, on which the 
 apostle loves to dwell, is here in apposition 
 with the preceding 'Son of God,' and serves 
 to introduce the statement which follows. 
 The name Jesus is personal, while Christ is 
 oflScial. " The Son of David and Son of God 
 is thus finally described by three well-known 
 titles: 'Jesus,' which identifies him as the 
 crucified Saviour; 'Christ,' the promised 
 Messiah, and 'our Lord,' the exalted King, to 
 whom 'all power is given in heaven and in 
 
 >Paul, in 1 Thess. 4: 14, speaks of Christ's dying and 
 rising as if both acts were of his own choice and power. 
 See John 2: 19; also John 10: 18, where, however, 
 Christ says: " This commandment I received from my 
 Father." The usual representation of the Scriptures is 
 
 that God raised Jesus from the dead. Acts 2 : 32 ; 3 : 15, 
 26; 4: 10; 5: 30; 10: 40; 13: 30, .33; 17: 31 ; Rom. 8: 11 ; 
 1 Cor. 15: 15: 2 Cor. 4: 14: Col. 2: 12; 1 Thess. 1 : 10 ; 1 
 Peter 1 : 21 ; Fritzsche on Rom. 1:4; see, however, Elli- 
 cotton Col. 2: 13.— (F.) 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 29 
 
 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, 
 for obedience to the faith auioug all uations, lor his 
 name : 
 
 received grace and apostleship, unto obedience ^of 
 faith among all ihe nations, lor his names sake: 
 
 1 Or, to the faith. 
 
 earth.'" (Dr. Gifford, in "Bible Commen- 
 tary.") Here 'our Lord' (or Master) may 
 also refer to the relation which Paul and 
 other Christian believers sustained to him as 
 servants. Prof. Stuart states in his "Com- 
 mentary" that "Paul gives to Christ, ex- 
 clusively, the title of Lord in more than two 
 hundred and fifteen instances." See notes on 
 10: 12.] 
 
 5. By whom we have received. [The 
 preposition (5ia) with the genitive {throuyh) 
 donotes the instrumental <)r immediate agency, 
 while a different preposition (Oiro) would de- 
 note the i)rimary and remote agency. In 
 this overflowing salutation, as Meyer terms it, 
 Paul must again recur to the grace of his high 
 calling of Cod in and through Jesus Christ. 
 Compare 15: 16, alsoEph. 3:8. " Unto me who 
 am less than the least of all saints is this 
 grace given, that I should preach among the 
 Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ."] 
 The indefinite past 'received' is better here 
 than the perfect ' have received.' To whom 
 does the plural ' we' refer? Not to those to 
 whom he writes; for they had not received 
 the apostleship. Not to Paul's companions, 
 regarded as joining with him in addressing 
 the Roman disciples; for neither had they 
 received the apostleship, nor is there any men- 
 tion of such in the beginning of this Epistle, 
 as there is some of Paul's letters, (icor. i:i; 
 
 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1 : 1 ; 1 Theas. I : 1 ; 2 Thess. 1 : 1.) 
 
 The ' we ' may refer to the apostles as a class ; 
 or it may refer to Paul alone, and the clause, 
 among all nations, favors this latter view. 
 That the apostle did not regard it as improper 
 thus to use the plural, when referring only to 
 himself, appears from 3:9, "rwchave before 
 
 proved, etc." (•^ Cor. l: 8-12; 7: 5-8; Gal. 1: 8, 9.) 
 
 Grace and apostleship, [not grace of 
 apostleship, but] the common grace of God, 
 by which he was called, converted, sanctified, 
 and sustained; and, in addition to this, the 
 special grace by which he was called to be the 
 apostle of the Gentiles. The former is re- 
 ferred to in 1 Cor. 15: 10, and the latter in 
 Eph. 3: 8. For obedience to the faith 
 among all nations. This may be the geni- 
 tive of apposition, for the Greek reads "obe- 
 
 dience of faith" [meaning, according to 
 Philippi, Godet, Hodge, the obedience which 
 consists of faith]. Faith is obedience, because 
 it is commanded; or it may be the genitive of 
 subject; for faith /(/-oc/Mces obedience [Stuart]. 
 Or the genitive may be taken in a broader 
 sense [as by Meyer, DeWette], in which it is 
 nearly equivalent to the dative, denoting that 
 to which obedience is rendered, as in the ex- 
 pression, "obedience of Chri-rt." (2Cor. io:5.) 
 Our translators have not hesitated to treat the 
 genitive in such ca.ses as a dative. See Acts 
 22: 3, Revised Version. " Zealous /or God." 
 [See also 1 Peter 1: 22, Revised Version, obe- 
 dience to the truth, compared with Rom. 10: 
 16, "They obej'ed not (rendered not obe- 
 dience to) the gospel," and especially (Actx 6: 7) 
 "were obedient to the faith." The preposi- 
 tion before obedience (eis) has in such connec- 
 tions the general meaning: loith reference to; 
 here it means for the promoting of. The 
 word " oliedience " is destitute of the article, 
 but is made definite by the noun in the genitive 
 which follows; and this latter noun, as belong- 
 ing to the class of general abstract terms 
 which commonly do not take the article, is 
 also without it. 'Faith,' the important 
 word of this Epistle, denotes, according 
 to DeWette, not a doctrinal system, but 
 "the new salvation which consists in faith as 
 opposed to works." Meyer also remarks that 
 "faith," in the New Testament, "is always 
 subjective, though often, as in the present in- 
 stance, conceived of objectively as a power." 
 Yet see Hodge's comments on Rom. 12: 6. 
 'Among all the nations,' or Gentiles, the word 
 being used in both senses. Here the latter is pre- 
 ferable, as the apostolate of Paul had special 
 reference to the Gentiles, (ii: is; is: i6.) The 
 word occurs fifty-five times in Paul's epistles, 
 and is generally rendered Gentiles.] For his 
 name. [DeWette and Godet refer this phrase 
 to the whole preceding part of this verse. 
 Others more properly connect it with the 
 words, 'obedience of faith.' During many 
 long years of trial and persecution Paul 
 sought to promote this sacred obedience 
 among the Gentile nations, not for his own 
 glory, but for the name and sake of Christ. 
 
30 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus 
 Christ : 
 
 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be 
 
 6 among whom are ye also, called to be Jesus Christ's: 
 
 7 to all that are iu Kome, beloved of God, called to be 
 
 Nothing will so help us to live and suffer for the 
 gospel, or to perform any unpleasant duty, as 
 the thought that we are doing it for that blessed 
 name. Compare 2 Cor. 12: 10.] All was for 
 glory of his name: grace comes by him; 
 apostles testify of him; saving faith has him 
 for its object. In the name of Christ is 
 summed up all that he was, did, and suffered. 
 Compare Acts 5: 41; 9: 16; 15: 26; 21: 13; 
 1 Thess. 1 : 12. 
 
 6, Among whom. The relative 'whom' 
 refers to 'all nations' in the preceding verse, 
 and so appropriately introduces the direct 
 address to the Roman disciples in the follow- 
 ingverse: they were apartof the 'all nations' — 
 that is, they were mainly Gentiles (' nations' 
 and 'Gentiles' being but different translations 
 of the same Greek word), and so belonged ! 
 properly to Paul's jurisdiction as the Apostle 
 of the Gentiles. (o.ai. 2: 9.) [DeWette and Meyer 
 (versus Riickert, Fritzsche, Philippi, Lange, 
 Godet, and the Revised Version) reject the 
 comma after the 'ye' and rendert Among 
 whoin ye also are called, or, the called ones. 
 So also Alford, who says: "The assertion, 
 'among whom are ye,' is flat and unmean- 
 ing."] The called of Jesus Christ. Not 
 merely called by Jesus Christ, but "Jesus 
 Christ's called ones." The calling here is not 
 the general external call, as in Matt. 20 : 1 ; 
 22: 14; but the personal, internal, effectual 
 call, the call that is responded to in obedience, 
 as always in the epistles, and Revelation. 
 Compare 8: 28, 30; 1 Cor. 1: 24; Jude 1 ; Rev. 
 17: 14. [The rendering, called by Jesus Christ, 
 (adopted by Alford, Godet, Shedd,) is gram- 
 matically admissible. See "beloved of (by) 
 God" in the next verse. Rutin Paul's type 
 of doctrine, the calling generally proceeds 
 
 from God the Father. (« : 30 ; 9 : 24 ; Oal. 1 : 15 ; 1 Cor. 
 1 : 9 ; 7 : 15, 17 ; 1 Thess. 2 : 12 ; 2 Thess. 2 : 14 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 9.) 
 
 Hence, with DeWette, Meyer, Philippi, we 
 would regard the genitive as possessive, and 
 the called ones as belonging to Christ, or, as 
 above: "Jesus Christ's called ones." Such 
 are called, as below, "to be saints," called in 
 hope, in peace, in sanctification, for freedom, 
 into the fellowship of Christ, and unto life 
 
 eternal. (Ept. 4 : 4 ; l Cor. 7 : 15 ; 1 Thess. 4:7; Gal. 5 : 13 ; 
 
 1 Cor. 1:9; 1 Tim. 6:12.) See ElHcott On Eph. 4:4.] 
 
 7. To all that be in Rome. Connect this 
 v€rse immediately with ver. 1. [As no verb 
 of greeting is expressed, we may make 'all 
 that be in Rome' denote simply the receivers 
 of the letter, just as the name Paul indicates 
 the writer. One MS. (G.) of the ninth cen- 
 tury, omits here, and in ver. 15, the words 'in 
 Rome,' but "this quite isolated omi.ssion," 
 says Meyer, "is of no critical weight." He 
 supposes that some church sought, by omitting 
 those words, to adapt the letter to their own 
 particular church use in public reading. Tiie 
 most ancient superscy-iption of the Epistle is 
 in A B C simply : to the Roinans. No more 
 appropriate soteriological letter could now be 
 sent "to the Romans" than this.] To all the 
 beloved of God that are in Rome would be a 
 less ambiguous order of the words. The 
 Epistle is not addressed to a^^ that are in Rome, 
 but to all the saints there. Paul's earlier 
 epistles are addressed expressly to the churches 
 
 (l Thess. 1 : 1 ; 2 Thess. 1:1:1 Cor. 1 : 1 ; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:2.); 
 the later, to the saints. (Rom. l: 7; Eph. l: l; 1 hil. 
 
 1: 1; coi.i: 1.) "They were not called," sa3's 
 Augustine, "in consequence of their being 
 holj' ; but they were made holy in conse- 
 quence of their being called." [Called to be 
 saints. The words called (kKtitoC) and church 
 (e/cK\T)(rio) are etj^mologically related, and both 
 signify, those who are, by God's grace, called 
 out from the world or mass of mankind to 
 become saints, sanctified in Christ Jesus, or 
 specially consecrated to his service. Those 
 who are professedly devoted to God are in the 
 New Testament called saints, whether in- 
 wardly sanctified by the Holy Spirit or not. 
 For different meanings of the word saint, see 
 Ellicott's "Commentary on Ephesians," 1: 1. 
 Bishop Lightfoot (on " Philippians, " p. 13) 
 gives rather a gloomy picture of the un-orgi\r\- 
 ized condition of the Roman saints. He speaks 
 of them as "a heterogeneous mass, with diverse 
 feelings and sympathies (?), with no well-de- 
 fined organization." Meyer affirms that "the 
 'beloved of God in Rome, etc.,' are the church, 
 and it is to the churches that Paul has written, 
 where he does not write to specified persons.'^ 
 The Epistle to the Philippians is addressed 
 likewise to "saints," yet these had their 
 "overseers and deacons." And we read of 
 
Ch. I] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 31 
 
 saints : Grace to you, and peace, from 'God our Father 
 and tUe Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 saints : Grace to you Hnd peace from God our Father 
 and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 churches in individual houses, not only in the 
 letters to the Colossians and Philemon, but 
 in that to the Corinthians.] 
 
 Grace to you and peace, the divine 
 favor, and the liappiness resulting from that 
 favor. [SoEllicott: " C/taris expresses God's 
 (undeserved) love toward man; eirene, the 
 state of peace and blessedness which results 
 from it." Charis, or grace, according to 
 Prof. Cremer, has respect to sin, and "gives 
 prominence to the freenessand unoonditional- 
 ness of God's love," thus di tie ring from eleos, 
 or mercy, which is a fellow-feeling with 
 wretchedness and misery. "The charis of 
 God ... is extended to men as they are 
 guilty, his eleos as they are miserable." 
 (Trench; "New Testament Si'nonyms.") 
 The prayer that grace and peace from heaven 
 may rest on the Roman saints, coming as it 
 does from the affectionate, sympathizing heart 
 of Paul, certainly represents 7nore than the 
 "general epistolary ckairein," the wish of 
 joy or prosperity. Conybeare and Howson 
 happily allude to "the combination of the 
 Oriental ;>eace t^shalom) with the Greek grace 
 or joy (the Latin gaudere) in the opening salu- 
 tations of all St. Paul's epistles," as "pro- 
 claiming . . . the perpetual union of the Jew, 
 the Greek, and the Roman." With the 
 nouns grace, peace, the verb may be, or, as in 
 the Epistles of Peter and Jude, be niult.iplied, 
 is to be understood.] This form of salutation 
 is peculiar to the New Testament. It is found 
 in all Paul's epistles, with the addition of 
 "mercy" in 1 and 2 Timothy, and, accord- 
 ing to many manuscripts, in Titus. The com- 
 mon classical form (xatpeii') translated "greet- 
 ing," is used only three times in the New 
 Testament, Acts 15: 23; 23; 26; James 1: 1, 
 and in one of these three instances, it is found 
 in the letter of a Roman magistrate. In the 
 other two instances, it may be regarded as a 
 peculiarity of the style of James, as he seems 
 to have presided at the conference in Jerusa- 
 lem from which the apostolical circular, in 
 Acts 15: 23-29, emanated. 
 
 [From God our Father and {from) the 
 liord Jesus Christ. Meyer says: "God is 
 never called our and Christ's Father" to- 
 gether (compare 2 Tim. 1: 2; Titus 1: 4^; 
 yet this was Erasmus's rendering. God is our 
 
 Father by virtue of the "adoption" we have 
 received through and in Christ. («: i») This 
 whole formula: "'Grace . . . Christ," is ex- 
 actly reproduced in the Epistles to the Corin- 
 tliians, Ephesians, Phiiippiaiis, and Philemon. 
 In Galatians it is "God the Father and our 
 Lord Jesus Christ," and the same in 2 Thessa- 
 lonians, save that the 'our' is omitted. In the 
 letters to Timothy we have "grace, mercy, 
 peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus 
 our Lord." And similarly in Titus (Revised 
 Version), save that mercy is omitted, and 
 Jesus is called our Saviour. In Colossians it 
 simply reads, "from God our Father," while in 
 1 Thessalonians, we have merely: " Grace to 
 you and peace." Thus, according to the revi- 
 sion text, in eleven out of thirteen of Paul's 
 epistles, the names of God the Father, and of 
 Christ, are associated equally together as the 
 source of "grace, mercy, and peace" to peni- 
 tent and believing sinners, and "this associa- 
 tion," to use the words of Dr. Hodge, "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." Meyer, on the other 
 hand, says that "the formal equalization of 
 God and Christ cannot be so certainly used as 
 a proof of the divine nature of Christ — which, 
 however, is otherwise firmly enough main- 
 tained by Paul— since the different /jrerftccr^es 
 (Father and Lord) imply the different con- 
 ceptions of the principal and mediate cause." 
 But no creature, certainlj', can be equally as- 
 sociated with God in any real communication 
 of grace and peace to sinners. Among the 
 teachers, sages, and saints of earth who lived 
 prior to the time of Christ, and whom some 
 writers are inclined to place nearlj' or quite 
 on a level with the Saviour, stand pre-emi- 
 nently the names of the "divine" and "god- 
 like" Socrates, Plato, and Seneca. But (and 
 may the almost blasphemous supposition be 
 pardoned), could either of their poor names, 
 or the names of any of our modern philoso- 
 phic or poetic sages, or of our literary demi- 
 gods, be well substituted here for that of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ?] 
 
 The salutatory portion of the Introduction 
 to the Epistle ends here. It is remarkable 
 for having so many doctrinal clauses, paren- 
 
32 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 8 First, I thank niy God through Jesus Christ for 
 you all, thai your faith is spoken of throughout the 
 whole world. 
 
 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for 
 you all, ithat yourfuilh is proclaimed throughout 
 
 9 the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I 
 
 thetically introduced. There is, however, 
 something of a kindred character in the in- 
 troductions to Gaiatians, Titus, and, still more 
 noticeably, in the introduction to Hebrews. 
 
 How full of Christ this introduction is ! He 
 is mentioned four times by name, besides two 
 or three other distinct references, in these 
 seven verses. ["We ask, as we read the sen- 
 tence, whether any one has ever compressed 
 more thoughts into fewer words, and whether 
 any letter was ever written wliich swept so 
 vast an horizon in its few opening lines?" — 
 Farrar.] 
 
 (6) Conciliatory. (Ver. 8-15.) 
 
 8. First. This word naturally creates the 
 expectation of a corresponding second, if not 
 of a further numerical designation of particu- 
 lars. But such further enumeration is not 
 necessarily implied in it, and does not always 
 follow. See similar instances in 8: 2, where 
 the same Greek word is translated, "chiefly" ; 
 Acts 1: 1, where it is translated, "former"; 
 1 Cor. 11: 18; 1 Tim. 2: 1, translated "first 
 of all." It is not necessary to assume, as 
 Meyer does, that "something further was 
 meant to be subjoined, but amidst the ideas 
 that now crowd upon him, he abandons this 
 design." Sometimes the word may denote 
 merely that the particular mentioned is the 
 most important oi all, as in Matt. 6: 33.i I 
 thank my God through Jesus Christ. 
 Paul generally begins his epistles with some 
 expressions of thankfulness. 1 Cor. 1: 4; 
 Phil. 1: 3; Col. 1 : 3; 1 Thess. 1 : 2; 2 Thess. 
 1:3; Philemon 4; compare Eph. 1 : 16. The 
 letter to the Gaiatians forms a significant ex- 
 ception. Those to Timothy and Titus are 
 exceptions also, for a different reason, prob- 
 ably because intimacy of friendship, and 
 fullness of confidence made such a formal 
 expression superfluous." 'My God.' This 
 appropriation of God, by faith, hope, and 
 love, is one of the most sure characteristics, 
 and one of the most blessed experiences, of 
 the child of God. (ps. 63: i.) The expression 
 
 occurs often in the Psalms, and in the epis- 
 tles, but is found only once (except as used by 
 the Savipur) in the gospels. (John20:28.) 
 Luther used to say that he thanked God 
 for the little words in the Bible, such as my, 
 thy, and our. [The apostle, it will be noticed, 
 does not praise or thank his Koman brethren 
 for their faith, but God is thanked for it, as be- 
 ing a divine gift; and, as Dr. Gifford (Bible, 
 or "Speaker's Commentary") remarks, he 
 seemingly "regards their faith as a gift to 
 himself."] As all God's favors come to 
 us through Christ, so all our responsive ac- 
 knowledgments of gratitude should return to 
 
 God through him. (Col.S; n; Eph. 5: 2O; Heb.lS: 15.) 
 
 No man cometh to the Father, even in thanks- 
 giving, but by him. [" All our services need 
 to be cleansed and hallowed by passing 
 through the hands of our most holy and 
 undefiled High Priest." (Barrow.) Meyer, 
 (and, similarly, DeWette, Alford, and Phil- 
 ippi) regards Christ not only as the mediating 
 presenter of the thanksgiving, but also as'the 
 mediating causal agent of the faith for which 
 Paul gives thanks.] For you all. [The 
 common text has, in behalf of (un-ep), while 
 the revisers read, concerning (irepC) you all.] 
 This is a high encomium; but some reproofs 
 and admonitions in later portions of the 
 Epistle show that the word "all" must not 
 be pressed with too strict an emphasis. That 
 your faith. [Prof. Cremer says: "TheNew 
 Testament conception of faith includes three 
 main elements, mutually connected and req- 
 uisite, though, according to circumstances, 
 sometimes one, and sometimes another may 
 be more prominent — namely, (1) a fully 
 convinced acknowledgment of the revelation 
 of grace; (2) a self-surrendering /pWowsAjjo 
 (adhesion); (3) a fully-assured and unswerv- 
 ing trnst (and with this, at the same time, 
 hojye) in the God of salvation, or in Christ.'' 
 See Ellicott on Gal. 1: 23; Lightfoot on Gal., 
 page 154, also notes on ver. 5. Faith, sub- 
 jectively considered, "as the inward experi- 
 
 1 Alford (and so Stuart) finds the contrasting thought 
 in the thirteenth verse, whose 6« corresponds with our 
 (n-puTOf ixiv) : "Ye indeed are prospering in the 
 faith, but (rfe) I still am anxious/urtAe»i to advance that 
 
 fruitfulness." Godet finds a virtual secondly in ver. 
 10, but this reference does not seem so natural. — (F.) 
 
 sstill, in 1 Tim. 1 : 12 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 3, he has thanks to 
 give {\apiv «xw).— (F.)l 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 33 
 
 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my 
 spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I 
 make mention of you always in my prayers ; 
 
 serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, how un- 
 
 ence of belief, and trust in Christ" (Boise), 
 must ever have a doctrinal basis on which to 
 rest.] Spoken of throughout the whole 
 
 world. This was the ground of his thanks- 
 giving. The verb here used is in several 
 places translated "preached." (acui: 2; is: », 
 S8; 17: 3,13; Col. 1 : i8.) It implies that their faith 
 was spoken 0/ frequently and emphatically as 
 a remarkable thing, worthj' to be announced 
 everywhere. [In the Revised Version the 
 verb is generally rendered proclaim. The 
 faith in Christ was, of course, proclaimed by 
 believers unto believers in the way of com- 
 mendation. Unbelievers might say that this 
 sect of which the Roman Christians formed a 
 part, was "everj'where spoken against." For 
 the "Judgments of early Pagan writers on 
 Christianity," see notes on ver. 16.] 'Through- 
 out the whole world.' While it cannot be 
 denied that there is an element of hyperbole 
 here (as in 10: 18; Col. 1: 6; 1 Thess. 1: 8), 
 yet the expression shows how very widely the 
 gospel had already been preached, less than 
 thirty years after our Lord's ascension. The 
 Roman Empire was commonly spoken of as 
 the whole world — " orbis terrarum " — com- 
 pare Luke 2:1; and we know that the gospel 
 had already been preached in most of its chief 
 cities, as Jerusalem, Antioch, Smyrna, Ephe- 
 sus, Thessalonica, Corinth, Athens, and Rome. 
 Compare 15: 19. It is important to observe the 
 nil-wise providence of God, in this rapid and 
 wide ditiusion of the gospel during the apos- 
 tolic age. Starting from Jerusalem, the centre 
 of revealed religion, it had already reached 
 Rome, the centre of the political world ; from 
 Jerusalem, the city of dispersion, to Rome, 
 the city of aggregation. 
 
 9. For God is my witness. [This exam- 
 ple of Paul shows that the name of God may 
 be appealed to on solemn and proper occa- 
 sions, but will not justify light and thought- 
 less swearing — the swearing of common con- 
 versation.] This solemn appeal to God is not 
 uncommon in Paul's epistJas. (2Cor. i:23; ii:.ii: 
 
 Qal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thes3.2:i.) Like the formal 
 
 oath, it partakes of the nature of worship. 
 As he (by the use of 'for,' etc.) appeals to his 
 prayers in proof of his thankfulness, so he 
 appeals to God in proof of his prayers. No 
 
 one but God could know how unceasingly he 
 prayed for them. The occasion fully justified 
 this solemnity. It is important that those 
 whom we wish to benefit should be fully per- 
 suaded of our interest in them, and our 
 prayers for them. Paul here teaches us, by 
 example, our duty to be thankful to God for 
 the faith of distant heathen converts, and to 
 pray for them. Whom I serve. [Compare 
 Acts 27: 23, "Whose I am and whom I 
 serve."] The word here translated 'serve' 
 (Aarpeiiw, latreuo) imports a sacred religious 
 service, in distinction from ordinary, regular 
 serving, for which the Greek language has a 
 more generic word. The generic word 
 {hovUvfiv) is used in Matt. 6: 24; Luke 15: 29; 
 Rom. 6: 6, and about twenty other places, 
 while this word appropriated to religious ser- 
 vice is used, besides this passage, in Matt. 
 4: 10; Luke 2: 37; Acts 26: 7, and about a 
 score of other places. The clause, with (in) 
 my spirit (compare 2 Tim. 1: 3) marks the 
 living, inner sphere, and the following clause, 
 in the gospel of his Son, the outward 
 sphere of his sacred service. [Alford says: 
 "The serving God in his spirit was a guaran- 
 tee that the oath just taken was no mere form, 
 but a solemn and earnest appeal of his spirit." 
 And Umbreit, as quoted by Alford, remarks 
 that the apostle, by the use of this verb 
 (Aorpeiiw) " nicans that he is an intelligent, 
 true priest of his God, not in the temple, but 
 in his spirit, not at the altar, but at the gospel 
 of his Son." There is another word {ep-qaKeia) , 
 found in Act? 26: 5; Col. 2: 18; James 1: 
 26, 27, which denotes an external, ceremonial 
 religious service. Another term, (Aetroupyia), 
 whence comes our word liturgy, is used of 
 public religious service, both of Jews and 
 Christians (Heb. jo: u; Acts IS: 2), and of other 
 kinds of (public) service. (Rom. is: 27, etc.) 
 Sehazomai (o-e^a^o^iai), to "worship, in ver. 25, 
 denotes a devotional reverence. Proskuned 
 ( rrpoiTKvi'eoi) , to do honiagc, does not occur in 
 this letter, but often in the gospels. Acts, and 
 Revelation. Latreuo, literally, to serve for 
 hire, and hence voluntarily, is thus an appro- 
 priate word to denote religious service. ' His 
 Son' is commonly regarded either as genitive 
 objective, gospel concerning his Son, or sub- 
 
34 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 10 Making request, if by any means now at length I 
 might have a prosperous journey by the will of (jod to 
 couie unto you. 
 
 11 For 1 long to see you, that I may impart unto you 
 some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be establishea ; 
 
 ceasingly I make mention of you, always in my 
 
 10 jirayers making request, if by any means now at 
 length I may be prospered i by the will of God to 
 
 11 come unto you. For 1 long to see you, that 1 may 
 
 jective, gospel made known by his Son. Per- 
 haps we may name it the genitive of the con- 
 tents or subject matter, denoting thus the 
 gospel of which Christ is the subject and the 
 substance.] The two words translated that 
 Avithout ceasing [so DeWette] might more 
 exactly be rendered, 'how unceasingly.' 
 They refer not merely to the fact, but to the 
 degree, of his constancy in prayer for them. 
 [For a like construction, see 2 Tim. 1: 3.] 
 I make mention of you always in my 
 prayers. — Paul affirms with equal emphasis 
 in other epistles his constant prayers for the 
 disciples to whom he wrote. (Eph. i: i6: Phii. i; 
 3,4; Col. 1: 3, 9j 1 The.-s. 1 : 2.) [See also notes on 15: 
 30. The word 'mention,' without the verb, 
 signifies 'remembrance' (compare Phil. 1:3; 
 1 Thess. 3: 6), and can, we think, be used in 
 that signification here : for example, make 
 remembrance of you, or call you to mind. 
 The verb, though in the middle voice, is here 
 simply active ; yet see Winer, . 256. The 
 Greek preposition (en-t) may here signify 'on 
 occasion of,' hence 'at' or 'in' my praj-ers.] 
 
 10. Making request, etc. In accordance 
 with the order of the words in the original, 
 and to avoid the tautology of ' unceasingly ' 
 and 'always' qualifying the same word, it 
 would be well to join this latter adverb with 
 'making request.' The tenth verse then 
 begins: 'Always in my prayers making re- 
 quest,' etc.i 
 
 If by any means now at length. The 
 whole form of expression in this verse is very 
 significant and characteristic, intimating his 
 earnest desire to visit the Konian disciples, 
 with the emphatic recognition of probable 
 hindrances, suggested, or at least confirmed, by 
 actual experience (compare ver. 13, also 15: 
 22), and ending by submitting the whole mat- 
 ter to the will of God. [Paul at this time was 
 in fearful straits — so dark and uncertain was 
 the prospect before him (Acts, 20:22; Rnm. 15, 30, 31) ; 
 
 and in God alone to whom he could make 
 appeal and prayer was his help and hoj)e.] 
 This single verb translated I might have a 
 prosperous journey has commonly the sec- 
 ondary and more general sense, "to be pros- 
 pered," without any specific reference to the 
 original idea of a journey. [Perhaps, for- 
 warded, ov furthered, may be the intermediate 
 link between the literal and the tropical sig- 
 nification. The parting wish for the living 
 and the dead among the Greeks is expressed 
 by this word, meaning farewell.] So our 
 words welfare and farewell, of similar ety- 
 mology to the Greek word here used, have 
 dropped the original idea of a journey, ex- 
 pressed by the syllable fare. Meyer trans- 
 lates the word here by an expression equiva- 
 lent to "I shall have the good fortune." 
 The reasons for preferring tlie more general 
 secondary sense to the stricter etj'mological 
 one are, that the apostle had not yet set out on 
 his journey; and, which has tlie greater force, 
 the fact that in the three other i)laces in which 
 the same word is used in the New Testament, 
 the meaning seems to be simply " to be pros- 
 pered,'' without any reference to a journej'. 
 
 (1 Cor. 16; 2;3 Jolin2, twice.) [By {in) the Wili of 
 
 God to come unto you. He bases his hoped- 
 for prospering in his homeward journey in the 
 will of God to whom, as Philippi remarks, 
 " All the pious subordinate their wills" in all 
 their proposed undertakings and in all their 
 prayers. See 15 : 32 ; also Acts 18 : 21 ; 1 Cor. 
 4 : 19 ; 16 : 7 ; James 4:15. ' To come ' depends 
 on the verb prospered.] 
 
 11. He now gives the reason why he prayed 
 for them so constantly. 
 
 For I long to see you. He did notmerely 
 desire or wish to see them : he longed for that 
 privilege ; the word is emphatic. Compare 
 2 Cor. 9: 14; Phil. 1:8; 2:26; 1 Thess. 3: 
 6: 2 Tim. 1:4. In the last two passages the 
 Greek word is the same, though translated 
 
 iThe word for prayers (irpotrcux^) is a sacred word, I always addressed to God, ' entreaty ' may be addressed 
 rare in profane authors, and according to Fritzsche, dif- to God or man. See Trench's "New Testament Syn- 
 fers from (Serjo-tq) entreaty arising from a sense of need, onyms," p. 189. — (F.) 
 as precatw from rorjatio. In other words, ' prayer ' is I 
 
Ch. L] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 35 
 
 12 That is, that I may be comforted together with 
 you by the mutual faith both of you aud me. 
 
 impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye 
 
 12 may be established ; that is, that I with you may 
 
 be comforted in you, each of us by the other's faith, 
 
 dittercntly. The word 'see' is used here in a 
 coiiiproheiisive sense, as often in our common 
 speech, meaning to visit and converse with : 
 indeed the word visit means primarily "to 
 see." [Nearly- ayear befc^re writing this letter, 
 wliile laboring in E[)liesus, Paul, after express- 
 ing his purpose to pass tii rough Macedonia 
 and Achaia to Jerusalem, then says : " After 
 I have been there, I must also see Rome." 
 (voni9:2i.) The motive for his wishing to see 
 tlie city of the Ctesars, the metropolis and 
 Tiiistress of the world, is indicated below.' It 
 was not to see its marble temples and palaces, 
 its theatres, aqueducts, baths, and fountains, its 
 columns and statues and triumphal arches, 
 but to " preach the gospel," to advance the 
 spiritual interests of his brethren, to strengthen 
 them in the faith, and also — that he might 
 have fruit among the Roman people as ainong 
 otlier Gentiles — to win, if possible, the wor- 
 shipers of Mars and Jupiter, of Bacchus and 
 Venus, to the service of Christ.] That I 
 may impart unto you some spiritual i;ift. 
 Probably the reference is not to viiraciilous 
 gifts in particular, but to spiritual benefit of 
 whatever kind. His desire to see them was not 
 for the gratification of curiosity, nor to receive 
 attention, kindness, and bonor from them, 
 nor from any other selfish or secular motive; 
 it was a benevolent desire; he wished to do 
 tiiem good spirituallj'. The three words 'soine 
 sjiirilual gift' are separated from each otber 
 in the original, in such a way as to make eacb 
 more prominent, and to give a peculiar deli- 
 
 cacy and grace to the expression, which cannot 
 be fully exhibited in English. His language 
 does not imply that they were destitute of spir- 
 itual gifts, or particularly lacking in respect 
 to them, but only that they had not all which 
 it was possible and desirable for them to have; 
 and there was, moreover, an indirect compli- 
 ment to them in the implied as^uniption that 
 nothing would be more grateful to them than 
 an increase of spiritual gifts.* To the eud 
 ye may be established. Neither does this 
 imply any special weakness or wavering on 
 their part. All Christians need to be estab- 
 lished — that is, to have their faith, hope and 
 love, and all their graces confirmed and in- 
 creased. Observe he-does not say " that I may 
 establish you," but 'that ye may be estab- 
 lished.' There is no arrogant assumption, no 
 appearance of desiring to make his own agency 
 prominent. 2 
 
 12. That is. [Compare 7: 18.] As if be 
 wished to guard against any possible suspicion 
 of assuming tliat the benefit was to be all on 
 one side, he occupying the superior position 
 of a giver, and they the humbler position of 
 receivers, he adds 'that is,' or, by this I mean 
 to say, that I may be comforted.* This 
 verb is of very frequent occurrence in the 
 New Testament ; and is rendered most com- 
 monly, beseech, comfort, exhort. Neither of 
 these English words fully expresses its mean- 
 ing; hiit the word comfort, in its original, 
 etj'mological sense {from the Latin "con" 
 and "fortis") comes perhaps nearest to being 
 
 1 From the supposed force of (iieTa) in composition, 
 Pr. Sihatr renders the verb share wilh you. But this 
 idea of mutual benefit is, we think, first introduced'in 
 the next verse. Had the verb been followed by the 
 genitive of the thing, as-is usual in the classics, the 
 above rendering, perhaps, would be more plausible. 
 But Winer, p. 198, says, in reference to this passage, 
 and to 1 Thess. 2 : 8, that Paul could not have used the 
 genitive after this verb, for " hedid not purposetocom- 
 municate a portion of (from) a spiritual gift, or a 
 portion of (from) the gospel." The verb is found 
 elsewhere only in 12: 8; Luke 3: 11; Kph. 4: 28; 1 
 Thess. 2: 8. On wceu/xaTKcbv (spiritual), as generally ' 
 referring to fhe Holy Spirit, see Ellicott on Eph. 1:3. 
 The x'^P*-<fi'-'>- is distinguished from Sipoi' as being a 
 gracious gift. Any thing imparted by the Spirit 
 through God's free grace, is a spiritual xapicrna. — (F.) 
 
 ^The construction here, eisi with the intiuitive, ex- i 
 
 pressive of purpose (similarly to toO with the infinitive), 
 is rather a favorite with Paul, occurring some seven- 
 teen times in this Epistle. .See at ver. 20. Hispredilec- 
 tion for this is, according to Buttmann (" tirammar of 
 the New Testament." pp. 236, 264, 2G6), similar to that 
 of the Apostle John for Iva, in order thai, the same 
 occurring in his gospel nearly one hundred and fifty 
 times, and in his opistles' twenty-five times. The 
 student will notics t'-st the infinitive here, as gener- 
 ally throughout the New Testament, is followed by its 
 subject.— (f.) 
 
 'The accusative-subject of the infinitive, it-i or ifki 
 (me), is here, according to a general rule, omitted, .since 
 the subject of the infinitive is the same as that of the 
 leading verb. Notice also, as in ver. 22, and in many 
 other places, how, in case of the suppressed accusative, 
 the qualifying words are subjoined in the nominative. 
 The verb is used only here as a compound. — (F.) 
 
36 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, I 13 both yours and mine. And I would not have you 
 that oltentiuaes I purposed to come unto you, (but was ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to 
 
 I come unto you (and was hindered hitherto), that I 
 
 equivalent. The corresponding abstract noun 
 is translated by the words "exhortation," 
 "consolation," "comfort"; and the corres- 
 ponding personal noun (irapaKArjTo?) when ap- 
 plied to the Holy Spirit, is translated "the 
 Comforter" (Jounurie, 26; is-. 26; i6:7j, and once, 
 when applied to Christ, "Advocate." (uoiin 
 2:1.) The radical idea seems to be to comfort, 
 or strengthen, by encouraging, as one is com- 
 forted and strengthened to meet difficulties 
 and trials by having another called to his side, 
 to cheer and help him. There is a peculiar 
 delicate courtesy and condescension in the 
 last two verses characteristic of Paul. He 
 seems to wish to put himself on a level with 
 those to whom he writes. [The iniinitive 
 here employed is by Do Wette made to de- 
 pend on the verb ' established.' Others regard 
 it as parallel with to see {iSelv). This last is the 
 view of Meyer, who says : " The delicate turn 
 which he gives to the matter is this: Ho see 
 you in order that I,' etc., means nothing more 
 than ' to be quickened along with you and 
 amonff you.' " The Bible Union renders this 
 whole clause as follows : " That is, to be com- 
 forted together among you, by each other's 
 faith, both yours and mine." The mutual 
 faith is not faith in each other, but that faith 
 which was common to both — faith of you as 
 well as of me. "The arrangement of these 
 words (the emphatic position of you — setting 
 them before himself) bespeaks the delicacy 
 and fine feeling of the apostle." (Philippi.) 
 "There is a truth underlying the apostle's 
 courtesy, which is not mere compliment. The 
 most advanced Christian will receive some- 
 thing from the humblest." (Principal San- 
 day.)] 
 
 13. Now I would not have you igno- 
 rant. [The 'now' (Se) is continuative and 
 "slightly oppositive," not strongly so as in 
 hut. It naturally follows the thought that 
 Paul had for many years so strongly desired 
 to see the Eoman Christians, and yet had 
 stayed away all that time.] This expression 
 [which generally introduces something new 
 and important] is an illustration of that figure 
 of speech (meidsis), which is the opposite of 
 
 hyperbole, or exaggeration. Here less is said 
 than is meant, and the phrase is equivalent to 
 "I wish you to know." Often this is more 
 forcible than the opposite figure. In that, 
 reflection teaches us to abate something from 
 the full meaning of the words; in this, reflec- 
 tion leads us to add something to the strict 
 sense of the words. The effect of the expres- 
 sion here, as in 11 : 25; 1 Cor. 10:1; 12: l;2Cor. 
 1: 8; 1 Thess. 4: 13, is to -lay an additional 
 stress on the accompanying communication. 
 Brethren. This is the first time that this 
 word is found in the epistles. The most com- 
 mon designations of Christians in the New 
 Testament are "disciples," "saints," "breth- 
 ren"; but these different terms are found in 
 very (Wflerent pro]:)ortions in difierent parts of 
 the New Testament. The following table 
 shows this very plainly : 
 
 Gospels. Acts. Epislles. 
 
 Disciples 230 times. 30 times. times. 
 
 Saints (i) " 4(2) " 55 " 
 
 Brethren 15 " 30 " 190 " about. 
 
 This difference suggests several instructive 
 reflections: one of these certainly is the im- 
 portance attached in the Scriptures to the 
 organization of the church. Of these three 
 terms, "brethren " is the one that points most 
 distinctly to the union of Christians in one 
 family of God, one body of Christ, which is 
 
 the church. (Kph. 2: 19; l Tim. 3 : 15 ; Eph. 5: 23; 5: 30; 
 
 Col. 1; 24.) Oftentimes I purposed to come 
 
 unto you. In 15: 23 he tells them that he 
 had cherished this purpose " for many yeai-s," 
 [and in the same chapter he further makes 
 known that he intended Spain, and not Kome, 
 to be the "Western terminus, and principal 
 scene of his missionary labors]. The apostles 
 were sometimes guided in their purposes and 
 movements by immediate divine direction, 
 as we learn from Acts 10: 20; 16: 6, 7; 
 but not commonly: in ordinary cases, they 
 formed their purposes, and laid their plans 
 according to human sagacity, like other pious 
 men, praying, of course, for divine guidance; 
 and they were liable to be disappointed and 
 hindered, just like other men. [Prof Stuart 
 thinks we may infer from this that "the apos- 
 
 1 Matt. 27: 52 is thought by some to refer to Old Testament saints. 
 «9: 13, 32,41; 26: 10, 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 37 
 
 let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you 
 also, even as among other Gentiles. 
 
 14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Bar- 
 barians ; both to the wise, and to the unwise. 
 
 might have some fruit in you also, even as in the 
 
 14 re.st of the Gentiles. I am debtor both to Greeks and 
 
 to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the fooliBh. 
 
 ties were (not) uniformly inspired in nil which 
 they purposed, said, or did."] But was let 
 hitherto. What the nature of the letting, 
 or hindrance, was we are not told. Very 
 likely it was the more urgent call for his 
 labors in nearer places, where Christ was 
 less known, to which he alludes in 15: 20-28; 
 or it may have been some express divine prohi- 
 bition, as in 16: 7; or even some hindrance 
 from an altogetKer opposite source, as in 1 
 Thess. 2: 18. Hitherto. The original word 
 here used everywhere else in the New Testa- 
 ment refers to place; here, only to time. 
 That I might have some fruit. [On the 
 occasional use of the subjunctive (here, prop- 
 erly, may have) after a verb in the past tense, 
 "to denote an action still continuing, either 
 in itself, or in its results," see Winer, 287. 
 This usage is quite frequent in this Epistle, 
 the subjunctive taking the place of the classic 
 optative, which mood has entirely disappeared 
 from modern Greek. In ver. 11 we have the 
 subjunctive after the present tense, the more 
 usual, or, at least, the more natural, construc- 
 tion. The word 'some' (rifd) is here em- 
 phatic.^ Most uncials locate it before the 
 noun, which is not its usual order in the New 
 Testament.] This 'fruit' may mean either 
 the conversion of sinners, or the advance- 
 ment of saints in holiness and Christian 
 activity. The word is used in both applica- 
 tions. For the first, see John 4: 35, 36; 15: 
 16; for the second. Matt. 13: 23; Kom. 6: 
 22; Col. 1: 6. The latter sense is here pre- 
 ferred as being the more frequent, and agree- 
 ing better with ver. 11, 12. The last clause 
 intimates that his hope of having some fruit 
 at Kome was founded upon his experience 
 elsewhere. [This clause is connected, in 
 thought, with the one preceding the last. 
 As previously, so here, the idea is implied 
 that the benefit of Paul's labors among the 
 
 Komans was not to be wholly theirs. He 
 desires 'fruit' as his "joy and rejoicing," and 
 he modestly uses the word 'some.' In the 
 New Testament, the word ' fruit' is generally 
 used in a good sense. Even as (I also have 
 fruit) amoug other Gentiles. Meyer says: 
 " There was present to the apostle's mind the 
 twofold conception, ' Among you also, as 
 among,' and, 'Among you, as also among.' " 
 The Roman Christians generally are here re- 
 garded as being formerly- Gentiles, or heathen. 
 This fact is clearly indicated in other pas- 
 sages of the Epistle, especially in the eleventh 
 chapter.] 
 
 14. Paul considers himself a debtor to all 
 classes of men* not on account of any favors 
 which he had received from them ; for he 
 received little else than abuse and persecu- 
 tion; but in view of that law of Christian 
 stewardship and responsibility by virtue of 
 which every man — and pre-eminently every 
 Christian — is bound to communicate to others 
 every good thing which he possesses, in pro- 
 portion to their need, and his own ability; 
 and the greater his advantage over others, in 
 respect to natural ability, and acquired knowl- 
 edge, and providential favors, and gifts of 
 grace, the greater his debt to them. Very 
 few men, if any, owe their fellowmen as 
 much as Paul did; and very few indeed, if 
 any, feel the debt so profoundly, or discharge 
 it so fully. If all who are more highly favored 
 than their fellows had the spirit of Paul in 
 this respect, we should not hear so much of 
 the prejudice of the ignorant against the edu- 
 cated, nor would there be any manifestation 
 of the far more inexcusable prejudice of the 
 educated against the ignorant. Of the epi- 
 thets which Paul applies to his creditors, the 
 first two relate to national distinctions, the 
 last two to personal distinctions.^ He re- 
 garded himself as owing a debt to men of all 
 
 * See the different accent of riva in the "what fruit" 
 of 6: 21.— (F.) 
 
 2 T« KoX, not only to the Greeks, but also to the bar- 
 barians, the last member being probably the more 
 emphatic. See Prof. Thayer's " Lexicon." — (F.) 
 
 3 At Coiinth and Athens Paul would especially meet 
 ■with the professedly " wise," but the "unwise "he would 
 encounter everywhere. This last word (opoi)to«) is 
 
 used in five other passages, Luke 24: 2r>\ Gal. 3: 1, 3; 
 1 Tim. 6:9; Titus 3: 3, and is in the Revised Version 
 everywhere rendered foolish. This refers not so much 
 to natural dullness of intellect as to an "insufficient 
 application" of it. (Ellicott on Galatians3: 1.) Of 
 other kindred words, aifipuii', " a strong term," seems to 
 refer to senselessness, and ao-uKero? to slowness of un- 
 derstanding. Compare Luke 12 : 20 ; Mark 7 : 18. Trench 
 
38 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the I 15 So, as much as ia me is, I am ready to preach the 
 gospel to you that are at Rome also. I 16 gospel to you also that are iu Kome. For I am not 
 
 races, and of all degi'ees of culture. He who 
 so regards himself has the highest qualifica- 
 tion for doing good unto all men, as he has 
 opportunity, (oai. 6:io.) [It was the apostle's 
 wish, and it had been made his duty, to preach 
 the gospel in Pagan Rome. Christ, the apos- 
 tle's Lord and Master, had died for all; and 
 to preach this gospel to Greeks and barbarians 
 was the stewardship which was entrusted to 
 him. It was for this he had been "set apart." 
 From the Grecian standpoint, even the 
 Romans would be styled "barbarians" — a 
 term which properly embraced all non -Greek- 
 speaking nations. But the Romans, in their 
 pride, and with their general Grecian culture, 
 regarded all nations as barbarous except the 
 Greeks and themselves. Paul certainly would 
 not class the Romans, to whom he was writing, 
 with barbarians, much less, with the unwise. 
 "He reckons as Greek those to whom he is 
 writing in Greek." (Bengel.) The two words 
 denote all Gentiles, all mankind indeed, with 
 the exception of the Jews. In Jesus Christ 
 there is neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian nor 
 Scythian. (Coi.3: ii.)]i 
 
 15. So, as much as in me is. [There 
 are several diiTerent renderings of this clause 
 but they do not materially afl'ect the sense. 
 "The on-my-part inclination" is preferred by 
 Meyer ; "So far as it concerns me there is an 
 inclination," etc., is favored by De Wette. 
 The as-for-me is "chosen out of a feeling of 
 dependence on a liigher will." (Meyer.)] I 
 
 am ready to preach the gospel to you 
 that are at Rome also. 'So,' — that is, in 
 accordance with this view of our indebted- 
 ness, 'As much as in me is, I am ready.' Tht 
 expression indicates his modesty, perhaps with 
 a thought of probable hindrance. The word 
 ' ready ' not merely denies any reluctance, 
 but affirms a positive forwardness. The 
 same word is translated "willing" in Matt. 
 2G : 41, and "ready" in the corresponding 
 passage of Mark (14: 38). • The correspond- 
 ing noun is translated "forwardness of mind," 
 "readiness of mind," etc., in 2 Cor. 9: 2; Acts 
 17: 11; 2 Cor. 8: 11, 12, 19. 'To preach the 
 gospel to you that are at Rome also.' The origi- 
 nal is much briefer — " to preach the gospel " 
 being expressed '[>y a single word — literally, 
 "evangelize." [This term^ does not imply 
 that Paul's preaching was to have reference 
 solely to the unconverted, whether of Jews or 
 Gentiles. The Roman Christin7is would need 
 the gospel as it would be preached by the apos- 
 tle. To you (the called saints) that are in 
 Romealso. " Although you belong tothe wise, 
 this causes me no scruples as one who is 
 debtor to the wise." (Philippi.) As a debtor 
 to the Gentiles, Paul would feel himself to be 
 under special obligation to preach the gos- 
 pel in Rome, the capital city of the Gentile 
 world. Let us be thankful that some three 
 years after this he was permitted to preach the 
 gospel in Rome, though under difi"erent cir- 
 cumstances from those he expected. He went 
 
 remarks that " while the ao-uVero? need not be more than 
 intellectually deficient; in the '"'oitos there is always 
 a moral fault lying behind the intellectual." With 
 Christ (and the same is true of Paul), " distinctions 
 of race, intervals of ages, types of civilization, de- 
 grees of mental culture, are as nothing." — Liddon's 
 '■ Bampton Lectures on our Lord's Divinity," p. 8. — (F.) 
 1 Prof. Max Muller, in Lecture IV., p. 128, of his 
 " Lectures on the Science of Language," thus remarks: 
 " Not till that word ' barbarian ' was struck out of the 
 dictionary of mankind, and replaced by ' brother,' can 
 we look even for the first beginnings of our science (of 
 language). This change was effected by Christianity. 
 It was Christianity which first broke down the barriers 
 between Jew and Gentile, between Greek and barbar- 
 ian, between the white and the black. Humanity is a 
 word which you look for iu vain in Plato or Aristotle; 
 the idea of mankind as one family, as the children of 
 one God, is an idea of Christian growth; and the 
 science of mankind, and of the languages of mankind is 
 
 a science which, without Christianity, would never 
 have sprung into life. When people had been taught 
 to look upon all men as brethren, then, and then only, 
 did the variety of human speech present itself as a 
 problem that called for a solution in the eyes of 
 thoughtful observers ; and I therefore date the real 
 beginning of the science of language from the first 
 day of Pentecost."— (F.) 
 
 2 EUicott says the verb evangelize " is used in the New 
 Testament, both in the active (Rev. 10: 7), passive (Gal. 
 1: 11; Heb.4: 6, and elsewhere), and middle. In the 
 last form its constructions are singularly varied : it is 
 used (a) absolutely, Rom. 15 : 20 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 17 ; (6) with a 
 dative of person, Rom. 1 : 15; (c) with an accusative of 
 person. Acts 16: 10 ; 1 Peter 1 : 12 ; (rf) with an accusa- 
 tive of thing, Rom. 10: 15; Gal. 1: 23; (e) with an 
 accusative of oprson and thing, Acts 13: 32; and lastly 
 (/) — the most common construction — with a dative of 
 person and accusative of thing, Luke 1 : 19, and else- 
 where."— (F.) 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 39 
 
 16 For I aiu not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for 
 it is the power of God uuto salvation to every one that 
 believetli ; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 
 
 ashamed of the gospel : for it is the power of God 
 unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the 
 
 there and preached there as Christ's ambassa- 
 dor, but "an ambassador in bonds." (Eph. 6:m.) 
 This, however, did not greatly hinder liis 
 evangelistic work in that place. " His bonds 
 became manifest in Christ in the whole Pre- 
 torium," yea, even in the ''household of 
 C;>3s:ir.'' (Phil. 1: 13; 4: 22.) To the Jews he tes- 
 tified the kingdom of God, and persuaded 
 them concerning Jesus, both from the law of 
 Moses and from the prophets, and for two 
 ■whole years he, not now a servant only, but a 
 chained prisoner of Christ Jesus, "received 
 all thSit went in unto him, preaching the king- 
 dom of God, etc., with all confidence."] So 
 the apostle closes this second portion of his 
 Introduction to the Ejnstle. It is eminently 
 adapted to conciliate the good will of the 
 Koman disciples, being replete with modesty, 
 kindness, and proof of his unfeigned regard 
 for them. The first clause of the succeeding 
 verse may be regarded as the hinge, on which 
 the discourse turns from what is introductory 
 to the main subject of the Epistle, compre- 
 hensively expressed in the second clause. 
 PartII. Doctrinal. (Ch. 1: 16-11: 36.) 
 [Of this section Dr. Shedd gives the follow- 
 ing brief analysis: '■Necessity of gratuitous 
 justification, 1-3: 20; Nature of gratuitous 
 justification, 8: 21.-4: 25; Effects of gratui- 
 tous justification, 5 : 1-8: 39; Application of 
 gratuitous justification, 9: 1-11: 36.' Dr. 
 GifFord, in the "Bible Commentary," states 
 it thus: "(a) The theme; 1: 16, 17; (b) The 
 universal need of righteousness, 1: 18-3: 20; 
 (c) The universality of righteousness by faith, 
 3: 21-5: 21; (d) The sanctification of the be- 
 liever, 6: 1-8: 39; (e) The doctrine reconciled 
 with Jewish unbelief, 9: 1-11: 36." Mr. 
 Beet's synopsis is: "(1) All are guilty; (2) 
 J.istification and its results, 3: 21-5: 21; (3) 
 The new life in Christ, 6: 1-8: 39; (4) Har- 
 mony of the Old and the New, 9: 1-11 : 36." 
 
 De Wette furnishes this analysis: " Kight- 
 eousness through faith, 1: 18-5: 21; Moral 
 eflTects of justification, 6: 1-8: 39; Appendix: 
 Lamentation, Explanation, and Consolation 
 concerning the exclusion of a great part of 
 the Jews from the Christian salvation, 9: 1- 
 11: 36." Olshausen's analysis is as follows: 
 " Sinfulness of the human race, 1: 18-3: 20; 
 The new way of salvation by Christ, 3: 21- 
 5: 11; The vicarious ofl5ce of Christ, 5: 12-7: 
 6; Stages of the development of individuals 
 and of the universe, 7: 7-8: 39; Relation of the 
 Jews and Gentiles to the new way of salva- 
 tion, 9: 1-11: 36.] 
 
 16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel 
 of Christ : for, etc. The first ' for ' introduces 
 the reason why he had long desired to preach 
 the gospel at Rome; the second 'for' intro- 
 duces the reason why he was not ashamed of 
 it. "I am not ashamed of the gospel of 
 Chri.st." This affirmation was perhaps sug- 
 gested by his mention of " the wise" in ver. 14, 
 and by the peculiar position of the Romans, 
 as citizens of the great capital which proudly 
 styled itself "The Mistress of the World," very 
 likely with a tacit remembrance, also, of the 
 ill usage which he had received in other popu- 
 lous and highly civilized cities, as Corinth, 
 Athens, Thessalonica, and Ephesus. The 
 words 'of Christ' are wanting in the oldest 
 MSS. [H A B C D* G], i and are rejected by 
 most critical editors. They are not necessary 
 to the sense, as there is, properly speaking, no 
 other gospel. (Gai. i:6, 7.) ["Not ashamed of 
 the gospel." Mark the boldness of the apostle. 
 "In truth," says Chalmers, "it is often a 
 higher effort and evidence of intrepidity to 
 front disgrace than it is to front danger. 
 There is many a man who would march up to 
 the cannon's mouth for the honor of his 
 country, yet would not face the laugh of his 
 companions for the honor of his Saviour." 
 
 1 The first four MSS. referred to (commonly called the 
 Sinaitic, the Alexandrine, the Vatican, and the Codex 
 of Ephraem), contain the Gospels and the Epistles — D, 
 or Codex Bezae containing only the Gospels and the 
 Acts. It should be remembered that D E F G and 
 other MSS. of the Epistles are not the Gospel uncials, 
 and are, most of them, considerably later. For a brief 
 description of the oldest and most important MSS., 
 Bee General Introduction, p. 36, seq, of the "Com- 
 
 mentary on Matthew." See, also, Dr. Mitchell's 
 " Critical Handbook," p. 73 ; Dr. Schaff's " Com- 
 panion of the Greek Testament," p. 103; G. E. Mer- 
 rill's " Story of the Manuscripts " ; Smith's " Bible 
 Dictionary," Art. New Testament, by B. F. Westcotl ; 
 Scrivener's " Introduction to the Criticism of the New 
 Testament"; Warfleld's "Textual Criticism of the 
 New Testament," etc. — (F.) 
 
40 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 We have in Paul's assertion, 'I am not 
 ashamed,' a figure of speech by which less is 
 said than is meant. Instead of not being 
 ashamed of the gospel, he gloried in it, and in 
 the suffering endured for its sake. (coi.i:24.) 
 Most gladlj', as he tells the Corinthians, would 
 he spend and be spent for their souls (2Cor. 
 I-.': 15), and to the Philippians he says: "If I 
 am poured out (as a drink offering) upon the 
 sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and 
 rejoice with you all." (ReT.ver.,2: n.) It did re- 
 quire great courage in Paul to preach the 
 gospel of the cross to the then heathen world, 
 even as it requires some courage in Christian 
 ministers, and especially Christian mission- 
 aries, now. Paul knew from sad experience 
 that the heathen priests and idol worshipers 
 everywhere would oppose and ridicule the 
 gospel of the crucified Galilean, would scout 
 the idea of giving up their gods and their 
 time-honored religion, their sacrifices, their 
 festivals, and their pageantry, to become the 
 fdllowers of a Jew who had suffered an igno- 
 minious death, and the adherents of a new 
 religion which had neither temples, nor altars, 
 nor statues, nor showy ceremonials. The 
 city where Paul wrote this letter abounded in 
 "wise" men, or seekers after wisdom — men 
 of culture and of "advanced thought," to 
 whom the word of the cross which he preached 
 was foolishness, (i cr. i : is.) Of the cultured 
 Athenians, some mocked at Paul as being 
 worse, we suppose, than a "babbler" when 
 he began to speak to them of the risen Gali- 
 lean. (Acts 17: 18, 32.) What carcd they, to use 
 Festus' language in part, about "one Jesus," 
 a Jew who was put to death for his crimes, 
 whom Paul affirmed to be alive? (Acts 25: 19.) 
 To the Jew at Kome, as to the Jews every- 
 where, nothing was more abhorrent than the 
 thought of a crucified Nazarene Messiah. 
 And what could the religion of this Jesus, 
 who was crucified as a malefactor with the con- 
 sent of the Procurator Pilate, be to the Roman 
 race generally, save what it was to Suetonius, 
 Tacitus, and Pliny, a wretched, destructive, 
 depraved, and immoderate superstition?' 
 What sustained Paul in the preaching of 
 
 Christ crucified amid all these discourage- 
 ments, we learn from the following clause.] 
 For it is the power of God unto salva> 
 tion. Christ himself is called the power of 
 God in 1 Cor. 1 : 24. Here ' the gosjiel ' is so 
 named, and in 1 Cor. 1: 18, "the preaching 
 of the cross," which is only another name for 
 the gospel. Efficient divine power resides in 
 Christ; the gospel, or the preaching of the 
 cross, is the medium through which he exerts 
 his divine power, to the salvation of them that 
 believe. [This is no new teaching of the apos- 
 tle. In his first recorded sermon, preached at 
 Antioch in Pisidia, on his first missionary 
 journey, we hear him proclaiming remission 
 of sins through Christ, and justification for 
 all believers. (Acts 13 : 38, 39.) Of course, in the 
 apostle's view, this belief or faith — both words 
 being etymologically related and denoting 
 the same thing — is something more than mere 
 intellectual belief. It is a confiding trust of 
 the heart, and it works through love.] God's 
 power is often terrible in nature and in provi- 
 dence, but in the gospel it is his saving 
 power. What an encouragement this is to 
 the weak human agents that proclaim this 
 gospel! [Paul elsewhere (1 cor. is: 1, 2) speaks 
 of "the gospel through which ye are saved," 
 and James (1:21) of the "implanted word 
 which is able to save your souls." (Revised 
 Version.) It is a salvation from sin, from the 
 wrath of God, from death, and from perdition, 
 partially realized in the present (Lukei9: 9), but 
 fully completed only in the future. See 8: 
 24 : 1 Thess. 5:8; Heb. 1 : 14 ; 2 Tim. 2 : 10; 
 4:18; 1 Peter 1 : 5 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 1, 2. And all 
 this the gospel of Christ, which is the "mighty 
 arm of God rescuing the world from perdi- 
 tion and bringing it salvation" (Godet), is 
 able to secure. And it is this divine and sav- 
 ing gospel, and not worldly wisdom, phil- 
 osophy, or science, which the ministers of 
 Christ should preach without fear and without 
 shame, even in this age of boasted culture and 
 liberal thought, of skepticism and scoffing 
 unbelief. Let no one be ashamed of that 
 gospel which speaks to our guilty, polluted 
 souls of God's pardoning love and of his 
 
 iSnperstitio — "malefica," "exitiabills," "prava," 
 "inimodica" See references to early heathen testi- 
 nionv in "Biblical Repository" for January, 1838; 
 "Christian Review" for January, 1859; "German 
 Selections," p. 459; Dissertation III, of "Wliiston's 
 
 Appendix to Josephus " ; Dr. Mitchell's " Handbook,'' 
 p. 17 ; Farrar's " Life of Paul," Excursus XV ; Giese- 
 ler's " Ecclesiastical History," 33 ; Rawlinson's " His- 
 torical Evidences," and all works which treat especially 
 of the evidences of Chi iatianity.— (F.) 
 
Ch. L] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 41 
 
 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed | 17 Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is r''- 
 
 I vealed a righteousness of God I'rom faith unto faith: 
 
 sanctifying grace— the two greatest mercies a 
 lost .sinner can ask for or think of. To the 
 natural man this gospel may seem a weak 
 and foolish thing— the things of the Spirit 
 being foolishness unto him. Yet it is the 
 power and the wisdom of the Almighty and 
 All-wise, the foolishness of whom, to use the 
 sublime language of the apostle, is wiser than 
 men, and the weakness of whom is stronger 
 than men. (icor.i:25.) Paul had experienced 
 the saving power of this gospel, and this expe- 
 rience gave him a conviction of its reality, 
 eflBcacy, and worth, which sustained him in 
 preaching it even to a gainsaying world. 
 Christ was to him peculiarly the power of 
 God, for he had seen him and had received 
 him, not as the lowly Nazarene in the days 
 of his humiliation, but in his exaltation and 
 glory, at the sight of which even Christ's 
 bosom disciple, John, fell at his feet as dead. 
 "What we as Christians need, especially those 
 of us who have been "separated unto the 
 gospel of God,'' is to rely, not on our learn- 
 ing and culture, not on the rareness and rich- 
 ness of our style, or on our depth of thought— 
 the excellency of our words, or of our wis- 
 dom, which we may well imagine to be fool- 
 ishness with God— but on the omnipotence of 
 our exalted Redeemer and on the divine 
 power of gospel truth made efficacious by the 
 Holy Spirit. Without the Spirit's aid to 
 bless the truth and give it power, it were as 
 much in vain for the minister of the gospel to 
 preach to those who are dead in trespasses and 
 in sins as for him to go into the burying 
 ground and bid the sleeping dead rise from 
 their graves. If we can testify to this divine 
 power from our own experience, and if we 
 can preach this truth in a plain, earnest, 
 tender, sympathizing manner, we may hope, 
 through God's blessing, to see the gospel's 
 saving efficacy in the conversion of sinners.] 
 There is a special propriety in Paul's empha- 
 sizing the poioer of the gospel in writing to 
 the Romans, as there is in his emphasizing 
 wisdom also in writing to the Greeks, (i Cor. i: 
 J2-24.) Alford well remarks, that this clause 
 
 comprehends the subject, and might not in- 
 aptly form the title of the Epistle: 'The 
 Gospel is the Power of God unto Salvation 
 to Every One that Believeth.' [Philippi gives 
 the theme of the Epistle in these words: The 
 righteousness which avails before God comes 
 to all men from faith only, and only this 
 righteousness of faith has salvation or life for 
 its result.] The universality implied in 'every 
 one' in opposition to Jewish exclusiveness 
 (1:13-3: 2o), the Condition necessitated in the 
 limiting clause, that believeth [in opposition 
 to Jewish legalism] (3: 21-5: 11), and 'the power 
 of God' acting 'unto salvation' (5: 12-8: 39), 
 are the great subjects treated of in the first 
 half of the Epistle. Observe how the litiiita- 
 tion in respect to character is set over against 
 the universality AiionW national and external 
 distinctions. So it is generally in the New 
 Testament, and emphatically in that remark- 
 able passage which has been called "the 
 gospel '" miniature." (Johu3:i6.) To the 
 Jew first, and also to the Greek.' 'To 
 the Jew ' first in order by divine appointment, 
 and first in claim by divine promise ; but w4tk>l 
 no other precedence or pre-eminence. Com- 
 pare 3: 1, 2, 9, and John 4: 22. 'The Greek' 
 is here put comprehensively for the Gentile. 
 Greek was the prevailing language of the 
 Gentile world in those parts adjacent, and 
 most familiar to the Jews. Indeed, the very 
 word here used is translated "Gentile" in 
 about one-third of the places where it occurs. 
 See John 7: 35, twice; Rom. 2: 9, 10; 3: 9; 1 
 Cor. 10: 32; 12: 13. [A single Gentile must be 
 denoted by the word " Greek," as the singular 
 of " Gentiles " (ethnos) is not used of an indi- 
 vidual. "Greeks" also might denote individ- 
 ual Gentiles, while "Gentiles" proper would 
 be used of a class collectively.] 
 
 17. For therein is the righteonsness of 
 God revealed. [For similar phraseologj', 
 see Ps. 98: 2; in the Septuagint, Ps. 97: 2.] 
 'For' illustrates and confirms the .statement 
 of ver. 16. The gospel is the power of God 
 unto salvation, because it reveals 'the right- 
 eousness of God.' Hence the importance of 
 
 1 These terras " embrace all nations, from the Jewish . ver. 14. Meyer says they " denote the equality of what 
 standpoint, as Greeks and Barbarians (ver. 14) do from | is added." — (F.) 
 the Grecian." (De Wette.) On the force of re /col, see I 
 
42 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 understanding aright what is meant by this 
 expression ; it is, more than any other single 
 expression, the ke^' to this Epistle, and, in fact, 
 to the whole gospel as a saving power. What, 
 then, are we to understand here by ' the right- 
 eousness of God'?^ 1. It plainly does not 
 denote the divine righteousness as a personal 
 attribute of God, as it does in James 1: 20; 
 Eom. 3 : 5, 25, 26. It is not this which makes 
 the gospel a saving divine power; nor is it 
 this which is spoken of in Hab. 2: 4. It is 
 not this to which the description in the con- 
 text, and in other parts of this Epistle, is 
 applicable. The righteousness here referred 
 to is a gift from God to men. See 5: 17; 
 Phil. 3:9. It is conditioned on faith. [As 
 here indicated, it flows from faith.] This 
 condition is variously expressed." It is evi- 
 dent that men, then, not God, are the subjects 
 of whom this righteousness is predicated. 
 
 2. It plainly is not the moral rectitude in 
 man which the law of God requires: for it is 
 not by the law. Gal. 2: 21 (5ia) ; 3: 21 («), 
 [orz)i tlielaw, Phil. 3: 6] but without the law, 
 iRom. 3: 21 (xiopi?) ; whereas the moral recti- 
 tude which God requires does consist precisely 
 in conformitj' to his law ; his law is the stand- 
 ard by which it is measured. Again, this 
 righteousness is described as not being our 
 own, but broadly contrasted with our own 
 righteousness, which is by the law. (Rom. 9:3032 ; 
 
 10 : 3, 5, 6 ; Gal. 2 : 16 ; Pliil. 3:9.) 
 
 3. It is, then, the righteousness of God, as 
 proceeding from him, and accepted by him 
 (2: 13; 3: 20; Gal. 3 : ii) ; and it is also no Icss truly 
 the righteousness of the believing man, as 
 provided for him, given to him, and condi- 
 tioned on his faith. In short, it is very nearly 
 
 equivalent to justification. [Winer notices 
 two interpretations of this phrase: that of 
 Luther (which Philippi approves): the right- 
 eousness which avails before God (Rom. 2: is; 3: 
 20; Gai.3: 11), and "the righteousness which 
 God imparts." He deems both appropriate 
 in their right connections, but prefers the 
 latter. Dr. Hodge says : "The gospel reveals 
 a righteousness which God gives and which 
 he approves." DeWettesays: "God justifies 
 for Christ's sake, on condition of faith in him 
 as mediator; the result of his justification is 
 righteousness from faith, and, because he irri- 
 parts this freely, it is righteousness of God 
 (genitive subjective) or, as in Phil. 3: 9, from 
 God." Both nouns are without the article, 
 yet the one is made sufficiently definite hy the 
 other. It is God's righteousness which is 
 being revealed in an:l by the gospel. This 
 righteousness, which comes from God through 
 faith, and which is indeed a "gift" of God to 
 us (5: n), in virtue of which we, though 
 guilty in ourselves, are justified by God and 
 shall stand acquitted in the judgment as 
 righteous, is opposed to a righteousness which 
 is originated by ourselves, which is our own, 
 which is derived not from faith and through 
 grace, but "from works" and "from law." 
 
 (Phil. 3:9; Rom. 10:3: 11:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:21.) The right- 
 
 eousness, then, which God imparts and ap- 
 proves, consists chiefly in faith or trust in the 
 Kedeemer, and with this faith are joined both 
 love and obedience; but our obedience and 
 love and faith are all imperfect, and even 
 faith itself can be counted as righteousness 
 only " according to grace."] ^ 
 
 4. This explanation of the expres.sion is 
 further confirmed by the usage of the verb 
 
 1 The expression occurs twelve times in the New 
 Testament (including several instances of " Am right- 
 eousness," where the pronoun plainly refers to God) '■ 
 nine times in Paul's ejiistles (eight times in Romans, 
 five times in chapter third) — namely, Matt. 6: 33; 
 Rom. 1: 17; 3: 5, 21, 22, 2.^, 26; 10: 3, twice; 2 Cor- 
 5: 21; James 1: 20; 2 Peter 1: 1. [" Righteonsness 
 (5iKaioo-ui'»)) occurs in the New Testament ninety-two 
 times, and is always so rendered in the Common Ver- 
 sion ; Si'iciio? eighty-one times, and is rendered righteous 
 forty time". _;■«.?< thirty-five times, right five timos, meet 
 once; SiKaiiaiia occurs ten times, and is rendered right- 
 eoiisness four times, jiistifiMition once, jtidgmeni once, 
 and in the plural, ordivnvcp^ three times, jvdgvien/s 
 once ; hiKaiiatji.'. occurs twice, and is rendered justifica- 
 tion." (Prof. Boise's " Notes on Romans.")]— (F.) 
 
 2 It is expressed sometimes simply by the genitive 
 case, as in 4: 11, 13; sometimes by various prepositions 
 in the original, as €« 9: 30; 10: 6; 6ia3: 22; Phil. 3: 9; 
 Kara Heb. 11: 7; ejri Phil 3:9. It is well to mark 
 with what fullness and emphasis this condition is 
 expressed, particularly in 3: 22; Phil. 3: 9. — (F.) 
 
 3'- The gospel makes known both the accomplished 
 work of redemption itself and the means whereby man 
 appropriates the redemption — namely, faith in Christ 
 which, imputed to him as righteousness (4 : 5), causes 
 man to be regarded and treated by God out of grace 
 and gratuitously (3: 24) as righteous, so that he, like 
 one who has perfectly obeyed the law, is certain 
 of the Messianic bliss destined for the righteous." 
 (Meyer.)— (F.) 
 
Ch. I] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 43 
 
 from faith to faith : as it is written, The just shall live 
 by faith. 
 
 as it is written, But the righteous shall live from 
 faith. 
 
 to justify, or make righteous, in such pas- 
 sages as 3: 26; 8:33; Gal. 3: 11. ["The verb 
 to justify (Sifcaidcu) occurs forty times in the 
 New Testament, twenty-seven times in Paul's 
 epistles. . . . It denotes an act of jurisdiction 
 — the pronouncing of a sentence, not the in- 
 fusion of a quality. . . . There is, to my 
 knowledge, no pa-sage in the New Testament, 
 and only two or three in the Septuagint where 
 this verb means to make just, or lead to right- 
 eousni'ss." (Schaff. ) '' Dikaioun, even as 
 used by Paul, denotes nothing else than the 
 judicial net of God whereby man is pro- 
 nounce ,1 free from guilt and punishment, and 
 is thus recognized or represented- as dikaios, 
 righteous." (Cremer.) "Z)iA:«ioMM is not only 
 negative, to acquit, but also positive, to de- 
 clare righteous, but never to make righteous." 
 (DeWette.) It is to be noticed that 'to justify ' 
 implies something more than to pardon. A 
 pardoned criminal is never said to be justified. 
 Indeed, our earthly courts know nothing 
 about justifying one who has been guilty. 
 "Pardon and justification, therefore, are es- 
 sentially diflTerent. The one is the remission 
 of punishment, the other is a declaration that 
 no ground for the infliction of punishment 
 exists." (Hodge.)] 
 
 Compare, further, SchaflF's elaborate and 
 admirable note on 3: 24, in Lange's Commen- 
 tary. Also tlie'foUowing from Mej'crand De 
 Wette. " Kightness with God — the relation of 
 being right into which man is put by God (i. e., 
 by an act of God declaring him righteous)." 
 (Meyer.) "Justification is properly after the 
 old Protestant theologians to be taken in a 
 firensic sense — that is, imputatively. . . . All 
 interpretations which overlook the fact of im- 
 putation are erroneous." (DeWette.) 
 
 Therein is revealed. ' Therein '—that is. 
 in the gospel. This righteousness was indeed 
 foreshadowed in the Old Testament, but not 
 revealed, unveiled, until gospel times. The 
 present tense denotes a continual unfolding 
 of this righteousness in the pages of the New 
 Testament [nr by the preaching of the apos- 
 tles. (A. H.)] From faith to faith. There 
 are many ingenious wa^'s of explaining this 
 phrase, such as faitli in the Old Testament 
 first, then in the New; from lower degrees of 
 faith to higher, etc. ; but they are all too 
 
 elaborate and over nice. [Meyer seems to 
 favor the last view, and refers in support of it 
 to 2 Cor. 2: 16. "from life unto life," etc. 
 His statement is tliat " the revelation spoken 
 of proceeds from faith, and is designed to pro- 
 duce faith." But the idea of an advance in 
 faith seems somewhat irrelevant to the apos- 
 tle's argument. The majority of commenta- 
 tors interpret it in the light of 3: 22, and 
 regard this righteousness which comes from 
 fsiith, as also a gift to faitli, or to believers. 
 "This righteousness proceeds from faith, and 
 belongs to faith." (Ripley.) De Wette, 
 Meyer and Alford versus Philippi and others, 
 connect f7'07n faith with the verb is revealed, 
 rather than with righteousness; yet see 10: 6, 
 "the righteousness which is from faith"; 
 also 3: 22; Phil. 3: 9, "the righteousness of 
 God through faith," and "the righteousness 
 from God upon faith." This view is given 
 substantially in Godet's rendering: God's 
 righteousness is revealed (as being) from 
 faith.] It is better perhaps to regard the 
 whole expression as simply intensive, without 
 attempting too minute an analysis of it. It is 
 all of faith, "from stem to stern" (prora et 
 puppis), as Bengel says, in his own terse and 
 pithy way. [According to Pauline usage, 
 faith per se is not righteousness in us, for if so, 
 our righteousness would be very imperfect; 
 nor is it represented as meritorious. We are 
 justified by grace through faith, but never is 
 it said that we are justified on account of faith. 
 We are justified gratuitously (s: 24), and our 
 faith is reckoned for righteousness only in the 
 way of grace. "It is the grace of God which 
 leads him to justify any. Even faith in Christ 
 has no virtue in itself. As an aflfection or act 
 of the soul, it is inferior to love; and neither 
 of them is half as steady or fervid as it ought 
 to be. As strongly as possible, therefore, does 
 Paul assert that justification is an act of free 
 grace to the sinner on thep;irt of God. Hence, 
 faith does not justify as being in itself right- 
 eousness, obedience, a germ of righteousness, 
 or an equivalent for obedience, but as a total 
 renunciation of all claim to personal righfeous- 
 nei^s and a sole reliance vpon Christ for accept- 
 ance with God. ' The glory of faith is that its 
 utter emptiness opens to receive consummate 
 good.'" Hoveys "Manual of Systematic 
 
44 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 Theology," pp. 266, 268.] As it is written, 
 The just shall live by faith. The quo- 
 tation from Hab. 2 : 4 is repeated in Gal. 
 3: 11 and Heb. 10: 38. By a slight trans- 
 position the passage might be made to read, 
 the just (or justiHed) by faith — shall live. 
 And tliis way of connecting the words might 
 seem to give them additional pertinency in 
 the present case ; but when we examine the 
 original passage, as it is found in the Old Tes- 
 tament, such an arrangement of the words, 
 though adopted by Meyer and Winer, seems 
 hardly' consistent with the Hebrew text. [As 
 it is written. Literally, as it has been writ- 
 ten (and remains so). While there are no 
 quotations from the Old Testament in First 
 and Second Thessalonians, Philippians, Colos- 
 sians (the letters to these churches being "in- 
 tended in tl.e main for Gentile Christians" — 
 rarrar),they are very abundant in this Epistle, 
 and are chiefly introduced (nineteen times) 
 by the above formula. Farrar says: "There 
 are about two hundred and seventy-eight 
 quotations from the Old Testament in the 
 New. Of these, fifty-three are identical in 
 the Hebrew, Septuagint, and New Testament. 
 In ten the Septuagint is correctly altered; in 
 seventy-six it is altered incorrectly — i. e,, into 
 greater divergence from the Hebrew; in 
 thirty-seven it is accepted where it differs 
 from the Hebrew; in ninety-nine all three 
 diifer, and there are three doubtful allusions." 
 See also Dr. SchaflT's "Companion to the 
 Greek Testament," page 24. In Dr. S. David- 
 son's "Sacred Hermeneutics," two hundred 
 and fifty-five quotations are given in Hebrew, 
 in the Greek of the Septuagint and of the 
 New Testament, and in English. Prof. Stuart 
 reckons up five hundred and three quotations 
 and allusions, and remarks that even this list 
 "is far from comprehending all of this nature 
 which the New Testament contains. The 
 truth is, there is not a page, nor even a para- 
 graph of any considerable length, belonging 
 to the New Testament, which does not bear 
 
 the impress of the Old Testament upon it." 
 Davidson finds fifty-one quotations in the 
 Epistle to the Romans; Stuart gives fifty- 
 eight quotations and allusions, while others 
 put the number still higher. The largest 
 number we have seen, if we mistake not, is 
 given on pages 180 and 181 of Westcott and 
 Hort's "Introduction to the New Testament 
 in Greek." Paul, according to Dr. Schaff, 
 "usually agrees with the Septuagint, except 
 when he freely quotes from memory, or adapts 
 the text to his argument."' Sometimes we 
 have Moses saith, or Isaiah saith, or the Scrip- 
 ture saith, but never the especial gospel for- 
 mula — "that it might be fulfilled." The New 
 Testament writers and our divine Saviour him- 
 self found, it must be conceded, more of Christ 
 and the gospel in the Old Testament than we 
 should naturally have expected to find, and 
 this shows us that the Old Testament was 
 divinely designed to prefigure and illustrate 
 the ^ew. (See in "Christian Review," for 
 April, 1856, an article by the writer, entitled, 
 "Christ in the Old Testament.") " This retro- 
 spective use of the Old Testament," sa3'3 
 Olshausen, "is rather to be derived from that 
 Scriptural, fundamental view of it, which 
 supposes that in it all the germs of the New 
 Testament are already really contained, and 
 that, therefore, the New Testament is only 
 the fulfilling of the Old." Similarly, Elli- 
 cott: " This typical or allegorical interpreta- 
 tion is neither arbitrary nor of mere Rabbini- 
 cal origin " [Rabbinisch-typischer Interpreta- 
 tionsweise. — Meyer], "but is to be referred to 
 the inspiration of the Holy Spirit under which 
 the apostle gives the literal meaning of the 
 words their fuller and deeper application." 
 The Hebrew of the passage quoted reads, 
 " The just by his faithfulness shall live " ; the 
 Septuagint Version, "The just shall live by 
 my faith " ; while the author of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews has it, according to the Re- 
 vised Version, "My righteous one shall live 
 by faith." ^ As the faith of the righteous one 
 
 1 See also " Quotations in the New Testament," by C. 
 H. Toy, D. D., 1884, for an exliaustive catalogue of the 
 citations and references in the New Testament. — A. H- 
 
 2 Aticaio?, just or righteous, " an adjective lying be 
 tween the verb (5iKaiow, to justify) and the substantive 
 (6i«aio<ru>'T), righteousness), and taking its color, more 
 or less in different instances, from either. It is to be 
 observed that we do not possess in English a family of 
 
 cognate, native words to express these Greek words, 
 but are obliged to render the verb by the Latin deriva- 
 tive Jm.?/;/^, while the kindred adjective and substantive 
 are translated by the Saxon righteous and righteousness. 
 A parallel difficulty arises in the case of the word." 
 jrt<TTts and ffto-Teiid), rendered by the Latin /a!7A and the 
 Saxon believe."—^' The Five Clergymen."— (F.) 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 45 
 
 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven 
 agaiust all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, 
 who hold the truth in unrighteousness ; 
 
 18 For ithe wrath , of God is revealed from heaven 
 agaiust all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, 
 
 1 Or, a wrath. 
 
 in Habakkuk may be his trustworthiness, or 
 "faith which may be relied on, not the faith 
 ■which relies," so some (as Farrar) would 
 regard this quotation as little more than an 
 accommodation of the literal truth to the 
 subject in hand. Yet there is, as Bishop 
 Li^litfoot remarks (on Gal. 3: 11, and page 
 155), "a close moral affinity between trust- 
 wnriliiness and trustfulness," or faith, the 
 former at times approaching "near to the 
 active sense; for constancy under temptation 
 or danger, with an Israelite, could only spring 
 from reliance on Jehovah." Delitzsch, as 
 quoted by Philippi, affirms that "the apostle 
 brings nothing to this passage that it does not 
 contain. All that he does is to set its meaning 
 — that the life of the righteous comes from 
 faith— in the light of the New Testament." 
 And Meyer says: "This faithfulness in the 
 prophet's sense and the faith in the Christian 
 sense have the same fundamental idea — trust- 
 ful self-surrender to God." It was this pass- 
 age of divine truth which brought light and 
 peace to the mind of Luther, and gave him to 
 the cause of the Reformation. In these last 
 two verses we have a concise answer^which 
 only the Holy Spirit could give— to that most 
 momentous question : "How can man be just 
 with God?"i] 
 
 18. For the wrath of God is revealed from 
 heaven. [" An exordium terrible as light- 
 ning." (Melancthon.) Underthegeneral divis- 
 ion : "All are guilty," Mr. Beet gives the 
 following sub-divisions: "For God is angry 
 with all sin (i : 18-32) ; without respect of persons 
 (2:1-11); of this the giving of the law is no 
 disproof (2: 12-24) ; nor is the rite of circumcision 
 (2:25-29); yet the Jcws have real advantages 
 (s: 1-9) ; but are condemned by their own law. 
 
 (3: 10-20.)"] The gospel way of justification by 
 faith in Christ is man's only hope; 'for,' 
 where there is no faith, there is no revelation 
 of the righteousness of God, but a revelation 
 of 'the wrath of God' instead. [According 
 to Godet, the transition from ver. 17, indicated 
 by /or is this: " There is a revelation of right- 
 eousness bj' the gospel, because there is a rev- 
 elation of wrath on the whole world." Simi- 
 larly De Wette : "The righteousness of God 
 (by which we are justified) presupposes Cxod's 
 wrath against sinners, or the unworthiness of 
 men." The verb here, as in the preceding 
 verse, is in the present tense, which denotes 
 something constant or habitual, and is em- 
 phatic by position. "Generally," says Kiih- 
 ner, "both the first and last place in a sen- 
 tence is considered emphatic, when words 
 stand there which, according to the usual 
 arrangement, would have a different posi- 
 tion."] The same phrase, ' is revealed,' is 
 used here as in the preceding verse : but 
 whilst the medium of revelation in the pre- 
 ceding case is limited to the gospel by the 
 expression, 'therein,' here there is a more 
 comprehensive revelation, not only in the gos- 
 pel, but also in man's moral nature, and in 
 divine providence. [Compare ver. 24, seq.; 
 also 2:5.] In what sense is wrath ascribed' to 
 God? There is not in him any violent pertur- 
 bation of feeling, such as usually accompanies 
 wrath in man; but a real, unchangeable, 
 intense displeasure against sin, having a neces- 
 sary connection with his love, and his approval 
 of righteousness. " If God is not angry with 
 the ungodly and unrighteous, neither can he 
 have any pleasure in the pious and the right- 
 eous; for in regard to things of an opposite 
 nature, he must be affected by both or by 
 
 ' " If we had retained our original righteousness, ju3- 
 tice itself would have justified us; but, having sinned, 
 the question, ' How shall man be justified with God?' 
 is too difficult for created wisdom to solve. Whatever 
 delight the Creator takes in honoring and rewarding 
 righteousness, there is none left in this apostate world 
 for him to honor or reward. 'All have sinned and 
 come short of the glory of God.' If any child of Adam, 
 therefore, be now accepted and rewarded as righteous, 
 it must be on entirely different ground from that of his 
 own righteousness. What ground this could be God 
 
 only knew." (A. Fuller.) This writer further notices 
 how justification in the sight of God must diflor from 
 justification among men. Justification in human courts 
 supposes a man to have been innocent rather than 
 guilty, but justification by grace supposes the man to 
 be guilty, and to have need of pardon. This pardon 
 removes the curse, while justification confers the bless- 
 ing of eternal life, and both are, through abounding 
 grace in Jesns Christ, secured to those who in them- 
 selves are only deserving of death.— (F.) 
 
46 
 
 ROxMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 neither." (Lactantius.) Compare Ps. 11: 5-7; 
 45: 6, 7. 'Is revealed from" heaven.' It 
 enters into men's minds as a persuasion which 
 results, not from their own wills, but from a 
 divine constitution of things. It is involuntary 
 and iiieflfaceable. It is not the offspring of a 
 distempered fancj', nor an invention of crafty 
 priests or crafty kings, that they may excite 
 men's fears, and so manage them the more 
 easily for their own advantage: but it is re- 
 vealed from heaven, from the abode of infin- 
 ite wisdom and love. That is the place whence 
 this stern doctrine of divine retribution orig- 
 inates. The wrath that condemns comes down 
 from above upon men just as truly as the 
 righteousness that justifies. [This wrath, 
 according to Philippi, "denotes an inner de- 
 termination of the divine nature itself, the 
 inwardly energetic antagonism and repellant 
 force of his holiness in relation to human sin, 
 which divine afi"ection, indeed, finds its ex- 
 pression in the infliction of punishment." Our 
 merciful Saviour, who came from heaven, 
 himself spoke of the wrath of God as abiding 
 on the unbeliever. 'From heaven' is this 
 wrath revealed, because there "the Lord hath 
 prepared his throne," and thence "his judg- 
 ments go forth as lightning." See "Bible 
 Commentary." De Wette and Meyer suppose 
 this revelation of wrath 'from heaven 'con- 
 sists in visible punishments and judgments 
 inflicted on transgressors. Philippi, on the 
 other hand, asserts that what is revealed by 
 God or from heaven "always refers in the 
 New Testament to an extraordinary revela- 
 tion through miraculous acts, through the 
 words of prophets and apostles, or inwardly 
 through the Spirit of God." The verb in the 
 present tense is, in his view, used for the 
 future, and this revelation of wrath will take 
 place in "the day of wrath and revelation of 
 the righteous judgment of God." (2: 5.) Yet 
 we must say that God's wrath, in some form 
 or other, has always been manifested against 
 all ungodliness and iniquity.] Against all 
 ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. 
 The order of the words is significant. Against 
 'ungodliness' first. The whole development of 
 
 the argument in the remainder of this chapter 
 empliasizes this order. It is, moreover, in ac- 
 cordance with the whole tenor of Scripture. 
 Compare Matt. 6: 33; 22: 36-40. Note the 
 comprehensiveness of the expression : against 
 every kind and every degree, both of irre- 
 ligion and immorality. How little do men in 
 general regard the mere absence of a religious 
 reverence for God as justly exposing them to 
 his wrath! [By the use of the term 'men,' the 
 correlative of 'God,' theapostle would indicate 
 "the a?<(/acify of this God-opposing conduct." 
 (Meyer.) How holy is our God, and how 
 hateful to him is sin that man's ungodliness 
 and unrighteousness, his "sins against the 
 first and the second table" (Philippi), should 
 call forth from him, whose name and nature 
 is love, a revelation of his wrath and of his 
 righteous judgment 1 We may remark that, 
 in this chapter generally, special reference is 
 had to the Gentiles, and not until the next 
 chapter do the Jews come under considera- 
 tion. Even the Gentiles repress the truth in 
 unrighteousness and are conscious of deserving 
 the wrath of God.] Who hold the truth in 
 unrighteousness. The compound verb here 
 used means not simply to hold, but to hold 
 fast, as in Luke 8: 15 (translated keep); 1 
 Thess. 5: 21 ; Heb. 3: 6, 14; 10 : 23, or to hold 
 back, hold down, repress, as in Luke 4: 42 
 (translated stayed); Eom. 7: 6 (translated 
 held); Philem. 13 (translated re^ainerfj. This 
 last sense is the only appropriate one here: 
 men hold down, as in the Revised Version, 
 repress religious truth by living 'in unright- 
 eousness.' Their practical unrighteousness 
 reacts upon the inward man, blinding the 
 understanding, hardening the heart, stupefy- 
 ing the conscience. That this is the true 
 meaning of the word, here translated Jiold is 
 recognized by the best translators and com- 
 mentators.i [Bengel: "Truth in the mind 
 strives and urges, but man impedes it." The 
 Bible Commentary observes here the contrast 
 that the power unto salvation is for "every 
 one that believeth " ; the wrath is against them 
 "that hold down the truth in unrighteous- 
 ness."] 
 
 1 Of the earlier English versions, Wickliffe, Tyndale, 
 Crannier, aud the Genevan huve withhold ; the Rhera- 
 ish has delain; Alford, hold back; the Vulgate and 
 'Beza., detinent ; Diodati's Italian and DeLacy's French 
 
 have retain (ritengono, retiennent) ;. the Bible Society's 
 French has suppress (suppriment) ; Luther's German 
 hasaufhalten [to hirider]. 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 47 
 
 19 Because that which may be known of (Jod is 
 manifest in them ; for (Jod liath shewed it unto them. 
 
 2u tor the invisible things of hiui from the creation 
 of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the 
 
 19 who 1 hinder the truth iti unrighteousness; because 
 that wiiicli may be known of (iod is manifest in 
 
 20 tliem; for (iod manifested it unto them. For the 
 invisible things of him since the creation of the 
 world are clearly seen, being perceived through the 
 
 1 Or, hold tht truth. 
 
 19. Because. The connection of the thought 
 is this: this chiirge which I bring against 
 them is just; 'because' it is true ; tirst, that 
 they have the elementary knowledge of the 
 truth (proved in ver. 19, 20), and, secondly, 
 that they so pervert it (proved in ver. 21-23). 
 The argument of ver. 18 to 20, though com- 
 pressed, is very clear and conclusive. [Meyer 
 and others see in this because the reason 
 why God's wrath comes upon wicked men.] 
 That which may be known of God— that 
 is, whatever may be learned about God 
 from nature and providence, apart from 
 revelation. [According to Meyer, De Wette, 
 and others, yvuxnov, which in the classics most 
 frequently means knouinble, does not occur in 
 this sense in the New Testament, the LXX., 
 or the Apocrypha, but signifies that which 
 is actually known {yviarov). All that might 
 be known of God was not manifest in the 
 heathen ; but they did know, even apart from 
 revelation, of a Creator, and of his everlasting 
 power and divinity. (Aotaii: i? ; i7: 27.) The 
 heavens declared to them God's power and 
 glory, but no inspired word revealed to them 
 his will and grace. Godet, however, thinks 
 the manifestation of that which is known is 
 a "startling tautology.'' According to the 
 teaching of this passage, it is plain that agnos- 
 ticism cannot be justified even in the heathen.] 
 Is manifest in them. Not merely among 
 them, or to them, but in them — that is, in 
 their hearts and consciences. This agrees 
 with the following verse, and also with 2: 15. 
 For God hath shewed it unto them. It is 
 manifest in them ; for God manifested it to 
 them. The Common Version fails to exhibit 
 the intimate connection between the verb in 
 this clause, and the adjective in the preceding 
 clause. The indefinite past tense is preferable 
 to the perfect here — 'manifested,' to 'hath 
 shewn,' or ' hath manifested.' God so framed 
 the earth and man at the creation as to bear 
 witness to himself. Compare Acts 14: 17; 
 17: 26, 27. ["He left not himself without 
 witness." "By saying that God manifested 
 it, he means that man was created to be a 
 
 spectator of this formed world, and that eyes 
 were given him, that he might, by looking 
 on so fair a picture, be led up to the Author 
 himself." (Calvin.) If Paul, in this passage, 
 had referred to an original revelation, as some 
 have supposed, he would probably have used 
 the word revealed.] 
 
 20. For the invisible things of him. 
 [The adjective may mean unseen, or, that 
 which cannot be seen (by the outward eye), 
 invisible.'\ These invisible things are his un- 
 seen attributes and perfections [especially his 
 everlasting power and divinity. AVith this 
 passage, compare "Wisdom of Solomon," 
 chap. 13.] From the creation of the 
 world. 'From' is here to be understood 
 in a temporal sense, equivalent to "ever 
 since." To understand it as referring to the 
 medium of that knowledge of God attributed 
 to the heathen would be to make this and the 
 following clause aflBrm the same thing, con- 
 trary to the very condensed style of the 
 apostle in these verses. [Dr. Gifford, how- 
 ever, thinks the one clause may refer to the 
 source of knowledge, the other to the method 
 of its derivation.] Are clearly seen — liter- 
 ally, are looked down upon, looked at, ob- 
 served, being understood by the things 
 that are made. [Paul, as in the passages 
 above cited, advanced similar ideas at Lj'stra 
 and at Athens.] There is a verbal contradic- 
 tion here, even more manifestly in the original 
 than in our translation [to see what is unseen, 
 or invisible, a figure of speech called oxy- 
 moron] ; but it is easily explained. Invisible 
 things cannot, of course, be clenrly seen, in 
 the literal sense of the words. But they are 
 clearly seen by the exercise of the mi7id upon 
 the things that are made, which is precisely 
 what the apostle here affirms [in the use of 
 the word perceived]. The things that are 
 made strike the senses; the inference from 
 them of a Divine Power .strikes the consider- 
 ing mind. So Cicero saj-s : Deum non vides 
 — tamen agnoscis ex operibus ejus. "Tusc. 
 Disp." 1 : 29. " Thou dost not see G^d : yet 
 thou knowest him from his works." Even 
 
48 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 things that are made, even his eternal power and God- 
 head ; so that they are without excuse : 
 
 things that are made, even his everlasting power 
 and divinity; i that they may be without excuse: 
 
 (literally, both) his eternal power and 
 (eternal) Godhead. These are 'the invisible 
 things of him.' His 'power' is the thought 
 that first and most impressively strikes the 
 considering mind on the contemplation of 
 his works. [" Eternal, and Almighty, have 
 always been recognized epithets of the Crea- 
 tor." (Alford.)] But, it may be asked, How 
 can his 'eternal' power be inferred from the 
 things that are made? They were not made 
 from eternity. The apostle here assumes 
 that the human mind is so constituted as to 
 reject the idea that such power could ever 
 have been acquired, such skill ever learned : 
 he who has such power and skill must always 
 have had it. [Possibly, too, their feeling of 
 dependence, as well as the apparent depend- 
 ence of all things begun, changing, and tran- 
 sient, may have led them to think of a Being 
 independent, unchanging, eternal. Some, 
 however, suppose that God, in addition to the 
 light of nature, made to primeval man a 
 special revelation of himself as Creator of all 
 things. In some way or other, the Gentiles 
 liegan with monotheism — they knew God 
 (ver. 2i),and in this matter they, though ignor- 
 ant of our many natural sciences, and our 
 modern scientific discoveries and inventions, 
 diflPered widely from some of our "scientists," 
 who, by means of the telescope and microscope, 
 see everywhere, and in every thing through- 
 out God's vast creation, so much of power, 
 wisdom, order, beauty, adaptation, design, 
 perfection — that they become "agnostics" who 
 do not know much, or anything, about the be- 
 ingof an Almighty Crea,tor, thatlnfiniteMind, 
 which could alone plan and conserve such a 
 universe as this. " Heathenism," says Meyer, 
 "is not the primeval religion, from which 
 man might gradually have risen to the knowl- 
 edge of the true God ; but is, on the contrary, 
 the result of a falling away from the known 
 original revelation of the true God in his 
 works."] Under the term, "Godhead" [prop- 
 erly, divinity (eeioTrjs) not Godhead, or deity 
 (eeoTi)?), which dwells in Christ, see Col. 2: 9], 
 the apostle comprehends whatever else of the 
 divine perfections, besides eternal power, can 
 he learned from the works of creation and 
 
 providence. The adjective "eternal" [not 
 ai<ii/tos, properly rendered, eternal ; but iiSioj, 
 everlasting, from iei, always, occurring also 
 in Jude 6] is to be regarded as qualifying 
 this word " Godhead," as well as the word 
 "power" [the adjective not being repeated, 
 since the nouns are of the same gender. For 
 the same reason, the first noun only has tiie 
 article. (Winer 527, 128.) (On t€— icai, see 
 at ver. 14.)] So that they are without 
 excuse. [The construction here, the prepo- 
 sition into, or unto (eis), with the infinitive 
 and article, generally, if not universally, 
 telic, denotes not a result (so that), but a pur- 
 pose, in order that, and it is so regarded by 
 Meyer (and Godet) in this place, his idea 
 being that this seeing or perception of the 
 divine attributes through his works, was so 
 ordained, or purposely established, that sin- 
 ning men should have no excuse. Lange 
 regards this view as a predestinating men for 
 guilt (not necessarily so, however), and with 
 most commentators, sees here but a simple 
 result. Yet what is Dr. SchaflP's " (intended) 
 result" but the divine purpose? The right 
 view is very happily stated by Dr. Giiford : 
 '■''Godi's, purpose was to leave nothing undone 
 on his part, the omission of which might give 
 men an excuse for sin." A similar construc- 
 tion occurs in 1: 11; 3: 26; 4: 11; 16: 18; 
 6 : 12 ; 7 : 4, 5 ; 8 : 29 ; 11:11; 12 : 2, 3 ; 15 : 
 8, 13, 16. Meyer contends that all these infin- 
 itives have a telle force. Others denj' this 
 force of the preposition to or icnto (eis) before 
 an infinitive present. See Prof Thayer's 
 "Lexicon,'' p. 185.] Facts correspond with 
 the apostle's statements throughout these 
 verses. The heathen have more light than 
 they are willing to improve. Their responsi- 
 bility is measured by the light which they 
 have opportunity to enjoy, and not by that 
 which they choose to appropriate. Many tes- 
 timonies might easily be adduced, to prove 
 that they have more light than they are 
 willing to improve, and that they know ^Aem- 
 se^i'es to be inexcusable. Take the following as 
 a single specimen. Rev. A. W. Murray, after 
 nearly forty years of extensive observation in 
 the island world of Polynesia, says: " I have 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 49 
 
 21 Because that, wheu they knew God, they glorified 
 him not as God, neither were thankful; hut became 
 vain in their iuiagiuations, and their foolish heart was 
 darkened. 
 
 21 hecau.>*e that, knowing God, they glorified him not 
 as God, neither gave thanks; hut became vain in 
 their reasonings, and their senseless heart was 
 
 never found, in all my wanderings among 
 savage tribes, any who had not some idea of 
 a future life, and of beings superior to them- 
 selves, to whom they owed some sort of hom- 
 age, and whom they feared, and sought in some 
 way to propitiate. If the entire absence of 
 all religious belief is to be found anywhere 
 among the human family, I know of no place 
 so likely as among the aborigines of Australia. 
 There man has sunk about as low as he can 
 sink; yet, among some of the tribes there is 
 a distinct belief in a future life and a Supreme 
 Being." One of the most forcible exhibitions 
 of the inexcusableness of the heathen mtiy 
 be found in an excellent little tract, published 
 
 Pitiably blind and ignorant must those persons 
 be who can discern, in all this universe, no 
 intelligent force, no sign of an Infinite Mind.] 
 21. The word because shows thtit this verse 
 is designed to confirm and expand the thought 
 expressed in the last clause of the preceding 
 verse — to illustrate still further the inexcusa- 
 bleness of the heathen. When they knew 
 GoA\\\ievA\\y, having known Goti] refers to ver. 
 19 ; it does not refer to that saving knowledge 
 of God spoken of in sucli passages as Jer. 
 9 : 24; John 17 : 3, 25. They glorified him 
 not as Goil ["according to the measure of 
 his divine quality."— Meyer], neither were 
 thankful — more literally, neither gave thanks. 
 
 many years ago by our veteran Burman mis- , [Because of this the apostle asserts that they 
 sionary. Dr. Edward A. Stevens, entitled : I are witliout excuse, even while ignorant of the 
 " Are the Heatiien in a Perishing Condition?" ' "historic Christ" or of God's amazing love 
 He shows that they themselves resent, as an j in him.] The first clause relates to the adora- 
 
 insult to their understanding, the apology 
 sometimes made for them, that the poor, 
 simple creatures know no better. [On the fate 
 of such heathen, see notes on 2 : 12; 10: 14. 
 AVe here would simply remark that if the 
 heathen who have sinned though "without 
 law," have no excuse, then they may be 
 judged and condemned by our Lord and 
 Saviour, and we must regard as false the 
 dictum of the New Theology, or Progressive 
 Orthodoxy, that till "those who are to stand 
 before Christ as a Judge must first hear of him 
 as a Saviour."] Note what an emphatic en- 
 dorsement of the cosmological argument for 
 the existence of God is contained in the above 
 ver~os. 
 
 Observe, also, what a broad foundation is 
 here laid for the science of Natural Theology 
 — and that, too, in the midst of an argu- 
 
 tion of the divine perfections in general; the 
 second, to the acknowledgment of him as the 
 Giver of every good. Bengel thus distin- 
 guishes them : " We ought to give thanks on 
 account of his benefits; to glorify him, on ac- 
 count of his own perfections." They did 
 neither. But became vain in their imagi- 
 nations. [Thej' turned their thoughts to 
 that which is vain and empty, because in 
 turning away from God they lost the highest 
 object of their thought. See Weiss' "Bibli- 
 cal Theology of the New Testament," vol. I, 
 p. 354.] The word translated ' became vain ' is 
 not used elsewhere in the New Testament 
 [nor is it found in the Greek authors], but is 
 used about half a dozen times in the Greek 
 translation of the Old Testament, commonly 
 called the Septuagint. In the language of the 
 Old Testament, the word vanity is in many 
 
 ment evincing the value and necessity of a ! places nearly synon.vmous with falsehood, or 
 divine revelation. [Meyer notices " how com- ' sin in general, and especially idolatry. See 
 pletely in our passage the transcendental ' Dont. ^2: 21; 2 Kings 17: 15, 16. Compare 
 relation of God to the world — the negation of | also Acts 14: 15. The word here translated 
 all identity of the two— lies at the foundation 'imaginations' (elsewhere 'thoughts,' 'rea- 
 of the apostle's view. It does not exclude the } sonings') is generally in the New Testament 
 immanence of God in the world, but it ex- ' used in an unfavorable sense. See Matt. 15: 
 
 c]ui\es :i\\2}a7itheism." Dr. Schaif .says : "The 
 book of nature is, as Basil calls it, n paideute- 
 rion theognosias, a school of the general knowl- 
 edge of God; and there is no nation on earth 
 which is entirely destitute of this knowledge." 
 
 19 ; Mark 7 : 21 ; Luke 6 : 8 ; 9 : 46, 47. [Com- 
 pare Rom. 14 : 1 ; 1 Cor. 3 : 20; 2 Cor. 10: 5; 
 Phil. 2: 14; 1 Tim. 2: 8.] And their foolish 
 heart was darkened. [The apostle in Eph. 
 4: 17-19 describes the Gentiles in much the 
 
50 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became 
 fools. 
 
 m And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God 
 into an image made like to corruptible man, and to 
 birds, and fourlooted beasts, and creeping things. 
 
 22 darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they 
 
 23 became fools, and changed the glory of the incor- 
 ruptible God for the likeness of an image of cor- 
 ruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted beasts, 
 and creeping things. 
 
 same language as he employs here, character- 
 izing them as being vain, depraved, darkened, 
 ignorant in their minds, and as hardened in 
 their hearts, as being alienated from the life of 
 God and past feeling, morally and .spiritually 
 dead. The term 'foolish,' as used here, is 
 akin to undiscerning ; implying a guilty mis- 
 use or non-use of the understanding. (See first 
 note to ver. 14. ) That their hearts had become 
 thus wanting in understanding is implied in 
 their becoming vain in their reasonings. Some 
 of the thoughts, and even of the words which 
 Paul uses in this description of the Gentiles, 
 are found in the "Wisdom of Solomon," 
 chapters 13 and 14.] The word 'heart,' in 
 our common English speech, usually denotes 
 the seat of the affections, in distinction from 
 the intellect. But the use of the Greek word 
 in the New Testament, and in the classical 
 writers, and of the corresponding Hebrew 
 word in the Old Testament, is not so limited, 
 but includes the whole inner man, intellect as 
 well as aff'ections. See Matt. 13: 15; 15: 19; 
 2 Cor. 3 : 15 ; 4:6. Hence no particular stress 
 is to be put on the word 'heart' in such pas- 
 sages as Ps. 14 : 1 ; 53 : 1 ; Eoni. 10 : 9, 10. So 
 also the word usually translated "mind" 
 sometimes includes the aff'ections and desires, 
 as in Eph. 2: 3. Thus the heathen, forsaking 
 the truth, became vain in their imaginations, 
 and forsaking the light, became darkened in 
 their hearts. According to the Scripture [and 
 to the teachings of history], the primeval re- 
 ligion was neither polytheism nor nature- 
 worship. If those who have only the light of 
 nature are inexcusable for not glorifying God, 
 nor being thankful, how much greater is the 
 guilt of those who, with all the additional 
 light of the gospel, still do not glorify him as 
 God, and are not thankful for his manifold 
 m'ercies. 
 
 22. Professing themselves to be wise, 
 they became fools. Affirming that they 
 were wise [while ignorant of the "ignorance 
 that was in them"], they became foolish. 
 Their foolishness was only made more con- 
 
 spicuous by their pretensions to wisdom. This 
 was eminently illustrated in the case of 
 the so-called sophists among the Greeks, 
 though it is hardly probable that the apostle 
 had any specific reference to them. ["The 
 foolishness of God is wiser than men," how- 
 ever much of wisdom they may arrogate to 
 themselves. For a similar use of the word 
 rendered 'professing,' see Acts 24: 9; 25: 19 
 (and Ke V. 2 : 2, according to our Textus Reccp- 
 tus). For the construction, see note on ver. 12. 
 The description here given of the professedly 
 wise is not wholly inapplicable to some of our 
 modern scientists.] 
 
 23. The sense of this verse would be justly, 
 though in the first part of the verse less liter- 
 ally, expressed by the following paraphrase: 
 a7id substituted for the glorious incorruptible 
 God an image of the likeness of corruptible 
 man, etc. [Compare this language with Ps. 
 106: 20.] The Greeks and Romans worshiped 
 for the most part representations of their false 
 gods under the human form; but the Egyp- 
 tians, and other still ruder nations, worshiped 
 birds, as the ibis, or stork ; four-footed beasts, 
 as Apis, the sacred ox, the dog, and the cat; 
 and even reptiles, or creeping things, as the 
 crocodile, and the serpent. [The term incor- 
 ruptible^ as applied to God, occurs elsewhere 
 only in 1 Tim. 1 : 17, an important text in the 
 history of the elder Edward's religious expe- 
 rience. As to its distinction from the term 
 immortal, see Trench's "Synonyms," p. 254. 
 It is found elsewhere in 1 Cor. 9: 25; 15: 52; 
 1 Peter 1:4, 23; 3: 4. The noun occurs in 
 Rom. 2: 7 ; 1 Cor. 15: 42, 50, 53, 54; Eph. 6: 
 24; 2 Tim. 1: 10; Titus 2: 7. The heathen, 
 instead of glorifying the Creator, worshiped 
 him, if at all, as a created being — "for it is 
 only such a being that can find its likeness in 
 these images" (Weiss); thus degrading this 
 incorruptible One "inHhe likenessof an image 
 (likeness consisting in an image) of corrupti- 
 ble man, and of birds, and of quadrupeds, and 
 of reptiles." Meyer makes "birds," etc., in 
 the same construction with m,an — i. e., de- 
 
 1 On the force of this in, as " to charge something In I the exchange is eflfected. The in of price is similar." 
 gold," Winer thus remarks: " It Is either an abbrevi- This construction is commonly termed Hebraistic, 
 ated expression, or ' gold ' is conceived as that in which \ Meyer, however, regards the en as instrumental.— (F.) 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 51 
 
 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, 
 through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour 
 their own bodies between themselves : 
 
 24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their 
 hearts unto uncleauuess, that their bodies should be 
 
 25 dishonoured among themselves: for that they ex- 
 
 pendent on image. The Egyptian worship of 
 animals had at that time in part become do- 
 mesticated in Kome, according to Tholuck 
 and Lange.] 
 
 24. Here follows a description and enume- 
 ration of the vices which illustrate the 'un- 
 righteousness' spoken of in ver. 18, as the 
 preceding verses 21-23 illustrate the 'ungodli- 
 ness' there mentioned. Wherefore. The 
 apostle lays stress on the logical connec- 
 tion between their ungodliness and their un- 
 righteouj^ne.ss — -between their abandonment of 
 God by idolatry, and God's abandonment of 
 them to the unrestrained indulgence of un- 
 natural lusts and every degrading vice and 
 evil passion. The latter was the logical con- 
 sequence, the actual result, and the just retri- 
 bution of the former. Not content with the 
 emphatic alBrination of this connection by 
 the word ' wherefore ' at the beginning of ver. 
 24, he reiterates it in ver. 26, "for this cause,'' 
 and echoes it again in ver. 28, "and even as." 
 He seems to wish to impress the thought 
 deeply that the primal error, the first step in 
 the downward course, was the abandonment 
 of God as the sole object of worship; that the 
 stream of vice has its source in ungodliness; 
 that irreligion is the root of immorality. [See 
 Mulier's "Christian Doctrine of Sin," vol. I, 
 p. 131 ; II, 470, Pulsford's Translation.] The 
 converse would seem to follow — that there can 
 be no true and complete morality which is 
 not rooted in religion, in reverential regard 
 for God. God also gave them up to un- 
 t'leanness. That little word 'also' is not 
 without significance ; it seems to intimate that 
 God's retributive abandonment of them cor- 
 responded, in proportion and progress, to 
 their impious abandonment of him. [This, 
 however, is omitted in the Revised Version.] 
 He 'gave them up' ; this e.xpresses, on the 
 one hand, something more than n^ere permis- 
 sion, and, on the other hand, something less 
 than positive impulse toward any of these 
 abominations. ["It is at least a judicial 
 
 abandonment" (Hodge), and is akin to what 
 is implied in our Saviour's utterance, John 9: 
 39: "For judgment came I into this world 
 that . . . they who (profess to) see might be- 
 come blind."] The same id(!a is expressed 
 elsewhere, both in the Old Testament and in 
 the New. See Ps. 81 : 12; Isa. 6: 10; Mark 
 4:12; Acts7:42; Rom.9:18. AUthistakes 
 place, at the same time, through (literally 
 in) the lusts of their own hearts. [Epi- 
 thumia, denoting, generally, evil desire (al- 
 ways so in the plural) is rendered lust in 6: 
 12; 7:7; 13: 14, and concupiscence in 7: 8. 
 The verb occurs in 7: 7; 13: 9, in connection 
 with the tenth commandment.] This expres- 
 sion, in the lusts, not only specifies the de- 
 partment of their being i?i which this dis- 
 honor took place, but also intimates that they 
 were perfectly voluntary ; while God deliv- 
 ered them up to this uncleanness, they went 
 into it in full accordance with the inclinations 
 of their own hearts. [In Eph. 4: 19, we read 
 that the Gentiles ''''gave themselves up to las- 
 civiousness," and this twofold representation 
 of divine and human agency is but a repeti- 
 tion of God's hardening Pharaoh's heart and 
 of Pharaoh's hardening his own heart. ''He 
 gives hhnself up," says Meyer, "while he is 
 given up by God to that tragic nexus of moral 
 destiny; and he becomes no machine of sin, 
 but possesses at every moment the capacity of 
 repejitance, which the very reaction resulting 
 from the feeling of the most terrible misery 
 of sin — punished through sin — is designed to 
 produce." In this penal retribution for 
 man's apostasy, we see the beginnings of the 
 manifestation of " God's wrath."] To dis- 
 honour their oAvn bodies between them- 
 selves. This verse might be read more in 
 accordance with the order of the words in the 
 original Greek — "Wherefore God gave them 
 up, in the lusts of their own hearts, to the 
 uncleanness of their own bodies being dis- 
 honored among them." ^ The reading them 
 is better sustained by the manuscripts than 
 
 1 The form of the verb, being in the infinitive (either i others. Yet this infinitive clause is by many (Thohick 
 
 middle or passive) with toO, usually denotes purpose 
 (compare?: 3; Acts 26: 18; 1 Cor. 10: 13; Heb. 10: 7), 
 and this is expressed in the Revised Version, and is 
 also favored, rightly, we think, by Philippi, Godet, and 
 
 Fritzsche, De Wette, Meyer) regarded as a noun in 
 the genitive case of apposition, after the word un- 
 cleanness (Winer, 326 ; Buttmann, 2G8), the clause thus 
 showing in what the uncleanness consisted. — (F.) 
 
52 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and 
 worshipped and served the creature more thau the 
 Creator, who is blessed lor ever. Amen. 
 
 changed the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped 
 and Served the creature rather than the Creator, who 
 is blessed i for ever. Amen. 
 
 1 Gr. unto the ages. 
 
 the reading themselves ;^ among is more exact 
 tlian between, and the change in these two 
 expressions favors the passive sense of tlie verb 
 to dishonor, the form of v^hich is ambiguous, 
 admitting either the active or the passive 
 sense, but with a presumption, apart from the 
 above considerations, in favor of the latter. 
 The expression "among them" is equivalent 
 to "ill their common intercourse." ["The 
 most terrible misery of sin'' is that sin leads 
 to sin, and this too in the way of a descent 
 from bad to worse. In the words of Schiller, 
 quoted by Schatf — 
 
 This is the very curse of evil deed. 
 That of new evil it becomes the seed.2 
 
 And when one enters upon an evil course, 
 he knows not to what depths of degradation 
 he may be led. His language at first may be, 
 "Is thy servant a dog that he should do this 
 great thing?" and he ends with doing that 
 which the very beasts would be ashamed to 
 do. Thus, self-destroyed and lost in vileness, 
 he may say with Mokanna, in the "Veiled 
 Prophet of Khorassen" : 
 
 Here,judge if hell, with all its power to damn, 
 Can add one curse to the foul thing I am. 
 
 And what a degradation is this, that those 
 who were formed for God and who "knew 
 God" and truth and duty, should, under this 
 law of development, of moral seed-sowing 
 and harvesting, be so far given over to dis- 
 eased appetites or vile passions, that their 
 noblest faculty, the sovereign power of will — 
 that which they have "in superior distinction 
 from the beast" — becomes subservient to their 
 lusts and the means of sinking themselves 
 lower than the brutes.] 
 25. Who changed the truth of God into 
 
 a lie. The word translated ' who' is not the 
 simple relative pronoun, but a compound 
 which [like the Latin, quippe qui] often inti- 
 mates a reason for what precedes, "as being 
 such who," or "because they were such as." 
 [Buttmann, however, supposes that this form 
 in the later language lost some of its original 
 force.] 'Changed the truth of God into a 
 lie' — equivalent to "exchanged the true God 
 for a false," as in ver. 23. [Philo, speaking 
 of the Israelites making the golden calf, says : 
 "What a lie they subsituted for how great a 
 reality! " "The truth of God," says Weiss, 
 "stands for the true nature of God." The 
 word "changed" here is stronger in form 
 than the "changed" of ver. 23, and conse- 
 quently has a stronger meaning, equivalent to 
 exchanged. Tiie preposition 'into,' accompa- 
 nying the word lie, denotes "the element in 
 which the change subsisted." (Alford.) See 
 also on ver. 23.] And worshipped and 
 served. The former verb [primarily mean- 
 ing "to be afraid of," occurring onlj' here, in 
 form a passive deponent, and usually followed 
 by the accusative] signifies inward reverence, 
 and the latter outward acts of homage, as 
 sacrifices, pra^^ers, etc. [See notes on ver. 9, 
 and compare Matt. 4 : 10 ; Luke 2: 37.] The 
 creature is put for created and material 
 things in general. More than the Creator 
 — beside, or in preference to, the Creator, im- 
 plying exclusion ['■''instead o/the Creator." — 
 Winer], for the Creator allows no rival. 
 Who is blessed forever. Amen.^ This 
 doxology forcibly indicates the apostle's pious 
 horror at such a dishonor put upon God, and 
 sets their sin in a stronger light. For similar 
 examples of abrupt doxology in the midst of 
 a sentence, see 2 Cor. 11: 31; Gal. 1:5. It 
 
 1 Our TextusReceptus has the reflexive, eourois (them- 
 selves), the reading ofD***EGKL. The older uncials 
 X A B C D * have aurois, them. The Revisers have this 
 latter form, yet render it as reflexive. The contracted 
 form of the reflexive (eauToIs) would be aiirots, but 
 these contracted forms of the third person are sup- 
 posed not to occur in the New Testament. See Butt- 
 mann, p. 111. Yet Westcott and Hort have this form, 
 auToc5, in ver. 27. Meyer thinks the reflexive forms 
 were frequently neglected by the copyists, and so would 
 read the reflexive here, as in ver. 27.— (F.) 
 
 2 Das eben ist der Fluch der bosen That 
 Das sie, fortzeugend, immer Boses muss gebaren. (F.) 
 3" God is blessed unto the ages," even though men 
 may dishonor and degrade him. Chrysostom says that 
 it was not to avenge himself that God gave them up, 
 for he suffered nothing— i. e., he is forever blessed. 
 Alford states that the verbal adjective here employed 
 (euAoyijTos, blessed) is commonly used of God, but the 
 participle (euAoyrj^eVo?) oltener of man. See, however, 
 €uAoyT)Tds in Thayer's Lexicon, and notes on 9 : 5. — (P.) 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 53 
 
 26 For this cause God gave theui up unto vile atfec- 
 tious: lor even their women did ehange the natural 
 use into that which is against nature; 
 
 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural 
 use of the woman, hurned in their lust one toward 
 another; men with men working that which is un- 
 
 26 For this cause (iod gave them up unto 'vile pas- 
 sions : lor their women changed the natural use into 
 
 27 tlial which is against nature: and likewise also the 
 men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned 
 in- their lust one toward another, men with men 
 
 1 Gr. pa^aions of dishonour. 
 
 gave a shock to the apostle's mind to think 
 tliiit men should be so infatuated as to turn 
 away from the Creator to tiie creature, and 
 led him to seek relief in a devout doxology. 
 The idolatry of the heatlien in our day ouglit 
 to produce similar eflects in the hearts of all 
 Christians. 
 
 26. For this cause. So the apostle re- 
 affirms what he had asserted in the beginning 
 of ver. 24, the connection between their un- 
 godly idohitries and their unnatural vices. 
 Is it not a legitimate inference from what is 
 here so emphatically in.--isted on, that as 
 departure from God brought on all this degra- 
 dation, so return to God is the only effectual 
 cure? And is it not a fair applicati' n of this 
 principle, that the elevation of the degraded 
 communities and nations is to be expected and 
 sought, not from commerce, civilization, secu- 
 lar education, or any other appliance of this 
 nature, but chiefly from Christian missions — 
 the faitiiful and persevering promulgation of 
 the gospel among them ? Tiiis, while it brings 
 them back to God, will bring with it all other 
 and secondary means of social, mental, moral, 
 and material progress. God gave them up 
 unto vile affections. Compare Eph. 4: 19. 
 They are there said to "have given themselves 
 over unto lasciviousness, to work all unclean- 
 ness with greediness." The same verb is used 
 in both cases. God gave them up; they gave 
 themselves up; there is no real contradiction : 
 God gave them up, in the lusts of their own 
 hearts, ver. 24: this last clause brings the 
 two forms of statement into harmony. [On 
 this verb, to give up, the same which occurs 
 in ver. 24, Meyer thus remarks: "It ex- 
 presses the real active abandoning on the part 
 
 of God," which, moreover, "is quite in keep- 
 ing with the universal agency of God, in his 
 physical and moral government of the world, 
 without, however, making God appear as the 
 author of sin, which, on the contrary, has its 
 root in the lusts of the heart." This retribu- 
 tive abiindoning is akin to the "judicial in- 
 fatuation " jmplied in God's sending to those 
 who received not the love of the truth "a 
 
 working of delusion." (2 Xhess. 2: 11, Eev. Ver.)] 
 
 ' Vile affections,' disgraceful affections, or dis- 
 honorable passions, literall3\ "passions of 
 dishonor." The word 'vile' here used in our 
 common translation, is ambiguous. It has 
 generally in the Scriptures, as almost always 
 in our common speech at the present day, the 
 sense of moral unworthiness. So also in 1 Sam. 
 3 : 13. But in other places, it expresses only 
 the want of value, which is the primitive sense 
 of the word. So in 1 Sam. 15: 9. It is nearly 
 akin to "humble" in 2 Sam. 6: 22, and in 
 Phil. 3:21, "our vile body "—literally, "the 
 body of our humility," contrasted in the con- 
 text with "the glorious body" which we are 
 to receive at the coming of our Lord. For 
 even their women. The prevalence of un- 
 natural vice even among women, indicated, 
 more forcibly than anything else, the depth 
 of degradation and pollution into which man- 
 kind had sunk.^ 
 
 27. In this and the preceding verse, the 
 apostle uses, instead of the words ordinarily 
 translated "men'' and "women," the words 
 meaning "males" and "females," and so 
 translated in Matt. 19: 4; Mark 10: 6, and. 
 Gal. 3: 28.^ Working that which is un- 
 seemly. [More literally, tvorking out, or 
 perpetrating the (well-known) indecency.] 
 
 ' Te yap, far indeed, occurs again at 7 : 7. If, however, 
 T« is retained in the next verse, these correlatives 
 equivalent to both . . . and, would signify that the 
 females as urU as the males were thus guilty. The 
 word ti.^p (xprjdiv) is to be supplied after the article rriv 
 in the last clause. — (F.) 
 
 - The first word for males is a later form for apa-tve^, 
 which occurs twice in this verse (below), and generally 
 in the New Testament. Some important MSS. have 
 here the older and more usual word, and there seems to i 
 
 be no reason for using two different forms in the same 
 verse. Bitmed, etc. The verb being a corapoiuid is 
 equivalent to burned on/, and since it is passive in form 
 it may be passively rendered : were fired or were infiamed. 
 The two classes of males are more particularly char- 
 acterized in 1 Cor, 6 : 9, as apatviKolTai and it-akaxoi. 
 Bengel says that "in stigmatizing sins we mu.st often 
 call a spade a spade." Yet no one can accuse the apos- 
 tle of giving an unduly minute or indelicate descrip- 
 tion of the abominations of pagan sensuality.— (F.) 
 
54 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 seemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense 
 of their error which was meet. 
 
 working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves 
 that recompense ol their error which was due. 
 
 Receiving . . . that recompense of their 
 error which was meet. If by their 'error' 
 is meant their unnatural lusts, then the ' rec- 
 ompense' must be understood to mean the 
 physical and moral consequences of such 
 vices — bodily disease and pain, impotence 
 and premature decay, mental imbecility, and 
 corruption of the heart, conscience, and imagi- 
 nation — in a word, the defilement and debase- 
 ment of the whole man. But if the 'error' 
 means the forsaking of God, then the ' meet 
 recompense'^ will be those unnatural vices 
 themselves, or, rather, their being abandoned 
 of God to commit tiiem. This last explana- 
 tion accords best with the term error ^ which 
 means literally, " wandering," and so is very 
 suitable to express their wandering from God, 
 while it seems loo mild a term to be applied 
 to their abominable and unnatural sensual 
 lusts; and this explanation, too, is precisely 
 in agreement with the entire context. 
 
 In proof of the commonness of these un- 
 natural vices among the ancient heathen. Dr. 
 Tholuck has accumulated abundant evidence 
 out of their own testimonies. See "Biblical 
 Kepository," Vol. II, 1832, January number, 
 pp. 80-123; April number, pp. 246-290; July 
 number, pp. 441-494. Martial goes so far as 
 to say, " No one is so tenderly modest as to 
 fear being detected in their commission." 
 [Dr. Dollinger, in his "Heidenthum and 
 Judenthum," says (as quoted by Dr. Schaff 
 in Lange) that "among the Greeks the vice 
 of pederasty showed itself with all the symp- 
 toms of a great national disease, like a moral 
 miasma. It revealed itself as a feeling which 
 worked with more strength and energy than 
 the love of woman among other peoples; it 
 ■was more immoderate, more passionate in its 
 outbreaks. It was characterized by frantic 
 jealousy, unbounded devotion, sensual ardor, 
 tender dalliance, nightly lingering before the 
 door of the loved one—in fact, everything 
 that belongs to the caricature of natural, 
 sexual love. Even the sternest moralists were 
 in the highest degree indulgent in their judg- 
 ment of the practice — at times more than in- 
 
 dulgent; they treated it rather as a pleasant 
 joke, and tolerated the companionship of the 
 guilty. In the entire literature of the pre- 
 Christian period, there is scarcely a writer to be 
 found who declared himself decidedly against 
 it. Kather was the whole society infected 
 with it, and they breathed in the miasma with 
 the air."] The apostle refers to the females 
 first, probably as the most glaring proof of 
 the general depravity, on the principle that 
 "the corruption of the best things is the 
 worst of all corruption" {corrxiptio optimi 
 pessima). The degrading vices are still so 
 common among the heathen, that modern 
 missionaries have been accused by them of 
 forging this account, and it has sometimes 
 been found diflacult to convince them that so 
 accurate a picture of their morals was painted 
 so long ago. Hence, we see why the apostle 
 refers so particularly to practices so disgust- 
 ing: they were very common among the 
 heathen; they were intimately connected 
 with the rites of idolatry, especially with 
 the worship of Venus; and they were pecu- 
 liarly illustrative of the depth of degradation 
 into which the human race had plunged. 
 Contrast this true picture with false represen- 
 tations often made of the comparative inno- 
 cence and simplicity of the heathen. ["Those 
 who know what Greek and Roman poets have 
 written on the vices of their countrymen can 
 best appreciate the grave and modest sim- 
 plicity of the apostle's language." ("Bible 
 Commentary.") But Paul needed not to read 
 any Greek or Eoman books, in order to know 
 and to describe the unbridled licentiousness 
 of his age. Farrar, on this point, thus re- 
 marks: "A Jew in a heathen city needed no 
 books to reveal to him the 'depths of Satan.' 
 In this respect, how startling a revelation to 
 the modern world was the indisputable evi- 
 dence of the ruins of Pompeii ! Who would 
 have expected to find the infamies of the 
 Dead Sea cities paraded with such infinite 
 shamelessness in every street of a little pro- 
 vincial town? What innocent snow could 
 ever hide the guilty front of a life so unspeak- 
 
 1 Literally: "Receiving in themselves the recom- 
 pense of their error which it was necessary " (to re- 
 ceive). "'0(^etAei, notat obligationem ; iet, necessUa- 
 
 tem." See Trench on "New Testament Synonyms," 
 p. 392. For the reflexive pronoun, in themselves, West- 
 cott and Hort have the contracted form ourois. — (F.) 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 55 
 
 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in I 28 And even as they i refused to have God in iheir 
 their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate knowledj^e, God gave them up unto a reprobate 
 
 luind, to do those things which are not convenient ; | mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 
 
 1 Gr. did not approve. 
 
 ably abominable? Could anything short of 
 the earthquake ha've engulphed it, or of the 
 volcano have burned it up? And if Pompeii 
 was like tliis, we may judge, from the works 
 of Aristophanes and Athenseus, of Juvenal 
 and Martial, of Petronius and Apuleius, of 
 Strato and Meleager — which may be regarded 
 as the ' pieces justificatives' of St. Paul's esti- 
 mate of heathendotn — what Tarsus and Ephe- 
 sus, what Corinth and Miletus were likely to 
 have been." Corinth, the city where Paul 
 wrote this letter, had a reputation pre-emi- 
 nent above all other cities for its unblushing 
 licentiousness, and he had but to open his 
 eyes to see it. "A thousand [female] Hiero- 
 douloi were consecrated to the service of im- 
 purity in the infamous temple of Aphrodite 
 Pandemos." A "Corinthian girl" was but 
 another name for harlot, and to "Corinthian- 
 ize" meant to practice whoredom. (See 
 Smith's "Greek and Koman Antiq.," Art. 
 Hetserae.) "In that age," says Meyer (Actsis: 
 20), "fornication was reckoned among the 
 adlaphora, a thing morally indifferent." 
 Paul, indeed, was writing to the Komans, 
 but could the great city of Rome be much 
 purer in its morals than the "little provincial 
 town" near by? 
 
 It is true, as Dr. SchafF remarks, that "the 
 history of Christian countries often ])resents 
 a similar picture of moral corruption, with 
 the exception of those unnatural vices de- 
 scribed in ver. 26, 27, which have almost dis- 
 appeared, or greatly diminished within the 
 pale of civilization. . . . But there remains 
 this radical difference: the heathen corrup- 
 tions were produced and sanctioned by the 
 heathen mythology and idolatry, while Chris- 
 tian nations are corrupt in spite of, and in 
 direct opposition to, Christianity, which raises 
 the highest standard of virtue, and acts con- 
 tinually on the world as a purifying and 
 sanctifying power."] 
 
 28. A third recurrence to what has been so 
 plainly said in ver. 24 and 26. They did not 
 like to retain God in their knowledge. 
 [The word for 'knf)wledge' is a compound, 
 meaning "full knowledge," or "clear discern- 
 ment." Meyer says their (simple) knowledge 
 
 of God derived from the revelation of nature 
 (ver. 21.), ought to havc been brought, by cul- 
 tivation, to this full knowledge — a pen- 
 etrating and living knowledge of God (Eph. i ; 
 17; 1 Cor. 13: 12.); but instead of this being the 
 case, they had become "Gentiles who know 
 not God."] "We are here reminded again 
 that they had voluntarily and wickedly 
 quenched divine light which God had pro- 
 vided for them. (v. r. 18-21.) God gave them 
 over to a reprobate mind. The retributive 
 abandonment of them by God is here a third 
 time noted. In ver. 24 and 26, it was to un- 
 cleanness or impurity, and to shameless pas- 
 sions; here it is to a reprobate mind. There 
 is an etymological relation between this word 
 reprobate and the verb 'did not like,' in the 
 first clause of the verse, which does not at all 
 appear in our translation. On the supposi- 
 tion that the apostle designed to have it noted, 
 translators and commentators have made 
 various ingenious endeavors to express it in 
 English. Alford's expedient is perhaps as 
 satisfactory and as little forced as any : " Be- 
 cause they reprobated the knowledge of God, 
 God gave them over to a reprobate minfl." 
 [As Alford omits certain Greek words in his 
 rendering, we give this quite literal transla- 
 tion which preserves the paronomasia, and 
 pretty clearly expresses the sense: "As thej' 
 did not approve to have God in full knowl- 
 edge, God gave them up unto an unapproved 
 mind" — that is, a mind rejected of him, like 
 worthless coin that will not bear the test. 
 The verb means to test, to prove, to approve. 
 The adjective, occurring in seven other places, 
 is, by the Revised Version, rendered rejected 
 in 1 Cor. 9: 27; Heb. 6: 8, and reprobate in 
 TitusI: 16; 2Tim.3: 8; 2 Cor. 13 : 5,6,7.] To 
 do those things which are not convenient. 
 [Another instance of the figure rneiosis, where 
 less is said than is meant. The verb in the 
 present tense denotes an habitual doing.] The 
 word 'convenient' here is equivalent to "be- 
 coming," not agreeable to the nature and 
 duties of man. In the same sense, the same 
 word [with a different prefix] is used in Eph. 
 5: 4; Philem. 8; Col. 3: 18 (translated "fit"). 
 The sense in which we now commonly use 
 
56 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, 
 wickeduess, covetousuess, maliciousness ; full ot envy, 
 murder, debate, deceit, malignity ; whisperers, 
 
 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boast- 
 ers, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 
 
 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, 
 covetousuess, malieiousupss; full of envy, murder, 
 
 30 strife, deceit, malignity ; whisperers, backbiters, 
 1 hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, invent- 
 
 1 Or, haters of God. 
 
 the word .'convenient' is expressed by an 
 entirely diftorent word, as in Mark 6: 21; 1 
 Cor. 16: 12.» 
 
 29-31. Being filled with all unright- 
 eousness. [The participle 'filled' agrees 
 with 'them' in ver. 28, the understood subject 
 of the infinitive, 'to do.' Under the general 
 head of 'unrighteousness,' Meyer places the 
 vices of the following list as species.] A dark 
 catalogue, and the darkest thing about it is 
 its truthfulness. We will not dwell upon 
 each separate charge in this divine indictment 
 of sinful human nature, nor attempt by min- 
 ute analysis to make out an orderly arrange- 
 ment, which apparently was not aimed at by 
 the writer. ["The accidental order of the 
 arrangement intimates that all sins which 
 can ever occur to one's mind are mutually 
 related. It is, as it were, the opening of a 
 sackful of sins, when it is all accident how the 
 single grains fall out." (Philippi.)] Let some 
 general criticisms suffice. The second, and 
 last but one, in this list, 'fornication' and 
 'implacable,' are omitted in the best manu- 
 scripts. In several places, the precise order 
 is uncertain, being different in diflTerent man- 
 uscripts. The change in ver. 29 of 'being 
 filled' to 'full' seems to be made for the sake 
 of variety, and not on account of any differ- 
 ence in the sense: as the former expression 
 requires to be followed by "with," and the 
 latter by "of" in English, so the correspond- 
 ing Greek words require a change in the form 
 of the words that follow. This prevents an 
 unpleasant repetition of the same grammati- 
 cal forms.* The words (aSiKi'a and vovr^pia) trans- 
 lated unrighteousness and Avickedness, in 
 ver. 29, differ in this respect, that the latter has 
 a more active and energetic quality, which 
 
 would not be satisfied with depriving others of 
 their due, but would delight in doing them as 
 much hariti as possible. A somewhat similar 
 distinction seems to exist between the words 
 translated maliciousness (xaKiajand malig- 
 nity ((ca/corjeeta) in the same verse; the former is 
 simply "badness," while the latter carries 
 with it the notion of an obstinate perversity 
 in evil. 3 The word translated debate (fpts), 
 in the same verse, is commonly translated 
 'strife' or 'contention'; 'debate' only here and 
 in 2 Cor. 12: 20. [On the word 'deceit' (JdAo?, 
 literally, a bait), Tholuck quotes Juvenal's 
 "Quid Komse faciam? Mentiri nescio" — 
 " What can I do at Konie ? I know not how 
 to lie." The word Avhisperers, in contrast 
 with ((faTaAoAovs) backbiters, or, rather, open 
 calumniators, denotes secret maligners or 
 slanderers, or simply tale bearers. Some de- 
 scendants of this tribe, and of other tribes 
 mentioned, remain on earth until this day.] 
 There has been much dispute about the 
 sense of the compound word translated 
 haters of God in ver. 30; the presumption, 
 from its composition and accentuation, is 
 strongly in favor of the passive sense, hate- 
 ful to God. Alford says "it is never 
 found in an active sense, but ahuays in a 
 passive." Yet the active sense is here so 
 much more appropriate to the context, the 
 passive would put the word so out of due rela- 
 tion to the whole catalogue, that there is 
 much reason for regarding our common trans- 
 lation as giving the correct sense; and indeed 
 this active sense does not lack the authoritj' of 
 later Greek grammarians and commentators, 
 as Suidas and (Ecumenius of the tenth cen- 
 tury. The three following words, translated 
 despiteful, proud, boasters, are well dis_ 
 
 lOn the distinction between (ij-v KaB-qKovTa, " the 
 penus of that which is unseemly") and (oiiic avriKcv) 
 (Eph. 5 : 4), both of which may be rendered not seemly, 
 see Meyer on this passage. In later Greek, however, 
 the dependent negative (m'i) seems at times to usurp 
 the place of the direct negative {ov or ovk). This not 
 liking to have God in one's knowledge has been not 
 only the occasion of unseemly deeds in all ages, but is 
 really the source of all the deistical infidel literature 
 
 which has been written against the Bible. "A bad 
 life," as the infidel and profligate Earl of Rochester 
 acknowledged when he came to himself, "is the only 
 grand objection to this book." — (F.) 
 
 2 The word fiecrrov';, full of, filled full, is akin to our 
 stuffed, as from a surfeit in eating. — (F.) 
 
 3 Aristotle defines it as "the disposition to take every- 
 thing in the worst sense." 
 
Ch. I.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 57 
 
 31 Without understanding, covenant-breakers, with- 
 out uatural att'ection, iuii)l!ic;il)le, uuuiercilul : 
 '62 Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they 
 
 31 ors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without 
 understanding, covenant-breakers, williout natural 
 
 32 atlection, unmercitul : who, knowing ibe ordinance 
 of God, that they who practise such things are 
 
 tinguished by Archbishop Trench in this 
 triple paraphrase, " insolent and injurious in 
 acts, proud in thoughts, boastful in words." 
 Four of the above terms are the same that are 
 used by Paul in *2 Tim. 3: 23, to describe the 
 predicted corruption of the Ciiurch — namely, 
 'boasters,' 'jtroud,' 'disobedient to parents,' 
 'without natural affection.' [A proof of this 
 want of "natural aflection " is found in the 
 iiifaiiticide which is practiced to such an in- 
 conceivable extent by many ancient and 
 modern pagan nations. Some pairs of words 
 in tlie above list seem to be brought together 
 through similarity of sound, as \i>9ovov, <i>6vov, 
 aavvirovi, auruvOerovi) cnvy, murder, seiiseless, 
 faithless. For similar lists of vices, see 2 Cor. 
 12: 20; Gal. 5: 19; Eph. 5: 3; 1 Tim. 1: 9; 
 2 Tim. 3: 2. Some nine or ten of the sins 
 enumerated here are expressly referred to in 
 these lists. And all these vices and all the 
 corruption indicated in these dark catalogues 
 result, in the apostle's view, from dishonoring 
 God, and from being unthankful for his mer- 
 cies.] We add one more remark only, in 
 regard ta the division of the verses. It does 
 not seem very happj', in several respects, 
 particularly in disregarding the changes of 
 syntax in tiie original. The word ' wliisperers,' 
 for instance, which is the first of a series of 
 personal nouns, following a list of abstract 
 terms, is very awkwardly separated from the 
 word 'backbiters,' to which it has so close'a 
 relation, both in form and in sense. Ver. 29 
 should end with the word 'malignity,' and 
 ver. 30 begin with the word 'backbiters.' 
 The arrangement would also be more fully 
 correspondent with the change of form in the 
 original, if ver. 29 were divided into two, the 
 fir^t ending with ' maliciousness,' the last of 
 the words that are construed with the parti- 
 ciple followed by 'with,' and the second be- 
 ginning with the adjective 'full.' [We may 
 here properly ask if the apostle does not, in 
 this description of the Gentile world, himself 
 slander the Gentiles? Did every Greek and 
 Roman man and woman with whom he met 
 boar such a character as he here depicts? 
 Would he deny to each and all of them any 
 und every good trait? Could he deny some- 
 
 thing akin to " natural aifection" even to the 
 Maltese "barbarians'" who showed to him and 
 to his shipwrecked companions "no common 
 kindness"? We think not. In the next 
 chapter, ver. 14, 26, he implies that some 
 Gentiles, at least, might "do by nature the 
 things of the la„w." He evidently speaks of 
 Gentiles as a class, and he no more slanders 
 them than does the brother of the Gallio who 
 befriended him, the moralist Seneca, the 
 tutor of Nero, when he says: "All is full of 
 crime and vice; there is more committed than 
 can be healed by jiunisliment. A monstrous 
 prize contest of wickedness is going on. The 
 desire to sin increases, and shame decreases 
 day b^' day. . . . Vice is no longer practiced 
 secretly, but in open view. Vileness gains in 
 every street and in ever^' breast to such an 
 extent that innocence has become not only 
 rare, but has ceased to exist." Paul's descrip- 
 tion, moreover, is written from that divine 
 standpoint which sees adultery in a look and 
 murder in a thought, and which looks on 
 the secret intents and desires of the hearts. 
 Written history, full of crimes as it is, is a 
 spotless sheet compared with the unwritten 
 history of the thoughts and inclinations of 
 men's hearts.] 
 
 32. Who knowing the judgment of God. 
 The same compound relative which begins 
 ver. 25 begins this also: thej/, being such as 
 know the judgment of God. 'The judgment of 
 God' is here equivalent to "the righteous sen- 
 tence of God." " His judgments" may mean 
 either the judgments which he executes with 
 his hand, or the judgments which he declares 
 with his mouth. The former sense is much 
 the most common in our ordinary speech ; the 
 latter is quite as common in the Scriptures, 
 much more so in the Book of Psalms, and 
 pre-eminently in Psalm 119. Here too the 
 sense is nearer the latter than the former 
 — that is, it means the judgments which he 
 forms as to human conduct, though we can- 
 not properly say in this instance the judg- 
 ments of his mouth, because the persons here 
 referred to are not supposed to know bis re- 
 vealed law. Thej' know the judgment of God 
 therefore by the law written in their own con- 
 
58 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. I. 
 
 ■which commit such things are worthy of death, not 
 only do the same, but have pleasure iu them that do 
 them. 
 
 worthy of death, not only do the same, but also 
 consent with them that practise them. 
 
 sciences. ('2:14, is.) [The participle being a 
 compound means that they fully knew, were 
 perfectly aware of, the judgment of God. 
 Degraded and sunk in vice as they were, their 
 consciences were not so hardened and dead 
 but that they clearly recognized the voice of 
 duty and acknowledged the demerit of trans- 
 gression — "their conscience bearing witness 
 therewith, their thoughts one with another 
 accusing or else excusing." The barbarians 
 of Melita had clear ideas of justice and of the 
 ill desert of wrong doing. (Acta as: 4.) ] That 
 they which commit such things. [Alford 
 finds in this clause God's righteous sentence.] 
 The word here translated 'commit' is the 
 same as that translated ^do' at the end of the 
 verse. The word translated 'do' in the previ- 
 ous clause is a d liferent word. Both are very 
 common in this Epistle, and in the New Tes- 
 tament generally. It will help to put the 
 English reader more nearly on a level with 
 the intelligent reader of the original, if we 
 distinguish between these words by translat- 
 ing the ft)rmer practice and the latter do. 
 This verse will then read, "Who knowing 
 the judgment of God, that they which prac- 
 tice such things are worthy of death, not only 
 do the same, but have pleasure in those who 
 practice them." [The verb whence our "prac- 
 tice ' is derived (n-patro-o)) seems to denote a 
 habit and facility of doing, while the verb "to 
 do" (n-oi€<o) refers rather to single acts per- 
 formed often, with some degree of effort or 
 difficulty.'] We shall adhere to this distinc- 
 tion wherever these words occur in this Epis- 
 tle. It is to be regretted that the translators 
 of the Common Version did not adopt this 
 rule; but they tell us in their preface that 
 they studiously avoided this "servile uni- 
 formity," as they style it. In doing so, they 
 often mislead the English reader, and render 
 H concordance of the English Bible of much 
 less value than it would have been had they 
 adh<}red more strictly to this wholesome rule 
 of uniformity in rendering the same Greek 
 word into English. Are worthy of death. 
 It is well to note the use of the word 'death' 
 in this first instance of its occurrence in this 
 Epistle. It defines itself here as being that of 
 
 which transgressors of God's law are worthy 
 — in other words, as synonymous with the 
 desert and penalty of sin. Compare 5: 12-17, 
 and particularly 6: 23. [As the poets of 
 Pagan antiquity dwelt much upon the pun- 
 ishments inflicted in hades, the invisible 
 world, so death to these heathen minds is sup- 
 posed by most to have reference to the pun- 
 ishment of sin beyond the grave. "Death, in 
 the sense of punishment in the other world." 
 (Boise.) Any infliction of physical death is, 
 of course, out of the question. Quer^' : If the 
 modern heathen, like the ancient, are "worthy 
 of death," can it be supposed that God is 
 under obligation to provide for them a future 
 probation?] Not only do the same, but 
 have pleasure in them thai do {practice) 
 them. [In the Koman Presbyter Clement's 
 first letter to the Corinthians (oh. le), written 
 in the last part of the first century, we find a 
 virtual quotation from these last four verses. 
 Clement's reference to the "blessed Paul the 
 apostle," his writings, his sufferings, and his 
 preaching, "both in the east and in the west" 
 — "even to the limit of the west" — is a very 
 important proof of the genuineness of Paul's 
 epistles.] 'Have pleasure in' — that is, ap- 
 prove The same word is rendered "allow" 
 in Luke 11: 48, and "consent unto" in Acts 
 8: 1 and 22: 20. [In this last reference Paul 
 charges himself with this aggravated degree 
 of guilt in consenting to the murder of Ste- 
 phen.] The form of expression in the last 
 two clauses of this verse, not only—but also 
 (the "also" is in the original, though it does 
 not appear in the English) implies that the ap- 
 proval of such acts in others argues a greater 
 degree of depravity than the doing of them 
 ourselves. Men may do such things, under 
 stress of temptation, without approving them. 
 But when they deliberately and without being 
 under temptation approve of them in others, 
 this indicates a more profound moral corrup- 
 tion. Our judgment of other men's actions is 
 usually more unbiased, and therefore more 
 indicative of settled moral character than our 
 judgment of our own. [It would seem as if a 
 man might be wicked enough in himself, and 
 be satisfied with his own wickedness, without 
 
 1 See more fully under iroieu, in Thayer's " Lexicon." — (F.) 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 59 
 
 CHAPTEK II. 
 
 THEREFORE thou art inexcusable, O man, whoso- 
 ever thou art t hat judgest : fur wherein thou judgest 
 another, thou coiidemnest thyself; for thou that judg- 
 est doest the same things. 
 
 1 Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, who- 
 soever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judg- 
 est 1 another, tlioucondemnest thyself; for thou that 
 
 2 judgest dost practise the same things. ^And we 
 
 1 Gr. the other 2 Many aucienl authoriiies read For. 
 
 seeking to injure others or enticing them to 
 commit sin, or rejoicing in the sins which 
 they have committed. The apostle, in this 
 passage and elsewhere, seems to indicate that 
 there is a progress in wickedness as well as a 
 growth in grace; that this progress is ever 
 downward, and that it has in itself no re- 
 straining power. Sin does not cure itself.] 
 
 Ch. 2: The apostle now proceeds to show 
 that the Jews are under the same condemna- 
 tion as the Gentiles; but he introduces this 
 unwelcome topic skillfully, using general 
 terms at first, without expressly naming the 
 Jews. Some commentators refer the first half 
 of this chapter to the Gentiles, either to their 
 philosophers, their magistrates, or the better 
 sort of people among them, in distinction 
 from the baser multitude described in the 
 previous chapter. But the context, and espe- 
 cially in ver. 4, 5, 11, is decidedly in favor of 
 referring it to the Jews. 
 
 [Godet thus introduces the thought of this 
 chapter: "In the midst of this flood of pollu- 
 tions and iniquities which Gentile society pre- 
 sents to view, the apostle sees one who, like a 
 judge from the heiglit of his tribunal, sends a 
 stern look over the corrupt mass, condemning 
 the evil which reigns in it, and applauding 
 the wrath of God which punishes it. It is 
 this new personage whom he apostrophizes in 
 the following word."] 
 
 1. Therefore (aib, literall}'-, on which ac- 
 count, wherefore) refers to the previous verse. 
 Tliey who a2)prove such things are worthy of 
 death; but the Jews might say : "We disap- 
 prove and denounce these sins of the Gen- 
 tiles." 'Therefore,' the apostle might retort, 
 you are surely inexcusable for committing 
 the same. [Meyer makes this 'therefore' 
 take a retrospective glance over the whole of 
 the last chapter after ver. 17, with a particu- 
 lar reference to the 'inexcusable' of ver. 20, 
 and gives the idea in these words: "Before 
 the mirror of this Gentile life of sin all excuse 
 vanishes from thee, O man, who judgest, for 
 
 this mirror reflects thine own conduct, which 
 thou thyself therefore condemnest by thy 
 judgment. A deeply tragic de te narrntur, 
 into which the proud Jewish consciousness 
 sees itself all of a sudden transferred."] Tlie 
 word here translated 'inexcusable' is pre- 
 cisely the same as that translated "without 
 excuse" in 1: *20. Both should be translated 
 alike. In the Bible Union Version both are 
 translated "without excuse"; this is an im- 
 provement upon the Common Version, but 
 'inexcusable' would be better still as being 
 nearer to the original in form, and just as 
 near, at least, in sense. O man, whosoever 
 thou art that judgest. [This 'O man' is 
 made to bear the name Jew in ver. 17. Butt- 
 mann remarks ("Grammar," p. 140) that the 
 interjection does not occur so often in the 
 New Testament with the vocative as it does in 
 classic Greek, and that it "generally has an 
 emphatic character, and so contains rather an 
 exclamation than a simple address."] Using 
 the second person singular here instead of the 
 third plural, as in the previous chapter, Paul 
 seems to imagine one of his own countrymen 
 present and condemning the sins of the Gen- 
 tiles. This gives great vivacity to his dis- 
 course. Yet he purposely uses the indefinite 
 expression, 'whosoever thou art,' not ready 
 yet to call out the Jew by name. [Bishop 
 Wordsworth says, Paul uses 'man' instead of 
 Jew, because "the proposition is one of uni- 
 versal application, and because he would ap- 
 proach tiie Jew with gentleness, and not 
 exasperate and alienate him by any abrupt 
 denunciation." "Whosoever thou art, even 
 if thou art a Jew." (Fritzsche.)] For where- 
 in thou judgest another. ['Wherein,' 
 "in the inatter in which." (Alford. )] The 
 other would be more literal than 'another' — 
 that is, the other party, hinting at the Jewish 
 habit of separating themselves in thought 
 from the Gentiles, almost as if they belonged 
 to a diff'erent species. For thou that judg- 
 est doest the same things. [Paul here 
 suddenly brings home to the Jew Nnthfin's 
 accusation to David: "Thou art the man." 
 
60 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. 1 1. 
 
 2 But «e are sure that the judgment of Goa is accord- 
 ing to truth agaiust Miem wliieh coiuinit such tilings. 
 
 3 And ihinkest thou this, U man, that judgest tliein 
 ■which do sucIj things, and doest the same, that thou 
 shall escape the judguieul ol God? 
 
 know that the judgment of God is according to truth 
 
 3 against them that pi actise such things. And reckon- 
 
 est thuu this, () man, who judgest them that practise 
 
 such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt 
 
 'Thou that judgest' has a "reproachful em- 
 phasis." (Meyer.) The Jew, and especially 
 the Pharisee, regarded the word "sinners" 
 as but another name for Gentiles (Gai. 2:15), 
 and characteristically judged them as being 
 the abandoned of God. Philippi says that 
 "this passion on the part of the Jews for con- 
 demning others gives the apostle an excellent 
 vantage ground for the judgment he has to 
 ptiss up(.>n them."] Practicest, or dost prac- 
 tice, which last is more agreeable to the ear, 
 would be preferable to 'doest,' according to 
 tile principle laid down in the notes on the 
 last verse of Chapter I. The apostle asserts 
 the fact that the Jews (while reprovingly 
 judging the Gentiles for their misdeeds) prac- 
 tice 'the same things' (TaaOra), and leaves it 
 to the conscience of the person addressed. 
 That the Jewish nation was at this time very 
 corrupt, and that many of the worst vices of 
 the heathen were common among them, is 
 manifest from the testimonies of Josephus and 
 the Rabbins, as well as froni the New Testa- 
 ment. They may have been comparatively 
 free from idolatry in its most literal form ; 
 but they were just as truly transgressors of 
 the moral law of God, and so virtually prac- 
 ticed the same things as the Gentiles. The 
 principle "of the apostle"s argument com- 
 mends itself to common sense; Cicero states 
 it substantially in these words: "All things 
 which you blame in another, you are bound 
 to avoid yourself." ("Oration against Ver- 
 ros,"5.) 
 
 2. But we are sure — we hiow, that is, 
 everyone knows: our own nature assents to 
 the proposition. ["Paul thus implies the 
 tacit concurrence of the Jew in this sen- 
 tence of condemnation." (Boise.)] The read- 
 ing "for" in place of 'but' has the better 
 support from the manuscripts. [Eetaining 
 the 'but' of our common and revised text, we 
 snould have this meaning: "you may judge 
 falsely and hypocritically, 'but' the judg- 
 ment of God is according to truth."] The 
 
 empliasis of the statement seems to belong to 
 the latter clause of the verse — the judgment 
 of God is against them that practice such 
 things, and this judgment is according to the 
 truth of the case, without any partiality ; ac- 
 cording to facts and character, without regard 
 to the distinction between Jew and Gentile, or 
 to any external difference. ["The judgment 
 of God, unlike the inconsistent judgment of 
 man in ver. 1, is directed according to truth 
 against the doers of evil." (" Bible Commen- 
 tary.") For "commit" read ''practice' as in 
 the Revised Version.] 
 
 3. And thiukest thou this, [But thinkest 
 thou, etc. — i. e., though thou knovvest that 
 God's judgment is according to truth] O man, 
 that judgest them Avhich do {practice) 
 such things. The question here, as often in 
 Paul's epistles, and indeed in argumentative 
 and rhetorical discourse generally, is equivti- 
 lent to an emphatic negative. [The word 
 translated do (Trpao-o-o)), which has already 
 occurred thrice in this chapter, is rightly ren- 
 dered joraciice in the Revised Version, and is 
 thus distinguished from doest (Troiiy) in the 
 next clause.] That thou shalt escape. 
 'Thou' is emphatic: its very presence in the 
 original shows this ; for the forms of the verb, 
 in Greek, as in many other languages, suffi- 
 ciently determine the number and person, so 
 that the pronoun is not needed, except when 
 there is some reason for emphasizing it.^ " If 
 others cannot escape 3'our judgment, do you 
 think that you can escape God's?" — Calvin. 
 [This utterance of the apostle sounds like the 
 voice of one crying in the wilderness, calling 
 to repentance those self-righteous ones who, 
 while pronouncing a condemnatory judgment 
 on others, felt themselves secure as being the 
 children of Abraham, and therefore exempt 
 from the judgment of God. "According to 
 the Jewish conceit, only the Gentiles were to 
 be judged, whereas all Israel were to share in 
 the Messianic kingdom as its native children, 
 Matt. 8: 12." (Meyer.)] 
 
 1 Buttmanji,in his "Grammar of the New Testament 
 Greek," sees in the language of the New Testament a 
 greater departure from classic usage than Winer was 
 incliued to acknowledge, and thinks " the personal pro- 
 
 nouns were frequently employed where no reason of 
 importance is obvious," and refers to this passage as an 
 example (with others), but, as it seems to us, without 
 due reason.— (F.) 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 61 
 
 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his gooduess and 
 forbearauce aud loiigsulterJug; not knowing that ihe 
 goodness of liod leauetli thee to repentance? 
 
 4 escape the judgment of Uod? Or despisest thou the 
 riches of liis goodness and forbearance aud lougsuf- 
 feriug, not knowing l bat tlie goodness of God lead<.tli 
 
 5 thee to repentance? but alter thy hardness and im- 
 
 4. Or despisest thou, etc. The force of 
 the disjunctive conjunction [here drawing 
 attention to a new question] ' may periiaps be 
 exphiined in this way: Do you imagine, 
 ■witiiout any pretense of reason, thai you shall 
 escape God's judgment? or, ["in case thou 
 hast not til is conceit" (Meyer)], do you base 
 your hope of escape from future retribution 
 on the forbearance of God hitherto? If so, 
 that is a flagrant abuse of that forbearance, 
 which is in affect despising it, under pretense of 
 honoring it.- The riches of his goodness, 
 etc. 'liiches,' as synonymous with abun- 
 dance and greatness, is a very common ex- 
 pression with the apostle. (»: 23; ll: 33; Eph. 1: 7; 
 2; 4. 7; 3: 16; Col. 1 : 27.) ' His gOcdnCSS,' his kind- 
 
 iiess expressed in bestowing favors and with- 
 holding punishment. 3 Forbearance and 
 long suffering. [Paul speaks of the "wrath 
 of God," but these words show us that he 
 is "slow to wrath." By the repetition of the 
 connective 'and,' as also by the repeated use 
 of the article (equivalent in the last two 
 i.'istances to the pronoun 'his), the apostle 
 seems desirous to dwell upon and to empha- 
 size the merciful attributes of God. Most 
 expositors regard the forbearance and the 
 long-suttering as explanatory of the goodness, 
 as if it read: 'Even of his forbearance and 
 his long-sutfering'; but it seems most natural 
 to regard them as having the same regimen 
 as goodness — i. e., in the genitive case, after 
 riches.] The former word expresses his slow- 
 ness to inflict punishment; the latter, his 
 slowness to take oflfense. The former, as the 
 actual result, proceeds from the latter, as the 
 abiding inward cause. The former, moreover, 
 seems to hint — so, perhaps, does the latter, 
 though somewhat less obviously, at the limit, 
 which may not be passed. God holds back 
 his vengeance for a while; he suflTers long, 
 but not forever. They who think they m&y 
 continue to live in sin with impunity, because 
 they have been so long unpunished, maj' 
 
 fancy that they are tnagnifying God's good- 
 ness; but in reality they are vilifying it, 
 abusing his forbearance, despising his long 
 suft'ering, by their contemptuous unconcern 
 as to the holy purpose of it. Compare 2 
 Peter 3: 9. [Trench, defining "long-sutteriiig' 
 (fiaxpoBvuia) and 'enduiance' {vnoixovri) , says 
 the former will be found to express patience 
 ill regard to persons, the latter in respect of 
 things; and that of these two, "only ' long- 
 surt'ering' is an attribute of God."] Not 
 knowing. Not knowing to any practical 
 purpose — a guilty ignorance. They might 
 know it, and ought to know it. Leadeth 
 thee to repentance. ["Objectively spoken." 
 (DeWette. ) God's forbearance and mercies 
 despised lead to indifterence in a life of sin 
 and to a treasuring up of wrath rather than 
 to repentance. Paul in his preaching incul- 
 cated "repentance toward God," as well as 
 "faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 
 20: 21; also 17: 30; 26: 20.) Yet in the epistlcs he 
 uses the noun only here and in 2 Cor. 7: 9, 
 10; 2 Tim. 2: 25, and the verb "repent" only 
 once, 2 Cor. 12: 21 — faith, rather than repent- 
 ance, being the predominant word in the 
 epistles. Ellicott, however, remarks that he 
 partially replaces these words b}^ reconcile, 
 reconciliation, etc.] The form of the verb 
 does not necessarily express the full accom- 
 plishment of the result, but the design and 
 tendency, a leading toward this result, which 
 is often felt, where it is not yielded to, but 
 even consciously resisted. ["God's leading is 
 as real as man's resistance to being led." 
 (GifTord.)] This would be better expressed 
 in our language, with equal fidelity to the 
 original, by the form, "is leading thee." 
 [Paul teaches that God in his benignity 
 wishes none to be lost, but would have all 
 men to be saved, to come to repentance, and 
 to the acknowledging of the truth. Com- 
 pare 1 Tim. 2: 4. Yet men living under 
 the full blaze of gospel light reject the 
 
 1 Some make the question end with repentance, others 
 with God in the next verse, while Alford thinks "the 
 enquiry loses itself in the digressive clauses following, 
 and nowhere comes pointedly to an end."' — (F.) 
 
 2 This as a yeTbof/eflhig (hence, caring for, contemn- 
 ing, admiring) is usually followed by the genitive, the 
 
 object being "conceived as operating upon the feeling 
 subject — consequently, as the point from which the 
 feeling proceeds." — Winer, 204. — (F.) 
 
 ^Trench call this xP'?<''toti)s (goodness or benignity) 
 a "beautiful word," and it occurs in the New Testament 
 only in the writings of Paul.— (F.) 
 
62 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 5 But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, 
 treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of 
 wrath and revelaiiou of the righteous judgment of 
 God; 
 
 penitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the 
 
 day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judg- 
 
 6 ment of God; who will render to every man aceord- 
 
 truth, and choose not to repent nor to be 
 saved.] 
 
 5. But, after thy hardness — that is, ac- 
 cording to tliy hardness, agreeable to its na- 
 ture, and proportioned to its degree. "When 
 thou are neither softened by kindness, nor 
 subdued by fear, what can be harder than 
 thou art?" (Theophylact. ) And impeni- 
 tent heart. This word iinpenitent is found 
 only here. [What sinners should especially 
 dread in their deferring of repentance is the 
 hardening process of sin, by which repent- 
 ance becotnes at last an impossibility. Fritz- 
 sche and Pliilippi understand the word ' im- 
 penitent' to mean in this phice not only 
 unrepentant, but incapable of repentance. 
 The epithet is placed before the noun to give 
 it a slight emphasis. (Winer, p. 524. )] Treas- 
 urest up unto thyself wrath. The expres- 
 sion to 'treasure up' is generally applied to 
 something good and valuable, or at least so 
 regarded; but is sometitnes used of evil 
 things, both in the New Testament and in 
 other writings. The noun is so used in Luke 
 6 : 45. ' Treasurest up ' here is heaj^est up, 
 the idea of abundance, not that of quality, 
 being predonninant. [This treasuring up ot 
 wrath contrasts sadly with the riches of God's 
 goodness; but according to Paul's representa- 
 tion it is the sinner (and not God) who is 
 heaping up for himself this fearful treasure. 
 "What thou layest up, a little every day, 
 thou wilt find a mass hereafter." (Augustine.)] 
 Against the day of wrath — literally, in the 
 day of ivrath, to be signally manifested, to 
 break out, in the day of wrath. [In refer- 
 ence to this "day," compare ver. 16. It 
 stands without the article, but is suiRciently 
 defined by the nouns in the genitive which 
 follow it. The omission of the article is some- 
 times owing to the use of a preposition (Winer, 
 126), and sometimes the article is omitted on 
 the common principle of "correlation," by 
 which " if the governing noun is without the 
 article, the governed will be equally so" 
 (Ellicott), and vice versa. Compare 2 Cor. 
 6:2; Eph. 4: 30; Phil. 1 : 6. Some few man- 
 
 uscripts, versions, and Fathers have an a7id 
 after revelation.] And revelation of the 
 righteous judgment of God. 'Kighteous 
 judgment' is expressed here by a single com- 
 pound word, not elsewhere found. ^ The day 
 referred to will be a day of completed redemp- 
 tion to the godly; a day of wratli to the un- 
 godly. • See how closely these two opposite 
 contemporaneous results are brouglit together 
 in 2 Thess. 1 : 6-10. God's abused goodness is 
 thus made the occasion of just the oi)posite 
 results to those which it was intended to pro- 
 duce. [This "day of revelation" (iiroKdkvxijii) 
 has probable reference to the revelation of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ from heaven. See 1 Cor. 
 1 : 7 ; 2 Thess. 1 : 7 ; 1 Peter 1 : 7, 13 ; 4 : 13. 
 In other epistles the apostle speaks of the 
 "future appearing" (enKjxxveLa) or "manifes- 
 tation" of Christ (see 2 Thess. 2: 8; 1 Tim.O: 
 14; 2 Tim. 1: 10; 4: 1, 8; Titus 2: 13); or of 
 his "coming" or "presence" (napovaia). See 
 1 Cor. 15: 23; 1 Thess. 2: 19; 3: 13; 4: 15; 5: 
 23; 2 Thess. 2: 1, 8; see also Matt. 24: 3, 27, 
 37, 39; James 5: 7, 8; 2 Peter 1: 16; 3: 4, 12; 
 1 John 2 : 28.^ But in tliis Ejiistle he does not 
 expressly mention the coming or day of the 
 Lord, tliough in 13: 12 he affirms that "the 
 day is at hand." Olshausen supposes that at 
 the date of this Epistle Paul had changed his 
 views as to the near coming of Christ, and 
 that he no longer expected to live until his 
 Lord's return. But in nearly all his later 
 letters there is expressed more or less of this 
 expectation. "Our Lord cometh" {inapav aed). 
 Even in 2 Timothy, when the time of his de- 
 parture had come, he speaks, as with his dying 
 breath, of the day and the appearing of the 
 Lord, of being preserved unto his heavenly 
 kingdom, and he classes himself with those 
 who have loved and who still love his appear- 
 ing. 2 Tim. 1: 12; 4: 1, 8, 18; compare 1 
 Tim. 6: 14. Surely in this representation we 
 can find no evidence of mistaken or changed 
 views. And in his earlier epistles, though he 
 says, as in 1 Thess. 4: 15, "We which are alive 
 and remain unto the coming of the Lord," 
 yet in 1 Corinthians, which was written but a 
 
 'For other newly-constructed words in the New Testament, see Winer, p. 25.— (F.) 
 
 2 The word nopovcria occurs elsewhere in 1 Cor. 16 : 17 ; 2 Cor. 7 : 6, 7 ; 10 : 10 ; Phil. 1 : 26 ; 2 : 12 ; 2 Thess. 2 : 9.— (F.) 
 
Cn. II.] ROMANS. 
 
 63 
 
 6 Who will render to every man according to his | 7 ing to his works 
 deeds : 1 
 
 to them that by i patience in well- 
 
 1 Or, steadfastness. 
 
 short ti ine previous to our Epistle, and in which 
 he speaks repeatedly of the coining and the 
 day of Clirist, and affirms, " We all shall not 
 sleep," etc., closing indeed with maran-atha; 
 he nevertheless says: "God hath both raised 
 up the Lord, and will also raise tip us by his 
 own power. 1 Cor. 16: 14; compare 2 Cor. 4: 
 14. Thus nothing decisive can be determined 
 from the use of "us"' and "we" in this con- 
 nection. Whatever Paul may have thought 
 of the day and revelation of Christ, he could 
 say: "He which hath begun a good worl< in 
 you will perform it until the day of Jesus 
 Christ" ; could speak of waiting for a Sav- 
 iour; could say, "The Lord is at hand," and 
 yet could talk of life's uncertainty and of his 
 departure, as we do of ours, and of his hoping 
 to attain unto the (blessed) resurrection from 
 the dead. (puii. i:6, 20-23; 3: ii, 20; 4:5.) It is as- 
 tonishing to see how ready some are to speak 
 of the apostle's mistaken view of this subject, 
 and of his finding out his mistake. Ellicott, 
 on the phrase, 'day of Christ Jesus,' thus 
 remarks: "That St. Paul in these words 
 assumes the nearness of the coming of the 
 Lord cannot be positively asserted. ... It 
 may be fairly said that he is here (ruii. i:6), 
 using language which has not so much a mere 
 historical as a general and practical refer- 
 ence; the day of Christ, whether far or near, 
 is the decisive day to each individual ; it is 
 practically coincident with the day of his 
 death, and becomes, when addressed to the 
 individual, an exaltation and amplification of 
 that term. Death, indeed, as has been well 
 remarked by Bishop Reynolds, is dwelt upon 
 but little in the New Testament ; it is to the 
 resurrection and to the day of Clirist that the 
 eyes of the believer are directed." See at 13: 
 12 for further remarks on this subject.] 
 
 G. Who will render to every man ac- 
 cording to his deeds. [The same words 
 are found in Prov. 24: 12. The compound 
 verb here used means, to give in full.'] Observe 
 that the apostle is here expounding the laiv, 
 not the gospel. Yet it is equally true, under 
 the gospel, that God's judgment will be accord- 
 ing to each man's deeds, though the saved will 
 not be saved by [or on the ground of] their 
 
 works. (Matt. 16: 27; 25: 31-46; 2 Cor. 5 : 10 ; Gal. 6; 7,8; 
 Eph.6: 8; Rev. 2: 23; 22: 12.) The righteOUS wiU be 
 
 rewarded according to their works, as justified 
 and accepted servants of the Lord ; the wicked 
 will be punished according to their works, as 
 impenitent transgressors of his holy law. "It 
 is a weak inference," sa3's Calvin, "to con- 
 clude anything to be merit, because it is re- 
 warded." [De Wette says: "Paul speaks here 
 not from a Christian but from a legal stand- 
 point." Similarly Bengel, Tholuck, Hodge, 
 and others. But if we look upon this rewarding 
 of believers according to their works as being 
 a reward of grace, we see no necessity for re- 
 garding this standard of God's judgment as 
 determined from a legal standpoint. " In the 
 reward there is a certain retrospect to the 
 work done, but no proportion between them, 
 except such as may have been established by 
 the free appointment of the Giver, and the 
 only claim which it justifies is upon his prom- 
 ise." (Trench on "the Parable of the Labor- 
 ers in the Vineyard.") It is important to 
 notice that Paul nowhere says we are saved 
 and rewarded for the merit of our works, not 
 even propter Jidein, on account of, or on the 
 ground of our faith. " Not from works of 
 righteousness which we have done," and not 
 "according to debt," are we saved and re- 
 warded. Yet God is pleased graciously to 
 reward the works of believers, works which 
 are "the practical evidence and measure of 
 their faith." "But this equivalent," says 
 Dr. Weiss, " is not to be regarded in the rigid 
 judicial sense as an external balancing of 
 wages and service. ... It is grace which 
 presents the reward and enables one to attain 
 it." The awards to the righteous and the 
 wicked are not only different, but are given 
 on different principles. The retributive reward 
 of unbelievers will be not only according to 
 their works, butbecause of, or on the ground of 
 their works. It will be an award of debt, of 
 wages due to sin. To the righteous the award 
 of eternal life will be by gift of grace, yet 
 according to their works of righteousness. 
 And this eternal life will be to some more than 
 it will be to others, even according to their 
 works, and according to the measure of their 
 
64 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing 
 seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal 
 life : 
 
 doing seek for glory and honour and incorruption, 
 8 eternal lile : but unto them that are factious, and 
 
 capacities. If any think it selfish and mer- 
 cenary for believers to look unto the future 
 recompense of reward we. would answer in 
 the words of St. Bernard: " True love is not 
 mercenary, although a reward follows it." 
 Dr. Thomas Playfere, Professor of Divinity 
 at Cauibringe (1600), a strong Calvinist, thus 
 speaks on this point : " If ye be loving chil- 
 dren indeed, though there were no hell to 
 fear, no heaven to hope for, no torments to 
 dread, no rewards to expect, yet ye will obey 
 your good Father and be the sorrowfullest 
 creatures in the world if you have but once 
 displeased him, only for the mere love ye bear 
 towards him, and for the unspeakable love he 
 hath showed towards you."J^ 
 
 7. [To bring out the full force of the Greek 
 (the fniv, in this verse, which corresponds with 
 fie, of ver. 8), we may render: To them, 
 on the one hand, who, etc.]. Patient con- 
 tinuance [or, stedfastness, as in the margin 
 of the Revised Version] is expressed in the 
 Greek by one word, translated simply "pa- 
 tience" in about thirty places, "patient wait- 
 ing" in 2 Thess. 3: 5, and "enduring" in 2 
 Cor. 1 : 6. It differs from our word "patience," 
 in having a more active, energetic sense, which 
 is not badly paraphrased here by the expres- 
 sion "ptitient continuance," but might be more 
 briefly rendered by the single word "con- 
 stancy," here and in many other places. 
 Here, "constancy in good works." Compare 
 Luke 8: 15. It is only another form, of the 
 same radical word, which is translated "to 
 endure," in the expression, "he thatendureth 
 to the end," in Matt. 10: 22, and in nearly a 
 dozen other places. Seek for glory and 
 honour and immortality. The word 'glory' 
 first occurs here in this sense, as something 
 ■which man is to seek as his chief and eternal 
 good. It is defined by Webster ("Syntax and 
 Synonyms of the New Testament," p. 205) as 
 "the future state of acknowledged perfection 
 
 which God designs for man." In this com- 
 prehensive sense it seems to be used here, and 
 in many other places of this Epistle, as in ver. 
 10 of this chapter, 3: 23; 5: 2; 8: 18; 9: 23. 
 These three terms may be taken as a compre- 
 hensive description of the future salvation 
 [two of these elements being in ver. 10, ex- 
 pressly' combined in the "eternal life"], in 
 these three aspects or elements of it, the 
 ' glory ' of perfected character [compare Matt. 
 13: 43]; the 'honour' connected with it, as 
 
 the prize of victory (l Cor. 9: 25; Phil.S: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 
 8; James 1: 12; 1 Peter 5 : 4), til 6 reigning with Christ 
 
 (8: 17; 2 Tim. 2 : 12); and its impe7-ishableiiefis 
 
 (1 Cor. 15; 52; 1 reter 1 : 4: Rev. 21 : 4). [This 'immor- 
 tality,' or 'incorruption' rather (compare 2 
 Tim. 1: 10; also 1 Cor. 15: 42, 52, 53, 54), 
 being one of glory and blessedness, is not 
 antithetical to annihilation or non-existence, 
 Besides, we have no occasion for seeking an 
 endless existence, for this is ours as an in- 
 alienable possession. As Halej' in his "Dis- 
 crepancies of the Bible" remarks: "The 
 Greek word used here is not 'immortality' 
 (aOavaaia), but ' incorrujjtion ' (a(j>iapaCa, trans- 
 lated 'sincerity' in Eph. 6: 24), and points to 
 that exemption from moral corruption which 
 saints are seeking here and which they will 
 fully attain in heaven." This word as we 
 suppose denotes not being, but a state of being, 
 an unending state of glory and honor, and 
 implies, of course, an endless existence. Tiie 
 adjective from it is applied not only to risen 
 saints, but to God, in Rom. 1 : 23 ; 1 Tim. 1 : 
 17.] The seeking here implies deliberate 
 choice and active e^ori. Eternal life. This 
 is what God will render (ver. 6) to those who 
 earnestly seek it by, or, in 'constancy of well 
 doing.' [The epithet "eternal," (olwnos), 
 occurring in the New Testament seventy-one 
 times according to Bruder, is applied to "life" 
 forty-four times.* It is somewhat singular that 
 the Greek 'eternal' should be derived from 
 
 I So sang Francis Xavier — 
 
 " deus, ego amo Tc, 
 
 Nee amo Te, ut saJves me, 
 Ant quia non amantes Te 
 .^terno punis igne." 
 
 My God I love thee— not because 
 I hope for heaven thereby, 
 
 Nor because those who love thee not 
 Must burn eternally. 
 See further in No. 3.33 of the Baptist Hymnal.— fF.) 
 2 Some make it, mi.^takenly we think, forty-six. In 
 lTim.6: 19, Westcott and Hort give as the most ap- 
 proved text ovTtoi instead of aiwi'i'o?. It is connected 
 with fire, judgment, destruction, six times; with glory 
 three times; with inheritance twice; and once each 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 65 
 
 8 But unto tbeiu that are contentious, and do not 
 obey llie truth, but obey uurighteousuess, indiguatiou 
 and wrath, 
 
 obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, i-An/i 
 9 be wrath and iiidi^uatiun, tribulation and anguish, 
 
 a word meaning "age" {aia>v), the same as 
 the Latin 'eternal' from aetas (aeoutn, aiuiv) 
 age, yet botii the Greek and tiie Latin words 
 (aiiunos and ceternus) properly signify eternal, 
 and the one no more signifies ag e-Lanting ihan 
 does the other. It is only when this word 
 refers to "punishment" and "destruction" 
 that men have a motive to give a qualitative 
 character, or to make it mean, lasting for an 
 age. This unending life (^utj) is something 
 more than existence, is more than outward 
 eurtlily life or living Ow) : it is life in the 
 highest sense, "the truly life." (i Tim. 6.- is.) 
 This eternal life is elsewhere in the New Tes- 
 tament contrasted with judgment (Joim5:24), 
 with corruption (Gai. 6: e), with perishing 
 
 (John 3: 16; 10: 28), with death (Rom. 6: 23), with 
 
 God's abiding wrath (Joiin3: 36), and with eter- 
 nal punishment. (Matt. 25:46.) Compare '* eter- 
 nal destruction " in '2 Thess. 1:9. It consists 
 in knowing God and keeping his commands, 
 in knowing his Son, believing in him, and re- 
 ceiving him. This life is in his Son, and if 
 we have him, we have life. We have the 
 beginning of it here along with our animal 
 and earthly life, and it abides within us, and 
 
 will never grow old. (John 6: 47,- 1 John 3: 15-) It 
 
 is the gift of God to his adopted children— their 
 incorruptible, unfading inheritance. Who 
 are we or what liave we done that we should 
 be heirs of such an inheritance?] 
 
 8. But unto them that are conten- 
 tious. The word translated 'contentious' 
 means rather, "self-seeking": instead of 
 being derived, as our translators seem to have 
 supposed, from the word commonly trans- 
 lated "strife," it comes rather from a word 
 which means "a hired laborer," and suggests 
 the idea of a mercenary spirit. The persons 
 to whom this epithet is applied, instead of 
 seeking "glory, honor, and immortalitj'," 
 seek their own sordid ends. [Such persons 
 generally cause factions, intrigues, and the 
 noun is taken by some in this sense. The 
 literal rendering is : to those from faction — 
 that is, those who belong to it, or, as Fritzsche 
 says, those who are derived from it, who 
 
 "have it as a parent." The like construction 
 is found in Acts 10: 45; Gal. 3: 7, those from 
 circumcision, those from faith. See Winer, 
 j^ 51, d. Corresponding with this, we have 
 elsewhere the phrase, 'sons or children of dis- 
 obedience,' etc. ; see Eph. 2: 2. The word 
 fur faction or partisanship occurs elsewhere 
 only in 2 Cr. 12: 20; Gal. 5: 20: Phil. 1: 
 16; 2: 3; James 3: 14, 16; see Ellicott on 
 Gal. 5: 20.] Aud do not obey the truth. 
 Gospel truth is not merely to be believed, but 
 to be obeyed : it is very practical, and a mere 
 intellectual assent to it, without correspond- 
 ing affections and actions, is of no value in 
 the sight of God. And they who do not obey 
 the truth will be sure to obey unrighteous- 
 ness. There can be no neutrality here. [The 
 word for 'obey not' denotes that tiiis disobedi- 
 ence springs from unbelief. 'Truth' is in 
 the dative of reference or of the mure remote 
 object; they were disobedient in respect to 
 'the truth.' Tiie word translated "truth" 
 (oAi)9€ia) by its etymology denotes that wliich 
 is unconcealed, manifest, open, hence the 
 converse of that which is merely apparent, or 
 false and hypocritical. Truth involves right- 
 eousness, and is opposed to 'unrighteousness' 
 (khiKia). Hence we have in the Scriptures the 
 rigiiteousness of truth, and the deceit of un- 
 righteousness. (Eph. 4: 24; 2 The9s.2: 10.)]. In- 
 dignation and wrath. These words, so 
 closely allied in meaning, are cou]iled together 
 in two other places in Paul's epistles. (Eph. 4. 
 31; Col, 3: 8.) They oftcu occur separately, and 
 both are commonly translated 'wrath,' but 
 each is 07?ce translated 'indignation,' one here, 
 and the other in Rev. 14: 10. The one here 
 translated 'wrath' (6p>>)) seems to refer more 
 to the inward feeling, the one translated 'in- 
 dignation' (flvMo«) to the outward manifesta- 
 tion ; one is the heat of the fire, the other the 
 bursting forth of the flame; one of the old 
 Greek grammarians says, that the first is last- 
 ing, the second transitorj-. Both are repeat- 
 edly used in the e.xpression, "the wrath of 
 God." [In the revised text the order of the 
 two nouns is reversed, and the rendering is 
 
 with gospel, covenant, things unseen, new and abiding 
 relation of Onesiiuus, Spirit, God, consolation, home in 
 the heavens, Christ's kingdom, redemption, salvation, 
 
 purpose, sin, and with the word power in a doxolgy 
 (See " Bible Commentary " on 2 Thessalonians, p. 748.)— 
 (F.) 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man 
 that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the 
 Gentile; 
 
 upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the 
 10 Jew first, and also ot the Greek; but glory aud 
 
 made to correspond.] There is an irregular- 
 ity in the grammatical construction here. 
 The words 'indignation and wrath' appear 
 to be governed, like the words 'eternal life' 
 in the preceding verse, by the verb ' will ren- 
 der.' In ver. 6 that undoubtedly expresses 
 the true sense; but as the words 'indignation 
 and wrath' are in the nominative case in the 
 Greek, it is necessary to supply the verb in 
 the passive form, "indignation and wrath 
 shall be rendered.^^ The words at the begin- 
 ning of the next verse are also in the nomi- 
 native case, and so equally require a change 
 in the verb. [Perhaps the apostle avoided 
 saying; God will render anguish, etc., in 
 order to indicate that these punishments are 
 not altogether direct and positive inflictions 
 from the hand of God, but that they may 
 come upon the sinner in accordance with the 
 nature and laws of his own being, or in ac- 
 cordance with the "constitution and course of 
 nature." Compare 9: 22, and Schaif' s note 
 in Lange, p. 98. The change of construction 
 gives at least variety and vivacity to the style.] 
 
 9. Tribulation and anguish (shall be or 
 shall come). These two words are joined to- 
 gether again in 8: 35, and 2 Cor. 6: 4. [See, 
 also, Isa. 8: 22; 30: 6; LXX.]i [Instead of 
 these terms we might have expected "eternal 
 destruction" (sxhess. i: 9) as the correlative of 
 "eternal life." As the apostle makes the re- 
 ward of the righteous — glory, honor, and life 
 — to be eternal, so, if we keep his "eternal 
 destruction" in view, we must regard this 
 wrath and this tribulation as likewise eternal. 
 
 At least, no one can say that it would be 
 un-Pauline to regard these as eternal. Some 
 persons, I know, are trying to cherish an 
 "eternal hope" for all the ungodly who are 
 living and have ever lived on earth, and In- 
 deed, for all the rebel host throughout crea- 
 tion. They trustingly hope that there will be 
 no everlasting sohism in God's universe, but 
 that as all began in unity, and harmony, so 
 all will end in harmony and peace. A most 
 pleasing anticipation surely, and it only needs 
 some scriptural foundation to warrant it. The 
 
 1 The latter, as the stronger terra, is always put last. 
 The former (6Aii|/is) is pressure from wUhoul,\\\(i latter 
 (orei'oxwpia, literally, slraitness of room, which allows uo 
 
 great trouble which lies in the way of accept- 
 ing restorationist and universalistic views is, 
 that if we shorten or do away with the "eter- 
 nal punishment," we must shorten or do away 
 with the "eternal life."] Upon every soul 
 of man — that is, upon every single man. 
 The 'soul' is not to be emphasized here, as 
 if it were intended to specif^' that part of our 
 nature as the sphere of the 'tribulation and 
 anguish ' ; but the expression stands for the 
 whole man, as in 13: 1. [Winer, Meyer, and 
 others, think some reference is had to tiie 
 soul as that part of man which feels pain, 
 thus making the phrase nearly equivalent to 
 every soul of man, or, soul of every man. 
 Mehring, as quoted by Philippi, observes that 
 the justification of the jihrase lies in the fact 
 that the soul, as the sole subject of feeling, is 
 the real man. The soul is the vital principle 
 in man, "the sphere of the will and affections, 
 and the true centre of the personality." As 
 distinguished from the spirit, it has special 
 reference to our animal and sensuous nature. 
 See note on Luke 1 : 46, 47.] That doeth 
 evil. The word translated 'doeth' here is 
 different from both the words distinguished in 
 1: 32, and 2: 1, and may be more exactly 
 translated "worketh," as it is in the following 
 verse. So it will be translated wherever we 
 meet it throughout the Epistle. [Its meaning 
 as a compound is probably a little stronger 
 than the simple verb, work. Perhaps it is 
 nearly equivalent to our work out, accom- 
 plish, or bring to pass. 'Evil,' literally "the 
 evil;" so, "the good," in the next verse. 
 The neuter adjective with the article is thus 
 often used as an abstract noun.] In chapter 
 7 we shall find all three of these words, "do, 
 practice, work," in intimate connection. Of 
 the Jew first, and also of the Gentile. 
 Inl: 16, it is the "blessing" which is to come 
 to the Jew 'first' ; so also in the next verse. 
 Here it is the penal retribution. ' First' does 
 not mean "especially" here; for although 
 that would be in accordance with the 
 just rule laid down by our Lord in Luke 12: 
 47, 48, it would not agree so well with the 
 
 way of turning or escaping) is pressure from ivithin. 
 Compare 2 Cor. 4 : 8, SAi^o/uei'oi, pressed on every side, 
 but not dTivoxfpovtkivoi..- (F.) 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 67 
 
 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that 
 worketli good ; to the Jew first, and al>o to theCientile: 
 
 11 For theie is no respect of persons with God. 
 
 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also 
 
 honour and peace to every man that worketh good, 
 
 11 to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: tor there 
 
 12 is no respect of persons with God. For as many 
 as 1 have sinned without law shall also perish with- 
 
 frequent use of the expression without the 
 word 'first.' The Jew as having precedence 
 in privileges, naturally takes precedence in 
 the order of judgment. He is always named 
 first, except in Col. 3: 11. Tiic word for 
 'Gentile' in this and in the following verse, 
 is, hy the Kevised Version, literally rendered 
 Greek. 
 
 10. But glory, honour, and peace [will 
 be rendered]. Instead of "immortality" 
 (incorruption) here, we have 'peace,' the 
 other two words being the same as in ver. 7. 
 These are what God "will render" (ver.e) to 
 these two classes of men respectively. In 
 their fullness, they will be realized only in 
 the future world, according to the intimation 
 in ver. 16. But many beginnings and fore- 
 tastes of them, in both cases, are experienced 
 in the present life, particularly in the case of 
 the threatened evils. Much tribulation and 
 anguish herald the coming wrath ; and if but 
 little of the glory and honor appear here 
 (ijohn3:2), the peace, at least, though not 
 perfect nor uninterrupted, is real, and beyond 
 all price. 
 
 11. For there is no respect of persons 
 with God. [This 'respect of persons' (Trpoo-u- 
 iToXri^ia, or, in some critical editions, rrpoo-u- 
 TTo\r)^^ia) is a New Testament word, yet derived 
 from Old Testament phraseology. See Lev. 
 19: 15; Deut. 10: 17; 2 Chron. 19: 7; Job 34: 
 19; Mai. 2: 9; also Luke 20: 21; Matt. 22: 
 16; Acts 10: 34; Gal. 2: 6. It occurs else- 
 where, in Paul's writings, only in Eph. 6:9; 
 Col. 3: 25. Compare James 2: 1 (9). Similar 
 phraseology and a like idea are found in 
 Ecclesiasticus, or Wisdom of Sirach 85: 12, 13. 
 (LXX33 1 U16.) Compare Wisdom of Solomon 
 6: 7. Prof. Shedd remarks that there "can 
 be no partiality in the exercise of mercy, be- 
 cause there cannot be an obligation or claim 
 of any kind in this case. . . . But there may 
 be partiality in the administration of jua- 
 tice.'"^ This verse states the principle of im- 
 partiality on which God will deal with Jews 
 and Gentiles, in accordance with the state- 
 ments in ver. 9 and 10, and in opposition to 
 the fond fancy of the Jews that they had as 
 
 Jews, irrespective of their personal charac- 
 ters, a sort of monopoly of the divine favor. 
 The doctrine that God is no respecter of per- 
 sons is not to be understood in such a way as 
 to limit his sovereignty ; he dealeth with his 
 creatures according to his good pleasure, giv- 
 ing to some much greater favors than to 
 others; but he shows no capricious partiality, 
 always, in his final judgment, holding an 
 even balance between responsibilities and 
 privileges, without regard to merely facti- 
 tious distinctions. So it is that the succeed- 
 ing context teaches us to understand the often 
 misunderstood and often abused principle so 
 emphatically affirmed in this verse. Com- 
 pare Acts 10: 34, 35. Men are justified by 
 faith, not by works; they will be judged ac- 
 cording to their works, without any partiality 
 [judged "according to truth," ver. 2.] 
 
 12. For as many as have sinned. [Liter- 
 ally, sJHnccZ— "spoken from the standpoint of 
 the time of the judgment." (Meyer.)] We 
 have now an expansion and illustration of the 
 principle laid down in the preceding verse. 
 God is impartial, 'for' he will judge nif^n 
 according to the light which they enjoy [or 
 might and should have possessed]. Without 
 law here can only mean without the written 
 law, the law of Moses. If any were abso- 
 lutely without law, they would be absolutely 
 without sin ; " for where no law is, there is no 
 transgression." (*: is.) The expression ' with- 
 out law' is used (adjectively) in the same 
 sense in 1 Cor. 9: 21 (four times). The word 
 also in the second clause shows the corre- 
 sponding relation between the verbs ' have 
 sinned' and shall perish [i. e., they shall 
 'also perish without law.' "Their punish- 
 ment shall be assigned without reference to 
 the written law." (Hodge.)] This perishing 
 .s the opposite of "salvation" (i: is), of "shall 
 live" (I- ")i of "eternal life" (2: f), of 
 "glory," etc. (2:10.) Compare John 3; 15; 
 1 Cor. 1 : 18. It is the natural, and just, and 
 necessary consequence of unpardoned sin. 
 [The perishing of men without law, signifies, 
 according to Dr. Hodge, that "their punish- 
 ment shall be assigned without reference to 
 
68 
 
 ROMANS; 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 perish without law ; and as many as have sinned in the 
 law shall be judged by the law ; 
 
 out law : and as many as have sinned under law 
 13 shall be judged by law ; for not the hearers of the 
 
 the law." The apostle in his writings recog- 
 nizes two classes, the saved and the perishing 
 or lost. But when he speaks of those who 
 " are perishing," as in 1 Cor. 1 : 18; 2 Cor. 2: 
 15: 4: 3; 2 Thess. 2: 10, he does not imply 
 thattheirsouls are gradually losingtheir being 
 and sinking into non-existence. Even the 
 "eternal destruction" of 2 Thess. 1 : 9 is 
 not annihilation, but is rather an abiding 
 alienation from God, a banishment away from 
 the presence ot the Lord and from the glory 
 of his power. "Alienation from God," says 
 Calvin, "is eternal death." Haley says, that 
 the "mortal soulists" or annihilationists 
 would, from their favorite proof texts, "prove 
 too much, and so prove nothing. For they 
 would prove that the Messiah was annihilated 
 at his crucifixion, that the righteous are anni- 
 hilated atdeath, that after the Israelites had an- 
 nihilated themselves, there was still 'help' for 
 them with all manner of similar absurdities." 
 Does our Saviour assert that a prophet could 
 not be annihilated except at Jerusalem? Are 
 we to infer that the lost coin had gone out of 
 existence? or that the substance of the per- 
 ished wine bottles had ceased to be? After the 
 prodigal had returned, could the father truly 
 say that he had been annihilated or had lost 
 his conscious existence? Is found, moreover, 
 the proper correlative of "annihilated " ? Our 
 Saviour says that he came to seek and to save, 
 not that which could be called lost by way of 
 anticipation, but that which was already lost. 
 A sinner can become lost to himself, to society, 
 to usefulness, happine.is, peace, God, and 
 heaven, and still retain a conscious existence. 
 These are for him a sadder loss than annihi- 
 lation. Paul assert^ the fact that the Gentiles 
 sinned against the light of nature and the law 
 written in their hearts, sinned "without ex- 
 cuse," and are " worthy of death." Even if 
 favored with God's revealed will, men often 
 choose not to repent, but harden their hearts 
 in iniquity and heap up for themselves a 
 treasure of wrsith which they must experience 
 in the day of wrath. Had the apostle been an 
 advanced thinker of the more liberal school, 
 this of course would have been the proper 
 place for him to hint at the probability of a 
 future probation for the heathen, and for 
 others who do not have a fair chance in this 
 
 life for a decisive probation — the probability 
 or certainty that before any man shall meet 
 Christ as a judge (see. ver. 16) he will first 
 have heard of him as a Saviour. But all this 
 he has strangely neglected to do. Meyer sees 
 no mitigation in the punishment of these per- 
 sons without law — that is. Gentile evil doers, 
 so long as they must perish. Our passage is 
 indeed an echo of truth : "the soul that sin- 
 neth, it shall die," but surely condemnation 
 will be proportioned to light resisted, and 
 perishing may be to one more than it is to 
 another. The teachings of the New Testa- 
 ment on the subject of retribution do not 
 shock our ideas of strictest justice, but make 
 responsibility and guilt proportionate to light 
 and advantage, and plainly reveal the fact of 
 diflerent degrees of retributive punishment. 
 
 (Matt. 10: 15; 11: 21-24; 12: 41, M ; Luke 12 : 47,48.) "What 
 
 can be more consonant with our ideas of right 
 and justice than our Saviour's teachings in 
 regard to the manj^ stripes and the few? His 
 rule of accountability is infinitely better than 
 any suppositions of ours as to what constitutes 
 a fair probation. Indeed, an exact decision 
 touching this point lies utterly bej'ond our 
 power. If any were disposed to do so, they 
 could easily construct a plausible argument 
 showing that none of us have a "fair chance" 
 in this life when an eternity is at stake — 
 placed here, as it were, but a moment, in a 
 world of darkness and temptation, with our 
 almost ungovernable appetites and passions 
 clamoring ever for indulgence, and the penal- 
 ties of future retribution so far out of our 
 sight and beyond the possibility of adequate 
 conception. Reasoning in this way, we can 
 well nigh get rid of every rule of felt duty 
 and every measure of felt responsibility, and 
 instead of a'.ting as though a fair moral pro- 
 bation were granted to any of us we should 
 be led to adopt the Epicurean motto: " Let us 
 eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." Cer- 
 tainly, then, a "greater condemnation," a 
 "sorer punishment" will be theirs who sin 
 under the law, and who will be judged bj' the 
 law than will fall to those who sin without the 
 law and will perish without the law. Would 
 it not be best then to withhold light and 
 knowledge from the comparatively ignorant 
 heathen ? Our answer, to say nothing of our 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 69 
 
 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before | law are ijiist before God, but the doers of the law 
 God, but the doers of the law shail be justilied. | 14 shall be ■•! justified: (for wheu Geutiles who have uot 
 
 1 Or, riykte.ous 2 Or, accounted righteous. 
 
 Saviours command, is tliis, that tve may with- 
 hold these blessings from them when we would 
 have our ligiit and our advantages less than 
 they are. See notes on 3 : 2.] Those who have 
 sinned in the law— that is, the Jews who 
 have tlie law of Moses. [In the verb we have 
 the Greek historical aorist: 'sinned.' The 
 word 'law' is here without the article, it 
 being to the Jew nearly equivalent to a proper 
 name wliich "does not require the article," 
 though as the established sign of definiteness 
 it is often joined to sucli names. (Winer's 
 "New Testament Grammar," p. 11'2.) In 
 this Epistle 'law' (»'omos), occurs thirty-four 
 times without the article and thirty-five with 
 it ; in Galatians, twenty times without it and 
 ten times with it.] Shall be judged by the 
 law. Thus God's judgment of both Gentiles 
 and Jews will be impartial, according to the 
 light which each has enjoyed. [Philippi re- 
 marks that the " Gentiles as sinners perish, 
 Jews as sinners are judged," and by this 
 judgment, which is here equivalent to con- 
 demnation, "perhaps an aggravation of pun- 
 ishment is indicated." The word law being 
 in the last two instances destitute of the arti- 
 cle, is hence regarded by some as not referring 
 to " the law " of Moses, but to law in general. 
 It is sometimes rendered a law, but even the 
 Gentiles sinned against a law, that which 
 was written in their hearts. To render a 
 Greek noun that has no article by the indefi- 
 nite article a (see Canterbury Eevision) is 
 often quite as misleading as to render it by 
 the definite article, the. The word law often 
 occurs in this Epistle without the article, and 
 evidently denotes in general the revealed law 
 of God, the law of Moses. So EUicott, Alford, 
 "VViner, and others. Bishop Lightfoot, how- 
 ever, says: "The written law, the Old Testa- 
 ment, is alwaj's "the law" (6 fd/no?). The 
 same word " without the article is law con- 
 sidered as a principle, exemplified no doubt 
 chiefly and signally in the Mosaic law, but 
 very much wider than this in its application." 
 Sf'o Appendix in the Introduction of "The 
 Bible Commentary," where this matter is 
 fully discussed.] 
 
 13. [The Common Version begins a paren- 
 thesis with this verse; the American Revised 
 
 Version, with the next verse; the Canterbury 
 Revision omits the brackets altogether.] The 
 for at the beginning of this verse assigns a 
 reason for the latter half of ver. 12. The 
 Jews have the written law, but the possession 
 of it does not justify them; 'for,' etc. The 
 hearers of the law are spoken of, rather 
 than the readers of it, because in those an- 
 cient times, in the scarcity of books, the law 
 became known to the people chiefly by the 
 public hearing of it in the synagogues, rather 
 than by the private reading of it at home. 
 Compare Acts 15: 21. ["The substantive 
 (hearers) brings out more forcibly than the 
 j)articipial form (those hearing) would have 
 done the characteristic feature: tiiose whose 
 business is hearing." (Meyer.) Critical edi- 
 tors omit the article before 'law' here, and in 
 the next sentence, wliile the governing nouns 
 in both places have the article. Compare ver. 
 27. This shows that in the use of the article 
 the principle of "correlation" referred to in 
 ver. 6 does not always hold. Are just before 
 God — accounted righteous in his sight or 
 presence; "the idea of locality suggested by 
 the preposition being still retained in that of 
 judgment at a tribunal." (EUicott.)] Shall 
 be justified. This verb occurs here for the 
 first time in this Epistle. Taken in connec- 
 tion with the preceding clause, 'are just 
 before God,' it aff'ords important help in 
 explaining the sense of the word 'righteous- 
 ness.' See notes on 1: 17. To 'be justified' 
 is to be exempt from condemnation, and ac- 
 quitted in the divine judgment, so as to stand 
 in favor with God and to enjoy the security 
 and the blessings resulting from that favor. 
 [With the last part of this verse compare 10: 
 5; Deut. 27: 26; Lev. 18: 5. 'Justified,' as 
 Dr. Giflford remarks, cannot here mean par- 
 doned, since the doer of the law has nothing 
 to be pardoned for; nor can it mean made 
 just, for he is just already by the supposition. 
 It is the exact contrary to being "con- 
 demned." As no one can be justified by 
 doing the law, Prof. Turner would give to 
 this justified the meaning of accepted. But 
 these two ideas virtually impl^' each other, 
 and the Greek language has specific terms to 
 express the idea of acceptance. " There is no 
 
70 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Cn. II. 
 
 14 For when tUe Geatiles, which have not the law, 
 do by nature the. things contained in the law, these, 
 having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 
 
 the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not 
 15 having the law, are a law unto themselves ; in tnat 
 
 conflict here with the doctrine of justification 
 by faith. The apostle cites an axiom in 
 ethics — namely, that perfect personal obedi- 
 ence will be recognized and rewarded by tliat 
 impartial Judge wlio is no respecter of per- 
 sons, and tliat nothing short of this will be. 
 That any man will actually appear before 
 this tribunal with such an obedience is neither 
 affirmed nor denied in the mere statement of 
 the principle. The solution of this question 
 must be sought elsewhere in the Epistle." 
 (Shedd.)] 
 
 14. For when the Gentiles. Here the 
 'for' assigns a reason for tlie latter part of 
 ver. 13. [Phiiippi and Godet make the 'for' 
 substantiate the first part of ver. 13, and sup- 
 pose that Paul, as a proof that mere hearers 
 of the law are not justified, adduces the fact 
 that unbelieving Gentiles are hearers of a law. 
 This sense is appropriate enough, but I do 
 not see how it can be derived from the text. 
 It certainly requires no such supposition as 
 that made by the apostle: when Gentiles c?o 
 by nature the things of the law.] It would 
 be better to omit the definite article before the 
 word 'Gentiles.' It is not expressed in the 
 original, and the indefinite character of the 
 supposition is better expressed without it: 
 ' When any Gentiles, if any ever do, for they 
 as a class certainly do not,' etc. [So Fritz- 
 sche, Meyer, and others. But De Wette and 
 Phiiippi think the word is sufficiently definite 
 in itself and may, without the article, be 
 referred to the entire Gentile world. See 
 3: 29; 11: 13; 15: 10, 12; 1 Cor. 1 : 23. A 
 noun also may dispense with the article when 
 joined, as here and in 9 : 30, by an article to a 
 limiting attributive. (Winer, p. 139; Butt- 
 mann, 92.] Do by nature— that is, by natu- 
 ral instinct, judgment, and reason ["the 
 moral prompting of conscience left to itself." 
 (Meyer)], without any such formal standard 
 of duty as the Jews have; corresponding to 
 'without law' in the preceding verse. The 
 things contained in the law — that is, the 
 things which the law prescribes ; when they 
 do the things commanded, without a definite 
 kr.owledge of the commandment. [These 
 having not the law. The pronoun 'these,' 
 though referring to a neuter noun, Gentiles, 
 
 is by a constructio ad sensimi put in the mas- 
 culine; the word 'law,' though without the 
 article in the Greek, evidently refers to the 
 revealed will of God. The 2^ossessio7i of this 
 law is here emphatically denied. In the 
 former clause, 'having not the law,' the em- 
 phasis rests tnore upon the substantive— thnt 
 is, the possession of the law is denied. By the 
 use of the subjective negative (m^), the ab- 
 sence of law on the part of the Gentiles is 
 represented as a supposition, as something 
 existing .not so much in fact as in thought.] 
 Are a law unto themselves. This expres- 
 sion is sufficiently explained by the following 
 verse. [Since 'a law' may be just or unjust, 
 God's law or man's law, Alford would make 
 even this 'law' definite, thus: 'are (so far) 
 the law to themselves.' The connection and 
 thought of this verse are quite variously ex- 
 plained. The apostle affirms that the Gen- 
 tiles have, as Farrar states it, "a natural law 
 written on their hearts, and sufficiently clear 
 to secure, at the Day of Judgment, their ac- 
 quittal or condemnation," and, what is some- 
 what surprising, he even supposes that they 
 or some of them do by nature perform the 
 things of the (written) law, and in ver. 26, 27, 
 he goes so far as to say: "If the uncircum- 
 cision (the Gentiles) keep the ordinances of 
 the law," and "if thoy fulfil the law." Now 
 they have not the written law, and the apos- 
 tle is far from supposing that they perfornt 
 all the " works of the law," but he does seem 
 to imply that some of them do perform ce?-- 
 tain thitigs of the law — that is, avoid murder, 
 adultery, etc. ; and he brings forward this 
 fact here, though in a delicate and somewhat 
 secret way, as being condemnatory ("shall 
 judge thee," ver. 27) of those persons, the 
 Jews, "who with the letter (of the law) and 
 circumcision are yet transgressors of the law." 
 Meyer's view of this verse is that "Paul de- 
 sires simply to establish the regulative prbi- 
 ciple of justification through law in the case 
 of the Gentiles." Prof. Stuart says "that 
 the apostle is only laying down or illustrating 
 a principle here, not relating a historical fact. 
 . . . The writer means to say neither more 
 nor less, than that the Gentiles may have the 
 same kind of claims to be actually justified 
 
Ch. IL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 71 
 
 15 Which *ew the work of the law written in their | 
 hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their 
 
 they shew the work of the law written in their 
 hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, 
 
 before God as the Jews; but, as the sequel 
 shows most fully, neither Jew nor Gentile 
 has any claim at all to justification, since both 
 have violated the law under which they have 
 lived." " It is remarkable," says Dr. Gifford, 
 "that St. Paul here uses the exact words of 
 Aristotle, who says, concerning men of emi- 
 nent virtue and wisdom : 'Against such there 
 is no law, for themselves are a law.' " The first 
 clause is found in Gal. 5: 2:1] 
 
 15. We have at the beginning of this verse 
 the same compound relative spoken of in 1: 2o, 
 with the force of a reason. Which shew— 
 "since they are such as sliow." [They 'shew' 
 openly, by their action— doing the things of 
 the law. (Ver. 14, so De Wette, Meyer, Phil- 
 ippi, etc.) Others; by the testimony of their 
 conscience.] The work of the law. They 
 show the operation of the law; they show 
 that what tlie law does is done in them ; the 
 law distinguishes between what is right and 
 what is wrong [it commands and forbids] ; 
 this work is shown to be done in them. How 
 it is done is immediately explained. Written 
 in their hearts. They have a moral nature 
 (vpr. 14), which necessitates the recognition of 
 right and wrong in actions. [This injunctive 
 and interdicting work of the law written in 
 men's hearts is generally spoken of as the un- 
 written law of God, but is here named written, 
 in allusion to the law which was written on 
 tablets of stone. For a like figure, see 2 Cor. 
 3:3. Philippi says: "The works of the law 
 are written in their hearts in so far as they 
 confess in their hearts an obligation to do 
 thein." Paul "obviously means by this term 
 the voice of God in the conscience" (Olshau- 
 sen), and for this reason, perhaps, a change is 
 made from the plural (hearts) to the singular 
 (conscience). Prof Boiso calls attention to 
 the frequent use in the New Testament of the 
 verbal adjective (here ypa.nTov, ivritten) instead 
 of the aorist or perfect passive participle.] 
 
 1 On the force of this participle, Alford, similarly to 
 De Wette, thus remarks : " Confirming by its testimony, 
 the auv signifying the agreement of tlie witness with 
 the deed [i. e., with their doinrj the things of the law], 
 perhaps, also, the a-vv may be partly induced by the <rvv 
 in auKftSjitrew?, conscience, referring to the reflective 
 process in whicli a man confers, so to speak, with him- 
 
 Their conscience also bearing witness. 
 
 The force of the word 'also' here is not very 
 apparent. It is an attempt to express in Eng- 
 lish what is expressed in Greek by a preposi- 
 tion [crvv, ivith] combined with the participle 
 " bearing witness," giving it the force of "co- 
 witnessing," and so seeming to imply some 
 other testimony, with which that of conscience 
 is co-ordinate and concurrent. What is that 
 other testimony ? The testimony of the actual 
 fact, says Meyer— that is, the work of the law 
 is shown to be written in their hearts by their 
 actually doing the things contained in the 
 law (ver. u) ; and then the testimony of their 
 conscience 'also' confirms the same fact, by 
 the accusing or excusing verdict which they 
 pass upon the actions of themselves and one 
 another. This is very intelligible; and if it 
 were certain (as Meyer affirms) that this pre- 
 fix syllable requires some such definite witness 
 to be predicated, apart from that of conscience, 
 no better explanation need be sought. But is 
 it so certain that this prefix to the participle 
 requires us to seek some other definite witness 
 than that of conscience? The simple verb 
 "to witness," in Greek, is never used in con- 
 nection with the word conscience. The only 
 other place where the two occur together in 
 the New Testament is 9: 1, and there, as here, 
 the participle has the prefix preposition. In- 
 deed, the same prefix (o-iii') is also the first 
 syllable of the Greek word for "conscience." 
 And the corresponding syllable, con, begins 
 the class of words, both in Latin and English, 
 that express this inward witness of our nature, 
 as " co?iscience, cojisciousncss." Is there not 
 in these agreeing compounds, in different lan- 
 guages, an intimation that this common syl- 
 lable expresses only the tmion and harmony 
 of all the faculties of our deeper and better 
 nature in this inward witness? If this is the 
 true explanation, the word also should be 
 omitted, both here and in 9 : 1.^ And their 
 
 self." Volkraar, as quoted by Godet, says: "Their 
 conscience bears testimony besides the moral act itself, 
 which already demonstrated the presence of the divine 
 law." Philippi supposes that what their (reflective) 
 conscience bears witness to is, that the work of tlie law 
 is written on their hearts, though he confesses that the 
 conscience antecedens is this law in the heart.— (F.) 
 
72 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 thoughts the oiean while accusing or else excusing one 
 another;) 
 
 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of 
 men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. 
 
 and 'their 2 thoughts one with another accusing or 
 16 else excusing ttiem;) in the day when Ciod i*shall 
 judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 1 Or, their thoughts accusing or else excusing tbcm one with another 2 Or, 
 
 ngs 3 OT,judgeth. 
 
 thoughts the mean while accusing or 
 else excusing one another. The single 
 word translated 'in the mean while,' is usu- 
 ally translated "between," and is closely con- 
 nected with the word translated ' one another.' 
 This seems the true connection from the posi- 
 tion of the words [see Matt. 18: 15j, although 
 the 'one another' might be regularly enough 
 governed by the participles 'accusing and 
 excusing.' The word which we translate 
 "between" (/utTofu) seems, however, to require 
 an object more than the participles do. It is 
 invariably followed by an object which it gov- 
 erns (seven times), except when it is used as 
 a noun, John 4 : 31 (meanwhile), or as an 
 adjective, Acts 13 : 42 (next). According to 
 this view of the connection, the last part of 
 this verse might better be translated — and 
 their thoughts between (or among) one another 
 accusing, or even excusing. [Meyer and Lange 
 regard the one another as referring not to 
 thoughts but to the Gentiles — i. e., their 
 thoughts are busy in approving or condemn- 
 ing the actions of their fellow-men. It seems 
 most natural to regard the reciprocal pronoun 
 here as reflexive, referring to thoughts or 
 judgments — the judging and the strife being 
 internal — while the participles may be taken 
 as used absolutely, without any object ex- 
 pressed. A passage parallel to this is found 
 in Philo: "That conviction which is the in- 
 nate inhabitant of every soul, like an accuser, 
 censures, charges, and upbraids; and again, 
 as a judge, teaches, admonishes, and exhorts 
 to repentance." "This judical process," says 
 Dr. Schaff, " which takes place here in every 
 man's heart, is a forerunner of the great judg- 
 ment at the end of the world." Did we but 
 realize the terrible power of a thoroughly 
 
 enlightened and awakened conscience, con- 
 joined with a restored and perfect memory, 
 each one would be moved to say : 
 
 That to sit alone with luy conscience 
 Will be judgment enough for me. i] 
 
 The word translated 'else' would be more 
 exactly translated even; it seems designed to 
 intimate, what is undoubtedly true in the case 
 of the persons referred to, that the thoughts 
 have more frequent occasion to accuse than to 
 excuse; that the former is tlie 7-ule, the latter 
 the exception. 
 
 16. [In the day. The word 'day ' is with- 
 out the article, yet is virtually defined by the 
 clause which follows. Westcott and Hort, 
 however, prefix the relative pronoun: in what 
 day. We notice also that they prefer the 
 present tense of the verb, judge. Where va- 
 rious readings occur, these critics, as in the 
 case before us, frequently adopt the marginal 
 reading of the Kevised Version, and make 
 the Kevisers' text their secondary reading.] 
 Almost all commentators perceive a necessity 
 for inclosing the two or three preceding verses 
 in parentheses. For the accusing and ex- 
 cusing office of conscience does not date from 
 the Day of Judgment, however it may be 
 intensified then. But there is a difl^erence of 
 opinion as to the extent of the parenthetic 
 portion, some including three verses (i^-is), 
 and others only two (», is). The former view 
 seems preferable, for this ver. 16 does not con- 
 nect immediately with ver. 13 so appropriately 
 as with ver. 12. The statement in ver. 13 
 seems much too limited, while that of ver. 12 
 is much more comprehensive. [Some, as 
 Lachmann and Meyer, inclosing ver. 14, 15, 
 in parentheses, erroneously connect this judg- 
 
 1 The terrible state of a remorseful conscience is well 
 depicted in the lines from Byron's " Giaour" : 
 
 The mind that broods o'er guilty woes 
 
 Is like the scorpion girt by fire. 
 
 So writhes the mind Remorse hath riven, 
 
 Unfit for earth, undoomed for heaven, 
 
 Darkness above, despair beneath. 
 
 Around it flame, within it death. 
 And in the tragedy of "Manfred," the same poet says 
 that not even 
 
 The innate tortures of that deep despair 
 
 Which is remorse without the fear of hell, 
 
 But all in all sufficient in itself, 
 
 Would make a hell of heaven — can exorcise 
 
 From out the unbounded soul the quick sense 
 
 Of its own sins, wrongs, sufferance, and reveng 
 
 Upon itself; there is no further pang 
 
 Can deal that justice on the self-condemned 
 
 He deals on his own soul. — (F.) 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 73 
 
 17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the 
 aw, aiid luakest ihy boast of God, 
 
 17 But if thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest 
 
 inent day with the 'shall be justified' of ver. 
 13. But no doers of the hiw will as such 'be 
 justified' on that day. "VViner says rightly, 
 as we think, that shall judge glances back at 
 'shall be judged,' of ver. 12. So De Wette 
 and otiiers. Alford goes back to the passage 
 ending with ver. 10. Hofniann and Lange 
 make this judging, accusing, or excusing day 
 to be whenever Paul's gospel was preached to 
 them, and translate, "when God judges," 
 etc., not 'shall judge.' But Meyer says: 
 "The expressions in ver. 16 are so entirely 
 those formally used to denote the last judg- 
 ment . . . that nothing else could occur to 
 any reader than the concei)tion of that judg- 
 ment, which, moreover, has been i)resenttothe 
 mind since ver. 2, and from which even 'ac- 
 cording to my gospel' does not draw away 
 the attention." Philippi connects this verse 
 with the preceding, and thus explains the con- 
 nection. The witness of conscience, spoken 
 of in ver. 15, referred to moral conduct in the 
 present life. But as the apostle was describ- 
 ing it, the thought was borne vividly in upon 
 his mind in the way indicated, how this would 
 manifest itself most decisively in the general 
 judgment. On this account he passes on to 
 the latter without so much as indicating the 
 change in the course of thought by varying 
 the phraseology, as by: and this esvecialty.] 
 The secrets of men. The secret actions, 
 thoughts, designs, and motives. (Ecwies. i-^: u.) 
 Not (.inly things concealed from others, but 
 things only partially known to ourselves, will 
 God bring into judgment. Compare 1 Cor. 
 4: 4, 5. [How fearful must this judgment be 
 to any man, however outwardly moral, if all 
 the hidden deeps of life and all the secret 
 purposes and desires of his heart shall be thus 
 brought to light, especially if this judging 
 shall be attended with exposure. Men in this 
 world generall3' dread exposure of their 
 crimes far more than they do the crimes thein- 
 selves, and the avoidance of this exposure is a 
 frequent cause of suicide. But there will be 
 no such escape in the world to come.] By 
 Jesus Christ. [These words point decisively 
 to the final judgment.] That Jesus Christ is 
 the appointed Judge of men is very plainly, 
 repeatedly, and emphatically affirmed in the 
 Scriptures. See Matt. 25: 31-46; John 5: 22, 
 
 27; Acts 10: 42; 17:31; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5: 
 10. According to my gospel. The refer- 
 ence ('my gospel') is not specifically to the 
 Gospel of Luke, as was supposed by several of 
 the ancient Fathers [Origen, Eusebius, Je- 
 rome], an early tradition having represented 
 this gospel as written under Paul's supervis- 
 ion, and especially sanctioned by his ap- 
 proval ; but rather the gospel which he 
 preached, in common with the other apostles. 
 He uses a similar expression in 16: 25; 2 Tim. 
 2:8. Compare also 1 Cor. 15: 1. [Ho who 
 was "separated unto the gospel of God" and 
 who speaks in 1 Tim. 1: 11 of the "gospel 
 which was committed to my trust, ' could 
 well say, 'my gospel.'] 
 
 The doctrine of a future judgment is an 
 important part of the gospel, and as such is to 
 be preached faithfully, solemnly, and tenderly. 
 It is, moreover, a reasonable ground for en- 
 forcing the duty of repentance, and is so rep- 
 resented by this same apostle in Acts 17 : 31, 
 and perhaps also in 2 Cor. 5:11, though the 
 sense of the expression in this last passage — 
 "the terror of the Lord" — admits a difi'ereiit 
 interpretation. ["Thus in ver. 14-16, St. 
 Paul shows that the principle stated in ver. 
 13 is a fact universal, and that the formal 
 distinction between Gentile and Jew, ver. 12, 
 does not involve any essential difference be- 
 tween them in reference to the divine judg- 
 ment." (Gifford.) Noone, methinks, can fail 
 to perceive how irrefutably antagonistic all 
 this teaching of the apostle is to the notion of 
 a future probation for "some heathen. '] 
 
 17-30. The apostle having made his grad- 
 ual and cautious approach to the Jew, as the 
 hawk, after wheeling awhile above his victim, 
 suddenly pounces down upon him, now singles 
 him out by name. These four verses are too 
 closely connected in one description to be sepa- 
 rated without disadvantage. The word trans- 
 lated behold is, in the best manuscripts and in 
 most critical editions, divided into two words 
 (ei 5f), which would be translated "but if," or 
 "if now": the hypothetical sentences thus 
 introduced extend through these four verses. 
 Thou art called a Jew. ["Thou hast a 
 title (Jew) in addition to (en-O that which 
 other men possess." ("Wordsworth.) De 
 Wette and Meyer regard the verb as simply 
 
74 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 18 And knowest his will, and approvest the tilings 
 that are more excellent, being instructed out of the 
 law ; 
 
 18 upon 1 the law, and gloriest in God, and knowest 
 2 his will, and ^approvesl the things that are excel- 
 
 19 lent, being instructed out of the law, and art couti- 
 
 1 Or, a law 2 Or, the Will... ..3 Or, dost distingtiish the things that differ. 
 
 meuning "named." See Gen. 4:17, 25, 26; 
 LXX. The word Jew, etymologically, means 
 praised, from Judah, the tribe in which the 
 national and theocratic hopes of the Hebrews 
 were centred. The virtue attached to this 
 name may be seen from Gal. 2 : 14, 15 ; Rev. 2 : 
 9. Meyer says: " The 'but' (««) and the em- 
 phatic 'thou' are to be exphiined from the 
 conception of the contrast, which the conduct 
 of the Jews showed, to the proposition that 
 only the doers of the law shall be justified."] 
 To bear the name of Jew was, in their estima- 
 tion, a great honor. The following clauses 
 explain, in great part, why it was so. And 
 restest in the law [or, tcpoti laiv]. The 
 Jew rested in the law in a twofold sense: his 
 mind rested in it as a sure and ultimate rule 
 of righteousness, in contrast with the uncer- 
 tain and conflicting speculations of heathen 
 philosophers and moralists ; and hishope relied 
 upon it [or upon his possession and knowledge 
 of it] as the ground of his acceptance with 
 God. In the former view he was right: in 
 the latter he was wrong. And makest thy 
 boast of God. Literally, ' honstest in God.'^ 
 [It will be noticed that all the particulars here 
 enumerated, in which the Jew prided himself, 
 are in themselves right and good. It was well 
 to bear the name of a Jew, to rest upon the 
 law, to glory in God, to know his will, etc.] 
 "While all other nations worshiped them that 
 "by nature are no gods" (Gal. 4:8), the Jew 
 prided himself on having the knowledge of 
 the one true God. And knowest his Avill. 
 Thepronoun 'bis' is not distinctly expressed, 
 and knowest the loill is the literal translation 
 [the article being sometimes used as virtually 
 equivalent to the pronoun]. The omission of 
 the pronoun causes no obscurity, but may 
 rather be regarded as adding force, inasmuch 
 as it assumes that all doubt as to whose will is 
 meant is precluded by the nature of the case. 
 And approvest the things that are more 
 excellent. This expression might be trans- 
 lated >aw(Z^Hesi[distinguishest, or, as margin, 
 
 by American Revisers, "dost distinguish"] 
 the things that differ [with special reference 
 to discriminating between right and wrong, 
 truth and error], without doing any violence 
 to either the verb or the participle (diflering 
 or excelling). [The Revised Version (Eng- 
 lish Revisers) has jo?'oyeA'^ the things that differ 
 in the margin, and a similar interpretation is 
 adopted by De Wette, Philippi, Godet, Al- 
 ford, Stuart, Shedd.] But the common trans- 
 lation [favored by Meyer, Jowett, Gifford, 
 Turner, Noyes, Hodge, Boise] seems more 
 suitable to the context, both here and in Phil. 
 1 : 10, where the same expression occurs, and 
 agrees better with the ordinary uses of both 
 the verb from which the participle is derived 
 {5i.a(\>ipiiv \ see Matt. 6: 20, "are better"; 10: 
 31, "are of more value" ; 12: 12, "is better"), 
 and of the corresponding adjective (6ia<^opos),2 
 see Heb. 1:4; 8: 6). Being instructed [con- 
 tinuously] out of the law. This clause ex- 
 plains the preceding. It was not by their 
 superior natural shrewdness, or their superior 
 moral uprightness, that they approved of 
 what was excellent; but because they had in 
 the law a divine rule of judgment. The pres- 
 ent tense of the participle here, 'being in- 
 structed,' seems designed to intimate, not that 
 they had been instructed in youth, once for 
 all, but that they were continually receiving 
 instruction, through the weekly reading and 
 expounding of the law in the synagogue. 
 The word translated 'instructed' is emphatic. 
 It is the word from which our "catechise" is 
 derived [and properly denotes oral instruc- 
 tion]. Observe its use in Luke 1:4; Acts 
 18: 25: Gal. 6: 6 (twice). ["We may hence 
 infer," says the elder Jonathan Edwards, 
 "that no degree of speculative knowledge of 
 things of religion is any certain sign of saving 
 grace," and that a man may have "more 
 knowledge of this sort than hundreds of true 
 saints of an ordinary education and most di- 
 i vines, yet all is no certain evidence of any 
 degree of saving grace in the heart." He also 
 
 1 On the ending of this verb, which is one of the 
 original nncontracted forms of the second person 
 singular, passive and middle, and which occurs also in 
 ver. 23; 11 : 18, the reader is referred to Winer, p. 76. 
 
 In its common contracted form it would be written 
 itavx?.— (F.) 
 
 *The participle is used only in the two passages, 
 Rom. 2:18; Phil. 1:10. 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 75 
 
 19 And art confident that thou thy&elf art a guide of 
 the bliud, a light of them which are iu darkness, 
 
 20 An iubtruclor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, 
 which hast the form of knowledge aud of the truth iu 
 the law. 
 
 21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest 
 thou not thyself'.' thou that preachest a mau should not 
 steal, dost thou steal ? 
 
 dent that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a 
 
 20 light of them that are in darkness, i a corrector of 
 the foolish, a teacher of liabes, having iu the law 
 
 21 the form of knowledge and of the truth ; thou there- 
 fore that teachest another, teachest thou uot thyself? 
 
 1 Or, an instructor. 
 
 remarks that "the devil has undoubtedly a 
 great degree of speculative knowledge in di- 
 vinity, having been, as it were, edueated in 
 tile best divinity school iu the universe," and 
 that " it is not to be supposed tliat any mortal 
 man, whether godly or ungodly, has tin equal 
 degree of speculative knowledge with the 
 devil." See his Sermon XXVIII on "True 
 Grace."] And art confident, etc. [The 
 word for 'and' is not "the more einpliatic 
 and closer connective (xai), Ijut the adjunc- 
 tive (re), and indicates that what follows is 
 dependent on or flows from what precedes." 
 (Winer, 434.)] In ver. 17, 18, we have four 
 or five particulars denoting the advantages 
 which the Jew claimed for himself; and in 
 ver. 19, 20, as many particulars denoting his 
 superiority to the G-entile. ["And first he 
 takes the poor Gentile by the hand, as one 
 does a blind man, offering to guide him ; then 
 he opens his eyes, dissipating his darkness b^' 
 the light of revelai;ion ; then he rears him as 
 one would bring up a person yet without rea- 
 son ; finally, when through all this care he 
 has come to the stage of a little child (cijjnos, 
 who cannot speak, a term used by the Jews to 
 designate proselytes), he initiates him into 
 the full knowledge of the truth by becoming 
 his teacher." (Godet.) In Matt. 15: 14, our 
 Lord upbraids the Pharisees as being blind 
 leaders of the blind.] Observe how the arro- 
 gance of the Jew is set forth in the form of 
 expression, 'art confident that thou thyself,' 
 etc. It is probable that these very titles were 
 assumed by the Jewish Rabbis and Pharisees. 
 Indeed, Grotius mentions a work by Maimo- 
 nides, of which the Rabbinic title, translated 
 into Greek, would correspond precisely with 
 the words here rendered : an instructor of 
 the foolish. Which hast [literally, having, 
 agreeing with thyself] the form of knowl- 
 edge and of the truth in the law. The 
 
 word here translated 'form' [ixofxiimaiv] is used 
 only in one other place in tiie New Testa- 
 ment. In 2 Tim. 3:5, it is used to mark the 
 form in distinction from the reality: "having 
 a form of godliness, but denyirig the power 
 tliereof." Here, however, the word does not 
 seem to be used in the same superficial sense 
 [but rather marks the reality, the substance 
 with the form, as does tlie word form (}^o(xi,r,) 
 in Phil. 2: 6, 7. Weiss, in his " Biblical The- 
 ology," vol. 1, p. 319, says that the Jews pos- 
 sessed a '■^copied represe^itatioii of the truth 
 in the Old Testament law."] It was an em- 
 bodiment of true knowledge, a real rule of 
 right, which the apostle did not intend to dis- 
 parage. Is it a mere fancy that in tiiese verses 
 (n-20) the apostle uses a certain grandilo- 
 quence, not unsuitable to the arrogant preten- 
 sions which he is describing 7^ Having thus 
 far shown how much the Jews made of the 
 theory of religion, he now proceeds to show 
 how little regard they paid to the practice of 
 it. And he does this with great energy of 
 expression, and in what seems to be a tone of 
 indignant surprise. 
 
 21, 22. Thou therefore. ["At length 
 the apostle turns to strike." (Jowett.)] The 
 'therefore' marks the turn of tlie sentence 
 after the hypothetical clauses commencing 
 with ver. 17- [The thought of these clauses 
 and of this 'therefore.' etc., seems to be this: 
 thou, being all this, or rather,' professing all 
 this, how is it, then, that your conduct is such 
 as it is — that is, the reverse of all your pro- 
 fessions? This contradiction between profes- 
 sion and practice on the part of the Jews 
 corresponds to that of the Gentiles (1:22), of 
 whom the apostle says: "Professing them- 
 selves to he wise, they became fools," and 
 acted accordingly.] There is much force in 
 these interrogative sentences. Tlie first is of a 
 general nature— teachest thou not thyself? 
 
 1 In ver. 17 and 18 we have five particulars, express- 
 ing what the Jew claimed for himself; and in ver. 19 
 and 20 we have likewise five particulars, expressing his 
 relation to the Gentiles and the pre-eminence over 
 
 them; and to make the corrrspondence between the 
 two pairs of ver.ses more complete and noticeable, the 
 last of the five particulars is in each case expressed in 
 the original Greek by a participle. 
 
76 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IL 
 
 22 Thou that sayest a uiaii should not commit adul- 
 tery, d<j.st thou cuiiiuiit aduliery? thou that abhorrest 
 idols, dost thou couiiuit sacrilege? 
 
 ■S-i Thou tliat luakest tliy boast of the law, through 
 breakiug the law dishonouresl thou God ? 
 
 thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost 
 
 22 thou steal? thou that sayest a man should not com- 
 mit adultery, dost ihuu commit adultery ? thou that 
 
 23 abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples? thou who 
 gloriest in i the law, through thy transgression of 
 
 This is followed by three specific questions— 
 or charge:^, we niigiit call them, in the form 
 of questions— each weightier than the preced- 
 ing. [Theft, adultery, sacrilege. "Thou sin- 
 nest most grievously against thy neighbor, 
 thyself, God. Paul had shown to the Gentiles 
 that their sins were first against God, next 
 against themselves, next against others. He 
 now inverts the order, for sins against God 
 are very openly practiced among the Gentiles, 
 but not by the Jew." (Bengel.) The infini- 
 tive clauses— not to steal, not to commit adul- 
 tery—depend upon the Greek participles, 
 which have here the force of command. The 
 participles and verbs are all in the present 
 tense, denoting present and continuous ac- 
 tion.] The first two are very plain ; the tliird 
 may require a few words of explanation. 
 Although the Jews, in the earlier periods of 
 their history, were often reproved for their 
 participation in the idolatrous practices of the 
 heathen around and among tiiem, yet after 
 their return from their captivity in Babylon 
 they seem to have been characterized gener- 
 ally by their intense abiiorrence of idols. 
 [Hence the apostle does not say : " Dost thou 
 worship idols?" We may remark that the 
 word for abhorrest indicates that the idols 
 were regarded as abominable things, alike 
 polluted and polluting.] Josephus relates a 
 striking proof of this abhorrence. When they 
 understood that Pilate had ordered the mili- 
 tary standards, adorned with portraits of the 
 emperors, to be brought to Jerusalem, multi- 
 tudes of them rushed to his palace in C?esarea, 
 and, disregarding alike his commands and his 
 threats, declared their readiness to die rather 
 than suffer their city to be so desecrated. 
 ("Antiq.," XVIII, 3, 1; "Wars," 11,9, 2, 
 and 3.) Dost thou commit sacrilege? 
 [This is the marginal reading of the Revised 
 Version. Jowett, in order to bring out the 
 implied opposition, renders thus : "Dost thou 
 who alihorre.st idols rob the idol temples?" 
 And this contrast is favored by most exposi- 
 
 tors.] Two questions arise here. Were the 
 Jews guilty of profaning the heathen temples? 
 Would the apostle account it sacrilege if they 
 did so? As to the tirst question, it seems not 
 unlikely that, either in the wantonness of 
 their fanaticism or in their greed for the costly 
 olierings with which idol temples were often 
 adorned, they sometimes did this. An ex- 
 press prohibition of the latter form of profana- 
 tion of heathen temples, in Deut. 7 : 25, shows 
 that they were at least in danger of doing 
 this.i [See also Josephus' "Antiq.," IV, 8, 
 10. Some, appealing to Mai. 1 : 8-14 ; 3 : 8-10 ; 
 "Antiq.," XVIII, 3, 5, suppose that the rob- 
 bery of that which belonged to, or was due to, 
 God's temple is alluded to; but this view does 
 not harmonize with the context.] As to the 
 second question, it does not seem altogether 
 improbable, especially in view of the prohi- 
 bition just referred to, that the apostle might 
 apply the word sacrilege to such a robberj-. 
 The case would then be as if he had said : 
 "You profess to abhor idols, but you have no 
 objectian to making gain by doing what ex- 
 poses you to the charge (on the jiart of the 
 heathen) of sacrilege." [We should not nat- 
 urally have supposed that the Jews were 
 specially guilty of the sins enumerated, j'et 
 there is considerable evidence to substantiate 
 the apostle's charges. Compare Matt. 19:8; 
 23:13-25; James 4: 4-13; 5:1-6. The Jews 
 themselves confess to the commonness of 
 adultery in those times, even to the doing 
 away of the ordeal of jealousy. (Farrar. ) 
 We suppose their wickedness was greatly 
 augmented in the years immediately subse- 
 quent, especially during the Roman war. 
 Josephus certainly sets it forth in a fearful 
 light. See his "Wars," V, 9, 4; 10, 5; 13, 6.] 
 23,24. Thou that makest thy boasts 
 of the law (literall}', in the law), through 
 breaking the law dishonourest thou 
 God? [Inconsistently with thy professions, 
 thou dishonorest God by violating his law. 
 Meyer does not read this verse as a question, 
 
 1 Meyer thinks " it may justly be inferred from Acts 
 19 : 37 that robbery of temples actually occurred among 
 the Jews." 
 
 2The verb/tauxocot, (see ver. 17), is the original uncon- 
 tracted form of second person singular, passive, indic- 
 ative middle. — (F.) 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 77 
 
 24 For the name of <iod is blasphemed among the 
 Gentiles through you, as it is wriileu. 
 
 25 For uircii incision verily prolileth, if thou keep the 
 law : but if Ihou be a breaker of the law, tuy ciruum- 
 cision is made uiicircumeisiou. 
 
 2(5 Therefore, if the uucireumcision keep the right- 
 
 24 the law dishonouresl thou God? For the name of 
 tiod is blasphemed among the (ieniiles brcause of 
 
 25 you, even as it is written. For cireuiucisioii indeed 
 proiiteth, it Ihou be a doer of ilie law : but il thou 
 be a transgressor of the law, thy eireumcisiou is 
 
 26 become unelrcumeisiou. If therefore the uucireum- 
 
 but finds in it an an&\*t!rto "the four questions 
 of reproachful ustonishnient."] I'or the 
 name of God is blasphemed among the 
 Gentiles through you {on account of you). 
 [Who can doubt that the name of God is now 
 blasplienied in heathen lands because of the 
 wickednsss of inen who profess to be Chris- 
 tians?] As it is written. Paul, in the above 
 quotation, has in mind either Isa. 52: 5, or 
 Ezek. 36 : 22. According to the Greek trans- 
 lation of the Old Testament [which here adds 
 amaiuj tlie Gentiles to the original Hebrew], 
 the former reference seems most probable; 
 according to the Englisli, the latter. [It may 
 be added that the meaning of the passage in 
 Ezekiel is pertinent, while that of the passage 
 in Isaiah is not so, according to a very proba- 
 ble interpretation of the original. For it is 
 clearly the Jews who are rebuked in Ezekiel, 
 while it is the Gentiles who seem to be re- 
 buked in Isaiah. But the passage of Isaiah 
 is obscure. See Alexander on the passage. 
 (A. II.) ] [Paul by the use of /or, which is 
 his own word, appropriates a passage of Scrip- 
 ture as his own. "Hence as it is tvritten is 
 placed at the end, as is never done in the case 
 of express quotations of Scripture. The his- 
 torical sense of the passage is not here regarded, 
 since Paul has not quoted it as a fulfilled 
 prophecy, though otlierwise with propriety in 
 the sense of 3: 19." (M^yer.)] 
 
 25. [The conjunction for corroborates the 
 foregoing reasoning — tluxt is, in the same v;ny 
 circumrisio7i, etc. (Aiford.)] Circumci- 
 sion verily profiteth, if thou keep (dost 
 practice) the law ; but if thou be a breaker 
 (transgressor) of the law, thy circumci- 
 sion is made uncircumcision.^ The apos- 
 tle now meets the false dependence of the 
 Jew ui)on his circumcision. It was a saying 
 of the Rabbins, "a circumcised man does not 
 go to hell." [" All the circumcised have part 
 
 in the world to come." " But for circumci- 
 sion, htiaven and earth could not exist." "So 
 great is circumcision, that tliirteen covenants 
 were made concerning it." The word 'cir- 
 cumcision ' is now for the first time mentioned, 
 and it must have been a grievous thing to a 
 Jew to have it, under any circumstances, put 
 on a level with 'uucireumcision' whicli, in 
 the words of Tholuck, signifies "the state of 
 exclusion from a near connection with God." 
 Thus to slight circumcision, the ordinance 
 of God, the sign of God's covenant people, 
 what could this be to a Jew of that day, but 
 a dethronement of Jehovah, a contemptuous 
 repudiation of his revealed will. "Is it not," 
 he might ask, "by this covenant of circum- 
 cision that we become or are recognized as 
 God's peculiar people, his adopted children ; 
 and if you repudiate this covenant, do you 
 not make us orphans indeed? An uncir- 
 cumcised Gentile equal in God's sight to one 
 of his chosen people! Perish the thought!" 
 We need not wonder that, to the Jew, un- 
 taught by the Spirit in regard to Abraham's 
 faith and the true circumcision, the gospel 
 which Paul preached should be a stumbling 
 block.] The apostle's argument is, "inas- 
 much as your vile conduct shocks even the 
 Gentiles, your claim to God's favor on the 
 ground of your circumcision is outlawed; 
 for the benefit of the sign of the covenant is 
 conditioned on the fiiffilhnoit of the covenant 
 on your part; and j'ou have not fulfilled it." 
 The latter part of the verse is the emphatic 
 part, on which the argument hinges. The 
 topic which the apostle here touches, he re- 
 sumes, and treats more full}', in the fourth 
 chapter, ver. 9-12. 
 
 26, 27. Therefore if the uncircumcis- 
 ion keep,' etc. The general sense of these 
 verses is very plain ; the sign is quite subordi- 
 nate to the thing signified; compliance with 
 
 1 Literally, haf hfcome, but the perfect tense after 
 subjunctives with (av, expressing; objective possibility, 
 is equivalent to a present. See 7 : 2, Winer, 203. — (F.) 
 
 2 In the subjunctive with «af there is an "assump- 
 tion of objective possibility, where experience will de- 1 tive. See Buttmann, pp. 2J0-224. — (F.) 
 cide whether or not it is real." (Winer, 201.) AViththis 
 
 construction there is always implied a sed duhilo, I 
 doubt. For the frequent classic usag,e, ei with the op- 
 tative, the New Testament has for the most part sub- 
 stituted eJ with the indicative, or idv with the subjunc- 
 
78 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. II. 
 
 eousness of the law, shall uot his uneircumcision be 
 couuted tor circumcisiou V 
 21 Aud shall iioi uucircumcision which is by nature, 
 
 cision keep the ordinances ci the law, shall uot his 
 
 27 uncircumcisiou be reckoued lor ciicuuicisiou ? and 
 
 shall not the uucircumcisioa which is by nature, if 
 
 the moral conditions of the covenant is the 
 essential thing; without this, the rite that 
 seals it has nu value. [The word for keep is 
 in the present tense, and properly means to 
 guard habitually.] The righteousness of 
 the law means here the righteous moral pre- 
 cepts of the law; the word is not the same 
 tliat is so often used in this Epistle, but a con- 
 crete derivative from it, or rather from the 
 primitive adjective "righteous," and is in the 
 plural number righteousneases. Ver. 25 and 26 
 may be thus briefly paraphrased: "If thou 
 art a breaker of the law, circumcision is no 
 profit; if thou art a keeper of the law, uneir- 
 cumcision is no damage."' This was a hard 
 saying for the Jew. [And we cannot wonder 
 if the Jew, unenlightened by the Spirit of 
 God, and ignorant of the circumcision of the 
 heart, should indignantly respond: "You 
 make an impossible supposition. You speak 
 of the 'uneircumcision' — i. e., the uncircum- 
 cised or Gentiles — as keeping the righteous 
 appointments or ordinances of the law. Why, 
 the chiefest ordinance of the law is circum- 
 cision itself! "] In what sense they are sup- 
 posed by the apostle to keep the requirements 
 of the law, we shall notice presently. Shall 
 not his uneircumcision be counted for 
 circumcision ? See Peter's statement in 
 Acts 10: 35. [Olshausen supposes that in this 
 phrase, 'counted,' or reckoned, 'for circum- 
 cision,' "there is evidently an allusion to the 
 'counted for righteousness' in 4: 3; that 
 which they have not is imputed to them ps if 
 they had it." He further says : " The ground 
 of this imputation is this, that though they 
 have not indeed the sign, they have instead 
 of it the germ of that reality which the sign 
 represents, . . . and therefore they may not 
 untruly be regarded as such as have the sign 
 also." Eilicott remarks that "the verb [\oyC- 
 io/xai, to account or reckon] is rather a favorite 
 word with St. Paul, being used in his epistles 
 twenty-nine times (excluding quotations), 
 and twice only (Mark 11 : 31 is very doubtful) 
 in the rest of the New Testament." This 
 verb, commonly regarded as "deponent," is 
 yet frequently used, as here and in 4: 5, in a 
 passive sense. Buttmann thinks this phrase- 
 ology : to be reckoned as (eis) is "borrowed 
 
 from the language of the LXX and a depart- 
 ure from classic usage.J' The Hebrew has 
 the same idiom: to be reckoned for or to be 
 reckoned as. Compare in the Hebrew Job 
 41: 24 (23); Lam. 4:2; Num. 18: 27; Isa. 
 40: 15, with the Septuagint renderings.] The 
 word 'not' is wanting in the Greek at the 
 beginning of ver. 27. It was inserted by the 
 English translators in order to show that the 
 interrogative form of ver. 26 is continued to 
 the end of this verse — very properly inserted, 
 if the question be really continued. But 
 in the judgment of Meyer, Lange, Alford, 
 and others, the interrogation should end 
 with ver. 26, and this verse be understond 
 affirmatively. It is not very easy, nor very 
 important to decide, as the question relates 
 only to the form of the sentence, and not to 
 the substance of the thought. On the one 
 hand, the omission of the negative in such a 
 case is unusual, and this favors the view of 
 •Meyer; but, on the other hand, the conjunc- 
 tion "and" and the position (in the Greek) 
 of the verb "judge" favor the continuation 
 of the interrogative form. And to this last 
 we incline, with Olshausen, Lachmann, Ew- 
 ald, etc. In what sense the uneircumcision 
 which is by nature ["he who remains in his 
 natural "state of uneircumcision" (Alford)] 
 shall judge the circumcised transgressor, is 
 explained by such passages as Matt. 12:41, 
 42; Heb. 11:7. [Thus, "not only shall the 
 Gentile take the place of the Jew, but shall 
 condemn him." (Jowett.) "Tliose whom 
 thou jadgest shall in turn judge thee at the 
 day of judgment, ver. 16." (Bengel.) "We 
 pity the Gentiles," says Doddridge, "and we 
 have reason to do it, for they are lamentably 
 blind and dissolute; but let us take heed lest 
 those appearances of virtue which are to be 
 found among some of them condemn us who, 
 with the letter of the law and the gospel and 
 with the solemn tokens of a covenant relation 
 to God, transgress his precepts and violate our 
 engagements to him, so turning the means of 
 goodness and happiness into the occasion of 
 more aggravated guilt and misery." Will 
 not the virtues of many unconverted men and 
 non-professing Christians, and of many Chris- 
 tians whom we call u.nevan§elical, condemn 
 
Ch. II.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 79 
 
 if it fulfil the law, judgp thee, who by tlie letter and 
 circuimi.-ion dost liaiisgr"ss the law ? 
 
 2S F(jr lie is not a Jew, whitli is oue outwardly ; 
 neither is tkat circuaicisioii, which is outward in the 
 flesh : 
 
 2'J But he is a Jew, whicli is one inwardly ; and cir- 
 ciimoision is iltal of the heart, in tlie spirit, nnd not in 
 the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. 
 
 it fulfil the law. judge thee, who with the letter and 
 
 28 circumcision art a transgressor of the law? For lie 
 is not a .lew, who is one outwardly ; neither is that 
 
 29 circumcision, which is outward in "the tlesh : but he 
 is a Jew, who is one iuwardly ; and circumcision is 
 that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; 
 whose praise is not of men, but of God. 
 
 some of us who, as being dead to sin, self, and 
 tliu world, iiave been buried with Christ by 
 baptism into death? "Tlie unbaptized be- 
 liever shall condemn the btiptized unbe- 
 liever." Outward bapti.«ui is profitable, and 
 it is a duty, but avails nothing without true 
 repentance, and faith in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. To regard, as many do, the external 
 ordinance as regenerating and saving, is to 
 look for salvation in " works of righteousness 
 which we have done." Peter himself denies 
 that outward baptism "saves."] By the 
 letter and circumcision. If we substitute 
 througli'^ for 'by,' the meaning will be more 
 readily explained. It was not by means of 
 the letter and circumcision that the Jew 
 transgressed the law; but these are regarded 
 as obstacles, or restraints, through which, as 
 through a hedge by which God had graciously 
 surrounded him, he broke, in his obstinate 
 propensity to sin. With the letter and cir- 
 cumcision, in spite of the letter and circum- 
 cision, he transgresses the law. "None need 
 be anxious," says Calvin, "about the wor- 
 shipers to whom Paul here alludes (in the 
 former part of this verse), for it is impossible 
 t'> find them." [Tlie apostle, in ver. 14, makes 
 a like supposition in regard to the Gentiles as 
 here in regard to the " uncircumcision." 
 Only here the thing supposed is for the time 
 conceived to be a fact, otherwise the article 
 (»)) after uncircumcision would at least not be 
 wanting. So Alford : ''FulJiUing (as \t does, 
 as we have supposed) the law." Of course, 
 the natural uncircumcision who had not the 
 liivv of Moses could not literally keep its ordi- 
 nances, and it required some courr.ge on the 
 part of Paul to make this affirmation, or sup- 
 position, rather, in the presence, as it were, 
 of an opposing "Jew." Their obedience to 
 the law could manifestly be only virtual and 
 relative. As Meyer says: This observance 
 of the Mosaic legal precepts or ordinances, 
 "in poiyii of fact, takes place when the Gen- 
 tile obeys the moral law of nature." Godet, 
 
 however, and Philippi, in part, hold that the 
 "uncircumcision" who "fulfill the law" are 
 converted, though uncircumcised. Gentile 
 Christians. But there are no persons who 
 absolutely fulfill the law, least of all the 
 " uncircumcision which is by nature." Such 
 uncircumcision as this, which, moreover, is 
 destitute of the "letter" of the law, cannot 
 refer to Christian believers, nor even to "those 
 fearing God," the uncircumcised, yet, half- 
 Judaized Gentiles, the proselytes of the gate. 
 Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 2G.] 
 
 28, 29. For he is not a Jew, etc. The 
 expression here is very elliptical, but the 
 sense is very plain. [Dr. Schatf thus fills out 
 the ellipses, substantially in the manner of De 
 Wette: for not the outward (Jew) is a (true) 
 Jew, neither is the outward fleshly- (circum- 
 cision) a (true) circumcision, but the inward 
 Jew (is a Jew) and circumcision of the heart, 
 etc. (is circumcision). Meyer gives the last 
 part thus: "But he is a Jew, who is so in 
 secret and circumcision of the heart (is) in 
 the spirit, not in the letter." As circumcision 
 is without the article, some give this render- 
 ing: "and there is a circumcision of the 
 heart," etc. In this passage, however, the 
 Common Version, as Dr. Schafl^ says, "can 
 scarcely be improved." In Phil. 3: 8 Paul 
 says: We are the (true) circumcision who 
 serve (or worship) by the Spirit of God, and 
 glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence 
 in the flesh. Wh:it a debt of gratitude we 
 owe to Paul under God for a gospel of lib- 
 erty! ] The existence and importance of a 
 spiritual element in the Old Testament Di.s- 
 pensation is strongly emphasized, first in a 
 negative form (vr. 28), and secondly in a posi- 
 tive form (ver. 29). Scc similar contrasts be- 
 tween the spirit and the letter in 7: 6 and 2 
 Cor. 3:6. In the spirit. Some understand 
 by 'spirit' here the spirit of man; others, the 
 Spirit of God. [Meyer, Philippi, Godet, 
 Hodge: 'in' meaning by the Iln/y Spirit.] 
 The passages abore cited seem to fiivor the 
 
 ' Sid with the genitive properly means through, and here " denotes the attendant circumstances." (Boise.;— .F.) 
 
80 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 WHAT advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit 
 is there, of eircutucisioii ? 
 2 Much every way : chietiy because that unto them 
 were coiumitted the oracles of God. 
 
 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is 
 
 2 the profit of circumcision? Much every way: first 
 of all, that tliey were intrusted with the oracles of 
 
 reference to 'spirit' in the absU'act, as distin- 
 guislied from letter, to tlie idea, as distin- 
 guished from the form. [In spirit here seems 
 properly antithetical to in flesh of ver. 28.] 
 Spiritual circumcision [or circumcision of the 
 heart] is often referred to in the Old. Testa- 
 ment. See Lev. 26: 41; Deut. 10; 16; oO: 6; 
 Jer. 4:4; 9: 26; Ezek. 44: 9. Compare Acts 
 7:51; Phil. 3: 3; Col. 2: 11. Whose praise, 
 etc. The relative pronoun is here of uncer- 
 tain gender. It is probably masculine, refer- 
 ring to the word Jew [so most commentators] ; 
 but so far as the form is concerned, it might 
 be neuter, referring to the whole preceding 
 sentence. So Meyer understands it. But the 
 word 'praise' favors the more limited and 
 personal reference. [The Jew sought out- 
 ward praise, the approval of men. (Johu 5: «; 
 12:43.) God, who. seeth in secret, alone can 
 clearly recognize the inward circumcision, 
 and his praise, compjired with that of man, is 
 above all price. The word ' praise' may have 
 some reference to the meaning of " Jew," the 
 praised one. "The Jew who is one inwardly, 
 he is the Jew who has praise — i. e., t'.iis is true 
 Judaism." (Bengel.) Godet refers to the 
 "remarkable parallelism" existing between 
 this whole passage and the declaration of 
 Jesus, Matt. 8: 11, 12: "Many shall come 
 from the east and the west . . . but the sons 
 of the kingdom," etc.] This passage suggests 
 a serious admonition to those who are only 
 nominally Christians, but strangers to the 
 spiritual life. If mere external conformity 
 and use of ordinances did not suffice to con- 
 stitute a true Israelite, how much less does 
 mere profession — the strictest observance of 
 ceremonial and the liveliest zeal for ortho- 
 doxy—suffice to constitute a true Christian. 
 It is just the essential thing which they lack. 
 
 Ch. 3: [In Chapter I is demonstrated the 
 sinfulnoss of the Gentiles, and in Chapter II 
 the similarly sinful state of the Jews. This 
 third chapter shows that alike to Gentiles and 
 to Jews, both being under condemnation, 
 
 notwithstanding the external advantages of 
 the latter, there is but one method of justifi- 
 cation — namely, that which is through faith 
 in Jesus Christ set forth as a sacrifice for sin. 
 We may give as the more important theme 
 of this chapter : The only possible justification 
 for mankind, sinful and condemned, is by 
 grace through faith in Christ Jesus.] The 
 preceding views (chapter 2) would naturally 
 meet with objections in the mind of the Jew. 
 The sum of these objections is comprehended 
 in the inquiries of the first verse. What ad- 
 vantage has the Jew above the Gentile? 
 What profit is there in circumcision? The 
 objections are such as a Jew would naturally 
 raise; but they are to be conceived as raised 
 by the apostle himself, and not as if in actual 
 dialogue with a Jewish objector. 
 
 1. What advantag:e then. [Literall.y: 
 " What, then (under this condition of things), 
 is the advantage of the Jew^' — namely, above 
 that of the Gentile? Ellicott characterizes 
 'then' (or therefore, oOf) as "collective and 
 retrospective."]* Here are two questions; but 
 the difference is more in form than in sub- 
 stance. All would be expressed in this: 
 "What advantage has the circumcised Jew 
 above the uncircumcised Gentile?" What 
 the apostle has been saying in chapter 2, espe- 
 cially in ver. 25-'29, obviously suggests this 
 inquiry. He seems to have placed Gentile 
 and Jew substantiallj' on the same level be- 
 fore God, a view very offensive to Jewish 
 pride. "If true Judaism and true circum- 
 cision be merely spiritual, what is the profit 
 of external Judaism and ceremonial circum- 
 cision?" (Afford.) 
 
 2. Much every Avay : chiefly, because 
 that unto them were committed the ora- 
 cles of God. We have here the apostle's 
 answer to the objection raised by the inquiries 
 of the first verse. In strictness of construction, 
 the answer is adjusted to the first form of the 
 question only, for the word 'much' agrees in 
 gender with the word 'advantage' and not 
 with the word 'profit,' and very properlj', as 
 
 1 Crosby— in his Greek Grammar, g 328— derives oOi', from iov, a dialectic form of ii', the present participle 
 of the verb to be, meaning*: it being so.— (F.) 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 81 
 
 this is the main question. There were many 
 advantages, the apostle answers, or, more ex- 
 actly, there was inuch advantage in every 
 respect; but the chief advantage of all was 
 the possession of 'the oracles of God,' the 
 written law. Some of the other advantages 
 are enumerated in 2 : 17-20, and in 9 : 4, 5 ; but 
 in both these enumerations 'the oracles of 
 God' under the name of "the law" have a 
 prominent place. Compare also Ps. 147:19, 
 20. Notice how emphatically the apostle here 
 affirms the divine inspiration of the Old Test- 
 ament. [The word 'chiefly' doubtless ex- 
 presses the idea of the apostle, though his 
 words, Jii-st of all (Revised Version), natur- 
 ally indicate a secondly, which, however, as 
 in 1 : 8, is omitted. The usual explanation of 
 this omission is that the apostle loses the gram- 
 matical sequence of thought by dwelling so 
 long on the first member (Buttniann, 365); 
 but see notes on 1 : 8. Godet thinks the pre- 
 ceding words, ' every way,' suggest this idea: 
 "I might mention many things under this 
 head, but I shall confine myself to one, which 
 is in the front rank;" and adds: "This form 
 of expression, far from indicating that he 
 jiurposes to mention others, shows, on the 
 contrary, why he will not mention them. 
 They all flow from that which he proceeds to 
 indicate." Perhaps this asseveration of the 
 apostle is slightly apologetic, as going to show 
 that he does not disparage the written law of 
 Jehovah.] The words 'unto them' are not 
 found in the original ; they seem to be neces- 
 sary, only because the translators misunder- 
 stood the construction of the verb, which they 
 rendered ' were committed.' The translation 
 should be: "They ivere entrusted with the 
 oracles of God." The verb is passive in form, 
 and when it is derived from the active sense 
 "to believe," as it is in 2 Thess. 1 : 10 and 1 
 Tim. 3:16, it is passive in sense; but in the 
 more common case, in which it is derived 
 from the active sense "to entrust" [something 
 to some one], it is invariably followed by the 
 
 accusative of the object entrusted. An ex- 
 amination of the original in the following 
 passages, the only places besides the one under 
 examination where the passive form is found, 
 makes this conclusion very plain: 1 Cor. 9: 
 17; Gal. 2:7; 1 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 1 : 11 ; 
 Titus 1:3.1 ^11 i\^Q older versions led the 
 way in this misconstruction of the verb. ' The 
 oracles (Aoyia) of God.' " The same word is 
 applied to the Old Testament Scriptures in 
 Acts 7 : 38; Heb. 5 : 12: 1 Peter 4 : 11. It is a 
 great 'advantage' to possess the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. It was so to those who had only the 
 Old Testament ; how much more to those who 
 have both the Old Testament and the New. 
 Yet how many neglect to improve this chief 
 advantage which they have over the heathen. 
 The Lord has himself here decided the im- 
 l)ortant question, whether or not it is a bless- 
 ing for the heathen to have the Scriptures and 
 the knowledge of the way of salvation. True, 
 those who reject the offer of salvation, and 
 prefer darkness rather than light, will meet a 
 much severer doom than if they had remained 
 in ignorance; and these are usually the ma- 
 jority. Still, the possession of the gospel, the 
 having of the opportunitj' to be saved, is a 
 priceless benefit. So God regards the matter, 
 and he here shows that he so regards it. He 
 virtually shows that he so regards it by com- 
 manding us to make known the gospel to 
 every creature; but he expressly declares that 
 he so judges by pronouncing the possession of 
 the Scriptures the chief advantage of the Jew 
 over the Gentile. This text ought to silence 
 forever the objection to missionary enterprise, 
 so often advanced, that we do but increase the 
 final condemnation of the heathen, in the 
 majority of cases, by sending them the gospel. 
 Indeed, this way of reasoning, if it were fairly 
 applied, would prove quite too much ; it would 
 arrest the progress of evangelization alto- 
 gether, at home and abroad. It would forbid 
 us to make known the gospel to our country- 
 men, our neighbors, our own children, even, 
 
 1 See further in Winer, pp. 229, 2G0. Buttinann (pp. 
 152, 189) lu.ikes this to be akin to the so-called Greek 
 accusative, or accusative of limitation. Compare Heb. 
 2:17: " Faithful (as to, in) things pertaining to God." — 
 (F.) 
 
 2 The word, while embracing all the sacred writings 
 of the Old Covenant, may have special reference in this 
 place to the prophetic statements or promises concern- 
 
 ing the Messiah which are found in the Old Testament. 
 The form of the word is thought by Bengel and Philippi 
 to be a diminutive, having thus a reference to oracular 
 brevity. According to Meyer, \oyiSia would l)e the 
 diminutive form. " \6yi.ov is used both in classical and 
 Hellenistic Greek, chiefly of utterances of the Deity." — 
 Philippi.— (F.) 
 
82 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 3 For what if some did not believe? siiall their un- I 
 belief make the laith of God without effect ? | 
 
 4 Uod forbid : yea, let God be true, but every man a 
 liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified 
 
 3 God. For what if some were without faith? shall 
 their waut of faith make of none effect the faithtul- 
 
 4 ness of God ? i God forbid : yea, let God be found 
 true, but every man a liar ; as it is written. 
 
 1 6r. Be it not so : and so elsewhere. 
 
 lest we should only aggravate their final con- 
 demnation. ^ 
 3. For what if some did not believe? 
 
 A second objection is here presented. The 
 resemblance of the three principal words in 
 this verse is partially lost in the translation. 
 Alford [following De Wette] preserves it in 
 this way : " For what if some were unfaithful 
 [to the covenant], shall their unfaithfulnes 
 nullify the faithfulness of God?" [Dr. Hodge 
 puts this language in the mouth of a Jew, 
 relying for security on his covenant relation 
 to Abraham : " ' What if we were unfaithful,' 
 says the Jew, 'does that invalidate the faith- 
 fulness of God ? Has he not promised to be a 
 God to Abraham and his seed?'" But this 
 does not well suit the connection. The diso- 
 bedience, or rather disbelief, doubtless has 
 reference to these inestimable 'oracles,' which, 
 as being God's word, will not fail of fulfill- 
 ment. Meyer and Godet think Paul has here 
 in mind the disbelief of the Jews in the Mes- 
 siahship of Jesus: others make their unbelief 
 relate to their pre-Christian history.] The 
 case is mildly stated in the first clause: 
 'What if some did not believe?' It might 
 have been put more strongly, as it is by Isaiah 
 (53:1), and by the author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews (3:i6). I think this verse from He- 
 brews should be translated : " For v)ho having 
 heard, did provoke? But did not all those 
 who came out of Egypt by Moses? "^ But 
 we may suppose that Paul purposely avoided, 
 as a Jewish objector would be likely to do, 
 stating the case in its full severity. [Yet 
 " many are only some when they are not the 
 whole." Compare 11 : 17.] The substance of 
 the objection here brought forward is : " Will 
 God fail to fulfill his promises because men 
 
 fail to fulfill their engagements?" [Some 
 separate the first two words from the rest and 
 render them : "For what?" or, "What then? 
 If some did not believe," etc. There is a 
 difference of idea between unbelieving and 
 unfaithful or untrue. Meyer and Philippi 
 take the words here in the sense of belief or 
 unbelief, denying that the word for unbelief 
 ever signifies unfaithfulness in the New Test- 
 ament. The sense of the passage would then 
 be: 'Shall their unbelief destroy the trust- 
 worthiness or truthfulness of God so that he 
 should not keep his promises?' This ren- 
 dering seems to accord best with the Pauline 
 use of the word faith or belief. Others would 
 give this translation as most approjiriate: 
 'Shall their unfaithfulness nullify the faith- 
 fulness of God?' and adduce in support of 
 their view such passages as 2 Tim. 2 : 13; 
 Luke 12:46; Kev. 21:8.] 
 
 4. God forbid. This expression, which 
 occurs thirteen times in Paul's epistles and 
 only once elsewhere in the New Testament 
 (Luke 20:16), doBS uot Contain the name of God 
 in the original, but means simply " Let it not 
 be" [or, as the apostle uses it, something like: 
 Perish the thought! Dr. Kiggs, however, 
 in his "Suggested Modifications of the Re- 
 vised Version," thinks the phrase "by no 
 means" would be an adequate rendering.] 
 It were better to adhere to the above stricter 
 translation, or to render it, as the revisers of 
 the Bible Union and some others [Noyes] 
 have done, "far be it." Here, too, our trans- 
 lators followed all their English predecessors. 
 [Let God be (regarded as) true. God is 
 ' true ' (aAijS^s = verax) because he cannot lie : 
 he is 'true' {aX-ri^ivoii ^ verus) as opposed to 
 false Gods or idols. This 'true' (compare 
 
 1 We can imagine that Paul, under circumstances 
 like those in which many of our modern missionaries 
 have been placed, would have felt it to be a part of his 
 apostolic or missionary duty to set up schools, instruct 
 the people, translate the Bible, superintend its printing, 
 distribution, etc., so that all the people might possess 
 and be able to read the inestimable ' oracles of God.' But 
 how different his situation from that of many of our 
 missionaries! He had no new language to learn, much 
 less had he any to create or put into written form. 
 With the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, he could 
 
 preach understandingly in almost every part of the 
 then known world. The people to whom he preached 
 were not simple-minded or infantile in understanding, 
 but were the most highly educated and cultured. — (F.) 
 
 2 We may here remark concerning this translation 
 that TiVes, if its second letter have the acute accent, is 
 an interrogative pronoun ; if it is otherwise accented, 
 or stands as an enclitic without any accent, it is the 
 simple indefinite pronoun, as above. Compare the 
 TWO. of 1 : 13 with Tiva of 6 : 21.— (F.) 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 83 
 
 in thy sayings, and uiightest overcome when thou art 
 judged. 
 
 o But if our unrighteousness commend the righteous- 
 ness of God, wliat shall we say? Is God unrighteous 
 ■who takelh vengeance? (I speak as a man.) 
 
 6 (iod forbid : for then bow shall God judge the 
 ■world ? 
 
 That thou migbtest be justified in thy words. 
 And migbtest prevail wbtu thou comest into 
 judgment. 
 5 But if our unrighteousness commendeth the right- 
 eousness of (iou^ what shall we say? Is God un- 
 righteous who visiteth with wrath? (I speak after 
 the manner of men.) God forbid: for then how 
 7 shall God judge the world? iBut if the truth of 
 
 1 Many aacieot autborities read /or. 
 
 "God who cannot lie," Titus 1 : 2) favors the 
 interpretation truthful or trustworthy of the 
 last verse.] The apostle indignantly repels 
 the supposition that God should be untrue; 
 sooner let that be admitted which David said 
 in liis haste: "All men are liars." (ph. ii6:n.) 
 [Tiiough it is doubtful whether Paul had this 
 Psalm expressly in mind, since he proceeds 
 immediately to quote from another.] And 
 he very ai)propriately quotes the words in 
 which David confesses himself a sinner, and 
 ascribes righteousness and truth to God. 
 (Ps. 51:4.) That thou inightest overcome 
 Avhen thou art judged. [Inorder that thou 
 nuiyest, etc.]^ The language 'That thou 
 migbtest overcome,' etc., seems to be borrowed 
 from legal matters — at least it is such as is 
 commonly used in such cases. [The transla- 
 tion of Noyes is as follows : "That thou niay- 
 est be justified in thj' words and mayest over- 
 come when thou art arraigned." This is an 
 exactly literal quotation from the LXX, 
 which, as Meyer concedes, "does not yield 
 any essential difterence of sense from the idea 
 of the original text." If the last verb should 
 be rendered — as by Meyer, Ewald, Philippi, 
 and the Revised Version — actively, "wiieii 
 thou judgest," it would correspond more 
 nearly to tlie Hebrew original.] 
 
 5. A third objection, arising from the way 
 in which the previous one was answered. 
 [Esjiecial reference seems here to be had to 
 the latter part of the preceding verse, where 
 it is implied that God can turn man's sinful 
 act to his own glory, the exhibition of his 
 righteousness.] So far from God's taking 
 
 advantage of man's unfaithfulness to fail in 
 fulfilling his promises, his veracity appears 
 the more conspicuous in contrast with man's 
 unfaithfulness. Compare the terms 'unright- 
 eousness' and 'righteousness' in this verse 
 with the unfaithfulness and faithfulness [or 
 unbelief and trustworthiness] of ver. 3. If, 
 then [as is actually the case], our unright- 
 eousness thus commends [or sets forth] by 
 contrast the righteousness of God, shall we 
 say that God is unrighteous in taking [more 
 literally, who brings tijion us] vengeance? 
 that he cannot righteously punish the sin 
 which gives occasion to the fuller exhibition 
 of his righteousness? 2 I speak as a man. 
 / speak as men are wont to sjteak. This clause 
 seems to be inserted apologetically, as if there 
 were a kind of irreverence in the very suppo- 
 sition of ij*!y possible unrighteouness in God. 
 Yet men. clo very often ascribe unrighteous- 
 ness to God on suppositions that are true; so 
 the apostle may well say: 'I speak as a man.' 
 [De Wette on this phrase saj^s : " I speak as 
 men speak who often inconsiderately judge 
 of God." Bishop Lightfoot notices that this 
 expression is found only in the group of 
 epistles to which this belongs — to wit: Corin- 
 thians and Galatians.] 
 
 6. God forbid : for then how shall God 
 judge theAVorld?^ The certainty that God 
 ?m7/! judge the world is assumed, as something 
 that the Jewish objector admitted, and so the 
 apostle might legitimately argue that any 
 supposition incompatible with that admitted 
 truth is thereby proved to be false. ["Paul 
 assumes that only the righteous One can judge 
 
 1 Instead of the subjunctive after oirws, some MSS. 
 (N A D) have the future indicative, which, like the 
 use of a^v after orrwt, occurs but rarely in the New 
 Testament. (Huttmann, 214, 234.)— (F.) 
 
 - ' What shall we say,' or infer, occurs seven times in 
 this Kpistle (4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8 : 31 ; 9 : 14, 30), and is 
 found in none other of Paul's letters. Except in 7 : 31 ; 
 9:30, It introduces a false conclusion. "The wrath" 
 (as in Revised Version) is that retributive wrath of 
 God already spoken of (1 : 18; 2: 5, 8). '-This ques- 
 tion," says Meyer, " is so put that, as in ver. 3, a nega- 
 
 tive answer is expected." For the particle (m^^, when 
 used as the sign of a question, always supposes an 
 answer in the negative. See 9 : 20; 11 : 1; Winer, p. 
 511. Some writers think there are occasional excep- 
 tions to this rule. — (F.) 
 
 "The normal force of the word here rendered 'for 
 then' may be seen by supplying an ellipsis, thus: Far 
 be it, since (in that case) bow shall God judge the 
 world? Buttmann (233, yet see 359) renders it by 
 "/or," simply: "For how shall God judge the world" 
 (if he be unrighteous) ?— (F.) 
 
84 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded 
 through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also 
 judged as a siuner? 
 
 8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, | 
 
 God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why 
 
 8 am J also still judged as a s'uner? and why not (as 
 
 we are slanderously reported, and as some amrm that 
 
 the world." (Weiss.) Some, however, re- 
 gard this as assuming the very thing to be 
 proved, and affirm tliat it is no more certain 
 that tlie Judge of tiie world must be just than 
 that God is just. (Hodge.) But it is a very 
 natural assumption, for, "Shall not the judge 
 of all the earth do right?" It seems likewise 
 to be taken for granted that in God's judg- 
 ment of the world of sinners there must be 
 the infliction of wrath. The conscience of 
 the transgressor acknowledges his desert of 
 wrath, and even the righteousness of the 
 Heavenly Father in inflicting it. Eight rea- 
 son would concede at once that God, though 
 our Heavenly Father, has a right to visit with 
 wrath where it would be improper for an 
 earthly parent to do so. On this point, some 
 men in their reasonings have made a mistake. 
 In remembering the "fatherhood of God," 
 they have forgotten his rightful and infinite 
 sovereignty. Even Farrar acknowledges that 
 "We may not push the truths of the finite 
 and the temporal into the regions of the infi- 
 nite and eternal."] The supposition that he 
 could not righteously punish the unrighteous- 
 ness which commended his righteousne«s, 
 would be incompatible with his being the 
 Judge of the world, for all unrighteousness 
 of man is, or may be, the occasion of showing 
 God's righteousness more conspicuously, and 
 so there would be nothing left for hiin to judge 
 and punish. The argutnent from the greater 
 to the less, from the general to the particuhir, 
 here, is the same in principle as in Matt. 6 : 25, 
 and in 1 Cor. 6:2. [Hodge speaks of it as a 
 reductio ad absurdum.] "Intellectual difficul- 
 ties in religion are best met by moral axioms. 
 It may sound plausible to say : ' If man's sin 
 contributes ultimately to God's justification, 
 God cannot justly punish it;' but conscience, 
 ever a safer guide than the intellect, echoes 
 the language of revelation, which declares the 
 coming judgment, and that judgment presup- 
 poses that sin can be, and will be, justly pun- 
 ished. The method of Scripture is to state 
 each of two apparently conflicting principles 
 {e.g., God's grace and man's responsibility) 
 
 singly and separately', and leave conscience, 
 ratlier than intellect, to reconcile and adjust 
 them." (Dr. Yaughan.) The expression 
 ' God forbid ' is explained under ver. 4. 
 
 7. This verse seems to be substantially but 
 a restatement of the objection in ver. 5, but 
 in the statement the form is changed in sev- 
 eral particulars. The identity of the objection 
 for substance is confirmed by the same intro- 
 ductory ])hrase in both. For if.i The difter- 
 ences of form are: 1. In ver. 5, first clause, 
 man's unrighteousness is the subject and 
 God's righteousness the object (grammatically 
 speaking) ; while, in ver. 7, God's truth ["in 
 fulfilling his promises" (Boise)] is the sub- 
 ject and man's falsehood the object. 2. In 
 ver. 5, first clause, the generic terms, right- 
 eousness and unrighteousness, are used; in 
 ver. 7, the more specific terms, truth and false- 
 hood, are substituted, suggested, doubtless, by 
 ver. 4. 3. In ver. 5, second clause, the ques- 
 tion is: Can God justly punish man? In ver. 
 7, the question is: Can man be justly pun- 
 ished? And this reversing of the difficulty 
 from the divine side, or standpoint, to the 
 human is emphasized by the use of the per- 
 sonal pronoun, I also. [The full force of this 
 last clause is something like this: "Why afn 
 even I who in my lie have contributed to God's 
 glory, still judged of God as a sinner ? " The 
 sinner is ever desirous to justify' himself, even 
 though he has to charge God foolishly and 
 wickedly in doing so. " If there is evil in tlie 
 world, who is responsible for it but God him- 
 self? And if my sin is God's gtorj', wliy is 
 he angry with me, and why should hot I be 
 rewarded rather than punished?" Of course, 
 he is not sincere in this self-defense, for lie 
 knows that in his transgression he did not 
 intend. God's glory.] 
 
 8. The answer to this modified form of the 
 third objection is made somewhat obscure by 
 the elliptical character of the verse. Yet the 
 difficulty pertains rather to the precise gram- 
 matical construction of the sentence than to 
 the nature of the argument. The insertion of 
 two little words will help to develop the sense: 
 
 i".But," rather than 'for,' is the better sustained 
 reading in ver. 7. — (F.) [It seems to me that, accord- 
 ing to Tischeudorf's eighth edition, 'for' is sustained 
 
 by quite as much evidence as "but." Yet the author- 
 ity, as furnished by manuscrijits, versions, and patristic 
 citations, is pretty evenly balanced. — A. H.] 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 85 
 
 "And why not rather say," etc.? Whj' not 
 speak out the full thought which lurks in this 
 objection? [In reference to this construction, 
 see Winer, p. 028. Instead of let us do evil, 
 etc., introduced as a quotation, and dependent 
 on we say, we should naturally have expected 
 a question similar in form to the preceding, 
 the two questions reading thus: Why yet 
 am I also judged as a sinner? And why 
 should not I do evil, etc.? If we supply the 
 word say, as some do, the construction be- 
 comes quite regular, thus: And why not sny, 
 as some affirm that we say, 'let us do evil,' 
 etc. ? Observe the change from the singular 
 — "I," of ver. 7— to the plural of this verse. 
 The simple outline of the objector's thought 
 .seems to be this: "If my unbelief, unright- 
 eousness, untruth, contribute to God's glor^'. 
 ' wh3' yet am I also judged as a sumer; ' and 
 why should I not persevere in doing (what is 
 called) evil that God's glory may be further 
 eiilianced; and why should not I be rewarded 
 rather than punished therefor?" Whose 
 damnation (judgment) is just is Paul's only 
 answer to tli'ose who hold such abominable 
 doctrine. " Syllogistically stated," says Far- 
 rar, "the existence of evil might be held to 
 demonstrate either tlie weakness or cruelty of 
 God, but such syllogisms, without the faintest 
 attempt to answer them, are flung aside as 
 valueless and irrelevant by the faith and con- 
 science of mankind. The mere statement of 
 some objections is their most effective refuta- 
 tion. . . . However logically correct, they are 
 so morally repulsive, so spiritually false, that 
 silence is the onlj' answer of which they are 
 worthy." But is it not a little singular that 
 "advanced" objectors of our time will hardly 
 allow the existence of any "evils" in this 
 universe until you suggest to them the exist- 
 ence of an Almighty and all-wise One, who 
 is able to control these evils and to educe good 
 out of them ? Yet, apart from the idea of a 
 gracious and all-wise Providence, our ills 
 would be evils indeed and well-nigh unbear- 
 able. We need in this world the sustaining 
 thought which alone supported the Saviour: 
 "The cup which my Fatlier hath given me, 
 shall I not drink it?"] It is not very strange 
 tliat those high views of the divine sover- 
 eignty, which Paul sets forth in this Epistle, 
 
 should be malignantly misrepresented, as he 
 says they were, and as, in fact, they still are. 
 But he puts the brand of his severest reproba- 
 tion upon the Jesuitical principle: 'Let us do 
 evil, that good may come.' They who profess 
 such a pernicious doctrine, he says [not those 
 who so slander us], are justly condemned, 
 whose condemnation, judgment [perhaps re- 
 ferring to their being 'judged as sinners'], is 
 just. 
 
 Notice the different ways in which these 
 three objections are answered. The first 
 (verses 1, 2) by a direct and specific assertion; 
 the second (verses 3, 4) by an indignant repu- 
 diation of the objector's inference (a more 
 specific reply being reserved to 9: G-13); the 
 third (verses 5-8) by showing that the princi- 
 ple of the objection is at variance with ad- 
 mitted truth, and shocking to the moral sense, 
 and so refutes itself. The review of these 
 verges suggests several reflections: 1. It is 
 legitimate to argue from our intuitive moral 
 perceptions. 2. The doctrine which never 
 provokes from perverse men such objections 
 as these must be different from the doctrine 
 which Paul preached. 3. The habit of object- 
 ing against the principles of the divine gov- 
 ernment, and the doctrines of the divine 
 word, is no new thing. Christians need not 
 be surprised nor perplexed when thej- meet 
 with such objections. Most of the objections 
 are only old ones revived — the very same in 
 substance that the first promulgators of Chris- 
 tianity had to encounter. If they could meet 
 them calmly and confidently, how little ought 
 they to disturb us! 4. The way in which the 
 apostle meets these objections may afford us 
 instruction. There are three fundamental 
 truths against which objections and cavils, 
 however pjausible, are not entitljed to any 
 weight. These are, (a) God's truth and 
 righteousness; come what will, these are 
 never to be questioned. (6) The future judg- 
 ment; this is one of the surest doctrines of 
 revelation, and one which meets an answering 
 echo in the conscience of man. (c) The 
 essential quality of moral actions; any doc- 
 trine or sentiment that shocks our fundamen- 
 tal moral perceptions must be rejected at 
 once as coming from the father of lies.* [It 
 will doubtless be urged by the objectors to the 
 
 ' The " Momoirs and Confessions of Reinhard " 
 (born 1753, died ;S12, court preacher at Dresden from 
 
 1792) records an interesting illustration of the efficacy 
 of settled moral principles in giving the mind a firm 
 
86 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that 
 good may coiue? whose damnation is just. 
 9 What then? are we better than they f No, in no 
 
 we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? 
 whose condemnation is just. 
 9 What then ? are we better than they? No, in no 
 
 doctrine of "eternal punishment," that it 
 perfectly "shocks" their moral sense, and 
 that, therefore, there can never be in this uni- 
 verse of a God of love anything so utterly 
 shocking as an individual suffering consciously 
 to all eternity, even though this suffering be 
 mental and in consequence of personal trans- 
 gressions. We freely confess that the idea of 
 an eternity of suffering is shocking to our 
 natural feelings, and so is the bodily and 
 mental anguish which men suffer in this 
 world. We could not for an instant endure 
 the sight of the collective amount of suffering 
 which exists every moment in the earth. 
 " Syllogistically stated," as Farrar says, "the 
 existence of evil might be held to demonstrate 
 either the weakness or the cruelty of God," 
 that is, when regard is had to but one set of 
 facts. From one point of view, no man liv- 
 ing can explain a solitary groan, a single tear, 
 in all this universe of God. And in a uni- 
 verse of chance neither this nor anything 
 else can be explained. Still, all reflecting 
 persons, with scarcely an exception, unite in 
 declaring that God is good, though it is 
 through his arrangement of causes and means 
 and under his permission, that all this earthly 
 suffering takes place. Nor would they per- 
 haps be shocked at the idea of God's permit- 
 ting a man to live forever on the earth, sin- 
 ning and suffering in the manner he does 
 now. So also an apostle, while not ignorant 
 certainly of the pain and wretchedness ex- 
 perienced in this world of sin and death — a 
 world which our limited wisdom and good- 
 ness would not care to create nor will to exist 
 —could yet unhesitatingly affirm that "God 
 is love!" Truly there is, notwithstanding 
 such an inconceivable amount of human 
 misery, abundant evidence of the goodness of 
 
 God, and hence the idea of such a degree of 
 suffering in this world of sin, where yet God's 
 power and providence have absolute control, 
 and can also educe good out of evil, does not 
 "shock our fundamental moral conceptions." 
 Why may we not, during the eternity that is 
 before us, cherish these same views of the 
 goodness of God, and of his moral govern- 
 ment, even though sin should be allowed to 
 exist forever and as "eternal sin" (Mark 3: 
 29, Revised Version) to be eternally punished? 
 Certainly our merciful Saviour could not 
 have spoken of "eternal punishment" in the 
 way he did— in contrast with "eternal life" — 
 unless those words of fearful import were 
 true. But it is in view of such teachings as 
 these that, as in the apostle's time so nowa- 
 days, men who do not realize that it is not for 
 " such poor creatures as we" fully to under- 
 stand all parts of an "infinite scheme" (But- 
 ler), are disposed to charge God with unright- 
 eousness.] 
 
 Having answered these objections, the apos- 
 tle now returns to the point where he left off 
 at the end of chapter 2. The Jews have great 
 privileges and outward advantages; but in 
 regard to justification before God, they stand 
 on the same footing with the Gentiles. 
 
 9. What then ? What is the result of the 
 foregoing discussion? Are we better than 
 they? That is, "we Jews, than they Gen- 
 tiles?" "He addresses the Jews in the third 
 person, 'when he claims a pre-eminence for 
 them (verse 1), but joins himself with them 
 in the first person now, in denying their 
 superior merit." (Calvin.) The verb trans- 
 lated, "are we better?" is variously ex- 
 plained. It does not occur elsewhere in the 
 New Testament. Literally, it would be trans- 
 lated, do roe Jiold ourselves before? Probably 
 
 anchor, when assailed by a tempest of doubts and 
 questionings. He was professor of both philosophy and 
 theology in the University of Wittemberg, and re- 
 quired to lecture in both sciences, at a time when his own 
 views were very unsettled. The striking of the clock 
 which called him to the lecture room often found him 
 walking his chamber with tears, engagt'd in earnest 
 prayer to God, that he would not suffer him *o say any- 
 tliing detrimental to religion and morality. Of his 
 state of mind at this time he thus writes: "Notwith- 
 standing the uncertainty, however, in which all my 
 knowledge, even that which I had considered as rest- 
 
 ing upon a solid basis, was about this time involved, 
 two principles remained by me unshaken : j?rs/, never 
 to permit myself to indulge in any explanation in 
 philosophy which did violence to my moral feelings; 
 and second, never to assert anything in theology which 
 was at variance with the obvious declarations of the 
 Bible." Letter 7, p. 49. This little book, consisting of 
 letters to a friend, giving an account of his education, 
 was translated by Oliver A. Taylor, Resident Licentiate 
 at Andover, Mass., and published in Boston, in 1832. It 
 is an admirable help to students in theology. I fear it 
 is now out of print. 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 1/ 
 
 vise ; for we have before proved both Jews and Gen- 
 lile^, thai ihey are all under siu ; 
 
 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not 
 one: 
 
 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none 
 that seekelh after God. 
 
 12 Thev are all gone out of the way, they are 
 together 'become unprofitable; there is none that doeth 
 good, no, not one. 
 
 wise: for we before laid to the charge both of 
 
 10 Jews and lireeks, that they are all under siu; as 
 it is written. 
 
 There is none righteous, no, not one ; 
 
 11 There is none that understandeth. 
 There is none that seekelh af.er God ; 
 
 12 They have all turned aside, they are together 
 
 become unprofitable; 
 There is none that doeth good, no, not so much 
 as one: 
 
 the meaning is, "have we any excuse?" — 
 anything to hold before ourselves as a pretext? 
 [So Meyer. The ' what,' however, cannot be 
 joined to the verb, as tliis would require noth- 
 ing {oi/Siv), instead of wo, for an answer. The 
 Canterbury Revision has this rendering: "are 
 we in worse case than they?" and in the mar- 
 gin: "do we have any advantage?" or, "do 
 we excel?" Godet renders it: "are we 
 sheltered?" Beet: "are we shielding our- 
 selves?" The verb here "clearly cannot be 
 passive, "according to Winer, though else\yhere 
 in this form it is generally so used. It occurs 
 only here in the New Testament.] The words 
 'than they' are not in the original; and if we 
 have rigtitly apprehended the meaning of the 
 verb, they are not needed. No, in no wise. 
 [Literally — not entirely. Instead of this order 
 of words we should have expected the reverse, 
 as in 1 Cor. 16: 12. For the position of the 
 negative here, which some regard as mis- 
 placed, see Winer, 554. "The Jew would 
 say : altogether, but Paul contradicts him." 
 (Bengel.) Morison, as quoted by Godet, thinks 
 it enough to make a pause after not in reading, 
 thus: no, absolutely, or no, certainly. Winer 
 also remarks that "a half comma [after 7iot] 
 would at once remove all ambiguity." He 
 supposes that the meaning " was probably in- 
 dicated by the mode of utterance." Buttmann 
 (pp. 381, 121) thinks that, according to New 
 Testament usage, the position of the n^^gative 
 with the word meaning every or all (>ra?) is 
 oftentimes a matter of indifference.] The 
 apostle answers the question here in just the 
 opposite way to his answer of the question in 
 verse 1. There, it was a question of compar- 
 ative privileges and opportunities, in which 
 the Jew had great advantages over the Gen- 
 tile; here, it is a question of comparative 
 standing before God in respect to justification, 
 and in this the Jew had no advantage at all. 
 For we have before proved both Jews and 
 
 Gentiles. ['For' confirms the preceding 
 negation. The word 'proved' seems to have 
 the force of a legal indictment: we have pre- 
 viously accused or charged Jews as well as 
 Greeks as being all under sin, and we regard 
 the accusation as good as proved. By the use 
 of 'we,' he perhaps associates Christian be- 
 lievers with himself in this judgment, though 
 it may be simply the plural of authorship. As 
 in 1 : 6; 2: 9, 10, so here, the apostle mentions 
 the Jew before the Greek.] He had proved 
 this in respect to the Gentiles in 1 : 18-32; and 
 in respect to the Jews in chapter 2. Under 
 sin signifies to be under its power, and con- 
 sequently liable to its penalty. i This charge, 
 which he has already proved by describing 
 their character and actions in his own words, 
 he now proceeds to confirm by citing the 
 words of the Old Testament. 
 
 10-18. [" The passages quoted describe the 
 moral corruption of the times of David and 
 the prophets, but indirectlj' of all times, since 
 human nature is essentially the same always 
 and everywhere." (Schaff.) "That com- 
 plaint (of David and Isaiah) describes men as 
 God looking down from heaven finds them, 
 not as his grace makes them." (Bcngcl.)] 
 The words immediately following as it is 
 written, to the end of ver. 10, seem to be an 
 epitome, in the apostle's own words, of the 
 substance of what follows. The remainder to 
 the end of ver. 18 is quoted almost literally, 
 according to the Septuagint, from various 
 places in the Psalms, and the prophecies of 
 Isaiah. [Ver. 10-12 from Ps. 14: 1-3; ver. 13 
 from Ps. 5: 9; 140: 3; ver. 14 from Ps. 10: 7; 
 ver. 15-17 from Isa. 59: 7, 8; ver. 18 from Ps. 
 36: 1. There is none that understand- 
 eth, etc. — literally, he that under utandrth i.s 
 not (or, does not exlnt). There is none that 
 seeketh after God, etc. There is none 
 ri§;hteous, etc. In the same Psalm (14), 
 from which apparently this is quoted, we 
 
 1 See the expressions : under law, under a curse, un- 
 der grace, etc. .\11 these nouns are in the accusative 
 case, the dative after iurd, which would here seem to 
 
 be quite as appropriate, not occurring in the New Tes- 
 tament. — (F.) 
 
88. 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their 
 tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is 
 under iheir lips: 
 
 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 
 
 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood : 
 
 16 iJestruction and misery are in their ways: 
 
 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 
 
 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 
 
 19 Now we know that what things soever the law 
 
 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre: 
 
 With their tongues they have used deceit: 
 The poison of asps is under tjieir lips : 
 
 14 Whose moutli is full of cursing and bitterness: 
 
 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood ; 
 
 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways; 
 
 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 
 
 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 
 
 19 Now we know that what things soever the law 
 
 read of the generation of the righteous, and 
 of the poor whose refuge is Jehovah. Yet 
 there is no real inconsistency in these diverse 
 representations. "In the deep inner sense 
 wliich St. Paul gives to the passage, 'the 
 generation of the righteous' would be the first 
 to acknowledge that they form no exception 
 to the universal sinfulness asserted in the 
 opening verses of the Psalm." (" Bible Com- 
 mentary.")] Their throat is an open (lit- 
 erally, opened) sepulchre. [This thirteenth 
 verse agrees wholly with the Septuagint.] 
 Some understand the first clause as referring 
 to the insatiable destructiveness of the grave ; 
 ["It is death to some one whenever they open 
 their mouths." (Grimm)] ; others as represent- 
 ing the nauseous and poisonous odor that 
 issues from a newly-opened sepulchre. The 
 latter reference agrees better with the partici- 
 ple opened, and gives a sense more distinct 
 from what follows in ver. 15-17. Calumny is 
 a pestiferous vice. [Meyer finds the compari- 
 son in the point that " when the godless have 
 opened their throats for lying and corrupting 
 discourse, it is just as if a grave stood opened 
 (observe the perfect) to which the corpse 
 ought to be consigned for decay and destruc- 
 tion. So certainly and unavoidably corrup- 
 ting is their discourse." It requires, as it 
 would seem, more than one verse to describe 
 the sins of throat, tongue, lips, and mouth. 
 How much misery they bring to the world 
 when they are under the dominion of sin ! 
 A hasty word ; how easily it is spoken even hy 
 a Christian believer! Yet how it grieves the 
 Holy Spirit, and how it grieves his own spirit, 
 and perchance the spirit of a fellow mortal, a 
 fellow Christian. 
 
 Oh ! many a shaft at random sent, 
 Finds mark the archer little meant.] 
 
 With their tongues they have used de- 
 ceit. [Habitually used it (imperfect tense) ; 
 and we may still exclaim: O thou deceitful 
 tongue!] The poison of asps is under 
 their lips. [In the expression (Ps. 10: 7) 
 "under his tongue is mischief" niost inter- 
 
 preters, according to Hengstenberg, take the 
 metaphor " from the poison of serpents which 
 is concealed under the teeth [or tongue], and 
 from thence is pressed out as is mentioned in 
 Ps. 140: 8, 'Adder's poison is under their 
 lips.'"] "Behind the cunning of falsehood 
 there is deadly malice." (Lange.) Their feet 
 are swift to shed blood. They commit 
 murder on the slightest provocation. De- 
 struction [literally, a breaking together or 
 crushiyig] and misery are in iheir ways. 
 They spread destruction and misery in their 
 ways, wherever they go. And the way ol 
 peace have they not known. They know 
 not [nor wish to know] how to live peacefully, 
 [or walk in the way of peace, "the way that 
 leads to peace." (Schaff.)] The way of peace 
 is one of happiness and safety, free from the 
 'destruction and misery' of the sinner's 
 'ways.' No fear of God. This corresponds 
 with the 'no seeking after God' in ver. 11. 
 How refreshing by way of contrast to think 
 of one saying: "Whom have I in heaven 
 but thee, and there is none upon earth that I 
 desire beside thee! " This dark catalogue of 
 divine testimonies to human depravity is not 
 without orderly arrangement. Ver. 10-12 
 emphatically affirm the universality of human 
 sinfulness; ver. 13, 14, relate to sins of the 
 tongue; ver. 15-17, to sins in action, especially 
 sins oi violence ; ver. 18 assigns the inward sin- 
 ful cause of all these vicious habits. They are 
 traceable to the absence of pious reverence for 
 God. Notice how this agrees with the repre- 
 sentation in 1 : '24-31. 
 
 19. Now we know. It is self-evident to 
 all, it agrees with common sense. [The verb 
 is literally have seen, but, used as in the pres- 
 ent tense, signifies to know.] The law— that 
 is, the Jewish law, not in a restricted sense 
 (for these quotations are not from the Penta- 
 teuch, but from the Psalms and prophets), but 
 in a broad sense equivalent to the Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures. In this broad sense 'the 
 law ' is often used. See John 10: 34; 12: 34; 
 15: 25; 1 Cor. 14: 21, etc. [It is generally 
 supposed that the Scriptures tool^ thus the. 
 
Cfi. ni.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 89 
 
 Baith it saitli to them who are under the law: that 
 eveiy month may be stopped, and all the world may 
 
 becoiiie KO'l'y l»'''""''^*Jo*l- , , „ ' 
 
 20 Therefore by I he deeds of the law there shall no 
 flesh be justified iu his sight: for by the law in the 
 knowledge of sin 
 
 saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; 
 that everv mouth may be stopi eJ, and all the world 
 20 mav be brought under the judgment of God : because 
 1 by 2 the works of the law shall no tiesh be sjusti- 
 fied in his sight: fur < through the law comet/i the 
 knowledge of sin. 
 
 1 Gr.out 0/ 2 Or, toorkt of late S Or, accounted Hghtemu 4 Or. through law. 
 
 name law from this, their more important 
 part. Besides, the entire Scriptures, as Heng- 
 stenberg remarks, have a normal, or regu- 
 lative character. The reference to the law 
 here is apparently for the purpose of sht)wing 
 to the Jews that they, as well as the Gentiles, 
 are undersin*. "How this solemnly emphatic 
 'whatsoever' heaps upon the Jews the divine 
 sentence of ' guilty,' and cuts off from them 
 every refuge, as if this or that declaration did 
 not apply to, or concern them ! " (Meyer.)] 
 It saith to them who are under the law. 
 It speaks would be more exact. The two 
 verbs [Aey^J' and AaAeli-, see AaAio, Matt. 2t): 73], 
 "to .say" and "to speak," are generally dis- 
 tinguished in translation, and should be 
 always. Whatever the law says, it is speak- 
 ing [utters its voice] to them who are under 
 the law; they are certflinly and most directly 
 addressed, though not always exclusively. In 
 the law \vo\\\6. be a more literal translation: 
 in it as their sphere of life. [Compare 2: 12.] 
 That every mouth may be stopped. Com- 
 pare this clause with ver. 9. [For the figure 
 of stopping one's mouth, here, literally: that 
 every mouth may be hedged, see Job 5: 16; 
 Ps. 107: 42.] The conclusion seems, to a 
 superficial view, broader than the premises; 
 for the immediate context relates to the Jews 
 alone. "But the argument holds good ; for the 
 case of the Gentiles, before shown to be guilty, 
 is now taken in, agreeably to what is said in 
 ver. 9; and so all the world becomes guilty 
 before God.] May become accountable to 
 Ood. (Gifford.) 'The word "guilty," or 
 "subject to the judgment of God," as in the 
 marginal reading of the Common Version, 
 occurs only here. Sin and redemption alike 
 put us all on a level before God.] 
 
 20. Thereforeby deeds of the law there 
 shall no flesh be justified in his sight. 
 Because would be the more exact translation 
 of the first word.' The apostle regards the 
 more general conclusion arrived at here as 
 necessitating what he had said in ver. 19 
 
 ['that every mouth may be stopped,' etc.] 
 not, as 'therefore' would imply, as a conclu- 
 sion from that verse. Not by the deeds of the 
 Jewish law, but by works of laio, in the broad- 
 est sense— broad enough to cover the conclu- 
 sion, all the world. For an explanation of 
 the meaning of the verb, to be justified, see 
 the notes on 1 : 17. [Paul's language here is 
 similar to that in Ps. 143: 2: "Enter not 
 into judgment with thy servant, for in thy 
 sight shall no man living be justified." The 
 apostle adds, 'by the deeds of the law,' and 
 substitutes for livi7tg the word 'flesh,' as de- 
 noting men in their weakness and sin. The 
 same assertion is found in Gal. 2 : 16. On the 
 import of the term 'justified,' Dr. Hodge 
 thus remarks: "It would bo utterly unmean- 
 ing to say that 'no flesh shall he pardoned by 
 the works of the law,' or that 'no man shall 
 be sanctified by the deeds of the law.' " The 
 construction is Hebraistic, the literal rendering 
 being, 'not shall be justified every flesh.' By 
 this idiom, non-justification is predicated of 
 every, or all flesh; or, as we should say, no 
 flesh or no man will be justified. In our 
 idiom, the idea implied would be that some 
 flesh, or some men, would be justified by 
 legal works. The 'deeds (or works) of the 
 law,' have no reference to the ceremonial, as 
 distinguished from the moral law; for the 
 Scriptures make no sharp distinction of this 
 kind— such distinction being what may be 
 termed an "afterthought of theology." Be- 
 sides, these works here are used in contrast, 
 not with other works, but with faith. It 
 refers rather to the moral law ; for the apos- 
 tle immediately adds that by the law is 
 the knoAVledge of sin. And in 7: 7 he 
 avers that he "had not known sin except 
 through the law" (Revised Version); "had 
 not known coveting, except the (moral) law — 
 the tenth commandment— had said. Thou shalt 
 not covet." But do these works of law em- 
 brace in this connection what are elsewhere 
 styled good works, and excellent works 
 
 »"ai6Tiopcurs twenty-two times in the New Testament, and is everywhere causal, unless we give it an 
 illative meaning here.'" — Boise.— XF.) 
 
90 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Cn. III. 
 
 (epyifra ayo-Bi, KaKd, 2 : 7 ; 2 CoT. 9:8; Eph. 2 : 10 ; 
 Col. 1: 10; Titus 2: 7, 14; 3: 8, 14), or "works 
 of grace" ? The law, indeed, does not pro- 
 duce these good works ; but are they not such 
 as the hiw requires? If ' works of law ' are 
 taken in this last sense, then it would follow 
 that we cannot be justified even by, on account 
 of, our good works. And this is the invariable 
 teaching of the Scriptures. Nowhere is it 
 said that we are justified and saved on the 
 ground of works, or of faith even, but we 
 are justified gratuitously, by grace, through 
 faith, through Christ, and in his blood. 
 A salvation which is gratuitous, and by 
 grace is not a salvation on the ground 
 of works, whether ' works of law,' or 'works' 
 generally, or 'works of righteousness' ; and 
 so it excludes all "boasting." (s: 24, 27, as; ii: 
 
 6; Eph. 2: 8, 9; 2Tim. 1 : 9; Titus3: 5, 7.) The Chris- 
 tian's "good works" are poor and imperfect, 
 his tears of penitence, even, leaving a stain. 
 They will not stand the test of the judgment 
 for a moment. They all need washing in 
 atoning blood. We therefore adopt the view 
 which Philippi, in a lengthj' discussion, ad- 
 vocates, in the third (not the first or second) 
 edition of his commentary, that works of law 
 are all works required by God's law, and in 
 harmony with it, which, whether they are 
 merely outward works of the unregenerate, 
 or trulj" good works of the regenerate, do not 
 justify before God, because they are a conse- 
 quent of justification, and not a constituent 
 element of it, and because in no case are they 
 a perfect fulfillment of the law. 'Shall be 
 justified.' "The future here is ethical — that 
 is, it indicates not so much mere futurity 
 as moral possibility, and with not (ov), in 
 not any flesh, something that neither can, 
 nor will ever happen." (Ellicotton Gal. 2: 
 16.) Winer, on this clause, says: "This is a 
 rule which will hold true in the world." 
 Some, however, refer the future tense of the 
 verb to "the judgment of the great day."] 
 For through law is knowledge of sin. 
 ["The law brings only the knowledge of 
 sin" (De Wette), and of course its works 
 cannot bring justification to the guilty. "Life 
 and death proceed not from the same foun- 
 tain." (Calvin.) The word for knowledge 
 is a compound, and signifies full knowledge, 
 clear discernment or realization. Seel: 28; 
 10: 2. Watts very truly says : 
 
 In vain we ask God's righteous law 
 
 To justify us now, 
 Since to convince and to condemn 
 
 Is all the law can do. 
 
 Further on we shall see that the law, by virtue 
 of its condemnatory and prohibitory nature, 
 occasions the calling forth of the passions of 
 sin and the abounding of trespasses and thus 
 the working out of wrath. (7:5; 5:20; 4: 15.)] 
 This is a very comprehensive declaration. 
 The very idea of sin comes from the previous 
 idea of law, as a rule of action, of which sin 
 is a violation ; all true knowledge of the 
 nature of sin comes through the precept of 
 the law : all correct estimate of the evil of 
 sin comes through the penalty of the law: 
 all just sense of personal sinfulness comes 
 through the application of the law. 
 
 In this passage, (ver. 9-20,) the apostle aims a 
 death blow at all the self-righteousness and 
 self-complacency of sinful men. He proves, 
 by divine testimonies, the universal depravity 
 of human nature. He shows the corruption 
 of our nature, in its trunk and in its root. He 
 proves the impossibility of justification by 
 works. He virtually asserts that to be justi- 
 fied by our works is neither more nor less 
 than to be justified by our sins: for all the 
 acts of a man, prior to his being justified 
 freely by grace through faith, are compre- 
 hended in these two classes — acts of disobedi- 
 ence to the law of God, and acts of imperfect 
 obedience. The first are positive sins, the 
 last are sins by defect — that is, they are sins, 
 by as much as they fall short of perfect obedi- 
 ence. By which set of performances, then, 
 is he to be justified? Not certainly by his 
 positive transgressions, for these are the very 
 deeds for which he is justly condemned. Can 
 he be justified any more by his imperfect 
 obedience — that is, by his sins of defect? This 
 would be to suppose them no longer sins. 
 Nay, we may go further, and say this would 
 be to suppose an actual merit in his lesser sins 
 sufficient to atone for the demerit of his 
 greater sins. To such absurdities does the 
 idea of justification by works lead. The 
 whole question is closed forever by this di- 
 vine sentence — " cursed is every one that con- 
 tinueth not in all thiyigs which are written in 
 the book of the law, to do them." (Gai. 3: 10.) 
 
 21. The apostle has hitherto been showing 
 the need of that "righteousness of God," 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 91 
 
 21 But now the righteousness of God without the 
 law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the 
 prophets ; 
 
 21 But DOW apart from the law a righteousness of (iod 
 hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law 
 
 which was indispensable, and yet unattainable 
 bj' the law. He now begins a new division 
 of his subject, the object of which is to show 
 how that indispensable righteousness can be 
 attained. [Under the general head of justifi- 
 cation and its results (3:21-5:21) Beet gives this 
 analysis: "Justification through faith and 
 through Christ (3: 21-26); by which all boasting 
 is shut out (3:27-30); but, as the case of Abra- 
 ham proves, the law is established (3: 31-4:17) ; 
 description of Abraham's faith (4:18-25); we 
 have now a well-grounded hope(5:i-H); and 
 the curse of Adam is reversed (5:i.'-i9); the 
 law was given to prepare for this (5:20-21)." 
 We have now come to a section which Farrar 
 says contains the ver3' quintessence of Pauline 
 theology, "and is one of the fullest and 
 weightiest passages in all his writings." Its 
 ver3' words seem freighted with thought of 
 highest moment. In these modern times men 
 may not feel much interest in a discussion 
 about law, faith, justification, etc.; but these 
 with the apostle were matters of gospel or no 
 gospel, of life or death, of salvation or perdi- 
 tion. What an almost infinite solemnity of 
 meaning there is in his words addressed to the 
 Galatians: "I do not set aside the grace of 
 God: for if there be righteousness through 
 law, then Christ died without cause" — died 
 for nothing. (Gal. 2:21; Bible Union Ver- 
 sion.) And with what j^earnings of heart he 
 regarded these same Galatians as they were 
 severing themselves from Christ and falling 
 away from his grace. With similar feelings, 
 perhaps, he has now taken a survey of the 
 Gentile and Jewish world and sees them all 
 alienated from the life of God, all under the 
 power of sin, all exposed to God's judgment. 
 And now to the Gentiles who are yet not so 
 far lost in sin but that they clearly recognize 
 God's just sentence and their desert of death, 
 and to the Jews who may perchance have 
 been brought by the law to the full knowledge 
 of their sins, Paul proceeds to make known a 
 righteousness of God which will be theirs 
 through faith, and a way of justification 
 through the redemption of Christ which will 
 secure to them the life eternal. But how can 
 
 we rightly understand or fitly explain those 
 things into which angels desire to look?] 
 But now the righteousness of God, etc. 
 
 [Luther thus renders: " But now is revealed, 
 without the assistance of the law, the right- 
 eousness which avails beft)re God."] Now 
 (j-vvi) is used here, not probably as an adverb 
 of time [as it would be in classic Greek], but 
 rather in a logical way, "as the case now 
 stands"— that is, the attainment of righteous- 
 ness by law being plainly out of the question. 1 
 Yet it is also true in a temporal sense, since 
 this new way of righteousness is now for the 
 first time fully revealed, so that there is a 
 coincidence of the two senses in which this 
 adverb is used ; but the sense above explained 
 is the predominant one, that of time is subor- 
 dinate. See a similar use of the adverb now 
 in 7: 17; 1 Cor. 15:20; Heb. 8:6, etc. 'With- 
 out the law. Apart from law [or, without 
 its co-operation. (DeWette.) And, accord- 
 ing to this author, the antithesis of this would 
 be: "Through the facts of the new revela- 
 tion" has God's righteousness been mani- 
 fested.-] These words are made emphatic in 
 the original by their occupying the first place 
 in the sentence. Some regard them as quali- 
 fying the phrase, 'righteousness of God'; 
 others as qualifying the verb, 'is manifested.' 
 The sense is not materially different, but the 
 position of the words in the original would 
 rather suggest that they are not to be exclu- 
 sively connected with either. This whole 
 matter (the righteousness itself and its mani- 
 festation) is out of the sphere of law, utterly' 
 excludes all merit of works. The expression 
 is manifested, or, more exactly, has been 
 inanifested — the present of completed action 
 (Meyer) — rather than "is revealed" (i:"),is 
 eminently suitable here. It is no new thing, 
 so far as God is concerned, nor yet wholly 
 new to man, as the following words imph', 
 but newly 'manifested,' with an emphasis 
 upon that word. [" Having previously been 
 hidden in God's counsels, it has now been 
 made manifest in historical reality, in the 
 person of Jesus Christ. . . . The manifesta- 
 tion, in fact, is complete; the revelation in 
 
 1 In this sense the Greek writers would use vvv. — (F.) I room) conveys more than avtv, the idea of separateness. 
 » The word for without (x<"P'«i akin to xuipa-, place or ' — (F.) 
 
92 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 22 Even the righteousness of God ichinh is by faith 
 of Jesus Christ uulo all and upon all them that believe; 
 for there is no diflerence : 
 
 22 and the prophets; even the righteousness of God 
 through faith 1 in Jesus Christ unto all ^theiu that 
 
 23 believe; for there is no distinction; fur all ^have 
 
 1 Or, 0/ 2 Some ancient authorities ad<l and upon all 3 6r. sinned. 
 
 the gospel Still goes on." (Gittord.)] Being 
 witnessed by the law and the prophets. 
 
 By the law, as in Gen. 49:10; Deut. 18:15, 
 etc. By the prophets, as in Isa. 53; Jer. 23: 
 6, etc. [The phrase 'the law and the prophets' 
 
 is of frequent occurrence (Matt.d: 17; 7:12; 22:40; 
 
 Acts 28: 23), and denotes in general the Old Test- 
 ament S:riptures. Tlie gospel of gratuitous 
 justification is shown by this reference to the 
 Old Testament to be not an invention of Paul.] 
 The present participle indicates a continuous, 
 permanent manifestation in the abiding 
 {Scriptures. Compare 1 : 2. 
 
 22. Even the righteousness of God, etc. 
 [The word for 'even' (6e) has generally a 
 slightly oppositive force, and here, perhaps, 
 introduces a contrast to the law of the last 
 verse. Thus, though this righteousness is 
 witnessed by the law, it is not gained by 
 means of the law or by means of works, but 
 by means of faith of (in) Jesus Christ.] Ob- 
 serve with what painstaking fullness the 
 apostle shows us that this righteousness of 
 God is conditioned on taith. ["Faith is at 
 once the soul's highest exercise of freedom, 
 its lowliest 'confession of sin,' and the only 
 homage it can render to God." (Gifford.)] 
 He repeats the expression 'the righteousness 
 of God' in order to bring in this explanation, 
 by faith, or through faith, of Jesus Christ, 
 and then subjoins: [Which is] unto all them 
 that believe. [A still fuller form which the 
 apostle sometimes uses (as in ver. 24: Epli. 
 2:8) would be: "The righteousness of God 
 which is by grace through faith," etc., grace 
 being the objective, instrumental cause of 
 salvation, faith the subjective medium, by 
 which it is received — grace imparting, faith 
 receiving. See EUicott on Eph. 2:8. Since 
 'righteousness' has no article in the original, 
 the feminine article after the word 'God' is 
 naturally dispensed with. Its omission also 
 
 here and in similar cases gives a more com- 
 plete unity to the conception. (Winer, 135.) 
 On 'righteousness of God,' see comments on 
 1:17. The meaning of this 'righteousness' 
 (iiicaioCT-ui'T)) is indicated by the "being justified 
 freely by his grace," etc. (ver. 24.) "This 
 righteousness," says Godet, "is granted to 
 faith, not assuredly because of any merit 
 inherent in it, for this would be to fall back 
 on jvorks — the very thing which the New 
 Dispensation wishes to exclude — but because 
 of the object of faitli. Therefore it is that this 
 object is expressly mentioned — Jesus Christ." 
 "The person of Christ in its unity and totality 
 ('Jesus Christ') is the proper redemptive 
 object of faith." (Dorner.)] The difference 
 between the expressions unto all and upon 
 all is commonly thus explained : Offered 
 'unto all,' and actually available to, or resting 
 upon all them that believe. According to 
 this explanation, 'all them that believe' is to 
 be connected with the latter preposition, 
 'upon,' only, and not with the former, 'unto.' 
 This would be tolerably satisfactory if the 
 reading of the original were certainly genu- 
 ine; but though defended by Meyer, the 
 words 'and upon all' are rejected, or marked 
 as doubtful, by most recent critics.^ This, of 
 course, forestalls all need of the above ex- 
 planation and leaves no place for it. For 
 there is no difference. There is no distinc- 
 tion of Jew and Gentile, or of any other kind, 
 among men, as to the need of justification or 
 the way to be justified. Whatever difierence 
 there may be as to the degree of sinfulness 
 and blameworthiness, all are under the same 
 condemnation by the law, and shut up to the 
 same only hope of justification by the gospel. 
 The Pharisee and the publican, the openly 
 vicious and the comparatively moral, are 
 alike lost if they look to the law, and mtiy be 
 alike saved if they look to Christ in faith. 
 
 1 The addition of the second clause is designated by 
 Westcott and Hort as "Western and Syrian" (their 
 "Syrian" being nearly equivalent to Constantinopoli- 
 tan, or the text of Chrysostom, a native and, for sev- 
 eral years, a preacher of Antioch, in Syria, and, to my 
 mind, one very good authority), and is regarded by 
 them as one of those "conflate" or combined and, 
 hence, fuller readings which are characteristic of our 
 
 Textus Receptus, and which are generally discarded in 
 their edition of the Greek Testament, as also in the 
 Revised Version. Meyer retains the second clause and 
 would connect believing with each " all." Prof. Jowett 
 says that, "Of the two prepositions, eis represents the 
 more internal and spiritual relation of the gospel to the 
 individual soul, as ejri, its outward connection, with 
 mankind collectively." — (F.) 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 93 
 
 23 For all have sinued, aud come short of the glory 
 of God ; , , ., 
 
 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the 
 redemptiou that is iu Christ Jesus: 
 
 24 sinned, aud fall short of the glory of God; being 
 justified Ireely by bis grace througli the redeaipiiou 
 
 25 that is iu Christ Jesus: whom Cod set forth ^ to be 
 
 1 Or, to be propitiatory. 
 
 This is a hard saying to the self-righteous; 
 but it is just as certainly true as that "there 
 is none other name under heaven given among 
 men whereby we must be saved."' (aci34:12.) 
 "If you do not regard yourself as wholly un- 
 done under the law, you will keep out from 
 your mind the whole clearness and comfort 
 of the gospel. ' (Chalmers.) 
 
 23. For all have sinned, and come 
 short— or, /((// s/torif (Revised Version)— of 
 the glory of God. There is a seeming inac- 
 curacy here in the tense of the second verb. 
 It appears to be in the j^erfect tense, like the 
 first verb, but is really in the present. There 
 is no reason for supposing that the translators 
 intended to mislead the English reader; the 
 translation is not incorrect, though almost 
 invariably misunderstood. The misunder- 
 .standing would have been effectually pre- 
 vented had they inserted the auxiliary do 
 before the second verb: All have iiitmed, and 
 do come short of the glory of God is the pre- 
 cise form in which the apostle states the case, 
 at least so far as the tense of the second verb 
 is concerned.^ The verb 'sinned' would be 
 quite as accurately rendered without the 
 ' have,' as referring to an indefinite past act. 
 According to the most common use of the 
 Greek tense here employed, the sins of man- 
 kind are here represented as "gathered into 
 one act, regarded as prior to the manifestation 
 of the righteousness." (Websler.) The si«- 
 ning is represented as a fact that occurred in 
 past time, the coming short of the glory of 
 God as the present and abiding consequence. 
 [The historical aorist, 'sinned '—according to 
 Bengel, Olshausen, Wordsworth, Shedd— re- 
 fers, primarily at least, to the fall of our race 
 in Adam, which is the prolific source of all 
 depravity and all sin. See 5: 12. Prof. Shedd 
 says: "It is the one original sin of apostasy, 
 more than any particular transgressions that 
 flow from it, that puts the Jew and Gentile 
 upon the same footing, so that there is ' no 
 ditl'erence' between them."] What is meant 
 
 by coming short of the glory of God? Here 
 we have a great variety of explanations, some 
 of them depending upon the view taken of 
 the sense of the verb, and some upon the 
 meaning assigned to the phrase, 'the glory of 
 God.' As to the meaning of the verb, we 
 remark that it does not mean to lose some- 
 thing once possessed, but to fail of gaining 
 something once attainable. This excludes 
 such explanations as that of Olshausen, to lose 
 "the image of God in which man was cre- 
 ated." The most pertinent text, perhaps, to 
 illustrate the meaning of the verb here, is 
 Heb. 4:1. As to the sense of the expression, 
 'the glory of God,' see the notes on 2:7. 
 [Most expositors, we think, regard this phrase 
 as nearly equivalent to the praise of God, 
 " the glory that cometh from the only God." 
 (Revised Version. John 5:44; 12:43.) But 
 Meyer says: "The glory of God cannot, in 
 reality, be anything essentially diflferent from 
 the righteousness of God, and cannot be 
 merely future."] 
 
 24. Being justified. [" Suddenly thus is 
 opened a more pleasant scene." (Bengel.)] 
 This participle must agree grammatically with 
 'air of ver. 23. But are 'all' actually justified? 
 No; the present participle here used does not 
 imply that: it is the customary form of stating 
 a general truth or principle without affirming 
 the universality of the fact. It describes, with 
 what follows, the only mode of justification 
 in the case of all who are justified ; the justi- 
 fication of men is going on in this way and in 
 no other. The apostle is careful not to use 
 the perfect participle, as Luke does in 18: 14, 
 or the indefinite past, as he himself does in 
 5 : 1 of this Epistle, where it would be more 
 exactly translated : "Having been justified." 
 Either of these forms would represent the 
 justification as an accomplished fact, and it 
 is justly so represented in both the passages 
 referred to; but the present participle does 
 not so represent it, and in the passage under 
 consideration it could not be truly so repre- 
 
 1 This verb — signifying, literally, to he behind, hence, 
 to fall short, to lack— is properly followed, as here, by 
 the genitive, the " whence case," the genitive of pro- 
 
 ceeding from, of separation, and removal. The verb, 
 being iu the middle voice, is supposed by some to indi- 
 cate a felt need. Compare Luke 15 : 14. — (F.) 
 
94 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 
 
 
 [Ch. 
 
 III. 
 
 25 
 
 Whom 
 
 God 
 
 bath 
 
 set 
 
 forth 
 
 to 
 
 he 
 
 a 
 
 propitiation | a propitiation 
 
 through 
 
 faith, 
 
 in 
 
 his blood, to 
 
 shew 
 
 sented. [Winer saj^s: "The apostle conceived 
 the connection thus — and come short of the 
 glory of God, in that (since) they are justified 
 freely, etc. ; the latter is proof of the former." 
 And Godet paraphrases as follows: "Being 
 consequently ]\is,i\^edi, as we have just declared 
 (ver. 21, 22), freely, etc."] Dr. Schaff has a 
 full and admirable note on the meaning of 
 the verb "to justify " in Lange's commentary 
 on this verse. [On the verb to justify, see 
 notes on 1 : 17; also Dr. Hovey's " Manual of 
 Theology," p. 264, seq. ; and his "God with 
 Us," pp. 114, 252. To justify, as defined by 
 Prof. Cremer, is: "By a judicial decision to 
 free from guilt, . . . and to represent as right- 
 eous." Almost every word here used in con- 
 nection with "justified" shows that this term 
 does not mean made righteous or sanctified.] 
 Freely by his grace. These two qualifying 
 terms, though intimately related, are not 
 identical. Tlie first denotes the entire free- 
 ness of justification, "without money and 
 without price"; the second, the divine be- 
 nignity, which is the source of that free gift. 
 Again, the second might be true without the 
 first. It would be a favor, an act of grace, on 
 God's part, to grant to men justification on 
 some easy and indulgent terms, though not 
 as an absolutely free gift. [See 5: 17, gift of 
 righteousness, and Eph. 2:8, the gift of God. 
 If it is without cost to us, it was not so to the 
 Giver. The word translated 'freely' {hmpeav) — 
 or, better, gratuitously — is found elsewhere in 
 Matt. 10:8; John 15:25; 2 Cor. 11:7; Gal. 
 2 : 21 ; 2 Thess. 3 : 8; Kev. 21 : 6; 22 : 17. 
 'Grace' here "is emphasized precisely as di- 
 vine, opposed to all human co-operation." 
 (Meyer.) On the antithesis of grace to any 
 reward of work or to debt, see 4 : 4; 11 : 6. 
 Compare Titus 3 : 5. Some persons, chiefly 
 of the hyper-Calvinistic Antinomian School, 
 have held that Christ, by his redemption, has 
 fully paid the debt of sinners, so that they, 
 if belonging to the number of the elect, are 
 freed from desert of punishment, and can 
 demand deliverance from death as a right, 
 thus making crimes transferable, like debts. 
 But we, as lost sinners, must ever seek this 
 deliverance as an act of grace, such deliver- 
 ance being through Christ's redemption, ren- 
 dered consistent with justice, but not required 
 by it. (Fuller.)] Through the redemption 
 
 (aTToAuTptoCTts) that is in Christ Jesus. 'Re- 
 demption' [a word which supposes the truth 
 of ver. 9, that we are "all under sin" or in 
 bondage to sin] is deliverance effected by 
 paying a ransom. Compare 1 Cor. 1 : 30. See 
 also Eph. 1:7; Col. 1 : 14, in both which places 
 redemption is defined as "the forgiveness of 
 sins," and in the former with the addition, 
 "through his blood." (In the latter passage 
 this qualification is omitted in the best editions 
 of the original text.) Compare also the word 
 "ransom" (Kvrpov) in Matt. 20:28; Murk 10: 
 45; (avTiXvTpov) 1 Tim. 2:6; and the noun 
 "redemption" (Aiirpwais) in Heb. 9:12; and 
 the verb "to redeem " in Titus 2: 14; 1 Peter 
 1 : 18. [See also such kindred words as bought, 
 purchased, etc., 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Gal. 3 : 
 13 ; Rev. 5:9; also Acts 20 : 28. The pur- 
 chase price paid, we may say, to the holiness 
 of the infinitely holy and righteous Lawgiver 
 and Judge was the "precious blood" of Jesus. 
 See ver. 25 ; Eph. 1:7; 1 Peter 1 : 18, 19 ; 2 : 
 24; Rev. 5:9. Compare Matt. 20: 28; 1 Tim. 
 2:6. This 'redemption,' which is in or rests 
 in Christ, is to be considered as the objective, 
 and faith as the subjective, medium of justifi- 
 cation. (Philippi.) The redemption is from 
 the curse, from sin, from death, and from 
 Satan. "Every mode of conception which 
 refers redemption and forgiveness of sins, not 
 to a real atonement through the death of 
 Christ, but, subjectively, to the dying and 
 reviving with him, guaranteed and produced 
 by that death, .... is opposed to the New 
 Testament, a mixing up of justification and 
 sanctification." (Meyer.) " Here is a foun- 
 dation for the satisfaction theory of Anselm, 
 but not for its grossly anthropopathic execu- 
 tion." (De Wette.)] The two verses follow- 
 ing explain how this redemption was effected. 
 25. Whom God hath set forth. [Middle 
 voice: set forth for himself, for the exhibi- 
 tion or demonstration of his righteousness. 
 (Winer, p. 254.) Godet remarks that "it 
 is God himself who, according to this 
 passage, is to be regarded as the author of the 
 whole work of redemption. The salvation of 
 the world is not therefore wrested from him, as 
 is sometimes represented bj' the mediation of 
 Christ." Compare 1 John 4: 10: 2 Cor. 5 : 
 18; John 3: 16.] God set Christ forth, or 
 exhibited him to men histoiically by his in- 
 
Ch III.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 95 
 
 through faith iu his blood, to declare his righteousness | his righteousness, because of the passing over of the 
 
 carnation. Compare Gal. 4: 4.* God (the 
 
 Father) set forth for himself and before the 
 world or universe, Christ Jesus the crucified, 
 slain as a sacrifice for sins. To be a jiro- 
 pitiatioii. Tiie words 'to be' are supplied 
 by the English translators: they add nothing 
 tothesense. The word 'propitiation' (iAao-TTj- 
 piov) is in form a verbal adjective, signifying 
 prop it id tor y, and implying some such word 
 as sacrifice, or offering, understood, with 
 which it agrees. In the only other two cases 
 where the word 'propitiation' is used in our 
 English Bible, 1 John 2: 2; 4: 10, the Greek 
 word (iAao-fudt) is a noun from the same root as 
 the verbal adjective used here; and in both 
 the above passages it is applied to Christ. The 
 only defensible translation of the word here is 
 'propitiation' or 'propitiatory sacrifice.' The 
 representation of Christ as an expiatory sacri- 
 fice for sin pervades the New Testament. He 
 is said to have "given himself as an otfering 
 and a sacrifice," Eph. 5: 2, compare Heb. 10: 
 12; he is "our Passover, sacrificed for us," 1 
 Cor. 5:7; he is "Lamb of God," John 1: 29, 
 36; 1 Peter 1: 19; Rev. 5: 6-9. This last title 
 of Lamb is given to him nearly thirty times 
 in the book of Revelation alone. [ The word 
 propitiation' here denotes that which pro- 
 pitiates God or his justice. See Dr. Hovey's 
 "Manual of Theolo^'," 210, seq,, also his 
 "God with Us," 114, seq., 252, seq. Godet, 
 speaking against the false idea that propitia- 
 tion is intended to originate a sentiment which 
 did not exist in God before, saj's: " What it 
 produces is such a change in the relation be- 
 tween God and the creature, that God can 
 henceforth display toward sinful man one 
 of the elements of his nature rather than 
 another." And he approvingly quotes Gess 
 as saying: "Divine love manifests itself in 
 the gift of the Son, that it may be able after- 
 ward to diffuse itself in the heart by the gift 
 of the Spirit." In the love of God there is, as 
 he says: "(1), The love which precedes the 
 propitiation and which determines to effect it; 
 and (2), Love such that it can display itself 
 when once the propitiation is effected."] 
 Through faith in his blood. The precise 
 
 connection of these two clauses with each 
 other, and with the preceding context, especi- 
 ally with the words 'propitiation' and 'set 
 forth,' has given rise to some discussion. Ac- 
 cording to the common puncluatii)n of the 
 English, the two expressions would seem to 
 have the most direct and intimate connection 
 with each other, 'in his blood' being the ob- 
 ject on which faith is exercised. In that case, 
 we must understand by his blood that ex- 
 piation for sin which he effected by the shed- 
 ding of his blood. In no other sense can 
 'faith in his blood' be an efficacious means 
 of propitiation for sin. But the lack of any 
 Scripture warrant for the expression 'faith 
 in the blood of Christ' is a strong objection to 
 insisting on so close a relation between these 
 two clauses. It is better to connect the clause 
 'in his blood' with the verb 'set forth,' and 
 the clause ' through faith ' with the noun ' pro- 
 pitiation' — whom God set forth in his blood, 
 as a propitiation through faith [so Meyer] ; 
 or, which is but slightly different without so 
 distinctly separating the verb and the noun, 
 'propitiation,' to join these two clauses with 
 both, making the 'blood' — that is, the sacrifi- 
 cial death of Christ — the ground of the propiti- 
 atory virtue of his redemptive work and faith, 
 exercised by the sinner, the condition of its 
 propitiatory efficacy. To declare his right- 
 eousness, etc. Here it is necessary to make 
 more important changes than are often re- 
 quired in our English translation, so excellent 
 as a whole. '"To declare his righteousness," 
 literally, 'for manifestation^ of his righteous- 
 ness,' — that is, his judiciiil righteousness, or 
 justice, as explained in the last part of the 
 next verse. [This retributive righteousness 
 or justice of God (defined by the phrase in 
 the next verse: that he might be righteous, 
 or just) is of course different from that right- 
 eousness of God through faith which lias been 
 manifested without the law. 
 
 Ver. 21 speaks of the manifestation of God's 
 justifying righteousness, this verse speaks of 
 the exhibition of his judicial righteousness. 
 The reason for this exhibition is given under 
 two aspects, the first stated being, perhsips, the 
 
 1 [This is true ; but there seems to be no reference to 
 the incarnation in this verse. It is Christ Jesus whom 
 God is here afhrmed to have set forth as a propitiation 
 in his blood, or death, and not the eternal Word whom 
 
 he exhibited to men by means of the incarnation.— 
 [A. H.] 
 
 - eVSeif IV, whence our indication, see Eph. 2 : 7, for an 
 equivalent phrase.— (F.) 
 
96 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 for the remission of sins that are past, through the I 26 sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for 
 forbearance of God ; the shewing, / say, of his righteousness at this 
 
 2() To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness : | 
 
 more subordinate one.] For the remission. 
 
 The word (a<|)eo-ts) usually translated ' remission' 
 (or, in several places, forgiveness,) occurs 
 seventeen times in the New Testament, but it 
 is not used in this place. Instead of the ordi- 
 nary word (a<^e(7is), the apostle uses another 
 word (TTopcCTis) which is found nowhere else in 
 the Greek Testament, and which bears the 
 same relation to the usual word that our word 
 praetermission, or passing over, bears to remis- 
 sion. We can hardly suppose that he would 
 have used a different word only here, unle-ss 
 he had designed to express a different sense. 
 [Sins that are past, or formerly committed 
 — tlnit is, prior to the atoning death of Christ.] ^ 
 Through (literally-, in) the forbearance of 
 God. This word 'forbearance' confirms the 
 correction just made in the word 'remission.' 
 To pass over sin is the work of 'forbearance' ; 
 to remit sin is the work of grace. We would 
 translate and explain the latter part of this 
 verse as follows: "For manifestation of his 
 righteousness on account of (or in respect to) 
 the pa.^sing over of past sins, in the forbear- 
 ance of God." During the past ages, God 
 had not executed the judgment upon the sins 
 of men which his righteousness had threat- 
 ened, and seemed to demand ; but had in 
 his forbearance passed over, and seemingly 
 ignored them. This made necessary some 
 manifestation of his righteousness in this re- 
 spect. (How could he righteousl3' so pass by 
 the sins of men ? The setting forth of Christ 
 as a propitiatory sacrifice answers this.) [God 
 might have exhibited his righteousness or 
 justice by visiting upon sinners his deserved 
 wrath, the penalty of death ; but this through 
 his love for man he did not do. Yet thereby 
 his justice seemed to be set aside or impaired. 
 
 and hence he "spared not his own Son but 
 gave him up for us all." Says Andrew Fuller: 
 "If the question were, Why did God give his 
 Son to die for sinners rather than leave them 
 to perish in their sins? the answer would be, 
 Because he loved them. But if the question 
 be, Why did he give his Son to be an atone- 
 ment for sinners rather than save them with- 
 out one? the answer would be. Because he 
 loved righteousness and hated iniquity." 
 Similarly Julius Miiller: "To maintain the 
 authority of the divine government in view 
 of innumerable sins left unpunished (Tripeo-ts), 
 it was necessary that God in establishing a 
 new kingdom of love and grace should mani- 
 fest his justice in the expiatory death of its 
 founder and king." It is almost needless to 
 say that such an exhibition as this of God's 
 justice (and of his mercy, too, in behalf of 
 sinners), and such a setting forth of Christ as 
 a propitiatory covering and sacrifice for the 
 sins of men, which Meyer calls "the epoch 
 and turning point in the world's history," 
 will not be lost and will never be repealed. 
 Calvary witnessed the finishing of man's re- 
 demption ; and never again will Christ be 
 called from heaven to make atonement for 
 sin. Godetsays: " The righteousness of God 
 ^)nce revealed in the sacrifice of the cross, this 
 demonstration remains. Whatever happens, 
 nothing can again efface it from the history 
 of the world, nor from the conscience of man- 
 kind. Henceforth no illusion is possible; all 
 sin must be pardoned— or judged." * 
 
 26. To declare, etc. — [literally, for the 
 manifestation of, as in the previous verse. 
 Some (Alford, SchafT) think that Paul would 
 by the use of the article in this and not in the 
 former verse distinguish this 'manifestation' 
 
 1 Prof. Stuart remarks that if Jesus died only as a 
 martyr to the truth, and his death had no vicariovs in- 
 fluence, it could not avail for the forgiveness of sins 
 (or the praetermission of sins) committed in the early 
 ages— (F.) 
 
 2 In illustration of the gracious efficacy of this verse 
 we adduce the religious experience of the poet Cowper. 
 Aft^r walking up and down his room in an almost 
 despairing state of mind he at length seated himself by 
 a window and opened a Bible which happened to be 
 there, if perchance he might find some consolation. 
 "The passage which met my Oye was the twenty-fifth 
 
 verse of the third chapter of Romans. On reading it 
 I immediately received power to believe. The rays of 
 the Sun of Righteousness fell on me in all their full- 
 ness; I saw the complete sufficiency of the expiation 
 which Christ had wrought for my pardon and entire 
 justification. In an instant I believed and received 
 
 the peace of the gospel If the arm of the 
 
 Almiglity had not supjiorted me, I believe I should 
 have been overwhelmed witli gratitude and joy. My 
 eyes filled with tears, transports choked my utterance. 
 I could only look to heaven in silent fear, overflowing 
 with love and wonder." — (F.) 
 
Ch. hi.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 97 
 
 that lie might be just, and the justifier of him which 
 belijBveth iu Jesus. 
 
 present seasou: that he might himself be ijiist, and 
 the ijustitier of him that ^hath lailh itiu Jesus 
 
 1 See ch. ii. 13, mar. in 2 Gr. is of faith 3 Or. of. 
 
 from the other as being " the fuller and ulti- 
 mate object." Mej-er thinUs the former is 
 liere resumed and made prominent, in order 
 to emphasize the historical element (in this 
 present time) not previously mentioned, and 
 to bring into full view the end that was designed 
 by God ("tlint he might be just") in the 
 pro])itiation. In Godet's view, the "mani- 
 festation" is repeated to show what is the 
 object to be gained in the future.l What in 
 the previous verse was expressed in a some- 
 what incidental vva^', and with reference rather 
 to his rigiiteousness in not immediately and 
 fully punishing sin, now comes out more em- 
 phatically with reference to his righteousness 
 in forgiving sin. Note how emphatically the 
 apostle declares that tiie "righteousness" of 
 God is manifested by the vicarious sacrifice 
 of Clirist — the very thing wliich men often 
 object to, as unrighteous in God. At this 
 time. These words are contrasted not so 
 much with the phrase "in the forbearance 
 of God," as if that expression referred speci- 
 ally to the time of God's forbearance, as with 
 the phrase "the sins that are past." The 
 passing over of transgressions in times past, 
 and the remission of sins now, both require to 
 be reconciled with the righteousness of God. 
 "The time of Christ is a time of critical deci- 
 sion, when the pretermission, the passing 
 over, of sins, is at an end, and men must 
 either accept the full remission of sins, or 
 expose themselves to the judgment of a right- 
 eous God." (Schaff.) Many passages might 
 be referred to as illustrating the same idea. 
 See, for example, Luke 2: 34,35; Acts 17 : 
 80, 31; Heb. 9: 15. [That-t« order thai, 
 indicates the purpose, the "intended result" 
 (Meyer), of setting forth Christ as a propitia- 
 tory sacrifice through faith in his blood.] 
 Mischt be just, and the justifier. Just and 
 justifying is the more literal translation ; 
 just in justifying; that his justice might be 
 exercised and manifested even in the act of 
 forgiving and accepting the sinful as righteous 
 oil their believing in Jesus. Tiiis last clause 
 of the verse explains especially the object of 
 the 77ianifestation, but also truly and compre- 
 hensively of all that precedes, from the begin- 
 ning of ver. 25. " This is the keystone, the 
 
 final aim of the whole aifirmation: that he 
 might be just and justifying the believer." 
 1 Meyer. ) [If God could be really just (Paul 
 uses the word meaning to be, not the word 
 meaning to become, nearly equivalent to be 
 nmnifested or regarded as just, see ver. 4) and 
 could justify' and save sinners apart from the 
 obedience and sacrifice of a substitute, how is 
 it that his own Son, the Son of his love, in 
 human flesh was made to bear our iniquities 
 and was bruised for our offences? Just and 
 justifying the ungodly I "We have here the 
 greatest paradox of the gospel ; for in the 
 law, God is seen as just and condemning; in 
 the gospel, he is seen as being just himself and 
 justifying the sinner." (Bengel.) This "sin- 
 ner," however, is a penitent believer, one — 
 literally, that \& of faith o/ (in) Jesus. The 
 uncials F G of the ninth century omit the 
 name Jesus, while other copies vary the read- 
 ing. Meyer, judging it to be a repetition from 
 ver. 22, thinks it should be omitted, "not- 
 withstanding the preponderating testimony in 
 its favor."] Compare this whole j)assage with 
 the Socinian idea of atonement as operating 
 only manv^ard. [Bishop Butler, in cautious 
 but weighty language, states that "the doc- 
 trine of the gospel appears to be, not only that 
 he taught the eflScacy of repentance, but ren- 
 dered it of the efficacy which it is by what he 
 did and suffered for us, that he obtained for us 
 the benefit of having our repentance accepted 
 unto eternal life ; not only that he revealed 
 to sinners that they were in a capacity of sal- 
 vation, and how they might obtain it, but, 
 moreover, that he put them into this capacity 
 of salvation by what he did and suffered for 
 them." Dr. Hovoy says: "This passage 
 (Rom. 3: 24-26) secms to havc bccn written for the 
 very purpose of rendering forever vain and 
 futile any attempt to limit the efficacy of the 
 Atonement to its moral influence over men." 
 See his "God with Us," pp. 100-155.] This 
 is a standard passage, on the doctrine of 
 atonement. Olshausen calls this passage " the 
 Acropolis of the Christian faith." "There is 
 perhaps no single passage in the book of in- 
 spiration," says Chalmers, "which reveals in 
 a way so formal and authoritative as the one, 
 before us the path of transition by which a 
 
98 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 tCH. III. 
 
 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By 
 ■what law ? of works? Nay ; but by the law of faith. 
 
 26 Therefore we conclude that a man is justitied by 
 faith without the deeds of the law. 
 
 27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By 
 what manner of law ? ofworks? Nay: but by a law 
 
 28 of faith, i We reckon therefore that a mau is justi- 
 
 1 Manv aDcient authorities read For 
 
 sinner passes from a slate of wrath to a state 
 of acceptance. There is no passage, to which 
 if we would only bring the doc-ility and com- 
 pliance of childhood, that is more fitted to 
 guide and to turn an inquiring sinner into the 
 way of peace." 
 
 On the relation of this passage to what fol- 
 lows, to the end of chapter 4, Alford remarks: 
 "Jewish boasting is altogether removed by 
 this truth ; not, however, by making void the 
 law, not by degrading Abraham from his 
 pre-eminence; but by establishing the law, 
 and showing that Abraham was really justi- 
 fied by faith, and is the father of the faithful." 
 He now goes on to show, in the following 
 verse, that this way of gratuitous justification, 
 while it lays the firm foundation for the high- 
 est assurance, is also adapted to beget the 
 deepest humility. When the hope of salva- 
 tion rests on works, it can have no rational 
 assurance. The man that is at all conscious 
 of his great sinfulness— in other words, the 
 man that has any real knowledge' of himself, 
 must be often troubled with misgivings, and 
 harassing doubts and fears, so long as his 
 hope of acceptance with God depends in any 
 degree upon his own performances. There is 
 no room, in his creed, for an intelligent confi- 
 dence of his final salvation. But when 
 Christ's perfect work of propitiation, and not 
 his own imperfect and inconstant works of 
 obedience, is the sole foundation on which he 
 rests, he has a hope which is an anchor of his 
 soul, sure and steadfast; and his conscious- 
 ness of his many sins, and of the imperfec- 
 tion of his best acts of obedience, does not 
 form any bar to his joyful assurance of salva- 
 tion. So admirably, in the gospel scheme, 
 are humility and assurance reconciled and 
 combined! 
 
 27. [Where is (in the Greek the, equiva- 
 lent, perhaps, to ou7-) boasting then ? ' Then ' 
 signifies an inference or conclusion drawn 
 from the preceding passage. Are the state- 
 ments in that passage the invention of the 
 author's genius, the mere figment of his brain? 
 or are they plain, sober, infinitely important 
 truths? and do they furnish to our minds a 
 
 solid foundation for safe inference? There is 
 no middle view which we can take of this 
 matter. The apostle's inference from the 
 asserted truths is that all 'boasting' on the 
 part of sinners is excluded, or, in the words 
 ofTheodoret: " it no longer has room."] The 
 ^^ boasting" of the Jews "was excluded" 
 once and forever, when God set forth his Son 
 as a propitiation. The verb here is in the 
 indefinite past tense ; but this is one of the 
 cases where it may most suitably be repre- 
 sented in English by the perfect: has been 
 excluded. Tlie contrast in the following 
 words: By what law? [literally: through 
 what kind of law?] is not between the law 
 and the gospel, as two dispensations ; but the 
 word 'law' seems to be used here in what is 
 sometimes called a rhetorical sense, nearly 
 equivalent to the word "principle," or "rule": 
 by what principle? Of Avorks? nay, 
 but by the law (principle) of faith. The 
 word 'law' seems to be used in the like 
 sense in 7: 21, 23, 25; 8: 2, etc. [For a man 
 to believe in Christ who died that sinners 
 might, through faith in him, be justified and 
 saved, is to confess himself guilty and lost, 
 and that his hope is not in himself but in the 
 mercy of God. By the gospel man is thus 
 both exalted and abased — exalted as to his 
 nature, but abased as a sinner. From Jew 
 and Gentile alike all glorying is excluded. 
 Each one is asked : who maketh thee to dift'er ? 
 Each believer is assured that even his salva- 
 tion through faith is a gift of God, and is not 
 of himself or of his works, lest he should 
 glory. The gospel teaches no Parkerian doc- 
 trine of self-sufiBciency, but that a Christian's 
 sufiBciency is from God, and that if he glories 
 he must glory in the Lord, (i Cor. i : 2s, 31 ; 2 cor 
 
 3:5; Eph. 2 : 8. 9. ) ] 
 
 28. Therefore we conclude (in Ecvised 
 
 Version, reckon). [The Kevisers retain this 
 'therefore,' which here marks a second infer- 
 ence of the apostle.] Instead of 'therefore,' 
 the reading for [adopted by Westcott and 
 Hort] is preferable. For we reckon instead 
 of being a conclusion from what goes before 
 is rather a reason for what goes before [a con- 
 
Ch. III.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 99 
 
 29 In he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of 
 the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 
 
 30 Seeing il is one (iod, which shall justify the cir- 
 cumcision by faith, and uucircuuicision through faith. 
 
 tied by faith apart from i the works of the law. 
 
 29 Or is God the God of .lews only? Is he not the 
 
 30 God of Gentiles also? Yea, of Gentiles also: if so 
 be that God is one, and he shall justily the circum- 
 cision 2 by faith, and the uucireumcision ■'through 
 faith. 
 
 1 Or, works of law 2 Gr. out of 3 Or, through the faith. 
 
 fimiation of the statement that faith excludes 
 boasting.] Without the deeds of the laAV. 
 
 This does not mean tiiat a man, without the 
 deeds of the law, is justified by faith ; but it 
 means, as it reads, that a man is justified by 
 faith, without the deeds of the law— that is, 
 that the deeds of the law contribute nothing 
 toward his justification. The statement, in- 
 terpreted fairly by the common laws of lan- 
 guage, is not liable to the construction that a 
 man who is justified by faith is under no obli- 
 gation to perform the deeds of the law; but 
 it would perhaps gain some additional secur- 
 ity against such a misconstruction by being 
 translated, "for we reckon that a man is justi- 
 fied by faith, apart from(xwpis) works of law." 
 The same truth is stated, with emphatic reit- 
 eration, in Gal. 2 : 16. [This reckoning here 
 seems to denote a fixed and final decision. 
 On the word 'man' Clirysostom thus re- 
 marks: "He says not 'Jew,' nor 'he that is 
 under law' ; but having enlarged the area of 
 his argument and opened the doors of salva- 
 tion to the world, he says, 'man,' using the 
 name common to the nature." We scarcely 
 need say that the faith of which Paul speaks 
 so much as being essential to salvation was 
 no "dead" faith, but operative, "working 
 through love," and bringing forth all the 
 fruits of righteousness. If we are justified by 
 faith solely, we are not justified by a faith 
 which is or remtiins solitary. Justification is 
 apart from works, but faith is not. Were it 
 otherwise, faith would-be inoperative, dead — 
 in fact, no faith at all. Paul's faith was a 
 deeply seated, a deeply earnest, an intensely 
 active and operative principle, moving his 
 whole being toward Christ and Christian 
 duty. With his whole heart, as we believe, 
 he would have subscribed to the truth of F. 
 W. Robertson's statement that "Faith alone 
 justifies; but not the faith which is alone." 
 jidding simply this, that the faith last spoken 
 of did not deserve the natne of faith. The 
 Confession of Faith adopted by our Puritan 
 Fathers at a synod held at Cambridge, 1648, 
 
 declares that "Ftiith thus receiving and rest- 
 ing on Christ and his righteousness is the 
 alone instrument of justification ; yet it is 
 not alone in the person justified, but is ever 
 accompanied with all other saving graces, 
 and is no dead faith, but worketh by love." 
 According to Paul's doctrinal scheme, be- 
 lievers are created in Christ Jesus for good 
 works, and are to be zealous of good works ; 
 and he exhorts them to be careful to maintain 
 good works, and to be rich in good works. 
 
 (*;ph. 2: 10; Titus 2 ; 14 ; 3:U; lTim.6:18.) Nor did 
 
 the faith which Luther advocated ignore 
 good works. He says: "It is as impossible 
 to separate works from faith as to separate 
 heat and light from fire." Yet much abuse 
 was heaped upon him by his opponents for 
 his translation of this verse: "So now we 
 hold that a man is justified, without the 
 works of the law, only through faith" (a/lein 
 durch den Glauben — sola fide, whence comes 
 the epithet, Solifidians). The meaning is in 
 the text, but a translation did not require its 
 express statement.] 
 
 29, 30. Is he the God of the JeAVs only? 
 is he not also of the Gentiles? [This 
 query is designed to confirm the principle, 
 stated in the last verse, that no man is justified 
 by works of the law. The Gentiles have no 
 such law as the Jews, and if one is justified 
 before God only by works of law, then is God 
 the God of the Jews only. Seeing it is one 
 God, or, as rendered in the Revised Yersion, 
 " If so be that God is one." This supposes a 
 unity of dispensation. See Ellicott on Gal. 
 2:5. The words 'Jews' and 'Gentiles' are 
 without the article in the original, since, as 
 proper names, the Greek does not require it.] 
 The circumcision — and uucireumcision 
 — that is the Jews and the Gentiles. Shall 
 justify. The future is used here, not 
 with reference to the day of judgment, 
 but by a common idiom of most lan- 
 guages, to express a permanent purpose, or 
 habit. The diflference between the expres- 
 sions by faith (or, more literally, from faith) 
 
100 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. III. 
 
 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God | HI Do we then make i the law of none effect ^through 
 forbid : yea, we establish the law. I faith? God forbia; nay, we establish tne law. 
 
 1 Or, law 2 Or, through the faith. 
 
 and through (the) faith,'^ does not seem to have 
 any doctrinal significance. In ver. 28, faith 
 stands in the Greek text without any preposi- 
 tion, but in a form which indicates that it is 
 the instrumental cause, the '^ sine qua non," 
 of justification— the three forms of expression 
 are equivalent. [It is not unnatural for 
 writers to vary the choice of nearly sj'nony- 
 mous words merely for the sake of variety, 
 and this appears to have been often the case 
 with Paul. See Winer, g 50. De Wette, 
 however, makes the/rom denote the objective 
 ground, and through, the subjective medium. 
 In the one case justification is represented, as 
 a result of faith, or resulting from faith, and 
 in the other as resulting by means of faith — 
 fiiith being thus represented as a source and as 
 a means. (Winer, p. 411.) Some have con- 
 jectured that frotn more appropriately refers 
 to the Jews, members of the Commonwealth 
 of Israel, while through relates to the admis- 
 sion of Gentile strangers. Yet froin is used 
 of Gentiles. (9: 30; Gai. 3: 8.) Calviu finds in 
 this interchange of prepositions a delicate 
 irony: " If any one wishes to have a differ- 
 ence made between the Gentile and the Jew, 
 let hiin take this — that the one obtains right- 
 eousness hy faith, and the other through 
 faith," which, in our opinion, would be some- 
 thing like a "quip, or merry turn," which 
 Cowper said could not be found in Paul's 
 writings.] 
 
 31. Do we then make void the law 
 through faith? [This law, according to De 
 Wette (and Mej'er), is "the Mosaic law which 
 demands works." The word "make void" 
 ((toTapyew, the root of which is a — epyos, 7iot work- 
 ing, inoperative, hence, poiverless) is a favorite 
 with Paul, being used in his epistles twenty- 
 five times, and found only twice elsewhere. 
 See also comments on 6:6. For some other 
 si)ecially Pauline words and phrases, see notes 
 on Acts 20 : 35. Paul's doctrine of a right- 
 eousness apart from law, a justification apart 
 from works (see ver. 21, 28), would naturally 
 give rise to the idea that he nullified the law 
 through faith.] The statement we estab- 
 lish the law admits of two explanations. 1. 
 
 We establish or confirm the law by the fore- 
 going doctrine of faith as the indispensable 
 condition of justification, because this doc- 
 trine effectually secures the fulfillment of the 
 law. This truth, constantly affirmed or as- 
 sumed in the Scriptures, is. formally and 
 elaborately yjroved in chapters 6, 7 and 8 of 
 this Epistle. 2. We establish, or confirm the 
 law, by our doctrine of justification by faith, 
 because this way of justification agrees with 
 the teaching of the law — that is, of the Old 
 Testament. ["The principle of justif^'ing 
 faith is pointed out in the law itself." (De 
 Wette.) "Justification by the grace of God 
 through faith is already taught in the law." 
 (Meyer.)] This has already been intimated in 
 ver. 21, " witnessed by the law and the proj)li- 
 ets;" and this the apostle immediately pro- 
 ceeds to show, in the next chapter, from the 
 instances of Abraham and David. We con- 
 clude, therefore, that this latter explanation, 
 as being more in agreement with the context, 
 is what the apostle means by we establish 
 the law. [In illustration of the truth of the 
 apostIe"s assertion. Bishop Wordsworth ad- 
 duces the following considerations — namely, 
 the doctrine of justification is grounded on 
 the testimony of the law that all are under 
 sin; the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was 
 pre-announced by the passovor and other sac- 
 rifices of the law; the law reveals God as a 
 just Judge who needs an adequate propitia- 
 tion for sin; the death of Christ is such a 
 propitiation,; Christ has by his perfect obedi- 
 ence to the law, both in doing and suffering, 
 established its moral dignity, etc., etc. Ac- 
 cording to Godet, Paul has shown that the 
 teaching opposite to his would overturn the 
 law "by keeping up the vainglory of man 
 which the law was meant to destroy, and by 
 violating monotheism on which it is based." 
 Calvin says: "Where there is a coming to 
 Christ there is first found in him the perfect 
 righteousness of the law, which becomes ours 
 bj' imputation, and then there is sanctification, 
 by which our hearts are prepared to keep the 
 law, which, indeed, is imperfectly done — but 
 there is an aiming at the work. Similar is 
 
 1 The article before the second faith, Prof. Boise says, 
 "seems to point to the lact that the word had just been 
 
 mentioned, and that the faith was the same in each 
 case."— (F.) 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 101 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 WHAT shall we say then that Abraham our father, 
 as pertaining to the tiesh, hath found? 
 2 For if Abraham were jiislitieil by works, he hath 
 whereof to glory ; but not before Ciod. 
 
 1 What then shall we say ' that Abraham, 6ur fore- 
 
 2 father 2 hath found according to thetlesh? lor if 
 Abraham was justified ^by works, he hath whereof 
 
 1 Some ancient amhori Ilea read o/ 46i-o7*am, our forefather according to thejleaht 2, Or, according to thejleth, hath found t 
 
 3 Gr. out of. 
 
 the case with ceremonies. . . . Viewed in 
 themselves they are vain and shadowy images, 
 and tiien only do they attain anything real 
 and solid, when their end is regarded. In 
 this, then, consists their chief confirmation 
 when they have obtained their accomplish- 
 ment in Christ."] The expression God for- 
 bid is explained in the note on ver. 4. 
 
 Ch. 4: [Justification by faith tlirough 
 grace, illustrated by examples from the Old 
 Testament Scriptures.] 
 
 1. What shall we say then. What, then, 
 if such be the way of justification, shall we 
 say of the righteous men who lived under the 
 Old Testament Dispensation? What has our 
 forefather Abraham gained by the fleshly rite 
 if justification is by faith? [De Wette gives 
 tliis paraphrase : What, now (if, as ye Jews 
 suppose, all depends upon works of law), shall 
 we say that Abraham has obtained (namely, 
 for his juslilication) according to the flesh? 
 The Jews evidently supposed that Abraham 
 obtained from liis works justification before 
 God, and hence had cause for glorying before 
 God and man. The apostle, in what follows, 
 seems to concede that if Abraham obtained 
 from his own labor aught for justification, 
 he had in this some ground for glorying, but 
 denies that the justification thus supposedly 
 obtained furnished any ground of glorying 
 before God. and thus, in effect, denies that he 
 was justified by works. Dr. Hodge thinks 
 this chapter would have opened differently if 
 the establishing of tiie law consisted merely 
 in showing that the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 by the examples of Abraham and David, 
 taught the faith method of justification, or 
 justification by grace.] The words as per- 
 taining to the flesh should probably be 
 connected with the verb hath found rather 
 than with the words our father (or, our 
 forefather, as it is in the most ancient manu- 
 scripts). These words, 'as pertaining to the 
 flesh,' would seem superfluous and unmeaning 
 when connected [as in the Canterbury Re- I 
 
 vision] with Abraham, but have a very per- 
 tinent sense' as connected with the verb. 
 'Hath found' is the more literal, but hath 
 gaitied expresses the idea more clearly, and is 
 justified by the use of the same verb in Heb. 
 9 : 1'2, where it is translated "obtained." 
 [The meaning of the Greek expression trans- 
 lated 'as pertaining to the flesh' would be 
 represented more exactly in this place by the 
 phrase, "by way of the flesh," or, "in virtue 
 of the flesh." Compare Matt. 19:3; 1 Cor. 
 3: 10; 2Thess. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1: 9; Rom. 4; 
 16. And ' the flesh ' is here used as equivalent 
 to the natural man, who works by and for 
 himself, and as the antithesis of grace and the 
 spirit of God. "What, then, shall we say 
 that Abraham attained by virtue of the 
 flesh?" (A. H.)] [Westcottand Hort, and 
 the English Revisers in the margin, omit the 
 verb ' hath found.' It should, without doubt, 
 be retained, as the for of the next sentence 
 seems to refer to it or to its answer.] 
 
 2. For if Abraham were justified by 
 works, he hath whereof to glory. There 
 is an appearance of inexactness, or want of 
 perfect congruity, in the use of the tenses 
 here, which does not belong to the original. 
 'If he t<;ere justified by works, he u-ould have 
 whereof to glory' (or ground of boasting), 
 would be the more exact and regular con- 
 struction ; or, 'if he teas justified by works, 
 he has whereof to glory.' This Inst is, in fact, 
 the precise form of the original sentence. 
 [Prof. Stuart thinks the use of the present 
 instead of the imperfect (t'x* with iv) "shows 
 a design on the part of the writer to say, not 
 only that Abraham would have had ground 
 of glorying, in case of perfect obedience, but 
 that the same would have continued down to 
 the then present time."] We naturally expect 
 here an answer to the question of the preced- 
 ing verse, but the apostle seems to have re- 
 garded the true answer, "nothing at all " 'so 
 far as relates to justification), as so plain that 
 it did not need to be stated. The ' for ' assumes 
 this answer : Abraham certainly gained no 
 
102 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 3 For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed 
 God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 
 
 3 to glory: but not toward God. For what saith the 
 scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was 
 
 advantage in respect to his justification, by 
 circumcision or any other work, 'for,' if he 
 had, he would have ground of boasting before 
 God, which he has not. [Godet thinks this 
 verse gives the reason for putting the above 
 question. The phrase 'by works' throws 
 light on the phrase, 'pertaining to the flesh.' 
 These 'works' pertain to the flesh, since they 
 proceed not from the spirit or the spiritual 
 element of faith. The reference to circum- 
 cision is excluded by the plural ' works.' (De 
 Wette.)] 
 
 ' Whereof to glory.' The noun so translated 
 is only another form of the same word trans- 
 lated boasting in chapter 3 : 27. There the act 
 of boasting is meant; here it is matter of 
 boasting, or something to boast of. The apos- 
 tle carefully observes the nice distinction be- 
 tween the two forms of the word. [The final 
 clause but not before God is regarded by 
 interpreters as one of special difficulty. It is 
 understood by the Greek expositors — Chrys- 
 ostom, CEcumenius, Theophylact, and Theo- 
 doret — as meaning that if Abraham had per- 
 formed all the good works required by the 
 law, he would have had ground for glorying 
 in himself or in his own righteousness, but not 
 in respect to God or what God had done for 
 him. This interpretation is adopted by Meyer 
 and Tholuck, but opposed by Philippi, on the 
 ground that "this was precisely what the 
 .Jews maintained." But did the Jews main- 
 tain this? Did they not think themselves to 
 be the favorites of heaven, and believe that 
 God had given them the law by which they 
 might work out their own salvation? Did 
 they not think that they had ground for 
 boasting in respect to God, even though they 
 supposed themselves to be justified by works? 
 .Just this Paul denies. If Abraham was jus- 
 tified by works, he has ground for boasting in 
 respect to himself, but not in respect to God. 
 (A. H.)] [Meyer, as above intimated, fol- 
 lows the interpretation of the Greek exposi- 
 tors, thus: "Assuming that Abraham has 
 been justified by works, he has cause for 
 boasting— namely, that he has attained right- 
 eousness through his actions; but he has not 
 this ground of boasting with respect to God 
 (as if his justification were the divine act), 
 since, in the case supposed, it is not God to 
 
 whom he owes the justification, but, on the 
 contrary, he has himself earned it." The Five 
 Clergymen put a period after boasting, and 
 give this rendering : ' But he hath none before 
 God: for what saith the Scripture?'] 
 
 3. For what saith the Scripture? 
 [The interrogative form gives force and vigor 
 to the passage cited. (lO: 8; u: 4.) The 'for' 
 here confirms the last clause of ver. 2. That 
 he has no ground to boast is certain; 'for' 
 the Scripture says, etc. The passage here 
 quoted is found in Gen. 15 : 6. The Scrip- 
 ture says that faith, and not works, was 
 counted to Abraham for righteousness. This 
 passage (found for substance in 1 Mace. 
 2 : 52) is cited almost verbatim from the 
 Septuagint. See also Gal. 3: 6. In the 
 Hebrew it reads: 'And he (Jehovah) counted 
 it to him for righteousnes.' Even in Abra- 
 ham's believing God, as Meyer remarks, Paul 
 has rightly discerned nothing substantially 
 difl"erent from the Christian faith, since his 
 faith had reference to the AWiuq promise, and 
 indeed, to the promise which he recognized as 
 that which embraced in it the future Messiah. 
 (jobn8;56.) "Faith," says Philippi, "does 
 not justify man before God on account of its 
 subjective character, a view which must be 
 described as falling back to the legal stand- 
 point, but it justifies man only on account of 
 its object and import, which is no other than 
 Christ, or God's forgiving grace in Christ. 
 Even Abraham knew and in faith embraced 
 the promise of this grace (see John 8: 56), 
 and this faith was reckoned to him for right- 
 eousness." " It (faith) means believing, not, 
 however, as a virtuous exercise of the mind, 
 which God consented to accept instead of per- 
 fect obedience, but as having respect to the 
 promised Messiah, and so to his righteousness 
 as the ground of acceptance." (Andrew 
 Fuller.) 
 
 "The meaning of the phrase: counted for 
 righteousness, or to accept and treat as right- 
 eous, is here very plain. It signifies gratui- 
 tous or unmerited justification on the grounds 
 already explained. By the apostle's own 
 explanation in the context, this justification 
 is one which is 'according to grace' (ver. 24) 
 and 'apart from works.' (ver. e). While 
 faith, or belief, then, is absolutely necessary 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 103 
 
 4 Now to him that workelh is the reward uot reck- 
 oned of graco, but of debt. 
 
 5 Hut to him tliat worktth not, but believeth on him 
 that jusiifleth the ungodly, his faith is counted for 
 righleousuess. 
 
 4 reckoned unto liini for righteousness. Now to him 
 that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of 
 
 5 grace, but as of debt. Hut to him that worketli not, 
 but believeth on him that justilieib the ungodly, his 
 
 in order to prepare a man to become the 
 proper subject of the gratuitous justification 
 which tlie gospel proffers; while without faith 
 he cannot be justified ; yet faith is not in any 
 legal sense the meritorious ground of justifi- 
 cation, nor does the promise attached to it 
 imply a reward of merit, but only of grace." 
 (Prof. Stuart.)] Abraham showed his faith 
 in God by leaving his own country at God's 
 command; by believing God's promise, that he 
 should have a numerous posterity, when the 
 cliild of promise was not born, though he was 
 about a hundred years old ; and by giving that 
 promised child as a sacrifice at the command 
 of God. Compare Heb. 11 : 8, 9, 12, 17-19. 
 The apostle selects the second of the above 
 instances for particular development in the 
 context, (ver. i7-i2) ; and, indeed, this was tlie 
 exemplification of Abraham's faith specially 
 referred to in the passage of Genesis, which 
 he quotes. It was counted unto him for 
 ri?;hteousness : 'it' — that is, his believing 
 God, his faith. ["If the gosjjcl of St. 
 JMatthew fitly opens the whole evangelical 
 rec<jrd by connecting it with the former Scrip- 
 tures, so also for the same reason does this 
 great Epistle open the doctrinal series: for 
 what the one does in respect of fact the other 
 does in respect of doctrine, justifying through- 
 out the intimation with which it opens, that 
 the gospel will here be treated as that ' which 
 God had promised before by his prophets in 
 the Holy Scriptures.' In the constant refer- 
 ences and in the whole line of argument, we 
 see the illustrious genealogy and lineal descent 
 of the Christian doctrine of justification by 
 faith, traced, like that of Jesus himself, from 
 Abraham and David, and vindicated by the 
 witness of the Law and the Prophets; so that we 
 enter on the final exposition of the truth with 
 a settled sense that in all the successive stages 
 of its revelation the truth has still been one." 
 (Bernard's "Progress of Doctrine in the New 
 Testament," p. 167.) DeWette says : "When 
 tlie apostle in this way unites the climax of! 
 religious development with the historical i 
 
 point of beginning — for the developing series 
 commenced witii Abraham — he gives evidence 
 of great historical insight.''] 
 
 4. To confirm what he had already said 
 in regard to Abraham's justification, he 
 now shows that faith excludes works, as a 
 ground of justification, inasmuch as they 
 proceed from antagonistic principles, the for- 
 mer coming under the principle of grace 
 [favor freely shown to the undeserving], an^l 
 the latter under the principle of merit. It is 
 no favor to give a man what he has earned 
 or deserved. Now to him that worketh 
 [Luther: "is occupied with workc"] — that is, 
 to him that earns wages by work. [The sup- 
 position here is that he does his work per- 
 fectly.] Is the reward not reckoned of 
 grace (that is, as a favor) but of (or, is paid 
 as a) debt. ['The reward' ; as the noun has 
 here the article, it is equivalent to the de- 
 served reward. The word for debt is used by 
 Paul onl3' here. There is a sense in which it 
 could be said that God would not owe us any- 
 thing, even if we had done all "the thing.^ 
 that were commanded." (Luken:io.) It is be- 
 cause we are all undeserving, and can strictly 
 claim nothing as a debt, that God in his 
 sovereignty can justly give to the one hour 
 laborer the same as to him who has borne the 
 burden and heat of the day. (Matt. 20 : 12.)' "The 
 merit of a creature before the Creator is pac- 
 tional. It is founded upon a promise or 
 covenant, and not upon the original relation 
 between the finiteand thelnfinite." (Shedd.)] 
 
 5. But to him that worketh not — that 
 is, that does not earn anything by working 
 [does not merit anj-thing by full and perfect 
 obedience, consequentlj^, does not work for 
 hire or reward. " Bj' 'working not,' the 
 apostle did not mean a wicked inaction, but 
 a renunciation of works as the ground of 
 acceptance with God." (A. Fuller.)2 The 
 un.godly [literally, 'the non-worshiper,' but 
 used here in a more general sense], the nat- 
 ural state of all men, even Abraham not 
 excepted. Compare 5:6. It is utterly im- 
 
 > Trench remarks that this parable of the laborers in the vineyard " mipht justly be entitled : On the nature 
 of rewards in the kingdom of God— the whole finding an instructive commentary in Rom. 4: 1-4."— (F.) 
 * The apostle, referring here to a supposed class, uses the subjective negative fi>}. 
 
104 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 possible to combine faith and works, grace 
 and merit, as joint and co-ordinate conditions 
 of salvation. They will not amalgamate. 
 Compare 11 : 6. On the Komish (or any 
 other) theory of justification by inwrought 
 righteousness, there can be no intelligent 
 ground of assurance of salvation for any man 
 in this world. [On the word 'ungodly,' 
 Meyer thus remarks: "It is not even to be 
 weakened as equivalent to unrighteous, but 
 has been purposely selected (compare 5: 6) 
 in order to set forth the saving power of faith 
 by as strong a contrast as possible to ' him 
 that justifieth.' " The 'justifieth' explains 
 the ' righteousness ' which God imparts to 
 the penitent believer. Whea God justifies 
 an ungodly man, he does not justify his 
 ungodly deeds, but he forgives him, being 
 penitent, acquits him of deserved punish- 
 ment, and restores him to favor. Though 
 "justification respects a man as ungodly " 
 (Edwards), yet it cannot be truly said that 
 God justifies the ungodly man as such or re- 
 maining such, only so far as a penitent be- 
 liever may in himself ever be regarded as sin- 
 ful and deserving of condemnation. Jehovah 
 will not justify the wicked (ex. 23; 7) — that is, 
 those who are determinedly such. Fuller 
 says : " Saving faith, or faith that worketh by 
 love, is necessary to justification, not as being 
 the ground of our acceptance with God, not 
 as a virtue of which justification is the re- 
 ward, but as that without which we could 
 not be united to a living Redeemer." And 
 again: "Faith justifies not in respect of the 
 act of believing, but of the righteousness on 
 which it terminates." Prof. Stuart rightly 
 enough remarks that "in all cases of logizo- 
 mni (to reckon or impute) as applied to 
 Abraham's faith, or that of others wlio follow 
 his example, it is only his or their own faith 
 which is counted for righteousness." But 
 may we not find a gratuitous imputntion in 
 Abraham's case and in ours, in that a faith 
 which viewed subjectively was not in the 
 sight of God a perfect righteousness, was yet 
 through grace and on account of the obj.ect 
 of faith accepted for righteousness? Even 
 the Christian's faith, which is in essence only 
 the renunciation of all merit, and is but im- 
 
 perfect at best, is not in itself meritorious; 
 and if this faith is reckoned for righteousness 
 the objective ground of such gracious impu- 
 tation is the righteousness of Christ. See 
 Meyer's note on 4: 4, 5.' 
 
 "It is not in any wise on account of any 
 excellency or value there is in faith that it 
 appears in the sight of God a meet thing that 
 he that believes should have this benefit of 
 Christ assigned to him, but purely from the 
 relation faith has to the person in whom this 
 benefit is to be had, or as it unites to that 
 Mediator in and by whom we are justified.'' 
 (Edwards' "Justification by Faith Alone.") 
 It is said that the parallel between Abraham 
 and the Christian believer is not complete, 
 faith being imputed to Abraham for right- 
 eousness; while Christ's righteousness — or, as 
 Canon Evans of the "Bible Commentary" 
 (1 Cor. 1:30) would have it, the "righteousness 
 of God the Father" — is imputed to the peni- 
 tent sinner by faith. Again, if the righteous- 
 ness of God is "61/ faith," then faith itself 
 cannot be that righteousness. We answer 
 that this faith, nevertheless, can through 
 grace, and in view of Christ's merits, be reck- 
 oned for righteousness. And if faith in Christ 
 as a condition (not the ground) of justification 
 makes us righteous in God's sight, it is no 
 contradiction to say that faith is reckoned to us 
 for righteousness, and that this righteousness 
 becomes ours through faith. Though "the 
 Bible never says 'faith justifies' " (Schaff), yet 
 we have the substantial equivalent of this, not 
 only in the phrase, justified by faith, but in 
 the expression, faith is reckoned for righteous- 
 ness, which means that we are regarded and 
 treated as righteous through faith in the Re- 
 deemer. See in 4:5, 6, 9, 11, the frequent 
 interchange of the expression, the imputation 
 of faith for righteousness, and the imputation 
 of righteousness to the believer. To reckon 
 one's faith for righteousness is but another 
 expression for imputing righteousness accord- 
 ing to grace and without works (*:5, e, le); and 
 the imputing of Christ's righteousness to the 
 believer simply denotes that "his perfect obe- 
 dience is reckoned to our account, so that we 
 have the benefit of it as though we performed 
 it ourselves." (Edwards.) The faith which 
 
 1 In Meyer's opinion, it is our subjective faith which I always remains the meritorious cause to which we are 
 is-iniputed for righteousness, yet "The merit of Christ I indebted for the imputation of our faith."— (F.) 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 105 
 
 is reckoned for righteousness unites us to 
 Christ, puts us, as it were, in Christ, God's 
 well-beloved Son, so that God looks upon us, 
 not as in our naked selves, but as in Christ, 
 and thus regards us as sons and as righteous 
 in and on account of Christ's righteousness. 
 Philippi says: "The imputation of faith is 
 of itself identical with the imputation of right- 
 eousness by grace. With Paul faith is always 
 in the act of justification, the opposite of works 
 and the correlative notion to grace. (ii:6.) 
 Hence, witli good reason, the evangelical 
 church has explained the expression, 'faith is 
 reckoned as righteousness'— seeing that this is 
 done by grace for the sake of Christ's right- 
 eouness— as equivalent to the proposition : 
 'Christ's righteousness is reckoned to the 
 believer as righteousness.' " Christ thus be- 
 comes the end or aim of the law for righteous- 
 ness to the believer, and in him we become 
 the righteousness of God. But the Scriptures 
 do not in explicit phrase speak of imputing 
 Christ's righteousness to the believer, and 
 probably nearly all that is meant by this 
 expression is that we, believing and trusting 
 in him, are justified and saved through and 
 on the ground of the merits of his righteous- 
 ness. "Impiited righteousness is Christ's 
 righteousness in the sense that it is the fruit 
 and purchase of his work in the flesh." 
 (Quotation in "Bible Commentary.") Of 
 course, the righteousness of Christ cannot be 
 actually communicated to us. It is, as Tuck- 
 ney remarks, "proper to himself, and is as 
 inseparable from him and as incommunicable 
 to others as any other attribute of a thing or 
 its essence itself." When Christ was made 
 sin for us, he suffered for our transgressions, 
 and was himself treated as a transgressor, but 
 was not himself a sinner. He died the just 
 for the unjust. "Debts are transferable, but 
 crimes are not." (A. Fuller.) So by our 
 union with Christ, and by virtue of his right- 
 eousness, we, though imperfect,' are accepted 
 as righteous. In Christ "we are 'made right- 
 eousness,' as if we had not sinned at all." 
 (Charnock.) "The righteousness is still in 
 
 Christ, not in us, even when we are made 
 partakers of the benefit of it." (Bunyan. ) 
 "Obedience itself may be and is imputed, 
 while its effects only are imparled and conse- 
 quently received." (A. Fuller.)' Inregardto 
 the question, whether the Scriptures impute 
 that to a person which he himself does not 
 possess, we will quote Prof Cremer's remarks 
 relating to the justification of Abraham. In 
 the expression 'to impute for,' etc., as here 
 used, "the actual fact," he says, "is not 
 taken into account ; the opposite rather is as- 
 sumed, and according to this is the relation- 
 ship or treatment regulated. That is trans- 
 ferred to the subject in question and imputed 
 to him, which in and for itself does not belong 
 to him; .... something is imputed to the 
 person pe7- subsiitidionem. The object in 
 question supplies the place of that for which 
 it answers; it is substituted for it. That this 
 is the apostle's thought is clear from Kom. 4 : 
 4, where the imputing of ver. 3 is distinctly 
 described as imputing according to grace." 
 If this were not an imputing according to 
 grace, a reckoning by substitution, the state- 
 ment at the end should have been : His right- 
 eousness was imputed, etc. But faith is now 
 put in the place of righteousness. Compare 
 ver. 6, 'to whom God imputeth the righteous- 
 ness without works,' which, according to ver. 
 8, denotes the forgiveness of sins. Thus this 
 imputing by substitution, or according to 
 grace, is a technical term for the justifying 
 act of God." Similarly, Dr. Weiss: "God 
 reserves it to himself to appoint a condition 
 under which he justifies the sinner. This con- 
 dition is faith. . . . Accordingly, the act of 
 justification can also be described as that faith 
 is reckoned by God as righteousness. This is 
 a pure act of divine grace, for whatever faith 
 may be, it is by no means righteousness in the 
 original sense (in the sense of fulfilling the 
 law), and God, accordingly, out of grace 
 reckons something for righteousness which is 
 not righteousness in itself, and on the ground 
 of which he did not, therefore, need to jus- 
 tify:"] 
 
 » See Andrew Fuller's " Three Conversations [between 
 'Peter, James, and John' (Booth, Fuller, and Ryland)] 
 on Imputation, Substitution, and Particular Redemp- 
 tion."— (F.) 
 
 »As Prof. Shedd remarks: We never read of sin 
 
 being imputed to men gratuitously, by way of favor, 
 without works, or according to God's good pleasure. 
 "The imputation of sin, both original and actual, is 
 according to debt only." So eternal life is a free gift , but 
 eternal death is " wages."— (F.) 
 
106 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 6 Even as David also descriljeth the blesseduess of 
 the man, uiito whom (jod imputeth righteousuess with- 
 out works, 
 
 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are for- 
 given, and whose sins are covered. 
 
 8 Blessed U the man to whom the Lord will not 
 impute siu. 
 
 6 faith is reckoned for righteousness. Even as David 
 also pronouuceth blessing upon the man. unto whom 
 God reckoneth righteousuess apart from woiks, 
 
 7 Hayiny, 
 
 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, 
 And whose sius are covered. 
 
 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not 
 
 reckon sin. 
 
 6. Even as David also. The case of 
 David, too, though not strictly co-ordinate 
 with that of Abraham, as there is no mention 
 made of faith, is pertinent in this respect, that 
 David speaks of free remission, which is tanta- 
 mount to justification ; for there is no nega- 
 tive and neutral position midway between 
 condemnation and jur-tification. ["The appeal 
 to David next after Abraham was peculiarly 
 apposite, because Christ was and was called 
 a Son of David, and to David next to Abra- 
 ham the most definite promise of the Messiah 
 had been given." (Philippi.)] Describeth 
 the blesseduess of the man. More liter- 
 ally, speaks, or projiounces, the felicitation of 
 the man. ["Even as David also declareth 
 the man blessed." ("The Five Clergymen.")] 
 The verb here used hardly means to describe: 
 it is the word commonly translated "to say," 
 the same that is used in ver. 3: " what saith 
 the Scripture." Neither is the noun used 
 here the one properly equivalent to our word 
 "blessedness"; instead of being derived di- 
 rectly from the adjective so often translated 
 "blessed" or "happy," it is derived from it 
 indirectly, through an intermediate verb, 
 which means "to felicitate," or "pronounce 
 happy." This is the verb which in Luke 1 : 
 48 is translated "to call blessed," and in 
 James 5: 11 "to count happy." These are 
 the only places in the New Testament where 
 it is used; and the noun here translated 
 'blessedness,' like the English word, is used 
 in only one other place besides ver. 6 and 9 
 of this chapter — namely, in Gal. 4: 15. The 
 meaning, then, is not to describe the blessed- 
 ness, but to utter or pronounce the felicita- 
 tion, or the happiness; and this is precisely 
 what David does in the passage quoted. Unto 
 whom God imputeth righteousness with- 
 out works. This imputation of 'righteous- 
 
 ness without works ' [that is, without the merit 
 of works], though not expressed in the passage 
 quoted, is clearly implied; for free forgive- 
 ness, and non-imputation of sin, is gratuitous 
 justification. [Paul has nowhere used the 
 precise phrase: God imputes to us the right- 
 eousness of Christ apart from works, but it 
 amounts to the same thing when he speaks of 
 the righteousness of God which shall be ours 
 through faith in Jesus Christ; when he 
 asserts that we are justified gratuitously and 
 by grace through the redemption which is in 
 Christ Jesus; that "justification of life" is 
 through the righteous act and obedience of 
 the second Adam; that our faith in Christ, 
 through which we are justified, is imputed to 
 us for righteousness; that Christ is the end of 
 the law for righteousness; that he is made 
 unto us righteousness ; and that we become 
 the righteousness of God in him. See 1 Cor. 
 1: 30; 2 Cor. 5: 21. Meyer gives this as the 
 equivalent of the last two references — namelj', 
 "by means of faith we, through the death of 
 Christ, have been justified before God," and 
 "In his atoning death our justification is 
 grounded." This we may regard as imputed 
 righteousness.] 
 
 7, 8. Blessed are they, etc. [More liter- 
 ally: happy (are the\') whose iniquities 
 are (were) forgiven, and whose sins 
 are (were) covered.] The forgiveness is 
 here represented as prior to and causative of 
 the happiness experienced.^ These expres- 
 sions are found in Ps. 32: 1, 2. Our English 
 translation of the Psalm agrees more exactly 
 with the Hebrew than the version of the 
 Seventy here [exactly] quoted does, in that 
 it employs, like the Hebrew, three diflTerent 
 words to express sin. In this triple felicita- 
 tion, sin is viewed as a wrong against God 
 (transgression) which needs to \)G^ forgiven, 
 
 1 The Revised Version renders both verbs in the 
 present tense, as though they were gnomic aorists. 
 The intensive double negative, ov \i.i\, is generally used, 
 as here, with the subjunctive aorist, and regularly re- 
 
 fers to the future, to what in no wise will or should take 
 place. (Winer, p. 505.) The Greek subjunctive has in 
 itself a look toward the future. — (F.) 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 107 
 
 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision 
 oh///, or iij)ou the uncirciiiDcision also? lor we say that 
 faith was reclconcd to Abrahaiu for righteousness. 
 
 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in cir- 
 cumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumci- 
 sion, but in uncircumcisiuu. 
 
 11 And be received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
 
 9 Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circum- 
 cision, or ui)ijn the uncircumcision also? lor we say, 
 To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righleous- 
 
 10 ness. How then was it reckoned? when he was in 
 circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circuni- 
 
 U cisiou, but in uncircumcision: and he received ihe 
 sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of 
 
 as a loathsome thing (sin) which needs to he 
 covered,^ and as a crime (iniquit3-) which 
 needs to be avenged unless some satisfaction 
 is rendered to justice; or, to express substan- 
 tially the same distinctions more brieflj', sin 
 is represented as an offense against Gods 
 majesty, his purity, and his justice. This 
 coiifirniiition of the law through faith (3: si), 
 in ver. 1-8, derives peculiar force from the 
 cliaracter of the two persons whom the apos- 
 tle selects as illustrations. Abraham was the 
 great progenitor of their race, whom they 
 proudly called their father, and on whom 
 their own Scriptures had bestowed the pecu- 
 liar honor of being styled 'the friend of God.' 
 (a chron. 20: 7; isa. 41: 8.) Compare James 2: 23. 
 David was their mighty king, the most dis- 
 tinguislied ancestor and type of the Messiah, 
 t!ie man after God's own heart, (i sam.is: it.) 
 Compare Acts 13: 22. If these two most re- 
 nowned of their ancestors, who had so much 
 to glory of, renounced all pretense of merit 
 by works, and were justified before God 
 solely by faith, what higher confirmation of 
 the apostle's doctrine could be needed? Surely 
 they could not claim to surpass these worthies 
 in merit, nor hope to succeed where these 
 liad failed. [In these words of David we 
 have, as Godet remarks, the negative side of 
 justification, the evil which it removes; while 
 in regard to Abraham it was only the positive 
 side which was under treatment, the blessing 
 it confers. Thus it is that the two pass^iges 
 complete one another.] 
 
 9. Cometh this blessedness (or, felici- 
 tnfinn) then, etc. [An inference from ver. 
 3-9 in the form of an inquiry.] The apostle 
 blends the two examples intimately together, 
 and with good reasons, for Abraham was un- 
 questionably included in the blessing pro- 
 nounced by David, and David was no loss 
 unquestionablj' included among those justified 
 by faith apart from works. Yet as the case 
 of Abraham was best adapted to the apostle's 
 purpose, partly on account of the form of 
 
 expression here again quoted, and partly on 
 account of the date of his circumcision, he 
 selects the example of Abraham for fuller 
 development in what follows. It will be ob- 
 served that the words 'cometh' and 'only' 
 are supplied by the translators. The simple 
 verb is might answer instead of the first [but 
 the "is pronounced" of the Ilevised Version 
 is still better; see ver. 6], and the second is 
 clearly implied in the word 'also' after 'un- 
 circumcision.' For we say. Tliis expression 
 implies an aflBrmative answer to the last clause 
 of the question — "yes, upon the uncircum- 
 cision, also" — as is fully expressed in the 
 similar case in 3:29. Thus the 'for' intro- 
 duces the proof of that implied afiBrmative. 
 [We say that faith. The article is connected 
 with 'faith ' in the Greek, and is here equiva- 
 lent to his faith.] 
 
 10. How Avas it then reckoned? In 
 what condition, then, was he when it was 
 so reckoned, circumcised or uncircumcised? 
 From Gen. 15:6; 16:1-4, 16, it appears that 
 Abraham was said to have been justified by 
 faith some months, at least, before the birth 
 of Ishmael, and that he was eighty-six j'ears 
 old when Ishmael was born ; and from Gen. 
 17:24, that he was ninety-nine years old when 
 he was circumcised. His "faith was reckoned 
 to him for righteousness," therefore at least 
 thirteen or fourteen years ["perhaps as much 
 as twenty-five" (Alford)] before he received 
 the sign of circumcision. ["Circumcision was 
 so little the ground of justification that it was 
 rather the consequence of it." (De Wette.) 
 "Abraham's righteousness through faith was 
 attained when as yet there was no distinction 
 between circumcised and uncircumcised, and 
 to this mode of becoming just before God, 
 independent of external conditions, Christi- 
 anity, by its righteousness from faith, leads 
 back again and continues it." (Me3'er.)] 
 
 11. The sign of circumcision. This is 
 what is called the genitive of apposition, when 
 two words thus connected bv 'of relate to 
 
 1 In the Old Testament GJod is often spoken of as 
 covering sins, but this (quotation) is the only instance 
 mentioned in the New Testament. Augustine says: 
 
 " If God covere<l sins he was unwilling to observe 
 them, and if unwilling to observe he was unwilling 
 to punish."— (F.) 
 
108 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being | the faith which he had while he was in uncircumci- 
 
 the same thing: He received circumcision as 
 a sign. See other examples of the same nature 
 in 2 Cor. 1 : 22 ; 5:5; Eph. 6 : 14, etc. [Meyer 
 thinl^s that with this sense the word 'sign' 
 should have the article. His interpretation 
 is: "A sign which took place through cir- 
 cumcision," the genitive defining the sign 
 more precisely. Winer and De AVette regard 
 it as simply genitive of apposition, like the 
 phrase : Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. 
 (2 Peter 2: 6.) On the absence of the article be- 
 fore the word 'sign,' see 2:6.] A seal of 
 the righteousness of the faith. Setting 
 the seal to a documei.t is the final act of its 
 confirmation. So circumcision is represented 
 as a token or seal of God's covenant with 
 Abraham. (Gen. i7:ii.) [The word seal in con- 
 nection with circumcision is used by Paul 
 alone, and only in- this place. In Genesis, 
 circumcision is called the token of the cove- 
 nant between God and Abraham. Kegarded 
 as a "seal," it seems designed to certify the 
 reality and worth of Abraham's faifrh-right- 
 eousness. It has nothing to do directly with 
 attesting or confirming the righteousness of 
 the faith of any other individual. If every 
 circumcised Jew who has lived from the days 
 of Abraham until the present time were desti- 
 tute of the righteousness of faith, still the sign 
 they bore in their flesh would be a "seal of 
 the righteousness of the faith which Abraham 
 had while he was in uncircumcision." Dr. 
 Hodge says that "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 
 membersliip." "We grant that this argument 
 from circumcision will ever be the principal 
 one for infant baptism. But how silent the 
 apostle is as to the virtual transference of this 
 chief rite of Judaism into the pale of Christi- 
 anity ! Was it because of the severity of his 
 contest with Jewish legalism, which specially 
 centred itself around this rite? Yet how 
 easily he might have allayed — certainly to a 
 great extent — the animosities and prejudices 
 of these zealots for circumcision had he at 
 once and plainly assured them that infant 
 baptism, by divine appointment, was to take 
 the place of circumcision. Let us consider, 
 
 for a moment, how in this country infant 
 baptism (of females as well as males) would 
 be paralleled with Jewish circumcision. 
 First, and most essential of all, we must 
 have an eminently pious forefather — a right- 
 eous, national founder. We have a Wash- 
 ington, who was, at least, remarkable for liis 
 unselfishness and his integrity, willing to be- 
 come an humble, private citizen after winning 
 the laurels of a great conqueror, which would 
 seemingly entitle him to become the nation's 
 perpetual dictator. God, for his great integ- 
 rity, makes a special covenant with him and 
 with his people, assuring him that he should 
 be the father of a mighty nation, and that 
 He would be in a special manner a God to 
 him and to them forever. In token of this 
 covenant, he bids Washington baptize him- 
 self, and all the children he might have, and 
 all his slaves, and also gives command that 
 henceforth every infant born ,in the nation 
 should be baptized on the eighth day after 
 its birth, and that every immigrant who 
 wished to become an American citizen 
 should also be baptized ; and, finally, that 
 every unbaptized person throughout the land 
 in all coming generations should be cut off 
 from his (or her) people. This would be cir- 
 cumcision-baptism, and our dutj' as parents 
 in this matter would be very plain. In this 
 kind of baptism we have a "seal" (an invisi- 
 ble one, however) of the Tightness of the in- 
 tegrity of Washington before he was baptized, 
 and every citizen of this country-, though he 
 be a traitor at heart, yet bears this (invisible) 
 seal of the uprightness of Washington. But 
 is such a national church (?) as this the model 
 for a church of Christ? See further on this 
 subject, chapter 26 of the writer's "Studies 
 on Baptism;" also Dr. Arnold's excellent 
 remarks in Appendix A of this volume.] 
 Which he had yet being uncircumcised. 
 The pronoun 'which' here (standing for the 
 equally ambiguous Greek article) may refer 
 to either of the words 'faith 'or 'righttous- 
 ness.' The former reference is' the more 
 natural, and seems to be confirmed hy the 
 intimate connection between faith and uncir- 
 cumcision in the following clause, and also in 
 the next verse. But if the pronoun (or, in 
 Greek, the article) be referred to the word 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 109 
 
 uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them 
 that bulieve, though they be not circumcised; that 
 righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 
 
 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are 
 not of the circumcision only, but who also walk iu the 
 Steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which ke 
 had being yet uncircumcised. 
 
 sion : that he might be the father of all them that l)e- 
 lieve, though they be in uncircumcision, that right- 
 
 12 eousness might be reckoned unto tlieui ; and the 
 father of circumcision to them who not only are of 
 the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of 
 that faith of our father Abraham which he had iu 
 
 13 uncircumcision. For not t through the law was the 
 
 1 Or, through law. 
 
 'righteousness,' which Alford prefers, as more 
 relevant to the apostle's argument, then the 
 article before the word 'faith' should be can- 
 celed, and we should read : A seal of the 
 righteousness of faith [equivalent here to 
 faith righteousness] which he had yet being 
 uncircntncised. The former construction (de- 
 fended by De "Wette and Me^'er) is, however, 
 preferred. That he might be the father, 
 etc. [In order that he might be, etc. The 
 present infinitive, in order to be, or, to his 
 being, is best rendered by the auxiliary 
 'miglit,' though the present, ' may be' would 
 well express its f^rce. Prof. Boise remarks 
 that the placing the subject directly after the 
 infinitive instead of before it is especially 
 frequent in the New Testament. (Ecumenius 
 observes that "as those in uncircumcision 
 have not Abraham for their father, for the 
 sole reason that he believed in an uncircum- 
 cised state, unless they are also imitators of 
 his faith, so neither without this condition 
 shall they of the circumcision have him for 
 their father from the mere circumstance of 
 ]i is having been circumcised."] The fact that 
 Abraham was declared to be justified by faith 
 before he was circumcised gives believing 
 Gentiles an equal title with believing Jews to 
 be called his children, and to inherit, as his 
 spiritual heirs, justification by faith. [The 
 full force of the original is: Abraham received 
 this sign and seal, in order that (by divine 
 arrangement and purpose) he might be the 
 father of all who believe through (in a state 
 of) uncircumcision. Compare 2:27. The 
 final 'that' is probably to be connected with 
 
 even among the Jews (1 Mace. 2:52), 'Philo 
 de Abrahanio.' "] 
 
 12. AntI {that he might he, is to be sujiplied 
 from ver. 11) the father of circumcision 
 
 (not to all the circumcised, but only) to them 
 who are not of the circumcision only, but 
 who also walk in the steps of that faith of 
 our father .\braham, which he had being 
 yet uncircumcised. All seems plain here; 
 but there is a grammatical diiEculty in the 
 original, arising from the article preceding the 
 participle in the clause translated, 'but who 
 also walk,' etc. We should be obliged, in strict 
 accurac\% to translate as follows : to them who 
 are not of the circumcision only, but also to 
 them\i\\o walk, etc. Some meet this diflSculty 
 by saying that Paul wrote inaccurately here 
 through negligence, others bj' supposing that 
 the text has been corrupted in transcribing, 
 of which there is' no documentary evidence. 
 We leave the diflSculty with only this remark, 
 that there is no reasonable doubt that our 
 English translation expresses with substantial 
 accurac}-, the apostle's thought.' [Godet 
 thinks to avoid the difficulty by rendering 
 the first article (rois) as a pronoun, and the 
 second as a definite article— thus: those who 
 are not only of the circumcision, but who 
 are also, at the same time the (individuals)' 
 or the walkers, etc. The application of the 
 term walking to moral conduct is quite a pecu- 
 liarity with Paul. See notes on 6 : 4. 'Steps' 
 is in the dative of7inrm., or rule. (Buttmann : 
 manner.) Literally, it reads : those vialking 
 in (or by) the footsteps of the in-imcircumci- 
 sion-fnith of our father Abraham. "Hence." 
 
 believing, thus: Of all them who are believ- j says Godet, "it follows that it is not, properly 
 
 ing, ... in order that righteousness might 
 be reckoned unto them. The spiritual father- 
 hood of Abraham is referred to bj' John the 
 Baptist and by Christ himself. (Matt. .3 : 9; Lakes: 
 8; j,.hn8:39.) The whole lifeof this "father of 
 believers," says Tholuck, "displayed an ex- 
 traordinary strength of faith. . . . On account 
 
 speaking, for the Gentile believers to enter by 
 the gate of the Jews, but for Jewish believers 
 to enter by the gate of the Gentiles." "If 
 these apostolic propositions," says Dr. J. B. 
 Thomas, in his "Mould of Doctrines," p. 82, 
 "be not seen at once clearly to obliterate the 
 foundations of the national, the hereditary, 
 
 <'f this persevering faith, he is highly extolled | and the sacramental theories of the church, it 
 
 1 See Appendix A. 
 
110 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the 
 •world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the 
 law, but lliroiigh the righteousness of faith. 
 
 14 For if tlie}' which are of the law be heirs, faith is 
 made void, aud tlie promise made of none effect. 
 
 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law 
 is, there is no transgression. 
 
 promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should 
 be heir of tlie world, but through the righteous- 
 
 14 ness of faith. P'or if they who are of the law be 
 heirs, faitli is made void, and the promise is made 
 
 15 of none effect ; for the law worketh wrath ; but 
 
 would be vain to seek further to elaborate or 
 emphasize them."] 
 
 13. If those who believe are Abraham's 
 seed, then his promised inheritance is theirs. 
 The promise, that he should be the heir 
 of the world. We do not read any explicit 
 promise of this sort, as given either to Abra- 
 ham or to his seed. For 'the heir of the 
 world ' is too broad an expression to be limited 
 to the land of Canaan ; and, besides this, the 
 land of Canaan was never promised to be- 
 lieving Gentiles, who are here plainly reck- 
 oned as the seed of Abraham. How, then, are 
 Abraham and his seed the promised heirs of 
 the world? It was promised to Abraham, 
 that his seed should be as the stars of heaven 
 (Gen. 15: s) ; that he should be a father of many 
 nations (Qen. i7 : 5) ; that in him and in his 
 seed all nations should be blessed (Gen. 12 : 3; 
 18:18); believers in Christ are his seed (Rom. 
 4: 11; Gal. 3: 29); and they shall possess all 
 nations, and shall inherit the world (Dan. 7: 
 27; Matt. 5: 5; 1 Cor. 3: 22); again, Christ is pre- 
 eminently the seed of Abraham (oai. s: le) ; 
 he shall possess all the world (ps. 2; 7, 8; Dan. 
 7:U;Rev.ii: 15). The promise will be verified, 
 therefore, both figuratively and explicitly, 
 in the dominion of all nations given to be- 
 lievers; and literally and explicitly in the 
 dominion of the world given to Christ. The 
 expression ' heir of the world ' derives pecu- 
 liar emphasis from the fact that among the 
 Hebrews things received by inheritance 
 were alone inalienable; hence the frequency 
 with which any firm and perpetual posses- 
 sion is called an inheritance. [The promise 
 — namelj', that Abraham should be heir of 
 the world was not through the law— that 
 is, it came not through the medium of the 
 law, nor did it rest on the law as its ground. 
 But the promise, like the inheritance, was 
 a gift of grace (Gai.3:i8), and it was made 
 to Abraham through (the medium of) the 
 righteousness of faith. The declaration of 
 
 Abraham's righteousness through faith is re- 
 corded in Gen. 15: 6, but the promise in sub- 
 stance was made to him previously, and was 
 renewed after this time. He had the right- 
 eousness of faith before its declaration was 
 made.^ Philippi thinks that by the use of 
 present tense the inheritance of the world is 
 represented as a present possession to Abra- 
 ham.] 
 
 14. He here makes the supposition which 
 was denied in ver. 13, and shows that its con- 
 sequence would be of such a nature as to 
 confirm that denial. If they which {u-/to) 
 are of the law. [On the force of this of, see 
 2: 8.] If they who rely upon their works 
 are heirs, the covenant of faith is made void, 
 is broken ; faith has been emptied of its signifi- 
 cance, and the promise has been virtually 
 abolished. If the heirship is b^' merit, it can 
 dispense with faith and promise. The apos- 
 tle uses here very fit and forcible words. 
 [How the promise is made of none effect is 
 told, as De "Wette and others think, in the 
 next verse — to wit, "the law which produces 
 wrath excludes grace, and therewith the 
 promise." "With the word 2^'>'omise the 
 apostle always associates the notion of the 
 spontaneous, ?»iconditioned promise of grace." 
 (Philippi.) The inheritance through prom- 
 ise was bestowed graciously, as a free gift. 
 (Gal. 3: 18.) If inheritance is by the law, then, 
 as Godet says, "it is all over at a stroke both 
 with faith and with the promise ; with faith, 
 that is to say, with the hope of that final her- 
 itage, since the realization of that expectation 
 would be bound to a condition which sinful 
 man could not execute, the fulfillment of the 
 law, and since faith would thus be deprived 
 of its object; and next, with the promise 
 itself; for, an impossible condition being 
 attached to it, it would thereby be paralyzed 
 in its eflPects."] 
 
 15. Because the law worketh wrath. 
 The propriety of the reasoning — 'because,' or 
 
 1 The neuter article which heads the clause, 'that he pare ver. 16, 18), thus giving the verb greater promi- 
 Bhould be the heir,' does not properly belong to the i nence. The clause stands in apposition with ^>-owi>. 
 clause as a whole, as iu 8 : 26, but to the iB.luitive (com- | — (F.) 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 Ill 
 
 If. Therefore it is of faith, that it might he by grace; 
 to thecmi the proiuise luiglit be sure to all the seed; 
 not to that ouly which is of the law, but to that also 
 which is of the faith of Abraham ; who is the lather 
 of us all, 
 
 rather/o; — is seen in the natural antithesis 
 between promise and law; the one founded 
 on grace, and the other on justice, the one 
 giving freely, and the other exacting sternly ; 
 so that they mutually exclude eacli other as 
 grounds of inheritance. 'The law worketh 
 ■wrath.' [Of course, then, it cannot confer 
 the inheritance of promise. The law worketh 
 out wratii til rough its transgression, and hence 
 this wrath is not that of man against God, 
 but that of God visited upon man on account 
 of his transgressions.]! For where no law 
 is. [But, instead of 'for,' is the reading 
 adopted by Laciimann, Tischendorf, and Tre- 
 gelies, according to preponderating evidence. 
 The verse will then read: " But where there 
 is no law, neither is there transgression." 
 — A. 11.] There is no transgression. 
 ["Namely, wliicli excites the wratli of God, 
 the Lawgiver." (Meyer.)] We need notsay, 
 with Beza, "the vcufWng oug ht to be, 'where 
 law is, there transgression is' " ; but we may 
 say that this negative axiom implies, in this 
 connection, the corresponding positive. If 
 there vjere no law, there could he no trans- 
 gression; but there is transgression, as all 
 men know, and so the law may be said to 
 work wrath, whicli is inseparably' linked to 
 transgression. [Elsewhere the apostle de- 
 scribes how sin as a principle (ivofiia) is aug- 
 mented into "transgression" by the law, 
 which is the "power of sin." The wrath of 
 God, as stated in 1: 18, seq., is due to the 
 offenses even of the Gentiles who have not 
 the law, but much more heavily must it rest 
 upon those who transgress God's revealed 
 will. "Thus," says Philippi, "the divine 
 wrath and the punishment (xdAaTis) annexed 
 thereto, has its differences of degree."] 
 
 16. Therefore of faith. ['Therefore' 
 (Sia toOto), on account of. This usually has ref- 
 erence to something preceding, here to ver. 
 14, 15, because not from law, therefore from 
 grace. Alford, however, seems to refer it to 
 a reason which follows.] What is the subject 
 here? What is by faith? The inheritance 
 
 where there is no law, neither is there transgression. 
 16 For this cause it is of faitli, that il mii;/ h-^ accuriJiug 
 to grace; to the end that the promise may lie sure 
 to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, 
 but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, 
 
 seems to be the most natural subject. That 
 it might [through the divine i)urp()se] be by 
 grace — wliich it could not be if of works. 
 ['Grace' here denies tiie meritoriousness, not 
 only of works, but of faith. If believing in 
 Christ, or faith in Clirist, is in any sense a 
 work or exercise of the human mind and 
 heart, it is here denied to be the meritorious 
 cause, orground,of our justification. "Faith," 
 says Calvin, "we compare to a vessel; for, 
 unless we come empty with the mouth of our 
 soul open to implore the grace of Christ, we 
 cannot receive Christ. Wlience it may be in- 
 ferred that we do not detract from Christ the 
 power of justifying, when we teach that faith 
 receives him before it receives his righteous- 
 ness. Nevertheless, I cannot admit . . . that 
 faith is Christ; as though an earthen vessel 
 were a treasure because gold is concealed in 
 it. For faith, although intrinsically it is of 
 no dignity or value, justifies us by an appli- 
 cation of Christ just as a vessel full of money 
 constitutes a man rich."] To the end the 
 promise might be sure to all the seed. 
 [The apostle here indicates the purpose of 
 divine grace. In Paul's view, as Olshausen 
 remarks, "Everything which depends upon 
 the decision, faithfulness, and constancy of 
 such an irresolute and wavering being as man 
 is extremely uncertain. . . . The blessedness 
 of the man is certain, only because God has 
 promised it and firmly intends it, and he 
 only who believes in this decided will of God 
 has this salvation also wrought in him."] 
 The emphatic words here are 'sure,' in con- 
 trast with made void of ver. 14, and 'all,' as 
 explained in the following words: not only 
 to Jews, but also to Gentiles, not only to the 
 seed in the natural sense, but also to the seed 
 in the spiritual sense. [Abraham is therefore 
 the spiritual father of all who are spiritually 
 circumcised, of all who are Jews inwardly— 
 that is, of all true believers. (2: 29; Phii.3; s.) 
 Chri.st is the true seed of Abraham to whom 
 the promises were made, the seed through 
 whom all nations of the earth should be 
 
 1 ex^pa, enmity (against God), is ascribed by Paul to 
 guilty men, but never opyi), wrath (towards God). This, 
 however, is often predicated of God in his relation 
 
 toward man. See 1 : 18; 2: 5,8; 3:5; 5:9; 9: 22; Eph. 
 2: 3; 5: 6- Col. 3: 6; 1 Thess. 1: 10; 2: 16; 5: 9, etc.— 
 (F.) 
 
112 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many 
 nations,) before him wtiom he believed, emn God, who 
 quickeueth the dead, and calleth those things whicli be 
 Hot as though they were: 
 
 IS Who against hope believed in hope, that he might 
 
 17 who is the father of us all (as it is written, A father 
 of many nations have I made thee) before him whom 
 he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, 
 and calleth the things that are not, as though tljey 
 
 18 were. Who in hope believed against hope, to the 
 
 blessed, and we, by believing in Christ, and 
 by virtue of a living fellowship with him, 
 thus become sons of Abraham and heirs 
 according to promise.] 
 
 17. (As it is written, I have made thee 
 a father of many nations.^ This paren- 
 thesis confirms the last clause of ver. 16 by 
 quoting Gen. 17: 5 [exactly after the LXX], 
 and so quoting It as to imply not only a com- 
 parison, or analogy, between the natural pos- 
 terity', composed of many nations, and the 
 spiritual posterity, composed of all believers; 
 but so as to imply that the prophecy was 
 directly applicable to the latter. 'I have 
 made thee' [or, have appointed thee]. He 
 was already, in God's sight, a 'father of 
 many nations," though not, in point of fact, 
 until long after. Before him whom he 
 believed. This clause is to be connected 
 directly with the closing words of ver. 16, 
 'who is the father of us all.' ["A vivid reali- 
 zation," says Meyer, "of the believing patri- 
 arch as if h^ were standing there as father of 
 us all before the face of God." Some, as 
 Bengel, Philippi, Godet, think this before, 
 etc., should be connected with a verb in the 
 past tense, and not with 'is father,' etc., 
 which refers to the time of Paul's writing. 
 Philippi supplies: and as such he was ap- 
 pointed, or, and thus he .stood there, etc., 
 deriving these phrases from the preceding 
 verb: 'I have made.' Our Common and 
 Revised Versions regard the relative as in the 
 genitive by attraction to the case of its ante- 
 cedent, but this attract'on in the New Testa- 
 ment occurs only with verbs that govern the 
 accusative, and to believe (irKnevm) is not fol- 
 lowed by the accusative of person. Hence 
 Winer, Meyer, Philippi resolve this phrase 
 thus: before God (before) whom, in whose 
 sight, he believed. "In this verb the faith 
 of Abraliam is again made prominent, in 
 order to intimate afresh how this alone medi- 
 ated the true spiritual and universal father- 
 hood of Abraham." (Philippi.)] 'Who quick- 
 
 eneth the dead. In allusion to the advanced 
 age of Abraham and Sarah. Compare ver. 
 19 [and still primarily referring, we think, to 
 the literal dead, as a "standing characteristic 
 of the divine omnipotence." Compare Deut. 
 32: 39; 1 Sam. 2: 6; "Wisd. ofSol. 16:13; John 
 5 : 21 ; 2 Cor. 1 : 9 ; 1 Tim. 6 : 13, etc. Meyer : 
 " 'Who quickeneth the dead and calleth the 
 non-existent as though it were,' and certainly, 
 therefore, can quicken the decayed powers of 
 procreation and dispose of generations not yet 
 in existence."] And calleth those things 
 Avhich be not as though they were. That 
 is, Isaac, and Abraham's posterity in general. 
 [Meyer translates and comments thus: "'who 
 ulters his disposing decree over that which 
 does not exist, equally as over the existing.' 
 What a lofty expression of all-commanding 
 power! And how thoroughly in harmony 
 with the then position of Abraham 1 For, as 
 he stood before God and believed (Gen.i5:6), 
 God had just shown him the stars of heaven 
 with the promise: 'so shall thy seed be.' So 
 that God hereby issued his potent summons 
 (so shall it be) to something that was not (the 
 seed of Abraham) as though it had been." 
 Alford makes this calling to mean speaking 
 of. (»: V.) Philippi, like Meyer, regards it as 
 equivalent to issuing commands.]* The re- 
 mainder of the chapter is devoted to an enco- 
 mium on Abraham, the father and pattern of 
 believers. 
 
 18. Who against hope [where there was 
 nothing to hope for (De Wette)] believed in 
 hope [on the ground of hopel. Who hope- 
 fully believed in God, contrary to all human 
 hope. Pious trust in God shines brightest 
 when all human hope is quenched. [Chrys- 
 ostom : " Past hope of man, in hope of God." 
 Bengel: "He believed in the hope of the 
 promise against the hope of reason." Meyer: 
 "Abraham's faith was opposed to hope in its 
 objective reference, and yet not despairing, 
 but rather based on hope in its subjective 
 reference — a significant oxj-moron."] That 
 
 1 The Greek has 6ti as a part of the quotation. As a 
 causal conjunction it might be rendered, for I have 
 made thee, etc. — (F.) 
 
 2De Wette and others, taking ws in the sense of cis. 
 
 refer it to God's creative power. The force of the sub- 
 jective negative M"? is thus expressed by Godet: "He 
 calls as being in existence what he knows himself to be 
 non-existent."— (F.) 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 113 
 
 become the father of many nations, according to that 
 which was spoken, So shall tliy seed he. 
 
 19 And Ijeing not weak in iaitli, he considered not 
 )iis own body now dead, when he was about a hundred 
 years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's wouib: 
 
 end that he might become a father of many nations, 
 according to that wliich had l)een spoken, So shall 
 19 thy seed be. And wilhotil being weakened in faith 
 hecousidered hisown body ' now as good as dead (he 
 being about a hundred years old), and the deadness 
 
 1 Many BDcient authorities omit now. 
 
 he might become the father of many 
 nations. [The Greek word for father lias 
 liere no article, and the Revised Version is 
 therefore correct, 'a father.'] These words, 
 alike in the original and in the English, 
 admit of two interpretations. They may 
 mean (a), he believed that he should become, 
 which makes his becoming the fatherof many 
 
 Gen. 15: 5 more fully expresses, as numerous, 
 or rather innumerable, as the stars of heaven. 
 "And he brought him forth abroad, and .said, 
 Look now toward heaven, and tell (that is, 
 count) the stars if thou be able to number 
 them; and he said unto him: So shall thy 
 seed be." [Paul, according to Calvin, "de- 
 signedly adduced this quotation incomplete. 
 
 nations the direct object of his faith, the thing in order to stimulate us to read the Scrip- 
 
 which he believed ; or they may mean (6), he 
 believed, in order that he might become, his 
 believing was a necessary condition of his be- 
 coming. This last sense of the words is pre- 
 ferred, as being the more natural construction 
 of the expression in the original text. The 
 first view, however, is advocated by Stu- 
 art, and several able German commentators 
 [among whom we may mention De Wette]. 
 It is not to be understood, however, that 
 Abraham believed because he knew that his 
 believing was an indispensable condition of 
 his becoming the father of many nations: in 
 order that, alwaj's implies an intelligent de- 
 sign on the part of the Divine Disposer [see 
 on 3: 4, and Winer p. 458], but does not 
 riccessarily imply a conscious purpose on the 
 part of the hummi actor ; and this distinction 
 is of great importance to the right under- 
 standing of many clauses which are intro- 
 duced by the formula, "in order that," or 
 some equivalent expression. In reference to 
 the ambiguity here, so exactlj' the same in 
 the original Greek and in the English trans- 
 lation, it is not out of place to remark, that it 
 is a rare excellence in a translation when it 
 can successfully transfer a doubtful meaning 
 from one language to another. This remark 
 applies, of course, onlj' to passages where, in 
 the judgment of competent scholars, there is 
 a real uncertainty in the meaning of the orig- 
 inal. In every other case, an ambiguity in a 
 translation is a serious defect. The last clause 
 of Heb. 5: 7 presents another instance of a 
 happy transference of an ambiguity from the 
 Greek to the English, although there is per- 
 haps less real doubt as to the true meaning of 
 the original there than there is here. So 
 shall thy seed be— that is, as the context in 
 
 tures."] 
 
 19. Being not weak in faith. [The force 
 of the clause may be expressed thus: because 
 he was not weak, etc.] By a figure of speech, 
 which is the opposite of hyperbole or "exag- 
 geration," the apostle here saj's less than 
 he might truly have said. He might truly 
 have said, "being exceedingly strong," in- 
 stead of saying, " being not weak." But this 
 way of speaking which he here uses is often 
 more forcible than the opposite figure, as this 
 excites the imagination to fill out the con- 
 tracted idea, while the opposite figure tempts 
 the critical faculty to abate something from 
 the magnified expression. It would be well 
 for enthusiastic speakers and writers to bear 
 this principle in mind. That Abraham's 
 faith, instead of being weak, was remarkably 
 strong, is shown by the fact that he con- 
 sidered not his own body noAv dead, but 
 believed God's promise, in spite of that con- 
 sideration — that is, though he was well aware 
 of the natural obstacle, in the bodily condition 
 of both himself and his wife, he did not regard 
 that circumstance as any valid objection to 
 the fulfillment of God's promise, that he 
 should liave a numerous oflTspring. When he 
 was about a hundred years old. [Ben- 
 gel remarks that after Shem we read of no 
 one one hundred years old who begat chil- 
 dren. (Gen. 11.) He also says that Abraham's 
 renewed bodily vigor remained even with his 
 marriage with Keturah.] It appears from 
 Gen. 18: 1, that Abraham was ninety-nine 
 j-ears old when the Lord renewed to him, for 
 the last time tiefore its fulfillment, the promise 
 of ft son by Sarah, who was then ninetj' years 
 old ("r. 17), and from ver. 21 it would seem 
 that Isaac was born just a year from that 
 
 H 
 
114 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through 
 uiiljelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God ; 
 
 21 And being fully persuaded, that what he had 
 promised, he was able also to perform. 
 
 20 of Sarah's ■womb : yea, looking unto the promise of 
 God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed 
 
 21 strong through faith, giving glory to God, and being 
 fully assured that, what lie had promised, he was 
 
 time. So far as the record goes, it would 
 appear that Abraham was just a hundred 
 years old, and Sarah ninety-one, when Isaac 
 was born. But Paul did not think necessary 
 tobe more exact, and so he says "about an hun- 
 dred years old." Besides, he is not speaking 
 of the precise time of Isaac's birth, but of the 
 age of Abraham when he showed his strong 
 faith by believing God's promise that a son 
 should be born of Sarah a year from that 
 time. [It should be remarked still further, 
 that according to the highest critical authori- 
 ties, the word not should be omitted after the 
 word considered} Thus : And being not weak 
 in faith, he considered his own body now dead, 
 when he was about an hundred years old, 
 and the deadness of Sarah's ivomb. (ver. 20) 
 But staggered not, etc. He took into earnest 
 consideration the natural impossibility of off- 
 spring in such a case, but his faith in the 
 promise of God was not thereby shaken. 
 Some editors omit the word now before dead, 
 and the sense is not injured by the omission ; 
 moreover, the insertion of it can be more 
 readily explained than its omission, if it was 
 a part of the original text. — A. H.] 
 
 20. He staggered not [literally — was not 
 divided. The verb is passive in form, but may 
 be used as in the middle voice.] He wavered 
 not at the promise [or, with respect to the 
 promise. The Kevisers' rendering does not 
 here closely follow their text] through unbe- 
 lief — that is, wavered not as he would have 
 done if he had been weak in faith ; but Avas 
 strong in faith [literally, made strong, or 
 was instrengthened. Paul himself was thus 
 " instrengthened" at many times, and in his 
 last hours especially, by the presence of his 
 Saviour. (2 Tim. 4:17.)] Giving glory to God. 
 He gave glory to God, by confiding so im- 
 plicitly in his truth and almighty power. 
 But the expression naturally suggests the 
 thought of some oral expression of adoration 
 and thankfulness, some devout doxology. 
 
 There is no record of any such act; but it 
 seems highly probable that the patriarch 
 would not fail, on such an occasion, to give 
 verbal utterance to his devout and grateful 
 emotions. 
 
 21. And being fully persuaded. [This 
 and the preceding participle are in tlie past 
 tense, their action being contemporaneous 
 with the verb was strengthened.] The parti- 
 ciple translated being fully persuaded [from a 
 verb meaning to bring full measure] is very 
 emphatic. It is from the same verb that is 
 translated in the same way in 14: 5. What an 
 inestimable advantage it would be, not only 
 to every Christian, but to every man enlight- 
 ened by divine revelation, if he was fully 
 persuaded that what God has promised he is 
 able and determined also to perform L And 
 how unreasonable and sinful it is to entertain 
 any doubt or misgiving about the fulfillment 
 of anything which God has promised, how- 
 ever difficult or impossible it may seem to our 
 human conceptions! [The verb promised, 
 etymologicaliy signifying to proclaitn (in the 
 way of promise), is here in the perfect passive 
 form with middle signification. The proper 
 rendering of this clause, 'what he hath prom- 
 ised he is able also to do,' makes this declara- 
 tion applicable for all time. Parens says: 
 "Doubt has two arguments: Will God do this, 
 and can God do this? Faith has likewise two 
 arguments: God will do this because he has 
 promised, and he can do it because he is 
 omnipotent." Concerning the faith of Abra- 
 ham in his man.y trials and in his great trial, 
 see Heb. 11 : 8, 17. Have not we the same 
 reason for confiding fully in God's promises 
 as our spiritual' father Abraham had? And 
 cannot we yield the same implicit trust? We 
 love to be trusted, to have our word believed. 
 May we not reverently say that God loves to 
 be trusted and believed ? Certainly we honor 
 him when we confide in his word, his power, 
 and his grace.] 
 
 iThe not is wanting in X A B C and some cursives 
 and early versions, but is retained as a part of the 
 genuine text by such critics as Fritzsche, De Wette, 
 and Meyer. The latter says: " This omission . . . 
 manifestly arose from incorrectly having regard here 
 to Gen. 17 : 17." Philippi, Lange, Alford, also favor the 
 
 retention of the negative. Buttniann, on the other 
 hand, discards the not, and supplies in thought a f-iv 
 (indeed) to the verb, 'considered,' to which the follow- 
 ing fi« ('but staggered not,' etc.) is made to correspond. 
 -(F.) 
 
Ch. IV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 115 
 
 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for right- 
 eousness. 
 
 2.J Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it 
 was imputed to liiui ; 
 
 24 Hut for us also, to whom it shall he imputed, if we 
 believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the 
 dead ; 
 
 2.') Who was delivered for our oflfeuces, and was raised 
 again for our justification. 
 
 22 able also to perform. Wherefore also it was reck- 
 
 23 oned unto him for righleousuess. Now it was uot 
 written for his sake ahme, that it was reckoned unto 
 
 24 him, hut for our sake also, uulo whom it shall be 
 reckoned, who believe on him that rai.sed Jesus 
 
 25 our 1-ord from the dead, who was delivered up for 
 our trespasses, and was raised for our justification. 
 
 22. And therefore [literally, 'wherefore 
 also'] — that is, because liis faiih in God was 
 so complete aiul udiiiirable [amid the strong- 
 est temptations to disbelieve]. The iipostle 
 pow repeats the expression : It [that is, his be- 
 lieving] «'as imputed unto him, with a 
 view of making the application to believers 
 as the spiritual posterity of Abraham. [For 
 righteousness. This for, as Meyer says, 
 does not denote that faith has justification 
 merely "in its train," or that its leads finally 
 into righteousness, but the meaning of the 
 expression is that faith is accounted, immedi- 
 ately and directly, as righteousness.] 
 
 23, 24. Now it was not written. We 
 have here one of those instances of the nice- 
 ties of Greek syntax, which cannot easily be 
 fully exhibited in a translation. The formula 
 "as it is written" occurs very often in the 
 New Testament, in introducing passages from 
 the Old. In such cases the verb is in the 
 perfect tense, while here it is in what is called 
 the aorist. The perfect always has a reference 
 to the present time, describing the action as 
 past indeed, but also as abiding in its perma- 
 nent consequences; while the aorist simply 
 describes the action as finished in some past 
 time. The difference may be sufficiently rep- 
 resented in English by the expressions: "It 
 stands written,"' and "it was written." 
 Hence the propriety of the use of the perfect 
 in the ordinary cases of quotation from the 
 Old Testament, where the Scripture quoted is 
 conceived of as a permanent record, without 
 anj' particular reference to the time or act of 
 writing it; and hence, also, the propriety of 
 the aorist tense in this instance, where the act 
 of writing is emphasized. This distinction is 
 dwelt upon particularly here, because this 
 aorist form is vary rare in cases where the 
 inspired writings are referred to. The only 
 other instances in mind are 15: 4 and 1 Cor. 
 10:11, in both which places, as here, the 
 
 object is to fix the attention on the act of 
 writing. The unparalleled fullness and nicety 
 of the Greek language in expressing gram- 
 matical relations, of which the passage under 
 consideration is an instance, is one of many 
 reasons why the Cliristian teacher should, 
 when practicable, make himself familiarly 
 acquainted with the original language in 
 which the New Testament is written. For 
 his sake alone. Not merely for tlie purpose 
 of a historical affirmation and appreciation 
 of Abraham's faith. But for us also, to 
 whom it shall be imputed. [The shall is 
 a separate verb in the original, and denotes 
 something more than mere futurity, even the 
 certainty and continuous accomplishment of 
 the divine purpose.*] Such passages as this 
 furnish a warrant for a sober and cautious 
 generalization from the historical narratives 
 of the Old Testament. See, as above, 15 : 4, 
 and 1 Cor. 10 : 11 ; also 1 Cor. 9 : 10. If we 
 believe on him that raised up Jesus our 
 Lord from the dead. God is here repre- 
 sented as the object of our faith, in order to 
 make the parallel with Abraham more com- 
 plete, (ver. 17.) ["We who believe on the 
 same God on whom Abraham believed, but 
 who appears to us in a peculiar relation as 
 finisher of the work of redemption." (Tho- 
 luck.) This raising of Jesus from the dead 
 seems here to be purposely referred to as 
 being a specially great and gracious exercise 
 of Omnipotence (we may well trust such a 
 Being), and because of its importance as an 
 essential element in man's full redemption.] 
 
 25. [Gifford : "The apostle thus returns 
 to the main point of his subject (s:?*), 'bring- 
 inginthecrossintothe midst.' (Chrysostom)." 
 Hodge: " This verse is a comprehensive state- 
 ment of the gospel." DeiiveteA— given up 
 to death. Compare 8: 32; Eph. 5: 2, 25; Isa. 
 53: 12. See the touching particularity of the 
 apostle's language in Gal. 2: 20, where he 
 
 'Luther has used precisely this expression in his 1 2 xhe word AoYi^o/uai— to count, reckon, or impute 
 
 German translation, " esstehet geschrieben," "it stands is used here for the eleventh time in this chapter.— (F.) 
 written." I 
 
116 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IV. 
 
 says of Christ: "Who loved me and gave 
 himself for m(?." If Christ died for all, why 
 may not every reader of these lines adopt this 
 same language?] The preposition [fiid, which 
 with the accusative "denotes either the mov- 
 ing or the final cause." (Boise.)] is the same 
 in both clauses, in the Greek as well as in the 
 English. Yet, while the same preposition is 
 suitable for both clauses, it is evident that the 
 relation of his being delivered up, to our 
 offenses is not precisely the same as the rela- 
 tion of his being raised again, to our justifi- 
 cation. He was delivered up, because we had 
 offended; he was raised again, that we might 
 6e justified; he was delivered, on account of 
 our offenses ; he was raised again, in order 
 to our justification. [As we are said to be 
 justified on the ground of Christ's obedi- 
 ence and in his blood, so some, as Bishop 
 Horsley in former times, and Godet in our 
 own, have given the preposition the same 
 meaning in both places ; thus Godet : "In the 
 same way as Jesus died for our offenses [com- 
 mitted] — that is, our (merited) condemnation, 
 he was raised because of our (accomplished) 
 justification. Our sin had killed him, our jus- 
 tification [accomplished] raised him again."' 
 He interprets 1 Cor. 15: 17, "If Jesus be not 
 risen ye are yet in your sins" in a similar 
 manner: "So long as (your) security is in 
 prison, (your) debt is not paid; the immedi- 
 ate effect of payment would be his liberation." 
 But would not his non-resurrection show that 
 he died as one of us sinners, and that man 
 therefore has no Saviour? Meyer's view is as 
 follows: "The resurrection of the sacrificed 
 One was required to produce in man the faith 
 through which alone the objective fact of the 
 atoning offering of Jesus could have the effect 
 of justifying subjectively, because Christ is the 
 propitiation (lAaaT^pioi') through faith." Al- 
 ford's view is quite similar. Ellicott, on the 
 "power of Christ's resurrection," says: "The 
 resurrection of Christ has at least four spirit- 
 ual eflBcacies — namely: («) as quickening our 
 souls, Eph. 2: 5; (b) as confirming the hope 
 of our resurrection, Rom, 8:1; (c) as assuring 
 us of our j)?"e6-cw< justification, Rom. 4: 24, 25 
 (d) as securing our final justification, our 
 triumph over death, and participation in his 
 
 glory, 2 Cor. 4: 10, seq. Col. 3: 4."] This 
 noun justification ["The establishment of a 
 man as just by acquittal from guilt." (Cre- 
 mer.)] is used only three times in our English 
 New Testament — here, and in the 16th and 
 18th verse of the following chapter.^ [""When 
 the prison door," says Chalmers, "is opened 
 to a criminal, and that by the very authority 
 which lodged him there, it evinces that the 
 debt of his transgression has been rendered, 
 and that he now stands acquitted of all its 
 penalties. It was not for his own, but for our 
 offenses, that Jesus was delivered unto the 
 death, and that his body was consigned to the 
 imprisonment of the grave. And when an 
 angel descended from heaven and rolled back 
 the great stone from the door of the sepulchre, 
 this speaks that the justice of God is satisfied, 
 that the ransom of our iniquities has been 
 paid, that Christ has rendered a full discharge 
 of all that debt for which he undertook-as the 
 great surety between God and the sinners who 
 believe in him." Dr. Schaff says : "Without 
 the resurrection, the death of Christ would be 
 of no avail, and his grave would be the grave 
 of all our hopes, as the apostle clearly saj's. 
 (1 Cor. 15: 17.) A gospel of a dead Saviour would 
 be a miserable failure and delusion. ... It is 
 by the fact of the resurrection that Christ's 
 death was shown to be the death of the inno- 
 cent and righteous One for foreign guilt, and 
 that it was accepted by God as a full satisfac- 
 tion for the sins of the world." Dr. Weiss 
 says: "For Paul the special significance of 
 the resurrection must be this, that it proves 
 that the death of Christ was not the death of 
 the sinner. . . . Accordingly, the assurance 
 that God cannot condemn us is owing prima- 
 rily, it is true, to the death of Christ, but still 
 more* to his resurrection and exaltation to 
 God's right hand, inasmuch as these first 
 prove that his death was the death of the 
 Mediator of salvation, who has redeemed us 
 from condemnation. . . . The objective atone- 
 ment was accomplished by means of the death 
 of Christ, but the appropriation of it in justifi- 
 cation is only possible if we believe in the 
 saving significance of his death, and we can 
 attain to faith in that only if it is sealed by 
 means of the resurrection."] 
 
 iltcorrespondsexactly with the Greek word SiKoiuKTis, 1 actly with the Greek word fit/coiufia, for whicli it stands 
 of which it is a translation, here and in 5 : 18, the only in 5 : 16, which is elsewhere translated " righteousness." 
 two places where that word is found; not quite so ex- |. 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 117 
 
 CHAPTEK V. 
 
 THEREFORE being justified by faith, we have peace 
 with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 
 
 1 Being therefore justified ' by faith, 2 we have peace 
 
 2 with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; through 
 
 1 Gr. out of 'I Many aDciem aulhorities read jet us Aati 
 
 Observe, thiit the way of justification before 
 God was substantially the same before Christ, 
 as it is now, the same for Abraham and David, 
 as it is for us. 
 
 The apostle here introduces what he follows 
 in the next four chapters (s-s), ''death, as 
 connected with sin, and life, as connected 
 witli rif//iteotimess." (Alford.) [Others, as 
 Godet, Gifford. Turner, think that the subject 
 of sanctification is not introduced until the 
 sixth chapter.] 
 
 Ch. 5 : In this chapter the apostle treats of 
 the happy results of the gospel way of justifi- 
 cation, both to the individual believer (ver. i-u), 
 and to the race at large, (ver. 12-21.) [Perhaps 
 as a general title to the chapter we might 
 have somctiiing like this: Justification 
 tlirough Christ contrasted with condemnation 
 through Adam. The more special subject of 
 the first eleven verses is the certainty of final 
 salvation for justified believers. (Godet.)] 
 
 1. Therefore. The last half of this verse 
 is an inference from the preceding section. 
 (3:21.) Being justified by faith; or, more 
 exactly, having been justified by faith, for it 
 is important to make the distinction here be- 
 tween the past participle, which represents 
 justification as a completed act, and ih& present 
 participle used in 3 : 24, which represents jus- 
 tification as in process, conditioned on hj'po- 
 thetical faith. This ditference, which is de- 
 clared by the tense of the original participle, 
 is also confirmed by the concluding part of 
 the verse. Observe how closely 'having been 
 justified' follows 'justification ' in 4:25. This 
 is liable to be overlooked on account of 
 the division of the chapters. [For 'justified 
 by faith,' IsToyes has "accepted as righteous 
 through faith." That our faith, subjectively 
 considered, is not the ground or meritorious 
 cause of our ju.stification is aflSrmed in the 
 "Formula Concordiae": "Faith does not 
 justify because it is so good a work or so dis- 
 tinguished a virtue, but because, in the prom- 
 ise of the gospel, it apprehends and embraces 
 the merit of Christ."] We have peace with 
 God through our Lord Je^us Christ. The 
 
 'peace with God' here spoken of is not to be 
 confounded with "the peace of God" men- 
 tioned in Phil. 4:7; Col. 3 : 15. [In this last 
 place the Revision has "peace of Christ."'\ 
 This peace with God [literally, in relation to 
 Ood'] is the new and friendly relation which 
 has taken the place of the former estrange- 
 ment, and enmity, and exposure to wrath, 
 [a relation of peace with God, which has 
 been mediated 'through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ.'] That 'peace of God' is an inward 
 feeling. To some extent they mutually imply 
 each other. The new relation is the ground 
 and source of the new feeling, without which 
 the feeling, if in any sense possible, would be 
 only a delusion. [This 'peace of God,' as 
 Calvin remarks, "the Pharisee has not, who 
 swells with false confidence in his own works; 
 nor the stupid sinner who is not disquieted, 
 being inebriated with the sweetness of his 
 vices ; for though neither of these seems to 
 have a manifest disquietude as he has who is 
 smitten with a consciousness of sin, yet, as 
 they really do not approach the tribunal of 
 God, they have no reconciliation with him."] 
 There is an important and somewhat diflBcult 
 question here in regard to the true reading 
 of the original. Instead of 'we have,' some 
 manuscripts [N*AB*CDKL] read let us 
 have. [This subjunctive form 'let,' etc., is 
 the rendering of the Canterbury Revision, 
 and so of the verb rejoice in ver. 2, 3, though 
 the latter verb, either indicative or subjunc- 
 tive in form, cannot as subjunctive be well 
 associated with the direct negative (ou). If 
 the subjunctive here could be taken in a con- 
 cessive sense — "we may have peace," etc. — it 
 would give a very appropriate meaning; but 
 such a use of the Greek subjunctive. Dr. Schaff 
 says, is "somewhat doubtful." Alford adopts 
 the hortatory rendering : ' Let us have peace,' 
 and says: "This is the only admissible sense 
 of the first person subjunctive in an affirma- 
 tivesentence like the present." Yet he doubts 
 whether this was the original reading.] The 
 difference between the two forms of the Greek 
 verb is only in a single letter; there was 
 probably no difference in the common pro- 
 
118 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Cn. V. 
 
 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this 
 grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the 
 glory of God. 
 
 3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also ; 
 knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 
 
 whom also we have had our access i by faith into 
 
 this grace wherein we stand; and 2 we ^ rejoice in 
 
 3 hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but 
 
 1 Some ancient authorities omit by faith 2 Or, let us rejoice 3 Gr. glory. 
 
 nunciation of the two forms, and there is 
 abundant evidence in the manuscripts that 
 the two letters were often interchanged. The 
 external evidence — from extant manuscripts, 
 translations, and patristic citations — is strongly 
 in favor of the latter form, ' let us have,' the 
 live oldest manuscripts agreeing in presenting 
 that form. On the other hand, the simple 
 indicative form, 'we have,' is what seems 
 most suitable in the connection of thought. 
 In such a case, the latter argument, which 
 belongs to what is called internal evidence, 
 must be very strong indeed to outweigh a 
 decided preponderance of external evidence 
 in the opposite scale. Meyer [and so De 
 Wette] thinks that in the present case the 
 internal evidence must prevail over the exter- 
 nal, and therefore reads, with the common 
 English Version, 'we have peace with God.' 
 "We feel constrained, however, in spite of this 
 high authority, and in spite of the confessed 
 logical difficulty, to yield to the force of ex- 
 ternal testimony, and read, "let us have peace 
 with God." [If logical coherence and clear- 
 ness must in this case yield to external evi- 
 dence, we may conceive of the apostle as say- 
 ing: Since we have been justified by faith, 
 let us have, let us possess, peace with God. 
 At the time when we first trusted in Christ, 
 we 'received the reconciliation.' (ver.ii.) Let 
 us have this relation of peace as a priceless 
 treasure, and glory in all that it ofl^ers us. 
 (A. H.)] This peace with God is the first 
 of the blessings which the justified believer 
 enjoys. 
 
 2, By whom also we have access. 
 [Literally, have had introduction, etc., this 
 past tense showing that the introduction, 
 "not our coming, but Christ's bringing," is 
 prior to peace with God. (Gifford.)] We 
 have through Christ obtained the introduc- 
 tion [see Eph. 2:18; 3:12; compare 1 Peter 
 3 : 18] into this grace (of justification), and 
 
 having been so introduced, we abide and stand 
 fast in it ; and looking forward from this firm 
 standing ground, we rejoice (or make our 
 boast) in the expectation of something better 
 still, even the glorious state of perfection 
 which God has in store for us. (See potes on 
 2:7.) [We rejoice. That is, boast or glory 
 "in a new and true manner. Compares : 27." 
 (Bengel.) Our glorying rests upon hope as its 
 foundation. Some expositors, by making into 
 (eU) mean in, would read, 'through faith in 
 this grace,' and thus refer the 'access' of this 
 verse (compare Eph. 3:12, where this word 
 is used independently) to our approach 
 through Christ to the Father (Eph. 2; is); but 
 this, as De Wette says, is "wholly inadmissi- 
 ble," and in part (faith in this grace) is here 
 "wholly senseless." Hhe \Qvh stand is per- 
 fect in form but present in meaning.] This 
 joy in the hope of future glory [see 8: 18; 2 
 Cor. 4:17; Col. 1 : 27 ; IThess. 2:12; Titus 
 2 : 13] is the second blessing of the individual 
 believer, and is intimately connected with 
 that assured position in which he stands as 
 fully forgiven and perfectly justified. 
 
 3, 4. And not only so. [Tholuck ("Stu- 
 dien und Kritiken," Vol. VIII, pp. 390, 391) 
 finds in Paul's style of thinking and writing 
 an image of the tide where one wave overtops 
 another; the frequently recurring not only so 
 (ovi /xdroi' Se) is the beat or swelling of the wave. 
 See ver. 11 ; 8 : 23 ; 9 : 10. Prof Stuart thinks 
 the repetition of the phrase here corresponds 
 with our first, second, third, in English.] A 
 third blessed prerogative of the justified be- 
 liever is that afflictions are made subservient 
 to the confirmation of his hope. We not only 
 rejoice in hope of future good, but we also 
 rejoice or make our boast^ in present troubles ; 
 not merely zn the midst of them, and in spite 
 of them, but actually in them, or on accou7it 
 of them, as the context implies; and this is in 
 accordance both with Scripture precept and 
 
 1 The Canterbury Revision has here, as in the pre- I 
 ceding verse, let ns rejoice, a rendering which our 
 American Revisers have properly discarded. This 
 verb, meaning to exult or triumph, is in the Common 
 Version oftener rendered by the word giory than by 
 
 any other, and is usually so rendered in the Revised 
 Version. This Pauline word, as we may call it, occurs 
 some thirty-six times in his epistles and only twice 
 elsewhere — to wit, in James 1:9; 4 : 16. — (F.) 
 
Cii. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 119 
 
 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 
 
 5 And hope luakelh not ashamed; because the love 
 of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy 
 Ghost which is given unto us. 
 
 1 we also 2 rejoice in our tribulations: knowing that 
 
 4 tribulation workelh ^patience; and ^ patience, pro- 
 
 5 bation ; and probation, hope: and hope putteth not 
 to shame; because the love of God hath been shed 
 abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit which 
 
 1 Or, tetu* aUo rejoice 2 Gr. glory S Or, tted/<utnet: 
 
 with recorded Christian experience. See 
 Matt. 5 : 10-12 ; James 1:2^; 1 Peter 4 : 13, 
 14; 2 Cor. 12:9, 10. [One thing which en- 
 abled the apostle to glory in his tribulations 
 (literally, the tribulaiioyis) was the conscious- 
 ness that ho was suffering for Christ. AVe all 
 liave a sufficiency of trials and afflictions, but 
 we fail to rejoice in them, or to be supported 
 under tliejii, as we should be, through the 
 suspicion that they may have been sent to us, 
 not for our love to Christ, but on account of 
 our unfaitlifulness or misdeeds.] Knowing 
 that. Because we know that. Tribulation 
 worketh [out] patience. Endurance, as 
 less passive than patience, would better ex- 
 press the apostle's thought. See notes on 2:7. 
 [The word literally means a remaining under, 
 a bearing up under, the position of one who 
 does not fretfully strive to throw off a burden, 
 but, as Trench says, "under a great siege of 
 trials bears up and does not lose heart or 
 courage."] 'Tribulation' commonly works 
 impatience in unbelievers, and sometimes in 
 believers also. But in such cases, God's usual 
 metiiod is to add affliction to affliction, until 
 the impatient soul is subdued under their 
 weight and learns to bo calmly submissive. 
 Here the constancy and firmness of the be- 
 liever under afflictions is assumed. "We have 
 in this statement, therefore, a good practical 
 test by which to trj- our state. And patience, 
 experience. Endurance works [first, a prov- 
 ing or testing, then] aiyproval. The word here 
 translated experience [used only by Paul] is 
 the same that is translated 'proof in 2 Cor. 
 2:9; 13:3; Phil. 2 : 22. [In this last text, 
 "Ye know tlie proof" of Timothy, Ellicott 
 regards this "proof" as equivalent to "tried 
 character." James 1 : 12 is closelj' related to 
 our passage both in thoughts and words: 
 " Blessed is the man who enditreth temptation 
 (affliction), for when he is tried, he shall re- 
 ceive the crown of life," the object of his 
 hope.} And experience, hope. When we 
 have endured trouble, and the endurance has 
 resulted favorably, it is inevitable that this 
 provirg of ourselves should strengthen and 
 
 brighten our hope. The hope that is born of 
 faith takes on a new and more robust char- 
 acter when it has been confirmed by the 
 experience of trial well endured. 
 
 Now, the apostle goes on to show the cer- 
 tainty of ih'xs hope as a fourth particular in 
 the blessed results of this way of salvation to 
 the individual believer. 
 
 5. And hope maketh not ashamed. 
 [Literally, the hope, which some regard as 
 equivalent to this hope, but so the apostle did 
 not write it. Abstract nouns in Greek, more 
 frequently than in English, take the article, 
 so that we cannot be sure of its having here 
 any special emphasis. Yet it may refer to 
 the hope just mentioned.] And our hope 
 shames (us) not, by disappointing and mock- 
 ing us ["the hope will be reality " (Bengel) ; 
 "its issue in salvation most certain." (Cal- 
 vin.)], because the love of God (to us) is 
 shed abroad in our hearts. [Paul, in after 
 years, in this very city of Rome to which he 
 is now writing, had this same hope which 
 maketh not ashamed even in the prospect of 
 martyrdom, or, at least, in a .state of uncer- 
 tainty whether life or death lay before him. 
 See Phil. 1 : 20. If we have the sense of God's 
 love shed abroad in our hearts by the indwell- 
 ing Holy Spirit, our Christian hope will never 
 shame us; on the contrary, it will afford us 
 the highest confidence and greatest glorying. 
 A sense of God's love will also create in our 
 hearts a love to God in return. (iJohn4:i9.)] 
 The exjjression 'the love of God' may mean 
 either God's love to us or our love to God. 
 There is nothing in the form of expression in 
 either the Greek or the English to show which 
 of the two meanings it has in any particular 
 passage. It is certainly used in both senses in 
 the Scriptures. It clearly means God's love 
 to us in 8 : 39 ; 2 Cor. 13 : 14 ; and it just as 
 clearly means our love to God in Luke 11 : 
 42; John 5:42: 1 John 3: 17; 5:3. Hence 
 its meaning must be determined in each case 
 bj' the connected words and the course of 
 thought. In this case, the connection seems 
 to require us to understand by it God's love 
 
120 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 6 For when we were yet without strength, in due I 
 time Christ died for the ungodly. | 
 
 6 was given unto us. For while we were yet weak, in 
 
 7 due season Christ died for the ungodly. For scarce- 
 
 toward us, though some commentators, ancient 
 as well as modern, have taken it in the other 
 sense. But the expresssion 'shed abroad in 
 our hearts,' or, as it might be quite literally 
 rendered, poured forth [or, poured out], as 
 well as tlie general course of thought, points 
 rather to God's love toward us. [Compare 
 ver. 8, and see Winer, p. 185. Prof. Cremer 
 remarks that "in the Pauline writings the 
 relation of men to God is only once expressed 
 by the substantive love (ayamj) — viz., 2 Thess. 
 3:5," and that in other instances where love 
 is followed by the genitive it expresses the 
 love of God or of Christ to us. He says: "It 
 is contrary alike to Christian experience and 
 to St. Paul's chain of thought, here and else- 
 where, to make the certainty of Christian 
 hope rest upon love to God existing in the 
 heart." His definition of the word for love 
 (oyairi)), a Word not found in the profane 
 writers nor in Philo or Josephus — "a word 
 born within the bosom of revealed religion" 
 (Trench) — is this: "It denotes the love which 
 chooses its object with decision of will, so that 
 it becomes self-denying or compassionate de- 
 votion to and for the same." "Classical 
 Greek," he says, "knows nothing of the use 
 of this word (dvoTrSi') to designate compassion- 
 ating love or the love that freely chooses its 
 object." Another verb {(i>i.\e'it') denotes the 
 love of natural inclination, affection, friend- 
 ship (Latin, nmare), while this verb corre- 
 sponds to the Latin word diligere.] The verb 
 'is shed abroad,' or 'is poured forth,' implies 
 an n bnnda7it commvimcat'ion or expansion of 
 God's love in our hearts. The same verb is 
 used in Acts 2:17, 18; 10:45; Titus 8 : 6, to 
 express the plenteous effusion of the Holy 
 Spirit. ["The love of God did not descend 
 upon us as dew in drops, but as a stream has 
 it poured forth itself into our hearts." (Phil- 
 ippi.) [The heart, says Ellicott, "is prop- 
 erly the imaginary seat of the soul, and thence 
 the seat and centre of the moral life viewed 
 on the side of the affections." "What greater 
 blessing can we desire than that the indwell- 
 ing Holy Spirit may continually and in rich 
 abundance shed abroad in our hearts God's 
 love and love to God in return? "Like an 
 overflowing stream in a thirsty land, so is the 
 rich flood of divine love poured out and shed 
 
 abroad in the heart." (Gilford.)] By the 
 Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit is here repre- 
 sented as displaj'ing, expanding to the view 
 of the soul God's love. This agrees with our 
 Lord's words in John 16: 14. It has been a 
 subject of much critical discussion whether it 
 is proper to speak of the Holy Spirit as acting 
 upon the truth or only upon the mind and 
 heart of man. Apart from all metaphysical 
 niceties, this passage, and the one referred to 
 above, seem to show that it is allowable to 
 speak of the Spirit as acting upon the truth. 
 [Is it said in either of these passages that the 
 Holy Spirit acts uponihe truth? Is an^'thing 
 more affirmed in John 16:14 than this, that 
 the Holy Spirit would reveal Christ by means 
 of the truth to the disciples? And is not that 
 working with the truth rather than acting 
 upon the truth ? So, too, the words of Paul 
 may imply that the Holy Spirit makes use of 
 truth in pouring forth the love of God in 
 believing hearts, inasmuch as we cannot see 
 how he could otherwise reveal that love to 
 their hearts; but does this imply any action 
 of the Spirit on the truth itself? May not 
 his action be altogether on the heart, either 
 directly or by means of the truth? We are 
 unable to see anything favorable to the view 
 expressed by Dr. Arnold in either of these 
 passages. (A. H. )] Which is given (more 
 strictly, was given) unto us. When was this 
 giving of the Spirit unto us? On the day of 
 Pentecost, say various commentators But to 
 refer it to the time of each individual's regen- 
 eration seems more suitable, especially as it is 
 Paul who says this, for he certainly did not 
 receive the gift on the day of Pentecost. 
 [According to Paul's teaching, the Holy Spirit 
 is not only given to us at particular times, but 
 dwells within us, in our hearts, as an abiding, 
 sar.ctifying presence, so that our bodies are 
 his temples. "Know ye not that your body 
 is a temple of the-in-you Holy Spirit?" 1 
 Cor. 6:19; compare Gal. 4 : 6; 1 Cor. 3:16; 
 2 Cor. 1 : 22; 6 : 16. Meyer remarks that the 
 divine love shed abroad by the Spirit in be- 
 lieving hearts "is to them, like the Spirit 
 himself, the earnest of the hoped-for glory." 
 See 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5."] 
 
 6. The for, with which this verse is intro- 
 duced, indicates that what follows is a signal 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 121 
 
 proof of that love of God to us which is shed 
 abroad in our hearts by the Spirit. When 
 we were yet without strength. When we 
 were impotent, powerless for good. [Dr. Gif- 
 ford supposes a contrast here to the believer's 
 present state, as strong in hope, etc.] The 
 term 'without strengtii ' is explained by the 
 stronger terms 'ungodly' and 'sinners.' 
 (ver. 8.) [We are weak to do right, but strong 
 to do wrong; strong to sin, but weak to resist. 
 The special helplessness referred to here is 
 man's inability to redeem himself or put him- 
 self into a salvable state. He can make no 
 atonement for his sin nor deliver himself from 
 its power. "This inability to help ourselves 
 is a fact," says Prof. Boise, "which the philo- 
 sophical and religious systems of Asia and 
 Greece had failed to recognize or suitably to 
 emphasize." The text of the Revision has 
 two 'yets,' which occasion some difficulty, 
 though the sense of the passage is entirely 
 clear. Some render the first (in.) besides or 
 moreover (like in Se ] see Heb. 11 : 36). Others 
 think the repetition was for the sake of em- 
 phasis, and should be but once rendered. 
 Meyer rejects the latter yet {in.) as ungenu- 
 ine.] The adjective here translated 'without 
 strength' is the same which is translated 
 'sick' in Matt. 25:39, 43, 44; Luke 10:9; 
 Acts 5 : 15, 16. Holiness is the healthy, strong 
 condition of the human soul. In due time 
 Christ died. Tliere was a due time, a suit- 
 able season, for Christ to die. There was a 
 long, providential preparation, a remarkable 
 concurrence of many conditions, before "the 
 fulness of time" for God to "send forth his 
 Son " had come. What man could do to help 
 himself— by experience of the evil of sin, by 
 civil laws and religious rites, by philosophy, 
 by the help of divine laws and tj-pical sacri- 
 fices — must first be shown. And then a select 
 nation must be prepared by centuries of dis- 
 cipline to comprehend the new doctrines; 
 time must be allowed for the human race to 
 grow out of the fabulous into the historic age, 
 so that the proofs of the fads connected with 
 the advent of the Son of God could be ade- 
 quately established ; a language, more copious 
 and precise than any earlier one, must be de- 
 veloped ; a government, wider and stronger 
 than the world had before seen, must be con- 
 
 solidated, to favor unwittingly, even while it 
 wickedly opposed, the dissemination of the 
 gospel; and then, when all this protracted, 
 complex, wonderful preparation was com- 
 pleted, in due time Christ died for the uyigodly. 
 [Philippi regards this 'due time' ((cara «catpbi') 
 as meaning "at the appointed time." Of 
 course, the two views really imply each other. 
 Meyer remarks — with, perhaps, too great re- 
 striction of view— that the death of Jesus for 
 the ungodly took place at the proper season, 
 because, had it not taken place then, they 
 would, instead of the divine grace, have expe- 
 rienced the final righteous outbreak of divine 
 wrath, seeing that the time of the "passing 
 over" (3:25) and of the "forbearance" of God 
 had come to an end. Compare the idea of 
 the "fulness of tlie times" in Eph. 1:10; 
 Gal. 4:4. Dr. Schaff, speaking of the fitness 
 of time, race, country ,.as concerns the world's 
 Saviour, says: "We cannot conceive of his 
 advent at the time of Noah or Abraham, or in 
 China, or among the savage tribes of America. 
 History is a unit, and a gradual unfolding of 
 a divine plan of infinite wisdom. Christ is 
 the turning-point and centre of history', the 
 end of the old and the beginning of the new 
 humanity ; a truth which is confessed, wit- 
 tingly or unwittingly, by every date from 
 A. D. throughout the civilized world."' For 
 the ungodly. The word 'ungodly' is with- 
 out the article in the original, as referring, 
 not to a cla.-s, but to all mankind.] It was 
 for the benefit of the ungodly, that he might 
 open for them a way out of their ungodliness 
 into the favor of God. [The 'for' in this 
 clause, like our English for, may signify 'in- 
 stead of,' or 'for the benefit of,' but usually 
 has the latter signification. It seemingly ex- 
 presses, more fully than 'instead of'(<lvTl), the 
 love and compassion of Christ. Dr. Gilford, 
 in the "Bible (Speaker's) Commentary," saj's: 
 "It would be enough to say that Christ 
 died 'in our stead' (avn), if his death had 
 been unconscious, unwilling, or accidental." 
 "Strictly speaking," saj's Ellicott, "/or (i-jrep), 
 in its ethical sense, retains some trace of its 
 local meaning, 'bending over to protect,' and 
 thus points more immediatelj' to the action 
 than to the object or circumstance from which 
 the action is supposed to spring." ' Philippi 
 
 > " The latter rrlation," says Ellicott, " is more cor- t be more naturally used with the thing, ' sins,' v-nip with 
 rectly deficed by jr«pl {concerning, Jor'l. wtpl will thus I the person, ' sinners,' and this, with a few exceptions 
 
122 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet 
 peradveuiure lor a good mau some would even dare to 
 die. 
 
 ly for a righteous man will one die: for peradven- 
 ture for the good man some one would even dare to 
 
 remarks that "one may die for and yet not 
 instead of another, as the death that I submit 
 to oil another's behalf . . . does not always 
 assume that he must have died if I had not 
 died. Still, this will usually be the case, and 
 with respect to Christ it was the case, his death 
 being, as we l<now, from other sources, a vicari- 
 ous, sacrificial death. Compare on 3 : 24. The 
 phrases 'Christ died for us,' 'gave himself 
 
 up for us; (Rom. 8:32; 14:15; 1 Cor. 1:13; 2 Cor. 5:14; Eph. 
 5:2; 1 Thess. 5 : 10 ; 1 Tim. 2:6; Titus 2: 14) therefore ex- 
 
 press the compassionate love of Christ's vica- 
 rious, sacrificial death, so that in the for the 
 instead of is assumed or rather included. 
 Compare Steiger on 1 Peter 3 : 18." Prof. 
 Cremer says: "We must particularly keep 
 in view the representation of death as a puni- 
 tive sentence when mention is made of the 
 death of Christ." And after referring to the 
 Pauline expressions, dying to and with, he 
 adds: "Bearing all this in mind, it is also 
 clear how the matter stands with reference to 
 Christ's dying for the ungodly, which, if it 
 does not actually express the substitutionary 
 import of Christ's death (compare 5io, 1 Cor. 
 8:11), has meaning only upon the principle 
 of this substitutionary import." Meyer states 
 that Paul "has certainly regarded the death 
 of Jesus as an act furnishing the satisfactio 
 vicaria, as is clear from the fact that this 
 bloody death was accounted by him as an 
 expiatory sacrifice (3 : 25; Eph. 5:2; compare 
 avTi\vT(>ov in 1 Tim. 2 : 6), but in no passage 
 has he expressed the substitutionary relation 
 by the usual preposition " (oktI). Our Saviour 
 himself expresses this most clearly in Matt. 
 20:28; Mark 10: 45, where he speaks of giving 
 
 his life a ransom for {avrX) many. 'Christ 
 died for the ungodly,' not only for tho 
 weak, but for the wicked. The fact that the 
 death of Christ for sins and in behalf of sin- 
 ners is made so prominent in the New Testa- 
 ment Scriptures shows that he came into the 
 world, not so much to be a teacher of men, 
 or an example for men, as to become a pro- 
 pitiatory Sacrifice for their sins. Not but 
 that Jesus may be denominated the "Great 
 Teacher," since he laid down certain great 
 principles to guide men's thoughts and lives; 
 yet he did not enter into the minutice of Chris- 
 tian instruction so fully as did the Apostle 
 Paul.] 
 
 7. For. If we supply some such thought 
 as this (which very naturally suggests itself), 
 'this was wonderful love indeed,' the 'for' 
 will have its explanation. Scarcely. This 
 infrequent word expresses the great difficulty 
 of the case, as we might say, 'it would be 
 very hard to find a man who would do this.' 
 The only other place where it has the same 
 English translation is the remarkable passage 
 in 1 Peter 4 : 18 (which, by the way, is quoted 
 verbatim from the Greek of the LXX in 
 Prov. 11:31). But the same Greek word is 
 found in Acts 14: 18, there translated scarce. 
 and also three times in Acts 27 : In ver. 7 
 (translated scarce), in ver. 8 (translated 
 hardly), and in ver. 16, where the last clause 
 may be rendered, " we could scarcely become 
 masters of the boat." For a righteous man 
 Aviil one die. 'A righteous man' is con- 
 trasted with 'the ungodly 'of the preceding 
 verse. Hardly on behalf of a just man will 
 any one die.i Yet peradventure for a good 
 
 (for example, 1 Cor. 15:3; Heb. 5 : 31, appears to be the 
 usage of the New Testament." [In Heb. 5 : 3, the Re- 
 vision text has not vn-ep but Jrepl a/xapriuf. Among 
 other exceptions he might have referred to Gal. 1:4; 
 Heb. 5:1; 7 : 27 ; 10 : 12.] He further says that v-nip in 
 its ethical sense has principally and primarily the 
 meaning in behalf of, or for the good of, especially in 
 doctrinal passages where the atoning death of Christ 
 is alluded to — for example, 2 Cor. 5 : 21 ; yet there are 
 doctrinal passages, as Gal. 3: 13 (compare Philem. 13), 
 where it may admit the second meaning (instead of) 
 united with the first, though never exclusively. See his 
 commentary on Gal. 1:4; 3: 13; also Winer, p. 383, 
 where he says ' ' v-nip is nearly equivalent to a^ri, 
 instead of."— (F.) 
 
 1 Buttmann (p. 218) thinks that Greek writers would 
 probably have used, instead of this future, the optative 
 mood with of: "Scarcely ivould any one die.' But this 
 mood in the later Greek fell gradually into disuse, and 
 modern Greek has given it up entirely. In the New Tes- 
 tament, as a dependent mood, it is almost completely 
 ignored, as it occurs but a few times, and only in the 
 writings of Luke. In Paul's writings the subjunctive is 
 always used, even after the so-called historical tenses, 
 the imperfect, aorist, and pluperfect. Winer thinks 
 this latter mood was at times purposely employed to 
 " denote an action still continuing, either in itself or in 
 its results, or one frequently recurring;" and Butt- 
 mann says it is " especially suited to the expression of 
 a purpose striving to become actual."— (F.) 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 123 
 
 8. But God comniendetb liis love toward us, in that, 
 while we were yet sinners, Christ died lor us. 
 
 8 die. But God conimendeth his own love toward us, 
 in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for 
 
 man some would even dare to die. The 
 
 little word {yap) translated 'yet' is the same 
 which is traii-slated 'for' in the beginning of 
 tlie verse and in hundreds of other places in 
 tlie New Testament. The must satisfactory 
 explanation of its being used here is to regard 
 tlie passage as elliptical, some such exi)ression 
 as this being supi)lied in thought, "but I do 
 not insist upon this," and then the 'for' in 
 place of 'yet' will be suitable. [Concerning 
 tiie tbrce/o?-s in this and the preceding verse, 
 Winer thus remarks: "Tiie first /or simply 
 refers to the f;ict which attested the love of 
 God (ver. 5, Christ's dying for the ungodly); 
 tiie second explains, a contrario, how death 
 (of the innocent) for the guilty evinces trans- 
 cendent love; the third substantiates the 
 remark, 'scarcely for a righteous man,' etc.] 
 In behalf of the good man perhaps some one 
 even ventures to die. The verb translated 
 'would dare' is in the indicative mood, and 
 is properly translated dares or ventures. 
 Observe the distinction between 'a righteous 
 man' and 'a good man.' 'A righteous 
 man' is just to others; 'a good man' is 
 beneficent to others. That this sense of the 
 word good belongs to the Greek adjective here 
 used is confirmed by Matt. 20 : 15, where it 
 plainh' has that sense, and also by the article, 
 wiiich emphasizes the distinction between a 
 righteous man and a good man, and, finallj', 
 by the nature of the case; for it is much less 
 difficult to believe that some one would be 
 willing to die for the beneficent man, to whom 
 he was bound by the tie oi gratitude for some 
 great favor, than that he would die for njust 
 man, who had merely rendered to him his 
 due. [There being nothing in the original 
 corresponding to the word inan, 'the good' 
 has been by some taken absolutely for that 
 which is good, as by Godet, and in the margin 
 of the Canterbury Revision, while Julius 
 Miiller refers it to God who alone is good. 
 The contrasted words 'ungodly,' 'sinners,' 
 etc., show that just and good refer to persons, 
 while no one certainly would die for an ab- 
 straction. Meyer, strange to say, allows no 
 essential difference of idea in these two words. 
 Instead of righteous, the Syriac, singularly 
 enough, reads unrighteous, which reading, in 
 Fritzsche's opinion, makes very good sense — 
 
 a sense, we should say, which hardly required 
 expressing. Wordsworth, in illustration of 
 one's willingness to die for a benefactor or for 
 the sake of friendship, refers to the story of 
 Orestes and Pylades, Alcestis and Admetus.] 
 For some, we should here read 'someone,' 
 for the pronoun is in the singular number; 
 whereas 'some,' without the 'one,' when used 
 of persons is properly plural. 
 
 8. [The word 'God' is wanting in the im- 
 portant Vatican MS. B, and in other copies its 
 position varies, for wiiich reasons it is rejected 
 by Alford, though the word 'he,' supplied by 
 Alford, is made to refer to God. There seems 
 to be, however, no sufficient grounds to doubt 
 its genuineness.] Commeudeth. Makes 
 manifest, and magnifies, as in 3 : 15. [This 
 verb, primarily, means to set or place to- 
 gether; hence in later use it becomes nearly 
 equivalent to prove, establish, or evince. Be- 
 sides the places referred to, it occurs else- 
 where in this Epistle only in 1G:1, wiiere it 
 means to bring together (as friends), hence to 
 commend. The present tense is used here to 
 denote an alwaj's existing, ever-present truth.] 
 His love. i/tso7<;n^ore, so the original reads, 
 to distinguish it emphatically from the human 
 love referred to in the previous verse [per- 
 haps, also, to contrast it with our want of love 
 and goodness. See 1 John 4 : 10: " Uercin is 
 love, not that we loved God, but that he loved 
 us.] Yet, in contrast with the note of the 
 next verse. Sinners, corresponding with 
 'ungodly' and 'without strength' (^er. e), 
 and contrasted with 'righteous' and 'good.' 
 (Ver. 7.) "God showcd /lis own love, in that 
 Christ died for us; therefore he loved Christ 
 as himself." (Bengel.) Or, therefore Christ 
 is God; both inferences are equally valid. 
 [If we compare this verse with 3:25, we see 
 that the propitiatory offering of Christ was 
 the means of exhibiting God's righteotisness, 
 and, at the same time, was also an expression 
 of God's love. Paul does not here represent 
 God the Father as all justice and Christ as all 
 love, but shows us rather that God's love for 
 sinful men was the same as Christ's. Godet 
 observes that "this parallel has no meaning 
 except as the sacrifice of Christ is to God the 
 sacrifice of himself." Christ has "died for us 
 sinners,'" and therefore we may be saved from 
 
124 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, 
 we shall be saved from wiath through him. 
 
 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were recon- 
 ciled to God by the death of his Son.; much more, 
 being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 
 
 9 us. Much more then, being now justified i by his 
 
 blood, shall we be saved from the wrath o/ God 
 
 10 through him. For it, while we were enemies, we 
 
 were reconciled to God through the death of his 
 
 Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be 
 
 wrath through him, and in none other is there 
 salvation. (Acts 4:12.) Abundant provision is 
 thus made for our salvation, yet we may die 
 of starvation though food is heaped up all 
 around us.] 
 
 9. Much more then. If he died for us 
 while we were yet sinners, much more then 
 will he save us now that we have been made 
 righteous through his death. If he made so 
 great a sacrifice to begin a work, much more 
 will he add that completion, without which 
 this costly beginning will be of no effect. 
 Justified by [literally, having been justified 
 in] his blood is a very strong expression. It 
 certainly cannot import less than that his 
 vicarious death was indispensable to our justi- 
 fication. Saved from wrath. Literally, 
 saved from the wrath, which was our con- 
 fessed desert and our otherwise inevitable 
 doom. [Christ s precious blood— in other 
 words, his atoning death or "his accomplished 
 and offered sacrifice" (Crenier) — is here rep- 
 resented as the source or ground of the sin- 
 ner's justification. Meyer remarks that "faith 
 as the recipient (AtiirTiKov) of justification is 
 understood as a matter of course (ver. 1), but is 
 not mentioned here, because only what has 
 been accomplished by God through Christ is 
 taken into consideration."] 
 
 10. For if. ['For' assigns a special reason 
 for the certainty of our salvation.] When 
 we were enemies. [Prof. Boise remarks 
 that the word for public enemies (noXftiioi) 
 "so common in classic Greek is not found in 
 the New Testament."] In what sense is the 
 word 'enemies' to be taken here? In the 
 active sense, those who are opposed to God? 
 or in the passive sense, those to whom God is 
 opposed? The former is unquestionably the 
 sense in which the word occurs most fre- 
 quently in the Scriptures. But it certainly 
 occurs also in the latter sense. Perhaps 11 : 
 28, and 2 Thess. 3: 15, are the clearest in- 
 stances. Here the passive sense, obnoxious to 
 the divine displeasure, is required; for two 
 reasons: 1. Bccauseit is God's righteous oppo- 
 sition to us, rather than our unrighteous oppo- 
 sition to him, which is directly removed by 
 
 the blood of his Son; and, 2. Because it is the 
 forensic, or judicial relation to God, not the 
 moral — justification, not sanctification — of 
 which the apostle is here treating. The best 
 critical expositors are agreed in ascribing this 
 sense to the word. Let the names of De 
 Wette, Alford, Meyer, Schaff, suflSce. [We 
 add the names of Tholuck, Fritzsche, Phil- 
 ippi, Weiss, Gifford, and Godet. The latter 
 says: " The enmity must above all belong to 
 him to whom wrath is attributed; and the 
 blood of Christ, through which we have been 
 justified, did not flow in the first place to 
 work a change in our dispositions Godward, 
 but to bring about a change in God's conduct 
 toward us. Otherwise this bloody death would 
 have to be called a demonstration of love and 
 not of righteousness." On this subject of the 
 influence of the atonement Godward, see Dr. 
 Hovey's "God with Us," pp. 100-155, "Man- 
 ual of Theology," 207, seq.] Reconciled to 
 God by the death of his Son [or, recon- 
 ciled ivith Qod — that is, restored to his favor]. 
 While reconciliation, much more than enmity, 
 may as a general rule be assumed to be mutual, 
 the prominent idea here undoubtedly is, not 
 the giving up of our hostility to God, but the 
 restoration of his favor to us. This follows 
 from what was said on the previous clause. 
 [Dr. Hovey thus paraphrases this verse: "For 
 if, when we Avere the objects of God's wrath 
 (like rebels whom the king counts as enemies), 
 we were put in a condition to receive his 
 favor, by the death of his Son, how much 
 more, having been put in that condition, shall 
 we be saved in his life." See also W^eiss' 
 " Biblical Theology," Vol. I, p. 428.] Much 
 more. ["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." 
 (Hodge.) " When one has done the most for 
 his enemies, he does not refuse the least to his 
 friends^ (Godet.) How much God has 
 done for his enemies may be gathered from the 
 words: 'death of his Son.'] Being recon- 
 ciled (more exactly, having been reconciled), 
 we shall be saved by his life. It is now 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 125 
 
 11 And not only «o, but we also joy in God tbrough ; 11 saved' by lus life; and not only so, ^ but we also re- 
 cur Lord Jesus Christ, by whoui we have now received 1 joico in (iod through our Lord Jesus Christ, through 
 the atoueuieut. I whom we have now received the reconciliation. 
 
 1 Gr. in. 'i Gr. but alto glorying. 
 
 assumed, that the subjective reconciliation, 
 the removal of our opposition to God, has 
 also taken place; but nu stress is laid on that 
 assumption. 'By his life" — literally, iti his 
 life [in vital union with his life (Schaft") ; in 
 the fact that he lives and intercedes. (Boise.) 
 ". Justification, " says Godet, *• rests only on 
 faith in the death of Chri.«t. Sanotification 
 flows from the life of Christ by the work of 
 the Holy Spirit." Compare John 14: 19, 
 "Because I live ye shall live also." Prof. 
 Stuart remarks that this passage (ver. e-io) 
 "seems to be more direct, in respect to the 
 perseverance of the saints, than almost any 
 other passage in tlie Scriptures"]. The close 
 relation in which he placed him.«elf to us, by 
 dj'ing for our sins, carries with it our being 
 associated with him in his resurrection life. 
 This topic is treated more fully in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 We may regard the whole work of Christ as 
 a Saviour, /or us and in us, beginning with 
 his vicarious propitiation for our sin.«, pro- 
 ceeding with our justification, and culminating 
 in our salvation, as virtually comprehended 
 in our reconciliation, with this distinction be- 
 tween tlie expres«ions ive luere reconciled and 
 having been reconciled, in ver. 10, that whereas 
 in the former expression the first step in the 
 process, propitiation, is most prominent, in 
 the latter expression, by a very natural pro- 
 gress in the thought, the second step, justifica- 
 tion, is most prominent. 
 
 Kecurring now to ver. 5, which was intro- 
 duced by the remark that the apostle is now 
 to set forth, as a fourth prerogative of the 
 justified believer, the certainty of his hope, 
 we have this course of thought in the devel- 
 opment of that subject. God has alreadj' 
 shown the fullness of his love to us by giving 
 his S))irit (^er. s), by giving his S(m to die for 
 us while we were j'et sinners (ver. e-s), and by 
 having thus begun the work of our salvation 
 when we were enemies, he has given the 
 surest pledge that lie will complete it now 
 that we are reconciled to him. (ver.9, lo.) And 
 now to sum up all in a fifth blessing, we boast 
 
 ourselves in God, having received, tlirough 
 Christ, this wonderful reconciliation witli liim. 
 11. It is very plain that the apostle would 
 have us regard what he speaks of in this verse 
 as distinct from, and added to, all the forego- 
 ing. The introductory words — and not only 
 so, but we also — manifestly imply this, i 
 [But we also joy iu God. Literally, but 
 also glorying. AVith this participle most 
 commentators supply the present tense of tlie 
 verb tJ be. The words imply not only that 
 we are saved; but that we have a joyous 
 consciousness of our salvation. See Winer, 
 p. 351.] And indeed this boasting in a God 
 reconciled to us is something more than 
 peace with God (ver. 5) ; sometliing more than 
 boasting in the hope of future glory (ver.2); 
 something more than boasting in tribulations 
 (ver. 3, 4) ; something difterent from the assured 
 certainty of our Christian hope, (ver.5-10.) It 
 is a higher experience than an}' of these, even 
 that of which tlie Psalmist sjieaks, in Ps. 34: 
 2; 44:8. Have now received the atone- 
 ment. The word 'atonement' is used no- 
 where else in our New Testament. The 
 Greek word (KOTaAAovrj), to which it here corre- 
 sponds, is, however, used in two other places, 
 in 11 : 15 and in 2 Cor. 4 : 18, 19, in which it is 
 more suitably translated reconciling or recon- 
 ciliation. We say this last is the more suit- 
 able translation, inasmuch as the word atone- 
 ment has acquired in theological languages 
 fixed, technical sense, which does not corre- 
 spond with the sense of the Greek word here 
 used. [Paul in 3 : 25 spoke of Christ, set forth 
 in his blood, as our propitiation, and he often 
 uses the word for redemption (oiroAuTpoMrw) ; but 
 the most proper word for atonement (iAacrMos) 
 is employed not by him but by the discijile 
 of love. See 1 John 2:2; 4:10. Compare, 
 also, the corresponding verb (iAao-KOftioi) in Heb. 
 2:17.] The noun here used is closely con- 
 nected both in form and meaning with the 
 verb translated reconciled in ver. 10. [The 
 fact that we receiiie rather than make or give 
 reconciliation shows the reconcilement to be in 
 God's mind or disposition rather than in our'. 
 
 1 The fie and aAAi, corresponding to the German aber and sondern, may thus be rendered: Xot only so, 
 however, but also, etc. 
 
126 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 At least, its primary reference is to the new 
 relation which God sustains to us. Prof. 
 Cremer, after referring to some doubtful pas- 
 sages, says: "But Rom. 5:11 is decidedly 
 opposed to the supposition that either a change 
 of feeling on the part of man, brought about 
 by the divine redemption, is referred to, or 
 an alteration in his relation to God to be 
 accomplished by man himself. It is God who 
 forms the relation between himself and hu- 
 manity anew; the part of humanity is to 
 accept this reinstatement. . . . God estab- 
 lishes a relationship of peace between him and 
 us by doing away with that whi;:h made him 
 our adversary (ii'TifiiKos), which directed his 
 anger against us. . . . Thus reconciliation 
 denotes the New Testament divine and saving 
 act of redemption (offoAurpwo-ts), in so far as 
 God himself, by his taking upon himself and 
 providing an atonement, establishes that rela- 
 tionship of peace with mankind which the 
 demands of liis justice had hitherto pre- 
 vented." SoDeWette: "We must think of 
 this reconciliation as the removal of the wrath 
 of God, ver. 9." And in this view nearlj^ all 
 commentators of note coincide "Nor is it 
 any contradiction that while God's anger 
 rested on mankind, his love instituted a 
 scheme of reconciliation, because the enmity 
 falls only on sin; the love, on the other hand, 
 regards sinners." (Philippi.) "Since this 
 enmity of God is only directed against man 
 as a sinner, it naturally does not exclude 
 grace which seeks to remove the cause of this 
 enmity and thereby to render reconciliation 
 possible." ("Weiss, I, 429.) The verb used 
 
 here {KaraWaat^U)) OCCUrS six times. (5:10;lCor. 
 
 7:11; 2 Cor. 5 : 18, 19, 20.) Another related word 
 
 (SiaAXitrtToi") is found OnCC (Matt. 5:24), "first be 
 
 reconciled to thy brother." In this case it is 
 the injured or offended brother of thine who 
 is really to become reconciled, and this ex- 
 ample, with that of 1 Sam. 29 : 4 ip the Septu- 
 agint (see Josephus' "Antiquities," Y, 2, 8), 
 shows us that in the expression 'we were 
 reconciled to (or with) God,' God may be 
 regarded as the party who was at enmity, 
 whose wrath, through the expiation of Christ, 
 has been removed, so that we may be received 
 
 into his favor. And this view is still further 
 confirmed by the general representation of 
 Scripture, that our reconciliation and justifi- 
 cation are effected by the sufferings, the death, 
 the blood of Christ, as a sacrifice for the sins 
 of the world. Still, the "Christian reconcili- 
 ation," as Trench remarks in his "Synonyms 
 of the New Testament," "has two sides," the 
 second and subordinate one being our recon- 
 ciliation toward God, "the daily deposition, 
 under the operation of the Holy Spirit, of the 
 enmity of the old man toward God. 2 Cor. 
 5: 20; comp.nre 1 Cor. 7 : 11. All attempts to 
 make this secondary to be indeed the primary 
 meaning and intention of the word, rest not 
 on an unprejudiced exegesis, but on a fore- 
 gone determination to get rid of the reality 
 of God's anger against the sinner." Accord- 
 ingly, our hymn revisers, who have substi- 
 tuted "To God I"m reconciled" for "My 
 God is reconciled," have made a "secondary 
 meaning of the word" to usurp the place of 
 the primar3'. For Scripture teaches us that 
 God when he reconciled all things to himself 
 through Jesus Christ, through the expiation 
 he made for our sins on the cross, by virtue 
 of which expiation the guilty who deserve to 
 die may be justified and thus saved from de- 
 served wrath (ver. 9), set up a relationsliip of 
 peace not before existing (Cremer) ; and tliat 
 Christ, by his propitiation and by bis perfect 
 obdience rendered to the will of God, has 
 effected conditions of peace between God 
 and the sinner, whereby he now comes and 
 "preaches peace" to a guilty world. "Recon- 
 ciliation," says Mej'er, "has taken place o6- 
 jectively through the death of Christ, but is 
 realized subjectively only when men become 
 believers, whereby the reconciliation becomes 
 appropriated to them." Compare 2 Cor. 5: 
 18-20; Col. 1:20-22; Eph. 2:16, 17; 1 John 
 4:10. In the examples from Ephesians and 
 
 Colossians another word (arroKaTaWdaaio) is 
 
 used. Both sides of the Christian reconcilia- 
 tion are, we suppose, presented to view in 2 
 Cor. 5:18-20; Col. 1: 20-22. ]i 
 
 The apostle has now completed his account 
 of the individual blessings secured to the be- 
 liever by the gospel way of justification ; and 
 
 1 On the connection of iAoo-icojiai (to make or be pro- 
 pitious) with reconciliation on the part of God, see 
 Cremer's " Biblico-Theological Lexicon," Article (caroA- 
 Xiirvo) ; ou the deep meaning of iAocrjiids (propitiation 
 
 or atonement\ see Trench's "Synonyms," p. 292; and 
 on this general subject, Dr. Hovey's " God with Us," pp. 
 114, 255. 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 127 
 
 VI Wherefore, as l)y oue man sin entered into the 
 wurlil, iiiiil deiith by sin ; and so death passed upon all 
 men, lor that all have sinned: 
 
 12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into 
 the world, and death through sin ; and so death 
 
 from this point to the end of the chapter he 
 treats of the way in which the human race is 
 affectfd by this newly revealed method of 
 justification. This is one of the most important, 
 and one of the most difficult sections of the 
 epistle. [The subject of which this section 
 treats is in itself one of utmost difl^icult^', 
 having to do with the "stubborn, terrible fact 
 of the universal dominion of sin and death 
 over the entire race." (Schaff.) Alford gives 
 to this section (ver. 12.19) the following title: 
 "TIijc bringing in of reconciliation and life by 
 Christ in its analogy tP the bringing in of sin 
 and death b}' Adam." Godet very happily 
 introduces the topic which follows in these 
 words: "After thus expounding in a first 
 section (i: if*-:); m) universal condemnation, in 
 a second section (3: 21-0: u) universal justifica- 
 tion, there remains nothing more for the apos- 
 tle to do than to compare these two vast dis- 
 jiensations by bringing together their two 
 points of departure. Such is the subject of 
 the third section which closes this funda- 
 mental part." Dr. SchaflT gives very full 
 notes on these verses in his edition of Lange's 
 " Commentar3'," also a special section enti- 
 tled: "Historical Statements on the Differ- 
 ent Theories of Original Sin and Imputa- 
 tion."* We may here observe that to Paul 
 alone of all New Testament writers, was it 
 given to set forth the doctrine of our race con- 
 nection with Adam's transgression, a doctrine 
 nevertheless quite plainly' intimated in the Old 
 Testament. Yet "like a skillful physician 
 the apostle goes not only to the root and foun- 
 tainhead of the evil, but also to the root and 
 fountainhead of the cure." (Dr. Schaff.)] 
 
 12. Wherefore (or, more properly, Utere- 
 fore) connects what follows as a conclusion 
 from ver. 11, especially with the last clause, 
 which may be regarded as a nummary of the 
 preceding verses of this chapter. [Since recon- 
 ciliation contains an allusion to wrath, and so 
 to condemnation as well as justification, the 
 connection may be thus conceived, as by Go- 
 det: "Since, condemned as we all were, we 
 
 have found reconciliation in Christ, there is 
 therefore between our relation to him and 
 our relation to the head of natural humanity 
 the following resemblance."] Reconciliation 
 through Christ is now to be presented in a 
 more general aspect, as affecting the destiny 
 of the whole race, and in a new form, as illus- 
 trated by a comparison between Adam and 
 Christ, or, more precisely, between the con- 
 sequences to the race of its relation to each. 
 As by one man sin entered into the world. 
 ['As.' This seems to begin a comparison, but 
 we find no corresponding so in what follows. 
 A simple and direct apodosis of the compari- 
 son would probably have run thus: So also 
 by one man righteousness entered into the 
 world and through righteousness life likewise 
 entered. Tholuck, Philippi, Meyer find the 
 second member of the comparison virtually 
 in ver. 14, which speaks of Christ as the anti- 
 t^-pe of Adam. Most expositt)rs find it in- 
 cluded in ver. 18, where the whole subject is 
 resumed and completed. As the word as does 
 not always require a so (compare Matt. 25: 
 14), some regard this as as introducing the 
 second member of the comparison in some 
 such improbable way as this: "Therefore 
 stands Christ in a similar relation to mankind 
 as Adam through whom sin and death entered 
 into the world" (DeWette), or, "therefore we 
 received and appropriated the reconciliation 
 through Christ in the same manner as by one 
 man," etc. (Lange and, similarlj', Alford.) 
 See Dr. Arnold's remarks further on.] The 
 occasion on which this comparison is intro- 
 duced accounts for the mention of Adam only, 
 without any allusion to Eve. The design of 
 the apostle is "to compare the One man who^ 
 as the bringer of salvation, has become the 
 beginner of the new humanity with the one 
 man who, as beginner of the old humanity, 
 became so destructive, in which collective 
 reference the woman recedes into the back- 
 ground." (Meyer.) Three reasons for the 
 omission of Eve's name are given by Bengel : 
 1. Adam had received the commandment 
 
 1 These terms are, we believe, now commonly distin- 1 in, and directly occasioned by, the sin of Adam, while 
 guished from each other — or at least may be properly | original sin has reference to the natural proclivity of 
 distinguished— in this way : imputed sin has reference the human heart to evil. — (F.) 
 to the condemnation and death ol our race as grounded J 
 
128 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 (apparently before the creation of Eve, Gen. 
 2:16, 17). 2. He was the head, not only of 
 his race, but also of Eve. 3. If Adam had not 
 obeyed his wife, onl^' one would have sinned. 
 (Sin would have ended where it began, with 
 Eve.) [Dr. Shedd, however, would include 
 both Adutn and Eve under the general term 
 man (avepaiiros), as in Gen. 5:2, "God called 
 their name Adam," or man. Fritzsche adopts 
 the first of BengeVs reasons, and thus finds an 
 excuse for Eve but none for Adam, making 
 her offense relate rather to the matter of time 
 and his to the matter of guilt. In this going 
 back to Adam, our Epistle, as many exposi- 
 tors have noticed, is strikingly distinguished 
 from the Epistle to the Galatians. "In the 
 latter," as Godet says, " where Paul is attack- 
 ing Judeo-Christianity, his argument starts 
 from the theocratic history, from Abraham. 
 In the former, which expounds the relation 
 of the gospel to human nature, Jewish and 
 Gentile, the argument starts from general 
 history, from Adam, the father of all man- 
 kind. From the very beginning of the Epistle 
 the standpoint is universal."] The New Testa- 
 ment plainly confirms the account in Genesis, 
 by recognizing Eve as the first transgressor, 
 in the only two passages where she is named — 
 2Cor. 11:3; lTim.2:13. Adam is mentioned 
 in the following places: Luke3:38; Rom. 5: 
 14, twice ; 1 Cor. 15 : 22, 45 ; 1 Tim, 2 : 13, 14 ; 
 Jude 14. Sin, not merely in the sense of 
 actual transgression, but sin as a ruling power 
 or principle. Throughout the whole section 
 'sin' is carefully distinguished from both 
 "transgression" (vr. u) and "offence." (ver. 
 15, 16, 17, 18, 20.) It is personified and represented 
 as an active power. Neither of the other two 
 ■words above named could be so represented 
 ■with equal propriety. Entered into the 
 world — that is, into this human world [the 
 ■world of humanity, which by Paul was re- 
 garded as then existing]. The account of its 
 entrance into this world shows plainly that it 
 had entered into the universe before. And 
 death by sin. [Literally, and through sin, 
 death likewise entered. In Meyer's opinion, 
 "that Adam was created immortal our pas- 
 sage does not affirm, and 1 Cor. 15 : 47 contains 
 the opposite." He further says: " If Adam 
 had not sinned, ... he would have become 
 
 immortal through eating of the tree of life in 
 Paradise. As he has sinned, however, the 
 consequence thereof necessarily was 'death,' 
 not only for himself, seeing that he had to 
 leave Paradise, but for all his posterity like- 
 wise. From this consequence, which the sin 
 of Adam had for all, it results . . . that the 
 f&ll of Adam was the collective fall of the 
 entire race, in so far as in fact all forfeited 
 Paradise and herewith incurred deatli." Paul 
 in this section seeks not so much the origin of 
 sin as that of death. (Godet.) Hence, one 
 chief thing which we look for in this discus- 
 sion is an explanation of the fact of death.] 
 ' By sin ' — that is, 'through sin,' as the means, 
 and on account of sin, as its appointed pen- 
 alty. What are we to understand by 'death' 
 in this passage? Primarily, it means physi- 
 cal death, the separation of the soul from the 
 body. Whatever else it tnay include, it must 
 include this, otherwise there would be no pro- 
 priety in using the word, and we may be sure 
 the word would not have been used had the 
 plain, literal sense of the wwd formed no part 
 of its meaning here. And this is confirmed 
 by ver. 14. But certainly something m,ore 
 than physical death is included in the word 
 in this connection. In Gen. 2 : 17, we read 
 that God said to Adam, "in the day that thou 
 eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam 
 did not suffer physical death on the very day 
 of his transgression. But he did sufler spirit- 
 ual death, for sin is the separation of the soul 
 from God, the fountain of life. And this 
 spiritual death, unless some remedial agency 
 comes in, naturally leads to, and culminates 
 in, eternal death. See how sin and death are 
 habitually connected in the Scriptures. (Cen. 
 
 2:17; Ezek. 18 : 4 ; Rom. 6 : 16, 21, 23 ; 7:10,11; 8:13.) The 
 
 death of the body is the palpable, representa- 
 tive test fact around which our reasonings 
 naturally gather.i ["In order," says Prof 
 Cremer, "to the clear perception and under- 
 standing of . . . the New Testament use of 
 this word (death), we must hold fast and 
 abide by the fact that death, as the punish- 
 ment pronounced by God upon sin, has a 
 punitive significance. . . . Death, therefore, 
 is a very comprehensive term, denoting all 
 the punitive consequences of sin. . . . Hence 
 we find that, according to the context, the 
 
 1 See Appendix B, 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 129 
 
 reference is either (a) to death as the objec- 
 tive sentence and punishment appointed for 
 man, or (6) to death as the state in which 
 man is as condemned through sin." We sup- 
 pose its ciiief reference here is to physical 
 death, tiie death which reigned from Adam 
 to Moses, (ver. 14.) See 1 Cor. 15 : 21. Meyer 
 and Godet refer to this solely. The tin of 
 EJen as causative of our fall and death is 
 referred to in the Apocrypha (i EsdrasT-. 48) : 
 "O tiiou Adam, what hast thou done? for 
 tliDUgh it was tliou that sinned, thou art not 
 fallen alone, but we all that come of thee; " 
 al.so Eccles. 25:21: "Of the woman came the 
 beginning of sin, and through her we all die; " 
 and compare Wisd. 2 : 24. De Wette says: 
 "No exegete can doubt tiiat Paul teaches the 
 extension both of sin and death from Adam 
 to mankind."] And so death passed upon 
 all men. 'And so' — that is, in agreement 
 with, and by reason of, this connection be- 
 tween sin and death. 'Passed upon all men.' 
 We have the same verb here which in the 
 first clause is translated entered, but with a 
 different preposition. The more exact repre- 
 sentation of the original would be given by 
 translating the two clauses thus: "Sin came 
 info the world;" "death cayne through" to 
 all men. The representation would thus be 
 made perfectly correspondent to the original, 
 if what we call the />re-positions could really 
 be /3re-posed or /ire-fixed, as tliey are in the 
 Greek, instead of being yjos^-posed, as the 
 idiom of our language requires them to be. 
 AVe cannot say, as the Greeks did, "sin into- 
 came the world," and death " through-canie 
 to all men." [This declaration, 'and so death 
 passed through unto all men,' supposes the 
 fact stated in the next clause, 'that all sinned' 
 — that is, either collectively in Adam or as in- 
 dividuals or both. Pfleiderer, as quoted by 
 Weiss, ' maintains that there is a double reason 
 assigned for death passing unto all ; namely, 
 the sin of Adam and the sin of all, and that 
 this is explicable only on the assumption 
 that the sin of Adam was as such already the 
 sin of all.' If we explain this passage by 
 tl)e nearly parallel statement of ver. 15, "the 
 many died," etc., it would appear that death 
 was made to extend to all men, not primarily 
 
 and solely by reason of their individual 
 offenses, but by "the trespass of the one." 
 Even Prof. Stuart acknowledges that the 
 'and so' of this clause intimates that "both 
 the sins of men and their condemnation stand 
 connected in some way or other with the first 
 offense by Adam." De Wette remarks that 
 this passing through of death upon ail men 
 differs ivon\ its entering into the world "as 
 going from house to house differs from entering 
 into a town.']' For that all have sinned. 
 The original expression which our translators 
 rendered ' for that ' has been variously under- 
 stood — "in whom," or "in which man" ["iu 
 v>hoin all have sinned"], say Origen, Augus- 
 tine, Beza,Vulgate, Wycliflfe; "on the suppo- 
 sition that," "in as far as," says Rothe [so 
 Julius Miiller] ; but our translators were 
 doubtless correct in saying 'for that' [which 
 is nearly equivalent to 'because'; compare 
 2 Cor. 5:4]. We may expand this a little 
 by sa3Mng "upon the occasion that," which 
 would be a very close adherence to the origi- 
 nal, and which would be equivalent to the 
 still more expanded form, "on the ground of 
 the fact that" all sinned. The most exact 
 parallel in form, sense, and translation is 2 
 Cor. 5: 14. Life was suspended on a certain 
 condition — obedience; death was suspended 
 on a certain condition — disobedience. All 
 disobeyed, in consequence of which death, 
 the original penalty of disobedience, came 
 through to all men. 'All sinned' is more 
 exact than 'all have sinned.' The verb here 
 is in the same tense as the two preceding 
 verbs, and th«re is no more reason why this 
 should be translated 'have sinned' than why 
 thej' should be translated 'has entered' and 
 'has passed.' But how are we to understand 
 the expression 'all sinned'? Four different 
 answers to this question may be briefly no- 
 ticed : 
 
 1. All have actually and personally sinned: 
 
 2. All have become corrupt and sinful : 
 
 3. All did actually sin in Adam : 
 
 4. All virtually sinned in Adam, as the 
 head of the human race, and the introducer 
 of sin, which passes through to all. 
 
 1. The first view [advocated by Tholuck, 
 De Wette, Fritzsche, Reuss, Lange, Barnes, 
 
 1 " eis with persons is not simply equivalent to ^poi (to), but involves the idea of mingling with and associ- 
 ation." (Ellicott.)— (F.) 
 
130 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 Stuart, Kipley,] is inconsistent with the proper 
 force of the tense of the verb, which properly 
 signifies, uotdosin, nor Aawe sinned, nov are ac- 
 customed to sin ; but simply sinned : their sin 
 is regarded as one act in some definite past time. 
 [The connection of the "all sinned" in 3: 
 23, whether it exclude all reference to the 
 primal sin or not, is wholly diiferent from the 
 "sinned" in this passage.] This first view is 
 also inconsistent with the design of the pass- 
 age, which is to show that Adam's sin, and 
 not our own apart from his, is the cause of 
 death. It is inconsistent with ver. 13, 14, 
 which are intended to prove what is here 
 asserted : but they do not prove that all have 
 actually sinned, but rather the reverse. It is 
 inconsistent with the analogy between Adam 
 and Christ. There would not be, according 
 to this view, that resemblance between the 
 way in which we become sinners through 
 Adam, and the way in which we become 
 righteous through Christ, which is aflSrmed in 
 ver. 19. [Dr. Hodge says: "It would make 
 the apostle teach that as all men die because 
 they personally sin, so all men live because 
 they are personally and inherently righteous. 
 This is contrary, not only to this whole pass- 
 age, but to all Paul's teaching, and to the 
 whole gospel." We think the stanza of 
 Spengler, quoted by Miiller in his " Christian 
 Doctrine of Sin," to be doctrinally far more 
 Pauline : 
 
 As now we all by foreign guilt 
 
 In Adam are reviled, 
 Therefore we all by foreign grace 
 
 In Christ are reconciled.] 
 
 It is inconsistent with the facts of the case. It 
 is not true that all die because all have actually 
 and personally sinned. Death is more exten- 
 sive than personal transgression. This Paul 
 himself declares in ver. 14. Infants die, 
 thougb they have not personally sinned. 
 
 2. The second view [advocated by Mel- 
 ancthon, Calvin, Prof. Turner] is also incon- 
 sistent with the meaning of the word, and 
 with the nature of the comparison. The verb 
 does not mean to become corrupt and sinful, 
 but simply to sin. [Alford blends the first 
 and second view together, making the sin to 
 be "both original and actual : in the seed^ as 
 planted in the nature by the sin of our fore- 
 father, and in the fruit, as developed by each 
 
 conscious responsible individual in his own 
 practice."] 
 
 8. The third view [Haldane's, Edwards', 
 Shedd's,] is regarded as simply inconceivable. 
 The appeal to Heb. 7 : 9, 10, does not avail to 
 make it conceivable, for the writer there takes 
 pains to apprise us that he is not using lan- 
 guage in a Literal sense: "As I may so say" 
 is a not uncommon phrase in tlie classics, in 
 introducing a highly figurative expression, 
 but is found nowhere else in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 4. "We are therefore shut up to this fourth 
 sense of the expression, that all virtually 
 sinned in the sin of Adam, who was the source, 
 and then indeed, with Eve, was the whole of 
 the human race. This interpretation is de- 
 manded by the context : by ver. 13 and 14, 
 which contain the proof of what is here 
 asserted; by ver. 15-19, which assume this 
 meaning as proved; and by ver. 18, 19, which 
 complete the comparison between Adam and 
 Christ in accordance with this view. [Ver. 
 12 may be properly explained by the plainer 
 and fuller assertions of ver. 15-19, since these 
 assertions rest on this verse as a foundation. 
 Notice the 'for if in ver. 15, 17, 'so then ' in 
 ver. 18, 'for as' in ver. 19.] And it is con- 
 firmed, finally, \>j such passages as 1 Cor. 15: 
 22, and 2 Cor. 5: 14, which should be trans- 
 lated, "having judged this, that one died for 
 all, therefore they all died.'' [Some inter- 
 pret the phrase, 'for that all sinned,' as mean- 
 ing that they sinned putatively or represen- 
 tatively ; "in other words, they were regarded 
 and treated as sinners on account of Adam's 
 sin." (Hodge.) To this view it is commonly 
 objected that we did not elect Adam to be our 
 agent or representative (yet God might have 
 appointed him as such), and it does not appear 
 that he consciously acted as such. Dr. Schaflf 
 says that Prof. Hodge " by rejecting the real- 
 istic theory of a participation of Adam's pos- 
 terity in his fall, loses the basis for a just 
 imputation, andresolvesit intoalegal fiction." 
 Only a sinful and guilty being can be the 
 subject of the displeasure of a holy and right- 
 eous Grod. "We do not object." he says, "to 
 the doctrine of imputation in itself, but simply i 
 to that form of it which ignores or denies the I 
 vital nature of our connection with Adam 
 and with Christ, as plainly taught in tliis 
 whole section. Adam is our natural repre- 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 131 
 
 sentative, de facto as well as de jure. He is 
 the root of humanity and his fall affected the 
 stock and every branch, by the inherent law 
 of organic life union. . . . The human race 
 is not a sand heap, but an organic unity ; and 
 only on the ground of such a vital unity, as 
 distinct from a mechanical or merely federal 
 unity, C!in we understand and defend the doc- 
 trine of original sin, the imputation of Adam's 
 sin, and of Christ's righteousness." The elder 
 Edwards, who could not think of any con- 
 demnation without personal ill-desert, carried 
 the notion of our personal identity with Adam 
 so far as to say that his sin was "truly and 
 properly " ours, and therefore God imputes it 
 to us. If, however, we as individuals actually 
 sinned in Adam, there would be no need of 
 imputing his sin to us, since we should have 
 sin of our own to answer for. Dr. Schaff, it 
 will be seen, adopts the realistic Augustinian 
 imputation theory which finds perhaps its' 
 truest expression in the familiar couplet of the 
 old New England Primer: 
 
 In Adam's fall, 
 We sinned all. 
 
 And this, indeed, is the view of many of the 
 
 more distinguished modern commentators, as 
 Olshausen, Meyer, Piiiiippi, Godet, Bishop 
 Wordsworth, the "Speaker's Commentary," 
 Ellicott's "New Testament Commentary," 
 etc. This view well accords with the tenses of 
 the verbs: "All sinned," and "death passed 
 through upon all men "—that is, at a definite 
 time in the past, and, as we think, harmonizes 
 with the drift of tlie apostle's argument, and 
 best explains the universal natural depravity 
 of mankind.i But how can Dr. Schaff, with 
 others holding similar views, say that this 
 verb to sin "means real, actual sinning," 
 and yet add that "all men sinned inAdam,no< 
 indeed personally by conscious, actual trans- 
 gressions, but virtually or potentially" '>. 
 Volumes, perhaps, have been written on these 
 two words : all sinned (n-oi-Tes rfy^aprov) ,^ espe- 
 cially on how this 'all sinned' is connected 
 with the phrase '• the one that sinned' {ivh<: 
 a.iJ.apTri<TavTo^) , and volumes more we fear will 
 have to be written before that definition will 
 be found which will to all persons and in all 
 respects be satisfactory. The truth is, as Prof. 
 Boise remarks, the hour oi this matter "is not 
 discussed by the apostle." One thing, how- 
 ever, seems to be certain, namely, that the 
 
 1 Prof. Stuart does not see anything which specially 
 needs to be accounted for in the fact that all the de- 
 scendants of Adam sin since he himself sinned who 
 was created ui)right. He says, for substance, that as, 
 according to Edwards, our race had a more favorable 
 probation in Adam than we should have in propria per- 
 sona, and yet he fell, it is therefore nothing wonderful 
 that all his descendants fall, even though created up- 
 right and pure. But this, 1 think, does not follow. A 
 strong man has an advantage in his strength, yet we 
 conceive it possible that he might fall where a weaker 
 man might stand. That a strong man fell simply shows 
 that all others may fall, but does not prove that they 
 certainly will. Edwards says that " an effect's happen- 
 ing once will not prove any fixed propensity or perma- 
 nent influence." On the other hand, "a stated effect 
 requires a stated cause," and in support of this postu- 
 late he adduces this illustration among others: "If 
 such a case should happen that a person through the 
 deceitful persuasions of a pretended friend, once takes 
 an unwholesome and poisonous draught of a liquor he 
 had no inclination to before; but after he has once 
 taken of it, he be observed to aot as one that has an 
 insatiable, incurable thirst after more of the same"— I 
 so that he does and will indulge incessantly in the 
 practice of drinking — " could it be said with good 
 reason that a fixed propensity can no more be argued ' 
 from his consequent common practice than from his 
 first draught?" And he thinks it \\ould be "weak' 
 
 arguing " in an objector to say, " Do you tell me how it 
 came to pass that he was guilty of that sin the first 
 time, without a fixed inclination, and I will tell you 
 how he is guilty of it so generally without a fixed incli- 
 nation." One thing is certain, that theologians of 
 every age and of every school, save the Pelagian and 
 Socinian, have traced man's innate depravity to the sin 
 of our first parents. " Whosoever," says Augustine, 
 "contends that human nature in any age does not need 
 the second Adam as a physician on the ground that it 
 has not been vitiated in the first Adam, does not fall 
 into an error which may be held without injury to the 
 rule of faith, but by that very rule by which we are 
 constituted Christians is convicted of being an enemy 
 to the grace of God."— (F.) 
 
 2 The " Five Clergymen " render this verb: were sin- 
 ners, since this phrase "covers every sort of sin." Prol. 
 J. R. Boise, in his notes on Romans, seems inclined to 
 regard all the verbs of this verse as in the gnomic or 
 iterative aorist, expressing as in the present tense a 
 general truth or what is habitual. But the account 
 here given of Adam, of his offense, and of its chiefest 
 consequence, is manifestly historic, and it involves here 
 a manifest incongruity to say: Through Adam sin 
 enters into the world, etc. Besides, the use of this aorist 
 in the New Testament is quite uncertain, and though 
 affirmed by Buttraann, p. 201, is altogether denied by 
 Winer, p. 277.— (F.) 
 
132 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 apostle's argument requires us to keep two 
 personages especially in view, who did not 
 stand alone or act as private persons, but, as 
 Melanctlion states it, "merited" for others, 
 yet "contrary things," and that as justifica- 
 tion and salvation are conferred upon us on 
 the ground of the obedience and righteous- 
 ness of the second Adam, so condemnation 
 and death have been visited upon us, upon 
 our whole race, on the ground of the trans- 
 gression of the first Adam. The apostle does 
 not assert that Adam's transgression is the 
 sole cause of the sinner's condemnation, nor 
 does he ignore individual sins. He aflSrms 
 that before the law was given "sin was in the 
 world," and he speaks of our "many offences," 
 and in a previous chapter declares that "they 
 who sinned without law shall perish without 
 law." Yet he does teach that the sin of Adam 
 is the primal and direct cause of human de- 
 pravity, sin, and death, and that in this respect 
 he is a type of the last Adam from whom 
 come directly our justification, life, and iieaoe. 
 "By one man (see especially in ver. 15, 17, 
 the simple dative of means ) sin entered and 
 death by sin." "The judgment came of one 
 unto condemnation." "Through one tres- 
 pass it came unto all men to condemnation," 
 which is here the same as saying that all men 
 were condemned through the one trespass of 
 Adam. Compare ver. 16, " the judgment was 
 from one [one offense'], unto condemnation." 
 If we deny that this "one offence" is to us 
 the ground of condemnation, we must also 
 deny that Christ's righteousness is the ground 
 of our justification. To assert that individual 
 sins are the sole cause of man's condemnation 
 and doath would completely nullify the apos- 
 tle's argument, and would be as false to Scrip- 
 ture as it to fact. Of what actual sins are 
 irresponsible persons, infants, and children 
 unborn, personally guilty that they should 
 suffer the penalty of deatlr? Their only sin 
 for which they die — for there is no death with- 
 out sin — is the imputed sin of Adam, unless 
 it be, as some suppose (Origen, in olden 
 times, Julius Miiller, President Beecher), 
 their individual sin in a previous state. That 
 the apostle should ignore the fact that this 
 very large part of our race suffer death is an 
 impossibility, for he assorts that death through 
 sm has passed through upon all men, and he 
 expressly traces the death of all to the sin of 
 
 all, and hence this large class of dying per- 
 sons must be put among the "all " who sinned. 
 Nor will it do to interpret 'for that' as mean- 
 ing in so far as, unless it be to express per- 
 haps " different degrees of guilt and death " 
 (Lange), because there must be a sin of all 
 which is the cause of death to all. The 
 apostle's argument, then, and we deem it irre- 
 futable, is manifestly this: that there is a 
 resemblance between the headshi]) of Adam 
 and of Christ, and that as by the trespass or 
 transgression of Adam all men, even apart 
 from their individual sins, are condemned and 
 visited with death, so by the obedience of 
 Christ, the second Adam, all who receive his 
 grace are freely justified and crowned with 
 everlasting blessedness apart from any inher- 
 ent goodness or merit of their own. In the 
 light of this argument, the phrase 'for that 
 all sinned' must be interpreted. In 2 Cor. 5: 
 14, an "analogous though not parallel pass- 
 age" (Godet), Paul asserts that because "one 
 (Christ) died in behiilf of all (or, instead of 
 all) thereftire all died." In like manner it 
 may at least be said that as Adam sinned for 
 all, to the disadvantage and condemnation of 
 all, so they "all sinned." "The death of 
 Christ was legally and effectively our death, 
 and the sin of Adam was legally $ind eflect- 
 ively our sin." (Hodge.) "The apostle there- 
 fore represents the sin of mankind as object- 
 ively wrapped up in Adam, precisely as he 
 contemplates the righteousness of mankind as 
 objectively wrapped up in Christ." (Philippi.) 
 Forbes wishes to find in this phrase an impar- 
 tation as well as an imputation of sin, and 
 this perhaps can be done. There is undenia- 
 bly a sense in which we as a rnce fell in Adam 
 (dowenotrightl^^ speakof our "fallen race" ?), 
 and there is a sense in which we as a race sinyied 
 in and through Adam, and so were put in the 
 category of sinners. And this, wo think, is 
 the meaning of ver. 19, where Paul asserts 
 that tlirough the disobedience of one man, in 
 which we all shared as a race, the many — 
 that is, the whole race of mankind were con- 
 stituted, set down in the place of, sinners, and 
 are consequently treated as sinners. 01s- 
 hausen, speaking of our being constituted 
 sinners through Adam's offense, says: "Not 
 the per-onal transgressions of individual men, 
 but the disobedience of Adam was alone the 
 foundation of all being sinners, and just so the 
 
Ch v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 133 
 
 reverse" — that is, in regard to our justifica- 
 tion, solely through the obedience of Christ. 
 He then adds: "No expression can be im- 
 agined by which Paul could have more dis- 
 tinctly defined ver. 12 and 15, and protected 
 his meaning from erroneous conceptions ; if, 
 notwithstanding, he has not succeeded in 
 preventing them, the cause of the failure can 
 only at lust be found in the heart's resistance 
 to this doctrine, bringing, as it does, to nothing 
 all man's self-sufficiency, a resistance which 
 even unconsciously asserts itself while inter- 
 preting such passages."] 
 
 We must always bear in mind that death 
 means more than the mere separation of soul 
 and body, but that all which it means is so 
 connected with this literal sense, that this last 
 may be taken as a representative fact : where 
 this is found, the rest will follow, without 
 some extraordinary and superhuman inter- 
 vention. Natural death is a part of the pen- 
 alty ; and so far the penalty goes into actual 
 effect. 
 
 "The death of the soul," says Augustine, 
 " takes place when God leaves it, as the death 
 of the body takes place when the soul leaves 
 it: it is then the death of both, that is, of the 
 whole man, when a soul forsaken of God for- 
 sakes the body." ( " De Civitate Dei," xiii, c. 
 1. ) " Mors igitur animae tit, cum eam deserit 
 Deus : sicut corporis, cum id deserit anima. 
 Ergo utriusque rei, id est, totius hominis mors 
 est, cum anima a Deo deserta deserit corpus." 
 
 Bengel calls attention to the arrangement of 
 the four clauses in this verse: 
 
 Sin entered into the world, 
 And death through sin ; 
 Death passed through to all men, 
 For that all sinned ; 
 
 and adds this remark: "Sin precedes death; 
 but the universality of death is known before 
 the universality of sin : and the clauses are 
 conformed to this order." 
 
 There is still one more point to be considered 
 in this verse, before we pass to the next. 
 Looking at the verse as a whole, it is evi- 
 dently grammatically incomplete. Three 
 ways are proposed of supplying what is neces- 
 sary to its completeness. 
 
 (a) To supply at the beginning, or, rather, 
 after' wherefore' {therefore) "it was"— [that 
 is, our justification was by one rnan, as through 
 
 one man came our sin and condemnation], 
 thus making all that follows the .second mem- 
 ber of the comparison, technically called the 
 apodosis, instead of the first, the protasis. 
 Alford takes this view, and refers to Matt. 25: 
 14, for a similar use of the word translated as, 
 without any preceding protasis. [The there- 
 fore, at the beginning of our passage, indicat- 
 ing a new starting point, forbids such a close 
 grammatical connection with the i)receding 
 passage.] 
 
 (b) Others regard this as the protasis, and 
 find the uj^odosis in a later clause of the same 
 verse, some in the clause immediately follow- 
 ing, so being supplied, and being changed 
 to also : as by one man sin entered into the 
 world, so also death by sin; and some in the 
 next clause, and. so being changed to .so also. 
 
 (c) Others find the apodosis in a subsequent 
 verse; some in the expression, who is the 
 
 Jigure of him that loas to come in ver. 14; and 
 some in the latter half of ver. 18, even so, etc. 
 
 All these except the last would be gram- 
 matically irregular, the last under (6) pre- 
 eminently so. We prefer the last under (c). 
 Had the comparison been completed, in regu- 
 lar form with its proper connection [Winer, 
 569] and without any parenthesis or digres- 
 sion, we suppose ver. 12 would have read on 
 this wise : therefore, as by one man sin entered, 
 etc., even so by one man righteousness entered 
 into the v)orld, and life by righteousness. And 
 this is virtually the way in which it is com- 
 pleted in ver. 18, the terms being somewhat 
 changed, to accord with the interposed verses. 
 To this view the principal objections are, that 
 the matter contained in ver. 13-17 is too long 
 and too important to be treated as a parenthe- 
 sis : and also that ver. 18 seems to be a reca- 
 pitulation rather than a resumption. Neither 
 of these objections seems insuperjtble: in fact, 
 the last seems of very little weight; for it 
 would be quite natural, in recapitulating to 
 resume the regular grammatical or rhetorical 
 form of the sentence. It is confessedly a case 
 of peculiar difficulty ; but this way of mak- 
 ing out the connection seems to us to be en- 
 cumbered with less serious difficulties than 
 any other. 
 
 13, 14. It is generally agreed that these 
 verses are designed to prove [or explain] the 
 statement of ver. 12, that death passed upon 
 all men on account of sin. What is the nature 
 
134 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V 
 
 13 (For until the law sin was in the world : but sin is 
 not imputed when there is no law. 
 
 13 passed unto all men, for that all sinned:— for until 
 the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed 
 
 14 when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned 
 
 of the proof? 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, fur men died before 
 that law was given. The violation of the law 
 of nature will not account for the universality 
 of death, for those die who have never vio- 
 lated that law. Death is more extensive than 
 the violation of the law of Moses; it is more 
 extensive than the violation of the law of 
 nature. It is co-extensive with our connec- 
 tion with Adam. Here is a universal eifect. 
 Here are three causes proposed to account for 
 that effect : Two of these causes are less exten- 
 sive than the effect, the third is precisely co- 
 extensive with the effect, and the effect is 
 precisely what was foretold as the sure conse- 
 quence of that particular cause. It follows, 
 therefore, that men are subject to death on 
 account of the sin of Adam. ' 
 
 For until the law. For prior to the law, 
 and up to the time of the law. [This is further 
 explained by the phrase — from Adam to 
 Moses. The word law in the original has no 
 article, yet it must have special reference to 
 the law. The Jews knew only of one law, 
 that of Moses, and hence "law" to them was 
 the same as "the law." So "world" in the 
 following clause is destitute of the article, it 
 being noticed bj' "Winer under the general 
 head of " words which denote objects, of 
 which there is but one in existence, and 
 which, therefore, approximate closely to 
 proper names." Especially are such words 
 found without the article "when, in connec- 
 tion with prepositions, etc., they form phrases 
 of frequent occurrence."] Sin was in the 
 world. [Continuously. The imperfect tense 
 is used to express simultaneity, duration, non- 
 completion. (Ellicott. )] There was sin in 
 the world. This is proved by the fact that 
 death, the consequence of sin, was all this 
 time in the world. But sin is not imputed 
 when there is no laAV. Sin is not reckoned 
 as sin when there is no law. [It is not reck- 
 oned for punishment, or is not punished as 
 transgression. (Meyer.)] The word trans- 
 lated imputed here is different in form (though 
 the difference is not radical, both being de- 
 rived from the same root) from that which is 
 
 usually so translated. The same form is not 
 found elsewhere, except in Philem. (ver. is.) 
 Some have inferred from this that the word 
 here used means, is not fully or stTictly reck- 
 oned, in the absence of express law. But this 
 requires that the word law should be restricted 
 to express or luritten law, a restriction not 
 called for, and, in our view, not consistent 
 with a right view of the apostle's argument. 
 ["Not put into the account for punishment" 
 is Dr. Shedd's view. But surely the apostle 
 has repeatedly and plainly asserted that the 
 wrath of God will be visited upon the Gen- 
 tiles, who have not the law, but who yet are 
 fully aware that for their sins they are deserv- 
 ing of death. Paul in the last chapter (ver. is) 
 affirmed that "where there is no law neither 
 is there transgression." And his meaning in 
 our passage must be that sin, in the absence 
 of God's revealed will, is not reckoned or 
 punished as transgression. It may be, as the 
 Apostle John calls it, 'lawlessness' {avofiia.), 
 but not 'a transgression of law' (Trapo/Sao-w 
 voixov). Yet death reigned from Adam to 
 Moses, and if death was visited upon the 
 people who lived during that time solely on 
 account of their individual offenses, then their 
 sin certainly was imputed to them. To get 
 rid of this contradiction, Tholuck, Miillor, 
 Stuart, and others say that sin is not imputed 
 by ynen where there is no law, and the idea 
 then would be — though men in a state of na- 
 ture, and in the absence of law, "make but 
 little account of sin" (Stuart), yet in God's 
 sight they do sin, and their sin, as such, is 
 visited with death. But against this man- 
 imputation view of sin, I would observe (a) 
 that in the Scriptures, generally, God, and not 
 man, is the one who imputes or does not im- 
 pute sin ; (6) that even Pagans, without any 
 revelation, have recognized themselves as sin- 
 ners (compare 1 : 32; 2 : 15), and the Jews, as 
 we know, regarded the heathen Gentiles as 
 pre-eminent sinners; and (c) that sinning 
 men "make but little account" of sin whether 
 committed before or after Moses, whether 
 without law or with law. A better interpre- 
 tation, and one quite as helpful to their view, 
 would be something like this: Since prior to 
 the time of Moses sin was in the world and 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 135 
 
 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, 
 eveu over them that had uot sinned after the simili- 
 tude of Adam's trausgressiou, who i« the figure of him 
 that was to come. 
 
 from Adam unto Moses, even over them that had 
 
 not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgres- 
 
 15 sion, who is a tigure of him that was to come. But 
 
 death reigned during all that period, therefore 
 though men were then destitute of the re- 
 vealed will or law of God they yet sinned 
 against some law, the law written in their 
 hearts, for sin is not imputed and visited with 
 death in the absence of all law. This view, 
 which is adopted for substance by many in- 
 tcrpretiTs, has some truth in it, but it makes 
 a distinction, not apparent in the text, be- 
 tween the faiv (vofiov) of one line and the equi- 
 pollent law of the litie following. Both mean 
 the same thing and are to be treated alike; 
 and hence we are not to supply and empha- 
 size an adjective, as we did above, before the 
 second law. Not even the word no, which is 
 inserted in our versions, is found in the origi- 
 nal text. Supplying, as we may, the article 
 to each law, we have this literal rendering: 
 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin 
 is not taken into account, there not being the 
 laiv, or, where the lav) is 7iot; and this mani- 
 festly correct rendering is wholl3' antagonistic 
 to the above view. This view, moreover, 
 neglects the strong adversative force of the 
 Greek conjunction (oAAo, but, or, neverthe- 
 less, death reigned, etc.), and does not ac- 
 cord with the drift, as we ai)prehend it, of the 
 apostle's argument.] Nevertheless death 
 reigned from Adam to Moses. 'Never- 
 theless' — that is, although sin is not imputed 
 when there is no law, yet the fact was that 
 'death reigned,' was not only in the world, 
 but exercised a dominion which none could 
 resist, and from which none were exempt. 
 [Nevertheless or but "introduces an appa- 
 rently contradictory phenomenon, confront- 
 ing the sin is not imputed, etc. ; one, however, 
 which just proves that men have died, not 
 through their own special sin, but through 
 the sin of Adam, which was put to their 
 account." (Meyer.) Death reigned in the 
 world during a period when there was no 
 law, which expressly threatened death as the 
 penalty of transgression.] 'From Adam to 
 Moses,' corresponding to the expression at 
 the beginning of the verse — until the law — 
 from Adam, the first transgressor, to Moses, 
 the first lawgiver. Even over them that 
 had not sinned after the similitude of 
 Adam's transgression. Does this mean 
 
 "even over those who did not commit actual 
 transgression, as Adam did?" or, "even over 
 those who did not violate an express precept, 
 as Adam did?" If the latter, it was equally 
 true of all those who lived between Adam and 
 Moses; if the former, it was true only of a 
 part, a certain class, of those who lived be- 
 tween Adam and Moses— that is, of those who 
 died in infancy. [Meyer, Lange, and Hodge 
 think that two classes are here indicated, 
 though the former two find here no reference 
 made to infants. But most commentators 
 recognize but one cla.ss and find no intended 
 reference to infants. "Ciiildren are included, 
 but not specially intended." (SchafF. )] Now 
 the form of the expression intimates that the 
 words following 'even' designate a certain 
 2^nrt of those who lived between Adam and 
 Moses, over whom it might less have been 
 expected that death would reign, than over 
 the rest. What class ibould this be except 
 those infants over whom death reigned? But 
 it may be objected that if infants are intended, 
 there is no reason for the limitation 'from 
 Adam to Moses,' inasmuch as death's reign 
 over infants was in nowise aft'ected by the giv- 
 ing of the law. We answer, that limitation was 
 not made in direct connection with the refer- 
 ence to infants. It was the writer's immediate 
 purpo.se to show that death was not the con- 
 sequence of the violation of the law of Moses. 
 The proof of this was, that death reigned be- 
 fore the law of Moses was given, and having 
 made that necessary limitation here — when 
 he adds, incidentally, 'even over them,' etc. 
 — he did not think it necessary- expressly to 
 remove that limitation ; it was no longer neces- 
 sary, to be sure. The statement was equally 
 true of infants without that limitation; but 
 the argument is not vitiated by allowing that 
 no longer necessary limitation to remain. 
 Besides, as Meyer has observed, the word 
 'even' necessarily assumes a class of sinners 
 before Moses, whose sin was after the simili- 
 tude of Adam's transgression," and this ex- 
 cludes the idea that the distinction emphasized 
 by eve7i is between those who had violated a 
 specific command and those who had not. 
 Moreover, this distinction is much less import- 
 ant than that between those who have com- 
 
136 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 mitted actual sin and those who have not, and 
 therefore it is highly improbable that the 
 former distinction would be emphasized and 
 the latter altogether ignored. Finally, it 
 seems to us simply incredible that in such a 
 discussion as this so prominent and significant 
 a factor as the death of infants should be un- 
 noticed. Our principal reason for laying so 
 much stress on this particular question is that 
 the reference to infants is denied by so many 
 commentators of note. [Notwithstanding Dr. 
 Arnold's exceedingly able argument in de- 
 fense of a reference to infants in this verse 
 (see Appendix B), we are still inclined to 
 hesitate, and, on the whole, are disposed to 
 adopt Meyer's interpretation of these difBcult 
 verses. (i3, u.) His view, with which that of 
 Philippi and Godet is substantially accordant, 
 is: "If the death of men after Adam had 
 been caused by their own sin, then in the 
 case of all those who died during the period 
 from Adam till the law, the sin which they 
 committed must have been already reckoned 
 to them as transgression of the law, just as 
 Adam's sin was the transgression of the posi- 
 tive divine command, and as such brought 
 upon him death. But this is inconceivable, 
 because the law was not then in existence.'' 
 It was, therefore, on account of the Adamic 
 transgression that death reigned from Adam 
 to Moses, not only over those individuals, like 
 Noah, to whom special commands were given, 
 but even over those who sinned only against 
 the law written in their hearts — that is, those 
 who did not sin after the likeness of Adam's 
 transgression. Philippi, Gifford, Turner, Go- 
 det differ from Meyer's interpretation chiefly 
 in this, that they think the apostle here refers 
 only to one class, the whole human species 
 living and dying between Adam and Moses. 
 Edwards, Hodge, Shedd, and some other ini- 
 putationists, with Dr. Arnold, make this latter 
 clause refer to infants; but this seems unten- 
 able for several reasons: {a) We naturally 
 infer that those who did not sin after the like- 
 ness of Adam's transgression did actually sin 
 some other way. (6) If infants literally sinned 
 in Adam, then we should naturally suppose 
 that their transgression was just like Adam's. 
 And this is what Prof. Shedd, by an almost 
 unexampled subtlety of hypercriticism, de- 
 duces from this clause. These persons, he 
 says, did not commit a sin resembling or 
 
 similar to Adam's, therefore they committed 
 the same identical sin ! (c) There is no 
 special reason for referring to infants who 
 lived in the period from Adam to Moses, 
 since these were no more ignorant of law or 
 innocent of personal transgression than those 
 living at any other period of the world, (d) 
 If the apostle had wished to single out or 
 except a certain class (infants), he would 
 naturally have specified them by name, whicii 
 he could Aasily have done, and would not 
 naturally have adopted a seemingly very 
 blind method of doing so. (e) Not only is 
 this class not mentioned by name, but no 
 clear intimation is given that this class is 
 specially had in view. (/) There is no ce?*- 
 tainty that the apostle intended to distinguish 
 two classes of persons (as adults and infants) 
 existing in the period between Adam and 
 Moses over whom death reigned, (g) Had 
 he wished thus sharply to distinguish tliem, 
 he probably would have said something like 
 this: Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam 
 to Moses, not only over adult persons who 
 sinned merely against the light of nature, but 
 even over infants and unborn children who 
 never had done anything either good or bad. 
 (A) The sinning or not sinning in the likeness 
 of Adam's transgression can more easily be 
 predicated of such adult persons than it can 
 of irresponsible infants. Yet we do not think 
 that this large class of mankind are ignored 
 in the apostle's argument. They are, in our 
 view, embraced in the propositions — ^^ death 
 passed through upon all men," and "for that 
 all sinned." As dying ones they cannot here 
 be left out of consideration, for, as Meyer 
 states it, "the question here is the connection 
 between the sin of all and the dying of all."] 
 Who is the figure of him that was to 
 come. [Literally, a type of the coming one, 
 spcken from a pre-Christian point of view. 
 Fritzsche, De Wette, Alford, make this refer 
 to Christ's final coming.] 'That was to come,' 
 or, the one about to be — that is, the Messiah. 
 In this brief clause, the analogy between 
 Adam and Christ, which is the key of this 
 whole section (ver. 12-21), is first explicitlj' stated. 
 [Meyer's interpretation of ver. 13, 14 is in 
 substance nearly as follows: Since in the ab- 
 sence of law there is no imputation of personal 
 transgression, therefore the death which befell 
 those who did not, as Adam, sin against a 
 
 i 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 137 
 
 15 But not as the oflfence, so also is the free gift : for 
 if through the otf'ence of one luany be dead, much 
 more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is 
 by one man, Jesus Christ, hatli abounded uuto many. 
 
 not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by 
 the trespass of the one ihe many died, much more 
 did the grace of Uod, and the gift by tlie grace of the 
 one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many. 
 
 positive law could not be derived from their 
 individual .sin committed before tlie law was 
 given. Consequently, death in their case was 
 cau>ed, not by individual sing, but by the sin 
 of Adam, who in this respect is a type of 
 Christ; for as the sin of Adam, and not their 
 self-originated sin, brought death to all, so 
 the obedience of Christ, and not their own 
 virtue, brought life to all. This view does 
 not necessarily imply that sinners of the class 
 referred to were not also condemned and 
 punished for their own individual sins. Thus 
 Bengel says: "It is not denied that death is 
 the wages of any sin whatever, but it is proved 
 that the first cause of death was the first sin."] 
 The following verses specify the differences, 
 rather than the resemblances, between the 
 objects compared. The resemblance implied 
 in this word 'figure' (literally, tyjje) may be 
 summarily stated in the following formula, 
 ■which, however, necessarily involves the most 
 important points of diflTerence : As Adam, the 
 first man, communicated a degenerate human 
 nature to all his natural oflTspring, so Christ, 
 the new man, communicates a regenerate 
 divine nature (2 Peter i: 4) to all his spiritual 
 offspring. This statement is still further ex- 
 panded by Carpzov, so as to embrace the sub- 
 stance of what is contained in ver. 12-19, thus : 
 
 1. The first Adam is the one man, the head 
 and corrupter of the human race. (ver. 12.) 
 So Christ, the last Adam (1 cor. is: 45), he too 
 is the one man, but God-man, the restorer of 
 the human race. (ver. 15, n.) 
 
 2. The first Adam brought in sin, guilt, 
 death. (Ver. 12, is.) The last Adam procures the 
 grace of God, righteousness, life. (ver. 15-18.) 
 
 3. The one, by his transgression, brought 
 guilt upon all men. (ver. 15, is, 19.) The other 
 by his righteousness, brings back reconcilia- 
 tion to all who by faith lay hold on his merit. 
 
 (Ver. 17.) 
 
 4. The first Adam sinned unto condemna- 
 tion. (Ver. 16.) The last Adam, bj' his right- 
 eousness, brings us blessing unto life eternal. 1 
 
 (Ver. 18.) 
 
 [Though our heritage from Adam is one of 
 woe, yet we have this to be thankful for, that 
 through the first Adam we have the Second. 
 "O felix culpa quie talem et tantum meruit 
 habere Redemptorem." "O fortunate offense 
 which deserved to have such and so great a 
 Redeemer.-' "I willingly consent," says Clial- 
 niers, "to have the guilt of Adam charged 
 upon me, if, along with it, the overpassing 
 righteousness of Christ shall be reckoned to 
 me." (Ver. 15.) The connection of thought 
 here is this: Adam, as a type, indeed resem- 
 bles Christ, but there is this difference, etc. 
 The design of the apostle leads him, as has 
 been intimated, to emphasize the differences 
 rather than the resemblances between the 
 type and the antitype. Prof. Boise remarks 
 that the logical order of a sentence woul^ 
 be so as, but Paul pursues the chronological 
 order, mentioning the fall first; compare ver. 
 16.] But not as the ofTeiicc, so also is 
 the free gift. [Better: the gift of grace.'\ 
 That is, not in all respects. What follows in 
 this verse explains this. There was a similar 
 relation of cause and consequence in the two 
 cases ; but both were of an opposite nature. 
 'The offence' — that is, the act of tran.«gression, 
 which brought in death — ihe fall, as the same 
 word is translated"in 11 : 11, 12. [It is derived 
 from a verb which means, to fall aside.] It is 
 commonly translated tresjyass (wherever that 
 English word occurs as a noun), sometimes 
 
 sill (Eph. 1: 7; 2: 5: Col. 2 : 13), onCd, favlt (Gal. B: 1); 
 
 offense only in the last verse of the preceding 
 chapter, and in ver. 15 (twice), 16, 17, 18, 20, 
 of this. ' The free gift.' This word is not the 
 direct antithesis to offense or fall ; but having 
 in mind chiefly the consequence of the offense 
 
 1 1. Primus Adamus est ille eU avOpionoi;, ille untis, 
 generis caput humani et depravator. (Ver. 12.) Ita 
 Christus o eo-xaro? 'ASa/n (1 Cor. 15: 45), et ipse est unus 
 ille, sed ©eavepwjros, generis humani instaurator. (Ver. 
 15, 17.) 
 
 2. Prior Adamus peccatum, reatum, mortem infert. 
 (Ver. 12, IS.) Posterior gratiam Dei, justiliam, vitam 
 comparat. (Ver. 15, 18.) 
 
 3. Ille, per unum delictum, reatum induoit ad omnes 
 homines. (Ver. 15, 18. 19.) Hie, i)er unam justitiam, 
 reconciliationem recuperat omnium hominum, ejus 
 lueritum fide complectentium. (Ver. 17.) 
 
 4. Adamus primus peccat ad condemnationem. (Ver. 
 16.) Adamus novissimus sua nos ju^itia felicitat ad 
 vitam eternani. (Ver. 18.) 
 
188 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 — namely, condemnation, the apostle uses the 
 word which comprehensively expresses the 
 proper antithesis to that consequence, and 
 which is explained by the terms, g)-acea.ndgift, 
 with their adjuncts, in this and the two follow- 
 ing verses. For if through the offence of 
 [the] one many be dead. The many died, 
 rather than ' many be dead,' is the exact 
 translation of the original. The meaning 
 of not a few passages is obscured, or altered, 
 by the frequent mistranslation of the verb to 
 die. See 2 Cor. 5: 14, where the verb trans- 
 lated "were dead" is precisely identical with 
 that translated "died" in the same verse, 
 except the difference of one letter, to mark 
 the change from the singular number to the 
 plural. 1 See also Gal. 2: 21. It is an entirely 
 different expression in the original (veicpds), 
 which is correctly translated, to be dead, in 
 such pa.ssages as Luke 15: 24, 32; Rom. 7:8; 
 8: 10; Eph. 2: 1, 5; Col. 2: 13; James 2: 17; 
 Rev. 1: 18; 2: 8; 3: 1. ["The death of 
 the many is described here as the direct con- 
 sequence of the trespass of the one." (Phi- 
 lippi.) Prof. Stuart also concedes that "Adam 
 did by his offense cause death to come on all 
 without exception," that "all have been in- 
 troduced to sin and death by Adam," and 
 that "the disobedience of Adam was a cause 
 or ground why all men became sinners and 
 therefore come into a state of condemnation." 
 The many (used here in contrast with the 
 one) — that is, all mankind died by means of 
 Adam's offense, and they died at the same 
 time that death passed through unto all men, 
 and that was the time of Adam's transgression, 
 in which all mankind were involved. We 
 became in Adam a fallen, sinful, djnng race. 
 "The question," saj-s Olshausen, "how in 
 Adam all who were not yet in existence could 
 sin with him [or how all could die in him] 
 has difficult^' in it only so long as the isolation 
 of individuals is maintained."] Much more. 
 [The presupposition on which this conclusion 
 rests is that God would rather allow his good- 
 ness to prevail, than his severity. (Meyer.)] 
 
 This phrase is to be understood here in a logi- 
 cal, rather than in a quantitative sense — vjith 
 tnuch m,ore reason, rather than in a much 
 greater degree. The difference indicated in 
 the first clause of this verse seems to be rather 
 one of kind than of degree (Alford takes 
 the contrary view) ; yet the idea of degree 
 cannot be altogether excluded from the ' much 
 more' in any of these three verses (15, 10, 17). 
 It seems, however, more prominent in the 
 next verse than in this. Here we regard the 
 contrast as chiefly between the kind, or fiature, 
 of the consequences of the acts of the type 
 (ver. u) and of the antitype: on the one hand, 
 death, on the other, a gracious and abounding 
 gift. ["The word abound is doubtless an 
 echo of Paul's own blessed experience." 
 (Meyer.) A simple antithesis of the first 
 clause would be, as Philippi observes: much 
 more by the gracious gift of the One shall the 
 many live. But Paul wishes to expand and 
 emphasize the idea of the 'gift' (xapto-Mi) and 
 of its abounding through Jesus Christ. The 
 grace abounding, says Dr. Gifford, "did not 
 restore in the same form that which had been 
 lost in Adam, but bestowed far more in new 
 and better gifts."] The English reader might 
 be in doubt, whether the relative 'which' 
 refers to the word 'gift,' or to the word 'grace': 
 the question would be only a grammatical 
 one, the sense being substantially the same; 
 but it is perfectly clear in the original, that 
 the reference is to the latter word ; and the 
 clause might be translated, both more liter- 
 allj^ and less ambiguously, the gift by (or in) 
 the grace of the one m.an. [Bengel calls the 
 two articles which stand after 'grace,' nervo- 
 sissimi, " most forcible." Their force perhaps 
 can be fully expressed thus: by the grace 
 (namely) by that of the one man, etc. De 
 Wette, Eritzsche, and Meyer, versus Lange, 
 Philippi, Godet, connect this clause, not with 
 the noun gift, but with the verb abound, 
 which seems to us incorrect. The points of 
 contrast in this verse are — the trespass of the 
 one (Adam) with its result, death, as our 
 
 1 " If one died for all then they all died " — that is, they 
 died ill Christ's dying. The same principle holds sub- 
 stantially true of the sinning and dying of the first 
 Adam. These acts on the part of Adam were virtually 
 the acts of the race. Dr. Gifford (in the Bible Com- 
 mentary) says: "The apostle's whole reasoning rests 
 on these two principles: (1) Sin is the cause of death: 
 
 (2) By virtue of the unity of mankind, sin and death 
 are both transmitted from one to all. Thus the sin of 
 the many and the death of the many are included in 
 the sin of the one and the death of the one, and there 
 at their common source the connection between sin and 
 death is fixed once for all." — (F.) 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 139 
 
 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the 
 zift: lor the judgment v'as hy one to condemnation, 
 out the free gilt is of many otl'ences unto justiticatiou. 
 
 17 For if by cue man's ofl'ence death reigned by one ; 
 
 16 And not as through one that sinned, «o is the gift : for 
 the judgment came of one uiitocondemuation, but tlie 
 free gilt canif. of many trespasses unto ijustilii'ution. 
 
 17 For if, by the trespjiss of tlie one, death reigned 
 through the one; much more shall they that re. 
 
 1 6r. an act of righteoumen. 
 
 heritage of woe on the one hand, and on the 
 other, the grace of God and the gift of right- 
 eousness (ver. n) abounding to us through the 
 grace of the one man Jesus Christ, who loved 
 us and gave liiinself to be the propitiation for 
 our sins.] 
 
 Now follows mention of a difference in 
 dejree: the evil consequences of one trespass 
 come upon us from Adam ; but the evil con- 
 sequences of many tres2)asses are taken away 
 by Christ. 
 
 16. And not as it Avas by one that 
 sinned. [The codices D E F 6 and the Vul- 
 gate read 'one sin ' in stead of 'one that sinned,' 
 which Mej'er rejects as a "gloss." De Wette 
 and Alford fill out the sentence thus: "not 
 as that which originated, or took place, 
 through one," etc. Meyer does not supply 
 anything.] The preposition 'by,' occurring 
 twice in this verse, represents two different 
 prepositions in the Greek, the second of which 
 [«>c, denoting source 'out of which some- 
 thing issues] is the same that is translated 'of 
 in the last clause. Hence the more exact rep- 
 resentation of the original would be: "And 
 not as it was through one that sinned, so is the 
 gift : for the judgment was from (or, of) one to 
 condemnation, but the free gift is from (or, of) 
 man}- offences unto justification." [Dr. Hodge 
 sa3's that "Judgment unto condemnation is a 
 sentence of condemnation, and the free gift 
 unto justification is gratuitous justification." 
 Godot prefers, instead of ' many offences,' the 
 rendering: 'offences of many,' but in this I 
 think he stands alone.] After the second 
 'one' the word offense should be supplied. 
 This is plain from the way in which the sen- 
 tence is completed. [De "Wette, Meyer, Phi- 
 lipjii, Godot, Alford, looking backward to 
 'one that sinned,' rather than forward, would 
 supply, properly we think, the word man or 
 sinner after the second 'one.' Indeed, Philippi 
 and others regard all the ones in this whole 
 section as masculine, even those in ver. 18. 
 The word rendered "justification" (SiKaiiona) 
 differs from the word occurring in ver. 18; 4: 
 25, which has this special meaning. It properly- 
 
 denotes a righteous or justifying act or a justi- 
 fying sentence, "a justifying judgment." 
 (Weiss.) It occurs elsewhere in ver. 18 ; 1 : 
 32; 2: 26; 8: 4; Heb. 9:1; Rev 15: 4; 
 19: 8; Luke 1 : 6. Here it is the antithesis of 
 condemnation, and in ver. 18 of trespass. Aris- 
 totle defines it as the amendment or reparation 
 of an unjust act. Dr. Schafi* makes it mean 
 in both these verses, "Me righteous deed — 
 that is, the perfect obedience of Christ." 
 Meyer and Godet regard it as a sentence of 
 justification in both places. De Wette and 
 Philippi and our Revised Version give it dif- 
 ferent senses in the two passages. This con- 
 demnation and justification, as we see from 
 ver. 18, embraces "all men." The second 
 difference here indicated between the influ- 
 ence of Adam and of Christ is that of con- 
 demnation and justification. (De Wette.)] 
 
 How clearly the one sin of Adam, rather 
 than the many sins that originated from it, is 
 here made the ground of condemnation. The 
 whole contrast turns upon that point. 
 
 The next verse brings to view a third diflTer- 
 ence, both of kind and degree: we had no 
 voluntary part in the sin of Adam ; but 
 voluntarily receive the grace of Christ: we 
 might well expect, therefore, that the good 
 which comes to us from the latter should out- 
 weigh the evil which comes to us from the 
 former. 
 
 17. For if by one man's offence death 
 rei§:ned by one. [Each of the ones in this 
 verse should have the article as in the Revised 
 Version.] There is nothing in the first clause 
 of this verse which needs explanation or com- 
 ment. It simply reafl^rms the causal connec- 
 tion between the sin of the first man and the 
 reign of death over all men. The abundance 
 of grace corresponds with the 'grace of God' 
 that 'abounded' [and 'the gift of righteous- 
 ness' with the 'gift by (Christ's) grace'] of ver. 
 15. Compare also Johii 10: 10. [This verse 
 contrasts chiefly the reigning of death through 
 Adam and the reigning of life through Christ. 
 Godet thus gives the scope of the argument 
 here presented: "For this terrible reign of 
 
140 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 mucli more they which receive abundance of grace 
 and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in lile by 
 one, Jesus Christ.) 
 
 ceive the abundance of grace and i of the gift of right- 
 eousness reign iu life through the one, even Jesus 
 
 1 SoiLie aDcieDt authorities omit vf the gift. 
 
 death, established on the weak foundation of 
 a single sin and a single sinner, may serve as 
 a measure to establish the greater certainty of 
 the reign of life which will come to light 
 among the justified by the freely accepted 
 gift of God." On the verb 'reigned' Bengel 
 thus remarks: "The word in the preterite 
 looks back from the economy of grace to that 
 of sin, as presently ' shall reign,' in the future, 
 looks forwiird from the economy of sin to that 
 of grace and eternal life; sover. 19." Calvin 
 in noticing the difterence of these two reigns 
 says: "The benefit of Christ does not coine 
 to all men, while Adam has involved his 
 whole race in condemnation; and the reason 
 of this is indeed evident; for as the curse we 
 derive from Adam is conveyed to us by nature, 
 it is no wonder that it includes the whole 
 mass; but that we may come into participa- 
 tion of the grace of Christ, we must be in- 
 grafted in him by faith. Hence, in order to 
 partake of the miserable inheritance of sin it 
 is enough for thee to be a man, for it dwells 
 in flesh and blood ; but in order to enjoy the 
 righteousness of Christ it is necessary for thee 
 to be a believer, for a participation of him is 
 attained only by faith." Of all the fallen 
 children of Adam, it is only they which re- 
 ceive the abundance of grace that shall 
 reign in life.] The principal question in 
 regard to the complex sentence which forms 
 the latter part of this verse is, which are the 
 emphatic clauses ? Is the emphasis on 'they 
 ■which receive,' or on 'shall reign,' or on 'in 
 life' ? There is no apparent reason for special 
 emphasis upon the word 'life' : it is required 
 as the antithesis of the word 'death' in the 
 first clause. Nor can 'shall reign' well be 
 made more emphatic in the latter part of the 
 verse, than 'reigned' was in the former part. 
 But 'they which receive' introduces a new 
 element. The position of the word in the 
 Greek indicates emphasis: 'they which re- 
 ceive' is expressed by the article and the 
 present participle, equivalent, as nearly as the 
 idioms of the two languages admit, to 'those 
 receiving' [the participle denoting a con- 
 tinued process. (Alford.)]; while the words 
 'abundance of grace and of the gift of right- 
 
 eousness,' being placed between the article 
 and the participle, in a manner peculiar to 
 the Greek language, ihe result, apparently 
 designed, is to bring the participle as near as 
 possible to the words, 'shall reign in life.' 
 Again, the use of the present participle, in- 
 stead of the past 'thej' who receive,' instead 
 of ■ they who received,' or ' who have received,' 
 by inaking the participle more nearly equiva- 
 lent to a substardive, as if he had said, the 
 receivers of, etc. And finally, the fact that 
 the construction of the sentence is changed, 
 seemingly in order to bring the pai'ticiple into 
 this prominence confirms our view of its 
 emphatii! character : for the comparison which 
 began with 'by one man's offence death 
 reigned' would naturally and regularly have 
 ended 'by one man's grace and righteous- 
 ness life shall reign,' or in some similar way, 
 if the apostle had not had a special reason for 
 making the personal receivers reign in life, 
 instead of saying life shall reign. [De Wette 
 remarks that this form of expression was 
 chosen to make prominent "the idea of free 
 personality." On the distinction between life 
 iitori), whose proper antithesis is death, and the 
 life which we live (/3ios) — that is, its means or 
 manner, see Trench's "Synonj'ms," p. 91. 
 Meyer says the words Jesus Christ "are 
 added as if in triumph, in contradistinction 
 to the unnamed but well-known one who occa- 
 sioned the reign of death. Finally, we should 
 not fail to notice how in this passage the glance 
 proceeds from the state of grace (receiving), 
 backward to the state of wrath (reigned), and 
 forward to the state of glory (shall reign)." 
 Philippi says: "As to this reigning of be- 
 lievers in eternal life, which is an inheriting, 
 a being glorified, a reigning with Christ, 
 compare 8: 17; 1 Cor. 4: 8; 6: 2, 3; 2 Tim. 
 
 2: 12; Kev. 20: 4; 22: 5 Christ atoned 
 
 for many sins, and not merely abolished death, 
 but planted life in its stead." "Far more," 
 says Chrysostom, "than what we owed was 
 paid by Christ, as much more as the immea- 
 surable ocean exceeds a drop. Doubt not, 
 therefore, O man, when beholding such a 
 treasure of blessings, nor ask how the old 
 spark of death and of sin has been extin- 
 
Ch. V] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 141 
 
 18 TliLTcfiire, as by the offence of one jinhjiiienl came 
 upon all luen lo coudemualion; even so by the right- 
 eousness of one the Jrte yijt came upoa all men unto 
 justification of life. 
 
 18 Christ. So iheu as through one trespass the judg- 
 luKid caiiifi uuto all men to condeiunation ; even so 
 through one act of righteousness the jitv gift came 
 
 19 unto all men to justification of life. For as through 
 
 guishod, seeing that such a sea of the gift of 
 grace has been poured upon it."] 
 
 The precise relation of these tliree verses to 
 each otlier is, however, a question of no little 
 difficniity, in regard to which the ablest com- 
 mentators are by no means agreed. Alford 
 makes vor. 15 point out a difference of degree, 
 fixing the stress upon 'much more,' taken 
 quantitively ; ver. 16, a difference in kind, em- 
 pliasizing the words condemnation and right- 
 eousness; and ver, 17, a second difference in 
 kind between 'death' and 'life.' Lange 
 says ver. 16 compares things, ver. 17, persons. 
 Again, some regard ver. 17 as a mere amplifi- 
 cation of ver. 15, the words 'offence,' 'gift,' 
 and 'grace' being prominent in both. [The 
 word 'gift' is wanting in B 49, but this is not 
 sufficient to cast any serious doubt on its 
 genuineness. Note how tliis righteousness of 
 God through faith, whereby we receive the 
 divine acquittal, is called a 'gift.' Compare 
 Phil. 8:9, the righteousness //-om God upon 
 faith.] 
 
 The two following verses are a condensed 
 summary of the results of the parallel between 
 Adam and Christ; but here, again, we meet 
 with different explanations of the relation of 
 the two to each other. 
 
 18. Therefore. [Accordingly then, or, so 
 then (hinc igitur), a frequent expression with 
 the apostle, and placed first in the sentence 
 contrary to cla.ssical usage. Some critics 
 state that the first word {ipa.) refers rather 
 to the internal cause, the second {olv) more 
 to the external.* The ones of this verse, 
 tliough commonly regarded as masculine, are 
 properly neuter, and are rightly rendered in 
 the Revised Version.] Here we have, accord- 
 ing to the view presented at the close of the 
 comments on ver. I'i, the second member of 
 the comparison begun in that verse. The 
 substance of the first member is repeated, in 
 the changed terms demanded by the inter- 
 
 vening .statements, and then the regular for- 
 mula, even so, introduces what virtually 
 completes the comparison there begun, the 
 precise terms being changed to conform to 
 the restatement of the first member of the 
 comparison in this verse. The elliptical form 
 in which the last j>art of each member is 
 stated requires the supply of some such nomi- 
 natives as judsmcnt came and the free gift 
 came. These particular expressions are bor- 
 rowed from ver. 16. [De Wette and Meyer 
 simply supi)ly : It happened or came.] There 
 is a twofold ambiguity in the expression 
 translated by the otlciice of one, by the 
 righteousness of one ; the more simple and 
 natural translation would he— by one offence, 
 by one righteousness. The latter translation 
 is recommended by its greater simplicity and 
 by the absence of the article in Greek,' and 
 is liable to no objection sufficient to counter- 
 balance these arguments. [Tiie condemnation 
 is to '"death," with whatever this may in- 
 clude. The righteousness (fincat'ufia) here, in 
 contrast with the trespass or fall of Adam, is 
 supposed to differ in meaning from its use in 
 ver. 16, where it is opposed to condemnation. 
 It probably is here equivalent to the one 
 obedient, righteous act of Christ (in death). 
 Meyer and Godet, however, give it the same 
 meaning in both places — a justifying sentence 
 or judgment on the part of God on the ground 
 of Christ's sacrificial death. We think it 
 should be referred to Christ who .stands over 
 against the one that sinned, and should be 
 explained by the exactly paralled ^''obedience 
 of the One" in the following verse. It seems 
 to denote the ground of the believer's justifi- 
 cation so far as this depends on the active 
 obedience of Christ.] The difficulty arising 
 from the second 'all men,' seeming to make 
 the justification as universal as the condemna- 
 tion, is met by recalling the 'they which re- 
 ceive,' etc., of ver. 17. The only reason why 
 
 1 Or, as Prof. Roise pats it : opa, 
 
 a conclusion from I out any accompanying -word to define it, if it refers to 
 
 what precedes; ovv, a resumption of the sentence which 
 was begun in ver. 12. We may here observe that apa, 
 with a ditferent accent, is used as an interrogative par- 
 ticle.— iF.) 
 * Wherever in this section the word one occurs, with- 
 
 a. person, it is preceded by the article (ver. 1.^, 17 thrice, 
 19) ; in ver. 12, 16, the place of the article is supplied by 
 the word man in the first and by the words that sinned 
 in the second. 
 
142 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 19. For as by one man's disobedience many were | the one man's disobedience the many were made 
 
 the former is not as universal as the latter is 
 because some do not receive it. Compare 
 notes on 3 : 24. Unto justification of life. 
 
 Justification leading to and resulting in eter- 
 nal life. [As the apostle seems to say that 
 'the many' and 'the all' who are condemned 
 in Adam are the same 'many' and the same 
 'all' who are justified and saved in Christ, 
 we are sometimes asked why "all" does not 
 mean "all" in the one case as well as in the 
 other? The answer generally given is that 
 the apostle here represents the objective suffi- 
 ciency of the atonement, and that it did not 
 belong to the scope of the passage to dwell on 
 its subjective efficacy. "His only object," says 
 Meyer, "was to set forth the all-embracing, 
 blessed objective consequence of the one justi- 
 cation (SiKaCwfia) in contrast to the all-destruc- 
 tive, objective consequence of the one trespass. 
 Hence, just as little can anything be deduced 
 from our passage as from 11 : 32 in favor of a 
 final restoration." Yet the apostle does limit 
 the many and the all who are through Christ's 
 grace justified unto eternal life to those who 
 '''receive the abundance of grace and of the 
 gift of righteousness."^ By the apostle's 
 scheme of doctrine all men, as a matter of 
 fact, are divided into two classes, the one 
 class under the headship of Adam and the 
 other under the headship of Christ, and by 
 the same scheme it is everywhere supposed 
 that as all those who are reckoned in the first 
 Adam do actually pattern after him, the sin- 
 ning one, so all those who are enrolled in 
 Christ and are justified in him do actually 
 pattern after the righteous One. If, now, it 
 can be shown that the many and the all who 
 are by nature and of necessity in the line of 
 the first Adam, where is condemnation, sin, 
 and death, do actually betake themselves to 
 Christ and transfer themselves through divine 
 grace to the line of the second Adam, do act- 
 ually repent of their "many trespasses" and 
 experience God's pardoning love, do actually 
 
 receive of the fullness of Christ's grace and 
 righteousness, and do actually pattern after 
 the Great Exemplar, then, and not other- 
 wise, will the salvation of all men be clearly 
 proved. Besides, the apostle elsewhere speaks 
 of the resurrection of the unjust as well as of 
 the just, of those who perish as well as of those 
 who are saved, and of those "whose end is 
 perdition" and " who shall suffer punishment, 
 even eternal destruction from the presence of 
 the Lord and from the glory of his power." 
 A few words in regard to the future condition 
 of those dying in infancy. We scarcely need 
 an apostle to tell us that a condemnation and 
 death has been visited upon them on account 
 of sin not their own; hence on account of 
 Adam's transgression. A part of this penalty 
 they, in common with us all, must suffer. 
 The great trouble respecting their case has 
 reference to the evil that is in their hearts — 
 their native depravity, their "original sin." 
 With the elder Hodge, " we believe that the 
 grace which is in Christ Jesus secures the 
 salvation of all who have no personal sins to 
 answer for." And the ground of our belief 
 is the assurance that Christ who died for our 
 fallen race, who is a propitiation for the sins 
 of the whole world, who died for all, and who 
 tasted death for every one, has not necessarily 
 died in vain for any one of Adam's descend- 
 ants. To suppose that our dj'ing infants can 
 have no Saviour, and no participancy in his 
 salvation, but are necessarily debarred from 
 the benefits of Christ's death, is to antagonize 
 and overthrow the glorious gospel of the 
 blessed God.- Of one thing we are absolutely 
 certain, that our offspring, early called from 
 earth, have no deeds done in the body to 
 answer for, and hence will not be condemned 
 for actual sin in the "judgment of the great 
 day." For further discussion of these topics, 
 see Dr. Arnold's remarks in Appendix B.] 
 
 19. For as by [the] one man's disobe- 
 dience [the] many were made sinners. 
 
 1 Prof. Boise, making the statements of ver. 18 assume 
 the form of general truths, gives this comment: "The 
 judgment enters into the midst of all men, leading 
 them with certainty into condemnation, if no deliverer, 
 no Saviour appears. The free gift enters into the 
 midst of all meu, leading them into justification of life, 
 if they receive the abuniance of the grace and of the 
 
 gift of righteousness. Alas, that so many forget or 
 
 reject this condition ! " — (F.) 
 2 Hence we deem the couplet (of Robert Robinson 7) 
 
 to be dogmatically correct as relating to infants: 
 They die for Adam sinned, 
 They live for Jesus died.— (F.) 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 143 
 
 made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many 
 be made righteous. 
 
 sinners, even so through the obedience of the one 
 
 Much depends in this verse on the right 
 understanding of the verb transhited 'were 
 made' and 'shall be made.' Dr. Hodge 
 makes the remarkable statement that this 
 verb "never in the New Testament 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." It is a sufficient 
 refutation of this statement to refer to a few 
 places out of the more than a score in which 
 
 it is used. (Uatt. 24:45, 47; 20:21,23; Acts 7: 10, 27, 35; 
 
 Web. 7:28; 2 Peter 1:8.) Several of the earlier trans- 
 lators put 'became' instead of 'were made,' 
 but 'shall be made' in the latter place where 
 it occurs. To constitute, to appoint, are the 
 most common meanings of the verb. On the 
 twofold use of the word 'many' (properly 
 'the many,' for it has the article in both 
 places), Alford has this criticism: "In order 
 to make the comparison more strict, the all 
 who have been made sinners are weakened to 
 the indefinite the many, and many [Alford 
 refers to such passages as Matt. 26: 28; Mark 
 10:45] who shall be made righteous are en- 
 larged to the indefinite the many. Thus a 
 common term, of quantity is found for both, 
 the one extending to its largest numerical 
 interpretation, the other restricted to its 
 smallest." This criticism is very objection- 
 able. It does not agree with the twofold all 
 of the preceding verse. It makes an inco- 
 herent use of the article. It is too great a 
 refinement of criticism to attribute to Paul. 
 And the last statement, restricting tlie many 
 that shall be made righteous to its smallest 
 numerical interpretation, is rebuked by Kev. 
 7 : 9 and a multitude of similar passages. 
 Much better is Dr. J. Brown's comment on 
 these verses : " In fine, on the one hand, there 
 is a multitude of men of every description, 
 condemned and dying, entirely on account 
 of the one fault of the one man Adam; 
 and, on the other, a multitude of men of every 
 description, justified and living, entirely on 
 account of the one man Jesus Christ." [May 
 not Alford's 'the one' mean 'the latter' 1] 
 AVhat is the relation of ver. 18 and 19 to each 
 other? Is it that ver. 18 mainly compares 
 things and ver. 19 mainly compares persons? 
 Is it tiiat ver. 18 shows how men arc regarded 
 by God on account of their respective con- 
 
 nections with Adam and Christ, and ver. 19 
 shows how they are treated by him on account 
 of those respective connections? Or is it 
 rather that ver. 18 is to be interpreted from a 
 forensic point of view and ver. 19 from a 
 moral point of view? In other words, does 
 ver. 18 relate to justification and ver. 19 to 
 sanctification? A comparison of the terms 
 of the two verses seems favorable to this last 
 view. On the one hand, we have 'offence' 
 and 'condemnation,' 'righteousness' and 
 'justification,' abstract and legal terms; on 
 the other, 'disobedience' and 'obedience,' 
 'made sinners' and 'made righteous,' moral 
 and practical terms. It might, perhaps, be 
 added that the future tense of the verb, 'shall 
 be made' righteous, agrees well with this in- 
 terpretation, as sending the thoughts forward 
 to the future perfected righteousness of the 
 saints; but it must in fairness be owned that 
 the use of the future— 'shall reign in life,' in 
 ver. 17 — weakens the force of that considera- 
 tion. The fact that the proposed interpreta- 
 tion of ver. 19 introduces the subject of sanc- 
 tification in chapter 5, whereas it is generally 
 held that it does not come in until the begin- 
 ning of chapter 6, is of little weight; for the 
 difference is only of two verses, and the divi- 
 sion of the chapters has no such authority that 
 we may not disregard or change it whenever 
 there is good reason, as there sometimes un- 
 questionably is, for doing so. [Prof. Cremer 
 says: "This verb denotes an actual appoint- 
 ment or setting down in a definite place. . . . 
 The choice of the expression in Kom. 5 : 19 
 rather arose partly from its not teing simply 
 the moral quality that is referred to, but, 
 above all, the thence resulting situation of 
 those who are sinners (compare ver 18, which 
 serves as a foundation for ver. 19), partl3' 
 from regard to the influence exercised from 
 another quarter, especially to the idea of jus- 
 tification," etc. "As our union with Adam," 
 says Dr. Gifford, "made us all participators 
 in the effects of his transgression, and thereby 
 constituted us sinners, so union with Christ, 
 who is our righteousness, is that which con- 
 stitutes us essentially and formally [not in- 
 herently] righteous." The ideas of inherent 
 sin and inherent righteousness belong, he 
 says, to the following chapter. Both Philippi 
 
144 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 and Meyer interpret the verb as meaning — to 
 set down as, or, put in the category of. "The 
 many," says Meyer," "were put actually in 
 the category of sinners, because, namely, they 
 sinned in and with the fall of Adam. Thus 
 through the disobedience of the one man, 
 because all had part in it, has the position of 
 all become that of sinners. The consequence 
 of this — that they were subjected to punish- 
 ment, were treated as sinners, and the like — 
 is not here expressly included, but after the 
 foregoing is obvious of itself." Further on 
 he .says: "Shall be placed in the category of 
 the righteous. . . . Thus the obedience of 
 the One has caused that at the judgment the 
 many shall by God's sentence enter into the 
 category of the righteous, as the disobedience 
 of the one had caused the many to enter the 
 opposite. In both cases the meritorious cause 
 is the objective act of the two heads of the 
 race (the sin of Adam — the death of Christ), 
 to whom belong the many on both sides; 
 while the subjective, mediating cause is the 
 individual relation to those acts (communion 
 in Adam's fall — faith)." Lange calls this 
 "Augustinian dogmatics." Meyer would 
 seem to be wrong in one thing, for believers 
 are put in the category' of the righteous long 
 before they reach the judgment. They are 
 constituted or established as righteous as soon 
 as faith in Christ is imputed to tliem for right- 
 eousness. In Dr. Schaff's view, "the many 
 were made sinners either by virtual partici- 
 pation in the fiill of Adam or by actual prac- 
 tice, by repeating, as it were, the fall of Adiim 
 in their sinful conduct. Both interpretations 
 are perfectly grammatical and do not exclude 
 each other.'; Dr. Hodge discards this "idea 
 of a mysterious identity of Adam and his 
 race," yet seems to acknowledge it in part 
 when he says "that in virtue of the union, 
 representative and natural, between Adam 
 and his posterity, his sin is the ground of 
 their condemnation — that is, of their subjec- 
 tion to penal evils." In his view, we are 
 "constituted sinners in a legal or forensic 
 sense;" in other words, we are "regarded 
 and treated" as sinners because of the sin 
 of Adam, our appointed head and repre- 
 sentative, the sin of Adam being thus "the 
 judicial ground of the condemnation of his 
 race." An imputation of this kind, which 
 consists in putative sinning, Dr. Schafl" calls 
 
 a "legal fiction." Alford thinks the kind of 
 sin spoken of in this passage is "both original 
 and actual," and furthermore says: "In 
 Christ and united to him a man is made 
 righteous, not by a fiction or inundation only 
 of Christ's righteousness, but by a real and 
 living spiritual union with a righteous Head 
 as a righteous member." Prof. Stuart's view 
 is that "men through the disobedience of 
 Adam did become or were constituted actual 
 sinners." Similarlj^ to De Wette, he holds 
 the sin and the righteousness of this passage 
 to be wholly personal, a view which makes 
 condemnation and death to be solely the 
 result of individual transgression. But this 
 sentiment is no less contradictory to the truth 
 of facts than it is antagonistic to some of the 
 apostle's statements and to his general argu- 
 ment. In the phrase 'shall be made right- 
 eous,' "the future of the verb is used as in 
 3:20, because justification is to be conceived 
 as an act not j-et come to an end, but continu- 
 ing in the future." (Philippi.) The 'for' 
 with which this verse begins shows that this 
 verse is explanatory and corroborative of the 
 preceding, while the 'as' (wo-n-fp, not ws as in 
 the last verse) not only resumes the compari- 
 son but indicates it in a more precise manner 
 — for just as, etc. We therefore conceive that 
 the verses are altogether too closely united to 
 allow the expression of such difl^'erent views 
 (the forensic and the ethical) as Dr. Arnold 
 and many others here find. " The word right- 
 eous^" says Godet, "is applied as the sense 
 of this whole part requires to imputed right- 
 eousness." Prof. Cremer, as we have seen, 
 explains constituted righteous by the 'justifi- 
 cation ' (5iKai'u)(7is) of the preceding verse. He 
 also says that " 'to justify' (SiKaiovv), as used 
 by Paul, denotes nothing else than the judicial 
 act of God whereby man is pronounced free 
 from guilt and punishment and is thus recog- 
 nized or represented as righteous." In 2 : 13, 
 the words "righteous before God" are par- 
 ailed with the verb "shall be justified." So 
 this clause, "shall be set down as righteous," 
 "cannot mean that by the obedience of one 
 the many shall be made holy." (Hodge.) In 
 regard to the obedience of Christ, some, like 
 Meyer, refer it to the death of Christ, which 
 was pre-eminently his obedience to the will 
 of the Father (Phii.2:8; Heb.5:8), while others 
 refer it to his "collective life obedience," not 
 
Ch. v.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 145 
 
 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might I 20 shall the many be made righteous. And • the law 
 abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much came in beside, that the trespass might abound ; but 
 
 more abound : I where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceed- 
 
 exoluding, of course, his obedience unto death. 
 The emphasis which the Scriptures place on 
 the obedience of Christ to the will of God 
 plainly shows us that the atonement of Christ 
 had primarily a Godward efficacy. How 
 thankful we may well be that the Saviour's 
 obedience w'as so different from that of any 
 who thereby have been constituted righteous! 
 Had he lived, though but for one moment, so 
 imperfect, so unhol}', as we are, our salvation 
 must have been impossible, for we never could 
 have heard of that obedience and that right- 
 eousness which shall justify many.] 
 
 20. ["The apostle briefly notices what the 
 Mosaic law has contributed to this condition " 
 (De Wette), or, " What position does the 
 law occupy in the religious history of man- 
 kind." (Boise.)] Moreover. Besides the 
 fact of many being made sinners, and as a 
 transition point to the result of many being 
 made righteous. The law — that is, the law 
 of Moses. [Here, as in ver. 13, the word law 
 is without the article, and yet must have the 
 specific reference indicated. Prof. Cremer 
 says: "The article is usually wanting in 
 places where stress is not laid upon its his- 
 torical impress or outward form, but upon the 
 conception itself; not upon the law which 
 God gave, but upon law as given by God, and 
 as therefore the only one that is or can be. 
 So especiallj' in passages where law (vdfios) is 
 used alternately with and without the article." 
 As a word of definite import it can, like a 
 proper name, dispense with the article.] 
 Entered. Literally, came in besides. The 
 verb is the same as that translated entered in 
 ver. 12, with an additional preposition pre- 
 fixed, signifying beside. The two things 
 mentioned in ver. 19 do not form a complete 
 account of God's dealings with men ; the law 
 came in besides. [According to Meyer: the 
 law came in alongside of the sin which had 
 already entered.] It is true, that the law had 
 been mentioned before, in ver. 13 : but it is 
 left out of view from that point, and is referred 
 to again now, in a new connection, and for a 
 new purpose. That the offence might 
 abound. [In order that the trespass (of 
 Adam?) might be multiplied ; or, as Dr. Gif- 
 
 ford puts it, in order "that sin which already 
 existed, however dormant or unrecognized, 
 might take the definite form of active trespass 
 or transgression of a known law."] It is 
 sometimes needful to stimulate or develop 
 the disease to a certain degree, in order to pre- 
 pare for the more effectual application of the 
 remedy. Compare 7: 8, and notes. [The 
 law not only brings sin to consciousness but 
 calls forth evil desire and occasions trans- 
 gression. See 4: 15. "Without the law," 
 says De Wette, "there is no Christ. If now 
 the manifestation of Ch;-ist was without doubt 
 a worthy purpose of God, need we refuse to 
 recognize even in the activity of the law a 
 divine purpose?" Calvin says: "It was 
 needful that men's ruin should be more fully 
 discovered to them, in order that a passage 
 might be opened for the favor of God. They 
 were, indeed, shipwrecked before the law was 
 given ; as, however, they seemed to themselves 
 to swim while in their destruction, they were 
 thrust down into the deep that their deliver- 
 ance might appear more evident whence they 
 emerge beyond all human expectation." 
 
 And therefore Law was given them to evince 
 Their natural pravity, by stirring up 
 Sin against Law to fight ; that when they see 
 Law can discover sin, but not remove. 
 Save by those shadowy expiations weak. 
 The blood of bulls and goats, they may conclude 
 Some blood more precious must be paid for man. 
 
 —(Milton.)] 
 
 But where sin abounded, grace did 
 much more abound. [De Wette here as- 
 signs to ' where ' (o5) the very rare meaning 
 of M'Ae?i.] 'But' this (namely, the making 
 of the ofl^ense to abound) was not God's ulti- 
 mate end in bringing in the law ; for 'where 
 sin abounded, grace did much more abound.' 
 The word 'oflfence' is dropped, and the word 
 'sin ' put in its place, as being a more generic 
 term, and a more suitable antithesis to 'grace.' 
 The word translated 'abound' in the last part 
 of the verse is not the same as that so trans- 
 lated in the former part, 'that the oflfence 
 might abound.' Both words are commonly 
 translated as here, though the one used in the 
 last part of the verse much more frequently 
 
146 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. V. 
 
 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so I 21 ingly: that, as sin reigned in death, even so might 
 might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal grace reigu through righteousness unto eternal life 
 
 life by Jesus Christ our Lord. | through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 than the other. It is difficult to make a distinc- 
 tion between these two words throughout in 
 transhition. The Greek language is so copious 
 in nicedistinctionsof words, that it is impossible 
 to use a different and equally suitable English 
 equivalent— copious as our own tongue is — for 
 every different Greek word. [Philippi makes 
 the latter verb, in its simple form, stronger in 
 meaning than the former, its mo?'e (n-epKrcroi') 
 denoting absolute abundance, while the more 
 (ttAcov) of the former verb denotes only com- 
 parative abundance.] In the case of the two 
 words here represented by abound^ the one 
 used in tlie former part of the verse might be 
 translated multiply^ or increase. Both these 
 words are regularly used as the equivalents of 
 Greek verbs different from those here used, 
 and from each other. So difficult — nay, so 
 impracticable — is it, to conform invariably 
 and uniformly, to one of the soundest and 
 most important rules of faithful translation. 
 'Did much more abound.' [Thissuperabound- 
 ing of grace has, of course, no reference to 
 the number of individuals saved. All have 
 sinned and no more than all can by grace be 
 saved. On this superabounding grace to be 
 experienced by penitent believers, Chalmers 
 says: "It is likely enough that the apostle 
 may have had in his mind the state of the 
 redeemed when they are made to reign in life 
 by Jesus Christ — as contrasted with what the 
 state of man would have been had Adam per- 
 sisted in innocency."] This 'much more' is 
 expressed by prefixing a preposition to the 
 verb 'abound' — grace did superabound. On 
 this expression Bengel has one of his pithy 
 epigrammatic notes: "He who conquers 
 the conqueror of another is a third, superior 
 to either: Sin conquered man; grace con- 
 quered sin : therefore grace is the supreme 
 power." ^ 
 
 21. That [in order that] even as siu hath 
 reigned — better, sin reigned — because the 
 standing point of the sentence i« the perfected 
 reign of grace and righteousness hereafter. 
 [Observe how sin is personified and repre- 
 sented as reigning like a king. How mighty 
 has been its reign and how fearful the results!] 
 
 Unto death— literally, in death; death was 
 the central act in which sin reigned, the arena 
 of its triumph. ["Reigned in virtue of 
 death." (Meyer.)] It is one of the com- 
 monest defects of our English Bible that it 
 does not distinguish accurately enough be- 
 tween the Greek prepositions corresponding 
 with in and unto. This fault is remedied in 
 most of the newer revisions, as that of Dr. 
 Noyes, and of the Bible Union, [and of the 
 more recent Canterbury Revision]. Even so 
 might grace reign — so also grace may reign. 
 [Sin has reigned, death has reigned, grace will 
 reign.] Through righteousness — by means 
 of righteousness — that is, the righteousness of 
 Christ, as in the preceding verses: not in 
 righteousness, as it might have been, if the 
 reference had been mainly to our being made 
 personally righteous. Unto eternal life. 
 [Dr. Hodge, in his comments on the closing 
 part of this chapter, thus remarks : ' ' That the 
 benefits of redemption shall far outweigh the 
 evils of the fall, is here clearly asserted." 
 And one point given by him as confirmatory 
 of this view is, that "The number of the saved 
 will doubtless greatly exceed the number of 
 the lost. Since the half of mankind die in 
 infanc3', 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 will bear to the 
 saved no greater proportion than the inmates 
 of a prison do to the mass of the community."] 
 Through our Lord Jesus Christ. " The 
 last word in this section is Jesus Christ our 
 Lord, the one glorious solution of the Adamic 
 fall and the dark problem of sin. Adam dis- 
 appears, and Christ alone remains master of 
 the field of battle, having slain the tyrants, 
 Sin and Death." (Schaff.) "Who can rise 
 from the perusal and contemplation of this 
 wondrous passage, full of such profound views 
 and pregnant meanings, with all its variously 
 complicated yet beautifully discriminated 
 relations and interlacements of members and 
 thoughts, without an overpowering admira- 
 tion and irresistible conviction of the super- 
 
 1 " Victi victorem vincens, tertius utroque melior est. Hominem vicit peccatum ; peccatum vicit gratia : ergo 
 gratiae vis maxima." 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 147 
 
 CHAPTEK VI. 
 
 WHAT shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin, 
 that grace may alioiind? 
 2 (iod forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, 
 live any longer therein ? 
 
 1 What shall we say then? Shall'we continue in sin, 
 
 2 that grace may abound? GoJ forbid. We who died, 
 
 human wisdom that must have dictated even 
 its minutest detail 1 " (Forbes. Y 
 
 Ch. 6 : The oospkl adkqitate to pro- 
 cure THE SANCTIFICATION OF MAN. 
 
 [With the last chapter, Paul, as is thought 
 by many, completes his strictly doctrinal 
 statement, and now for a time devotes his 
 attention in main part to drawing inferences, 
 making explanations, answering objections, 
 and the like. The apostle, however, has much 
 new and important doctrinal matter yet to be 
 presented. He now proceeds to consider the 
 "moral effects of justification " (De Wette), 
 and in this chapter sliows that justification by 
 faith is incompatible with living in sin.] This 
 and tiie two following chapters treat specially 
 of sanctificalion, and show that the way of 
 justification by free grace through faith, in- 
 stead of aftbrding license to sin, is more favor- 
 able to holiness than any system of justifica- 
 tion by works could possibly' be. In the first 
 verse, the objection, tiiat if grace abounds in 
 consequence of sin, we may sin, in order tliat 
 grace may abound, is stated in the form of a 
 question; in the second verse, the question is 
 answered in the negative, the validity of the 
 question is denied ; the remainder of the chap- 
 ter is occupied in explaining the grounds of 
 that denial, under these two heads: 1. The 
 justified believer, agreeably to the very im- 
 port of his baptism, is brought into such a 
 connection and conformity with Christ, as 
 dying and rising to a new life, that he cannot 
 
 continue in the old life of^sin. (ver. s-u.) 2. 
 The very fact that he is not under the law, 
 but under grace, forbids that sin should have 
 dominion over him, for his relation to the 
 law and to grace is like that of a servant to 
 his master ; before justification he is a servant 
 of sin, under an influence which secures his 
 obedience to evil ; after justification he is a 
 servant of righteousness, under an influence 
 which secures his obedience to good. (ver. u-23.) 
 
 1. What shall we say then? The form 
 of expression, what then shall we say ? is used 
 by Paul to introduce some objection or diffi- 
 culty, as at 3 : 5 and 4 : 1. The difl5culty here 
 is suggested by what he had said in the last 
 two verses of the preceding chapter, especially 
 in the last clause of ver. 20. That clause 
 might seem to imply that license to sin was 
 aftbrded by the apostle's doctrine of a free 
 forgiveness and justification, or, at least, that 
 the motives to a holy life were somewhat 
 weakened. It is the object of this chapter 
 and the two following to show that, in fact, 
 just the reverse of this is true. Shall Ave 
 continue (or, may we persist) in sin? The 
 verb is in the subjunctive, not in the indica- 
 tive future, according to the best manuscripts, 
 in what the Greek grammarians call the de- 
 liberative subjunctive, answering to the poten- 
 tial in English. 
 
 2. God (orhid— let it not be, or, far be 
 it — used of what is contrary to reverence or 
 precluded by some acknowledged fact or 
 truth. See note on 3 : 4. Both are true here; 
 
 1 General note in regard to the use of the word life 
 (^loij) in the New Testament. This word iuiri is used in 
 the New Testament l''>a times. (By John 66 times; by 
 Paul 38 times; 14 times in the Epistle to the Romans.) 
 It has the adjective aiuii'to?, eternal, connected with it 
 46 times (23 times by John ; 12 times by Paul.) [Or 44. 
 See notes on aiuii'ios, eternal, on 2 : 7, 9. 'AiSios 1 : 20, and 
 aii^voiv (of the ages), Y.\)\\. 3: 11 ; 1 Tim: 1: 17, are like- 
 wise rendered eternal, but these are not used in con- 
 nection with iiari. According to the Common Version 
 the phrase, eternal life, occurs ten times in Paul's epis- 
 tles. The reading, however, in 1 Tim. 6 : 19 is doubtful. 
 The phrase is also found in one of Paul's discourses. 
 Acts 13.] It refers clearly to natural life only not more 
 than half a score of times. (Luke 1: 75 [omitted in the 
 
 Revision]; 16; 25; Acts 8: 33; 17: 25; Rom. 8: 38; 
 1 Cor. 15: 19; Phil. 1 : 20 ; 1 Tim. 4: 8; James 4 : 14.) 
 In three or four places its use is general or uncertain. 
 (Luke 12: 15, Rom. 6: 4; 11: 15.) We see therefore 
 that the word relates to eternal life in about 123 out of 
 135 times, or in ten cases out of eleven. 
 
 2 Prof. Boise remarks that the first person plural 
 subjunctive is much more frequently hortatory (let us) 
 than deliberative. In the third person the indicative 
 future of questions is more frequent than the subjunc- 
 tive. (Winer, 285.) This conlinidng iu a certain state 
 or course, Ellicott says, "is a tropical u.se of the verb 
 peculiar to St. Paul. The preposition en-t [in composi- 
 tion] appears to denote rest at a place and hints at a 
 more protracted stay." (po\. 1 : 23 ; Phil. 1 : 24.)— (P.) 
 
148 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized 
 into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 
 
 3 to sin, how shall we any longfr live therein ? Or are 
 ye ignorant that all "we who were baptized into 
 
 4 Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were 
 
 the precluding fact is immediately specified, j 
 How shall we, that are dead to sin? 
 
 How shall we, beAng such as died to sin ? 
 Here we have again the compound relative, 
 with its suggestion of a reason noticed at 1 : 25. 
 Died instead of 'are dead.' See on 5:15. 
 [Possibly the tense of the verb has special 
 reference to the time of baptism when in and 
 by that ordinance a solemn profession of 
 deadness to sin and to the world was made. 
 In that act the world lost sight of us and we 
 lost sight of the world. Godet, speaking of 
 the "mirage of absolute deliverance," says 
 that "if ever a believer could enter into the 
 sphere of absolute holiness, a new fall, like 
 that of Adam, would be needed to remove 
 him from it;" and that this "death to sin is 
 not an absolute cessation of sin at any moment 
 whatever, but an absolute breaking of the 
 will with it, a state no doubt, but a state of the 
 will, which continues only so long as it keeps 
 itself under the control of faith in Christ's 
 death for sin." Our death to sin is very dif- 
 ferent from a death of sin. Still, we may well 
 be thankful that there is a divine power that 
 can help our feeble and uncertain wills. Alas 
 'for us were it otherwise!] Live any longer 
 therein? Still live in it? [Would that all 
 Christians who by and in their baptism pro- 
 fessed deadness to sin might ever keep this 
 verse in their minds, yea, bind it as a phj'lac- 
 tery to their hearts and strive to carry out 
 its teaching into consistent, daily practice! 
 "Lavish and liberal," says Chalmers, "as 
 the gospel is of its forgiveness of the past, it 
 has no toleration either for the purpose or for 
 the practices of sin in the future."] Mac- 
 Knight says here, and on ver. 10, 11, "died 
 by sin," and he adds this comment: "The 
 common translation, how shall we that are 
 dead to sin live any longer therein ? is absurd, 
 
 for a person's living in sin who is dead to it is 
 evidently a contradiction in terms." What 
 he complains of as ihe fault of the expression 
 is just its excellence. The apostle wished to 
 show that it was a contradiction in terms. 
 But the dying to sin \s figurative, the living 
 in sin literal, but both equally real. If a 
 commentator has not some other qualifications 
 besides a critical knowledge of grammar and 
 logic, these qualifications will be a hindrance 
 to him in interpreting such passages as "to 
 know the love of Christ which passeth knowl- 
 edge," "less than the least of all saints" — 
 literally, "leaster than all saints." [Compare 
 Milton's "And in the lowest deep a lower 
 deep."] Even Dr. Campbell, with all his 
 learning and good sense, could dilute "Lord, 
 I believe; help thou mine unbelief," into 
 " Lord, I believe ; supply thou the defects of 
 my faith! " Whdre was the cunning rheto- 
 rician ? 
 
 3. KnoAV ye not (^are ye ignorant would 
 be more literal), that so many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ? This 
 is a very literal translation of the apostle's 
 words, and yet it seems to suggest something 
 which those words do not — namely, that only 
 apart of those addressed "were baptized into 
 Jesus Christ." To avoid this misunderstand- 
 ing, the words might be translated — not less 
 faithfully, if somewhat less literally — all we 
 who were baptized into Jesus Christ. ["By 
 baptism into Christ we are initiated into a par- 
 ticipation of Chri.st." (Calvin.) See similar 
 examples in 1 Cor. 1 : 13; 10 : 2. "Baptism 
 contains an avowal of our belonging to him 
 [Christ] as our Master, of our union with him 
 as our Head." (Kipley.)i "It is of course 
 obvious that the idea of the baptism of chil- 
 dren was wholly foreign to this view of the 
 apostle." (Meyer.) "If St. Paul's language 
 
 1 " BaTTTiieiv eis (literally, to baptize into) never means 
 anything else than to baptize in reference to, in respect to, 
 and the more special definitions of its import are fur- 
 nished simply by the context. On into Christ Jesus; 
 compare Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5. Undoubtedly the 
 name 'Jesus' was named in baptizing. But the con- 
 ception of becoming immersed into Christ is to be set 
 aside and is not to be supported by the figurative 
 .expression in Gal. 3 : 27. The mystic character of our 
 (jiassage is not produced by so vague a sensuous con- 
 
 ception, which, moreover, has all the passages against 
 it in which iSaTrTi^eii/ is coupled with name (Matt. 28 : 19 ; 
 Acts 2 : 38 ; 10 : 48 ; 19:5; 1 Cor. 1 : 13), but is based on 
 the ethical consciousness of that intimate appertaining 
 to Christ into which baptism translates its recipients." 
 (Meyer.) As unto seems to express this belonging to 
 better than into, we should prefer to use the former 
 word before what have been sometimes termed the 
 ideal elements of baptism. — (F.) 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 149 
 
 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
 death: that like as Christ was raised up froiu the dead 
 by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
 in newness of life. 
 
 buried therefore with him through baptism into 
 
 death : that like as Christ was raised from the dead 
 
 through the glory of the Father, so we also might 
 
 5 walk in newness of life. For if we have become 
 
 seems exaggerated, it is because we who were 
 baptized as unconscious infants can hardly 
 realize what baptism was to the adult believer 
 in the apostolic age." ("Speaker's Commen- 
 tary.")] We were baptized into union, par- 
 ticipation, conformity with Christ, and that 
 in respect to liis death. " The rite of immer- 
 sion in the baptismal water, and egress from 
 it, was used as a symbol of breaking off all 
 connection with the previous vicious life and 
 giving ourselves to a new and purer one." 
 (Bloomfield. ) 
 
 4. Therefore. [Because we are dead, have 
 been put to death through the body of Christ. 
 (7; 4.) Our burial by baptism has reference 
 to a death already experienced. Baptism, as 
 Godet remarks, is thus not a figure of dying, 
 but a consequence, an external proof of death.] 
 The word 'therefore' assumes that the ques- 
 tion of the preceding verse admits of but one 
 answer: "Yes, we know this;" or, rather, to 
 suit the more exact form of the original ques- 
 tion, as above suggested, " No, we are not 
 ignorant of this" : you admit, then, that we 
 are buried with him by baptism into 
 death. The verb, as in the previous verse, is 
 ill the past tense, and ought to be translated 
 — we were buried with him: this makes the 
 reference to the act and the time of bap- 
 tism more prominent, than the present, 'are 
 buried' : besides, the present is hardly appro- 
 priate to describe a transient act, like baptism. 
 'By baptism into death' : by means of our 
 baptism into his death. Compare Col. 2: 12. 
 [Meyer says: "In reality this burial with 
 Christ is not a moral tact distinct from the 
 having died with him .... but it sets forth 
 the fullness and completeness of the relation, 
 of which the recipient, in accordance with the 
 form of baptism, so far as the latter takes 
 place through sinking down and rising up 
 
 ((caraSuCTis and avdSvcii), beCOmCS conscious S21C- 
 
 cessively. The recipient — thus Paul figur- 
 atively represented the process — is conscious, 
 (rt) in the baptism generally : now am I 
 entering into fellowship with the death of 
 
 Christ; (6) in the immersion in particular : 
 now am I becoming buried \v\i\i Christ; (c) 
 and then in the emergence : now I rise to 
 the new life with Christ. Compare on Col. 
 2: 12." 
 
 Lange speaks of being "buried in death," 
 but the phrase in ver. 3, ''baptized into 
 death," shows that into death must here be 
 connected with baptism. The absence of the 
 article after baptism gives more unity to the 
 conception, making the baptism into death 
 as a single idea. "Buried into death," says 
 De Wette, "if not nonsense is a pleonasm." 
 We are not buried in order to die, we are 
 buried with Christ by or in baptism- because 
 we are dead, and baptism (immersion) repre- 
 sents not only our death but burial. The 
 death unto which we are baptized is left in- 
 de-finite in this verse (the article also being 
 probably generic), so that it "might be 
 applied at once to his (Christ's) death and 
 ours included in his." (Godet.) Meyer also 
 says : " It is not specially the death of Christ 
 which is again meant, as if 'his' were again 
 annexed, but the description is generalized in 
 a way that'could not be misunderstood. Who- 
 soever, namely, has been baptized unto the 
 death of Christ, has in fact thereby received 
 baptism unto death; that is, such a baptism 
 that, taken away by it from his previous 
 vital activity, he has become one belonging to 
 death, one who has fallen under its sway."] i 
 That like as Christ was raised up from, 
 the dead — in order that, as Christ ivas raised, 
 from the dead. By the glory of the Father 
 — glory and power (compare 1 Cor. 6: 14) are 
 cognate ideas, as referred to God ; see Col. 1 : 
 11, " according to his glorious power." Even 
 so we also should walk in newness of 
 life. [On the use of the subjunctive (literally : 
 in order that we m,ay walk — that is, continu- 
 ously) after a verb in the past tense (were 
 buried), see note to 5: 7. The word 'walk,' 
 as used of moral conduct, occurs some thirtj^- 
 three times in Paul's epistles.] 'Should 
 walk in newness of life': that is, in a new 
 
 1 BoiTTio-fia. The termination (mi) in Greek nouns, 
 generally denotes effect or state rather than act. But 
 this rule is not invariable (see, for example, ykvvr]ij.a in 
 the Lexicons;, and the frequency of this termination 
 
 is a peculiarity of the later Greek. There are two 
 forms of this word in Latin (baptisma aud baptismus), 
 but they are used indiscriminately. Evidently a bap- 
 tizing into death supposes some action. — (F.) 
 
150 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 state, of which the characteristic is life. 
 [" Not the life that is lived day by day (Pw), 
 but the life which liveth in us (fu^)." (" Bible 
 Commentary.") See Col. 3; 3,4. " Ye rfietZ 
 and your life . . . C/i?'zs^ our life." Had the 
 apostle said " in a new life," the idea of new- 
 ness would have been less prominent. Com- 
 pare 2 Cor. 5: 17. De Wette says, "The 
 truth of the figure rests upon the fact that the 
 resurrection of Jesus, as every resurrection, 
 is not simply something physical, but also 
 moral." "When you hear mention made of 
 a new life," says Chrysostom, "be sure that 
 implies a great change and diversity. For 
 myself, I forthwith burst into tears and groans 
 when I reflect what strictness Paul demands 
 of us, and to what indolence we have given 
 ourselves up, relapsing after baptism into our 
 previous old age, returning to Egypt and 
 hankering after the garlic, though we have 
 tasted the manna."] There are two Greek 
 adjectives which are alike translated 7iew in 
 our English Testament, but there is a very 
 plain distinction between them. The most 
 convenient passage to illustrate that distinc- 
 tion is the one in which our Lord speaks of 
 the new wine, and the neio bottles and the old. 
 
 (Matt. 9: 17; Mark 2: 22; Luke 5 : 37,38,39.) The adjCC- 
 
 tive neiv (veos) applied to the wine means 're- 
 cently made, nejv as to age.' The adjective 
 neiv ((coivos) applied to the bottles means 'neio 
 as to quality, unused, unworn.' No matter 
 how long ago the bottles were made, if they 
 have not been used, if they have not lost their 
 elasticity by having wine fermented in them, 
 they are still " new bottles." Now the word 
 ' newness' in the passage before us is derived 
 from the latter of these two adjectives ; so 
 that the term ' newness of life,' does not refer 
 to the recent beginning of the life (however 
 truly it might be called new on that account), 
 but to the changed quality or character of 
 the life : it is a new kind of life that they are 
 to walk in who have been ' baptized into Jesus 
 Christ.' [This walking 'in newness of life' 
 is used here as the antithesis of %uere buried 
 and the correlative of was raised. The idea 
 of a rising or being raised in baptism which 
 is implied very plainly here and in the next 
 verse, is, in Col. 2: 12, explicitly stated: we 
 were buried with Christ in the (our) baptism 
 and we were raised with Christ in the baptism. 
 The Greek for baptism {^iitri.aiJ.a) does not, in 
 
 itself, any more than immersion, denote or ab- 
 solutely require an emergence, yet both allow 
 of it (in the same manner as burial allows of a 
 resurrection), and the baptismal or immer- 
 sion ordinance requires it, as otherwise we 
 could not thereafter be taught to observe all 
 the Saviour's commands, nor could we hence- 
 forth in this world " walk in newness of 
 life."] 
 
 Note the teaching of this passage as to the 
 meaning as well as the act of baptism. It 
 implies in all cases a saving union with Christ 
 [representing and] obliging to a new and 
 holy life. [It is maintained by some that as 
 no mention is made of the element water in 
 these verses, therefore the baptism into Christ 
 and the burial with Christ is wholly internal 
 and spiritual and has no reference to the out- 
 ward act. But granting the first part of this 
 inference to be true, the second does not fol- 
 low, for the spiritual may derive its imagery 
 from the outward and literal. We maintain, 
 however, the literalness of the baptism and 
 the burial (by immersion), not of course ex- 
 cluding from them a spiritual import. In the 
 first place, the phrases into repentance, into 
 name, into Christ, into his death, do not rep- 
 resent proper baptismal elements. To sprinkle 
 or to immerse a person or a people into a per- 
 son or into a name is an incongruous figure, 
 an impossible transaction. To be baptized 
 unto a person or unto his name denotes an 
 intimate appertaining to, a belonging to, that 
 person as his disciples or followers. The wide 
 distinction which some make between baptiz- 
 ing into a person and into his name is not war- 
 ranted in the Scriptures. They both denote 
 substantially the same thing — as, " baptized 
 unto Moses," "baptized in [into] the name of 
 Paul" (thereby becoming followers of Moses 
 or followers of Paul), and as Christian writers 
 generally regard this latter baptism (into a 
 name) as external, so they may and should 
 regard the former as external. Moreover, as 
 John's baptism "unto repentance" was com- 
 patible with an outward ordinance, an im- 
 mersion in water, so a baptism into Christ and 
 into his death need not preclude such an ordi- 
 nance. When we read in our religious jour- 
 nals that such and such persons were baptized 
 into such a church or into its fellowship, does 
 any one suppose the "church" or the "fel- 
 lowship" to be a proper baptismal element or 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 151 
 
 5 For if we have been planted together in the like- | i united with him by the likeness of his death, we 
 
 1 Or, united tiiith the likenett . . . with the likene'S. 
 
 tliat it ])recludcs a baptism into water? But 
 if baptism into tlie name of Christ and into 
 Christ is external, then tiie burial effected by 
 tliat baptism is likewise external. C<jnfirma- 
 tory of this view is the remarkable fact that 
 the Scrii)tures never speak of a burial with 
 Christ save in connection with baptism. 
 When the apostle addressed all who in Rome 
 had given themselves up to Christ by and in 
 baptism, the Christians there could not have 
 naturally thought of anything else save their 
 outward baptism in water into or unto the 
 jianie of the Lord Jesus. Furthermore, to 
 suppose that their baptism here referred to 
 was wholly internal and spiritual is to sup- 
 pose that all the baptized believers in Rome 
 were spiritually conformed to Christ and 
 wholly dead to sin, a circumstance which 
 probablj' was not true, and wliieh, if true, 
 neitlier Paul nor any being on earth could 
 "know." By their baptism they became 
 professedly and engagedly dead to sin, and 
 hence Paul subsequently counsels them not 
 to "obey the lusts" of their mortal bodies, 
 but to "• reckon themselves dead indeed to 
 sin," and to "yield themselves to God as if 
 alive from the dead." In like manner he 
 writes to the Colossians who had been buried 
 with Christ in the baptism (Coi. 2: 12, Revised v.t- 
 sion) : "If then ye were raised together with 
 Christ, seek the things that are above." If 
 tlieir baptism was inward and spiritual, how 
 is it that they were not " dead with Christ 
 from the rudiments of the world" but were 
 still "subject to [carnal] ordinances?" Had 
 "all" the Corinthian Christians been spiritu- 
 ally and really baptized "into one body," 
 their carnal "strifes" and "divisions" would 
 not have been so flagrant and abundant. 
 And had the Galatian Christians been spiritu- 
 ally baptized "into Christ," they would "all" 
 indeed have been "one" in Christ Jesus, and 
 we never should have heard of their removal 
 to "another gospel." Yet all these baptisms 
 
 have been claimed as internal and spiritual. 
 Of course, no outward rite could prove abso- 
 lute deadness to sin, nor was such a proof 
 necessary for the apostle's argument. It was 
 enough for hiin to assure his Roman brethren 
 that the initial, solemn baptismal rite, to 
 which they had publicly submitted, imported 
 deadness to sin, and that hence they could 
 not consistently "continue in sin." Nor is 
 burial in baptism proved to be spiritual from 
 the assertion in Col. 2:12, "ye were raised 
 through the faith,'' since if the literal rising 
 were to "newness of life," it may well be said 
 to be effected through faith in the power of 
 God. The objection that the pagan Romans 
 did not then bury but burnt their dead (how 
 was it with the people of Colossse?) does not 
 deserve a moment's consideration. Christ our 
 blessed Lord "was buried" (so Paul affirms 
 in 1 Cor. 15 : 4, though some writers, who hold 
 this baptism to be a spiritual sprinkling, deny 
 his literal burial), and he was also raised, and 
 we, by our baptismal or immersion rite, are 
 conjoined with him both in an outward and 
 in a spiritual manner in the liketiess of his 
 death and in the likeness of his resurrection.^ 
 This immersion-burial theory is no modern 
 (Baptist) fancj', but was held by the whole 
 Christian Church in early times, and since 
 then by Luther, Zwingle, Beza, Bullinger, 
 Tyndale, Cranmer, the authors of the "As- 
 sembly's Notations" (most of whom wore 
 members of the Westminster Assembly), by 
 Adam Clarke and MacKnight, and even by 
 Baxter, and Weslej', and Doddridge. For 
 further views on this subject, see Dr. Arnold's 
 remarks in Appendix C, also the writer's 
 "Studies on Baptism."] 
 
 5. For if. These little words imply that 
 what follows in this verse is but the legitimate 
 consequence of what is stated in the first clause 
 of the preceding verse, or, to vary the form 
 of the connection, that which is affirmed in 
 the second clause as the definite design of the 
 
 1 It will be noticed that the words 'death ' and 'dead' I implied in his morimur in baptixmale. Hence he calls 
 are here used in contrast with the idea of resurrection, baptism a symboluvi vwrlis, a likeness of death. We 
 and so are closely connected wiili the idea of burial, doubt whether he would find an image of death in 
 Thus TertuUian says: " By an image we rfie in baptism, sprinkling. Had the apostle said, burieti with Christ 
 but we truly rise in the flesh, as did also Christ." This in the sprinkling, would not every one have felt ao 
 resurgimus, or rising, is antithetic to the idea of a burial I incongruity in the figure? — (F.) 
 
152 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 ness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his 
 resurrection : 
 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with 
 
 6 shall be also by the likeness of h\s resurrection ; know- 
 ing this, that our old man was crucified with him, 
 
 proposition affirmed in the first clause is in 
 this verse affirmed as the sure result of the 
 truth of that proposition. We have been 
 planted together. The single word which 
 is translated 'planted together' is a difficult 
 word to translate into English. It is used 
 nowhere else in the New Testijment. It im- 
 plies a vital, organic union, such as was fabled 
 to exist in the case of the Centaur, which was, 
 according to that fable, a union of the two 
 natures of the man and the horse. Grown 
 together would be as nearly a literal transla- 
 tion as can well be given. The translation 
 'planted together' no doubt originated in a 
 mistaken view of the etymology of the word, 
 and is particularly incongruous with the last 
 part of the verse. To be 'planted together' 
 in the likeness of his 'resurrection' would, 
 indeed, be a very inapt figure of speech. 
 "If we have become united," as the Bible 
 Union Revision has it, is too vague and weak. 
 If ive have become vitally conjoined expresses 
 the true idea, but is something of a paraphrase; 
 in the likeness of his death, as our baptism 
 imports, the resemblance will not end here, 
 but [the strong adversative, dAAd] we shall 
 be also — that is, vitally conjoined (with the 
 likeness) of his resurrection, [The Revised 
 Version inserts the word 'him' after 'united 
 with,' and this, perhaps, gives the correct 
 idea (Godet), though De Wette, Meyer, Al- 
 ford, Philjppi, and many others are opposed 
 to the insertion. To be vitally conjoined to 
 Christ in the likeness of his resurrection is 
 equivalent to walking in "newness of life." 
 (ver. 4.) The future tense, shall 6e conjoined, 
 denotes that which will always take place. 
 Dr. Noyes gives this ad sensum rendering: 
 '" For if we have been made completely like 
 liim in his death, we shall be made like him 
 in his resurrection also."] The words brack- 
 eted (italicised in the Common Version) are 
 required to complete the scnse.^ See similar 
 elliptical constructions in Matt. 5:20; John 
 6:36; Heb. 12:24. [It has been objected to 
 the immersion-burial theory that it makes 
 two ordinances represent mainly the same 
 thing — namely, the death of Christ, omitting 
 
 all reference to the work of the Spirit. But 
 this is quite a mistake. The theory in ques- 
 tion makes the baptismal rite to symbolize 
 not only the death or burial of Christ, but his 
 resurrection; not only our dying with him, 
 but our rising with him henceforth to walk 
 in newness of life. If, now, our immersion 
 in water may denote, much better than a 
 slight sprinkling, an entire cleansing from 
 sin and a rising to a new life, it certainly may 
 well symbolize the "washing of regeneration 
 and the renewing of the Holy Spirit."] 
 
 6. "What in the preceding verses is pre- 
 sented as a matter of doctrine is here pre- 
 sented as a matter of experience. Knowing 
 this— because we know this, because we shall 
 remember and feel this. That our old man 
 is crucified with him. 'Our old man': 
 the adjective old [n-aAaibj, Latin vetus, not 
 dpxaios, ancient, priscus] is the same that is 
 used in reference to the wine bottles in our 
 Lord's figure : see note on neivness of life, 
 ver. 4. It relates to character, not to age. 
 When age is referred to, a ditferent Greek 
 adjective (n-peCT^Onj?) is used, as in Luke 1 : 
 18; Titus 2:2; PhileTn^ 9. [Paul here first 
 makes mention of ' the old man ' (opposed to 
 the "new man." (Eph. 4: 24; coi.s; lo) ; or, in 
 one view, to the "inward man" (7; 2a; Eph. 
 3:16)), by which he means, as Meyer says, 
 " our personality in its entire sinful condition 
 before regeneration." (John 3: 3.) Compare 
 Eph. 4 : 22 ; Col. 3 : 9. The idea is Christian 
 and not Jewish.] 'Is crucified with him ' : 
 rather, 'was,' since the verb is in the ;)as< 
 tense. [Meyer thinks the verb, toas crucified, 
 refers to the time "when we were baptized, 
 and thereby transplanted into the fellowship 
 of death." Lange calls this " rather a super- 
 ficial view," and thinks our crucifixion took 
 place potentially when Christ for us was 
 nailed to the cross. Compare?: 4. But though 
 the apostle does not affirm that "we" were 
 crucified in the baptism, yet we see not why 
 the death represented by that baptism may 
 not be termed a crucifixion of the old man 
 and an abolishing or bringing to nought of 
 the body of sin. 'Crucified': "How inter- 
 
 1 So Meyer versus De Wette and others, who make the 1 govern the genitive, 
 adjective here, though compounded with (tvv, directly I — (F.) 
 
 Compare 8 : 29 ; Buttmann, p. 169. 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 153 
 
 Aim, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
 heiicelurth we should not serve sin. 
 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 
 
 that the body of sin might be done away, that so we 
 
 7 should no longer be in bondage to sin"; for he that 
 
 8 bath died is i justified from siu. But it' we died with 
 
 1 Or. released. 
 
 estinff and impressive it is to regard the Chris- 
 tian as, in respect to his former inclination, 
 utidergoing a death, a crucifixion in company 
 with his Lord!" (Kipley.) "The image 
 of tlie Christian, as one with Christ, is still 
 carried on. Alan falls asunder into two parts, 
 corresponding to the two divisions of Christ's 
 life, and leaves one of those parts httnging 
 upon the cross." (Jovvett. ) Compare Gal. 
 2: 20. " I have been crucified with Christ."] 
 That the body of sin. The body which 
 belongs to and serves sin: compare ver. 12, 
 13; 7: 23, 24; 8: 13; or, perhaps, sin person- 
 ified, as having a body. See Col. 2 : 11. [Sin 
 uses and even rules the body, but the princi- 
 ple of "sin lies not in the body or flesh even, 
 but in the will." (DeWette.) Of course, the 
 body is not to be rendered inactive (dpYos), 
 only so far as the service of sin is concerned. 
 Philippi, Hodge, Stuart, suppose sin to be 
 here persotiified. The metaphor in crucified 
 is more perfectly carried out by using the 
 term body. (Boise.) ] l>Iight be destroyed. 
 The verb translated 'might be destroyed' is 
 one very frequetitiy used by Paul, and vari- 
 ously translated in different places. It is the 
 same which is translated make without effect, 
 and make of none effect, in 3: 3 (see notes), 
 and 4: W, destroy, in 1 Cor. 6: 13; 15: 26; 
 2 Thess. 2: 8; Heb. 2: 14; and abolish, in 2 
 Cor. 3 : 13; Eph. 2: 15: 2 Tim. 1 : 10. It is 
 used between twenty-five and thirty times, 
 but only once out of Paul's epistles (Luke 
 13: 7, translated, cumbereth), unless Heb. 2: 
 14 be a second exception. That henceforth 
 we sh«>uld not serve sin. That we should 
 no longer .nerve sin : that the bod3" should no 
 longer be the slave, under the dominion of 
 sin.' 
 
 As Christ's death on account of sin was 
 never to be repeated (vcr. 7-10), so the believer 
 
 should regard his own separation from sin as 
 
 final. (Ver. II-H.) 
 
 7. For he that is dead is freed from 
 sin. A literal translation of this verse would 
 be, ' he that died has been justified from sin' ; 
 see note on 6: 15. [Godet saj's: "is of right 
 freed from sin." The more exact idea of the 
 apostle, we think, is this; that one who has 
 died with Christ and put off the body of sin, 
 has been freed from sin's condemning power.] 
 The verb which we translate ' has been justi- 
 fied' is used about forty times io the New 
 Testament (thirteen times in this Epistle) and 
 is uniformly translated to justify in every 
 other place. ■■* Christ may properly be said to 
 have heen justified from, sin wlien, after having 
 died on account of sin, he was raised to the 
 right hand of God, "separated (so should the 
 translation be) from sinners, and made higher 
 than the heavens." (Heb.7:26.) Compare also 
 John 16 : 8, 10. [The suggestion of Dr. 
 Arnold that this verse relates to Christ has 
 much in its favor, but as it is adopted by very 
 few if any other commentators, it seems proper 
 to mention two or three current interpreta- 
 tions. 1. It is supposed to be a general and 
 popular statement, to the effect that, when a 
 man is dead, he is no longer held to the law 
 which he previously broke— a kind of legal 
 maxim; 'having died he has been justified 
 (acquitted) from sin.' And this legal maxim 
 is used to illustrate the state of one who, at 
 regeneration, died to the law and its penalty, 
 and entered into a new life. 2. 'He that is 
 dead is freed from sin,' because by death he is 
 freed from the body which is the seat of sin. 
 This, according to Philippi and Schaff, is 
 Meyer's view and must be rejected, because 
 it "rests upon an anthropology as unbiblical 
 as it is un-Pauline." 3. 'He that is dead to 
 sin is freed from the slavery of sin.' "It 
 
 'The infinitive sentence, 'that we should not serve 
 sin,' may, in Winer's opinion, be regarded as a noun 
 in the genitive, dependent on the verb, mifiht he de- 
 stroyed, as being a verb which denotes separation. Butt- 
 raann makes its verbal nature and force more promi- 
 nent, and regards it as an independent telle clause as 
 if it began with u'a or ojtcos. "The application here 
 made of the special kind of death suffered by our 
 
 Saviour to the spiritual death of the old man is the 
 more eiuphatic inasmuch us the former is peculiarly 
 accompanied with pain, and resembles the way in 
 which the love of sin is actually extinguished in the 
 Christian." (Tholuck.)— (F.) 
 
 2 Rev. 22: 11 is not regarded as an exception, be- 
 cause this verb is not regarded as the true reading in 
 that place. 
 
154 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we beheve that we 
 shall also live witli liim : 
 
 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead 
 dietb no uiore ; death hath no more dominion over 
 him. 
 
 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in 
 that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 
 
 Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him; 
 
 9 knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dielh 
 
 no more ; death no more hath dominion over him. 
 
 10 For 1 the death that he died, heditd unto sin 2 once: 
 
 1 Or, in that 2 Gr. once for all. 
 
 follows naturally from what precedes that 
 here is meant the inner, spiritual death, carried 
 into effect in helieving fellowship with Christ's 
 death, by which, as by death in general, all 
 former relations and connections are dissolved, 
 and therefore the connection with sin, which 
 thus loses its old authority and power over 
 man. But if man is absolved from sin, he 
 ought not again to hold converse with it" 
 (Philippi, and similarly Bengel, Olshausen, 
 De Wette, Tholuck, and others). But the 
 verb used signifies "has been justified or ac- 
 quitted, not has been freed — that is, set free 
 from the penalty rather than the power of 
 sin. 4. 'He that is dead with Christ^ — that 
 is, brought in connection with his atoning 
 death, ' is freed from guilt and punishment of 
 sin by justification.' (So Scott, Mac Knight, 
 Hodge.) This seems to be the best view, if 
 the verse does not refer to Christ. (A. H.) ] 
 8. Now if we be dead for, died) with 
 Christ (compare 2 Cor. 5: 14, Kevised Ver- 
 sion, "one died for all, therefore all died"). 
 [This dying with Christ (to sin, compare ver. 
 10, 11) serves to explain the preceding verse: 
 ' he that hath died is justified from sin' (Re- 
 vised Version) — that is, sin cannot be his con- 
 demnation.] We believe that we shall also 
 live with him.i [Compare 2 Tim. 2: 11.] 
 This is not merely an exhortation — 'we ought,' 
 not merely a prediction — 'we shall,' but a 
 matter of experience — ' we believe that we 
 shall' participate in his new and deathless 
 life, as we have participated in his death. 
 This involves, of course, an ultimate partici- 
 pation in his heavenly life in glory, [a being 
 
 forever with the Lord, which seems to be 
 Paul's idea of heaven, (i Thesa. 4: n.) ] But 
 we are not to infer, from the future tense, 
 'shall live with him,' that this glorified life is 
 principally' intended; for the future tense is 
 to be understood, as in in ver. 5, of the new 
 Christian life on earth, as explained in ver. 6, 
 11-13, [or as Meyer terms it, "the ethical 
 participation in the new everlasting life of 
 Christ.''] 
 
 9. Knowing (because we know) that Christ 
 being: {liaving been) raised from the dead 
 dieth no more. He died, not that he might 
 remain dead, but that he might be forever 
 siiperio7^ to death. 2 And so we, who died to 
 sin once for all, must not again come under its 
 dominion. Death hath no more dominion 
 over him. It seemed to have a transient 
 dominion over him, but really it never had. 
 
 (John 10: 17,18; 2: 19: Matt. 26: 53; Acts 2 : 24.) [In the 
 
 last clause, 'him,' in the genitive, is governed 
 by the verb, on the principle that verbs of 
 ruling take the genitive as the case of depend- 
 ence. The verb, derived from a noun, could 
 be resolved thus: death is lord of him no 
 longer. Compare 7: 1; 14: 9.] 
 
 10. For in that he died. There is a 
 peculiar and unusual ellipsis in the Greek 
 of this verse. Literally translated it would 
 read — lohat he died and what he liveth.^ Our 
 translators, to make it more intelligible, in- 
 serted the preposition in and changed the 
 relative into the demonstrative. In a similar 
 case — I think the only similar one (oai. 2:20) — 
 they supplied the ellipsis in a diflPerent way, 
 by inserting a noun corresponding to the verb 
 
 1 '%vv (with), as distinguished from jterd, indicates a 
 more intimate union, coherence rather than co-exist- 
 ence. (Winer, 391.) " Siiv with dative, in company 
 with; /u.«Ta with gQnili'ie, participating with." (Boise.) 
 -(F.) 
 
 2 Paul elsewhere speaks of Christ as " the first born 
 from the dead," the " first fruits of them that slept." 
 Col. 1 -. 18; 1 Cor. 15: 20. EUicott on the former pass- 
 age says: " Others had been translated or had risen to 
 die again. He had risen with glorified humanity to 
 die no more : hence he is not called simply ' the first 
 
 that rose,' but with a note of generation, "first born 
 from the dead." Query : Will any one dare to affirm 
 that Christ was unconscious while he "slept "in the 
 tomb, and that during all that time the world had vir- 
 tually no Saviour? Manifestly, his sleeping in death 
 was compatible with the enjoyment of the Paradise of 
 bliss. (Luke 23: 43.)— (F.) 
 
 3 This would be called the cognate accusative, In- 
 stead of this we may, as Prof. Boise remarks, regard 
 the relative as in the accusative of specification, equiva- 
 lent as to what, as to the fad that.—(F.) 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 155 
 
 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead 
 indeed unto siu, but alive unto (jod through Jesus 
 (.iirist our Lord. 
 
 but Uhe life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 
 11 Eveu so rtckou ye also yourselves to be dead uulo 
 sin, but alive .unto God in Christ Jesus. 
 
 in place of the relative— "</ie life which I 
 now live" (for what I now live). Conform- 
 ing the passage now before us with the one 
 in Galatians, which seems to us the better 
 way of supplying the ellipsis, we should read 
 —for the death that he died, he died unto 
 sin once ; but the life that he liveth, he 
 liveth niito God. The 'for' gives the ;:>roo/ 
 of the preceding: Christ dieth no more; death 
 hatli no more dominion over him; 'for' he 
 died to sin once for all, and lives unio God 
 and with God among the immortals where 
 they die no more. (Luke 20 : 36; Rev. 21:4.) 'He 
 died unto sin' — that is, he had no more to do 
 with it, either as tempting and persecuting 
 him, or as annoying and grieving him by its 
 hateful presence. Both the expressions 'he 
 died unto sin,' ' he liveth unto God ' seem to 
 be used on account of the analogy; they are 
 strictly applicable to us, only in a qualified 
 sense to Christ. ["It may in a certain degree 
 bo affirmed tiiat upon this earth our Saviour 
 lived both to us and to his God, inasmuch as 
 it was for our sakes that he lived in a certain 
 connection with evil, sin, death, and Satan. 
 Tills connection is now dissolved, and God is 
 tlie only scope of his life." (Justinianus, as 
 quoted by Tholuck.) Olshausen observes on 
 this passage that "Christ died once for sin — 
 thut is, to extirpate it; and lives eternally 
 for God— that is, to further righteousness." 
 Philippi and Godet would make our Lord's 
 dying to sin refer to his expiating and de- 
 stroying it by his death. Meyer says: "He 
 died to its power,'' and in a similar way we 
 are to deem ourselves dead to it. (ver. 11.)] 
 'Once.' It is important to notice the import of 
 the word ; it means here once for all. It is 
 opposed, not only to any actual repetition of 
 his bloody sacrifice on the cross, but also to 
 any virtual repetition of it in the mass, which 
 professes, though an unbloody sacrifice, to 
 have a like propitiatory efficao3^ The same 
 adverb is used in Heb. 10 : 10, where it is 
 
 translated "once for all." This expression is, 
 however, liable to be misunderstood, as if /or 
 all meant for all persons, in distinction from 
 the limitation of the design of his death to 
 some persons ; whereas it means for a/^ time, 
 in distinction from any rrpetition of his deati). 
 And 07ice has the same meaning in Heb. 7 : 27; 
 9: 12, where, as in the verse under considera- 
 tion, the exi)lanatory /o?- all was not added by 
 the translators. The original expression is 
 precisely the same in all these four places. 
 [It may be well for the reader to compare 
 Jude (ver. 3) with the passages cited by Dr. 
 Arnold, for "the faith which was once deliv- 
 ered to the saints" really means "the faith 
 which was delivered once/ora^^ to the saints," 
 and this description of "the faith" appears to 
 forbid the hope of any further revelation of 
 Christian truth. See note on this passage. 
 (A. H.)] 
 
 11. Likewise. So also— that is, conform- 
 ably to Ciirist — reckon ye (imperative) 
 yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin 
 (immovable by it, insensible to it),' but alive 
 (or, livincj, full of energy and power) unto 
 God through (rather, iii) Jesus Christ our 
 Lord — that is, by virtue of your miion with 
 him [or, as Winer has it, "in soul-nourishing 
 fellowship with Christ." Meyer joins the 
 words in Christ Jesus to both clauses, dead 
 and living, De Wette only to the latter. The 
 most important MSS. omit the words 'to be' 
 and 'our Lord.'] Not his mediatorship, but 
 his headship, is the prominent thought here.2 
 [In regard to this mj-stical union of believers 
 with and in Christ, the Apostles John and 
 Paul are both at one. According to their 
 teachings, ^^ believers are in Christ, so as to 
 be partakers in all that he does, and has, and 
 is. They died with him, and rose with him, 
 and live with him, and in him are seated in 
 heavenly places. "When the eye of God looks 
 on them, they are found in Christ, and there 
 is no condemnation to those that are in him, 
 
 1 Chalmers gives even to these phrases a "forensic 
 meaning." Only as we are in Clirist, and clothed with 
 his righteousness and filled witli his Spirit, can we 
 truly reckon ours Ives dead to sin and alive to God. 
 lion- forcel'ul the figure — dead to sin I We have all seen 
 
 how insensible is the dead body to all that is going on 
 around it. It is moved by no tears or wailings of grief, 
 no voice of affection, no music of earth, no thunders of 
 the sky. It is dmd to the world. — (F.) 
 2 See Appendix C. 
 
156 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Cn. VI. 
 
 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, j 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, 
 that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. la that ye should obey the lusts thereof: neither present 
 
 13 Neither yield yc your members (w instruments of your members unto sin as i instruments of unright- 
 uurighieousuess unto sin: but yield yourselves unto | eousness; but present yourselves unto God, as alive 
 
 1 Or, iveapons. 
 
 and they are righteous in his righteousness 
 and loved with the love vvliicli rests on him, 
 and are sons of God in his' sonship and heirs 
 with him of liis inheritanee, and are soon to 
 be glorified with him in his glory." (Ber- 
 nard's "Progress of Doctrine," p. 181. )' 
 Paul's watchwords are "through Christ," 
 " in Christ," " for Christ," " with Christ."] 
 
 "We should die as truly to sin as he died 
 for sin, and live as truly imto God as he lives 
 with God." (Adam Clarke.) Compare Gal. 
 2 : 19 ; 1 Peter 2 : 24. 
 
 12. Let not sin therefore reign [continue 
 to reign, the verb being in the present tense]. 
 Observe how sin is per' sonified here as reign- 
 ing and being obeyed. This shows that it is 
 regarded as & principle, and not merely as an 
 act, for an act, whether external or internal, 
 whether mechanical or mental, could not 
 consistently be so personified. 'Sin,' as the 
 word is used here and in the following chap- 
 ter, has been well defined as "a want of con- 
 formity to the law of God, whether in act, 
 habit, or state." (Inconvenientia cum lege 
 divina aut actus, aut habitus, aut status. ) ' Let 
 not sin therefore reign,' since it has been de- 
 posed. ["He does not say, let not the flesh 
 live, neither act, but let not sin reign. . . . 
 And surely it would be absurd for those who 
 are bound for the kingdom of heaven to take 
 sin for a queen and to choose to be her captives 
 when called to reign along with Christ." 
 (Chrysostom.)] In your mortal body. 
 "Why does he add 'mortal' here? To keep 
 in view the connection between sin and death, 
 partly, perhaps, as an enforcement of the 
 exhortation, because the remembrance of the 
 deadly consequence of sin would be a pow- 
 erful dissuasive from it, but principally on 
 
 account of the antithesis, the life with Christ, 
 which is exempt from death. [This mortal 
 body, or body of sin and death, itself made 
 mortal by reason of sin (called in Col. 2 : 11 
 and elsewhere "body of the sins of flesh''), 
 being "organized flesh" (Cremer), is related 
 to sin by the flesh composing it and by the 
 soul inhabiting it, and is consequently subject 
 to death as the penalty of sin. Yet even this 
 body may be made a temple of the indwelling 
 Holy Spirit. (icor.6;i9.) Tholuck observes 
 that the adjective mortal "is doubtless added 
 — as Chr3'sostom, Grotius, and others remark 
 — to encourage the Christian, by pointing his 
 thoughts to that never-ending glory into 
 which this frail tabernacle shall one day be 
 transformed."] That ye should obey it in 
 the lusts theredf. [This is the reading of 
 K A B C * and early versions, while D E F G 
 read it alone.] The last word ('thereof') 
 refers to the body. A large part of sin con- 
 sists in, or arises from, yielding to the desires 
 and appetites of the body. "The bodily appe- 
 tites are the fuel; sin is the fire." (Bengel.) 
 [The gratifying of our sensual appetites and 
 desires yields a certain sort of pleasure, but 
 sin's pleasures are full often followed by tears, 
 and 
 
 Sin's froth that foams for an hour. 
 Leaves dregs that are tasted for years.] 
 
 13. Neither yield ye your members.'' 
 
 [The Revisers, by connecting 'sin' with 'mem- 
 bers,' vary the order of the original but give 
 clearness to its meaning.] ' Nor render your 
 members unto sin ' (as a soldier renders his 
 service to his commander or a subject to his 
 sovereign) as instruments (literally, loeap- 
 ons) of unrighteousness (for the promotion 
 of unrighteousness) ; but yield yourselves 
 
 1 Bernard thus beautifully describes the progress of 
 doctrine on this one line from the gospels to the epis- 
 tles: " In the Gospels we have .stood like men who watch 
 the rising of some great edifice, and who grow familiar 
 with the outline and details of its exterior aspect. In 
 the preaching of the Acts, we have seen the doors 
 thrown open and joined the men who flock into it as 
 their refuge and their home. In the Epistles we are 
 actually within it, sheltered by its roof, encompassed 
 
 by its walls; we pass, as it were, from chamber to 
 chamber, beholding the extent of its internal arrange- 
 nieuts and the abundance of all things provided for our 
 use. We are here ' in Christ Jesus ' " (p. 182).— (F.) 
 
 2 On tlie use of the negative ft-v with imperatives 
 rather than ov, see Winer, g 55. And as to the usage 
 of correlative particles, observe how iJi-qSi here follows 
 n'r) as oiiSe follows ou in 2 : 28.— (F.) 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 157 
 
 Gcxi, as those that are alive from the dead, and your 
 members a.t iiislniments ol rigluuousiiess unto (jod. 
 
 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you : for ye 
 are not under the law, but under grace. 
 
 If) What then? shall we sin, because we are not 
 under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 
 
 from the dead, and your luembers a.s i instruments 
 14 of righteousness uiito(iod. For siu shall not have 
 
 dominion over you: lor ye are not under law, but 
 
 under grace. 
 1.5 What then? shall we siu, because we are not under 
 16 law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that 
 
 1 Or, weapona. 
 
 to God, as those that are alive from the 
 dead, and your members as instruments 
 of righteousness unto God. Compare 12:1. 
 [Tlie reflexive pronoun translated 'yourselves' 
 is ])ri>per] y in the third person, but is here and 
 elsewhere used for the second. 'Alive from 
 the dead.' Mej'er regards these dead as those 
 who died with Christ to sin. Prof. Crenier 
 also explains the term as used here by a refer- 
 ence to vcr. 8, 10, 11, and tliinks that the 
 Greek word for 'dead' (fexpos) is never to be 
 understood of "spiritual death," but that it 
 signifies rather "the state of those whose life 
 is appointed to death as t le punishment of 
 sin." In his view, '"dead (in) trespasses and 
 sins" would mean — doomed to death by rea- 
 son of trespasses, dead through your trespasses, 
 as in the Revised Version, Eph. 2:1; Col. 
 2:13. Piiilippi and Godet, with most com- 
 mentators, think of these 'dead' as the dead 
 in sin. There certainly does not appear to 
 be any proper reaiirrection change in passing 
 from a death to sin to a living unto God, since 
 these are virtually identical. The "Bible 
 Commentary" gives the force of the present 
 and aorist tenses thus: "Do not go on putting 
 your members at sin's disposal, but once for 
 all present (i-':i) yourselves both body and 
 soul unto God."* The word rendered 'instru- 
 ments' (favored by De Wette) always means 
 •weapons in the New Testament. (Meyer.) 
 Thej' are, properly, military weapons of the 
 heavier sort. Boise: " Present your members 
 as heavy armor of righteousness to God." 
 
 The apostle dc))icts life as a contest and fight 
 whether for sin or rigliteousness. "St. Paul," 
 sa3's Bishop "Wordsworth, "loves military 
 mota))h(>rs." 'Righteousness' (Sutaioo-uvr;) re- 
 garded as " conformity to the standard" is 
 here very properly opposed to 'sin' (i/uapWo), 
 which is a missing of the mark. (Cremer.) A 
 failing to hit the mark. (Thayer.)] 
 
 14. This verse seems to be of the nature of 
 an assurance [in which there lies a very siueet 
 consolation (Melanchthoii)], <'onfirming (for) 
 the possibility of the surrender to God com- 
 manded above. At the same time it serves as 
 a transition to tlie new phase of the argument, 
 presented in the verses that follow. See analy- 
 sis at the beginning of the chapter. [Have 
 dominion. Death no longer lords it over 
 Christ, and sin shall no longer lord it over 
 you. It shall not be your master, for ye are 
 not in bondage to the law, which is the power 
 of sin, but ye are subject to grace, are under 
 the control of grace. " Grace not only washes 
 away sins, but keeps us from sinning."] 
 
 15. What then shall we say? (compare 
 ver. 1) or 'what then ' is the inference? May we 
 sin, subjunctive aorist [denoting some special 
 act of sin rather than a habit of sinning], not 
 future indicative, is the true reading. See on 
 ver. 1. How does this verse differ from ver. 1 ? 
 There it is May we ]:)ersist in sin, in order 
 that grace maj' abound ? Here it is Maj' we 
 feel at liberty to sin, because we are not under 
 the law, but under grace? The first is a 
 question of positive and permanent action. 
 The second is an appeal to the Christian's 
 moral sense. The answer to both is the same: 
 let it not be. The inference is indignantly repu- 
 diated. [""We are not only not to 'continue in 
 sin,' buteverysingleactofsin istobeavoided." 
 (Boise.) The grace of our God must not 
 be turned into lasciviousness. " "We were 
 freed from the law not that we might hand 
 over the sovereignty to the flesh, but that we 
 might henceforth live unto God and fulfill his 
 will, only no longer on the ground of the 
 outer requirement of the law, but at the inner 
 instigation of the Spirit. Materially nothing 
 else is to be aimed at by means of the latter 
 than the former; for the love which the Spirit 
 works is the fulfilling of the law." (Weiss on 
 
 ' Winer (p. 313) says: "The present imperatiTe de- 
 notes an action already begun and to be continued, or 
 one that is permanent and frequently recurring," while 
 the aorist imperative "denotes an action that is either 
 transient and instantaneous or to be undertaken but 
 
 once. . . . The aorist imperative is in general more 
 forcible and stringent than the present." Gramma- 
 rians tell us that the aorist, though a past tense, rarely 
 denotes past time except in the indicative and parti- 
 ciple.— (F.) 
 
158 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 16 Know yc not, that to whom ye yield yourselves 
 servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey : 
 whether of siu unto death, or of obedience unto right- 
 eousness? 
 
 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of 
 sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of 
 doctrine which was delivered you. 
 
 to whom ye present yourselves a« i servants unto obe- 
 dience, his 1 servants ye are whom ye obey ; whether 
 of sin unto death, or of obedience unto rigliteous- 
 17 ness? But thanks be to God, ^that, whereas ye were 
 ' servants ot sin ye became obedient from the heart 
 to that "iform of teaching whereunto ye were deliv- 
 
 l Gv. bondservants 2 Or, that ye were . . . hutyebecame '6 Or, pattern. 
 
 Paul's doctrine of "Freedom from the Law.")] 
 " With the ungodly, not to be under the law 
 means, not to be afraid to do whatever we 
 please, and to be under grace means to be 
 safe from damnation." (Beza.) 
 
 16. Know ye not. This is an appeal to 
 common sense, [and hence the question re- 
 quires no expressed answer. In negative inter- 
 rogative sentences with not (ou), an affirmative 
 answer is presumed.] Ye are the servants 
 either of God or of sin ; there is no third sup- 
 position. The yielding of ourselves servants 
 for obedience to anyone implies the serving — 
 tlie being in reality the servants of — such per- 
 son. Theformer is the practical fact; the latter 
 is the inevitable conclusion. Whether (serv- 
 ants) of sin unto death, or of obedience 
 (to God) unto righteousness. The slave of 
 one man cannot be obedient to another man. 
 The slave must serve his own master.^ The 
 preposition 'unto' — here, 'unto death'; 'unto 
 righteousness,' marks result of service without 
 impl3'ing intention or aim. Life, instead of 
 'righteousness,' would be the more exact anti- 
 thesis to ' death ' : but righteousness best suits 
 the apostle's course of thought here: Tholuck 
 cites parallel passages from Socrates and 
 Seneca. ['Death' (eararos), the opposite of 
 righteousness (which has "eternal life" for 
 its result), does not denote annihilation, nor 
 does it here refer exclusively or mainly to 
 phj'sical death, this being not in all cases the 
 result of individual sin. According to De 
 "Wette, it is, generally, the misery of sin, or 
 more specifically, estrangement from the true 
 life. In the light of ver. 21, 23, it must, Ave 
 think, be regarded as the opposite of life 
 eternal. Mej-er versus De "Wette, Philippi, 
 Lange, Godet, and others, does not regard this 
 
 'righteousness' as moral righteousness (as in 
 ver. 13), but, in the light of a final result and 
 in antithesis to death, as the sentence of justi- 
 fication which will be awarded in the judg- 
 ment. Some, as Alford, take 'righteousness,' 
 and so 'death,' in its most general sense.] 
 
 17. Here the dilemma stated above is solved 
 for them by an appeal to fact. And this is 
 done in the form of a thanksgiving to God. 
 We are not to understand the thanksgiving, 
 however, as having reference only, or princi- 
 pally to the first clause, ye were the serv- 
 ants of sin, or even eq^cally to both clauses: 
 but the thanksgiving has emphntic reference 
 to the second clause, which, however, presup- 
 poses the first, and could not have existed 
 without it. 'Ye were,' is emphatic, the 
 en)phasis falling on the tense of the verb, 
 [which implies that the bondage is a thing of 
 the past; compare Ilium fuit.] The sense of 
 the verse would be substantially preserved, if 
 the first clause were expressed hypothetically, 
 though ye were, or participially, having been. 
 [This is substantially the view of Winer (p. 
 630) in opposition to Fritzsche, Meyer, Phil- 
 ippi, and others, who lay stress on the past 
 tense of the verb (compare 1 Cor. 6: 11; 
 Eph. 5: 8) in the manner indicated above.- A 
 similar phraseology, connected, as here, with 
 thanksgiving to God, is found in our Lord's 
 words in Matt. 11: 25.] Ye have obeyed, 
 etc. This sentence loses not a little of its 
 significance from a change in our Common 
 Version of the grammatical relations of the 
 words. The latter verb as well as the former 
 is in the second person. Ye have obeyed from 
 the heart that form, [probably the anti-Juda- 
 istic type^ of teaching into which ye were de- 
 livered.^ 'Ye were delivered,' by your own 
 
 i"Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.*' Philippi, 
 defining the force of rot in ^rot says: ' ^rot . . . tj, 
 either oji/y, this or that, tertium non datur." This par- 
 ficle is found only here in the New Testament. — (F.) 
 
 - X fi-iv after the verb 'were,' in contrast with the 
 following Se (but), might here have naturally been ex- 
 pected, but is probably dispensed with because of the 
 stress mentioned. — (F.) 
 
 3 On the grammatiral construction of this sentence, 
 see Winer, pp. 164, 261. The verb obey, which is usually 
 followed by the dative, here has the accusative, owing, 
 perhaps, to the attraction of the antecedent (itself in 
 the relative clause) to the case of the relative, which is 
 the reverse of the usual rule. In the LXX, however, 
 this verb sometimes takes the simple accusative. — (F.) 
 
Ch. VI.J 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 159 
 
 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the 
 servants uf righteousness. 
 
 19 1 siH-alv after the manner of men because of the 
 intirmitv of your tiesh: for as ye have yielded your 
 members servants to uncleauuess and to iniquity unto 
 
 18 ered; and being made free from sin, ye became 'serv- 
 
 19 ants of righteousness. I sjieak after the manner of 
 men because of the infirmity of your fiesh : lor as ye 
 presented your members a.v servants to uncleanness 
 and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now presenl 
 
 1 Gr. bondaervanta. 
 
 free act, and with gladness of heart, as plastic 
 material, to be shaped and moulded by this 
 doctrine. [With this t]/2)e of doctrine (which 
 Dr. J. B. Thomas in his " Mould of Doctrine'' 
 refers especially to baptism) compare the/o?-m 
 of knowledge, 2: 20. If Paul could say: 
 "thanks be to God," because the Konian 
 Christians had received and obeyed the right 
 form of gospel teaching, surely the type of 
 teaching which we receive and obey or which 
 religious teachers impart to others cannot be 
 a matter of indiftorence. In studying or teach- 
 ing God's word, how appropriate the prayer 
 that we may be saved from all fatal or hurtful 
 error, and be guided into all necessary truth ! 
 And in view of the darkness in us and around 
 us, and of our dependence on divine illumi- 
 nation, no words of supplication can be more 
 relevant than those of Young and of Milton : 
 
 Teach my best reason, reason. 
 
 What in me is dark. 
 Illumine ; what is low, raise and support.] 
 
 18. Being then made free from sin, etc. 
 [Better: bid having been freed from sin, ye 
 were tnade servants to righteousness. There 
 is no middle ground. The passive forms of 
 l)artioiple and verb indicate divine agency or 
 co-operation, and so in ver. 22.] Ye were 
 freed from the service of sin, that ye might 
 enter a new and better service— the service of 
 righteousness. Yet this is truly a service as 
 well as the other : ye were enslaved, or, ye 
 became enslaved, to righteousness, the verb 
 might be rendered. [Free, yet slaves: for a 
 similar paradox, seel Cor. 7: 22. "If human 
 action," says Prof. Cremer, "in sin (i/mapTia) 
 misses its divine standard or goal, we can un- 
 
 derstand why 'conformity to the standard' 
 {iiKaioavvTi) appears, especially in the Epistle 
 to the Romans, as its opposite."] 
 
 19. After the manner of men. I speak 
 in accordance with the human, fleshly nature 
 and relationship of men— according to "what 
 or how man or human nature is, what is peculiar 
 to it." (Cremer.) Compare 3: 5. There is a 
 diiference of opinion in regard to the first 
 part of this verse. Those who refer it to the 
 words immediately preceding, regard it as a 
 sort of apology for the expression, 'ye- were 
 enslaved to righteousness.' As if he had said, 
 "the servant of righteousness is no slave; 
 God's service is our only true freedom (ps. ii6: 
 
 16 ; 119 : 45 ; Matt. 11 : 30 ; John 8 : 32, 34, 36 ; 1 John 5 : 3) ; but 
 
 I use this word to set the contrast more plainly 
 before you. Both are equally a service, so far 
 as certainty of obedience is concerned, though 
 in other respects they differ widely: and I 
 use this word also in condescension to the 
 weakness of your flesh ; for because of that 
 weakness it seems, and in part is, a bondage." 
 Others refer these words to what follows, 
 and see in them a sort of apology for, or 
 protest against, the low view of their obliga- 
 tions which he presents, in only requiring 
 them to be as faithful in the service of right- 
 eousness as they had before been in the service 
 of sin, whereas they ought to aim at a great 
 deal more than this.^ The former explana- 
 tion is preferable; and it is a serious objection 
 to the latter, that it assumes a false meaning 
 in the words as and even so, which do not 
 imply equality of degree, but only similarity 
 of fact. For as ye have yielded your 
 members servants to uncleanness (sins 
 against your own persons), and to iniquity 
 
 t If we were anywhere nearly as active and persever- 
 ing in the service of God as we were in the service of 
 sin, we should expect with more confidence than we 
 can now, the plaudit: "Well done, good and faithful 
 servants." Instead of calling ourselves even "unprofit- 
 able servants," doing our whole duty to God, it some- 
 times seems that we should hardly be called servants at 
 all. And what shall we say of those whose only striv- 
 ing is to resist the light and influence of the gospel in 
 their service of sin? who make it their life's business, 
 
 seemingly, to find some excuse for their rejection ol 
 Christ and his service? Let them be assured that there 
 is no good reason why they should not love and serve 
 the Saviour, and that if they will strive but half as 
 hard to be saved as to be lost, they will make their sal- 
 vation sure. In regard to this " weakness of the flesh," 
 some refer it to intellectual weakness (DeWette, Meyer, 
 Philippi), others to moral weakness (Godet), or weak- 
 ness of spiritual apprehension (D. Brown). — (F.) 
 
160 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VI. 
 
 iniquity ; even so now yield your members servants to 
 rigUteuusness unto holiness. 
 
 ■j.{) For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were 
 free fioiu righteousness. 
 
 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof 
 ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is 
 death. 
 
 your members as servants to righteousness unto 
 
 20 sanctitication. For when ye were ' servants of sin, 
 
 21 ye were Iree in regard of righteousness. What fruit 
 then had ye at that time in the things whereof ye 
 are now ashamed? lor the end of those things is 
 
 1 Gr. botidservants. 
 
 (sins against God and your neighbor) unto 
 iniquity ifrom one iniquity unto another), 
 even so now yield [at once and completely, 
 imperative aoristj your members servants 
 to righteousness unto holiness. [The 
 word rendered iniquity, is properly lawless- 
 ness, that "state of moral License which either 
 knows not, or regards not, law, and in which 
 the essence of sin abides.'' (iJoiin3:4.) (Elli- 
 cott. ) • ' Unto holiness^ denoting result. This 
 word, (oyioo-fids, not oyicoo-vvij as in 1 : 4, also 
 2 Cor. 7 : 1 ; 1 Thess. 3: 13), is in the Kevised 
 Version everywhere rendered "sanctifica- 
 tion," while Meyer asserts that in the New 
 Testament, "it is always holiness, not sancti- 
 ficati()n."]^ The word twice translated 'serv- 
 ants' (or, slaves) has an adjective form, being 
 in the neuter gender, and agreeing in both 
 cases with the word 'members.' Everywhere 
 else it is a noun. 
 
 20. For introduces the motive for comply- 
 ing with the closing exhortation of the pre- 
 ceding verse. When ye were the servants 
 of sin. In your former unconverted state. 
 This is a true characterization of all the unre- 
 generate: in various form.s and in various 
 degrees, they are all mastered by sin. Ye 
 were free from righteousness. ["Miser- 
 able freedom ! "] Ye were free in respect to 
 righteousness : in point of right, bound to be 
 righteous; but in point oi fact, independent 
 of its demands, and devoted to the service of 
 the opposite master — sin.^ ' Ycf were free from 
 
 righteousness' does not mean, ye were with- 
 out any righteousness — wholly sinful; but, ye 
 felt no obligation to be righteous, ye enjoyed 
 your liberty in sin, without restraint. Whether 
 or not there is any real benefit, or satisfying 
 enjoyment in that freedom, we learn from the 
 next verse. 
 
 21. What fruit had ye then. [Tholuck 
 gives the connection of this verse with the 
 preceding as follows: "While engaged in 
 the service of sin, j'ou possessed, it is true, the 
 advantage of standing entirely out of all sub- 
 jection to righteousness, but let us look to 
 what is to be the final result." The verb is 
 in the imperfect tense: what fruit were ye 
 having.]^ 'Then' is not an adverb of time 
 here, but of reasoning; as when we say, 
 " Well, then," in introducing some question. 
 [The text, however, has another word (rort) 
 meaning then, or, at that time — namely, when 
 ye were the servants of sin.] 'Fruit' — that 
 is, benefit, advantageous result, or, result in 
 general, whether good or bad. As this verse 
 is commonly pointed, the question seems not 
 to be answered ; yet the last clause of the verse 
 assumes that an unfavorable answer has been 
 given, and assigns a reason for that answer. 
 \ivi& divide the first half of the verse, making 
 the question end with the word, 'then,' and 
 regarding the next clause as the answer, we 
 shall get a diflTere-nt but very appropriate and 
 forcible sense, thus: what fruit then had ye at 
 that time? (fruit) whereof ye are now 
 
 1 Ben gel arranges by degrees, thus: ayiaaij-o^, ayiw- 
 (rvvfj, avioTT)?, " sanctification," " sanctity," " holiness." 
 The last two are predicated especially of Deity, the 
 first cannot be, as it, by usnge, implies the taint and 
 stain of sin. Holiness in man is properly the result of 
 a sanctifying process, or of sanctification, taken in its 
 usual active sense. Our complete sanctification is holi- 
 ness. The word ayiao-Mos (exclusively a Biblical term) 
 occurs eight times in Paul's epistles, Rom. 6 : 19, 22; 
 1 Cor. 1 : 30; 1 Thess. 4: 3, 4, 7; 2 Thess. 2: 13; 1 Tim. 
 2: l.T ; also in Heb. 12: 14; 1 Peter 1 : 2. Prof. Cremer 
 notes three places where the word is used in a passwe 
 signification, meaning holiness — towit, Rom. 6: 19,22; 
 1 Cor. 1 : 80: ayio-n)! (holiness) occurs only in Heb. 12: 
 
 10. " Holiness is the moral quality to be acquired, but 
 'sanctification' (oviao-^os) includes the sanctifying 
 act or process, as well as its result." " Bible Commen- 
 tary."— (F.) 
 
 - 'EAtuOepos,- from eAeveepi, 1. q., epxofiai, literally 
 means, " free to go." The dative, which in classic Greek 
 never follows the adjective ' free,' denotes, according to 
 Cremer, the " moral relation of subjective surrender," 
 similarly as in the expression, 'servants to unclean- 
 ness,' etc., in the last verse. It may be called the dative 
 of respect or reference. — (F.) 
 
 3 Notice difference of accent between this nVa {what 
 fruit) and the nt'a {some fruit) of 1 : 13. — (F.) 
 
Ch. VI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 161 
 
 22 But now being made free from sin, and become 
 servauts to (iod, ye liave your fruit uuto holiness, and 
 the end everlasting life. 
 
 22 death. But now being made free from sin, and be- 
 come servants to God, ye have your fruit unto saucti- 
 
 23 fication, and the end eternal life. For the wages of 
 
 ashamed. For the end of those things 
 is death.i tj^^ reasons in favor of this method 
 of dividingand punctuatingtheveracare : that 
 it supplies the answer to the question, which the 
 last clause of the verse seems to require ; that it 
 does not require to be supplemented by the 
 words 'in those things,' in the firstchiuseof the 
 verse, to wliich there is nothing answering in the 
 Greek ; that it furnishes, witliout these supple- 
 mental words, a suitable antecedent (in the 
 plural relative) to the those things of the last 
 clause ; that it better agrees witli the sense of 
 the preposition, with tlie relative, of which, or 
 for which, rendered 'whereof in Common 
 Version ; that it gives to the words, '■whereof 
 ye are now ashamed,' which otherwise seem 
 but an incidental observation, not particularly 
 relevant, a special pertinence and force; in 
 fine, that it makes the relation of the three 
 clauses more plain and pertinent: the first 
 asks a question, the second answers it, the 
 third gives a reason for the answer. But 
 Meyer 2 objects, that this view is opposed to 
 "the antithesis in ver. 22, where the having of 
 fruit, and not its quality, is opposed to the 
 preceding": but is not the quality expressed 
 in the words, u7ito holiness, and do not these 
 form a very suitable antithesis to fruit 'of 
 which ye are ashamed ' ? Again he objects, that 
 therelative 'which' ispi2«-«i,whereas the word 
 'fruit' is siyigular ; but this can hardly be 
 regarded as a serious objection, inasmuch as 
 the word 'fruit is a noun of multitude : again 
 
 he objects, that the word 'fruit' [in Paul's 
 writings] has always a good sense, and that 
 Paul negatives the evil sense, in Eph. 5: 11, 
 by calling "the works of darkness unfruit- 
 ful" : but for proof that the word may be 
 used in an evil sense, see Matt. 7: 17-19; 12: 
 o3 ; Kom. 7: 5. There are sufficiently re- 
 spectable authorities, ancient and modern, on 
 both sides: witliMeyer and the Common [also 
 the Kevi.sed] Version agree Chrysostom, Beza, 
 Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, Fritzsche, 
 Winer [Hodge, Stuart, Shedd, Westcott and 
 Hort, etc.] But in favor of the other view, 
 are Theodoret, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Tho- 
 luck, De Wette, Olshausen, [Philippi, Godet,] 
 Evvald, Tischendorf, etc., etc. 
 
 22. But now. The 'now' is rather logical 
 than temporal, yet in this case both senses 
 coincide. [This phrase (wvl hi), expressive of 
 strcmgcontrast, occurs eighteen times in Paul's 
 epistles. In the classics it is always used in 
 a temporal sen.se.] Being (or, having been) 
 made free from sin ; not having been made 
 sinless, but having been emancipated from 
 the bondage of sin.* Become servants of 
 God (or, having been enslaved to God; com- 
 pare ver. 18), or, 'having bound yourselves 
 to the service of God.' Ye have your fruit 
 unto holiness {or, sanctification),\n contrast 
 to ver. 21, with emphasis upon have and holi- 
 ness. [Ye (no longer fruitless) "have your 
 fruit in the direction of holiness." (Godet.) 
 Less literally, Noyes: "Ye have holiness as 
 
 1 We do not, then, as some vainly imagine, receive 
 the full punishment of sin as we go along. " Destruc- 
 tion " lies at the end of the broad road. " The end of 
 those things is death." "The end of whom is perdi- 
 tion." The death which sin deserves and incurs is an 
 essential unity, manifesting itself, however, in diverse 
 forms. It is death lo the body ; death to holiness and 
 true happiness ; death to eternal life in Christ. It is 
 death physical, spiritual, eternal, the counterpart of the 
 eternal life. De Wette says* "It is certain that here 
 and in ver. 16, the idea of mere physical death does not 
 suflBce." On the bringing forth of fruit unto death, 
 see ver. 5 of the next chapter. — (F.) 
 
 2 Meyer's own explanation of the passage is this: 
 What fruit, noiv, had ye then of things over uhich ye are 
 now ashamed— that is, ye had then no fruit, no moral 
 gain, etc., and the proof thereof is : for the final result 
 of those things is death. What leads at last to death 
 could bring you no moral gain. — (F.) 
 
 3 Freed both from its curse and from its reigning 
 power. When it is said of Christians that they are free 
 from sin, and that they "cannot sin," we must regard 
 such expressions as relating to the general character 
 of the actions of the regenerate. Bengel, after Gataker, 
 compares the regenerate to the magnetic needle — qruB 
 poliim petit; facile dimovetur, sed semper polvm repetit. 
 " The needle seeks the pole, is easily turned away, but 
 always seeks it again." " The apostle does not expect 
 fro7u the Christian at once the total eradication of 
 every sinful propensity in the heart, although that 
 certainly is the ultimate end at which he aims, but for 
 the present, that the ungodly inclinations shall merely 
 not be lords of his" inward life." (Tholuck.) Yet what 
 Christian would not rejoice to be in such subjection to 
 God and righteousness that he shall have no unholy 
 desires; yea, that he shall attain to the non posse pec- 
 care — that is, " find it impossible to sin." Compare 
 1 John 3 : 9.— (F.) 
 
162 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Cii. VII. 
 
 23 For the wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God 
 is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 sin is death ; but the free gift of God is eternal life 
 in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 KNOW ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that 
 know the law,) how that the law hath dominion 
 over a man as long as he liveth ? 
 
 1 Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men 
 that know Hhe law), how that the law hath do- 
 
 the fruit."] It is a great blessing, not a hard 
 yoke, to have a holy character. And the 
 end [ye have as the end] everlasting life. 
 
 The present fruit, holiness; the future con- 
 summation, life eternal. [We have in this 
 verse, remarkable for its depth and compre- 
 hensiveness, a miniature sketch of tlie entire 
 history of a redeemed man, beginning, impli- 
 edly, with his bondage to sin while in a state 
 of nature, and ending with the award of the 
 life eternal. What great and blessed things 
 are here spoken of, too great for our finite 
 comprehension, and for us lost sinners almost 
 too good to be true! We can only say: 
 Blessed deliverance! blessed service! blessed 
 fruit! blessed reward!] 
 
 23. For. This verse confirms the preced- 
 ing, and all the more forcibly on account of 
 the preliminary reference to the evil from 
 which we are delivered. The wages of sin. 
 Compare ver. 16, where sin is represented as 
 ,a ruler or master, employing servants and 
 paying them wages. The word translated 
 'wages'* was used to designate the pay of a 
 soldier as our word rations is. It is used in 
 this restricted sense in Luke 3 : 14. In 1 Cor. 
 9: 7 it is translated charges. In 2 Cor. 11 : 8 
 it is in the singular number. These four 
 places are the only ones where it is used in 
 the New Testament. Is death. Not merely 
 physical death, but the opposite of life eternal. 
 [Godet says: "This term (death), according 
 to the apostle, does not seem to denote the 
 annihilation of the sinner. To pay any one 
 is not to put him out of existence. It is rather 
 to make him feel the painful consequence of 
 his sin — to make him reap in the form of cor- 
 ruption what he has sowed in the form of 
 sin."] But the (gracious) gift of God. 
 The penalty of sin is called wages, earned, 
 
 and well deserved ; but the fruit of righteous- 
 ness is not a deserved reward, but the free 
 gift of God's sovereign grace. Is eternal 
 life. Not merely unending existence, but 
 the highest form of life, consummate bliss, 
 without alloy and without end. Through 
 Jesus Christ our Lord. Literally, in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord. The apostle says: "Your 
 life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, 
 ivho is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also 
 appear with him in glory." (coi.3:3,4.) We 
 have not this precious treasure in eailhen 
 vessels (2Cor.4:7), where it would be very inse- 
 cure, but in his almighty hand, where it is 
 safe forever more. ["The doctrine of sanc- 
 tification in this chapter, and that of justi- 
 fication in chapter 5, both end in the same 
 triumphant conclusion." (" Bible Commen- 
 tary.")] 
 
 Ch. 7 : [Freedom from condemnation and 
 the law of sin and death to be found only in 
 Christ, to whom, as if by marriage, we are 
 united (7: i-s: i).^ Many give as the purport 
 of ver. 14-25, "the utter insufficiency of the 
 law to produce sanctification," or "the law 
 powerless to enable the regenerate man to 
 overcome sin." According to Philippi, Paul 
 has pictured in 7: 14-8: 11, "two aspects of 
 the life of the regenerate man." Olshausen, 
 with a diflPerent view of this chapter, sees in 
 ver. 7-24, "the development of the individual 
 until his experience of redemption."] The 
 relation of the believer to the law is now rep- 
 ser.ted under a new figure— that of marriage. 
 This is, in fact, a further illustration of the 
 proposition laid down in 6: 14. 
 
 1. Know ye not, brethren? [Literally: 
 Or are ye ignorant, brethren? The 'or' 
 naturally relates to what immediately pre- 
 
 1 'Oi^covia, vile verbum. (Erasmus.) — (F.) 
 
 2 It may be said that we, if regenerate, are already in 
 Christ, and consequently should find this freedom from 
 condemnation in ourselves. Yet nothing; hinders the 
 regenerate man from considering himself, apart from 
 what he is in Christ. So Hofmaun and Delitzsch. 
 
 Philippi calls this "an empty abstraction." Yet nothing 
 is more common than for the Christian to think and to 
 tell, in the way of contrast, what he is and deserves in 
 himself, and what he is and hopes for "in Christ." 
 -(F.) 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 163 
 
 2 For the woman which hath a husband is bound by 
 the law to her husband as long as he liveth ; but it the 
 
 minion over a man for so long a time as he liveth? 
 
 2 For the woman that hath a husband is bound by 
 
 law to the husband while he liveth ; but if the hus- 
 
 cedes ; yet most expositors refer it back to 6: 
 14, "Ye are not under law but under grace." 
 Do ye not know that ye are freed from sub- 
 jection to the law, as a source and rule of 
 justification, 'oraro ye ignorant,' etc. ? Meyer, 
 however, refers the 'or' to the last-named 
 affirmation — that concerning God's gift — 
 " wliich affirmation could not be truth, if the 
 Christian were not free from the law, and did 
 not belong to the risen Christ instead.*] The 
 ■word 'brethren' is used here, not in the 
 national, but in the Christian sense, as in 1 : 
 13. We are not to regard Paul as addressing 
 here the Jewish Christians in particular, but 
 all the beloved of God in Rome (i : ?), whether 
 Jews or Gentiles. For I speak to them 
 that know the law. This is not to be under- 
 stood partitiveiy, as if he meant to say, ' I 
 addre-ss myself now to those of you who are 
 versed in the law ' ; but he addresses himself 
 to them collectively. [" I am speaking to men 
 acquainted with the law." (Alford.)] Not 
 only were Jewish Christians and the Gentile 
 proselytes acquainted with the law of Moses, 
 but the Romans generally were a civilized 
 people, and eminently a people who under- 
 stood laws. How that the law hath domin- 
 ion over a man as long as he liveth? [On 
 the genitive case following the verb, 'have 
 dominion,' see notes on 6: 9. As the subject 
 of ' liveth ' is not expressed, some supply ' la w ' 
 rather than 'he,' thus: so long as the law is 
 in force. But this does not accord so well 
 with ver. 4. The last verb is an irregular 
 contract, either indicative or subjunctive in 
 form, but indicative in meaning. (Boise. "> 
 Philippi, somewhat strangely, interprets this 
 'liveth' ethically, "as long as a man lives his 
 old natural life of sin."] The apostle's subse- 
 quent argument relates only to the Mosaic 
 law ; but the affirmation here made is equally 
 true in gener^'l. 
 
 2. For the woman Avhich hath a hus- 
 band [literally, the woman subject to a hus- 
 band]. This example seems to be chosen, 
 among many others in which death dissolves 
 a legal obligation, for the purpose of repre- 
 senting the union between Christ and the 
 believer \inder the figure of the closest and 
 tenderest of all human relations — that of 
 
 husband and wife. This comparison is repeat- 
 edly used, both in the Old Testament and in 
 
 the New. (Isa. 54 : 5 ; 62 ; 5 ; Jer. 3 : 14 ; 31 : 32 ; Husea 2 : 
 19; John 3: 2St ; 2 Cor. 11 : 2; Rev. 19: 7 ; 21 : 9; 22:17.) [Paul 
 
 here chooses the example of the ivife, because 
 Christ IS to be the second husband. (Godet.) ] 
 A peculiarity of the illustration in the present 
 case, which has caused needless perplexity to 
 some, is the fact that, in the matter designed 
 to be illustrated here, the party which dies, 
 and not the survivor, is the one released from 
 the bond. [The proper antithesis would be: 
 the husband being dead, the wife is free to 
 marry another, so the law being dead ye are 
 free to be married to Christ. But Paul, wish- 
 ing perhaps to avoid the phrase, the law being 
 dead, which would be so oflensive to Jewish 
 ears, says: " Ye were rendered dead to the 
 law," which of course implies that the law 
 has for such persons become dead. Meyer 
 says: "The semblance of inappropriateness 
 vanishes on considering 'ye also' of ver. 4, 
 from which it is plain that Paul in his illus- 
 tration follows the view that the death of the 
 husband implies in a metaphorical sense (by 
 virtue of the union of the two spouses in one 
 person), the death of the woman also as re- 
 spected her married relation, and consequently 
 her release from the law, in so far'as it had 
 bound her as a married wife to her husband."] 
 The apostle, in using this illustration, would 
 fix our attention to the one point, that death 
 dissolves obligation in both cases. He does 
 not undertake to point out either agreement 
 or disagreement, in other respects. Is bound 
 [or, as Winer puts it: accordingly belongs] 
 by the law to her husband as long as 
 he liveth. [The right of procuring divorce 
 belonged to the husband (Deut.24: i.seq.), which 
 implies "the law" that the woman was bound 
 to her husband during his life.] Some have 
 supposed that the apostle takes the illustration 
 from the case of the wife, rather than of the 
 husband, because it was then so easy and so 
 coynmon, both among Jews and Gentiles, for 
 the husband to get release before death. It 
 was a sure sign of moral degeneracy, and a 
 fruitful cause of increasing it: how much 
 more is it both, when, as in so many modern 
 and so-called Christian communities, it is 
 
164 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her 
 husband. 
 
 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married 
 to another niau, she shall be called an adulteress: but 
 if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so 
 that she is no adulteress, though she be married to 
 another man. 
 
 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead 
 to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be 
 
 band die, she is discharged from the law of the 
 
 3 husband. So then if, while the husband livelh, she 
 be joined to another luan, sbe shall be called an 
 adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from 
 the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be 
 
 4 joined to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, 
 ye also were made dead to the law through the body 
 
 almost equally common, and equally easy for 
 either party to obtain a legal release for causes 
 comparatively trivial. But if the husband 
 be dead [or, better, may have died], she is 
 loosed — that is, has been set free and remains 
 so (perfect tense), ^ from the law of her (lit- 
 erally, the) husband — the law w^hich defines 
 her relation to her husband. [Philippi says: 
 "We should have expected, the law of her 
 husband is annulled (3:3i) and she is fj-ee. 
 Bui in energetic phraseology the notion of 
 abrogation is transferred to the person," and 
 we have this pregnant construction: she is 
 annulled (and made free) from the law. 
 "The apostle thtis gives expression to the 
 thought lying at the basis of his argument, 
 that with the decease of the husband the wife 
 also has ceased to exist as respects her legal 
 connection with him. She is still existent, 
 but no longer bound to the law [which deter- 
 mines the relation of the wife to the hus- 
 band] to which she died with the death of the 
 husband."] 
 
 3. So then, or, accordingly therefore : the 
 coupling of these two logical particles is a 
 peculiarity of Paul's style, occurring twelve 
 times in his epistles [see 5 : 18, note]. If, 
 while her husband liveth, she be married 
 to another man (more literally : she become 
 (■wife) to another husband), f^he shall be called 
 an adulteress. [The verb here is in the 
 future of established rule. It primarily ineant 
 to transact business, then to give response or 
 decision. In later usage it signified to do 
 business under a certain name or title, hence 
 to be named or called. Godet remarks that 
 "a large number of our family names are 
 names of some trade."] But if her hus- 
 band be dead (better: if the Misband have 
 died), she is free from that law ; so that 
 she is no adulteress, though she be 
 married to another man. The last clause 
 may be rendered more literally', thus: (for) 
 having become (wife) to another husband. 
 
 [Meyer translates the last clause but one, "in 
 order that she be not an adulteress," adding 
 this explanation — "that is th& jyurpose, in- 
 volved in the divine legal ordinance, of her 
 freedom from the law." The form of expres- 
 sion is certainly favorable to this idea of 
 purpose, if it is not positively decisive. On 
 the infinitive clause in the genitive, indicating 
 purpose, see Winer, 324, 3*25. As a genitive 
 assigning cause or reason, it depends on the 
 statement, 'she is free,' etc.] 
 
 4. Wherefore, or, so that. [So then, or 
 accordingly, as in Lange. Beginning a 
 new clause with a finite verb, the con- 
 junction (fcio-Te) has the sense of viherefore, 
 therefore. (Winer, 801.) See also Buttmann, 
 243. The word seems to denote an actual 
 or natural sequence of fact more than a 
 mere logical inference.] We have here an 
 inference both from the general principle 
 (ver. 1) and from the particular illustration, 
 (ver. 2, 3.) My brethren, ye also, as well as 
 in the case used for illustration, are become 
 dead to the laAV — rather, were put to death 
 in respect to the law. [And are thus "quite 
 like this wife who is dead (as a wife) through 
 her husband's death, and who thus has the 
 right to marrj' again. ... As the new hus- 
 band is a dead and risen Christ, the wife must 
 necessarily be represented as dead (through 
 the death of her first husband, the law) that 
 she may be in a position to be united to Christ 
 as one risen again. It is a marringe, as it 
 were, beyond the tomb." (Godet.)] The 
 verb is tn the past tense and passive Voice. 
 It is the same verb that is translated "to put 
 to death "in Matt. 26 : 59 ; 27 : 1 ; Mark 14 : 55 ; 
 1 Peter 3 : 18; and "kill" in Kom. 8:36; 2 
 Cor. 6 : 9. Perhaps the apostle preferred this 
 stronger expression (BavaTota) instead of the 
 
 common one (aTroevijo-Kw) "to die" (Rom. 6: a, etc.), 
 
 as conveying a more distinct allusion to the 
 violent death of Christ. He might have said, 
 'the law is dead to you,' but this, besides 
 
 1 On the force of the perfect tense as denoting the present when it follows the subjunctive of objective 
 possibility, see 2 : 25, and Winer, 293.— (F.) 
 
Ch. VIL] 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 165 
 
 married to another, e.ven to him wlio is raised from the 
 dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 
 5 For when we were in the tlesh.the motions of sins, 
 
 of Christ; that ye should he joined to another, even 
 
 to him who was raised from the dead, that we might 
 
 5 bring forth truit unto God. For when we were in 
 
 the Mesh, the i sinful passions, which were through 
 
 1 Gr. paations of sin*. 
 
 being more offensive to the Jews, would not 
 have agreed so well with the representation 
 in the previous chapter. There we are said 
 to die to sin. The argument here may be 
 presented in a sort of tabular form, thus: 
 
 Death dissolves legal obligation : 
 
 Death has dissolved the legal obligation between hus- 
 band and wife ; 
 
 Therefore the wife is at liberty to be married to 
 another. 
 
 Death has dissolved the legal obligation between the 
 law and us; 
 
 Therefore we are at liberty to form another union. 
 
 There the survivor is released ; here the one that dies. 
 
 By (or through) the body of Christ— that 
 is, by the crucifixion of Christ's body. [Com- 
 pare Col. 1 : 22 ; Heb. 10 : 5, 10 ; 1 Peter 2 : 24 ; 
 also 2 Cor. 5: 14. "If one died for all, then 
 all died." Here and in the previous chapter 
 the mystical union of the believer with Christ 
 is everywhere brought to view or presupposed. 
 We are crucified with Christ, we die with 
 Christ, we are buried with Christ, we rise 
 with Christ, we live and reign with Christ, 
 etc.] That ye should be married to 
 another. Not incorrect as to sense, though 
 a more exact rendering would be: That ye 
 ■might become (wife) to another, to him who 
 is raised from the dead. [Compare Gal. 
 2:19: "Through tlie law I died to the law, 
 that I might live unto God."] That we 
 should (or might) bring forth fruit unto 
 God. The kind of fruit which we are to 
 bring forth is specified in Gal. 5 : 22, 23. [The 
 idea of fruit-bearing may here have some 
 reference to the marriage relation. Yet the 
 figure of bringing forth fruit is used, inde- 
 pendently of such relation, quite commonly in 
 the Scriptures. The final aim of our having 
 been made dead to the law, and of our be- 
 coming wedded to Christ, is that we may live 
 with and for ihe risen Saviour a new and 
 holy fruit-bearing life.] Observe the change 
 from the second person in the first two verbs 
 to tlie fimt person in the last. "As the argu- 
 ment advances, the language of the apostle 
 becomes coynmunicative, so that he includes 
 
 himself with his readers." (Meyer.) Com- 
 pare 8 : 15. 
 5. For when we were in the flesh. 
 
 [We should naturally have expected here, 
 'when we were under the law.' But the 
 expression ' in the flesh' supposes the legal 
 state prior to death with Christ.] This verse 
 shows the need there was of a radical change, 
 and confirms the last clause of the preceding 
 verse. When we were in our carnal, unre- 
 generate state (8:8,9), which was, as the next 
 verse intimates, a state of subjection to exter- 
 nal rites and carnal commandments. (Gai.4:9; 
 Heb. 9:10.) " To be in the flesh is to be endowed 
 only with the gifts of nature, while the pecu- 
 liar grace is wanting, which God condescends 
 to bestow on his own elect." (Calvin.) [The 
 \vord translated 'flesh" is of frequent occur- 
 rence in Paul's writings, and is found twenty- 
 four times in this Epistle. It naturally de- 
 notes that which is weak and perishable, but 
 is often used in the ethical sense of unclean, 
 sinful. In 8:3 it is called the "flesh of sin," 
 not because it is the source of sin or because 
 it is essentially sinful, but because it has, in a 
 special manner, been taken possession of and 
 controlled by sin. Prof. Cremer says it signi- 
 fies "the sinful condition of human nature in 
 and according to its bodily manifestation." 
 A glance at Gal. 5 : 19, " works of the flesh,'' 
 shows that envying, enmity, wrath, are as 
 much the fruit of the flesh, according to Paul's 
 use of this term, as are the sensual acts of 
 fornication, uncleanness, etc. According to 
 2 Cor. 10 : 2, 3, we may walk in the flesh, and 
 yet not according to the flesh. As Christians, 
 we mu.st war with the flesh as long as we live, 
 but not war according to the flesh.] 
 
 Observe the distinct notation of time, 'when 
 we were.' The motions of sins. Literally, 
 'the passions of sins,' not merely sinful pas- 
 sions, but passions which are the occasions of, 
 the excitements to, actual sins. [Alford has 
 "strivings" of sins, "incitements" to sins; 
 the Bible Union Version, "emotions of sins." 
 The word {■na.6r,y.ara.) is Usually rendered suffer- 
 ings or afiiictions. Gal. 5 : 24, in our Common 
 
 1 2apf, in distinction from tpeos, denotes living flesh and includes the idea of organism.— (F.) 
 
166 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 which were by the law, did work in our luenibers to 
 bring forth fruit unto death. 
 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being 
 
 the law, wrought in our members to bring forth 
 
 6 fruit unto death. But now we have been dit^charged 
 
 from the law, having died lo that wherein we were 
 
 Version, reads: "Have crucified the flesh 
 with the afl"ections and lusts;" in the Ke- 
 vised Version, "passions and lusts." It is a 
 stronger word than desire, coveting, or Inst 
 (eTTievfiia), yet both may be regarded as sinful 
 and both lead to sins. Thus the law not only 
 produces a knowledge of sins, but is, in one 
 sense, causative of sins. Adam Clarke, how- 
 ever, says that "the law is only the means of 
 disclosing our sinful propensity, not of pro- 
 ducing it. As a bright beam of the sun intro- 
 duced into a room shows millions of motes in 
 all directions — but these were not introduced 
 by the light, but were there before ... so 
 the evil propensity was in the heart before, 
 but there was not light suflicient to discover 
 it." Paul, however, goes further than this, 
 and makes the law, by its prohibitory, re- 
 straining power, the innocent means of excit- 
 ing to activity the dormant sinful passions. 
 See ver, 8.] Which were by the law. 
 Which emotions were by means of the law, 
 were provoked by the law's prohibition. 
 "The strength of sin is the law." (i Cor. i5:o6.) 
 [See ver.' 8; also 5:20, "that the trespass 
 might abound." The law has been repre- 
 sented as a Z'ugel, a Spiegel, and a Riegel, or 
 a bridle, a mirror, and a bar. We naturally 
 resist restraint. Nitimiir in vetitum seynper, 
 eupimusque negata: "We always strive after 
 that which is forbidden, and desire that which 
 is denied." The reason why transgressors are 
 not more conscious of their transgressions, 
 and why their enmitj' against God is not often 
 felt and shown, is that God leaves them, in a 
 measure, to their own chosen ways, and does 
 not exercise his full restrictive power. If 
 God, to use the thought of another, should 
 stretch a chain across the road to hinder the 
 progress of one violating the Sabbath, the 
 man would soon become conscious of wrath- 
 ful feelings against his Maker.] Did work 
 in our members — that is, wrought, or were 
 active, in our members [thus making these 
 members weapons of iniquity. 6:13; com- 
 pare Col. 3 : 5]. The verb so translated, though 
 
 passive in form (or rather middle in the New 
 Testament), is always active in sense, (cai. 
 5; 6; James 5: 16.) [It has, according to Ellicott, 
 "a persistent and effective character." The 
 middle form of this verb is, in Paul's writings, 
 always used of non-personal action. (Winer, 
 258.)] To bring forth fruit unto death. 
 That we should bring forth fruit, or, to the 
 bringing forth of fruit. 'Unto death' does 
 not mean unto death as the final result, how- 
 ever true that sense might be; but death is 
 personified as the antithesis to God at the end 
 of ver. 4. That was fruit for God — God's 
 fruit; this is fruit for death — death's fruit. 
 [How vain, then, to look to the law for life or 
 help when it only threatens with a curse, and, 
 apart from Christ's grace, works only for and 
 unto death. "That man that overtook you," 
 said Christian, " was Moses. He spareth 
 none, neither knoweth he how to show mercy 
 to those that transgress the law." ("Pil- 
 grim's Progress.") 
 
 6. But now, in distinction from the 
 'when' at the beginning of ver. 5. We are 
 (have been) delivered from the law. [That 
 the law here referred to is the moral and not 
 the ceremonial law is evident from the use of 
 this word in the next verse, and in others 
 which follow. We have been discharged 
 from the law, not as as rule of duty, but as 
 a ground or direct means of justification. 
 "By the revelation and gift of grace, man's 
 relation to the law as a criminal is done 
 away." (Cremer.) "We are freed from 
 the law when God emancipates us from its 
 rigid exactions and curse, and endues us. with 
 his Spirit, through whom we walk in his 
 ways." (Calvin.)] The indefinite past terise 
 of the Greek here requires the perfect in 
 English, as in 11 ; 30, 31, and often — always 
 indeed — where it has connected with it an 
 adverb of present time.^ That being dead 
 wherein we were held. The participle 
 translated 'being dead' is, according to the 
 correct text, in the plural number, agreeing 
 with 'we,' and not in the singular, agreeing 
 
 1 We have this verb in ver. 3, and often elsewhere. 
 See notes on 3 : 31 ; 6:6. Ellicott, on Col. 1 : 21, remarks 
 that " in this union of the emphatic particle of abso- 
 lutely present time with the aorist, the aorist is not 
 
 equivalent to a present or perfect, but marks with the 
 proper force of the tense that the action followed a 
 given event and is now done with." Still, we can do 
 no better than to render it as perfect. — (F.) 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 167 
 
 dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in 
 newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 
 
 7 What shall we say then ? Is the law sin ? God 
 forhid. Nay, I had ncit known sin, hut by the law: for 
 I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou 
 Shalt not covet. 
 
 holden ; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, 
 and not in oldness of the letter. 
 
 7 What shall we say then ? Is the law sin? God for- 
 hid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through 
 1 the law : for I had not known - coveting, except the 
 
 8 law had said, Thou shalt not 2 covet: but sin, finding 
 
 1 Or, taw 2 Or, lu»t. 
 
 with 'that'— to wit, the law; and the true 
 sense is, we having died to that in which we 
 were held — namely, the law. The difference 
 between tlie two forms of the word in Greek 
 is only a difference of a single vowel, e (e) 
 instead of o (o). This change is required alike 
 by external and internal evidence. The plural 
 form is required by the consistency of the 
 representation. See ver. 4, and 6:2, 8, 11. 
 [The verb 'held' (or, held down) occurs in 
 1:18.] That Ave should serve. 'So that 
 we serve,' not 'should' serve. The inference 
 is stated as a matter of fact, not merely as an 
 obligation. In newness of spirit, and not 
 in the oldness of the letter. [Luther: 
 "In the new nature of the Spirit, and not in 
 the old nature of the letter." Compare the 
 like form of expression in 6:4.]^ In the new 
 life of the Spirit, and not in the old life of the 
 letter; in a new and hearty spiritual obedi- 
 ence, and not in the old and servile literal 
 conformity. ["The Spirit — that is, the Holy 
 Spirit of God, who originates and penetrates 
 the Christian life — the first mention of the 
 Spirit so much spoken of in chapter 8." 
 (Alford.) So De Wette, Meyer, Philippi, 
 Godet, Hodge, Kiddle. As a proper name, it 
 stands without the article. " The letter," says 
 De Wette, "is the Mosaic law, after which, as 
 an outward norm, the moral life of the Jews 
 should be regulated." Compare 2 Cor. 3 : 
 6, 7: "The ministration of death in letters, 
 written and engraven in stones;" "the letter 
 killeth." Calvin says: "Before our will is 
 formed according to the will of God by the 
 Holy Spirit, we have in the law nothing but 
 the outward letter, which, indeed, bridles our 
 external actions, but does not in the least 
 restrain the fury of our lusts. And he (Paul) 
 
 ascribes 'newness' to the Spirit because it 
 succeeds the old man, as the letter is called 
 'old' because it perishes through the Spirit." 
 For a like use of the word ' newness,' see 6 : 4.] 
 That the new and hearty spiritual service was 
 a service of God, and the old and literal ser- 
 vice a service of sin, was so self-evident that 
 no further definition was needed. "When the 
 life of a professed Christian contradicts this 
 representation, it is no longer the Christian 
 life. 
 
 The effect of the law is to make sin known 
 (ver. 7) and to excite it to greater activity 
 (ver. 8-n), so that, while the law is good (ver. i2j, 
 it becomes the occasion of manifesting more 
 fully the exceeding sinfulness of sin. (ver. i3.) 
 
 7. What shall Ave say then? Compare 
 4:1; 6:1. Is the law sin? A question 
 suggested by ver. 5: "The motions of sins 
 which were by the law." As the subject is 
 abstract, an abstract predicate was suitable. 
 He might have said: Is the law sinful? but 
 that would have been less forcible. [This 
 question relates to the law as being itself sinful 
 rather than as being simply causative of sin.] 
 God forbid. No; the law is not sin ; that is 
 not what I meant to say; but I did not know 
 sin, etc.^ Except the law. I did not under- 
 stand the essential nature and comprehensive- 
 ness of sin [its power and enormity] except 
 by the law. Nay (for indeed, re yap), I had 
 not known lust — coveteousness (as sin) — ex- 
 cept the law had said, Thou shalt not 
 covet.3 [Note the use of the prohibitory 
 future, 'Thou shalt not covet,' instead of the 
 imperative. This legal (Old Testament) idiom 
 "views the command as already obeyed in 
 the future, and is, therefore, more command- 
 ing in tone than the imperative." (Philippi.)] 
 
 1 The negative ij-v rather than oO is used in telic sen- 
 tences, and with the infinitive after uiare, denoting 
 consequence, though this consequence be a matter of 
 fact. It it admitted here because the contrasted noun 
 is negatived and not the verb. (Buttmann, 349.)— (F.) 
 
 2 With av the rendering would be: I should not have 
 known (such a thing as) sin. Here th? apostle repre- 
 sents it more as an actual occurrence. — (F.) 
 
 3 The word n^^ti", though pluperfect in form, is used 
 for the imperfect, and its literal rendering here would 
 be : / wa.i not knoiving, or, supplying av, I should not 
 have known. On the frequent omission of dv in the 
 apodosis in later Greek, especially with the imperfect 
 tense, see Winer, 305.— (F.) 
 
168 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, 
 wrought in uie all manner of concupiscence. For 
 without the law sin uas dead. 
 
 occasion, wrought in me through the commandment 
 all manner of i coveting : for apart from i the law sin 
 
 1 Or, lust 2 Or, law. 
 
 ' Lust,' or coveteousness [with the article, "the 
 desire after whatever is forbidden" (Meyer)], 
 here includes all unlawful desire, whatever 
 be the object. "I should not have recognized 
 such desire as sin if the law had not forbidden 
 it.'" ["What the law forbids us to covet 
 (Exod. 20 : 17; Deut. 5 : 21) was no concern 
 of the apostle here, looking to the universality 
 of his representation." (Meyer.) Two dif- 
 ferent verbs, meaning know, are used in this 
 verse (to wit, YtKiiffKw and olSa). The former 
 denotes, generally, a more intimate knowl- 
 edge, a fuller understanding, than the latter, 
 which means rather to know about something, 
 to be aware of some fact. ^^Ginosko (the 
 former), while it includes oida (the latter), 
 contains also much more; piercing through 
 circumstantial knowledge, it reaches to the 
 discernment of the inner nature, of character, 
 of moral qualities, habits, temper, affections. 
 It signifies appreciation or experimental ac- 
 quaintance, whether good or bad, such as 
 exists between intimate friends or inveterate 
 foes." (" Bible Commentary.") According 
 to Prof. Cremer, the former implies an active 
 ''personal relation between the person know- 
 ing and the object known," whereas in the 
 use of the latter the object of knowledge "has 
 simply come within the sphere of perception, 
 within the knower's circle of vision." The 
 former (viviitrKu), therefore, is naturally used 
 of Christian knowledge, the saving knowledge 
 of God, of Christ, of truth and salvation. 
 Though Paul here uses the pronoun, 'I,' he 
 at the same time speaks representatively for 
 others.] Observe how jealously the apostle 
 guards against any disparagement of the law, 
 both here and in ver. 12, 13. 
 
 8. But sin. The 'but' is explained by the 
 emphatic negation in the preceding verse: 
 No, indeed, the law is not sin ; but (it is true) 
 that 'sin,' taking occasion [start, or im- 
 pulse, hence "more than mere opportunity " 
 (Alford)]— that is, finding the wherewith to 
 attack me. [Sin is here, as in ver. 11, per- 
 sonified as an enemy.] It will be observed 
 that the punctuation is changed in this verse, 
 and the phrase 'by the commandment' is 
 separated from 'taking occasion' [with which 
 
 Olshausen and Philippi would connect it] and 
 joined with the following clause. There are 
 two reasons for this change [favored by De 
 Wette, Meyer Godet, and most expositors]: 
 In the first place, the preposition by [Sid) is 
 not the one which would be used after 'taking 
 occasion,' if those two clauses had been in- 
 tended to be so connected, but the preposition 
 from (eic) would have been used; in the sec- 
 ond place, the last clause of ver. 11, 'and by 
 it slew me,' shows the true connection of 'by 
 the commandment' with the following verb. 
 [See also ver. 13.] Wrought in me all 
 manner of concupiscence ; rather, coveting 
 (Kevised Version) — that is, of unlawful desire. 
 [This word («n-i0v^i'a) is once used by our 
 Saviour of holy desire. (Luke 22: 15.) See also 
 Gal. 5: 17: "The Spirit lusteth against the 
 flesh."] Our common translation, by using 
 such different words — lust, covet, coyicupis- 
 cence — in these two verses, loses much of the 
 force of the apostle's language. The Bible 
 Union Eevision [as also the Canterbury Ke- 
 vision] avoids this fault. For without (or, 
 apart from) the law sin was dead — that 
 is, inoperative, inactive, comparatively. Is, 
 rather than 'was,' should be supplied here; 
 the aflSrmation is a general maxim. [This 
 death of sin must be regarded as relative 
 and not as absolute. In this death-state "sin 
 cannot mature in its root; it cannot come 
 to transgression." (Lange. ) "The inward 
 discord is not yet awakened." (De Wette.) 
 "As a rapidly-flowing stream rolls calmly on 
 so long as no object checks it, but foams and 
 roars so soon as any hindrance stops it, just 
 as calmly does the sinful element hold its 
 course through the man so long as he does 
 not stem it, but if he would realize the divine 
 commandment, he begins to feel the force of 
 the element of whose dominion he had as yet 
 no suspicion." (Olshausen.) The law, com- 
 ing home to the conscience in all its spiritu- 
 ality and power, and making known the guilt 
 and condemnation attendant on its willful 
 violation, may well be called "the strength 
 of sin." (1 Cor. 15:56.) Mcycr regards ' without 
 the law' as utter absence, or utter ignorance, 
 of the law, but this meaning ill accords with 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 169 
 
 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when 
 the couiujandmeul came, sin revived, and 1 died. 
 
 9 14 dead. And I was alive apart from > the law once: 
 but when the commaudmeut came, sin revived, aud 
 
 the next verse.] What can the word 'sin' 
 denote, at the beginning and end of this verse 
 but the principle of sin, depravity, indwelling 
 
 sin ? 
 
 9. For. The Greek particle at the begin- 
 ning of this verse would bo better translated, 
 7iow; 'for,' of the Common Version, is too 
 strong, 'and,' of the Bible Union Revision, 
 is too weak. Now I was alive (or, was liv- 
 ing ; note the force of the imperfect tense) 
 Avithout the law once— better, apart from 
 the law formerly. The law was to me (though 
 a familiar object from my youth) an external, 
 distant, object ; it had not come home to me 
 [in all its breadth and spirituality and co7i- 
 rfem«i«(7 power]. When was this formerly ? 
 Not in some imaginary period of primeval or 
 youthful innocence and piety (Origen, Augus- 
 tine, Meyer, De Wette, Godet, and others), 
 but, as explained below, before 'the command- 
 ment came ' to the heart and conscience "with 
 a convincing power and light." ' I was liv- 
 ing ' expresses activity, in contrast with ' dead,' 
 at the end of the preceding verse. It ex- 
 presses also the enjoyment of life, compara- 
 tive peace, hopefulness, and security— security 
 in its more appropriate sense, freedom from 
 care, not from danger. [Melanchthon speaks 
 of three states: of security, of being under 
 the law, and of regeneration ; and thinks the 
 first state was the one here described by Paul. 
 Philippi would place Paul's Pharisaic period 
 in the second status, or would in a measure 
 combine the first two together. This life-state 
 apart from the law has no reference to child- 
 hood. It can better be predicated of the self- 
 righteous, who are living at ease, whose con- 
 sciences are at rest, and who are satisfied with 
 themselves— like the young ruler, for example, 
 who said: "All these things have I observed 
 from my youth up; what lack I yet?" Saul 
 tlie Pharisee, too, was thus alive when he 
 could say of himself, in accordance with ordi- 
 nary human judgment : ''Touching the right- 
 eousness which is in the law, found blameless." 
 See Phil. 3 : 6, Revised Version.] But when 
 the commandment came— to me person- 
 ally, as a living power. (Heb.4:i2.) Sin re- 
 vived, and I died. [Not simply revived as 
 from a state of dormancy, but sprang into life 
 
 as from a state of death. Stuart renders: 
 "gathered new life " ; Meyer : " came to life 
 again" (resumed its proper living nature), 
 which, in his view, is its sole meaning through- 
 out the New Testament.] Before, / was alive, 
 and .sin was, to appearance, dead. Now the 
 case is reversed : Sin came to life, but I died. 
 Sin sprang into life and activity, aroused by 
 the prohibitory' commandment. But I died ; 
 I lost that comfortable, hopeful, self-compla- 
 cency, which was my life before. If 'I was 
 living' means "I was enjoying a sort of 
 peace, security, and hopefulness," then 'I 
 died' must mean "I fell into trouble, alarm, 
 and despondency.'' "The death of sin is a 
 man's life, and the life of sin his death." 
 (Calvin.) How little men know of the sin 
 that is in them, .ill the commandment comes! 
 Preaching should be adapted to bring the 
 commandment home to the unconverted. [' I 
 died,' according to Prof. Turner, "expresses 
 a consciousness of being condemned, and in a 
 state of moral and penal death." Meyer 
 regards this dying as the incurring of eternal 
 death. Hence in his view, the person who 
 was alive without the law had not incurred 
 this death. Prof. Stuart thinks the phrase 
 'I was alive' denotes that the subject was 
 comparatively inactive in sin, or was not des- 
 perate in sin, and explains it by the Saviours 
 words: "If I had not come and spoken to 
 them, they had not had sin." So, in his view, 
 ' I died ' signifies that the man came " under 
 the active and predominating power and pen- 
 alty of sin." To the common interpretation, 
 "I once deemed myself spiritually alive, but 
 when I came under conviction by the law, a 
 sense of sin revived and I was brought to 
 deem myself spiritually dead," he makes 
 this objection, that this bringing a sinner 
 under real and true conviction as to his des- 
 perate spiritual condition, would be to him 
 the means of life, rather than of death, as is 
 stated in the next verse. To afiirm that the 
 law " ruins sinners by bringing them under a 
 senseof their guilt and condemnation, "would, 
 he says, be "a singular conclusion." But the 
 apostle, in this representation, would seem to 
 regard the law as the only Saviour, the only 
 source of life aud help and hope. And on 
 
170 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 10 And the commandiuent, which was ordained to | 10 I died; and the commandment, which jca* unto life, 
 life, I louud to be unto death. 11 this I found to be unto death: for sin, finding occa- 
 
 11 For sin, takin„' occasion by the commandment, sion, through the commandment beguilec me, and 
 deceived luc, and by it slew me. 12 through it slew me. So that the law is holy, and 
 
 12 Wherefore the law w holy, and the commandment the commandment holy, and righteous, and good, 
 holy, aud just, and good. j 
 
 this supposition to be " slain by the law " (see 
 ver. 11), to coine to a vivid consciousness of 
 condemnation, of desert of eternal death, and 
 of the inability of the law to efl'ect his deliv- 
 erance, would be to him death indeed, were 
 there no Christ by whom he could be made 
 alive. And now that a Saviour is provided, 
 and the gospel's otiers made known, does not 
 the convicted, burdened, lost sinner, who in 
 his darkness and guilt cannot fipd the way of 
 life, and who cries out in anguish for days or 
 weeks or months, it may be, " What shall I 
 do to be saved?" experience something of 
 the misery of the lost, something of the pains 
 of eternal death?] 
 
 10. And so, not something new and addi- 
 tional, but the same truth stated with change 
 of grammatical subject: The command- 
 ment, which was ordained to life (better, 
 for life — that is, "meant for life, and tending to 
 life), I found to be unto death ; or, 'this 
 was found to be to me for death.' This is the 
 literal translation of Paul's language. See 
 the proof that the commandment was meant 
 for life in Lev. 18: 6; Deut. 5: 33. [The 
 Common Version omits the emphatic this 
 (atirr), not r) aiiTT), the Same) very coniniandynent 
 loas found, or proved by personal experience, 
 to be for death. The very disappointinent 
 which the earnest soul of Paul felt, when he 
 found the law in which he trusted for life was 
 only the means of death, must have been to 
 him as death itself.] 
 
 11. The for explains how that came to pass 
 which the preceding verse affirms. For sin, 
 taking [having taken] occasion. On the 
 punctuation of this verse, and the connection 
 of the clauses, see note on ver. 8. By the 
 commandment, deceived me, and by it 
 (or that) slew me. ["Slain by the law." 
 Compare 2 Cor. 3: 6. "The letter killeth." 
 Every one made alive by Christ must first be 
 slain by the law — must lie at the Saviour's 
 feet as dead. When the commandment came 
 home to the apostle's heart and conscience in 
 all its obligatory and condemnatory power, 
 sin gathered new life; it revived and he died. 
 So whenever this law work takes place in 
 
 the sinner's soul, the Spirit discovers to him 
 the plague, the desperate depravity of his 
 heart, his carnal hopes are slain, and his mind 
 is filled with darkness, anguish, and despair. 
 In such a state as this he suffers, as we may 
 suppose, the very torments of hell.] Com- 
 pare 'I died.' (ver.9.) There seems to bean 
 allusion here to the fall of our first parents: 
 indeed, the verb translated 'deceived' is pre- 
 cisely the same as is found in the Greek trans- 
 lation of Gen. 3: 13, where the English reads 
 'beguiled.' Compare 2 Cor. 11: 3; 1 Tim. 
 2: 14. There, as here, there was both a de- 
 ceiving and a slaying; and both by means of 
 (or through the intervention of) the com- 
 mandment. Sin used the commandment to 
 make that aj^pear desirable to me which was 
 really pernicious. [This would be the natural 
 result of a prohibitory commandment, espe- 
 cially since "we always strive for the for- 
 bidden, and desire that which is denied."] 
 Sin is always a deceiver. (Heb. 3: is.) It always 
 promises more pleasure and advantage than 
 it gives. (Gen.3: 5, 6.) And the command- 
 ment which forbids it becomes the occasion of 
 increasing the deception; because it makes 
 the seeming good greater beforehand by the 
 prohibition, and the real evil greater after- 
 ward by the penalty. 
 
 12. Wherefore — better, so that, since it 
 was not the law that was the efficient cause of 
 sin, but my own perversely sinful disposition, 
 taking occasion from the law; the law is 
 holy, and the commandment holy — in its 
 source and nature, and just, in its precepts 
 and penalty, and good, in its design. Observe 
 how conclusively the question of ver. 7 is 
 answered : the law, so far from being sin is 
 wholly and emphatically the opposite. [The 
 antithetic but (Se) corresponding to the 'in- 
 deed' (^l■ev), is unexpressed, but is virtually 
 contained in the next verse : The law 'indeed' 
 is good (morally excellent, or perhaps bene- 
 ficial, compare the 'righteous' and 'good' of 
 5 : 7), but sin misuses it in working out death to 
 me by that (law) which is good. (Winer, 575.) 
 The commandment here characterized doubt- 
 less has special reference to that mentioned in 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 171 
 
 13 Was then that which is good luadedeatli unto me? 
 God turbid. But sin, thai it might appear siu, worliing 
 death in nie liy tliat whicli is good ; that sin hy the 
 commaudmeut "might become exceeding siulul. 
 
 13 Lid then that which is good hecome death unto 
 me? God forbid. But sin, that it niiglit be sliewn 
 to be sin, by working death to me through that 
 which is good; — that througli the coniiuandment 
 
 14 sin might become exceeding sinful. For we know 
 
 ver. 7, ' Thou shalt not covet.' " Were the 
 law unjust in its requirements or its iienalties, 
 it were no merit in Jesus that he died to honor 
 it, and to deliver us from its curse. Nor were 
 it any mercy in God to grant us pardon for 
 its tran.sgression. As it is, we must subscribe 
 to the justice of God in our condemnation." 
 (Fuller.) Chalmers, speaking of tlie good- 
 ness of the law, not as a means of justificatioti, 
 but as a rule of moral conduct, says: "You 
 may not be able to purchase the king's favor 
 with gold; but he maj' grant you his favor, 
 and, when he requires your appearance before 
 him, it is still in gold he msiy require you to 
 be invested. And thus of the law. It is not 
 by your own righteous conformity thereto 
 tliat you purchase Gods favor, for this has 
 been already purchased by the pure gold of 
 the Saviour's righteousness, and is presented 
 to all who believe on him. But still it is with 
 your own personal righteousness that you 
 must be gilded and adorned. It is not the 
 price wherewith you have bought heaven, but 
 it is the attire in which you must enter it."] 
 
 13. Was then that which is good made 
 death unto me? The Revised Version is 
 more exact : ''''Did then that vihich is good be- 
 coyne deatJiunto me" ? ^ 'Death,' the abstract, 
 as 'sin.' (ver. 7.) Here, as there, the effect 
 for the cause : is the law the cause of sin ? has 
 that which is good become to me the cause of 
 death? that is, the efficient, responsible cause. 
 God forbid Ifarbeit! But sin has becometo 
 me tlie cause of death : in order that it might 
 appear sin, in order that it might be seen in 
 its true malignity. [He does not saj- : that it 
 might be sin, since sin had a prior existence.] 
 The word 'appear' is here emphatic. This 
 manifestation of the evil nature and bitter 
 consequence of sin, in turning that which is 
 good into an occasion of death [the very 
 worst of perversions], working death in {to) 
 me by that which is good— was definitely 
 ordained by God ( ' in order that ' ), as a neces- 
 sary preparation for redemption. That {in 
 order that), a still further and more ultimate 
 divine purpose, sin by {means of ) the com- 
 
 mandment might become exceeding sin- 
 ful. The word translated 'exceeding' — that 
 is, 'in overmeasure ' [compare 1 Cor. I'i: 31; 
 2 Cor. 1: 8; 4: 17; Gal. 1: 18], is the word 
 hyperbole, the technical rhetorical term for 
 exaggeration in speech. It might well be ren- 
 dered beyond measure. 'Exceeding' sinful 
 may have been strong enough at the time our 
 own translators used it ; but it has been so toned 
 down by frequent use, that it seems too tame 
 now. Tlie word translated 'sinful' is usually 
 a noun, and as such is translated sinner more 
 than forty times; but here, and in three other 
 
 places (Matt. 8: 38; Luke 5 : 8 ; 24 : 7), it is UScd HS an 
 
 adjective. Theophylact, one of the Greek 
 commentators, uses this illustration: "Just 
 as a disorder, when it has become worse, may 
 be said to display, by means of the healing 
 art, its malignity, as not being removed even 
 by that." 
 
 With ver. 14 begins a section, in respect to 
 which there has been a radical difference of 
 opinion among the ablest commentators, from 
 ver3' ancient times. Does it describe the 
 experience of a regenerate or of an unregen- 
 erate man? There is no question that the 
 preceding section (ver. 7-13), applies to the unre- 
 generate. And very many able commenta- 
 tors, both among the ancients and among the 
 moderns, maintain that it is an unregenerate 
 experience still which is described to the end 
 of the chapter. It will suffice to mention the 
 names of Theodoret, Julius Miiller, Neander, 
 Tholuck, Ewald, and Meyer. [We may add 
 the names of Bengel, Hahn, Hengstenberg, 
 Nitzsch, Eackert, De Wette, Stier, Kahnis, 
 Godet, Olshausen, Wordsworth, Turner, Rid- 
 dle, Schaff, Stuart. Olshausen and Turner 
 would make ver. 25 begin a new experience 
 and new chapter. Many of the writers named 
 suppose that Paul's description has reference 
 to the unregenerate, not as in a state of secur- 
 ity, but as an awakened sinner. The "Bible 
 Commentary " says: inter regenerandum, dur- 
 ing the process of regeneration. Of the writers 
 above named, Meyer is perhaps the most 
 determined opponent of the view maintained 
 
 » Instead of the perfect tense, the oldest MSS. K A BC D E give the verb in the aorist, e-yeveTo.— (F.) 
 
172 
 
 ROxMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 14 For we know that the law is spiritual : but I am 
 carnal, sold uuder sin. 
 
 that the law is spiritual : but I am carnal, sold under 
 
 in this comineiitiiry.] On the other hand, it 
 has seemed to many scholars, that the change 
 of tense in the verbs, from the past to the 
 present, in ver. 14 and onward, indicates a 
 difl'erent date and phase of religious experi- 
 ence from the preceding, and that what is 
 said from this point is rightly interpreted as 
 the experience of a regenerate man. This 
 view is defended by Jerome, Augustine (both 
 of whom, however, originally held theopposite 
 view), Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Krum- 
 macher, Delitzsch, Luthardt, and others. 
 [Among these "others," we may mention the 
 names of Luther, Chalmers, Brown, Haldane, 
 Forbes, Philippi, Umbreit, Hofmann, Tho- 
 masius, Alford (substantially'), Hodge, Shedd, 
 Barnes, Boise. Accordingto Augustine's state- 
 ment, his change of views was owing to the 
 writings of "Hilary, Gregory, Ambrose, and 
 other holy and known doctors of the church," 
 and thus was not due simply to his "warm 
 dispute" with Pelagius. And Prof. Stuart's 
 statement that " Augustine was the first who 
 suggests the idea that this passage must be 
 applied to Christian experience" would ap- 
 pear to be incorrect.] This view is adopted 
 by the writer of these notes. For a fuller 
 discussion of this difficult question, see Ap- 
 pendix D. 
 
 It should be here remembered, however, 
 that those who adopt this view do not by any 
 means regard these verses as designed to de- 
 scribe the normal experience of the Christian 
 life,' but only that phase of it which comes to 
 view, when the regenerate man allows himself 
 to regard mainly his relations to the moral 
 law, instead of looking to Christ as his surety 
 and his righteousness. They believe that, as 
 it was the design of the previous section (ver. 7-i3) 
 to show how powerless the law is to convert a 
 sinner, so it is the design of this section (ver. 
 i» 25) to show that the law is equally power- 
 less to enable the regenerate man to over- 
 come sin. 
 
 [The apostle in this secflon (ver. i4-2.i) repre- 
 sents the Christian as looking on and in him- 
 
 self, and comparing his thoughts and deeds 
 with those which the perfect law of God re- 
 quires. Hence the most advanced Christian, 
 tried by this perfect standard, will be, and will 
 feel himself to be, condemned and lost. His 
 language will be : " With my mind I myself 
 do indeed serve the law of G.od, but with the 
 flesh the law of sin, and only in Christ Jesus 
 is there freedom from condemnation." See 
 ver. 25, and 8 : 1. From this point of view we 
 may say, not only that " the law is powerless 
 to enable the regenerate man to overcome sin," 
 but that grace will not so sanctify our natures 
 thatweshail not need to be sheltered in Christ, 
 in order to be justified and saved. Through 
 Jesus Christ, who is " the Lord, our righteous- 
 ness," do we give thanks to God for our deliver- 
 ance both from condemnation and from the 
 reigningpower of sin. Philippi saysthat in the 
 two passages (7: u-25: 8: i-u) "are pictured the 
 two aspects ever appearing in mutual connec- 
 tion, of one and the same spiritual status, so 
 that the regenerate man, according as his 
 glance is directed to the one or the other 
 aspect, is able to affirm both of himself at 
 every moment; as well what is said in 7 : 23 
 as what is said in 8 : 2. Hence also ever rises 
 from his heart with equal truth the twofold 
 cry, as well : ' Oh, wretched man,' as 'I thank 
 God.'"] 
 
 14. For Ave know. The 'for' is explana- 
 tory of the relative positions of sin and the 
 law [and introduces, virtually', a proof of the 
 intrinsic excellence of the law as drawn from 
 Christian experience. None but the regen- 
 erate have this kind and degree of knowl- 
 edge]. ' We know,' it is with us an understood 
 and acknowledged principle, as in 2 : 2 ; 3 : 19. 
 That the laAV is spiritual, as being from 
 God, who is spirit, and as requiring of men 
 spiritual purity. [It being spiritual in its 
 nature also concerns itself not merely' with 
 outward acts, but with "the thoughts and 
 intents of the heart." Its language is: Thou 
 shalt nc;t '■-Jejei, shalt not indulge in "inordi- 
 nate desires and sinful affections." "Civil 
 
 1 Yet Philippi says that even the " normal condition " 
 will allow the carnal principle to break out in word and 
 deed, and come to open manifestation, though these 
 ■will only be moments of ignorance, feebleness, and 
 rashness, to which the innermost will of man refuses 
 
 its assent, with which he stands in no alliance, and to 
 which he does not yield an unregretted and undisputed 
 dominion. In this connection, compare Eph. 4: 22; 
 Col. 3:5; Heb. 12 : 1.— (F.) 
 
Ch. VII ] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 173 
 
 law judges but the act. . . . Only the re- 
 vealed Numos, just because it is spiritual, 
 judges even the evil desire and inclination 
 itself." (Thilippi.)] But I am carnal. 
 There are two Greek adjectives, both derived 
 from the Greek noun, meaning Jiesh (<ropf), 
 and differing in form only by a single letter 
 and the position of the accent, yet differing 
 widely in sense; one is sarkinos (<rdp/<icos), the 
 other sarkikos (<rap<c«os). The tirst means, 
 properly, "consisting of the material, sarx," 
 fleshy [or "fleshen," as Farrarhas it] (Latin, 
 carneus, from cariie flesh) ; the second means 
 "partaking of the quality, sar.x," fleshy 
 (Latin, carnalis). The first is, without dis- 
 pute, the word used in 1 Cur. 3:3, "not in 
 tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the 
 heart." The second is no less certainly the 
 word used in Kom. 15 : 27 ; 1 Cor. 9 : 11. It is 
 not strange that words so nearly alike in form 
 should sometimes be confounded with each 
 otlier in manuscripts. Out of about a dozen 
 places where one or the other occurs, there 
 are five places where the readings of different 
 manuscripts are divided between the two, and 
 there is only the one place, already cited 
 (2 Cor. 3:3), where all the manuscripts unite on 
 the former of the two words. lit the passage 
 now before us, while the text used by our 
 translators had the latter of these words, the 
 best critical editions, ft)llowing the oldest 
 manuscripts [N A B C D E F G], now have the 
 former. And the same is true of 1 Cor. 3 : 1 
 and Hob. 7 : 16. Meyer [and so Alford] re- 
 gards the Word sarkinos as the stronger of the 
 two [but Trench and Farrar as the weaker] 
 in this connection, and derives from it, as 
 such, a special argument against the applica- 
 tion of it to tiie regenerate. [He says : "This 
 is the Pauline expression of Uhat which is 
 born of the flesh is flesh.' " (Johu3:6.) He also 
 maintains, as a very strong argument in favor 
 of his view, that the work of the Spirit, so 
 often referred to in the next chapter, is not 
 mentioned in this entire section (only in ver. 
 6), and the flesh is here represented, not as 
 warring against the Spirit, as is the case with 
 the regenerate (Gai.5;i7), but only against the 
 person's own weak mind or inner man. There 
 would be much force in this argument if 
 the person in question was represented as a 
 psycldcal or natural man, for such have not 
 the Spirit and cannot receive the things of 
 
 the Spirit. But the inner man here spoken 
 of has rather the character of the new man 
 than of the old or natural man. Does not this 
 person, in his mind or inner man, discern 
 and approve (see 1 : 28; 2 : 18; 14 : 22) what is 
 the good and acceptable and perfect will of 
 God? But this is precisely the characteristic 
 of the renewed mind. (12:2.) "To suppose 
 that the unrenewed in mind can have tlie 
 gracious purpose, will, and feelings mentioned 
 in this passage, is to suppose that something 
 besides flesh is born of the flesh." (Pliiliiipi.) 
 If hatred of sin, delighting in God, and the 
 fixed will to do right are to be looked upon 
 as fruits of the flesh (Gai. 5:20) and not of the 
 Spirit, we must utterly despair of understand- 
 ing the Pauline theology.] But it is just this 
 form of the word (o-ookh'os), according to the 
 best authorities, which is applied in 1 Cor. 3: 1 
 to those whom Paul there addresses as breth- 
 ren, and expressly recognizes as being in 
 Christ, though but babes in him. [Thus a 
 Christian may, in one sense, be carnal or 
 rather fleshen, but nut carnally minded. Com- 
 pare also Heb. 7 : 16, where the commandment 
 is called fleshen and is not degraded by the 
 word ((TopKiKos) carnal.] Sold under sin. 
 [Literally, having been sold to sin, and re- 
 maining still under bondage to it or under 
 its power. From ver. 22-25, we learn that 
 this man, along with the enforced, unwilling 
 service which he in his lower nature renders 
 to sin, also serves with his mind the law of 
 God; yea, even delights in that law and 
 wishes to do only that which is good. He 
 detests any service to sin, and exclaims: "It 
 is no longer I that do it." Blessed, methinks, 
 is any person who can truly say this, even 
 though he himself may crj' out at times: "O 
 wretched man that I am !"] This expression, 
 'sold under sin,' is the most difficult one in 
 this whole passage to reconcile witli the appli- 
 cation of it to the regenerate. Feeling the 
 full force of the objection, I yet cannot regard 
 it as sufficient to negative the force of all the 
 considerations in favor of applying this part 
 of the passage to the regenerate. These con- 
 siderations are presented more fully in the 
 Appendix already referred to. [In order to 
 interpret rightly the above expression, we 
 must know to whom it relates. We might 
 conceive of some deeply-dyed transgressor, 
 awakened, like Judas, to a regretful conscious- 
 
174 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 ness of his damning iniquity, heaping upon 
 himself "sins infinite upon infinite, infinite 
 upon infinite;" but these words were, as a 
 matter of fact, the confession of the elder 
 Edwards, the holiest man, perhaps, of modern 
 Christendom. And in this style of self-re- 
 proach and abasement the saints of God have 
 ever been wont to express their sense of short- 
 comings and unworthiness. Dclitzsch remarks 
 that the spiritually-minded man feels most 
 acutely and profoundly that he has still in 
 himself a carnal nature, and cannot ransom 
 himself entirely from the power of sin, and 
 by the very fact of his accusing himself in 
 daily repentance a.s, fleshen. he shows himself 
 to be, as to the fundamental tendency of his 
 personality, spiritual. Prof. Stuart maintains 
 that the phraseology of this chapter can, with 
 perhaps some slight modification, be applied 
 either to the regenerate or unregenerate, and 
 he would modify those expressions which 
 seemingly imply the existence of grace in the 
 heart. We maintain, with Dr. Arnold (see 
 Appendix referred to), that if any of these 
 expressions of the apostle are to be modified, 
 it should be those which charge himself with 
 sin. We also maintain that many of these 
 expressions, even when modified, cannot be 
 applied to an unregenerate person without 
 antagonizing and overthrowing all of Paul's 
 teaching in regard to man's lost and guilty 
 state by nature. We think that Paul himself 
 has sufiUciently modified his own statements 
 when he distinguishes his fleshen self (me — 
 that is, my flesh), which hinders him from 
 doing what he would and forces him to do 
 what he hates, and which is under bondage to 
 sin, from his proper self, his mind, his inner 
 man, which hates sin, and has delight in God 
 and serves his law. We hold that the v/hole 
 bent of his mind is toward God, and" that, 
 instead of succumbing to sin "in every in- 
 stance of contest," as Prof. Stuart maintains, 
 his real self, his mind or inner man, never in 
 any instance j'ields to sin. Any such yield- 
 ing must be predicated of his fleshen self, or 
 his complex self. " It is no longer I that do 
 it." Is such a dividing up of the human or 
 Christian self a contradiction and a riddle? 
 What is man in his "best state" but a con- 
 tradiction and a riddle? I wonder how any 
 Christian, conversant with his own heart, can 
 question the applicability to himself of the 
 
 apostle's description of the "remainders" of 
 the sinful principle pr habit in our fleshen 
 natures. "There have been endless discus- 
 sions," says Farrar, "as to whether Paul is 
 speaking of himself or of others ; whether he 
 has in view the regenerate or the unregen- 
 erate man. Let even good men look into 
 their own hearts and answer." De Wette, on 
 ver. 25, says: That "in the man who is born 
 again no serving the law of sin through the 
 flesh can find place." I grant that the real 
 "I myself" of the Christian cannot be said to 
 serve the law of sin — certainly not as a full 
 description of his heart and life. But if the 
 regenerate have not a fleshen self, which does 
 in a measure, or does at times, serve the law 
 of sin, we must think there is not a single 
 regenerate man on earth. But let us see what 
 is not ascribed to the person here represented. 
 He is not described as being a psychical or 
 natural man, who has not the Spirit and re- 
 ceives not the things of the Spirit of God. 
 (judei9; 1 Cor. 2:u.) He is not Said to live or 
 walk according to the flesh, or to fulfill the 
 lust of the flesh. His mind is not vain, de- 
 filed, reprobate (Eph. 4 : n ; Tims 1 : 15 ; Rom. 1 : 28) ; a 
 
 mind of the flesh (Coi. 2ti8); a carnal mind 
 which is enmity against God. (Rom. 8:7.) In- 
 stead of hating God, he hates only sin, and 
 his will is to serve God. " The real ego of the 
 man is presented before us, on the one hand, 
 entirely separate from sin and opposed to it, 
 and, on the other, harmoniously united and 
 bound up with the spiritual law of God. But 
 manifestly only the ruling, not the inferior, 
 part of man's nature can be described as the 
 real ego." (Philippi.) Of course, we do not 
 read that he is in a state of condemnation, 
 and that the wrath of God is abiding on him. 
 Let us also look at the next chapter, where the 
 man (now certainly the regenerated Paul) 
 has been released, as is commonly supposed, 
 from his former miserable dualism, has ob- 
 tained deliverance from the law of sin and of 
 death, and has experienced "sanctification." 
 But we find even here that his deliverance 
 is still incomplete, that his groaning is not 
 wholly a thing of the past. The flesh still 
 presents its claims (ver. 12); he is compassed 
 with infirmity (ver. 26); has not fully realized 
 the great salvation, is saved in hope (ver. 24). 
 the body is not fully redeemed from the 
 bondage of sin, and, though he has the first 
 
Ch. VIL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 175 
 
 fruits of the Spirit, the groaning within him- 
 self continues (ver. m) ; yea, a groaning at times 
 too deep and great for utterance in words, 
 (ver. 26.) It is iiiMrvelous how this eighth 
 chapter is contrasted by some persons with 
 the seventh, as exhibiting a perfectly sancti- 
 fied believer. Elsewhere, Paul speaks of the 
 Christian life as an agonistic strife, a warfare, 
 and we have every reason to suppose that he 
 had the same contest with flesh and sin that 
 we have. He could say to the Galatians 
 (3:17), from his own experience, that the flesh 
 lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit 
 against the flesh, and that these are contrary 
 the one to the other, thus hindering him from 
 doing the things that he would. A short time 
 before writing this letter to the Romans, he 
 tells his Corinthian bretliren of his groaning, 
 in common with other Christians, under the 
 weight of the fleshly tabernacle (^Cor. 5:4), and 
 in 1 Cor. 9: 27, we see him both as a combatant 
 and a herald in the Christian race, buffeting 
 or bruising his own body, beating it black 
 and blue, and bringing it into subjection. 
 We suppose that Paul, with all his trials 
 within and without, was in general a joyful 
 Christian, trusting wholly in Christ, walking 
 in the Spirit, and yielding but rarely, if ever, 
 to the inordinate demands of the lower nature. 
 Yet any hindrance which the law in his mem- 
 bers interjiosed to his desired obedience to the 
 law of the Spirit would be deemed by him a 
 heavy bondage. And may we not suppose 
 that there were times in his religious experi- 
 ence, as in ours, of special temptation and 
 depression, when his heart became, as it were, 
 a battle ground where Christ and Satan strove 
 for the ma-tery. Our Saviour, we know, was 
 led from the joys of bis baptism to the sore 
 temptation of the desert. Thus in this world 
 seasons of unusual mental or spiritual eleva- 
 tion are often followed by a corresponding 
 depression. And we have sometimes imag- 
 ined that Paul, soon after his conversion and 
 baptism, was led or driven bj' the Spirit into 
 the wilderness of Arabia, and that there be 
 sat literally at the foot of Sinai and listened 
 with anguish of soul to its condemning thun- 
 der; that there, in good measure, took place 
 the great revulsion of his views and feelings 
 in regard to the law and its chiefest ordi- 
 nances; that there he learned fully to un-.Tcw 
 himself, as it were, so that we never think of I 
 
 him as being a Jew; and that there, in fine, 
 he learned that only, "in Christ" is there 
 justification, redemption, and eternal life for 
 a lost sinner. Certain it is that many Chris- 
 tians virtually pass a considerable part of 
 their lives near this awful burning mount, 
 with one eye, indeed, directed to Calvary, a 
 look which saves them from despair. " Every 
 Christian," says Delitzsch, "is compelled to 
 confirm what the apostle here says from his 
 own personal experience." And Dr. Scbaft", 
 who regards this passage as descriptive of a 
 state of awakening, says: "Thus much, how- 
 ever, must be conceded to the Augustinian 
 view that this contest is repeated in a modified 
 form in the regenerate. So long as they are 
 in the flesh, the old life of Adam rules beside 
 the new life in Christ. Temptations from the 
 world, assaults of Satan, disturb; not unfre- 
 quently sin overcomes, and the believer, feel- 
 ing deeply and painfully his own helplessness, 
 turns in penitence to Christ's grace, to be the 
 victor at last." 
 
 There are certain special objections of con- 
 siderable apparent force which are urged 
 against the view we have taken. Those men- 
 tioned by Godet are in substance chiefly as 
 follows: that in this chapter there is no 
 marked and obvious point of transition, indi- 
 cating the profound change from the Phari- 
 saic state to the state of grace, no such sharp 
 contrast in the description of these two states 
 as there is in the delineation of chapter 7 and 
 that of chapter 8, but all proceeds, as it were, 
 on the same level, and the difference between 
 Pharisee and Christian is much less marked 
 than that between Christian and Christian; 
 that Paul in ver. 14-25 has avoided all mention 
 of the Spirit's aid, and made use only of terms 
 denoting the natural faculties of the human 
 soul, as mind, etc. ; and in general that our 
 view finds in the gospel a more burdensome 
 law than that of Sinai itself Still, if the 
 statements advanced in this commentarj- here 
 and elsewhere can be substantiated, these 
 objections will go for nothing or be so ex- 
 plained as to lose their importance. As some 
 of these objections will be noticed further on, 
 we will here simply say, 1. That the gospel 
 furnishes no exemption from a persistent, 
 bitter contest and struggle against Satan, self, 
 and the world: and that the most devoted 
 Christian, if he knows his own heart, will 
 
176 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 15 For that which I do, I allow not: for what I 
 would, that do I uot; but what I hate, that do I. 
 
 16 If then I do that which I would uot, I consent 
 unto the law that U is good. 
 
 17 Now then it is uo more I that do it, but sin that 
 dwelleth in me. 
 
 15 sin. For that which I ' do I know not: for not 
 
 what I would, that do I practise; but what I hale, 
 
 Ki that I do. But if what I would uot, that 1 do, I 
 
 17 consent unto the law that it is good. So now it is no 
 
 more I that ido it, but sin which dwelleth in me. 
 
 confess perpetual shortcomings in thought, 
 word, and life, as also frequent failures and 
 defeats: 2. That there is, as we have seen, no 
 such sharp contrast in the description of man's 
 present spiritual state in chapters 7 and 8, as 
 is sometimes supposed : 3. That if it was Paul's 
 design to show that by the law of works, 
 whether legal or gracious, no flesh could be 
 justified and saved, then there would natur- 
 ally be a certain uniformity of thought and 
 style in the discussion of the tlieme: And 4. 
 That we can find quite plainly indicated in 
 this chapter the end of the legal and the 
 beginning of tlie gracious state, it being a 
 well understood matter that when the sinner 
 is slain by the law and is left at Ciirist's feet 
 as dead (ver. n-i3), he is made alive by the 
 Lord and Giver of life.] 
 
 15. The struggle here begins between the 
 two dispositions within, not merely with the 
 law without. [How great is the evil of sin 
 which has wrought such deep-soated schism 
 and discord in the soul, and which leads even 
 the regenerate and redeemed man within him- 
 self to groan and sigh, and even to exclaim 
 at times: "O wretched man that I am!" 
 And how blinded are they who do not feel 
 this desperate depravity of their hearts!] For 
 introduces the proof of the last clause, 'sold 
 under sin.' That which I do, I allow not. 
 Know is better than ' allow,' not only as being 
 more literal, but because the not allowing 
 what is performed is implied in the next 
 clauses, and still further, because 'I know 
 not' expresses just that perturbed state of 
 mind which seems designed to be expressed, 
 as we sometimes say, "I do not know how I 
 came to do it." ["The regenerate man sins 
 not consciously and willingly, . . . His better 
 ego knows nothing of this act of his sinful 
 nature. From this it certainly follmrs, of 
 course, that this higher self does not acknowl- 
 edge and approve such an act." (Philippi.)] 
 The second for introduces the explanation of 
 the way in which that which is affirmed in the 
 preceding clause came to pass. For what I 
 would, that do I not; but what I hate. 
 
 that I do. The Greek might be rendered 
 thus : For not what I ivish, that do I practise ; 
 but what I hate, this Ido. [The negative (o"), 
 placed at the beginning partly perhaps for 
 the sake of emphasis, properly negatives, as 
 in ver. 19, not the nearer but the remoter 
 verb, thus: 'for what 1 would, that do I not.' 
 What he, the better self, wills and hates is 
 specified below as good and evil. The verb to 
 will or wish (fleAio) is here regarded by Godet, 
 Alford, and others, as simply expressive of 
 desire, or what one would like. It is doubt- 
 less sometimes used with this sense. EUicott 
 says : " The distinction that boidomai (/SoOAojiai) 
 is confined to the inclination, ethelo (eeeAw or 
 Oikfa) to that kind of wish in which there lies 
 9. purpose OT design does not seem generally 
 applicable to the New Testament (see Matt. 
 1: 19), and probably not always in classical 
 Greek." The will., however, is here as ener- 
 getic as the hate, and is a result of the divine 
 invvorking. See Phil. 2: 13. Compare what 
 is said on 9: 19, respecting the use of these 
 verbs.] 
 
 16. If then I do that which I would 
 not, I consent unto the law that it is 
 good. This ma3' be translated : But if what 
 I do not wish this Ido, I agree with the law that 
 it is good. The law and my wish tend the same 
 vfny. [Good—kalos (koAos) — morally beauti- 
 ful and excellent. Prof Cremer saj-s: "It is 
 related to agathos (ivaeos), good, as the appear- 
 ance to the essence. ... It is not merely what 
 is morally good and right, but also what 
 recommends itself by its outward appear- 
 ance."] "The assent of a man, given to the 
 law against himself, is an illustrious trait of 
 true religion, a powerful testimony for God." 
 (Bengel.) 
 
 17. Now and no more denote a logical, 
 not a chronological sequence. Compare ver. 
 20, and 11 : 6. Notv then it is no longer I that 
 perforin it. See Revised Version. [A very 
 few expositors take one or both the abverbs 
 in a temporal sense, pointing back to a time 
 in which it was otherwise with the speaker. 
 So Hofmann : but now no longer do I perform 
 
Ch. VIL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 177 
 
 18 For I know that in nie (that is, in my flesh,) 
 dwellelh no good thing: lor to will is present with me; 
 but /ww to perl'orui that which is good I tind not. 
 
 18 For I know that in nie, that is, in my flesh, dwell- 
 elh no good thing: lor to will is present with me 
 
 it, etc., which is the literal rendering. The /, 
 expressed in the Greek, is strongly empliatic] 
 The / here is equivalent to the inward man of 
 ver. 'I'l. The apostle does not mean to deny 
 responsibility: but his language, in both this 
 and the preceding verse, implies that his per- 
 sonality as a whole does not consent to sin. 
 God has planted the passions in our nature; 
 but ho has also given us the inward man to 
 control them. ["He can pay no highertribute 
 to the dignity of the Christian's position than 
 when he says: It is not /that sin." (Philippi.) 
 "With this, the true and real /, he proceeds at 
 once to contrast the lower and fleshen "me" 
 in which sin dwells and in which good does 
 not dwell. Yet in the spirit of true Christian 
 penitence and humility he does not care, when 
 speaking of his sin, to say that this "me" in 
 which sin has its hofne is only " my flesh." 
 He makes this express distinction only when, 
 as in the next verse, he would not ignore the 
 grace of God which was in him.] But sin 
 that dwelleth in me [whence thephrase "in- 
 dwelling sin." Indeed, the uncials X B have 
 tlie compound participle, indwelling]. "Sin 
 has taken up its abode in me as an unlawful 
 settler." (Olshausen.) This is not said as an 
 exculpation; but to exhibit the power of in- 
 dwelling sin. It is not only consistent with 
 acknowledgment of responsibility, but is 
 always united with self-condemnation and 
 penitence. [Dr. Hodge remarks that " this doc- 
 trine of sin as indwelling is irreconcilable with 
 the assumption that sin consists exclusively in 
 acts of the will, or even, in the widest sense 
 of the term, in voluntary action. An indwel- 
 ing 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 disposi- 
 tion, or principle, manifesting itself in acts." 
 Thomas Scott says, that this " energetic lan- 
 guage " of the apo.stle "seems to have re- 
 sulted from the extraordinary degree of St. 
 Paul's sanctification, and the depth of his 
 self-abasement and hatred of sin ; and the 
 reason of our not readily understanding him 
 seems to be, because we are so far beneath 
 
 him in holiness, humility, acquaintance with 
 the spirituality of God's law, and the evil of 
 our own hearts."] 
 
 18. For I know [from personal experience] 
 introduces the explanation of the clause last 
 preceding, 'sin tliat dwelleth in me.' That 
 in me dwelleth— better, that there du)e lis not 
 in me : the me is here explained to mean the 
 lower carnal self, that is, in my flesh. 
 [This fleshen self supposes here the existence 
 of the correlative pneumatic ego, a spiritual 
 self] Perhaps this explanation is added be- 
 cause of the opposite use of /, in the preceding 
 verse, for the better self Be that as it may, 
 the very limitation of the denial of anything 
 good, argues that the writer does not intend 
 to represent himself as wholly unregenerate. 
 And this is confirmed by the following clause, 
 which is given, with its negative counterpart 
 appended, as the proof from experience, of 
 the absence of anything good in the lower 
 nature. [On Paul's use of the tcnnjlesh, see 
 notes on 2: 5. "Doubtless," says Tholuck, 
 "the corporeal system is the organ through 
 which many sins are executed, and doubtless 
 also it too often prevails over the spiritual 
 interests to the prejudice of the individual. 
 Still we must take into consideration that per 
 se that system cannot be evil : moreover, that 
 it does not necessarilj' occasion inordinate 
 desires, some discord in the spiritual part 
 alwaj's needing to precede, before such a pre- 
 ponderance of the bcdily appetites can take 
 place. Not the flesh, but the mind of the 
 flesh is evil." Still he acknowledges that 
 flesh, according to the usiis loquendi of the 
 New Testament, denotes, in contrast with 
 spirit," human nature as weak and impotent 
 to good." Dr. Weiss regards it (as used in 
 the specially doctrinal e])istles) as the "ex- 
 pression for the natural human being in its 
 specific distinction from God " ("Bib. Theol.", 
 Vol. I., p. 34;^), but we think, with Neander, 
 that in the Pauline S3-stem it generally denotes 
 human nature in its state of estrangement 
 from the divine life.]* For to will [the 
 good] is present with me, or to me [it is 
 
 iDr. Weiss thinks the meaning of (<ropf) sa,rx is I nature untouched by grace in general, and in this sense 
 somewhat changed in the later epistles (e. (7 , those of it is the seat of sin." A suhject, certainly, may be 
 the imprisonment), where it specially denotes " human ' diflerently or more fully developed in one epistle than 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 19 For the good that I would, I do not: but the evil 
 which I would not, tliat I do. 
 
 ^0 Now if 1 do that I would not, it is no more I that 
 do it, but sin that dwelleth iu me. 
 
 19 but to ido that which is good is not. For the good 
 which I would I do not: but the evil which I would 
 
 20 nut, that I practise. But if what I would not, that I 
 do, it is no more I that i do it, but sin which dwell- 
 
 at hand, lies in my power (De Wette) ] ; 
 but how to perform that which is good I 
 find not. The verb 'I find' is wanting in the 
 oldest manuscripts [X A B C]. The abrupt 
 negative "not" or no, without any verb, is 
 peculiarly appropriate and forcible. [This 
 reading is adopted by the principal editors, 
 Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott 
 and Hort, but is not favored by Fritzsche, De 
 Wette, Meyer.] 
 
 19. For introduces the proof of the pre- 
 ceding negation. The good that I would, 
 I do not: and the alternative follows: but 
 the evil which I would not, that I do. 
 "With more literal exactness this verse may be 
 rendered thus: For the good which I will,, I 
 do not ; but the evil which J do not will, this I 
 practise. [This does not imply that the per- 
 son described never does anything that is 
 good, but — as we are all obliged to confess in 
 prayer and song of ourselves — that sin is 
 mixed with all he does. We may remark 
 that even Pagans recognized in themselves a 
 higher and a lower nature, and the contrariety 
 of the two; and though their "better self" 
 had little of that love of God and his law, or 
 of that hatred of sin and self-loathing on 
 account of sin, which were felt by the "inner 
 man," as described by the apostle, yet they 
 expressed this dualism and self-contradiction 
 of their natures in terms very similar to those 
 used by the apostle. The following passages 
 are most frequently quoted by commentators. 
 "For clearly I have two souls," in Zeno- 
 phon's "Cyrop.," VI. 1. "For when the 
 sinner wills not to sin but to do right, it is 
 evident that what he wills he does not, and 
 what he does not will he does." (Epictetus, 
 "Encheirid.," II. 26.) 
 
 Aliudque cupido, Mens aliud su.adet: 
 Video meliora prohoque, deteriora sequor. 
 
 "Desire persuades one way, the mind another; 
 I see and approve the better, I follow the 
 worse." (Ovid's " Metamorph.," VII., 16- 
 
 18.) The last part of this quotation has been 
 versified as follows: 
 
 I see the right and I approve it too, 
 
 I hate the wrong and yet the wrong pursue. 
 
 On the doing of evil by a regenerate man, 
 Philippi thus remarks: "Even when the life 
 of the regenerate man is holy and governed 
 by the Spirit, the uninterrupted, persistent 
 (or, the repressed and intermittent) sinful 
 emotions of the heart may very well be de- 
 scribed as a doing of evil that is not desired. 
 To this is to be added that these very emotions 
 never remain absolutely within, but, even 
 apart from the manifold sins of ignorance, 
 weakness, and unwatchfulness, in which they 
 manifest themselves, leave their hindering: or 
 polluting influence on the best acts of the 
 regenerated one, and thus envelop even his 
 brightest experiences, as it were, with a veil 
 of earthliness."] 
 
 20. He comes back now to the conclusion 
 affirmed in ver. 17, having traced the process 
 of proof step by step. Now if, etc. Trans- 
 late : If, now, what I do not will, this I do, it 
 is no longer I that perform it : the perform- 
 ance is no longer the act of my true self, but 
 of sin that dwelleth in me. It is the sin prin- 
 ciple in me, rather than my inward man, my 
 real self, that performs the evil. Such a state- 
 ment as this, separated from its connection, is 
 easily perverted to an Antinomian and pro- 
 fane use. But to separate it from its connec- 
 tion is to pervert it. In its connection it is no 
 immoral apology for sin, but a humiliating 
 confession of sin. [Only he who has striven 
 with all his powers, as if for and with his life, 
 against sin (Heb. 12:4), and still finds its re- 
 mainders within him, can truly say: It is no 
 longer I that perform it.] 
 
 In the next three verses we have a summary 
 of the results of ver. 14-20. 
 
 21. 1 find then a law (literally, the laiv), 
 meaning this rule or principle ; for the sense 
 of the word law here and in ver. 23, 25, last 
 
 in another, but to suppose that Paul's views, on this or 
 any other subject had materially changed, is virtually 
 to deny that he was a divinely inspired teacher. And 
 Dr. Weiss' method of examining separately the writings 
 
 of a certain class or period, while useful in many 
 respects, tends nevertheless to ignore the comprehen- 
 sive character and unity of divine revelation. — (F.) 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 179 
 
 21 I fiiKl then a law, that, when I would do good, evil 
 is preseut with lue. 
 
 •12 For I delight in the law of God after the inward 
 Willi : 
 
 2.i But I see another law in my uieiubers, warring 
 against tlie law of my uiind, and bringing me into 
 captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 
 
 21 eth in me. I find then 'the law, that, to me who 
 
 22 Would do good, evil is present. For I delight 2 in 
 
 23 the law of (iod alter the inward man: but 1 see a 
 dilferent law in my members, warring against the 
 law of my mind, and" bringing me into captivity 
 
 24 Sunder the law of siu which is in my members. 
 
 1 Or, in regard of the law 'I Gr. with i Gr. in. Man; aocieQl autborllies read to. 
 
 clause, see note on 3 : 27. That, when I 
 would do good — literally, thattoyneioishing 
 to do the good, the evil is present to me. [In- 
 terjjreters ditt'er greatly in their explanations 
 of this verse. Mej'er thinks "the law" here 
 is the law of Moses, and this view seems to be 
 hinted at in the marginal translation of the 
 Revised Version. He would also connect the 
 law with the participle willing : To me willing 
 the law in order to do good. This interpreta- 
 tion has been called "forced" and "harsh." 
 Others have made the law the object of the 
 verb <o rfo, and have put "the good" in appo- 
 sition with the law. Many commentators 
 have this literal rendering: "I find, there- 
 fore, for me who am desirous of doing the 
 good, the rule that evil lies by me," and make 
 this rule equivalent to the other or different 
 law in the members, (ver. m.) The verb whence 
 comes the participle wishing {QiXia ) com- 
 monly denotes in the classics to will, but in 
 the New Testament often has the meaning 
 of to wish or to desire. See note on ver. 15. 
 In Phil. 2 : 13, Paul ascribes the will or desire 
 (to do good) to God's efficient working. The 
 reader will observe that throughout this pas- 
 sage there is no willing of what is evil.] 
 
 In the next two verses the apostle presents 
 again the inward conflict in both its elements, 
 but with a stronger statement of the better 
 side than in ver. 16, and a weaker statement 
 of the worse side tlian in ver. 14. 
 
 22. I delight in [literally, rejoice with] 
 the law of God is stronger than I consent to 
 the law that it is good. (ver. le.) [Does not 
 the P.-almist speak of the blcssedtiess of the 
 man "whose delight is in the law of the! 
 Lord"? The two parts of this verse show' 
 that mind and heart are both on the side of | 
 God.] The inward man corresponds to the / 
 of ver. 17, 20, but is more emphatic. Both i 
 parts of this verse, as compared with the pre- | 
 ceding (ver. i6-2i), indicate a moral progress. 
 [The following is the substance of Prof. Cre- 
 mer's remarks on the "inner man" (see 2 
 Cor. 4 : 16; Eph. 3 : 16; and compare 1 Peter 
 
 3 : 3, 4) : "The inner man denotes not in gen- 
 eral the inner distinctive character of the man, 
 but the inner spiritual and divine nature of 
 the man in its antagonism to the flesh. It 
 embraces that which, according to various 
 aspects, is designated by the words mind, 
 spirit, heart, in such wise, however, that the 
 reference to the spirit predominates. ... As 
 it is the inner man which experiences [daily] 
 renewal (2 Cor. 4 : 16), strengtheningby the Spirit 
 
 (Eph. 3: 16; compare Luke 1 : BO), and tO which beloUgS 
 
 the approval of a life devoted to God (Rom. 7:22), 
 we are warranted in regarding it as synonym 
 for ptieuma, spirit, as used in Matt. 5:3; 
 Rom. 8 : 10, and, indeed, in such a manner 
 that inner man denotes the spirit as reflected 
 in the mind or self-consciousness. This ac- 
 cordingly decides the question whether the 
 expression applies to the regenerate or the 
 unregenerate man. In the sense in which 
 both possess the spirit, the inner man may be 
 applied to both. By means of this expression, 
 this spirit is defined as the proper true man, 
 after deducting that which is visible to the 
 fleshly eye." Paul thus speaks thrice of the 
 inner man, and in every instance it is the 
 regenerate man. The daily renovation of the 
 inward man is but the contrast of the decaying 
 of the fleshly tabernacle, and Paul could just 
 as well pray that the new man might be 
 strengthened with power as that the inward 
 man might be. According to Philippi, Paul 
 "chose tliis expression, inner man, rather 
 than new or sjiiritual man, because he wished 
 just to show that sin is a foreign power to the 
 believer, bringing him into bondage against 
 his will. This he does by showing how his 
 real ego, the innermost ground and core of 
 his desire and being, is free from sin. Thus 
 there was here no occasion whatever for de- 
 scribing this innermost ground and core as 
 expressli' spiritual. Rather, on the contrary, 
 since in the apostle's teaching it is self-evident 
 . . . that only that which is created in man 
 through the Sprit can be in sympathy with 
 the spiritual law, the only thing of import- 
 
180 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VII. 
 
 24 O wretched man (hat I am! who shall deliver me I wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out 
 from the body of this death? I 2-5 of Mhe body of this death? ^l I hank God through 
 
 1 Or, this body of death 'i Many ancient authorities read But thanks he to God. 
 
 ance was to describe this desire of the spirit 
 in man as his real ego, his real inward man."] 
 
 23. But I see [observe as a spectator] 
 another (that is, a different) law — not merely 
 another numerically, but a different gener- 
 ically — in my members, havitig its seat in 
 the body, not in the inward man, Avarring 
 against the laAV of my mind, which is in 
 full sympathy with the law of God (ver. 22), 
 and bringing me into captivity to (or 
 under) the law of sin which is in my 
 members. [The apostle here mentions four 
 laws, but they are not all essentially difierent, 
 the law in the members being equivalent to 
 the law of sin, etc. The mind (or voOs), whose 
 law harmonizes with that of God, denotes in 
 the New Testament especially the organ of 
 moral thinking and knowing, the moral rea- 
 son, and is nearly equivalent to the reflective 
 or moral consciousness. (Cremer. ) In this 
 chapter it is used antithetically to flesh, and 
 is equivalent to the inner man. The apostle 
 does not here aflSrm that his real self is taken 
 captive to the law of sin. On the contrary, 
 his mind serves the law of God. "In the 
 redeemed man," says Philippi, "sin has with- 
 drawn frOin the centre of personality to the 
 circumference of elementary nature." "It is 
 no more I that do it," etc. The taken ca^^tive 
 is, literally, " taken by thespear"— that is, with 
 force and against one's will, "/w the law" is 
 thereadingof N B D F Kand several cursives.] 
 
 24. [Wretched, the adjective, is found else- 
 where in Rev. 3 : 17, the noun in Rom. 3 : 16 ; 
 James 5 : 1, and the verb in James 4:9.] This 
 lamentation, wretched man that I am ! [he 
 does not here choose to call himself ^'wi^^y] is 
 not inconsistent with the idea of moral pro- 
 gress affirmed above. He is now looking back 
 over the whole struggle ; the nearer one comes 
 to freedom, the more galling is the sense of 
 remaining bondage. Who shall {loill) de- 
 liver me? etc. [In all languages a question 
 is often used to denote a wish. Winer — 
 wrongly in part, we think — here regards it as 
 denoting "perplexity and conscious helpless- 
 •ness."] This question is an expression of in- 
 tense desire, but not of despair, for the answer 
 is near at hand. [It is not the prayer of an 
 
 awakened sinner, appealing to God's mercy 
 for a new heart, pardon of sin, and deliver- 
 ance from eternal death. Paul well knew 
 who was his Deliverer, and he feels no need 
 of inentioninghis name. "The cry is uttered," 
 as De Wette observes, "in full consciousness 
 of the deliverance which Christ has effected, 
 and as leading to the expression of thanks 
 which follow." (Alford.) "He asks not by 
 whom he was to be delivered, as one in doubt, 
 like unbelievers who understand not that 
 there is but one real Deliverer, but it is the 
 voice of one panting, and almost fainting, 
 because he does not receive immediate help, 
 as he longs for." (Calvin.) In Meyer's 
 opinion, "such sighing is merely the opera- 
 tion of the so-called gratia pra;venie7is."] 
 Grainmatically, 'this' might agree with 
 'body,' but to connect it with 'death' is 
 preferable. [So Winer: "As the apostle had 
 already said much of death (ver. 10, seq. ), he 
 might naturally refer' to it as this death.'\ 
 This is not an expression of positive desire to 
 die. If the word ' body ' is to be referred at 
 all to the human body in a literal sense, it is 
 only as the usurped seat of sin. Some have 
 supposed a reference in this expression to the 
 custom of chaining a criminal to a dead body, 
 and so leaving him to drag out a miserable, 
 lingering existence in this loathsome com- 
 panionship; a very certain and cruel custom 
 [see Virgil's "^neid," VIII, 485, seq.]; a 
 very forcible figure of speech, but a very 
 doubtful interpretation. [Body of death, 
 which is subject to and belongs to death. 
 (Gifford.) "Tlie body by which I am en- 
 slaved to this deadly power of sin." With 
 the apostle any bondage to the flesh was so 
 far forth a bondage to tlie law of sin and 
 death. Meyer gives this interpretation : 
 "Who shall deliver me out of bondage under 
 the law of siii into moral freedorr;, in which 
 my body shall no longer serve as the seat of 
 this shameful death ? Hodge regards 'body' 
 here as equivalent to a weight or burden. In 
 the Wisdom of Solomon (9: 15) we read that 
 "the corruptible body presseth down the soul 
 and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down 
 the much musing mind."] 
 
Ch. VII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 181 
 
 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So 
 then with the mind I myself serve the law of God ; but 
 •with the flesh the law of sin. 
 
 Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the 
 mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the 
 flesh the law of sin. 
 
 25. I thank G!od [or, thanks be to God, 
 the MSS. l)ere varying in their testimony. 
 The uncials D E have — the grace of God (will 
 deliver, etc.), which in tliis connection is very 
 tame]. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 An indirect, but substantial and emphatic 
 answer to the questi;)n, or rather wail, of the 
 preceding verse. [In the fullness of his deep 
 emotion he does not explicitly state for what 
 he gives thanks. But any one can under- 
 stand that it is the longed-for deliverance 
 from condemnation (s: i), and from the reign- 
 ing power of sin and death. Meyer says: 
 "There is not a change of person but of 
 scene." But in his view the person of the 
 last verse was unredeemed and out of Christ; 
 now the same man is in Christ; and yet, 
 again, he is simply the man himself and 
 out of Christ. Olshausen, Lange, Hofmann, 
 Wordsworth, find in this verse the beginning 
 of a graci(jus experience.] He has found the 
 longed-for Deliverer in Christ, but he ad- 
 dresses his thanksgiving to God, as the primal 
 source of the mercy that provided the Deliv- 
 erer. Compare 1 Cor. 15:5"; Epli. 5:20; 
 Col. 3: 17. [Not only is thanksgiving ofiered 
 in the name of Christ, but it is implied that 
 the deliverance has been obtained through 
 him (so Godet; see Noyes' translation, and 
 De Wette on 1 : 8), and therefore the apostle 
 would not hesitate to say: Jesus Christ is my 
 Deliverer from this bod}- of sin and death.] 
 So then implies a summing "up of the con- 
 tents of ver. 14-24. I myself. [I Paul, "for 
 my own person." (Meyer.) Some prefer: 
 "I, in my real self," which makes good sense, 
 onlj' we have to suppose, as I think we may. 
 that this full subject is not to be repeated in 
 the next clause.] With the mind serve the 
 law of God, but with the Hesh the law 
 of sin. [Nothing can be more self-evident 
 than that the latter half of this verse presents, 
 in the words of Prof Stuart, "a summary of 
 the whole preceding representation." To this 
 statement Prof. Turner — who, with Stuart, 
 regards the preceding representation as that 
 of an unregenerate inan — demurs, and says, 
 that to make the phrase 'serve the law of 
 God' "denote nothing more than the full 
 acquiescence of the mind as under the influ- 
 
 ence of reason and conscience, is harsh. To 
 serve is to obey, to do the commands of, and 
 will not bear such a modified signification." 
 This is strong confirmation of the correctness 
 of our interpretation.] The apostle closes this 
 remarkable account of the conflict of good 
 and evil in human nature with an emphatic 
 profession of the willingness of the spirit to 
 serve the law of God, and a confession of the 
 weaknessof the flesh. (Matt.?6:4.) [Something 
 more, we think, is expressed here than the 
 " willingness of the spirit to serve the law of 
 God." It is aflBrmed that the real self, the 
 proper man, does actually serve the law of 
 God (which is more than any unregenerate 
 man ever did), and this is suflScient to show 
 that the regenerate man is not here repre- 
 sented as having "nothing but an impotent 
 and fruitless will to do what is good, along 
 with a constant performing of what is evil." 
 That a declaration of a present twofold ser- 
 vice on the part of the apostle — that of the 
 law of God with his mind and that of the law 
 of sin with his flesh — should follow the thanks- 
 giving for deliverance is especially a puzzle 
 to those who maintain the view which is 
 opposed to our own. Some would enclose the 
 first clause of the verse in parenthesis and 
 regard the space it occupies as a blank. By 
 some it is looked upon as a gloss, taken in 
 from the margin, and misplaced at that. 
 And some have gone so far as to suppose a 
 transposition of the two main parts of the 
 verse. Others (Alford, Olshausen, Lange, 
 Turner) find here a thoroughly new religious 
 experience, and would connect this verse with 
 the next chapter. Touching the division of 
 chapters, we agree with PJiilippi, who thinks 
 "the seventh chapter would conclude better 
 with 8:11." Certainly the "I myself" is 
 Paul the speaker, and the tense of the verb 
 denotes his present experience and condition. 
 The "I of iTiyself," found in the American 
 Kevised Version, is by Forbes deemed "per- 
 haps admissible in this sense only: 'I in my- 
 self, notwithstanding whatever progress in 
 righteousness the Spirit of Christ may have 
 wrought in me or will work in this life, am 
 still most imperfect; with mj- mind, indeed, 
 I serve the law of God, but with my flesh the 
 
182 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 fpHERE is therefore now no condemnation to them 
 -* which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the 
 flesh, but after the Spirit. 
 
 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them 
 
 2 that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit 
 
 law of sin, and tried by the law could not 
 be justified, but would come under condem- 
 nation, if viewed in myself and not in Christ 
 Jesus.'" "So vast a diflference is there be- 
 twixt a Christian taken «i himself and in 
 Christ." (Leigliton.) Meyer contends that 
 the view we have advocated would logically 
 require a transposition of the last clauses, 
 thus: "So, then, I myself with the flesh do, 
 indeed, serve the law of sin, but with the 
 mind the law of God." But against this, we 
 may say, that the design of Paul in this chap- 
 ter leads him to emphasize the power of the 
 law of sin in our fleshen selves — to show, in 
 other words, that "the best obedience of our 
 hands" ftiils to fulfill the law's demands, and 
 that the holiness of the regenerate, being thus 
 imperfect, cannot free him from condemna- 
 tion. We may properly notice that, as in ver. 
 23, where Paul speaks of becoming captive to 
 the law of sin, he limits this law, as he does 
 not elsewhere, to that which exists in his 
 members; so here, where he speaks of serving 
 the law of sin, he limits this service, as he 
 does not elsewhere (see 6:6, 20, etc.), to the 
 flesh alone. We remark still further, that 
 this unwilling service of the law of sin with 
 the flesh, merely, is a vastly different thing 
 from a man's walking willingly and willfully, 
 and with his entire being, "after the flesh."] 
 
 Ch. 8 : ["The chapter beginning with no 
 condemnation and ending with no sepa- 
 ration." We may give as its purport: the 
 present and future blessedness of the justified 
 in Christ in its especial connection with the 
 work of the Spirit, or, in general terms: "the 
 happy condition of the man in Christ" 
 (Meyer), or "the security of believers." 
 (Hodge.) De Wette gives the following as 
 the general analysis of this chapter : " («) Ver. 
 1-4. Free from condemnation is the redeemed 
 man who lives in the Spirit, (b) Ver. 5-17. 
 This spiritual life leads him to the life of 
 blessedness, to adoption as God's child, and 
 to participancy in the glory of Christ, (c) 
 Ver. 18-30. This future glory of Christians is 
 assured by a universal longing, by a hope 
 
 verified in steadfastness and prayer, and by a 
 firm trust, (d) Ver. 31-39. Thus the Chris- 
 tian has nothing more to fear, but everything 
 to hope for; he cannot be separated from the 
 love of God in Christ." Olshausen makes 7 : 
 25-8: 17 treat of the experience of redemp- 
 tion until the perfection of the individual life ; 
 and 8: 18-39, of the perfection of the whole 
 creation with the children of God. Godet 
 gives as the theme of this chapter: The work 
 of the Holy Spirit in the justified believer — 
 (a) The victory of the Holy Spirit over sin 
 and death, 1-11; (b) Freed from sin and 
 death, the Christian becomes son and heir, 
 12-17 ; (c) Completion of the plan of salva- 
 tion, notwithstanding the miseries of our 
 present condition, 18-30; (d) Hymn of the 
 assurance of salvation, 31-39. Meyer says it 
 is only with the beginning of this chapter 
 that "the nev) scene opens of which the cry 
 of thanksgiving (7: 25] was only a previous 
 glimpse, broken off again by the 'so then I 
 myself.'" Per contra: "The apostle now 
 presents to us the life of the regenerate man 
 under its other aspect." (Philippi.) These 
 two aspects of the Christian's experience cor- 
 respond, in a manner, to the two states of the 
 unregenerate above depicted — namely, that 
 of carnal security and that of conviction of 
 sin.] 
 
 Grace accomplishes what the law could not 
 accomplish, agreeably to 6: 14; 7: 6 and 8: 
 I-I7. («) Grace furnishes not only a justify- 
 ing righteousness (ver. 1); but also a regener- 
 ating and sanctif3nng power (ver. 2); {b) the 
 way in which this is done is briefly explained. 
 (Ver. 3, 4.) 
 
 1. Therefore noAV marks an inference from 
 7: 25, first clause. [So Fritzsche, Philippi. Al- 
 ford and Lange connect this freedom from 
 condemnation with the serving the law of God 
 with the mind and delighting in that law, 
 since a person thus serving is supposed to be 
 "in Christ Jesus.'' Meyer connects this verse 
 with the immediately preceding, 'I myself,' 
 regarded as unregenerate and out of Christ, 
 in contrast with the renewed now found in 
 Christ. But the holiest believer on earth, if 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 183 
 
 viewed apart from Christ, could not escape 
 condemnation or stand in the judgment for a 
 moment. Nothing, we thinl<, will so much 
 surprise us when ushered into the light of 
 eternity, compared with which the blaze of 
 the midday sun is well nigh perfect darkness, 
 as the sight and sense of our imperfections 
 and sins. Bengel, Godet, and Stuart go back as 
 far as to 7 : tt for the connection. Haldane and 
 Hodge regard this inference as the legitimate 
 conclusion of all that Paul had previously 
 established. The 'therefore now' of this verse 
 decidedly favors the view we have taken of 
 chapter 7. It shows that the idea of con- 
 demnation in ourselves and of justification in 
 Christ alone has not been absent from the 
 apostle's mind; and hence we may regard 
 this verse as a key to the right interpretation 
 of the preceding chapter, from which in fact 
 it should not have been separated.] ' Now ' is 
 temporal and emphatic; 'now' that a deliver- 
 ance has been effected, 7 : 24, 25, first clause. 
 [Philippi, regarding 'now' as logical, finds 
 this idea: "now from this it follows that on 
 those who are in Christ Jesus no condemna- 
 tion falls, for in him they have freedom from 
 sin and death."] No condemnation — that 
 is, no sentence of condemnation, as in 5: 16, 
 18. To them Avhicli are in Christ Jesus. 
 [Condemnation rests upon the sinner every- 
 where else than ' in Christ.' In him who bore 
 our curse we find a shelter where no bolt of 
 wrath can fall on our guilty heads. "The 
 man," says Olshausen, "is not free from con- 
 demnation on account of his subjective condi- 
 tion, but for the sake of the objective work of 
 Christ which he lays hold of in faith." In 
 the lack of complete holiness we shall need 
 for our justification to be "found in Christ," 
 and to have a personal interest in his all-per- 
 fect righteousness. If the whole of this chap- 
 ter were like two or three verses at the begin- 
 ning taken by themselves, we then might 
 imagine that "the redeemed man is entirely 
 freed from the law of sin." (Mej'er.) Butthis 
 is far from being the case, and this complete 
 deliverance from bondage by the teaching of 
 
 this very chapter, will not be effected until 
 the future redemption and glorification of 
 the.se our bodies of sin and death. Much of 
 chapter 8, as a certain writer remarks, has 
 regard to the conflict with sin and infirmity.] 
 That vital spiritual union with Christ which 
 results from a living faith in him, and which 
 secures our justification and salvation is vari- 
 ously expressed; sometimes as here we are 
 said to be 'in Christ,' sometimes Christ is said 
 to be in us (Coi. i; 27), sometimes we are said to 
 have put on Christ. (Oai. 3:27.) These and 
 other similar expressions (John 15: 5; Eph. 3; n, etc.) 
 all point to the one blessed reality of a true 
 union between Christ and his people. [Com- 
 pare Rom.- 6: 11; 16: 7; 1 Cor. 1: 30; 15: 
 18; Gal. 3: 28; Eph. 2: 13; Phil. 3: 9; Col. 
 2: 6, etc' "The churches are in Christ, the 
 persons are in Christ. They are found in 
 Christ and preserved in Christ. They are 
 saved and sanctified in Christ, are rooted, 
 built up, and made perfect in Christ. Their 
 ways are ways that be in Christ, their conver- 
 sation is a good conversation in Christ, their 
 faith, hope, love, joy, their whole life is in 
 Christ Finallj', this character of exist- 
 ence is not changed by that which changes all 
 besides. Those who have entered on it depart, 
 but they die in the Lord, they sleep in Jesus, 
 they are the dead in Christ; and when he 
 shall appear, they will appear; and when he 
 comes, God shall bring them with him, and 
 they shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ." 
 (Bernard's "Progress of Christian Doctrine.")] 
 The remaining clauses of this verse, as read 
 in our Common Version — "who walk not 
 after the flesh, but after the Spirit" — are not 
 supported by the oldest and best manuscripts 
 [NBC D* FG.], and are justly omitted by 
 Alford, Noyes, the Bible Union, and most 
 critical editors of the Greek text. They were 
 doubtless, copied by some ancient scribe, with 
 good intention, but not with good judgment, 
 from ver. 4. where they are unquestionably 
 genuine. Here they are introduced prema- 
 turel3^ [For other instances in this Epistle 
 where the "oldest and best manuscripts" 
 
 1 The phrase: "in Christ" is almost exclusively 
 Pauline, it being found elsewhere only in 1 Peter 5:14; 
 'A: 16. John, however, often uses equivalent terms. The 
 expression " in the Lord," occurring over forty times, 
 is found outside of Paul's writings only in Rev. 14 : 13. 
 Prof Cremer gives some fifty examples of " in Christ" 
 
 where "a peculiar union of the Christian subject with 
 the Lord is treated of," and fifteen other instances " in 
 which the blessings of redemption, God's saving pur- 
 pose, etc., are represented nhjecHvety as all included in 
 Christ"— Christ being "iuthe fullest sense the sphere 
 in which both the subject and object exist." — (F.) 
 
184 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus 
 hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 
 
 of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of 
 3 sin and of death. For what the law could not do, 
 
 give a briefer reading, see 3: 22; 6: 11; 9: 
 28; 10: 15; 11: 6; 13: 9; 14: 6, 21 ; 15 : 24. 
 The Revisers, in common with all the more 
 recent critical editors, have, in general, re- 
 garded the briefer readings as the original 
 and genuine ones, and so have given their 
 preference to the oldest MSS., though few in 
 number (especially to X B., that is, the Sina- 
 itic and the Vatican), rather than to the later 
 and more numerous MSS. which support our 
 Textus Receptus.] 
 
 2. For introduces the reason why there is 
 no condemnation. The law in its broad 
 rhetorical sense, as in 3 : 27: 7; 23, etc. [Dr. 
 Hodge makes this 'law of the Spirit,' etc., 
 equivalent to the gospel which frees us from 
 the law and from condemnation. And he 
 gives the following as the meaning of this 
 ■verse in connection with the preceding: 
 "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."' Prof. Turner, while adopting a 
 different view, yet says that "The whole 
 clause may denote the gospel as a spiritual 
 and life-communicating sj'stem." Still this 
 does not seem to be the most natural interpre- 
 tation of these words, 'the law of the Spirit 
 of life,' and yet if we make this verse refer 
 only to inward sanctification, we simply assert 
 by means of the 'for' which assigns a reason 
 for the affirmation of the verse preceding, 
 that our freedom from condemnation, or our 
 justification, depends upon our subjective 
 righteousness, a view which clearly antago- 
 nizes the whole scheme of the gospel of grace. 
 In this dilemma. Prof Riddle would give to 
 the ' no condemnation ' a wider reference, 
 " having indeed a reference to the justifying 
 act already past, but meaning rather, the 
 continuance in a state of justification, culmi- 
 nating in final acquittal and glory." Hence 
 he adopts in the main Calvin's interpretation 
 of this verse: "The power of the life-giving 
 Spirit delivered me in Christ Jesus (in virtue 
 of union to him the fulfiller of the law and 
 the deliverer from the law) from the law of 
 sin and death." The connection of this verse 
 with the immediately preceding and succeed- 
 
 ing shows conclusively that the idea of a 
 justifying righteousness is still in the apostle's 
 thought, but that in this idea that of a sancti- 
 fying righteousness is included. In conso- 
 nance with this view. Dr. Hodge well remarks 
 that "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. And, 
 therefore, sp far as the meaning is concerned, 
 there is no objection to saying, that the con- 
 demnation of sin of which the apostle here 
 speaks [next verse], includes the idea of its 
 extirpation or destruction as a necessary con- 
 sequence."] Of the Spirit of life — not the 
 Holy Spirit ; for the word law would not be 
 so suitable, if that were the sense; but the 
 principle, or power, of spiritual life — the 
 counterpart of "the law of sin and death," 
 both abstract terms, and therefore furnishing 
 an additional reason why the antithetical 
 'spirit of life ' should not be explained as re- 
 ferring to the personal Spirit. [Many com- 
 mentators, however, as Tholuck, Gifford, 
 De Wette, Meyer, Philippi, Godet, Lange, 
 Alford, do adopt this reference, regarding 
 the Spirit as the Lord and giver of life. Com- 
 pare 2 Cor. 3: 6. The Spirit quickeneth or 
 maketh alive. Taking the word in this sense 
 we make this law, rule, or governing power 
 within us to be the fruit of the Spirit. " The 
 Spirit of life is that by which the spiritual 
 life is effected in believers," (Tholuck), "the 
 active and animating principle of Christian 
 life." (Ellicott.)] In Christ Jesus. Christ 
 Jesus is the Lord and Giver of spiritual life: 
 it resides in him, and is dispensed by him. 
 (John 1:4.) [Most expositors, we think, con- 
 nect the words in Christ Jesus with the verb. 
 See Winer (p. 137), De Wette, Philippi. In 
 Christ Jesus we are freed from condemnation. 
 In Christ Jesus we are freed by the Spirit of 
 life from the law, the reigning power, of sin 
 and of death.] Hath made me free. [Com- 
 pare 6: 20-22]: the indefinite past would be 
 more appropriate, freed me, referring to the 
 time of conversion. ["Here Pnul speaks of 
 himself for the last time as representing all 
 believers." (Philippi.)] From the law of 
 sin and death — [that is, from theircondemn- 
 ing and controlling power. The dying re- 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 185 
 
 3 For what the law coiikl not do, in that il was weak 
 through the tlesh.God seuUiiig his own Son in the like- 
 ness of sinful llesh, and for sin, condemued siu iu the 
 flesh: 
 
 lin that it was weak through the tiesh, God, sending 
 
 his own Son in the likeness of ^sinful Uesh ^and 
 
 4 for siu, condemned sia in the flesh: that the <or- 
 
 1 Or, wherein 2 Gr. Jleak p/ i 
 
 .3 Or, and a» an offering /or liti 4 Or, requirement. 
 
 maiiiders of sin were still left to molest and 
 weary him. (Shedd.) Some commentators 
 regard tlie freeing here spoken of as being a 
 deliverance from condemnation rather than 
 from the dominion uf sin and death. In sup- 
 port of this view they adduce the connection 
 of tliis verse witii the preceding and following, 
 tlie use of the past tense of the verb, and the 
 consonance of this idea with the apostle's 
 general and leading train of thought. We 
 should wish to blend the two views together. 
 And we think there is no insuperable ditRculty 
 in supposing that the apostle's teaching in 
 these first four verses is this, that by virtue of 
 our Lord's condemning sin in the flesh, and 
 tl) rough the power of the Spirit of life, we 
 are freed in Christ Jesus, both from con- 
 demnation and from the reigning power of 
 sin. And truly such a declaration as this, 
 which speaks to our sin-burdened souls of 
 deliverance from condemnation and from the 
 dominion of sin, may well be deemed by us 
 as a gospel above all price.] The ' law ' is not 
 that of Moses wliich would not be so de- 
 scribed ; but, as above, the power or dominion 
 of sin and death. Compare 7: 23, 25. [Sin 
 and death, closely connected as cause and 
 eflect. The nouns being of dissimilar gender, 
 each has the article.] 
 
 3. For — explanatory of ver. 2, showing 
 the method of that liberation. What the law 
 could not do — literally, the iniposslbUity of 
 the law, or the thing impossible to the law.' 
 AVhat this impossible thing of the law was is 
 explained by what follows; but he first shows 
 why this yet unexplained thing was impossible 
 to the law ; in that [because] it (the law) 
 was weak throu§:h the flesh. The flesh 
 was the medium through which the law 
 wrought, and having to ai^t through this 
 medium, it proved too weak [to conquer sin 
 or free from condemnation. It was weak and 
 continued so: imperfect tense. "Paulclear- 
 
 was impossible lor the law to confer righteous- 
 ness uijon us." On this weakness of the law, 
 which is but the weakness of our flesh, our 
 helplessness under the bondage and curse of 
 sin, see Gal. 3: 21; Heb. 7: 18.] By 'the 
 flesh ' we are to understand human nature iu 
 its unregenerate state, as in 7:5, 18. God 
 (did, by) sending his own Son. ["Just as 
 by 'his own' (compare ver. 32), the filial 
 relation of Christ is described as a metaphj-s- 
 ical one, so by 'sending,' etc., Christ's per- 
 sonality is described as a pre-existent one. 
 Compare Gal. 4:4; John 10: 36; 17: 3, etc." 
 (Philippi.) "Thepre-existenceand metaphys- 
 ical sonshipof Christ are implied." (Meyer.) ] 
 The next two clauses explain the hoiv of this 
 sending, in the likeness of sinful flesh ; 
 the proximate wliy of it, and for siu; and 
 the last clause the ultimate purpose of it — to 
 do that important thing which the law could 
 not do, which now at last is plainly deduced 
 to be this, condemned sin in the flesh. 
 Observe that God sent his own Son ' in the 
 likeness of sinful flesh' — [literally, 'flesh of 
 sin '] not in sinful flesh, but in the likeness of 
 it. Christ was sent into the world in the out- 
 ward appearance of a sinful man, subject to 
 all the conditions of sinful humanity, except 
 sin itself. (Heb.4:i5.) [Christ came "in the 
 flesh," not, as Marcion held, in the likeness 
 of it. We bear "the flesh of sin," Christ bore 
 only its likeness, which likeness implies his 
 sinlessness. "He had a nature like to that 
 of sinful men, but himself liad not a sinful 
 nature." (De Wette.) Tertullian says : "In 
 putting on our flesh he made it his own ; in 
 making it his own, he made it sinless." His 
 fleshly or human natures© far resembled ours 
 that he could be and was "tempted in all 
 points like as we are, yet without sin." So 
 the Divine One was made or appeared "in 
 the likeness of men." (Phii.2:7.) Me3-er finds 
 in these verses {% s) a decisive negative answer 
 
 ly affirms," says Calvin, "that our sins were I to the question whether the Son of God would 
 expiated by the death of Christ, because it | have appeared as man had man not become 
 
 J This maybe regarded as in the accusative, either I apposition with the principal sentence following. So 
 absolute (Olshaujien), or after a verb (did) understood, ! Buttniaun, Winer, De Wette, Meyer, Philippi, Godet. 
 but more probably il is in the nominative absolute, in — (F.) 
 
186 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled I dinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who 
 in us, who walk not after tlie flesli, but after the Spirit. | 5 walk not after the flesh, but alter the spirit. For 
 
 sinful.] And for sin — it was 'sin' that made 
 his coming MccesA'ary. r'gJQ' was the special 
 name of the sin-offering in the Old Testament, 
 and many (Calvin, Hodge, and others) give 
 it this sense here. (See marginal reference to 
 the Revised Version ; the Canterbury llevi- 
 sion transposes text and margin.) But the 
 expression: 'for — that is, concerning sin,' 
 seems to have a more genersil reference — 
 namely, that the sending of the Son of God 
 into this world had respect to sin — that is, to 
 its condemnation and extirpation.] The ulti- 
 mate object of God's sending his Son is now 
 expressed in the words 'condemned sin in 
 the flesh' — what is the meaning of this, and 
 liow did he do it? He condemned sin by 
 breaking its power, by robbing it of its domin- 
 ion, which is a very practical condemnation 
 of it; and he did this 'in the flesh,' in that 
 very human nature in which sin had always 
 before so easily triumphed : the sphere of its 
 many and long-repeated victories was now at 
 last made the sphere of its signal and decisive 
 defeat: yes, decisive defeat; for not for him- 
 self alone did Christ condemn sin ; but his 
 victory over it insured, as the next verse goes 
 on to state, the final victory over it on the 
 part of all his people. In fine, this important 
 verse maj' be paraphrased as follows: "For 
 God, by sending his own Son into the world, 
 in the likeness of sinful flesh (but not in the 
 reality^ so far as sin is concerned), and for sin 
 (the existence of sin being the occasion for 
 sending him), did what it was impossible for 
 the law to do — namely, broke the power of sin, 
 and soconvicted and condemned it asa usurper 
 and a tyrant, and did this in the very nature 
 through whose weakness that usurpation and 
 and tyranny had been so long maintained." 
 [Similarly the "Bible Commentary": "He 
 'condemned sin in the flesh' as having no right- 
 ful place or power there, condemned it as an 
 
 enemy to be by his help conquered and cast 
 out." De Wette says: " Thus instead of sin's 
 bringing condemnation to us as hitherto, it is 
 itself now condemned and has lost its power." 
 "God accomplished the judgment of con- 
 demnation pronounced against sin, and he 
 did this in sin's appropriate sphere, viz., in 
 the flesh." (Cremer. ) The law could con- 
 demn sin in one sense, but could not put sin 
 to death, nor save the guilty. "Christ's holy 
 life wasalivingcondemnation of sin" (Godet), 
 but his expiatory death, wherein he bore our 
 sins, and curse, was its principal and final con- 
 demnation.^ Milton very happily versifies 
 the Pauline theology on this point in Para- 
 dise Lost, XII., 388, where he speaksof Christ's 
 joining "Manhood to Godhead," and of his 
 "coming in the flesh, 
 
 To a reproachful life and cursed death."] 
 
 4. That — in order that, the purpose for 
 which God 'condemned sin in the flesh' — 
 the righteousness of the law — the right- 
 eous requirement of the law — might be I'ul- 
 filled in us — really, now; perfectly, by-and- 
 by. [The word 'righteousness' (SiKaito/ua) oc- 
 curs here for the last time in this Epistle. 
 Compare 1:32; 2: '26; 5:16,18. Most modern 
 commentators think this term, in order to 
 suit the context, must be here referred solely 
 to the work of sanctification. But the right- 
 eous demand of the law requires, not only 
 perfect obedience, but punishment for trans- 
 gression. See 1:32. As in 5:16 'righteous- 
 ness' (hiKaimfxa) is Opposed to condemnation, 
 so there is a similar antithesis here. Compare 
 the verb 'condemned' with its related 'con- 
 demnation' in ver. 1. That the apostle here 
 has reference to justification as well as to 
 moral renewal is also evident from the passive 
 form of the verb and from the preposition: 
 ' might be fulfilled in us ; ' not that we might 
 
 1 Prof. Shedd thus makes condemned equivalent to 
 "vicariously punished" — God thus condemning sin in 
 the body or per.son of Christ. Many refer this con- 
 demnation of sin to the removal of sinfulness rather 
 than to the expiation of guilt, because Paul does not 
 say: in Itis flesh, and because he here treats of sancti- 
 fication rather than of justification. Yet Paul never 
 in his scheme of doctrine widely separates a sanctify- 
 ing from a justifying righteousness. And, again : in 
 
 what way can sin be extirpated other than by the 
 death of Christ and by the intercession of a crucified 
 and risen Saviour? " God by the death of his Son, so 
 condemned sin, as by this very (expiatory) condemna- 
 tion to destroy it." (Philippi.) Of course, this view 
 does not set aside the fact that the incarnation itself of 
 the spotless Son of God was a virtual condemnation of 
 sin in the flesh.— (F.) 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 187 
 
 5 For they that are after the flesh do iiiiiKi the things 
 of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the 
 things of the Spirit. 
 
 they tliat are after the flesh do mind the things of 
 the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the 
 
 fulfill, or even that it might be fulfilled by 
 us. To suppose that any man, though re- 
 newed in mind, can perfectly obey all the 
 demands of the law so as thereby to free 
 himself thenceforth from condemnation and 
 secure acquittal at the judgment, is to make 
 nonsense of much which the apostle thus 
 far has written. "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 Scrii)ture and experience contra- 
 dicts." (Hodge.) "Only because we are 
 justified in Christ does tlie sin perpetually 
 cleaving to us no longer come into account. 
 Only thus can the holy acts, which are the 
 fruits of God's Spirit in those who are right- 
 eous in Christ,' be called a fulfilling of the 
 law.'' (Philippi.) "Christ is the end of the 
 law for righteousness to every one that be- 
 lieveth." The Christian, indeed, must have 
 l)ersonal and real righteousness, in order to 
 bo acce]>ted of God in the judgment, or to 
 fulfill his high calling here. We were freed 
 from the law and have become united to 
 Christ, not that we may indulge in sin,— God 
 forbid!— but that we may bring forth fruit 
 unto God. (':*■) Yet while we strive with 
 all possible earnestness for a sanctified life, 
 we would not dare to present such a life as 
 the ground of our justification.] Who walk 
 [being such persons as walk, etc., the article 
 with the participle defining a class] not after 
 the flesh, but after the Spirit, whose con- 
 duct and course of life are regulated, not ac- 
 cording to the promptings of the natural man, 
 but according to the dictates of the Holy 
 Spirit. ""When the soul is wedded to the 
 Spirit, the flesh follows, like the handmaid 
 who follows the wedded mistress to her hus- 
 band's home, being thenceforward no longer 
 the servant of the soul, but of the Spirit." 
 (Tertullian.) [See Gal. 5: 16, 18, where Spirit, 
 also without the article, denotes the Holy 
 Spirit.^ Dr. Hodge remarks that this "second 
 
 clause of the verse is specially pertinent if the 
 first treats of justification, [showing that] the 
 benefits of Christ's death are experienced only 
 by those who walk nt)t after the flesh. . . . 
 In the other view of the passage, the latter 
 clause is altogether unnecessary. Why should 
 Paul say that Christ died in order that they 
 should be holy who are holy?"] 
 
 Introductivn to Ver. 5-27.— Justification is, 
 indeed, necessary to the existence of sanctifi- 
 cation, but sanctification is equally necessary 
 to the evidence of justification. [A gospel 
 which should speak of a justification that 
 favored indulgence in sin would be at once 
 despoiled of all glory. They who are justified 
 in Christ are also renewed in heart, and would 
 not desire to live in sin, even if they could be 
 permitted to do so.] The justified will cer- 
 tainly walk in newness of life: 
 
 (a) Because their inward moral disposition 
 is thoroughly changed, (ver. 5-8.) 
 
 5. The for is explanatory of the last clause 
 of ver. 4 [showing that and why there is no 
 agreement between the two methods of walk- 
 ing there spoken of]. They that are alter 
 the flesh. Compare John 3:6. [Such are 
 wholly fleshen (<rdpKivoi), even their minds are 
 of flesh, possessed and ruled by the flesh. 
 (Col. 2:18.)] Do mind the things of the 
 flesh. They think of, care for, strive after 
 [WiclifF: "savor"], 'the things of the flesh ' — 
 that i.s, its objects of desire. But they that 
 are alter the Spirit (do mind) the things 
 of the Spirit. Their aims and objects of 
 desire are spiritual. [The Canterbury Ke- 
 vision refers the word 'Spirit' — occurring in 
 this verse, in ver. 6, 13, and the fir.st in ver. 9 
 — to the human spirit. It is sometimes diflS- 
 cult to determine whether, in certain cases, 
 this word denotes the human spirit or the 
 divine, especially as in regenerate persons the 
 human is supi)osed to be acted upon by, or 
 even conjoined with, the divine. The spirit of 
 man, the highest part of his nature, is defined 
 by Cremer as "the divine life principle," or 
 "the principle of the God-related life," and 
 
 1 In a telic clause or verse like this, introduced by 
 'that' = in order that (J-va-) , nothing is stated to have 
 actually occurred, and hence the subjective negative 
 ni is used rather than ov. The sauie is true in impera- 
 
 tive and subjunctive clauses, iih, however, is regularly 
 used with articled participles which refer to a supposed 
 genus or class, as in 4 : 5 ; 14 : 22. — (F.) 
 
188 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 6 For to be carnally minded is death ; but to be 
 spiritually minded is life and peace. 
 
 7 Because the carnal luind is enmity against God: 
 for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed 
 can be. 
 
 6 things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is 
 death ; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: 
 
 7 because the mind of the fltsh is enmity against God ; 
 for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed 
 
 by EUicott as "the seat of the inworking 
 powers of grace." Prof. Kiddle, in Laiige's 
 "Bible Work," also speaks of it as "the point 
 of contact with divine influences." As con- 
 nected with man's body and soul, the psy- 
 chical or natural man, it needs cleansing and 
 sanctification — in other words, needs to be 
 divinely spiritualized. In ver. 10, the spirit, 
 as opposed to 'body,' seems to denote "our 
 spirit." (ver. 16.) In other instances it may 
 be indeed regarded as the human spirit, yet 
 as renewed and pervaded by the Holy Spirit. 
 Meyer, however, contends that "it never 
 means, not even in contrast to flesh, the 're- 
 newed spiritual nature' (Philippi), but the 
 sanctifying divine principle itself objectivelj' 
 and distinct from the human spirit." Yet in 
 ver. 10 he makes 'spirit,' in contrast with 
 'body,' refer to the human spirit.] 
 
 6. The spiritual man cannot mind the 
 things of the flesh, for to be carnally 
 miniled, to have the thoughts, cares, and 
 aims occupied with the things of the flesh, is 
 death — is spiritual death, and tends to, and 
 ends in, eternal death. ["The minding of 
 the flesh" (nearly equivalent to purpose of 
 the flesh) in the marginal reference of our 
 Common Version very well expresses the 
 sense of the original. Rev. J. Owen, in Cal- 
 vin's "Commentary," says that "minded- 
 ness," the abstract of minding, would be more 
 correct. Some commentators use the expres- 
 sion — striving of the flesh. On pages 232, seq., 
 of Lange's "Commentary on Eomans" will 
 be found an excursus on the Biblical terms — 
 bodj', flesh, soul, and spirit.] But to be 
 spiritually minded [properly, the mind of 
 Ihe Spirit, the animus or disposition which 
 the Spirit gives]. To be spiritually minded is 
 to have the thoughts, cares, and aims occupied 
 with the things of the Spirit, with the truths 
 and hopes that he inspires, the blessings that 
 he confers, the dispositions that he produces. 
 Is life and peace. Peace is added to 
 strengthen the argument. Says John Howe: 
 "Life and peace in conjunction, not raging 
 life, not stupid peace, but a placid, peaceful 
 life, and a vital, vigorous rest and peace. It 
 is not the life of a fury, nor the peace of a 
 
 stone; it is a life that hath peace in it, and 
 peace that hath life in it." Observe how life 
 and death are defined in this verse: Life, ac- 
 cording to this apostolical definition, is some- 
 thing more than mere animated existence; 
 death is something more than the separation 
 of soul and bod3^ something difl^erent from 
 the mere negation of conscious existence, 
 or annihilation. The Scriptures cannot be 
 rightly interpreted if these apostolic defini- 
 tions of life and death are ignored. [There 
 is, indeed, a blissful peace in spiritual mind- 
 edness, but the ground of any true and abid- 
 ing peace must be found outside of ourselves, 
 not in any inward perfection, but in a con- 
 sciousness of our good estate in Christ. In 
 Christ alone can our souls find their only true 
 resting place. "Our heart is restless till it 
 rests in thee." (Augustine.) Only as we are 
 justified b3' faith can we be freed from con- 
 demnation; only as we are justified by faith 
 can we have peace with God or in our own 
 souls. De Wette says it is " wholly false" to 
 mix up in this passage the doctrine of justi- 
 fication, even when freedom from condem- 
 nation is spoken of. If so, then farewell 
 to peace. "How," asks Olshausen, "can an 
 exposition of the Christian religious develop- 
 ment be possible unless the doctrines of satis- 
 faction and justification form the turning 
 points in it?"] 
 
 The next verse is an illustration and con- 
 firmation of the first part of ver. 6. 
 
 7. Because the carnal mind. This shows 
 the reason why 'the carnal mind' — the mind 
 of the flesh— is death, because it is enmity 
 against God [who is the Giver of life]. This 
 is a very strong statement ; it arraigns as at 
 enmity with God every unregenerate man 
 and woman. For this carnal mind, as the 
 connection plainly shows, is predicated of all 
 who have not been born of the Spirit, and 
 not merely of those who are grosser sinners, 
 exceptionally sensual and polluted. Compare 
 ver. 9. The apostle immediately brings for- 
 ward a plain, practical proof of this grave 
 charge. For it is not subject to the law 
 of God. It does not submit itself to that 
 divine rule of life which is the practical ex- 
 
Ch. VIII ] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 189 
 
 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please 
 God. 
 
 9 But ye are not in the flesli, but in the Spirit, if so 
 be tliat the Spirit oi" (iod dwull iu you. Now if any 
 man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 
 
 8 can it be: and they that are iu the flesh cannot 
 
 9 please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but iu the 
 Spirit, if so be that ihe Spirit of God dwellflh iu 
 you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, 
 
 pression of friendship with God. Neither 
 indeed can be [without directly contradict- 
 ing its nature]. "In just so far as it (the 
 carnal mind) exists, it evidently does not sub- 
 mit itself to the law of God; and in so far as 
 it has passed away and departed from a man, 
 it does not at all exist, so that even thus it is 
 not subject." (fficumenius. ) If one should 
 object that the argument proves too much, — 
 for even the regenerate, spiritual man does 
 not always and perfectly obey the law of 
 God, — the answer is, that this is accounted for 
 only by the truth of the proposition. The 
 reason why the new man's obedience is not 
 uniform and perfect, is the fact that [while 
 sin does not reign in his mortal body, yet] 
 the remains of the old nature still cling to 
 him; so that the objection, in fact, confirms 
 the proposition. "How can snow be warmed ? " 
 asks Augustine. "By making it cease to be 
 snow," he replies. [Compare Paul's descrip- 
 tion here of those persons whose being and 
 walk are conformed to the flesh, whose very 
 minds are of flesh, and which, as being wholly 
 Carnal, are at enmity with God and will not 
 submit to his law, with the description which he 
 gives in the last part of chapter 7 of that one 
 (himself), who though with h\?, flesh serving 
 the law of sin, yet with his mind serves the 
 law of God and delights in that law after the 
 inward man. Cannot any one see the vast 
 diff"erence? Meyer, indeed, says that ^'' After 
 conversion the flesh with its striving is ethic- 
 ally dead," and he refers to 6 : 6, seq. ; also to 
 Gal. 5 : 24: "They that are Christ's have cru- 
 cified the flesh with its passions and lusts." 
 This verse has sometimes caused us to trem- 
 ble, yet our hope has strengthened itself in 
 this thought — namely, that the cruciflxion of 
 tlie flesh may denote a lingering death.] 
 
 8. So then should rather be translated 
 and; it (Se) is continuative [and "slightly 
 oppositive "] rather than conchisive} By the 
 phrase they that are in the flesh we are 
 
 to understand not they that are in the body, 
 but they that are carnally minded (ver. 6, 7), 
 and that walk after the flesh, (ver. 4.) [In 
 the flesh denotes "the ethical life-element in 
 which they subsist, and which is the oppo- 
 site of being in the Spirit, and in Christ.'' 
 (Meyer.)] They cannot please God; since 
 their disposition, their mind is enmity toward 
 him, their persons cannot be pleasing to him. 
 [Augustine condensed: Not they who are 
 in the body, but they who trust in the flesh 
 and follow the lusts of the flesh, cannot please 
 ! God. Whatl did not the holy patriarchs, 
 prophets, martyrs, please him ? They carried 
 the flesh, but were not carried by it. Not 
 they who live in this world, but they who live 
 a life of carnal pleasure in this world, they 
 cannot please God.] 
 
 (6) The Spirit of God dwells in and actuates 
 
 them. (Ver. 9-13.) 
 
 9. But ye [ye on the other hand. (Meyer.)] 
 are not in the flesh— that is, not carnally 
 minded; but in the Spirit— that is, spir- 
 itually minded; if so be that the Spirit 
 of God dwell in you [has in you a per- 
 manent home]. The indwelling of the Spirit 
 of God is what makes the diflference be- 
 tween the carnally minded and the spirit- 
 ually minded. See 1 Cor. 3: 16; 6: 19; 2 
 Tim. 1: 14.] [Meyer refers the first "Spirit" 
 to the Holy Spirit, not, with Philippi, to a 
 "spiritual nature." The 'if so be,' if indeed, 
 does not imply an}' real doubt, yet, according 
 to Meyer, "it conveys an indirect incitement 
 to self-examination." 'Dwell' in you must 
 not be diluted to dwelleth among you. See 
 1 Cor. G: 19; Gal. 4: 6. But can there be 
 in the regenerate indwelling sin and the in- 
 dwelling Spirit? Most certainly. Yet the 
 Spirit inhabits, rules, and fills the inner or 
 real man, while sin dwells rather in the fleshen 
 self. And thus it is that the "flesh lusteth 
 against the Spirit and the Spirit against the 
 flesh, that ye may not do the things that ye 
 
 1 This little particle (6e) occurs six times in this and 
 the three following verses. Its exact force, according to 
 Ellicott, " is never simply connective, and it never loses 
 all shades of its true oppositive character." It often 
 " implies a further considerati jn of the subject under 
 
 another aspect." In translating it we have to choose 
 
 between such words as but, moreover, now, and, etc. 
 In this verse, Paul, by means of Se "passes from 
 ' enmity toward God ' to the other aspect of the matter, 
 ' cannot please God.' " (Winer.) —(F.) 
 
190 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because I 10 he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body 
 of siu ; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. | is dead because of sin ; but the spirit is life because 
 
 would." Rev.Ver. Gal. 5: 17; comp. Rom. 7: 19, 
 "the good which I would I do not."] Now 
 if any man (one) have not. [On the use of 
 the direct negative after the conditional 'if,' 
 (the 'not' qualifying simply the verb 'have'), 
 see Winer 477, Buttmann 345, 347 ; compare 
 also 11: 21.] The Spirit ol" Christ here is 
 the same as the Spirit of God in the preceding 
 clause. The two expressions are equivalent 
 and interchangeable. Compare [Acts 16; 7, 
 in Revised Version] Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1 : 19; 
 1 Peter 1 : 11. [To have in us the Spirit 
 which belongs to Christ, and which he can 
 impart, as with his breath (John 20:22), is the 
 sameas to have Christ himself, (ver. lo; Eph. 3:i7.) 
 Paul here speaks of the Spirit of Christ be- 
 cause he would make prominent the Christian 
 characteristics of believers. "The Spirit of 
 God, the Spirit of Christ, an illustrious testi- 
 mony concerning the Holy Trinity." (Ben- 
 gel.)] This passage is sometimes used in the 
 sense — 'if any man have not a Christlike 
 spirit, he is none of his' — a sound. Scriptural 
 sentiment; for the object of the Spirit of 
 Christ dwelling in us is to make our spirits 
 like to Christ's; but it is the personal Spirit 
 of Christ that is here meant, and not a dispo- 
 sition like Christ's. He — rather. This man. 
 There is an emphasis in the pronoun used 
 here not adequately represented by the unem- 
 phatic 'he.' Is none of his — that is, he does 
 not belong to Christ, and will not be owned 
 by him at last. 
 
 The illustration of the second part of ver. 6 
 is now taken up, in contrast to the foregoing. 
 
 10. And if Christ be in you is the same 
 as 'if the Spirit of God dwells in you.' 
 ["The indwelling of Christ ... is the result 
 of the working of the Holy Spirit on the one 
 side and the subjective reception of man 
 (through faith, Eph. 3: 17) on the other." 
 (Ellicott.)] The body is dead — surely 
 doomed to die — because [on account) of sin. 
 See ch. 5 : 12. But the spirit is life — has 
 life [wrapped up in itself], and shall have 
 eternal life, because {on account) of right- 
 eousness — that righteousness which is al- 
 ready implanted, and which will be perfected. 
 ['Dead' (vcKpds) is often used, says Prof. Cre- 
 mer, "to denote the state of men still living, 
 and we may understand it of the state of 
 
 those whose life is appointed to death as the 
 punishment of sin." The death referred to 
 in this verse is physical — the death of the 
 body, not a death to sin, nor a rendering 
 inactive of the "body of sin," as in 6: 6. 
 Prof. Stuart regards it as the mortifying of 
 our carnal passions, the crucifixion of the 
 flesh. But is sin the ground or cause of this 
 death, as righteousness is the cause or ground 
 of life? The Revisers fitiled to bring out tlie 
 strong contrast here implied by "indeed" 
 {iJi€v) and "but" (Se). It is true, the apostle 
 would say, that the bod^' is dead, is subject to 
 death, must die by reason of sin, but the spirit 
 is life, etc. Even the believer's body partakes 
 of death, is already in a death condition, is a 
 "living corpse," on account of his own sin 
 and on account of his race connection with 
 Adam. In Adam all died and all die. And 
 as the primal groundof bodily death is Adam's 
 sin, so the primal ground of our Spirit's 
 eternal life of blessedness is Christ's right- 
 eousness, and not our own. (Godet. ) "The 
 eternal life is based on the justification that 
 has taken placefor Christ's sake, and is appro- 
 priated by faith. . . . The moral righteous- 
 ness of life, because never perfect, can never 
 be the ground of 'the life.' " (Meyer.) "The 
 ground of life is, and remains alone, the 
 righteousness imputed to faith, from which 
 issues the righteousness of life, or spiritual 
 disposition by which faith is attested and 
 maintained. ... To refer righteousness in 
 this verse to the righteousness of faith is not 
 inconsistent with referring 'spirit' to the 
 human spirit become "pneumatic. For the 
 first thing the human spirit does when re- 
 newed by the Spirit of God, is by faith to lay 
 hold on the righteousness of Christ and the 
 eternal life which that righteousness secures." 
 (Philippi.)] The words 'body' and 'spirit' 
 here are to be understood, literally, of the 
 human body and human spirit: for (a) the 
 change from the word 'flesh' (ver. 5») to the 
 word 'body,' is presumptive evidence of the 
 literal sense; (i) the expressions, 'on account 
 of sin' and 'on account of righteousness,' 
 require this sense — not (dead) "to sin," or 
 'in respect to sin,' as in 6: 2, 11 ; (c) the fol- 
 lowing verse decisively confirms this sense, so 
 far as the word ' body ' is concerned, and 
 
Ch. VJII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 191 
 
 11 But if the Spirit of hiiu that raised up Jesus from 
 tlie (lead dwell iu you, lie that raised up Christ from 
 the dead shall al.-o quicken your mortal bodies by his 
 Spirit that dwelleih iu you. 
 
 11 of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that 
 raised up Jesus Irom the dead dwelleth iu you, he 
 that raised up Christ Jesus troui the dead shall 
 quicken also your mortal bodies i through his Spirit 
 that dwelleth in you. 
 
 1 Maov aDcieot aatborities read becauae of. 
 
 indirectly confirms the same in respect to the 
 antithetical term 'spirit.' [It was Andrew 
 Fuller's dying request that Dr. Rj'land 
 should preach his funeral sermon from this 
 text.] 
 
 11. ["According to ver 10, there was still 
 left one j)owcr of death, that over the body. 
 Paul now disposes of this also." (Meyer.) 
 " According to the present verse, death is to 
 be vanquished by a gradual process, and fin- 
 ally to be swallowed up in life." (Philippi.) 
 "The divine life becomes through the Holy 
 Spirit not only a quality of tli/i human spirit: 
 it becomes its nature in such wise that it can 
 diffuse itself through the whole person, from 
 the spirit to the soul and body." (Godet.) 
 To the natural eye and sense, the grave is a 
 dark-looking place, and would seem to be the 
 sad end of our being; and with such natural 
 views and feelings, we are tempted to say: 
 For what nothingness hast thou created all 
 the sons of men. (ps.89:47.) But the apostle 
 never appears to have had a doubt — certainly 
 he has never expressed a doubt — respecting 
 our survival of the tomb. He discusses at 
 large in one of his epistles the nature of the 
 resurrection body, but never the question : 
 "Does death end all?"] But if the Spirit 
 of him that raised up [literallj', awakened] 
 Jesus from the dead dwell in you. We 
 have here the previous supposition, with an 
 important addition, 'of him that raised up 
 Jesus from the dead'— an addition which is 
 of vital importance in tire apostle's argument, 
 as if he had said, 'this Spirit is powerful over 
 death, and makes you partakers of Christ's 
 resurrection ; you have in you the same power 
 which caused Christ to rise.' ['Raised up 
 Jesus' . . . 'raised up Christ.' "The name 
 Jesus refers to himself, the name Christ to 
 us." (Bengel.) Hofmann remarks that the 
 personal resurrection of Jesus merely assures 
 us that God can raise us, but his resurrection, 
 regarded as that of the Christ, assures us that 
 
 he will do so actually. Godet notices the ap- 
 propriateness of the term awakening (as if 
 from sleep) applied to Christ, and the term 
 quickening, used of our mortal bodies, de- 
 cayed and dissolved in dust. According to 
 Alford, Paul does not say shall raise our 
 mortal bodies, "because it is rot merely the 
 resurrection of the body which is in the apos- 
 tle's view." Prof. Stuart regards this quick- 
 ening of the body as wholly spiritual, making 
 the body "a willing instrument of righteous- 
 ness." And the principal reason for his view 
 is that the bodies of the wicked, as well as the 
 righteous, will be raised up at the last day. 
 This is true; but the wicked will not attain 
 unto the blessed resurrection of the just, their 
 bodies will not be like the spiritual, heavenly 
 bodies of the glorified, and will not be con- 
 formed to the body of Christ's glory. Cer- 
 tainly the resurrection of the body must be 
 here the chief reference. And when this 
 quickening takes place, the body will no more 
 be called dead, or even mortal, since it will 
 be no more a body of sin. The apostle's lan- 
 guage supposes that all those whom he ad- 
 dresses would die before the personal coming 
 of Christ, and therefore he did not regard this 
 coming as something to happen within the 
 lifetime of that generation. Compare 14 : 8.] 
 By his Spirit that dwelleth in you ; or, 
 according to a different reading of the original 
 text, on account of his Spirit which dwells in 
 you. The two readings of the Greek text 
 stand nearly on an equality in respect to the 
 support which they have from ancient manu- 
 scripts, quotations, and versions. The read- 
 ing on account of his Spirit seems to me to 
 have strong ijiternal evidence in its favor: 1, 
 as being the more difficult reading, according 
 to the well-known rule of Bengel^:, 2, on 
 account of the emphatic way in which the 
 indwelling of the Spirit is expressed (to 
 ivoiKoxiv^ in place of oUei, ver. 9, 11) ; 3, as 
 yielding a very pertinent and striking sense, 
 
 MVe have often thought of this "rule" when cor- 
 recting proof sheets, for printers, at least, are very apt 
 to make more difficult readings. But, of course, critical 
 
 editors do not accept this rule without many qualifica- 
 tions. 
 
192 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIIL 
 
 12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not ^to the 
 flesh, to live after the fiesh. 
 
 13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if 
 ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, 
 ye shall live. 
 
 12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, 
 
 13 to live after the flesh: tor if ye live after the flesh, 
 ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death 
 
 for it suggests this important and interesting 
 thought — that it would be derogatory to tlie 
 dignity of the Divine Spirit, that the bodies 
 which have been honored as the habitations 
 of that Divine Guest should be suffered to 
 become the irreclaimable victims of corrup- 
 tion. [" kSuch a body God will treat as he has 
 treated that of his own Son." (Godet.) ] 
 Finally, this reading is adopted, in their 
 critical editions and translations, by such 
 scholars as Mill, Bengel, Alford, Meyer, 
 Noyes, and the Bible Union Revisers. [The 
 reading of our Common and of the Revised 
 Version is supported by some of the oldest 
 Uncial manuscripts X A C, and is favored by 
 Lachmann, Tischendorf (8), Westcott and 
 Hort, De Wette. This reading was opposed 
 by the Macedonian heretics, who denied the 
 personality and divinit3' of the Holy Spirit.] 
 Webster gives the following paraphrase of 
 ver. 10, 11: "But if Christ is in you, while 
 the body is dead (inevitably subject to death) 
 owing to sin, the spirit is life (a living princi- 
 ple of action) owing to righteousness; if, 
 however, the Spirit of him who raised up 
 Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he who 
 raised up Christ from the dead shall also make 
 alive (shall renovate) your mortal bodies, 
 owing to his Spirit, which dwelleth in you." 
 12. Therefore (inference from the preced- 
 ing verse) brethern, we are debtors (a 
 positive assertion, defined afterward only on 
 its negative side) not to the flesh, to live 
 after the flesh — in order that we should live 
 after the flesh, i/such a relation existed. [So 
 De Wette, Meyer, Philippi, and others. But 
 Winer (p. 326) would treat this infinitive 
 clause in the genitive as he does that in 1 : *24 
 — making it depend on the word 'debtors,' in 
 conformity to the regular phrase, to be a 
 debtor of any one (or thing)]. i The corre- 
 sponding positive side of the assertion, as 
 deduced from ver. 11, would be, " we are 
 debtors to the Spirit, to live after the Spirit"; 
 and so, for substance, the relation is com- 
 pleted in the last clause of ver. 13. [The flesh 
 
 has done us no service that we who belong to 
 Christ should live for it, or according to its 
 dictates. It is the Spirit of life which is the 
 source of our present spiritual life, without 
 whose influence also we have no spiritual 
 activity, peace, or joy, and it is the ground of 
 our resurrection life. We should, therefore, 
 live to the Spirit, and our lives should be 
 controlled by the Spirit. The flesh, says 
 Meyer, "has not deserved well of us!"] 
 Chrysostom's comment on this verse is as 
 follows: "We are debtors to the flesh in 
 many respects, but not in this. We owe it 
 nottrishment, care, rest, healing wlien sick, 
 and ten thousand other services. In order, 
 therefore, that you may not suppose, when 
 he says, ' we are not debtors to the flesh,' that 
 he means by this to abolish or forbid such 
 services, he explains himself, saying, 'to live 
 after the flesh ' — that is, we must not make 
 the flesh the controller of our lives." 
 
 13. For if ye live after the flesh, ye 
 shall (mW) die. If, to repeat Chrysostom's 
 phrase, ye make the flesh the controller of 
 your lives, ye will die — that will be the suit- 
 able and certain end of your course. The 
 death here referred to is what Q]]cumenius 
 calls "the undying death in hell." This 
 sense is confirmed by the antithetic ye shall 
 live of the following clause. [The 'shall' here 
 is a separate verb, denoting that which is 
 about to be and necessarily will be. The 
 inevitable result of carnal living is death in 
 its comprehensive sense. We must undergo 
 physical death even if we do not live after 
 the flesh. Meyer refers it only to eternal 
 death, "the deathless death in Gehenna." 
 According to Philippi, "death, as the conse- 
 quence of sin, denotes the undivided idea of 
 divine penal judgment, consisting in every 
 kind of physical and spiritual misery. . . . 
 Here, above all, is meant spiritual iind present, 
 yet withal the bodily an4 the future death." 
 We do not see in this declaration of the apos- 
 tle, as Philippi does, ^^ a dictum probans for 
 the possibility of apostasy, the so-called amis- 
 
 I But Biittmann (p. 267) says: "The infinitive with r it depends merely outwardly upon a substantive in the 
 Tov retaius its entire verbal nature and force, so that | leading clause." (F.)] 
 
Ch 
 
 VIII.] 
 
 
 
 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 193 
 
 14 For as many as are 
 are the sons of God. 
 
 led 
 
 by 
 
 the 
 
 Spirit 
 
 of God, they 14 the 'deeds 
 1 as are led 
 
 of the body, ye 
 by the Spirit of 
 
 shall 
 GOd, 
 
 live, 
 these 
 
 For as many 
 are suns of 
 
 I Or. doing: 
 
 sibilitas gratice."] But if ye through the 
 Spirit [not in tlie human spirit (Philippi), 
 but by] the Holy Spirit, do mortify, pitt to 
 
 death [more literally, are putting to death ; 
 compare Col. 3:5; Gal. 5 : 24], the deeds of 
 the body, the practices of the body, ye .shall 
 live [in the full and highest sense], not '3^6 
 will live,' as a natural consequence, as in the 
 former case, 'ye will die,' but 'ye shall live,' 
 as an assured gift from God, promised by his 
 apostle. This distinction between the two 
 futures is warranted by the difference of form 
 in the original.' 
 
 "A third reason why tlie justified will cer- 
 tainly walk in newness of life is now added: 
 
 (c) Tliey are children of God, not only by 
 a formal adoption on his part, but also by a 
 filial spirit on tlieirs. (ver. u-n.) 
 
 14. For introduces the ground of the assur- 
 ance contained in 'ye shall live.' For a test, 
 by which we may know whether or not we 
 are led by the Spirit of God, see Gal. 5: 
 22, 23. [To be 'led by the Spirit of God,' 
 though in the passive voice, " is not to be 
 understood of the influence of a foreign power, 
 giving as it were its impulse from without, but 
 it is to be considered as tlie element of life, as 
 deciding the tone of character and being, so 
 that the Spirit of God generates also, where 
 he works, a higher heavenly consciousness, a 
 man of God, a son of God." (Olshausen.) 
 In view of Scripture representation, here and 
 elsewhere, no one of us can think too highly 
 of our dependence on the Holy Spirit for our 
 present and eternal salvation. And how 
 blessed are they who are led not by worldly 
 principle, not by personal ambition, not by 
 carnal desire, not by self-will, or by what is 
 self-pleasing even, but by the unerring Spirit. 
 
 It may be noted that in Gal. 5: 18 we have 
 this same construction, to be led b^' the Sjiirit, 
 yet ' Spirit ' (iri-tOfia) there is wholly undefined 
 and is even destitute of the article. Both 
 there and here the Spirit is in the dative case 
 of agency after a passive verb.] They are 
 the sons of God — these, and only these. 
 The expression ' sons of God' includes these 
 three ideas: 1. Likeness to God. 2. Objects 
 of God's fatherly love. 3. Heirs of God's 
 inheritance. The expressions 'sons of God' 
 and "children of God," though so nearly 
 related as to be in some connections inter- 
 changeable (Rom. 8: u, 16, 19, 21), are not to be re- 
 garded as identical. According to Olshausen, 
 the word son (ui6s) expresses more definitely 
 than the word cldld " the developed conscious- 
 ness" of adoption. Alford says that the word 
 son "implies a more mature and conscious 
 member of God's family." It may be added, 
 that while the word children empliasizes the 
 natural and legal relations of or ii^/n and heir- 
 ship, the word sons emphasizes the moral and 
 spiritual relations of likeness and reciprocal 
 affection. [The word for child (refcvov), in 
 some instances, seems to be used as a term of 
 special endearment. Paul speaks of children 
 of God in ver. 16, 21 ; 9: 8; Phil. 2: 15. 
 Jolin uses this expression invariably, wiiile 
 the Synoptic Gospels have only "Son of God." 
 Christ is alwaj-s called "Son," never, "child" 
 of God.] But however the precise difference 
 may be defined, the words should be distin- 
 guished in tra?islation. This is not uniformly 
 done in our common English Version. The 
 word which properly means sons is translated 
 children in at least six instances (Matt. 5: 9, 45; 
 
 Luke 20: 36, twice; Rom. 9: 26; Gal. 3; iS) ; while the WOrd 
 
 which properly means children is translated 
 
 1 The " practices " of the body arf- here, as in Col. 3 : 9, 
 regarded as evil. Indeed, the n-pafei? of the New Testa- 
 ment, like our practices, generally have an evil signili- 
 cation, a striking comment on our woutedness to do 
 evil. This word in the i)lnral is used by Paul only in 
 these two places. Some M."<S., D E F G, have flesh here 
 instead of body, which would seem to be a correction, 
 as sin is not so often predicated of the body as of the 
 flesh. The flesh, however, in its widest signification, 
 makes use of the body as the instrument of sin, and so 
 
 it becomes a body of sin and death. "The body, as the 
 external basis of human nature which has become sin- 
 ful, the organized crapf, is consequently subject to death 
 as the penalty of sin, and draws down the soul with it 
 into the same doom unless the two be separated by the 
 renewal of the spirit, the divine principle of the soul, 
 in which case the body itself shall be finally exempted 
 from the penalty and made a spiritual body." (Creiuer.) 
 -(F.) 
 
 N 
 
194 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 15 For ye hare not received the spirit of bondage 
 again to (ear ; but ye have received the 8pirit ol adop- 
 tion, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 
 
 15 Gf d. For ye received not the spirit of bondage 
 again unto lear; but ye received the spirit of adop- 
 
 16 tiun, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit 
 
 sons a score of times or more,^ and in one 
 place is translated daughters, (i Peter 3: 6.) 
 
 15. An appeal to their conscious experience. 
 For ye have not received — that is, when ye 
 became Christians — the spirit of bondage, 
 [a slavish spirit. Compare Gal. G: 1; 1 Cor. 
 4: 21, "a spirit of love and meekness" — that 
 is, a spirit whose characteristic was love and 
 meekness. In opposition to Meyer and Godet, 
 most expositors take this spirit of bondage in 
 a wholly subjective sense. EUicott gives this 
 rule: "Where the Spirit is nientiuned in 
 connection with giving, it is better to refer it 
 directly to the personal Holy Spirit. . . AVhere, 
 however, as in 1 Cor. 4: 21; Gal. 6: 1, the 
 connection is different, the spirit may be re- 
 ferred immediately to the human sjiirit, though 
 even then ultimately to the Holy Spirit as the 
 inworking power." Meyer, on the other 
 hand, says: "T'.iis mysticism is not in har- 
 mony with the New Testament, which always 
 distinguishes clearly and specifically between 
 the Holy Spirit and the human spirit as in 
 ver. 16."] Me3'er thus renders this verse: 
 " For ye received not (when the Holy Spirit 
 was communicated to you) a spirit such as is 
 the regulating power in the state of slavery 
 . . . but a spirit which in the state of adoption 
 is the ruling principle." The word 'again,' 
 does not imply that they had ever before 
 ' received ' a spirit of bondage, but only that 
 they had formerly been in bondage: the word 
 'again' is connected with 'bondage' only, not 
 with 'received'; to fear — in order that ye 
 should be afraid. These last two words, ' to 
 fear,' are not to be intimately connected with 
 'bondage,' as if 'fear' were the hard master 
 that held them in bondage ; but fear is repre- 
 sented as the result of their bondage. [Meyer, 
 and so De Wette, Philippi, and Godet, con- 
 nects 'again' with 'fear,' thus: "in order 
 that ye should once more (as under the law 
 working wrath) be afraid." "The spirit of 
 bondage (leading) back into fear." ("Five 
 Clergymen".)] But ye have received the 
 Spirit of adoption — the spirit that charac- 
 terizes dutiful children, a spirit of filial con- 
 
 fidence, in contrast with the former spirit of 
 bondage. (Gai. 4:4-6.) Whereby we cry. [In 
 
 which, or whom (compare Eph. 6: 18), we 
 cry aloud with boldne.ss and confidence. Paul 
 wishes to join himself with this cry. Accord- 
 ing to Gal. 4: 6, it is the Spirit of Christ in 
 our hearts which cries 'Abba, Father,' and so . 
 we may from this point of view regard the 
 spirit of adoption as something objective and 
 as correspondent to this Spirit of Christ. 
 Godet says: " It is impossible not to see in the 
 Spirit of adoption the Spirit of God himself.'' 
 Many commentators take the Spirit (n-veCiua) 
 of tliis verse as referring to God's Spirit, who 
 works not bondage but adoption — thus pu.t- 
 ting these two nouns in the genitive of the 
 effect.'] Abba, Father. 'Abba' [from which 
 our abbot is derived] is the later Hebrew word 
 for 'Father.' The word is used only three 
 times in the New Testament, twice by Paul, 
 here, and in Gal. 4: 6, and once by our Lord, 
 as recorded by Mark 14: 36. There is a 
 peculiar significance in thus uniting the Old 
 Testament name appropriated to express the 
 divine Fatherhood of God toward his people 
 
 (Isa.63: 16; J.T.3:19;31: 9;HoseaU: 1), with the NcW 
 
 Testament name, in which, through the adop- 
 tion in Christ, the relationshipis fully realized, 
 (johni: 12.) [The nominative is often used by 
 the Greeks for the vocative in address, but the 
 use of the article with such nominative is 
 rather a peculiarity of the New Testament. 
 The repetition of the words may be regarded 
 as the outburst of that filial affection which 
 one who was by nature a child of wrath may 
 naturally feel toward the great Creator who 
 has graciously adopted him as his child. The 
 word ' adoption ' in the New Testament (ver. is, 
 
 23; 9: 4; Gal.4: 5; Eph.l: 5) dcnotCS the receiving 
 
 into the relationship of children, and never 
 the simple relation of sonship. Prof. Cremer, 
 however, thinks the idea of "the relation- 
 ship of children, based upon adoption, ... is 
 perhaps to be admitted" here. There is at 
 least this difference between adoption and son- 
 ship, the former implies the latter, but the 
 latter does not necessarily imply the former. 
 
 1 Matt. 9: 2; 21: 2S, livice; Mark 2: 5; 13: 12 (trans- 
 lated childrenin same verse); Luke 2: 48; 15: 31; 16: 
 25; John 1: 12; 1 Cor. 4: 14, 17; Phil. 2: 15,22; 1 Tim. 
 
 1 : 2, 18 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 2 ; 2 : 1 ; Titus 1:4; Philem. 10 ; 1 
 John 3: 1, 2 = 21 times. 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 195 
 
 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, 
 that we are the cbildreu ol' God. 
 
 himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are 
 
 This 'adoption' supposes that by nature we 
 are not Gods own children and we cannot be 
 regarded as true sons, nor can we truly say 
 'Our Father,' or 'Abba, Fatlier,' until by 
 adoption God shall look upon us as being in 
 Christ, his own well-beloved Son.] 
 
 16. [The absence of any connecting particle 
 serves to indicate the comnienceuient of a 
 new subject. (Buttmann, 403; see 9:1; 10: 
 1; 18:1.)] The Spirit itself— that is, the 
 Holy Spirit. [Some have rendered this the 
 snine Spirit, but tiiis would require a different 
 form in the original. The word for Spirit 
 being neuter, tlie pronoun is likewise neuter, 
 while the Canterbury Kevision renders it as 
 masculine, and our American Kevised Ver- 
 sion, inconsistently, both masculine and neu- 
 ter. See ver. 16, 20. We cannot properly 
 attribute sex to the Deity, but we naturally 
 prefer when speaking of God, who yet is 
 Spirit, a masculine pronoun as more clearly 
 indicative of personality. The Bible Union 
 Version renders literally — the Spirit itself. 
 The New Testament uses both it and he of 
 the Holy Spirit, the latter, we think, only 
 when a masculine noun referring to the Spirit 
 immediately precedes or follows.] Beareth 
 Avitiiess Avith our spirit (compare Rom. 5: 
 5; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1 : 13, 14; 4:30; 
 1 John 3 : '24; 4 : 13), that we are the chil- 
 dren of God.i The Spirit itself co-witnesseth 
 with our spirit that we are children of God 
 would be a very literal translation of this 
 verse. ["The word children emphasizes the 
 heartiness of the filial feeling." (Lange. ) 
 Meyer says: "Paul distingui?hes from the 
 subjective self-consciousness, / am the child 
 of God, the therewitli accordant testimony of 
 tiie objective Holy Spirit, thoti art the child 
 of God! The latter is the yea to the former, 
 and thus it comes that we cry the Abba in 
 the Spirit. Our older theologians (see espe- 
 cially Calovius) have rightly used our passage 
 as a proof of the assurance of grace. . . . 
 At the same time, it is also a clear proof 
 against all pantheistic confusion of the divine 
 and human spirit and consciousness, and no 
 less against the assertion that Paul ascribes to 
 
 man, not a human spirit, but only the divine 
 Spirit become subjective." De Wette (and 
 Alford, who oftentimes closely follows De 
 Wctte), disregarding the preposition in com- 
 position, renders the verb, "bears witness to 
 our spirit.'' The Spirit of God dwelling in 
 the hearts of his adopted sons may very prop- 
 erly be said to co-witness with their spirits 
 that they are God's children. On the wit- 
 nessing and scaling work of the Spirit, see 2 
 Cor. 1: '22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 John 3: '24; 
 4:13; 5:7-11.] This co-witness of the Spirit 
 of God witii our spirit, whereby we are as- 
 sured that we are children of God, is a very 
 imjjortant and blessed reality. At the same 
 time, it must be confessed that unless care is 
 used to surround it with scriptural safeguards 
 of interpretation, it is very liable to be abused, 
 to the encouragement of pretensions that are 
 presumptuous and self-deceptive. The Spirit 
 of God in the inspired word plainly witnesses 
 or testifies what are the characteristic affec- 
 tions, dispositions, and habits of the children 
 of God. See Gal. 5 : 22, 23, and other kindred 
 passages. Our human spirit witnesses or testi- 
 fies in our consciousness, through faithful 
 self-examination, what our own affections, 
 dispositions, and habits are. "When the testi- 
 monies or witnesses of these two spirits, the 
 divine and the human, are placed alongside 
 of each other, there will be manifest agree- 
 ment or manifest disagreement. If the for- 
 mer, it may truly be said that the Spirit 
 of God co-witnesseth with our spirit that we 
 are children of God. The joint witness of 
 these two is a rational, and no less an evan- 
 gelical, ground of Christian assurance. I do 
 not venture to say that this is the whole ac- 
 count of the matter, but I think it is an intel- 
 ligible account, and, as far as it goes, a true 
 and safe account of a matter, in regard to 
 which misunderstanding is very common, and 
 sometimes very mischievous. [To avoid self- 
 deception, and to be saved from fanaticism, 
 we should always test the supposed witnessing 
 of the Spirit in our hearts by its witnessing 
 "in the inspired word."] 
 17. Heirship [already hinted at in 4 : 13, 14] 
 
 1 Nouns in Greek following the predicate verb, to be, I meaning children (rcitva) does not require the article 
 are frequently without the article ; but here the word ' either in Greek or English.— (F.) 
 
196 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and 
 joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with 
 him, tliat we may be also glorified together. 
 
 18 For I reckon that the suflerings of this present 
 time are not worthy to be compared with the glory 
 which shall be revealed in us. 
 
 17 children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs 
 of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that 
 we sutler with liim, that we may be also glorified 
 with him. 
 
 IS For I reckon that the sufferings of this present 
 time are not worthy to be compared with the glory 
 
 follows necessarily from childship. And if 
 [we are] children, [we are] tiien heirs. 
 
 'Children' is naturally said here rather than 
 sons, because the word is taken up from the 
 preceding verse. Perhaps, also, this word may 
 be preferred in both these verses as being more 
 comprehensive., including both sexes equally. 
 Besides, it is the more appropriate word in 
 this connection, as being more distinctly the 
 ground of heirship, which is descent, not moral 
 likeness or filial feeling. It ought to be noted, 
 however, that the word soyi is used in a similar 
 connection, in Gal. 4 : 7. Heirs of Goi«. 
 Compare 1 Cor. 3 : 21-23. Truth, holiness, and 
 bliss are infinite in God, and the same blessed 
 trio, though finite, are ultimately full in his 
 children. How much of outward dignity may 
 be included in this heirship, who can tell? 
 especially when it is added, and joint heirs 
 with [literally, of] Christ. Compare John 
 17:22; Col. 3:4; Kev. 3 : 21. [Some suppose 
 that the apostle in this representation has in 
 his mind the Koman law of inheritance, which 
 differed from the Jewish. According to the 
 latter, the eldest son received a double share, 
 while adopted children^ were excluded from 
 heirship, and even one's own daughters, unless 
 there were no sons, the daughters receiving 
 only a marriage portion. Under the Koman 
 law, sons and daughters and adopted children 
 shared alike. We, through the grace of God 
 and by virtue of our adoption, share the same 
 as our "elder brother" who is "heir of all 
 things" (Heb. 1:2), while in ourselves we de- 
 serve only wrath. Children of human parent- 
 age are not always heirs in this world, nor do 
 they always inherit great possessions. But 
 the case is different with the children of God. 
 The idea of being a son and heir of God and 
 joint heir with Christ beggars all description, 
 and we may well say, "Who can tell?" We 
 often speak or read of wealthy persons as 
 dying rich. But he alone can be said to die 
 rich who, though poor in this world's goods, 
 is yet rich in faith and heir of God's ever- 
 lasting kingdom.] The sufferings which be- 
 
 lievers undergo in this life are not inconsistent 
 with their being fully justified and accepted 
 of God. (17-30.) For— (a) They suffer with 
 Christ that they may be glorified with him. 
 (Ver. 17, last two clauses.) If so be that we 
 suffer AVith him, that we may be also 
 glorified together. (I'hii. 3:io, u: .?Tim. 2:ii, 12.) 
 [The particle — usually meaning that, or, in 
 order that {'iva) — here expresses necessary re- 
 sult. (Winer.) It is only through a fellow- 
 ship or participation in Christ's sufferings that 
 we can have participancy in his resurrection 
 and glory. We desire the glory, but natur- 
 allj- dread the sufferings. " If." saj's Philippi, 
 " God has promised to the doing and suffering 
 of his children, — not, indeed, heaven itself, 
 but a special reward in heaven, — this is not 
 a reward duly earned and merited from a 
 righteous Judge, but unmerited reward from 
 a gracious Father's goodness."] {b) There is 
 an immeasurable disproportion between the 
 present suffering and the future glory. 
 
 18. For I reckon. I myself have em- 
 braced this course, being convinced that, etc. 
 [This reckoning "really contains both I know 
 and am persuaded." (Meyer.) "The word 
 implies a careful estimate, no hasty, super- 
 ficial reckoning." (Boise.) "I have added 
 u.p the items of suffering on the one side of 
 the account and the grace and glory on the 
 other, and, having made the calculation, I 
 now strike the balance and declare the result. 
 On St. Paul's peculiar qualification for making 
 this estim:ite [as to the future glory], see on 
 2 Cor. 12:4." (Wordsworth.) On the apos- 
 tle's acquaintance, previous to the writing of 
 this letter, with the sufferings of this present 
 time, see 2 Cor. 11 : 23-33. Yet he deems these 
 sufferings, when contrasted with an eternal 
 weight of glory, to be but a light and mo- 
 mentary affliction. (2 cor. i: 17.)] That the 
 sufferings of this present time [point of 
 time] are not worthy to be compared 
 with the glory Avhich shall be revealed 
 in us [which shall come up(m us (ds ^Mas) from 
 without. (Meyer.) "The glor^- not merely 
 
 lit is doubtful, however, whether the Jews were 1 writings (8 : 15; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1 : 5), there is no 
 acquainted with any proper adoption. Save in Paul's \ i;to9e<7ia, adoption, in all the Holy Scriptures.— (F.) 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 197 
 
 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature wait- 
 eth for the wanilestatioii of the sous ot God. 
 
 19 which shall he revealed to us-ward. For the earnest 
 exitectalion of the creation waileth for the revealing 
 
 appearing to us, passing before our eyes, but 
 entering into ws, so tliat \vc share it, are trans- 
 formed into the same glorj-." (Boise.) Prof. 
 Boise, we may add, generally seeks to make 
 this preposition express some degree of within- 
 ness]. This 'glory' is tlie future state of ac- 
 knowledged perfection which God designs for 
 men, as in 2 : 7 [compare 1 Peter 5 : 4]. 'Shall 
 be revealed' [not immediately, but in the 
 future] in contrast with this present time. 
 [This contrast of future glory with present 
 suftorings is strongly expressed by the em- 
 phatic position of the word translated 'which 
 shall be revealed' at the beginning of the 
 clause.] See the same thought, expressed 
 with even greater emphasis, in 2 Cor. 4:17. 
 The like thought is beautifully expanded by 
 Bernard, as quoted by Tholuck, " Commentary 
 on Komans," Vol. II., p. 85, Clark's English 
 edition : "Non sunt condignje passiones hujus 
 temporis ad praBteritam culpam, quffi remitti- 
 tur, ad praesentein consolationis gratiam, quae 
 immittitur, ad futuram gloriam quoe promit- 
 titur." "Tlie sufferings of the present time 
 are not wortliy to be compared with the past 
 guilt which is remitted, with the present grace 
 of consolation which is zmmitted, witli the 
 future glory which is ^^romitted." Let the 
 barbarous litoralness of the English be par- 
 doned. It is necessary, in order to show the 
 peculiarit3' of the Latin. 
 
 The greatness of that future glory is seen, 
 (n) in the longing desire for its coming which 
 pervades all nature (ver. 19-22) ; (d) in the simi- 
 lar desire of believers, notwithstanding the 
 bappiness which they enjoy in the present 
 foretastes of that glory, (ver. 23-25.) 
 
 19. For introduces the proof of the tran- 
 scendent nature of this glorj', [or as De Wette 
 and Meyer tiiink, of the ^'certainty of that 
 future manifestation." The present unsatisfied 
 longing of tlie whole creation supposes a better 
 state in which this longing will be satisfied.] 
 The earnest expectation — the word so 
 translated is a very expressive one, used only 
 here and in Phil. 1 : 20. It is borrowed from 
 that upward and forward movement of the 
 
 head which is the natural attitude of eager 
 expectancy. [Godet defines it as "a waiting 
 with the head raised and the eye fixed on 
 that point of the horizon from which the ex- 
 pected object is to come." See also Ellicott 
 on Phil. 1 : 20. According to De "VV'ette and 
 Meyer, it is a waiting expectation rather than 
 an anxious one.] Of the creature — or, bet- 
 ter, as translated in ver. 22, of the creation. 
 This word is very variously explained. We 
 simply remark here, that we understand by 
 it all animate and inanimate nature, as dis- 
 tinguished from mankind, referring to Ap- 
 pendix E, for the vindication of this sense of 
 the word. [This interpretation is adopted by 
 most commentators,' and yet we feel a diflS- 
 culty in thus excluding mankind from this 
 groaning creation. We know that the ground 
 was cursed for man's sake, and though we 
 call this earth beautiful and fair, it is 3'et sin- 
 cursed. 
 
 Some flowrets of Eden (we) still inherit, 
 But the trail of the serpent is over them all. 
 
 We may suppose that this world was made a 
 world of death, and that animals from tlie 
 very first — ages though it be before man was 
 created — were endowed with decaj'ing mortal 
 bodies, on account of sinning and dying man. 
 It may be deemed fitting that a world in- 
 habited by sinful mortals should partake of 
 unrest, decay, dissolution. We may deem 
 that earthquakes, tornadoes, thunder-tem- 
 pests, and other like fearful and destructive 
 natural phenomena belong properly to a 
 world or world-system of disharmony and 
 sin. We are told indeed that lightning, for 
 example, purifies the air and is therefore a 
 blessing. Yes; but we are glad to think that 
 the air of heaven will need no purifying. 
 We also may hold it fitting that this material 
 creation, this earth, steeped as it has been 
 with man's pollution, tears, and blood, should 
 be burned up, renovated, and made a "new 
 earth." But how can man be excluded from 
 the "whole creation"? As Forbes says: 
 "Omit man — the animating centre of the 
 
 > Substantially hy De Wette, Meyer, Philippi, Godet, I animals; Augustine and Turretine of men not yet be- 
 Alford, Ilodge, Boise, and others. Some, as Dr. Ripley, lievers, while some, as Chrysostom, Calvin, and Fritz- 
 think especially of sentient irrational creation, or sche, think only of inanimate creation.— (F.) 
 
198 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 whole — and with what propriety could we 
 speak of the creation or creature being made 
 subject willingly or ' not ivillingly to vanity ' ? 
 Ao^irt^' for deliverance? waiting 'for the mani- 
 festation of the sons of God ? ' " That we now 
 sin willingly and v/illfuUy is no proof that the 
 subjection of our race to vanity, decay, and 
 death was of our choice. And cannot an 
 ' earnest expectation ' be better predicated 
 even of wicked men, in their present state of 
 disquietude and wretchedness, groaning under 
 the burden of sin and longing in their inmost 
 souls for something better,' than of the brute 
 and material creation? Besides, does not the 
 apostle's statement suppose that the creation 
 eventually is to share, not only in some general 
 deliverance at the revelation of the sons of 
 God, but is to share the same deliverance 
 which these experience, and is to be intro- 
 duced even "into the liberty of the glory of 
 the children of God"? The apostle else- 
 where says that the fullness of the Gentiles 
 should be brought in and all Israel should be 
 saved, and hence he can assert, generally, 
 that the creation (of mankind) shall be freed 
 from the bondage of corruption, and shall 
 enjoy the liberty of the glory of God's chil- 
 dren. Dr. Gilford, who defines the word 
 translated 'creature' as "the irrational crea- 
 tion, animate and inanimate," j^et says that 
 "Mankind, therefore, so f:\ras they fulfill their 
 proper destiny, in accordance with the great 
 promise, 'in thy seed shall all the nations of 
 the earth be blessed,' are all included among 
 'the sons of God.' " And the phrase " owr- 
 selves also, which have the first fruits of the 
 Spirit" (ver. 23), naturally implies a contrast, 
 not so much with material creation, stone and 
 earth, or with brute creation, as with human 
 kind who even in their rebellion against God 
 do bitterly experience the unrest and misery 
 of sin, as also the vanity of all earthly things. 
 "The creation was made subject to vanity," 
 and the heart language of every worldling 
 since the days of fallen Adam is "vanity of 
 vanities! all is vanity." "The whole crea- 
 tion" in Mark 16: 15 (compare Col.- 1: 23 
 and Ellicott thereon) to whom the gospel 
 should be preached, is mankind in general, 
 and so if the whole creation here refers to 
 
 mankind generally this does not hinder the 
 distinguishing a part (those who have the 
 first fruits of the Spirit) from the whole. 
 "Where is the impropiety," asks Forbes, "in 
 drawing a distinction between creation (in- 
 cluding all mankind) as a whole, and those 
 who, from their privileges and hopes, might 
 be supposed exempted from the suflTerings and 
 distress common to all others? " Prof Stuart 
 on ver. 22, 23, says : " Not only have mankind 
 in all ages down to the present hour been in 
 a frail and suflTering state, but even we," etc. 
 " The whole human race has sighed and sor- 
 rowed together, until the present time. . . . 
 But suppose now that the natural world is 
 here represented as sighing and sorrowing 
 . . . because it waited for its renovation, . . . 
 was this a thing so familiar to all that, the 
 apostle could appeal to it by saying: we 
 know" ? Prof. Stuart thus refers "the crea- 
 tion" to mankind generally, as also Prof 
 Turner, and in this interpretation they essen- 
 tially follow Augustine, J. Lightfoot, Tur- 
 retin, etc. Some few (as Albert Barnes) refer 
 it to Christians collectively. Olshausen, on 
 the other hand, holds that the apostle extends 
 his look over the ivhole creation inclusive of 
 man, or at least of mankind out of Christian- 
 ity. This also seems to be the view of Lange, 
 Forbes, and SchaflF. The latter says: "The 
 whole creation rational as well as irrational, 
 not yet redeemed, but needing and capable of 
 redemption, here opposed to the new creation 
 in Christ and in the regenerate. The children 
 of God appear, on the one side, as the first 
 fruits of the new creation, and the remaining 
 creatures on the other, as consciously or un- 
 consciously longing after the same redemp- 
 tion and renewal. This explanation seems to 
 be the most correct one. It most satisfactorily 
 accounts for the expressions : expectation, 
 waiting, groaning, not willingly, and, the 
 whole creation." "While favorably inclined 
 to this view, we must yet think that the apostle 
 has the creature man chiefly in mind, other- 
 wise he could not speak as he has without 
 qualification of creation'.s sharing in the future 
 glory of God's children.] Waiteth for the 
 manifestation [in glor3' — literally, the apoc- 
 alijpse] oi the sons of God. 'Awaits the 
 
 'Even a heathen Cicero could exclaim: " Oh, glorious i assemblage of spirits, and quit this troubled and pol- 
 day ! when I shall depart to that divine company and 1 luted scene." (De Senectute, ch. xxiii.)--(F.) 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 199 
 
 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not 
 willingly, but by reasou of biiu who hath subjected the 
 same in hope ; 
 
 20 of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected 
 to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him 
 
 21 who subjected it, i iu hope that the creation itself 
 
 1 Or, in hope ; because the creation, etc. 
 
 revelation' (the same verb and the same 
 noun are used in 1 Cor. 1 : 7 of the mani- 
 festation, or revelation— there translated com- 
 ing— of our Lord Jesus Christ. Compare 1 
 John 3: 2.) [The verb> denotes the receiving 
 of something out of the hands of one who 
 extends it toward us from afar. (Godet. ) 
 Kespecting this manifestation of the sons of 
 God with Christ in glory, see Col. 3: 4.] 
 
 20, 21. The ground of this longing. For 
 the creature was made subject to vanity 
 —that is, to instability, liability to change and 
 decay. [Meyer says this 'vanity,' nothing- 
 ness, "indicates here the empty— (that is, as 
 having lost its primitive purport, which it had 
 hy creation) quality of beuir/, to which 'the 
 creation ' (all nature) was changed from its 
 original perfection. . . . The reference [as 
 by De Wette] to an original 'vanity' intro- 
 duced even by the act of creation is histori- 
 cally inappropriate (Oen. i: 3i), and contrary 
 to 'not willingly,' etc., which supposes a 
 previous state 7iot subject to vanity." Accord- 
 ing to Forbes, the expression : ' made subject 
 to vanity,' " would seem specially to point to 
 the doom pronounced on man: 'Dust thou 
 art and unto dust shalt thou return,' and 
 wliich is embodied in the very name of its 
 first victim (Abel = vanity)." Professors 
 Stuart and Turner refer this vanity to the 
 frail, decaying, dying state of man. The 
 apostle speaks of it further on as "the bondage 
 of corruption." The noun occurs elsewhere 
 in Eph. 4: 17; 2 Peter 2: 18. Trench remarks 
 that this word is altogether strange to profane 
 (ircek (though the adjective form is used), 
 and that the "heathen world was itself too 
 deeply and hopelessly' sunken in 'vanity' to 
 be fully alive to the fact that it was sunken in 
 it at all." If this 'vanitj'' be referred to the 
 irrational creation, then we say .with M. Reuss, 
 " Everywhere our eyes meet images of death 
 
 and decay; the scourge of barrenness, the 
 fury of the elements, the destructive instincts 
 of beasts, the very laws which govern vegeta- 
 tion, everything gives luiture a sombre hue."] 
 Not willingly— all tliese three expressions, 
 ' was made subject' (passive), 'vanity' (not 
 sin), 'not willingly' (without any fault 
 [choice?] on its own part), confirm our inter- 
 pretation of the word ' creation ' ; for they are 
 not such expressions as would naturally be 
 predicated of a free, intelligent, responsible, 
 moral being, whose miser}' was the result of 
 his own guilty choice of evil in preference to 
 good. ' Was made subject to vanity.' When? 
 At the fall of man. (Gen.3: n.is.) But by 
 reason of him — but on account of him ; the 
 antithesis of 'not willingly '—Avho hath sub- 
 jected the same — that is, God: the subject 
 is assumed as well known; if it were any 
 other than God, some explanation would be 
 needed. [Yet some, as Chrysostom, Tholuck, 
 suppose Adam is here referred to, while Ham- 
 mond suggests the name of Satan, tlie prince 
 of this world, and Godet hesitates between 
 these two interpretations.^] In— [literally : 
 ypon] hope — it was not to a hopeless, un- 
 limited doom, that the creation was made 
 subject: the explanation immediately follows. 
 ['Was subjected to vanity' . . . 'upon (or, 
 in) hope.' "Surely this expression must 
 compel us to see that man is he whom the 
 apostle hitherto, down to ver. 22, has princi- 
 pall3' in his mind. . . . Man hi general, we 
 say ; for what else prepared the innumerable 
 multitudes of the heathen, converted by the 
 preaching of the apostles, to listen to the 
 gospel, but the sickening experience they had 
 had of the vanity to which they were left, 
 and the bitter fruits they had reaped from 
 sin? Shut out here, as the prevalent inter- 
 pretation does, the Gentiles and the great 
 body of the unconverted,' and what a strange 
 
 1 '.\it€kS«X*''''"i compounded of the verb Se'xonoi, lo re- 
 ceive, and two prepositions — on-6 from, iic, out of. 
 
 - Winer refers this subjection to the " will and com- 
 mand of God" — (5«a with the accusative) — yet is of 
 
 sin was the proper and direct cause of the ' vanity.'" 
 -(F.) 
 
 s The ftroaninp; of the " unconverted " and their 
 siphing, involuntary and unconscious though it be, for 
 
 opinion that Paul intentionally avoided using Sii with something better, is well expressed by the misanthropic 
 the genitive (equivalent to God subjected it), as" Adam's | Byron (" Childe Harold's Pilgrimage," IV., CXXVI.): 
 
200 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 21 Because the creature itself also shall he delivered 
 from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty 
 of the children of God. 
 
 2.i For we know that the whole creation groaneth 
 and travaileth in pain together until now. 
 
 also shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup- 
 tion into the liberty of the glory of the children of 
 
 22 God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth 
 
 23 and travaileth in pain i together until now. And 
 
 omission is attributed to St. Paul ! . . . The 
 natural, material world is brought into marked 
 prominence, but the world of perishing 7nen 
 is left out ! " (Forbes) ] Because [in the Ke- 
 vised Version, that, expressing not the reason 
 of the hope but its .substance] the creature 
 itself also— this expression (especially the 
 ■words itself ^nd also) intimates a descending 
 from the more to the less noble, which accords 
 with what follows — shall be delivered from 
 the bondage of corruption (and admitted) 
 into the glorious liberty of the children 
 of God. ["The freedom [from decay and 
 death] is described as consisting in, belonging 
 to, being one component part of, the glorified 
 state of the children of God." (Alford.) So 
 corruption is in the genitive of apposition, 
 indicating that the bondage consists in cor- 
 ruption. It is obvious to remark that general 
 expressions relating to the restoration or 
 future glorification of the creation or of all 
 things (2Cor. 5: 19; Erh.i: 10; Col. 1: 20), are Some- 
 times to be limited, as is evident from such 
 passages as Matt. 17: 11, "Elijah indeed 
 oorneth, and shall restore all things." Kevised 
 Version.] There seems to be here a pregnant 
 intimation, that the inanimate and irrational 
 creation is to participate, in some unexplained 
 way, and in such degree as its nature allows, 
 in the future glory of God's redeemed people. 
 We shall find this intimation confirmed in 
 the following verse. [In accordance with this 
 view is the remark of Bengel : " Misfortunes 
 have accrued to the creature from sin ; repa- 
 ration will accrue to the creature from the 
 glory of the sons of God." In Godet's view 
 the inanimate and irrational creation will 
 participate not in the glory, but only in the 
 liberty of the glory of God's children. But 
 as their bondage was corruption, so the free- 
 dom into which they will be introduced will 
 consist in their participation in the glory of 
 
 the children of God. Whatever this creation 
 is, it will be glorified in the same manner as 
 the children of God will be glorified, and this 
 supposes that the creation chiefly referred to, 
 or "mankind in general," will yet become 
 children and heirs of God. Even Meyer 
 concedes that the creation will participate in 
 a glory like that of God's children.] 
 
 22. For introduces the proof of what is 
 afiRrmed in ver. 21. 'For' the groaning and 
 travailing in which all nature unites cannot 
 be without a meaning and an aim. It pre- 
 supposes and heralds a coming deliverance, 
 and so Ave know that such a deliverance is 
 predestined. [So Meyer, while, in De Wette's 
 view, Paul would prove the afiBrmation of ver. 
 19, 20 by appealing to a generally conceded 
 truth.] The Avhole creation groaneth 
 and travaileth in pain together. All the 
 parts of this complex creation unite (this is 
 the meaning of 'together') in this sad utter- 
 ance. A bold and impressive figure of speech. 
 That last verb, 'travaileth,' suggests, as do 
 other prophetic Scriptures, the birth [with its 
 attendant suffering] of a new creation. See 
 Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Matt. 19:28; Acts 3 : 21 ; 
 2 Peter 3 : 13 ; Eev. 21:1,5. Until now. This 
 expression strengthens our interpretation, for 
 it would not be appropriate if referred to the 
 sufferings of Chiistians; it points too far back 
 to a state of things that has lo7ig existed. 
 [The connection of earth's sorrows and of 
 earth's redemption with 'the whole creation,' 
 if taken in a literal sense, lies beyond our 
 present comprehension. In our finiteness, 
 who can understand and explain the universe? 
 Compared with this illimitable universe, this 
 world is less than a speck of dust, and we that 
 creep upon earth's surface are as nothing. 
 It seems to us almost like vanity, and like 
 acting the part of the fly in the stage coach, 
 to suppose that our little selves are of much 
 
 Our life is a false nature — 'tis not in 
 
 The harmony of things — this hard decree, 
 
 This uneradicable taint of sin, 
 
 This boundless Upas, this all-blasting tree, 
 
 Whose root is earth, whose leaves and branches be 
 
 The skies which rain their plagues on man like dew, . 
 Disease, death, bondage, all the woes we see. 
 And worse, the woes we see not, which throb through 
 The immedicable soul, with heart-aches ever new. 
 
 -(F.) 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 201 
 
 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have 
 the tirstf'ruits of "the Spirit, even we ourselves groan 
 within o'irselves, waitiug for the adoption, to uit<, the 
 redemption of our body. 
 
 not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first- 
 fruils of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within 
 ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to u-it, the re- 
 
 coiisequence in tlie universe, or that tlie uni- 
 verse is so much iiffected by our misdeeds and 
 sufferings, and by what our Suviuur has done 
 and will do for us in the matter of our re- 
 demption. What is man that the infinite 
 Creator and the whole creation should be 
 mindful of him or interested in him? Yet 
 the Scriptures lead us to believe that the in- 
 terest of creation is centred around, and that, 
 to some extent, its welfare is dependent upon, 
 the one great event for the created universe; 
 namely, the redemption of this earth by the 
 Lord of Glory, together with the eternal glori- 
 fication of the redeemed. See especially Col. 
 1:20; Eph. 1 : lO.i In Chalmers' "Astro- 
 nomical Discourses," our readers will find 
 much interesting speculation on a supposed 
 connection of earth's redemption with the 
 interests of the universe. See also Andrew 
 Fuller's "The Gospel its own Witness," Part 
 II., Chapter V.] 
 
 23. And not only they, but ourselves 
 also, which have, etc. (literally, having) — 
 that is, not only does the whole creation groan 
 and travail together. It will be observed that 
 the word ' they ' is not in the original. ["The 
 te.\t here (ver. 23) 1$ in inextricable confusion, 
 but the sense very little affected." (Alford.) 
 Some readings seem to make a distinction 
 between those having the Spirit and 'our- 
 selves.' According to Meyer, "The participle 
 having, without the article, is fatal to every 
 reference to subjects of two sorts."] 'But 
 ourselves also,' — that is. Christians, — Avhich 
 have the firstfruits of the Spirit. 'First- 
 fruits,' in distinction from subsequent gifts of 
 the Spirit to later Christians, because it was a 
 special privilege of the earliest Christians to 
 receive that Spirit first. But this does not 
 imply anj'thing in the quality of the gift 
 superior to that communication of the Spirit 
 which all Christians shared in common. 
 
 [Some— as Bengel, AViner, Godet— regard the 
 Spirit as in the genitive of apposition (as in 
 the phrase: earnest of the Spirit), mai<ing the 
 Spirit equivalent to the first fruits of God's 
 gracious gifts. Usage, however, seems to re- 
 quire the genitive partitive, "as is involved 
 in the very meaning of first fruits. Compare 
 16 : 5 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 20; 16 : 15; James 1 : 18." 
 (Mej'er.) But we need not suppose, as Dr. 
 Arnold and many others— Olshausen, Meyer, 
 Giff'ord, Turner — have done, that the apostle 
 has reference here to the reception of the 
 Spirit by the ^''earliest Christians,'' but may 
 rather regard — with Tlioluck, Philippi, and 
 others — this first fruits (on-opx^) of the Spirit as 
 the^7-s^/>flr< of a subsequent '"full harvest of 
 spiritual blessings." The gift of the Spirit is 
 here regarded as an earnest or pledge of the 
 fullness of the Spirit's blessings which is yet 
 to be imparted. Compare Eph. 1:14; 2 Cor. 
 1 : 22.] Groan within ourselves. Not 
 groaning before men, but in the recesses of 
 our own hearts, known only to God. ["The 
 reader will not fail to recognize in this pas- 
 sage the very lamentation that is uttered else- 
 where: 'O wretched man that I am! who 
 shall deliver me from the body of this 
 death?'" (Chaltners.) Compare the groan- 
 ing utterances of 2 Cor. 5 : 2, 4, penned but a 
 short time before writing this Epistle. In the 
 reflexive pronoun rendered 'ourselves,' the 
 third person plural is used for the first. This 
 interchange of the third person for the first 
 and second persons plural is a somewhat fre- 
 quent usage in the New Testament, and is 
 found in Greek authors. (AViner, 150.)] 
 Waiting for ["expecting in full "( Boise)] the 
 adoption^ [in its full manifestation], to wit, 
 the redemption of our body. The eman- 
 cipation [not from our body, but] of our body 
 from the defects and disadvantages of its 
 earthly condition ["from sufferings and sins, 
 
 1 Ellicott, on Col. 1 : 20, thus remarks : "How the rec- 
 onciliation of Christ affects the .spiritual world, . . . 
 we know not and dare not speculate. This, however, 
 we may fearlessly as.sert, — that the eflRcacy of the sacri- 
 fice of the Eternal .Son is infinite and limitless, that it 
 extends to all thinps in earth and heaven, and that it 
 is the blessed medium by which, between God and his 
 
 creatures, whether angelical, human, animate, or inani- 
 mate, peace is wrought." — 'F.) 
 
 2D F G omit the word 'adoption,' which, perhaps, 
 was regarded as already possessed, and hence was inap- 
 propriate here. The article is probably omitted on ac- 
 count of its "connection with an opposition" (Winer), 
 or "on account of its preceding its verb for emphasis' 
 sake." (Alford.)— (F.) 
 
202 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 24 For we are saved by hope : but hope that is seen I 24 demption of our body. For i -n hope were we saved : 
 is not hope; for what a mau seeth, why doth he yet but hope that is seen is not hope: 2 for who 3 hopeth 
 
 hope for? 25 for that which he seeth? But if we hope for that 
 
 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we 
 with patience wait for il. 
 
 -■' we hope for that 
 
 which we see not, then do we with •'patience wait 
 fur it. 
 
 1 Or, by 2 Many ancieut uutborities read /or what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope fort 3 Snme aucieat authoiicies read 
 
 awaiteth 4 Or, sted/astness. 
 
 from Satan and from death"] at the resurrec- 
 tion, and its transformation into the likeness 
 of Christ's glorious body, will be the crown- 
 ing act of our redemption and the crowning 
 proof of our adoption, (i Cor. 10:26,54.) ["Be- 
 loved, now are we children of God (that is, 
 have received the adoption), and it is not yet 
 made manifest what we shall be. We know, 
 tliat if he shall be manifested we shall be like 
 him" (1 John 3:2, Revised veision), and the bodies 
 of our humiliation shall be fashioned anew so 
 as to be conformed to the body of his glory. 
 (Phil. 3:21.) The Scripturcs regard it as no light 
 matter that our bodies have been made instru- 
 ments of sin and have been subjected to dis- 
 ease, decay, death, and corruption. Some per- 
 sons speak lightly of death, but the Scriptures 
 never do this, neither can we when we feel 
 at all the solemnity of so great and so untried 
 a change, coming home to us personally and 
 taking us, as it were, all to pieces; when, 
 moreover, we realize how deep and universal 
 is the dread of death or "dread of something 
 after death," or when we think of the physical 
 j)ains and mental agonies, the sad changes 
 and disappointments, the tie sunderings and 
 the tears, which are the accompaniments of 
 death. To the true believer, death has, in- 
 deed, lost its chiefest sting, and it will be to 
 him a gain. Still, death is sent upon all men 
 as a punishment for sin, and is in itself a fear- 
 ful and dreaded enemy. And there is enough 
 of the bitterness of death remaining even to 
 the Christian, for it still to be regarded as 
 an enemy. And so, in one sense, the poet's 
 words are true: 
 
 Not all the preaching since Adam 
 Has made Death other than Death. 
 
 How glorious will it be when we shall have 
 passed safely beyond its power; yea, when 
 Death itself, the last enemy, shall be brought 
 to nought, and our bodies shall be fully and 
 forever redeemed from the bondage of Satan 
 and from the effects of sin !] 
 
 24. For we are saved by hope. 'For' 
 points to the ground of their awaiting the 
 adoption— namely, that its full consummation 
 
 is yet in the future, and therefore an object of 
 expectation : For in hope we were made par- 
 takers of salvation [and "by hope the Chris- 
 tian can even now regard himself as saved." 
 (Weiss.)] The verb is in the past tense. 
 "Hope is, in fact, faith in its prospective atti- 
 tude." (Tholuck.) (Heb.ii:i.) [The Canter- 
 bury Kevision retains the by of our Common 
 Version. "The dative, not of the means, but 
 of the manner." (Bengel.) That is, we were 
 saved, not by hope, but in hope. "In gen- 
 eral," says Meyer, "Paul specifically distin- 
 guishes faith and hope, while he alwaj's bases 
 salvation only on faith."] But hope that is 
 seen [that is, whose object is before our eyes 
 and within our grasp] is not hope. For 
 what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope 
 for? The nature of hope involves our pa- 
 tiently waiting for the good hoped for. 
 ''^With vision, hope is needless." (Bengel.) 
 The little word translated 'yet' (literallj-: 
 and, also, even), when connected — as here — 
 with an interrogative, conveys a sense of the 
 utter superfluity of the thing. [The Revisers' 
 text, it will be seen, reads somewhat differ- 
 ently.] 
 
 25. But if we hope for that we see not. 
 [The verb 'see not,' as also 'seeth' in the pre- 
 ceding verse, is made emphatic in the original 
 by its position at the head of the clause.] 
 Then do we with patience wait for it. 
 'Patience,' or endurance, is the state in which 
 and through which this waiting takes place. 
 [The verb 'wait' refers back to the participle 
 'waiting' in ver. 23.] The preposition trans- 
 lated ' with ' is more usually and more exactl3' 
 translated through; the conception seems to 
 be of a local character, in accordance with 
 the most literal primitive sense of the word 
 through, the time of waiting being regarded 
 as an intervening space between the first ex- 
 pectation and the full fruition of the object 
 hoped for. Compare note on 2 : 27. [See also 
 Heb. 12:1: Let us through patience run the 
 race set before us. Winer makes these ex- 
 pressions refer to "the state of mind in which 
 one does something," thus retaining some 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 203 
 
 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirinitics: 
 for we know uot what we should pray for as we ought: 
 
 26 And iu like manner the Spirit also helpeth our 
 intjriuity : for we know not how to i)ray as we 
 
 idea of instrumentality. The present tense 
 of these verbs denotes that which is continued 
 or hiibitual, — we hope, or are hoping; we 
 wait for it, or "we continue expecting it in 
 full." (Boise.)] 
 
 (c) Suitable spiritual supports are afforded 
 them while these sullerings continue, (ver. 
 
 26. 27. ) 
 
 20. "The progress of thought i? simple. 
 If we hope for that we see not, then the matter 
 stands with us (1) on the footing that we 
 with patience wait, but likewise (2) on the 
 footing that the Spirit helps us. The likewise 
 introduces a symmetrical corresjionding rela- 
 tion, which is added, on the divine side, to our 
 waiting." (Mej-er. ) ["As the apo-^^tle had 
 passed from the groaning of universal nature 
 to that of the children of God, he now rises 
 from the latter to that of the Holy Spi rit him- 
 self" (Godet.)] Likewise the (Holy) Spirit 
 also helpeth our infirmities (joins his ac- 
 tivity with our weakness) in waiting for final 
 redemption. The absence of adequate power 
 in ourselves for this patient waiting is plainly 
 implied.^ Alford: "The Spirit helps our 
 weakne.ss, — helps us who are weak." The 
 singular, infirmity, is doubtless the correct 
 rending, being supported by the uncials N A 
 BCD. For we know not [literally, /o?- the 
 vihat we should pray as it is proper, we know 
 not. The neuter article at the head of this 
 clause gives it a "substantival character," and 
 renders it more prominent. (Winer, 109.) 
 On the use of the interrogative subjunctive, 
 see Winer, 299.] 'For' assigns the reason 
 whj' the Spirit intercedes. As we ou§rht. 
 "According to the present and ever-varying 
 needs" would be a good paraphrase for the 
 brief but comprehensive Greek phrase. Illus- 
 trations of the truth of the proposition here 
 stated are abundant. For example: Abra- 
 ham interceding for Sodom (oen. 18:23-33) ; 
 Moses for permission to enter Canaan (oeut. 
 
 3:23-27) ; Paul fof the rcmoval of the thorn in 
 the flesh (2 cor. 12 : 8, 9) ; Augustine's mother, 
 that her son might not go to Rome (yet his 
 going there led to his going to Milan, where 
 he was converted). It was a saying of Py- 
 thagoras, that "men ought not to pray for 
 themselves on account of their not knowing 
 what is expedient for them." [The soul of 
 our Redeemer, as we read in John 12 : 27, was 
 once troubled or perplexed in regard to the 
 definite object which should be prayed for. 
 Yet whatever bis desired petition might biive 
 been, he was always enabled to add : "Father, 
 glorify thy name," and "Not my will but 
 thine be done." Should not every right 
 prayer be accompanied by these words? 
 Certainly the Spirit 'helpeth' our infirmit3-, 
 and though it is not here supposed that he 
 gives us words to speak, yet it is possible that 
 he may at times "indite" our petitions and 
 give us assurance that they will be fully an- 
 swered. Yet I think that these cases are of 
 rare occurrence, and that the Christian is 
 seldom assured by tiie Spirit that the bringing 
 to pass of his will would be best for him or 
 for others, or would be the most for God's 
 glory, and that his prayers will thus be an- 
 swered to the letter. We know of no test 
 that will enable us uniformly to distinguish 
 between the Spirit's assurance and mere self- 
 assurance. We do know that many most 
 devoted Christians have been deceived on this 
 point. They have firmly believed, they have 
 had full assurance, j-et God has not answered 
 their praj'ers in the way and form desired. 
 How much better to leave the answer of our 
 petitions with God, who, knowing what is 
 best, will do for us what is best! Indeed, it 
 would seem to be supremely selfish for the 
 believer to desire that his will should always 
 be regarded in heaven, or to feel that his 
 prayers (save as he says, "Thy will be done") 
 must always be answered to the very letter.]* 
 
 1 "The verh," says Godet, "is one of those admirable 
 words easily formed by the (ireek language: Aafi^o- 
 vcdBai. (middle), to take a burden on oneself; vvv, u-ith 
 some one; avri, in his place. So: To share a burden 
 with one with the view of easing him. Compare Luke 
 10:40. . . . The Spirit supports us in the hour when 
 we are ready to faint." — (F.) 
 
 - Never were more or (perhaps) truer prayers offered 
 up throughout Christendom for the life of any man 
 
 than for that of the late President Garfield. But prayer 
 did not save him. And yet many Christians were fully 
 persuaded that in answer to so much earnest praying 
 his life would be spared, and some went so far as to 
 assert that his recovery might properly be regarded as 
 a fair prayer test in contrast to that suggested by Prof. 
 Tyndall. But did not such persons take too much lor 
 granted ; namely, that his recovery from the assassin's 
 shot would be for his own highest good, for the greatest 
 
204 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 but the Spirit itself maketh intercessioQ for us with 
 groauings wliich cannot be uttered. 
 
 27 And he that seaicheth the hearts knoweth what 
 is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh interces- 
 sion for the saints according to the will of God. 
 
 ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercessiou for 
 
 27 us with groauings which cannot be uttered; and 
 
 he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the 
 
 mind of the Spirit, i because he maketh intercession 
 
 2S for the saints according to Ike will of (jod. And we 
 
 But the Spirit itself. Plainly the Holy 
 Spirit, and so confirmatory of the same appli- 
 Ciition of the same plirase in ver. 16. Maketh 
 intercession for us [another compound of 
 three words] > with groanings which can- 
 not be uttered. The words 'for us' have 
 not sufficient manuscript support. These un- 
 uttered groanings,^ though traceable to the 
 Holy Spirit, take place within our hearts, 
 agreeably to ver. 23 ('groan within ourselves' ). 
 Compare "joy unspeakable" in 1 Peter 1 : 8, 
 where the opposite emotion is characterized 
 by an adjective, differing very slightly in the 
 original from the one used here. Bengel re- 
 marks: "On both sides believers have those 
 who groan with them and make common 
 cause with them ; below them the whole crea- 
 tion (ver. 22), above them the Spirit." Wick- 
 liffe's version of this passage is a quaint speci- 
 men of the English of his day: "The Spirit 
 axeth for us with sorwinge, that moun not be 
 telde out." [The Spirit as another "Helper" 
 or "Advocate" — Common and also Revised 
 Version, "Comforter" — (John i4: is) intercedes 
 with God for us, and "uses the human organ 
 for his sighing, as he likewise does elsewhere 
 for his speaking. Matt. 10:20; see also on 
 Gal. 4:6." (Meyer.) " The Holy Spirit .. . 
 himself pleads in our prayers, raising us to 
 higher and holier desires than we can express 
 in words, which can only find utterance in 
 sighings and aspirations." (Alford.) 01s- 
 hausen, Lange, Stuart, Hodge, and others, 
 take this intercessory groaning, inthe manner 
 of Augustine, in a subjective sense, regarding 
 it as our groaning incited by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Many, however, refer this groaning to the 
 intercession of the objective Holy Spirit 
 dwelling in us. This interceding of the Spirit 
 of God in us, with groauings for God's help 
 in our behalf, is something we cannot compre- 
 hend, but in one point of view it seems akin 
 to the suffering and intercession of our di%ine 
 Lord, if not in us, yet in the flesh, "for us 
 men and for our salvation." Philippi says : 
 "To suppose a sighing of the Spirit himself 
 without mediation of man's spirit, is alike 
 without meaning and Biblical analogy. . . . 
 In the intimate marriage of God's Spirit with 
 man's spirit, an incarnation of the former, as 
 it were, takes place. The distinction between 
 the intercession of the Spirit and the interces- 
 sion of Christ is chiefly to be found in this, — 
 that Christ intercedes without us, in and by 
 himself, but the Spirit in and by us; Christ 
 by the prevalence of his own merit, the Spirit 
 on the ground of the merit of Christ."] 
 
 27. And (now) he that searcheth the 
 hearts — this is an Old Testament description 
 
 of God (l Sam. 16: 7; 1 Kiilgs 8: a9; P.s. 7: 9; Piov. 15: 11 ; 
 
 jer. 11: 20; 17: 9, 10), and Specially appropriate 
 here, because it is in the heart thtit the 'un- 
 uttered groanings' take place. Compare Gal. 
 4: 6. Knoweth what is the mind ' of the 
 Spirit — that is, of the Holy Spirit, as is re- 
 quired alike by the connection and by the 
 usage in ver. 6, 7. Because he maketh 
 intercession, etc. [Philippi gives this para- 
 phrase: "As the Searcher of hearts, God 
 knows what is the mind of the Spirit; and he 
 i knows it also because the Spirit intercedes for 
 the saints in a way agreeable to God; " sinii- 
 
 good. of the nation, and for the special glory of God? 
 And did not some in their prayers fail to add : " Never- 
 theless, not my will but thine be done"? But did all 
 those prayers wholly fail of an answer? We think 
 not. The particular blessings (as we deemed them) 
 which were asked for were denied, but equivalent bless- 
 ings were doubtless sent, or will be sent, in their stead, 
 just as in the case of Paul's prayer for the removal of 
 the thorn in his flesh. See 2 Cor. 12 : 7-9, and compare 
 Rom. 1 : 10 ; 15 : 31, 32 ; see also notes on 15 : 32. Quite 
 apt are the words of Shakespeare on this point: 
 We, ignorant of ourselves, 
 Beg often our own harms, which the wise Powers 
 
 Deny us for our good. So find we profit 
 By losing of our prayers. 
 
 — "Ant. and Cleop.," Act II., Scene I. — (F.) 
 
 1 The compounds of vnip — over, in behalf of, beyond 
 (Latin : super)— are nearly all found iu Paul's epistles. 
 See ver. 37.— (F.) 
 
 2 aAaAjjTos is by most commentators rendered inex- 
 pressible — that is, "groans which cannot be expressed 
 in words." (Noyes.) — (F.) 
 
 ^ ippovYitia (the result of thinking), thought, purpose, 
 meaning, occurs four times and only in this Epistle. — 
 (F.) 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 205 
 
 '>8 \nd we know that all things work together for I know that to them that love God i all things work 
 
 1 Soiii^ iinciciit autlioriiies read God ivorketh all things with them for good. 
 
 larly De Wette and Alford.] According to 
 the will of (iod— literally, according to God. 
 The idea is fully and correctly expressed in 
 our version, though the words, 'the will,' do 
 not stand in the original. [Winer objects to 
 the expression interceding 'according to the 
 will of God,' because "of the Spirit no differ- 
 ent intercession can be thought of." Hence he 
 interprets the phrase (Ka-ra dehv) 'toward God,' 
 'before God.' But this seems somewhat 
 strained, and to make the apostle here simply 
 to affirm that the Searcher of liearts knows that 
 the Spirit intercedes before him for saints is, 
 in the words of Dr. Hodge, "making the 
 verse say comparatively little."] For (the) 
 saints— that is, for holy persons, instead of 
 'for us ' as in ver. 26 [Common Version]. 
 
 28. And [or, moreover] we know— not 
 merely by divine promise, but by present 
 consciousness: to them that love God— 
 this is no unusual way of designating true 
 
 Christians. (l Cor. 2:9; 8: S; James 1 : 12.) The 
 
 emphatic position of these words, in the orig- 
 inal Greek, intiuuvtes that this assurance is the 
 peculiar privilege of those that possess this 
 character.i That [a new motive for ' patience,' 
 ver. '2)1 all things work together for good 
 — 'all tilings,' with special reference to suffer- 
 ings, afflictions, persecutions, calamities, etc., 
 ' work together,' are conspiring harmonious- 
 ly ; [Westcott and Hort adopt here the read- 
 ing of A B given in the margin of the Kevised 
 Version, "God worketh all things with them 
 for good"; and Pauline usage would cer- 
 tainly favor the use here of a personal subject; 
 see Buttmann, 193.] 'For good'— to a good 
 result; for a benevolent and happy end: our 
 
 sanctitication and perfection.* [Compare 1 
 Cor. 3 : 21, 22. How great the consolation to 
 feel that our sorest afflictions can be put 
 among the 'all things' which will contribute 
 to our good. Indeed, so comprehensive is 
 this unlimited 'all things' that some include 
 in it all that transpires under the universal 
 government and providence of God, and 
 Augustine went so far as to make the sins of 
 believers conducive to their welfare— making 
 them "more humble and docile"; but this 
 consideration is evidently foreign to the apos- 
 tle's line of thought. Still there is this truth 
 in Augustine's view— namely, tliat the sorrows 
 which our sins have brought upon us can be 
 sanctified for our good. Only as we love God 
 and liave been called according to his pur- 
 pose, can we truly say : 
 
 Blessed be God for all, 
 
 For all things here below : 
 For every loss and every cross 
 
 To my advantage grow.] 
 
 To them who are the called according 
 to his purpose. [" Who called us with a 
 holy calling, not according to our works" — 
 actual or foreseen, not primarily by our own 
 act and will— "but according to his own pur- 
 pose and grace which was given us in Christ 
 Jesus before times eternal." l2Tim.i:9,Eev. ver.) 
 The word 'purpose' (np69«Tii) save in one in- 
 stance (2 Tim. 3: 10) is in Paul's writings alwaj'S 
 used of God's "eternal purpose." Compare 9: 
 11; Eph.l : (9), 11; 3: 11. This callingof God, 
 connected as it is with his immutable purpose, 
 "the purpose of the ages" (see Eph. 3: 11, 
 Revised Version, margin), and "according to 
 
 1 <^'\yaitav denotes love as a direction of the will, dili- 
 gere. . . . <l>i.l^('ti' (denoting the love ofatrection, friend- 
 ship) is never used of the love of men toward God (but 
 see 1 Cor. IG; 22). Love to God or our neighbor as a 
 commrmd is unheard of in the profane writers; this 
 love again is always expressed by ayairav." [And Prof. 
 Jowett says: "No Greek or Roman ever had the con- 
 sciousness of love toward bis god."] ' ' 'AyoTrai' and never 
 ,i>iK(lv is used oT love toward our enemies. . . . The 
 range of </)iAeI«' is wider than that of ayairav, but ivaTroi' 
 stands all the higher labove (fn^eiv on account of its 
 moral- import." " ■.\YaT7), a word formed perhaps by 
 the LXX. as a companion to oYonai', and wholly un- 
 
 known in the classics, became in New Testament lan- 
 guage the distinctive designation of holy and divine 
 love, while the Greeks knew only tpw?. <^iAia, and 
 CTTopyr)." (Crenier.) See also notes on .1 : .i. ■.\Ya)75v 
 occurs some 142 times in the New Testament, <i)iAerv 
 2.1 times. — (F.) 
 
 2 It was an ingenious and exhaustive textual divi- 
 sion of his subject which a certain preacher made in 
 discoursing from this text on " The Providence of God." 
 It is 1. Universal— "all things." 2. Operative— " work." 
 3. Harmonious — "together." 4. Benevolent —" for 
 good." 0. Special—" to them that love God." 
 
206 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predesti- 
 nate to be conformed to the image of his Sod, that he 
 might be the tirstborn among many bretlireu. 
 
 he also foreordained to he conformed to the image 
 of his Son, that he might be the tirstborn among 
 
 election" (Rom.siii) which was "before the 
 foundation of the world" (Eph. i; 4), even "the 
 purpose of him who worketh all things after 
 the counsel of his own will" (Epa. i : n), cannot 
 of course be made in vain. To what or for 
 what great things we are called of God may be 
 seen in 1 Cor. 1 : 9; 1 Thess. 2: 12; 2 Thess. 
 2 : 14 ; 1 Tim. 6 : 12 ; 1 Peter 5 : 10. Obviously 
 those who love God have in their heavenly 
 calling additional evidence that all things 
 will contribute to their good.] Thus another 
 characteristic of true Christians is added: not 
 only do they love God ; they are also 'called 
 according to his purpose' : the former is the 
 etfect and proof of the latter. It is quite in 
 accordance with the style of Scripture and of 
 common life to put that first which is tangible, 
 practical, phenomenal, and then that which is 
 back of it, and the cause of it, and so logically 
 precedent. See 10: 9; 2 Thess. 2 : 13, etc. 
 ["As this purpose antedates creation, it must 
 be froin and in himself alone, for, ' with 
 whom took he counsel ? ' Before the creation 
 it must obviously have been for the Creator 
 alone to determine what orders of being to 
 create, and what individuals, with what capaci- 
 ties to endue each, in what relations and cir- 
 cumstances to place him, and what issues to 
 bring about in regard to him. The objects to 
 be subserved by the existence of each and to 
 be effected by the divine administration 
 toward him, depended on God's sovereign 
 pleasure." (Ripley.)] 
 
 29. For — this verse and the following em- 
 phatically confirm ver. 28, showing that the 
 divine ' purpose,' advancing by regular steps 
 to its fulfillment, leads 'the called' surely to 
 glory : whom he did foreknow, he also 
 did predestinate (or, foreordained). [The 
 word 'predestinate' is derived from the Vul- 
 gate jorcet/es^inawi^, through the Bishop's Bible 
 and Rheims Version. The phrase "'before 
 ordeyned'' occurs in Wickliffe's Version.] 
 Foreknowledge and foreordination must, ac- 
 cording to the structure of the context, be 
 regarded as successive steps in the carrying 
 out of the eternal 'purpose.' We may con- 
 ceive of God as exercising his omniscience in 
 surveying men, and selecting, on principles 
 and for reasons known only to himself, but 
 
 dictated by his consummate wisdom and good- 
 ness, whom he would ordain to eternal life. 
 And so the foreknowledge may be conceived 
 of as distinct from the foreordination, and 
 logically antecedent to it. [The word fore- 
 know — containing " the idea of decision as 
 well as foreknowledge" (Boise, — occurs five 
 times in the New Testament. In two places 
 
 (Acts 26: 5; 2 Peter 3: 17), it signifies prCVioUS 
 
 knowledge on the part of men. In the other 
 instances, here, and 11 : 2, and 1 Peter 1 : 20, 
 it denotes the foreknowledge which existed in 
 God "before the foundation of the world"' 
 (compare Rev. 17: 8), and which, as here 
 represented, was the ground of his predestina- 
 tion. The noun, foreknowledge, occurs but 
 twice (Acts 2: 23; 1 Peter 1 : 2), and is associated with 
 the determinate counsel and election of God. 
 The divine foreknowledge, as many think, 
 denotes not simply prescience, but an appro- 
 bation or choice from beforehand. " To fore- 
 know," says Cremer, "is 'to unite oneself 
 before with some one,' compare Rom. 11 : 2. 
 ' God has not cast away his people with whom 
 he had joined himself — that is, before this 
 union was historically realized." On our pass- 
 age he says : " The context suggests the union 
 of the divine foreknowledge with the divine 
 purpose. As this latter word denotes God' s sav- 
 ing decree preceding and forming the founda- 
 tion of its temporal realization, so to foreknow 
 denotes the divine knowing as already present 
 in the divine decree before its manifestation 
 in history, ... so that to foreknow corre- 
 sponds with the choosing before the foundation 
 of the world, which in Eph. 1 : 4 precedes [?] 
 the foreordination just as foreknow does here. 
 Foreknowing, however, essentially includes 
 a self-determining on God's part to this fellow- 
 ship (whom God had beforehand entered into 
 fellowship with), whereas the choosing merely 
 expresses a determining directed to the objects 
 of the fellowship." Meyer and others ignore 
 any approving beforehand or any appropriat- 
 ing cognizance in the signification of this 
 word, and make it mean sitnplj' to know before- 
 hand; "He foreknew them ; namely, as those 
 who should one day, in the waj^ of the divine 
 plan of salvation, be conformed to the image 
 of his Son," or as Godet (with a less degree 
 
Ch. VIIL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 207 
 
 of Piuilinism) 1ms it: "whom God knew 
 beforeliund as certain to believe." The mere 
 logical faculty would be well content with 
 this affirmation, that God foreknew those 
 whom he iiad purposed to save. "It is evi- 
 dent on theone hand," says Dr. Hodge, "that 
 foreknowledge (Trpoyvwo-is) expresses something 
 more than the prescience of which all men 
 and all events are the objects, and, on the 
 other, something different from the predesti- 
 nation expressed by the following word. . . . 
 The foreknowledge, therefore, expresses the 
 act of cognition or recognition, the fixing, so 
 to speak, the mind upon, which involves the 
 idea of selection." And this selection or 
 choice is based not on any foreseen meritorious 
 . act of those chosen, but on the good pleasure 
 and purpose of the chooser. " Far be it from 
 us," says Augustine, "to ascribe the choice 
 to the clay instead of the potter." Our Lord 
 m&y say to all his disciples: "Ye did not 
 
 choose me, but I chose you," (JohnlD: le, Revised 
 
 Version), and Paul's query: "Who niaketh 
 thee to differ? " can only be answered in one 
 ■way. That this election or choice does not 
 depend on God's foreknowledge of our faith 
 or goodness is also evident from the declara- 
 tion of the same apostle, that we were chosen 
 in Christ "before the foundation of the world 
 that we should be holy." Hee Eph. 1: 4. 
 " The divine foreknowledge," says Dr. Weiss, 
 "is certainly not a foreknowledge of faith 
 •which he himself produces, but of a recep- 
 tivity by which he alone can and will work 
 faith." This writer does not state how this 
 "receptivity" was foreknown. In the passage 
 before us foreknowledge precedes the divine 
 predestination, and so, in the phrase: "elect 
 according to the foreknowledge of God" 
 (1 Peter 1: 2), the foreknowledge sccms to precede 
 the election. Yet many theologians make 
 God's foreknowledge to depend upon his 
 decree. "If God foresees events, he must 
 have predetermined them." (Hale.) "God 
 could not foreknow that things would be, 
 unless he had decreed they should be." (Ed- 
 wards.) "The foundation of the foreknowl- 
 edge of an event as certainly future is God's 
 decree that made it future." (A. A. Hodge.) 
 Omniscience certainly cannot foreknow a 
 thing which is contingent, which may be or 
 maj- not be. There must be an absolute cer- 
 tainty as to the existence of anj' future event. 
 
 though this sure event may be and is coupled 
 with free, voluntary, responsible, action. We 
 may purpose and determine to build a house 
 at such a time and place, but we cannot fore- 
 know the existence of that house, unless its 
 existence is certain, and we in some way 
 are made sure of its certainty. God's fore- 
 knowledge is of course different from ours. 
 With him there is properly no lapse of time, 
 no succession, no before or after ; his knowl- 
 edge is present, immediate, complete, yet it 
 cannot dispense with this certainty. And in 
 reference to human events happening in time 
 we must speak as the Scriptures do, of God's 
 /oreknowing. But his foreknowledge and his 
 predetermination are in fact co-ordinate and 
 eternal. He cannot decree anything without 
 knowing about that thing, and he cannot fore- 
 know anything without decreeing it. Fore- 
 knowledge and foreordination involve each 
 other. Foreknowledge in itself may not 
 cause the certainty of future events, but it is 
 a proof that those events must be certain. 
 Prof. Stuart says that divine foreknowledge 
 necessitates "the conclusion that certainty 
 must exist, by the divine purpose and counsel, 
 in regard to the called— a certainty not merely 
 that they will be saved provided they believe 
 and obey and persevere in so doing, but a 
 certainty that 'the called according to his 
 purpose' will be brought to believe, obey, and 
 persevere, and will therefore obtain salvation ; 
 for such is the manifest tenor of the whole 
 passage."] But this foreknowing must not be 
 explained asmerely the foreknowledge of their 
 future repentance and faith ; for this would 
 make their repentance and faith the cause, 
 and not, as they truly are, the consequence, of 
 their foreordination. See 1 Cor. 4: 7. [The 
 verb foreordained (rrpoopi'^o)), nearly equiva- 
 lent, etymologically, to our predetermine, is 
 found six times in the New Testament (Acts*: 
 
 28; Eom.8: 29,30; 1 Cor. 2 ; 7; Eph. 1: 5, ll), aild in CVCry 
 
 instance is rendered foreordained in the Re- 
 vised Version. As used by Paul, it denotes 
 the divine predestination of individual be- 
 lievers to adoption as sons, to conformity with 
 Christ, and to eternal glory. And according 
 to apostolic teaching this predetermining of 
 individuals to salvation took place "before 
 tlie ages" and "before the foundation of the 
 world" (compare 1 Cor. 2: 7; Eph. 1:4; 
 Rev. 17 : 8), and is based simply on the eter- 
 
208 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 nal purpose of God and the good pleasure of 
 his will. In Acts 4: 28 we are taught that 
 the evil deeds of Christ's murder<;rs were 
 connected with the divine predetermination. 
 But in all of Paul's writings, while he ascribes 
 the highest sovereignty to God, and affirms 
 that the potter has power over the clay from 
 the same lump to make vessels unto honor 
 and vessels unto dishonor, and that God hath 
 mercy on whom he will and whom he will he 
 hardeneth, he yet very carefully abstains 
 from saying that God himself has fitted any 
 vessel of wrath unto destruction, or that he 
 has predestinated any, according to his good 
 pleasure, unto perdition. The divine decrees 
 are, indeed, a "subject of itself rather intri- 
 cate" (Calvin), and are a stumbling-block 
 and an otiense to many. Still, to our logical 
 understanding no conclusion seems more 
 legitimate and true than this, that God "ac- 
 cording to the counsel of his will . . . hath 
 foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." i For 
 this is but saying that the divine and almighty 
 Architect, when he purposed creation, had 
 a full and perfect plan of all things, and that 
 the existing state of things fully accords with 
 his original plan. We pray, indeed, "Thy 
 will be done on earth," implying that it is not 
 done at present (compare 1 Tim. 2 : 4 ; 2 Peter 
 3:9); and yet we must at the same time ac- 
 knowledge that God's eterr.al purpose can in 
 no instance fail of accomplishment, and that 
 even now his determinate counsel, his formed 
 purpose or decretive will, is done on earth, 
 otherwise we make him an ignorant or dis- 
 
 appointed weakling like ourselves.^ It may 
 seem to us that predestination on the part of 
 God is inconsistent with human freedom, yet 
 both are reconcilable because both are true, 
 though it is impossible for us, with our present 
 limitations and in our present state of dark- 
 ness and obscurity, fully to show their com- 
 patibility. We should, therefore, deny neither, 
 but firmly and boldly' maintain both, even as 
 Peter and the other apostles do in Acts 2 : 23; 
 4:27,28; compare 3 : 17, 18. "Him being 
 delivered up by the determinate counsel and 
 foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of 
 lawless men did crucify and slaj'." (Acts 2: 23, 
 Revised Version.) "Both Herod and Pontius Pilate 
 with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 
 were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy 
 hand and thj' counsel foreordained to come 
 
 to pass." (Acts 4 : 27, 28, Revised Version.) Compare 
 
 Matt. 18 : 7. We may properly add that some, 
 as Godet and Philippi, are of the opinion that 
 had Paul sought to resolve "the speculative 
 question between God's eternal plan and the 
 freedom of human determinations," he would 
 have done so "by means of the fact affirmed 
 by him of divine foreknowledge^ These 
 writers consequently hold to a predestination 
 which is not absolute, but which is based on 
 foreknowledge of faith. And Godet goes so far 
 as to imply that this foreseen faith which fur- 
 nishes the ground for a pi-edestination to glory 
 (he ignores any predestination to faith) must 
 not be a divine creation, but of human origi- 
 nation. But to our mind little aid comes from 
 any view we can take of foreknowledge, since 
 
 1 We may even say, in general terms, that God's sov- 
 ereign, eternal, purpose covers the actions and the 
 destiny of wicked and lost men. Thus Olshausen, 
 ■while discarding the idea of God's willing evil as evil, 
 or his working evil in the hearts of men, or his pre- 
 destinating the evil to evii, yet affirms it to be " impos- 
 sible to exclude evil, viewed as a phenomenon, from 
 the divine operations." AW theists must admit that 
 evil takes place under God's permissive decree, or, at 
 least, that he permits evil to exist, and some such view 
 as this seems most accordant with the spirit and gen- 
 eral tenor of the Scriptures; compare 9: 22, "endured 
 with much long suffering." Yet the Supralapsarian 
 predestinationist denies that this view has any great 
 advantage over his own, since any one is naturally held 
 responsible for permitting an evil if he could have pre- 
 vented it. Nor can the permission theory dispute the 
 fact that the Omniscient God created those who he 
 foreknew would certainly be lost. In Calvin's view, 
 God predestinated all mankind in the person of Adam 
 
 to corruption, which involved them in condemnation 
 and eternal death, and he frankly confesses this to be 
 a decretiim horribile — an awful decree — (the word horri- 
 bile being used by Calvin, not in our sense of horrible, 
 but as something fearful or terrible, just as Luther, in 
 his baptismal prayer, speaks of God's '' horrible judg- 
 ment " in his destroying the wicked world with the 
 flood). Furthermore, from a Sublapsarian point of 
 view, he held that God by an absolute decree of grace 
 elected some from this massa perditionis to eternal life 
 and reprobated (with less exercise of power) others to 
 eternal damnation. Augustine, we believe, never advo- 
 cated a predestination to eternal death, and most theo- 
 logiiins have been content to say that God pn.ssed by or 
 left the vessels of wrath to bear the just consequences 
 of their sins. — (F.) 
 
 2 On the secret and revealed or disposing and precep- 
 tive will of God, see Edwards' " Works," Vol. XL, pp. 
 161-164, 513-516, 546.— (F.) 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 209 
 
 we Ciin think of nothing which God could I were predestinated to be conformed to the 
 foreknow save only that which he had deter- image of his Son. And no one can suppose 
 mined to create. The view that God's "/o?'e- the apostle to have lield that any of tlie incor- 
 seeing is seeing — knowing what shall bo is rigibly impenitent were thus foreknown or 
 knowing what to him already is" (Godet) — predestinated or called. Yet all men are sin- 
 is, perhaps, as satisfactory to our minds as i cerely invited by the gospel message; all, we 
 any. Our own view, however, mainly accords ■ may believe, are to some extent moved by the 
 
 with the following remarks of Alford: "It 
 may suffice to say that, on the one hand, 
 Scripture bears constant testimony to the fact 
 that all believers are chosen and called by 
 God, their whole spiritual life — in its origin, 
 progress, and completion— being from him; 
 while, on the other hand, its testimony is no 
 less precise that he willeth all to be saved, and 
 that none shall perish except by willful rejec- 
 tion of the truth. So that, on the one side, 
 God's sovereignty, on the other, man's 
 FREE WILL, is plainly declared to us. To 
 receive, believe, and act on both these is our 
 duty and our wisdom. They belong, as truths, 
 no less to imtural tiian to revealed religion, 
 and every one who believes in a God must 
 acknowledge both. But all &tiem\>tsio bridge 
 over the gulf between tlte two are futile in the 
 present imperfect condition of man." The 
 following is the view of Prof. Riddle: "That 
 
 Spirit; and hence all who refuse to obey are 
 "without excuse."] To be conformed to 
 the image of his Son. [Compare 2 Cor. 
 3 : 18. The adjective (oTJ/uiMop^ot) 'conformed' 
 occurs elsewhere only in Phil. 3 : 21, where it 
 is followed, not as here by the genitive, but 
 by the dative, and the reference is to the body 
 of Christ's glory. In Phil. 3 : 10, a related 
 verb speaks of conformity to Christ's death. 
 In our passage, the conformity of the predes- 
 tinate to the great Exemplar is both physical 
 and spiritual. The divine predestination has 
 always a gracious purpose. We are elect 
 unto obedience ; we were chosen that we 
 should be holy, (i Peter i:2; Eph. i:4.) Only the 
 obedient and the holy can have any assurance 
 of their heavenly calling. Have we not reason 
 to fear that many professing Christians — so 
 faint is their resemblance to Christ here — will 
 never bear the glorious image of the Son of 
 
 the word means foreordained, predestinated, iGod?] The verb 'to be' is omitted in the 
 is certain; that it is here applied to individuals j Greek, perhaps on account of its being re- 
 is obvious; that it implies a pre-terrestrial act I quired in the next clause. The conformity 
 of the Divine Mind is in accordance with the \ here mentioned is to be perfected at the corn- 
 current of thought in the chapter, the Scrip- ing of Christ, according to 1 John 3 : 2. The 
 tural conception of God's purpose, and the j word 'image' is not superfluous; Christ is 
 use of the word in other passages. It is only I the model, the pattern of glorified humanity, 
 one side of the truth, indeed, but the other i That he might be the firstborn [in order 
 side is not more firmly established by ignoring ' that, denoting the final aim, as regards Christ, 
 this. The only reconciliation of the difficultj' \ of the predestinating] among many breth- 
 is in practical Christian experience, and Paul ; ren — that is, that many might be conformed 
 is addressing himself to this throughout." i to his image, and so by grace be made worthy 
 Some deny that Paul in this discussion teaches I to be called his brethren. ["The object of 
 the dogma of a rfec7-e!;«mrt6so/«!^i<m, which de- ; the Christian scheme is that Christ may not 
 termined from all eternity that only a certain } stand alone in the isolated glory of his pre- 
 number shall certainly be saved, since his i existence, but that ho may be surrounded by 
 design in this passage is simply to show that a numerous brotherhood fashioned after his 
 all who are called according to God's purpose j likeness as he is in the likeness of God." 
 will never be separated from his love, and ! (Principal Sanday, in EUicott's "New Tosta- 
 
 that as God is for them, all things, even afflic- 
 tions and tribulations, will be made to con- 
 tribute to their good. This is, indeed, his 
 design, but his argumentation implies this at 
 least, — that all who are justified and saved in 
 Christ are called according to God's purpose, 
 and were foreknown from eternity as his, and 
 
 ment Commentarj'." ) The term 'firstborn' 
 denotes both priority and pre-eminence. It 
 is this passage which authorizes us to speak of 
 Christ as our Elder Brother.] 
 
 30. Moreover, whom he did predesti- 
 Mate, them he also called. [Some regard 
 the verb 'called,' as also other verbs which 
 
210 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 30 Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also 
 called: aud whom he called, them he also justitied : 
 and whom he justified, them lie also glorified. 
 
 31 What shall we then say to these things? If God 
 lie for us, who can be against us? 
 
 30 many hrethren : and whom he foreordained, them 
 he also called: aud whom he called, them he also 
 justified: and whom he justified, them he also glori- 
 fied. 
 
 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God 
 3:! is for us, who is against us? He that spared not his 
 
 follow, especially the last in the verse, as the 
 past tense used for the present, and expressive 
 of what is customary. A better view is that 
 everthing connected with this divine economy 
 of saving grace is so certain that, though 
 future, it may be regarded as good as accom- 
 })lislied.] The calling here, as generally in 
 the epistles, is not a mere outward invitation, 
 or offer of salvation, but an inward calling, 
 made effectual by the Holy Spirit. Aud 
 whom he called, them he also justified. 
 This shows conclusively by what kind of a 
 calling it was. ["Tliough by choosing his 
 people the Lord has adopted them as his chil- 
 dren, yet we see that they enter not on so 
 great a blessing till they are called." (Cal- 
 vin.) "Effectual calling," says Edwards, "is 
 the proper execution of election." Godet sup- 
 poses that all men who hear the gospel have 
 "an outward call by the word and an inward 
 call by grace," and that "all are alike seri- 
 ously called. Only it happens that some con- 
 sent to yield to the call and others refuse." 
 We imagine that this happening has some- 
 thing to do with the divine purpose. If all 
 depended upon the human will, it might hap- 
 pen that none of the invited ones would be 
 found among the heavenly guests.] And 
 whom he justified [in a forensic sense op- 
 posed to condemned], them he also glori- 
 fied. ["Whom God predestinated before the 
 M'Orld, he called from the world, justified in 
 the world, and will glorify after the world." 
 Godet says that had Paul designed "to explain 
 the order of salvation in all its elements, divine 
 a7id human, he would have T^wi faith between 
 
 calling and justification, and holiness between 
 justification and glorification."] This last 
 step in the process, though referring to what 
 is yet future, is expressed, like the preceding 
 steps, in the past tense, to show that these 
 processes are all linked together in an indis- 
 soluble chain, so that where one is found the 
 rest are sure to be found also; and the con- 
 summation is as sure as if it was already a 
 matter of history. i 
 
 Conclusion as to the certainty of the salva- 
 tion of Christians, ver. 31-39: Their salvation 
 is certain (ver. 31), because God has given his 
 Son (ver. 32, 33), and the Son of God has died 
 and risen from the dead (ver. 34), and therefore 
 they can never be separated from the love of 
 either by any vicissitudes of the present life 
 (ver. 36, 37), or by any other agencies or events 
 whatsoever, (ver. 38, .S9.) 
 
 31. What shall we then say to these 
 things? What, indeed, can the hesitating 
 or discouraged soul find to say in view of 
 such an array of the inerciful acts of God's 
 love [his predestinating, calling, justifying, 
 glorifying purpose] as the apostle here pre- 
 sents? What but this: If God be {is) for 
 us, who can be (is) against us? ["The 
 inspired faith of the apostle, leaving all earthly 
 things far down below his feet, reflects itself 
 in the sublimity of the language." (Philippi.) 
 "'What shall we then say' is used here," 
 says Tholuck, " contrary to the apostle's cus- 
 tom, in a conclusion which has not a doubtful 
 character." Ver. 30 of the next chapter also 
 introduces a correct conclusion. Compare, on 
 the other hand, 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 9:14.] 
 
 1 This golden chain, to which no links are wanting, 
 reaches from eternity to eternity — "from everlasting 
 in predestination to everlasting in beatification." (St. 
 Bernard.) On the connection of these links. Arch- 
 bishop Leighton (on Peter) appropriately remarks that 
 " Ett'ectual calling is inseparably tied to this eternal 
 foreknowledge or election on the one side and to salva- 
 tion on the other. These two links of the chain are up 
 in heaven in God's own hand, but this middle one is 
 letdown to earth into the hearts of his children, and 
 they laying hold on it have sure hold on the other two, 
 lor no pcwer can sever them." "Before the divine 
 
 intuition," says Tholuck, " which is independent of 
 time, fallen humanity appears from all eternity, not 
 only as redeemed, but likewise as enjoying the fruits 
 of redemption and as exalted to glory." " No one," 
 says Chalmers, " can read in the book of God's decrees 
 that he has been predestined unto glory, but all may 
 read in the book of his declarations what be the marks 
 of those who travel thitherward. These he can com- 
 pare with the book of his own character and experi- 
 ence, and he can count upon his own special destina- 
 tion to an eternity of blisR only in as far, aud in no 
 farther than, as he is sanctified." — (F.) 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 211 
 
 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered 
 him ii|) lor us all, how shall he not with him also freely 
 give us all thijjgs. 
 
 33 Who shall lay any tiling to the charge of God's 
 ek'Ct ? It is God that justitiet li. 
 
 o4 Who is he that coudemneth? Il is Christ that 
 died, yea rather, that is risen a^aiIl, who is even at the 
 right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 
 
 own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall 
 he not also with him freely give us all things? 
 
 33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's 
 
 34 elect? 'It is God that justiheth; who is he that 
 condemneth? ^ It is Christ Jesus that died, yea 
 rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the 
 right hand of God, who also maketh intercession 
 
 1 Or, Shall God that justifieth t 2 Or, Shall Christ Jesus that died, . . . usr 
 
 32. He that [ (iis v«) lie icho indeed — that 
 is, inasmuch as he, or being such an one as 
 he] spared not his own Son. ['Si>nred' is 
 an expressive word, denoting God's great 
 sacritic'e in giving up his only begotten Son — 
 "the Son of his love." Compare in LXX., 
 Gen. 22: 12. "God, so to speak, did violence 
 to his paternallove." (Bengel.)^] He surely, 
 seeing he did not even spare his own Son 
 (compare ver. 3, also John 3: 16; 5: 18), 
 but delivered him up — (that is, to death) 
 (compare 4: 25; Matt. 10 : 21)— for us all 
 (tlie extent of this expression, so far as this 
 particular passage is concerned, is defined by 
 the 7is of the next clause), how shall he not 
 with him also freely give us all things? 
 ^that is, all things pertaining to life and god- 
 liness. (2 Peter 1:3.) " For tO givB US all 
 
 things with hitn is less than to deliver up 
 him to death for our sake." (Ambrosiaster. ) 
 [An argument from the greater to the less. 
 God's eternal purpose to save, and the giving 
 up to death of his own Son to etfect that sal- 
 vation, is a sufficient proof that he is "for 
 us" and that he will withhold "no good 
 thing."] 
 
 33. Who shall lay any thing, etc. AVho 
 sliall bring an accusation against God's elect? 
 [This verb, to accuse, is elsewhere followed 
 by the simple dative.^ The elect or chosen 
 ones of God, some of whom certainlj' must 
 be found in our Christian churches, have 
 plentj' of accusers in this world. Indeed, 
 many of the so-called "world's people" live 
 on the faults, real or imagined, of God's pro- 
 fessed children — a most miserable diet! — and 
 
 some of them by their talk and action would 
 seem to think that if they could take an im- 
 perfect minister and a few delinquent church 
 members with them to the bar of God it 
 would go all right with them in the judgment. 
 No doubt God's true people are fault3' enough. 
 Indeed, their own hearts and consciences are 
 their swiftest and loudest accusers. But if 
 God will justify' the sincerely penitent be- 
 liever as being found in Christ, all accusations 
 of the ungodly will be in vain, availing nothing 
 either against the believer or for themselves 
 at the bar of judgment where each one shall 
 give account of himself alone. See 14: 12.] 
 The impossibility of any charge against God's 
 elect that should hinder his purpose to give 
 them all things, is implied in the question ; 
 and is indirectly asserted in the next clause: 
 for the Judge himself, before whom the accu- 
 sation would have to be presented, has already 
 pronounced them acquitted. God is the one 
 who justifies. [Compare this and the follow- 
 ing verse with Isa. 50: 7-9.] 
 
 34. Who is he that condemneth? [or, 
 shall condemn, according to AVestcott and 
 Hort and the Canterbury Eevision. Prof. 
 Cremer makes this 'condemneth' to mean 
 not only to pronounce condemnation, but to 
 execute it as a judge.] The first clause in 
 this verse seems naturally to connect itself 
 with the last clause of the preceding: but at 
 this point there is a transition from God to 
 Christ. As it is impossible that any accusa- 
 tion should frustrate the divine purpose to 
 save them on God's part, so it is equally im- 
 possible on Christ's part. It is Christ that 
 
 1 •' There is," says Chalmers, " an academic theology 
 which would divest God of all sensibility, which would 
 make of him a being devoid of all emotion and all ten- 
 derness, which concedes to him power and wisdom and 
 a .sort of cold and clear and faultless morality, but 
 which would denude bim of all those fond and father- 
 ly regards that so endear an earthly parent to the 
 children who have sprung from bim. ... I fear that 
 such representations as these have done mischief in 
 Christianity." — (F.) | 
 
 2 Winer says that the use of prepositions with cases 
 instead of cases alone, is a "general characteristic of 
 (antique) simplicity," and especially accords with the 
 "graphic and explicit phraseology of Orientals." Accord- 
 ingly, " we find that in the New Testament, agreeably 
 to the Eastern idiom and sometimssin direct imitation 
 of it, prepositions are frequently employed where in 
 classic Greek the simple cases would have sufficed 
 even in prose." — (F.) 
 
212 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? 
 shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, 
 or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 
 
 35 for us. Who shall separate us from the love lof 
 Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, 
 
 1 SoDie ancient authorities read o/ God. 
 
 died« etc. Christ Jesus (for that seems to be 
 the correct reading) is he who died, yea, rather 
 that rose [' was raised' ; the lievisers' text has 
 from the dead (U vtKpiav), the reading of X A C]. 
 Who is even at the right hand of God — 
 [literally: "znthe right hand " (place), the 
 place of power and honor, the throne of deity. 
 Compare Eph. 1: 20; Kev. 3: 21: 22: 1], 
 (the word 'even' here is of doubtful genuine- 
 ness). Who also maketh intercession (in- 
 tercedes) for Hs. [The same verb occurs at 
 ver. 27; 11: 2 (at 8: 26 in a compounded 
 form), also Acts 25: 24; Heb. 7: 25. The 
 apostle has previously affirmed that Christ 
 was delivered up for our ofienses and was 
 raised for our justification. And now, while 
 virtually everywhere present by his Spirit, he 
 is yet exalted at God's right hand in heaven 
 itself, there as our Paraclete to intercede for 
 us — the exaltation sliovving his ability, and 
 the intercession showing his willingness to 
 save. (Bengel.) As De "VVette says: "All 
 the points of Christ's redemptive work from 
 his death to his still enduring intercession are 
 adduced in one series as grounds for refuting 
 the above question." Well may the apostle 
 ask: "Who shall separate tis from the love 
 of Christ" ?] De Wette, Alford, and other 
 critical editors, make each clause in ver. 33, 
 34, interrogative [as in the margin of the 
 Revised Version and in accordance with the 
 structure of ver. 35]. But it is better to regard 
 only the first clause in each verse as inter- 
 rogative, and the succeeding clauses as in- 
 direct answers to the interrogatories [as is 
 done in Dr. Noyes' translation and in our 
 Common Version. This punctuation is also 
 adopted by Fritzsche, Philippi, Lange, Godet, 
 Hodge, Stuart, and others]. The structure of 
 ver. 34, particularly, is such as hardly to 
 admit of its being divided into four or five 
 separate questions, or regarded, after the first 
 clause, as one compound interrogatory. [The 
 text of the Revised Version, and of the Bible 
 
 Union gives still another mode of pointing, 
 which is substantially that of Meyer and 
 Gilford, only they would somewhat closely 
 join the beginning of ver. 35 with ver. 34, 
 thus: " Christ is he that died, . . . who shall 
 separate us from the love of Christ?"] 
 
 The particular mode in which Christ inter- 
 cedes for us at the right hand of God, whether 
 directly and orally, or only by his presence 
 there, is nowhere explained. [Meyer says 
 this intercession must be conceived as vocal 
 and oral "because it is made by the glorified 
 God-man." This intercession, he further re- 
 marks, "is the continuous bringing to hear of 
 his work of atonement completed by his 
 'propitiation' on the part of Christ in his 
 glory with the Father; which we are to con- 
 ceive of as real and — in virtue of the glorified 
 corporeity of the exalted Christ, as also in 
 virtue of the subordination in which he, even 
 as occupant of the same throne, stands to 
 the Father — as a request properly so-called 
 through which the 'continuus quasi vigor' 
 (Gerhard) of redemption takes place. Com- 
 pare John 14: 16." Whatever the necessity 
 of this intercession, it is not to be found in 
 the fact that God the Father is all justice 
 and the Son all love, for the love of God 
 and of Christ for sinners is here represented 
 as the same. Still as God manifests his 
 mercy only in and through the incarnate 
 Redeemer, so he, apart from Christ, may be 
 regarded as the impersonation of justice, yea 
 as "a consuming fire." Justice demands the 
 sinner's death and even the penitent believer 
 is by this intercession shown to be both weak 
 and unworthy, and in himself deserving of 
 condemnation.] 
 
 35. Who shall separate us from the 
 love of Christ? [Meyer finds a virtual 
 answer to this question in the preceding state- 
 ment : Christ is he that has died, etc., he will 
 never cease to love.] We might expect the 
 neuter, what, rather than ' who,' here ; since 
 
 1 Mr. Spurgeon on one occasion, as reported to the 
 writer by a friend who was present, adduced a very 
 touching illustration of Christ's love and his readiness 
 to receive the coming sinner. While quoting a hymn 
 he stopped short at the lines wherein Christ was en- 
 
 treated to open his arms, etc., and said, suiting his 
 gestures to the words: "This is all a mistake. The 
 Saviour's arms are open ; they were always open , they 
 were nailed wide open on the cross." — (F.) 
 
Ch. VIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 213 
 
 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the 
 day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 
 
 ;i7 Nay, in all these things we are more than con- 
 querors through him that loved us. 
 
 3S For 1 am persuaded, that ueither death, nor life. 
 
 36 or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Even 
 as it is written. 
 
 For thy sake we are killed all the day long; 
 
 We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 
 .37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors 
 38 through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that 
 
 the enumeration tliat follows is not of ^jey'sons, 
 but of states and things: but no one of the 
 tilings enumerated is of the neuter gender in 
 the Greek langujige; a circumstance which 
 materially weakens the force of Calvin's 
 otherwise appropriate comment: "the mas- 
 culine pronoun 'who' has a secret, emphatic 
 sense. We can engage in combat with as 
 many champions as there are different kinds 
 of temj)tations." [The form of this pronoun 
 is the same for both genders.] 
 
 What are we to understand by ' the love of 
 Christ' here? Is it our love to Christ? oris 
 it Christ's love to us? The nature of the 
 things mentioned, as having apparently a 
 tendency to lead us to forsake Christ, rather 
 than to lead Christ to forsake us, might seem 
 to favor the former view : but the demands 
 of the argument, the language of ver. 38, 39, 
 and especially the last clause of ver. 37, are 
 decisive in favor of the latter sense. [Hence 
 in all the trials and afflictions which can be 
 laid upon Christ's chosen ones, they may yet 
 be assured of his unceasing love. Not till 
 Christ forgets the garden and the cross will 
 he forget to love those for whom he died and 
 wiiom he has redeemed. And nothing can 
 happen to us in this universe of God which 
 will prevent us from sharing in the love of 
 hiin who with the gift of his own Son will 
 freely give us all things besides. Barnes re- 
 gards the genitive as objective, our love for 
 Christ; and so do Lange and Forbes in part. 
 Calvin, Kiickert, De Wette, make the love of 
 Christ to mean our sense of his love, but this 
 is not expressed in the text.] Observe how 
 climacteric the enumeration is, ending with 
 sword as the instrument and emblem of the 
 death penalty ["the instrument of St. Paul's 
 own future martyrdom." (Wordsworth.) 
 On the words, tribulation and distress, see 
 notes on 2: 9.] 
 
 But these trials are nothing new ; they are 
 only w+iat befell God's saints of old. (ueb. ii : 
 
 36-3t^. ) 
 
 36. As it is written. (ps.«:22.) For thy 
 sake we are killed (or, put to death) all 
 the day long [continuously, as indicated by 
 the present tense and the specification of 
 time: ail the day through]. We are daily and 
 hourlj' exposing ourselves to death. [De 
 Wette : " many of us fall each day as an offer- 
 ing of our faith."] This citation is specially 
 pertinent as following the word 'sword,' the 
 extretne peril, with which the preceding list 
 closes. We are [literally: were\ accounted 
 (reckoned) as sheep for the slaughter, [Wi- 
 er&Wy : sheep of slaughter. Stuart: "slaughter- 
 sheep." "There is," says Perowne, "this 
 retnarkable difference between the tone of the 
 Psalmist and the tone of the apostle. The 
 former cannot understand the chastening, and 
 complains that God's heavy hand has been 
 laid without cause upon his people; the latter 
 can rejoice in persecution also, and exclaim: 
 'Na\-, in all these things we are more than 
 conquerors.' "] 
 
 37. Nay, in all these things. But [as 
 opposed to a suppressed negative answer] 'in 
 all these things' (enumerated in ver. 35). We 
 are more than conquerors. We are over 
 victorious, or, as Luther says, "we far over- 
 come.'" Through him [Christ, as in ver. 35 ; 
 compare Rev. 1 : 5] that loved us. It is he 
 that helps us and enables us to gain this more 
 than victory. [Our Almighty Saviour's power 
 and love will make even our adversaries to 
 fight on our side.] 
 
 38,39. For I am persuaded. 'I have 
 adopted and still retain the conviction;' to 
 analyze, and express the full sense of, the 
 perfect tense of the original verb. He now 
 takes up and amplifies the 'more than con- 
 querors.' That neither death, nor life,= — 
 
 1 Ellicott remarks that "the apostle seems to have 
 had a marked predilection" for compounds with uircp 
 (over, beyond). Compare 5 : 20; 2 Cor. 7:4; 11 : 5; 
 Phil. 2 : 9 ; 2 Thess. 1 : 3; 1 Tim. 1 : 14. " It is notice- 
 able that vnip occurs nearly thrice as many times in St. 
 Paul's epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as in the 
 
 rest of the New Testament, and that, with a few excep- 
 tions (Mark 7 : 37 ; Luke 6: 38, etc.), the compounds of 
 vnep are all found in St. Paul's epistles." A few of the 
 less important uncials, D E F G, here read Sid with the 
 accusative: On account of him who loved us. — (F.) 
 2 ovTt, ovTt (neither, nor), unlike oufie, ov6« (see 9 : 16 ; 
 
214 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. VIII. 
 
 nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things 
 present, nor things to come, 
 
 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, 
 shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which 
 is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
 
 neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, 
 nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 
 39 nor height, nordeptn, nor any other i creature, shall 
 be able to separate us from the love of God, which is 
 in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
 
 1 Or, creation. 
 
 the two most general states in which men can 
 possibly be. Death is put first, perhaps on 
 account of ver. 36. The order is reversed in 
 1 Cor. 3:22. Nor angels, nor principali- 
 ties. By angels must be understood good 
 angels, because the word is never used of evil 
 angels without some explanatory addition. 
 See Matt. 25 : 41 ; 2 Cor. 12 : 7 ; 2 Peter 2:4; 
 Jude 6. [Soi:ne think that 1 Cor. 6:3; Heb. 
 2:16, are exceptions.] That an attempt on 
 the part of good angels to separate Christians 
 from the love of God, tliough not possible to 
 be believed is allowable to be conceived, in 
 a hypothetical way is proved by Gal. 1 : 8. 
 There are some other passages of Scripture 
 which show that some things which can never 
 occur as facts may lawfully be stated as sup- 
 positions, and even argued from as such. 
 (Heb. 6:4-6.) The 'principalities' here men- 
 tioned are doubtless some orders of celestial 
 beings. The same might be said of the word 
 'powers,' if this were its proper place; but 
 there is convincing evidence that its true 
 position is after the two following clauses, 
 between 'things to come' and 'height,' and 
 therefore it is doubtful whether it refers to 
 personal powers or to powerful influences or 
 tendencies. "We may observe here," says 
 Calvin, " how vile all things ought to appear 
 in our sight when compared to the glory of 
 God, since we are allowed to abase even angels 
 for the purpose of asserting his truth." Nor 
 things present [perfect participle from ivi<r- 
 TijMt], nor things to come. Compare 1 Cor. 
 3:22. Nor powers. Besides the very strongly 
 preponderating testimony of manuscripts, 
 translations, and citations in favor of the 
 position of the word 'powers' after 'things to 
 come,' the structure of the whole passage is 
 an incidental corroboration. We have first 
 two pairs, — 'death' and 'life,' 'angels' and 
 'principalities;' and then two triplets, — 
 'thing present,' 'things to come,' and 'pow- 
 ers;' 'height,' 'depth,' and 'any other crea- 
 ture; 'and in each of the last two clauses the 
 
 antithetical pair is followed by a third par- 
 ticular of a more general character, — 'pow- 
 ers,' 'any other creature.' Nor height, nor 
 depth. Nothing above us, nothing below us. 
 Many ingenious and elaborate conceits of 
 learned commentators in interpreting these 
 words might be cited, such as "heights of 
 bliss and depths of misery," "heights of pre- 
 sumptuous speculation and depths of sin," 
 "high hopes of honor and profound fears of 
 disgrace," etc., etc. ; but the natural simplicity 
 of such an enthusiastic utterance as this is 
 incompatible with such artificial methods. 
 Nor any other creature, or, created thing. 
 A broad expression, comprehending whatever 
 is not included in the preceding enumeration. 
 [It would seem that the above enumeration 
 of visible and invisible beings and powers 
 throughout the universe, including all changes 
 of time and all distances of space, might em- 
 brace all things which the mind could con- 
 ceive of as being able to separate us from 
 God's love; but lest anything might suppos- 
 edly be omitted froin this category, the apostle 
 adds this all-comprehensive statement — 'nor 
 any other creature,' not anything else, differ- 
 ing (tTepa.) from these, which has been (or 
 which may be) created. "Well may we in- 
 quire: Who shall unclasp those everlasting 
 arms that are about us? Or: What shall 
 cause us to despond or faint?" (N. Colver, 
 " Lectures on Romans.") " Yet it should be 
 remembered that sin can do what all the 
 tribulations of earth cannot; it can separate 
 us from God." (Philippi.) "God having once 
 determined the reception of true Christians 
 into his kingdom, all that he brings upon them, 
 even tribulation itself, can be no hindrance 
 in the way of that, provided only the Chris- 
 tian does not injure himself." (Tholuck.)] 
 Shall be able to separate us from the 
 love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our 
 Lord. [Hence the safety of Christ's sheep 
 though in the midst of wolves. Compare 
 John 10:28, 29.] "The love of Christ is 
 
 1 Thess. 2 : 3), may be used, as here, without any ante- 
 cedent simple negative. The same is true of /n^Te, /n^re 
 as compared with /otijSe. See 6 : 12; 14 : 21. Godet re- 
 
 marks that "the adversaries who rise before the apos- 
 tle's view seem to advance in pairs." — (F.) 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 215 
 
 notliing else than the love of God himself, I 
 which has its seat in Christ. God is the origi- 
 nating fountain, Clirist the constant organ 
 and mediating channel of one and the same 
 love. " (Meyer.) In ver. 31-33 God is the 
 suhject; at ver. 34 the subject is chanced to 
 Clirist. And now in ver. 39 it is again the 
 love of God, but "the love of God in Christ 
 Jesus our Lord." This transition from God 
 to Clirist and back again, so common in 
 the Scriptures, is among the strongest proofs 
 of the absolute Deity of our Lord Jesus 
 Clirist. 
 
 On this whole passage Erasmus exclaims: 
 " What did Cicero ever say more eloquent 
 than tliis?" [On the way and order of sal- 
 vation thus far marked out by the apostle, 
 Godet, in his chapter of "Conclusions," thus 
 remarks: "The first gift of grace which the 
 gospel offers to man is, according to Paul, the 
 gift of his justification, without any other con- 
 dition than that which every one may fulfill 
 at once— faith. This first act done, man is 
 free from his guilt in relation to his God; no 
 cloud any longer troubles his relation to him ; 
 peace takes the place of the inward unrest; 
 and in this state of inward tranquillity there 
 ma^' be sown the fruit of righteousness — sanc- 
 tification. The reconciled man becomes open 
 to the communication of the Divine Spirit. 
 As naturally as tliis guest must withdraw from 
 a condemned heart, so necessarily does he 
 come to dwell in the man whom nothing any 
 longer separates from God, and he realizes 
 within him Christ's life and death in the 
 measure in which this life and death have 
 been apprehended by his faith. Finally, to 
 him who walks in this way, there opens up in 
 the distance a new gift, the renewing of his 
 body and the inheritance of glory, through 
 his comj>lete transformation into the likeness 
 of the glorified Clirist. What clearer, what 
 simpler, what at once more really divine and 
 human, than this order of salvation traced by 
 the apostle! And what a seal has not the 
 experience of ages impressed on this expo- 
 sition contained in the first eight chapters of 
 our Epistle! Let not him who desires to see 
 such a work accomplished within himself, or 
 who proposes to carry it out in others, — eman- 
 cipation from guilt and victory over sin, — 
 take to the task in any other way, if he would 
 not miserably fail ! "] 
 
 Ch. 9 : [The principal aim of this chapter 
 is to show that God makes no account of 
 human claims founded on a merely carnal 
 descent from Abraham. According to Phil- 
 ippi, it shows that out of the elect nation 
 there is an election of grace, and that " not 
 the natural but the spiritual seed of Abraham 
 is destined to inherit the promise." Tholuck 
 says: "We have to specify as the doctrinal 
 import of 9 : 1-29 : God has the right to admit 
 into the Messianic kingdom without regard 
 to human claims; of 9 : liO-lO: 21: if Israel 
 was not admitted, the fault lies in its unwill- 
 ingness to submit to the way marked out by 
 God; of chapter 11: the hardness which God 
 in consequence of this brought upon Israel 
 turns, however, to good, in that it helped on 
 the admission of the Gentiles; and in the end 
 the mass of the Jews shall obtain admission 
 into God's kingdom." See also the general 
 analysis of this and the two following chap- 
 ters at 1 : 16. J 
 
 The discussion which occu))ies this chapter 
 and the two following was made necessary' 
 especially on account of the views of two 
 classes of persons: 1. The unbelieving Jews, 
 who regarded Paul as an enemy to the nation, 
 and a traitor to the religion of his forefathers : 
 2. The believing Jew.*, who could not easily 
 reconcile the unbelief and rejection of their 
 countrymen with the promises of the Old 
 Testament. Compare 3: 3. [In this section 
 (altogether too important to be termed, as by 
 ! De Wette, an "Appendix") wherein tho 
 apostle considers the hardening and falling 
 away of the Jews, and God's choice of the 
 Gentiles, giving them thus, in the words 
 of SchaflT, "an outline of a philosophy of 
 church history," he expounds at some length 
 the doctrines of the divine sovereignty and of 
 election. Hence this discussion, which con- 
 tains some things hard to be understood and 
 harder to be received, "seems," as Olshausen 
 remarks, " like the sixth chapter of St. John, 
 calculated for the express purpose of sifting 
 the Church of Christ." Philippi, in explain- 
 ing the reason for this discussion, says: "Sal- 
 vation was originally designed for every one 
 that believcth, 'the Jew first.' But the result 
 hitherto seemed to stand in express contrast 
 with this design, and so far from corroborat- 
 ing the Jew first, rather gave the impression 
 that God had broken the promise given to his 
 
216 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 CHAPTEK IX. 
 
 SAY the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience 
 also bearing uie witness in the Holy Ghost, 
 
 1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience 
 
 2 bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, that I 
 
 covenant people and rejected his chosen nation 
 of Israel." According to Godet, Paul's })ur- 
 pose was to solve "the greatest enigma of 
 history : the rejection of the elect people." ^ 
 
 1. I say the truth in Christ. [Buttmann 
 remarks that the absence cf a connective par- 
 ticle, as at the beginning of this verse, serves 
 to indicate the commencement of a new sub- 
 ject. See also 10: 1; 13: 1. Meyer says that 
 the sorrow of which the apostle proceeds to 
 speak "might be deemed incredible after the 
 joyous triumph which had just been exhibited. 
 Hence the extremely urgent asseveration with 
 which he begins: ' Truth I speak in Christ, I 
 lie not.' "] This double sanction of the truth 
 which he was about to utter, first positively 
 and then negatively, implies not only his own 
 full assurance of its truth, but his persuasion 
 of the importance of the like assurance on the 
 part of his readers, with a suggestion of the 
 possible lack of such asstirance on their part. 
 The tone of triumphant joy with which the 
 preceding chapter closes, though in no wise 
 inconsistent with the very opposite emotion 
 which he is about to express, yet by the con- 
 trast greatly adds to the significance of his 
 emphatic and twofold asseveration. And the 
 solemnity of this asseveration is confirmed, on 
 the positive side, by the addition, 'in Christ,' 
 and on the negative, by the addition, my 
 conscience also bearing me witness — 
 [giving testimony with me — with my feelings 
 
 of assurance, or with my declaration] in the 
 Holy Ghost. As if he. had said, "I make 
 no hasty or extravagant assertion : I speak 
 the sober truth, as a Christian, and my con- 
 science, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, bears 
 me witness." So much pains does the apostle 
 take to assure those to whom he has been 
 obliged to declare unwelcome truths, of his 
 tender regard for them. [The phrase, 'in 
 Christ,' expresses "entire intimacy of most 
 real fellowship," — defining here, according to 
 Ellicott, "the element or sphere in which the 
 declaration is made." So Winer, p. 390, 
 '''' sjieak the truth in Christ (as one living in 
 Christ)." Compare 2 Cor. 2: 17; Ejih. 4: 
 17; 1 Thess. 4: 1, etc. " By thus sinking his 
 own personality, the solemnity of the apostle's 
 declaration is greatly enhanced." See Elli- 
 cott on Eph. 4: 17. Some regard the phrase 
 in the light of an oath, but this would require 
 the preposition commonly used in such cases 
 (Trpos) with the genitive, unless a verb or 
 adjective were expressed. On the co-wit- 
 nessing of the apostle's conscience 'in the 
 Holy Spirit,' Meyer thus remarks: "Paul 
 knows that the witness of his conscience is 
 not outside the Spirit that fills him, but in 
 that Spirit." "The distinction between his 
 own declaration and that of his conscience 
 means that he has proved his feelings in re- 
 gard to his people by the light of conscience 
 and of the Spirit of God." (Lange.)] 
 
 1 The apostle need not, in solving this " enigma," 
 have occupied so many pages, nor brought forward so 
 prominently the sovereign power and elective purpose 
 of God had he believed in the semi-omnipotence and 
 arbitrariness of man's free will. It was indeed strange 
 that the Jews generally should have rejected the Mes- 
 siah .Tesus, who was himself a Jew according to the 
 flesh, and that the Gentiles should so readily have re- 
 ceived a salvation which was " from the Jews." But 
 all the apostle needed to say, on the above supposition, 
 was that, through the self-determining, indomitable 
 power of the will, the Jews for various reasons, and yet 
 against all reason, obstinately refused to receive the 
 Son of David as their king, and what would be the 
 final result of this rejection, neither he nor indeed the 
 (so-called) Omniscient One himself, was at all able to 
 tell. This, of course, would be placing man first and 
 God last, or rather leaving him and his plan and pur- 
 
 pose (or indeed, any plan and purpose) in man's history 
 out of view. What some men mean by the will's free 
 self-determination, or the power of contrary choice, 
 would render any " philosophy of history " impossible. 
 While, however, we hold that man's will cannot create 
 motives ad libitum, or act against all motives, we do 
 believe that it can color motives and give them force 
 and value. Yea, that motives are rather internal than 
 external to the mind, and that they have too often been 
 regarded as outward mechanical forces, acting upon the 
 will as though it were a merely passive agent. It seems 
 to us that in Edwards' " Dissertation on the Freedom 
 of the Will," motive is, at times, too much regarded as 
 something objective to, and separate from the will, or 
 the soul willing. The will is an active agent, giving 
 force and color to motives, and choosing from among 
 motives, and is not determined or moved, like the 
 liands of a clock, simply by external forces. — (F.) 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 217 
 
 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow 
 ill iny heart. 
 
 ■i For I could wish that n;yself were accursed from 
 Christ lor my brethreu, my kiusmeu according to the 
 flesh: 
 
 have great sorrow and unceasing pain in luy heart. 
 
 3 For 1 could i wisli that I myself were anathema 
 
 I'rum Christ for my brethren's sake, my kiusmea 
 
 1 Or, pray. 
 
 2. That I have great heaviness and 
 continual sorrow. Of these two words trans- 
 lated ' lieaviness' and 'sorrow,' the former is 
 the word usually rendered sorrow (eleven 
 times), while the latter is a stronger term, 
 which occurs only here and in 1 Tim. 6: 10, 
 and is translated "anguish" by Alford, Noyes, 
 and the Bible Union. It was not enough to 
 say that he had 'sorrow,' pain (Avn-Tj), but he 
 must add, 'anguish' {oSvvt}) ; nor was that 
 enough, but he must say great sorrow and 
 continual anguish. And then he must add 
 what is much more wonderful still. [Accord- 
 ing to Paul's teachings. Christians should 
 always be jo^'ful and rejoicing, and the apos- 
 tle himself was doubtless, not a jovial, but a 
 joyful and happy Christian — rejoicing in the 
 Lord greatly and always. But we see that 
 the happiness he felt in Christ's service was 
 compatible with unceasing heart anguish for 
 the conversion of his fellowmen. Yea, the 
 more fully he experienced the blessedness of 
 his heavenlj' calling in Christ Jesus, the 
 deeper, it would seem, was his sorrow over 
 the unbelief and impenitence of his country- 
 men. Yet, notwit.-tanding all his heart 
 anguish for souls, we cannot suppose that he 
 ever for an instant felt that he had greater 
 love for sinners, or was more anxious for 
 their conversion, than God himself who, in 
 one sense, had power to convert the whole 
 race of Israel in a moment. Nay, his soul 
 would have shuddered at the blasphemous 
 thought, even while he might be unable to 
 explain God's forbearing to work this change 
 in the hearts of men. For he knew the love 
 of God to our lost race, in that he "spared 
 not his own Son"; he knew that the love of 
 Christ for perishing sinners surpassed all 
 human knowledge ; and, however great the 
 mystery, he yet knew that the anxiety of his 
 
 own heart was caused by the Spirit of God 
 in him, making intercession for Israel with 
 groanings too great for utterance in words. 
 We sometimes have great sorrow of heart on 
 account of disappointments, losses, afflictions, 
 death, or calamities worse than dei.th, but 
 very few Christians, we fear, have any such 
 anguish as the apostle felt for the conversion 
 of sinners. Comjiare 2 Cor. 12: 15.] 
 
 3. Accursed from Christ — literally, ana- 
 tftema from Christ, implj'ing separation from 
 Christ as a Saviour, and involving the alter- 
 native of perdition. [For the use of the term 
 'anathema,' see Lev. 27: 28, 29, in the LXX., 
 and compare Acts 23: 14; 1 Cor. 12: 3; 16; 
 22; Gal. 1: 8, 9.] But did Paul really wish 
 this? He does not say so. He says, ' I could 
 wish ' : I could, if it were lawful ; I could, if 
 it were posaibie ; I could, if the realization of 
 such a wish could procure the salvation of my 
 countrj'men.' No one is competent to inter- 
 pret, or even to understand, this expression of 
 Paul, except .in so far as he is capable of 
 entering by sympathy into Paul's inmost 
 experience, his ardent patriotism, his fervent 
 desire for the salvation of men. To bring to 
 the explanation of such an utterance as this 
 a calm, critical disposition, with whatever 
 amount of exegetical learning, is to bring an 
 utter disqualification to apprehend its true 
 meaning. Tholuck was aware of this, when 
 he said, " The objections against this expres- 
 sion all arise from a cool waj' of contemplating 
 it, which altogether forgets what a loving 
 heart, in the fervor of its passion, is capable 
 of uttering." Bengel was aware of this, when 
 he wrote, "if the soul be not far advanced, it 
 is incapable of comprehending this, even as a 
 little child is incapable of comprehending the 
 courage of warlike heroes." Michaelis was 
 unable to comprehend this, and so he calls it 
 
 1 The literal rendering of this verb in the imperfect 
 indicative is : ' I was wishing, or praying' — that is, if 
 the thing wished for were possible. The act is repre- 
 sented as unfinished, an obstacle intervening. (Alford.) 
 Hence the verb (ri<'>x6iiriv) is here quasi-optative and 
 signifies: ' I could wish,' etc. But this is to be distin- 
 guished from TjvxoM'C with av, for this would probably 
 
 mean : I could wmA (but T will not). In Acts 26: 29 we 
 have this verb in the optative mood with av, meaning: 
 I could wish — that is, if the wish were allowable (Butt- 
 mann, 217), or, if I obeyed the impulse of my own 
 heart, though it may be unavailing. (Hackett.) See 
 Winer, 30.S, 283, and for examples similar to the above, 
 Acts 25 ; 22 ; Gal. 4: 20.— <F.) 
 
218 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 4 Who are Israelites; to whom perlalnelh the adop- 
 tion, and the glory, aud the covenants, and the giving 
 of the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; 
 
 4 according to the flesh: who are Israelites; whose 
 is the adoption, and the glory, aud the covenants, 
 and the giving of the law, and the service of God, 
 
 "a fanatic prayer."' We must notice tlie 
 empliasis with which he specifies himself here 
 — an empliasis not adequately represented in 
 the Common Version : I myself in contrast 
 with my bretUren [themselves under a curse], 
 my kinsmen according to the flesh >— and 
 with this additional thouglit, ' even I myself , 
 whom you suppose to be so ill affected toward 
 you' [or, / myself, to whom the love and 
 presence of Christ would be a heaven for- 
 ever.]^ Then he proceeds to mention other 
 reasons, besides their natural kinship, for his 
 glowing afiection for them — namely, their 
 peculiar national privileges and historic 
 glories. 
 
 [The above prayer of the apostle is kindred 
 in spirit to that of Moses, when he said : " but 
 if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book." 
 (Exod.32: 32.) \n this prayer a Hopkins could 
 find a text for "disinterested benevolence," 
 and would infer that if a religious person 
 "could know that God designed, for his own 
 glory and the general good, to cast him into 
 endlrss destruction, this would not make him 
 cease to approve of his character. He would 
 continue to be a friend of God and to be 
 pleased with his moral perfections." See 
 quotation and comments in Lange. In our 
 view a "friend of God" could not suffer the 
 "eternal destruction," which will be the final 
 doom of those who know not God and obey 
 not the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (2Thess. i: 
 
 8, 9, Revised Version.) Even if it WCrC pOSSiblc that 
 
 the apostle could be accursed and separated 
 from the enjoj-ment of Christ forever, though 
 his loss and suffering on this account would 
 be unspeakably great, we do not suppose that 
 he would have exactly all the feelings and 
 suffer precisely all the misery of the lost, who 
 willfully and through enmity reject Christ. 
 Only One could be made a curse for us, and 
 wecannot believe that he, our blessed Saviour, 
 could have actually experienced all the emo- 
 tions and all the sufferings of the ungodly in 
 the world of woe. "Who can suppose that 
 either our Lord, or his chiefest apostle, in 
 consenting to become anathema for sinners, 
 
 was chargeable with the greatest of all absur- 
 dities "a holy willingness to be unholy"? 
 The love which could lead Paul to wish under 
 a certain supposition to be devoted to de- 
 struction or everlasting severance from Christ 
 for (not necessarily, in jdace of) his Jewish 
 kinsmen, flowed only from his love to Jesus, 
 and would of itself, as Prof. Riddle remarks, 
 "change hell to heaven." Olshausen, we 
 observe, takes the preposition (i-n-tp, for, to the 
 advantage of) in the sense of, instead of (avri), 
 and, though in his views inclined somewhat 
 to restorationism, yet remarks: "The whole 
 passage loses its meaning and its deep earnest- 
 ness if we suppose that Paul was really aware 
 that every single individual of the Jewish 
 nation, indeed all mankind, would in the end 
 be blessed. These words, therefore, indirectly 
 contain a strong proof of his conviction that 
 there is a state of eternal damnation, as 2 
 Thess. 1: 8, 9, expressly declares."] 
 
 4. Who is here the compound relative. 
 See 1 : 25. Israelites. This was their most 
 sacred and honorable name. The name Israel 
 was given to Jacob by God himself on a 
 memorable occasion. (Gen. 32:28.) And the 
 name derived from it, which he prayed to 
 have named upon the two sons of Joseph 
 (Gen. 48:16), was the most distinguished of the 
 titles by which his posterity were designated. 
 See John 1 : 47; Rom. 11 : 1; 2 Cor. 11 : 22. 
 Next, after this heaven-bestowed name, the 
 apostle mentions six of their peculiar and 
 sacred distinctions as a people. To whom 
 pertaineth — or, more briefly and literally, 
 whose (are) — the adoption — that is, in a 
 national sense, in distinction from all other 
 
 peopl eS ( Exod. 4 : 22, 23 ; Deut. 14:1; 32 : 6 ; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 
 
 .11: 9); a great privilege, but not to be com- 
 pared to the personal adoption, the preroga- 
 ti.ve of believers in Christ. And the glory. 
 This probably refers to the bright cloud which, 
 as a symbol of Jehovah's presence, went be- 
 fore them when thej' went up out of Egypt 
 (Exod. 13:21), abode upon IMount Sinai (Ex.d. 
 24:16), and afterward rested on the tabernacle 
 (Exod. 40:34, 35 ) [and at timcs on the mercy seat 
 
 1 " Christ was made a ciirse for us because we were 
 his kinsmen" (Bengel.) — (F.) 
 
 2 " Subject of the infinitive, / myself, same as that of 
 
 (he finite verb: hence in the nominative " (Boise) rather 
 tha"n in the accusative. — (F.) 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 219 
 
 5 Whose are. tlie fathers, and of whom as concerning 
 the flesli Christ came, who is over uU, Ciod blessed fur- 
 ever. Amen. 
 
 5 and the promises; whose are the fatliers, and of 
 wliom is (Jlirist as concerning the liesh, ■ who is over 
 
 6 all, God blessed 2 for ever. Amen. But it is not as 
 
 1 Ot, flesh : he who i» aver all, God, be hleeted for ever 2 Gr. unto the age: 
 
 of tlie ark (Lev. 16:2)]. This is what the Rab- 
 bins call the Shekiiiah, a word derived from 
 the Hebrew verb which nieans to settle down 
 or re.st upon, as the cloud did upon the taber- 
 nacle. And the covenants [called in Eph. 
 2:12, the covenants of promise]. The plural 
 form of this word, which is unu.sual, probably 
 refers to the various renewals of the gracious 
 engagement whicii God made first with Abra- 
 ham (oeu. 15:18; 17:2, 4, 7-10), and afterward re- 
 newed to Isaac (Gen. 26:24), tO JaCOb (Gen. 28 : 
 
 i:'. 15), and to the whole people (Exod. 2*:7, 8). 
 [The codices B D E F G, with the Vulgate and 
 several Fathers, read — the covenant, which, 
 however, is adopted by no critical editors save 
 Lachmann.] And the giving of the law. 
 This refers to the transactions at Mount Sinai, 
 recorded with such particularity in Exodus, 
 chapters 19-23. [Some— as De Wette, Fritz- 
 sche, and others — make this law-giving equiv- 
 alent to the law itself or its contents. But the 
 giving of the law was to the Jews a greater 
 honor than its mere possession, since it might 
 have been received by them from other na- 
 tions.] And the service of (iod. The 
 words 'of God' are not in the original, but 
 the word translated 'service' is sufficiently 
 definite of itself, referring always to religious 
 service, and including here the entire system 
 of national worship as prescribed by the Lord 
 and performed in the tabernacle and in the 
 temple. [Compare Heb. 9:1. The "Five 
 Clergymen" render it: Service of the sanct- 
 uary.] And the promises. [See 15:8.] 
 No doubt the Messianic 'promises,' or those 
 which relate to Christ and his kingdom, are 
 especially meant." [" ' Promises' (errayvcAiat) is 
 intentionally put at the end, in order that 
 now, — after mention of the fathers to whom, 
 in the first instance, the promises were given, 
 — the Promised One him^self maj' follow." 
 (Meyer.)] 
 5. The fathers. This term is especially 
 
 applied to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Kxod. 
 
 3:13, 15; 4:5; Aci«3:13; 7:32), but is nOt tO be limited 
 
 to them exclusively any more than the term 
 patriarch. (Acts 2:29; 7 : 8, 9.) Of whom — that 
 is, of the Jews. The word ' whom' refers, not 
 to the word ' fathers,' but back to the general 
 subject of the preceding description, the same 
 as the word ' who' at the beginning of ver. 4. 
 As concerning the flesh Christ came. 
 As to his human nature, which plainly im- 
 plies that he had also a higher nature, how 
 much higher the apostle immediat<ly tells us 
 in the most decisive terms! Who is over all^ 
 God blessed for ever. [Or, 'Who is God 
 over all.' This last rendering is equally ad- 
 missible as the other, and is preferred by 
 Mejeri — that is, in case the sentence must be 
 referred to Christ. Some, however, who hold 
 that Christ is Lord of all, and that God, with- 
 out the article (9eds), may be applied to him, 
 as here and in John 1 : 1, as well as in John 
 1 : 18, according to some of the oldest and best 
 manuscripts, yet liesitate to say that he is 
 'God overall.' But 'God' (eeos), though with- 
 out the article, is often used in the New 
 Testament to denote the Supreme Deity, and 
 certainlj' the religion of the Bible knows no 
 secondary, minor God. Hence, if Christ be 
 God at all, he must be 'God over all.' "The 
 absence of the article," says Philippi, "proves 
 nothing, its use being here impossible, because 
 God (Oeot) is predicate, and the design is simply 
 to aflSrm the deity of Christ {6i6v eXvai). No 
 doubt we might say, our God, Jesus Christ 
 [using the article], but not, Christ is (6 »«o?) 
 the God, because he, whose Godhead is meant 
 to be asserted, cannot be described as 'the 
 God' already known."] This emphatic asser- 
 tion of the supreme deity of our Lord seems 
 too plain to admit of controver.sy. The only 
 way in which its force can with an^' ))lausi- 
 bility be evaded is by placing a period imme- 
 diately before this clause, thus separating it 
 
 1 This dist infTuishcd commentator, whose " grammati- 
 cal accuracy and logical keenness" Biblical scholars will 
 ever delight to acknowledge, and into whose exegetical 
 labors they will not fail to enter, held that Christ, in 
 accordance with 8cripinre teaching, had an eternal jire- 
 existent and God-equal being and nature; that in him 
 
 dwells the divine essence undivided and in its whole 
 fullness, yet that ahsolute deity belongs only to the 
 Father. Hence he believed in a subordination Trinity. 
 But would it not appear from this representation as 
 though some one had contradicted himself? — (F.) 
 
220 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 from tlie name of Christ and making it a 
 simple doxolngy to God the Father — "blessed 
 forever be God, who is over all." The clauses 
 are divided in this waj' by Lachmann, Tisch- 
 endorf, and Meyer ;i not, however, with the 
 view of weakening the proof of Christ's divine 
 nature, but on the ground that Paul never 
 expressly applies the name God to Christ. 
 But conceding for the moment the truth of 
 that assertion, why should not Paul make 
 such direct application of the term in one case 
 only, as Meyer admits that John has done in 
 the first verse of his Gospel? But we do not 
 admit that this is the only instance in which 
 Paul applies the term 'God' to Christ. On 
 the contrary, we maintain that he calls Christ 
 'God' expressly in Titus 1:3 and 2:13, and 
 by fair implication also in Phil. 2 : 6 and Col. 
 2:9. In fact, the whole tenor of the passage, 
 interpreted as a doxology to Christ as God, 
 agrees with Paul's way of introducing abrupt 
 doxologies. See Rom. 1 : 25; 2 Cor. 11 : 31 ; 
 2 Tim. 4 : 18. Meyer admits that this last is 
 an undoubted instance of a doxology to 
 Christ. We adhere to the simplest and most 
 natural punctuation and explanation of the 
 verse, therefore, and regard it as a direct 
 affirmation of the Godhead of Christ, parallel 
 with John 1 : 1 and 20 : 28. The still more 
 artificial punctuation, advocated by Erasmus 
 and followed by Locke and Clarke, which 
 places a period after the word 'all,' seems 
 hardly to require any further notice. [The 
 neuter article (t6) before 'according to the 
 flesh' (icara o-op/ca) puts the phrase in the ac- 
 cusative case, akin, perhaps, to the accusative 
 of limitation or closer specification. (Butt- 
 mann, 152; Winer, 230.) See als.> 12:18. 
 Alford sees in its use here an implication that 
 
 Christ was not entirely sprung from the Jews, 
 but that he had a higher nature. Meyer also 
 says that "such prepositional definitions with 
 the accusative of the article certainly denote 
 a complete contrast, which is either expressly 
 stated, as in 12 : 5, or may be self-evident from 
 the context, as 1:15; 12:18." If the whole 
 clause after the word 'flesh' is a doxology to 
 God the Father, the masculine article (o) 
 belongs to ' God' (Seos). Compare 1 Cor. 3 : 7. 
 And a literal translation of the whole would 
 be: "The existing over-all God (be) blessed 
 unto the ages! " " The existing" (6 liv), if it 
 be referred to Christ, leaves 'God' (fleos) with- 
 out the article, and is equivalent to 'who is' 
 (6s «Vti), or, according to Bishop Wordsworth, 
 "who is existing." These same words are 
 translated ' which is,' or, ' who is,' in John 1 : 
 18 ; 3 : 13 ; 2 Cor. 11 : 31 ; and ' who was ' in 
 John 12 : 17. Indeed, in 2 Cor. 11 : 31 we have 
 not only the same construction, but, for the 
 most part, the very words of our clause, and 
 the passage is rendered: "God the Father 
 . . . who is blessed unto the ages! " (Revised 
 Version, margin.) So that both here and in 
 Rom. 1 : 25, the only two places besides our 
 passage where Paul uses the phrase "blessed 
 unto the ages!" the reference is to a preced- 
 ing subject. Since, therefore, there is no 
 transition particle (like Se in 1 Tim. 1 : 17) to 
 indicate a change of subject in our passage, 
 and since tlie participle, ' being' or 'existing' 
 (u^), appears somewhat superfluous and awk- 
 ward if a doxology to God be supposed here, 
 we naturally and necessarily, grammar and 
 usage being taken into account, refer the 
 whole clause to the preceding subject — 
 Christ.2 It is objected that elsewhere in the 
 genuinely apostolical writings we do net find 
 
 1 See foot-note, page 219. 
 
 2 In the Appendix to the " Introduction of the Greek 
 New Testament," by Westcott and Hort, the former re- 
 marks that "the juxtaposition of 6 Xpio-ros and 6 Siv 
 seems to make a change of subject improbable." Dr. 
 Weiss, in his " Biblical Theology of the New Testa- 
 ment," Vol. I., p. 393, says that " the explanation which 
 is most natural, and most in conforniily with tlie lan- 
 guage and the context, is that which makes it refer to 
 Christ, and not to God." But Alford, with much more 
 boldness, affirms that the rendering given by our Com- 
 mon and Revised Versions is " not only that most 
 agreeable to the usage of the apostle, bill tlie only one 
 admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement." 
 Another reason for referring this clause to Christ is 
 
 that, if this be a doxology to God the Father, the word 
 'blessed' {evKoyriTo^ or euAoyij/u-eVos), where no copula 
 is expressed (compare 3 Kints 10 : 9 ; 2 Chron. 9:8; Job 
 1 : 21 ; Ps. 112 : 2, Septuagint Version, where the copula 
 is used), should, by the invariable usage of the LXX. 
 and of the New Testament, occupy the first place. See 
 with «iAovr)To?, Luke 1 : 68; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1 :3; 1 
 Peter 1:3; and with euAo-yjj/u.ei'o?, Matt. 21:9; 23 : 39 ; 
 Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; 19:38, etc. Liddon, in his 
 Bampton Lectures, a most excellent treatise on " Our 
 Lord's Supreme Divinity," says: "There are about 
 forty places in the Old Testament, and five in the New, 
 in which the formula of doxology occurs, and in every 
 case tht arrangement is the same: Blessed be the God, 
 etc. — in other words, the predicate 'blessed' always 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 221 
 
 any doxology to Christ in the usual form. 
 Both De Wette and Meyer concede that 2 
 Tim. 4: 18 has such a do.vology, "but this," 
 says Meyor, " is just one of the traces of post- 
 apostolical composition." And so the doxolo- 
 gies to Christ found in Heb. 13:21; 2 Peter 
 3:18; Rev. 1:6; 5:12, etc., rest under the 
 same ban of discredit. Meyer also denies that 
 the do.xologies in Rom. 16:27: 1 Peter 4: 11, 
 refer to Christ; but denial is not always proof 
 Even if it be conceded tiiat formal do.vologies 
 to Christ are wanting in Paul's epistles, no 
 one, we suppose, would account for this want 
 on the ground that the apostle could not 
 conscientiously ascribe praise and glory and 
 blessing to his adorable Redeemer. Besides, 
 as Dr. Gifford in the "Bible Commentary" 
 remarks, Meyer's objection is "wide of the 
 mark," inasmuch as the clause before us, if 
 applied to Christ, "is not a doxology at all," 
 but is a simple assertion respecting the subject 
 of the sentence in a manner wholly similar 
 to 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31, the only two places 
 besides this in Paul's writings where the 
 expression 'blessed unto the ages' (Revised 
 Version, margin) is found. "Were it a doubt- 
 ful matter, also, whether Paul has elsewhere 
 given the name of God to the Lord and 
 Saviour of the NewTe.stament, yet, asPhilippi 
 remarks, "he describes him indirectly as God, 
 and therefore in any case thought of him as 
 God, even if he did not call him so directly. 
 For to whom belong divine attributes— like 
 eternity (Coi. i : is, i?) ; omnipresence (Eph. i:23; 
 4:10); nnd grace (Horn. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3, etc.) ; divine 
 works, like the creation and preservation of 
 the world (ooi. i:i6, n) ; and the dispensing of 
 judgment (2 cnr.5:io; 2Thess.i:7-io) ; and diviue 
 worship(R'>n^.io:i3:Phii.2:io, II) — is himsclf God." 
 On the question whether the naming of Christ 
 as God would not be inconsistent with Pauline 
 usage, Prof Cremer observes in substance 
 
 that the transition from the Son of God to 
 God is a very easy one (JoUn io:i3.38), and that 
 Paul, who never speaks of Christ as the Son 
 of man, should call him man (iTim.2:5; Rom.s: 
 i5,etc.), might likewise ajipear to be an incon- 
 sistency'. But as "the man, Christ Jesus," is 
 inferred from "the Son of man," so with 
 equal justice we might infer the "God, 
 Christ," from th^"Son of God." Paul, in 
 common with the earliest Christian disciples, 
 worshiped Clirist as divine, as One equal with 
 God, in whom dwelt all the fullness of deity, 
 or the divine essence, bodily, and was accus- 
 tomed to direct prayer and supplication to 
 him as One able to forgive and save. See 
 Acts 22:16, 19; 2 Cor. 12:8, 9. Compare 
 Rom. 10:12; Acts 2 : 21 ; 7:59; 9:14,21; 1 
 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22. (See further at 10: 
 12.) In the light, therefore, of Scripture 
 teaching, we need not hesitate to affirm that 
 Christ is both Lord of all and God over all, 
 and is blessed forevermore. Meyer concedes 
 that the language of our text, as far as the 
 construction of words is concerned, may be 
 applied to Christ, and it is a noteworthy fact 
 that all the Fathers of the early Church — 
 IrcnaBus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Hip- 
 polj'tus, Athanasius,* Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, 
 Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodo- 
 ret, Theophylact, Jerome, Augustine, (Ecu- 
 menius, etc.— did apply it to Christ. Of the 
 modern Germans who advocate the same view, 
 Meyer mentions "Michaelis, Koppo, Tiioluck 
 Flatt, Klee, Usteri, Benecke, Olshausen, Niel- 
 sen, Reithmayer, Maier, Beck, Philippi, Bis- 
 ping. Gess, Krummacher, Jatho, Hahn, Tho- 
 masius, Ebrard, Ritschl, Hofmann, Weiss, 
 Delitzsch, and others.'' Fritzsche, Winer, 
 Ewald, and many others take the opposite 
 view. 
 Two other principal points in favor of the 
 
 precedes the subject." Ps. 68 : 19 (Septungint Version, 
 67 : 19) seems to lie an exception. Yet the text here is 
 probably corrupt, there being nothing in the Hebrew 
 to correspond with the first "blessed." Perhaps the 
 copula "is," rather than the iniperatiTe, should be 
 understood bore. Farrar and others, however, think 
 it likely that Paul may have had the doxology of tliis 
 Psalm in mind, and they find in this additional evi- 
 dence that in our passage he calls Christ blessed, since 
 in Eph. 4 : s he quotes the immediately preceding verse 
 nnd applies it directly to Christ. It is, indeed, objected 
 that tvAoyijTis is nowhere else applied to Christ, but 
 
 only cvAoyqfic'fot, as in Matt. 21 : 9; 23: 39, and parallel 
 passages, quoted above. Rut there is no essential differ- 
 ence in the meaning of the word.s, and in the Old Testa- 
 ment (LXX.) we find tvAoyTjfXfi-o? as applied to God (1 
 Cbron. Ifi : M ; 2 Chron..9 : « ; Ezek. 3 : 12), and evAoyrjTos 
 applied to man (versus Ellicott on Eph. 1:3; see Dent. 
 7:14; Ruth 2:20; 1 Sam. 15 : 13), and all these examples 
 have the same Hebrew word in the original. — (F.) 
 
 1 Meyer is mistaken, we think, when he says: "In 
 the Arian controversies our pas.sage was not made use 
 of," for .\tlianasius, the so-called "father of ortho- 
 doxy," did thus use it.— (F.) ' 
 
222 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 "ecclesiastical interpretation" of this passage 
 remain to be noticed. I. A doxology to God 
 the Father is here wholly inappropriate. 
 Paul, indeed, mentions several blessings en- 
 joyed by the Jews, j'et he does not expressly 
 specify them as gifts from God, and it was the 
 tliought of their being neglected or abused 
 whicli now filled his soul with anguish. Who 
 would expect from the apostle, in such a state 
 of mind as this, an outburst of gratitude to 
 God in view of his abused mercies? The 
 proper place for a heartfelt doxology is just 
 where Paul puts it— namely, at the end of the 
 eleventh chapter, where he leaves the elder 
 brother, the self-righteous Jewish legalist, and 
 th(3 younger brother, the Gentile prodigal, 
 both lovingly reunited in their heavenly 
 Father's house. On the otlier hand, an as- 
 cription of praise to Christ is here especially 
 suitable, in view of his being set at nought by 
 the Jews, and is exactly in the line of Paul's 
 method, as indicated in 1 : 25, where, in con- 
 trast with the dishonor heaped upon God by 
 the Gentiles, the afBrmation is made that he 
 'is blessed for ever.' Dorner, in defense of 
 this, "the most probable exposition," says: 
 "A doxology to God would not fit in with the 
 anguish at Israel's rejection, to which Paul 
 gives utterance in ver. 1-5; on the other hand, 
 the words, referred to Christ, whom Israel 
 rejected in spite of his dignity, give a reason 
 for this anguish. The continuation also of the 
 sentence (ver. 6) with the conjunction (Se) does 
 not suit a doxology to God, but to Christ." 
 ("System of Christian Doctrine,'' Vol. III., 
 p. 175. ) II. We should naturally expect, as an 
 antithesis to ' as to the flesh ' (Kara adpKa), some 
 reference (as in 1 : 3, 4, and elsewhere in the 
 Scriptures) to the higher nature of Christ;^ 
 while, on the contrary, a doxologj' to God, 
 besides being particularly unsuited to the con- 
 text, would, as De Wette acknowledges, put 
 Christ almost wholly into the shade. Indeed, 
 
 we may say with Philippi that the phrase 
 'according to the flesh' (icara <rdpKa) is intro- 
 duced merely for the sake of the following con- 
 trast: 'Who is God over all.' ^ DeWette, who 
 rejects the usual interpretation, thus sums up 
 his views of this passage: "I especially hesi- 
 tate at this, that [by viewing the whole clause 
 as a doxology to God] not only nothing fol- 
 lows which, serving as a counterpoise to 'ac- 
 cording to the flesh' (Kara cropxa), sets forth 
 Christ in his higher nature, but, as if to place 
 him directly in the shade, God is designated 
 as the One who is over all, without any special 
 reason for such designation." After mention- 
 ing Erasmus' proposal to put a period after 
 'all,' as in Codex 71, he adds: "We have here, 
 to be sure, the desired contrast, since Christ 
 would be described as One who is over all 
 (namely, the patriarchs), yet for the following 
 doxology to God there certainly appears to 
 be but very little reason; the absence of the 
 article before the word God is surprising, and 
 one would expect more justly than before that 
 blessed (euAo-yrjTO!) should precede. . . . Since 
 no explanation wholly satisfies, another read- 
 ing were desirable." But as concerns this 
 passage there is no variation in the manu- 
 scripts, and we are satisfied with the reading 
 as it is.] 
 
 The apostle now proceeds to vindicate God' s 
 truth and justice in the rejection of the Jews. 
 
 6. The first clause is elliptical: the com- 
 plete expression of the verse would be: 'the 
 case is not as though the word of God — (that 
 is, the promise of special blessing to Abraham 
 and his seed, of which the chief part was sal- 
 vation through the ilessiah), hath taken no 
 eff"ect, or in other words, failed of its fulfill- 
 ment.' [Others fill out the ellipsis thus: (I 
 say) not such a thing as that the word of God 
 has come to nought. The verb strictly means 
 to fall from, hence to fall down or through — 
 that is, fail of accomplishment.] It seemed 
 
 1 It has been objected that as it is we have no direct 
 contrast to 'according to the flesh' (^ko-to. a6.p<a), but 
 that a proper antithesis would require uccording to the 
 Spirit {Kara TTvevfia), as in 1 : 4, or, according to his God- 
 head (/cara Beorrira ; compare Col. 2 : 9) — the whole read- 
 ins something like this : " Of whom is Christ as respects 
 the flesh, but who as respects his spiritual and higher 
 nature, or his essential deity, is God over all." But the 
 contrast here employed is just as expressive and appro- 
 priate as a direct and formal antithesis would have 
 been.— (F.) 
 
 2 This author has quite a full exposition of the text, 
 and a defense of the ecclesiastical doctrine based, in 
 some measure, upon it. For a brief summary of the 
 "Scriptural Evidence of the Deity of Christ," see an 
 article by the writer in the "Bibliotheca Sacra" for 
 July, 18G0. Since that paper was written, new manu- 
 scripts have been discovered, and it must now be 
 conceded that earti/ textual authority establishes the 
 reading wAo instead of God in 1 Tim 3: Ifi. Philippi^ 
 however, still favors the reading of the Common Ver- 
 sion.— (F.) 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 223 
 
 6 Not as ibotigh the word of God hath taken none 
 effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel : 
 
 7 Neitlier, because they are the seed ot Abraham, 
 are thry all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be 
 calle.1. 
 
 « That is, They which are the children of the flesh, 
 these are not the children of tjod ; but the children ol 
 the proiuise are counted for the seed. 
 
 7 though the word of God hatli come to nought. For 
 they are not all Israel that are of Israel : neither, 
 because they are Aliraham's seed, are they all chil- 
 
 8 dren: but, In Isaac shall thy seed lie culled. That 
 is, it is not the children of the Hesh that are children 
 of God; but the childruu of the promise are reck- 
 
 to the Jews generally that the word of God 
 had come to nought, because they iiad not 
 received tlie blessing.s which they understood 
 to be promised: but the apostle shows them 
 that they had misunderstood the promise, that 
 it was not made to ail the posterity of Abra- 
 ham, but only to a selected portion of them, 
 whom God owned as children of Abraham in 
 a spiritual sense, [those, in other words, who 
 are Jews "inwardly" (•': 29), who are the 
 I.-irael of God (Gai.6: le), rather than Israel 
 after the flesh. Dr. Weiss supposes the promise 
 was given to the nation of the Jews, and not 
 to all the individuals composing it. "We see 
 liere tiiat carnal descent, though from seed of 
 divine promise, does of itself avail notliing]. 
 For they are not all Israel — that is, true 
 Israelites in God's esteem— which are of 
 Israel — that is, who are the natural posterity 
 of Jacob. 
 
 7. Neither, because they are the seed 
 of Abraham. [Notice how ''neither' (ovSe) 
 is preceded bj- the direct simple negative (ou). 
 Beginning with tiie previous sentence, we may 
 give this literal rendering of the whole pas- 
 sage: "For not all who are of Israel (are) 
 these Israel, neither, because tliey are Abra- 
 ham's seed (are) all children " (of Abraham) 
 — that is, in a true, spiritual sense. The pride 
 and boast of the Jews was: "We have 
 Abraham to our father." {M..tt. 3: 9; LuUeS: 8; 
 John 8: 39.)] 'The Seed of Abraham' in this 
 verse corresponds with 'of Israel,' of the 
 preceding verse ["Israel after the flesh" 
 (1 Cor. 10: is)], and both are to be understood, 
 literally, of the natural posterity of Abraham 
 and Jacob, or Israel ; and so, on the other 
 hand, the term 'children' in this verse cor- 
 responds with 'Israel' of the preceding; and 
 both are to be understood, figuratively', of the 
 spiritual posterity' of Abraham — that is, of 
 tiiose " who walk in the steps of the faith of 
 our father Abraham." SeeKom. 4: 12; Gal. 
 3 : 9, '29; and John 8 : 37, 39. [By these expres- 
 sions the apostle indicates the possibility of a 
 rejection of a part of the Jews, that people 
 who felt themselves to be "the children of 
 
 the kingdom."] The qut)tation in the last 
 clause of this verse — but. In Isaac shall thy 
 
 seed be called ["a seed shall be called for 
 thee"] — is taken quite literally from Gen. 21: 
 12 [without the formula of quotation, as 
 being a well-known saying], and decisively 
 confirms the previous assertion, that God 
 never meant to be understood as promising 
 the covenant blessings to all Abraham's pos- 
 terity, but only to those in the line of Isaac 
 [the <!hild by virtue of promise], thus exclud- 
 ing, not only Ishmael and his posterity, as in 
 the context of the passage just referred to, 
 but equtilly the six sons of Keturtih afterward 
 born to him, and their descendants. (Gen. 25: 
 1.2.) ["The seed subsisting in Isaac shall 
 be called thy seed." (De Wette.) "Thy 
 offspring shall be reckoned from Isaac." 
 (Noyes. ) Mej-er and Philippi give this as 
 the apostle's meaning : "The person of Isaac 
 shall be regarded as the true seed or real 
 descendant." "In thus adducing the case of 
 Isaac and Ishtnael the apostle certainly did 
 not decide on the eternal state of either of 
 them; yet the subject which he thus illus- 
 trated — namely, a remnant of believers among 
 an unbelieving nation — must refer not to out- 
 ward advantages and disadvantages, but to 
 eternal salvation or damnation." (Scott.)] 
 
 8. That is, [which signifies. They which 
 are the children of the flesh, etc. This 
 sentence, literally translated, reads thus: 
 "Not the children of the flesh (are) these the 
 children of God." In other words, the chil- 
 dren of the flesh are not thereby the children 
 of God, even though they may have Abraham 
 for their father]. Ishmael was the child of 
 Abraham in a natural and usual way; Isaac 
 in an unusual way, by virtue of an extra- 
 ordinary promi.se of God. See Gal. 4: 23. 
 The first was a child of the flesh ; the second 
 was a child of promise. And, as owing his 
 birth to a special divine interposition, Isaac 
 was a fit representative and type of all the 
 children of God. See John 1: 12, 13. [Chil- 
 dren of the promise — that i.<, "begotten by 
 virtue of the divine promise ' (Meyer), not 
 
224 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Cii. IX. 
 
 9 For this is tlie word of promise, At this time will I 
 come, and Sarah shall have a son. 
 
 10 Aud not only i/iis; but when Rebecca also had 
 conceived hy one, even by our lather Isaac, 
 
 11 (For I'/ie cliiUiien being not yet born, neither 
 having done any good or evil, that tlie purpose of (jod 
 acconiing to election might stand, not of works, but of 
 him that calleth ;) 
 
 9 oned for a seed. For this is a word of promise. 
 According to this season will I come, and Sarah 
 
 10 shall have a sou. And not only so; but Kebecca 
 also having conceived by one, even by our father 
 
 11 Isaac — for llie children being not yet born, neither 
 having done anything good or bad, that the purpose 
 of God according to election might stand, not of 
 
 as Noyes has it: "children to whom the 
 promise is made." "The children of the 
 promise" are "those whom God gi .^es to 
 Abraham by spiritual generation. . . . They 
 who interpret 'the children of promise' to 
 mean those who by faith embrace the promise, 
 say indeed what is fact, but do not speak with 
 suitable precision, lor the apostle in this place 
 does not distinguish the children of Abraham 
 from others by their faith as known, but he 
 discourses concerning the primary cause — that 
 is, the fountain of their faith itself, namely, 
 the eternal purpose of gratuitous election." 
 (Beza.)] Are counted for the seed: are 
 esteemed by God as the seed of Abraham in 
 the highest and truest sense. Compare notes 
 on 3 : 1-6. 
 
 9. For this is the word of promise [or, 
 ''The v^ord of 2'>vomise is this'] would be a 
 very literal translation of the tirst clause of 
 this verse. [Alford: " For this word was (one) 
 of promise."] It is a specific proof of the last 
 clause of the preceding verse. The quotation 
 which follows expresses the sense of Gen. 18: 
 10,14. At this time means 'at this season, 
 next year;' [in the Hebrew: According to 
 the living time — that is, "a^ the reviving sea- 
 son, when this season revives, returns again, 
 after passing away with the departing year." 
 (Conant. ) Gesenius makes this reviving time 
 to be the coming spring. The clause: And 
 Sarah shall have a son— To Sarah shall 
 be a son — retains the form of the Hebrew, 
 from which the Septuagint in Gen. 18: 10 
 varies]. 
 
 10. And not only this. [We now advance 
 from a word of divine promise to a word of 
 divine appointment. (Meyer.)] It will be ob- 
 served that the word 'this' is supplied by the 
 translators. The expression in the original is 
 elliptical, and the grammatical construction 
 irregular, the name Rebecca being in the nom- 
 inative without any verb; and the sentence 
 being resumed in ver. ]'2, after the parenthesis 
 of ver. 11, \nt.he nMercd form, itwassaidfo her. 
 [Many regard this nominative as absolute, and 
 see in the sentence an anacolutho7i, a changed 
 
 and unfinished construction. Noj-es, Godet, 
 and the Bible Union, seem to avoid this by 
 translating: 'but when Rebecca also had 
 conceived.' It would seem to be an "ener- 
 getic breviloquence," as though Paul would 
 saj' : ' not only is such the case with regard to 
 Sarah, but there is Rebecca also.'] The ellipsis 
 may be supplied thus: 'and not only was 
 there a divine word of sovereign discrimina- 
 tion to Abraham, between his two sons, and 
 in effect to Sarah likewise (see Gen. 18: 13-15), 
 but Rebecca also had a similar divine mes- 
 sage.' [So in substance, AViner, De Wette, 
 Me^'er. Philippi opposes this on the ground 
 that the promise of ver. 9 was not given to 
 Sarah, but to Abraham, and also that the 
 saying of God in ver. 12 was to Rebecca no 
 word of promise.] But when Rebecca also 
 had conceived (twin sons) by one, even 
 by our father Isaac. The phrase 'by one' 
 seems to be suggested by the difl^erence be- 
 tween this case and the former. In that case, 
 there were two mothers, one a bond woman, 
 and the other a free; but in fAis case, there 
 was but one mother, and but one father, which 
 makes the S(jvereign limitation of the chosen 
 posterity of Abraham to one of the twin sons 
 the more significant, and this example there- 
 fore stronger than the former. 
 
 11. This verse completely overthrows the 
 doctrine of the pre-existence of souls: the 
 children being not yet born, and, of course, 
 neither having done any good or evil. 
 [Instead of 'evil ' (xaKov) the Revised text has 
 bad ((JiaCAof, found in N A B), which properly 
 signifies light or worthless, good-for-nothing, 
 hence, with a moral reference, bad or ill, 
 (compare this with our word "naughty"), 
 and means a little less than wicked. They were 
 not guilty of personal, voluntary transgres- 
 sions, yet, as belonging to Adam's fallen race, 
 thej' both had natures inclined to sin. "As 
 regards original sin, both children were alike, 
 and as regards actual sin, neither had any." 
 (Augustine.) Neither birth nor works gave 
 them any claim.] The purpose of God 
 according to election, or, 'the elective 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 225 
 
 purpose I'f God,' is a very definite and strong 
 expression. Might stand [properly, viay 
 stand, denoting permanence]; this word is 
 the opposite of that which in ver. 6 is trans- 
 lated ' hath taken none effect.' [This sen- 
 tence in construction and thought would 
 properly follow the first phrase of the next 
 verse.] Not of works [properly defines 'pur- 
 pose.' Some make it dependent on 'may 
 stand.' The positive negative (oiic) is here 
 used, since it is not immediately connected 
 with 'that' (I^a) or the verb]. But of him 
 that calleth. The absolute sovereignty of 
 the divine election in the bestowment of 
 spiritual blessings, irrespective of human 
 works, performed or foreseen, could hardly 
 be affirmed in stronger terms. [" The thought 
 of an unconditional election of grace is here 
 distinctly expressed, and the idea that 'not of 
 works' excludes indeed all present merit, but 
 not the future which God has foreseen, is 
 wholly vain." (De Wette. ) Besides, the 
 works of Jacob, if foreseen, could not have 
 furnished ground for his election, for his 
 works were very nearl3' as ill as Esau's. Nor 
 were the descendants of Jacob chosen to be 
 God's peculiar people because of their worthi- 
 ness, as Moses frequently reminded them. 
 See Deut. 9 : 5. The purpose of God to bless 
 Jacob was not, then, based on the merit of 
 foreseen good works, or on the ground of any 
 human claim, but was made according to 
 God's free, yet not arbitrary, choice. "The 
 purpo.?e," says Philippi, "is described as made 
 according to election, or determined by elec- 
 tion, linked to election, in opposition to an 
 indiscriminate, universal saving decree, hav- 
 ing reference to the whole human race, or to 
 a definite class of men." Similarly Meyer: 
 "The purpose would have been no purpose 
 according to election, if God had resolved to 
 bless all without exception." The apostle, 
 moreover, while denying that God's elective 
 purpose is based on foreseen works, does not 
 affirm that it depends on foreseen faith. 
 Instead of saying "not from works but from 
 faith," or on account of faith, he simply adds: 
 hnt frotn him. that calleth. And in 2 Tim. 
 1 : 9, Revised Version, he tells us that God's 
 saving call is "not according to our works, 
 but according to his own purpose and grace, 
 which was given us in Christ Jesus before 
 times eternal." Compare Eph. 1 : 11; 3: 11. 
 
 Godet affirms that faith "cannot boa merit, 
 since faith consists precisely in renouncing all 
 merit," and hence that faith foreseen, unlike 
 works foreseen, though a moral condition of 
 election, would impose no obligation on God. 
 To this, we repl^', that if God's elective pur- 
 pose from eternity is made to depend upon 
 the foreseen faith of individuals, then God, 
 even though no obligation be imposed on him, 
 is yet no longer a sovereign disposer of grace, 
 nor does he take the initiative in one's salva- 
 tion. A faith which conditions a person's 
 election, especially if not based on grace, 
 should be begotten by that person; and if 
 faith is originated by man, little is left for 
 election or predestination to do. But Holy 
 Scripture, instead of asserting that God's pur- 
 pose according to election is grounded on any 
 man's work or faith, explicitly declares that 
 faith and repentance and obedience and sal- 
 vation are the result of God's elective purpose. 
 See 8 : 29 ; Eph. 2 : 8, 10 ; Phil. 2 : 13 ; 2 Thess. 
 2: 13; 2 Tim. 2: 25; 1 Peter 1 : 2, etc. Truly, 
 as Augustine says: "God does not choose us 
 because we believe, but that we may believe." 
 Even the Arminian Remonstrants, in the 
 third and fourth "points" of their contro- 
 versy with Calvinism, affirm, "that true faith 
 cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural 
 faculties and powers, or from the force and 
 operation of free will, since man, in conse- 
 quence of his natural corruption, is incapable 
 of thinking or doing any good thing; " and, 
 " that this divine grace or energy of the Holy 
 Ghost, which heals the disorders of a corrupt 
 nature, begins, advances, and brings to per- 
 fection everything that can be called good in 
 man, and that, consequently, all good works, 
 without exception, are to be attributed to God 
 alone and to the operation of his grace." It 
 would do no harm if some of the diluted Cal- 
 vinism of our day was tinctured with a little 
 more of such Arminianism as this. Such 
 views as these are antagonistic to the doctrine 
 that God's elective purpose to save is condi- 
 tioned on man's foreseen faith. Albert Barnes 
 says, that the purpose of God "is no^ a pur- 
 pose formed because he sees anything in the 
 individuals as a ground for his choice, but for 
 some reason which he has not explained and 
 which in the Scripture is simply called ^?/r/)ose 
 and good pleasure." Such evidently was the 
 apostle's view of God's purpose according to 
 
226 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the I 12 works, but of him that calleth, it was said uuto her, 
 younger. I 
 
 election ; otherwise it would not have called 
 forth what Ciilvin terms the "impure bark- 
 ings" of those who, on account of such elec- 
 tion, charged God with injustice. See ver. 14. 
 Augustine, in controversy with the Pelagian 
 idea, that God elects men because of their fore- 
 seen goodness, says: "Who but must wonder 
 that this most ingenious sense should escape 
 the apostle? For after proposing what was 
 calculated to excite astonishment respecting 
 those children unborn, he started to himself, 
 by way of objection, the following question: 
 'What then, is there unrighteousness with 
 God ? ' It was the place for him to answer, that 
 God foresaw the merits of each of them. Yet 
 he says nothing of this, but resorts to the de- 
 crees and mercy of God.' " 
 
 It is to be noticed, however, that in all 
 Paul's writings there is no plainly specified 
 election or predestination to eternal death. 
 Calvin, who approached, perhaps, too near 
 the precipice, concerning which Augustine 
 said "Beware!" inferred the verity of an 
 "eternal reprobation," and the mere logical 
 faculty may, from one point of view, deem 
 this inference to be unavoidable. But from 
 the apostle's most explicit utterances, we learn 
 that those whom God wills to blind and harden 
 are incorrigible sinners, that those to whom 
 he willeth to show mercy are, of course, lost 
 and guilty, and that his election is of grace^ 
 and has reference, therefore, to the undeserv- 
 ing. The elect bear the name "vessels of 
 mercy, ^^ which shows that they, like the vessels 
 of wrath, are taken from a common " mass 
 of perdition"; and if the former are saved, it 
 is because of gratuitoKS election ; if the latter 
 are reprobated, it is because of their sins. All 
 are alike undeserving, and hence God can, 
 without partiality, have mercy on whom he 
 will, can reject or pass by whom he will, and 
 it is ours only to say: "Even so. Father, for 
 so it seemed good in thy sight." For some 
 further views on this general subject, see re- 
 marks on 8 : 29. To the question whether 
 God's elective purpose regarding Jacob and 
 Esau had reference to their temporal con- 
 dition or to their eternal state, we should an- 
 swer that, according to the apostle's repre- 
 sentation, it had primary reference to their 
 temporal state, and not so much to them as 
 
 individuals as to their descendants. Paul cer- 
 tainly does not aiRrm in the next verse that 
 Jacob was elected to eternal salvation and 
 that Esau was reprobated to eternal death, 
 but the elder shall serve the younger. 
 Yet even the elder did not persmially serve 
 the younger, but, on the contrary, we read 
 that Jacob, in consequence of his supplaiit- 
 ings, was obliged to humble himself to 
 the earth as a servant before his brother, 
 and to say: "My lord, Esau!" The one 
 however, was elected to peculiar external ad- 
 vantages and to theocratic gracious privileges, 
 to the use and enjoj'ment of which the other 
 was not chosen, while still the other was not 
 left entirely destitute of divine favor and 
 blessing. Isaac was elected to a pre-eminence 
 over Ishmael, and Jacob to a pre-eminence 
 over Esau, yet, as Philippi observes, "even 
 Ishmael is not left without promise (Gen. le-. lO; 
 17:20), and is preserved by divine providence. 
 (Gen. 21:17, seq.) Esau also reccives hls blessing 
 (Gen. 27:39, seq.), while the life of Isaac and Jacob 
 is fertile in peculiar trials and sorrows. And 
 the posterity of Ishmael and Esau are, finally, 
 in admission into the Messianic kingdom in 
 accordance with the universal prophetic prom- 
 ises, to obtain a share in the loftiest preroga- 
 tive of the chosen people." Yet in our view 
 God's elective purpose, as set forth in the 
 Scriptures, does not generall3' have reference 
 to peoples and to their enjoyment of external 
 privileges. That Paul in this Epistle makes 
 divine election to be individual, gracious, and 
 saving, is most clearly manifest. See ver. 23; 
 8:29; 11:5. And the apostle could well show 
 this while explaining the temporary rejection 
 of God's people. Israel, and without digressing 
 to write a set treatise on election and repro- 
 bation. Thus, from the example of Jacob 
 and Esau, Prof. Stuart derives this lesson: 
 "If God did, according to election, make such 
 distinctions among the legitimate and proper 
 children of Isaac, the 'son of promise,' then 
 the same God may choose, call, justify, and 
 glorify those who are 'called' in respect to 
 the heavenly inheritance. If it is not unjust 
 or improper in one case to distribute favors 
 'according to his purpose,' then it is not in 
 another." Dr. Shedd*gives his views on these 
 points as follows: "The theocratic election 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 227 
 
 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have 
 I hated. 
 
 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteous- 
 ness with God ? God loibid. 
 
 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom 
 I will have mercy, and 1 will have couipassioi) on 
 whom I will have compassion. 
 
 13 The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is 
 written, Jacob I loved, but Esau 1 hated. 
 
 14 What shall we say, then? Is there unrighteous- 
 
 15 ness with God? liod forbid. For he saith to 
 Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, 
 and I will have compassion on whom I have com- 
 
 of Isaac and Jacob illustrates the spiritual 
 election of individuals; and the theocratic 
 reprt)bation of Lshmael and Esau illustrates 
 the spiritual reprobation of individuals. . . 
 The question arises whether the theocratic 
 corresponded with the individual election and 
 reprobation in the cases of Jacob and Esau 
 themselves. The fact that each was a typical 
 personage favors the affirmative, because the 
 symbolical is most naturally homogeneous 
 with that which it symbolizes. It would be 
 unnatural to set forth a spiritually elect per- 
 son as the type of the reprobated class, and 
 vice versa. And the history of Esau shows 
 that his sinful self-will was not overcome by 
 the electing compassion of God. Esau re- 
 nounced the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, in which he had been educated, and 
 to which he might still have adhered, even 
 though he had, by the divine will, lost his 
 primogeniture, and lapsed into idolatry with 
 his descendants. He falls, therefore, into 
 the same class with the apostate Jews, and 
 though 'of Israel' was yet not Israel." 
 (ver. B.) But we do not feel called upon to 
 settle the eternal state of these individuals.] 
 
 13. The passage here cited [in confirmation 
 of the preceding] is written in Mai. 1 : 2, 3. 
 We must beware of weakening too much the 
 expression Esau have I hated, since the 
 descendants of Esau, to whom the language is 
 particularly applied by Malachi, are described 
 as "the people against whom the Lord hath 
 indignation forever." (ver.i.) [We read in 
 the Wisdom of Solomon (u : «) : " Thou Icn'est 
 all things and abhorrest nothing which thou 
 hast made, for never wouldst thou have made 
 anything, if thou hadst hated it." Certainly 
 the "philanthropy" of God (tuusS:*) would 
 not allow him to hate absolutely and in a 
 human manner any human being, even 
 tliough sinful. We may suppose that he 
 loved Esau personally with the love of com- 
 passion, while he could not have loved Jacob 
 with entire complacency. Those who think 
 tliat "hate" in Scripture usage sometimes 
 means to love less, refer to such passages as 
 
 Gen. 29 : 30, 31 ; Luke 14 : 26, compared with 
 Matt. 10 : 37, etc., where a less degree of love, 
 compared with a greater, is termed hatred. 
 The expression is anthropopathic, and refers 
 not so much to the emotion as to the effect. 
 (Philippi.) In Sirach 33 : 11, 12, we find a like 
 declaration of the unequal distribution of 
 God's gifts among men. Of course, an}' with- 
 holding of divine favors might seem an act of 
 hatred. It often is an act of judgment against 
 sinners. Haldane affirms that Esau, even be- 
 fore his birth, deserved God's hatred, because 
 he sinned in Adam; but surely his Adamic 
 transgression was not greater than that of 
 Jacob.] 
 
 To this doctrine, that God chooses one and 
 rejects another athis mere good pleasure, there 
 are two objections urged: I. That it is unjust. 
 (Ver. 14.) Answer 1. (joA claims this preroga- 
 tive, (vei. 15, 16.) Answer 2. ^Iq exercises it. 
 (Ver. 17, 18.) II. That it destroys human re- 
 sponsibility. (Ver. 19.) Answer 1. The objec- 
 tion is irreverent, (ver. m, -n.) Answer 2. 
 God only treats the rejected as they deserve, 
 and the accepted better than they deserve 
 (ver. 22-24) ; and neither of these is unjust. 
 
 14. Paul here states, in the form of a ques- 
 tion, an objection which he sees likely to arise 
 in the reader's mind from what has just been 
 said (ver. 1113); and before giving any specific 
 answer to that objection, indignantly repels, 
 as he does elsewhere (3:4,5; cai. 3:2ij, any asper- 
 sion upon the character of God. Let it not 
 be! [The negative particle (m>)) in this ques- 
 tion supposes a negative answer.] 
 
 15. For he saith to Closes. The 'for' 
 here assigns the reason why the apostle so 
 emphatically repudiates any possible ascrip- 
 tion of unrighteousness to God; 'for' he 
 explicitly announces to Moses, as an axiom 
 which he would liave all men understand, 
 that he is sovereign and self-moved in the 
 distribution of his favors; that his mercy is 
 pure mercy, and his compassion pure com- 
 passion, and that he owes no apology to any 
 man for the manner in which he exercises his 
 benevolence. I will have mercy on whom 
 
228 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him I 1(3 passion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor 
 that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. I of him that rimuetli, but of God that bath mercy. 
 
 17 For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for | 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very 
 
 I will have mercy, etc. The citation is 
 from Exod. 33 : 19 [closely following the Sep- 
 tuagint, even to the rendering of the tenses. 
 (The Hebrew is: I have mercy on whom Twill 
 have mercy. The Revised Version gives the 
 Septuagint rendering.) This utterance of 
 Jehovah to Moses is "to be understood in a 
 causal sense as expressing the reason why 
 Moses' request was granted — namely, that it 
 was an act of unconditional grace and com- 
 passion on the part of God, to which no man, 
 not even Moses, could lay any just claim." 
 (Keil and Delitzsch.) "If to Moses God's 
 favor was absolutely free and unmerited, how 
 much more to others!" ("Bible Commen- 
 tary.")] The two verbs here used have the 
 same general sense, but the latter is the 
 stronger expression [denoting a greater degree 
 of pity, equivalent to "bewailing sympathy." 
 (Meyer.)]' The twofold expression is very 
 emphatic, and intimates that God would have 
 men understand, once for all, that he is not 
 to be challenged to give an account of his 
 reasons for showing favor to some men and 
 not to others. [" No man may deal with God 
 as if he were his creditor." (Bengel.)] It 
 would be well for cavilers to remember this. 
 The manner in which the apostle meets the 
 objection here admonishes us that the surest 
 way to determine what God's character allows 
 him to do is to consult the Scriptures which 
 are his word. [" Paul considers it enough to 
 check vile barkings by the testimonies of 
 Scripture." (Calvin.)] 
 
 16. So then it is not [in the power] of 
 him that willeth. [Noyes: " It dependeth 
 not on him that willeth."] What is the 
 unexpressed subject of this sentence? That 
 which is implied in the preceding verses, the 
 mercy and compassion of God, or, more ex- 
 actly, the obtaining of those divine favors and 
 blessings which proceed from his mercy and 
 compassion. Are we to conclude, then, that 
 the willing and the running avail nothing? 
 No, certainly not, for this would be to con- 
 tradict the gracious promises of our Lord. 
 
 very 
 
 (Matt. 7:7,8; John 5: 40; Rev. '.!■.!: 17, etc.) The apOStoliC 
 
 exhortation is: "So run that ye may obtain." 
 (1 Cor. 9:24, 26.) [See also Phil. 3 : 14; 2 Tim. 
 4: 7.] But the meaning is, that the will and 
 the power to run so as to obtain are themselves 
 from God (pwi. 2:i3), so that, in the ultimate 
 analysis of the matter, it ail depends upon 
 God who showeth mercy. His gracious and 
 sovereign will is before, and behind, and be- 
 neath all human willing and running. ["The 
 human striving is, indeed, necessary, but it 
 ever remains dependent." (De Wette. ) To 
 will and to run in our own strength is vain, 
 nor can any human willing or working lay 
 God under obligations or furnish a ground of 
 justification. "The mercy of God," says Dr. 
 Ripley, "is not a result of a person's own will 
 or desire for it, as the originating or procuring 
 cause. . . . The apostle here denies the meri- 
 torious character of such desires and efl'orts, 
 as if they would constitute a claim for the 
 blessings. Not to man's desert, but to God's 
 will and unmerited mercy, must blessings be 
 traced." The Jews both willed and ran earn- 
 estly and sought eagerly after a law of right- 
 eousness, but "they stumbled." It is singular 
 that some, like Chrysostom, put the utterance 
 of this verse into the mouth of an opponent 
 instead of regarding it as the apostle's own 
 inference.] To suppose any special reference 
 to Abraham's willing in favor of Ishmael, or 
 Isaac's in favor of Esau, or to Esau's running 
 to hunt venison for his father, as if these 
 historic facts had suggested the form of the 
 expression, is to narrow and limit the words 
 unduly. They undoubtedly are borrowed 
 from the Grecian games, to which Paul so 
 often refers in his epistles, (i cor.9:24-26; Gai.2:2; 
 5:7; Phii.2:i6.) ["Observe that in the exercise 
 of this sovereign choice God is here spoken of 
 as having mercy." (Boise.)] 
 
 17. For the Scripture saith unto Pha- 
 raoh. ['For' denotes a consequence e con- 
 trnrio, drawn from the preceding statement.] 
 'The Scripture' is here identified with its 
 divine author, as in Gal. 3: 8, 22; 4: 30. The 
 
 1 Compare Xuttij and o&wri in ver. 2 for a correspond- 
 ing advance of emphasis. The particle nn {av) belongs 
 to tlie relative rather than to the verb (Butfniann,217), 
 making it equivalent to "whomsoever," and thereby 
 
 indicating the freedom of the divine choice. This par- 
 ticle is, as here, commonly used in the New Testament 
 with the subjunctive. — (F.) 
 
Ch. IX ] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 229 
 
 this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might 
 shew my puwtr in thee, and that niy uume might be 
 declared thuughuut all the earth. 
 
 purpose did I raise thee up, that 1 might shew in 
 thee my power, aud that my name might tie pub- 
 is lished abroad iu all the earth. 80 theu he hath 
 
 quotation is from Exod. 9: 16. [The article 
 witli Phiiraoh denotes the dative case and 
 probably was not meant to particularize "tlie 
 Pharaoh who lived in the time of Moses.'' 
 (Bengel.) Compare the Moses in ver. 15. 
 The Greek has a word (on), before the quota- 
 tion, which is not translated. It is here, as 
 frequently, merely the sign of quotation. It 
 is worthy of remark that Pharaoh was not 
 thus spoken to till after he or his land had 
 been visited with six plagues.] The words 
 Have I raised thee up are not to be under- 
 stood specifically, of raising up to the throne, 
 much less of raising up from sickness, as in 
 James 5 : 15 (whore only the context gives 
 the verb this peculiar sense) ; but in a general 
 sense. 'I have given thee thy j)lace in his- 
 tory,' as the verb is used in Matt. 11 : 11 ; 24: 
 11 ; John 7: 52, etc. Tliis general sense alone 
 suits the context, and the apostle's argument. 
 [This verb is used about seventy times in the 
 Septuagint. "In none of these cases does it 
 mean to create, U) produce, to raise up, in the 
 sense of bringing into being." (Stuart.) 
 Hence Beza's rendering: feci ut existeres, "I 
 have caused thee to exist," would seem to be 
 inadmissible. The Hebrew verb, "I caused 
 thee to stand," is rather loosely rendered in 
 the Septuagint, "on account of this thou wast 
 preserved." Yet this in sense is akin to Isaac 
 Leeser's version : "I allowed thee to remain," 
 and to Dr. Giflbrd's in the " Bible Commen- 
 tary," "I spared and upheld thee." These 
 renderings convey the idea that the continu- 
 ing of Pharaoh's life of rebellion was the 
 means of magnifying the name and power of 
 Jehovah. Me^-er gives this paraphrase: "Thy 
 whole historical appearance has been brought 
 about by me, in order that," etc. De Wette's 
 rendering, favored by Prof. Stuart, "I have 
 incited thee to resistance," seems to be an 
 addition to the text.] This is an illustration 
 on the darker side ; and it is a vindication of 
 
 God's justice, on the a.ssumed axiom that 
 what he declares his purpose to do and actually 
 does is right. There can be no higher proof 
 that a thing is righteous than that God does it. 
 That I might shew my power in thee — 
 that is, by thy signal overthrow at the Ked 
 Sea.' And that my name might be de- 
 clared throughout all the earth. The 
 word translated 'declared' is an emphatic 
 word, implying a thorough publication of 
 God's righteous severity in Pharaoh's destruc- 
 tion. "We have a record in Josh. 2: 9-11 of 
 the effect which the report of God's judgment 
 on Pharaoh had on the inhabitants of Jericho. 
 [Compare also Exod. 15: 14, seq.] Meyer 
 and Tholuck cite Greek and Koman authors 
 of later times who refer to these things; the 
 dispersion of the Jews scattered the famous 
 tidings far and wide among the nations; the 
 Koran helped to spread the story wherever it 
 went; and the Scriptures are fast publishing 
 it literally ' throughout all the earth.' So it 
 is that God's 'name,' his power and justice 
 in the overthrow of the proud and hardened 
 oppressor of his people, is gradually and at 
 last universally made known throughout the 
 whole world. ["God might have caused Pha- 
 raoh to be born in a cabin, where his proud 
 obstinacy would have been displayed with no 
 less self-will, but without any notable histori- 
 cal consequence. On the other hand, he 
 might have placed on the throne of Egypt at 
 that time a weak, easj'-going man, who Avould 
 have yielded at the first shock. What would 
 have happened? Pharaoh in his obscure posi- 
 tion would not have been less arrogant and 
 perverse, btit Israel would have gone forth 
 from Egj'pt without eclat. No plagues one 
 upon another, no Red Sea miraculously 
 crossed, no Egyptian army destroj-ed ; noth- 
 ing of all that made so deep a furrow in the 
 Israelitish conscience, and which remained 
 for the elect people the immovable founda- 
 
 iThe verb 'shew forth 'occurs eleven times in the 
 New Testament, but only in Paul's writings and in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. It is in the middle voice (with 
 transitive signification) and probably has a slight sub- 
 jective reference. Thus: show forth far i7iy.i('/f, or, on 
 my account. Hence the pronoun ' my ' is not redundant. 
 The apostle substitutes for the strength (,1<t\vv) of the 
 
 LXX. the more general term power (Svvaiiiv), also omus 
 — tfia/, to the end that — for IVo — that, the latter commonly 
 referring to the more direct, the former to the more 
 remote or secondary purpose. The »wo verbs in the 
 subjunctive, by which mood continuance of action or 
 result is noted, might be rendered by the auxiliary, 
 mat/. — (F.) 
 
230 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. iX. 
 
 18 Therefore hath he ruercy on whom he will have 
 mercy, aud whom he will he hardeneth. 
 
 mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he har- 
 deneth. 
 
 tion of their relation to Jehovah. And there- 
 after also no influence produced on the sur- 
 rounding nations. The entire history would 
 have taken another direction." (Godet. )] 
 
 18. Therefore hath he mercy on Avhom 
 he will have mercy. [The 'whom' (oi/) of 
 this clause, or the one on 'whom' God wills 
 to show 'mercy,' is not what the anti-supra- 
 lapsarians call a "nonentity," nor is he a 
 pure and innocent being, but an actually ex- 
 isting guilty and undeserving transgressor; 
 otherwise God could show him no tnercy. 
 And it is precisely the same class of persons 
 whom God, for reasons sufficient to himself, 
 willeth to harden. The last clause of the 
 verse: And whom he will he hardeneth — 
 may well be read by sinful men with "bated 
 breath," and feelings of awe.] In the account 
 of God's dealings with Pharaoh in Exodus, 
 we have these three modes of expression — 
 "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" : 
 Exod. 4: 21; 7: 3; 9: 12; 10: 1, 20, 27; 11: 
 10; 14: 4, 8; "Pharaoh hardened his heart" : 
 Exod. 8: 15, 32 (in Heb. 8: 11, 28); 9: 34; 
 " Pharaoh's heart was hardened " [remained 
 hardened]: Exod. 7: 13, 14, 22; 8: 19 [in 
 Heb. 8 : 15] ; 9 : 7, 35. No doubt all these 
 three expressions refer to the same fact, but it 
 does not follow that they all have the same 
 meaning, nor are we at liberty to weaken the 
 force of the first, and most frequent, by sub- 
 stituting for it, 'the Lord suffered Pharaoh to 
 harden his heart.' The language itself, and 
 the way in which Paul uses the illustration, 
 imply something more than a mere passive 
 per^nission on the part of God. The one 
 point which must be guarded is, that God 
 never solicits men to evil, and then punishes 
 them for yielding to the solicitation. James 
 1 : 13 decisively negatives that idea. We will 
 not undertake to explain precisely how God 
 rightfully may, and sometimes actually does 
 harden a man's heart (for the case of Pharaoh 
 can hardly be considered a solitary one) ; but 
 we will rather rest content with enforcing the 
 Psalmist's solemn admonition, "Stand in awe 
 and sin not." (*= *■) [The first two examples 
 
 and the last but one of the first series of texts 
 cited above are prophecies: 'will harden.' 
 Omitting the two former, we may notice that 
 it is said of Pharaoh seven times eitherthat he 
 hardened his heart, or that his heart remained 
 hard, before it is affirmed, in 9: 12, that Jeho- 
 vah hardened him. " And even after that," 
 as Godet says, as if a remnant of liberty still 
 remained to him, it is said for a last time 
 that "he hardened himself" (9:34), or " re- 
 mained hardened." (9:35.) This is an instance 
 of a man's giving himself up, and of God"s 
 giving him up, "to work iniquity." "When 
 God hardens a man," says Charnock, "he 
 only leaves him to his stonj- heart." Tholuck 
 ob.serves that — "In the case before us the 
 divine agency inust be limited to the fact 
 that God brought about those circumstances 
 which make a heart disposed to evil still 
 harder. That God did thus to Pharaoh is 
 shown by history. That such is the only 
 sense in which it is said that God hardened 
 Pharaoh is evinced by the fact of its being 
 declared in the context that Pharaoh hardened 
 himself." Compare with this the exhortation 
 of Ps. 95 : 8 ; Heb. 3 : 8, 15, " harden not your 
 hearts." The Scriptures which speak of God's 
 hardening the heart of Pharaoh, at the same 
 time blame him for his pride and self-will 
 (Exod. 9: 17: 10: 3, 4), while Pharaoh on his part 
 makes frequent confession of sin. (Exod. 9: 27; 
 10: 16,17.) We must hold to the truth of the 
 apostle's statement, even though we think, 
 with Philippi and Godet, that a different view 
 would have been presented had Paul not been 
 combating Pharisaic pretension and arro- 
 gance. Alford says: "Whatever difficulty 
 there lies in this assertion that God hardeneth 
 whom he will, lies also in the daily course of 
 his providence, in which we see this harden- 
 ing process going on in the case of the pros- 
 perous ungodly man." The conjecture of 
 some that 'hardeneth' here means to treat 
 harshly, in supposed accordance with Job 
 39 : 16, where the ostrich is spoken of as 
 hardening her young, is scarcely worthy of 
 notice.] ^ 
 
 ' We are sorry to see that the vom Slrausse (of the 
 ostrich) of Philippi's commentary on this passage, is, 
 probably from mere inadvertence, converted into a 
 
 proper name in the generally excellent translation of 
 this excellent work. — (F.) 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 231 
 
 19 Thou wilt say tlien unto ine, Why doth he yet find 
 fault? For who hath resisted his will? 
 
 19 Tbou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still 
 
 19. [Thou wilt say then unto me — not: 
 what sfuiU we say then? The sharp answer 
 which follows shows that the iipostle has as 
 his opponent, nut a modest inquirer, but an 
 insolent antagonist. So Philippi, who thinks 
 tluit Paul has an arrogant Jew before him in 
 the whole of the present exposition.] Why 
 doth he yet find fault? ['Yet' — that 
 is, after he has hardened me, or "after he 
 has taken away freedom and accountability 
 tiirough his purpose to harden." (De Wette. ) 
 How can he blame me for disobedience? 
 " Why am I still judged as a sinner?" Meyer, 
 seemingly against the context, regards the 
 question as tragic rather than impious, "the 
 expression of human weakness in presence of 
 the divine decree of hardening." Who is 
 able to resist the fixed purpose of the Almighty? 
 Compare Acts 11 : 17.] Who hath resisted 
 (or, resists, the perfect being used as present) 
 his will? If it is God's will to harden a man, 
 since his will cannot be successfully resisted, 
 how can he blame hardened sinners? This is 
 a common objection to the view of God's 
 sovereignty which Paul has presented. It is 
 imjiortant and instructive to note how he 
 meets this cavil. 
 
 [This verse shows us that other minds than 
 ours have been troubled with tlie unfathom- 
 able mysteries of God's creation and moral 
 government. Paul himself stood face to face 
 
 with all the deep, dark problems of the uni- 
 verse, and wedo not suppose that even his mind 
 was so far supernaturally enlightened as to bo 
 able to solve them. His language in 1 Cor. 
 13: 12 (Revised Version) is: "Now we see 
 in a mirror, darkly" (margin, "Greek, in a 
 riddle"); and we may well believe that the 
 universe had for him its insoluble enigmas. 
 In a coming chapter we shall see how he 
 speaks of the " unsearchable judgments" and 
 the "untraceable ways" of God. The verse 
 before us presents a problem of exceeding 
 difficulty.' We are held blamable for dis- 
 obedience to God, and yet how is it possible 
 for a weak and dependent creature to resist 
 and thwart the will of the Omnipotent? Yet 
 we do in this world resist and disobey his law, 
 or revealed will, continuall3', otherwise all 
 men would at once come to repentance (2 eter 
 3:9) and to a full knowledge of the truth 
 (1 Tim. 2: *), and we should not have been 
 taught to pray: "Tl)y will (eeXrtixa) he done 
 on earth as in heaven." A difl'erent word, 
 however, is used for 'will' in our passage — 
 (namely*, pouArj^o) which here seems to denote 
 his determinate, predetermining, immutable 
 counsel (or /SovA^ ; see Acts 2 : 23 ; 4 : 28 ; 
 Heb. 6: 17), which cannot be thwarted or 
 withstood ; and how can a frail creature of 
 earth resist "the counsel of his will"? (BouAni- 
 ToO 6t\rjiJi.aT(K oiiToC, Eph. 1 : 11.°) Hcnce from 
 
 1 " The great and perhaps ever insoluble prol)Ieni 
 still remains — namely, the ability of a created being to 
 act contrary to the will of God — how God came to 
 create a being with power to withstand him, the 
 Almighty One." (Olshausen.) But if we cannot with- 
 stand or transgress, but do perfectly fulfill his decretive 
 will, his eternal purpose, how can we be held blamable 
 for transgression ? We have here for certain a " plausi- 
 ble and formidable objection " (Hodge), and the apos- 
 tle seeks rather to strike the objector dumb by rebuking 
 his irreverent sjiirit, than to solve fully the speculative 
 difficulty. We can see that there is in the objection a 
 spirit of disobedience and rebellion, we can feel that 
 there is some perversion or insufficient statement of the 
 truth, but the logical faculty finds it a hard task to 
 clear the (luestion of all difficulty. "This is indeed," 
 says Dr. Schafl", " one of the greatest and most difficult 
 problems, which can never be fully solved from the 
 standpoint of earthly knowledge. Only after the 
 accomplished victory over evil, can the deep, dark 
 enigma of evil, which forms the main difficulty of the 
 problem, be solved." — (F.) 
 
 *A similar thought is expressed in 2 Chron. 20: 6; 
 Job 9 : 19 (LXX.) ; Wisdom of Solomon 12 : 12. ©eAu and 
 ^oiiAofiai are both employed by way of contrast in 
 Matt. 1 : 19, the former, according to classic usage, 
 generally denoting a volition ; the latter, an inclination 
 or propensity of the mind. [Here the reverse seems 
 to me to be the fact. (A. 11.)] Boi/Aoju.at, to have in 
 thought, to intend, is never used of brutes, while in 
 Homer it is always used when speaking of the gods, 
 since their wish is equivalent to effect. (Robinson, Lid- 
 dell and Scott.) We may say that it is God's present 
 ^ovAtj^o (using the term in the weaker sense of desire) 
 that none should perish, but that all men should come 
 to repentance (2 Peter :) : 9), and that it is his deAjjjua, 
 or will, that all men should be saved and conio to a 
 full knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2; 4.) Yet this his 
 desire and will surely do not come to pass in this 
 world; but we can hardly say that either of these is 
 his established, immutHble counsel or purpose; other- 
 wise this universal repentance and attainment of the 
 truth would have already taken place. Prof. Turner 
 seems inclined to think that even God's purpose may 
 
232 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against 
 God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed 
 it, Whv hast thou made me thus? 
 
 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the 
 
 20 find fault? For who withstandeth his will? Nay 
 but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? 
 Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, 
 
 21 Why didst thou malie me thus? Or bath not the 
 
 this view of the matter, the rebellious sinner 
 is tempted to reply against God v;ith very 
 great freedom of language, and to say: "I 
 um not to blame for resisting God's eternal 
 purpose concerning me, since such resistance 
 on my part is an impossibility;" or, "I do 
 not resist God, for in hardening myself I have 
 done nothing but obey him." Objections 
 similar to the above are noticed by James 
 (1:13) and by the Son of Sirach (Eccies. is: n,i.i), 
 and are rebutted by a direct denial. While 
 therefore we cannot entirely remove the 
 speculative diflSculty attending this subject, 
 we can tell the sinner that he is not sincere in 
 making this objection ; that he is offering it 
 as a mere make-shift; that he knows God 
 does not make him sin ; that he is opposed to 
 God and does disobey and resist God's will; 
 and that he does this of his free choice ; that 
 he does not intend to obey, but he intends 
 evil and makes this wickedness himself; that 
 his alleged obedience is all a farce, and cannot 
 be deemed by himself genuine, hearty, or 
 meritorious. God by his providence may 
 indeed give shape to the evil, and by his infi- 
 nite power and wisdom cause it to promote 
 his glory, and yet may rightfully punish the 
 sinner for his intended transgression.] 
 
 20. Nay but, O man, etc. When the ob- 
 jector becomes too bold and irreverent, Paul 
 rebukes his impiety before making anj' other 
 reply to his objection. It does not become 
 the creature to dispute with the Creator or to 
 call him to account. [Nor will Jehovah upon 
 compulsion give any account of his matters. 
 Instead of the 'nay but,' we might properly 
 read — yen rather (Luke ii: 28), or, indeed, with a 
 slight touch of ironj'. Through the inversion 
 of words in the interrogative clause, a frequent 
 usage in the New Testament, the 'thou' is 
 rendered emphatic. The 'O man' is inserted 
 to denote his inferiority and impotence as 
 
 contrasted with the Almighty. It has been 
 said that this replying against God by so weak 
 a creature as man shows that he has a free 
 will, or, at least, that he can use his tongue 
 very freely. If the sinner is rebellious against 
 God and chooses to use his freedom, he can 
 find much wherewith to reply against God. 
 He would bring God down below the level of 
 his creatures and make him respoyisible, as it 
 were, for all that is ill in the universe. ' Nay 
 but, O man,' thou art too weak and ignorant 
 and insignificant to put on such airs of supe- 
 riority and to contend so haughtily with God. 
 Shall the thing formed say, etc. The 
 Greek particle (mji) supposes a negative an- 
 swer. The application of the term 'thing 
 formed" (jrAao-na)to man is warranted by Gen. 
 2:7; Ps. 103 : 14— Septuagint Version (102 : u), 
 'he knoweth our frame' (irXaaiia) — and 1 Tim. 
 2:13. In the Wisdom of Solomon (tm), 
 Adam is called the ^protoplast.' The query 
 seems to have reference, not to an original 
 creation (as of clay with its properties), but 
 to the making or fashioning of that which 
 already exists. Dr. Hodge says : " It is to be 
 borne in mind that Paul does not here speak 
 of the right of God over his creatures as crea- 
 tures, but as sinful creatures, as he himself 
 clearly intimates in the next verse. It is the 
 cavil of a sinful creature against his Creator 
 that he is answering." Hence the question, 
 as Dr. Shedd remarks, "is not, Why hast thou 
 made me a sinner? but. Why hast thou left 
 me in sin?" So if we apply this language to 
 the Jewish people whom God formed into a 
 nation, their query would be: "Why hast 
 thou withheld thy mercy from thy people 
 Israel, and why dost thou show thy favor to 
 the Gentiles? Why hast thou rejected or 
 passed by thy covenant people and adopted 
 the uncircumcised heathen ? "] 
 21. Hath not the potter power over the 
 
 fail of accomplishment. If this be so, then the eternal 
 blessedness of the saints is not secure, and heaven itself 
 may be lost out of God's universe. Dr. Shedd says: 
 "The distinction between the will of desire and the 
 will of decree is illustrated in the human sphere by 
 the difference between inclination and volition. A 
 man frequently opposes the inclination of his will by a 
 volition of his will. He decides to do what he is di's- 
 
 inclined to do." In a similar way some speak of a 
 principal or antecedent will and a consequent will. 
 The " Bible Commentary " says : " When eSe'Aco (or 0i\ui) 
 and jSoiiAoM-ai are dis/inguished, the former means the 
 simple, spontaneous will, the latter the conscious and 
 deliberate purpose." See further on 8i\u> and ^ouAo^iai, 
 notes to 7 : 15, also a long discussion under 6e\ui in 
 Thayer's Lexicon.— (F.) 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 233 
 
 same liiiupto make one vessel unto honour, and another 
 unto dishonour? 
 
 potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to 
 make one part a vessel uuto honour, and another 
 
 clay, etc. ['Or' should precede 'hath,' as in 
 the Revised Version. "It introduces a fresh 
 ground of rebuke." (Alford.) 'Over the 
 clay' (n-TjAoO) is here separated from its gov- 
 erning substantive, 'power,' owing, perhaps, 
 to the joining together of words of similar or 
 related import.] This figure is found repeat- 
 edly in the prophets. See Isa. 29:16; 45:9; 
 64:8; Jer. 18 : 6 [also Job 10 :8, 9; Wisd. of 
 Sol. 15 : 7 ; Eccles. 33 : 13 (36 : 13, LXX.) ; 38 : 
 29, 30]. The comparison must not be pressed 
 too far. It is just as impossible for man to 
 liave just cause to complain against God as 
 it is for the clay to have cause to complain 
 against the potter, but not for the same reason. 
 In the case of the clay and the potter, the 
 fault-finding is forbidden by the nature of the 
 clay; in the case of man and his Maker, it 
 is forbidden by the character of the Maker. 
 The nature of the substance wrought upon 
 forbids complaint in the former case; the 
 character of the Being who works and none 
 can hinder forbids it in the latter case. The 
 authority of the worker is just as absolute in 
 the one case as in the other; but, on the other 
 hand, it is just as certain — nay, even more 
 certain — that God will not treat creatures 
 made in his own image as insensate clay, as 
 that the potter will not treat the clay as if it 
 were rational and moral and capable of know- 
 ing when it was ill-used. Having thus boldly 
 rebuked the irreverence of the objector, Paul 
 takes up the case more calmly and vindicates 
 the justice of God's dealing with men. [As 
 "the potter does not make the clay but digs 
 it" (Boiigel), so the reference here is not to 
 an original creation of the clay. The lump 
 Avith which the potter has to do is the claj' 
 with its natural properties, moistened and 
 prepared for moulding. So the lump of hu- 
 manity is humanity with its natural proneness 
 to evil. "The words 'I will have mercy on 
 whom I have mercy' imply that all deserved 
 wrath, so that the lump of clay in the hands 
 of the potter must refer to men already exist- 
 ing in God's foreknowledge as fallen crea- 
 tures." (Scott.)^ The potter has "authority " 
 
 or "right" (cfou<n'a) over the clay — not merely 
 physical strength (t<7xu'« or Siivaixn) — to make 
 of one part a vessel unto honor (for honorable 
 use) and of another a vessel unto dishonor. 
 Compare 2 Tim. 2 : '20. None of these vessels 
 are worthless, but all have some use, otherwise 
 the apostle would not in this connection intro- 
 duce the words 'unto' (eU), 'willing' [eeKmv), 
 and 'that' (iVo). The clay in its inferiority 
 cannot question the potter, but we may say 
 that no potter has a right to spend his time 
 and energies in making useless vessels, and 
 no wise potter will make vessels merely for 
 the sake of destroying them. But he may 
 make from the same lump some vessels for 
 honorable and some for ignoble use. These 
 vessels are not necessarily- identical with the 
 vessels of mercy and of wrath named below. 
 "The work of the skillful potter," says Godet, 
 "is not the emblem of an arbitrary use of 
 strength, but, on the contrary, of a deliberate 
 and intelligent empl()3'ment of the matter at 
 his disposal." If we apply this figure of the 
 claj' to fallen humanity, then the lump may 
 represent both Jews and Gentiles (ver. 24), and 
 the apostle teaches us that the Jews could not 
 demand of God that thej' should be made 
 vessels unto honor and the Gentiles should be 
 made vessels unto dishonor. Of the lump 
 even of Jewish humanity God may make 
 vessels unto dishonor. In determining which 
 vessels to make, he does not act arbitrarily or 
 without reason, for his attributes always act 
 in harmony, and his power is ever the servant 
 of his goodness, justice, and wisdom. Paul 
 certainly would not regard it as a complete 
 description of man to saj' that he is a lump of 
 clay; but when one makes high pretensions, 
 puts on airs, talks of merit, and lays claims, 
 then the apostle would take down his pride 
 and feeling of self-sufficiency by assuring him 
 that he is but clay in the hands of the potter. 
 Let us be thankful that God can take us from 
 the lump and mass of perdition and mould us 
 into vessels of glory. We are not a mere clod 
 of inert an.d senseless clay; but it would be 
 well for us to resign ourselves submissively 
 
 1 'The same lump.' Notice the position of the article. I ilself. On the "one part" and "another" (of the Re- 
 If it came after auToO, the phrase would mean the lump I vised Version), see Winer, p. 105, 
 
234 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 22 \nal if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to 
 make his power known, endured with much longsuifer- 
 ing the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction ; 
 
 23 And that he luiKht make known the riches of his 
 glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore pre- 
 pared unto glory, 
 
 22 unto dishonour? What if God, 'willing to shew 
 his wrath, and to make his power known, endured 
 with much longsuflfering vessels of wrath fitted unto 
 
 23 destruction; 2 and that he might make known the 
 riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he 
 
 1 Or, although willing 2 Some ancient authorities omit and. 
 
 into the hands of God, as clay in the hands of 
 a potter, that he may mould us (how easily !) 
 into vessels of honor.] 
 
 22, 23. [What (or, but) if, etc., seems to 
 introduce the answer to the objector's ques- 
 tion. De Wette thinks that Paul in these 
 verses had special reference to the Egyptians 
 and the Israelites in Egypt. But, as Godet 
 says, Paul has done with Pharaoh long ago. 
 Philippi, however, supposes at least a side 
 glance at Pharaoh.] There is some difBoulty 
 in the construction here, arising partly from 
 its irregularity, and partly from the brevity 
 and incompleteness of the expression. The 
 following paraphrase may help to the right 
 understanding of the sense: 'What ground 
 of objection is there, or what fault can be 
 found with the divine procedure [what adverse 
 reply shall we make to God? (ver. 20)], if God, 
 while purposing (9e\C>v, wishing) to show his 
 just severity and Almighty power upon those 
 who deserved his displeasure, and were alto- 
 gether fitted for perdition, yet endured them 
 with much long-suffering before he inflicted 
 punishment upon them; and, on the other 
 hand, purposed to show [what if God willed 
 to make known?] his rich and glorious mercy 
 to those who were to be partakers of his com- 
 passion, and whom he had already prepared 
 for salvation?' Surely there is nothing to 
 complain of in alf this. [While the margin of 
 the American Kevised Version — with Meyer, 
 Philippi, Godet, and others — supplies an al- 
 though before the participle 'willing,' thus 
 giving emphasis to the long-suffering, De 
 Wette prefixes si7ice or because, and says that 
 God bore with Pharaoh, and did not at once 
 annihilate him, in order the more to show his 
 wrath and his power in him. Some (Meyer, 
 Pliilippi, Godet) regard this as a strange kind 
 of long-suffering, the design of which, accord- 
 
 ing to Weiss, was "to lead them to repent- 
 ance." Yet the words referring to Pharaoh, 
 'for this very purpose have I raised thee up,' 
 "make it certain that when St. Paul writes, 
 'God, willing to show,' he means, because he 
 willed." ("Bible Commentary.") And cer- 
 tainly sinners can abuse God's long-suffering 
 to the enhancing of their condemnation. 
 Winer, De Wette, and Meyer regard the 
 phrase that he might make known as 
 directly dependent on the verb endured, 
 giving this idea: "He endured these vessels 
 of wrath, not only (or, as Mej-er would have 
 it, notwithstanding his desire) to show his 
 wrath and make his power known, but also 
 (by delaying punishment) to make known 
 the riches of his glory," etc. Others — like 
 Philippi,Godet,Stuart— would supply another 
 if ivilling (ei Oehiav) at the beginning of ver. 23, 
 and regard 'that ho might make known' as 
 equivalent to and co-ordinate with the infini- 
 tive 'to make known' (ywopiVai) of the pre- 
 ceding verse. The former give this render- 
 ing: "What if God, willing to make known 
 the riches of his glory (called us)," for which 
 parenthetic clause Paul substitutes ' whom he 
 hath called.' Prof. Stuart would supply: 
 Had mercy on us, or, made known his rich 
 grace toward us, etc.]^ 
 
 Observe that he speaks of the vessels of 
 wrath as fitted to destruction, and of the 
 vessels of mercy which he had afore pre- 
 pared unto glory. God's agency in the case 
 of these last is direct, positive, effective. And 
 who these are he tells us in the next verse. 
 [De Wette, Meyer, Philippi, Alford, Stuart, 
 think this fitting for destruction is eflTected, 
 according to the apostle's representation, by 
 the agency of God. But Paul certainly avoids 
 making such express representation, and we 
 therefore may refrain from so doing. Dr. 
 
 ' Our own preference also would be to supply some 
 form of 6eAio, but as although wiUing would in this case 
 be inadmissible, we must so regard it in the former. 
 To JuvaToi' {power) corresponds with &vvay.i.v, ver. 17. 
 See a&vva.Tov, 8:3. The word 'vessels' in both verses 
 IS destitute of the article, but it may be inserted in the 
 
 translation, especially in the latter instance. The rela- 
 tive ' which ' in our Common Version (properly whom), 
 though referring to a neuter noun, 'vessels,' is here 
 masculine, either by a constructio ad senstim, or, more 
 probably by attraction to the following ^Mas, us.— (F.) 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 235 
 
 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews | 24 afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also 
 only, but al.so of the Gentiles? called, not from the Jews only, hut also from the 
 
 25 As he saith also in Usee, 1 will call them my peo- 25 Gentiles? As he sailh also iu llosea, 
 
 pie, which were not my people; and her beloved, which I will call tliat my people which was not my people; 
 
 was not beloved. I And her beloved, who was not beloved. 
 
 Gifford says that "both factors, God's proba- 
 tionary judgments and man's perverse will, 
 conduce to the result, and it is the result only 
 that is here expressed." Still, had this been 
 spoken of as a divine result, we could only 
 say, that as God hardened Pharaoh when he 
 hardened himself, so he fits men for perdition 
 when they are fitting themselves for it. The 
 Gentiles, as we learn in 1 : 24, 26, 28, gave 
 themselves up to iniquity, and God gave them 
 up to a reprobate mind. That sinners do fit 
 themselves as vessels destined for wrath is 
 most plainlj' aflSrmed in the Scriptures. See 
 2:4; 1 Thess. 2:16, seq. And certainly God 
 would not efficiently, and could not of his 
 "good pleasure," prepare the vessels of wrath 
 which are so displeasing to him. As Olshau- 
 sen says: '^ The hear\ug with much long-suf- 
 fering will not accord with the prominence 
 thus given to the divine activity. There is 
 something not only discordant but absolutely 
 contradictory in the idea that God endures 
 with much long-suffLTing what he has himself 
 prepared." Four striking differences of rep- 
 resentation are thus noticed by Godet: "I. 
 The preposition n-po (beforehand) is wanting 
 in the participle (fitted). Compare ver. 22. 
 II. There the passive form instead of the 
 active used here. (ver. 2.'!.) III. Here the 
 aorist referring to the eternal act, as in 8 : 29, 
 instead of the perfect (ver.22), which denotes 
 the present fact. IV. Here the verb ^jj-epare, 
 which indicates the beginning of the develop- 
 ment, instead of that of ver. 22, which indi- 
 cates result. These four diflferences are not 
 accidental, and leave no doubt as to the apos- 
 tle's view." To i&kQ fitted here in the sense 
 oi fit is unwarrantable. We remark, that as 
 tliese vessels of mercy are actually existing 
 sinners who, though penitent, have by their 
 sins made themselves objects of divine pity 
 and have received divine grace, and as the 
 vessels of wrath are actually existing sinners 
 who, by their persistent wickedness, have 
 made themselves objects of the divine dis- 
 pleasure (to whom, however, God does not 
 wish to show the riches of his wrath), so the 
 apostle has not here spoken of God's original 
 creating act or purpose in either case.] 
 
 24. Even us, whom he hath called, etc. 
 [See Eph. 2 : 10.] See also the analysis at the 
 close of ver. 13. Two things are made plain 
 in the preceding passage: 1. That the election 
 here spoken of is to eternal life, and not 
 I merely to outward privileges. 2. That it is 
 I sovereign and absolute, and not based on the 
 ground of foreseen choice or merit on the part 
 of man. ['The vessels of niercy' (election) 
 spoken of in the last verse are here explained 
 as meaning 'us whom he hath called.' In- 
 stead of which, referring to its antecedent, 
 vessels, we have the ma.sculine pronoun 
 'whom,' agreeing, by attraction, with 'us' 
 (was) in the subordinate clause. According 
 to the teaching of 8 : 29, 30, the called ones here 
 are those, not only from the Jews, but also 
 from the Gentiles, whom God foreknew and 
 predestined to be his. As we understand these 
 three last verses, the reasoning of the apostle 
 is virtually this: What if God has willed to 
 pass by the great mass of unbelieving and 
 rebellious Jews and to call his elect ones 
 principally from the Gentiles, who shall find 
 fault with God for so doing? Calvin well 
 remarks that "the grace of God is not so con- 
 fined to the Jewish people that it cannot flow 
 forth to other nations and to the whole world, 
 nor is it so obligated to the Jews that it must 
 reach all the sons of Abraham according to 
 the flesh without exception." These elect 
 Gentiles are Christ's "other sheep" which 
 are not of the Jewish fold (JoumoMS), and that 
 God should call them to be his people, and 
 should gather them within the Messianic fold, 
 is, as the apostle goes on to show, but a fulfill- 
 ment of the Old Testament prophecies.] 
 
 The remainder of this chapter is taken up 
 with confirming the foregoing doctrine by 
 testimonies from the prophets. 
 
 25, 26. As he saith also in Osee, etc. 
 Both the quotations are from Hosea, the first 
 from 2 : 23, the second from 1 : 10 [in the He- 
 brew, 2 : 25]. They were originally said of the 
 apostate [and heathenized] tribes of Israel, 
 but are applicable to the Gentiles as well. 
 [The first quotation varies somewhat both 
 from the Hebrew and the Septuagint. The 
 negatived substantives not my people and 
 
236 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 2(! Anil it .shall come to pass, thai in the place where 
 it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there 
 shall lliev he called the children of the living God. 
 
 27 Esaia.s also crieih concerning Israel, 'J hou^'h the 
 number of the children ol Israel he as the sand of the 
 sea, a remnant shall he saved : 
 
 28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in 
 righteousne,ss: because a short work will the Lord 
 xuake upon the eurth. 
 
 29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of 
 
 26 And it shall be, ihat in the place where it was said 
 unto them. Ye are not my people. 
 
 There shall they be called sons of the living God. 
 
 27 And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number 
 of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, 
 
 28 it is the leuiuant that shall be saved: for the Lord 
 will execute hi.s word upon the earth, finishing it 
 
 29 and cutting it short. And, as Isaiah hath said before, 
 
 not beloved are, in the original, represented 
 to be the names of two of Hosea's children, 
 which names were given them to symbolize 
 the rejection of the liouse of Israel. "I will 
 no more have mercy upon the house of Israel, 
 . . . but I will have mercy upon the house 
 of Judah." Yet God's mercy was not to be 
 withheld forever. "For in the place," etc. 
 The same passage is cited in 1 Peter 2:10.] 
 The use of the feminine pronoun in the last 
 part of ver. 25 is explained by the figurative 
 representation, so common in the prophets, of 
 the Jewish people as the spouse of God, and 
 their forsaking of him as conjugal infidelity. 
 The place where it was said unto them, 
 Ye are not my people probably refers, not 
 to any specific place, as Palestine, but, in 
 general, wheresoever their apostasy from God 
 has been known and spoken of, there shall 
 also their recovery be known and spoken of. 
 
 27, 28. The two preceding verses, from 
 Hosea's prophecies, show that those were to be 
 included among the people of God who had 
 heretofore been regarded as aliens; the two 
 verses now before us show, from the prophe- 
 cies of Isaiah, that the Jews, as such, were 
 not to be included among his people in the 
 coming time. Thus ver. 25, 26 are a commen- 
 tary on the last clause of ver. 24, ' but also of 
 the Gentiles,' and ver. 27, 28 on the clause 
 immediately preceding, 'not of the Jews only.' 
 [Esaias also. Meyer, regarding the word 
 (6e) translated 'also' as antithetic, says it 
 "leads over to another prophet," and para- 
 phrases thus: " But /saiaA, what do we hear 
 ^rom him? We hear the cry respecting Is- 
 rael," etc., instead of Hosea, speaking of the 
 Gentiles.] Crieth concerning Israel. This 
 verb indicates a loud and impassioned utter- 
 ance. Compare John 1 : 15; 7:28,37; 12:44; 
 Acts 23 : 6; 24 : 21 [vnip in the sense of jrept, 
 concerning]. A remnant [v7roA«t|ui|iia in the 
 Revised text, i/irdAifinto in Westcott and Hort] 
 — that is, only a remnant sh;ill be saved [in 
 the Hebrew shall return, as from exile], the 
 
 mass of the people being rejected. The Rab- 
 bins have this saying: "Of six hundred thou- 
 sand persons but two came to Canaan ; so shall 
 it bo in the days of the Messiah." The quo- 
 tation is from Isa. 10:22, 23 [and is slightly 
 abbreviated from the LXX., which varies 
 considerably from the original Hebrew. 
 I Meyer sa3's : "The Seventy did not under- 
 stand these words and translated them incor- 
 rectly," yet that Paul "felt no scruple in 
 abiding by their translation, with a few unim- 
 portant deviations, since the sense is not less 
 suitable than that of the original." The 
 language of Isaiah is commonly supposed to 
 have reference to a political deliverance of a 
 remnant of Israel, which by Paul is regarded 
 as a symbol of moral deliverance, the salva- 
 tion of an elect seed. Comjjare 11 : 5. The 
 fate of Sodom and Gomorrah has reference to 
 something worse than a mere temporal and 
 political overthrow]. The passage may be 
 rendered : For he is finishing and abridging 
 the word in [punitive] 7-ighteousness, because 
 an abridged word [a word of swift judgment] 
 will the Lord make on the earth. But there 
 is a briefer reading of the original, which is 
 adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott 
 and Hcrt, and the Revisers, according to 
 which the translation would be: The Lord 
 will perform his word upon the earth, finish- 
 ing it and cutting it short. The idea is, that 
 the Lord will execute speedy and summary 
 judgment, according to his word. 
 
 29. Esaias said before — that is, in a pre- 
 ceding part of his prophecies; so the word 
 seems to be used in Gal. 1 : 9. [Tholuck, De 
 Wetto, Meyer, Philippi, and Godet prefer 
 ' foretold ' (compare 2 Peter 3 : 2), since mere 
 priority of place in writing is an unimportant 
 matter.] These words here cited are found in 
 chapter 1 :9 [and are cited verbatim from the 
 LXX.]. The Lord of Sabaoth. The word 
 'Sabaoth ' [one of the few words which Paul, 
 following the Seventj', left untranslated ; see 
 "maranatha," 1 Cor. 16:22] means 'hosts' 
 
Ch. IX.] 
 
 ROMAN'S. 
 
 237 
 
 Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodonia, and 
 been made like unto (ioinorrah. 
 
 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, 
 •which followed not after righteousness, have attained 
 to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of 
 faith. 
 
 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of right- 
 eousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 
 
 Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed. 
 We had become as Sodom, and had been made like 
 unto (jomorrah. 
 
 30 What shall we say then? That the (ientiles, who 
 followed not afier righteousness, attained to right- 
 eousness, even the righteousness which is of I'aith: 
 
 31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, 
 
 or 'armies.' It is used only here and in 
 James 5 : 4 in the New Testament; but the 
 expressions "God of hosts'' and "Lord of 
 hosts," where the same Hebrew word is used, 
 are frequent in the Old Testament, and repre- 
 sent Gi)d as a great king, having mighty armies 
 under his command. We had been as Sod- 
 oma. "Unless the Lord had left us a rem- 
 nant, as a seed, to preserve us alive, we should 
 have been utterly destroyed, like the cities of 
 the plain." [On this verse Scott makes the 
 following "practical observations": "Even 
 among the vast number of professing Chris- 
 tians it is to be feared that but a remnant will 
 be saved." Does the parable of the virgins 
 make it probable that only one-half of Christ's 
 disciples will be found truly "wise"? Would 
 it be surprising that out of every twelve 
 gospel ministers one should be finally lost? 
 "Many will say to me in that day," etc. See 
 Alatt. 7 : 22. The fate and destiny of nations, 
 as well as individuals, is in the hands of God, 
 and we may well fear that he has not done 
 dealing in righteousne.?s with us as a people. 
 Let us hope and i^ray that the Lord will leave 
 to us also a seed of true believers to preserve 
 our land from becoming as Sodom and Go- 
 morrah.] 
 
 The apostle now proceeds to state the con- 
 clusion to which his argument has thus far 
 brought him. [He now also proceeds to ex- 
 press fully what he has hitherto referred to 
 cursorily — namely', the reception of the Gen- 
 tiles and the exclusion of the Jews.] 
 
 30. That the Gentiles, etc. Some regard 
 this as a question, thus: " AVhat shall we say 
 to the fact that," or, "shall we say that," etc. 
 It seems proporl^' to be an answer to what 
 shall Ave say then ? ['Gentiles' is without 
 the article, signifying, according to Meyer 
 (versus De Wette), not a class, but some of a 
 class.] Which followed [mere following] 
 not after righteousness. Who were not, 
 as the Jews were, definitely seeking right- 
 eousness by their own legal work.?. Have 
 attained, etc.— not being hindered, as the 
 
 Jews were, by trusting to a false theory, have 
 believed in Christ, and so obtained the right- 
 eousness of faith. [Some regard 'righteous- 
 ness' here, and in some other places, as 
 equivalentto justification. Itamounts, indeed, 
 nearly to the same thing, and yet the word 
 used {SLKaioavvri) does not properly signify justi- 
 fication. As Dr. Hodge says: "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." The figure used 
 in this verse is that of the race course. Com- 
 pare ' follow after ' (5i<i(ca>) and 'apprehend' 
 (/caraAo/oipofu) in Phil. 3: 12. The former verb 
 means to pursue, and when with hostile intent, 
 to persecute. Have attained to (laid hold 
 on) righteousness (not that of works), but 
 even the righteousness which is of (pro- 
 ceeds from) faith — without protracted and 
 painful endeavor, like the man who found a 
 treasure in the field when he was not seeking 
 it. (Godet. ) Such righteousness as this, thus 
 far in the world's historj-, has been laid hold 
 on only by individual believers, not bj' na- 
 tions as a whole.] 
 
 31. But Israel, which followed (liter- 
 aUy, following) after, etc. The (a) law of 
 righteousness — not here the righteousness 
 of the law, but a law imparting righteousness, 
 a justifjMng law. [Thesccoiid 'righteousness' 
 ('n our Common Version) is wanting in nearly 
 all the older manuscripts, and is omitted in 
 the Revised Version, but seems quite neces- 
 sary. The apostle frankly concedes that the 
 Jews eagerly sought after a justifying right- 
 eousness, and this testimony is abundantly 
 confirmed by the writings of the New Testa- 
 ment, of Josephus, of the Targums, etc. In- 
 deed, Paul himself knew something about 
 this earnest pursuit, from personal experience. 
 The verb 'attain,' primarily meant, to come 
 first or before another, to anticipate; see 1 
 Thess. 4: 15. This verse serves as a comment 
 on ver. 16: "Not of him that runneth."] 
 They who had not been seeking righteousness 
 
238 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. IX. 
 
 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, 
 but as it were by thf works of the law. For they 
 stumbled at that stuujblingslone ; 
 
 :^;i As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stuni- 
 blingstone and rock of otience: and whosoever be- 
 lieveth oc him shall not be ashamed. 
 
 32 did not arrive at that law. Wherefore? i Because 
 they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. 
 
 33 They stumbled at the stone of stumbling ; even as 
 it is written, 
 
 Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a 
 
 ruck of ottence : 
 And he that believeth on - him shall not be put to 
 
 shame. 
 
 1 Or, because, doing it not hy faith, hut as it were by works, they stumbled 2 Or, it. 
 
 found it; and they who were seeking failed 
 to find. An anomaly which calls for expla- 
 nation : the explanation is at hand. 
 
 32. Wherefore? Why was this failure 
 of the Jews? For what reason did they fail 
 to attain what they sought? ["The Five 
 Clergymen" give this rendering: Where- 
 fore? Because (following after it) not by 
 faith, but as by the ivorks of the law, they 
 stumbled, etc. See margin of the Revised 
 Version.] It was because they souglit it not 
 by faith, but as if it were attainable by the 
 works of the law. ['By faith' denotes the 
 objective standard, as from works, the purely 
 imaginary. (Winer.) The Revision omits 
 the word 'law,' which is wanting inX*AB 
 F G, the Vulgate and several Fathers.] The 
 verb 'sought' which is not in the original, is 
 rightly supplied from ver. 31, where, how- 
 ever, it is translated 'followed after.' For 
 [wanting in N» A B D« F G] they stumbled 
 at that stuniblingstone, of which the 
 prophet Isaiah speaks. [The 'stumbling' 
 keeps up the figure of the race. Why does 
 not Paul say : They stumbled at or because 
 of God's eternal decree? Instead of this, he 
 here seems to forget all that he has just said 
 about predestination and hardening, and now 
 speaks only of human activity and blame- 
 worthiness, doing this, too, as though he were 
 not flatly contradicting himself! ^ Alford 
 spoke truly when he said: "We shall find 
 free will asserted strongly enough for all edi- 
 fying purposes by this apostle when the time 
 comes." Our natural preference, of course, 
 would be to have the two views combined and 
 reconciled. They are at least closely united 
 in Acts 13: 46-48, a passage which states the 
 results of Paul's first recorded sermon : "See- 
 ing ye judge yourselves unworthy of eternal 
 
 life .... and as many as were ordained to 
 eternal life believed." This does not read as 
 though foreordination and liberty of choice 
 were, as has been thousands of times declared, 
 incompatible and contradictory.] 
 
 The last clause of this verse might well 
 have been joined to the following. 
 
 33. As it is written, etc. The apostle 
 here joins two passages. (isa. 28: le; s: u.) 
 Christ was laid in Zion for "a precious corner 
 stone, a sure foundation," according to the 
 former of these two passages ; but he becomes, 
 according to the latter, a stumblingstone 
 and rock of offence to those who reject him 
 in their unbelief. [The apostle does not in 
 this verse follow the Seventy. "Instead of 
 giving to the stone the laudatory epithets 
 applied in Isa. 28: 16, he gives, out of Isa. 8: 
 14, the well-known adjuncts of 'stumbling' 
 and 'offence' and then returns to 28: 16." 
 (Davidson.) Paul wishes to tell here what 
 Christ is to unbelievers. Compare Luke 20: 
 17, 18. Both passages are quoted in 1 Peter 
 2 : 6, seq.) The ' ofl^ence,' is properly the trap- 
 stick which holds the bait, and which, when 
 touched, springs the trap: hence a snare laid 
 for an enemy, and, with a moral reference, 
 any cause of falling. The 'every one' (t«) 
 is omitted from the Revision text, but all 
 manuscripts give it in 10: 11. The preposi- 
 tion (e'jri) with 'believe' denotes reliance on. 
 See notes on 3: 25. The Hebrew for 'shall 
 be ashamed' is to 'flee away,' as in terror. 
 Paul here follows the Seventy.] 
 
 This last section (ver. 30-33) teaches us that 
 the attempt, through a false theory, to make 
 ourselves righteous in a way of our own, may 
 be a greater hindrance to our salvation, than 
 open wickedness and vice; and herein it 
 agrees with our Lord's saying in Matt. 21 : 31. 
 
 1 " Paul would have agreed better with himself if he I only the " moral self-determii.ation and spontaneity " 
 had been a pupil of Aristotle instead of Gamaliel." ' of man, a creature in a universe created and governed 
 (Frifzsche.) But truth demanded the presentation of 1 by the eternal. Almighty, and Omniscient One, who 
 both views, whether he could reconcile them or not. j could have held that to be a correct representation? 
 Had he merely presented one side and brought to view 1 — (F.) 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 239 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 BRETHREN, my heart's desire and prayer to God for 
 Israul is, that they miglit be saved. 
 2 For I bear them recoril that they have a zeal of 
 God, but not according to Icuowledge. 
 
 1 Bretliren, my heart's 'desire and my siipplicatioi; 
 
 'i to <iod is fur tlieui, that they may be saved. For I 
 
 bear them wituess that they have a zeal for God, but 
 
 1 Gr. good pleasure. 
 
 Ch. 10 : f" Isniel's Guilt" (Olshausen), or, 
 more fully : The rejection of tlie Jews is owing 
 t',< their unbelief.] 
 
 The subject introduced in the last four verses 
 of the preceding chapter — namely, the failure 
 of the Jews to attain to righteousness, and the 
 reason of that failure, is continued in this 
 chapter, after the apostle has expressed his 
 earnest desire for their salvation, and his 
 appreciation of their religious zeal, as he had 
 previously expressed his apj>rociation of their 
 distinguished privileges. (9:4,5.) 
 
 1. Brethren. This word might be regarded 
 as addressed, in a national sense, to the unbe- 
 lieving Jews, and so regarded, it would agree 
 with many precedents in the use of the word 
 
 by Paul (Acts 13: '26,38; 2?: 1; 23: 1,6; 28: 17; Rom. 9: 3), 
 
 and would be an example of his kind feelings 
 toward them; but in this connection, as a 
 direct address, it is more suitably referred to 
 those Christian readers to wh<jm the Epistle is 
 addressed. Still, its occurrence here, where 
 it is not called for to complete the sense, is 
 naturally explained by the strong emotion 
 which the subject referred to always excited 
 in the mind of the apostle, and of which we 
 have a signal example in the beginningof the 
 previous chapter. The word translated fZcsir^ 
 is an emphatic word, expressive of earnest, 
 benevolent desire, and is usually translated 
 "good will," or "good pleasure." (Luke2: u; 
 
 Eph. 1: 5,9; Phil. 1 : 15; 2: 13; 2 Thess. 1: 11. )1 [And 
 
 prayer to God — literally. And the prayer to 
 God. The article before praj^er is equivalent 
 to the personal pronoun my. The word for 
 prayer (SeV?) has the force of entreaty arising 
 from a sense of want. Like our 2^^tition, it 
 may be addressed to men, while the more 
 usual word for prayer (rrpoo-cux'?) has a sacred 
 character, and "is always prayer to God." 
 (Trench.)] For Israel. For them seems 
 to be the true reading. The persons referred 
 to had been so recently mentioned, and were 
 so prominent in the apostle's mind, that the 
 
 pronoun was sufficiently plain. That they 
 might be saved — literally, /or Srt/i-rt^ton, the 
 pronoun "their" being understood. [The 
 apostle obviously felt the salvation of men to 
 be an infinitely important matter, or he 
 would not have sought for it with that inten- 
 sity of desire, amounting even to an unceasing 
 anguish of heart, which led him, to whom 
 Christ was more than all the universe besides, 
 to wish that he might be "anathema" from 
 his Saviour, provided this could but secure 
 their salvation. But we somewhat demur at 
 Bengel's observation that "Paul would not 
 thus have prayed had they been absolutely 
 reprobated." For Paul has reference here to 
 whole peoples, and has nothing to do with 
 the fate of particular individuals. The repro- 
 bation of these does not argue the rejection 
 of the nation. Besides, as Dr. Shedd remarks : 
 "The Christian, in his ignorance of the divine 
 purpose, must pray for all, in order to pray 
 for any." Must we not think the apostle's 
 interest in the spiritual welfare of the Jews 
 was something wonderful and Christ-like, 
 considering all the trouble and harm he had 
 experienced from their opposition, their plots, 
 and their lying in wait?] 
 
 2. For introduces the reason whj' he thus 
 S3mipathizes with their efforts, though misdi- 
 rected. They have a zeal of God. In 
 such connections as this, 'of is used where 
 we should say/o?-, as "zealous of the law" 
 (Aots2i:2o), "zealous of the traditions of my 
 fathers" (Gai.i:u), "the zeal of thine house" 
 (John 2: 17). The Jews, as a people, were zeal- 
 ous religionists, but not according to 
 knowledge. They had zeal enough, if it 
 had been rightly informed and directed, to 
 secure their salvation. [Their zeal was not 
 such as results from full knowledge. " When 
 Paul says, 'I bear them witness.' he seems to 
 be alluding to his conduct of other days, and 
 to say : I knowsomethingof it— of that zeal ! " 
 (Godet.) This, their zeal for God and his 
 
 iThe li-iv^ untranslated, has no corresponding 6e I heart's good will, etc., is for one thing, while they have 
 (but), yet this is virtually contained in ver. 3. My' been seeking another,— (F.) 
 
240 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 3 For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, 
 and going about to establisli iheir own righteousness, 
 have not submitted theiusulves unto the righteousness 
 of God. 
 
 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness 
 to every one that be'ieveth. 
 
 3 not according to knowledge. For being ignorant of 
 God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their 
 own, they did not sutiject themselves to the right- 
 
 4 eousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law 
 unto righteousness to every one that believeth. 
 
 law, is amply witnessed by Philo and Jo- 
 sephus. See Tholuck's "Commentary." So 
 our Saviour, in Matt. 23: 15, speaks of their 
 zeal in making proselytes. The Pharisees 
 were the orthodox Jews of their day, and had 
 a reputation for pre-eminent sanctity. And 
 probably no word our Lord ever spoke was 
 so astounding as that utterance of his in 
 Matt. 5: 20: "E.vcept your righteousness 
 shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes 
 and Pharisees ! " Fiacius, as quoted in Bengel, 
 says: "The Jews had, and have, a zeal with- 
 out knowledge; we, on the contrary, alas! 
 have knowledge without zeal." ^] Keligious 
 indifference is always inexcusable, but relig- 
 ious zeal, when ill-informed and misdirected, 
 may be just as disastrous in its results, so false 
 and dangerous is the maxim that "it matters 
 little what a man's belief is, if he is only sin- 
 cere." The apostle immediate!}' proceeds to 
 point out what their mistake was; and it was 
 no uncommon one. 
 
 3. [For they being ignorant. 'For' 
 shows their lack of clear ajiprehension. Al- 
 ford's rendering, 7iot recognizing, implies that 
 they were not absolutely lacking of informa- 
 tion.] The expressions God's righteous- 
 ness and 'the righteousness of God' mean 
 God's way of making sinful men righteous, and 
 accepting them as such according to the fuller 
 explanation of this term given in the notes on 
 1: 17. [So "Winer: "The righteousness of 
 God denotes righteousness which God itn parts; 
 compare Phil. 8: 9, 'The righteousness from 
 God.'"] Going about. This is an old En- 
 glish expression which means, simply, "seek- 
 ing," or "endeavoring." The Greek verb, 
 which means to seek, is repeatedly translated 
 as above. (John 7 : 19, 20; Acta '.i : 31.) Their own 
 righteousness. A righteousness devised 
 and wrought by themselves, the fruit of their 
 own works. Compare Phil. 3 : 9. Have not 
 submitted themselves unto the right- 
 eousness of God. This ' righteousne.ss of 
 God' is not only something offered to us as a 
 free gift, but also something required of us as 
 a divine obligation. Not to submit to it, not 
 
 to comply with God's ordinance, by a personal 
 and practical acceptance of it, which always 
 involves the discarding of our own righteous- 
 ness, is not only an inexcusable mistake, but 
 a fatal sin. • [The Greek means, "Did not sub- 
 mit, or subject, themselves." Alford, however, 
 renders it, "were not subjected." It is used 
 in the same sense in 8 : 20. To submit to 
 God's righteousness supposes some self-denial 
 on the part of those who would set up their 
 own righteousness, some humbling of natural 
 pride and feeling of self-sufficiency ; supposes, 
 consequently', a deep sense of one's need, ill 
 desert, and lo.st condition. But to receive 
 Christ, the end of the law for righteousness, is 
 the only way in which the righteous require- 
 ment of the law can be fulfilled in us. Yet 
 thousands on thousands of zealous religionists 
 are at this very moment seeking, making it, 
 as it were, their occupation to establish their 
 own righteousness, which is but self-right- 
 eousness, and altogether imperfect; and, as a 
 ground of justification, utterly worthless in 
 the sight of God. Paul shows us here, and 
 throughout this chapter, that the casting away 
 of the Jews was owing to their own fault, their 
 unbelief. They did not submit to the right- 
 eousness of God ; they did not obey the gospel 
 (ver. 16) ; they thrust from themselves the word 
 of God, and judged themselves unworthy of 
 eternal life. Having done this, they are 
 given up of God to hardness of heart. But 
 the next chapter shows us that the casting 
 away, or rejection, of the Jewish people was 
 to be but temporary', while, at the same time, 
 God would overrule it to a blessed result, the 
 opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles.] 
 4. Christ is the end of the Ibav — is the 
 object at which the law aimed. The law, if 
 obeyed, would result in our becoming right- 
 eous before God, enjoying his favor, and 
 securing eternal happiness. This is its end 
 and aim. But having been once disobeyed, 
 it becomes forever incapable of bringing us 
 to this end. But Christ comes in and infalli- 
 bly secures these lesults for all who believe in 
 him. He is, therefore, to all such, 'the end 
 
 iThe word iri\ov is a media vox, a word used in both a good and a bad sense. Compare 13: 13.— (F.) 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 241 
 
 5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is 
 of the law, That the uian which doeth those luiugs 
 shall live hy theiu. 
 
 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh 
 
 5 For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the 
 righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby. 
 
 6 But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus, 
 
 of the law for righteousness.' The proof of 
 this immediately follows. ["The righteous- 
 ness at which the law aims is accomplished 
 in Christ." (Farrar. ) This interpretation, 
 favored by Alford and Stuart, certainly seems 
 the most natural, and accords with the use 
 of the word in "the end of the command- 
 ment," in 1 Tim. 1: 5. Yet most modern 
 interpreters use this word in the sense of end- 
 ing, or termination. The validity of the law 
 has come to an end in Christ as it respects 
 righteousness. For righteousness — either 
 for the securing of righteousness, or, more 
 generally, as it relates to righteousness.] 
 
 5. For Moses describeth, etc. See Lev. 
 18: 5. Paul could quote no higher human 
 authority as to the true end of the law than 
 that of Moses, through whom the law was 
 given. [The 'for' introduces the proof of the 
 impossibility of securing eternal life by one's 
 own righteousness, or the righteousness of the 
 law. The Greek text literally reads thus: 
 " Moses writeth (concerning) the righteousness 
 of the law " (compare John 1 : 45) — literally, 
 " Concerning whom Moses wrote," etc. That 
 the man which doeth those things shall 
 live by them. The Kevisers' text (that the 
 man who has done the righteousness which is 
 of the law) adopts a different collocation of 
 the words, and, instead of ' by (in) them,' has 
 'in it,' or 'tliereby,' referring to righteousness. 
 These words are again quoted in part in Gal. 
 3 : 12, "The man that doeth them shall live 
 in them." As Paul was unacquainted with 
 the results of modern Biblical (destructive) 
 criticism, he must be excused for ascribing to 
 Moses the authorship of Leviticus.] 'The 
 man which doeth those things' — that is, who 
 obeys those "statutes" and "judgments'' 
 mentioned in the same verse in Leviticus — 
 'shall live by them,' shall obtain the true 
 life, the favor of God, and eternal happiness. 
 This shows what is meant by ' the end of the 
 law.' The man who obej's it, universally^, 
 perfectly, constantly, shall be saved, or, rather, 
 shall be safe. But there is no such man (ncci. 
 ': 20), and the man who comes short of this, 
 in any particular, is justly condemned. (o«i. 
 
 3: 10.) 
 
 This fifth verse describes the nature of the 
 righteousness of the law; the next four verses 
 contrast with this the righteousness of faith, 
 the sixth and seventh negatively, and the 
 eighth and ninth positively. 
 
 6, 7. [But the righteousness which is 
 of faith. Dr. Hodge defines this righteous- 
 ness as that which is received by faitii. He 
 maintains that "the righteousness which con- 
 sists in faith or which flows from faith is our 
 own righteousness." But this is not necessa- 
 rily the case, and in the apostle's teaching, as 
 wehaveseen, faith is counted as righteousness.] 
 Speaketh on this wise. The quotation is 
 from Deut. 30: 11, 12, with a running com- 
 mentary by the apostle, adapting it to the 
 facts of the Christian Dispensation. [In the 
 passage quoted, Moses primarily is speaking of 
 the commandment, or law, of God, and it is 
 not asserted that he is describing the right- 
 eousness of faith. But Paul, personifj'ing 
 this righteousness, puts the words of Moses 
 into its mouth as being more appropriately 
 uttered by it than by the law. And, as Godet 
 remarks, "There was a piquancy in thus 
 replj'ing to Moses by Moses, and in showing 
 that what the lawgiver had written was still 
 more true of the gospel than of the law." 
 Paul evidently here clothes his thought in 
 Old Testament phraseolog}% which originally 
 had reference to another subject, altering such 
 phraseology and adapting it to the subject in 
 hand. Observe, in proof of this, his frequent 
 'that is.' A notable instance of such appro- 
 priation and adaptation may be seen in ver. 
 18. The apostle does not say or imply that 
 the original passage had "a fundamental 
 Messianic reference" (Philippi)or that Moses 
 uttered these words as a typical prophetic 
 description of the righteousness of faith. Yet 
 he might well regard these words as specially 
 applicable to faith in him who is the end of 
 the law, and to the commandment to believe 
 in him. (Alford.)] The language of the 
 righteousness of faith does not make salvation 
 to depend upon our perfect compliance with 
 a set of rules, many and various, through our 
 whole lives; but its conditions are simple and 
 few. We are not required to begin at the 
 
242 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend 
 into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down/row above:) 
 
 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to 
 bring up Christ again from the dead.) 
 
 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in 
 thy mouth, and in thy heart : that is, the word of faith, 
 which we preach ; 
 
 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord 
 
 Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? 
 
 7 (that is, to bring Christ down :) or. Who shall de- 
 scend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up 
 
 8 from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is 
 nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, 
 
 9 the word of faith, which we preach: i because it 
 thou shalt 2 confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, 
 
 1 Or, that 2 Some ancient authorities real confess the word with thy mouth, that Jesus is Lord. 
 
 beginning — to go up to heaven in search of a 
 Saviour, to beg him to come down and help 
 us; nor to begin in the middle — to go down 
 to the grave, and induce him to finish his 
 begun work, by rising from the dead ; but the 
 work is all wrought out for us, "ordered in 
 all things and sure" (2Sam, 23: 5), a complete 
 and finished salvation, waiting only for the 
 act of faith on our part to make it effectual. 
 Unasked and unsought, a Saviour has come 
 down from heaven, died for our sins, risen for 
 our justification, ascended to heaven, where he 
 ever lives to intercede for us. Now follows 
 the positive part of this blessed contrast to 
 the righteousness of the law. [We need not, 
 as some have done, regard the question Who 
 shall ascend into heaven? as the inquiry 
 of unbelief, as if the incarnation of Christ 
 had not taken place and was an impossi- 
 bility. Paul would simply affirm that 
 we need do no great or impossible thing, 
 that a .salvation is already provided and 
 brought home to each individual, and that 
 there is no need of waiting; a Saviour has 
 come, has died, has arisen. Nor need we sup- 
 pose that the query has reference to a doubt 
 whether Chri.st is now seated at the right 
 hand of God in heaven. For this view would 
 ill harmonize with the question which follows, 
 if interpreted on the same principle, who 
 shall descend into the deep? The con- 
 fession of ver. 9 in regard to the res2irrectio7i 
 shows that no doubt is here expressed as to 
 the fact of Christ's death or of his descent to 
 hsdes. This last query in the original Hebrew 
 and in the Septuagint reads thus: ' "Who will 
 go over the sea for us,' but Paul changed 
 'beyond the sea' into ' the deep,' in order to 
 secure a more direct contrast to heaven, and 
 to denote the place of the dead, whither Christ 
 descended and whence he rose.] 
 8, 9. But what saith it? It saith: The 
 
 word is nigh^ thee, etc. Moses saw the true 
 righteousness, not as a distant and difficult 
 thing, fitr off in heaven, or in the abyss, or 
 across the sea, but as a thing that was near 
 and simple. And the prophets had many 
 glimpses of it as something far simpler, and, 
 at the same time, far more radical than ritual 
 observances: witness Isa. 1: 11-20; 58: 3-9, 
 and notably the words in which Micah records 
 the answer of Balaam to the questions of 
 Balak, King of Moab. (6:5-8.) "If you 
 should not wish to cross your threshold," says 
 Chrysostom, "you have it in your power to 
 be saved while sitting at home ; for the means 
 of salvation are in thy mouth and in thy 
 heart" — in thy mouth to confess, and in thy 
 heart to believe. [To the words, 'in thy 
 mouth and in thy heart,' the Septuagint adds : 
 'and in thj' hands.' " In these words, Moses 
 hud in a sense, without suspecting it, given the 
 exact formula of the righteousness of faith." 
 (Godet. ) In this representation by the apos- 
 tle we have, according to Philippi, "a holy 
 and charming play of God's Spirit on the 
 words of the Lord." The word of faith— 
 the word which "forms the substratum and 
 object of faith" (Alford), or the word con- 
 cerning faith (Noyes), or, which points to 
 faith. (Boise.) This word of faith which 
 we (Christian ministers, or I, Paul,) pro- 
 claim may be regarded as the "word of God," 
 or, as in the Kevision text, the word of Christ.] 
 If thou shalt confess 2 with (literally, m) 
 thy mouth the Lord Jesus. [The Revised 
 Version margin gives here a slightly different 
 reading, which Westcott and Hort have in- 
 serted in their text. The Jii-st word of the 
 verse (on) if rendered 'that,' would indicate 
 that this verse forms the substance of what is 
 preached; if rendered 'for' or 'because' 
 (Meyer, Philippi), it shows that this verse 
 was intended to justify the application of 
 
 1 The word iyyvs (nigh), properly an adverb, is here 
 used, like some other adverbs, as a prepo.sition, followed 
 by (Tou (thee), what we may call the genitive of place ; 
 compare 13: 11.— (F.) 
 
 2 The aorist subjunctive, ' if (hou shouldst confess,' 
 is, in conditional sentences, nearly equivalent to the 
 future.— (F.) 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 243 
 
 Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath 
 raised hiiu from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 
 
 10 For with the lieart luau bclieveth unto righteous- 
 ness; and with the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation. 
 
 11 For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on 
 him shall not be ashamed. 
 
 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and 
 
 and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him 
 
 10 from the dead, thou shalt he saved: for with the 
 heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with 
 
 11 the mouth eonfesfion is made unto salvation. For 
 the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him 
 
 12 shall not be put to shame. For there is no distinc- 
 tion between Jew and Greek : for the same Lord is 
 
 the Mosaic dechirution to the preaching 
 of faith.] Confession of Christ as Lord 
 with the mouth will, if sincere, infallibly 
 be accompanied by the other required forms 
 of confession ; and so this specific form of 
 confession stands here as an appropriate rep- 
 resentative of the outward and practical con- 
 fession of Christ in general, according to 1 
 Cor. 12 : 3 ; and such confession is a condition 
 of salvation, according to our Lord s own 
 words. (Matt. 10:32, etc.) So, also, a hearty be- 
 lief of the resurrection of Christ is suitably 
 put for all that it implies — his atoning death 
 
 (1 Cor. 15:17, 18), his divine Sonship (Rom. 1:4; 1 
 
 John 4: 15), and, in general, the truth of all his 
 teachings, his works, and his claims, for his 
 resurrection is the divine seal and attestation 
 of all these. "The heart requires the help of 
 the mouth," saj's Theophylact, "for then faith 
 shows forth and manj' are benefited; but the 
 mouth also needs the heart, for many confess 
 Christ in hypocrisy." [No one but he who 
 has felt himself to be a lost sinner, and has 
 thus felt the need of an Almighty Saviour, 
 can truly confess Jesus as Lord, for "no man 
 can say, Jestis is Lord but in the Holy Spirit." 
 (iCor.i2:3.) In the writings of the apostles, 
 the term Lord generally "serves to charac- 
 terize either his pre-mundane or post-mun- 
 dane existence, and therefore points him out 
 either as Son of God or the exalted Son of 
 man." (Philippi.)] Confession with the 
 mouth is here mentioned before belief in the 
 heart, agreeably to the ordinary method in 
 common conversation, and in Scripture, of 
 putting in the foreground what is outward 
 and phenomenal, and afterward what is ab- 
 stract and inward, though logically precedent. 
 
 (johD3:5; 1 Peter 1 : 2 ; 2 Peter 1 : 10.) But this Very 
 
 common and popular order of speaking gives 
 place to the logical order in the next verse. 
 [Perhaps, also, the mouth confession was men- 
 tioned first to correspond with the position of 
 'mouth' in the Mosaic dictum of ver. 8. This 
 rhetorical order of the words mouth, heart, 
 has been frequently adduced to illustrate the i 
 meaning of the phraee " born of water and the I 
 
 Spirit." There is a sense, however, in which 
 mouth comes befor6 heart, but there is no 
 sense in which water (regarded as the water 
 of baptism) precedes the birth from the Spirit. 
 Thou shalt be saved. The result of such 
 confessing faith corresponds with 'shall live' 
 of ver. 5.] 
 
 10. [For is confirmatory of the preceding 
 statement. Believeth unto righteousness. 
 To believe unto righteousness is a believing 
 which obtains righteousness, and to this faith 
 of the heart must be added the confession 
 of the mouth, in order to a full salvation.] 
 There is here a change of construction in the 
 English of the two clauses, but in the Greek 
 both verbs are impersonal, and a very literal 
 translation would be: "For with the heart it 
 is believed unto righteousness, and with the 
 mouth it is confessed unto salvation; " or, less 
 literally, but more in conformity with English 
 idiom: "With the heart faith is exercised 
 unto righteousness, and with the mouth con- 
 fession is made unto salvation." The con- 
 fession of Christ is indispensable, for without 
 it the evidence of justifying faith in the heart 
 is incomplete. This is confirmed by another 
 Scriptural citation. 
 
 11. The Scripture saith. This passage— 
 from Isaiah 28 : 16, quoted also before at 9 : 33 
 — closely accords with the Septungint Version. . 
 The Hebrew reads : " He that believeth shall 
 not make haste." The meaning is the same — 
 "shall have no cause of shame, or fear, or 
 flight." [The apostle adds "every one" (n-as). 
 "a monosyllable more precious than the whole 
 world" (Bengel), which is found neither in 
 the Hebrew nor the Septuagint; but this form 
 is found in Joel 2:3 (3:5), and is quoted in 
 ver. 13. The idea of universality is conveyed 
 by the indefinite participle. On this Hebra- 
 istic idiom, every one, connected with a nega- 
 tived verb, see 3 : 20.] 
 
 12. 13. There is no difference— as to 
 faith being the condition oi righteousness or 
 justification — between the Jew and the 
 Greek. There is no distinction between Jew 
 and Gentile as to the way of justification. 
 
244 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 the (Jreek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all 
 that call upon him. 
 
 13 For whosever shall call upon the name of the 
 Lord shall be saved. 
 
 Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him ; 
 
 13 fur, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
 
 14 Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call ou 
 
 For the same Lord over ail is rich, etc. 
 [This clause may be rendered : For the satne 
 is Lord of (or, over) all (men), being rich unto 
 all, etc. Meyer gives it: "The Lord of all is 
 one and the same." Alford prefers the usual 
 rendering. Compare 1 Cor. 12 : 5, 6. Mark 
 how often Paul here uses the confirmatory 
 'for'— five times in ver. 10-13.] This 'Lord 
 over air is the Lord Jesus Christ, as the con- 
 text, both preceding (ver. 9) and following (ver. 
 H, i5),very plainly shows. [So Tholuck, Riick- 
 ort, De Wette, Philippi, Fritzsche, Hofmann, 
 and others.] But the Lord mentioned by the 
 prophet Joel (2:32) is Jehovah (that is the 
 word in the Hebrew). Thus it appears that 
 Jesus Christ is "Lord over all" (compare 
 Acts 10 : 36) [and "God over all ; " see 9 : 5], 
 and is identified with the Jehovah of the Old 
 Testament. ["Jehovah, but used here of 
 Christ beyond a doubt, as the next verse 
 shows. There is hardly a stronger proof, or 
 one more irrefragable by those who deny the 
 Godhead of our blessed Lord, of the unhesi- 
 tating application to him by the apostle of the 
 name and attributes of Jehovah." (Alford.) 
 For other examples where Jehovah and the 
 Lord Christ are convertible terms, see next 
 verse as compared with Joel 3:5; 14:10, 11, 
 with Isa. 45:23 (compare 2 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 
 2 : 11) ; 1 Cor. 10 : 4, 9, with Exod. 17 : 2, 7; 
 Eph. 4 : 8, with Ps. 68 : 18, etc. On the use of 
 'Lord' (xvpt'os) in'the New Testament, Prof. 
 Stuart, in "Biblical Kepository," 1831, p. 770, 
 states, as the result of his investigation, "that 
 in nearly all (about two hundred and forty) 
 of the two hundred and forty-six instances in 
 which Lord (xupios) is used by Paul to desig- 
 nate Christ or God, independently' of quota- 
 tions from the Old Testament, it is applied to 
 Christ." (The Epistle to the Hebrews is here 
 included among Paul's writings.) See also 
 notes on Acts 7 : 59. Some men even now, 
 with Origen of olden tiine, hesitate to address 
 our Saviour, ' Lord over all,' in prayer; but 
 once his disciples were known as "callers on 
 the name of Christ," and this, too, before the 
 name "Christians" was given them. See ex- 
 amples quoted under 9:5, to which many 
 others might be added. Meyer says : "The 
 
 calling upon Christ is not the worshiping 
 absolutely." But this idea, as Philippi says, 
 using one of Meyer's phrases, is "arbitrarily 
 imported." Has Jehovah revoked his own 
 word and given his glory to another? Or 
 did these saints forget the divine command : 
 "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and 
 him only shalt thou serve?" How true is 
 the saying of Athanasius, that "we need a 
 Kedeemer who is our Lord by nature, in order 
 that we may not by redemption again become 
 the slaves of an idol."] The Lord is rich 
 unto all that call upon him. The Jew 
 need not grudge the Gentile his share in the 
 riches: there is enough for all. ["'Rich' 
 and liberal, whom no multitude of believers, 
 however great, can exhaust, who never is 
 compelled to retrench." (Bengel.) Who- 
 soever shall call. Literally: For every one 
 whosoever may or shall call, etc. Name of 
 the Lord represents what is revealed respect- 
 ing the character and office work of our Sa- 
 viour. See Hackett's "Acts," 2:88. Mark 
 how all-embracing is the offer and possibility 
 of salvation !] 
 
 In the remaining part of this chapter the 
 apostle shows that the rejection of the Jews 
 was their own fault, the consequence of their 
 inexcusable unbelief [for "Israel hath not 
 wanted preachers of this doctrine of salva- 
 tion." (Tholuck.)] 
 
 14, 15. These two verses are introductory 
 to what follows, to the end of the chapter. 
 They point out what preceding conditions are 
 indispensable to that saving invocation of the 
 name of the Lord spoken of in ver. 13, in-_ 
 dispensable alike to Jews and Gentiles, and so 
 they form a suitable connection between the 
 verses that precede and those that follow. 
 [Even if, as some suppose, these are the words 
 of a Jewish objector, excusing his people by 
 alleging that the gospel had not been preached 
 to them, even from this point of view these 
 verses are to be regarded as setting forth 
 essential truths. "No invocation without 
 faith, no faith without hearing, no hearing 
 without preaching, no preaching without 
 sending." (Godet.) It seems to be an una- 
 voidable inference from these verses, and 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 245 
 
 14 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? and how shall they 
 hear without a preacher? 
 
 him in whom they have not believed? and how shall 
 
 they believe in him whom they have not heard? 
 
 15 and how shall they hear without a preacher? and 
 
 others immediately preceding (»-i3), that there 
 is no salvation for the heathen apart from 
 their hearing and believing in the gospel. 
 The teaching of our Epistle, indeed, supposes 
 that the heathen, even in the absence of the 
 gospel, have a probation in this life, they being 
 a law unto themselves. And Peter goes so fjir 
 as to say (Actsio:35) that "in every nation he 
 that feareth God and worketh righteousness 
 is acceptable to him." Yet this same apostle, 
 in ver. 43 of the same chapter, plainly implies 
 that this supposed righteous Gentile must be- 
 lieve in Christ, in order to receive remission 
 of sins. If any heathen should fully and 
 always obey the inner, unwritten law, he 
 ■would be saved, we may trust, on the ground 
 of his merits who died for all. If they fail — 
 as, we suppose, all do — to live up to the measure 
 of light and knowledge which they possess or 
 could have gained, they will doubtless suffer 
 "stripes," whether "few" or "many" we 
 leave to the Judge of all the earth, who will 
 do right. We believe there are different de- 
 grees of happiness even in the heavenly state, 
 and there may be as manj' degrees of unhap- 
 piness or misery in the world of the loSt as 
 there are in this world of sin and suffering. 
 One thing is certain, that the Scriptures are 
 silent as the grave touching any second or 
 future probation for mankind between death 
 and the judgment.' On the contrary, they 
 almost everywhere express or imply the very 
 contrary of this. And to my mind the great 
 
 change of death supposes an equally great 
 change in the relation which we, as account- 
 able beings, sustain to God. Thus no warrant 
 from Scripture or reason, or from our knowl- 
 edge of heathenism in any age or couiitr3\ 
 will justify us in hoping that for many of the 
 unevangelized heathen there will be a full 
 salvation. Still, if God sees in any heathen 
 the controlling power of a right faith and 
 spirit, I know not why the redemption of 
 Christ may not be as available for him as for 
 those of like faith and spirit who lived before 
 his coming.] How then (since calling on 
 the name of the Lord is the means of salva- 
 tion) shall they (or, can they) call on him 
 [auTov, him, understood] in whom they have 
 not believed? Belief must precede invoca- 
 tion. [If we believe in Christ as our Lord 
 and Saviour, we cannot but invoke him in 
 prayer, for no one can be a Saviour of sinners 
 whom we cannot call upon to save. Even 
 when we ask anything in his name, we are 
 graciously assured from his own lips that he 
 will do it. (John u: 13, 14.)] And how shall 
 they (or, can they) believe in him of whom 
 they have not heard? Hearing must pre- 
 cede belief. [In these sentences, the Greek 
 particle might be rendered but instead of n7id. 
 The Kevised Version omits of before whom, 
 and rightlj' so, if Christ may be regarded as 
 speaking through his preachers.*] And how 
 shall they (or, can they) hear Avithout a 
 preacher? A message must be proclaimed 
 
 1 This dssertion as a general proposition will hold 
 strictly true, even though it be conceded that, as a 
 wholly exceptional instance, Christ did in his disem- 
 bodied state go to "Hades" (the invisible world), and 
 did there make proclamation of some kind to the im- 
 prisoned spirits of those who in the time of Noah were 
 disobedient. (1 Peter 3 : 19.) There are those who think 
 that Peter's statement to this eflTect is plain and unde- 
 niable, but the passage, standing confessedly alone in 
 the Scriptures, must at least be deemed too unique and 
 uncertain to warrant the general inference which some 
 would derive from it. No one can tell how or why these 
 particular persons were singled out in Hades and 
 preached to exclusively, or what this preaching or 
 proclamation was, or what was its effect. Besides, it is 
 maintained by some of our best Greek scholars that the 
 aorist participle (disobedient), without the article, marks 
 the date or occasion uf the preaching, thus showing 
 
 that this proclamation was made to them when once 
 they were disobedient upon the earth. See Dr. Hovey's 
 "Biblical Eschatology," p. 99; also Dr. N. M. Williams' 
 " Commentary on Peter." Evidently the sjiirits of men 
 who were once so " disobedient " that the mercy of God 
 could not suflfer them to live, and whom he subsequently 
 confined " in prison " for punishment, are not the kind 
 for whose benefit the speculations of some theologians 
 would provide a future probation. Our Saviour's own 
 words, for certain, give no warrant for the belief that 
 "he descended into any Hailes priso?t, but rather that he 
 returned unto the Father who sent him — that he went 
 to " Paradise." And the Scriptures, in general, plainly 
 teach us that " after death " cometh, not probation, but 
 ' judgment." — (F.) 
 
 2 On the use of the genitive and accusative (see Eph. 
 4:21) after the verb to hear, see Winer, p. 179; Butt- 
 mann, 166.— (F.) 
 
246 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? 
 as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that 
 preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of 
 good things! 
 
 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For 
 Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 
 
 how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as 
 it is written. How beautiful are the feet of them 
 that bring iglad tidings of good things! 
 16 But they did not all hearken to the ^glad tidings. 
 For Isaiah said, Lord, who hath believed our re- 
 
 1 Or, a gospel 2 Or, gospel. 
 
 in order to be heard. ["The gospel does not 
 fall like rain from the clouds, but is brought 
 by the hands of men wherever it is sent from 
 above." (Calvin.) The word which is to be 
 proclaimed is Christ's (ver. n, Revised version), and 
 its preachers are sent by him.'] And how 
 shall they preach, except they be sent? 
 A message necessarily implies a messenger. 
 If, then, God has ordained that men should 
 be saved by believing on Christ, he must have 
 intended that Christ should be made known 
 to them as a Saviour; if he has ordained the 
 end, he tnust have ordained the means. Two 
 practical observations are in place here. The 
 first is — that the confession of Christ (ver. 9, lo) 
 and the calling upon his name (v.r. 12, 13) must 
 be a sincere, heart-prompted confession and 
 calling, and not a merely lip-service; this is 
 implied, of course, in all cases where the Scrip- 
 tures make saving results to depend upon any 
 such oral utterance or outward act. The sec- 
 ond observation is — that though the questions 
 in these two verses are applied, in the verses 
 that follow, as the apostle's argument here 
 requires, particularly to the Jews, they form, 
 by legitimate generalization, a valid and 
 forcible argument, at all times, for sending 
 preachers of the gospel to the heathen, and to 
 all who are in ignorance or in error. As it is 
 Avritten, How beautiful are the feet, etc. 
 — that is, how welcome and pleasant is the 
 coming of those who bring glad tidings ! This 
 quotation is from Isa. 52 : 7 [and follows the 
 Hebrew rather than the Septuagint. The 
 hitter, in fact, wholly mistakes the meaning, 
 and renders: "I am present as an hour (of 
 bloom or beauty) upon the mountains." On 
 'beautiful' (ipatoi, from iipa, hour). Trench 
 remarks that every living thing has its hour 
 or period of grace and beauty when it is love- 
 liest and best; hence this adjective came first 
 to mean timely and then beautiful. The 
 apostle omits "upon the mountains" as not 
 appropriate to his purpose. Modern Greek. 
 
 it is said, retains this same figure of speech, 
 and the wish that one may be well-footed is 
 that he may be the bearer of good news]. The 
 expression borrows its form, probably, from 
 the case of the messengers who came to Zion 
 across the intervening mountains, announcing 
 the speedy return of the captives from Baby- 
 lon. But the words had from the beginning 
 a reference to the glad tidings of the Messianic 
 salvation, as the connection in which the 
 prophet Isaiah introduces them plainly shows, 
 and as even the Rabbinical interpreters per- 
 ceived ; so that it is in their real sense, and 
 not merely in the way of accommodation, that 
 the apostle here quotes them. Preach the 
 gospel of peace. This clause is omitted by 
 Lachmann and Tischendorf [also by Westcott 
 and Hort], as not being found in the best 
 manuscripts of the New Testament, though 
 undoubtedly genuine in Isaiah. The only 
 doubt is, whether Paul quoted so fully from 
 Isaiah's prophecy. [Meyer, De Wette, Phil- 
 ippi, Godet, regard the omission as an error 
 of the copyists.] 
 
 16. But [though the glad tidings were thus, 
 supposedly, proclaimed] they have not all 
 obeyed the gospel— ^better, they did not 
 hearken to the good news. This is what the 
 apostle affirms in regard to the Jews in the 
 time of Isaiah, in respect to the good news of 
 the Messiah to come; and what he hints, and 
 might truly afiBrm, in regard to the Jews in 
 his own time, in respect to the good news of 
 the Messiah already come. In both cases, 
 but especially in the last, he might have truly 
 said that nearly all, or the great majority dis- 
 believed ; but he contents himself with saying, 
 in eflfect, not all believed, thus courteously 
 softening an unwelcome truth, instead of 
 pressing it to its utmost extent. In fact, the 
 language which he quotes from Isa. 53: 1, 
 implies that there were but few who believed 
 the prophet's report of the good news. [Per- 
 haps the 'all' spoken of here contains some 
 
 I On the frequent use of x*»P"'« (apart from, without) in the New Testament, and its distinction from &vtv, 
 see Ellicott on Eph. 2 : 12.— (F.) 
 
Ch. X.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 247 
 
 17 So then faith comeih by hearing, and hearing by 
 the word of God. 
 
 18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, 
 their sound went into all the earth, and their words 
 unto the ends of the world. 
 
 17 port? So belief comejh of hearinp, and hearing by 
 
 18 the word of Christ. But I say, Did ihey not hearf 
 Yea, verily. 
 
 Their sound went out into all the earth, 
 And their words unto the ends of ' the world. 
 
 1 Gr. (Ae inhabited earth. 
 
 allusion to what the 'all' should have dono 
 according to ver. 11-13. (De Wette.) The 
 word Lord is found in the LXX, but not in 
 the Hebrew.*] 
 
 17. This verse is a conclusion from the pre- 
 ceding, confirming also what was said in ver. 
 14, 15. The word translated 'hearing' (a<co^) 
 is the same which in the preceding verse is 
 translated 'report.' It means in both cases, 
 " that which is heard " ; and when an inspired 
 prophet or apostle is the speaker, tiiat which 
 is heard is the " word of God," agreeably to 1 
 Thess. 2: 13. [The text of Tischendorf (8), 
 Westcott and Hort, and of the Revisers, reads, 
 "the word of Christ." Mr. Beet, in order to 
 preserve the spirit of the original, gives this 
 rendering: " Who has believed what we have 
 heard? Therefore, faith comes from some- 
 thing heard, and that which is heard comes 
 through the word of Christ." The following, 
 perhaps, gives the meaning quite as well: 
 Who hath believed our preaching? Accord- 
 ingly, faith (belief) comes from preaching, 
 and preaching comes through the word of 
 Christ; in other words, the proclaimed mes- 
 sage is given by command of Christ (Meyer), 
 or, more probably, is contained in the word 
 of Christ. (Cremer. )] 
 
 18. Surely the Jews cannot excuse their 
 unbelief on the ground that thoy have not 
 heard the gospel, for it has been preached 
 without any restriction to both Jews and 
 Gentiles, and, in fact, so widely, that the 
 voice of the preachers may well be said, 
 according to the Psalmist's description of the 
 silent testimony of God's works, to have 
 "gone forth into all the earth," - etc. This 
 
 seems, at first view, a bold hyperbole; but it 
 is hardly more than what is elsewhere said 
 in more literal language. See Col. 1: 6, 23. 
 The restricted national dispensation had given 
 place to the proclamation of a universal gospel 
 for all nations, the boundaries of Judaism had 
 been overleaped, the Saviour of the world 
 had issued his proclamation to every creature 
 (Mark 16: 15), in all nations (M..tt. 28: i9), and his 
 obedient servants had begun the work of 
 preaching the word every*vliere (Acts8:4; Rom. 
 la: 19), and that universal work so well be- 
 gun, and, indeed, already so far advanced, 
 is to go on without cessation until all 
 the ends of the world shall remember and 
 turn to the Lord. ( 8.22:27.) [Yet, no one, 
 we think, can suppose that by the words, 
 "their sound" (or line) the Psalmist meant 
 the sound of the gospel from the lips of its 
 preachers. Paul here "simply uses Scrip- 
 tural language to express his own ideas, as is 
 done involuntarily almost by every preacher 
 in every sermon." (Hodge.) Alford, however, 
 does not see here any mere accommodation ot 
 language, but thinks that as the psalm is 
 "a comparison of the sun and glory of the 
 heavens with the word of God," so Paul took 
 this text in its context, and followed up the 
 comparison of the psalm.] 
 
 19. Nor can the Jew excuse himself on the 
 ground that the nation was taken by surprise, 
 without any previous intimation of God's 
 purpose to give the Messianic salvation to the 
 Gentiles; for both Moses and Isaiah had dis- 
 tinctly declared this, and the latter had pre- 
 dicted the unbelief and disobedience of the 
 people of Israel, and the Lord's reproval of 
 
 1 The student will notice that the first verb and the 
 last noun of this verse are both derived from dicouw, 
 to hear.— (F.) 
 
 20f the two negatives in the clause, 'did they not 
 hear,' the latter, ovk, according to Winer, belongs to 
 the verb of the sentence, and the former alone is inter- 
 rogatory, as, did they fail to hear? The answer would 
 then be: nay rather, assuredly not. In this case, the 
 answer would negative the not hearing, as the answer 
 in ver. 19 would negative the not knowing. Winer 
 
 remarks that in interrogative sentences with iJ^rj. 
 " the speaker always has his eye on a negative answer." 
 Buttmann, however (p. 248), supposes the negatives of 
 our text require, like the Latin nonne, an affirmative 
 answer. The statement of Winer's is probably correct. 
 Yet, according to our idiom, or usage, the proper, or, at 
 least, the natural answer to this query, did they not 
 hear? would be (if we borrow the corrective idea of 
 Hfvovvyt), "Yes, they did hear; and more than this 
 was true in regard to this matter."— (F.) 
 
248 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. X. 
 
 19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses 
 saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are 
 no people, and by a loulisb nation I will anger you. 
 
 2u But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of 
 them that sought rue not; I was made manifest unto 
 them that asked not after me. 
 
 21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have 
 stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gain- 
 saying people. 
 
 19 But I say. Did Israel not know? First Moses saith, 
 
 I will provoke you to jealousy with that which 
 
 is no nation, 
 With a nation void of understanding will I 
 
 anger you. 
 
 20 And Isaiah is very bold, and saith, 
 
 I was found of them that sought me not ; 
 I became manifest unto them that asked not of 
 me. 
 
 21 But as to Israel he saith, All the day long did I 
 spread out my hands unto a disobedient and gain- 
 saying people. r 
 
 them for it. Did not Israel knoAV?i [The 
 enipha&is on the word ' Israel' (in the Revised 
 Text) indicates not a little surprise at their 
 supposed ignorance. Meyer finds in this 
 query "a further possible exculpation for the 
 Jews."] First Moses saith. Moses was 
 the first to say this, so early were they dis- 
 tinctly apprised of God's purpose. I will 
 provoke you to jealousy by them that are 
 no people. (Deut. 32: 21.) The connection in 
 which this passage occurs is very significant: 
 "As you have provoked me to anger by your 
 idolatries, I will provoke you to jealousy by 
 transferring your abused privileges to those 
 who have heretofore not been acknowledged 
 as my people"; and by a foolish nation 
 will I anger you. " I will make you angry 
 by preferring to you a nation whom you de- 
 spise as foolish, in contrast with your boasted 
 wisdom." Compare 2: 17-20. "All other 
 nations were as inferior to the Jews in reli- 
 gious knowledge as all other nations were to 
 the Greeks in human culture." (Vaughan, 
 apud Webster, p. 243.)^ 
 
 20. But Esaias is very bold and saith. 
 This passage is found in Isaiah 65: 1, the 
 clauses being transposed by the apostle. It 
 
 was a bold saying indeed, and especially so in 
 view of what follows, in which the disobedient 
 and contradictory spirit of the Jews is put iu 
 contrast to the more docile temper of the 
 Gentiles.* 
 
 21. But to Israel— that is, with reference 
 to Israel. The passage here quoted imme- 
 diately follows that which is quoted in the 
 preceding verse, and both are spoken by the 
 Lord in reply to the prophet's intercession in 
 behalf of the people in the preceding chapter. 
 All day long, he says, with patient long 
 suflFering, I have stretched forth my hands 
 (in remonstrance and invitation) to a diso- 
 bedient and gainsaying people. Instead 
 of ' disobedient and gainsaying,' the Hebrew 
 has "rebellious people" ['gainsaying' being 
 added by the LXX.]. ' Disobedient and gain- 
 saying' is the apostolic equivalent of the 
 prophet's word "rebellious." 'Disobedient' 
 was not enough. In addition to their nega- 
 tive non-compliance with the Lord's com- 
 mands, they are represented as contradicting 
 him to his fiice, like one who says: "I will 
 not," when commanded to do some particular 
 thing. For that is the meaning of 'gainsay- 
 ing' — saying again, or, against what is com- 
 
 ^ This question, with the negative, mtj, is equivalent 
 to: was Israel ignorant of this? and hence requires a 
 negative answer. See note on the preceding verse. — (F.) 
 
 2 Epi, with the dative, is here over, on account of, a 
 no-nation, not against, as the "Five Clergymen" and 
 Alford render it; for iu thisseiise the accusative would 
 be more suitable. These negatived substantives occur 
 only in Old Testament quotations. The Common Ver- 
 sion preserves the distinction between people and 
 nation which is found in the Hebrew, but which is 
 neglected by the Seventy, and by Paul.— (F.) 
 
 3 The fie, above, marks the transition to another 
 prophet. According to Winer, Meyer, and others, the 
 prophet (in the name of God) not only speaks out 
 boldly, but he makes bold and says, so that the idea of 
 the first verb is not made subordinate. With the pas- 
 sive (' was found ') we have quite frequently, especially 
 in the perfect and aorist, the dative of agency, instead 
 of the genitive with urrd. But Winer remarks that the 
 
 dative in such a case " denotes the person not by whom 
 something has been done, but to whom what has been 
 done belongs." Here the finding which belonged to 
 them is equivalent to a finding by them. Thus, to 
 become known to a person is to become known by him. 
 Some manuscripts, however, have iv (in) before the 
 dative. Trench, in his " Synonyms," states that 
 epioTdiw, the Latin rogare, implies that the one asking 
 stands on a footing of equality or familiarity with him 
 from whom the boon is asked; while aiTt'oj, the Latin 
 peto, is the "constant word for the seeking of the in- 
 ferior from the superior." This view is combated by 
 Prof. Cremer, and others. See, also, Thayer's " 'Lexi- 
 con," sub voce, and compare 1 John 5: 16, and the use 
 of eVepuTaw above. According to Meyer, this passage 
 historically refers to the Jews ; but Paul sees in them, 
 since they had become idolatrous and heathenish, a 
 typical representation of the Gentiles. Others think 
 the primary reference is to the Gentiles.— (F.) 
 
Ch. XI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 249 
 
 CHAPTEK XI. 
 
 I SAY then, Hath God cast away his people? God 
 forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of 
 Abraham, oj the tribe of Beujamiu. 
 
 2 (iod hath not cast away his people which he fore- 
 kuew. Wot ye not what the Scriptures saith of Ellas? 
 
 1 I say then. Did God cast ofT his people? God for- 
 bid. For I also am au Israelite, ol the seed of Abra- 
 
 2 ham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God did not cast 
 otf his people whom he foreknew. Or know ye not 
 
 manded, answering back. [Godet finds an 
 illustration of this in the Book of Miilachi : 
 "And ye say I" From the above repre- 
 sentation, "it is clear," as the last-named 
 commentator says, "that the apostle in no 
 wise puts the rejection of Israel to the account 
 of an unconditional, divine decree, but that 
 he ascribes the cause of it to Israel them- 
 selves." And Bengel remarks that the doc- 
 trine of a double will of God, of good pleasure, 
 and of sealing, is here shown to be absurd. 
 The denial, however, of a revealed and secret 
 will on the part of God, in other words, what 
 God desires in itself considered, and what he 
 purposes to do on the whole (H. B. iSmith), is 
 not unattended with difficulty. See Edwards' 
 "Freedom of the Will," Part IV., § IX., 
 IV.; also Vol. II., pp. 161, 162, 513-516. 
 "With reference to Israel as a wiiole, it must 
 be said that there was a rejection, or cast- 
 ing away (aTro^oAij, 11: lo) of them on the part 
 of God; but this verse shows why and in 
 what spirit it was done. God has no pleasure 
 in the death of the wicked, yet who will say 
 that the transgressor's death is wholly con- 
 trary to the determinate counsel of God, the 
 counsel of his will? What Christian believer 
 is willing to confess, with the ancient Pagan 
 Greeks, that some things happen not only 
 with the will of God, but against his will, or 
 fixed purpose ? ] 
 
 We may now thus sum up the contents of 
 the last part of this chapter, (ver 18-21.) After 
 having shown, in a general way, that because 
 faith Cometh by hearing the divine word, it 
 was necessary that the gospel should be 
 preached to all (ver. u-17), he shows, specially, 
 that the heavenly truths had been preached 
 both to all the Gentiles (ver. is), and also to the 
 Jews (ver. 19), but with unequal success; for 
 many of the Gentiles have believed (ver. 20), 
 while the Jews, for the most part, remained 
 obdurate (ver. 21). 
 
 The way is now prepared for a more favor- 
 able view of the ultimate purpose of God in 
 regard to the Jewish people. 
 
 Ch. 11 : [The temporary casting away of 
 the Jews, the source of highest good both to 
 the Gentiles and to the Jewish race.] 
 
 The apostle now turns to a more hopeful 
 aspect of the destiny of the Jewish nation ; 
 their rejection is neither total (ver. 110) nor 
 final. (Ver. 11-36.) It is limited both as toper- 
 sons and as to time. 
 
 1. I say then. Hath God cast away his 
 people ? [A question of the apostle's origina- 
 tion. Compare the more frequent: "What 
 then shall we say?"] This form of expres- 
 sion, 'I say then,' introduces, interrogatively, 
 a false inference which might be drawn from 
 the closing verses of the previous chapter, but 
 introduces it only in order to refute it. It is 
 implicitly refuted, as Bengel well says, in the 
 very statement of it, for he still calls them his 
 people. But it is more explicitly refuted by 
 the fact immediately referred to, that the 
 apostle himself was [no mere proselyte to 
 Judaism, but] an Israelite, and a representa- 
 tive of many other believing Israelites. So 
 he rejects the false inference with emphatic 
 earnestness: God foT\i\A—let not such a thing 
 be. For I also am not only an Israelite 
 (see note on 9:4), but of the tribe of Benja- 
 min, one of the two royal tribes of Israel 
 (isara. 10:20, 21; Aois 12 :2i), the tribe SO closely asso- 
 ciated with the tribe of Judah, and, after the 
 return from the exile, almost identified with 
 it. (Ezra4:i; 10:9.) So the Very man who has 
 been saying these seemingly hard things 
 against the Jews is himself a Hebrew of the 
 Hebrews (Phil. 3:5), and thus a iit representative 
 of the saved remnant [himself a living proof 
 that God had not thrust away all Israel. If 
 the truth of the supposition were conceded, 
 then, as Alford says, "it would exclude from 
 God's kingdom the writer himself"]. 
 
 2. The inference which he had refuted in 
 the first v«rse, by citing an example which 
 proved it false, be now directly denies, and 
 adds a new refutation of it. Which he fore- 
 knew — which he selected as the chosen nation. 
 [Prof. Cremer: "God has not cast away his 
 
250 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XL 
 
 how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, 
 saying, 
 
 S Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged 
 down thine aUars ; and I am left alone, and they seek 
 my life. 
 
 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I 
 have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who 
 have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 
 
 what the scripture saith i of Elijah ? how he pleadeth 
 
 3 with God against Israel, Lord, ihey have killed thy 
 prophets, they have digged down thine altars: and 
 
 4 I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what 
 saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for 
 myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed 
 
 people with whom he had before joined him- 
 self—that is, before this union was historically 
 realized." Such a supposition would contra- 
 dict the "immutability of his counsel." Mark 
 the use of the direct negative in a positive 
 statement.] We must not limit the expression 
 'his people,' here, to the elect Christian people 
 of God found among the Jews, for this would 
 make the question of ver. 1 self-contradictory, 
 and the negation of this verso a mere truism. 
 Wot (or, know) ye not [introduces another 
 proof that God had not wholly cast off his 
 people] what the Scripture saith of Elias? 
 A literal translation would be: Saith in Elias, 
 in the story of Elias. Compare Mark 12 : 26. 
 He maketh intercession to God {pleads, 
 with God) against Israel. This is the only 
 passage in Scripture where the word interces- 
 sion has an unfavorable meaning, or is coupled 
 with the preposition 'against.' [Yet see Acts 
 25:24. The verb, primarily, means to meet 
 ■with, and with this the idea of making request 
 or sujiplication is closely related.] This plea 
 or protest of Elijah is found in 1 Kings 19 : 14 
 [and is quoted somewhat freely from the 
 Septuagint. (3King<i9:i4.) The word saying 
 ■which precedes Lord in o}iv Common Version 
 is found only in two MSS. 
 
 3. They have killed thy prophets, and 
 digged down thine altars. The verbs are 
 in a past, not in the perfect, tense: They slew 
 thy prophets ; they utterly overthrexo (or, 
 razed to the ground) thine altars. I am (or, 
 was) left alone, etc. These altars were prob- 
 ably those on the high places]. These words 
 were spoken in the times of Ahaz and Jeze- 
 bel, when the prophet had fled into the wilder- 
 ness to save his life, which Jezebel had sworn 
 to take before another day should pass. 
 (1 King, 19: 2.) [The Greek word for 'life'— cor- 
 responding to the word used in the Hebrew — 
 sometimes, as here, refers to the life of the 
 body (compare Matt. 6 : 25), but often has 
 reference to that part of man which can live 
 apart from the body (compare Matt. 10:28), 
 and is in our versions more frequently trans- 
 
 lated soiil than 'life.'] Elijah seems to have 
 been literally 'left alone' as a true prophet 
 of the Lord, and in his dejection he may have 
 fancied himself the only true servant of God 
 in the land. But the case was far from being 
 as bad as that. 
 
 4. The sad complaint of Elijah, 'I am left 
 alone,' was very probably uttered under an 
 exaggerated view of the prevalence of evil, as 
 was that of the Hebrew Psalmist, when he 
 said in his haste: "All men are liars" 
 (Ps.ueiii); but the Lord both reproved and 
 encouraged him by the manner in which he 
 responded to this doleful complaint. The 
 answer of God unto him, or the response 
 from the divine oracle, as the word (found 
 nowhere else in the New Testament, though 
 the verb occurs several times ; see 7: 3) might 
 be freely paraphrased, was this; I have re- 
 served to myself— that is, I have kept faithful 
 to myself and free from the prevalent idolatry 
 not merely one solitary prophet, but seven 
 thousand men, who have not boAved the 
 knee to the image of Baal. [This citation 
 follows the Hebrew far more closely than it 
 does the LXX. 'To myself is an addition 
 of the apostle.] It will be observed that the 
 words 'the image of are supplied by the 
 translators; the original has merely, 'who 
 have not bowed the knee to Baal.* The reason 
 why the translators thought it necessary to add 
 these apparently superfluous words undoubt- 
 edly was, that they found in the original Greek 
 the feminine article prefixed to the name Baal, 
 and believing that Baal, the sun god of the 
 Phcenicians, was always regarded as a male 
 divinity, and finding the masculine article in 
 the LXX. in the passage -which is here quoted, 
 [though in other places the feminine is used], 
 they supposed that the word 'image,' or some 
 similar noun of the feminine gender in Greek, 
 must be understood. There is reason to be- 
 lieve, however, that this fabulous divinity was 
 regarded by its worshipers as combining both 
 genders, and therefore it is better to omit the 
 words in italics, as has been done by most 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a 
 remnant according to the election of grace. 
 
 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works : oin- 
 erwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of worlts, 
 then is it no more grace: otherwise work 13 no more 
 
 ^T What then' Israel hath not obtained that whicli 
 he seekelh for ; but the election hath obtained it, and 
 the rest were blinded. 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 251 
 
 5 the knee to Baal. Even so then at this piesent time 
 also there is a remnant according to the electiuu of 
 
 6 grace. But if it is by grace, it is no more of w.jrks : 
 
 7 otherwise grace is no more grace. What then 1 iuat 
 which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but 
 the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened: 
 
 recent revisers of the English Bible, and read 
 simply: Who bowed not the kiiee to Baal. 
 [The singular, 'knee,' denotes a collective 
 number considered as a single conception. 
 (Philii>pi.) The number 'seven tliousand,' 
 is, perhaps, not to be taken with strict literal- 
 ness. Seven is commonlj' regarded as the 
 covenant number, or the number of complete- 
 ness.] 
 
 5. Even so then [in correspondence with 
 this historical precedent. An "analogical in- 
 ference"]. The cases compared were very 
 similar. Instead of the rejection of all save 
 one, as Elijah in the earlier case and Paul in 
 the later, there were seven thousand in Eli- 
 jah's time, and "many thousands" of Jews 
 in Paul's time (Aot92i:20), who were faithful 
 worshipers of God and believers in Christ; 
 yet in both cases these thousands were but a 
 remnant, a small minority, in comparison 
 with the great mass of idolaters and unbe- 
 lievers, and it was only through the gracious, 
 divine election that this remnant was saved 
 from the general corruption. [Paul's lan- 
 guage here, literally rendered, is: Thus, there- 
 fore, also in the now time there has become 
 (and still exists) a remnant. According to 
 the election of grace means in virtue of, or, 
 in consequence of, an election made through 
 grace. In this elect remnant, gathered out 
 from an elect nation, we have an election 
 within an election, an election of individuals 
 to eternal life, who belonged to a people whom 
 God elected to the privileges of gn.ce. The 
 election spoken of here is regarded from a 
 sublapsarian point of view— that is, it supposes 
 the gratuitously elected persons were guilty 
 and undeserving sinners.] 
 
 6. And if by grace, then is it no more 
 of works: otherwise grace is no more 
 grace. [The apostle must here rest his argu- 
 ment a moment to give again the distinguish- 
 
 ing characteristic of this all-important ' grace.' 
 The verse may be thus paraphrased : But (or, 
 now) if this remnant has been selected and 
 reserved through grace, it is no longer on 
 account of the merit of works, since (other- 
 wise) grace would cease^ to show itself as 
 grace. A purely gratuitous election will not 
 allow any merit of works to be mixed up witlj 
 this grace.] The apostle, not satisfied with 
 having attributed the existence of even a 
 remnant from the general wreck 'to the elec- 
 tion of grace,' reiterates the statement in a 
 negative form, and amplifies it, because it was 
 so important to convince the Jews, who were 
 bent on seeking salvation by works, that there 
 was no hope in that direction, and that grace 
 and works, as grounds of salvation, were an- 
 tagonistic in their very nature, so that there 
 could be no compromise between them, or 
 amalgam of the one with the other. To im- 
 agine any such combination would be to sup- 
 pose one or the other to change its very nature. 
 Yet this is just what many men are still trying 
 to do, depending mainly upon their own works 
 for acceptance with God, but, after all, ac- 
 knowledging their need of divine mercy. 
 The last half of this verse, But if it be of 
 works, etc., is rejected as spurious by some 
 editors, though found in the Vatican manu- 
 script, one of the oldest and best, to say the 
 least.2 But the doubt is practically of little 
 importance, since it is merely a question of 
 the more or less expansion of what is clearly 
 expressed in the former part of the verse. 
 
 7. What then shall we conclude? [What 
 is to be inferred from the two (or five) preced- 
 ing verses? We infer the reason why Israel has 
 failed to obtain righteousness: because they, 
 unlike the elect remnant, sought to obtain 
 it by means of works. The verb for seek is a 
 compound, meaning to seek after, and thus, 
 to seek for zealously. Election in this verse 
 
 1 Present indicatives after e'lrec (since) are usually 
 rendered as subjunctives. (Winer, 283.)— (F.) 
 
 2 Yet this manuscript (B), on which textual critics 
 have 80 greatly depended, and which is characterized 
 
 by Westcott and Hort as " neutral," or unmixed and 
 independent, furnishes here a curious reading by its 
 substituting the word ' grace' for the last ' work.'— (F.) 
 
252 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XI 
 
 8 (AccorcHiig as it is written, God hatli given tlieiu 
 the spirit of slumber, eyes that tliey should not see, 
 and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 
 
 9 And David saitb, Let their table be made a snare, 
 and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recouipeuse 
 unto them : 
 
 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not 
 see, aad bow down their back alway. 
 
 8 according as it is written, God gave them a spirit of 
 stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that 
 
 9 they should not hear, unto this very day. And 
 David saith. 
 
 Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, 
 And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto 
 
 them : 
 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not 
 
 see. 
 And bow thou down their back alway. 
 
 is used for the elect.] Paul's conclusion is 
 that 'Israel did not find that which he is 
 seeking'— namely, righteousness (9: si), or jus- 
 tification ; but the election hath obtained 
 it, and the rest were blinded— or, rather, 
 were hardened} The apostle seems here to be 
 preparing the way for what he has to s^y of a 
 more favorable nature respecting 'the rest' 
 
 8. Two passages are here combined — 
 namely, Isa. 29: 10; Deut. 29: 4(3) (com- 
 pare Isa. 6: 9, 10), and quoted freely from 
 the LXX. The spirit of slumber, or of 
 stupefaction, such as is produced by a heavy 
 blow or an intoxicating draught. [Eyes that 
 they should not see. Philippi has it : "eyes 
 of not seeing, or blind eyes." an incorrect ren- 
 dering; see ver. 10. The substance of this 
 verse is found in Matt. 13: 14; John 12: 40; 
 Acts 28: 26. The words 'unto this day' are 
 a part of the quotation. They occur as Paul's 
 words in 2 Cor. 3: 14, where he affirms that 
 the minds of the children of Israel were 
 blinded, and that a vail is on their hearts.] 
 
 9. And David saith. Another similar 
 prediction of the divine judgment upon the 
 Jews from Ps. 69: 22, undoubtedly having a 
 typical reference to the Messiah. The quota- 
 tion begins with the figure of sudden calamity 
 overtaking those who are feasting [at the ban- 
 queting table'] in fancied security, and then 
 passes to that of animals caught in a snare or 
 trap (literally, a chase), and ends, still figur- 
 
 atively, but with another change, by the 
 representation of a people suffering, as a just 
 recompense for their sins, a judicial blindness 
 and abandonment to be oppressed and crushed 
 by haughty victors. [While Paul affirms that 
 ^ David saith,' Meyer and others deny that 
 David is the author of the psalm. " If Meyer 
 is correct in his opinion, then the word 'David' 
 would be used as a title of the entire collec- 
 tion of the Psalms. . . . But it is by no means 
 certain that he is correct in his opinion." 
 (Boise.) Possibly some of the last verses 
 m&.y have been a later edition. " Of all the 
 psalms, the sixty-ninth is most frequently 
 quoted in the New Testament, along with Ps. 
 22, as a prediction of Christ's suflferings." 
 (Philippi.) In this quotation, Paul "follows 
 the LXX, with some variations." The word 
 for trap, or chase, is introduced here from 
 Ps. 35: 8 in the LXX. Stumblingblock. 
 See note on 9: 33.^ The Hebrew original, as 
 now pointed, has no word for ' recompense,' 
 and instead of " bow thou down their back 
 always," has, as in our Common and Revised 
 Versions: "and make their loins continually 
 to shake." But what shall we say as to the 
 propriety of Christians indulging in such im- 
 precaticms as these? The editor of Calvin's 
 "Commentary on Romans" says that "no 
 one is allowed to curse individuals, except he 
 be inspired so as to know who those are who 
 are given up by God to final judgment, which 
 
 1 There is a difference of only one letter in Greek 
 
 between these two words, e-rnqpiuOricrav and fmopu)9ri(Tav. 
 
 The passive form of this verb, together with the follow- 
 ing context (see, also, 9 : 18), indicates that this ' hard- 
 ening' took place through the agency of God; so most 
 expositors. Calvin, on this verse, rather contrary to 
 his usual method, argues for the supralapsarian view 
 of a reprobation by God before the foundation of the 
 ■world, while acknowledging that the passages here 
 cited by Paul are adverse to such a view. He says : 
 " They reason absurdly who, whenever a word is said 
 of the proximate causes, strive, by bringing forward 
 these, to cover the first which is hid from our view, as 
 though God had not, before the fall of Adam, freely 
 determined to do what seemed good to him, with respect 
 
 to the whole human race." This inference of Calvin 
 is a very natural — it may be an unavoidable— conclu- 
 sion of the mere logical faculty, exercising itself simply 
 on one line of facts ; but it is confessedly a going be- 
 yond the reaxviiing of the apostle here, and generally 
 througliout this Epistle. The Scriptures, as a whole, 
 plainly teach that God eflBcaciously blinds and hardens 
 men only as a judicial penalty or punishment for their 
 disobedience and unbelief. — (F.) 
 
 2 The accusatives, with the preposition eis, are here 
 equivalent to nominatives. This construction may be 
 regarded as Hebraistic. So in the phrase, " counted 
 (eis) for righteousness," faith is not regarded as some- 
 thing resulting in righteousness, but as righteousness 
 itself. -(F.) 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 253 
 
 11 I sav then, Have they stumbled that they should 
 fall? Ciod forbid: but )v;//«,'/- ihiuugh tlieir lall salva- 
 tion is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to 
 jealousy. 
 
 12 Now if the fall of them hf the riches of the world, 
 and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gen- 
 tiles; how much more their fulness? 
 
 11 I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall ? 
 God forbid : but by their ' fall salvation is cume unto 
 
 12 the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy, ^uw 
 if their fall is the riches oi the world, and their 1 s3 
 the riches of the Gentiles ; how much more their 
 
 1 Or, trespaaa. 
 
 may be supposed to have been the case with 
 the Psalmist and with St. Paul." Paul, how- 
 ever, does not wish these imprecations, but 
 only quotes them in evidence of God's rejec- 
 
 design and eflfect, through their conversion, 
 to provoke them (that is, the Jews) to jeal- 
 ousy [in other words, " to make them jealous 
 of the Gentiles as having obtained blessings 
 
 tion of the Jewish people. We should say, ] which the Jews regarded as peculiarly theirs; 
 moreover, that Christians are to bless, except ! and thus to excite in them a desire to obtain 
 
 when divinely commissioned to curse.] 
 
 11. From this point begins the second por- 
 tion of the chapter, showing that the rejection 
 of the Jews is not ^na^, but that God designs, 
 by means of it, to facilitate the salvation of 
 the Gentiles (verii-ie), who are admonished 
 not to glory over the Jews (17-22). Have they 
 stumbled, etc. — better. Did they stumble, in 
 order that they should fall? [that is, utterly 
 and forever lie prostrate? The word trip 
 might here be substituted for ' stumble.' The 
 proper word for stumble occurs at 9: 32. 
 
 the same blessings for themselves." (Ripley.) 
 Noyeshasit: excite them to emulation.] Of 
 the two results mentioned, the first was the 
 more immediate; the second the ultimate. 
 This latter result will doubtless be realized 
 hereafter on a much larger scale than it yet 
 has been. The unbelief of the Jews was a 
 benefit to the Gentiles in several ways. It 
 made it evident that God did the Jews no 
 injustice in turning to offer to the Gentiles 
 those blessings which the Jews had rejected. 
 See Matt. 21 : 43 ; Acts 13 : 46. [" Lo we turn 
 
 'That' (Vi-a) indicates the final purpose of the to the Gentiles," not only willingly, but of 
 divine judicial government. (Lange.) The ! necessity. (Acts.i8:6; 28:28.)] It left the apostles 
 God forbid occurs here for the tenth and last j more free, and, at the same time, more willing 
 time in this Epistle. In Galatians it occurs ! to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. It de- 
 three times, in First Corinthians once.] The | prived the Jews of the power to insist on 
 
 stumbling of the Jews was not to result 
 in a final and fatal fall. Far from it; but 
 through their fall {offense, as the same word 
 is translated six times in chapter oof this Epis- 
 tle) salvation is come unto the Gentiles.^ 
 The emphatic sense in which the verb 'fall' 
 is here used, makes it unsuitable that its cor- 
 responding noun (n-Tco/iia, or TTToxTts) should be 
 used to express that stumbling which is con- 
 
 bringing the Gentiles under the j-oke of the 
 Mosaic laws, as they would have done if they 
 had beep in the majoritj', and as some of 
 them, though in the minority, attempted to 
 
 do. (Acts 15:1.) 
 
 12. Now if the fall of them be the riches 
 of the world, etc. Meyer calls this "an ar- 
 gument from the happy effect of a worse cause 
 to the still happier effect of a better cause." 
 
 trasted with the 'fall.' The word here used I If their stumbling has been the means of en- 
 is translated ' fall ' in our Common Version I riching the Gentile world with the blessing of 
 
 only in this and the following verse. It was 
 not a complete and final ' fall ' on their part, 
 because it was not a complete and final casting 
 away on God's part. Besides facilitating the 
 conversion of the Gentiles, it had the further 
 
 salvation, how much greater the blessing 
 which will result from their fulness, their 
 general recovery, or "their numerous en- 
 trance into God's kingdom."! 
 13, 14. These verses seem as if designed to 
 
 1 The word for' fall,' rendered tre.fpass in the Revis- 
 ion, literally means a falling aside. Chrysostom remarks 
 that "as Paul had greatly run the Jews down, ana 
 strung accusation upon accusation, bringing forward 
 prophet afterprophet, crying out against th'jm, — Isaiah, 
 Elijah, Moses, David, and Hosea, — and that not once or 
 twice, but frequently; so now, lest he might plunge 
 them in despair, and, on the other hand, that he might 
 
 not lift the believing Gentiles into arrogance, he again 
 consoles the Jews, saying, that by their fall salvation 
 is come to the Gentiles." In this conversion of the 
 Gentiles we have an instance of the last becoming 
 first.— (F.) 
 
 2 The word TrArjpw^ia (fullness) is found eighteen times 
 in the New Testament, and in some connections is a 
 very important doctrinal term. See Col. 2 : 9, etc. Elli- 
 
254 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 13 For I spoak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am 
 the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office : 
 
 14 If by any means 1 may jjiovoke to emulation 
 them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 
 
 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling 
 of the world, what akall the receiving of them be, but 
 life from the dead ? 
 
 13 fulness? But I speak to you that are Gentiles. 
 Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I 
 
 14 glorify my ministry: if by any means I may pro- 
 voke to jenlousy them that are my tlesh, and luay 
 
 15 save some of them. For if the casting away of i hem 
 is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiv- 
 
 16 ing of them be, but life from the dead? And if the 
 
 forestall some such thought as this in the 
 minds of his Gentile readers. In writing to 
 us (for the most part) Gentiles— [" observe," 
 says Meyer, "that Paul does not write 'to 
 the Gentiles which are among you' " ; com- 
 pare, also, ver. 14, my (not our) flesh] — why 
 do you express so much interest in the Jews, 
 and devote so large a space in your letter to 
 their condition and prospects? To which his 
 answer is: "I do not forget that I am the 
 apostle of the Gentiles — indeed, I am honor- 
 ing my office as such in this way of speaking. 
 I cannot do you a greater service than by 
 doing my utmost for the conversion of my 
 own people ; for, great as is the blessing which 
 you obtain through their rejection, a much 
 greater will result through their recovery." 
 Provoke to emulation. Compare 'provoke 
 to jealousy' (ver. ii andio: 19) ; the Original word 
 is the same in all three cases. ^ Might save 
 some of them. Their salvation is here attri- 
 buted to the human agency through which it 
 is brought about, as in 1 Tim. 4: 16; 1 Cor. 
 7: 16; 9; 22, without derogating in the least 
 from what is so emphatically asserted else- 
 where of the divine will as the only efficient 
 cause of salvation. See John 1: 13, 14; Eph. 
 2: 8-10.2 
 
 15. The idea of ver. 12 is here repeated in 
 still more forcible language. [For assigns a 
 motive for ver. 13, 14. The word for casting 
 away occurs elsewhere only in Acts 27 ; 22. 
 Philippi understands itof the ^oss which God's 
 kingdom has sustained in their case, and 
 
 which is to be made up by the fullness of the 
 Gentiles. It seems, however, to denote rejec- 
 tion as being antithetical to reception. The 
 thought thus would be: If the partial and 
 temporary casting away of the Jews (their 
 loss or diminution) is the means of the Gentile 
 world's reconciliation with God — that is, their 
 'riches.' (ver. 12.) On this reconcilation, see 
 Eph. 2:11-22. To this day the Jews are a 
 scattered and despised— in fact, a God-rejected 
 people. They have lost their pre-eminence as 
 the people of God. And this accords with our 
 Lord's prediction in Matt. 21 : 43 : " The king- 
 dom of God shall be taken away from j-ou." 
 But there is to be a reception, a taking of 
 them back again. And what will the in- 
 gathering of these stiff-necked and inveterate 
 enemies of Christ within the Christian fold be 
 to the world but life from the dead? The 
 Jewish race has thus, as a "burning bush" 
 which is never consumed, been "miraculously 
 preserved for some important action in the 
 concluding chapter of the history of Christi- 
 anity." (Schaflf.)] The expression life from 
 the dead is taken, by most of the early inter- 
 preters (Origen, Chrysostom) and by many of 
 the modern (De Wette, Mej'er, etc.), in a 
 literal sense, with the idea that the recovery 
 of the Jews will be speedily followed by the 
 general resurrection and the final judgment. 
 But this would be a sense of the words 'life 
 from the dead ' which would not be in accord- 
 ance with Scriptural usage, and would not be 
 sanctioned by either the preceding or the fol- 
 
 cottsays: " Lexically considered, it has three possible 
 meanings — one active (a) implendi actio, fulfilling; and 
 two passive (b) id quod impletum est, that which is filled, 
 Eph. 1 : 23, and the more common (c) id quo res impletur, 
 that by which anything is filled, which, again, often 
 passes into the neutral and derivative (d) affluentia, 
 abundantia (or fullness), especially in connection with 
 abstract genitives." Compare 15: 29; Gal. 4: 4, Eph. 
 3: 19.— (F.) 
 
 lit is in this clause that some find a suppressed it 
 (but), corresponding to the it-iv above. Inasmuch as, 
 or, in so far as I indeed am the apostle of the Gentiles, 
 I glorify my oflSce (preaching zealously to the Gentiles), 
 but in this I have the benefit of the Jews in view (I will 
 thus render the Jews emulous). Yet this view does 
 
 not necessarily exclude the idea of the benefit which 
 would ultimately inure to the Gentiles from the restor- 
 ation of the Jews. Buttmann thinks the y-iv in this 
 connection is not corresponsive, but, blended with the 
 ovv, is a particle of transition. — (F.) , 
 
 2 In the particle, elVws (if by any means), which pre- 
 cedes the last two verbs, and which introduces the 
 more remote result of his Gentile ministry, "the idea 
 of an attempt is conveyed, which may or may not be 
 successful." (Ellicott.) Buttmann thinks the clause 
 is dependent on a verb like see, understood. On the 
 use of the indicative future after (/(generally rendered 
 may or might), see Winer, 300. The them, in idea, refers 
 to 'my flesh.'— (F.) 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy : 
 and if the root he holy, so are the lJ';a"c'"'«,- ^ ^^ ^. 
 
 17 Ami if some of the hranches be broken off, and 
 thou bL-iug a wild olive tree, wert gratiud in among 
 them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness 
 of the olive tree ; 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 255 
 
 firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is 
 17 holy, so are the branches. But it s<jme ol the 
 braothes were broken off, and thou, being a wild 
 olive wast grafted in among them, and didst be- 
 come partaker with them i of the root ol the latness 
 
 1 Many ancient authorities read of the root and of the fatness. 
 
 lowing context. But the ultimate restoration 
 of the Jews to the favor of God seems here to 
 be implied, as it is more positively still a little 
 further on. [It was Paul's modest hope to be 
 the means of saving only 'some' Jews and 
 Gentiles in his lifetime (ver.u, i cor.9:'^2), and 
 we cannot suppose that he at this time ex- 
 pected to live to see the great mass of the 
 Gentile and Jewish world converted to God, 
 or that the blessed resurrection life, "setting 
 in with the advent" (rrapovaia) (Meyer), would 
 happen in a few months or years. Why, on 
 this supposition, as Godet asks, use the expres- 
 sion life instead of the usual " resurrection " ? 
 And why omit the article before the word 'life' 
 and not say, as usual, the life, eternal life? 
 The truth is, 'life' is often used in the sense 
 of highest felicity or blessedness (i Thes3.3:8), 
 and 'life from the dead' is often taken in a 
 spiritual sense. (6: is; Luke io:24, 3^, eto.) Paul 
 thus felt— and so may we feel— that the con- 
 version of Israel to Christ would be a blessed 
 resurrection life to the world. Compare Ezek. 
 37:1-11.] 
 
 16. For if the firstfruit be holy, the 
 lump is also holy: and if the root be 
 holy, so are the branches. [The student 
 will notice that in the Common Version the 
 verbs 'be,' 'is' and 'are' have been supplied, 
 because they are omitted in the Gi-eek. This 
 omission is quite frequent in Paul's writings.] 
 Observe the propriety of the terms here and 
 tlieir correspondence. 'The firstfruit' refers 
 [not to the Passover sheaf offering (or, omer 
 offering), nor to the Pentecostal two wave 
 loaves (Lev. 23; 10, 17), but as connected with the 
 'lump,' the mixed and kneaded dough] to the 
 heave offering to the Lord, of a cake made 
 from the tirstofthedough (Num. 15:19-21), whereby 
 the whole 'lump' was regarded as consecrated. 
 'The root' refers to the patriarchal progeni- 
 tors of the race, to Abraham especially, in 
 whom 'the branches'— that is, his natural 
 posterity— were regarded as consecrated to 
 
 God. Compare ver. 28. That the holiness 
 here attributed to the 'lump' and to the 
 'branches,' by virtue of their connection with 
 the 'firstfruit' and the 'root' respectively, 
 was not amoral holiness, such as accompanies 
 salvation, is plain from abundant testimonies 
 of Scripture, such as Matt. 3:9; John 8:33, 
 39; Rom. 2: 29; and from the context in this 
 very chapter. In the carrying out of the 
 second figure— the first, that of the dough, not 
 being followed up at all— the unbelieving de- 
 scendants of Abraham— that is, those of them 
 who had persistently rejected Christ— are 
 styled branches broken off. (ver. n, i9, 20.) And 
 yet there is a fitness in referring to the holi- 
 ness of ' the root ' in introducing the assurance 
 of the final restoration of Israel to God's favor 
 through faith. Holiness is habitually attrib- 
 uted in the Scriptures to that which has been 
 consecrated to God, though it may be some 
 inanimate>ebject, incapable of possessing any 
 moral quality. So when God shall restore 
 Israel to his favor through their individual 
 repentance and faith, he will but reassert his 
 claim to that which was all along his own, by 
 the right of an ancient and solemn consecra- 
 tion. 
 
 17, 18. [And if— better, but if. If notwith- 
 standing this consecration of Abraham's race 
 to God, some of the branches were spiritually 
 severed from the parent trunk.] Some. 
 More than this was actually true. Most, not 
 all, of the branches were broken off, but the 
 apostle speaks in a way less offensive to the 
 Jew and better adapted to check the Gentile's 
 pride. And thou. Here the apostle addresses 
 himself directly to the believing Gentile. 
 Compare 3 : 3. A wild olive tree. A whole 
 is here put for a part, a tree for a shoot; or, 
 jierhaps the word should be regarded as an 
 adjective rather than a noun, in which case 
 the proper translation would be simply wild 
 olive. Wert graffed in among them— 
 among the branches not broken off.^ Par- 
 
 iSome Christian writers, by making the good olive I constitution and character we considered >" note "n 
 *ree hi which the believing Gentiles are grafted, 4 : 11), have inferred that the so-eallod JewihChuch 
 ;yn;nymous with the Mosaic national theocracy (whose and the Christiau Church are identical, and that the 
 
256 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XL 
 
 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou 
 boast, thou bearest not the root, but tlie root thee. 
 
 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken 
 oflf, that I might be gratl'ed in. 
 
 20 Well ; because of unbelief they were broken off, 
 and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but 
 fear: 
 
 18 of the olive tree; glory not over the branches: but 
 if thou gloriest, it is not ihou that bearest the root, 
 
 19 but the root thee. Thou wilt say then. Branches 
 
 20 were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; 
 by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou 
 standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear : 
 
 takest (better, didst become partakers) of the 
 root and fatness of the olive tree. ["The 
 'root' is a figure of fellowship; the 'fatness,' 
 of the blessing connected with it." (De 
 Wette. ) The fatness of the olive is a Scrip- 
 tural symbol of the Holy Spirit's gracious 
 influences. The Revised Version reads, "root 
 of the fatness," which must refer to the rich- 
 ness of the root, or the root as "the source of 
 fatness." (Alford.)] The natural process of 
 grafting is designed not to make the graft 
 partaker of the nature of the tree, but to make 
 the fruit partaker of the nature of the graft. 
 The apostle reverses this, not through igno- 
 rance, but in order to make the illustration 
 suit the fact illustrated. And he might do 
 this the more allowably, as he does not speak 
 directly of fruit, but of life and growth, in 
 which respects the tree does communicate to 
 the graft, and not the graft to the tree. [Any 
 grafting may be said to be "contrary to na- 
 ture" (ver.24), but with US it IS contrary both 
 to nature and to practice to graft a wild scio"n 
 into a good stock. In the East, however, the 
 scion of the oleaster, or wild olive, is, as we 
 are told, sometimes grafted in the good olive, 
 in order to invigorate the tree. Yet the pur- 
 pose of Paul in the use of this figure does not 
 necessarily infer any reference to this custom. 
 
 Indeed, such a reference would, as Alford 
 saj's, "completely stultify the illustration," 
 the point of which is the benefit received 
 rather than conferred by the graft. Boast 
 not (thou) against the branches — namely, 
 those which were broken oflT.] After the 
 clause but if thou boast we may easily fill 
 out the ellipsis by supplying the word roneni- 
 ber, or some similar word. [On the ending 
 of the verb, see at 2 : 17. The pronoun with 
 'not' in the next sentence is highly emphatic: 
 Not thou the root bearest.] 
 
 19. Thou Avilt say then, in justification 
 of thy boasting. [The Revised Version has 
 simply 'branches;' taken indefinitely, 'some' 
 branches, as in ver. 17. Nearly all the uncial 
 MSS. omit the article.] In the last clause of 
 this verse the pronoun I is emphatic, and 
 betrays a disposition to boast. 
 
 20. Well [or, very well. Our simple word 
 'weir is far from being as emphatic as the 
 original. (Boise.)] The fact is granted, and 
 when the reason of it is considered, it suggests 
 a new argument against boasting, a new ad- 
 monition against highmindedness. This verse 
 shows that the branches broken off represent 
 only those who had actually disbelieved the 
 gospel, and not those to whom it had not yet 
 been fairly preached. Of these, there were 
 
 ordinances of Judaism are simply changed in form by 
 their introduction into Christianity, but remain the 
 same in substance, and are still to be administered in 
 accordance with their primitive rule. We may grant 
 without hesitation, that the spiritual Israel and the 
 Christian Israel are substantially the same, so that 
 when Christ's "other sheep" are brought in from 
 among the Gentiles (John 10 : 16) there will be but " one 
 flock and one shepherd." But to infer from this that 
 the ordinances of Christianity are similar in character 
 and import to those of Judaism, and are to be similarly 
 administered, is to put a strain upon the argument 
 which it cannot bear. One may, perhaps, say. with 
 Godct, that, in Paul's view, "the believers of Israel are 
 the nucleus round which are grouped the converts from 
 among the Gentiles;" yet it must not be forgotten that 
 this "Israel" had first to be converted to Christ and 
 the gospel. "Otherwise," as the same writer remarks, 
 "the gospel would have been Judaized, believing Gen- 
 tiles would have been required to become proselytes of 
 
 Israel, and this would have been an end of salvation 
 for the world and of the world for salvation." In this 
 sense, as Meyer says, "Israel does not take in the 
 church but the church takes in Israel," and hence the 
 apostle speaks of the receiving of the believing Jews 
 virtually into the Christian fold. It was the effort of 
 the apostle's life " to disentangle the cause of the gospel 
 from that of Judaism," and in his zeal to effect this he 
 showed, on one occasion, no more regard for the chiefest 
 of the Mosaic ordinances than to cry out: "Beware of 
 the concision." (Phil. 3:2.) Our Saviour, also, was too 
 wise to endeavor to patch up with new cloth the old 
 garment of the worn-out past or to put the new wine of 
 the gospel into the old skin bottles of Judaism. Listen, 
 also, to Peter's discourse on the day of Pentecost: 
 " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name 
 of Jesus Christ." Was not this a new voice to be heard 
 in Isr.iel? And did it not more than intimate a new 
 economy in the kingdom of grace? — (F.) 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 257 
 
 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take 
 heed lest lie also spare not tliee. 
 
 22 Behold tlifrelore the goodness and severity of 
 (Jod: oil them which fell, severity; but toward thee, 
 goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise 
 thou also shult be cut oil. 
 
 21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither 
 
 22 will he spare thee. Heboid then the goodness and 
 severity of (iod: toward them that fell, severity ; 
 but toward thee, (iod's goodness, if thou continue in 
 bis goodness: otherwise thou also shall be cut oU'. 
 
 not a few who would yet believe and be num- 
 bered among the saved remnant. [The words 
 for unbelief and faith are in the so-called 
 instrumental dative, which is generally trans- 
 lated f>>/ or through. The word standest in 
 our text is used antithetically to falling ('*:*), 
 though some refer it to the standing as of a 
 branch upon the olive tree. Paul, it will be 
 noticed, forgets here to say that these Jews 
 were broken off from the stock of the spiritual 
 Israel and cast away by reason of the absolute 
 decree of Jehovah ; but, on the contrary, he 
 charges their rejection solely to their own 
 fault— their want of faith. Nor did these 
 Jews ever think of charging their want of 
 faith to God's decree of reprobation. And 
 yet this unbelief of theirs was connected with 
 a divine purpose.] Be not highminded, 
 but fear. The 'fear' which the Gentile be- 
 liever is here admonished to cherish is opposed 
 not so much to confidence, as to presumption 
 and careless living. [The present imperative 
 (as in the case of the last two verbs) denotes 
 "an action already begun and to be con- 
 tinued, or one that is permanent and fre- 
 quently recurring." (Winer.) For example: 
 'Be not highminded' (as thou now art). So 
 in 12: 20: "If thine enemy hunger, feed 
 him" (constantly in such a case). "It is a 
 characteristic," sa3's Philippi, "of the differ- 
 ence between the ethics of the ancient world 
 and of Christianity, that a Greek uses 'high- 
 minded' in a good sense and 'humble- 
 minded' in a bad sense.''] 
 
 21. [If, here equivalent to since, hence the 
 use of the direct negative in the original.] 
 Take heed. These words are supplied by 
 the translators, it being necessary to supply 
 some such words to express the sense of the 
 original completelj', as in ver. 18, where, 
 however, our translators have left the mani- 
 fest ellipsis to be filled out by the reader, 
 instead of doing the work for him, as thej' 
 have done here. [Lest — omitted by the Ke- 
 visers, is usually followed by the subjunctive, 
 and serves here to soften what otherwise would 
 
 be a menace into a simple warning. I fear, 
 or, it is to be feared, lest he will not spare 
 even thee. ("Winer, 474.) "With the Revisers' 
 text no words need be supplied.] 
 
 22. Behold therefore the goodness and 
 severity of God.' Both 'goodness' and 'se- 
 verity ' on the part of God are seen in very 
 close connection in his dealings with the Jews 
 and the Gentiles, in the beginning of the 
 gospel history. On them which fell from 
 their high privileges through unbelief, as 
 the branch falls to the ground when severed 
 from the tree, severity; but toward thee, 
 goodness. [According to the Revisers' text 
 we should have this rendering: upon them 
 that fell severity is shown, or, there is severity 
 —the nominative form being used rather than 
 the objective. The word for 'severity ' means 
 literally, a cutting off, and carries out the 
 figure of the branches broken off and falling 
 from the tree. It occurs nowhere else in tlie 
 New Testament. The word 'goodness' (in 
 the Revision : "toward thee, God's goodness") 
 primarily denotes usefulness, serviceableness.] 
 The Gentile believer is here directly addressed 
 as in each of the five preceding verses. If 
 thou continue in (literally, abide upon) his 
 goodness— if thou continue in that state of 
 faith into which his goodness has brought 
 thee, and on thy continuance in which his favor 
 depends. (Acts is: 13.) [Otherwise thou also 
 Shalt be cut off. 'Thou also,' thou Gentile 
 as well as the Jew. "The future passive, 'thou 
 shalt be cut off' (by striking or smiting) 
 abruptly closes the sentence, like the stroke of 
 the axe cutting down the proud branch." 
 (Godet. ) Some find in the latter part of this 
 verse a proof text for the possibility of an 
 individual's falling from grace. But the 
 apostle here is speaking of the people collect- 
 ively and not of particular individuals. And 
 Dr. Hodge goes so far to aflSrm that "there is 
 nothing in this (hypothetical) language incon- 
 sistent with the doctrine of the final persever- 
 ance of believers, even supposing the passage 
 to refer to individuals."] These last five verses 
 
 1 ' Behold' (I5«), imperative second aorist of hhov, sometimes a mere exclamation (John 19: 14), here governs 
 the accusative.— (F.) 
 
 B 
 
258 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 23 And they also, if they ahide not still in unbelief, 
 shall be grafted in : for God is able to graflf them in 
 again. 
 
 21 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is 
 
 23 And they also, if they continue not in their unbe- 
 lief, shall be grafted in : for God is able to graft them 
 
 24 in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is 
 
 are marked by repeated and empliatic warn- 
 ings to Gentile believers against falling from 
 a state of favor with God, as the Jews had 
 fallen, after the same example of unbelief. 
 And the warning is equally appropriate, and 
 equally needful, to believers at the present 
 time. 
 
 23. And they also.i The restoration of 
 the Jews is here represented hypothetic-ally, 
 as something which God is perfectly able to 
 accomplish. If the cause of their rejection is 
 removed, if they do not persist in their unbe- 
 lief, the only hindrance to their restoration 
 will be takqn away. The association of will- 
 ingness with power is intimated in such 
 passages as Rom. 14: 4; 16: 25; 2 Cor. 9 : 8; 
 Eph. 3: 20; Heb. 7: 25; 11: 19; Jude 24. 
 [For God is able. The position of the 
 Greek adjective for 'able' at the beginning 
 of the sentence gives it groat stress. We 
 cannot suppose that Paul here represents 
 the power of God as waiting for unbelieving 
 Jews to give up their unbelief, for on this 
 supposition there would be, as De Wette 
 states it, no need for the exercise of the divine 
 omnipotence. This last-named commentator 
 further says, that "the apostle here obscurely 
 includes in the grafting in, also the removal 
 of their unbelief and the awakening of faith, 
 and these especially he looks for from above." 
 Until this day, alas, the same thick veil of 
 prejudice and unbelief lies on their hearts, 
 and though God has destroyed their temple 
 and their altars, has abolished their priest- 
 hood, and the law on which it and all the 
 Levitical rites were founded, has blotted out 
 
 their tribal distinctions and scattered their 
 people all over the earth, and though very 
 many of tbem bave now become advanced 
 rationalists, denying the miracles and the 
 historic verity of the Old Testament, they yet, 
 as a general thing, cling to a few of the 
 ancient ceremonials, and still keep up their 
 wonted isolation from all the rest of man- 
 kind." But God is able to graft them in. 
 To the ap' stle, not only at the time of writing 
 this Epistle, but especially in after years, in 
 this very city of Rome, when he sought to 
 persuade the Jews concerning Jesus from 
 morning till evening, while some believed 
 and others disbelieved, and they could come 
 to no agreement among themselves, this must 
 have been his sole encouraging and sustain- 
 ing thought, ' God is able to grafF them in.' 
 God is already bringing the world together as 
 neighbors and to a common brotherhood, and, 
 by his power, the remnant of Israel will yet 
 be brought to Christ, where there is neither 
 Jew nor Greek, and so all Israel shall be 
 saved.] 
 
 24. Paul now proceeds a step further, and 
 argues from the nature of the case that there 
 is a presumption in favor of God's doing that 
 which he certainly has power to do in this mat- 
 ter ! [The for introducing additional evidence 
 for their future re-ingrafting.] And from this 
 point to the end of ver. 32, he more distinctly 
 affirms, by virtue of his prophetic gift, the 
 divine purpose that Israel shall be restored. 
 The course of thought in these verses is thus 
 traced by Dr. Hackett. "Not only is God 
 able and willing to receive the Jews again, if 
 
 ' Kal, hi, the former connects, the latter slightly con- 
 trasts. Grafting them ' again ' (unless we take ■naki.v 
 in the sense of back) supposes a prior grafting which in 
 their case did not take place. The meaning is : " again 
 to unite them to the stock— namely, by ingrafting." 
 (Winer.)— (F.) 
 
 * If any Christian brother wishes to abjure Christian- 
 ity and become a strict orthodox Jew, and thus virtu- 
 ally eschew his relation to a common humanity, it will 
 be needful for hlni, among other things, to acquire a 
 sufficient knowledge of Hebrew, in order that he may 
 pronounce Israel's confession of faith and read the 
 prayers, to submit to circumcision as performed by the 
 "Mohel," to immerse himself in water, to adopt a new 
 
 name, to observe the Levitical dietary laws, to abstain 
 from intermarriage with other creeds, to commence the 
 Sabbath Friday afternoon, half an hour before sunset, 
 and generally to attend to the observances of the syna- 
 gogue, of Jewish festival days, Jewish marriage, Jewish 
 burial, etc. Thus doing he will become a Jew, and we 
 may say, a Pharisee, owe separated not only from Christ, 
 but virtually from the common brotherhood of man. 
 The reformed Jews are disposed to loosen some of these 
 obligations, while those of the radical reform party are 
 ready to give up, not only this non-intermarriage, but 
 even the Sabbath and circumcision, the two funda- 
 mental principles of Judaism — (F.) 
 
Ch. XI.] 
 
 wild by uature, and wert graffed contrary to nature 
 into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, 
 which be the natural branches, be graded into their 
 own olive tree? , , , , ■ 
 
 '>o For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignor- 
 ant of this mystery, lest ye sho<ild be wi>e in your own 
 cnnceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, 
 until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 259 
 
 they will repent, but he distinctly announces 
 his purpose to secure their repentance and 
 consequent restoration to his favor: the ti>ne 
 of this event being when many Gentiles shall 
 have been converted (ver.25) ; the means of it, 
 tlie effect this will have to remind the Jews of 
 their duty (ver. 31); and the pledge of it, the 
 declarations of Scripture (ver. 26, 27), and the 
 unalterable faithfulness of God to his purposes 
 and promises." (ver.27,29.) [The expression 
 contrary to nature probably refers to the 
 grafting process in general, considered as an 
 artificial proceeding. If it meant, contrary 
 to thy (wild) nature, the pronoun, or at least 
 the article, would have been prefixed to 'na- 
 ture.' These, which be the natural 
 branches are represented as having been 
 'broken oflf,' yet it would be pressing the 
 figure too far to suppose that, in the apostle's 
 mind, such dissevered branches could be 
 engrafted. The disbelieving Jews are here 
 simply regarded as branches which originally 
 and by nature belonged to the good and holy 
 olive tree "whose root the patriarchs are" 
 (Meyer), and hence tliis is their own olive 
 tree.] 
 
 25, 26. [For introduces a corroboration 
 that they shall be grafted in, which is de- 
 rived from divine revelation. Compare with 
 this Eph. 3: 3 6] I would not, brethren, 
 that ye should be ignorant of this mys- 
 tery is used to announce some important 
 and authoritative declaration of divine truth 
 
 (1 Cor. 10: 1; 1 Thess. 4: 13) ; or SOmC faCtS in hisOWn 
 
 history not previously known to his readers. 
 (1 : 13 ; 2 Cor. 1 : 8.) Tlic word ' mystery ' is applied 
 — 1. To such matters of fact as are inaccessible 
 to reason, and can only be known through 
 divine revelation. (i6: 25; i cor. 2: 710; Eph. i: 9. lO; 
 
 S: 4-6; 6: 19; Col. 1: 26, 27.) 2. To SUCll matters aS 
 
 are patent facts, but the process of which can- 
 not be entirely taken by the reason, (i cor.i3:2; 
 
 14: 2; Eph.5: 32; 1 Tim. 3 : 9,16.) 3. To matters which 
 
 by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted con- 
 trary to nature into a good olive tree: how much 
 more shall these, which are the natural brane/us, be 
 grafted into their own olive tree? 
 25 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of 
 this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, 
 that a'hardeuiugiu part bath belalleu Israel, until 
 
 are no mystery in themselves, but by their 
 
 figurative import. (Matt. 12: ll; Mark 4: U; Luke 8: 
 10; 2 Thess. 2: 7: Rev. 1 : 20; 17: 5.) (Tholuck.) The 
 
 first definition applies here. That peculiar 
 character of the gospel which placed the Gen- 
 tiles on the same level with the Jews was in 
 direct opposition to the strongest expectations 
 and prejudices of the Jewish people, and next 
 to the ofTense of the cross was perhaps the 
 strongest obstacle in the way of their embrac- 
 ing Christianity. Compare the parable of the 
 prodigal son, Luke 15: 25-30. "The calling 
 of tlie Jews was a mystery, the conversion of 
 the Jews is so still." (Bengel.) [The word 
 'mystery' is in the accusative case after the 
 verb 'to be ignorant of ' yayvotlv), nearly equiv- 
 alent to/ail to perceive. On this word ' mys- 
 tery,' De Wette says: "The apostle here 
 speaks as a prophet." A Scripture mystery 
 or secret -which cannot in general be under- 
 stood without a revelation is not that of 
 clas.sical antiquity, a something mysterious in 
 itself, comprehensible only to the initiated, 
 and to be concealed from the profane (Meyer; ; 
 nor is it on the other hand an altogether un- 
 intelligible, incomprehensible revealed truth 
 or doctrine.] Lest ye should be wise in 
 your own conceits. [Literally, that ye 
 may not be wise tvith yourselves.^] Compare 
 Prov. 2G : 12, 16. " Lest ye should take to 
 yourselves credit for superior wisdom above 
 the Jews, in that ye have acknowledged and 
 accepted .Jesus as the Son of God." Blind- 
 ness (or rather, hardness) in part— this hard- 
 ness extending onlj' to a part of the nation 
 through a joari'of theirhistorj'— is happened 
 to Israel. [The article is used with ' Israel' 
 to indicate the case. Calvin interprets ' in 
 part' of a partial hardening, but see 'some' 
 in ver. 17.] The fulness of the Gentiles 
 can hardly mean less than the whole number 
 of the Gentile nations. So theword 'fulness' 
 is used in ver. 12, of the Jews as interpreted 
 
 1 The MSS. A B have in yourselves. Notice how the I selves (as judges), in your own estimation, in your own 
 third person (themselves) is here used for the second, eyes."— (F.) 
 Winer interprets fapa with the dative: " 6f/ore your- J 
 
260 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written 
 There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall 
 turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 
 
 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall 
 take away their sins. 
 
 26 the fulness of the Gentiles be come in ; and so all 
 Israel shall be saved: even as it is written, 
 
 There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; 
 He shall turn away • un^codliness from Jacob: 
 
 27 And this is ^my covenant unto them. 
 When I shall take away their sins. 
 
 1 Gr. ungodlinesses.. . .2 Gr. the covenant from me. 
 
 by ver. 26.' Be come in — that is, into the 
 kingdom of God where the writer and his 
 readers already were. And so, in the man- 
 ner, order, and time indicated, all Israel 
 shall be saved — that is, the literal Israel, in 
 the collective sense of the word, all the pos- 
 terity of Jacob. That the word is to be taken 
 in this sense and not in the sense of the spirit- 
 ual Israel, including the Gentiles, is fairly 
 inferred from the sharp distinction between 
 Jews and Gentiles observed throughout this 
 whole section ; see 9: 24, 30, 31 ; 10: 12, 19-21 ; 
 11 : 11, 12, 13, and especially in the immediate 
 context, ver. 17, 31. [In our view Paul teaches 
 that when the great mass or multitude of the 
 Gentiles shall have accepted a Jewish Saviour 
 and a salvation which is from the Jews, and 
 shall have entered into the Messianic king- 
 dom, then the Jews themselves, 'provoked to 
 emulation,' will be ashamed to hold out longer 
 in their opposition and exclusiveness, and 
 Israel as a whole, perhaps "the whole nation 
 which shall then be in existence" (Prof 
 Turner), will accept of Jesus as their Messiah, 
 and the unspeakably blessed influence of their 
 reception witiiin the Christian fold will extend 
 all over the Gentile world, (ver.12, i5.) 2 But 
 there is no necessity for supposing that every 
 single individual Jew then living will be con- 
 verted to Christ. As Alford says: "'All 
 
 Israel shall be saved,' Israel as a nation, not 
 individuals; nor is there the slightest ground 
 for the notion of the universal restoration" 
 (an-oKaTao-Tacrts.) oi all the Jcws who ever lived — 
 the outcast sons of the kingdom and Judas 
 himself not excepted. We may also add },hat 
 tiie apostle is wholly silent as to any restora- 
 tion of the Jews to Palestine (maintained by 
 Delitzsch, Ebrard, and manj' others), or as to 
 any future personal reign of Christ on David's 
 throne at Jerusalem. "Nowhere," says De 
 Wette (1 Thess. 4: 17) "is there in Paul's writings 
 aclear traceof an earthl3- kingdom of Christ."] 
 As it is written in Isa. 59: 20, '21. The 
 passage is quoted neither literally nor fully. 
 OurOld Testament has "to Zion " [the LXX., 
 "on account of Zion"] instead of out ol 
 Sion,^ and "unto them that turn from trans- 
 gression in Jacob" instead of (the Septuagint 
 rendering) shall turn away ungodliness 
 (literally, lUigodlinesses) from Jacob. In 
 both cases the English of the Old Testament 
 is closer to the Hebrew. [This verse brings 
 the Jew tq a truly joyful outlook after a long 
 dark way of rejection and hardening.] 
 
 27. For this is my covenant unto them 
 [literally, the covenant (proceeding) //-ow* me] 
 when I shall take away their sins. The 
 first clause isa continuation (not a completion) 
 of the quotation begun in the preceding verse 
 
 1 This is the view of commentators generally. But 
 Philippi and a few others regard this irArjpiofia or full- 
 ness as a supplement from the Gentiles which shall 
 fill up a deficiency in Israel arising from the unbeliev- 
 ing Jews; just as if Paul had written : until Israel's 
 TrAijpwuo from the Gentiles have come in. But this 
 seems rather far fetched and does not accord with the 
 general usage of the word. — (F.) 
 
 - Many of the Reformers thought that the great body 
 of the Jews — so stiff-necked and hard-hearted were 
 they — would never be converted, not even when the 
 fullness of the Gentiles had come in. Luther, in his 
 conviction of their depravity, asserted that " a Jewish 
 heart is as hard as stock, stone, iron, or devil, which 
 can in no way be moved." And Calvin interpreted 'all 
 I.srael ' to mean the spiritual Israel gathered from both 
 Jews and Gentiles. Beza seems to have been more 
 hopeful of their conversion. Bengel, Olshausen, and 
 now Philippi (in his Appendix to the Third Edition) 
 
 regard 'all Israel' as the remnant according to the 
 election of grace — in other words, the elect and believ- 
 ing Jews. But Meyer sees no • mystery ' in this view, 
 and certainly it does not seem much for Paul to say 
 that the elect Jews will be saved. See 2 Cor. 3 : 14-16, 
 where Paul speaks of the vail lying on the Jewish 
 heart, which, ujion their turning to the Lord, shall be 
 taken away.— (F.) 
 
 " St. Paul probably had in his mind such passages 
 as Ps. 14 : 7, where ' out of Zion ' is found." (Olshausen.) 
 Compare Ps. 53: 6; 110: 2 in LXX. "Zion is the centre 
 and capital of the theocracy, but the Messiah must first 
 take up his abode there before he can issue from it." 
 (Sanday.) The Hebrew signifies to Zion or /or, with re- 
 spect to, Zion, and so "even Paul's translation, 'from 
 Zion,' although it seems completely to reverse the 
 sense, is not so wholly inconsistent with it as has some- 
 times been pretended." (J. A. Alexander.) — (F.) 
 
Ch. XL] 
 
 ROMAN'S. 
 
 261 
 
 28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for voiir 
 sakes : but as toucbiug the election, they are beloved lor 
 the fathers' sakes. „ , •.. • 
 
 2<t For the gifts and calling of God are without re- 
 pentance. . . , ,. 1^-1 
 
 30 For as ve in times past have not believed God, 
 yet have now" obtained mercy through their unbelief : 
 
 31 Even so have these also now not believed, that 
 through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 
 
 28 As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your 
 
 sake : but as touching the election, they are beloved 
 
 2!) for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and the calling 
 
 30 of God aie ' without repentance. For as ye in time 
 past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained 
 
 31 mercy bv their disobedience, even so have these also 
 now been disobedient, that by the mercy shewn to 
 
 32 you they also may now obtain mercy. For God hath 
 
 1 Gr. not repented of. 
 
 [compare Jer. 31 : 31, seq. ; LXX. 38: 31] ; the 
 
 second clause is from Isa. 27: 9 [see Septua- 
 gint Version]. Putting both passages together, 
 and adding what is omitted from the first, we 
 have, as the fulfillment or consummation of 
 God's covenant with Israel, conversion from 
 ungodliness and remission of sin. [Meyer, 
 Philippi, and De Wette likewise refer the 
 'this' to what follows. The latter thus ex- 
 plains the passage : "In this consists my cove- 
 nant with them that I shall have taken away 
 their sins.''] 
 
 28. As concerning the gospel, they are 
 enemies for your sakes. As rejecters of 
 the gospel, they are displeasing to God and 
 exposed to his just wrath; his enemies, not 
 in the active sen.se of being opposed to him, 
 but in the passive sense of being those to 
 whom he is opposed. That this is the true 
 explanation of the word 'enemies' appears 
 from the preceding context (ver. -, 8, 15,22), and 
 still more from the contrasted word ' beloved ' 
 in this same verse. They were excluded from 
 God's favor by the rejection of the gospel, in 
 order that all its blessings might come to you 
 Gentiles. [Hence they may be said to be 
 God's enemies, or that God treated them as 
 enemies, not only on account of their rejection 
 of the gospel, but also because of, or for the 
 sake of its acceptance by the Gentiles. Of 
 course, God may justly hate the sinner as 
 such, or his sinful character and life, while 
 he loves "the man created in his image, and 
 forwhom his Son died." (Godet.)] But as 
 touching the election, the choice of them 
 by God as his own people, beloved for the 
 fathers' sakes. Not for the merits of the 
 
 fathers [compare Deut. 9 : 5, seq. ], but because 
 of the 'covenant' made with Abraham, re- 
 newed to Isaac and Jacob, and destined to 
 have at last, as above shown, a glorious con- 
 summation. [Meyer interprets the election 
 here as meaning the elect remnant.] 
 
 29. For the gifts and calling of God 
 [gracious gifts, in general; and God's calling 
 of the Jews to be his people, and thus to a 
 glorious destination, in particular. The 'for' 
 introduces a confirmation of the latter half of 
 the preceding verse] Without repentance 
 means, simply, "unrepented of" on his part. 
 ["The word is emphatic by position, and de- 
 notes the unchangeableness of the divine 
 purpose." (Shedd.) Obviously this same 
 principle holds true of all God's special gifts 
 of grace to individual believers.' "While the 
 apostle at other times makes the participation 
 in the Abrahamic promises dependent on 
 faith, he here hopes everything from God's 
 mercy, as in ver. 23, of his omnipotence." 
 (De Wette.)] 
 
 30, 31. These verses end by showing how 
 God's unrepented purpose of mercy toward 
 the Jewish nation is ultimately to have its ful- 
 fillment ; and therefore they are appropriately 
 introduced by for. As ye (Gentiles) in times 
 past have not believed (or, as in Revised 
 Version, were disobedient to) God, yet have 
 now obtained mercy through their unbe- 
 lief (or, disobedience), even so have these 
 also now not believed (disobeyed, or, become 
 disobedient) in order that through your 
 mercy (the mercy which you have received) 
 they also may obtain mercy. Being at 
 last moved to seek it by beholding the bless- 
 
 lOn the 'calling' of God, especially as it relates to 
 individuals, Trench ("Notes on the Parables") has the 
 following: " xakiiv (to call), like the Latin vocnre, is the 
 technical word for inviting to a feast. It is also the 
 word which St. Paul uses to express the union of an 
 outward word-bidding and an inward Spirit-tlrawing, 
 whereby God seeks to bring men into his kingdom. 
 The answering word in St. John is iXuviiv, to draw. I 
 
 (John 6: 44 ; 12: 32.) This attraction or bidding— out- 
 ward by the word, inward by the Spirit— is the 'holy 
 calling (2 Tim. 1: 9), 'calling of God' (Rom. 11:29), 
 'heavenly calling' (Heb. 3: 1), 'high calling' (Phil. 
 3: 14);— which last is not the calling to a height, but 
 the calling/;o)H a height ; not as we have it, the ' high 
 calling,' but the ' calling/row on high: "— (F.) 
 
262 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XI. 
 
 32 For God bath concluded them all in unbelief, that 
 be might have mercy upon all. 
 
 33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and 
 knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judg- 
 ments, and bis ways past iinding out! 
 
 shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have 
 mercy upi n all. < 
 
 33 O the depth lof the riches ^both of the wisdom 
 and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are 
 
 34 his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! For 
 
 1 Or, of the riches and the wisdom, etc 2 Or, both of wisdom, etc. 
 
 ings which it brings to you, according to what 
 is said in ver. 14.' There is an analogy be- 
 tween the past and present conduct of God 
 toward the Gentiles, and his present and 
 future conduct toward the Jews. The apostle 
 contrasts the former state of the Gentiles 
 (disobedience through unbelief) with their 
 present state (gracious salvation through 
 faith), and the present state of the Jews 
 (disobedience through unbelief) with their 
 future state (gracious salvation through faith.) 
 He compares the past state of the Gentiles 
 with the present state of the Jews, and the 
 present state of the Gentiles with the future 
 state of the Jews. (J. Brown.) 
 
 32. For God hath concluded— literally, 
 shut up [together, as in a prison, compare Gal. 
 3: 22, Revised Version, "The Scripture shut up 
 all things under sin." Instead of all (men), the 
 MSS. D E have here all things, a reading prob- 
 ably derived from the text in Galatians. Upon 
 all — literally, the all ; the article may refer to 
 Jews and Gentiles collectivel3', of whom men- 
 tion has been made.] " Note this prime saj'- 
 ing, which condemns all the world and man's 
 righteousness, and alone exalts God's mercy 
 to be obtained through faith." (Luther.) 
 All, whether Jews or Gentiles, are alike shut 
 up in disobedience; all are alike dependent 
 on God's merc3'. God's gracious act is as 
 universal in its design and adaptation as 
 man's sin. Whether or not men will accept 
 it, this is a question oi fact ; see 1 Tim. 2: 4; 
 2 Peter 3 : 9 ; 1 John 2 : 2. [Paul, in Gal. 3 : 
 22, shows that those who are thus shut up 
 unto disobedience and under sin, will never 
 experience the benefit of God's mercy, and 
 will, consequently, ever remain in prison and 
 in bondage, unless they become believers in 
 Christ. " Tliis contingency (whether men 
 will accept God's mercy or not) is not here in 
 view, but simply God's act itself." (Alford.) 
 
 "The universal restoration (d7ro(caTa<7Ta<ns) is 
 not to be based on our passage." (Meyer.) 
 We are only taught that the time is coming 
 on the earth when God's mercy shall reach 
 all nations and classes of men, when Jew and 
 Gentile, the elder and the younger brother, 
 will once more be gathered together in their 
 Father's house, and when mankind in gen- 
 eral will receive the salvation of God. "The 
 apostle had begun this vast exposition of sal- 
 vation with the fact of universal condemnation; 
 he closes it with that of universal mercy. What 
 could remain to him thereafter but to strike 
 the hymn of adoration and praise?" (Go- 
 det. )] In view of the unsearchable wisdom 
 of God displa3'ed in all his dealings with both 
 Jew and Gentile, the apostle breaks out into 
 an admiring apostrophe, and so closes the 
 argumentative part of tlie Epistle. 
 
 33. O the depth of the riches! ['In- 
 exhaustible fullness." Bengel remarks that 
 "Paul, in chapter 9, had been sailing, as it 
 were, on a strait ; heis nowon theocean."] As 
 the words riches, wisdom, and knowledge 
 are all in the same case, we may regard them 
 as all co-ordinate and alUce dependent on the 
 word depth — 'depth' of riches, 'depth' of 
 wisdom, etc. ; or, as our translators have 
 done, make only the first of the three, ' riches,' 
 directly depend on the word 'depth,' and the 
 other two dependent on 'riches.' The differ- 
 ence in sense is unimportant, but the latter 
 way of connecting the words is preferable, 
 since the word 'riches,' when applied in a 
 figurative sense to God, seems rather to de- 
 mand, and commonly to have some defining 
 adjunct — as, riches of his goodness (2:4), of 
 
 his glory (9:23; Epb. 3:16), of his graCC (Ki.li.l:7: 
 
 2:7), etc. The word translated unsearchable 
 is used only here, though the same English 
 word is used in Eph. 3 : 8 to translate the 
 word here rendered past finding out. The 
 
 1 In the beginning of the verse, the (cai (also) of our 
 Common text denotes that the Gentiles, as well as the 
 Jews, had their period of rebellion. It is, however, 
 omitted by the Revisers. On the use of a particle de- 
 noting present time with the aorist or past tense (were 
 now compassionated or shown mercy), see notes on 7 : 6. 
 
 'Their disobedience' served, of course, merely as an 
 ' occasion ' of the Gentiles obtaining mercy. The posi- 
 tion of ' your mercy ' before "i-va. (in order that) is some* 
 what singular, yet is probably for the sake of emphasis 
 -(F.) 
 
Ch. XI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 263 
 
 34 For who bath known the miud of the Lord? or 
 who hath l)t'eti liis counsellor? 
 
 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be 
 recompensed unto him again? 
 
 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all 
 things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. 
 
 who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who 
 
 35 haih been bis counsellor? or who bath first given to 
 him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again .' 
 
 36 For of him, and through him, and unto hiiu, are all 
 things. To him be the glory ' lor ever. Amen. 
 
 I Gr. unto the ages. 
 
 original adjectives are in both cases eminently 
 approjiriate to the nouns which they qualify. 
 His judgments — that is, his decrees or pur- 
 poses [especially his "hardening judgments" 
 (Phiiippi)] are 'unsearchable,' or inscrutable, 
 and his ways, or methods of procedure, are 
 'past finding (or, tracing) out,' but infinitely 
 easy for God to reveal them when he sees fit. 
 [The judgments and the ways of God are 
 indeed a "vasty deep," and even when re- 
 vealed cannot be fully comprehended by our 
 finite minds. But while they are declared to 
 be thus unsearchable, it may be well to recol- 
 lect that Paul speaks of other things which 
 are likewise past uur comprehension — namely, 
 God's "unspeakable gift" of a Saviour, "the 
 unsearchableriches of Christ," and "the peace 
 of God which passeth all understanding." See 
 2 Cor. 9: 15; Eph. 3:8; Phil. 4: 7.] 
 
 34. These questions are quoted from Isa. 
 40: 13, 14. Compare also 1 Cor. 2: 16 [where 
 the former clause is again quoted. A similar 
 thought is also expressed in Wisdom of Solo- 
 mon 9 : 13J. The first question may have 
 special reference to. God's knowledge, and the 
 second to his wisdom ; and so this verse con- 
 firms so much of the preceding, the interro- 
 gations being equivalent, as often, to a strong 
 afi&rmation that no 07ie has known his mind 
 or has become his counselor; hence the intro- 
 ductory for. ["Many talk," says Bengel,"as 
 if they were not only the Lord's counselors, 
 but also his inquisitors, his patrons, or his 
 judges. Scripture everywhere rests in this — 
 that the Lord hath willed, and said, and done. 
 It does not unfold the reasons of things, gen- 
 eral or special. Respecting things too high 
 for our infant conceptions, it refers us to 
 
 eternity. (l Cor. l.l : 9, seq.)"] 
 
 35. This is a manifest reference to Job 41 : 
 11 ["according to the Hebrew («:3), not ac- 
 cording to the LXX., whose translation is 
 quite erroneous" (Meyer)]. Who hath first 
 given to him? Who hath anticipated him, 
 been beforehand with him in giving, so as to 
 be entitled to any recompense? So as to place 
 him under any obligation? Thus these three 
 
 questions (ver. .14,35) fitly correspond to the three 
 attributes mentioned in ver. 83: Who hath' 
 been his counsellor? — to wisdo'in. Who 
 hath known? — to knowledge. Who hath 
 given ? — to riches. ["This verse specifiesthe 
 depth of the riches of God." (Bengel.)] 
 
 36. For of him. [The thought is: No 
 one has done or can do this, 'for,' etc.] All 
 things are 'of him' (or, frotn him.) in their 
 origin; through him, as to their subsistence 
 and disposal; and to him (or, for him) as 
 their end. " God is the basis of all that exists ; 
 for from him all took its rise. God is the 
 means of all that exists ; for he directs all that 
 exists to its destination. God is the end of all 
 that exists; for in him alone all the creatures 
 rest. It is from God that man derives his 
 being; to God must he return if he would 
 truly be; through God must he be led to 
 God ; and thus God's mercy is the beginning, 
 the middle, and the end." (Tholuck.) [Com- 
 pare Col. 1 : 16, where Paul affirms that all 
 things were created in Christ, — as the causal 
 element of their existence (Ellicott), — all 
 things were created through him, and all 
 things were created for him. If the Son had 
 not been God, such an interchange of im- 
 portant relations, as Ellicott well remarks, 
 would never had seemed possible. In the 
 doxology, we supply after glory some form 
 of the verb to be. Perhaps the Greek form 
 which is used in expressing a wish (here, ryiay 
 there be) is most appropriate in this connec- 
 tion.] 
 
 The close of this verse reminds us of a saying 
 of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus; but how 
 much more sublime as well as more true is the 
 apostle's doxology than the Stoic's apostrophe 
 to nature: "All is froin thee; all is in thee; 
 all is for thee." To God, and not to nature 
 [and 'not unto us'], be glory for ever, ?ot^o</ie 
 ages. Amen. Thus the apostle devoutly closes 
 the chapter and the formal argument of this 
 Epistle. [And what but the strongest mental 
 powers, enlightened and sustained by the 
 Holy Spirit, could have kept the apostle's 
 thought throughout all these chapters and 
 
264 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XII. 
 
 CHAPTEK XII. 
 
 I 
 
 BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of I 
 God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, | 
 
 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies 
 of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, 
 
 verses — without the least sign of breaking 
 down, sinking, or weakening — up to the lofty 
 "height of this great argument ! " '] 
 
 III. Practical. (Ch. 12-15: 13.) 
 Ch. 12 : [Exhortations touching the more 
 private and general duties of Christians. 
 "The chapter stands unrivalled as a spon- 
 taneous sketch of the fairest graces which can 
 adorn the Christian life." (Farrar. ) The 
 subject of the following chapters is the ''''Life 
 of the justified believer." It was no come 
 down for the apostle to break off from the 
 high arguing of a didactic treatise, and to 
 inculcate the common duties which flow from 
 the Christian faith, and which become the 
 Christian life.* The apostle, as Godet ob- 
 serves, commencing this section with Christian 
 consecration, then speaks of the Christian life 
 in its two spheres of activity, treating in this 
 chapter of the religious sphere, and in the 
 next, of the civil spliere. Renan supposes 
 that this and the two following chapters, 
 though written by Paul, did not originally 
 form a part of the genuine Epistle to the 
 Romans; but his arguments or fancies are 
 well answered by Godet.] 
 
 It is customary with Paul to close his epis- 
 tles with a series of practical exhortations, 
 not always very closely connected with the 
 preceding doctrinal discussion, but always 
 
 very pertinent to the circumstances of those 
 to whom the epistle is addressed. 
 
 1. [I beseech, or, exhort^ with the related 
 idea of comforting or encouraging. Compare 
 Eph. 4: 1; IThess. 4: 1. " Moses commands, 
 the apostle exhorts." (Bengel.) This word 
 is used above fifty times in Paul's epistles.] 
 The word therefore connects the exhortation 
 to entire consecration to God with the pre- 
 ceding course of thought, not merely in the 
 closing verses of the preceding chapter, nor 
 even in that chapter as a whole, but in the 
 entire doctrinal discussion of the foregoing 
 chapters. By (through) the mercies of God 
 — in view of, and as a consequence of those 
 divine mercies which have been so fully set 
 forth in the body of the Epistle. [The tender 
 — literally, wailing — compassions of God are 
 here presented as a motive (6i<i) to thankful 
 obedience and entire consecration. Cannot 
 the same appeal be made to our grateful feel- 
 ings in view of God's compassionate mercies 
 by us so constantly experienced ? Note how 
 Paul, after writing of God's "wrath," and 
 of his "hardening" sinners, and giving them 
 the spirit of stupor, can yet speak so freely 
 and unhesitatingly of the mercies of God. 
 Compare 2 Cor. 1: 3, where God is called 
 "the Father of mercies."] That ye present 
 your bodies. Your entire selves [present at 
 once, and once for all (aorist tense), 'your 
 bodies,' in this verse, 'your minds,' in the 
 
 1 In connection with this chapter, we would call 
 attention to the remarkable religious movement which 
 is now going on among the Jews in South Russia, under 
 the leadership of Joseph Rabinowitz, a lawyer by pro- 
 fession, hut now a baptized Christian believer. After 
 visiting Jerusalem, and witnessing the desolation of 
 Zion and the sad state of his own people, the last 
 chapter of the Hebrew Bible (2 Chron. .36 : 14-16) came 
 forcibly to his mind, and he was led to ask : " Can there 
 he no ' remedy ' 7 " This remedy he soon found in the 
 gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, and this 
 gospel he is now proclaiming to his " kinsmen accrirding 
 to the flesh." He proposes to organize a new sect, to be 
 called Israelites of the New Covenant, and many Jews 
 have already expressed a desire to join this Christian 
 brot herhood. In a recent communication, he says : " By 
 the help of God I placed the blessing, the New Testa- 
 ment, in many Jewish houses, and thousands of Israel- 
 ites trust for salvation in the blessed blood of the Lord 
 
 Jesus Christ, who was crucified outside the gate of 
 Jerusalem, to make an end of sin and to bring in ever- 
 lasting righteousness." We may remark that the He- 
 brew translation of the New Testament, by Delitzsch, is 
 having a wonderful sale, and is exerting a remarkable 
 influence among the Jews in Eastern Russia, and even 
 in far-distant Siberia.— (F.) 
 
 2 "No one felt more deeply than Paul that it requires 
 great principles to secure our faithfulness in little 
 duties, and that every duty, however apparently insig- 
 nificant, acquires a real grandeur when it is regarded 
 in the light of those principles from which its fulfill- 
 ment springs." (Farrar.) "Holy George Herbert," 
 speaking, in his " Elixir," of doing all unto God, and 
 for his sake, says: 
 
 "A servant with this clause 
 
 Makes drudgery divine; 
 Who sweeps a room as for thy laws 
 
 Makes that and the action fine." — (F.) 
 
Ch. XII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 265 
 
 holy_, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable 
 service. 
 2 Aud be not conformed to this world : but be ye 
 
 1 acceptable to God, which is your 2 spiritual 3 service. 
 2 And be not fashioned according to this < world : but 
 
 1 Gr. well-pleasing 2 Gr. belonging to the reaaon 3 Or, worship 4 Or, age. 
 
 next (Meyer) — thus, a whole burnt offering, 
 to be wholly consumed for God on his altar. 
 The term 'bodies' may be taken in a literal 
 sense, since their presentation to God may be 
 a service of the mind, a rational service. 
 Some think the word was chosen as having 
 reference to the metaphor of sacrifice, and to 
 the body regarded as the seat of sin. 01s- 
 hausen thinks the word ' bodies ' is used here 
 to indicate that sanctification should extend 
 to the lowest power of human nature ] A 
 living sacrifice — not only in distinction from 
 the sacrifice of dead bodies, whicli the law for- 
 bade, and of slain bodies, whicli the law 
 required, but in the sense of a perpetual sac- 
 rifice to be continually renewed. Holy. The 
 Levitical sacrifices were required to be with- 
 out natural or physical blemish ; here, of 
 course, the reference is to moral purity.' 
 Acceptable unto God. God requires of us 
 now no sacrifice of slain boasts; but the unre- 
 served consecration of our persons to him in 
 holy living is acceptable, well pleasing to 
 him. [This term is frequently used hy Paul, 
 and except in Titus 2: 9, always in relation to 
 God or to Christ. Compare 1 Peter 2: 5, 
 "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God."] 
 Your reasonable service. The consecra- 
 tion of our bodies to God is an act of our 
 minds; it is a rational (AoyiKos), or spiritual 
 service. It is to be performed in a waj' suitable 
 to the nature of man as a rational being, suit- 
 able to the nature of God as a spiritual being.s 
 The word here translated 'service,' always 
 refers to sacred or religious, never to merely 
 common or secular service. It corresponds 
 to our word service when the adjective divine 
 is prefixed to it. 
 2. And be not conformed to this world. 
 
 [This, and the following verb, should probably 
 be put in the infinitive in the same regimen as 
 'present.' This verb occurs also in 1 Peter 
 1: 14. In the use of this verb, Dr. Schatf 
 sees a special adaptation to the changing and 
 transitory /rtsAioM of this world. Com))are 1 
 Cor. 7: 31. "The fashion (<Tx^iiia) of this world 
 passeth away." See, also, the rendering of 
 the Revised Version, "be not fashioned."] 
 By this world we understand the whole 
 world of the ungodly as contrasted with the 
 disciples of Christ. ['This world,' oragefaliv), 
 is commonly defined as the temporary order 
 of things in which sin predominates, to which 
 the "age to come," the kingdom of God, or 
 the holy state of things founded by Christ, is 
 the exact contrast. In accordance with Scrip- 
 ture teaching, ages have already transpired, 
 and in view of what is past, Paul speaks of 
 living in "the ends of the ages.'' (icor. io:u.) 
 But he also speaks of "ages which are com- 
 ing" (Eph.2:7); and " such expressions," says 
 EUicott, "deserve especial notice, as they 
 incidentally prove how very ill founded is the 
 popular opinion adopted by Me\'er and others, 
 that St. Paul believed the Advent of the Lord 
 to be close at hand."] We are to avoid worldly 
 conformity, not by any oddity of dress or 
 manners, but by an inward transformation 
 resulting in a knowledge, approval, and prac- 
 tice of that which God wills. We have in 
 this verse an evil to be avoided, a remedy 
 to be applied, and the happy results of 
 applying it. [Would that Christians and 
 churches in this age of worldly conformity 
 might heed this warning voice of the apostle, 
 and thus be saved from an "evil" which, per- 
 haps more than any other, is eating out their 
 spiritual life and power, and which thus mars 
 
 'This term, a-yio«, holy (occurring in the classics, 
 while its many New Testament derivatives are un- 
 known), "is the rarest of five synonyms, — iepds, oo-ios, 
 cfiJ.i'6':, ayv6<;, — whicli the Greeks had to express the 
 idea of holiness, so far, at least, as they knew such an 
 idea. In Biblical Greek ... it is the only word by 
 ■which the bihiical conception of holiness is expressed, 
 . . . whereas the most frequently occurring word in 
 classical Greek, Upos, is almost completely excluded 
 from Scripture use." (Cremer.) — (F.) 
 
 2 Compare 1 Peter 2: 2, where he speaks of AoytKos, 
 
 rational, or spiritual milk, "milk which nourishes the 
 soul." (Grimm.) Clement of Ale.\andria speaks of 
 logical medicines (medicines for the mind), logical 
 food, logical water, logical baptism. " AoyiKo?, pertain- 
 ing to, and ajjproved by, the reason." (Boise.) Prof. 
 Cremer thinks it implies reasonable meditation or 
 reflection in contrast with outward, thoughtless cere- 
 mony. This 'rational worship' is grammatically in 
 apposition to the sentence, 'present your bodies,' 
 etc.— (F.) 
 
266 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XII. 
 
 transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may 
 prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will 
 of God. 
 
 3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to 
 every man that is among you, not to think of himselj' 
 more highly than he ought to think; but to think 
 soberly, according as Uod hath dealt to every man the 
 measure of faith. 
 
 be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, 
 that ye may prove what is i the good and"- acceptable 
 and perfect will of dod. 
 
 3 For I say, through the grace that was given me^ to 
 every man that is among you, not to think of him- 
 self more highly than he ought to think ; but so to 
 think as to think soberly, according as God hath 
 
 4 dealt to each man a measure of faith. For even as 
 
 1 Or, the will of God, even the thing which is good and acceptable and perfect 2 Gr. well-pleasing. 
 
 their influence for good, making them ioap2^ear 
 so unlike the followers of the meek and lowly 
 Saviour. Would that Christian men might lay 
 aside all pernicious habits and wordly ostenta- 
 tion, and that Christian women might hang 
 a portion of their jewelry and needless orna- 
 ment on the Saviour's rugged, bleeding cross. 
 This "vain glory of life" is unbecoming to a 
 Christian, is, in many respects, pernicious in 
 its influence, and must be offensive in the sight 
 of our Heavenly Father. The apostle, in his 
 earnestness, could not be content with a merely 
 negative command, and hence he adds, be ye 
 transformed — literally, metamorphosed., a 
 term used of Christ's transfiguration. See, 
 also, 2 Cor. 3: 18.] This does not imply that 
 the persons addressed were as yet unregenerate, 
 but only that their inward renewal, which had 
 been distinctly professed in their baptism, was 
 to be progressive, and to manifest its reality 
 and power by a growing conformity to the 
 
 to confirm the general exhortation of ver. 2, 
 by a special requirement. (Meyer.) I say, 
 through the grace given unto me, as an 
 
 apostle to exhort and guide the church. [I 
 exhort j'ou, not in my own name or by mine 
 own authority (the apostle himself thus set- 
 ting an example of humility), but in virtue 
 of, or by means of, the grace which was 
 bestowed upon me.] To every man that is 
 among you— a strong statement of the indi- 
 vidual application of the admonition. [This 
 would have applied to Peter himself had he 
 been in Rome, but had this been so, Paul would 
 nothave thus written, or indeed would not have 
 written at all. (Lange. ) It would do no 
 harm, however, if the church dignitaries now 
 at Rome should heed this message of the 
 apostle.] To think soberly. There is dan- 
 ger of our being puflfed up with pride on 
 account of God's gifts, whether ordinary or 
 extraordinary. [There is a play upon words 
 
 will of God. [This transformation, equivalent | here in the original, which is thus brought 
 to Christ's being formed in us (Gai.4:i9), he j out by Alford: "Not to be high minded above 
 
 tells them is secured through the renewing of 
 your mind, which, as impaired and darkened 
 by sin, has become a reprobate (or " unap- 
 proved) mind" (i: '•'s), or, "mind of the flesh." 
 (coi.2:i8.) This renewing is eflected by the 
 Holy Spirit (Eph.4: 23; xituaS: 5); and here again 
 we have divine activity and huitian dependence 
 and co-operation brought to view. The three 
 adjectives, the first of which alone has the 
 article on account of the general unity of their 
 meaning, are to be used substantively (as in 
 the margin of the Revised Version) unless we 
 would assert the truism that God is well pleased 
 with his own will.] 
 
 3. After the exhortation to entire consecra- 
 tion to God, the apostle enjoins the cultiva- 
 tion of particular graces and the practice of 
 particular duties, beginning with humility 
 [as, perhaps, the most important]. For serves 
 
 what he ought to be minded, but to be so 
 minded as to be sober minded." This last 
 term is specially employed by the Greeks to 
 denote self-regulation or self-control.^] Ac- 
 cording as God hath dealt to every man 
 the measure of faith. God has distributed 
 hisgiftsand gracesin diff"erent measure, accord- 
 ing to his own wisdom. It belongs to Chris- 
 tian wisdom and humility to estimate our- 
 selves accordingly, neither disparaging his 
 gifts and our consequent responsibilities, nor 
 overestimatinff them in our self-conceit. 
 ["The emphatic position of each one ('every 
 man') (placed in the original before the as) 
 gives prominence to the idea of diversity be- 
 tween one man and another." (i cor. 3: 5; 7 : 17.) 
 ("Biblical Commentarj'.") We may describe 
 faith as being the subjective principle of Chris- 
 tian endeavor, as divine grace is the objective. 
 
 1 The word Trapa translated above, " means beside the 
 mark or aim, and consequently (as the context may 
 determine) sometimes above, as here, and sometimes 
 below, as 2 Cor. 11 : 24." (Winer.) Aet (it is jii) denotes 
 
 necessity, and, as used here, moral obligation; (jtpoveiii, 
 to feel or regard in mind, is often used by Paul, especially 
 in his later letters. The same injunction is repeated 
 substantially in ver. 16, ' mind not high things.'— (F.) 
 
Ch. XIL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 267 
 
 4 For as we have many members in one body, and all 
 memlier.s have not the same office: 
 
 5 So we, hfin;/ many, are one body in Christ, and 
 every one members one of another. 
 
 (> Having then gifts ditfering according to the grace 
 that is given to us, wliether i)ronhecy, Itt us prujihesi/ 
 according to the proportion of faitli ; 
 
 we have many members in one body, and all the 
 
 5 members have not the same office: so we, who are 
 many, are one body in Christ, and severally u)em- 
 
 6 bers one of auoiher. And having gifts ditfering 
 according to the grace that was given to us, wheth^;r 
 prophecy, let us jirujj/ii sy according to the proi)ortioa 
 
 7 of our faith; or ministry, /e< us give ourseUes to oUp 
 
 This measure of faith which each one has is a 
 gift of grace, (ver.e.)] 
 
 4,5. [For "elucidates the fact that God 
 apportions variously to various persons, be- 
 cause the Christian community is like a body 
 with many members having various duties'" 
 (Alford), thus furnishing a motive for giving 
 liced to the exhortation. If all the members 
 of Christ's body have not the same function 
 or office, yet each one, the obscurest as well 
 as the most prominent, has a work to do, and 
 ttie humblest member, if faithful even in 
 little things, will in no wise lose his reward. 
 Members one of anotlicr. We are such 
 only as we are members of the body of Christ, 
 he being "the common element in which the 
 union consists." ^] See the same figure of the 
 Cliristian community as one body developed 
 still more fully by the apostle in 1 Cor. 12 : 12- 
 27 ; compare also Eph. 4 : 11-16. It is a beau- 
 tiful spectacle when a Christian church sets 
 itself earnestly to realize this apostolic idea. 
 Many a church now reputed feeble, and re- 
 garding itself so, would be surprised to find 
 how strong it is, if it should truly grasp and 
 carry out this idea. [Of the aphorism : "Di- 
 versity without unity is disorder, unity without 
 diversity is death," the fcjrmer member is most 
 certainly true. Could the members of our 
 churches, while each should be doing his own 
 special work, yet feel and act as a band of 
 loving, sympathizing brethren, thinking less 
 of ourselves and more of our fellow members 
 (Phil. 2: 3,*), more of Christ and his suftering 
 cause, and willing to sacrifice for the sake of 
 that cause, not only of our wealth or of our 
 poverty, but, perchance, a little of our self- 
 importance, self-will, and obstinacy (wherein 
 we have to strive so hard to be conscientious), 
 there would be left, as a source of weakness 
 and reproach, but little of variance, dishar- 
 mony, and strife. The Church of Christ would 
 be a mighty power if her enemies could say 
 
 now as they did in earliest times: "Behold 
 how these Christians love one another! "] 
 
 6-8. Having then gifts ditfering ac- 
 cording to the grace that is given to us, 
 
 etc. This is a rich and beautiful passage, s<jme- 
 what elliptical, requiring supplementary words 
 of the translators, and irregular in its gram- 
 matical construction, yet not obscure. [A few 
 expositors, without supplying ditferent verbs, 
 render somewhat as follows : we are one body, 
 etc., while having differing gifts, Oiaving) 
 prophecy, (having) ministry', etc. But this ren- 
 dering ignores the disjunctive particle at the be- 
 ginning of ver. 6, and also the fact that many of 
 the following terms, such as siniplicity, dili- 
 gence, cheerfulness, denote neither the mea- 
 sure in which the gracious gift is given, nor the 
 sphere in which it is exercised, but the way 
 and manner in which it should be exercised. 
 (Philippi.) Godet supplies but one brief sen- 
 tence at the beginning, as follows: 'Having 
 then gifts ^ ... let us exercise them, etc. 
 Whether prophecy— not here the foretelling 
 of future events, but "an immediate occasional 
 insj)iration, leading the recipient to deliver, as 
 the mouth of God, the ])articular communica- 
 tion which he had received, whether de- 
 signed for instruction, exhortation, or comfort." 
 (Hodge.) The gift as thus defined would seem 
 specially to belong to the age of the apostles. 
 On the extraordinary gifts of that age, see 
 1 Cor. 12: 4-10. According to the propor- 
 tion of faith ; or, measure of (our) faith ; 
 see ver. 3, and the Kevised Version. ' Faith ' 
 here is rightly regarded as subjective, equiva- 
 lent to personal confidence in God or trust in 
 Christ; not 'faith,' referring to doctrine. Thus 
 there is no reference here to what is called the 
 "analogy of faith," although Wordsworth, 
 Philippi, and Hodge contend for this view.] 
 For one to speak in the proportion of faith is 
 to speak in his proi)hecy only what God re- 
 veals to his faith, without adding any of his 
 
 1 On the force of the neuter article to in the Revision 
 text, see at 9: 5. The preposition koto, which should 
 properly be followed by the accusative, serves here 
 
 14: 19; John 8: 9; Rev. 21: 21. The phrase regarded 
 as a noun in the " accusative of specification " is thus 
 rendered by Meyer; "Hut in what concerns the indi- 
 
 merely as au adverb. For similar examples, see Mark | vidual relation " (we are membei-s one of another).— (F.) 
 
268 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Cii. XII. 
 
 7 Or ministry, lei us wail on our ministering; or he 
 that teacbeth, on teaching; 
 
 « f)r he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giv- 
 eth, If/ him do it with simplicity ; he that ruleth, with 
 diligence ; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. 
 
 9 Lfl love be without dissimulation. Abhor that 
 which is evil ; cleave to that which is good. 
 
 lu Be kindly alf'ectioned one to another with brotherly 
 Jove ; in honour preferring one another ; 
 
 8 ministry ; or he that teacheth, to his teaching ; or he 
 that e.xhorteth, to his exhorting: he that giveth, let 
 him do il with i liberality ; he that ruleth, with dili- 
 gence ; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. 
 
 9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is 
 
 10 evil ; cleave to that which is good. In love of the 
 brethren be tenderly aflectioned one to another; in 
 
 11 honour preferring one another; in diligence not 
 
 1 Gr. singleness. 
 
 own inferences or conjectures. The word for 
 ministering, or, serving, is the same which 
 gives name to the deacon's office in Phil. 1:1; 
 1 Tim. 3: 8, 12; compare also 1 Cor. 12: 5; 
 Eph. 4: 12; but is probably used here in a 
 more comprehensive sense, to include various 
 forms of service. [Or he that teacheth, etc. 
 If Paul had not changed the construction he 
 would have written, or teaching ; or exhorta- 
 tion; or giving, etc. He, however, retains the 
 word ' whether ' as if the construction was 
 unchanged. The original word for exhort (see 
 ver. 1, where it is translated "beseech") "com- 
 bines the ideas of exhorting, and comforting, 
 and encouraging." (Grimm.) It dift'ers from 
 teaching, in that it is rather directed to the 
 feelings, while the latter is directed more to the 
 understanding of the hearers. (EUicott.)] He 
 that giveth, let him do it with simplicity. 
 This latter word is the same which is translated 
 liberality and bountifulness in 2 Cor. 8:2; 
 9: 11. [This word, rendered by Prof. Boise, 
 "frank liberality" (used here with reference 
 not to official distribution, but to personal im- 
 parting or giving), is found only in Paul's 
 writings (seven times), and, according to EUi- 
 cott, "marks that openness (an-Aou, to spread 
 out so that there are no folds) and sincerity of 
 heart which repudiates duplicity in thought or 
 action." Alford prefers the idea of open- 
 handedness or liberality ; compare also the use 
 of the abverb in connection with God's giving, 
 James 1 : 5. He that ruleth — he that presides 
 over others in the church (compare govern- 
 ments, 1 Cor. 12 : 28), and possibly in the house- 
 hold — let such a one rule with diligence, or 
 zeal. Most expositors think church overseers 
 are here referred to, though, as Alford says, they 
 seem to be brought in rather "low down in the 
 list." Godet thinks that church officers have 
 been already referred to under the term minis- 
 istry.] With cheerfulness. The word used 
 
 here (iAapoTJjTi) is a particularly significant one, 
 which occurs nowhere else in the New Testa- 
 ment. It might be translated : with hilarity. 
 The corresponding adjective is used only in 
 2 Cor. 9: 7, where we read that "God loveth 
 a cheerful giver." 
 
 9-21. ["Exhortations for all without dis- 
 tinction, headed by love J" (Meyer.)] Let 
 love be [the imperative, being understood] 
 without dissimulation, or, unfeigned, as 
 the same Greek adjective is translated in 2 Cor. 
 6 : 6 ; 1 Tim. 1 : 5 ; 2 Tim. 1 : 5 ; 1 Peter 1 : 22 
 ("without hypocrisy" in James 3; 17; com- 
 pare 1 John 3 : 18). It is the part of unfeigned 
 love to others to hate the evil that mars the 
 imperfect characters of those whom we never- 
 theless sincerely love, and to attach ourselves 
 to, and encourage the good that there is in 
 them. This is loving them wisely, "for their 
 good, to edification." (Rom.i5:2.) [The present 
 participles indicate that we should habitually 
 abhor that which is evil wherever or in 
 whomsoever it exits, and cleave ('attach' — 
 literally, "glue" ourselves) to that which is 
 good, wherever manifested.^ Here and in 
 Luke 6 : 45, the form of the article shows the 
 noun to be neuter ; but as used in the Scrip- 
 tures with the article, it generally has reference 
 to persons, and it is mainly for this reason that 
 the Lord's prayer in the Kevision is made to 
 speak of "the evil one.^^'\ 
 
 10. Be kindly affectioned one to 
 another with brotherly love. The word 
 translated 'kindly affectioned' has for its root 
 a word appropriated to designate that natural 
 aflPection which exists between blood relations, 
 and is here fitly employed to express that spirit- 
 ual relationship which binds together the chil- 
 dren of the same Heavenly Father by a tie 
 stronger than that of blood [and makes them 
 brothers and sisters, one family in Christ. The 
 word for 'brotherlj^ love' (4>L\aSe\<t>ia, occurring 
 
 1 Of the two words frequently rendered ' evil,' irovripo^, I decidedly out than in (caicds." A man may be KaKo^, evil 
 the one here employed, and kokos. Trench says : " In or wicked in himself, but one who is irovrjpos is an evil- 
 novripoi the positive activity of evil comes far more worker, a corrupter of others. — (F.) 
 
Ch. XII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 269 
 
 11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit ; serving ! 12 slothful ; fervent in spirit; serving "the Lord; re- 
 the Lord ; I joicing in hope; patient in tribulation; cotitiuuiug 
 
 12 Itijoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; con- l 13 stedfastly in prayer; coniiuunicatiug to tlie neces- 
 tiniiiiig iM>iant in prayer; 14 sities of the saints; -given to hospitality. Ulessthem 
 
 Hi liistrilmting to the necessity of saints; given to 
 hospitality. I 
 
 I Souie aiicieui aulboriiie.s read the opportunity 2 dr. purauing. 
 
 elsewhere in 1 Thess. 4:9; Heb. 13 : 1 ; 1 Peter 
 1 : 22 ; 2 Peter 1 : 7) is placed first in the Greek, 
 as in the Revised Version, because of emphasis. 
 The same is true of all the leading nouns which 
 follow down to ver. 14, and most of them might 
 well hold their prominent place in a transla- 
 tion. Many of these nouns are in the so-called 
 dative of reference or respect.] In honour 
 preferring one another — or, more exactly, 
 "preceding one another," "going before one 
 another in giving honor," and so setting an 
 attractive example. Compare Phil. 2:3. 
 
 11. Not slothful in business. This clause 
 is very commonly understood as enjoining 
 diligence in secular affairs ; but this is not in 
 accordance with the usage of the original word, 
 which is translated 'business' only in this pas- 
 sage, usuall}^ "diligence," as in ver. 8 of this 
 chapter, and in 2 Cor. 8:7; Heb. 6:11; 2 Peter 
 1:5; Jude 3. Not slack in diligence, or, not 
 remiss in zeal, would be a fitter translation. 
 The exhortation [compare the similar one in 
 Eccl. 9 : 10] is in harmony with the whole con- 
 text, in which strictly religious duties are 
 enjoined. The service of the Lord should be 
 prosecuted with a sustained zeal and a spirit 
 glowing with sacred fervor. [Fervent in 
 spirit — in spirit be fervent, or, boiling. Com- 
 pare Acts 18 : 2o. This is the opposite of being 
 sluggish in diligence.' Serving the Lord. 
 Instead of this, Me.yer and Lange, with the 
 uncials D * F G, read: Serving the time. It 
 would be equivalent to taking the circum- 
 stances into consideration, regidating oneself 
 by them. (Cremer.) The principal letters in 
 the words for Lord and tim,e are the same, so 
 that the words, if abbreviated, could be easilj' 
 mistaken. The weight of manuscript authority 
 and of internal probability is in favor of the 
 usual reading. De Wette well saj-s: "The 
 Christian should improve the time and oppor- 
 tunity (tok (coipdi/), but not serve it."] 
 
 12. Rejoicing in hope; patient in trib- 
 ulation, etc. In the first clause, the adjunct 
 expresses the ground of the rejoicing [thus, in 
 
 virtue of hope, be joyful] ; in the second, the 
 state in which the patience is to be exercised 
 [amid tribulation, be steadfast] ; and in the 
 third, the habit to which the instancy or tire- 
 less perseverance is to be applied [in prayer, 
 earnestly persevering]. In reference to this 
 last, compare Acts 1:14; 2 : 42 ; 6:4; Col. 4 : 2. 
 13. Distributing^ to the necessity (neces- 
 sities) of saints ; given to hospitality. 
 B(jth these kindred duties were made more 
 obligatory by the circumstances of those primi- 
 tive times when Christians were so often subject 
 to spoliation of goods and to persecutions. 
 How well the early disciples obeyed this first 
 admonition we learn from Acts 4 : 34, 35; 11: 
 27-30 ; Rom. 15 : 25-27 ; 2 Cor. 8:1-4; 9:1,2. 
 The nature of the duty enjoined in the second 
 admonition is shown, bj' the term used, to be 
 something very different from that sumptuous 
 entertainment of one's personal friends which 
 is now commonly called ' h«jspitality.' It is 
 rather the manifestation of our loving care 
 for the stranger guest. [Instead of ' commu- 
 nicating ' to the necessities of the saints, as in 
 the Revised Version, we prefer, with many 
 others, to take the participle intransitively, 
 thus : Participating in, sharing, their neces- 
 sities — that is, making them to be as our own. 
 A fe.w manuscripts read remembrances instead 
 of necessities, but this, according to Westcott 
 and Hort, is "probably a clerical error, due 
 to the hasty reading of an ill-written MS." 
 'Given to hospitality ' — more literally, pursu- 
 iyig hospitality. The verb from which this 
 participle is derived is commonly used in the 
 sense of persecute, as in the next verse. Godet 
 says the term pursuing "shows that we are 
 not to confine ourselves to according hospitality 
 when it is asked, but that we should even seek 
 opportunities of exercising it." The duties of 
 beneficence and of hospitality are often enjoined 
 in the Scriptures. Compare 1 Tim. 3:2; 6 : 18; 
 Titus 1:8; Heb. 13 : 12 ; 1 Peter 4 : 9. From 
 saints and strangers Paul now comes to perse- 
 cutors. ] 
 
 1 " How much was Paul himself in this matter, with I seq. ; Phil. 4 : 12, 13 ; 1 Cor. 4:11, seq. ; 8 : 13 ; Acts 20 : 
 all his fervor of spirit, a shining model ! 1. Cor. 9 : 19, ' 35 ; 16 ; 3." (Meyer.)— (F.) 
 
270 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XII. 
 
 14 Bless tbem which persecute you : bless, and curse 
 not. 
 
 15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with 
 them that weep. 
 
 16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind 
 not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. 
 Be not wise in your own conceits. 
 
 17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide 
 things honest in the sight of all men. 
 
 15 that persecute you ; bless, and curse not. Rejoice 
 with tbem that" rejoice ; weep with them that weep. 
 
 16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Set not 
 your mind on high things, but 'condescend to 
 - things that are lowly. Be not wise in your own 
 
 17 conceits. Render to no man evil for evil. Take 
 thought for things honourable in the sight of all 
 
 1 Gr. he carried away with 2 Or, them. 
 
 14. Bless them which persecute you. 
 
 This seems to be a quotation from the Sermon 
 
 on the Mount. (Matt. 5: 44; Luke 6: 28.) Paul 
 
 doubtless had knowledge of this injunction of 
 our Lord, though he may hardly yet have read 
 it in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. [The 
 Kevisersomit the passage from Matthew's Gos- 
 pel. 'Bless' (evAoYtire) in the classics means 
 merely to sjieak well of. And curse not. 
 Only those may curse whom God has commis- 
 sioned to imprecate his judgment on transgres- 
 sors. To love and pray for and forgive our 
 enemies and persecutors, or those whom we 
 deem to be such, is a hard task for imperfectly 
 sanctified human nature. One thought, how- 
 ever, may help us thus to feel and act — the 
 thought that, if Christ were as quick to take 
 offense and as slow to forgive as we are, none 
 of us could be saved. The present tense of 
 these verbs denotes an ever present duty.] 
 
 15. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, 
 and weep with them that weep. Chrysos- 
 tom remarks on this verse that it requires a 
 more generous spirit to obey the first admoni- 
 tion than the second, since nature inclines us to 
 weep when we see others weeping; but in the 
 opposite case envy is apt to arise and make it 
 difficult for us sincerely to rejoice with them. 
 [In the New Testament, as in classic Greek, 
 the infinitive is sometimes used imperatively. 
 (See Phil. 3: 16.) Some, as Buttmann, would 
 supply here a verb (fiel), meaning "it is neces- 
 sary," or "I exhort" as in ver. 1. "The ex- 
 hortation of this verse is most important in our 
 intercourse with our fellow-men, and implies 
 the fullest human sympathy. How needful to 
 a pastor!" (Boise.)] 
 
 16. Be of the same mind one toAvard 
 another. [After participles, imperatives, and 
 infinitives, we now come back again to parti- 
 ciples. The verb be ye is supposed to be 
 understood. The meaning is (Be ye) think- 
 ing, having in mind, the same thing, etc.] 
 
 The word used here refers to the affections and 
 feelings rather than to intellectual beliefs. 
 Mind not high things, but condescend to 
 men of low estate. The words rendered 
 'high things' and 'men of low estate' are 
 both adjectives. The first is certainly neuter, 
 and is therefore properly translated. The sec- 
 ond is an ambiguous form, which may be 
 either masculine or neuter. [It is by usage 
 generally masculine, though many here regard 
 it, from its antithesis to high things, as neuter.] 
 But the participle connected with it, and trans- 
 lated 'condescend,' favors the masculiiie sense 
 of the adjective. It suggests the idea of leav- 
 ing the path we were intending to walk in, in 
 order to go along with another [and is gener- 
 ally used in a bad sense. (Gal. 2:13; 2 Peter 3: n.) 
 
 The word 'condescend' savors a little too 
 much of pride. Be companions with the lowly 
 would be a better rendering. The apostle 
 would thus have no abominable caste distinc- 
 tions among Christians. With the ancient 
 Greeks humility was not a virtue, and the 
 Greek word for humble or low (Tan-eivos) was 
 used in an ill sense. Plato says humble {rairt- 
 tVds) and servile, and even Philo, according to 
 Prof Cremer, uses this word in a bad sense. 
 Yet we believe that a few Greeks sometimes 
 employ this word as meaning lowly rather 
 than low or mean. Humility in the Scriptures 
 is opposed to all self-righteousness, and that 
 man is humble who takes a low estimate of 
 himself— " esteems himself small before God 
 and men.' Be not wise in your own con- 
 ceits — literally, do not become wise ivith 
 yourselves, in your own estimation merely ; 
 similar to 11: 25; see also Prov. 3: 7. The 
 self-conceit which the apostle condemns is 
 greatly opposed to Christian harmony and 
 union.] 
 
 17. [Recompense to no man evil for 
 evil.i 'Evil for evil.' "While Ellicott (on 1 
 Thess. 5: 15) justifies the "ugual and correct 
 
 1 The participles in these virtually imperative sentences require the negative form, M»?5ei's (no one) rather than 
 oiiSeii. — (F.) 
 
Ch. XII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 271 
 
 IS If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live 
 
 Ptrita'ilf'bdovX'avenge not yourselves, but ratker 
 eive place unto wrath: for it is written. Vengeance is 
 mine- [ will repay, sailh the Lord. 
 
 "oTl,Jref..re if thine enemy hunger, feed hira ; if he 
 thirst, give him drink : for in so doing thou shall heap 
 coals of tire on his head. 
 
 18 men. If it be possible, as much as in you lieth be at 
 
 19 peace with all men. Avenge not yourselves, beloved 
 bat give place unto i the wrath r,/ (w«/; for it is 
 written. Vengeance belongeth unto me; I ^"1' 'ecom- 
 
 20 pense, sailh the Lord. &t f thine enemy hunger 
 feed him ; if he thirst, give him to dnnk : for in so 
 
 1 Or, wrath. 
 
 Statement that Christianity was the first defin- 
 itely to forbid the returning evil for evil," he 
 does not deny that "individual instances of 
 the recognition of this precept may be found in 
 heathenism." Certaimy Socrates, in " Crito," 
 speaks against the retaliation of injuries. Pro- 
 vide things honest (as Paul himself did in 
 2 Cor. 8: 21), have a care for, "have regard 
 to" (Noyes); found elsewhere only in 2 Cor. 
 8- 21 • 1 Tim. 5: 8. This is virtually a quota- 
 tion fron Prov. 3 : 4, Septuagint. If the mem- 
 bers of our churches obeyed this instruction, 
 ' ' those that are without ' ' would have to provide 
 for their famishing souls some other kind of 
 diet than "the faults of Christians."] The 
 word 'honest,' in the Scriptures, always has 
 the meaning of honorable, according to the 
 sense of the Latin word from which it is de- 
 rived. It is opposed to what is unbecoming, 
 rather than to what is unjust and unfair. 
 
 18. Live peaceably with all men— that 
 is, do not disturb others, and do not be dis- 
 turbed by them. The first is wholly in our 
 own power, the second is not; hence the quali- 
 fication, if it be possible, as much as 
 lieth in you.^ ["Even those who are most 
 quiet and peaceable, yet if they serve God 
 faithfully, are often made ' men of strife.' We 
 can but ' follow peace' ; have the making only 
 of one side of the bargain, and, therefore, can 
 but, 'as much as in us lies,' live peaceably." 
 (Matthew Henry.)— A. H.] 
 
 19. Dearly beloved. "The more diflScult 
 the duty, the more affectionate the address." 
 (Tholuck.) [Avenge not yourselves. As 
 injury may be more than an ill or evil, so 
 avenging oneself is more than repaying evil 
 for evil.^] Give place unto wrath. Allow 
 room for God's anger; do not interfere with 
 the divine prerogative by taking vengeance 
 into your own hands. Other interpretatiuus 
 
 are advocated, but this best suits the last part 
 of the verse, and best explains the use of the 
 Greek article with the word wrath— [literally, 
 unto the wrath (that is, of God), so most com- 
 mentators. We think, however, that the force 
 of the article cannot be pressed here. Com- 
 pare with this Eccles. 38 : 12, " give place to the 
 physician"; Luke 14: 9, "give this man place"; 
 also Eph. 4: 27, "neither give place to the 
 devil." According to the usage of Paul, the 
 word wrath is generally applied to God. If 
 the reference here be to men's wrath, then, in 
 accordance with the idiom of the above pas- 
 sages, we should naturally expect the exhorta- 
 tion would be, give no place to wrath, which 
 would indeed be equivalent to giving it a wide 
 berth, or having nothing to do with it. Some, 
 after the analogy of the Latin phrase of similar 
 import, dare irce spatiurn, would give to the 
 word 'place' the idea of temporal space, thus 
 counseling delay to the exercise of wrath ; but 
 this appears to us hardly admissible.] For it 
 is written, in Deut. 32: 35. The same pas- 
 sage is quoted also in Heb. 10 : 30. [The quo- 
 tation follows the Hebrew more nearly than 
 it does the LXX. The words saith the 
 Lord are added by Paul for the sake of 
 emphasis.] It has often been said that belief 
 in a God who takes vengeance tends to make 
 men revengeful. This passage teaches exactly 
 the contrary. See, also, the next verse. 
 
 20. Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, 
 feed him, etc. [' But if,' according to another 
 reading. 'Feed him' (present tense)— literally, 
 by morsels or, from hand, and continually, 
 see 11: 20.] For in so doing (or, by so 
 doing) you will make him very uncomfortable, 
 until he finds relief by coming to a better 
 mind, which he will be likely soon to do under 
 such treatment. [The general idea, probably, 
 is this: By showing this kindness you will 
 
 1 The limitation (as to) what is from yon, what in you 
 lies, what depends upon you, is what might be termed 
 the accusative of closer specification, or the accusative 
 of synecdoche. See ver. 5; 15: 17; Heb. 2: 17; 5:1. 
 The idea of the apostle is : Be at peace with all men if 
 
 they will let you. The verb, be at peace, is found else- 
 where in Mark 9: 50; 2 Cor. 13: 11 ; 2 Thess. 5: 13.-(F.) 
 2 Note here how the reflexive pronoun (themselves) is 
 used for the second person.— (F) 
 
272 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XIII. 
 
 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with I 21 doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be 
 „QQ(j_ I not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 LET every soul be subject unto the higher powers. 
 For there is no power but of God : the powers that 
 be are ordained of God. 
 
 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth 
 the ordinance of God : and they that resist shall receive 
 to themselves damnation. 
 
 1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher 
 powers : for there is no power but of God ; and the 
 
 2 powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he 
 that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance 
 of God : and they that withstand shall receive to 
 
 most effectually subdue him. This whole 
 verse seems to be a very Christian precept, yet 
 it is taken, word for word, from the Old Tes- 
 tament. See Prov. 25: 21, 22, Septuagint. 
 Wordsworth says "the Holy Spirit, by the 
 hand of St. Paul, has indited here a chapter 
 of Christian Proverbs."] 
 
 21. Be not overcome of {by) evil, but 
 OTcrcome evil with good — [literally, in 
 the good — namely, which thou shalt show 
 thy enemy.] A fit condensation and close of 
 this subject. [Erasmus, speaking of this chap- 
 ter, says: " No song can be sweeter."] 
 
 Ch. 13: Political ayid Social Duties— Sub- 
 jection to Those in Authority. [The Jews, who 
 in accordance with Deut. 17 : 15 were to have 
 "no stranger" set over them as king, were 
 everywhere restive under Roman rule, and 
 even in Rome were not wholly submissive to 
 authority. A short time previous to Paul's 
 writing this letter, Claudius, the emperor, as 
 both Suetonius and Luke inform us, expelled 
 the Jews from Rome on account of their con- 
 stant tumults {tumultuantes). And these may 
 have been Jewish Christians, since their leader 
 or instigator bore the name of Chrestus, which, 
 according to Tertullian, was the usual way of 
 pronouncing Christus or Christ. But in this 
 early period the Roman authorities would 
 scarcely recognize the distinctions between 
 Jews and Jewish Christians. Gentile Chris- 
 tians also may naturally have felt that it would 
 not be an unrighteous thing to resist or even 
 plot against such a wicked and idolatrous gov- 
 ernment as that of Rome. Hence it was in 
 the interest of all parties that Paul counselled 
 obedience to rulers. Yet the principle incul- 
 
 cated holds good everywhere, since Christians 
 everywhere are citizens of an earthly kingdom 
 as well as of a heavenly kingdom, and they 
 have duties to perform to the one as well as to 
 the other. And in the beginning of Christi- 
 anity it was of the utmost importance that 
 Christians should, if possible, win by their 
 well doing the favor of the higher powers.] 
 
 1. The exhortation is emphatic, every soul, 
 yet in distinction from the higher powers. 
 The powers that be, not the powers that 
 were before the last change ; this simplifies the 
 dutj' of allegiance. [In passing from the con- 
 sideration of the duties of spiritual to those of 
 civil life, the apostle would indicate that Church 
 and State are not identical, but are distinct, 
 yet not antagonistic, and by his use of the 
 phi'ase 'every soul' (properly a Hebraism for 
 every person) would show, according to Godet, 
 that a duty is involved which is naturally in- 
 cumbent on every human being, an obligation 
 not specially of the spiritual life, but of the 
 psychical life which is the common domain 
 of mankind. Be subject — literally, subject 
 itself. The Revisers' rendering, "be in sub- 
 jection to,'' gives the force of the present tense. 
 'The higher powers,' authorities set over us. 
 The word 'power' here denotes rightful au- 
 thority, and this is from God as its source, and 
 all established authorities, Rome's imperial 
 throne included, have been appointed by God. 
 Literally : There exists not authority except by 
 God.^ Critical editors omit 'powers' in the 
 last clause, and give the word 'God' without 
 the article. With this verse compare Titus 3 : 
 1; 1 Peter 2: 13.] 
 
 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the 
 power. [The authority which is here sup- 
 posed to be accordant with the standard of 
 
 1 Observe that ecrTtV, being emphatic, is not made an 
 enclitic, as in ver. 3,4, but has its accent simply thrown 
 back on the penult. The Revisers have by (iuro) in 
 both places, yet render, as in our Common Version, ' of 
 God.' Pe Wette and Meyer prefer /rom (ano) in the 
 first clause. The fundamental signification of airo, 
 
 according to Buttmann, is departure from the exterior 
 of an object, while vt6 in general designates the more 
 remote internal causal relation. Hence, aird commonly 
 designates the more remote and general, while imo and 
 « the more immediate and special cause or origin.— (F.) 
 
Ch. XIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 27? 
 
 3 P'or rulors are not a terror to good works, but to the 
 evil. Wilt thou then not be afiaid of the power? do 
 that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the 
 same : 
 
 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But 
 if thou do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth 
 not the sword in vain : for he is the minister of God, a 
 revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 
 
 3 themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to 
 the good work, hut to the evil. And wouldest Ihou 
 have no fear of the power? do that which is good, 
 
 4 and thou shalt have praise from the same : for ' he is 
 a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do 
 that which is evil, be afraid ; for ' he beareth not the 
 sword in vain: for 'he is a minister of God, ao 
 
 5 avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Where- 
 
 right. And they that resist— literally (Com- 
 mon Version), have resisted. Jowett thus 
 brings out the adversative sense of the particle 
 translated 'and': but (whatever they may 
 think) they that oppose, etc.] What kind of 
 ' damnation ' (icpi>a, judgment) is here meant 
 is explained by the ne.\;t verse — punishment 
 from God, through his minister, the magis- 
 trate. ^ 
 
 3. [For rulers are not a terror to the 
 good work. So the Revised Version, which 
 follows here the reading of N B A D * F Y P. 
 Paul could hardly have made this unqualified 
 assertion of rulers had the infamous Nero then 
 begun his persecutions. The apostle, however, 
 has ideal rulers chiefly in mind. " He is speak- 
 ing of what may fairly be expected to be the 
 case." (Wordsworth.) Wilt thou then not 
 be afraid of the power (or, Dost thou ivish 
 not to fear the nnthority ?) do that which is 
 good (present imperative — do it as a constant 
 practice), and thou shalt have praise of 
 the same {from it, or, the authority). As 
 Paul does not here suppose rulers to be tyrants, 
 so he does not teach us what they who live 
 under an insupportable tyranny are to do. 
 But we know that he would counsel us to obey 
 God and the "higher law," rather than the 
 civil power, which should bid us violate the 
 divine law. And how, under the teaching of 
 Paul, could rulers blame their subjects for 
 insubordination, if they themselves are a terror 
 to good work, and not to evil ? Still, we agree, 
 in the main, with Alford, when he says : " Even 
 where law is hard and unreasonable, not dis- 
 obedience, but legitimate protest, is the duty 
 of the Christian." It is sometimes a duty to 
 
 suffer wrongfully. (l Peter2: 19; l Cor. 6:7.)] This 
 
 is wholesome doctrine for subjects, and no less 
 wholesome reading for rulers. The apostle's 
 assertion is, in general, true as a matter of foct, 
 even of corrupt and oppressive governments. 
 The Roman government had actually been a 
 protection to Paul himself on several occasions : 
 
 In the case of Gallio at Corinth (Act»i8: 12-17), 
 the town clerk at Ephesus (19 : 35-41), Claudius 
 Lysias at Jerusalem (21 : 31-35; 22: 2429; 23: 17-30), 
 Festus at Csesarca (25 : 1-12). [See Farrar's " Life 
 of St. Paul," pp. 323, 503, 504. Godet says: 
 " Never has any power whatever laid down as 
 a principle the punishment of good and the 
 reward of evil ; for thereby it would be its 
 own destroyer."] 
 
 4. For he (it, the authority) is the min- 
 ister of God. [The word for minister (Sioicovos, 
 deacon) is thought to be derived from a verb 
 meaning to run — hence, a messenger or servant 
 Would the apostle call the vile and carnal 
 Nero "a minister, an officer of God, a repre- 
 sentative of divine authority " ? (Renan.) We 
 think not, certainly not a worthy representa- 
 tive. And we think that no words could more 
 effectually shake the throne of iniquity which 
 Nero subsequently occupied than Paul's de- 
 scription of that authority which is God- 
 ordained, which is his minister for good, and 
 which is a terror, not to good work, but to 
 evil. He beareth — or, weareth, denoting 
 habitual practice. To bear, or wear rather, 
 implies a constant repetition of the simple 
 action of the verb. The sword — or, sabre, 
 spoken of, was a bent one, in opposition to the 
 straight sword. As individuals, we have not 
 the power or right to inflict capital punishment ; 
 and it may be a question whether, in strictness 
 of speech, we have power to confer it; but it 
 belongs to the God-ordained authority which 
 is over us. Paul, on one occasion, affirmed 
 that "if he had committed anything worthy 
 of death, he refused not to die" (at the hands 
 of the civil magistracy). Calvin calls this a 
 remarkable passage for proving the jus gladii 
 (the right of the sword). A revenger to exe- 
 cute wrath, or, better, as in Revised Version, 
 "An avenger for wrath, or punishment," 
 upon him that doeth (or, practices) the 
 evil. 'Avenger' occurs elsewhere only in 
 1 Thess. 4 : 6. Godet thinks the ' wrath ' is 
 
 1 The reflexive ' themselves ' is in the so-called dativus [ two verses the frequent use of rivaut and its com- 
 incommodi, or dative of disadvantage. Notice in these ' pounds.— (F.) 
 
 S 
 
274 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XIIL 
 
 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for 
 wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 
 
 G For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are 
 God's ministers, attending continually upi 
 
 thing 
 
 upon this very 
 
 fore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because 
 
 6 of the wrath, but also for conscience sake. For, for 
 
 this cause ye pay tribute also ; for they are ministers 
 
 of God's service, attending continually upon this 
 
 God's wrath, which the magistrate, the repre- 
 sentative of God, is bound to execute upon 
 evil doers.] 
 
 The last clause is the antithesis of the first. 
 The duty of a good ruler equally includes 
 both. The 'sword' is the symbol of the power 
 of life and death. 
 
 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, 
 etc.* Not only as a prudent policy, but also as 
 a religious duty. [Not only on account of the 
 magistrate's wrath, but on account of one's own 
 conscience. (Meyer.) Compare 1 Peter 2 : 13 : 
 " Be subject . . . for the Lord's sake." " It is 
 self-evident," says Philippi, "that a Christian 
 is never at liberty actually to co-operate in 
 wrong even on the demand of authority. (Act.s 
 4:19; 5:29.) If he obc^'s authority for God's 
 sake, he cannot obey it in opposition to God." 
 Whether, if called to obey under such circum- 
 stances, a Christian should actively rebel, or 
 cheerfully submit to wrong-suffering and quietly 
 pay the penalty of disobedience, is a question 
 on which judgment and conscience must decide. 
 Philippi says: "Let him never actively rebel." 
 Alford and Godet would not apparently counsel 
 rebellion, but the former remarks that "even 
 the parental power does not extend to things 
 unlawful. If the civil power commands us to 
 violate the law of God, we must obey God be- 
 fore man." And Godet says : " For the very 
 reason that the State governs in God's name, 
 when it comes to order something contrary to 
 God's law, there is nothing else to be done than 
 to make it feel the contradiction between its 
 conduct and its commission." He further as- 
 serts "that the submission required by Paul . . . 
 does not at all exclude protestation in word and 
 even resistance in deed, provided that to this 
 latter there be joined the calm acceptance of 
 the punishment inflicted." In this our free 
 country we may, both as citizens and as Chris- 
 tians, adopt the motto : " Resistance to tyrants 
 is obedience to God," and also to law in its best 
 and highest sense. "Whenever man com- 
 mands us to do anything that God forbids, or 
 forbids us to do anything that God commands, 
 we cannot and must not obey ; for in such cases 
 
 as these, in obeying man we should be disobey- 
 ing God." (Wordsworth.) See Dr. Hovey's 
 "Manual of Theology and Ethics," pp. 411, 
 415.] 
 
 It is to be noted, that the above precepts and 
 principles were written to the disciples at Rome 
 at a time when their rulers were notoriously 
 corrupt and tyrannical, just after the reign of 
 Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius, and during 
 the reign of the infamous Nero. While they 
 certainly atford no express warrant for rebel- 
 lion, even against the most cruel and unjust 
 government, they are not to be quoted as an 
 express sanction of "the right divine of kings 
 to govern wrong." It is easy to see what evils 
 would have resulted from any explicit sanction 
 in the Scriptures of the right of revolution. 
 The letter seems severe, and to allow no excep- 
 tion ; just as in the case of parents and children 
 (Col. 3:20), husbands and wives (Eph. 5:22, 24), mas- 
 ters and servants. (Col. 3:22.) In all these cases, 
 the letter of Christianity is modified by the 
 spirit, and the two combined admirably adjust 
 the balance, making our divine religion alike 
 conservative and progressive, alike the firmest 
 supporter of order and the truest promoter of 
 freedom. Note : That if rebellion or revolu- 
 tion is ever justifiable, it is plain that the sub- 
 ject, and not the ruler, must be the judge, in 
 each particular case, both of its lawfulness and 
 of its expediency. 
 
 6. The words pay ye tribute may be 
 either in the indicative mood, affirming the 
 fact, or in the imperative, enjoining the duty : 
 and there is precisely the same ambiguity in 
 the Greek as in the English : but it is better to 
 regard the verb as indicative ['3'e pay tribute '; 
 so De Wette, Meyer, and others], thus making 
 the familiar fact of paying taxes a confirma- 
 tion of the necessity affirmed in the preceding 
 verse (' for'), corroborated, moreover, (' for this 
 cause') by the additional consideration that 
 they give their whole time to this divinely 
 sanctioned ministry of government — attend- 
 ing continually (see 12: 12) upon this very 
 thing. ['This very thing' is not the collection 
 of taxes, as Olshausen, Philippi, and Noyes 
 
 1 Some MSS. (D E F G) omit the word necessity (' must I present text the copula ' is ' must be supplied : There is 
 needs be') and read the verb as imperative. In our I a necessity to submit one's self.— (F.) 
 
Ch. XIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 275 
 
 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom 
 tribute is due ; custom to whom custom ; fear to whom 
 fear ; honour to whom honour. 
 
 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for 
 he that loveth another hatli fulfilled the law. 
 
 7 very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to 
 whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear 
 to whom fear ; honour to whom honour. 
 
 8 Owe no man any thing, save to love one another: 
 for he that loveth ' his neighbour hath fulfilled 2 the 
 
 1 6r. the other 2 Or, law. 
 
 suppose, but the nobler and higher function of 
 government, indicated in tlie preceding verses. 
 It is from tliis point of view that rulers are 
 said to be minL^ters of God in behalf of the 
 people. Paul in 15: IG calls himself a minis- 
 ter of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles. The word 
 in the Greek denotes a public minister. It 
 occurs elsewhere only in Phil. 2: 25; Heb. 1: 
 7; 8: 2.] 
 
 7. [Therefore is omitted in the oldest manu- 
 scripts. Render, pay fully, to all in authority 
 their dues: tribute to whom tribute is 
 due. Both nouns being in the accusative case, 
 we must render literally thus : ' paj' fully the 
 tribute to him (claiming) the tribute.' Nothing 
 was so grievous and offensive to the Jews as 
 this paying of tribute to a foreign power. A 
 "publican" or tax gatherer for Kome would 
 be a despised and hated person apart from his 
 extortions.] The distinction between 'tribute' 
 and ' custom ' is, that the former denotes taxes 
 on persons and lands, and the latter taxes [cus- 
 toms, duties] on goods or merchandise. The 
 word ' fear ' may be referred more particularly 
 to higher magistrates, and to those having more 
 direct authority over us ; and the word ' honour' 
 to all who are invested with olRce.' There is a 
 sense in which all men are to be honored, as 
 God's creatures, and our fellow creatures (i Peter 
 2: 17) ; but, over and above this, magistrates are 
 entitled to be honored for their office. This is 
 to be rendered to them as their due. It is a 
 sad and inexcusable disregard of this apostolic 
 injunction, when persons make less conscience 
 of defrauding the government than of defraud- 
 ing a neighbor. TertuUiansaj's ("Apologet.," 
 XLII.), to the honor of the early Christians, 
 that what the Romans lost by the Christians 
 refusing to bestow gifts on their temples, they 
 gained by their conscientious payment of taxes. 
 [Even our Saviour, as a loyal citizen ot a 
 heavenly and of an earthly kingdom, not onl^' 
 paid the temple tax (so most think) which was 
 demanded of him (Mau. u: 27), but his counsel 
 was : render in full to Csesar the tribute and 
 everything else which belongs to Cffsar. (Matt. 22 : 
 
 1 " The article," Winer says, " is put before the infini- 
 tive (here before oyan-ai', to love), when it is desired to 
 
 17-21 ; Luke 20 : 22, seq.) It is noticcable, howcvcr, that 
 while Paul characterizes even the civil powers 
 of heathendom as ordained of God, and urges 
 upon Christians the performance of their duties 
 to the.se powers, he yet counsels his fellow-dis- 
 ciples to settle their own disputes among them- 
 selves and not bring them before the heathen 
 tribunals, (i Cor. 6; i-s.)] It is to be noted that 
 no particular form of government is alluded 
 to here. Nothing is said about the king: the 
 terms are all general ; the ' higher powers ; ' 
 ' rulers ; ' ' God's mini.sters.' It is government, 
 not any particular form of government, that 
 the Scriptures represent as of divine authority. 
 
 Love to all men enjoined. Ver. 8-10. 
 
 [" From the duty of submission to the State, 
 Paul passes to that of justice in private rela- 
 tions" (Godet), and he again introduces the 
 subject of love, since love is an " indispensable 
 auxiliary of justice." 
 
 8. Owe no man any thing, but to love 
 one another. This maybe literally rendered : 
 Owe to no one nothing, except the loving one 
 another. The two subjective negative terms in 
 this clause, both producing in the original but 
 a single strengthened negation, show the verb 
 'owe' to be in the imperative mood.^] Leave 
 no debt undischarged, except "the undying 
 debt of love" (Bengel), "which you must al- 
 ways owe, because this alone holds the debtor 
 even after it has been discharged." (Augus- 
 tine.) [" He loves not truly who loves for the 
 purpose of ceasing from loving." (Philippi.) 
 He that loveth another. (Revised Ver.<ion, 
 margin, the other.) The last word was chosen 
 with reference to the preceding 'one another.' 
 Hath fulfilled, "the perfect tense pointing to 
 a completed and permanent act." (Ellicott.) 
 Law is without the article in the original, yet 
 that the Mosaic law is meant is evident from 
 the following verse. Paul in Gal. 5 : 14 saj's 
 that "all the law (hath been and) is fulfilled 
 in one word : Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
 thyself." See in Matt. 22: 39 what our Sav- 
 iour says respecting this commandment to love 
 our neighbor.] " The expression 'fulfilled' de- 
 make it a substantive, and thus give it greater i»romi- 
 neuce."— (F.) 
 
276 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XIII. 
 
 9 For this Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou 
 Shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal. Thou shall not bear 
 false witness, Thuu shalt not covet ; and if there be any 
 other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this 
 saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- 
 self. 
 
 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore 
 love is the fulfilling of the law. 
 
 11 And that, knowing the time, that now i7 is high 
 lime to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation 
 nearer than when we believed. 
 
 9 law. For this. Thou shall not commit adultery, 
 Thou shall not kill. Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt 
 not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it 
 is summed up in this word, namely. Thou shalt love 
 
 10 thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his 
 neighbour: love therefore is the fulfilment of i the 
 law. 
 
 11 And this, knowing the season, that now it is high 
 time for you to awake out of sleep : for now is 2 sal- 
 vation nearer to us than when we first believed. 
 
 .2 Or, our salvation jiearer than when, etc. 
 
 notes more than a simple performance ; it adds 
 a completetiess to the performance." (Web- 
 ster and Wilkinson.) [" In and with the loving 
 there has taken place what the Mosaic law pre- 
 scribes in respect of duties toward one's neigh- 
 bor, inasmuch as he who loves does not commit 
 adultery, does not kill, does not steal, does not 
 covet," etc. (Meyer.)] 
 
 9. [For this. See 8 : 26. The neuter arti- 
 cle in Greek makes all the commands which 
 follow as one .substantive, which is properly in 
 the same construction as ' any other command- 
 ment'— that is, subject of the verb ' is compre- 
 hended.' Comprehended in this saying — 
 literally, united in one head, summed up in 
 this word. See Eph. 1 : 10. Thou shalt love. 
 This command, quoted from Lev. 19: 18, is 
 also virtually made into a substantive by the 
 neuter article {ev t<?, equivalent to namely), 
 which, however, is wanting in some manu- 
 scripts. As thyself. This shows that there 
 may be a love of self which is proper, and 
 which is far removed from selfishness.'] The 
 ninth commandment, 'Thou shalt not bear 
 false witness,' is omitted in the best manu- 
 scripts. If there be any other command- 
 ment is as much as to say, " Whatsoever other 
 (different) commandment there may be." [In 
 the order of commandments here quoted, the 
 sixth follows the seventh, but see the same 
 order in Luke 18: 20 and in one manuscript 
 copy of the Septuagint. Probably Paul (and 
 so Philo) followed copies of the Seventy, which 
 had this order.] 
 
 10. Love worketh no ill to his neigh- 
 bour. [We have here a summation, in a 
 negative form, of the precedmg negative com- 
 mands. The word for ' neighbour ' (nKriaCov) is 
 properly an adverb, but is converted into a 
 noun by the use of the article. If this law of 
 Christian love should control the hearts and 
 
 lives of men, what a blessed change would at 
 once be produced in the state of society ! A 
 carrying out of the golden rule into universal 
 practice would be an infallible cure for all our 
 labor troubles and social evils.] Therefore 
 love is the fulfilling of the law. Love 
 becomes the fulfilling of the law by abstaining 
 from all that the law forbids. [The good which 
 love would do for our fellow-men is understood 
 as a matter of course. And where there is true 
 love for men, there will necessarily be love to 
 God, and an obeying of the commands of the 
 First Table. But this love of which Paul 
 speaks is an ideal love, and not that imperfect 
 love which exists among men, and which can 
 never be a ground of justification.] 
 
 General exhortation to a Christian life, en- 
 forced by the consideration that the day of 
 trial is near its close. 
 
 11. And that — And this, let us do this, 
 referring to ver. 8. Knowing the time. Let 
 the knowledge and consideration of the time 
 [special season, or opi^ortunitj'] be an additional 
 enforcement of the admonition to discharge all 
 our obligations and to cultivate love. It is 
 high time to awake [or, be aroused at once 
 from sleep. Compare Matt. 25 : 5. The Bible 
 Union renders it passively : ' Already were 
 awaked.' The word for 'high time' is simply 
 'hour,' and with this some connect the adverb 
 'already,' rather than with the verb.^] Time 
 to arouse ourselves from torpor to a more active 
 and watchful way of living — language which 
 may have been suggested by our Lord's words 
 in Matt. 24 : 42; Mark 13 : 33 ; Luke 21 : 28-36. 
 For now is our salvation nearer than 
 when we believed. The reference is to the 
 beginning of our faith (when we became be- 
 lievers), and to the end or consummation of 
 our salvation. [Meyer, De Wette, and Phil- 
 ippi render: "now is salvation nearer to us." 
 
 lOn the use of the third person {kavrov), for the second (aeavTov, which some MSS. actually exhibit), compare 
 12 : 19 ; John 12 : 8 ; 18 : 34. In Rom. 8 : 2:i, the third person is used for the first.— (F.) 
 « The uncials X * A B C P have you instead of «*.— (F.) 
 
Ch. XIIL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 277 
 
 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us I 12 The night is far spent, and the day is hand: let us 
 therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us 
 on the armour of light. I 
 
 Compare 10: 18: "The word is nigh thee." 
 But Alford, with an eye to Luke 21 : 28, prefers 
 the rendering of our Common Version. This 
 salvation, according to Prof. Stuart, is "the 
 spiritual salvation which believers were to ex- 
 perience when transferred to the world of 
 everlasting life and glory."] 
 
 12. The night is far spent [has far ad- 
 vanced. The want of connection here "adds 
 vivacity to the expression." (Boise.) The 
 metaphor of night and day in the first part of 
 the verse is carried over into the second. As 
 when we wake from sleep we lay aside the 
 garments of the night and put on the day 
 dress, so we should put off the works belonging 
 to darkness, and put on the weapons (A D E 
 read ' works ' ) appropriate to the day. In Eph. 
 6 : 11, 13, we are exhorted to put on the panoply 
 of God, the whole armor which God has pro- 
 vided for every part of the Christian's person, 
 except his back ; for, as Bunyan remarks : "The 
 Christian has no armor for his back." The 
 figure of putting on clothing, or eyiduing''- one's 
 self, is a favorite one with Paul, and the Chris- 
 tian life is by him very frequently represented 
 as a warfare. Compare 2 Cor. 10 : 4 ; Eph. 6 : 
 11, seq. ; 1 Thes.s. 5: 8, etc.] 
 
 Commentators differ very much in regard to 
 what is meant by the night and the day in this 
 verse. Some refer these words to the night of 
 adversity and Jewish persecution, and the day 
 of deliverance from this, consequent upon the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, and the breaking up 
 of Judaism as a political and persecuting power. 
 But it does not appear that the condition of 
 Christians in Rome was much affected hy this 
 event, nor does there seem to be any allusion 
 to it in the context. Another view is, that the 
 night designates the period before Christ's 
 second coming, as a time of imperfection and 
 calamity ; and the day the time of deliverance, 
 prosperity, and happiness, beginning with his 
 second advent. This view is held chiefly by 
 those who believe that Paul, and the apostles 
 g-^nerally, expected that Christ would come 
 again in their own lifetime, or, at least, within 
 a very short time — a view which we regard as 
 derogatory to their inspiration, inconsistent 
 with his express teachings, and at variance with 
 
 other intimations of Scripture. See Matt. 25 : 
 36; 2 Thess. 2:1-8; 2 Tim. 4:6-8; 2 Peter 
 1 : 13-15. [This view is also that of Meyer, 
 who holds 'the night' to be this age, the time 
 before the advent (napov<Tia), and 'the day' to 
 be the coming age, soon to be ushered in and 
 bringing salvation. De AVette thinks 'the 
 day ' corresponds to salvation, the period of 
 purity, perfection, and blessedness, which is to 
 be introduced by the coming of Christ, while 
 'the night' is "the imperfect, sinful condition 
 of this earthly life." Similarly, Godet, Phil- 
 ippi, and most interpreters.] Others under- 
 stand by 'the night' this mortal life, as being 
 to each one a period of comparative ignorance 
 and trouble, and by ' the day ' the time of each 
 Christian's deliverance from the body by death 
 and entrance into the immortal life of knowl- 
 edge, happiness, and holiness. But this view, 
 though the language, taken by itself, might 
 easily bear this sense, seems to disconnect this 
 verse too much from the preceding, which 
 seems to require a reference to some change in 
 the state of things in this present life, of which 
 they had more definite knowledge than they 
 can be supposed to have had in regard to the 
 time of their departure out of this world. [Yet 
 Godet asks: "Is not death for the individual 
 what the advent (n-apouo-ia) is for the church 
 as a whole — meeting with the Lord?" And 
 Philippi remarks that, "as respects the indi- 
 vidual, death is equivalent to his coming to 
 salvation, the resurrection from the dead equiv- 
 alent to salvation coming to him."] Another 
 view, which I regard as less objectionable than 
 either of the foregoing, and, on the whole, to 
 be preferred, is that which refers 'the night' 
 to the season of pagan ignorance, immorality, 
 and wretchedness, in which the Komans had 
 formerly been living; and 'the day' to the 
 season of Christian knowledge, purity, and 
 happiness, which had begun to dawn upon 
 them, and which was destined to grow brighter 
 and brighter. "VVe must remember that thej' 
 were living in the transition period, when the 
 light of Christianity was struggling successfully 
 with the darkness of pagan idolatry ; and al- 
 though the overthrow of Paganism, and the 
 formal establishment of Christianity under 
 
 1 The verb here used is ivSvu, to put on.— (F.) 
 
278 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XIH. 
 
 Constantine, was yet nearly three centuries in 
 the future, and was not, on other accounts, 
 such an event as an inspired apostle, if he fore- 
 saw it, could contemplate with unniingled joy, 
 yet the growing progress of Christianity and 
 decline of Paganism, which at last made that 
 formal change possible, was matter of encour- 
 agement and rejoicing to every Christian ; and 
 this moral revolution, as we learn from the 
 writings of Tertullian and other early Chris- 
 tians, had made signal progress and greatly 
 changed the moral condition of the Eoman 
 Empire long before the days of Constantine. 
 As to the great event of our Lord's advent, it 
 is certain — 
 
 1. That the apostles did not know when 
 Christ would come the second time. 
 
 2. That his coming is always drawing nearer. 
 
 3. That it may be considered as near at any 
 time, in comparison with the eternity preced- 
 ing and the eternity following it. 
 
 [Most commentators hold this ' day ' (of sal- 
 vation), of which Paul here speaks, to be our 
 Lord's personal second advent. Some charge 
 the apostle with advancing mistaken views on 
 this subject in nearly all his epistles. Olshau- 
 sen supposes that at the date of this letter he 
 had ceased to entertain such views. It seems 
 to me a matter of certainty that, if he had been 
 mistaken, he lived long enough to find out his 
 mistake, and would have been honest enough 
 to make open acknowledgment of the same. 
 Yet this he never did, and it does not seem 
 proper in us to be the first to charge him with 
 error. Others think the apostle never had 
 definite convictions as to this matter, and that, 
 as the day and the hour had never been re- 
 vealed to him, so, though he may have had 
 some expectations of our Lord's speedy return, 
 perchance during his own lifetime, yet he never 
 fully and explicitly declared himself on this 
 point. But I think his language touching this 
 matter has a positiveness and explicitness which 
 do not belong to mere conjecture, and that, if 
 he erred at all, he erred greatly, and has ex- 
 pressly declared that to be a fact which events 
 have proved to be utterly false. In our view, 
 the Scriptures speak of several diflfereut com- 
 ings or manifestations of Christ. The first, as 
 we may name it, is his coming and manifesta- 
 tion to his disciples by the Paraclete, or Helper 
 — that is, the Holy Spirit. ( Jnhn u : is, 21, 23, 28 ; le .- 
 16, 22.) The second is his coming to receive his 
 
 disciples, '*'at the termination of their labors 
 on earth" (Kipley), unto himself in his Father's 
 hou.se. (Johni4:3.) The vcrb " comc " IS here in 
 the present tense, denoting a continuous com- 
 ing, as if to take individuals to himself It 
 was in this way that he received the spirit 
 of the first Christian martyr, Stephen, and 
 this is the only way in which he has come to 
 his disciples, in order to take them to himself, 
 from that day to this. If the departure of 
 Christians from this life is to be with Christ, 
 and if their being absent from the body is to 
 be at home with the Lord, then surely they 
 are not obliged to wait until Christ's final com- 
 ing at the Judgment Day, and the bringing in 
 of the blessed resurrection state, before he will 
 receive them to himself! The third we may 
 mention is the coming of the Son of man in his 
 kingdom, or the coming of his kingdom, which 
 indeed is the only advent of which our Saviour 
 spoke. This coming is said to be on and in the 
 clouds of heaven, with great power and glory, 
 with attendant angels and with a great sound 
 of a trumpet. And one purpose of this com- 
 ing was to gather together his elect from the 
 four winds, or in other words to eff'ect the de- 
 liverance or "redemption" of his people. The 
 time of this coming is fixed beyond dispute. 
 If we believe the Saviour' words, we must be- 
 lieve that it happened before the generation in 
 which he lived had passed away, and that 
 "some" whom our Saviour addressed lived to 
 see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. 
 
 (Matt. 24:34; 16:28; 10:23; 26:64.) Whether this COm- 
 
 ing had reference solely to the destruction of 
 Jerusalem and the abrogation of the Jewish 
 economy, with the consequent setting up of the 
 world-wide Messianic kingdom, or whether, 
 including this, it also took in the events which 
 transpired at and subsequent to the Day of 
 Pentecost, we need not now endeavor to deter- 
 mine. We would only remark that the com- 
 ings of Christ, now referred to, were imper- 
 sonal, and that as the first mentioned was an 
 actual experience of the apostle, so the remain- 
 ing two might be looked for by him as being 
 at any time literally near at hand. The apos- 
 tle in 2 Thess. 2 : 3-8 seems to speak of a spe- 
 cial apostasy which should happen in the 
 future, a revelation and coming of the lawless 
 one, the man of sin, the son of perdition, com- 
 monly regarded as Anti-Chri.st, whom the 
 Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his 
 
Ch. XIII.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 279 
 
 mouth and bring to nought by the manifesta- 
 tion of his coming. And as the occasion and 
 purpose of this coming seem to be special and 
 limited, so many (as Edwards, David Brown, 
 and others) regard this as a special and imper- 
 • sonal coming of Christ, and hence different 
 from h\s second personal advent, his final com- 
 ing, which is to bring an end to this age and 
 this Dispensation of Grace, to change the liv- 
 ing, to raise the just and unjust dead, to judge 
 the world of mankind, and to take all his ran- 
 somed ones "in clouds," " into the air," up to 
 heaven, to be ivith him forever. The question 
 now is, did Paul affirm or expect that this sec- 
 ond personal coming of Christ would or might 
 happen in his own lifetime? To this question 
 ■we say, emphatically. No. When he says to the 
 Corinthians, literally. We all shall not sleep, 
 such scholars as Winer and Meyer do, indeed 
 suppose it necessarily equivalent to saying; 
 "None of us who are now living are going to 
 die; we shall all live to the time of the advent, 
 and then shall be changed." There is, how- 
 ever, no necessity, even in the expression itself, 
 for this interpretation. See Buttmann, p. 121. 
 Besides, Paul elsewhere in his Epistles to the 
 Corinthians speaks of himself and others as 
 living and dying and being raised from the 
 dead, just as we do of ourselves. See 1 Cor. 
 6: 14; 11: 30; 15: 31; 2 Cor. 4: 14; 1: 8, etc. 
 De Wette well saj's in substance that an exe- 
 gete may charge the apostle with a false 
 l)rophecy, but not with one that contradicts 
 himself The expressions: "We who are 
 alive and remain," " IKe shall all be changed," 
 etc., therefore prove nothing on this point, or 
 at least are more than counterbalanced by the 
 many repeated affirmations and intimations 
 that death would befall himself and his read- 
 ers, and that their mortal bodies would be 
 quickened (see 8: 11) and they be raised up 
 with Jesus and through his power. Com- 
 pare with notes on 2: 5. See how after 
 a few verses more (u:7, 8) he speaks to the 
 Roman disciples of living and dying, as their 
 common lot, in precisely the same iiianner as 
 we do. Compare Phil. 1: 20; 2: 17; 2 Cor. 
 7 : 3. We have also noticed some of the great 
 events which, according to this apostle, are to 
 occur before the "end" : the bringing in of 
 the fullness or the great mass of the Gentiles, 
 the conversion of all Israel, the consequent 
 general awakening of the Gentile world to a 
 
 new spiritual life — life from the dead — and 
 then, perhaps, the "falling away," and the 
 'perilous times,' etc. Surely this apostle did 
 not imagine that all this would happen in a 
 few months or years. According to the theory 
 which some advocate, we should suppose the 
 "men of Galilee," or Christ's apostles and dis- 
 ciples, who stood looking up into heaven to 
 catch a glimpse of their ascended Lord, were 
 assured that ihey should see this Jesus coming 
 in like manner as they beheld him going into 
 heaven. (aois1:ii.) But instead of this, one 
 of these Galilean men, not many days after- 
 ward, declared that the heaven must receive 
 (and retain) this Jesus " until the times of res- 
 toration of all things," until "primeval order, 
 purity, and happiness" shall be re-established 
 throughout the earth. Manj' expressions in 
 Paul's last letter (sTim.), at the date of whose 
 writing the time of the apostle's departure by 
 a violent death had come, would, if found in 
 his earlier epistles, be thought by some to in- 
 dicate his expectation of living to see his 
 Lord's return. We refer to such expressions 
 as loving Christ's appearing, giving charge by 
 his appearing and kingdom, being saved unto 
 his heavenly kingdom, his giving to Paul the 
 crown of righteousness at that day, and his 
 guarding the apostle's deposit against that day, 
 etc. Now the indefinite "day" of our verse, 
 unlike "that day," of which he speaks to 
 Timothy, is not connected with any appearing, 
 advent, or revelation of our Lord. Throughout 
 this Epistle the apostle is wholly silent in regard 
 to these things, and we doubt whether the 
 Roman Christians were so familiar with the 
 idea of Christ's speedy coming in the flesh that 
 they would readily connect this undefined day 
 with that event. 'The day ' of this chapter is 
 connected by its context with the doing of 
 one's duty as citizens and members of society, 
 the duty of obeying magistrates, paying trib- 
 ute, honoring and loving all men, walking 
 becomingly in the world, and mortifying the 
 deeds of the flesh. The saints in Rome kneio 
 that they, in common with mankind in general, 
 were entering upon a bright " da3' of Cliristian 
 knowledge, purity, and happiness." They also 
 kneio that life was but a vapor, and that the 
 day of "their deliverance from this present 
 evil world, and introduction into the purity 
 and blessedness of heaven" (Hodge), was at 
 hand, and that in this sense (which many sup- 
 
280 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XIII. 
 
 13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day ; not in rioting 
 and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, 
 not in strife and envying: 
 
 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not 
 provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. 
 
 13 put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as 
 in the day ; not in revelling and drunkenness, not 
 in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and 
 
 14 jealousy. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts 
 Ikereof. 
 
 pose to be the right one) their salvation was 
 nearer than when they first believed. There 
 are those, however, who believe that the apostle 
 and other New Testament writers, while labor- 
 ing under no mistaken view, may at times have 
 referred even to Christ's second personal com- 
 ing as being near, since it was practically coin- 
 cident with the day of death (Ellicott), since 
 it was always near to their feelings and con- 
 sciousness (Hackett), since it was, and is, near, 
 as compared with ages past, and since it was, 
 and is, the next great event and glorious con- 
 summation of God's eternal plan of redemp- 
 tion.] 
 
 13. Let us walk. [With ethical reference, 
 nearly equivalent to live. This verb, like the 
 two immediately preceding, is in the so-called 
 hortatory subjunctive.] The word translated 
 'honestly' [from an adjective which means 
 we'll formed, graceful, becoming], is the same 
 that is translated "decently" in 1 Cor. 14: 40. 
 It means 'becomingly,' in a manner suited to 
 the purity and dignity of the Christian profes- 
 sion. [As in the day — in the full light of 
 day, Avhen one avoids unbecoming behavior. 
 There is here a latent reference to a previous 
 walking in darkness.] Not in rioting and 
 drunkenness, etc. These words explain the 
 works of darkness named in the preceding 
 verse. Three classes of such works are men- 
 tioned — intemperance, impurity, and discord ; 
 and each is described by two words.* The 
 word translated 'rioting' ('reveling,' see Gal. 
 5: 21, and 1 Peter 4: 3) refers to such disor- 
 derly carousing as characterized the festivals 
 of Bacchus. [Godet says: " The works of 
 night are enumerated in pairs: First, sensu- 
 ality in the forms of eating and drinking; 
 then impurity, those of brutal libertinism and 
 wanton lightness; finallj^ the passions which 
 break out either in personal disputes or party 
 quarrels. This last term seems to me to ex- 
 press the meaning of the word (^^Ao?) in this 
 passage better than the translation, jealousy., 
 or envy." Meyer contends {or jealousy as the 
 proper meaning of this last term ; Fritzsche 
 and Philippi for wrath or anger. The first 
 
 four Avords (rendered by Prof. Boise, "ca-» 
 rousals, intoxications, licentious acts, debauch- 
 eries") are in the plural number, which here 
 "denotes the various expressions, evidences, 
 outbreaks, concrete manifestations, generally, 
 of the quality expressed by the singular." 
 Other, and more extended lists of the works 
 of darkness, or of the flesh, are given in Gal. 
 5: 19; 2 Cor. 12: 20, 21.] 
 
 14. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 [The j)utting on, or clothing ourselves with, 
 another person, "is a strong expression, denot- 
 ing the complete assumption of the nature, etc., 
 of another" (Ellicott); in other words, the 
 most intimate spiritual union and appropriation, 
 such as is indicated by our baptism into Christ. 
 (Gal. 3: 27.) If in the sight of God we bear the 
 name and person of Christ we are reckoned 
 more in him than in ourselves. (Calvin.) This 
 command of the apostle, to put on Christ, is 
 addressed to those who had already clothed 
 themselves with Christ in baptism.] " Christ 
 put on man in nature and condition : man 
 should put on Christ in disposition and charac- 
 ter. He became partaker of our physical nature. 
 "We should become partakers of his moral na- 
 ture. Christ put on man, that man might put 
 on Christ." (J. Brown.) This is the robe, not 
 of justification, but of sanctification or personal 
 holiness. 
 
 "The robe of righteousness which Christ 
 gives us is a 7nedicated robe, which cures the 
 sores which it covers, which heals while it 
 hides." (Alexander de Stourdza.) This word, 
 put on, is elsewhere used with reference to the 
 moral disposition of our Lord, and the Christian 
 virtues and graces. See Gal. 3: 27; Eph. 4: 
 24; Col. 3: 10, 12; 1 Peter 5: 5. Make not 
 provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts 
 thereof. Take not any forethought for the 
 flesh (for corrupt human nature) to fulfill its 
 lusts ; [literally, with reference to lusts. Noyes 
 gives this rendering : ' ' Think not about satisfy- 
 ing the lusts of the flesh." ' Flesh ' and ' lusts' 
 are in the original made emphatic by position. 
 The flesh here is not regarded as that which is 
 wholly impure and which should be "cruci- 
 
 1 All these words are iu the dative of manner.— (F.) 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 281 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 H 
 
 IM that is weak in the faith receive ye, bul not to 1 
 doubtful disputations. I 
 
 1 But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yei not to 
 
 fied " (Gal. 5: 2<) ; and hence the apostle does not 
 absolutely forbid all care for the flesh. We 
 may provide for the flesh, but not for the excit- 
 ing and gratifying of its lusts. We owe a duty 
 to our bodies which, though the seat of unlawful 
 desires, are yet consecrated to God as temples 
 of his Spirit, and consequently we owe a duty 
 to the flesh, the living material of which these 
 bodies are composed.] This passage, beginnmg 
 with ver. 11, was the means of awakening 
 Augustine, and of his conversion from a dis- 
 solute to a holy life : 
 
 ["I flung myself down, how, J know not, 
 under a certain fig-tree, giving free course to 
 my tears, and the streams of mine eyes gushed 
 out, an acceptable sacrifice unto thee. ... I 
 sent up these sorrowful cries : ' How long, how 
 long? To-morrow, and to-morrow? Why 
 not now ? Why is there not this hour an end 
 to mine uncleanness ? ' 
 
 " I was saying these things and weeping in 
 the most bitter contrition of my heart, when, 
 lo, I heard the voice, as of a boy or girl, I 
 know not which, coming from a neighboring 
 house, chanting, and oft repeating, ' toUe, lege ; 
 tolle lege,' 'take up and read, take up and 
 read.' Immediately my countenance was 
 changed and I began most earnestly to consider 
 whether it was usual for children in any kind 
 of game to sing such words: nor could I 
 remember ever to have heard the like. So 
 restraining the torrent of my tears, I rose up, 
 interpreting it no other way than as a com- 
 mand to me from heaven to open the book and 
 to read the first chapter I should light upon. 
 .... I grasped, opened (the volume of the 
 apostles), and in silence read that paragraph on 
 which my eyes first fell, — ' Not in rioting and 
 drunkenness, not in chambering and wanton- 
 ness, not in strife and envying, but i3Ut ye on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ and make not provision 
 for the fiesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof No 
 further would I read, nor did I need; for 
 instantly, as the sentence ended — by a light, as 
 it were, of security infused into my heart — all 
 the gloom of doubt vanished away." (Augus- 
 tine's "Confessions," VIII. 12, 28, 29.)] 
 
 Ch. 14 : Duties toward Christian brethren, 
 especially toward those who are weak and 
 over-scrupulous. [" Behavior as to things mor- 
 ally indiflerent." (Olshausen. ) "A practical 
 application of the law of love." (Godet. )] 
 
 1. Him that is weak in the faith.i One 
 who is weak in the faith is not so fully con- 
 firmed in the gospel doctrine [or, "in moral 
 conviction and feeling" (De Wette)] as to be 
 free from all Jewish scruples in regard to dis- 
 tinctions of days and meats. Aside from the 
 Jewish rules in regard to the prohibition of 
 certain kinds of animal food, some Jewish 
 Christians had scruples about eating meat or 
 drinking wine at all in foreign lands, fearing 
 lest they should incur defilement by eating or 
 drinking what had been ofl'ered to idols. So 
 they practiced a conscientious asceticism. 
 Compare Dan. 1:8. [Also 1 Cor. 8:7; 10: 
 25, seq. ; Acts 15 : 29. Pharisaic scrupulosity 
 in regard to defilement is noticed in Mark 7:4; 
 Acts 10 : 28. The question of meats and drinks, 
 and ceremonial defilement and observance 
 of days, must often have agitated the early 
 churches. Compare with passages already 
 cited. Col. 2 : 16-23 ; 1 Tim. 4:3; Heb. 9 : 10; 
 13 : 9. These matters, and especially the ques- 
 tion of the use or non-use of the Mosaic ordi' 
 nances, shook the Apostolic Church to its very 
 foundations, and never since has the stability 
 of the Church of Christ been threatened by 
 questions so diflficult and momentous. Who 
 can tell how much the Christian Church owes 
 to the influence of the Apostle Paul in settling 
 these important matters? Who can tell how 
 changed the history of the church would have 
 been if Saul of Tarsus had never been "sepa- 
 rated unto the gospel of God"?] Receive 
 ye — or, take to your hearts in brotherly fel- 
 lowship — but not to doubtful disputations^ 
 not to discrimination of thoughts, or to dispute 
 about his scruples ["not unto discussions of 
 opinions." (Boise.) Note here that the im- 
 perative, as usual, is accompanied by the sub- 
 jective negative in the original.] A different 
 class of persons is here had in view from those 
 Judaizers opposed in the Epistle to the Gala- 
 
 1 A masculine noun or participle in the singular, with 
 the article, often denotes a whole class. Possibly the 
 participle here used does not denote so permanent a 
 
 weakness as the adjective would have done. The tran- 
 sitional St (but), leading over from a general to a special 
 case, is not noticed in our Common Version, — (F.) 
 
282 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 tCH. XIV. 
 
 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: 
 another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 
 
 a Let not hira that eateth despise him that eateth not ; 
 and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth ; 
 for God hath received him. 
 
 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? 
 to his own master he standeth or falleth ; yea, he shall 
 be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 
 
 2 'doubtful disputations. One man hath faith to eat 
 
 3 all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs. Let 
 not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth 
 not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that 
 
 4 eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou 
 that judgest the 2 servant of another? to his own lord 
 he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to 
 stand ; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. 
 
 1 Or, /or decisions of doubts^ 
 
 .2 Gr. household servant. 
 
 tians, and also from the ascetics rebuked in 
 Col. 2 : 20-23. [Compare 1 Tim. 4:3. It is 
 "we who are strong" who ought to bear the 
 infirmities of the weak (i5:i), and refrain from 
 disputatious criticisms of our weaker brethren. 
 The word ' thoughts ' is, at least with adjuncts, 
 always used in an ill sense in the New Testa- 
 ment. See 1:21.] 
 
 2. For one [the 'strong'] believeth that 
 he may eat (hath faith to eat) all things 
 (even such things as are considered by some 
 unclean): another, who is weak, etc.^ This 
 verse explains what is meant by ' weak in the 
 faith' in ver. 1. One who is clear and settled 
 in his persuasions has confidence to eat any- 
 thing eatable, whether ' flesh ' or anything 
 'not unclean of itself that is set before him. 
 Another, who is timid and scrupulous, confines 
 himself to a vegetable diet. [It is stated in 
 Josephus' "Life," § 3, that certain Jewish 
 priests, imprisoned at Kome, not forgetful of 
 piety toward God, "subsisted on figs and nuts." 
 And Jewish Christians at Kome would natur- 
 ally have like conscientious scruples in regard 
 to eating anything which was "common or 
 unclean," or, in fact, anything prepared by 
 Gentile hands. Compare Dan. 1 : 8-16 ; Tobit 
 1 : 10-12. The apostle, who reckons himself 
 among the 'strong,' treats these weaker, yet 
 conscientious brethren, with great mildness, 
 since they had not relaxed their hold on Christ, 
 and hence proceeds next to "recommend mu- 
 tual forbearance, on the principle that each one 
 serves the Lord according to his own convic- 
 tion." (De Wette. ) Paul's counsel here by 
 no means warrants a church to receive as a 
 Christian brother and fellow-member one whose 
 religious faith or practice is seriously defective.] 
 
 3. Let not him that eateth, etc. Note 
 how well chosen the words are. The eater, in 
 his own convictions, would be in danger of 
 despising [literally, setting at nought] the ab- 
 
 stainer as weakminded ; the abstainer, cautious 
 and timid, would be in danger of condemning 
 the eater as too bold.^ Note, also, how the 
 apostle incidentally sides with the eater in the 
 last clause, for the pronoun ' him ' grammatic- 
 ally refers to the eater, though applicable, so 
 far as the truth is concerned, to the abstainer 
 also. The same thing may be observed in the 
 next verse, where the same pronoun has the 
 same grammatical reference. For God hath 
 received him — hath accepted and acknowl- 
 edged him as his true servant. 
 
 4. Who art thou that judgest another 
 man's servant? It is none of thy business to 
 pass a condemnatory judgment on another's 
 servant. [Away with such "presumptuous in- 
 termeddling! " The 'thou' by its position is 
 very emphatic. This household servant (see 
 margin of Revised Version) was, in many cases, 
 regarded as a member of the family. The par- 
 ticiple (one judging) stands here, as often in 
 the New Testament, in place of a relative 
 clause.] To his own master— that is, to 
 Christ, as appears from ver. 7, 8. [This ' mas- 
 ter ' is the ' another ' of the preceding sentence. 
 To this master alone does it belong to acquit or 
 condemn his servant. And how comforting 
 is the thought, when we perchance hear of 
 alleged inconsistencies or misconduct of a pro- 
 fessed servant of Christ, and feel it impossible 
 to know and rightly judge all the circumstances 
 of the case, that we are not to be his judge, but 
 that to his own Master he standeth or falleth.] 
 Standeth or falleth — that is, stands in or falls 
 from his position as an accepted Christian, with- 
 out any direct reference to the final judgment. 
 God is able to make him stand. Willing- 
 ness seems to be implied in this affirmation of 
 ability, as in 11 : 23. [The Revision text has 
 here the adjective 'able' instead of the verb, 
 and reads : The Lord is able, etc. He is able 
 to support the (strong) believer whom the weak 
 
 1 Instead of a corresponding another (o? Se), as in ver. 
 5, we have here the article with the participle — literally, 
 he who is weak. — (F.) 
 
 8 The phrase, the non-eating one, refers to a 
 class; hence the negative f*^. — (F.) 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 283 
 
 5 One man csteemeth one day above another: another 
 esteeiueth every day <ilike. Let every man be fully \^t- 
 suaded in his own mind. 
 
 5 One man esteenielh one day above another: another 
 esteemeth every day alike. Lei each man be fully 
 
 one judges. Ferhiips, however, the judging is 
 here, as a general term, i)redicated of the strong 
 as well as the weak.] The ajjostlc now passes 
 to another point, on whieh the difterence of the 
 strong and weak required the ai)plieation of 
 the same principles of mutual forbearance and 
 charity. 
 
 5. One man (the weak) esteemeth one 
 day above another, etc.— [literally, judgeth 
 day beyond day, not alternate days, us would 
 be the meaning in the classics, but one day 
 more holy than another, while another es- 
 teemeth (judgeth) every day (holy). On 
 the use of the relative instead of the article, 
 for ' one ' and ' another,' see 9 : 21.] The word 
 alike is not expressed in the Greek, but this, 
 or some similar expression, is needed in Eng- 
 lish to make the sense plain. One man regards 
 the Jewish festival days as more sacred than 
 other days; another man makes no such dis- 
 crimination. Let every one act on this subject 
 according to his own settled conviction. [From 
 Paul's language here, and in Gal. 4: 10; Col. 
 2: 10, some, as Alford, have inferred that the 
 
 » It is objected by some that we do not oliserve the 
 command of God if we keep the fii-st day of the week 
 instead of the seventh. But the command says nothing 
 about the seventh day o/ the week, much less does it en- 
 join on us the keeping of the seventh day of the week 
 as the week is now reckoned. Little is said about the 
 week during the long Patriarchal Dispensation of 
 twenty-tive hundred years, and nothing is said directly 
 of the Sabbath till we reach the time of Moses. There 
 is no certain evidence that among the ancient nations 
 which adopted the weekly division of time, the days of 
 the week everywhere corresponded to each other, nor is 
 there any proof that the weeks and the Sab1)aths have 
 come down to us from man's creation in regular succes- 
 sion and order. No one can now tell for certain which 
 is the exact memorial day of (iod's seventh day rest. 
 The command is, Remember the day of rest to keep it 
 holy, and we certainly remember it on the Lord's Day. 
 We are next commanded to labor six days, and this we 
 do, or should do, it being as much of a command as any 
 other. And after six days of toil we are commanded to 
 rest on the seventh, or keep it as " a Sabbath," and this 
 connuand we obey to the letter. The mere calling of 
 our Christian Sabbath or Sunday the first day of the 
 week does not in the least militate against or affect the 
 strictest, most literal observance of the fourth com- 
 mandment. And we cannot conceive it to be a crime if 
 the Sabbatarian, having observed as sacred the forenoon 
 of his Snliiriiiiy Sabbath on the east side of the day line 
 iu the Pacific Ocean, should just remove a hair's breadth 
 
 apostle regarded all days as alike common, and 
 that " Sabbatical obligation to keep any day, 
 whether seventh or first, was not recognized in 
 apostolic times." I conceive it, however, an 
 impossibility that a converted, believing Jew, 
 of that age, in the absence of any express, au- 
 thoritative repealing act, could come to regard 
 his historical sjicred Sabbath, "the Sabbath of 
 Jehovah," as a common day, and its observ- 
 ance as a matter of inditference. The weekly 
 Sabbath of the Jews was distinguished from 
 all other of their festival days in that its name 
 was written by the linger of God in the fourth 
 commandment, and we, as Christian believers, 
 must at least recognize in that command some 
 essential fundamental jmnciple that is binding 
 on us and on all God's rational creatures. The 
 Sabbath was made for man and therefore for 
 Christians, and we believe that for Christians 
 there remain the ten commandments, and that 
 for them there remains, in a literal sense, a 
 Sabbcitismofi, the keeping of a Sabbath. i Elli- 
 cott says: "The assertion of Alford cannot be 
 substantiated. The Sabbath of the Jews, as 
 
 and finish his Sabbath observance by keeping the after- 
 noon of Svndnij, the so-called first day of the week, oa 
 the west side of the line. But granting that the sacred 
 day has been changed, have the great body of Christians 
 thereby become violators of God's command? No one 
 will claim that the Sabbath law, as given and enforced 
 by Moses, is binding in its literal exactness. Even the 
 strictest Sabbatarian obeys it, but in part and only so 
 far as he thinks it accordant with the Christian system 
 and spirit. The only question which on this subject di- 
 vides Christian Inilievers is, how much of the Sabbath 
 law of the older dispensation shall we, under the teach- 
 ings and example of Christ, transfer to the new? The 
 Sabbath was made for man, for all men, at all times, and 
 eveiywhere. Hence, there is something in the Sabbath 
 commandment which has a perpetual and universal 
 binding force, some essential princii>le which can and 
 should, always and everywhere, by all classes of men, 
 by travelers abroad as well as by dwellers at home, be 
 carried out into practice. This fundamental and uni- 
 versal principle is that a seventh part of our time should 
 be weekly and statedly kept as specially sacred to Jeho- 
 vah. We contend therefore that Christians who sacredly 
 observe the first day of the week, the resurrection day 
 of our Lord, as their Sabbath, and as the memorial day 
 Iwth of finished creation and finished redemption, are 
 not chargeable with violating the fourth command- 
 ment, but that they do keep it, if not with the closest 
 literalism, yet most certainly in spirit and substance.— 
 (F.) 
 
284 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 6 He tliat rt'gardelh the day, regardeth it unto the 
 Lord; and he that legaidetli not the day, to the Lord 
 he doth not regard //. He that eateth, eateth to the 
 I^)rd, for he giveth (iod thanks; and he that eateth not, 
 to the Ix>rd lie eatetli not, and giveth (iod thanks. 
 
 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no niau dieth 
 to himself. 
 
 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and 
 ■whether we die, we die unto the Lord : whether we live 
 therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 
 
 6 assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the 
 day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that eateth, 
 eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and 
 he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, aiul 
 
 7 giveth (jod thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, 
 
 8 and none dielh to himself. For whether we live, we 
 live unto the I>ord ; or whether we die, we die unto 
 the Lord : whether we live therefore, or die, we are 
 
 involving otlier than mere national feniinis- 
 cenccs (with Deut. 5: 15 contrast E.xod. 20: 11) 
 was a shadow of the Lord's Day. That a 
 weekly seventh part of our time should be spe- 
 ciiilly given up to God rests on considerations 
 as old as creation, and that that seventh portion 
 of the week should be the first day rests on 
 ai)ostolical and jierhaps inferentially (its the 
 Lord's appearances on that day seem to show) 
 divine usage and appointment." ' The verb 
 fully persuaded we have had in 4: 21. The 
 apostle is here speaking of things in them- 
 selves morally indiflerent. Though one of the 
 'strong,' he does not command the weaker 
 brethren to eat all things, or to esteem all da^'s 
 alike, but he leaves these adiapJiora, or things 
 indifferent, to each man's judgment and con- 
 science. Yet if a weak brother is convinced 
 that he ought not to eat anything common or 
 unclean, and is grieved and made to stumble 
 at the conduct of the strong brother who deems 
 nothing to be unclean in itself, then this strong 
 one, as we shall see, is counselled to yield a 
 point of indifference out of regard to the con- 
 victions of the weaker brother, that he may 
 not for the mere matter of food destroy him for 
 whom ChrLstdied. See in 1 Cor. 6: 12; 9: 22; 
 10: 23, how Paul exemplified his own precept.] 
 6. The second clause of this verse — he that 
 regardeth not the day, etc.— is undoubtedly 
 spurious. It has very slender support from the 
 manuscripts (none from the oldest), and how- 
 ever true that maj' be which it affirms, it ought 
 not to be regarded as a genuine part of Paul's 
 letter. [He that eateth not (that is, of cer- 
 tain kinds of food), to the Lord he eateth 
 not, and giveth God thanks (that is, for 
 those kinds of food which he does eat). It is 
 " for the Lord thsit he refrains from the eating 
 (of flesh), persuaded that this abstinence tends 
 to serve the interest of Christ." (Meyer. )]= 
 
 There is no reason to regard what is said in 
 these two verses, the fifth and the si.vth, as 
 having any reference to the first day of the 
 week. We know that the practice of the 
 earlier Christians differed as to the observance 
 of the festival daj's of the Jews. We have Jio 
 evidence that tiny Christians, in the days of 
 the iipostles, neglected to observe the first day 
 of the week as the festival of Christ's resur- 
 rection. The word Sabbath, in Col. 2: 16, and, 
 in fact, wherever it is used in the New Testa- 
 ment, refers to the Jewisb Sabbath, the seventh 
 da3' of the week. The first day of the week js 
 never called by that name. The latter i)art of 
 this verse establishes the fact, attested also by 
 other evidence, that the primitive Christians 
 were accustomed to give thanks to God at their 
 daily meals. [For Scripture examples, see 
 Matt. 15: 36; 20: 26; Acts 27: 35; 1 Cor. 10: 
 30; 11: 24; 1 Tim. 4: 4. Paul, however, may 
 not here refer exclusively to the giving of 
 thanks at table.] It would be well if all Chris- 
 tians at the present day would observe this 
 good custom, as well as follow the wise and 
 conciliatory counsels of the apostle in regard 
 to censuring one another for differences in things 
 neither obligatory nor sinful. The apostle now 
 proceeds to give good reasons why we should 
 neither judge nor despise one another on ac- 
 account of such differences. 
 
 7, 8. These verses contain a reason why we 
 should not, in judging the conduct of our 
 fellow-disciples, follow our natural impulses, 
 but practice self-control, and subordinate all 
 our conduct to the will and glory of Christ, 
 whose we are, whether living or dying. [For 
 none of us liveth to himself, etc. This is 
 true, indeed, of our human relationship. Every 
 one, no matter how low his standing, or isolated 
 in society, exerts some influence, and mxist 
 exert some influence for good or evil over 
 
 'For passages where the "first day of the week "is | 11,1-5; also the Article Pentecost, note b, in Smith's 
 expressly mentioned, see Matt. 28: 1 ; Mark 16: 29 ; Luke I " Bible Dictionary."— (F.) 
 
 2-1:1; John 20:19(26); Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 16:2. Some 2 N^tg i,g,.g ^jjg j,j.e in the original of the two different 
 have supposed the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit negatives (iu.>), ou/c). — (F.) 
 occurred also on the first day of the week. See Lev. 23: I 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 285 
 
 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and 
 revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and 
 living. 
 
 lU But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost 
 thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand 
 before the judgment seat of Christ. 
 
 11 For it is written, As 1 U%e, saith the Lord, every 
 
 9 the Lord's. For to this end Christ died, and lived 
 aijaiii, that he might be Lord of both the dead and 
 
 10 the living. 15ul thou, why dost ihou judge thy 
 brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at uought 
 thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judg- 
 
 11 ment-seat of (jod. For it is written. 
 
 others. But the apostle here has especially 
 our divine relationship in mind, and asserts 
 that we are the Lord's, and are living, not for 
 ourselves, but for his service and glory. Our 
 whole earthly existence, our life and death 
 even, is a service for our sole Lord and Master. 
 "Neither life nor death can make us cease to 
 be his." (Jowett.) And how comforting the 
 thought that, while we cannot do many things, 
 or any great things, for God, we can serve him 
 in little things in all our daily acts, when we 
 toil with our minds or toil with our hands, and 
 earn our bread with the sweat of our brow — 
 yea, "whether we eat or drink, or rohatever 
 we do," we can do all to the glory of God ! If 
 we live, or if we die, we belong to Christ, and 
 serve him. The reader may perhaps recollect 
 that the words of this last verse form the in- 
 scription on Meyer's tombstone.] Dr. Malan, 
 in one of his excellent tracts, speaks of death 
 as an act of the Cliristian, his last earthly 
 act of obedience to his Divine Master. He 
 does not have his spirit torn from him against 
 his will and in spite of his resistance, but he 
 yields up his spirit at the divine summons, as 
 did Christ himself. (Luke23: 46.)i 
 
 9. For to this end Christ both died, etc. 
 The words ' and rose ' should be omitted, as 
 not belonging to the original text, according to 
 the testimony of the best manuscripts. They 
 add nothing to what is expressed by the other 
 words of the passage. [Omit, also, 'both,' and 
 read : Christ died and revived, or became 
 alive. "The aorist often denotes the entrance 
 into a state or condition." (Boise.) To this 
 end refers to the final clause of the verse. 
 The dead and living. The order of these 
 words, the reverse of the usual one, is made to 
 correspond with the preceding verbs, died and 
 lived. "Christ's dominion over the dead re- 
 futes the notion of the insensibility of the soul 
 while the body is in the grave." (Bengel.) 
 
 God is not the God of the non-existent, nor of 
 the unconscious dead, but of the living ; for 
 all live (not merely exist) unto him. ( Luke 20 : 38.) 
 And so the apostle says, " whether we wake or 
 sleep," whether we live or die, "we should 
 live together with (or united with) him." 
 (1 Thess. 5: 10.) Paul thus plainly teaches us that 
 death places the Christian with Christ (com- 
 pare 2 Cor. .5:8; Phil. 1 : 2.3) ; and so he may 
 well call death a gain. (Phu. 1:21.) Yet the 
 Christian may not experience the fullest bless- 
 edness until after the resurrrection and the 
 judgment.] 
 
 10, 11. The main subject is now resumed 
 from ver. 3, and two cogent reasons are given 
 why we should not judge nor despise our 
 brother : First, because he is our brother, and 
 second, because God will judge him. [The 
 Revised Version gives the force of the original, 
 which shows that the questions are directed to 
 ditlerent individuals — the first one to the weaker 
 in faith, the second to the stronger. We shall 
 all stand. Those who judge and set at nought, 
 and those who are judged and are set at nought. 
 "Note how decisive is the testimony of such 
 passages against any limitation of the univer- 
 sality of the final judgment." (Meyer.)] The 
 judgment seat of Christ. [This reading is 
 defended by Tholuck, De Wette, and Phil- 
 ippi.] It should, however, be, the judgmeid 
 seat of Ood. The reading of all the best manu- 
 scripts puts this matter beyond question. And 
 it is just as unquestionable that in 2 Cor. 5 : 10, 
 "we must all appear before the judgment seat 
 of Christ," is the true and undisputed reading. 
 (Compare Matt. 2.5: 31.) These passages are 
 not contradictory. They are both combined 
 and reconciled in Rom. 2: 16. [Christ, as the 
 glorified Son of man, will sit in judgment as 
 God's representative.] 
 
 11. For it is written in Isa. 45: 23. This lan- 
 guage, which is here represented as spoken by 
 
 1 According to John 21 : 19, we can glorify God even I "uniting the clauses in closer logical connection,'' then 
 by the manner or kind of our death. Several MSS. I says: "Our union with Christ in life and death, and 
 
 give the indicative, rather than the subjunctive, form 
 after eai" («i — o.v), if, or, whether: but that mood, after 
 this particle, is exceedingly rare. Prof. Boise, after 
 calling attention to the oft-recurring ri of ver. 8, 
 
 his entire ownership, could hardly be expressed in 
 stronger language. Note the emphatic repetition of the 
 word Lord."— (F.) 
 
286 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to 
 Ood. 
 
 12 So then every one of us shall give account of him- 
 eelf to God. 
 
 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more : 
 but judge this rather, that no man put astumblingblock 
 or an occasion to fall in kis brother's way. 
 
 As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall 
 
 bow, 
 And every tongue shall ^ confess to God. 
 
 12 So then each one of us shall give account of himself 
 to God. 
 
 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: 
 but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stum- 
 bling-block in his brother's way, or an occasion of 
 
 1 Or, give praise. 
 
 the Lord (Jehovah, in the Hebrew of Isaiah, 
 sqe ver. 19, 21, 25), is plainly applied to Christ in 
 Phil. 2: 10, 11, thus agreeing with 2 Cor. 5: 
 10, and also other passages of inspired Scripture, 
 in representing Christ as the final Judge of 
 men, and identifying him with the supreme 
 Jehovah of the Old Testament. [The original 
 of the quotation has: "I have sworn by niy- 
 self," instead of, ' as I live,' " and, every tongue 
 shall swear," instead of, 'shall confess.' Paul 
 here varies both from the Hebrew and most 
 copies of the LXX. The words "saith the 
 Lord " are added by himself. "With the use of 
 that (oTi) after solemn asseverations, a verb like 
 aver is understood. The verb ' confess ' is 
 used in James 5 : 16 of confession of sins, but 
 here it denotes to render praise, or to do 
 homage, whether it comes from the heart or 
 not. As is shown in the next verse, each one's 
 giving an acccwnt of himself to God is a con- 
 fession made to him. So in Phil. 2: 10, 11, we 
 are taught that in the name of Jesus every 
 knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess 
 that Jesus Christ is Lord. Yet this does not 
 prove the truth of universal salvation. All the 
 enemies of Christ, his betrayers, his earthly 
 judges, — Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, — his mur- 
 derers, will give account of themselves at 
 Christ's judgment seat, and by this act a'.one 
 they will confess that he is Lord, and will thus 
 do homage in and to his name.] 
 
 12. So then every one of us shall give 
 account of himself to God. The context, 
 both preceding and succeeding, seems to re- 
 quire a distinct emphasis on the words 'of 
 himself,' with an almost equal stress on the last 
 words, 'to God.' [Looking at the verse itself 
 'every (or, each) one' {'iKa<jro%) would be the 
 emphatic word. But does not every one of 
 these words have a fearful emphasis for us 
 sinners? In this world we are sometimes lost 
 in a crowd or overlooked, but nothing of this 
 kind will happen there when each one of us 
 will give account of himself A very few 
 manuscripts, including, however, the Vatican 
 
 B, omit the words 'then' and 'to God,' and 
 have the verb in a compound form, but the 
 Revisers abide by the well-established reading 
 of the Common text] Every man's account 
 will be perso7ial, between himself and God 
 alone, as the Judge. And this consideration, 
 in both its aspects, should rebuke and restrain 
 our severe judgments of one another. 
 
 The apostle now proceeds to amplify his ad- 
 monition of the strong [since these are not 
 always so inwardly and strongly bound b}' 
 their convictions as the weak], not to use their 
 Christian liberty in such a way as to damage 
 their weaker brethren. 
 
 13. Let us not therefore judge [present 
 tense, continue in the habit of judging ; but if 
 you must judge, judge this rather— that is, 
 let this be your judgment. 'This' refers to 
 the following clause: that no man put a 
 stumblingblock or an occasion to fall, 
 etc. Notice how the infinitive is made a sub- 
 stantive by its prefixed article, and compare 
 2 Cor. 2: 1.] The word 'judge' here, in the 
 second instance, seems to be used nearly in the 
 sense of resolve. The same Greek word is 
 translated "determine" in Acts 3: 13; 20: 
 16; 25: 25, and three or four other places, and 
 "decree" in 1 Cor. 7: 37. The two words 
 translated 'stumblingblock ' and ' occasion to 
 fall ' differ very little in sense. Each is more 
 than once translated by the same words, 'stum- 
 blingblock,' 'offence,' and they are joined 
 together in 9 : 33 ; 1 Peter 2 : 8, as well as in this 
 passage. They are applied to any act or course 
 of conduct which tends to provoke others to sin. 
 [Some regard the former (stone or block of 
 wood) as the larger obstacle against which one 
 would be very likely to fall, and the latter 
 (trap or trapstick) as a smaller and more hidden 
 obstacle which might occasion his fall or hinder 
 his progress. The word for trap ((TKavSa^ov, see 
 9: 33; 11: 9; 16: 17) is found twenty-five 
 times in the LXX. and fifteen times in the 
 New Testament, but seldom occurs in Greek 
 profane writers-.] 
 
Ch. XIV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 287 
 
 14 I know and im persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that 
 there is nothing unclean of itself: but to hiiu that 
 esteeiueth any thing to be unclean, to hiiu il is unclean. 
 
 15 But if thy brother be grieved with Ihi/ meat, now 
 ■walke.st tliou not churitalily. Destroy not him witn thy 
 meat, for whom Christ died. 
 
 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 
 
 14 falling. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord 
 Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to 
 him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him 
 
 15 it is unclean. I'or if because of meat thy brother is 
 grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not 
 
 16 with thy meat him for whom Christ died. Let not 
 
 17 then your good be evil spoken of: for the kingdom 
 
 14. I know, and am persuaded, has the 
 
 appearance of an aiiti-fliinux, and would really 
 be such were the latter verb sej>arated from 
 its accompanying word.s by the Lord Jesus— 
 [literally, in the Lord Jesus, in conscious fel- 
 lowship with him]. This adjunct imparts a 
 sacredness to his i)ersuasi(^n which raises it 
 above the simi>le ' I know.' There is nothing 
 unclean of itself.^ Is not this virtually' an 
 affirmation that the Mosaic prohibitions in 
 regard to particular kinds of meats had 
 no foundation or reason in the nature of the 
 meats themselves? Compare Acts 10 : 28; 
 1 Tim. 4 : 3, 4. The apostle here dechires his 
 theoretical agreement with those who did not 
 regard the Mosaic distinctions of meats as any 
 longer binding ; and this declaration adds 
 emphasis to his injunctions to those whom he 
 recognizes as having a right view of their 
 liberty, not to use it in such a way as to give 
 offence or to present ten;ptation to their weaker 
 brethren. For that which he and those whom 
 he is admonishing knew to be in itself lawful 
 for them would defile the conscience of the 
 weaker brethren if they should eat the same 
 meats without the same convictions. The i)rin- 
 ciple is an important one. Men are not always 
 doing right when they act according to their 
 consciences, for conscience is not the ultimate 
 standard of right, since it may be only jiar- 
 tially enlightened. But men are always guilty 
 when they act contrary to their consciences, 
 when they do what they do not believe to be 
 right. Paul was conscientious in persecuting 
 Christians before his conversion (Act^26: 9), but 
 this did not make his conduct right as he him- 
 self came fully to understand afterward, (i Cor. 
 15:9.) There was nothing morally defiling in 
 eating meats that had once been forbidden to 
 
 the Jews, but [«» ^^ forming an exception to 
 the nothing uncleati] they would defile the 
 conscience of him who should eat them, believ- 
 ing them to be still ibrbiddon. 
 
 15. But if thy brother be grieved. [In- 
 stead of 'but,' the Revised Version has /or. 
 For if on account of meat (or, food) 'thy 
 brother be grieved.' The thought of this verse, 
 with this rendering, seems closely connected 
 with ver. 13.] 'Be grieved' — be not only dis- 
 pleased for the moment, but led by thy exam- 
 ple to do that on account of which he will 
 afterward be grieved with himself. Walkest 
 thou not charitably— literally, loalkest not 
 according to love, actest in a way which due 
 love to thy brother forbids. [Such love as this 
 " worketh no ill to his neighbor." The apostle 
 here sets forth a very high and heavenly mo- 
 rality.] Destroy uot him. "Do not pursue 
 a course which tends, by leading him into sin, 
 to destroy his soul, and which will, at least, de- 
 stroy his peace." Bengel's note on the la-st 
 clause of this verse is very pertinent and force- 
 ful : "Do not make more account of his meat 
 than Christ did of his life." [Similarly, Al- 
 ford: "Ruining, ... by a meal of thine, a 
 brother for whoin Christ died!" See 1 Cor. 
 8 : 11. Notwithstanding the conative force of 
 the present tense (do not attempt to destroy), 
 Paul would here seem to teach that a person 
 may perish for whom Christ died. But this 
 does not jirove that any one whom he purposed 
 to save will ever fatally apostatize and finally 
 perish.] 
 
 16. Let not then your good be evil 
 spoken of. Their liberty in regard to dis- 
 tinction of meats was a good thing, but there 
 was need of caution in the use of it, lest it 
 should become an occasion of division among 
 
 1 Literally: Common through itself. Three important 
 MS.S. X B C, have here the full form eai^roO (of itself), 
 while other MSS. have a shorter form. Alford i)refers the 
 contracted form of the reflexive, outoC, while Meyer 
 adopts the personal aurov of the neuter gender. Some, 
 regarding it as ma.sculinc, have referred this last form to 
 Christ ; tli rough him there is no longer anything unclean. 
 The older MSS. do not give the breathings, and most 
 critical editors of the Kcw Testament do uot give any 
 
 contracted forms of the reflexive pronoun in the third 
 person. Both of the above verbs, 'I know' and 'aiii 
 persuaded,' are perfect in form. On 'I know' (oliai, 
 see 7: 7. Philippi thinks that the apostle here specially 
 exhorts the strong, because their numbers were proha- 
 bly preponderant in the Roman Church, and their in- 
 fluence over the weak was more to be feared than the 
 influence of the latter on the former. — (F.) 
 
288 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XIV. 
 
 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink ; 
 but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 
 
 IS 1- or he that iu these things serveth Christ is accept- 
 able to (iod, and approved of men. 
 
 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which 
 make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify 
 another. ,, , . 
 
 20 1- or meat destroy not the work of God. All things 
 indeed are pure; but il is evil for that man who eateth 
 with offence. 
 
 of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness 
 
 18 and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he that 
 herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and 
 
 19 approved of men. So then i let us follow after things 
 which make for peace, and things whereby we may 
 
 20 edify one another. Overthrow not for meat's sake 
 the work of God. All things indeed are clean ; how- 
 beit it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 
 
 1 Many ancieut authorities read we follow. 
 
 brethren, and so a reproach to the Church of 
 Christ. It surely was not worth while to run 
 so great a risk. ['Your good,' according to 
 Meyer, is the kingdom of God ; with Philippi, 
 it is the gospel; with De Wette, it is your 
 strong faith. Let not your strength of faith, 
 by reason of strife and schism, be calumniouslj' 
 spoken of by the heathen or unbelievers. The 
 uncials D E F G read— "owr good.'"] 
 
 17. The kingdom of God is not meat 
 and drink — or, true religion does not consist 
 in such external observances as eating and 
 drinking, but that kingdom is within you (^^^•'. 
 18 : m), and consists in rigliteousness, rectitude 
 of character, inward peace, and joy in the 
 Holy Ghost (or Spirit), the Holy Spirit being 
 the source of true religious peace and joy. [If 
 regard be had to our relation to God, then this 
 'kingdom of God' (here mentioned for the first 
 time in this Epistle) would consist, as De "Wette 
 states it, in "righteousness in its full sense, 
 including justification," as also in our peace 
 toward God as well as in inward peace. In 
 Meyer's view, this kingdom of God is not an 
 earthly moral kingdom, but the future Messi- 
 anic kingdom, to be ushered in at the second 
 coming of Christ — a sadly distorted view of the 
 reign of Christ in and among the children of 
 men. ] 
 
 18. For he that in these things serveth 
 Christ. He who cultivates the three great 
 Christian graces just mentioned will not only 
 be acceptable to (or, please) God and secure 
 his favor, but will also be approved of men 
 [will be able to .stand their testing^ and be 
 secure against having his good evil spoken of 
 (Ver. i«.) [Instead of ' these things,' most manu- 
 scripts have the reading of the Kevised text, 
 this., which, grammatically, refers to the 
 'Spirit,' or to the i)hrase 'joy in the Holy 
 Ghost' ; or possibly it might ex])ress, as Alford 
 states it, "the aggregate of the three " — that is, 
 righteousness, peace, and joy. But most ex- 
 
 positors, disregarding the preponderating evi- 
 dence of the MSS., prefer the plural, these, 
 referring to the three great moral elements just 
 mentioned. These, if taken in their Scriptural 
 sense, are to be viewed doctrinally as well as 
 ethicallj', else we should be obliged to regard a 
 just, peaceful, cheerful man as a true Christian. 
 (Hodge.) The elements, the great gifts and 
 graces which constitute the essence of God's 
 kingdom, are not of earth or of self, but of God, 
 and are, indeed, the fruits of the Spirit] 
 
 19. Let us therefore follow after [let us 
 eagerly pursue (the word for persecute) the 
 things which make for peace, or, tilings 
 of peace — that is, which belong to and tend to 
 peace. With the second clause, some less im- 
 portant manuscripts supply the verb : Let us 
 guard or keep]. To edify is, literally, to build 
 up. Both the individual Christian and the 
 church at large are represented as a building, 
 and the imjjroving and perfecting of character 
 in either is called edifying or building up. 
 This verse is a practical exhortation suggested 
 by the two preceding verses. 
 
 20. For meat. On account of meat (or 
 food). The Christian is called the work of 
 God — sometimes simply (Eph. 2:io); sometimes 
 under the figure of a field to be tilled; more 
 frequently under the figure of a house or tem- 
 ple to be built, (i c.t.3:9; 6:i9.) In harmony 
 with this figure, the word here translated de- 
 stroy (diflerent from the word so translated in 
 ver. 15) means to pull down or take to pieces, 
 being the antithesis of edifying in ver. 19. 
 [The singular number, 'destroy' thou 'not' 
 (strive tliou not to destroy, present tense), re- 
 fers back to ver. 15, 16.] All things indeed 
 are pure. All kinds of food are lawful to be 
 Ciiten, being clean in themselves (see ver. 14, 
 and compare 1 Tim. 4 : 3, 4), but it is wrong for 
 him, or there is evil to him, who may eat in 
 such a way as to give offense to his brother, or 
 to cause him to do anything contrary to his 
 
Ch. XIV] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 289 
 
 21 It is good neither to eath flesh, nor to drink wine, 
 nor any thing whereby thy brother stuiubleth, or is 
 otfended, or is made weak. 
 
 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. 
 Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing 
 which he alloweth. 
 
 26 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because 
 he eatcth not of faith : for whatsoever is not of faith is 
 sin. 
 
 21 It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do 
 
 22 an// thin// whereby thy brother stumbleth.' The 
 faith which thou hast, have thou to thvself beforeUod. 
 Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which 
 
 23 he -approveth. But he that doubteth is condemned 
 if he eat, because /le eattth. not of faith ; and whatso- 
 soever is not of faith is siu. 3 
 
 1 Man; aucient authorities add or t< offended, or is weak 2 Or, putteth to the tesl 3 Ma3jr aulliorlties, some aDcieat. ins 
 
 here, ch. xvi. 25-27. 
 
 conscience.' [The immediately preceding and 
 succeeding verses htive reference to the strong, 
 and so here the man who eateth through offense 
 (so as to be an occtision of stumbling) is the 
 strong in faith. So De Wette, Alford. Others, 
 less correctly, intei'pret it, in the light of ver. 
 14, of the weak brother who, in eating, offends 
 his own conscience.] 
 
 21. It is good. In opposition to what is 
 evil or wrong, (vev. 20.) Neither to eat 
 flesh. [The word hei-e used for flesh denotes 
 slain flesh, in contrast with the ordinary word 
 for living flesh. On the order of the negatives, 
 see at 8: 38. The two verbs after stumbleth 
 are omitted in the Revision, but are found in 
 B D F L, Vulgate, and should not be con- 
 demned. Nor (to do) anything whereby, 
 etc. Compare 1 Cor. 8: 13. We have here a 
 most important principle of action — to wit, a 
 regard to our influence, which will often enable 
 us to decide as to the right or wrong of things 
 in themselves, possibly indifferent or innocent. 
 So far as ourselves are concerned, we may 
 safely and rightly indulge in certain practices 
 or habits; but when we know or suspect that 
 such indulgence is hurtful in its influence on 
 others, it then becomes a sin against God and 
 man. Under this rule of action we may deter- 
 mine the rightfulness or the moral improprietj' 
 of participating in the so-called "worldly" 
 (perhaps in themselves often innocent) amuse- 
 ments of our times. There are certain habits 
 indulged in by some Christians, even by some 
 Christian ministers, which we cannot place 
 among the things morally indifferent and 
 
 innocent. In all these matters, we do well 
 "not to please ourselves," but to follow that 
 truly Christ-like principle which Paul himself 
 both inculcated and practiced. " Whether 
 therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye 
 do, do all to the glory of God."] 
 
 23. Hast thou faith— or, a full persuasion 
 that there is no sin in eating certain meats 
 which thy brother regards as forbidden ? Keep 
 that persuasion to thyself; let it be between 
 thee and thy God ; do not parade it before thy 
 brother in such a way as to shock his weak 
 pi'ejudices and tempt him to sin ; be content 
 with the happiness of acting consistently with 
 thy principles, and be not over anxious to make 
 thy brother see and act as thou doest.2 
 
 23. And he that doubteth. [See 4: 20, 
 the only place in the Epistle where this word 
 occurs. The word in the last verse, translated 
 judgeth (Kpivuiv) in the Revised Version, occurs 
 twice in this, compounded with diflerent prep- 
 ositions. The last compounded foi-m is in the 
 perfect has been (and is) condemned, lies under 
 condemnation.] He is condemned who eats 
 what he doubts his right to eat, because of that 
 doubt; for [rather, but, introducing an axiom. 
 (Alford)], whatever a man does while doubting 
 whether he has a right to do it, that is sin. 
 This is the same principle which is expressed 
 in ver. 14. The passage does not mean what 
 Augustine inferred from it, that the best actions 
 of unbelievers are only "shining sins." Yet 
 there is an important moral principle here. 
 In every moral act there are two important 
 elements to be considei'ed — the act itself, and 
 
 t The word brit, corresponding to the preceding ineV 
 (indeed), is stronger than St, and makes this clause 
 "more strongly prominent." — (F.) 
 
 2 The Revisers insert a which in the first clause, and 
 give a slightly ditferent rendering without altering the 
 meaning. For the word 'thyself they have (rauToi', 
 the contracted form of creauToi'. In the last sentence of 
 the verse, n»j, with the participle, jwrf^riH// (in Common 
 Version, 'condemneth'), refers to a supposed genus. 
 Happy is the strong one who judges not himself, or is 
 
 liable to no self-judgment (Meyer) in pursuing that 
 course which he ajjproves after examination and testing. 
 An Apocryphal addition to Luke 6: 4 (found in MS. D), 
 is adduced by Olshausen as " very highly instructive for 
 the understanding of this passage." It is there told 
 that Jesus saw a man working on the Sabbath, and said 
 to him: "If thou knowest what thou doest, thou art 
 blessed ; but if thou knowest not, thou art accursed, 
 and a transgressor of the law." — (F.) 
 
290 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 w 
 
 E then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities 
 of the weak, and not to i)lease ourselves. 
 
 1 Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirm- 
 
 2 ities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let 
 
 the state of the actor's conscience. In order 
 that an act may be wholly right, it must be 
 right in both these respects; but in order to be 
 wrong, it need be faulty in only one of them. 
 This principle is pithily expressed in the Latin 
 maxim: " Bonum non oritur, nisi ex omnibus 
 causis integris: malum ex quovis defectu" — 
 "the right is produced only by the perfection 
 of all its parts ; the wrong by a defect in any 
 single part." It would be easy to quote from 
 uninspired, and even Pagan moralists, senti- 
 ments more or less parallel to this of Paul. 
 Pliny says (Epistle 1:18): "Quod dubitas, ne 
 feceris" — "what you are in doubt about you 
 must not do.' Cicero less tersely says : "Bene 
 praecipiunt, qui vetant quicquam agere, quod 
 dubitas an aequum sit an iniquum" ("De 
 Officiis" 1 : 9) — "They teach well who forbid 
 us to do anything about which we are not sure 
 whether it is just or unjust." There is a Rab- 
 binical maxim which coincides more closely 
 still with the language of Paul: " Quicquid 
 utrum licitum sit an illicitum tu nescis, id tibi 
 illicitum est" — "Concerning whatever thing 
 you do not know, whether it is lawful or un- 
 lawful, that thing is unlawful /or you." That 
 was an excellent resolution of Jonathan Ed- 
 wards, expressed with the precision of a meta- 
 physician, as well as formed with the piety of a 
 saint : " Resolved never to do any action about 
 the lawfulness of which I am so doubtful at the 
 time that I resolve to inquire afterward, unless 
 I am equally doubtful whether it is lawful to 
 omit it." [The preceding note merits deep 
 consideration ; for the language of Paul in this 
 verse has been often misunderstood— :;??'s<, by 
 assuming that "faith" here means "trust in 
 Christ," and secondly, by assuming that what- 
 soever is "of faith" is holy, because whatsoever 
 is " not of faith " is sinful. The word "faith " 
 signifies in this place belief or conviction— 
 namely, belief or conviction that a given 
 act is lawful and right before God ; and the 
 teaching of the apostle, as explained above, 
 is clearly this — that it is sinful for any Chris- 
 tian to perform an act which he does not fully 
 believe to be right, but not that it is sinful 
 for him to perform an act without trust in 
 Christ (though this is doubtless true), and still 
 
 less, that every act which is performed with 
 trust in Christ is, therefore, sinless. Trust in 
 Christ does not render a man holy in heart and 
 life ; it is rather a confession that he is not holy. 
 But the word 'faith,' as Dr. Arnold clearly 
 shows, does not here mean trust in Christ. — 
 (A. H.)] 
 
 [In some manuscripts, but not the most im- 
 portant, the final doxology (i6: 25-27) occurs here 
 after ver. 23. Some suppose that this verse 
 ended a church section, or lesson for public 
 reading, and the doxology was appended to 
 form a suitable close. Certainly the doxology, 
 " now to him that isof power to stablish you," 
 comes in appropriately here, where the weak 
 in faith are spoken of. But, as Westcott and 
 Hort affirm, "the cause of its insertion here 
 cannot be known with certainty." Only a 
 very few skeptical writers have doubted the 
 genuineness of the two chapters which follow.] 
 
 Ch. 15 : Contimiation of the subject of chap- 
 ter 14 to ver. 13 [" Christ an example of bear- 
 ing with the weak." (Olshausen.) Thence to 
 ver. 33 are personal explanations, embracing 
 an apology, ver. 14-21, and notice of journeys, 
 ver. 22-33.] 
 
 1. We then that are strong ought to 
 bear the infirmities of the weak. Observe 
 that here, as in 14 : 4, the apostle takes the part 
 of the 'strong' as being theoretically right, 
 and thus adds to the strength of his plea for 
 the weak. The word translated 'infirmities' 
 is not used elsewhere in the New Testament, 
 but is derived from the word rendered 'weak,' 
 as in 14 : 4. [The verb ' ought ' is strongly em- 
 phatic by position, standing at the opening of 
 the sentence. The words for ' strong ' and 
 ' weak ' correspond in form to our able and un- 
 able. We who are able to carry the infirmities 
 of the weak (unable) ought so to do. We are 
 not only to bear with their weaknesses, but to 
 carry them as if our own — a requirement which 
 necessitates the putting of ourselves in the place 
 of the weak. The apostle also counselled the 
 Galatian Christians, " Bear ye one another's 
 burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." 
 (Gal. 6:2.) No Christian can so dissociate him- 
 self from others that he can live for himself 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 291 
 
 2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his j 
 good to edification. 
 
 3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is 
 written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee 
 fell on nie. 
 
 4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were 
 written for our learning, that we through patience and 
 comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. 
 
 each one of us please his neighbour for that which is 
 
 3 good.untoedifying. For Christ also pleased not him- 
 self; but, as ii is written. The reproaches of them 
 
 4 that reproached thee fell upon me. For whatsoever 
 things were written aforetime were written for our 
 
 alone. And in all our relations of responsi- 
 bility, in all our life's plans, and in all our 
 actions, the ought idea should, as in our text, 
 have the foremost, the emphatic place.] And 
 not to please ourselves. [This pleasing of 
 one's self seems, it must be confessed, to be in 
 general the guiding principle of human action. 
 Observe the use of the dependent negative 
 here in contrast with the use of the direct nega- 
 tive in the narrative sentence of ver. 3, 'pleased 
 not himself Notice also the third person of 
 the reflexive pronoun as here used for the first.] 
 This clause points out the root of those rash 
 judgments and alienations of feeling among 
 brethren, which the apostle is earnestly en- 
 deavoring to forestall. It is the want of that 
 self-denying love, of which our Lord himself 
 was the bright example (ver. 3), and which 
 Paul also exemplified in an eminent degree. 
 
 (1 Cor. 8: 13; 9: 22; 10:33.) "Wc shoW OUr Strength, 
 
 not by despising, but by tolerating, the infirmi- 
 ties of the weak, and our knowledge and en- 
 larged views by bearing with the ignorance 
 and narrow prejudices of others. [" Both par- 
 ties are to receive each other in brotherly love 
 (15: 7), without the stronger subjecting the scru- 
 ples of the weaker to his criticism. But the 
 stronger has thus a special duty of love to dis- 
 charge, for to him alone is the matter in dis- 
 pute a matter of indifference." (Weiss.)] 
 
 2. Let everyone of us please his neigh- 
 bour for his good to edification. We have 
 here an excellent rule of Christian charity, 
 well guarded. The wish to please our neigh- 
 bor is a praiseworthy feeling, but we are to 
 indulge it according to these two rules, namely, 
 in ways which are right in the sight of God, 
 and which tend to our neighbor's 'edification' 
 — his building up in righteousness and Chris- 
 tian character. [' Edification ' is a species under 
 the genus, ^'ooc?. (Bengel.) Of the two prepo- 
 sitions in the original, the former seems to de- 
 note the more immediate, the latter the more 
 ultimate purpose or result of the action. See 
 Ellicott on Eph. 4: 12. The word for 'neigh- 
 bor' is an adverb, and properly means the one 
 (being) near. Observe that there is a wrong 
 
 way of pleasing our neighbors as well as a 
 right one. See Gal. 1 : 10; 1 Thess. 2: 4. We 
 must please him or strive to please him, only 
 as it will be for his good, only, too, in obedi- 
 ence to the divine will.] 
 
 3. The exhortations in the two preceding 
 verses are now enforced by the example of 
 Christ. For even Christ, though so much 
 above the strongest of us, pleased not him- 
 self; but [the reverse of this is true. This is 
 the great constraining motive for like action in 
 us. Observe here the use of the objective neg- 
 ative where a fact is stated. The word Christ, 
 standing in such a connection as this, is gener- 
 ally used by Paul as a proper name and with- 
 out the article. Yet again in ver. 7 it has the 
 article, and so in 1 Cor. 1: 13; 10: 4; 11 : 3, 
 etc., in all which cases it is used in the nomina- 
 tive. As it is written, in Ps. 69: 9. Winer 
 remarks that the apostle, instead of saying, but 
 to please God, he submitted to the most cruel 
 reproaches, changes the construction by pro- 
 ceeding with a quotation from the Old Testa- 
 ment. The quotation is verbatim from the 
 LXX. 68 : 9. Those that reproached thee. 
 Owing to its connection with a verb in the past 
 tense, the present participle, those reproaching 
 thee, may be rendered as in the past tense 
 'Thee' here refers to God. Though Christ in 
 one sense pleased not himself ("otherwise he 
 would have abstained from taking these suffer- 
 ings on himself; compare Heb. 12: 2, 3; Phil. 
 2: 6-8." Meyer), yet he was pleased to obey 
 the will of God and to say, " Lo I come." 
 (Heb. 10: 7; compare Matt. 20: 28; John 4: 
 34.)] For the benefit and salvation of men 
 Christ willingly suffered reproach from the 
 enemies of God. The Messianic character of 
 the psalin quoted from is evident from John 2 : 
 17 ; 15 : 25 ; 19 : 28 ; Acts 1 : 20. 
 
 4. For whatsoever things. [Westcott 
 and Hort read: "All things whatsoever." 
 "The apostle both justifies the above citation 
 and prepares the way for the subject to be next 
 introduced." (Alford.) We see here the value 
 which such inspired writers as Paul placed on 
 all the Old Testament Scriptures.] Were 
 
292 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 5 N w the God of patience and consolation grant you 
 to be liliemiuded one toward another according to 
 Christ Jesus: 
 
 6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify 
 God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also 
 received us, to the glory of God. 
 
 learning, that through ' patience and through com- 
 
 5 fort of tne scriptures we might have hope. Now the 
 God of 1 patience and of comfort grant you to be of 
 the same mind one with another according to Christ 
 
 6 Jesus : that with one accord ye may with one mouth 
 glorify the -Hod. and Father of our Lord Jesus 
 
 7 Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, even as 
 
 8 Christ also received ^you, to the glory of God. For 
 
 1 Or, stedfaatnesa 2 Or, God and the Father .3 Some ancient authorities read U8. 
 
 written for our learning (or, histricction) 
 that we through patience and comfort of 
 the Scriptures might have hope. This was 
 the general object of all, and more specifically, 
 with reference to the present subject, to con- 
 tribute to our patience and comfort. The 
 Scriptures teach us ' patience ' in bearing the 
 infirmities of others, and give us ' comfort ' 
 under the slight inconvenience which it may 
 cost us to bear them; and in general 'the 
 Scriptures ' are the source of ' patience and 
 comfort' by their precepts, their examples, | 
 their promises, and by the 'hope' of eternal i 
 life. [The comfort of the Scriptures is thus i 
 allied, not with apathy, but with endurance. 
 The connection of these two words in the fol- 
 lowing verse indicates a similar close connec- 
 tion here — that is, they are both to be connected 
 witli 'the Scriptures.' The genitive is that of 
 source or authorship. The ' hope ' which we 
 may have is commonly regarded as the Chris- 
 tian's special hope, the hope of glory. (5: 12.) 
 There are but two things we can carry away 
 with us when we leave this world : the one is 
 the hope we may have in Jesus of forgiveness 
 and of the life eternal ; the other is the heavy 
 burden of unrepented and unforgiven sin.] 
 
 5, 6. The apostle, recognizing God as the 
 source of patience and consolation (com- 
 fort), as ' the Scriptures ' are the means, praj^s 
 that he may grant them harmony of feeling 
 to be like minded [to mind the same things, 
 as in 12: 16] among themselves (which, rather 
 than exact unanimity of opinion, is the mean- 
 ing of 'like minded' here), according to (the 
 will and example of) Christ Jesus, our per- 
 fect pattern ; so that they, with one accord or 
 unanimously, Avith (literallj', in) one mind 
 and one mouth (with one inward spirit and 
 one outward utterance) may glorify God, 
 even the Father (or, the God and Father) 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ. A touching 
 prayer, or, rather, devout wish, with which to 
 seal and enforce the preceding admonitions. 
 [How strongly the Saviour desired the oneness 
 of his people may be seen in John 17 : 21. De 
 
 Wette and Meyer prefer the rendering, ' even 
 the Father,' which is found in our Common 
 Version, though the rendering of the Kevised 
 Version, the God and FatJier^ is theologically 
 and grammatically admissible. See Eph. 1 : 
 17, also Matt. 27: 46; John 20: 17.] 
 
 7. Wherefore, on which account — namely, 
 that the wish just expressed may be accom- 
 plished. Receive ye one another [or, 
 rather, take to yourselves (implying more active 
 effort) as Christian brethren, see 14: 1] both 
 Jewish and Gentile believers, both the strong 
 in faith and the weak. As Christ also re- 
 ceived us (or, you). 'As' maybe equivalent 
 to since here, and so fee referred to the fact 
 that Christ received us as a reason why we 
 should receive one another [compare 14: 3, 
 ' for God hath received him '] ; or it may refer 
 to the ynanner in which Christ received us, as 
 the rule to teach us how we should receive 
 another. The word is commonly taken in the 
 former sense in this passage ; but the manner 
 in which the word ' also ' is connected with it — ■ 
 the two being, in fact, joined together, making 
 one compound word in the Greek — would jus- 
 tify the translation, even as Chj'ist also received 
 us, which would seem rather to suggest the way 
 of receiving, as well as the reason for it. We 
 must receive those whom Christ receives, be- 
 caus'e he receives them, and as he receives 
 them. We must not set any limits to our 
 brotherly love, which Christ has not set; and 
 and we must not make any conditions of church 
 membership which he has not made ; nor must 
 we ignore, or neglect to insist upon any that he 
 has made. The glory of God was his end 
 in forming the rules of his kingdom ; and the 
 glorifying God, as in ver. 9, should be ours in 
 putting those rules in practice. We may sum 
 up all in these three fundamental principles: 
 
 1. Christ is the only King and Lawgiver in 
 his church. 2. The Scriptures are the only 
 binding rule of faith and practice for his people 
 in religious matters. 3. God's glory should be 
 the supreme end in all Christian action, whether 
 private or ecclesiastical. 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 293 
 
 8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the 
 circumcision for the truth of Uod, to contirm the 
 promises made unto the fathers: 
 
 9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his 
 mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to 
 thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 
 
 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his 
 people. 
 
 11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and 
 laud him, all ye people. 
 
 I say, that Christ hatt been made a minister of the 
 circumcision for the truth of God, that he might 
 9 contirm the promises r/iven unto the fathers, and that 
 the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy ; as it is 
 written, 
 
 Therefore will I i give praise unto thee among 
 
 the Gentiles, 
 And sing unto thy name. 
 
 10 And again he saith, 
 
 Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 
 
 11 And again. 
 
 Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles ; 
 And let all the peoples praise him. 
 
 1 Or, con/esa. 
 
 8, 9. By the quotations in the ninth and 
 three following verses, the apostle proves that 
 God's purpose from the beginning was to com- 
 prehend both Jews and Gentiles in the wide 
 embrace of his mercy, through the Messiah ; 
 and so he adds confirmation to the force of his 
 exhortation to them to receive one another, 
 and to the assurance that their doing so will 
 redound to the glory of God. [Now I say. 
 Instead of this phrase, most MSS. read for, 
 which denotes a reason for the exhortation just 
 given. Meyer renders: "/ Dieayi, namely, ^^ 
 thus making what follows to be explanatory 
 of the preceding.] A minister of the cir- 
 cumcision. The apostle shows his Jewish 
 brethren that he was not unmindful of a certain 
 temporal priority of claim on their part, to the 
 blessings of the Messianic kingdom, according 
 to such passages as Matt. 15 : 26; Luke 24: 47; 
 John 4: 22. [The word minister, or servant 
 (&iaKovo<:), whence our deacon, occurs elsewhere 
 in this Epistle. See 13: 4 (twice) and 16: 1. 
 Our Saviour said that he came to 7ni/iister unto 
 {&iaKQvy\uai.) by giving his life a ransom for 
 many. (Matt. 20:28.) But his earthly service 
 was mainly for the circumcision, the Jews, the 
 lost sheep of the house of Israel. Possibly the 
 apostle may have made this concession to the 
 Jews in order to humble the pride of the 
 'strong' Gentile Christians. (De "Wette.) 
 Was — the verb in the original is in the per- 
 fect, meaning, literally, has become, and de- 
 notes a past event, but still continuing in its 
 effects.] For the truth of God — that is, 
 to establish it by fulfilling the Messianic proph- 
 ecies or promises made unto the fathers. 
 And that the Gentiles might glorify God 
 for his mercy [as the Jews for his truthful- 
 ness, his fidelity to his promises. Noyes makes 
 the verb 'glorify' dependent on 'I say,' and 
 gives this rendering: "(I say) that the Gentiles 
 glorified God for his mercy." More probably 
 
 this verb is co-ordinate with the verb confirm, 
 and thus the glorifying God by the Gentiles is 
 represented as "the remote design of Christ's 
 becoming a minister of the circumcision." 
 Meyer says: "The connection of the Jewish 
 Christians with Christ appears as the fulfill- 
 ment of their theocratic claim ; but that of the 
 Gentile Christians as the enjoyment of grace, 
 a distinction so set forth . . . designedly and 
 ingeniously, in order to suggest to the Gentile 
 Christians greater esteem for their weaker 
 Jewish brethren."] It is true that there were 
 promises of salvation for the Gentiles in the 
 Old Testament, and that some of these prom- 
 ises were addressed directly to the Gentiles, as 
 was true of the implied promises in ver. 10, 
 11 ; yet, as the prophets spoke and wrote im- 
 mediately and chiefly to and for the Jews, the 
 truth of God could not be said to be pledged 
 to the former as directly and fully as to the 
 latter. There was a formal covenant in the 
 latter case, which there Avas not in the former; 
 and this distinction is often recognized in the 
 Scriptures as it is here. The quotation in ver. 
 9 is from Ps. 18: 49 [and, save the omission of 
 the word Lord, exactly accords with the 
 LXX.] The words are put into the mouth of 
 the Psalmist; but David here speaks as a type 
 of Christ. [Philippi supposes the person offer- 
 ing praise may be "any messenger of salvation 
 to the Gentile world."] 
 
 10, 11, 13. And again he saith, or, it 
 saith — that is, the Scripture [which is easily 
 understood from the words 'it is written' in 
 the preceding verse]. Rejoice, ye Gentiles, 
 with his people. These words are from 
 Deut. 32:43 [and exactly follow the LXX.]. 
 In the original Hebrew, as the English inti- 
 mates by italics, there is nothing (save in one 
 MS., Codex 146) to answer to the preposition 
 'with.' Literally it reads : " Rejoice, ye Gen- 
 tiles, his people." Rejoice, ye nations, for you, 
 
294 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of 
 Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles ; 
 in him shall the Gentiles trust. 
 
 13 Now the God of hope till you with all joy and 
 peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through 
 the power of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my 
 
 12 And again, Isaiah saith. 
 
 There shall be the root of .T esse. 
 
 And he that ariseth to rule over the Gentiles ; 
 
 On him shall the Gentiles hope. 
 
 13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace 
 in believing, that ye may abound in hope, in the 
 power of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 14 And 1 myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, 
 
 too, have become his people. And again — in 
 
 still another place. This is from Ps. 117 : 1 
 [and nearly accords with the LXX., 116:1]. 
 A double exhortation to praise the Lord, ad- 
 dressed first to all nations, and secondly, to all 
 peoples (for this word is in the plural number 
 as well as the other). The two verbs differ in 
 the Hebrew, as well as in the English, like the 
 two nouns; but in both cases and in both lan- 
 guages they are substantially synonymous, the 
 duplication being for the sake of emphasis and 
 the difference for the sake of variety. [The 
 verbs, though the same in the Greek (save that 
 the latter is a compound), are in different 
 tenses, the present and the aorist (the latter in 
 the Revision being in the third person impera- 
 tive instead of the .second), j'et the distinction 
 in the meaning of these tenses seems here to be 
 disregarded.] And again, Esaias saith. 
 This is from Isa. 11:10 [and accords mainly 
 with the LXX., while it varies considerably 
 from the Hebrew. Davidson says: "The 
 apostle., as in many other places, gives the 
 sense v/ithout the exact words"]. A root of 
 Jesse means here an offspring of Jesse, or a 
 root shoot, as David was, and through David 
 the Mes.siah, who was to reign over Jews and 
 Gentiles with a wider and more permanent 
 reign than David's was; and in him [literally, 
 on whan, as a foundation] shall the Gentiles 
 trust, or hope, as it should be rendered here, 
 to agree with the corresponding noun in the 
 next verse. ["The Gentiles formerly had no 
 hope. See Eph. 2:12." (Bengel.)] It should 
 be noticed that in these confirmatory citations 
 [adduced one after another as with deepest 
 emotion] the apostle quotes from the law 
 (ver. 10), the prophets (ver. 12), and the Psalms 
 (ver. 9, u), thus bringing into the service of his 
 argument all the parts of the threefold division 
 of the Old Testament common among the 
 Jews, and recognized by our Lord in Luke 
 24 : 44. [Query : Is there for Christian teach- 
 ers and preachers any better way of viewing 
 and of using the Old Testament Scriptures 
 than that which Christ and his apostles prac- 
 ticed? See ver. 4.] 
 
 13. NoAV the God of hope. [Now may the 
 
 God who gives the hope of eternal glory, fill 
 you with all (with highest, with all possible) 
 joy and peace in believing— without which 
 'believing,' or faith, there could be no joy or 
 peace, and without which joy and peace, faith 
 would be fruitless (Meyer) — in ordor that ye 
 may abound in hope, through (in virtue 
 of) the power of the Holy Ghost, who 
 dwell eth and worketh in you. What large 
 provision God — the God of constancy, of con- 
 solation, and of hope — has made that we, in the 
 midst of earthly cares and sorrows, and with 
 all our inward trials, may yet have hope and 
 peace and joy — have them, too, in their highest 
 measure, and have them in us continually, even 
 asa well of water springing up, overflowing, and 
 refreshing the soul unto everlasting life ! It is 
 a characteristic of Paul that he insists so much 
 upon the Christian's abounding in grace and 
 in every good work, and nothing could be 
 more characteristically Pauline than this entire 
 passage. (Boise.)] This verse forms an ap- 
 propriate and beautiful close to the practical 
 and hortatory part of the Epistle. The devout 
 wish which Paul expresses is rich in the bless- 
 ings of religious experience. Notice in respect 
 to these blessings the excellence of their nature, 
 the fullness of their measure, and the divine 
 perfection of their source. How extravagant 
 this wish would be if addressed to any but 
 regenerate persons! What do any others know 
 of fullness of joy and peace in believing, and of 
 the power of the Holy Ghost? 
 IV. Personal. (Ch. 15 : 14-16: 23.) 
 The fourth division of the Epistle we have 
 named Personal, because in it the apostle indi- 
 cates the motives and feelings that prompted 
 him to write. (i5:i4-33.) In the first place, he 
 excuses his boldness, (ver. u-is.) 
 
 14. And I myself. ["Notwithstanding 
 my exhortations." (De Wette. ) Also am 
 persuaded. Compare 8:38; 14:14. The 
 particle translated 'and' is transitional, "lead- 
 ing over to the concluding portion of the 
 Epistle." (Meyer.)] This emi)hatic assertion 
 of his own persuasion in regard to their Chris- 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 295 
 
 brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all 
 knowledge, able also to admonish one another. 
 
 15 Nevertheless, brethren, 1 have written the more 
 boldly nntoyou in some sort, as puttiiic you in mind, 
 because of the grace that is given to me oftjod, 
 
 16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to 
 the (ientiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the 
 offering up of (be Gentiles might be acceptable, being 
 sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 that ye yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all 
 15 knowledge, able also to admonish one another. But 
 1 write the more boldly unto you in some measure, 
 as putting you again in remembrance, because of the 
 IC grace that was given me of (iod, that I should be a 
 minister of Christ .lesus unto the Gentiles, ' minister- 
 ing the gosjiel of (jod, that the ofl'ering up of the 
 Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified 
 
 1 Gr. ministering in i 
 
 tian character may, perhaps, have tacit refer- 
 ence to the high reputation which they enjoyed 
 in the general judgment of mankind. See 1 : 8. 
 The expressions full of goodness, filled with 
 all knowledge, are not to be taken in their 
 highest possible sense, but in a sober sense, 
 sincere, and without flattery, and so taken thej' 
 are a strong commendation of the disciples at 
 Eome. The apostle evidently regarded them, 
 as a whole, as persons of great Christian excel- 
 lence, and there is no reason why we should 
 regard them otherwise. Able also to ad- 
 monish one another, and therefore not 
 standing in special need of admonition from 
 me or from others. Observe the qualifications 
 needed for mutual admonition — large attain- 
 ments in goodness and knowledge. [It requires 
 quite as much wisdom and grace to give. ad- 
 monition properly as to receive it.] 
 
 15. I have written [properh', / tvrote. 
 Some regard this as the "epistolary aorist," 
 the past tense being u.sed by the writer instead 
 of the present, because to the receiver the time 
 of writing would be as pa.st. Others think the 
 past tense was employed here, because the 
 Epistle was regarded as brought to a con- 
 clusion. The more boldly — "than from 
 your Christian attainment was neces.sary." 
 (Winer.)] The expression in some sort — 
 literallj', inpart — qualifies the words havewrit- 
 ten the more boldly, and intimates that the 
 bolditess with which he has written (notwith- 
 standing his good opinion of therrL, neverthe- 
 less) was limited to cevi&m parts of the Epistle ; 
 such, perhaps, as 6: 12-19; 11: 17-25; 13: 14. 
 Putting yoQ in mind, recalling to your 
 memory, not as if I was giving some ideas or 
 instructions of which you were altogether igno- 
 rant. Because of the grace — my apostolic 
 office was the ground and reason of my boldness. 
 [In 12: 3, we have: " through (b3' means of ) the 
 grace.]" We have here an admirable combi- 
 nation of humility, courtesy, and dignity. [The 
 grace referred to was given to Paul from God, 
 through the mediate agency of Christ, (i: 5.) 
 
 By reas(tn of this abundant grace conferred on 
 the apostle, and from the fact that he spoke and 
 wrote "by revelation of Jesus Christ" (i6: 25; 
 Gal. 1: 12; Eph. 3: 2, 3), his Epistles are to be re- 
 ceived as something higher than merely human 
 i compositions, even as a message from God, or 
 'gospel of God.' If our advanced thinkers 
 have had more revealed to them from heaven, 
 and if they have more of God-given grace than 
 Paul had, his utterances may well be made to 
 give place to their improved theologic formu- 
 las, or, nebulous platitudes.] 
 
 16. That I should be the minister of 
 Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. This explains 
 : what he means hy the grace given to him of 
 j God. It was the favor of being called to be 
 I the apostle of the Gentiles. He elsewhere 
 speaks very emphatically of this calling as a 
 signal favor from God. (Eph. 3:8.) The words 
 translated yninister and 7ninistering {Kenovpyov 
 and upovpyovvTa), though not having the same 
 etymological relation to each other which the 
 English words have, are yet alike in this, that 
 both are based on the figurative representation 
 of a priestly service. [On the word minister, 
 one who ministers or serves in a public capacity, 
 see 13: 6. The verb occurs in 15: 27; Acts 
 13: 2; Heb. 10: 11. The word for 'minister- 
 ing' occurs only here. This sacrifical service 
 is not to make an otfering of the gospel, but to 
 do holy service in the gospel, by means of 
 which the ofl^ering (of the Gentiles) is pre- 
 parcvl. (Cremer. ) What an honor God con- 
 I ferred on the persecuting Saul of Tarsus, that 
 he should be appointed an apostle and a priest 
 to the Gentile world to prepare and present 
 them as an offering to the Lord Jesus Christ !] 
 This is believed to be the only passage where a 
 word implying a priestly character or action 
 is used, even figuratively', in reference to an 
 apostle. The New Testament carefully abstains 
 from applying the word, priest to an apostle or 
 preacher of the gospel. Christ is the Priest of 
 the New Dispensation ; he alone offers sacrifice 
 in the strict sense of the word. (Heb. 8; 3.) The 
 
296 
 
 KOxMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 17 1 have therefore whereof I may glory through 
 Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. 
 
 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things 
 which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the 
 Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 
 
 19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power 
 
 17 by the Holy Spirit. I have therefore my glorying In 
 
 18 Christ Jesus in things pertaining to God. For I will 
 not dare to speak of any i things save those which 
 Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the 
 
 19 Gentiles, by word and deed, in the power of signs 
 and wonders, in the power of 2 the Holy Spirit ; so 
 
 1 Gr. of those things which Christ wrought not through me 2 Many ancient authorities read the Spirit of God. One reads the Spirit 
 
 offering up of the Gentiles. This is what 
 is called by the grammarians the genitive of 
 apposition. The Gentiles are the oifering. [This 
 'offering up,' or, simply, offering (irpouiftopa), 
 'of the Gentiles,' properly denotes a bloodless 
 sacrifice. Paul's priestly service in preaching 
 to the Gentiles was in order that the offering 
 of the Gentiles might be well-pleasing, being 
 sanctified in the element of the Holy Spirit's 
 influence. This last clause "forms an anti- 
 thesis to the external consecration of the Old 
 Testament sacrifices." (Philippi.) In 12: 1, 
 all Christians are, as priests, exhorted to offer 
 a sacrifice to God, even their own bodies.] 
 
 In ver. 17-22, the apostle declares the extent 
 and result of his apostolic labors. 
 
 17. [Therefore draws an inference from 
 
 the verb 'wrought,' contrasts himself with 
 others, and his actual labors with those which 
 others had professedly performed, and that he 
 wishes to take no credit for labors which he, 
 with Christ's help, had not actually performed. 
 Another and preferable view (which, in har- 
 mony with the preceding verses, emphasizes 
 ' Christ' rather than '?ne') is, that Paul con- 
 trasts himself with Christ, and that he will 
 take no credit to his labors save only as they 
 are wrought by Christ. So far as the words 
 are concerned, they will allow still another 
 thought (favored by Godet) — namely, that 
 almost everything had been wrought by Christ 
 through Paul for the conversion of the Gen- 
 tiles ; he could hardly mention anything which 
 had not been done. The relative ' which ' 
 
 ver. 15,16, which speak of his divinely ap- | stands fov of those things which.] To make 
 
 pointed ministry to the Gentiles, I have 
 Avhereof I may glory, literally, the glory- 
 ing, equivalent to ')ny glorying, as in the Re- 
 vised Version. Yet this glorying was not in 
 himself, but in Christ Jesus.] His glorying was 
 no selfish or vain boasting, but in those things 
 which pertain to God — that is, in his ofiice 
 and ministry; and in the way in which, 
 through Jesus Christ, he had fulfilled his 
 apostolical commission he might well glory as 
 he does in 1 Cor. 15: 10, being careful, how- 
 ever, to give all the credit to the grace of 
 God.' 
 
 18. The apostle was very careful not to 
 appropriate to himself the credit of what 
 others had wrought. He preferred pioneer 
 work (ver. 20, vi), that he might not build on 
 another man's foundation, or seem to boast of 
 things made ready to his hand by others. (2 Cor. 
 10: 12-17.) He intimates, in the passage last re- 
 ferred to, that some professed servants of Christ 
 were not equally scrupulous in this regard. 
 [There seem to be two principal views which 
 have guided expositors in the interprethtion of 
 this passage. One is that Paul by emphasizing 
 the personal pronoun (Si enov, or, through me) or 
 
 the Gentiles obedient— [literally, for the 
 obedience of the Gentiles.] This was his aim, 
 and it was largely successful ; but while their 
 actual obedience, in every case, was not neces- 
 sary to the peace of his conscience, it was 
 necessary to the full joy of his heart. His duty 
 might be fulfilled without this, but not his 
 desire. By word and deed. These words 
 are to be connected with the clause: 'which 
 Christ hath not wrought,' etc. Christ wrought 
 through the apostle, to the conversion of the 
 Gentiles, by deeds as well as by words. From 
 this point the sentence is completed as if it 
 had been begun in an affirmative and not in 
 a negative form. [The two negatives, occur- 
 ring in two different clauses blended by at- 
 traction, are yet equivalent to an affirmative. 
 (Winer, 498.)] 
 
 19. Through mighty signs and won- 
 ders. [Better, in the power of signs and won- 
 ders] The miraculous signs and wonders 
 which Christ wrought by Paul [and which 
 may be placed under the category of 'deed'] 
 not only served as a proof of his apostleship 
 (2 Cor. 12 : 12), but also tended effectually to make 
 the Gentiles obedient. See Acts 13 : 9-12. But 
 
 1 In the phrase: 'things which pertain to God' (for 
 like phrtiseology, see Heb. 2: 17; 5: 1) we have what is 
 Bometimes termed the Greek accusative, or accusative of 
 
 synecdoche, called by Buttmann, p. 152, the accusative 
 of limitation. See on 12 : 18.— (F.) 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 297 
 
 of the Spirit of God ; so that from Jerusalem, and round 
 about unto lllyricum, I have fully preached the gospel 
 of Christ. 
 
 20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not 
 where Christ was named, lest 1 should build upon 
 another man's foundation : 
 
 that from Jerusalem, and round about even unto 
 lllyricum, I have 'fully preached the gospel of 
 20 Christ ; yea, - making it luy aim so to preacli the gos- 
 pel, not where Christ was already uamed, that I 
 
 1 Or. fulfilled '2 Gr. being ambitioue. 
 
 it was the power of the Spirit of God [or the 
 Holy Spirit, as in the Revision] that wrought 
 most effectually to this end. Indeed, without 
 this, the ' mighty signs and wonders' would not 
 have brought a single Gentile soul to the sav- 
 ing obedience of faith. [Of these two forms 
 of miracles, "the 'sign' includes more an ob- 
 jective, the 'wonder' more a subjective refer- 
 ence." (Philippi) The latter word, derived 
 from a verb signifying to watch, is primarily 
 "a sign claiming the observation, the wonder 
 of men." It is never found alone in the New 
 Testament. In 2 Cor. 12: 12, Paul speaks to 
 these very Corinthians in whose city he is now 
 writing of the signs, wonders, and powers per- 
 formed through him among them as signs of 
 his apostleship. See Acts 14: 3; 15: 12; 16: 
 16, seq. ; 19 : 11 ; 20: 10, where mention is made 
 of miracles wrought by the hands of Paul.] 
 So that from Jerusalem, and round about ' 
 [literally, and in a circuit round, in the re- | 
 gions surrounding Jerusalem]. He takes .Jeru- 
 salem and its environs as his starting point, as i 
 that was the place where the other apostles, ' 
 according to the Lord's direction (Luke 24: 47), | 
 began their work, and where he himself first 
 joined their fellowship (Acts 9: 26-28), although he 
 had before this preached at Damascus (Acts 9: 
 13-22), and probably also in Arabia. (Gai. i: n.) 
 Unto lllyricum. This was a district lying 
 along the eastern coast of the Adriatic. We 
 have no mention in the Acts of Paul's preach- 
 ing in that country; but we know, from Acts 
 20 : 1-3, that he traversed Macedonia, which 
 was adjacent to lllyricum, a short time before 
 he wrote this Epistle ; and he probably at that 
 time crossed the boimdary and preached in 
 lllyricum. He mentions this as the western 
 limit, at that time, of his evangelical labors. 
 From Jerusalem, a curve northerly and west- 
 erly to Illj^ricum, would be a distance of not 
 far from fourteen hundred miles in length. 
 ["Upon the southeast terminus a quo follows 
 the northwest terminus ad queyn." (Philippi.) 
 In 2 Tim. 4: 10 we read of Titus going to Dal- 
 
 matia, a part of the Roman province of lllyri- 
 cum, where Paul himself had probably la- 
 bored (Acts 20: 2), and whither he himself may 
 have sent Titus.] I have fully preached 
 [literally, /M(/i/(^erf, the gospel of Christ, in 
 its spirit and purpose, by preaching. Meyer: 
 Brought to fulfillment — that is, spread the gos- 
 pel abroad everywhere. Compare Col. 1 : 25 ; 
 Acts 12: 25. The gospel of Christ had been 
 proclaimed in the most important places 
 throughout this extensive circuit. The word 
 'Christ' in Paul's writings generally takes the 
 article when dependent as here upon a pre- 
 ceding word. Were the apostle again on earth, 
 could he not find a 'place' (ver. 23) and a neces- 
 sity, too, in this same vast region for once more 
 preaching 'the gospel of Christ' in its native 
 simplicity, purity, and power? Were he per- 
 mitted to do so, he would, methinks, tell these 
 peoples, as he did the Galatians: " Ye observe 
 days and months and times and years. I am 
 afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you 
 labor in vain." (oai. 4: 10, u.) Little did he im- 
 agine that after the lapse of eighteen centuries 
 a few Christian people from this then unknown 
 Western world would go to labor in those same 
 regions as missionaries of the cross of Christ.] 
 
 20. Yea, so — that is, according to the rule 
 mentioned in the remainder of the verse. 
 Have I strived — literally, making it a point 
 of honor} The verb translated 'strived' is 
 used in only two other places : 2 Cor. 5 : 9 
 (translated "labor"), and 1 Thess. 4: 11 (trans- 
 lated "study"). Comparing the three pas- 
 sages, we are led to infer that the apostle's idea 
 of true honor in Christian service was this, 
 that he was ambitious, as we might, without 
 much license, translate the word, to do the 
 most unostentatious, the most needful, the most 
 laborious, the most self-denj'ing work for 
 Christ. The church would have great peace, 
 and the whole world would soon have the gos- 
 pel, if all ministers of Christ had this spirit. 
 Not [this introduces the negative specification 
 of the so, as the following but (ver. 21) introduces 
 
 1 Instead of this participle agreeing with |oie in ver. 19, several manuscripts have the finite verb, which, hiwever, 
 is commonly regarded as a correction. — (F.) 
 
298 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken 
 of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall 
 understand. 
 
 22 For which cause also I have been much hindered 
 from coming to you. 
 
 23 But now having no more place in these parts, and 
 having a great desire these many years to come unto 
 you; 
 
 24 Whensoever I take ray journey into Spain, I will 
 come to you : for I trust to see you lu my journey, and 
 
 might not build upon another man's foundation ; 
 
 21 but, as it is written. 
 
 They shall see, to whom no tidings of him 
 came. 
 
 And they who have not heard shall under- 
 stand. 
 
 22 Wherefore also I was hindered these many times 
 
 23 from coming to you : but now, having no more any 
 place in these regions, and having these many years 
 
 24 a longing to come unto you, when.soever I go unto 
 Spain i^for 1 hope to see you in my journey, and to 
 
 the jwsitive. (De Wette. )] where Christ was 
 
 named, or where the gospel had been already 
 preached. He preferred to do strictly pioneer 
 misbionary work in regions destitute of the 
 gospel, and where the necessity' was the most 
 urgent, rather than build upon another 
 man's foundation. [Dr. Gitford remarks 
 that " Paul's letters to the Colossians and Lao- 
 diceans (among whom he had not labored at 
 the time of writing to them) are sufficient 
 proof that in writing to the Church at Rome 
 he was not transgressing his rule to avoid build- 
 ing on another man's foundation." It seems 
 almost needless to say that the apostle, in avoid- 
 ing a field thus partially cultivated, had no self- 
 ish or unworthy motive.] 
 
 21. Having in the latter part of the previous 
 verse described negatively the rule by which 
 he was governed in selecting the field of his 
 evangelistic labors, Paul now describes it posi- 
 tively by a quotation from Isa. 52: 15, taken 
 quite literally from the LXX. [To whom he 
 was not spoken of— literal I3', to whom it loas 
 not announced concerning him. The last two 
 words, rightly filling out the sense, are not in 
 the original Hebrew, but in the LXX. They 
 shall understand. The verb means to send 
 together, here, "to bring the outward object 
 into connection with the inward sense." (Lid- 
 dell and Scott.)] 
 
 22. For which cause— that is, on account 
 of the above rule of choosing my field of labor 
 [or, as De Wette states it: "because I had 
 enough to do from Jerusalem to Illyricum"]. 
 I have been much hindered, or, mnny times 
 hindered. Compare 1 : 13. [Some MSS. here 
 read "often," as in 1: 13. The rendering of 
 the Vulgate, pleritmque, for the most jyart, 
 supposes that Paul had other hindrances. The 
 imperfect tense of the verb denotes in itself a 
 continuous hindrance. The verb, denoting 
 separation, is naturally followed by the geni- 
 tive (here the genitive infinitive) as the case of 
 departure or separation. Farrar notices that 
 several expressions in this chapter are closely 
 
 analogous to some in the first chapter.] From 
 coming to you, to whom I knew the gospel 
 had been successfully preached. [Yet the fact 
 that the Roman Church was founded by others 
 was not the hindrance referred to, for this still 
 remained. What hindered the apostle was his 
 abundant labors in founding churches in desti- 
 tute places in the East.] 
 
 23. Having no more place in these 
 parts — having fully preached the gospel in 
 the regions east of this, I regard my apostolic 
 work in these parts as finished. [The whole 
 statement shows that the hindrances referred 
 to were now removed. According to Meyer, 
 one motive which induced Paul now to visit 
 Rome and the West, was the nearness of the 
 coming of the Lord, which the apostle expected 
 to behold in the flesh, but which could not take 
 place, as the apostle himself has taught us, till 
 the fullness of the Gentiles was brought in, and 
 all Israel were saved! Who can think it pos- 
 sible that the, apostle had such great expecta- 
 tions?] Having a great desire (a longing, 
 it might well be translated) these many 
 years to come unto you. It was about four 
 years since Paul had met at Corinth Aquila 
 and Priscilla, then lately come from Rome 
 (Acts 18: 1-3) ; and although what he had heard 
 from them during the time of his intimate 
 connection with them (Acts 18:3), doubtless in- 
 creased his interest in the church at Rome, 
 and his great desire to visit them (Actsi9: 21), we 
 need not suppose that this was the first knowl- 
 edge he had received of them. Probably he 
 would hardly have spoken of his desire to visit 
 them, as one which he had cherished for many 
 years, if it had not been of longer date than 
 that. 
 
 24. [The most important MSS. omit I will 
 come to you, and retain the for; and this 
 reading, though somewhat difficult and broken, 
 is adopted by Westcott and Hort, and by the 
 Revisers. Godet and Meyer drop the 'for,' 
 thus making it all smooth reading. Whenso- 
 ever {as soon as, see 1 Cor. 11: 34; Phil. 2: 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 299 
 
 to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I 
 be somewhat filled with your company. 
 
 25 But aow I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the 
 saints. 
 
 be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first 
 in some measure 1 shall have been satisfied with 
 
 25 your company), — but now, I say, 1 go unto Jenisalem, 
 
 26 ministering unto the saints. For it hath been the 
 
 23) I take my journey into Spain, I will 
 come to you.] Whether the apostle ever 
 made this journey to Spain cannot be possibly 
 determined.* If he did, it must have been at 
 a later period than that at which the Acts of 
 the Apostles ends. There is much reason to 
 think that between the time of the imprison- 
 ment at Rome, mentioned in the last chapter 
 of Acts, and his martyrdom in that city, he 
 was liberated, traveled in the Eastern parts, 
 and wrote the First Epistle to Timothy, and 
 the Epistle to Titus, after these things; and 
 then was a second time imprisoned in Rome, 
 •where he wrote his Second Epistle to Timothy 
 shortly before his martyrdom. This view is 
 ably presented and defended in an appendix 
 at the close of the second volume of the v/^ork 
 on the "Life and Epistles of Paul," by Cony- 
 beare and Howson. But if the certainty of 
 this release and second imprisonment could be 
 made out, it would not carry with it the cer- 
 tainty that the ap stle made his intended visit 
 to Spain during that intervening period be- 
 tween his two imprisonments. The early tra- 
 dition is too vague and scanty to be the basis 
 of an intelligent belief. Probably this part of 
 the apostle's plan of his own life and labors 
 was never realized. And to be brought on 
 my way thitherward by you. Probably 
 he was accustomed, in his missionary travels, 
 to be escorted on his way, for a greater or less 
 distance, by some of the brethren whom he 
 was leaving (see Acts 15: 3; 17: 14, 15; 20: 
 38; 21: 5, 16 [compare 1 Cor. 16: 6; 2 Cor. 
 1 : 16]), and he was hoping to receive the same 
 courtesy from them on his way to Spain. If 
 first I be somewhat filled with your com- 
 pany. The word 'company' is not in the 
 
 original Greek, but it is well supplied by the 
 translators, being, in fact, implied, and requi- 
 site to complete the sense. [The last clause, 
 literally rendered, is: If I may first in jtart 
 be made full of you — satisfied with your com- 
 pany— "not so much as I might wish, but as 
 much as circumstances will permit." (Gro- 
 tius.) The delicacy of the apostle in all this 
 representation is genuine and consummate. 
 Prof. Boise, in his notes on this passage, says : 
 " It is a common experience in this world that 
 we cannot see enough of those whom we love. 
 Yonder there will be no more parting! " Yet 
 very precious and blessed to us in our frequent 
 earthly farewells, is the sentiment once ad- 
 dressed to the venerable missionary, Dr. Wil- 
 liam G. Schauffler, by Maria Dorothea, the 
 Christian Archduchess of Austria, on occasion 
 of his leave-taking, that "Christians never 
 see each other for the last time."] Paul was 
 evidently looking forward to a short sojourn 
 with the Roman brethren which would partly 
 (somewhat) satisfy his wishes; but only in 
 part, on account of its shortness. How differ- 
 ent was the fact from his expectation! He 
 dwelt two whole years among them bound 
 with a chain. (Acts 28: 20, so.) 
 
 25. But now — before I can indulge my 
 cherished longing to visit you. [This is men- 
 tioned as a hindrance to any immediate visit. 
 These words, ' but now,' which seem to connect 
 back with going to Spain, etc., occur also in 
 the beginning of ver. 23.] I go [am going) to 
 Jerusalem [his fifth journey thither, see Acts 
 9: 26; 11: 30; 15: 4; 18: 21.] To minister 
 (literally, mitiistering, present participle; the 
 journey was a part of the ministering) unto 
 the saints. ["Only they would that we 
 
 1 The most important evidence in favor of the apostle's 
 visit to Spain is the testimony of Clement, the third 
 bishop of Rome, supposed by many to be the Clement 
 mentioned in Phil. 4:3. In his first letter to the Cor- 
 inthians, Clement writes as follows : " Paul received the 
 prize of endurance, having borne chains seven times, 
 having been banished, stoned, and having become a 
 herald in the East and in the West, teaching the whole 
 world; and having come to the limit of the West; 
 and having witnessed (as a martyr) before rulers, he 
 was thus released from the world, and went unto the 
 holy place." It is commonly and truly supposed that 
 Clement, living at Rome, could not speak of that city 
 
 or region a.s "the limit of the West." Muratori's 
 "Fragment on the Canon," written about a. d. 170, 
 makes mention of the "journey of Paul, setting forth 
 from the city (of Rome?) for Spain." Jerome, who 
 spent his early years in Rome, speaks of Paul as having 
 been set free by Nero that he might preach the gospel 
 " also in the regions of the West." Chrysostom and 
 Theodoret assert that the apostle went to Spain after 
 his imprisonment at Rome, and Irenseus refers to 
 churches in Spain as being somewhat ancient in his 
 times. Spimia is another form of Hispania, usually 
 called Iberia.— (F.) 
 
300 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia 
 to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which 
 are at Jerusalem. 
 
 27 It hath pleased them verily, and their debtors they 
 are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of 
 their .spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto 
 them in carnal things. 
 
 28 When therefore I have performed this, and have 
 sealed to them this fruit, 1 will come by you into Spain. 
 
 good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a 
 certain contribution for the poor among the saints 
 
 27 that are at Jerusalem. Yea, it hath been their good 
 pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the 
 Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual 
 things, they owe it to them also to minister unto 
 
 28 theni in carnal things. When therefore I have 
 accomplished this, and have sealed to them this fruit, 
 
 should remember the poor, which very thing 
 I was also zealous to do." (Gai.2:io.) Paul 
 had once before, in company with Barnabas, 
 carried relief unto the brethren that dwelt in 
 Judea. (Acts 11: 30.)] In reference to thio pro- 
 posed journey and ministering, compare Acts 
 19:21; 20:22; 24: 17; 1 Cor. 16 : 1 ; 2 Cor. 
 8:1-6; 9: 1. Such coincidences as these, of 
 which we have many striking instances in the 
 New Testament, not only throw light on the 
 date of the epistles, but being evidently un- 
 studied, are among the strongest evidences of 
 historic truth. See Paley's "Horas Paulinse." 
 26. [For it hath pleased them, etc. — liter- 
 ally, /or Macedonia and Achaia loere pleased, 
 or, thought it good. Instead of Achaia, we have 
 in Acts 20 : 2, Hellas, the more usual classic term 
 for Greece. In his letters to the Corinthians (1 
 Cor. 16 : 1 ; 2 Cor. 9 : 2, and in this place), Paul, 
 as Bengel remarks, "proposes the Galatians as 
 as an example to the Corinthians, the Corin- 
 thians to the Macedonians, and the Corinthians 
 and Macedonians to the Romans. Great is the 
 power of examples." Some have surmised 
 that Paul is here giving a gentle hint to the 
 Romans that a contribution from them Avould 
 be acceptable, but this is altogether improbable. 
 The earnest yet mo.st delicate manner which 
 he uses when seeking a contribution may be 
 seen in 2 Cor., chapters 8 and 9. Query : Was 
 it one motive of the apostle, in dwelling so long 
 on this subject in his letter to the Corinthians, 
 to stop their dissensions and divisions by enlist- 
 ing their thoughts and energies in this chari- 
 table work? The word for contribution 
 properly means a sharing of, or participation 
 in, anything. It is frequently rendered fel- 
 lowship, and it is the word which stands for 
 the "communion" (that is, a partaking) of the 
 body and blood of Christ, (i cor. io:i6.) Com- 
 pare also 2 Cor. 13:14: "The communion of 
 the Holy Ghost." A fellowship or sharing in 
 the necessities of others naturally finds its out- 
 ward expression in the taking up of a collection 
 
 for them or making a contribution. The verb 
 meaning to share in, sometimes rendered to 
 distribute or communicate, occurs in the next 
 verse and in 12 : 13. Paul speaks somewhat 
 slightingly of the contribution as 'a certain,' 
 because any amount of material gifts conferred 
 would to him appear small in comparison with 
 the spiritual blessings received.] For the 
 poor saints — literally, poor of the saints, 
 implying that they were not all poor, and also 
 implying that the alleged community of goods 
 in the church at Jerusalem, if any such thing, 
 in the proper sense of the words, had ever ex- 
 isted there, had ceased to exist before this. 
 
 27. It hath pleased them verily [better, 
 for they were 2:>leased to dh so]. They have 
 done it voluntarily, yet they have done only 
 their duty, for their debtors they are. 
 Having received from the Jewish believers in 
 Jerusalem such great spiritual blessings, they 
 are under obligation to supply, according to 
 their ability, the temporal necessities of their 
 Jewish brethren. [The word for 'debtors' is 
 derived from a verb meaning ought, it is a 
 duty} The apostle regards this ministering to 
 the bodily necessities of the saints as a priestly 
 service for Christ and as truly a religious ser- 
 vice as the preaching of the gospel of God. 
 See in ver. 16, and compare Acts 13 : 2. This 
 is but one text out of many which makes it the 
 duty of those who are taught in the word to 
 communicate unto him that teacheth in "car- 
 nal things" and in "all good things." (Gai.6: 
 
 6 ; 1 Cor. 9 : II, 13, 14 ; 1 Tim. 5 : 17, 18.)] 
 
 28. When therefore I have performed 
 this, and have sealed to them this fruit — 
 
 have made this contribution ['this fruit' of the 
 faith and love of the Gentiles ( Alford)] securely 
 theirs, by actually delivering it into their 
 hands — I Avill come by you [through you, 
 through your city. Compare 2 Cor. 1 : 16. 
 The verb is sometimes used in the sense of 
 coming back]. I will visit you on my way to 
 Spain. See notes on ver. 24. [" Would a 
 
 1 Verbs of sharing usually govern the genitive (see Ueb. 2 : 14), but the verb here signifying to participate in 
 is followed by the dative, as in 12 : 13.— (F.) 
 
Ch. XV.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 301 
 
 29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall 
 come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of 
 Christ. 
 
 30 Xow I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus 
 Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye 
 strive together with me in iionr prayers to (iod for me ; 
 
 31 That I may be delivered from them that do not 
 believe in Judea; and that my service which I have tor 
 Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints; 
 
 32 Thai I may come unto you with joy by the will of 
 God, and may with you be refreshed. 
 
 29 I will go on by you unto Spain. And I know that, 
 when 1 come unto you, I shall come ir; the fulness of 
 the blessing of Christ. 
 
 30 Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive 
 together with me in your prayers to God "for me; 
 
 31 that I may be delivered from them that are dis- 
 obedient in Juduja, and tluii my ministration which / 
 have for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints: 
 
 32 that I may come unto you in joy through the will of 
 
 forger, writing in the apostle's name in the 
 secDnd century, have made him pen a plan of 
 the future so different from the way in which 
 things really came to pass?" (Godet. )] 
 
 29. And I am sure that, when I come, 
 etc. The apostle's assurance on this subject 
 [his bringing with him such abundance of 
 spiritual blessing from Christ] was founded, 
 not only on his conscious desire and purpose 
 to do them good, but also, doubtless, on the 
 remembrance of his experience in other 
 churches that he had visited. ["Not many 
 men would venture to sjjeak so emphatically, 
 but Paul was always perfectly frank in ex- 
 pressing what he felt." (Boise.)] Of the 
 gospel. Tliese words should be omitted, as 
 lacking in the best manuscripts. In the full- 
 ness of the blessing of Christ is the true read- 
 ing. Tins result, which he refers to in other 
 words in 1 : 11, 12, was doubtless realized 
 when he did at last visit them, though his 
 expectation may not have been realized in 
 regard to his journey to Spain. 
 
 30. Now I beseech you, brethren, for 
 the Lord Jesus Christ's sake [I exhort 
 ^'ou through the Lord Jesus Christ (a tender 
 appeal to the Christian's heart), and for (or, 
 by) the love of the Spirit (that love which is 
 poured forth in the hearts of believers by the 
 Holy Spirit), that ye strive together with 
 me, — strive earnestly, wrestle together (as in 
 the games), — in your prayers to God for 
 me. Bengel says that "Paul is the only 
 apostle who asks the praj'ers of believers for 
 himself" In nearly all his epistles (see 2 Cor. 
 1:11; Eph. 6:19; Phil. 1:19; Col. 4:3; 1 
 Thess. 5:2.5; 2 Thess. 3:1; Philem. 22)i he 
 entreats the prayers and supplications of his 
 brethren in his behalf Surely he must have 
 thouglit that the "supplication of a righteous 
 man availeth much." And if such a man as 
 
 he — inspired of God, endowed to work mira- 
 cles, strong in faith, and gifted with mental 
 endowments of the highest order — felt the need 
 of the prayers of his brethren, how much more 
 deeplj' may we feel the need of striving to- 
 gether, with and for one another, in prayer to 
 God! More especially should they who are 
 'separated unto the gospel of God' have the 
 earnest and constant — yea, the wrestling pray- 
 ers of God's people]. Paul's manner is pecu- 
 liarly earnest and solemn here. He not only 
 asks their prayers, but asks them to 'strive' in 
 prayer, and this, not only ' for the Lord Jesus 
 Christ's sake,' which is no unusual expression 
 with him, but also ' for the love of the Spirit,' 
 an unprecedented and remarkable phrase, 
 meaning that love of which the H0I3' Spirit is 
 the author. See Gal. 5 : 22; Col. 1 : 8. This 
 peculiar earnestness and solemnity finds its 
 explanation in the following verse. 
 
 31. That I may be delivered, etc. He 
 knew how bitter was the hatred of the unbe- 
 lieving Jews townrd him since his conversion 
 (Acts 22: 22), and with what suspicion he was re- 
 garded by the believers in Jerusalem [the Jew- 
 ish saints, " all zealots for the law "] ; see Acta 
 20: 22, 23; 21: 10-14, 20, 21; so that, although 
 he was going to the latter on an errand of benefi- 
 cence, he had reason to fear that his service 
 . . . for Jerusalem ["my ministration^ 
 which is for Jerusalem "] might not be ac- 
 cepted ; and the result showed that his forebod- 
 ings were not without reas(m. See Acts 21-23. 
 
 32. That I may come unto you with 
 joy. This is the third object for which he 
 asks them to strive in prayer for him. It was 
 most intimately connected with the preceding 
 two. If the first (first half of ver. 31) was not 
 granted, he could not come unto them at all ; 
 if the second (last half of ver. 31) was not 
 granted, he could not come vnth joy. He 
 
 1 Those who hold to the Pauline authorship of the 
 " Hebrews " would cite 13 : 18 of that epistle. In most 
 of his letters he assures his readers of his supplications 
 on their behalf. See Rom. 1 : 9 ; 2 Cor. 13 : 7-9; Eph. 1 : 
 
 16; Phil. 1 : 4, 9; Col. 1 : 3, 9 ; 1 Thess. 1 : 2 (3 : 10) ; 2 
 Thess. 1 : 11 ; 2 Tim. 1:3; Philem. 4, etc.— ^F.) 
 
 2 For 'ministration,' certain MSS. have the explana- 
 tory, gijt-bringing. — (F.) 
 
302 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XV. 
 
 33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Ameu. 
 
 33 God, and together with you find rest. Kow the God 
 of peace be with you all. Amen. 
 
 hoped to be refreshed [that he might find 
 rest for himself, after his many toils and dan- 
 gers] by his Christian intercourse with them. 
 [In many respects the apostle's prayer and the 
 prayers of his brethren for him were not liter- 
 ally answered. He was indeed' delivered' out 
 of the hands of the Jews, but this deliverance 
 was into two years' imprisonment in Cassarea, 
 to be followed by a wearisomely protracted sea- 
 voyage, with its attendant shipwreck, and this 
 again by a two years' imprisonment in bonds 
 at Rome. Instead of this he hoped soon to 
 visit Rome, to be prospered on his journey 
 thither, to be filled and refreshed with their 
 company for a brief period, and then to be 
 sent forward by them to Spain as the chief seat 
 and scene of his labors. He did indeed 'see 
 Rome ; he iid go there, we must suppose, ' in 
 the fullness of the blessing of Christ,' and not 
 wholly without 'joy.' He did, doubtless, im- 
 part to the believers there '.some spiritual gift,' 
 and though an ambassador of Christ in chains, 
 he yet had, as we have seen at 1 : 15, large 
 opportunities for preaching the gospel in the 
 world's capital, and he doubtless reaped there 
 'some fruit,' even as he had done among the 
 rest of the Gentiles. Still his prayers were not 
 full3' answered. "What then? Did Paul ac- 
 cuse himself, or were there any in his day to 
 accuse him of "want of faith" as the reason 
 his prayers were not answered to the letter? 
 Far enough from this. Paul indeed prayed 
 that he might be 'prospered' in his journey 
 toward Rome, and that he ' might come in joy ' ; 
 but his true prayer was that he might be pros- 
 pered iyi the will of Ood (i: lo), and that he 
 might come through the will of God (or, as 
 several MSS. read : through the will of Christ 
 Jesus). But it was God's will that Paul should 
 visit Rome as a prisoner in chains, and it was 
 the will and counsel of his Lord and Saviour 
 that he should suffer still other things "for his 
 name's sake." (Aots9:i6.) But did not Paul, 
 after all, make a mistake when he compro- 
 mised with those law-zealous saints in Jeru- 
 salem? We have sometimes thought that he 
 did so. But who knows best? Suppose that 
 Paul, after stopping a few days in Judasa, had 
 set out for Rome, and that after a prosperous 
 journey thither and a short period of rest in 
 that place, he had gone to Spain, and that be 
 
 had always had his liberty, never seeing the 
 inside of a prison's walls, would this have been 
 best for the world and the Church of Christ? 
 Should we not have sadly missed his prison 
 experience? And what could we have done 
 without those prison letters of his, some of 
 tiiem, it may be, written with his own chained 
 right hand? Is not "Paul, a prisoner of 
 Christ Jesus," vastly better for the world than 
 Paul with any other epithet? Was not Bun- 
 yan in prison a thousand times better for the 
 cause of Christ than a Bunyan at liberty? If 
 these things are so, then we may say that 
 the prayers of Paul, whose meat and drink it 
 was to do and suffer for the cause and glory of 
 his Saviour, and according to his will, were an- 
 swered — not answered, indeed, according to 
 the plan he had marked out, but in a way 
 which divine wisdom saw best. And who can 
 tell us any better way ? But it may be asked, 
 whether God may not by his Spirit instruct 
 the believer's mind, lead him to see just what 
 to pray for, and give him the faith which will 
 receive the exact answer desired? Certainly, 
 he may do so; and some of the promises made 
 by Christ specially, perhaps, to his more imme- 
 diate disciples, and certain passages in oiie or 
 two of the epistles have a look in this direc- 
 tion. But we do not think that God does this 
 now, save in exceptional cases, nor do we think 
 that even in these cases he invariably permits 
 the praying man to know beforehand that his 
 prayer will be answered to the very letter. It 
 seems to me that if such faith and knowledge 
 were given to any man, they would have been 
 given to the apostle Paul. But they were cer- 
 tainly withholden from him when he prayed 
 for the removal of the "thorn in the flesh" 
 (2 Cor. 12:7), and for a speedy and prosperous 
 journey to Rome and to Spain.] 
 
 33. Now the God of peace be with you 
 all. [A prayer naturally called forth by the 
 thought of this world's unrest. Thankful we 
 may well be to the God of grace and peace 
 that, amid earthly toils and troubles, we may 
 have "the inward peace of conscience, the fra- 
 ternal peace of friendship, the heavenly peace 
 of glory." (Lyra.)] This appears to be the 
 end of the Epistle. It would be a very appro- 
 priate ending, especially in view of the last 
 three chapters. It is supposed by some that 
 
Cn. XVI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 303 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 I COMMEND unto you Phebe our sister, which is a 
 servant of the church which is at C'encbrea: 
 2 That ye receive lier in tlie I^ord, as l)econielh saints, 
 and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath 
 need of you : for she hath been a succourer of many, 
 and of myself also. 
 
 1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, who is a 
 
 2 'servant of the church that is at ("enchreie; that yt 
 receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and 
 that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may 
 have need of you : for she herself also hath been a 
 succourer of luany, and of mine own self. 
 
 1 Or, deaconess. 
 
 the apostle penned this benediction as the ter- 
 mination of his letter, but not finding an oppor- 
 tunity to send it to Rome as soon as he ex- 
 pected, afterward added the salutations and 
 other contents of chapter 16. If this supposi- 
 tion were true, we might be well thankful for 
 the wise providence that caused the detention. 
 
 Ch. 16: [Comniendntion, Salutations, 
 Warning, Salutations of his Compaiiions, 
 Doxology. ] 
 
 The personal salutations in this chapter are 
 important: 
 
 1. As evidences of the truth of Christianity. 
 The mention of so many names and circum- 
 stances excludes all idea of forgery or fiction. 
 But if the writing is authentic, the facts must 
 be true. 
 
 2. As showing the personal character of the 
 apostle. He was altogether and intensely 
 human and social in his affections and sympa- 
 thies. On this account these personal notices 
 are worthy of the pen of inspiration. 
 
 3. As showing how social affections are sanc- 
 tified by religion. 
 
 4. As showing how prominent a part was 
 taken by women in the early diffusing of 
 Christianity. Of the twenty-eight persons 
 here named, eight, at least, perhaps nine, were 
 women. And besides these there were doubt- 
 less some other women included in the house- 
 holds and churches named. [The names of 
 these women are Phebe, Priscilla, Mary, 
 Junia (?), Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, and 
 Julia. Paul also salutes the mother of Rufus 
 and the sister of Nereus, without giving their 
 names. It was no unimportant part which 
 women performed in the early history of 
 Christianity.] 
 
 1. I coininend unto you Phebe, etc. 
 [On the meaning of the verb commend, see 
 notes on 5: 8. 'Phebe.' This is one of the 
 
 names of the goddess Diana. Some others 
 mentioned below — Nereus, Hermes (Hennas), 
 are named after heathen divinities.] M'liich 
 is a servant. The original word is the same 
 which is translated "deacon " in Phil. 1:1; 
 1 Tim. 3: 8, 12. The word is used thirty 
 times in the New Testament, and is translated 
 "minister " or " servant," except in the three 
 places above noted. She may have been one 
 of those women set apart in the earlj' church 
 to perform certain needful services to their 
 own sex. We know that such a class existed 
 as early as the time of Trajan and Pliny, less 
 than half a centurj' after the date of this 
 Epistle;^ and manj' commentators think that 
 1 Tim. 3 : 11 refers to this class of persons, 
 and should be translated " the women " (that 
 is, who perform to their own sex similar offices 
 to those which the deacons perform for men), 
 and not "their wives," the word "their" 
 being supplied by the translators. This view 
 is somewhat favored by the u.se of the parti- 
 ciple in Greek, expressed in English by the 
 relative clause 'which is,' before the word 
 'servant.' Cenchrea was the port of Cor- 
 inth on the East, eight or nine miles from the 
 city. 
 
 2. He exhorts them to receive her reli- 
 giously (as one who is) in the Lord, as 
 becoineth saints — in the way in which you, 
 as Christians, ought to receive a fellow-Chris- 
 tian. And that ye (may) assist her. She 
 was deserving of this by many titles, — as a 
 woman, as a Christian, and as a helper, or 
 protectress of many, — and it was especially fit 
 that Paul should ask this on her behalf, be- 
 cause he had himself received kindness at her 
 hands. [In whatsoever business she hath 
 need of you. Taking the antecedent, 'busi- 
 ness,' out of the relative clause, we might 
 have this construction: assist her in any busi- 
 ness in which she may have need of you. 
 
 1 Pliny the younger, when Governor of the Province 
 of Hylhinia (died about a. d. 117), wrote to the Emperor 
 Trajan that he thought it necessary to torture two Chris- 
 tian women "quse ministrae dicebantur," who were 
 
 called deaconesses, that he might find out the truth 
 in regard to this new "superstition," afterward termed 
 by him " pravam et immodicam," depraved and extrava- 
 gant.-(F.) 
 
304 
 
 KOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ 
 Jesus : 
 
 4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: 
 uuto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the 
 churches of the Gentiles. 
 
 3 Salute Prisca and Aquila my fellow-workers in 
 
 4 Christ Jesus, who for my life laid down their own 
 necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but also 
 
 5 all the churches of the Gentiles ; and salute the 
 
 For she liath been, etc. Tlie Common ! 
 Version, by omitting also («ol), fails to bring 
 out the full idea of the original. Paul would 
 say: Do you assist her, 'for she' (or, this 
 one), too (on her part), has assisted many.'] 
 This language not only favors the supposition 
 that she was a deaconess, but seems to imply 
 that she was a person of some property and 
 social position. [" Phebe may have tendered 
 service to St. Paul at Cenchrea on the occa- 
 sion mentioned in Acts 18 : 18. His vow seems 
 to point to a deliverance from danger or 
 sickness." (" Biblical Commentary.") This 
 Christian woman also rendered a most im- 
 portant service to the Christian Church, in 
 bearing (if the subscription to our Common 
 Version is true) this Epistle, a precious treas- 
 ure, safely to the saints that were in Eome.] 
 3, 4. [Priscilla is the diminutive of Prisca. 
 and this latter is the better-attested form in 
 the manuscripts. Aquila (the Greek form, 
 Aquilas, would better distinguish his sex) 
 and Priscilla were Koman names, it being 
 "common for Jews to assume such names out 
 of Palestine." (Hackett.) Other Latin names 
 mentioned here are Amplias (Ampliatus), 
 Urbanus, Junia, Rufus, and Julia. All the 
 rest are names of Greek origin. Juvenal 
 called Rome a "Greek city." The name of 
 the wife, Priscilla, is generally mentioned 
 first perhaps on account of her " preponderant 
 Christian activity " (Meyer), or, "relative su- 
 periority." (Hackett.) None of the persons 
 whose names now follow, save, perhaps, that 
 of Rufus, are elsewhere mentioned in the New 
 Testament.] These persons [having been ex- 
 pelled from Rome as Jews, under Claudius] 
 were at Corinth with Paul (Acts is: 2), after- 
 ward at Ephesus (Actsis: m), where they still 
 were when Paul wrote his first letter to the 
 Corinthians (1 cor. 16: 19), now at Rome, and 
 later, still again at Ephesus. [The objection 
 
 of Renan, that this is "too nomadic a life," 
 is well answered by Bishop Lightfoot. See 
 "Biblical Commentary," p. 28.] "When, and 
 where, and how they had risked their own lives 
 to save his, we are not informed ; but we have 
 the proof that he was grateful for it, and so, 
 with good reason, were all the churches of 
 the Gentiles. [Who (since they, oinvei) 
 laid down their own necks— not literally, 
 but as if under the executioner's axe. This, 
 probably, was at Ephesus, where the apostle 
 fought with men as with wild beasts, and 
 had the sentence of death within himself, and. 
 despaired even of life. Aquila was a fellow- 
 worker with Paul in tent making; but both 
 he and Priscilla were fellow-workers with 
 him in Christ Jesus. " Labor for the gospel 
 lives and moves 'in Christ' as its very ele- 
 ment." (Meyer.) How much a devoted lay- 
 brother, an earnest Christian sister in the 
 church, can do, in sustaining and encour- 
 aging the gospel minister, and in helping on 
 the cause of Christ ! Virtually they are 
 preachers of the gospel, though themselves 
 never occupj'ing the "sacred desk.''] 
 
 5. It seems to have been no uncommon 
 thing for brethren who had convenient dwell- 
 ings for the purpose to open their houses for the 
 assemblies of Christian worshipers; and such 
 assemblies are repeatedly called "churches," 
 though probably not fully in the technical 
 sense of that word. In a large city like 
 Rome, such a custom must have been an 
 important convenience. See ver. 14, 15; Col. 
 4: 15; Philem. 2. [According to 1 Cor. 16: 
 19, these two disciples, prior to this, had 
 opened their house in Ephesus for such 
 assemblies. "It is probable," says Dr. 
 Hodge, "that from his occupation as tent 
 maker, he had better accommodations for the 
 meetings of the church than most other 
 Christians." Some regard "the church in 
 
 1 The student will notice that in the Trapacrr^Te and j out a certain emphasis." These pronouns are to be 
 
 irpo(7Ta<7i<: of the original, there is a slight paronomasia. 
 Instead of Ibe demonstrative avrri (this one) of ourTextus 
 Receptus, the Revisers have the intensive pronoun 
 avTi), s/ie herself, or, simply, she, as this pronoun is com- 
 monly supposed to have a weakened force in the New 
 Testament, though Winer thinks " it never occurs with- 
 
 distinguished from the contracted forms, ouTiij (for 
 eauTfl), to herself, and auTrj (for i) avrri), the same. But 
 these, and like contract forms of pronouns, are not now 
 supposed to occur, or, at least but rarely, in the New 
 Testament. — (F.) 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 305 
 
 5 Likewise qreel the church that is in their house. 
 Salute my well beloved Epeuetus, who is the tirst fruits 
 of Achaia unto Christ. 
 
 6 lireet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us. 
 
 7 Salute Audronicus and Junia, luy kinsmen, and my 
 fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, 
 who also were in Christ before nie. 
 
 8 Greet Amplias, my beloved in the Lord. 
 
 y Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys 
 my beloved. 
 
 church that is in their house. Salute Epaenetus my 
 beloved, who is the tirstfruits of Asia unto Christ. 
 
 6 Salute Mary, who bestowed much labour on you. 
 
 7 Salute Andronicus and 'Junias, my kinsmen, and 
 my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apos- 
 
 8 ties, who also have Deen in Christ before me. Salute 
 Ampliatus my beloved in the Lord. Salute Urbanus 
 
 our fellow-worker in Christ, and Stachys my beloved. 
 
 their liouse" as the Christian members of the 
 family; but this seems improbable. Justin 
 Martyr speaks of Christians assembling at 
 his house, when he was at Rome, for pur- 
 poses of instruction. See Alford.] Instead 
 of Achaia, we should read "Asia," on the 
 authority of the best manuscripts. [This 
 'Asia' is Proconsular, or lesser Asia, on the 
 western coast of Asia Minor. In 1 Cor. 16: 
 15, it is stated that the house of Stephanas 
 was the first fruits of Achaia ; so that if Achaia 
 was here the genuine reading, we might rea- 
 sonably suppose that Epenetus belonged to 
 this 'house,' or, at least, that he was one of 
 the earliest converts in that country.] 
 
 6. Greet Mary, Avho. [The compound 
 relative here has the force of: for she, or, since 
 she. See notes on 1 : 25, and for similar com- 
 pounds in this chapter, see ver. 4. 7, 12.] Who 
 this person was and where she bestowed her 
 much labour or toil on us — that is, on Paul 
 and his fellow-laborers (or, according to the 
 more approved reading on "you" — that is, on 
 the disciples at Rome), must remain unknown 
 to us. The pronouns, 'you' and 'us' differ in 
 Greek only by a single vowel, and the pro- 
 nunciation of these two vowels was very simi- 
 lar (in the modern Greek, precisely identical) ; 
 so that they would be verj^ easily confounded 
 with each other, especially in copying from 
 dictation. The manuscripts show that these 
 pronouns were often interchanged. [The name 
 ' Mary ' (Hebrew, Miriam) indicates her Jew- 
 ish descent. No doubt 'us' instead of 'you' 
 was the original reading, as "elsewhere the 
 apostle always brings out prominently the 
 relations of the persons saluted to his own 
 labors." (Lange.) The aorist tense of the 
 verb possibly indicates that she performed no 
 long-continued but some special act of service. 
 Paul mentions four females in this chapter 
 who labored or toiled much in the Lord.] 
 
 7. Whether the nominative of lounian is 
 Junias, a man, or Junia, a woman, is uncer- 
 
 tain. If the latter, as Chrysostom thought, 
 with whom some modern commentators agree, 
 she was probably the wife, or perhaps the 
 si-ster, of -Andronicus. But the prevalent oi)in- 
 ion is that the name is of the masculine gender. 
 My kinsmen — not merely in the national, but 
 in the more personal sense. [Si.x persons in 
 this chapter are called by Paul, his kinsmen.] 
 My fellow prisoners — where and when can 
 only be conjectured. Clement of Rome says 
 that Paul was seven times in prison; compare 
 2 Cor. 11 : 23, " in prisons more abundantly." 
 Of note among the apostles. Honorably 
 known by the apostles, is all the expres.sion 
 necessarily involves; not that they themselves 
 were reckoned as apostles. Who also were 
 in Christ before me ["entered the fellow- 
 ship of Christ." (Meyer.) Alford says: "In 
 the use of the perfect there is a mixed con- 
 struction — ' who have been longer than me,' 
 and,' who we?'e before me.' "] Paul was not the 
 ^?-s< among the kindred to which he belonged, 
 to believe in Christ. It is generally thought 
 that Paul's conversion took place about three 
 or four years after the crucifixion of Christ. 
 [Paul elsewhere confesses himself to be " the 
 least of the ai)ostle.s," and here he says he 
 was not the first of his kindred to become a 
 Christian. Possibly the two persons named 
 were converted at the Pentecost and were the 
 real founders of the Roman Church. A few 
 manuscripts make the who (by the use of to??) 
 refer to the apostles, a mistaken reference.] 
 8, 9. Greet Amplias. This is an abbre- 
 viation for Ampliatus, which is the form as 
 found in several of the oldest manuscripts. 
 [In like manner, Lucas was contracted from 
 Lucanus, Silas from Silvanus, etc.] My be- 
 loved in the Lord — whom I love as a Chris- 
 tian. Urbane is the name of a man and not 
 of a woman, as the form of the name in Eng- 
 lish might seem to intimate. Our helper in 
 Christ. This L^rbanus or Urban, seems to 
 have rendered some assistance to the Roman 
 
 U 
 
506 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 10 Salute Appelles approved in Christ. Salute them I 10 Salute Apelles the approved in Christ. Salute them 
 tvhich are of Aristobulus' AoiiseAoW. who are of \he kousehold of Aristobulus. Salute 
 
 1 1 Salute Herodion luy kinsman. Greet them that be 11 Herodion my kinsman. Salute them of the household 
 of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord. | 
 
 disciples as well as to Paul — our fellow worker. 
 And Stachys my beloved. In this instance, 
 he does not add : ' in the Lord,' as he does in 
 most cases; yet doubtless 'Stachys' was also 
 a disciple and was loved, like the rest, with 
 Christian atfection. [Ampliatus, Urbanus, 
 Stachys, Apelles, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Rufus, 
 Hermes, Patrobas (or, Patrobius), Hernias, 
 Philologus, Julia, Nereus, "are found in the 
 sepulchral inscriptions on the Appian way, as 
 the names of persons connected with ' Caesar's 
 household,' and contemporary with St. Paul." 
 ("Biblical Commentary.") Some of these 
 names were very common in thatageand coun- 
 try, others were comparatively rare. " At all 
 events," says Bishop Lightfoot, "this investi- 
 gation (of names) will not have been useless, 
 if it has shown that the names and allusions 
 at the close of the Roman Epistle are in keep- 
 ing with the circumstances of the metropolis 
 in St. Paul's day ; for thus it will have sup- 
 plied an answer to two foi'ms of objection ; the 
 one denying the genuineness of the last two 
 chapters of this letter, and the other, allowing 
 their genuineness, but detaching the saluta- 
 tions from the rest, and assigning them to 
 another Epistle." Dr. Gilford in the " Bibli- 
 cal Commentary," supposes these salutations 
 belonged to a second letter to the Romans. 
 But this and other suppositions which have 
 been made, create more difficulty than they 
 remove. The constant intercourse between 
 Rome and the East, and Paul's protracted 
 labors in all the latter region — giving him 
 large opportunities for becoming acquainted 
 with brethren from Romeor brethren visiting 
 Rome — furnish sufficient explanation of the 
 many salutations which he sends to the Roman 
 Church.] 
 
 10. Of all those named, from the fifth verse 
 to the tenth inclusive, nothing is known except 
 what is here recorded. Apelles must not be 
 confounded, as he has been by some of the 
 ancients and by Grotius among the moderns, 
 with Apollos mentioned in Acts 18: 24; 19: 1, 
 and in several other places. [When Horace 
 ("Sat." 1, v., 100), speaking of some supersti- 
 tion, says : " The Jew Apella may believe this, 
 not I," he seems to make this name stand for a 
 
 typal Jew.] Approved in Christ— a Chris- 
 tian, proved by trial. Aristobulus' house- 
 hold—them which belong to Aristobulus. 
 The word household is not in the original. 
 [Yet the original shows us that not all the 
 dependents of Aristobulus were saluted, but 
 only some of them — namely, those, as we 
 must suppose, who were ' in Christ.' The same 
 holds true of the household of Narcissus in the 
 next verse as is there expressly stated.] Why 
 is no salutation sent to Aristobulus himself? 
 Because he was no Christian, answers Meyer, 
 unless he had previously died, in which case 
 he may have been a Christian. But why may 
 he not have been a Christian still living, but 
 known by Paul to have been at this time 
 absent from Rome? There is room for a sup- 
 position, not less plausible than either of those 
 named by Meyer, and much more interesting 
 and not destitute of some historical support. 
 Rev. John Williams (1811-1861), in his "Ec- 
 clesiastical Antiquities of Cymry," says : "Ar- 
 wystli, a man of Italy," is mentioned in the 
 "Welsh Genealogies of the Saints," as one of 
 four Christian missionaries, who accompanied 
 Bran, the first Welsh Christian (converted 
 while a captive in Rome) on his return to his 
 native country. This Arwystli is supposed to 
 be the same person as Aristobulus, mentioned 
 in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. The forma- 
 tion of the name from the Greek would be in 
 perfect accordance with the analogy of the 
 Welsh language. But what adds the greatest 
 support to this hypothesis is the fact that in 
 the Greek menology Aristobulus is said to 
 have been ordained by Paul as a bishop for the 
 Britons. In this case the Greeks and the 
 Welsh are witnesses wholly independent of 
 each other, so that collusion is out of the ques- 
 tion. See " Bibliotheca Sacra," October, 1875, 
 pp. 656, 657. [There was also an Aristobulus, 
 grandson of Herod the Great, who lived at 
 Rome and was an intimate friend of Claudius. 
 Some have supposed that his household (slaves) 
 may have been bequeathed by him to the em- 
 peror, and that these may have formed a part 
 of 'Caesar's household.' (rhii.4:22.)] 
 
 11. Of Herodion [a name formed from 
 Herod, like Caesarion from Caesar], the kins- 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 307 
 
 12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the 
 Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much 
 in the Lord. 
 
 13 Salute liufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother 
 and luiiie. 
 
 14 Salute A.syncritus, Phlcgon, Hennas, Patrobas, 
 Hermes, and the brethren which are with them. 
 
 15 Salute Philologus, and Julia^ Nereus, and his 
 sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with 
 them. 
 
 12 of Narci-ssus, who are in the Lord. Salute Tryphiena 
 and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute Per- 
 sis the beloved, who laboured much in the Lord. 
 
 13 Salute Rufus the chosen in the Lord, and his mother 
 
 14 and mine. Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, 
 Patrobas, Herma.s, and 'the brethren that are with 
 
 15 them. Salute Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his 
 sister, and Olympas, and all the saints that are with 
 
 man of Paul, we know nothing further. Nar- 
 cissus, a froedtnan and favorite of Chiudius, 
 say Grotius, Micliaelis, and Neander; but this 
 Narcissus was executed in the beginning of 
 Nero's reign— about a. d. 55. (Tacitus "An- 
 na!." 13: L) But his family may have been 
 designated, as they are here, after his death. 
 It is more probable, however, that this was 
 another Narcissus, a favorite of Nero, put to 
 death afterward by Galba. 
 
 13. Tryphena and Tryphosa were prob- 
 ably sisters. Meyer conjectures that these and 
 the beloved Persis were deaconesses. The 
 first two are described as laboring in the Lord 
 by a present participle [while their names de- 
 note those who live voluptuously]. The last 
 is mentioned as having toiled much, by a verb 
 in the past tense. Perhaps she was unable 
 now to work, through illness or age. [The 
 name ' Persis ' was probably derived from the 
 country of Persia, just as Lydia denotes a 
 Lydian, etc. Commentators note the delicacy 
 of the apostle in here employing 'the' and 
 not my before 'beloved,' the 'my beloved' 
 being seemly only when referring to men, as 
 in ver. 5, 8, 9. The apostle's frequent com- 
 mendation of females who abounded in their 
 Christian labors, toiling not only much, but, 
 as the verb implies, laboriously, makes it evi- 
 dent tliat he would not restrict them from the 
 most abundant Christian activity.] 
 
 13. This Rufus may have been the one 
 mentioned in Mark 15: 21 ; but the name was 
 a common one. Chosen [literally, elect] in 
 the Lord. As this might, in a general sense, 
 be said of every Christian, the special appli- 
 cation of it to Rufus implies peculiar excel- 
 lence — a choice Christian. And his mother 
 and mine. ' His,' naturally ; ' mine,' by her 
 motherly care and my filial respect and grati- 
 tude. If the suggestion above, in regard to 
 ' Rufus,' is correct, his mother was the wife of 
 that Simon who bore the Saviour's cross. 
 We know nothing of the time or manner in 
 which she had shown motherly kindness to 
 the apostle; but there is a grateful emphasis 
 
 [the pronoun 'mine' being emphatic by form 
 and position], and a graceful delicacy in the 
 way in which he here acknowledges the obli- 
 gation. [" Let us remark, in closing, the ex- 
 quisite delicacy and courtesy which guide the 
 apostle in those distinguishing epitliets with 
 which he accompanies the names of the ser- 
 vants or handmaids of Christ, whom he men- 
 tions. Each of those descriptive titles is, as it 
 were, the rough draft of the new name which 
 those persons shall bear in glory." (Godet. )] 
 14, 15. These ten persons [perhaps less noted 
 than the preceding, since they have no hono- 
 rary epithets] are grouped into two equal com- 
 panies, other unnamed persons being added to 
 each company and embraced in the common 
 .salutation — in the first case under the designa- 
 tion brethren, in the second case with the 
 title saints. These were probably persons 
 accustomed to meet with those named for re- 
 ligious worship. Compare ver. 5. The Her- 
 nias mentioned in ver. 14 was not, as Origen 
 believed, the author of the book called the 
 "Shepherd of Hernias," in the collection at- 
 tributed to the "Apostolical Fathers'"; for 
 that book belongs to a later age, and was prob- 
 ably written by another Hernias, brother of 
 Pius I., Bishop of Rome, about the year 150. 
 [Winer thinks that Hernias is probably a con- 
 traction for Hermodoros, as Olj'mpas for 
 Olumpiodorus.] It is uncertain whether the 
 loidian of ver. 15 was a man (Julias) or a 
 woman (Julia). If the latter, she was proba- 
 bly the wife of Philologus, and this is rendered 
 somewhat more probable by the mention of 
 Nereus, and his sister immediately after. 
 [This closes the apostle's personal greetings. 
 That Peter's name does not appear in this long 
 catalogue shows that he was not then in Rome, 
 otherwise he would have been saluted first of 
 all. It is pleasant to think, and it certainly is 
 highly probable, that some of these beloved 
 Roman saints, whose names have now passed 
 under review, formed a part of the two bands 
 who, some three years later, went out on the 
 Appian way — the one thirty miles to the Tres 
 
308 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Gh. XVI. 
 
 16 Salute one another with a holy kiss. The churches I 16 them. Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the 
 of Christ salute you. churches of Christ salute you. 
 
 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are 
 cause divisions and otl'ences contrary to the doctrine causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling 
 which ye have learned; and avoid them. I contrary to the 'doctrine which ye learned: and 
 
 1 Or, teaching. 
 
 Tabernce, and the other forty miles to the 
 Appii Forum, to meet this their beloved apos- 
 tle, now coming to them as Christ's "ambas- 
 sador in chains." No wonder that at such an 
 exhibition of Christian sympathy and love the 
 apostle "thanked God and took courage," and 
 that here at length his soul was filled with 
 "joy," and his tired spirit found "rest."] 
 
 16. [The greetings which Paul has to offer 
 from himself hoAug concluded, he now desires 
 that his readers should exchange greetings 
 with one another. (Meyer.)] The salutation 
 with a kiss was a common custom, as it still is 
 among many Oriental nations, with men as 
 well as women, like hand-shaking with us. 
 Compare Matt. 26 : 49 ; Mark 14 : 45 ; Luke 7 : 
 45; 15:20; Acts 20:37. See similar injunc- 
 tions in 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 
 5 : 26 ; 1 Peter 5 : 14. With (in) a holy kiss. 
 [The preposition is commonly supposed to be 
 used either of accompaniment or of instru- 
 ment. It properly marks the kiss as that in 
 which the salutation consisted.] It was an 
 early custom, as we learn from Justin Martyr, 
 TertuUian, and the so-called "Apostolical 
 Constitutions," at the close of the prayer 
 before the Lord's Supper, for the disciples to 
 exchange this salutation [the osculum pacis o? 
 TertuUian] with one another, men with men, 
 and women with women. As a general cus- 
 tom, it was probably early laid aside. Some 
 small sections of the church still retain it. 
 Paul calls it 'holy' because it was an expres- 
 sion of the holy Christian fellowship of love. 
 The churches of Christ salute you. It 
 was no secret that Paul wished and intended 
 to visit Kome. See Acts 19 : 21. And per- 
 haps it was widely known among the churches 
 that he was writing to the disciples there about 
 this time, in wliich case it would be natural 
 for them to send their Christian greeting 
 through him. [We may also say that Paul 
 kneiv, by his intercourse with the churches, 
 that they were minded to send their love to 
 the brethren that were in Kome.] The word 
 all is prefixed to 'the churches' by Tischen- 
 dorf [Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers], 
 
 and this reading is well sustained. At the 
 close of these salutations, the apostle inserts a 
 solemn warning against those erroneous teach- 
 ers who cause divisions, (ver. 17-20.) 
 
 17. I beseech you. An expression denot- 
 ing the importance of the admonition and 
 Paul's earnestness in it. Mark them Avhich 
 cause (the) divisions and offences — or, 
 watch them closely. [These may include both 
 Judaizing teachers and Gentile converts, per- 
 haps the latter especially, as being more nat- 
 urally inclined to Epicurean sensualism, or 
 serving their own belly. We think, with most 
 expositors, that "Paul is not here speaking 
 against such as already were actually making 
 divisions in Rome." On the contrary, he 
 commends in highest terms their faith and 
 their obedience. Ver. 19; see 1:8. Paul, 
 writing from Corinth, where the church had 
 been so distracted by parties, might very nat- 
 urally give such counsel to any church. TAe 
 divisions' refer to such as were well known to 
 the readers — divisions "which at that time 
 arose in so many quarters in Pauline churches 
 and might readily threaten the Romans also." 
 (Meyer.) At a later period, these divisions 
 may have actually commenced at Rome. See 
 Phil. 1 : 15-17 ; 3 : 18.] Contrary to the 
 doctrine which ye have learned. [This 
 "'doctrine' must have been what we call 
 Pauline, the pure gospel doctrine of Christ."] 
 Heresy and schism are closely connected. 
 False doctrine cannot be preached among 
 those knowing and loving the truth without 
 causing divisions and oftenses, and those who 
 seek, from ambitious and selfish motives, to 
 make divisions and "to draw away disciples 
 after them," are wont to devise some new and 
 false doctrine as a means of accomplishing 
 their object. (Act»20:3o.) Avoid them. He 
 does not say "confute them" [or, hold a 
 public discussion with them (Boise)], but turn 
 away from them. " Bow ye away from them," 
 is WicliflFe's translation of the expression. 
 Compare 2 Thess. 3 : 6 ; 1 Tim. 6:5; Titus 3 : 10, 
 [Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort have the 
 present tense — turn ^-e ever away from them.j 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 309 
 
 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, but their own belly ; and by good words and fair 
 speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. 
 
 19 For your ulieilieiiee is come al)road unto all men. 
 I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would 
 have you wise unto that which is good, and simple con- 
 cerning evil. 
 
 21) And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under 
 your feet shortly. The grace of our J^ord Jesus Christ 
 bi: with you. Amen. 
 
 21 Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, 
 and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you. 
 
 18 turn aw'ay from them. For they that are such serve 
 notour llord Christ, but their own belly; and by 
 their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts 
 
 19 of the innocents. For your obedince is come abroad 
 unto all men. I rejoice therefore over you : but I 
 W'ould have you wise unto that which i.s good, and 
 
 20 simple unto that which is evil. And the God of 
 peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. 
 
 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 
 
 21 Timothy my fellow-worker saluteth you ; and 
 
 18, 19. [For they that are such— liter- 
 ally, /or <Ae such persons.] These makers of 
 divisions and olfenses, however fair and fine 
 their pretensions and speeches might be, were 
 not sincerely serving Christ, but rather serving 
 their own sensual and selfish ends. And the 
 aim of all their kind and plausible words is 
 only to deceive those innocent ones who, being 
 without guile themselves, are slow to suspect 
 it in others.' But I do not expect that you 
 will be so easily deceived, for your obedi- 
 ence (to the gospel) is come abroad unto 
 all men. Respecting you, therefore, I have 
 confidence and joy. Now my wish concern- 
 ing you is tliat you may be wise unto {in 
 reference to) that which is good, and sim- 
 ple concerning evil, pure from all admix- 
 ture with it. The word here translated 'sim- 
 ple' [that which is without foreign admixture, 
 hence in a "true and natural condition" 
 (Trench)] is the same which is translated 
 harmless in Phil. 2:15 and in Matt. 10:16. 
 [" Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." 
 It requires, methinks, great prudence and 
 grace to blend tliis serpent-wisdom and dove- 
 liarmlessr^ess together. INIeyer sees in this 
 verse "a delicate combination of warning 
 with the expression of firm confidence."] 
 
 20. The God of peace [ "the God of 
 whom peace is a characterizing attribute" 
 (Ellicott)], so named in contrast with the 
 makers of divisions. Shall bruise Satan, 
 whose servants and emissaries these authors of 
 strifes and oflfenses are. [We are taught here 
 and elsewhere in the Scriptures that it is not 
 the Virgin Mary who shall bruise the serpent's 
 head, as the Decree on the Immaculate Con- 
 
 ception (enacted December 8th, 1854) declares, 
 but the 'God of peace,' or he who is the seed 
 of the woman, the Son of Mary and the Son of 
 God. A very few authorities have here the verb 
 in the optative mood : May the God of peace 
 crush Satan, etc.] Under your feet shortly. 
 Your conflict shall not be long; your victory 
 shall be speedy and complete. [This ' shortly,' 
 according to Godet, denotes, not the nearness 
 of the event, but the celerity or quickness with 
 which it shall be accomplished.] There is an 
 apparent allusion here to Gen. 3:15. Every 
 triumph of the Christian or of the church over 
 the disturbers of their peace is a part and proof 
 of Christ's victory over Satan. The brief dox- 
 ology which follows seems again to close tho 
 Epistle. But the apostle has still some salu- 
 tations to add and a more formal doxology to 
 follow. This apparently broken and renewed 
 conclusion is a characteristic of this Epistle 
 [as also of several other of his letters. See 
 Phil. 4 : 20, seq. ; 2 Tiiess. 3 : 16, seq. ; 1 Tim. 
 6:16, seq.; 2 Tim. 4:18, seq.] 
 
 21. Timothy's name is joined with Paul's in 
 the superscription of five of his letters. See 2 
 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1 : 1 ; 1 Thess. 1 : 1 ; 2 
 Thess. 1 : 1. [On Timothy's long and intimate 
 acquaintance with Paul, see Farrar's "Life 
 of St. Paul," page 260.] But he may not 
 have been with the apostle when this Epistle 
 was begun, or the apostle may have had some 
 other good reason for not inserting his name 
 at the beginning. [According to Meyer, 
 "Paul deemed it suitable to appear with his 
 Epistle before the Roman Church, to which 
 he was still so strange, in all his unique and 
 undivided ai)ostolical authority." Lucius 
 
 1 In the MSS. D E F G, the word rendered ' fair 
 speeches' (most frequently trailslated blessing) is want- 
 ing, being omitted, according to Meyer, " through the 
 homceoteleuton," or mistake arising from similar end- 
 ings of connected words. The for in ver. 19 seems to 
 assign a reason for the above exhortation, their obedi- 
 ence to the faith furnishing a ground of confidence that 
 they will heed the exhortation. The yow in the phrase, 
 
 Ihe-of-you-obedience, is thought by some to be emphatic 
 as contrasted with the simple. Buttmann (p. 117) says 
 that this intermediate position of the pronoun is pecu- 
 liar to the style of Paul. Its regular position would be 
 before tlie article or after the substantive, save when 
 some adjective or adverbial limitation stands between 
 them.— (F.) 
 
310 
 
 EOMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the 
 Lord. 
 
 23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saliiteth 
 you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, 
 and Quartus a brother. 
 
 24 The grace of oar Lord Jesus Christ he with you all. 
 Amen. 
 
 22 Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen. I 
 Tertius, i who write the epistle, salute you in the 
 
 2.3 Lord. Gaius my host, and of the whole church, 
 saluteth you. Erastus the treasurer of the city 
 saluteth you, and Quartus the brother.2 
 
 1 Or, who write the epistle in the Lord, salute you 2 Some ancient authorities insert here ver. 'H, The grace of c 
 
 Christ be with you all. Amen, and omit tbe like words in ver. 20. 
 
 is probably "Lucius of Cyrene," mentioned 
 in Acts 13: 1; certainly not Luke the evan- 
 gelist, whose name is spelt differently [Loukas, 
 Lucas, or Lucanus], and who is never called 
 Paul's kinsman. [Jason, a Grsecised name 
 for Jesus, "perhaps identical with Jason of 
 Thessalonica." (Philippi.) See Acts 17: 5, 
 seq.] Sosipater is probably the same who 
 i§ mentioned as a Berean, his name being 
 abbreviated to "Sopater," in Acts 20: 4. 
 
 22. I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, 
 salute you in the Lord. The name, 'Ter- 
 tius,' is a Roman name; and probably this 
 man, who is not mentioned elsewhere, was a 
 "Roman. The apostle was accustomed to em- 
 ploy an amanuensis, writing only the closing 
 salutation with his own hand. See 1 Cor. 
 16: 21; Col. 4: 18; 2 Thess. 3: 17. It was 
 appropriate that a Eoman scribe s^hould be 
 selected to write this epistle at Paul's dicta- 
 tion. That he should use the first person in 
 sending his own salutation, if not quite regu- 
 lar, was quite natural. ["It would have been 
 altogether unseemly for Paul to send the 
 salutation from Tertius as from a third per- 
 son, while the latter himself wrote it down." 
 (Philippi.) Meyer sui)poses that the Roman 
 Christians might be acquainted with Tertius, 
 who was probably an Italian ; but it seems to 
 me that the amanuensis of such a letter to 
 such a people, would naturally feel interested 
 in them, even though not personally ac- 
 quainted.] 
 
 23. Gaius (in Latin, Caius) is probably 
 the same whom Paul baptized (icor. i: u), and 
 may be the same with the one mentioned in 
 Acts 20: 4 (Gaius of Derbe) ; but the name 
 is so common that we cannot be sure of the 
 identity. See Acts 19: 29; 3 John 1. Mine 
 host. His house was Paul's home while this 
 Epistle was penned [as that of Aquila, and, 
 perhaps, of Justus, had been on a previous 
 occasion. (Acts 18: 1-7.) This word means guest 
 as well as host.] And of the whole church. 
 The most natural interpretation of these words 
 
 is, that the church was accustomed to hold its 
 meetings in Gaius' house; or they may mean, 
 as Meyer suggests, that in consequence of his 
 having the apostle for a guest, his house was 
 the frequent resort of the Corinthian disciples 
 in general. Erastus, the chamberlain of 
 the city — or the city treasurer (of the city of 
 Corinth), commonly identified with the one 
 mentioned in Acts 19: 22, and 2 Tim. 4: 20; 
 but the per.son mentioned in these two places 
 seems to have been one of Paul's traveling 
 assistants, which could hardly be reconciled 
 with his holding the office here ascribed to 
 him. It is possible, to be sure, that he may 
 have afterward laid down that oflBce to join 
 Paul in his evangelical journeys and labors, 
 and be described here as having held it, or, 
 perhaps, as still holding it at the time the 
 Epistle was written ; but the name was not so 
 unusual as to require this somewhat forced 
 supposition. At any rate, this case would be 
 rather an exceptional one among the disciples, 
 according to what the apostle writes to the 
 Corinthians (i cor. i : 26) : [" Not many mighty." 
 Bengel remarks that " the faith of a most in- 
 fluential man must have been a source of joy 
 to the Romans."] Quartus, a brother, is 
 described by no more particular designation ; 
 but whether personally known or not to the 
 disciples in Rome, he wished to join with those 
 mentioned above in sending to them his broth- 
 erly greeting. [Comparatively unknown and 
 insignificant he may have been, yet his Chris- 
 tian faith, in connection with but a possibly 
 accidental and momentary interview with the 
 apostle, has gained for his name what many 
 seek and will not secure — an earthly immor- 
 tality. Dr. Hackett, however, thinks that his 
 being entitled the brother (not ' a brother,' as 
 in our Common Version) "implies that he 
 was well known to the Roman Christians."] 
 
 V. CoNCLUsioK. (Ver. 24-27.) 
 
 (a) Benediction. 
 
 24. This verse is not found in the four oldest 
 manuscripts, n A B C. It is probably copied 
 
Ch. XVI.] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 311 
 
 25 Now to hiiu that is of power to stablish you accord- 
 ing to luy gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, 
 according to the revelation of the mystery, which was 
 kept secret since the world began, 
 
 2fi Hut now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures 
 of the prophets, according to the commandment of the 
 everlasting (Jod. made known to all nations for the 
 obedience of faitn : 
 
 25 1 Now to him that is able to stablish you accord- 
 ing to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, 
 according to the revelation of the mystery which 
 
 26 hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but 
 now is manifested, and ^by tue scriptures of the 
 prophets, according to the commandment of the 
 eternal God, is made known unto all the nations 
 
 . Some aucieal authorities omit ver. 25-'^7. Compare the eDd of ch. xiv 2 Gr. through. 
 
 from ver. 20, and well omitted by critical 
 editors generally. [It is defended, however, 
 by Meyer and Fritzsche.] 
 
 (6) Doxolociy. 
 
 25-27. [With this doxology compare the 
 benediction of Jude (ver. 21, io), which strongly 
 resembles this in some points. "Asa final, 
 complete conclusion, we have now this dox- 
 ology, rich in contents, deep in feeling (per- 
 liaps added by the apostle's own liand), in 
 which the leading ideas contained in the 
 whole Ejiistle . . . now further receive, in the 
 fullest unison of inspired piety, their concen- 
 trated outburst for the ultimate true consecra- 
 tion of the whole. . . . Hence, it can by no 
 means appear strange that such a doxology 
 has obtained the character of overflowing full- 
 ness from the whole recollection of what had 
 been written." (Meyer. )>] [To him that is 
 of power to stablish you. The ability of 
 God to establish them was a doctrine much 
 insisted on in the apostle's manner of preach- 
 ing the gospel, and (to define the same thing 
 in other words) in his preaching of Christ. 
 [Meyer remarks that the above description of 
 God "corresponds to the entire scope of the 
 Epistle." A chief design of Paul's intended 
 visit to the Koman Christians, was that they 
 might be "established.'' (i:ii.) According 
 to (m conformity with) my gospel, which is 
 nothing else than Christ's own preaching 
 through me(DeWette, Meyer), or, that preach- 
 ing of which Christ is the subject. (Philippi, 
 Godet.) According to the revelation. 
 ' Revelation ' has no article, because the follow- 
 ing noun has none, and is itself preceded by a 
 
 preposition. The word is put by Meyer in the 
 same construction as ' gospel ' and ' preaching ' 
 — that is, dependent on the verb 'stablish.' 
 We prefer with Alford and Godet to connect 
 it with the preceding substantives as being 
 explanator3i' of them, so that the idea of the 
 whole would be : this my gospel which is but 
 the preaching of which Christ is the sum and 
 substance, is in accordance with a revelation 
 of a mystery or secret, kept in silence. Since 
 the world began, or, as in the Revised Ver- 
 sion, throiigh times eternal. This mystery 
 must embrace the whole matter of human re- 
 demption, which, of course, would include 
 the bestowment of the blessings of the gospel 
 on the Gentiles, as in Eph. 3: 6. If, as Godet 
 remarks, Paul's preaching of Christ was 'ac- 
 cording to the revelation,' then we have in 
 this Epistle not simplj' a creation of his power- 
 ful understanding, deserving our admiration, 
 but the thought of God, deserving and de- 
 manding our faith, Compare Gal. 1: 11, 12; 
 Eph. 3:2-4; 1 Thess. 4: 8. The times eternal, 
 commonly explained by the phrases, "from 
 the foundation of the world," or "from the 
 ages and from the generations" (compare Col. 
 1 : 26; Eph. 3: 9), have here substantially the 
 same meaning as from eternity.^ But now, in 
 contrast with ' times eternal,' is made mani- 
 fest, or has been ynanifested. And by (by 
 means of) the Scriptures of the prophets, 
 or the prophetic Scriptures. According to 
 (in consequence of, or in accordance with) 
 the commandmentof the everlasting God 
 (who alone, as Meyer says, "could disj)Ose of 
 times eternal and of the present"), has been 
 
 > The important MSS. K B C D * E, and most of the 
 early versions, locate the doxology here, at the end of 
 the Epistle; L, and nearly all the cursives, at the end 
 of chapter 14 ; while A P, and some cursives, have it in 
 both places. Commentators, almost without exception, 
 defend the genuineness of its present position. See 
 note, end of chapter 14.— (F.) 
 
 * We do not suppose that the phrase ' eternal times ' in 
 itself strictly denotes eternity, since the expression, be- 
 fore eternal times, occurs more than once in Paul's writ- 
 ings. (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2), and because the word 
 
 'times' of itself excludes the idea of absolute eternity. 
 Yet Ellicott remarks that the phra.se, before times eter- 
 nal, seems obviously to mean " from all eternity " — 
 "times, in a word, which reach from eternity." " Eter- 
 nal times," says Wordsworth, "are times which extend 
 back till there was no time." Gifford : " Times reaching 
 back to eternity." Prof. Grimm : " Without beginning." 
 From this point of view the expre.ssions, /rom times eter- 
 nal and from eternity, would be virtually equivalent.— 
 (FO 
 
512 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 [Ch. XVI. 
 
 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ \ 27 unto oViedience 'of faith; to the only wise God, 
 forever. Amen. I through Jesus Christ, ^to whom be the glory 3 for 
 
 I ever. Amen. 
 
 I Or, to the faith 2 Some ancient authorities oniii to whom 3 Qr. unto the ages. 
 
 revealed, the apostle transfers the doxology to 
 him, and thus in blessing the Mediator and 
 Revealer of the divine wisdom, blesses indi- 
 rectly this God of wisdom, himself manifested 
 in Christ." This really seems to cover the 
 whole intent of the apostle as manifested in 
 tills passage. Since, however, the passage is 
 diversely interpreted even by so-called ortho- 
 dox expositors, it seems to me that we do well 
 not to rely upon this as an indisputable proof 
 text. For similar doxologies to Christ,- see 
 references at 9: 15.] The 'mystery' of God's 
 great plan for saving men of all nations, 
 though implicitly intimated by the prophets, 
 was so little understood by the Jews generally 
 [a "vail" lying upon their hearts, so that they 
 could not look steadfastly on the end of that 
 which was being done away], and so entirely 
 unknown to the Gentiles that it may well be 
 said to have been kept secret since the world 
 began, until by the commandment of the ever- 
 lasting God it was made manifest by the 
 preaching of the gospel, so explaining and 
 supplementing the Scriptures of the prophets 
 as to make it known to all nations fur the obe- 
 dience of faith. Thus the apostle interweaves 
 into this more extended concluding doxoiogy 
 a compendium of the suVjject of the whole 
 Epistle and of his design in writing it, and so 
 brings his work to a fit close by ascribing to 
 God only wise, glory through Jesus 
 Christ for ever. Ameii. ["And," says 
 Bengel, "let everj' believing reader say, 
 Amen," to which we would add : Let God be 
 praised for giving to the world "The Epistle 
 OF Paul to the Romans." i] 
 
 made known to all nations (or Gentile peo- 
 ples) for (in order to j)roduce) the obedience 
 of faith, or obtdience to the faith. To God 
 only (or, absolutely) wise; so called because 
 the Infinite Disposer of all things requires 
 wisdom as well as power. Be glory through 
 Jesus Christ for ever. The Revised Ver- 
 sion translates: "To the only wise God, 
 through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for 
 ever. Amen," and adds in the margin, 
 "Some ancient authorities omit to whom." 
 The 'whom' properly refers to Christ, and to 
 him glory should be given 'for ever,' or unto 
 the ages. By putting a semicolon after Christ, 
 the " Five Clergymen " in their Revision make 
 the ' whom ' to refer to God, but for this refer- 
 ence we properly need not to whom, but, as in 
 Eph..3:20 21, to him. If the relative is retained 
 and treated as a relative, there would seem to 
 be need of a verb to be supplied to the clauses : 
 'to him who is able,' 'to God only wise.' In 
 Acts 20: 32, Olshausen and Godet find a fitting 
 word in connection with precisely similar 
 phraseology, to wit: "I commend you to 
 God . . . who is able to build j^ou up," etc. 
 The only serious objection to this supply is 
 that it robs this passage of its evidently doxo- 
 logical form and character, while the chief 
 subject of this section confessedly is God 
 rather than Christ. Philippi also refers the 
 doxoiogy to Christ, but in another manner. 
 "The apostle," he saj-s, "meant to utter a 
 doxoiogy to the power and wisdom of God the 
 Father; but inasmuch as this wisdom was 
 manifested in Jesus Christ, and he was thus 
 the medium by which the divine wisdom was 
 
 1 Godet, in the conclusion of his " Commentary," no- 
 tices in so happy a manner two characteristic points of 
 this Epistle, that we cannot withhold his remarks from 
 our readers. He says: " The fiist point is the penetrat- 
 ing logic, the sure sweep of vision, which the apostle 
 shows in the discussion of the diflerent subjects which 
 he takes up. Not an exaggeration, not a digression. 
 The hot conflict which he had been maintaining in the 
 previous years with the partisans of the legal system 
 might have predisposed him to go beyond the limit of 
 truth on some points in estimating Judaism. The in- 
 cline was slippery; of this we may easily convince our- 
 selves by seeing into what errors it carried the authors 
 of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas and of the letter to 
 
 Diognetus, and finally Marcion. And yet these men 
 had guides before them — Paul's writings and the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews — which might have helped them to weigh 
 their judgments. Paul had none but himself; he was 
 under the influence of the strong reaction against the 
 law into which his sudden change had thrown him, and 
 of the violent resentment which must have been i>ro- 
 duced in him by the injustice and hatred of his Judaiz- 
 ing adversaries. And yet he moves, without wavering 
 for an instant, on the straight line of truth, exhibiting 
 the divinity of the Ancient Dispensation, and at the 
 same time its profound contrast to the New, so that the 
 result of his exposition is a complete view both of the 
 differeuce and of the harmony between the two econo- 
 
Ch. XVL] 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 313 
 
 mies of salvation. And the same is Ibe case, as we have 
 seen, in all the questions which lie touches. In matters 
 where we still detect our modern writers, even the most 
 sagacious and Christian, flagrantly guilty of exaggera- 
 tion to the right or to the left, we discover in lheai)0stle's 
 view a fullness of truth which constantly excludes error. 
 The second feature which strikes us in his writing is the 
 perfect calmness with which he seems to handle truth. 
 He does not seek it : he has it. Compare the Kjiistle to 
 the Romans with Pascal's 'Thoughts,' and the distance 
 will be seen between the apostle and the thinker of gen- 
 ius. It is also evident that the ai)ostle himself draws 
 his life from the faith which he preaches. He has faith 
 in his faith, as one cannot have in his thought, for the 
 very simple rea.son that this faith is not his discovery, 
 but the gift of God. . . . 
 
 "And let us not forget that the experience of ages has 
 siiokeu. It has put its seal to the conviction, which the 
 apostle bore withiu biiu.that in his gospel he was giving 
 
 to the world, not his own thought, but that of God. 
 For history shows that a tiuly powerful and healthy 
 Christianity has never developed except on the way of 
 salvation traced by .St. Paul. 
 
 "The New Testament contains two writings which 
 admirably complete one another — the Epistle to the 
 Romans and the Fourth (iospel. The one (the Gospel] 
 presents for our contemplation the object of faith in its 
 grander and perfect beauty; the union of man with 
 (Jod realized in One, in order to be at length realized 
 through him in all. The other initiates us into the 
 means of apprehending the salvation thus realized ia 
 one for all, and of appropriating it — the act of faith. 
 There, the ideal realized, shining as on a celestial sum- 
 mit ; here, the arduous pathway by which sinful man 
 may succeed in reaching it. Let the church constantly 
 possess herself of the Christ of John by means of the 
 faith of Paul, and she will be i)reserved, not from |)erse» 
 cation, but froiu a more terrible eueiuy, death." — (F.) 
 

APPENDIXES. 
 
 APPENDIX A, TO CHAPTER 4: 11, PAGE 109. 
 
 " This passage is sometimes used as an argument for Infant Baptism ; and the words 
 "sign" and "seal" are applied to the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as if they 
 were the proper key words with which to open the doctrine of the " Christian Sacraments," as 
 they are often called. They are so used in that excellent little volume, " Tlie Way of Life," 
 written by Dr. Charles Hodge, and published by the American Sunday School Union. That 
 the words "sign" and "seal," in this passage, were not designed, and are not happily adapted 
 for such a use, may be very easily sliown. In the first place, there is nothing in the connection 
 to indicate that Paul had in his mind any thought of Baptism or the Lord's Supper when he 
 wrote this passage. In the second place, what is here said of circumcision is true of that rite 
 only in the case of Abraham, and not at all of his posterity. It was indeed to him, what it was 
 not at all to them personally, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being 
 uncircumcised. Since, then, these words would be unsuitable and untrue as an account of 
 circumcision when applied to the posterity of Abraham, how much more are they unsuitable 
 and untrue as an account of baptism when applied to the children of Christian believers. 
 
 But still farther, while we do not allow that the argument from circumcision to baptism 
 has any legitimate warrant from Scripture, it may not be amiss to show how easily, on the 
 admission of a Scriptural analogy between the Jewish and the Christian rites, the argument 
 might be turned in a different direction. Dr. Hodge has this remark in his commentary on 
 Rom. 4: 11: "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." Let us examine this " broad and enduring 
 basis," in the light of the following brief catechism. 
 
 CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 
 
 Q. Did the covenant which God made with Abraham and with his seed include both 
 temporal and spiritual blessings ? 
 
 A. It did. 
 
 Q. What were the temporal blessings promised in that covenant ? 
 
 A. That his seed should be multiplied exceedingly, that they should possess the land of 
 Canaan, and that they should be peculiarly the objects of God's providential care and blessing. 
 (Gen. 18: 1-8.) 
 
 Q. What are the spiritual blessings promised in that covenant ? 
 
 A. Justification by faith, and the promise of the Holy Spirit, in which are summarily 
 included all the blessings of salvation. (Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3: 14.) 
 
 Q. To whom do the temporal blessings of the covenant belong? 
 
 A. To the natural seed of Abraham. 
 
 Q. To whom do the spiritual blessings of the covenant belong? 
 
 A. To the spiritual seed of Abraham. 
 
 315 
 
316 APPENDIXES. 
 
 Q. What rite did God appoint, as a token of participation in the temporal blessings of the 
 covenant ? 
 
 A. Circumcision. 
 
 Q. What rite has God appointed, as a token of participation in the spiritual blessings of 
 the covenant ? 
 
 A. Baptism. 
 
 Q. Who then ought to receive the rite of circumcision? 
 
 A. The natural seed of Abraham. 
 
 Q. Who then ought to receive the rite of baptism ? 
 
 A. The spiritual seed of Abraham. 
 
 Q. Who are the spiritual seed of Abraham ? 
 
 A. Believers in Jesus Christ. (Rom. 4:11, 12, 16 ; Gal. 3 : 7, 29.) 
 
 APPENDIX B, TO CHAPTER 5: 12-21, PAGE 128. 
 
 GENERAL AND CONNECTED VIEW OF ROMANS 5: 12-21. 
 
 The consideration of the blessings which we enjoy in consequence of being justified by 
 faith naturally suggests the opponlte evils under which we were before suffering (" reconciled," 
 "reconciliation," ver. 10, 11); and especially the consideration that all these blessings come to 
 us (as so repeatedly noted in the preceding verses, 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11) through one man, forcibly 
 suggests the thought of that other one man, through whom those evils came upon us. It is the 
 design of the latter part of this chapter to illustrate the excellent benefits of justification by 
 faith in Christ in the light of this comparison between our first parent, whose sin brought upon 
 us misery and condemnation, and Christ, who confers upon us righteousness and life. In other 
 words, the apostle here traces both sin and salvation to their personal sources and compares them 
 in these sources. 
 
 12. The completely expressed sense here would be, *'as by one man sin entered into the 
 world, and death by sin, so also by one man came righteousness, and life by righteousness." And 
 the sense is so completed in substance in ver. 18, but in a form of statement modified by what 
 more immediately precedes. Under the word death, I understand the apostle to include here, not 
 only the death of the body, but all the evils of that condition to which our bodies and souls are 
 subjected or exposed, here and hereafter, by reason of sin — all the consequences, in this life and in 
 the life to come, of the loss of the divine favor, and the withholding of the Divine Spirit ; the op- 
 posite, in a word, of all that is included in the word life in ver. 17, 18, 21. Augustine says " the 
 soul dies when God forsakes it, just as the body dies when the soul forsakes it ; and it is death 
 in both respects, or the death of the whole man, when a soul forsaken of God forsakes the 
 body." The death of the body is the palpable, practical, representative, test fact, around which 
 our reasonings naturally gather. Of the group of connected evils comprehended in the penalty 
 of sin, natural death is the most obvious, the most readily and universally noticed. Hence it is 
 eminently suitable to represent and give name to the whole. And in some parts of the apostle's 
 argument, this concrete fact is no doubt the prominent element. In a similar way the word 
 life — which in its literal and lowest sense of animated existence is the substratum on which all 
 other good that can be enjoyed by men must rest — represents and gives name to the whole. 
 
 This death is said to have passed through to all men because all sinned. Death and sin 
 are co-extensive : death is universal because sin is universal. Wherever the effect is seen there 
 the cause is proved to exist. The least that i<}>' v ("for that") can fairly mean is, "on the 
 assumed condition that all sinned." This is equivalent to saying, "on the ground that all 
 sinned." Calling it an assumption, or a presupposition, will not affect the logical connection so 
 distinctly aflSrmed. 
 
APPENDIXES. 317 
 
 13, 14. These verses contain the proof of what is affirmed in ver, 12. Before the law of 
 Moses was given, the same effects of sin were no less manifest than afterward. But sin is not 
 imputed when there is no law. If men had been under no law during all this time, they would 
 not have been treated' as transgressors. But the well-known fact is, that men were just as much 
 subject to death before Moses as afterward. And even those who had not actually sinned (or, 
 sinned in tlie same manner) as Adam did were no less subject to it than others ; that is to say, 
 infants died, as well as adult sinners. Hence it is plain that these suffered the consequences of 
 sin, neither on account of the violation of the law of Moses, nor on account of the violation of 
 the law of nature. On account of what, then, did tliey suffer these consequences of sin ? 
 Answer: on account of the disobedience of that one man, by whom, according to ver. 12, sin 
 came into the world, and passed through to all men. " 8ince sin came into the world as an 
 abnormal ethical principle, death came into the world with it as an abnormal physiological 
 principle. Therefore the propagation of the abnormal principle of death presupposes the 
 propagation of the abnormal principle of sin, in the actual sinning of all." (Lange on "Romans,"' 
 p. 180.) While God will judge men impartially, and "render to every man according to his 
 works," >et in respect to certain general principles and conditions of our being, he deals with 
 his creature man as a race, he regards humanity as a unit. Meyer justly remarks, that the 
 view that the death of individuals is the result of their personal sins, would vitiate and even 
 contradict the whole parallel between Adam and Christ. (Vol. I., p. 248.) 
 
 A different explanation may be given of the expression "even over those who liad not 
 sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression " — namely, that it refers merely to those 
 who had not violated an express precept, as Adam did. This explanation seems to me liable to 
 the following objections : 
 
 1. The distinction seems too unimportant. The heathen, according to the apostle, sin 
 against sufficient liglit to make them inexcusable. (Ch. 1 : 20.) 
 
 2. The form of expression seems to discriminate between a certain class of those between 
 Adam and Moses, and the rest: it seems to imply that death reigned over a particular class, 
 over whom it had apparently less right to reign than over those generally who lived before Moses. 
 
 3. The explanation objected to makes Paul say less than the truth of the case required. 
 
 4. It makes him say less in his proof, in ver. 14, than he had said in his proposition, in ver. 
 12, and so makes his argument inconclusive ; for infants are certainly included in the clause, 
 "and so death passed through to all men." 
 
 5. It represents him as passing over in silence the most difficult feature in the case, and so 
 renders his argument defective at the most important point. The case of those who die in 
 infancy seems naturally to come up here, and to require notice. It seems scarcely credible that 
 they should be entirely ignored in an argument of this nature. (See the distinction between 
 children and adults distinctly recognized in 9: 11 ; also Jonah 4: 11 ; Deut. 1 : 39; Isa. 7 : 16.) 
 
 6. It seems to be introducing a superfluous distinction, of which no use is made in the 
 apostle's argument. 
 
 7. It seems to be raising an objection, without answering it. For those who are represented, 
 according to this interpretation, as less guilty, are represented as suffering the same consequence 
 of sin as tiie more guilty, who have violated an express precept. Death reigns alike over all. 
 This objection is valid, of course, only in so far as death is here understood in its more limited 
 sense. 
 
 8. It requires a somewhat forced limitation of the expression, "sin is not imputed when 
 there is no law" (ver. 13), and then seems to contradict this limitation in the next verse, by 
 the statement that those to whom sin was not imputed (comparatively), because they have not 
 the law (of Moses) suffered just the same consequences of sin as those did to whom sin was 
 imputed (fully), because they had the law of Moses. 
 
318 APPENDIXES. 
 
 On the supposition that this clause refers to infants, it does not necessarily decide their 
 fixture condition. The fact that they suffer the death of the body on account of sin no more 
 necessitates the inference of their future condemnation, than the fact that believers in Christ 
 suffer the same evil necessitates their final condemnation. The whole race suffers this conse- 
 quence of sin. Infants suffer less in death than believers in Christ. Since they are not, in 
 tliis respect, treated worse than believers in this world, we have no ground, so far as this 
 argument is concerned, to conclude that they will be condemned in the world to come. Of 
 course, death must be taken in its more limited sense in this part of the apostle's argument ; for 
 here he is reasoning from known and obvious facts — from such of the evils consequent upon sin 
 as are observed and experienced in this world. Yet the other connected evils would naturally 
 follow, unless arrested by some special divine arrangement. Whether there would have been 
 any remedy provided against the future consequences of sin in the case of infants, if there had 
 not been any provided for adults, is a question which we may prudently leave undecided. 
 
 In the close of ver. 14, the apostle tells us that Adam was a type of Christ. He was the 
 head and representative of the race of human sinners, as Christ is the Head and Representative 
 of the race of saints. These are the two groups into which the apostle divides mankind. It is 
 important to keep this in mind in the interpretation of the following verses. The three follow- 
 ing verses qualify this typical resemblance, or explain its negative side, by showing the points 
 of difference. 
 
 It is not easy to discern the precise points of difference which the apostle intends to 
 emphasize in these three verses. They all illustrate this general statement, that the stream of 
 blessings which flows to the race from Christ as a source (more strictly to those of our race who 
 receive the abundance of grace, etc.), surpasses the stream of ills which flows to us from Adam. 
 We gain in Christ more than we lost in Adam. But what specific aspect of this general truth 
 is expressed in each of these verses? A careful examination of the words and forms of expres- 
 sion in each verse may help us to decide this question. 
 
 In ver. 15, the emphasis seems to be placed on the positive blessings, over and above the 
 mere deliverance from penalty, which we gain in Christ. The contrast seems to be chiefly 
 expressed by the words "grace," "gift," and "abounded," in opposition to "died." The latter 
 is much more than neutralized by the former. In ver, 16, the point of emphasis seems to be 
 the one trespass of Adam and the many personal trespasses which are cancelled in Christ. 
 W^hile we suffer from our connection with Adam the penalty of one transgression, we obtain 
 from our connection with Christ the forgiveness of many transgressions. 
 
 It is important to note here, that ihe apostle is careful to make a distinction between the 
 consequences of our own actual voluntary sins, and the evil which comes upon us solely or 
 inevitably on account of Adam's sin. He seems in this to intimate : 
 
 1. That the consequences of our own many voluntary transgressions are much more serious 
 than any consequences in which Adam's one transgression alone would have involved us. 
 
 2. That nevertheless Adam's one transgression does bring evils upon us, irrespective of any 
 personal transgressions of our own. 
 
 3. The noting of this distinction between the direct and the indirect effects of Adam's sin, or, 
 in other words, between the effects which are independent of our own will and action, and those 
 in which our own will and action are concurrent and intensifying causes, goes to confirm our inter- 
 pretation of the second clause of ver. 14, and to justify the application of that clause to those 
 who suffer only such effects of Adam's sin as ensue without any co-operation on the part of his 
 descendants. And this allusion to the distinction between the evils brought upon us by Adam's 
 sin and the just penalty of our own many voluntary transgressions naturally introduces and 
 helps to explain the precise emphasis of ver. 17. For here the emphasis seems to lie in the 
 words " who receive abundance of grace," etc. ; and the specific contrast seems to be between the 
 
APPENDIXES. 319 
 
 voluntariness of those who enjoy the benefits of Christ's righteousness, and the involuiitariness of 
 our participation in the consequences of Adam's sin (invohnitariness, so far as the direct and 
 unavoidable consequences are concerned). In support of this view it may be said : 
 
 1. That the use of the present participle, instead of the aorist, favors this interpretation. 
 For while the aorist, oi AojSdfTes, would simply mean " they who received the abundance of 
 grace," the present, oi kaix^dvovre^^ is more nearly equivalent to " the receivers of the abundance 
 of grace," it has more of a substantive character, and is more naturally suggestive of a class of 
 persons who are distinguished by this peculiarity, that they are the receivers, the accepters, of an 
 ofTered benefit. 
 
 2. The collocation of the words seems intended to make the participle emphatic : it is not 
 
 oi Ao/ii^afOfTes Ti)v iT(pi(T<Teiav, etC. J but oi Ti)f irepicTdtiav T^s x<*P^''''S ""^^ "^^ Suptat TJjs fiiKaiocrutojs Aaji/Savov- 
 
 Tes, the participle (receiving) being reserved to an emphatic position near the following verb. 
 
 3. The change in the subject of the verb, from things to persons, from i<D>? (life), the 
 appropriate contrast to Oavarot (death) above, to oi \aiJ.pavovT((: (those receiving). This change is 
 the more noticeable from the fact that the same verb is used in the contrasted clauses, thus : as 
 the antithesis of death reigned we have, not life reigned, but those receiving, etc., shall reign in 
 life. Notice also the position of in life (immediately before ' the verb in the Greek), as if it 
 occurred to the writer that life belonged to the verb by right of rhetorical propriety, but over- 
 ruled by a higher consideration. As it might be anticipated from the benevolence of God 
 that he would make the good overbalance the evil, so this just anticipation is neatly confirmed 
 by the additional circumstance that our connection with the source of evil was involuntary, 
 while our connection with the source of good is voluntary. If this is the true explanation of 
 this verse, it shows very explicitly between what parties the comparison is made throughout this 
 section — namely, those on the one hand who are connected with Adam by natural birth, that 
 is, all mankind, and those on the other hand who are connected with Christ by spiritual birth, 
 that is, all believers. 
 
 In ver. 18, the apostle returns to what he had begun to state, but left unfinished, at ver. 12. 
 What he there began to state was, that as sin and death came into the world through one man, 
 Adam, and passed through from him to all his natural descendants, so righteousness and life 
 came by one man, Christ, and passed through to all his spiritual posterity. He now completes 
 the statement by adding the omitted part in verses 18, 19, carrying out the full parallel between 
 Adam and Christ, in ver. 18, so far as relates to death on the one hand and life on the other; 
 and in ver. 19, so far as relates to sin on the one hand and righteousness on the other. There 
 seem to have been two interruptions in the apostle's argument, the first including verses 13 and 
 14, where he turns somewhat aside from his main course of thought to prove the statement 
 contained in the last part of ver. 12, "for that all sinned" ; and the second including verses 15 
 to 17, in which he pauses to qualify and limit the last clause of ver. 14, " who is the figure of 
 him that was to come." 
 
 The principal difficulty in this view lies in the second " all." We must either 
 
 1. Take the whole in an unlimited sense, and admit alike universal justification and uni- 
 versal salvation ; or, 
 
 2. Qualify the expression "justification of life," and regard it as having some lower sense, 
 not implying the actual salvation of the justified ; or, 
 
 3. Limit the sense of the word "all," and regard it as not absolutely including all mankind. 
 I adopt the last view, for the following reasons : 
 
 1, It is more agreeable to Scriptural and general usage to limit this word, than to limit the 
 descriptive phrase "justification of life." 
 
 2. Adam and Christ, throughout this passage, are represented each as the head of a certain 
 class : but that class does not consist in each case entirely of the same individuals. Adam's 
 
320 ■ APPEN DIXES. 
 
 "all" is equivalent to all the children of men: Christ's "all" is equivalent to all the children 
 of God : Adam's " all " includes all who are born of the flesh ; Christ's " all " includes all who 
 are born of the Spirit. Each imparts what belongs to himself to all that are his ; — Adam, his 
 sin and death ; Christ, his righteousness and life. 
 
 3. In the previous verse, the blessings which flow from Christ are distinctly limited to 
 those who voluntarily receive his abundant grace. 
 
 The " all " in the last case, then, are all who are actually connected with Christ by regen- 
 eration and faith ; and in fact, numerically, these constitute " a great multitude which no man 
 can number, out of every nation and kindred and people and tongue, who" will "have washed 
 their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Rev. 7 : 9, 14.) 
 
 19. As ver. 18 completes the parallel begun in verse 12 between Adam and Christ so far 
 as the opposites death and life are concerned, so this verse completes the parallel so far as the 
 opposites sin and righteousness are concerned. The use of the same terms " the many " to 
 designate the two parties is to be explained in the same manner as the use of "all men" in both 
 cases in ver. 18. 
 
 But here the question arises whether sin and righteousness are to be understood in the 
 leo-al and forensic sense, or in the moral and practical sense ; or, which is substantially the 
 same thing, whether this last verse has reference to justification or to sanctification. The com- 
 mentators generally refer it to the former, adopting various methods of explaining the relation 
 between this verse and the preceding. I prefer to regard it as referring to sanctification, taking 
 the terms "sin" and " righteousness" in their ethical rather than in their judicial sense. The 
 very terms themselves, as contrasted with those in ver. 18, seem to point very distinctly to this 
 interpretation. In the former verse we have "offence" and "condemnation" on the one hand, 
 and "righteousness" and "justification" on the other, three out of the four distinctively forensic 
 terms, and the fourth readily admitting the forensic sense. In the latter verse the terms are, on 
 the one hand, "disobedience" and "sinners," and on the other "obedience" and "righteous," 
 all naturally having the ethical sense, though the last is often used also in the forensic sense. 
 Besides, the verb Kadiar-qy.!., " I constitute," which is used in both memLers of the comparison, 
 denotes the actual fact, and not the legal relation. The word naturally points to what men are 
 actually constituted or made, not to what they are legally regarded as being. If it be objected 
 that they are not actually made righteous at once, but gradually and progressively, while they 
 are made sinners at once by their own first sin, if not by Adam's, we answer, that the apostle 
 has carefully provided for this objection by putting the verb in the past tense in the one case 
 and in the future tense in the other. They "were constituted sinners," they "shall be consti- 
 tuted righteous." Their perfect justification secures their ultimate perfect sanctification. 
 
 This explanation introduces the subject of sanctification a few verses earlier than the 
 common analysis. It is generally regarded as introduced at the beginning of chapter 6. But 
 our interpretation makes chapter 5:19 give at least an anticipatory hint of the coming topic. 
 
 20. But the two great antithetical facts heretofore spoken of do not express the whole 
 truth in regard to the matter in hand. The law of Moses " came in besides " {■napti.<Tr)Ketv) — 
 besides the fact of many being made sinners, and as a transition point to tlie other result of 
 many being made righteous. Tliis third term in God's dealings with men was introduced in 
 order that transgression might multiply. The law caused transgression to multiply, partly by 
 enlarging the rule of duty (4: 15), and partly by provoking the propensity to sin (7: 8). But 
 the ultimate end which God had in view in thus introducing the law was, not that sin might 
 multiply, but that grace might superabound through this very increase of transgression. 
 
 21. In other words, and finaljy, that as sin reigned in death, so grace might reign, by 
 means of righteousness, unto life eternal, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 One serious logical difiiculty which some have felt in regard to this whole representation 
 
APPENDIXES. 321 
 
 apart from tlie objections already noticed is, that according to the apostle's argument it would 
 seem tliat believers ought to be delivered from natural death. To this it may be answered : 
 
 1. Christ himself had to undergo death. If the believer were exempted from it, he woul 
 be less conformed to his pattern. 
 
 2. This world is the tiieatre in which Clirisi's redeeming work is progressively accomplished. 
 Pardon and justification are instantaneous and complete; but sanctification is gradual and life- 
 long. iSo death will ultimately be abolished by Christ. (1 Cor. 15: 26.) 
 
 3. The triumph of grace in the believer's experience is even more illustrious by giving 
 him peace in death, and victory in yielding to it, tlian it would be in exempting him from it. 
 Death is now become one of the " all things " that " work together for good " to the believer. 
 Instead of being all his lifetime in bondage to the fear of death (Heb, 2: 15), he accepts death 
 as one of the crosses which Christ's grace makes welcome, in one respect the most welcome of 
 all, because the last. How much the religion of Christ would lose, if it were despoiled of the 
 glory in which it shines around the bedside of the dying saint ! Higher considerations, then, 
 than any seeming demands of logical consistency stand opposed to the believer's exemption 
 from the sentence of natural death. If Christ's conquest over death had abolished it once for 
 all, that would have been one decisive victory. As the case now stands, Christ's victory over 
 death is reproduced and multipled at every triumphant departure of a believing soul, and death 
 is thus sentenced to the mortification of innumerable defeats, culminating at last in his utter 
 overthrow and annihilation, 
 
 APPENDIX C, TO ROMANS 6 : 1-14, PAGE 155. 
 
 The reference which the apostle makes to baptism in the first few verses of this chapter is 
 in some parts rendered obscure by his brief and elliptical manner of expression. But the 
 general object and the emphatic points of the comparison are sufficiently plain. 
 
 The things to be observed here, as the hinges of the apostle's argument, and the key to the 
 explanations of the particular expressions are the following: 
 
 1. A death and a new life, in a spiritual sense — a dying to sin, and a living anew to God ; 
 compared to 
 
 2. A death and a new life in a literal sense — the death of Christ, and his post-resurrection 
 life ; and illustrated by 
 
 3. A death and a new life in a symbolical sense — the submersion and emersion of the 
 Christian in baptism. 
 
 Or, to express the same thing in a slightly altered form : 
 
 1. The dying to sin, and the rising to a new and holy life, which is realized in the Chris- 
 tian's spiritual experience, is compared to 
 
 2. The literal dying and rising again of Christ, and represented by 
 
 3. The symbolical burial and resurrection of baptism. 
 
 Christ died and lived again ; he was buried and he arose from the tomb. He died to sin, 
 inasmuch as his death terminated that connection with sin which he had voluntarily assumed, 
 and which caused all the suflTerings of his earthly life, and finally his death on the cross. He 
 lives unto God, inasmuch as he has returned to dwell in the bosom of the Father, in the glory 
 which he had with the Father before the world was. 
 
 Believers are conformed to and conjoined with {(r<i,j.<t>vToi.) Christ in his death to sin and new 
 life to God, inasmuch as they too have renounced sin, and separated themselves from it, so that 
 it has now no more to do with them, nor they with it (rightfully) than a dead body has with 
 the affairs of living men. They are alive unto God, inasmuch as they have devoted their lives 
 to him, and are walking with him in a new life of filial obedience, intercourse, and confidence. 
 
 y 
 
322 APPENDIXES. 
 
 This conformity of believers to Christ is set fortli in their baptism, which in the outward 
 act resembles and represents his burial and resurrection, and, in its spiritual import, typifies and 
 declares their dying to sin and living anew to God. 
 
 This comparison forcibly illustrates the importance of Scriptural baptism, and the evil that 
 results from any change, either in the subjects or in the act. When any but professed believers 
 in Christ are the subjects, baptism ceases t j have the spiritual significance which the Scriptures 
 ascribe to it. When the act is anything else than immersion, it ceases to have the symbolical 
 fitness which belongs to its proper form. And when it loses both these, how much of its validity 
 or sacredness remains? 
 
 As to the form in which baptism was administered in apostolical times, and as a general 
 rule for twelve or thirteen centuries, the testimony of the most learned commentators, church 
 historians, and antiquarians is very uniform and emphatic. The few that we give below as a 
 specimen are copied from a recent work, entitled " The Act of Baptism," by Henry S. Burrage, 
 published by the American Baptist Publication Society. 
 
 " This passage (Rom 6 : 4) cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primi- 
 tive baptism was by immersion." (Conybeare and Howson, " Life and Epistles of St. Paul," 
 vol. II., p. 169.) 
 
 "There seems to be no reason to doubt that both here (Col. 2: 12) and in Rom. 6: 4, there 
 is an allusion to the katadusis and anadusis [the sinking down and rising up] in baptism." 
 (Bishop Ellicott, " Com. on Colossians," p. 166.) 
 
 " Baptism is the grave of the old man and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the 
 baptismal waters the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins ; as lie 
 emerges thence he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life. . . . Thus baptism 
 is an image of his participation both in the death and resurrection of Christ. . . . For this two- 
 fold image as it presents itself to St. Paul, see especially Rom. 6 : 3, et. seq." (Canon Lightfoot, 
 "On Colossians," ch. 2: 12.) 
 
 "As to the outward mode of administration of the ordinance, immersion, and not sprink- 
 ling, was unquestionably the original normal form. This is shown by the very meaning of the 
 Greek words baptizo, baptisma, baptismos, used to designate the rite." (Schaff, " History of 
 the Apostolic Church," vol. II., p. 256.) 
 
 "Baptism, which was the .sign of admission into the church, was administered by immer- 
 sion." (Pressens^, "Early Years of Christianity," p. 374.) 
 
 " There can be no question that the original form of baptism, the very meaning of the 
 word, was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters, and that for at least four centuries 
 any other form was either unknown or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, as an 
 exceptional, almost a monstrous case." (Stanley, "History of the Eastern Church," p. 117.) 
 
 " Baptism was originally administered by immersion." (Guericke, " Church History," vol. 
 I., p. 100.) 
 
 " The ceremony of immersion (the oldest form of baptism) was performed in the name of 
 the three Persons of the Trinity." (Waddington, " Church History," p. 27.) 
 
 " The Baptists are, in fact, from the Protestant standpoint, unassailable ; since for their 
 demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text, and the authority of the 
 church and of her testimony is regarded by neither party." (Dr. Dollinger, "Kirche and 
 Kirchen," p. 337.) 
 
 " The testimony (that immersion was the primitive act of baptism) is ample and decisive. 
 No matter of church history is clearer. The evidence is all one way, and all church historians 
 of any repute agree in accepting it. It is a point on which ancient, mediaeval, and modern 
 historians alike, Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinistic, have no controversy. And 
 the simple reason for this unanimity is that the statements of the early Fathers are so clear, 
 
APPENDIXES. 323 
 
 and the light shed upon these statements from the early customs of the church is so conclusive 
 that no historian who cares for his reputation would dare to deny it, and no historian who is 
 worthy of the name would wish to.' (L. L. Paine, d. d. ( Congregational ist), Professor of 
 Church History in the Theological Seminary at Bangor, Maine.—" Christian Mirror," Aug. 
 3, 1875.) 
 
 ["All commentators of note (except Stuart and Hodge) expressly admit or take it for 
 granted that in tliis verse. . . . the ancient prevailing mode of baptism by immersion and 
 emersion is implied as giving additional force to the idea of the going down of the old, and the 
 rising up of the new man." (Dr. Scliatf, in Lange's "Commentary on Romans.") 
 
 Among these "commentators of note" who have thus expressed their opinion, we may 
 mention, besides those already quoted, the names of Ruckert, Fritzsche, Tholuck, De Wette, 
 Meyer, Ebrard, Lange, Ciialmers, Webster and Wilkinson, Alford, Philippi, and Godet, the last 
 three somewhat cautiously.] 
 
 Similar testimonies and admissions might easily be largely multiplied ; but there is no need ; 
 these few among the more recent will suffice. 
 
 APPENDIX D, TO ROMANS 7 : 7-25, PAGE 172. 
 
 Few passages are more contested tiian this. The two principal points are : 
 
 1. Whetiier the experience described in verses 14-25 is that of a regenerate man, or of an 
 unregenerate man. It is generally admitted that verses 7-13 describe the experience of an 
 unregenerate man. 
 
 2. Whether the apostle is here describing his own experience, or only uses the first person 
 by way of accommodation, and for greater vivacity of representation. 
 
 A. In respect to the first question, the history of the two interpretations is briefly as follows: 
 The earlier interpreters, down to the time of Augustine, uniformly [generally] explained the 
 whole section as descriptive of the experience of a man not yet regenerated. Augustine himself 
 at first followed this interpretation, but he afterward adopted and advocated the view that verses 
 14-25 are to be regarded as the experience of a renewed man. The earlier interpretation was 
 followed by all the Reformers who leaned to Arminian views of doctrine, and by a few who did 
 not. (Erasmus, Faustus Socinus, Raphelius, Arminius, Episcopius, Limborch, Clericus, Turretin, 
 Bucer.') Among more recent interpreters, the same view has l)een maintained by A. H. Francke. 
 Bengel, Gottfried Arnold, Zinzendorf, Reinhard, Storr and Flatt, Knapp, etc. ; and in our own 
 times by Stier, Tholuck, Ruckert, De Wette, Meyer, Lange, and Stuart. Some of these held the 
 above view with some modification. Tholuck, for example, says that verses 14-25 describe the 
 experience of a legalist, zealously concerned about his sanctification and partially influenced by 
 the Spirit of God. 
 
 On the other hand, the later view of Augustine was followed by Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, 
 and Cornelius a Lapide, among the scholastic divines; by Luther, Melanctlion, Calvin, and Beza, 
 among the Reformers ; by Spener, Buddaeus, and Ko[)pe, in later times ; and it has been adopted 
 in our own day by Philippi, Alford, Barnes, Hodge, Haldane, Forbes, Dr. John Brown, and 
 others. 
 
 Besides these two radically diflferent views, there are several interpreters of note who take 
 an intermediate and somewhat complex view. Olshausen says Paul, in verses 14-24, " immedi- 
 ately describes the state of man before regeneration, since his purpose is to set forth coherently 
 the whole course of development; in the consciousness, however, that phenomena entirely 
 similar present themselves within the regenerate man, he makes the description applicable to 
 the regenerate also. The opinion, therefore, on the one side, that the apostle immediately and 
 
 » The last two did not lean toward Artuinian views. 
 
324 APPENDIXES. 
 
 directly intends the regenerate, and on the other the assertion, that in the -regenerate man nothing 
 answering to the picture in verses 14-24 can be found, are alike entirely erroneous. The dis- 
 tinction between the conflict and the fall of the unregenerate, and the conflict and fall of the 
 regenerate, remains, notwithstanding the subjective feeling of their near affinity, objectively so 
 great (as at verses 24, 25 will be proved), that anxiety lest the view proposed should strip 
 regeneration of its essential character must appear evidently unfounded." 
 
 Alford's theory seems still more artificial and complicated. "From verses 7-13 inclusive," 
 he says, "is historical, and the I (eyi)) there is the historical self under the working of conviction 
 of sin and showing the work of the law; in other words, the carnal self in the transition state, 
 imder the first motions toward God generated by the law, which the law could never have per- 
 fected. Then at ver. 14 Paul, according to a habit very common with him, keeps hold of the 
 carnal self, and still having it in view transfers himself into his present position, altering the past 
 tense into the present, still, however, meaning by I (e'yw) in ver. 14, ' my flesh.' But having passed 
 into the present tense, he immediately mingles with this mere action of the law upon the natu- 
 ral conscience the motions of the will toward God, which are in conflict with the motions toward 
 sin in the members. And hence arises an apparent verbal confusion." On ver. 14, " Hitherto 
 has been historical ; now the apostle passes to the present time, keeping hold yet of the carnal 
 I (iyii) of former days, whose remnants are still energizing in the new man." Does not this last 
 clause take away all necessity for his complex theory? 
 
 Peter tells us that there are some things in the epistles of Paul which are hard to be 
 understood. (2 Peter 3 : 16.) This statement is certainly applicable to the seventh chapter of 
 the Epistle to the Romans. The principal difficulty in determining whether the section included 
 between verses 14 and 24 is intended to describe the experience of a man before his conversion, 
 or afterward, arises from the fact that some of the expressions used seem to rise above the expe- 
 rience of any unregenerate person, while other expressions seem to fall below the experience of 
 the Christian. The principal expressions of this nature on both sides are the following : [" I 
 hate" evil (ver. 15)] ; " I consent unto the law " (ver. 16) ; "to will is present with me" (ver. 
 18) ; "when I would do good" (ver. 21) ; ['I delight in the law of God" (ver. 22)] ; "with the 
 mind I myself serve the law of God " (ver. 25). Can these expressions be referred to any but a 
 regenerate man? Again: "But I am carnal, sold under sin" (ver, 14) ; "what I hate, that do 
 I" (ver. 15); "in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" (ver. 18); "but how to 
 perform that which is good I find not " (ver. 18) ; " the evil which I would not^ that I do " 
 (ver. 19) ; "evil is present with me" (ver. 21) ; " I see another law in my members . . . bring- 
 ing me into captivity to the law of sin" (ver. 23) ; " but with the flesh the law of sin " (ver. 25). 
 Can these expressions be referred to one who is justified and regenerate? 
 
 These are the difficulties Ijetween which we have to choose. My own opinion is that the 
 language in these verses is intended to show how powerless the law is to enable even a regenerate 
 and justified person to overcome sin. I suppose the conflict here described is just what would be 
 the experience of every Christian, if he should look only to his legal relations, what is in fact a 
 common experience with Christians, in just so far as they do regard themselves in their relation 
 to the law, apart from their relation to Christ. It is some presumption in favor of this view 
 that Christian readers have very generally thought that they found one aspect of their own 
 experience described here. The common Christian instinct, if we may be allowed the expres- 
 sion, speaks in favor of this interpretation. We regard this, not as conclusive, but as a consider- 
 ation of no little weight. 
 
 The change in the tenses of the verb, at and after ver. 14, so uniformly observed, points to a 
 transition to a new form of religious experience, bearing such a relation to the writer's present 
 feelings as the former verses did not. Between verses 7 and 13 inclusive, there are thirteen 
 instances of the use of the verb and participle in narration, all in the past tense. Between 
 
APPENDIXES. 325 
 
 verses 14 and 25 inclusive there are twenty-six instances of the use of the finite verb, and six of 
 the participle, all in the present tense. This change of tenses, from the past to the present, so 
 suddenly made and so uniformly preserved, is of great significance, and requires to be accounted 
 for in our interpretation of the passage. Those who deny that the experience of the regenerate 
 is described in these last verses are obliged to admit that the forms of expression used by the 
 apostle are just sucli as he would naturally use to describe his present experience at the time of 
 writing. But Tholuck says, in reply to this, tiiat " what is said from ver. 14 onward, with 
 respect to the contest with the law, is just what was already said in the previous context; nor, 
 considering the lively manner of describing which St. Paul has, is the circumstance that thence- 
 forward verbs present are used by any means extraordinary." (Vol. II., p. 21, Clark's "Theo.," 
 Library Ed.) Is not this treating too lightly so important a change in the language of the 
 apostle? Is it true that there is no difference in the two parts of the description? In the first 
 part he says: " Sin wrought in me all manner of concupiscence " (ver. 8) ; " sin slew me" (ver. 
 11); it " wrought death in me" (ver. 13). Does not this go beyond the expressions, "I am 
 carnal, sold under sin"? And what is there in the former verses in any degree answering to 
 such expressions as these : " I consent unto the law ; I delight in the law of God after the inward 
 man"; "I would do good"; "I hate the evil that I do"; "I serve the law of God with the 
 mind"? Prof. Kendrick says, in a note to Olshausen, Vol. IV., p. 19: "I think the ground of 
 the apostle's change of tense lies in the vividness of his conception, which naturally leads him to 
 realize and depict the scene as if now actually passing within him. Besides, the point at which 
 he passes from the past to the present is where, having occasion to state a universal truth, ' the 
 law is spiritual,' and hence to use the present tense he naturally employs the present in the 
 answering clause." This does not seem to me a satisfactory account of so marked a syntactical 
 change. 
 
 Again, Stuart objects, that " the person represented in these verses succumbs to sin in every 
 instance of contest." ("E.xcursus" VII., p. 467.) "An incessant and irreconcilable opposition 
 is represented (ver. 14) as existing between the law of God and the person here described.'' 
 (Page 4G5.) I think this is saying too much. Would the apostle say, " It is no more I that do 
 it, but sin that dwelleth in me " ; "I delight in the law of God after the inner man" ; would he 
 think it necessary to make the explanation, " I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no 
 good thing" ; could he say, "With my mind I serve the law of God," if he intended to describe 
 an experience in which the victory is always on the side of sin ? This last expression cannot he 
 referred to a later stage of experience, on account of the clause which immediately follows — 
 " but with the flesh the law of sin." Is not, in fact, the statement in ver. 25 the key to the 
 interpretation of the passage? The law which the mind serves is what determines the character of 
 the man ; and so I think the apostle here affirms, that the habitual service of the mind was ren- 
 dered to the law of God, while at the same time the remains of the sinful nature habitually 
 interfered with the perfection of this service, and frequently drew him into acts that belonged 
 rather to the service of sin. It seems to me that there is not only a difference between the two 
 sections as a whole, but a perceptible progress of experience for the better in the latter sections. 
 Thus the "I consent unto the law," of ver. 16, becomes "I delight in the law," in ver. 22. And 
 the " I," the word which denotes the entire personality, is more decidedly and permanently on 
 the side of good in the latter verses than in the former. Compare, for instance, the " I " cf 
 verses 21-23 with that of verses 14r-16. 
 
 If now we are compelled, in order to avoid an irreconcilable contradiction, to understand 
 some of the stronger terms which the apostle uses in a modified sense, in other words, to admit 
 that there is something of allowable hyperbole in his language, which class of terras shall we feel 
 most at liberty so to modify, those in which he describes the action of the higher principle, or 
 those in which he describes the action of the lower? Which would he be most likely to set 
 
326 APPENDIXES. 
 
 forth in the natural exaggeration of strongly excited feeling, the workings of good in himself, or 
 the workings of evil ? To my mind, the latter seems altogether the more probable. He felt 
 sin to be a grief, a burden, and a thraldom ; and its influence over him in any degree seemed to 
 him an intolerable usurpation. It would then be natural for him to set forth with something of 
 hyperbole the evil that remains in the regenerate, and unnatural for him to exaggerate in like 
 manner the better motions and inclinations that are sometimes felt by the unregenerate. What- 
 ever may be thought of the state of mind which the apostle intended to describe here, there can 
 be no doubt as to the state of his own mind when he wrote the description. He was then a con- 
 verted person, all his sympathies were on the better side, and he regarded sin as loathsome and 
 hateful. 
 
 (b) The question whether or not Paul is here describing his own personal experience is less 
 essential than the former to a right understanding of his language. Still it is worthy of some 
 consideration. 
 
 Most of those who deny the reference to the regenerate in ver. 14-25, also deny that Paul 
 means to describe his own experience in either the former (ver. 7-13), or the latter portion 
 (ver. 14-25). 
 
 The apostle's abundant use of the first person in this section is certainly a very strong argu- 
 ment for believing that he wishes to be understood as describing his own case. He does indeed 
 speak, in 1 Cor. 4 ; 6, of transferring to himself and Apollos in a figure, or by way of illustra- 
 tion, what was of more general application ; and various other instances of this are cited by 
 Tlioluck, in support of the view that he does the same here. But these instances have little in 
 common with the passage under consideration. They consist only of brief expressions, in which 
 he puts himself for the moment in the place of another. (ICor. 6: 12; 10: 29,30; 13: 11, 
 12 ; Gal. 2: 18.) To do this is quite common with most writers. But it is a very diflferent thing 
 to carry on such a representation through the greater part of a chapter. In truth the frequency 
 and emphasis with which he uses the first person is quite remarkable. From verse 7 to 25, 
 inclusive, he uses the verb in the first person singular no less than twenty-seven times, the 
 oblique cases of the pronoun of the first person seventeen times, ar.d the nominative case " ego " 
 eight times, seven times with the verb and once with the pronoun (auros) added. In these last 
 cases the use is of course emphatic. Thus the pronoun of the first person is used twenty-four 
 times in these nineteen verses, six or seven times with marked emphasis. I doubt whether 
 another passage of equal extent can be found in the New Testament, where the personal pronoun 
 of the first person singular is used so abundantly. There is throughout an appearance of reality, 
 and not of allegory. 
 
 It is obvious to remark, that the view here taken goes to confirm our previous view of the 
 application of ver. 14—25 to the regenerate. This confirmation is very strong, when viewed in 
 connection with the change of tenses from ver. 14, onward. 
 
 But if we have reason to regard this whole passage as descriptive of the apostle's own experi- 
 ence, the question arises, at what period of his life was this experience realized ? So far as it is 
 the experience of an unregenerate person — that is, so far as it is recorded in ver. 7-13 — we may 
 suppose that its culminating epoch was during those three days of blindness and fasting, which 
 followed the first appearance of the Lord to him, and preceded his baptism. It is very com- 
 monly assumed, that his radical conversion took place at the moment of that appearance ; but 
 the only evidence of this is the question which he asked, apparently expressive of a spirit of 
 obedience, " What shall I do, Lord ? " (Acts 22: 10.) (The words in 9 : 6 are interpolated.) On 
 the other hand, he seems to have remained at least three days without comfort, and so far as the 
 record states without prayer. (Acts 9 : 11.) [Dr. Arnold, it will be perceived, does not abso- 
 lutely deny the fact of Paul's praying during this time, and we see not how he could possibly 
 keep from prayer. And if he was not then filled with the Spirit, certainly the Spirit was 
 
APPENDIXES. 327 
 
 operating in his mind and heart, giving him inward light, and instructing him in the great 
 truths of that theology which he afterward preached. That he was at this time a praying man 
 seems evident from our Lord's tirst words to Ananias concerning him before his outward eyes 
 were opened : "Behold, he prayeth," and from the fact that Ananias on visiting him immedi- 
 ately addressed him as a Christian " brother."] It was not until the visit of Ananias tliat he 
 recovered his sight, that he was filled with the Holy Ghost (ver. 17), that he was ready to be 
 baptized. (Ver. 18.) He does not seem to have had any spiritual relief until then. Without 
 supposing, then, that he had never experienced before any part of that which he describes so 
 grapiiically in ver. 7-9, we can hardly find any other time in his life to which that strongly 
 marked conflict can be so reasonably assigned. Certainly it was not until then that he could 
 sav " I died." As to the second part of this experience, which we suppose to be described in 
 verses 14-24, that may have continued through the whole of his Christian life, in proportion 
 as he compared himself with the standard of legal requirement ; but would be less and less real 
 to him, as indeed it seems to be here represented, in proportion as his spirit was imbued more and 
 more with the doctrine of grace. Those whom we must allow to be Christians do find, or think 
 they find, much in their own experience which answers to what the apostle here says. They 
 would find nothing of this kind, if they were perfect in faith, and love, and holiness. They 
 would find nothing else but this, if they looked only toward the law and its requirements. In 
 fact, their actual experience is made up of the alternation and mixture of the distressing sense 
 of remaining and often prevailing sin, and the happy assurance of free pardon, full justification, 
 and ultimate perfect sanctification in Christ. 
 
 We are not to suppose that the apostle's experience was of a wholly different type in this 
 respect from that of truly regenerate persons in the present day and in every age. The 
 different states of religious experience described in ch. 7: 14r-25 and ch. 8 : 1-4, are not to be 
 re;?arded as altogether different historical stages in the apostle's religious life, so that ch. 7 : 14- 
 25 describes his whole experience at one time, and ch. 8 : 1-4, his whole experience at another 
 and later period of his Christian course ; but the tv^o descriptions are rather to be regarded as 
 representing his experience in different attitudes of mind, which partly alternated with each 
 other, and were partly commingled throughout his Christian life. 
 
 I cannot forbear to refer, as in the main agreeing with and confirming the interpretation of 
 this difficult passage here given, to a very able and exhaustive article, by Kev. W. N. Clarke, in 
 the "Baptist Quarterly," for October, 1875, pp. 385-411. 
 
 APPENDIX E, TO ROMANS 8: 19-23, PAGE 197. 
 
 The meaning of the word translated 'creature,' or 'creation' (ktiVis). This word occurs in 
 the New Testament nineteen times : Mark 10:6; 13:19; 16:15; Rom. 1 : 20, 25 ; 8:19, 20, 21, 
 22,39; 2 Cor. 5: 17; Gal. 6 : 15; Col. 1 : 15, 23; Heb.4: 13; 9: 11; 1 Peter 2 : 13; 2 Peter 3: 
 4; Rev. 3: 14. 
 
 Ik our common English version it is translated " creature " eleven times, " creation " six 
 times (Mark 6 : 10 ; 13:9; Rom. 1 : 20 ; 8 : 22 ; 2 Peter 3:4; Rev. 3 : 14), and once it is trans- 
 lated "building" (Heb. 9 : 11), and once "ordinance" (1 Peter 2: 13). Four of these passages 
 belong to the place under consideration, leaving fifteen others from which to determine its pre- 
 vailing sense. It is used to express the act of creating only in Rom. 1 : 20. Elsewhere it 
 always stands for that which is created, either for the creation as a whole, or for some particular 
 created thing, or for some class or classes of created things. Twice it is used with the adjective 
 " new," to designate the ' new creation,' or the ' new creature.' (2 Cor. 5 : 17 ; Gal. 6 : 15.) In 
 1 Peter 2: 13, with the epithet 'human' it has the sense of human 'ordinance' or 'institution' ; 
 and in Mark 16 : 15 it can only refer to mankind. In the remaining ten instances it has the 
 
328 APPENDIXES. 
 
 general sense of ' creation,' or that which is created, not necessarily including more tlian this 
 world in tlie majority of cases. In Col. 1 : 23 it is referred by Robinson and Tholuck to man- 
 kind; but the Greek preposition "in" (ec), and the explanatory adjunct "which is under hea- 
 ven," seem rather to require that it be understood here in a local sease. " In all creation which 
 is under heaven " is Alford's translation. 
 
 The sense is disputed in Col. 1: 15 and Rev. 3: 14, some understanding it in these two 
 places to refer to the ' new creation ' ; but if we take the word " firstborn " in tlie first of these 
 passages in the sense of 'heir' or 'inheritor' (a sense justified by the use of the word in Deut. 
 21 : 16), and understand the word "beginning" in the second passage in the sense of 'first prin- 
 ciple,' or 'primal source,' all doctrinal difficulty will be avoided, and the word (xTtVi?) will have 
 its usual sense in both these places. 
 
 Tlie usual meaning of this word, then, in the New Testament clearly is the creation, not 
 necessarily extending beyond this world, and not excluding mankind. It is not applied to 
 human creatures exclusively, except in Mark 16: 15; nor does it appear that it is ever applied 
 to Christians exclusively, without the addition of the epithet "new." 
 
 On the whole, then, the demands of the context in relation to this word seem to be best 
 answered by defining it as including the inanimate and irrational creation, so far as relates to 
 this world. This sense corresponds with the ordinary use of the word, except in Excluding 
 mankind — for which exclusion the passage itself furnishes the reason. But can the inanimate 
 and irrational creation be said to groan and travail in pain, and to hope for deliverance in con- 
 nection with the manifestation of the sons of God ? Certainly not, if we insist on taking these 
 expressions in a strictly literal sense. But if we compare this language with the representations 
 of the Old Testament prophets, and of the Apocalypse, in regard to the renovation of the earth 
 in connection with the consummation of the Messiah's kingdom, we shall find nothing but what 
 is in keeping with those Scriptural representations. The earth was cursed on account of Adam's 
 sin (Gen. 3 : 17, 18) ; it is to be delivered from the curse in connection with man's deliverance 
 from sin. So much of it as is capable of feeling actually suflTers under the bondage of corrup- 
 tion (the liability to pain and death), and under the abuse and wrongs inflicted by wicked and 
 cruel men. Since these evils are real and heavy, since they are undeserved, since they are of 
 long continuance, and since God has promised deliverance from them, the brute creation may 
 fitly be represented as groaning under these evils, and longing for the promised deliverance. 
 And since inanimate nature is also under the curse on account of sin ; since it also suffers abuse, 
 perversion, and distortion in various ways from man's folly, improvidence, and wickedness ; and 
 since it is also to be delivered from these evils — it, too, may well be represented as sharing in 
 the groaning and the travail, in the longing and the hope. 
 
 As to the certainty of this future deliverance, all our knowledge must be derived from divine 
 revelation. The skeptical scientist may scoff at the idea of such a change in the natural world 
 on moral grounds ; but he will never be able to prove that the material and brute creation did 
 not lose much by man's fall into sin, and will not gain much by man's recovery to holiness. The 
 renovation of the physical world at the advent of the Messiah was a dogma of the Rabbins, as 
 may be seen from the passages cited by Tholuck and other commentators. They found the germ 
 of their doctrine on this subject in such passages as Isa. 9: 6-9; 65: 17-25; Ezek. 34: 25-27 ; 
 Hosea 2 : 18-23. We have corresponding intimations in the New Testament, for the most part 
 brief and suggestive merely, as Matt. 19 ; 28 ; Acts 3 : 21 ; 2 Peter 3:13; but sometimes more 
 explicit and circumstantial, though in highly figurative language, as in Rev. 21. 
 
M' ' ,'(:" ■ : > 
 
 -it ' > 
 
 
 > .'^ 
 
 jSr- -*? 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 --.^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 '^«4J.^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — *** 
 
 #- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U S A 
 
 > 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ . <^ -jjf v^f^ - ,:ir» 
 
A- > A' 
 
 V >- 
 
 J«r' !h»- 
 
 
 
 ^ >* <H .^ V ^ >- 
 
 >> ;>r >- >- 
 
 X itr 
 
 V >'• 
 
 A; ,^ >r > >■ 
 
BS2341.A512V.4 
 
 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00056 0328