^^Rv OF pmcerS^ 
 
 
AN EXPOSITION 
 
 OP THE 
 
 EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE 
 ROMANS. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM G. WILLIAMS, LL. D., 
 
 LATE PROFESSOR OP GREEK IN THE OHIO WE8LEYAX UNIVERSITY. 
 
 CINCINNATI: JENNINGS AND PYE. 
 NEW YORK: EATON AND MAINS. 
 
OOPTRIGHT, 1902, BY 
 JXNNIN6S AND FTE. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Browning, in the preface to his translation of yEschylus's 
 Agamemnon, says: " If I wished to acquaint myself, by the aid of 
 a translator, with a work of the immense fame of this tragedy, I 
 should require him to be literal at every cost, save that of absolute 
 violence to our language. And I would be tolerant, for once, of 
 even a clumsy attempt to furnish me with the very turn of each 
 phrase, in as Greek a fashion as English will bear." 
 
 Such is the requirement that every student of Paul's Epistle 
 to the Romans would gladly exact for himself from the translator. 
 In the translation of a work of such " immense fame," and of such 
 immense moment, intrinsically, to us, we are right in demanding, 
 not a free literary modernized translation, but a faithful repro- 
 duction of the exact structure, and the exact meaning of the 
 original, even at the cost, if need be, of literary style, and of En- 
 glish idiom. But, happily, a version of this epistle, in order to be 
 literal and exact, need not be un-English, in either style or idiom. 
 We can express, literally and exactly, the words, the articles, the 
 particles, the tenses of the verbs, the grammatical construction of 
 the sentences, and the logical sequence of the thoughts, in clear, 
 strong, idiomatic English. We can reproduce just the thought, 
 and just the color of the thought, in appropriate English utterance. 
 
 The history of Bible translation for five hundred years into 
 English, will show how far this aim has been kept in thought, and 
 how far this end has been attained. 
 
 The Bible was first translated (from the Latin Vulgate) into 
 English, in 1380, by Wyclif . " His translation of the Bible, and still 
 more his numerous English sermons and tracts, establish his now 
 undisputed position as the founder of English prose writing." 
 — (Eucycl. Brit.) Yet this translation, which had only a limited 
 circulation, did not establish the standard of Biblical style for later 
 
 scholars. 
 
 3 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 The first Enplish translation from tlic Greek was made hy 
 Tyndale, in loLT). Tliis translation, tlie work of a single competent 
 scholar, fixed the Biblical style for all its successors; and was the 
 basis and the model for many revisions, notably the "Great 
 Bible" of 1539; the "Geneva Bible" of 1560; and the "Bishops' 
 Bible " of 1568, which were all the work of collaboration. But 
 none of them made any claim to be literal and exact. They were 
 often inaccurate, they were not always comprehensible ; and they 
 were not satisfactory to the common readers, or to the scholars. 
 There was still a call for a translation more authoritative, more 
 accurate, more literal, which would displace the former trans- 
 lations. 
 
 The formal movement for such a translation began, with the 
 concurrence both of the Church and of the Dissenters, in 1604. 
 By the command of King James First, of England, a committee of 
 fifteen leading scholars, taken about equally from the Higli 
 Church party, and from the Puritans, prepared the New Testament 
 part of the translation. This translation, whose])reparation occu- 
 pied three years, was published in 1611; and bears the name of 
 " King James's," or " The Authorized." 
 
 It was a great improvement upon the former translations, 
 though it did not at once displace tliem. It kept the best features 
 of the old versions, and added many of its own. It wisely pre- 
 served the peculiarities of Tyndale's Biblical style, including es- 
 pecially the old (and partly antiquated) grammatical character- 
 istics, the personal inflections of the verb, the distinction between 
 the singular and the plural of the personal j)ronouns, thou and ye ; 
 and the distinction between the nominative i/e and the objective 
 //o«. The style of the Authorized is simple, clear, and graceful; 
 and the turns of expression are idiomatic and liappy. There is 
 also in this translation a sobriety and dignity found in few other 
 books in the language. The English Bible, in its vocabulary, its 
 grammar, its style, its cathedral tone, has a unique place in our 
 literature, and ranks (with some grave deductions), as the great 
 cla.ssic of the English-speaking people, and the highest standard 
 of the English language. But the Authorized translation, like its 
 predecessors, makes no claim to be literal and exact. Indeed, the 
 translators rather pride themselves on their variety of expression : 
 They say (in their preface), "We have not tied ourselves to a 
 uniformity of phrasing. Nicety in woi*ds is the next step to 
 trifling." 
 
PREFACE. 5 
 
 But the Authorized, with all its excellencies of style, was not 
 an ideal translation. In the opinion of competent judges it often 
 fails to express precisely what the Greek precisely expresses ; it 
 fails systematically to express the force of the Greek tenses (and 
 very frequently of the modes), and of the Greek article, and of the 
 Greek particles ; very often the reader does not know what it 
 means, and sometimes it expresses no meaning at all. In fact, 
 this translation did not secure general acceptance, nor reach this 
 high estimation, until long after its publication; nor until, by 
 official recognition as " the Authorized," rather than by its merits 
 alone, it had occupied the field against all rivals. But after three 
 hundred years of " authorization," it has now become the conven- 
 tional style to speak of this translation in extravagant terms, as 
 " the best translation ever made." We are often amused and 
 amazed at the assumption with w^hich men who can not read a 
 word of Hebrew or of Greek, and who have therefore not earned 
 a right to speak on this point, pronounce upon the incomparable 
 excellence of the Authorized translation. It is called " the Bible 
 of our fathers, venerable, sacred." Many, indeed, think it sacri- 
 legious to touch this translation wath irreverent hands, to expose 
 its failures and its faults, to criticise it, or to propose to alter it; 
 or even to eliminate the acknowledged blunders that have crept 
 into it.* Yet from the first, the Authorized translation has been 
 the subject of much criticism, both friendly and unfriendly ; and 
 many attempts, by individual or associated effort, have been made 
 to improve it, if not to supersede it. Our shelves are full of such 
 books, many of which are better than the Authorized. But the 
 sanction of the crown, and the approbation of the Church, gave 
 it a factitious reputation which it yet holds, and will continue to 
 hold, though ever less securely, for an indefinite time to come. 
 
 The Authorized, owing to these adventitious circumstances, 
 has had a wonderful history, and a wonderful influence, religious 
 and literary, in the great nations that speak the English language. 
 But this book to which we owe so much, but which is not a good 
 translation of the Greek, has played its part ; and the time has 
 come, it came long ago, when it should retire and leave the stage 
 
 •'This feeling In regard to ourdefective translation of the Blbleamounts 
 to a superstition. Nearly fifty years ago, the American Bible Society 
 deliberately voted not to cancel or correct more than twenty-four thousand 
 variations (most of them, of course, very insignificant) that their own 
 Committee liad found in the text of the standard editions. 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 to a better player. Far better would it be for the English readers 
 of the Bible, if tlie Authorized translation should now, like 
 Tyndale's, and the Bishops', be relegated from our tables to our 
 book-shelves. 
 
 There is a better book, not as good as it ought to be, to take 
 the place of the Authorized, provisionally. 
 
 The dissatisfaction with tlie Authorized long ago showed that 
 a change must eventually come. At length, in 1870, the Canter- 
 bury Convocation ventured upon the task. The Convocation 
 could have given the Englisli world a translation abreast of the 
 Greek scholarship, and of the English scholarship of the times, 
 and perhaps a final translation. But unfortunately, with short- 
 sighted policy, they voted " that they did not contemj)late a new 
 translation," but only a revision of the old translation. It would 
 almost seem that the Canterbury divines really preferred the old 
 leaven in the new batch; or, at least, from fear of offense to the 
 conservatives, they decided upon this half-way measure. The 
 committee of revision, to whom the Convocation intrusted the 
 work, gave more than ten years of work to the New Testament. 
 But the committee, with the same dread of criticism, or with 
 superb self-confidence, unwisely maintained, during all those 
 years, absolute secrecy as to the cliaracter and progress of their 
 work, until it was too late to correct any of their mistakes, — and 
 they made many mistakes " of omission and of commission." 
 Nevertheless, the Revision is a noble monument to the zeal of the 
 Convocation, and to the ability of the committee, to their con- 
 scientiousness, and, with much reserve, to their success. It was 
 published in 1881 ; and after so long delay, was received with 
 great enthusiasm, and with much disappointment. 
 
 Tlie Revision has not had the general and favorable acceptance 
 which so labored an effort, if wisely and rightly carried out, 
 deserved. The English world feels that the Revision is, as its 
 name indicates, only provisional, and is not the last word of 
 advance in this direction. The impolicy in the limit which the 
 Convocation set for the movement, and the unwise secrecy of tlie 
 committee, have hindered the acceptance of the Revision. At some 
 future time, all the Churches of English Christendom must unite 
 for a full and trustworthy translation, which will not be a mere 
 revision; or, what is now more probable, if not more desirable 
 in itself, each great Church, as it has its own denominational 
 literature, its own denominational theological schools, and its own 
 
PREFACE. 7 
 
 denominational pulpit, will have its own denominational transla- 
 tion of the Scriptures, without combinations, and without 
 compromises.* 
 
 Readers of the Bible ought not to be content with anything 
 less than what the best scholarship can give them. Especially in 
 critical passages, they want the exactest reproduction of the 
 Greek. The Revised (or any other compromise translation) may 
 answer, as the Authorized has so long done, for general cursory 
 reading, either private or congregational ; but for the closet, or 
 the study, students demand, with Browning, to know just what 
 the writers of the Bible thought, and just how they spoke ; they 
 demand the most literal and exact translation that scholarship can 
 give them, "in as Greek a style as English will bear." Fortu- 
 nately, a translation so made can be made also just as suitable for 
 use in the family and in the pulpit as the less exact Authorized 
 or the Revised. 
 
 Such is the critical judgment to which the external history 
 and the internal character of these two great rival translations 
 lead us. 
 
 The Parallel translations of this Epistle, printed in some edi- 
 tions, illustrate these points. They show, in almost every verse, 
 something of what Bishop Ellicott's preface to the Revised calls 
 "its blemishes and imperfections," but which we may more 
 correctly call its deliberate departures from the apostle's language 
 and meaning. A careful count shows that in this brief Epistle to 
 the Romans, containing only 433 verses, the Revisers made more 
 than twelve hundred changes from the Authorized. But the cor- 
 rected translation here given makes more than sixteen hundred 
 additional changes from the Revised. Of course, most of those 
 changes, in both texts, are minute in themselves, consisting, for 
 example, of modification of the punctuation, and of the paragraph- 
 ing ; changes in the capitalization (as Spirit to spirit, viii, 6, 9) ; a 
 slight modernizing of the inflections (as hath to has) ; substituting 
 one word for another (as to for unto) ; a rhetorical rearrangement 
 of the words (as, ' I have made thee a father of many nations,' to 
 ' A father of many nations have I made thee,' iv, 17), and other 
 such accessory points. Such textual changes do not greatly affect 
 
 *Thus, the American Bible Union, has given the Baptist Churches a 
 translation of the New Testament which, without being perfect, Is, on the 
 whole (aside from Its peculiar views), better than the Authorized, better 
 than the Revised. 
 
8 PREFACE. 
 
 the character or tlic iiicaning of tlie translation ; hut. though 
 mimito, tlu'y are not, tlicrefori', trivial. In a book of the immense 
 significance of this epistle (and of the entire New Testament), even 
 the minutest points must be of some moment. At the least, they 
 are of the kind of work that Horace calls " the labor of the file ;" 
 and they come within Browning's demand for exactness. But of 
 mucli greater significance are the internal changes that have to do 
 with the meaning of the several words, and their grammatical 
 relation to each other, and tlie structure of the sentences; and, 
 especially, the reproduction of the thought. These changes range 
 from the minor words to the most imi)ortant, from the articles, 
 the particles, the conjunctions, the prepositions, to the crucial 
 verbs and substantives ; to the grammatical structure of the 
 sentences, and to the logical coherence of tlie discourse. Many of 
 these things in the Authorized the Revised changed, usually for 
 the better; but many equally imi)ortant things that ought to have 
 been changed, it did not touch; and it sometimes introduced 
 errors of its own. 
 
 To verify these statements of the inaccuracies, in both the 
 Authorized and the Revised, it is necessary to give specific illus- 
 trations ; and the Epistle to the Romans will answer as well as 
 any other part of the Bible. 
 
 For example : The first eleven verses of the sixth chapter, 
 though not more marked than many other passages, furnish in- 
 stances of error (in both translations) for the correction of which 
 the reader may consult the present translation, and the commen- 
 tary on the passage. 1. We begin with a minor infelicity in the 
 translations, as shown in the unlike renderings for the dative 
 case. In verse 2 we read, "We died to sin;" and in verse 10, 
 "He died unto sin." In both places the Greek is the same; and 
 the meaning is the same ; and the translation should be the same: 
 " We died to sin ; he died to sin ;" not unto sin, but to sin ; that is, 
 to, as to, as regards; for which, see the commentary. 2. In the 
 fourth verse is a more serious mistake in the meaning of one of 
 the important words. Both translations read, "That we also 
 might walk in ueu-neKS of life" — as if the word meant in a mora i 
 transformation, or regeneration. But the woi-d "also" associates 
 us with Christ, who did not experience a moral transformation. 
 The translation should run, " That we also may walk in renewal of 
 life" — that is, in a judicial restoration to a new career. 3. The 
 fifth verse reads, "We have become united with him by the like- 
 
PREFACE. 9 
 
 ness of his death." But these words are absolutely destitute of 
 meaning ; and the translation should run, "in the sameness with 
 his death." 4. The seventh verse reads, " He that hath died is 
 justified from sin." Here is a double en-or in the tenses of the 
 verbs: The first verb is in the historical aorist; the second in the 
 present perfect. The translation should run, " He that died [with 
 Christ] has been justified from sin." 5. The ninth verse reads, 
 "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more." Tlie transla- 
 tion, if not wi-ong, is, at best, ambiguous. The particijile is not 
 in the present tense, denoting a present action, but in the aorist, 
 denoting a complete action ; and it should be translated, " Christ 
 having been raised." Other instances are common of the same 
 ambiguity. For example, in Eom. iii, 24, and v, 1, we read the same 
 words, "being justified," as the translation of two different Greek 
 words! In the first passage, in which the Greek participle is in 
 the present tense, and expresses a continuous action, the Revised 
 translates, " For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of 
 God, being justified freely by his grace." (Rom. iii, 24.) This 
 translation, though verbally possible, is ambiguous; and the 
 translation should run, " For all sinned, and come short of the 
 approval of God, becoming justified (in each successive instance), 
 gratis, by his grace." In the second passage, in which the Greek 
 participle is in the aorist tense, and expresses a completed action, 
 the Revised translates, "Being justified by faith, let us have 
 peace with God." But this translation, too, though verbally pos- 
 sible, is ambiguous ; and the translation should run, "Having been 
 jnstiiied from faith, we have peace with God." 
 
 These are some only of the inaccuracies which lie on the sur- 
 face in the translations of this passage ; and many such can be 
 found throughout the epistle, and throughout the New Testament. 
 The treatment of the simple conjunctions gives us another 
 illustration of the inaccuracies in the Authorized and the Revised. 
 The simple continuative conjunctions in the Greek language are 
 Kai (or tO, which always means and, and 5^, which always means 
 but. This adversative sense of 5^, but, is not always very pro- 
 nounced, but it is always felt by every Greek writer and reader. 
 Plato and Paul never used S4 when they meant and; and no Greek 
 writer ever used Kal when he meant but. But this discrimination 
 between the two words Kal and 5^ is quite disregarded in both the 
 Authorized and the Revised. No one who finds the word and in 
 either translation, can oi-dinarily decide which word it represents. 
 
10 PREFACE. 
 
 Kal ov bi; for cither makt's sense, tliough never tlie same sense as 
 the other. And sometimes it is of little moment which: yet 
 always the exact meaning of the sentence, or the delicate shade 
 of meaning, turns on the conjunction ; and the translation ought 
 always to show which Greek word it represents. A cursory exam- 
 ination of the Autliorized translation of Romans, shows fifty-eight 
 instances in whicli the Greek word o^, but, is ti'anslated by and; 
 and the Revised sliows about tlie same number of mistranslations 
 of 5^, either and, or now, or so, or howbeit, or some other of fifteen 
 words, at the guess of the revisers. These words doubtless give 
 variety to the revisers' English style; but they do not translate 
 Paul's word, or express his precise concept in the sentence. 
 
 Happily, the more important conjuntions, the logical con- 
 junctions of cause or of inference, are usually translated with 
 a fair degree of correctness, in both the Authorized and in the 
 Revised. Yet sometimes the revisers, in attempting the periodic 
 style, in the place of Paul's simpler paratactic construction, have 
 missed the proper English conjunction. Thus in Rom. vi, 17, Paul 
 says, " P>ut thanks be to God tliat ye were slaves of sin, but ye 
 obeyed from the heart that type of doctrine into which ye were 
 initiated." But this compound sentence with the simple con- 
 junction but, the revisers replaced with a complex sentence, and 
 used the wrong conjunction to express the apostle's adversative 
 concept. They say, " But thanks be to God, that whereas ye were 
 servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart." But the 
 word whereas, which means }>rcause, does not express the right 
 dependence of the thought: the logical word tliat the revisers 
 needed was although: "Thanks be to God, that although ye were 
 servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart." 
 
 There is another class of little words — the prepositions — on the 
 exact meaning of which much often depends, but whose meanings 
 are not always correctly expressed in the Authorized and the 
 Revised. These translations frequently use the same English 
 l)reposition to express different Greek constructions, and fre- 
 quently different English pi-epositions to express the same Greek 
 construction. AVe have already seen that tliey use both the words 
 to and unto to express the relation of the Greek dative case. Care- 
 ful writers in English use the woi-d unto (or into), to denote 
 (among other concepts), the motion, or tendency, that is expressed 
 in Greek by the preposition els. But the Authorized and the 
 Revised know nothing about these nice distinctions. In this 
 
PREFACE. 11 
 
 epistle, the Revised uses the word unto thirty-three times to ti-ans- 
 late the dative case. An illustration of this confusion of the two 
 words is found in Rom. iv, 3. The Revised translates, " Abra- 
 ham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him /or righteous- 
 ness." Here the Greek pronoun ain-qi is in the dative case, without 
 any preposition, and the Greek substantive for " righteousness" is 
 the object of the preposition eh. Both prepositions in the English 
 are wrong; and the translation should run, "It was reckoned to 
 him unto justification." Again, in Rom. i, 17, the Authorized 
 reads, " revealed/?'o»i faith to faith," in which the first prep- 
 osition [iK] is correct, the second [et's] is wrong. The Revised reads 
 
 the woi"ds " revealed by faith unto faith," in which the first 
 
 preposition is wrong, the second correct. The translation should 
 run, " is revealed, //'o»! faith, unto faith." 
 
 Another, and more significant error is found in Rom. iv, 25. 
 Both the Authorized and the Revised translate the passage, 
 " Who was delivered /or our offenses [Rev., trespasses], and was 
 raised again for our justification." The Greek preposition in both 
 clauses is 8id, which always looks to the past ; and its proper mean- 
 ing is " on account of," and it does not mean for in any proper 
 sense of the English word. Most English readers inevitably 
 interpret the second clause as meaning, " with a view to our justi- 
 fication ;" or, "for the sake of bringing about our justification," as 
 if the justification were to be a result of the Savior's resurrection. 
 But the only meaning the word ^lo. can have in the first clause is 
 ''^ on account o/ our past offenses;" and this is the only meaning, 
 also, of the preposition in the second clause ; and the sense is, 
 that Christ's resurrection was because of our justification. The 
 clauses are parallel after the Hebrew model ; and the correct 
 translation gives the verse an entirely different turn from that 
 of the old translations. The translation should run, " He was 
 delivered [to death] on account of our trespasses ; and he was 
 raised again on account of our justification ;" that is, because, by 
 his vicarious death, he had wrought out our justification. 
 
 But this same ambiguous English preposition "for" is mus- 
 tered into service by the old translations in an entii-ely different 
 sense, as tlie translation, or mistranslation, of another Greek 
 preposition, itTr^p, " instead of ." In 2 Cor. v, 14, the Authorized 
 translates, " AVe thus judge [judged] that if one died /or all, then 
 were all dead [all died] ; and he died /or all, that they which live 
 should not henceforth live unto Fto^ themselves, but unto [to] him 
 
12 PREFACE. 
 
 which died fur them, and rose again." Now, in these three 
 clauses, the preposition is the same (inr^p) ; and the translation 
 for, thrice repeated, is, perhaps, verbally correct, though it is 
 ambiguous. The Pauline concept in the pa.s3age is clearly that 
 Christ's death was substitutionary, though the translation does 
 not make this as explicit as it ought to have done. 
 
 In the first two clauses, the revisers translate the prepositions 
 correctly, ''for" [that is instead of]; but the last clause they 
 translate, '"but unto [to] him, who /or their sdkes died and rose 
 again." This translation for this word vr^p, for their sakes, is fre- 
 quently correct in other connections, but it is not self-consistent 
 or possible in this connection. If in the thii-d clause of this verse, 
 this preposition means "for their sokes;" it ought also to be so 
 translated in the Jirst clause, " one died for the sake of all ; there- 
 fore all died." But such a proposition is not Pauline; it is a 
 logical inconsequence, a non-se^^iitur, too bold for even the revis- 
 ers to admit it. Clearly this is not Paul's meaning. Clearly the 
 revisers' change of the word in tlie thii-d clause is not &tra)ii<lation, 
 but a commentary; and worse, it is a commentary that perverts 
 the evangelical teaching of Christ's death as a substitution in the 
 place of man, to the un-Pauline teaching that his death is a mere 
 humanitarian sacrifice of himself, like that of the proto-martyr, or 
 of Paul himself, or of any other of the noble army of confessors, 
 who have died for the sake of man. Clearly the revisers have 
 emptied the passage of the one meaning which makes it precious 
 to the believer in Christ's vicarious atonement. Clearly the 
 translation (omitting the woi-d if from the Greek text), should 
 run, "We thus judged that One died instead of all; therefoi'e, 
 they all died ; and he died instead of all, that they that live should 
 no longer live to themselves, but to him who instead of them died 
 and rose again." 
 
 In the twentieth verse of this chapter (2 Cor. v, 20), the 
 revisei-s repeat the same error in the translation of inr^p. They 
 say, " "We are ambassadors on behalf of Christ; we beseech you on 
 behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God. Him who knew no 
 sin, he made to be sin on our behalf." It is difficult to conceive 
 what meaning the words "on behalf of Christ" can have in this 
 connection. Christ has no interests at stake that the ambassadors 
 can safeguai"d. They do not benefit Christ, but represent him. 
 And in the twenty-first verse it is difficult to understand what 
 the apostle's words can mean except Christ's substitution in our 
 
PREFACE. 13 
 
 place. The translation (dropping the Hebraisms), should run, 
 " We come ambassadors instead 0/ Christ; we beseech you instead 
 of Christ. Him who knows not sin, he made sinful instead of us, 
 that we may become justified of God in him." 
 
 There is another instance, in Rom. viii, 3, in which this same 
 Greek preposition vir^p has troubled the revisers. They are not 
 satisfied with the usual ambiguous rendering of the word, "for;" 
 and the other explicit meaning "for the sake of" is clearly not 
 appropriate here ; and so, to relieve this embarrassment over the 
 word for, they forget their single duty as translators, and add a 
 commentary (without, however, including it in brackets). They 
 translate the verse, "God sending [having sent] his own Son in 
 the likeness of [the sameness with] sinful flesh, and as an offering 
 for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." But there is nothing in the 
 Greek, or in the concept of the passage, corresponding to the added 
 words "as an offering." The difficulty of the revisers is imagi- 
 nary; and, at any rate, is not lessened by the added words; the 
 preposition "for," expresses precisely what it would without the 
 interpolation. The connection makes everything clear, and Paul's 
 words "for sin" mean simply "for the abolition of sin." The 
 translation should run, "God, having sent his own Son in the 
 sameness with the flesh of sin, and /or sin, condemned [and abol- 
 ished] the sin in the flesh." 
 
 Another frequent inaccuracy in the Authorized and the 
 Revised is shown in their treatment of the definite article. The 
 Greek article and the English article are nearly equivalent in their 
 functions and constructions. But the Authorized seems to have had 
 no law whatever to regulate the introduction or the omission of the 
 article ; it inserts it at random where it is absent from the Greek, 
 and omits it at random where it is present in the Greek. The 
 revisers also practically do the same thing in the body of the text, 
 as if they too were without law in the matter of the article ; yet 
 sometimes, as if conscious that this text is wrong, they give an 
 alternate translation in the margin, by noting that the article is, 
 or is not, in the Greek. For example, in Rom. iii, 20, the revis- 
 ers read in the text, " By [from] the works of the law shall [will] 
 no flesh be justified in his sight ; for through the law cometh the 
 knowledge of sin." Here they insert the article four times; but 
 note at the same time, in the margin, that the first three are 
 wrong. All four are wrong. And similarly in very many places 
 else. Thus, a rapid count shows that in the first eight chapters of 
 
14 PREFACi:. 
 
 this epistle, they insert the article erroiu'ourily sixty times ; in evei-y 
 one of which the apostle's exact meaning is lost. If the reader of 
 the Revised follows the body of the translation, apart from the 
 margin (as, of course, most readers do), he misses the sharp and 
 signifieant discrimination which Paul always makes between a noun 
 with the article, and tlie noun witiiout the article; for example, 
 between "the law" and "law." Thus, in Kom. ii, 13, the 
 Authorized incorrectly reads: " Not the hearers of ihr law are just 
 before (lod, but the doers of the law shall [will] be justified." 
 But in tliis passage the revisers, noticing that the definite article 
 is not in the Greek, but not recognizing either the Greek or the 
 English anarthrous idiom, substitute the indefinite article, where 
 the Authorized uses the definite article: " Not the hearers of a law 
 are just before God, but the doers of a law shall [will] be justified." 
 Of course, either article, definite or indefinite, perverts tlie apos- 
 tle's sense; and the translation should run, "Not the hearers of 
 law are just before God ; but the doers of law will be justified." 
 "^r, In some critical passages, the insertion of the article contrary 
 to the Greek, completely obscures the apostle's meaning. The 
 famous Resurrection chapter gives us a notable instance. The 
 Revised translation reads, "Now [but] if Christ is preached that 
 he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that 
 there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Cor, xv, 12.) The apostle 
 is usually understood to teach, in these words, the general resur- 
 rection of the dead ; but such is not his cue in this place ; he is 
 simply reporting the ern)r of certain Corinthians who once 
 " received his preaching that Christ died, and was buried, and arose; 
 and who still stand in this faith," yet inconsistently "say that 
 there is no resurrection." And so Paul is not arguing here that 
 because Christ rose, all the dead will rise; though that is true in 
 itself, and is a doctrine which he had already taught the Corinth- 
 ians, and abundantly sets fortli elsewhere. The Greek here has no 
 article, and tlie word "dead men" in the expression, "no resur- 
 rection of dead men," is not enumerative, but descriptive of a class. 
 All that Paul here implies is, that if Christ, a dead man, arose, 
 then a resurrection of dead men is not impossible. The single 
 instance of such a resurrection establishes the possibility ; and the 
 insertion of the article misses the point of the sentence. The 
 translation should run, " But if Christ is preached that he has been 
 raised from dead men, how say some among you, that there is no 
 resuvrectiou of dead men f" 
 
PREFACE. 16 
 
 A similar instance of this error in the insertion of the article, 
 and obscuration of the meaning, is found in Acts xvii, 32. The 
 Revised translation reads, "Now [but] when they heard of the 
 resurrection of the dead, some mocked." But there is no article 
 here in the Greek; and the translation should run, "But when 
 they heard of a resurrection of dead men, some began to mock." 
 
 These are instances, which might be indefinitely multiplied, 
 of the failures in both the Authorized and in the Revised to ex- 
 press the exact meaning of the Greek. But besides the mistakes 
 in expressing the meaning of the Greek, these translations are 
 open to continuous criticism on the score of their English idiom. 
 One of their most regrettable errors in this direction is their ex- 
 pression of the future tense of verbs, an error which often gives an 
 un-English turn to the meaning, and a lurid color to the sentiment, 
 very different from that of the original. The marked discrimina- 
 tion in meaning and tone expressed by the two English auxiliaries 
 of the future tense, will and shall, is one which the Greek lan- 
 guage can not mark, but which the English language must make, 
 in every instance, correctly or incorrectly. Macaulay says, " Not 
 one Englishman in a million ever confounds his will and shall." 
 But unfortunately for the exact sense of innumerable passages in 
 the English Bible, and for its ethical tone, it is a discrimination 
 that seems almost unknown, both to King James's translators and 
 to the Canterbury revisers. In simple declarations, and in ques- 
 tions, of the first person, they usually have the right auxiliary; 
 but in verbs of the second and third persons, they generally man- 
 age to get the auxiliary verbs wrong ; they use shall instead of 
 will. For example, in this saying from Christ, the Authorized 
 translates, " He that belie veth shall be saved ; but he that be- 
 lieveth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi, 16); and in this saying 
 from Paul it translates, "If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die ; 
 but if ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live " (Rom, viii, 
 13). With these translations, the Revised substantially and 
 wholly agrees ; and in hundreds of similar constructions. But in 
 these passages this autocratic word shall expresses, to an English 
 reader, that it is the purpose of Christ and of Paul that the results 
 be brought about: "He shall be damned ;" " je shall die." But 
 a correct English idiom in all these places requires the milder 
 predictive auxiliary will in the place of the obligative shall. And 
 the translation should run, "He that believes not will be con- 
 demned ;" and " If ye live after the flesh, ye will die." Unfortu- 
 
IG PREFACE. 
 
 nately, these, and similar sentences, which are but the pathetic 
 exclaim of a prophet, arc usually, as the compulsive word shall 
 suggests, bt'toned and emphasized by the reader, even in the pul- 
 |)it, as the stern dicta of a lawgiver or a judge. When Christ 
 wept over Jerusalem, he was not in a mood to denounce its ruin, 
 as the Revised makes him say, "The days of affliction shall come 
 upon thee." To his eye, coming events cast their shadows before: 
 lie saw, and wept, and said, "If thou hadst but known! for the 
 days of calamity vjUI come." (Luke xix, 43.) This violation of 
 English idiom is found, usually many times, in every chapter of 
 the four Gospels (with only eiglit exceptions, in which there was 
 no occasion for the mistake: Matt, xiv ; Mark v, xv ; Luke xxiv ; 
 John ii, ix, xviii, xx). 
 
 A remarkable illustration of this wrong use of shall instead of 
 will, is found in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, in which 
 both the Authoi'ized and the Revised give many times over, this 
 incorrect meaning and this unhappy tone to the Lord's lamenta- 
 tions over Jerusalem. In the fifty-one verses of this chapter they 
 use the woiti shall fifty-seven times; of which, just fifty are incor- 
 rect. In the whole chapter there is, in the Authorized, but one 
 solitary instance in which the word will is used correctly (copied 
 from Tjndale, by inadvertence) : " For whei-e the carcass is, there 
 will the vultures be gathered together." (Verse 28.) And the 
 Revised (was it by another inadvertence?) gives also the forty- 
 seventh verse correctly: " He will set him over all that he hath." 
 In these errors. King James's translators were perhaps less to 
 blame three hundred years ago, before will and shall became so 
 sharply discriminated ; but the Canterbui-y revisers, in the year 
 1881, are not pardonable for perpetuating all these old and sinis- 
 trous blunders in the English of the twentieth century. 
 
 I come now to some matters personal, and to the use of the 
 odious pronoun I. 
 
 "With the conviction that the old translations, in many places 
 and in many ways, do not express the exact sense of the Greek, 
 I have attempted in this translation to reproduce for my readers, 
 literally and exactly, in as good English as the Greek permits, the 
 apostle's turn of thought and turn of expression. And I have 
 written the commentary to justify the translation, and to expound 
 the apostle's meaning. Of course, I do not expect or desire to 
 displace the King James, and the Canterbury, from their place in 
 the family and in the pulpit, though this corrected ti'anslation is 
 
PREFACE. 17 
 
 adapted to these offices also. Its only claim to recognition is that 
 it is better fitted than the standai-d translations for the closet and 
 for the study. 
 
 I hope that the reader will have no difficulty in understandnig 
 the language and the connection of thought in the translation ; 
 and that the student will be able to comprehend, if not to accept, 
 the exegesis given in the commentary. I have made the way 
 easier for him in the latter by the fact that, as a teacher, accus- 
 tomed to the many repetitions of the class-room, I have not hesi- 
 tated, at the risk of overfullness, to repeat many times, in varied 
 form, the less obvious but more important points in the apostle's 
 discussion, and in my exegesis of them; as, for example, the rela- 
 tion of the Gentiles to the plan of salvation, and the Pauline con- 
 cept of the gospel of Christ. Thus, in almost every part of the 
 book, the reader will find the apostle's views more or less fully 
 canvassed and expressed. 
 
 In the exegesis of this epistle, I accept, without dissent, what 
 I think to be its teachings. If Paul is mistaken in his theology, or 
 his philosophy, as some advanced critics believe, that is not my 
 present concern. I do not hold myself responsible for a defense of 
 his views, as if debatable, but only for an explanation of his views. 
 Whatever Paul teaches is, for the present issue, "orthodox" and 
 final. As a patient scholar of the Master, and of the great apostle, 
 I have reached conclusions as to the meaning of the gospel, and 
 the meaning of this epistle, that seem to me to be very satisfac- 
 tory. I do not see any weak place, or places, in my interpretation ; 
 and I have therefore set forth my views, in the main, as confi- 
 dently as if there were no diflferent views. I shall be gratified if 
 they commend themselves to the minds of others as at least self- 
 consistent, if not satisfactory. Yet I do not expect unanimity on 
 debatable points, and I frankly concede that I may sometimes be 
 mistaken in my conclusions. It will not be an unprecedented 
 experience that an expositor of this epistle should be wrong. But 
 we may all accept Hooker's thought about the Scriptures: "Let 
 us not think that, as long as the world doth t-ndure, the wit of 
 man shall be able to sound the bottom of that which may be con- 
 cluded out of the Scriptures." (Eccl. Polity, I, xiv, 2.) 
 
 I have avoided the display of learning. It would be easy " to 
 quote the original ;" but for ordinary readers (of whom I hope to 
 have many), and even for experts, I prefer, except in a few crit- 
 ical instances, to present, not the processes of scholarship, but the 
 2 
 
18 PREFACE. 
 
 results. The few Greek and Hebrew woi-ds found in the book, are 
 given not for parade, but for easier reference, for those who 
 understand them ; and others may easily pass them by, witliout 
 interrupting the continuity of the discussion. 
 
 This book does not appeal to the great scholars and exegetes 
 for its right to be, or for approval. I am glad so often to be in 
 agreement with others, whom I honor, but whom, nevertheless, 
 I have not copied. In most cases, I have worked out the common 
 result. On the other hand, I often differ from the exegetes ; yet 
 I rarely pause to defend my views. In most places I am content 
 to let the translation and the commentary stand on their own 
 independent merits, modest contributions to the study of one of 
 the world's great books. 
 
 Finally, I have not waged a polemic, either exegetical or doc- 
 trinal, against others; and I have antagonized views, different 
 from those of the commentary, only where the difference is vital; 
 as, for example, in the difference between Paulinism and Calvin- 
 ism. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans is a discussion of the relation of 
 the Gentile world to God's plan of salvation. 
 
 This discussion was incidental to the apostle's cireumstances. 
 The synagogue believed that no one could be saved except the 
 Jews; and all the early believers in Christ, being Jews, held 
 traditionally the same convJction. Paul was the first Jew, the first 
 Christian, to accept and to teach the equality of the Gentiles with 
 the Jews, and this epistle is his defense of the rights of the Gen- 
 tiles against the Jewish assumption that excluded them from the 
 Church, and from the chance of salvation. Paul's discussion in 
 this epistle involves two questions, which, however, in his treat- 
 ment of them, so intertwine with each other, as practically to 
 constitute but one; namely, Who may be saved? and. On what 
 conditions may they be saved? These are the essential points in 
 this discussion ; everything else, whether in the course of the main 
 argument in the first eleven chapters, or in the side issues in the 
 supplementary chapters, is incidental to his one theme. 
 
 RANGE OF THE DISCUSSION. 
 
 The discussion is definitely restricted to these limits. But 
 many writers not seeing that the discussion lies wholly within the 
 limits named, and thinking to do more honor to the apostle, 
 describe the compass and the structure of the epistle in exagger- 
 ated terms. For example (to mention only some, of different 
 schools, of the recent copyists of the old opinions in the same 
 direction), Gifford, in the Speaker's Commentary, says: "This 
 epistle furnishes a general and systematic statement of Christian 
 doctrine." Olshausen says: " It contains a complete system of 
 divinity, since all the essential topics of the gospel are here devel- 
 oped at length." And Shedd says: " It contains, in itself, a whole 
 body of divinity, and io even so encyclopedic in its structure that 
 
 19 
 
20 INTROD UC TION. 
 
 the human inind need not go outside of this epistle in order to 
 know all religious truth." But these assertions clearly show that 
 the writers had only the vaguest apprehension of the subject of 
 the epistle, or of Paul's management of the argument. Such 
 extravagance injures the cause of the truth. It leads the sober 
 reader who finds for himself no such general didactic in the 
 epistle, to think that he has misunderstood the apostle, and, per- 
 haps, is incapable of understanding him ; or, worse, it tempts him 
 to abandon the study of the epistle, discouraged, if not dazed, by 
 its supposed abstruseness. It is thus that even Coleridge declares, 
 that, "The Epistle to the Romans is the most profound work in 
 existence ; it undoubtedly is, and must be, very obscure to the 
 ordinary reader." 
 
 SUBJECT NOT ABSTRUSE. 
 
 But the subject matter of the epistle is not abstruse ; and 
 though there are some difficulties in the treatment of the theme, 
 owing to the brevity and compactness of the argument, and to its 
 remoteness from the modern topics of theology, yet to one who 
 recognizes the apostle's aim, the apostle is not obscure; and it is 
 not difficult as a whole to understand. Peter's " hard places " in 
 his bi'other Paul's letters, were probably matters of debated 
 theology, and not of thought. (2 Pet. iii, 16.) Tlie apostle of tlie 
 circumcision understood the apostle of the uncircumcision only 
 too well. 
 
 NOT A BODY OF DIVINITY. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans is not, as these critics have thought, 
 a body of divinity, or a discussion of Christian experience. The 
 sole intent of the apostle was to maintain the equality of the 
 Gentiles against the assumption of the Jews. It could not have 
 been his purpose, in this epistle, to give a systematic exposition of 
 the gospel ; for, first, at this early date, before any of the Gospels 
 was written, Paul had not sufficiently thought the Christian 
 theology out, to be able to discuss it systematically, as modern 
 theologians, with the help of the entii*e New Testament, are able 
 to do in our scientific method ; and, secondly, there are, in fact, 
 many leading subjects in Biblical theology that this epistle does 
 not touch on at all, or, at the most, barely touches on; including 
 such fundamental points as penitence for sin, conversion, forgive- 
 ness, adoption, regeneration, sanctification. all matters of practical 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 religion, and all eschatological issues. The writer had before him 
 but a single and very distinct theme— the rights of the Gentiles 
 before God ; and his discussion confined to this one theme is sim- 
 ple, direct, and coherent, and leads the reader to a clear and 
 satisfactory understanding of the matter in debate, and of it alone. 
 From this line of thought, the apostle never deviated ; he never 
 introduced irrelevant matter. He knew just what he wanted to 
 say, and he said it. 
 
 ERRONEOUS ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The exegetes who think the epistle a systematic treatise on 
 divinity, make, in general terms, the first five chapters a discus- 
 sion of the doctrine of justification from faith, and the next 
 three chapters a discussion of the doctrine of sanctification. But 
 this division of the epistle is purely fanciful; and completely 
 misses the one practical issue which runs through the whole dis- 
 cussion ; namely, that, in God's plans, the Gentiles stand on a per- 
 fect equality with the Jews. Beyond doubt, in establishing this 
 truth, the apostle needed to insist upon the one fundamental 
 doctrine, that there is but one method of justification before God, 
 the same for Jews as for Gentiles— the justification from faith, 
 and not from works. But he does not isolate this doctrine from 
 other doctrines, and then discuss them seriatim; for this one doc- 
 trine runs through the whole of the epistle, in one part as much as 
 in the other; yet, while fundamental in theology, it stands here 
 only as a subordinate issue to the dominant question, Who then 
 may be saved? Is it Jews only? or, Are Gentiles also salvable? 
 And the great doctrine, the Biblical doctrine of sanctification, he 
 does not discuss at all, and scarcely even alludes to it. These 
 two issues, Who are salvable, and, On what condition, the apostle, 
 with only incidental digressions, keeps constantly before his mind. 
 Of these two issues, one is the great central thought of the epistle, 
 that God took all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, equally into his 
 eternal plans ; the other is that tlie condition upon which all men, 
 Jews as well as Gentiles, come into this gracious relation, is faith 
 in the provisions of the gospel. Yet these two lines of thought 
 are not treated separately, or consecutively, but are woven 
 together as the discussion goes on, and unite as the warp and 
 woof of one perfect web. 
 
 But this narrowing of the range of the discussion does not 
 detract from the gi-eatness of the epistle, or lessen its value to 
 
22 INTRODUCTION^. 
 
 the Church. It remains one of the world's great masterpieces; 
 great in its subject, great in its style, great in its majestic thought, 
 great in its influence over the theology of the Church. Though not 
 a system of divinity, it easily holds the highest place in Christian 
 literature. Only the Fourth Gospel, though occupying an entirely 
 different field of thought, can rank as the equal of the Epistle to 
 the Romans. 
 
 THE EPISTLE CONTROVERSIAL. 
 
 The epistle is not didactic, or not that mainly ; rather it is 
 controversial, a forensic defense, before the tribunal of the human 
 conscience, of the equity of the gospel plan ; the apology of one 
 who would justify the ways of God to man. Paul holds that God's 
 dealings with man aimed, fi*om the first, at the salvation of all 
 men alike, on uniform and equitable conditions. And it is in view 
 of the equitableness of God's plan that the apostle declares that 
 " he is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ." The advocate of 
 such a gospel, he can look men in the face, without blushing for 
 God who planned the gracious and generous scheme, and without 
 blushing for himself as the ambassador of God, as he presses home 
 upon their consciences, the divine fair dealing which, unlike the 
 Jewish exclusiveness, gives every man, the Gentile as well as the 
 Jew, an equal chance. 
 
 THE ISSUE ONLY AN INCIDENT TO THE GOSPEL. 
 
 This epistle, far from being a complete system of divinity, 
 is, in fact, the discussion of only an incident to the gospel; an 
 incident of large, practical moment, doubtless, to the apostle's 
 readers of that day, but of little moment, in itself, to the readers 
 of the present day. The Church of Christ has gotten beyond the 
 need of that discussion. But aside from the settlement of the 
 matter then in issue, whether the Gentiles might be saved, the 
 apostle, happily for the Church, introduces much other evangelical 
 truth, the foundation of all Christian theology. It is this that 
 gives the epistle its great and enduring value. 
 
 CAN GENTILES BE SAVED? ON WHAT TERMS? 
 
 The theme of the epistle is announced in the words, " For the 
 gospel is God's power unto salvation, to every one that has faith, 
 both Jew AND Gentile. For in it is revealed God's plan of .iusti- 
 FiCATioN from FAITH, with a view to faith ; as it has been written, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 'But the JUST FROM FAITH WILL HAVE LIFE ' " (Rom. i, 16, 17.) The 
 words here given in small capitals mark the cruciul points in this 
 epistle, exclusive of all other great themes in Christian theology. 
 The apostle does not discuss. What is the gospel? nor, "What are its 
 great doctrines? but simply the two salient points before named. 
 Those constantly interlace with each other, yet foremost to Paul's 
 mind stands the one gi-eat question, Who are embraced in the 
 provisions of God's plan? Are Jews only the subjects of his gra- 
 cious purpose? or, are Gentiles also admissible to its privileges? "Is 
 God God of Jews only? Is he not God of Gentiles also?" And 
 then rises to his mind the other point (which is not second in 
 intrinsic importance, but merely in its subordinate moment in 
 this discussion). On what basis, under the gospel plan, may Gen- 
 tiles be justified? Is it from works of law, as the Jews held for 
 themselves? or is it from faith in Christ? To these questions, 
 Paul answers, " Yes, God is God of Gentiles also ; and Gentiles [and 
 the Jews, too] are justified not from works of law, but from faith 
 in Jesus Christ." These words show Paul's understanding of the 
 scope of the divine plan, and of the method of salvation. And 
 this is really the only issue in the whole discussion, the issue, 
 apart from which the apostle had no occasion to write the Epistle 
 to the Romans. He wanted to show them, in antagonism to the 
 current Jewish belief, that the divine plan, dating from the eter- 
 nal ages, was as wide as the race. It contemplated not the Jews 
 only (as they thought), or mainly; but the Gentiles first and fore- 
 most, before there were any Jews. 
 
 THE PROMISE TO ABRAHAM. 
 Such is Paul's interpretation of the gracious and large promise 
 made to Abraham, the man of faith, while he was yet in uncir- 
 cumcision: "And the Scripture having foreseen that God would 
 justify the Gentiles from faith, of old preached the gospel to Abra- 
 ham, that. In thee will all the Gentiles be blessed." (Gal. iii, 8.) 
 This salvation of the Gentile world (which at first was all the 
 world) was the gi-eat end for which God established his Church in 
 the world, and his covenant with Abraham. 
 
 CALL OF THE JEWS. 
 The call of the Jews, which was an after-plan, and the giving 
 of the law on Sinai, four hundred and thirty years still later, did 
 not suspend, or amend, or modify, the simple and all-comprehen- 
 
24 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 sive promise to the father of the faithful. Judaism was not the 
 end for wliich God established his Church (though the Jews arro- 
 gated this to themselves) ; it was only a provisional arrangement 
 to further his world-plan for the rest of mankind. Under this 
 arrangement the Jews were elect, not for themselves alone, or 
 mainly, but tliat, as a missionary Church, they might bring back 
 the lapsed Gentile world to God. The Hebrew Scriptures are full 
 of announcements to the Jewish Chui'ch to this effect : "I will 
 give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that my salvation may be 
 unto the end of the earth" (Isa. xlix, 6); "The Gentiles shall 
 come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising" (Isa. 
 Ix, 3). Yet the Jews, though elect for this work, never met the 
 divine expectation; and our apostle tells us that "God was long 
 minded to show liis wrath at their disobedience, and only with 
 much long-suffering endured those Jewish vessels of wrath, fitted 
 for destruction ; and endured them, not for themselves, but only 
 that through them he might make known the riches of his gospel 
 upon the Gentile vessels of mercy, which he of old prepared unto 
 glory." (Rom. ix, 22.) But the Jews, forgetful of the reason of 
 their call, and proud of their election, came at last to count all 
 these privileges an endowment exclusively for themselves. They 
 considered the promise to the fathers an indefeasible right, with 
 which all outside the covenant had no concern, and which, once 
 granted to themselves, not even God could justly wrest away. 
 (Rom. ix, 14.) It was a covenant which held good for all Jews, 
 however personally unworthy. Every Jew was to be saved be- 
 cause he was a Jew. None of any other nation could be saved 
 because he was not a Jew. One of their own writers expressed 
 these views: "O Lord, thou madest the world for our sakes ; as for 
 the rest of the nations born from Adam, thou hast said that they 
 are nothing." (2 Esdras vi, 55.) This arrogant failing of the Jews 
 never changed. Later on, when Paul made his defense to the 
 Jews, they listened until he announced his mission to the Gentiles. 
 " To the Gentiles! At this word they lifted up their voice, and said, 
 Away with such a fellow from the earth ; it was not fit that he 
 should live." (Acts xxii, 22.) 
 
 THE DIVINE PLAN INCLUDED THE GENTILES. 
 
 In entire accoi*d with the Divine plan for the Gentile world 
 were all prophetic voices from the beginning down. Some of 
 those older testimonies Paul quotes in the tenth chapter of this 
 
INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 epistle; and, if he had needed to re-enforce his argument in this 
 direction, he might, with equal pertinence, have quoted a large 
 part of the Hebrew prophets. Whether the prophets themselves, 
 Jews in nationality and thought, fully understood what they were 
 saying, with regard to the Gentile world, or not, there is at least 
 no dissonance in the tenor of their utterances. 
 
 And Christ himself, during all his ministry, so preached this 
 gospel of universal embrace. He told the Jews: "Other sheep I 
 have [the outlying Gentile world] which are not of this Jewish fold. 
 Them also I must bring, and there will be one flock and one shep- 
 herd." (John X, 16.) No single word of his declared or implied 
 that the gospel was restricted to the Jews. He constantly and 
 consistently spoke and acted on the assumption that mankind are 
 all of one. And his final word was to declare once more this 
 truth, once more in explicit terms to enforce it upon the under- 
 standing and the conscience of his disciples, soon to become his 
 apostles to the world: "Go into all the world, and preach the 
 gospel to EVERY creature." (Mark xvi, 15.) 
 
 THE TWELVE DID NOT UNDERSTAND. 
 
 But the apostles, who were sent on this mission before Paul, 
 did not rise to this lofty conception of the gospel, as it reveals 
 itself in their own Scriptures, in the words of their Master, and in 
 Paul's life work and in his writings. So far as we know, not one 
 of the twelve, until after the fall of Jerusalem, ever preached the 
 gospel to any Gentile, with the single exception of Cornelius, who, 
 though uncircumcised, was already a proselyte to the Jewish faith. 
 Not even Peter, to whom was intrusted this greatest of all Chris- 
 tian opportunities, learned the lesson which this incident at Caes- 
 area was designed to put before him beyond misunderstanding, 
 the lesson that the gospel was intended for the Gentile world, 
 equally with the Jews themselves, and that they should call no 
 man common or unclean. But the apostles and the Church at 
 Jerusalem scarce thought of the case of Cornelius with any for- 
 bearance ; and seem to have counted it as exceptional, or at least 
 not to be acted upon as yet ; and there they quietly rested. Not 
 any more after the conversion of Cornelius than before did they 
 recognize the Gentiles as entitled to admission into fellowship 
 with the Jews ; and they did not seek Gentile proselytes even of 
 the type of Cornelius. With this exception, from the day of Pen- 
 tecost till the destruction of Jerusalem, forty years later, no Gen- 
 
26 ISTRODUCTION. 
 
 tile was ever baptized into communion with Jewish believers. On 
 the contrary, so pronounced was the bias of the apostles towards 
 their own people exclusively, s(j decided was this aversion towards 
 the Gentiles, and so unsympathetic was their attitude towards 
 Paul himself, and his Gentile converts, that only after hesitation 
 and debate, did they nominally recognize his apostolate to the 
 Gentiles, and concede the abstract right of the Gentiles to a place 
 in Paul's Churches. After Paul's defense of himself at the council 
 at Jerusalem, and after conciliatory speeches by Peter and James, 
 all that the council conceded was to let the Gentiles severely 
 alone. And it was finally arranged and covenanted between these 
 apostles and Paul, as a modus rivendi, that "James and Peter and 
 John, who thought themselves to be pillars, should go to the cir- 
 cumcision, and Paul and Barnabas to the uncircumcision." (Gal. 
 ii, 9.) John lived long enough to change his attitude towards the 
 Gentiles, and for the last thirty years of his life was the bishop of 
 the Gentile diocese of Ephesus ; and he is the only writer of the 
 New Testament wlio speaks of ''the Jews" with any bitterness. 
 But Peter and James seem to have practically adhered to this 
 arrangement. Their subsequent history does not credit them 
 with any work among the Gentiles ; and their epistles, addressed 
 expressly to Jews only, touch none of the grave issues with which 
 Paul's letters are weighted. Tiiey .speak, in their epistles, as if 
 they knew naught of the rights of the gi'eat Gentile world — the 
 bui-den of Paul's soul, the burden of his preaching and writings. 
 Their epistles ignore the audience which Paul addressed ; ignore, 
 in fact, the only readers that now read them, — the Gentiles. 
 
 THE CALL OF PAUL. 
 
 Up to the day of Peter's unhappy choice of the Jews as against 
 the Gentiles, he had been incontestably the leader in the new dis- 
 pensation. From that day he sank out of sight in New Testament 
 history. Another man took his primacy in the Church, as the 
 molder of its policy, the master mind in Christian thought. The 
 once mother Church, hiding itself from the world beneath the 
 shadow of the temple at Jerusalem, ceased to be cosmopolitan, 
 and became provincial, and tlven disappeared ; but long before that 
 time, the Church of Christ, the true mother of missions, found its 
 real home beneath the humble tent of the great apostle of the 
 Gentiles. Paul's inauguration to this work was announced from 
 the moment of his conversion: " He is a chosen vessel to me, to 
 
INTRODUCTION.. 2t 
 
 bear my name before OentHex, and kings, and sons of Israel." (Acts 
 ix, 15.) Himself a Jew, a Pharisee, a zealot for the traditions, a 
 persecutor of the believers, he at once abandoned his prejudices 
 against the Gentiles, and accepted the gospel doctrine of the 
 common Fatherhood of God, the equal brotherhood of man. He 
 counted his circumcision as nothing ; he became a Gentile in 
 thought, sympathies, life ; he held all men, of whatever race, as his 
 brethren in the Lord, and spent his life in evangelizing the Gen- 
 tile vporld. He demonstrated from the Hebrew Scriptures the 
 universality of God's plan of old, the equal atonement of Christ, 
 and the justification of the Gentiles with God, not, as the Jews 
 boasted for themselves, from works of law, but from faith in the 
 Lord Jesus, the saving faith that antedated the law, and was 
 higher than the law. He won for the Gentiles an equal place in 
 the Church of Christ ; he planted Gentile Churches over the 
 Roman world ; and when he died, in A. D. 67, Judaism had ceased, 
 everywhere outside of Jerusalem, to be an antagonizing and ob- 
 structive power to the cause of the Gentiles. And then, three 
 years later, Jerusalem fell; and all Jewish opposition fell with it; 
 and the Pauline gospel of the Gentiles stood triumphant. 
 
 PAUL'S LETTERS. 
 
 Paul tells us of his labors, his journeyings, his perils by his 
 countrymen and by false brethren, his persecutions, his distresses ; 
 and, besides those things that are without, that which pressed 
 upon him daily, his anxiety for all the Churches. But he nowhere 
 names that which to us is of infinitely more moment than these 
 personal incidents of the day, — the letters tchich he wrote to the 
 Churches. How unconscious this much-enduring man of the rich 
 literary legacy he was leaving to the Church and the world ! 
 These letters, at least so many as have come down to us, probably 
 but a small part of the whole number, are few and not long. But 
 they have controlled the thought and the faith of the world. 
 How different without them would dogmatic Christianity now be, 
 if, indeed, there had been any dogmatic Christianity without them ! 
 
 These letters are the outgrowth of Paul's controversy with the 
 Jews of the Synagogue, and with the Judaizers in the Christian 
 Church. They are full of this issue : some of them are restricted 
 to this one subject. AVithout keeping this controversy foremost 
 in mind, the reader of these epistles is sure to miss the point of the 
 discussion if not wholly misinterpret the greater part of what he 
 
2S ISTRODrcTTON. 
 
 reads. This is the master-key to n consistent and salisfaotorj' 
 exegesis of the Epistles to the Romans, tlie Galatians, and the 
 Kphesians; and, indeed, of the most of the Pauline writings and 
 theology. He who would rightly understand these epistles, and 
 compreliend the gospel which Paul preached, and which he justly 
 called " M]i gospel " — M'l presentation of the gospel <jf Christ, as 
 discriminated from the gospel of Peter and James — must recognize 
 this controversy as the prominent fact in his life. 
 
 STRUGGLE AGAINST JUDAISM. 
 
 The circumstances in the early Church at the time of Paul's 
 conversion, and call to the apostleship of the Gentiles, were pecul- 
 iar. There were already in the Church "great multitudes of 
 believers," and even " a great company of priests were obedient 
 to tlie faith," but those early Christians, all Jews, in accepting 
 Christ, and trusting in liim for the forgiveness of sins, did not 
 repudiate their obligation to the ritual law. and inconsistently, 
 still relied on circumcision as a saving ordinance. And they still 
 held, like all other Jews, to their exclusive right to the covenant, 
 and still cherished antipathy towai-ds the Gentiles. But Paul was 
 an exception ; he espoused the unpopular cause. With regard to 
 himself, he tells us, that, ""When God was pleased to reveal his 
 Son in me, that I may preach him among the Gentiles, immediately 
 I conferred not with flesh and blood." (Gal. i, 16.) He had no 
 compromise to make with the Jews at large, none with the other 
 apostles, or with his fanatical brethren, none even with himself. 
 He went clean over to Christianity. He burned'the bridges behind 
 him. To him the rites of Moses, the creed of the Synagogue, lost 
 their value: " For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any- 
 thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith [in the Lord Jesus Christ] work- 
 ing through love." (Gal. v, 6.) He preached the lesson which he 
 had once heard Stephen preach, "That Jesus will destroy this place, 
 and will abolish the customs which Moses delivered to us Jews" 
 (Acts vi, 14) ; and he preached an open gospel to the Gentiles. 
 
 Wherever Paul preached this gospel, he came into collision 
 with the unbelieving Jews. They sought to kill liim as an apostate 
 from Moses; " in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above meas- 
 ure, in deaths often ; of the Jews five times received I forty stripes 
 save one; thrice was I beaten with rods; once was I stoned." 
 (2 Cor. li, 23.) And even his own brethren in the faith bitterly 
 opposed his views. Instead of extending sympathy and help, they 
 
INTRODUCTION. 29 
 
 followed him with aversion and persecution ; they denied his 
 authority as an apostle, and strove to hinder his special work 
 among the Gentiles. Emissaries, pretending the authority of Peter 
 and James, taught his Churches, " Except ye become circumcised 
 after the rite of Moses, ye can not be saved." (Acts xv, 1.) This 
 struggle for the equality of the Gentiles with the Jews, in the plan 
 of God, was the one subject that Paul had before him for discussion 
 in this epistle. To him, as the apostle of the Gentiles, no issue 
 could be more important ; and it was this that made this one phase 
 of " his gospel," strikingly polemic, impassioned, and copious. 
 
 This strife which prevailed everywhere, finally culminated at 
 Antioch, which was already clearly the center of Gentile Chris- 
 tianity. The Church at Antioch appealed to the Apostolic Church 
 at Jerusalem, for relief against this Jewish intermeddling ; and 
 after long discussion, the council, under the influence of Peter 
 and James, although themselves conservative, recognized Paul's 
 apostleship to the Gentiles, and proclaimed freedom to his con- 
 verts from the obligation to the Jewish ritual. This decree was 
 addressed expressly " to the brethren which are of the Gentiles ;" 
 and it was not intended to relieve Jewish believers, even in Paul's 
 provincial Churches, from the yoke of the law. Perhaps Jewish 
 believers did not wish the relief; their deliverance was yet to 
 come. But freedom for the Gentiles was all that Paul demanded, 
 or really expected. Yet the decision, though unanimous, did not 
 free the apostle, or his Gentile Churches, from the clandestine and 
 persistent interference of the Judaistic party at Jerusalem. They 
 still attempted to obstruct his work among the Gentiles, and to 
 pervert his converts. His letter to the Churches of Galatia, ten 
 years later, shows that this strife had broken out afresh there, as, 
 doubtless, in all his Churches. The contending parties in Corinth, 
 " one party of Peter, and one party of Paul " (1 Cor. i, 10-12) were 
 almost certainly arrayed against each other on this one issue. In 
 his other epistles, Paul makes reference, scarcely less explicit, to 
 the same condition of things in the several Churches addressed, in 
 all of which were both Jews and Gentiles. To the Ephesians he 
 says, " I beseech you to walk with all lowliness and meekness, with 
 longsuffering , forbearing one another, giving diligence to keep the 
 unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [not two 
 parties], and one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism [not cir- 
 cumcision, and ritual observances."] (Eph. iv, 1-8.) To the Philip- 
 pians he says, " Beware of the (Judaistic) dugs, beware of the evil 
 
80 INTROnrCTION. 
 
 workers, beware of the concision ttlie Jewish manglers of tlie 
 flesh], f<ir "•(■ [Gentilos] are the circumcision." (Phil, iii, 3.) To 
 the Colossians ho says, " Take heed lest any [JudaizerJ make Kpoil 
 of you, through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions 
 of men, and not after Christ. For in him [not in the rite of Moses], 
 ye were circumcised, not with [Jewish] circumcision made with 
 hands, but in the circumcision of Christ." (Col. ii, 8-11.) How 
 many more such letters he wrote, we do not know, but his mind 
 was full of tliis debate. Evidently it was this same necessity that 
 now, only a few months later than the Epistle to the (ialatians, 
 impelled him to write the sister Epistle to the Romans. Such was 
 the occasion for this epistle, such its sole aim. 
 
 PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 Paul tells the Romans that he had long "purposed in his 
 spirit " to visit Rome. He had now, in the year 58, linislied his 
 Third Missionary Journey ; and was on the j)oint of going to Jeru- 
 salem with his collections for the saints, before his long-hoped for 
 journey to Spain. He proposed to make Rome a point on his way 
 to this new field ; and he wrote this letter to announce his coming. 
 But while sending tliis friendly greeting, he also took occasion to 
 write at large of subjects with which his life and thoughts were 
 full to overflowing. From such themes just at this period in his 
 ministry, he could not refrain ; and he knew that a discussion of 
 these subjects would find an eager audience in the Romans. 
 
 These subjects were, of course, what they would surely expect 
 the apostle of the Gentiles to discuss ; subjects which some of them, 
 doubtless, had already heard him discuss in his previous ministry, 
 — the great question of the relation of the Gentiles to God's plans. 
 Out of this long debate had finally come to him, in his own mind, 
 a satisfactory solution of the great problems of the gospel — the 
 atonement of Christ, its range, its all-suflRciency of itself, apart 
 from Jewish " works of law," its peace and joy to the believer, and 
 its final conquest of the world to the obedience of Christ. These 
 views which overflowed from his own heart, he was sure would find 
 acceptance with the Gentiles at Rome. 
 
 FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH AT ROME. 
 
 Of the founding of the Church at Rome we know but little. 
 It is certain, however, that Peter was not, as the Catholic Church 
 claims, the founder, in any sense, of the Church at Rome. We 
 
INTRODUCTION. 31 
 
 know that, during all the twenty-five years falsely claimed for his 
 episcopate at Rome, he w^as at Jerusalem, or elsewhere in Judea, 
 at Antioch, and at Babylon. And if Peter ever went to Rome, it 
 must have been after Paul wrote this epistle, and after Paul's 
 imprisonment at Rome three years later, and just before Peter's 
 own death. But the evidence against his ever having been at 
 Rome is so strong that Protestant scholarship inclines to deny it 
 altogether. Nor was any other of the twelve the founder. Paul 
 always forbore to build on another man's foundation ; and the 
 Church at Rome had not the anti-Pauline bent that any other 
 apostle would have given it. But it is certain, too, that Paul 
 himself had not yet set foot] on Italian soil, and was not the 
 founder, unless in an indirect way. The probability is that the 
 Christian movement at Rome was started years before this epistle 
 by lay converts from Paul's other Churches. It was this indirect 
 Pauline origin that predisposed the Romans to his teachings, and 
 that gave him the apostolical authority over them, as being really 
 one of his own Churches. The movement was doubtless insignifi- 
 cant at first, and grew only by slow accretions from outside, and 
 by new converts at home. There is no mention of any ecclesiastic 
 organization, or of Church officers, as elders or bishops. Yet they 
 met together, at distinct centers, for congregational worship ; they 
 had gifts differing among themselves, according to the grace given 
 them ; and they must have had the sacraments of baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 MIXED NATIONALITIES. 
 
 But whatever the origin of the Church, and whatever the date 
 of its founding, it was, at the time Paul wrote this letter, largely 
 composed of Gentiles, converts from Paul's provincial Churches 
 throughout the Roman world. Paul addresses the Romans as 
 Gentiles: " I received my apostleship, with a view to obedience to 
 the faith, among all the Gentiles, among whom are ye also." 
 (Rom. i, 5.) "That I may have some fruit among you also, as 
 also among the rest of the Gentiles." (Rom. i, 13.) This is con- 
 firmed by the number of his salutations in the sixteenth chapter. 
 But there were also some Jewish members, the minority of the 
 Church. Those may have come directly from Jerusalem, or have 
 been under indirect influences from Jerusalem, and so sympa- 
 thized with the views of the mother Church ; but more probably, 
 like the Jewish Aquila and Priscilla, the greater number of these 
 
32 IXTRODUCTION. 
 
 also were from Paul's Churches, and so were not hostile to his 
 teachings. Yet, naturally, as Jews they were more liable than 
 the Gentile members to be intliienced by anti-Pauline propngand- 
 ism. But from whatever antecedents, certainly at the date of this 
 letter there were these two parties at Rome, with racial prejudices 
 and divergent views. They were living together as yet, apparently 
 without blending, yet without quarreling; though as chapter xiv 
 shows, not witiiout cliaflng and jealousy. In this fact, as Paul 
 felt, lay the danger of grave dissensions in the future, as in the 
 Churches of Galatia. Indeed the tenor of the epistle, as a whole, 
 and some of the points discussed in particular, show that the 
 great issue between Jew and Gentile, which was at the front 
 everywhere else in Paul's Churches, was already making itself 
 manifest at Kome. The variance, however, had certainly not 
 reached the acute stage ; and so Paul does not write with the 
 vehemence that he shows in the Epistle to the Galatians. But the 
 general fact that Paul wrote such a letter at all to the Church at 
 Rome, on the relations of Gentiles and Jews, and the specific fact 
 that he warns the brethren against the (Judaistic) breeders of 
 division (chapters xvi and xvii), is sufficient proof that the debate 
 on the ritual observance of the law, which was agitated elsewhere 
 in Paul's Churches, was beginning to be agitated, though less 
 accentuated, at Rome also. Such was the occasion for this great 
 letter. He wrote it that, by his apostolic authority and argument 
 with men who had been converted under his preaching, he might 
 decide this debate before it became embittered and rent the 
 Church. 
 
 GOD'S GOVERNMENT AMONG THE NATIONS. 
 
 Over against the cherished views which Paul wished to pre- 
 sent, he needed to combat and refute the concept of the Jews in 
 regai'd to the character and method of God's government among 
 men. He needed to show that the Jews, who assumed that they 
 alone were God's elect, and that the divine plan did not contem- 
 plate or include the bringing in of the Gentiles, misunderstood 
 God's plans, and misconceived of his sovereign government in 
 human affairs. 
 
 To enter into the apostle's argument in this epistle, and es- 
 pecially in the long passage embracing the ninth, tenth, and 
 eleventh chapters, \*e must recognize the fact tliat he clearly 
 discriminates between two things that are essentially different, 
 
INTRODUCTIOX. 33 
 
 but which the Jews always, and many loose thinkers in modern 
 times, identified — God's government in the realm of providence 
 and his government in the realm of spirit. God's government of 
 the outward world belongs to the sphere of his providence. In 
 this God is absolutely sovereign; that is, he decrees whatsoever 
 comes to pass, as the result of his administration. In this provi- 
 dential administration of the world, he does as he will with men. 
 He not only creates men and keeps them in being, but he assigns 
 the historic places of man and of nations in the world ; he pro- 
 motes whom he will, yet always for cause, and not from caprice. 
 And all these secular assignments are subject to change, and 
 recall, and revisal, for cause ; and always justly. Such are the 
 principles of God's providential administration, which Paul ap- 
 plies to the case of the Jews and of the Gentiles. God dealt with 
 the Jews as also with the Gentiles, racially, en masse; and there- 
 fore in the line of his providential government. God elected and 
 called the Jews en masse to the privileges and oppoi'tunities of 
 the theocratic kingdom and Church, that they might serve his 
 purposes in the world. But they disappointed him ; and he after- 
 wards displaced them, and extended the same gracious election 
 and call to the Gentile world fn masse. 
 
 But there is another department of God's government: the 
 sphere of his grace, or spiritual administration. In this second 
 and higher department of God's action, he does not deal with men 
 racially, en masse, but individually . Herein he makes no sover- 
 eign, tliat is, arbitrary, discrimination between the races of man- 
 kind, as the Jews thought, or between individuals of the races, 
 severally, as Calvinists think. To him all men are alike ; and his 
 provisions for the salvation of all men are uniform, constant, the 
 same for all, Jew and Gentile. His administration here moves on 
 spiritual lines, and not on physical lines. In this moral, spiritual 
 sphere God as a legislator prescribes (that is, enjoins, commands) 
 the actions of men, as in the sphei'e of providence; but he does 
 not exercise the control of a sovereign to enforce his will ; he does 
 not decree the actions of men. In this spiritual kingdom, man is 
 the subject, not of physical government, but of moi-al government ; 
 free, independent, possessing the power of alternate choice and 
 action. 
 
 If, as the Jews and Calvinists hold, God has decreed whatsoever 
 comes to pass in the spiritual realm, as he has done in the realm 
 of providence, man has no ethical character, is incapable of self- 
 3 
 
34 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 determination, is not an amenable agent, j« a marhiiie. And it is 
 of God's providetttial government in his dealings with the Jews and 
 with the Gentiles, and of this only, that Paul speaks in this epistle. 
 In regard to God's administration of tlie sj)iritual kingdom, and 
 of its issues in the world to come, the apostle in this epistle makes 
 no affirmation. 
 
 CLAIM OF THE JEWS UNSCRIPTURAL. 
 
 The law of Moses yielded no encouragement to the narrow, 
 exclusive feeling of the Jews. But by long prescription, certain 
 traditions and opinions of the fathers, dishonoring to God, and 
 dislionoring to man, the creature of God, had become estab- 
 lished, with all the force of Scripture, as the creed of the 
 synagogue. Those unscriptural and anti-scriptural sentiments 
 and beliefs of the Jews with regai'd to themselves on the one 
 hand, and with regard to the Gentiles on the other, formed the 
 great obstacle to Paul's work, whether among Jews or among 
 Gentiles. But this old Jewish obstacle no longer troubles the 
 Church of Christ. To us, in these days of Christian light, the 
 question that was in issue between Paul and the synagogue, the 
 question whether God cared spiritually for the Jews only ; or also, 
 and equally, for the Gentile world at large, has little personal 
 concern. We are not agitated or disturbed by it as was the 
 Church in the days of Paul. The question was answered long 
 centuries ago; and thanks to this epistle mainly, so completely 
 and finally answered, that most readers of Paul's epistles now, 
 overwhelmingly Gentiles by birth, do not, in their vague appre- 
 hension of the apostle's meaning, at all suspect that it was once 
 a question of vital and bitterest debate in the synagogue, and even 
 in the Church of Christ (as yet wholly Jewish), whether Gentiles 
 could be saved at all ; and they do not realize that this is, in fact, 
 the great question discussed in the epistle. That debate has been 
 retired. The old Jewish heresy is dead. All Gentiles belong to 
 Christ ; all can be saved. Such is the teaching of the New Testa- 
 ment; such is the teaching of this epistle. 
 
 CALVINISM VERSUS PAULINISM. 
 
 But Augustine, and after him Calvin, not seeing the point of 
 Paul's discussion, interpreted his language, spoken of God's admin- 
 istration of the kingdom of his providence, as if it were spoken of 
 the kingdom of his grace ; or rather, they did not recognize that 
 
INTRODUCTION. 35 
 
 God had these two separate spheres of administration. They as- 
 sumed that because God is sovereign, that is, exercises absolute 
 physical control in the world of providence, he is sovereign in the 
 same sense in the world of grace; and they thus confound the two 
 spheres of his dealing with men. Such is the grave mistake that 
 underlies the whole system of Calvinism.* The doctrine which 
 Calvinism sets forth as the Pauline scheme of the gospel is intrin- 
 sically as inequitable and as unscriptural as that of the synagogue, 
 and far more preposterous. The synagogue drew the line between 
 the races very definitely, if very intolerantly. According to the 
 teaching of the synagogue, God arbitrarily elected the Jews to 
 eternal life en masse, and arbitrarily rejected the Gentiles en 
 masse. This discrimination en masse is physical, and belongs to 
 the sphere of God's providence, and not to the spiritual sphere of 
 his grace. But while it is not defensible ethically, it is simply, 
 definitive, and easily comprehended. But according to the teach- 
 ing of Calvinism, God capriciously elected and predestinated par- 
 ticular individuals from all races to eternal life, and rejected the 
 rest of mankind, and foreordained them to eternal damnation. 
 This discrimination, too, is physical, not ethical or spiritual. It 
 is as indefensible as that between Jews and Gentiles, but is 
 more incomprehensible. The old Jewish conceit of God's govern- 
 ment counted the parties in interest as all Jews versus all Gentiles; 
 the later Calvinistic conceit counted them as certain elect individ- 
 uals VERSUS innum.erable reprobates. 
 
 THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. 
 
 This is the view which Augustine first, and Calvin after him, 
 essayed to impose upon the Church of Christ instead of the Paul- 
 ine teaching in this epistle. This view the Westminster Assembly 
 of Christian divines embodied, in 1645, in certain famous proposi- 
 tions, as execrable as can be conceived by the human mind. 
 These propositions are logical inferences from the unscriptural 
 doctrine of sovereign decrees, by which Calvinism affirms that 
 God of old ordained the spiritual destiny of man. This belief leads 
 
 *Thus Dr. Hodge says: "It is undeniable that In Ms providence 
 God acts as a sovereign. Augustinlanlsm [that Is to say, Calvinism] ac- 
 cords with these facts of providence; and therefore must be true[l]. It 
 only [only!] assumes that God acts in the dispensation of his grace pre- 
 cisely as he acts In the dispensation of his other tavora."— Theology, II, 3S8. 
 
3(1 IXTRODUCTIOX. 
 
 to so monstrous conclusions that even ('nlvin culled this system of 
 decrees " horrible."* 
 
 Some of those dreadful propositions are as follows: 
 
 " III. By the decree of Gt>d, for the manifestation of his glory, 
 some men [the synagogue would liave said all the Jivk] are pre- 
 destinated unto everlasting life, and others [again the synagogue 
 would have said nil the (iintiltK] are foreordained to everlasting 
 death." 
 
 "V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life. God, 
 before the foundation of the world, according to his eternal and 
 immutable purpose, hath chosen unto everlasting glory, out of 
 his mere grace, without anything in the creature moving him 
 thereto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace. 
 
 " VI. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually 
 called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. 
 
 " VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, for the glory of 
 his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain 
 them to dishonor and wi-ath for their sin, to the praise of his glori- 
 ous justice." — Westminster Confession, chapter iii. 
 
 This doctrine of God's eternal decrees is unscriptural, uneth- 
 ical, unthinkable, untrue. It is an excrescence that mars an 
 otherwise Christian creed. Calvinism is not germane to the Con- 
 fession, and is not essential to its integrity. The rest of the Con- 
 fession is, on the whole, evangelical, and (with the exception of 
 a few dead flies in the ointment) is acceptable to all Christian 
 Churches. 
 
 " ELECTION." 
 
 The question whether certain, particular men, throughout the 
 world, are, by God's eternal decree, elect, favorites of heaven, 
 and predestinated to eternal salvation ; and all the rest of man- 
 kind, by the same decree, reprobates, under heaven's ban and 
 
 *" I again ask bow is it that the fall of Adam involved so many na- 
 tions. ^or/^^/iT ivith thrii- infant children, in eternal death without remedy, 
 unless that It so seemed meet to God. . . . Here the most flippant tongues 
 must be silent. The decree, I admit. Is dreadful [decrelum horribile fateor'] ; 
 but yet It Is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man 
 was to be before he made him, and foreknew It because he had so foreor- 
 dained It by his decrees. The first man fell because the Lord deemed It 
 meet that he should. Why he deemed It meet we know not."— Calvin's In- 
 ttitules, 111, xxlil.~. Calvin might have quoted his classic Juvenal: "Hoc 
 volo, Rli: }Uln:u, sit pro ratione vol unla-1." Bat. vl, 222. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 37 
 
 foreordained to eternal diunnation, is a question not agitated in 
 this epistle (or anywhere else in the Scriptures) ; but emerges 
 now in the Calvinistic misinterpretation of Paul's words and 
 meaning. It is a question that was never conceived of by Paul 
 himself, or by his Jewish antagonists, or even heard of by the 
 Church for three centuries after the apostle's death. This is the 
 grave question which Augustine and Calvin thrust upon the 
 Church as the matter in issue in this epistle. Are, as those ven- 
 erable D'/Ctors taught, some individuals only of the race the so- 
 called ■'■ elect," taken capriciously out of the mass of mankind at 
 large, embraced in the provisions of the gospel? and are all the 
 rest of the race, the so-called " reprobates," indiscriminately left 
 outside of the "covenant of grace?" Or on the contrary, are, as 
 Paul teaches, all of the race of Adam equally and fully redeemed, 
 and equally elect and called to the privileges of the gospel, equally 
 salvable on equal and equitable conditions? 
 
 Undoubtedly the Scripture speaks of an "election" as a fea- 
 ture of God's plan ; and both the Jews and Paul recognized the 
 election ; but certainly not in the same sense. The Jews claimed 
 that they were themselves tlie elect nation, apart from all other 
 men, chosen of God and called to a sijecial and exclusive standing 
 with God. In claiming this election they held that it was in the 
 realm of God's grace, as well as in the realm of his providence ; 
 and that it gave them, not only an absolute right to God's favor in 
 this world, but an absolute decree to eternal life in the w^orld to 
 come ; and that it took in all of themselves en masse, but them- 
 selves only. On the other hand, Paul held that this election in 
 God's plans was within his secular providence, that it was an 
 election to religious privileges and opportunities, and to nothing 
 else ; and that it took in all the w'orld at large en masse. Thus 
 both the Jews and Paul held the election, each in his own sense of 
 the word, to be racial, or national, en masse; but neither the Jews 
 nor Paul, neither the synagogue nor the Church of Christ, ever 
 heard of an arbitrary, particular, election and predestination, 
 such as Calvinism teaches, of some individuals as against other 
 individuals, whether Jew or Gentile. The mooting of such a par- 
 ticular election of some men and preterition of all the rest, would 
 have astounded both the synagogue and the Church, and would 
 have been received by both parties with indignant protest for its 
 unscripturalness, if not with inextinguishable laughter for its 
 absurdity. 
 
38 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Tlie Jews once tillinl tlie ecclesiastical lu-nvt'iis with their 
 clamor against tlie Gentiles. Paul in this epistle exploded their 
 conceit and exclusiveness ; and Judaism is now only a dead issue. 
 And Calvinism once arrogated to itself that it was the gospel 
 scheme; and its awful shadow long rested on this epistle, though 
 it was never w^idely accepted in the Christian Cliurcli. This con- 
 ceit and arrogance Paul has exploded equally with the Jewish 
 heresy; and it too is now drawing near its end. Its own friends, 
 with the exception of a few belated doctrinaii-es, have abandoned 
 it piecemeal, and now only contend for the name, " to save their 
 face." Oppressed by the burden which they can not carry, and 
 yet hardly know how to throw off, their last anxiety is, "Who 
 shall deliver us from this body of death ?" In the coming cen- 
 turies, the heresy of Hippo and Geneva, like the heresy of the 
 synagogue, will be merely a hateful memory of the past. 
 
ROMANS. 
 
 I. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, set apart 
 
 2 unto the gospel of God, which he promised of old, through his 
 
 3 prophets, in Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was 
 
 4 born from the seed of David according to the flesh, who was 
 marked out Son of God in power, according to [his] spirit of 
 holiness, from resurrection of dead men, Jesus Christ our 
 
 5 Lord ; through whom we received grace and apostleship, with 
 a view to obedience to the faith among all the Gentiles, for his 
 
 6 name's sake: among whom are also ye, Jesus Christ's called: 
 
 7 to all that are in Rome, God's beloved, called, saints: Grace to 
 you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 8 First, indeed, I thank my God through Jesus Christ, for you 
 
 9 all; because your faith is reported in the whole world. For God 
 is my witness, whom 1 serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, 
 how unceasingly I make mention of you ; always in my prayers 
 
 10 making request, if somehow, now, at length I shall be brought 
 
 11 on my way in the will of God, to come unto you. For I long to 
 see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, with a 
 
 12 view to your being established ; but that is, to my being com- 
 forted with you, while among you, through our faith, both 
 
 13 yours and mine, in each other. But I would not that you be 
 ignorant, brethren, that ofttimes I proposed to come unto you 
 (and was hindered hitherto), that I may have soine fruit 
 among you also, even as also among the rest of the Gentiles. 
 
 14 I am debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to wise 
 
 15 men and to ignorant. Thus, as for me, I would fain preach the 
 
 16 gospel to you also that are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of 
 the gospel: for it is God's power unto salvation to every one 
 
 17 that has faith ; both to Jew, first, and to Greek. For in it is 
 revealed God's plan of justification from faith, with a view to 
 faith : as it has been written, " But the just from faith will live." 
 
 39 
 
40 ROMAXS. I. 18—11. 3. 
 
 18 For God's wrath is revt-alcd from heaven against all impiety 
 and unrighteousness of men, wlio liinder the truth in unright- 
 
 19 eousness. Because so much of God as is known is manifest in 
 
 20 them; for God manifested it to tiiem. For liis unseen attri- 
 butes, both his eternal power and divinity, since tlie creation 
 of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by his works; 
 
 L'i so that they are without excuse. Because, having come to 
 know God, they did not glorify him as God, or thank him ; nay, 
 but they became vain in their reasonings, and their foolish 
 
 22 heart was darkened. Declaring themselves to be wise men, 
 
 23 they became fools ; and they exchanged the glory of the incor- 
 ruptible God for sameness of image with corruptible man, and 
 bii^ds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 
 
 24 Wherefore God gave them up, in tiie lusts of their hearts, 
 unto uncleanness, so that their bodies were dishonored among 
 
 25 them ; in tliat they exchanged the truth of God for the lie ; and 
 they reverenced and served the creature, rather than him 
 who created it ; who is blessed forever. Amen. 
 
 26 On account of this, God gave them up unto infamous pas- 
 sions: for both tlieir females changed the natural use into that 
 
 27 which is against nature: and in like manner also the males, 
 having left the natural use of the female, burned in their lust 
 towai"ds one anotlier, males with males working the indecency, 
 and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error 
 which was due. 
 
 28 And according as they did not approve to have God in rec- 
 ognition, God gave them over unto a reprobate mind, to do 
 
 29 the things not becoming; having been filled with all unright- 
 eousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness ; full of envy, 
 
 30 murder, strife, deceit, malignity ; wliisperers, slanderers, hate- 
 ful towards God, insolent, haughty, boastful ; inventors of evil 
 
 31 things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, cove- 
 
 32 nant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: who, 
 having come to know the judgment of God, that they that 
 practice such things are worthy of death, not only do them, 
 nay, but also are well pleased with them that practice them. 
 
 II. Wherefore thou art without excuse, O every man, that 
 judgest: for in what thing thou judgest tlie other, thou con- 
 demnest thyself ; for tliou that judgest liim practicest the same 
 
 2 things. But we know tlnat tlie judgment of God is according 
 
 3 to truth upon them that practice such things. But reckonest 
 
II. 4-26. ROifANS. . 41 
 
 thou this, O man, that judgest them that practice such things, 
 and doest them, that thou wilt escape the judgment of God? 
 
 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance 
 and longsuffering, ignoring that the goodness of God leads 
 
 5 thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and im- 
 penitent heart, thou ti'easurest up to thyself wrath in the day 
 of wrath and of revelation of the just judgment of God ; 
 
 6 "Who will render to each man according to his works:" 
 
 7 to them indeed that by patience in good work seek for glory 
 
 8 and honor, and incorruption, life eternal : but to them that 
 are factious, and are disobedient, indeed, to the truth, but 
 obedient to unrighteousness, will be wrath and indignation, 
 
 9 affliction and anguish, upon every soul of man who works 
 
 10 evil, both of Jew, first, and of Greek ; but glory and honor 
 and peace to every man who works good, both to Jew, first, 
 
 11 and to Greek: for there is no respect of persons with God. 
 
 12 For as many as sinned without law, without law will also 
 perish: and as many as sinned within law, through law will 
 
 13 be judged ; for not the hearers of law are just with God, but 
 
 14 the doers of law will be justified: for whenever Gentiles who 
 have no law, do by nature the things of the Law, these, having 
 
 15 no law, are law to themselves : in that they show the work of 
 the Law written in their hearts, their consciousness testifying 
 with them, and their thoughts, one with another, accusing, or 
 
 16 else acquitting them: in the day when God will judge the 
 secrets of men, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ. 
 
 17 But if thou art named "Jew," and restest upon law, and 
 
 18 boastest in God, and knowest his will, and approvest the 
 
 19 things that excel, being instructed out of the Law, and trusted 
 as to thyself that thou art a guide of blind men, a light of them 
 
 20 that are in darkness, an instructor of foolish men, a teacher 
 of babes, having in the Law the form of the knowledge and of 
 
 21 the truth — dost thou therefore that teachest another, not 
 teach thyself? dost thou that preachest not to steal, steal? 
 
 22 dost thou that sayest not to commit adultery, commit adultery? 
 
 23 dost thou that abominatest idols, pillage [their] temples? Thou 
 that boastest in law, through the transgression of the Law dis- 
 
 24 honorest God ; " for the name of God on account of you is 
 blasphemed among the Gentiles," according as it has been 
 
 25 written. For circumcision indeed profits, if thou be a practicer 
 of law ; but if thou be a transgressor of law. thy circumcision 
 
42 ROMANS. II. 26— Til. 14. 
 
 26 has become uncircumcision. If, tluM-efore, the Uncircumciaion 
 guai*d the roquirements of the Law, will not his uncircum- 
 
 27 cision be reckoned unto circumcision? and the Uncircumcision 
 wliich is from nature, if it fulfills the Law, will judge thee, 
 who through letter and circumcision art transgressor of law. 
 
 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly ; nor yet is that cir- 
 
 29 cumcision, which is outward in the flesh: nay, but he is a. Tew, 
 who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of heart, in spirit, 
 not in letter; of whom the praise is not from men, nay, but 
 from God. 
 
 III. Jew. What then is the superiority of the Jew [over the 
 Gentile?) or what is the profit of circumcision? 
 
 2 P.\ui.. Much in every way: first, indeed, because they were 
 intrusted with the oracles of God. 
 
 3 Jew. For, what? If some [of us] did not have faith, will 
 their unfaith annul the faithfulness of God? 
 
 4 Paul. God forbid : but let God be found true, but every 
 man a liar; as it has been written. 
 
 That thou mayest bi' justified in tliy words. 
 
 And mayest be victor when thou comest to be judged. 
 
 5 Jew. But if our non-justification establishes God's plan of 
 justification, what shall we say? Is God unjust? — who brings 
 wrath upon us? (I speak after the usages of men.) 
 
 6 Paul. God forbid: since how will God judge the world? 
 
 7 Jew. But if the trueness of God in my falseness abounded 
 unto his glory, why yet am I also condemned as sinful? 
 
 8 Paul. And [shall we sayl, as we are calumniated, and as 
 some aflRrm that we say. Let us do the evil things, that the good 
 may come? whose condemnation is just. 
 
 9 Jew. "What, then? are we worse [than the Gentiles?] 
 Paul. Not at all: for we before denounced both Jews and 
 
 10 Greeks, that they all are under sin; as it has been written. 
 
 There is none just, not even one ; 
 
 11 There is none that understands, 
 There is none that seeks out God ; 
 
 12 They all turned aside, together they became unprofitable ; 
 There is none that does good ; there is not so much as one: 
 
 13 An opened grave is their thi'oat ; 
 With their tongues they used deceit : 
 Venom of asps is under their lips: 
 
 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 
 
III. 15— IV. 5. ROMANS. 43 
 
 15 Swift are their feet to shed blood ; 
 
 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways ; 
 
 17 And the way of peace they knew not : 
 
 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. 
 
 19 But we know that whatever things the Law says, it speaks to 
 them [the Jews] that are under the Law ; that every mouth 
 may be stopped, and all the world may become under judg- 
 
 20 ment to God: because from works of law will no flesh be jus- 
 tified before him: for through law comes recognition of sin. 
 
 21 But now, apart from law, God's plan of justification has 
 been manifested, being attested by the Law and the 
 
 22 Prophets; God's plan of justification through faith in Jesus 
 Christ unto all them that have faith ; for there is no distinc- 
 
 23 tion [between Jew and Gentile] ; for all sinned, and come 
 
 24 short of the approval of God ; becoming justified gratis by his 
 
 25 grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom 
 God set forth a propitiation, through faith in his blood, unto 
 manifestation of his plan of justification, on account of the 
 
 26 passing over of the sins done before, in the forbearance of 
 God ; unto the manifestation of his plan of justification in the 
 present season : that he may be just, and justifying him that is 
 of faith in Jesus. 
 
 27 Jew. Where then is our boasting? 
 Paul. It was excluded. 
 
 Jew. Through what kind of law? of the works? 
 
 28 Paul. No: but through law of faith. For we reckon that 
 
 29 man is justified by faith apart from works of law. Or is God 
 
 30 God of Jews only? is he not God of Gentiles also? Yes, of 
 Gentiles also: if, in fact, God is one [and not many]; who 
 will justify circumcision from faith, and uncireumcision 
 through the faith. 
 
 31 Jew. As for law, then, do we abrogate it through the faith? 
 Paul. God forbid: nay, but we establish law. 
 
 IV. Jew. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, 
 has found according to flesh? 
 
 2 Paul. [Nothing at all ;] for if Abraham was justified from 
 works, he has a ground of boasting ; nay, but [he has no ground 
 
 3 of boasting] towards God. For what says the Scripture? " But 
 Abraham had faith in God, and it was reckoned to him unto 
 
 4 justification." (Gen. xv, 6.) But to him that works, the reward 
 
 5 is not reckoned as a matter of grace, but as a matter of debt. 
 
44 ROMAXS. IV. 6-2(1. 
 
 liiit tohiin that works iiut, but has faitli on liiin I hut justilies tin.' 
 8 ungodly man, his faith is reckoned unto justification ; accoi-d- 
 ing as also David tells the happiness of the man, to whom God 
 reckons justification, apart from works: 
 
 7 Happy they whose inicjuities were forgiven. 
 And whose sins were covered ; 
 
 8 Happy the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin ! 
 (Psa. xxxii, 1, 2.) 
 
 9 Comes this happiness, then, upon the circumcision? or also 
 upon the uncircumcision? [Upon the Uncircumcision, also]; 
 for we say that, To Abraham his faith was reckoned unto 
 
 10 justification. How then was it reckoned to him? Being 
 in circumcision? or in uncircumcision? Not in circum- 
 
 11 cision ; nay, but in uncircumcision: and he received the 
 sign of circumcision, a seal of the justification of the faith 
 which was his in his uncircumcision: with a view to his 
 being father of all them that have faith, while in uncir- 
 cumcision, that the justification may be reckoned to them; 
 
 12 and father of circumcision to tlie men that are not from 
 circumcision only, but also to the men that march in 
 the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, while he was 
 
 13 in uncircumcision. For not through law was the promise to 
 Abraham or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world ; 
 
 14 but through justification of faith. For if they that are from 
 law are heirs, the faith has been made void, and the promise 
 
 15 has been annulled : for the Law works wrath ; but where there 
 
 16 is no law, neither is there transgression. On account of this, 
 [justification] comes from faitli, that it may be accoi*ding to 
 grace ; to the end that the promise may be sure to all the 
 seed ; not to that which is from the Law, only, but also to that 
 which is from the faith of Abraliam ; who is father of us all ; 
 
 17 according as it has been written. Because father of many 
 nations [Gentiles] have I made thee (Gen. xvii, 5) ; before him 
 in wliom he had faith, God, who makes the dead alive and 
 
 18 calls the things not in being, as though in being. Who, against 
 hope, uptm hope had faith, to the end tiiat he should become 
 father of many nations [Gentiles], according to that which had 
 
 19 been spoken. Thus will thy seed be. (Gen. xv, 5.) And not 
 having been weakened in faith, he considered his own body, 
 already deadened, being about a hundred years old, and the 
 
 20 deadness of Sarah's womb: but in respect to the promise of 
 
IV. 21— V. 16. ROMANS. 45 
 
 God, he doubted not through unfaith ; nay, but he was 
 
 21 strengthened by his faith, having given glory to God, and hav- 
 ing been fully assured that, what he lias promised, he is able 
 
 22 also to do. Wherefore also it [faith] was reckoned to him 
 
 23 unto justification. But it was not written on account of him 
 
 24 alone, that it was reckoned to him ; nay, but on account of us 
 also, to whom it is going to be reckoned, who have faith on 
 
 25 him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead ; who was 
 delivered up on account of our trespasses, and was raised on 
 account of his having justified us. 
 
 V. Having been justified, therefoi'e, from faith, we have peace 
 
 2 towards God through our Lord Jesus Christ ; through whom 
 also we have had the introduction, by faith, into this grace 
 in which we stand ; and we boast upon hope of the glory of 
 
 3 God. But not tliat only, nay, but we also boast in our 
 
 4 afflictions: knowing that the affliction works patience; but 
 
 5 the patience, approval; but the approval, hope: but the hope 
 shames us not ; because the love of God has been poured out 
 in our hearts, through the Holy Spirit which was given us. 
 
 6 For while we were yet weak, in due season Christ died for 
 
 7 ungodly men. For scai'cely for a just man will one die: for 
 
 8 for the good man perhaps one even dares to die. But God 
 confirms his own love towards us, in that, while we were yet 
 
 9 sinful, Christ died for us. Much rather then, having now been 
 justified in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the 
 
 10 wrath. For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God 
 through the death of his Son, much rather having been recon- 
 
 11 ciled, we shall be saved in his life ; but not that only, nay, but 
 we also boast in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through 
 whom, now, we received the i-econciliation. 
 
 12 On this account, just as through one man the sin came into the 
 world, and through the sin the death ; even so the death came 
 
 13 throughout unto all men, on the ground that all sinned: for to 
 the extent of law sin was in the world : but sin is not reckoned 
 
 14 if there be no law. Nay, but death reigned from Adam until 
 Moses, even over them that sinned not after the sameness with 
 the transgression of Adam, — who is type of the Coming Adam. 
 
 15 Nay, but not as was the fall, so also was the act of grace. For 
 if by the fall of the one man the many died, much rather the 
 grace of God, and the gift in the grace of the One Man, Jesus 
 
 16 Christ, abounded unto the many. And not, as was the fall 
 
4(i ROMANS. V. 17— VI. 13. 
 
 throuph ono man that sinned, so ims the gift: for tlie judg- 
 ment indeed ims from one [fall] unto condemnation, but the 
 
 17 act of grace vas from many falls unto justification. For if, in 
 the fall of the one man, the death reigned through the one 
 man ; much rather they that receive the abundance of the 
 grace and of the gift of justification, will reign, in life, through 
 
 18 the One Man, Jesus Christ. Accordingly, then, as through 
 one fall [the i-esult was] unto all men unto condemnation ; so 
 also through one act of justification [the result] was unto all 
 
 19 men unto justification of life. For just as through the diso- 
 bedience of the one man the many were constituted sinful, 
 so also through the obedience of the One Man the many will 
 
 20 be constituted just. But law came in besides that the fall 
 may multiply ; but where the sin multiplied, the grace over- 
 
 21 abounded: that, just as the sin reigned in the death, so also 
 the grace may reign tlirough justification unto life eternal 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 VI. Jew. What then ? Shall we say, Let us continue in the 
 sin, that the grace may abound? 
 
 2 Paul. God forbid. How shall we, who died as to the sin, yet 
 
 3 live in it? Or do ye not know that we, so many as were bap- 
 
 4 tized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death? We 
 were buried, therefore, with him, through the baptism into 
 his death : that just as Christ was raised from the dead through 
 the glory of the Father, so also we may walk in renewal of life. 
 
 5 For if we have become united with him in the sameness with 
 his death, nay, but we shall be [united with him also in the 
 
 6 sameness] with his resurrection ; knowing this, that our old man 
 was crucified with him, that the body of the sin may be done 
 
 7 away with, tliat we may no longer be slaves as to the sin ; for he 
 
 8 that died [with him] has been justified from the sin. But if 
 we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with 
 
 9 him ; knowing that Christ having been raised from the dead 
 
 10 no more dies ; death no more lords it over him. For the death 
 that he died, he died as to the sin, once for all: but the life 
 
 11 that he lives, he lives as to God. Thus reckon ye also your- 
 selves to be dead, indeed, as to the sin, but living as to God, in 
 Christ Jesus. 
 
 12 Let not the sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that 
 
 13 ye should obey its lusts: nor yet yield your members to the 
 sin, instruments of unrighteousness ; nay, but yield yourselves 
 
VI. 14— VII. 6. ROMANS. 47 
 
 to God, as if living from the dead, and your members to God, 
 
 14 instruments of justification. For sin will not lord it over you : 
 for ye are not under law, but under grace. 
 
 15 Jew. What then ? Shall we sin, because we are not under 
 law, but under grace? 
 
 16 Paul. God forbid. Do ye not know that to whom ye yield 
 yourselves slaves with a view to obedience, slaves ye are of 
 him whom ye obey ; whether of sin — unto death, or of obedi- 
 
 17 ence — unto justification ? But thanks be to God, that ye were 
 slaves of the sin, but obeyed from the heart the type of doc- 
 
 18 trine into which ye were delivered ; but having been enfreed 
 
 19 from the sin, ye were enslaved to the justification: I speak 
 after the usages of men, on account of the feebleness of your 
 flesh. For just as ye yielded your membei's slaves to the un- 
 cleanness and to the iniquity unto the iniquity, so now yield 
 your members slaves to the justification with a view to sancti- 
 
 20 fication. For when ye were slaves of the sin, ye were free 
 
 21 men as to the justification. What fruit, therefore, were ye 
 then having from those things of which ye are now ashamed? 
 
 22 for the end of those things is death. But now having been 
 enfreed from the sin, but having been enslaved as to God, ye 
 have your fruit unto sanctiflcation, but the end life eternal. 
 
 23 For the wages of the sin is death ; but the free gift of God is 
 life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
 
 VII. Or do ye not know, brethren (for I speak to men knowing 
 law), that the Law lords it over the man for so long a time as 
 
 2 he lives? For the wife, subject to a husband, has been bound 
 by law to the living husband ; but if the husband have died, 
 
 3 she has been discharged from the law of the husband. Accord- 
 ingly then, if, while the husband is living, she become married 
 to a different husband, she will be called an adulteress: but if 
 the husband have died, she is free from the Law, so as not to 
 be an adulteress, upon having become married to a different 
 
 4 husband. So that, my brethren, ye also were put to death as 
 to the Law, through the body of Christ, with a view to your 
 becoming married to a different husband, to him who was 
 raised from the dead, in order that we may bring forth fruit 
 
 5 to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passionc, 
 which were through the Law, were at work in our members to 
 
 6 bring forth fruit to death. But, now, we were discharged 
 from the Law, having died to that [marriage] in which we 
 
48 ROMANS. VII. 7-26. 
 
 were being held ; so that we are slaves [to God] in newness of 
 spirit, and not in oldness of letter. 
 
 7 Jew. What then shall we say? Is the Law sin? 
 
 Paul. God forbid. Nay, but I did not know the sin, except 
 through law : for I was not aware of lust, except the Law was 
 
 8 saying, Thou shalt not lust. But the sin, having taken advan- 
 tage, through the commandment, wrought out in me all lust. 
 
 9 For apart from law, sin was dead. But, as for me, I was alive, 
 apart from law once: but when the commandment came, the 
 
 10 sin sprang to life, but I died; and the commandment, which 
 was oi*dained with a view to life, this was found by me unto 
 
 11 death : for the sin, having taken advantage through the com- 
 
 12 mandment deceived me, and through it put me to death. So 
 that the Law, indeed, is holy, and the commandment holy, 
 and just, and good. 
 
 13 Jew. Did then that which is good [in the Law] become 
 death to me ? 
 
 Paul. God forbid. Nay, but the sin [became death to me] in 
 order that it may appear sin, through that which is good [in 
 the Law] working out death to me : in order that through the 
 
 14 commandment the sin may become exceeding sinful. For we 
 know that the Law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under 
 
 16 the sin. For what I work out I do not know: for not what I 
 
 16 will, this I practice; nay, but what I hate, this I do. But if 
 what I will not, this I do, I concede to the Law that it is right. 
 
 17 But now it is no longer I that work it out, nay, but the sin 
 
 18 dwelling in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, 
 dwells naught good: for to will is present with me, but to 
 
 19 work out tlie right, not. For the good which I will I do not: 
 
 20 nay, but the evil which I will not, this I practice. But if 
 what I will not, this I do, it is no longer I that work it out, 
 
 21 nay, but the sin dwelling in me. I find then the law to me 
 
 22 who will to do the right, that the evil is present with me. For 
 
 23 I accord with the Law of God after the inward man : but I see 
 a different law in my members, warring against the law of my 
 mind, and leading me captive to the law of the sin, which is 
 
 24 in my members. Wretched man, I ! who will deliver me from 
 
 25 this body of death ? Thanks be to God [he will deliver me] 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord. Accordingly then I myself 
 with the mind indeed serve the Law of God ; but with the 
 flesh the law of sin. 
 
VIII. 1-21. ROMANS. 49 
 
 VIII. There is, therefore now no condemnation to them that are in 
 
 2 Christ Jesus. For the Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus 
 
 3 enfreed me from the Law of the sin and the death. For, the 
 thing impossible to the Law, in that it was wealc through the 
 flesh — God, having sent his own Son in the sameness with the 
 
 4 flesh of sin, and for sin, condemned the sin in the flesh: in 
 order that the justiflcation of the Law may be fulfilled in us, 
 
 5 who walk not according to flesh, but according to spirit. For 
 they that are according to flesh mind tlie things of the flesh ; 
 but they that are according to spirit, the things of the spirit. 
 
 6 For the mind of the flesh is death ; but the mind of the spirit 
 
 7 is life and peace: because the mind of the flesh is enmity 
 against God; for it is not subjected to the Law of God, for 
 
 8 neitlier can it be : but they that are in flesh can not please God. 
 
 9 But ye are not in flesh, but in spirit, if in fact tlie Spirit of 
 God dwells in you. But if any man has not the Spirit of 
 
 10 Christ, this man is not his. But if Christ is in you, the body, 
 indeed, is dead on account of sin ; but the spirit is life on ac- 
 
 11 count of justiflcation. But if the Spirit of him tliat raised 
 Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he that raised Christ Jesus 
 from the dead will make alive also your mortal bodies on ac- 
 count of his Spirit that dwells in you. 
 
 12 Accordingly, therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the 
 
 13 flesh, to live according to flesh: for if ye live according to 
 flesh, ye will die; but if by the spirit ye put to death the 
 
 14 practices of the body, ye will have life. For as many as 
 
 15 are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For ye 
 received not the spirit of slavery, again, unto fear; but ye 
 received the spirit of adoption, in which we cry, Abba, Father. 
 
 16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are 
 
 17 children of God: but if children, also heirs; heirs, indeed, of 
 God, but co-heii"S with Christ; if in fact we suffer with him, 
 that we may also be glorified with him. 
 
 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are 
 not worthy to be compared with the glory a-going to be re- 
 
 19 vealed to us-ward. For the earnest expectation of the crea- 
 
 20 ture awaits the revelation of the sons of God. For the crea- 
 tui'e was subjected to the vanity, not of its own will, but on 
 
 21 account of him that subjected it, in hope ; because also the 
 creature itself will be enfreed from the slavery to the corrup- 
 tion, [and brought] into the freedom of the glory of the chil- 
 
 4 
 
50 ROMANS. VIII. 22-89. 
 
 '2'2 ilren of God. For we know that all tlio creature groans with 
 
 23 us, and travails with us, until now. But not only that, nay, 
 but also ourselves, wlio have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we 
 also ourselves groan within ourselves, awaiting adoption, the 
 
 24 redemption of our body. For in the hope [of this] we were 
 saved: but a hope being seen is not hope: for what one sees 
 
 26 why does he hope for it? But if what we do not see, we hope 
 for it, with patience we await it. 
 
 28 But in like manner also the Spirit helps our weakness: for 
 we know not what we should pray, as we ought; nay, but 
 the Spirit itself intercedes for us, with groanings unspeak- 
 
 27 able ; but he that searches the hearts knows what is the 
 mind of the Spirit, because it is according to God that it 
 
 28 intercedes for [the] saints. But we know that all things 
 work together for good with them that love God, with them 
 
 29 that are called according to his plan of old. Because them 
 whom he of old had in thought, he also of old included in 
 
 30 his plan, being conform with the image of his Son; that he 
 may be firstborn among many brethren: but whom he of old 
 included in his plan, these he also called : and whom he 
 called, these he also justified: but whom he justified, these 
 he also glorified. 
 
 31 What then shall we say in regai-d to these things ? If 
 
 32 God is for us, who is against us ? He that at least spared not 
 his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not 
 
 33 also with him graciously give us all things? Who will charge 
 aught against God's elect? Will God who justifies them? 
 
 34 Who is he that will condemn them? Is it Christ who died? 
 but, rather, who was raised? who also is at the right hand 
 
 35 of God? who also intercedes for us? Who will separate us 
 from the love of Christ? Will affliction? or anguish? or 
 persecution ? or famine? or nakedness? or danger ? or sword ? 
 
 36 according as it has been written, that 
 
 For thy sake we are put to death all the day long; 
 We were reckoned as sheep for slaughter? 
 
 37 Nay, but in all these things we do more than conquer through 
 
 38 him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, 
 nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor 
 
 39 things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any 
 other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of 
 God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
 
IX. 1-21. ROMANS. 51 
 
 IX. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my consciousness wit- 
 
 2 nessing with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow, 
 
 3 and unceasing pain in my heart. For I could wish that I my- 
 self were anathema from Christ instead of my brethren, my 
 
 4 kinsmen according to flesh: who are Israelites; whose is the 
 adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, ^nd the legisla- 
 
 5 tion, and the temple-service, and the promises ; whose are the 
 fathers; and from whom is the Christ, according to flesh, who 
 
 6 is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen. But I do not imply 
 such a thing as that the word of God has fallen away. For not 
 
 7 all these who are from Israel are Israel : nor yet, because they 
 are seed of Abraham, are they all his children: nay, but [it has 
 been written] In Isaac [not in Ishmael] will thy seed be called. 
 
 8 That is, not these, the children of the flesh, are children of 
 God; nay, but the children of the promise are reckoned for 
 
 9 seed. For of a promise was this word: According to this sea- 
 
 10 son I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. But not in that 
 instance only ; nay, but also Rebecca having conceived from 
 
 11 one husband, Isaac, our father (for the children not yet hav- 
 ing been born, nor yet having practiced anything good or bad, 
 in order that God's plan of old by way of election, may remain 
 
 12 not from works, nay, but from him that calls), it was said to 
 
 13 her, that The elder will serve the younger ; according as it has 
 been written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. 
 
 14 Jew. What then shall we say? Is there injustice with 
 God ? 
 
 15 Paul. God forbid. For to Moses the Scripture says, I will 
 have mercy on whom I may have mercy, and I will have com- 
 
 16 passion on whom I may have compassion. Accordingly then 
 God's election [national selection] is not of him that wills, nor 
 
 17 of him that runs, but of God that has mercy. For the Scrip- 
 ture says to Pharaoh, that Unto this very end I raised thee up, 
 that I may show in thee my power, and that my name may be 
 
 18 published in all the earth. Accordingly then on whom he will 
 
 19 he has mercy, but whom he will he hardens. Wilt thou then 
 say to me, 
 
 Jew. Why does he yet blame us? for who withstands his 
 
 will? 
 
 20 Paul. O man , indeed then , who art thou that answerest back 
 to God ? Shall the vessel molded say to him that molded it, 
 
 21 Why didst thou make me thus ? Or has not the potter control 
 
52 ROMAXS. IX. 22— X. 2. 
 
 of the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel a vessel 
 
 22 unto honor, and another a vessel unto dishonor? But if God, 
 purposing to display his wrath, and to make known his power, 
 [nevertheless] endured with much longsuffering [the Jewish] 
 vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction, [this does not commit 
 
 23 him to endure them forever]: And [he endured them only] in 
 oi"der that lie may [thus] make known the riches of his glory 
 upon [us Gentile] vessels of mercy, which he of old prepared 
 
 24 unto glory, whom also he called, us, not only from Jews, nay, 
 
 25 but also from Gentiles. As also in Hosea the Scripture says: 
 
 I will call the non-people of me, my people ; 
 And her, the not-beloved one, beloved. 
 
 26 And it will be, that in the place where it was said to them, 
 Ye are not my people. 
 
 There they will be called Sons of the living God. 
 
 27 But Isaiah cries concerning Israel, 
 
 If the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the 
 
 sea, 
 [Only] the remnant will be saved : 
 
 28 For a thing will Jehovah do upon the earth, 
 Accomplishing it and cutting it short. 
 
 29 And, accoi-ding as Isaiah before has said, 
 
 Unless Jehovah of armies had left us a seed, 
 "We should have become as Sodom, and should have been 
 made like Gomorrah. 
 
 30 Jew. What then shall we say ? 
 
 Paul. That Gentiles, who were not seeking justification, 
 
 31 obtained justification, but juj^tification which is from faith: 
 but Israel, seeking a law [legal method] of justification, did 
 not attain to this law. 
 
 32 Jew. Wherefore? 
 
 Paul. Because [they sought it] not from faith, nay, but as 
 from works. They stumbled against the Stone of stumbling; 
 
 33 according as it has been written. 
 
 Behold, I lay in Zion a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of 
 
 offense : 
 
 And he that has faith on him will not be brought to shame. 
 
 X. Brethren, the desire indeed of my heart and my prayer to 
 
 2 God is in their behalf, that they may be saved. For I bear 
 
 them witness that they have a zeal for God, nay, but not ac- 
 
X. 3-19. ROMANS. 53 
 
 3 cording to knowledge. For ignoring God's plan of justifica- 
 tion, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject 
 
 4 themselves to God's plan of justification. For Christ is [the] 
 
 5 end of law unto justification to every one that has faith. For 
 Moses describes the justification which is from law that the 
 
 6 man that has done these tilings will have life in it. But the 
 justification from faith says thus, Say not in thy heart, Who 
 
 7 will ascend into heaven (that is, to bring Christ down) ? or, 
 Who will descend into the abyss ? (that is, to bring Christ up 
 
 8 from the dead). Nay, but what says it? The word is nigh 
 thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart (that is, the word of the 
 
 9 faith, which word we preach): Because if thou profess with 
 thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and have faith in thy heart that God 
 
 10 raised him from the dead, thou wilt be saved: for with the 
 heart faith is exercised unto justification ; but with the mouth 
 
 11 profession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, 
 Every one that has faith upon him will not be put to shame. 
 
 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek : for the 
 same Lord is Lord of all, being rich unto all that call upon 
 
 13 him: for [it has been written] Every one that shall call upon 
 the name of the Lord will be saved. 
 
 14 Jew. How then shall they [the Gentiles] call on him upon 
 whom they did not have faith ? but how shall they have faith 
 upon him whom they did not hear? But how shall they hear 
 
 15 apart from one preaching? But how shall they preach if they 
 be not sent? according as it has been written, How beautiful 
 are the feet of them that bring the gospel of good things I 
 
 16 Paul. Nay, but not all [the Jews] hearkened to the gospel. 
 For Isaiah says, Lord, who [of us] had faith in that which we 
 heard ? 
 
 17 Jew. Then faith comes from that which one hears ; but that 
 which one hears [of the gospel] is through the word of Christ. 
 
 18 Paul. Nay, but I say. Did they [the Gentiles] not hear? 
 Yea, indeed, then ; [as it has been written ], 
 
 Into all the earth went out the sound of them. 
 And unto the ends of the world the words of them. 
 
 19 Nay, but I say, Did Israel not know [this call of the Gentiles]? 
 First, Moses says, 
 
 I will move you to jealousy at a no-nation ; 
 
 At a nation without understanding I will anger you. 
 
64 ROMANS. X. 20— XI. 17. 
 
 20 But Isaiah ventures, and says, 
 
 I was found by the [Gentiles] not seeking me; 
 I became manifest to them not asking for me. 
 
 21 But as to Israel lie says, All the day long did I spread out my 
 hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. 
 
 XI. .Tkw. I say then, Did God thrust nwny his |»eople? 
 
 Pail. G(x1 forbid, .\iitl [I may say so], for /am an Israelite, 
 
 2 from seed of Abraham, tribe of Benjamin. God did not thrust 
 away his people, wiiich he of old liad in thought. Or do ye not 
 know what the Scripture says in the story of Elijah? how he 
 
 3 pleads witli God against Israel: Lord, thy prophets they killed, 
 thy altars they dug down, and I alone was left alive, and they 
 
 4 seek my life. Nay, but what says to him the answer of God ? 
 I left over to myself seven thousand men, who did not bow 
 
 5 knee to Baal. Thus then also, in the present time, there has 
 become a remnant [of Israel] according to election of grace. 
 
 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer from works: else the grace 
 no longer becomes grace. 
 
 7 Jew. What then ? 
 
 Paul. What Israel seeks for, this he did not obtain, but the 
 
 8 election obtained it ; but the rest were hardened ; according as 
 it has been written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes 
 that they may not see, and ears that they may not hear, until 
 
 9 this very day. And David says. 
 
 Let their table become a snare, and a trap, 
 
 And a stumbling stone, and a recompense to them: 
 
 10 Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see. 
 And their back always bow thou down. 
 
 11 Jew. I say then. Did they stumble that they may fall? 
 Paul. God forbid: nay, but by their fall is the salvation to 
 
 12 the Gentiles, to enkindle them to zeal. But if their fall is the 
 riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles, 
 
 13 how much rather will be their fullness ? But I say this to you, 
 the Gentiles. Forasmuch, indeed, then, as I am apostle of 
 
 14 Gentiles, 1 glorify my ministry: if in some way I may enkindle 
 
 15 to zeal my flesh, and may save some from them. For if the 
 casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, wliat will 
 
 16 be the taking of them back, if not life from the dead? But if 
 the firstfruit is holy, so also is the batch: and if the root is 
 
 17 holy, so also are the branches. But if some of the branches 
 
XI. 18-36. ROMANS. 55 
 
 were broken out, but thou, being a wild olive, wast ingrafted 
 in them, and becamest partaker with them of the root of the 
 
 18 fatness of the olive-tree; boast not against the branches: but 
 if thou boastest against them, not thou bearest the root, but 
 
 19 the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Bi-anches were broken out, 
 
 20 that I maybe ingrafted. Well; by their unfaith they were 
 broken out, but thou by thy faith standest. Be not high- 
 
 21 minded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, 
 
 22 neither will he spare thee. See, then, God's goodness and 
 severeness: upon them indeed that fell, severeness ; but upon 
 thee, God's goodness, if thou abide in his goodness: else thou 
 
 23 also will be cut out. But those also, if they abide not in their 
 unfaith, will be ingrafted ; for God is able to ingraft them 
 
 24 again. For if thou wast cut out from the tree, a wild olive by 
 nature, and contrary to nature wast ingrafted into a good 
 olive ; how much rather will these, the natural branches, be 
 ingrafted in their own olive ? 
 
 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of 
 this secret, lest ye be conceited with yourselves, that harden- 
 ing in part has become to Israel, until the fullness of the 
 
 26 Gentiles shall have come in; and thus all Israel will be 
 saved: according as it has been written. 
 
 From Zion will come the Deliverer ; 
 
 He will turn away impieties from Jacob : 
 
 27 And this ivill be the covenant from me with them. 
 When I shall have taken away their sins. 
 
 28 As regards the gospel, indeed, they are enemies on account of 
 you : but as regards the election, they are beloved on account 
 
 29 of the fathers. For the gifts of grace and the calling of God 
 
 30 are unrepented. For just as ye once disobeyed God, but now 
 
 31 obtained mercy by the disobedience of these, so also these 
 now disobeyed, that by the mercy shown to you they them- 
 
 32 selves also may now obtain mercy. For God shut up all men 
 unto disobedience, that he may have mercy upon them all. 
 
 33 depth of riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! how 
 
 34 unsearchable his judgments, and untraceable his ways! For, 
 
 Who knew the mind of the Lord? 
 Or who became his counselor ? 
 
 35 Or who first gave to him ? 
 
 And it will be repaid him. 
 
56 ROMANS. XII. 1-21. 
 
 36 Because from liim, and tliroiigh liim, and unto him, are 
 all things. To him be the glory forcvor. Amen. 
 
 XII. I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through the mercies of 
 God, to present your bodies a sacrifice, living, holy, well- 
 
 2 pleasing to God, your rational service. And do not be in 
 fashion with this age: nay, but be transformed by the renewal 
 of your mind, to the end tliat ye may test what is the good 
 and well-pleasing and complete will of God. 
 
 3 For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every one 
 that is among you, not to think of liimself more highly than he 
 ought to think ; but so to think [of himself] as to think soberly, 
 
 4 as to each one God imparti'd a measure of faith. For according 
 as in one body we have many members, but the members have 
 
 5 not all the same office: thus we, the many, are one body in 
 
 6 Christ, but severally members of one another, but having 
 endowments differing according to the grace that was given 
 us; whether prophecy, according to the proportion of the 
 
 7 faith ; or ministry, in the ministry ; or he that teaches, in the 
 
 8 teaching; or he that exhorts, in the exhorting; he that gives, 
 in simplicity ; he that presides, in earnestness ; he that shows 
 
 9 mercy, in cheerfulness. Love is without hypocrisy. Abhor 
 
 10 that which is evil ; cleave to that which is good. In brotherly 
 love, be affectionate to one another; in honor preferring one 
 
 11 another ; in earnestness not slothful ; in spirit fervent ; serv- 
 
 12 ing the Lord; in hope, rejoicing; in affliction, patient; in 
 
 13 prayer, persevering; contributing to the needs of the saints; 
 
 14 pursuing hospitality. Bless them that persecute you; ble.ss, 
 
 15 and curse not. Rejoice with them that rejoice ; weep with 
 
 16 them that weep. Be of the same mind towards one another. 
 Mind not the high things, but be carried away with the lowly 
 
 17 things. Become not conceited with yourselves. Requite to no 
 one evil for evil. Take forethought for things honorable in 
 
 18 the sight of all men. If possible, as far as in you lies, be at 
 
 19 peace with all men. Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but 
 give place to the wrath ; for it has been written, 
 
 Vengeance belongs to me ; I will repay, says the Loi"d. 
 
 20 Nay, but, 
 
 If thy enemy hunger, feed him ; 
 
 If lie thirst, give him drink: for, this doing, 
 
 Thou wilt heap coals of fire upon his head. 
 
XII r. 1— XIV. 4. ROMANS. 67 
 
 21 Be not conquered by his evil, but conquer his evil with thy 
 good. 
 
 XIII. Let every soul submit to the higher authorities : for there is 
 no authority except by God ; but the authorities that are have 
 
 2 been ordained by God. So that he that opposes the authority 
 resists the ordinance of God : but they that resist will receive 
 
 3 to themselves judgment. For the rulers are not a fear to the 
 good work, but to the bad. But wilt thou not fear the 
 authority? do that which is good, and thou wilt have praise 
 
 4 from it: for it is God's minister to thee unto that which is 
 good. But if thou do tliat which is bad, fear ; for it wears not 
 the sword in vain ; for it is God's minister, vengeful unto 
 
 5 wi'ath to him that practices that which is bad. Wherefore 
 there is necessity to submit, not only on account of the wrath, 
 
 6 but also on account of conscience. For on this account ye 
 pay tribute also ; for they are God's servitors, to this very 
 
 7 thing devoting themselves. Render to all their dues: the 
 tribute to whom ye owe the tribute ; the custom, to whom the 
 custom ; the fear, to whom the fear ; the honor, to whom the 
 honor. 
 
 8 To no one owe anything, except to love one another: for he 
 
 9 that loves the other has fulfilled law. For the [saying]. Thou 
 shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt 
 not steal, TIiou shalt not covet, and if there is any other com- 
 mandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, "Thou 
 
 10 shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Love works no ill to his 
 neighbor ; love therefore is fulfillment of law. 
 
 11 And this, knowing the season, that now it is time for you to 
 awake out of sleep ; for now is salvation nearer us than when 
 
 12 we first had faith. The night sped on, but the day has come 
 near ; let us therefore put off the works of the darkness, but let 
 
 13 us put on the weapons of the light. Let us walk becomingly as 
 in day ; not with revels and drunkennesses, not with chamber- 
 
 14 ings and wantonnesses, not with strife and jealousy ; nay, but 
 put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for 
 the flesh, to satisfy its lusts. 
 
 XIV. But him that is weak in the faith, receive ye, not with a view 
 
 2 to criticisms of his opinions. One man has faith to eat all 
 
 3 things: but he that is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him 
 that eats contemn him that eats not ; and let not him that eats 
 
58 ROMANS. XIV. 5-23. 
 
 4 not judge him that eats: for God received him. "Who art thou 
 that judgest another's servant? to his own loiti he stands or 
 falls. But he will be made to stand ; for the Loi-d has power 
 
 5 to make him stand. One man esteems day above day: but 
 
 6 another esteems every day. Let each one be fully assured in 
 his own mind. He that minds the day, minds it to the Lord: 
 and lie that eats, eats to the Loi-d, for he thanks God ; and he 
 
 7 that eats not, to the Loi"d eats not, and thanks God. For no 
 
 8 one of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if 
 we live, we live to the Lord ; and if we die, we die to the Loiti : 
 
 9 if we live therefore, or if we die, we are the Loi-d's. For to 
 this end Christ died, and lived again, that he may be loi-d 
 
 10 both of dead men and of living. But thou ! why dost thou 
 judge thy brother? or, also, thou! why contemnest thou thy 
 brother? for we all shall stand before the tribunal of God. 
 
 11 For it has been written, 
 
 'As I live," says the Lord, "[I swear] that to me every knee 
 
 shall bow. 
 And every tongue shall confess to God." 
 
 12 Accoi*dingly then each one of us concerning himself, will 
 give account to God. 
 
 13 No longer therefore let us judge one another ; nay, but judge 
 ye this rather, not to put a stumbling-block for your brother, 
 
 14 or an occasion of offense. I know, and am persuaded in the 
 Loi-d Jesus, that nothing is unclean through itself: except to 
 him that reckons anything to be unclean, to that man it is 
 
 15 unclean. For if on account of thy food thy brother is grieved, 
 thou walkest no longer according to love. "With thy food 
 
 16 destroy not that man for whom Christ died. Let not there- 
 
 17 fore your good be defamed: for the kingdom of God is not 
 eating and drinking ; nay, but justification and peace and joy 
 
 18 in the Holy Spirit. For he that in this matter serves Christ, 
 
 19 is well pleasing to God, and approved by men. Accoi-dingly 
 then let us follow the things of peace, and the things of 
 
 20 edification to one another. Do not for the sake of food 
 destroy the work of God. All foods indeed are clean, but [to 
 
 21 eat theml is bad to the man that eats with offense. It is good 
 not to eat flesh, nor yet to drink wine, nor yet to do aught in 
 
 22 which thy brother stumbles. The faith which thou thyself 
 hast, have to thyself before God. Happy is he that judges not 
 
XIV. 23— XV. 15. R02\fANS. 59 
 
 23 himself in that which he approves. But if he that discrimi- 
 nates eat, he has been condemned, because he eats not from 
 faith ; but everything which is not from faith is sin. 
 
 XV. But we the strong ought to bear with the weaknesses of the 
 
 2 weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each one of us please 
 
 3 his neighbor unto that which is good, unto edification. And 
 [this do], for Christ did not please himself; nay, but so lived, 
 according as it has been written. The reproaches of them that 
 
 4 reproach thee fell upon me. For as many things as were 
 written of old, were written for our instruction, that thi'ough 
 the patience and through the encouragement of the Scriptures 
 
 5 we may have the liope. But may the God of the patience, and 
 of the encouragement, give you to be of the same mind with 
 
 6 one another, according to Christ Jesus : that with one accord 
 with one mouth ye may glorify the God and Father of our 
 
 7 Loi*d Jesus Christ. Whei'efore receive ye one another, accord- 
 
 8 ing as also Christ received you, to glory of God. For I say 
 that Christ has become minister of circumcision in behalf of 
 God's truthfulness, that he may confirm the promises given to 
 
 9 the fathers ; but that the Gentiles may glorify God for his 
 mercy ; accoi-ding as it has been written, 
 
 On this account I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, 
 And to thy name I will sing. 
 
 10 And again the Scripture says, 
 
 Rejoice, Gentiles, with his people. 
 
 11 And again. 
 
 Praise, all ye Gentiles, Jehovah ; 
 And let all the peoples praise him, 
 
 12 And again, Isaiah says, 
 
 Thei'e will be the root of Jesse, 
 And he tliat arises to rule Gentiles ; 
 On him Gentiles will hope. 
 
 13 But may the God of the hope fill you with all joy and peace in 
 having faith, that ye may abound in the hope, in the power of 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 14 But I myself also am persuaded concerning you, my brethren, 
 that ye also yourselves are full of goodness, having been filled 
 with all knowledge, being able also to admonish one another. 
 
 15 But I write to you more boldly in part, as again reminding 
 you, on account of the grace that was given me from God, 
 
60 ROMANS. XV. 10-33. 
 
 18 to the end lliiit I sliould he u niiiiistrant of Christ Jesus aa to 
 the Gentiles, ministeriiiR tlie gospel of God, in order that the 
 offering up of the Gentiles may become acceptable, having 
 
 17 been sanctified in the Holy Spirit. I have therefore my 
 
 18 boasting in Christ Jesus in the things pertaining to God. For 
 I will not dare to speak of any of the things which Christ did 
 not work through me, unto obedience of Gentiles, by woi*d and 
 
 19 work, in power of signs and wonders, in power of the Holy 
 Spirit; so that from Jerusalem, and in circuit as far as 
 
 20 Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ; but 
 [I have done so], being ambitious so to preach the gospel, not 
 where Christ was named, that I may not build upon another's 
 
 21 foundation ; nay, but [to preach] accoi*ding as it has been 
 written, 
 
 They, to whom nothing was announced concerning him, 
 
 will see ; 
 And they that have not heard will understand. 
 
 22 "Wherefore also I was hindered these many times from com- 
 
 23 ing unto you : but now no longer having place in these regions, 
 but having fi'om many years a longing to come unto you, 
 
 24 whenever I may go unto Spain (for I hope, passing through, to 
 see you, and by you to be sent forward thither, if, first, I may 
 
 25 be filled in part, with your company); but now I am setting 
 
 26 out unto Jerusalem, ministering to the saints. For Macedonia 
 and Achaia thought well to make some contribution unto the 
 
 27 poor of the saints that are in Jerusalem: for they thought 
 well ; and they are their debtors ; for if the Gentiles shared 
 in their spiritual things, they ought also to minister to them in 
 
 28 the carnal things. When therefore I have accomplished this, 
 and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come away through 
 
 29 you unto Spain. But I know that, coming unto you, I shall 
 come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ. 
 
 30 But I beseech you, brethren, through our Loi-d Jesus Christ, 
 and through the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me 
 
 81 in your prayers to God for me ; that I may be delivered from 
 them that are disobedient in Judea, and that my ministration 
 
 32 unto Jerusalem may become acceptable to the saints ; in order 
 that in joy I may come unto you through the will of God, and 
 
 33 may find rest together with you. But the God of peace be 
 with you all. Amen. 
 
XVI. 1-22. ROifAXS. 61 
 
 XVI. But I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a deaconess 
 
 2 of the church that is in Cenclireae : that ye may receive her in 
 the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye may assist her in 
 whatever matter she may need you: and, so, for she herself 
 became an assister of many, and of my own self. 
 
 3 Salute Prisca and Aquila my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus, 
 
 4 who for my life laid down their own neck ; whom not I alone 
 
 5 thank, nay, but also all the churches of the Gentiles: and 
 salute the church in their house. Salute Epsenetus my 
 
 6 beloved, who is the firstfruits of Asia unto Christ. Salute 
 
 7 Mary, who labored much upon you. Salute Andronicus and 
 Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note 
 among the apostles, who also became in Christ before me. 
 
 8 Salute Ampliatus my beloved in the Lord. 
 
 9 Salute Urbanus our fellow-worker in Christ, and Stachys my 
 
 10 beloved. Salute Apelles the approved in Christ. Salute them 
 
 11 that are from the household of Aristobulus. Salute Herodian 
 my kinsman. Salute them that are from the household of 
 
 12 Narcissus, that are in the Lord. Salute Tryphsena and Try- 
 phosa, who labor in the Lord. Salute Persis the beloved, who 
 
 13 labored much in the Lord. Salute Rufus the elect in the 
 
 14 Lord, and his mother and mine. Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, 
 Hermes, Patrobas, Hernias, and the brethren that are with 
 
 15 them. Salute Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, 
 
 16 and Olympas, and all the saints that are with them. Salute 
 one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ 
 salute you. 
 
 17 But I beseech you, brethren, to mark them that are making 
 the divisions and the occasions of stumbling, contrary to the 
 
 18 doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. For 
 such men serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly ; and 
 through their smooth and fair speech they deceive the hearts 
 
 19 of the innocent. For your obedience came abroad unto all 
 men. I rejoice therefore over you ; but I would that ye be 
 wise unto that which is good, but simple unto that which is 
 
 20 bad. But the God of peace will bruise Satan under your feet 
 speedily. 
 
 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 
 
 21 Timotheus my fellow-worker salutes you ; and Lucius and 
 
 22 Jason ancj Sosipater, my kinsmen. I Tertius, who write the 
 
62 ROMANS. XVI. 23-27. 
 
 23 cpisth', salute you in tlie Lord. Gains my host, and of the 
 whoh' church, salutes you. Erastus the treasurer of the city 
 salutes you, and Quartus the brother. 
 
 25 But to him that is able to establisli you according to my 
 gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the 
 revelation of the secret doctrine which has been kept in silence 
 
 26 in times eternal, but now was manifested, and through pro- 
 l>hetic Scriptures was made known according to commandment 
 of the eternal God, unto all tht- Gentiles, with a view to their 
 
 27 obedience to the faith; to tlie only wise God, through Jesus 
 Christ, — to whom be the glory forever. Amen. 
 
EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verse 1. Paul, servant of Christ Jesus, a called apos- 
 tle, set apart unto the gospel of God. 
 
 Paul. Our apostle received at circumcision a Hebrew name, 
 " Saul," the name of the first king of Israel, held in traditional 
 honor in his patrial tribe of Benjamin. This Hebrew name, the 
 Christian apostle, immediately before beginning his great mission 
 to the Gentiles (Acts xiii, 2), changed for the Roman name 
 " Paul " (Acts xiii, 9). Renouncing thenceforth his Jewish char- 
 acter and isolation, he adopted a cosmopolitan name, already 
 lionored throughout the Roman world, not very unlike his cir- 
 cumcision name, more euphonious, and, what was a higher recom- 
 mendation, more suitable in its meaning to his new views of 
 himself. He will no longer bear the regal name of his great 
 tribesman, Saul, " The Desired," but will call himself Paul, "The 
 Little." The once proud rabbi, now servant of Jesus Christ, has 
 humbler views of himself. " To me, the abortion." (1 Cor. xv, 8.) 
 " To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, was given 
 this grace, that I should preach Christ amonr^; the Gentiles." 
 (Eph. iii, 8.) This humble but honorable name which he adopted, 
 lie made the gi'andest of all names, except One, in the history of 
 the Church, and of the world. 
 
 Paul calls himself slave. The Greek word, as the English 
 word " slave," properly means a bond -servant for life, in thraldom 
 to the absolute will of the master or owner. This is the word with 
 which Paul expresses his utter and final surrender of himself to 
 the service of Christ. It is used also by Peter, James, and Jude, 
 of themselves. That Paul and Peter, and James, who was the 
 earthly brother of Jesus, and all the disciples, Jews who spurned 
 the idea of slavery to any man (John viii, 33), should, neverthe- 
 less, commonly call themselves "slaves" of Jesus Christ, shows 
 how profoundly they recognized his lordship. No other word in 
 
 63 
 
64 EXPOSITION. 
 
 all of Paul's vocabulary so adequately expresses his concept of the 
 majesty and divinity of th»' Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Paul's slavery to Christ was the joyful submission of heart, 
 and will, and life, to such a service'. There was for him no release 
 from it. He vaunted the badges of his slavery as evidence that he 
 could not, and that he would not, be separated from Christ. 
 " Henceforth, let no one give me annoyances on this point. 
 I carry in my person the slave-brands of the Lord Jesus " 
 (Gal. vi, 17) ; the brands with whicli Christ had literally seared his 
 eyes (Acts ix, 18), and marked him his thrall forever. 
 
 In the Gospels, the name Christ is an official designation, 
 and as a rule has the article, "The Christ;" that is, "The 
 Messiah," " The Lord's Anointed." But in the Epistles, the word 
 has already become a proper name, and as such does not usually 
 can-y the article. Accordingly, the Epistles, in speaking of the 
 Savior, use the names Jesus and Christ, severally, almost indiffer- 
 ently, but usually combine them in either order. •• 
 
 A Called Apostle. Christ's immediate followers during the 
 days of his flesh were called disciples, " learnei'S." But early in his 
 ministi'y he selected twelve whom he named apostles (Luke vi, 13) ; 
 that is, his "emissaries," his " missionaries," so designating them, 
 especially, as the ones whom he would send to preach the gospel, 
 After his departure. "As thou sentest me into the world, I also 
 sent [dw^cTTeiXa] them into the world." (John xvii, 18.) Tliis com- 
 mission of the twelve became practically effective only after his 
 death and the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was evidently not 
 Christ's intention that the apostolic college should be perpetuated 
 as an ecclesiastic order in his Church ; and the nomination of 
 Matthias (Acts i, 26), to the vacant place of Judas was an irregu- 
 larity that apparently came to nothing, and was never repeated. 
 As the original " twelve " died, their places were not filled. But 
 the Christian apostolate of the first century was not restricted to 
 the twelve ; and either the Lord himself, as in the case of Paul, 
 or the Christian consciousness of the united Church, afterwards 
 called other choice leadei-s into tliis gospel office. Of these, Paul 
 was clearly foremost. He derived his appointment from Christ 
 
 •For Illustration, another name has had Just the opposite history. 
 "CoBsar," from being at first, the proper nami' of a particular man, after- 
 wards In the first centuries became a dynastic title; and has since 
 come to be a common appellation, expressing Imperial rank; The Caesar 
 (emperor), The Kaiser. 
 
ROMANS I, 2. 65 
 
 himself, who appeared in person to him for this purpose. His 
 claim of equality in call and office with the elder apostles was 
 fully conceded by them; and certainly, "the signs of an apostle 
 were wrought by him, more abundantly than by them all." 
 (2 Cor. xii, 12; xi, 23.) And Barnabas, a remarkable and better 
 man than Matthias, was afterwards recognized as an apostle, 
 co-ordinate with Paul. (Acts xiv, 14.) This is the claim which 
 Paul here advances. By the word "called" or summoned, he 
 expressly disavows self-nomination to the office, or election by 
 others; he is an "apostle not from men, nor through man, but 
 through Jesus Christ." (Gal. i, 1.) "He accounted me faithful, 
 putting me into the ministry." (1 Thess. i, 12.) "I was appointed 
 a preacher and an apostle, a teacher of Gentiles, in faith and truth." 
 (1 Tim. ii, 7.) 
 
 The words of the text are not "called to be an apostle," as 
 in the Authorized and the Revised, but, as given above, " a called 
 apostle;" like the common English constructions: "a chosen ves- 
 sel," "a trusted leader," " a born teacher." 
 
 Set apart unto the Gospel. This setting apart from secu- 
 lar pursuits to the special function of the ministry, dated from 
 Paul's birth : " God set me apart from my mother's womb, and 
 called me through his grace." (Gal. i, 15.) The call was repeated 
 at his commission: " He is to me a choice vessel [literally, a ves- 
 sel of selectness], to bear my name before Gentiles and sons of 
 Israel." (Acts ix, 15.) And it was finally comsummated at 
 Antioeh, when " The Holy Spirit said, Set apart to me Barnabas 
 and Saul for the work to which I have called them." (Acts xiii, 2.) 
 
 The Gospel of God. The Greek word, evayy^Xiov, and the 
 English translation, "gospel," are etymological equivalents, both 
 meaning " good tidings." In the Scriptures, it means the " gospel 
 of peace, the glad tidings of good things." (Rom. x, 15.) It is 
 the message of God to man, to the Gentile world as well as the 
 Jewish, making known, first of all, that they may be saved; and 
 then telling them how they may be saved. The word " gospel " 
 is peculiarly a Pauline word. It is found twelve times in the 
 Gospels. Paul uses it sixty-three times ; Peter, once. 
 
 Verse 2. Which he promised of old, through his proph- 
 ets, in Holy Scriptures. 
 
 The gospel which Paul preached, the gospel of life to the Gen- 
 tile world, was not a recent or unexpected revelation, but was 
 5 
 
66 EXPOSITION. 
 
 God's oldest and only revelation of himself to men. It was planned 
 
 before the foundntion of the world ; it was proclaimed first in the 
 garden ; and it was renewed in each succeeding dispensation. Thus 
 we read, "With Noah he established his covenant, and with his 
 seed after him." (Gen. ix, 9.) "To Abraham he preached the 
 gospel, that in him should all the world be blessed." (Gen. 
 xii, 3; Gal. iii, 8.) "By the mouth of all his prophets he showed 
 of old that Christ should suffer." (Acts iii, 18; 1 Pet. i, 10.) 
 " Having begun from Moses, and from all the prophets, he inter- 
 preted to them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning him- 
 self." (Luke xxiv,27.) "Those are my woi-ds, which I spoke 
 to you while I was with you, that all things must be fulfilled, 
 which have been written in the law of Moses, and prophets, and 
 psalms, concerning me." (Luke xxiv, 44.) 
 
 In Holy Scriptures. The word thus designated, without 
 the article, denotes these sacred writings, not quantitatively or 
 collectively, as if -^ the Holy Scriptures," but in their qualitative 
 character. The term "Holy Scriptures" is broad enough to in- 
 clude all the Old Testament; but here "the prophets" in par- 
 ticular are named: "All the prophets, as many as spoke, fore- 
 told these days." (Acts iii, 24.) The supernatural origin and 
 the excellence of these "Scriptures, or writings, justified the 
 term " holy," or " sacred," with which the Jews described them. 
 For a similar reason, the Christian Scriptures of the New Testa- 
 ment are accounted " holy ;" their divine source and their mes- 
 sage to men are the same as of the Hebrew Scriptures. "God, 
 who of old spoke to the fathers in the prophets, in those last 
 days spoke to us in his Son." (Heb. i, 1.) The two "Testa- 
 ments" constitute for us one "revelation." Augustine says: 
 "In the Old Testament the New is latent; in the New, the Old 
 is patent." 
 
 Verse 3. Concerning his Son, who was born from the 
 seed of David, according to flesh. 
 
 The connection of the preposition concerning is uncertain ; 
 it may be taken with "grosp^Z," or with "promised." The latter 
 is logically preferable, declaring the tenor of the promise. The 
 affirmation here that Christ was born [or ^' became^'] from the 
 seed of David declares Christ's pr^-cxistence. The verb is the 
 same as in John's saying: "The Word brntmr flesh." It is the 
 same conception as Paul expresses in the words: "God sent his 
 
ROMANS I, 4. 67 
 
 Son in the sameness with the flesh of sin" (Rom. viii, 3) ; that 
 is, in the sameness with our sinful humanity. The exact line of 
 Christ's descent, as a matter of historical fact, was in the house 
 of David ; but it was of the essence of the incarnation that he took 
 upon himself the nature of fallen man, "and became in the same- 
 ness with men." (Phil, ii, 7.) He was a Jew, in the national 
 line of descent, in literal fulfillment of prophecy ; but above this 
 non-essential circumstance, he was a man, "of our flesh and 
 bones" (Eph. v, 30) — (a doubtful reading, but true in its teaching). 
 The phrase according to flesh means according to his 
 " human nature. " The word denotes not Christ's bodi/ only, but 
 his complete humanity, body and soul ; or, if we make a point of 
 Paul's '^ tripartism," "body, soul, and spirit." (1 Thess. v, 23.) 
 Such is one very common sense of the word "flesh:" "No flesh 
 will be justified in his sight." (Rom. iii,20.) The word, when 
 spoken of men, usually connotes the idea of sinfulness and of 
 frailty: "All flesh is grass." (1 Pet. i, 24.) Christ, by virtue of 
 his incarnation was subject to all human limitations, "but with- 
 out sin," 
 
 Verse 4. "Who was marked out Son of God in po"wer, 
 according to the spirit of holiness, from resurrection of 
 dead men, Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 Note the difference between the two predicates in the two 
 verses. The third verse declares that Jesus was "born [or became] 
 of the seed of David according to the flesh;" the fourth verse 
 declares that he was marked out Son of God in power, from 
 resurrection of dead men; that is, by this last and crowning 
 miracle of the resurrection, he was clearly designated as the 
 divine, the eternal Son. Before the world was made, he was the 
 Son, in the bosom of the Father: by his incarnation he " became" 
 man. 
 
 The phrase " in power" should be construed adjectively with 
 " Son." Christ, by his resurrection was marked out, designated, 
 as God's Son, no longer weak [" He was crucifled through weak- 
 ness," 2 Cor. xiii, 4] ; but now risen, vested ivith all power. His 
 resurrection, tlie close of his life of hmniliation, has crowned him 
 the Mighty Lord of all. "I was dead, and, behold, I am alive 
 forever, and have the keys [insignia of power] of deatli and Hades." 
 (Rev. i, 18.) "All authority was given me in heaven and on 
 earth." (Mat. xxxviii, 18.) The Greek words "in power" are 
 
68 EXroSlTION. 
 
 th<' snmo hero as in 1 Cor. xv, 43: "The body is raised in powrr;" 
 and tlicre, too, they should be taken adjectively: "sown weak, 
 raised stnmij." 
 
 According to the spirit of holiness. As the phrase 
 "aeeording tt) tlie Hesli " evidently refers to Christ's hmnanit;/, it 
 might seein that the plira.se "according to the spirit of holiness" 
 should refer to his human xpirit; but this, his human spirit, by all 
 psychological and scriptural proprieties is already accounted for in 
 the former term " flesh," which as we have seen includes Christ's 
 entire human nature, "body, soul, and spirit." The word spirit 
 here, then, must mean something else. But it must not be iden- 
 tified with "The Holy Spirit," the third person in the Trinity; 
 for, though the words "spirit of holiness" could grammatically 
 be so explained, this is not in the Christological line of thought. 
 The words apj)ly to the person of Christ only, the second person in 
 the Trinity. "The spirit of holiness," as antithetic to Christ's 
 humanity, means Christ's own divine nature, which he had with 
 the Father before the world was, the divine Logos, which was 
 wliolly spiritual and holy, "the spirit of holiness," wiiich became 
 incarnate in the Son of Mary, and informed his whole being, 
 molded his earthly life, and was the ground of his resurrection. 
 The phraseology " spirit of holiness," rather than "holy spirit" 
 (aside from the ambiguity in the last words), is explained by the 
 tendency of the writers of the New Testament to adopt Hebrew 
 forms of expression. In Hebrew, adjectives are few, and their 
 place is supplied by substantives. It is in this way that Paul says, 
 " (xod sent his Son in sameness with the flesh of sin." (Rom. viii,3.) 
 "The spirit of holiness," then, is Christ's divine spirit, whose 
 characteristic is holiness, as " the flesh of sin " is the flesh whose 
 characteristic is sin. 
 
 From the resurrection of dead, men,— such is the literal 
 translation. Our exegesis must conform to it. The plural num- 
 ber of the words "dead men" forbids its being restricted to 
 Christ. Possibly the plural number here may point to the exem- 
 plar instances, during his earthly life, of his "power" to raise 
 the dead to their earthly life again, as in the cases of the young 
 man at Nain, the daughter of .Tairus, and Lazarus. But more 
 probably the ))lural word points' to the general resurrection at the 
 last day, of which Christ's resurrection was Mh' first, but the most 
 significant instance: " Christ was the first one from the resurrec- 
 tion of dead men." (Acts xxvi, 23.) This general resurrection, 
 
ROMANS I, 5. 69 
 
 which has its ground and assui-ance in the resurrection of Christ, 
 is here conceived of, and spoken of as aji accomplished fact. 
 With Christ all men have constructively risen (Rom. vi, 11; 
 Eph. ii, 6) ; and with him all men will actually rise at the last day. 
 
 Verse 5. Through whom we received grace and apos- 
 tleship, with a view to obedience to the faith, among all 
 the Gentiles, for his name's sake. 
 
 The plural pronoun we is Paul's oflRcial designation of him- 
 self alone. Though he always labored in company with helpers, 
 and often courteously joined his colleagues with himself in his 
 salutations, or in general discourse (Gal. i, 2), yet here he speaks 
 solely of his own call to the apostleship of the Gentiles. The word 
 grace, that is, "favor," expresses his sense of God's condescension 
 in calling him to so high a function ; and the word apostleship ex- 
 presses his particular commission to the Gentiles. Yet, perhaps, 
 the two words may be taken together as an instance of the com- 
 mon literary figure, hendiadys, one concept in two terms — " the 
 grace of apostleship." 
 
 "With a view to obedience to the faith. The word Trio-Tews 
 is in the genitive case, and the literal translation is " of faith." 
 The word means, as often, not the subjective personal faith which 
 lays hold on Christ, but the gospel creed, the objective faith which 
 is believed. The subjective element here is found, not in the 
 ■word faith, but in the word obedience; and the obvious meaning of 
 the passage is adequately expressed by the words " with a view 
 to the acceptance of the gospel." It is the same sense as is ex- 
 pressed by the words: "A great multitude were obedient to the 
 faith." (Acts vi, 7.) Accordingly the idiomatic translation here 
 is the one given: " Obedience to the faith." 
 
 Among all the Gentiles. The Greek word* here translated 
 "Gentiles" properly signifies "nations," in Classic Greek, and 
 sometimes in the New Testament. The corresponding word in 
 Hebrew,! the " nations," tliat is, aliens outside the Jewish pale, 
 early acquired in Jewish usage, the opprobrious sense of " pagans," 
 "heathen," "Gentiles;" and such is the sense of the Greek word 
 in the New Testament. The Jews abominated all nations except 
 themselves, many of them the noblest races in the world, and stig- 
 matized them as " Gentiles." It was to those Gentiles, specifically, 
 
70 EXPOSITION. 
 
 that Paul, " the apostle of the Gentiles," dedicated his life. His 
 work in this field was regarded with hatred by the Jews at lai-ge, 
 and with jealousy even by the Christian Jews ; and his life was 
 one long contention against the hostility of his own people, in 
 behalf of the equality of the Gentiles in Christ. His Epistles are 
 full of this subject : and the word " Gentiles" occurs in this dis- 
 tinctive way twenty-nine times in the Romans, and twenty-eight 
 times in his other epistles. It was to discuss the relations of the 
 Gentiles to the gospel that this epistle was written. The word 
 ''Romans" does not imply that the people whom he addressed 
 were citizens of Rome, but only residents at Rome; and the 
 majority of them were certainly Gentiles, and but few of them 
 Jewish Christians. We shall have occasion under Rom. ill, 29, 
 to discuss the relation of the Gentiles to the gospel, and to the 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 For his name's sake. A person's name represeftts all that 
 constitutes the person ; and is, accordingly, a common synonym for 
 the person. Thus w'e read: "There was a multitude of names 
 together, about a hundred and twenty." (Acts i, 15.) So, here, 
 Paul says, his mission is "for his name;" but in 2 Cor. v, 20, he 
 says: "We are amVjassadors for Christ." 
 
 Verse 6. Anaong whom are also ye, Jesus Christ's 
 called. 
 
 The Jews held that they only were God's elect. God had 
 called them "my people, my chosen, the people I have formed 
 for myself." (Isa. xliii, 2.) This election, which was only to 
 religious or institutional privileges, they counted an election to 
 eternal life for themselves, for all of themselves. They thought 
 it an indefeasible, absolute decree in their favor, with which the 
 rest of the world had nothing to do. No Gentile, as such, no 
 uncircumcised man, could be saved. This assumption for them- 
 selves, and disparagement of the Gentiles, was so deeply seated 
 that even the converts from among the Jews to Christianity could 
 with difficulty free themselves from their prejudice. Peter and 
 James never lost their early j)reconceptions. John, whose last 
 years were spent in the Greek city Ephesus, possibly outlived his 
 prejudices. But very different from the first was Paul's concep- 
 tion, both as to the nature and as to the extent of God's election 
 and call. In his concept, the " election," in the plan of God, and 
 the consequent "call" at most, involved not an absolute decree, 
 
ROMANS I, 7. 71 
 
 bat only religious privileges or opportunities for salvation ; and 
 they embraced not any particular individuals, or any specific 
 nation, but provisionally the w^hole world, the Gentiles as v^'ell as 
 the Jews, and both on equal terms. And so the apostle counts 
 the Gentile world, as well as the Jewish world, God's "elect" 
 (Rom, viii, 33), and God's "called" (Rom. viii, 28). In this verse 
 ho salutes the Romans as " Christ's called." 
 
 Verse 7. To all that are in Rome, God's beloved, 
 called, saints: Grace to you, and peace, from God our 
 Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 The words are not to be translated " called to be saints," that 
 is, "summoned to become saints," as if they were not such 
 already; nor do they mean "named [designated] saints," as if 
 this were a title or application conferred on them as we now name 
 the writer of this epistle "Saint Paul." The adjective kXtitSs, 
 " called," never has the sense of " named ;" it designates the rela- 
 tion in which the Romans, and all the Gentile world, already 
 stood to the gospel scheme. The Romans are "God's called." 
 The last three words of the first clause are to be taken as substan- 
 tives appositive to the word "all." But Paul's use of these 
 descriptive words shows that he probably has on the surface of his 
 thought only the Christian believers, not the great mass of the 
 Roman population, who were still heathen. Yet with Paul's 
 large conception of the gospel scheme, and of his own universal 
 mission, he could, if his argument required it here, as it does else- 
 where, have applied those words iJotentially to all men, not in 
 Rome only, but in the whole world. In the Old Dispensation the 
 Jews, standing in special relations, holding special privileges, 
 were all, without exception, deemed and named, "God's be- 
 loved" (Psa. Ix, 5), "God's elect" (Isa. xliii,20), "God's called" 
 (Isa. xlviii. 12), "God's saints," "a holy nation" (Ex. xix, 6), 
 "a holy people" (Deut. vii, 6), " his anointed" (Psa. cv, 15) ; so, 
 now, in the New Dispensation, these relations and privileges were 
 extended to all the race. All men, and not tlie Jews only, are 
 constructively and potentially "God's beloved, called, saints." 
 Yet neither the former reckoning nor the latter implies that the 
 persons severally included in the count were therefore ethically 
 right, or were, therefore, all to be saved. The terms used simply 
 imply that men are brought into uniform and universal relations to 
 God and to the gospel scheme, whereby their salvation is possible. 
 
72 EXPOSITION. 
 
 The word saints, by its derivation, and by its constant use 
 in the Scriptures, means " consecrated," set a])art for special ends ; 
 and it does not usually, and certainly does not here, connote that 
 the persons so named liad "already attained or were already per- 
 fect." Above all, it does not mean that they were pre-eminently 
 holy, impeccant if not impeccable. The last sense of the word 
 saint, which is now tlie current sense of the word in Enj^lish, is one 
 of the legacies of mediivval superstition, which looked back to the 
 apostolic Church as if peculiarly holy, lifted above the level of the 
 Church of after days. But such, alas ! was not the fact. Paul con- 
 stantly addresses the Churches of his day as " saints," " sanctified," 
 "holy brethren," "elect and holy unto the Lord;" yet the data 
 given in his Epistles show that these very Churches had often, if 
 not always, a very low state of Christian experience and attainment. 
 Certainly there are few evangelical Churches in our days that 
 are not of higher type, in both doctrine and practice, than the 
 Churches to which our apostle preached and wrote. Christians 
 nowadays are better than they, because of the tendency of the 
 gospel to lift men. By its transforming power it leads not only 
 to outward consecration, but to the highest type of inward sanc- 
 tification. 
 
 Grace to you, and peace. This is Paul's constant saluta- 
 tion to the Churches. The [irimary meaning of c/racr is " favoi*." 
 It involves both the divine benevolence and the divine beneficence: 
 benignity felt towards the undeserving, and practical kindness 
 shown to them. Perhaps this is the utmost meaning of the word 
 here; but it sometinies takes on an added note of efficacious help, 
 of spiritual empowerment for godly living. " Grace " is God's love 
 ri'vealed to us ; " peace " is the inner trantiuillity that comes from 
 the consciousness of Crod's approval. " Justified from faith, we 
 have peace with God." 
 
 From God the Father of us and the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Such is the literal translation of those oft recurrent words. What 
 do they mean? The conjunction a»(i may grammatically connect 
 the words ?/.t and Lord, putting both words under the regimen of 
 the preposition of: " From God, the Father of us and of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ." Such is the Socinian interpretation. Or, the eon- 
 junction and may grammatically connect the woi*ds God and Lord, 
 |)utting both woi*ds under the regimen of the preposition from : 
 " From God tlie Father of us, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." 
 Such is tlie orthodox interjiretation. Botli are grammatical ; both 
 
ROMANS I, 8. 73 
 
 make perfect sense. Which was Paul's meaning? In Titus i, 4, 
 and in 2 Tim. i, 2, he uses the same salutation as liere, omitting 
 the woi-ds "of us." But in those passages the Socinian inter- 
 pretation can not liold: God and the Lord Jesus Christ are co- 
 ordinatedlby the preposition from, as the common source of the 
 blessings pronounced. Equally in the longer passages, including, 
 as here, the words "of us," the orthodox view must be held as 
 the only one intended by the apostle: "Grace and peace from 
 God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Clirist." The incidental , 
 yet conclusive testimony here to the divinity of our Lord is as 
 clear and satisfactory as in the explicit affirmations of the Gospel 
 of John, or of the Epistle to the Philippians. 
 
 Verse 8. First, indeed, I thank my God through Jesus 
 Christ for you all; because your faith is reported in the 
 whole world. 
 
 With these complimentary words, Paul comes easily and 
 gracefully to the declaration of his regards for the believers at 
 Rome. He has never visited the Church, but he knows many of 
 the brethren personally, and others he knows of by name. The 
 second clause, with the translation because, instead of " that," '■ 
 expresses the ground of his thanksgiving, because their faith is 
 proclaimed throughout the world. 
 
 The words, "your faith is reported in the whole world," 
 are doubtless a rhetorical exaggeration, like the one in John 
 xxi, 25; yet it was not extravagant, for already the gospel had 
 been carried to all parts of the Roman world, and to regions 
 outside. (1 Pet. iv, 13.) Christian converts from "all the world" 
 brought to their homes the news of Pentecost ; and Paul himself, 
 in the first twenty years of his ministry, had already (A. D. 58), 
 "fully preached the gospel from Jerusalem, and in a circuit as 
 far as Illyricum." (Rom. xv, 9.) Five or six years later he was 
 able to say to the Colossians: "The gospel which ye heard was 
 preached in the whole creation under heaven." (Col. i, 23.) Thus 
 within one generation after Paul had begun his mission to the 
 Gentiles, Christ's last command was approximately fulfilled. The 
 congregation in Rome, the capital of the world, was largely made 
 ui) of accessions from these provincial Churches, and was certainly 
 widely known; so that Paul could say: "Your obedience has 
 come abroad unto all men." (Rom. xvi, 19.) 
 
 *The Greek word Uri has this double force. For a similar ambiguity. 
 see Rom. viil, 21. 
 
74 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verses 9, 10. For God is my witness, whom I serve in 
 my spirit in the gospel of his Son, how^ unceasingly I make 
 mention of you, alw^ays in my prayers making request 
 if somehow, now, at length, I shall be brought on my 
 way in the will of God, to come unto you. 
 
 The first woi-ds here, God is my witness, is Paul's custom- 
 ary and solemn attestation of some grave fact known only to 
 himself. Such ai)i)eals to God were not unusual with him on 
 momentous occasions. Thus he says to the Corinthians, " I call 
 God for a witness upon my soul" (2 Cor. i,23); to the Philippians 
 he says, " God is my witness how I long for you all." (Phil, i, 8.) 
 Such asseverations in the name of God are not flippant oaths, like 
 those forbidden by Christ: "Swear not at all." (Matt, v, 34.) 
 Indeed, Christ himself recognized the obligation of judicial oaths 
 (Matt, xxvi, 63, 64) ; and even God is represented as confirming his 
 woi"ds, under the sanction of an oath: "As he could swear by no 
 greater, he swore by himself." (Heb. vi, 13.) "As I live, says 
 Jehovah, I swear* that to me every knee shall bow." (Rom. xiv, 11.) 
 And Paul confirmed his ow'n assertions under the sanction of an 
 oath: " I die daily, I swear* it by my boast in you " (1 Cor. xv,31) ; 
 " Behold, before God I swear* that I lie not" (Gal. i, 20). 
 
 Verses 11, 12. For I long to see you, that I may impart 
 to you some spiritual gift, with a view to your being 
 established ; but that is, to my being comforted w^ith you, 
 while among you, through our faith, both yours and mine, 
 in each other. 
 
 The sj)iritual gifts to which Paul alludes, the miraculous 
 Charisms of the Apostolic Church, are enumerated and discussed 
 in the twelfth chai)ter of First Corinthians : " Wisdom, knowledge, 
 faith, healings, miracles, prophecj', discerning of spirits, tongues, 
 interpretations, all works of one and the same Spirit, wlio divides 
 to each one, severally, even as he will." Tliese endowments were 
 conferred by the laying on of the hands of the apostles (Acts 
 xix, 6) ; and their exercise was either for a sign to those that were 
 without, or for the edification and confirmation of the Church. 
 It was with a view to the latter, that Paul desired to impart to the 
 Romans some such gift. We do not know what special gift he 
 purposed, if, indeed, he had any definite gift in thought; but it 
 
 *Thf form of the Greek sentence Implies these words. 
 
ROMANS I. IS. t^ 
 
 was probably one of the first named above, specifically to this end, 
 that ye may be established. But this blessing to them was not 
 the whole of the apostle's hope ; he hoped also to receive a personal 
 blessing through his communion with them; "But if you be es- 
 tablished, it is that I, too, while among you, may be comforted 
 with you, through our faith [confidence], both yours and mme, in 
 each other " But the apostle, in this wish, was not thmkmg of 
 present refreshment only (Rom. xv, 32) ; he was looking forward 
 to his purposed journey to Spain; "I hope, passing through 
 Rome, on my way to Spain, to visit you, and by you to be sent 
 forward thither, if, first, I have my fill, in some measure, ^^uth 
 your society." (Rom. xv, 24.) He longed to visit Rome, but 
 Rome was not the ultimate point of his journey ; it would serve 
 only as a new point of departure for yet wider and greater con- 
 quests in the distant West.* 
 
 Verse 13. But I would that you be not ignorant, breth- 
 ren that ofttimes I proposed to come unto you, and was 
 hindered hitherto, that I may have some fruit among you 
 also, even as also among the rest of the Gentiles. 
 
 In similar circumstances, writing to the Corinthians, Paul 
 used another word: " In this trust, I wished to come unto you." 
 (2 Cor i 15 ) The expressions are in effect synonymous. But 
 the apostle immediately adds : I was hindered until now. The 
 hindrances we may readily believe to have been the more urgent 
 calls of duty to tarry in the East; or, possibly,' some over-ruling 
 providences, such as once before drove him toward the West, 
 when he himself desired to go East : " The Spirit of Jesus did not 
 permit him to go into Bithynia." (Acts xvi, 7.) 
 
 Paul wishes: That I may have some fruit among you 
 also as also among the remaining Gentiles. Wherever he 
 journeyed he found colonies of his own countrymen, and syna- 
 gogues- and his first preaching was always in the synagogues. In 
 these he had two sorts of hearers, Jews and devout Gentiles. The 
 latter w^ere men who had accepted the Jewish faith without submit- 
 ting to circumcision. Of these two classes of hearers, the Jews usu- 
 
 * It was three years before Paul saw Rome; and he came there only as 
 a urisoner, and for two years longer remained under surveillance, in his 
 owrHred house. Then, after those five years, he Is said to have carried 
 out his purpose (perhaps not Immediately) of visiting Spain. Euseblus. 
 Eccl. Hist., II, xxil, 2. 
 
76 EXlK)SITION. 
 
 ally rejected the gospel, because jt was too liberal for them; but 
 the Gentiles, for the same reason, invariably gave it a grateful 
 and ready acceptance. Thus, at Iconium, " Paul entered into the 
 isynngogui' of tlu' Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude both 
 uf Jews and of Greeks [Gentiles] believed" (Acts xiv, 1); and, 
 again, at Thessalonica, " Paul went into the synagogue, as was his 
 wont, and reasoned with them from the Scriptures; . . . and 
 some [Jews] were persuaded, and of the devout Greeks a great 
 multitude" (Acts xvii, 2). These converts became the nucleuses 
 of Christian congregations, which then were built up by further 
 converts directly from the unbelieving Gentiles. The expression, 
 "Among yon, as among the other Gentiles," shows that the Roman 
 Church was preponderantly Gentile. The i)roper names in the 
 salutations, in chai)ter xvi, are mostly Gentile, thougli there was 
 also a Jewish element. 
 
 Verse 14. I am debtor both to Greeks and to Barbar- 
 ians, both to wise men and to ignorant. 
 
 This classification of the human race has respect rather to tlie 
 various culture, or social condition of men, than to their nation- 
 alities. It was, originally, a Greek designation for themselves on 
 the one hand, and for the rest of tl\e world on tlie other. All 
 who were not Greek were barbarian; that is, foreign, not bar- 
 hnrous, as the Persians, the Romans, the Jews. After Alex- 
 ander's time, B. C. 323, the Greek language, the language of 
 culture, became cosmopolitan, and the word Greeks began to 
 denote the great civilized, dominant races. After tlie conquest 
 of Greece by the Romans, B. C. 148, the Greek language and cul- 
 ture largely prevailed at Rome. Captive Greece captured its 
 fierce victor,* and the Romans, from this point of view, were 
 classed, as Paul classed them, as "Greeks" (just as, later, in the 
 times of the Byzantine Empire, the Greeks, for political consid- 
 erations, reversing the names, called themselves "Romaic"). 
 Thenceforwai-d, the word barbarians denoted all the uncivilized 
 world besides. In this grouping of the Gentiles, the Jews are, for 
 the moment, left out of sight ; but they come into view in the 
 seventeenth verse, where, from the Jewish standpoint, all the 
 world is divided into Jews and Greeks. 
 
 *"QriBclacaptii fcruui victorein ceplt," Hor. Ep. II, 1, 156. 
 
ROMANS I. 1.5, 16. 77 
 
 Verse 15. Thus, as for me, I would fain preach the 
 gospel to you also, that are in Rome. 
 
 Paul held the world as his parish. In this aspect of his work, 
 that he is under equal obligations to all men, he declares that he 
 is eager to carry the gospel to the high places of the earth, to cul- 
 tivated people as well as to uncultivated. Though Rome is the 
 capital of the world, the center of power, and wisdom, and juris- 
 prudence, yet, the apostle confident in the power, and wisdom, 
 and righteousness of the gospel, longs for the opportunity to carry 
 his luessage even to this seat of all that is greatest in the insti- 
 tutions of man. He is not ashamed of his message. 
 
 Verse 16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel ; for it 
 is God's power unto salvation to every one that has faith ; 
 both to Jew, first, and to Greek. 
 
 The first clause is not an allusion to the popular opprobrium 
 that early attached to the gospel of the Man of Calvary ; as when 
 Peter says, " If any one suffer as [on the charge of being] a 
 ' Christian,' let him not be ashamed." (1 Pet. iv, 16.) Nay, Paul 
 declared that the ignominy of his Master's death was the ground 
 of his boasting: " God forbid that I should boast save in the cross 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Gal. vi, 14.) But on the contrary, 
 what he means here to say is, that he is not ashamed of the 
 gospel by reason of any inadequacy in it to save man, and to save 
 all men. It can save Gentiles as well as Jews. There are no lim- 
 itations in its gracious proffers to mankind. While Judaism, did 
 not claim to be a message of peace to the world at large, and 
 even debarred from its communion all who were not circumcised ; 
 the gospel on the other hand claimed the world as its own, and 
 invited the world to its fold. Paul counts it a gospel to the Gen- 
 tiles especially. It is in this light that he declares that he is not 
 ashamed of the gospel. He can look man in the face without 
 blushing for God, for the gospel, or for himself, as its herald, as 
 he proclaims the divine even-handed justice, in giving every man, 
 Gentile as well as Jew, an equal chance for salvation. The word 
 every man expresses the scope of the gospel plan. Unlike Jewish 
 exclusivism, or Calvinistic particularism, the gospel compasses 
 the whole race, and every man of the race. All are redeemed, 
 all may be saved ; not as the Jews thought, and arrogated to 
 themselves, by obeying the law, which no man can do; but on 
 
78 EXPOSITION. 
 
 the simple'condition of having faiili in Christ, which every man 
 can do. 
 
 In the words both to Jew, first, and to Greek, we 
 have the Jewish classification of men, just as in verse 14 we 
 have the Greek. The Jews grouped all outside the chosen 
 race as " the nations," " the heathen," " the Gentiles ;" of whom 
 one of the foremost races, " the Greeks," is here put for all. 
 The word "first" does not express preference; but is merely a 
 chronological date. Paul, unlike his countrymen, counted all 
 men equal before God, equal in their inherent rights in the 
 provisions of the gospel ; and by this word " first,"* he merely 
 recognizes the earlier historic call of the Jews to the privileges of 
 organized Church fellowship: " First [firstly] indeed because they 
 were intrusted with the oracles of God." (Rom. iii, 2.) As, in 
 the patriarclial days, the divine election and call came first to 
 Abraham, and to Israel, and to the Jews, though not for them- 
 selves only, but only provisionally, and in trust for the rest of 
 mankind, so now, the gospel was to be preached to the Jews first, 
 not because of a higher right, but because their prior knowledge 
 of God put them in advance of the heathen world. So Christ 
 commanded to begin at Jerusalem ; so Paul always began at the 
 synagogue. It was merely good policy to build on a foundation 
 already laid. 
 
 Verse 17. For in it is revealed God's [plan of] justifi- 
 cation from faith, with a view to faith ; as it has been 
 written: "But the just from faith will live [have life]." 
 (Hab. ii, 4.) 
 
 This much-controverted verse is the introduction to the dis- 
 cussion in the epistle ; but it is not, as so commonly held, a state- 
 ment of the great theme of the epistle. The fundaijaental thesis 
 which Paul discusses is really found in the question: "Is God 
 God of Jews only? is he not God of Gentiles also?" (Rom. 
 iii, 29.) The apostle proposes, as his main purpose, to discuss 
 against the assumption of the .Tews, the question, "Who then 
 may be saved?" But, first of all, yet only as incident to this 
 main purpose, he needs to discuss the other grave question, 
 
 *" First" Is ail adverb, as If with the i-onseiit of the Dictionaries we 
 iiilfj;ht .say '• tlrstly." FVir a slinllar aiiihigulty In this word, see 1 Thess. 
 iv, 16. "The dead in Christ will rl.se flr.st [firstly];" that Is, not they, the 
 first ones, but this as the first act. or, " In the first place." 
 
ROMANS I, 17. 79 
 
 " How [on what basis] may men be saved?" This latter question 
 is the one that emerges in this verse. 
 
 The passage opens with the logical conjunction for, whose 
 connection and importance in Paul's argumentation is not always 
 duly apprehended. We shall have frequent occasion to call atten- 
 tion to it. Notice the connection here ; the word " for" refers to 
 the words "every man" in the previous verse. The gospel is 
 God's power unto salvation to every man, whether Jew or Greek ; 
 to EVERY man, I say; for in it is revealed God's method of jus- 
 tification ; not as the Jews thought from works of law, which are 
 possible to no man, but from faith, which is possible for all men. 
 Nevertheless, though this verse is not the thesis of the epistle, 
 its several terms, in words and phrases, are the most important 
 in the epistle, and in the apostle's theology; justification, 
 " God's way of justification," faith, just from faith, with a view 
 to faith, Ufe, and will have life. On the proper understanding 
 of these terms turns the exegesis of the epistle and a consistent 
 exposition of " Paul's gospel." 
 
 The Greek word,* here correctly translated justification, is al- 
 ways represented, or, rather, misrepresented, in the Authorized 
 and Revised Versions of Paul's Epistles, by the word righteousness. 
 This English word is an unfortunate rendering; indeed, in these 
 Epistles, it never expresses the meaning of the Greek word ; and, 
 therefore, can never come into the line of the apostle's thought 
 and argument. This English word, " righteousness," is a term of 
 ethical significance, and is synonymous, or almost synonymous, in 
 popular apprehension, and in theological acceptation, with the 
 word ''holiness." It always involves the notion of character, of 
 upright life and affections. Consistently with this notion, and 
 correctly, Webster's Dictionary defines the word " righteous- 
 ness" as /loZiness, ptfr%; and adds the remark: "Righteousness, 
 as used in Scripture and theology, in which it chiefly occurs, is 
 nearly equivalent to holiness, comprehending holy principles, and 
 affections of heart, and conformity of life to the divine law." 
 This definition of the English word " righteousness" will be gen- 
 erally accepted by English scholars as exhaustive and correct. 
 And, with this sense, the word " righteousness" does not express 
 the sense of the apostle's Greek word. In Paul's writing, if not 
 
 * AiKaioffijvTi ; found thirty-four times In Romans, twenty-four times In 
 the other Pauline epistles. 
 
80 EXPnSTTTOX. 
 
 elsewhere in the New Testament, the Greek word is a legal or 
 forensic term, exclusively. It does not mean righteousness, that is, 
 approved moral character, or "holiness ;" but it means justification, 
 that is, exculpation from guilt, or right-standing, before the law. 
 
 Whatever may have been the significance once of the English 
 word " righteoHS)u'ss,"- it clearly does not now express the mean- 
 ing of the Greek word in this epistle ; and it is unfortunate that 
 it should have been perpetuated in our translations of the Bible. 
 No reader ever gets out of this English word the right sense of the 
 Pauline passages in which it stands, or ever apprehends Paul's line 
 of argument. Most commentators, with a consciousness that the 
 English word is not an adequate equivalent of the Greek word, 
 realize the need of large explanation of the word ; but unfortunately 
 their explanations do not explain. It is difficult even for a verbal 
 expert or a theological athlete to wrest an ethical term to express 
 a forensic concept. But Paul's Greek word was a commonplace 
 in the vocabulary of the synagogue, and of the Christian Church 
 in his day. It expressed to all hearers a forensic notion, and once 
 apprehended did not need long discourse to explain it. Nor, if our 
 English Bible gave the proper English equivalent of the Greek 
 word in these sixty passages, would commentators, nowadays, 
 need to waste their effort in giving (as most of them do), a wholly 
 mistaken exegesis of the passages. 
 
 Paul's Greek word, for which justification is the exact English 
 equivalent, expresses in Paul's writings, either, first, the divine 
 way of justifying the sinner, that is, of acquitting him from his 
 guilt; or, secondly, the resultant state of justification, or acquit- 
 tance from guilt. Both senses frequently occur ; and both are 
 found in the passage, " To him that has faith on God who justi- 
 fies the ungodly man, his faith is reckoned unto justification." 
 (Rom. iv, 5.) It is with these meanings, these only, of the word, 
 that we can keep in touch with Paul's line of thought or argument. 
 
 *Tho Greek word was translated by Wyclif, and by Tyndale, by the 
 old word " Rlghtwlseness," which was the only purely Saxon word they 
 could command for the Greek " Si/catoo-i/j/i?," or tlie Latin " justiflcatio." 
 This word meant " right-ways-ness," right-standing with the law. The 
 second syllable In "right-ifise-ness" lias no connection with the adjec- 
 tive "wise;" but Is the adverbial element found in " likeicjV," and in 
 "aUvays." The word has been perpetuated In the English Bible, a little 
 changed In form, but completely warped in signification. So that, unfor- 
 tunately for English readers, and for theological teaching, the word "right- 
 eousness," instead of being a version, is now a perversion of the apostle's 
 meaning. 
 
ROMANS I, 11. 81 
 
 It is certainly one of the remarkable literary infelicities of 
 the current English translations of the Bible, followed by commen- 
 tators and theological writers, that Paul's Greek verb hiKaiovv, 
 "justify," which occurs fifteen times in this epistle, and twelve 
 times in his other epistles, should always be translated by the 
 correct word " to justify ;" and, at the same time (and often in 
 the same sentence, as in the instance quoted just above), the 
 substantive hiKo-ioaiiv-q, "justification," cognate with the verb in 
 derivation and meaning, should never, out of sixty instances, be 
 translated by the correct word, " justification," or by some equiv- 
 alent forensic term, as pardon, forgiveness, acquittal, but always 
 by " righteousness," a purely ethical term. 
 
 Paul's Greek vocabulary was sufficiently large and discrimi- 
 nated in meaning to express his doctrinal concepts definitely 
 and distinctly. We need not go astray 'in tracing his thoughts. 
 Paul used the words " just," " justification," " to justify,"* always 
 as forensic terms, expressing the relation of men to the law of 
 rewards and penalties. He used the words " holy," " holiness," 
 or, " sanctification," "to sanctify,"! as ethical terms, expressing 
 character, moral condition. And he never confounded the words 
 of the two groups. 
 
 But there is a striking fact in the statistics of the apostle's use 
 of the two groups. Of the forensic words "justification" and 
 " justify," there are fifty-one instances in this epistle ; of the 
 ethical words "sanctification" and "sanctify" (or "holiness"), 
 there are twelve instances. The explanation of the disparity is 
 simple. Paul's sole aiin in the epistle leads him to the forensic 
 line of thought; this occupies the entire field. His references to 
 ethical points are incidental, few, and brief ; and might be omitted 
 without disturbing his argument. 
 
 The teaching of the New Testament, properly understood, 
 clearly discriminates justification fi-om righteousness (or holiness, 
 or sanctification). But the distinction has not always been under- 
 stood by theologians, or indicated or vindicated in their systems. 
 Confusion of thought in their theological systems and discussions, 
 easily follows hard upon the confusion of the Scriptural terms. 
 Jerome's Vulgate * (A. D. 400) translated the Greek word for 
 "justification" sometimes by " justitia," and sometimes by 
 " justificatio." The first word, which is quite classical, was not so 
 much a mistranslation as, it was equivocal; for it might have the 
 
 6 
 
82 EXPOSITIOX. 
 
 correct forensic sense. But later on, AuRustine (A. D. 430), who 
 did not road Groeiv, misunderstood " juatitiu" as meaning "just- 
 ness " ethically, that is, a regenerate state ; and not, or not merely, 
 tlie forensic net of justification, that is, the judicial paitlon of sin ; 
 and he adopted tliis ethical sense in his theological writings. The 
 Catholic Church MCcept(Hl Augustine's views; and the Council of 
 Trent says: "Justification is not the mere remission of sins, but 
 also sanctification and renewal of the inner man." (Session vi, 
 Chap, vii.) This misunderstanding of the word leads to a mis- 
 conception of the plan of justification in theodicy, and of its place 
 in theology. All the Pauline usage of the word is against the 
 Catholic extension of its signification. It means " remission of 
 sin," that is, acquittance from the guilt of sin ; and it never means 
 cleansing from the stain of sin; it never means regeneration; it 
 never means righteousness. 
 
 Now, in the text before us, the woi-d used is " justification," — 
 "God's [plan of] justification." God's way of justifying sinners 
 from faith as contradistinguished from the Jew's scheme of justi- 
 fication fi'om works. We should emphasize the word God's here. 
 It is not, as the English translations give it, " the righteousness of 
 God," in any possible sense of that word, or of that phrase. It is 
 not, subjectively, God's personal righteousness, the eternal, ethical 
 atti'ibute of his character. That the apostle's expression here, 
 can not mean "the righteousness of God," his inherent personal 
 attribute, is clear from the fact that his phraseology, for the same 
 concept as here, is sometimes different. In Phil. iii,9 we have the 
 expression: " the justification /rojn God," * where, of course, the 
 sense can not be "God's righteousness." Nor, again, is it God's 
 judicial rectitude, or right-dealing; for this meaning will not suit 
 the context. It is, objectively, God's eternal scheme, or provision, 
 for dealing, when the exigency arose, with the problem of man's 
 sin and recovery ; it is his " plan of justification " t for fallen men, 
 which he devised of old, " having found a ransom." (Jobxxxiii, 24.) 
 
 This is the sense of the word everywhere in Paul's epistles. 
 
 * rijv iK 0eov SiKaioaimtP. 
 
 tWesloy, In his "Notes on the New Testament," wrlten In 17.54, had 
 not yet caught the apostle's concept, nnd misled by the English word 
 "righteousness," stumbled In his explanation of this verse; but eight years 
 later, In 1762, he wrote: "I believe the expression 'Righteousness of God' 
 means God's method of justifying sinners, as in Rom. 1, 17: ' For therein la 
 the righteousness of God revealed;' that Is, his way of justifying sinners." 
 "Thoughts on Imputed Righteousness." Works, Vol. VI, 101. 
 
ROMANS I, 11. 83 
 
 It is, for example, the only possible sense of the word in another 
 passage in this epistle: " For the Jews ignoring God's plan of jus- 
 tification [from faith], and seeking to establish tlieir own j)]an of 
 justification [from works], did not submit themselves to God's plan 
 of justification." (Rom. x, 3.) So also, Paul wrote to the Philip- 
 pians words even more explicit, to the same effect: " That I may 
 be found in Christ, not having a justification of my own, the one 
 from Law ; but the justification through faith in Christ, the justi- 
 fication from God, upon the ground of faith." (Phil, iii, 9.) 
 This, too, is the only possible sense of the word in another pas- 
 sage where the contrast between KaraKpiffis "condemnation," and 
 SiKaioffvv-q compels us to give the latter the sense of "justifica- 
 tion:" " If the dispensation of condemnation was glorious, much 
 rather does the dispensation of justification abound in glory." 
 (2 Cor. iii, 9.) 
 
 This then, this only, is what this word "justification" ex- 
 pressed to the synagogue, and to the apostle Paul, and to the 
 primitive Christian Church. The concept lies at the very basis of 
 all religious tliought the world over. There is among men a uni- 
 versal sense of demerit, and a universal anxiety to be acquit from 
 guilt. This feeling of ill-desert and of guilt may in some instances 
 be vague ; but it exists even among the lowest savages. And in 
 proportion as men have clearer ethical ideas, the feeling of con- 
 demnation grows clearer and stronger, and the solicitude for relief 
 more urgent. Men everywhere are religious for this, one end. 
 The great question of all religions, the false i-eligions as well as the 
 true, is embodied in the word of Bildad the Shuhite. " How shall 
 men be justified [or stand acquit] with God." (Job xxv, 4.) 
 The Jews hoped for favor with God, as being " his elect people ;" 
 but they all the same claimed to merit their justification from 
 works of law. In the same way the ethnic religions all prescribe 
 the doing of something to merit favor witli God, or, at least, to 
 avert his wrath. They enjoin the maceration of the body ; the 
 offering of costly sacrifices ; of precious things ; the blood of 
 animals ; the life of human victims, even of those dearest to them ; 
 " they slay their first-born for their transgression, the fruit of 
 their body for the sin of their soul." (Micah vi, 7.) In this mat- 
 ter, then, Jews and heathen stand substantially on the same 
 footing. They give a venal God something, that they may get 
 something back. But Paul declares the Jewish claim (and by 
 parity, the heathen) inadmissible: "From works of law will no 
 
S4 EXPOSITION. 
 
 flesh be justified before him." (Rom. ill, 20.) The only hope of 
 justification for all uumi, is throujih faith in Jesus Christ. 
 
 II. The word faith is another of the momentous terms in this 
 verse ; a word which plays a leading part in Paul's writings, 
 especially in his contention against the Jewish claim to be justi- 
 fied from works. 
 
 The careful reader of tlie Bible finds no more mai'ked con- 
 trast between the Old Testament and the New than in their 
 respective vocabularies. The New Testament, expressive of gos- 
 pel ideas and doctrines, has a rich store of new words, or of 
 words with enlarged senses, that have little or no place in the 
 Old Testament. One of these is the word " faith." In the En- 
 glish translation of the Old Testament this term is found but 
 twice," in Deut. xxxii, 20, and in the famous i)assage in Habak- 
 kuk, so often quoted, with a variation, in the New Testament, 
 " But the just shall live by his faith " (Hab. ii,4). Yet if the woi-d 
 is not often found in the Old Testament, the thing itself was not 
 unknown to the patriarchs. The writer of "Hebrews" gives 
 some grand instances of this early faith, and declares of those 
 eldest sons of men that they " all died in (he faith, not having re- 
 ceived the proinises, but having seen them from afar, and saluted 
 them." (Heb. xi, 13.) But in the New Testament, the Greek woi-d 
 for faith, irlaTis, occurs about two hundred and fifty times, and the 
 Greek verb viaTtikiv, " to have faith," "to faith a thing," t usually 
 translated "to believe," occurs about as many times more. One 
 at least (usually both) of these words occurs in every book in the 
 New Testament, except the two short letters of John. It is worthy 
 of note that in the Gospel of John the noun "faith" does not occur 
 at all, but the verb, "to believe," "to have faith," ninety-five 
 times. 
 
 The word faith has several special meanings in the Scriptures, 
 accoi-ding as it expresses the exercises of the intellectual faculties, 
 or of the sensibilities, or of the higher religious faculty of the 
 will. 
 
 •The Hebrew word, however, occurs about fifty times. It Is usually 
 transliitecl by words donoUng /aitJi/ulne.i.i, truth. Fuerst's Hebrew Lexicon 
 says that it never occurs In the sense of faith, which It did not take until 
 the latest period of the language. 
 
 + Thls verb belongs to the old English vocabulary. Shakespeare says: 
 "Would the reposal of trust In thee make thy words /ailhedf' King 
 l.i'RT II, 1, 7'.'. It Is unfortunate tliat this English verb has not made good 
 Its place In literary, and especially in theological usage. 
 
ROMANS I, 17. 85 
 
 1. 1. Faith may denote, objectively, the creed; the system of 
 doctrines accepted by the Church; for example: "He preaches 
 thQ faith which he once destroyed" (Gal. i, 23); "The faith 
 once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3); 'Your most holy 
 faith" (Jude 20). 
 
 2. Faith may denote, subjectively, credence; an intellectual, 
 a scientific persuasion of any fact, or historical belief of any thing 
 taught; e. g., "Thou believest [hast faith] that there is one God. 
 . . . The devils also believe.'^ (James ii, 19.) This exercise of 
 faith is purely intellectual ; and has no saving value. 
 
 II. 3. The word may denote fidelity, or faithfulness to obliga- 
 tion ; for example: "Shall their unfaith annul the faith [faith- 
 fulness] of God?" (Rom. iii, 3) ; "By their unfaith [unfaithful- 
 ness] they were broken out; but thou by thy faith [fidelity] 
 standest " (Rom. xi, 20). 
 
 4. Faith may denote confidence, trust in another; for ex- 
 ample, "That I may be comforted while with you, through your 
 faith [personal confidence] and mine, in each other." (Rom. 
 i,12.) 
 
 These exercises of faith, in Nos. 3 and 4, are subjective and 
 ethical ; but they are not of such religious character as God 
 reckons for justification. Even bad men have these forms of 
 faith. 
 
 III. 5. Faith may denote, finally, the Christian grace of trust, 
 or reliance on Christ as the Redeemer and Savior. Faith is the 
 soul's incumbency, or staying of itself on the provisions of the 
 gospel. This is the spiritual, religious, saving exercise of faith : 
 "With the heart, faith is exercised unto justification." (Rom. 
 X, 10.) It is the highest and gi-andest exercise of the spiritual 
 faculty, the will, and is the appointed condition and channel for 
 the pardoning grace of God. "By grace [that is, gratis] ye have 
 been saved, through faith ; and that is not of yourselves ; it is the 
 gift of God." (Eph. ii, 8.) 
 
 The verb is revealed suggests that the gospel is not new in 
 itself; only what has previously existed can be " revealed." God's 
 plan of justification from faith was established of old ; the reve- 
 lation of it (in its fullness) is now rtew. "In former generations 
 it was not made known [fully] to the sons of men, as it was now 
 revealed to his holy apostles and prophets." (Eph. iii, 5.) Yet 
 this plan is the only plan on which God has ever worked. It is 
 said of Abraham that "he had faith in God, and his faith was 
 
86 EXPOSITION. 
 
 rt'ckoncd to him unto justification." (Rom. iv, 3.) No man ever 
 found acceptance with God in any other waj'. Even in the case of 
 tliose wlio, in earliest days, or in heathen lands, thought to work 
 out, to earn, their salvation by good works, God, in his willingness 
 and ability to save, ccjunted the inotire as an implicit faith; and 
 thougli he did not accept the works, he accepted the latent faith 
 for justification. But now the gospel reveals, makes known, to 
 men the {)rinial, and normal, and only plan of salvation, — justifi- 
 cation from faith. 
 
 That in this vei*se the words justification from faith are to 
 be construed together is shown by the invariable sequence of these 
 words elsewhere. Paul declares: " We reckon that man Isjustitiid 
 by faith [wiffTti] , ai)art from works of law." (Kom. iii, 28.) This is the 
 keynote to Paul's argument, and to the theology of the Chris- 
 tian Church. It is the articulus atantis vel cadentis ecelesise. We 
 read: "God will justify the circumscision /roni faith [^k irfa-rewj] 
 (Rom. iii, 30) ; " Having been justified from [iK] faith, we have 
 peace" (Rom. v, 1) ; "The Gentiles attained justification frovi [iK] 
 faith" (Rom. ix, 30) ; "The justification from [^k] faith . . . says, 
 the word is near thee, in thy heart " (Rom. x, 6-8) ; " Knowing that 
 man is justified through [5id] faith . . . we had faith that we may 
 be justified from [iK] faith" (Gal. ii, 16); "We await the hope 
 of justification from [iK] faith" (Gal. v, 5). The cumulative evi- 
 dence from Paul's own writings is overwhelming that this is the 
 only admissible construction of the first words of this verse : "God's 
 plan of justification from faith is revealed in the gospel." And it 
 is the only construction, and is the only sense which the apostle 
 attaches to the quotation in this verse from Habakkuk: "The just 
 from faith will live." (Hab. ii, 4.) 
 
 The connection and meaning of the words next following: 
 unto faith (els irlanv), or better, " with a view to faith" is vari- 
 ously given. 1. The connection which joins the words " from faith 
 unto faith" in continuous sense, makes them express a grada- 
 tional progress, or climax in religious experience, "from one degree 
 of faith to another." This interpretation, tliough not destitute of 
 meaning, and apparently jwstifii'd by similar (but not the same) 
 construction with other words elsewhere [as, for example, "They 
 go from strength to strength" (Ps. Ixxxiv, 7), and "They are 
 changed from glory to glory" (2 Cor. iii, 18)] is yet, not in the 
 line of the apostle's argument, which does not aim to distinguish 
 between dififerent degrees of faith, the incipient and the perfected, 
 
ROMANS I, 17. 87 
 
 but distinguishes between things that are generically dififerent, — 
 on the one hand, a faith, which is already absolute and complete ; 
 and which is presupposed as the one saving condition of the gospel, 
 and, on the other hand, works of law, the non-saving reliance and 
 boast of the Jews. 2. Another combination connects the words 
 " unto faith " with the verb " revealed." If we look at the English 
 words only, this connection seems grammatically possible ; but the 
 interpretation which makes the words " unto faith" mean " to the 
 expectant and receptive faith of the believer," though good in 
 itself, and evangelical (and apparently in accord with the language 
 of Rom. iii, 22, " God's justification has been manifested, . . . 
 through faith . . . unto all that have faith"), is also not in 
 the line of the apostle's argument ; and the sense is probably not 
 in accordance with the Greek. This interpretation would be pos- 
 sible, not as here with the preposition els, " into" or " unto," but 
 only with the dative case, ry wiffTei, " to faith," as an indirect limit 
 to the verb, (as in 1 Cor. ii, 10, " But to us God revealed it ;" and, 
 Eph. iii, 5, " It was revealed to the saints.")® But with the prep- 
 osition els, the clause "unto faith" must be counted a general 
 adverbial modifier of the verb, and with a telic significance. The 
 proper construction of words with the preposition els, is found in 
 Rom. vi, 16, 19. "As ye yielded your members to iniquity, imth a 
 view to iniquity, so now yield them to justification, uith a view 
 to sanctification." Accordingly, 3, we interpret the passage as 
 meaning " God's plan of justification from faith was revealed in 
 the gospel with a view to faith ;" that is, to excite faith in the 
 hearer, and thus to do away with reliance on works. 
 
 The concluding words in the verse, The just from faith will 
 live, are a quotation from Habakkuk. They were uttered in the 
 last days of the Hebrew commonwealth, about B. C. 605. Habak- 
 kuk, prophet and patriot as well, foresees the invasion of his 
 country by Nebuchadnezzar ; and foretells calamity to the pre- 
 sumptuous Jew, but safety to the righteous Jew. Henderson 
 well translates, for Habakkuk's sense: 
 
 " Behold the proud ! his soul is not right within him ; 
 
 But the righteous shall live [i. e., will save his life], by his 
 faith." (Hab. ii, 4.) 
 
 In this verse, the word faith obviously means fidelity, or obe- 
 dience to God. The last clause is famous in New Testament con- 
 
 i]ljuv di aireKoXv^tv 6 6f6s. dveKaXiKpOr] rots d7i'ots. 
 
88 EXPOSITION. 
 
 nections. It is quoted oiict> and a^ain by Paul (Rom. i, 17; Gal. 
 iii, 11), and once by the author of Hebrews (x, 38). And Luther, 
 in the crisis of his ri-ligious struf^gle, in the midst of some humili- 
 ating penance at Rome, suddenly recalled these words, "The just 
 shall live hij faith;" and instantly and forever recoiled from his 
 superstition. It was a memorable incident for him ; but though he 
 gave the woi'ds the usual evangelical sense, he did not give them 
 the sense of the apostle. What is the meaning in the prophet's 
 Hebrew text? and what is the meaning in these New Testament 
 quotations ? 
 
 The offln- of the words in the Hebrew, and in the Septuagint, 
 and in the Greek Testament, is that given above: " The just from 
 faith will live." And in both languages the words may be dis- 
 tributed grammatically and logically in either of two ways, ac- 
 cording as the prepositional phrase "from faith" is connected in 
 thought as an adverb with the verb " will live," or as an adjective, 
 with the noun "just." We shall then have two alternatives: 
 1. " The just— from faith will live ;" or, 2. " The just from faith- 
 will live." The difference is fundamental, involving the explana- 
 tion of th(' words severally, and the whole tenor of the Habak- 
 kukian saying, and of the Pauline quotation. 
 
 Undoubtedly, in the Masoretic text of the Bible, the disjunc- 
 tive accent (Tiphka), of the Hebrew word for " the just," gives 
 the former construction for the saying as it is in the English 
 Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New: " The just — will 
 live by faith." • This grammatical notation of the synagogue, 
 dates, however, only from about A. D. 600, and so has in itself no 
 final authority ; but aside from this late notation of the Hebrew 
 scholars, clearly their interpretation was right ; and this was the 
 only possible connection in Habakkuk's own mind. It is plain 
 that the prophet meant to say that the righteous man should not be 
 slain by the Chaldeans, but should save his life by his faithfulness 
 to God. .\ccoi*dingly, we can not hold that the passage in Habak- 
 kuk was designed to express the Pauline doctrine of justification 
 from faith ; for the connection in which it stands in the Hebrew 
 does not admit of this specific meaning. The intei'pretation of the 
 synagogue is the correct one for the Hebrew text. 
 
 But it is equally plain that the words of Habakkuk, if read 
 independently of the original connection, and of the present 
 Hebrew accentuation, are capable verbally, grammatically, of the 
 other construction, " The just by faith — will live," and therefore 
 
ROMANS I, 17. 89 
 
 of another interpretation. The words, too, severally, will now 
 take on modified meanings to fit them for the new thought. This 
 different construction for the words, and diffei-ent interpretation 
 for the sense, is the one which Paul gives to the saying, to express 
 the Christian dogma of justification from faith, and the consequent 
 eternal life of the believer. This new dogmatic use of the saying 
 was all the easier to Paul, from the well-known consecution of the 
 words in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint ; the latter of which 
 Paul doubtless here had in mind. At all events, whether he had 
 the Hebrew (without accents), or the Septuagint, before him, the 
 now Christian rabbi read into the familiar saying a higher mean- 
 ing than it had borne to him in the school of Gamaliel, or in the 
 synagogue service. Yet, while Paul reverses the logical connec- 
 tion of the words as they stand in the Hebrew, and reads into the 
 saying this new sense, all that was of ethical value in it of old, 
 remains ; and it is now simply lifted from the plane of practical 
 Old Testament piety and obedience, to the expression of the dis- 
 tinctive Christian concept and dogma, that man is justified not by 
 works, but from faith ; and that the man so justified from faith, 
 will not die forever, but will have eternal life: " He that is just 
 from faith will have life." 
 
 In Habakkuk the words just, faith, live, are terms substantially 
 of e</iicaZ significance ; in Paul they are tei'ms substantially of 
 forensic note. We have already discussed the word faith : it re- 
 mains that we discuss the other two words. 
 
 1. Just: In Habakkuk the word "just" means pious: it 
 describes the man who has habitually lived an upright (though we 
 can not say a perfect) life, and is what we conventionally call a 
 righteous man, innocent of ovei-t offense. This sense of the word 
 is found in the saying: "Against a, just man [a godly, upright man] 
 Law does not lie." (1 Tim. i, 9.) It is found in a higher sense in 
 regard to Jesus: " Ye refused the Holy and Just One." (Acts iii, 
 14.) This popular meaning is the evident sense of the word in 
 Habakkuk; but Paul, in his citation of the Habakkukian saying, 
 uses the word "just," not in the conventional sense of good or 
 pious (which may have various shades of meaning), but in the legal, 
 or forensic, sense of acquit, free from guilt (which has but one abso- 
 lute meaning). The word describes, not what a man habitually is, 
 ethically, or as a religious man, but what he forensically becomes 
 in the sight of the law, as the result of faith. The logic of the 
 connection decides absolutely for this sense of the quotation. 
 
90 EXPOSITION. 
 
 That the arrangement of the woi-ds in the English translations, 
 both Authorized and Revised, and the sense conveyed by them 
 can not be correct, to express Paul's concept, is shown by the fol- 
 lowing consideration : 
 
 The woi-d "just," if taken apart from the prepositional phrase 
 "from faith," as is assumed by the reading, "The just — will live 
 from faith," assumes that the person described is already just 
 to begin with, that is, that he must be counted absolutely free 
 from offnse and guilt; but of this just person the apostle de- 
 clares that he " will live from faith." But what does this declara- 
 tion, " will live from faith," mean, when spoken of such a subject? 
 It must mean one of two things; either, first, that the "just" 
 man "will lead his [daily] life from faith;" or, secondly, that he 
 "will attain to [eternal] life from faith." But neither of these 
 senses is in accord with Paul's thought in this sentence, nor in 
 accoi*d with the New Testament concept of the place of faith in 
 the gospel plan. A man who is sinful may become " justified from 
 faith" in Christ; and a converted sinner may "lead his life from 
 faith" in Christ (Gal. ii, 20), and not from works. But a man 
 who as this construction of the sentence assumes, is "just," to 
 start with — that is, has never been guilty of offense (as, for ex- 
 ample, Adam before he fell, the divine Son of God, the angels in 
 heaven) — gets nothing "from faith." He neither (on the first 
 hypothesis) "leads his daily life from faith " in Christ, but from 
 works ; nor (on the second hypothesis) attains to eternal life from 
 faith in Christ, but from works. To a "just man," a man who is 
 just, in this absolute sense of the word, both these consequences 
 result, not "from faith" in Christ, as the Redeemer from sin, but 
 from his own obedience to law ; and his title to life is " from works 
 of law:" as it is said, "Moses describes the justification that is 
 from law, that the man who has done its works will live [have 
 eternal life] in it." (Rom. x, 5.) 
 
 It follows that the only possible construction of the oft-quoted 
 sentence, in Paul's evangelical sense of the saying, is: " The just 
 from faith — will live ;" that is, any sinner (and Paul's discourse is 
 not of just men but of sinners) who has been justified (or acquit of 
 his guilt) from faith will have eternal life. Paul is not alleging, as 
 Habakkuk, that " the pious Jew will live [be delivered alive from 
 the Chaldeans] by his fidelity to God;" nor is he alleging (as he 
 is usually understood), that " the pious man will live his daily life 
 by the rule of faith," whatever that may mean ; but is alleging. 
 
ROMANS I, 18. 91 
 
 in the gospel sense which he attaches to the saying, that the man, 
 the sinful man, who has been justified from his sin and guilt, by 
 his faith in Christ (and is therefore no longer amenable to the 
 penalty of eternal death) will have eternal life. Christ himself 
 declares this principle, and interprets the words, "will have 
 life," " Verily, verily, I say to you that he that has faith on 
 me has eternal life." (John vi, 47.) 
 
 2. The word will live. 
 
 This verb, 'Wo live," is susceptible of different senses, which 
 must be ascertained from the connections. It may mean — 
 
 1. To be alive; or to come to life, physically, as opposed to 
 veKp6$, dead. (1) Literally : "This thy brother was dead, and lived 
 again" (Luke xv, 32) ; "Christ died and lived again, that he may 
 be Lord of dead men and living" (Rom. xiv, 9). (2) Metaphor- 
 ically: To be ethically alive. "I tvas alive once— and I died" 
 (Rom. vii, 9) ; "Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead" 
 (Rev. iii, 1). 
 
 2. To go on one's way ; to continue one's course ; to lead one's 
 daily life. " If ye live after the flesh, ye will die." (Rom. viii, 13.) 
 
 3. To pass the time, to be employed, to demean one's self: 
 (1) Intransitively. "According to the strictest sect of our re- 
 ligion, I Zii'^'d a Pharisee" (Acts xxvi, 5). {2) Transitively. "The 
 life that I now live, I lire by faith" (Gal. ii, 20). 
 
 4. To find a livelihood: "The Lord ordained that they who 
 preach the gospel should live from the gospel." (1 Cor. ix, 14.) 
 
 5. To have eternal life; to be endowed with existence: "The 
 dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that have 
 heard ivill live" (John v, 25) : " If any one eat from this bread, 
 he will live forever" (John vi, 51) ; " If ye put to death the deeds 
 of the body, ye will live " (Rom. viii, 13). 
 
 Now, in the text before us, the fifth of those meanings is clearly 
 the appropriate one: "He that is justified from faith will have 
 eternal life ;" and he is the only one that will have life, " for from 
 works of law will no man be justified." 
 
 Verse 18. For God's wrath is revealed from heaven 
 against all impiety and unrighteousness of men, who 
 hinder the truth in vmrighteousness. 
 
 The conjunction for connects the thought back to the word 
 " justification," in the preceding verse. This term, which means 
 "acquittal from guilt," implies the fact of sin, and points to the 
 
92 EXPOSITION. 
 
 condition of man under win, and to God's attitude towai*ds it. 
 God's justification from faith is revealed to the world, with a view 
 to stimulate faith; but tiiere is also revealed (made known to the 
 world) God's wrath against all unright<'ousncs9 of men, with a 
 view to restrain men from it. The word for wrath, sometimes 
 also translated " anger," is but the judicial indignation and 
 resentment of a Holy Being towards sin. Anger, which properly 
 is not a malignant passion, is just as normal to the character of 
 God as to man, who was made in his moral likeness. A being 
 rightly constituted can not avoid this feeling when the occasion 
 arises, and ought not to avoid it. Not the emotion of anger, but 
 tlie improper indulgence of it is wrong. Paul commands, " Be 
 angry;" but adds this admonition, "and sin not." (Eph. iv, 26.) 
 Vengeance (vindictiveness), is never right for man: but "Ven- 
 geance [vindication], is mine, says the Lord." (Rom. xii, 19.) 
 
 The first clause of the verse perhaps means not only that the 
 fact of God's anger was declared from heaven, whether thi'ough 
 the voice of inspiration, or in the conscience of men (though both 
 of these things are also true) ; but also that his jirimitive wrath 
 is practically exhibited in the world, in the unhappy experience of 
 sinnei'S. 
 
 The words impiety and unrighteousness (injustice), name 
 the two forms of sin, which an^ the objects of God's anger, — 
 directed, the one against God, the other against man. The word 
 all in this clause, as always in Paul's writings, must be taken in 
 its largest latitude. The word here contemplates not the Gentile 
 world only, though first in this catalogue of wicked men ; but also 
 the Jewish world. The remainder of this chapter describes the 
 sins of the Gentiles especially. The second chapter describes the 
 sins of the Jews. 
 
 The Greek verb, here translated hinder, has the double and 
 opposite senses of maintaining and of impeding. In Luke the 
 woi"d has the former sense: " Having heard the word, they hold it 
 fast in a good and honest heart." (Luke viii, 15.) In our present 
 passage, it has the other meaning: "Men hold hack [hinder] the 
 truth;" they keep it from running, and being glorified in its mis- 
 sion. The word truth in this description of the Gentile world can 
 not mean the definite truth of revelation ; but rather so much of 
 the general knowledge of God as is found among men, from the 
 primitive tradition and from the light of natural religion, as is 
 shown by the next verses. 
 
RO}rANS T. 19, 20. 93 
 
 Verse 19. Because so much of God as is known is 
 manifest in them ; for God manifested it to them. 
 
 The conjunction because relates back to the assumed mass 
 of truth, which the heathen know of, but " hinder." They hinder 
 the truth, the trutli which enlightens every man that comes into 
 the world. This truth is the primitive and true, though imper- 
 fect, knowledge of God which came down from the earliest reve- 
 lation, the common heritage of man. It was not the full-orbed 
 knowledge of God which was given in later generations. It was 
 only so much of God as is kno'wn to all men, his being, and 
 his natural attributes ; for this much God manifested to them. 
 This aorist tense carries the act back to the original constitution 
 of men as moral beings and their first knowledge of God. The 
 image of God in man, and his moral intuition of God, though 
 blurred, has not been lost. All men have clear perceptions of 
 moral distinctions. God has never left himself without this 
 attestation of himself. This never absent recognition of God is 
 reaffirmed, more definitely, in the next verse : "Ever since the 
 creation of the world, his attributes are seen." 
 
 Verse 20. For his unseen attributes, both his eternal 
 power and divinity, since the creation of the w^orld are 
 clearly seen, being understood by his works ; so that they 
 are w^ithout excuse. 
 
 These are the attributes which are revealed by the light of na- 
 ture, the natural attributes which belong to God as an Infinite 
 Spirit, rather than the ethical attributes of holiness, goodness, and 
 justice, which belong to him as a moral Ruler, and which are not 
 revealed by natural theology. This is the utmost lesson of nat- 
 ural theology. It is not through God's works,' but by his revealed 
 Word, that we learn the greater lessons of religion and of eternal 
 life. 
 
 In this verse we have an excellent instance of the plays on 
 words, in which Paul so often indulges: God's unseen things are 
 seen. God's attributes, though unseen, are nevertheless clearly 
 seen by the spiritual ey<^ being understood by his w^orks. 
 In these words Paul affirms the value, sometimes disparaged, of 
 natural theology. For long centuries, and for the gi-eater part of 
 mankind, the teaching from his works was the only revelation of 
 God ; just as true, so far as it went, as the voice of prophet or 
 apostle. Both revelations, the Book of Nature, and the Book of 
 
94 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Revelation, are from one God, the Father of lights, the Father of 
 man. Tlic Old Testament also bears the same testimony as Paul 
 to the value of natural religion: 
 
 "The heavens declare the glory of God. . . . 
 
 Day unto day pours forth speech. . . . 
 
 But there is no speech, no words : 
 
 Nowhere is their voice heard: 
 
 Yet to all tlie eartli has gone out their strain." — Psa. xix. 
 So far the heathen world could walk liand in hand with the j)salm- 
 ist, and with the Christian apostle. Tliey all alike could be sure 
 that there is a God, and that he rules in the affairs of men. To 
 know thus much implied that there was yet more to know ; the 
 Infinite One would not forever hide himself. The wisest of the 
 heathen yearned for this fuller revelation ; and felt that it would 
 come. But even apart from the revealed Word, men had sufficient 
 light to be without excuse for bad lives. The first practical effect 
 of God's law, natural or revealed, is to bring sin into clear light, 
 and to condemn it. 
 
 Verse 21. Because, having come to know God, they 
 did not glorify him as God, or thank him ; nay, but they 
 became vain in their reasonings, and their foolish heart 
 was darkened. 
 
 They came to know God — that is, to recognize his being and 
 attributes— but they did not give him the glory which was his due 
 as the Creator and the Giver of " life and breath, and all things ;" 
 and they did not thank him for these gifts of his providence. " Here 
 was the condemnation, that light [on these fundamental points] 
 having come into the world, men [though they saw the light] nev- 
 ertheless loved darkness rather than light; for their works ivere 
 evil." (John iii, 19.) 
 
 The strong adversative conjunction, at the beginning of the 
 second half of the verse, whose force may be expressed by the 
 words nay, but, or "but, on the other hand," point to the true 
 explanation of the verb became vain. In the Old Testament, 
 the words "vain, vanity," often denote idolatry, the worship of 
 gods that are not gods, but mere nothingness. "Israel followed 
 vanity [false gods], and became vain [idolatrous]." (2Kingsxvii, 
 15.) This is the meaning liere. The lieathen fall into the folly, 
 fatuousness, of idolatry. The word 5ia\oyi<Tn6i, here translated 
 reasonings is mostly used in a disparaging sense, almost equiva- 
 
ROMANS I. S2, SS. 96 
 
 lent to "conceits," or "quibbles." The debasement of the hea- 
 tlien in the religious scale was due, not to the will of God, or to 
 their unfavorable circumstances, with only the light of nature; 
 but it was due to tlieir paltering with their own convictions and 
 consciences. 
 
 The apostle's thought is that man has deteriorated from a 
 primitive monotheism, to polytheism, to idolatry, to fetichism, to 
 bestiality. The golden age is behind the race ; and man is not de- 
 veloping into a higher and purer life. Ethically there has been no 
 " ascent of man," but only " descent and fall." Whatever the de- 
 velopments in the animal world in the eons past, at least man did 
 not begin in the zoological garden, but in the Garden of Eden. 
 The darkening of men's mind, and the hardening of their heart, was 
 self-incurred, and was the normal result of their own folly. God 
 gave them over to their own wickedness. Their lamps went out. 
 
 Verses 22, 23. Declaring themselves to be wise men 
 they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incor- 
 ruptible God for the sameness of image with corruptible 
 man, and birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping 
 things. 
 
 The first "words are sometimes referred to the philosophers of 
 Greece and Rome, in the era of their greatest refinement. But 
 the passage, as a whole, describes rather the original lapse of the 
 heathen into idolatry. The apostle says that men {all men, not 
 merely the leaders and thinkers, for these less than the others), 
 while professing to be reasonable beings, nevertheless fell into the 
 absurdity of idolatry, the grossest forms of idolatry. The prophets 
 long before Paul's time satirized this absurd idolatry. "With 
 part of the wood he roasts his meat, with part he warms himself, 
 and the residue he makes into a god, and worships it!" (Isa. xliv, 
 15.) "Their idols are the work of men's hands, they speak not, 
 they see not ; and they that make them are like them ;" that is, 
 wooden, stupid. (Ps. cxv, 4.) 
 
 The verb in the twenty-third verse, and the preposition follow- 
 ing it, ^Aa^av \v, are translated in the Authorized " changed into" 
 — that is, " transformed into" — which is impossible for this Greek. 
 The proper meaning is that of substitution, or putting off, of one 
 thing/or another. The translation here is "exchanged for." The 
 apostle's contemptuous feeling would be expressed exactly by our 
 colloquial word ^^ swapped for" — a word level with the action of 
 
96 EXPOSITION. 
 
 " fools." The verse shows how the heathen sank by regular grada- 
 tions from the spiritual worship of the Invisible (iod to the wor- 
 ^hip of images. "Four'-like, they "swapi)od" that great glory 
 for the image of corruptible man, as among the Greeks; then of 
 brute animals, as among the Egyptians ; then of serpents, as among 
 the lowest savages. Could fatuity and groveling sui)erstition go 
 further? or sell out worse? The word d/Mlutui, usually translated 
 " likeness," means "sameness," and in this place has "man" for 
 its limit, — " sameness with man." The woi*d is found also in 
 Rom. V, 14; vi, 5; viii, 3, and in Phil, ii, 7, in all of which places 
 it means "sameness." 
 
 Verses 24, 25. Wherefore God gave them up in the 
 Iviflts of their hearts unto uncleanness, so that their bodies 
 were dishonored among them ; who exchanged the truth 
 of God for the lie ; and they reverenced and served the 
 creature, beyond Him who created it, who is blessed for- 
 ever. Amen. 
 
 God withdrew the restraints of the Spirit from the heathen, 
 because of their willfulness, and left tliem to their lusts ; just as 
 he dealt with the chosen people. " Isi-ael would none of me ; so I 
 gave them up unto their own heart's lust." (Ps. Ixxxi, 11.) In 
 morals, as well as in nature, " like begets like." Vice indulged 
 leads with rapid steps to vice of yet more debasing kind. "Facilis 
 descensus Averni." But perhaps we have something more here 
 than the mere abandonment of the heathen to their own ways. 
 God's government is so planned that apostasy leads to infamy. 
 God not only passively permits this result, but punitively gives 
 over the apostate to corruptness of life. God bends himself to 
 man's bent. Yet God is not the author of sin, or responsible for 
 man's impurity ; and man even in the depths of sin and lust 
 remains consciously master of his own action, conscious of his 
 wickedness, conscious that he ought to repent, and conscious that 
 he can repent. 
 
 The last clause in the twenty-fourth verse, so that their bodies 
 w^ere dishonored, — is translated in the Authorized and the Re- 
 vised, to express God's punitive purpose, " that their bodies may be 
 dishonored." This translation is grammatically possible; but the 
 former accords better with the historical drift of the passage, and 
 the apostle's thought lies in this direction. The body is sacred; 
 it is the temple of man's personality ; and, in Paul's conception, it 
 
ROMANS I. ^6, 21. 97 
 
 is ''the temple of the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor. vi, 19.) Sensuality, 
 especially sexual uncleanness, dishonors the body. " It takes away 
 Christ's members, and makes them members of a harlot." (1 Cor. 
 vi, 15.) Promiscuous social impurity always accompanied idolatry. 
 The temples of the gods, esjiecially the Asiatic gods, and some 
 fanes of their worship in Greece, were but public brothels. The 
 temple of Venus at Corinth, from beneath whose shadow Paul 
 wrote this Epistle, was endowed with more than a thousand pub- 
 lic courtesans. 
 
 The twenty-fifth verse says, They exchanged the truth of 
 God for the lie. Both substantives are abstract ; and the latter, 
 "</je lie," takes the article after the model of the former. "The 
 truth of God," is the reality, the verity, of the divine nature ; " the 
 lie" is the /aZse show of reality, the idol, that has no substantive 
 existence. "An idol is nothing" (or, perhaps better," there is no 
 idol.") (1 Cor. viii, 4.) "They gave up [swapped off] the eternal 
 substance for — a nothing P' They reverenced and served the 
 creatiire beyond Him -who created it. This was the lowest 
 possible abysm of folly: they fell into fetichism; and found in 
 sticks, and stones, and snakes, gods to which they bowed down. 
 
 Verses 26, 27. On account of this, God gave them up 
 \into infamous passions : for both their females exchanged 
 the natural use into that against nature ; and in like 
 manner also the males, having left the natural use of the 
 female, burned in their lust towards one another, males 
 with males w^orking the indecency, and receiving in them- 
 selves the recompense of their error, w^hich w^as due. 
 
 The baser men's religious views were, the viler was their actual 
 life. They fell into unnatural lusts even below the level of the 
 animal instincts. Not even the beasts of the field offend against 
 nature as these men who were made in the image of God. This 
 description of lust, sinking even below bestiality, is not over- 
 drawn. Indeed, the contemporary classics abundantly show that 
 Paul's account is quite toned down. The apostle did not defile 
 his page with an adequate recital of what the classics describe in 
 the most unqualified language ; and seem even to gloat over. 
 The apostle counted it " a shame even to speak of the things done 
 by them in secret" (Eph. v, 12) — alas! not always in "secret." 
 The ancient heathen " gloried in their shame." In heathen lands 
 these abominations were not only tolerated and condoned, but 
 7 
 
98 EXPOSITION. 
 
 were sanctioned and encouruged by their religion. It was no im- 
 j)eachnient to anj' priest or jjriestess of any heathen God (except 
 barely the Vestals of Rome) to be guilty of the vilest offenses 
 against morality; and to many of them such a life was their 
 vowed and avowed service. Those things existed; and it was 
 needful for the apostle's argument that he should name them, 
 and trace them to their origin in tlic sinful heart; though he 
 gladly turns from their contemplation. True, some of the vices 
 here described exist in lands called Ciiristian, and some of them 
 are "regulated," or "licensed" h»j law! But they exist, not 
 under the banner of the Gospel, but only under its ban. Once 
 vice vaunted itself and flaunted its flag; now evil-doers put 
 screens before their doors and darken their front windows. 
 
 Verse 28. And. according- as they did not approve to 
 have God in recognition, God gave them up unto a repro- 
 bate mind, to do the things not becoming. 
 
 Here again we have God's adjusting the measure of his deal- 
 ings with man to the measure of their sin. This is well expressed 
 in Paul's play on the woi*ds, approved, reproved. 
 
 Verses 29, 30, 31. Having been filled •with all unright- 
 eousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness ; full of 
 envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, slan- 
 derers, hateful towards God, insolent, haughty, boastful, 
 inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents ; w^ithout 
 understanding, covenant-breakers, unaffectionate, unmer- 
 ciful. 
 
 The catalogue of vices, as given in the Revised Greek text, 
 and in tlie Authorized, with the doubtful word "fornication" in 
 the second place, embraces twenty-two distinct specifications, the 
 same number as there are letters in the Hebrew alphabet. This is 
 apparently not an accidental coincidence. Dr. J. Rendel Harris 
 (" Teaching of the Apostles," p. 84) suggests the probable explana- 
 tion. In the synagogue service for tlie Day of Atonement, tliere 
 was a ritual confession of sins, arranged alphabetically, according 
 to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In "The 
 Teaching of the Apostles" (before A. D. 1(X)) there is a similar 
 list of twenty-two vices and a parallel list of twenty-two vicious 
 classes. The lists in Romans, and in "The Teaching," are not 
 identical, though there are six words which coincide in the two, 
 
ROMANS I, S-2. 99 
 
 and the two catalogues are not close translations from the Hebrew 
 Prayer-Book, and they make no attempt at an alphabetic oi'der ; but 
 the sameness of the numbers strongly suggests that both Paul and 
 the "Teaching" made up their lists with distinct reminiscence of 
 the familiar synagogue service. Paul gives, in Gal. v, 19, a similar 
 list of seventeen sins, but more logically arranged than in Romans ; 
 and another list of eighteen in 2 Tim. iii, 2. There is also a shorter 
 list of thirteen vices in Mark vii, 21. But just as the alphabetic 
 aiTangement of the Hebrew list forbids any proper logical conse- 
 cution, so these imitative lists are without any systematic logical 
 order; yet we have, within the lists, occasional grouping of words 
 of similar sound, or of cognate meaning. 
 
 It is notable that in these quadruple lists of sins and vices, 
 there are so few repetitions. More than fifty distinct offenses are 
 named ; and these are very far from exhausting the catalogue. It 
 is a sad commentary on the depravity of the heart, and on the bad 
 lives of men. 
 
 Verse 32. Who, having come to know the judgment of 
 God, that they who pratice such things are worthy of death, 
 not only do them, nay, but also delight in them who prac- 
 tice them. 
 
 The heathen did not act ignorantly. They had, and have, suffi- 
 cient light to know God's character, and his decision that they who 
 practice such sins as are just named, are worthy of death. Yet 
 they not only themselves do these things, but, what is still worse, 
 they take gratuitous pleasure in those tliat practice them. 
 
 Such is Paul's summation of the character and the life of the 
 heathen woi'ld as he saw it in his day, as we see it in ours. He 
 does not give the vile details as found in the classics, or found in 
 heathen lands to-day ; but no literature gives, or could give, a 
 more somber portraiture of human depravity and practice. 
 
CIIArXER II, 
 
 Verse 1. "Wherefore thou art without excuse, O every 
 man that judgest ; for in what thing thou judgest the other, 
 thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest him prac- 
 ticest the same things. 
 
 In the fii'st chapter the apostle has described and condemned 
 the Gentile world. He now turns upon the Jew, and declares him 
 equally sinful, and equally under condemnation. The point of 
 transition in the tliought and argument is easy. Tlie Gentiles not 
 only do things worthy of death, but juaiijy them, and find pleasure 
 in those who practice tliem. The Jews nominally condeinn these 
 things ; and on the ground of this speculative condemnation think 
 themselves better than the heathen; yet, in point of fact, they 
 also practice the very same things. But one's character is deter- 
 mined, and his position before God is ascertained, not by profes- 
 sion, but by practice. " Wherefore," says the apostle, addressing 
 the Jew, though he does not yet openly name him, — " Wherefore 
 thou that condemnest the other \Tbv inpov, the man of different 
 race, the Gentile] art inexcusable, for thou practicest the very 
 same things." 
 
 Verse 2. But we know that the judgment of God is 
 according to truth, upon them that practice such things. 
 
 The words we know are, as so often elsewhere, an expression 
 of a generally recognized truth; e. g., " We know that whatsoever 
 things the Law says, it speaks to them that are under the Law" 
 (Rom. iii, 19); "We know that the Law is spiritual" (Rom. 
 vii, 14); ''We know that all things co-opei*ate for good to them 
 that love God" (Rom. viii, 28). In commonplace truths like 
 these Paul means that intelligent men are all of one mind; even 
 the Gentiles assetit to a jjroposition as patent as that of this verse. 
 
 The judgment of God is according to truth, (jod can 
 not mistake the facts, nor err in liis decision. "The Judge of all 
 
 100 
 
ROMANS II. .% 4, 5. 101 
 
 the earth will alwui/ii do i-ight." His judgment, which is not ac- 
 cording to appearance, but according to reality, is equally against 
 the heathen who "do" these things and tlie Jews who " practice" 
 them. Notice the stronger word "practice" which the apostle 
 uses in regard to the Jews. "God is not a respecter of persons." 
 His judgment is definitively against the Jews, even more than 
 against the Gentiles. 
 
 The phrase according to truth assumes that the standard of 
 right is not God's will, but lies back of this will, and higher. 
 Things are not right because God wills them ; but he wills them 
 because they are right. 
 
 Verse 3. But reckonest thou this, O man, that judg- 
 est them that practice such things, and doest them, that 
 thou wilt escape the judgment of God? 
 
 The apostle in this verse has interchanged the verbs of the last 
 verse, practice, do, and now he assigns the confirmed usage in 
 wrong-doing to the Gentiles. 
 
 The Jews trusted in their descent from Abraham for exemp- 
 tion from God's judgment. This was the presumption that the 
 Baptist rebuked. "Say not within yourselves that we have 
 Abraham as our father." (Mat. iii, 9.) Paul's language here, both 
 in the verb reckonest and in the apostrophe O man, is objurga- 
 tive. He would expose the Jews' exclusive claim as a delusion. 
 The verb here takes on the sense of "calculate," to make a de- 
 liberate estimate: as if the apostle said, "If God condemns the 
 Gentiles, dost thou, who practicest the same things, coolly calcu- 
 late that thou wilt escape the same judgment?" 
 
 Verses 4, 5. Or despisest thou the riches of his good- 
 ness and forbearance and longsuffering, ignoring that the 
 goodness of God leads thee to repentance ? but according 
 to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up 
 to thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of revelation of 
 the just judgment of God. 
 
 The objurgative strain against the Jew still continues. "On 
 the ground of being God's elect, dost thou despise his kindness, 
 and forbearance, and longsuffering? Dost thou, trusting to be 
 saved at any rate, ignore the fact that his kindness is not. a license 
 to sin, but is intended to lead thee to repentance for thy sins,— 
 sins not less gross, and more inexcusable than those of the Gen- 
 
102 EXPOSITION. 
 
 tiles? But accoi-ding to tliy obduracy and impenitence of lieart, 
 thou dost but treasure up to thyself wrath, to be revealed in a 
 day of wrath and of revelation of (nxi's just judgment." 
 
 Notice Paul's word ignoring. .\ trutli may be known witli 
 absolute certainty, yet, at tlie same time, absolutely ignored. 
 This is what Paul cliarges upon the conceited Jews. He says to 
 them: "Is this your confidence? Vain confidence! The Jew 
 has no immunity on the ground of being a Jew. At the revelation 
 of God's just judgment, all men will stand equal before him. 
 There is no respect of persons with (Jod." Listen to the conclusion 
 of the whole matter: 
 
 Verses 6-11. "Who will render to each man according to 
 his works : to them indeed, that, by patience in good work, 
 seek for glory and honor and incorruption, life eternal ; but 
 to those that are factious, and disobey the truth, but 
 obey unrighteousness, will be wrath and indignation, 
 affliction and anguish, upon every soul of naan that works 
 evil, both of Jew, first, and of Greek : but glory and honor 
 and peace to every man that works good, both to Jew, first, 
 and to Greek : for there is no respect of persons with God. 
 
 The teaching of the passage is of God's equal dealing witli all 
 men, irresi)ective of birth or caste. A paraphrase will best ex- 
 hibit the meaning: "God will requite to every man, Jew as well 
 as Gentile, not according to the man's assumption of superior 
 privilege, but according to his works. To those of whatever 
 race, Jew or Gentile, who in the way of patient perseverance in 
 good work, seek for glory, and honor, and incorruption, he will 
 give life eternal ; but to those, of whatever race, who are men of 
 captiousness, and a-ssumption, and disobedient to the truth, but 
 obedient to unrighteousness, will be requited wrath and indigna- 
 tion, aflliction and distress, — upon every soul of man that works 
 evil, both of Jew, first, and of Greek. But God's approval, and 
 honor, and peace, will be to every man that works good, both to 
 Jew, first, and to Greek. For with (Jod there is no recognition of 
 liuman distinctions." The arrogant Jew and the despised Gentile 
 are alike to him. In the eleventh verse, the word persons does 
 not mean individuals, but artificial distinctions of race, or caste, 
 or rank. This is always the meaning of the woi-d " persons " with 
 the verbs respect, accept, regard. This principle here announced, 
 and many times reitei-ated in the New Testament, saps the arro- 
 
ROMANS II. 12, 13. lOB 
 
 gance and complacency of the Jew. It puts him and the GentiJe 
 on a perfect equality before God: the Jew has no inherent advan- 
 tage ; only certain institutional opportunities. He needs justifi- 
 cation from guilt equally with the Gentile ; and must attain it, if 
 at all, in the same way. 
 
 Verse 12. For as many as sinned ■without law, with- 
 out law also will perish ; and as many as sinned w^ithin 
 law, through law will be judged. 
 
 The first clause describes the status and the condemnation of 
 the Gentile world ; the second clause describes the status and the 
 condemnation of the Jews. Both have sinned, but under different 
 circumstances, and with different demerit. The Gentiles had 
 suflBcieiit light, the light of nature, yet sinned ; they will be con- 
 demned accordingly, yet not by a law of which they were ignorant. 
 And the Jews, who sinned under a law specifically recorded, will 
 be judged according to the more exacting provisions of that law. 
 
 Verse 13. For not the hearers of law are just with 
 God ; but the doers of law will be justified. 
 
 It will be noticed that through this entire paragraph (verses 
 12-16) the word law is found nine times without the article and 
 but twice with it. In this feature the translation here given cor- 
 rectly represents the Greek ; and we may safely assume that it is 
 exact to the apostle's thought. The difference in concept between 
 "law" and "the Law," whether in Paul's writings, or anywhere 
 else, is marked, and can be as exactly expressed in English as in 
 Greek. The word "law," without the article, is qualitative, and 
 always expresses the concept of law generically, in its most unre- 
 stricted sense " Law " is the expression of universal and eternal ^ 
 principles, ethical, mnate, and dominant for all beings, for God, 
 and angels, and men, alike. It is read in nature and in our own 
 moral constitution. The Law, with the article, on the other hand, 
 is quantitative, specific, statutory, read only in the book. " Law " 
 is for all circumstances, and forever; it never changes, nor loses, 
 or gains, any circumstantial element. " The Law " is a particular 
 code (whether of God, or man) enacted for a given set of cir- 
 cumstances, local, temporary, subject to additional legislation or 
 to repeal. " Law " takes note of motives: " the Law " takes note of 
 oiert actions. "Law," which is always moral law, prescribes the 
 ideal maximum of one's ability and performance ; " the Law," 
 
104 EXPOSITION. 
 
 which is always statute law, establishes a specified minimum of 
 performance. "Law," as in the (lolden Jtule, says: "Thou 
 shalt;" " the Law," as in the Decalogue, says: " Thou shalt not." 
 In the Pauline usage, the Mosaic legislation (of circumcision and 
 rites) is always spoken of as " the Law ; " but the naked word 
 " law," without the article, expresses the eternal abstract prin- 
 ciple as defined above ; or if it alludes to the Law of Moses, as in 
 this verse, it alludes to it, not as the Law of outward observances, 
 but on its moral side, so far forth, an exj)ression of the eternal, 
 universal law of n'ctitude. We i)rint "law" for the universal 
 qualitative word, "Law" for the statutory quantitative word. 
 
 The expression. The hearers of law is spoken of the Jews, 
 who on every Sabl)ath-day heard "the Law" read in the syna- 
 gogue (Acts XV, 21) ; and heard, under the letter of that statute 
 Law a revelation of the higher law of morals ; and it is '* the doers 
 of this higher law " that will be justified. 
 
 The use of the two words just and justified, in the contrast- 
 ive clauses of this verse shows that they are equivalent in mean- 
 ing, — " aquit — aquitted." The verse expresses the ideal condition 
 of things ; and we are not to understand that Paul concedes that 
 any man is really justified by works of law; for elsewhere he 
 definitively declares the contrary: " By works of law will no flesh 
 be justified." (Gal. ii, 16.) The apostle's thought is merely to 
 declare the relative superiority of doing to hearing; the superiority 
 of a sincere, though legally insufficient obedience of a heathen, to 
 the more intelligent, but barren, service of the Jew. Yet any 
 man, whether heathen or Jew, who does the best he can. will be 
 justified. "In every nation he that fears God and works right- 
 eousness is acceptable to him." (Acts x, 35.) 
 
 Verse 14. For whenever Gentiles, who have no law, 
 do by nature the things of the Law, these, having no 
 law, are law to themselves. 
 
 The word Gentiles, which in the Greek language was first 
 used in the sense of "nations" generically, including Jews, was 
 then, in Jewish usage, narrowed to the sense of non-Jewish, the 
 heathen, nations, which is the usual sense; and then, sometimes, 
 as here, narrowed still further to the sense of iyidividuals of these 
 nations. Such, when the word has no article, is the sense of the 
 word in the Bible. Thus Paul tells the Corinthian converts: "Ye 
 know that ye were Gentiles." (1 Cor. xii, 2.) The term Gentiles, 
 
ROMANS II, 15. 105 
 
 denoting all nations except the Jews, carried, with it, at first, the 
 implication that those nations were also heathen,* pagan, idola- 
 trous. It was only after the mission of Paul, that tliis offensive 
 Jewish sense was gradually dropped, and the word retained only its 
 ethnological sense. All nations except Jews, are still " Gentiles ;" 
 but not all nations are now heathen. 
 
 The word " Gentiles " without the article, does not express the 
 totality of the class, but is only a descriptive term. Not all Gentiles, 
 but only some (and in fact but very few), "observe the things of 
 the Law ;'■ and not then all the things of the Law, nor always, but 
 only certam moral precepts belonging in common to natural re- 
 ligion and to revealed religion. But their conscientious obedience 
 to what they think right is at best only a partial and relative ful- 
 fillment of the moral law, such as is possible by " nature" — that 
 is, apart from the surer light of revelation — and, of course, it falls 
 far short of "legal justification." Paul's words elsewhere are de- 
 cisive on this point against Jew and Gentile alike. Yet though 
 their religion does not come up to the inward spirituality of God's 
 law, such Gentiles (alas, how few!) doing the best they can, 
 " become law to themselves," and in the gospel economy their 
 defective obedience is accepted through Christ. 
 
 Verse 15. "Who show the works of the Law written in 
 their hearts, their consciousness bearing- witness w^ith them, 
 and their thoughts one with another accusing, or, also, ac- 
 quitting them. 
 
 Heathen who aim to do right practically demonstrate for 
 themselves that the gist of the Law, if not the letter of it, is writ- 
 ten, not on lifeless tables of stone, as in the Decalogue of the Jews, 
 but in their hearts. And their consciousness bears them testimony 
 that amid abundant failures, their purpose is to do right ; their 
 thoughts, in parley one with another, now accusing, or, also ac- 
 quitting them. 
 
 The Greek language uses the same wordt for the differentiate 
 concepts consciousness and conscience; the intuition of one's 
 thoughts, and the intuition of one's right and wrong doing. The 
 
 '•Indeed this very word "heathen" Is Itself derived from the Greek 
 word for Gentiles,— e^«";. Eih7i-e; and not as Vosslus (followed by Trench 
 and the English Dictionaries), from the local word Heat/i,—a,s If "the 
 dwellers on the heath." 
 
106 EXPOSITIOX. 
 
 latter sense has prown out of the former ; and both are found in 
 the New Testament. The former is the sense of the words in tliis 
 verse, and in tlie same expression in tiie ninth chapter— " My 
 consciousness testifying witii me." (Rom. ix, 1.) Cicero attached 
 tiu' same double concepts to the Latin word anucientia, which he 
 first used in the Latin language, as a representation of the Greek 
 word. 
 
 Verse 16. In the day when God will judge the secrets 
 of men, according to my gospel, through Jesus Christ. 
 
 The connection of this vers? is uncertain. The Authorized, 
 and most critics, throw verses 14 and 15 into a parentliesis, and 
 join verse 16 to verse 13. The Revisi'd cancels the parenthesis, 
 and makes this verse a temporal modifer, not of the previous 
 clause, but of the entire paragraph. The apostle's thought goes 
 forward to the last day when all classes of men, Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, will stand before God, and when God will judge them, 
 not by their outioard distinctions, but by their inward, hidden, 
 character. 
 
 By the words according to my gospel, Paul emphatically and 
 sliarply distinguishes " the gospel whicli he preached" fi-om that 
 of the other apostles. It was a distinction that he needed to 
 make over and over again. He uses this terse expression, "ac- 
 cording to my gospel," in two other places,— in Rom. xvi, 25, and 
 2 Tim. ii, 8; and he uses it substantially, again, in many places 
 more, as, for example: "The gospel, to which I was appointed a 
 herald, and ajiostle, and teacher of Gentiles" (2 Tim. i, 11). It is 
 this last expression, "apostle of the Gentiles," which marks the 
 unique character of " his gosi)el," as distinguished from the gospel 
 of his fellow-ai)ostles. The other apostles were, like Paul liimself 
 U|) to the date of his conversion, wedded to Judaism. He calls 
 himself "a zealot for God." (Acts xxii, 3.) But some of them, un- 
 like Paul afti?r his conversion, never lost their bias towards the 
 Jews, and none of them were entirely free from it until their peo- 
 ple had finally rejected Christ. They doubtless expected in some 
 vague way the conversion of the Gentiles to Christ; but they 
 thought of Christianity only as develo|)ed Judaism, and that the 
 Gcntih'S must come to Christ by the door of circumcision. But 
 Paul from the first of his apostolate saw that Judaism was only a 
 provisional scheme, of a late date in God's plan; and that the 
 gospel antedated it, and was from eternity God's only plan. Paul 
 
ROMANS II. 17-20. 107 
 
 calls it "a mystery "—that is, a secret, an esoteric doctrine— 
 " which has been hidden from the eternal ages ; but has now been 
 manifested ... to make known the riches of this mystery among 
 the Gentiles." (Col. i, 26; Rom. xvi, 25.) This is the large and 
 gracious gospel which Paul right proudly calls " my gospel." 
 
 Verses 17-20. But if thou art named Jew, and rest- 
 est upon law, and boastest in God, and knowest his 
 will, and approvest the things that excel, being instructed 
 out of the Law, and trustest as to thyself that thou art a 
 guide of blind men, a Hght of them that are in darkness, 
 an instructor of foolish men, a teacher of babes, having 
 
 in the Law the form of the knowledge and the truth ; . 
 
 In the seventeenth verse, and so generally in the New Testament, 
 the word Jew is a name of honor, expressing citizenship and re- 
 ligious fellowship in the chosen people. It was after Paul's time 
 that the name "Jew" acquired in Christian phraseology its op- 
 probrious sense. John is the only one of the New Testament 
 writers that uses it in a semi-opprobrious sense ; and his Gospel 
 was written late in the century, after the alienation of the Jews 
 was complete. 
 
 These four verses (17 to 20) constitute the protasis to an 
 equally long apodosis in verses 21-24 ; and the entire paragraph, 
 17-24, should be read as one logical whole. The protasis specifies 
 the ten or twelve points of Jewish confidence, or arrogance ; the 
 apodosis consists of five or six rapid, trenchant, questions, which 
 leave the Jew abashed and silenced. The apostle's address is 
 pointed and personal. The emphatic pronoun thou singles out 
 the offender, and arraigns him for transgressing law and dis- 
 honoring God, while at the same time boasting of law and of God. 
 Paul's words, if thou art named "Jew," imply no doubt on 
 the subject. The conjunction if (d) here used is a word of argu- 
 ment, not of contingency. With the indicative mode, it repre- 
 sents the thing supposed as an objective fact; and it is almost 
 equivalent to "since," or "inasmuch as." Paul concedes that 
 these claims of the Jew were all matters of fact. The creed of the 
 Jew was orthodox. Jesus commanded, " Whatsoever things the 
 scribes say, do." The reason for Christ's command, and for Paul's 
 concession, is, that the Jews accepted the teachings of revelation, 
 being instructed out of the Law. True, they overlaid the Law 
 with the traditions of men, and they did not keep the Law in its 
 
108 EXf'OSTTin.y. 
 
 Bpiritual iiitfiit; but first of all, tln^ Jt'W was proud of knowing; 
 the Law, not merely as a ritual, but as a system of ethics. Even 
 a Pharisee could say, "To love God with all the heart, and thy 
 neighbor as thyself, is much more than all offerings and sacri- 
 fices." (Mark xi, 33.) 
 
 Verses 21-24. Dost thou, therefore that teachest an- 
 other, not teach thyself? Dost thou that preachest not to 
 steal, steal ? Dost thou that sayest not to commit adultery, 
 commit adultery? Dost thou that abominatest idols, pil- 
 lage their temples? Dost thou that boastest in law, through 
 the transgression of the Law dishonor God? For the name 
 of God on account of you is blasphemed among the Gen- 
 tiles, as it has been written. 
 
 The word another in verse 21, is the same as in the first verse 
 of this cha|)ter, and does not mean anotlier {&\\ov) of the same 
 class witli the Jews, but a man of a different class (irepov), a Gen- 
 tile. The sense is, "Thou that teachest the Gentile, dost thou not 
 first fashion thy own life according to thy teaching ?" 
 
 The point of these questions lies in the inconsistency of the 
 profession of the Jews witli their actual lives. The term of the 
 address Thou that teachest, shows that Paul has the rabbis, 
 scribes, doctors of the law, in thought, rather than the common 
 people. The Jews, as a nation, were very much better than any 
 other people in the world ; and the common people were V)etter 
 than the rulers. But those leaders, and rulers, and teachers of 
 the people, who ought to have been models of upright living, were 
 often the worst of the nation ; and their improbity, unchasteness, 
 and outrages, were frequent and infamous. Yet there wei'e noble 
 and gracious exceptions, such as Paul's teacher, Gamaliel, Nico- 
 demus, and Joseph of Arimathea. 
 
 The question. Dost thou pillage temples? alludes to the 
 command of Moses to the Jews, " to burn tlie idols of the heathen, 
 and not to take their votive offerings of silver and gold." (Deut. 
 vii, 25.) Josephus correctly explains this, "not to steal what be- 
 longs to strange 1 heathen] temples, nor to take any of the gifts 
 dedicated to any god." (Ant. IV, 8-10.) Such is Paul's meaning 
 in this passage: "Thou that professest to abominate idols, dost 
 thou make gain to thyself by looting their temples ?" 
 
 In verse 23, notice the word law, first without the article, and 
 then with it ; and interpret accoi-dingly. The Jews boasted in hav- 
 
ROyfANS II, 25. 109 
 
 ing and in knowing law; but inconsistently dishonored God by 
 transgressing every commandment in the Decalogue. Malachi, 
 the last of the prophets (397 B. C), sums up the history of Is- 
 rael's sinfulness: " Even from the days of your fathers, ye have 
 gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them." 
 (Mai. iii, 7.) 
 
 The word for in the twenty-fourth verse connects back, es- 
 pecially to the preceeding verb, dishonorest thou God?. It is 
 a quotation from Isaiah: " My name continually everyday is blas- 
 phemed." (Isaiah Iii, 5.) And Ezekiel says in still more explicit 
 words: " When I scattered them among the heathen, they pro- 
 faned my holy name ; in that tli'^ heathen said of them, These are 
 the people of Jehovah, and are come forth out of his land" 
 (Ezek. xxxvi, 20); that is, as Paul interprets these prophetic ut- 
 terances. The proverbial wickedness of the Jews led the heathen 
 to judge amiss of Jehovah's character, and to blaspheme his holy 
 name, — " Like people, like god." 
 
 Verse 25. For circumcision indeed profits, if thou be a 
 practicer of law : but if thou be a transgressor of law, thy 
 circumcision has become uncircumcision. 
 
 The conjunction if (fie), used in both clauses of this verse, 
 and in the first clause of the next verse, is, unlike the conjunction 
 of reality in the seventeenth verse, the conjunction of merely sub- 
 jective possibility ; and the matter that comes under the cover 
 of this conjunction is contingent, or unreal ; and the unreality 
 in the concept is further expressed by the subjunctive mode in 
 the verb, — if thou be. 
 
 The word circumcision is sometimes with the article, "The 
 Circumcision," a concrete designation of the covenant people, the 
 Jews, over against the Gentile world ; which, conversely, is then 
 called "The Uncircumcision." (Gal. ii, 7-10.) But here the word 
 first without the article, and then with it lliterally, the circum- 
 cision of thee] designates the covenant rite by which the Abra- 
 hamic family was consecrated, set apart from the mass of mankind, 
 to God: a rite which Paul says profits the recipient, yet surely not 
 materially, ex opera operato, but only in its spiritual significance — 
 if thou be a practicer of law. 
 
 This rite stood to the Jewish Church precisely as baptism 
 stands to the Church of Christ. It was only a sign (Rom. iv, 11), 
 and had no saving power in itself. Here, also, we must take the 
 
no EXPOSITION. 
 
 word law, witliout the article, in its widest, ethical sense, and 
 not siu'cificallj" as " the Law " of Moses, however j)ersistently 
 Jewish thought and prepossessions may have confused the two 
 concepts. 
 
 The Jews lield that circumcision of the Hesh was in itself a 
 saving ordinance, self-operative, aside from the j)ersonal character 
 of the recipicMit. All Ji'vvs were then to be saved, as descendants 
 from Abraham, members of the elect nation — all, except heretics 
 and apostates, and the Rabbis held that even these could not go 
 down to hell until an angel had canceled the physical sign in 
 their flesh. (Meyer, Kom., p. 102.) But Paul says to the Jew : If, 
 having come under the seal of circumcision and obligation to 
 keep the Law, thou be a transgressor of law, then thou hast lost 
 all the sujjposed vantage-ground ov»'r the heathen, the seal is 
 broken, and thy Jewish circumcision has become the same 
 [that is, as useless] as Gentile uncircumcision. The equity of 
 this is apparent to any but a Jew of the older synagogue, or to 
 the Pharisees of the modern sacramentarian Churches ; and the 
 converse is also apparent, as Paul declares in the next verse. 
 
 Verse 26. If, therefore, the Uncircumcision observe the 
 requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be 
 reckoned unto circumcision? 
 
 The Uncircumcision is the Gentile world at large, and the 
 word is generally used as if in the plural number ; but here it is in 
 the singular, and means the ideal Gentile. We have seen that 
 the conjunction here is the word of contingency, expressing a 
 case not real, but merely conceived of — "in the case that." 
 Yet it is not Paul's thought that this Gentile observance of the 
 law, even if it were realizable, is more tiian formal, external; as 
 when Confucius or Socrates worked righteousness to the best of 
 his light and ability. Such uninstructed Gentiles as do, by the 
 light of natural religion, the things (some of the things) of the Law, 
 are acceptable to God ; and in their case their uncircumcision, that 
 is, their lack of formal consecration, will be reckoned to them 
 unto circumcision — as good as the circumcision of the Jews. Cir- 
 cumcision (like baptism) is, at the best, but a formal rite, the seal 
 of a covenant, and has no saving virtue. Paul does not yet intro- 
 duce the mediation of Christ as the jjrocuring element of salvation 
 for Gentile or Jew; but looks, so far forth, only at the receptive 
 attitude of the heart, and an external formal obedience to the 
 
ROMANS II. S7, SS, S9. Ill 
 
 Law; and certainly not at a sinless conformity to the spiritual 
 law. Such a man's uncircumcision will be counted unto cir- 
 cumcision. Though uncircumcised, the seeker after God is put 
 on a level with the man of the covenant. This measure of equity 
 has always characterized God's dealings with men. Naaman the 
 Syrian, the woman of Syrophenicia, Cornelius the centurion, and 
 the centurion at Capernaum, are surely and suggestive illustra- 
 tions. Paul found such men wherever he went— " Of the devout 
 Greeks a great multitude." (Acts xvii, 4.) 
 
 Verse 27. And the Uncircumcision which is from na- 
 ture, if it fulfills the Law, will judge thee who through the 
 letter and circumcision art transgressor of law. 
 
 The expression through letter and circumcision is a hen- 
 diadys, meaning "with literal circumcision;" that is, with the 
 outward ritual circumcision in the flesh, and not with the inward 
 or spiritual circumcision of the heart, as in verse 29. The apostle's 
 meaning is, that the Gentile, who is not "circumcised after the 
 manner of Moses," but retains, " from nature," his physical non- 
 consecration, but who fulfills the Law, will, by this fulfillment, 
 rise up in judgment and condemn the Jew, who with all his literal 
 conformity to ritual law is yet a transgressor of the higher moral 
 law. 
 
 Verses 28, 29. For the Jew in the outward man is not 
 a Jew; nor yet the circumcision in the outward man, in 
 flesh, is circumcision ; nay, but the Jew in the inward man, 
 is a Jew, and circumcision is of heart, in spirit, not letter ; 
 of whom the praise is not from man, nay, but from God. 
 
 The passage is a good example of Paul's terseness of utter- 
 ance, and of the antithetic structure of his sentences. The literal 
 translation here given is as clear as any of the usual paraphrases, 
 and better preserves the emphases in the several clauses. 
 
 The conjunction for refers to the literal " Uncircumcision" in 
 the twenty-seventh verse; and the following clause is exegetieal 
 of this word and of the thought in the verse. The sense is plain : 
 "For it is not the Jew in the outward man, who is a Jew in the 
 inward man, in spiritual reality; nor is it the literal circumcision 
 in the outward man, that is spiritual, real, circumcision: but the 
 Jew in secret, in the hidden man, is the real spiritual Jew ; and 
 the circumcision, not of the foreskin, but of the heart, is the real 
 
112 EXPOSITION. 
 
 circumcision, in spirit, nut in letter. Of such a 'Jew,' the praise 
 is not from man. but from God." All thi.s is in the exact line of 
 Pauls thoughts elsewhere. He tells the (ialatians: "In Christ 
 Jesus neither circumcision avails aught, nor uncircumcision ; but 
 faith working through love." (Gal. v, 6.) And to the Philippians 
 he says, " We I (icnlileg\ are the (real) circumcision, who serve by 
 the Spirit of Gtxi, and boast I not in rites, but) in Christ Jesus, and 
 trust not in flesh;" i. e., in carnal ordinances. (Phil, iii, 3.) 
 
CHAPTER III, 
 
 Verse 1. Jew: "What, then, is the superiority of the 
 Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?" 
 
 The first chapter (verses 19-32) described the moral conditions 
 of the Gentiles ; that they are corrupt by nature, and, notwith- 
 standing the light of natural religion, are desperately wicked. 
 The second chapter showed that the Jews are equally corrupt by 
 nature ; and, notwithstanding the light of religion, and their boast 
 of a national superiority over the Gentiles, are yet equally wicked: 
 "They condemn the Gentiles, and practice the same things." 
 
 The conclusion reached, in the second chapter, that there is no 
 saving virtue in circumcision, in which the Jews especially boasted, 
 might imply that they have no religious advantage over the Gen- 
 tiles. In the first part of the third chapter the Jew presents his 
 objections to the apostle's teaching. These several objections and 
 the apostle's replies are given in the form of a dialogue. The dis- 
 cussion, thrown into this form, has an almost dramatic liveliness 
 and vigor. The assailant's rapid questions and tiie apostle's rapid 
 rejoinders seem like the quick thrusts of two skillful swordsmen. 
 
 The several parts of the dialogue are clearly distributed be- 
 tween the two disputants as follows : 
 
 Jew. Verses 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 (first clause). 
 
 Paul. Verses 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 (second clause), seqq. 
 
 The dialogue between the Jewish antagonist and the apostle is 
 resumed in chapter x, 14— to chapter xi, 11. Perhaps too, Paul's 
 ever-present consciousness of a disputant, whose thoughts at least 
 are known and expressed, if his actual words are not quoted, will 
 best explain the frequent controversial questions found through- 
 out the epistle. I have so indicated them in the text, with the 
 proper paragraphing and quotation marks; e. g., Rom. vi, 1, 15; 
 vii, 7; xiii, 9, 14. 
 
 The question which the apostle here puts into the mouth of 
 the Jewish gainsayer implies that the Jews claimed by their de- 
 8 113 
 
114 EXPOSITION. 
 
 scent from Abraham, and call as the theocratic nation, and by 
 their circumcision, a racial and personal superiority over the Gen- 
 tiles. This superiority, they thought, was one which gave them 
 religious acceptance with God ; and their circumcision entitled 
 them to his mercy here and hereafter. And so to the apostle's 
 teaching in the second cliapter we liave tlie Jcnv's indignant re- 
 joinder, " If such is the state of the case, where then is our 
 superiority?" 
 
 Verse 2. Paul: Much in every [pertinent] way: first, 
 indeed, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. 
 
 In this verse, Paul concedes that the Jews have, fi-om their 
 circumcision, a just claim of superiority over the Gentiles; not 
 a superiority of racial or personal desert, but only of national 
 priority, and of greater religious opportunity. Their circumcision 
 formally consecrated them to God ; but separates them from the 
 heathen world only in their incidental circumstaYices. 
 
 The apostle names herp only a single point of their superior- 
 ity — namely, that they were intrusted with the divine ora- 
 cles. This one point was sufficient for the present argument; yet 
 the adverb first implies that the apostle had it in thought to 
 mention otlier privileges ; but the eager rusli of the discussion 
 prevented, and the enumeration is not continued here. But in 
 the ninth chapter he gives a fuller answer, and names as the 
 national prerogatives of Israel eight other important points in 
 which the Jews were superior to the Gentiles: "The adoption, 
 and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and 
 the temple-service, and the promises, and the fathers, and the 
 descent of Christ,"— all of them, like the one here named, inci- 
 dents of their religious circumstances, and not matters of intrinsic 
 pei'sonal desert. (Rom. ix, 4, 5.) 
 
 The oracles here named were, of course, the Old Testament 
 Scriptures at lai-ge ; but specifically, in Paul's present mention of 
 them, the prophecies of Christ, and of the accession of the Gen- 
 tiles. This is clear from the " unfaith " in them as confessed by 
 the Jew in verse 3. No doubt the Jews accepted the volume of the 
 Old Testament Scriptures in its entirety, including these Messi- 
 anic prophecies ; but they did not accept the Christian interpreta- 
 tion of them as fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. No doubt, 
 too, they accepted the future conversion of the Gentile world ; 
 but their expectations on this point were vague, and tliey were 
 
ROMANS III, 3. 115 
 
 very far from accepting, as taught by Paul, the immediate uncon- 
 ditional admission of the Gentiles into the Church, on an equality 
 with the Jews themselves. It was here that the Jewish people 
 stumbled. The Gospel of Christ was too liberal for them: " They 
 stumbled against the stone of stumbling." (Rom. ix, 32.) 
 
 The verb were intrusted is very expressive ; and is decisive 
 of the relation of the Jews to the general purposes of God. They 
 were an elect people ; yet they were elect not for themselves, but 
 as ''trustees'' for the nations (Gentiles) at large. Judaism was a 
 provincial dispensation, preparatory to the gospel. The Jews were 
 intended as a Missionary Church, to carry the knowledge of God 
 to the world. (Rom. ix, 22-24.) How infinitely they fell below 
 their call is shown by their repeated religious apostasy, such as 
 invariably characterizes a non-propagandist Church. Religious 
 activity is the condition of life and growth. The Jews did not 
 desire the conversion and accession of the Gentiles, only their sub- 
 jugation ; and they did not communicate to them their oracles 
 which prophesied the Messiah and the incoming of the world ; or, 
 if they sought "proselytes" (as they began to do before Christ), 
 they sought them not from a love of souls, but for the sake of 
 added worldly influence and power. Notice the marked contrast 
 between Christianity and Judaism. Christianity, a missionary 
 Church, marches to the conquest of the world; the Jews, though 
 once a proselyting Church, have now, for sixteen centuries, barely 
 held their own, by propagation, not by propagandism. Judaism 
 has absolutely ceased to seek converts ; and its only future is dis- 
 integration and absorption into Christianity. 
 
 Verse 3. Jew. For what if some [of us] did not have 
 faith lin those Messianic oracles]? will their unfaith annul 
 the faith I faithfulness ] of God [to his covenant with our 
 fathers ]? 
 
 The interrogative what not merely asks a question, but tells the 
 Jew's impatient dissent from the apostle's position, and challenges 
 his sincerity. The verse expresses the Jew's conceit of God's ever- 
 lasting covenant with them as Jews. They rightly believe that 
 God can not change ; but they wrongly fancied that his promise to 
 the fathers and to the elect people was unconditional ; and that, 
 no matter what their own subsequent attitude or conduct, God 
 was inextricably obligated to them, and to them exclusively. But 
 it was not God's sense of obligation to them, but his much long- 
 
116 EXPOSITION. 
 
 suffering, that throujili all tliosi' centuries had spared these Jewish 
 vessels of wrath fitted unto perdition. (Rom. ix, 22.) 
 
 The Jews held the Scriptures, as they understood them, as 
 sacred as did Paul himself. They were even more rigid than he in 
 their adherence to the traditional sense of the sacred oracles. 
 The apostle does not charge the Jews with general disbelief of the 
 Scriptures; nor does the t)bjector in this verse confess any want 
 of faith in the Scriptures at large, but only unfaith in the Christian 
 interpretation of the Messianic oracles; and the verb did not 
 have faith, and the noun unfaith, must be taken with tiiis limi- 
 tation. It was with this recognition of the Jews' general accept- 
 ance of the Scriptures, but at the same time of their specific 
 unbelief in Christ, that Jesus said to them: "Search the Scrip- 
 tures ; for they are they which testify of me." 
 
 Verse 4. Paul. God forbid ! But let God be found true, 
 but every man a liar ; as it has been written : 
 
 "That thou mayest be justified in thy words, 
 And mayest win the case when thou art judged." 
 
 (Ps. li,4.) 
 
 The words God forbid express Paul's rejection of the senti- 
 ment of the Jew. The literal translation is, Not so might it be- 
 come! but the terse English phrase " God forbid," while not verb- 
 ally accurate, best expresses the sense. The phrase is found ten 
 times in this Epistle, and four times elsewhere in Paul's writings. 
 The introduction of the word God in the English phrase is not 
 irreverent or flippant, any more than in Paul's repeated assevera- 
 tions, "God knows," "God is my witness." In this verse, the 
 apostle rejects the inferences of the Jew that God can in any con- 
 tingency, prove faithless: "Nay, but in all our reasonings and 
 conclusions, let God be found true to his promises, though every 
 man of you I every Jew who does not have faith in this Messianic 
 promise] be found false." 
 
 The quotation is from David's penitential psalm, the fifty-first. 
 In this quotation, we have, happily, the Greek forensic terms for 
 a criminal process, and for a civil process, at law. Tiie first verb, 
 justified, means either "shown to be free of offense" (which is 
 its meaning here, spoken of God), or " acquit in matters of which 
 one has been guilty" (which is its meaning spoken of men, in 
 tlieological coimections). The second verb means to "win a suit 
 
ROMANS III, 5. 117 
 
 at law. It is the regular term in Attic Greek for sucli a verdict. 
 The connection here restricts the saying, spoken of God, to a 
 justification or vindication of God, as true to his Messianic prom- 
 ises, the "oracles," which Paul interprets in a sense denied by the 
 Jews. But if, in this contention of the Jews against the Gentiles, 
 and so against those divine oracles, God is justified and vindi- 
 cated, — if God is found true to the oracles with tlieir Christian 
 interpretation, — if God is clearly for the Gentiles, — it follows that 
 the other party, the Jews, who gainsay this interpi-etation, and 
 reject the equality of the Gentiles with themselves, must be them- 
 selves held as "non-justified," as "non-just," as "unjust," as 
 sinners, and amenable to God's wrath. 
 
 Paul quotes this psalm to show that God is vindicated in his 
 constancy to the Messianic promises, against the assumption of 
 the Jews. But to most readers, it has an additional value. In 
 the words of this psalm, all human consciousness has ever em- 
 bodied its truest, liveliest confession of sin. It has been uttered 
 afresh in more closets, with more passionate sobs, than any other 
 human cry. No man, heart-broken over his sin, ever exculpated 
 himself and inculpated God. David's confesssion of his own sin, 
 is to-day the confession of all mankind: "Against thee I sinned, 
 that THOU mayest be justified." 
 
 Verse 5. Jew : But if our non -justification establishes 
 Qod's plan of justification, what shall we say [concerning 
 him] ? Is God unjust? — who brings wrath upon us? I say 
 it, according to man. 
 
 The conjunction if (et) here used and the indicative mode in the 
 verb establishes, are concessive, and imply that the Jew grants 
 the apostle's last position, that the Jew is not justified, and is sub- 
 ject to the wrath of God. But he grants this only for argument's 
 sake, only to refute it by a further, extravagant, insistence that God 
 must be held literally to his covenant with the Jews. The mean- 
 ing of the verse may be more fully expressed by a paraphrase: 
 "If, in this contention, the alleged non-justification of the Jews 
 serves, after all, to establish God's plan of justification embracing 
 the Gentiles and excluding the Jews, what shall we Jews say, 
 then concerning the equity of his course? Is God unjust? AVill 
 he, in order to bring in the Gentiles, displace us from our inde- 
 feasible rights ? Will he be false to his covenant with the Jews ? 
 
118 EXPOSITION. 
 
 and bring on them his wratii ? and punish them fur what redounds 
 to his glory?" Such is the bold sophistry of the Jew; but as if 
 conscious that his language may perhai)S be too daring, he subjoins 
 the half-apologetic (lualification : I speak as it looks to one 
 from a human point of view; tiuit is, Our failure to accept this 
 new Gospel does not ticeui to mm to discharge God from his obli- 
 gation to the original covenant-people. 
 
 Verse 6. Paui, : God forbid ! since how will Qod judge 
 the world? 
 
 The words express Paul's indignant denial that God will pi-ove 
 unjust: "Heaven forbid! God unjust?" The supposition is pre- 
 posterous ; since, in that case, how will Qod judge the 
 world? The judge of all the earth must do right. The matter 
 stands indeed just the reverse from the arrogant claims of the 
 Jews. "To bring wrath upon them" is right; to exempt them 
 would be unjust; and ''God is not nnjust." 
 
 Verse 7. Jew : But if the trueness of God [to his Messi- 
 anic promises] by my falseness [thereto] redounded to his 
 glory, why yet am I also condemned as sinful? 
 
 The VFords are those of the Jewish caviller, and are substan- 
 tially a reiteration of the vicious reasoning in the fifth verse. We 
 have again the concessive conjunction if, as if the objector, for 
 argument's sake, formally grants the apostolic contention, only to 
 deny it, however, in reality. The words trueness, spoken of God, 
 and falseness, spoken of the Jew, look back to Paul's adjectives 
 in the fourtli verse, and used in tlie same specific senses, " God is 
 true, the Jews a.re false" — though we must recollect that the Jew 
 accepts the latter word as his own, only for argument's sake. If 
 God's "trueness" to the Messianic promise is better illustrated 
 and established amid our "falseness" (unfaith in the claims of 
 Christ) ; if his plans for the Gentiles are more clearly defined and 
 realized by our defection, — why, notwithstanding, are the Jews 
 also [aho as well as the Gi'ntilos] condemned as sinful? But 
 this is a line of argument which is much the same as to say that, 
 " in view of the objective good result, the Jews not only ought not 
 to be condemned by God as sinful, but, contrariwise, ought to be 
 accounted by him, as they have heretefore accounted themselves, 
 true and justified." 
 
ROMANS III. cV, 9. 119 
 
 Verse 8. Paul: And [shall "we say then], as we are 
 calumniated, and as some declare that we say. Let us do 
 the evil things that the good things may come?— of whom 
 the condemnation is just. 
 
 This verse is Paul's rejoinder to the Jew, and liis scornful re- 
 jection of the Jew's vicious ethics and vicious reasoning. The 
 word fir] is not the negative adverb, "And why not f" as the Author- 
 ized and the Revised give it; (as if it were ov) but is the interroga- 
 tive conjunction. The negative sense is impossible, whether as a 
 matter of Greek criticism, or from tl\e apostle's argument. Paul 
 shows the Jew's sophistry by running tlie principle out to its legit- 
 imate, but monstrous, consequences ; in substance as follows: "And 
 to follow out your line of juggling morality [it is a pity Paul did 
 not have the apt word Jesuitical], shall we say, as some slan- 
 derously affirm that we say, Let us do evil that good may come?" 
 The "Jesuitical" ethics of "Evil for the sake of God," need but 
 be named in order to be rejected ; and the condemnation of men 
 who so teach is just. The references in the pronouns some, we, 
 whom, are not immediately clear. But we may, perhaps, best 
 take the pronoun " we'' to mean Christians at large ; and the pro- 
 noun ''some" to refer to Jewish calumniators of the brethren. 
 Whether there was any particular occasion for this calumny, we 
 do not know ; but it was at all times an easy charge for maligners 
 to bring against the Church ; and it was a charge that could not 
 be refuted. The only answer which Paul attempts is to meet the 
 calumny by an indignant denial, and to denounce any who should 
 sanction such ethics: — of whom the condemnation is just. 
 This general reference of the relative pronoun is, on the whole, the 
 best, though it makes a good construction, both grammatically 
 and logically, to carry it back to the word some, the calumniators. 
 
 The word /SXaff^ij^e'", literally, to " blaspheme," here translated 
 we are calumniated (or slandered), is used here of meri; but 
 in the New Testament it is generally said of the Divine Being, 
 or of divme things. It has this latter sense altogether in later 
 Christian usage. 
 
 Verse 9a. Jew: "What, then? Are we worse [than the 
 Qentilesl ? 
 
 The words are, again, the woi-ds of the Jew; and mean, liter- 
 ally, Are we surpassed by the Gentiles? The sense of the 
 Greek verb is in great dispute. It is disputed whether the verb 
 
120 EXPOSITION. 
 
 is in the middle voice, or in the passive. The Authorized assumes 
 the former: I Do we surpass the Gentiles?] and translates, "Are we 
 better th&n they ?" the Revised assumes the latter, and translates, 
 "Are we worse tlian they?" With the former translation, the 
 American Committee, and most of the commentaries substantially 
 agree But the middle voice of this verb is rare, and is perhaps 
 not found at all in the sense alleged ; and, further, if we accept 
 this old translation, we shall have practically only a repetition of 
 the question in the first verse; and not a logical advance in tin' 
 argument as is suggested by the first words of the verse. What, 
 then? The passive voice (though it also is rare) must be adopted 
 iiere ; and tlie proper translation gives us the appropriate sense. 
 Are we surpassed? Are we worse Imorallyj?" 
 
 In the first verse of this chapter, as we saw, the Jewish ob- 
 jector to the Pauline view asked, " What is the superiority of the 
 Jew?" evidently assuming tliat the Jews were better than the 
 Gentiles racially, if not personally and morally: and we further 
 saw that Paul, while he freely conceded their superiority in a 
 very important sense, yet denied it in the sense which they meant. 
 He recognized that they had a priority in call, and a relatively 
 greater institutional opportunity, but no racial and no moral supe- 
 riority. It is to this phase of racial and personal desert tliat the 
 Jew comes back in the ninth verse. But he changes his form of 
 attack, and approaches the question in issue from the opposite 
 standpoint. He will entrap the apostle by apparently yielding 
 the whole matter in debate, and will even query whether, accord- 
 ing to the apostle's showing, the Gentiles are not better than the 
 Jews: "Are we surpassed by the Gentiles? are we worse than they, 
 either in our racial claim, or in morals?" But the question, 
 though adroitly put, does not embarrass the advocate of a universal 
 equality among men ; and his answer is peremptoi'y and conclusive. 
 
 Verse 9^. Paul: Not in any wise! For we before ac- 
 cused both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. 
 
 The verb accused is the appropriate forensic term for im- 
 peachment under specific charges. In this sentence, the epexe- 
 getic clause, that they are all under sin expresses the grava- 
 men of the thing charged. The phrase under sin is figurative, 
 and means "brought under the dominion and the condemnation 
 of sin." It is the legal figure of master and slave, which the 
 apostle adopts and develops at large in the sixth clm]»ter (Rom. vi, 
 12-23). and expresses the same relation as he has in thought in the 
 
ROMANS III. 10-18. 121 
 
 Epistle to the Galatians: " The Scripture shut up all things under 
 sin,"— counted all the world as legal thralls of sin. (Gal. iii, 22.) 
 To the question of the Jew, "Are we worse than the Gen- 
 tiles?" the apostle answers, "No, in no wise! the Jew is not 
 tvorse than the Gentile ; just as I have shown that he is no better. 
 No ; the Jews are not better. They have an objective advantage 
 over the Gentiles, in the prior possession of the written revelation 
 of God's will; but they have no subjective, moral superiority." 
 And as this last point is, to put it categorically, the point substan- 
 tially in debate, the apostle addresses himself to the further con- 
 sideration of it, by quoting, against the Jewish claim of moral 
 superiority, a series of passages from their own Scriptures, which 
 declare the total depravity of the Jews. For, notice, that all these 
 damnatory passages were originally spoken, not of Gentiles, but 
 of Jews. Their own Scriptures condemn them as being as bad as 
 the Gentiles. 
 
 Verse 10. According as it has been written :— 
 " There is not a just man, not even one, 
 
 11 There is not a man that understands; 
 There is not a man that seeks out God. 
 
 12 They all turned aside, together they were corrupted. 
 There is not a man that does good, there is not even 
 
 one." (Ps. xiv, 1-3.) 
 
 13 "An opened grave is their throat; 
 
 With their tongues they used craft."— (Ps- v, 9.) 
 
 "Venom of asps is under their lips."— (Ps. cxl. 3.) 
 
 14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."— (Ps. 
 
 x,7.) 
 
 15 "Swift are their feet to shed blood. 
 
 16 Destruction and wretchedness are in their ways; 
 
 17 And the way of peace they know not."— (Isa. lix, 7, 8.) 
 
 18 " There is no fear ofGod before their eyes."— (Ps. xxxvi.l.) 
 
 In these verses the apostle gives a catena of six distinct quo- 
 tations from various parts of the Old Testament, showing, with 
 cumulative force, the moral character of the Jews. The passages 
 are cited somewhat promiscuously, as they occurred to the 
 apostle's mind ; yet we may perhaps trace a slight connection of 
 thought in the order of the citation. The first quotation (verses 
 10-12) declares the universal sinfulness of the race, but specifically 
 
Ui EXPOSITION. 
 
 of the Jew; the next four quotations (verses 13-17) declare the 
 overt offenses in word and aet of which men are guilty ; and the 
 last quotation (verse 18) dechires tlie utter perversity of their 
 moral character and life. The quotations are from the Greek 
 Septuagint, not from the Hebrew. They were doubtless coirtmon- 
 places, and tlie apostle evidently trusted to his memory, and did 
 not quote with verbal accuracy ; but he faithfully gives us the 
 substance of the passages quoted. 
 
 A comparison of these several passages with the original 
 Hebrew is instructive upon the New Testament method of quota- 
 tion ; and shows how little thought the writers of the New Tes- 
 tament had of any verbal inspiration m the Scriptures. Their 
 quotations from tlie Old Testament were usually given for their 
 substantial sense, germane to the matter in hand . but sometimes 
 (with a people to whom the Bible was the only classic) quotations 
 were made by them, as often by modern literati, because of their 
 verbal patness, and not for their intrinsic pertinence; e. g., Matt, 
 ii, 15, 17, 23. It is usually not difficult to discriminate. In the 
 text before us the passages are quoted as germane to the matter in 
 hand. The translation above is from Paul's citations from the 
 Greek Septuagint. 
 
 For the purpose of a ready compaiMson, 1 subjoin the following 
 pretty close translation from the Hebrew. 
 
 Verse 10. "There is no one doing good. 
 
 Jehovah from heaven looked upon the sons of men, 
 
 11 To see whether any was acting w^isely, seeking God. 
 
 12 Every one had gone aside ; together they became cor- 
 
 rupt. 
 There was no one doing good ; there was not even one." 
 — (Ps. xiv, 1-3.) 
 
 13 "An opened grave is their throat; 
 
 Their tongue they used with guile." — (Ps. v, 9.) 
 
 "The poison of an adder is under their lips. " — (Ps. cxl,3.) 
 
 14 "His mouth is full of cursing and deceits." — (Ps. x, 7.) 
 
 15 "For their feet run to evil; 
 
 And they haste to shed innocent blood. 
 
 16 "Wasting and destruction are in their paths. 
 
 17 The way of peace they know not." — (Isa. lix, 7, 8.) 
 
 18 "There is no fear of God before his eyes."— (Ps. xxxvi, 1.) 
 
ROMANS III. 10-18. 123 
 
 It will be noticed that some of the verses (10, 14, 18) are in the 
 singular number ; the others are in the plural, quite promiscuously. 
 Paul begins these citations with the words. According' as it has 
 been written. This is the constant formula for (|uotations from 
 tiie canonical Scriptures. Jesus and the apostles appealed to the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament as authoritative and decisive on 
 any point on which these Scriptures affirmed. 
 
 The description in the Hebrew of verses 10-12 is very dramatic. 
 Tlie psalmist represents God as looking down from heaven to see 
 whether there were any righteous men. His eyes run to and fro, 
 through the earth, — in vain! "Behold, every man has gone 
 astray ! " 
 
 The language of verse 13, An opened grave is their throat, 
 is figurative, and expressive; the throat of the treacherous is like 
 an open grave, yawning to swallow the unwary. The figure is the 
 same as the Savior's: "Woe to you, hypocrites, ye are as the 
 graves which the men that walk over them know not ;" — and sud- 
 denly stumble into them. (Luke xi, 44.) 
 
 The language of verse 16, Destruction and misery are in 
 their way, describes the desolation and wretchedness which a 
 hostile army, marching through a flourishing country, leaves 
 behind them " in their track.." Before tliem the country is as the 
 garden of God ; beliind them is a howling wilderness ! " The reign 
 of peace between man and man, they know nothing of." 
 
 It is evident, from the tenor of these quotations, that the 
 apostle teaches that the outward difference between the uncircum- 
 cised Gentile and the circumcised Jew marks no moral difference 
 between them. Any moral distinction, if found at all, must be 
 found within, in the heart ; not without, in their institutions. But 
 there is no such inward distinction ; all men, Jews and Gentiles 
 alike, are guilty before God, and are equally guilty ; and all men 
 need justification from sin, and need it equally. 
 
 There is some uncertainty as to the proper ending of Paul's 
 speech, begun in the ninth verse. The doubt is exactly the same 
 as meets us elsewhere in the Scriptures; for example, in Gal. 
 ii, 14, and the following verses, whei'e does Paul's formal answer 
 to Peter end ? and where does he resume his direct discourse to 
 to the Galatians? Again, in Christ's words to Nicodemus, in John 
 iii, 10, and the following verses, we have an uncertainty of the same 
 kind. Where does Christ's pi'oper answer end? and where does 
 the evangelist resume his narrative? Perhaps in the chapter be- 
 
124 EXPOSITION. 
 
 fore us it is best to understaiid that Pmil's rejoinder runs from 
 the ninth verse to the end of the twenty-sixth verse ; though after 
 the twentieth less personal than before, but with equal conclusive- 
 ness on the matter of debate. In the twenty-seventh verse the 
 Jew's direct questions are resumed for a moment; and then Paul's 
 final rejoinder goes to the end of the chapter. 
 
 This common guilt of Jews and Gentiles, and common need of 
 justification, constitutes the subject of the remaining part of this 
 chapter. The line of thouglit here followed establishes certain 
 points which are fundamental to the subsequent discussion. These 
 points are as follows : 
 
 1. All the -world, Jew and Gentile, is guilty before 
 God. (Verse 19.) 
 
 2. By works of law no man, not even the Jew, 
 is justified before God. (Verse 20.) 
 
 3. There must be another way of justification, 
 aside from law. Yes : apart from law. God's 
 plan of justification, which has hitherto been 
 hidden, has now been made known, and comes 
 to us attested of old in the Law and the 
 Prophets. (Verse 21.) 
 
 4. This plan of justification is through faith in 
 Jesus Christ. (Verse 22.) 
 
 5. This justification is open to all men, Gentile 
 and Jew, indiscriminately ; for there is no 
 distinction. (Verse 22.) 
 
 6. For God is God of Gentiles, as well as of 
 Jews (Verse 29) ; And he will justify the Cir- 
 cumcision and the Uncircumcision, equally, by 
 faith. (Verse 30.) 
 
 7. And this mode of justification is not in any 
 sense antagonistic to the Law : but it is the, 
 of old, "intended" end, and fulfillment of law. 
 (Verse 31.) 
 
 Verse 19. But we know that w^hatsoever things the 
 Law says, it speaks to the men within the Law^ ; in order 
 that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may 
 become amenable to God. 
 
 In the first clause, the word we is spoken in the person of all 
 concerned in such matters ; the thing declared is a matter of 
 
ROMANS III, JO. 125 
 
 universal understanding. The description of human depravity in 
 the quotations from the Scriptures, Paul here applies specifically 
 to the Jews. What the Law says, it speaks not to the Gen- 
 tiles, but expressly to the men under the Law ; that is, to the 
 Jews, within tlie pale of the Law. This description of human 
 depravity, as exemplified in the Jews, was true to the facts in all 
 their history. In less than a score of years after this writing, 
 these very Jews who arrogated to themselves the special approval 
 of God as his elect people, in the very crisis of the fate of their 
 nation and of their religion, forebore no enormity of crime, of 
 outrage, of nameless vileness. Upon the very eve of this great 
 catastrophe, the Apocalypse calls "the Holy City" "Sodom and 
 Egypt." (Rev. xi, 8.) And after their calamity, one of their 
 own priests and historians says with regard to his people: " Never, 
 from the beginning of the world, did any age ever breed a gener- 
 ation more fruitful in wickedness than was this." (Josephus, 
 Wars, V, X, 5.) 
 
 Undoubtedly Paul's arraignment of the corruption of the race, 
 in the first chapter (verses 18-32), holds especially of the Gen- 
 tiles. But the Jews can not transfer to the Gentiles the equally 
 dark arraignment in the passages here quoted. As descriptive of 
 fallen human nature, these passages attach indeed to the Gentiles ; 
 but they attach first of all to the Jews, that every mouth 
 (even of the Jews) may be stopped, and all the world may 
 become guilty before God. 
 
 Verse 20. Because from works of law will no flesh be 
 justified before him ; for through law^ comes recognition 
 of sin. 
 
 Law is here, as always when without the article, the eternal, 
 universal, moral law, written in the conscience of all men alike. 
 The proposition of the text is universal. The statement applies to 
 the Jews as well as to the Gentiles. By works of law are meant 
 works done in obedience to law, as constituting a meritorious 
 ground of justification and reward : " Which things if a man do, he 
 will have [eternal] life in doing them" (Lev. xviii,5; Gal. iii, 
 12) ; while failure to do them constitutes a ground of condemna- 
 tion: "For it has been written. Cursed is every one that continues 
 not in all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them" 
 (Deut. xxvii, 26; Gal. iii, 10). 
 
 The words will be justified are used here, as always, forensic- 
 
126 EXmsiTIOX. 
 
 ally; and mean, "will be accountiHl just;" or "be held ac(iuit." 
 The tense of the verb may denote the time when each man .shall 
 come to a consciousness of his guilt; but more probably points to 
 the general judgment of the Last Day, as is shown by the final 
 phrase before Him, — before his V>ar. "Justification from works 
 of law" is, undoubtedly, God's normal method for the universe. 
 It is so planned for all moral agents. Angels and men, if they are 
 upright, stand in the sight of God approved, "justified from works 
 of law," the law of right. So angels in heaven, who do God's will, 
 stand justified by their works, and need no redeemer fi-om sin, no 
 expiation for violated law. So Satan and liis followers stood, for 
 what time we know not, until their fall by sin. So Adam stood, 
 for his brief day of innocence, until his fall by sin. So the Second 
 and Greater Adam stood, without fall ; he did the works of law, 
 and could justly say to his enemies, " Which of you convicteth me 
 of sin?" And he was "justified," accounted blameless, thereby. 
 (1 Tim. iii, 16.) Such was God's ideal plan for the justification of 
 man. But the concept of law requires "continuance in all the 
 things written therein;" and, failing this, "from works of law no 
 flesh will be justified." 
 
 The statement that through law is recognition of sin is 
 spoken from the standpoint of human ext)erience. The normal 
 oflfice of law is to justify men (but unfallen men, only), and thus 
 to bring salvation. To fallen men it brings condemnation ; and 
 from this point of view, the apostle here affirms, what all human 
 experience confirms, that it reveals sin, and brings home to the 
 conciousness a sense of guilt. "To wliat end is the Law ? It was 
 added for the sake of bringing transgressions into clearer light" 
 (Gal. iii, 19); "I did not know sin, except through law" 
 (Rom. vii, 7). 
 
 Men are sinful, and need acquittal. The question then ever 
 recurs, " How shall man be justified with God ?" (Job ix, 2.) It 
 is for the alarmed conscience the question of questions ; the one 
 demand of all religions. Two modes of justification are recognized 
 and described in the Bible, and two only: the justification fi'om 
 works, and the justification from faith m tlie Lord Jesus Christ. 
 The first is obtainable by rarnimj it; the other as a gratuity. The 
 apostle says: "To him that works, the reward [justification, that 
 is, a verdict of 'guiltlessness,' and consequent salvation] is not 
 reckoned as a gratuity, but as a debt due to him ; but to him that 
 works not [that is, does not rely on works of law for justification]. 
 
ROMANS III, n. 127 
 
 but exercises faith on him who justifies the sinner, his faith is 
 reckoned unto justification [that is, acquittal from guilt]." (Rom. 
 iv, 4.) Both modes are conceivable, both possible. First: As a 
 mere abstract proposition, a man might now be justified by his 
 works. Moses said : " Ye shall keep my statutes and my judgments, 
 which if a man do, he will have life in them." (Lev. xviii, 5.) 
 And to the lawyer who asked, " Teacher, what shall I do, to inherit 
 eternal life?" Christ answered, "What is writen in the law? this 
 do; and thou wilt have life." (Luke x, 25.) 
 
 Such was the hope and the boast of the Jews. They were the 
 elect people ; they had the oracles of God ; and they were jealous 
 for his sovereignty ; but everything was overshadowed by their 
 boundless self-conceit. "They ignored God's plan of justification 
 from faith, and sought to establish a justification of their own from 
 works." (Rom. x, 3.) "They tithed the mint, the dill and the 
 cummin [things ethically lighter than the dust of the balance], 
 but they omitted the weightier matters of the Law, judgment, and 
 mercy, and faith." (Matt, xxiii, 23.) They trusted to their scru- 
 pulous obsei'vance of the law of rites, for favor with God, and 
 fancied that their " election " made up for all defects in their 
 obedience to the inner spiritual law. 
 
 Such, too, is the fundamental and fatal error that pervades all 
 the ethnic religions. Said Sir Monier Williams, professor of San- 
 skrit in Oxford University (died, 1899), in an address before the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, in 1887: " I have devoted forty- 
 two years of my life, as much as any man living, to the study of 
 the books held sacred by the nations of the East ; and I have found 
 the one key-note running tlirough them all is salvation by works. 
 They are certain that salvation must be purchased ; and that the 
 sole purchase money must be one's works and deservings." 
 
 Verse 21. But now, apart from law, God's plan of justi- 
 fication has been manifested, being attested by the Law and 
 the Prophets ; but God's plan of justification through faith 
 in Jesus Christ, unto all them that have faith ; for there is 
 no distinction. 
 
 Here we have the Second: The only other method of justifica- 
 tion through faith in Jesus Christ. This is the method set forth in 
 the gospel. There is no union or intermingling of the two schemes 
 for justification. The scheme of faith is independent of works. 
 " By grace ye have been saved, through faith, — not from works." 
 
128 EXPOSITION. 
 
 (Eph. ii, 8.) That is, this method of justitieation excludes reliance 
 on works (yet not in any antinomian sense, for it nqiiires works as an 
 evidence of one's profession) ; and it bases man's sole hope of sal- 
 vation upon the vicarious atonement of Christ. " Christ redeemed 
 us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse [accursed] in 
 our stead." (Gal. iii. 13.) 
 
 This scheme of justification, by grace (gratis), through faith, 
 is not new in God's provisions for human salvation; but is the 
 primal, eternal plan now, at the end of the ages, manifested to the 
 world. Paul elsewhere says: "This grace was given us in Christ 
 Jesus before eternal ages, but has been manifested now through 
 the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ." (2 Tim. i, 10.) Only 
 that which previously existed, though hidden, can be "manifested." 
 "In former generations it was not made known to the sons of 
 men, as it was now revealed to the holy apostles and prophets in 
 the Spirit, that the Gentiles are coheirs with the Jews, and joined 
 in the same body with them, and partakers with them of the 
 promise in Christ, through the gospel." (Eph. iii, 4.) This unre- 
 vealed secret was the " mystery" of which Paul so often speaks, 
 not (as in the sense of the English word mystery) something incom- 
 prehensible and inexplicable, but merely the higher and distinctive 
 doctrine of the gospel, the gospel that is world-wide in its scope, 
 that contemplates, not the Jews only, but the Gentiles also, all of 
 them, and equally. This was God's plan from eternity. He was 
 always working along this line. It was a truth attested by the 
 Law and the Prophets. The Scriptures, though the Jews cer- 
 tainly misapprehended them, were nevertheless saturated with 
 this thought. "The testimony concerning Jesus is the spirit of 
 prophecy" (Rev. xix, 10); "To him all the prophets testify," 
 (Acts X, 43) ; "And all the prophets from Samuel, as many as 
 spoke, foretold these days" (Acts iii, 24). Christ himself said 
 of these Jewish Scriptures, "These are the Scriptures testifying 
 concerning me." (John v, 39.) In his evening walk, with the two 
 disciples, on the way to Emmaus, " Beginning from Moses and from 
 all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures, the 
 things concerning himself." (Luke xxiv, 27.) Such is the evan- 
 gelical drift of the Hebrew Scriptures. The voice of gospel teach- 
 ing is heard throughout the volume. And at the end of this epistle, 
 the apostle declares that "this mystery [innerdoctrine], kept secret 
 through eternal ages, is now made manifest, and, through pro- 
 phetic Scriptures [which we now know to interpret correctly], is 
 
nOMANS III. 23, 24. 129 
 
 made known to all the Gentiles, with a view to their obedience to 
 the faith." (Rom. xvi, 25.) 
 
 Faith in Christ, whose name now first appears in this argu- 
 ment, is the only means by which men may be at one with God. 
 The ideal, normal justification by " doing works of law," being 
 now impossible for men, the only alternative is faith in Christ's 
 atonement. "There is no other name given among men whereby 
 we must be saved." (Acts iv, 12.) The prepositional phrase unto 
 all, connects back to the word justification. In some editions, 
 and in the Authorized, is found a second phrase " and upon all ;" 
 which, however, adds but little to the sense, only to the rhetorical 
 fullness of the sentence, as habitual with Paul. But if we retain 
 the clause, we may explain the meaning, " justification reaching 
 unto all, and resting upon all." 
 
 The single condition for actual, experimental, personal justi- 
 cation before God, is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a con- 
 dition that is graciously open to all men, and possible for all men. 
 
 The clause for there is no distinction, is epexegetical of the 
 word all in the previous clause. We may safely emphasize this 
 word "all" whenever we find it in Paul's exhibition of the gos- 
 pel plan. It is emphatic here: "In Christ there is justification 
 unto ALL men, /or there is no difference." The sense is plain with- 
 out any further words ; but elsewhere Paul gives the thought yet 
 more explicitly: "For there is no difference between Jew and 
 Greek [Gentile.]" (Rom. x, 12.) All races, and all classes, and 
 all individuals, stand before God, before the Law, before the Gos- 
 pel on the same gracious footing. Any individual distinctions of 
 blood, or conditions, are in the line of God's providences, not of 
 his spiritual kingdom ; and distinctions of rank among men are of 
 men's own making, whicli God does not recognize ; with him there 
 is no respect of persons (social conditions) ; and the provisions of 
 the gospel are adequate to all conditions and emergencies. 
 
 Verses 23, 24. For all sinned, and fall short of the 
 glory of God, being justified gratis by his grace, through 
 the redemption that is fn Christ Jesus. 
 
 The statement that all sinned looks back to the great historic 
 fact of the fall of man, which is all that we here deal with ; but 
 we shall have occasion, on the recurrence of these words in the 
 fifth chapter (Rom. v, 12), to discuss the theology and the theodicy 
 of the doctrine of^sin and of redemption. It is this objective fact 
 
i;50 EXPOSITION. 
 
 of universal sinfuliu'ss tluit the apostle makes the ground for the 
 universal counter-provision of the gospel. 
 
 To this statement of the historic fact that " all sinned," in- 
 cluding the Jews as well as the Gentiles in this condemnation, the 
 ajjostle now adds the present fact that all men, including again the 
 Jews, fall short of the glory of God. The sense of the final 
 phrase, the glory of God, is not immediately apparent. Some 
 tiiink tluit the clause means this: "They come short of rendering 
 to God the glory tiuit is due to him," as in the sentence, " To God 
 only wise be glory through Jesus Christ, forever." (Rom. xvi, 17.) 
 Others think that it means: "They fall short of attaining the 
 consummate glory of the last day," " the glory that will be re- 
 vealed to us-ward." (Rom. viii. 18.) But " the glory " of our text 
 is not future, but present. Better is the sense of the word in 
 John: "They loved the glory of men rather than the glory of 
 God." (John xii, 43.) Interpret the passage thus: "They lack 
 the approval of God." This is the characteristic result of the sinful 
 state of men, at large; but the connection in the apostle's line of 
 thought siiows that he applies it here to the Jews. They put for- 
 ward arrogant claims; but, in fact, "they do not stand approved 
 of God." He does not look with complacency on them and justify 
 them on the ground of law. Nay, as lacking justification on the 
 ground of works, they (and all men in common) are justified — the 
 only alternative— gratis, by God's grace, through the re- 
 demption of Christ. 
 
 "Justified (jratis!" This under the gospel scheme is the only 
 result, and is the universal result. "All I Jew and Gentile] 
 sinned ;" the same all (Jew and Gentile) are justified by grace, as 
 a f/ift from God, and not by works. The word "being justified " 
 (diKaLovfitvoi, in the nominative case) can not look back grammatic- 
 ally to the word all in the twenty-second verse (Trdfras, in the ac- 
 cusative case), "all that have faith;" but to the word all in the 
 twenty-third verse (irdvres, nominative case), "all sinned." The 
 normal Scriptural view is that "all who sinned," bemg subjects 
 of redemi)tion, are constructively "justified." And notice: that 
 the language expressly takes in t]ie Jews. Tlie terms are coexten- 
 sive: "Sinned — justified." This is the gosjiel plan. Such is al- 
 ways Paul's concei)t of the matter; sucli are iiis words whenever 
 he exhibits the plan and process of redemption: " If one died for 
 [in the place of] all, then they all died, witii liim " (2 Cor. v, 14) ; 
 " He that died with Christ has been justified from sin " (Rom. 
 
ROMANS III. 25, 26. 131 
 
 vi, 7) ; "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ will all be made to 
 live" (1 Cor. xv, 22). But notice, further, that the universality 
 •of redemption and of constructive justification for the race, which 
 is wholly a matter of God's grace, and not of man's will, does not 
 involve universality of eternal salvation, which, under the gospel 
 plan, is practically conditional, in the case of adults, upon each 
 man's personal faith. The word grace has here its first, simple 
 meaning of God's favor or kindness; and not the secondary sense 
 of infused, spiritual IicIjk 
 
 The word redemption is one of the most significant terms in 
 the gospel vocabulary. The word means a pi-ice paid, a liberation 
 from a previous bondage. The word occurs ten times in the New 
 Testament ; the concept which it expresses occurs many times 
 more. These passages represent man in bondage to iniquity, in 
 bondage to death, the wages of iniquity. The ransom is Christ's 
 own life. " Christ gave himself in our place, that he may redeem 
 us from all iniquity " (Tit. ii, 14) ; " Christ gave himself a ransom 
 in place of all " (1 Tim. ii, 6) ; " Christ bought us off from the 
 curse of the law " (Gal. iii, 13) ; " Christ gave himself in our place, 
 an offering, and a sacrifice to God" (Eph. v, 2). These last words, 
 " to God," are a sufficient answer to the dreadful notion of some 
 of the fathers, and some modei'n writers, that the price of Christ's 
 death was paid to the devil ! No ; it is God who is propitiated by 
 Christ's death. As a Father of men, he gave his Son to die for 
 them: and as a Sovereign he accepted Christ's death as a satisfac- 
 tion for the sins of men. These two relations to men are not 
 incompatible. " In Christ we have the redemption, through his 
 blood, the forgiveness of our sins, according to the riches of God's 
 grace." (Eph. i, 7.) 
 
 Verses 25, 26. Whom God set forth a propitiation, 
 through faith in his blood, unto a manifestation of his plan 
 of justification, on account of the passing over of the sins 
 done before in the forbearance of God ; unto the mani- 
 festation of his plan of justification in the present time ; 
 to the end that he may himself be just [justified], and 
 justifying him that is of faith in Jesus. 
 
 These verses are felt to be peculiarly difficult. They are 
 compact, implicate in structure, full of weighty and significant 
 words, and some of them very perplexing. The sevex-al words, 
 and phrases, and clauses, and the connections of the sentences, 
 
132 EXPOSITION. 
 
 grammatical and logical, need careful study. Tho translation here 
 given, and the exegesis following, while doubtless open to criticism, 
 will, I hope, be found free from serious misconception or misrep- 
 resentation of tlie apostle's meaning. 
 
 The first verse begins vvitli an liistoricnl statement that God 
 set forth his son as a propitiation. Dependent upon this sen- 
 tence, there are two co-ordinate parallel clauses, expressing the 
 scope, or object, aimed at in the divine action ; and these clauses are 
 each motlified by adverbial phrases, causal or temporal ; and finally 
 there is a telic clause, expressing the divine purpose. In accord- 
 ance with this analysis, I arrange the entire passage thus: 
 
 " Whom God set forth a propitiation, through faith in his 
 blood: 
 
 I. AVith a view to a manifestation of his plan of justification, 
 on account of the passing over of the sins done of old in the for- 
 bearance of God ; 
 
 II. Unto the manifestation of his plan of justification in the 
 present time ; 
 
 III. To the end that he may himself be justified, and justify- 
 ing him that is of faith in Jesus." 
 
 The verb here translated set forth does not so much mean 
 proclaimed, announced (yet this, too, is true), as put forward, con- 
 stituted. God constituted his Son a propitiation for the sins of the 
 world. "He seiit his son a propitiation for our sins." (1 John 
 iv, 10.) This appointment dates back to the eternal counsels of 
 God, who counted his Son "a lamb slain, from the foundation of 
 the world." (Rev. xiii, 8.) The first proclamation of this Savior 
 was in the promise in the garden: "The seed of the woman will 
 bruise the serpent's head;" and successive proclamations of this 
 appointment run through all the later revelation. "He promised 
 itof old through his prophets, in Holy Scriptures." (Rom.i,2.) Yet 
 the world waited long for liim who was the Desire of all nations. 
 "But in the fullness of the time, God sent forth his Son." (Gal. 
 iv, 4.) "Now once for all, at the completion of the ages, he has 
 been manifested to a putting away of sin, through the sacrifice of 
 himself." (Heb. ix, 26.) These sayings, which describe the great 
 fulfillment of the promise of old, explain the words of our text: 
 " Whom God set forth, or constituted, a propitiation." 
 
 The Greek word here translated propitiation, found twice 
 only in the New Testament, occurs many times in the Septuagint 
 in the sense of " mercy seat." It is found also in the Epistle to 
 
ROMANS III. 25, 36. 133 
 
 the Hebrews in this Levitical sense : "Above the ark of the cove- 
 nant were the Cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat." (Heb. 
 ix, 5.) Many interpreters attach this meaning, figuratively, to 
 the text here. But this interpretation is too strained to satisfy 
 the exigencies of the passage. We can hardly say that God con- 
 stituted his Son a mercy seat, an inanimate altar. Rather, the 
 Son was the living, willing victim upon the altar, a self-sacrifice to 
 expiate the sins of the world. It is in this latter sense that the 
 verbtXdo-Keo-^ai, to propitiate, also twice found in the New Testament, 
 is used: "God, be propitiated to me the sinner" (Luke xviii, 13) ; 
 "He became high priest ... to make propitiation for the sins of 
 the people" (Heb. ii, 17). It is in this sense that the other deriv- 
 ative substantive iXa<r/ii6s, also twice found, is used: " He is a pro- 
 pitiation for our sins" (1 John ii, 2) ; "He sent his Son a propitia- 
 tion for our sins " (1 John iv, 10). These words then have a sense 
 of atonement, a means to placate, to concilitate ; and they always 
 are used of the change in man's forensic relations towards God. 
 So here : " God appointed his Son propitiation for our sins." "God 
 was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to 
 them their trespasses." (2 Cor. v, 19.) 
 
 The phrase through faith in his blood is appropriately con- 
 nected with the word ''propitiation." No one can fairly misun- 
 derstand the general thought. But as the act of propitiation rep- 
 resents the Godward side of the transaction, and the act of faith 
 the manward side, we may, for definition's sake, best express the 
 connection by supplying a word: " propitiation to be apprehended 
 by us through faith." 
 
 This phrase, " through faith in his blood," is to be taken as a 
 whole, without a comma after " faith ;" that is, the preposition in 
 shows the relation of "blood" to "faith." (The Authorized is 
 correct; the Revised has missed the sense.) But by the word 
 " propiliation," the apostle brings to the front in this sense, not 
 simply faith, but expressly ''faith in the atoning blood of Christ." 
 True, this verbal expression of faith in Christ's blood does not occur 
 elsewhere in the New Testament ; but the book is rich in equiva- 
 lent expressions teaching the propitiation through his shed blood. 
 The Savior himself said, " This cup is the new covenant in my blood, 
 which is shed for you" (Luke xxii, 20) ; Paul said, " In him we 
 have the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our sins " 
 (Eph. i, 7) ; and John said, " He loved us, and washed us from our 
 sins in his own blood" (Rev. i, 5). Yet the term "blood" is but 
 
134 EXPOSITION. 
 
 a fipurativp expression for death ; " For tliough it behooved Christ 
 tu dii" (wliicli was the essential thing), the /t»/-»i of his death was 
 a matter indilTerent in itself; and .nothing turns on the mere phys- 
 ical tilicd'linij of his blood. But as Christ's death came in this form, 
 and as his blood was actually shed, the word " blood" most natu- 
 rally and most expressively runs through all the New Testament 
 representations of his death ; and the " blood [death] of Christ " is 
 constantly named as the redemption of the world. 
 
 The phrase unto a manifestation of his plan of justifica- 
 tion expresses God's purpose in thus formally setting forth his 
 Son as the propitiation of the world. It was to vindicate himself 
 and his administration. The term evdei^is here translated "mani- 
 festation," is from the same root and has the same meaning as the 
 parallel expression to the Ephesians, "God made us alive with 
 Christ, and rai.sed us with him, that he may show forth (ivdel^rirai.) 
 the riches of his grace towards us" (Eph. ii, 7), and the word 
 might be just as adequately translated by any of the quite synony- 
 mous words, " showing forth, display, or exhibition." Paul means 
 simply, but pertinently to his great theme, that God, by the ap- 
 pointment of his Son as a propitiation, exhibits to the world his 
 method of justifying sinners. The Greek word irdpeffiv, here trans- 
 lated passing over (incorrectly given in the Authorized, "re- 
 mission," which makes it a synonym of " pardon"), means quite 
 exactly prelennhsion, or letting go by. The word is used by Xeno- 
 phon in exactly the same sense: "A trainer of horses, should not 
 let^such faults pass by unpunished." (Hipparchus VII, 10.) The 
 predicative woi-d "unpunished" which Xenophon adds is clearly 
 implied in our text. Paul's thought is, that God, down to the 
 time of Christ, instead of i)romptly punishing sin, as a just Sov- 
 ereign might be expected to do, let it ^' pass him by unpunished," 
 as if unnoticed; not that he formally /or(;ar<' it or ignored it, but 
 that h(> mercifully foreboi'e to punish. This was in the time of the 
 non-age of the Church, " the times of ignorance which as yet God 
 winked at" (Actsxvii,30) ; " In the bygone generations he suffei'ed 
 all the nations to walk in their own ways" (Acts xiv, 16); or, 
 rather, as Paul represents it, the case of the sinner was held in 
 suspense. And from this point of view we explain his word preter- 
 mission, as expressing all that God could administratively yet do. 
 Until Christ came, he could only " wink at sin," as if he did not 
 notice it. Yet, in point of fact, God always noticed sin, and often 
 punished it, and often pai"doned it, accoi-ding to the disposition of 
 
ROMANS III. 25, 26. 135 
 
 the offenders. All along the ages he forgave the sins of penitent 
 men. The psalmist could describe what must ever have been a 
 frequent experience: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are for- 
 given, and whose sins were covered." (Ps. xxxii, 1.) This for- 
 bearance of God in the case of sinners under the old dispensation 
 is, after all, exactly analogous to his forbearance now. God does 
 not now punish sin on the instant ; nor does he therefore pardon 
 it or overlook it. He does what human courts often do: He sus- 
 pends sentence; he waits for our repentance; "he is long-sufier- 
 ing to US-ward." 
 
 The sins done before were the sins of men, indiscriminately, 
 during the long ages before the coming of Christ. The same 
 thought is expressed, but still more clearly, in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews: "Christ's death took place for the redemption of the 
 transgressions under the first dispensation." (Heb. ix, 15.) The 
 text mai'ks two great administrative periods, the one, the era pre- 
 ceding the atonement ; the other, the Christian era since. And 
 the sins referred to in the text w^ere the sins during the first long 
 reach of time, while God waited until " Christ should become the 
 Mediator of a better dispensation." (Heb. ix, 15.) 
 
 The phrase in the forbearance of God stands in contrast 
 with the phrase in tlie next verse, in the present time. It fol- 
 lows that both phrases are adverbial elements of time; and the 
 first phrase can not express '''the sphere of the divine action," but 
 must mean "in the time of God's forbearance," the forty centuries 
 of the divine patience before Christ came ; just as, in the twenty- 
 sixth verse, the phrase, " in the present time," has respect to the 
 Christian era. 
 
 AVe now come to the occasion, or ground, for God's setting 
 forth of Christ as the propitiation for men : and for the public 
 exhibition of his plan of justification. The text says that it was 
 on account of God's pretermission of the by-gone sins of 
 men. This apparent non-punition of sin constituted an anomaly 
 in the moral world that might be misunderstood, to the impeach- 
 ment of God's justice; it was "on this account" that God in due 
 time exhibited to the world his plan of justification, by which sin 
 could be reckoned with, and pardoned. The Gospel scheme pro- 
 vides for this ; but the system of law, on which the Jews prided 
 themselves, and thought themselves justified under it, really 
 made no provision for pardon. Not the Jews in fact, and cer- 
 tainly not the Gentiles, have any hope under the administration 
 
136 EXPOSITION. 
 
 of law. But God now reveals to the world, to Jews and Gentiles 
 in common, a plan for human salvation mori; comprehensive in its 
 scope than the Jews had tlu)Uf,'lit, and more gracious in its provi- 
 sions than the Gentiles liad hoped. 
 
 In the twenty-sixth verse the words of the previous verse are 
 repeated with a slight deviation. Yet it is not a repetition of the 
 identical thought, for mere emphasis' sake, as is assumed in the 
 Autliorized and the Revised, by the words " I say ;" but is a distinct 
 co-ordinate proposition. The distinction in the two propositions 
 is made by the contrasted temporal adverbial phrases, in the 
 time of God's forbearance — that is, under the old dispensation ; 
 and in the present time — that is, under the new dispensation. 
 Fundamentally, both dispensations were Christian, alike ; but the 
 old dispensation looked forward, through types, to a Christ yet to 
 come, and but obscurely revealed ; the new dispensation looks 
 back now to a Christ already come, and fully revealed. From the 
 first God planned for the abolition of sin: he marked the first dis- 
 pensation by the pretermission of sin ; he marks the present dis- 
 pensation by the remission of sin. In both administrations "God 
 is just, and in both he justifies the man who has faith." This is 
 the apostle's thought in the next clause. 
 
 This final clause gives the j)urpose with which God manifested 
 to the world his plan of justification, to the end, namely, that 
 he may be counted just ; and that he may justify the man 
 of faith in Jesus. God's long forbearance with transgressors 
 had the appearance of indifference, or even of judicial trifling. 
 It looked as if he connived at sin ; that he overlooked trangres- 
 sion, when he ought to have punished it. But his delay was not 
 caprice, but longsuffering: and tliis verse declares how he vindi- 
 cated his administration from this hasty judgment of men. He 
 justified himself in the forum of man's conscience, by exhibiting, 
 not his desire for the condemnation of men, but his plan for 
 their justification, his plan that has always been operative in the 
 world, though men may not always have known it; he justified 
 himself by showing that the gospel plan provided from of old an 
 atonement in the fullness of time for sin, retrospective in its action 
 as well as prospective. It covers the sins of the past, as well as 
 the sins of the present time. In regard to both descriptions, and 
 in both periods of time, God must beheld as just (justified) in 
 justifying men, and this means all men, on the ground of the uni- 
 versal atonement. 
 
ROMANS III, 2T. 137 
 
 It is true that the last words in the verse, him that is of 
 faith in Jesus, taken apart from the context, might seem to 
 restrict justification to him only (the adult) who has a conscious, 
 saving faith in Jesus; and to restrict it to the present time. 
 Certainly it is eminently true that God does justify such believer; 
 but the connection indicates that the expression includes all men, 
 of all time, infants as well as adults, unbelievers as well as believ- 
 ers, because all are the actual purchase of Christ's death, and all 
 must be held as idea,lly coming under the scheme or category of 
 " faith," as over against the category of works. The expression, 
 " him that is of faith," stands in contrast with men of the other 
 description, "men who are of law" (Ivom. iv, 4) ; men who, like 
 the Jews, count themselves "doers of law," yet who "are not 
 justified by law." Only from faith in Jesus is there justification ; 
 and in the gospel scheme tliis holds ideally commensurate with the 
 entire race, for all time, before Christ as well as after. 
 
 In this whole discussion, and in all the terms that Paul em- 
 ploys, he has the Gentile world foremost in his thought: it is 
 their cause that he pleads against the exclusiveness of the Jews; 
 and it is of them in particular that he says, " God justifies him 
 that is of faith in Jesus." It is the same thought that he ex- 
 presses elsewhere, in reference to the Gentiles — " Whom God had 
 in his thought, he included in his plan ; whom he included, he 
 called; whom he called, he justified." (Rom. viii, 29.) 
 
 Verse 27. a. Jew. "Where then is the boasting? 
 h. Paul. It "was excluded. 
 C.Jew. Through what kind of law ? Of the 
 
 works ? 
 d. Paul. No ; but through law of faith. 
 
 a. Jew: "Where then is our boasting? This verse, like the 
 first part of the chapter, is in the form of a colloquy between the 
 Jewish opponent and the apostle. It is very brief; but it covers 
 the whole matter, that is in issue. The first question inquires for 
 the standing of the Jews before the Law. The question is put in 
 general terms ; but the specific reference to the Jews is best ex- 
 pressed with the use of the personal pronoun, " Where is our boast- 
 ing?" The previous discussion has turned on the assumption of 
 the Jews that they have a religious superiority over the Gentiles ; 
 and this is still the feeling that lies on the surface of this question. 
 The word boasting is sometimes taken in a bad sense, as meaning 
 
138 EXPOSITION. 
 
 " vainploryinp:" but the only instance of tliis bad sense in the 
 New Tfstanient is in the Epistle of Jumes, "Ye boast in your ar- 
 rogances: all such boasting is bad." (James iv, 16.) Paul employs 
 the word ten times, always in a good sense, as when he himself 
 says, " This boasting of mine shall not be stopped " (2 Cor. xi, 10) ; 
 and similarly the psalmist says, "My soul will make her boast in 
 the Loi"d " (Psa. xxxiv, 2). We must understand the Jews' word 
 here in this good sense, and interpret it as meaning, " Where then 
 is our wonted boasting ? What becomes of our prescriptive claims 
 as God's peculiar people?" Yet, after all, their question in tliis 
 connection resolves itself, at best, into a covert expression of spir- 
 itual conceit on the part of the Jew. And as such Paul curtly sets 
 it a^de. 
 
 h. Paul: It "was excluded. These few words are Paul's 
 8'ifficient answer to the assumption of the Jew. Indeed his 
 Greek is even briefer yet — only one woi-d, which we may imitate, 
 "Excluded!" The historical tense, "It was excluded" (which is 
 not recognized in the Authorized or the Revised), dates the exclu- 
 sion back to the eternal plan of God. And the apostle's answer 
 means that not only is there no room now for Jewish boasting, but 
 there never was any room. From the very inception of the Divine 
 scheme for the salvation of the world, down to the present time, 
 all self-glorifying was and is shut out. Boasting in one's election, 
 or works, or personal desert, is incompatible with the fact of 
 man's sinfulness, with the fact that God is no respecter of persons 
 (even in the case of the Jews), and with the whole concept of the 
 gospel. All men stand before the Law alike. Through all the 
 history of God's dealings with man, not works (over whicli they 
 might boast), but faith (which admits no element of boasting) 
 constituted the sole ground of justification witli God. 
 
 c. Jew: Through "what kind of law? of the works? 
 This question, like the first one, is in general terms, the works 
 (though the article is omitted in both the Authorized and the Re- 
 vised) ; but the specific reference of the whole passage to the Jews, 
 requires that we translate, as before, with the personal pronoun, 
 "our works." And this word "our" determines the sen.se which 
 we must attach to the word "law." If the text were simply 
 "works," without the article or the pronoun, we might explain 
 the woi-d "law" as meaning "principle," or "authority;" but 
 this interpretation is not logically possible with "our works." We 
 must fall back on the usual sense of law, as meaning "statute," or 
 
ROMANS III, 27. 139 
 
 "legislation." And the question means " Througli what kind of 
 statute was our boasting excluded? Was it (though it is self- 
 contradictory to think or ask), was it through the statute which 
 enjoined these works of ours ?"— works that the Ceremonial Law re- 
 quires of us, such as circumcision, and sacrifices, and tithes, and 
 observance of things clean, and holy-days? The question thus 
 explained shows still the boastful spirit and attitude of the Jewish 
 objector ; and still declares that the Jew has no other concept of 
 the way of justification, than through works. He counts the Cere- 
 monial Law as enjoined, and obedience to it as meritorious, over 
 which one may boast. And he urges this point as a reduclio ad 
 absurdum against the apostle's declaration that "boasting was 
 excluded." 
 
 This position of the Jews seems at first self-consistent. But 
 here was the fatal fallacy in their argument. They did not do the 
 works of which they boasted ; and therefore they were not so jus- 
 tified before God. They could boast of works, only if, like the 
 sinless angels, they had always obeyed, and perfectly obeyed, God's 
 moral law. " The Jews, as well as sinners from the Gentiles, were 
 not justified by works of law, but through faith in Jesus Christ." 
 (Gal. iii. 16.) 
 
 d. Paul: No; but through la"w of faith. The question of 
 the Jew is, "Was our boasting excluded through the law which 
 enjoins our works ?" In this question the Jew thought only of 
 ceremonial and ritual works, but attached to them a moral and 
 saving value. Now Paul would grant that if there be boasting at 
 all it must be in " works ;" but it must be in moral works, not in 
 such ceremonial works as the Jew has in mind, and whose moral 
 value Paul does not recognize. It is by this defect in moral value 
 that their boasting of their works was excluded. And so, to their 
 question, Paul's answer is a peremptory " No." It is not through 
 such a law of ceremonial works of theirs, that their boasting was 
 excluded; but "through the law of faith." Not even Abraham, 
 as we shall read in the next chapter, the root and the ideal man of 
 the Jewish Church, had any ground for boasting. The gospel of 
 Jesus Christ excludes reliance on legal obedience, and establishes 
 faith as the sole ground of justification. No man can boast. 
 Everything is of God's grace, not of God's indebtedness to man. 
 " What hast thou which thou didst not receive [as a gift] ? But if 
 thou also receivest it [as a gift], why dost thou boast, as not hav- 
 ing received it ?" (1 Cor. iv, 7.) 
 
140 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verse 28. For we reckon that man is justified by faith, 
 apart from works of law. 
 
 Of the two.Hiul Dili}- two, coiici'ivable methods of justification, 
 from works, and from faith [see note on verse 201, the former is 
 now cK'arly shown impossible for man. There remains only tin; 
 latter: Man is justified by faith, apart from works. The 
 woi*d man is generic ; it inchules tlie whok^ race of Adam, now the 
 whole race of Christ; and it sliould not be taken indefinitely "a 
 man," as in the Authorized and the Revised. It may, indeed, be 
 questioned whether that is Greek. The text but expx-esses the 
 ideal working of the gospel ; the atonement embraces the race ; 
 every man is justified from the guilt and the penalty of sin. But 
 it is not lience to be concluded that all men are finally to be saved. 
 "Justification is with a view to sanctification," the "holiness 
 without which no man will see the Lord." But if a man will not 
 sanctify himself, his erstwhile justification is unavailing. "Once 
 in grace" can be said of all men ; " always in grace " can be said 
 only of those who persevere. 
 
 Verse 29. Or is God God of Jews only ? is he not God 
 of Gentiles also ? 
 
 The conjunction or (which is not given in the Authorized), 
 when it thus introduces a question, implies a demur to the pre- 
 vious proposition and suggests an alternative which is itself not 
 admissible. It is as if the apostle said to the Jew: "Or, if you 
 demur to this statement of the case of the Gentiles, what then 
 will you say ? is God God of Jqws only ?" The question which Paul 
 here asks contains really the kernel of the whole Epistle. The 
 moot point in the Epistle, briefly put, is, Who are embraced in the 
 divme plan ? "Is God God of Jews only ? is he not (iod of Gentiles 
 also?" 
 
 The debate, so far, in this chapter, between the Jew and Paul, 
 has been, substantially, on this very point, — the actual bearing of 
 God's plan of justification, and the relation of the Gentiles to this 
 plan. The conclusion which Paul reaches is that men are justified 
 by faith alone, and not by works, as the Jews boasted ; and that 
 the Gentiles thus stand before the law of God, and before the 
 Gospel of Christ, in exactly the same attitude as the Jews. Both 
 are equally sinful, equally need justification, are equally depend- 
 ent on the provisions of the gospel for pai"don and salvation ; and 
 
ROMANS III, 30. 141 
 
 they come into this equal participation because they are equally 
 the children of one common Father. It is with this thought that 
 the apostle asks the question of this verse, " Is God God of Jews 
 only ? is he not God of Gentiles also ?" 
 
 Verse 30. Yes ; of Gentiles also ; if in fact God is one 
 [and not many] ; who will justify circumcision from faith, 
 and imcircumcision through the [same] faith. 
 
 The word one in this verse is not the indefinite pronoun, but 
 the numeral. The Jews' denial that, for all men alike, justification 
 is by faith, and not by works ; and the denial that the Gentiles 
 have an equal place in God's plan, involves substantially a denial 
 of the unity of God. If God is one, and not many, he is God 
 everywhere, and God of all men ; not of Jews only, but of Gentiles 
 also ; he has but one scheme of moral government for men, and 
 therefore but one plan of justification. This conclusion must be 
 conceded by the Jews from their monotheism. There is but one 
 God, and he is God of all. It is only on the assumption that the 
 Jews and Gentiles do not have the same God that we can think 
 them under different economies, or administrations, and under 
 different methods of justification. The Jews who deemed them- 
 selves peculiarly God's elect did not cheerfully recognize this 
 common Fatherhood of God with regard to the Gentiles ; but they 
 never denied it. It is a truth taught in their Scriptures. Their 
 prophets expressed it boldly and broadly. The great evangelical 
 prophet says: "Doubtless thou art our Father: though Abraham 
 be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not, yet thou, 
 Jehovah, art our Father, our Redeemer." (Isa. Ixiii, 16.) And the 
 last of the prophets says: " Have we not all one Father? hath not 
 one God created us?" (Mai. ii, 10.) 
 
 The woi'ds circumcision and uncircumcision mean Jew and* 
 Gentile. The terms, being without the article, describe rather 
 than enumerate ; and mean, therefore, not so much all of the one 
 category, or of the other, as they mean persons having the given 
 characteristics ; or perhaps, rather, the religious status of the sev- 
 eral classes. Yet. as we have seen in verse 26, the gospel ideally 
 includes the race, all of the Circumcision, all of the Uncircumcision. 
 
 The difference expressed by the two prepositions," from faith — 
 through the faith," is not so pronounced but that perhaps they 
 might have been interchanged, or either one used in both clauses. 
 But we may detect a possible shade of difference in the apostle's 
 
142 ICX POSITION. 
 
 concepts, as expressed in his word " faitli " without the article; 
 and liis word with it. CJod will justify Jews, not by works, but 
 out of faith in a coming Messiali, which underlay the wliole Jewish 
 dispensation; and he will justify tiie (ientiles thraitgh the faith, 
 their new creed, which they espouse in coming to Christ. 
 
 Verse 31. Jfw : Do we, then, abrogate law through the 
 faith ? 
 Paul: God. forbid I Nay, but we estabUsh 
 law. 
 
 The word law^ is without tlie article, and, as always, means 
 tiie ethical law, which in its own nature is universal and eternal. 
 Witli this law, faith, or more exactly the faith — that is, the gospel 
 — is not inconsistent. This law, if obeyed, secures justification ; it 
 is intended for this and not for condemnation. But, failing this, 
 faith in Christ is the divinely appointed substitute for law, for 
 man's justification. Faith is God's method of justifying those 
 whom law can not justify. (Rom. viii, 3. ) And when we preach the 
 gospel of faith, we not only do not antagonize law, or abrogate it, 
 we confirm and establish it. "Christ is the end (fulfillment) of 
 law, unto justification, to every one that has faith." (Rom. x, 4.) 
 
CHAPTEK lY. 
 
 Verse 1. Jew : "What then shall we say that Abraham 
 oiir forefather has found according to the flesh ? 
 
 The words must be understood as the words of the Jewish ob- 
 jector, as before, in the tliird chapter. 
 
 The word forefather is found in this place only in the New 
 Testament; and it is evidently used in its literal sense, as spoken 
 from the standpoint of the natural Israel. When Paul speaks, 
 from the standpoint of the gospel, of the relation of the spiritual 
 Israel to Abraham, as in the twelfth verse of this chapter, his 
 word is " father," not " forefather." The case of Abraham comes 
 into consideration here in the following way : In the third chap- 
 ter, the apostle has shown, as we have seen, that the Jews at large 
 can not rely on works for justification, and can not boast of merit 
 before God. But the Jews hold that, however the case stood with 
 the bulk of the nation, at least Abraham, their great forefather, 
 the ideal Jew, the friend of God, was justified by his personal 
 merits, and, so, had a ground of "boasting;" and, further, they 
 believed that his supererogatory merits descended to.his posterity, 
 the elect nation.* They prided themselves on their descent: " We 
 have Abraham to our father ; we are Abraham's seed." It is with 
 this feeling in regard to their great ancestor that the objector 
 now asks, as a conclusive reply to Paul's views, "What, then 
 (on the ground of your teaching as to the Jews at large), shall we 
 say that Abraliam, our forefather, has found according to the 
 flesh?" 
 
 The Authorized and the Revised connect the phrase accord- 
 ing to the flesh, as an adjective element, with the word " fore- 
 father." But this word " forefather," as the expression for the 
 
 *Cf. Edershelm's "Jesus the Messiah." I, 271. 
 
 143 
 
144 EXPOSITION. 
 
 imturnl relation, already carries in itself its full specific meaning; 
 and tlu' phrase "according to tlie Hesh " can add nothing wliat- 
 ever to the sense. Besides, such a connection for the phrase 
 would leave the verb has found without any words to mark the 
 trend and end of Abraham's seeking and finding. But the phrase 
 "according to the flesh," must connect logically, as an adverbial 
 element, with the verb "has found;" and it is parallel with the 
 equivalent adverbial phrase " from works," in the second verse. 
 So connected, the words "according to the flesh" must mean "on 
 the basis of his personal works and deserts." 
 
 Verse 2. Paxti, : [Nothing at all] ; for if Abraham was 
 justified from works, he has a ground of boasting. Nay, 
 but [he has no ground for boasting] before God. 
 
 The conjunction for is always explicative and confirmatory; 
 but here it does not at first seem easy to trace the reference of 
 the word. The connection of the thought does not permit us to 
 make the second verse a continuation of the Jew's speech in the 
 first verse, nor, on the other hand, in counting the second verse as 
 Paul's, can we think that his words are meant to explain the lan- 
 guage of the Jew. The simple explanation suggested by the word 
 " for," is to supply, as Paul's direct answer to the question of the 
 Jew in the first verse, the woi-d Xothing; and to refer the word 
 "for" to this supplied word, "nothing." This connection of 
 thought will then run thus: 
 
 Jew. " What has Abraham found according to the flesh [that 
 is, on the ground of works]? 
 
 Paul. ^'Nothing whatever; for if he was justified fi'om 
 works — ." 
 
 The apostle's compressed style corresponds with his close- 
 packed meaning. Ofttimes his letters (which, we must recollect, 
 were all dictated) do not supply all the steps of his own rapid 
 movement. His thought outruns his utterances, or the pen of his 
 amanuensis; and he skips to catch up with himself. Other more 
 deliberate writers indulge in ellipses of single words ; Paul in- 
 dulges in ellipses of whole logical members ; and the reader is left 
 embarrassed, or is constrained to supply the missing link or links, 
 from the proprieties of the connection. The sentence before us is 
 a striking illustration of this ellipsis, and of the need to supple- 
 ment the sense ; and the very next clause of this verse furnishes 
 
ROMANS ir, 2. 145 
 
 another instance of this elliptic construction. The connection 
 runs thus : 
 
 " If Abraliam was justified by works, he has a ground of boast- 
 ing. Nay, but not [has he any ground of boasting] towards God." 
 
 In the ninth verse we have another instance of the ellipsis of 
 a logical member ; thus : 
 
 *' Comes this happiness on the Circumcision? or on the Uncir- 
 cumcision? [On the Uncircumcision] for we say, Faith was reck-, 
 oned to [the uncircumcised] Abraham unto justification." 
 
 The matter is sufficiently important to justify further illus- 
 tration. In Galatians, Paul gives us two instances in one verse: 
 "Does he who works miracles among you, do it from works of 
 law? or from preaching of faith? [From preaching of faith]; 
 even as [it has been written] Abraham had faith in God, and it 
 was reckoned to him unto justification." (Gal. iii, 5.) Again: 
 "Man is not justified from works of law [nor in any way] if not 
 through faith in Jesus Christ." (Gal, ii, 16.) Again: " In the Law 
 of Moses, it has been written, Thou shaft not muzzle an ox tread- 
 ing out grain. Is it the oxen that God cares for? or does he say it 
 wholly for our sake? [Not for oxen], for it was written for our 
 sake." (1 Cor. ix, 9.) Again : " But I say, Did not Israel know? 
 [Certainly, he did] : the first witness, Moses, says, — . (Rom. x, 19.) 
 
 In the sentence If Abraham was justified— the postulating 
 conjunction "if" and the indicative mode "was" (not the sub- 
 junctive ''were," as in the Authorized) expresses what Paul, who 
 did not hold this view, yet for argument's sake, concedes as a fact: 
 " Jf Abraham %vas justified by works (as the Jews affirm), he has a 
 ground of boasting." The word boasting here alludes to the 
 word "boasting" in Chapter iii, 27, the conceit of the Jews that 
 they were just before God. 
 
 Nay : but [he has no ground for boasting] before God. 
 The conjunction aXXd "but," here used, is the strongest adversa- 
 tive in the language ; and its force can best be reproduced in Eng- 
 lish with the help of the negative adverb " Nay." The sentence is 
 the apostle's summary and curt contradiction to the objector's 
 assumption. The whole argument, which the objector has based 
 upon Abraham's case, is unhistorical for the patriarch ; and as un- 
 scriptural as the claim which he previously set up for the nation 
 at large. Neither themselves nor the father of their race can 
 claim any merit from works before God. 
 10 
 
14r. EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verse 3. For what says the Scripture? "But Abra- 
 ham had faith in God; and it [his faith] was reckoned to 
 him unto justification." 
 
 The Hebrew original differs from this slightly in the form of 
 expression, but not in the sense: "Abraliam believed on Jehovah; 
 and he counted it to liini unto justification." (Gen. xv, 6.) Clearly 
 it was not merely his liistorical belief, the assent of liis intellect, 
 that brouglit liim justification; for, on that ground, even Satan 
 could be justified: "The devils also believe, and tremble."* The 
 Hebrew word here translated "he believed," TP^^^v* ^^^ same 
 word, from which comes the word ^' amen," "confirmation," " es- 
 tablishment, "+ implies a repose, a trust, in the saving power of 
 God's promise. Abraham relied first on God's veracity ; but his 
 faith went much further; and he trusted in God to the salvation 
 of his soul. " He stayed himself on Jehovali " — which is the lit- 
 eral meaning of the Hebrew — and God counted it to him unto 
 justification. It was on the ground of this spiritual sun-eiider of 
 himself, this recumbency of soul on the promises of God, that he 
 was justified before God, and became " the father of the faithful " 
 (the men of faith), " the friend of God." 
 
 In the statement of Moses, hei-e quoted by Paul, and reaf- 
 firmed by him, we liave the historical fact in regard to Abraiiam's 
 justification. It was not any work of law, but \\\<, failh tliat brought 
 him accei)tance with God, pardon of sin, and regeneration of heart. 
 In the case of Abraham, his justification, by the testimony of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures themselves, against wliat the Jews held, was 
 merely a matter of grace, that is, a gratuity, and not of merit, or 
 earned by his works. And the fifth verse below declares that this 
 is the normal method of justification for all men. It has always 
 been the sole method. 
 
 Verse 4. But to him that works, the reward is not 
 reckoned, as a matter of grace, but as a matter of debt. 
 
 This is a simple business proposition that holds true, first of 
 all, in our secular life. Wherever a workman does his task, he 
 
 •Dr. South says there Is no one In the universe so orthodox as Satan, 
 except God. 
 
 + Such is the meaning of the word "ame7i,"wlth which we conclude 
 our prayers. The word does not so much sum up what has been said, with 
 a brief repetition of theprayer, " Let it be so," as it declares our faith that 
 God has granted all that we asked: "It is so." 
 
ROMANS IV. 5, 6, 7, S. 147 
 
 earns his wages ; and they are not given to him as a gratuity, but 
 of right and indebtedness. As applied to the religious life, the 
 verb works means "does works of law" with view to reward; 
 and the man who "does" these earns his wages (justitication and 
 eternal life) as his right, and not as a gift. In the common every- 
 day life, all workmen work their way, and earn their pay. But in 
 the religious life, no man now earns justification. " By works of 
 law will no flesh be justified before God" (Rom. iii, 20) ; 'Man 
 is not justified by works of law, but only through faith in Jesus 
 Christ" (Gal. ii, 16). 
 
 Verse 5. But to him that works not, but has faith on 
 him that justifies the ungodly man, his faith is reckoned 
 unto justification. 
 
 By tlie words works not the apostle does not deny good 
 works, or the obligation of them, as the evidence of the Christian 
 man's profession. But works can not go beyond that: no merit 
 attaches to them, nor does any merit indeed attach to faith. 
 Herein, Paul argues, is God's way of justification as set over 
 against the vain boasting of the Jews. With God no man has any 
 desert, not even Abraham. He earns nothing. Everything is of 
 grace. Faith in Christ is the only pathway to justification, and 
 to sanctification, and salvation. This is not a novel doctrine, but 
 as old as the race. The Jews ought to have known it; and indeed 
 they did know it, but ignored it. It is the salient feature in the 
 history of Abraham. Nor is this doctrine antagonistic to the prin- 
 ciples of law: it confirms the Law. And it is established as the 
 Old Testament doctrine by the testimony of David, in the next 
 verses. 
 
 Verses 6, 7, 8. According as also David tells the hap- 
 piness of the man to w^hom God reckons justification, 
 apart from w^orks : 
 
 Happy they whose iniquities were forgiven, 
 And whose sins were covered ; 
 
 Happy the man to whom the Lord will not reckon 
 sin! (Ps. xxxii, 1.) 
 
 This psalm is here expressly assigned to David ; and is so 
 recognized by the critics. It was written by him after his sin with 
 Bathsheba. The tense of the verbs shows that the psalmist, when 
 he wrote these words, looked back to a long-past forgiveness. 
 
148 EXPOSITION. 
 
 The verb liere correctly translnted to reckon — that ia, to 
 count, accredit— is found ten times in this clmpter and about 
 twenty times more in Piuil's Epistles. In six of the places in 
 this cliapter (verses 6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24), and elsewhere, the Author- 
 ized Version, following the I.atin Vulgate (imputare, rrpulare) 
 translates it to impute;" that is, to attribute. This chapter is 
 the professed Scriptural basis for the famous figment of " im- 
 puted sin" and of "imputed righteousness," which, since the 
 days of Augustine, has so strangely leavened the theology of the 
 of the Church in regard to the Scriptural doctrine of justification. 
 Further, tiie unfortunate mistranslation of the Greek word for 
 justification by the English word " righteousness," and the indis- 
 criminate use, in theological discussions, of this one word " right- 
 eousness " for the two unlike concepts "justification" and 
 " holiness," has helped on tliis doctrinal error of imputation. 
 
 " Imputation" in Augustinian and Calvinistic theology is the 
 dogma that, in the divine counsels, Adam's personal sin, and the 
 guilt of it, is attributed to his descendants, as if their own (and, 
 of course, also attributed to Christ, who takes our place before the 
 law) ; and that, similarly, Christ's righteousness (which, logic- 
 ally, can only mean his personal holiness), and the merit of it, is 
 attributed to the elect as if tlieir own. 
 
 This is one of the stock tenets of Calvinistic theology. It 
 looks plausible, at first, as a working theory of the atonement. It 
 pervaded almost all the earlier theological literature; and it even 
 infected many who in other points were far from Calvinism. John 
 ■\Vesley, in treating of " Imputation," adopts the expression " im- 
 putation of Christ's righteousness," showing that he was caught 
 in the toils of Calvinistic phraseology, if he did not incline to 
 Calvinistic views. And no wonder; for up to his time there was 
 very little theological literature that was not tainted with this 
 heresy More recently the Wesleyan Churciies deny altogether 
 the dogma of "original sin," as defined above, and of "imputa- 
 tion of Christ's righteousness ;" and now a considerable school 
 of theologians, who nevertheless still call themselves Calvinistic 
 (the new school Calvinists of New England), reject this tenet in 
 toto; and most other Calvinists hold it less obtrusively, if not less 
 tenaciously. 
 
 The imputation to men of Adam's sin, and of Christ's right- 
 eousness, is unnecessary for a theodicy, unreasonable and unscrip- 
 tural. The Bible nowhere says, or implies, or can be warped to 
 
ROMANS IV. 6, 7, 8. 149 
 
 mean, that the sin and guilt, or the righteousness (lioliness), of 
 one person is transferable, or is ever attributed, to another. The 
 single verse here that affirms in regard to tlie reckoning of sin 
 —"Happy is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin "— 
 by all the implications of the passage limits the "sin" to the 
 man's own (rmmjression and guilt; and tlie single verse here that 
 affirms in regard to God's reckoning aught unto man's justifica- 
 tion, limits it, not to Christ's righteousness, but to the man's own 
 faith. "His faith is reckoned unto justification."* Affirmation 
 more explicit than these verses, or inconsistent with these verses, 
 there is absolutely none in the Scripture. The passages that can 
 be quoted for the correct view are many, and they are all of one 
 tenor. The imputation to man of aught else than his own sin, 
 unto condemnation, or of aught else than his own faith, unto jus- 
 tification, is unethical, dishonoring to God, unjust to man, sub- 
 versive of all feeling of personal responsibility. 
 
 There may be acts of others that leave their effects in us; 
 some resulting to our injury, as Adam's sin, some resulting to our 
 good, as Christ's vicarious death ; both of which are objective to 
 us ; but they are not transferable to us ; they do not become ele- 
 ments of character, and they can not be "imputed" to us, set 
 down to our merit or to our demerit. In God's dealings with us, 
 it is only our own sin and guilt, and our own faith, subjective 
 elements, that are imputed or reckoned to us, whether unto con- 
 demnation, or unto justification. Character, moral quality, can 
 not be transferred from one to another, and infused into his 
 personality. A man is ethically only what he makes himself. 
 In the sphere of ethics, nothing else than what is our own can 
 be imputed or credited to us ; and so God never violates man's 
 freedom, either by making him sinful, or by making him holy. 
 In the direction of holiness God presents motives and gives man 
 power to act; but he never acts /or him; that is, instead of him. 
 If man is to be holy, it must be (witli God's help) by his own 
 choice, and his own action. The gospel teaches the synergism of 
 man and God. Neither can accomplish human salvation without 
 the other. Paul bids the Philippians, " Work out your own salva- 
 
 *The theology in Count Zinzendorf's beautiful hymn is Calvinistlc, 
 not Wesleyan or Pauline: 
 
 "Jesus, thy blood and righteousness 
 My beauty are, my glorious dress." 
 It is only as a pious rigmarole of words that any Arminian can sing It. 
 
150 EXPOSITION. 
 
 tion ; for it is Gcxi who works in you to will and to work, for [inrkp, 
 to gratify! his good pleasui*e." (Phil, ii, 12.) 
 
 As holiness is not an objective gift, like justification, but a 
 subjective state of the affections, it is not obtained in a moment, 
 but attained only by long and patient culture. "We must grovj in 
 grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, " until we 
 come to a mature man, to the measure of the stature of the full- 
 ness of Christ." (Eph. iv, 13.) As growth is a process, it implies 
 lapse of time. It must be gradual, though it need not be slow. 
 Maturity of character, which should be the constant aim of every 
 believer, is not reached in a day or a week. If it were the possible 
 product of mere naked power, then we might rationally look for it 
 to be wrought instantaneously through the sovereign agency of 
 God; but it is not such a product; and it is not in this direction 
 that God's sovereignty is exercised. While the Christian life is 
 begun, continued, and ended, under the impulses of Divine grace, 
 it also involves unconstrained human co-operation at every stage. 
 
 Verse 9. Comes this happiness, then, upon the Circum- 
 cision? or also upon the Uncircumcision ? [Upon the Uncir- 
 cumcision, also] ; for we say that to Abraham his faith was 
 reckoned unto justification. 
 
 The words Circumcision and Uncircumcision are here taken 
 concretely, as often, for tiie Jews, and tlie Gentiles, and the verse 
 means: Does the happiness of pardoned sin, the blessedness of 
 justification in the sight of God, extend to the Jews only? or can 
 Gentiles also be justified ? The answer needs to be supplied, as 
 we have seen in the note on verse 2; "It comes upon the Uncir- 
 cumcision also:" and the woi*d for, which refers to this answer, 
 cites, in proof, the historical instance of Abraham, who, at the time 
 of his justification, was yet an uncircumcised man. And the ex- 
 ample of Abraham, a representative man, shows that justification 
 comes upon the uncircumcised Gentile, as well as upon the circum- 
 cised Jew — upon both on the common ground oi faith. 
 
 Verse 10. How then was it reckoned to him? Being 
 in circumcision ? or uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision ; 
 nay, but in uncircumcision. 
 
 The word how means " in what circumstances?" as a circum- 
 cised man? or as an uncircumcised? The answer is found in the 
 data in the book of Genesis. Abi'aham was probably about eighty 
 
ROMANS IV, 10. 151 
 
 years of age when " his faith was reckoned to him unto justifica- 
 tion " (Gen. XV, 6) ; but " he was ninety years old and nine, when 
 he was circumcised" (Gen. xvii, 24). He was justified, then, not 
 being in circumcision, but in uncircumcision ; and his cir- 
 cumcision was not, as the Jews hold with regard to themselves, 
 the ground of his acceptance and justification with God ; but his 
 justification, though it was nearly twenty years earlier, was the 
 ground of his circumcision; as it is said in the next verse: "And 
 he received the sign, or rite, of circumcision, a seal of his jus- 
 tification from faith— the faith which was his while he was in his 
 uncircumcision." 
 
 Circumcision was practiced by the priests of Egypt, and else- 
 where, before the days of Abraham. Its origin is not known ; but 
 it was even thus early the conventional symbol of ritual purity 
 and consecration. As such it was afterwards sanctioned by God, 
 and required of Abraham, and the Jews after him. It was the 
 outward note in the flesh, of the covenant between God and them- 
 selves ; and marked them off from the rest of the world as "a 
 kingdom of priests, and a holy [that is, a consecrated] nation." 
 (Ex. xix, 6.) The Jews, who at first came to the practice of cir- 
 cumcision only by degrees, afterwards prided themselves in it, as 
 their patent of nobility, as a peculiar discrimination from the 
 Gentile world. It was the rite which admitted their male children, 
 '•circumcised on the eighth day," to membership in the national 
 and theocratic Israel. It was the rite by which proselytes from 
 the heathen world became incorporated in the Jewish nation and 
 Church. Without circumcision Gentiles were permitted to enter 
 the synagogue, but not to enter the temple, or to share in the 
 Paschal festivities ; or even to eat with a Jew. Finally, from this 
 notion of ritual separation, the name of the rite became exalted 
 and spiritualized into the sense of religious purity and separation ; 
 and it was so used by the prophets of the Old Testament, and by 
 the writers in the New Testament. Paul talks much of this higher 
 " circumcision of the heart." 
 
 Circumcision denoted consecration to God, and obligation to 
 the ritual Law of Moses ; but the Jews went still further, and 
 finally held that their circumcision implied that they actually 
 fulfilled all the Law, moral as well as ritual, and so, by virtue of 
 their circumcision, stood justified before God. This view Paul, of 
 course, rejected ; and, holding that the gospel provided another 
 method of justification, he held that circumcision had ceased to 
 
152 EXPOSITION. 
 
 bo obligatory on tlio Jews. " In Christ noither circumcision avails 
 augiit, nor uncirciinicision ; but faith." ((ial. v,6.) Yet lie circum- 
 cised Timothy, who was a Jew born, not because it was a savinj^ 
 ordinance, but because only by this rite could Timothy, as Paul's 
 companion, enjoy among tlie Jews the civil and religious immuni- 
 ties which were his by birthright. (Acts xvi, 3.) But holding that 
 the rite had in itself no saving value, he refused on this ground to 
 circumcise Titus, who was a Gentile. (Gal. ii, 3.) With this con- 
 viction of the religious worthlessness of circumcision, he stigma- 
 tized the Jews who relied on it, as " tlie Concision," the manr/lera 
 of the flesh (Phil, iii, 2)! and he called the Gentile believers the 
 s[)iritual Circumcision : " In Ciirist ye were circumcised with a 
 circumcision not made by hand [outward and carnal, like tluit of 
 the Jews], with the circumcision of Christ." (Col. ii, 11.) 
 
 Of course, too, circumcision was never obligatory upon the 
 Gentiles ; but it was, for some years, still an open question whether 
 Gentile Christians could come uncircumcised into fellowship with 
 the Jewish Christians. After Paul liad begun his mission, some 
 Jewish Christians, still zealots for the Law, were for enforcing 
 circumcision on his converts, teaching them, " Unless ye be cir- 
 cumcised after the rite of Moses, ye can not be saved." (Acts 
 XV, 1.) But Paul witlistood them ; and, at last, at the Council at 
 Jerusalem (A. D. 52), with the help of Peter and James, he ob- 
 tained a decree that, " We trouble not those who from among 
 Gentiles are turning to God." (Acts xv, 19.) It was a notable 
 triumph for Christianity, and saved it from being a petty sect of 
 Judaism ; * but it was also the wedge that finally split the Church : 
 that, while it emancipated the Gentiles, left the Jews wedded to 
 the usages of the fathers, against Christ. 
 
 Verse 11. And he received the sign of circumcision, the 
 seal of the justification of the faith, which was his, in his 
 uncircumcision ; with a view to his being father of all that 
 have faith, w^hile in uncircumcision, that the justification 
 may be reckoned to them. 
 
 As we have seen, Abraham's justification antedated his eircum- 
 
 *" Judaism was the cradle of Christianity, and Judaism very nearly 
 became Its grave. From so serious a peril one man saved Christianity. 
 The career of no other man has ever produced such lasting effects on the 
 world's history as that of St. Paul."—" Paul of Tarsus," p. 1. 
 
ROMANS IV, 12. 153 
 
 cision by almost twenty years. His circumcision was the authen- 
 tication of his already existing faith. It conferred nothing: it 
 only confirmed to liis own consciousness, and to the recognition of 
 tlie world, the fact of God's previous forgiveness and approval. But 
 the point which Paul makes is that this justification came to 
 Abraham, not from circumcision, but from faith, while he was yet 
 in uncircumcision ; and therefore could not be credited to his 
 obedience to tlie rite on which the Jews relied, or to works of law, 
 of whicli they believed circumcision was the sign. Instead of the 
 word "sign" of circumcision, the word "rite" would better express 
 the apostle's sense. 
 
 The words with a view to express, not Abraham's purpose in 
 receiving circumcision, but the divine aim in Abraham's justifica- 
 tion before circumcision ; namely, that he might be father, first 
 and foremost, of Gentiles, — of Gentiles upon the sole condition of 
 faith, even though not circumcised ; and that the justification 
 which was reckoned to him, an uncircumcised man, may be I'eck- 
 oned to them, though uncircumcised men. 
 
 Verse 12. And father of circumcision to the men who 
 are not from circumcision only, but also to the men who 
 miarch in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham, 
 while he was in uncircumcision. 
 
 The word circumcision here, without the article, is not tlie 
 concrete substantive, " The Circumcision," nor yet the Mosaic rite; 
 but rather the Jewish Church or cult, of which the symbol is 
 circumcision, and of which Abraham was the recognized head 
 and father. But the following clauses designate Jews: the first 
 clause describing Jews who are sons of Abraham by birth merely ; 
 the second clause describing Jews who have also the higher title 
 to sonship, the faith which Abraham had in his days of uncircum- 
 cision. The words our father are spoken, not from Paul's position 
 as a Jew born, but from his standpoint as a Christian believer. 
 He counts Abraham, not as the natural father of the Jews, but as 
 the spiritual father of all believers; just as in verse 16 he says, 
 "Abraham is father of us all, Jews and Gentiles." And thus the 
 apostle, both here and elsewhere, excludes from the roll of Abra- 
 ham's real Scriptural family, all Jews that have no better title to 
 sonship than carnal descent, and circumcision of the flesh; and 
 includes in this large spiritual family all Gentiles, who, though 
 
154 EXPOSITION. 
 
 uncirenmcispd, have sucli faith as Abraham the uncircumcised 
 liad in the promiso of (lod. And so l*aiil says to tlie Galatian 
 Gentiles: " Know, then, that they who are of faith, tliese are sons 
 of Abraham;" "And if ye are Christ's, tlien are ye Abraham's 
 seed, according to tlie promise." (Gal. iii, 7, 29.) 
 
 Verse 13. For not through law was the promise to 
 Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the 
 world, but through justification of faith. 
 
 The word seed denotes Abraham's spiritual posterity, Christ, 
 and the followers of Christ: " To thy seed, which is Christ;" "And 
 if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to 
 the promise." (Gal. iii, 16, 29.) The clause that he should be 
 heir of the world, which is epexegetic of the word promise, 
 may be taken, grammatically, as appositive to that word. The 
 promise in Genesis reads, " I will make of thee a great nation, . . . 
 and in thee will all families of the earth be blessed." (Gal. xii, 2.) 
 This last clause Paul jjaraphrases: " He will be heir of the world." 
 The Greek word here for ivorld has no article: because, like the 
 English word "Earth," it has become almost a ju-oper noun. In 
 Gal. vi. 14, it is used once without the article, and once with it: 
 " Through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the 
 world." Of course, the English word here takes the article. 
 
 Verse 14. For if they that are from law are heirs, 
 the faith has been made void, and the promise has been 
 annulled. 
 
 The expression they who are from law means the Jews who 
 are adherents to the system of law, who rely on works of law, for 
 justification. The article with the word faith recalls that word 
 as used in verse 13. Probably the concept can be best expressed 
 by ''the system of faith," as opposed to the system of law. The 
 verb has been made void or has been voided means " emptied 
 of its value ;'' and is the same word as is found in First Corinthians, 
 "Lest the cross of Christ be made of no effect." (1 Cor. i, 17.) The 
 thought of the apostle is that justification and heirship come 
 wholly from law, or wholly from faith: the two schemes can not 
 co-operate ; each is exclusive of the other. The promise was that 
 " Tlie seed of Abraham should be heir of the world. In Chrii<t will 
 all the families of the world be blessed." Christ represents the 
 
ROMANS IV, 15. 15S 
 
 system of faith ; but if they who are from law inherit the promise, 
 the faith has been voided, and the promise annulled ; and Christ 
 has no place. 
 
 Verse 15. [But they -who are from law are not heirs] ; 
 for the law works wrath ; but where there is no law, neither 
 is there transgression. 
 
 The explicative conjunction for does not explain verse 14, and 
 can not logically connect the fifteenth verse to that. Evidently, 
 we have here another instance of a suppressed member in the line 
 of thought. The apostle elsewhere says: "As many as are from 
 works of law are under a curse; for it has been written. Cursed is 
 every one that continues not in all the precepts in the book of the 
 Law, to do them" (Gal. iii, 10) ; which is a condition that no Jew 
 attains to. In the light of the quotation, or even without it, from 
 the logical connection of thought in our text, we can easily supply 
 at the beginning of the verse the missing number: " [But the men 
 who are from law are not heirs] ; for the law w^orks wrath." 
 The word law here, though it has the article, denotes not the 
 Law of the Jewish dispensation, but law universally. The word 
 takes the article because it refers to and resumes the word "law" 
 in the fourteenth verse. 
 
 The logical connection of the last clause in this verse is not 
 at first sight quite clear. Certainly the saying is not intended as 
 the statement of a general principle of government; for, while the 
 statement is admirable, and is often quoted, as a legal aphorism, 
 it does not come as such into the apostle's present line of thought. 
 The saying is closely linked to his special discussion. A brief sup- 
 ply sufhciently expresses the connection and the ineaning: But 
 [in the sphere of faith], where there is no law, neither is 
 there transgression. The adversative conjunction but i)uts the 
 second clause of the verse in sharp contrast with the first. The first 
 clause refers to " the men who are from law," and describes their 
 condition: "They ai-e under the curse of the law." The second 
 clause refers to "the men who are of faith," and describes their 
 condition: " Christ has bought them off from the curse of the 
 law." " They have fled for refuge, to lay hold on the hope set be- 
 fore them, in the gospel." " Their sins are blotted out," and are 
 as if they had never existed. Against them there is "no law;" 
 and God does not "reckon transgi-ession " against them. 
 
156 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verse 16. On account of this, [justification] comes 
 from faith, that it may be according to grace ; to the end 
 that the promise may be sure to all the seed ; not to that 
 from the Law only, but also to that from the faith of 
 Abraham, who is the father of us all. 
 
 Tlie word justification, wliich is tlie matter in discussion, 
 must be supplied as the i)r()|)ei- subject of tlie verb comes. Tlie 
 reference in the Introductory phrase, on account of this thing, 
 is not clear. The same words in cluipter v, 12, iiave gicatly puz- 
 zled the critics; and perliaps in neither instance can any common 
 agreement as to the logical connection be reached. Most critics 
 look for the references in the preceding words or passages. But 
 the word this thing in both passages probably does not look 
 backward for its connection, for the simple reason that no one can 
 tell what thing is meant. It would rather seem, then, that the 
 reference, in botli instances, is not retrosj)ective, but pro- 
 spective. This preposition, on account of, wliich always looks 
 to something historically past, generally also points to some 
 preceding word. But it may point to some word, or term, 
 that follows in the sentence. See further in the note on Rom. 
 V, 12. In the text before us, the reference is to the clause, 
 that it may be according to grace; that is, that " the justi- 
 iioition may be a gratnitij, and not a debt due for works done." 
 And so the verse runs logically thus: "Justification comes from 
 fiiith, on account of this, that it may be according to grace." This 
 was the antecedent reason in the divine mind why the inheritance 
 was made dependent, not upon works, but upon faith; because 
 no man can compass the first, and all men can meet the gracious 
 conditions of the second. And so the text says that God made 
 all this gracious provision expressly to the end that the promise 
 should be sure to all the seed ; not to the seed which is, from the 
 Law only, the literal Jews, but also (which is now the salient 
 point) to the seed which is from the faith of Abraham, the Gen- 
 tiles. And thus, in God's plan, Abraham is held as father of us 
 all, Gentiles as well as Ji-vvs. 
 
 Verse 17. (According as it has been written. Because 
 father of many nations I have made thee) [Gen. xvii, 5] ; 
 before him in whom he had faith, God, who makes the 
 dead to live, and calls the things not in being as though 
 in being. 
 
ROAfANS IV. 18, 19-22. 157 
 
 The word translated nations is also the word for " Gentiles." 
 The stress of the word, in Paul's application of the passage, is on 
 the sense " Gentiles." Unfortunately, the English language does 
 not give us a word of this double compass. The first clause is 
 parenthetic ; and the next word, before, connects back to the last 
 clause of verse 16. 
 
 The quotation is from the promise to Abraham: "For the 
 father of a multitude of nations have I made thee." (Gen. xvii,5.) 
 The special instance of Abraham's faith here described was twenty 
 years after the great culminating act of faith which was counted 
 to him unto justification. (Gen. xv, 6.) When Abraham was 
 ninety and nine years old, and Sarah his wife was ninety, God said 
 to him: "I will give thee a son also from lier." (Gen. xvii, 16.) 
 This was the promise which Abraham believed, and which was 
 fulfilled. The clause, God makes the dead alive, means that 
 God quickened the deadened body of Abraham, and the deadness 
 of Sarali's womb ; and the clause, calls the things not in being 
 as though in being, means that he summoned into being the yet 
 unbegotten Isaac, the literal seed, and the multitude of nations, 
 both literal and spiritual, that were to be the promised seed, as 
 declared in the next verse. 
 
 Verse 18. "Who against hope, upon hope had faith, 
 with a view to his becoming father of many nations [Gen- 
 tiles], according to that which had been spoken, Thus 
 will thy seed be. 
 
 Perhaps a paraphrase will be the best comment: " Abraham, 
 contrary to all human expectation, nevertheless, on the basis of 
 his newly-begotten hope of offspring, exercised faith in God's 
 promise, to the end that he became father of countless multi- 
 tudes, of Gentiles as well as of Jews ; in fulfillment of the promise 
 spoken to him: ' Look toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou 
 be able to number them: as the stars of the heaven, and as the 
 sand which is upon the seashore, thus will thy seed be ; and in thy 
 seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed.' " (Gen. xv, 5; 
 xxii, 17.) 
 
 Verses 19-22. And not having been weak in faith, he 
 considered his own body, now deadened, being about a 
 hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb ; 
 but in respect to the promise of God he doubted not through 
 
158 EXPOSITION. 
 
 unfaith : nay, but he was strengthened by his faith, having 
 given glory to God, and having been fully assured that, 
 what he has promised, he is able also to do. Wherefore 
 also it [faith] was reckoned to him unto justification. 
 
 The be.st manuscripts, and the critical editions, do not give 
 the usual reading, " He considered not his own body." Though 
 the negative gives a good sense, its absence gives perhaps a better 
 attestation to Abraham's faith. The Greek verb is intensive: 
 " He took full note of his decayed powers, and yet did not waver 
 tiirough unfaith, because of that fact." The verb was strength- 
 ened refers to the recovery of his physical vigor — " he was invig- 
 orated by reason of his faith." It is the same sense as attaches 
 to the noun in the parallel passage in Hebrews: "By faith Sarah 
 received ;>0!t'fr to the conception of seed." (Heb. xi, 11.) Abra- 
 ham was nearly a hundred years old and Sarah ninety, at the date 
 of this miracle wrought in his own person, and in tliat of liis wife. 
 " He gave glory to God " for the new strength which was imparted 
 to him, and wliich he did not lose again. Thirty-seven years later 
 (Gen. xxiii, 1), after the death of Sarah, he married Keturah (Gen. 
 XXV, 1), and by her became the father of six sons.* 
 
 The word wherefore in the twenty-second verse, looks back 
 to Abraham's whole life of faith, as now again exemplified on this 
 occasion of the promise of Isaac: and the verse is resumi)tive of 
 the saying that we have already had in the ninth verse: "His 
 faith was reckoned to him unto justification." 
 
 Verses 23, 24. But it was not written on account of 
 him alone, that it was reckoned to him ; nay, but also on 
 account of us, to whom it is going to be reckoned ; who have 
 faith on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 
 
 The thought is, that what holds good of Abraham will be found 
 to hold good of us, his spiritual posterity. That Abraham's faith 
 was reckoned to him unto justification, apart from works, was 
 written on his account, as the Scripture testimony to his accept- 
 ance before God. But it was written also on our account, as the 
 assurance of our like acceptance with God, who have like faith in 
 God ; and whose faith, like that of Abraham, is a-going to be reck- 
 oned to us, unto justification, apart from works. 
 
 • But as Keturah was only an Inferior wife, or "concubine " (Gen. ixv, 
 6), like Hagar, Abraham may have married her while Sarah was living. 
 
ROMANS IV, m. 159 
 
 Yet there is a difference. Abraham's faith in God was a spe- 
 cific faitli in the unfulfilled Messianic promise of seed. Our faith 
 is a faith in God, as the One who now has fulfilled his promise, 
 and has raised our Lord from the dead. 
 
 Verse 25. Who are delivered, up on account of our 
 trespasses, and -was raised on account of his having 
 justified us. 
 
 The thought in the first clause he was delivered up is more 
 fully expressed by Christ himself, "The Son of man is a-going to 
 be delivered up into the hands of men" (Matt, xvii, 22), and still 
 more specifically in the words: "The chief priests . . . bound 
 Jesus, and delivered him up to Pilate ; . . . and Pilate delivered 
 him up to be crucified" (Matt, xxvii, 26). 
 
 The identity of the preposition and of the construction in the 
 two clauses, compels us to an identity of meaning and of exegesis. 
 This preposition 5ta "on account of" with the accusative case of 
 the substantive, is always relrospective ; it looks back to some thing 
 or some act, as the antecedent reason or the ground of the state- 
 ment in the sentence ; and so never looks, prospectively, to the end 
 to be attained. It always means on account of something past; 
 never "for the sake of" something future. The first clause in 
 our text is plain. Our offenses or trespasses were the antecedent 
 causes for Christ's vicarious death. "He died on account of our 
 offenses, in order to make atonement for them." All agree that 
 this is the meaning. The second clause is, in fact, equally plain ; 
 because it involves the same grammatical and lexical points. But 
 it has usually received a different explanation, due to the equiv- 
 ocal, and therefore erroneous, translation of the preposition, and 
 of the substantive "for our justification." And this translation 
 found in both the Authorized and the Revised, and generally in 
 the commentaries, is interpreted as meaning that "Christ was 
 raised to bring about our justification." But this can not be the 
 meaning expressed by the Greek preposition ; and it is not the 
 Scriptural doctrine of the passage. Paul in this verse cleai'ly says 
 that Chi'ist was raised from among dead men, not with a view to 
 our justification, as if it were yet future ; but on account of his 
 having already accomplished our justification by his sacrificial death. 
 His atoning work was complete in his death ; and his resurrection 
 simply attested this fact. The resurrection was no part of his 
 expiative work ; but simply the seal which God set to his accom- 
 
160 EXPOSITION. 
 
 plished work, the coronation of tlic victor over doatli. On the 
 cross, at the point to die, he cried, " It hus been completed." By 
 his own death lie had conquered death;- and now "God raised 
 him from the dead," because " he could not be held [as a contin- 
 uation of the penalty] by the bonds of death." (Acts ii, 24.) 
 
 The substantive Stxa/wo-tj here translated his having justified 
 us is found only here and in chapter v, 18. It is a verbal deriv- 
 ative, expressing, like other words of a similar formation, the 
 action, or process, indicated by the verb, rather than the result. 
 It differs from the word SiKaioaui/rj, usually translated "justifica- 
 tion" — that is, either the scheme of acquittal or the state of 
 accpiittal — as being rather the means which brings us to that 
 result. And the literal and proper translation is " tlie justifying of 
 us." It is needless to remark how perfectly this accords with the 
 translation and explanation above, of the preposition: On account 
 of his having justified us. 
 
 The doctrine here taught is fundamental to the Scripture 
 exhibition of the atonement. It is clearly expressed in this pas- 
 sage ; but we shall see it more fully and variously stated in the 
 sixth chapter, which treats of the vicarious, or substitutionary, 
 character of Christ's work. That chapter, and, indeed, all the 
 gospel, teaches that in Christ's death, which was a vicarious death, 
 we all shared ; and that from the instant of his death, the saving 
 power of his work became potentially, constructively, really, the 
 impropriation and the right of the race. By his death all men 
 were and are born to the inheritance of the promise ; and " in 
 him every one who hath faith is justified from all things from 
 which men were not able to be justified by the Law of Moses." 
 (Acts xiii, 39.) This accomplished work was the ground of Christ's 
 resurrection from the dead, and of our resurrection. 
 
 And thus Paul concludes this long and convincing discussion 
 with the Jew, in regard to God's plan for the justification of men, 
 — of all men, Gentiles as well as Jews. He affirms again and 
 again, that we are not justified by works, but by faith in the 
 atonement of Christ ; " who was delivered up to death on account 
 of our sins, and was raised again from the dead on account of hav- 
 ing wrought out our justification." 
 
 * So the old moiiklsb poem " 3/ors mortis morti mortem morti dedit' 
 'The Death of death by his deiith put death to death." 
 
CHAPTEE V. 
 
 Verse 1. Having been justified, therefore, from faith, we 
 have peace towards God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 We are now at tlie midway point of the dogmatic part of this 
 Epistle. With the conclusion reached in the previous chapter, 
 Paul ceases his polemic against the Jew ; and for the next four 
 chapters treats more distinctively of the rightful place of the 
 Gentiles in the gosi)el scheme. It is their equality with the Jews 
 that is foremost in all his thought. 
 
 Let us trace the line of thought thus far followed. We have 
 seen that the Jews held that they were justified from works; and 
 that, as the seed of Abraham, and the sole subjects of the law of cir- 
 cumcision, they were the only people included in the provisions of 
 the Divine plan, and the only people that could be saved. But early 
 in the epistle, the apostle declared that " The gospel is the power of 
 God unto salvation to every man that has faith, to Jew, first, and 
 also to Greek." (Rom. i, 16.) He puts both Jews and Gentiles 
 on the common and only ground of justification, that of faith, 
 as shown in the next words, " For in the gospel is revealed God's 
 plan of justification, as being from faith." (Rom. i, 17.) With 
 Paul the fundamental question on which the gospel hangs is. Does 
 God justify from works? or does he justify from faith? And then 
 springing out of this essential and primal issue, arises before the 
 apostle the equally essential, but even more pressing question. 
 Who are embraced in the provisions of the gospel? " Is God God 
 of Jews only? Is he not God of Gentiles also?" (Rom. iii, 28.) 
 
 With regard to the first of these two questions, we have seen 
 in the previous chapters that these two methods of justification, 
 whether from works or from faith, are both conceivable, both rea- 
 sonable, both recognized in the Scriptures, at least speculatively, 
 but incompatible with each other, mutually exclusive. The one, 
 justification from works, was held by the Jews; the other, justifi- 
 11 161 
 
1G2 EXPOSITION. 
 
 cation from faith, was held l>y the apostle, in the behalf of the 
 Gentiles. Tiic lirst implies that men can do what (iod's i)ei-fect 
 law commands, and so can earn justification and eternal life, as 
 their reward. Its banner carries the device " Do this, and live ;" 
 that is, do the works that the Law requires, and thou wilt have 
 life. The other teaches that " no man can do the works of the 
 Law;" but must find justification in God's sight in some other 
 way; namely, from faith in Christ, "who bought us off from the 
 curse of the Law, having become a curse for [instead of] us." (Gal. 
 iii, 13.) This is the gospel plan ; and its motto is, "Have faith in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou wilt be saved." (Acts xvi, 3L) 
 
 "With regard to the second point, the Jews hold that no other 
 people than themselves could be admitted to the privileges of God's 
 covenant with Abraham, except by the door of circumcision; and 
 that such is the teaching of the Scriptures. But the apostle shows 
 that, contrariwise, the teaching of the Old Testament has no such 
 sense — that God, from the first, even before the world was, had no 
 other thought, or i)lan, for the salvation of men, than justification 
 from faith — and that the Gentile world herein stood on a level with 
 the Jews, and that the only precedence of the Jews over the Gen- 
 tiles was a chronological one, in having been called earlier to ad- 
 mission to covenant privileges. This view he expands at large, 
 availing himself of the Jews' favorite illustration, the example of 
 Abraham, who was not justified from works, but was justified from 
 faith, while he was yet uncircumcised. 
 
 Paul's demonstration of his proposition is conclusive on the 
 two subjects of debate with the Jews. The only means of justifi- 
 cation from sin is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; and the door to 
 it is open, without circumcision, to the Gentiles who, like Ai)ra- 
 ham, exercise a personal faith in God, who raised Christ from the 
 dead. Nay; this justification already, by the death of Christ, 
 belongs fjotentially, even without the conscious act of faith, to 
 the Gentiles. 
 
 In the third and fourth chapters the discussion has taken on 
 the form of a spirited interlocutory debate between a representa- 
 tive Jew on the one hand and the ajjostle on the other. The Jew 
 is introduced, speaking in the first person, and putting the objec- 
 tions as held by his people on the controverted jioints in terse, 
 forcible form The issues are ])lain and direct ; and the apostle 
 meets them in equally direct and conclusivf rei)ly. In the end, 
 the well-foughten field is his. He has established his contention 
 
ROMANS V, 1. 163 
 
 that the gospel plan of justification from faith was the fii'st, and 
 is the only method by which man may stand acquit before God ; 
 and that this gospel is not provincial in its range, but cosmopolitan. 
 The Jew is silenced on these issues ; and appears only incidentally 
 again as a si)eaker, until the apostle comes, in tlie long episode 
 from the nintli to the eleventh chapters, to discuss the destiny of 
 the Jewish nation and Church. 
 
 The conclusion reached in this debate the apostle now assumes 
 as established beyond gainsaying; no further argument is needed 
 that men are justified, not from works of law% but from faith in 
 Christ. And in this matter he has the Gentiles chiefly in thought ; 
 and he fully identifies himself with them And so, with this as- 
 surance, he begins the fifth chapter, '" Therefore, having been jus- 
 tified from faith, we 1 the Gentiles] have peace with God." 
 
 The translation here given, as in the Authorized, we have 
 peace, follows the " Received Text" of the Greek verb, exo/j-eu, in 
 the indicative mode, expressive of a realized fact. There is an- 
 other reading of the verb, ex(^fj-ev, in the subjunctive mode, followed 
 by the Revised (the American committee dissenting), "Let us have 
 peace." The two readings differ only in the length of the mode 
 vowel ; but they impose upon the passage widely different senses, 
 and widely diffei-ent exegeses. The subjunctive mode, " Let us 
 have peace," is found in most of the (few) " uncials" — that is, the 
 oldest manuscripts, written in CAPITALS — in most of the Fathers, 
 and in most of the early translations ; and it is the reading adopted, 
 of course, by the recent critical editors, who profess to abide by 
 the oldest diplomatic evidence. The indicative mode, " We have 
 peace," is found in " later hands" in some of the uncials, in most 
 of the (many) "cursives," and in some of the Fathers. The ex- 
 ternal evidence favors the subjunctive mode ; but the internal evi- 
 dence is overwhelmingly in favor of the indicative mode, " We have 
 peace."* The connection makes the passage didactic, not horta- 
 tory. No exegesis based on the reading, "Let us have peace," is 
 satisfactory, or worthy of serious consideration. If this be the 
 
 *This subjunctive mode probably crept Into some early transcript 
 (which afterward became a standard), either from the pious Impulse of 
 the copyist to turn the word into a prayer; or from oversight on the part 
 of the transcriber. Such changes In words are not without abundant par- 
 allels in the MSS-'elsewhere; e. g., 1 Cor. xv, 49. (poplauixev, "Let us bear the 
 Image;" and the reverse change^ln Rom. xiv, 19, dtibKOfiev, '■'■We follow the 
 things of peace." 
 
1G4 EXPOSITION. 
 
 reading, it can only be an exiiortation to scelc peace with God, as 
 if it were not yet ours. It is only those who are not already in a 
 stiitt' of peace that say, " Let us have peace." But the clause. 
 Having been justified, involves the notion of present peace with 
 Cn)d. We must recollect that the sentiment is from the stand- 
 jioint of the Gentiles. They have come into a new and gracious 
 relation with CU)d. They have been justified, and experienced 
 what they never experienced in their heathenism and alienation 
 from God. They are at peace with him. 
 
 These woi-ds, "Let us have peace," the erroneous reading in 
 Paul's letter, adopted l)y the Revised, are famous in American 
 history. AVlien General Grant was nominated, in 1868, for the 
 Presidency of tlie United States, the Nortli and the South, though 
 no longer at war, were not reconciled; and Grant concluded his 
 letter of acceptance with the conciliatory words, "Let us have 
 peace." The words of General Grant were appropriate to the 
 condition of things at that time in America. And they thrilled all 
 hearts; they expressed what all hearts longed for. But the apos- 
 tle's actual words were very different. They do not represent the 
 Gentiles as needing reconciliation with God. Rather they express 
 their new and satisfactory experience: "We have been justified 
 from faith, and ice have peace with God." This peace with God is 
 just what justification (pardon) brings to the Cliristian con.-^cious- 
 ness. David says, " Righteousness [justification] and |)eace liave 
 kissed each other" (Ps. Ixxxv, 10) ; and Isaiah says, "The work 
 of righteousness [justification] is peace, and the effect of right- 
 eousness is quietness and confidence forever" (Isa. xxxii, 17). 
 
 Verse 2. Through whom also, we have had the intro- 
 duction, by faith, into this grace in which we stand ; and 
 we boast upon hope of the glory of God. 
 
 We must keep in mind that it is the Gentiles in particular 
 that the apostle here represents as speaking. His thought is on 
 the Gentiles, not on the Jews; and he uses the pronoun we be- 
 cause he identifies himself with them. Yet we must also notice 
 that while Paul begins this long discussion (Chapters v-viii) with 
 distinct reference to the Gentiles, speaking in their person ; and 
 while this special reference to them remains the substratum of 
 his thought, all through the passage, yet, in his exposition of the 
 gospel scheme, the special prominence of the Gentiles gradually 
 fades out of his thought, and after the eleventh verse of this chap- 
 
ROMANS V. 3-5. 165 
 
 ter, his words widen out until they become general enough to 
 embrace all men, Jews as well as Gentiles. But in the eiglith 
 chapter we shall see that the apostle again calls the Gentiles dis- 
 tinctively to the front. 
 
 The word grace is the collective term for the favor of God, 
 • including pardon, peace, purity, and power. The indicative mode 
 in this verse, in both the verbs, is in accord with the indicative in 
 the first verse. The expression glory of God probably means, as 
 in Rom. iii, 23, " the praise or approval of God." The boasting of 
 the Jew is in his own works and merits ; the boasting of the Chris- 
 tian is in the undeserved approval of God. All our sufficiency is 
 from him. 
 
 Verses 3-5a. But not only [upon that hope do we boast], 
 nay, but we also boast in our afflictions ; knowing that 
 affliction works patience ; but the patience approval ; but 
 the approval hope ; but the hope shames us not. 
 
 The clause in brackets is evidently to be supplied. The senti- 
 ment of these verses is appropriate to the man who, though hope- 
 ful, is conscious also of his own weakness. Paul elsewhere says of 
 himself: "With regard to myself I will not boast, except in my 
 weaknesses." (2 Cor. xii, 5.) And of the weaknesses and of the 
 afflictions that were his, Paul had abundant experience. " Who 
 is weak, and I am not weak?" " Most gladly will I boast in my 
 weaknesses ; for when I am weak, then I am strong." It is with 
 this feeling that he here can say that affliction works patience, 
 and patience approval [or approvedness], and approval 
 hope, — the hope of eternal salvation. And James says: " Happy 
 is the man that endures trial ; because having become approved, 
 he will receive the crown of life." (James i, 12.) The word ap- 
 proval may perhaps be equally well rendered by the word 
 "test." Patience puts our character to test; and the ability to 
 stand the test confirms our hope of final triumph, and this hope 
 does not disappoint us. 
 
 Verse 5h. Because the love of God has been poured 
 out in our hearts, through the Holy Spirit which was 
 given us. 
 
 The verse expresses the basis of our confidence in God. 
 Through the Holy Spirit, a grateful sense of his love to us has 
 been diffused in our hearts. We realize that though we are Gen- 
 
166 EXJ'OSITJOX. 
 
 tiles he loves us and counts us his children. The result is, that 
 "We love him; because he first loved us" (1 John iv, 19); and 
 "We are i)ersuaded that notliiiig [not even the hostility of the 
 Jews] will be able to separate us from the love of God, in Christ 
 Jesus, our Lord" (Kom. viii, 39). 
 
 From the absence of the article with the words Holy Spirit, 
 .some infer that the word spirit ])robably does not mean the Tliird 
 Person in the Trinity, in liis personality; but an endowment, or 
 gift, given us from the Divine Spirit. Dr. Vaughan aptly illus- 
 trates this difference by explaining the oft-misunderstood pas- 
 sage in the Acts of the Apostles: "Did ye receive a holy spirit 
 [an impartation of supernatural gifts] wlien ye exercised faith?" 
 "No; we did not even hear wliether there is a holy spirit" [a 
 miraculous endowment i)romised to the believer] (John vii, 39). 
 . . . "Then Paul laid his hands on them, and The Holy Spirit 
 came upon them" (Acts xix, 2). This is very ingenious; and a 
 similar difficulty in Acts viii, 15, is easily solved in the same way. 
 
 But it makes at least as good sense to interpret the word here 
 as the Holy Spirit, which was promised by Christ as the "Guide 
 into all the [needed] truth;" and which, after his resurrection, 
 was poured out in all its fullness on the Church. The absence of 
 the article can be accounted for, on the use of the word Holy 
 Spirit as a quasi proper name. 
 
 Verse 6. For while we w^ere yet weak, in due season 
 Christ died for ungodly men. 
 
 The conjunction for connects this verse back to the words 
 love of God; and thus the saying here is confirmatory of the 
 saying in verse 5. The word weak expresses both the moral and 
 the legal inability to help ourselves. The phrase in due season 
 means " in the fullness of the time," the time ajjpointed of God, 
 announced of old by the pro])hets, " when the people were in ex- 
 ])ectation." Wlien Christ died, the world was ripe for his gospel ; 
 all ethnic religions and all ethical philosophies were actual, if 
 not recognized, failures. 
 
 The preposition for, virip, used in this sentence, " He died for 
 ungodly men," and found four times in these three verses, usually 
 ni(>ans in behalf of, but often, as here, takes the same sense as the 
 preposition avrl, " in place of." The preposition for in this verse 
 not only means " in our place," which is all that avrl could ex- 
 press, but connotes also Christ's compassion in this substitution of 
 
RODMANS V, 6. 167 
 
 himself "in our behalf." Christ's death was not only in our 
 behalf, but it was in our place ; that is, it was not only sacrificial 
 and redemptive, but it was vicarious and substitutionary. The 
 sense here, "in our place," is absolute, unequivocal. This point 
 is so fundamental in certain passages in the Bible that I take a 
 large space to put it beyond dispute, if not beyond cavil. Bishop 
 Colenso, in his comment on this verse, taking the opposite posi- 
 tion, says: " Once for all, let it be stated distinctly, there is not a 
 single passage in the whole of the New Testament which supports 
 the dogma of modern theology that our Lord died for our sins, in 
 the sense of dying instead of us, dying iii our place, or dying so as to 
 bear the penalty of our sins. It is often said that he died for ?ts, he 
 died for our sins ; but the Greek preposition vivip here rendered by 
 'for,' never, in any single instance, means ' in our stead,' but 'on 
 our behalf,' as in this passage." 
 
 So far. Bishop Colenso ; though why he should say " the dogma 
 of modern theology," passes all understanding. Christ's substitu- 
 tionary death was the only form of dogma in the first ages. But 
 Colenso's Greek is as much at fault as his theology, or his creed. 
 He has spoken without the book. There is extant in classic 
 Greek a famous mythological drama by Euripides, tlie "Alcestis," 
 (B. C. 438). The motive of this drama is the wifely devotion and 
 self-sacrifice of Queen Alcestis in dying in place of her husband, 
 Admetus. The king had obtained from the Fates the gift that 
 when his time to die came he might have a double length of life, 
 if he could find a voluntary substitute. Of all his friends, Alcestis 
 wife-like, is the only one who consents to die in his stead. Now, in 
 this drama Euripides uses several prepositions, in connection with 
 the verb "to die," in this sense of "m stead of,"—7rp6 fourteen 
 times, avTl eleven times, and (which is the salient point, now) virkp 
 five tim€s, as follows: 
 Verse 155. How could a wife more honor her husband than 
 in being willing to die for [in place of] him? 
 284. Though it is in my power not to die, I die for thee. 
 682. 1 am not under obligation to die for thee. 
 690. Do not thou rfiV /or me. 
 700. Thou wilt persuade thy wife to die for thee. 
 Other instances, equally explicit, from the classics could be 
 quoted. In the New Testament this sense of the word is often 
 required by the connection. For example: 
 
 " If One died for all, then all died." (2 Cor. v. 14.) 
 
108 EXPOSITION. 
 
 " We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconcilod to God." 
 (2 Cor. V, 21.) 
 
 " Him wlio knew no sin he made sin [sinful] for us." (2 Cor. 
 V. 21.) 
 
 " I keep Onesimus with myself, that in thy stead he may min- 
 ister to me." (Philem. 13.) 
 
 And we may surely cite our present text, and many more, for 
 this sense and dogma of substitution of Christ for us. 
 
 Verse 7. For scarcely for a just man will one die ; for, 
 for the good man perhaps one eveil dares to die. 
 
 The nice dependencies of the conjunction for in each of the 
 two clauses should.be noticed. The first refers to the word " un- 
 godly " in the sixth verse ; and throws stress upon that word, and 
 upon the word just : " He died [how strange the self-sacrifice !] for 
 unfjodly men ; for scarcely even for ajust man will one die \" The 
 conjunction in the second clause refers to the adverb scarcely, 
 and modifies the concession made by this adverb. This modifying 
 clause is logically best read as parenthetical. 
 
 The words just and good are in sharp contrast. Both words 
 describe natural dispositions, not qualities that come from grace ; 
 and they are far from being synonymous. The word " righteous" 
 in the Authorized and Revised, instead of "just," misses, as 
 usual, the whole point of the verse. By a ''just man" we describe 
 one who meets his obligations ; who keeps within the letter of the 
 law, but mayhap has no other recommendation. He may pay his 
 debts ; yet exact from others the uttermost farthing. People may 
 respect him, yet not love him; may perhaps even hate him. He 
 may be "just;" yet "scarcely would one die for him." On the 
 other hand, "the good man" (the article singles him out as the 
 ideal character) is one who is full of the milk of human kindness, 
 ItenevoU-nt and beneficent. Such a man has friends: for such a 
 man perhaps one even ventures to die. Shakespeare's Siiylock 
 and Antonio are the typical representatives. Shylock is a " just" 
 man ; no one charges him with dishonesty or fraud ; yet everybody 
 execrates him. He is " incapable of pity, void of every dram of 
 mercy ;" but he keeps within the pale of the law ; and nobody can 
 catch him on the hip. "He stands for justice; he will have his 
 pound of flesh." 
 
 " AVhat judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong? 
 Speak not against my bond: I'll have my bond." 
 
ROMANS V. S, 9. 169 
 
 Antonio is "the good man" of the drama. He is no more 
 "just" than Shylock ; but he is merciful, pitiful, self-sacrificing. 
 Everybody loves him; many a man would die for him. Bassanio 
 says: 
 
 " Shylock shall have my flesh, blood, bones, and all, 
 Ere thou shalt lose for me one drop of blood." 
 
 Verse 8. But God confirms his own love towards us, 
 in that, while we were yet sinful, Christ died for us. 
 
 The leading verb here does not mean commends, that is, 
 recommends, presents for our approval ; but demonstrates, 
 "proves." The word "commends" (as in the Authorized and Re- 
 vised), quite certainly expresses the wrong concept. The Greek 
 word here translated sinful is substantive or adjective, according 
 to the proprieties of the connection. I here prefer the word sin- 
 ful to "sinners," because the word points rather to our inward 
 character, than to our outward life and actions. Similarly in the 
 nineteenth verse of this chapter, the substantive "sinners" is not 
 an appropriate translation in contrast with the adjective "just;" 
 and is open to the same objection as holds in this verse. 
 
 Instances of men deliberately dying instead of others are rare ; 
 yet history records a few, all of them of friends dying for friends. 
 The classic story of Damon and Phintias (Cicero, De Officiis, III 
 x,45), has become the world's proverbial instance, as if it were 
 the solitary instance. Yet Christian annals can give us many. 
 But God proves his love for us, in that Christ died for men who 
 were not lovable in themselves, and did not love him,— he died for 
 us when we were sinful, and hostile. 
 
 Verse 9. Much, rather, then, having now been justified 
 in his blood, we shall be saved through him from the wrath. 
 
 It is the argument from the greater to the less. He who gave 
 his Son to die for us though we were sinful and enemies, to save 
 us from our sins, will much rather, now that we have been justi- 
 fied, and become his friends, save us from the wrath to come. 
 The same argument, from the greater to the less, is found in the 
 eighth chapter: " He who spared not his own Son, but delivered 
 him up to death, for [in place of] us all, how will he not also with 
 him grant us all things?" (Rom. viii, 32.) Surely God, having 
 given us so much, will not refuse aught else to make his work 
 complete. 
 
170 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Tho expression in his blood must not be pressed too closely. 
 "We have already seen (Koni. iii, L'5) tliat nothing turns upon the 
 fact tliat Christ's "blood" was shed; but all turns on the vital 
 fact that he difd in our behalf and in <jur place. " Blood" is the 
 synonym of "death," which is the word used in the next verse. 
 
 Verse 10. For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to 
 God through the death of his Son, much, rather, having 
 been reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. 
 
 The wonl enemies must be taken always as aclv-e in significa- 
 tion, — enemies, hostile, to God, not the object of his enmity. 
 And this is in harmony with the constant sense in the New Testa- 
 ment, of the word reconcile, the reconciliation of man to God, 
 ") never of God to man. Such is the apostle's explicit teaching else- 
 ■where, as well as here: "God reconciled us to himself through 
 Christ ; he was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." 
 (2 Cor. v, 18.) "God is love." This is his essential chai-acter; 
 and it is in conformity with this revelation of himself that the 
 Bible never speai<s of God's being our enemy, and of his being 
 reconciled to us; but always of our being reconciled to him. Yet 
 the whole tenor and the express words of Scripture teach that sin 
 has clianged the administrative relations of God to men ; and that 
 as a ruler he is angry with the wicked. " We are consumed in 
 thine anger, and in thy wrath are we troubled." (Ps. xc, 7.) 
 These words, "anger" and "wrath," express, no doubt, very real 
 things; but all this disappears when man "has received the rec- 
 onciliation through Christ," and turns to God. " In that day thou 
 shalt bay, Though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned 
 away, and tliou comfortest me." (Isa. xii, 1.) And it is in this 
 light that we can in popular i)hraseology say (though the Scripture 
 does not verbally warrant it) tliat "6'orf is reconciled:" 
 
 "My God is reconciled, 
 
 His pardoning voice I hear ; 
 He owns me for his child, 
 
 I can no longer fear." — Charles Wesley. 
 
 The phrase in his life does not mean in liis life as an example ; 
 but tiiat we share in liis resurrection life, in which "all power lias 
 been given him." In his death lie has redeemed our life from the 
 grave: "that we may know tlie power of his resurrection" (Phil, 
 iii, 10) ; "that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our body " 
 
ROMANS V. 11, 12. 171 
 
 (2 Cor. iv, 10). It is the promise of Christ: "Because I live, ye 
 also will live." (John xiv, 19.) 
 
 Verse 11. But not only [were we reconciled] ; nay, but 
 we also boast in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 through w^hom, now, we received the reconciliation. 
 
 The phrase, But not only, is an elliptical formula found four 
 times in this Epistle (v, 3; v, 11; viii, 23; ix, 10) and elsewhere 
 in Paul's writings. The Authorized vaguely supplies "so." A 
 better word would have been the general demonstrative pronoun 
 " that," which is often similarly used in English; but the proper 
 specific supply must be determined for each passage by the con- 
 nections. Here the supply, we were reconciled, is derived from 
 the previous verse. The thought of the passage seems to be this: 
 " Not only were we reconciled to God (which is but a neutral or 
 intermediate stage, in which we are no longer hostile to God), nay, 
 but we are lifted to the higher level where we make our boast in 
 God." When the apostle says, we boast in God, his thought is 
 that of the psalmist: "In God we boast all the day long." (Ps. 
 xliv, 8.) Now, the Hebrew word here is the verb from which comes 
 the Hebrew shout of triumph in the Lord, " Hallelujah," Praise 
 ye Jehovah ! To boast in God is to shout unto God with the voice 
 of triumph. 
 
 Through whom now we received the reconciliation. 
 Such is Paul's statement; not ''have received," as in the English 
 translations. The aorist tense carries us back in concept to the 
 one great historical transaction by which Christ wrought and 
 brought redemption to the entire race. The word now expresses 
 our present consciousness of this blessing through Christ. 
 
 Verse 12. On this account, just as through one man 
 the sin came into the world, and through the sin the death ; 
 even so the death came throughout, unto all men, for that 
 all sinned. 
 
 This famous passage, from the twelfth to the twenty-first 
 verse, is pregnant with matter, and is, perhaps, the most 
 studied by critics of all Paul's writing, both on account of 
 its intrinsic difficulties and on account of its dogmatic impor- 
 tance. The grammatical structure and the logical connection 
 are not clear; and the internal sense and exegesis are not 
 easy. The conclusions that I have reached are not always in- 
 
172 EXPOSITION. 
 
 disputable to my own mind ; but, unablo to accept, or even to 
 imdorsland, sojne of tlio views of others, I venture, with diffidence, 
 to present, as the result of much study and reflection, some of the 
 conclusions, which seem to me the most reasonable, if not entirely 
 satisfactory. 
 
 1. The first dilliculty is in the first words, On this account. 
 The phrase in this instance is usually explained as an illative con- 
 junction, " therefore ;" which is assumed to connect back to some- 
 thing preceding, of which premise, accordingly, the following verse 
 expresses the inference, or result. Yet there is no agreement 
 among the critics as to the particular premise refei-red to. Some 
 go back only to verse 11; others go further back, to the entire 
 pai'agraph in verses 1-11 ; while yet others find the premise in the 
 entire discussion from the beginning of the Epistle. But it is 
 difficult to see how any one of those references can be maintained. 
 The passage following does not follow, apparently, as a logical 
 inference, or conclusion, from anything that has gone before. The 
 apostle has not as yet made any allusion even, to Adam, or his sin, 
 or to entailed corruption and death ; and now to introduce this 
 discussion of Adam's sin and its effects, by the word " therefore," 
 seems to be as illogical as it is abrupt. 
 
 AVhat then is the grammatical construction of the phrase on 
 account of this thing? It can hardly be taken as an illative 
 conjunction, carrying the thought back to some (though no one 
 knows what) antecedent. On the contrary, the words constitute 
 a causal conjunction, and the reference is not backwards, but for- 
 wards. This proleptic reference is very frequent, and, grammatic- 
 ally, can occasion no difficulty.* The word points onward to the 
 last clause in. the verse, and marks out, in advance, the reason of 
 death's going throughout to all men, namely, because all 
 sinned. And the verse arranged in the order of its logical se- 
 quence reads thus: "As through one man the sin came into the 
 world, and through the sin the death, even so the death came 
 throughout unto all men, on account of this fact, namely, that 
 all sinned." 
 
 * Of. Milton's sentence: 
 
 " But that thou shouldst my flrmness therefore doubt 
 To God or tliee, because we have a foe 
 May tempt It, I expected not to hear."— Par. Lost, IX, 279. 
 
 See the note on Rom.v, Ifi; and compare .John vlll, 17; x, 17; xll, 18; 
 1 Thess. 11, 13; 1 Tim. 1, 10; 2 Cor.xlll, 10; und many others. Also Rom. 
 
 IX, 17. e'j TOVTO. 
 
RO^fANS V, 12. 173 
 
 The conjunctive phrase ^<t> tS in the last clause can be translated 
 "on the ground that," or, more briefly, " for that," "that," or 
 " because." The word " that" best suits the connection here ; the 
 word " because" is best in the only other instance: ''Because we 
 do not will to put off our earthly house." (2 Cor. v, 4.) 
 
 If this explanation of tlie initial words on this account is 
 correct, it follows, first, that the verse before us is not an inference 
 or conclusion from something that has preceded; and, secondly, 
 that the paragraph is independent of all that has gone before, and 
 constitutes, in fact, a fresh departure in the general discussion of 
 the doctrine of justification by faith. And as an independent 
 paragraph, it has no conjunction to connect it back (as is usual in 
 the New Testament) with the previous discussion. The ninth 
 chapter, also, begins with a similar paragraph, independent of the 
 previous matter, and without a conjunction. 
 
 2. The logical structure of this sentence is usually assumed to 
 be incomplete. Where the translation adopted above gives even 
 so, the Authorized and Revised read ''and so." The Authorized 
 makes the whole verse a protasis (or first member of a complex 
 sentence), to which, however, there is no formal apodosis (or 
 answering member of the sentence). Some exegetes count verses 
 13-17 as a parenthesis, and find the apodosis in verse 18; but that 
 
 verse is complete in itself, having both a protasis ["as "] and 
 
 an apodosis ["so "] of its own; which is a fatal grammatical 
 
 difficulty ; and, besides, there is a yet more serious logical diffi- 
 culty, that the apodosis thus found does not answer to the protasis 
 in verse 12. Others abandon the search for an apodosis, and re- 
 mand the sentence to the already long list in which Paul, who 
 dictated his letters, has left us a defective construction ; and they 
 add that the apostle's appropriate, and apparently intended, apod- 
 osis would have been, "so also through One man, Jesus Christ, 
 the justification came in, and through this justification, life." Un- 
 doubtedly, on the supposition that the twelfth verse is incomplete, 
 and that it institutes a parallel between Adam and Christ, this 
 would be an appropriate supply. But the twelfth verse does nut 
 institute a parallel between Adam and Christ ; it describes only 
 how the sin and death of one man, the first transgressor, culmi- 
 nated in the sin and death of all men, the victims of an ill heredity. 
 And it is anticipating the apostle's discussion to bring in thus 
 early, in the paragraph, the famous parallel, or rather the antith- 
 esis, between Adam and Christ. This antithetical parallel comes 
 in first, after verse 14 ; and were it not for the later addition, no 
 
174 JLXI'OSITION. 
 
 reader of verses 12-14 would have imagined that I'aul liud any par- 
 alh'l between Adam and Christ in his mind, as he certainly has ridt 
 in his text. 
 
 But in fact the verse is not incomplete, and there is no reason 
 why translators and critics should miss tiie plain construction. 
 The Greek text of the twelfth verse yields in itself a full and sat- 
 isfactory grammatical and logical construction, with both a pro- 
 tasis and an apodosis. A substitution in the old translations of 
 the adverb "even" for the conjunction "and" (both of which 
 meanings of the word Kal are very frequent), makes the English 
 sentence complete in itself, and corresponding exactly with the 
 Greek sentence. The sentence thus changed gives the apostle's 
 exact meaning. The sole alleged objection to it is not on the score 
 of the grammar of the sentence (which is conceded by all"), but 
 on Meyer's mistaken interpretation,— that " this change is at vari- 
 ance with the parallel between Adam and Clirist, which rules the 
 whole section." It is usually safe to agree with Meyer on any ques- 
 tion of construction ; but, as we have seen, the parallel between 
 Adam and Christ does not begin with this verse, and Meyer's ob- 
 jection falls away with the correct exegesis of the twelfth verse as 
 above. 
 
 The contrasted words in the twelfth verse are clearly one and 
 all^ — "As through one man came sin and death, even so to all men 
 came sin and death." These words give us the logical clue to the 
 whole paragraph, from this verse to the end of the chapter. In 
 the first eleven verses of the chapter, the apostle has discussed the 
 character of Christ's work: it brings reconciliation and peace with 
 God. This suggests the correlate question of the extent of Christ's 
 redemptive work. Paul holds that it is co-extensive with the reach 
 and ruin of sin : all men " sinned" and died ; the work of restora- 
 tion must be equally ample in its scope: "Where sin abounded 
 grace superabounded." This is the fundamental fact in the gospel 
 of Christ; and it is the fundamental thought in the Epistle to the 
 Romans. And the contrast which the apostle now institutes be- 
 tween the consequences of Adam's sin and the consequences of 
 Christ's justification of man is in the direct line of his main prop- 
 osition. 
 
 There are several words in this verse that need special study — 
 sin, sinned, death. 
 
 *8ee Instances In Thucydldes (quoted Bk. Ill, 83, Glnn's Edit., p. 66). 
 
ROMANS V, 12. 175 
 
 1. " Sin." In the New Testament there are many words ex- 
 pressing man's non-conformity with God's law. Of these four are 
 found in tliis paragraph, easy distinguishable in definition: aiMprla, 
 "sin;" irapd^affis, "transgression;" ■wapa.wTU)iJLa, "fall;" TrapaKorj, 
 "disobedience." The first finds its si)here in man's inward na- 
 ture, and is subjective ; the other three find their sphere in man's 
 outward conduct, and are objective. Sin is a corruption of the 
 nature of man, a moral degeneracy, a falling short of God's ap- 
 proval. (Rom. iii, 23.) " Sin is disconformity with law." This is 
 John's definition. (1 John iii, 4.) This is the first meaning of the 
 word, as in our text, as an abstract term. As such it is always in 
 the singular number. But the word "sin" is often a concrete 
 noun, and (like the other three words named above) expresses a 
 transgression of law, an overt, voluntary act. In this sense the 
 word is sometimes singular, but is also many times in the plural 
 number. The two senses can usually be recognized by the con- 
 nection ; and are carefully discriminated by John : " If we say that 
 we have no sin (sinfulness, corruption of nature), we deceive our- 
 selves, and the truth (the true doctrine on this point) is not in us: 
 if we confess our sins (transgressions, overt acts), he is faithful 
 and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- 
 eousness." (1 John i, 8, 9.) Sin implies a proclivity to evil — a 
 proclivity which may result, and with all adults does result, in 
 actual, overt transgression. But this innate degeneration, this 
 abnormalcy in man's moral faculties, does not involve a destruc- 
 tion, or a change in the nature of these faculties. It is only 
 figuratively that we speak of man's being "dead in trespasses and 
 sins." Man still has his original constitution: he is a moral agent, 
 rational, with convictions of the good, with impulses to the right ; 
 and he is free. 
 
 Sin in this sense of moral corruption is hereditary ; and it is 
 in this sense only that we can accept the dogma of " original sin." •'•' 
 
 *The Methodist Article of Religion, No. VII (Church of England and 
 Episcopal Article, No. IX) on •' Original or Birth Sin," admirably defines 
 thus: 
 
 '•Original sin ... is the corruption of the nature of every man, 
 that naturally Is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man Is 
 very far gone from original righteousness, and Is of his own nature In- 
 clined to evil." 
 
 This means that man Is vitiated in nature; but does not connote that 
 he Is therefore vicious In practice, or can be until the age of volition; or 
 that he rt^nains vicious after regeneration. 
 
176 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Original sin is not a per.sonnl, n-sponsible participation by later 
 geni'rations in tlio first man's sin (whether as sinfulness or as 
 transgression), and in the guilt of it, but is only a seminal corrup- 
 tion propagated from Adam through our corrupt line of ancestry, 
 and attaching to each successive generation, but not cumulative; 
 the latest generation is not, so far forth, worse than the first. 
 "Original sin" is, at tlie most, the taint entailed from a corrupt 
 origin, but is not the original transgression of Adam ; and it is not 
 guilt. "We do not inherit guilt. Such a proposition is unethical 
 and untiiinkable. We inlu-rit from Adam a native corruption, a 
 consequence of his fall, but we are without responsibility for it. 
 So far forth, our corruption does not need God's pardon or forgive- 
 ness, but only God's pity, and forbearance, and remedial measures ; 
 not justifieation (except constructively) : but only regeneration. 
 No man is amenable on the ground of sin (sinfulness), but only 
 (in the case of adults) on the ground of his personal, voluntary 
 sins (transgressions). 
 
 The other words in this passage, " transgression, fall, disobe- 
 dience " (the Greek words are all compounded with the preposition 
 vapa, "amiss, aside"), express in common (as does the second 
 sense of " sin," and the plural " sins "), overt, voluntary violations 
 of law. They are willful acts of free agents ; they are not hered- 
 itary ; they are always accompanied and followed by guilt ; and 
 the transgressor needs pardon and regeneration. 
 
 Tlie distinction between the two senses of the substantive, 
 " sin," holds also in regard to all the derivations of the word, — the 
 adjective "sinful," the substantive "sinners," and especially the 
 verb " to sin." The first sense, given above, of seminal or innate 
 corruption, as distinct from overt transgression, is the sense of 
 all these words, as aifirmed of the descendants of Adam, in this 
 passage. Clearly in the twelfth verse the noun "sin" can have 
 no other meaning. It would be unreasonable to give it as applied 
 to the descendants of Adam, the sense of overt voluntary trans- 
 gression. Such a sense is appropriate for the act of Adam, the 
 first willful, culpable sinner; but not for his hapless, helpless 
 posterity. Adam's act is expressly called by all these names, 
 " sin," " transgression," " fall," " disobedience ;" but the involun- 
 tary participation of his posterity in the results of his act (not in 
 the act itself), is called "sin," that is, sinfulness, innate corrup- 
 tion; but is never called transgression. Adam's transgression 
 entailed corruption, but not transgression, and not guilt. Paul 
 
ROMANS V, 12. 177 
 
 did not say, and could not have said, "Through one man, the 
 transgression came into the world of men." His thought, cor- 
 rectly expressed in his words, is, " Through one man [' one man's 
 fall,' V. 17J sin (sinfulness, corruption) came into the world." 
 
 This, too, is the sense, the only possible sense, of the word 
 "sinful" [or "sinners"], in the nineteenth verse: "Through the 
 disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinful" 
 [or "sinners," as the English translations less correctly give it]. 
 This, too, especially, is the sense, the only possible sense, of the 
 niuch debated verb "sinned " in the twelfth verse: "Death came 
 tliroughout unto all men, because [or, ' for that '] all sinned." The 
 word " all " includes infants, to whom death comes, as well as 
 adults ; but infants can not be counted as overt sinners. The 
 apostle's argument in this passage, and the uniform teaching of 
 the New Testament, and all rational theodicy, require that we 
 consistently explain the verb, if we can not translate it, " They 
 became sinful," they incurred sin [sinfulness], they inherited 
 Adam's corruption, — though not his guilt. This can be said of 
 infants; and this is all that can be said of them. This, indeed, is 
 Paul's own explanation of the sense, in the words just quoted: 
 "Through the disobedience of the one man, the many were consti- 
 tuted sinful." (Verse 19.) 
 
 But it by no means follows, because the descendants of Adam 
 are held, in consequence of his sin, as " sinful," that they partook 
 of his offense, or share in his guilt, and are accounted as person- 
 ally violators of law. As born corrupt, though innocently, God's 
 law counts us sinful ; and though it does not look on us with com- 
 placency, it does not condemn us, and the Gospel of Christ pro- 
 vides an instant and adequate remedy ; it brings regeneration and 
 justification. The death which Adam incurred was his personal 
 punishment for his personal transgression. The death entailed on 
 all his innocent posterity, including infants, who die as belonging 
 to the fallen race, is, administratively, the legal but not inculpa- 
 tive penalty to the race, from inherited corruption; but it is not a 
 personal punishment inflicted on us for Adam's sin, or for our sins. 
 Notice, that penally is simply legal results, which may come upon 
 an innocent person ; punishment is administrative retribution, and 
 always implies guilt. There is no imputation of Adam's sin (trans- 
 gression) to the race, on the ground of inherited corruption ; there 
 is no demerit attaching to us, because of a guilty, or culpable 
 participation in his transgression. It is only our own sin (sinful- 
 12 
 
178 EXPOSITION. 
 
 noss) that is imputed to us, as a consequence of the fall ; and not 
 that in any inculpative sense; and the sin thus imputed, and its 
 appointed penalty of death, are effectually and wholly intercepted 
 and remedied by a merciful and just redemption. Born with a 
 corrupt nature, by natural propagation from Adam, we are never- 
 theless born under an economy of grace, as well as of law. " Where 
 sin [sinfulness, not sins] abounded (in human nature), at the same 
 instant, grace superabounded [in the provisions of the Gospel]." 
 (Rom. V, 20.) Through the redemption of Christ, every infant is 
 born justified from constructive condemnation ; and is born regen- 
 er-ate by the blood of sprinkling ; and therefore every infant dying 
 is saved. And every infant that lives to grow up, starts with a 
 justified and regenerate nature ; and every adult, who, by back- 
 sliding,* has lost his infant innocency, and becomes a conscious 
 and willful transgressor (as practically all adults do), may never- 
 theless, under the same ample provisions of the Gospel, repent of 
 his personal sins, and again find abundant forgiveness, and regen- 
 eration of his nature, and final deliverance from death. This is 
 the sole teaching of this vexed passage. 
 
 There is no theologian who would venture explicitly to declare 
 what all Calvinistic theologians nevertheless implicitly teach, that 
 Adam sinned for his posterity. And yet, the entire fiction of "the 
 federal headship" of Adam, by which he "represented" us in his 
 sin, and entailed his awful guilt on his unoffending posterity, 
 substantially involves the whole baseless, monstrous absui-dity. 
 Who delegated "representative" functions to Adam, under au- 
 thority of which he acted for us, to plunge us into remediless 
 woe? Augustine's famous saying that " We were all in Adam, 
 since we all were that single one" ("City of God," XIII, 14), is not 
 true theologically in any sense, real or putative, and is utterly 
 absurd as a philosophical proposition. The fact that we are 
 Adam's posterity, and inherit from him his degenerate nature, is 
 all that can be found in the Scriptures, or made out in reason, as 
 touching our relations to him, or to his transgression. And we 
 must hold that his transgression was his own personal affair, and 
 not ours ; though it "brought death into the world, and all our 
 woe." How admirably discriminate is the saying of Jeremiah: 
 " The fathers ate sour gi'apes, and the children's teeth are set on 
 
 * "To backslide" Is a genuine Biblical word, expressive of a real theo- 
 logical concept. Jeremiah uses the word thirteen times; Hosea three 
 times. 
 
ROMANS V, 12. 179 
 
 edge ; but every one shall die for his own iniquity." (lev. xxxi, 29.) 
 Paul declares that: " In Adam we all die." (1 Cor. xv, 22.) That 
 we inherit death, is all that is here declared ; but when any affirm 
 further, that " In Adam all sinned," we deny the proposition, which 
 has no scintilla of truth, except so far as the saying " all sinned " 
 has been explained by Paul himself: ''Through [assuredly not 
 'In'] the disobedience of the one man, the many were consti- 
 tuted sinful." (Rom. v, 19.) 
 
 Such is the only relation we bear to the great progenitor of the 
 race. There is nothing mystic or transcendental about it. It is in 
 the oi-dinary line of nature. It was in his paternity only that he en- 
 tailed on us the awful inheritance of sin and death, and not by any 
 incomprehensible representative headship. The offspring bears the 
 impress, physical and moral, of the father. We see this heredity, 
 not only in the bodily resemblance of son to father, and often in 
 the minutest idiosyncrasies of disposition, but, above all, in the 
 transmitted moral character. "Adam begot a son in his own like- 
 ness, after his image." (Gen. iii, 3.) Such is the teaching of the 
 Scripture in regard to the traduction of the race, body and soul, 
 physically and morally ; a teaching which all science also equally 
 establishes. This doctrine is known in theology as " traducian- 
 ism." We derive our body and soul ultimately no doubt from 
 God, but we derive them intermediately through Adam. 
 
 2. Death. Many theologians attempt to discriminate the kinds 
 of death named in the Bible. They catalogue them as Death Phys- 
 ical, Death Spiritual, and Death Eternal. But this catalogue is 
 not Scriptural, and is not generic or logical. There are not three 
 kinds of death. The Bible knows of but one death, the death of the 
 man; and herein marks no sharp division into body and spirit.* 
 And the Bible knows of death only as an extinction of being, which, 
 except for the renewal of life in Christ, is eternal death. This 
 surely is what was threatened in the Garden ; and we may infer 
 that, but for the gracious intervention of redemption, it would 
 have been inflicted upon Adam " in the day that he sinned," and 
 
 *The phrase "Spiritual death" is not found In the Scriptures; and 
 the concept which it is probably intended to express is equally unknown 
 in Scripture. Those who use the phrase mean by It apparently some form 
 of punishment of sin; though not extending to extinction of the spirit. 
 If they mean " alienation from the life of God " (Eph. iv, IS)— that is, the 
 extinction of all goodness— this is not a punishment of sin, but is the sin 
 itself! 
 
180 EXPOSITION. 
 
 the experiment with the human race would have ended. But 
 Christ intervened and redeemed tlie race from extinction, and 
 gave man a " renewal of life" (Rom. vi,4), with probational op- 
 jjortunity to make tliis life eternal. For Christ's redemption did 
 not restore man unconditionally to the conditions forfeited by sin. 
 It suspended the penalty. It made provision for man's final salva- 
 tion on new conditions. This provision contemplates the present 
 regeneration of the soul, but leaves the body subject, temporarily, 
 to death. Paul says: "The spirit is life [made alive] on account 
 of justification ; but the body is dead [subject to death] on account 
 of sin." (Rom. viii, 10.) 
 
 All other senses of the word "death," or of the adjective 
 "dead," are figurative, and are not applicable to the expression of 
 the great penalty. Yet the Biblical uses of the words all refer to 
 the passage in Genesis, where the word first appears, to express the 
 penalty for transgression: " In the day that thou eatest thereof, 
 thou shalt die, shalt die."* (Gen. ii, 17.) 
 
 In this passage the word denotes only natural death ; and 
 thei'e is nothing in the passage, or anything else in the Bible, 
 which implies that death should not sweep the whole compass of 
 man's being. It suggests nothing to us as to a penal depravation of 
 the soul apart from the body; or as to a doleful condition of the 
 soul after death, or as to any future life at all, conscious or uncon- 
 scious, of the soul, apart from the body. The evidence for any 
 such moral penalty of sin must be sought elsewhere, and will be 
 sought in vain. And, conversely, the "life" described in the 
 eighteenth verse of this section as bought by Christ, is the resur- 
 rection life, the annulling of the natural death of man: "Christ 
 abolished death, and brought life and incorruption [non-death] 
 to light, through the gospel" (2 Tim. i, 10) ; and this " life" does 
 not, of itself, express moral results or consequences, but only the 
 forensic reversal of the physical penalty. 
 
 Verse 13. For to the extent of law sin -was in the -world ; 
 but sin is not reckoned, if there be no law. 
 
 The conjunction for connects back to the clauses in the twelfth 
 verse, " all sinned,"— "J// sinned, I say ; for to the extent of law 
 there was sin in the world." The word law, having no article, 
 
 * Notice the Intensive Hebrew repetition. Compare the duplicative 
 verb, "I have seen, / have seen.^'' (Acts vU, 34.) 
 
ROMANS V, 13. 181 
 
 means, as so constantly in Pauline phraseology, not " The Law," 
 the Mosaic legislation, but the eternal, universal, moral law. And 
 this, as well as the whole logic of the passage, determines the 
 meaning of the preposition fixP', up to, to the extent of. This 
 Greek word sometimes denotes time, sometimes extent, as deter- 
 mined by the connection. In the text before us, the sense is not 
 temporal, but quantitative ; it does not express a stretch of time, 
 but of extent or prevalence. In the fourteenth verse, where the 
 sense is evidently of time, Paul uses a different word, m^XP', 
 "until," as if definitely to distinguish the quantitative sense of 
 the other. 
 
 This explanation suits not only the meaning of the Greek 
 preposition itself, but the specific limitations laid dovrn by the 
 apostle in the text. He says that "There was sin in the world; 
 but that sin is not reckoned [we might almost say ' reckoned with,' 
 recognized and treated as transgression], only on the supposition 
 of there being no law." Of course the " law" thus alluded to was 
 not the Law of Moses, for that was three thousand years later; 
 nor was it the specific "commandment" to Adam in the garden; 
 for the men who died " from Adam until Moses did not sin after 
 the sameness with tlie transgression of Adam." There is, then, 
 no other law conceivable than the eternal, unwritten, unspoken, 
 everywhere regnant, moral law of right and wrong. But we can 
 not say, " Vntil this law," which is dateless ; we must translate and 
 explain the text: ''To the extent of this law," this great, eternal, 
 universal, moral law. Paul's argument can be restated thus : " Sin 
 is not reckoned with as transgression and punished, if there be no 
 law; but death, the penalty of sin, reigned ; and therefore sin was 
 recognized and reckoned with as transgression ; and therefore 
 there was law." It stands syllogistically thus: " Sin can not be 
 counted, and reckoned with as sin, if there be no law. But it was 
 so reckoned with, for death reigned ; therefore there was law." 
 
 And it follows that this law was not that of Moses, and it was 
 not that special commandment given to Adam. It was the uni- 
 versal, divine law of right and wrong, written on the pages of 
 nature, and in the hearts of men. There never was a time when 
 men were not actually, and consciously, subject to this law, if to 
 no other. They recognized it, and understood it, and for the most 
 part obeyed it, because of their conscience ; but, alas ! they also 
 often disobeyed it, for it carried with it no formal promulgation 
 of penal sanctions. Yet while, during all this long period until 
 
182 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Moses, sin was recognized, and death reigned, man's overt trans- 
 gressions were not always reckoned with, or visited upon men with 
 absolute and unerring strictness. "In the forbearance of (lod, he 
 passed over the sins of the olden time" (Rom. iii, 25); "lie that 
 knew not his Lord's will, and did things worthy of stripes, was 
 beaten with few stripes " (Luke xii, 48). 
 
 Verse 14. Nay, but death reigned from Adam until 
 Moses, even over them that sinned not, after the same- 
 ness with the transgression of Adam, — who is type of the 
 Second Adam (1 Cor. xv, 45) that was to come. 
 
 The statement in this verse is a refutation of the conceit of 
 the Jews that tlieir Law was the universal and final law. Their 
 Law was not the first; it will not be the last; and it was only pro- 
 visional and provincial. Long before the date of the Mosaic Law, 
 there was another more comprehensive law, which held all men in 
 its mighty grasp, " a law which God manifested to them." (Rom. i, 
 19.) Nor did tlie enactment of the Mosaic Law change the relation 
 of men at large, or even of the Jews, to this eternal law. The Law 
 of Sinai defined this great moral, eternal law more clearly, but did 
 not tlien first enact it, or in any way modify it. It liad always 
 existed ; and after Sinai, men stood related to it precisely as before. 
 But Moses added, Jor the Jews, the Law of Circumcision and of 
 Rites, not establishing a new standard of righteousness, but simply 
 regulating the religious service of an unspiritual people. The 
 transgression of the moral law was sin, subjectively; the trans- 
 gression of the Mosaic Law (at least of the ceremonial statutes), 
 was " trespass," objectively, which could be atoned for by bodily 
 mortifications, or fines or sacrifices. The earlier and mightier law 
 was still regnant everywhere, and carrying death to all the i-ace, 
 not " from Adam until Moses" only ; but until tlie coming of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and " the bringing in of a better liope." It is 
 only the gospel of Christ which has reversed the conditions (tf sin 
 and death, under which the race was hopelessly held. The provi- 
 sions of the Mosaic Law did not call sin into being; but only gave 
 it, already existing, the metes and bounds by which its nature and 
 extent could be more clearly measured. It defined transgression 
 and pcnii\ty for (he Jews, but not for the rest of the world. This Law 
 was but temporary in its design, as well as jjrovincial in its range: 
 " A Law of fleshly ordinances, imposed until the time of reforma- 
 tion." (Heb. ix, 10.) This Law with its "blood of bulls and of 
 oats" did not atone for sin ; and did not abolish death. 
 
ROMANS V. 15-21. 183 
 
 It is clearly the teaching of this passage, verses 12-14, that death 
 came to all men ("io men," observe, though certainly not to the 
 lower animal races) as the result of Adam's transgression. The 
 heredity of sin brought with it to men not guilt, but dcalh, as the 
 penal result of our seminal taint. The verb that denotes the sway 
 of deatli is very expressive : Death kinged it over men. This 
 was our involuntary inheritance from Adam's sin. From this fatal 
 inheritance the redemption of Christ bought us off, and "abol- 
 ished death " for us. Yet, while this gracious intervention has been 
 effected /or the race, without our personal co-operation or consent, 
 and has thus delivered all the race of Adam from their ill heredity, 
 we must not lose sight of the other fact that men's voluntary, 
 personal sin in adult life subjects them to personal guilt, and, if 
 they die impenitent, to the penalty of a "second death." 
 
 The class described in the fourteenth verse, who sinned not 
 after the sameness with the transgression of Adam, does 
 not directly contemplate the case of innocent children (though 
 they are included), but of all the race. None of the descendants 
 of Adam sinned as Adam did, against the specific statute of the 
 Garden. Their sin (sinfulness) came by inheritance; it was for 
 this they died, not for their own sins (transgressions), though these 
 also, upon their occurrence, were worthy of death. But under 
 the gospel scheme, men are born to an inheritance of life, as well 
 as an inhei-itance of death. Adam who brought condemnation to 
 death upon all his posterity, was in his actual racial headship 
 (but not in any federal sense) the foretype of Christ; and the 
 second and greater Adam, in his constructive racial headship, was 
 the aftertype of Adam, and by his death brought justification to a 
 lost race. 
 
 And this last glorious declaration, the first mention of Christ, 
 in this passage, leads us to the apostle's striking antithesis be- 
 tween Adam and Christ, as developed in the next seven verses. 
 
 Verses 15-21. Nay, but not as was the fall, so also was 
 the act of grace. For if by the fall of the one man the 
 many died, much rather the grace of God, and the gift in 
 the grace of the One Man, Jesus Christ, abounded unto 
 the many. And not, as was the fall through one man 
 that sinned, so was the gift: for the judgment indeed was 
 from one [fall] unto condemnation, but the act of grace 
 was from many falls unto justification. For if, in the fall 
 of the one man, the death reigned through the one man ; 
 
184 EXPOSITION. 
 
 much rather they that receive the abundance of the ^race 
 and of the gift of justification, will reign, in life, through 
 the One Man, Jesus Christ. Accordingly, then, as through 
 one fall [the result was] unto all men unto condemnation; 
 so also through one act of justification [the result] was 
 unto all men unto justification of life. For just as through 
 the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted 
 sinful, so also through the obedience of the One Man the 
 many will be constituted just. But law came in besides 
 that the fall may multiply ; but where the sin multiplied, 
 the grace overabounded ; that, just as the sin reigned in 
 the death, so also the grace may reign through justification 
 unto life eternal through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 In verses 15-21 we come to the famous parallel, or, rather, 
 contrast, between Adam and Christ. This brief passage is perhaps 
 the most noted and the most quoted in all Paul's Epistles. There 
 is indeed no other passage of the same extent in the world's liter- 
 ature, sacred or profane, so compact, and complete, and suggestive. 
 The style is grave, noble, impressive, authoritative. The two great 
 heads of the race are introduced. Adam in the Fall, Christ in the 
 Redemption; and the results of the Fall, and the results of the 
 Redemption are shown in strong and pointed contrast: Adam's 
 Fall brought sin and death ; Christ's Atonement brought justifica- 
 tion and life. 
 
 The passage is embarrassingly concise, the woi-ding of the 
 antitheses meager and obscure. Paul gives only the barest state- 
 ments, and, to our disappointment, does not indulge himself, and 
 does not indulge his readers, in any exposition of the grave mat- 
 ters in issue, on either side. The reader constantly desiderates a 
 few more specific, explanatory words in the sentence, a little more 
 expansion of the thought. Yet the brief statements which the 
 apostle has given us amount, when carefully weighed, to a sub- 
 stantial, and, on the whole, satisfactory theodicy. But concise as 
 the passage is, it would be diflHcult to overestimate the place which 
 these few brief utterances hold in the exhibition of Christian 
 theology: they constitute the basis of all orthodox theological 
 systems of Anthropology and Christology. No woi-ds, aside from 
 those of the Master, are so often cited ; none appear so often in 
 the teaching of the schools, the preaching of the pulpits. 
 
 The antithetical structure of this passage can be best exhib- 
 
ROMANS r. 15-21. 
 
 185 
 
 ited, and the meaning best apprehended, by arranging the several 
 protases and apodoses in pai-allel columns ; of wiiicli the first shall 
 show the fall of Adam and its results, the second the grace of 
 God in Christ and its results. There are nine several antitheses 
 in the following presentation of the passage, marked by Roman 
 numerals, and the several sections of the single verses are marked 
 by the letters of the alphabet. This is a closely literal transla- 
 tion ; with a few words supplied [in brackets], as demanded by 
 the cui'rent sense, or authorized from other parallel verses. I 
 have italicized the contrasted and emphatic words. 
 
 ADAM'S FALL. 
 
 I. 15a. Nay, but not, as w^as 
 the Fall, 
 
 II. 15c. For if, by the Fall of 
 the one man, the many die, 
 
 in. 16a. And not, as was [the 
 Fall] through one man, having 
 sinned ; 
 
 IV. 16c. For the judgment, in- 
 deed, was from one [Fall] to a 
 sentence of condemnation [of all 
 men to Death, v. 18a] ; 
 
 V. 17«. For if in the i^'aZZ of the 
 one man the Death reigned 
 through the one man [over all 
 men, v. 12] ; 
 
 VI. 18a. Accordingly, then, as 
 through one Fall [the result], was 
 unto all men unto condemnation 
 [to Death] ; 
 
 CHRIST'S GRACE. 
 
 156. So also vpas the act of 
 
 Grace; 
 
 Ibd. Much rather the Grace of 
 God, and the Gift in the Grace 
 of the One Man, Jesus Christ, 
 abounded unto the many [unto 
 justification of Life, v. 18]. 
 
 166. So also was the [perfect] 
 Gift [thi'ough One Man having 
 justified us J. 
 
 16d. But the act of Grace was 
 from many Falls unto a sentence 
 of justification [of all men to 
 Life, V. 186]. 
 
 176. Much rather they that re- 
 ceive the abundance of the Grace 
 and of the Gift of justification 
 will reign in Life through the 
 One Man, Jesus Christ. 
 
 186. So, also, through one act 
 of justification [the result], was 
 unto all men, unto justification 
 of Life. 
 
LS6 
 
 EXPOSITION. 
 
 ADAM'S FALL. 
 
 VIL 19a. For as through the 
 Disobedience of the one man, the 
 many were constitued sinful ; 
 
 VIII. 20a. But law came in be- 
 sides, that the Fall may multiply ; 
 
 IX. 21a. That as the Sin 
 reigned in the Death; 
 
 CHRIST'S GRACE. 
 
 196. So also through the Obe- 
 dience of the One Man, the many 
 will be constituted j?/s<. 
 
 20h. But where this Sin multi- 
 plied, the Grace overaljounded ; 
 
 21b. So, also, the Grace may 
 reign through justification unto 
 Life eternal, through Jesus Christ, 
 our Lord. 
 
 The following is an abstract, or outline, of the teaching of this 
 passage, and of the gospel of Christ: 
 
 II. 
 
 Christ, the Second Adam, and 
 constructive Head of the race, 
 carried, potentially, all the race 
 redeemed by his vicarious death, 
 with him: 
 
 First. In regeneration of their 
 nature. And so we read : 
 
 1. "God saved us through the 
 washing of regeneration, and re- 
 newing of the Holy Spirit." 
 (Tit. iii, 5.) "We are conform 
 with the image of his Son." 
 (Rom. viii, 29.) 
 
 Secondly. In justification, or 
 acquittal, from condemnation. 
 And so we read : 
 
 2. " The results were unto all 
 men unto justification to life." 
 (Rom. v, 18.) 
 
 I. 
 
 Adam, the progenitor of the 
 race, carried all his descendants 
 with him : 
 
 First. In corruption, or degen- 
 eracy of nature. And so we 
 I'ead : 
 
 1. " He begot a son in his own 
 likeness." (Gen.v,3.) "Through 
 the disobedience of the one man, 
 the many were constituted sin- 
 ful." (Rom. v, 19.) 
 
 Secondly. In obnoxiousness to 
 to the penalty, for a construc- 
 tive, not culpative, guilt. And 
 so we read : 
 
 2. "Through one Fall, the re- 
 sults were unto all men unto 
 condemnation to death." (Rom. 
 V, 18. 
 
ROMANS V. 15-21. 
 
 \%*t 
 
 Thirdly. In actual subjection 
 to tlie penalty of death. And so 
 we read : 
 
 3. "Death came througliout 
 unto all men." (Rom. v, 12.) 
 "In Adam all die." (1 Cor. 
 XV, 22.) 
 
 Tliirdhj. In removal, or rever- 
 sal, of the penalty. And so we 
 read : 
 
 3. "So in Christ will all be 
 made alive." (1 Cor. xv, 22.) 
 
 It will be noticed that the discussion is restricted to the legal, 
 or forensic, phases of the Fall and of the Recovery. The contrast 
 is betw^een sin as condemnatory, not as contaminative ; and Grace 
 as justificatory, and not as regenerative. This Epistle does not 
 deal with moral issues. The moral elements in the contrasted 
 sphei-es of action, contamination and regeneration, are not touched 
 upon here, and are only barely alluded to in any other part of 
 the Epistle. Condemnation and justification occupy the apostle's 
 whole field of view here and throughout the dogmatic part of the 
 Epistle, to the end of the eleventh chapter. 
 
 We now come to an examination and discussion of these nine 
 antitheses, severally. There is a marked resemblance in the bal- 
 anced structure of these antitheses. Of the nine protases describ- 
 ing the action of sin, all begin with the argumentative adverbial 
 conjunctions for, or as, pointing to the logical apodoses ; and of the 
 nine apodoses describing the counter work of Christ, five begin with 
 the answering equilibrant words so also, two with the augmen- 
 tative words much rather, and two with the adversative con- 
 junction but. 
 
 I. 15a. Nay, but not, as was 
 the Fall, 
 
 156. So also was the act of 
 Grace ; 
 
 The first clause begins with the strongest adversative con- 
 junction, which, as we have seen before, is best expressed with the 
 help of the word nay. The previous verse ended in a parallel 
 between Adam and Christ, showing the likeness of the great pro- 
 totype and the greater Antitype in their racial headships. But 
 with the fifteenth verse, and so onward through the chapter, there 
 is, instead of a resemblance, only a sharp contrast, or antithesis, 
 between the two, and between their relations to men. 
 
 The translation act of grace is used to discriminate xdpicr/xa 
 (here and in IQd) from the customary word for grace, x^^P's (in 15(/). 
 Certainly the translation " free gift" in the Authorized and the 
 
188 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Revised misses the point of tlie contrast; besides which, tlic word 
 " free " adds nothing to the meaning of tlie word " gift:" it is an 
 idle tautology. 
 
 This first antithesis contrasts the two antagonistic agencies, 
 the Fall and the Grace, in their nature, or character. In this 
 contrast, the thougiit in full seems to be this: The Fall was an 
 act that brought corruption and death to the race ; sin and its 
 brother, death, ti-avel together. But not so was the Grace of 
 Christ; its work was the opposite: it abolished death, and brought 
 life and incorrujition [non-death] to light. 
 
 II. 15r. For if by the Fall 
 of the one man the many 
 died. ; 
 
 15'/. Much rather the grace 
 of God, and the Gift in the 
 Grace of the One Man, Jesus 
 Christ, abounded unto the 
 many [unto justification of 
 Life, V. 18]. 
 
 The second antithesis contrasts the Fall and the Grace in their 
 specific results, and in the extent to which the results readied. 
 The Fall brought Death unto the many ; the Grace counteracted 
 the results of sin ; but it did more : it abounded unto the many 
 over all the entailment of the Fall. Its refluent wave swept back 
 overall barriers, and left redeemed man in safer condition, ideally 
 at least, than was Adam even in his first probation. 
 
 The term the many, here, is coextensive with all in the 
 eighteenth verse. The word " tlie many," rather than " all," is 
 suggested by the word "the one," to which it forms the appro- 
 priate numerical antithesis; and, besides, it connotes what the 
 word " all " does not, that the class which it describes is not small, 
 but "a multitude such as no man can number."* Certainly we 
 
 *The population of the globe to-day Is estimated at fifteen hundred 
 millions. But of the whole number of those who are born Into the world, 
 half (lie In infiuicy, and are never counted in the census; and, as a " gener- 
 ation'" may l)e taken ut one-third of u century, it follows that tliree thou- 
 sand millions are born and die every thirty-three years. If we count the 
 age of the race as only six thousand years (though It Is probably double 
 that), and make allowance for the early paucity of the population, still a 
 very conservative estimate makes the number of the human family that 
 have lived and died to the present time at least two hundred and fifty 
 thousand millions. How dreadful the ravages of sin! Surely Death has 
 "kinged It "among men! And how glorious the Grace that redeemed 
 them all. "the wiawj/.'"— the Grace that has taken thought for each one, 
 personally, of this vast multitude— that certainly saves one-half the num- 
 ber, and as many more as will, and is adequate to save all. 
 
ROMANS V. 15-21. 
 
 189 
 
 can not concede the Calvinistic explanation that "the many" are 
 fewer than "all," and that the term is used advisedly for only 
 " the elect." On the contrary, the word " the many " is used with- 
 out any mark of difference, on both sides of the antithesis — for 
 those who are affected by the Fall, and for those who are affected 
 by the work of Grace. " The many," in this connection, are "aW." 
 
 III. 16a. And not, as was I 166. So also was the [per- 
 [the Fall] through one man, feet] Gift, [through One Man, 
 having sinned ; I having justified us]. 
 
 The third antithesis repeats substantially the brief points 
 found in the first antithesis; and takes a step in advance, by 
 adding some qualifications. The yet further supplies [added in 
 brackets], are borrowed from the parallels elsewhere. The word 
 the Fall, in 16o, is justified by the same word in 15a ; and the 
 word perfect in 166, " the perfect Gift," is inserted on the author- 
 ity of James i, 17, to discriminate, rhetorically, the special word 
 dwprjfjLa, "gift," from its more general synonym duped, gift, in 15d 
 and 17c. The advanced point in 16a, through one man that 
 sinned, which specifies the guilty cause of our condemnation, 
 justifies the addition in 166, of the correlate clause, through One 
 Man that justified us. 
 
 IV. 16c. For the judgment 
 indeed was from one [Fall] 
 unto a sentence of condem- 
 nation [of all men, to death] ; 
 
 16cZ. But the act of Grace 
 w^as from many Falls, unto a 
 sentence of justication [of all 
 men, to life]. 
 
 The fourth antithesis contrasts, as in II, the work of the Fall 
 and the act of Grace, in the direction and the range of their several 
 operations ; but now the stress of the contrast is on the single Fall 
 of Adam, from which the condemnation came, and the many Falls, 
 or transgressions, of his posterity, from which Grace delivers 
 them. Adam's probation was forfeited by a single sin ; our pro- 
 bation under Christ, gives the race the opportunity, and the real- 
 ization, of recovery from many sins. 
 
 One text in the first line of 16c reads, was from one Pall. 
 The old translation "by one" implies that the word "one" is 
 masculine, though it does not supply the word " man." But the 
 parallelism of the two antithetic clauses, as well as the sense, 
 allows no other supply than " Fall." 
 
190 EXPOSITION. 
 
 V. 17a. For if in the Fall of 
 
 the one man, the Death 
 reigned, through the one man 
 [over all men] ; 
 
 17I>. Much rather they that 
 
 receive the abundance of the 
 Grace, and of the Gift of 
 justification will reign in life 
 through the One Man, Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 The fifth antithesis contrasts the victory of Death and the 
 victory of Grace. Death "kinged it" over all men; but this tri- 
 umi)li is short; they that receive Grace and justification [namely, 
 all men], will, in their turn, "king it" over Death, in eternal life, 
 througli Jesus Christ. This is the ideal and actual result of the 
 gospel. " In Christ all men will be made alive." (1 Cor. xv, 22.) 
 And for all who will, the resurrection life will continue to eternal 
 life. 
 
 VI. 18a. Accordingly, then, 
 as through one Fall, [the re- 
 sult) was unto all men, unto 
 condemnation [to Death] ; 
 
 186. So also, through one 
 act of justification, [the re- 
 sult) was unto all men, unto 
 justification of Life. 
 
 The sixth antithesis contrasts the result, or outcome, of the 
 Fall in bringing condemnation to man, and the result, or outcome, 
 of Christ's work in bringing justification to man. This word out- 
 come, or result, is tlie simplest, and sufficient sup|)ly for botii 
 clauses. The one Fall resulted in condemnation of all men to 
 death; the one justifying work resulted in the justification of all 
 men to life. The last phrase, justification of Life, means that 
 gracious justification from condemnation to death, which, con- 
 trariwise, entitles men to life. Li/e is simply the opposite of 
 death; and while the word does not, in itself, mean eternal life, 
 but only the reversal of the death penalty, yet this title to life, 
 will, as we saw under verse 17, reach, " for those that seek incor- 
 rui)tion," unto eternal life. But in Scriptural phraseology, the 
 word "life" usually connotes, the idea of eternit;/. Christ said: 
 " I came that they may have life" (John x, 10) ; but he also said: 
 " He that has faith upon the Son has eternal life" (John iii, 36). 
 
 Y IT. 19'/. For just as through I 196. So also, through the 
 the Disobedience of the one Obedience of the One Man, 
 
 man, the many were consti- 
 tuted sinful ; 
 
 the many will be constituted 
 just. 
 
 The seventh antithesis contrasts the results of Adam's Dis- 
 obedience, and of Christ's Obedience upon man's forensic relation 
 
ROMANS V. 15-91. 
 
 191 
 
 to the law of God. The conjunction for logically refers to verse 
 18, and adduces the results there described as the grounds severally 
 for the condemnation of the race to death, on the one hand, and 
 for their justification and restoration to life, on the other hand. 
 
 Tlic parallelism requires that the j)redicate afiapruXoL in 19a be 
 translated by the adjective sinful, as in Romans vii, 13, not " sin- 
 ners," as in the old Versions. It thus corresponds to the adjective 
 just in 196. The word sinful has the sense already explained, in 
 the note to verse 12, of being degenerate or corrupt in nature, and 
 not, as the word " sinners" means, of being overt, pei'sonal trans- 
 gressors. It expresses the inherited characteristic of the race, the 
 inculpable seminal taint in our human nature, and not the willful, 
 culpable, transgression in our outer lives. On the opposite side of 
 the antithesis the word JHS^, which is almost synonymous with the 
 participle " justified " (Rom. i, 17), expresses the forensic acquit- 
 tance from condemnation, not the moral regeneration. The word 
 here used does not mean " righteous," that is upright, holy ; and 
 in Paul's vocabulary never expresses ethical concepts. 
 
 The Obedience of the One Man was his obedience to death. " He 
 humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, even to the 
 death of the cross." (Phil, ii, 8.) It expresses what is sometimes 
 called his " passive obedience," his submission to die the most 
 shameful death, a just man for unjust men, an obedience by which 
 " the many were, and will be constituted just." 
 
 VIII. 20a. But law came in 
 besides, that the Fall may 
 multiply ; 
 
 206. But where the sin 
 multiplied, the G-race over- 
 abounded ; 
 
 The verb here correctly translated multiply is usually trans- 
 lated " abound " to assimilate it with the last verb in 206 ; but we 
 had better keep the apostle's word and concept, at the expense of 
 the rhetorical balancing of the clauses. The word law means the 
 eternal, moral law. It came in into human consciousness and 
 human conscience as a factor quickening the sense of sinfulness, 
 and causing the " offense to multiply," that sin might appear yet 
 more sinful. The word besides means in addition to the ordinary 
 rectoral function of law. The working of law does not actually 
 " multiply offenses," but so it seems: it makes the awakened con- 
 science quicker to recognize them. " The sinner is alive ; but the 
 law comes home to him, and he dies." But in the counter-working 
 of the gospel, where sin is multiplying itself, to the alarmed soul, 
 
192 
 
 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Grace intervenes, und overabounds ; and brings justification, and 
 peace, and life. 
 
 IX. 21a. That just as the 
 Sin reigned, in the Death, 
 
 21^. So also the Grace may 
 reign through justification 
 unto Life eternal through Je- 
 sus Christ our Lord. 
 
 The ninth antithesis is the triumphant climax. Sin once 
 " kinged it" over men, in the universal dominance of death. Its 
 domain is one of desolation and vacuity. Grace will " king it," 
 through justification, in a higher and better reign, in a domain of 
 Life, eternal Life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
CHAFTEK YI. 
 
 Verse 1. Jew: "What then shall we say? Shall we 
 continue in the sin, that the grace may multiply?" 
 
 For a correct understanding of the discussion upon which we 
 now enter we must remember, first of all, as we have already seen, 
 that, while the general theme of the Epistle is the equality of the 
 Gentiles with the Jews, yet the specific doctrine set forth in this 
 discussion is that of justification from faith. The whole discussion 
 turns on this doctrine. The usual interpretation of this impor- 
 tant section (including the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters), as 
 being a discussion of the higher, ethical doctrine of regeneration 
 and sanctification, is a grave exegetical error. In point of fact, 
 the apostle, throughout the first eleven chapters, which are the 
 doctrinal chapters of the Epistle, does not touch, or does no more 
 than barely touch, on the great themes of regeneration and sanc- 
 tification. There are, in this Epistle, only two briefest allusions, of 
 two words each (the same words in both places), to this branch of 
 Christian teaching which elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles meet 
 with so copious and satisfactory treatment. These two allusions 
 are found in this sixth chapter ; and there are none at all in the 
 seventh and eighth. They are as follows : 
 
 1. "Yield your members slaves to justification, with a view to 
 sanctification." (Rom. vi, 19.) 2. " Having been enfreed from the 
 sin. ... ye have your fruit with a view to sanctificatio7i." (Rom. 
 vi, 22.) But these brief passages are not discussions of the higher 
 experimental doctrine of holiness ; they are mere side allusions, 
 which might have been omitted from the Epistle without impair- 
 ment to the logical trend and tread of the argument on justifi- 
 cation. 
 
 The question with which the sixth chapter opens evidently be- 
 longs to the Jew. The fifth chapter closes with the apostle's say- 
 13 193 
 
I'M EXPOSITION. 
 
 ing tluvt " Wliere the sin imiltiplied, tlie grace overabouiided." 
 To this statement, so broad and unqualified, the Jew, or any cav- 
 iler, might object that tliis doctrine of justification by grace alone, 
 unlike the condemnatory and repressive attitude of /aw, not only 
 opposes no restraint to license, but even encourages continuance 
 in it. It is substantially the same objection against the apostle's 
 teaching that we met before in the words of the Jew: "If God's 
 truth [truthfulness to the covenant] abounded to his glory by my 
 falseness fto the covenant], why am I also judged and condemned 
 as sinful?" (Rom. iii, 7.) To that objection the apostle answered 
 with a reductio ad absiirdum: " Then, on the same principle, shall 
 we do the evil things that the good things may come? — whose 
 condemnation is just?" Of course, the phrase " continue in the 
 sin" means "continue in the indulgence of sin;" and the word 
 ''grace" here means the grace of God in justification, or pardon, 
 and not in sanctification. 
 
 Verse 2. Pati. : God forbid! How shall we who died 
 as to the sin yet live in it ? 
 
 Some of the most striking expressions in the Englrsh transla- 
 tion of these chapters, such as "righteousness," " to die to sin," 
 " dead to sin," " alive to God," " newness of life," " crucified with 
 Christ," have become established common places in our religious 
 phraseology, to express spiritual experiences ; and they will, no 
 doubt, continue to be so used. Indeed, the words, and the pas- 
 sages in which they are found, seem at first almost incapable of any 
 other meaning. Yet the exegete must finally recognize the cer- 
 tainty that the apostle in his writings always employs those ex- 
 pressions in quite other senses. In point of fact, first, some of 
 these English expressions are absolutely impossible as translations 
 of the apostle's Greek; the corresponding Greek words never 
 express ethical concepts ; and, second, at any rate, ethical concepts 
 are out of place in this forensic discussion. The proper interpre- 
 tation of the chapter, and of much of the apostle's language here 
 and elsewhere turns ujjon a different understanding of the words. 
 
 AVhat then is the meaning of the saying in our text. We died 
 as to sin? In the old translation the passage runs, " How shall 
 we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" This language 
 doubtless expresses an ethical death, or deadness to sin; and that 
 only. But aside from tlie fatal objection that holds against it as 
 a translation of the Greek verb, there are logical diflRculties in the 
 
RO.VAXS VI, 2. 195 
 
 way of explaining this death as an etliical one. If this expression, 
 "dead to sin," means that the believer has become insensitive, 
 apathetic, "dead," ethically, to the seductiveness of sin, and its 
 dominion over the appetites and affections ; — if this be the meaning 
 of the passage, why should the apostle inconsistently and inconse- 
 quently go on to ask, " How shall we that are dead to sin (in this 
 ethical sense) live any longer therein f" It is a question, whose in- 
 consequence might well stir the envy of St. Patrick himself. But, 
 further, in whatever sense this phrase "dead in sin" is here used 
 in respect to the believer, it is used in the tenth verse in just the 
 same sense in respect to Christ himself. The Greek is the same 
 in both places ; though the translators did not venture to translate 
 in the same way in both places. If the tenth verse can not mean 
 that Christ became "dead to sin," in the sense of having ceased, 
 ethically, to be responsive to its influence over him, so neither can 
 the words in the second verse, as spoken of the believer, have that 
 meaning, or receive that translation. It is only when we recognize 
 that the argument of the apostle is wholly forensic, and not ethical, 
 and interpret his language in accordance with this view, that we 
 reach a coherent, consistent, and tolerable sense. 
 
 The verb died (as also the adjective "dead," in the eleventh 
 verse), must be understood not figuratively, or mystically, but 
 literally. It expresses physical mortality. It describes the death 
 denounced in the Garden (Gen. ii, 17), and incurred in the Fall, 
 and suffered by Christ, vicariously, on the cross, and by the race, 
 in the person of Christ. It was literal and actual with Christ ; 
 and it is equally literal, though only constructive, with us. The 
 verb is in the past tense, we died, not as the Authorized gives it, 
 "we are dead." This historical tense of the verb carries the 
 transaction back to the death of Christ; which maybe dated, 
 historically, from Calvary, or which is better, potentially, from the 
 day when the promise of his coming was first given. The apostle 
 teaches that Christ " bore our sins," that " he died for us," that 
 is, " instead of us ;" that this death was the penalty threatened in 
 the Garden: " In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die, 
 shalt die;" and that, dying "once for all," in virtue of his repre- 
 sentative position, for us, he exhausted the claim of law, and 
 discharged us from the penalty. In this literal, personal death of 
 Christ, we, " his members," constructively had a part. "We died 
 with him," and are no longer obnoxious to the penalty. Neither 
 he, who thus, once for all, died for us, nor we, whom he repre- 
 
106 EXPOSITION. 
 
 sented, and wlio died witli him, are held to answer, a second time, 
 or further, for the sin of the race. A second infliction of penalty 
 for our offense would violate equity in the divine government, or 
 in any government. 
 
 There is another word that requires discussion. Our text 
 reads, we died as to sin. The word "sin" in this phrase is in the 
 dative case; and the literal translation is " /o sin." And this 
 translation, which is the usual one, is perhaps sufficiently clear. 
 But to avoid the ethical misconcept, I prefer to exi)ress the dative 
 by the unequivocally forensic phrase "as far as concerns," or 
 " as regards;" or, briefiy, as to. We have seen that the apostle's 
 concept in the verb "we died" is that our death, like Christ's, 
 was literal and physical, such a death as sunders the tie as to every- 
 thing around us. But the apostle's concept in this saying, " we 
 died as to siti," is that we died so far as respects sin ; only : and not 
 as to other things: for example, as to knowledge, happiness, or 
 God. " We died, forensically, only as to sin." And we can thus 
 best express this Pauline concept in the saying, " we died to sin," 
 by using the more definite and exact prepositional phrase " as to," 
 — "we died as to sin." In the same way, and with the same 
 forensic limitation, we read, " Christ died as to sin" (Rom. vi, 10) ; 
 we also read further, "I died as to law" (Gal. ii, 19) ; we also 
 read, "Reckon yourselves dead as to sin" (Rom. vi, 11) ; we also 
 read, "As Christ lives as to God, so reckon ye yourselves living as 
 to God" (Rom. vi, 10). Accordingly the saying, "We died as to 
 sin," signifies that we died, forensically, "as far as regards sin," 
 or " in reference to sin," that is, " We bore the penalty as regards 
 sin; and so stand no longer in any vital or amenable relation, 
 forensically, as to sin, or, as to the law which takes cognizance 
 of sin." 
 
 It is in this same sense, expressive of foi'ensic relations to law 
 and to God, that Paul elsewhere declares: "For I through law 
 died as to law, that I may live [have life] as to God " (Gal. ii, 19), 
 that is, "Through my constructive death with Christ (in the 
 person of Christ), I died, so far as regards law (so far as I stood 
 related to law), that, conversely, in my resurrection with Christ 
 (in the person of Christ), I may have life as to God;" that is, 
 that I may come, forensically, into new, vital relations with him. 
 It is in this same sense that Paul tells the Colossians, " Ye died 
 with Christ (in the person of Christ), off (airb) from (or, as to) the 
 rudiments of the world." (Col. ii, 20.) It is in this same sense 
 
ROMANS ri, 3. 197 
 
 that Peter says: " He bore our sins in his own body on the cross, 
 that we, having become off {airb) from (or, as to) the sins, may live 
 (have our life) as to justification." (1 Pet. ii, 24.) It is in this 
 same sense tliat, in the after part of this chapter, the apostle de- 
 scribes our death os to law (so far as we were related to law) under 
 the figure of emancipation from the legal claim of sin (or, of the law 
 which takes note of sin) ; the sense that he expresses, in the sev- 
 enth chapter, under the figure of a divorce from the legal claim of 
 sin ; that is, of the law which takes note of sin. 
 
 In the words " we died as to sin," and the enlarged statement 
 in the eighth verse, " we died with Christ," the apostle teaches that 
 we shared forensically in the death of Christ, wliich " he died as 
 to sin;" a death which indeed is, after all, only our own death, 
 and not his, except as he bore it vicariously in our stead. He died 
 for us, once for all, not to die again. Our death with him acquits 
 us, too, from further penalty. 
 
 That our death to sin here described is forensic, and not 
 ethical, is the testimony of our own personal consciousness. A be- 
 liever may by justification "have died as to sin," that is, "off" 
 from his penal relations to law; and have the witness of God's 
 Spirit to his adoption ; and at the same time, be abundantly alive, 
 ethically, to the seductiveness of sin. Yet the gospel which gives 
 us liberty from condemnation, not only does not give us license to 
 sin, but gives us power over it. Paul needed to tell the Galatians, 
 "Brethren, ye were called upon footing of liberty [from law]; 
 only use not your liberty unto an occasion to the flesh." (Gal. 
 V, 13.) So here, now, he comments on the incongruity of a life of 
 sin with a state of forensic death as to sin. " How inconsistent 
 that we, who had such a gracious deliverance from the penalty of 
 sin, should yet indulge in the sin that was our ruin !" 
 
 Verse 3. Or, do ye not kno"w that we, so many as were 
 baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death ? 
 
 I repeat the verse, and supply some words in brackets to ex- 
 press the meaning better, and to show the logical connection of 
 the important conjunction or, whose presence in the sentence is 
 not even noticed in the Authorized: " [Died, I say] ; or [if you do 
 not comprehend what ^ dying as to sin' means], do ye not know 
 that we, so many as were baptized [initiated, incorporated] into 
 Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death [and all that this vicari- 
 ous death signifies]?" 
 
198 EXPOSITION. 
 
 The npostle liore turns nside from his controversy with the 
 syniigoj^ue to address tlie Churcli. Tlie continued argumentative 
 tone of the jiassage implies that his hearers needed the elemen- 
 tai-y, yet profound h>sson of this chapter. His argument is an 
 " onponintutn ad ho)ni)u')n:" " Surely, believers, baptized believers, 
 ought to know what glorious things their baptism implied." And 
 yet, while the apostle's woi-ds take on, for the moment, a tone of 
 animadversion, we must not understand that he really thought the 
 Christian believers "ignorant" of this fundamental doctrine of 
 the gospel; but in thus addressing them, he carries out the line 
 and tone of his argument against the Jew, the argument that jus- 
 tification comes to men from Christ's death, and that it is for all 
 men. 
 
 The apostle's expression here, "we, so many as were bap- 
 tized, seems to designate a limited number only, wlio were incorpo- 
 rated into Christ; but this saying is not inconsistent with his con- 
 stant teaching that the gospel embraces all men indiscriminately. 
 The apostle here merely sliapes liis appeal to his immediate audience 
 of baptized believers ; and he does not exclude or forget the rest 
 of the world. He knows of no regenerating or saving power in any 
 ordinance, or rite, ex opere operato. Baptism is only an appointed 
 sign and seal of our j)rofession. It does not make us members 
 of Christ, but betokens what we all already were. What he here 
 declares as actually true of baptized believers, he holds equally 
 true, ideally, of evei-y man born into the world. Paul is not 
 sparing of explicit assertions in that direction. " His gospel " 
 teaches that the plan of redemption, and the actual u'ork of re- 
 demption, sweeps the whole circle of humanity. All men were 
 redeemed, and stood, at birth, justified, regenerate, united with 
 Christ. Half the whole number die in infancy, and are saved 
 without faith, and without baptism. And adult believers, all of 
 whom are in Christ, potentially, before their conversion and pro- 
 fession of faith, by their baptism only revive their dormant mem- 
 bership in Christ. Baptism does not bring them into this relation ; 
 it only proclaims it; it declares that the believers have now come 
 to realize what was already theirs, and to profess it to the world. 
 
 Baptism was an old Jewish usage, symbolic of tlie inner wash- 
 ing of regeneration. It was practiced by the Jews from tiie days 
 of Moses down; and was afterwards practiced by John, and then 
 adopted by Christ and exalted into a Christian rite, yet with the 
 same symbolism of the washing of regeneration. It is the initial 
 
ROMANS VI, 4- 199 
 
 and the initiatory rite in the Christian Church ; and the word 
 baptize, which expresses it, together with the preposition into,* 
 signifies merely the ritual initiation into a new faith, or into 
 a person who represents a faith. This is the meaning of the 
 verse before us. To be baptized into Christ means to be 
 initiated into him; that is, into the profession of Christ, and 
 into fellowship with him. To be baptized into his death 
 means to be initiated into the profession of faith in his death 
 as a vicarious death, and into participation in it. The sense of 
 "being baptized into Christ," that is, into an appropriation of 
 Christ, the apostle expresses, elsewhere, in other and more defi- 
 nite terms: "As many of you as were baptized into Christ put on 
 Christ" (Gal. iii, 27), that is, as the connection shows, "Ye are 
 no longer under law, but by your baptism, ye took upon yourselves 
 the obligation of allegiance to Christ." 
 
 The thought of the verse may be given thus: "Or, do ye not 
 know that our initiation into Christ, was really an initiation into 
 his death, his vicarious death? ' But if we were initiated into his 
 death, which was a death forensically, as to sin, we certainly also 
 died, and died as to sin." 
 
 Verse 4. We -were buried, therefore, "with him, through 
 the baptism into his death ; that just as Christ was raised 
 from among- dead men, through the glory of the Father, so 
 also we may walk in renew^al of hfe. 
 
 There are several critical points in this verse that need dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 1. The word therefore marks the inference to be drawn from 
 the word death in the previous verse. The order of incidents in 
 the last days of Christ is, concisely, this: 1. He was crucified; 
 2. he died ; 3. he .w^as buried ; 4. he was raised ; 5. he was glori- 
 fied. In all these things the entire race which he represented was 
 constructively united with him. We were united with him in the 
 same order of events : 1. in his crucifixion ; 2. in his death ; 3. in 
 his burial : " We died with him ; therefore we were buried w^ith 
 him." Upon this third item out of the five the Epistle here lays 
 
 *The formula of baptism in the Scripture always has the preposition 
 
 '■'■into:'''' "Baptize them mio the name [profession, faith] of tlie Father, " 
 
 (Matt, xxvili, 19.) Of course, the old translation and the formula current 
 In the Churches, " in the name," which can only mean " by the authority," 
 is a mistranslation, and loses the j^oini of the rite. 
 
200 ExroaiTios. 
 
 the stress of the sentence as being the natural point of transition 
 to the next item, the fourth, the announcement of our resurrec- 
 tion with him, tlie grant of new life instead of tliat whicli was 
 forfeited in Adam, and which died with Christ on the cross. 
 
 2. The statements tliat we were crucified, and that we died, 
 and that we were buried, and that we were raised, with liim, must 
 all be taken, not in any figurative, or mjstic, or ethical sense, but 
 as literally as they are made in regard to Christ himself; though, 
 of course, holding good of us, only conslruclively . Christ repre- 
 sented us: whatever he vicariously did for us, we, his clients, or 
 " members," are held to have done. Was Christ crucified ? " We 
 were crucified with him" (Rom. vi,6) ; Did Christ die? " We died 
 with him" (2 Tim. ii, 11); Was Ciirist buried (in the tomb of 
 Joseph)? " We were buried with him " (Rom. vi, 4) ; Was Christ 
 raised? "We were raised with liim" (Col. ii, 12); Was Christ 
 glorified? "We were glorified with him," that is, the provision 
 was then made for our glorification (Rom. viii, 17). The assertions 
 here are all of one gi*eat historic fact. We look back to Christ's 
 death, and burial, and resurrection as a thing that is past; we look 
 back, too, to our death, and burial, and resurrection, construct- 
 ively, with him, as a thing tliat is i)ast — past for all the race. It is 
 the conclusive teaching of the New Testament that the race — 
 every individual of the race, past, present, and to come — was in 
 union with Christ by virtue of his vicarious position. We wei'e all 
 crucified with Christ, whether believers or unbelievers ; we were 
 all "buried with Christ" where he was buried (in the tomb of 
 Joseph), whether baptized or unbaptized, and we were all raised 
 with him, whether sinners or saints. Christ's death was poten- 
 tially the death of all mankind. We all shared in all this. Just 
 as all Jews were horn into membersliip in the theocratic nation 
 and Church, and received circumcision only as a token, but not as 
 the conferment of this membership, so all men are born into mem- 
 bership in Christ's Church and family, and receive baptism as a 
 token, but not as a conferment of this membership. The Jews 
 were Jews by birth, and members (though guilty of schism) if with- 
 out circumcision ; all Gentiles are Christians by birth, and mem- 
 bers of Christ's body (though guilty of schism in the body) if 
 without baptism. And this includes us and our children. 
 
 When the apostle says "we were buried with him," the word 
 conveys no allusion whatever to the rite of baptism, much less to 
 baptism as being by immersion. The woi"ds " buried with him," or 
 
ROMANS V. ir>-21. 201 
 
 more exactly, put in the grave with him, are not figurative, but 
 literal ; and mean that we were laid in the literal tomb of the 
 Arimathean with the dead body of Jesus (though, of course, only 
 constructively). To press the mode of baptism from these words, 
 and to find the proof of immersion in this passage (and in the 
 parallel passage in Col. ii, 8-10), shows ignorance of Greek, and of 
 the logical connection of the passage, and of the intent of the 
 Christian rite. Such an exegesis wholly misses the point in the 
 passage.* j 
 
 3. The word glory expresses, apparently, the complex of all I 
 the divine attributes ; but here, especially, connotes power. It 
 is thus that Paul himself elsewhere puts it: " He lives from the 
 power-oi God." (2 Cor. xiii, 4.) 
 
 4. The expression, in the last clause of the verse, renewal of 
 life, is more frequently translated " newness of life," and is usually 
 understood to mean an ethical or moral transformation in the life 
 of the believer. But the connection forbids this meaning. The 
 " renewal of life " in the case of the believer is the same as in the 
 case of Christ ; and in his case it was not an ethical, moral revival, 
 but a literal, physical revivescence, a coming to life again, and a 
 resurrection from the dead. This sameness of meaning is con- 
 firmed by the parallelism in this verse, and, especially, by the 
 terms of the argument in the sixth verse: "As Christ was raised 
 from among dead men, so also we (who were buried in his grave, 
 and dead, but have now risen with him) may henceforth walk (go 
 on in our new career) in a renewal (a new grant) of life." This 
 change is not subjective, in the sphere of religious experience, but 
 
 *The baptism of the apostles was precisely the same as that of the 
 Church In the nineteenth century; any ritual application of water met 
 the requirements of the case. Apostolic baptism was, perhaps, sometimes 
 administered by immersion (though this is in doubt); but It was also 
 administered by pouring or sprinkling (and this is not in doubt). The 
 cumulative argument for this conclusion, from Scripture and history, 
 long ago amounted to almost a demonstration. But if not thus settled 
 before, the recent "find " (1883) of " The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" 
 puts it now beyond gainsaying. This book, which dates certainly not later 
 than the year 120, and which some critics think even earlier than John's 
 Gospel, says: "Baptize into the name [profession] of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running?] water. But if thou 
 do not have living water, [going] unto other water, baptize; but if thou 
 canst not In cold, then In warm [standing?]. But if thou have neither 
 [of these natural supplies], pottr water upon the head thrice, into the 
 name of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.'' (Chapter vii.) 
 
302 EXPOSITION. 
 
 physical, objective, in the sphere of our forensic relations to the 
 law of God. This is the conception expressed by the martyrs in 
 the time of the Maccabees: "The king of the world will raise us 
 up, who died for his law, unto an eternal revivification of life." ■■ 
 It is the conception which Ignatius expresses in his letter to the 
 Ephesians: "God himself was manifested in the form of a man 
 unto a renewal of eternal life" (Ign. Eph. iv, 13)— the same Greek 
 word as in our text.t It is the same concept as Paul expresses 
 in the Epistle to the Galatians: " I have been put to death on the 
 cross; but it is no longer I (in my own, old self) that live, but 
 Christ lives in me ; but the life which I now live (in my new self) in 
 the flesh I live in virtue of my faith in the Son of God" (Gal. ii, 
 20) ; and again in the Epistle to the Colossians: " For ye died, and 
 your life has been liidden (wrapped up) with Christ in God" (Col. 
 iii,3). 
 
 This "renewal (or new grant) of life," through the atonement 
 of Christ, was historically complete for the race, from the first. 
 Such is the nature of justification, a purely legal work. As sin, 
 and death from sin, were complete at the first, and did not come 
 upon the race by degi-ees, so this countervailing work of Christ 
 did not come by degrees, but was accomplished in a moment. 
 " We died in Adam" (1 Cor. xv, 22), that is, became amenable to 
 the penalty of death; "we died, too, with Christ" (Rom. vi, 8), 
 that is, bore the i)enalty ; and we were raised with him to a full 
 and eternal life. The sin, and the justification from sin, are ac- 
 complished historical facts. This is all that the apostle has yet 
 affirmed, or needed to affirm in his present discussion as to the 
 grounds of justification, whether by law or by faith. 
 
 We must discriminate, in our exegesis, and in our theology, 
 between the forensic "renewal of life" here described, which 
 comes comi)lete from the first, from justification in Christ, and 
 tlie religious life, or holiness; that is a growth, coming from the 
 believer's consecration of himself, and struggles to realize in 
 liimself the image of God. Tliis life of sanctitication is never 
 God's gift, but is always (with God's help) man's own achieve- 
 ment. The believer is commanded "Work out your salvation." 
 " Ye shall be holy." 
 
 *■ (ts aiuiviov Avapiuxriv ^wrjs v^as avaffTififfei, (2 Mace. vU, 9). 
 t ets Kaiv6TT}Ta aidiov fwjjs (Ign. Eph. 19). 
 
ROMANS VI, 5. 203 
 
 Verse 5. For if we have become united with him 
 in the sameness with his death, nay, but we shall be 
 [united with him in the sameness] also with his resur- 
 rection. 
 
 The conjunction for introduces a reason, and further explana- 
 tion of the statement in the previous verse. The conjunction if 
 is the word of hypothesis, and not of contingency: the verb in tlie 
 clause is in the indicative mode ; and the point expressed is as- 
 sumed as a fact ; and the thought might be equally well expressed 
 by the conjunction " since "— " since we have become united with 
 him." The word united o-i^/x^urot is, more literally, grown together, 
 coalescent. The old translation, " planted together," is not tlie 
 figure employed, and is wholly aside from the just meaning. If 
 we must harness up a metaphor, it is not that of putting the roots 
 of two plants into one pot, but of engrafting one plant into the 
 other. The real concept of the word is of the union or incorpora- 
 tion of the believer, and of all men with Christ. "We are 
 members of his body ;" and, as a doubtful (but evangelically 
 true) reading, adds, " we are of his flesh, and of his bones." 
 (Eph.v,30.) 
 
 The Greek word ofxoiwfia, which is represented in the Authorized 
 and the Revised by the word " likeness," means sameness. The 
 word "likeness" yields here no appropriate sense, indeed is 
 destitute of sense. The death of Christ, and the death of " his 
 members," were not like, or similar, to each other (as if— which 
 is probably the meaning most people read into it — Christ's death 
 was a physical one, and ours a figurative or mystical one) , but they 
 were the same death. We both died a literal death on the cross, 
 he actually, we constructively. He assumed our place forensically ; 
 lie bore our penalty and " died for us," " in our stead ;" and we 
 have become united with him, by a death such as his, that is, 
 in the sameness with his death. 
 
 The apodosis in this verse is connected back with the protasis 
 by the strong adversative conjunction— nay, but—. This conjunc- 
 tion suggests the supply of a restrictive clause: [" that is not all], 
 nay, but—;" and the rest of the apodosis can best be expressed by 
 an additional supply, as given in the text. The full thought is: 
 "Not only have we come into union with him by dying the same 
 death with him, nay, but we shall be united with him in the same- 
 
20-t EXPOSITION. 
 
 ness with his resurrection." Tliose last words repeat the thought 
 of tiie last words in the fourth verse, " a renewal of life," and 
 confirm the exi)lanati()n there given. 
 
 Our resurrection, in the legal assurance of it, was simultaneous 
 with that of Clirist. And so Paul says: "God made us alive with 
 Christ, and raised us up with him" (E|)h. ii, 4) ; " God who raised 
 Christ from the dead, raised you up with him" (Col. ii, 12). Hut 
 here he uses the future tense of the verb, we shall be united 
 with him; that is, the union with Christ, now forensically ours, 
 will be e.xperimentally realized in the distant future, in the great 
 resurrection, at the last day. What has thus been accomplished 
 here, though as yet only constructively, potentially, will be liter- 
 ally, fully, consummated in the last day. 
 
 Verse 6. Knowing this, that ovir old man was cruci- 
 fied [put to death on the cross] with him, that the body of 
 the sin may be done aw^ay with; that we may no longer 
 be slaves as to the sin. 
 
 There are two distinct words of frequent occurrence that the 
 Authorized and the Revised fail to discriminate — yivuffKovres in this 
 verse, and eldSres in the ninth verse. The former means "coming 
 to know," " noting," " taking into thought," and the latter " being 
 aware of," " knowing." The apostle here means noting, taking 
 into consideration, and the expression is logically equivak'Ut to 
 the conjunction "because," and justifies the affirmation in the 
 preceding verse: " We shall share in his resurrection, because our 
 old man was crucified [put to death on the cross] with him." 
 
 Oxir old man. Paul has various figurative phrases to express 
 various phases of human nature. He puts in antithesis " The old 
 man," and "the new man" (Kph. iv, 24); "the outward man" 
 (2 Cor. iv, 16), and " the inward man " (Rom. vii, 22). The phrase 
 " our old man "—that is, "our former self" — expresses our human 
 nature in its degenerate, unregcncrate state, as offspring of Adam ; 
 what we were conceptually, by nature, or heredity, before Christ 
 took our nature upon himself. "The new man" — that is, "our 
 after self" — expresses our human nature in its regenerate state, 
 as members of Christ's body ; what we became when Christ as- 
 sumed our nature and redeemed it. In a similar antithesis, though 
 not identical with the above, Paul contrasts "the animal man" 
 and "the spiritual man" (1 Cor. ii, 14), and "the fleshly man" 
 and "the spiritual man" (1 Cor. iii, 1). And again, with a yet 
 
ROMANS VI, 6. 205 
 
 different antithesis, lie contrasts "the animal body" of this life 
 with " the spiritual body" of the resui-rection life. (ICor. xv,44.) 
 The teaching of our present passage is this: that "our old man," 
 our degenerate human nature as inherited from Adam, " was cru- 
 cified with Christ," that is, was literally (thougli only construct- 
 ively) put to death on the cross with him, in order that thereby 
 this same body of sin, this sin-tainted humanity of ours, may in 
 his person suffer the penalty of death, and so be done a"way 
 with (still constructively) ; and that thus we may no longer be 
 slaves (forensically, not ethically) as to the power and condemna- 
 tion of sin. "The body of sin" does not mean, as sometimes 
 explained, " the totality, or mass, of sin," which wholly misses the 
 point. The word "body" is to be taken literally of our human 
 nature; though, of course, the saying, as a wliole, is only con- 
 structively realized. The qualifying phrase, "of sin," is adjec- 
 tive to the word "body;" though not quite equivalent to the 
 adjective "sinful," as that concept of the body is not found in the 
 Scriptures. The expression, "body of sin," means "belonging to 
 the domain of sin," "penetrated with sin," "rotten with sin." 
 The apostle's concept of the " body of sin " is otherwise variously 
 expressed; he calls it "a mortal body" (Rom. vi, 12), " this body 
 of death" (Rom. vii, 22), and "a body of flesh" (with the impli- 
 cation of carnalness) (Col. i, 22). 
 
 The figure expressed by the words slaves as to sin is a 
 strong and effective one ; but much more realistic to the Romans 
 of that day than even to us. The city of Rome was full of slaves. 
 Probably many of those Cliristians whom the apostle addressed 
 had themselves been slaves, or still w^ere so. Ancient slavery had 
 few of the restraints that Christianity has brought with it ; yet 
 often the tenderest ties bound master and slave together. Cicero 
 made his slave (but afterwards his freedman). Tiro, liis confidant, 
 his correspondent, his literary executor. Slaves were usually of 
 as good stock as their masters, and when manumitted could be- 
 come their civil and social peers. In the times of the Empire, 
 many slaves, the favorites of their lords, rose to high positions 
 and enormous wealth ; for example. Narcissus, the freedman of 
 the Emperor Claudius (Rom. xvi, 11), and Felix, who also was a 
 freedman of Claudius, the infamous procurator of Judea (Acts 
 xxiii,24), " the husband of three queens" (Seutonius, "Claudius," 
 28). The Jewish captives whom Pompey carried slaves to Rome 
 (B. C. 63) were three freed {liberti), and tlieir descendants (liber- 
 
206 EXPOSITION. 
 
 titii) were numerous, and rich, and influential. They had as many 
 as nine synagogues in Rome, and a h-ading synagogue in Jerusalem 
 ("Synagogue of the Libertines," Aets vi, 9). Tliis social institu- 
 tion Paul met with everywhere throughout the Roman Empire; 
 and he refers to it, either literally or figuratively, in every one of 
 his letters. In some of these letters, this institution furnished, 
 next to marriage, or even before marriage, the most forcible illus- 
 tration that he could employ of man's tie to sin or of his tie to 
 Christ. It is so in this Epistle. He makes much of this figure of 
 slavery in the latter part of this chapter; and he makes much of 
 the other strong figure, of marriage, in the seventh chapter. 
 
 Verse 7. For he that died has been justified from the 
 sin. 
 
 The conjunction for, as always, introduces a confirmation of 
 the preceding statement. It is, of course, the forensic concept 
 that we must read into the words. The old translation of the 
 verse (which is not a translation) : " He that is dead is freed from 
 sin," does not seize the apostle's thought. The popular under- 
 standing of the apostle's words is that "the power of sinning 
 is lost at death," or that "death wipes out all accounts."® But 
 the apostle's sense is that he that died (with Christ), as to 
 sin (and thus iuis once suffered tiie penalty), has thereby been 
 acquit from the guilt of sin. It is the same concei)t that Peter 
 expresses thus: "Christ, therefore, having suffered [liaving died 
 for you] as to flesh, arm yourselves also with tlie same thought; 
 because he that has suffered in the flesh [that has died with Christ, 
 as to sin], has ceased from sin" (that is, not ethically, not from 
 proclivity to sin, or even sometimes not from actual sin, but 
 forensically) ; from obnoxiousness to its penalty. (1 Pet. iv, 1.) 
 The penalty will not be exacted a second time. 
 
 Verse 8. But if we died -with Christ, -we believe that we 
 shall also live w^ith him. 
 
 The hypothetical conjunction if, with the indicative mode of 
 the verb, expresses an assumed fact — " Since we died with Christ, 
 wo believe that we shall also have life with him." The woi-d 
 believe may be equally well, or better, expressed by the literal 
 translation, we have faith — the assured conviction. And the 
 
 <"As Shakespeare says, "He that dies pays all debts." (Tempest III, 
 HI, 12-1.) 
 
ROMANS IT. 9, 10. 207 
 
 verb, shall live with him, means more than that we are to 
 be his companions, and share the joys of his presence (though all 
 this is true : " Where I am, there ye shall be also ") ; but the word 
 infinitely transcends this notion of "having a good time" here- 
 after; it expresses tlie grander concept that " our death will be 
 swallowed up by life " (2 Cor. v, 4) ; "As the last enemy, death, is 
 done away with" (1 Cor. xv, 26). The emphasis is on the word 
 live. "We are to have life with him forever;" and this thought 
 reaches the triumphant climax in the next three verses. 
 
 Verse 9. Knowing- that Christ, having been raised from 
 among dead men, no more dies; death no longer lords it 
 over him. 
 
 The emphasis is on Christ as standing in antithesis to we in 
 the previous verse. "Christ no more dies," that is, "Having 
 died as to the sin, once for all " (verse 10) , " he has obtained eternal 
 redemption," and need not die again ; death no longer lords it 
 over him. And, glorious consummation! if not over him, then 
 not over us, who died with him. So Peter says: "Christ once for 
 all suffered [died] for sins, a just man in the place of unjust men, 
 that he might bring us to God." (1 Pet. iii, 18.) So the writer of 
 "Hebrews:" "Christ once for all having been offered to take 
 away the sins of many, will appear a second time, apart from sin 
 [not obnoxious to its penalty]." (Heb. ix, 28.) 
 
 Verse 10. For the death that he died, he died as to the 
 sin, once for all ; but the life that he lives, he lives as to God. 
 
 The Greek sentence is an illustration of the terseness of an 
 inflected language, and of this language above all. The English 
 sentence here has twenty-six words ; the Greek contents itself 
 with just thirteen ; and of tliese, eight are sufficient as the vehicle 
 of the thought. " What he died, he died to sin; tuhat he lives, 
 he lives to God." 
 
 When it is said tliat Christ died as to sin, it does not mean 
 that he became insensate, apathetic, to its seductions, unsuscepti- 
 ble to its allurements ; for in this ethical sense, Christ never was 
 "alive," or prepense, to sin, as other men. " He was holy, harm- 
 less, undefiled, separate from the sinful." (Heb. vii, 26.) The 
 saying is purely forensic ; it means that he, the Sacrifice for sinners, 
 "died on the cross, as regards sin [that is, tlte penally of sin]" ; so 
 that he had thereafter notliing more to do with it ; he ceased to 
 
208 EXPOSITION. 
 
 be lield for its penalty ; which is nil the relation that he ever bore 
 to it. 
 
 Conversely, when it is said tliat He lives as to God, the say- 
 ing can not mean that he has become etliically suscej)tive to God's 
 quickening power, aj^^low with a new love, whicii he has not felt 
 before. All this teiidt-r, intimate, spiritual relation with God we 
 must postulate as essential to our concept of Christ, and as always 
 having been his. This expression, too, is forensic; and is spoken 
 from the standpoint of Christ's mediatorial work, by which he died 
 in the place of man, as the penalty of law. " It behooved him to 
 die ;" but he could not be held by the bonds of death ; for " it be- 
 hooved him also to rise." He rose with a " renewal of life," to die 
 no more; and "he lives now in relation to God," " with this life 
 which he had with the Father, before the world was." 
 
 Verse 11. Thus reckon ye also yourselves to be dead 
 indeed as to sin, but living as to God, in Jesus Christ. 
 
 This verse is the proper apodosis of the ninth verse. We there 
 read: "Death no longer lords it over him;" and now the apostle 
 adds, as the logical conclusion of the whole matter: "In the same 
 manner reckon ye, yourselves also dead as to sin. Ye died 
 with Christ ; inasmuch, therefore, as ye died with iiis death, as to 
 sin, count yourselves dead, not in any mystical or figurative sense 
 of the word 'dead,' but in literal fact." For, of course, the death 
 of man as to sin, and the living of man as to God, is the same as 
 in the case of Christ, which was not figurative, but literal ; not eth- 
 ical, but foi'ensic. Christ and man have both come, in the same 
 sense, into new, vital, and eternal relations with God. The last 
 phrase, in Christ Jesus, does not mean through Christ, though 
 that is also true. But that meaning does not line up with the 
 apostle's concept here. The concept of " our being in Christ" is, 
 that we are incorporate witli him, in his person, members of his 
 spiritual body. "We, the many, are one body in Christ." (Rom. 
 xii, 5.) 
 
 Verse 12. Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal 
 body, that ye should obey its lusts. 
 
 The word therefore marks the logical connection of the 
 thought. It is as if the apostle had said, "The intent and tendency 
 of your justification is, not to license sin, but to lead you to holi- 
 ness. As justified men, count yourselves dead, forensically, as to 
 
ROMANS VI, 12. 209 
 
 sin; and, therefore, as the practical moral lesson tlierefrom, do not 
 let your daily life be incongruous with your profession. Liberty 
 is not license. 'Justification is with a view to sanctification' 
 (Rom. vi, 19) ; ' Glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, 
 wliich are his' (1 Cor. vi, 20); 'Cleanse yourselves from all 
 pollution of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in fear of God' " 
 (2Cor. vii, 1). 
 
 In this verse, for the first time in the Epistle, Paul leaves the 
 legal discussion of the subject before him, if only for a moment, 
 to suggest a practical, moral, lesson. The digression is short; and 
 in the fifteenth verse he returns to the legal phase of the discussion. 
 
 Paul calls the body the mortal body, but he never applies 
 the adjective " sinful" to it. The body is not the seat of sin, which 
 is in the will. But the body is the seat of the appetites and pas- 
 sions ; and on its sensuous side, as " the flesh," it is the abundant 
 occasion and instrument of sin. "The flesh lusteth against the 
 spirit." The desires (or appetites and instincts) are natural, and 
 in their normal action are not sinful. When an illicit object is 
 presented to the appetites, the emotion which it excites is still 
 natural, normal, and within the limit of innocence. So far, the 
 action of the soul is ethically right.® But let the tempted man 
 now beware. He has come to the dividing of the ways ; if he 
 listens to the song of the siren, if he dallies with the impure 
 thought, he has passed the line of innocence. It is tims tliat 
 James traces the growth of sin: "Each man is tempted (that is 
 tested), when he is enticed by his desires. (Thus far, the motion is 
 natural and innocent.) Then the desire, having conceived, bear- 
 eth sin, but sin, when completed, brings forth death." (James i, 15.) 
 
 The word mortal does not describe the original or essential 
 character of the body. Man was not created mortal, nor yet was 
 he created definitively immortal, in himself. Which he should be, 
 depended on the Divine will ; and the Divine will was contingent 
 on man's obedience. The law commanded, " Tliis do, and live;" 
 but contrariwise, it is also said, "In the day thou eatest thereof 
 thou shalt die." The word "mortal" here suggests that sin 
 wrought death in our body ; and gives point to the injunction, 
 " Let not sin reign in your body, which .this sin itself made mortal." 
 
 Evil Into the mind of God and man 
 
 May come and go, so unapproved, and leave 
 
 No spot or blame behind." — Paradise Lust, V, 117. 
 
 14 
 
210 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verse 13. Nor yet yield your members to the sin, in- 
 struments of unrighteousness ; nay, but yield yourselvec 
 to God, as if living from among dead men, and your mem- 
 bers to God, instruments of justification. 
 
 By members, Paul means, first, the physical organs of the 
 body. "The body is one; and it has many members." (1 Cor. 
 xii, 12.) But more than the organs of the body, he intends tlie 
 faculties of mind and soul, in whose moral determination to right 
 or wrong consists the character of the man. The word translated 
 instruments is literally "arms," "weapons," as if so called, 
 figuratively, in a military sense. But the apostle's concept is 
 more nearly that of slavery ; which is the illustration, or figure, 
 used by him, throughout the rest of the chapter. According to 
 this concept, man is a slave, — either the slave of sin, or the slave 
 of God, or (as the apostle varies his expression) slave of justifica- 
 tion. The word for "arms" is better expressed, therefore, by the 
 depreciatory term " tools," or "thralls," which may be interi)reted, 
 for better or for worse, to suit the varying aspects of the two 
 clauses: "Do not give up your members to sin as tools, abject 
 thralls of unrighteousness (non-justification) but give yourselves 
 to God as instruments, willing subjects of justification." The first 
 verb yield is in the present tense, the tense of continued action ; 
 the second is in the aorist tense, of instant action. We may, per- 
 haps, express this difference by saying, " Do not forever yield your 
 members to sin ; but yield yourselves to God at once." 
 
 Perhaps, however, we may take the phi-ases of unrighteous- 
 ness and of justification as adjective elements, dericribing or 
 characterizing the substantive "instruments;" as if the meaning 
 were " instruments whose character is that of non-justification," 
 in the one case, or " of justification," in the other. 
 
 Verse 14. For sin will not lord it over you ; for ye are 
 not under law, but under grace. 
 
 The apostle's thought is, that hitherto, in the era of law, sin 
 has been the lord of the race ; its fetters on every soul. Hence- 
 forth, in the era of grace, the sway of sin is broken. The Law was 
 a law of condemnation ; you could not find deliverance through 
 law. But Christ's death has delivered you from the law. The 
 scepter is now in other hands ; you are not under lordship of law, 
 but of grace. "By grace ye have been justified;" and sin will 
 no longer have you in subjection to itself and to death. The line 
 
ROMANS VI. 15, 16. 211 
 
 of thought is forensic: there is no exhortation to holiness; but 
 only a declaration that believers are not held under the condem- 
 natory dominion of sin ; they are Christ's freedmen. That this is 
 the meaning is shown by the next verse: " Shall w^e sin, because 
 we are . . . under grace?" 
 
 Verse 15a. Jew: "What then? Shall "we sin, because 
 ■we are not under la"w, but under grace? 
 
 The sentiment, as in the first verse, is from the standpoint of 
 the Jew, the gainsayer to the apostle's doctrine of justification 
 from faith. The objection in the first verse and the objection in 
 this verse express the two forms of Antinomian abuse of the doc- 
 trine of Grace. Both objections assume that, since the penalty of 
 law is canceled, law itself is abrogated ; and that we now have 
 license to do as we list. Sin ceases to be reprehensible, and we 
 may have its pleasures here without its penalties hereafter. The 
 suggestion in the first verse is that, under the gospel scheme, 
 which frees us from the Law, we may remain in sin, in order that 
 free Grace may yet more abound, — and so cumulatively conduce 
 to yet more license. This suggestion the apostle, in verses 2-14, 
 has I'ejected as a hideous incongruity : the justified ought also 
 to be regenerate and holy. The suggestion in the fifteenth verse 
 substantially repeats the former suggestion that, because we are 
 under a scheme of Grace, we may at least sin at discretion, in 
 single instances, — as is implied by the aorist tense. But this 
 modified suggestion also the apostle rejects as peremptorily as the 
 first ; because it would be presumption on God's forbearance, and 
 would again bring us under slavery to sin and amenableness to its 
 penalties. 
 
 Verses 156, 16. Paul: God forbid! Do ye not know- 
 that to -whom ye yield yourselves slaves, with a view to 
 obedience, slaves ye are of him w^hom ye obey? whether 
 of sin — unto death ? or of obedience — unto justification ? 
 
 The paragraph ought to include the last words of verse 15, 
 God forbid ! and the objurgative tone of those words is continued 
 in the sixteenth verse. 
 
 The phraseology for the rest of the chapter is borrowed from 
 the system of slavery. For the purpose of this discussion, the 
 apostle assumes that all men are slaves. They are slaves of the 
 one or of the other of two masters ; there is no third. These 
 
212 EXPOSITION. 
 
 masters, whom he licre names Sin and Obedience, but afterwai-ds 
 "Sin" and " Justilication " (verse 18), are in utter antagonism, 
 etliicallj', no doubt, but here they are eonlrasted forensically. 
 The service of the one is incompatible with the service of the 
 other: "No man can serve these two masters." "He will love 
 one, and hate the other." But, unlike the slaves of men in the 
 kingdoms of this world, the slaves of either master here, in Paul's 
 commonwealth, may choose which one he will serve; and, again, 
 unlike the slaves of men, he may change his masters at his own 
 discretion. But he must serve one or the other: when emanci- 
 pated from one master, he by that very fact becomes enslaved to 
 the other. Such is tlie scheme of slavery, as Paul conceives it, in 
 the domain of spiritual law. This figure of slavery is found in all 
 literature ; and is especially suitable to religious conceptions. 
 Christ says: "Every one who commits sin is slave of sin" (John 
 viii,35); and Peter says: "Seducers promise liberty to others, 
 themselves being slaves of corruption ; for by what one has been 
 overcome, to this he has also been enslaved " (2 Pet. ii, 19). 
 
 The prepositional phrases here translated unto death— unto 
 justification might be rendered " tending unto death ;" or perhaps 
 better, with a bolder rhetorical effect, we may read them as inter- 
 jectional expressions of what the contrasted courses amount to — 
 " unto death ! " " unto justification ! " 
 
 DcatlL here, as always when used of the penalty of sin, means 
 pliysical death; and physical death, if not "abolished" (2 Tim. 
 i, 10), is an eternal death, the dread end of man's being. The 
 apostle uses the word justification here as the opposite of 
 "death," where we might rather have expected him to use the 
 word " life." But this latter word is substantially the apostle's 
 thought. Justification, the acquittal from the death penalty, is 
 tantamount to a restoration to life. The concept, indeed, is some- 
 times expressed in full by using both words: "The result was to 
 all men unto justification of life" (Rom. v, 18); "The spirit is 
 life [alive] on account of justification" (Rom. viii, 10). In fact, 
 this is always the implication in the word "justification." Life 
 eternal is enfolded in God's sentence of acquittal from death. 
 
 Verse 17. But thanks be to God that ye were slaves 
 of the sin, but obeyed from the heart the type of doctrine 
 into which ye were delivered. 
 
 The first clause expi'esses not so much the historic fact that 
 the believers had been slaves of sin, and Paul's thanks to God for 
 
ROMANS VI, 17. 213 
 
 that fact, as rather the fact that this slavery is now a thing of the 
 past. This is a common rhetorical form. Vergil says, " Fuimus 
 Troes, fait Ilium," " We were Trojans ; Troy ^vas " (iEneid II, 325) , 
 implying that the whole thing is now ended. The two co-ordinate 
 clauses could be translated more logically in close coherence, as if 
 one complex proposition: "Thank God, that, though ye were once 
 slaves of sin, ye obeyed from the heart." The Revised has this 
 construction of the sentence ; but uses the wi-ong word " whereas," 
 instead of "though," as if the apodosis expressed a consequence 
 of the protasis. 
 
 The expression slaves of sin does not mean that they were 
 once abandoned sinners morally ; but that they were conceptually 
 under bondage forensically to law, which takes cognizance of sin ; 
 and that they then looked to works of law for justification. A 
 change took place in their views when they embraced the gospel 
 scheme of justification from faith. They obeyed the gospel 
 from the heart, that is, with conviction of its truth ; and they 
 were given over, or inducted into a very different type of doctrine 
 from that w^hich they before held. The thought is the same as the 
 apostle expresses in the Epistle to the Galatians: "The Scripture 
 shut up [counted] all mankind under sin, that the promise from 
 faith in Jesus Christ may be given to them that have faith. But 
 before the [dispensation of] faith came, we were kept, shut up, in 
 word, under law, with a view to the faith that was to be revealed." 
 (Gal. iii, 22.) The words ye obeyed that type of doctrine do 
 not express amoral transformation of character, a spiritual regen- 
 eration; but a change of conviction and of attitude, a transition 
 or turning (which the English Scriptures and theological literature 
 name "conversion") from one creed to another, from Mosaism 
 and works of law to the gospel of Christ, and the law of faith. It 
 was into this new type of doctrine that they were now delivered, 
 or "given over," as the new form or law of religious belief. 
 
 I repeat the caution against the interpretation of the passage 
 as ethical, or experimental and practical. So interpreted, we shall 
 read into the apostle's words what is not there, and lose the con- 
 tinuity of the argument of the Epistle. This whole chapter, and 
 the next two chapters, contrary to the current view, are forensic, 
 this only, in their line of thought. Paul's great theme is the dif- 
 ference between the Jewish plan of acceptance with God, by works 
 of law, and the evangelical plan, by faith. He rejects the former ; 
 he establishes the latter; and, as an inference, he establishes the 
 principle that Gentiles, too, may be accepted. 
 
214 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Surely tho npostlo knew his thoiiie, and knew liow to adliere 
 to it. 
 
 Verse 18. But having been enfreed from the sin, ye 
 ■were enslaved to the justification. 
 
 The terms here eniploj^etl are the technical terms of the law 
 of slavery. A slave is enfreed, or emancipated, when he g<jes 
 free, by a legal process, from his service to his master. And a 
 freeman who owes no service, or a slave, by transfer, is enslaved 
 when he comes under service to a master. Such is the apostle's 
 figure to illustrate man's forensic relations to law, or to grace. 
 The sinner, upon believing in Christ, is "enfreed" from his legal 
 bondage to sin, that is, from his obnoxiousness to the penalty of 
 sin; and in tlie same instant is "enslaved," or brought under a 
 new service, to justification. The old service, and the new service, 
 have, no doubt, very definite ethical features; but the asj)ects of 
 the case here considered are wholly legal, or forensic. The be- 
 liever, in his former slavery as to sin, was subject to the penalty of 
 death; in his later service as to justification, he is acquit from 
 penalty, and becomes heir with Christ, of eternal life. 
 
 "Verse 19(f. I speak with a human illustration, on ac- 
 count of your feebleness of flesh. 
 
 The words are the apostle's explanation, or semi-apology, for 
 the sensuous, trite, commonplace figure which he has adojjted to 
 express religious concepts ; and he says that he has adopted tliis 
 method of illustration on account of their inability to apprehend 
 abstract, or purely spiritual, concepts. In a similar embarrassment, 
 he says to the Corinthians: "I was not able to speak to you as 
 spiritual, but as carnal, as babes in Christ. I fed you milk, and 
 not solid food." (1 Cor. iii, 1.) This illustration which he has 
 drawn from every-day life, is intended to lielp this too carnal un- 
 derstanding of spiritual things. All tliese Roman Christians were 
 familiar with the institution of slavery; and, beyond any reason- 
 able doubt, many of them had been, or still were, themselves 
 slaves, and had experienced literally all that Paul here describes. 
 For example, "Those of the household of Narcissus," to whom 
 Paul sends his greetings (Rom. xvi, 11), were formerly slaves of 
 that luckless frcedman of Claudius; and after his death, slaves in 
 Nero's "household," tliougli still keeping, in that larger imperial 
 family, the name of their former master. 
 
ROMANS VI, 19. 215 
 
 The allusion in the verse is to the illustration in verse eighteen, 
 not to anything following. 
 
 The need which the apostle felt to employ this trite illustra- 
 tion of an abstract concept, shows the comparatively low grade of 
 spiritual apprehension in his hearers. To «s, familiar with such 
 themes, and experiencing no difficulty in grasping the apostle's 
 direct teaching, the illustration is not only not necessary, but is 
 even harder to grasp, and transfer, than the abstract, or general- 
 ized, expression of the truth, or doctrine w^hich he would convey. 
 
 Verse 196. For just as ye yielded your members slaves 
 to the uncleanness, and to the iniquity with a view to the 
 iniquity, so now yield your members slaves to the justifica- 
 tion with a view to sanctification. 
 
 We have seen, again and again, that the discussion in this 
 Epistle is exclusively on the subject of justification from faith, the 
 legal, or forensic, phase of the gospel; yet, as the intent of all 
 Paul's teaching was, that men should be saved not only from the 
 penalty of sm, but from the taint of sin, the apostle here turns 
 aside, for a moment, from his forensic line of thought and expres- 
 sion, to enforce, in a single sentence, the moral lesson which arises 
 as an inference from his argument. "As you once, under your 
 old service to sin, gave yourselves over, slaves to uncleanness, with 
 a view to the practice of iniquity, so now, under your new service, 
 give your members over, slaves to justification, with a view to 
 sanctification. The word here translated sanctification a.~ria(rtx6s, 
 expresses rather the process of sanctification, than the resultant 
 sanctity (holiness), a-^MCvvt). The phrase may be best rendered 
 "with a view to growth in holiness;" as though the justified had 
 not already attained this higher experience. The moral work in 
 man is of long and gradual process. It is wrought out with patient 
 continuance in well doing. We are to go on to maturity; to 
 grow up to the fullness of the stature of mature manhood in 
 Christ ; to become holy, as he is holy. 
 
 This is the second, and the last, reference to sanctification, in 
 this Epistle. Both references, tlie one in the twelfth verse, and 
 the one in this verse, are quite incidental, almost accidental ; and 
 they might have been omitted, or relegated to the margin, without 
 detriment to the logical connection or to the force of the argu- 
 ment. But perhaps they give us a suggestion or to Paul's style 
 of preaching. When he made a point in his didactic treatment of 
 
21G EXI'OSITrOX. 
 
 his subject he paused to clinch it witli a pex'tinent exhortation. 
 It is not until the twelfth chapter of the Epistle, after he has 
 ended the discussion of his great theme, that he turns to " edify- 
 ing" teachings on morals and practice; and not even then on 
 " sanctification " as a sjjecialty. 
 
 Verse 20. For when ye were slaves of sin, ye were 
 free men as to the justification. 
 
 This is a concrete instance of the abstract saying: "No man 
 can serve two masters." Free expresses the opposite of slaves; 
 and the word might, perhaps, for the apostle's concept, be better 
 rendered "freemen," or even " freedmen," the non-slaves, or ex- 
 slaves of justification. "The slaves as to sin are freemen, or 
 ex-slaves, as regards justification." ' They are under bondage as 
 regards sin; and they earn the wages of sin, death; they are not 
 under bondage as to the law of justification ; and they do not reap 
 its reward, life. It is in this thought, that the apostle asks the 
 question in the next verse. 
 
 Verse 21. What fruit, therefore, were ye having then, 
 from the things of which ye are now ashamed ? for the end 
 of those things is death. 
 
 By fruit, or, perhaps, better, "fruitage," is meant wages, 
 profit, the harvest reaped in the days of their slavery to sin. The 
 answer to tiie question is not given in the text, but is implied in 
 the words of tlie next sentence, and is easily supplied: "What 
 enjoyment? what harvest were ye liaving? [Notliing but misery 
 and perdition] ; for the end of those things is death." Paul 
 elsewhere tells explicitly what the harvest is : " Whatsoever a man 
 sows, that will he also reap. Because he that sows with a view 
 to his flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction." (Gal. vi, 7.) 
 Death is the penal destruction of their being. It is only in the 
 glad "slavery to justification" that we shall find life. "He that 
 sows with a view to the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap life eter- 
 nal." (Gal. vi,8.) 
 
 Verse 22. But now^, having been enfreed from the sin, 
 but having been enslaved as to God, ye have your fruit 
 with a view to sanctification, but the end life eternal. 
 
 Slavery as to sin is alnverif indeed ; gross, degrading, wretched, 
 deadly. All creation is intolerant of it; there is no peace to 
 
ROMANS VI, 23. 217 
 
 the wicked ; there is no place in the universe for sin. Conversely, 
 slavery as to God is bountiful, joyful, freedom. The twenty-first 
 verse characterizes the harvest that is reaped from "slavery to 
 sin;" this verse characterizes the harvest from "slavery to God." 
 And so in the Epistle to the Galatians: " The fruitage of the Spirit 
 is love, joy, peace, goodness, faith, meekness; against such things 
 there is no law." (Gal. v, 22.) "Its fruitage is with a view to 
 sanct ideation ; its end is eternal life." 
 
 Verse 23. For the wages of the sin is death : but the 
 gracious gift of God is life eternal, in Christ Jesus, our 
 Lord. 
 
 It is a trite saying, and true, that " Sin pays wages ; God gives 
 gifts." The wages of sin are always hardly earned ; God's "grace " 
 is, as the word implies, always a "gratuity." The service of sin 
 is harsh, and its wages are death ; the service of God is easy, and 
 his gratuity is life. The latter is expressly described as eternal; 
 but the former, the antithesis of life, is also eternal. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Verse 1. Or, do ye not know, brethren (for I speak to 
 men that know law), that the Law lords it over the man 
 for so long- a time as he lives? 
 
 AVe luive found repeated occasions to note the two questions 
 that are discussed in tliis Epistle, "Who may be saved?" " Jloio 
 may they be saved?" In this chapter it is the latter wiiich par- 
 ticularly comes to the front. In the discussion of this theme, the 
 apostle has already sliown the legal relations of men, of all men 
 equally, to the law of God, and the two diverse methods of justi- 
 fication in God's sight, — the justification from works of law, and 
 tlie justification from faith in Christ. The present chapter falls 
 into line in this argument. And the much-debated passage from 
 verse 7 to the end of the chapter must be interpreted in this direc- 
 tion ; and thougli this passage recognizes that man has a moral 
 nature, a conscience, a knowledge of sinfulness, and a sense of 
 amenability, it is nevertheless in no sense a discussion of Cliristian 
 experience, or even of ethical issues. It belongs exclusively to the 
 domain. of forensic theology. 
 
 In the sixth chapter the apostle adopted the figure of slavery 
 to illustrate tlie forensic relation of man to the works of law on 
 the one side, or to tlie faith in Christ on the other, — the sinner's 
 " slavery as to sin " in his degenerate state, or his " slavery as to 
 justification " in his regenerate state. Paul's readers of the pres- 
 ent day, with tliis knowledge of tlie gospel jilan, would surely have 
 no difficulty in understanding the apostle's teaching, even witliout 
 the figure which he felt it necessary to use as an aid to the Romans 
 for better comprehension of his abstract teachings. But in writing 
 to the Romans he is not content with one illustration only of so 
 vital a point. In the seventh chapter he attacks his subject afresh 
 through the help of a second striking figure, that of marriage, 
 which, of course, does not change, in the slightest degree, the 
 
 218 
 
ROMANS VII, 2. 219 
 
 essential character of the matter in issue, but which gives his 
 readers another aspect of man's forensic relations to law or to 
 faith in Christ. 
 
 The apostle introduces this new illustration with tlie real al- 
 ternative conjunction or (wliicli tlie Authorized strangely omits) ; 
 as if he had said, Or (to change the illustration), do you not 
 know — ? 
 
 Note the difference here, as always, between law and the 
 Law. The former expresses abstract principles ; the latter a par- 
 ticular statute. The Romans, beyond the rest of the world, had 
 clear and definite legislation. Paul could safely appeal to them, 
 of all men, that they " knew law." " The Law " here is the par- 
 ticular statute which regulates the marriage relation between hus- 
 band and wife. This statute lords it over the man (rod avOpdnrov, 
 the married person, man or woman) for life. Such was, and every- 
 where is, the ideal marriage law. The apostle does not recognize 
 divorce, which under the law of Christ exists but for one cause 
 (Matt, xix, 9), and in the present discussion may be safely ignored. 
 
 Verse 2. For the wife, subject to a husband, has been 
 bound by law to the living husband; but if the husband 
 have died, she has been discharged from the law of the 
 husband. 
 
 We have here, in the mention of the wife, a concrete instance 
 of the general principle laid down in the first verse. It suits the 
 purpose of the apostle to take tlie case of the wife, rather than of the 
 husband ; for of the two the wife is the more dependent, subject 
 to a husband ; and a wife, in those days, never had two husbands, 
 though among many nations, except the Romans, polygamous 
 husbands sometimes had more than one wife. But in carrying out 
 the illustration, we must beware of pressing the details of the 
 figure too closely. We need not inquire too particularly, which of 
 the two married parties, the sinner and the law was, in Paul's 
 conception, the husband, and which was the wife. "The parable 
 must not go on all fours." Paul's fundamental concept was simply 
 this, that the two parties ivere married, and that death alone severs 
 the bond. But always it is the sinner that dies, never the law.* 
 Yet the apostle's figure requires that the sinner, who was married 
 to the Law, shall, the instant that he dies as to the Law (of course, 
 
 '■' See the first note on verse 6. 
 
220 EXPOSITION. 
 
 constructively), become ipso facto married again, to Christ. This 
 death, and instant marriage again, of the same party, is sufticiently 
 unnatural ; but can easily be granted for the purposes of the illus- 
 tration. There is in this illustration another seeming weak point, 
 which does not appear in the illustration from slavery; namely, 
 tliat not all men are married, while all men are conceivably slaves. 
 Yet here again, for the purposes of the illustration, we may affirm, 
 that, in the aposj,le's forensic sense, all men, — men, women, and 
 children, all of Adam's race — are married to the Law ; and that, in 
 their death, with Christ, they " die as to the Law," and, therefore, 
 become "married to Christ." This "marriage to Christ" may 
 seem a strained sense of the word ; yet we do not count the figure 
 overstrained when we say that "one is wedded to his sins," which 
 is a very common expression for a moral entanglement in some- 
 thing bad, or even in something good. The apostle's word in this 
 paragraph is the same; the figure is the same; but he uses his 
 figure and word wholly in a forensic sense; and does not imply 
 that the sinner's " coveting " is enlisted, though this is also true.* 
 As in the previous figure of slavery every man is either a slave 
 to a master, or is enfreed from his master, but instantly becomes 
 enslaved to another, so with the marriage bond: if the sinner dies 
 as to one husband (law, or sin), he at the same instant becomes 
 married to another husband (justification, or Christ). Indeed the 
 apostle has the thouglit of slavery or of marriage so set in his 
 mind, that he seems almost unconsciously to use the two figures 
 interchangeably. In the sixth verse, where the figure of marriage 
 breaks down in his application of it, because he can not use it in 
 regard to God,t he reverts quite readily to the more common, and 
 easier figure of slavery: " We become slaves to God." 
 
 Verse 3. Accordingly, then, if, while the husband* is 
 living, she become married to a different husband, she will 
 be called an adulteress; but if the husband have died, she 
 is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress, though 
 she become married to a different husband. 
 
 The verse only reiterates and emphasizes the point already 
 affirmed, that no wife can be married to two husbands. In its 
 
 " Similarly for the figure (though, perhaps, not with the same forensic 
 concept). John calls Christ " the Bridegroom," and the Church " his wife." 
 "Come. I will show thoe the bride, the wife of the Lamb." (Rev. xxl, fl.) 
 
 t And yet the prophets (Isa. llv, 5; Hos. 11, 2) venture on even this 
 figure; and call God the husband of the Church, but In an ethical sense. 
 
ROMANS VTI, 4. 221 
 
 application to the matter in hand, it means that the sinner belongs 
 wholly to the Law, or wholly to Justification from faith ; or, to 
 adhere to the present figure, he is married to sin (or Law) ; or is 
 married to Justification from faith. All divided allegiance or 
 service to Christ, is as abnormal, incongruous, impossible, as 
 bigamy to a true wife. 
 
 Verse 4. So that, my brethren, ye also were put to 
 death as to the Law, through the body of Christ, with a 
 view to yoiir becoming married to a different husband, the 
 One who was raised from among dead men ; in order that 
 we may bear frmt to God. 
 
 The expression through the body of Christ means " in the 
 person of Clirist." The apostle teaches that "we were crucified 
 VFith Christ " (Gal. ii, 20) ; that is, " we were put to death on the 
 cross, in the person of Christ." As members of his body, we 
 were put to death through his body. Neither his death, nor 
 ours with him, was mystical or figurative. His death was literal, 
 and actual; our death, too, is to be conceived of as literal, but 
 suffered in his person, constructively. Yet in the eye of the Law 
 it is counteji to us, forensically, as if actually endured. Such is 
 Paul's concept ; such is his teaching in this sentence, and wherever 
 else he affirms in regard to our relation to the Law, and to Christ. 
 
 In actual life, the death of the husband dissolves the marriage 
 relation, and leaves the wife free to marry a different husband. 
 Such, to carry out the apostle's figure in this verse, is the case in 
 regard to the sinner. His marriage to the Law is dissolved by his 
 death, and he can now enter into a new marriage. " He was 
 put to death as to the Law, his first husband, in the person 
 of Christ." And this was done with a view to a new marriage 
 with a different husband, even Jesus Christ, who, too, was 
 dead, but w^as raised from among the dead. And tin's mar- 
 riage took place in order that we may bear fruit to God. 
 (Deut. xxviii, 11.) 
 
 Paul uses several terms, "the wife," "you," " we," quite pro- 
 miscuously, to designate the sinner, the subject of the discussion. 
 Yet, while he seems to change his point of view, the real dramatis 
 personx in the transaction remain the same throughout. There 
 are two parties, only two, involved in the representation — the 
 pai'ty of the first part, the sinner, married now to one husband, 
 now to another and very different husband ; and the party of the 
 
222 EXPOSITION. 
 
 second part, the husV^and for tlie time being, either the Law, or 
 Justification, or Christ. 
 
 We must not press tlie figure too far. The expre-ssion " tliat 
 we may bear fruit to God," while it may have been suggested by 
 the figure of a marriage, is not to be interpreted, grossly, as mean- 
 ing " to bear offspring," in the marriage state. To interpret it so, 
 introduces a sense contrary to the whole tenor of the passage, 
 which is simply that of a close union with the husband. Besides 
 it is said, that "we are married to Christ, who was raised from 
 the dead," but that "we bear fruit, not to Christ, our married 
 husband, but to God." We are not, in the terms of the figure, 
 "married to God;" we do not "bear offspring" to him, or, in the 
 carnal sense, to our husband Christ; but "we bring forth the 
 fruit of good living," to the praise of his grace. "We have our 
 fruit, the harvest of consecrated lives, unto holiness." The same 
 verb, "to bear fruit," is found in the next verse, in reference to 
 "death," where the sense of "bringing forth children" is out of 
 the question. 
 
 Verse 5. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful 
 passions, which were through the Law, w^ere at work in 
 our members to bear fruit to death. 
 
 The word flesh expresses, properly, our human nature in its 
 physical and psychical aspect, but not in ethical relations. But 
 the flesh is the seat of the appetites and passions, and may through 
 these be the occasion of our sin, though not itself sinful. When 
 we read such expressions as " fiesh of sin" (Rom. viii, 3), "the 
 lust of the flesh" (1 John ii, 16). "the will of the flesh" (Jolm 
 i, 13), " the affections of the flesh " (2 Pet. ii, 18), we must under- 
 stand them to involve the notion (and this only) that the flesh is 
 tJie sphere in which the lusts or appetites display tliemselves. But 
 nowhere does the Bible, or any reasonable psychology, teach, or 
 imply, that the body, or " the flesh," as the seat of the passions, is 
 itself sinful, or subject to condemnation. The body is but the 
 helpless victim of sin, which belongs to the conscious will : and 
 " it will be delivered from this bondage of death into the freedom 
 of God's children." (Rom. viii, 21.) 
 
 But, secondly, from the above usage, the word "flesh," in its 
 popular use,connotatively expresses our human nature as affected 
 by sin. It thus acquires a quasi-ethical sense, and means our 
 "degenerate self" as " naturally engendered of Adam," and con- 
 
ROMANS VII, 6. 223 
 
 sidered aside from the regeneration in Christ. The passage before 
 us, when we w^ere in the flesh, carries us back in thought to 
 our unregenerate and impenitent state, when we were, ex IiypotJiesi, 
 " married to sin." In this condition, before we died as to sin and 
 became married to Christ, our sinful passions, w^hich were 
 through the Law, — that is, stood revealed in their deformity by 
 the sudden flasli-light of the Law— were at work in our members, 
 but quite beneath our moral consciousness, bringing forth a 
 harvest of death. 
 
 Verse 6. But, now, w^e were discharged from the Law, 
 having died to that [marriage] in w^hich we w^ere being 
 held ; so that we are slaves [to God] in newness of spirit, 
 and not in oldness of letter. 
 
 A correct translation retains the historical tense, we were 
 discharged from the Law. The allusion is to the same words, 
 as found in the second verse: " She has been discharged from the 
 law of the husband ;" and the explanation requires tlie supply of 
 the same words here; and the translation should run: "But, as 
 things now are, we were discharged from the Law [of the husband], 
 having died to [the marriage] in w^hich we w^ere being 
 held." The date of this discharge was that of our death with 
 Christ, which (to carry out the figure) was conceptually our death 
 to our former marriage with Sin, or with the Law. The English 
 Version, " that being dead in wiiich we were held," makes the Law, 
 which, by the hypothesis, is " our husband," to have died to us ; but 
 the correct translation, as also the previous verses, and especially 
 the Scriptural concept, makes " the wife " to die to " the husband," 
 the sinner to die to the Law. The Law does not die.® 
 
 In the last clause, the metaphor of a marriage breaks down 
 when applied to God ; and the apostle reverts to the far easier 
 figure of slavery: "We have become slaves to God." But see 
 the comment and foot-note at the end of the second verse. 
 
 The phrase, in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of 
 letter (that is, " in a new state, one of spirit ; not in an old state, 
 one of letter"), expresses the changed attitude of believers in 
 
 *The translation in the Authorized, "that being dead," follows an 
 error In the Greek text, airodavbvros, instead of the correct reading, 
 aTro6av6vTes . The latter reading is given now in all the critical editions. 
 The change in but a single letter changes the tenor of the whole passage. 
 
224 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Christ as no longer " slaves to the Law," but " slaves to G(^ ;" — 
 whose service, however, is freedom. "Where the Spirit of the 
 Lord is, there is freedom." (2 Cor. iii, 17.) Believers are in tlie 
 new dispensation of the Spirit ; and not in the old dispensation of 
 the letter,of the Law. 
 
 Verse 7. Jkw : "What then shall we say ? Is the Law sin ? 
 Paul: God forbid! Nay, but I did not know the sin, 
 except through law; for I was not aware of lust, except 
 the Law was saying, Thou shalt not lust. 
 
 The first words are the words of the Jew. They express his 
 objection to the apostle's views, amounting, as he thinks, almost 
 to a reductio ad absurd um. The apostle has shown again and again, 
 and now once more, that " justification from our sin can not come 
 from works of law, but only from faith in Christ." Works of law 
 can not put us right with God, or relieve the burdened conscience ; 
 indeed the Law, as revealed to the Jew, has resulted only in bring- 
 ing into clearer light, and in exaggerating " the passions of our sin, 
 which have wrought in our members to bear fruit to death." It is 
 only by dying as to law, that we enter into the service of God. 
 The new dispensation, which is one of faith in Christ, is the abo- 
 lition of the old dispensation, which was one of slavery to the 
 letter of the Law. But the apostle's manner of expressing himself 
 has laid him open to Jewish cavil, if not to honest misapprehen- 
 sion. In the preceding discussion, he declares, at one time, that 
 "the sinner dies as to sin" (Rom. vi, 2, 10, 11) ; and again that 
 the sinner "dies as to the Law" (Rom. vii, 4, 6), thus seeming to 
 identify, or equate, "Law" with "sin." In reply to this presen- 
 tation of the apostle's view, the Jew exclaims, What then, if 
 this is so, shall we say? Is the Law, then, sin? If tiie Law 
 does not serve for justification; if it serves only to bring our sins 
 into stronger relief, and even "to multiply them" (Gal. iii, 19) ; 
 if the Law is not counted in God's plan of justification, but gives 
 place to Faith, is it become a thing accursed, instead of good ? 
 "Is the Law sin?" Certainly this question, "Is the Law sin?" is 
 the natural and appropriate question of the Jew, who rejects 
 Paul's premises. But the apostle meets tlu' contentious question 
 with his peremptory "No! God forbid that the Law should 
 be counted sin, a thing accursed. Nay; but yet it was only 
 through the office of law that I came to know sin as sin. I was 
 not even conscious of lust, as a matter forbidden, except that the 
 
ROMANS VII, 7. 225 
 
 Law first kept telling me, 'Thou shalt not lust.' That is, Law fii-st 
 defined duty ; and I thus came to realize my divergence from the 
 standard tliat it set up/' 
 
 Both the verbs, I came to know sin, and I was aware of 
 lust, are in the indicative mode, and express matters of historical 
 fact ; and not of unreal conception, as in the Authorized and Re- 
 vised: "I had not known." Paul looks back to the time when 
 he "was in the flesh," in his yet unregenerate and unawakened 
 state, under sin ; and in these verbs describes how the coming of 
 the Law startled him out of his apathy. The second clause means 
 "I was not conscious of my lust, as a thing forbidden and sinful, 
 but that the Law commanded, ' Thou shalt not lust.' " The word 
 lust both as substantive and verb, is the proper sense of the 
 Greek word that Paul here uses. The allusion to the "command- 
 ment" in the Decalogue (Ex. xx, 17) recalls to us the more famil- 
 iar words, "Thou shalt not covet;" but the word "covet" is not 
 specific enough to express Paul's definite concept here ; and the 
 word "desire" is not strong enough, and it, too, is not sufficiently 
 precise. 
 
 Beginning with this verse, Paul's discussion through the rest 
 of tlie chapter is made much more striking by the introduction, 
 nearly fifty times, in the nineteen verses, of the personal pronoun 
 of the first person, I, my, me. This use of the personal pronoun 
 has occasioned much needless debate, as if, instead of being Paul's 
 mere rhetorical device for lively effect, he had here turned aside 
 from his main theme, to introduce a bit of personal history and 
 experiences. Most interpreters in this direction, think that he is 
 representing himself as passing through some spiritual crisis in 
 his life, after having abandoned Judaism, and become a believer 
 in Christ, and then these interpreters add that the apostle, speak- 
 ing liere as a Christian, stands as a typical representative of all 
 Christians, because all pass through similar experiences. But 
 whether tliis experience was before regeneration (which is the 
 Arminian view), or after regeneration (which is the Calvinistic 
 view), no one can tell. No doubt, some of the language here may 
 have this peculiar religious significance read into it ; (for all relig- 
 ious experiences have something in common) ; but to give the 
 passage as a whole this interpretation, is to do violence to much 
 else of the language, and, worst of all, it fails to keep the section 
 in logical coherence with the preceding and the succeeding dis- 
 cussion. Paul has not gotten off the track ; he has not interjected 
 15 
 
22 C EXPOSITION. 
 
 an episode from his own history into tlie discussion ; and these in- 
 terpretations are purely fanciful, held, the one as the other, in the 
 interest of conflicting theologies. 
 
 In reality, Paul is not sja'aking in the i)erson of a Christian, 
 but in the person of a Jew yet under the dispensation of law. He 
 is depicting a representative Jew, " instructed according to the 
 law of his fathers, zealous for God " (Acts xxii, 3), devout, intro- 
 spective, religious, but vainly grasping after justification with 
 God, by works of law. This is the one thing in " issue." The; 
 particular form of expression, in the first person, may possibly 
 have come to the apostle from his own bitter personal reminis- 
 cence of ineffectual struggles to be at peace with himself, and with 
 God: but wliether he is describing his own experience or not, it is 
 in the person of a Jew, travailing with a Jew's diflRculties, tliat he 
 thinks and speaks. 
 
 To comprehend the apostle's thought, we must hold to the 
 view so often insisted on, that the discussion is wholly from the 
 forensic standpoint. Is man justified from his sins by works of 
 law, as the synagogue taught? or is he justified from faith in 
 Christ, as the gospel teaches ? And Paul's discussion in this pas- 
 sage is an attempt to show the dead failure of the former method, 
 as portrayed in the experience of a typical Ji'w. Tliere is no 
 distinctively gospel element in the passage, no Christian experience 
 described, no experience at all, different from that of any devout 
 Jew; or improbable, indeed, for any serious heathen, like Confu- 
 cius, or Socrates, or Seneca. There is no allusion to the doctrines 
 of Grace, or to witness of the Spirit, or to holiness of heai't, — 
 only the forlorn failure of justification from works, only the con- 
 demnation of law that rises dreadful and inevitable before the 
 speaker. There is no reference to Christ in all the passage, until, 
 at the very end of it, the speaker, in despair of justification from 
 law, with a cry of anguish, " O wretched man, I," turns to inquire, 
 " AVho, then, will deliver me from this death?" and, thus, aban- 
 doning all hope of help from works of law, he finds the only answer 
 to his burdened soul is "Christ." 
 
 The paragraph from the seventh to the thirteenth verse, is 
 purely historical; all the verbs in the narrative are in the past 
 (aorist) tense. These verbs, as we have seen, carry us back to the 
 time when Paul, or the Jew in whose person he speaks, "was in 
 the flesh ;" the time when he knew of no other way of justification 
 before God than from works of law ; yet was all the while only 
 
ROMANS VII, 8. 227 
 
 too conscious that his life and works did not measure up to the 
 standard of the hiw ; and that ho was left carnal, sold under sin, 
 subject to condemnation. Paul looks back to this period, and finds 
 no comfort in the thought of law. No doubt it was holy, and just, 
 and good, but to him it was death! In this striking description of 
 the inability of the law, Paul is doubtless but expressing what he 
 himself, though a zealot for the Law, once felt in his secret heart. 
 The whole narrative is an intense, acute analysis of the inmost 
 feelings and struggles of an awakened, despairing soul, which in 
 its agony grapjiles with the great problem, the greatest of prob- 
 lems, and finds no solution: "How shall man be just with God?" 
 " Whcrewitlial sliall I come before the Lord, that I may appease 
 his wrath?" And Judaism has no answer. 
 
 The historic description in verses 7-13 soon ceases to be vivid 
 enough to suit the apostle's rush of thought ; and after the four- 
 teenth verse he brings his verbs forward into the glowing light of 
 the present tense. But though there is a change of tense, there 
 is no new phase of experience ; only a new accentuation of the old, 
 and we must date all the experience so described back to the dis- 
 pensation of law. 
 
 Verse 8a. But the sin, having taken a vantage ground, 
 through the commandment "wrought out in me all lust. 
 
 The figure in the first clause is military. The vantage 
 ground is a "base," or starting-point, for a strategic movement. 
 Paul says that Sin has seized a vantage ground, and by a sudden 
 attack has wrought him ruin. The "vantage ground" was the 
 natural appetites for everything that will pander to the gratifica- 
 tion of the senses. These natural apjDCtites, which are good in 
 themselves, were given to man for his happiness ; it is the abuse 
 of tliem, and not the proper enjoyment of them, that brings sin 
 and death. And it is the abuse, so almost inevitable in our de- 
 generate state, that Paul here expresses by the last word in the 
 sentence, lust, which word, once a synonym for innocent desire, 
 has now taken on an offensive sense. The verb "wrought out lust 
 does not mean created lust. The seeds for this ill harvest were 
 already planted and germinant in human nature ; and needed but 
 the Ithuriel touch of law to make them, like the classic "dragon's 
 teeth," spring to armed life. The verb "wrought out" is prac- 
 tically a synonym here for "brought out." The thought is the 
 same as in Paul's language elsewhere: "All things that are re- 
 
228 EXrOSITTOX. 
 
 proved, arc made manifest by the light." (Eph. v, 13.) The verse 
 thus means that Sin (the personified sinfulness in our nature) 
 found a weak place in our defenses, the appetites of our degenerate 
 nature, and through the commandment wrought out, brought out, 
 into full growth and activity, all lust. 
 
 Verses 8l>, 9, lO. For, apart from law, sin was dead. 
 But, as for me, I was alive, apart from law, once: but 
 when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, but I 
 died ; and the commandment which was ordained with a 
 view to life, this was found by me unto death. 
 
 The first clause here is part of the eighth vei'se, but ought to 
 go witli the ninth, as I have given it. 
 
 Some critics, and the Kevised, read the first clause, "Sin is 
 dead," making it a mere gnome, or genei'al maxim, as in the verse 
 " Where there is no law, there is no transgression." (Kom. iv, 15.) 
 But the clause in our text is a part of Paul's narrative of his expe- 
 rience, and correlates historically to the answering clause in the 
 ninth verse: Sin was dead . . . sin sprang- to life. The 
 Authorized here is correct. 
 
 Tlie saying in the first verse above connects back to the word 
 commandment (which is equivalent to "law"), and the clause, 
 then explains that the commandment, or law% being dormant, had 
 not always had its normal way and sway in the earth. In point 
 of fact, both the law and sin had always been present in the 
 world ; but they had not always come into conscious collision in 
 the hearts of men. Law was absent, and sin was dead — not 
 in reality, but only to tlie then present consciousness of men. It 
 was not so, but so it seemed. Law was present, but not always rec- 
 ognized as condemnatory; sin, too, was always present, but not 
 always thought of as sinful. AVhen the conscience was dormant, 
 the condemnation of law was not realized; and "sin was dead," 
 as if (how grave the mistake!) it did not exist. No! Sin w^as not 
 "dead," but really as alive and damnable as on the day when 
 Adam fell, or on the day when Paul wrote this cliapter; and tlie 
 Paul described in this narrative was only conceptually alive, 
 apart from law, but was really as dead (that is, doomed to death) 
 ns on the fatal day, later, in which his conscience and his con- 
 sciousness awoke to the fact that he was indeed a sinner; and 
 that "the woi-d of God is alive, and active, sharper than any 
 sword, . . . able to discern the feelings and thoughts of the 
 heart." (Heb. iv, 12.) 
 
ROiVANS VII, 11. 229 
 
 The next clause, when the commandment came, does not 
 imply that it has not always been present and regnant among 
 men, so far as the purpose of God was concerned ; but that it only 
 now came home to Paul's quickened conscience.* It came empan- 
 oplied, his foe. His consciousness of sin came to life. Sin lived, 
 and slew him. How sad his words: "I was living, once; but I 
 died. Once I had no sense of condemnation : then suddenly I felt 
 the sentence of death in myself; and the commandment, which, 
 in God's plans, was normally intended to bring justification and 
 life, was found in my bitter experience to result in condemnation 
 and eternal death !" 
 
 Verse 11. For the sin having taken a vantage ground, 
 through the commandment deceived me, and through it 
 put me to death. 
 
 Tlie thouglit of the eighth verse is here repeated witii a telling 
 addition: "Sin, through the coming of the law^, deceived me." 
 The word is used from the Jewish point of view. The self-satisfied 
 Jew "rested on law, and boasted in God, and was confident that 
 he was upright, because he had in the law the form of knowledge 
 and of the truth." (Rom. ii, 17.) To him the law was a system 
 of outward observances, and in minding these, he verily thought 
 that he was rendering obedience to God, and meriting his approval. 
 But he was blind to his spiritual condition before the law. Then, 
 suddenly, he awoke to the fact that he had totally mistaken the 
 character of God's law. It was a law of ethical tenor, and of 
 stringent tenure ; it looked at the inward motives, not at the out- 
 ward service ; and it was pitiless towards the slightest non-fulfill- 
 ment of its demands ; it was a searcher of the heart, and pierced 
 even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit. As such, the law 
 had caught him defenseless against its attack. In his fancied 
 security he had expected no such waking up and shaking up. 
 " Sin, through the commandment, deceived him." This blind sense of 
 security gave place to an equally blind terror ; and he felt that the 
 Law had slain him. 
 
 Such is the way it seemed to him as a Jew; but, perhaps, at a 
 later day, the Christian apostle would more truly have said, from 
 the gospel point of view, that the coming of the law " undeceived 
 him," by showing him his true self as a lost sinner, without recon- 
 ciliation with God, and knowing no way of justification. 
 
 The law hath not been dead, though it hath slept; 
 now 't Is awake."—" Measure for Measure," 11, 2, 
 
230 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verse 12. So that the Law, indeed, is holy, and the 
 commandment is holy, and just, and good. 
 
 This verse is the answer to the question in the seventh verse, 
 " Is the Law sinf" The discussion in the intervening verses shows 
 that it is not tlie Law, but sin wliich is responsible for the death 
 of man. The Law of God, like its Giver, is holy; and the com- 
 mandment [tlie tenth commandment of the Decalogue is meant, 
 whicli commands, Thou shalt not covet ("lust")] is holy, and 
 just, and good. The triple predicates are a rhetorical climax ; 
 but we may easily discriminate their several senses: the com- 
 mandment [the Law] is holy in its ethical character, just in its 
 prescriptions, good in its aims. 
 
 This verse ends the paragraph beginning with the seventh 
 verse. The thirteenth begins with a new Jewish objection against 
 the apostle's views, and the discussion to which it leads runs 
 througli the rest of the ciiapter. But it is in the same line of 
 thought as the foregoing paragraph — the ineffectual struggle for 
 justification by Jewish works of law. 
 
 Verse 13. Jew : " Did then the good [that which is good 
 in the Law] become death to me?" 
 
 Paul: "God forbid! Nay, but the sin [become death to 
 me] : in order that it may appear sin, through the good 
 [that is in the Law], working out death to me; in order 
 that through the commandment the sin may become ex- 
 ceeding sinful." 
 
 The Jew's point-blank question in verse 7, " Is law sin ?" by 
 which lie thought to silence tlie apostle's argument that law does 
 not justify the sinner, lias been answered. But the Jew lias yet a 
 further diflRculty before he can accept the apostle's creed that 
 Faith is the sole justification. If the law, the law of Jewish works, 
 does not result in justification, as tlie Jews held that it did, but 
 in condemnation and death; and if (as Paul declares), it is never- 
 theless not the law per se that thus results ; is there then some- 
 tliing in the law (and, of course, something good) wliich has this 
 fatal result? If not the law itself directly, did the good that is 
 in the Law indirectly become death to me ? Is there some feature 
 of the law, or something in its working, that is war])ed to this 
 unintended and unexjiected result ? The apostle still says No! 
 " Not the law itself, nor any feature in the law, has brought death ; 
 but as I said befoi-e, it was sin that became death to me." Sin 
 
ROMANS VII, 14- 231 
 
 became death to me that it might be sliown to me to be, not a 
 trivial tiling, but s/h in its true, damning character, through the 
 provisions of law, that were intended for good only, working out 
 death to me. Yes ; sin works out death ; through the command- 
 ment, to the end that sin may become, and may be felt to be, 
 exceedingly sinful. 
 
 Verse 14. For we know that the Law is spiritual ; but I 
 am carnal, sold under the sin. 
 
 The word for assigns the reason, and connects the clause in 
 which it stands to "God forbid" of the previous verse, "God for- 
 bid that the good (in the law) should have become death to me: 
 for we know that the Law is spiritual" [that is, works in a 
 different spherej. The adjective " spiritual " signifies not so much 
 the divine origin of the law (though this, too, lies in the w^ord), as 
 the divine character of the law. It rules in the sphere of holiness, 
 justice, goodness ; and can not be charged with man's failure to 
 attain justification, and with man's death. The responsibility for 
 this failure is not in the law, but in man's unspiritualness. I am 
 carnal, under the appetites of the flesh, a slave sold under the 
 dominion of sin, a chattel for purchase and sale. 
 
 The last words are a key to the following passage (verses 
 15-25). The several specifications are such as eminently describe an 
 unregenerate, but not unspiritual man, and can be fairly explained, 
 on the ivhole, only on this basis. True, some of these sayings, 
 though only some, can be aptly spoken of regenerate men ; but those 
 same things, and all of them, can be spoken of all men, of unregen- 
 erate men as well as of the saints. In all men conscience survives, 
 and the natural instinct towards goodness, and much knowledge 
 of God's will ; but the flesh is weak ; and, so, unregenerate men 
 have only " a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and of fiery 
 indignation." (Heb. x, 27.) I think it would be possible to parallel 
 every God-ward saying here with sayings equally God-ward from 
 writers who never heard the names of Moses and Jesus ; and to 
 parallel the despairing expressions with confessions, alas ! equally 
 explicit, of human weakness to do God's will, or to stand acquit in 
 his sight. All men were made in God's image, and still keep it: 
 " Their foi-m has not yet lost 
 All the original brightness, nor appears 
 Less than archangel ruined; and tii' excess 
 Of glory obscured."—" Par. Lost," I, 591. 
 
232 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verse 15. For what I work out, I do not know ; for not 
 w^hat I will, this I practice ; nay, but what I hate, this 
 I do. 
 
 In this verse we have a comprehensive and terse statement of 
 the tremendous inconsistencies in human will and human action. 
 The word feebleness oi the will is the foremost feature in the 
 whole description. Very rightly, tlie apostle nowhere says that 
 man can not do better; he says " they do not do better, because 
 they will not. The three discriminate verbs that the a|)ostle uses 
 cover the whole range of moral action — work out, practice, do. 
 The Authorized confounds them and obscures the sense of the 
 passage. The clause, I do not know (to which the Authorized 
 incorrectly gives an ethical turn, "I alloiu not") literally means, 
 "I liave no knowledge of;" but it rather expresses heedless in- 
 attention. It is not ignorance, but ignoring ; and we might well 
 explain it by the expressive colloquialism, "/ do it blind." It is 
 what Isaiah said, "Israel doth not know, my people doth not con- 
 sider." (Isa. i, 3.) 
 
 Verse 16. But if what I will not, this I do, I concede to 
 the Law that it is right. 
 
 The predicate right (KaX6s) is different from either of the 
 terms used in the twelfth verse to characterize the Law. They 
 were specific; this word is the general Greek word of approval 
 (our colloquial "all right"). The apostle here declares the Law 
 " right" in itself and in its bearings. 
 
 Our deliberate approval in the forum of conscience of what is 
 right, while at the same time we wantonly cleave in practice to 
 what is wrong, is the standing tribute of unregenerate human na- 
 ture to the rightni'ss of God's law. Ever out of bad lives, our 
 judgment and conscience rise in protest to what we do. We 
 know, and do not. There is no unregenerate man who does not 
 know virtue from vice, and who is not also conscious that his 
 approval of the one does not restrain him from the other. Long 
 before Paul wrote these words, Ovid expressed the common bias 
 of men towards the wrong, and the failure of reason or of law to 
 hold men in check: "My mind persuades me to one course, my 
 lust to nnother. I see the better course and approve it ; I follow 
 the worse course." 
 
ROMANS VII. 17, 18-30. 233 
 
 Verse 17. But now it is no longer I that work it out, 
 but the sin dwelling in me. 
 
 The language is figurative; Paul personifies Sin, and installs 
 it in the very citadel of his soul — dwelling in me. The verse de- 
 scribes the inner strife in every unregenerate man between his 
 better judgment and his ruling impulses to sin. His conscience 
 commands, but his passions are yet more imperious, and he yields 
 to them. " Sin dw^ells in me, and I (weakling!) work out what it 
 wills." 
 
 Verses 18-20. For I know [am aware] that in me, that 
 is, in my flesh, (there dwells naught) good ; for to will is 
 present with me, but to work out the right, not. For the 
 good which I will, I do not ; nay, but the evil which I will 
 not, this I practice. But if what I will not, this I do, it 
 is no longer I that w^ork it out ; nay, but the Sin dwelling 
 in me. 
 
 The conjunction for, as usual, assigns the proof of the pre- 
 ceding proposition. The three verses give the proof in extenso. 
 They describe the habitual conflict in man's moral being between 
 his conscientious impulse to do right and the ever-prevalent 
 inclination to yield to liis evil appetites. Normally, his better 
 nature points him in one direction ; his passions drive him head- 
 long in the other. And the logical conclusion is what he before 
 asserted: "It is not I (my true self) that am in control, but the 
 sin which leads me captive at its will." 
 
 Yet we must understand this declaration of the impotence of 
 the will as figurative only, or at least as but a partial truth. It 
 expresses the position of the sinner, who sees how hopeless the 
 appeal to law for justification, but who at the same time ignores 
 the other, and efficient, justification from faith. And so, all 
 through the paragraph, Paul is far from disclaiming personal 
 responsibility for what he does. He is ever conscious that he sins 
 voluntarily, and can abstain from sinning ; though so strong is the 
 surge of his passions, he declares himself unable to resist. It is 
 the common plea of unregenerate men, who palter with their con- 
 victions and their conscience. But it is in this very sense of 
 amenability that constitutes the strife in his bosom. The sinner 
 writhes in the folds of the anaconda; but, unlike Vergil's Laocoon, 
 he can uncoil the folds, and be free, if he really wills it. The strife 
 
234 EXPOSITIOX. 
 
 in liis bosom can end only in his stupefj'ing his coiiscionce, or in 
 his submission of his will to the obi-dience of Christ. With most 
 men it continues till the end of life ; continues until, too often, 
 habit has hardened into "another law, within their members." 
 They " resolve and reresolve ; then die the same." 
 
 Verse 21-23. I find then the law to me who will to 
 do the right, that the evil is present with me. For I ac- 
 cord w^ith the Law of God after the inward man ; but I see 
 a different law in my members, warring against the law 
 of my mind, and leading me captive to the law of sin, 
 w^hich is in my members. 
 
 These verses, introduced by the V4'ords I find then, express the 
 despondent conclusion of the whole matter. It sums uj) the case 
 of the sinner from the standpoint of law — that is, from the stand- 
 point of Judaism — in which man is speculatively left to his natural 
 strength to work out his own justification. 
 
 The construction of the twenty-first verse is involved, but the 
 sense is plain. The substantive clause, that the evil is present 
 with me, is appositive to the law, and explains it. Tlie meaning 
 is, "I find, then, the law that the evil is present with me; this 
 the law I find confi-onting me when I will to do the right." 
 
 The word law here is used in a peculiar sense. It is not, as in 
 previous occurrences of the word, a ride of action; but, as in the 
 oft-abused phrase, "law of nature." means only a uniform order 
 of sequence, the established condition of things. To the self- 
 indulgent sinner it amounts to the constant, enchaining habit. The 
 sinner has yielded himself to the dominance of his " pleasant vices 
 until they have become instruments to plague him ; the wheel has 
 come full circle," and he feels tliat he can not (that is, he u'ill not) 
 throw off their dreadful incubus. Dr. Jekyll sometimes abandons 
 himself, wantonly, to do evil, in the character of Mr. Hyde. At 
 last, to his dismay, he becomes the malignant Mr. Hyde, and dies 
 in the vain effort to recover his proper self. The fallen archangel 
 in Pandemonium boasted that he would "ascend and repossess his 
 native seat;" but he never did it. 
 
 In the twenty-second verse, the word accord might be equally 
 well translated by "sympathize," but certainly not by "rejoice 
 in." It does not express exultation, but only the sinner's in- 
 stinctive, involuntary, shuddering moral approval of the Law of 
 
ROMANS VII. 24, 25. 235 
 
 God which condemns him. The unconverted sinner, like Satan in 
 Paradise, 
 
 " Feels how awful goodness is, and sees 
 
 Virtue in her shape how lovely ; sees, and pines 
 His loss." — " Paradise Lost," iv, 847. 
 
 In verse 16 the word concede denotes the assent of the 
 reason; accord (or sympathize) denotes tlie movement of the 
 feelings. Even unregenerate men intuitively approve goodness 
 and virtue. This approval the apostle expresses by the phrase, 
 according to the inward man; which term denotes simply 
 man's moral being as " made in tlie image of God," but without 
 connoting either regenerateness of nature or unregenerateness. 
 Here, however, it is, of course, the latter. 
 
 In verse 23 the phrase, the law of my mind, is but another 
 term for the Law of God, as it stands approved by my mind,— by 
 my reason and conscience ; and the phrase, the law of sin, is an 
 enlarged description of the law named in verse 21. "The law of 
 sin" is the fixed hahit which is in his members, the habit of 
 instant, and facile, and fatal compliance with sin. 
 
 Such is Paul's description of the helpless and hopeless condi- 
 tion of the natural man before the Law,— a slave to sin, hating 
 his fetters, yet ever hugging them closer to himself. It Is the 
 apostle's portrait of himself that he has limned— his portrait in 
 the days of his Jewish seeking after God according to the ways of 
 his fathers ; but it is also tlie portrait of any introspective and 
 serious man. The description finds its parallel, with greater or 
 less clearness and intensity, in all human experience, in Christian, 
 in Jewish, and in heathen lands alike. Nor did Paul, nor does any 
 man, find any way of relief outside of the gospel. "Man is not 
 justified from works of law, nor at all except through faith in 
 Jesus Christ." (Gal. ii, 16.) 
 
 Verses 24, 25. Wretched man, I ! Who will deliver me 
 from this body of death? Thanks be to God [deliverance 
 will be] through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Accordingly, then, 
 I myself with the mind indeed, serve the Law of God, but 
 w^ith the flesh the law of sin. 
 
 The expression this body of death means tliis body which is 
 made the sway of death. We may compare with it tlie expression, 
 " the body of sin" (Rom. vi, 6), as explained by Kom. vi, 12, "Let 
 
236 EXPOSITION. 
 
 not sin lord it in your body, so tliat yo shall obey its lusts." So in our 
 text, Paul describes tlu- body as tlif tool, tlie nicdiuni, of death; 
 and conceives of himself, in his inward humanity, his higher self, 
 as the helpless slave and victim of his own body. He resolves 
 aright, but is swept away from his good resolutions, by tliis body 
 of api)Ctite, and of sin, and of death. From the domination of this 
 body he cries to be delivered, of course not by a literal death, but 
 by a moral revolution, a new order of things, which will put his 
 now masterful body beneath liis foot, and make him lord of himself. 
 
 The last clause in the cliapter, passing over the interjectiunal 
 clause Thanks be to God ! as a mere j)arenthesis, is logically 
 connected by the conjunction therefore with the whole of the 
 preceding paragraph. It must be taken accordingly as the sum- 
 ming up of the entire discussion from the seventh verse. It is the 
 utterance still of the unregenerate Jew, the deliberate conclusion 
 of a man at war with himself. Nevertheless, the emphatic pronoun 
 I myself is probably suggested by the words in the parenthesis. 
 " I myself" evidently contrasts the apostle, in his own strength 
 (which is but weakness), under the Law, with the man that finds 
 deliverance in Christ. 
 
 The word I serve is, literally, "I slave it." (Rom. vii, 6.) 
 The saying, " Witli my mind I am a slave to the Law" denotes first, 
 doubtless, that the apostle with all his reason and conscience, sides 
 with the Law of God ; but the verb " I slave it" also connotes that 
 this approval is not a joyful one. For an unregenerate man it 
 smacks of slavery.' He renders this tribute to the Law, not because 
 he loves it, but because he must! " With my mind (not with my 
 heart), I serve the Law of God ; but with my flesh (the seat and tool 
 of the appetites), I serve the law of sin." Hitherto, the apostle 
 (that is, the Jew under the dispensation of Law), has seen but one 
 thing, sin and Sinai. He has had no vision or conception of any- 
 tliing else. In accordance with his line of thought, from the 
 standpoint of Jewish law-, he has talked laiv; and has not seemed 
 to have thought of any other justification than through law. Until 
 at last ! Desperate of relief from law, at last he cries, "Who 'will 
 deliver me? The truth and the light burst on him, and the joy- 
 ful words now spring to his lips, Thanks! through Christ I 
 " Christ is the end of the law to justification, to every one tliat lias 
 faith " (Rom. x, 4) ; " From all tilings from which ye could not be 
 justified in the Law of Moses, in him every one that has faith is 
 justified" (Acts xiii, 39). 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Verse 1. There is, therefore, now no condemnation to 
 them that are in Christ Jesus. 
 
 In attempting the interpretation of this chapter we must keep 
 in mind the dogmatic aim of the Epistle as already described. It 
 treats of but one thing, justification before God ; and involves but 
 the two questions: First, Who may be justified? and, second, On 
 u-Jiat ground may they be justified? The common interpretation, 
 that the Epistle is a complete body of divinity, a general ti-eatise 
 of theology, and that the first five chapters discuss the doctrine of 
 justification and the next three (vi-viii) the doctrine of sanctifica- 
 tion, is, as we have seen, untenable. The subject of sanctification 
 does not come within the scope of this Epistle any more than of the 
 Epistle to the Galatians. And any interpretation of the epistle, 
 or any leading section of it, that brings sanctification to the front, 
 misses the apostle's dogmatic aim, and reads into his words mean- 
 ings which (though possibly true in themselves) are not logically 
 in place, and which displace other meanings of more moment to 
 this symmetric presentation of " his gospel." 
 
 In the seventh chapter the apostle has shown that, to the Jews 
 who appeal to the Law for justification, there is condemnation, 
 nothing but condemnation. There is no relief to the gloomy pic- 
 ture which he has painted of the hopelessness of pardon and peace 
 thi'ough law. "As many as are of the works of law are under a 
 curse." (Gal. iii, 10.) But in the beginning of the eighth chapter 
 he turns from these Jewish zealots of law, who yet find no com- 
 fort in it, to the Gentile believers in Christ, and to their justifica- 
 through faith. His first words declare the far different condition 
 of the Gentiles who are " not under law:" There is no condem- 
 nation to those who are in Christ. This is his description of 
 the Gentiles specifically in contradistinction from the Jews who 
 appeal to law, and are '* under the curse." The Gentiles are, con- 
 
 237 
 
238 EXPOSITION. 
 
 coptually, those "who are in Clirist," justifit'd in him. They fill 
 the apostle's horizon, to the exclusion of the Jews. And liis dis- 
 cussion throughout the eighth chapter is with regard to them 
 exclusively. It is true that he does not use the word " Gentiles" 
 in this chapter; but his line of thought is antithetic to that of the 
 seventh chapter, which treats of the Jews, and the terms he here 
 employs, and tlie parallelism with his sayings elsewhere, expressly 
 in regard to tlie Gentiles, detennine the limitations of his mean- 
 ing. The discussion here goes on under the quiet assumption that 
 he is speaking, not of all mankind collectively, including the Jews, 
 nor yet of the Jews apart from others, but of the Gentiles specific- 
 ally as such, of the Gentiles alone. Numerically, the Gentiles were, 
 of course, the vast majority of the race ; but though that fact was, 
 doubtless, ever present in Paul's thought, yet the sense of their 
 vastness of number was lost in the more significant thought that 
 they were " Gentiles," with all that the word connoted. It was of 
 them as Gentiles, as the real elect of God, that he thought and 
 wrote. 
 
 In thrs verse, the word therefore expresses the connection of 
 the chapter with something in the preceding discussion. The 
 nearest immediate point of tangency for this connection is Paul's 
 confession of faith, in the twenty-fifth verse of the seventh chap- 
 ter: "I shall be rescued through Jesus Christ." But the logical 
 conclusion in our text justifies us in giving the word "therefore" 
 a still wider reference, and including as its premises the entire 
 previous discussion in regard to the doctrine of justification from 
 faith. In the seventh chapter, the apostle has shcnvn that the re- 
 liance of the Jews upon law has no foundation in Scripture, or in 
 human experience. " By works of law will no flesh be justified." 
 And he concludes that part of the discussion with the despairing 
 words, " Wretched man, I ; who will rescue me ?" This question, 
 the apostle, once in the days of his ignorance and adhesion to 
 Moses, could not have answered ; or would have answered it amiss. 
 The whole of the seventh chapter declares his unavailing struggle, 
 a Jew, a Pharisee, with this great spiritual problem. But now, 
 from the standpoint of the gospel, a Christian, he is able to an- 
 swer, "I thank God, I shall be rescued through Jesus Christ, our 
 Lord." Here is Paul's new profession of faith. He no hmger 
 looks to Moses for justification, but to Christ. He has come to be- 
 lieve that " No man can come to the Father except through him " 
 (John xiv, 6) ; " His is the only name given under heaven, whereby 
 
ROMANS VIII, f. 239 
 
 we must be saved" (Acts iv, 12) ; "Christ, and not Moses, is our 
 wisdom and justification and satisfaction and redemption" (1 Cor. 
 i, 30). Yet, in point of fact, even under the Law of Moses, the 
 gospel plan had all along been the only way by wliich any man was 
 ever really justified. "Apart from law, God's plan of justification 
 has been manifested, being witnessed to by the Law, and the 
 Prophets. God's plan of justification through faith in Jesus 
 Christ, unto all who exercise faith [Gentiles as well as Jews] ; for 
 there is no difference among men." (Rom. iii, 21.) But it was 
 only now that Paul had come to understand this simple and gra- 
 cious scheme. 
 
 Verse 2. For the la-w of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus 
 enfreed me from the la^w of the sin and the death. 
 
 This ratiocinative structure of Paul's sentences is a marked 
 feature in his writings. The argumentative conjunction for is 
 his favorite connective. It is found one hundred and fifty times 
 in this Epistle, and seventeen times in this chapter, everywhere 
 explicative, and never merely continuative. The word here con- 
 nects back to the word " no condemnation " in the previous verse : 
 "There is no condemnation ; for Christ freed me from the damna- 
 tory law." In this verse Paul still retains the singular pronoun 
 "I," which had such rhetorical prominence in the seventh chapter ; 
 but as it is not personal, but only representative, he drops it after 
 this verse. 
 
 The word law here does not mean either " statute " or "order 
 of succession," the two general senses of " law;" but rather prin- 
 ciple or prevalence. The law of the spirit of life in Christ is 
 the supremacy of the Holy Spirit which brings life to the soul. 
 This "life" is the "life which is realized in Christ Jesus." Paul 
 uses the same words to Timothy: "The promise of life which is 
 in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. i, 1.) He that is "in Christ" is a 
 sharer with him in his life, as Jesus promised: "The Spirit will 
 take of that which is mine, and will declare it to you." (John 
 xvi, 14.) In a similar way, the law of sin and death means 
 the dominance or sway of sin and death in our sinful nature. 
 From the dominion of "this law in my members" (Rom. vii, 23), 
 the "law of the Spirit freed me." The historical term here carries 
 us back to the great act of redemption, in which Christ, by his 
 death, enfreed us, " emancipated " us, from slavery to the law of 
 sin and death. Paul's pronouns in this passage illustrate how, as if 
 
240 EXPOSITION. 
 
 quite unconsciously, he chiingcs his standpoint from time to time, 
 yet all the while having but one real sul)ject in his mind. In this 
 verse he says, Christ set me free; in the fourth verse he says, 
 "that the law may be fullilled in us;" in the fifth verse he says, 
 ^^ they that are accoi'ding to the Spirit, mind the things of the 
 Spirit ;" and in the ninth verse he says, " Ye are not in the flesh, but 
 in the Spirit." His words change, but not his thought. Though 
 Paul's gospel recognizes that Christ's redemption is operative nor- 
 mally, constructively, for every member of the race, yet through- 
 out the passage, throughout tlie chapter, he thinks of the Gentiles 
 only, and in effect speaks in regard to the Gentiles only. Some- 
 times he speaks of himself as one of them : " For I have become as 
 ye are" (Gal. iv, 12) ; sometimes he speaks of them; sometimes 
 directly to them. 
 
 Verse 3. For,— the thing impossible to the Law, in that 
 it was weak through the flesh, — God, having sent his own 
 Son in sameness with the flesh of sin, and for sin, con- 
 demned the sin, in the flesh. 
 
 Tlie grammatical construction has been in debate. The 
 Autliorized and the Revised leave the sentence anacoluthic ; but 
 the literal translation here given, correctly punctuated, yields the 
 proper grammatical construction, and the appropriate sense. As 
 to the connection, the word thing is in the objective case, ap- 
 positive in concept to the verb condemned. As to the sense, the 
 apostle's thought is, that the Law is w^eak, or impotent, through 
 the proclivity of the flesh (unregenerate human nature) to sin; a 
 proclivity that the Law can not overcome or eradicate. AVe must 
 not interpret the saying that the Law could not condemn sin in 
 the flesh as meaning, "could not reprobate sin, or pass sentence 
 upon it;" for this is just what it could do, and it was the only 
 thing it could do. It brought sin out in darker colors ; it multi- 
 plied, accentuated, the "offense;" it slew the sinner. But it 
 could not give life ! Law when it came into collision with sin, had 
 not its primal justificatory function, but only its condemnatory 
 function. It could pass judgment upon sin ; but it could not slay 
 sin. This latter point is what Paul meant by the "inability of the 
 Law to condemn sin ;" he meant only tliat it could not annul sin 
 in the flesh. " But w^hat the Law could not do, the atonement of 
 Christ was adequate to do. God sent his Son in the sameness with 
 sinful man, and as an atonement for sin, and through him con- 
 demned and slew sin in the flesh." 
 
ROMANS VIII, 3. 241 
 
 The phrase "flesh of sin" does not imply that the flesh is 
 sinful in itself; but means only that the body, or our physical 
 human nature, is the seat of the appetites, and so becomes the 
 seat of sin. The body is material, and has no moral quality ; the 
 I will alone is sinful. But as " the flesh" is the pander to the sinful 
 appetites, and is corrupt and defiled by sin, it is easy by a rhetor- 
 ical turn, to call it " the sinful flesh." Yet in our generic human 
 nature there was no essential sinfulness or corruptness, so that 
 " the Word should not become flesh, and dwell among us" (John 
 i, 14) ; "He was manifested in flesh" (1 Tim. iii, 16) ; yet "was 
 himself without sin." It was in this flesh, which, in all other men, 
 is proclive to sin, that Christ was born: "God sent him in the 
 sameness with sinful flesh." "For both he who sanctifies, and 
 they who are sanctified, are all of one. . . . Since, then, they were 
 partakers of flesh and blood, he also in like manner partook of the 
 same; that through his death, he may destroy him that has the 
 power of death." (Heb. ii, 11, 14.) Christ came in the sameness 
 with human nature, not in a semblance. He was a real man, not 
 a phantom, as the Docetists taught. Christ's supernatural con- 
 ception and birth from the Virgin Mary, gav^e him all of human 
 nature, without the racial entail of sin. It is true that this great 
 fact, reported by Matthew and Luke, is not alluded to in the 
 Epistle.* Yet Paul's silence is not an evidence of ignorance of the 
 facts, or of disbelief. On the contrai-y, the apostle's abundant 
 teaching of Christ's incarhation is reconcilable with it all, if it 
 does not imply it all. 
 
 The phrase and for sin is a common one in the Septuagint ; it 
 is found fifty-five times in Leviticus alone ; and is often translated, 
 rather freely, in the Authorized, by the term "a sin-offering." 
 Yet the noun "sin" standing alone, never, of itself, has the 
 meaning of "a sin-offering," not even in Paul's words: "Him who 
 knew no sin, he made sin for us" (2 Cor. v, 21), where, as so con- 
 stantly in Hebrew, a substantive is used for an adjective ; and the 
 word means, forensically, sinful, guilty. " Him who knew no sin, 
 God counted sinful in our stead." The phrase " and for sin " finds 
 its explanation in the words of Peter, " Christ once for all suffered 
 
 * Paul knew Christ only as the risen Lord, glorified and divine; and, 
 therefore, probably dwelt less in his thoughts, and in his writings, on the 
 details and incidents of the Savior's earthly life. He must have known of 
 all these temporal facts concerning the humanity of Jesus; but they paled 
 and receded before the splendors of the Vision that he saw on the way to 
 Dam.ascus, and of the Vision that he saw in the temple. 
 16 
 
'24-2 EXPOSITION. 
 
 for our sins" (1 Pot. iii, 18) ; and in the words of John, "And he 
 liimself is the propitiation for our sins." (1 John ii, 2.) The words 
 " for sin " in our text assign the occasion for Christ's coming, that, 
 by his death, he might atone for the sin of the world. Aside from 
 this need, there is no satisfactory' explanation of Christ's incar- 
 nation. 
 
 In the saying "he condemned (that is, abolished) sin, in the 
 flesh." we must connect tlie plirase " in the flesh " not with the 
 noun " sin," but with the verb " condemned," just as in Ephesians, 
 "Having annulled in his flesh the enmity." Thus construed, the 
 word "flesh," in the sentence "He condemned in his flesh the 
 sin," refers to Christ's own body, and expresses his vicarious death 
 on the cross, by which he was, constructively, "made sin [sinful] 
 for us." " He died as to sin" (Rom. vi, 10), forensically, in order 
 to condemn sin as exliibited in men, and to abolisli it. "We died 
 with him once for all ; and consequently sin has no longer a legal 
 sway over us ; as is expressed in the next verse. 
 
 Verse 4. In order that the justification of the Law may- 
 be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to flesh, but 
 according to spirit. 
 
 The primal purpose of law was not condemation, but justifica- 
 tion. Its voice to man was, "These things do, and live." And 
 man would have been justified by law except for the intrusion of 
 sin, which perverted it into a law of condemnation. But now the 
 vicarious death of Christ has condemned sin, and canceled its 
 guilt, in order that tlie justification, which tlie law was intended to 
 effect, but which it failed to effect on account of sin, may be yet 
 fulfilled in us. But it is fulfilled in us now, not through works of 
 law, but through faith in Christ. Tiiis justification through Christ 
 attaches normally from birth to all the race ; but for adults who 
 have the capacity and the resi)onsibiIity of personal choice it is 
 practically realized by those only who are spiritually minded: who 
 walk, not on tlie lower plane of the flesh, obedient to its evil 
 impulses, but on the higlier i)lane of the spirit, the inner life, 
 approving and practicing wlint is right. The word spirit here, as 
 the connection shows, means man's own inwai-d nature : and so in 
 some of the other places in these verses, from the fourth to the 
 ninth, inclusive. But the same woi-d may mean the Holy Spirit. 
 The difference is marked in the translation by ])rinting Spirit and 
 spirit. 
 
ROMANS VIII. 5, 6, 7, S. 243 
 
 Verse 5. For they that are according to flesh mind the 
 things of the flesh ; but they that are according to spirit, 
 the things of the spirit. 
 
 The expression here, to be according to flesh — according to 
 spirit, means ahnost the same as the expression in the previous 
 verse, "to walk according to flesh — according to spirit." The two 
 classes described are those that live and are in the sphere of the 
 lower, baser motive and aim, and those that are in the sphere of 
 the liigher and nobler motive.. The one class naind the things of 
 flesh ; that is, they savor of, or are prepense to these things ; their 
 thoughts and affections are directed to the gratification of their 
 grosser animal appetites ; and the other class mind the things of 
 the spirit, the loftier things of their better nature: "tlnj seek 
 the things that are above." 
 
 Verse 6. For the mind of the flesh is death ; but the 
 mind of the spirit is life and peace. 
 
 The two clauses characterize the diverse tendencies of human 
 nature, and the diverse issues of each. The word mind, "mind- 
 ing" (or possibly we might say " mindedness "), expresses the pro- 
 pension, or settled bent, of the animal man, or of the spiritual man. 
 The affections and acts of the one tend to death ; of the other, to 
 life and peace. 
 
 Verse 7, 8. Because the mind of the flesh is enmity 
 against God: for it is not subjected to the Law of God; 
 for neither can it be; but they that are in flesh can not 
 please God. 
 
 The flesh is prepense to evil ; it is absorbed in the impulse to 
 self-gratification ; it does not submit to the restraints of law. The 
 appetites of the flesh demand forbidden fruit; it eats, and thus, 
 in the figurative language describing the Fall, "becomes God to 
 itself" (Gen. iii,5) ; that is, it usurps what belongs to God, namely, 
 to make its own law. They who live in this sphere of self can not 
 please God ; their carnal life, the mindedness of the flesh, is 
 enmity towards God, and is death. Yet, under the gospel scheme, 
 those -who are now in the flesh may come to be in the spirit. 
 Such are they whom Paul addresses in the next verse. 
 
 This verse and the tenth verse give us other instances of the 
 Hebrew construction of substantives for adjectives: enmity for 
 hostile ; life for alive. 
 
244 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verse 9. But ye are not in flesh ; nay, but in spirit, if, 
 in fact, the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if any man has 
 not the Spirit of Christ, this man is not his. 
 
 Notice tliat the hyi)Olhptical conjuiiclioii if, twice used in this 
 verse, with the indicative mode (if the Spirit of God dwells in 
 you, and, if any one has not the Spirit of Christ), expresses 
 concepts of fact, and not of contingency, as in tlie Authorized 
 ("dwell, have"), and in the Revised (" if 80 he"). 
 
 These words include, by parity of conditions, all men who ac- 
 cept Christ as the ground of justification. But the apostle here 
 addresses only the Gentiles, whom the Jews regarded outside of the 
 provisions of the gospel; but whom he liokls as " in Christ Jesus." 
 (Rom. viii, 1.) He uses the emphatic pronoun: "But ye. Gentiles, 
 are not in flesh." This phrase, in flesh, has sometimes a literal 
 significance, "in the body;" as the apostle uses it elsewhere of 
 himself, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me ; but 
 the life which I now live in flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of 
 God " (Gal. ii, 20) ; and this sense holds true of believers in Christ: 
 "They are in flesh." But the phrase sometimes has an ethical 
 significance, meaning tlie carnal affections. It is in this ethical 
 sense that Paul uses the term here ; and he says to the Gentile 
 believers, " Ye are not in flesh, but in spirit. Once they were in 
 flesh, when the sinful passions in their members were "bringing 
 forth fruit to death" (Rom. vii, 5); but now they stand in new 
 relations to law, on a different ethical plane. Ye are no longer 
 living in the sensuous, sensual, carnal sphere of flesh. Ye died as 
 to sin, in the person of Christ ; and now^ ye serve God in spirit. If 
 God's Spirit is, in fact, in you, your own spirits are transformed, 
 and ye live in the higher sphere of spirit, and not of sense. 
 
 Verse 10. But if Christ is in you, the body, indeed, is 
 dead on account of sin ; but the spirit is life on account of 
 justiflcation. 
 
 In this verse we have two simple co-ordinate clauses (the 
 body is dead; but the spirit is life) ; where a classical writer, 
 or a modern stylist, would, more logically, have thrown the two 
 into one complex sentence, or period: "Though the body is 
 dead, yet the spirit is life." Similarly, in other places: "Though 
 he counted his body dead, yet he wavered not " (Rom. iv, 19, 20) ; 
 "Thanks be to God, that though ye were slaves of sin, yet ye 
 obeyed from the heart " (Rom. vi, 17). 
 
ROMANS VIII, 11. 245 
 
 Union with Christ is the ground of our deliverance from sin 
 and death. The redemption of Christ delivers our entire hu- 
 manity, body and spirit, from death, but its redemptive power is 
 not at once manifested equally in its results, tln-oughout the two 
 departments of our being. The spirit, immaterial in its substance, 
 at the moment of faith in Christ, is justified, and regenerate, and 
 made coheir with him to eternal life. It is in the nature of jus- 
 tification, in which there are no intermediate or half steps, that 
 its consummation should be instant and complete. But it is dif- 
 ferent with regard to the body. So far as the operation of grace 
 is concerned, the body, though redeemed, is left, for the present, 
 as it was before the spiritual transformation is wrought in the soul. 
 The body is material in its organization, animal, sensual, thrid and 
 rotten with sin ; and is not delivered immediately from the dete- 
 rioration and physical corruption of the fall. And so Paul says, 
 " The body is dead." He calls it dead, not figuratively, but liter- 
 ally, physically ; yet only constructively dead at present ; it is as 
 good as dead, because it is doomed to die at the end of a tempo- 
 rary life on earth, but with the promise of a resurrection to eternal 
 life hereafter. The work of regeneration does not change the 
 physical body, or affect it, except indirectly, and slowly, through 
 a change in the converted man's personal habits. Yet the redemp- 
 tion has planted in the body, for all men alike, the promise and 
 potency of eternal life. But this restoration will come only in the 
 great pallngenesia, " When Christ will transform this body of hu- 
 miliation into conformity witli his body of glory, according to the 
 working with which he is able to subdue all things to himself." 
 (Phil, iii, 21.) It is now a psychical (animal) body ; it will become 
 a spiritual body (1 Cor. xv, 44)— a body the same as now in sub- 
 stance, but reconstructed, or, as Paul says, " transformed" (Phil, 
 iii, 21), for the new spiritual life. This is the promise and the 
 prospect that Paul holds out in the next verse. 
 
 Verse 11. But if the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from 
 among dead men dwells in you, he that raised Christ Jesus 
 from among dead men will make alive also your mortal 
 bodies, on account of his Spirit that dwells in you. 
 
 The tenth verse declared that " the body is dead, on account 
 of sin;" the present verse declares the future resurrection of the 
 body from death. Of course this renewal of our physical life will 
 come then, as the i-enewal of our spiritual life has come now, " on 
 
24G EXPOSITION. 
 
 account of justification." Paul cxjjrcsses tlio same thought, sub- 
 stantially, by saying, on account of his Spirit which dwells in 
 us. The believer who has the witness of the Spirit in himself 
 has an a,ssurance tiiat this mortal body will yet rise immortal 
 from the tomb, lie wlio raised the dead Christ from the grave 
 will make alive also our mortal (dead) bodies from the 
 grave, because of his Spirit which dwells in us. We shall be 
 united with Christ in the sameness with his literal resurrection. 
 
 There are several points in this verse worthy of special note: 
 1. The two names, Jesus and Christ, though often used quite 
 indifferently, yet do not seem to be synonyms here. The word 
 "Jesus," which was the "Savior's" personal name ["Thou shalt 
 call his name 'Jesus,' for he shall 'save' his people from their 
 sins" (Matt, i, 21)], expresses that he was, so far forth, merely a 
 man* who was dead, and was " raised from among the dead." The 
 second name," Christ," which was his official designation (though 
 often becoming a proper noun), expresses that he stood related to 
 us as our Representative and Redeemer; in his resurrection we 
 have earnest of our own. Yet the words are not in contrast, and 
 must not be emphasized in reading. 
 
 2. We are told, here and elsewhere, that it was God who raised 
 Christ from among the dead. The dead Christ could not raise 
 himself by any natural or supernatural powers of his own. It is 
 true that he said, "I will rise," and that it was said of him that 
 "he arose ;" but this must be taken to express the substantive re- 
 sult, without implying his own agency in the matter. But when 
 the agent of Christ's resurrection is definitely named, it is always, 
 as here, God, the Almighty. This is expressly said at least twenty- 
 four times, and implied fourteen times more. 
 
 3. It is also expressly asserted here (and elsewhere) that it is 
 God who will raise up our dead bodies at the last day. Yet we 
 have equally explicit declarations that Christ will be the agent of 
 the last resurrection. The statements are diverse, but not con- 
 tradictory. We infer that, in this great transaction, Christ will 
 represent his Father. His government is a delegated one, and 
 provisional only ; and will end only with the crowning solemnities 
 of the Judgment-day. "Then comes the end, when lie will sur- 
 render the kingdom to God and the Father; then will the Son also 
 himself be subjected to him . . . that God may be all, in all ;" 
 that is, "all things without intermediary, in the case of all men." 
 (ICor. XV, 24,28.) 
 
ROMANS VIII. 12, 13. 247 
 
 4. It is equally clear, therefore, that the Agent of the general 
 resurrection is not to be the Holy Spirit (as expressed in the 
 Authorized and Revised, "through his Spirit"). This translation 
 repi-esents an erroneous Greek reading. The translation here 
 given, "on account of his Spirit," is the correct one. It is God's 
 Spirit, dwelling in us, that redeems, and molds, and fits us, body 
 and spirit, to be heirs of eternal life. And it is on account of this 
 Spirit, which dwells in us, and leavens and fashions us to this great 
 issue, that we shall be raised up in the last day. But the imme- 
 diate Agent of the resurrection is the Lord Jesus: "For if we 
 believe that Jesus died, and rose again, so, also, those who fell 
 asleep will God through Jesus bring with him." (1 Thess. iv, 14.) 
 
 Verse 12. Accordingly, therefore, brethren, we are 
 debtors, not to the flesh, to live according- to flesh ; 
 
 The logical structure of the sentence suggests an additional 
 clause at the end of the verse: " We are debtors not to the flesh; 
 . . . hut to the spirit." The word debtors implies moral obligation. 
 We are under obligation, not to the flesh, the baser, animal part 
 of our nature, to live in accordance with its lusts; but we owe it 
 to the spirit that is within us, the nobler part of our being, to live 
 in accordance with the rule of righteousness, and true holiness. 
 We thus serve our best and enduring interests. The one course 
 leads to death, the other leads to life, eternal. " God will render 
 to every man according to his works." (Rom. ii, 7.) 
 
 Verse 13. For if ye live according to flesh, ye will die ; 
 but if, by the spirit, ye put to death the practice of the 
 body, ye will live. 
 
 The verse describes the diverse consequences which naturally 
 follow the two diverse coui'ses of life. The Authorized translates 
 "ye shall diw — ye shall live, as if spoken with the authority of a 
 lawgiver. The correct translation is that given in the text, ye 
 will die — ye w^ill live, as the words of a preacher, fortelling the 
 normal, inevitable result. 
 
 The word spirit here must be taken as the human spirit ; and 
 the phrase, " by the spirit," expresses the work or agency of man 
 in the sphere of his inward religious life, against the flesh. It is 
 in this sense that Paul bids the Oolossians, " Put off tlie old man 
 with its practices." (Col. iii, 9.) The body must be interpreted 
 as equivalent to " the flesh ;" and " the practices of the body " are 
 
248 EXPOSITIOX. 
 
 the evil moral habits, " the lusts of the flesh." These the believer 
 can put to death, and so will have eternal life. " He that sows 
 to the flesh, from the flesh will reap corruption ; but he that sows 
 to the spirit (his inward man), from the spirit will reap life 
 eternal." (Gal. vi, 8.) 
 
 Verse 14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, 
 these are sons of God. 
 
 The woi-d for is explicative of the word " live " in the preceding 
 verse. They wliu slay tlie carnal man, have life; and tiiey who 
 ^'have life," are sons of God. The saying is, of course, uni- 
 versally true ; not less true of Jews than of Gentiles ; but Paul 
 here has in thought only the Gentiles. The Jews arrogated to 
 themselves an exclusive sonship with God, by virtue of their birth 
 from Abraham ; but Paul here declares that the Gentiles by the 
 yet higher title of a spiritual birth are "sons of God." The verse 
 is not the expression of a new religious experience, but of a normal 
 state of things, such that, forensically, even Gentiles are God's 
 children. This thought of Gentile sonship (and not of Jews only, 
 or preferably), is the same as he develops in the ninth cliaptcr: 
 " Not the children of the flesh [the Jews, descendants of Abra- 
 ham], these are children of God ; but the children of the promise 
 [the Gentile believers] are counted for seed." (Rom. ix, 8.) It 
 is the same thought as he develops at large in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians: " For ye (Gentiles) are all sons of God, through faith 
 in Jesus Christ. . . . And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
 seed, heirs according to the promise." (Gal. iii, 26, 29.) 
 
 Verse 15. For ye received not the spirit of slavery, 
 again, unto fear ; but ye received the spirit of adoption, in 
 •which we cry Abba, Father. 
 
 Tlie apostle, though a Jew, has so identified himself witli tlie 
 Gentiles, that, in writing to tliem, he almost unconsciously uses 
 the two pronouns ye and we indifferently, as if either, or both, 
 would suit his concept. 
 
 The best commentary on this passage is Paul's parallel saying 
 to the Galatians, who were Gentiles: " Because ye are sons, God 
 sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts [notice the inter- 
 change of the pronouns "ye" and "our"], crying Abba, Father; 
 so that thou art no longer a slave, but a son ; but if a son, also an 
 heir, through God" (Gal. iv,6): and, again, to the Ephesians: 
 " Remember that ye, once the GentUes in flesh, were at that time 
 
ROMANS VIII, 16. 249 
 
 without Christ, alienated from the citizenship of Israel; but now 
 in Christ Jesus, ye who were once afar off, became nigh in the 
 blood of Christ." (Eph. ii, 11.) 
 
 The word spirit twice used in this verse, expresses the con- 
 scious sense of slavery on the one hand, or of sonship on the other. 
 The Gentiles " who through fear of death were all their lifetime 
 subject to slavery" (Heb. ii, 15), did not, when they came to 
 believe in Christ, receive this spirit of slavery again, with a view 
 to fear the judgment to come: but, on the contrary, they received 
 the filial sense of adoption into God's family, as his sons, in which 
 they cry Abba, Father. 
 
 The word Abba, the Aranipean word for Father, was the 
 vernacular word which Jesus used in his own prayers. In the 
 garden, he said "Abba, Father, . . . take this cup from me." 
 (Mark xiv, 36.) The disciples, who also spoke Aramaean, them- 
 selves used this word. Later, when they came to write in Greek, 
 they kept the hallowed word of the Master ; but, of course, also 
 translated it into Greek, for the understanding of those who knew 
 no Aramrean. In a similar way, we may speak of "saying the 
 Pater Noster, our Father." 
 
 Verse 16. The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, 
 that we are children of God ; 
 
 The Greek word for Spirit, and the pronouns referring to it, 
 are of the neuter gender. It is not irreverent for us to retain the 
 same gender in English, for both the noun and the pronouns. 
 The Authorized says " itself ;" the Revised " himself." Yet when 
 Christ spoke of the Divine Spirit as the " Comforter," he used' 
 necessarily a masculine noun •,. and the pronoun takes the same 
 gender: " When the Comforter shall come, whom I will send, the 
 Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father, he will testify con- 
 cerning me." (John xv, 26.) 
 
 The word "spirit" is twice used in this verse to express 
 personal agents, and not an abstract sense, or consciousness, as in 
 the preceding verse. The words mean, first, God's Holy Spirit; 
 and secondly, man's conscious self, or spirit. The two agents bear 
 concurrent testimony to our sonship witli God ; the Holy Spirit 
 reveals the fact to our consciousness ; and our own human spirit 
 answers back, with the comforting sense of adoption. 
 
 The point which the apostle makes in this verse is, that, 
 though his readers arc Gentiles, nevertheless God's Spirit bears 
 
250 EXPOSITION. 
 
 them witness that they are as triilj' children of God, as if de- 
 scendants of Abraham. He uses the first personal pronouns, our, 
 we, not speaking in the name of tlie Church universal (and cer- 
 tiiinly not in the name of the Jews), but, as in the last vei"sc, 
 identifying himself with his Gentile hearers. It was in this same 
 feeling of community, or oneness, with the Gentiles, that he said 
 to the Galatian Gentiles: "But wv, brethren, after the fashion of 
 Isaac, are children of promise" (Gal. iv, 28) ; "For we through 
 the Spirit await the hope of justification from faith" (Gal. v, 5) ; 
 and to the Philippian Gentiles: "For we are the circumcision" 
 (Phil, iii, 3). [See Note, Rom. viii, 31.] 
 
 Verse 17. But if children, also heirs, heirs indeed of 
 God, but coheirs with Christ; if, in fact, we suffer with 
 him, that w^e may also be glorified with him. 
 
 The words children and sons are usually discriminated from 
 each other. " Children " is the name of tenderer concern ; " sons" 
 is the term of higher note. " Childifn " marks affection ; " sons " 
 marks respect. " Children " are yet minors ; " sons " have reached 
 their majority. "As long as the heir is a child [in his non-age] 
 he is under guardians; when the fullness of time came [the date 
 of our majority] we received the adoption of sons." (Gal. iv, 1.) 
 But the aged John could address his adult hearers as "children," 
 "little children." Christ is never called God's "child;" but 
 always God's " Son." 
 
 The word "children " here does not suggest Paul's associated 
 notion of minors, nor John's associated notion of " little," or 
 "dear," but describes Gentiles merely as members of God's fam- 
 ily. Of these Gentiles, who are " children of God," Paul declares 
 that, by virtue of that relation, they are also God's heirs; and 
 that, since they are "God's heirs," they are also coheirs with 
 Christ — "coheirs to the inheritance imperishable, undeHled, un- 
 fiuliug, kept in heaven for you" (1 Pet. i, 4). The word "co- 
 heirs" occurs but once again in Paul's writings, and with the 
 same reference to the Gentiles, as here : " It was revealed that the 
 Gentiles are coheirs with us [the Jews] of the promise in CJlirist, 
 through the gospel." (Eph. iii, 6.) 
 
 In both clauses of the verse the word if is the conjunction of 
 actual fact. In the second clause "if" refers to the word "co- 
 heirs" in the first clause; and the meaning of the clause is that 
 " if we share with Christ in his sufferings, we shall also share with 
 
ROMANS VIII, IS. 251 
 
 him in his glory." The apostle's tliought here is, first, of Christ's 
 manifold sufferings tliroughout his earthly life from the contra- 
 diction of sinners and the bitter buffetings of his enemies. In 
 Christ's eartlily sufferings his followers sliared.and share, literally. 
 Christ said, " If they persecuted me, they will persecute also 
 you." (John xv, 20.) The apostolical history testifies how abun- 
 dantly this was fulfilled. The early Christians had constant occa- 
 sion " to rejoice in reproaches, in persecutions, in distresses, for 
 Christ's sake" (2 Cor. xii, 10). John was the only one of the 
 apostles that did not die a violent death; and how countless the 
 noble army of martyrs tluit have suffered with them and with 
 tlieir common Master ! Paul's concept in the verse is that in all 
 these sufferings of Christ we share either actually or construct- 
 ively. But, secondly, and especially, the apostle's tliought is of 
 Christ's vicarious. death on the cross, in which we share, but only 
 constructively. The apostle's language to Timothy covers both 
 phases of Christ's sufferings named above, and of our suffering 
 with him: " If we died with him [on the cross], we shall also live 
 with him: if we endure [with him], we shall also reign with him." 
 (2 Tim. ii, 11.) Similarly Peter says: " Ye share in the sufferings 
 of Clirist, in order that in the revelation of his glory ye may also 
 rejoice with exultation." (2 Pet. iv, 13.) As he passed through 
 these bitter sufferings into his glory, so also his followers must 
 first enter into the " fellowship of his sufferings " (Phil, iii, 10), in 
 both the senses above, in order to enter into glory with him. 
 
 It is from this thought of suffering with Christ here that Paul 
 passes, in the next paragraph, to a description of the transcendent 
 glory which will be revealed in our case in the world of eternal 
 recompense. 
 
 Verse 18. For I reckon that the sufferings of the pres- 
 ent time are not worthy to be compared with the glory- 
 a-going to be revealed to us-ward. 
 
 The conjunction for, which, as usual, is explicative and con- 
 firmatory of what precedes, here connects back to the last words 
 of verse 17, "that we may be glorified with him." The thought 
 is, Though we suffer with Christ, yet we shall be glorified, with 
 him ; glorified, I say ; for our present sufferings will be eclipsed 
 by a greater glory which will yet be revealed in our persons. The 
 paragraph .including verses 18-25 is. logically a long parenthesis, 
 suggested by the words in the seventeenth verse, "we shall be glo- 
 
252 EXPOSITION. 
 
 riticd witli liim." This iJiiragruph describes the sphere and the 
 form i)f the recompense tluit awaits us. It declares that our re- 
 demption, wiiich is yet onlj' partially realized [" the spirit is alive, 
 hid the hoihj is i/cl dead"], will then be completed by the reunion of 
 spirit and bod)/, and will be eternal. 
 
 The apostle's word, I reckon, is the term of mathematical 
 computation. In the light of this reckoning, our sufferings here 
 (" though now for a little while, if need be, we are made to sorrow 
 in manifold trials" (1 Pet. i,6),) ai-e to be counted as of small 
 moment, in view of the great glory which awaits us in the world 
 to come. The pronoun us, in the final phrase ("to us-ward," in 
 was), holds an important place in the exegesis of the passage, and 
 must not be lightly passed over. In the first place this pronoun 
 " us " can not be taken as the indirect object of the verb revealed ; 
 as though the saying meant tliat "the glory will be shown us," 
 that is, exhibited to our view, for our enlightenment. To express 
 this meaning would require the pronoun to be in the dative case, 
 ■hfxiv " to us." Thus Paul writes to the Corinthians: "The things 
 which God prepared for those that love him he reveals to us, rj/tXv, 
 through his Spirit" (1 Cor. ii, 10) ; in which translation the woi-d 
 "to" is merely the sign of the dative case. And this meaning is 
 never expressed (as in this ver.se) with the preposition in, " unto," 
 " as to," "with regard to." Secondh/: We must give the preposi- 
 tion in the phrase in rjixas its full and exact significance, " to us- 
 ward," " with regard to us ;" and the passage means that " the glory 
 will be manifested unto us, with a view to certain definite results, 
 in our case, in our persons, in our body." It is not only not Paul's 
 thought that this glory is to be exhibited spectacularly to our 
 eyes, or revealed verbally to our understanding; but it is his sole 
 thought that this glory is to be made a practical objective ex- 
 perience in our bodies, in their resurrection from the grave. 
 
 ;o r-J 
 Verse 19. For the earnest expectation of the creature 
 
 awaits the revelation of the sons of God. 
 
 The description in this verse is figurative, and very dramatic. 
 The creature, whatever it is, is personified, and endowed with 
 human sensibilities, and human activities. Both the noun and the 
 verb in this sentence are compounded with the intensive woi-d 
 d-rrb, "afar" (or, from afar); and wliile the general meaning is 
 plain, it is difficult to express it in terse and exact terms. The 
 
ROMANS VIII, 19. 253 
 
 noun translated earnest expectation, or " longing," expresses 
 the attitude and feeling of one standing with head erect looking 
 eagerly for something afar off;® and the verb translated awaits, 
 in like manner, expresses the action of one who watches and waits 
 for something from afar. 
 
 The word creature is the difficult word in the verse; and a 
 satisfactory explanation of this word carries with it the explana- 
 tion of other words in the verse, and of the entire passage, to the 
 end of the twenty-fifth verse. In the discussion of this word a 
 close adherence to the meaning given to the prepositional phrase, 
 "to ns-irard," in the eighteenth verse, becomes doubly important. 
 This prepositional phrase," to us-ward," or " as touching us," when 
 critically explained, suggests the explanation of the word "crea- 
 ture ;" and thus leads to the only tenable explanation of the entire 
 paragraph. The critics, neglectful of this direct personal refer- 
 ence in the words "to us-ward," and of the definite exclusion of 
 other things thereby suggested, have been lead into many purely 
 fanciful interpretations of the word "creature." But clearly " the 
 glory that will be revealed," or manifested, at the last day is here 
 declared to be, specifically, "to z<.s-ward," "in regard to us," a 
 "revelation" of glory, in which neither the "creation" at lai-ge 
 nor any assignable part of creation outside of ourselves has a 
 share, — nothing but "us." This thought runs through the para- 
 graph to the final word in the twenty-third verse, " the redemption 
 of our body;" and this explicit word, which the apostle has held 
 in suspense until he has reached the climax, — this word "body" 
 gives explicitly the lucid and sufficient, and only possible, explana- 
 tion of the word "creature." If this explanation is correct, "the 
 creature" is simply the human body; and by this phrase, "the 
 redemption of our body," the apostle shows in what respect this 
 consummate glory is to be manifested " to us-ward." The apostle 
 has already said, "Our body, indeed, is dead on account of sin; 
 but the spirit is alive on account of justification." (Rom. viii, 11.) 
 He recognizes the fact that our redemption, while potentially 
 complete, is, as yet, only partially realized ; but he expects the 
 
 -Milton, In his description of Satan just awaked from the stupor of 
 his fall, says, In words that almost reproduce our text: 
 
 "With head uplift above the wave, and eyes 
 That sparkling blazed."—" Paradise Lost," 1, 193. 
 
254 EXPOSITION. 
 
 time when the body, now subject to the bondage of corruption, 
 will be delivered, from this bondage, this slavery to death, into the 
 liberty of the sons of God. The believer has already, in his inner 
 self, his conscious spirit, the earnest to that effect, the divine 
 pledge of the glory tliat will be his; and he awaits with steadfast 
 assurance the fullness of adoption, tlie redemption of his body. 
 Sucli, in brief, seems to me tlie sole, and tlie satisfactory, and tlie 
 comforting solution of this puzzle of the ages. 
 
 But as other views have so long been accepted (though by 
 none with entire confidence), it is necessary to show in detail that 
 no other view than the one here presented meets the conditions 
 laid down in the text. 
 
 "We may concede in advance tliat the Greek word Krlan, " crea- 
 ture," whose proper explanation is in question, is a term compre- 
 hensive enough to designate any tiling that God has made. The 
 word, standing in different connections, is sometimes translated 
 "creature," sometimes "creation." In this passage the Author- 
 ized inconsistently gives both translations ; the Revised incor- 
 rectly only the latter. The Revisers' word " creation " restricts 
 the sense to the material universe apart from man. But the woi-d 
 "creature," like the Greek word, leaves the sense open to all in- 
 terpretations, including the one here adopted, the human body, 
 For brevity's sake, we group the divergent explanations which we 
 reject into two classes, each, however, having manifold subdi- 
 visions: First, the world below man ; sccondhj, the world of man. 
 
 I. Of these erroneous views, the first is that "the creature" 
 means the world of nature, creation at large, inanimate and ani- 
 mate, exclusive of man. This view was held by Chrysostom, and 
 others, among the ancients, and is held, in whole or in part, by 
 most of the modern commentators. This view is open, at the first, 
 to a fatal objection. It assumes what needs to be proved, and what 
 can not be proved, for it is a false premise, that nature, the mate- 
 rial universe, suffered in the fall of man ; that the inanimate world 
 was disturbed and defaced, and that tlie animal world was subjected 
 to death by the sin of man. It is on this assumption, that some 
 think there will be a reconstruction, in which the material world 
 beneath us will be relieved from the fancied curse, and restored 
 to the happy condition of things at the creation. But there is no 
 evidence whatever, in Scripture, or in science, that the inanimate 
 W'orld, or the irrational animal world, ever suffered disaster by the 
 
ROMANS Vlli, 19. 255 
 
 sin of man.* Nature remains what it was in the beginning. The 
 natural eatastroi)hes around us are not the recoil of sin. Animal 
 and vegetable death was in the world before man, and death in the 
 natural world is, so far forth, as mucli a part of God's jilan, as life. 
 As the material inanimate world, and the animal world did not 
 share our sin, and were not precipitated by our fall, so they do not 
 share our redemption, and will not share our resurrection. Nature 
 has no "earnest expectation," and does not await any i-evelation. 
 The " agony " of inanimate nature for deliverance into the free- 
 dom of the sons of God is an idle fancy. When the beast and the 
 plant die, they have fulfilled the purpose of their being. Only man 
 is capable of sin, or of penalty, or of redemption, or of the expec- 
 tation of it. The material universe beneath us has no part or lot 
 in this matter of a final restoration. It was not lost by reason of 
 sin, and is not recovered by the atonement. 
 
 Further, it is wholly unbiblical that the earth is to be renewed 
 as the future abode of the sainted dead. We need not press too 
 literally the Scriptures that seem to teach that the world is to be 
 destroyed, not " reconstructed ;" as when Jesus said, " Heaven and 
 earth will pass away," and when Peter said, " The heavens will be 
 dissolved ; . . . the earth also, and the works therein will be burned 
 up." But more to the point are the specific declarations that our 
 future home is not to be in this world, however transformed. 
 Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions. I go to 
 prepare a place for you ; and I will come again, and take you to 
 myself, that where I am, there ye may be also" (John xiv, 2) ; and 
 Peter said, " There is an inheritance . . . reserved in heaven for you, 
 ready to be revealed at the last day " (1 Pet. i, 4). 
 
 But the real, the insuperable difficulty in this view, lies in the 
 fact that even if this downfall and recovery of the natural world 
 were true in itself, it is not taught in this passage. Nature taken 
 
 *The " curse " pronounced on the ground (Gen. iii, 17) " for the sake of 
 man," if it meant any objective change in the habitation of man, was 
 clearly not a change In the constitution of things, but only a superficial 
 change in the single matter of its fertility. The soil wjis henceforth to pro- 
 diicp " thorns and thistles," to plague man for his sin: the ground must now 
 l)e cultivated with " the sweat of his face." But the change, after all, was 
 probably not in the physical world, but only subjective in man, a reflection 
 from his different attitude to the objective world around him. Certainly 
 science knows of no Invading or pervading deterioration in nat ure, since 
 the Geological ages. 
 
256 EXPOSITION. 
 
 thus universally does not come within the specific limitations ex- 
 pressed here in the precise term, "to us-ward," or "in regard 
 to lis." This revelation is a concern of ours, and not of the nm- 
 terial universe beneath us, or of any class of Ijeings other than man. 
 
 II The second erroneous view of the word " creature" is that 
 it means the human race, either in whole or in i)art. This view 
 was held by Augustine, among the fathers, and is held by many 
 commentators now. But this view also, in either branch of it, is, 
 like the other, beset with insupei-able difficulties. 
 
 If Paul had really meant mankind as a whole it is strange that 
 he should use so unlikely a designation as "creature." The term 
 might be tolerated if spoken of a single man, or of more,t;onceived 
 of individually, but it would still be a term of disparagement. 
 When the apostle means "man, men, mankind," lie uses the 
 direct word " man," as he does twenty-seven times in this Epistle ; 
 or if he wishes a general collective name, especially for unbeliev- 
 ers, he uses the term KSa-fMos, " the world ;" and he uses the word 
 nine times in this Epistle; for example, "The rejection of the 
 Jews is the reconciliation of the world." (Rom. xi, 15.) 
 
 But aside from the a prion improbability of the apostle's using 
 the far-fetched word "creature" to designate mnnkind at hirgr, 
 this interpretation of the word makes the apostle inconsistent 
 with himself. His description througliout the i)assage (verses 
 19-23), expressly discriminates tlie "children of God" from "the 
 creature," and establishes each of them in a class by itself. So 
 that, if " creature " means man at large, we have then two incom- 
 patible categories: " The creature " (that is according to the hypoth- 
 esis, all the race) and "The sons of God." Notice the apostle's 
 distinctive expressions. 
 
 1. There is to be a revelation of the sons of God. (Verse 19.) 
 
 2. " The creature " also will be delivered into the freedom of 
 the sons of God. (Verse 21.) 
 
 Clearly we can not interpret the word " creature " as meaning 
 all the race. 
 
 Nor can we interpret "the creature" as meaning only a part 
 of the race, the unregenerate, who are not included among " the 
 sons of God." Why should they be described as " groaning and 
 travailing in pain together" [or, with us]? This description may 
 possibly be true, to a limited extent, in the case of a vei*y few 
 enlightened individuals among the heathen, as Confucius and 
 Socrates; but it is not true, even in a remote sense, in regard to 
 
R03fANS VIII, 19. 257 
 
 the great mass of the unregenerato world. Paul has said of the 
 heathen, "They did not choose to retain God in their knowledge." 
 (Koni. i, 28 ) Certainly the thought here is not with regard to the 
 Avorld outside of Christ. We may hope for the salvation of the 
 heathen ; but not on the ground of this passage. The definite lim- 
 itations fixed by the words " to ^fs-ward " restricts the title and 
 promise of eternal redemption to those who are in Christ. 
 
 We repeat that the word "creature," and the tei'ms that 
 characterize it in this verse, ai*e all figurative. They describe the 
 creature as endowed with life and consciousness, and yearning for 
 something that is afar. Such personifications are found in all lit- 
 erature ; some with more, some with less, appropriateness. No 
 doubt with regard to the rejected interpretation, "nature," such 
 a personification, though overstrained, is possible. But with regard 
 to the human body, which is a part (if not a conscious part) of 
 ourselves, the figurative ascription to it, of unrest under its present 
 disabilities, and Of eager longing for deliverance with ourselves 
 [our spirits] is a more appropriate figure. The body is so closely 
 associated with the spirit of man, in fact, and in our thought, 
 that we constantly ascribe to the body personality and conscious- 
 ness, and feelings, and volitions, and acts, as if the body were ac- 
 tually capable of those things which properly belong only to our 
 inward selves. This is in exact accordance with the figurative 
 language of all literature and of the Scriptures elsewhere, in 
 regard to the body, or its members. Thus David says: "My flesh 
 shall rest in hope " (Psa. xvi, 8) ; " My heart and my flesh cry out 
 for God" (Psa. Ixxxiv, 2). The term by which Paul calls the hu- 
 man body " the creature," is exceedingly appropriate. It denotes 
 humble, subordinate i-elation to the spirit. Of course, the soul as 
 well as the body was ''created" by God; but it is of the plastic, 
 physical frame, rather than of the soul, that we ususually predicate 
 "creation," by the " Creator," who "formed us of clay, and made 
 us men." Indeed, this is the figure that most readily occurs to 
 one who thinks of man's dependency. " Shall the chuj say to him 
 that fashions it. What makest thou?" (Isa. xlv, 9.) Paul uses 
 the word "creature" here, in a slightly disparaging sense. He 
 expresses the same concept by a similar term, when he says 
 to the Thessalonians: "That each one of you may know^ to get 
 [get control of?) his own vessel (his person) in sanctification and 
 honor." (1 Thess. iv, 4.) He calls the body " the vessel," depi*e- 
 ciating it as the vassal of the soul. In like manner, too, the 
 17 
 
258 EXPOSITIOX. 
 
 inlrospoctive Hamlet uses a self-disi>aragiiig term about liimself — 
 liis body— " Tliiiie, lady, tliine, whilst tliis machine is to liim." 
 (Ilainlet, ii, 2, 124.) 
 
 The verb awaits, or " exi)ects," describes the longing antici- 
 pation with which "the creature" thus personified looks forward 
 to the time of deliverance. It expresses both the instinctive 
 yearning for that day, and the faith that greets the end from afar. 
 The longed-for deliverance will come at the " revelation of the 
 sons of God," that is, of the redeemed spirits of believers, in the 
 resurrection of the last day: "When Christ, who is our life, shall 
 be manifested, then will ye also be manifested with him in glory." 
 (Col. iii, 4.) The best commentary on tliese words is the saying of 
 Christ, "They that are counted worthy to attain to tliat world, 
 and the resurrection from the dead . . . are sons of God, being 
 sons of the resurrection." (Luke xx, 36.) The resurrection will 
 be the consummate proof of the sonship of believers. Here, in 
 the days of their flesh, " the world maybe knows them not;" but 
 in that day they will be publicly recognized and owned by God, 
 and " manifested " to the world as his sons. 
 
 Verse 20. For the creature was subjected to the frailty, 
 not of its own will ; nay, but on account of him that sub- 
 jected it ; in hope ; 
 
 The w^ord frailty, usually translated "vanity," means, as 
 shown by the connection, "a waning away, blight, death;" and 
 the thought is resumed in the next verse by the equivalent word 
 '"corruption," that is, mortality. To this condition the human 
 body was subjected, not voluntarily by any act or will of its own, 
 but as the consequence from Adam's sin, on account of whom 
 it was condemned to death: "Through his sin, death entered." 
 This fatal result was in pursuance of the divine law; and so we 
 may interpret the verb was subjected in this light. It was God 
 indeed who administratively subjected man to death, but the one 
 "on account of whom" the creature was subjected to vanity, to 
 mortality, was Adam, not God. 
 
 The last words, in hope (or, more literally, " upon a basis of 
 hope"), are to be construed witli the first verb, "it was sub- 
 jected," which expresses God's act, and not Adam's. Yet the 
 words "in hope " do not denote the divine intent in bringing this 
 penal result upon man ; but they express the one gleam of com- 
 fort which was still left to man. "When Pandora's casket lost all 
 
ROMANS VIII. 21,22. 259 
 
 its othei' ti-easures, hope still remained behind. The verse should 
 end with a semicolon. 
 
 Verse 21. Because also the creature itself will be en- 
 freed from the slavery to corruption, [and brought] into 
 the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 
 
 The first word in this verse (^rt) the Revised translates that, 
 as if to expi-ess the substance of the " hope ;" but the Authorized 
 more correctly translates it by the word because, to express the 
 ground of the hope, as found in the great fact of the coming 
 resurrection. The significance of the word also must not be 
 overlooked. It implies that " the creature" is not the only party, 
 or the leading party, concerned in the deliverance. The other 
 party is the spirit of the believer, which has already had this great 
 experience. " Though the s])irit is, already, alive, on account of jus- 
 tification, the body is yet dead on account of sin" (Rom. viii, 10) ; 
 but the body also, though now dead, is destined to a glorious 
 awakening; " it also, as well as the spirit, will be brought into the 
 freedom of the glory of the children of God." 
 
 Corruption is a synonym for frailty in the verse preceding, 
 and means "mortality," "death." "Corruption" is a term that 
 is not predicable of the creation at large in either sense of the 
 word, moral or physical, but is entirely appropriate to the human 
 body. Nor can creation be brought into the glorious freedom of 
 the children of God : only what is human, the soul and the body of 
 man, is capable of such deliverance. 
 
 Verse 22. For we know that all the creature groans 
 with us, and travails with us, until now. 
 
 The clause with the conjunction for is confirmatory of the 
 truth of the preceding verse : "The body will be delivered." The 
 gospel promises it, and all human presentiment and conviction 
 attest it. The words we know mean that we (men generally) 
 accept as a recognized truth the mutual sympathy between the 
 body and the spirit. 
 
 The Authorized and the Revised translation, "groaneth and 
 travaileth together," misses the point of the verse, and misses the 
 striking correspondence of thought and expression with the next 
 verse. Paul does not mean that nature, or " creation," groans to- 
 gether and travails together, as if in mass, or in one conglomerate 
 whole ; but that " the creature" [the body] groans with us, and 
 
2G0 EXPOSITION 
 
 agonizes xinth us; that is, with the conscious spirit of beliovers. 
 This ellipsis of the object of the prepositions in Greek, with [ux], 
 is very common. Here the ellii)sis of the object of the preposition 
 "with" [aw] is exactly parallel with the same ellipsis in the sev- 
 enteenth verse: "If we suffer with [him], we shall be glorified 
 with [him]." In the first clause of the seventeenth verse the 
 Authorized is right ; in the second clause, it is wrong, and the 
 Revised is right. In the verse before us, tlie twenty-second, both 
 translations are wrong in both clauses. 
 
 The word travails with us suggests, as in a figure, the birth 
 pangs which will bring body and spirit into the new resurrection 
 life. The words all the creature mean that our entire Ijeing is 
 absorbed in the "agonizing" for deliverance. This verse declares 
 that the body groans with the spirit, and the next verse declares 
 that the spirit answers back with responsive woe. 
 
 Verse 23. But not only is this [the fact], nay, but also 
 ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also 
 ourselves groan within ourselves, awaiting adoption, the 
 redemption of our body. 
 
 The verse describes the close sympathy between the believer's 
 spirit and his body, and their joint yearning for salvation. The 
 gospel has made full provision for the final salvation of body and 
 soul ; but as yet each lacks something of full adoption. The 
 believer has yet only the firstfruits, or earnest, of the Spirit, in 
 his justification from guilt, and in the regeneration of his nature: 
 while " the body is yet dead on account of sin." Neither the spirit 
 on the one hand, nor the body on the other, can realize the fullness 
 of adoption without the other. The word "firstfruits," by its 
 very meaning, implies that the work of the Spirit is yet incom- 
 plete ; but it involves also the promise of a fullness of harvest. 
 In this state of suspense both spirit and body wait in unsatisfied 
 expectation and longing. " The body groans with us (with our re- 
 deemed spirits), and suffers with us the pangs of the birth agony 
 into life;" and we also. OTirselves with answering solicitude, 
 groan within ourselves, awaiting this fullness of adoption, 
 the redemption of our body. The redeemed spirit is the inter- 
 l)retcr of the voiceless body, its mouth to utter the inarticulate 
 cry for life. Such is the Christian instinct; we yearn for an all- 
 round salvation. " He who wrought us out for this very thing is 
 God, who also gave us the earnest of the Spirit." (2 Cor. v, 5.) 
 
ROMANS VIII. U, ^5. 261 
 
 This all-round salvation will be accomplished only in the resurrec- 
 tion, when the body a]so will be delivered from corruption. Paul's 
 language elsewhere is an exact commentary on this verse, both 
 verbally and in sense : " The Holy Spirit is the earnest (or guaran- 
 tee) of our inheritance, unto the redemjition of Christ's purchase." 
 (Eph. i, 14.) This yearning of the sp'rit in behalf of the body, 
 finds vivid expression in Paul's words to the Corinthians: "In 
 this body we groan, yearning to put on over it, our dwelling-place 
 which is from heaven. . . . We who are in the tabernacle [of the 
 body] groan, being weighed down ; because we will — not to put off 
 [our earthly body], by dying, but without dying, to put on over it 
 [our body from heaven], that the mortal [body] may be swallowed 
 up by the [immortal] life." (2 Cor. v, 1-8.) 
 
 The pronouns " we," " us" in the last two verses of the text, 
 and in the passages quoted in the last note, are spoken, not from 
 the standpoint of our entire being, sp«V?"< and body, but only from 
 the standpoint of the spirit. This is shown by the discrimination 
 in the twenty-third verse. " IFe ourselves [the redeemed spirits], 
 groan, awaiting the redemption of our body." The first clause Not 
 only this, means, "Not only does the body do this" — namely, 
 "groan with us" (verse 22) — "but we ourselves groan with it." 
 Similar ellipses are easily supplied from the connection ; Rom. 
 V, 3, 11; ix, 10. 
 
 Verses 24, 25. For in the hope [only of this resur- 
 rection] we were saved. But a hope, being seen, is not 
 hope : for what one sees, why does he hope for it ? 
 But if w^hat we do not see, w^e hope for it; with patience 
 we await it. 
 
 In view of the translation here given, " For in the hope we 
 were saved,'' it is alinost needless to call attention to the mistake 
 of the Authorized and of the Revised, in the meaning of the pas- 
 sage. Besides their error in Greek, they have introduced a grave 
 error in theology. Men are not saved "fey hope," in any sense of 
 the word, but only by faith. 
 
 The apostle here says, we were saved. The word can be 
 taken either relatively only, or in its absolute sense; either, _^rs<, 
 of the regeneration of our si)irits, and our adoption liere into God's 
 family ; or, secondly, of the completion of God's work in us, body 
 and soul, hereafter. Tlie former si'lvation is but provisional, the 
 earnest of our complete salvation, the guarantee of " the salvation 
 
2G2 EXPOSITION. 
 
 that is ready to be revealed at the last time." (1 Pet. i,5.) It is in 
 the former sense, of provisional salvation, only, that the word is 
 used in this verse: and the verse declares tiiat it was in the hope 
 of this other larger and eternal adoption, in the resiirrectiun, jit the 
 last day, of body and soul together, that we were provisionally 
 saved here and now. The gift of God's Spirit to us is his pledge 
 that the promise will be fulfilled. "Salvation" here is the title- 
 deed to our complete inheritance hereafter; but does not put us 
 in immediate possession of our estate. 
 
 Paul's thought in this discussion about "hope" is very clear. 
 It belongs to tiie concept of " hope," and constitutes a good lexical 
 definition of the word. It declares that hope looks to the future, 
 and not to the present. And so, the apostle with nice discrimina- 
 tion as to the meaning of tlie word, says that a hope (lliat is, an 
 object of hope), which is seen (that is, which is now here, in our 
 present enjoyment), is, according to the definition of the word, 
 not " a hope " at all ; that is, if it be called by its true name, it is 
 a present fruition. For we do not "hope" for a thing which we 
 see (that is, for a thing now in our possession), but we enjoy it. 
 The full salvation wliich we hope for, is, in the nature of the case, 
 yet future, and we shall attain it only on the great day of salva- 
 tion. Meanwhile, led by the present possession of the Spirit, and 
 hoping further for what else we do not " see," we with patience 
 await it from afar. "For we walk by faith, and not by sight." 
 (2 Cor. V, 7.) 
 
 Verse 26. But in like manner also, the Spirit helps our 
 weakness ; for w^e know^ not what we should pray, as we 
 ought ; nay, but the Spirit itself intercedes for us, with 
 groanings unspeakable. 
 
 Tlie discussion which was interrupted by the long parenthesis 
 about the resurrection of the body (verses 18-25), is now resumed ; 
 and the apostle describes tlie intercession of the Spirit in our be- 
 half. This verse, by the words in like manner, connects back to 
 the sixteenth verse. In that verse, the apostle said, that " the 
 Spirit testifies with us (the Gentiles) that we are children of 
 God." In this verse, he declares that in like manner also, the 
 Spirit assists our weakness (or, jiossibly we may explain it, 
 assists us in our weakness). The weakness here spoken of, is not 
 simply feebhiuess of faith, or instability in our life, but, as further 
 described, the inability to frame our longings into articulate and 
 
ROMANS VIII. 27, 28. 263 
 
 definite prayer. AVe would fain come into his audience chamber; 
 but we know not how to call on him, and to get tiie answer that we 
 need. We are burdened in spirit, and oppressed ; we groan for 
 deliverance, but we can not embody our yearnings and sighings in 
 adequate utterance. But the Spirit, which has itself inspired 
 these yearnings, knows what is the unuttered desire of our heart, 
 and intercedes with God in our behalf. Yet not even the Spirit 
 can embody its intercessions in audible, articulate words ; its 
 prayers in our behalf are unuttered, unutterable gToanings. 
 But these groanings, which are the vehicle of our groanings, pierce 
 the Divine ear, and are approved and answered. How often, in 
 the silences, when no human ear can hear, when our own voice is 
 still, our spirits are rapt and tlirilled, in the embrace and uplift of 
 the Divine Spirit, which yearns over us and in us! 
 
 Verse 27. But he that searches the heart, knows what 
 is the mind of the Spirit, because it is according to God 
 that it intercedes for the saints. 
 
 The language here defines God's work and purpose. He de- 
 scribes himself elsewhere as " the One that searches the hearts 
 and the reins " (Rev. ii, 23) ; and thus he knows what is in man, 
 and thus, too, he knows what is the mind of the Spirit, which 
 has its abode in our hearts. The Spirit is given us from the 
 Father, it testifies to us of the Father, and it intercedes for us 
 with the Father ; and its intercessory office is in accordance with 
 the purpose and the plan of the Father. 
 
 But perhaps we may express the apostle's thought more ex- 
 actly yet. In the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh vei'ses, the 
 preposition is vtt^p, which we have seen often has the meaning "in 
 our place." (Rom. v, 7.) If thus taken, the words should be 
 translated definitely, and precisely, " The Spirit itself intercedes 
 for us ;" that is, " in our stead." It is the Spirit that utters our 
 cry to God. 
 
 Verse 28. But we know that all things work together 
 for good, with them that love God, with them that are 
 called according to his plan of old. 
 
 The last word in the verse is usually translated " purpose," but 
 incorrectly. Paul here, and everywhere, carefully discriminates 
 between God's purpose for the salvation of men, and his plan for 
 carrying out his purpose. Logically, purpose, which is subjective, 
 
264 EXPOSITION. 
 
 in the mind, antedates plan, wliich is objective, in the execution. 
 In this verse, Paul does not name the purpose in God's mind, but 
 he names and discusses the plan, tlie project, irpbdtai^, " the plan of 
 old," the working scheme, or measure, which God instituted for 
 the accomplishment of his purpose.* 
 
 God's gracious purpose, and the wonderful plan which he 
 devised to carry out his purpose, dated, both of them, from 
 eternity. The "call" to men into the privileges of this saving 
 scheme took place in time, and from the first, took in all men 
 indiscriminately, Gentiles as well as Jews; or, rather, took in the 
 whole world, being " Gentile " only, before there were any "Jews." 
 In comparison with the Gentiles, who liad the primal claim to 
 those privileges, the Jews, when they came upon the scene as such 
 [the call of Abraham was B. C. 2217], were but parvenus, upstarts 
 of yesterday. The uncircumcised Gentiles, and not the Jews, 
 were, in point of historic fact, God's real " anointed people," and 
 were the ancient Church, though not having an organic constitu- 
 tion. This is Paul's constant and consistent teaching ; he develops 
 the thought at large in the Epistle to the Galatians, esi)ecially in 
 the third chapter; and it is his present contention in regard to 
 the comparative claims of Jew and Gentile. He thinks and writes 
 here, from the standpoint of his apostolate to the Gentiles. He 
 carries an abiding and dominating conviction of their primal, and 
 continued, and just relation to God's plan; and of his own divine 
 call to preach this plan to the Gentiles in all its gospel compass. 
 "To me was this grace given, to preach among the Gentiles the 
 riches of Christ ... in order that may be made known [to the 
 Gentiles (Rom. xvi, 26)] God's wisdom, as respects the eternal plan 
 which he i)lanned in Christ Jesus, our Lord." (Eph. iii, 8.) 
 
 It is of the Gentiles, then, expressly, not of the Jews, or of 
 men at large, including the Jews, but of the Gentiles, in special, 
 that the saying of this verse, and of the verses following, is uttered. 
 Of the Gentiles, standing in the relation to God of being called 
 according to his plan, the apostle says, "All things co-operate 
 witli them for good ;" not even the hostility of the Jews, who 
 would rule them out of the Church, can work them any harm. 
 
 • The verbs to express " purpose," are di\eiv and ^oOXeffOai. " God wills 
 (dfXei) all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 11, 4); "not wishinr/ (/3ouX6^ws) any 
 nifui toporish" (2 Pet. Ill, 9). The corresponding substantives iin- O^Xrjfia, 
 (iovXri, /3ouX77/xtt. These are not the words used In this verse; and this is not 
 the concept of the passage. 
 
ROMANS VIII, 28. 265 
 
 "Though Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledged us 
 not, doubtless thou, Jehovah, art our Father; thy name was our 
 redeemer from of old." (Isa. Ixiii, 16.) 
 
 The word kXtjtoI, correctly translated the called, Paul extends 
 to all the Gentile world. But Calvin interprets it as embracing 
 certain "elect," or "select," men only, chosen from out of the 
 mass of mankind at large, and therefore fewer in number than the 
 whole mass. If Calvin's interpretation be correct, then the chosen 
 men were chosen, so far as we can see, by tlie caprice of God, " out 
 of his mere grace, without anything in the creature moving him 
 thereto," chosen to be God's ''peculiar" people, of course to the 
 exclusion of the rest of mankind. Calvin himself is most pro- 
 nounced on this point of reprobation, which some of his later fol- 
 lowers, rejecting for themselves, deny to be his teaching. His 
 words are : " Many, as if wishing to remove odium from God, while 
 they admit election, yet deny reprobation. But in this they speak 
 ignorantly and childislily : since election itself could not stand, ex- 
 cept as the opposite of reprobation. God is said to set apart those 
 whom he adopts for salvavation. Those, therefore, whom he passes 
 by he reprobates ; and that for no other cause than that he chooses 
 to exclude them. AVhence it happens that so many nations, to- 
 gether with their infant children, were sentenced to eternal death 
 by the fall of Adam, without any remedy." * 
 
 To this choice bit of Calvinistic execration the Westminster 
 Confession adds: "All those whom God hath predestinated unto 
 life, and those only [therefore, by implication, relatively a small 
 number] he is pleased effectually to call to grace and salvation by 
 Jesus Christ." 
 
 But these limitations, or any limitations of the divine call, are 
 not Scriptural. Under the old dispensation the Jews, all the 
 Jews, the nation as a whole, and every individual of the nation, 
 were elected and called as God's people. They were called, with- 
 out their own personal consent, to the enjoyment of all theocratic 
 privileges,— which, however, they could individually accept or re- 
 fuse, at their own volition. But the Jews were not called, as they 
 fondly thought, to a decreed salvation ; for many Jews were lost. 
 Similarly, as Paul shows in the gospel plan, which is only the old 
 ideal plan continued in force, and proclaimed now to all the world, 
 and not to the Jews only, the Gentiles, all the Gentiles en masse, 
 
 Institutes, Bk. Ill, ch. xxiil, $ 7. 
 
266 EXPOSITION. 
 
 and every individual of them, are, in the same sense, elect and 
 called to the same equitable privileges and opportunities as those 
 of the Jews; and, like tlie Jews, all Gentiles individually can ac- 
 cept or refuse at their own volition. All are redeemed, all are 
 called, a thing not depending on themselves severally, but belong- 
 ing to the race at large ; but none, at least none of adult years and 
 self-determination, are finally saved without their own personal 
 volition and co-operation. 
 
 Verse 29. Because whom he of old had in thought, he 
 also of old included in his plan, being conform with the 
 image of his Son ; that he may be firstborn among many- 
 brethren. 
 
 This passage is, perhaps, the most controverted of all in Paul's 
 Epistles. I give, for comparison, the text of the Authorized (which 
 is also nearly that of the Revised) , though, to say the least, it is open 
 to gravest objections on the score of its Greek and of its theology: 
 
 " For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be 
 conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn 
 among many brethren." 
 
 Each several term in the verse needs discussion. 
 
 1. In attempting an examination of the controverted points 
 we must steadfastly keep foremost in our minds that Paul had 
 foremost in his own mind the one purpose, to vindicate the rights 
 of the Gentiles to an equal place in the Church, against the exclu- 
 siveness of the Jews. As the apostle of the Gentiles, he held that 
 the Gentiles vrere always included in God's plan ; and that, indeed, 
 they were so long before the Jews themselves were chosen as the 
 theocratic people. This is his one thought here. He is not think- 
 ing and speaking of men in general — that is, of Gentiles and Jews 
 indiscriminately — but of the Gentiles only, in explicit discrimina- 
 tion from the Jews ; and he is speaking of all the Gentiles en masse, 
 and not of some of them only. But the usual interpretation of 
 this verse is very different. The AVestminster Confession expresses 
 this different interpretation, in part, thus: "By the decree of 
 God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are 
 predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to 
 everlasting death." (HI, iii.) But, we repeat, this verse does not 
 contemplate "some men" only (both Jew and Gentile) as selected in 
 particular out of the race at large, but contemplates the Gentiles 
 only, and nil of them, in mass. 
 
 But in the first clause, whom he of old had in thought, or, 
 
ROMANS VIII, 29. 267 
 
 as the Authorized gives it, " whom he did foreknow," we are met 
 with tlie difficulty that the antecedent to the relative pronoun 
 "whom" is not expressed, and tlie phrase seems, at first sight, 
 vague, and capable of being construed indefinitely in the sense of 
 Calvinistic particularism, "'Those whom [such persons as] he fore- 
 knew." But the antecedent that Paul had in his thought is very 
 definite and precise— not "Such persons as," hut "The Gentiles, 
 them only, and all of them;" "The Gentiles whom he had in 
 thought." True, m this verse he has not expressly named the 
 Gentiles, but, as we have seen, the entire discussion of the Epistle 
 is about them ; it is their case only that he has before him ; his 
 mind is surcharged with his theme ; and, quite unconscious of any 
 grammatical ambiguity in his sentence from the lack of the defi- 
 nite antecedent word, " tlie Gentik's," he uses the word " whom " 
 as referring, of course, to them, the one subject of his thought. 
 But at any rate, in the scope of his thought, logically, there is no 
 room for any doubt. Elsewhere in this Epistle he uses exactly 
 the same language with regard to the Jew^s exclusive of the Gen- 
 tiles. Of them expressly, by name, he declares that " God did not 
 cast ofif his people, the Jews, which he foreknew "—that is, " whom 
 he had in his tliought"- as a definite class, apart from others ; not 
 some of the Jews, but all of them in mass (Rom. xi, 2). Just so, 
 here in the verse before us, he speaks with equal definiteness of 
 the Gentiles, all of them, in mass. This reference to the Gentiles 
 exclusive of others, but inclusive of all of themselves, which was 
 so clear in Paul's own mind, must have been perfectly clear to the 
 Church at Rome, and to all other readers of that day, inclusive of 
 the Synagogue itself, who all knew perfectly well the great issue 
 and the religious interests involved. The Calvinistic interpreta- 
 tion would not have had any pertinent meaning to them, or, indeed, 
 any meaning at all. And this reference to the Gentiles stands 
 equally clear to modern readers who are able to trace the logic of 
 the Epistle. The only definitive antecedent which can possibly fit 
 into the apostle's line of thought is " the Gentiles,"—" the Gentiles 
 whom he had in thought." That is to say, according to Paul's pre- 
 sentation of the case, God did not foreknow and call the Jews only, 
 as the Synagogue held, nor did he foreknow and call a few select 
 men, some Jew and some Gentile, out of the world at large, as 
 Augustine and Calvin interpreted this universal gospel of Christ; 
 but, as Paul's present argument demands, he foreknew and called 
 the Gentiles, not some of them, but all of tliem, in mass. Tliis is the 
 single point that Paul is here intent on making ; and he makes it. 
 
268 EXPOSITION. 
 
 2. This suppply of the definitive word, " the Gentiles," as the 
 antecedent, leads to the j)roper explanation of the word translated 
 foreknew, or, more precisely, '• whom lie of old had {or took) in his 
 thuiujhi." ■' If the discrimination made in the foot-note below 
 holds true, Paul's word here can not mean, as some Englisii readers 
 have understood it, that God uas airare, in advance, of the histor- 
 ical place and career of the creatures whom he himself should cre- 
 ate ; that is, that he foresaw that they would exist, and when, and 
 where, and under what circumstances. Of course all this kind of 
 knowledge belongs to our primary concept of God ; and to affirm 
 such intuition, or awareness of his own works yields no help in 
 understanding this passage, and lies outside of the present line of 
 thought.! But Paul's words have a much larger and nobler mean- 
 's There are in the NewTestament two Greek verbs, oldaand yivuxTKu, both 
 translated by the same word, "■know," and so easily confounded, but which 
 need to be clearly discriminated by the exegete. The former, olda, means, 
 properly, " to be aware of;"' and, so, when used of God, expresses his intui- 
 tion or attribute of omniscience; the latter, yivuffKu, means " to come to 
 know," or, "to take info thought;'^ and, when used of God, e.xpresses some 
 specific, initiative act. Thus the English reader can usually judge, from the 
 connection, which word is used in the Greek Testament. These words are 
 found, each, more than three hundred times; ol5a sixteen times in Romans, 
 and yiviIxTKcj nine times, and twice In the compound form irpoyivwrKU. 
 This latter is the word In the text before u^, In the form irpo4yvu), com- 
 pound of irpo—' before." " of old," and the aorist tense of the verb " he 
 came to know," "he took note of;" and the saying in the text can mean, 
 not that God was aware of the Gentiles, but only, that "of old God took 
 thought for the Gentiles." 
 
 + The word "foreknowledge," used In this passage. In Its Scriptural 
 sense of forethought, does not involve the vexed question of God's eternal 
 awareness, or prescience of contingencies. That question is a matter en- 
 tirely outside of the present line of discussion. The discussion before us 
 is not in regard to God's intuition, or awareness, of men^s future character 
 and actions, but solely in regard to his own gracious forethought for their 
 salvation. And this forethought for them lies wholly in the line of lils 
 fatherly purpose and intervention in Christ,— matters that are not In the 
 sphere of his Intuition, or omniscience, but are absolutely, freely, within 
 his own gracious intention, whether to will them, or to refrain. But In 
 regard to contingencies, where the debate Is not of the divine purpose, but 
 exclusively of man's future character and actions, as dependent on his own 
 free will, the case Is different. Those are not under God's control. Now, 
 man himself does not foreknow (is not aware of) his own future actions, 
 or those of any other man: to him they are contingent ; that is, not deter- 
 minable beforehand. But God's psychological characteristics are of the 
 same nature (if not of the same limitations) as those of man. If a man's 
 future actions are in their nature contingent, undeterminable beforehand 
 by himself, they are also contingent and undeterminable toGod. God does 
 not foreknow (Is not beforehand aware of) the outcome of contingencies. 
 
ROMANS VIII, 29. 269 
 
 ing. His saying, " AVliom he of old Iiad in his thought," expresses 
 God's fatherly, gracious yearning, from of old, for all his crea- 
 tures, his eternal thought and plan, not for a few elect individuals, 
 but for every one of them en masse. True, the verbal limitations 
 here restrict the present saying to the Gentile world. But it at 
 least takes in all the Gentiles, in mass ; and, later, when he comes 
 to discuss tlie futui'e of the Jews, he makes the same sweeping 
 assertion about them: "His people which lie had in his thought." 
 (Rom. xi, 2.) And in this sense "God foreknew" all men, of all 
 races; that is, as Moses once said of the Jews, "He set his love 
 upon them" (Deut. vii, 7) ; he took them all into liis thought, and 
 planned for the salvation of them all alike. 
 
 Yet this view, which, I think, lies on the surface of the apos- 
 tle's saying, is not the one which has usually been taken of it. 
 Two very divergent schools, the Calvinistic and the Arminian, 
 understand and explain the verse very diffei'ently from this view, 
 and very differently from each other. But both agree first in 
 some fundamental errors. The first and chiefest of these errors, 
 which brings on all the rest, is that they assume (what is not true) 
 that the Epistle is a complete system of Divinity, written for the 
 perpetual didactic instruction of the Church of Christ, instead of 
 a polemic discussion of the local and transient issues of the day ; 
 and that it was addressed to the religious needs of men at large, 
 indiscriminately of races, and of their relation to one another. 
 They do not see that the apostle has throughout the Epistle con- 
 stantly recognized and emphasized a broad distinction between 
 Jews and Gentiles ; and that in this verse (as throughout the 
 Epistle), he is speaking of the Gentiles alone, and not of men in- 
 discriminately. They both hold that the words " whom God had 
 in thought," are spoken, not of the Gentiles alone, in mass, or of 
 the world at large, in mass, but of a few individuals, both Jew 
 and Gentile, whom God selected out of the whole number of 
 men in the world ; while the rest of mankind whom he did not 
 have in thought, and did not select in this special sense, are 
 thereby left without hope in the world, though they constitute 
 an immense majority of the race. Further, these schools do not 
 think that Paul's own words sufficiently define or particularize 
 the select individuals whom God thus foreknew ; nor explain 
 on what conditions he foreknew just them, and not the rest of 
 mankind ; and so, in order to express what they respectively 
 assume that Paul must have meant, but left unsaid, they supple- 
 ment his words with some specifications of their own. What 
 
270 EXPOSTTTON. 
 
 those spocifioationa should bo, tlio two schools are far from being 
 agreed. Indeed, it is here tliat Calvinism and Arminianism are 
 most divergent. 
 
 Calvinism declares that the men wliom God selected out of 
 the promiscuous mass of mankind, constitute an exact cataloguable 
 list, whose number is so certain and definite that it can not be 
 either increased or diminished ; that God predestinated these 
 men unto life, out of his mere free grace and love, without any 
 foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in tiiem, or 
 any other thing in the creature moving him thereunto; and that 
 the rest of mankind God passed by and ordained them to wrath, 
 for their sin. 
 
 The Arminian divines also hold that God selected out of the 
 promiscuous mass of mankind, Jew and Gentile, certain men, 
 limited in number, but not a definite cataloguable list, whom he has 
 foreknown and predestinated to eternal life, not, as the West- 
 minster Confession teaches, by an act of mere sovereignty, with- 
 out any foresight of faith, or anything in the creature moving liim 
 thereto, but expressly on the higher ethical ground of their fore- 
 seen faith in Christ: and that the rest of mankind are not 
 included among the elect on account of their lack of individual 
 faith. 
 
 But none of these views, either those in which the two schools 
 agi'ee, or those in which they disagree, express Paul's concept. 
 They are not in accord with his theme in the Epistle, or in the line 
 of his present discussion ; and they are found nowhere else in the 
 Bible. Neither in this chapter, nor anywhere else does Paul speak 
 of election to eternal life. For God does not elect men to life, but 
 only to opportunities ; and he does not elect particular individuals, 
 but only masses of men. And here he is speaking, not of men at 
 large, but of the Gentiles only, and of them not severally, but in 
 mass. Paul does not deny, what the synagogue held, that the 
 Jews were elect and called ; but he holds, what the Jews denied, 
 that the Gentiles also, all of them, are equally God's children, God's 
 elect, God's called, the objects from of old of his fatherly concern 
 and fatherly ingathering. And it is of the Gentiles, in mass, as 
 over against the Jews, that Paul uses here these words: ["The 
 Gentiles] whom God of old had in his gracious thought." Those 
 gracious and spacious words, "whom he of old had in thought," 
 leave no room for any interpi-etative addition about God's sov- 
 ereign unconditional choice of "some" men from among his 
 
kOMANS VIII, 29. 271 
 
 creatures; or, on the other hand, about his "foresight of faith" 
 n some men, as a condition of their election. The saying in our 
 text that " God foreknew the Gentiles," and the parallel saying in 
 the eleventh chapter, that "he foreknew the Jews," can mean 
 only this (but how grand is this meaning, how it ennobles the 
 gospel plan!) that " from eternity God had them, all of them, all 
 Gentiles and all Jews, in his thought, his fatherly thought." This 
 is the point that, emphasizing Paul's words, I wish to enforce, that 
 it was all of the Gentiles, all of the Jews, in mass, whom God from 
 eternity had in his thought, and called to the privileges of the 
 Church of Christ. God devised the gospel plan to save all men 
 from the ruin of the fall. " He foreknew all men," not an elect 
 few only ; that is, he had all men in his thought, both the men of 
 the synagogue, and the men outside of the synagogue ; and of 
 those both, not only those who afterwards should have faith, but 
 those who should not have faith ; and the latter as really and fully 
 as the former.* 
 
 3. The next debated point in this verse is involved in Paul's 
 Greek word, irpowpia-ev. This word the Authorized translates by 
 the English word "predestinated," and the Revised by the word 
 " foreordained ;" with what difference in the meaning of the words 
 the Dictionaries fail to tell us. These words convey to most read- 
 ers, as well as to the divines of the Westminster Assembly, the 
 idea of an irresistible decree of God, an inexorable foredoom of 
 men, to something good, or to something ill, — and for the most of 
 the race the latter. But this is not the meaning of Paul's Greek 
 verb. This meaning is exactly expressed by the common English 
 
 * This sense of the word "foreknew" is in harmony with all that we 
 read in the Biljle in regard to God's outlook for men, whether In mass, or, 
 as the word is sometimes used, in regard to certain individuals. Of the race 
 at large, David cries, " What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psa. 
 viii, 4) ; and Job says, " What is man, that thou shouldest set thy mind 
 upon him?" (Jobvii, 17). Of Abraham, Individually, God said, "I knew 
 him [had him in my thought], to the end that he may comand his house- 
 hold after him. [The Hebrew has the telle conjunction 1 1^ X "] J7 O 7, " In 
 order that," or " to the end that:" and it does not mean, as the Authorized 
 translates it, " I know him that he will command his house after him."] 
 (Gen. xviii, 19). Of Jeremiah, God said. " Before 1 formed thee, I knew thee 
 [had thee in thought], and ordained thee a prophet to the nations." ( Jer. 
 1, 5.) Of the Jews, God said, " Only you, of all the families of the earth, did 
 I know [had you In my thought as the theocratic nation]." (Amos ill, 2.) 
 "The Lord chose thee to be a special people to himself." (Deut. vii, 6.) 
 
•273 EXPOSITION. 
 
 words " markod out," "delimited," or "circumscribed," that is, 
 " included in CnKl's plan."* 
 
 This is the only predestination that the Bible knows anything 
 of, — God's eternal forethought for man's salvation, an eternal in- 
 clusion of them all in the gracious i)lan of tlie gospel. God did 
 not "predestinate" (decree) the Jews, as they thought, or any 
 one else, to everlasting life ; and he certainly did not " foreoi-dain " 
 the countless majority of the race, or any single soul, to dishonor, 
 and wrath, and everlasting death, "to the praise of his glorious 
 jitxtice!" The fatalistic decree, tauglit by Augustine and Calvin, 
 and formulated three Imndrcd years ago in the Westminster Con- 
 fession, and iield even yet by some belated theologians, to an 
 indefeasible salvation of the elect and an inevitable damnation of 
 countless "reprobates," is not found in the teachings of the New 
 Testament; and the last half of it is, as Calvin himself called it, 
 "a horrible decree," a di-eadful travesty of God's most gracious 
 forecasting for all the sons of men. 
 
 The translation here set forth," he included them in his plan," 
 expi'esses the apostle's concept in full ; and the clause should end 
 with a comma. 
 
 4. In the next clause the Authorized and the Revised add the 
 complemental infinitive " to be " to express what they conceive to 
 be the specific purpose of the divine "predestination" — namely, 
 that man, as if previously unlike Christ, should now become con- 
 formed to his image. But it is not the teaching of the New Testa- 
 ment that men are unlike Christ; and this is not the apostle's 
 thought, and it is not the construction or the meaning of the 
 sentence. First, the leading verb, as we have seen, does not mean 
 " predestinated," but " included ;" and, secondly, there is no telic 
 infinitive " to be " (or " to become "), expressed or understood, in 
 the Greek sentence ; and, thirdly, the next woi-d is not the participle 
 
 *Tliese words, "markod out,' express tlie full content of the Greek 
 verb. The Authorized and the Revised surreptitiously Import Into this 
 meanlnj; the added notion, not found or implied in the Greek verb, of the 
 preposition "unto," ns if the verb meant "/le marked them out unto"'— thfit 
 is, "destinated " or '-ordained them unto the being conformed "—though 
 there is no terminus m quern " to be." expressed or understood. The word is 
 compounded of Trpo— "of old." "dating from eternity "—and optfw— "to 
 bound, to include in definite limits." This verb is the word from which 
 we get the English word "horizon," the line which "bounds" or "circum- 
 scribes our field of vision." In Paul's use of the verb here, it declares that 
 God from of old swept the lines of his plan around the Gentile world. 
 
ROMANS VIII, 29. 273 
 
 " conformed " (though tliis is approximately correct for the sense), 
 and is grammatically the adjective conform (like other com- 
 pounds, "uniform," "multiform," "reform," "deform"*); and, 
 fourthly, this adjective is not predicative of an assumed verb, " to 
 be," but attributive to the word them ("the Gentiles"), under- 
 stood, the object of the verb "predestinated," "included in his 
 plan;" and the translation sliould run, " He included them ('the 
 Gentiles'), men conform with the im.age of his Son." The 
 clause does not express the divine purpose, but the ground of the 
 divine forethought and forecast for the Gentiles; that is. God 
 counted them in, not in order that they might become conform 
 with the image of his Son, but because they were already conform 
 with his image, already conform with it by the very fact that they 
 were men, ''created in his image" (Gen. i, 27), sharers with Christ 
 in the same humanity, body and soul. It is in this explicit sense 
 that Paul said to the Gentiles of Galatia: "Because ye are sons, 
 God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts." (Gal. iv, 6.) 
 And so, fifthly, the last word, " image," means, not Christ's moral 
 image of holiyiess, but his natural image, all that made him man. 
 It is in this sense that in the Resurrection Chapter, Paul says: 
 "As we bore the [natural] image of the earthly man, we shall bear 
 also the [natural] image of the heavenly man." (1 Cor. xv, 49.) 
 And to the Philippians he says: " "We await the Lord Jesus as our 
 Savior from heaven, who will refashion our body of humiliation, 
 conform with his glorious body." (Phil, iii, 21.) 
 
 This clause, which expresses a complete sense, should be 
 punctuated with a semicolon. 
 
 5. It is only in the last clause, that Christ may be firstborn 
 among many brethren, that the apostle expresses the purpose 
 of the divine action. This verb, ''that Christ may be," is not de- 
 pendent, as in the Authorized and the Revised, upon the word 
 "conformed," but on the verb "predestinated," "included in his 
 plan ;" and it sets forth the end that God had in view in his large 
 plans for the world. This divine aim was not so much to glorify 
 Christ among his brethren (though this is also true), as to gather 
 many brethren to Christ. The emphatic word here is "many;" 
 and, like Paul's other salient word " all," we can not make it too 
 emphatic. The apostle's thought is that God, with his gracious and 
 wide outlook, embraced in the scope of the gospel plan, not the 
 
 "• More dr»^adful and deform."—" Paradise Lost," li, 706. 
 18 
 
274 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Jews only, but the numberless Gentiles as well, " in oi-der that 
 Christ may be firstborn'' among many bretliren ;" that is, the 
 divine election and call of men into Church relations here, and 
 their resurrection to eternal life, are not of the Jews only, who, 
 racially, were comparatively insignificant, " the fewest of all 
 peoples" (Deut. vii, 7) ; nay, but the horizon of the gospel sweeps 
 the compass of tlie globe ; it is, and was from of old, inclusive 
 of the whole Gentile world. This is Paul's concept in the word 
 *'inany." Christ is to be counted firstborn, not, as the Jewish 
 synagogues would have made him, of the few Jews only ; not, as 
 Calvinisna would make him, of a few elect saints, to the exclusion 
 of all the rest of tlie world ; but as the Pauline gospel makes him, 
 "firstborn of maiiy brethren ;" that is, of the whole Gentile world, 
 a "multitude that no man can number." 
 
 With tills underlying thought and Interpretation, this verse in 
 particular, and the entire paragrapli in whicli it stands, instead of 
 being irreconcilable with our ideas of right, and incapable of ex- 
 planation on the basis of God's fair dealing with men, becomes 
 luminous, generous, noble, and in harmony with our sense of the 
 Divine equity and with our concept of the cosmopolitan gospel of 
 Christ. It is a preacliable gospel. Paul declared that lie was not 
 ashamed of it. He was able to look men in the face without 
 blushing for sucli a gospel, or for himself as Christ's ambassador. 
 The gospel proclaims to every man an equal chance. God remains 
 tolerable, his government unimpeachable, man's freedom invio- 
 late; and Christ can be preached as the Savior who "wills that 
 all men shall be saved and come to the knowledge of tlie truth." 
 
 Verse 30. But whom he of old included in his plan, 
 these he also called ; and whom he called, these he also 
 justified ; but whom he justified, these he also glorified. 
 
 The verbs in this verse express the successive steps of the plan 
 which God planned of old, and which he lield, in his counsels, 
 potentially accomplished in Christ, for the entire race, past, 
 present, and future ; though, in fact, the fifth and final act in the 
 series will be historically i-ealized only at the last day. 
 
 *The term "firstborn" Is usually understood as expressing Christ's 
 official pre-eminence. But the connection suggests that It here has refer- 
 ence to the general resurrection. It Is thus that Paul calls hlin " the first- 
 born from the dead" (Col. 1, 18), and John calls him " the firstborn of the 
 dead" (Rev. 1, 15). 
 
ROMANS VIII, SI. 275 
 
 The words of Paul were spoken in the line of his argument for 
 the Gentiles, and must be so interpreted ; yet they are general, 
 and broad enough to cover the case of all men. The gospel scheme 
 knows no distinctions among men on the basis of nature, or of 
 divine decree. What the gospel provides and does for our race, it 
 provides and does for all races alike ; what it does for one man, it 
 does for all men. The differences which God has established 
 among men in this world are differences, not in their moral and 
 spiritual status, but only in their providential and temporal cir- 
 cumstances. Other distinctions of caste, or social institutions, or 
 positions, are the work of men themselves; and "God does not 
 respect them." 
 
 We may notice how strongly the points enumerated in this 
 verse confirm the exegesis of the chapter and of the Epistle at 
 large. The apostle presents the work of justification as the central 
 and controlling issue in the discussion; and he does not discuss, 
 or even allude to, the subject of sanciification, as one of the steps 
 in this climax. 
 
 Verse 31. "What then shall "we say in regard to these 
 things ? If God is for us, who is against us ? 
 
 The question, "What then shall we say? is usually a chal- 
 lenge from an opponent ; but here seems to be in the line of the 
 apostle's own thought, the inevitable conclusion from his teachings 
 in regard to God's plan for the Gentile world. And so, if a chal- 
 lenge at all, it may be counted as Paul's challenge to the Jewish 
 gainsayer. And the apostle now may well ask his Jewish opponent: 
 " What shall we say in reference to this overwhelming evidence of 
 divine concern and effective interposition in behalf of the Gentile 
 world?" According to this explanation, the pronoun "we" rep- 
 resents not only Paul, but the opponent as well. But in the next 
 clause the personal pronoun us — "for us, against us," — is spoken 
 from the standpoint of the Gentiles, and not of the Jews ; and 
 shows, as so often, that the apostle of the Gentiles here identifies 
 himself with them. And with this thought, he asks the question, 
 If God is for us, — if God is on our side, if God stands for us Gen- 
 tiles, who is there against us? But, possibly, we may let Paul's 
 last pronoun " against us " include One more. It would well accord 
 with his line of thought : Christ and the Gentiles are an overwhelm- 
 ing majority: we march to victory! "Who is against us?" 
 Against the Infinite God, how less than nothing the mightiest an- 
 
276 EXPOSITION. 
 
 tagonist; how beneath all count, the juDtij Jew! If God of old 
 marked out tlie Gentile world for this place in his sight, tlie Jew 
 will gainsay in vain. 
 
 Verse 32. He who, at least, spared not his own Son, 
 but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him 
 graciously give us all things? 
 
 The words which tlie apostle uses in this verse, in regard to 
 Christ, he quotes from God's words to Abraham when he offered 
 up his son Isaac : "Because thou didst this thing, and didst not 
 spare thy son, thy beloved son — " (Gen. xxii, 16). Abraham's 
 offering of his son was the greatest proof he could give of his 
 obedience to God. In like manner, God's giving up his own Son 
 to death was the greatest proof he could give of his love for man. 
 Jesus himself declared to Nicodemus, " God so loved the world 
 that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever has faith on 
 him may not perish, but may have eternal life." (John iii, 16.) 
 This thought Paul here reiterates: " He gave him up (to death) 
 for us all," and then adds, that, " since God gave this greatest 
 gift, much more will he with him, give us all things." The Greek 
 verb in the last clause means more than "give," it means give as 
 a matter of grace. 
 
 Verses 33, 34. "Who will charge aught against God's 
 elect? "Will God, who justified them? Who is he that 
 will condemn them? Is it Christ, who died? but, rather, 
 who was raised? who also is at the right hand of God? 
 who also intercedes for us? 
 
 The leading questions in these two verses are a definite repro- 
 duction of the more general thought in the question in the thirty- 
 first verse. There it was asked, generally, " Who is against us?" 
 Here the deprecated antagonism is set forth in terms of judicial 
 arraignment. The reference is, of course, to the captious opposi- 
 tion of the Jew to the equality of the Gentile. 
 
 These questions (as also in the thirty-fifth verse) are not asked 
 for information, but argumentatively, and they imply negative 
 answers—" There is no one." But the answer in each case is given 
 in the form of a rebutting question. The rejoinder has thus a 
 stronger rhetorical force, and the piled up questions at the end 
 of the thirty-fourth verse, so characteristic of Paul's cumulative 
 style, make a very striking climax. 
 
 The woi-ds, God's elect, in this verse are spoken of the Gen- 
 
ROMANS nil. 35, 36. 211 
 
 tiles. They were elect of God, " who elected them in Christ, before 
 the^foundation of the world." (Eph. i, 4.) They were of old in 
 God's thouglits ; they were included in his plan ; they were marked 
 out as his own; they were called to the oi)portunity of salvation. 
 While the race was still one, and Gentile, " God established his 
 covenant with them, and with their seed after them." (Gen. 
 ix, 9.) God's election is not an election of some particular men 
 to life, but an election of all men to the opportunity of life. In 
 this sense the Gentiles were chosen en masse. The call of the Jews 
 afterwards (which did not cancel, or suspend, the call of the Gen- 
 tiles) was not to life in any sense that was not already theirs in 
 common with the Gentiles, but to special theocratic and mission- 
 ary functions in the way of God's religious j^rovision for the world 
 at large: "Jehovah, thy God, chose thee to be a special people 
 unto himself, above all the peoples which are upon the face of the 
 earth" (Deut. vii, 6) ; but certainly not to the salvation of every 
 individual Jew, and certainly not to the exclusion of the Gentiles 
 from the earlier covenant and from the opportunity of salvation. 
 All Gentiles and all Jews have always had the opportunity of life. 
 But it is very far from being the teachings of the Scriptures that 
 all persons, Gentile or Jew, on the ground of being of these elect 
 peoples, are personally righteous, or are even desirous of being 
 saved. Opportunity is not always importunity. "God wills that 
 all men should be saved ;" but at the same time sorrowfully con- 
 demns the men who disobey. 
 
 Here the Gentile world is spoken of as " God's elect ;" and the 
 verse declares that against them, therefore, the gainsaying of the 
 Jew can avail naught. "Who will bring charges against God's 
 elect? Will God, the One that justifies them?" This simple pre- 
 sentation of the case is the conclusive reductio ad absurdmn. If 
 the Infinite God justifies them, surely the cavil of the petty Jew 
 counts for nothing ; it weighs less than the dust of the balance. 
 
 Verses 35, 36. Who will separate us from the love of 
 Christ? Will affliction? or anguish? or persecution? or 
 famine? or nakedness? or danger? or sword? according 
 as it has been written, that, 
 
 For thy sake w^e are put to death all the day long ; 
 
 We w^ere reckoned as sheep for slaughter ? (Psa. xl, 22.) 
 
 The leading question is a C(jmprehensive one, intended to 
 cover all the points not touched on in the previous verses. And 
 
278 EXPOSITION. 
 
 the apostle, assuming that the Jew avails naught against us, now 
 further asks, in tornis of the widest possible i*ange, "Who will 
 separate us from the love of Christ towards us? And then, 
 as lu* fan niune no jursou in answer to liis (juestion, he names 
 seven temporal troubles that maj' befall God's children, but none 
 of which can separate them from his love. The language seems to 
 be a reminiscence of the words of the Temanite: "He will de- 
 liver thee in six troubles; yea, in seven no evil will touch thee, — 
 in famine, in war, in destruction," etc. (Job v. 19.) Paul's list is 
 not the same as the older list ; but to name the things in either list 
 as separating us from God is to reject them, and to reject the whole 
 possible catalogue of such merely external troubles. Not a whole 
 Iliad of woes can separate us from Christ ; but they may draw us 
 nearer to him. " He will not hide his face fi-om us in the day of 
 trouble." (Psa. cii, 2.) "Though tlie outward man decay, yet 
 the inward man is renewed day by day." (2 Cor. iv, 16.) 
 
 Paul's word sword at the end of the thirty-fifth verse sug- 
 gested to his mind the apt quotation in the thirty-sixth verse, 
 which is accordingly exegetical of this word only. The 'interroga- 
 tive mark should therefore be carried forward to the end of the 
 thirty-sixth verse. 
 
 Verse 37. Nay, but in these things all, we do more 
 than conquer, through him that loved us. 
 
 The intensive verb in this sentence, we do more than con- 
 quer, means that we wage not merely an equal contest with our 
 troubles, but that we are overvictorious through Christ that loved 
 us. The troubles of this life, and especially the opposition of the 
 Jew, do not exclude us from the covenant, do not sap the peace 
 of God's children, much less alienate them from their fealty to 
 him. The best commentary is Paul's own saying to the Corinthian 
 Gentiles: "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, 
 works out for us more and more exceedingly an eternal weight of 
 glory." (2 Cor. iv. 17.) 
 
 Verses 38, 39. For I am persuaded that neither death, 
 nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, 
 nor things to come, nor powers ; nor height, nor depth, nor 
 any other creature, w^ill be able to separate us from the love 
 of God, w^hich is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
 
 The explicative conjunction for as.signs a reason for the pre- 
 ceding verse ; and expands the thought begun in the thirty-fifth 
 
ROMANS VIII. 38, 39. 279 
 
 verse, that nothing will be able to separate us from the love of 
 Christ. In tliat verse seven external troubles, of the many inci- 
 dent to human experience, are specified, which, yet, the apostle 
 declares, will not be able to separate from the love of Christ. 
 But here, in the thirty-eighth verse, he advances a step still further, 
 and says that no active force, animate or inanimate, will be able to 
 separate us from the love of God. He designates ten such forces. 
 The exact meaning of some of these words is in doubt ; but the 
 three styled angels, principalities, powers seem to denote va- 
 rious orders of the heavenly hierai'chy, as held by the Jews, and 
 incidentally recognized by the Cliristian Scriptures. Paul in cata- 
 loguing these angelic orders does not assume that they are hostile 
 to man ; but that for illustration's sake only they may be con- 
 ceived as working against us. In this same way Paul says to the 
 Galatians, " If an angel from heaven pi'each a gospel different from 
 that which we preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal. i, 8.) 
 The other words in this list denote mere natural forces, which can 
 have no animus against us ; but may also be conceived of as be- 
 coming obstructions. But most probably the apostle in the fervor 
 and rapidity of composition catalogued these ten individual forces 
 quite promiscuously as they occurred to him (as also the seven in 
 the thirty-fifth verse), and without having any very definite con- 
 ception, himself, of them severally ; and he, perhaps, might, with 
 equal appropriateness, have named as many more. This is con- 
 firmed by the vagueness of the last one of the ten named: " None 
 of those forces, or things, or any yet different creature." 
 
 Such is the noble, inspiring conclusion of tliis most noble 
 chapter. The grandeur of the apostle's theme, and the grandeur 
 of the apostle's thoughts, and the grandeur of the apostle's style, 
 can not be sui-passed, if they can be equaled in all the world's 
 literature. Erasmus, in his commentary on verse 35, says, and we 
 may extend his remark to the whole chapter, "What did Cicero 
 ever say more grandly eloquent ?" 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Verses 1, 2. I say the truth in Christ, I do not lie ; my 
 consciousness bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 
 that I have great grief and unceasing anguish in my heart. 
 
 The argument in tlie jM-evious chapter has clearly demonstrated 
 that the Gentiles hold an equal jjlace with the Jews, in the eternal 
 and now consummated plans of God. All Scripture testimonies, 
 of which Paul quotes many, point to the fact, that, from the first, 
 the Gentiles (who once were all there were in the world), were 
 ever present in the thought of God, and were included in his 
 plan. The eiglith chapter is tlie triumplial pa?an of the Gentile 
 world, as sons of God, in the Church of Clirist. No one in heaven, 
 or earth, or hcH, can separate them from the love of God in Christ 
 Jesus. The issue in their behalf has been made up, the case heard, 
 the verdict reached. And, so far as concerns the Gentiles, which 
 was the one matter in debate, there is no longer need to vindicate 
 their rights, and the apostle might now have staid his hand. 
 
 But there is also another issue made up in the apostle's mind ; 
 and to this issue he devotes the next three weighty, much debated 
 chapters. The question that he here discusses is no longer. Where 
 do the Gentiles stand? but, reversing the investigation, rather, 
 "Where do the Jewn stand before God ? He no longer inquires, Do 
 they still hold their former pre-eminence in the Church? rather 
 he inquires. Do they hold any place in it at all ? 
 
 And to the consideration of this grave question the apostle 
 now addresses himself. We shall however follow his discussion 
 better by presenting in advance an outline of the New Testament 
 teachings, and especially Paul's own teachings in regard to his 
 own people, and in regard to their relation past and present and 
 future to God's plan for the world at large. 
 
 1. God's plans from the first, as we have abundantly seen, took 
 in the entire race indiscriminately. But afterwards, in view of 
 
 280 
 
ROMANS IX. 1, 2. 281 
 
 the increasing wickedness of the world, and the corruption of 
 religion among men, God selected a i)articular family, and race, 
 to become an organized Church for the worsliip of God; and a 
 missionary Church, for the recovery of the rest of the world. 
 
 2. This position and its privileges were given provisionally to 
 Abraham and his posterity ; not, as the Jews finally came to 
 tliink, for any personal merit, in themselves, nor yet solely for 
 themselves, to the exclusion of the Gentiles from the provisions 
 of grace ; but, on the contrary, explicitly for the conversion of the 
 Gentiles. God, in calling Abraham, expressly said to him, "In 
 thy seed shall all the nations [Gentiles] of the earth be blessed." 
 (Gen. xxii, 18.) 
 
 3. God's choice of Abraham and his posterity was not arbitrary 
 or capricious ; but for sufficient and evi4cnt reasons. He selected 
 Abraham on account of his faith in God ; as a man fitted to be the 
 chief in a great religious movement; and later, from tlie stock of 
 Abraham, by various eliminations of the less promising scions of 
 the family, he selected Isaac, rather than the firstborn son Ish- 
 mael, and Jacob, rather than the firstborn son Esau, because of 
 their natural predispositions which fitted them to become the 
 fathers of a nation charged with special religious functions. 
 
 4. Of this nation, God became the King, or civil Ruler, in as 
 real a sense as he became their God. Such a government in which 
 the civil and the religious functions are united is called a 'Hheoc- 
 racy." Josephus, who coined this word, and who first gave the 
 Israelites this appropriate name, says: "Our legislator [Moses; 
 but Moses, under God] ordained our government to be what, by a 
 strained expression, may be termed a theocracy, by ascribing the 
 authority and power to God." (Apion II, 16.) 
 
 Even after the establishment of the kingdom of Israel under 
 Saul, and his successors, until the final destruction of the State, 
 this theocratic concept of the government was still formally re- 
 tained ; God was still thought of as King ; the State was a kingdom 
 of God, on earth ; the eartlily kings were his vicegerents. 
 
 5. The call of the Jews as the theocratic people involved for 
 them not only their citizenship in the nation, but also their mem- 
 bership in the State Church ; which two things, however, in the 
 Jewish mind were identical. These civil and religious privileges of 
 the Jews were altogether of an external character; and attached 
 to them en masse absolutely, by birthright in State and Church; 
 but they did not involve their individual acceptance with God, and 
 
282 EXPOSITION. 
 
 their final snlvntion : just as, contrariwise, the non-call of Ishmai'l, 
 and of Esau, and of the Gentiles at largo, into this citizenship and 
 Church metnbersliip, ccrtainl}' did not involve tlieir damnation en 
 mass*', or individually ; and did not exclude them severally from 
 the grace of God. No doubt the Jews with their special theocratic 
 privileges had better religious opportunities and encouragements 
 than the Gentiles ; but the Gentiles were also equally objects of 
 God's love and care, equally elect to salvation, and, though they 
 were not yet outwardly called, en masse, into an organized and vis- 
 ible Church, their title was only dormant. But every man of them 
 could still make his individual calling and election sure. Every 
 man in both classes, Jew and Gentile, equally needed to work 
 out his own individual salvation, independently of his national 
 franchise. 
 
 6. While God, in the order of his providential government, 
 dealt with the elect nation en masse, he also always, in the sphere of 
 his grace, dealt with each soul, individually. All Jews, indiscrim- 
 inately, were in the theocratic kingdom by virtue of their natural 
 birtli from Abraham and Jacob ; no single adult Jew was in the 
 spiritual " kingdom of God," except by virtue of this new birth of 
 the Spirit, from his individual faith. So Jesus said to Nicodemus, 
 " Verily I say to thee, ye [that is, ye Jews; notice the plural pro- 
 noun), must be born again; lyour Jewish birth does not avail]. 
 Unless one (even a Jew) be born from water and Spirit, he can 
 not enter into the [new spiritual] kingdom of God." (John iii,5.) 
 And in this particular, Gentiles could stand side by side with 
 Jewish believers, and be counted with them as " children of God." 
 The Jews trusted to their national descent; they relied on works 
 for justification ; the Gentiles who had none of these boasted 
 qualifications of birth and works, could come into God's kingdom 
 only by the inward qualification of faith. And so Christ said to 
 Nicodemus, that " every man [Jew or Gentile] that has faith may 
 have life eternal." (John iii, 16.) And it is Paul's thought in his 
 gospel, that as all Jews were in the theocratic kingdom by birth, 
 but must enter the spiritual kingdom by faith, so all Gentiles, 
 also, though failing the outward qualifications, are already, like 
 the Jews, subjects, potentially, of tiie kingdom of grace ; and every 
 adult of either class may by faith at any moment become experi- 
 mentally a member of that kingdom. The doors open to each be- 
 liever, Jew or Gentile, at his own forceful will. Said Christ to the 
 Jews, " Since the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom 
 
ROMANS IX. 1, 2. 283 
 
 of heaven suffers violence, and violent [strenuous] men of what- 
 ever nationality take it by storm." (Matt, xi, 12.) 
 
 7. God planned his Church on earth, from the first, on gener- 
 ous lines ; lie intended it to unfold at last into a spiritual kingdom 
 which should know no limit but that of the entire race. The Jews 
 knew all this ; their own Scriptures were full of it. Moses and all 
 the prophets taught this coming universal reign of Messiah, and 
 the free accession of the Gentiles into the spiritual kingdom of 
 God. And they also warned the Jews against unfaith in these 
 prophecies, and foretold their rejection, if disobedient, from the 
 theocratic kingdom. And Christ told them, " The kingdom of God 
 will be taken from you, and will be given to a nation [clearly the 
 Gentiles] bringing forth the fruit thereof." (Mark xxi, 43.) If 
 the Jews had accepted him as their Messiah, and his plans for 
 their Church, what a resplendent future would have been theirs! 
 They might long since have won the world to Christ. Instead, 
 what an awful tragedy their history has been ! That last most 
 wonderful prophecy of Moses promised them glorious blessings. 
 Instead of these, they incurred the dreadful curses denounced 
 therein upon a disobedient and gainsaying people. (Deut. chapter 
 xxviii.) 
 
 8. But the Jews from the first systematically misunderstood 
 the nature and purpose of their call. They deemed themselves 
 favorites of heaven ; they prided themselves upon their descent 
 from Abraham, and upon the covenant with the fathers, and upon 
 the circumcision which was its seal. Instead of seeking to become, 
 as God intended them, a Church and a home for mankind at large, 
 they became ever more narrow, unsympathetic with the spir- 
 itual needs of others, inhospitable, repellent. They neglected 
 their one call as a propagandist Church, and closed the doors of 
 hope to the Gentile world. They did not welcome proselytes, until 
 within the century before the coming of Christ, and then not from 
 a love of souls. They believed the Church of Moses was final ; and 
 they felt themselves secure of a place in the Church here, and of 
 eternal salvation hereafter. They thought no Jew, however un- 
 worthy otherwise, could perish ; and no one of any other nation, 
 however righteous, could be saved, except by becoming a Jew. 
 It is true that Gentiles without circumcision were admitted as 
 inquirers to the worship of the synagogue, but they were not ad- 
 mitted to the worship of the temple, or to partake of the passover, 
 or even to eat with a Jew. Indeed some even of the Jewish Chris- 
 
284 EXPOSITION. 
 
 tiuns taught the Gentile Christians, " Unless ye be circumcised 
 with the rite of Moses ye can not be saved." (Acts xv, 1.) 
 
 9. God's covenant witli tlie Jews was not absolute and irre- 
 versible, but contingent on their obedience. God was not bound 
 by the letter of his promises; but during all their history lu-ld 
 himself free to cancel his covenant and i)romises for cause. Time 
 and again he changed his course towards the kings of Israel and 
 the people, and revoked his promises, and drove them into cap- 
 tivity, and at last finally canceled his covenant with them, both 
 as nation and as Church. The principle of his conduct towards 
 tliem was explicitly announced in tlieir Scriptures: "At wliat mo- 
 ment I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, 
 to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it ; and tliat nation 
 concerning which I spoke, turn from its evil, then I will repent of 
 the evil which 1 thought to do to it. And at what moment I shall 
 speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and 
 to plant it, and it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice ; 
 then I will repent of the good witli which I said I would benefit it." 
 (Jer. xviii, 7-10.) 
 
 10. And now in these chapters Paul teaches that the condem- 
 nation so long threatened has come upon them. They have 
 rejected Jesus as Messiah. God rejects them as the theocratic 
 people, the basis of his Church. Henceforth he will have no 
 theocratic nation, and will build his kingdom and his Church, not 
 upon Jew^-born men, but upon regenerate men of any nationality 
 as the spiritual foundation stones, Jesus Christ himself being the 
 chief Corner-stone. And he calls the Gentiles into this open and 
 free communion. 
 
 11. But we must recollect that the rejection of the Jews from 
 being the special theocratic nation, which was, of course, a rejec- 
 tion of them en masse — men, women, and cliildren — did not fnvolve 
 the rejection of any Jew, individually, from the possibility of being 
 saved. The Jews thus rejected were not, therefore, " turned into 
 hell," but simply fall back into the primitive and promiscuous con- 
 dition of the race from which their great forefather had been called, 
 and which the Gentiles at large still filled. And now, no longer 
 distinguished by any religious prerogative from the Gentiles, tlii'y 
 could enter only on the ground of individual faitli into the spiritual 
 kingdom of God, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The syna- 
 gogue of the Jews- still survived as a voluntary religious organiza- 
 tion, though it was now hostile to Christ, " a synagogue of Satan " 
 
ROMANS IX\ 3. 285 
 
 (Rev. ii, 9) ; but many individuals from the synagogue, yet in ever 
 diminishing numbers, "cleaved to Christ." 
 
 And so Paul, while he unsparingly condemned their course as 
 apostates from Christ, did not count them as hopeless reprobates. 
 Wherever he went he sought to preach to the Jews first of all. He 
 never taught the eternal perdition of the Jews en masse ; but ex- 
 pressly declared that " God did not cast away his people which he 
 had in his thoughts and plans." 
 
 The sustained sentiment of the New Testament in regard to 
 the Jews, especially the common people of them, is one of for- 
 bearance. Christ prayed for them, " Father, forgive them, for they 
 know^ not what they do" (Luke xxiii, 34) ; and Peter said to the 
 Jews : " I know that in ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers " 
 (Acts iii, 17) ; and Paul said with regard to himself: " I obtained 
 mercy, because I did it ignorantly, in unbelief" (1 Tim. i, 13); 
 and he said with regard to his brethren: " My heart's desire and 
 prayer is for them, that they may be saved" (Rom. x, 1). He 
 would certainly not have prayed for men whom he knew to be 
 foredoomed reprobates. 
 
 It was with such views with regard to God's plan, and such 
 feelings with regard to the Jews, that Paul wrote these chapters. 
 But he wrote them with deepest grief and sorrow of heart. He 
 was himself a Jew, proud of the mighty traditions of his people, 
 and of their holy I'eligion ; he loved his people as his own soul, and 
 would sacrifice his life to save them from rejecting Christ and 
 froin being themselves rejected from the Church for their unfaith. 
 Yet in these chapters he judicially declared their rejection from 
 the Church of the fathers, which has now become the Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 Verse 3. For I could wish that I myself were anath- 
 ema from the Christ, for [in the place of] my brethren, 
 my kinsmen according to the flesh. 
 
 Two critical remarks: 1. The article with the word "the 
 Chi-ist" shows that the apostle uses the tei'm here, not (as usual in 
 the Epistles) as a proper name, but as an official designation, " the 
 Messiah," which is the sense that appeals to the Jews.* 2. The 
 
 -The word Christ is found In this Epistle slxty-slx times as a proper 
 name (sixty times without the article nnd six times more with the article 
 for deflnitiveness); but only twice with the article as the Jewish official 
 designation;— in this verse, and in the fifth verse, " From whom is the 
 Messiah." But cf. note on Rom. vli, 4. 
 
286 EXPOSfTION. 
 
 proposition, inr^p, in the phrase, for my brethren, must be taken 
 logically in the sense of "in the place of," or " instead of." (Cf. 
 Rom. V, 7.) Paul here thinks of himself, not as being made an 
 anathema in behalf of, or for the beivfit of, his brethren — that is, as a 
 sacrifice or expiation (which does not give any appropriate sense) — 
 but only as a substitute for them. 
 
 In order to know to what doom Paul would yield liimself in 
 the place of the Jews, we must first inquire to wliat doom tliey 
 were themselves exposed ; for it is this doom only that he would 
 assume in their stead. It has been too rashly taken for granted 
 that their condemnation was to eternal damnation; and that it 
 was, therefore, eternal damnation to which Paul would devote 
 himself in their stead. But this was not Paul's concept with re- 
 gard to the unbelieving Jews. 
 
 We have seen that Paul never taught or conceived that 
 the Jews, whether eii masse or individually, were doomed to be 
 damned, on the ground of unfaith in tlie Messianic promises, or 
 that even in their apostasy they were beyond the immediate reach 
 and the ultimate saving power of the gospel. All that Paul thought 
 or taught in regard to the status of the Jews was, that they 
 had been displaced, en masse, from being a theocratic people ; 
 and that, as individual Jews, in which relation alone God now 
 regarded them, they, by reason of their personal unfaith in the 
 Messianic promises, and by reason of their rejection of Jesus as 
 the Christ, had not become incorporated spiritually in the king- 
 dom of God on earth, the Church of Christ. They were anathema 
 from the Christ; they were en masse counted outside of the 
 community, and individually out of communion with the Christian 
 Church. Notice their fall, and just how far its consequences 
 i-eached. The common people of the Jews had at first heard 
 Christ gladly ; and were almost ready for a profession of faith in 
 him; but misled by their spiritual guides, they came to look upon 
 him with suspicion, and renounced him and his teachings; and 
 even followed the chief priests, who pursued him to the death as 
 the enemy and subverter of their trusted Judaism. Yet even to 
 the last, the mass of the people (as is the fact with regard to them 
 at the present day], were not incorrigibly wicked: they still 
 believed in God ; they still worshiped him as of old ; they still 
 clung to the Scriptures, and they still claimed to look for the 
 promised Messiah. Amid much in them that was condemnable, 
 there was still much that was commendable. And surely not all 
 
ROMANS IX, S. 287 
 
 the Jews who had thus been carried along with the current of pop- 
 ular prejudice, and who rejected Christ, were doomed to eternal 
 damnation for their unfaith. During all Paul's ministry, and later, 
 tliere continued to be many conversions from among them to 
 Cliristianity, until the destruction of the Jewish State (A. D. 70), 
 and the utter overthrow of the Jewish Church. And during all 
 the centuries since, though conversions to Christianity have been 
 fewer, they have never ceased. And, further, the separation of 
 the bulk of the nation from Christ is not final, but only for the 
 limited period of their unfaith: and Paul tells us, that some day 
 the veil will be taken from their hearts, and the Jewish people will 
 come back en masse to Christ; "and so all Israel as a people will 
 be saved." (Rom. xi, 26.) 
 
 These last words, " all Israel will be saved," can have no other 
 meaning than that of the restoration of the Jews e)i masse to mem- 
 bership in the visible Church of Christ. Yet, when the Jews 
 shall have been restored to membership in the organic Church, it 
 will not be, as it was not of old, to any separate nationality, or any 
 theocratic prominence, or any specially favorable conditions ; but 
 they will come into the Christian Church, indiscriminately, on a 
 common level with the Gentiles. This was already foreshadowed 
 to Paul's mind by the absorption into the Church of Christ of the 
 many thousand individual Jews who had accepted faith in Christ. 
 
 The question of the meaning of Paul's wish turns then upon 
 the word " anathema." The Authorized translates it by the word 
 "accursed;" that is, as it is popularly understood, "eternally 
 damned." That the Greek word may have this worst sense is 
 doubtful ; but it properly expresses only putting under ban, or 
 "separation" (which is the translation given here in the margin 
 of the Authorized); that is, excommunication from the Church. 
 This milder sense became the accepted one later on, in both the 
 synagogue, and in the Christian Church. The Revised correctly 
 transfers the word "anathema." "Anathema" is a matter of eccle- 
 siastical discipline, exercised by man, and not by God ; and can 
 not carry eternal consequences (though, doubtless, ecclesiastical 
 excommunication for cause suggests danger of hell-fire). This is 
 the sense of the word in this passage. When Paul thinks of 
 anathema in connection with the Jews, the utmost that he has in 
 his thought is, that the once elect people are now ''separated" 
 en masse from the Messiah — that is, from the Messianic Church of 
 the fathers, in which they and he gloried — and in fellowship with 
 
288 EXPOSITION. 
 
 which was the normal way of salvation ; and he thinks of their 
 separation as disciplinary only, and not damnatory or eternal. 
 Condemnation different from this Paul never dreamed of for his 
 bretliren, the Jews. And tliis is tlie utmost that he has in liis 
 thought in regard to himself, when he says, " I could wish that I 
 were myself anathema from the Christ in the place of my breth- 
 ren." In his grief over their unfaith in Messiah, and their rejec- 
 tion from their time-honored position, he declares, that to save 
 them to the Church and to Christ, he would fain, if so it could be, 
 devote himself, whom they hated, to excommunication in their 
 stead. The man who had five times been expelled from the syna- 
 gogue, with the minor excommunication, ignominiously, " with 
 forty stripes save one," and, so far as Jewish discii)line could com- 
 pass it, had been formally "given over to Satan, that he might 
 learn not to blaspheme," felt that he could gladly endure this 
 graver and final excommunication from Messiah ; that is, from all 
 ecclesiastical privileges (w'hether in synagogue or church), in their 
 stead, if, by this sacrifice and ignominy, he could save them to 
 Christ and the Church. But surely Paul, in this contemplated 
 devotion of himself, instead of his brethren, did not deem or 
 dream that it included his own personal alienation from Christ, 
 and an eternal damnation. Such a thought was utterly foreign 
 to all his being. He has just said in his triumphal words in the 
 last chapter, " I am persuaded that nothing will separate me from 
 the love of God, in Christ Jesus, my Lord" (Rom. viii, 38) ; and he 
 surely does not now straightway unsay this, or mean that " I could 
 wish to be damned from Christ instead of my brethren ;" that is, 
 as he did not hold that his brethren were condemned to damna- 
 tion (which is not the meaning of anathema, an ecclesiastical dis- 
 cipline only), so he could not think of himself (the above quotation 
 shows it), as personally alienated from " Christ Jesus, his Lord." 
 
 But, after all, though the wish that he expressed was not so 
 dreadful as is commonly thought, we must notice that the form of 
 expression which he used, clearly implied that he did not really 
 conceive such a personal substitution of himself in the place of his 
 brethren to be within the possibilities, whether from the human, 
 or from the Divine point of view. Paul's saying was but the imjjul- 
 sive expression of an imaginary case. His contingent phraseology 
 showed that he did not himself regard it as possible. The saying 
 " I could wish," implied the condition l/thi' circuinatances permitted; 
 and showed that he did not expect it. He merely says that he 
 
ROMANS IX. 4, 5. 289 
 
 would it might be so, knowing at the same time that it could not 
 be so. 
 
 Verses 4, 5. "Who are Israelites ; whose is the adop- 
 tion, and the glory, and the dispensations, and the legis- 
 lation, and the temple service, and the promises ; "whose 
 are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ, as concern- 
 ing the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever ; Amen. 
 
 The name Israel was given to Jacob after he prevailed in 
 prayer. " Thy name shall no more be called Jacob [Supplanter], 
 but Israel [Prince of God]." (Gen. xxxii, 28.) This name of 
 honor became the corporate name preferred by the nation, as a 
 whole, until the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam, when 
 it was adopted as the national designation by the northern kingdom 
 of the ten tribes ; the southern kingdom taking tlie name Judah. 
 During the captivity, the ten tribes disappeared as such from 
 history ; though many Israelites came back with the captives from 
 Judah. Thenceforward the people collectively were called Jews. 
 But contemporaneously with this later national designation, the 
 name Israel was still used, though now with a higher religious 
 significance. This is the honorary and religious title which Christ 
 gives to Nathanael: "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no 
 guile." (John i, 47.) It is the complimentary term that Paul 
 here employs to express the religious dignity of his brethren ; and 
 which further on he uses in regard to himself, "For I am an Israel- 
 ite " (Rom. xi, 1) ; but when he speaks Of himself, not as a Church- 
 man, but nationally, in secular connections, he uses the other 
 name, " I am a Jew of Tarsus " (Acts xxi, 39). 
 
 In a former passage (Rom. iii, 2), Paul named a single point 
 in which the Jews had an institutional, but not a moral superiority 
 over the Gentiles, — that they had the oracles of God ; but here he 
 enumerates eight more points in which the Israelites [now the 
 complimentary name], surpassed the rest of the world, — 1. the 
 adoption ; 2. the glory ; 3. the dispensations ; 4. the legislation ; 
 5. the temple service ; 6. the promises ; 7. the fathers ; and 8, the 
 descent of the Christ [Messiah]. These points are all of an exter- 
 nal character, and named the franchises that belonged to the Jews 
 en masse. They are worthy of consideration severally. 
 
 1. The word adoption, or " sonship," is used to express the 
 special call of the elect, priestly nation, to great and sacred privi- 
 leges with God. But the same word is used in the gospel conception, 
 19 
 
290 EXPOSITION. 
 
 to express the more intimate filial relation of individual believers. 
 This relation was sealed to their consciousness by the Spirit of 
 God. " He redeemed them that were under the Law, that we may 
 receive the adoption of sons ; but because ye are sons, God sent 
 forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." 
 (Gal. iv, 5.) [Notice the unconscious confusion of the pronouns, 
 " them, we, ye ;" which is no confusion after all, seeing that in 
 Paul's thought, Jews and Gentiles are now all one.] 
 
 2. The word glory expresses, probably, what the Rabbins 
 called the " Shekinah," the visible sign of God's presence, upon 
 occasion, between the Cherubim, above the mercy seat. It 
 appeared to Moses, and to the high priest on the day of atone- 
 ment, as representatives of the congregation at large. The 
 Shekinah w^as a literal vision, not figurative; and it ceased with 
 the destruction of the first temple. But Haggai, at the building 
 of the second temple, promised, that "the glory of the latter 
 house should be greater than the glory of the former." This is to 
 be understood figui-atively, of the coming of Christ. " The Desire 
 of all nations will come; and I will fill this house with glory." 
 (Hag. ii, 7,9.) 
 
 3. The word dia6rjKai, usually translated " covenants" — that is, 
 a compact, or contract, between God and man — is better trans- 
 lated " disposals," or dispensations, to express God's sovereign 
 arrangements for man. The divine dispensations began with 
 Adam, the first man, and then with Noah, the second head of the 
 race ; but the dispensations specially noted here, are those vouch- 
 safed successively to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to the 
 Church of Israel. These gracious dispensations, expressing God's 
 purposes and plans, were renewed upon each successive occasion, 
 with growing fullness and definiteness, until the final one with 
 regard to Christ. Yet, in point of fact, God has had but one dis- 
 pensation in all his dealings with men ; and the plural number 
 here denotes but the repeated confirmations of his one gracious 
 promise, though each time with "more grace," and with enlarged 
 scope. 
 
 4. The Legislation means especially the giving of the Levit- 
 ical Law on Sinai. Tliis law was the code which regulated both 
 Church and State; and which, in its enduring principles, survives 
 in large part, in the legislation of all the nations in Ciiristendom. 
 This Sinaitic Law was puV)lish('d with thundcrings and lightnings, 
 in the sight and hearing of the people ; so that all the people that 
 
ROMANS IX. 4, 5. 291 
 
 were in the camp, trembled. For no other people did God ever 
 enact law with such displays of pomp, and majesty, and power. 
 '' Did ever people hear the voice of God as thou hast heard, and 
 live ?" (Deut. iv, 33.) This is sometimes called the " Mosaic Law," 
 as recorded in the Pentateuch. Yet from Paul's point of view, we 
 may properly include in his word " legislation" the entire body of 
 divinely revealed Law, as found in the Hebrew Scriptures. 
 
 5. The temple service was the solemn and imposing cere- 
 monial worship of the temple at Jerusalem. Other ancient relig- 
 ions had showy and expensive temples, and priesthoods, and 
 sacrifices ; but there was no system of worship that could compare 
 in magnificence and significance with that of the Jews. The Jew- 
 ish religion alone had the supernatural sanctions that made their 
 service holy and revered in the sight of the worshipers. Though 
 their temple service was mainly ritual and spectacular, it was 
 often interpenetrated with sincere devotion and spiritual-minded- 
 ness. It iinpressed itself upon the imagination and the conscience 
 of the worshipers, just as the pomps and vanities of Papal Rome, 
 and of other sacerdotal churches imi)ress themselves upon the 
 plastic superstitions of men, — possibly in both cases usefully for 
 unspiritual people. But genuine Christian worship rejects these 
 external observances. Christ declared that the true worshiper 
 does not need forms and outside helps: "Believe me, the hour 
 Cometh, and now is, when neither in Samaria, nor in Jerusalem, 
 shall ye worship the Father. The true worshipers will worship in 
 spirit and in truth." (John iv, 23.) 
 
 6. The promises were God's pledges to Israel of blessings 
 both temporal and spiritual, — the former of the land of Palestine 
 as a possession, and all worldly prosperity ; the latter of spiritual 
 prosperity, especially the gift of Messiah. All their religion cul- 
 minated in this, " I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and 
 he shall be called the Lord our Eighteousness " (Jer. xxiii, 5) ; 
 " Of the increase of his government, there shall be no end upon 
 the throne of David" (Isa. ix, 7). Such are the Messianic proph- 
 ecies, rich and explicit, and definite, " which in Christ are Yea, 
 and in him are Amen ;" and which (though Israel to this day is 
 blinded to their sense), are fulfilled in no other. 
 
 7. The fathers were the patriarchal ancestors of Israel. 
 Moses expressly limits the term to these, " Possess the land which 
 the Lord sware to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to 
 give to them, and to their seed after them." (Deut. i, 8.) But 
 
202 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Jewish usago recognized tlie twelve sons of Jacob as " patriarchs" 
 (Acts vii, 8), though many of them were at first unworthy men; 
 and David also bore this title of " i)atriarch " (Acts ii, 29) ; and to 
 all these men the Jews looked back, not only as fathers of the 
 twelve tribes, but in thic spiritual sense, as " fathers in Israel." 
 
 8. The last clause in this verse is usually and correctly trans- 
 lated, " and from whom is the Christ, as concerning 
 
 the flesh, "who is over all, God blessed forever; Amen." 
 Aside from dogmatic considerations, no i-eader of this Greek sen- 
 tence would ever think of any other punctuation, or translation, 
 or explanation. The Socinian exegetes place a period at the word 
 "flesh," and translate and explain the next words as a doxology 
 to God: "He that is over all, God, be blessed forever; amen." 
 This is possible for the Greek, though in view of the connection, 
 it is intolerably abrupt as well as inconsecutive. But not a single 
 one of the Greek fathei's, or of the Latin fathers, ever felt or 
 mooted any exegetical difficulty. Both grammatically and exe- 
 getically, the words are applicable to Christ. The Scripture 
 authorities justify this: for example, John says, "The Word was 
 God " (John i, 1) ; Christ said of himself, " I and the Father are 
 one" (John x, 30) ; Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God " 
 (John XX, 28). And Paul gives Christ Divine attributes: "All 
 things have been created through him, and to him." (Col. i, 16.) 
 The literature on the subject of this verse is very extensive ; but 
 there would have been no debate, and no literature, as there is 
 really no doubt, if men had not a dogmatic and unscriptural 
 novelty to maintain. 
 
 This specification is the last and highest that the apostle can 
 name among the prerogatives of the Israelites. It was an unfading 
 honor to them that the Messiah should be born from their race ; 
 and his entire lineage is twice recorded in the New Testament, both 
 for verification of the promises, and for honor to his ancestry. 
 Yet no personal advantage or benefit accrued to his race, or to a 
 single member of his family,. from his connection with them. He 
 was a Jeiv ; but in a large and better sense, he was man, and akin 
 to the world at large. He showed no nepotism during his life ; and 
 at his death he sundered all family ties, and thereafter recognized 
 only the relation in which he stood to the common race of man. 
 It is not even probable that he ever met his mother after his 
 resurrection. It is an interesting fact that, though he had 
 " brothers " and " sisters," these had no prominence because they 
 
ROMANS IX. 6, 7. 293 
 
 belonged to him; and of them only James and Jude are named 
 as having a place in the Church; and the entire family probably 
 died out early. The last kinsmen of Christ named in history or 
 tradition were " two grandsons of Jude, the brother of the Lord," 
 whom Eusebius mentions (Hist. Ill, 20), as poor peasants. Chris- 
 tians, in Judea, surviving till the reign of Trajan, A. D. 98. 
 
 Verses 6, 7. But I do not imply such a thing- as that 
 the word of God has fallen away. For not all those who 
 are from Israel are Israel : nor yet, because they are seed 
 of Abraham, are they all his children ; nay, but [it has 
 been written], In Isaac [only] will thy seed be called. 
 (Gen. xxi, 12.) 
 
 We have seen, again and again, the inveterate persuasion of 
 the Jews that God had called them, as descendants of Abraham, 
 the heirs of the promises, to an indefeasible place in the theocratic 
 kingdom here, and to an eternal salvation hereafter ; and that these 
 privileges were theirs, to the exclusion of the rest of the world. 
 These views Paul now proceeds finally to refute. He has shown 
 that not only the Jewish exclusiveness has no basis in the Scrip- 
 tures ; but that, contrariwise, the Gentiles were expressly included 
 from the first, in God's eternal provisions for the world. He will 
 show further, that the call of the Gentiles, with its two phases of 
 citizenship in the theocratic kingdom, and of membership in the 
 organized Church, was wholly in the lines of God's providential 
 administration, and not in the realm of his spiritual administration. 
 These things were provisional and temporal only, and the Jews 
 enjoyed them en masse, by virtue of their descent from Abraham, 
 and Isaac, and Jacob, the heirs of the Messianic promises. But 
 membership in the spiritual family of God, with its religious 
 experiences here, and promise of eternal life hereafter, was con- 
 tingent on their personal faith, and was extended to them individ- 
 ually, and not e7i masse. And this inner call and religious expe- 
 rience was open to the Gentile as fully as to the Jew. 
 
 Now it was the revocation of their theocratic call, and their 
 rejection from communion with the Church of Christ, that occa- 
 sioned the sorrow wliich the apostle expresses in the second verse 
 of this chapter. But though he sorrows over the downfall of his 
 brethren, he yet says, in verse 6, " I do not imply such a thing as 
 that God's promise has fallen away." The privilege of spiritual 
 life is still theirs; though the encouraging opportunity may be 
 
204 EXPOSITION. 
 
 witlidrawn. And so, God's i)roiiiisp, which is Messianic and uni- 
 versal in its trend, and not particular and personal to tlie Jews, as 
 they thouglit, remains true and sure to any one that has faith; it 
 is only the Jewish interpretation which is false and untenable. 
 
 The language of the promise to Abraham, renewed and en- 
 larged seven times, was, " I will establish my covenant between 
 me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant ; 
 and I will give to thee, and to thy seed, all the land of Canaan for 
 an everlasting possession ; and I will multiply tliy seed as the dust 
 of the earth, as the stars of lieaven, and as the sand which is upon 
 the seashore; and in thy seed will all the nations [Gentiles] of the 
 earth be blessed." (Gen. xvii, 7 ; xxii, 17.) 
 
 In the next generation, God made the same great Messianic 
 promise to Isaac: " I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed 
 as the stars of heaven ; and I will give unto thy seed all tliese 
 countries ; and in thy seed will all the nations of the earth be 
 blessed." (Gen. xxvi, 4.) 
 
 In the third generation, God renewed the Messianic promise 
 to Jacob: "To thee will I give this land, and to thy seed ; and thy 
 seed shall be as the dust of the eartli ; and in thee and in thy seed 
 will all the families of the earth be blessed." (Gen. xxviii, 14.) 
 
 God's promise was not concluded in this earthly sense, nor 
 restricted to the earthly seed. All spiritually-minded Jews must 
 have long felt that the promise was of a Messianic tenor, and had 
 its true fulfillment, not in the literal Israel, but in Abraham's 
 spiritual seed; as Paul delared to the Galatians: " Now to Abra- 
 ham were the promises spoken, and to his seed, ... as it is said, 
 'To thy seed' (Ex. xii, 40), which is Christ" (Gal. iii, 16). In 
 quoting these reiterated promises, Paul declares that " tlie Scrip- 
 tures having foreseen that God would justify the Gentiles from 
 faith, preached the gospel of old to Abraham, that ' In thee will 
 all the Gentiles be blessed.' " (Gal. iii, 8.) This was not an after- 
 thought of Paul's, but it was the original and intended sense of the 
 jjromises. In withholding from Israel a literal fulfillment of the 
 promise, and finally in revoking their call and election as the 
 theocratic people, and in extending the call (but in a spiritual 
 sense) to the Gentile world, God was not unjust to the Jews, who 
 claimed everything for themselves on the ground of their natural 
 descent from Abraham ; and he was not untrue to the Messianic 
 promises, but only showed that they had a wider application to 
 the world at large. 
 
ROMANS IX. a, 7. 295 
 
 Of all the explicit temporal blessings here promised, not one 
 has ever been literally fulfilled. They were all conditional; and 
 the conditions were never met by the unfaithful Jews. ■■ And the 
 only promise that is valid now, or was valid when Paul wrote, is 
 the last, and the most important one of all, the promise of Mes- 
 siah, and the spiritual blessings to the Gentile world through him. 
 For this promise was fulfilled to the Gentile world as well as to 
 Israel, though Israel did not admit it. 
 
 In the passage which we are considering, Paul cites the case 
 of these several families; and shows that while the literal terms 
 of the promise, as first spoken, embraced, in each instance, all of 
 Abraham's offspring, yet in its fulfillment not all his fleshly seed 
 were heirs of the promise ; not even his first born was heir by 
 right of primogeniture, but only such of the children as God 
 selected on the basis of spiritual or supra-natural, adaptedness to 
 his purpose. In tlie families of Abraham and of Isaac, God indi- 
 cated his choice by naming, expressly, the younger sons as ances- 
 tors of the theocratic kingdom, and members of the family of 
 faith. In the family of Jacob, he made no outward selection, but 
 let all the twelve sons stand as nominal members of the theocratic 
 kingdom; but he counted only the spiritually minded descendants 
 of Jacob as members of the household of faith. Tliat is, though 
 all Jews belong outwardly to the theocratic nation, only those 
 that have the inward qualification are " Israelites" of the spiritual 
 class. And so Paul says, " Not all those who are from Israel [the 
 natural Jacob], are Israel [that is, spiritual Israelites]." And the 
 point which Paul makes against the assumption of the Jews, is 
 that, as God made an election within the families of Abraham and 
 Isaac, so now he makes an election witliin the family of Jacob; 
 
 * Clearly tho covenant with the Jews was not "an everlasting cove- 
 nant." unless in a figurative sense. It was often forsaken by the Jews, often 
 repudiated by God, and finally abrogated. Clearly the land of Canaan was 
 not "an everlasting possession." It never came into full possession of the 
 Jews. Time and again they were subjugated by their enemies, or e.xiled; 
 and now they have no possession of it; and never will have. "Zionism" 
 is an hallucination The combined powers of Christendom could hardly 
 compel the Jews back to the desolate and accursed land of their fathers. 
 Clearly the Jews have never been as the dust of the earth for multitude. 
 And so with other temporal, outward promises. The Jews of Paul's time 
 must have seen all these failures of a literal fulfillment; and It was only in 
 a figurative sense that they could hold any of these promises to be true. 
 But if they interpret them In this jir/urafive sense, Faul, in his Messianic 
 argument with them, has them at his mercy. 
 
206 EXPOSITION. 
 
 that is, the prosent Jews. The promise does not hold for all Jews, 
 literally. Some Jews, like their uncles Ishmael and Esau, are not 
 counted in as " children." Of old there was an election within 
 the limits of Abraham's family; and, again, within the limits of 
 Isaac's family ; and even tliis elc!Ction was not absolute, but con- 
 ditioned ; so, Paul argues, there is an election among the Jews, 
 with whom he is now contending. The promise came, in unquali- 
 fied terms, " to Abraham and his seed;" yet subsequently God 
 showed that it was not to all the seed, not to Ishmael the first born 
 (whom Abraham preferred), nor to the six sons of Keturah ; but 
 only to Isaac, the second born, "the son of promise;" as it was 
 written, " God said to Abraham, Let it not grieve thee because of 
 Ishmael; for in /saoc [not in Ishmael] will thy seed be called." 
 (Gen. xxi, 12.) And thus, just as of old, some of Abraliam's seed, 
 Ishmael and Esau, were rejected from the theocratic kingdom, so, 
 the apostle argues, some Jews now may be rejected, with all defer- 
 ence to the promise ; nay, in fact, all Jews are so rejected. They 
 reject Messiah ; Messiah rejects them. 
 
 Verses 8, 9. That is, these, the children of the flesh, 
 are not [theocratic! children of God; nay, but the children 
 of the promise are reckoned for seed. For of promise was 
 this word : According to this season I will come, and 
 Sarah Inot Hagar], will have a son. (Gen. xxv, 21.) 
 
 These verses are not an advanced step in the discussion, but 
 only epexegetic of the saying in the seventh verse, "/n Isaac [not 
 Ishmael), will thy seed be called." Paul holds that the mere 
 natural descent from Abraham counts for nothing in the way of 
 inheriting the promise. The seven sons of Abraliam were born of 
 the flesh; and do not inherit "sonship" with God. They were 
 not called even to a subordinate citizenship in the theocratic king- 
 dom of which Isaac was the head. But the other seven might, 
 equally with Isaac, have had a place as members of God's spiritual 
 family. The second son, Isaac, was born in the line of the special 
 Messianic promise ; and he and his seed were counted as the only 
 heirs. As we have seen, Paul cites this historic case of Isaac, to 
 ai)ply the principle involved to the Jews of his own day. He 
 declares that not all those whose lineage was from Abraham and 
 Isaac, and Jacob, were, on that ground, children of the promise, 
 elect and called to the national inheritance. But the Messianic 
 promise looked, from the first, not to a literal descent from Abra- 
 
ROMANS IX. 10-13. 297 
 
 ham, but to a different qualification for a yet richer inheritance 
 with God. It looked to the inward, spiritual qualification of per- 
 sonal faith in Messiah, and this* qualification may be found in 
 Gentiles as well as in Jews ; as Paul says to the Galatians, " If ye 
 [Gentiles] are Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs 
 according to the promise" (Gal. iii, 29) ; and as John the Baptist 
 said to the Jews, " Think not to say within yourselves, We Iiave 
 Abraham as father; for I say to you, that God is able from these 
 stones [Gentiles], to raise up children to Abraham" (Matt, iii, 9). 
 
 Verses 10-13. But not in that instance only [was there 
 an election] ; nay, but also Rebecca having- conceived from 
 one husband, Isaac, our father (for the children not yet 
 having been born, nor yet having practiced anything good 
 or bad, in order that God's plan of old, by way of election, 
 may remain, not from works, nay, but from | the sole will 
 of] him that calls); it was said to her, that The elder will 
 serve the younger (Gen. xxv, 21), according as it has been 
 written, Jacob I loved,' but Esau I hated (Mai. i, 2). 
 
 The sentence is anacoluthic, the result (as so often in Paul's 
 style) of his habit of dictating liis letters. But the sense is clear, 
 and we need not stumble over the construction. The word Re- 
 becca is pendent, and the reference to her is resumed in the twelfth 
 verse, which sliould be read in connection with the tenth. The 
 eleventh verse is parenthetic, as in the Authorized. The Revised 
 evades the difficulty, and leaves the connection of the conjunction, 
 'iva, in order that, in tlie eleventh verse, in doubt. But this word 
 connects back to tlie previous clause, to show that God's plan in 
 his providential election of men still holds good, not as depending 
 upon birth or works, as the Jews thought, but on God's sovereign 
 will. The apostle's argument here is that, as God, in this yet 
 stronger case of Esau and Jacob, of his sole will, yet for cause, 
 elected the younger, and made him the theocratic nation, without 
 injustice to the elder, so he may now, for cause, elect the Gentiles 
 without injustice to the Jews. 
 
 These three points need discussion : 
 
 1. The parentage of Rebecca's twin sons. 
 
 2. The conditions named in the eleventh verse. 
 
 3. The personal relations of Esau and Jacob to each other, 
 and their relations to God's government. 
 
 1. Paul in the seventh verse cited the theocratic election of 
 
208 EXPOSTTIOX. 
 
 IsHiic over Ishmael to show tlial (rod did not count all born from 
 Abraham as born ti) {'itizcnship in tlic tlicocratic kingdom and to 
 outward mombcrshii) in tlu> Cluircli of Crod. God as a sovereign 
 elects among men, as he will, to providential franchises. But acav- 
 iler might object that, in the case of these two sons, God elected 
 the younger because he was the son of the free woman. But in the 
 verses before us Paul shows that the objection does not lie ; for, 
 first, neither God nor Abraiiam recognized the bar sinister in 
 Ishmael's scutcheon as a bar against the election of the son of the 
 slave woman ; and, secondly, the apostle now cites a similar elec- 
 tion of a younger son in preference to an older son, but in the 
 more decisive circumstance that both boys liad the same father 
 and the same mother; and, tiiirdly, he declares that the election 
 of Jacob and the non-election of Esau were fixed and announced 
 to the mother before their birth. 
 
 2. This election of Jacob and non-election of Esau before their 
 birth were, therefore, not the result of their having done any- 
 thing good or bad, but wholly from God's sovereign will, for cause. 
 Accordingly Paul says that in the case of these twins God's plan 
 of old, of electing to providential franchises whomsoever he would, 
 still remained operative, not from works (as the Jews thought 
 with regard to themselves), but solely from the sovereign act of 
 God, who called them as he would. 
 
 This perilous word sovereign, which the commentaries habitu- 
 ally use in this connection (but which Paul never uses), I deliber- 
 ately accept; but certainly not in a Calvinistic or fatalistic sense. 
 It does not mean, as sometimes understood, that God's election 
 was arbitrary or capricious, or even mysterious; but simjily that 
 it was authoritative and final, but, of course, equitable and reason- 
 able, and adapted to the desired end ; and it was so wise and so 
 level to our compi-ehension that we can judge of it correctly. God 
 chose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau, not from caprice 
 or favoritism — for all four were of Abrahamic descent, equally his 
 children, equally dear to him — but with an infallible judgment 
 concerning their individual adaptability to religious functions. 
 How wholly unfitted, even from our standpoint, Ishmael and Esau 
 were for such a mission, and for the progenitors of a theocratic 
 people, their subsequent history showed. In the case of Esau and 
 Jacob, their different temperaments and bents fitted them for dif- 
 ferent spheres in life. "Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the 
 field; and Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents." (Gen. 
 
ROMANS IX. 10-13. 299 
 
 XXV, 27.) Esau was a man of affairs, and was characteristically 
 better fitted for a life of outward activity and enterprise. Jacob 
 was contemplative, introspective ; he had a greater capacity for 
 spiritual things. Both careers were equally worthy ; but they 
 were different; and God appropriately chose Jacob as the father 
 of the theocratic nation. The principle of God's choice in the 
 world is expressed in his words to Samuel: " I have rejected Eliab 
 [David's oldest brother]; for man looks on the outward appear- 
 ance ; but Jeliovah looks on the heart." (1 Sam. xvi, 7.) 
 
 But what is of still more moment, — we must recollect that 
 God's sovereignty over men and their surroundings is always in 
 the sphere of providential, temporal things, and never, as Calvin- 
 ism teaches, in the sphere of spiritual and eternal things. Within 
 the limitations of his providences, God is absolutely sovereign, the 
 sole legislator, tlie sole judge, the sole executive, uncontrolled by 
 any of his creatures. As creator and ruler of men, and of the 
 material world, he casts our lots as he sees best; never capri- 
 ciously, but always looking to our general interest and our indi- 
 vidual rights ; and always with needed help and with fair treatment. 
 He does not deal with us, as a chessplayer may arbitrarily shift 
 the chessmen, as make-weights on the figured board ; or, still more 
 arbitrarily, as a dice player may cast the dice at random on the 
 table. But he considerately and equitably marks out, for every 
 separate soul, the appointed seasons and the bounds of our habita- 
 tions, expressly " that xoe should seek God, if, then, we inay feel 
 after him, and find him ; though he is not far from each one of us." 
 (Acts xvii. 26.) 
 
 True, God's providence sometimes seems to have a hard side. 
 To every scheme of government, divine as well as human, we must 
 concede something: the material conditions of time and place can 
 not, in the nature of things, fall to all men exactly alike. Dog- 
 berry says, " If two men ride of a horse, one must ride behind." 
 (" Much Ado About Nothing," iii, 5.)* Of two brothers, both can 
 not be first born. And so we may not always understand, or be able 
 to explain to everybody's present satisfaction, God's providential 
 
 * And Pope says: 
 
 "Order Is heaven's first law; and, this confessed. 
 Some are. and must be. greater than the rest. 
 More rich, more wise; but, who Infers from hence 
 That such are happier, shocks all common sense." 
 
 " Essay on Man," IV, 1, 
 
300 EXPOSITION. 
 
 arrangement of men's times, and habitations, and circumstances ; 
 and some caviler will be sure to say [as the Jew in the twentieth 
 versel, "Why didst thou make [appoint] me thus?" But con- 
 siderate men will defer to God's providences as, on the whole, 
 gracious, and wise, and the best possible. Whatever in God's 
 providences now seems dark and unequal, or even inequitable, is 
 only transient, and will, in the long run, be rectified and equal- 
 ized, and clarified. God's ledger will be balanced, and his ways 
 justified to men, if not here and now, in the infinite future. 
 " Behind a frowning providence he hides a smiling face." 
 
 Such is the doctrine of God's sovereignty in the sphere of his 
 providential administration ; but in the higher and more moment- 
 ous department of spiritual life, and character, and eternal 
 destiny, God's sovereignty has no place. These two spheres of 
 God's working, the sphere of his providence, and the sphere of his 
 grace, can not be confounded with each other. And it is only of 
 God's working in the sphere of his providence, which is temporal, 
 and sensible, and local, that Paul here S])eaks. The whole Calvin- 
 istic concept of God's sovereignty in the spiritual realm, and of 
 an absolute decree of the souls of men, lying supine and power- 
 less in his hands, to eternal weal or woe, is utterly alien to the 
 gospel scheme, and, of course, outside of the apostle's discussion 
 in this Epistle. God's government in the spiritual life of men 
 must be understood, not as meaning control over the destinies of 
 men, but as only another name for divine efficiency co-operating 
 with men's sovereign volition. It is the divine side of the Pauline 
 synergism. Man, under God, is sovereign over his own spiritual 
 concerns. The human will is as free as God's will ; and is subject 
 to God only through moral influences, and not by an arbitrary 
 and necessitarian sway. Though God is creator, and legislator, 
 and judge, he negotiates with man as his equal in the forum of 
 conscience, and of morals, and free choice. Such is the awful 
 power and responsibility over his own destiny, that God remits to 
 man's free will. 
 
 3. The announcement to Rebecca, that " The elder will serve 
 the younger" (Gen. xxv, 23), is expressly declared to have been in 
 the line of God's world-plan of old, by which his election of men, 
 and their providential assignment to place in the world, does not 
 result from their works, but from God's own unappealable will. 
 The election of Jacob to the theocratic place, and to a higher 
 national rank than Esau's, and the non-election of Esau, and his 
 
ROMANS IX. 10-13. 301 
 
 inferior national rank (which is the sole thing that the apostle is 
 here describing), was, as is always the fact in God's administration 
 in this world, wholly in the sphere of his temporal providences, 
 and not in the sphere of spiritual predestination ; and it did not 
 carry with it either the personal salvation of Jacob, or the personal 
 reprobation of Esau. 
 
 Paul, by his quotation in this verse, makes the point against 
 the Jews, as we saw also in the seventh verse, that God elected 
 only a part among the descendants of Abraham. He elected Isaac 
 over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau. But notice ; the election of Isaac 
 over Ishmael, and of Jacob over Esau was in the line of his provi- 
 dential government, and for cause; and it was not, as the Jews 
 thought, and as Calvin thought, an election to salvation, or even 
 to inward Church membership. At the most it was theocratic, not 
 spiritual ; at the most it made Isaac and Jacob rather than Ishmael 
 and Esau the head of the elect nation ; but it did not constitute 
 their posterity, the Jews, the exclusive members of the Church, 
 and heirs of salvation. Ishmael and Esau were circumcised men, 
 consecrated to God; and they feared God, and were members of 
 his family, and were as salvable, and as probably saved, as the 
 elect Isaac and Jacob. 
 
 But while Paul doubtless had this thought of the theocratic 
 election of Jacob in his mind, he did not in this passage, say it in 
 so many words, or at all. Not only in his words is there no allu- 
 sion to the salvation of Jacob, the damnation of Esau, there is no 
 allusion, even, to the theocratic election of one brother over the 
 other. The two sentences which Paul quotes, one from Genesis, 
 and one from Malachi, do not declare the theocratic preferment of 
 Jacob (which, however, would still lie in the line of God's provi- 
 dences, and not involve eternal interests) ; but they simply declare 
 his coming national prominence over Esau. And this is all that 
 the apostle's argument with the Jews demands. He wishes only 
 to show them that God holds to his fixed plan of election, or 
 providential choice, in the affairs of the world, and turns the 
 scales as he wills (of course, for cause) ; and that he is doing this 
 now with the Jews. 
 
 This is really all that is found in the words, or in the meaning 
 of the quotation before us, The elder will serve the younger; 
 and this meaning of the saying from Genesis, Paul says is confirmed 
 by the similar saying which he is able to quote from Malachi, 
 Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated, a saying which must be 
 
302 EXPOSITION. 
 
 explained in the same line-^that of the national standing of the 
 two brotluTS. These names, "Jacob" and "Esau," are used by 
 Malaclii, not as tlie personal names of the two men, but as 
 eponyms, historical designations of the two races sprung from 
 them. The name Jacob is very frequent in the sense of Israel, the 
 people of Israel, tlie Jews; and the name Esau, though not as fre- 
 quent as the other name, is here just as clearly in the sense of 
 Edom, the Edomites. Long before the times of Malachi, Moses 
 had said, " TJiese are the generations of Esau : the same is Edom." 
 (Gen. xxxvi, 1.) Both sayings, the one from Genesis, and the one 
 from Malachi, have to do only with God's providential allotment 
 of the habitations, and secular history of the twin brothers; or, 
 rather, of tlieir descendants; and not at all with regard to their 
 personal character, or their eternal destinies. But as these say- 
 ings, and especially the one from Malachi, have received a sinister 
 interpretation in support of the doctrine of the predestination of 
 some men to salvation, and of all the rest to damnation (a doctrine 
 which has no standing here, or anywhere else in the Bible) ; and as 
 the saying in jMalachi casts its lurid shadow back on the other say- 
 ing (to which, however, Paul intended it to be only an historical 
 confirmation, and not a doctrinal interpretation), it becomes neces- 
 sary to examine both sayings at large. 
 
 The clause which Paul quotes from the announcement to Re- 
 becca about her unborn children is possibly capable of being mis- 
 understood, if taken apart from its connections; but the passage, 
 taken as a whole, makes the meaning of the excerpted words clear 
 beyond dispute, almost beyond perversion: "And Jehovah said 
 to her, 
 
 " Two nations are in thy womb, 
 
 " And two peoples will be separated from thy bowels: 
 " And the one people will be stronger than the other people, 
 "And the elder 1 people | will serve the younger." (Gen. 
 XXV, 23.) 
 
 In the same way we must take the passage in Malachi as a 
 whole, and not the single clause apart from its connections. The 
 entire pai-agraph goes together; and it also, thus taken, makes the 
 meaning of the excerpted words clear beyond dispute, almost be- 
 yond perversion. It is clear that they are spoken, not of the two 
 persons, Jacob and Esau, but of the two nations descended from 
 them. The saying in Genesis does not define the personal rela- 
 tions of the brothers during their life much less their spiritual 
 
ROMANS IX. lO-lS. 303 
 
 condition or opportunity for tiiis life or the next; but it means 
 simply this, that in God's administrative forecast for the two 
 brotliers he promised a national superiority to the descendants of 
 Jacob, the younger, over the descendants of Esau, the elder. That 
 this is the sole meaning is further shovs'n by the tenor of the 
 blessings whicli Isaac pronounced on his two sons, blessings differ- 
 ing from each other in compass, but of the same secular and 
 national character. (Gen. xxvii, 28-40.) And it must be clear 
 from these sayings, and from the entire subsequent history of 
 these brothers, that the preferment of Jacob over Esau was not 
 intended to affect, and certainly did not affect, tlieir personal re- 
 lations or the family right of primogeniture, but only looked for- 
 ward to the comparative status of tlieir several posterities, when 
 grown to be nations, at a future day. The natural rights of the 
 two brothers remained undisturbed, except by family jealousy ; 
 and the birthright remained Esau's (as Jacob himself recognized 
 by his foolish and futile attempt to buy it). Their case was the 
 same as in the previous generation with the two brothers, Ishmael 
 and Isaac ; and as was the case afterwards in the precisely similar 
 instance of Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim ; and as was 
 the case with the sons of Jesse. David, the youngest, was chosen 
 king over all his seven brothers. (1 Sam. xvi, 6-13.) But this did 
 not give David the rights of primogeniture. Did not the words of 
 Jacob, when he blessed Ephraim, bitterly recall the circumstances 
 of the prophecy about himself a hundred and fifty years before, 
 and his own unfraternal attempt to supplant his older brother ? — 
 " Manasseh will become a people, and will be great ; but truly his 
 younger brother will be greater than he, and his seed will become 
 a multitude of nations." (Gen. xlviii, 19.) 
 
 Esau the hunter never served Jacob the shepherd — never 
 " served" him personally in any sense of that word. It was only 
 the distant posterity of Esau that served the posterity of Jacob. 
 Twenty years after the brothers had parted in anger they met in 
 kindness ; and Jacob offered to Esau the usual tokens of an inferior 
 to a superior, and called himself servant and Esau lord: "These 
 droves are thy servant Jacob's: they are a present to my lord 
 Esau." (Gen. xxxii, 18.) That the predominance of Jacob over 
 Esau was not at all spiritual, and was not even personal and im- 
 mediate, but only in their remote posterities, grown to be " nations 
 and peoples," is clear, not only from the original announcement to 
 Rebecca (which can have no other meaning), but from the words 
 
304 EXPOSITION. 
 
 of their father, Isaac. To Jacob he said, " Let peoples serve thee, 
 and nations bow down to tliee ;" and to Esau he said, " Tliou wilt 
 serve thy brotlu-r, and it will come to i)ass, when thou shalt rebel, 
 that thou wilt break his yoke from off thy neck." (Gen. xxvii, 
 29,40.) Both parts of this prophecy were literally fulfilled: the 
 first part ("Thou wilt serve thy brother") not until seven cen- 
 turies afterwards (B. C. 1040), when Edom (the country and the 
 people of Esau) was conquered for the first time by David: "And 
 all they of Edom became David's servants" (2 Sam. viii, 14) ; and 
 the second part ("Thou wilt break his yoke from off thy neck") 
 one hundred and fifty years still later (B. C. 885), in the reign of 
 Jehoram: "In his days Edom revolted from Judah, and made a 
 king over themselves" (2 Kings, viii, 20). 
 
 But the relations, not of Jacob and Esau personally, but of the 
 two nations, with each other, with their varying fortunes, are 
 shown yet further, in the Bible history, down to the days of 
 Malachi, the last of the prophets (B. C. 397), and after him in the 
 narrative of Josephus. Two centuries before Malachi, all Judah 
 and all Edom had been wasted by Nebuchadnezzar, and carried 
 into captivity to Babylon. (B. C. 593. 2 Chron. xxxvi, 20.) Sixty 
 or more years later, the Israelites, under Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 came back from captivity ; while Edom remained captive and 
 their country desolate. Jeremiah gives us a vivid picture of the 
 desolation of Edom, during those centuries. (Jer. xlix, 7-22.) Yet 
 the Israelites, too, were in a wretched state. Though they were 
 restored to their land, they were few and feeble ; and in their ill 
 lot they murmured that God had dealt hardly with them. But, 
 bad as their condition was, INIalachi contrasts it favorably with the 
 far worse condition of their Edomite kinsmen. " Do ye ask," says 
 the prophet, " Wherein has Jehovah loved us ? Thus says Jehovah, 
 Was not Edom Jacob's brother ? yet I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau, 
 and laid his heritage waste. . . . Edom says, We will return, and 
 build the desolate places. Thus says Jehovah, They will build, 
 but 1 will throw down ; and men will call them The people against 
 whom Jehovah has indignation forever." (Mai. i, 2-4.) This is the 
 famous saying, which, taken out of its connection, Calvinism 
 builds into the dread dogma of an eternal decree of Jacob to sal- 
 vation, and of Esau to damnation ; and after their type, of count- 
 less saints and of countless rejirobates. But as the woi-ds spoken 
 to Rebecca have respect only to Jacob's secular superiority, and 
 Esau's secular inferiority, and as they can not be made to allude, in 
 
HOMANS IX. 10-13. 305 
 
 any way whatever, to the spiritual and eternal destinies of the two 
 brothers, so, the words of Malaehi, spoken fifteen hundred years 
 later, with the same significance, but only with regard to the 
 posterities of Jacob and Esau, can not look back to Rebecca's ciiil- 
 dren, and declare wliat was God's feelings toward them. Indeed, 
 the prophet's words do not even allude to the theocratic election of 
 Jacob, and the non-election of Esau; which (though these things 
 were true in themselves), were not involved in either saying. And 
 so far are these words, or any words in the Bible, from expressing 
 that Esau and tlie Edomites were damned, or damnable, because 
 they were not included in the theocratic election, it must, contrari- 
 wise, be remembered, that the command of Moses expressly pro- 
 vided that all Edomites, as descendants of Abraham, should be 
 permitted fully and freely, whenever tliey themselves chose to 
 become united by circumcision with the elect nation, and to enter 
 the congregation of the outward Israel, and to come into com- 
 munion with the spiritual Israel: "Thou shalt not abhor an 
 Edomite, for he is thy brother. The children that are born unto 
 them shall enter the congregation of Jehovah, in their third gen- 
 eration." (Deut. xxiii, 7.) And this actually happened to Esau, 
 or Edom. In B. C. 129, John Hyrcanus, high priest and ruler of 
 the Jews, conquered Edom as it had never been conquered before, 
 even by David, and compelled the sons of Esau to be circumcised, 
 and to become Jews. From that date, the national separateness 
 and estrangement to Israel ceased; and one of themselves, Herod 
 the Great, arose even to be king of Judea. Next to Solomon, he 
 was the greatest, the most magnificent, as he was the worst 
 monarch the Jews ever had. His reign lasted forty years, and 
 at its close Christ was born, whose kingdom knows no differ- 
 ence among men. Esau liad ceased, in both senses, religiously 
 and nationally, to be servant to Jacob. The Edomites became 
 Jews as much as any proselytes ; so that no genealogist can 
 now tell what proportion of so-called Jewish blood is not really 
 Edomite. 
 
 But the Calvinistic commentators think that the saying, "Jacob 
 I loved, but Esau I hated," expresses literally (as in the English 
 sense of the word) God's inward, personal feeling of predilection 
 towards Jacob, in person, and of animosity towards Esau, in person. 
 And they refer the aorist tense of the verbs, "I loved," and "I 
 hated," to the eternal decree of God, who, before the foundation 
 of the world, looked on these children of Ilebecca, and predestinated 
 20 
 
306 EXPOSITION. 
 
 them, tliougli they had not yet been born, or had done anything 
 good or bad, one to eternal salvation, and the other to eternal 
 damnation. And these commentators, instead of making Malachi'a 
 sentence, written lii'teen centuries later than the date in Genesis, 
 explanatory, as Paul quoted it, and in line with the quotation from 
 Genesis, "The elder will serve the younger," have reversed the 
 logical sequence, and make the quotation from Malachi the lead- 
 ing sentence and sentiment, and make the first quotation subor- 
 dinate and exegetical of the second. They first read a sinister 
 meaning into the passage from Malachi, and then transfer this 
 sinister meaning to the passage in Genesis. Accordingly the 
 words in Genesis must mean that " the elder will be reprubate, the 
 younger will be elect," Further, these commentators object to 
 "softening the word hated." Of course, if the word loses its hard 
 dogmatic meaning, their exposition, like Othello's occupation, is 
 gone ; and Calvinistic reprobation has no place in the text. But 
 philology has its rights ; and there is no doubt that the word 
 " hate " is used here, as often elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 and Hebrew thought, not in the offensive sense of our English 
 word hate, but only to express a relatively less degree of love. No 
 one stumbles at Christ's saying, " If any man hate not his father, 
 and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, he 
 can not be my disciple" (Luke xiv, 26) ; or at the word in the 
 Mosaic Law, " If a man have two wives, one beloved, another hated, 
 and if the firstborn be hers that was hated, he shall acknowledge 
 the son of the hated for the firstborn" (Deut. xxi, 15) ; or at the 
 word in regard to Jacob's wives, "Jacob loved Rachel more than 
 Leah ; and Jehovah saw tliat Leah was haled ; and she bare a son, 
 and said. Now my husband will love me" (Gen. xxix, 30). And 
 there can be no doubt, further, that this is the sole and simple 
 meaning here in Malachi; and that the verbs in the aorist tense 
 express simply the well-known historical facts with regard to the 
 two peoples, Israel under the name of Jacob, and the Edomites 
 under the name of Esau. The saying means, that to tlie Israelites 
 God gave the more desirable country, and greater institutional 
 opportunities, and to the Edomites he gave the less desirable. 
 Both peoples long prospered, as Isaac promised (Gen. xxvii, 29, 39) ; 
 and both peoples were afterwards, for their wickedness, taken 
 cai)tive to Babylon. When the Israelites repented, God brought 
 them back ; but he left the Edomites in captivity. This is all 
 
ROMANS IX. 10-13. 307 
 
 that Malachi means ; in the strong Hebrew form of expression, 
 he says, "God loved the one; he hated the other;" that is, he 
 showed more favor (for cause) to the Jews; he sliowed less favor 
 to the Edomites ; but he showed favor to both, until they forfeited 
 his forbearance. But no one, except in the interests of an un- 
 scrijitural creed, could warp this act of Divine Providence into an 
 election of Jacob, personally, to eternal life, and a reprobation of 
 Esau, personally, to eternal damnation. 
 
 Jacob and Esau, pei-sonally, are of smallest moment to us ; 
 and it is a matter of very little concern to us, or to the Church, 
 whether they were saved or not. Paul neither affirms nor denies ; 
 for it did not come into the scope of his argument. Their case is 
 named in this discussion only to illustrate the principle of God's 
 providential government of nations. The point of the discussion 
 turns, not on the eternal predestination of individuals (which is 
 not true) ; but on God's sovereignty in the providential ordering 
 of nations, or peoples, en masse; and here of Israel en masse (and 
 this only is true). 
 
 Such were God's dealings in the days of old with the family 
 of Abraham to whom the promises were given ; such his dis- 
 criminative election in the order of his providences, among the 
 branches of the family. God's election, so far as here described, 
 was wholly within the confines of the peoples descended from 
 Abraham, — the election of Isaac over Ishmael, of Jacob over 
 Esau. But the apostle goes on to show the Jews that God is not 
 restricted to these limits ; he can widen his range of selection ; 
 he can leave the Jews entirely out of count. The apostle goes 
 further in his argument with the Jews ; and, on the broad 
 ground that their descent from Abraham does not of itself make 
 them the children of the promise, and that the Gentile non- 
 descent from Abraham does not exclude them from being chil- 
 dren of the promise, he says, that God has effaced the old limits ; 
 that he rejects the Jews en masse from being the elect nation 
 of God, and now calls the Gentiles en masse, potentially, into the 
 Church of Messiah. 
 
 When Chilon asked .^sop, "What is God doing?" JEsop an- 
 swered, " He is bringing down the high and exalting the low ;" and 
 Bayle calls this the philosophy of human history, which is only 
 another way of saying, from a Scriptural standpoint, the philosophy 
 of God's providences among men. 
 
30fi EXPOSTTinX. 
 
 Verses 14-16. Jkw : "What then shall "we say ? Is there 
 injustice with God ? 
 
 Patl: God forbid. For to Moses the Scripture says, I 
 ■will have mercy on whom I may have mercy ; and I will 
 have compassion on whom I may have compassion. (Ex. 
 XXX Hi, 19.) Accordingly then [promotion] is not of him that 
 w^ills, nor yet of him that runs, nay, but of God that lias 
 mercy. 
 
 The words of verse 14 belong to the Jew. They express the 
 sentiment that instinctively ari.ses in his breast, on hearing the 
 apostle's declaration that God has rejected the chosen seed of 
 Abraham, " to whom pertained the promises," and has opened the 
 door of faith, and of Church membership to the uneircumcised 
 Gentiles. To such abhorrent views of the apostle, the first re- 
 sponse of the Jew's thought and lips is the indignant remonstrance 
 of the text, "What, then? Is God unjust? Does God, who of 
 old promised our fathers an everlasting kingdom, and during all 
 those centuries has continued his goodness to us, now violate his 
 covenant, and reject us from our prescriptive place, and rights, 
 and hopes? "Is there injustice with God?" 
 
 To this objection from tlie Jew, the apostle's conclusive reply 
 is, that the Jews misunderstand tlie character and the limitations 
 of God's government; that it is God's sovereignty in the adminis- 
 tration of nations that is in question: and his promises to the elect 
 nation were of this character, were in the nature of the case con- 
 tingent, and did not bind God without a corresponding fulfilhnent 
 on their part. His change of attitude towards the Jews was in 
 line with this established principle of his government, wliich was 
 not new and was not now announced for the first time. It is 
 found in words with which the hearers of tlie synagogue were 
 familiar, words spoken by God to Moses upon occasion of the sin 
 of the Israelites in the worship of the golden calf. "When, on the 
 intercession of Moses, God forgave their sin, he expressly declared 
 that he was not under obligation to the Jews to continue them in 
 favor; he will elect whomsoever he chooses. The Scripture says 
 to Closes, " I will have mercy on whomsoever (Jews or Gentiles) I 
 may [choose to] have mercy ; and I will have compassion on whom- 
 soever I may [choose to] have compassion." 
 
 But observe that the words, I will have mercy, I will have 
 compassion, spoken in this connection, are figurative, and have 
 
ROMANS IX. 17, IS. 309 
 
 identically the same meaning as the other Hebrew figure in the 
 thirteentli verse, "I loved iacoh;'' they refer to God's favorable 
 providences, in the world ; and do not point at all in the direction 
 of predestination of individuals to eternal life. As tlie saying in 
 Exodus, and as the connection in Paul's discussion demands, they 
 can apply only in the way of God's temporal administration of the 
 nations, en masse. And observe further, that the saying, " I will 
 have mercy on whom I may have mex-cy," can not refer to spiritual 
 blessing; for spiritual blessing is always individual, is never arbi- 
 trary, is always uniform, and constant to the obedient. " God will 
 have all men to be saved." But in God's providential government, 
 of nations, where he deals with them en masse, his promises are 
 "conditional. He does not bind himself irrevocably to any particu- 
 lar nation, or to any particular course. He is free from obligation 
 when any new occasion or emergency ai'ises. And Paul quotes 
 this saying to the Jews, with the implication that the emergency 
 for a change of action in the case of the Jews has now arisen. God 
 elected and promoted them once to high place and opportunity : 
 he now consistently, and without injustice, displaces them ; and 
 promotes the Gentiles. 
 
 From the question which the Jew asks, "Is God unjust?" it 
 would almost seem that the Jews had really never read those 
 words of God to Moses, or, at least, had not thought that they 
 could possibly apply to themselves. But this application of the 
 saying to the Jews is just what Moses intended, and is what Paul 
 has all through the Epistle been insisting on. He has told them 
 that God grants nothing unconditionally, nothing exclusively. 
 Nay, God has mercy (that is, gives providential promotion) on 
 ^vhomsoever he may choose to have mercy, under particular cir- 
 cumstances. Once he had mercy on the Jews [gave tliem promo- 
 tion], just as he himself then willed it. Accordingly tliis promo- 
 tion is not within the control of the Jew to will it, or of the Jew 
 to run after it ; but wholly in the control of God who has mercy 
 just as he himself wills it. But now, under changed circumstances, 
 God for cause displaces the Jews, and has mercy on the Gentiles, 
 and promotes them to vacated membership in the Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 Verses 17, 18. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, that 
 Unto this very end I raised thee up, that I may show in 
 thee ray power, and that nay name may be declared abroad 
 
310 EXPOSITION. 
 
 in all the earth. (Ex. ix, 16.) Accordingly then he has 
 mercy on whom he wills ; but whom he wills he hardens. 
 
 The apostle cites the case of Pharaoh as a further illustration 
 of the principle that God has mercy; that is, confers worldly 
 promotion (which is tlie only point liere in issue) iin|)artially on 
 peoples or individuals of various nationalities (and not upon the 
 Jews only), according as they may serve his purposes. God's mes- 
 sage to Pharaoh declares that God " hud mercy " on him — that is, 
 raised him to the throne — that he may siiow in him, as liis chosen 
 servant, his gracious power, and that, through the king, the divine 
 name may be glorified through the earth. This message has usu- 
 ally been understood as having just the opposite sense; but the 
 connection of the passage makes it clear that we must understand 
 it as here described. Such is Paul's use of the passage. 
 
 That God should " have mercy " on Pharaoh, and promote him, 
 and use him as his servant, for his glory, is perhaps a novel view to 
 take of the Egyptian incident; but it is quite apposite to the prin- 
 ciple whicli tlie apostle is here developing, and it is quite in accord 
 with the teaching of Scripture. God is no respecter of persons: 
 the Gentile Phai-aoh was as precious in his eye as the father of 
 the faithful himself, or the great liberator of the Jews, man for 
 man. And so God sent to Pharaoli, a Gentile, and an oppressor of 
 the Jews, this message, not of denunciation — or of tliat only — 
 but of expostulation, that he may win him and save him and his 
 people: "To this very end I 'had mercy' on thee, and raised thee 
 to tlie throne, that I may make thee see my power, and that 
 through thy agency my name may be honored in all the world." 
 There is nothing strange in this explanation; it is, in fact, the 
 only consistent one. God would bring Pharaoh to be his willing 
 servant, and would use him to his own ends ; just as afterwards he 
 had mercy on Nebuchadnezzar, and on Cyrus, and, though they 
 were Gentiles, and heatlien, he called them "his servants," and 
 raised them to high place, not to destroy them, but for his own 
 glory: " I will set the throne of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, 
 my servant, upon the stones of Egypt" (Jer. xliii, 10); and 
 "Cyrus, my servant, my anointed, will perform all my pleasure" 
 (Isa. xliv, 28). 
 
 The conjunction for, at the beginning of the seventeenth 
 verse, points logically to tlie same interpretation. This woi-d con- 
 nects back to the preceding clause, and adds this confirmation, in 
 
BOMANS IX. 17, 18. 311 
 
 the following sentence: "God has irercy (that is, gives temporal 
 promotion) : for the Scripture says to Pharaoh, that for this gra- 
 cious purpose I raised thee up." Another confirmation is found 
 in the Hebrew text, in a minor word which Paul has not quoted, 
 but which, correctly translated, becomes an important factor in 
 the interpretation— the conjunction D S T X^ which is found nineteen 
 times in the Hebrew Bible. The Authorized and the Revised 
 translate this word twice as an intensive adverb — here, and in 
 1 Sam. XXV, 34: "In very deed, for this cause, I raised thee up." 
 But the word is always a conjunction, and its meaning, yet, instead 
 of intensifying the clause in which it stands, waives the meaning 
 in the preceding verse and expresses a retraction or counter view. 
 "We must recollect that the message to Pharaoh is expostulatory, 
 and not denunciatory. The following is a correct translation : 
 " For now had I stretched out my hand and smitten thee and thy 
 people, thou hadst been cut off from the earth ; but yet, for the 
 sake of this I raised thee up, namely, that I may show thee my 
 power, and that my name may be declared in all the earth." 
 
 This does not mean that God raised Pharaoh to that bad emi- 
 nence, with the purpose to pillory him before the gaze of the world, 
 as a terrible example of his autocratic power to crush and damn. 
 Paul quotes from the Septuagint translation " to show iyi thee," 
 which might (though not neccessarily) have the sinister sense that 
 God proposed to make in him an example to the eyes of others. 
 But the Hebrew word is " to show thee," or, more literally, " to 
 make thee to see " God's sovereign power in his providences. Cer- 
 tainly it was not the destruction of the king that God wished, but 
 his repentance and oljedience. God's long forbearance with the 
 king followed the natural plienomena of the seasons through an 
 entire year. It was only after the sixth plague that God sent him 
 this message. No life had yet been destroyed ; and tlie tenor of 
 the narrative shows that God's feeling towards the king was not 
 threat, or threat only, but expostulation and admonition. There 
 is but this one interpretation. Nine times God warned the king; 
 nine times he brought him to repentance. To the last God would 
 have been glad to save the king, as Christ was glad to save the 
 penitent robber on the cross ; and it was only upon the king's final 
 incorrigibility that he destroyed him and his people. 
 
 The saying, " Whom he will he hardens," seems to make it 
 God's act. But God certainly never takes the initiative in harden- 
 ing man's heart. Besides, in Jewish psychology, the word " heart" 
 
312 EXPOSITION. 
 
 stands ns often for the ('(7/ as for tlie affections. Such seems to be the 
 meaning in the story of Pharaoh ; and when it is said that " Pharaoh 
 hardened his lieart," it does not so fitly express callousness of affec- 
 tions (which comes on only by slow growth) as stubbornness of will. 
 Pharaoh stiffened his will against (lod. But it is also said that 
 " God hardened Pharaoh's heart ;" but this act of hardening was in 
 response to the king's self-hardening. "With the froward God 
 showed himself froward." (Psa. xviii, 26.) It is in tliis responsive 
 fashion that God said, " Ephi-aim [that is, the northern kingdom of 
 Israel] is joined to idols: leave him to himself" (Hos. iv, 17); 
 "God gave rebellious Israel their own desire" (Psa. Ixxviii, 29) ; 
 " God gave the heathen up to their wickedness" (Rom. i, 24, 26). 
 Yet none of these things did God desire ; and so far was he from 
 dri\nng Pharaoh to hardness of heart, or obduracy of will, he ten 
 times essayed to restrain him from it ; and ten times Pharaoh 
 repented, and God as often relented, and turned him from his 
 anger. Only when Pharaoh was persistently obstinate, did God 
 "harden him," — that is, abandon him to his willfulness, — and 
 smite him and his people (who seem to have been equally guilty 
 with the king) (Ex. ix, 27, 34) with the last plague. On the re- 
 newed resistance of the Egyptians (Ex. xiv, 17) "he hardened 
 their hearts," and drowned them in the sea. 
 
 We must keep in mind that tlu-oughout this chapter Paul's 
 one topic is God's providential administration as shown in the re- 
 jection of the Jews and the inbringing of the Gentiles, and he 
 mentions the case of Pharaoh, not as an advance step in his argu- 
 ment, but only as a further instance of the principle already 
 stated and illustrated in the cases of Jacob and Esau, that God 
 has mercy (gives promotion) wherever he will, to Jew or to Gen- 
 tile alike. Beyond this, the apostle is not concerned here in the 
 history of Pharaoh personally, or in God's dealings with the king; 
 just as we saw before, in the cases of Jacob and Esau, that the 
 mention of them was impersonal. But the commentators quite 
 unanimously think that the personal fate of Pharaoh is the sole 
 reason, or the main reason, of the apostle's introduction of his 
 history here. And they interpret Paul's words as meaning. " I 
 raised thee up in order signally to destroy thee, that is, to damn 
 thee." This interpretation is in the line and in support of a doc- 
 trine which has not the shadow of a place in this discussion. This 
 case of Pharaoh is, indeed, the typical and authoritative one for 
 theologians of this school. And in the light of this concrete in- 
 
ROMANS IX. 19-21. 313 
 
 stance of Pharaoh, and of the general affirmation of the potter's 
 power over the chiy, these commentators count this chapter as the 
 conclusive authority on God's sovereign and absolute predestina- 
 tion of the souls of men to eternal weal or to eternal woe. He 
 has mercy on whom he will (and saves them, at any rate), and 
 whom he will he hardens, and damns! 
 
 The apostle's single and simple intent in this reference to 
 Pharaoh is to show that, as in the providential government of the 
 Jews, so, in the case of the king, God determined his sphere in the 
 world and shaped his opportunities (but surely he did not shape 
 the king's actions; they were his own). This promotion of the 
 king to the throne was wholly of God, who " has mercy" (that is, 
 extends favor to men and nations), as he wills. "Promotion 
 comes not from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south ; 
 but God is judge ; he puts down one, and sets up another." (Psa. 
 Ixxv, 6.) Yet this man whom God once promoted to the throne, 
 he afterwards, /or cause, rejected and destroyed. And this is the 
 point which Paul makes upon the Jews. God once called tliese 
 Jews to high place and to gracious prerogatives : they have diso- 
 obeyed and hardened themselves ; and now God retributively 
 " hardens" them, and rejects them fi^om their theocratic place in 
 his plans. 
 
 Verses 19-21. "Wilt thou then say to me : 
 Jew : "Why does he yet blame us ? for who withstands 
 his w^ill ? 
 
 Paul : O man ! indeed then, who art thou that answer- 
 est back to God ? Shall the thing molded say to him that 
 molded it, Why didst thou make me thus? Or has not 
 the potter control of the clay, from the same lump to make 
 one vessel a vessel unto honor, and another vessel unto 
 dishonor ? 
 
 The word withstands in the Eevised is more exact than the 
 word "resists" in the Authorized. Paul's word does not merely 
 mean resists, for the Jews did that; but it means tvithstands, offers 
 successful resistance, which the Jews disclaim. 
 
 The inferential conjunction then (or "therefore"), and the 
 whole tenor of the apostle's words, " Wilt thou therefore say to 
 me?" shows that the Jew accepts the last words of verse 18 as 
 aimed at himself, or his people. The mere " hardening of their 
 heart " does not exhaust the apostle's meaning in his application 
 
314 EXPOSITION. 
 
 of the saying to the Jews. It meant all this, this hardening of 
 of their heart (or obstinacy of will), as it did in tlie case of Pha- 
 raoh ; but it meant more in the case of tlie Jews. It implied, for 
 them, the penalty they had incurred for their unfaith in Messiah 
 and their obduracy. It implied their rejection en masse from be- 
 ing the theocratic nation ; and the reception en masse of the Gen- 
 tiles into favor (position) with God. And this subversion of all 
 their national theocratic hopes and boasting is what the Jew 
 correctly understood Paul to mean. His captious question and 
 reclamation at the apostle's position shows that he undei'stood 
 him too well. " Why, then, does (Jod yet blame us Jews, with our 
 unfaith in Christ? On your own showing, he has his sovereign 
 way with us; for who withstands his will?" That is, Why does 
 he depose us from our time-honored theocratic position, and pro- 
 mote the Gentiles to an equality with us, or even to a superemi- 
 nence in the Church ? 
 
 To this self-sufficient and carping question of the Jew, the 
 apostle's answer is a sharp rebuke: O man! indeed then, who 
 art thou that answerest back to God ? To some persons this 
 answer of Paul's is, after all, not a rejjly to the Jew's difficulty, 
 but seems like an attempt to bully and browbeat his opponent. 
 If Paul had not had a reasonable answer, it would have been better 
 policy not to state the Jew's objection, and then resort to bluster 
 to meet it. But the apostle's line of thought shows that his 
 answer is not petulant, but pertinent, and conclusive. The Jews, 
 as we have seen, assume that their election as the theocratic people 
 of God was unconditional; and that not even God could, without 
 injustice, dispossess them, or bring the Gentiles into enjoyment of 
 their vested rights. Paul's reply is, that in the temporal affairs of 
 men, of whicli the election of the Jews is one, God is sovereign; 
 that all his administration is conditioned ; that he has the right to 
 dispose of men as he wills: that he once assigned the Jews to a 
 high and honoral)le place, but now, for cause, he assigns them to a 
 lower and humbler place ; and promotes the Gentiles to member- 
 ship in the Church ; and that in doing all this, he works the Jews 
 no injustice. In point of equity, the Jews have no more right of 
 reclamation against God's providential disposal of them, than the 
 Gentiles had had for all the centuries past; or than have the pots 
 wiiich a potter has made, out of the same clay, one for a nobler 
 use, and one for a meaner use. All men are in the hands of God, 
 to be appointed and used, in his providential plans, as he wills, just 
 
ROMANS IX. 19-21. 315 
 
 as the clay is in the potter's hands to be molded as he wills, into a 
 parlor vase when he can ; but if the clay is stiff and intractable, 
 into a washpot.-' The figure of a potter is as frequent in the 
 Scripture as it is expressive ; and Paul uses it here (as the other 
 Scripture writers do), to illustrate God's providential manipula- 
 tions of men, for temporal and, usually, national issues. It is in 
 the line of this figure of a potter, that Paul asks tlie Jew, Shall 
 the thing molded say to him that molded it, Why didst 
 thou make me thus? The last question needs explanation. 
 The verb make does not here mean, as it does in some places, to 
 create, or to bring into being; nor to constitute, to give one a 
 wrong bent ; but, as the connection shows, it means to appoint, to 
 destine to a certain sphere or rank (just as, in every-day English, 
 we use the word in the same sense ; we male [appoint] a man 
 chief, or subordinate). So here, the Jew does not mean to ask 
 why the Potter gave him existence, or why he constituted him as 
 he is ; but wliy the Potter so disposed of him in the world: "Why 
 didst thou make me, once so high in thy plans, now so mean? 
 Why didst thou degrade me, and exalt the Gentile to a higher 
 place?" It was not the mere words of the question to which Paul 
 objected, but the spirit of it. God asks that man should reason 
 with him, and even arraign him. " Come, let us reason together; 
 are not my ways equal?" and David says, "That thou mayest be 
 found blameless, when thou art judged." But this question of the 
 Jew was captious, and disrespectful: it inveighs, not inquires; it 
 reproaches, not expostulates. Yet even thus, Paul gave it an 
 answer. 
 
 This discussion (as we have so often seen) has reference only 
 to God's sovereignty in the temporal affairs of men ; and here only 
 so far as God appoints men (as nations, not as individuals) to their 
 relative place and rank in the world and in the Church. This is 
 the point which he illustrates by the figure of the potter ; and he 
 alludes specifically to the noted passage in Jeremiah, familiar, 
 doubtless, to every Jew, a passage so clear and decisive on this 
 point as to be beyond misunderstanding or perversion. The mat- 
 ter to be illustrated by this figure of the potter, is not the Divine 
 creation of vessels [menl of different moral character, and differ- 
 ent eternal destinies ; but God's sovereign designation of those 
 vessels to different spheres in the world. The passage from Jere- 
 
 * " Moab is my washpot.'' (Ps. Ix, 8.) 
 
316 EXPOSITION. 
 
 minh is so significant that I (jiiote it in full: " I went down to the 
 potter's house, and, beliold, lie was making a work on the wheel. 
 And the vessel which he was making of tiie clay was spoiled in the 
 hand of the potter; and he turned and made it another vessel, as 
 it seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the woi-d of Jeho- 
 vah came to me, saying, O house of Israel, can not I do with you 
 as this potter ? Behold, as the clay in the hand of the potter, so 
 are ye in my hand, O house of Israel. If ever I speak concerning 
 a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck it up, and to break it 
 down, and to destroy it ; and that nation, concerning which I spoke, 
 turn from its evil, then I will repent of the evil which I thought 
 to do unto it. And if ever I speak concerning a nation and con- 
 cerning a kingdom, to build it and to plant it; and it do evil in my 
 sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good 
 wherewith I said I would benefit it." (Jer. xviii, 3-10.) 
 
 Nowhere is God's absolute sovereignty in the affairs of nations, 
 and his change (for cause) in his dealings with them, more clearly 
 and consistently exhibited. And this exhibition of God's attitude 
 towards Israel, and dealings with them, nationally, is just what 
 Paul aimed to declare in the verse before us. His words are 
 spoken, not of men at large, but of Jews exclusively ; and not of 
 the Jews, individually, in relation to their spiritual and eternal 
 interests, but of the Jews nationally, en masse j in relation to their 
 place in God's administrative plans. God does not deal with the 
 Jews now individually, just as, in the days of Moses, he did not 
 deal with their fathers individually ; but thought to consume his 
 people en masse. So now, instead of continuing the Jews as the 
 chosen nation, the leaders of God's hosts, he has taken their com- 
 mission from them, and reduced them to the ranks; or rather he 
 has banned them out of service, until the time of repentance shall 
 come for them, and the Potter shall once more take the clay into 
 his hands, and mold it anew to his will. Meanwhile the Jews will 
 stand where all mankind stood before the call of Abraham, and 
 where the Gentiles have always stood, undistinguished from the 
 mass of mankind. The Potter has reconsidered the high call of 
 the Jews, and has brought them down from the rank of a parlor 
 vase, to the rank and office of a washpot. Paul elsewhere says, 
 " In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, 
 but also of wood and clay ; and some unto honor, and some unto 
 dishonor." (2 Tim. ii, 20.) It is to the latter class that God now 
 assigns the Jews. 
 
ROMANS IX. 19-21. 317 
 
 Verses 22-24. Preliminary Translation : — " But if God willing 
 to display his wrath and to make known his power endured in 
 much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction and in 
 order that he may make known tlie riches of his glory upon vessels 
 of mercy which he of old prepared unto glory whom also he called 
 us not only from Jews nay but also from Gentiles." 
 
 I have given above a literal translation of the sentence, that is, 
 of the words, without any editorial suggestion, in the way of added 
 words, or of punctuation. The sentence in this naked form doubt- 
 less represents verbally Paul's original autograph, or dictation. 
 
 The passage in the Greek, in its unsupplemented form, has given 
 the translators and exegetes great vexation of soul. It is evidently 
 (as so often in Paul's writings) defective, doubly defective. It . 
 may be divided into two parts. The first part, verse 22, is, in 
 itself, a complex sentence, of which only the protasis (the "if" 
 clause) is given; and the apodosis (the responsive, assertive, or 
 consequent clause) is to be supplied. The translators usually 
 supply as an apodosis at the beginning of the sentence, the inter- 
 rogative pronoun ^'Wliat?" which is grammatically sufHcient, 
 though it alone scarcely helps us to any satisfactory, logical sense. 
 The second part of the passage, verses 23 and 24 (after the word 
 "and"), is likewise a complex sentence, of which (unlike the first 
 sentence) only the consequent clause is given, and the verb of the 
 protasis is to be supplied. But here the translators have not es- 
 sayed to help us at all. To make any sense whatever, we must 
 supply what they have left lacking. 
 
 In attacking the passage we may assume, at the start, that the 
 apostle has not wandered from his one theme in the chapiter, the 
 relations of the Jews to the call of God, and to the Church of Jesus 
 Christ. And it remains that we inquire what disposition, gram- 
 matical and logical, we must (not may) make of the saying, so as 
 to conform it with the apostle's line of thought. And the discus- 
 sion of the passage before us must follow this line ; for only thus 
 can we reach any tenable result. We must supply something in 
 each sentence, not necessarily the same supply ; but the supply or 
 supplies must help explain the apostle's words, and be apposite to 
 his theme. 
 
 I name a few points in advance: 
 
 1. We may safely make two complete sentences out of the 
 passage ; the first embracing verse 22, and the second verses 23 
 and 24. 
 
318 EXPOSITION. 
 
 2. The Mpostk-'s iirguiiu-nt is in elTect addressed to the Jews ; 
 and for directness and clearness' sake, we may express his thought 
 in tlie second person. 
 
 8. Tlie concessive conjunction "»/" (el) and the indicative mode 
 in the verb ''endured" {iji'cyKfv) are used of a matter of liistorical 
 fact. 
 
 4. Tlic word " What," supplied by the Authorized and Revised 
 as the apodosis in verse 22, gives us no definite sense ; as this inter- 
 rogative j)ronoun may have various meanings. AVe should need 
 additional vvoi"ds to interpret it, such as Paul always adds to his 
 question, " What then shall we say?" But, 
 
 5. The Greek does not indicate that the sentences are ques- 
 tions, as in the old translations ; and therefore, 
 
 6. The apodosis to be supplied in verse 22 may be (1) interrog- 
 ative, (2) impei-ative, or (3) declarative. Thus: 
 
 (1) "If God— endured the Jews,"— what follows? Will lie 
 always endure? 
 
 (2) "If God — endured the Jews" — do not look that he shall 
 do so forever. 
 
 (3) "If God — endured the Jews" — his forbearance does not 
 imply that he will always endure. 
 
 I adopt the last, as being also the best solution of the next 
 sentence. 
 
 7. The Greek word (d^Xcji') translated '' u'illing," does not mean 
 ^'consenting" (for wliich the Greek is iKJiv), but " having a will lo ;" 
 that is, resolving, purposing. And the force of the present tense 
 of the word may be expressed by the words " all along." 
 
 8. In the second sentence, verse 23, the apodosis is made by 
 the simple and easy repetition of the verb " endured," from the 
 twenty-second verse. 
 
 With these preliminaries we are now prepared to retranslate 
 the passage, both for its grammar and its thought: 
 
 Verses 22-24. But if God, thoug-h purposing all along 
 to display his wrath, and to make known his power, never- 
 theless endured with much long-suffering [the Jewish] ves- 
 sels of w^rath, fitted unto destruction, [this endurance does 
 not imply that he will always endure them]. And [he en- 
 dured them] only in order that he may make known 
 [through them as his provisional missionary Church], the 
 riches of his glory upon [the Gentile] vessels of mercy, 
 
ROMANS IX. 25-29. 319 
 
 which he of old prepared unto glory ; whom also he called, 
 — us [I say], (not only from Jews), nay, but also from 
 Gentiles : 
 
 The passage, thus completed and explained, makes coherent 
 sense in itself, and falls into perfect harmony with the previous 
 discussion. This is proof of the correctness of the exegesis, the 
 only exegesis which the Greek permits, or the argument admits. 
 
 The phrases vessels of wrath, vessels of mercy, are 
 Hebraisms which mean "objects of wrath, of mercy;" and those 
 words (like " loved" and " hated," in verse 13), are words express- 
 ive of concepts in the line of God's providences. Tlie two phrases 
 do not describe bad men indiscriminately, and good men indis- 
 criminately, out of the world at large; and in relation to their 
 eternal destinies ; for that is not what Paul is discussing ; but they 
 describe, definitely, and definitively, the Jews, "the vessels of 
 wrath," en viasse, on the one hand, and the Gentiles, " the vessels 
 of mercy," en masse, on the other, in their national relations to 
 God's government. The term fitted unto destruction expresses 
 the Jews' self-fitting (but against God's will), not to eternal 
 destruction, but to national rejection from their theocratic posi- 
 tion and privileges. And the phrase, he prepared of old for 
 glory, expresses God's plans and measures from the foundation 
 of the world, to bring the Gentiles into this higher relation to the 
 Church. The twenty-fourth verse expresses Paul's concept of the 
 "glory" as being the national glory just spoken of. By the pro- 
 noun us, which Paul here uses, he identifies himself with the Gen- 
 tiles, w^hom, he says, God called to this high calling,— even us 
 Gentiles. And the next clause, read as a parenthesis, not only 
 from Jews, stands as Paul's protest against the exclusiveness of 
 the Jews. 
 
 And then the apostle proceeds to quote from the Hebrew 
 Scriptures various passages in which the call and in-bringing of 
 the Gentiles are explicitly prophesied. 
 
 Verses 25-29. As also in Hosea the Scripture says 
 [concerning the Gentiles], 
 
 I will call the non-people of me, my people ; 
 
 And her, the not-beloved one, beloved. (IIos. ii, 23.) 
 
 And it w^ill be, that in the place w^here it was said to 
 
 them, Ye are not my people, 
 There they will be called Sons of the living God. (Hos. i, 10.) 
 
320 ^XPOSITIO^. 
 
 But Isaiah cries concerning Israel, 
 
 If the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of 
 
 the sea, 
 [Only] the remnant will be saved: 
 For a thing will Jehovah do upon the earth, 
 Accomplishing it and cutting it short. (Isii. x, 22.) 
 
 And according as Isaiah before has said, 
 
 Unless Jehovah of armies had left us a seed, 
 We should have become as Sodom, and shoijld have 
 been made like Gomorrah. (Isa. i, 9.) 
 
 The words of Hosea, which Paul quotes here as if spoken of 
 the Gentiles, were originally spoken of the ten tribes of Israel. 
 It may be thought either that Paul forgot their first application, 
 or that from their appositeness to his purpose he Intentionally 
 read into tliem a reference to the Gentiles. But the more probable 
 explanation is that Hosea spoke the words as of a sinful and al- 
 most heathen Israel ; and that it was in this light that Paul took 
 the saying to describe the return of the actual Gentile, heathen 
 world. In the same way Peter quotes the first of these Hosean 
 passages to describe the recall of the literal Israel, once sinful and 
 out of Christ, but now believing. (1 Pet. ii, 10.) 
 
 Paul quotes the two passages from Hosea to express the future 
 enlargement of the Gentiles; and, conversely, the two quotations 
 from Isaiah to express the future diminution and rejection of 
 Israel, all but a bare remnant. We must understand the con- 
 trasted futures of the two peoples as involving, not their spiritual 
 and eternal destinies, but only their national rank and ecclesias- 
 tical standing in relation to God's plans. The Gentiles come to the 
 front, as the people to whom the gospel has given enlargement ; 
 the Jews fall to the rear, and arc counted no longer as the elect 
 and promoted people, but as outside of the general Church of the 
 future. 
 
 The salient point of the two quotations from Isaiah is, fii'st, 
 that the national Israel may be rejected ; and secondly, that it 
 actually tvas largely rejected in the downfall and captivity of the 
 kingdom of Israel; from which only a remnant returned. Such 
 was the concept and the teaching of Isaiah seven centuries before 
 Christ ; and Paul reads in it now a lesson to the Jews of his own 
 day, that what was possible and actual in the days of the fathers 
 is possible and actual in the days of their descendants. And the 
 
ROMANS IX. SO-33. 321 
 
 point of the quotations from Hosea is, tliat the Gentiles may be 
 called to be God's people, and gathered into the Church. These 
 two points were equally abhorrent to the feelings of the Jews ; but 
 Paul, in the next verses tells them that both have been accom- 
 plished. 
 
 Verses 30-33. Jew: "Wliat then shall we say? 
 
 Paul: That Gentiles, who were not seeking justifica- 
 tion, obtained justification, but justification which is from 
 faith ; but Israel seeking a law of justification, did not 
 attain to law. 
 
 Jew: Wherefore? 
 
 Paul: Because [they sought it] not from faith; nay, but 
 as from works : they stumbled against the Stone of stum- 
 bling ; according as it has been written. 
 
 Behold, I lay in Zion a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock 
 of offense : 
 
 And he that has faith on him will not be brought to 
 shame. (Isa. viii, 14; xxviii, 16.) 
 
 The word Gentiles, without the article, is not enumerative, 
 but descriptive ; that is, it does not catalogue all who belong to 
 this people, but describes their character or type, without refer- 
 ence to the number of the persons included. "The Gentiles" 
 (with the article) would comprehend all. Paul doubtless has in 
 his thought all men outside of Israel, but he uses the anarthrous 
 word " Gentiles," not so much to include all as to characterize 
 them. 
 
 The quotations are fi-om the Hebrew Scriptures, to which all 
 Jews bow as final. What bearing have they on the matter under 
 discussion ? The quotations from Isaiah exclude the Jews from 
 the Church ; the quotations from Hosea declare the introduction 
 of the Gentiles into the Church. Where, then, do the Jews stand ? 
 The Jew, driven to feel for his gi'ound, asks (verse 20) , What then 
 shall we say? What, according to this showing, is the position 
 of the Jews before God ? This question, which seems a candid 
 asking for the facts, Paul answers in like spirit, but in the line of 
 all the previous discussion. He has taught that the one felt need 
 that lies at the basis of all religion is justification, or acquittal 
 from guilt. And his answer now assumes that both Gentiles and 
 Jews have felt this need, yet neither knew how to obtain it. The 
 Gentiles have groped for it in the dark, not knowiiig how to seek 
 21 
 
3->3 EXPOSITION. 
 
 it, and Pmil snys they can Iiardly bo said to seek it. Nevertheloss 
 the gospel lias opened the doors of tlie Church to the Gentik'S,and 
 they now have en masse (potentially) obtained justification, but it 
 is justification from faith in Christ. The Jews, on the other hand, 
 liad the light of the Scriptures, and knew just what they needed ; 
 but they sought it amiss. They sought a law of justification — 
 that is, a legal method, of justification — from works of law ; and 
 Paul says tliey did not attain to it. Unlike Abraham, who was 
 justified from faitli, tlie.Iows sought justification from works: they 
 rejected the faith wliicli would bring tliem to the feet of Jesus. 
 They stumbled over the Stone of stumbling, tlie Rock which 
 the gospel lias laid in Zion, Jesus Christ the Messiah; and only he 
 that has faith in him will not be disappointed in his search 
 for justification. 
 
CHAPTEE X. 
 
 Verses 1-4. Brethren, the desire indeed of my heart, 
 and my prayer to God is in their behalf, that they may be 
 saved. For I bear them -witness, that they have a zeal 
 for God ; nay, but not according to knowledge. For ignor- 
 ing God's plan of justification, and seeking to establish 
 their own, they did not subject themselves to God's plan 
 of justification. For Christ is end of law as regards jus- 
 tification, to every one that has faith. 
 
 The word brethren is addressed to the Romans, and not to 
 his other " brethren," the Jews, of whom he continues, from the 
 last chapter, to speak in the third person. Yet as the Jews are 
 foremost in his thoughts, and as he is writing expressly about 
 them, and almost at them, we may interpret his language as 
 de facto addressed to them, until, in the fourteenth verse, he again 
 formally introduces the Jew as an interlocutor in the discussion. 
 
 Paul's desire and prayer is offered for his people, that they 
 may be saved. By this word he does not so much mean their 
 eternal salvation in the life to come (though this is, of course, the 
 ultimate aim) as their present obedience to the faith in Christ and 
 their recovery to the Church. This he clearly shows in his decla- 
 ration that " When the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in (into 
 the Church), then all Israel also will he saved'' (Rom. xii, 26) ; and 
 he further shows this in the verses now following, in which the 
 thought turns entirely on their unfaith in Christ, from which he 
 prays that they may be saved. And, though they yet reject Christ, 
 he does not regard their case as hopeless, or without redeeming ele- 
 ments. In the second verse Paul, himself a Jew, and thoroughly 
 informed and candid, credits his .lewish brethren with zeal for 
 God, a zeal such as no other people ever exhibited. After their 
 return from captivity, five hundred years before Christ, and for all 
 the centuries since, they have shown an outward adhesion to their 
 
 323 
 
324 EXPOSITION. 
 
 religion, and their law, and their God, which lias often amounted 
 to fanaticism. But tlieir zeal, Paul adds, was not in accordance 
 with tlie higher spiritual concei)ts of God or of vital religion. 
 Tlu'ir blind devotion to tlie Law of Moses, the law of rites and 
 ceremonies, kept them frona recognizing that in Christ, who is the 
 substance, all these things, which were only shadows, were fulfilled. 
 
 Such is the good trait with which Paul credits his people: 
 they were zealous for their God. Yet in the third verse he charges 
 the Jews with willful and stubborn self-blindness to the truth and 
 claim of the gospel. The word that Paul uses does not mean, as 
 the Authorized and Revised give it, that the Jews were ignorant, 
 for that would plead in their belialf ; but that, knowing the truth 
 very well, they deliberately ignored it. (Cf. Rom. ii, 4.) They 
 knew their own scriptures, they knew the story of Abraham (Gen. 
 XV, 6), they knew God's method of justification from faith; but 
 they were wedded to their conceit of acceptability with God from 
 works, and they sought to establish their acceptance with him by 
 their " tithing of mint and cummin to the neglect of the weightier 
 matters of judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt, xxiii, 23); and 
 they did not submit themselves to God's method of justifi- 
 cation from faith. 
 
 But tlie j)oint which Paul makes here is, that this faith from 
 which justification comes, is specifically faith in Jesus Christ. 
 Paul is more copious and explicit on this point than on any other 
 in " his gospel." He declared to Cephas that without Christ there 
 is no justification: " Knowing that man is not justified from works 
 of law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, we [the Jews] exercised 
 faith in Jesus Christ, in order that we may be justified from faith 
 in Christ, and not from works of law: because from works of law 
 will no flesh be justified." (Gal. ii, 16.) 
 
 In attacking the fourth verse we must notice that the words 
 tAos vbfjuov are both without the article, and can not be made defi- 
 nite, as in the Authorized and Revised, " the end of the law," but 
 must be given abstractly, in the most general terms, end of la'w. 
 The meaning of the words is a much debated point ; but the apos- 
 tle's line of thought determines their meaning and the exegesis of 
 the verse. Some interpret the verse to mean that Christ is the 
 fnlJiUmcnt of the Law. Doubtless " law" and " the Law" had for 
 their aim the justification of man, and doubtless Christ accom- 
 plished this aim of law by his atonement ; but, while this is true in 
 itself, it does not fall into line with the apostle's thought in verse 3. 
 
R03LiNS X. 5-10. 325 
 
 That verse names (as we saw before, Rom. iv, 2, 3) two conceiv- 
 able, but incompatible, methods of justitication— one from works, 
 one from faith. In the fourth verse Paul affirms that practically 
 the first is now abolished. Christ's vicarious death has put an 
 "end" to justification from works, the boasted reliance of the 
 Jews. "Christ is the end (rAos) [the finality, or termination] of 
 law, so far as concerns justification, to every one that has faith." 
 
 The last words put everything and every man on the gospel 
 basis. Justification with God is no longer from works (if it ever 
 was, as the Jews thought) ; and it is no longer limited to the Jews 
 (as they arrogated to themselves) ; but every one, Gentile as well 
 as Jew, who has faith in Christ, comes within the provision of the 
 gospel. And we may put all Gentiles en masse, potentially, in this 
 class. The Jews en masse vacate their, place in the Church ; the 
 Gentiles en masse come in into their place, if not in their stead. 
 
 Verses 5-10. For Moses describes the justification 
 which is from law, that the man who has done these 
 thing's will have life in it. But the justification from faith 
 says thus : Say not in thy heart. Who will ascend into 
 heaven? (that is, to bring- Christ down); or, Who will de- 
 scend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the 
 dead). Nay, but what says it? The word is nigh thee, in 
 thy mouth, and in thy heart ; (that is, the word of the faith, 
 which [word] we preach). Because if thou profess with 
 thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and have faith in thy heart that 
 God raised him from the dead, thou wilt be saved ; for with 
 the heart faith is exercised unto justification ; but with the 
 mouth profession is made unto salvation. 
 
 The critical editions of the Greek, and the Revised, give the 
 fifth verse, " Moses writes that the man who has done the justifi- 
 cation which is from law, will live in it (justification"). These 
 words may, perhaps, have a meaning; but, first, they are not the 
 words of Paul. Paul nowhere else uses the expression " to do 
 justification," or even, as the Revised translates, "to do right- 
 eousness." Besides, Paul never gives the word diKaioffOvr], the 
 general ethical sense of "righteousness." Secondly, the words 
 which tliis sentence attributes to Moses, ai-e not his. What lie did 
 say, is, " Ye shall keep my statutes, and my judgments ; which if 
 a man do, he will live in them." (Lev. xviii, 5.) With this accords 
 the received text of this verse in the Greek Testament, and the 
 
320 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Authorized translation ; and I adopt this reading without hesita- 
 tion, as being Greeii, as being true to the words of Moses, and as 
 having an intelligible meaning. 
 
 The passage as it stands in Leviticus describes the method of 
 justification from works. A man must do the things which the 
 law commands, " which if he do, he will live in them ;" that is, 
 he will have life eternal as the wages for his obedience. But 
 strictly this is only an imaginary case. Moses certainly did not 
 mean that man could do the works of the law ; but only that his 
 defective legal service w'ould be supplemented by the provisions 
 of grace and pardon for the contrite believer, mediated to him by 
 faith, not by works. Such was the working scheme under the Old 
 Dispensation ; and Paul who is discussing with the Jew the abstract 
 and rigorous difference between Jewish justification from works, 
 and Christian justification from faith, necessarily interprets the 
 woi"ds of the Law in this strictest legal sense. No man does the 
 works of law ; no man earns life as the reward of obedience. 
 " From works of law will no man be justified." (Gal. ii, 16.) And 
 so we reach the conclusion that this method of justification from 
 works is out of the question. 
 
 The sixth verse brings forw^ard the other alternative, the 
 justification from faith. The apostle personifies justification 
 and lets it state its own conditions: "Justification thus says." 
 To do this, he quotes from a striking passage in Moses' last address 
 to the Children of Israel, in wiiich the great lawgiver teaches 
 them that, to the believei", God's law is not hard, nor far off. I 
 quote so much of Moses' words as involves this thought: "The 
 commandment is not hard for thee, nor is it far off. It is not in 
 heaven, that thou shouldst say, AVho shall go up for us to heaven, 
 and bring it to us, that we may do it f Nor is it beyond the sea, 
 that thou shouldst say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and 
 bring it to us, that we may do it ? But the word is very nigh thee, 
 in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 
 XXX, 11-14.) The passage in Deuteronomy is conceived from the 
 standpoint of law, of something to be done, "that we may do it;" 
 and, in itself, might be cited on the side of justification from 
 works. But it is so evangelical in its tone, that Paul easily appro- 
 priates it to express, with his running comment, or interpretation, 
 the Chi'istian concept of justification from faith, which requires 
 no work, nay, which excludes work. In this direction, St. Augus- 
 tine says: "The Loi-d did not say, Go to the East to seek justifica- 
 
ROMANS X. 5-10. 327 
 
 tion ; or, Sail to the farthest West in order to obtain forgiveness ; 
 but he said, I ask nothing of thee which is not within thee." 
 (Sermon III, De Martyribus.) And Chrysostom says: "In order 
 to obtain forgiveness of our sins, it is not necessary to expend 
 money ; it is not required to travel to distant lands ; nor to undergo 
 bodily labors and dangers ; but an act of sincere will alone is 
 required." (Homily I, To Philemon.) Penny Cyclop., Vol. IX, 
 157. 
 
 This triple saying of Moses looks undoubtedly to legal obe- 
 dience, and to justification from works. Paul does not profess to 
 find Christian sentiment in these sayings ; but he seizes on them 
 as capable of Christian interpretation ; and with his word that is, 
 he introduces this interpretation in each case. He adopts and 
 adapts the words of Moses to his own purpose ; but by this word 
 "that is," he shows that he goes beyond the expression and tlie 
 thought of Moses; and, from the Christian standpoint, teaches 
 that one need not ascend to heaven to bring Christ down, or 
 descend into the abyss (the grave) to bring up Christ from the 
 dead ; or, in general, to do anyxvork transcending human ability. All 
 this has been accomplished for man, and in his stead, by the 
 vicarious atonement of Christ. The word of faith which we 
 preach marks out the simplest, the easiest, of means for justifica- 
 tion,— jtis( accept it. Salvation is nigli you ; you do not have to go 
 one step after it. Nay, it is closer yet, even than " beside you ;" 
 it is in your mouth. Nay, it is closer even than that ; it is in your 
 heart. Closer than this it can not be, or easier to reach. " Only 
 profess, with your mouth, that Jesus is Lord ; only have faith, in 
 your heart, that God raised him from tlie dead (tliat Jesus is a 
 living Christ, not a dead man), — this is all you have to do, — and 
 you will be saved." And the tenth verse repeats this as the sole 
 principle and condition of the gospel plan. There is no "work" 
 required for justification, or admitted. "With the heart (affec- 
 tions) faith is exercised unto justification ; with the mouth 
 (a public declaration of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord), profession 
 is made unto salvation. 
 
 I have used the word '^profession" rather than the word 
 "confession," as in the Authorized and Revised. There is perhaps 
 not much difference between them; but to some minds "con- 
 fession" might imply an acknowledgment or concession of some- 
 thing at which you blush ; wliile profession implies a bold procla- 
 mation of something of which you boast. Paul avoids the very 
 
328 EXPOSITION. 
 
 appearance of slinmefacedness in regard to the gospel. " God for- 
 bid that I should glory, save in tlie cross of Christ." 
 
 Verses 11-13. For the Scripture says, Every one that 
 has faith upon him, will not be put to shame. (Isa. xxviii, 16.) 
 For there is no difference between Jew and Greek ; for the 
 same Lord is Lord of all, being rich unto all that call upon 
 him; for [it has been written]. Every one who shall call 
 upon the name of the Lord will be saved." (Joel ii, 32.) 
 
 The eleventh verse is quoted by Paul from Isaiah ; the same 
 woi-ds that he had already quoted (Rom. ix, 33), "He that has 
 faith on him will not be disappointed" (Isa. xxviii, 16). Tliis is 
 verbally exact to the woi*ds of Isaiah, and expresses all that the 
 prophet, speaking of Jews only, contemplated from his Jewish 
 point of view. But in this place, the apostle, speaking from the 
 wider view of a Chri.stian preacher, and with his apostolical 
 authority, enlarges the saying by introducing the word every one 
 (or all); Every one that has faith will not be put to shame. 
 The prophet's saying, even without this additional word, was 
 really pregnant with this meaning, but the apostle's enlai-gement 
 of the saying now, unquestionably makes the assertion ample to 
 cover the case of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. This is the 
 point which the apostle has under discussion. The old legal sys- 
 tem of the Jews is abolished ; and justification from works is come 
 to an end. And all men now stand before God, with whom is no 
 respect of persons, equally entitled to justification from faith. 
 This word "all" (as we have often seen) expresses the universal 
 embrace of the gospel. To the synagogue it was a novel and unac- 
 ceptable teaching; but to Paul it constituted the very staple of 
 his gospel. The word all is a salient word in Paul's theological 
 vocabulary, and it is always safe to emphasize it in his writings. 
 This universal ism of the gospel is the subject of this paragraph 
 before us; and in the twelfth verse, the apostle affirms that there 
 is no difference in God's sight between Jew and Gentile: " Tlie 
 same Lord is Lord of all ; and is rich in grace towards all who call 
 on him." To confirm this teaching by an additional Old Testament 
 authority, he quotes further, from the prophet Joel, the last words 
 in his startling prediction of the revolution in the ecclesiastical 
 firmament at the coming of Christ — the same words that Peter 
 quoted in his speech at Pentecost. (Acts ii, 21.) But Paul finds 
 in the Hebrew of this quotation from Joel, what he did not find in 
 
ROMANS X. U, 15. 329 
 
 the quotation from Isaiah, his own favorite word " all " (or " every 
 one"), — " For every one who shall call upon the name of the Lord, 
 will be saved." (Joel ii, 32.) This word, of course, Paul inter- 
 prets as meaning the Gentile as well as the Jew ; and he inter- 
 prets the word ''Lord," which in Joel is Jehovah, as meaning the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Verses 14, 15. Jew: How then shall they [the Gentiles] 
 call on him upon whom they did not have faith ? But how 
 shall they have faith upon him whom they did not hear ? 
 But how shall they hear apart from one preaching-? But 
 how shall they preach, if they be not sent? according as 
 it has been written, How beautiful are the feet of them 
 that bring the gospel of good things. (Isa. liii, 1.) 
 
 These verses are the questions of a gainsayer, and express dis- 
 sent from Paul's declaration that whosoever may call on the name 
 of the Lord will be saved. 
 
 The first question that arises in the exegesis is, Who are meant 
 by the pronoun they? — "How shall they call on him?" It can 
 not be referred to the Jews ; for no one doubts that the Jews 
 called on the name of the Lord [Jehovah], and had faith (though 
 not always an evangelical faith) in him. The case of the Jews is 
 clearly not in doubt. It remains that the questions in the mouth 
 of the Jewish objector refer to the Gentiles: " How shall the Gen- 
 tiles call on him [Jehovah], of whom they know nothing, and on 
 whom they never had faith?" The point which the Jew makes 
 against Paul's universalism is historical and geographical, as if he 
 said, Judaism is confessedly local, and is limited in the number of 
 its adherents ; while Christianity claims to be without limit of 
 place or numbers, and its claims are, therefore, physically impos- 
 sible. The Gentiles en masse can not have faith in Christ, for they 
 never heard of him. They never heard of him, for no preacher 
 has ever gone to them. And preachers have never gone, for they 
 have never been sent. And the Gentiles never felt the joy of the 
 captive Jews in Babylon in welcoming the messengers of libera- 
 tion: "How beautiful the feet (how welcome the coming) of tlie 
 messengers that bring us the good tidings !" 
 
 The argument of the Jew in these verses is plausible ; but it 
 proves too much. In all moral questions we must get the general 
 truth, or meaning, and can not require geographical or numerical 
 exactness of fulfillment. A general statement that " Christ is the 
 
330 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Savior of all men" is not invalidated or disproved because some 
 have not heard the gospel and many disbelieve. And so the Jevv^ 
 has overstated the case. On the Jew's own style of argument 
 Paul retorts thai Judaism is a failure ; it has not carried every vote 
 of the Jews themselves. 
 
 And this is the answer that the apostle makes in the next verse : 
 
 Verse 16. Paul: Nay; but not all [the Jews] gave heed 
 to the gospel ; for Isaiah says, Lord, who of us had faith 
 in that which we heard? (Isa. liii, 1.) 
 
 The interlocutory debate between Paul and the Jew continues 
 through these verses and into the next chapter. Verse 16 belongs 
 to Paul for reasons potent in the text. The subject of the verb in 
 the first clause is the Jews, as is shown by the question from Isaiah, 
 in which the Jews are represented as speaking in self-condemna- 
 tion over their unfaith. Tlie famous fifty-third chai)ter of Isaiah 
 has always been interpreted by both Synagogue and Church as 
 Messianic. Yet the English translations have not caught the 
 striking sense of Isaiah's Hebrew, which, written eight hundred 
 years before Christ's death, nevertheless represents Israel as look- 
 ing back from the standpoint of Christ's time and mourning their 
 unfaith in him as revealed in prophecy: "Who [how few!l of us 
 had faith in the announcement to us about Messiah ? and to 
 whom of us, was the arm of Jehovah revealed?" The chapter is 
 so undeniably Cliristologic that Paul here says that the Jews in 
 not accepting it really gave no heed to the gospel. This word 
 "gospel," the word which Paul here uses, ought not to be diluted 
 (as in the Authorized and the Revised) into " good tidings." Ob- 
 serve, too, that in the first verse of Isaiah's Hebrew, and in Paul's 
 quotation from it, both the Authorized and the Revised translate 
 the words " our report" as if it meant " the report which we (the 
 prophets) gave out," instead of, on the contrary, " the report which 
 we, the people of Israel," heard. And this is the charge which 
 Paul now brings against the Jews: they heard the gospel and did 
 not hearken to its message: " AVho of us (Jews) had faith in what 
 we heard ?" 
 
 Verse 17. Jkw: Then faith comes from that which they 
 [the Gentiles] hear; but that which they hear [of the gos- 
 pel] is through preaching of Christ. 
 
 This verse is tlie answer of tlie Jew. It substantially concedes 
 Paul's charge against the Jews; but it does so only to repeat the 
 
ROMANS X, IS. 331 
 
 objection of the fourteenth verse, that it was impossible that the 
 Gentiles should have heard of the gospel of Christ. The sense may 
 be expressed by the following paraphrase: "Then {&pa., it follows] 
 that faith in the gospel comes only from what one hears ; but no 
 one hears of the gospel except through the preaching of Christ by 
 his messengers. Now, admitting that we Jews heard this Messianic 
 message of the prophets, yet certainly, in the physical nature of 
 the case, the Gentiles can not have heard about Christ, and can not 
 have faith in him." 
 
 Verse 18. Paul: Nay, but I say. Did they [the Gen- 
 tiles] not hear? [They did] indeed, then [as it has been 
 written] : 
 
 Into all the earth went out the sound of them, 
 And unto the ends of the world the w^ords of them. 
 
 (Psa. xix, 4.) 
 
 That this verse is Paul's is clear from the structure, the in- 
 ternal evidence, and the connection. The apostle applies the quo- 
 tation from the Psalms to all people throughout the world. This 
 shows that the subject of the verb in the first line is "the Gen- 
 tiles." Paul takes up the objection which the Jew has made in 
 the fourteenth verse, " How can the Gentiles have faith in him 
 whom they did not hear V and declares now that the Gentiles as 
 a class {qua Gentiles] did hear the proclamation of the gospel — 
 not every individual of them, it is true, without exception (which 
 is the difficulty urged by the Jew), but that this is the normal and 
 standing fact for the Gentile world. Already the gospel has been 
 preached throughout the world ; already the apostle was able to 
 say to the Colossians, " The gospel was preached to every nation 
 under heaven." (Cob i, 23.) The Jews, " the diaspora," had gone 
 to the extremes of the Roman world ; and so we read : " In every 
 city Moses had them that preach him." (Acts xv, 21.) And Paul 
 himself had preached in these synagogues, and covered all the 
 central parts of the empire with his Gentile Churches. It was not, 
 then, an extravagant application to Ahis spread of the gospel which 
 he makes of the words of the Psalm describing the testimony of 
 the heavens to the glory of God : 
 
 " Their voice has gone out into all the earth, 
 And their words to the ends of the world." 
 
 (Psa. xix, 4.) 
 
332 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verses 19-21. Nay; but I say, Did Israel not know 
 [this call of the Gentiles] ? Moses, first, says, 
 
 I will move you to jealousy at a no-nation ; 
 
 At a nation without understanding I will anger you. 
 (Deut. xxxii, 21.) 
 But Isaiah ventures, and says, 
 
 I was found by the [ Gentiles] not seeking me ; 
 
 I became manifest to them not asking for me. (Isa. Ixv, 1. ) 
 But as to Israel, he says. All the day long did I spread 
 out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. 
 (Isa. Ixv, 2.) 
 
 The strong adversative conjunction Nay; but — is usually 
 found in correction or rebuttal of some previous saying. This 
 holds good of the use of the word in vei-ses 16 and 18, in which 
 Paul rejects the sentiment just j)receding. But in the ninteenth 
 verse, wliere this conjunction comes in after tlie interruption of 
 the quotation from the Psalms, it is not used in disproof of that 
 quotation, but resumes the disproof of the eighteenth verse. And 
 so we clearly assign these words, to the end of the chapter, to Paul 
 as the speaker. 
 
 The point which Paul makes in this paragraph is, that the 
 Jews knew all along, or might have known, that the admission of 
 the Gentiles was foretold in their own Scriptures. In this direc- 
 tion he quotes two decisive testimonies — one from their great 
 lawgiver and one from their greatest prophet. Paul says, "Moses 
 is the first witness." This great man, to whose authority the Jews 
 deferred, predicts the condemnation and rejection of Israel, and 
 the call of another people into their privileges. God, says he, will 
 move his people to jealousy against a people who were as yet " no 
 people" (ecclesiastically), but whom he will call to be his people ; 
 against a people who were as yet " a foolisli people," that is, idola- 
 trous, but who shall be brought to the true (xod and the true faith. 
 (Deut. xxxii, 21.) This quotation from Moses applies to the Gen- 
 tile world, — the Jews must have known this fact. And Isaiah, the 
 evangelical prophet, inti'oduces God as saying: 
 
 " I was entreated of by them that asked not for me ; 
 I was found by them that did not seek me." (Isa. Ixv, 1.) 
 And this passage, again, the Jews knew applied only to the Gen- 
 tile world. Their Scriptures plainly declare that the Gentiles will 
 become God's people. But what was more offensive to Jewish 
 
ROMANS X. 19-21. 333 
 
 arrogance, their prophets declare that the Jews themselves will be 
 rejected from their place as God's elect people. And this result 
 Isaiah indicates in the verse next following the one just quoted. 
 And Paul quotes this next verse in its sadly logical connection : 
 "But as regards Israel, he says, I have spread out my hands all 
 the day to a rebellious people." (Isa. Ixv, 2.) 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Verses 1-6. Jew: I say then, Did God thrust away 
 his people? 
 
 Paul: God forbid: And [I so say], for I am an Israel- 
 ite, from seed of Abraham, tribe of Benjamin. God did not 
 thrust away his people, which he of old had in thought. 
 Or, do ye not know what the Scripture says in the story 
 of Elijah? how he pleads with God against Israel: Lord, 
 thy prophets they killed, thy altars they dug down ; and 
 I alone was left alive, and they seek my life? (1 Kings 
 xix, 10.) Nay; but what sa,ys to him the answer of God? 
 I left over to myself seven thousand men, who did not 
 bow knee to Baal. (1 Kings xix, 18.) Thus then also, in the 
 present time, there has become a remnant [of Israel] ac- 
 cording to election of grace. But if it is by grace, it is no 
 longer from works; else grace no longer becomes grace. 
 
 The apostle's line of thought in this chapter is not immedi- 
 ately apparent ; and yet it is not vei-y far to seek. The di.scussion 
 in the Epistle, up to tlie ninth chapter, largely turned on the rela- 
 tions of the Gentiles en masse to the plan of God, and to the Jews 
 and their prior call. That diseussion is now practically closed. 
 The Gentiles have come to the front, the Jews fall to the rear; 
 and from this reversed standpoint the apostle faces about and now 
 discusses, rather, the relation of the inferior party, the Jews, tothe 
 superior party, the Gentiles, and the future of the Jewish people 
 en masse. And these three chapters must be interpreted in ac- 
 cordance with this thought. 
 
 The discussion liere turns on the question of the Jew, I say 
 then, did God thrust aw^ay his people?— that is, the Jewish 
 nation en masse? This is the painful and embarrassing question 
 which Paul now sets himself to answer. Undoubtedly Paul held 
 and taught that when the Jews rejected Christ, God cast them ofif ; 
 
 334 
 
ROMANS XI. 1-6. 335 
 
 but by this he meant only that God liad canceled their call as the 
 theocratic people and had suspended them from fellowship with the 
 Church, and further than this he does not go. In antagonism to this 
 teaching, the Jew here asks: "Did God thrust away his people?" 
 He adroitly selects this verb, with its exaggerated and offensive 
 presentation of the case, as If it expressed Paul's view of the 
 matter. It is an attempt to push the apostle's teaching to an ex- 
 treme, and thus reduce it to 'an absurdity. The word which the 
 Jew slyly adopts would signify that God's attitude towards his 
 people has become one of aversion, and that he thrusts them from 
 his presence resentfully, violently, finally. But Paul peremptorily 
 rejects this word as a perversion of his views, as untrue to his 
 own feelings towards the Jews, and as untrue to the facts in God's 
 dealings with them. His prompt and emphatic denial that God 
 has thrust away his people may, at the first blush, seem inconsist- 
 ent with his sayings about the Jews elsewhere, and even in this 
 chapter. Paul undoubtedly speaks of the Jews as being hardened, 
 as stumbling, as falling away, as being broken off from the parent 
 stock, as being cast off; but he also speaks of them as " holy," as 
 God's beloved, as obtaining mercy, as being reingrafted, as being 
 received back into the Church. These views are quite compatible. 
 When Christ came, and the Jews rejected him, " God did not thrust 
 them aivay from himself," but simply displaced them from their 
 foremost theocratic position and suspended them from the Church. 
 In his general attitude towards them in all the centuries since 
 that time, and in his dealings with them now, he acts towards 
 them as towards the rest of the world. All souls are God's; but 
 Paul here says that the Jews were, and are, in a special sense, " his 
 people," because they inherited special promises made to the 
 fathers, and they were "beloved for the fathers' sake." And 
 from this point of view he now declares that though the elect 
 people, once the theocratic nation and Church of God, has been 
 suspended from the Church of Messiah for their unfaith, and 
 though the Gentiles have come to be the Church by their faith, 
 yet the Jewish people is not " thrust off," and disintegrated, and 
 destroyed. And this people, now disobedient and gainsaying, as 
 once were their fathers, in Elijah's time, is still, as the Israel of 
 old, God's people, and has yet a future before it, in accordance 
 with God's plans and with his promises to the fathers. 
 
 Paul rejects the Jew's question and insinuation: "Did God 
 thrust away his people?" His first answer is for himself: God 
 
336 EXPOSITION. 
 
 forbid! Tlio oltiuse in tlie Autliorizcd and Revised, For I also 
 am an Israelite, does not express the apostle's ineiiiiiiig.* In 
 this sentence Paul is not alleging his own case as a proof that God 
 has not thrust away his people ; for he does not feel that the 
 matter needed proof; and if this had been Paul's meaning he 
 would have called himself " a Jew." Besides, the Jews would not 
 have accepted him as an instance to the contrary. His words are 
 his protest against his ill-repute with the Jews. They hated him 
 as an enemy to his own people ; and he would put himself right on 
 this subject. The translation in the text is correct: " God forbid ! 
 and [I say this from out of my heart], for I am a loyal Israelite." 
 The word " Israelite," which Paul applies to himself, was the loft- 
 iest, proudest title that a Jew could assume ; and by this word 
 Paul declares that he still held himself as one of the chosen peoi)le. 
 
 His second answer is for God : God did not thrust away his 
 people -which he of old had in his thought. God is not a man 
 that he should change. The obstacle is not with God, but with the 
 Jews themselves. He has always had his people in his plans ; he 
 still counts them as "his people." Observe that the expression, 
 "his people which he foreknew," determines beyond controversy 
 that Paul here contemplates the Jewish people en masse, and not 
 as individuals. Yet even for them, individually, as for the disobe- 
 dient Israelites of old, he stands all the day long, with outspread 
 hands, wooing them, yearning for their salvation in Christ, waiting 
 till they shall return. 
 
 This declaration that "God did not thrust away his people," 
 the apostle now substantiates by citing from the story of Elijah, 
 what God said in a similar historical crisis in the darkest day of 
 Israel (that is, of the northern kingdom of " Israel" where Elijah 
 lived). The prophet, after his losing contest with Jezebel, thought 
 the Church extinct except himself alone. lUit God declared that 
 his cause was not lost. I left to myself seven thousand men 
 who bowed not knee to this She-Baal. t Those faithful men 
 
 <■ In the common Greek phrase koI yap (which Paul uses twenty times), 
 the first word Is never an adverb ("aLso"), but always a conjunction 
 ("and"); and this conjunction serves to repeat, /or onphasis, what has 
 gone before. 
 
 + The word for Baal here is In the feminine gender, t^ /SdaX. Some think 
 this means the licentious goddess Ashtoreth (Astarte), the Phcenlclan 
 Venus. But Gesenlus more correctly thinks that the word Baal, which Is 
 properly masculine, Is here put In the feminine gender. In contempt of the 
 claim that Baal was a god; as If the Divine voice said, "A </Qt/, indeed,— a 
 she-god!" This was a common sarcasm of the rabbis. 
 
ROMANS XI. 7-10. 337 
 
 were the remnant of the theocratic nation and Church, after the 
 riffraff were sifted out. God's Church is not to be estimated by 
 numbers; he can save by many or by few. Only one man, the 
 faithful Elijah, with God behind him, may constitute the victo- 
 rious nation and Church ; millions without God are but a no-nation, 
 disintegrated grains of sand. "Even so," continues the apostle, 
 " at the present juncture, amid the apostasy of the Jews, there is 
 left from among them, a remnant of select men, who can be 
 counted as the real nation and Church. 
 
 "This remnant according to the election of grace," are the 
 same whom Paul counted as the real Church of God among the 
 Jews. They are, in Paul's way of expressing it, " the election," 
 or, better, " the selection ;" that is, the select body of believers in 
 Christ, the true kernel left from the winnowing away of the chaff 
 of the Jewish Church. And so Paul says in the sixth verse, that 
 their faith, and piety, and consequent acceptance with God, came 
 by grace, not, as the Jews fondly believed, from works ; since in 
 the latter case, the gospel system of salvation "by grace" can no 
 longer be counted as " grace." 
 
 Verses 7-10. Jew: "What then? 
 
 Paul: What Israel seeks for, this he did not obtain; 
 but the election obtained it ; but the rest were hardened : 
 according as it has been written, God gave them a spirit 
 of stupor, eyes that they may not see, and ears that they 
 may not hear, until this very day. (Isa. xxix, 10; Deut. 
 xxix, 3.) And David says, 
 
 Let their table become a snare and a trap, 
 And a stumbling-block, and a recompense to them ; 
 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see. 
 And their back always bow Thou down. 
 
 (Psa. Ixix, 22; xxxv, 8.) 
 
 The question, "What then? is found seven times in this 
 Epistle, and nowhere else ; but, except in this place and in Rom. 
 iii, 9, it is found in the fuller and more explicit form,/' What then 
 shall we say ?" The question is controversial, and must be as- 
 signed to the Jew. Here the shorter form seems abrupt and dis- 
 courteous, and betrays that it is asked, not for information, but 
 for disputation only. It is the Jew's impatient reply to the apos- 
 tle's assertion that the theocratic nation had been displaced, and 
 only a remnant of select men left ; and he asks, in bad spirit, or 
 at least in bad form, "What then ?" as if he meant, "Have you 
 22 
 
338 EXPOSITION. 
 
 anything more to say against us Jews?" The apostle's answer is 
 cloar. Ho has just said, in tht> fourth verse, that the Israel of 
 Elijah's day had lai)sed frona their fidelity until only seven thou- 
 sand were left to be counted in God's Church. So now, he says, 
 the Israel of the present day have missed the object of their 
 search (justification befoi'e God), and only " the election," the 
 "select remnant" of Paul's own times, has attained to it. This 
 Christian remnant of Paul's time was doubtless larger than the 
 remnant of Elijah's time, and contained "many ten thousands of 
 the Jews who believed" (Acts xxi, 20); but it was, after all, dis- 
 couragingly small in comparison with the ten millions of the Jewisii 
 nation who did not believe. But this small body of select souls 
 aloii'J obtained the justifici'tion which the Jews at large i)ro- 
 fessedly, but insincerely, sought after. Israel as a people sought 
 justification from loorks of law; they rejected the only means 
 whereby man may be saved. The election alone obtained it, be- 
 cause they sought it from faith in Christ. And the apostle de- 
 clares that the rest uf Israel, the great bulk of the nation, were 
 hardened, and blind, and deaf, and out of touch with God and his 
 plan ; and in conlirmation of this he quotes, as is his custom, the 
 testimony of their own Scriptures to their condemnation. 
 
 Those quotations are marked with a rhetorical peculiarity, 
 common in English and very common in Hebrew, in which some 
 unanticipated result of an action is stated as if the purpose. 
 Thus Shakespeare says : " The duke was thrust from Milan, that his 
 issue should become king of Naples." (Tempest, v, 205.) So we 
 may say, "The Jews rebelled against Rome, that they miglit be de- 
 stroyed." It is thus that Isaiah and Paul say, "God gave them 
 eyes, that they may not see." Of course the sense in every such 
 instance is plain ; only people who do not understand the laws of 
 rhetoric, and fatalists, misunderstand. Prospero was banished 
 from Milan, hut his son became king of Naples. The Jews rebelled, 
 and were destroyed. " God gave them eyes, yet they did not see ; 
 and ears, yet they did not hear." 
 
 This rhetorical difficulty in the expression in the eighth verse 
 is easily removed ; but less easily can we overlook the bitter senti- 
 ment of the ninth verse. Yet we must hold that the malediction 
 uttered by the psalmist [we may safely hold, with Paul, against 
 the critics, to the Davidic authorship] is the just resentment against 
 the enemies of God and his Messiah, as represented by David. 
 
 Two verbal criticisms. 1. In the eighth verse, the spirit of 
 
ROMANS XL 11, 12. 339 
 
 stupor means a sense or feeling of stupor or dumbness ; surely not 
 a "demonic influence." 2. In the ninth verse, the table is an 
 expression for physical ease and enjoyment. The enemies of God, 
 in their satiety of good things, find themselves full. David prays 
 that their gluttony be turned into a sudden trap, and a recom- 
 pense to them for their revelry. The word Thou in the last line 
 of the quotation is addressed to God. It is a prayer that he would 
 crush his enemies. 
 
 Verses 11, 12. Jew : I say then, Did they stumble that 
 they may fall ? 
 
 Paul : God forbid ; nay, but by their fall is the salvation 
 to the Gentiles, to enkindle them to zeal. But if their fall 
 is the riches of the world, and their loss is the riches of the 
 Gentiles, how much rather w^ill be their fullness ? 
 
 The verb " stumbled," sTrraiaav, is not the same as in Eom. ix, 
 32, irpo<riKo\}/av, but has substantially the same meaning. In the 
 earlier passage Paul says that the Jews "stumbled ('struck their 
 foot') against the Stone of stumbling" (the Messiah), and so fell 
 away from God. In this verse the general sense of the verb is the 
 same ; but the Jew, who is here represented as speaking, and from 
 his standpoint, is not so explicit as Paul. He asks in more guarded 
 terms. Did the Jews stumble (trip)? and he does not add, 
 " against Messiah ;" yet, as this is the only matter in debate, this 
 is the only sense that Paul could attach to the question about the 
 falling of the Jews. "Did they stumble, that they should'fall from 
 God ?" And, of course, the last verb must be taken as if it meant 
 " fall away from God into utter and hopeless ruin?" 
 
 And here, too, as in the quotations in verses 8 and 9, we must 
 take the word that, after the Hebrew usage, not as expressing the 
 Divine purpose or aim in their fall, but as the unpurposed and un- 
 desired result, — "Did they stumble, and fall from God ?" 
 
 To this question, " Did the Jews stumble and fall ?" Paul says, 
 as before, " God forbid !" Yet, as it is plain from the connection 
 that they did stumble and fall (that is, they lost their place in the 
 Church), we must understand Paul's denial to mean only that the 
 Jews as a people had not fallen forever ; and the apostle confidently 
 expects their conversion to Christ. 
 
 But though the Jews stumbled and fell, there were, notwith- 
 standing, in the providence of God, some compensations to the 
 Church for their loss. Their fall was the occasion (but not the 
 
340 EXPOSITION. 
 
 cause or the menus) of great benefit to tlie Gentiles. The opposi- 
 tion of tlio Jews (lod used to muke tlie gospel known, and attract- 
 ive to the rest of the world, and it consolidated theGentile Church 
 against the arrogance of the Jews." All Paul's Epistles are the 
 echo of the great strife. Paul declares that, By their fall salva- 
 tion came to the Gentiles; yet, he does not assert, or imply, 
 the Divine purpose, or agency, in bringing about the fall of the 
 Jews. The Authorized says, " Through their fall," as if to express 
 the result of a previous plan, or arrangement. But this is not the 
 sense of the Greek dative. Paul means only to say that. By occasion 
 of the fall of the Jews, God brought a great blessing to the Gen- 
 tiles. In God's providence, the one result concurs in time and 
 operation, with the other; but not in any sense as the result of the 
 other. 
 
 This, too, is the only sense in verses 30 and 31. " Ye obtained 
 mercy by occasion of their disobedience ;" and " By occasion of 
 the mercy shown to you, they also may obtain mercy ;" that is, in 
 the administration of his providences, God, when the adverse 
 emergency arose, nevertheless worked out his will, — not as a 
 result of a previous plan that the Jews should fall, but witli an 
 efficient overruling of things that occurred against his will. " He 
 makes the wrath of man to praise him." 
 
 Certainly it was not in God's plan that the Jews should reject 
 Christ; nor was it necessary or desirable that the Jews should op- 
 pose the introduction of the Gentiles into the Church ; yet when 
 they took this course, against God's will, God instantly overruled 
 their opposition, to the easier enlargement and emancipation of 
 the Gentiles from the Jewish exclusiveness. This is a purely his- 
 torical statement; the Jews fell; and coincidently with their fall, 
 and facilitated by their fall, the great franchise was more fully 
 extended to the Gentiles. 
 
 And, conversely, there will be another incidental result from 
 
 *The Incident In the synagogue at Antloch of Plsldla Illustrates the 
 constant attltudf of the Jews towards the Gentiles: "On the coming Sab- 
 bath, almost all the city was gathered together to hear the word of the 
 Lord. But when the Jews saw the multitudes [of the Gentiles] they were 
 filled with jealousy, and contradicted the things which hud been spoken by 
 Paul. And Paul said, It was necessary that the word of God should be 
 spoken to you first; but since ye thrust It off, behold we turn to the Gen- 
 tiles. But when the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced, and glorified the 
 word of the Lord. But the word of the Lord was spread abroad throughout 
 the whole country." (Acts xlil, 44-19.) 
 
ROMANS XL 13-15. 341 
 
 this gracious intervention of God. Paul sees that this abundant 
 extension of the gospel to the Gentiles in the coming ages will, in 
 God's working, enkindle the zeal of the Jews to recover their lost 
 place in the Church. This result, though yet far off, Paul looks 
 forward to, as assured in the providence and the grace of God. 
 The twelfth verse declares, once and again, that the fall of the 
 Jews is the enrichment of the world, and their loss th« en- 
 richment of the Gentiles ; but then he also declares that if the 
 loss of the Jews is the enrichment of the Gentiles, conversely their 
 reception back into the Church will be manifold more a blessing to 
 the world. 
 
 In verse 12, the contrasted words ifrxTj/xa (loss, diminution) and 
 irXiJpwA'a (fullness, plenitude) do not express merely numerical loss 
 or gain; but here must be taken in an ecclesiastic sense, the defec- 
 tion of the Jews to unfaith, and their full recovery en masse to faith 
 in Christ. The sense is, " If the unfaith and defection of the Jews 
 inures, in the providence of God, to the present advantage of the 
 Gentiles, how much more will their recovered faith and return to 
 Christ inure in the changed circumstances to the advantage of the 
 Gentiles?" 
 
 Verses 13-15. But I say this to you, the Gentiles, For- 
 asmuch, indeed, then, as I am apostle of Gentiles, I glo- 
 rify my ministry, if in some way I may enkindle to zeal 
 my flesh [my own people], and may save some from them. 
 For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the 
 world, what will be the taking of them back, but life from 
 the dead? 
 
 The verb in the first clause, Xiy^, means I say, not I speak, 
 which does not express the sense of the Greek verb here, or in 
 twenty other places where the Authorized mistranslates it. 
 
 The Authorized translation in the eleventh verse," provoke to 
 jealousy," suggests that Paul would encourage the rivalry, or even 
 the antipathy, of the Jews. The same verb in the fourteenth verse 
 is better translated by the Authorized, "provoke to emulation;" 
 yet it retains the offensive suggestion of racial antagonism. The 
 translation in our text, enkindle to zeal, is correct for the sense, 
 and unobjectionable. If I might coin a word, or, rather, transfer 
 the Greek word, I should say, " enzeal ;" that is, stir up, stimulate. 
 Paul's concept is that the Jews are apathetic, indifferent, towards 
 the Messianic hopes of their Church : and he would rouse them 
 
342 EXPOSITION. 
 
 from their stupor and " enzeal " them with a fresh religious fervor 
 towards Messiah, the one, tlie only hope of tiie world. This is his 
 meaning in the words, save some from them. He does not 
 mean "save them from hell" (which probably is not at all in his 
 thought concerning his people), but bring them to a saving ac- 
 knowledgment of Christ ; and it is in this sense that, in the 
 twenty-sixth verse, he declares that " so all Israel will be saved ;" 
 that is, reconciled to Christ. 
 
 The passage before us repeats the thought of the twelfth verse. 
 The apostle addresses himself expressly to the Gentiles — not only 
 the Gentiles of the Church of Rome, but to all Gentile readers 
 thi'oughout the world. And his remarks, addressed to them in 
 particular, as distinguished from any Jewish readers, are an ex- 
 planation of his hopeful views of the future of his own people, 
 and a defense of himself for bringing into the discussion here a 
 topic apparently alien to the main subject of the Epistle. But, as 
 he shows, it is not alien to the main subject, nor on a minor issue. 
 He declares that, as the apostle of the Gentiles, he can, in point of 
 fact, best fulfill his ministry by also serving and saving the Jews: 
 " I [best] glorify my ministry to the Gentiles, if by any means I 
 may arouse the Jews, and may save some from them." It is his 
 thought that there is really but one organic Church of God, of 
 wiiich the Jews were the fii-st representatives; and, though now 
 suspended from Church fellowship, they are still "God's people." 
 The apostle puts their relation to the Church figuratively: Theirs 
 was once the first loaf of the batch, and theirs w^as the whole 
 kneading; theirs was the root of the olive-tree, and theirs the 
 whole tree ; and the Gentiles, coming later into the Church, are 
 only "grafts upon this stock, partakers of its fatness." Yt'. now 
 the interests of the two peoples are together — not apart. This real 
 intercommunity of interests of Gentiles and Jews, notwithstand- 
 ing the present antagonism of the Jews, will, in God's plan, bring 
 about the final unification of the Church. And this thought of the 
 solidarity of the two races the ajwstle follows out to yet greater 
 length, and with varied illustration, to the end of the paragraph 
 in the thirty-second verse. This is his thought. He has shown in 
 the previous verses that the interests of the Gentiles have been 
 promoted in the overruling providence of God by the defection of 
 the Jews ; and he now affirms afresh that the interests of the Gen- 
 tiles will again be yet more promoted by the return of the Jews to 
 Christ. 
 
R03fANS XI. 16-21. . 343 
 
 In the fifteenth verse the contrasted words, the casting away 
 and the taking back, express notions of Church relationship,— 
 almost, if not quite, the equivalents of our modern disciplinary 
 terms, "expulsion" and "receiving back into fellowship." And 
 Paul's thought is, as we saw in verse 12, that if the expulsion of 
 the Jews worked, in the providence of God, to the great advantage 
 of the Gentiles, " to the reconciliation of the heathen world to 
 Christ," their reception back into fellowship will be to the Gentiles 
 a glad time, like " life from the dead," like getting back one's dead 
 from the grave. "These our brethren were dead and are alive 
 again." Of course, there is no reference in these words to the 
 final resurrection of the dead. The history of the Church on earth 
 is not ended with the conversion of the Jews. Indeed, it is only 
 after this joyful return of the Jews to Christ that the full career 
 of the Church on earth may be said to begin. O that the veil 
 upon their hearts may soon be removed, and " that they may look 
 upon him whom they pierced, and mourn for him !" (Zech. xii, 10.) 
 
 Verses 16-21. But if the firstfruit is holy, so also is the 
 batch ; and if the root is holy, so also are the branches. But 
 if some of the branches were broken out, but thou, being 
 a wild olive, wast ingrafted in them, and becomest par- 
 taker with them of the root [and] of the fatness of the olive- 
 tree : boast not against the branches ; but, if thou boastest 
 against them [reflect], not thou bearest the root, but the 
 root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken out, 
 that I may be ingrafted. Well: by their unfaith they 
 were broken out; but thou by thy faith standest. Be not 
 highminded ; nay, but fear. For if God spared not the nat- 
 ural branches, not even thee will he spare. 
 
 The word holy, which Paul here applies to the Jewish people 
 en masse, expresses a ritual or ceremonial consecration, and not a 
 moral or spiritual sanctification. A person, or thing, is "holy," 
 in this sense, when formally consecrated to the service of God. It 
 is in this sense that Paul uses the word in regard to the marriage 
 of unbelievers with believers. The apostle holds the marriage is 
 a holy relation; and he says that " the heathen husband is sanc- 
 tified or consecrated [the Greek word is " holied " (hallowed)] in 
 the Christian wife ; and the heathen wife is sanctified in the Chris- 
 tian husband ; since otherwise your children are unclean ; but now 
 are they holy." (1 Cor. vii, 14.) 
 
34-i EXPOSITION. 
 
 The apostle illustrntes tliis consecration of Israel, m manxr, as 
 " holy to the Lord," by a double figure, taken from the Old Testa- 
 ment, the figure of the harvest (or of the emblematic first loaf) ; 
 and the figure of tlie olive-tree. Tliose emblems of Israel are ex- 
 pressive, and easily understood. The Levitical Law commanded 
 the children of Israel: ""When ye shall reap the harvest of the 
 land, ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruit of your harvest to the 
 priest; and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be ac- 
 cepted for you." (Lev. xxiii, 10.) This oblation symbolized the 
 consecration of the whole harvest ; which thus was constructively 
 "holy to the Lord." Similarly (or, perhaps, it is the same com- 
 mand in other words), the children of Israel wei*e commanded, 
 " When ye eat the bread of the land, ye shall offer the L(jrd a loaf 
 from the first of your dough, for a heave-offering" (Num. xv, 19); 
 and this symbolized the consecration of the whole batch, as " holy." 
 The latter is the special form of the figure which Paul here adopts 
 of his first illustration in regai-d to the Jewish people. 
 
 In Paul's figure, the batch of dough stands for the people of 
 Israel, en masse; and the firstfrmt (or first loaf) of the batch 
 stands for the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As in the 
 Levitical symbolism, the first loaf of tlie batch being consecrated 
 to God was holy, and therefore all the batch was holy ; so in Paul's 
 figure, the fathers of the nation were holy, and therefore the na- 
 tion en masse was holy. 
 
 Such is the apostle's concept in regard to the national conse- 
 cration of Israel to God, a consecration which as ritual, and out- 
 ward, is not vitiated or canceled by personal iU desert. Very 
 much in the same way we may say that baptismal consecration is 
 not vitiated or canceled by subsequent misconduct. 
 
 But though the nation en masse is holy, by reason of the con- 
 secration of the firstfruit, the fathers, to God, yet some individuals 
 are not worthy of their standing in the consecrated or " holy " 
 mass of Israel, the Church of God. And thus this figure of the 
 batch of dough of one uniform consistency, does not quite satisfy 
 the apostle's present need to discriminate between those individ- 
 uals of the nation who come up to the standard of the firstfruits, 
 and those who have now been excluded from the fellowship of the 
 saints on account of their unfaith. This need he easily satisfies 
 by his second illustration, the familiar figure of the olive-tree. 
 The olive-tree, in its turn, stands for all Israel, en masse ; but, un- 
 like the batch of dough, can be conceived of in its several parts, 
 
ROMANS XL 16-21. 345 
 
 root, stock, branches, and not in an indiscriminate mass. The 
 root of the tree (like the first loaf from the batch), represents the 
 patriarchs, in whose consecration all Israel constructively shares. 
 The root is holy, and the branches, all of them are holy. 
 Yet some of the branches are practically very unlike the others ; 
 some are individually good, others bad. And so in verse 17 the 
 apostle declares that some of the branches were broken out ; 
 evidently the bad branches, and evidently on account of their bad- 
 ness. But this excision of the bad branches, the bad members of 
 the Church of Israel, vpas not meant for their destruction; but 
 in the way of discipline, and that, hopefully, not forever; for in 
 the twenty-third verse, the apostle tells us that those exscinded 
 branches will be grafted in again. 
 
 Further, Paul, by his use of this figure of the olive-tree, puts 
 beyond doubt what he meant in the eleventh verse: "^iy the 
 fall of the Jews, salvation comes to the Gentiles " The " fall " 
 was not the cause, or the means, of "the salvation;" the two 
 events simply came at the same time. 
 
 This figure of the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the Jewish 
 stock implies that in Paul's immediate view the organic Church of 
 Christ had its root in the theocratic people ; and that the Gentiles 
 were not original members, but only late accessions to this organic 
 Church. This view of the case is true in itself ; but it is only a 
 partial truth, and the apostle puts it forward here so strongly only 
 the better to present his plea for the Jews. But elsewhere he de- 
 clares even more strongly that the Gentiles, all the world at large, 
 were from the first, even before the foundation of the world, in 
 God's thought, and that the gospel was, from eternal ages, or- 
 dained for the Gentiles; and that the Gentiles, therefore, really 
 constituted God's first Church, though perhaps not in organized 
 form. 
 
 No one need stumble over a presumed inexactness of the 
 apostle's figure of wild grafts upon cultivated stock. It was not 
 even inadvertence on the part of Paul ; and the figure is valid for 
 his purpose either way. His sole point is of coalescence of graft 
 with stock. He says, simply, that some of the branches of the good 
 olive were cut out and scions from the wild olive were ingrafted 
 among the good branches, and so became partakers of the fatness 
 of the good stock ; that is, dropping the figure, some Jews (alas ! 
 the vast majority of them) were excluded, and upon their exclusion 
 the Gentiles were brought into vital relations with the Church. 
 
346 EXPOSITION. 
 
 The singular pronoun thou does not single out some one Gen- 
 tile more than the others, but is used collectively for the Gentiles 
 en masse. This use of the singular pronouns I and thou for the 
 plural is rhetorically sti-ong ; and the woi'ds are often so found in 
 Paul's writings. He uses "thou" predominantly in the second 
 chapter and "I " in the seventh. And that the singular pronoun 
 "I" is also here used in the collective form, for the Gentiles 
 en masae, is clear from the conditions in the nineteenth verse: 
 Branches (plural) were broken out, that I (singular for plural) 
 may be ingrafted. 
 
 In the eighteenth verse Paul warns the Gentiles not to boast 
 against the branches that have been cut out ; and adds. But if 
 thou art for boasting, reflect, that not thou bearest the 
 root, but the root thee. And then he rebukes the Gentile as- 
 sumption " The branches were broken out in order that I may be 
 ingrafted." These boastful words of the Grentile are entirely too 
 arrogant for Paul the Jew ; entirely too fatalistic for Paul the 
 theologian. This conjunction iva, that, as we have seen in other 
 places, often expresses, in Hebrew style, what with us is really a 
 result and not a purpose, and the sentence might mean only: 
 "They were cut out, and we were ingrafted." But even this 
 milder view Paul barely accepts; indeed, his word "Well, like the 
 same deliberative word in English debate, expresses only a half 
 assent, or, rather, denotes a decided dissent ; and in the next vei-se 
 Paul puts the matter in its true bearing: the two results, that the 
 Jewish branches were cut out and the Gentiles were gi-afted in, 
 came together, but without any logical, or causal, intci-dependence. 
 The Jews were excluded from the Chiirch by their vmfaith 
 in Messiah ; but thou standest by thy faith. Be not arro- 
 gant against the Jews, but humble. For if God spared not 
 the natural branches, beware lest he shall not spare thee. 
 
 Verses 22-24. See then God's goodness and severeness : 
 upon those indeed that fell, severeness ; but upon thee, 
 God's goodness, if thou abide in his goodness ; otherw^ise 
 thou also wilt be cut out. But those also, if they do not 
 abide in their iinfaith, -will be ingrafted ; for God is able to 
 ingraft them again. For if thou wast cut out from the tree, 
 a wild ohve by natiire, and contrary to nature wast in- 
 grafted into a good olive ; how much rather will these, 
 the branches by nature, be ingrafted in their own olive? 
 
ROMANS XI. 22-U' 347 
 
 The words goodness and severeness do not express subjec- 
 tive characteristics of God, but objective facts in his administra- 
 tion. " Goodness " might equally well, or better, be expressed by 
 "kindness," and "severeness" by discipline" — discipline which is 
 prompt, yet not unkind. The first word expresses God's kindness, 
 which is not above law, but in accordance with law, in opening to 
 the Gentiles the door of faith, and in bringing them into the 
 Church ; and the second word expresses the fact, or act, also 
 within law, of the expulsion of the Jews from the Church. In- 
 deed, this act of discipline towards the Jews might even more 
 properly be expressed by giving to Paul's Greek word, dirorofdav, 
 the literal and exact translation, "cutting off" — that is, from 
 Church fellowship. 
 
 But these acts and facts of God's disciplinary administration 
 of the affairs of men are not final, but contingent as to their re- 
 sults, as always in his government of the world, upon the conduct 
 of the subjects of his government, — both those that are the recip- 
 ients of his kindness and those that are the objects of his dis- 
 cipline. If men, now the objects of his favor, prove disobedient, 
 and do not abide in his goodness — that is, do not meet the con- 
 ditions of his goodness — he will cut them out ; and if those now 
 under censure and discipline for their unfaith do not abide in 
 their unfaith, he will again ingraft them into their own 
 olive ; that is, will again bring them into the fellowship of the 
 Church. 
 
 To this hopeful expression and expectation about the conver- 
 sion of the Jews, Paul adds the saying. For God is able to in- 
 graft them again. This saying does not express arbitrary sover- 
 eignty, by which God can do anything that is objectively possible. 
 If it were a matter of arbitrary power, God might as well have 
 kept the Jews in the Church, as was the expectation of the Jews 
 themselves. It is not Paul's thought that God is able, by an arbi- 
 trary act like this, to force the will of the Jews, to remove their 
 stubbornness, and to change their unfaith into faith. God can not 
 do anything that is inconsistent with a moral government. Nor 
 does Paul mean simply that God can exert all persuasive influ- 
 ences and all grace and forbearance to induce their conversion ; 
 for this is what he is doing all the time with all men, the disobe- 
 dient Jews as well as the unbelieving Gentiles. But what Paul 
 means is simply this, that if the Jews should change their attitude 
 towards God, and towards Christ, God can, consistently with the 
 
348 EXPOSITION. 
 
 principles of liis administration, chanpc his attitude to\vai*ds them, 
 end can again ingraft them into their native stock. Sucli is 
 Paul's thought: God can save Israel. And he waits with outspread 
 hands to do this. " He wills that not any should perish, but that 
 all men should come to the knowledge of the truth, in Christ, and 
 be saved." To this end he ingrafted the wild olive into the good 
 olive. How much more ■will he have mercy on his early 
 people, and again ingraft the natural branches into their 
 own good olive-tree? O, would they but let him! 
 
 Verses 26-27. For I w^ould not, brethren, that you 
 should be ignorant of this secret, lest ye be opinionated with 
 yourselves, that hardening in part has become to Israel, 
 until the fullness of the Gentiles shall have come in. And 
 thus [in this event] all Israel w^ill be saved, according as it 
 has been written : 
 
 "Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; 
 
 He wiU turn away ungodlinesses from Jacob. 
 
 And this will be the covenant from me w^ith them, 
 
 "When I shall have taken away their sins." (Isa. lix, 20.) 
 
 The explicative conjunction For looks back to the long pas- 
 sage, verses 17 to 24, in which Paul cautions the Gentiles against 
 contemning the Jews because the latter have fallen under the dis- 
 pleasure of God. Fearing that the Gentiles may misunderstand 
 their relation to the Jews, he now reveals to them a secret, the 
 knowledge of which will keep them humble. 
 
 He says, I will that ye be not ignorant of this secret. 
 The woi"d tivcr-qpiov (secret) which Paul here uses, and which the 
 English translators render" mystery," is a good illustration of the 
 common fallacy that a word must always keep its original meaning. 
 This word is found twenty-eight times in the Greek Testament; 
 and is always represented in the English versions by the English 
 word "mystery," which reproduces the Greek woi-d, verbally, in 
 an English form, but wholly fails to convey the meaning. To our 
 translatoi's, blinded by the fallacy above alluded to, this Anglicized 
 woi*d seemed the proper and exact representative for the meaning 
 of the Greek. Yet the two words are far from having the same 
 meaning. The English word " mystery," by a wide perversion 
 from its first sense, now means something that, in itself, is not 
 only occult, but is incomprehensible to our reason, and incapable 
 of present explanation. The Greek word fivarripiov means some- 
 
ROMANS XI. 25-21. 349 
 
 thing secret (usually an esoteric doctrine), that, in itself, is com- 
 pi-ehensiblc, and if not yet comprehended, is capable of explanation 
 to the initiated. Of course, in the New Testament, the word 
 signifies a religious secret, or doctrine, sometimes explained, 
 sometimes still awaiting explanation, but always in itself com- 
 prehensible. 
 
 The word is important enough to justify a fuller discussion. 
 
 Paul's most frequent use of the word is to express the call of 
 the Gentiles. This is a doctrine which in the early days of apos- 
 tolic teaching was of a secret or esoteric character, an advanced 
 doctrine, which at first was published only sparingly ; and perhaps 
 was not cordially accepted at once by any even of the apostles, 
 except Paul. Not even Christ ventured, at first, explicitly to un- 
 fold this teaching before the Jews at large. He told the twelve, 
 "To you it has been given to know the advanced doctrines of the 
 gospel (the call of the Gentiles) ; but to others (the unspiritual 
 Jews) I speak in parables (they are not yet prepared for this open 
 avowal).* (Matt, xiii, 11.) But the time for this revelation came 
 after his death. " "What I tell you in the darkness (in this inner 
 circle), tell ye in the light: proclaim it upon the housetops." 
 (Matt. X, 26.) Paul was the first one of the apostles to compre- 
 hend and to obey ; and how gloriously he did it ! 
 
 Paul has almost pre-empted this word " mystery:" he used it 
 twenty-one times, and none of the other apostles used it, except 
 John, in the Apocalypse. And Paul uses it almost exclusively in 
 the special sense above described. For example, in this Epistle, he 
 describes "his gospel" as being " according to the revelation (the 
 making known) of the inner doctrine (of the call of the Gentiles), 
 kept secret in the eternal ages, but now manifested and made 
 known to all the Gentiles." (Rom. xvi, 25.) Again, in the 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, this special meaning of the word is 
 copiously developed : " The grace of God was given me toward you 
 Gentiles, that by revelation the secret doctrine (of the call of the 
 
 * Indeed It may be questioned whether a large number of the leading 
 parables do not turn on this very point, the call of the Gentiles. What 
 other exegesis is so clear, for the parables of the Vineyard let to Husband- 
 men, of the Laborers in the Vineyard, of the Prodigal Bon, of the Two Sons, 
 of the Lost Sheep, of the Great Supper, of the Marriage Feast? The para- 
 bles were necessary in the first teachings of Christianity. By the time John 
 ■wrote, the need of parabolic teaching had ceased; and John's Gospel has 
 no parables. 
 
350 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Gentiles) was made known to me . . . the secret doctrine of 
 Christ, which in other generations was not made known, as it was 
 now revealed, . . . that the Gentiles are partakers with us [Jews] 
 in the promise of Jesus Christ." (Eph. iii, 3-6.) 
 
 There is one passage in Paul's writings in which, at first blush, 
 the word seems to have the advanced sense of the English word 
 "mystery:" "Confessedly gi*eat is the mystery of godliness." 
 (1 Tim. iii, 16.) It is one of the stock quotations for the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and is usually explained as if it meant " Great is the 
 myteriousness of the Godhead ;" that is, of the Divine nature, the 
 Trinity. This may be a true teaching in itself; but it is not found 
 in the passage. The fatal difficulty is that the word eixxe^eia, "god- 
 liness," can not be taken in the sense of the Godhead, or Divine 
 nature; but of "piety, religion;" and the word "mystery " must 
 keep its invariable sense of secret, inner doctrine, and it does not 
 refer to the special doctrine of the Trinity, but to the general 
 doctrines of the gospel scheme. These doctrines, easily under- 
 stood, are embodied in the early hymn following; and the passage 
 means simply: "Great (worthy of all acceptance) is the inner 
 doctrine of the religion of Christ: 
 
 " Who in the flesh was manifest, 
 
 In spirit just was shown ; 
 To angel eyes he stood confest, 
 
 Was preached the Gentiles' own ; 
 On him the woi'ld has glad believed, 
 In glory now, on high received." 
 
 There is one more instance of this word worthy of an explanation . 
 In the Resurrection Chapter, the Authorized says, "Behold, I shoir 
 you (point out to you) a mystery." (1 Cor. xv, 51.) The Revised 
 says, "I tell (declare) you a mystery." The verb is better ; but the 
 meaning remains about the same as with the verb " I show;" and I 
 think most readers of either version understand the apostle as mean- 
 ing, "I point out (or declare) the existence of a mystery." Thus 
 translated, no one gets the meaning of the leading word, and above 
 all he does not get the logical connection of the passage. But if 
 we translate the word, and read, " I tell you a secret," the meaning 
 of the W'ord, and the connection with the following clause, becomes 
 clear: " I tell (divulge) to you a secret doctrine (in relation to the 
 last day) ; we shall not all sleep ; but we shall all be changed." 
 
 The frequent occurrence (twenty-seven times) in the English 
 
ROMANS XI. 35-27. 351 
 
 New Testament of this word " mystery " (always conveying to Eng- 
 lish readers the sense of sometliing incomprehensible), inevitably 
 suggests that Christianity is at least largely a scheme of doctrines 
 which are incomprehensible by finite reason, yet demanding to be 
 accepted even without being understood. Christianity has many 
 distinctive doctrines ; but it has no characteristic mysteries (in the 
 English sense of the word) aside from those pertaining to the per- 
 son of Christ (which, however, are never called "mysteries"); 
 indeed, with this exception, it has no mysteries at all, that are not 
 common to it with all the ethnic religions And if we eliminate the 
 misleading word "mystery" from our English Scriptures, we go 
 far to relieve the gospel from unjust obloquy and from unju:t bur- 
 dens. In fact. Christianity is the simplest, and most reasonable of 
 all religions ; and it is easy to comprehend. 
 
 In the passage before us, verse 25, the apostle now reveals 
 to the Gentiles a Divine secret that the hardening of the Jews 
 against Christ, which has put them out of favor and present 
 toHch with God, is after all only partial, and does not detract 
 from their knowledge of other Divine truth, or bate their zeal 
 for God ; and above all it does not cancel, in God's sight, their 
 original consecration to him as "holy." Though they are under 
 his displeasure, he still regards them as "his people." Further, 
 the apostle declares that their apostasy from Christ is not final. 
 Their hardness will continue only until the full volume of the 
 Gentile world has actually come into the Church of Christ ; and 
 then with this persuasive evidence for Christ, and the over- 
 whelming influence of the conversion of the world, "all Israel," 
 too, will yield, en masse, and be saved to the Christian faith, and 
 the Church. 
 
 But a question arises in many hearts. What of the individual 
 Jews who live and die meantime, unconverted to Christ? Shall 
 we hope in their final and eternal salvation? Paul does not 
 discuss this question at all, and the Scriptures elsewhere are 
 silent on this point, just as they are silent in regard to the 
 salvation of the heathen world, and on most eschatological points. 
 Some passages apparently condemn all non-believers in Christ 
 to eternal ruin ; but the drift of the gospel teaching is not so 
 dreadful ; and there are few now who think all heathen people will 
 perish. "They are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus," 
 though they know him not. Surely the future of the Jews, who 
 fear God and trust in his mercy, is much more hopeful than that 
 
352 EXPOSITION. 
 
 of the heathen world. We may trust the issue with God who 
 will save all he can. 
 
 " Let not our weak, unknowing hand, 
 Presume his bolts to throw." 
 
 Verses 28-32. As regards the gospel, indeed, they are 
 enemies I to it I on account of you ; but as regards the 
 election, they are beloved on account of the fathers. For 
 the gifts of grace and the calling of God are unrepented. 
 For just as ye once disobeyed God, but now obtained 
 mercy, by the disobedience of these, so also these now 
 disobeyed, that, by the mercy shown to you, they them- 
 selves also may now obtain mercy. For God shut up all 
 men unto disobedience, that he may have mercy upon 
 them all. 
 
 Out of thirty-two times in which the word ^x^pol, here trans- 
 lated enemies, is found in the New Testament, thirty-one in- 
 stances are clearly in the active sense of " inimical ;" that is, 
 " haters," hostile. But the commentators here think this instance 
 is a single exception, and must be taken passively, " hated" of God. 
 They reach this conclusion partly by assuming what is not true, a 
 logical parallelism with the word beloved in the next verse, — 
 that both words may be referred to the same subject, God. Thus 
 interpreted, the text represents God as treating the Jews, at one 
 and the same time, with mingled and all but incompatible feelings 
 and dealings, he "hates" them and "loves" them at the same 
 time. Another reason, in part, with the commentators, for adopt- 
 ing here this passive sense of the word " enemies" is found in the 
 incorrect sense which (following the Authorized and the Revised) 
 they give to the preposition 5id in the two clauses. These versions 
 translate 5id i/^aj "for your sakes," which can mean only "for 
 your interests" — that is, "for your conversion;" and this can 
 mean only that God hated the Jews and ruled them out of the 
 Church in order to get the Gentiles in. This meaning— " for the 
 sake of" — for this Greek preposition is so peculiar and so far- 
 fetched, and so non-Greek, that even if it were grammatically 
 possible elsewhere (which is at least doubtful), we must adopt the 
 usual sense of Sid with the accusative case, " on account of," to 
 express why the Jews were "hostile," and why tliey were never- 
 theless " beloved." Again, they translate 5id toi>s iraripai " for the 
 fathers' sake," which (seeing that the fathers are dead) can mean 
 
ROMANS XI. 28-32. 353 
 
 only " from regard for the memory of the fathers," individually, 
 as men, instead of (which is the correct meaning) "because of 
 what the fathers were," representatively ; namely, " the firstfruit 
 and the root" of the consecrated nation. 
 
 This active meaning of " enemies," as " haters of the gospel," 
 is quite certainly the one that Paul had in his mind ; and it does 
 not involve mixed and incompatible feelings towards the Jews on 
 the part of God. The sentence means that the Jews are hostile 
 (to the gospel) on account of the Gentiles, and not that God is 
 hostile to the Jews. On the contrary, they are " God's beloved ;" 
 and Paul s thought in this verse is briefly: " The Jews are hostile 
 to God ; God is loving to the Jews " First : So far as the gospel 
 is concerned, the Je^ws are enemies to it, on account of you, 
 the Gentiles ; that is, on account of the admission of tiie Gen- 
 tiles into the Church. Secondly: But so far as regards the 
 election [the original choice] of the theocratic people (which still 
 holds good for the Jews en masse), they are God's beloved, on 
 account of the fathers." Paul might well have embodi<}d his 
 sentiment in the expressive words of Moses to Israel: " Th(! Lord 
 had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed 
 after them, as it is this day." (Deut. x, 15.) 
 
 The word for in the saying, "For God's gifts of grace are 
 urirevoked," looks back to the word "beloved ," and the apostle, 
 with the idea of that word in his mind, declares that God has not 
 changed his feelings towards the Jews, nor repented of his gra- 
 cious gifts to them. The Jews ai-e still " holy," and beloved on 
 account of the consecration of the fathers. 
 
 Again, the word for in the thirtieth verse looks back to the 
 gracious attitude and purpose of God as shown in the twenty- 
 ninth verse. In view of the irrevocaWe calling of the Jews the 
 apostle declares that just as the Gentiles once disobeyed God, yet 
 obtained mercy by (upon the occasion of) the disobedience of the 
 Jews, so in their turn the Jews, by (upon the occasion of) the 
 mercy shown to the Gentiles, may themselves eventually obtain 
 mercy. It is Paul's thought that the mercy shown to the Gentiles, 
 which will be illustrated yet more fully in the conversion of the 
 Gentile world en masse, will stimulate the zeal of the Jews, and 
 bring them, too, en masse to accept Christ and be saved to the 
 Church. 
 
 The word for in the thirty-second verse points back to the state- 
 ment in the two preceding verses, in which the apostle sums u\) the 
 23 
 
354 EXPOSITION. 
 
 religions history of both the Gentiles and the Jews ; and declares as 
 one side of their history, that disobedience was a fact, perhaps tiie 
 leading fact, common to them both, yet attaching to eacli race in 
 its own time, and sphere, and way. Nothing turns on the time of 
 the disobedience ; but the apostle notes tlieir equal disobedience. 
 And this gives him occasion to say that God treats them all with 
 equal condemnation, and with equal mercy. The saying that God. - 
 shut up all men unto disobedience, seems, at first blush, to 
 mean that God restricted men to this result, without any alterna- 
 tive on their part. But we can not make Gotl the author of sin. 
 This same verb is used elsewhere without this necessitarian mean- 
 ing. In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul says, " The Scriptures 
 shut up all things under sin — we were sliul up unto faith" (Gal. 
 iii, 22) ; where the sense is simply, that the Scriptures counted all 
 men under sin, in order that the promise by faith may be given 
 to men of faith; but that before, we were in ward under law, 
 restricted to faith, for our only hope of justification. There is no 
 sovereign decree of God, but only the voluntary actions of men. 
 In the same way we must explain our text, "God counted all men 
 as given up to disobedience ; yet counted them thus, not that he 
 may condemn them all, but that he may have mercy upon them 
 all. The date of this condemnation, and intention of mercy is 
 fixed by the aorist tense of the verb, "he included them," as in 
 the counsels of eternity, when he foresaw the fall of man, and also 
 made provision to have mercy on them. 
 
 With these words, Paul has now finished the doctrinal part of 
 his work. He has vindicated his rightful place as the apostle to 
 the Gentiles; and has vindicated their right to an original, equal, 
 and final place in the Church with the Jews, who claimed to be 
 the only Church; and has vindicated God's plan of justillcation 
 from faith, instead of from works as maintained by the Jews; ana 
 he has shown that the Jews have no racial and no personal supe- 
 riority over the Gentiles; and, finally, has shown that the Jews, 
 by their unfaith in Christ, have forfeited their fellowship in the 
 Church, though still with a latent title by virtue of their first call, 
 to be reinvested with this forfeited privilege when they shall come 
 back to Christ. 
 
 Such are, in brief, the matters which have been discussed in 
 the part of the Epistle now concluded. Issues more weighty, more 
 momentous than these here discussed and settled, there are none 
 in the theology of the Bible or in the history of dogma. The 
 
ROMANS XI. 33-36. 355 
 
 eleven chapters which we have now gone over constitute, more 
 than all the other epistles, the text-book of the Christian pulpit, 
 and of the theological schools, and of all writers on doctrine. 
 
 Tlie rest of tliis Epistle is occupied with the discussion of the 
 practical issues which emerged in the early days of the Christian 
 Church at large, or were of local moment in the Church at Rome. 
 
 Verses 33-36. O depth of riches and wisdom, and 
 knowledge of God ! How unsearchable his judgment and 
 untraceable his ways ! 
 
 For who knew^ the mind of Jehovah ? 
 
 Or w^ho became his counselor? 
 
 Or who first gave to him? 
 
 And it will be repaid him. (Isa. xl, 13.) 
 
 Because from him, and through him, and unto him, 
 are all things. 
 
 To him be the glory, forever; Amen. 
 
 Witli these words Paul closes this part of his epistle. The first 
 verse is his burst of praise and amaze over tlie wonderful pro- 
 fundity, and the wonderful richness and wisdom and knowledge 
 shown in God's purposes and plans, and ways for man's salvation. 
 Tlie quotation from Isaiah, in tlie form of an argumentative 
 question, re-enforces the thought that the gospel is from God 
 alone. He devised it, he executed it, his own arm has gotten him 
 the victory. No one knew Jehovah's mind ; no one became his 
 adviser ; no one has given aught to complete God's work ; no one 
 has any claim to reward for co-operation. 
 
 ~ And the concluding verse reiterates this thought in words so 
 simple, so beautiful, so comprehensive, that they have become the 
 world's model for compactness and strength. Lincoln's famous 
 aphorism, whicli will go down the centuries as the vollied embodi- 
 ment of the only wise political science, is strong and memorable 
 because it borrows its form and its force from the saying of the 
 apostle: "The government of the people, by the people, and for 
 the people, shall not perish from the earth." 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Verses 1, 2. I exhort you, therefore, brethren, through 
 the mercies of God, to present your bodies a sacrifice, 
 Uving, holy, well-pleasing to God, your rational service. 
 And do not be in fashion with this age ; nay, but be trans- 
 formed by the renewal of your mind, to the end that you 
 may prove what is the good, and well-pleasing, and com- 
 plete will of God. 
 
 We come now within the sphei*e of practical religion ; or of 
 morals applied to the every-day life of the Church. In these 
 chapters Paul discusses the outward behavior of men, especially 
 to others, and not their forensic relations to law, and not their 
 subjective belief or experiences. Of course, the two lines of re- 
 ligious thought and of religious life, of doctrines and of precepts, 
 often touch and sometimes seem to cover the same field ; but 
 they run on different plans, and seek different ends. The theology 
 of the Creed, or doctrinal religion, which is found in part in the 
 first part of this Epistle, declares the relations of men with God ; 
 the theology of morals, or preceptive religion, which is. found in 
 part in the chapters following, declares the relations of men with 
 each other. 
 
 The points discussed in these five chapters are fewer than in 
 the Epistles to the Corinthians, which touch on all the practical 
 relations of Church, family, and social life. The few points that 
 Paul here names, spring almost exclusively out of the mixed con- 
 stitution of the Church community at Rome, — partly Gentile, and 
 partly Jew. We know that feelings of racial jealousy, and matters 
 of doctrinal debate were rife in all che mixed Churches of the first 
 century. Reference to this condition of things is found in the 
 Acts, and in most of the Epistles ; and tlie fact that Paul addressed 
 such a letter as this to the Roman Church, discussing the great 
 controversial issues between the Jews and the Gentiles ; and the 
 
 856 
 
ROMANS XII. 1, 2. 357 
 
 further fact that in these supplementary chapters, he introduces 
 these practical niattei'S, prove that the Gentiles and the Jews in 
 the Church at Rome, were, if not openly dissident, at best only in 
 armistice. 
 
 These points of caution, or apostolical precept, may be grouped 
 under certain heads. 
 
 1. In chapter xii: Forbearance towards one another, and ab- 
 stinence from self-assertion, .or vainglorying in matters of Church 
 prominence, and tlie exercise of spiritual gifts. 
 
 2. In chapter xiii: Deference to civil authorities and obedience 
 to law. 
 
 3. In chapter xiv: Toleration of the scruples of others, Jews 
 and Gentiles, in matters of ritual, foods, times, and persons. 
 
 4. In chapter xv: Exhortations to unity among themselves, 
 Jews and Gentiles, in Christ; and a defense of himself as " minis- 
 ter of Christ unto the Gentiles." 
 
 5. In chapter xvi : His salutations to his many friends in the 
 Church. 
 
 In the first verse before us the conjunction therefore looks 
 back to the discussion in the previous chapter, where the apostle 
 shows that in the gospel plan the racial jealousy and the doc- 
 trinal differences between the Jew and the Gentile are finally 
 reconciled. "Both disobeyed God; and God has now had mercy 
 on them all." These are the mercies (or, more literally, " the 
 compassions") through which the apostle appeals to the Romans. 
 Some of these Romans were Jews, once accustomed to the Mosaic 
 ceremonial (still glorious and impressive) at Jerusalem ; some 
 were Gentiles, once accustomed to the splendid idolatry of heathen 
 temples at Rome ; but they are now no longer Jewish ritualists, 
 no longer heathen idolaters, but believers in Christ. And he be- 
 seeches them, as believers in Christ, no longer to offer mere dumb 
 animals, the unavailing sacrifices of the Jewish rite, or the sacri- 
 fices of the heathen superstition, but to offer themselves to God, 
 their own persons, living, holy, well-pleasing, a rational sac- 
 rifice. This sacrifice of themselves, whicli Paul calls rational (or 
 reasonable), is the only kind of sacrifice which a rational (or rea- 
 soning) worshiper can now render to the Infinite Spirit. And it 
 may be offered without the intervention of priest, or altar, or shed 
 blood, by any one, at any hour, at any place. Accordingly, in the 
 next verse, Paul exhorts the Romans, once addicted to the old 
 routine of the Levitical rite, or to the gross sacrifices and orgies 
 
358 EXPOSITION. 
 
 of the heathen superstition, no longer to fashion themselves to 
 tlie iinmoiuiing mummeries of the present age, but by the renewal 
 of tlu'ir mind to test wliat is God's will concerning them, the will 
 that is good, and well-pleasing, and perfect. 
 
 Verses 3-5. For I say, through the grace that was 
 given me, to every one that is among you, not to think 
 of himself more highly than he ought to think ; but so to 
 think [of himself ] as to think soberly, as to each one God 
 apportioned a measure of faith. For according as, in one 
 body, we have many members, but the members have not 
 all the same office ; thus we, the many, are one body in 
 Christ, but severally members of one another. 
 
 Tlie third verse is an excellent illustration of Paul's frequent 
 plays on words. The literal translation runs as follows: " — Be 
 not high-mrvtdetZ beyond what it behooves to be minded; but mind 
 to be sound-?/uudecZ." 
 
 The paragraph before us, vphile not inappropriate to the Jews, 
 more naturally pertains to the Gentile members of the Churcli at 
 Rome, who were doubtless in the majority, and held most of the 
 Church offices and enjoyed most of the miraculous gifts of the 
 Spirit. And as we have seen in the previous chapter (verses 
 13, 25), the apostle felt it necessary to caution the Gentiles, as the 
 dominant party, against being conceited, so now he resumes the 
 role of admonition, and warns them to think of themselves soberly 
 and to behave themselves towards their brethren in a conciliatory 
 and generous spirit. We do not know, indeed, that the miraculous 
 charisms of the apostolic era had yet been conferred on any of 
 the Roman Christians ; but, as many members of this Cliurch had 
 come from the provincial Churches established by Paul, where 
 these gifts had doubtless prevailed, they had doubtless brought 
 these endowments with them. Nor do we know that the rivalries 
 and bickerings which i)revailed in the Church at Corinth among 
 those endowed with miraculous charisms also prevailed at Rome. 
 But the admonitions which Paul here addresses to them leave us 
 little room to doubt. These gifts or endowments were conferred 
 by God, through tlie laying on of the apostles' hands, for the edifi- 
 cation and comfort of the body of the Church ; but though mirac- 
 ulous, and exercised with spiritual jjower and grace, the persons 
 who had these gifts were often individually vainglorious in dis- 
 playing them. This personal element is not inconsistent with the 
 
ROMANS XII. 6-8. 359 
 
 genuineness of these gifts. We see exactly the same exhibition of 
 human weakness, and vanity, and self-seeking, yet with spiritual 
 power, in the holy ministries of our own times. 
 
 Verses 6-8. But having miraculous gifts, differing from 
 one another according to the grace that was given us,— 
 whether prophecy, [use it] according to the analogy of the 
 faith; or ministering [be] in the ministering; or he that 
 teaches, in the teaching ; or he that exhorts, in the exhorta- 
 tion ; he that gives, in simplicity ; he that rules, in earnest- 
 ness'; he that shows mercy, in cheerfulness. 
 
 The whole passage from the sixth verse to the nineteenth, and 
 practically to the end of the chapter, is peculiarly anacoluthic ; that 
 is, the grammatical construction is incoherent, and almost jerky. 
 One might think that the apostle, who is never prodigal of speech, 
 on this special occasion, in dictating this long paragraph, uttered 
 only catch-words, intending a fuller composition at a later sittmg, 
 and never returned to complete it. Yet Tertius (chap, xvi, 23) 
 caught enough of the ajiostle's winged words to preserve the heads 
 of the thoughts, if not their full expression." A passage equally an- 
 acoluthic would be hard to find in all literature. In the whole of 
 the twelve verses, the only finite verbs (" bless, curse," in the four- 
 teenth verse, and " become," in the sixteenth) are in the nnpera- 
 tive mode. All the other verbs are either not expressed at all, or 
 are jotted down in the participial or infinitive modes ; and the 
 reader is left to make out the sentences at his best judgment. 
 The translators, or exegetes. are not always agreed; but they 
 mostly adopt the imperative mode, following the model in the 
 three just nan\ed. But it is best to leave the apostle's utterances 
 to take care of themselves, both as an illustration of his qver- 
 packed style, and as a good lesson in exegesis. We shall not be at 
 a loss to get some appropriate meaning, even without workmg his 
 words up into formal sentences. 
 
 There are seven distinct charisms named in this section, 
 prophecy, ministering, teaching, exhortation, giving, ruling, 
 and showing mercy. All those functions were inspired, and were 
 exercised, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the service of 
 the Church. "Prophecy," as shown in the parallel passage m 
 Corinthians (1 Cor. xiv), was the most useful, if not the most 
 coveted, endowment in the early Church. It was the gift of in- 
 spired preaching; it did not ordinarily mean prediction, but only 
 
360 EXPOSITION. 
 
 edification. But like tlie sliowy gift of " tongues," it was liable 
 to extravagance; and the a|K)stlo liere directs that it be exercised 
 only in accord with tlie sober analogies of the faith. The next 
 charisni here njinied is that of " ministering" to the wants of the 
 Church. The word 5iaKov[a, usually translated by the equivocal 
 woi'd "ministry," does not mean (as tliat woi"d so often) either 
 the clerical body or the clerical function, but rather any helpful 
 ministration to the practical needs of believers. The other cliar- 
 isms severally named, may come under the general head of " min- 
 istering," though each with its special significance. But in those 
 early days, they were all prompted and regulated by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Verses 9-21. Let love be unfeigned; abhorring that 
 which is evil ; cleaving to that which is good ; in brotherly- 
 love towards one another affectionate ; in honor preferring 
 one another; in earnestness not slow; in spirit fervent; 
 serving the Lord ; in hope rejoicing ; in affliction patient ; 
 in prayer persevering; contributing to the necessities of 
 the saints ; pursuing hospitality. Bless them that perse- 
 cute you ; bless, and curse not. To rejoice with them that 
 rejoice ; to weep with them that weep. Having the same 
 mind, towards one another ; not minding the high things ; 
 nay, but being carried away with the lowly. Do not be- 
 come wise in your ow^n conceits. To no one evil for evil 
 repaying ; taking forethought for things honorable in the 
 sight of all men. If possible, as far as in you lies, being at 
 peace with all men; not yourselves avenging, beloved; 
 nay, but give place to the wrath 1 of God) ; for it has been 
 written, To me belongs vengeance ; I will repay, says the 
 Lord. Nay, but if thine enemy hunger, feed, him ; if he 
 thirst, give him drink ; for this doing, coals of fire thou wilt 
 heap upon his head. (Prov. xxv, 21.) Be not conquered by 
 evil ; nay, but conquer evil with good. 
 
 Aside from the anacoluthic structure of the sentences, the 
 thought is plain ; and the whole paragraph needs but few woi-ds of 
 criticism or comment. 
 
 In the tenth verse, the clause in honor prefer one another, 
 probably means "to promote others" to honors and positions in 
 Churcli and State, instead of selfishly seeking these things for one's 
 self. Generosity in such matters is as worldly-wise, as it is noble. 
 Men will repay into your own bosoms. 
 
ROMANS XII. 9-21. 301 
 
 In the thirteenth verse, the verb, contributing to the wants 
 of others, means giving from one's own means; or making others 
 to share in your means, in common with yourself. 
 
 In the seventeenth verse, the English verb providing things 
 honest (Authorized), seems to mean " to acquire an lionest live- 
 lihood ;" but the Greek means to take thought (or to plan) for a 
 life reputable in the judgment of the world. Not only that your 
 gains be honest ; but let your occupation be honorable. 
 
 The eighteenth verse implies that it was not always possible 
 for Christians in Paul's days to live peaceably. The initiative was 
 in the hands of their enemies; and persecution often made the 
 persons and the lives of Christians unsafe. 
 
 In the nineteenth verse, the article, the wrath, implies the 
 words in brackets [of God] ; and this renders the same plain. As 
 declared in the next clause. Vengeance belongs to God: we must 
 leave our vindication to him. In Ephesians, we have the opposite 
 sense: "Let not the sun go down on your wrath; nor yet give 
 place to the devil." (Eph. iv, 27.) 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Verses 1-7. Let every soul submit to the prevailing 
 authorities ; for there is no authority, except by God ; but 
 the authorities that are have been ordained by God. So 
 that he that opposes the authority, resists the ordinance of 
 God ; but they that resist will receive to themselves judg- 
 ment. For the rulers are not a fear to the good vrork, but 
 to the bad. But wilt thou not fear the authority ? Do that 
 which is good, and thou wilt have praise from it. For it is 
 a minister of God to thee unto that which is good. But if 
 thou do that which is bad, fear ; for not in vain does it wear 
 the sword ; for it is God's minister, an avenger unto wrath, 
 to him that practices that which is bad. Wherefore there 
 is a necessity to submit, not only on account of w^rath, but 
 also on account of conscience. For on account of this ye 
 pay tribute also ; for they are agents of God, to this very 
 thing devoting themselves. Render to all their dues ; the 
 tribute, to whom ye owe the tribute ; the custom, to whom 
 the custom ; the fear, to whom the fear ; the honor, to 
 whom the honor. 
 
 The early Christians belonged largely to the common people ; 
 many of them were poor and oppressed, and not a few of them 
 were slaves. From these civil disabilities they saw in the gospel 
 a promise of speedy and summary deliverance. Christ himself 
 had announced, in the words of Isaiah (Ixi, 1) that he came to 
 ** preach the gospel to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, 
 to set at liberty them that are bound." (Luke iv, 18.) These 
 gracious and consoling words intended in a spiritual sense, were 
 easily misunderstood by the oppressed, who would gladly see their 
 civil abusers overthrown, even if by violence. Undoubtedly social 
 reforms were destined to come about under the steady pressure of 
 the gospel ; but neither Christ in his preaching, nor the apostle in 
 
 862 
 
ROMANS XIII. 1-7. 363 
 
 his letters, contemplated any sudden and, least of all, any violent 
 revolution. We do not know of any general agitation in the Church 
 at Rome for civil and political change; but we know that in tlie 
 Churcli at Corinth Paul needed to repress asocial unrest, and com- 
 manded, "Let each man abide in the condition (even of slavery, 
 or social inequality) in which he was called." (1 Cor. vii, 20.) At 
 all events, his words of admonition, in the present chapter, show 
 that there was danger of such commotions in the Church at Rome. 
 A single mistaken step in this direction would have precipitated 
 the Church at Rome, on real grounds, into the awful persecution 
 in which, a few years later, on vague suspicion, the whole Church 
 nearly perished. 
 
 Paul felt that the Christians at Rome should not show hostility 
 to the authorities, both for policy's sake, and for conscience' sake. 
 Six hundred years before Paul's time, Jeremiah wrote to the exiles 
 in Babylon: "Seek the peace of the city whither ye have been 
 carried away captive ; and pray unto Jehovah for it ; for in the 
 peace thereof will ye have peace." (Jer. xxix, 7.) In like manner, 
 Paul wrote to Timothy : " I exhort, first of all, that prayers be made 
 for kings, and all that are in authority ; that we may lead a tranquil 
 and quiet life in all piety and decorum." (1 Tim. ii, 1.) And now 
 he bids the Romans that every soul shall be subject to the 
 higher authorities, evidently meaning the civil rulers. To ap- 
 preciate the wisdom and magnanimity of tliis command, we must 
 recollect that the ruler at Rome, whom Paul had foremost in his 
 mind, was Nero, the world's proverbial monster of vice and cruelty, 
 the wild beast from whose mouth the apostle himself but a few 
 years later wrote that he had been marvelously delivered, yet only 
 to be destroyed by him at last. This tyrant was then emperor of 
 Rome; but the apostle teaches that human government, even 
 Nero's, is an ordinance of God; that is, that the de facto rulers, 
 even though bad, ideally represent the authority of God. Nero, 
 the murderer of brother, and mother, and wife, and of multitudes 
 of the best men of Rome, the incendiary of his own capital, and 
 the persecutor of the Christians, was, for what time he was the 
 actual head of the state, the authority to whom was due, within 
 endurable limits, the obedience of all subjects. Even Nero was 
 better tlian anarchy ; tyranny is an abuse of government ; anarchy 
 is the abolition of government. 
 
 Even Paul, two years after this letter, "appealed to Csesar" 
 (that is, to Nero, as emperor) from the cabals of the Jews •. and 
 
364 EXPOSITION. 
 
 found, under the protection of the empei'or, safety and a rigliteous 
 deliverance. 
 
 Nero's government was bad ; none could be worse, except that 
 of Turkey, or of China; but it was government, and it adequately 
 conserved the ends of society, the rights of person and of property. 
 Strange to say, Nero was a popular ruler. Sometimes, amid civil 
 commotions, there may be a brief doubt which of two antagonist 
 parties subjects ought to obey. The doubt is usually one which is 
 soon decided either peacefully or violently. The question is not, 
 which party is justhf in power, but which is actualli/ in power. The 
 victorious party becomes " the authorities that are," and exactly 
 answers to the term used by the apostle, — " the prevailing au- 
 thorities," or, more literally, "the authorities having themselves 
 above." 
 
 But there is also another side to the duty and the rights of 
 citizens, — the final right of self-vindication, and of revolution. 
 It did not come in Paul's line of thought to present this side ; but 
 there is nothing in his gospel inconsistent with the teachings on 
 this subject of the "American Declaration of Independence:" 
 "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just, 
 powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of 
 government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of 
 the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new govern- 
 ment, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its 
 powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect 
 their safety and happiness." (Declaration of Independence, July 
 4, 1776.) 
 
 Verses 8-10. To no one owe anything, except to love 
 one another ; for he that loves the other has fulfilled law. 
 For the (saying], Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou 
 Shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, 
 and, if there is any other commandment, it is summed 
 up in this [saying], namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
 as thyself. Love works no ill to his neighbor ; love there- 
 fore is fulfillment of law. 
 
 The command in the seventh verse, " Render to all men their 
 dues," is apparently comprehensive of all obligations of all kinds ; 
 but the added specifications in the next clauses of the verse show 
 that the apostle has in his mind thus far only the outward obliga- 
 tions of the citizens to the civil authorities. At the most it is the 
 
MOMANS XIII. 11-14. 365 
 
 secular life that has been touched. But in the "eighth verse the 
 command, while not more general in form, goes very much fur- 
 ther. The thouglit of the verse touches not upon the outward 
 conduct of men only, but upon their inward motives. We now go 
 down to the seat of the moral affections ; and we are required not 
 only to pay men their dues, but to love our neighbor, which is the 
 summing up of all our obligations. The "two commandments," 
 on- which, Christ says, "hangs the whole law, and the prophets" 
 (Matt, xxii, 40), are found, it is true, in the Old Testament (Deut. 
 vi, 5; Lev. xix, 18), the dispensation of legal obedience more than 
 of spiritual religion ; but Christ quotes these sayings in a higher 
 strain, and enforces their obligation on the consciences as well as 
 on the conduct of men. The prescriptions of the Law (as in the 
 Decalogue) aim to regulate our outward lives ; the prescriptions of 
 the gospel seek the control of our inward lives, our affections, and 
 hearts, and soul, and mind. 
 
 Paul here makes the negative statement that Love works 
 no ill to his neighbor,— which is as far as the commandments in 
 the Decalogue reach : "Thou shalt not—;" and it is in this legal 
 phase of the matter that he adds that Love is therefore fulfill- 
 ment of law. But the apostle's saying is really stronger than 
 this. The word " law" in our text is anarthrous, and, as we have 
 so often seen, signifies not the special law of Jewish legislation, 
 or, at least, not that only, but " law" in its widest range, the law 
 of the universe, the great ethical law which holds in its sway God, 
 and angels, and men. And it is in this comprehensive sense of 
 " law^ " that we must translate and interpret the saying that " love 
 is fulfillment of law " for all beings, always, and everywhere. 
 
 In the ninth verse the apostle quotes the Seventh Command- 
 ment, " Thou shalt not commit adultery," before the Sixth, 
 " Thou shalt not kill." The same peculiarity, whether from in- 
 advertence or from some rabbinic tradition is found also in Mark 
 (x, 19) and in James (ii, 11). 
 
 Verses 11-14. And this, knowing the season, that it is 
 time for you already to be awaked from sleep ; for now 
 salvation is nearer us than when we [first] had faith. The 
 night went on, but the day has come near. Let us put off 
 therefore the works of the darkness, but let us put on the 
 weapons of the light. Let us walk becomingly, as in day, 
 not with revels and drunkenness, not with lewdness and 
 
360 EXPOSITION. 
 
 lasciviousness, not with strife and jealousy : nay, but put 
 ye on the Lord Jesus Christ ; and do not make provision 
 for the flesh, to satisfy its lusts. 
 
 This paragraph continues the thought of the last paragraph, 
 that love avoids offense against his neighbor, and so fulfills law. 
 But the offense now takes shai)e in the ajjostle's thought, es|)e- 
 cially in regard to social (or sexual) impurity. It is a remarkable 
 testimony to the low state of morals in the Gentile world that the 
 apostle needed to write this cliapter to the Church at Rome, or 
 the sixth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, or that 
 the Council at Jerusalem needed to write to the Gentile Christians, 
 "Abstain from fornication." (Acts xv, 29.) 
 
 The first woi-ds, And this, are equivalent to the more common 
 phrase, " and that, too," and must be explained in the same way ; 
 that is, they restate the thought of the preceding sentence. It is 
 as if the apostle hei-e said, " Owe no man aught but love, and do 
 not sin against your neighbor ; and that, too, because you are 
 aware of the upward movement of the Church ; that the hour has 
 come when you should wake from your long sleep of sin ; for now 
 you are nearer being saved from your sins than when you first 
 made a profession of faith in Christ. While you slept, the night 
 went on ; the day dawn is at hand. Put away the deeds of the 
 night: put on the armor of the day: put on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and take no thought to gratify your lusts." 
 
CHAPTEK XIY. 
 
 Verses 1-4. But him that is weak in the faith receive 
 ye ; not with a view to criticisms of his scruples. There is 
 one man, who, indeed, has faith to eat all things ; but he 
 that is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him that eats 
 count for naught him that eats not ; and let not him that 
 eats not judge him that eats ; for God received him. Who 
 art thou that judgest another's servant? To his own lord 
 he stands, or falls. But he will be made to stand. For the 
 Lord is able to make him stand. 
 
 This chapter treats of the forbearance due to the scruples of 
 others, especially on points which the apostle says (verse 14) are 
 of no moment in themselves. The term which he uses to describe 
 the Jews was appropriate, not because they were weak, numeric- 
 ally, though this was true, but because they were feeble in their 
 faith ; and therefore the more required to be borne with. The last 
 word, weak in the faith, means in the gospel, yet here not as a 
 system of doctrines, but only so far forth as it is deliverance from 
 the Levitical ordinances. The early Jewish converts still had scru- 
 ples on the subject of circumcision, of foods clean and unclean, of 
 things offered to idols, and of the feast days of the Jewish year. 
 The Gentiles, on the other hand, besides being the majority of the 
 Church, were not in bondage to any of these things; and so Paul 
 calls them " the strong." (Rom. xv, 1.) And it is to the " strong," 
 Gentile element of the Church that the apostle now addresses his 
 appeal for tolerance of the views of the others— Receive the weak 
 Jews into fellowship ; receive them to your love and confidence, 
 not to decisions uf their doubts ; or perhaps we might translate, to 
 wrangles over their scruples. Paul's word here for " weak " is 
 not the adjective, as if a characteristic, or permanent, defect in 
 the Jew, but a participle implying only his temporary condition. 
 And the thought of the apostle was not that these scruples are 
 
 367 
 
368 EXPOSITION. 
 
 indifTerent; but that tliey are not the most important matters of 
 the religious life ; and that weaknesses, which are not sins, may 
 be tolerated in tiie Church, until the leaven of the gospel shall 
 bring both Jew and (lentile, both weak and strong, into one. 
 
 The first matter of difference between the weak and the 
 strong refers to the Jewish discrimination between "clean" foods 
 and " unclean." The Mosaic legislation prescribed certain animals 
 that might be eaten ; but proscribed certain others that migiit not 
 be eaten at all. This distinction which the Jews scrupulously 
 observed, is the basis for Peter's vision of the sheet let down from 
 heaven. But no Jew ate even "clean" animals, unless ritually 
 butchered (" kosher meat"), so that no blood was left in the flesh. 
 "Ye shall eat no manner of blood: whosoever eats any blood, 
 that person shall be cut off from his people (excommunicated as 
 unclean from the congregation)." (Lev. vii, 26.) And to this 
 end, the Jews abstained from all flesh sold in the common market. 
 But there was a point under the latter head that was just as serious 
 for some Christian Gentiles, at first, as for the scrupulous Jew. 
 Most, if not all, of the flesh sold in the public markets had first 
 been offered as sacrifices (the blood jioured out on the altars of 
 idols) ; and was thereby " unclean " to the Christian ; and most of 
 the wine sold had first been offered (by symbolic libation) to the 
 idol, and was thereby unclean; and to eat these meats offered to 
 idols was, religiously, " to have communion with the idol." (1 Cor. 
 X, 20.) This was the scruple which withheld Daniel from eating of 
 the king's food, and drinking the king's wine, lest he should defile 
 himself with meats offered to idols. Pliny, in his famous letter to 
 Trajan (A.D.104) says that even before that date the Christians 
 had so multiplied in Bithynia, tiiat there could scarcely be found 
 l)urchasers for the flesh of idol sacrifices, offered for sale in the 
 markets. (Pliny x, 96.) This was the condition of things at 
 Corinth ; and Paul devotes two chapters, in the main, of tlie First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians to a discussion " concerning things 
 sacrificed to idols" and afterwards sold in the markets (chapters 
 viii, x). Paul tells the Corinthians that as for himself he did not 
 recognize the idol as being anything real in the world, and that, 
 therefore, he had no scruples about eating such food ; and he 
 bids them: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, askmg 
 no question about it, on account of 8cruj)les of conscience." 
 (1 Cor. x, 25.) Yet he says that out of regaitl to others he would 
 not sin against the (weak) brethren, and wound their consciences: 
 
ROMANS XIV. 5-9. 369 
 
 " If my food scandalizes my brother, I will not eat flesh for ever- 
 more." (1 Cor. viii, 18.) Such, too, was the condition of things at 
 Rome also. Some of the Romans had faith (that is, felt free) 
 to eat all things,— evidently meats bouglit in the market, which 
 doubtless had been offered to idols. But others of the Church, 
 the weaklings, ate only vegetables, like Daniel and the other 
 scrupulous Jews at Babylon. And here again, as also to the Cor- 
 inthians, the apostle commands that the two parties should not 
 incriminate eacli other for eating, or for not eating ; but, without 
 wrangling, should frankly leave every believer to his own con- 
 science, and to God. The strong must not make naught of the 
 weak, as crotchety, as sticklers for trifles ; and the weak must not 
 judge and condemn the strong as lawless, heady followers of their 
 own caprices. 
 
 The last clause in the third verse. For God received him, 
 might equally well apply to either of the two, the strong, or the 
 weak; but the connection, and the verb judgest in the fourth 
 verse, which characterizes the "weaA;" man, make the pronoun 
 him point rather to the strong man, the Gentile, who is free from 
 scruples. Tlie caution to the weak man is that he should not 
 judge and condemn the strong man on the ground of laxity ; " for 
 God received him ;" and the weak brother has no right to sit in 
 judgment on one whom God approves and receives. He stands or 
 falls to his own Lord, not to the fallible man who assumes to judge 
 him. And then the apostle adds. But he will be made to stand ; 
 for, notwithstanding what to the weak brother may seem license 
 and instability, the Lord of both parties has power to make him 
 stand. Notice that both here and in the Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, Paul evidently sympathizes with the strong man, who, like 
 the apostle himself, is Christ's free man : but his words are non- 
 partisan, dispassionate, and gentle even to the uncharitable con- 
 demner of the brethren. 
 
 Verses 5-9. For there is one man, ■who, indeed, es- 
 teems day above day ; but there is one w^ho esteems 
 every day. Let each naan be fully assured in his own 
 mind. He that minds the day minds it to the Lord ; and 
 he that eats, eats to the Lord, for he thanks G-od ; and he 
 that eats not, to the Lord eats not ; and thanks God. For 
 no one of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 
 For if we live, we live to the Lord ; and if we die, we die 
 24 
 
370 EXPOSITION. 
 
 to the Lord : if we live, therefore, or if we die, w^e are the 
 Lord's. For to this end Christ died, and lived, that he 
 may be Lord both of dead men and of living. 
 
 The discussion here still continues in regard to foods clean 
 and unclean. And tlie first two verses about the distinction in 
 day come in only as a parallel instance of the principle which holds 
 in the matter of foods. The meaning is, that just as differences 
 of opinion are now innocently held in regard to the days once es- 
 teemed holy and obligatory (a freedom of opinion in those matters 
 which all parties concede), so differences of opinion may now 
 innocently be held in regard to the eating of flesh. The days re- 
 ferred to are the now obsolete feast days of the Jews, the Passover, 
 the Pentecost, the Feast of the Tabernacles. New Moons, and the 
 Jewish Sabbath. These are the days that Paul elsewhere enumer- 
 ates. Thus he says to the Galatians, " Ye (Gentiles) are observing 
 [the Jewish] days, and months, and seasons, and years" (Gal. 
 iv, 10) ; and to the Colossians, "Let no man condemn you in your 
 eating, or in drinking, or in regard of a feast day, or of a new 
 moon, or of a Sabbath-day, — which things are a shadow of the 
 things that were to come, whose substance is Christ" (Col. ii, 16). 
 The man who has scruples about " the days" is evidently the man 
 of weak faith, who also lias scruples about eating. On the other 
 hand, it is "the strong" man that eats all things, w^ho also es- 
 teems all days. |The meaning of this last phrase is, that he 
 counts all days equally consecrated to God not desecrated as over 
 against the Jewish Sabbath.] 
 
 The observance of certain days as hallowed is a matter indif- 
 ferent in itself, with a strong presumption against the observance 
 as indicating overscrupulousness. But Paul bids, Let every man 
 be fully persuaded in his own mind. It thus resolves itself 
 into a question of the judgment as well as of the conscience! It 
 is equally so in regard to the eating of nil foods indiscriminately. 
 And so Paul says. He that minds the day (the weak man), 
 minds it to the Lord, — that is, deferring to what he thinks God's 
 will in the matter; for he thanks God ; but in the same way, he 
 that eats, eats to the Lord ; for he thanks God. 
 
 The next verses, seventh to the ninth, declare what we must 
 hold true of all believers, of the strong as well as the weak. Both 
 live with good conscience before Gf)d : no one of us lives to 
 himself, or dies to himself: but to the Lord— that is, we must 
 
ROMANS XIV. 10-13. 371 
 
 count ourselves as belonging to him. And his servants we are, in 
 life and in death. To this end Christ was manifested, that 
 he (and not ive, the censor of the brethren, or the despiser) may 
 be the Lord of us all, both of dead men and of living. 
 
 Verses 10-13. But thou! why dost thou judge thy 
 brother? or also thou! why dost thou count thy brother 
 for naught ? For we all shall stand before the bar of God. 
 For it has been written. 
 
 As I live, says the Lord, [I swear] that to me every 
 knee shall bow. 
 
 And every tongue shall confess to God. (Isa. xlv,23.) 
 Accordingly then, each one of us concerning himself will 
 give account to God. No longer, therefore, let us judge 
 one another ; nay, but judge ye this rather, not to put 
 a stumbling-block for your brother, or an occasion of 
 offense. 
 
 In the ninth verse the apostle has said that Christ died and 
 lived that he, and not lue, finite and fallible, may be Lord of all 
 men, both dead and living. Yet the Jew has dared to judge the 
 Gentile for his offense in " eating all things ;" and the Gentile has 
 dared to ridicule the Jew for his narrow scruples about the same 
 harmless foods. It is in view of this unfraternal bearing that 
 the apostle now sharply reprehends them both, and asks first of 
 the Jew, Thou! why dost thou judge (and condemn) thy 
 brother? and of the Gentile, Thou 1 why dost thou count thy 
 brother as a man of naught? Neither thou, nor thou, art 
 judge ; it is at God's bar, not yours, that we all shall stand. 
 God himself said, To me (not to men) shall every knee bow. 
 (The sentence here is the regular formula of an oath ; the struc- 
 ture of the sentence implies the words, " 1 swear it.") Accord- 
 ingly then, the apostle continues, each one of us will give ac- 
 count concerning himself to God, not to his brother ; and he 
 concludes with the exhortation, Let us no longer judge. This 
 thirteenth verse gives a good illustration how, in the same sense, 
 a leading word may, for the sake of parallelism, be used in unlike 
 (almost opposite) meanings: "Let us not judge and condemn one 
 another; nay, but let us rather judge and approve of a charitable 
 course towards our failing, falling brother,— namely, not to put 
 stumbling stones in his path." 
 
372 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verses 14-18. I know and am persuaded in the Lord 
 Jesus, that nothing is unclean through itself; except that 
 to him that reckons anything to be unclean, to that one it 
 is unclean. For if on account of thy food, thy brother is 
 grieved, no longer thou walkest according to love. Do not 
 with thy food destroy that man for whom Christ died. Let 
 not therefore your good be evil spoken of. For the king- 
 dom of God is not eating and drinking ; nay, but justifica- 
 tion, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he that in 
 this matter serves Christ, is well-pleasing to God, and ap- 
 proved by men. 
 
 The words in the Lord Jesus, are sometimes thought to de- 
 scribe the apostle's assurance, as being in Christ, but this is not 
 very clear. It is better to hold that there is substantially here a 
 trajection of the conjunction that, and that the sentence should 
 read, " I am persuaded that in the Lord Jesus." At all events, 
 the apostle describes how tlie dispensation of tlie gospel has gone 
 beyond the old disj^onsation of Jewish observances. Once, certain 
 things were made ritually clean, and unclean, to serve as outward 
 symbols of moral distinctions. This kindergarten period of Church 
 training has gone by. Now, " in the Lord Jesus," that is in the 
 mature kingdom of God (which the apostle expressly names in 
 the seventeenth verse) there is no need or place for these ele- 
 mentary things. "In the Lord Jesus," that is, in the gospel of 
 Christ, " there is nothing ritually clean, nothing ritually unclean." 
 The gospel does not concern itself about foods and drinks, and 
 ritualistic mummeries in general. 
 
 This is Paul's own conviction for himself. But he holds tliat 
 for others the whole matter of things clean and unclean turns on 
 their personal attitude. If the weak Jew, still wearing the fetters 
 of Moses, reckons anything to be unclean, to him it is \xn- 
 clean. His scruples (tiiough his scruples are now only a super- 
 stition) establish for him certain limits on the matter of foods, 
 which he can not transgress without guilt. And so the apostle 
 teaches that the strong man (the Gentile, who has none of these 
 scruples) must not, tiirough his own latitude in the matter of food, 
 give his weaker brother i)ain, or by his example influence him to 
 violate his conscience. Do not with thy food [.Mford admirably 
 puts it, "by a meal of thine") destroy him for whom Christ 
 died. Do not, by needless indulgence in that which is all right 
 
ROMANS XIV. 19-23. 373 
 
 for you, but may not be so to others, bring evil reports upon your- 
 self. And it is not a great personal sacriiice to make. " For the 
 kingdom of God (whose privileges you share with your weaker 
 brethren) does not consist in the sensuous enjoyments of eating 
 and drinking, to please yourself, but in the liigher enjoyment of 
 justification, and peace, and joy, in the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Verses 19-23. Accordingly, then, let us follow the 
 things of peace, and the things of the edification of one an- 
 other. Do not for the sake of food destroy [tear down] the 
 work of God. All foods indeed are clean ; but [to eat them ] 
 is bad to the man that eats with offense. It is good not to 
 eat flesh, nor yet to drink wine, nor yet to do aught in which 
 thy brother stumbles. The faith which thou thyself hast, 
 have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that judges 
 [ and condemns ] not himself in that which he approves. But 
 if he that doubts [about his food] eat, he has been con- 
 demned; because he eats not from faith. But eversrthing 
 w^hich is not from faith is sin. 
 
 The paragraph opens with a practical exhortation arising from 
 the religious nature of Christ's kingdom, and the obligations which 
 it imposes on its members. Christians should look, not on their 
 own things, but on the things of others. They are members of one 
 another, and must "seek one another's peace and edification." 
 Notice that, by this word edification, Paul does not mean mere 
 instruction or enlightenment of the understanding, as if the 
 "strong" man should seek to teach the weaker brother on the 
 points of debate. This contention is forbidden in the first verse 
 of the chapter. But the sense of the word here (and always in 
 Scriptures) is that of upbuilding and establishing in personal faith. 
 This work is not so much intellectual as religious; and applies 
 to the upbuilding of the spiritual house of God in the hearts of 
 believers. 
 
 After this general exhortation, the apostle in the twentieth 
 verse, resumes the special discussion of the eating of unclean 
 foods. And the first words repeat substantially the command in 
 the fifteenth verse, but with specific differences in expression and 
 w^ords. In the fifteenth verse, the command is, " Do not by thy 
 food (that is, by eating ' unclean' food) destroy the man for whom 
 Christ died." This verb "destroy" means "cause to perish," 
 that is, make thy brother fall away from his integrity. In the 
 
374 EXpnsirroN. 
 
 Iwcnlieth verse, tlie commniid is, Do not for the sake of food 
 (that is, that you may enjoy tiic daiiitii's of tiie luarki-t) destroy 
 the work of God. The verb "destroy" liere means, "tear 
 down ;" and tlie word "work" means " the buildhu/ of God." "Do 
 not, for the sake of a little self-indulgence, tear down what God 
 is building up." Both verbs, " destroy," " tear down," are in the 
 present tense, and may rather express the tendency, than the 
 • actual result. But neither verb implies that the result will be 
 tlie perdition of the weak brother, but only his stumbling in his 
 Christian life. 
 
 The principle exemplified in the last part of the twentieth 
 verse is far-reaching; and is put in yet more general tei-ms, in the 
 last verse of the chapter. No man can rightly do what he does not 
 know to be innocent. All foods are really clean ; but to eat them 
 is a sin to the man, the "weak" brother, who can not eat them 
 without wounding his own conscience. And to eat them is equally 
 a sin to the "strong" man, who if he eat them, scandalizes his 
 brother and causes him to stumble. And so the apostle gives a 
 double admonition. To the " strong" man he says, " If you have 
 faith (are conscience-free) to eat all things, do not vaunt your 
 liberty, or parade your eating, to the offense of your weaker 
 brother. Have it to yourself." And to the " weak" man he says, 
 " Do not eat against your convictions. Happy is he that does not 
 bring condemnation on his conscience, in eating that in which he 
 is overbold to indulge himself." 
 
 And then he adds a concluding and conclusive summing up; 
 that he that discriminates in his own conscience, between foods 
 on the ground of their being clean or unclean, if he nevertheless 
 eat them indiscriminately, has by his own act, brought condemna- 
 tion on his own conscience, because he eats without inward assur- 
 ance that the eating is innocent. But whatever in this direction 
 is not done from this quiet inward assurance of soul is sin. 
 
CHAPTEK XV. 
 
 Verses 1-6. But we, the strong, ought to bear with the 
 
 weaknesses of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let 
 each one of us please his neighbor unto that which is 
 good, for his upbuilding. And [do this], for Christ did not 
 please himself; nay, but [denied himself], according as it 
 has been written. The reproaches of them that reproach 
 thee fall on me. (Psa. Ixix, 9.) For as many things as 
 were written of old, were written for our instruction, that 
 through the patience and through the encouragement of 
 the Scriptures, we may have the hope. But may the God 
 of the patience and of the encouragement give you to be 
 of the same mind with one another, according to Christ 
 Jesus; that with one accord, with one mouth, ye may 
 glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 This paragraph is an additional appeal to the strong men in 
 the Church in behalf of the weaker brethren (literally, the not 
 strong), on the ground of conscience and of Christian forbear-, 
 ance • We ought to bear with them. The verb should be trans- 
 lated " to bear with," not " to bear " (that is, " to carry "), wliich 
 is inappropriate with the word weaknesses. But we are directed 
 " to carry the burdens," not the infirmities, of others. (Gal. vi, 2.) 
 But the man of sympathy and patience "bears with" the weak- 
 ness of his weaker brethren. He will not let their failings, even 
 though they verge upon being faults, anger or vex him. The ex- 
 ample of Christ is cited, who did not please himself, but " bore 
 with the contradiction of sinners," and, like David in the Psalms, 
 " endured the reproaches " of the ingrates, who reproach even 
 God And Paul adds that these lessons of the Old Testament 
 were written for our instruction. If we take to heart these 
 lessons of patience and encouragement from the Scriptures, and 
 this lesson of Christ's patience and endurance under provocation, 
 we shall have oneness of mind with one another. 
 
 375 
 
376 EXPOSITION. 
 
 Verses 7-13. 'Wherefore receive ye one another, ac- 
 cording as also Christ received you, to the glory of God. 
 For I say that Christ has become minister of circumcision, 
 in behalf of God's truthfulness, that he may confirm the 
 promises of the fathers ; but that the Gentiles may glorify 
 God, for his mercy [to them] ; according as it has been 
 written. 
 
 On this account I will confess to thee among Gentiles. 
 
 And to thy name I w^ill sing. (I'sii. xviii, 49.) 
 And again [the Scripture] says. 
 
 Rejoice, Gentiles, with his people. (Deut. xxxii,43.) 
 And again. 
 
 Praise all the Gentiles Jehovah ; 
 
 And let all the peoples praise him. (Psa. cxvii, 1.) 
 And again Isaiah says, 
 
 There will be the root of Jesse, 
 
 And he that arises to rule Gentiles ; 
 
 On him Gentiles will hope. (Isii. xi, 10.) 
 But may the God of the hope fill you with all joy and 
 peace in having faith, that ye may abound in the hope [of 
 eternal life] in the power of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The conjunction w^herefore refers back to the discussion on 
 the forbearance of the strong towards llie weak. In the first verse 
 of chapter xiv, Paul bids the strong Gentile, " Receive him that is 
 weak, the overscrupulous Jew, not into debate and wrangle over 
 his scruples, but into kind and fraternal relations." It is the 
 Gentile who is there required to make allowance for the Jew. 
 But in our present verse the apostle's concept is, that both parties 
 must yield somewhat, each to tlie other ; and so now he bids both 
 the Gentile and the Jew, Receive ye one another, as Christ 
 also received you, to the glory of God. Nominally lie ad- 
 dresses both parties; yet his underlying thought is still chiefly of 
 the Gentiles, and i)erhaps the clause, "Christ also received ?/o(t," 
 applies wholly to the Gentiles. It is the implication of the verse 
 that the Jews were already in the Church, but that now Christ 
 received the Gentiles also, to the glory of God. 
 
 The conjunction for in the eighth verse has its usual explica- 
 tive function, and it refers to the phrase, "Christ received you." 
 The argument is that the Jews and the Gentiles should receive 
 one anotiier as equals in the Church, for the reason that Christ 
 
ROMANS XV. U-n. ^ 377 
 
 has become minister of circumcision — first, that lie may confirm 
 to the Jews the promises made to tlieir I'atliors, and, secondly, 
 that the Gentiles may come to glorify God for his mercy to them 
 in Christ. Both words, minister and circuracision, here used 
 are anarthrous; not ^^ the minister of the Circumcision," as in the 
 Authorized and the Revised. The word "circumcision" does not 
 mean " the Circumcised," that is, the Jewish Church (as fre- 
 quently; for example, Rom. iii, 30; Gal. ii, 7-9) ; but the rite of 
 circumcision, and it is quite equivalent to the covenant of th< 
 Jews. This rite was the requirement on w^hich the promises to the 
 fathers were conditioned ; and it was of this covenant that Christ 
 became "minister." This word "minister" in the New Testa- 
 ment does not mean, as the common English term " minister," an 
 ecclesiastic, or preacher, for Christ did not preach circumcision, 
 but, as the Greek word always signifies, "a servitor;" but better 
 hero, a subserver, or functionary, whose oflRce was to interpret and 
 fulfill, to the Jews, this rite of their religion, in its real, underly- 
 ing significance., Christ thus subserved the truth of God so as to 
 confirm to the Jews the spiritual promises made to their fathers. 
 But this confirmation of the promises extended also to the Gen- 
 tiles. They, too, are the recipients of the universal promises. 
 "Christ received^' both Jews and Gentiles on a common basis. 
 And so the second result of his " ministry" is, that the Gentiles 
 may glorify God for his mercy to them. 
 
 And on this mentioning of the Gentiles, Paul bursts out 
 afresh with a few more citations (just as they occur to him) of 
 Scriptural passages in which the Gentiles are named as having a 
 place in the Church of Christ. How abundantly and proudly the 
 apostle to the Gentiles magnifies his office ; and how copiously the 
 Jewish Sci'iptures yield him their riches! The number of these 
 explicit quotations about the Gentiles, in previous chapters and 
 here, is pretty large ; but if he had so needed, or desired, he could 
 easily have centupled the count. The Hebrew Scriptures are full of 
 such proofs of the coming recognition and salvation of the Gentile 
 world. 
 
 Verses 14-21. But I am persuaded, my brethren, also 
 myself, concerning you, that yourselves also are full of 
 goodness, having been filled -with all knowledge, being able 
 also to admonish one another. But I "write to you more 
 boldly, in part, as again reminding you ; on account of the 
 
378 EXPOSITION. 
 
 grace that was given me from God, to the end that I should 
 be a ministrant at the altar of Christ Jesus, as to the Gen- 
 tiles, ministering the gospel of God, in order that my obla- 
 tion of the Gentiles may become acceptable, having been 
 sanctified in the Holy Spirit. I have therefore the boasting 
 in Christ Jesus in the things towards God. For I will not 
 dare to speak of any of the things which Christ did not 
 work through me, unto obedience of Gentiles, by word and 
 work, in power of signs and wonders, in power of the Holy 
 Spirit. So that from Jerusalem, and in circuit as far as 
 Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ ; but 
 [I have done so] being ambitious so to preach the gospel; 
 not where Christ was named, that I may not build upon 
 another's foundation; nay, but [to preach] according as it 
 has been written, 
 
 They to whom nothing w^as announced concerning him 
 will see ; 
 
 And they that have not heard, will understand. 
 
 (Is!i. lii, 15.) 
 
 The apostle has twice admonished his brethren to forbearance 
 towards one another. (Rom. xiv, 1; xv, 7.) But he now changes 
 his tone ; and, in the verses before us, he turns from his words of 
 apostolical authority to tlie words of fraternal compliment. He 
 tells his bi-ethren that they really need no words of admonition, 
 except such as they can administer to one another. He uses the 
 eini)hatic pronouns to make his point clear: I am myself per- 
 suaded that ye yourselves are good, and wise, and able to 
 admonish one another. Yet he says that, notwithstanding his 
 opinion concerning them, he has been more free, in part, to write 
 them these admonitions (not enjoining a burden on them), but 
 only by way of reminder. But I write you the more boldly, 
 on acount of the grace which God gave me to be an apostle, 
 and in the line of this authority. 
 
 The next verse, the sixteenth, is the only passage in tliese 
 letters in which even a quasi-priestly function is asci-ibed to the 
 gospel minister. And liere the apostle's words are evidently only 
 a figurative appropriation of the terms of the Jewish ritual to the 
 evangelical office of a Christian pajstor. In this figurative style, 
 Paul speaks of himself as set apart, to the end that lie should be a 
 ministrant (or sacrificant) at the altar of God, in reference to the 
 
ROMANS XV. U-2L 379 
 
 Gentiles, officiating in this gospel priesthood, to offer tliem up, as 
 an acceptable oblation to God. But this figure of a priesthood, 
 though cast in a Jewish mold, does not point in tlie direction of tlie 
 sacerdotalism of the mediaeval Roman Catholic Church (and later 
 sacramentarians), which counts all Christian ministers (of tlieir 
 orders) as " priests," in the old Jewish sense of the word, invested 
 with sacrificial functions; and which holds that these priests, in 
 solemnizing the mass, offer up, on an altar, the veritable body and 
 blood of the Lord Jesus, as an atoning sacrifice. Paul's concept of 
 his priestly office is totally different. He kneels at no altar ; but 
 in the privacy of his closet. He offers no atoning sacrifice for sin ; 
 but only a figurativ^e oblation of the body of ihe Gentile Church, 
 a thank-offering to God for his mercies. This is only what all 
 evangelical Christians recognize- as " the priesthood of believers," 
 in which the laity, as well as the clergy, offer themselves (and all 
 the world) a sacrifice to God. It is what Paul has already ex- 
 pressed to the believers in Rome: ''I beseech you, brethren, 
 through the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sac- 
 fice, holy, well-pleasing, to God, your reasonable service." (Rom. 
 xii, 1.) This, and this only, is Paul's meaning in this verse. Yet, 
 while it is perfectly aside from sacerdotalism, never before, and 
 never after, did Paul even thus incidentally venture on this far- 
 fetched figure of a Christian priest, to describe his gospel office. 
 Christ is the only atoning sacrifice that the gospel knows anything 
 of ; and the Christian minister is not a " priest" in any such sacer- 
 dotal sense as this.* 
 
 *The English word "priest" is but a shortened form of the old Greek 
 word ifpea^vrepos, "presbyter," which occurs twenty times in the Greek 
 Testament, in the sense of an elder in the Christian Cliurch (besides other 
 uses), and It is always translated " elder." This is the proper official descrip- 
 tion and title of the gospel minister. His function is to be a pastor, and to 
 feed the flock of Christ. The Greek word applying to the Jewish priest Is 
 lepevs. It occurs over thirty times. This word iepevs means a " sacriflcer," 
 which was the proper description and title in the Greek Testament of the 
 Jewish priests; though it is always translated, in the English Bible, by the 
 perverted word " priest." But the meaning of the word Iepevs is clear. It 
 was of the function of the priesthood to offer sacrifice. And so It is said, 
 " Every priest Is ordained to offer sacrifice for sins." (Heb. v, i.) This is 
 never the function of the Christian minister, or "elder;" but this Is the 
 conception which the sacramentarlan Church of Rome would fain attacli 
 to the Christian ministry; and which, in the course of long centuries of 
 unobstructed perversion of the truth, it succeeded in imposing upon the 
 Greek-English word "priest" (that is, presbyter, elder), the New Testa- 
 ment name for the non-sacei'dotal minister of Jesus Christ. What a his- 
 
380 EXPOSITION. 
 
 The word therefore, in verse 17, is Paul's reference to the 
 gruee granted him to be Christ's apostle to the Gentiles ; and to his 
 inference tliat he has a boasting over liis labors in this field, which 
 was all his own. lie declares that of nothing else will he boast, of 
 nt)thing done by others in this field, and of nothing done by him- 
 self in fields outside of his projjer geographical and ethnical limits. 
 In this spirit, he says, I will not dare to speak of any of the 
 things which Christ did not work through me. Tlie sentence 
 is plain; but the sense may be rendered clearer by dropping the 
 double negative: "I will speak only of the things which Christ 
 wrought by me." And he describes, incidentally, but too briefly, 
 the geographical range of his work. It reached from Jerusalem, 
 in a circuit through Asia Minor, and Greece, to Illyria, on the Adri- 
 atic S^a. The description embraces, substantially, ths eastern half 
 of the Roman Empire. Mucli of it he traversed many times ; and 
 though he does not tell us how many Churches he founded, or the 
 number of his converts to Christ, yet he says that within these 
 extremes, from east to west, he had fully preached the gospel 
 of Christ. The Church at Rome was quite certainly largely com- 
 posed of representative converts from Paul's provincial Churches, 
 whom he knew personally, and to whom he now sends his greet- 
 ings. Paul drove his plow in virgin soil ; he was ambitious not 
 to preach where Christ was named, nor to build on other men's 
 foundations. His motto is found in Isaiah's description of Mes- 
 siah's work: " The Gentiles to whom Christ was not yet preached 
 shall now hear and understand." 
 
 tory do those divergent senses of the one word "presbyter" (In the New 
 Testament an "elder," and In the Roman Church a "sacrlflcer") reveal 
 to us of the corruption of the dark ages, and of encroachment of the 
 Roman hlerarcliy I The change In the form of the word, from " presbyter " 
 to " priest," is of little slguKlcance; but the change In the meaning of the 
 word Is vital, and fatal to the evangelical truth. We need to be watchful 
 against the iinijosture that lies concealed In the word. While the word 
 "priest" is idHUtically the old New Testlment word "presbyter," for 
 "elder," and ought to retain the old meaning, yet the sense which papal 
 Rome, and the sacranientarlans of other confessions, attach to it, is not the 
 New Testament sense of the word. Rome and Anglican High-churchmen 
 Impose upon the New Testament word "presbyter" (elder) the sense that 
 properly belongs to the New Testament word iepei/j, a sacrlflcer. And so, 
 Instead of designating themselves as Christian "elders," they (at least 
 In the rituals of ordination, and especially of the Lord's Supper) arrogate to 
 themselves the name of " priest," because this word, with its warped mean- 
 ing, l)ecomos subservient to their sacramentarianism. With the help of 
 a false philology they dupe the people (and are duped) Into a false theology. 
 
ROMANS XV. 22-29. 381 
 
 Verses 22-29. Wherefore also I was hindered these 
 many times, from coming unto you. But now no longer 
 having place in these regions, but having from many years 
 a longing to come unto you, whenever I may go unto 
 Spain ; (for I hope when passing through to visit you, and 
 by you to be sent forward there, if first I be filled in part, 
 with your company), but now I am setting out unto Je- 
 rusalem, ministering to the saints. For Macedonia and 
 Achaia thought well to make some contribution unto the 
 poor of the saints that are in Jerusalem ; for they thought 
 well ; and they are their debtors ; for if the Gentiles shared 
 in their spiritual things, they ought also to minister to 
 them in the carnal things. When, therefore, I have finished 
 this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come away 
 through you unto Spain. But I know that when I come 
 unto you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of 
 Christ. 
 
 The conjunction wherefore connects back to the previous 
 verses, in which Paul shows how, in his wide field of work, he liad 
 so fully preached Christ". "Wherefore," he continues (that is, in 
 view of these absorbing labors), I was being hindered these 
 many times from coming to you. But now [the word is 
 emphatic, >io;t'], no longer having place [that is, fresh opening] 
 in these regions, I can gratify my longing, from many 
 years past, to visit you. 
 
 The grammatical construction in the paragraph is broken, but 
 the continuous sense is clear. In the following verses he declares 
 his purpose to make a missionary journey to Spain ; and he joins 
 this expression of his purpose with a hope to make the journey an 
 occasion for the visit to Rome: I hope, on my journey to 
 Spain, to visit you, and by you to be helped forward 
 thither ; and then he adds the courteous words, if I be first 
 somew^hat filled with my stay w^ith you. 
 
 The question arises wliether this desire to visit Rome, and to 
 preach thei*e, and to impart to them some spiritual gift, infringes 
 on his settled policy " not to preach where Christ was named." 
 In answering this question, we must recollect the other condition 
 which really is what he means, that he would not huild on an- 
 other's foundation. His incidental preaching as a visitor would 
 be no infringement of his general purpose. But at any rate Rome 
 
382 EXJ'OSITIoy. 
 
 was not within tlie field of any other iipostle, certainly not of 
 Peter, who was never in Home. And the probability is tliat the 
 Church at Rome was made up of Paul's own converts from else- 
 where, and so was really witliin tlie terms of his own rule. 
 
 Did Paul ever visit Spain? Ilis purpose of an immediate jour- 
 ney thither was defeated by his imprisonment of two years at 
 Csesarea, and of two years more at liome. Ecclesiastical tradition 
 credits him with having finally carried out his purpose. But aside 
 from his own expressed purpose, and these vague traditions, we 
 know nothing. 
 
 But Paul's plans now were settled ; his face was fixed towards 
 Rome, and Spain; yet he tells the Romans that he must first see 
 Jerusalem. He has an errand of inerey to the poor of the mother 
 Church. Since the days of tlie communal experiment at Jerusa- 
 lem, after the Pentecost (Acts iv, 32), the Church there had a 
 large element of poor people, dependent on the aid of others. 
 This chronic pauperism had now lasted nearly thirty years ; and 
 it probably lasted till the destruction of the city, by Titus, A. D. 70. 
 In Paul's agreement on terms of peace with the apostles, at the 
 Council at Jerusalem, they stipulated with him that in his Gen- 
 tile Churches he should remember the poor at Jerusalem. This 
 he did over and over again ; and one such collection from the 
 Churches of Macedonia and Aehaia was now in liis hands, to carry 
 to Jerusalem. But he says tliat when he has fulfilled his mission 
 to the Jews, he will promptly set out to Spain, taking Rome in his 
 course. And he adds that, I know that I shall come in the 
 fullness of the blessing of Christ. 
 
 Verses 30-33. But I beseech you, brethren, through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, and through the love of the Spirit, 
 to agonize with me, in your prayers to God, on my behalf, 
 that I may be rescued from them in Judea, that obey not 
 [the Lord Jesus Christ], and that my ministry unto Jeru- 
 salem may become acceptable to the saints ; in order 
 that I may come to you, with joy, through the will of God, 
 and may be refreshed with you. But the God of peace be 
 w^ith you all. Amen. 
 
 Paul's eiTand to Jerusalem was one of mercy. It was his 
 fifth journey to the Holy City. It hjid been four years since his 
 la.st flying visit ; nnd tlie breach now between him and tlie Jews was 
 cjompiuLe. He felt unusual solicitude with regard to his reception, 
 
ROMANS XV. 30-3S. 383 
 
 and even his safety. No Jew looked with kindly eye upon tlie 
 renegade from Moses and the customs of the fathers. The non- 
 Christian Jews hated him ; and even the believers felt little affec- 
 tion for him. He knew the enmity of the former; he was uncer- 
 tain of the attitude of the latter. And so, in these verses, he 
 beseeches the brethren at Rome, by all the motives he could name, 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ, and through the love of 
 the Spirit, to join him in agonizing prayers to God, on his behalf. 
 Yet the utmost that he could hope, and all that he asked in prayer, 
 was to be rescued from the disobedient, and not to be rejected 
 by the saints. His fears were only too well founded. The story of 
 the bitter vindictiveness of the Jews, and of the lukewarmness, or 
 even ingratitude of the brethren, who needed to be conciliated, if 
 not reconciliated to the apostle to the Gentiles, is most graphically 
 told in the Acts of the Apostles. (Acts xxi, 17.) 
 
 Paul did not come to Rome, as he hoped, with joy, but in 
 chains. Yet the Church to which this letter was sent, still existed ; 
 and on the apostle's approach, though a prisoner, " the brethren 
 from thence, when they heard of us [it is Luke who writes ; and 
 his pronoun shows that he was with Paul], came forty miles, to 
 meet us; w^hom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took cour- 
 age." (Acts xxviii, 15.) Nearly thirty of these " brethren " were 
 Paul's personal friends ; and they ought to have "taken his part ;" 
 but where they were during the next two years (and, later, during 
 his second imprisonment, and at his death), is one of the perplex- 
 ing puzzles of history. Yet we possibly have a clue to their 
 presence, and practical intervention in his behalf, in the last sen- 
 tence in the Acts. "And he abode two whole years in his own 
 liired lodging, and received all that went in unto him, preaching 
 the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, with all boldness, none forbidding him." (Acts 
 xxviii, 30.) It is in this liome, hut in chains (Acts xxviii, 20), that 
 the sacred history finally leaves him. 
 
CHAPTER XYI. 
 
 Verses 1, 2. But I commend to you Phcebe our sister, 
 being deaconess of the Church that is in Cenchrea ; that 
 ye may receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and 
 that ye may assist her in whatever affair she may need 
 you; and [do so], for she herself became a helper of many, 
 and of myself. 
 
 Cencliroa was the eastern seaport of Corinth, distant about 
 nine miles. Though a dependency of Corinth, the capital of the 
 province, it was itself a flourishing city, and was probably the site 
 of a Jewish synagogue. Phoebe, whom the apostle commends to 
 the assistance of the Romans, was servant, or deaconess of the 
 Church in Cenchrea. The term "deaconess" here applied to 
 her, marked the beginning thus early of the office which after- 
 wards became a regular order in the Church ; and which, after 
 falling into neglect, is now being revived in all Protestant Churches. 
 Phrebe's office in tliut Greek city, where the sexes were socially 
 apart, shows that she was a woman of mature age, and probably a 
 widow. Her errand to Rome was, as the Greek word here trans- 
 lated affair, means some " matter of law." And the apostle takes 
 advantage of her journey thither, to make her the bearer of this 
 Epistle. His words of commendation give us another play on 
 words,— literally translated, stand by her, for she has been a 
 stand by of many, and of myself. This position which ex- 
 presses her general work in the new Church, imjjlies that not only 
 was she a person worthy to be trusted with those functions, but 
 that, like Lydia (Acts xvi, 14), she was able from her private 
 means, to extend assistance to those in need. It must have been 
 in the way of personal services that she helped Paul. His health 
 was always infirm, and he depended largely on the ministrations 
 of others. Upon his first visit to Corinth, which lasted eighteen 
 montlis, he was the guest of his Jewish friends, Aquila and Pris- 
 
 384 
 
ROMAXS XVI. .}-/i;. 385 
 
 cilia. Upon his second visit, he was the guest of Gaius, a wealthy 
 and liberal Gentile, whom Paul calls " my host, and the host of 
 the whole Church." Here he was also brought under personal 
 obligations to Phc^be, " the helper of many, aiid of myself." Phrebe 
 is the only woman of all Paul's friends whom he calls our sister. 
 These words, "our sister," are found also in the English transla- 
 tion of Philemon, verse 2, but the Greek there is "the sister;" 
 and Apphia is the only other woman whom he calls " sister." But 
 it was in Phoebe's position of a " woman of affairs," that she had 
 legal business to look after away from her home. Aside from 
 these few points, we know nothing of this excellent woman, the 
 forerunner of a mighty host of " deaconesses," consecrated helpers 
 in the Church of Christ. 
 
 Verses 3-16. Salute Prisca and Aquila, my fello"w- 
 workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life laid down their 
 own neck, whom not I alone thank, nay, but also all the 
 Churches of the Gentiles : and salute the Church in their 
 house. Salute Epaenetus my beloved, who is the firstfruits 
 of Asia unto Christ. Salute Mary, who toiled much upon 
 you. Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my 
 fellow-prisoners, who are notable among the apostles, who 
 also became in Christ before me. Salute Amplias, my be- 
 loved in the Lord. Salute Urbanus, our fellow-worker in 
 Christ, and Stachys my beloved. Salute Apelles, the ap- 
 proved in Christ. Salute them that are from the house- 
 hold of Aristobulus. Salute Herodion, my kinsman. Salute 
 them that are from the household of Narcissus, who are 
 in the Lord. Salute Tryphsena and Tryphosa, who toil in 
 the Lord. Salute Persis, the beloved, who toiled much in 
 the Lord. Salute Rufus, the elect in the Lord, and his 
 mother, and mine. Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, 
 Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren that are with them. 
 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and 
 Olympas, and all the saints that are with them. Salute 
 one another with a holy kiss. All the Churches of Christ 
 salute you. 
 
 This long paragrapli of personal salutations is very interest- 
 ing, botli for the insight which it gives us into Paul's private 
 life and cliaracter, and for tlie light which it slieds, tliough so 
 meager, upon the constitution of the Church at Rome (and 
 25 
 
386 EXPOSITION. 
 
 doubtless elsewhere), and the personal relations of the members 
 to one another. 
 
 The fact that Paul sends greetings to at least twenty-five i)er- 
 sons by name, and to many others in a less specific way, but of 
 whom he evidently had personal information, has led some critics 
 to think that this chapter was really addressed, not to Rome, 
 where he had never been, but was probably addressed, though as 
 a supplement to a duplicate of this Epistle, to the Church at 
 Ephesus, where he so long resided, and where he must have known 
 many believers individually. This view is plausible ; but the cu- 
 mulative evidence in favor of Rome is strong, and for the present 
 decisive. And we must find the explanation of the apostle's 
 knowing so many of the believers in Rome in the probability 
 already named (Rom. xv, 20), that they were converts from his 
 Churches throughout the provincial Roman world. We know that 
 this was the fact with Aquila and Priscilla, whom he had known 
 (and probably led to Christ) at Corinth; and it must have been 
 the case with quite a number of others, of whom he speaks as 
 kinsmen. It is possible, however, also that he had learned the 
 names of some of these people from the reports that had come to 
 him from the city: "Your faith is proclaimed throughout the 
 whole world." (Rom. i, 8.) 
 
 These salutations by name, while we can not appreciate all 
 the points, were a stronger evidence of his personal regard, and 
 much more persuasive to the Romans, especially where so many 
 were named, than a general greeting, as so often elsewhere, 
 "Peace be to the brethren." And this special mention of per- 
 sons, whose names would otherwise have been unknown to us, has 
 given them an historic place and fame for all the ages to come ; 
 and has led to many curious and instructive attempts to trace 
 them and their position in the Church. 
 
 The names, with perhaps one exception, "Mary," are Greek 
 or Latin ; but this does not determine the nationality of the per- 
 sons, and might indicate only that they were Hellenists, not Hel- 
 lenes. The names of seven deacons in Acts vi, 5, are all Greek, 
 but the men were all Jews, with one exception. The probability 
 is that, while the Church at Rome was preponderantly Gentile, 
 most of those here named were Jews. Paul greets at least six 
 persons as his "kinsmen" who were Jews beyond question; and 
 we may safely say the same of quite a number more. 
 
 The first persons to whom Paul sends salutations are Aquila 
 
RO}fANS XVI. .i-16. 387 
 
 and Priscilla. They were Jews from Pontus, tent-makers by 
 trade, whose business led them to many places. Paul found them 
 at Corinth (A. D. 53), where he staid a year and a half, " and he 
 abode with them." (Acts xviii, 2.) A year or two later they 
 went with Paul to Ephesus (Acts xviii, 18) ; and now, after a few 
 years, at the date of this Epistle (A. D. 58), we find them again in 
 Rome, and yet again, perhaps eight years later, we hear of them 
 once more at Ephesus. (2 Tim. iv, 19.) They were people of prop- 
 erty and of social prominence ; and at each of their places of 
 residence they had " a Church in their house." 
 
 AVhether the Church in their house included all tlie believ- 
 ers in Eome is doubtful. The first places for Christian worship 
 were (when accessible) the Jewish synagogues. But soon excluded 
 from these, the disciples next met in schoolhouses (Acts xix, 9), 
 private dwellings, or any chance place (as Paul's private lodgings. 
 Acts xxviii, 30). It was two centuries after Christ before church 
 buildings were common. Meanwhile families, like the one before 
 us, sheltered the congregations in their homes ; and in a large city 
 like Rome perhaps several such centers for Christian worship were 
 found. Is this the meaning of verses 14 and 15, — the brethren, 
 — the saints that are with them? 
 
 Paul tlianks these endeared friends, and says that all the 
 Churches of the Gentiles thank them for saving his life at 
 their personal risk. The phrase laid down their own neck, is 
 probably figurative ; but it expresses some extreme peril to which 
 Aquila and Priscilla exposed themselves to spare him. We know 
 not the occasion ; but it comes within the uncounted, unnarrated 
 " perils," which he eight times'lists in his catalogue to the Corin- 
 thians. (2 Cor. xi, 26.) 
 
 Epfenetus, in the fifth verse, is called the firstfruits of Asia 
 unto Christ. The word "Asia" means simply the Roman province 
 of that name, of which Ephesus was the capital, and in which were 
 the seven Churches of the Apocalypse. (Rev. i, 4.) Paul's first 
 visit to Ephesus, and the founding of the Christian Church at that 
 center, was in the year 54, on his way home, after his second mis- 
 sionary tour, from Corinth, with Aquila and Priscilla. (Acts 
 xix, 19.) If Epaenetus was one of Paul's converts, as seems im- 
 plied by the word " firstfruits," and the endearing title my 
 beloved, he had probably afterwards gone to Rome with Aquila 
 and Priscilla. 
 
 The name " Mary " is strictly " Maria ;" and a various reading 
 
388 EXPnSTTTOy. 
 
 givt's us Mariam, the same as tlie genuiiic Jewish form "Miriam" 
 — which was also the name of Christ's muther. If this be accepted, 
 it is the only real Jewish name in the list. The fact which Paul 
 mentions in regai-d to her, that she toiled much upon you, 
 shows that he was minutely informed of the home affairs of the 
 Roman Church. Can we not count Mary and the three women 
 named in the twelfth and thirteenth verses as "deaconesses" in 
 the work of the Churcli? 
 
 The names in the seventh verse seem to be of husband and 
 wife, "Andronicus and Junia ;" thougii the latter name may be 
 read " Junias," in the masculine gender. Paul calls them my 
 kinsmen, which word signifies probably not members of his 
 family, but Jews; and yet not even that word too broadly (as he 
 uses it in other places, "my kinsmen according to the flesh, who 
 are Israelites" (Rom. ix,3)) ; for there are others in the list who 
 are Jews, but whom he does not call " kinsmen." The word 
 probably means here, and in verse eleven (" Herodion, ray kins- 
 man"), members of his tribe of Benjamin. Those two he says 
 were his fellow-prisoners ; but we do not know on what occasion. 
 The apostle's history, to this date, names expressly only the brief 
 detention at Philippi. Yet we know from what he tells the 
 Corinthians that he had already been " in prisons more abun- 
 dantly." (2 Cor. xi, 23.) Further, he says, that these fellow- 
 tribesmen, fellow-prisoners of liis, were in Christ before himself; 
 and "were notable among the apostles. The last woi-ds are 
 ambiguous; but they probaljly mean only that Andronicus and 
 Junia were well known in apostolic circles; yet there is nothing 
 in the meaning o( the word " apostles " to exclude those lay-people 
 from being themselves of that number. Perhaps they were lay- 
 preachers, evangelists, among the founders of the Roman Church. 
 
 The same may be said of Urbanus, whom Paul greets as our 
 fellow-worker in Christ; where the plural pronoun "our" sig- 
 nifies that Urbanus was counted not with Paul only, but also with 
 the other " workers " in Rome. 
 
 The words in the tenth and eleventh verses, "Salute them 
 that are from the household of Aristobulus ... of Narcissus," are 
 suggestive of a striking condition of things in Rome, and in the 
 Church. The word household is not given in the Greek of these 
 verses ; but instead thereof the word " slaves " would more exactly 
 express the meaning. The two persons named were rich, and had 
 
ROMANS XVI. n-m. 389 
 
 large slave families. Aristobulus was grandson of Herod tlie 
 Great ; but lived at Rome ; and Narcissus was the corrupt freed- 
 man of Claudius. Of course they were not Christians; and both 
 had died a few years before the date of this letter. After their 
 death their large slave families, numbering probably many hun- 
 dred persons, were confiscated by the emperor, Nero, and were 
 kept unbroken among the emperor's yet larger slave family. At 
 a later day, Paul, in writing from Rome to the Philipi)ians, says, 
 "All the saints salute you, especially they [the slaves] that are of 
 Caesar's [Nero's] slave household." (Phil, iv, 22.) The text of 
 both passages implies that some of these slaves were Christians. 
 To these slaves, the apostle, not knowing their names, but knowing 
 of their relation to the body of Christ, now affectionately sends his 
 greetings. " He was not ashamed of their bonds." 
 
 The next names in his list are those of three women who 
 toiled in the service of the Lord. It is possible that they, too, 
 were slaves. Their names are Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis ; 
 but the meaning of those words (" Luxurious, Wanton, Persian"), 
 implies that they were significant names, given to them with allu- 
 sion to their destined ill life as slaves. From such a life the gospel 
 of Christ has saved them. 
 
 In the thirteenth verse, Paul sends his regards to Rufus, that 
 choice man in the Lord, and his mother and mine. The 
 last words are a touch of delicate and affectionate remembrance, 
 that has no superior in all literature. It is his grateful and ten- 
 der tribute to her maternal care of himself in some hour when he 
 needed, and received from her, such services as "mother" only 
 could extend. 
 
 Philologus and Julia are probably another instance of husband 
 and wife ; who, like Aquila and Priseilla, were workers in the 
 Church, and liad their doors open to the gatherings of the saints, 
 all the saints that are with them. 
 
 Verses 17-20. But I beseech you, brethren, to mark 
 them that make the divisions, and the offenses against the 
 teaching w^hich ye learned ; and turn away from them. 
 For the men of such sort do not serve our Lord Christ ; nay, 
 but their own belly ; and through their excellent talk and 
 fair talk, they beguile the hearts of the innocent. For your 
 obedience came abroad unto all raen. Over you, therefore, 
 
390 EXPOSITION. 
 
 I rejoice ; but I will that ye be wise unto that which is good, 
 but simple unto that which is bad. But the God of peace 
 will bruise Satan under your feet speedily. 
 The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you. 
 
 The salutations that precede seem the fitting close of the 
 Epistle ; but Paul has left to this place one solemn duty ; and he 
 now adds a warning against an evil graver tiian tlie disputes about 
 foods and drinks. Tiiis warning is, to mark the men w^ho make 
 the divisions in the Church, and the scandals against the 
 doctrine which ye learned. Tiie presence liere of the article 
 " ?/t? divisions" and '*</;<' scandals," and theem[)hasis(in the Greek) 
 on the pronoun " ye," and the drift of the entire passage, show that 
 the apostle is not dealing with an imaginary case which may yet 
 arise in Rome, but with an actual condition of things. The evil 
 existed ; but how widely it had spread we do iKjt know. But we 
 know quite certainly on what j)i>ints the divisions arose, and what 
 the scandals against Paul's doctrine were. Tliere were partisans, 
 or factions, in Kunie (of Jews, ur of mijlcd Gentiles), just as in 
 Corinth, and Galatia, and probably in all of Paul's Churches. 
 These were partisans of the Apostle Peter, and of his retroactive 
 prejudice against the gospel which Paul preached. These men 
 were prompt to promote disaffection to the person of Paul, and to 
 discredit his apostolical authority. Though Peter had never been 
 in Rome, any more than in Corinth, doubtless there were men 
 there wlio knew him, and sided with him and his conservatism as 
 against Paul and " jiis gospel." Those men, nominal Christians, 
 were not seeking the glory of God, and the extension of Chris- 
 tianity in the Gentile world, but were self-seekers rending the 
 garments of Christ, and wounding his body, for their own greed, 
 or the gratification of their appetites. Their advocacy of Peter, 
 and of circumcision, was making "the divisions" in the Church, 
 and was making "the scandals" against the doctrine which the 
 Romans had learned from Paul (or his friends), the doctrine of 
 the liberty of the Gentiles from all Jewisli bonds. From tliese 
 dissension-sowers Paul bids the Romans turn way, lest with their 
 fair talk they deceive the unwary. But lie adds that tiie luirt 
 is as yet small ; for your obedience to the truth has come 
 abroad to all men. In you (your steadfastness) tiierefore I 
 rejoice. But 1 should be glad to have you wise to everything (like 
 
ROMANS XVI. 31-23. 391 
 
 " my gospel ") that is good ; and uncontaminated by anything (like 
 the Jewish leaven) that is bad. You have fightings now among 
 you ; but the God of peace will soon crush Satan, in the per- 
 son of these emissaries of his, beneath your feet. 
 
 Verses 21-23. Timotheus, my fell o"w- worker, salutes 
 you ; and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen. 
 I, Tertius, who write the Epistle, salute you in the Lord. 
 Gaius, my host, and of the whole Church, salutes you. 
 Erastus, the treasurer of the city, salutes you, and Quartus 
 the brother. 
 
 The apostle now, to his own many salutations, adds some spe- 
 cial salutations from his immediate associates. Timothy, whom 
 Paul found at Lystra, on his first missionary journey, was son of 
 a Greek father and a Jewish mother. He was very young at 
 that date, for twenty years after, Paul exhorts him, "Let no one 
 despise thy youth." (1 Tim. iv, 12.) On Paul's second journey, 
 in the year 51, he took Timothy with him, and made him, from 
 that time on, his assistant through many years of faithful and 
 varied labor. The many mentions of his name enable us to trace 
 him all along Paul's routes of travel, and in all his mission fields. 
 He was with Paul in Corinth at the writing of this letter, and 
 joined him in his salutations to the Romans. The last we know 
 of him is during Paul's second imprisonment at Rome in 65, 
 or possibly 67. At that date Timothy was in Ephesus, and prob- 
 ably the bishop of the Church. To this place Paul writes him 
 the Second Epistle, and begs, as his dying request, that his 
 loved disciple should "come to him, before the winter, with all 
 diligence." 
 
 Of Tertius, whose name shows that he was of a Latin family, 
 we know only what he himself reveals to us, that he was Paul's 
 amanuensis in writing the Epistle ; and with the pen in his own 
 hand he naturally introduces his own name with the personal pro- 
 noun "I." This confirms what we know from other indications, 
 that Paul dictated all his letters. The Epistle to the Galatians 
 seems, from the words in the Authorized, to be an exception ; but 
 the correct translation points in the other direction. The body of 
 the letter was evidently dictated; but at tlie last Paul takes up 
 the pen to add, with hi.s own hands, as was his custom, tiie last 
 words to authenticate the letter. He begins his autograpli addi- 
 
392 EXPOSITION. 
 
 tion with an apology for his ill-formed writing, "See with how 
 large scrawls, I write to you with my own hand." (Gal. v, 11.) 
 The explanation and defense of his poor writing may be found in 
 the seventeenth verse of this chapter, "I bear the brands of the 
 Loi-d Jesus in my person," — that is, in his eyes, which were yet 
 dim from being seared at his conversion. (Acts ix, 18.) Yet, 
 aside from any injury to his siglit then received, we must recollect 
 that Paul was now getting to be an old man, and needed the help 
 of others' eyes and pen. 
 
 Of Gaius, Paul's host at Corinth, and the host of the 
 ■whole Church, this mention shows that he was a man of social 
 distinction, and of large generosity. He was one of Paul's con- 
 verts, on his first visit to Corinth ; and was one of the three men, 
 whom, alone, Paul had personally baptized. (1 Cor. i, 14.) 
 
 Verses 25-27. But to him that is able to establish you 
 according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, 
 according to the revelation of the secret doctrine which 
 has been undivulged in times eternal, but now was mani- 
 fested, and, through prophetic Scriptures made known, 
 according to the commandment of the eternal God, unto 
 all the Gentiles, with a view to their obedience to the faith ; 
 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ,— to whom [to 
 him ? ] be the glory, forever. Amen. 
 
 The grammatical construction of these verses is perplexing. 
 There is but one sentence. The first word, To him, an indirect 
 dative, is held in suspense until the twenty-seventh verse, where 
 the word to . . . God stands as an appositive, and the sentence 
 is not yet finished. Then comes a subordinate clause, containing 
 a relative pronoun, which, as it stanch, must refer to Christ, to 
 whom be the glory. This is the only possible construction for 
 the grammar of the sentence. But this attribution of the glory 
 to Christ (while doctrinally unobjectionable) does not work into 
 the sentence, and does not seem to be the apostle's intention in 
 the doxology. He begins the doxology, and continues, with words 
 that point to God. Evidently the relative pronoun has crept into 
 the sentence by an inadvertence on the part of Paul or of his 
 amanuensis, and should be canceled entirely ; or the relative 
 should replaced by the demonstrative (personal) pronoun him, 
 and this be construed as another emphatic appositive to the first 
 
ROMANS XVI. 25-21. 393 
 
 word in the doxology, " To him ... to Qod. ... to him (I say) be 
 the glory." 
 
 This doxology, which closes the Epistle, sums up in terse and 
 telling words the substance of the entire Epistle. Paul declares 
 here what he has declared in all the preceding chapters, that the 
 gospel which he preaches is a gospel of universal compass ; that it 
 was God's plan from eternity, but was not revealed in full until 
 now that it is accomplished in Christ. The expression, my gos- 
 pel, is Paul's designation of the full, all-rounded gospel which he 
 preached to the Gentiles, as contrasted with the one-sided, gar- 
 bled gospel of the Jewish, anti-Gentile sectarians. I have dis- 
 cussed the Greek word mystery (which always means "secret," 
 or "secret doctrine") in the notes on a previous chapter (Rom. 
 xi, 25) ; and have there shown that the word always means the 
 primal call of the Gentiles and their equality with the Jews in 
 the Church of Christ. This doctrine was eternally true ; but Paul 
 here says that it w^as not promulgated in former ages, but is now 
 published to the world, and made known (and extended, d%) unto 
 all the Gentiles with a view to their obedience to the faith. 
 
 Such is the gospel which Paul preached. It is not an emascu- 
 lated gospel. It is circumscribed by no limits of race, or color, or 
 previous condition of servitude. It is free to any who will accept 
 it. And this plan contemplated, ideally, the acceptance of its 
 provisions by all. Judaism in the days of Paul, Calvinism in 
 modern times, teaches that God foreordained some men to be 
 saved, and left the rest of mankind outside the pale of mercy. 
 Paul teaches that God included all in the limits of the gospel 
 domain; and he teaches that no creature, except man himself, 
 will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in 
 Christ Jesus our Lord. Every man can be in Christ; and every 
 man can know for himself that he is in Christ. A limited, indi- 
 vidual election to life of a few, and a wholesale preterition of the 
 rest of the world to danmation, has no place in Paul's theology ; 
 and can not be read into this Epistle. Paul declares that notwith- 
 standing Jewish exclusiveness, Jewish abhorrence of the rest of 
 the w^orld, the Gentiles en masse are embraced equally witli them- 
 selves, and before themselves, in the divine plan. "But those 
 whom he thus from of old included in the divine plan he also ' 
 called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those ^ 
 whom he justified he also glorified." Such is the glorious an- : 
 
394 EXPOSITION. 
 
 nouncement of the gospel of Christ. It is not a visionary ideal. 
 It is vindicated by its work in the hearts of men, and in the 
 world. Christ's redemptive work is complete; it extends concep- 
 tually in the counsels of God, and actually in its historic manifes- 
 tation, to all the race. It saves men ; all who consent to be saved ; 
 and it is adequate to save all men. We echo with our apostle, 
 " We are not ashamed of such a gospel." And we unite with him 
 in his last words, "To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, 
 to him be the glory forever. Amen." 
 
BS2665 .W728 
 
 An exposition of the Epistle of Paul to 
 
 Pnncelon Theological Seminary Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00013 9107 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 ip,]iuniiiit 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Printed 
 in USA 
 
 HIGHSMITH #45230